HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201600245 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2017-03-154*7
SU6201600245 — The Miller School New Entrance
SubApplication Type: I New Private Use Road Plan
Date Completed: 01/10/2017
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Bobby Jocz Division: CDD Engineering
See Recommendations
Comments on plans dated 12/10/2016
1. Original Professional Engineer's Signature should be provided for final approval [18-32.6.1].
2. Final approval will be subject to approval of the VSMP plan. The VSMP plan is currently
under review.
3. VDOT approval is required.
4. Update SDP site plan number to current submission, SDP -201600245.
5. Provide date and source of topographic information. Topography should be field verified
within the last year.
6. Provide updated Limits of disturbance, and include stream buffer and critical slope limits to
ensure no additional impacts are occurring within the buffer (requiring additional mitigation) or outside
approved critical slopes waver areas.
7. Provide scale and directional arrow for plan view on sheet RP — 3.
8. Provide type and location of signs, including stop signs and street names.
9. Provide edge of pavement radii at entrance intersection [18.32.6.5.e]. The internal
intersections must maintain a minimum radius of 15ft. The minimum radius for the intersection on the
public street is 25ft.
10. Stationing on plan views should be a minimum of 50'.
11. Provide updated site distance profiles. Widening of entrance and inclusion of guard booth
could affect site distance.
12. VDOT standard guard rail is required over any slope greater than 3:1 or wall with a drop
greater than 4 feet. Provide guardrail where required.
13. Details for culverts A and B in the plan view on sheet RP -3 do not match those on the
plan/profile views and culvert calculations on sheet RP -4. The pipe length, slope, and material on
sheet RP -3 do not match what is presented on sheet RP -4. In addition, the pipe size for culvert A is
indicated as 18" with upper invert of 618.00 and lower invert of 615.00 on the plan view on sheet
RP -3 and in the drainage calculations, but as a 15" pipe with upper invert of 642.00 and lower invert
of 638.88 on the profile. Finally, the drainage area shown for culvert A in the culvert calculations,
does not match what is shown on the storm inlet drainage area display. Please correct these
inconsistencies.
14. The box culvert and junction box configuration is not represented as approved on sheet
RP -3. Please correct to reflect approved plan.
15. Show the correct width and batter related to the retaining wall on road plan and profile. From
plans it is unclear if the wall is adequately constructible due to proximity to culvert B. Due to this
potential conflict more detail will need to be provided, specifically the bury depth and depth/width of
footings/leveling pad. Provide cross section of pipe on plans to show spacing.
16. Provide engineering detail and flow velocities/volumes for proposed rip -rap ditches. Channel
linings (rip -rap) must be sized adequately to prevent scour/erosion. Provide calculations to ensure
that installation of culvert B and riprap discharge channel will not overwhelm the junction box causing
flooding at the inlet, and that the discharge channel from culvert A will not cause erosive flows.
03/03/2017
Johnathan Newberry Division: CDD Planning
See Recommendations
Reviews Comments: Isee comments provided for 3/22 due date.
Date Completed: 01/12/2017
Reviewer: Adam Moore Division: VDOT
Page: 1 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On: September 08, 2017
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
1111...................
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
No Objection
Jeremy Lynn
Pending
01/12/2017
Robbie Gilmer
Requested Changes
Division: ACSA
Division: Fire Rescue
3ased on plans dated 12/01/16.
. Increase the road width to 12' on each side of the guard shack to allow for emergency vehicle
iccess.
.........................I............1111.....................
02/23/2017
Bobby Jocz
No Objection
02/25/2017
Robbie Gilmer
No Objection
03/03/2017
Johnathan Newberry
Requested Changes
Division: CDD Engineering
Division: Fire Rescue
Division: CDD Planning
On Sheet 1, please change any label showing "SDP"201600245 to "SUB"201600245.
On Sheet 1, under Site Data, please clarify the 75 foot building setback is a "minimum" (not E
maximum").
Date Completed:
...............
03/02/2017
Reviewer:
Adam Moore
Division:
VDOT
Review Status:
Approved
Reviews Comments:
Found generally Acceptable. Two stamped approved copies are to be provided.
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Jeremy Lynn
Division:
ACSA
Review Status:
No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:
....................................................................................
03/06/2017
Reviewer:
Johnathan Newberry
Division:
CDD Planning
Review Status:
No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:
03/15/2017
Reviewer:
Bobby Jocz
Division:
CDD Engineering
Review Status:
Approved
Reviews Comments:
Page: 2 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On: September 08, 2017
tiMr/ 4i
Robert Jocz
From: Robert Jocz
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 12:57 PM
To: 'Alexander Morrison'
Subject: RE: SUB201600245:The Miller School New Entrance Road
Will note.Thanks!
From:Alexander Morrison [mailto:amorrison@serviceauthority.org]
Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2017 12:21 PM
To: Robert Jocz<rjocz@albemarle.org>
Subject:SUB201600245:The Miller School New Entrance Road
Bobby,
The above referenced plan is outside of the ACSA's Jurisdictional Area and we have no comments.
Alexander.). Morrison,P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22911
(0)434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C)434-981-5577
(F)434-979-0698
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Road and Drainage plan review
Project title: The Miller School New Entrance - Road Plans
Project file number: SUB201600245
Plan preparer:
Meridian Planning Group LLC. [tmiller@meridianwbe.com]
Owner or rep.:
Miller School of Albemarle
Date Received:
Rev 1 - December 7th, 2016
Rev 2 — February 61, 2017
Date of comments:
Rev 1 - January 10th, 2017
Rev 2 — March 6rd, 2017
Mr. Miller,
We have reviewed the plans and have the following comments:
Engineering
1. No Objection.
Planning (Johnathan Newberry)
No objection contingent on:
a. On Sheet 1, please change any label showing "SDP"201600245 to "SUB"201600245.
b. On Sheet 1, under Site Data, please clarify the 75 foot building setback is a "minimum"
(not a "maximum").
Fire and Rescue (Robbie Gilmer)
1. No Objection.
VDOT (Adam Moore)
1. Please provide 2 County Stamped Approved Copies.
2. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work in 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.
ACSA (Jeremy Lynn)
1. No comment.
Sincerely,
Bobby Jocz
Civil Engineer I
Johnathan Newberry
From: Johnathan Newberry
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 6:26 PM
To: Robert Jocz
Cc: 'Tim Miller'
Subject: RE: SUB201600245 Miller School Entrance Amendment 3-2-17
Bobby,
Planning has"no objection" to the road plan with the following changes on the approval set:
1. On Sheet 1, please change any label showing "SDP"201600245 to "SUB"201600245.
2. On Sheet 1, under Site Data, please clarify the 75 foot building setback is a "minimum" (not a "maximum").
Tim, please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Senior Planner
Comity of Albemarle, Planning Division
434-296-5832, ext. 3270
From: Robert Jocz
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 9:15 AM
To:Johnathan Newberry<jnewberry@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW:SUB201600245 Miller School Entrance Amendment 3-2-17
JT,
Have you had a chance to look at this Road Plan yet?
Bobby
From:Tim Miller [mailto:tmiller@meridianwbe.com]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 7:12 AM
To: Robert Jocz<riocz@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE:SUB201600245 Miller School Entrance Amendment 3-2-17
Bobby,
Will you be able to approve the plans now?
Thanks,
Tim Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
Meridian Planning Group, LLC
1
(1100 ‘11111111)
440 Premier Circle,Suite 200
Charlottesville,VA 22901
434.882.0121
www.meridianwbe.com
From: Deel,Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent:Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:45 PM
To: Robert Jocz<rjocz@albemarle.org>
Cc: 'tmiller@meridianwbe.com'<tmiller@meridianwbe.com>; Moore,Adam PE (VDOT)
<Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject:SUB201600245 Miller School Entrance Amendment 3-2-17
Bobby,
Attached is our approval letter for SUB201600245 Miller School Entrance Amendment.
Justin
Justin Deel, P.E.
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
2
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Culpeper. Wginla 22701
Commissioner
January 12, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Bobby Jocz
Re: Miller School New Entrance — Road Plan Amendment
SUB -2016-00245
Review #I
Dear Mr. Jocz:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Meridian Planning Group,
dated 1 December 2016, and finds it to be generally acceptable.
Please allow for this office to obtain 2 County stamped approved copies.
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,
4A,- av,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
The Miller School—New Entrance—Road Plan Amendment
Comments on plans dated 1/26/2017
I. Original Proiessionai tngirieer"s Signature snouiu be pruviueu 101 'mai approval [18-32.6.1].
-Addressed
apps coal will be subject to approval of the VSMP plan.The VSMP plan is currently under
-Addressed
al is required.
-Addressed
i1 e plan number to current submission, SDP-201600245.
-Addressed
5. Provide date and source of topographic information.Topography should be field verified within
the last year.
-Addressed
6. Provide updated Limits of disturbance, and include stream buffer and critical slope limits to
ensure no additional impacts are occurring within the buffer(requiring additional mitigation)or
outside approved critical slopes waver areas.
-Addressed
7. Provide scale and directional arrow for plan view on sheet RP—3.
-Addressed
8. rroviue type and location of signs, including stop signs and street names.
-Addressed
ri oviue cu& ui pavement radii at entrance intersection (18.32.6.5.e].The internal intersections
must maintain a minimum radius of 15ft. The minimum radius for the intersection on the public
-Addressed
10 plan views should be a minimum of 50'.
-Addressed
'I Pr,. ,,pdated site distance profiles. Widening of entrance and inclusion of guard booth could
affect site distance.
-Addressed
12. VDOT standard guard rail is required over any slope greater than 3:1 or wall with a drop greater
than 4 feet. Provide guardrail where required.
-Addressed
13. Details for culverts A and B in the plan view on sheet RP-3 do not match those on the
plan/profile views and culvert calculations on sheet RP-4.The pipe length, slope, and material
on sheet RP-3 do not match what is presented on sheet RP-4. In addition, the pipe size for
culvert A is indicated as 18" with upper invert of 618.00 and lower invert of 615.00 on the plan
view on sheet RP-3 and in the drainage calculations, but as a 15" pipe with upper invert of
642.00 and lower invert of 638.88 on the profile. Finally, the drainage area shown for culvert A
in the culvert calculations, does not match what is shown on the storm inlet drainage area
se correct these inconsistencies.
-Addressed
14. The box culvert and junction box configuration is not represented as approved on sheet RP-3.
Please correct to reflect approved plan
-Addressed
the correct width and batter related to the retaining wall on road plan and profile. From
plans it is unclear if the wall is adequately constructible due to proximity to culvert B. Due to this
potential conflict more detail will need to be provided, specifically the bury depth and
depth/width of footings/leveling pad. Please provide certified engineer's signatures on retaining
wall details.
-Addressed
16. Provide engineering detail and flow velocities/volumes for proposed rip-rap ditches. Channel
linings (rip-rap) must be sized adequately to prevent scour/erosion. Provide calculations to
ensure that installation of culvert B and riprap discharge channel will not overwhelm the
junction box causing flooding at the inlet, and that the discharge channel from culvert A will not
cause erosive flows.
-Addressed
�'• ..�• MERIDIAN
Pi.A\NIN(;GROUP,LLC
Engineering• Surveying • Planning
440 Premier Circle,Suite 200
Charlottesville,VA 22901
January 26, 2017
Phone:434-882-0121
www.meridianwbe.com
Robert Jocz
Civil Engineer 1
County of Albemarle
RE: SDP 201600245: AMENDMENT TO THE MILLER SCHOOL NEW ENTRANCE
WPO 201600080: AMENDMENT TO THE MILLER SCHOOL NEW ENTRANCE
Dear Mr. Jocz,
Enclosed are 6 sets of the Amendment to the Miller School New Entrance. Below are the responses to the
comments in your letter dated January 10, 2017.
1. Original Professional engineer's signature shall be provided.
2. Comment noted.
3. Comment noted.
4. SDP plan number revised on sheets C-400, C-800, and RP-1.
5. Topography information revised on sheets C-400, C-800, and RP-1.
6. Critical slopes, note and graphic added on sheet C-802.
7. North arrow shown on sheet RP-3.
8. Location of signs and street names shown on sheet RP-3.
9. Radius values shown on sheet RP-3.
10. Stationing revised on plan views.
11. VDOT has determined that sight distances are not affected by this amendment.
12. Guardrail shown on sheet RP-3.
13. Details revised on sheet RP-3 and RP-4.
14. Sheet RP-3 revised to show box culvert and junction box.
15. Retaining wall alignment has been revised on sheet RP-3. Engineer certified retaining wall design
will be provide with building permit application.
16. Stormwater conveyance channel detail and calculations are shown on sheet RP-4. Attached is a
report showing drainage calculations and maximum water surface elevations for junction box inlet.
FIRE AND RESCUE-Robbie Gilmer
1. Revised dimensions shown on sheet RP-3.
VDOT-Adam Moore
1. Two County Stamped Approval Copies shall be provided.
2. Original Professional engineer's signature provided on revised plans.
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP)
1. WPO number revised on sheet C-400 and C-800.
2. Comment noted.
POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (PPP)
1. None
Page 1
rte./
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWP)
1. None
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN (ESCP)
1. Sequence of construction for Sediment Trap#1 —Phase 2 is shown on Detail 2/C-802.
2. Drainage area for Sediment Trap #2 shown in Detail 6/C-803.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
Page 2
‘1111r A **1004
to";
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Road and Drainage plan review
Project title: The Miller School New Entrance-Road Plans
Project file number: SUB201600245
Plan preparer: Meridian Planning Group LLC. [tmiller@meridianwbe.com]
Owner or rep.: Miller School of Albemarle
Date Received: December 7th,2016
Date of comments: January 10th,2017
Mr. Miller,
We have reviewed the plans and have the following comments:
Engineering
1. Original Professional Engineer's Signature should be provided for final approval [18-32.6.1].
2. Final approval will be subject to approval of the VSMP plan. The VSMP plan is currently under
review.
3. VDOT approval is required.
4. Update SDP site plan number to current submission, SDP-201600245.
5. Provide date and source of topographic information. Topography should be field verified within
the last year.
6. Provide updated Limits of disturbance, and include stream buffer and critical slope limits to ensure
no additional impacts are occurring within the buffer(requiring additional mitigation)or outside
approved critical slopes waver areas.
7. Provide scale and directional arrow for plan view on sheet RP—3.
8. Provide type and location of signs, including stop signs and street names.
9. Provide edge of pavement radii at entrance intersection [18.32.6.5.e]. The internal intersections
must maintain a minimum radius of 15ft. The minimum radius for the intersection on the public
street is 25ft.
10. Stationing on plan views should be a minimum of 50'.
11. Provide updated site distance profiles. Widening of entrance and inclusion of guard booth could
affect site distance.
12. VDOT standard guard rail is required over any slope greater than 3:1 or wall with a drop greater
than 4 feet. Provide guardrail where required.
13. Details for culverts A and B in the plan view on sheet RP-3 do not match those on the plan/profile
views and culvert calculations on sheet RP-4. The pipe length, slope,and material on sheet RP-3
do not match what is presented on sheet RP-4. In addition, the pipe size for culvert A is indicated
as 18"with upper invert of 618.00 and lower invert of 615.00 on the plan view on sheet RP-3 and
in the drainage calculations,but as a 15"pipe with upper invert of 642.00 and lower invert of
638.88 on the profile. Finally,the drainage area shown for culvert A in the culvert calculations,
does not match what is shown on the storm inlet drainage area display. Please correct these
inconsistencies.
14. The box culvert and junction box configuration is not represented as approved on sheet RP-3.
Please correct to reflect approved plan.
15. Show the correct width and batter related to the retaining wall on road plan and profile. From
plans it is unclear if the wall is adequately constructible due to proximity to culvert B. Due to this
potential conflict more detail will need to be provided, specifically the bury depth and depth/width
of footings/leveling pad. Please provide certified engineer's signatures on retaining wall details.
16. Provide engineering detail and flow velocities/volumes for proposed rip-rap ditches. Channel
linings(rip-rap)must be sized adequately to prevent scour/erosion. Provide calculations to ensure
that installation of culvert B and riprap discharge channel will not overwhelm the junction box
causing flooding at the inlet, and that the discharge channel from culvert A will not cause erosive
flows.
Fire and Rescue(Robbie Gilmer)
1. Increase the road width to 12'on each side of the guard shack to allow for emergency vehicle
access.
VDOT(Adam Moore)
1. Please provide 2 County Stamped Approved Copies.
2. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work in 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.
Sincerely,
Bobby Jocz
Civil Engineer I
Sale
of ALio,
Ale
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Road and Drainage plan review
Project title: The Miller School New Entrance -Road Plans
Project file number: SUB201600245
Plan preparer: Meridian Planning Group LLC. [tmiller@meridianwbe.com]
Owner or rep.: Miller School of Albemarle
Date Received: December 7'h,2016
Date of comments: January 10th, 2017
Mr. Miller,
We have reviewed the plans and have the following comments:
Engineering
1. Original Professional Engineer's Signature should be provided for final approval [18-32.6.1].0-4
2. Final approval will be subject to approval of the VSMP plan. The VSMP plan is currently under
review.p/.t,
3. VDOT approval is required.Oft---
4. Update SDP site plan number to current submission, SDP-201600245. ,
5. Provide date and source of topographic information. Topography should be field verified within
the last year.‘9/"....-
6.
9/y6. Provide updated Limits of disturbance, and include stream buffer and critical slope limits to ensure
no additional impacts are occurring within the buffer(requiring additional mitigation)or outside
approved critical slopes waver areas. ufr---
7. Provide scale and directional arrow for plan view on sheet RP—3. Aft-
8. Provide type and location of signs, including stop signs and street names.oA.
9. Provide edge of pavement radii at entrance intersection [18.32.6.5.e]. The internal intersections
must maintain a minimum radius of 15ft. The minimum radius for the intersection on the public
street is 25ft. Pot•
10. Stationing on plan views should be a minimum of 50'.01--
11.
SL11. Provide updated site distance profiles. Widening of entrance and inclusion of guard booth could
affect site distance. a/i.
12. VDOT standard guard rail is required over any slope greater than 3:1 or wall with a drop greater
than 4 feet. Provide guardrail where required.
13. Details for culverts A and B in the plan view on sheet RP-3 do not match those on the plan/profile
views and culvert calculations on sheet RP-4. The pipe length, slope, and material on sheet RP-3
do not match what is presented on sheet RP-4. In addition,the pipe size for culvert A is indicated
as 18"with upper invert of 618.00 and lower invert of 615.00 on the plan view on sheet RP-3 and
in the drainage calculations,but as a 15"pipe with upper invert of 642.00 and lower invert of
638.88 on the profile. Finally,the drainage area shown for culvert A in the culvert calculations,
does not match what is shown on the storm inlet drainage area display. Please correct these
inconsistencies. 9% l N4 C.a60r
14. The box culvert and junction box configuration is not represented as approved on sheet RP-3.
Please correct to reflect approved plan. pit.
4.00
1111111111)
15. Show the correct width and batter related to the retaining wall on road plan and profile. From
plans it is unclear if the wall is adequately constructible due to proximity to culvert B. Due to this
potential conflict more detail will need to be provided, specifically the bury depth and depth/width
of footings/leveling pad. Please provide certified engineer's signatures on retaining wall details./1"'L
16. Provide engineering detail and flow velocities/volumes for proposed rip-rap ditches. Channel
linings(rip-rap)must be sized adequately to prevent scour/erosion. Provide calculations to ensure
that installation of culvert B and riprap discharge channel will not overwhelm the junction box
causing flooding at the inlet, and that the discharge channel from culvert A will not cause erosive
flows. OA.-
Fire
Fire and Rescue(Robbie Gilmer)
1. Increase the road width to 12'on each side of the guard shack to allow for emergency vehicle
access.
VDOT(Adam Moore)
1. Please provide 2 County Stamped Approved Copies.
2. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work in 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.
Sincerely,
Bobby Jocz
Civil Engineer I
V
Albemarle County Engineering
Retaining Wall Plan checklist for plan reviewers
18 Feb 2014 (Use the latest checklist from the Team Services engineering forms site)
Any walls supporting roads or necessary infrastructure require engineered plans(not generic
manufacturer's details) and computations. {Design Manual, section 8} This will also be required
where walls are close to propert lines and there is the danger of affecting neighboring property,
either during construction, with later failures, or with pedestrian or vehicle safety.
Reference key;
[Square Brackets] are County Code references, {Curved Brackets} are policy references,and(regular
parenthesis)are explanatory. Links to reference documents are provided where possible.
Title information: (applicable to any type of plan)
K Project title.
X Professional seal, with original signature and date. [18-32.6.1]
Plans :
N/p safety railing shown for retaining walls over 4' high
N5 guardrail with VDOT designations or equivalent shown for retaining walls next to
parking or travelways ...or 1/l Skye
1- VDOT approval for any walls in right-of-way
Accurate depiction of horizontal depth(batter) on site plans.
All structural reinforcement, steal, or geogrids specified.
cot/01 t All dimensions specified
1- Constructability; there should be no vertical cuts on property lines during construction,
Mak such that abutting property does not become unstable. Adequate room for consruction
needs to be available.
Details and sections :
)( . typical sections with dimensions shown for all configurations
. ...._, .7 reinforcement layout shown and dimensioned(steel, geogrids, etc.)
details for any pipes through, or bridged utilities, or manholes through geogrid
Computations
1,0 Structural computations with original seal and signature for walls over 5' high
N Accurate surcharges and loadings assumed
Materials and dimensions match plans
VAK'ownl appropriate safety factores used
'kiii, 111101
Albemarle County
Engineering Road Plan Checklist
,� Page 2 of 5
`Ie, �N�,6 inaccurate. Disturbances sometimes take place subsequent to the flown date. This can be
2 a particularly recurring problem where early or mass grading plans have occurred
tVi previously. In these cases, the topography needs to be updated.}
?C WPO buffer limits; 100' from stream or wetland bank, 200' from reservoirs,or
floodplain limit if greater [17-600]
?C floodplain limits, including 100yr flood limits for any channel with a drainage area of
50+ acres [18-32.6.2d, 18-30.3]
Xall existing easements (access, drainage, sight, sanitary easements, etc.)with deed book
/ references, locations and dimensions.
�/ all existing streets included with labeled pavement and right-of-way widths,route
tto�0 / numbers and street names
✓ all proposed streets included, with right-of-way and street names
V. 41` ,—. T stationing at 50' minimum on all proposed streets, on plan and profile
street horizontal curve start point, end points and radii labeled,meeting standards
‘')Iti;t1t#
cul-de-sacs provided on all dead-end streets or alleys (see the Design Manual reference
details)
street edge of pavement or curb radii labeled at all intersections and turnarounds (see the
Design Manual reference details)
"ilk roundabouts designed per VDOT and ASHTO guidelines ;
guardrail over any slope steeper than 3:1, wall, or drop-off greater than 4', with start and
1 end sections labeled, and VDOT designations (GR-2, GR-2a, etc.) (see the VDOT Road
Design Manual. Guardrail placement is complicated and subject to a lot of judgement
and variation. This is a quick rule-of-thumb summary.)
pavement markings dimensioned and labeled
signs for traffic control shown and labeled: speed limit on all streets, stop signs at all
AP intersections
Astreet name signs at every intersection, typically placed opposite stop signs [should
reference County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manual]
flik street tree locations, species and height or caliper(typically to be reviewed by Planning)
Gra g:
proposed topography at minimum 2' contour intervals—tied into existing contours, as
Lwell as all proposed site features. (Sites with less than 6' of grade change should consider
r�. )( using smaller contour intervals.)
� proposed slopes are all 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter {Design Manual, section 8}
I 1 F— J0� proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 have low maintenance(not grass) ground cover
yy specified on the plan {Design Manual, Section 8} •
A, 0 0
a0 A Show existing critical slopes on plans (County GIS overlay). Ensure existing critical
N \ j( slopes are not disturbed, unless a waiver or exemption has been granted.
eq X Retaining walls should be accurately shown on plans,reflecting material thickness and
� hl batter where such measurements may affect layout. ,
/li is Retaining Wall Plans checklist. Any walls supporting roads or necessary infrastructure
a require engineered plans (not generic manufacturer's details) and computations. {Design
Manual, section 8} This will also be required where walls are close to property lines and
1(14 there is the danger of affecting neighboring property, either during construction, with
later failures, or with pedestrian or vehicle safety. These concerns can be alleviate with
layout spacing also. In any case,retaining walls will require building permits at
construction.
G 0
Albemarle County Engineering
Road Plan checklist for plan reviewers
28 Jan 2015
A road plan is a document detailing the design and construction of a road, street or alley. It is typically
bonded in order to record subdivision plats.
Reference key;
[Square Brackets] are County Code references, {Curved Brackets} are policy references,and(regular _
parenthesis)are explanatory. Links to reference documents are provided where possible.
\\\ Ap cation information:
Completed application and fees. Road plans require a Subdivision application. No
review is provided without applications and fees. Plans containing both public and
.��NN private roads should pay the higher fee for private roads.
r Copies of federal and state permits for any wetland or stream disturbance. (Army Corps, •
VDEQ, etc) [18-32.1.2, 14-311]
Titl formation:
Project title. Titles should be appropriate. It should be a road or street plan, not a site
ri .01 plan, subdivision plan, or erosion control plan, etc.
° 4- X/'Professional seal, with original signature and date. [18-32.6.1]
l'Ir°
,/ Connt: The road plan must contain, for each road/street/alley, at a minimum. aplan view, customarilyat 1"=50' or better.
�
✓ 2. a profile view
3. a typical cross-section
The lan should NOT contain
V vast areas of work outside the road section. Construction of a road should not be an
excuse to mass grade,or install other utilities or improvements.
General information:
The owner should be prepared to bond the plan in its entirety. Legal bond agreements
require that the plan be referenced to the bond agreement using the exact title of the plan ,
document. The county is trying to avoid multiple bond agreements referring to a single ,
plan. Therefore, phases to be bonded separately should be separated into stand-alone .
plan packages to accompany each bond.
'
,fir,/ DOT approval is obtained for any plan affecting public right-of-way. For public road
plans, VDOT review will supercede most detailed design items below.
ath4(V Fire/Rescue Department approval is obtained separately from Community Development
engineering review.
c Plan View: [18-32.6.2, 14-304, Subdivision Ordinance Article IV Division 2, VDOT SSAR]
accurate current existing topography at the time of submittal, including all existing site
(" 14 features, and any recent disturbances, all at a legible scale
r:PI' date and source of the topographic information: All topography should be at least visually
,Aci field verified by the designer within the last year {Aerial topography is often noticeably
Albemarle Bounty Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
4. Please provide a typical detail within the set for the retaining walls used to protect the large trees
on site. County policy is to limit retaining wall heights to 4ft for those without a handrail. Given
the nature of the site,handrails on these retaining walls would look unusual, so please examine
ways of reducing the height of retaining walls to less than 4ft. For instance,the wall at Sta. 21+50
could be reduced by extending the 10% grade farther up the hill(which would also help with the
extreme grade on Connector Road A)and providing another culvert at Sta. 21+95 and a 3:1 slope
from 2ft off the edge of pavement to the bottom of the retaining wall.
5. Please include in the set the County's General Construction Notes found in the latest edition of the
design manual.
6. Please provide a low maintenance groundcover for all slopes steeper than 3:1 on the plan. Special
consideration should be provided to the area of the 1.5:1 slopes.
7. Please show grading for a sump condition for the culvert at Sta. 17+14 and specify its depth.
Please also specify the sump depth for the culvert at Sta. 18+55.
8. Circular culverts are not allowed on perennial streams. The culvert upstream of the junction box
has a watershed of 58acres and is likely perennial.
9. The culvert at Sta. 37+08 has a headwater of greater than 1.5 times the diameter of the pipe which
is usually the maximum allowed by VDOT and is the standard the county reviews plans to as well.
But,recognizing the undocumented reduction of flows due to the lily pond and the benefit of
metering peak discharges to help reduce erosion in the stream channel,the culvert is approved as
designed. No change to the plan is required by this comment.
10. VDOT approval is required.
11. This site plan cannot be approved until the ESC plan is approved
yi.f.. Z-aril
I%M Miller-
n41liViiii
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Joanne Tu Purtsezova,Planning Review
From: Phil Custer,Engineering Review
Date: 22 June 2012
Subject: Miller School Entrance Drive; Site Plan Waiver(SDP-2012-00032)
Engineering has reviewed the site plan waiver for the Miller School Entrance Drive(SDP-2012-00032),
received 25 May 2012, and offers the following comments.
1. The applicant has included in his site plan waiver submittal a list of all items from sections 18-
32.5.6 and 18-32.6.5. Engineering review offers no objection to the waiving all items requested
by the applicant except the following sections:
a. 18-32.5.6.f The applicant should identify that the site is located within a reservoir
watershed.
b. 18-32.5.6.q The applicant should formally include on the cover sheet the traffic counts for
the site. The ADT for the site is double the count from the Headmaster's letter because a
trip in and out of the site counts as two trips. The review of the rest of the plan is
contingent on these values.
c. 18-32.6.1 The plan must be stamped and signed by a licensed professional.
d. 18-32.6.5.e The applicant should identify the edge of pavement radii at all intersections
for the new travelway. The internal intersections must have a minimum radius of 15ft.
The minimum radius for the intersection on the public street is 25ft.
2. Travelways must be a minimum of 20ft wide,possess curbing,and be no steeper than 10%. The
applicant has requested a waiver of the first two standards and proposed a rural shoulder and ditch
section with 18ft of pavement. This comment will serve as engineering's perspective on the
requested waivers per 18-4.12.2.c.2.
An 18ft wide travelway would not equally or better serve the public health, safety,or welfare when
compared to a 20ft wide travelway. It should be noted that the VDOT width requirement for
streets with less than 400 trips a day is 18ft.
A roadside ditch is less efficient and is more likely to erode than curbing which would not equally
or better serve the public health, safety,or welfare. Though, it is understood that waivers of
curbing requirements are often granted in cases like this for"rural area"aesthetics. In which case,
engineering will review ditch linings to make sure they are sized appropriately.
Although it wasn't requested,I will comment on a possible waiver of the 10% maximum grade for
travelways. The applicant shows a maximum grade for Connector Road A at 15%which would
not equally or better serve the public health, safety, or welfare when compared to the county's 10%
standard. It should be noted that the maximum grade accepted by VDOT is now 15%,consistent
with AASHTO standards. However,the grade transitions at the top and bottom of Connector
Road A are unsafe. Raising the grade of the loop road so this connector road is not as steep is
recommended.
3. Please provide stop signs or equivalent pavement markings at all new perpendicular intersections.
44.110
Albemarle County
Engineering Road Plan Checklist
Page 5 of 5
sidewalk detail or specification to be a minimum 4" stone base and 4"concrete of
3000psi at 28 days, or stronger. [VDOT App. B, Subdivision Street Design Guide, and
14-422]
retaining wall details referenced from plan, if detailed plans and comps were not
required. This is only really applicable to standard VDOT gravity walls. Walls not
affecting the road should not appear on road plans.
Rural section ditches may not be deep enough for 15"diameter culverts within the
ditchline if the ditches are only 1' deep. This usually involves moving the ditchline away
from the road at driveway locations, which may not be possible in denser development.
Ditch and driveway culvert plans will need to accommodate these situations.
Albemarle County
Engineering Road Plan Checklist
Page 3 of 5
Re uired Easements: [Zoning Ordinance 18-32.7.4, Subdivision Ordinance, Article IV, Div, 4]
all proposed permanent easements, dimensioned and labeled .
Examples of easements are:
N7/r sidewalk easements for sidewalks to be maintained with streets outside right-of-
way. It is preferable that sidewalk be inside street right-of-way.
NA drainage easements for any drainage passing through the site from off-site, or for
drainage crossing proposed property lines.
/✓/J� stormwater management easements over all facilities and associated structures
and access
,/0 interparcel access easements
/0. flintersection or entrance sight easements
ifrainage easements are a minimum 20' wide. Required width: 10'+(pipe dia. or
channel width)+2'+2(depth-5'). The pipe, channel or structure must be within the
center third of the easement. {Design Manual, section 6}
r/'' no structures or trees within drainage easements {Design Manual, section 6}
1.0 generally, drainage easements outside right-of-way are to be private and maintained by
the homeowners association or lot owner. Public easements are those which the county .
or VDOT agrees to maintain.
Entrances and right-of-way improvements: [per VDOT Secondary Street Acceptance
Re uirements (SSAR), and VDOT Road and Bridge Standards]
only approved entrances are shown. Placing entrances on road plans should not be a way
of circumventing site plan review of entrance placement or number, or adequate review
of traffic, spacing, turn lanes, etc.
04 all entrances have a VDOT designation [PE-1, CG-9a, etc). In the case of dense
residential development, concrete entrance aprons are important to continue drainage on •
the street side, and to control fine grading of asphalt and sidewalks.
JA commercial entrances do not exceed 4% grade for a distance of 40' from the intersected
0,_
�evtV& street, measured anywhere in the entrance [18-4.12.17]
C6�--X unobstructed sight distance lines at entrances,measured from a point off the edge of
pavement of the intersected street per VDOT Road Design Manual App B 1 sec. 3.E.
id 25' minimum radii on entrances(or per VDOT requirements, typically 25'-35') [per
F,p.}t ` VDOT Access Management Regulations and Standards]
�� (pa turn and taper lanes where applicable with lengths and widths labeled (taper at 12:1 with
12' lane widths)
Pryle View: (applicable only to road or street plans)
.1 stationing at 50' minimum on all proposed streets,to match the plan view sheets
,/� proposed centerline
7 existing ground centerline(Historically, the existing centerline was field surveyed,but
this is happening much less with current aerial topography. This may be requested if
inaccuracies are noted.)
/ labeled existing and proposed grade at each 50ft station point
✓, vertical curves provided at all grade transitions
✓ vertical curve start, vertex and end points labeled
9 111
Albemarle County
Engineering Road Plan Checklist
Page 4 of 5
vertical curve length and K(or stopping sight distance) labeled at each vertex,meeting
✓ required design values
percent grades labeled for all road segments, meeting design values (VDOT Road Design
Manual, App. B)
Xrural street intersections continue the-2% intersected cross grade for a minimum of 20'
from the edge of pavement of the intersected street. A low point is provided off the
intersected street for drainage. {policy, following VDOT practice}
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}
pipe and utility crossings shown and labeled (ACSA has minimum clearances)
cross drain locations shown and labeled with VDOT designations (CD-1,2) at every
major cut and fill transition or sag curve
PA the station of intersections are shown and labeled with the street names
grades are a maximum of 6%in turnarounds
�/ grades are a maximum of 4%through roundabouts
A Det i1s and Sections: (reference VDOT Road Design Manual, or Sub. Ord.)
lji I typical sections for each street, street segment, or alley
„froV Albemarle County general construction notes for streets (reference)
trafficeneration and distribution summary(ADT's) with road networks
pavement designs per VDOT guides [2009 VDOT Pavement Design Guide for
Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia]
pavement widths meeting design standards
pavement crown at '/4":1' slope
pavement surface,base, and sub-base thicknesses and materials
1(01)b)
curb and gutter where applicable with VDOT designation(CG-6), and stone base of 6"
21-A or better(CG-2 also acceptable if a gutter is not needed for drainage)
shoulder at 1":1' slope or flatter and 4' or greater width for rural sections
maximum slopes of 2:1 or flatter with guardrail shown where applicable.
proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 have low maintenance(not grass) ground cover
specified on the plan
guardrail over all fill slopes and culverts, with 3' additional shoulder, using VDOT ,
designations (GR-2, GR-2A, etc.)
right-of-way/easement width, centered on street, meeting design standards
typical sections for sidewalks and trails
sidewalk location and widths, minimum 5' width, 4" concrete surface with wire/rebar
reinforcement, 4" 21-A stone base, with underdrains(UD-4, etc)per VDOT standards
where applicable. Sidewalks used with roll-top curbing shall be 7 inches thick(VDOT
RDM B(1)-4.G.
planting strip if applicable, 6' minimum width [14-422]
ditches dimensioned at 3:1 slope from shoulder, 1' depth min., and 4" min. width from
shoulder to ditch centerline, for rural sections
alleys have 12' pavement width, with 14' wide stone base [14-410]
transitioning detail (20' minimum) for roll-top curbing in front of any inlets
typical sections for proposed channels with locations referenced from the plan view
sheets
The Miller School—New Entrance—Road Plan Amendment
Comments on plans dated 12/10/2016
1. Original Professional Engineer's Signature should be provided for final approval [18-32.6.1].
2. Final approval will be subject to approval of the VSMP plan.The VSMP plan is currently under
review.
3. VDOT approval is required.
4. Update SDP site plan number to current submission,SDP-201600245.
5. Provide date and source of topographic information.Topography should be field verified within
the last year.
6. Provide updated Limits of disturbance, and include stream buffer and critical slope limits to
ensure no additional impacts are occurring within the buffer(requiring additional mitigation) or
outside approved critical slopes waver areas.
7. Provide scale and directional arrow for plan view on sheet RP—3.
8. Provide type and location of signs, including stop signs and street names.
9. Provide edge of pavement radii at entrance intersection [18.32.6.5.e].The internal intersections
must maintain a minimum radius of 15ft.The minimum radius for the intersection on the public
street is 25ft.
10. Stationing on plan views should be a minimum of 50'.
11. Provide updated site distance profiles. Widening of entrance and inclusion of guard booth could
affect site distance.
12. VDOT standard guard rail is required over any slope greater than 3:1 or wall with a drop greater
than 4 feet. Provide guardrail where required.
13. Details for culverts A and B in the plan view on sheet RP-3 do not match those on the
plan/profile views and culvert calculations on sheet RP-4.The pipe length, slope, and material
on sheet RP-3 do not match what is presented on sheet RP-4. In addition,the pipe size for
culvert A is indicated as 18" with upper invert of 618.00 and lower invert of 615.00 on the plan
view on sheet RP-3 and in the drainage calculations, but as a 15" pipe with upper invert of
642.00 and lower invert of 638.88 on the profile. Finally, the drainage area shown for culvert A
in the culvert calculations, does not match what is shown on the storm inlet drainage area
display. Please correct these inconsistencies.
14. The box culvert and junction box configuration is not represented as approved on sheet RP-3.
Please correct to reflect approved plan.
15. Show the correct width and batter related to the retaining wall on road plan and profile. From
plans it is unclear if the wall is adequately constructible due to proximity to culvert B. Due to this
potential conflict more detail will need to be provided, specifically the bury depth and
depth/width of footings/leveling pad. Please provide certified engineer's signatures on retaining
wall details.
16. Provide engineering detail and flow velocities/volumes for proposed rip-rap ditches. Channel
linings (rip-rap) must be sized adequately to prevent scour/erosion. Provide calculations to
ensure that installation of culvert B and riprap discharge channel will not overwhelm the
junction box causing flooding at the inlet, and that the discharge channel from culvert A will not
cause erosive flows.