HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500159 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2016-03-12COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project: Wintergreen Farm, ROAD Plans
Project File Number: SU13201500159
Plan preparer: Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA
A. Road Plan (SUB201500159)
Title pg. —Recommend include Project File # in title: SUB201500159. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 2 —Please note location of existing 8" sanitary sewer, Rhett Court, and 0.668 Ac. parcel (Nguyen).
(Rev. 1) Addressed -23 Nov 2015 response letter: "Proposed sanitary sewer improvements at Wintergreen
Farms do not connect to this sewer system." Also, this connection option was discussed/eliminated during
meeting w/J. Lynn, S. Collins, and R. Falkenstein on 21 -Oct.
Sheet 2 —As with preliminary plat, please show rural area/development area boundary. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
Sheet 3
4. Include Lot 63 with Phase 1 since Phase 1 MH -11 is on this lot (see sheet 5). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Revise retaining wall. Shift retaining walls north to provide adequate sight lines and increase distance to
street trees. Recommend place a portion of Open Space at bottom rather than top of retaining walls. (Rev.
1) Addressed. Retaining walls removed.
6. Please label SWM Facilities `A', B', `C'. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
7. Provide ROAD Plan phase plan showing temporary cul-de-sac turnaround designs (ACDSM, F. Street
Standards, cul-de-sac detail/graphic, p. 20). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
8. Sheet 4/5 —Sanitary sewer design: Avoid stream buffers, preserved steep slopes, and floodplain. A meeting
has been scheduled to discuss utility design. While ACSA approves utility designs, Albemarle County must
evaluate proposed location against ordinance requirements. Proposed location is generally problematic.
(Rev. 1) Partially Addressed during discussion and meeting 21 -Oct. Submit `off-site sewer plan' for
review against steep slope, stream buffer, and floodplain overlay district ordinance requirements (discussed
8 -Feb w/Adam Long). Additional comments may follow review of off-site sewer plan submittal. This
portion of sewer is not off-site. Applicant response that "comment [is] no longer relevant" is misleading.
(Rev. 2) As follow-up: Engineering review request for revisions shared with ACSA [3/11/2016 10:01 AM].
22902, scott(a)collins-en in�g com, adam(cDcollins-engineering.com ]
Owner or rep.:
Alan Taylor, Riverbend Development [455 2"d Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 —
alan(&riverbenddev. com]
Owner:
Wintergreen Farm Land Trust, 600 Peter Jefferson Parkway #130
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Plan received date:
14 Sep 2015
(Rev. 1)
7 Dec 2015
(Rev. 2)
17 Feb 2016
(Rev. 3)
11 Mar 2016 (.PDF; _ Eneineerinc only)
Date of comments:
21 Oct 2015
(Rev. 1)
10 Feb 2015
(Rev. 2)
11 Mar 2016
(Rev. 3)
12 Mar 2016 (e-review/En ing< eerie only)
Reviewer:
John Anderson
A. Road Plan (SUB201500159)
Title pg. —Recommend include Project File # in title: SUB201500159. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 2 —Please note location of existing 8" sanitary sewer, Rhett Court, and 0.668 Ac. parcel (Nguyen).
(Rev. 1) Addressed -23 Nov 2015 response letter: "Proposed sanitary sewer improvements at Wintergreen
Farms do not connect to this sewer system." Also, this connection option was discussed/eliminated during
meeting w/J. Lynn, S. Collins, and R. Falkenstein on 21 -Oct.
Sheet 2 —As with preliminary plat, please show rural area/development area boundary. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
Sheet 3
4. Include Lot 63 with Phase 1 since Phase 1 MH -11 is on this lot (see sheet 5). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Revise retaining wall. Shift retaining walls north to provide adequate sight lines and increase distance to
street trees. Recommend place a portion of Open Space at bottom rather than top of retaining walls. (Rev.
1) Addressed. Retaining walls removed.
6. Please label SWM Facilities `A', B', `C'. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
7. Provide ROAD Plan phase plan showing temporary cul-de-sac turnaround designs (ACDSM, F. Street
Standards, cul-de-sac detail/graphic, p. 20). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
8. Sheet 4/5 —Sanitary sewer design: Avoid stream buffers, preserved steep slopes, and floodplain. A meeting
has been scheduled to discuss utility design. While ACSA approves utility designs, Albemarle County must
evaluate proposed location against ordinance requirements. Proposed location is generally problematic.
(Rev. 1) Partially Addressed during discussion and meeting 21 -Oct. Submit `off-site sewer plan' for
review against steep slope, stream buffer, and floodplain overlay district ordinance requirements (discussed
8 -Feb w/Adam Long). Additional comments may follow review of off-site sewer plan submittal. This
portion of sewer is not off-site. Applicant response that "comment [is] no longer relevant" is misleading.
(Rev. 2) As follow-up: Engineering review request for revisions shared with ACSA [3/11/2016 10:01 AM].
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 7
ACSA may request Off-site Sanitary Sewer Ext. Plan revision on behalf of County/Engineering. County
requests that in the future all development proposals be shared with Engineering. It is highly unorthodox
for infrastructure improvement design to be withheld. It is our understanding that ACSA requested a stand-
alone plan; this would not prevent Collins from submitting these plans to Engineering, a decision that
delayed review of sections of sanitary sewer that transit site, BMP, an existing subdivision street,
floodplain, stream buffers, and steep slopes. County is required to review this design (Rev. 3) Addressed.
Sheet 4
9. Shift retaining walls (near intersection Hallam Street and Maroon Creek Court) north to provide adequate
sight distance. Left turn movement, Maroon Creek Ct. onto Hallam Street, lacks sufficient sight distance.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Retaining walls removed.
10. Show sanitary laterals, Lots 7, 8, 95 14. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up: Lot 70 sanitary lateral partially
obscured; recommend shift label so lateral more clearly visible. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
11. Galena St. —Label Parking this side only north of intersection with Cooper Court works. Please review to
ensure Parking this side only signs are placed on the outside of horizontal curves. For example, south of
Cooper Court, this means No parking on the east side of Galena St. Parked cars on inside of curves
obstruct sight distance. (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed —please check Maroon Creek Ct. and Galena St. for
mixed use of No Parking/Parking Allowed signs. Revise as necessary. (Rev. 2) Not Addressed.
Parking/'No Parking' still alternate. Revise as necessary. (Rev. 3) Addressed with Rev. 2; review error.
Appreciate Applicant response.
12. Provide curb radius labels at intersection of Owl Creek Court and Ridgetop Drive. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Provide traffic control signs. Provide No parking signs to guide review. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
14. Provide street name signs and curb ramp labels. (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. Need street name signs at
Pfister Ave/Sunset Ave Extended, and at Ambrose Commons Dr./Ridgetop Dr. (unless sign exists). (Rev.
2) Addressed.
15. If sanitary sewer design is forced to occupy stream buffers, design must still avoid preserved steep slopes.
Ordinance prohibits. Ref. Preliminary Plat. (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed —Ref. comment #8, above.
(Rev. 2) Addressed [Critical slopes: 18-4.2.6.c.; Preserved Steep Slopes: 18-30.7.4.b.l.c.]. Applicant/ACSA
have shown "no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists" for sections of sanitary sewer
connecting Redfields with Mosby Mtn. This portion of sanitary sewer extension has been included with
ACSA comprehensive long-range plans to provide public sanitary sewer service to the development area
since 2004. [Oct 22, 2015 letter/J. Lynn to Collins Engineering /on -file] Also: J. Lynn/ACSA email [11/17/2015
3:06 PM] discussing options, or obstacles to options.
16. Sanitary sewer alignment may not impact or affect SWM `A' design. Recommend align sanitary sewer
southwest of SWM `A'. (Rev. 1) 23 -Nov 2015 Applicant response Acknowledged: "Sanitary sewer
alignment does not affect SWM `A' design. Grades and existing sewer invert elevations prohibit the
shifting of the sanitary sewer south-west of basin A."
17. Note: Avoidable stream buffer, floodplain, and preserved steep/critical slope impacts cannot be approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged.
18. Show/shade preserved steep/critical slopes on Turnstone Drive/elsewhere. Label steep/critical slopes.
(Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. Phase II critical slopes mislabeled managed critical slopes (term not found
in Code: managed/preserved steep, or critical). Revise. Also, build sites should not contain critical slopes;
specifically: Lots 28, 81, 82 (Also, Lots 73-85, generally). Ref. Planning Div. comment #10 (30 -Dec 2015).
(Rev. 2) Addressed. As follow-up: WPO plan sheets may require revision. Please check WPO plan sheets
against GIS layer to help ensure accurate critical/steep slopes labels.
19. Show rural/development area boundary. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 5
20. Revise `Parking this side only' label to west side of Hallam Street north of Maroon Creek Ct. Also, 411.
(Rev. 1) Partially Addressed —see comment #11, above. (Rev. 2) Withdrawn; street layout changed.
21. Provide Easement Table. Ref. ACDSM, 6.A. -p. 15. Review and include proposed 10' private sanitary
sewer easement/s, Lot 34 and elsewhere. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 7
22. Show sanitary lateral, Lots 45 and 64. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
23. Label radius horizontal curve, Bleeker St. (PC 11+18.11) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
24. Provide private sanitary sewer easement on Lot 54 required for Lot 43 to connect with sanitary system.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 6
25. Show/label MH 30, pipe structure #31. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
26. Revise sheet title to Grading and Drainage Plan. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
27. ACDSM 8.A.2. Slopes >3:1 require vegetative stabilization hardier than grass; mulch is ineligible cover.
Please delete `Proposed mulch ground cover for stabilization of the [2:1] slope' at SWM Area `A'. (Rev.
1) Not Addressed. ACDSM 8.A.2: "Slopes steeper than 3:1 must be permanently stabilized with
landscaping vegetation hardier than grass, which will not require mowing." Eliminate grass as ground cover
on slopes > 3:1 (except, possibly, sewer corridor). Label planting areas to receive non -turf plant species;
that is, slopes steeper than 3:1. Specify species. EC matting/grass cover does not meet design standard.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
28. Label pipe structure #149. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Asfollow-up: cannot locate Str. # 113, 114. Please
indicate location; if unlabeled, label. Also, please label Ditch 1 Str. 13813, and pipe N of Str. # 138B.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
29. Evaluate storm inlet design from Sunset Avenue Extended to Hallam Street against 25 -yr storm event. Ref.
Drainage plan review checklist. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
30. Furnish additional existing/proposed contour labels, this/other sheets. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
31. Recommend relocate storm MH -44 outside cul-de-sac. MH in travel lanes do not match 2% cross -slope
(may catch snow plow blade; less problematic at this location, but space is available outside cul-de-sac).
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 7
32. Owl Creek Ct. insetSta. 10+00 is confusing. Clarify. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
33. Owl Creek Ct. inset —Clarify/show Access to SWM Area `13'. (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. As follow-up:
Confirm that SWM Access between SWM `13' and SWM `D' is to be revised (floodplain FILL concerns).
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
34. SWM Area `C' inset—
a. With ROAD or VSMP, show Access/temp. stream crossing required to construct SWM Facility.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Also, please see #33, above.
b. Label stream. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
c. Label stream buffer. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
d. Use ACSA pump station (property) to access SWM facility if possible. (Rev. 1) Comment re-
stated. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
e. Avoid stream crossings and stream buffer impacts to maximum extent. (Rev. 1) Ref. WPO plan.
£ Show, estimate Area impact of unavoidable impacts, this/other sheets. (Rev. 1) Ref. WPO plan.
g. Mitigate stream buffer impacts with VSMP Application. (Rev. 1) Ref. WPO plan. (Rev. 2)
Addressed. Note: Follow-up comment will be sent to request slight revision to Mitigation Plan.
35. Provide Additional storm inlet structures: Ditch 1, Elev. 518.5' (Sta. 3+40±), w/berm backing; Ditch 2,
Elev. 522' (Sta. 6+50f). Ref. Drainage Plan Review checklist: "Dense development where fencing,
decking, etc is expected should provide yard inlets and pipes in easements, rather than ditches (Policy)"
(Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up: Label new ditch 1 inlet, N of Str. #138. Also, #28, above. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
36. West of Hallam St. —Label stream buffer. As elsewhere, estimate/provide mitigation for buffer impact
associated with storm drain or sanitary facilities. (Rev. 1) Ref. WPO plan. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Note:
Follow-up comment will be sent to request slight revision to Mitigation Plan.
Sheet 8
37. All road profiles, provide cross drain locations shown and labeled with VDOT designations (CD -1,2) at
every major cut and fill transition or sag curves. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 7
38. All road profiles: Add labels for End Construction, End Cul -de -Sac. Reference intersected street CL or EP.
Maroon Creek Ct. for example, shows crown at intersection with Hallam St. Cooper Ct. intersection with
Galena is unclear. Please add labels to profiles that clarify whether streets end at EP or CL. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
39. Note 4: Please check note for logic —phrase "In the event that the surface course is applied prior to 60 days,
the pugmill requirement will apply," might instead be intended to apply the requirement if more than 60
days elapse. Also, please revise if necessary `surface course' (note 4) to reference `intermediate course.'
(Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. As follow up: Revised Note reads: "The pugmill requirement shall apply if
more than 60 days elapse after the surface course is installed." This may more accurately be stated: "The
pugmill requirement shall apply if more than 60 days elapse before the intermediate asphalt pavement
course (or surface course if design does not include intermediate asphalt) is installed." (Rev. 2) Addressed.
40. Pavement Design, SSV, E of US Rt. 29 =4. Revision not required. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
41. Sheet 9 —Sunset Avenue Extended. If RWSA/ACSA sanitary sewer line exists within RW, please show.
Re£ sanitary sewer crossing, Sta. 18+65f, 11.7' below existing 18" DI waterline. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 11 — #42-45, NA —Retaining walls removed. —Note: Retaining Wall appears integral to SWM Area "A".
Follow-up WPO Plan review comment will be sent to Applicant. (Rev. 3) Addressed. —Ref. Collins email,
3/11/2016 3:18 PM (FGM): "A structural retaining wall design is not something I can complete unfortunately
and this will have to follow."
42. At top of stepped wall (upper wall), provide drainage ditch to direct runoff away from top off wall, not over
it. Runoff conveyance ditch should connect with street storm collection system. Evaluate ditch against Q1o.
43. Retaining Wall —Provide geotechnical design, similar to Briarwood Commercial Lot Road Plan.
Recommend grade areas between stepped walls flatter than 3:1. Provide safety railing for wall height >48".
Retaining wall plan review checklist is available.
44. Revise Wall section Map (sight distance comments, elsewhere).
45. Correlate wall stationing with road stationing, Hallam Street —see Briarwood Commercial Lot Road Plan.
Sheets 13, 14, 15 —Drainage profiles
46. Provide safety slab labels in profile view for structures >12'. A note is easily overlooked. (Str. 4, 30, 56,
54, 152). —That is, please show/label safety slab (schematically) inside structures requiring safety slab.
(Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. Provide SL -1, Str. #32. 30" DIA storm pipe leaving Str. 32 is immaterial,
is below safety slab, and does not conflict with SL -I Detail, Note 1 (#47, below). Pipe DIA —24" above
SL -1 (acceptable). Eliminate note for a bolt down or a lockdown MH. Provide SL -1. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
47. Safety slab, MH 30, does not work with 36" DIA pipe #31 —ref. VDOT SL -1 Detail, Note 1. Revise design:
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
NOTES=
1. THE STANDARD SAFETY SLAB cSL-1) IS TO BE USED ONLY WHEN SPECFIED IN THE PLANS
ON THE DRAINAGE SUMMARY SHEET AND/OR THE DRASNAGE DESCRIPTION. FOR MANHOLES.
JLINCTION BOXES, AND DROP INLETS WITH HEIGHTS GREATER THAN 12 FEET, THE SPACING OF
ADJACENT SAFETY SLABS SHALL BE & TO 12' WITH NO SAFETY SLAB LOCATED WITHIN 6 FEET
OF THE TOP OR BOTTOM OF THE STRUCTURE. SAFETY SLABS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED BELOW
ANY INLET PIPE OF 30" DIAMETER OR MATER.
48. Profiles: Str-40, -42, -66, -68, -86, -96, -108, -110: Provide Note consistent with VDOT comment (12.) on
unrelated project design—Add quoted "text" for storm drain inlet/MH structures proposed infill: (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
12. There should be a noted added to the storm sewer profiles indicating that "Contractor shall place fill under
inlet(s) at 95% compaction & embankment material shall consist predominantly of soil & he placed in
successive uniform layers not more than 8" in thickness beforc compaction in acoordance w VDOT 2Q07
Road &: Bridge Specification 303.04. After 3' vertical placement of fill, contractor shall excavate rcCently
laid fill and install compacted VDOT std. 2 l A stone in an Vx8' o.c. compacted 2 l A area centered on the
inlet(s). Contractor shall repeat this operation until an Vxg' o.c. compacted 21A scone base in installed
between the existing ground and the proposed inlet(s) base in efforts to reduce the risk of settling.
Contractor shall provide VDOT wl fill compaction results prior to road acceptanee."
49. Str-4, sheet 13: List/provide top elevation; Drainage description table lists as 518.29', but profile does not
match. List top elevation. Ensure profile and drainage description table rim Elev. are consistent. (Rev. 1)
Partially Addressed. Asfollow-up: Please check drainage description table rim elevations for Str. #150
(MH); #158 (DI) against profile elevations. Revise for consistency. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 7
50. Recommend revise pipe 9151 slope to 0.54% or higher. Min. slope =0.50%. If As -built condition is
<0.50% for a 306.79' L (any) pipe, it may prove problematic (bond inspection). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
51. Sheet 16 —Vel. =2.6 fps between point 186 and 184 < 3 fps. Revise design. (ACDSM 6.A.1.d.4). (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
52. Sheet 17 —Spread (4") cannot be evaluated. Provide street typical sections and No Parking signs to indicate
which side eligible for parking, so possible to evaluate spread against travel lane width. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
53. Sheet 18 —Ditch 1, Ditch 2: Provide additional storm inlet structures. —Also, item #35, above. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
54. Sheet 18/Ditch 5 —Specify jute ditch lining, entire ditch, since grass portion is entirely in fill. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
55. Sheets 19, 20, 21 —Specify safety slab for MH structures >12'. MH Str. #3, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 25, 26, 31,
33, 103, 104, 105, etc. —Also, see item #46, above. (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. As follow-up: MH -11
needs SL-1/safety slab. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Feb 16, 2016 Applicant response: "Per ACSA comments,
safety slabs have been removed from sanitary sewer manholes."
56. Sheet 22 —Provide VDOT inlet shaping, safety slab typical details. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
57. Sheet 25 —Provide barrier or landscaping to limit incidental trespass between sections of retaining wall.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
New:
58. Label inlet and pipe at N end of cul-de-sac, Pfister Ave. Provide profile and drainage details for these
structures. (Rev. 2) Partially Addressed. As follow-up: VDOT ES-1/ES-2 labels in profile/plan view.
Reconcile. (Rev. 3) Addressed.
59. Provide profiles: inlet #28/pipe #27; inlet #148/pipe #147. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
60. Sheet 3: (Rev. 2) Addressed.
a. Revise Existing Managed Slopes (Typ.) label west of Rural Area Development boundary to read
Existing Critical Slopes.
b. Provide North compass.
c. Emergency Access has been revised, to include radius. Label radius. Provide Auto -turn for
fire/rescue response vehicle. Proposed 12' width may be insufficient.
d. Plan does not appear to provide extension of streets (Sec. 14-409). Defer to Planning Division.
61. Sheet 8 —Provide typical section for Emergency Access. Ensure pavement design supports 60,000-70,000
lb. gross vehicle weight (fire rescue vehicles). (Rev. 2) Addressed.
62. Sheet 22 —Provide brief narrative of activities/purpose of Phase I / II Construction & Traffic Maintenance
Plans. Plan view details do not adequately explain. With Troy Austin's departure, County Engineering
seeks a better understanding of two-phase CTM Plans. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Defer to VDOT review.
63. Please provide labels, notes and TYP detail that specify steel bollards at Emergency Access. Notes/details
should specify DIA, HT, structural details of interest —spacing/depth of recess, etc. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Images below retained: steep slopes/ stream buffer have bearing on 30 -Dec 2015 Planning Div. ROAD Plan comments.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 7
GIS: preserved steep/critical slopes, 100- year floodplain, water protection ordinance buffers
0 0 �e�P Moue ��a�e�•-soon
' n a�n ueh
soon s�
i
\ r
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 7
0 o P rnoee s�aa� -oR
04 4F Fe-) s a®o."`O°oo
sPo,.
a.Z.a
9sa.R 's-�c
S
�N
0 G care Mae 0
434.296-5832-0096
Thank you
File: SUB201500159_Wintergreen Farm RP-031216rev3