HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO200900067 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2011-04-01Philip Custer
From: Philip Custer
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 11:03 AM
To: ' richard@ neighborhoodprops.com';'Herbert F. White III, P .E.';'djensen @wwassociates.net'
Cc: 'DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E.'; Gerald Gatobu; Glenn Brooks
Subject: FW: North Pointe North Entrance Route 29 Improvement Plan
Attachments: List_of_Approved_MSE_ walls- January2005.doc
Please see the email below for VDOT comments for the Route 29 Entrance Improvement Plan (WPO- 2009 - 00067). The
comments also appear to refer to the box culvert underneath Lewis and Clark, which is a plan (WPO- 2009 - 00061) the
county has not seen for almost 15 months. The ESC plan for this application has expired [or was voided per 17- 204.G].
A new application is necessary and all other issues listed in section A from my January 12th 2010 comment letter should
be addressed with this submittal.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Phil
296 -5832 x3072
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto: Joel .DeNunzioOVDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 10:30 AM
To: Philip Custer
Cc: Ikenberry, Steve G. P.E.; Amburn, Randy M., PE
Subject: North Pointe North Entrance Route 29 Improvement Plan
Phil,
I have reviewed the North Pointe North Entrance Route 29 Improvement Plan and have the following comments:
Road Plan
Sheet C -5: Use a 4:1 pavement taper, around a 64 foot taper, from the CG -7 to the proposed paved shoulder.
FE -CL cannot be placed within the deflection area of the proposed GR -2 as it is shown on the cross sections.
3. The proposed cross sections do not match the left turn lane typical section. Each cross section needs to meet the
minimum standards of the paved and graded shoulder and median grading standards in accordance with VDOT GS -1,
GS -11 and GS -13.
Use 6:1 slopes in the median in accordance with the GS -13 standard.
5. The pavement structure for Route 29 improvements is expected to be 2" surface coarse, 2" intermediate coarse, 10"
base coarse and 8" sub base stone.
6. Radial guardrail is not to be used as and end treatment for regular runs of guardrail in accordance with the VDOT
GRIT Manual. Appropriate end sections need to be used instead. Be sure to appropriately place the end section on the
southern side of the entrance with the proposed CG -7. The placement of the retaining wall just south of the entrance may
require adjustment.
7. Place junction boxes connected by conduit fro the future relocation of the fiber optic cable that will be under the new
proposed pavement shoulder. Conduit size needs to be determined by the utility owner.
Include mill and pave in accordance with WP -2 standard through the existing left turn taper.
9. All pavement markings are to be a Type B Class I or IV and shall be installed in accordance with the VDOT Road
and Bridge Specifications, section 704.
10. Sheet C -12 shows a proposed yellow line to the right of the exit taper. This should be a white line.
11. Sheet C -9 is missing drainage calculations on inlet #2.
12. Sheet C -12 pavement marking hatch areas should be parallel to one another.
13. Sheet flow runoff needs to be captured prior to the top of the retaining wall. This should be designed to allow future
widening of the road.
CLOMR
1. The outlet protection for the proposed box appears satisfactory.
2. The reduction in the 100 year floodplain elevations will not have an adverse impact on the existing rte. 29
Right of Way.
3. The level of roadway protection from flooding afforded the future Lewis and Clark Drive is satisfactory.
4. The temporary diversion channel for the construction of the box culvert appears satisfactory.
5. If VDOT will be maintaining the box culvert, the entire box culvert including the wing walls and erosion
control stone must be included in right of way or permanent drainage easement. The subdivision plat
may show more than the CLOMR plans.
6. The base of the proposed retaining wall must be protected from erosion from Flat Branch. The plan
shows a riprap symbol, but does not indicate size or thickness.
Retaining Wall
1. The proposed T -wall system by Neel Company is acceptable for placement within the VDOT Right of Way. Note #3
on C -18 states that the contractor can use any approved retaining wall system. This wall will support critical infrastructure
and any changes from the proposed system will require further VDOT review prior to permitting and construction. A list of
approved products is attached.
2. Note #2 on C -18 states the contractor's requirement to provide a geotechnical foundation analysis on the proposed
system. This must be submitted and approved by VDOT.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.
Thanks
Joel
<<List_of_ Approved _MSE_walls- January2005.doc>>
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
VDOT Culpeper
Land Development
434 - 589 -5871
ioel . den unzioCcbvdot.viroinia.00v