HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500077 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2015-12-31COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project:
Timberwood Square—Road/Final Site Plan
Plan preparer:
Mike Myers, Dominion Engineering [172 S. Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA
22911, mmyers a dominioneng com]
Owner or rep.:
Highlife Townhomes, Inc, 307 West Rio Rd, Charlottesville, VA 22901
Plan received date:
23 Apr 2015 —ROAD PLAN
5 May 2015 —SITE PLAN
(Rev. 1)
1 Dec 2015 —ROAD PLAN
(Rev. 1)
3 Dec 2015 —SITE PLAN
Date of comments:
31 May 2015 (Road/Site)
(Rev. 1)
31 Dec 2015 (Road/Site)
Review Coordinator:
Ellie Ray
Reviewer:
John Anderson
R o a d P l a n s (SUB201500077)
Principal means of access to townhomes on Landon Lane, a proposed private street, does not conform to
the "standards of the county as set forth in section 14-412, throughout the street's length, including any
distance between the boundary of the subdivision and any existing public street" (Timberwood Blvd). —
Ref. Sec. 14-410.F.
Rather, design proposes access to Landon Lane townhomes via existing entrance to Medical and
Professional Offices located at 1800 Timberwood Boulevard, a small office park. Design may be revised
to meet standards in section 14-412 for proposed Lois Lane, but a parking lot is unworkable as proposed
connecting section of a private street linking townhomes on Landon Lane, and Timberwood Blvd. This
parking area (sheet R5) has a 24' wide aisle with perpendicular spaces for patients visiting University of
Virginia Health System, Forest Lakes Health Center, or DaVita North Dialysis center. 4 -May site visit
photos help make the point, and are available.
Design does not meet subdivision ordinance private street standards. Landon Lane, a proposed private
street, does not work if sole access to this street is through a parking lot. Recommend extend existing
access via Lois Lane to serve all townhomes, or, alternatively, provide access from Worth Crossing. Note
21 -May Planning comment letter: "It appears that lot lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision
application was submitted" (comment #2); and "This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA and
Engineering complete their reviews and grant their approval" (438). Engineering withholds approval of
proposed design.
The parking lot serving medical offices at 1800 Timberwood Blvd does not meet private street standards,
which, in this case, are identical with VDOT standards for public streets serving six or more lots:
a. Limited sight distance for vehicles reversing from parking spaces at north and south end of
parking lot. Routine conflicts between commercial parking and through -street traffic is likely.
(Rev. 1) Addressed —NA: see item #6, below.
b. This is a parking lot without sidewalk for ten spaces on the east side. Patients to either medical
facility using these spaces are forced to cross the parking aisle (which would become a street to
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
townhomes) at various points. Pedestrian conflict is inevitable. Design should eliminate conflict.
(Rev. 1) Addressed —NA: see item #6, below.
c. Anticipate townhome through -traffic speeds of 15mph, minimum. Min. sight distance: 15mph
traffic =170 -ft; 20mph =225 -ft; 25mph =280 -ft. County -wide typical private road minimum speed
limit is 25mph. Design for minimum safe sight distance. Show sight distance lines on plans.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
d. Minimum horizontal curve centerline radius: 200'; Provide minimum horizontal curve R. (Rev. 1)
Addressed —see item #24, below.
2. Note: Comment #1, if accepted by Planning, requires redesign. Many comments will be irrelevant if
Applicant accepts that Landon Lane cannot be constructed to meet 14-410, -412, VDOT, ACDSM
standards as designed. If Applicant/Planning accept need for redesign, many comments will be irrelevant,
but all other comments are relevant if Planning deems comment #1 is not applicable by virtue of prior
(preliminary) site plan approval. Engineering defers, but strongly recommends disapproving proposed
Landon Lane design. [Also: 18-32.7.2.1.a.; 32.7.2.2.a.] (Rev. 1) Addressed —NA: see item #6, below.
3. Engineering notes, for the record, that proposed design to use an existing medical office parking lot to
transition to a private street serving multiple residential townhome units is misguided. Conservative
estimate for 24 residential units yields 240 vehicle trips per day. It may be less if townhome ADT < single
family detached ADT, but effect is the same: traffic through an out-patient medical facility parking lot will
escalate dramatically. (Rev. 1) Addressed —NA: see item #6, below.
4. E-911 addressing —Clarify which private/public street Landon Lane (proposed) intersects. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
5. Provide sidewalk in front of 10 parking spaces on east side of existing medical office parking lot so
medical office patients/pedestrians are not forced to cross a street at random locations. (Rev. 1) Addressed
—NA: see item #6, below.
6. Provide pedestrian crosswalk from end of new sidewalk (comment #5) to DaVita Dialysis main entrance.
(Rev. 1) Addressed —NA: see 6 Nov 2015 Applicant response "The design has been updated so that Lois
Lane extends to Landon Lane and removes the Medical parking lot as an access for this development."
7. Provide traffic control signs at stop locations (intersections). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
8. Provide pedestrian crossing, speed limit, no parking, slow (etc) traffic control signs as needed, at
appropriate locations. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed As follow-up: designate Speed Limit (MPH).
9. Title sheet, sheet index —Use RP sheet designation. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. RP2 —Provide Approved WPO number for SWM -Facility, Arbor Lake. —see SP 14, SP 15, site plan. (Rev.
1) Addressed —ref. WPO2010500032.
11. RP2 —Provide date of Dominion boundary survey; (Approx.) date of RGA topographic survey. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
12. RP2 —Provide brief Narrative for Approved (or proposed conceptual) stormwater management. (Rev. 1)
Addressed —ref. WPO201500032.
13. Road plan approval requires VESCP plan application review and approval. (Rev. 1) Addressed —ref.
WPO201500032.
14. Road plan approval requires an approved VSMP plan, unless an approved unexpired WPO covers proposed
development (Rev. 1) Addressed ref. WPO201500032.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
15. RP2 —Please include note about the critical slope and undisturbed buffer waivers granted during the
preliminary site plan review (SDP201100042). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
16. RP3 —Provide narrative description that details ESC measures required during construction once portion of
storm sewer to be removed (outfall from Ex. DI 4) is removed. (Rev. 1) Addressed —ref. WPO201500032.
17. RP3 —Show portion of existing storm line to be removed between EX2A and EX2 to allow installation of
new DI -11. (Rev. 1) Addressed —6 Nov 2015 Applicant response: "DI -11 is no longer needed."
18. RP4, RPS, RP6 —Revise Private Access label to read Private RW. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
19. Provide 30' RW, minimum: Landon Lane, Lois Lane. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
20. RPS, RP6 —Provide roadway centerline stationing, horizontal curve data, PC/PT, etc. Additional comments
may reflect horizontal roadway data. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Label PC, Lois Lane,
Sta. 10+00(f). Shift PC label, Landon Ln., Sta. 11+61.77 which is obscured. Label horizontal curve
radius, Lois Lane (PC Sta.=14+.01.00/PT Sta. =14+59.23).
21. RPS, RP6 —Revise proposed private drainage easement widths between Str. 6A-6, and Str. 3-2: 20'
easement width is insufficient given storm pipe burial depth —ref. ACDSM 6.A.3.b., image, p. 14. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
22. RPS, RP6 —Increase curb radii to 3' minimum. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up: Label curb radius,
easternmost parking space, Lot 32/Lois Lane.
23. RPS, RP6 —Label 5' paved trail Class B or Class A. (ACDSM, 7.H, Trail standards/table, P. 19-20.) (Rev.
1) Addressed.
24. RPS, RP6 —VDOT minimum horizontal radius =200'. Revise Landon Lane, Lois Lane. (Rev. 1)
Addressed —ref. 6 Nov 2015 Applicant response, comment #1.d. "A minimum 200' radius was used on
Landon Lane. As discussed with Engineering [Div.] a 110' R was used on Lois Lane. This is the largest
radius that could be used to connect Lois and Landon Lane and not impact the lots."
25. RPS, RP6 —Turnarounds do not meet ACDSM turnaround specification; T-type turnarounds and branch
type turnarounds have been discontinued, as ineffective. (ACDSM, 7.F., Private Street Standards table,
footnote #2) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
26. R5, R6 —Dimension HC parking space striping. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
27. RPS, Existing parking lot —ref. 21 -May site plan (Planning Div.) comment #50: "Some of the parking in the
existing lot looks to be too short..." Area east of 12 existing parking spaces adjacent to proposed 5'
sidewalk requires a 2' strip. Spaces are 16' deep. 2' buffer is required with proposed 5' sidewalk width.
(ACDSM 7.C.6, image, p. 16) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
28. RPS, N parking lot —Provide additional area between last parking space, NW corner of lot, and brick
dumpster enclosure. Vehicles reversing from this space may collide with structure. Last space, NE corner
of lot, appears to have sufficient area for reverse maneuver without striking enclosure. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
29. RP5 —Similar to #28, provide additional area for vehicles reversing from easternmost parking space in front
of Lot 32 to maneuver without striking curb. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
30. RP5 —Eliminate 2 parking spaces in triangular common area. Perpendicular parking disallowed on private
streets. Also, these spaces do not obtain minimum required sight distance: 18-4.12.15.d. "[sight distance]
shall not be less than one hundred (100) feet." (Rev. 1) Addressed.
31. RP5 —Provide sight distance lines, plan view, all internal intersections: at Lois Lane and parking lot
entrances, at Landon Lane and parking lot entrances, for example. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
32. RP6 —Sight distance appears problematic for cars reversing from parking spaces between Lot 10 and Lot
11. Show sight lines for vehicles exiting these parking spaces. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
33. RP7, RP8 —Shade and show steep slopes (preserved/managed). Use (County GIS) steep slopes overlay
district as source of steep slopes overlay data. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
34. RP8, RPI I —Provide DI at sag (LP) Sta. 12+72.5, Landon Lane, plan/profile. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed.
As follow-up: RP5, RP6 —Provide flow lines, spot elevations, etc., to ensure positive drainage to inlets 2,
5A. Also: show/provide Std. VDOT underdrain at Lois Lane, Sta. 11+82.17, and Landon Lane, Sta.
12+44.84, RP 15.
35. RP 10 —Present storm drain data using VDOT LD -229; include to/from columns, consistent with LD -229.
(Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Storm Inlet calc: Max. spread inlet 5A W. Revise. Also:
inlet Ex. 4 spread 166.66' appears problematic. Examine and revise design if spread extends from this
(existing sag inlet) location into Lois Lane.
36. RP 10 /LD -229: revise capacity full column values. All values are 0.00, except Line No. 1 and 2. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
37. RP5, RP6 —Label storm lines, 1-13, in plan views. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
38. Note: RP10- LD -229, Additional comments possible once storm drain calculations revised/complete. (Rev.
1) Partially addressed —ref. comment #35, above.
39. RP 10 —Revise storm sewer profile, structure 1-Ex4 to clarify structure 1 and 2 invert IN/OUT data, which
is confusing. Additional comments possible. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
40. RP 10 —Revise storm sewer profile structure 11-Ex2A to include Ex2 — Ex2A; include structure 11. (Rev.
1) Addressed —6 Nov 2015 Applicant response: "DI -11 is no longer needed."
41. RP 10 —Provide Nyoplast yard drain rim Elev., revise proposed grading, and/or increase number of inlets to
prevent nuisance ponding in lawn areas; see, for example, 7.44' spread, inlet ID 10. (Rev. 1) Partially
addressed. As follow-up: dome style grate (appropriate for SWM facilities) is inappropriate for lawn areas.
Replace dome -style with yard -style grate —ref. Mfr. website, link/image below:
htti)://www.nvloplast-us.com/Erate-options
Grate Options
Nyloplast Drain Basins and IWine
Drains have grate optionsavailable
for every traffi, situation, weight
load, and site requirement. Our Drop
In grates work with virtually any other
pipe type.
mm�wrei 8esaurces. \ 'I
Grate ime� capacity mens
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
Additional°follow-up: Recommend against .5' high berms in lawn areas. Design function of berms may be
misunderstood. Homeowners will likely object to feature and remove or otherwise not maintain berms. A
simpler design (smooth swales) that ensures runoff reaches/enters all Nyoplast inlets/grates is preferrable.
42. RP 10 —Provide sample calculation for Nyoplast yard drain spread. It is unclear how spread values for yard
inlets was calculated. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
43. RPI I —Provide pavement design per VDOT pavement design guidelines to support typical street sections:
ADT, DR, Dr. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up, revise Pavement Design, RP 15, to show Min.
base lay pavement depth, BM 25.OA =2.5". Use ADT =244, p. 14 (3 -layer system) and p. 32 (Min. base
depth), VDOT Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia, Rev. Feb. 2014.
The nomograph depicted correlates the soil support value of the subgrade (SSV = Design CBR x RF), the
traffic volume (Design AADT), and the minimum required pavement design thickness index (DR) for
subdivision streets and secondary road pavement, based on AASHO design equations. The equation on
which the nomograph is based is: DR = 3.48Ln (AADT) — 1.48Ln (SSV) - 7.23, where Ln is the natural
logarithm. This nomograph assumes the following:
44. RPI I —Revise caption, typical section, to read Lois Lane and Landon Lane, not road A and road B. (Rev.
1) Addressed.
45. RP 13 —Provide Nyoplast yard drain typical detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
New:
46. Please remove sheet RP12 and revise index.
47. RP3 —Indicate portions of existing pavement to be demolished/removed, especially west end Landon Lane.
48. RP5 —Label existing pavement, west end Landon Lane. Also #47, above.
49. RP5 —Label travel way width of Lois Lane north of parking area for Lots 25-32, to avoid confusion.
50. RP5 — Provide label w/dimension for arrow that extends from Lot 15 to parking lot, or remove arrow.
51. RP5 —Label proposed revised raised top, Ex. MH -7.
52. RP -5 —Label (all) existing parking, Existing Parking.
53. RP6 —Remove extraneous line N of unit on Lot 1, extending to Lot 2, ending at Managed Slopes.
54. RP6 —Provide Pvt. San. (Lateral) Easement, Lot 11 for Lot 12.
55. RP6 —Provide Pvt. Water (Lateral) Easement, Lot 11 for Lot 12.
56. RP6 —Provide Pvt. Water (Lateral) Easement, Lot 12/13 for Lot 14.
57. RP6 —Provide Pvt. Water (Lateral) Easement, Lot 12 for Lot 13.
58. RP 14 —Inlets 2, 3: Provide detail/note that specifies subgrade support for MHs in fill sections VDOT 2007
Road & Bridge Specification 303.04 —Ref. text below, VDOT comment (#12) on an unrelated project:
12. There should be a noted added to the storm sewer profiles indicating that "Contractor shall place fi I I under
inlet(s) at 95% compaction & embankment material shall consist predominantly of sail & be placed in
successive uniform layers not more than 8" in thickness before compaction in accordance w VDOT 2007
Road & Bridge Specification 303,04. After 3' vertical placement of fill, contractor shall excavate recently
laid fill and install compacted VDOT std. 2 l A stone in an g'xg' o. c. compacted 2 l A area centered on the
tole t(s). Contractor shall repeat this operation until an 8'x8' o.c. compacted 21 A stone base in installed
between the existing ground and the proposed inlets) base in efforts to reduce the risk of settling.
Contractor shall provide VDOT w.' Fill compaction resstits prior to road acceptance."
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
59. RP 14 —Ex. 7 to 14: Locate sanitary sewer laterals above storm pipe. Current design (laterals below)
increases probability that lateral installation may damage storm drain unwittingly and without detection.
No revision required to depth of 8" sanitary line serving these lots, only sanitary lateral depth.
60. RP 14 —Ex. 7 to 14: Revise profile label Ex. 7 to read proposed TOP =490.40'.
61. RP 14 —Ex. Outfall to El: Check pipe slope, Ex. 54" RCP. This is existing line. Unless line is to be re -set
at 0.97% and 1.25% grade, expect uniform grade either side of 6' DIA doghouse MH (Str. 5). Revise as
necessary.
62. RP15 —Lois Lane profile: Recommend show MH E7 since it is only 3' from roadway CL.
Final Site Plan (SDP201500023)
1. Ref. SUB201500077 road plan review comments, 1-45, above. Many apply to Final Site Plan. Revise FSP
as appropriate. Note especially comments 1, 2, 3. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed Asfollow-up, please
ensure RP revisions transfer to corresponding Site Plan sheets. [ Also, see New comments, above 1
2. WPONSMP approval is required prior to Final Site Plan approval. Applicant response to this comment
should include reference to which technical criteria applies, Part IIB, or Part IIC. Albemarle County WPO
review will reference Part IIB water quality criteria, absent evidence project is grandfathered under
9VAC25-870-48. (Rev. 1) Addressed —ref. WPO201500032.
3. SP3 —Contours downslope of outfall pipe from drop inlet, Ex4, appear to indicate grading for a sediment
basin, or trap, and spillway feature before runoff reaches Arbor Lake. Clarify whether this area is a
sediment control measure or SWM facility for 1800 Timberwood Blvd medical offices. Provide WPO
number. (Rev. 1) Addressed —ref. WPO201500032.
4. Note: SP14, SP15, while helpful, provide insufficient detail from a VSMP compliance perspective. If
Arbor Lake is proposed stormwater management for Timberwood Square subdivision, submit WPONSMP
Application. Also, see #2, 3, above. (Rev. 1) Addressed —ref. WPO201500032.
5. Final Site Plan approval requires VSMP plan approval. (Rev. 1) Addressed —ref. WPO201500032 (SWM
approved; ESC Plan —review comments pending).
Thank you
434.296-5832-0069
File: SDP201500023, SUB201500077_Timberwood Square 123115revl