HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201300030 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2013-06-24�A
6 ` ! .-�
4
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
June 24, 2013
Mr. Michael Koslow
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB - 2013 -00030 Westlake Hills Subdivision, Phase 1
Dear Mr. Koslow:
We have reviewed the road plans entitled Westlake Hills Subdivision, Phase I dated 2128.113 with
revisions dated 5120/13 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following comments:
1. The plans need to be signed by the design engineer.
2. On Sheet 4 of the plans, the sight lines for the intersection of Guadalupe Drive and
Colorado Road appear to originate at approximately 10' from the edge of the travel way.
The standards require that the sight lines originate at 14.5' from the edge of the travel
way. This needs to be corrected and the potential need for sight line easements will need
to be verified.
3. It is noted that the proposed waterlines within this development are located
approximately 2 to 3 feet from the edge of pavement. This will place the proposed
waterlines very near the tire path of vehicles traveling on these streets. The proposed
waterlines should be located outside of the paved surface. Waterlines and associated
appurtenances such as valves pose potential long term maintenance issues for VDOT.
4. On Sheet 6, it appears that the storm sewer between structures 24 and 26 may be shown
as radial pipe. All storm sewer within this project should be straight runs from structure
to structure.
5. It appears that the storm sewer could run from structure 32 to 30 rather than from 32 to
26. This would eliminate an unnecessary crossing of the Eastern Avenue Connector.
6. On sheet 8 it appears that the pavement designs are adequate based on an assumed CBR
value of 5. However, the pavement design table should be revised to accurately reflect
VDOT's Pavement Design Guide. The 2.15 Equivalency Value for BM -25 is only
applicable when there is a total depth of asphalt of 6" and that depth of asphalt is placed
directly on subgrade. If not placed directly on subgrade, the equivalency value for both
the SM -9.5 and the BM -25 is 2.25 if the total depth of asphalt is at least 4.5 "; otherwise
the equivalency value for the SM -9.5 and BM -25 layers should be 1.67. Please refer to
note 1 in the Footnotes for Appendix III of the Pavement Design Guide.
7. On sheet 13, several of the drop inlets are graphically shown located in the paved surface
of the turn lanes and tapers instead of the curb lines. It is understood that the Eastern
Connector is shown only for information purposes, but the inlets should be shown at the
correct locations if they are going to be shown.
8. On sheet 14, the invert out elevation of the 18" culvert under the Connector Road is
labeled incorrectly on the profile.
9. On sheet 15, a safety slab (SL -1) should be called for on structure 2.
10. On sheet 15, there should be at least a 0.10 foot drop across structure 16.
11. On sheet 16, there are several inverts in the calculations that do not correspond with the
inverts shown on the storm sewer profiles. The inverts of pipes 5, 7, 9, 11, and 14A do
not match the profile inverts. The most significant discrepancy is found in structure 14
(pipe 14A) where there is a difference of 0.90 feet in elevation of the invert, which results
in a 0.50% grade of the pipe in the profile and a 3.00% grade of the pipe in the
calculations.
If additional information is needed concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
%wv %u&-,,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING