HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201200009 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2012-02-22Megan Yaniglos
From:
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Sent:
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:24 PM
To:
Megan Yaniglos
Cc:
Philip Custer
Subject:
SDP - 2012 -00009 Old Trail Block 11 Road Plan and Site Plan
Megan,
I have reviewed the site plan, SDP - 2012 - 00009, that you sent for review and the road plan which was sent to
me directly from Collins Engineering and have the following comments:
Site Plan:
1. The proposed entrance to Claremont Lane meets the minimum VDOT standards for geometry and grade.
The sag inlets within the entrance tie into the proposed road inlets for the Claremont Lane plan and this
additional water is not accounted for in the road plan for the conduit calculations.
Road Plan:
1. The entrance to Glen Valley Drive from Old Trail Drive does not account for the grade on Old Trail Drive
and the crown transition that needs to occur from the connection to a normal crown. This transition of crown
may cause the sag inlets to need adjustment to the actual low points in the grade line of the gutter pan.
2. Sag inlets #18 and #18B will need flanking inlets placed in accordance with the VDOT Drainage Manual.
3. Indicate the types of CG -12 that will be used at each sidewalk connection to the road. Also specify that a
radial CG -12 detectable warning will be required for the appropriate radius.
4. The curb return radii at the entrance to the east shows 15 feet where the minimum is 25 feet.
5. Horizontal alignment data for Claremont and Glen Valley need to show stationing of PC,PRC,PCC, etc. for
all curve data.
6. Standard CD -1 sheet needs to be shown on sheet S -2 next to the CD -2 standard.
7. The general construction notes indicate that guardrail will be placed as needed in the field. There should
be enough information on the plan to show guardrail placement if needed and the note should not place the
design of guardrail on the contractor. If guardrail is needed, it needs to be shown on the plan. In addition, the
note appears to be for guardrail placement on rural typical sections and does not account for curb and gutter
placement.
8. General note #8 shows that speed limits will be set 5 mph below design speed. This is not consistence
with VDOT policy. Speed limits will be posted at 25 mph for residential streets. Where design speed is lower
than 25 mph, adequate warning signs are to be shown.
9. Mandatory inspections at the following phases are required for roads that are proposed to be state
maintained. These should be added to the general notes section.
a. Installation of any enclosed drainage system before it is covered
b. Installation of any enclosed utility placements within the right -of -way before being covered
Construction of the cuts and fills, including field density tests, before placement of roadbed base materials
d. A final pavement design, based on actual soil characteristics and certified tests, shall be completed and
approved before the pavement structure is placed
e. Placement of base materials, including stone depths, consistent with the approved pavement design, prior
to placement of the paving course or courses, followed by field density and moisture tests and the placement of
a paving course as soon as possible
f. Construction of pavement, including depth and density, upon completion as part of the final inspection.
g. The contractor is responsible for contacting VDOT a minimum of one week prior to each of the above
phases of construction to schedule an inspection.
h. Failure of the contractor to schedule these inspections will require additional testing of the roads at the
discretion of VDOT or may lead to the roads not being eligible for state maintenance.
10. There is no need for the standard CG -91) to be included with this plan.
11. Drainage note #1 indicates a minimum 1 foot of cover for pipes. The VDOT minimum is 2 feet.
12. Pavement note #1 needs to show an assumed SSV of 5 instead of 10. All final pavement designs and
CBR tests must be approved by VDOT prior to placement of any stone or pavement layers.
13. Show clear zones on typical sections. The clear zone for Claremont is 7 feet and Glen Valley is 10 feet.
Increase the buffer strip on Claremont on the side with no parking to allow for placement of street trees outside
of the clear zone.
14. Typical section that does not have proposed UD -4's needs to indicate how the road subgrade will be
adequately drained.
15. Show Stopping Sight Distances on all proposed vertical curves.
16. Show placement of CD -1 and CD -2 drainage on profiles and plan views.
17. The intersection of Claremont Lane to Glen Valley does not have adequate landings and vertical tie ins to
Glen Valley and need to be adjusted. This will cause some additional sags in the Claremont approaches the will
require sag and flanking inlets on Claremont.
18. The drainage areas show an area draining to inlet 8B that does not exist on the plan or hydraulic
calculations.
19. The conduit from storm structure 12 to 10 does not have adequate velocity for the design flow of 3 feet
per second. The calculation also does not account for the entrance D.I.'s in the site plan that tie into structure
12.
20. Structures #6 and 18B show curb spreads that are greater than the allowable in the remarks column of the
calculations table.
21. Street trees proposed along Claremont Lane are within the clear zone along the side with no parking and
need adjustment.
22. The connection to Old Trail Drive or any proposed construction entrances will require a Land Use Permit
from VDOT.
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
3