Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201400207 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2015-01-26l' L, COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Virginia 22791 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner January 26, 2015 Ms. Megan Yaniglos Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Cascadia, Blocks 1 -3 SDP -2014 -00075 Site Plan SUB - 2014 -00207 Road Plans Dear Ms. Yaniglos: We have reviewed the final site development plan and the road plans for Cascadia, Blocks 1 -3 dated 1211114 as submitted by Dominion Engineering and offer the following comments: Site Plan/Road PIan 1- It would be helpful for review if the road plan and profile sheets were included within the site plan. 2. Pavement design calculations need to be provided for review. 3. The limits and locations of the proposed on- street parking should be shown in plan view as parked vehicles are an obstruction to sight distance. It is very difficult to determine the appropriate side and/or extents of on- street parking on the current plan sheets. 4. What is the purpose of 1.5' of right -of -way beyond the sidewalk on Delphi Lane? 5. The width of travel lanes should be 12'. The typical section of entry of Cascadia Drive shows 11' lanes. 6. Sheet 5 of 36 labels the ADT for Marietta Drive as 380 vpd. Does this number take into account adjacent parcel trips should Marietta Drive be extended and the adjacent parcel developed? 7. All CG -12's should be clearly labeled on the plan sheets. 8. All crosswalk locations should be consistently marked. The crosswalks at the intersections of Marietta Drive and Delphi Drive, Knoll Lane and Delphi Drive and Lane should be marked as each of the other crosswalks in the development are proposed to be marked. 9. The sight lines for the intersection of Cascadia Drive and Delphi Lane need to be added to the plan. 10. The stop condition at the intersection of Cascadia Drive and Delphi Lane should not be Cascadia Drive. The stop condition should be for the Delphi Lane traffic and the vehicles leaving the commercial entrance on the north side of Cascadia Drive. 11. Rather than having the crosswalk across Delphi Lane at the intersection of Cascadia Drive and Delphi Lane, the crosswalk should be moved to the opposite side so that pedestrians cross the commercial entrance. This likely will require relocated storm structure 21. 12. It does not appear that the northern most parallel parking space (shown in the 3 parallel spaces) is usable. 13. Can storm structure 2I connect to storm structure 22 instead of structure 20? 14. What is the reasoning for shifting the waterline in Delphi Lane from the western lane to the eastern lane? If a leak will develop in a waterline, it is more likely to develop at a fitting. Our preference would be to continue the waterline in the western lane. 15. The sight line to the right at the intersection of Terrace Lane and Marietta Drive should be added to the plan to determine if a sight line easement is needed should Marietta Drive be extended. 16. The sanitary sewer from manhole I to manhole H should cross Terrace Lane perpendicularly. This may require an additional manhole. 17. Can a diversion be run behind lots 14 through 22 to keep off -site runoff out of the storm sewer system? 18. Why does the waterline in Terrace Lane switch from the eastern lane to the western lane? These additional fittings could create potential leaks of the waterline. It appears that if the waterline remained on the eastern side of the road, the 10' minimum separation to the sanitary sewer line could be maintained. 19. Storm structure I5A needs to be a DI -3 rather than a DI -2. 20. Why does the waterline in Delphi Drive switch from the eastern Iane to the western lane? These additional fittings could create potential leaks of the waterline. It appears that if the waterline remained on the eastern side of the road, the 10' minimum separation to the sanitary sewer line could be maintained. 21. Storm structure 2 is labeled as a DI4B in one profile and a DI -3B in another profile. Since there are 36" pipes coming to structure 2, this should be a DI4B. 22. DI -2A, B, or Cs are applicable only to depths of 8'. For structures deeper than 8', DI- 2AA, BB or CCs should be used as applicable. Structures noted that this would apply to are: a. Structure 23 23. DI -3A, B, or Cs are applicable only to depths of 8'. For structures deeper than 8', DI- 3AA, BB or CCs should be used as applicable. Structures noted that this would apply to are: a. Structure 14 b. Structure 14A c. Structure 15 d. Structure 24 24. DI -4A, B, or Cs are applicable only to depths of 8'. For structures deeper than 8', Dl- 4AA, BB or CCs should be used as applicable. Structures noted that this would apply to are: a. Structure 2 b. Structure 3 c. Structure 4 d. Structure 6 25. It appears that storm sewer profiles between structures 46A and 46 and between structures 27A and 27 have been excluded from the plans. 26. The length of storm structure 38 has been left off of the storm sewer profile. 27. The inverts of several structures differ between the calculations and the profile. The difference does not appear to generate a redesign of the storm sewer, however the numbers should match. The structures noted are: a. Structure 30 b. Structure 31 c. Structure 32 d. Structure 36 e. Structure 37 28. It appears that the available sight distance at the intersection of Delphi Lane and Delphi Drive is impacted by landscaping. This needs to be addressed. 29. It appears that the available sight distance at the intersection of Marietta Drive and Delphi Drive is impacted by landscaping. This needs to be addressed. 30. It appears that the available sight distance at the intersection of Delphi Drive and Terrace Lane is impacted by landscaping. This needs to be addressed. 31. The sight lines for intersections of Knoll Lane and Delphi Lane and for Terrace Lane and Delphi Lane need to be added to the plan. 32. It appears that the available sight distance at the intersections of Knoll Lane and Delphi Lane and of Terrace Lane and Delphi Lane are impacted by landscaping. This needs to be addressed. 33. The detail for CG -913 is not the most current detail. 34. The detail for CG -12 is not the most current detail. Road Plan Please be advised that review comments on the road plan are based on review of the sheets excluded from the site plan, i.e. sheets 10 through 16A. The assumption is that all remaining sheets are the same as those provided in the site plan. 1. On sheet 1 l of 36, the profile indicates that the super- elevation slope of Route 20 is 8% at the proposed street connection. This seems steep. Please provide survey elevations confirming this cross - slope. 2. The 10 foot vertical curve needs to be redesigned in accordance with AASHTO policy and the applicable requirements of the VDOT Road Design Manual including stopping sight distance and K value as indicated in note 8 of the detail for CG -11 connections found in the Road and Bridge Standards. 3. It appears that a CD -2 is required at approximately station 11 +35 on the profile for Cascadia Drive. 4. Is the 12xl2x8 Tee for the waterline connection shown in the profile for Cascadia Drive a new Tee to be cut in or a wet tap? 5. The centerline intersection of Cascadia Drive and Delphi Lane should be shown on the profile for Delphi Lane. The station and elevation should be listed as well. 6. It appears that a CD -2 is required at approximately station 12 +50 on the profile for Delphi Lane. 7. The profile for Marietta Drive indicates at station 10 +00 there is an intersection with Village Drive. However, the plan view indicates that this road is actually Delphi Drive. 8. The centerline intersection of Terrace Lane and Marietta Drive should be shown on the profile for Marietta Drive. The station and elevation should be listed as well. 9. It appears that a CD -2 is required at approximately station 17 +00 on the profile for Marietta Drive. 10. The centerline intersection of Marietta Drive and Delphi Drive should be shown on the profile for Delphi Drive. The station and elevation should be listed as well. 11. It appears that a CD -2 is required at approximately station 13 +15 on the profile for Terrace Lane. 12. It appears that a CD -2 is required at approximately station 18 +20 on the profile for Terrace Lane. 13. What is the purpose of the 13 foot tangent section in the Terrace Lane profile beginning at station 14 +75? Could this be replaced with one continuous vertical curve? 14. It appears that there is a low spot on the east side of Delphi Drive at the intersection with Terrace Lane that will not drain. Spot elevations should be provided at this intersection near storm structure 32 to demonstrate that the intersection will adequately drain. 15. The centerline intersection of Delphi Drive and Terrace Lane should be shown on the profile for Terrace Lane. The station and elevation should be listed as well. 16. As indicated on WP -2, the northbound lane in Route 20 is to be resurfaced. 17. The cross -slope change from the super - elevated Route 20 to the proposed right turn lane should occur at the edge of the travel lane /edge of turn lane. It appears that the cross - slope grade is shown to change in the existing 12' through lane. 18. The cross section for the Route 20 improvements indicate 2" of SM -9.5A and 6" of BM- 21 AA. The pavement structure shall at least match the existing pavement structure of Route 20. 19. Sheet 18 of 36 does not list the length of the turn lane or taper on Route 20. 20. The turn radius for Cascadia Drive at the intersection with Route 20 should be checked. The narrow width of the ingress lane may create problems for larger vehicles such as school buses, trash trucks, delivery/moving trucks etc. attempting to turn from Route 20 to Cascadia Drive. 21. The typical section for the proposed Route 20 improvements should comply with the GS- 6 standard found in Appendix A of the Road Design Manual. If additional information is needed concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9782. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING