HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500119 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2016-05-14COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project:
Project Number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewer:
Rivanna Village, Phase 1, Public Road, Water, & Sanitary Sewer —blocks A,B,
A, B, C, D, E & F —ROAD PLANS
SUB201500119
Alan Franklin, 427 Cranberry Lane, Crozet, VA 2293
[alan(&alanfranklinpe. com]
Rivanna Village, 314 E Water St, Charlottesville, VA 22902
23 Jun 2015
10 Nov 2015
Apr 28, 2016
1 Sept 2015
20 Jan 2016
14 May 2016
John Anderson
A. Road Plan (SUB201500119)
1. Note: Period of review is unacceptable, and revised plans will receive priority. .PDF review of select
elements of design is possible but per -review fees apply, so formal road plan re -submittal is required. (Rev.
1) Reviewer regrets delay.
2. Note: Encourage Applicant to focus on 5-Aug VDOT comments. Comments below may repeat VDOT
comments. (Rev. 1) Note 30-Dec 2015 VDOT plan review comments. Also please note reference to
several VDOT review comments, below (items #21, 44, 49, 53). (Rev. 2) Partially Addressed. Ref. item
#44. Provide profile labels to indicate which structures receive safety slab (VDOT SL-1); structures where
RIM — INV. Out >12.0'.
3. C0.0 — Revise Plan Title to include SUB201500119 and Block F (compare with C1.1, C2.0, C3.0).
Alternatively, eliminate Block F labels from C2.0, C3.0. Block F appears to be included with Phase I.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
4. CO.1 —Project Data: Ref. VSMP Permit WP02014-00077: Rivanna Village, Phase 1, Approved 6/16/15
(Stantec Design/Williamsburg, VA). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. CO.1 —Project Data: List hardscape Phase I impervious area included with design under WP0201400077.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
6. CO.1 —Add Note stating: SDP201500036 (underlying, dashed) existing contours coincide with C3.0/C3.1
Grading and Drainage Plan proposed contours (solid line type). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
7. CO.1 —Add Note stating: SUB201500119/C3.0-C3.1 proposed and WP0201400077 proposed contours are
the same, yet do not represent fine grading required to construct dwelling units on Winding Road as
depicted on SDP201500036, Rivanna Village, Phase 1, block A Initial Site Plan. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn.
8. CO.1 —Construction Traffic Management Plan required (CTM). Ref. Proffer #10. Please submit to VDOT
and Albemarle County/Engineering. (Rev. 1) Addressed/under review. (Rev. 2) Addressed. CTM
Approved 2/18/16, C. Perez
9. CO.1 —Provide Trip Generation Estimates for Phase I at Final Build -Out. These values appear basis of C2.7
Pavement Calculations (as they should). Alternatively, Add NOTE to Trip Generation Estimates Table that
table values do not reflect Final build out for Rivanna Village. (Rev. 1) Addressed/sheet CO. 1.
10. C2.0 —Minimum curb radius at intersections =25'. Revise. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
11. C2.0 —Locate stop and street signs on opposite sides of street; show separately at each intersection. (Rev.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
1) Not Addressed. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
12. C2.0 -Show VDOT Std. CG-2, private Alleys `A', `B', `C', consistent with C2.4. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As
follow-up: Label CG-6, for all streets wherever proposed. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
13. C2.0 -Relocate leader line for Note on Lot E5 (reading CG-12 Type C) to point to CG-12. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
14. C2.0 -Tables list horizontal curve data. Indicate on plans PC -PT for horizontal curves per VDOT standard
design convention. Also: Albemarle County Road Plan checklist for reviewers, p. 2-item 4. (Attached)
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
15. C2.0 -Horizontal design (data table): Steamer Dr. `L1' (35.88') is off -road, misleading. Revise plan. (Rev.
1) Partially Addressed -recommend eliminate Sta. 9+50-10+00 CL line portions of Main St, Sweetgum
Ln, Sycamore Ln, Alleys `A' `B' `C', Winding Road [these lengths will not be constructed/are non -referential].
Also: C2.0: Revise Line/curve table: (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Appreciate efforts to revise. Accept 27-Apr
(letter) explanation: software (Civil 3D) difficulties prevent eliminating Sta. 9+50 - 10+00. As follow-up,
recommend following line/curve table values. (Comment withdrawn if values not revised):
Village Ave, L1=384.86' (Rev. 2) or, revise to 374.43': 13+84.86 - 10+10.43
Village Ave, L2=600.89' (Rev. 2) 22+49.66 - 16+48.77=600.89'
Winding Rd, L1=56.48' (Rev. 2) L1 begins at Sta. 10+00 (or 10+11.83), not 9+50
Winding Rd, L2 -'�' (Rev. 2) or recommend revise to 35.17': 18+48.89-18+13.72
Sweetgum Lane: Label L1 in plan view (Rev. 2) Asfollow-up: label C1, C2, PC/PT.
Sweetgum Lane: Add curve data to table (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Add Sycamore Lane to Table (Rev. 2) Addressed.
16. C2.0 -15'R label located in gray -shaded area of Main St. south of Lot E 1 does not point to 15' R curve.
Check/revise. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. C2.0 -Revise Alleys to show as public streets. Private streets may not convey through traffic, or intersect
the state highway system at more than one point. Alleys `A' and `C' intersect the system at two locations.
If `A' and `C' are public streets then `B' is of necessity a public street. (County Code: 14-234.C.4) (Rev. 1)
Addressed/discussed-withdrawn.
18. C2.1 -Missing. Provide sheet C2.1. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn.
19. C2.2 -Profile views: provide stationing for intersections. (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. As follow-up,
stationing errors, these locations (revise): (Rev. 2) Addressed, except as noted (sub -item #2)
C2.2 -Steamer Drive profile, CL Alley `A' Sta.=17+76.74 (compare w/plan view)
Not Addressed C2.2 -Steamer Drive profile, CL Alley `B' Sta.=22+20.77 (plan) vs. 22+20.64 (profile) -reconcile
C2.2 -Main Street profile, CL Alley `B' Sta.=20+77.18 (compare w/plan view)
C2.2 -Winding Rd profile, tie to Ex. Glenmore Way cul-de-sac=18+48.89
C2.2 -Sweetgum Lane profile, CL Main Sta.=12+31.95 (compare w/plan view)
C2.2 -Sycamore Lane profile, CL Main Sta.=12+80.07 (compare w/plan view)
C2.3 -Pvt. Alley `C' profile, CL Alley `B' Sta.=14+44.02 (compare w/plan view)
Also: For Pvt. Alley `A', `B' profiles, provide Sta. intersection with Alley `C'.
(recommend QC all).
20. C2.2 -Profile views: provide End Phase 1 Construction stations. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
21. C2.2 -Provide underdrains per road plan review checklist. (p. 3-last item) (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed.
Also: 30 Dec 2015 VDOT additional comment #7, 8. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
22. Check title information, plan views, profile views, details and sections against Road Plan Checklist; link:
htW://www.albemarle.org/del2tforms.asp?department-cdengyMo. Design and review effort may be cut
substantially through comparison against checklist. Checklist is County road plan review guide that
specifies minimal design expectations. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
23. Provide vertical curves at all grade transitions: 2.00% to-2.00%, Steamer Drive profile, for example. (Rev.
1) Addressed.
24. Min. K value, crest curves =5; sag curves =15. Compare design with ACDSM, p. 19, Standards table.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
25. C2.3 -Provide transition from intersecting street 2.08% cross -grade to Alley profile grade (checklist:
profile, item #9). (Rev. 1) Addressed/withdrawn; not required.
26. C2.3 -Check profile captions against street names (caption labeling accuracy). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
27. C2.4 -Typical road section captions: Revise ref. to ADT 2,000 - 4,000 since no section is designed to ADT
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
range, but to single ADT value. Revise `Steamer Dr, Sweetgum Lane' to read `Sycamore Lane, Sweetgum
Lane' if section is for these streets. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
28. C2.4 -Provide typical section, Steamer Drive, Sta. 14+50 - 24+49. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
29. C2.4 Private Alley `C' Typ. section is problematic in that there is no low -side curb, only future curb with
no immediate collection of street runoff on the low -side of Alley `C'. Revise. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed.
(Rev. 2) Partially Addressed. With current design, recommend revise Private Alley `C' typical to show
2% cross grade sloping in opposite direction since inlets located on north side, Alley `C'.
30. C2.4 -Check design of CG-2 against VDOT STD (shown on subgrade without stone subbase). (Rev. 1)
Not Addressed. (Rev. 2) Addressed/comment withdrawn.
31. C2.7 -Steamer Drive, Sta 10+00-16+00, ADT =200 is too low between Sta. 15+00 and St. 16+00. (Rev.
1) Addressed.
32. C2.7 -Evaluate ADT Steamer Drive and Main Street: Pavement design presumes near equal split between
Main St and Steamer Drive ADT from point of intersection leading into future development. Recommend
apply a higher (10-15%) ADT to both Steamer and Main St from point of intersection on, to counter any
error in assumption, or uncertainty. (Rev. 1) Recommendation waived /ADT unchanged.
33. C2.7 -Provide pavement design for Alleys (which cannot be designed as Alleys, ref. item # 17, above).
(Rev. 1) Addressed/Alley design discussed.
34. C3.0 -Provide leader line, SD-A5 label. (Rev. 1) Addressed/withdrawn.
35. C3.0 -Provide additional proposed contour labels. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
36. C3.0 -Provide additional existing contour labels. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
37. C3.0 -SD H-2 appears to be a VDOT STD storm drain inlet, which does not make sense in this location.
Revise for clarity/accuracy. (Rev. 1) Addressed (type revised to MH).
38. C3.0 -Check Pipe run `N' -cannot locate; see also pipe design table, C3.5. (Rev. 1) Comment
withdrawn/review error.
39. C3.1 -Design proposal to install storm inlets for future blocks is disapproved -eliminate storm inlets on
C3.1 and replace with temporary storm pipe discharging to CS3 (Wet Pond). It is not possible to construct
VDOT STD inlets on this sheet as shown in a manner that meets design specifications unless road subgrade
and subbase stone/pavement sections are built, and these will not be built with this plan. (Rev. 1)
Addressed/comment discussed -addressed (MH tops).
40. C3.0/C3.1 - Attach labels to SWM facilities that reference WPO2014-00077. (Rev. 1) Comment
withdrawn.
41. C3.2 -Although intent of vertical offset labels in profile view may be clear, vertical offsets between storm
sewer pipes and sanitary sewer or waterlines are graphically inaccurate; for example: 4.86', Storm Sewer
`A' profile, or 2.4' in `AT profile. Recommend revise. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
42. C3.2 -Storm Sewer `C': Provide cover over storm pipe near outfall. Crown of pipe may not be exposed.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
43. C3.2 -SD B2; B2-1; B2-2/lnclude Construction Note:
VDOT 2007 Road & Bridge Specification 303.04 (June 12, 2014 VDOT comment, item #12 / an unrelated
project) (Rev. 1) Addressed. [1-Sep/2015 text image deleted]
44. C3.2/C3.3 -Identify SD structures (if any) that require safety slab. Add labels to profiles to make explicitly
clear which structures, if any, require safety slab -SD H3, I3, for example. (Rev. 1) Not addressed.
Comment restated. Also: 30 Dec 2015 VDOT additional comment #4. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Identify
structures that require safety slab by labeling profiles; that is, specifically identify which structures require
safety slab.
45. C3.3 -Storm Sewer'ET -Revise pipe grade to 0.5%, Min. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Storm Sewer'ET
deleted.
46. C3.3 -Recommend increase pipe grade Storm sewer `F3' from 0.5% to 0.6% or higher to avoid As -built
condition <0.5%, which carries expense implications. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
47. C3.4 -Drainage Area map does not show drainage divides. Show drainage divides, or revise sheet title.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
48. C3.5 -Cannot locate Pipe Run `N'. Furnish guidance to aid reviewer -identify pipe run `N' location. (Rev,
1) Withdrawn/review error.
49. C3.2 or C3.3 -Include VDOT Detail SL-1 / `Safety Slab'. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Also: 30 Dec 2015
VDOT additional comment #4. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
50. 4.1 —Revise consistent with item #39, above. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Certain storm
drain elements on C4.1 are not shown on C3.1. Eliminate these elements, or revise to show on C3.1. (Rev.
2) Addressed.
New (Rev.1)
51. C2.0 —Begin Steamer Drive Sta. 9+85.88 inconsistent with 33.45' cul-de-sac (center) offset, if center Sta.
=9+52. Revise. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
52. C2.0/Labeling: (Rev. 2) Addressed.
a. Main St. —Revise Int. Label w/Alley `A'. —Also: revise Int. w/Alley `A' Sta. to read 12+79f.
b. Relocate Sweetgum Lane/Main Street Int. leader line Arrow tip to point to intersection.
c. Main St. —Revise Int. Label w/Alley `B'.
d. Alley `C' —Revise Int. Labels w/Alleys `A', `B'. [Int. Alley B-C: Sta. transposed.]
e. Steamer Dr. —Revise Int. Label w/Alley `B'.
f. Main St. —Revise RW width near Int. Glenmore Way =67', consistent with C2.4.
53. Respond to 30 Dec 2015 VDOT previous comment #6. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Pavement design acceptable.
Asfollow-up: (CO.1) —Add Alley `D' to Rivanna Village Internal Road Traffic Projection.
Also:
a. Revise CO.1 Table Steamer Drive Sta. 15+50 to read 14+25.95
b. Revise CO.1 Table Steamer Drive Sta. 16+50 to read 14+25.95
New (Rev. 2)
54. It is unclear how sidewalks crossing Alley `A' and `B' work with Alley 2% side slopes. Provide or revise
design that indicates how sidewalk crossings are to be constructed, given 2% side slopes.
55. Provide stations, Alley `D'. (C2.0)
56. Provide profile, Alley `D'. (C2.3)
Feel free to call to discuss: 434.296-5832—x3096.
Thank you
File: SUB201500119_Rivanna Village road plan 051416rev2