Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900091 Review Comments 2010-02-01Gerald Gatobu From:DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [Joel.DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent:Monday, February 01, 2010 2:11 PM To:Gerald Gatobu Cc:Amy Pflaum Subject:Arden Place SDP - 2009 -00091 Arden Place SDP - 2009 -00091 Gerald, I have reviewed the above referenced plan and have the following comments: 1. All proposed construction is off of state maintained roads ROW and VDOT did not review any entrances or roads on this plan. 2. The signal warrants analysis for the intersection at Rio Road and Putt Putt Place has been re- evaluated by VDOt Traffic Engineering and the below e -mail is their findings and or recommendations. I recommend that because of the close thresholds in the study, the developer reevaluate the warrant analysis as needed or at full build out to see if conditions change and a signal is warranted. 3. No changes to the site plan are required by VDOT. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio©vdot.virginia.gov From: Parman, William H. (Bill) Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:39 AM To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. Cc: Sumpter, Allan D; Shiley, Matthew, PE; Byington, Christopher; Kulkarni, Vidyadhar (Vijay), PE, PTOE; Perry, Richard Subject: Rio and Putt Putt Joel, Per your request I reviewed the consultants warrant analysis for the intersection of Rio Road and Putt Putt Place in the Arden Place TIA. (There conclusion was that a traffic signal is not warranted at this time based upon existing traffic, combined with their projected volume and grown to 2015). As you know Route 631, Rio Road East is functionally classified as an urban collector but realistically functions as a minor arterial, with a 2007 ADT of 28,000. It is five lane facility with a two -way left turn lane to the south of this intersection but has a typical left turn lane on the approach from the west. My comments are as follows: 1 The warrants used for the analysis were 2000 MUTCD; they should have used current standard 2003. The results may not change but the difference is significant. Although their procedure for analysis was acceptable; all or part of right turn traffic can be deleted as stipulated in the MUTCD, when all is deleted, the traffic lane is deleted. When this is done then it is the engineer's judgment and conclusion that if a signal were installed all right turn traffic would have no problem going right on red. It may also be acceptable to retain all or part of the traffic and keep the side street as two lanes. Conflicting and prevailing traffic at the varying times of days should be considered in this analysis. Also, the threshold reductions for speed are as stipulated in the MUTCD, and VDOT follows these guidelines (MUTCD states that warrants can be reduced to 70 % when mainline speeds exceed 40 mph). We checked the latest 3 year crash history available, and briefly reviewed the site and sight distances at the intersection. There were 3 angle type and one sideswipe collision in this timeframe, 1/1/2006 to 12/31/09. As the report states the crash experience warrant was not met, our review confirmed that there was not a correctable pattern that needs to be addressed. There were no reported pedestrian crashes or injuries in this timeframe at the intersection. Stopping sight distance is adequate on both approaches and intersection sight distance, stopped on Putt Putt, is adequate looking east and marginal looking west down Rio Road. Vertical curvature of the roadway limits line of sight, slightly below standard. My conclusion: there is no overriding "safety" reason to install a traffic signal at this time. I do caution that the projected 2015 side street traffic used for the analysis shows that several hours are very close to the threshold. Also, the left turn traffic from EB Rio to Putt Putt is substantial in the PM and any increases could also surpass the traffic thresholds necessary to suggest the need for a traffic signal for this approach. Both of these conditions should be considered and evaluated in future studies. William Parman Charlottesville & Louisa Area Traffic Engineer VDOT Nortiikkestern Region Operations 2 OF ALg e ova COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 9 Feb 2010 Scott Collins, P.E. Collins Engineering 800 E Jefferson Charlottesville VA 22902 Re: Arden Place, existing culverts I have reviewed your request for high headwaters on the existing culverts at Arden Place. I am not sure I can approve these based on the information provided. The 48" culvert which appears to be under the slope for the Albemarle Square Shopping center may be of minor concern. It does not appear to support any significant infrastructure, only the slope itself and the proposed walking trail. Furthermore, it does not appear capable of building up headwater, but I cannot be sure without more information. It appears from the plan that the stream flow may simply go around the culvert in this location. At what interval does this happen, and is the flow -over of a volume and velocity that will cause erosion? Is it changed from previous conditions, and is the culvert showing signs of rust or damage? Depending on the answers to these questions, it may be more prudent to re- establish the stream in this location. The 42" culvert which supports the connection to the Carmike parking lot is of more concern. An 11.5' headwater in this residential location sounds dangerous. Again, I am not sure of the existing condition of the pipe and inlet and outlet, and the weather is such that this cannot be ascertained soon. Historical plans from our office show a different arrangement than you show on your plans, and copies are attached. Regardless of the waterline, it is certainly possible to place another culvert in this location, or use a box. Regarding the computations, I was not able to verify them without drainage areas. From what I can tell, these pipes seem to take the Albemarle Square site and little more. It may be that refinement would make a difference in the headwater computations. Please contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, Glenn Brooks, P.E. County Engineer A 1•:- I i 3,- N 1 ' IN i '. ' \ ' s s S" i l s 1. i„ k V 4 4 :' 4 <.- . 4- 4. I . 4„. 4, ' 4 1„ \ 14.,... t i ' 4 :,414 4.,' 4 2 , kF S. 1 1 ' • 1 . - ', -.: < 4 ., 1\ 4- 01< I7) 1 . 3..--- 44' 4 1 , 1, i I 4 N 7 ; . . ;_);,,, s, L . ,.._! t, 7C' N.:\ nLo fl ,,,, ,,,,' 4 . II t U ( J) 1' ' e . 4`. 4' 14, 4 ' ''' 4 ..,< i f . ,, ;, ,,,,... ,,, , V i A i `) N i ', N " 4. i 4. 1 4‘,..„ e4, i N - 4 ' X ''' 4' 1„, 4,!,;! 4 '. 4 . 1 '' 4 I • I 3- - :' . • 1 Alt.- 1,, ,, r', ..' / ' . ? 1 : t 4 . . 4• ' 4 i. i, 4 4 4 ' l 4 ji• , 1 „' ' ..' 4 , i' i '`. , . 4 1 ' 4 ,. r '- l 11 idi ' ' 4 4 _ f.,< ,' ,. e•- ii V ''• - :',' P. II I l4 sI;; E-it r''• '' 4. 4....,,,,... 111. 444,. 4%, 4 9 ,° 4 4 11, 1 f r r" y•-: , I= I- r' A 3.3 14 A - rr 1 C-, I ',.„. 3 r I • ' i e I ii I Y • 1 4, 4 44 1 , . I 1 ii iif: 11 1t .,. c 1 1 ; r,.:..... f‘, t ; 1. I ' i ,.• 1 K" J; i N 4' 7'et'' •. ' ' Iir: A ,' I A At, It. I) I V. 1 A . i' ;'' i ' A 1 t 4 . i t " ' ' N . A . I. ' I . , ' '' 1 A I I At , , i ' A A I 1 1 4 I .: S„, ac II) ,=,,-,.$,-, - - T .,, N, t7.---..,, , 7— ' j '''' -->•.)., ,, -, ..,. ' .. ', I 4 . t" t . ' 7' •`• t 7777. - I 7, a' ‘ t 7 ''' ° II7tt,.. S . 2 t ' , 7 77‘,.. *••' - -,.........- 7777:: , t7 , it tm-- 7 - :f , , ' c, 7.. 1 . ' t . , • -- i c ' . ., , , , , 7 ' • 7: :, ' A' • ” '. ' ' 1 I i I s " `^•-..... f t Wes) i c 1 i 1" 1 i 1 c. 1 H . C: 1 r 1 4 1 I 1.' 1 6".. ,' c r 1 I‘ f: y I 1 t. 1 t V I . I I 1 \ LI f 1;') 1; . ill. I J 1 1 1 j i t • • ') t i,, 1 1 1%. I A - 1 1 c-- f.''' 1 1 A i " x-,-----,,, 1 ,-, ( 2, • ; \ Y ' r 7 1 ' I. J I i rv,, i1 t I '.. 1--` t• ' i i i t ‘,,;- 1 1 :: ) I 1 H t I ' 1 I i , r II - r ,,-. : I 1 r. , ,, V 1 1-: „ I 1 r ts i I 11 I , C. I' i1 I 1 t, I i ' 1If ; 11 S-, 1 YI ' 1' i - 1 ; " ' • i • ; v / H ., . j , 1 r f 1 1 1. s- ic ,--,,..' s< A.: 1 r” 1 0,,, i : 4 iv. ;, 1 • i ;„ ., 1 (., 1 1 i,,„,,:. u.,,,,,•,, k; :.:-. ' V- 3 ri' ,,,, F,' ,, a . : ',' , ''''' - - i g ”, i , i'. f; "---:, ..' , ; ',„ ,-, - ,: '.'. 1.),. L) 1 1 - 1I 1 f,I.i'' 1 ' i k l',) r,1 J, , 1 1 I , ' I 1. 1 ,,,,, i.,,„ L. I I t'"'-;',‘;.: ki, 1;\ '., ,: k:`,‘:, 0,!• , ':" \ - 1_,. 1-, 1,-- vt.: 1 o -,, I s p s 4#.. ' t 1 A: li• 1 \ ' 1 -- — — 1 t, t'."' ,•,,- 4 1, I i 1 1 t,' tc,,, ,;- viitt 1 0 ' 1,',' 4.*; nt' 1 s iitti•I : . : '' . " 1: . 41, ' 1 ' c ''' k 4 4 4 t. ,, .‘, ** It '',.. 4" ' At , I 4 ,•:' 1 i t itU ;‘ :;• ' ' 1 ti ' • g',...: ',, C. 1 t 1 , 1; c t 14 • -,„„,„.....,„ ,,„... , f4" , 14.1 , 1„ lot *,- ,', 1 ; - ‘ 1° -",•*' - 1 sY:< A ::..: ,, A 1 t, : t N , A \ . ;:::,;,\‘: \ • f _ i: . , LI 1, 41.." 1 I se.,— 1 0 7 „ . 1 7_ 77 77 7 . 0 1 iTi 1 1 Amy Pflaum From:Amy Pflaum Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2010 5:00 PM To:Scott Collins' Subject:Arden Place Scott, A few things that I have noticed while calculating the bonds: The 1 -foot gravel shoulders on the maintenance access need to be extended to reach the new pond location. - The access to Bio- Retention #2 is not shown with the 1 -foot gravel shoulders for the maintenance road purposes. On Sheet SWM -2 Bio- Retention #2 is labeled as #9. On the Future Development Exhibit on Sheet SWM -2 — please remove the future road to Rio. Is the intent of this exhibit to show that in the future the pond will be relocated in order to provide the connection to Alb Square? If so, please add " a note stating such. If this is not the intent of the exhibit, I think it should be removed from this sheet. Have you found the letter regarding the non - existence of wetlands on the parcel? I am still working on the bond and awaiting Glenn's response on the culvert. Amy Amy D. Pflaum. P.E. Senior Civil Engineer Albemarle County Department of Community Development 434) 296 -5832 x3069 apflaum a©albemarle. orq 1 Glenn Brooks From:Glenn E. Brooks [glenn @glennebrooks.com] Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:41 AM To:Scott Collins' Cc:Amy Pflaum Subject:RE: Arden Place culverts Scott. I have taken a more careful look at the 12 culvert computations. Accounting for detention, 1 get the inflow. down to about 107cfs and the headwater at about 1 13.6' ). that would be I INN /1) -1.6, vvhich is pretty close to i . >. I think this could he accepted. but I cannot make a decision without knowing the exi;tim condition of' the culvert. I do not want to leave a culvert in place which is in need or repair. or which can he expected to have a shortened life span. A; far as what to bond. or how to show it on the plan, you will have lo consult vv ith Am\ and the site plan review. thanks ilenn From: Scott Collins [mailto:scott ©collins- engineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: Glenn E. Brooks Cc: Amy Pflaum Subject: RE: Arden Place culverts Glenn - Thank you for the response on the waiver request and the additional information that you provided in the email yesterday. In regards to the existing 48" culvert under the slope at Albemarle Square, I agree with all the points that you made in the comment letter. The culvert is not capable of creating a headwater situation, and the pipe also has a large amount of sediment in it, preventing the pipe to function properly. I believe that it would be more prudent as well to re- establish the stream in this location as well. Since we are planning to bond stream improvements and work with the engineering department to help fix this stretch of stream with possible rock weirs or stabilization measures, the best solution may be to remove this culvert as well and re- create the stream channel as we are doing the other work. The removal of this culvert could also be included in the bonding of the project. With respect to the Existing 42" culvert, the original numbers were based on the engineering analysis report of the drainage area to the County Lagoon Project. The 10yr flow to the culvert based on that report was 147.8 cfs. Using the Rational Method based on the drainage area to the culvert from the provided maps and our knowledge of the drainage shed in this area, we came up with a lower 10yr flow of 126.01 CFS in the first scenario, which does not account for any detention in the drainage shed. In the second scenario, using the peak discharge from the proposed wet pond as proposed by the Arden project, the 10yr flow reduces to 98.1 CFS. This reduces the HW /D to 2.15 and 1.6 respectively, or a 7.53 HW for Scenario #1 and 5.6 HW for Scenario 2. (See the attached Drainage Area map and culvert chart). Based on this new information and new drainage calculations, could a waiver request be granted for this scenario for the existing 42" Culvert, and could the removal of the 48" culvert be bonded as a stream improvement that will be done along with the other improvements? Thank you again for your help in this matter. Scott Collins,PE Collins Engineering 1 Amy Pflaum From:Scott Collins [scott @collins - engineering.com] Sent:Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:11 AM To:Amy Pflaum Subject:RE: Arden Retention Basin #1 Attachments:arden.pdf Amy - Thank you for the email. Attached is SWM -3 sheet that illustrates how the issues below are addressed. We raised the overall pond 0.5', which took care of the emergency spillway issue. We also lengthened the outfall pipe about 60' to tie - in to the stream further down on the property. The outfall of the barrel is now a 463.50' and ties in to the stream at the 464' contour. The contours are aerial flown topo, and the stream at this location is approximately 8 -12 inches deep. This modification will allow adequate outfall for the pond. Do you have the note ready that you want us to add to the plans in regards to the future stream improvements, analysis, and bonding, and the bonding numbers. If at all possible, we would like to get all this wrapped up today so we can start getting signatures tomorrow. Thank you very much. Scott Collins Collins Engineering 434 - 987 -1631 From: Amy Pflaum [apflaum @albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:40 AM To: Scott Collins Subject: Arden Retention Basin #1 Scott, I discovered something today on the "new" design of the Retention Basin #1 (the "getting it out the stream" design). Please check the grading shown in the Retention Pond #1 blow -up detail on Sheet SWM -3. The invert of the emergency spillway is lower than the stream bank elevation — 467.75 vs. 468. I think this is easily fixed on paper with contours. , A more significant problem however, the principal spillway's pipe outlet is proposed as 463.11, but the proposed grading in the plan view shows the pipe out - letting at 470, and the stream bed elevation at this point is just under 466. These elevations appear to work in your original pond design, although I think the outlet pipe would need to be extended. Amy D. Pflaum. P.E. Senior Civil Engineer Albemarle County Department of Community Development 434) 296 -5832 x3069 apflaum a..albemarle. orq 1 Amy Pflaum From:Amy Pflaum Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:39 PM To:Scott Collins' Cc:Gerald Gatobu Subject:Arden Place revisions required Scott, These are the last revisions I see that are needed for site plan approval: 1.) Remove Future Development Exhibit from Sheet SWM -2 2.) Approval letter from Filterra states that structure F48 is to be 8x4,box, Sheet S -4 labels F48 as 4x6 3.) Remove the note on SWM -1 that begins "The post development flows are less than..." 4.) The numbers in the WQ Volume Provided column in Table 12 on Sheet SWM -1 do not match the other calculations on the sheet. 5.) The Retention Pond (Type III - Aquatic Bench Plantings) diagram on Sheet SWM -2 does not designate what the hatched" areas on the aquatic bench are. I assume they are areas to be seeded with a wetland plant mix. Please label. 6.) Please submit the subdivision plat. It needs to show the necessary easements for the roads from Putt Putt and from Carmike, also the easement around the pond allowing drainage from TMP 61 -124 to future Lot 1. I also think there should be some kind of drainage easement for the flow from the pipe on TMP 61 -124E to get to the pond, however, in this case, a letter of intent to provide for that drainage from the current owner of what will be Lot 1 will probably suffice. These are the comments I had in May: Please show proposed access easement through TMP 61 -124E and Lot 1 for travelway to TMP 61 -124. [14- 303(E)] Please revise note to remove "WATER SUPPLY" from "SOUTH FORK RIVANNA WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED ", as this parcel is below the reservoir and not in a water supply protection area. [14- 302(B)(7)] The road providing access from Putt Putt Lane to TMP 61 -124 must be built or bonded prior to approval of this plat. [14- 434/14 -435] Amy D. Pflaum. P. E. Senior Civil Engineer Albemarle County Department of Community Development 434) 296 -5832 x3069 apflaum c@c,albemarle. orq 1 Arden Place Stormwater Management Approval The Applicant shall include in the Water Protection Ordinance bond a designated amount of $58,000 for improvements to the existing drainage channel on TMP 61 -124 (as existing on February 1, 2010) as a compromise solution for meeting the State requirement of MS -19 "Adequate Channel ". This existing channel stretches approximately 960 feet along the eastern boundary of the property, not including the reaches of 2 existing culverts. When the weather permits, County Staff and the Applicant's Engineering Consultant will assess the existing channel and determine the locations of necessary improvements. These improvements may include, but are not limited to, armoring of the channel bed and banks with rip -rap, the installation of instream weirs with footers at regular intervals, and /or replacement of existing culverts. Upon determination of the intended improvements, the applicant shall apply for and obtain all permits from DEQ and ACOE and easements from neighboring property owners that may be necessary to perform this work. The improvements must be completed within one year of the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. o[ .1 L,*, Fi t " Jy >k_<CIN. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner From: Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date: REV #1: January 21, 2010 Subject: Arden Place Apartment Complex - Final Site Plan SDP200900091 & WPO200900062 The final site plan for the Arden Place Apartment Complex. resubmitted on January 12, 2009, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering has the following comments (please note that since the previous letter was in DRAFT form, the order of the comments has changed): Final Site Plan Comments 1. Please show the proposed access easements to be granted for the Carmike connection. [ 18- 32.7.4] REV #1: Comment not addressed, easement is not seen on the site plan. REV #1: Comment no longer applies. REV #1: Comment has been addressed. Spot elevations have been added to clarify the existing topography. Parking lot flow is directed to the northern corner where there is an existing outlet. REV #1: Comment has been addressed, guardrail has been added. REV #1: Comment has been addressed. A waiver of the design standards has been granted, the travelway slope may exceed 10%. REV #1: Comment has been addressed. Further graphical information has been added. 7. The Existing Condistions Sheet and Site Plan appear to show a `fence' running with the new tree line. Is this a permanent or existing fence? If not, please remove from the site plan. Please do not show the proposed tree line on the Existing Conditions Sheet. 8. The existing 24 -inch pipes into and out of the existing sediment basin on TMP 61 -124E do not ,- show up on the Drainage Plan. Private Road Plan Comments 9. Please label the horizontal curves on the plan view of the Mallside Forsest Court street plan. [18- 32.6.6.e] REV #1: Comment has not been addressed. Although PC & PT points are shown, no curve radius is given. REV #1: Comment has been addressed. Curb return radii appear on the site plan, Sheet S -1. REV #1: Comment has been addressed. Street signs appear on the site plan, Sheet S -1. REV #1: Comment has been addressed. 13. Due to the steep grades necessary to tie back to existing at the intersection of Mallside Forest Court and Arden Lane, please add a guardrail or other protective barrier along the western and southern stub -outs. [18-32.7.2] 14. A road plan & profile needs to be included for the portion of Arden Lane between Mallside Forest Court and the new property line dividing TMP 61 -124. Unless this portion of Arden Lane is built prior to the division, it must be bonded along with the new section of Mallside Forest Court. 15. For information purposes only: Although labeled as Private Roads on this site plan, Arden Lane except the portion between Mallside Forest Court and the new property line dividing TMP 61- 124), Arden Court and Arden Way are " travelways" and not private roads as described in the County subdivision ordinance. Should TMP 61 -124 be further divided in the future, it may be required to demonstrate that these travelways meet private road standards. Stormwater Management Plan Comments 16. The total area used to calculate pre- and post - development flows should be the same. The post - development flow calculations account for only 9.64 acres, as opposed to 10.69 acres used for pre - development. ti cat AL/ , I 011l County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner From:Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:December 8, 2009 [DRAFT] Subject: Arden Place Apartment Complex - Final Site Plan SDP200900091 & WPO200900062 The final site plan for the Arden Place Apartment Complex. submitted on November 13, 2009, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering has the following comments: Final Site Plan Comments 1. Please show the proposed access easements to be granted for the Carmike connection. [18- 32.7.4] 2. Please label the horizontal curves on the plan view of the Mallside Forsest Court street plan. [18- 32.6.6.e] 3. Please label curb return radii on the street plans. [ 18- 32.6.6.e] 4. Please add and label street signs (name and traffic control) to the street plans. [ 18- 32.5.6.n] 5. Although shown on the landscaping plan, please also show the proposed street trees on the street plan for bonding purposes. 6. Please designate safety slabs (SL -1) in any storm sewer structure that is taller than 12 -feet (STR 48 50). 7. An existing "low spot" in the Carmike parking lot appears to be slightly shifted with this plan. Where does stormwater that gathers in this low spot drain to? Is there an inlet or curb -cut in the parking lot that directs it to the drainage way? 8. It appears that guardrail is necessary above the retaining wall between Building 5 and the travelway to the Carmike parking lot. [18-32.7.2] 9. The slope of the travelway to the Carmike Parking lot exceeds the maximum allowed under Section 18- 4.12.17.a. The County Engineer may increase the maximum allowable slope provided that no reasonable design alternative exists and the developer requests a waiver in writing. Due to the constraints of meeting the grade of the existing parking lot, Current Development Engineering will support this waiver request once it is submitted. [18- 4.12.17.a] 10. The location of the matchline on Sheet S -3 makes it difficult to review details of the proposed Carmike connection crossing the existing drainageway. Are the Bridge Details on Sheet SWM -1 related to this crossing? Please provide more graphic information about the crossing on the street plan and profile and the grading plan. Also provide the hydraulic computations. Stormwater Management Plan Comments 11. The total area used to calculate pre- and post- development flows should be the same. The post - development flow calculations account for only 9.64 acres, as opposed to 10.69 acres used for pre - development.