HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201600061 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2016-08-26Short Review Comments Report for:
SUB201600061
SubApplication Type:
Glenmore K2C - Road Plans
New Private Use Road Plan
Date Completed:05/23/2016
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/05/2016
Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:1. The name of this subdivision and road plans needs to be unique. There is an already approved
Glenmore K2C. Will this be phase 2 of K2C? Clarify and update the title/name of the road plans so as
not to cause confusion.
Division:
Date Completed:04/20/2016
Reviewer:Joel DeNunzio VDOT
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Jeremy Lynn ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/16/2016
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 3/18/16.
1. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 500' per travel way.
2. Fire flow test required before final approval.
3. Fire access roads 20' EP/EP shall be marked on both sides "No Parking". Sign spacing shall not
exceed 150'.
Division:
Date Completed:07/25/2016
Reviewer:Max Greene CDD Engineering
Review Status:Administrative Approval
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/23/2016
Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Joel DeNunzio VDOT
Review Status:Pending
Division:
Page:1 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 08, 2017
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Jeremy Lynn ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/16/2016
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 6/13/16.
No comments or objections.
Division:
Date Completed:08/26/2016
Reviewer:Max Greene CDD Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:2 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 08, 2017
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Z011 LAND PLANNING
ENGI N EERI NGa
June 13, 2016
John Anderson
Engineering Department
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
Regarding: SUB 2016 00061 Glenmore K2C-II
Road and Drainage Plans
Dear Mr. Anderson,
We have submitted revisions to the Road Plans for Glenmore K2C-II. Your comments for the first submittal and the
changes we have made in response are below.
1. Title sheet — Revise index (sheets C5, C6, C7) to read Site Layout. ROAD Plans cannot approve
site plans.
The index has been revised accordingly.
C3
2. Add boundary line segment /curve endpoints.
Boundary line segment/ curve endpoints are now shown on the existing conditions sheet.
3. Show SW corner of property.
The southwest corner of the property is shown in detail in the related culvert plan, SUB 2015 00202.
4. Show curve C7.
Curve C7 is also shown in the related culvert plan.
5. Revise TMP# 93A5 -K2 -OB -10 (empty lot, Carroll Creek Rd) west boundary; 360.32' appears
inaccurate.
That label was shown incorrectly as a contour label was placed on top of the metes and bounds label. This
has now been corrected.
6. Identify the natural resource features that bound TMP# 93A5-1 to the north and south —if perennial
or intermittent streams, please label.
The natural resource features are now identified as intermittent streams.
C5, C6, C7
a. Recommend:
i. Label proposed tree line
The proposed tree line is now labelled.
ii. Rename sheets Site Layout.
The sheets have been renamed Site Layout.
iii. Copy text box Note —`Refer to detail I VC12 for typical driveway culvert' to these
sheets
The text box Note has been copied to these sheets.
iv. Relocate SCC Al off Lots 1-4 at elevation no higher than 367-368.' Proposed
design cannot be approved. Ref. SCC E for example of `off -Lot' storm conveyance
location.
SCC Al has been relocated.
v. Revise design to limit storm line discharge velocity (though <15 fps, 75% of
discharge points exceed 9.4 fps)
The design has been revised to limit storm line discharge velocity everywhere possible.
b. Request:
i. Indicate OP at every outfall (details with WPONSMP plan)
OP is now indicated at every outfall.
ii. Revise storm line design to limit excessive discharge velocity
Storm line design has been revised to limit excessive discharge velocity.
iii. Ensure private drainage easement/s are labeled, wherever required (SCC, etc
Additional drainage easement labels have been provided.
iv. Provide /show grading and access easements between roads and pvt. drainage
easements
Access easements are now provided.
v. Provide /show grading and access easements between roads and SWM, or level
spreaders
Access easements have now been shown and labelled as appropriate.
7. C5 —Show temporary turnaround, Road "A", at Phase I/II interface.
The most recent guidance from County officials was to use T-type turnarounds for temporary conditions. The
temporary stub -out of Road A will be sufficiently short to serve as one arm of the T, while Road B serves as
another.
8. C5 —Show STRM F1; show 47.47' pipe in its entirety.
A detail has been added to show STRM F1 and the pipe in its entirety.
9. C5 —Provide storm conveyance below F1, since discharge is at or near property line.
The final pond, as designed by Collins engineering, is now shown below F1, as it will be the final discharge
point for that run of storm pipe.
10. C5 Revise Road "A" Sta. 15+69PC to read 15+69PRC
The label has been revised accordingly.
11. C6 — SCC `132" presents unclear design in that it ends with blanket matting, then discharges to
slope rather than to a defined, non -erodible channel. Revise to include non -erodible, defined
downslope conveyance to SWM detention facility 111311
.
SCC B2 has been re -designed to discharge into an inlet, and then into SWM detention facility "B".
12. C6 —Label storm drain design elements between Lots 44 and 45.
These labels did not show up in the previous submittal due to a layer issue. They are now shown.
13. C6 —Label storm drain design elements east of Lot 34.
See response to comment 12.
14. C7 —Label storm drain design elements between Lots 33 and 34.
See response to comment 12.
15. C7 —At bottom of sheet: All floodplain is floodway; that is, Zone "AE". Delete Zone "A" label.
(GIS Image, attached)
Based on the attached FIRM, we believe that the floodplain in the area delineated is in Zone "A".
16. C8, C9, C10 —Provide existing contour labels (more is preferred). There are few (if any) existing
contour labels. Also, revise proposed contour labels to show true elevation, typically >300' above
MSL. (FFE is reported accurately).
More labels for existing contours have been added throughout the plan. The convention for Shimp
Engineering plans has been to provide only the last two digits of the proposed contours, as shown on the
legend on the cover sheet. As the proposed contours tie into the existing contours, we believe it is clear
which true elevation is being indicated. If it is preferred to show true elevation in this plan set, we will update
the labels in the next submittal.
17. C8 —Show proposed cut in tree line relative to trail, unless all trees along trail to be preserved. If all
(or select) trees are to be preserved, be sure to show tree protection (TP) on WPONSMP plan.
Also, item #30.
The proposed cut in tree line relative to the trail is now shown.
18. C8 —Show storm structure, STRM F1; show 47.47' pipe in its entirety.
A detail has been added to shown STRM F1 and the pipe in its entirety.
19. C9 —Recommend against driveway grades that slope toward dwellings. Encourage revision, where
possible (Lots 17, 18, 39).
Spot elevations have been provided showing 10' at 5% draining away from the house, which our experience
has shown to be sufficient to drain away from the foundations of houses. There is a large amount of fill at
these lots, and we wish to reduce it where possible by using driveway grades.
20. C10 —Identify /label natural feature adjacent to equestrian /walking trail. Also, please separate trail
and feature, which overlap at one point.
The natural feature has now been labelled as an intermittent stream, and the trail has been revised to
separate it from the feature.
IJ
21. C 10 —Provide ditch design for drainage between Lots 30 and 31 since runoff from entire cul-de-
sac, and portions of Lots 30, 32, and 33 converge on Lot 31. This runoff must pass downslope
(north of dwelling) without causing impact to dwelling or localized flooding on Lot 31 during
high -rain, high -runoff events.
Ditch design and labels are now provided for the drainage between Lots 30 and 31.
22. C10 —Provide inlet at /near rear Lot line, Lot 35, Elev. 330'±, to collect runoff from multiple
upslope Lots.
An inlet is now provided near the rear lot line of Lot 35 to collect runoff from the upslope lots.
23. C 10 —Recommend against driveway grades that slope toward dwellings. Encourage revision, if
possible (Lots 23, 24, 25).
See response to comment 19.
24. C11 —Storm outfall (between Lots 52 and 53) design should be consistent with WP0201500090,
Glenmore Sec. K2B —Ph. B, Lots 1 and 7-16 (Amendment approved 3/31/16.) Please contact Paul
Bjornsen, Records Management Officer to arrange digital or print file review (434.296-5832 —
x7940). Approximate location of existing (off-site) sediment basin is not acceptable final design.
Site runoff should discharge to adequate channel, permanent natural drainage, or off-site SWM
facility, but not an off-site sediment basin.
The storm outfall has been updated to show the pond design provided by Collins Engineering.
25. C 13 —Label Sta. 15+69, Road "A" PRC.
The label has been changed accordingly.
26. C 14 —Relocate Lot 18 dwelling since sight line touches structure. Provide 10' sight easements on
Lots 18 and 19 (show on C6). VDOT Road Design Manual, ACDSM, and Albemarle County Code
do not clearly specify a minimum sight easement width, but landscaping typical of Lots supports
10' width (5' to either side of sight line).
A sight distance easement of a typical width is now shown on C14.
27. C15 —Road `B" —Label radius (400'; 390'/410')
The radius for Road "B" is now labelled.
28. C21 —Label profile A&A 11, STRM Str. A10 to receive SL -1 (VDOT safety slab); Label profile
D1 -D3, STRM Str. D2 to receive SL -1.
SL -1 is now specified on the structures accordingly.
29. C21 —Provide inlet shaping, steps (MH), and SL -1 details.
Details for SL -1, IS -1, and ST -1 are now provided.
30. VSMP-related:
a. C9 —Detention D (6' X 135' floor) linear design is unusual and location problematic; right
angle inlet (unlabeled storm outfall) may jet discharge against downslope face of detention
embankment. Recommend reconsider practice, design, and location. Not every practice
works in every location, and this appears problematic.
The outfall into Detention D has been re-routed to show an angle directing the flow into the practice.
b. Ensure Adequate channel, all discharge points (MS -19).
MS -19 is met by complying with the Energy Balance Equation for the one-year storm and by providing
adequate channels to contain the 10 -year peak flow.
c. Provide Detention A, B, C, D, and E outfall discharge velocity.
The outfall discharge velocity is provided with the attached computation packet.
d. Provide OP at each detention basin outfall point.
Outlet protection is now provided at each detention basin outfall point.
e. C9 —Provide less acute angle between storm outfall (E4) and SCC E. Provide blanket
matting /riprap protection for SCC E at E4 outfall location. Evaluate SCC E for protective
lining. (C12 ditch sections table specifies grass.)
Due to the relocation of the sanitary line, as requested by the ACSA, there is not enough space to
route E4 into SCC E as would be ideal. The stormwater conveyance channel is now extended to the
new discharge point.
f. C9 —Label slopes behind Lots 14 and 15 2:1.
The slopes behind Lots 14 and 15 are now labelled as 2:1.
g. C9 —Consider and provide adequate channel between unlabeled storm outfall (Elev. 335')
and Detention E.
A channel is now provided from Detention E upstream to the nearest storm outfall.
h. C9 —Relocate Detention D outfall from trail. Extend Detention D outfall pipe beneath
/beyond trail.
The Detention D outfall has been extended beneath the trail to outfall behind it.
i. C9 —Detention E: provide adequate drainage beneath equestrian /walking trail. There is
strong probability trail will wash under proposed design.
The Detention E outfall has been re-routed to discharge behind the equestrian/ walking trail.
j. C9 —Provide less acute angle for unlabeled storm outfall to Detention D.
A less acute angle is now provided for the storm outfall to Detention D.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. I may be reached at
lauren(cDshimp-engineerinq.com or by phone at 434.227.5140 x4. Justin Shimp may be reached at Justin .shimD-
engineering.com or 434-953-6116.
Best Regards,
Lauren Gilroy
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Project: Road Plans for Glenmore K2B
Plan preparer: Lauren Gilroy/Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, 201 E. Main St.
Suite M, Charlottesville, VA 22902 fiustinAshimp-en ine eering coml
Owner or rep.: Glenmore Partners LLC, P.O. Box 645, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Plan received date: 18 Mar 2016
Date of comments: 23 May 2016
Reviewer: John Anderson
SUB2016-00061
1. Title sheet —Revise index (sheets C5, C6, C7) to read Site Layout. ROAD Plans cannot approve site plans.
C3
2. Add boundary line segment /curve endpoints.
3. Show SW corner of property.
4. Show curve C7.
5. Revise TMP# 93A5 -K2 -OB -10 (empty lot, Carroll Creek Rd) west boundary; 360.32' appears inaccurate.
6. Identify the natural resource features that bound TMP# 93A5-1 to the north and south —if perennial or
intermittent streams, please label.
C5, C6, C7
a. Recommend:
i. Label proposed tree line
ii. Rename sheets Site Layout.
iii. Copy text box Note —`Refer to detail 11/C12 for typical driveway culvert' to these sheets
iv. Relocate SCC Al off Lots 1-4 at elevation no higher than 367-368.' Proposed design
cannot be approved. Ref. SCC E for example of `off -Lot' storm conveyance location.
v. Revise design to limit storm line discharge velocity (though <15 fps, 75% of discharge
points exceed 9.4 fps)
b. Request:
i. Indicate OP at every outfall (details with WPONSMP plan)
ii. Revise storm line design to limit excessive discharge velocity
iii. Ensure private drainage easements are labeled, wherever required (SCC, etc.)
iv. Provide /show grading and access easements between roads and pvt. drainage easements
v. Provide /show grading and access easements between roads and SWM, or level spreaders
7. C5 —Show temporary turnaround, Road "A", at Phase I/II interface.
8. C5 —Show STRM F1; show 47.47' pipe in its entirety.
9. C5 —Provide storm conveyance below F1, since discharge is at or near property line.
10. C5 —Revise Road "A" Sta. 15+69PC to read 15+69PRC.
11. C6 — SCC `132" presents unclear design in that it ends with blanket matting, then discharges to slope rather
than to a defined, non -erodible channel. Revise to include non -erodible, defined downslope conveyance to
SWM detention facility `B".
12. C6 —Label storm drain design elements between Lots 44 and 45.
13. C6 —Label storm drain design elements east of Lot 34.
14. C7 —Label storm drain design elements between Lots 33 and 34.
15. C7 —At bottom of sheet: All floodplain is floodway; that is, Zone "AE". Delete Zone "A" label.
(GIS Image, below)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
0 0 neo Moblle —1, 1" - zoo R
gra 4) J,2-
IN
- % a
I
og0 �o a.�.a le�d�aml vanes 5... m.p0
16. C8, C9, C10 —Provide existing contour labels (more is preferred). There are few (if any) existing contour
labels. Also, revise proposed contour labels to show true elevation, typically >300' above MSL. (FIFE is
reported accurately).
17. C8 —Show proposed cut in tree line relative to trail, unless all trees along trail to be preserved. If all (or
select) trees are to be preserved, be sure to show tree protection (TP) on WPO/VSMP plan. Also, item #30.
18. C8 —Show storm structure, STRM F1; show 47.47' pipe in its entirety.
19. C9 —Recommend against driveway grades that slope toward dwellings. Encourage revision, where possible
(Lots 17, 18, 39).
20. C10 —Identify /label natural feature adjacent to equestrian /walking trail. Also, please separate trail and
feature, which overlap at one point.
21. C10 —Provide ditch design for drainage between Lots 30 and 31 since runoff from entire cul-de-sac, and
portions of Lots 30, 32, and 33 converge on Lot 31. This runoff must pass downslope (north of dwelling)
without causing impact to dwelling or localized flooding on Lot 31 during high -rain, high -runoff events.
22. C10 —Provide inlet at /near rear Lot line, Lot 35, Elev. 330'±, to collect runoff from multiple upslope Lots.
23. C 10 —Recommend against driveway grades that slope toward dwellings. Encourage revision, if possible
(Lots 23, 24, 25).
24. C11 —Storm outfall (between Lots 52 and 53) design should be consistent with WPO201500090, Glenmore
Sec. K213 —Ph. B, Lots 1 and 7-16 (Amendment approved 3/31/16.) Please contact Paul Bjornsen, Records
Management Officer to arrange digital or print file review (434.296-5832 —x7940). Approximate location
of existing (off-site) sediment basin is not acceptable final design. Site runoff should discharge to adequate
channel, permanent natural drainage, or off-site SWM facility, but not an off-site sediment basin.
25. C13 —Label Sta. 15+69, Road "A" PRC.
26. C14 —Relocate Lot 18 dwelling since sight line touches structure. Provide 10' sight easements on Lots 18
and 19 (show on C6). VDOT Road Design Manual, ACDSM, and Albemarle County Code do not clearly
specify a minimum sight easement width, but landscaping typical of Lots supports 10' width (5' to either
side of sight line).
27. C15 —Road `B" —Label radius (400'; 390'/410')
28. C21 —Label profile A8 -A11, STRM Str. A10 to receive SL -1 (VDOT safety slab); Label profile D1 -D3,
STRM Str. D2 to receive SL -1.
29. C21 —Provide inlet shaping, steps (MH), and SL -1 details.
30. VSMP-related:
a. C9 —Detention D (6' x 135' floor) linear design is unusual and location problematic; right angle
inlet (unlabeled storm outfall) may jet discharge against downslope face of detention embankment.
Recommend reconsider practice, design, and location. Not every practice works in every location,
and this appears problematic.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
b. Ensure Adequate channel, all discharge points (MS -19).
c. Provide Detention A, B, C, D, and E outfall discharge velocity.
d. Provide OP at each detention basin outfall point.
e. C9 —Provide less acute angle between storm outfall (E4) and SCC E. Provide blanket matting
/riprap protection for SCC E at E4 outfall location. Evaluate SCC E for protective lining. (C12
ditch sections table specifies grass.)
f. C9 —Label slopes behind Lots 14 and 15 2:1.
g. C9 —Consider and provide adequate channel between unlabeled storm outfall (Elev. 335') and
Detention E.
h. C9 —Relocate Detention D outfall from trail. Extend Detention D outfall pipe beneath /beyond
trail.
i. C9 —Detention E: provide adequate drainage beneath equestrian /walking trail. There is strong
probability trail will wash under proposed design.
j. C9_—Provide less acute angle for unlabeled storm outfall to Detention D.
Please call if any questions: 434-296-5832 -x3069
Thank you.
File: SUB201600061 Glenmore K2B RP 052316