HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201700072 Correspondence 2018-05-01ALAN FRAN KLI N PE, LLC
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet, Virginia 22932
(434) 531-5544
alan@alanfranklinpe.com
April 25, 2018
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Rivanna Village Phase 2 (Blocks D, F, G, I, and J) Final Site Plan - 1st Submittal (SDP2017-72)
Dear Chris,
Please accept for review and approval the attached 10 copies of final plans which address all of the
agency initial plan review comments and satisfies the requirements of Section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of
the Code. The letter is intended to accompany the final plans and serve as written response to
comment letter dated February 2, 2018.
Planning (Christopher Perez)
1. ([ZMA201300012 Proffers] All proffers shall be adhered to as dictated in the proffers.
Response: Noted.
2. [COD Sec 3.3] Lot Regulation/Setbacks. Replace the setbacks listed and depicted throughout
the plan with the new setback chart (provided below) which was approved by the BOS on
December 6, 2017. Please do not reword anything in the chart, merely provide the exact chart
on the site plan. Additionally, revise the setbacks and buildable area depicted on all lots
throughout the plan utilizing these new setbacks and the various factors provided in the chart.
Response: Provided chart added to the plans.
3. [COD Sec 3.4] Building Height. Throughout the site plan label the maximum height of each
structure by block that is being platted. See table 3.4 of the Code of Development as each block
has different heights permitted based on the use. Example: Block G is permitted a maximum
building height of 40 feet.
Response: The maximum building height table from the COD has been added to the plans.
4. ([COD Sec 7.1] Parking. The only portion of the development not subject to the 20% maximum
rule for parking provided in excess of required parking, is that for Block D, as a waiver was
granted during the rezoning for this block. All other blocks shall meet the 20% maximum for
parking provided.
Response: It is our opinion that the "20% maximum" rule is only intended to apply to parking
lots, or "parking areas having four or more spaces" per 4.12.2(1). For instance, every single
family detached home with a two car garage and a one or two car driveway would violate this
20% rule by providing 4 parking spaces where only 2 are required. Similarly, it is also our opinion
that the 20% rule is not intended to restrict on -street parking. Plentiful on -street parking is
beneficial to NMD neighborhoods, providing for both required and non -required guest parking
and parking for uses such as the park and other non-residential uses. Our parking table is
intended to provide assurance that there is adequate parking on a majority of the residential lots
and that there is adequate room for guest parking on the streets. To help eliminate the
appearance that the site is over parked, the parking table has been revised to eliminate garage
spaces on the single family detached lots. Parking requirement calculations for the park have
been added to the plan and the location of this parking has been noted. Required parking
calculations for any other non-residential use will be provided once the use is proposed and the
calculations will be based on the proposed use.
5. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 9] Affordable Housing. Designate which lots are the affordable units
throughout the final site plan and final plat. Also, under the chart provide the full statement that
reads: "The owner shall contribute cash to the County in the amount of Twenty -One Thousand,
One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($21,150) instead of constructing each required affordable unit. Such
payment shall be made after completion of the final inspection and prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy for any such unit for which payment in lieu of constructing affordable
housing is made."
Response: Note added to chart. Blocks G and I are the locations set aside for affordable units.
The owner shall determine and notify the County which unit(s) in a particular Block is (are) to be
subject to the affordable housing criteria prior to transferring ownership of any lot within that
Block. The owner reserves the right to contribute the stipulated cash amount in lieu of
constructing an affordable unit. The affordable housing requirement may be met through a
combination of affordable unit construction and monetary contributions.
6. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 2] Cash Proffer for Capital Improvement. The required cash
contribution for each unit shall be dictated by the proffer and is required to be paid after
completion of final inspection and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each
unit.
Response: Noted.
7. ZMA201300012 Proffer 7] Rte 250 Landscape Buffer and Right of Way Dedication. Label,
dimension, and depict the required 70' reservation zone and the 30' landscape buffer along Rte
250. These improvements shall be reserved for public use and dedicated upon the request of
the County. The developer shall preserve the existing vegetation in this area as described in the
proffer.
Response: Requested dimensions and labels added to the plan. One point of clarification is that
this area is proffered as a "reservation" zone not a "preservation" zone. The clearing, grading,
and utilities shown on the plans are permitted. The proffered 30' landscape buffer is intended to
mitigate lost vegetation in the 70' reservation zone.
8. [COD Sec 3.2(4)] Density Regulations. A minimum of 20,000 SF of non-residential uses shall be
in the development. On the plans label and depict where the required 20,000 SF non-residential
use shall be located and assure there is enough area for 20,000 SF. Revise the Density by Block
chart on sheet 4 to provide these calculations. Presumably these uses are to be in Block D.
Response: It is presumed that all of the required non-residential uses will be in the remainder of
Block D. The height restrictions for this Block envision construction to encompass several floors.
The plan labels have been revised to indicate this.
9. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Throughout the plan label the park as
"Hereby Dedicated to the County of Albemarle for Public use as a Public Park".
Response: Note added.
10. COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Prior to final site plan approval the Director
of Parks and Recreation is required to approve a park plan, which shall ensure amenities
provided meet the needs of the County and satisfy the rezoning.
Response: Noted. We have been meeting and coordinating with Parks and Rec.
11. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. The wetlands areas in the park shall be
labeled as "Preserved Wetland Areas". Omit the reference to "Future Park" on sheet 4, as this
area shall be part of the park with phase 2 of development.
Response: Labels added/revised.
12. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Depict, label, and design a maintenance
facility within the development for use by the County Parks and Recreation Department to
maintain the public park facility. Also, coordinate with Parks and Recreation Department on the
width and design of the trails throughout the park. Once coordinated provide `typicals' of these
access ways. Prior to approval engineering and the Parks and Rec department shall sign off that
these trails are adequate for use by motorized maintenance vehicles.
Response: The maintenance facility was not part of the proffer. We have been meeting and
coordinating with Parks and Rec on all of these details and they will be added to the plans as we
progress. The maintenance facility will likely be located on the firehouse property.
13. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. The park has two required trail connects to
the Eastpark Road. Currently these are depicted as easements; however, this is not appropriate
and shall be revised to be fee simple dedications to the park. Depict, label, and dimension these
trail connections. Additionally, the trail connections shall be increased in width above the 6'
width as currently provided. These trail connections are to be utilized as access points for the
public as well as used by Parks and Recreation Department to maintain the public park facility.
Revise.
Response: The lot layout has been revised to provide the connections to the park as "fee
simple". We are coordinating required trail widths with Parks and Rec.
14. [Comment] On either sheet 4 or 5 provide a table of content overlay, which labels which sheets
each section of various blocks can be found on.
Response: Added to Sheet 4 and to the key on the title block.
15. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Existing or platted streets. Label all streets (public) and all alleys (private).
Provide directional arrows on each alley to signify one way or two-way traffic. Also, provide the
widths of all streets.
Response: Labels indicating private/public added to each road label. Direction arrows added to
the parking lot in Block G. Widths of each street on each sheet that it is shown are on the layout
plan sheets.
16. (32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Alleys. On the plan provide a note that states no public agency, including
VDOT, and the County of Albemarle will be responsible for maintaining the alleys. Also, provide
information on the plans that the alleys shall be dedicated and maintained by the HOA.
Response: There are no alleys proposed in Phase 2. The note was modified and applied to Cattail
Court which is a private road/access.
17. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 3] Route 250 and Eastern Entrance Improvements. "The owner shall
either construct left and right turn lanes on Route 250 at the eastern entrance to the property or
bond these improvements prior to approval of the first site plan or subdivision plat for the
development..."
Response: Bond has been posted.
18. [Code of Development Section 4.2] Covenants to Provide Architectural Review Committee. Prior
to final site plan and/or final subdivision plat approval a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions for Rivanna Village shall be reviewed/approved by the CountyAttorney's office
in consultation with County Planning staff. The above document shall be approved by the County
and recorded by the developer prior to final site plan and/or final subdivision plat approval. The
DB page reference information of this recorded document shall be noted on the final site plan
and/or final subdivision plat.
Response: We believe this to be complete.
19. (32.6.2U)] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required with
the final site plan.
Response: Landscape plans are included.
20. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed Improvements. Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed buildings.
Response: The building setbacks shown on the Layout Plan represent the maximum footprints
for buildings. We have worked very closely with the building contractor and used their
construction plans to create the building footprints shown for the product they intend to build.
21. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed improvements. How is daily household trash going to be disposed of for
these units? If each lot is going to have its own trash container for curbside pickup, where are
these containers going to be stored when not in use?
Response: Daily household trash will be handled by individual toter cans for each unit. On units
with garages, the trash cans will be stored in the garage. For the units without garages, in Block
G, a dumpster, pad, and enclosure are shown on the plans.
22. [32.7.4.2] Easements for stormwater management facilities. Provide access to the stormwater
management facility. Also, provide an easement over the facility and the access.
Response: Another firm is preparing the E&S/SWM plans for the project. We are coordinating
closely with them to show the easements to match those plans.
23. [32.8.2, 14-311] Infrastructure improvement plans. Road plans must be approved and built or
bonded prior to approval. Fire and Rescue has commented that the road widths are not
adequate for on street parking. If on street parking is to be provided assure the roads are
widened and that the spaces are dimensioned and labeled.
Response: It should be clarified that Fire and Rescue requested that we ensure that road widths
are adequate for on street parking. We have verified that the road dimensions match the typical
road sections which show adequate room for parking on one or both sides, depending on the
street. The on -street parking zones have been identified on Sheet 4. These zones are limited by
the required intersection sight distance lines which are also shown.
24. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Screening. Proposed SWM Facilities shall be screened from the adjacent
residential lots.
Response: Screening of SWM facilities is included on Landscape Plan.
25. [32.7.2.1] Vehicular Access to Site. Each entrance onto any public street shall be designed and
constructed as required by the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation. VDOT
approval of the entrance to the site shall be required prior to final site plan and/or final plat
approval.
Response: Noted. The final site plan addresses VDOT comments from the initial plan.
26. [Comment] Provide the dimensions of proposed easements and whether they are to be publicly
or privately maintained.
Response: Dimensions of easements and private/public notation added.
27. [32.6.2(e)] Public facilities and utilities. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public
use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the
facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Response: Note added to Sheet 2.
28. [Comment] On sheet 1 provide the site plan number and when submitted ensure it is labeled as
Final Site Plan. Please omit Road Plan from the title.
Response: The final site plan will receive a new number. It will be added when assigned. "Road
Plan" remains in the title for now as a majority of the review and approval pertains to the roads
infrastructure approval.
Engineering (Bobby Jocz)
1. WPO plan must be approved prior to Final Site Plan Approval.
Response: WPO plan in process of being reviewed by County.
2. Topography data must be field verified by designer within past year. Provide date of field
verification.
Response: Scott Blossom, PE and I have been on -site many times to field verify existing
conditions. Additionally, the surveyor, Roudabush & Gale, has provided many ground shot
elevations to confirm topography in wooded areas so that we can confidently design, price, and
construct all proposed improvements. A note has been added to Sheet 2.
3. Stormsewer profiles and details must be provided. Sheets 58-62 were missing from submittal.
Evaluation of proposed stormsewer could not be completed.
Response: Storm profiles and details have been added to the plan set.
4. Stationing for roadways should be provided at 50' for both plan and profile.
Response: Station labels and major station tick marks are provided at 100' foot intervals and
minor station tick marks are provided at 20' intervals on both the plan and profile for the
roadways.
5. Present design speed limits for each roadway.
Response: Design speeds limits have been added to the plan and profiles sheets.
6. Ensure all road names are included for streets shown on each sheet.
Response: Plan corrected to add additional labels. Also, sheet match line labels have been
added to plan sheets to help navigate through the set.
7. Dimension all stream crossing/culverts on profiles.
Response: Requested dimensions added to the profiles.
8. Include all stormsewer draining stormwater from Public ROW in public drainage easements.
Response: Proposed drainage easements added where we thought necessary and will adjust as
needed.
9. Indicate ROW/easement type for each roadway (Public, private, access).
Response: Labeling added.
10. SWM facilities must be placed in SWM Facility easements. Access easement must be provided
to facility. Deed of dedication and SWM maintenance agreement must also be executed prior to
approval. Show location of SWM facility and access easements.
Response: Easements provided from WPO plan have been added.
11. Show preserved buffer area overly on grading plan sheets. Ensure grading occurs outside of
preserved buffers.
Response: Preserved buffer area lines from the WPO plans have been added.
12. Show easements for areas to be placed in SWM forest and open space areas. Forest and open
space used in VRRM calculations to meet water quality requirements associated with VSMP
regulations must be placed in SWM forest and Open Space easement, with deed of dedication
and SWM maintenance agreement executed/recorded prior to final approval.
Response: Preserved buffer area lines from the WPO plans have been added.
13. [Sheet 9] The dead end section of Terrapin Lane (station 10+14) should extend a minimum of
30' from the outside edge of the turnaround lane (VDOT Subdivision Street Design Guide).
Response: The proposed turnarounds at both Terrapin Lane and Cattail Court have been revised
to meet the VDOT specifications.
14. [Sheet 12] Provide roadway/parking/etc. dimensions.
Response: Dimension layer turned on for this sheet.
15. [Sheet 12] Provide explanation for hatching/overlay provided for last 31' of Cattail Ct.
Response: Concrete apron label added.
16. [Sheet 13] Identify street sign located at station 10+57 on the southwest bound roadway. The
sign is adjacent to lot G-40.
Response: Street layout has been revised in this location but the revised street signs have been
labeled.
17. [Sheet 13] Ensure parcel boundary lines are not blocking dimension/other labels.
Response: Hopefully, this has been corrected throughout the set.
18. [Sheet 15] Show stationing for River Anna Road and Steamer Drive.
Response: Stationing added for these two roadways. The current name of River Anna Road is
Village Park Avenue.
19. [Sheet 19] Remove profile for Village Avenue which is not included in the plans (incorrect label
for River Anna Road?).
Response: The profile in question is for the continuation of a phase 1 road which is now name
Village Park Avenue.
20. [Sheet 20] Profile for Cattail Trail incorrectly references intersection with Terrapin Lane at STA
10+00, and incorrectly references intersection with Butterfield "Court" at STA 14+23.
Response: Profile corrected.
21. [Sheet 21] Correct profiles for Eastpark Drive and Creekside drive. Labels/titles do not match
what is presented in plan views.
Response: Street names have been revised and labels have been corrected.
22. [Sheet 22] Correct Cattail Court Profile. Does not match stationing presented in plan views.
Response: Profile and plan labeling for Cattail Court have been revised.
23. [Sheet 31] BMPs J1 and J2 are labeled as Dry Swales when they are modeled in the VSMP plan
as wet swales. Please clarify.
Response: BMP J1 and J2 labels corrected.
24. [Sheets 31 - 32] Grading behind lots J20-J27 and J28-J33 inconsistent with compost amended
soil/sheet flow to open space BMP presented as water quality BMP in VSMP plan. Note: SWM
facility easement must include 35' or 50' of down system grading associated with BMP as
defined in VSMP clearinghouse.
Response: I believe this has been addressed on the WPO plan.
Fire and Rescue (Shawn Maddox)
1. Cattail Court - emergency apparatus turn around required due to the length of this street.
Response: VDOT standard turnaround added.
2. Cattail Court - hydrant spacing exceeds 500 feet on this street, none are shown.
Response: The two hydrants provided on Cattail Court have been moved closer together.
3. If the buildings that are serviced on Cattail Court are going to exceed 30' in height then the width
of 20' will not be sufficient. The buildings would also need a second means of emergency
apparatus access if this height is exceeded.
Response: Not sure if the 20' width requirement refers to width of building or width of vehicular
access. The proposed drive aisle width of Cattail Court is 24'. A second means of access is not
feasible at this location so the maximum building height of Block G will need to be restricted to
30' at the building permit stage. It is our estimate that units G25 through G40 will be 25' tall in
the front and 35' tall in the rear for an average height of 30'.
4. Please verify hydrant spacing throughout the project doesn't exceed 500'. Some sections of
Terrapin Lane specifically seem to exceed the distance and others are questionable.
Response: Hydrant spacing has been revised to address these and ACSA comments.
5. Streets throughout the development shall be marked no parking based on proposed widths.
Response: All proposed public streets are 29' wide with parking allowed on one side or 36' wide
with parking allowed on two sides. The limiting factor for on street parking is intersection sight
lines. Allowable on -street parking zones are identified on Sheet 4 and "no -parking" signs are
labeled on the layout plan sheets.
CDD Inspections (Michael Dellinger)
No objections to the Initial Site Plan.
Response: No action required.
VDH (Alan Mazurowski)
No objections to the Initial Site Plan.
Response: No action required.
Fire and Rescue (Elise Kiewra)
The following road names will need to be changed: River Anna Road, Crescent Ave, Creekside Drive,
Cattail Court, Eastpark RD
Response:
River Anna Road has been changed to Village Park Avenue.
Crescent Ave has been changed to Meander Way.
Creekside Dr has been changed to Mossy Rock Road.
Eastpark Rd has been changed to Lazy Branch Lane.
ARB (Margaret Maliszewski)
1. Delineate the Reservation Zone and the Landscape Buffer along Route 250.
Response: Delineated and labeled on the landscape plan sheets.
2. Replace the white pines in the Landscape Buffer with another species.
Response: Changed to American Holly.
Parks and Rec (Dan Mahon)
1. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Throughout the plan label the park as
"Hereby Dedicated to the County of Albemarle for Public use as a Public Park".
Response: Done.
2. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Prior to final site plan approval, the Director
of Parks and Recreation is required to approve a park plan, which shall ensure amenities
provided meet the needs of the County and satisfy the rezoning.
Response: Noted.
3. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. The wetlands areas in the park shall be
labeled as "preserved wetland areas". Omit the reference to "Future Park" on sheet 4, as this
area shall be part of the park with phase 2 of development.
Response: "Future Park" references changed to "Park".
4. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Depict, label, and design a maintenance
facility within the development for use by the County Parks and Recreation Department to
maintain the public park facility. Also, coordinate with Parks and Recreation Department on the
width and design of the trails throughout the park. Once coordinated provide `typicals' of these
access ways. Prior to approval engineering and the Parks and Rec department shall sign off that
these trails are adequate for use by motorized maintenance vehicles.
Response: The 6'-wide paved trail has been determined to be adequate for access in remote
areas of the park. However, in the more active and centrally -located portions of the park the
trails will be made 8'-wide to accommodate on -road motor vehicles such as pickup trucks.
5. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. The park has two required trail connects to
the Eastpark Road. Currently these are depicted as easements; however, this is not appropriate
and shall be revised to be fee simple dedications to the park. Depict, label, and dimension these
trail connections. Additionally, the trail connections shall be increased in width above the 6'
width as currently provided. These trail connections are to be utilized as access points for the
public as well as used by Parks and Recreation Department to maintain the public park facility.
Revise.
Response: The lot layout has been revised to provide the connections to the park as "fee simple"
We are coordinating required trail widths with Parks and Rec.
6. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. In those places where the park directly
abuts private residential lots there needs to be a stronger and a more manageable boundary.
The location, method, materials, and management policies for this concern will be addressed
with the park plan as a condition of final approval.
Response: It has been determined that a combination of treatments or measures will be required
in order to provide clear delineation of the boundaries between privately -owned lots and the park
property. All lot corners adjacent to the park shall be clearly marked with posts 4' tall. A swath of
closely -cut grass shall be maintained between marker posts. Unless necessary for other reasons
the natural landscape will be permitted to grow along the perimeter of the park land. Landscape
treatments at the locations where trails enter the main body of the park will be installed along
with signing delineating the entry into park property.
VDOT (Adam Moore/Justin Deel)
1. Eastbound left turn lane....
Response: The proposed eastbound left turn lane has been removed and the remainder of the
eastbound transition has been revised accordingly.
2. Crossing of intermittent streams.... The Department will not maintain oversized structures.
Response: As part of the rezoning process, a detailed development plan was created in order to
begin the process of obtaining the necessary environmental permits for intermittent stream and
wetland impacts from the Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality for the project to proceed. The previous rezoning/development effort failed to do this
prior to County approvals which resulted in a master plan of development that could not be
permitted with the Corps and DEQ. As a result, the previous development endeavor collapsed.
After several plan iterations and meetings with the Corps and DEQ representatives, we landed on
an acceptable plan of development that used a combination of on-line/off-line stormwater
management facilities and culvert/spanned stream crossings to minimize intermittent stream
disturbance to below 1,000 linear feet. To bolster support of the rezoning request, the
Corps/DEQ Joint Permit was obtained prior to approval by the Board of Supervisors. The three
proposed, stream span crossings are required for compliance with the environmental permit and
are in accordance with the Application Plan and Development Plan Concept documents
presented to the Board of Supervisors. These spans are proposed to be accomplished using
metal arches with concrete strip footers designed by Contech.
3. Bridge designs to be reviewed and approved by Culpeper District Bridge and Structure
Division/HOA Maintenance Agreement....
Response: Geotechnical study and bridge design is in progress and will be provided for review by
the Culpeper office when available. Metal arches have been approved by the Culpeper District in
the past. Please provide the HOA maintenance agreement language for review so the owner can
get this finalized prior to the 11th hour.
4. Geotechnical study....
Response: Geotechnical study is currently underway with 4 proposed borings for each crossing.
5. Crescant Ave/Terrapin Lane intersection stop signs, curb radius, sight distance....
Response: The intersection was redesigned as directed and sight distance lines added. The
street names have changed.
6. Eastpark and Cattail Trail should be combined into one street with a radius....
Response: These streets were combined as recommended with a 200' radius and the 3-way
intersection eliminated. The street names have changed.
7. Eliminate Route 250 guardrail by using flatter fill slopes....
Response: The fill slopes were increased to 4:1 and the guardrails eliminated.
8. Route 250 improvements shoulder must be increased to 8', 4' paved, and 5% max slope....
Response: Details and design adjusted.
9. Sight distance profiles must be provided on the plans....
Response: Sight line profiles have been added.
10. Show areas where parallel parking will be permitted/restricted....
Response: The on -street parking zones are indicated on the plans. These zones are restricted by
road section and intersection sight lines.
11. Clearly indicate which streets are public or private....
Response: Labelling has been added to the plan and profile sheets to clearly indicate which
streets are intended to be public or private. Only Cattail Court is proposed as private due to the
perpendicular parking.
12. Provide VDOT standard details for all proposed curb and gutter types....
Response: These details have been replaced with the current pdf details.
13. The Route 250 culverts to be extended must be inspected/replaced....
Response: We will coordinate with Andrew Scott for inspection prior to the next plan submittal as
suggested.
14. A drainage easement will be required for the Route 250 culverts to be extended...
Response: Drainage easements added.
15. The turnaround at the end of Terrapin Lane sub -standard....
Response: The turnaround layout has been corrected.
16. Why does the R.O. W. extend 4' beyond sidewalks on some streets....
Response: In order to maximize density in the County Development Area, lot sizes and front
setbacks are minimized. County requirements for street trees/planting strip and VDOT practice of
not allowing sanitary sewer manholes in the streets force many of neighborhood utilities and
associated easements to be located between the back of sidewalk and the front of house. These
utility easements come with restrictions on what is allowed to be within the easement, and
makes the lot less desirable. On the streets where the 4' of "extra" R.O.W. is available it is our
hope that the utility companies will count this extra space toward their easement needs and
require less easement on the lot. Additionally, we envision the maintenance of this area to be
assumed by the homeowner or HOA as it gives the impression that the front yard extends to the
back of sidewalk. This could be addressed in the maintenance agreement referenced earlier.
17. Where DI's are greater than 8'....
Response: The VDOT Road and Bridge Standard details says greater than 9' so for this submittal
only designation of the structures with 9' depth or greater have been changed. If it is determined
that 8' is the correct number, the plans will be updated.
18. The Design Manual states that storm pipe velocities of 10 fps or greater should be avoided....
Response: Storm pipe velocities greater than 10 fps have been avoided where feasible. The
proposed pipe systems do not include sections that are unnecessarily steep. The storm pipe
gradients mimic the road grades which are closely related to the existing site topography. Three
main factors that affect storm pipe velocities are quantity of stormwater, pipe size, and pipe
slope. We feel that we have reasonably managed all three of these factors and provided a sound
design. There are not many instances where the velocity exceeds 10 fps so we will continue to
explore options to improve the situation where practical.
19. Provide HGL calculations and provide HGL on storm profiles...
Response: Calculations are in progress and will be provided with HGL added to storm profiles on
the next submittal.
20. Pavement design items a and b....
Response: Note was added to address item a. Item b was addressed by switching the proposed
surface mix to SM12.5A.
21. Typical Sections: Pavement materials should daylight to shoulder/slope....
Response: Typical sections referenced have been revised.
22. The Notes and Figures for the MOT Plan should be taken from the latest Manual....
Response: Items revised.
23. Final Site Plan to be in conformance with VDOT RDM Appendices B(1) & F....
Response: Noted.
ACSA (Jeremy Lynn)
General Comments
1. PE stamp and signature provided on Cover Sheet.
2. Sheet grid lines were added to the Overall Plan Sheet. Sheet Match line labeling added to 20
scale sheets and sheet numbers added to the key map on the title block.
3. Schedule of Development and estimated Flows.
4. Profile of existing SS `A' line added to the set.
5. 1 don't think there are any new connections proposed to SS `A' with these plans. All proposed
connections should have been installed.
6. Match line labeling added to sheets and key on title block.
7. Is final dedication actually required prior to approval of Phase 2 or will submittal of as -built plans
suffice?
Sheet 2
1. ACSA Notes updated.
Sheet 4
2. Glenmore Sewer Agreement Boundary added to sheet.
Sheet 5
3. Sheet eliminated.
Sheet 7-22
4. Sheets eliminated.
Sheet 24 (now Sheet 28)
1. Water meter/sewer lateral conflict corrected due to lot reconfiguration.
2. Water meter/sewer lateral conflict corrected due to lot reconfiguration.
3. Water meter/sewer lateral conflict corrected due to lot reconfiguration.
4. Water meter/sewer lateral conflict corrected due to lot reconfiguration.
5. One of the gate valves eliminated.
6. Moved FH R1 and S2.
7. SS R6 moved.
Sheet 25 (now Sheet 29)
1. Water meter relocated.
2. FH R3 location adjusted.
3. Sewer later moved to MH R4.
4. Comment addressed by lot shifts.
5. Private sewer easement provided.
6. Sewer later shifted to MH T7.
7. Sewer profile between MH R4 and 134-1 added.
8. No change for now as design allows for future expansion of development of neighboring parcels
currently under consideration.
9. Rivanna Investments owns the parcel adjacent to Cumbria Lane and is considering adding it to
the rezoning.
Sheet 26
1. Sheet eliminated.
Sheet 27 (now Sheet 31)
1. Water meter relocated as suggested.
2. FH W1 relocated and termination of waterline revised to provide potential extension to existing
neighborhood.
3. Waterline reduced to 6" after the last fire hydrant.
Sheet 28 (now Sheet 32)
1. Comment addressed with revision to street layout.
2. Water main shifted closer to curb and gutter.
3. Moving the water main in question to the south side of Meander Way (formerly Crescent) would
place the main very near and parallel to the storm drain between SD01 and SD02 so we did not
move it for this submittal. It is an easy revision that will be made if requested again.
4. Three gate valves now provided.
5. FH W3 shifted.
6. Water main along Crescent Avenue revised.
7. See response to #3.
8. A second fire hydrant was added to Waterline `S' so it could not be reduced to 6".
9. The requested easement location will likely change based on this revised plan so it will be added
after we've had a chance to coordinate further with ACSA.
Sheet 29 (now Sheet 33)
1. Fire hydrant in question relocated.
2. The waterline in Cattail Lane (now Lazy Branch Lane) was relocated to the far side of the road to
address another comment so the water meter for Lot J-39 is still served from Waterline `U'
3. Water main layout revised to shorten the crossing.
4. Watermain layout in Creekside Drive (now Mossy Rock Road) revised.
5. Additional fire hydrant provided but the lots numbers have changed.
6. Water main diameter reduced to 6".
7. Sewer lateral angle corrected.
Sheet 30 (now Sheet 34)
1. The two water meters in question have been reduced to one water meter serving the proposed
park restroom. We estimate that there will be 3 flush tank toilets, 1 urinal, 2 lavatory sinks, 2
yard hydrants, and 2 hose bibs.
2. FH X1 has been relocated.
3. Need to coordinate.
4. Rivanna Village is required to provide at least 20,000 square feet of non-residential use and as
of right now, the remainder of Block D is reserved for these non-residential uses. We anticipate a
mixed -use building (or two) with non-residential uses on the first floor and residential units
above. Picture Old Trail Village or the Shops of Clover Lawn. Small restaurants, a State Farm
agent, ABC Store on the lower level and 20-40 apartments above.
5. Public restroom sanitary sewer lateral was shown on phase 1 plan.
6. FH Z1 has been relocated.
Sheet 31(now Sheet 35)
1. Fire hydrant at the end of Creekside Drive has been revised to facilitate future extension.
2. Lateral and private sewer easement added.
Sheet 32 (now Sheet 36)
I. Water meter shifted the opposite way.
2. Water meter shifted as suggested.
3. FH X2 shifted.
4. FH X3 shifted.
5. Water main reduced to 6"
Sheet 33 (now Sheet 37)
1. Water service connection shifted.
2. SS `C' profile added.
3. Existing SS `A' manholes re -labeled as requested.
Sheet 34 (now Sheet 38)
1. Sheet eliminated.
Sheet 35 (now Sheet 41)
1. This will require further discussion with ACSA.
2. Invert elevations provided for MH B8.
3. This sewer in question was proposed as 10" because it was flat and we were not sure of any
future expansion within this sewer watershed. It has been changed to 8".
4. Sewer in question changed to DIP.
5. Sewer in question changed to DIP.
6. Sewer in question changed to DIP.
7. Missing profile added.
8. Slope between MH's 131-1 and R1 corrected.
Sheet 36 (now Sheet 42)
1. Could not see the need for this pipe to change from PVC to DIP so left it as PVC for now.
2. Could not see the need for this pipe to change from PVC to DIP so left it as PVC for now.
3. Manhole fall and slopes through MH's S1-S3 corrected.
Sheet 37 (now Sheet 43)
1. Connection lowered.
2. Slopes in question corrected.
3. Could not see the need for this pipe to change from PVC to DIP so left it as PVC for now.
Sheet 38 (now Sheet 44)
1. Lateral crossings added to profiles.
Sheet 40 (now Sheet 46)
1. Pipe diameters revised where applicable.
2. Stream crossings added to profiles.
Sheet 41(now Sheet 47)
1. Vertical bends eliminated and notes added per comment.
2. Note added to require insulation of waterline at culvert crossings.
Sheet 44 (now Sheet 50)
1. Sheet eliminated.
Sheet 56-57 (now Sheets 62-63)
1. Sheets eliminated.
Sheet 58-62 (now Sheets 64-68)
1. Water service and sewer lateral crossings will be added to the storm profiles as all of the utility
locations are finalized.
2. Storm F can not be lowered based on the elevation of the streams and the stormwater
management plan.
Please do not hesitate to call me at (434) 531-5544 or email at alan@alanfranklinpe.com with any
questions or request for additional information that will aid in review of the final site plans.
Sincerely,
6V4-
Alan Franklin, PE
cc:
David Harner; HCM
Rebecca Amster
Mark Keller
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:
Albemarle Date: 4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Street Name:
Moose Lane between Terrapin Trace and Route 250
Developer:
Rivanna Investments, LLC Phone: (434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d) Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 213 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t) CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p) Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix 11.
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
ADT
1,650
Average Daily Traffic Volume
% Growth
0
per year
Design Year
10
Number of years after construction
% HCV
1
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
EPT
1,650
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Design ADT I
1,650 Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
CBR 1 4 JAssumed value from Appendix I
or
Sample
CBR(t)
Location
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)
4
Average CBR " (2/3) or Assumed CBR
RF
1
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
SSV
4
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
D(r) =
1 16
IFrom Appendix II
Course
Material
Thickness
Equivalency
D(p)
Surface
SM-12.5A
2
2.25
4.5
Base
BM-25
3
2.25
6.75
Subbase
21A
8
0.6
4.8
Total Depth = 13 Total D(p) 16.05
D(p)-D(r) = 0.05
D(p)>D(r) Therefore: ADEQUATE
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:
Albemarle Date: 4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Street Name:
Moose Lane between Lazy Branch Lane and Terrapin Trace
Developer:
Rivanna Investments, LLC Phone: (434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d) Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t) CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p) Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II.
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
ADT
1,150
Average Daily Traffic Volume
% Growth
0
per year
Design Year
10
Number of years after construction
% HCV
1
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
EPT
1,150
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Design ADT I
1,150 Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
CBR 1 4 JAssumed value from Appendix I
or
Sample
CBR(t)
Location
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)
4
Average CBR ` (2/3) or Assumed CBR
RF
1
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
SSV
4
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
D(r) =
1 15
From Appendix II
Course
Material
Thickness
Equivalency
D(p)
Surface
SM-12.5A
2
2.25
4.5
Base
BM-25
3
2.25
6.75
Subbase
21A
8
0.6
4.8
Total Depth = 13 Total D(p) 16.05
D(p)-D(r) = 1.05
D(p)>D(r) Therefore: ADEQUATE
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:
Albemarle Date: 4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Street Name:
Terrapin Trace
Developer:
Rivanna Investments, LLC Phone: (434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d) Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 213 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t) CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p) Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II.
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
ADT
200
Average Daily Traffic Volume
% Growth
0
per year
Design Year
10
Number of years after construction
% HCV
1
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
EPT
200
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Design ADT I
200 Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
CBR 1 4 JAssumed value from Appendix I
or
Sample
CBR(t)
Location
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)
4
Average CBR ` (2/3) or Assumed CBR
RF
1
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
SSV
4
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
D(r) =
1 9
From Appendix II
Course
Material
Thickness
Equivalency
D(p)
Surface
SM-12.5A
2
2.25
4.5
Base
BM-25
3
2.25
6.75
Subbase
21A
6
0.6
3.6
Total Depth = 11 Total D(p) 14.85
D(p)-D(r) = 5.85
D(p)>D(r) Therefore: ADEQUATE
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:
Albemarle Date: 4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Street Name:
Meander Way
Developer:
Rivanna Investments, LLC Phone: (434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d) Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 213 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t) CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p) Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix 11.
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
ADT
200
Average Daily Traffic Volume
% Growth
0
per year
Design Year
10
Number of years after construction
% HCV
1
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
EPT
200
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Design ADT I
200 Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
CBR 1 4 JAssumed value from Appendix I
or
Sample
CBR(t)
Location
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)
4
Average CBR " (2/3) or Assumed CBR
RF
1
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
SSV
4
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
D(r) =
1 9
IFrom Appendix II
Course
Material
Thickness
Equivalency
D(p)
Surface
SM-12.5A
2
2.25
4.5
Base
BM-25
3
2.25
6.75
Subbase
21A
6
0.6
3.6
Total Depth = 11 Total D(p) 14.85
D(p)-D(r) = 5.85
D(p)>D(r) Therefore: ADEQUATE
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:
Albemarle Date: 4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Street Name:
Mossy Rock Road
Developer:
Rivanna Investments, LLC Phone: (434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d) Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 213 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t) CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p) Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II.
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
ADT
200
Average Daily Traffic Volume
% Growth
0
per year
Design Year
10
Number of years after construction
% HCV
1
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
EPT
200
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Design ADT I
200 Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
CBR 1 4 JAssumed value from Appendix I
or
Sample
CBR(t)
Location
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)
4
Average CBR ` (2/3) or Assumed CBR
RF
1
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
SSV
4
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
D(r) =
1 9
From Appendix II
Course
Material
Thickness
Equivalency
D(p)
Surface
SM-12.5A
2
2.25
4.5
Base
BM-25
3
2.25
6.75
Subbase
21A
6
0.6
3.6
Total Depth = 11 Total D(p) 14.85
D(p)-D(r) = 5.85
D(p)>D(r) Therefore: ADEQUATE
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:
Albemarle Date: 4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Street Name:
Lazy Branch Lane
Developer:
Rivanna Investments, LLC Phone: (434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d) Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 213 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t) CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p) Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix 11.
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
ADT
1,050
Average Daily Traffic Volume
% Growth
0
per year
Design Year
10
Number of years after construction
% HCV
1
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
EPT
1,050
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Design ADT I
1,050 Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
CBR 1 4 JAssumed value from Appendix I
or
Sample
CBR(t)
Location
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)
4
Average CBR " (2/3) or Assumed CBR
RF
1
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
SSV
4
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
D(r) =
1 15
IFrom Appendix II
Course
Material
Thickness
Equivalency
D(p)
Surface
SM-12.5A
2
2.25
4.5
Base
BM-25
3
2.25
6.75
Subbase
21A
8
0.6
4.8
Total Depth = 13 Total D(p) 16.05
D(p)-D(r) = 1.05
D(p)>D(r) Therefore: ADEQUATE
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:
Albemarle Date: 4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Street Name:
Cattail Court
Developer:
Rivanna Investments, LLC Phone: (434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d) Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t) CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p) Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix 11.
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
ADT
200
Average Daily Traffic Volume
% Growth
0
per year
Design Year
10
Number of years after construction
% HCV
1
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
EPT
200
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Design ADT I
200 Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
CBR 1 4 JAssumed value from Appendix I
or
Sample
CBR(t)
Location
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)
4
Average CBR " (2/3) or Assumed CBR
RF
1
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
SSV
4
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
D(r) =
1 9
IFrom Appendix II
Course
Material
Thickness
Equivalency
D(p)
Surface
SM-12.5A
2
2.25
4.5
Base
BM-25
3
2.25
6.75
Subbase
21A
6
0.6
3.6
Total Depth = 11 Total D(p) 14.85
D(p)-D(r) = 5.85
D(p)>D(r) Therefore: ADEQUATE