HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200600315 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2008-05-28FW: SUB - 2006 -00315 Foothill Crossing Subdivision
Philip Custer
From: Jonathan Sharp
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:11 AM
To: Andrew Lowe; Philip Custer
Subject: FW: SUB - 2006 -00315 Foothill Crossing Subdivision
Attachments: Foothill sanitary sewer.pdf
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto: Joel .Denunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:11 AM
To: Jonathan Sharp
Subject: FW: SUB - 2006 -00315 Foothill Crossing Subdivision
Jon,
Page 1 of 3
I received some insertable sheets that provide the casing that RWSA required. As stated below, all VDOT's
comments have been addressed and upon RWSA's approval of the encasement, I recommend this plan be
approved.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
ioel . den unzio(ccbvdot.virginia.gov
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 3:22 PM
To: 'Jonathan Sharp'
Subject: FW: SUB - 2006 -00315 Foothill Crossing Subdivision
Jon,
I have reviewed the revisions to the above project and all my previous comments have been addressed. There
was an issue the RWSA had with encasement of a sanitary sewer line at station 30 +10 +/- on Park Ridge Drive.
This issue needs to be resolved to the satisfaction of the RWSA prior to the plan approval. Attached is the letter I
sent to the RWSA concerning the sanitary line.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
10/24/2008
FW: SUB - 2006 -00315 Foothill Crossing Subdivision
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer <<Foothill sanitary sewer.pdf>>
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:01 PM
To: 'Jonathan Sharp'
Cc: 'Nathan Morris'
Subject: SUB - 2006 -00315 Foothill Crossing Subdivision
SUB - 2006 -00315 Foothill Crossing Subdivision
Jon,
I have reviewed the revisions to the above plan and have the following comments:
Page 2 of 3
• The details on sheet 2/42 are outdated and need to show the latest standard. CG-1 213's detectable
warning surface now uses a truncated dome instead of exposed aggregate. The standard for private entrances
needs to be a CG -9D. Please update the details on these sheets.
• The sag inlet computations do not show the approach spreads on the LD -204. I have checked inlets 4,
5, 64, 65, 80, and 81 and found that 64, 65, and 81 of those that I checked exceed the allowable spread for the
gutter flow. The revision I received indicated that spreads were reduced by increasing the throat lengths put the
revision did not address the gutter spreads. In the cases where the gutter spreads exceed the maximum allowed,
flanking inlets should be added.
If you have any comments or questions, please let me know.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:50 PM
To: 'Allan Schuck'
10/24/2008
FW: SUB - 2006 -00315 Foothill Crossing Subdivision
Subject: SUB - 2006 -00315 Foothill Crossing Subdivision
SUB - 2006 -00315 Foothill Crossing Subdivision
Allan,
We have reviewed the above plan and have the following comments:
• Sight distances need to be shown at intersections.
Page 3 of 3
• The base material should be BM -25.0 on the typical for Park Ridge, the connector and Road "E ".
• The plan needs to show the types of outlet protection on pipe oulets. Sheet 38 was not included in our
plan set.
• Need calculations on culvert 79 -77 and pipe 81 -80 and 80 -78.
• All road intersections need to have a profile connection in accordance with the CG -11 standard.
• The maximum allowable spread on all inlets is 1/2 the lane width plus the gutter pan and must be a
minimum of 1 inch below the top of curb at all times.
• Pipe 56 -50 and 70 -69 exceed their capacity.
• The pipe capacity and velocity on 59 -58 and 58 -57 are missing.
• Some of the pipe sizes and lengths do not match between the pipe profile and the computations such
as pipe 2 -1, 4 -3, and pipe 3 -2. All pipes should be checked for consistency and the cover needs to be adequate.
• Inlet 3 on Road "'F" is missing sag computations.
• The CG -12's should show a detail with the proper detectable warning device.
• Details on driveway entrances and grade requirements need to be shown.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thanks,
Joel
3oel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
ioel.denunzio@Vi rain ia DOT. ora
10/24/2008