HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201300030 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2013-09-25Ip
%C70MMONWEA.LTH[ of VIR(II IA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
September 24, 2013
Mr. Michael Koslow
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB- 2013 - 000130 Westlake Hills Subdivision, Phase 1
Dear Mr. Koslow:
We have reviewed the road plans entitled Westlake Hills Subdivision, Phase 1 dated 2128113 with
revisions dated 5120113, 7131113, and 8:129113 and offer the following comments:
1. Prior review comments identified in a letter dated June 24, 2013 appear to have not been
addressed with this submittal. A copy of the June 24 review letter has been attached with this
review letter.
2. Guard rail warrants should be checked for the sections of the Eastern Connector Road and
Guadalupe Drive near the stormwater management facilities.
3. On Sheet 4, the sight line for the intersection of Colorado Road and the Eastern Connector Road
needs to originate 14.5' from the edge of the nearest travel lane.
4. On Sheet 4, the sight line for the intersection of Guadalupe Drive and the Eastern Connector
Road needs to originate 14.5' from the edge of the nearest travel lane.
5. A sight line easement will be needed across 10 for the intersection of Lavaca Court and
Guadalupe Drive. This easement should be 5' beyond the sight line shown.
6. On Sheet 8, the pipe numbers for the storm sewer along Lavaca Court and along Guadalupe Drive
between Colorado Road and the Eastern Connector Road should be added to the plan view.
7. On Sheet 8, the type of DI and length of slot opening for structure 68 should be added to the plan
view.
8. On Sheet 8, the contours indicate that runoff will flow toward the middle of the travel lanes of the
Eastern Connector Road at the intersection of with Guadalupe Drive. This needs to be looked at
closer and revised as necessary so that runoff is directed towards the curb and gutter.
9. On Sheet 13, CD -1's should be shown at the lower end of cut slopes as indicated in the 2008
Road and Bridge Standards.
10. On Sheet 13, the vertical curve (crest) shown between stations 9 +29.09 and 12 +39.09 does not
meet the minimum K -value as indicated in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
11. On Sheet 13, the vertical curve (sag) shown between stations 13 +11.34 and 18 +11.34 does not
meet the minimum K -value as indicated in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
12. On Sheet 13, the vertical curve (sag) shown starting at station 22 +44.34 does not meet the
minimum K -value as indicated in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
13. On Sheet 15, CD -1's should be shown at approximately stations 20 +25 and 23 +50.
14. On Sheet 19, a note should be added indicating that ST -1 steps are required for all structures that
have a depth of 4' or greater.
15. On Sheet 19, to profile for the storm sewer from structure 42 to structure 38 is mislabeled.
16. On Sheet 20, a note should be added indicating that ST -1 steps are required for all structures that
have a depth of 4' or greater.
17. On Sheet 20, structure 88 should be moved and/or lowered so that the base rests on virgin soil.
18. On Sheet 21, a note should be added indicating that ST -1 steps are required for all structures that
have a depth of 4' or greater.
19. On Sheet 21, structures F52 and F52B should be moved and/or lowered so that the bases rest on
virgin soil.
20. On Sheet 21, the profile for storm sewer pipe F57 is mislabeled.
21. On Sheet 21, storm sewer pipe F57 will require anchoring due to the steepness of grade.
22. On Sheet 22, the upstream and downstream inverts for the pipe between structures 6 and 4 do not
match those shown in the profile.
23. On Sheet 22, the downstream invert for the pipe between structures 14B and 14 does not match
that shown in the profile.
24. On Sheet 22, structure 38 in the Drainage Descriptions table is shown as a manhole when it is
actually a DI -3B with L = 6'.
25. On Sheet 22, there are several sections of pipe that have velocities greater than 10 fps. These
sections of pipe should be adjusted where possible so that the velocities are less than 10 fps.
26. On Sheet 23, the length of the pipe between structure 66 and the outlet does not match the length
shown on the profile. This should be corrected so that the velocity in this section of pipe can be
verified.
27. On Sheet 23, the length of the pipe between structures 78 and 68 does not match the length shown
on the profile. This should be corrected so that the velocity in this section of pipe can be verified.
28. On Sheet 23, structures 75, 74D, and 74B are shown as DI -313's in the Drainage Description
table but are shown as DI -3C's in the profiles.
29. On Sheet 23, the rim elevation of structure 78F is different in the Drainage Description table
from that shown in the profile.
30. On Sheet 24, the rim elevation of structure F58 is different in the Drainage Description table
from that shown in the profile.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy ustin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING