HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500119 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2015-08-19R
COMMON WEAL`FH of VIRGINIA
CEPAK 1 MENT aF TKANSPaRTATION
1601 Omngw Re -d
oolpeper Virginia Z--,
C1`1 -1`63 A. Rilparivk, P.t.
Commissioner
August 5. 2015
Mr. Jvhn Anacr3u„
County of Albemarle
Department of Community uevelopment
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUn -1015 -00119 Rivµnna Village, Pha3c, I Road Pian3
Dear Mr. Ande, sou:
We have reviewed tnz ,gad plans for R;vanna Village, Phase 1 dated 6/18/15 as submitted by
Alan Franklin and offer the f ;uuw;ng com,nent3:
1. There appea, to be numerous drafting errors with the road r,lana. Potentially tnc,z; have
been teaesign iteratio„s of the layout and some of the labels may have not been correetzZ.
Examples of 3%r,,,c, ur the errors ate as follows:
On Street 5 ut 25, there ;s a note call;ng out a CG -12, Type C at Lot L6; however,
there n:.t appear tu oc. a CG -12 at this location.
■ On Snc ut3 12, 16, aA 18 of 25 there ;s a label ur reference to SD G3 -1 on
windins Road, however there di-Ic.3 nut appea, tv be a d,up Inlet for SD G3 -1.
On Smut 18 of 25, tnt.rc; are sevetai labels that have duplicate arrows to the
features that they are identiryinb.
• On Sheet 18 of 25, tnzrc are iabci3 for SS F1, SD N1, SD N2_ ana SD Ml near
Sycamore Lane; however there do not arr,eur to be tc.atutes as3uc;ated with these
labels.
• The Sheet Numbers for Sheets -f, a and 23 of 25 we missmg.
• Sheets I6 and 18 are mislabeled as Sheet3 16 and 18 of 24.
2. Ou Sheet 2. there needs to be a note indicating that vDOT will oc c. -vntactea 48 nuurs in
advance ut starting cunst, action. VDOT should also be included in the pre - construct
mec,ting.
3. Sheet L has a Trir Ge„cration table, nuwcver, there Should be a detail ide,rtifying the
proposed ADT for each individual street as tnia infbrmat;o,„ is necessary to dete,,,,i„e the
approp,iate roadway typical section.
4. The plan should clearly identify which lots are single family residential and which
conacrninium/t-uwtiii-, u3e�"dupl e,t.
5. On Sheet zF there is a note stating "Potential Ct,l -De -Sac Area, See Note #7 ". Where is
,tare 7 and is this notation necessary as the cul- de -3a,. has bec,n 3nuwn'!
6. On Sn=t 5, the radii fu, tnc; h.t xsectiun ut SycamULe Lane and Main Street have been
shown as t D - . The minimum radii anc;,ti ed by tnc; Ruad Design Manual, Appendix B(1)
is 25'.
7. Sight l;ne5 and p,ufiles tu, each intersection needs to be provided for review.
8. Tnc CG -12 at the inter3ection of Sweet Gum Lane and Main Street does not have a
receiving CG -12 and should be rcm'vved.
9. Typically, the preference is to not locate CG -127s in tnc .midpoint of the i„tersect;u„
, etunts. This directs a visually impaired person towards the uc.tcr of the inter3CCtion.
The preference ;5 to luca,e CG -12's perpenaiCular to the road centerline near the
intersect ;u,.. The CV -127s at the intersections of Steamer Drive and Main Street_ and at
Sycamore Lane any Dutn Main Strect slid Steamzt Drive, ans at Sweet Gut„ Lane and
Steamer Drive should be revised accordin ,,iy.
10. Midblock ctassings are discouraged. Approval from NWRu fur tnL rnidblock CtU33ing3
vn Mai„ Street, Wina;ng Ruad_ and Steamer Drive will be required.
11. The proposes .ud;u3 of the cul -se -sac on Steamer Drive steeds to be added to the plan.
iz. nxmending centerline }.runic yr Steamer Drive through the cul -se -Sac does not serve any
real purpose. The centerline should berin at tnz::.enter of the Sul -de -sac and then run
perpendicularly to the mainline centerline of Steamer Drive.
13. Spot elevations along the curbing of the cul -de -Sac should be provided to ensure positive
sr-.;huge from the cui -de -sac.
14. The centerline of Sweet G.m Lm.e shouts i,rtersect Mai„ Street ans Steamer Dive
perpendicularly.
15. Th; stations and finished grade elevations of each cross street needy to DC added to tnc
road ce„tuti;ne profiles. Specifically_ the Stations and elevations for the intersections
warn S,rycet Gum Lanc, Pri -,ate Alley "A ", P,ivate Alley "C ". and Sycamore Lane needs
to be added to the .rofiles fur Stcanner D,.vc and Main Street. In addition_ the stau-un and
elevation of the intersection of Steamer Drive m-.s Main Street needs to be added to the
Ma ;t, Street profile.
16. The design speeds for each toad section is based on the ADT for each road section. To
this ens, the ADT wr each specific roadway needs to be provided. In addition, it appears
that the .0 mph/25 mrh desi&. 3pceds snown on the Steamer Drive ptatile should be
reversed.
17. i he method of c- u,urol fill for the till sections of the roadways shouls Dc added to the
profiles.
18. On tiic prunle for Swect Gum Lan ;, the beginning and ending labels for the profile
appear to be reversed. The nigher elevat; -Ur, aide of the profile should be Steame, Drive
and the lower elevation side should be Main Str4ct.
19. 1 he profile for Sweet Gum Lane shows the intersection with Steamer Dry, c to be at
Station 10 +01.74. The stat;an for this intersection shown on Sheet D of i-:) indicates the
staGun .3 10 +00. 1 n ;3 3t3tiuning sht;uld be the Same.
20. The profile for Sycamore La,x shows tnc intersection with Steamy, Dt;ve to be at 10-00.
The Station for this intersection shown on Sheet 5 ur 25 ind;catC3 the station ;s 10 +12.57.
Th;s stationing should be the same.
21. 1 nc profile fur Sycamore Lane Shuws the intersection with Main Street to be at t L'Y80.
The stat;un rur this inter3zctiun shown un Sheet 5 ut 25 indicates the station is 1292.57.
This stationing should be the san.c.
22. "The station and elevation of the low point in the 3ar, u1` Winding Ruau should be added to
the ptafiIe.
23. It appears that the p,ufile fo, Alley B on Sheet 7 of 25 is actually the profile for Alley C
and vice vcr3u based un tnc labels of these alleys an Sheet 5 of 25.
24. 1 ne a13ta .cc rrom the NICK ur curb to the Street trees needs to be Shown in the typical
sections. mote, the minimum distance i3 3.
25. In all typical sections_ the minimum distance of the rignt -of -way beyuna the sidewwK is
P. The typical for Main Sure, (Station 12-50 to 18 +00) needs to be revised accordin.ly.
26. 1 he labels for the CG -6 ir, the typical sections for Mai„ Street are not pointing to the
curb.
27. The typical section for main Street ( Statiun 12 *50 to 18+00) ir,(licatc3 parking Vn bvth
Sides of the road. The numerous entrances shown on the north side of Main StrCet
appears to rn7Ru this not practical.
28. The typical 3cction for Steamer Drive front Station 10 +00 to 14-50 indicates that the
ADT is between 2,000 and 4,000 veni:.lc3 per day. HVWGVGI, based on the Stationing
shown on Sheet 5 of 2D, this is the cul -de -sac sect. -.. ur Steamer Drive and this ADT is
not accurate. It appears the ADTs shown for the two typical sections of SteaTax, Drive
have been reversed.
29. The graded ur tnc ,uadway, landscape strip, and sidewalk need to be Shown on each
typical section.
30. The pavement design should be added to each typical 3,.ctiun.
31. Both typical sections for Steamer Drive indicate that there will either be no on-3t, =t
parking a, parking on one Side. This needs to be defined US to which condition will occur
VII urtzh section. Furtncrmore, wh;cn Side of the ruaaway parking will be allowed needs
to be identified and No Parking Signs nee'n tu bC added to the plan, i.rdicating which side
Of the street parking will be allowed.
32. The Most current details from the 2008 Road and Bridge standards for the CG -12, the
CG -9 and the pavement widening need to be provided in the plans.
33. Tnc lcrt turn lane and taper un GlenrtrOrc Way into Mai„ Street needs to be regraded in
plan view. in addition, the rua(_13ia4 ditch neea3 tu be relocated Ina regraded as the left
turn lane will be removing the ditch.
34. On Sheet 10 of 25_ it appears that the left turn lane is shown on the wron, side or tnc
typical sectio,r.
35. 1 ne typical Sections 3ncwn an Sheet 10 at 25 are not it, accordance with the pavement
widening t w r -2) standard as 3nu., n in the 2008 Read and Bridge Standards.
36. The pavement designs shown on sheet 11 of 25 are incurrz.ct. The BM -25 course is
actually the Base course and the 21A aggregate is actually the sub -base course. A3 7.wch,
the equivalency value for the 21A should be 0.6 instead of 1. The designs with AU 1 of
200 W,a 600 appear to be adequate, but the designs with ADT of 2.200 and 4,400 do not.
The designs need to be revises.
37. It appears to be a need for a drainage easement between SD A10 -1 and SD A10.
38.'l he tulluwing structures were included in the storm sewer structure schedule D..t could
,rut be found un the plan:
SD N1
• SD N2
• SD B3 -1
• SD K1
• SD K2
• SL G3 -1
39. A column tar height of structure should be added to tnc 3t-Vvm newer 3tructtlre schedule.
40. 'l here are several diSctepancies in the data for the storm sewer system betwee., tlic
profiles, the stvinr structure schedule and the Storm sewer calculations. A full review of
the 3tv,,,. 3ti.wer calculations will be .nade once these aisctepancies have been corrected.
zF I I. There is greater pc,tcntiarl for leakage ;.. tnc public waterline at ttttings than there is if the
waterline is deflected. i he following locations of bendy in tnz waterline 3nu.ld be
reevaluates:
• It appears that the waterline along winding Road could be aericctcd instead et
using the bends Cut ernly Shown.
• It would be preferable to replace the two 45° bends at the intersection of
Glet„nole Way and Mai„ Street with a single 90° bend.
The waterline sh;tts tiom one side of the road to the other on Steamer tcoad near
Lot B8. The waterline ShuuId remain on the sane Side of the load.
zL. Utilities should cm33 tnz roadway perpend ;a.ularly er as close a5 possible. Locations of
concern that need to be reevaluated are:
• The storm sewer cr, winr, et Winding Road between SD 15 and SD 14.
The stun,, Sewer cro33,r g et Syea mire Lane between SD A5 -3 ana SD A5 -2.
Tnu sanitary 3s.wc:r crossing of Stea,nc, Drive between SS A18 and SS A17.
43. The inverts of the storm sewer structures 3nu..la be labeled as c;tncr Invert I„ m Invert
Out instead of having a bearing. In addition; the invert ins should ina;V-atu which
structure they are coming trot„ and all invert his to a structure should be included in the
label ut the structu,u un the profiles.
44. It ar,,ears tnat SD B2 as 3ni+wn un the profile for Sturm, Sewer "B" on Sheet 14 of 25
could be lowered to existin�,s.ade to avui5 putCr,t;ul Settling of tnu inlet.
45. It appears that the final and existing grades in the Storm Sewer -A7" have Ducn rever3ca.
46. It appears that SD B2. SD 132 -1. and SD 132 -2 as shown on the profile for Storm Sewer
'B2" un Sheet 14 ut 25 could be lowetea to existing grade to avoid potential sealing of
the inlets.
47. The separation between utility crossings and tn4 3t-VTM Sewer shu,.tn bu labeled tut each
ctossi„g ill the storm sewer profiles. Many of these separations have been [uazled, but
several have nut.
48. There appuar3 to be a uvuply of conflicts between the storm sewe, and utility crossings.
Two of the locat ;un3 are as follvw3:
Sanitary Sewer A crus3;ng between SD A3 and SD A4.
Samitary Sewe, A crossing between SD C2 and SD C3.
,49. An erosion and sea;rnunt control plan .,ends to be provided tu, this project to, review.
This can be a separate submittal.
50. A maintenance of traffic plan needs to be provided for this project for review. This can
be a Separate submittal.
we are currently usin, the arttaruhed checxl;3t3 nuring our review ut toad and site plans. It stay
be helpful for the engineer to use these checklists du,.ny, cun3trp4tion plan aevulopment to
reduce the numbe, of review comments by VDOT. Due to the numerous commelts u3sociatea
w;th this ,eview, it may be beneficial to meet with the design engineer to review the comments.
if you need additional inmr,nartion cunccrn;ng this project, please 5u not hesitate to contact ,ne ac
(434) 422 -9782.
SiSLin- ,
T P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpupe, District WE KEEP vIRGIMIH PlOvInG