Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500111 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2016-05-10COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner May 10, 2016 Mr. John Anderson County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SUB -2015-001 11 Chesterfield Landing Dear Mr. Anderson We have reviewed the Road Plans for Chesterfield Landing, as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated April 04, 2016 and offer the following comments: Road Plan: VDOT has no objectionkomments to the final Construction Road PIans. If you need further information concerning this project please do not hesitate to contact me at 434-422- 9373. Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Resident Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 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: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Plan received date: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) (Rev. 3) (Rev. 4) Date of comments: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) (Rev. 3) (Rev. 4) Reviewer: Chesterfield Landing —ROAD PLANS Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, 201 E. Main St., Suite M, Charlottesville, VA 22902 [iustin@shimp-en ing eering com] Frank, Ann Jarman & Walter M Jarman Jr. & George Burton Jarman, 9 Hunters Trail, Waynesboro, VA 22980-6593 22 Jun 2015 21 Aug 2015 13 Nov 2015 18 Feb 2016 29 Feb 2016 (.PDF 21 Jul 2015 14 Sep 2015 3 Dec 2015 28 Feb 2016 1 Mar 2016 (e -review John Anderson A. Road and drainage plans (SUB201500111) 1. VDOT approval is required. Comments will be forwarded when received. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. Applicant response (19 -Aug): "A comment response letter for all VDOT comments is included with this submittal." 2. LD -347 —Inlets B2, B5, C5 inlet water surface elevation appears higher than crown of pipe. Please check design to ensure that Q 1 o flow is contained within each section of pipe without pressurized conditions. (Rev. 1) Addressed; LD -229 indicates flow within pipe capacity. 3. Storm MH -B3 height >12.0. Provide safety slab, provide safety slab detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. C15 —For MH -C3 and MH -136, provide detail/note that specifies subgrade support for MHs in fill sections. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. C4, C5 —Revise labels for drainage easements that lie beyond public RW to read private (across Lots 8 and 9; between Lots 11/12, 13/14, 23/24; and behind Lots 17-23). (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. As follow-up to request for more recent policy statement, Engineering has referred question for legal review, and will update Applicant as soon as possible. We appreciate interest in most current guidance. (Rev. 2) —Please accept 26 Oct Asst. County Attorney guidance relative to easements. We can discuss further later today. (Rev. 3) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Please revise labels, Lots 11, 14, 17, 20 (C5, C4) to read `New 20' private storm sewer easement.' for storm sewer easements beyond RW. Also, provide private storm sewer easement at NW corner Int. Oxbow/Watervale for portion of easement beyond public RW. (Rev. 4) Addressed. 6. Sidewalks and CG must extend around each cul-de-sac. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 7. Revise cul-de-sac radius, per VDOT/ACF&R preliminary plat comments. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Applicant response is informative, but does not meet VDOT stated request for 45' R if a school bus is expected to use the cul-de-sac. Applicant response: "We are submitting a request to the Fire Marshal for an exemption from the radius requirement." Engineering supports VDOT cul-de-sac Min. R request. Fire Marshal ruling does not alleviate need to meet other agencies' cul-de-sac Min. R requirements. Also, report cul-de-sac radius as either F/C or EP; avoid mixing the two (ref. R, cul-de-sac, either end Oxbow Drive). (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant response letter, 12 Nov 2015: "Renee DeVall of Albemarle County Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 Schools has stated that the development does not meet the criteria for an internal school bus stop, so school buses are not expected to use the cul-de-sac. We are in the process of seeking approval from Albemarle County Fire & Rescue for a reduced radius for the northern cul-de-sac." 8. 19 -Jun 2015 Letter to Megan Yaniglos, response to comments 6 and 7, references cul-de-sacs as temporary, and explains that permanent sidewalks around temporary cul-de-sacs will lead to issues in the future. There is no provision for approving a design as temporary unless it meets standards that otherwise apply to permanent features. Development plans change. What may appear certain may be delayed indefinitely. The letter outlines proposal for 35' R temporary cul-de-sacs in response to Fire Rescue request for 96' R. We find VDOT request for 45' radius if a school bus is expected to use the cul-de-sac. If this concept is approved, denying future similar request from other applicants would be untenable. Request for approval of temporary features that do not meet design standards may proliferate, may extend to other features; SWM, for example. If development with properties south or north is certain, then low impact designs that extend Oxbow Drive with grade, transitions, and width that eliminate cul-de-sacs altogether may prove of tangible benefit, but unless current design meets County, ACF&R, and VDOT standards, it cannot be approved. The risks are several: temporary becomes permanent; proposed sidewalk design forces owners of one lot to step nearly to the street to reach the sidewalk; and forces owners of two to step into the street to reach sidewalk. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed; see also item #7, above. (cul-de-sac Min. R) (Rev. 2) Addressed. County agrees that current submittal reflects consensus relating to cul-de-sac/sidewalks that was reached between Engineering, Planning, VDOT, and Applicant, 14 Oct 2015, during a plan review meeting. 9. Extend RW one foot beyond sidewalk. Revise RW to 54'. Revise typical RW cross-section, sheet C9. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Ref. Code 14-428. Restate request to extend RW one foot beyond sidewalk. (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn, but not for reason provided in response letter of 12 Nov 2015. Letter states Planning confirms ordinance does not require sidewalk to be located within the right-of-way. Engineering has met and discussed the issue with Planning, and as consequence cautions that Code Sec. 14- 422 provides review latitude. Planning intends to support Engineering recommendation that RW width be sufficient for underground storm drain/other utilities. 14-422 allows an Agent to require that a sidewalk proposed by a subdivider to be privately -maintained, instead be dedicated to public use. 10. C6, C7 —Relocate SCC text from beneath hatching so readable. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 11. 2: 1 slopes behind Lots 10-15 require vegetative stabilization hardier than grass. Specify ground cover/stabilization (species). —ref. ACDSM 8.A.2. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 12. Recommend retaining walls behind Lots 10-15. This would extend level space 20-25 ft. (Rev. 1) Applicant: Recommendation declined. 13. C10, profile Watervale Drive —Vertical curves 2 and 5 do not meet private street minimum K value. Alb. County defers to VDOT since Watervale is a public street, but VDOT comments are advisory. As such, examine alternative profiles that increase K -value to more nearly approach private street sag vertical curve minimum K -value, which is 15.0. —ref. ACDSM 7.F./table. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Design elements to consider: continue 2% cross grade at each end of Watervale Drive; lower Elev. of Watervale crest curve; elevate intersection, Watervale/Oxbow; shorten 2% grades (landings) at either end of Watervale; and transition to longer vertical curves more quickly. Design was discussed with County Engineer. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Applicant response focuses on intersections, not the proposed profile between. Response: "VDOT's Regional Land Use Engineer instructed us to design the intersections with a 50' landing at 2% and a 40' vertical curve leading out of the landing. He believes that the long, flat landing creates a safer intersection than the 40' landing at 4% required by Albemarle County. We have computed the headlight angle with his intersection design, and all stopping sight distance requirements are met." Engineering accepts VDOT guidance relative to intersections, but restates request for sag curve K -values that more nearly approach 15.0. (Rev. 3) Addressed. New 14. Recommend remove sheet C16 from sheet index and plan. (Rev. 4) Addressed. 15. C2 —Confirm transfer of Area `B'. Road plan cannot approve construction, grading, or improvements on property not under control of Applicant. (Rev. 4) Addressed. 16. C3 —Confirm transfer of Area required to construct cul-de-sac at the south end of Oxbow Drive. Cul-de-sac is shown off property. Road plan cannot approve improvements on property not under control of Applicant. (Rev. 4) Addressed. 17. C3 —Label Lickinghole Creek. Label stream buffer. (Rev. 4) Addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 18. C4 —Label inlet Str. B 10. (Rev. 4) Addressed. 19. C4 —Label Watervale Drive horizontal curve radii (review error possible). (Rev. 4) Addressed. 20. C4 —Reverse flow arrow between inlets BI I and B10. (Rev. 4) Addressed. 21. C5 —Oxbow Drive/PT may be required/missing between Sta. 15+81 and 16+06 (these Sta. labelled PC). (Rev. 4) Addressed. 22. Check horizontal curve data, Oxbow Drive; please ensure horizontal curve design data is listed. (Rev. 4) Addressed. 23. C6 —Ditch sections table: Width SCC2, Sta. 10-11, may be 16' rather than 26' —please confirm width. (Rev. 4) Addressed. 24. LD -204: Please check inlet Str. A3, Depth at curb —apparent misprint. (Rev. 4) Addressed. 25. LD -229: Recommend revise pipe DIA to 18" between points C6 and C5 since 15" DIA pipe listed at 98.65% capacity. (Rev. 4) Addressed. All County ROAD Plan review comments addressed with this or prior submittal. Thank you. SUB201500111_Chesterfield Landing_RP 030116rev4 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: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Plan received date: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) (Rev. 3) Date of comments: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) (Rev. 3) Reviewer: Chesterfield Landing —ROAD PLANS Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, 201 E. Main St., Suite M, Charlottesville, VA 22902 [iustin@shimp-en ing eering com] Frank, Ann Jarman & Walter M Jarman Jr. & George Burton Jarman, 9 Hunters Trail, Waynesboro, VA 22980-6593 22 Jun 2015 21 Aug 2015 13 Nov 2015 18 Feb 2016 21 Jul 2015 14 Sep 2015 3 Dec 2015 28 Feb 2016 John Anderson A. Road and drainage plans (SUB201500111) 1. VDOT approval is required. Comments will be forwarded when received. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. Applicant response (19 -Aug): "A comment response letter for all VDOT comments is included with this submittal." 2. LD -347 —Inlets B2, B5, C5 inlet water surface elevation appears higher than crown of pipe. Please check design to ensure that Q 1 o flow is contained within each section of pipe without pressurized conditions. (Rev. 1) Addressed; LD -229 indicates flow within pipe capacity. 3. Storm MH -B3 height >12.0. Provide safety slab, provide safety slab detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. C15 —For MH -C3 and MH -136, provide detail/note that specifies subgrade support for MHs in fill sections. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. C4, C5 —Revise labels for drainage easements that lie beyond public RW to read private (across Lots 8 and 9; between Lots 11/12, 13/14, 23/24; and behind Lots 17-23). (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. As follow-up to request for more recent policy statement, Engineering has referred question for legal review, and will update Applicant as soon as possible. We appreciate interest in most current guidance. (Rev. 2) —Please accept 26 Oct Asst. County Attorney guidance relative to easements. We can discuss further later today. (Rev. 3) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Please revise labels, Lots 11, 14, 17, 20 (C5, C4) to read `New 20' private storm sewer easement.' for storm sewer easements beyond RW. Also, provide private storm sewer easement at NW corner Int. Oxbow/Watervale for portion of easement beyond public RW. 6. Sidewalks and CG must extend around each cul-de-sac. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 7. Revise cul-de-sac radius, per VDOT/ACF&R preliminary plat comments. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Applicant response is informative, but does not meet VDOT stated request for 45' R if a school bus is expected to use the cul-de-sac. Applicant response: "We are submitting a request to the Fire Marshal for an exemption from the radius requirement." Engineering supports VDOT cul-de-sac Min. R request. Fire Marshal ruling does not alleviate need to meet other agencies' cul-de-sac Min. R requirements. Also, report cul-de-sac radius as either F/C or EP; avoid mixing the two (ref. R, cul-de-sac, either end Oxbow Drive). (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant response letter, 12 Nov 2015: "Renee DeVall of Albemarle County Schools has stated that the development does not meet the criteria for an internal school bus stop, so school buses are not expected to use the cul-de-sac. We are in the process of seeking approval from Albemarle County Fire & Rescue for a reduced radius for the northern cul-de-sac." Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 8. 19 -Jun 2015 Letter to Megan Yaniglos, response to comments 6 and 7, references cul-de-sacs as temporary, and explains that permanent sidewalks around temporary cul-de-sacs will lead to issues in the future. There is no provision for approving a design as temporary unless it meets standards that otherwise apply to permanent features. Development plans change. What may appear certain may be delayed indefinitely. The letter outlines proposal for 35' R temporary cul-de-sacs in response to Fire Rescue request for 96' R. We find VDOT request for 45' radius if a school bus is expected to use the cul-de-sac. If this concept is approved, denying future similar request from other applicants would be untenable. Request for approval of temporary features that do not meet design standards may proliferate, may extend to other features; SWM, for example. If development with properties south or north is certain, then low impact designs that extend Oxbow Drive with grade, transitions, and width that eliminate cul-de-sacs altogether may prove of tangible benefit, but unless current design meets County, ACF&R, and VDOT standards, it cannot be approved. The risks are several: temporary becomes permanent; proposed sidewalk design forces owners of one lot to step nearly to the street to reach the sidewalk; and forces owners of two to step into the street to reach sidewalk. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed; see also item #7, above. (cul-de-sac Min. R) (Rev. 2) Addressed. County agrees that current submittal reflects consensus relating to cul-de-sac/sidewalks that was reached between Engineering, Planning, VDOT, and Applicant, 14 Oct 2015, during a plan review meeting. 9. Extend RW one foot beyond sidewalk. Revise RW to 54'. Revise typical RW cross-section, sheet C9. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Ref. Code 14-428. Restate request to extend RW one foot beyond sidewalk. (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn, but not for reason provided in response letter of 12 Nov 2015. Letter states Planning confirms ordinance does not require sidewalk to be located within the right-of-way. Engineering has met and discussed the issue with Planning, and as consequence cautions that Code Sec. 14- 422 provides review latitude. Planning intends to support Engineering recommendation that RW width be sufficient for underground storm drain/other utilities. 14-422 allows an Agent to require that a sidewalk proposed by a subdivider to be privately -maintained, instead be dedicated to public use. 10. C6, C7 —Relocate SCC text from beneath hatching so readable. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 11. 2: 1 slopes behind Lots 10-15 require vegetative stabilization hardier than grass. Specify ground cover/stabilization (species). —ref. ACDSM 8.A.2. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 12. Recommend retaining walls behind Lots 10-15. This would extend level space 20-25 ft. (Rev. 1) Applicant: Recommendation declined. 13. C10, profile Watervale Drive —Vertical curves 2 and 5 do not meet private street minimum K value. Alb. County defers to VDOT since Watervale is a public street, but VDOT comments are advisory. As such, examine alternative profiles that increase K -value to more nearly approach private street sag vertical curve minimum K -value, which is 15.0. —ref. ACDSM 7.F./table. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Design elements to consider: continue 2% cross grade at each end of Watervale Drive; lower Elev. of Watervale crest curve; elevate intersection, Watervale/Oxbow; shorten 2% grades (landings) at either end of Watervale; and transition to longer vertical curves more quickly. Design was discussed with County Engineer. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Applicant response focuses on intersections, not the proposed profile between. Response: "VDOT's Regional Land Use Engineer instructed us to design the intersections with a 50' landing at 2% and a 40' vertical curve leading out of the landing. He believes that the long, flat landing creates a safer intersection than the 40' landing at 4% required by Albemarle County. We have computed the headlight angle with his intersection design, and all stopping sight distance requirements are met." Engineering accepts VDOT guidance relative to intersections, but restates request for sag curve K -values that more nearly approach 15.0. (Rev. 3) Addressed. New 14. Recommend remove sheet C 16 from sheet index and plan. 15. C2 —Confirm transfer of Area `B'. Road plan cannot approve construction, grading, or improvements on property not under control of Applicant. 16. C3 —Confirm transfer of Area required to construct cul-de-sac at the south end of Oxbow Drive. Cul-de-sac is shown off property. Road plan cannot approve improvements on property not under control of Applicant. 17. C3 —Label Lickinghole Creek. Label stream buffer. 18. C4 —Label inlet Str. B 10. 19. C4 —Label Watervale Drive horizontal curve radii (review error possible). 20. C4 —Reverse flow arrow between inlets B 11 and B 10. 21. C5 —Oxbow Drive/PT may be required/missing between Sta. 15+81 and 16+06 (these Sta. labelled PC). Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 22. Check horizontal curve data, Oxbow Drive; please ensure horizontal curve design data is listed. 23. C6 —Ditch sections table: Width SCC2, Sta. 10-11, may be 16' rather than 26' —please confirm width. 24. LD -204: Please check inlet Str. A3, Depth at curb —apparent misprint. 25. LD -229: Recommend revise pipe DIA to 18" between points C6 and C5 since 15" DIA pipe listed at 98.65% capacity. Thank you. SUB201500111_Chesterfield Landing RP 022816rev3 ,l" r 1X ! yyw y l0 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner December 21, 2015 Mr. John Anderson County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SUB-2015-001 11 Chesterfield Landing Dear Mr. Anderson We have reviewed the Road Plans for Chesterfield Landing, as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated November 12, 2015 and offer the following comments: Road Plan: 1. Previous comment: "Diagonal curb ramps force pedestrians descending the ramp to proceed into the intersection before turning to the left or right. Therefore, they are not recommended for new construction. "Curb Ranrp Application Details "for new construction can be found in Appendix A of the Road Design Manual ". I.e. The ramps located at the intersection of Watervale Drive and Crozet Ave. should also be adjusted accordingly. 2. Upon further investigation of the road design there are concerns regarding the substandard vertical curves at the intersection of Watervale and Oxbow Drive as well as the intersection of Watervale and Crozet Ave. The sag vertical curve should be adjusted to meet the minimum design standards in order to ensure that potential hazards do not exist, especially ones that become apparent when weather conditions, or darkness, reduce visibility. VSMP Plan: No comments Maintenance of Traffic Plan: 1. Sheet 1: a. Previous comment: "Note 7 should be updated to &I wedge. " ...and removing the 44 6:1 wedge shall be included... b. Sheet Index: Sheet 5 labeling should be updated. c. Project Narrative: Phase 3 narrative should be included. d. The cover page should numbering (top right corner) should be revised to say Page 1 of 5. 2. Sheet 3: The sheet should be revised to say Page 2 of 5. 3. Sheet 4: a. Note 2 should be revised/removed to address the mill.:overlay on sheet 5. b. A "Road Work Ahead" sign should also be added on Davis Dr. (Rt. 1231) and Brownsville Road (Rt. 751). 4. Sheet 5: a. A "Road Work Ahead" sign should also be added on Brownsville Road (Rt. 751). b. The flagger on the east bound side of Crozet Ave. should be adjusted to control the traffic from Davis Drive or an additional flagger may be necessary. If you need further information concerning this project, or if you wish to schedule a meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9894. Sincerely, Shelly A. Plaster Land Development Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 2:35 PM To: 'Lauren Gilroy';Justin Shimp, P.E.; (Nathran.Austin@vdot.virginia.gov) Cc: Glenn Brooks; Max Greene;Justin Deel; Matthew Wentland Subject: SUB201500111 Chesterfield Landing RP -K-value Troy, Please feel free to comment on this note,or redirect my attention. Lauren,Justin, As follow-up to plan review meeting yesterday,I spoke with Glenn, spoke with Troy(Monday), and checked VDOT subdivision street design guide,Appx F/excerpt,below. [LINK: http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/locdes/Electronic Pubs/2005%2ORDM/AppendF.pdf (p.41)] Stopping Sight Distance Stopping sight distances exceeding those shown in the table below should be used as basis for design wherever practical. In computing and measuring stopping sight distances, the height of the driver's eye is estimated to be 3.5 feet and the height of the object to be seen by the driver is 2 feet, equivalent to the taillight height of a passenger car. The "K Values- shown are a coefficient by which the algebraic difference in grade may be multiplied to determine the length in feet of the vertical curve that will provide minimum sight distance. Crest vertical curves shall meet or exceed AASHTO design criteria for Stopping Sight Distance, not the "k" Values. The "K" valves for sag vertical curves take into account the headlight sight distance. Height of Eye 3.5' Height of Object 2' Design Speed (mph) 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 MIN. SIGHT DISTANCE(FT.) 155 200 250 305 360 425 495 570 645 730 820 MINIMUM K VALUE FOR: CREST VERTICAL CURVES 12 19 29 44 61 84 114 151 193 247 312 SAG VERTICAL CURVES 26 37 49 64 79 96 115 136 157 181 206 Source: 2011 AASHTO Green Book, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2, page 3-4 TABLE 2-5 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE When a highway is on a grade, the sight distances in the table below shall be used. I anticipate VDOT will require/request that Watervale Drive profile meet VDOT standards. This is County expectation, as well. I may be overlooking plan information. Please direct me to note, label,etc.that may address 3-Dec review comment#13. I feel that I have the right reference with Appx. F, above. [Source: 2011 AASHTO Green Book, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2,page 3-4] Please compare 25 mph design speed Min K table value with sag vertical curve K provided: 6.00, W end: 3.08, E end. Note: 12%and 15%grades at either end of Watervale Drive(with 2%grade for 132 LF between crest curves)may save construction expense,but at expense of Min. standards. 1 • I feel constrained to restate request for design that more nearly approaches VDOT design standard for Min. K values. This means, I feel, flattening and lengthening crest curves. Please share your thoughts. Thank you John E.Anderson, PE I Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3069 2 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: Chesterfield Landing —ROAD PLANS Plan preparer: Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, 201 E. Main St., Suite M, Charlottesville, VA 22902 [iustin@shimp-en ing eering com] Owner or rep.: Frank, Ann Jarman & Walter M Jarman Jr. & George Burton Jarman, 9 Hunters Trail, Waynesboro, VA 22980-6593 Plan received date: 22 Jun 2015 (Rev. 1) 21 Aug 2015 (Rev. 2) 13 Nov 2015 Date of comments: 21 Jul 2015 (Rev. 1) 14 Sep 2015 (Rev. 2) 3 Dec 2015 Reviewer: John Anderson A. Road and drainage plans (SUB201500111) 1. VDOT approval is required. Comments will be forwarded when received. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. Applicant response (19 -Aug): "A comment response letter for all VDOT comments is included with this submittal." 2. LD -347 —Inlets B2, B5, C5 inlet water surface elevation appears higher than crown of pipe. Please check design to ensure that Qio flow is contained within each section of pipe without pressurized conditions. (Rev. 1) Addressed; LD -229 indicates flow within pipe capacity. 3. Storm MH -B3 height >12.0. Provide safety slab, provide safety slab detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. C15 —For MH -C3 and MH -136, provide detail/note that specifies subgrade support for MHs in fill sections. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. C4, C5 —Revise labels for drainage easements that lie beyond public RW to read private (across Lots 8 and 9; between Lots 11/12, 13/14, 23/24; and behind Lots 17-23). (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. As follow-up to request for more recent policy statement, Engineering has referred question for legal review, and will update Applicant as soon as possible. We appreciate interest in most current guidance. (Rev. 2) —Please accept 26 Oct Asst. County Attorney guidance relative to easements. We can discuss further later today. 6. Sidewalks and CG must extend around each cul-de-sac. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 7. Revise cul-de-sac radius, per VDOT/ACF&R preliminary plat comments. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Applicant response is informative, but does not meet VDOT stated request for 45' R if a school bus is expected to use the cul-de-sac. Applicant response: "We are submitting a request to the Fire Marshal for an exemption from the radius requirement." Engineering supports VDOT cul-de-sac Min. R request. Fire Marshal ruling does not alleviate need to meet other agencies' cul-de-sac Min. R requirements. Also, report cul-de-sac radius as either F/C or EP; avoid mixing the two (ref. R, cul-de-sac, either end Oxbow Drive). (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant response letter, 12 Nov 2015: "Renee DeVall of Albemarle County Schools has stated that the development does not meet the criteria for an internal school bus stop, so school buses are not expected to use the cul-de-sac. We are in the process of seeking approval from Albemarle County Fire & Rescue for a reduced radius for the northern cul-de-sac." 8. 19 -Jun 2015 Letter to Megan Yaniglos, response to comments 6 and 7, references cul-de-sacs as temporary, and explains that permanent sidewalks around temporary cul-de-sacs will lead to issues in the future. There is no provision for approving a design as temporary unless it meets standards that otherwise apply to permanent features. Development plans change. What may appear certain may be delayed indefinitely. The letter outlines proposal for 35' R temporary cul-de-sacs in response to Fire Rescue request for 96' R. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 We find VDOT request for 45' radius if a school bus is expected to use the cul-de-sac. If this concept is approved, denying future similar request from other applicants would be untenable. Request for approval of temporary features that do not meet design standards may proliferate, may extend to other features; SWM, for example. If development with properties south or north is certain, then low impact designs that extend Oxbow Drive with grade, transitions, and width that eliminate cul-de-sacs altogether may prove of tangible benefit, but unless current design meets County, ACF&R, and VDOT standards, it cannot be approved. The risks are several: temporary becomes permanent; proposed sidewalk design forces owners of one lot to step nearly to the street to reach the sidewalk; and forces owners of two to step into the street to reach sidewalk. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed; see also item #7, above. (cul-de-sac Min. R) (Rev. 2) Addressed. County agrees that current submittal reflects consensus relating to cul-de-sac/sidewalks that was reached between Engineering, Planning, VDOT, and Applicant, 14 Oct 2015, during a plan review meeting. 9. Extend RW one foot beyond sidewalk. Revise RW to 54'. Revise typical RW cross-section, sheet C9. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Ref. Code 14-428. Restate request to extend RW one foot beyond sidewalk. (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn, but not for reason provided in response letter of 12 Nov 2015. Letter states Planning confirms ordinance does not require sidewalk to be located within the right-of-way. Engineering has met and discussed the issue with Planning, and as consequence cautions that Code Sec. 14- 422 provides review latitude. Planning intends to support Engineering recommendation that RW width be sufficient for underground storm drain/other utilities. 14-422 allows an Agent to require that a sidewalk proposed by a subdivider to be privately -maintained, instead be dedicated to public use. 10. C6, C7 —Relocate SCC text from beneath hatching so readable. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 11. 2: 1 slopes behind Lots 10-15 require vegetative stabilization hardier than grass. Specify ground cover/stabilization (species). —ref. ACDSM 8.A.2. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 12. Recommend retaining walls behind Lots 10-15. This would extend level space 20-25 ft. (Rev. 1) Applicant: Recommendation declined. 13. C10, profile Watervale Drive —Vertical curves 2 and 5 do not meet private street minimum K value. Alb. County defers to VDOT since Watervale is a public street, but VDOT comments are advisory. As such, examine alternative profiles that increase K -value to more nearly approach private street sag vertical curve minimum K -value, which is 15.0. —ref. ACDSM 7.F./table. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Design elements to consider: continue 2% cross grade at each end of Watervale Drive; lower Elev. of Watervale crest curve; elevate intersection, Watervale/Oxbow; shorten 2% grades (landings) at either end of Watervale; and transition to longer vertical curves more quickly. Design was discussed with County Engineer. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Applicant response focuses on intersections, not the proposed profile between. Response: "VDOT's Regional Land Use Engineer instructed us to design the intersections with a 50' landing at 2% and a 40' vertical curve leading out of the landing. He believes that the long, flat landing creates a safer intersection than the 40' landing at 4% required by Albemarle County. We have computed the headlight angle with his intersection design, and all stopping sight distance requirements are met." Engineering accepts VDOT guidance relative to intersections, but restates request for sag curve K -values that more nearly approach 15.0. Thank you. SUB201500111_Chesterfield Landing_RP_120315rev2 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner September 29, 2015 Mr. John Anderson County of AIbemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SUB -2015-00111 Chesterfield Landing Dear Mr. Anderson We have reviewed the Road Plans for Chesterfield Landing, as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated August 21, 2015 and offer the following comments: Road Plan: 1. Diagonal curb ramps force pedestrians descending the ramp to proceed into the intersection before turning to the left or right. Therefore, they are not recommended for new construction. "Curb Ramp Application Details" for new construction can be found in Appendix A of the Road Design Manual. 2. Sheet C4: It is difficult to see the limits of the heavy asphalt section. Typically the heavy section would extend up approximately 25' beyond the Pc's/Pt's on Watervale Drive. 3. Sheet C5: a. The graveled area on Oxbow Drive's northern cul-de-sac should not be used as a temporary parking lot. b. The previous submittal did not have curb and gutter in the cul-de-sacs. We would prefer to have the right-of-way extended to the property line and the outer edges of the temporary cul-de-sacs to be within a temporary access easefnent. c. Since a plan to extend Oxbow Drive, to the south, is being submitted concurrently with this development we recommend the following: i. The 30' pavement section should extend to the property line and a temporary cul- de-sac installed (surface treatment added in the outer limits of the cul-de-sac that are beyond the 30' pavement section). ii. The curb and gutter and sidewalk should end at the Pc's/Pt's of the temporary cul-de-sac and extend once the connection is made. 4. Sheet C& a. The intersection of Watervale Drive and Crozet Ave should be regraded to avoid the use of reversed curb. b. Computations for the ditch along Crozet Ave. should be provided to verify it is sufficient to convey the 10 -year discharge, and to resist erosion from the 2 -year discharge. c. From a maintenance standpoint we are concerned with structure A4 becoming clogged and the runoff by passing the inlet and crossing Watervale drive. We would recommend re -grading the existing shallow ditch along Crozet Ave and placing a culvert under Watervale drive. This may eliminate storm run A4 -A3 and shorten storm run A2 -A1. 5. Street trees should not be located within the sight distance triangle. However, in this case the following should be incorporated into the notes on sheet C8= "Along all planting strips, the area between 2 and 7 feet above ground shall be maintained free of any obstructions that my block the drivers view". 6. The pavement section for Oxbow Drive and Watervale Drive should reflect the future traffic loading. This may only require the BM to be increase by 0.5" with the assumed SSViCBR of 5. Increasing the BM may also help during buildout rather coming back to make repairs due to failures. 7. The pavement widening standard (WP -2) detail and the VDOT "Futuro Stub Out Street" sign detail should be added to the plans, VSMP Plan: No comments Maintenance of Traffic Plan: 1, The typical layouts should label the roads in the surrounding area to help identify the limits of the work zone (i.e. Meadows Drive, Crozet Ave. etc.) 2. Sheet 1. Note 7 should be updated to 6:1 wedge. 3. Sheet 3: a. A "Road Work Ahead" sign should be placed on Meadows Drive. b. A "Road Work Ahead" sign should be added in advance of the "Shoulder Work" sign because of the visual limitations due to the vertical and horizontal curves along Crozet Ave. 4. Sheet 4: a. A "Road Work Ahead" sign should be placed on Meadows Drive. b. The "End of Road Work" sign, southbound on Crozet Ave., should be placed 500' + beyond the start of the channelizing device taper on the northbound lane. An additional Typical Traffic Control (TTC) plan should be provided to incorporate the mill and overlay, which would go to the center of Crozet Ave and 25' to either side of the entrance radii, thus creating a suitable connection. If you need further information concerning this project, or if you wish to schedule a meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422-9894. Sincerely, Shelly A. Plaster Land Development Engineer Culpeper District LY&A.l1Ml►IL: ei11II-ILIFACOPII►CN 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: Chesterfield Landing —ROAD PLANS Plan preparer: Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, 201 E. Main St., Suite M, Charlottesville, VA 22902 [iustin@shimp-en ing eering com] Owner or rep.: Frank, Ann Jarman & Walter M Jarman Jr. & George Burton Jarman, 9 Hunters Trail, Waynesboro, VA 22980-6593 Plan received date: 22 Jun 2015 21 Aug 2015 Date of comments: 21 Jul 2015 14 Sep 2015 Reviewer: John Anderson A. Road and drainage plans (SUB201500111) 1. VDOT approval is required. Comments will be forwarded when received. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. Applicant response (19 -Aug): "A comment response letter for all VDOT comments is included with this submittal." 2. LD -347 —Inlets B2, B5, C5 inlet water surface elevation appears higher than crown of pipe. Please check design to ensure that Q 1 o flow is contained within each section of pipe without pressurized conditions. (Rev. 1) Addressed; LD -229 indicates flow within pipe capacity. 3. Storm MH -133 height >12.0. Provide safety slab, provide safety slab detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. C15 —For MH -C3 and MH -136, provide detail/note that specifies subgrade support for MHs in fill sections. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. C4, C5 —Revise labels for drainage easements that lie beyond public RW to read private (across Lots 8 and 9; between Lots 11/12, 13/14, 23/24; and behind Lots 17-23). (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. As follow-up to request for more recent policy statement, Engineering has referred question for legal review, and will update Applicant as soon as possible. We appreciate interest in most current guidance. 6. Sidewalks and CG must extend around each cul-de-sac. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 7. Revise cul-de-sac radius, per VDOT/ACF&R preliminary plat comments. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Applicant response is informative, but does not meet VDOT stated request for 45' R if a school bus is expected to use the cul-de-sac. Applicant response: "We are submitting a request to the Fire Marshal for an exemption from the radius requirement." Engineering supports VDOT cul-de-sac Min. R request. Fire Marshal ruling does not alleviate need to meet other agencies' cul-de-sac Min. R requirements. Also, report cul-de-sac radius as either F/C or EP; avoid mixing the two (ref. R, cul-de-sac, either end Oxbow Drive). 8. 19 -Jun 2015 Letter to Megan Yaniglos, response to comments 6 and 7, references cul-de-sacs as temporary, and explains that permanent sidewalks around temporary cul-de-sacs will lead to issues in the future. There is no provision for approving a design as temporary unless it meets standards that otherwise apply to permanent features. Development plans change. What may appear certain may be delayed indefinitely. The letter outlines proposal for 35' R temporary cul-de-sacs in response to Fire Rescue request for 96' R. We find VDOT request for 45' radius if a school bus is expected to use the cul-de-sac. If this concept is approved, denying future similar request from other applicants would be untenable. Request for approval of temporary features that do not meet design standards may proliferate, may extend to other features; SWM, for example. If development with properties south or north is certain, then low impact designs that extend Oxbow Drive with grade, transitions, and width that eliminate cul-de-sacs altogether may prove of tangible benefit, but unless current design meets County, ACF&R, and VDOT standards, it cannot be approved. The risks are several: temporary becomes permanent; proposed sidewalk design forces owners of one lot to step Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 nearly to the street to reach the sidewalk; and forces owners of two to step into the street to reach sidewalk. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed; see also item #7, above. (cul-de-sac Min. R) 9. Extend RW one foot beyond sidewalk. Revise RW to 54'. Revise typical RW cross-section, sheet C9. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Ref. Code 14-428. Restate request to extend RW one foot beyond sidewalk. 10. C6, C7 —Relocate SCC text from beneath hatching so readable. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 11. 2: 1 slopes behind Lots 10-15 require vegetative stabilization hardier than grass. Specify ground cover/stabilization (species). —ref. ACDSM 8.A.2. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 12. Recommend retaining walls behind Lots 10-15. This would extend level space 20-25 ft. (Rev. 1) Applicant: Recommendation declined. 13. C10, profile Watervale Drive —Vertical curves 2 and 5 do not meet private street minimum K value. Alb. County defers to VDOT since Watervale is a public street, but VDOT comments are advisory. As such, examine alternative profiles that increase K -value to more nearly approach private street sag vertical curve minimum K -value, which is 15.0. —ref. ACDSM 7.F./table. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Design elements to consider: continue 2% cross grade at each end of Watervale Drive; lower Elev. of Watervale crest curve; elevate intersection, Watervale/Oxbow; shorten 2% grades (landings) at either end of Watervale; and transition to longer vertical curves more quickly. Design was discussed with County Engineer. Please call if any questions, or to schedule a meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, John Anderson ACCD — 434.296-5832 -x3069 SUB201500111_Chesterfield Landing_RP_091415revl 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: Chesterfield Landing —ROAD PLANS Plan preparer: Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, 201 E. Main St., Suite M, Charlottesville, VA 22902 [iustin@shimp-en ing eering com] Owner or rep.: Frank, Ann Jarman & Walter M Jarman Jr. & George Burton Jarman, 9 Hunters Trail, Waynesboro, VA 22980-6593 Plan received date: 22 Jun 2015 Date of comments: 21 Jul 2015 Reviewer: John Anderson A. Road and drainage plans (SUB201500111) 1. VDOT approval is required. Comments will be forwarded when received. 2. LD -347 —Inlets B2, B5, C5 inlet water surface elevation appears higher than crown of pipe. Please check design to ensure that Qio flow is contained within each section of pipe without pressurized conditions. 3. Storm MH -133 height >12.0. Provide safety slab, provide safety slab detail. 4. C15 —For MH -C3 and MH -136, provide detail/note that specifies subgrade support for MHs in fill sections. 5. C4, C5 —Revise labels for drainage easements that lie beyond public RW to read private (across Lots 8 and 9; between Lots 11/12, 13/14, 23/24; and behind Lots 17-23). 6. Sidewalks and CG must extend around each cul-de-sac. 7. Revise cul-de-sac radius, per VDOT/ACF&R preliminary plat comments. 8. 19 -Jun 2015 Letter to Megan Yaniglos, response to comments 6 and 7, references cul-de-sacs as temporary, and explains that permanent sidewalks around temporary cul-de-sacs will lead to issues in the future. There is no provision for approving a design as temporary unless it meets standards that otherwise apply to permanent features. Development plans change. What may appear certain may be delayed indefinitely. The letter outlines proposal for 35' R temporary cul-de-sacs in response to Fire Rescue request for 96' R. We find VDOT request for 45' radius if a school bus is expected to use the cul-de-sac. If this concept is approved, denying future similar request from other applicants would be untenable. Request for approval of temporary features that do not meet design standards may proliferate, may extend to other features; SWM, for example. If development with properties south or north is certain, then low impact designs that extend Oxbow Drive with grade, transitions, and width that eliminate cul-de-sacs altogether may prove of tangible benefit, but unless current design meets County, ACF&R, and VDOT standards, it cannot be approved. The risks are several: temporary becomes permanent; proposed sidewalk design forces owners of one lot to step nearly to the street to reach the sidewalk; and forces owners of two to step into the street to reach sidewalk. 9. Extend RW one foot beyond sidewalk. Revise RW to 54'. Revise typical RW cross-section, sheet C9. 10. C6, C7 —Relocate SCC text from beneath hatching so readable. 11. 2: 1 slopes behind Lots 10-15 require vegetative stabilization hardier than grass. Specify ground cover/stabilization (species). —ref. ACDSM 8.A.2. 12. Recommend retaining walls behind Lots 10-15. This would extend level space 20-25 ft. 13. C10, profile Watervale Drive —Vertical curves 2 and 5 do not meet private street minimum K value. Alb. County defers to VDOT since Watervale is a public street, but VDOT comments are advisory. As such, examine alternative profiles that increase K -value to more nearly approach private street sag vertical curve minimum K -value, which is 15.0. —ref. ACDSM 7.F./table. Please call if any questions, or to schedule a meeting. Thank you. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, John Anderson ACCD — 434.296-5832 -0069 SUB201500111 Chesterfield Landing RP 072115