The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB201300179 Correspondence Road Plan and Comps. 2015-05-13 TM B Q H L E R 28 Blackwell Park Lane,Suite 201 Warrenton,VA 20186 I NEPHONE 540.349.4500 May 13,2015 Via Hand Delivery County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 Attn: Glenn Brooks Re: Bent Creek Parkway Road Improvement Plan SUB-2013-00179 5th Street Station 5th Street SW&Avon Street Ext. Charlottesville,VA 22902 Albemarle County BE#V122001 Dear Mr.Brooks: Bohler Engineering is pleased to submit on behalf of S.J. Collins,the revised Road Improvement Plan for 5th Street Station in Charlottesville, VA. The following is our comment response letter addressing comments received from you dated April 7, 2015. Each comment is addressed and responded to as follows: Road &Drainage Plans: Comment 1: VDOT approval is required. Rev.1: Provide documentation of VDOT approval. Rev.2: Provide documentation of VDOT approval. Rev. 3: VDOT comments have been forwarded. Response 1: VDOT has approved the roadway plan. Comment 2: Bent Creek Road bridge plans and VDOT approval of bridge plans is required. The preliminary drawings that do not reflect actual conditions on sheet 15 are not sufficient. Rev.1: Provide final plans for the refurbishment of the bridge and abutments, and VDOT approval. Rev.2: Provide final plans for the refurbishment of the bridge and abutments, and VDOT approval. Rev. 3: Troy Austin has conveyed approved of the bridge plans,and a copy has been received. Response 2: Acknowledged. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM B O H L E R Glenn Brooks 5th Street Station R t e c, Bent Creek Parkway RIP(County) 5/13/15 Page 2 of 3 Comment 3: Plans for the Arch, footings and endwalls are required. These may also require VDOT approval. Rev.1: Provide final plans for the arch culvert, footings and endwalls,and VDOT approval. Rev.2: Provide final plans for the arch culvert,footings and endwalls. I understand you want to wait to contract final plans for this structure,but I don't believe I have any mechanism to review and approve final plans after a grading permit is issued for this work. Please address each of the conditions of approval of the special use permit for floodplain fill(SP201200029). Provide a:specific plan,profile and layout showing footings on an actual cross-section of the stream at this location,as well as endwalls. Rev.3: Please revise the plans with Building Permit B2015-00293-0. Please clarify how the retaining walls interact with the culvert ends. The plans appear to show an arched concrete beam which abuts the culvert plate,but there is a dashed line through the section in C-C which does not make sense. The section also calls out a headwalls by others, which is unexplained. The 3"gap would appear to expose the plate. The plans also say to see contech drawings for plat details. Please provide these. Detail what is being done to prevent rust. Response 3: Final Arch Culvert plans have been provided for approval. Comment 6: Retaining wall plans must be included.It does not appear possible to build the roadway without the walls. The generic manufacturer's details on sheet 14 are not sufficient. Rev.!: Provide final structural plans for the retaining walls. Rev.2: Provide final structural plans for the retaining walls. Rev. 3: As discussed in various meetings, the retaining walls have been changes to the Mesa system. This is reflected generically on sheet 15, but the revised retaining wall plans need to be provided. This would appear to affect walls E,A,B,C, and D. Response 6: Retaining wall plans are in review with VDOT. Once VDOT acceptance has been obtained,copies will be provided to the County. Comment 8: Planning approval will be required for the landscape plans. Rev. 1: Please refer to comments from Megan Yaniglos. Rev.2: Plans are under review by the Planning Division. Response 8: Planning approval is expected with this submission. Comment 16: All proposed entrances must have a standard VDOT designation and be 4% or flatter for 40'. Site entrances must be a part of an approved site plan. Rev. 1: a. Show the profile through the entrance at the bridge. The road appears to come to an abrupt end of grade. b. Show the cross-grade on Avon to be intersected. Rev. 2: Addressed. Rev.3: An issue of inadequate throat length in the northernmost entrance has been identified on the site plan, which may necessitate a change. This is not a necessary entrance to the site, so I want to clarify that the road plan does not carry with it an approval of site plan entrances. Response 16: Acknowledged. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM :` B O H L E R Glenn Brooks 5th Street Station F > ( I N 1 I R I N t: Bent Creek Parkway RIP(County) 5/13/15 Page 3 of 3 Comment 18: Specify the guardrail type and end sections. Rev. 1: not found. Note GR types on plan sheet locations. Rev. 2: Provide end treatments for guardrail. Rev. 3: Please provide guardrail end treatments on Sheets 5b and 5c. This is of concern on the Avon side, and over the arch culvert. The entrance stub over retaining wall C appears to be an area of potential danger. Perhaps this could be better coordinated with the site plan in process to show protection measures above the wall. Response 18: The guardrail end treatments have been noted on Sheets 4A,4B,&4C. Should you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at(540)349-4500. Sincerely, Bohler Engineering / ....AtiorAlw . 111V aniel R. Hines, P.E. cc: Dan Tucker,S.J.Collins DRH/lb H:\12\V 122001\Permitting\Jurisdictional Letters\County Road Improvement Plan 6th Review\150513 Bent Creek Pkwy RIP(County)6th Review CRL.doc CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM Glenn Brooks From: Bruce Lucas <bruce @sjcollinsent.com> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:44 PM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Bent Creek Parkway- Roadway Plans (SUB2013-00179) Thx Bruce Bruce Lucas From:Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS @albemarle.org] Sent: Monday,June 01, 2015 1:42 PM To: DHines @bohlereng.com Cc: Bruce Lucas Subject: RE: Bent Creek Parkway- Roadway Plans(SUB2013-00179) Daniel, Attached is the conditional approval of the road plans as it has been entered in our tracking system. Glenn Brooks, P.E. County Engineer Albemarle County From: DHines @bohlereng.com fmailto:DHines @bohlereng.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 5:19 PM To: Mark Graham Cc:Glenn Brooks; dan@sicollinsent.com; bruce@sicollinsent.com;Valerie Long Subject: Bent Creek Parkway- Roadway Plans(SUB2013-00179) Mark&Glenn, Thank you for working through all of the arch culvert items for the roadway. As you are aware, we have submitted the roadway plans and all of the documentation requested by the County for the arch culvert. We obtained the original signed and sealed documents last week and submitted the package on Wednesday with some additional plan copies submitted on Thursday. My understanding is that the roadway plan is now waiting for the other agencies to respond that this latest plan is approved. Do we need to go back to all agencies again and get their approvals of this plan when they had all previously approved the roadway plan? The changes associated with this set were due to comments from the County. As you know,we are anxious to get the final approvals in place. Please let me know what we can do to get this approved as quickly as possible. Thanks! Daniel R.Hines,P.E. Project Manager 1 BOH 4,, €. 28 Blackwell Park Lane,Suite 201 I Warrenton,VA 20186 P : 540-349-4500 I M : 540-454-9642 I dhines@bohlereng.com Serving the East Coast Visit our new website! Confidentiality Note:This e-mail,and any attachment to it,contains confidential information intended only for the use of the designated recipients, which information may also be privileged.If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient,the document has been received in error and any use,review,dissemination,distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.If you have received this e-mail in error,please notify the sender via reply e-mail and immediately delete this e-mail from your system. 2 $' OF AL. 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: 5th Street Station Plan preparer: Bohler Engineering, [dhines @bohlereng.com] Owner or rep.: New Era Properties [dan @sjcollinsent.com] Plan received date: 16 Dec 2013 Rev.1: 22 May 2014 Rev.2: 1 Oct 2014 Rev.3: 27 March 2015 Date of comments: 12 Feb 2014 Rev.1: 11 June 2014 Rev.2: 7 Oct 2014 Rev.3: 7 Apr 2015 Reviewer: Glenn Brooks A.Road and drainage plans(SUB201300179) 1. VDOT approval is required. Rev.1: Provide documentation of VDOT approval. Rev.2:Provide documentation of VDOT approval. Rev.3: iiitire been forwarded. 2. Bent Creek Road bridge plans and VDOT approval of bridge plans is required. The preliminary drawings that do not reflect actual conditions on sheet 15 are not sufficient. Rev.1:Provide final plans for the refurbishment of the bridge and abutments, and VDOT approval. Rev.2:Provide final plans for the refurbishment of the bridge and abutments, and VDOT approval. Rev.3:Troy Austin has,ix nveyed`apprnved of the"bridge plans,and a copy has been received. 3. Plans for the Arch,footings and endwalls are required. These may also require VDOT approval. Rev.1: Provide final plans for the arch culvert,footings and endwalls,and VDOT approval. Rev.2:Provide final plans for the arch culvert,footings and endwalls. I understand you want to wait to contract final plans for this structure,but I don't believe I have any mechanism to review and approve final plans after a grading permit is issued for this work.. Please address each of the conditions of approval of the special use permit for floodplain fill(SP201200029). Provide a specific plan,profile and layout showing footings on an actual cross-section of the stream at this location,as well as endwalls. Rev.3: wise ep wit .Btd1 rgT�t 82015,00293 .> clartfyhow the retaining milla *culiiiii.iiids,':Thp-,..p4tts appear to show a n n bed cancretelbeam which abuts the c tivertip re is a dashed mine through the section in which does:not make sense. The sixttion alb ;headwall by others whieh is unexplained: 3"gap:wit:lid,appeartonxpose the}fie.,,ti4i say to seneonteelidrawings for plate details. Please:provide these. Detail wh to went xlist 4. Stormwater management for the roadway is required. Portions of the road appear to drain directly to the creek. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 5 Rev.1: More of the roadway needs to be captured and treated before release. It appears the horizontal curve around the north end of the site is untreated. Rev.2: This is not addressed. It may be with the IIC criteria computations in the stormwater management plan,but this is not clear yet. Rev.3: comment addressed on other plans. 5. The site cannot be graded as part of the road plan. The site grading is shown on other plans, and there seems to be some confusion on what plans cover which items and when they will occur. Rev.1: addressed. 6. Retaining wall plans must be included. It does not appear possible to build the roadway without the walls. The generic manufacturer's details on sheet 14 are not sufficient. Rev.1:Provide final structural plans for the retaining walls. Rev.2: Provide final structural plans for the retaining walls. Rev.3: As discussed ix v us' ings,the retaining walls have been changed to!the Mesa system. This is refleetedoneAeidly;tin sheet 15,but the revised;retaining wall plans need to be provided. This would.appear',tonffect walls E,. .,B,C and D. 7. Provide horizontal curvature information. This was not found. A 25 mph speed limit does not appear adequate for this road. A 35mph speed limit seems appropriate as a minimum. Rev.1: The design speed of 30mph for an urban collector,as indicated in the VDOT Road Design Manual,is acceptable. 8. Planning approval will be required for the landscape plans. Rev.1: Please refer to comments from Megan Yaniglos. Rev.3: Ply are inidern s likthellanning Division. 9. The drainage areas were not provided as indicated on sheets 8A-C. Drainage computations could not be reviewed. Provide drainage computations for the stormsewer,and for the arch culvert crossing. It is not clear why HGL tables are included. All pipes should be designed within open channel flow capacity. Rev.1: Computations were not found for the arch culvert. Rev.2: Provide the rest of the hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the arch culvert. We talked about the 2yr channel analysis,and a drainage area map is needed. Rev.3: addressed. 10. The topography is out of date on the Avon side. Please update the topography. Rev.1: Please indicate the date and source of existing topography on the plan. Rev.3: dropped. 11. The stream buffer line is not legible. Please correct. Regarding the stream buffer;A mitigation plan is required and will need to address; a. The large basin in the stream buffer will need to be moved. See the phase 2 comments. b. There is too much clearing shown for the stormsewer outfalls and pipes, and these will need to be narrowed. c. It is not clear why the streambank is proposed to be graded out at each pipe discharge. This does not appear acceptable. Rev.1: The mitigation plan is being reviewed separately. Rev.3: This has been addressed on other plans. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 5 12. The demolition plans could not be deciphered. They appear unnecessary, as the limits of the disturbance on the erosion and sediment control plans will govern,and they are not in this plan set. Rev.1:no change. Rev.3: dropped. 13. Show easements over all drainage outside the right-of-way. Rev.1: addressed 14. Proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have low maintenance ground cover specified(not grass). Rev.1: addressed. 15. Please provide a copy of your critical slopes waiver for the disturbances shown on the plan. Rev.1: A new zoning ordinance section was approved since this plan was last reviewed. This is the steep slopes overlay district,which will apply to some of the preserved slopes on this site. This will limit the design of retaining walls in this area. Please refer to 18-30.7. Rev.2:not addressed Rev.3: addressed with Planning. 