HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200600041 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2009-04-23Briarwood Resubmission SDP200600041
Philip Custer
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:54 PM
To: Philip Custer
Subject: Briarwood Resubmission SDP200600041
Phil,
Page 1 of 4
I have reviewed the latest submission of the above site plan dated 3 -9 -09 and have the following comments:
Sheet 10
Please add the projected traffic data to the plan.
A drainage easement will be needed for pipes between structures 401 and 400 and 409 to 408.
Structure 405 appears to be labeled 404A on the computation sheets.
• A 50 foot landing area not exceeding 2% should be provided starting at the edge of pavement for the
intersection of Sunset Dr. and St. Ives Place.
Show sight distances at the intersection of Sunset Dr. and St. Ives Place.
• The note for controlled fill should also reference that all fill is to be placed in accordance with the VDOT
Road and Bridge Specifications Section 303.
Sheet 1OB
• The point at which the new section of Sunset ties into the existing should seem continuous. The curb
return should be reconstructed to properly match and the curb across from the intersection needs adjustment.
Sheet 10C
• The dedication of additional ROW for Route 29 improvements should be dedicated to the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
Please let the applicant know that a Land Use Permit will be required for any work within the existing public
ROW. A permit has been issued already for improvements to Route 29 at the intersection of Boulders Road. Any
additional entrances will need an additional permit.
To ensure that the proposed streets will qualify for addition to the state secondary system of highways, the
applicant shall meet the requirements set forth in The 2005 Subdivision Street Requirements (24 VAC 30 -91). It
is recommended that the applicant coordinate the items listed in section B -2 of 24 VAC 30 -91 -150 with the VDOT
Residency during the time a permit is applied for or prior to starting construction to ensure that proper inspections
to the roads occur during the construction phase.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thanks
4/24/2009
Briarwood Resubmission SDP200600041
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
ioel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:28 PM
To: 'Jonathan Sharp'
Subject: FW: Briarwood Resubmission SDP200600041
Jon,
Page 2 of 4
Mike Myers gave me sheets 11 through 16 for the above plan. All VDOT's comments have been addressed and I
have nothing more. Please inform the applicant that any work within the VDOT ROW will need a permit form the
Charlottesville Residency. Prior to the issuance of the permit, the applicant will need to submit a traffic signal plan
for the modification to the signal on route 29 for VDOT review and approval.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
ioeL den unzio @vdot.virginia.aov
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
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:
• 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, 2613-26A, and others.
• All other comments appear to be adequately addressed.
4/24/2009
Briarwood Resubmission SDP200600041
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:
Page 3 of 4
• 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 =
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
4/24/2009
Briarwood Resubmission SDP200600041
Charlottesville Residency
Aimal.Hamidi@VDOT.virginia.gov
4/24/2009
Page 4 of 4