Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201300091 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2013-07-19G� pp11�, COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819 Gregory A. Whirley Commissioner of Highways June 10, 2013 Ms. Megan Yaniglos Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2013 -025 Cascadia Dear Ms. Yaniglos: I have completed my review on the Final Site Development Plan for Cascadia — Blocks 4 -7 dated 4122 {13 as submitted by Dominion Engineering and offer the following comments: General Comments 1. It would be helpful if the drop inlet location and structure inforination were shown on the profile views of the road plans. Sheet 2 of 47 1. The General Notes inspection of all of the roads within the development will be made by the County. VDOT needs to be involved in the inspection of all roads that will be maintained by VDOT. 2. CD -2 locations should be shown on the profiles instead of simply making a generic statement in the General Notes. Sheet 3 of 47 1. The pavement design for typical sections shown should be based on the 2009 Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads and all supporting documents should be submitted for review. 2. The curb should be CG -6 on both sides of all roads instead of CG -6 on one side and rolltop curb on the other as shown on the typical sections for Oval Park Lane and Flat Waters Lane. Sheet 14 of 47 1. The center line intersection of Delphi Drive should be shown in the profile with station and elevation of the intersection noted. 2. The 8" sewerline crossing shown in plan view near Station 10 +60 should be shown in profile view. 3. The spacing between storm structure 8A and the entrance to Lot 2 should be checked to make sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed. Sheet 15 of 47 1. The spacing between storm structure 11 A and the entrance to Lot 9 should be checked to make sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed. 2. The spacing between storm structure 12A and the entrance to Lot 13 should be checked to snake sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed. 3. The spacing between storm structure 15 and the entrance to Lot 91 should be checked to snake sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed. 4. Storm structure 36 is shown located with the driveway for Lot 89. 5. The center line intersection of Oval Park Lane should be shown in the profile with station and elevation of the intersection noted. Sheet 16 of 47 1. Stonn structure 38 is shown located partially in the driveway for Lot 78. Spacing between the structure and the entrance should be checked to make sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed. 2. Storm structure 22A is shown located partially in the driveway for Lot 75. Spacing between the structure and the entrance should be checked to make sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed. 3. The CG -12 shown at the intersection of Delphi Lane and Oval Park Lane opposite of Lot77 should be located at the midpoint of the intersection radius. 4. The spacing between storm structure 28 and the entrance to Lot 37 should be checked to make sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed. 5. The spacing between stone structure 29 and the entrance to Lot 39 should be checked to make sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed. 6. Are the CG -12's located at Lots 108 and 44 necessary? 7. The center line intersection of Boulder Hill Lane should be shown in the profile with station and elevation of the intersection noted. 8. The center line intersection of Oval Park Lane should be shown in the profile with station and elevation of the intersection noted. 9. The center line intersection of Glissdale Lane should be shown in the profile with station and elevation of the intersection noted. 10. The center line intersection of Flat Waters Lane should be shown in the profile with station and elevation of the intersection noted. Sheet 17 of 47 1. The center line intersection of Backwater Alley should be shown in the profile with station and elevation of the intersection noted. 2. The center line intersection of Glissdale Lane should be shown in the profile with station and elevation of the intersection noted. 3. The radius length needs to be added to the plan view for the intersection of Glissdale Lane and Delphi Lane. Sheet 19 of 47 1. The spacing between storm structure 63 and the entrance to Lot 82 should be checked to make sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 2. The spacing between storm structure 64 and the entrance to Lot 80 should be checked to snake sure that a CG -913 entrance can be installed. Sheet 20 of 47 1. The center line intersection of Flat Waters Lane should be shown in the profile with station and elevation of the intersection noted. 2. Are the CG -12's located at Lots 137 and 56/57 necessary? The CG -12 shown for Lot 137 appears to be located within the entrance for the lot. Sheet 21 of 47 1. The storm sewer system upstream of structure 56 will be privately owned and maintained. 2. As designed, the storm sewer system upstream of structure 47 will be privately owned and maintained. 3. The Nyloplast structures 48 and 54 need to be located outside of the right -of -way for Flat Waters Lane as these structures will be privately owned and maintained. 4. A detail for the air relief valve shown needs to be provided for review. The assembly may need to be located outside of the asphalt. Sheet 26 of 47 1. Structure 2 needs to be a DI -4C due to the stonn pipe size of 36 ". It appears from the plan view this should actually be a DI -4B. Please refer to the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards. 2. Structure 3 needs to be a 13I -413 due to the storm pipe size of 36 ". Please refer to the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards. 3. It appears that Structure 7 could be lowered so that the base rests on existing soil. If this were done, the structure would meet the minimum height requirement as defined in the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards. 4. It appears that Structures 9 and 10 could be lowered so that they met the minimum height requirement as defined in the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards. 5. The sewerline crossing between Structures 10 and 11 needs to be added to the profile. Sheet 27 of 47 1. The profile for Structures 7A thru 14 has been duplicated from Sheet 26. It appears that this profile should have been for Structures 14 thru 26, which I believe has been excluded from the plans. 2. Structure 35 does not meet minimum height as defined by the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards. 3. Structure 6A does not meet minimum height as defined by the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards. 4. The length of pipe between Structures 11 and 11 A has been cut off of the profile. Sheet 28 of 47 1. The storm sewer between Structures 7B and U will be privately owned and maintained. 2. The stonn sewer between Structures 13A and 13F will be privately owned and maintained. 3. The stonn sewer between Structures 14 and 15 needs to be shown in profile view. 4. The top type of Structure 42 is different from the type shown for the saine structure on the profile on Sheet 29. 5. The length of Structure 39 is different from the length shown for the same structure on the profile on Sheet 29. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Sheet 29 of 47 1. Structure 43 should be lowered so that the base is installed in/on exiting soil. 2. Structure 45 should be lowered so that the base is installed in/on exiting soil. Structure 44 may need to be adjusted to provide an adequate grade between the two structures. 3. Nyloplast structures will not be accepted as part of the VDOT maintained stonn sewer system. Structures 48 and 54 will either need to be changed to standard VDOT inlets or relocated outside of the right -of -way for Flat Waters Lane. 4. The sewer line crossing between Structures 66 and 67 needs to be shown in profile view. 5. Structure 62C should be lowered so that the base is installed in/on exiting soil. 6. The profile view indicates that the storm sewer between Structures 63A, 63, and 64 will be RCP. However, the plan view on Sheet 19 indicates that this pipe will be HDPE. Sheet 31 of 47 1. The pipe size for Line No. 1 is different than that shown on the profile for this section of pipe. In addition, the inverts up and down for the section of pipe are also different. 2. Lines 27 and 34 through 39 are modeled as 15" pipes while being shown as 18" in the profiles. Over sizing of the pipes are likely to have no impact on the model, but to be consistent, the pipes should be modeled as designed. 3. The invert up for Line No. 36 is different than that shown in the profile, which results in a different grade than that shown in profile. This should be corrected to make the model consistent with the designed storm sewer. 4. Lines 96 through 101 are modeled as 12" pipes while being shown as 15" in the profiles. Over sizing of the pipes are likely to have no impact on the model, but to be consistent, the pipes should be modeled as designed. 5. The inverts for Line No. 99 are different than that shown in the profile, resulting in a significantly different grade for this section of pipe. This should be corrected in the model. If you have questions or comments concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. With the number of comments included in this review, it may be beneficial to meet with the design engineer prior to resubmitting the plans. Sincerely, 1 Tro Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District VirgmiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING