HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201600066 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2016-09-13Short Review Comments Report for:
SUB201600066
SubApplication Type:
Woodlawn Subdivision - Road Plans
New Public Use Road Plan
Date Completed:05/02/2016
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/21/2016
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/16/2016
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 3/25/16.
No comments or objections.
Division:
Date Completed:04/14/2016
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:A. Morrison email [4/14/2016 11:07 AM]:
The above referenced plan is outside of the ACSA’s Jurisdictional Area. There appears to be no
utility conflicts and I have no comments. I hereby recommend approval of SUB201600066.
janderson2 4/14/2016 5:47 PM
Division:
Date Completed:04/18/2016
Reviewer:Joel DeNunzio VDOT
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:single 4/18/16 VDOT comment addressed via email /document exchange
Wed 4/20/2016 12:02 PM, email, JA to Willis Bedsaul, VDOT -"We’ll update County View (CV) plan
review database system."
Wed 4/20/2016 12:00 PM, email, W. Bedsaul, VDOT to JA - "There’s no objection to the road plan
design."
Mon 4/18/2016 1:25 PM, email, W. Bedsaul, VDOT to JA - "I’ve reviewed the pavement design
calculations, they all look good."
Division:
Date Completed:06/18/2016
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/27/2016
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:7-27-16 The applicant resubmitted before Planning was able to comment on the plans. CPP
Division:
Page:1 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 08, 2017
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Joel DeNunzio VDOT
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/25/2016
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:-ref. A. Morrison email (July 25, 2016 10:04 AM) to M. Greene, F. Pohl, J. Anderson -ROAD /Utility
plan Approved.
Division:
Date Completed:07/16/2016
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 6/9/16.
No comments or objections.
Division:
Date Completed:09/13/2016
Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/16/2016
Reviewer:Adam Moore VDOT
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/13/2016
Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/13/2016
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:9-13-16
Matthew,
All planning conditions of plat approval related to the road plan have been addressed by the
applicant.
Christopher P. Perez
Division:
Page:2 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 08, 2017
`'�✓ o,n �✓
fer
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: Woodlawn Subdivision,ROAD Plan
Plan preparer: Clint Shifflett,Timmons Group/608 Preston Ave#200 Charlottesville,VA
22903 [clint.shifflett@timmons.com;craig.kotarski@,timmons.com
Owner: Marjorie M.Paul/2163 Bonaventura Drive,Vienna,VA 22181
Applicant/Developer: Woodlawn Development,LLC/2180 Owensville Rd,Charlottesville,VA 22901
Plan received date: 25 Mar 2016
(Rev. 1) 13 Jun 2016
(Rev.2) 19 July 2016
Date of comments: 2 May2016
(Rev. 1) 18 Jun 2016
(Rev.2) 13 Sept 2016
Reviewer: John Anderson
(Rev.2) Matt Wentland
•
ROAD Plan(SUB201600066)
Clint,
All comments have been addressed and the road plans have been approved by all agencies.
1. Note/C1.0--Proposed road cross section: 25 mph design speed/shoulder-ditch design/20'paved width/no
parking/80 ADT(8 single-family residential units)qualifies for reduced roadway width per VDOT Road
Design Manual,rev.Apr-2016/AASHTO Green Book.
able 2: Geometric Design Standards for 'sidential and Mixed Use Subdi, rn Strec' ,GS-SSAR):
Lower design speeds (and street widths) may be utilized provided they are
designed in accordance with the AASHTO Green Book or AASHTO's Guidelines
for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT<400). The
designer should coordinate with VDOT in advance of design (e.g. sketch plan
stage) if this alternative criteria is being utilized.
AASHTO,A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,2011,6th Edition:
ngineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
5-6 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
Table 5-S.Minimum Width of Traveled Way and Shoulders
Metric U.S.Customary
Minimum Width of Traveled Way(m) Minimum Width of Traveled Way(ft)
Design for Specified Design Volume(veh/day) Design for Specified Design Volume(veh/day)
Speed under 400 to 1500 to over Speed under 400 to 1500 to over
(km/h) 400 1500 2000 2000 (mph) 400 1500 2000 2000
20 5.4 6.0° ( 6.0 6.6 15 18 20° 20 22
30 5.4 6.0° 6.6 7.26 20 18 20° 22 246
40 5.4 6.0° 6.6 7.26 25 18 20° 22 246 _
50 5.4 6.0° 6.6 7.26 30 18 20° 22 246
60 5.4 6.0° 6.6 7.26 40 18 20° 22 246
70 6.0 6.6 6.6 7.26 45 20 22 22 246
80 6.0 6.6 6.6 7.28 50 20 22 22 246
90 6.6 6.6 7.26 7.28 55 22 22 246 248
100 6.6 6.6 7.28 7.26 60 22 22 246 246
65 22 22 246 246
Width of graded shoulder on each side Width of graded shoulder on each side
All of the road(m) All of the road(ft)
speeds 0.6 1.5°, I 1.8 2.4 speeds 2 I 5°•' I 6 8
° For roads In mountainous terrain with design volume of 400 to 600 veh/day,use 5.4-m(18-ft)traveled way
width and 0.6-m(2-ft)shoulder width.
ACF&R requires a minimum 20' paved width for Fire Rescue Apparatus. A 20' paved width is provided.
Additional width may he required of similar subdivisions in the future for school bus access. Given limited
number of residential units and roadway length. Engineering does not object to proposed 20' width.
Note:
VDOT Road Design Manual,Rev. Apr. 2016, Table 4, Geometric Design Standard for School Bus Access
Road requires Min.24'paved width/4' shoulders for 2-way travel with no parking. Apr-2016 revision to
VDOT Road Design Manual revises standards that may alter county review. Decisions affecting residents'
right to receive public school bus service,including special-needs buses requiring long-interval stationary
idling,require cautionary counterbalance to any tendency to approve design alternatives that do not meet all
relevant VDOT standards. Reduced radius cul-de-sac(less than typical)on a recent project set uneasy
precedent where VDOT standards are concerned. This is to be avoided. In this instance,eight residences
and roadway length(900-ft,0.17 Mi)taken with Table 2 options support proposed 20' paved width. Last:
Albemarle County Schools should not be placed in technical advisory position of sharing transportation
routing policy*(changeable)as basis of(permanent)design approval. A 24' width is generally preferable
for a variety of performance and safety reasons. Engineering may in the future request that small volume
street designs reflect Geometric Design Standards for school bus access road,depending on circumstance.
Ref.Road Design Manual,Apr-2016, Appendix B(1)/SSAR,Eff.July 1,2009,pg. B(1)-l8 image below:
(Rev. 1)Acknowledged.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL BUS ACCESS ROAD
The minimum pavement widths for school bus access roads,by section type.
One Way Rural(Shoulder) Urban(Curb and Gutter)
Pavement 16 feet 22 feet(2)
Shoulder 4 feet(1) -
Parking Prohibited 8 feet additional per parking lane
Minimum Turning Radius 45 feet 45 feet
Two Way Rural(Shoulder) Urban(Curb and Gutter)
Pavement 24 feet 24 feet(2)
Shoulder 4 feet(1) -
Parking Prohibited 8 feet additional per parking lane
Minimum Turning Radius 45 feet 45 feet
Note: (1) Without Guardrail:with Guardrail add 3 feet.
(2) Minimum 30 feet Right of Way as required.
TABLE 4—SCHOOL BUS ACCESS ROAD'
* "Elementary school students are allowed to walk up to 0.3 miles to the bus stop"(Craig Kotarski,Timmons,October
07,2015 7:05 PM email to County,re.20 lot subdivision ROAD Plan—per Jim Foley,Albemarle County schools director
of transportation)
2. C1.0-Recommend extend stone base 12" beyond edge of pavemen' (Rev. 1)Addressed. Applicant
response: "VDOT has approved the proposed section as shown. With this in mind,we have not extended
the stone base."
3. C2.0-Show stream buffer. (Rev. 1)Addressed.
4. C4 ' I Revise these sheet titles to:Site La.vow. ROAD Plans cannot approve Site Plans. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
5. �_+_r : ,. Show outline of grass channels and extended detention;retain channel/detention labels; show
permanent SWM facility easements. Remove other SWM facility/BMP details. Instead,reference
WP0201600021. Design revision to WPO plan should not require revision to ROAD Plan. (Rev. 1)
Partially Addressed. Applicant response d. 9-Jun 2016:"The ditch and stilling basin details are necessary
for VDOT review as they are adjacent to the public right-of-way and VDOT maintained culverts."
Engineering accepts this position,and re-states request that any remaining SWM facility/BMP details be
removed from ROAD Plans. For example, show SWM#1 as single line outline. Ref. WP02O1600021.
(VDOT has no authority or jurisdiction to review or approve this SWM facility.: (Rev.2)Addressed.
6. C4.0-Curve Table: it is unclear whether curve 1 is near cul-de-sac and curve 2 near Woodlands Road.
This seems to be the case,but please clarify. Show PC/PT for each curve on/with roadway CL stationing.
(Rev. 1)Partially Addressed. Show PC/PT for each curve on/with roadway CL stationing.(Rev.2)
Addressed.
7. C4.O/C4.I Provide: traffic control(stop,speed limit,no parking)and street name signs. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
8. C4.O/C4.1 -Stilling basin A/B weir calculation details:Recommend label culvert outfall protection/stilling
basin floor elevation. Culvert A: 561',Culvert B: 542'. (Rev. 1)Addressed.
9. C4.0/C4.1 -Note(Weir Calcula!ions): 1(100} -5 "1 in'111-as opposed to 5.8 in/hr--conservative approach
does not require revision. (Rev. 1)Acknowledged. Unchanged.
10. C4.1-Lot 6: Confirm with ACF&R that 12.6%and 9.4%grades will not impede tire/rescue access(newer
units). Concern with recent project that tow hook(13- 1/8" hook-to-ground clearance)may drag pavement.
(Rev. 1)Addressed. Ref.ACF&R email to Applicant: 6/16/2016 10:43 AM;no concerns expressed. No
portion of Lot 6 driveway exceeds 16%.
11.
Ggineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
11. ide VDOT CD-1 at Woodlawn Road,station 17+25,station 18+25,approximately. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
12. L_, _.o miend revise profile to read Woodlawn Road. (Rev. 1)Addressed.
13. C6.0—Note(Culvert A/B calculations): 1(25)—4.5 in/hr as opposed to 4.8 in/hr -does not require revision.
(Rev. 1)Addressed. Unchanged.
14. Recommend include SUB201600066 in ROAD Plan title. (Rev. 1)Not addressed;recommend include
SUB201600066 in ROAD Plan title,if possible,in support of unpredictable plan retrieval,identification,
inspection,or bonding needs,or to help clarify and support administrative tracking and reporting tasks.
(Rev.2)Addressed.
Thank you.
SUB 20600066_W ood l a wn_RP_080816rev2
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
August 16, 2016
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Mattwhew Wentland, P.E.
Re: Woodlawn — Road Plan
SUB -2016-00066
Review #3
Dear Mr. Wentland:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Timmons Group, most recently
revised 19 duly 2016, and find it to be generally acceptable; however, the SSAR exception
request for connectivity is still under review. We will notify the County once that review is
complete.
Once approved, please allow for this office to obtain a County stamped copy.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is
desired please contact Justin Deel at (434) 422-9894.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
"*.di
July 19th, 2016
County of Albemarle
John Anderson, P.E.
Community Development
40I McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
RE: SUB201600066—Woodlawn Subdivision —Road Plan
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed all of your comments from June 18`h, 2016 and made the necessary
revisions to the outstanding items. Please find our responses to the outstanding comments
below in bold lettering.
5. 4.0/C4.1—Show outline of grass channels and extended detention;retain channel/detention labels;
show permanent SWM facility easements. Remove other SWM facility/BMP details. Instead,
reference WPO201600021. Design revision to WPO plan should not require revision to ROAD
Plan. (REV.1)Partially Addressed.Applicant response d. 9-Jun2016. "The ditch and stilling basin
details are necessary for VDOT review as they are adjacent to the public right-of-way and VDOT
maintained culverts."Engineering accepts this position,and re-states that any remaining SWM
facility/BMP details be removed from ROAD Plans.For example,show SWM#1 as single outline.
Ref. WPO20160021. (VDOT has not authority or jurisdiction to review or approve this SWM
facility.
Per our engineering meeting on 6/23/16,this comment has been withdrawn.
6. C4.0—Curve Table: it is unclear whether curve 1 is near cul-de-sac and curve 2 near Woodlands
Road. This seems to be the case,but please clarify. Show PC/PT for each curve on/with roadway
CL stationing. (Rev. 1)Partially Addressed. Show PC/PT for each curve on/with roadway CL
stationing.
The PC/PT stations have been labeled.
14. Recommend include SUB201600066 in ROAD Plan title. (Rev.!)Not addressed;recommend
include SUB201600066 in ROAD Plan title,if possible, in support of unpredictable plan retrieval,
identification,inspection,or bonding needs, or to help clarify and support administrative tracking
and reporting tasks.
"SUB201600066" has been added to the cover sheet of the Road Plan.
We have submitted 4 revised copies of the Road Plan for your review/approval. 2 additional sets
have been submitted to the County for VDOT review/approval. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to give me a call at 434.327.1690.
Sincerely,
Clint Shifflett, PE
Project Engineer
apt A
vt�tylQ
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: Woodlawn Subdivision, ROAD Plan
Plan preparer: Clint Shifflett, Timmons Group /608 Preston Ave #200 Charlottesville, VA
22903 [clint.shifflett&timmons.com ; craig.kotarski(ctimmons.com ]
Owner: Marjorie M. Paul /2163 Bonaventura Drive, Vienna, VA 22181
Applicant/Developer: Woodlawn Development, LLC /2180 Owensville Rd, Charlottesville, VA 22901
Plan received date: 25 Mar 2016
(Rev. 1) 13 Jun 2016
Date of comments: 2 May2016
(Rev. 1) 18 Jun 2016
Reviewer: John Anderson
ROAD Plan (SUB201600066)
Note / C 1.0 -Proposed road cross section: 25 mph design speed /shoulder -ditch design /20' paved width /no
parking /80 ADT (8 single-family residential units) qualifies for reduced roadway width per VDOT Road
Design Manual, rev. Apr -2016 /AASHTO Green Book.
Table 2: Geometric Design Standards for Residential and Mixed Use Subdivision Streets (GS-SSAR):
Lower design speeds (and street widths) may be utilized provided they are
designed in accordance with the AASHTO Green Book or AASHTO's Guidelines
for Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads (ADT<400). The
designer should coordinate with VDOT in advance of design (e.g. sketch plan
stage) if this alternative criteria is being utilized.
AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2011, 6t' Edition:
5-6 I A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
Table 5.5. Minimum Width of Traveled Way and Shoulders
Metric 911111111111111111U.S.
Customary
Design
Speed
(km/h)
Minimum Width of Traveled Way (m)
for Specified Design Volume (veh/day)
Minimum Width of Traveled Way (ft)
Design for Specified Design Volume (veh/day)
under
400
400 to
1500
1500 to
2000
over
2000
Speed under
(mph) 400
400 to
1500
1500 to
2000
over
2000
20
5.4
6.0°
6.0
6.6
15 18
20°
20
22
30
5.4
6.0°
6.6
7.26
20 18
20°
22
24b
40
5.4
6.0°
6.6
7.26
25 18
20°
22
24b
50
5.4
6.0°
6.6
7.2b
30 1 18
20°
22
246
60
5.4
6.0°
6.6
7.2b
40 18
20°
22
24b
70
6.0
6.6
6.6
7.2b
45 20
22
22
24b
80
6.0
6.6
6.6
7.2b
50 20
22
22
246
90
6.6
6.6
7.2b
7.26
55 22
22
246
24b
100
6.6
6.6
7.2b
7.2b
60 22
22
246
24b
65 22
22
246
24b
All
speeds
Width of graded shoulder on each side
of the road (m)
Width of graded shoulder on each side
All of the road (ft)
0.6 1.5.°-` 1.8 2.4
speeds 2 51` 6 8
° For roads in mountainous terrain with design volume of 400 to 600 veh/day, use 5.4-m [18 -ft] traveled way
width and 0.6-m [2 -ft] shoulder width.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
ACF&R requires a minimum 20' paved width for Fire Rescue AEparatus. A 20' paved width is provided.
Additional width may be required of similar subdivisions in the future for school bus access. Given limited
number of residential units and roadway length, Engineering does not object to proposed 20' width.
Note:
VDOT Road Design Manual, Rev. Apr. 2016, Table 4, Geometric Design Standard for School Bus Access
Road requires Min. 24' paved width /4' shoulders for 2 -way travel with no parking. Apr -2016 revision to
VDOT Road Design Manual revises standards that may alter county review. Decisions affecting residents'
right to receive public school bus service, including special -needs buses requiring long -interval stationary
idling, require cautionary counterbalance to any tendency to approve design alternatives that do not meet all
relevant VDOT standards. Reduced radius cul-de-sac (less than typical) on a recent project set uneasy
precedent where VDOT standards are concerned. This is to be avoided. In this instance, eight residences
and roadway length (900 -ft, 0.17 Mi) taken with Table 2 options support proposed 20' paved width. Last:
Albemarle County Schools should not be placed in technical advisory position of sharing transportation
routing policy* (changeable) as basis of (permanent) design approval. A 24' width is generally preferable
for a variety of performance and safety reasons. Engineering may in the future request that small volume
street designs reflect Geometric Design Standards for school bus access road, depending on circumstance.
Ref. Road Design Manual, Apr -2016, Appendix B(1)/SSAR, Eff. July 1, 2009, pg. B(1)-18 —image below:
(Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL BUS ACCESS ROAD
The minimum pavement widths for school bus access roads, by section type.
One Way
Rural (Shoulder)
Urban (Curb and Gutter)
Pavement
16 feet
22 feet (2)
Shoulder
4 feet (1)
-
Parking
Prohibited
8 feet additional per parking lane
Minimum Turning Radius
45 feet
45 feet
Two Way
Rural (Shoulder)
Urban (Curb and Gutter)
Pavement
24 feet
24 feet (2)
Shoulder
4 feet (1)
-
Parking
Prohibited
8 feet additional per parking lane
Minimum Turning Radius
45 feet
45 feet
Note: (1) Without Guardrail: with Guardrail add 3 feet.
(2) Minimum 30 feet Right of Way as required.
TABLE 4 — SCHOOL BUS ACCESS ROAD'
* "Elementary school sivaenis are auowea io wan< up io u.s mues io the bus stop" (Craig Kotarski, Timmons, October
07, 2015 7:05 PM email to County, re. 20 lot subdivision ROAD Plan —per Jim Foley, Albemarle County schools director
of transportation)
2. C1.0 —Recommend extend stone base 12" beyond edge of pavement. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant
response: "VDOT has approved the proposed section as shown. With this in mind, we have not extended
the stone base."
3. C2.0 —Show stream buffer. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
4. C4.0 /C4.1 —Revise these sheet titles to: Site Layout. ROAD Plans cannot approve Site Plans. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
5. C4.0 /C4.1 —Show outline of grass channels and extended detention; retain channel /detention labels; show
permanent SWM facility easements. Remove other SWM facility/BMP details. Instead, reference
WP0201600021. Design revision to WPO plan should not require revision to ROAD Plan. (Rev. 1)
Partially Addressed. Applicant response d. 9 -Jun 2016: "The ditch and stilling basin details are necessary
for VDOT review as they are adjacent to the public right-of-way and VDOT maintained culverts."
Engineering accepts this position, and re -states request that any remaining SWM facility BMP details be
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
removed from ROAD Plans. For example, show SWM #1 as single line outline. Ref. WP0201600021.
(VDOT has no authority or jurisdiction to review or approve this SWM facility.)
6. C4.0 —Curve Table: it is unclear whether curve 1 is near cul-de-sac and curve 2 near Woodlands Road.
This seems to be the case, but please clarify. Show PC/PT for each curve on/with roadway CL stationing.
(Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. Show PC/PT for each curve on/with roadway CL stationing.
7. C4.0/C4.1 —Provide: traffic control (stop, speed limit, no parking) and street name signs. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
8. C4.0/C4.1 —Stilling basin A /B weir calculation details: Recommend label culvert outfall protection /stilling
basin floor elevation. Culvert A: 561', Culvert B: 542'. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
9. C4.0/C4.1 —Note (Weir Calculations): I(100) =5.3 in/hr as opposed to 5.8 in/hr —conservative approach
does not require revision. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. Unchanged.
10. C4.1 —Lot 6: Confirm with ACF&R that 12.6% and 9.4% grades will not impede fire/rescue access (newer
units). Concern with recent project that tow hook (13- 1/8" hook -to -ground clearance) may drag pavement.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Ref. ACF&R email to Applicant: 6/16/2016 10:43 AM; no concerns expressed. No
portion of Lot 6 driveway exceeds 16%.
11. C5.0 —Provide VDOT CD -1 at Woodlawn Road, station 17+25, station 18+25, approximately. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
12. C5.0 —Recommend revise profile to read Woodlawn Road. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. C6.0 —Note (Culvert A B calculations): I(25) =4.5 in/hr as opposed to 4.8 in/hr —does not require revision.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Unchanged.
14. Recommend include SUB201600066 in ROAD Plan title. (Rev. 1) Not addressed; recommend include
SUB201600066 in ROAD Plan title, if possible, in support of unpredictable plan retrieval, identification,
inspection, or bonding needs, or to help clarify and support administrative tracking and reporting tasks.
Thank you.
434.872-4501 -0069 (New)
SUB20600066—Woodlawn—RP-061816rev 1
June 9th, 2016
County of Albemarle
John Anderson, P.E.
Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
RE: SUB201600066-Woodlawn Subdivision -Road Plan
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed all of your comments from May 2"d, 2016 and made the necessary
revisions. Please find our responses to the comments below in bold lettering.
1. Note/C1.0-Proposed road cross section: 25 mph design speed/shoulder-ditch design/20'paved
width/no parking/80 ADT(8 single-family residential units)qualifies for reduced roadway width
per VDOT Road Design Manual, rev. Apr-2016/AASHTO Green Book.
Table 2: Geometric Design Standards for Residential and Mixed Use Subdivision Streets(GS-
SSAR):
Lower design speeds (and street widths) may be utilized provided they are
designed in accordance with the AASHTO Green Book or AASHTO's Guidelines
for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT<400). The
designer should coordinate with VDOT in advance of design (e.g. sketch plan
stage) if this alternative criteria is being utilized.
AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.2011,6th Edition:
5-6 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
Table S-S.Minimum Width of Traveled Way and Shoulders
jMinimum Width of Traveled Way(m) I Minimum Width of Traveled Way(ft)
Design 1 for Specified Design Volume(veh/day) Design 1 for Specified Design Volume(veh/day)
Speed under 400 to 1500 to over Speed MN j 400 to j 1500 to over
(km/h) 400 1500 2000 j 2000 (mph) 1500 2000 2000
20 5.4 6.3° 6.0 6.6 15 18 200 20 22
30 5.4 5.3° 5.6 7.2° 20 18 20° 22 24°
40 5.4 6.0° 5.6 7.2° ,.. 25 18 20" 22 24'
50 5.4 6.3° 6.5 7.2° 30 18 20° 22 24°
60 5.4 5.2° 0 40 18 20° - 22 24°
5.6 7.2i
70 6.0 6.6 6.6 7-2° 45 20 22 22 24"
80 5.0 6.6 5.6 7.2° 50 20 22 22 24°
90 6.6 6.6 7.2° 7.2° 55 22 22 24° 24°
i
100 i 6.5 6.6 7.2° 7.2° 60 22 22 24° 24°
i 65 22 22 24° 240
Width of graded shoulder on each side 1 Width of graded shoulder on each side
all of the road(m) I Ail of the road(ft)
speeds I 3.6 1.5.'` 1.8 2.4 speeds j 2 5°` 6 8
' For roads n mountainous terrain with design volume of 400 to 600 veh/daµase 5�m:18-ft)traveled way
width and 0.5-m 2-ft)shoulder width.
ACF&R requires a minimum 20'paved width for Fire Rescue Apparatus. A 20'paved width is
provided. Additional width may be required of similar subdivisions in the future for school bus
access. Given limited number of residential units and roadway length,Engineering does not object
to proposed 20' width.
Note:
VDOT Road Design Manual,Rev. Apr. 2016, Table 4, Geometric Design Standard for School Bus
Access Road requires Min. 24'paved width/4' shoulders for 2-way travel with no parking. Apr-
2016 revision to VDOT Road Design Manual revises standards that may alter county review.
June 10, 2016
Page 2 of 3
Decisions affecting residents' right to receive public school bus service, including special-needs
buses requiring long-interval stationary idling,require cautionary counterbalance to any tendency to
approve design alternatives that do not meet all relevant VDOT standards. Reduced radius cul-de-
sac(less than typical)on a recent project set uneasy precedent where VDOT standards are
concerned. This is to be avoided. In this instance, eight residences and roadway length(900-ft,0.17
Mi)taken with Table 2 options support proposed 20' paved width. Last: Albemarle County Schools
should not be placed in technical advisory position of sharing transportation routing policy*
(changeable)as basis of(permanent)design approval. A 24'width is generally preferable for a
variety of performance and safety reasons. Engineering may in the future request that small volume
street designs reflect Geometric Design Standards for school bus access road,depending on
circumstance. Ref. Road Design Manual, Apr-2016, Appendix B(1)/SSAR,Eff. July 1, 2009,pg.
B(1)-18—image below:
GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL BUS ACCESS ROAD
The minimum pavement widths for school bus access roads,by section type.
One Way Rural(Shoulder) Urban(Curb and Gutter)
Pavement 16 feet 22 feet(2)
Shoulder 4 feet(1) -
Parking Prohibited 8 feet additional per parking lane
Minimum Turning Radius 45 feet 45 feet
Two Way 111100111111111MILIT Urban(Curb and Gutter)
Pavement l 24 feet(2)
Shoulder 4 feet(1) -
Parking Prohibited 8 feet additional per parking lane
Minimum Turning Radius 45 feet 45 feet
Note: (1) Without Guardrail:with Guardrail add 3 feet.
(2) Minimum 30 feet Right of Way as required.
TABLE 4-SCHOOL BUS ACCESS ROAD'
* "Elementary school students are allowed to walk up to 0.3 miles to the bus stop"(Craig Kotarski,Timmons,
October 07,2015 7:05 PM email to County,re.20 lot subdivision ROAD Plan—per Jim Foley,Albemarle County
schools director of transportation)
Acknowleded
2. C1.0-Recommend extend stone base 12"beyond edge of pavement.
VDOT has approved the proposed section as shown. With this in mind,we have not
extended the stone base.
3. C2.0-Show stream buffer.
The stream buffer has been added to sheet C2.0.
4. C4.0/C4.1-Revise these sheet titles to:Site Layout. ROAD Plans cannot approve Site Plans.
The sheet titles have been revised to read "Site Layout," and the cover sheet index has been
updated accordingly.
5. C4.0/C4.1—Show outline of grass channels and extended detention;retain channel/detention labels;
show permanent SWM facility easements. Remove other SWM facility/BMP details. Instead
reference WPO201600021. Design revision to WPO plan should not require revision to ROAD
Plan.
The ditch,and stilling basin details are necessary for VDOT review as they are adjacent to
the public right-of-way and VDOT maintained culverts. Any calculation as it relates to water
quality are not included in the road plan document.
Sr/ '`S June 10, 2016
Page 3 of 3
6. C4.0—Curve Table: it is unclear whether curve 1 is near cul-de-sac and curve 2 near Woodlands
Road. This seems to be the case,but please clarify. Show PC/PT for each curve on/with roadway
CL stationing.
This is correct.Curve I is near the cul-de-sac,and curve 2 is near Woodlands Road. The
label has been adjusted/ relocated in order to make this more clear.
7. C4.0/C4.1 -Provide: traffic control(stop, speed limit,no parking)and street name signs.
Road signage has been provided.
8. C4.0/C4.1 —Stilling basin A B weir calculation details: Recommend label culvert outfall protection
/stilling basin floor elevation. Culvert A: 561',Culvert B: 542'.
Stilling basin dimensions and bottom elevations have been added to sheets C4.0/C4.I.
9. C4.0/C4.I —Note(Weir Calculations): I(100)=5.3 in/hr as opposed to 5.8 in/hr—conservative
approach does not require revision.
Acknowledged. Unchanged.
10. C4.1 —Lot 6: Confirm with ACF&R that 12.6%and 9.4%grades will not impede fire/rescue access
(newer units). Concern with recent project that tow hook(13- 1/8"hook-to-ground clearance)may
drag pavement.
ACF&R has not made a comment regarding the lot 6 driveway. I did reach out to them on
6/08/16 to confirm that this would not be an issue,and are still waiting for a response.
11. C5.0-Provide VDOT CD-1 at Woodlawn Road, station 17+25, station 18+25,approximately.
CD-1's have been provided at these locations.
12. C5.0-Recommend revise profile to read Woodlawn Road.
Revised.Woodlawn Road was not available. The developer has decided to use"Valcrest
Lane,"and this road name has been reserved with E91 1.
13. C6.0—Note(Culvert A B calculations): I(25)=4.5 in/hr as opposed to 4.8 in/hr—does not require
revision.
Acknowledged. Unchanged.
14. Recommend include SUB201600066 in ROAD Plan title.
Acknowledged. Unfortunately, I sent the plan set out without this reference.Our transmittal
will include this denotation,and any subsequent submittals will as well.
We have submitted 8 revised copies of the Road Plan for your review. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to give me a call at 434.962.4337.
Sincerely,
Clint Shifflett, PE
Project Engineer
apt A
vt�rtlQ
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: Woodlawn Subdivision, ROAD Plan
Plan preparer: Clint Shifflett, Timmons Group /608 Preston Ave #200 Charlottesville, VA
22903 [clint.shifflett&timmons.com ; craig.kotarski(ctimmons.com ]
Owner: Marjorie M. Paul /2163 Bonaventura Drive, Vienna, VA 22181
Applicant/Developer: Woodlawn Development, LLC /2180 Owensville Rd, Charlottesville, VA 22901
Plan received date: 25 Mar 2016
Date of comments: 2 May2016
Reviewer: John Anderson
ROAD Plan (SUB201600066)
Note / C1.0 -Proposed road cross section: 25 mph design speed /shoulder -ditch design /20' paved width /no
parking /80 ADT (8 single-family residential units) qualifies for reduced roadway width per VDOT Road
Design Manual, rev. Apr -2016 /AASHTO Green Book.
Table 2: Geometric Design Standards for Residential and Mixed Use Subdivision Streets (GS-SSAR):
Lower design speeds (and street widths) may be utilized provided they are
designed in accordance with the AASHTO Green Book or AASHTO's Guidelines
for Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads (ADT<400). The
designer should coordinate with VDOT in advance of design (e.g. sketch plan
stage) if this alternative criteria is being utilized.
AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2011, 61 Edition:
5-6 I A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
Table 5-5. Minimum Width of Traveled Way and Shoulders
Metric
U.S. Customary
Design
Speed
(km/h)
Minimum Width of Traveled Way (m)
for Specified Design Volume (veh/day)
Minimum Width of Traveled Way (ft)
Design for Specified Design Volume (veh/day)
under
400
400 to
1500
1500 to
2000
over
2000
Speed under
(mph) 400
400 to
1500
1500 to
2000
over
2000
20
5.4
6.01
6.0
6.6
15 18
201
20
22
30
5.4
6.0°
6,6
7.2b
20 18
20°
22
24b
40
5.4
6.01
6.6
7.26
25 18
20°
22
24b
50
1 5.4
6.0°
6A
7.2b
30 1 18
20°
22
246
60
5.4
6.0°
6.6
7.2b
40 18
20°
22
24b
70
6.0
6.6
6.6
7.2b
45 20
22
22
246
g0
6.0
6.6
6A
7.2b
50 20
22
22
24b
90
6.6
6.6
7.2b
7.26
55 22
22
246
24b
100
6.6
6.6
7.2b
7.2b
60 22
22
24b
246
65 22
22
246
246
allof
speeds
Width of graded shoulder on each side
the road (m)
Width of graded shoulder on each side
All of the road (ft)
0.6 1,5�,-7 1.8 2.4
speeds 2 5.x 6 8
° For roads in mountainous terrain with design volume cf 400 to 600 veh/day, use 5.4-m [18 -ft] traveled way
width and 0.6-m [2 -ft] shoulder width.
ACF&R requires a minimum 20' paved width for Fire Rescue Apparatus. A 20' paved width is provided.
Additional width may be required of similar subdivisions in the future for school bus access. Given limited
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
number of residential units and roadway length, Engineering does not object to proposed 20' width.
Note:
VDOT Road Design Manual, Rev. Apr. 2016, Table 4, Geometric Design Standard for School Bus Access
Road requires Min. 24' paved width /4' shoulders for 2 -way travel with no parking. Apr -2016 revision to
VDOT Road Design Manual revises standards that may alter county review. Decisions affecting residents'
right to receive public school bus service, including special -needs buses requiring long -interval stationary
idling, require cautionary counterbalance to any tendency to approve design alternatives that do not meet all
relevant VDOT standards. Reduced radius cul-de-sac (less than typical) on a recent project set uneasy
precedent where VDOT standards are concerned. This is to be avoided. In this instance, eight residences
and roadway length (900 -ft, 0.17 Mi) taken with Table 2 options support proposed 20' paved width. Last:
Albemarle County Schools should not be placed in technical advisory position of sharing transportation
routing policy* (changeable) as basis of (permanent) design approval. A 24' width is generally preferable
for a variety of performance and safety reasons. Engineering may in the future request that small volume
street designs reflect Geometric Design Standards for school bus access road, depending on circumstance.
Ref. Road Design Manual, Apr -2016, Appendix B(1)/SSAR, Eff. July 1, 2009, pa. B(1)-18 —image below:
GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL BUS ACCESS ROAD
The minimum pavement widths for school bus access roads, by section type.
One Way
Rural (Shoulder)
Urban (Curb and Gutter)
Pavement
16 feet
22 feet (2)
Shoulder
4 feet (1)
-
Parking
Prohibited
8 feet additional per parking lane
Minimum Turning Radius
45 feet
45 feet
Two Way
Rural (Shoulder)
Urban (Curb and Gutter)
Pavement
24 feet
24 feet (2)
Shoulder
4 feet (1)
-
Parking
Prohibited
8 feet additional per parking lane
Minimum Turning Radius
45 feet
45 feet
Note: (1) Without Guardrail: with Guardrail add 3 feet.
(2) Minimum 30 feet Right of Way as required.
TABLE 4 — SCHOOL BUS ACCESS ROAD*
* "Elementary school students are allowed to walk up to 0.3 miles to the bus stop" (Craig Kotarski, Timmons, October
07, 2015 7:05 PM email to County, re. 20 lot subdivision ROAD Plan —per Jim Foley, Albemarle County schools director
of transportation)
2. CLO —Recommend extend stone base 12" beyond edge of pavement.
3. C2.0 —Show stream buffer.
4. C4.0 /C4.1 —Revise these sheet titles to: Site Layout. ROAD Plans cannot approve Site Plans.
5. C4.0 /C4.1 —Show outline of grass channels and extended detention; retain channel /detention labels; show
permanent SWM facility easements. Remove other SWM facility/BMP details. Instead, reference
WP0201600021. Design revision to WPO plan should not require revision to ROAD Plan.
6. C4.0 —Curve Table: it is unclear whether curve 1 is near cul-de-sac and curve 2 near Woodlands Road.
This seems to be the case, but please clarify. Show PC/PT for each curve on/with roadway CL stationing.
7. C4.0/C4.1 —Provide: traffic control (stop, speed limit, no parking) and street name signs.
8. C4.0/C4.1 —Stilling basin A B weir calculation details: Recommend label culvert outfall protection /stilling
basin floor elevation. Culvert A: 561', Culvert B: 542'.
9. C4.0/C4.1 —Note (Weir Calculations): I(100) =5.3 in/hr as opposed to 5.8 in/hr —conservative approach
does not require revision.
10. C4.1 —Lot 6: Confirm with ACF&R that 12.6% and 9.4% grades will not impede fire/rescue access (newer
units). Concern with recent project that tow hook (13- 1/8" hook -to -ground clearance) may drag pavement.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
11. C5.0 —Provide VDOT CD -1 at Woodlawn Road, station 17+25, station 18+25, approximately.
12. C5.0 —Recommend revise profile to read Woodlawn Road.
13. C6.0 Note (Culvert A B calculations): I(25) =4.5 in/hr as opposed to 4.8 in/hr —does not require revision.
14. Recommend include SLJB201600066 in ROAD Plan title.
Thank you.
434.296-5832 -0069
SUB20600066_Woodlawn_RP_050216
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Memorandum
To:
John Anderson
From:
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division:
Planning
Date:
April 21, 2016
Subject:
SUB2016-66 Woodlawn- Road Plans
Fax 434-972-4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the road plans referenced above once the
following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the
Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. [14-302(B)5,14400,18-101 Minimum lot size. The minimum lot size in the Rural Areas zoning district is two (2)
acres. Lot 2 is proposed as 1.942 acres, which does not meet the minimum acreage for the district. It is suggested
that 0.058 acres from Lot 1 be added to Lot 2 to meet the minimum acreage required. If that is not possible omit
the 25' dedication to public right-of-way fronting the lot so it will meet the minimum acreage for the district.
2. [Comment] The sight line for the proposed entrance onto Woodlands Road extends beyond the right-of-way line
onto TMP 44-12E5. Prior to final subdivision plat approval a line of sight easement shall be obtained over this
property.
3. [14-404(A) Condition of Approval] Depict the sight distance for the private entrance.
4. [10.4, 4.6.51 Yards. The front yard setback for Lot 3 is 25 feet. Revise setback note on sheet 1 to include this
information.
5. [14-302(A)4&5] Drainage easements. All drainage easements have been labeled as public; however, they are
outside of the public right-of-way. Prior to road plan approval either VDOT shall agree to maintain these drainage
easements or the easements shall be revised to "Private Drainage Easements " to be maintained by the HOA. If
VDOT agrees to maintain the easements provide the following label for the easements `Drainage easements
hereby dedicated to public use. "
6. [Comment] Landscaping is not required with this development. It is suggested that landscaping be removed from
the road plan. If landscaping is to remain reference to it being "required" shall be removed. Also, the conservation
easement is not required but if the applicant intends to keep this feature it shall be platted on the final subdivision
plat and a maintenance agreement shall be provided in the covenants and restrictions document.
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperezz(cbalbemarle.org or 434-296-5832
ext.3443 for further information.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Fload
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Culpeper. Virginia 22701
Commissioner
April 18, 2016
Mr. John Anderson
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB -2015-00066 Woodlawn-Road Plans
Dear Mr. Anderson,
We have reviewed the Woodlawn Subdivision Road plans, dated March 25, 2016, as submitted
by Timmons Group, and offer the following comments:
I . Please submit Woodlawn Road pavement structural design calculations for review.
tnce ely,
oel D. DeNunzio, P.E.
Resident Engineer
VDOT - Charlottesville
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING