HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201900174 Correspondence 2020-04-08. •#��0
i 0® 608 Preston Avenue
P 434.295.5624
T I M M O N S GROUP Suite 200 F 434.295.1800
Charlottesville, VA 22903 www.timmons.com
April 7, 2020
Adam J. Moore, PE
VDOT
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, VA 22701
RE: Southwood Redevelopment —Village I —Road Plan Review— SUB-2019-00174 & SUB-
2019-00173 — Review 1- Comment Response Letter
Dear Mr. Moore:
We have reviewed all of your comments from December 20, 2019 and made the necessary
revisions. Please find our responses to the comments below in bold lettering.
1. Please show mill and overlay on plans in accordance with WP-2. Show limits of mill and
overlay to adjacent travel lane. Also, please add the WP-2 detail to the plans.
Mill and overlay in accordance with WP-2 has been shown to the adjacent travel lane. This is
shown on sheets C2.00 and C4.01. The WP-2 detail has been added to sheet C1.02.
2. Please provide an MOT plan in accordance with the Virginia Work Area Protection
Manual. MOT plan should be on a separate sheet and designed for this project, include
the proposed mill and overly.
An MOT Plan has been added to the Notes & Details on sheet C1.01.
3. Provide distances to nearest entrances or intersections on SR 631.
The distances to the nearest entrances/intersections on State Route 631 have been shown on
sheet C4.01.
4. Please label SR 631 on the plan sheets.
SR 631 has been labeled on the plan sheets.
5. Landscaping plants and trees adjacent to the sight distance triangle will need to be
maintained in area between 2 and 7 feet above ground as a clear zone to preserve sight
lines and accommodate pedestrians.
Acknowledged.
6. There are multiple pipe flow velocities that exceed 10 fps. The drainage manual states
that pipe velocities in excess of 10 fps are to be avoided. We recommend that velocities
be adjusted accordingly.
ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY
The velocities have been revised to not exceed 12 fps for pipes in the right-of-way. Refer to
sheet C6.06.
7. Several drainage structures on plan view do not appear to have designation labels
matching spreadsheets and profiles.
All drainage structures have been labeled on sheets C4.05-C4.08 to correspond to the
stormwater calculations on sheets C6.05-C6.07 and stormwater profiles on sheets C7.00-
C7.03.
8. Please show how CD-1's will drain to structures.
A note has been added to the Road Profiles on sheets C8.01-C8.04, stating, "Tie CD-1 and CD-2
under -drains to adjacent storm sewer structure or pipe. Utilize Inserta-Tee connection where
connecting directly to storm sewer pipe."
9. CD-2 should be added to sag/inlet location for construction duration and to prevent
ponding prior to final topcoat of asphalt. Alternate methods to drain ponding areas will
be considered.
CD-2 has been added to each sag/inlet location on the Road Profiles. See sheets C8.00-C8.04.
10. R/W needs to be 1 foot behind sidewalks.
R/W has been revised to be 1 foot behind sidewalks.
11. Pavement design for new subdivision streets shall be developed using the Pavement
Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia and must be based on in
place material at the time of construction.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report has been done for the site, and an excerpt of the report
advising the is shown below. The report states that this recommendation is based on the
"Virginia Department of Transportation Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and
Secondary Roads." The heavy-duty asphalt pavement section detail on sheet C1.01 reflects
this.
The following table provides our recommendations for the proposed asphalt pavement section.
We assume that only a portion of the pavement section will initially be constructed, and the final
surface layer will be placed after most of the residences are constructed. For this case, an
intermediate mix (IM) is recommended, as shown below.
Proposed Pavement Section
1.5 Inches VDOT SM-9.5A
2 Inches VDOT IM-19.OA
3 Inches VDOT BM-25.OA
8 Inches VDOT 21 B
12. Recommend bump -outs for parking, especially at intersections.
Bump -outs for parking have been added to each intersection. Refer to the Layout and Utility
Plan on sheets C4.01-C4.04.
13. Minimize manholes in parking lanes.
Manholes have been strategically located in parking lanes to avoid manholes in any travel
lanes.
14. Waterline infrastructure must be centered in lanes.
Waterlines have been revised to be centered in the travel lanes.
15. What is black line Road 1 23+50 and 28+10 page C-4.2?.
The black line has been removed.
16. Align CG-12's perpendicular on corners.
CG-12 locations have been revised to be perpendicular on corners.
17. Label road names and numbers.
Road names are labeled on each street. Roads 1-3 will be given permanent names prior to
plan approval. Old Lynchburg Road (Rte 631) is been labeled on the Existing Conditions and
Demolition Plan on sheet C2.00.
18. Road 3 is labeled on 2 roads. Please label the roads on plan sheet C-4.0 and road plans.
The road names have been revised to call out Road 1, Road 2, and Road 3 correctly.
19. Why are lane widths different?
Lane width changes along Road 1 to account for parking, due to the gutter not counting
towards the travel lane but counting towards the on -street parking width.
20. Road section should not change within a section. Why does Road 1 change lane widths?
Lane widths change along Road 1 to account for parking, due to the gutter not counting
towards the travel lane but counting towards the on -street parking width.
21. It appears the quantity of waterline ARV's could be reduced by lowering either the
waterline or the storm crossings.
The storm profiles and water line profiles have been revised to reduce the number of ARVs,
shown in the Road Profiles on sheets C5.00-05.02.
22. VDOT drainage manual requires culverts to have a Max Hw/D of 1.5 and headwater
elevation should be no higher than 18" below edge of road.
Culvert calculations have been revised to ensure max. Hw/D of 1.5 and max. headwater
elevation 18" below edge of road.
23. Radii for road 2 & 3 do not meet the minimum 200' per road design manual.
Radii for Road 2 and Road 3 have been revised to be 200'.
24. The eye locations do not appear to be consistent with diagram on page B(1)-20 RDM.
The eye locations have been revised to reflect the diagram on page B(1)-20 RDM.
25. Road 2 to Road1 sight easement is required.
A sight distance easement at the intersection of Road 2 and Road 1 has been provided.
26. Why are road 2 onto road 3 left turns restricted?.
Road 2 onto Road 3 left turns have been restricted in order to avoid losing parking spaces
along Road 3 due to sight distance.
27. Please explain Channelization Island. Generally utilized for commercial entrance designs
with left turn restrictions. Must meet Appendix F-98 design requirements.
The Channelization Island prohibiting Road 2 onto Road 3 left turns allows more parallel
parking along Road 3. The Channelization Island has been revised to meet the design
requirements in Appendix F-98.
28. Please remove trees within 30 of intersections per B(1)-44 RDM.
Trees within 30' of intersections have been removed.
29. Due to the level of items noted in this review, these comments may not be exhaustive.
Acknowledged.
We have included PDF copies of the plans and calculations for your review. If you have any
questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call at 434.295.5624.
Sincerely,
Clint Shifflett, PE
Project Manager