HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201400193 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2015-11-25�J Jy
e t
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
November 23, 2015
Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB- 2014 -00193 Whittington Subdivision -Phase B
Dear Mr. Deel:
We have reviewed the Whittington Subdivision -Phase B; sealed on October 7, 2015, as
submitted by Dominion Engineering, and offer the following comments:
1. Sheet RP47 has been resubmitted. The latest revision date is November 20, 2015.
See attachment.
2. All previous review comments have been adequately addressed.
3. Prior to approval for construction two sealed plan sets need to be provided to this
office.
4. Prior to commencement of construction activities, there will need to be a pre -
construction conference for this project. Please contact this office at least 48 hours
prior to a requested pre - construction conference to schedule this meeting.
I am available if you wish to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments. Please do not hesitate
to contact me at (434) 422 -9894.
Sincerely,
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
`ssi ill
065 Ots
4�A. Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
(a \ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
0.I N ,�WI 434.979.8121 (p)
;���,�� 434.979.1681 (f)
e�s s DominionEng.com
November 20, 2015
Justin Deel
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Whittington Phase B-SUB 2014-00193-Road Plans- Comment-Response Letter
Dear Justin,
Enclosed please find two (2) sets of the Road Plans that have been revised based on your comments in
accordance with the responses below:
17. Provide typical driveway details for the roads. Specify driveway culvert sizes and locations with supporting
computations. The minimum size should be 15"dia. This will necessitate a revision to the typical ditch sections
to provide adequate cover,moving the ditch away from the shoulder. Where long runs of ditch are designed
(such as at Kendra sta. 34 to 17)a culvert diameter greater than 15"will likely be necessary,and this should be
clearly detailed.
(Rev.4) Comment not fully addressed.Profiles demonstrating adequate cover for driveway culverts at lots 6
& 7 are not provided. Please provide,as these lots show proposed 18"culverts.
The proposed grading around the driveway culverts at lots 18& 19 are exactly what this comment was intended
to prevent,where the culvert creates 2-3' holes. How will this be stabilized?The hole created by the lot 19
culvert ties directly into the 2:1 grading you're showing for lot 18. Proffer 4d states that slopes graded on lots
shall not exceed 3:1 unless planted with low-maintenance ground cover(not grass). Please note this throughout
the plans where 2:1 slopes are proposed.
RESPONSE: Please see the updated profiles on sheet RP17 for Lots 18& 19 and the new profiles for
Lots 6& 7. We changed the grading at Lots 18& 19 to be 3:1 down to the driveway culverts and the
holes are not as deep as a result.
21. Planning Division approval is required. Comments from Ellie Ray are attached
(Rev. 4)Planning comments still pending.
RESPONSE: There are no outstanding comments from planning.
27. Please provide an exhibit or other evidence that confirms compliance with Proffer 4c,which states that
grading will be shown to assure that surface drainage can provide adequate relief from the flooding of dwellings
in the event of a storm sewer failure. It is difficult to see how some of the home sides at the ends of the cul-de-
sacs,particularly Cottontail Way,would not be significantly impacted in the event that the adjacent storm
sewer(s)fail. Please examine all home sites, including those in Phase A,that could potentially be impacted.
(Rev.4)Comment not addressed.The provided analysis(profiles)shows that the 100 year storm does not
flood the dwellings with a fully functioning storm sewer. This does not address the proffer. Show that there is
adequate overland relief to prevent the flooding of dwellings in the event of a storm sewer failure, particularly at
these critical locations at the ends of the cul-de-sacs.
Page 1 of 2
0 0vs
4 46f°1i Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
� \ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
c d`� ,��j, 434.979.8121 (p)
*swiss 434.979.1681 (f)
4eps
s DominionEng.com
Concerning the Phase A lots,you say that analysis will be provided under separate cover. What cover will that
be?The analysis should be included in this plan as the proposed improvements with this plan potentially
impacts existing approved some sites in Phase A. Please provide.
RESPONSE: Overland Relief Analysis is provided on RP18 for all critical lots in Phase B. An analysis
showing overland relief for Phase A at existing culvert E Sta 17+10 on Kendra St is shown on sheet RP5
with an updated grading plan for Lot 49 impacts.
VDOT comments have been addressed at this time and we anticipate a letter of approval from Shelly Plaster.
We thank you for taking the time to review these plans. Please let me know if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Sincer- ,,/
Mic -el Myers, P.E.
Cc:Jeremy Swink
Page 2 of 2
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Project title: Whittington — Phase B
Project file number: SUB- 2014 -00193
Plan preparer:
Dominion Engineering & Design, LLC
Owner or rep.:
Stanley Martin Homes
Plan received date:
24 November 2014
(Rev. 1)
20 February 2015
(Rev. 2)
30 June 2015
(Rev. 3)
27 August 2015
(Rev. 4)
14 October 2015
Date of comments:
8 January 2015
(Rev. 1)
30 March 2015
(Rev. 2)
5 August 2015
(Rev. 3)
22 September 2015
(Rev. 4)
4 November 2015
Reviewers:
Justin Deel, Glenn Brooks
1. Provide accurate existing topography (Ex. Phase A, existing Kendra Street grading) on plans as
well as Existing Conditions sheet. Provide more existing topography labels on plans for
readability. For example, Sheet RP5 has none, and please show all proposed contours' tie -in with
existing contours (Ex. RP6).
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Several existing and proposed elevations shown along the horizontal axes of your profiles are
incorrect or do not match what is shown. Please correct.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. Please label streets public or private.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Show and detail all entrance improvements on Rt. 631. The plan seems to indicate widening on
the public road, but no improvements are detailed; turn lanes, sight -line grading, turn tapers, radii,
pavement edge, sections and tie -in, entrance type designations, etc.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Show pavement and right -of -way widths for existing streets.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Show stationing at a 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Show and label all signs; stop signs, street name signs, and speed limit signs are the minimum.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Please label street edge of pavement or curb radii at all intersections or turnarounds.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
9. The drainage computations could not be followed. The inlet comps on sheet 19 appear to be for
curb and gutter, when all roads on this plan are rural sections. The SCC computations are by
station, which cannot be read on the drainage area maps. The line weights for drainage divides are
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
not all legible. The map for pipe runs does not have the pipe runs, and is too small to be legible.
Provide clear drainage area maps, showing acreage, hydrologic coefficient, and time of
concentration for each drainage area.
(Rev. 1) Comment not adequately addressed. Please provide hand computations if your
software does not allow for rural sections. See VDOT Road Design Manual.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
10. Provide traffic generation and distribution summary (ADT) and pavement designs.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Provide typical sections for proposed channels with location references.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. Show critical slopes on your plans.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Please show critical slopes on your design plans so that we
can discern what areas are being affected. Please show slopes that are 25% or greater. We need to
be able to see the whole picture to ensure compliance with Proffer 4. See Comment 14 below.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
13. Pipe outfalls are too steep, and outlet velocities too high. Provide step down manholes to reduce
steepness and velocity. Provide channel adequacy demonstrations at each outfall.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
14. The road plan needs to reflect grading on lots which will tie into road grading, as depicted on the
overlot grading plan and erosion and sediment control plan.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Please show lot grading on road plans with accompanying
road profiles.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
15. Show all utility line crossings in the drainage profiles. Show all existing and proposed culverts.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
16. Lots 5, 13 and 76 have too much stream buffer within the lots to be reasonably enforced. Please
reduce the size of these lots so that stream buffers are not within the lot area as much as possible.
The ordinance allows up to 50 feet of the landward side of stream buffers to be disturbed with
mitigation, and this should be the guideline to follow.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. These lots appear largely unchanged relative to percentage of
the lot in the WPO buffer.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
17. Provide typical driveway details for the roads. Specify driveway culvert sizes and locations with
supporting computations. The minimum size should be 15" dia. This will necessitate a revision to
the typical ditch sections to provide adequate cover, moving the ditch away from the shoulder.
Where long runs of ditch are designed (such as at Kendra sta. 34 to 17) a culvert diameter greater
than 15" will likely be necessary, and this should be clearly detailed.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Please provide more detail on your driveway culvert
sizing calculations table. Is your "depth of flow" within the 15" pipe or are you using the channel
geometry to calculate depth of flow and then providing a pipe diameter that exceeds these depths?
You are picking up over 7 cfs going from Lot 7 to Lot 6 from the existing cross - drain. Although
you're calling for a wider channel here, it's still that much more flow going into the same 15"
pipe. Also, how are you addressing the flow from the cross -drain going into Lot 6? The typical
SCC detail on RP 18 calls for a depth of 12" (2:1). Your typical road section shows a 3:1 slope.
Please clarify. You have a gap from 22 +00 to 23 +00 on your SCC table. Please correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment not fully addressed. Please demonstrate adequate cover for the proposed 18"
& 24" culverts in an 18" ditch. The PE -1 detail in Sheet RP17 appears to call for atleast 9" of
cover; how is this possible while maintaining a 3:1 slope? Your response indicates that the
roadside ditch has been shifted, as appropriate, to direct flow to the culverts but this does not
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
appear to be reflected on the plans.
Please show the existing culvert to be abandoned in the profile.
(Rev. 3) Comment not addressed. Driveway culvert profiles have been provided on sheet RP17
showing that a minimum 9" cover is being achieved; however, all of the invert-out elevations and
most of the invert-in elevations on the profiles are below the ditch elevations at the invert locations
on the plans. Adequate cover cannot be demonstrated by burying the pipe inverts below the ditch
grade. Grading and location of the driveway culverts must be shown accurately so that the slope
and depth of the ditch can be accurately reviewed. Providing the PE -1 detail for the contractor to
interpret the applicability and degree of offset for each of the 17 culverts will very likely result in
severe slopes and "holes" around the driveways. Please address. Reflect all changes on the
overlot grading plan as well.
(Rev. 4) Comment not fully addressed. Profiles demonstrating adequate cover for driveway
culverts at lots 6 & 7 are not provided. Please provide, as these lots show proposed 18" culverts.
The proposed grading around the driveway culverts at lots 18 & 19 are exactly what this comment
was intended to prevent, where the culvert creates 2 -3' holes. How will this be stabilized? The
hole created by the lot 19 culvert ties directly into the 2:1 grading you're showing for lot 18.
Proffer 4d states that slopes graded on lots shall not exceed 3:1 unless planted with low -
maintenance ground cover (not grass). Please note this throughout the plans where 2:1 slopes are
proposed.
18. Detail inlet grading on slopes where grate inlets are placed to intercept ditch flow on grade. The
ditch will need to be wider, and a berm will be required to terminate the ditch at these points.
Examples are structures 15, 8 -9.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Please show proposed inlet grading tied in to existing or other
proposed grade lines on road plans. Your typical detail is not adequate in showing how the inlet
grading will tie into other proposed grading.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
19. Provide guard rail at hazard areas, culverts, and where a steep slope leaves the roadway edge.
Examples are Kendra sta. 16 -18, sta. 31 -34, and cul -de -sac, Cottontal Way sta. 12 -14, 18 -22, 24-
26, etc.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
20. VDOT approval is required.
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged.
21. Planning Division approval is required. Comments from Ellie Ray are attached
(Rev. 1) See attached comments.
(Rev. 2) Comments not addressed. Planning comment letter attached.
(Rev. 3) Planning comments will be forwarded once they are received.
(Rev. 4) Planning comments still pending.
22. Fire & Rescue Department approval is required. Comments from Robbie Gilmer are included
below;
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged.
Revision 1 comments
23. The proposed emergency access from Route 631 may need to be an amendment to Phase A, not
part of Phase B. Please consult with County Engineer upon his return to the office April 6, 2015.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
24. You do not appear to be in compliance with Proffer 4g on many lots. Please provide an area in
front of each proposed garage or proposed parking space on each lot that is no less than 18 feet
and not steeper than 8 percent.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
Revision 2 comments
25. The phasing (B1 -B4) from the first submission has been added to your site overview sheet. Are
you going back to this phasing plan?
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
26. As a general rule, the County prefers not to see pipes going down in size downstream. Structure 4
appears to be receiving flow from a 24" driveway culvert and a 15" crossdrain. All that is then
going to an 18" HDPE. Please address this.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
Revision 3 Comment:
27. Please provide an exhibit or other evidence that confirms compliance with Proffer 4c, which states
that grading will be shown to assure that surface drainage can provide adequate relief from the
flooding of dwellings in the event of a storm sewer failure. It is difficult to see how some of the
home sites at the ends of the cul -de -sacs, particularly Cottontail Way, would not be significantly
impacted in the event that the adjacent storm sewer(s) fail. Please examine all home sites,
including those in Phase A, that could potentially be impacted.
(Rev. 4) Comment not addressed. The provided analysis (profiles) shows that the 100 year
storm does not flood the dwellings with a fully functioning storm sewer. This does not address the
proffer. Show that there is adequate overland relief to prevent the flooding of dwellings in the
event of a storm sewer failure, particularly at these critical locations at the ends of the cul -de -sacs.
Concerning the Phase A lots, you say that analysis will be provided under separate cover. What
cover will that be? The analysis should be included in this plan as the proposed improvements
with this plan potentially impacts existing approved some sites in Phase A. Please provide.
28. Provide analysis for the existing 24" HDPE, adjacent to Lot 49, that is to remain in place.
(Rev. 4) Comment addressed.
29. Provide street name in plan view, Sheet RP 15.
(Rev. 4) Comment addressed.
The following comments quoted from Robbie Gilmer (Fire & Rescue) will need to be addressed prior to
approval:
1. Cul -de -sac shall be 96 ft EP /EP.
2. Add the symbol for fire hydrant between lot 26 & 27.
3. Clarify if the hydrant between lots 24 & 25 is a proposed hydrant or not.
4. Clarify the hydrant location at lots 20 and 21.
5. Hydrant spacing shall be no more than 500 ft per travelway.
6. VSWFPC- D107.1 One- or two- family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one -
or two- family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with
two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section
D104.3.
Exceptions:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
1. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus
access road and all dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic
sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the
International Fire Code, access from two directions shall not be required.
2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased
unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by
the fire code official.
(Rev. 1) Comments addressed. Robbie Gilmer: "Based on plans dated 10/7/15, no comments or
objections."
Please consult the road plan and drainage plan checklists at the document center on the Albemarle County
website for further details. Due to the incomplete nature of this plan, further comments will likely be
necessary upon revision. It is expected that the grading and drainage layout will change due to comments
on the erosion control and stormwater management plans, which have asked that the existing topography
and drainage divides be more closely followed. (Examples on these plans would be where ditches are
shown on the low side of road sections. The contractor will expect these areas to sheet flow downslope,
away from the road, and not build a ditch, which is reasonable. It will be difficult to prevent this.)
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
Please address attached VDOT comments. Comments from Planning and ACSA will be forwarded as they
are received. Note that final approval will come only after receiving approval recommendations from all
parties.
File: SUB201400193 Whittington Ph B Road Plan R4.doc
� i 1
Y � FFSSi��t
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
November 2, 2015
Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB -2014 -00193 Whittington Subdivision -Phase B
Dear Mr. Deel:
We have reviewed the Whittington Subdivision -Phase B; sealed on October 7, 2015, as
submitted by Dominion Engineering, and offer the following comments:
1. Sheet RP47:
a. Advanced warning signs shall be placed along Singleton Lane (the spacing
may be reduced to fit between Mattox Ct. and Old Lynchburg Rd.). An
additional flagger may be required to intercept traffic before entering the work
zone.
b. Note 8 should be updated to reflect the latest edition of the Virginia Work
Area Protection Manual. 2011 Edition, Revision 1- January 1, 2015.
2. All previous review comments have been adequately addressed.
I am available if you wish to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments. PIease do not hesitate
to contact me at (434) 422 -9894.
Sincerely,
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
tris•
•
Sere 'tow„vole
( 0g 5
00os
o..' lifij Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
:$1111 \ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
Mir/ 434.979.8121 (p)
���waft 434.979.1681 (f)
yes s DominionEng.com
October 7, 2015
Shelly A. Plaster
Virginia Department of Transportation
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
RE: Whittington Phase B-SUB 2014-00193-Road Plans- Comment-Response Letter
Dear Shelly,
Enclosed please find two (2) sets of Road Plans that have been revised based on your comments in accordance
with the following:
1. The traffic control plan has now been updated to reflect the traffic control needed for the construction of the
entrance of Pine Knot Road onto Old Lynchburg Road. However, the traffic control plan no longer shows the
traffic control needed for the work along the shoulder. The traffic control plan should reflect the different phases
of construction (assuming the shoulder work is not going on while the entrance is constructed)and the individual
typical traffic control measures that will be required. Examples of Temporary Traffic Control Plans can be found
at:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos2/Examples_of Temnorary_Traffic_Co
ntrol_Plans.pdf.
The major components of a the temporary Traffic Control Plan can be found at:
http://www.extrariet.vdot.state.va.us/locdeslelectronic_pubs/iim/I I M241 .pdf
RESPONSE: As discussed, all Old Lynchburg Road work will be completed at the same time.
2. Sheet RP47:
a. The type of Typical Traffic control used should be provided. "Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Roadway Using
Flaggers"TTC-23.I
RESPONSE: The"Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Roadway Using Flaggers"was used to generate this
Temporary Traffic Control Plan.
b. The"Be Prepared To Stop" (W3-4)signs are missing and should be incorporated into the plan.
RESPONSE: The"Be prepared to Stop"sign has been added to the Temporary Traffic Control Plan.
c. The cone transition length should be provided/dimensioned.
RESPONSE: The cone transition length has been provided on the Temporary Traffic Control Plan.
d. The buffer space length should be provided/dimensioned.
RESPONSE: The buffer space length has been provided on the Temporary Traffic Control Plan.
e. The distances beyond the work space should also be provided/diminished.
RESPONSE: The distances beyond the work space has been provided on the Temporary Traffic Control
Plan.
Page 1 of 2
., Nuri' ,
5
P00oxs
�
Ci4641 Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
°7 g 14 h Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
cu 434.979.8121 (p)
,�`��� 434.979.1681 (f)
04, S DominionEng.com
f. For speeds 45 mph and greater a truck mounted attenuator(TMA) is required.
RESPONSE: A shadow vehicle and a truck mounted attenuator has been provided on the Temporary
Traffic Control Plan.
We thank you for taking the time to review these plans. Please let me know if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Best regards,
Dustin Greene, El
Page 2 of 2
Sir
so<cm
o`."I"' Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
c
v 1�1h Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
iN'% ,I �� 434.979.8121 (p)
*r�* 434.979.1681 (f)
e�s S DominionEng.com
October 7, 2015
Justin Deel
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Whittington Phase B-SUB 2014-00193-Road Plans-Comment-Response Letter
Dear Justin,
Enclosed please find eight(8) sets of the Road Plans that have been revised based on your comments in
accordance with the responses below:
Please note that the last submission of the plans, the developer has secured an access easement and the
grading easement across TM 89-73G6 to provide a 20' emergency access road connection to Ridgetop
Drive. This location is preferred by Fire and Rescue. Storm Sewer& SCC calculations have been
revised accordingly. We are hereby requesting that the Phase A Road Plan Amendment be officially
withdrawn.
17. Provide typical driveway details for the roads. Specify driveway culvert sizes and locations with supporting
computations. The minimum size should be 15"dia. This will necessitate a revision to the typical ditch sections
to provide adequate cover,moving the ditch away from the shoulder. Where long runs of ditch are designed
(such as at Kendra sta. 34 to 17)a culvert diameter greater than 15"will likely be necessary,and this should be
clearly detailed.
(Rev. 1)Comment partially addressed.Please provide more detail on your driveway culvert sizing
calculations table. Is your"depth of flow"within the 15"pipe or are you using the channel geometry to calculate
depth of flow and then providing a pipe diameter that exceeds these depths?You are picking up over 7 cfs going
from Lot 7 to Lot 6 from the existing cross-drain.Although you're calling for a wider channel here, it's still that
much more flow going into the same 15"pipe. Also, how are you addressing the flow from the cross-drain
going into Lot 6?The typical SCC detail on RP18 calls for a depth of 12"(2:1).Your typical road section shows
a 3:1 slope. Please clarify.You have a gap from 22+00 to 23+00 on your SCC table. Please correct.
(Rev.2)Comment not fully addressed. Please demonstrate adequate cover for the proposed 18"&24"
culverts in an 18"ditch. The PE-1 detail in Sheet RP17 appears to call for at least 9"of cover;how is this
possible while maintaining a 3:1 slope?Your response indicates that the roadside ditch has been shifted,as
appropriate,to direct flow to the culverts but this does not appear to be reflected on the plans.
Please show the existing culvert to be abandoned in the profile.
We thank you for taking the time to review these plans. Please let me know if you have any questions or require
additional information.
(Rev.3)Comment not addressed.Driveway culvert profiles have been provided on sheet RPI7 showing that a
minimum 9"cover is being achieved;however,all of the invert-out elevations and most of the invert-in
elevations on the profiles are below the ditch elevations at the invert locations on the plans. Adequate cover
cannot be demonstrated by burying the pipe inverts below the ditch grade. Grading and location of the driveway
culverts must be shown accurately so that the slope and depth of the ditch can be accurately reviewed. Providing
the PE-1 detail for the contractor to interpret the applicability and degree of offset for each of the 17 culverts
will very likely result in severe slopes and"holes"around the driveways. Please address. Reflect all changes on
the overlot grading plan as well.
Page 1 of 2
Sitar
Now siss vs4 4. Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
4
l• I► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
co"
dri
434.979.8121 (p)
0,�°���► 434.979.1681 (f)
°ems s DominionEng.com
RESPONSE: Please see the updated profiles on sheet RP17. The culvert locations and grading has been
updated to show positive drainage and adequate cover for critical driveway culverts that are greater than
15" diameter.
21. Planning Division approval is required. Comments from Ellie Ray are attached
(Rev. 1) See attached comments.
(Rev.2) Comments not addressed. Planning comment letter attached.
(Rev.3) Planning comments will be forwarded once they are received.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
Revision 3 Comment:
27. Please provide an exhibit or other evidence that confirms compliance with Proffer 4c,which states that
grading will be shown to assure that surface drainage can provide adequate relief from the flooding of dwellings
in the event of a storm sewer failure. It is difficult to see how some of the home sites at the ends of the cul-de-
sacs,particularly Cottontail Way,would not be significantly impacted in the event that the adjacent storm
sewer(s)fail. Please examine all home sites, including those in Phase A,that could potentially be impacted.
RESPONSE: Overland Relief Analysis is provided on RP18 for all critical lots in Phase B. An analysis
showing overland relief for Phase A home sites will be provided under separate cover.
28. Provide analysis for the existing 24"HDPE, adjacent to Lot 49,that is to remain in place.
RESPONSE: The analysis for the existing 24" HDPE adjacent to Lot 49 is provided on sheet RP18.
29. Provide street name in plan view, Sheet RP15.
RESPONSE: The street name has been provided on sheet RP15
Verbal comment: How will the pedestrian bridges be handled across streams.
RESPONSE: A pedestrian bridge detail has been shown on sheet RP37.
We thank you for taking the time to review these plans. Please let me know if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Sincerely /
Mic►-e Myers, P.E.
Cc:Jeremy Swink
Page 2 of 2
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Culpeper Virginia 22701
Commissioner
October 1, 2015
Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB -2014 -00193 Whittington Subdivision -Phase B
Dear Mr. Deel:
We have reviewed the Whittington Subdivision -Phase B; sealed on August 26, 2015, as
submitted by Dominion Engineering, and offer the following comments:
The traffic control plan has now been updated to reflect the traffic control needed for
the construction of the entrance of Pine Knot Road onto Old Lynchburg Road.
However, the traffic control plan no longer shows the traffic control needed for the
work along the shoulder. The traffic control plan should reflect the different phases
of construction (assuming the shoulder work is not going on while the entrance is
constructed) and the individual typical traffic control measures that will be required.
Examples of Temporary Traffic Control Plans can be found at:
http://www.virginiadot.orgLbusiness/resources/traffic en ineerin memos2'Exam les
of TempoMnLlraffic Control Plans, df. . The major components of a the
temporary Traffic Control Plan can be found at:
http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/locdes/electronic ubsiiim.'IIM241. df
2. Sheet RP47:
a. The type of Typical Traffic control used should be provided. "Lane Closure
on a Two -Lane Roadway Using Flaggers" TTC -23.1
b. The "Be Prepared To Stop" (W34) signs are missing and should be
incorporated into the plan.
c. The cone transition Iength should be provided.`dimensioned.
d. The buffer space length should be provided/dimensioned.
e. The distances beyond the work space should also be provided /diminished.
f. For speeds 45 mph and greater a truck mounted attenuator (TMA) is required.
3. All previous review comments have been adequately addressed.
I am available if you wish to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments. Please do not hesitate
to contact me at (434) 422 -9894.
Sincerely,
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
AL
IRGII4Z�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Memorandum
To: Justin Deel
From: Ellie Ray, PLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: January 7, 2015
Rev1: March 11, 2015
Rev2: July 28, 2015
Rev3: September 28, 2015
Subject: SUB 201400193 Whittington Subdivision Phase B — Road Plans
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and the following comments from the Conditional Approval of
the Preliminary Plat have not been satisfactorily addressed:
[ZMA200600011 Proffer 4] Prior to Final Plat approval, an overlot grading plan must be submitted that
meets all requirements listed in Proffer 4 for Engineering review and approval. This review may result in a
reduction of the number of approvable lots.
• Items (a) through (h) under Proffer 4 must all be addressed, has an overlot grading plan been
submitted that meets all the necessary requirements?
• Revl: An overlot grading plan has been included in the plan set; Engineering to verify that the plan
submitted meets all requirements of the proffer.
• Rev2: Engineering will verify that the plan submitted meets all requirements of the proffer.
• Rev3: Engineering will verify that the plan submitted meets all requirements of the proffer.
2. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 7] The Application Plan approved with ZMA200600011 shows a picnic shelter
within Open Space J and two trails leading from Open Space J and connecting to the larger trail system
within the subdivision. One of the trails goes through Open Space H connecting to the trail system in Open
Space F, and the other goes between lots on Street B and Kendra Street to connect to the trail system in
Open Space E. These amenities should be provided as shown on the Application Plan; show the trail
system as indicated and note that the picnic shelter will be provided. Prior to Final Plat approval, a
performance bond will likely be required for the picnic shelter.
• The entire trail system, as shown on the approved Application Plan, should be included on the road
plans.
• Revl: Comment not fully addressed. The trail system has been shown on Sheet RP4 but there are
a few issues that still need to be addressed. First, the labels are illegible; provide labels large
enough to read. Second, the trail appears to cross into what will be private lots in many areas; if
possible, move the trail into open space in all locations. If this is not possible, easements must be
included on all lots that the trail crosses. Third, it is difficult to tell which trails within Phase A are
existing versus which are proposed, and the open space in Phase A appears to contain both;
please clarify. Fourth, there is no trail connection as shown on the Application Plan between the
open space in Phase A and the western portion of the subdivision; provide this connection. The
trails and other amenities must be bonded prior to Final Plat approval, include sufficient detail for
both the picnic shelter and scenic overlook to facilitate bonding.
• Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The trail system has been shown on Sheet RP4 but there are
still a few issues that need to be addressed. First, the labels are still illegible; provide labels large
enough to read. Second, the trail appears to cross into what will be a private lot (Lot 73); if possible,
move the trail into open space. If this is not possible, an easement must be included on this lot.
Third, it is difficult to tell which trails within Phase A are existing versus which are proposed, clearly
differentiate proposed and existing trails with labels large enough to read. Fourth, there is no trail
connection as shown on the Application Plan between the open space in Phase A and the western
portion of the subdivision (near lots 5, and 19); provide this connection. The trails and other
amenities must be bonded prior to Final Plat approval, include sufficient detail for both the picnic
shelter and scenic overlook (if a proposed structure) to facilitate bonding (provide specifications
detailed enough for bonding).
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. The trail appears to cross into what will be private lots
(Lots 38, 39, 62 & 63); an easement must be included on these lots. The trails, footbridges
and picnic shelter must be bonded (by Zoning) prior to Final Plat approval; include
details /specifications for the proposed footbridges to facilitate bonding.
3. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 8] The 25' screening and landscaping easement must be shown and labeled on
the plat. A landscaping plan that meets current regulations for screening must be provided, either with the
road or WPO plans or as a separate submittal. Maintenance and responsibility of the screening within the
easement should be addressed in the Covenants and Restrictions mentioned above. A note alerting
affected owners to this easement restriction on their property shall be stated on the Final Plat.
• The required landscaping should be included on the road plans.
• Revl: Comment not addressed. The comment response letter indicates that a landscape plan is
provided on Sheet XX, this sheet does not exist. Assuming the landscape plan referenced is that
shown on Sheet RP35, the information provided does not meet the requirements for a landscape
plan; it is only a patterned easement area and a random plant list' with no further information.
Provide a landscape plan that meets the requirements of section 32.7.9 of the site plan ordinance.
• Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The landscape plan indicates a portion of the
screening will be met using existing vegetation; please consider extending the fence
through the portion with existing trees to provide a consistent appearance along the project
frontage. Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to
satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's
approval. If you intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan
requirements, please include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the
trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing,
grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond
the limits of clearing.
2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the
agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as
otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall
conform to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook,
pages 111 -393 through 111 -413, and as hereafter amended. The checklist must be
completed, signed and dated.
• Rev3: Comment addressed.
4. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 9] Trail locations and construction details should be provided on the Road and /or
W PO Plans.
• As noted above, all trail locations must be shown. Additionally, construction details must also be
provided.
• Revl: Comment not addressed. The comment response letter indicates that trail locations
and construction details are provided on Sheet XX; this sheet does not exist. No
construction details can be found in the plan set; provide appropriate construction details.
As mentioned above, the trail locations shown on Sheet RP4 are difficult to decipher;
provide a clear representation of all trail locations with legible labels.
• Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [Comment] The Overview Sheet should include lot numbers and the trail layout.
• Revl: Comment addressed.
6. [Comment] The Overview Sheet shows a new emergency access road off of one of the roads in Phase A.
The label for this access road points to Sheet RP29 for details, however that sheet does not contain any
information about the proposed access; design information for this access road is required. Since this
access wasn't shown on the approved Application Plan it may require a variation; consult with Zoning to
2
determine if a variation is necessary. The addition of the access road may need to be submitted as an
amendment to the road plans for Phase A instead of on the road plans for Phase B; consult with
Engineering to determine the appropriate application. Additionally, assuming the access road will
necessitate a change to the lot layout shown on the approved Final Plat for Phase A, a new Final Plat
showing this change should be submitted for review and approval.
• Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Zoning has determined that no variation is required. An
amended road plan for Phase A is currently under review. An easement plat should be submitted
for review and approval prior to road plan approval.
• Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. An amended road plan for Phase A is currently under
review. An easement plat should be submitted for review and approval prior to road plan
approval.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray0albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
OF A \10/
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Project title: Whittington—Phase B
Project file number: SUB-2014-00193
Plan preparer: Dominion Engineering&Design,LLC
Owner or rep.: Stanley Martin Homes
Plan received date: 24 November 2014
(Rev. 1) 20 February 2015
(Rev.2) 30 June 2015
(Rev. 3) 27 August 2015
Date of comments: 8 January 2015
(Rev. 1) 30 March 2015
(Rev. 2) 5 August 2015
(Rev. 3) 22 September 2015
Reviewers: Justin Deel,Glenn Brooks
1. Provide accurate existing topography (lux. Phase A, existing Kendra Street grading)on plans as
well as Existing Conditions sheet. Provide more existing topography labels on plans for
readability. For example, Sheet RP5 has none, and please show all proposed contours' tie-in with
existing contours(lix. .R.P6).
(Rev. 1)Comment addressed.
2. Several existing and proposed elevations shown along the horizontal axes ol'your profiles are
incorrect or do not match what is shown. Please correct.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. Please label streets public or private.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Show and detail all entrance improvements on Rt. 631. The plan seems to indicate widening on
the public road, but no improvements are detailed: turn lanes, sight-Line grading, turn tapers, radii,
pavement edge, sections and tie-in, entrance type designations, etc.
(Rev. 1)Comment addressed.
5. Show pavement and right-of-way widths for existing streets.
(Rev. 1)Comment addressed.
6. Show stationing at a 50' minimum on plans and proti.les.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Show and label all signs: stop signs, street name signs, and speed limit signs are the minimum.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Please label street edge of pavement or curb radii at all intersections or turnarou nd.s.
(Rev. 1)Comment addressed.
9. The drainage computations could not be followed. The inlet comps on sheet 19 appear to be for
curb and gutter, when all roads on this plan are rural sections. The SCC computations are by
station, which cannot be read on the drainage area maps. The line weights for drainage divides are
not all legible. The map for pipe runs does not have the pipe runs, and is too small to be legible.
Provide clear drainage area maps, showing acreage, hydrologic coefficient, and time of
'41111111e
gineering Review Comments
• Page 2 of 4
concentration for each drainage area.
(Rev. 1)Comment not adequately addressed. Please provide hand computations if your
software does not allow for rural sections. See'MOT Road Design.Manual.
(Rev. 2)Comment addressed.
10. Provide traffic generation and distribution summary(A[YE) and pavement designs.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11, Provide typical sections for proposed channels with location references.
(Rev. 1)Comment addressed.
12. Show critical slopes on your plans.
(Rev. 1)Comment not addressed. Please show critical slopes on your design plans so that we
can discern what areas are being affected. Please show slopes that are 25%or greater. We need to
be able to see the whole picture to ensure compliance with Proffer 4. See Comment 14 below,
(Rev.2) Comment not addressed.
(Rev.3)Comment addressed.
13. Pipe outfalls are too steep, and outlet velocities too high. Provide step down manholes to reduce
steepness and velocity. Provide channel adequacy demonstrations at each outfall.
(Rev. 1)Comment addressed.
14. The road plan needs to reflect grading on lots which will tie into road grading, as depicted on the
overlot grading plan and erosion and sediment control plan.
(Rev. 1)Comment not addressed. Please show lot grading on road plans with accompanying
road profiles.
(Rev. 2)Comment addressed.
15. Show all utility line crossings in the drainage profiles. Show all existing and proposed culverts.
(Rev. 1)Comment addressed.
16. Lots 5, 13 and 76 have too much stream buffer within the lots to be reasonably enforced. Please
reduce the size of these lots so that stream buffers are not within the lot area as much as possible.
The ordinance allows up to 50 fret of the landward side of stream buffers to be disturbed with
mitigation. and this should be the guideline to follow.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. These lots appear largely unchanged relative to percentage of
the lot in the WPO buffer.
(Rev.2) C rtt
17. Provide typical driveway details for the roads. Specify driveway culvert sizes and locations with
supporting computations. The minimum size should be 15"dia. This will necessitate a revision to
the typical ditch sections to provide adequate cover,moving the ditch away from the shoulder.
Where long runs of ditch are designed(such as at Kendra sta. 34 to 17)a culvert diameter greater
than 15"will likely be necessary,and this should be clearly detailed.
(Rev. 1)Comment partially addressed. Please provide more detail on your driveway culvert
sizing calculations table. Is your"depth of flow"within the 15"pipe or are you using the channel
geometry to calculate depth of flow and then providing a pipe diameter that exceeds these depths?
You are picking up over 7 cfs going from Lot 7 to Lot 6 from the existing cross-drain. Although
you're calling for a wider channel here, it's still that much more flow going into the same 15"
pipe. Also,how are you addressing the flow from the cross-drain going into Lot 6? The typical
SCC detail on RP18 calls for a depth of 12"(2:1). Your typical road section shows a 3:1 slope.
Please clarify. You have a gap from 22+00 to 23+00 on your SCC table. Please correct.
(Rev.2)Comment not fully addressed. Please demonstrate adequate cover for the proposed 18"
&24"culverts in an 18"ditch. The PE-1 detail in Sheet RP17 appears to call for atleast 9"of
cover;how is this possible while maintaining a 3:1 slope? Your response indicates that the
roadside ditch has been shifted, as appropriate,to direct flow to the culverts but this does not
appear to be reflected on the plans.
Please show the existing culvert to be abandoned in the profile.
gineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
(Rev.3)Comment not addressed. Driveway culvert profiles have been provided on sheet RP17
showing that a minimum 9"cover is being achieved;however,all of the invert-out elevations.and
most of the invert-in elevations on the profiles are below the ditch elevations at the invert locations
on the plans. Adequate cover cannot be demonstrated by burying the pipe inverts below the ditch
grade. Grading and location of the driveway culverts must be shown accurately so that the slope
and depth of the ditch can be accurately reviewed. Providing the PE-1 detail for the contractor to
interpret the applicability and degree of offset for each of the 17 culverts will very likely result in
severe slopes and"holes"around the driveways. Please address. Reflect all changes on the
overlot grading plan as well.
18. Detail inlet grading on slopes where grate inlets are placed 10 intercept ditch..flow on grade. 'I-he
ditch will need to be wider, and a berm will be required to terminate the ditch at these points.
Examples are structures 15, 8-9.
(Rev. 1)Comment not addressed. Please show proposed inlet grading tied in to existing or other
proposed grade lines on road plans. \our typical detail is not adequate in showing how the inlet
grading will tie into other proposed grading.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
19. Provide guard rail at hazard areas, culverts, and where a steep slope leaves the roadway edge.
Examples are Kendra.sta. 16-18, sta. 31-34. and cul-de-sac, Cottontal Way sta. 12-14. 18-22, 24-
26, etc.
(Rev. 1)Comment addressed.
20. VI)O".I approval is required.
(Rev. 1)Comment acknowledged.
21. Planning Division approval is required. Comments from Ellie Ray are attached
(Rev. 1)See attached comments.
(Rev.2)Comments not addressed. Planning comment letter attached.
(Rev.3)Planning comments will be forwarded once they are received.
22. Fire& Rescue I:)epartment approval is required. Comments from Robbie Gilmer are included
below:
(Rev. 1)Comment acknowledged.
Revision 1 comments
23. The proposed emergency access from Route 631 may need to be an amendment to Phase A, not
part of Phase B. Please consult with County Engineer upon his return to the office April 6, 2015.
(Rev.2)Comment addressed.
24. You do not appear to be in compliance with Proffer 4g on many lots. Please provide an area in
front of each proposed garage or proposed parking space on each lot that is no less than 18 feet
and not steeper than 8 percent.
(Rev. 2)Comment addressed.
Revision 2 comments
25. 'The phasing(131-134) from the first submission has been added to your site overview sheet.. Are
you going back to this phasing plan?
(Rev. 3)Comment addressed.
26. As a general rule,the County prefers riot to see pipes going down in size downstream. Structure 4
appears to he receiving flow from a 24"driveway culvert and a 15"erossdrain. All that is then
going to an 18"I IDP. . Please address this.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
engineering Review Comments
• Page 4 of 4
Revision 3 Comment:
27. Please provide an exhibit or other evidence that confirms compliance with Proffer 4c,which states
that grading will be shown to assure that surface drainage can provide adequate relief from the
flooding of dwellings in the event of a storm sewer failure. It is difficult to see how some of the
home sites at the ends of the cul-de-sacs,particularly Cottontail Way,would not be significantly
impacted in the event that the adjacent storm sewer(s)fail. Please examine all home site,
including those in Phase A,that could potentially be impacted.
28. Provide analysis for the existing 24"HDPE,adjacent to Lot 49,that is to remain in place.
29. Provide street name in plan view, Sheet RP15.
The following comments quoted from Robbie Gilmer(Fire& Rescue) will need to be addressed prior to
approval:
Cul-de-sac shall be 96 ft EP/FP.
2. Add the ;vnrhol fir fire hydrant between lot 26 & 27.
3. Clarify if the hydrant between lots 24& 25 is a proposed hydrant or not.
4. Clarify the hydrant location at lots 20 and 21.
5. Hydrant spacing shall be no more than 500 ft per travelway.
6. VSWFPC- 1)107.1 One-or two-family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one-
or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with
two separate and.approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section
Dl 04.3.
F xceptions.
1. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus
access road and al] dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic
sprinkler system in accordance with Section 90 3.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the
International Fire Code, access from two directions shall not be required.
' The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased
unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with fixture development, as determined by
the tire code official.
(Rev. 1) Comments addressed. Robbie Gilmer: "Based on plans dated.2/13/15, no comments or
objections."
Please consult the road plan and drainage plan checklists at the document center on the Albemarle County
website for further details. Due to the incomplete nature of this plan, further comments will likely be
necessary upon revision. It is expected that the grading and drainage layout will change due to comments
on the erosion control and storznwater management plans, which have asked that the existing topography
and drainage divides be more closely followed (Examples on these plans would be where ditches are
shown on the low side of road sections. The contractor will expect these areas to sheet flow downslope,
away from the road, and not build a ditch, which is reasonable. It will be difficult to prevent this.)
(Rev. 2)Comment addressed.
Comments from VDOT and ACSA will he forwarded as they are received.
•
I I.
41111001 'told
o°tot
otor° Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
4/.4t
• 1h Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
'" 434.979.8121 (p)
o��a.I� 434.979.1681 (f)
'e,=s DominionEng.com
August 24, 2015
Justin Deel
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Whittington Phase B-SUB 2014-00193-Road Plans-Comment-Response Letter
Dear Justin,
Enclosed please find five (5) sets of Road Plans that have been revised based on Planning (1 set), VDOT (2
sets) and Engineering (2 sets) comments. Please note that the Fire Marshal has approved the Road Plans and
we have submitted the road plans directly to the ACSA. We have updated the plans in accordance with the
following responses to VDOT, Engineering and Planning Commetns:
VDOT comments dated August 6, 2015 by Shelly Plaster
1. Sheet RP8: recommend relocation the "no parking"sign outside of the ACSA access easement.
RESPONSE: The no-parking sign has been shifted as suggested.
2. Sheet RP9 & RP II: waterline encasement details (size, encasement material etc.) should be called out
on the plans and the profiles.
RESPONSE: The watermain encasement details have been added to plan view on Sheets RP9, 10 and
11,and the detail has been updated on Sheet RP8.
3. Sheet RP 10: Culvert A's access easement should be called out on the east side of Cottontail Way.
RESPONSE: The access easement on the east side of Cottontail Way has been labeled.
4. Sheet RP 17:The reinforced concrete class should be included in the plans. RCP Ill has a
maximum cover of 14'.
RESPONSE: The pipe class has been included on Sheet RP17.
a. Culvert A:The profile does not match the culvert report. i.e.: invert in, invert out, pipe length,
headwater elevation
RESPONSE: The profile and calculations have been revised to match.
b. Culvert B:The profile does not match the culvert report. i.e.: invert in, invert out, pipe length,
headwater elevation, top embankment elevation
RESPONSE: The profile and calculations have been revised to match.
c. Culvert C and D:typically we look at the 10yr headwater elevation for freeboard. It appears that the
HGL elevation is being used.
RESPONSE: The profile and calculations have been revised to match.
Page 1 of 5
kool **Ail
vs
°oto
:a4.1111 Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
� ► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
434.979.8121 (p)
:
�� �► Or 434.979.1681 (f)
O°era s DominionEng.com
5. RP21 and RP23:
a. Storm run 9 thru 6:the inverts in/out, pipe lengths etc. are incorrect. The profiles do not match the
storm drainage calculations.
RESPONSE: The profile and calculations have been revised to match.
b. Storm run 5 thru 4:the invert out for structure 4 and the invert in (from structure 4) for structure 3 are
incorrect. The profiles do not match the storm drainage calculations.
RESPONSE: The profile and calculations have been revised to match.
c. Structure 8 is labeled as a MH. However in the drainage calculations it appears to be receiving runoff
from 0.41 acres.
RESPONSE: The calculations have been revised accordingly.
d. Storm run 19 thru 18:the profile of structure 18's invert out is incorrect and the pipe length between
19-18 does not match the computations. Structure 17's invert in (from 18) is also incorrect. The profile
does not match the storm drainage calculations.
RESPONSE: The profile and calculations have been revised to match.
e. Storm run 36 thru 35:the line work for the storm pipe is missing on the profile, also,the storm
drainage calculations do not show the full capacity.
RESPONSE: The profile and calculations have been updated.
6. RP47: It is understood that the impact on Old Lynchburg Road will be minimal while grading beyond the
shoulder. However, when the entrance onto Pine Knot road is installed the contractor will be required to
bench in, mill and overlay to the centerline of Old Lynchburg road (WP-2 detail). This will require a lane
closure. The traffic control plan should be updated to reflect a lane closure on a two-lane roadway using
flaggers or a similar application. The traffic control plan's signs should be spaced to scale.
RESPONSE: The traffic control plan has been updated to reflect the lane closure while the entrance to
Pine Knot Road is installed.
Albemarle County Engineering Comments dated August 5,2015 by Justin Deel, Glenn Brooks
12. Show critical slopes on your plans.
(Rev. 1)Comment not addressed. Please show critical slopes on your design plans so that we can
discern what areas are being affected. Please show slopes that are 25%or greater.We need to be able
to see the whole picture to ensure compliance with Proffer 4. See Comment 14 below.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed.
RESPONSE: As discussed,the critical slopes layer is shown on the overall plan and on the proffered
overlot grading plan sheets.
17. Provide typical driveway details for the roads. Specify driveway culvert sizes and locations with
supporting computations. The minimum size should be 15"dia. This will necessitate a revision to the
typical ditch sections to provide adequate cover, moving the ditch away from the shoulder.Where long
Page 2 of 5
•�
s gs
4�1," Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
• !, Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
, fo, 434.979.8121 (p)
®'a. 434.979.1681 (f)
e,�s DominionEng.com
runs of ditch are designed (such as at Kendra sta. 34 to 17) a culvert diameter greater than 15"will likely
be necessary, and this should be clearly detailed.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Please provide more detail on your driveway culvert sizing
calculations table. Is your"depth of flow"within the 15" pipe or are you using the channel geometry to
calculate depth of flow and then providing a pipe diameter that exceeds these depths?You are picking
up over 7 cfs going from Lot 7 to Lot 6 from the existing cross-drain. Although you're calling for a wider
channel here, it's still that much more flow going into the same 15"pipe. Also, how are you addressing
the flow from the cross-drain going into Lot 6?The typical SCC detail on RP18 calls for a depth of 12"
(2:1). Your typical road section shows a 3:1 slope. Please clarify. You have a gap from 22+00 to 23+00
on your SCC table. Please correct.
(Rev.2)Comment not fully addressed. Please demonstrate adequate cover for the proposed 18"
&24"culverts in an 18"ditch. The PE-1 detail in Sheet RP17 appears to call for at least 9"of cover;
how is this possible while maintaining a 3:1 slope? Your response indicates that the roadside ditch
has been shifted, as appropriate,to direct flow to the culverts but this does not appear to be reflected
on the plans. Please show the existing culvert to be abandoned in the profile.
RESPONSE: As discussed,we have provided driveway culvert profiles that indicate the minimum 9" of
cover for typical 18"and 24"culverts. Also,where applicable,the culverts have been shifted in plan
view in accordance with the PE-1 detail. Refer to Sheet RP17 for the detail and profiles.
21. Planning Division approval is required. Comments from Ellie Ray are attached
(Rev. 1)See attached comments.
(Rev.2)Comments not addressed. Planning comment letter attached.
RESPONSE: See responses to comments from Ellie Ray below.
25. The phasing (B1-B4)from the first submission has been added to your site overview sheet. Are you
going back to this phasing plan?
RESPONSE: Yes,the developer is opting to develop the road plan/plat in phases as indicated on Sheet
RP4. A final record plat has been submitted for Phase B1.
26. As a general rule, the County prefers not to see pipes going down in size downstream. Structure 4
appears to be receiving flow from a 24"driveway culvert and a 15"crossdrain. All that is then going to
an 18" HDPE. Please address this.
RESPONSE: Storm sewer pipes downstream from structure 4 have been upsized to 24"diameter.
Albemarle County Planning Comments dated July 28,2015 by Ellie Rav
1. [ZMA 20060001 1 Proffer 4] Prior to Final Plat approval, an overlot grading plan must be submitted that
meets all requirements listed in Proffer 4 for Engineering review and approval. This review may result in
a reduction of the number of approvable lots.
• Rev2: Engineering will verify that the plan submitted meets all requirements of the
proffer.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
2. [ZMA20060001 1 Proffer 7] The Application Plan approved with ZMA200600011 shows a picnic shelter
within Open Space J and two trails leading from Open Space J and connecting to the larger trail system
Page 3 of 5
f
,••Ovs
4 4.404.
1 Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
1mu L. Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
,,' 434.979.8121 (p)
°+o 'gar• 434.979.1681 (f)
04, s DominionEng.com
within the subdivision. One of the trails goes through Open Space H connecting to the trail system in
Open Space F, and the other goes between lots on Street B and Kendra Street to connect to the trail
system in Open Space E. These amenities should be provided as shown on the Application Plan;show
the trail system as indicated and note that the picnic shelter will be provided. Prior to Final Plat approval,
a performance bond will likely be required for the picnic shelter.
• Rev2: Comment not fully addressed.The trail system has been shown on Sheet RP4 but there
are still a few issues that need to be addressed. First,the labels are still illegible; provide labels
large enough to read. Second,the trail appears to cross into what will be a private lot(Lot 73); if
possible, move the trail into open space. If this is not possible, an easement must be included
on this lot.Third, it is difficult to tell which trails within Phase A are existing versus which are
proposed, clearly differentiate proposed and existing trails with labels large enough to read.
Fourth,there is no trail connection as shown on the Application Plan between the open space in
Phase A and the western portion of the subdivision (near lots 5,and 19); provide this
connection.The trails and other amenities must be bonded prior to Final Plat approval, include
sufficient detail for both the picnic shelter and scenic overlook(if a proposed structure)to
facilitate bonding (provide specifications detailed enough for bonding).
RESPONSE: Sheet RP4 has been updated accordingly. The picnic shelter and trail detail have been
added to Sheet RP46. As discussed,there is nothing to be bonded for the scenic overlook. The symbol
in this location is an existing water tower,which provides for a scenic view of the terrain below. A note
has been added to Sheet RP4 in this location.
3. [ZMA20060001 1 Proffer 8] The 25' screening and landscaping easement must be shown and labeled
on the plat. A landscaping plan that meets current regulations for screening must be provided, either
with the road or WPO plans or as a separate submittal. Maintenance and responsibility of the screening
within the easement should be addressed in the Covenants and Restrictions mentioned above. A note
alerting affected owners to this easement restriction on their property shall be stated on the Final Plat.
• Rev2: Comment not fully addressed.The landscape plan indicates a portion of the screening
will be met using existing vegetation; please consider extending the fence through the portion
with existing trees to provide a consistent appearance along the project frontage. Existing trees
may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and
screening requirements of section 32.7.9,subject to the agent's approval. If you intend to use
existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan requirements, please include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan.The landscape plan shall show the
trees to be preserved,the limits of clearing,the location and type of protective fencing, grade
changes requiring tree wells or walls,and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of
clearing.
2. Conservation checklist.The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by
the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as
otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case,the checklist shall conform to
the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III-393 through
III-413,and as hereafter amended.The checklist must be completed, signed and dated.
RESPONSE: The plans have been revised such that the fence and proposed screening has been
expanded to the Singleton Lane right-of-way.
6. [Comment] The Overview Sheet shows a new emergency access road off of one of the roads in
Phase A. The label for this access road points to Sheet RP29 for details, however that sheet does not
contain any information about the proposed access;design information for this access road is required.
Since this access wasn't shown on the approved Application Plan it may require a variation; consult
with Zoning to determine if a variation is necessary. The addition of the access road may need to be
Page 4 of 5
s
r°o0• `
r�A.401°4
4Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
"1 r ` Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
11.1 all
a� ,
1if 434.979.8121 (p)
� o _ 434.979.1681 (f),.�eeps
DominionEng.com
submitted as an amendment to the road plans for Phase A instead of on the road plans for Phase B;
consult with Engineering to determine the appropriate application. Additionally, assuming the access
road will necessitate a change to the lot layout shown on the approved Final Plat for Phase A, a new
Final Plat showing this change should be submitted for review and approval.
• Rev2: Comment not fully addressed.Zoning has determined that no variation is required. An
amended road plan for Phase A is currently under review. An easement plat should be submitted
for review and approval prior to road plan approval.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. An easement plat will be submitted under separate cover.
We thank you for taking the time to review these plans. Please let me know if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Best regards,
r/
Mi &I Myers, PE, CFM
c: Mr.Jeremy Swink, Stanley Martin Homes
Ms. Shelly Plaster, VDOT
Ms. Ellie Ray, PLA, Albemarle County Planning
Page 5 of 5
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewers:
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Whittington — Phase B
SUB- 2014 -00193
Dominion Engineering & Design, LLC
Stanley Martin Homes
24 November 2014
20 February 2015
30 June 2015
8 January 2015
30 March 2015
5 August 2015
Justin Deel, Glenn Brooks
1. Provide accurate existing topography (Ex. Phase A, existing Kendra Street grading) on plans as
well as Existing Conditions sheet. Provide more existing topography labels on plans for
readability. For example, Sheet RP5 has none, and please show all proposed contours' tie -in with
existing contours (Ex. RP6).
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Several existing and proposed elevations shown along the horizontal axes of your profiles are
incorrect or do not match what is shown. Please correct.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. Please label streets public or private.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Show and detail all entrance improvements on Rt. 631. The plan seems to indicate widening on
the public road, but no improvements are detailed; turn lanes, sight -line grading, turn tapers, radii,
pavement edge, sections and tie -in, entrance type designations, etc.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Show pavement and right -of -way widths for existing streets.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Show stationing at a 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Show and label all signs; stop signs, street name signs, and speed limit signs are the minimum.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Please label street edge of pavement or curb radii at all intersections or turnarounds.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
9. The drainage computations could not be followed. The inlet comps on sheet 19 appear to be for
curb and gutter, when all roads on this plan are rural sections. The SCC computations are by
station, which cannot be read on the drainage area maps. The line weights for drainage divides are
not all legible. The map for pipe runs does not have the pipe runs, and is too small to be legible.
Provide clear drainage area maps, showing acreage, hydrologic coefficient, and time of
concentration for each drainage area.
(Rev. 1) Comment not adequately addressed. Please provide hand computations if your
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
software does not allow for rural sections. See VDOT Road Design Manual.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
10. Provide traffic generation and distribution summary (ADT) and pavement designs.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Provide typical sections for proposed channels with location references.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. Show critical slopes on your plans.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Please show critical slopes on your design plans so that we
can discern what areas are being affected. Please show slopes that are 25% or greater. We need to
be able to see the whole picture to ensure compliance with Proffer 4. See Comment 14 below.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed.
13. Pipe outfalls are too steep, and outlet velocities too high. Provide step down manholes to reduce
steepness and velocity. Provide channel adequacy demonstrations at each outfall.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
14. The road plan needs to reflect grading on lots which will tie into road grading, as depicted on the
overlot grading plan and erosion and sediment control plan.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Please show lot grading on road plans with accompanying
road profiles.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
15. Show all utility line crossings in the drainage profiles. Show all existing and proposed culverts.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
16. Lots 5, 13 and 76 have too much stream buffer within the lots to be reasonably enforced. Please
reduce the size of these lots so that stream buffers are not within the lot area as much as possible.
The ordinance allows up to 50 feet of the landward side of stream buffers to be disturbed with
mitigation, and this should be the guideline to follow.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. These lots appear largely unchanged relative to percentage of
the lot in the WPO buffer.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
17. Provide typical driveway details for the roads. Specify driveway culvert sizes and locations with
supporting computations. The minimum size should be 15" dia. This will necessitate a revision to
the typical ditch sections to provide adequate cover, moving the ditch away from the shoulder.
Where long runs of ditch are designed (such as at Kendra sta. 34 to 17) a culvert diameter greater
than 15" will likely be necessary, and this should be clearly detailed.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Please provide more detail on your driveway culvert
sizing calculations table. Is your "depth of flow" within the 15" pipe or are you using the channel
geometry to calculate depth of flow and then providing a pipe diameter that exceeds these depths?
You are picking up over 7 cfs going from Lot 7 to Lot 6 from the existing cross - drain. Although
you're calling for a wider channel here, it's still that much more flow going into the same 15"
pipe. Also, how are you addressing the flow from the cross -drain going into Lot 6?
The typical SCC detail on RP 18 calls for a depth of 12" (2:1). Your typical road section shows a
3:1 slope. Please clarify. You have a gap from 22 +00 to 23 +00 on your SCC table. Please
correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment not fully addressed. Please demonstrate adequate cover for the proposed 18"
& 24" culverts in an 18" ditch. The PE -1 detail in Sheet RP17 appears to call for atleast 9" of
cover; how is this possible while maintaining a 3:1 slope? Your response indicates that the
roadside ditch has been shifted, as appropriate, to direct flow to the culverts but this does not
appear to be reflected on the plans.
Please show the existing culvert to be abandoned in the profile.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
18. Detail inlet grading on slopes where grate inlets are placed to intercept ditch flow on grade. The
ditch will need to be wider, and a berm will be required to terminate the ditch at these points.
Examples are structures 15, 8 -9.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Please show proposed inlet grading tied in to existing or other
proposed grade lines on road plans. Your typical detail is not adequate in showing how the inlet
grading will tie into other proposed grading.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
19. Provide guard rail at hazard areas, culverts, and where a steep slope leaves the roadway edge.
Examples are Kendra sta. 16 -18, sta. 31 -34, and cul -de -sac, Cottontal Way sta. 12 -14, 18 -22, 24-
26, etc.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
20. VDOT approval is required.
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged.
21. Planning Division approval is required. Comments from Ellie Ray are attached
(Rev. 1) See attached comments.
(Rev. 2) Comments not addressed. Planning comment letter attached.
22. Fire & Rescue Department approval is required. Comments from Robbie Gilmer are included
below;
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged.
Revision 1 comments
23. The proposed emergency access from Route 631 may need to be an amendment to Phase A, not
part of Phase B. Please consult with County Engineer upon his return to the office April 6, 2015.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
24. You do not appear to be in compliance with Proffer 4g on many lots. Please provide an area in
front of each proposed garage or proposed parking space on each lot that is no less than 18 feet
and not steeper than 8 percent.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
Revision 2 comments
25. The phasing (B1 -B4) from the first submission has been added to your site overview sheet. Are
you going back to this phasing plan?
26. As a general rule, the County prefers not to see pipes going down in size downstream. Structure 4
appears to be receiving flow from a 24" driveway culvert and a 15" crossdrain. All that is then
going to an 18" HDPE. Please address this.
The following comments quoted from Robbie Gilmer (Fire & Rescue) will need to be addressed prior to
approval:
1. Cul -de -sac shall be 96 ft EP/EP.
2. Add the symbol for fire hydrant between lot 26 & 27.
3. Clarify if the hydrant between lots 24 & 25 is a proposed hydrant or not.
4. Clarify the hydrant location at lots 20 and 21.
5. Hydrant spacing shall be no more than 500 ft per travelway.
6. VSWFPC- D107.1 One- or two- family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one -
or two- family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with
two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section
D104.3.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
Exceptions:
1. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus
access road and all dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic
sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the
International Fire Code, access from two directions shall not be required.
2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased
unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by
the fire code official.
(Rev. 1) Comments addressed. Robbie Gilmer: "Based on plans dated 2/13/15, no comments or
objections."
Please consult the road plan and drainage plan checklists at the document center on the Albemarle County
website for further details. Due to the incomplete nature of this plan, further comments will likely be
necessary upon revision. It is expected that the grading and drainage layout will change due to comments
on the erosion control and stormwater management plans, which have asked that the existing topography
and drainage divides be more closely followed. (Examples on these plans would be where ditches are
shown on the low side of road sections. The contractor will expect these areas to sheet flow downslope,
away from the road, and not build a ditch, which is reasonable. It will be difficult to prevent this.)
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
Comments from VDOT and ACSA will be forwarded as they are received.
File: SUB201400193 Whittington Ph B Road Plan R2.doc
CS
Oe.
c..: .,,0
Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
°'y Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
o 1 434.979.8121 (p)
`0. , 434.979.1681 (f)
�'e, s DominionEng.com
June 15, 2015
Justin Deel
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Whittington Phase B-SUB 2014-00193-Road Plans- Comment-Response Letter
Dear Justin,
Enclosed please find eight (8) sets of the Road Plans that have been revised based on your comments in
accordance with the following:
1. Provide accurate exiting topography (Ex. Phase A. existing Kendra Street grading) on plans as well as
Existing Conditions sh et. Provide more existing topography labels on plans for readability. For example, Sheet
RP5 has none, and pie,se show all proposed contours' tie-in with existing contours(Ex. RP6).
(Rev. 1) Comment ad ressed.
2. Several existing and proposed elevations shown along the horizontal axes of your profiles are incorrect or do .
not match what is sho n. Please correct.
(Rev. 1) Comment ad ressed.
3. Please label streets public or private.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Show and detail all entrance improvements on Rt. 631. The plan seems to indicate widening on the public
road, but no improvem nts are detailed;turn lanes, sight-line grading,turn tapers,radii,pavement edge, sections
and tie-in, entrance typ designations,etc.
(Rev. 1) Comment ad ressed.
5. Show pavement and right-of-way widths for existing streets.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Show stationing at a 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Show and label all signs; stop signs, street name signs, and speed limit signs are the minimum.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Please label street edge of pavement (.,, curb r {lii at all intersections or turnarounds.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
9. The drainage computations could not be followed. The inlet comps on sheet 19 appear to be for curb and
gutter, when all roads on this plan are rural sections. The SCC computations are by station, which cannot be read
on the drainage area maps. The line weights for drainage divides are not all legible. The map for pipe runs does
not have the pipe runs, and is too small to be legible. Provide clear drainage area maps, showing acreage,
Page 1 of 5
ers
el°�5
Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
d H ► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
%moor 434.979.8121 (p)
Oe
�s 434.979.1681 (f)
°Qs s DominionEng.com
hydrologic coefficient, and time of concentration for each drainage area. Please provide hand computations if
your software does not allow for rural sections. See VDOT Road Design Manual.
(Rev. 1) Comment not adequately addressed.
RESPONSE: The drainage computations have been revised to address the above plan presentation
concerns. Also,the storm drain inlet computations have been performed by hand and have been
provided in a booklet with this submission.
10. Provide traffic generation and distribution summary (ADT) and pavement designs.
Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Provide typical sections for proposed channels with location references.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. Show critical slopes on your plans. Please show critical slopes on your design plans so that we can discern
what areas are being affected.Please show slopes that are 25% or greater.We need to be able to see the whole
picture to ensure compliance with Proffer 4. See Comment 14 below.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
RESPONSE: The critical slopes have been shown by shading on the plan sheets.
13. Pipe outfalls are too steep. and outlet velocities too high. Provide step down manholes to reduce steepness
and velocity. Provide channel adequacy demonstrations at each outfall.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
14. The road plan needs to reflect grading on lots which will tie into road grading, as depicted on the overlot
grading plan and erosion and sediment control plan. Please show lot grading on road plans with accompanying
road profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
RESPONSE: Lot grading has been shown on the road profile sheets.
15. Show all utility line crossings in the drainage profiles. Show all existing and proposed culverts.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
16.Lots 5, 13 and 76 have too much stream buffer within the lots to be reasonably enforced. Please reduce the
size of these lots so that stream buffers are not within the lot area as much as possible. The ordinance allows up
to 50 feet of the landward side of stream buffers to be disturbed with mitigation,and this should be the guideline
to follow. These lots appear largely unchanged relative to percentage of the lot in the WPO buffer.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
RESPONSE: As discussed in our Engineers meeting,we have adjusted the lots on the west side of
Kendra Street to remove as much buffer as possible from Lot 5. It was determined that Lot 13 and 76
were acceptable since these lots had usable rear yard areas.
Page 2 of 5
I
`c¢,oie
0;. Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
b 434.979.8121 (p)
s 1,Q 434.979.1681 (f)
9 S DominionEng.com
17.Provide typical driveway details for the roads. Specify driveway culvert sizes and locations with supporting
computations.The minimum size should be 15"dia.This will necessitate a revision to the typical ditch sections
to provide adequate cover,moving the ditch away from the shoulder.Where long runs of ditch are designed
(such as at Kendra sta. 34 to 17) a culvert diameter greater than 15"will likely be necessary,and this should be
clearly detailed.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed.Please provide more detail on your driveway culvert sizing
calculations table. Is your"depth of flow"within the 15"pipe or are you using the channel geometry to calculate
depth of flow and then providing a pipe diameter that exceeds these depths?You are picking up over 7 cfs going
from Lot 7 to Lot 6 from the existing cross-drain. Although you're calling for a wider channel here,it's still that
much more flow going into the same 15"pipe.Also,how are you addressing the flow from the cross-drain
going into Lot 6?
The typical SCC detail on RP18 calls for a depth of 12"(2:1). Your typical road section shows a 3:1 slope.
Please clarify. You have a gap from 22+00 to 23+00 on your SCC table.Please correct.
RESPONSE: We have updated the driveway culvert design and have provided culvert design
calculations for the critical driveways. These have been included in the computations booklet. Several of
the culverts need to be upsized to 18"or 24"maximum as indicated on the plans. We have provided
additional spot detail on the driveway culverts to ensure they are located to maintain adequate cover and
we have shifted the roadside ditch as appropriate to direct flow to the culverts in accordance with the
VDOT standard PE-1 detail shown on Sheet RP17. The culvert at Lot 6 has been revised to be
abandoned and the flow redirected to the ditch on the east side of Kendra Street. The SCC computations
have been updated accordingly.The SCC detail has been updated to call for a depth of 18"and 3:1 slopes
per the typical road section.
18. Detail inlet grading on slopes where grate inlets are placed to intercept ditch flow on grade.The ditch will
need to be wider, and a berm will be required to terminate the ditch at these points. Examples are structures 15,
8-9.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.Please show proposed inlet grading tied in to existing or other proposed
grade lines on road plans. Your typical detail is not adequate in showing how the inlet grading will tie into other
proposed grading.
RESPONSE: A inlet grading detail sheet has been added to Sheet RP33 of the plans. The grading
around each inlet has been shown in detail,along with a dashed-in 10-year water surface elevation line.
19.Provide guard rail at hazard areas,culverts,and where a steep slope leaves the roadway edge. Examples are
Kendra sta. 16-18, sta. 31-34, and cul-de-sac, Cottontal Way sta. 12-14, 18-22, 24-26,etc.
RESPONSE: Guardrail has been added where appropriate as coordinated with VDOT.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
20. VDOT approval required.
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged.
RESPONSE: VDOT approval will be provided.
Page 3 of 5
i
¢oC<5s
`. A
�o Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
t y Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
,0 434.979.8121 (p)
0.s�,e 434.979.1681 (f)
S.
s DominionEng.com
21.Planning Division approval is required. Comments from Ellie Ray are attached
(Rev. 1)See attached comments.
22.Fire&Rescue Department approval is required. Comments from Robbie Gilmer are included below;
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged.
Revision 1 comments
23. The proposed emergency access from Route 631 may need to be an amendment to Phase A,not part of
Phase B.Please consult with County Engineer upon his return to the office April 6, 2015.
RESPONSE: An amendment to the Phase A Road Plan has been submitted for the proposed emergency
access to Route 631.
24. You do not appear to be in compliance with Proffer 4g on many lots. Please provide an area in front of each
proposed garage or proposed parking space on each lot that is no less than 18 feet and not steeper than 8 percent.
RESPONSE: The proffered overlot grading plan has been updated to show detailed spot elevations and
slopes to indicate compliance with the proffer.
The following comments quoted from Robbie Gilmer(Fire&Rescue) will need to be addressed prior to
approval:
1. Cul-de-sac shall be 96 ft EP/EP.
2. Add the symbol for ire hydrant between lot 26&27.
3. Clarify if the hydrae between lots 24 &25 is a proposed hydrant or not.
4. Clarify the hydrant 1 •
cation at lots 20 and 21.
5. Hydrant spacing sha I be no more than 500 ft per travelway.
6. VSWFPC-D107.1 ne-or two-family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one-or two-
family dwellings when the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and
approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section D104.3.
Exceptions:
1. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus access road and all
dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section
903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the International Fire Code, access from two directions shall not be required.
2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire
apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code official.
(Rev. 1) Comments addressed.Robbie Gilmer: "Based on plans dated 2/13/15,no comments or objections."
Please consult the road plan and drainage plan checklists at the document center on the Albemarle County
website for further details.Due to the incomplete nature of this plan,further comments will likely be necessary
upon revision. It is expected that the grading and drainage layout will change due to comments on the erosion
control and stormwater management plans, which have asked that the existing topography and drainage divides
Page 4 of 5
e¶5
�* Aeca ;
e Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
°' ho. Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
.0 434.979.8121 (p)
�,9',P� sr 434.979.1681 (f)
,>e,,..,s DominionEng.com
be more closely followed. (Examples on these plans would be where ditches are shown on the low side of road
sections.The contractor will expect these areas to sheet flow downslope, away from the road, and not build a
ditch,which is reasonable. It will be difficult to prevent this.)
RESPONSE: The plans have been updated and are ready for construction. The ditch on the low side of
Cottontail way from station 18+00 to 23+00 has been removed in favor of sheet flow. There are two
locations on the plans where a ditch will need to be built in order to treat enough impervious area to meet
the water quality requirements for the site. These two locations are at Cottontail Way station 28+00 to
30+00 and Warbler Way station 14+00 to 15+00. We understand that it may be difficult to prevent this
and have added a note to the road profile sheets highlighting these two areas. It has been our experience
that calling out special areas such as these on the plans will allow the ditch construction to be enforced.
We thank you for taking the time to review these plans. Please let me know if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Sincerely,
At:- „.:. . c
M/hael Myers, P.E.
Cc:Jeremy Swink
Page 5 of 5
•t4�.
1
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1501 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commiss.oner
April 9, 2015
Justin Dee]
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB- 2014 -00193
Dear Mr. Dee]:
We have reviewed the Whittington Subdivision -Phase B; with a revision date of February 13,
2015, as submitted by Dominion Engineering, and offer the following comments:
1. The Maintenance of Traffic Plan/Traffic Control Plan shall be in compliance with the
information published in the Virginia Work Area Protection Manual. Refer to the
Instructional and Informational Memorandum (IIM -LD- 241.5) for plan requirements.
httn: / /www. extranet .vdot.state.va.usiloedes /electronic tubs /iim/IIM241.12df
2. The VDOT future stub out street sign should be added to the plan set. The detail can
be found on page 97 of the SSAR Guidance document.
htt :i /www.vir iniadot.or ro•ects/resources /SSAR/SSAR GD Dec 2011. df
3. Guardrail warrants should be provided.
4. There are possible conflicts with the proposed guardrail at the following locations:
a. Cottontail Drive station 13 +00, fire hydrant placed within deflection zone
b. Cottontail Drive station 24 +10, storm inlet 9
c. Cottontail Drive station 24 +20, nature trail crossing
d. Cottontail Drive station 25 +10, sanitary sewer between MH's 6 -9 and 6 -8
e. Cottontail Drive station 28 +05, fire hydrant placed within deflection zone
f, Cottontail Drive station 31 +50, fire hydrant placed at the terminal end
g. Warbler Way station 13 +60, fire hydrant placed within deflection zone
h. Warbler Way station 17 +95, fire hydrant placed at the terminal end
i. Warbler Way station 22 +30, fire hydrant placed at the terminal end
Items such as fire hydrants or other fixed objects should be located outside of the
deflection zone of the guardrail. Also fire hydrants should not be located in front of
the guardrail terminal end treatments.
5. Guardrail terminal end treatments should be called out on the plans.
6. Guardrail details should be added to the plans.
7. Sanitary sewer profiles should be provided.
8. "No Parking" signs should also be added along the streets.
9. The proposed waterline should be Iocated at a consistent offset from the centerline.
Also, bends should be avoided and the waterline should be deflected when possible.
For example: Warbler Way station 24 +00 -26 +00 and Cottontail Drive 24 +00- 27 +50.
I0. The vertical curve values and slopes are missing from the following sheets: RP 10,
RP 11 and RP 12. It appears that a layer is turned off.
11. Where is culvert "G" located? Is it intended to be culvert "C "?
12. Culverts should be designed in accordance with the VDOT Drainage Manual. See
section 8.3.2.2 .
13. Access easements should be provided for future culvert maintenance operations.
I am available if you wish to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments. Please do not hesitate
to contact me at (434) 422 -9894.
Sincerely,
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
_ p
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Memorandum
To: Justin Deel
From: Ellie Ray, PLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: January 7, 2015
Rev1: March 11, 2015
Rev2: July 28, 2015
Subject: SUB 201400193 Whittington Subdivision Phase B — Road Plans
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and the following comments from the Conditional Approval of
the Preliminary Plat have not been satisfactorily addressed:
[ZMA200600011 Proffer 4] Prior to Final Plat approval, an overlot grading plan must be submitted that
meets all requirements listed in Proffer 4 for Engineering review and approval. This review may result in a
reduction of the number of approvable lots.
• Items (a) through (h) under Proffer 4 must all be addressed; has an overlot grading plan been
submitted that meets all the necessary requirements?
• Revl: An overlot grading plan has been included in the plan set; Engineering to verify that the plan
submitted meets all requirements of the proffer.
• Rev2: Engineering will verify that the plan submitted meets all requirements of the proffer.
2. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 7] The Application Plan approved with ZMA200600011 shows a picnic shelter
within Open Space J and two trails leading from Open Space J and connecting to the larger trail system
within the subdivision. One of the trails goes through Open Space H connecting to the trail system in Open
Space F, and the other goes between lots on Street B and Kendra Street to connect to the trail system in
Open Space E. These amenities should be provided as shown on the Application Plan; show the trail
system as indicated and note that the picnic shelter will be provided. Prior to Final Plat approval, a
performance bond will likely be required for the picnic shelter.
• The entire trail system, as shown on the approved Application Plan, should be included on the road
plans.
• Revl: Comment not fully addressed. The trail system has been shown on Sheet RP4 but there are
a few issues that still need to be addressed. First, the labels are illegible; provide labels large
enough to read. Second, the trail appears to cross into what will be private lots in many areas; if
possible, move the trail into open space in all locations. If this is not possible, easements must be
included on all lots that the trail crosses. Third, it is difficult to tell which trails within Phase A are
existing versus which are proposed, and the open space in Phase A appears to contain both;
please clarify. Fourth, there is no trail connection as shown on the Application Plan between the
open space in Phase A and the western portion of the subdivision; provide this connection. The
trails and other amenities must be bonded prior to Final Plat approval, include sufficient detail for
both the picnic shelter and scenic overlook to facilitate bonding.
• Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The trail system has been shown on Sheet RP4 but
there are still a few issues that need to be addressed. First, the labels are still illegible;
provide labels large enough to read. Second, the trail appears to cross into what will be a
private lot (Lot 73); if possible, move the trail into open space. If this is not possible, an
easement must be included on this lot. Third, it is difficult to tell which trails within Phase A
are existing versus which are proposed, clearly differentiate proposed and existing trails
with labels large enough to read. Fourth, there is no trail connection as shown on the
Application Plan between the open space in Phase A and the western portion of the
subdivision (near lots 5, and 19); provide this connection. The trails and other amenities
must be bonded prior to Final Plat approval, include sufficient detail for both the picnic
shelter and scenic overlook (if a proposed structure) to facilitate bonding (provide
specifications detailed enough for bonding).
3. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 8] The 25' screening and landscaping easement must be shown and labeled on
the plat. A landscaping plan that meets current regulations for screening must be provided, either with the
road or WPO plans or as a separate submittal. Maintenance and responsibility of the screening within the
easement should be addressed in the Covenants and Restrictions mentioned above. A note alerting
affected owners to this easement restriction on their property shall be stated on the Final Plat.
• The required landscaping should be included on the road plans.
• Revl: Comment not addressed. The comment response letter indicates that a landscape plan is
provided on Sheet XX; this sheet does not exist. Assuming the landscape plan referenced is that
shown on Sheet RP35, the information provided does not meet the requirements for a landscape
plan; it is only a patterned easement area and a random plant list' with no further information.
Provide a landscape plan that meets the requirements of section 32.7.9 of the site plan ordinance.
• Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The landscape plan indicates a portion of the
screening will be met using existing vegetation; please consider extending the fence
through the portion with existing trees to provide a consistent appearance along the project
frontage. Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to
satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's
approval. If you intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan
requirements, please include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the
trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing,
grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond
the limits of clearing.
2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the
agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as
otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall
conform to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook,
pages 111 -393 through 111 -413, and as hereafter amended. The checklist must be
completed, signed and dated.
4. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 9] Trail locations and construction details should be provided on the Road and /or
W PO Plans.
• As noted above, all trail locations must be shown. Additionally, construction details must also be
provided.
• Revl: Comment not addressed. The comment response letter indicates that trail locations
and construction details are provided on Sheet XX; this sheet does not exist. No
construction details can be found in the plan set; provide appropriate construction details.
As mentioned above, the trail locations shown on Sheet RP4 are difficult to decipher;
provide a clear representation of all trail locations with legible labels.
• Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [Comment] The Overview Sheet should include lot numbers and the trail layout.
• Revl: Comment addressed.
6. [Comment] The Overview Sheet shows a new emergency access road off of one of the roads in Phase A.
The label for this access road points to Sheet RP29 for details, however that sheet does not contain any
information about the proposed access; design information for this access road is required. Since this
access wasn't shown on the approved Application Plan it may require a variation; consult with Zoning to
determine if a variation is necessary. The addition of the access road may need to be submitted as an
amendment to the road plans for Phase A instead of on the road plans for Phase B; consult with
Engineering to determine the appropriate application. Additionally, assuming the access road will
necessitate a change to the lot layout shown on the approved Final Plat for Phase A, a new Final Plat
showing this change should be submitted for review and approval.
2
• Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Zoning has determined that no variation is required.
An amended road plan for Phase A is currently under review. An easement plat should be
submitted for review and approval prior to road plan approval.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Project title: Whittington — Phase B
Project file number: SUB- 2014 -00193
Plan preparer:
Dominion Engineering & Design, LLC
Owner or rep.:
Stanley Martin Homes
Plan received date:
24 November 2014
(Rev. 1)
20 February 2015
Date of comments:
8 January 2015
(Rev. 1)
30 March 2015
Reviewers:
Justin Deel, Glenn Brooks
Provide accurate existing topography (Ex. Phase A, existing Kendra Street grading) on plans as
well as Existing Conditions sheet. Provide more existing topography labels on plans for
readability. For example, Sheet RP5 has none, and please show all proposed contours' tie -in with
existing contours (Ex. RP6).
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Several existing and proposed elevations shown along the horizontal axes of your profiles are
incorrect or do not match what is shown. Please correct.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. Please label streets public or private.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Show and detail all entrance improvements on Rt. 631. The plan seems to indicate widening on
the public road, but no improvements are detailed; turn lanes, sight -line grading, turn tapers, radii,
pavement edge, sections and tie -in, entrance type designations, etc.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Show pavement and right -of -way widths for existing streets.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Show stationing at a 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Show and label all signs; stop signs, street name signs, and speed limit signs are the minimum.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Please label street edge of pavement or curb radii at all intersections or turnarounds.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
9. The drainage computations could not be followed. The inlet comps on sheet 19 appear to be for
curb and gutter, when all roads on this plan are rural sections. The SCC computations are by
station, which cannot be read on the drainage area maps. The line weights for drainage divides are
not all legible. The map for pipe runs does not have the pipe runs, and is too small to be legible.
Provide clear drainage area maps, showing acreage, hydrologic coefficient, and time of
concentration for each drainage area.
(Rev. 1) Comment not adequately addressed. Please provide hand computations if your
software does not allow for rural sections. See VDOT Road Design Manual.
10. Provide traffic generation and distribution summary (ADT) and pavement designs.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Provide typical sections for proposed channels with location references.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. Show critical slopes on your plans.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Please show critical slopes on your design plans so that we
can discern what areas are being affected. Please show slopes that are 25% or greater. We need to
be able to see the whole picture to ensure compliance with Proffer 4. See Comment 14 below.
13. Pipe outfalls are too steep, and outlet velocities too high. Provide step down manholes to reduce
steepness and velocity. Provide channel adequacy demonstrations at each outfall.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
14. The road plan needs to reflect grading on lots which will tie into road grading, as depicted on the
overlot grading plan and erosion and sediment control plan.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Please show lot grading on road plans with accompanying
road profiles.
15. Show all utility line crossings in the drainage profiles. Show all existing and proposed culverts.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
16. Lots 5, 13 and 76 have too much stream buffer within the lots to be reasonably enforced. Please
reduce the size of these lots so that stream buffers are not within the lot area as much as possible.
The ordinance allows up to 50 feet of the landward side of stream buffers to be disturbed with
mitigation, and this should be the guideline to follow.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. These lots appear largely unchanged relative to percentage of
the lot in the WPO buffer.
17. Provide typical driveway details for the roads. Specify driveway culvert sizes and locations with
supporting computations. The minimum size should be 15" dia. This will necessitate a revision to
the typical ditch sections to provide adequate cover, moving the ditch away from the shoulder.
Where long runs of ditch are designed (such as at Kendra sta. 34 to 17) a culvert diameter greater
than 15" will likely be necessary, and this should be clearly detailed.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Please provide more detail on your driveway culvert
sizing calculations table. Is your "depth of flow" within the 15" pipe or are you using the channel
geometry to calculate depth of flow and then providing a pipe diameter that exceeds these depths?
You are picking up over 7 cfs going from Lot 7 to Lot 6 from the existing cross - drain. Although
you're calling for a wider channel here, it's still that much more flow going into the same 15"
pipe. Also, how are you addressing the flow from the cross -drain going into Lot 6?
The typical SCC detail on RP 18 calls for a depth of 12" (2:1). Your typical road section shows a
3:1 slope. Please clarify. You have a gap from 22 +00 to 23 +00 on your SCC table. Please
correct.
18. Detail inlet grading on slopes where grate inlets are placed to intercept ditch flow on grade. The
ditch will need to be wider, and a berm will be required to terminate the ditch at these points.
Examples are structures 15, 8 -9.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Please show proposed inlet grading tied in to existing or other
proposed grade lines on road plans. Your typical detail is not adequate in showing how the inlet
grading will tie into other proposed grading.
19. Provide guard rail at hazard areas, culverts, and where a steep slope leaves the roadway edge.
Examples are Kendra sta. 16 -18, sta. 31 -34, and cul -de -sac, Cottontal Way sta. 12 -14, 18 -22, 24-
26, etc.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
20. VDOT approval is required.
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged.
21. Planning Division approval is required. Comments from Ellie Ray are attached
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
(Rev. 1) See attached comments.
22. Fire & Rescue Department approval is required. Comments from Robbie Gilmer are included
below;
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged.
Revision 1 comments
23. The proposed emergency access from Route 631 may need to be an amendment to Phase A, not
part of Phase B. Please consult with County Engineer upon his return to the office April 6, 2015.
24. You do not appear to be in compliance with Proffer 4g on many lots. Please provide an area in
front of each proposed garage or proposed parking space on each lot that is no less than 18 feet
and not steeper than 8 percent.
The following comments quoted from Robbie Gilmer (Fire & Rescue) will need to be addressed prior to
approval:
1. Cul -de -sac shall be 96 ft EP/EP.
2. Add the symbol for fire hydrant between lot 26 & 27.
3. Clarify if the hydrant between lots 24 & 25 is a proposed hydrant or not.
4. Clarify the hydrant location at lots 20 and 21.
5. Hydrant spacing shall be no more than 500 ft per travelway.
6. VSWFPC- D107.1 One- or two - family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one -
or two- family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with
two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section
D104.3.
Exceptions:
1. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus
access road and all dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic
sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the
International Fire Code, access from two directions shall not be required.
2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased
unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by
the fire code official.
(Rev. 1) Comments addressed. Robbie Gilmer: "Based on plans dated 2/13/15, no comments or
objections."
Please consult the road plan and drainage plan checklists at the document center on the Albemarle County
website for further details. Due to the incomplete nature of this plan, further comments will likely be
necessary upon revision. It is expected that the grading and drainage layout will change due to comments
on the erosion control and stormwater management plans, which have asked that the existing topography
and drainage divides be more closely followed. (Examples on these plans would be where ditches are
shown on the low side of road sections. The contractor will expect these areas to sheet flow downslope,
away from the road, and not build a ditch, which is reasonable. It will be difficult to prevent this.)
File: SUB201400193 Whittington Ph B Road Plan Rl.doc
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Memorandum
To: Justin Deel
From: Ellie Ray, PLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: January 7, 2015
Rev1: March 11, 2015
Subject: SUB 201400193 Whittington Subdivision Phase B — Road Plans
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and the following comments from the Conditional Approval of
the Preliminary Plat have not been satisfactorily addressed:
[ZMA200600011 Proffer 4] Prior to Final Plat approval, an overlot grading plan must be submitted that
meets all requirements listed in Proffer 4 for Engineering review and approval. This review may result in a
reduction of the number of approvable lots.
• Items (a) through (h) under Proffer 4 must all be addressed; has an overlot grading plan been
submitted that meets all the necessary requirements?
• Rev1: An overlot grading plan has been included in the plan set; Engineering to verify that
the plan submitted meets all requirements of the proffer.
2. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 7] The Application Plan approved with ZMA200600011 shows a picnic shelter
within Open Space J and two trails leading from Open Space J and connecting to the larger trail system
within the subdivision. One of the trails goes through Open Space H connecting to the trail system in Open
Space F, and the other goes between lots on Street B and Kendra Street to connect to the trail system in
Open Space E. These amenities should be provided as shown on the Application Plan; show the trail
system as indicated and note that the picnic shelter will be provided. Prior to Final Plat approval, a
performance bond will likely be required for the picnic shelter.
• The entire trail system, as shown on the approved Application Plan, should be included on the road
plans.
• Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The trail system has been shown on Sheet RP4 but
there are a few issues that still need to be addressed. First, the labels are illegible; provide
labels large enough to read. Second, the trail appears to cross into what will be private lots
in many areas; if possible, move the trail into open space in all locations. If this is not
possible, easements must be included on all lots that the trail crosses. Third, it is difficult to
tell which trails within Phase A are existing versus which are proposed, and the open space
in Phase A appears to contain both; please clarify. Fourth, there is no trail connection as
shown on the Application Plan between the open space in Phase A and the western portion
of the subdivision; provide this connection. The trails and other amenities must be bonded
prior to Final Plat approval, include sufficient detail for both the picnic shelter and scenic
overlook to facilitate bonding.
3. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 8] The 25' screening and landscaping easement must be shown and labeled on
the plat. A landscaping plan that meets current regulations for screening must be provided, either with the
road or WPO plans or as a separate submittal. Maintenance and responsibility of the screening within the
easement should be addressed in the Covenants and Restrictions mentioned above. A note alerting
affected owners to this easement restriction on their property shall be stated on the Final Plat.
• The required landscaping should be included on the road plans.
• Rev1: Comment not addressed. The comment response letter indicates that a landscape
plan is provided on Sheet XX; this sheet does not exist. Assuming the landscape plan
referenced is that shown on Sheet RP35, the information provided does not meet the
requirements for a landscape plan; it is only a patterned easement area and a random `plant
list' with no further information. Provide a landscape plan that meets the requirements of
section 32.7.9 of the site plan ordinance.
4. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 9] Trail locations and construction details should be provided on the Road and /or
WPO Plans.
• As noted above, all trail locations must be shown. Additionally, construction details must also be
provided.
• Rev1: Comment not addressed. The comment response letter indicates that trail locations
and construction details are provided on Sheet XX; this sheet does not exist. No
construction details can be found in the plan set; provide appropriate construction details.
As mentioned above, the trail locations shown on Sheet RP4 are difficult to decipher,
provide a clear representation of all trail locations with legible labels.
5. [Comment] The Overview Sheet should include lot numbers and the trail layout.
• Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [Comment] The Overview Sheet shows a new emergency access road off of one of the roads in Phase A.
The label for this access road points to Sheet RP29 for details, however that sheet does not contain any
information about the proposed access; design information for this access road is required. Since this
access wasn't shown on the approved Application Plan it may require a variation; consult with Zoning to
determine if a variation is necessary. The addition of the access road may need to be submitted as an
amendment to the road plans for Phase A instead of on the road plans for Phase B; consult with
Engineering to determine the appropriate application. Additionally, assuming the access road will
necessitate a change to the lot layout shown on the approved Final Plat for Phase A, a new Final Plat
showing this change should be submitted for review and approval.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(a- )albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
`r✓ ''orio?
a
4%6'40 9 Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
4?,taill 6. Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
o�' P) 434.979.8121 (p)
� o®��I r� 434.979.1681 (f)
°.,arra DominionEng.com
February 13, 2015
Justin Deel
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Whittington Phase B-SUB 2014-00193-Road Plans-Comment-Response Letter
Dear Justin,
Enclosed please find two(2) sets of Road Plans that have been revised based on your comments in accordance
with the following:
1. Provide accurate existing topography(Ex. Phase A, existing Kendra Street grading)on plans as well as
Existing Conditions sheet. Provide more existing topography labels on plans for readability. For example, Sheet
RP5 has none, and please show all proposed contours'tie-in with existing contours (Ex. RP6).
RESPONSE: Existing topography has been shown accurately and labeled on the grading plan.
2. Several existing and proposed elevations shown along the horizontal axes of your profiles are incorrect or do
not match what is shown. Please correct.
RESPONSE: The profile elevations have been updated.
3. Please label streets public or private.
RESPONSE: All roads are public and have been labeled with this submittal.
4. Show and detail all entrance improvements on Rt. 631. The plan seems to indicate widening on the public
road, but no improvements are detailed; turn lanes, sight-line grading, turn tapers, radii, pavement edge,
sections and tie-in, entrance type designations, etc.
RESPONSE: The only work in the Route 631 right-of-way is grading of the ditch slope to provide an
adequate sight line. Per VDOT right turn lane warrant analysis,the development does not trigger either
a right turn lane or a taper. Figure 3-26 is provided on Sheet RP25.
5. Show pavement and right-of-way widths for existing streets.
RESPONSE: The pavement and ROW widths have been shown on the road plan sheets.
6. Show stationing at a 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
RESPONSE: The stationing has been shown at 50' increments.
7. Show and label all signs; stop signs, street name signs, and speed limit signs are the minimum.
RESPONSE: All applicable signs have been showed and labeled on the road plan sheets.
8. Please label street edge of pavement or curb radii at all intersections or turnarounds.
Page 1 of 4
s
,•o's
o4./41,
.►°�4' I Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
/ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
111111
f� 434.979.8121 (p)
0..4, 'RIM 434.979.1681 (f)
��°a DominionEng.com
a
RESPONSE: All street edge of pavement and curb radii have been labeled on the plan sheets.
9. The drainage computations could not be followed. The inlet comps on sheet 19 appear to be for curb and
gutter, when all roads on this plan are rural sections. The SCC computations are by station, which cannot be
read on the drainage area maps. The line weights for drainage divides are not all legible. The map for pipe runs
does not have the pipe runs, and is too small to be legible. Provide clear drainage area maps, showing acreage,
hydrologic coefficient, and time of concentration for each drainage area.
RESPONSE: The inlet, pipe and channel calculations have been updated and shown at a more legible
scale. Our inlet software analysis only allows for curb and gutter computations so to get around this we
use a gutter cross slope that is equal to the ditch slope 2:1, or 0.50. Also please note that we shown C
factors and time of concentration for the culverts and inlets on Sheets RP23 and RP24. However,since
the C factor and time of concentration is shown on Sheet RP18,we felt that adding those to Sheets 19
and 20 would cause undue clutter.
10. Provide traffic generation and distribution summary(ADT) and pavement designs.
RESPONSE: The ADT has been shown on the overall plan, Sheet RP4 and on each road profile sheet.
The flexible pavement design has been provided with this submittal.
11. Provide typical sections for proposed channels with location references.
RESPONSE: The typical section and calculation chart has been shown on Sheet RP18.
12. Show critical slopes on your plans.
RESPONSE: The critical slopes are shown on the existing conditions sheet, RP3.
13. Pipe outfalls are too steep, and outlet velocities too high. Provide step down manholes to reduce steepness
and velocity. Provide channel adequacy demonstrations at each outfall.
RESPONSE: Step down manholes have been provided to reduce steepness and velocity. Channel
reports have been provided in the SWPPP to show channel adequacy at each outfall.
14. The road plan needs to reflect grading on lots which will tie into road grading, as depicted on the overlot
grading plan and erosion and sediment control plan.
RESPONSE: The road plan sheets indicate the grading required to construct the roads. The proffered
overlot grading plan has been added to the road plan set to indicate the overlot grading.
15. Show all utility line crossings in the drainage profiles. Show all existing and proposed culverts.
RESPONSE: All utility crossings and existing and proposed culverts have been shown on the road
profiles.
16. Lots 5, 13 and 76 have too much stream buffer within the lots to be reasonably enforced. Please reduce the
size of these lots so that stream buffers are not within the lot area as much as possible. The ordinance allows up
to 50 feet of the landward side of stream buffers to be disturbed with mitigation, and this should be the guideline
to follow.
Page 2 of 4
ti✓ `tkuei
et 6
4,,°'I"1 Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
r
°»`� k Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
11 /,1 434.979.8121 (p)
041.1• 434.979.1681 (f)
o40, S DominionEng.com
s
RESPONSE: As discussed at the engineers meeting,we have updated the lot layout of lots 5, 13 and 76
to minimize the lot area located in stream buffer. On the final plat,the stream buffer will be indicated on
all affected lots and the standard stream buffer notes will be provided.
17. Provide typical driveway details for the roads. Specify driveway culvert sizes and locations with supporting
computations. The minimum size should be 15"dia. This will necessitate a revision to the typical ditch sections
to provide adequate cover, moving the ditch away from the shoulder. Where long runs of ditch are designed
(such as at Kendra sta. 34 to 17)a culvert diameter greater than 15"will likely be necessary, and this should be
clearly detailed.
RESPONSE: A typical driveway detail and culvert pipe capacity analysis has been provided on Sheet
RP18.
18. Detail inlet grading on slopes where grate inlets are placed to intercept ditch flow on grade. The ditch will
need to be wider, and a berm will be required to terminate the ditch at these points. Examples are structures 15,
8-9.
RESPONSE: A detail for the inlet grading has been provided on Sheet RP18.
19. Provide guard rail at hazard areas, culverts, and where a steep slope leaves the roadway edge. Examples
are Kendra sta. 16-18, sta. 31-34, and cul-de-sac, Cottontail Way sta. 12-14, 18-22, 24-26, etc.
RESPONSE: Guardrails have been added to the Road Plan where applicable.
20. VDOT approval is required.
RESPONSE: VDOT approval requirement has been noted.
21. Planning Division approval is required. Comments from Ellie Ray are attached
RESPONSE: Planning approval requirement has been noted.
22. Fire& Rescue Department approval is required. Comments from Robbie Gilmer are included below;
The following comments quoted from Robbie Gilmer(Fire& Rescue)will need to be addressed prior to
approval:
1. Cul-de-sac shall be 96 ft EP/EP.
RESPONSE: 90-foot diameter cul-de-sacs have been approved by Fire and Rescue Divsion with the
provision of a fire hydrant and no-parking signs in the cul-de-sac.
2. Add the symbol for fire hydrant between lot 26 &27.
RESPONSE: The fire hydrant symbol has been provided between lots 26&27.
3. Clarify if the hydrant between lots 24 &25 is a proposed hydrant or not.
RESPONSE: The hydrant layout has been updated due to Albemarle County Service Authority
comments.
4. Clarify the hydrant location at lots 20 and 21.
Page 3 of 4
5
0-- vs
44° Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
"�`� ► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
411�� 434.979.8121 (p)
o �►I' 434.979.1681 (f)
r044 DominionEng.com
a
RESPONSE: The hydrant layout has been updated due to Albemarle County Service Authority
comments.
5. Hydrant spacing shall be no more than 500 ft per travelway.
RESPONSE: The hydrant layout has been updated due to Albemarle County Service Authority
comments.
6. VSWFPC- D107.1 One-or two-family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one-or two-family
dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire
apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section D104.3.
RESPONSE: An emergency access has been placed next to lot 81 and a 22'-wide reservation for future
emergency access has been provided in between lots 33 and 34 on Cottontail Way.
We thank you for taking the time to review these plans. Please let me know if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Best regards,
Dustin Greene, EIT
Page 4 of 4
.r: a
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
January 15, 2015
Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB -20I4 -00193
Dear Mr. Deel:
We have reviewed the Whittington Subdivision -Phase B; with a seal date of November 7, 2014,
as submitted by Dominion Engineering, and offer the following comments:
1. There appears to be a line of sight conflict at the intersection of Cottontail Way and
Kendra Street. Due to the steep grades along Kendra Street the line of sight profile
should be generated from the sight lines rather than along the road profile.
2. The Iocations of the CD -I or CD -2's should be shown on the road profiles.
3. We recommend that the cul -de -sac maximum grade not exceed 4 %.
4. The 10 yr discharge should be provided to ensure that the minor channels (Roadside
Ditches) are adequately sized. It is also recommended that the lined ditches be
graphically shown in the plan set. It is difficult to read RP 18.
5. The 10 yr WSE should be provided for inlets that are within the ROW. This will help
ensure that the runoff will not build up and flow into the road.
6. The locations of the driveways should be shown. VDOT recommends the grades
along such entrances not exceed 10 %.
7. The stationing on the plan view for Pine Knot Road should be provided.
8. Culverts B &C- the computations state CMP and the profiles state RCP.
9. Culverts D &E- the pipe sizes should be Iabeled on the profiles.
10. Culvert E- the 10 yr WSE appears to be incorrect on the profile.
11. A minimum of 5' is to be provided between the end of the cut slope round -off and the
front slope of a berm ditch and /or a minimum of 5' is to be provided between the toe
of the fill slope and the front slope of a toe ditch. Therefore, additional right -of -way
may be needed for the maintenance of the ditch.
12. It appears that the liner should be labeled as grass for SCC 21, STA 17 -16.
13. Signing should be provided in the plan set. For example: A sign will be required for a
future stub out street (per the SSAR).
14. A temporary access easement will be needed for the cul -de -sac on Kendra Street.
15. Slopes that incur uniform flow velocities in excess of 10 fps should be avoided
because of the potential for abrasion. Slopes in excess of 16% are not preferred
because of the need for anchor blocks.
16. The culverts should be labeled on plan view so we can verify the placement and
computations.
17. The storm crossings, on the road profiles, do not have the correct material type. For
example: The profile at STA 41 +15.84 (Kendra Street) states RCP and the plan view
states HDPE as well as STA 28 +68.21 (Cottontail Drive) etc.
18. The viewports should be adjusted in order to see a complete storm run. For example:
on RP9 the storm run, structures 12 thru 10 is cut off, as well as the storm run 2 thru 1
on RP 12.
19. Will RCP or HDPE be used for stone runs 12 thru 1I, 5 thru 4 and 9 thru 8? The
profile sheets vs. plan sheets do not appear to match.
20. Safety slabs (SL -1) shall be used for DI's with heights greater than 12'. For example
storm structure 2.
21. For DI -I depths greater than 10' use a standard DI -IA.
22. The allowable spread for a local street with a shoulder is the shoulder with + 3 feet.
For example: storm structure's 3, 9 and 24 need to be revisited.
23. A Maintenance of Traffic Plan/Traffic Control Plan shall be provided for any work
activities within the state right of way and on all streets and highways that have been
accepted into the State Highway System.
24. VDOT standard details should be added to the site plan. For example: WP -2, SL -1,
IS -1, the future stub out street sign
I am available if you wish to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments. Please do not hesitate
to contact me at (434) 422 -9894.
Sincerely,
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewers:
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Whittington — Phase B
SUB- 2014 -00193
Dominion Engineering & Design, LLC
Stanley Martin Homes
24 November 2014
8 January 2015
Justin Deel, Glenn Brooks
1. Provide accurate existing topography (Ex. Phase A, existing Kendra Street grading) on plans as
well as Existing Conditions sheet. Provide more existing topography labels on plans for
readability. For example, Sheet RP5 has none, and please show all proposed contours' tie -in with
existing contours (Ex. RP6).
2. Several existing and proposed elevations shown along the horizontal axes of your profiles are
incorrect or do not match what is shown. Please correct.
3. Please label streets public or private.
4. Show and detail all entrance improvements on Rt. 631. The plan seems to indicate widening on
the public road, but no improvements are detailed; turn lanes, sight -line grading, turn tapers, radii,
pavement edge, sections and tie -in, entrance type designations, etc.
5. Show pavement and right -of -way widths for existing streets.
6. Show stationing at a 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
7. Show and label all signs; stop signs, street name signs, and speed limit signs are the minimum.
8. Please label street edge of pavement or curb radii at all intersections or turnarounds.
9. The drainage computations could not be followed. The inlet comps on sheet 19 appear to be for
curb and gutter, when all roads on this plan are rural sections. The SCC computations are by
station, which cannot be read on the drainage area maps. The line weights for drainage divides are
not all legible. The map for pipe runs does not have the pipe runs, and is too small to be legible.
Provide clear drainage area maps, showing acreage, hydrologic coefficient, and time of
concentration for each drainage area.
10. Provide traffic generation and distribution summary (ADT) and pavement designs.
11. Provide typical sections for proposed channels with location references.
12. Show critical slopes on your plans.
13. Pipe outfalls are too steep, and outlet velocities too high. Provide step down manholes to reduce
steepness and velocity. Provide channel adequacy demonstrations at each outfall.
14. The road plan needs to reflect grading on lots which will tie into road grading, as depicted on the
overlot grading plan and erosion and sediment control plan.
15. Show all utility line crossings in the drainage profiles. Show all existing and proposed culverts.
16. Lots 5, 13 and 76 have too much stream buffer within the lots to be reasonably enforced. Please
reduce the size of these lots so that stream buffers are not within the lot area as much as possible.
The ordinance allows up to 50 feet of the landward side of stream buffers to be disturbed with
mitigation, and this should be the guideline to follow.
17. Provide typical driveway details for the roads. Specify driveway culvert sizes and locations with
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
supporting computations. The minimum size should be 15" dia. This will necessitate a revision to
the typical ditch sections to provide adequate cover, moving the ditch away from the shoulder.
Where long runs of ditch are designed (such as at Kendra sta. 34 to 17) a culvert diameter greater
than 15" will likely be necessary, and this should be clearly detailed.
18. Detail inlet grading on slopes where grate inlets are placed to intercept ditch flow on grade. The
ditch will need to be wider, and a berm will be required to terminate the ditch at these points.
Examples are structures 15, 8 -9.
19. Provide guard rail at hazard areas, culverts, and where a steep slope leaves the roadway edge.
Examples are Kendra sta. 16 -18, sta. 31 -34, and cul -de -sac, Cottontal Way sta. 12 -14, 18 -22, 24-
26, etc.
20. VDOT approval is required.
21. Planning Division approval is required. Comments from Ellie Ray are attached
22. Fire & Rescue Department approval is required. Comments from Robbie Gilmer are included
below;
The following comments quoted from Robbie Gilmer (Fire & Rescue) will need to be addressed prior to
approval:
1. Cul -de -sac shall be 96 ft EP/EP.
2. Add the symbol for fire hydrant between lot 26 & 27.
3. Clarify if the hydrant between lots 24 & 25 is a proposed hydrant or not.
4. Clarify the hydrant location at lots 20 and 21.
5. Hydrant spacing shall be no more than 500 ft per travelway.
6. VSWFPC- D107.1 One- or two- family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one -
or two- family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with
two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section
D104.3.
Exceptions:
1. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus
access road and all dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic
sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the
International Fire Code, access from two directions shall not be required.
2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased
unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by
the fire code official.
Please consult the road plan and drainage plan checklists at the document center on the Albemarle County
website for further details. Due to the incomplete nature of this plan, further comments will likely be
necessary upon revision. It is expected that the grading and drainage layout will change due to comments
on the erosion control and stormwater management plans, which have asked that the existing topography
and drainage divides be more closely followed. (Examples on these plans would be where ditches are
shown on the low side of road sections. The contractor will expect these areas to sheet flow downslope,
away from the road, and not build a ditch, which is reasonable. It will be difficult to prevent this.)
File: Whittington Phase B Road - Drainage Plan Review.doc
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Memorandum
To: Justin Deel
From: Ellie Ray, PLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: January 7, 2015
Subject: SUB 201400193 Whittington Subdivision Phase B — Road Plans
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and the following comments from the Conditional Approval of
the Preliminary Plat have not been satisfactorily addressed:
1. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 4] Prior to Final Plat approval, an overlot grading plan must be submitted that
meets all requirements listed in Proffer 4 for Engineering review and approval. This review may result in a
reduction of the number of approvable lots.
• Items (a) through (h) under Proffer 4 must all be addressed, has an overlot grading plan been
submitted that meets all the necessary requirements?
2. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 7] The Application Plan approved with ZMA200600011 shows a picnic shelter
within Open Space J and two trails leading from Open Space J and connecting to the larger trail system
within the subdivision. One of the trails goes through Open Space H connecting to the trail system in Open
Space F, and the other goes between lots on Street B and Kendra Street to connect to the trail system in
Open Space E. These amenities should be provided as shown on the Application Plan; show the trail
system as indicated and note that the picnic shelter will be provided. Prior to Final Plat approval, a
performance bond will likely be required for the picnic shelter.
• The entire trail system, as shown on the approved Application Plan, should be included on the road
plans.
3. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 8] The 25' screening and landscaping easement must be shown and labeled on
the plat. A landscaping plan that meets current regulations for screening must be provided, either with the
road or WPO plans or as a separate submittal. Maintenance and responsibility of the screening within the
easement should be addressed in the Covenants and Restrictions mentioned above. A note alerting
affected owners to this easement restriction on their property shall be stated on the Final Plat.
• The required landscaping should be included on the road plans.
4. [ZMA200600011 Proffer 9] Trail locations and construction details should be provided on the Road and /or
WPO Plans.
• As noted above, all trail locations must be shown. Additionally, construction details must also be
provided.
5. [Comment] The Overview Sheet should include lot numbers and the trail layout.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.