Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400040 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2014-06-124.`! �•.i�n� iP COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Cu paper. Vrg n a 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner June 11, 2014 Mr. Johnathan Newberry County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2014 -00040 Old Trail, Block 15 Dear Mr. Newberry: We have reviewed the final site plan for Old Trail Village, Block 15 dated 519114 as submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. and offer the following comments: 1. The type of curb (CG -6) for Claremont Lane, Rowcross Street, and Fielding Run Drive should be labeled in the plan view of these roads on sheet 3. 2. A CG -12 should be added on the east side of Fielding Run Drive at the intersection with Rowcross Street. 3. Several drop inlets on the inlet schedule call for inappropriate inlets. Structures 35, 37, 37B, and 39 are called out as either DI -3AA or DI -3BB. Per the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards, these structures are for depths of 8' or greater. 4. The inlet tops for structures 31 and 33 in the inlet schedule do not match the information in the profile. 5. Structures 27, 45, 47, 49, and 51 do not meet minimum height requirements as indicated in the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards. 6. There appears to be low spots at the curb for the intersections of Claremont Lane and Court Mont Way, Claremont Lane and Rowcross Street, Fielding Run Drive and Court Mont Way, and Fielding Run Drive and Rowcross Street. Spot elevations should be provided on the curb returns at each intersection demonstrating how the runoff will drain to a drop inlet. 7. The downstream pipe from Structure 27 should be aligned with the proposed roadway so that when Rowcross Street is extended the storm sewer will be located in the correct alignment. 8. Pipe 62 from Structure 61 should be shown in its entirety. The outlet should be shown in plan view and profile view. 9. Storm sewer should run from Structure 39 to 35, similar to the alignment of the storm sewer at the intersection of Court Mont Way and Fielding Run Drive. 10. There should be a noted added to the storm sewer profiles indicating that "Contractor shall place fill under inlet(s) at 95% compaction & embankment material shall consist predominantly of soil & be placed in successive uniform layers not more than 8" in thickness before compaction in accordance wl VDOT 2007 Road & Bridge Specification 303.04. After 3' vertical placement of fill, contractor shall excavate recently laid fill and install compacted VDOT std. 21A stone in an 8'x8' o.c. compacted 21 A area centered on the inlet(s). Contractor shall repeat this operation until an 8'x8' o.c. compacted 2 1 A stone base in installed between the existing ground and the proposed inlet(s) base in efforts to reduce the risk of settling. Contractor shall provide VDOT wl fill compaction results prior to road acceptance." 11. Per the HGL calculations provided, for a 10 -year storm, water overtops structures 27, 29, 43, 41, 45, 47, 49, 51, 55, and Ex. 32. The storm sewer needs to be redesigned to correct this condition. 12. The profiles for Rowcross Street, Fielding Run Drive, Court Mont Way, and Claremont Lane should have the scale clearly labeled. 13. It appears that standard CD -1's are needed at approximately stations 12 +10, 17 +70, and 18 +25 on the profile for Rowcross Street. 14. The profile for Rowcross Street should clearly define where the profile for Block 15 begins and ends. 15. The elevations of the intersections with Claremont Drive and Fielding Run Drive should be added to the profile for Rowcross Street. 16. It appears that standard CD -1's are needed at approximately stations 10 +45 and 12 +45 on the profile for Fielding Run Dive. 17. The elevations of the intersections with Glenn Valley Drive, Court Mont Way, and Rowcross Street should be added to the profile for Fielding Run Drive. 18. It appears that a standard CD -1 is needed at approximately station 12 +85 on the profile for Court Mont Way. 19. The elevations of the intersections with Claremont Lane and Fielding Run Drive should be added to the profile of Court Mont Way. 20. The elevations of the intersections with Glenn Valley Drive, Court Mont Way, and Rowcross Street should be added to the profile for Claremont Lane. 21. Is 200 vpd on Rowcross Street and Fielding Run Drive reasonable? It is assumed that Rowcross Street will be extended both west and east and this would mean that the number of residences using Rowcross Street to leave the area would be limited to approximately 20 units total. 22. The asphalt design calculation for Rowcross Street is based on 400 vpd. It would be helpful to see how this number was derived, especially since it does not match the vpd on the attached plan. 23. For the asphalt design calculation for Fielding Run Drive, a 2.25 thickness equivalency value is appropriate only when the combination of asphalt layers is 4' /z inches in thickness, otherwise, 1.67 should be used. Also, a 2.15 thickness equivalency value for the BM -25 is appropriate for Full Depth Asphalt over subgrade. Since 21 A aggregate will be used as a subbase, the thickness equivalency value for the BM -25 should be 1.67. 24. For the asphalt design calculation for Court Mont Drive, a 2.25 thickness equivalency value is appropriate only when the combination of asphalt layers is 4 % inches in thickness, otherwise, 1.67 should be used. Also, a 2.15 thickness equivalency value for the BM -25 is appropriate for Full Depth Asphalt over subgrade. Since 21A aggregate will be used as a subbase, the thickness equivalency value for the BM -25 should be 1.67. 25. The vpd for Claremont Lane and Rowcross Street shown in the Road Classification Schedule does not match the vpd's provided on the plan view attached to the asphalt design calculations. 26. The thicknesses of the BM -25 and the 2 1 A aggregate shown in the Road Classification Schedule for Claremont Lane, Rowcross Street, and Fielding Run Drive do not match the thickness provided on the typical sections for these roads. 27. The typical section for Rowcross Street indicates that there will be intermediate parking along the southern side of the road. How is enforcement of this condition anticipated? It may be wise to design the typical section adequately for parking on both sides of the road. If additional information is needed for concerning this project, please feel free to contact me at (434) 589- 5871. Sincerely, Troy ustin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING