HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201600021 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2016-07-12 Ammy George
From: Plaster, Shelly(VDOT) <Shelly.Plaster@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:50 AM
To: Ammy George
Cc: Dave Brockman; Bill Ledbetter; Chris Mulligan; Austin, Nathran. (VDOT)
Subject: RE: Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16-18
Importance: High
Good morning Ammy,
The centerline radius of 110' is an acceptable solution provided that a 20 mph minimum design speed is utilized. 20 mph
advisory speed limit signs shall be posted along with any other horizontal or vertical curve warning signs as warranted.
Do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions or concerns.
Regards,
Ske•U j A. PL e r
Land Development Engineer
\VDOT
Charlottesville Residency
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville,VA 22911
Phone: (434)422-9894
Fax: (434) 984-1521
From: Ammy George [mailto:AGeorge@roudabush.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 1:53 PM
To: Plaster, Shelly (VDOT)
Cc: Dave Brockman; Bill Ledbetter; Chris Mulligan; Austin, Nathran. (VDOT)
Subject: RE: Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16-18
Good afternoon Shelly and Troy,
I know I have been sending you many different versions of the south-eastern corner of Rowcross Street
near Blocks 18 and 31.This should be the last one.
I have solved the sight distance issue - the intersection of Priory and Rowcross (previously it was located
between Lots 24 and 25) has been removed.A cul-de-sac or T-intersection is no longer needed on
Rowcross Street.As a result, I am only asking for a determination on the minimum radius. The attached
layout has a centerline radius of 110'. We are still anticipating a traffic volume under 400 vehicles per day
in this area,and feel that the 110' radius will safely serve the driving public.
A`unce George
1
ROAD Plan:blocks 10, 16, 17, 18
1. Sheet 1—Revise index sheet 24 description to include ACSA Details.
2. Sheets 6,7,8:-Reposition and add CG-12/curb ramps to face street at perpendicular angle;this is a
recurrent VDOT comment for other projects. Please note/respond to VDOT comments on this ROAD Plan.
I. 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 Ramp 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.
3. All sheets—Please reference SDP201600006 and WPO201600009 preview comments;revise as needed.
4. Sheet 7—Add stop sign label,Bayward St./Rowcross St.
5. Sheet 12—Revise design;replace three(3)existing storm pipes. Run-off(CFS)exceeds pipe capacity:
a. Ex.9-14 to 9-12
b. Ex. 9-12 to 2-18
c. Ex.2-18 to 2-16
6. Sheets 12, 13, 14—Label pipe structures,plan view(Assign IDs)
7. Sheet 14—Revise pipe DIA between inlet 123 and 121;run-off CFS exceeds pipe capacity.
8. Sheet 16—Provide landing/Sta. 10+11.75—10+51.75,Aldersgate Rd-40-ft.at 2.08 4%or less(can be
within first road/vertical curve).
street grade is less than 4%for a minimum of 40'from the edge of pavement of the intersected street. (This grade
can be within the first road curve which transitions from the 2%intersected cross grade){policy,follows ord.for
travelways 18-4.12} (ROAD Plan review checklist)
9. Sheet 16—Provide VC transition:-2.08%to-1.54%,Beechen Lane.
10. Sheets 16-19/CD-1
a. Shift CD-1 to proposed/existing grade intersection. In some cases,up to 50' away.
b. Provide CD-1 at every vertical sag curve.
c. Provide CD-1 at all proposed/existing grade points of intersection.
11. Sheets 16-19/inlets—Revise inlets shown above/below proposed grade.
12. Sheet 17/Petyward Lane—Provide stationing along horizontal axis(profile).
13. Sheet 18—Provide tangent or vertical curve data @ begin construction,Rowcross St.
14. Sheet 19—Recommend revise 0.50 and 0.51%slope storm drains-/see storm sewer schedule.
15. Sheets 20,21—Revise inlets shown above/below proposed grade.
16. Sheet 20—Storm Sewer Profile#53-#59: Show existing grade.
17. Sheet 21—Revise storm sewer notes which seem to blend MH step,safety slab,and inlet shaping notes.
PHONE(434)977-0205
FAX(434)296-5220
;o,_ INFOeROUDABUSILCOM
ROUDABUSH, GALE &ASSOCIATES, INC.
ND SURVEYING A PROFESSIONAL.CORPORATION
LAND
SURVURa Serving V Virginia Since 1956
LAND PLANNING 914 MONTICELLO ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE.VIRGINIA
WILLIAM J.LEDBETTER.LS. 22902 J.CUNT HARMON,LS.
DAVID M.ROBINSON,P.E. DAVID A.JORDAN.LS.
AMMY M.GEORGE.LA. BRIAN D.JAMISON.LS.
KRISTOPHER C.WINTERS.LS.
June 8, 2016
John Anderson, Civil Engineer II
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Regarding: SUB-20160-0021 Road Plans Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16, 17 & 18
Mr. Anderson, I have reviewed your comments from May 15, 2016 and below are the individual
responses.
Blocks 10, 16J7, 18 & 30 (block 30 Added with Rev. 1)
1. Sheet 1 —Revise index sheet 24 description to include ACSA Details. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
2. Sheets 6, 7, 8 —Reposition and add CG-12/curb ramps to face streets at
perpendicular angle. This is a recurrent VDOT comment(other
projects). Please respond to VDOT comments on this ROAD Plan.
(Rev.
1)Partially addressed. As follow-up:to extent practical, street crossing
between opposing curb ramps should be perpendicular to the street to
minimize crossing distance, avoid potential pedestrian confusion, and
minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. To extent practical,revise
placement of opposing curb ramps, particularly at: Golf
Drive/Fielding Run,Golf/Rowcross St,Upland Drive/Fielding Run,
and Highgate Row/Upland Drive intersections.
• CG-12/curb ramps have been repositioned in a
perpendicular manner as requested.
1. Previous comment:"Diagonal curb ramps force pedestrians descending the ramp 10 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". I.e.The ramps located at the intersection of Watervale Drive and
Crozet Ave.should also he adjusted accordingly.
SUB201600021 6/8/2016 1
3. All sheets—Please reference SDP201600006 and WPO201600009
preview comments. Revise ROAD Plan as needed. (Rev. 1)
Acknowledged.
4. Sheet 7—Add stop sign label,Bayward St./Rowcross St. (Rev. 1)Addressed.
5. Sheet 12—Revise design;replace three (3) existing storm pipes.
Run-off(CFS)exceeds pipe capacity: (Rev. 1)Not addressed. 3
May 2016 Applicant response: "We [RGA] are preparing a
comprehensive analysis of the existing storm sewer system that
drains to this area. There appears to be a difference between what
was planned and what was built. This analysis will follow under a
separate cover."
a. Ex. 9-14 to 9-12
b. Ex. 9-12 to 2-18
c. Ex. 2-18 to 2-16
(Rev. 1)As follow-up: Run-off(CFS) exceeds pipe capacity at
additional location(ref storm sewer design table, 5/3/2016:
d. Point 16 to 15: Revise design.
6. Sheets 12, 13, 14—Label pipe structures,plan view(Assign IDs). (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. As follow- p:
a. Label structures between inlets
15 and 17 (2 pipes; I MH) b.
Label pipe#s 52, 54, 56, 58
(sheet 12); 79 (sheet 13).
• All structures have been
labeled as requested.
7. Sheet 14—Revise pipe DIA between inlet 123 and 121; run-off
CFS exceeds pipe capacity. (Rev. I) Addressed.
8. Sheet 16—Provide landing/Sta. 10+11.75 — 10+51.75,Aldersgate Rd -40-ft. at 2.08
4% or less (can be within first road/vertical curve). (Rev. 1)Addressed.
street grade is less than 4% for a minimum of 40' from the edge of pavement of the
intersected street. (This grade can be within the first road curve which transitions from
the 2% intersected cross grade) {policy, follows ord. for travelways 18-4.12} (ROAD
Plan review checklist)
9. Sheet 16—Provide VC transition: -2.08%to -1.54%, Beechen Lane. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. Sheets 16-19/CD-1 (Rev. 1)Addressed, except as noted (d.)
a. Shift CD-1 to proposed/existing grade point of intersection. At one location, 50'
away.
b. Provide CD-1 at every vertical sag curve.
c. Provide CD-1 at every proposed/existing grade intersection.
d. As follow-up:provide CD-1 at Upland Drive, Sta. 23+50±.
• CD-1 has been provided as requested.
11. Sheets 16-19/inlets—Revise inlets shown above/below proposed grade. (Rev. 1)Addressed.
12. Sheet 17/Petyward Lane—Provide stationing along horizontal axis (profile). (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
SUB201600021 6/8/2016 2
13. Sheet 18–Provide tangent or vertical curve data @ begin construction, Rowcross St. (Rev.
1)Addressed.
14. Sheet 19–Recommend revise 0.50 and 0.51% slope storm drains–ref storm sewer
schedule. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn(review checklist explicitly states minimum slope for a
storm pipe). Please see Drainage Plan review checklist: item 3, pg. 2 (slopes at 0.5%
min. to 16%max. (per VDOT stnds for anchors over 16%)).
15. Sheets 20,21 –Revise inlets shown above/below proposed grade. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
16. Sheet 20–Storm Sewer Profile#53-#59: Show existing grade. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. Sheet 21 –Revise storm sewer notes which seem to blend step, safety slab, and inlet
shaping notes. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
New(Rev. 1)
18. Minor text edit–Check spelling of Aldersgate Row across plan sheets.
• Road spelling has been confirmed as Adlersgate Row and revised
across pan sets.
19. Sheet 8–Provide horizontal geometry for Rowcross Street EP-EP transition from 26' to 32'
width.
20. Sheets 9, 10, 11 (storm drain design)–Also see 4"/6.5" inlet design sheets (Also: 14-
410.G.,Drainage) Note: county requires and recommends a more conservative
design.
Revise design to:
a. Provide L/Lt>1.0_at inlets 103, 105, 107, 111 (3 of 4 inlets located on inside of
110' R 20 mph curve).
b. 36 inlet structures are 2' or 2.5' in length. This represents significant departure
from past,more conservative Old Trail Village ROAD Plan storm drain
design/s. Provide design rationale for carryover at every single non-sag inlet.
Carryover should be a design exception,not the rule. Carryover at every inlet
during a 6"in/hr. event worsens in every less frequent storm event.
c. Eliminate carryover at Inlets 43, 59, 66, 68, 90 (locations not arbitrary;
evaluated against grade). Carryover at these locations strands water below each
inlet,where it pools.
d. Provide spot elevations to guide construction at Inlets 123, 125, 129, 133, 135, 137.
e. Revise inlets to ensure gutter depth< 1.5" (0.125') on private streets with roll top
curb. This requires conservative evaluation of inlets on Aldersgate Row,Beechen
Lane, Petyward Lane,and Priory Terrace. Note, for example, inlets 11, 84, 86, 92,
94, and 96—all located on roll top section streets with gutter depth>1.5" (at
inlet). Despite transition to CG-6 at inlets,there is unknown effect through roll-
top sections prior to CG-6 transition. 2"roll top (ht.)vs. 6"CG-6 suggests impact
to multiple dwellings under current design. A 25-yr event will have an even worse
effect.
f. Identify inlet 5 as a sag inlet. Provide spread(4 in/hr.) at inlet 5.
g. Reduce spread at inlets 109 and 117. This request is supported by 14-410.G!-
text image,below. (Spread at these inlets should reduce with design revision
SUB201600021 6/8/2016 3
requested at a.,above.)
h. Limit spread,inlet 68. Permissible spread for Upland Drive=2' + %2 travel lane
width,or 2' +
.5(13'),or 8.5'. Design proposes 9.46'
spread. 14-410.G.
G. Drainage. Adequate drainage control shall be provided for streets by installing culverts
under streets;side,lead,or outlet ditches;catch basins;curb inlets;or any other devices,including piping,
as determined to be necessary by the county min. All of these improvements shall meet the standards
of the county or,in the event no county standards exist,Virginia Department of Transportation standards.
21. Sheet 18—Minor: Match line with sheet 19 splits VC data. Show entire VC data on either
sheet 18 or 19.
• Data has been shown on both sheets for optimal clarification.
22. Sheet 32—Recommend revise block 10 plant list table title to include ref.to block 30 in title
as well,if true.
• Not true, block 30 does not require canopy calculations.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
(2644.4vvy )
Jeremy L. Fox
SUB201600021 6/8/2016 4
i
.:
r• N Ln r.-. Z
o_
N NJ N - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y w CO V Ol W A W N Y m Y Y Y Y Y Y Y w w V 01 VI A W N Y m n. m m a
N Y O 1O w V 01 VI A W N Y 0 "L 3 W V Ol W A W N Y O O 3 i
O O o MP.
0 • 1
CO 1O 10 10 l0 l0 w l0 CO to CO CO V V V V V 01 OI w Ol m O W 14 V Y 10 vwvvN N W N N NJ'i• 40 U1 W Y l0 O O O m •A M
O N w W 94,' Ol N A O N [O w Ol N Q w m W 4.'• N tp W Y W N V W W to WV W W 9r b O
609 T0 ° 00600000 0 o i o 0 3 4 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i_ 0 0 0 0 o i o o ;o 3
N UJ r 2 N W 6363 Co UJ N N W ::, s.: I N n 5 .6 y1 W 1j,1 W W ty n w w W N W W W inc' {/1
D D N r w n D n m D �' a n n D n F, n n H D n w n n n w w I' D D n g g M
m
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o —y D O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d D A
V w Ln L/I m w A w A W tl, VI A 110 N 1N0 w A 4' O I-I CI W 2 b N W Un W w J W Y i W OO1 WW A w W OV V '0-' d 2 N
O
m _ H 4
O O O O 01
1 v1 v1 in W In m Ul Ul to w a1 w m 3 m v1 W W In W m to W m o m 1 1 In W v1 m m 3 m C
U. U. U. U. U. U1 U. in IJ V 1 w U. N W m w Y IJ O A m 5' 4 W A Y N V V 1+ Y U1 V t0 L+ IJ v '_'i
N m it
0
.
mmmmmm Olm0mm mmmwmmOm \ 5
1
VVVVVWVtrmVWpVWO1WpNw '� V VVOn001AU) m1wAwNuvr
mmWVV V
ac
c
n o
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 ci 0 o N o 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 P &
w V m W m V N V N twj, V ten m m V tmI, Imj, Imj, J V 1 O V 1 V V 1 V V V V V 1 V J V V V 01 "" o
N m
Y Y N Y Y N o O O O F' N Y Y o Y Y _ Y (.} .0 O fn OJ N' f' !" O Y N Y O F' O Y O I+ O O O f� p
W .A Y NO m Y N V m Y A w W w A N 1n 'p V O w w $ m Y Y 'A Y t0 l0 O IJ w w m O W W Y ITi n
m Y W A A Y W 0 m I+ N V 1 CO W A V m w — D W m VI m Y WWW tO A m A A m H .... D
p p G
- S w
0 0 0 0 a.
0 0 0 0 0 03
'li0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o S.2 000w000 in • o o W 0 o o N o o
Y Y b • m w •..• O A •"'
N g
A A cri
Y O N o O N O N Y O O O H N H Y O H Y . F' Y .0 O H Y Y o H N Y O . 1-` O H O F' O O Ore
.0
tYO •1 W •1 a lin wO W A m N LO V In W W W a V • N I-I C ID Ul N U. Y V CO W W ' CO Y A N A Y OAl V C 0
III n c m
A Aw
00 0 0 0 CO i oi O : O O o oat
m Y 0 0 0 o Y 0 0 0 m W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o ,9 y w O A 0 0 0 0 U, W . O w ow o O N O N w w
# m
0. a
on n n n n n n n n n n C
n c 0 o n n n n o n o 0 o n o 0 0 0 0 o n n n n n n n n n o n o o n n o n o
3 c w 'w 3 c c c c 3 c 3 3 3 c 3 3 3 3 i 3 3 y c c c c c c c c c s 3 c 3 3 c c 3 c H
F Q m m O' ° 'v U Q F 0 F v F 0 V ,v F F ,O' O' .< m v U r o- u Q 0 O' m 0 m r l0' O D- 3' C
lo
m r m
n c
C
- c 0•
m m i E m Ol m o m m m m 0l m m m m m m ? m m 5x mm m m m m m m m m mon m m m m mm V
ep
a ti
•
n ^
C C
cr
N N N Y N NNN N N N Q N N H • g•
in jn : A V In O m N it N N m w N N N m I m m .... ? •
on A 0 A N 0 i m A : N N N• N m Ni N In -
CA.
S T
O
•a N : O
0 0 0 i o : 0 o : O O
m N in am
i . Wm : ao MD
w MD
w
CI 0
w O1
N : N N N : N : N N N : N N N ; N N m N : N N : N : m
In : in in in : : : : in : in w in : N m in S in : In in f0 1 . in in : : to : x W
CA
S S
O O
w
. N N Y Y • Y Y H . Y Y Y Y . Y Y C Y . Y H F+ m
en i V 1 1 V • • V ' V V V ' V V V V ' V V x a V V V V 4. '"'
_C
a a
m m
O _ C
C
900' 0' 0 W O In W o 0 0 W W 1 o O W 1 . W of .Y' m 0 V, 0 1 1 1 1 op 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 N
i0 0 w w w iJ w co p o w 0 0 w w : w w \ Ao w O w w w 0 O : O 'O O lJ w o 0 0
Y W o0 on UG m N 00 00 W Y an W OO In W on on • on m x A OO Y 00 00 00 lm H Y ' A W N Y OO N W W .T N
N N Y m m 0 V W W t0 t0 In w w 0
V0
r m
C C
m m
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .Y' 'S N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N rY' C
Za Ca
S S.
I
n
O N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 �, N 000000000 0000000 P3
O O O O iJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
w w LO
w W C0 0) m w w w w w 00 011 00 w w w . 00 W .9 00 w w 0 00 00 00 00 w . w w w w 00 00 00 w nits
W W www W wwww W LU LOU) w w w w w W w m w w w w w w w w w w w w w w W W Wm
E E
n n
M H
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . O O x in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , o o o o O O O O3 N
lJ lJ O O G G O O lJ o o O o O G G o O O i o o O lJ o O O O O lJ o O ; G G o b o o o lJ
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N T y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M 3 O
m m
x %
6 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N V- q N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N Q
V. D
S. S.
O O O i 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , O O .mi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 n
0011 w w W I-, 0Wi w 01l N lo W A W W in w lJ V W N ' N N 9 V A ON1 OWl FNiu+ U1i W tt0 01 - N A w N w IYl1 U'I LO xCD
'C
S S
>R S.
A W p mt m N LO W l0 V Y Y W W A m H H W N . N N N N w A b Y w w m A . H H W H m H H Y VI
✓ i-.
A W I-.
N N OVl w N bo In N V V W in en N w V V V V x V In N W W w A iV V ' UI Y •V •V V W A CO x
w Di
a a
a 0
C C
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O , O O m O O O O O o o O o , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m
N N N N Y W N W N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y ; Y Y _rT O ON, W w N m U) NN0 M A ID 1-, 1-,
FN+ 10 ONl A W V C
A H m m V N H N w N W Y lO m w m l0 w 00
S•CI •0
S S
O 0
C C
x a
VI A m m N t0 A 40 V Y H A W A m N Y W N . N N M w 1 t0 H CO w w m . Y A W m Y Y N i
in ZA
m Yen k a CO V N 01 1 N m L.V V in
w• W V NJ V in . M en V V x V m W A W w w 'Q V U1 . W Y m U1 V U1 m w -a
w w
III w
a a
CO w
C .ca a
m O N
In 1 In In 1 1 In In N ('JO) . 1 w In 1 W W 1 In
N Y Y Ol Y m In w w : w w C W VI O W N m was A w N Y H La
V OV OO OO On A OO on H on I10 00 0o Oo ' 0o OG -J at oo OG on cm o0 4 2
mro m
2 2
9 9
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Rev. 2rev)
Reviewer:
SUB2016-00021
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Old Trail Village Block 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30 —ROAD Plan
Jim Taggart, Bill Ledbetter, Jeremy Fox —Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, bledbetter(aroudabush.com,
jfox(iq roudabush.com, jtagg2(a)aol.com
March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100]
Dave Brockman, dave a,oldtrailvilla eg com
1 Feb 2016
3 May 2016
9 Jun 2016
17 Mar 2016
15 May 2016
11 Jul 2016 (Conditionally approved: Final Approval requirements, see below)
12 Jul 2016 —response to Applicant email, 7/12/2016 3:36 PM (ref. CV)
John Anderson
Final Approval requires: (Rev. 2rev-12.Jul.16)
1. VDOT, ACSA Approval
2. Alb. County Planning Div./ACF&R —"No objection"
a. Planning (6/23): Trees and sidewalks must be bonded with the road plans
b. ACF&R (7/7): Based on plans dated 6/8/16. No comments objections.
3. Contact Plan reviewer to discuss review comments: �, ''� rand 23. Address. (Rev. 2rev.) Partially
addressed. One Engineering review comment remains: #23
Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30 (block 30 Added with Rev. 1)
1. Sheet 1 —Revise index sheet 24 description to include ACSA Details. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. Sheets 6, 7, 8 —Reposition and add CG-12/curb ramps to face streets at perpendicular angle. This is a
recurrent VDOT comment (other projects). Please respond to VDOT comments on this ROAD Plan. (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up: to extent practical, street crossing between opposing curb ramps
should be perpendicular to the street to minimize crossing distance, avoid potential pedestrian confusion,
and minimize pedestrian -vehicle conflicts. To extent practical, revise placement of opposing curb ramps,
particularly at: Golf Drive/Fielding Run, Golf/Rowcross St, Upland Drive/Fielding Run, and Highgate
Row/Upland Drive intersections. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
1. Previous comment: "Diagonal curb ramps farce pedestrians descending the ramp to proceed into
the intersection before turning to tire 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". I.e. The ramps located at the intersection of Watervale Drive and
Crozet Ave. should also be adjusted accordingly.
3. All sheets —Please reference SDP201600006 and WP0201600009 preview comments. Revise ROAD Plan
as needed. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
4. Sheet 7 —Add stop sign label, Bayward St./Rowcross St. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Sheet 12 Revise design; replace three (3) existing storm pipes. Run-off (CFS) exceeds pipe capacity:
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. 3 May 2016 Applicant response: "We [RGA] are preparing a comprehensive
analysis of the existing storm sewer system that drains to this area. There appears to be a difference
between what was planned and what was built. This analysis will follow under a separate cover."
a. Ex. 9-14 to 9-12
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
b. Ex. 9-12 to 2-18
c. Ex. 2-18 to 2-16
(Rev. 2) Partially addressed As follow-up, in response to J. Taggart email (6/27/2016 10:59
AM) stating in part: "Even though we are adding only four inlets and one manhole to this system,
we performed a fairly exhaustive model which included the other 71 inlets. This is the only way to
properly evaluate the true need for systemic upgrades. Our model clearly indicates the
containment of the 10 year hydraulic gradeline well within the system indicating our capacity is
adequate. /believe the recently submitted calculation package demonstrates this situation*,"
please accept that the first drainage comp checklist item in Engineering review is to ensure that all
[pipes] are designed within open channel flow capacities. Please confirm that pipes listed at a,b,c,
above, are within open channel capacities (HGL computation are not necessary, and should not be
relied upon unless the entire system is to be watertight.) Although 6/27 references calculation
package, neither 8 -Jun submittal nor 5 -Jul .PDF Attachment appear to include pipes listed at a,b,c,
above. Rather, this table Note (p. 2, STORM SEWER DOT REPORT): "These inlets connect to an
existing system at Existing Structure No. 9-12". This is the extent of reference to existing pipes.
Please provide analysis that ensures all pipes are designed within open channel flow capacities, or,
as an alternative, appeal review comment to County Engineer, and request unconditional ROAD
Plan approval. At this point, reviewer cannot confirm existing pipes which will receive additional
runoff with this design conform with review checklist —comment persists from 17 -Mar review. If
existing pipes cannot operate within open channel flow capacities, recommend examine options,
including Ex. pipe replacement. Image below: checklist. Checklist also attached to comments.
[* italics /emphasis added] (Rev. 2rev) Addressed.
(Rev. 1) As follow-up: Run-off (CFS) exceeds pipe capacity at additional location (re£ storm sewer
design table, 5/3/2016:
d. Point 16 to 15: Revise design. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
6. Sheets 12, 13, 14 —Label pipe structures, plan view (Assign IDs). (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-
up:
a. Label structures between inlets 15 and 17 (2 pipes; 1 MH) (Rev. 2) Addressed.
b. Label pipe #s 52, 54, 56, 58 (sheet 12); 79 (sheet 13). (Rev. 2) Addressed.
7. Sheet 14 Revise pipe DIA between inlet 123 and 121; run-off CFS exceeds pipe capacity. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
8. Sheet 16 —Provide landing /Sta. 10+11.75 — 10+51.75, Aldersgate Rd -40 -ft. at 2-." 4% or less (can be
within first road/vertical curve). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
street grade is less than 4% for a minimum of 40' from the edge of pavement of the intersected street. (This grade
can be within the first road curve which transitions from the 2% intersected cross grade) {policy, follows ord. for
travelways 18-4.121 (ROAD Plan review checklist)
9. Sheet 16 Provide VC transition: -2.08% to -1.54%, Beechen Lane. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. Sheets 16-19/CD-1 (Rev. 1) Addressed, except as noted (d.)
a. Shift CD -1 to proposed/existing grade point of intersection. At one location, 50' away.
b. Provide CD -1 at every vertical sag curve.
c. Provide CD -1 at every proposed/existing grade intersection.
d. As follow-up: provide CD -1 at Upland Drive, Sta. 23+50f. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
11. Sheets 16-19/inlets —Revise inlets shown above/below proposed grade. (Rev . 1) Addressed.
12. Sheet 17/PeWmard Lane Provide stationing along horizontal axis (profile). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Sheet 18 —Provide tangent or vertical curve data @ begin construction, Rowcross St. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
14. Sheet 19 Recommend revise 0.50 and 0.51 % slope storm drains —ref. storm sewer schedule. (Rev. 1)
Withdrawn (review checklist explicitly states minimum slope for a storm pipe). Please see Drainage Plan
review checklist: item 3, pg. 2 (slopes at 0.5% min. to 16% max. (per VDOT studs for anchors over 16%)).
15. Sheets 20, 21 —Revise inlets shown above/below proposed grade. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
16. Sheet 20 —Storm Sewer Profile #53-#59: Show existing grade. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. Sheet 21 Revise storm sewer notes which seem to blend step, safety slab, and inlet shaping notes. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
New (Rev. 1)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
18. Minor text edit –Check spelling of Aldersgate Row across plan sheets. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant
comment response d. 8 -Jun: "Road spelling has been confirmed as Adlersgate Row"
19. Sheet 8 –Provide horizontal geometry for Rowcross Street EP -EP transition from 26' to 32' width. (Rev. 2)
Withdrawn. Discussed with RGA week of 7/4.
20. Sheets 9, 10, 11 (storm drain design) –Also see 4"/6.5" inlet design sheets (Also: 14-410.G., Drainage)
Note: county requires and recommends a more conservative design.
Revise design to:
a. Provide L/Lt >1.0 at inlets 103, 105, 107, 111 (3 of 4 inlets located on inside of 110' R 20 mph
curve). (Rev. 2) Addressed. Column (L/Lt) was apparently removed from Storm Sewer Design
Calc. Inlet Report, but spread at inlets 103, 105, 107, 109, 111 and 117 are <8.55' (gutter pan [2]
+'/2 travel lane width). Rowcross St. (where all listed inlets located) varies 26'-32' EP/EP.
b. 36 inlet structures are 2' or 2.5' in length. This represents significant departure from past, more
conservative Old Trail Village ROAD Plan storm drain design/s. Provide design rationale for
carryover at every single non -sag inlet. Carryover should be a design exception, not the rule.
Carryover at every inlet during a 6" in/hr. event worsens in every less frequent storm event. (Rev.
2) Addressed. Although difference in preference for conservative design persists, addressed.
Also, re£ c., immediately below.
c. Eliminate carryover at Inlets 43, 59, 66, 68, 90 (locations not arbitrary; evaluated against grade).
Carryover at these locations strands water below each inlet, where it pools. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Carryover eliminated at all but one listed inlet (inlet 43), where carryover /bypass =0.98 cfs.
d. Provide spot elevations to guide construction at Inlets 123, 125, 129, 133, 135, 137. (Rev. 2)
Withdrawn –Ref. storm sewer profiles.
e. Revise inlets to ensure gutter depth < 1.5" (0.125') on private streets with roll top curb. This
requires conservative evaluation of inlets on Aldersgate Row, Beechen Lane, Petyward Lane, and
Priory Terrace. Note, for example, inlets 11, 84, 86, 92, 94, and 96—all located on roll top section
streets with gutter depth >1.5" (at inlet). Despite transition to CG -6 at inlets, there is unknown
effect through roll-top sections prior to CG -6 transition. 2" roll top (ht.) vs. 6" CG -6 suggests
impact to multiple dwellings under current design. A 25 -yr event will have an even worse effect.
(Rev. 2) Partially addressed. Re£ roll-top detail, sheet 25: 2" depth (0.1667') overtops curb.
Although depth at inlets 11, 84, 92, 94 is reduced if compare 7/5 .PDF with 8 -Jun Inlet Report, at
none of the six listed inlets (11, 84, 86, 92, 94, 96) is depth <0.1667'. Please call to discuss.
(Rev. 2rev) Telecon w/Applicant 12 -Jul. Review error. Capacity /runoff depth roll-top gutter
=4" (0.33'). Also, ref. Applicant email: 7/12/2016 3:36 PM. Comment withdrawn.
f. Identify inlet 5 as a sag inlet. Provide spread (4 in/hr.) at inlet 5. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
g. Reduce spread at inlets 109 and 117. This request is supported by 14-410.G –text image, below.
(Spread at these inlets should reduce with design revision requested at a., above.) (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
h. Limit spread, inlet 68. Permissible spread for Upland Drive =2' +'/2 travel lane width, or 2' +
.5(13'), or 8.5'. Design proposes 9.46' spread. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
14-410.G.
G. Drainage. Adequate drainage control shall be provided for streets by installing culverts
under streets; side, lead, or outlet ditches; catch basins; curb inlets; or any other devices, including piping,
as determined to be necessary by the county engs4eer. All of these improvements shall meet the standards
of the county or, in the event no county standards exist, Virginia Department of Transportation standards.
21. Sheet 18 Minor: Match line with sheet 19 splits VC data. Show entire VC data on either sheet 18 or 19.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
22. Sheet 32 –Recommend revise block 10 plant list table title to include reff, to block 30 in title as well, if true.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
New (Rev. 2) (Rev. 2rev)
23. Sheets 6, 7, 8: Provide curb cuts for SWM Facility Maintenance Access (L-3, S-3, S-12) consistent with
6/28/16 Stantec SWM Plan for SWM facilities for blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 and 30.
Please call: New tel. 434.872-4501 –x3069.
File: SUB201600021-Old Trail Village blocks_ 10,16,17,18&30_RP_071216rev2rev
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewer:
SUB2016-00021
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Old Trail Village Block 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30 —ROAD Plan
Ammy George, Bill Ledbetter, Jeremy Fox —Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, aceorge(aroudabush.com
bledbetter(a)roudabush.com, jfox(a)roudabush.com
March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100]
Dave Brockman, dave a oldtrailvilla eg com
1 Feb 2016
3 May 2016
9 Jun 2016
17 Mar 2016
15 May 2016
11 Jul 2016 (Conditionally approved: Final Approval requirements, see below)
John Anderson
Final Approval requires:
1. VDOT, ACSA Approval
2. Alb. County Planning Div./ACF&R —"No objection"
a. Planning (6/23): Trees and sidewalks must be bonded with the road plans
b. ACF&R (7/7): Based on plans dated 6/8/16. No comments objections.
3. Contact Plan reviewer to discuss review comments: 5, 20.e, and 23. Address.
Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30 (block 30 Added with Rev. 1)
1. Sheet 1 —Revise index sheet 24 description to include ACSA Details. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. Sheets 6, 7, 8 —Reposition and add CG-12/curb ramps to face streets at perpendicular angle. This is a
recurrent VDOT comment (other projects). Please respond to VDOT comments on this ROAD Plan. (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up: to extent practical, street crossing between opposing curb ramps
should be perpendicular to the street to minimize crossing distance, avoid potential pedestrian confusion,
and minimize pedestrian -vehicle conflicts. To extent practical, revise placement of opposing curb ramps,
particularly at: Golf Drive/Fielding Run, Golf/Rowcross St, Upland Drive/Fielding Run, and Highgate
Row/Upland Drive intersections. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
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 Ramp 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.
3. All sheets —Please reference SDP201600006 and WP0201600009 preview comments. Revise ROAD Plan
as needed. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
4. Sheet 7 —Add stop sign label, Bayward St./Rowcross St. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Sheet 12 —Revise design; replace three (3) existing storm pipes. Run-off (CFS) exceeds pipe capacity:
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. 3 May 2016 Applicant response: "We [RGA] are preparing a comprehensive
analysis of the existing storm sewer system that drains to this area. There appears to be a difference
between what was planned and what was built. This analysis will follow under a separate cover."
a. Ex. 9-14 to 9-12
b. Ex. 9-12 to 2-18
c. Ex. 2-18 to 2-16
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
(Rev. 2) Partially addressed As follow-up, in response to J. Taggart email (6/27/2016 10:59
AM) stating in part: "Even though we are adding only four inlets and one manhole to this system,
we performed a fairly exhaustive model which included the other 71 inlets. This is the only way to
properly evaluate the true need for systemic upgrades. Our model clearly indicates the
containment of the 10 year hydraulic gradeline well within the system indicating our capacity is
adequate. 1 believe the recently submitted calculation package demonstrates this situation","
please accept that the first drainage comp checklist item in Engineering review is to ensure that all
[pipes] are designed within open channel flow capacities. Please confirm that pipes listed at a,b,c,
above, are within open channel capacities (HGL computation are not necessary, and should not be
relied upon unless the entire system is to be watertight.) Although 6/27 references calculation
package, neither 8 -Jun submittal nor 5 -Jul .PDF Attachment appear to include pipes listed at a,b,c,
above. Rather, this table Note (p. 2, STORM SEWER DOT REPORT): "These inlets connect to an
existing system at Existing Structure No. 9-12". This is the extent of reference to existing pipes.
Please provide analysis that ensures all pipes are designed within open channel flow capacities, or,
as an alternative, appeal review comment to County Engineer, and request unconditional ROAD
Plan approval. At this point, reviewer cannot confirm existing pipes which will receive additional
runoff with this design conform with review checklist —comment persists from 17 -Mar review. If
existing pipes cannot operate within open channel flow capacities, recommend examine options,
including Ex. pipe replacement. Image below: checklist. Checklist also attached to comments.
[* italics /emphasis added]
Drainage computations: (applicable to any plan proposing pipes, channels, etc.)
Pipe computations for all pipes
All proposed systems are designed within open channel flow capacities. (HGL
computations are not necessary, and should not be relied upon unless the entire
system is to be watertight.)
(Rev. 1) As follow-up: Run-off (CFS) exceeds pipe capacity at additional location (ref, storm sewer
design table, 5/3/2016:
d. Point 16 to 15: Revise design. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
6. Sheets 12, 13, 14 —Label pipe structures, plan view (Assign IDs). (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-
YR:
a. Label structures between inlets 15 and 17 (2 pipes; 1 MH) (Rev. 2) Addressed.
b. Label pipe #s 52, 54, 56, 58 (sheet 12); 79 (sheet 13). (Rev. 2) Addressed.
7. Sheet 14 Revise pipe DIA between inlet 123 and 121; run-off CFS exceeds pipe capacity. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
8. Sheet 16 —Provide landing /Sta. 10+11.75 — 10+51.75, Aldersgate Rd -40-ft. at 2-." 4% or less (can be
within first road/vertical curve). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
street grade is less than 4% for a minimum of 40' from the edge of pavement of the intersected street. (This grade
can be within the first road curve which transitions from the 2% intersected cross grade) {policy, follows ord. for
travelways 18-4.121 (ROAD Plan review checklist)
9. Sheet 16 — Provide VC transition: -2.08% to -1.54%, Beechen Lane. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. Sheets 16-19/CD-1 (Rev. 1) Addressed, except as noted (d.)
a. Shift CD -1 to proposed/existing grade point of intersection. At one location, 50' away.
b. Provide CD -1 at every vertical sag curve.
c. Provide CD -1 at every proposed/existing grade intersection.
d. As follow-up: provide CD -1 at Upland Drive, Sta. 23+50f. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
11. Sheets 16-19/inlets —Revise inlets shown above/below proposed grade. (Rev . 1) Addressed.
12. Sheet 17/PeWyard Lane Provide stationing along horizontal axis (profile). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Sheet 18 —Provide tangent or vertical curve data @ begin construction, Rowcross St. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
14. Sheet 19 Recommend revise 0.50 and 0.51% slope storm drains —ref. storm sewer schedule. (Rev. 1)
Withdrawn (review checklist explicitly states minimum slope for a storm pipe). Please see Drainage Plan
review checklist: item 3, pg. 2 (slopes at 0.5% min. to 16% max. (per VDOT studs for anchors over 16%)).
15. Sheets 20, 21 —Revise inlets shown above/below proposed grade. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
16. Sheet 20 —Storm Sewer Profile #53-#59: Show existing grade. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. Sheet 21 Revise storm sewer notes which seem to blend step, safety slab, and inlet shaping notes. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
New (Rev. 1)
18. Minor text edit —Check spelling of Aldersgate Row across plan sheets. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant
comment response d. 8 -Jun: "Road spelling has been confirmed as Adlersgate Row"
19. Sheet 8 —Provide horizontal geometry for Rowcross Street EP -EP transition from 26' to 32' width. (Rev. 2)
Withdrawn. Discussed with RGA week of 7/4.
20. Sheets 9, 10, 11 (storm drain design) —Also see 4"/6.5" inlet design sheets (Also: 14-410.G., Drainage)
Note: county requires and recommends a more conservative design.
Revise design to:
a. Provide L/Lt >1.0 at inlets 103, 105, 107, 111 (3 of 4 inlets located on inside of 110' R 20 mph
curve). (Rev. 2) Addressed. Column (L/Lt) was apparently removed from Storm Sewer Design
Calc. Inlet Report, but spread at inlets 103, 105, 107, 109, 111 and 117 are <8.55' (gutter pan [2]
+'/2 travel lane width). Rowcross St. (where all listed inlets located) varies 26'-32' EP/EP.
b. 36 inlet structures are 2' or 2.5' in length. This represents significant departure from past, more
conservative Old Trail Village ROAD Plan storm drain design/s. Provide design rationale for
carryover at every single non -sag inlet. Carryover should be a design exception, not the rule.
Carryover at every inlet during a 6" in/hr. event worsens in every less frequent storm event. (Rev.
2) Addressed. Although difference in preference for conservative design persists, addressed.
Also, ref. c., immediately below.
c. Eliminate carryover at Inlets 43, 59, 66, 68, 90 (locations not arbitrary; evaluated against grade).
Carryover at these locations strands water below each inlet, where it pools. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Carryover eliminated at all but one listed inlet (inlet 43), where carryover /bypass =0.98 cfs.
d. Provide spot elevations to guide construction at Inlets 123, 125, 129, 133, 135, 137. (Rev. 2)
Withdrawn —Ref. storm sewer profiles.
e. Revise inlets to ensure gutter depth < 1.5" (0.125') on private streets with roll top curb. This
requires conservative evaluation of inlets on Aldersgate Row, Beechen Lane, Petyward Lane, and
Priory Terrace. Note, for example, inlets 11, 84, 86, 92, 94, and 96—all located on roll top section
streets with gutter depth >1.5" (at inlet). Despite transition to CG -6 at inlets, there is unknown
effect through roll-top sections prior to CG -6 transition. 2" roll top (ht.) vs. 6" CG -6 suggests
impact to multiple dwellings under current design. A 25 -yr event will have an even worse effect.
(Rev. 2) Partially addressed. Ref. roll-top detail, sheet 25: 2" depth (0.1667',) overtops curb.
Although depth at inlets 11, 84, 92, 94 is reduced if compare 7/5 .PDF with 8 -Jun Inlet Report, at
none of the six listed inlets (11, 849 86, 92, 94, 96) is depth <0.1667'. Please call to discuss.
f. Identify inlet 5 as a sag inlet. Provide spread (4 in/hr.) at inlet 5. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
g. Reduce spread at inlets 109 and 117. This request is supported by 14-410.G —text image, below.
(Spread at these inlets should reduce with design revision requested at a., above.) (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
h. Limit spread, inlet 68. Permissible spread for Upland Drive —2' +'/Z travel lane width, or 2' +
.5(13'), or 8.5'. Design proposes 9.46' spread. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
14-410.G.
G. Drainage. Adequate drainage control shall be provided for streets by installing culverts
under streets; side, lead, or outlet ditches; catch basins; curb inlets; or any other devices, including piping,
as determined to be necessary by the county � All of these improvements shall meet the standards
of the county or, in the event no county standards exist, Virginia Department of Transportation standards.
21. Sheet 18 Minor: Match line with sheet 19 splits VC data. Show entire VC data on either sheet 18 or 19.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
22. Sheet 32 —Recommend revise block 10 plant list table title to include reff, to block 30 in title as well, if true.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
New (Rev. 2)
23. Sheets 6, 7, 8: Provide curb cuts for SWM Facility Maintenance Access (L-3, S-3, S-12) consistent with
6/28/16 Stantec SWM Plan for SWM facilities for blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 and 30.
Please call: New tel. 434.872-4501 —x3069.
File: SUB201600021-Old Trail Village blocks _10,16,17,18&30_RP_071116rev2
�YpF AL��,
4 �P
V l C?
t -1.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Chris Mulligan (cmulligan@roudabush.com)
From: Megan Yaniglos, AICP- Principal Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: May 18, 2016
Subject: SUB -2016-021 Old Trail- Blocks 10, 16, 17/18- Road Plans
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community
Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items
have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based
on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle
County Code.]
Requirements:
1. Indicate which streets are public and which are private.
2. Street trees need to be provided within the planting strip between the curb and
sidewalk. There are a number of trees that are shown in the one foot area at the back of
the sidewalk that could be relocated to be in the planting strip. See example below.
Revise.
F sT5 16 17
T 10 11 12 13 14 _
1
a
r* P -A
+ Pa wit
� i
`` i DRAINA
s I i 18
Ese.4.,, cE
3. The number of street trees provided is not correct. For the calculations per linear feet
needs to round up, not down. Example: Upland Drive states that 19.3 trees are required
and 19 are provided, however 20 need to be provided.
4. Remove any trees not within the right of way, as these are not necessary for the road
plans.
5. Street trees are not required per the recently approved ZMA, for private streets where
lots face an amenity. The trees provided along Byward Street and Petyward Lane are not
required.
Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296-
5832 ext. 3004 for further information.
2
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
Reviewer:
SUB2016-00021
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Old Trail Village Block 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30 —ROAD Plan
Ammy George, Bill Ledbetter, Jeremy Fox —Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, aceorge(aroudabush.com
bledbetter(a)roudabush.com, jfox(a)roudabush.com
March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100]
Dave Brockman, dave a oldtrailvilla eg com
1 Feb 2016
3 May 2016
17 Mar 2016
15 May 2016
John Anderson
Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30 (block 30 Added with Rev. 1)
1. Sheet 1 —Revise index sheet 24 description to include ACSA Details. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. Sheets 6, 7, 8 —Reposition and add CG-12/curb ramps to face streets at perpendicular angle. This is a
recurrent VDOT comment (other projects). Please respond to VDOT comments on this ROAD Plan. (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: to extent practical, street crossing between opposing curb ramps
should be perpendicular to the street to minimize crossing distance, avoid potential pedestrian confusion,
and minimize pedestrian -vehicle conflicts. To extent practical, revise placement of opposing curb ramps,
particularly at: Golf Drive/Fielding Run, Golf/Rowcross St, Upland Drive/Fielding Run, and Highgate
Row/Upland Drive intersections.
1. Previous comment: "Diagonal curb ramps force pedestrians descending the ramp to proceed into
the intersection before tuning 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". I.e. The ramps located at the intersection of Watervale Drive and
Crozet Ave. should also be adjusted Accordingly.
3. All sheets —Please reference SDP201600006 and WP0201600009 preview comments. Revise ROAD Plan
as needed. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
4. Sheet 7 —Add stop sign label, Bayward St./Rowcross St. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Sheet 12 —Revise design; replace three (3) existing storm pipes. Run-off (CFS) exceeds pipe capacity:
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. 3 May 2016 Applicant response: "We [RGA] are preparing a comprehensive
analysis of the existing storm sewer system that drains to this area. There appears to be a difference
between what was planned and what was built. This analysis will follow under a separate cover."
a. Ex. 9-14 to 9-12
b. Ex. 9-12 to 2-18
c. Ex. 2-18 to 2-16
(Rev. 1) As follow-up: Run-off (CFS) exceeds pipe capacity at additional location (re£ storm sewer
design table, 5/3/2016:
d. Point 16 to 15: Revise design.
6. Sheets 12, 13, 14 —Label pipe structures, plan view (Assign IDs). (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-
lp:
a. Label structures between inlets 15 and 17 (2 pipes; 1 MH)
b. Label pipe #s 52, 54, 56, 58 (sheet 12); 79 (sheet 13).
7. Sheet 14 —Revise pipe DIA between inlet 123 and 121; run-off CFS exceeds pipe capacity. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
8. Sheet 16 –Provide landing /Sta. 10+11.75 – 10+51.75, Aldersgate Rd 40-11. at 2."4% or less (can be
within first road/vertical curve). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
street grade is less than 4% for a minimum of 40' from the edge of pavement of the intersected street. (This grade
can be within the first road curve which transitions from the 2% intersected cross grade) {policy, follows ord. for
travelways 18-4.121 (ROAD Plan review checklist)
9. Sheet 16 — Provide VC transition: -2.08% to -1.54%, Beechen Lane. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. Sheets 16-19/CD-1 (Rev. 1) Addressed, except as noted (d.)
a. Shift CD -1 to proposed/existing grade point of intersection. At one location, 50' away.
b. Provide CD -1 at every vertical sag curve.
c. Provide CD -1 at every proposed/existing grade intersection.
d. As follow-up: provide CD -1 at Upland Drive, Sta. 23+50f.
11. Sheets 16-19/inlets –Revise inlets shown above/below proposed grade. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
12. Sheet 17/Petyward Lane –Provide stationing along horizontal axis (profile). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Sheet 18 –Provide tangent or vertical curve data @ begin construction, Rowcross St. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
14. Sheet 19 –Recommend revise 0.50 and 0.51% slope storm drains –ref storm sewer schedule. (Rev. 1)
Withdrawn (review checklist explicitly states minimum slope for a storm pipe). Please see Drainage Plan
review checklist: item 3, pg. 2 (slopes at 0.5% min. to 16% max. (per VDOT studs for anchors over 16%)).
15. Sheets 20, 21 –Revise inlets shown above/below proposed grade. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
16. Sheet 20 –Storm Sewer Profile #53-#59: Show existing grade. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. Sheet 21 –Revise storm sewer notes which seem to blend step, safety slab, and inlet shaping notes. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
New (Rev. 1)
18. Minor text edit –Check spelling of Aldersgate Row across plan sheets.
19. Sheet 8 –Provide horizontal geometry for Rowcross Street EP -EP transition from 26' to 32' width.
20. Sheets 9, 10, 11 (storm drain design) –Also see 4"/6.5" inlet design sheets (Also: 14-410.G., Drainage)
Note: county requires and recommends a more conservative design.
Revise desien to:
a. Provide L/Lt >1.0 at inlets 103, 105, 107, 111 (3 of 4 inlets located on inside of 110' R 20 mph
curve).
b. 36 inlet structures are 2' or 2.5' in length. This represents significant departure from past, more
conservative Old Trail Village ROAD Plan storm drain designs. Provide design rationale for
carryover at every single non -sag inlet. Carryover should be a design exception, not the rule.
Carryover at every inlet during a 6" in/hr. event worsens in every less frequent storm event.
c. Eliminate carryover at Inlets 43, 59, 66, 68, 90 (locations not arbitrary; evaluated against grade).
Carryover at these locations strands water below each inlet, where it pools.
d. Provide spot elevations to guide construction at Inlets 123, 125, 129, 133, 135, 137.
e. Revise inlets to ensure gutter depth < 1.5" (0.125') on private streets with roll top curb. This
requires conservative evaluation of inlets on Aldersgate Row, Beechen Lane, Petyward Lane, and
Priory Terrace. Note, for example, inlets 11, 84, 86, 92, 94, and 96—all located on roll top section
streets with gutter depth >1.5" (at inlet). Despite transition to CG -6 at inlets, there is unknown
effect through roll-top sections prior to CG -6 transition. 2" roll top (ht.) vs. 6" CG -6 suggests
impact to multiple dwellings under current design. A 25 -yr event will have an even worse effect.
f. Identify inlet 5 as a sag inlet. Provide spread (4 in/hr.) at inlet 5.
g. Reduce spread at inlets 109 and 117. This request is supported by 14-410.G –text image, below.
(Spread at these inlets should reduce with design revision requested at a., above.)
h. Limit spread, inlet 68. Permissible spread for Upland Drive =2' +'/2 travel lane width, or 2' +
.5(13'), or 8.5'. Design proposes 9.46' spread.
14-410.G.
G. Drainage. Adequate drainage control shall be provided for streets by installing culverts
under streets; side, lead, or outlet ditches; catch basins; curb inlets; or any other devices, including piping,
as determined to be necessary by the county e=a "�. All of these improvements shall meet the standards
of the county or, in the event no county standards exist, Virginia Department of Transportation standards.
21. Sheet 18 –Minor: Match line with sheet 19 splits VC data. Show entire VC data on either sheet 18 or 19.
22. Sheet 32 –Recommend revise block 10 plant list table title to include ref. to block 30 in title as well, if true.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
Please call if any questions : 434-296-5832 -x3069
File: SUB201600021-Old Trail Village blocks 10,16,17,18&30 RP_051516revl
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper. Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
February 23, 2016
Ms. Megan Yaniglos
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB -2016-00021 and SDP -2016-006 - Old Trail Blocks 10, 16,17 & 18
Dear Mr. Anderson and Ms. Yaniglos:
We have reviewed the Road Plan and Site PIan, submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates,
Inc., dated January 25. 2016, and we offer the following comments:
1. The design speed should be provided on the plan sheets and profiles.
2. When on -street parking is proposed on one side, clearly identify which side of the street
the parking will be located, the locations of "No Parking" signs should also be included.
3. Sight line triangles should include the available sight distance, offset from the edge of
travel way and centerline offset. The sight distances lengths have been corrected,
however, the sight lines should be measured to the center of the lane. For example: the
sight lines for Beechen Lane should not be extended into future block 30. When the lines
are accurately drawn they significantly impact lots 1-9.
4. Storm sewer computations, HGL computations and Storm inlet computations should be
provided. Also, there does not appear to be any horizontal or vertical constraints to the
storm sewer system therefore we do not recommend the use of DI -2's.
5. A detail should be provided showing the roadway layout with ADT of each roadway.
This will support the pavement design.
6. Roadway Typical Section: The sidewalk and buffer/planting strip cross -slope should be
shown graphically. Street trees should also be shown graphically with a dimension to the
back of curb as applicable. The roadway design speed should also be identified.
7. Pavement Marking/Signage Plan
a. Pavement markings and signage should be shown on the plan view.
b. All markings and appropriate signage shall be shown in accordance with the
current version of the MUTCD an&or the Virginia Supplement to the MUTCD.
c. Individual signs should have the MUTCD sign label reference included on the
plan.
8. Roll-top curb should not transition into CG -6 within the entrance radii. The transition
should happen within the private right-of-way prior to the CG -12's.
9. Road Plan Sheets 9-11: additional spot elevations should be provided around entrance
radii to ensure positive drainage.
10. Road Plan Sheet 10:
a. Golf Drive- Station 23+50- the crown of the road has been shifted. Is this the
intent?
b. The drainage easement shown for storm structures 92 and 94 should be designated
as private.
11. Road Plan Sheet 11: Rowcross Street - Station 17+70 thru 20+50- the grading does not
accurately depict the proposed typical section, it appears as if a ditch is behind the CG -6.
12. Guardrail beyond the limits of the right-of-way will not be maintained by VDOT. In
addition, guardrail itself can be a hazard. We do not recommend using guardrail if it is
not warranted. Also, we do not recommend installing guardrail over the sanitary sewer
line. The minimum depth of a GR -2 system is 6'. The depth of the post vs. sanitary depth
and future maintenance issues should be considered.
13. Road Plan Sheets 16-19: The design speeds should be identified on each sheet. Also a
landing, having a minimum of 50' in length and maximum vertical grade of 2% should be
provided at each intersection. For example: Upland Drive, station 19+37, does not appear
to meets the minimum landing requirements.
14. Road Plan Sheet 17: Upland Drive
a. Station 24+19.83 Centerline elevation conflicts with Rowcross profile.
b. For 25 mph the minimum K value in a sag condition is 26. The profile shows a K
value of 24.10.
15. Road Plan Sheet 18: Rowcross Street
a. The centerline elevation at intersection station 17.1.70.10 does not match sheet 11.
CIL elevation of 661.92 vs. 667.33. The profile appears to have been drawn at
667.33.
b. The GR -2 detail should be updated to the latest revision of 8.14.
16. Road Plan Sheet 20:
a. Storm profile 31-33 appears to be missing.
b. There are multiple areas where the proposed grades are not tied into the storm
structures. For example: storm sewer profile 121-129, structures 1 B, 5, 37, 109,
53, 59, 51 etc.
17. Road Plan Sheet 23: There are multiple areas where the proposed grades are not tied into
MH's. For example: R and S
I8. Site Plan Sheets 15-18: The intersection sight distance lines should be shown on these
sheets. The proposed plantings should not Iie within the sight distance triangle.
If additional information is needed concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434)422-9782.
Sincerely,
7�� *4k,-
TroY Austin P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING