HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300044 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2013-08-12 (3)•_ i�u�rr tni:
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
August 12, 2013
Mr. J.T. Newberry
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP2013 -00044 Old Trail Village Block 113 & Block 3C — Final Site Plan
Dear Mr. Newberry:
We have reviewed the Old Trail Village Block 1, Phase B & Block 3, Phase C Final Site Plan
dated July 1, 2013 as submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. and offer the following
comments:
1. The radii the entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C are shown to be 21' to the face of curb.
They should be 25' to the back of curb as shown in Appendix F of the Road Design
Manual.
2. Additional information needs to be provided at the entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C to
ensure proper drainage of the entrances. I would suggest spot elevations be provided
showing how the entrances will drain.
3. The entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C need to be CG -11 entrances.
4. The entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C need to be aligned with each other. There appears to
be a slight offset.
5. The midblock pedestrian crossing should be removed.
6. The entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C need to be moved as far as possible from the
roundabout. It appears to me that the entrances could be located approximately where the
midblock pedestrian crossing is currently shown or at least shifted to the east once the
midblock crossing is removed.
7. The storm sewer crossings should be located perpendicularly to the streets they are
crossing.
8. The profile for Brookley Road indicates that the grade of the storm sewer between
structures 4 and 6 is 0.47% while the drainage calculations indicate a grade of 0.54 %.
This difference is not likely to change the adequacy of the storm sewer, but the grades
should be consistent.
9. The profile grade between storm structures 6 and 8 is shown as 0.84% while the drainage
calculations indicate a grade of 0.49 %. This difference is not likely to change the
adequacy of the storm sewer, but the grades should be consistent.
10. The storm sewer profile indicates that structure 4 has an invert in from structure 16;
however, the plan view indicates that the invert in should be from structure 14.
11. I believe Storm Profile Str#14 -16 is incorrectly labeled. I believe this is the profile for
structures 20- 18 -Ex. 106.
12. The length of pipe and grade from structure 4 to structure 2 is not consistent between the
storm sewer profile and the profile for Brookley Road.
13. A note should be added that safety slabs (SL -1) shall be required for all storm structures
12' or greater in depth as indicated in the Road and Bridge Standards.
14. A note should be added that steps (ST -1) shall be required for all storm structures 4' or
greater in depth as indicated in the Road and Bridge Standards.
15. Storm sewer profiles for sections 14 -4 and 16 -Ex. 202 were not provided with this site
plan.
16. It appears that it is proposed to not allow parking on Brookley Drive, however, typical
sections are provide for both parking and no parking sections of Brookley Drive. To
avoid confusion, one of the typical sections should be removed.
17. There needs to be at least 1' of right -of -way beyond the sidewalk on the typical section of
Brookley Drive (No Parking). The planting strips shown on this detail could be reduced
from 8' to as low as 6' to accommodate this requirement.
18. The typical section for Brookley Drive (No Parking) indicates that the distance from the
centerline to the right -of -way is 37'. This should be 27' based on the section provided.
19. There are details for rolltop curb and transitions from CG -6 to rolltop included in the
plans. If rolltop is proposed, the locations should be indicated on the plans, if not, the
details should be removed to avoid confusion.
20. Is the "Typical Pavement & Curb Section Private" detail proposed for the entrances off of
Brookley Drive to Blocks 1B and 3C? If it is, the dimensions are incorrect and rolltop
curb is not proposed. If this detail is not for entrances, there should be a detail provided.
21. The street trees shown along Claremont Drive need to be located at least 30' from the end
of radius as shown in Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual.
22. Sight lines and profiles for the entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C need to be provided to
ensure that the vertical curve of Brookley Drive does not impact the sight distance.
23. Trip generation needs to be provided for each of the blocks.
24. The pavement design calculation needs to be provided for review.
25. This site plan should not be approved until the road construction plans for Brookley
Drive are ready for approval as the final design of Brookley Drive will impact this site
plan. Many comments in this review letter are also included in the review letter for the
road plans for Brookley Drive which has been included for your information.
If additional information is needed concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
/AU
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING