HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201400166 Review Comments 2015-12-01Short Review Comments Report for:
SUB201400166
SubApplication Type:
Foothill Crossing - Phase IV & V - Road Plans
New Public Use Road Plan
Date Completed:11/30/2015
Reviewer:Justin Deel Engineering
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:Recieved notification of ACSA approval.
Division:
Date Completed:11/07/2014
Reviewer:Justin Deel Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/20/2014
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/20/2014
Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:A connector road is shown on the preliminary plat in phase IV but is not shown on the road plans. Is
this intended to be included in a future phase of development?
The road plans show a stormwater facility in an area sited for woodland preservation on the
preliminary plat. A 10% density bonus for preserving 20% or more in wooded areas was granted for
this subdivision. The site must maintain a minimum of 20% woodland preservation area to qualify for
this bonus. Show areas of woodland preservation on the landscape plan and provide calculations to
show that a minimum of 20% of wooded area is being preserved throughout the site.
A conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 is required, including a conservation plan checklist.
The conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated. Label the tree preservation areas and
show protection measures on the plan.
Division:
Date Completed:11/20/2014
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 5/24/14
No comments or objections
Division:
Date Completed:11/20/2014
Reviewer:Jeremy Lynn ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/27/2015
Reviewer:Justin Deel Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page: 1 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On: May 09, 2016
Date Completed:03/10/2015
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 1/28/15
1. Streets marked on one side as "No Parking" shall be marked as per county requirements for No
Parking. Please contact Fire Marshal's Office with any questions. 296-5833.
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Jeremy Lynn ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/04/2015
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/20/2015
Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein Planning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/07/2015
Reviewer:Justin Deel Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:This plan has adequately addressed engineering comments and appears approvable, pending
recommendation from VDOT, ACSA, and Fire & Rescue. Comments from these agencies will be
forwarded as they are received.
Division:
Date Completed:07/07/2015
Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein Planning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/15/2015
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 5/28/15
1. Streets marked on one side as "No Parking" shall be marked as per county requirements for No
Parking. Please contact Fire Marshal's Office with any questions. 296-5833. Either the curbs shall be
painted yellow or signs placed every 75'.
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Jeremy Lynn ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/01/2015
Page: 2 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On: May 09, 2016
Reviewer:Justin Deel Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Bond estimate send to Ana Kilmer on 12/1/2015.
Division:
Page: 3 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On: May 09, 2016
*Otte 'gale
-i:jt$6ryr'.
t
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
C.eeper VWrgeea 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
July 20,2015
Mr.Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Re: SUB-2014-00166 Foothill Crossing Phase IV& V Road Plans
Dear Mr. Deel:
We have reviewed the Foothill Crossing, Phase IV & V Road Plans with the latest revision date of May 28,
2015,as submitted by Collins Engineering,and offer the following comments:
I. Since the roadway depths, for Leon Lane and Trinity Way, have been revised the equivalency values
for the SM 9.5 should have also changed respectively(to 2.25). Even though the incorrect equivalency
value was used the proposed pavement section remains adequate. Once the correct SM9.5 value, of
2.25,is utilized the design exceeds the minim thickness.
2. The previous review comments have been adequately addressed and we recommend approval
provided that comment number l is addressed.
If you need further information concerning this project,or wish to schedule a meeting, please do not hesitate to
contact me at(434)422-9894.
Sincerely,
( /
Shelly A. Plaste
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
VSMP Permit Plan Review
Project title: Foothill Crossing Phase IV & V
Project file number: WPO- 2014 -00086
Plan preparer:
Collins Engineering
Owner or rep.:
Foothill Crossing, Inc.
Plan received date:
15 October 2014
(Rev. 1)
6 February 2015
(Rev. 2)
6 June 2015
Date of comments:
7 November 2014
(Rev. 1)
23 February 2015
(Rev. 2)
2 July 2015
Reviewer:
Justin Deel
County Code section 17 -410 and Virginia Code §62.1- 44.15:34 requires the VSMP authority to
act on any VSMP permit by issuing a project approval or denial. This project is denied. The
rationale is given in the comments below. The application may be resubmitted for approval if all
of the items below are satisfactorily addressed. The VSMP application content requirements can
be found in County Code section 17 -401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -405. A SWPPP must
contain (1) a PPP, (2) an ESCP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
Please use the standard template from the county website.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Provide SWPPP documents (sheets 13 -20) as a stand -alone package. Do not include them as part
of the road plan package.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. An operator must be named, and must sign the certification statement and applications. If there is
no designated contractor or project manager, it should be the owner of the property.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
Revision 1 Comments:
4. Provide registration statement.
(Rev. 2) Comment partially addressed. Show how /where this project fits in to the acreage on
your registration statement.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -404.
1. Provide a PPP containing the elements and details of measures to minimize the discharge of
pollutants as outlined in Albemarle County section 14 -404. (Part of template above)
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25- 870 -108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The
stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -403.
Provide SWMP in accordance with new criteria. This project is not considered grandfathered,
therefore type IIC criteria is not applicable. In order to have been considered grandfathered, you
would have needed an approved SWPPP for phases IV and V before July 1, 2014 (9VAC25 -870-
47). A valid SWPPP would need to have included an approved erosion and sediment control plan,
and an approved stormwater management plan for the entire area. This was not the case.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Revision 1 Comments:
2. Please remove proposed unapproved features from your pre - development plan.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
3. Your pre - development stormwater management plan is not accurate. Existing topography and
drainage areas must be provided in order to compare to your proposed post - development
conditions.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
4. Post - development drainage area boundaries cannot be dependent upon future development. They
must reflect current site conditions (or previously approved site conditions) and /or conditions
proposed with this plan. (The exception to this would be if a master plan was prepared for the
entire development area, which would be separate from a plan for this phase.)
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
5. Your post - development DA #IA is not accurate. The area southwest of Trinity Way will not drain
to the SWM facility and will add to the untreated DA #1AC (see below).
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
6. The proposed area of 19.69 acres (DA #1C) to be untreated is unacceptable. The target for capture
should be 90 %.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
7. Remove all fixture plan information that will not be approved with this plan (stream crossing,
connector road, Facility 2A - it is noted that the Facility 2A design was not acceptable on the plan
for that section, which should be redesigned to better accommodate existing topography and
drainage divides.)
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
8. Please show and label the wooded areas used in your curve number calculations.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
9. Show and label WPO buffer.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
Revision 2 Comments:
10. Please shift grading for SWM #1B out of the Lot 40 home site. The 10 -year pool elevation should
be no closer than 20 feet from the setback line. Also, provide a safety barrier for the 2:1 slope,
given its proximity to the home sites.
11. Please update SWM #1B spillway. The earthen spillway over fill from the previous submission is
still being shown.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
Virginia Code §62.1- 44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP.
This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The erosion control
plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -402.
1. Remove "dashes" from purpose statement in narrative. These are confusing when combined with
the + and = signs. The narrative should reference only the area to be disturbed with this plan for
phase IV and V.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Update topographic information to show all existing features. This topography does not appear
accurate adjoining phase 3, where all lots have been graded, and at the road connection, where a
large stockpile area currently exists. If basins from prior phases are to be built, provide as -built
information for the basins. Prior design information is not adequate.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
3. Please remove all prior plan information that will not be approved with this plan. This plan is very
confusing, showing previous phases E &SC drainage areas and facilities. The prior plan was not
actually implemented accurately in the field. The long diversion was never properly in place, and
sediment trap 2 does not exist. Remove all reference to previous E &SC that will not be a part of
Phases IV & V.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Diversion dikes that traverse the site are too long and winding and will be inadequate. Provide
additional sediment traps instead. (The long diversion to avoid traps did not work in prior phases.)
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Proposed grading for Sediment Basin 3 extends into WPO buffer. Eliminate buffer disturbances,
or provide convincing evidence that such disturbances are truly unavoidable, which requires
approval from WPO Program Authority and a mitigation plan.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Please show all proposed grading. The proposed
contours on the downstream side of the dam are difficult to make out on the plan and absent in the
basin detail. It appears that grading for the dam may still extend into the WPO buffer (which is
also absent in the basin detail). Please show all proposed grading and all WPO buffers in the
basin /trap details. Also, please remove construction lines from the basin /trap details or label them
if they are part of your plan.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
6. Label WPO buffer limits.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Show and label all existing easements.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Provide emergency spillways for proposed sediment basins.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Emergency spillways cannot be constructed over fill
material per VESC Handbook, p. III -89. Please correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
9. Make it more clear that any diversion dikes are to extend to stone outfalls at basins. This did not
occur in prior phases.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
10. Extend stone outfalls to basin floors.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Correct Sediment Basin 1 dimensions (plan view) on Sheet 20.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. The use of baffles is to be avoided. Provide the proper basin dimensions. Baffles were not
installed in prior phases.
(Rev. 1) Comment response accepted.
13. Provide actual sections, to scale, for proposed sediment basin details, showing both existing and
proposed grades. Include accurate depictions of structures. Show crest of riser as elevation of top,
rather than top of anti -vortex device.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. The vertical to horizontal exaggeration is too great.
Please decrease this so that the labeling is less crowded and the sections look closer to actual.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
14. Show dewatering orifice elevations and diameters in sediment basin details.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
15. Correct title of Sediment Basin I design table (currently refers to Sediment Basin #4).
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
16. Provide paved construction entrance detail.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
17. Please remove North arrow from middle of Sediment Basin 1 on Sheets 18 and 20.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Revision 1 Comments:
18. Mitigation must be provided for all areas of disturbance within the WO buffer. This includes the
WPO buffer disturbance around Sediment Basin 2.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
19. The transition between Phase 1 and Phase 2 in the area east of Sediment Trap 1 appears to be
inadequate. Please adjust your E &SC measures here. An additional sediment trap may be
necessary in this area.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
20. There is inconsistent information (elevations, barrel length) between the detail and section
drawings for Sediment Basin 3, please correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
21. Please remove the mention of topsoil from the note pointing to the dam core in the sediment basin
sections.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
22. There are many stray construction lines and labels on these plans, please remove.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
23. Please correct existing depression note in Trap #1 drainage area.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
Revision 2 Comment:
24. Please adjust E &SC measures to accommodate above requested SWM changes.
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed. For re- submittals please provide 2 copies of the complete permit package
with a completed application form.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2 -4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2 -4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre - construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre - construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre - construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre - construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
hqp://www.albemarle.ora/deptforms.asp?department--cdengno
File: Foothill Crossing Ph. 4 &5 WP0201400086 R2.doc
jig. r.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Cutpeper Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
March 4, 2015
Mr. Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB- 2014 -00166 Foothill Crossing Phase IV & V Road Plans
Dear Mr. Deel:
We have reviewed the Foothill Crossing, Phase IV & V Road Plans with the latest revision date of January 28,
2015, as submitted by Collins Engineering, and offer the following comments:
1. Previous comment: The WP -2 detail for pavement tie -ins should be provided in the plans.
2. A CG -9 should be proposed for access to the SWM facility located off Leon Lane.
3. We recommend eliminating the bend in the water line, on Leon Lane, and extending it straight into the
head of the cul -de -sac.
4. Note #1 under the pavement section, on page 7, should be updated to say "An actual copy of the CBR
report is to be submitted to VDOT prior to the placement of the aggregate base material."
5. In reply to the comment response letter, provided by Mr. Collins, the Pavement Design Guide does
provide a ** situation for BM -25.0. However, the thickness equivalency value of 2.15 is used for full -
depth asphalt concrete over subgrade, not over subbase. When an asphalt base course is placed
directly on subgrade, the resulting design is considered a "Full -depth Asphalt Concrete" pavement.
The total depth of the asphalt concrete layers (surface + intermediate + base) shall be at least 6" in
order to use the equivalency value of 2.15. In this case Park Ridge Drive's typical section is over
designed when the correct equivalency value of 2.25 is used.
6. Leon Lane and Trinity Way should use an equivalency value of 1.67 since the surface, intermediate
and base layers add up to less than 4 � inches. When the 1.67 value is used the design is considered
inadequate for both Leon Lane and Trinity Way.
7. The SM -9.5 for Leon Lane must be placed in two lifts. This should also be added as a note on page 7.
8. The temporary turn- around should be dimensioned.
If you need further information concerning this project, or wish to schedule a meeting, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 422 -9894.
Sincerely
S -gelly A. Pla }er
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Project title: The Foothill Crossing Phase IV & V
Project file number: SUB- 2014 -00166
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [scott @collins - engineering.com]
Owner or rep.: Foothill Crossing, Inc.
Plan received date: 3 October 2014
(Rev. 1) 6 February 2015
Date of comments: 7 November 2014
(Rev. 1) 27 February 2015
Reviewers: Justin Deel
1. Remove VSMP items (Sheets 13 -20) from the road plan set.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Label proposed roads as public or private.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. Please show drainage easement for Pipe 31.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Pipe does not follow easement between structures 56 & 58. Please correct.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Please state that all fill soils are to be compacted to 95% maximum dry density. Standard or
modified Proctor?
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Appears as though driveways will intercept drainage on curb line or gutter pan before it reaches
inlet 58. Provide standard concrete apron continuous with sidewalk to insure proper grades at this
location. Provide overland relief via low point between two lots 53 & 54.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Remove all proposed features that are not including in Phases IV & V of this project.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
VDOT approval is required.
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged.
Revision 1 Comments:
9. A temporary turnaround must be provided (ACC 14 -409, B) at the end of the Park Ridge Drive
extension (which was added with the re- submittal).
10. Turnarounds (temporary or permanent) cannot be T- or Branch -type. Ensure that the above
requested turnaround and other proposed turnarounds adhere to guidelines in the Albemarle
County Design Standards Manual.
11. Please correct drainage area plan to reflect changes requested in VSMP review.
12. Pipe slopes must be no less than 0.5% and no greater than 16 %, please correct.
13. The CG -12 detectable warning surface general notes detail is illegible, please correct.
File: SUB201400166 Foothill Crossing Ph 4 &5 Road Plan Review Rl.doc
41'
71
a4 .d
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1501 Orange Road
Culpeper. Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Comma ,toner
November 20, 2014
Mr. Justin Dee]
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB - 2014 -00166
Dear Mr. Deel:
We have reviewed the Foothill Crossing, Phase IV & V Road Plan dated 5/23/14, as submitted
by Collins Engineering, and offer the following comments:
1. Please update your CG -12 details to the Iatest revision.
2. Please provide the intersection angle at Leon Lane and Trinity Way. The desirable
intersection angle is 902.
3. The future connection into Westlake Hills should be shown within phase IV as well as
the extension of Park Ridge Drive.
4. Driveway aprons should be perpendicular to the curb and gutter.
5. Please provide the WP -2 detail for pavement tie -ins.
6. When 4'2" or more of any combination of Asphalt concrete layers
(Surface+intermediate+base) is called for on top of a subbase layer the thickness
equivalency value of 2.25 shall be used for all the asphalt layers. Please revisit your
pavement design.
7. Please provide the design speed on profiles.
8. Please call out the "Stop" signs (RI-1) in accordance with the MUTCD or provide a
detail.
9. Please provide the locations of the "No Parking" (R8 -3) signs and call them out in
accordance with the MUTCD or provide a detail.
10. Please provide a line of sight profile at Trinity Way Leon Lane as well as Leon Lane
Park Ridge Drive.
11. Please correct the profile run callout (STR 72 - Out ).
12. Please provide the inverts at the outfalls.
13. STM STR 62A & 60A- Please verify the pipe lengths. (Profile vs. Drainage Description)
14. In multiple areas the throat lengths in the Drainage Description chart do not match the
profiles or inlet computations. Ie: STR 34: the inlet comps state a 10' throat, the profile
states 8 and the Drainage descriptions states 10.
15. Please revisit the inlet computations for STR 74. The carry-over quantities appear to be
incorrect.
16. Per the VDOT Drainage Manual, Chapter 9 (Storm Drains), slopes that incur uniform
flow velocities in excess of 10 fps should be avoided due to the potential for abrasion.
Also, velocities less than 3 fps should be avoided due to the inability to flush debris
within the system.
17. Temporary turn around: Have you considered paving the full width of the street to the
head of a temporary cul -de -sac and then placing stone to the right and left of the of the
pavement edge, rather than a "T" style turnaround?
If you need further information concerning this project, or wish to schedule a meeting, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9373.
Sincerely,
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewers:
Road and Drainage Plan Review
The Foothill Crossing Phase IV & V
SUB- 2014 -00166
Collins Engineering [scott @collins - engineering.com]
Foothill Crossing, Inc.
3 October 2014
7 November 2014
Justin Deel
1. Remove VSMP items (Sheets 13 -20) from the road plan set.
2. Label proposed roads as public or private.
3. Please show drainage easement for Pipe 31.
4. Pipe does not follow easement between structures 56 & 58. Please correct.
5. Please state that all fill soils are to be compacted to 95% maximum dry density. Standard or
modified Proctor?
6. Appears as though driveways will intercept drainage on curb line or gutter pan before it reaches
inlet 58. Provide standard concrete apron continuous with sidewalk to insure proper grades at this
location. Provide overland relief via low point between two lots 53 & 54.
7. Remove all proposed features that are not including in Phases IV & V of this project.
8. VDOT approval is required.
File: FoothillCrossing Road - Drainage Plan Review.doc