Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500119 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2015-12-30COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1501 Orange Road Culpeper %Arginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner December 30, 2015 Mr. John Anderson County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SUB -2015-001 l9 Rivanna Village, Phase 1 Road Plans Dear Mr. Anderson, We have reviewed the road plans for Phase I and parts of Phase 3 & 4 of Rivanna Village dated T6.1`15 with revisions dated 10115115 as submitted by Alan Franklin and offer the following comments: Previous Comments 1. Storm drain structure SD G34 has not been labeled on sheets 12 or 18. 2. Sight lines and profiles for each intersection need to be provided for review. Please note that on -street park and street trees located within the sight line triangle are obstructions that reduce available sight distance. 3. The midblock pedestrian crossing of Main Street should be moved to the intersection of Main Street and Glenmore Way. It appears that this crossing should be located within the Glenmore Way right-of-way. If the mid -block crossing of Steamer Drive cannot be removed, it should be relocated closer to the entrance to the parking lot at the fire station. 4. It is unclear what the spot elevations along the Steamer Drive cul-de-sac are referring to. Are they edge of pavement, face of curb, top back of curb? 5. Typical street sections for on -street parking for one side only should not have the parking shift from one side to the other. Per sheet 5 of 25, parking shifts on both Winding Road and Steamer Drive. 6. The pavement design calculations are not correct. The thickness equivalency value for the asphalt courses should be 2.25 only when the total thickness of asphalt is 4 !j" or more. In addition, there is not a provision for the thickness equivalency value of 21 A aggregate subbase material to be 1. The equivalency of the 21A subbase should be 0.6. The Dr for Steamer Drive from the cul-de-sac to Main Street should not be 17. For a couple of the calculations, the pavement design appears to be adequate when these changes are made, but most appear to be inadequate designs. In addition, typically BM -25 is used as base course instead of IM -19. 7. The erosion and sediment control plan for any features that may impact existing or proposed right-of- way that will be maintained by VDOT needs to be provided to VDOT for review in addition to County review. • There appears to still be a few discrepancies between the storm sewer schedule, the storm sewer profiles, and the hydraulic calculations. The length of A64 in the schedule and calculations does not match the length identified in the • The length of A6-3 in the schedule and calculations does not match the length identified in the profile. • The length of A54 in the schedule and calculations does not match the length identified in the profile. • The pipe diameter between C2 and C1 in the schedule and the profile does not match the diameter in the calculations. The diameter in the calculations is smaller, so this section should be adequate; however, all of the data should match. • The pipe diameter between D2 and D 1 in the schedule and the calculations does not match the diameter in the profile. The diameter in the calculations is smaller, so this section should be adequate; however, all of the data should match. • The structure type of E-5 in the schedule does not match the structure type in the profile. • The length of F4 in the schedule and calculations does not match the length in the profile. The length in the calculations is shorter, so the structure should be adequate; however, all of the data should match. • The rim elevation of G4 in the schedule does not match the elevation in the profile. • The information for SD I-1 and SD I-2 has not been included in the schedule; There were some items in the calculations that were not found on the profiles or in the plan views. • Storm structure A4-2 • Pipe section A4-2 to A44 • Pipe section A44 to A4 • Pipe section A24 to A2-3 • Pipe section A2-3 to A2-2 • Pipe section A2-2 to A2 -I • Pipe section A24 to A2 • Pipe section E2-1 to E2 • Pipe section O1 to A2-3 Additional Comments 1. The ADT of each street section should be shown on the typical street sections. In addition, underdrains should be called for in the street typical sections in accordance with the 2014 pavement design guide. 2. The hydraulic gradeline elevations should be provided for each storm drain structure in the hydraulic calculations. 3. A note should be added to the storm sewer profiles indicating that standard ST- l steps are required for all structures with a depth of 4' or greater. 4. A note should be added to the storm sewer profiles indicating that standard SL -1 safety slabs are required for all structures with a depth of 12' or greater. 5. No Parking sign locations should be clearly shown on plan view sheets when applicable. 6. Will sidewalk be provided on the west side of Steamer Drive south of the entrance to the parking lot of the fire station? If so, a CG -12 will be necessary on the south side of this entrance. 7. It appears that a CD -1 is necessary at approximately station 14-75 on the profile for Main Street. 8. It appears that a CD -I is necessary at approximately station 1500 on the profile for Winding Road. 9. The curb cuts at SWMIBMP AS3a should be "nosed down" to help avoid damage should a snow plow hit the opening. 10. The curb and gutter layer has been left off on sheet 25 of 25. If you need additional information 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