16.All proposed entrances must have a standard VDOT designation and be 4% or flatter for 40'. Site entrances must be part of an approved site plan. Rev.1: a. Show the profile through the entrance at the bridge. The road appears to come to an abrupt end of grade. b. Show the cross-grade on Avon to be intersected. Rev.2: addressed. Rev.3: An i ue of inadequate throat'.length in the northernmost entrain*has been identified on the Ohe; ,'ithidi.nhay ne ' a change. 1b4sisoqlthecess.arY entrance th the site, l want to road plan&isnot carry with it an appeal c ;stte;plan entrances. 17. Please provide the traffic study for all the turn lane lengths and all the entrances. It seems odd that there are so many entrances with left turn lanes,but no right turn lanes or tapers. Rev.1:Nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: addressed. 18. Specify the guardrail type and end sections. Rev.1:not found. Note GR types on plan sheet locations. Rev.2:Provide end treatments for guardrail. Rev.3: Please proViii,egiratilrait end treatments on shy5bandlc: This is of concern on the Avon side;inilt$14i a arch arehartivert. The.entrance glib over retai ing walk appears to be an area of potential tiat danger.''Perhaps this could be better coordinated with,the site plan a.,processs process show Protection measures abtive the wall. 19. The signage plan does not appear adequate. More speed limit signs are needed,warning signs for the cross-walks,end-of-state maintenance, street name signs.,park-and-ride signage,etc. Rev.1: Show and label county street name signs according to the County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance. Note special plates on signals also. Rev.2: addressed. 20. Provide pavement design computations. Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 5 Rev.1: addressed. 21. Provide a typical sidewalk detail. Rev.1: The detail says width varies. I do not find any but 5' sidewalks. Rev.3: dropped 22. A grade transition needs to be provided from Avon Street at the crown tangent of-2%. Rev.1: could not determine on drawings. Rev.2: addressed. 23. Specify underdrains and cross-drains on the plans and profiles. Rev.1:Nothing was found on profiles. UD-4 callouts were on the plan sheets. UD-3 under sidewalk is also appear to be necessary to meet VDOT standards. Rev.2:Need cross drains at cut and fill transitions. Rev.3: addressed. 24. The typical sections must specify maximum shoulder and clear zone grades,rather than simply"tie- out". Rev.l: addressed. 25. Planting strips must be a minimum of 6' wide. Rev.1: addressed 26. Drainage profiles need to show; a.All utility crossings Rev.1: addressed. b. material structural classification for pipe. Rev.1:not found. Rev.2: addressed c. inlet shaping for any drop of 4' or more Rev.1: not found Rev.2 addressed. d. safety slabs in any structure taller than 12' Rev.1: addressed. Rev.2: addressed. e.flatter grades at discharge. Steep pipes with high velocity discharges should be avoided. Energy dissipation and scour protection are needed. Rev.1: addressed. 27. The park and ride area will need to follow the county site plan requirements (Code 18-32, 18-4.12), using curb and gutter. Rev.1: addressed. 28. The drainage system from the entrance on Avon cannot simply release above the park and ride lot. Rev.1: addressed. B.Stormwater Management and Mitigation Plan Plans addressing the road have not been received. Comments on the phase 2 plans and the site plan have been sent previously and seem to cover some of the items shown on this plan. It is not clear where a Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 5 demarcation lies. Rev.1: These plans and amendments are being reviewed separately. Rev.3: Stormwater and mitigation plans have been approved. C.Erosion Control Plan(WPO201300074) Michael Koslow, who had these plans in his review queue,has left the county. After his departure,this plan was found to be beyond the 45 time limit for review, and so it is approved on that technicality. It is noted that the limits do not include the road. There will also need to be an approved mitigation plan before a permit can be issued. Rev.1: These plans and amendments are being reviewed separately. Rev.3: Erosion control plans have been approved. Glenn Brooks From: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) [Nathran.Austin @vdot.virginia.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 2:00 PM To: vfort @rivanna.org; Glenn Brooks Cc: Megan Yaniglos Subject: RE: SDP2015-009 Fifth Street Station Victoria, The bridge plans have been approved by our Bridge section at the District. I have a set of bridge plans that I had to ask for a copy of from Bohler Engineering. You are certainly welcome to come by to look at them, or if you would like to have a set,you may need to contact Bohler to request a set. Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Charlottesville Residency 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville,VA 22911 Phone: (434)422-9782 Fax: (434)984-1521 From: Victoria Fort [mailto:vfortCa�rivanna.orq] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:40 AM To: Glenn Brooks; Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) Cc: Megan Yaniglos Subject: RE: SDP2015-009 Fifth Street Station Thanks Glen. Based on previous reviews, I do not anticipate any impacts to the existing sewer main as part of the road construction. Troy, can you confirm whether the bridge plans have been reviewed and approved?Would it be possible to get a copy to look over? Thanks a lot, Victoria Victoria Fort, EIT Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville,VA 22902 (P):(434)977-2970 ext.205 (F):(434)295-1146 From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS(aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 2:28 PM To: Megan Yaniglos; Victoria Fort Cc: Alex Morrison; Troy Austin; Mark Graham; Todd Shifflett Subject: RE: SDP2015-009 Fifth Street Station 1 Victoria, I don't believe the county has ever received a plan for the Bent Creek Road Bridge. VDOT has apparently approved a bridge plan, but did so without any local input, as far as I can tell. We have a set of road plans in the office, but I have not seen that it contains plans for the bridge. Also, because they have not yet provided an application or review fee,the road plans have not been distributed for review. Glenn Brooks, P.E. County Engineer Albemarle County From: Megan Yaniglos Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:01 PM To: vfort(arivanna.orq Cc: Alex Morrison; Troy Austin; Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: SDP2015-009 Fifth Street Station Victoria: I believe the bridge was included with the road plans that Engineering distributes. You may want to check with them to see if they have any copies for you. We were not aware that RWSA needed to see this plan, as it is not our practice to send road plans to you. If in the future you need to see road plans, please let us know. Thank you, Megan From: Victoria Fort [mailto:vfort@ rivanna.orq] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 7:19 PM To: Megan Yaniglos Cc: Alex Morrison Subject: SDP2015-009 Fifth Street Station Megan, RWSA has reviewed the final site plan for 5th Street Station-Overall Phase II as prepared by Bohler Engineering and dated 2/20/2015 and has the following comment: Since the proposed development will produce over 40,000 gallons per day of wastewater, Phase II of the 5th Street Station Development will require a flow capacity certification from RWSA prior to final site plan approval. Additionally, I wanted to see whether a plan was ever submitted to the County for the Bent Creek Road Bridge over Moores Creek, since this may impact the existing RWSA Moores Creek Interceptor. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks a lot, Victoria Victoria Fort, EIT Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 2 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville,VA 22902 (P):(434)977-2970 ext. 205 (F):(434)295-1146 3 Nod 28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201 BOPILER Warrenton, VA 20186 PHONE 540.349.4500 E N G I N E E R I N G FAX 540.349.0321 May 20,2014 Via Hand Delivery County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 Attn: Glenn Brooks Re: Road Improvement Plan SUB201300179 5th Street Station 5th Street SW&Avon Street Ext. Charlottesville,VA 22902 Albemarle County BE#V122001 Dear Mr. Brooks: Bohler Engineering is pleased to submit on behalf of S.J. Collins,the revised Road Improvement Plan for 5th Street Station in Charlottesville, VA. The following is our comment response letter addressing comments received from you dated February 12, 2014. Each comment is addressed and responded to as follows: Road and Drainage Plans(SUB201300179): Comment 1: VDOT approval is required. Response 1: Comment Acknowledged. Comment 2: Bent Creek Road bridge plans and VDOT approval of bridge plans is required. The preliminary drawings that do not reflect actual conditions on sheet 15 are not sufficient. Response 2: Comment Noted. Bridge plans have been revised per actual layout and have been provided on Sheet 15. Comment 3: Plans for the Arch, footings and endwalls are required. These may also require VDOT approval. Response 3: Structural plans for arch, footings, and endwalls are currently being designed and will be submitted for permit prior to construction in that area. Comment 4: Stormwater management for the roadway is required. Portions of the road appear to drain directly to the creek. Response 4: Comment Noted. Stormwater management for the entire site will be addressed with the WPO Phase 2 plan that has been submitted separately but in tandem with this Bent Creek Parkway Plan. Please refer to the WPO Phase 2 plan for additional Detail. OTHER OFFICE LOCATIONS: •Southborough, MA •Albany, NY • Purchase, NY • Ronkonkoma, NY •Warren, NJ •Center Valley, PA 508.480.9900 518.438.9900 914.251.9800 631.738.1200 908.668.8300 610.709.9971 •Chalfont, PA •Towson, MD •Sterling, VA • Bowie, MD • Fort Lauderdale, FL 215.996.9100 410.821.7900 703.709.9500 301.809.4500 954.202.7000 CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PROJECT MANAGERS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS www.BohlerEngineering.com la] B O H L E R ` Glenn Brooks ENGINEERING 5th Street Station Road Improvement Plan 5/20/14 Page 2 of 5 Comment 5: The site cannot be graded as part of the road plan. The site grading is shown on other plans, and there seems to be some confusion on what plans cover which items and when they will occur. Response 5: Grading plan has been revised to only show grading associated with the Road Plan. The grading for the Wegmans Plan has also been provided, and greyed back, for reference purposes only. Comment 6: Retaining wall plans must be included. It does not appear possible to build the roadway without the walls. The generic manufacturer's details on sheet 14 are not sufficient. Response 6: Comment Acknowledged. Retaining wall plans are in design by the structural engineer and will be submitted for reference with the review of this plan. Comment 7: Provide horizontal curvature information. This was not found. A 25 mph speed limit does not appear adequate for this road. A 35 mph speed limit seems appropriate as a minimum. Response 7: Horizontal curvature information has been provided. The design speed was discussed initially with VDOT. Due to the site challenges with Moores Creek and given the pedestrian and bike accessibility as well as the significant grade challenges, it was felt that a 25 mph speed was more appropriate. The roadway has been designed to be urban low speed and super elevated. Please see Sheets 4A-C, 5A-C,and 6D. Comment 8: Planning approval will be required for the landscape plans. Response 8: Comment Acknowledged. Plans have been submitted for approval with Planning department. Comment 9: The drainage areas were not provided as indicated on sheets 8A-C. Drainage computations could not be reviewed. Provide drainage computations for the stormsewer, and for the arch culvert crossing. It is not clear why HGL tables are included. All pipes should be designed within open channel flow capacity. Response 9: Drainage areas have been provided. Please see Sheets 8A-C. Storm sewer calculations have also been provided for review. Please see Sheets 11H-J. HGL tables have been included due to select pipes being under pressure in order to raise the Stormwater Management Vaults to a maintainable depth. Also, the arch crossing has been designed to span the full creek width. Comment 10: The topography is out of date on the Avon side. Please update the topography. Response 10: Existing topography has been revised. Please see Sheet 5C. Comment 11: The stream buffer line is not legible. Please correct. Regarding the stream buffer; a mitigation plan is required and will need to address; a. The large basin in the stream buffer will need to be moved. See the phase 2 comments. b. There is too much clearing shown for the stormsewer outfalls and pipes, and these will need to be narrowed. c. It is not clear why the streambank is proposed to be graded out at each pipe discharge. This does not appear acceptable. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS CI] BOHLER`'l E N G I N E E R I N G Glenn Brooks 5th Street Station Road Improvement Plan 5/20/14 Page 3 of 5 Response 11: The stream buffer line has been made more legible. A stream buffer mitigation plan has been submitted for review. a. The large basin has been removed as requested. b. Proposed grading has been narrowed in order to minimize impact and clearing. c. As discussed,the outfall of each storm sewer pipe has been graded out and turned so that the energy of the water flowing out of the pipe would be dissipated, and then discharge in the direction of the flow in the stream. Please see Sheets 5A-C. Comment 12: The demolition plans could not be deciphered. They appear unnecessary, as the limits of the disturbance on the erosion and sediment control plans will govern, and they are not in this plan set. Response 12: Comment Acknowledged. As requested, Demolition plans have been removed from this plan set. Comment 13: Show easements over all drainage outside the right-of-way. Response 13: Drainage easements have been provided on all drainage outside of the right-of-way. Please see Sheets 4A-C. Comment 14: Proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have a low maintenance ground specified (not grass). Response 14: Comment Acknowledged. A note has been added to the Landscape Plan. Please see Sheet 9A. Comment 15: Please provide a copy of your critical slopes waiver for the disturbances shown on the plan. Response 15: Comment Noted.The Critical Slopes waiver has been provided for your reference. Comment 16: All proposed entrances must have a standard VDOT designation and be 4% or flatter for 40'. Site entrances must be part of an approved site plans. Response 16: Comment Noted. All entrances have been labeled with a VDOT designation and are graded at 4%or flatter for the first 40'. Please see Sheets 4A-5C. Comment 17: Please provide the traffic study for all the turn lane lengths and all the entrances. It seems odd that there are so many entrance with left turn lanes,but no right turn lanes or tapers. Response 17: Comment Noted. For your reference, a copy of the Traffic Study for Bent Creek Parkway will be provided under separate cover. Comment 18: Specify the guardrail type and end sections. Response 18: A detail has been provided specifying the type of guardrail and end sections. Please see Sheets 13A-B and 16A. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 0 Glenn Brooks E N G I N E E R I N G 5t'Street Station Road Improvement Plan 5/20/14 Page 4 of 5 Comment 19: The signage plan does not appear adequate. More speed limits signs are needed, warning signs for the cross-walks, end-of-state maintenance, street name signs., park-and-ride signage,etc. Response 19: The Signage plan has been revised to include the revisions discussed. Please see Sheets 18A-C. Comment 20: Provide pavement design computations. Response 20: Pavement design computations have been provided. Please see Sheet 13B. Comment 21: Provide a typical sidewalk detail. Response 21: Typical sidewalk detail has been provided. Please see Sheet 16C. Comment 22: A grade transition needs to be provided from Avon Street at the crown tangent of-2%. Response 22: As discussed and requested by VDOT, a vertical curve has been provided from Avon Street to Bent Creek Parkway. Please see Road Profile on Sheet 6C. Comment 23: Specify underdrains and cross-drains on the plans and profiles. Response 23: Underdrains and Cross-drains have been provided. Please see Sheets 4A-C and 11A-F. Comment 24: The typical sections must specify maximum shoulder and clear zone grades, rather than simply"tie-out". Response 24: Typical sections have been revised to specify maximum shoulder and clear zone grades. Please see Sheets 13A-B. Comment 25: Planting strips must be a minimum of 6' wide. Response 25: Planting strips have been revised to 6' wide. Please see Sheets 9A-C. Comment 26: Drainage profiles need to show; a. All utility crossings b. Material structural classification for pipe. c. Inlet shaping for any drop of 4' of more d. Safety slabs in any structure taller than 12' e. Flatter grades at discharge. Steep Pipes with high velocity discharges should be avoided. Energy dissipation and scour protection are needed. Response 26: Profiles have been updated in order to show all utility crossings and material classification of pipe. A note has been provided stating that all inlets with a drop of 4' or more shall have inlet shaping. Safety slabs have been provided in any structure taller than 12'. Lastly, pipes have been flattened, and rip rap has been added in order to dissipate energy before entering Moore's Creek. Comment 27: The park and ride area will need to follow the county site plan requirements(Code 18-32, 18-4.12), using curb and gutter. Response 27: Park and Ride area has been revised to use curb and gutter. Please see Sheet 4C. CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS BOH LER `'-' E N G I N E E R I N G Glenn Brooks 5`h Street Station Road Improvement Plan 5/20/14 Page 5 of 5 Comment 28: The drainage system from the entrance on Avon cannot simply release above the park and ride lot. Response 28: Drainage system has been revised and is now collected into the storm system along Bent Creek Road and controlled with the landfill pond. Please see Sheets 4A-C. Should you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at(540)349-4500. Sincerely, Bohler gineering 010.- aniel R. Hines, P.E. cc: Dan Tucker, S.J.Collins DRH/1b H:\12\V122001\Permitting\Jurisdictional Letters\County Road Improvement Plan 2nd Review\140520 Road Improvement Plan 2nd Review CRL -Engineering.doe CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS