HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201100029 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2011-04-11Philip Custer
From: Philip Custer
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:46 AM
To: 'Mike Myers'; 'Mike Myers'; 'Adam Swartout'
Cc: Scott Clark
Subject: FW: SUB - 2011 -00029 Whittington Subdivision Phase A
Mike,
Please see VDOT comments below. Once County Engineering reviews the plan, we may need to meet together with
VDOT to figure out how best to address comments 1 and 2.
Thanks,
Phil
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. fmailto: Joel .DeNunzioCa)VDOT.virginia.govl
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:21 AM
To: Philip Custer
Subject: SUB - 2011 -00029 Whittington Subdivision Phase A
SUB - 2011 -00029 Whittington Subdivision Phase A
Phil,
I have reviewed the referenced plan and have the following comments:
1. The proposed development will need to meet the VDOT Secondary Street and Subdivision Regulations (SSAR). It
does not appear that this development is a grandfathered development under Virginia Administrative Code 24VAC 30 -92-
20.
Items proposed in this plan that do not meet the requirements of the SSAR's include:
a. The overall development does not meet the minimum connectivity index value of 1.6 for a compact development.
The layout that has been submitted has an index value of 1.1.
b. There needs to be multiple connections in multiple directions in accordance with 24VAC 30- 92 -60, section C -1. The
second connection point for this development is to already subdivided lots in the Mountain Valley Subdivision and is not
an acceptable connection to meet the requirement. An acceptable connection is to the existing Singleton Lane in the
Mosby Mountain Subdivision.
C. Lot sizes of 0.5 acres to 2 acres are required to have sidewalks on one side of the street in accordance with the
SSAR's.
Show all intersection sight distances.
Cross drains are required at all cut /fill transitions.
5. Improvements to route 631 need to be constructed in accordance with the GS -7 standard for 50 mph and a shoulder
design.
Include left and right turn lane analysis to ensure proper intersection treatments.
7. The proposed pavement design is not correct according to the 2009 VDOT Pavement Design Guide. Design need
to be based on an SSV of 4 and a DR =14.5. The proposed design assumes an SSV of 10 and Dp of 9.34.
Road geometrics and drainage plans that are expected to be revised due to comments 1 and 2 were not reviewed.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
VDOT Culpeper
Land Development
434 - 589 -5871
joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov