HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200600041 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2008-05-13FW: Briarwood Resubmission SDP200600041
Jonathan Sharp
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .Denunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:30 PM
To: Jonathan Sharp
Subject: FW: Briarwood Resubmission SDP200600041
Jon,
I have reviewed the re- submission of the above plan and have the following:
Page 1 of 2
• The storm sewer design computation chart 17 -33 included computations for many pipes exceeding their
capacity such as 27 -26, 26 -25 and many others. It appears this chart needs updated because there are also
pipes on the plans that do not include computation such as 28 -27, 27 -26, 26B -26A, and others.
All other comments appear to be adequately addressed.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
ioel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov
From: Hamidi, Ajmal
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:14 PM
To: 'jsharp @albemarle.org'
Cc: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: Briarwood Resubmission SDP200600041
Briarwood Phase 1 A -1, 1 B -1 & 8 Resubmission, SDP200600041
We have reviewed the above road plans and have the following comments:
• On sheet 4, the sag vertical curve near the intersection of Briarwood Dr. and Rte 29 (PVI at Sta.
1 +10.00) has a very low K -value (7.46). For a design speed of 30mph, the K -value for a sag vertical curve should
be 37. Since this intersection is signalized, however, it is sensible to expect lower operating speeds. So, we
would be willing to accept a reasonable effort to raise this K- value.
• The sight distance lines have not been drawn according to VDOT standards. The sight distance lines
should be drawn as shown in Appendix B of the VDOT road design manual.
On sheet 16, the flow in the pipe which runs from STM 2 to 1 A exceeds its capacity (flow/ full capacity =
5/13/2008
FW: Briarwood Resubmission SDP200600041 Page 2 of 2
104.4 %).
• Some slopes shown on sheet 16 in the storm sewer design computations do not match those shown on
the storm sewer profiles. For example the slope for the pipe running from STM 2 to 1 A is shown as 0.1664% on
sheet 16 and 0.5% on sheet 11. This discrepancy may explain why the pipe's capacity is exceeded. The pipe
from STM 1 A to 1 also has this problem, where sheet 16 states a slope of 1.3952% and sheet 11 states 0.5 %.
Make sure that all the pipe slopes are consistent.
• There is mislabeling on sheet 16 in the table for storm sewer HGL computations 1 -15. Judging from the
plan view on sheet 6, the label 7 to 5" should be 7 to 4."
• On sheet 9, the drainage structures labels on plan views of Silk Wood Way and Silk Wood Court are
missing. All drainage structures should be labeled even if they are on private streets.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Joel DeNunzio or me.
Thank you,
AJ Hamidi
Charlottesville Residency
A imal.Hamidi(a)VDOT.virginia.gov
5/13/2008