HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900012 Review Comments Letter of Revision 2 2020-05-29John Anderson
From: John Anderson
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 11:50 AM
To: Mike Myers
Cc: Tori Kanellopoulos
Subject: RE: Stonefield - Letter of Revision #2 SDP 2019-00012 [ Engineering review comments ]
Mike, doing fine —nice to hear from you, and hope you are well. Please stay safe.
Please accept this email as Engineering review comment on SDP201900012 ( will likely update CV later today, or tomorrow):
1. Revise grade between curb and base of wall to 3: 1, Max., else stabilization issues (at base of walls 1, 2) will likely
immediately impact Inglewood, a heavily trafficked private street.
2. Recommend soil blanket /matting between curb and Inglewood for proposed slope >6:1. (Engineering will coordinate
with ESC inspector; WPO plan amendment not required.)
( Also, since a sidewalk is not immediately adjacent to Inglewood, pedestrians may try to use 3' area behind curb, may
try to traverse 2:1 slope. 3:1 is at least more walkable.)
3. Effect of 3:1 slope between curb and base of wall may:
a. Require geotechnical designs for both walls 1 and 2, since each wall would be 6" higher. See alternative at 5.,
below. See items 8, 9 for retaining wall ht. >4', or >4'.
b. Current maximum height of walls 1, 2 is shown as: 3.6', 3.8', respectively.
4. Engineering also requires slope flatter than 2:1 between top of walls 1 and 2, and edge of walk.
Note: This LOR (or any subsequent revision to an approved plan) requires the county consider items that may have
been overlooked with earlier submittals, or approvals, without reversing those approvals.
5. Alternative to avoid wall ht. >4' (which requires sealed design and safety railing (ht. >4-ft.) (Note: a building permit is
required for wall ht. >3')):
a. It appears that —7.2' - 9.2' horizontal offset exists between face of building and back of retaining wall.
b. Tiered walls between (and parallel with) retaining walls 1 and 2 and edge of sidewalk are an option.
c. Height of walls 1 and 2 may decrease if additional walls (3 and 4) are proposed.
d. If additional walls proposed, 2:1 slope may be approved for areas between parallel tiered retaining walls.
6. 2:1 slope will not be approved for area immediately adjacent to Inglewood, and cannot be approved immediately
adjacent to sidewalk. Ref. Section B-B, below.
a. 6:1 slope (Max.) is specified for 2' area immediately adjacent to shared use paths (VDOT); Engineering
applies this specification in this instance to this sidewalk.
b. Also, please note 3' min. clearance for shared use path to any signs, trees, poles, walls, etc. Proposed 2:1 slope
at edge of sidewalk is impermissible (6: 1, max).
7. Note: If gap /area between walls is a staircase (blue circle), please show and label staircase.
WING SIGN
M��INI
N N
N N
N r
12" INTERIOR
WALL
:E
3KER POSTS -
]PEDESTAL
EXISTING UTILITIES TO
BE ADJUSTED TO
MATCH FINAL GRADE
Ex 15 POWER ESM7-
DB 4160 PG 199
MULTI -FAMILY
LEVELS 2-6
160 APARTMENT UNITS
_ ��
b
u�-
Cl
DD8
—PULLBOX
—
—}
—
7GLEW00D DWIVE
(PRIUATERMD)
` U
25
SAN SAN
SAN
-'
;RESS/
LOT D3
I
=k4FMFNT
TMP61W-3-24
n
4
AY
fT$
HE
ME
ID
r
iLEVEL 2.517.5
...
OF CURB
CONCRETE SI DE W ALX
( WIDTH VAR10 FROM S' TO 7.1
PROP. Rf TAMING WALL
]F1;IVSLOPE
EX BACK OF CURB
4RIVE-- ---
/Jy. �r
EX- DOMINK)H J DY FROM PtX of
LFTNITY CUAe TO FACE OF
RETAKING WAIL
SECTION B-B
N-T.S.
NOTE: SEE SHEET 9 FOR
CROSS-SECDON B-B LOCATION
LETTER OF REVISION H2
5 8-2020
SUMMARY OF LETTER OF REVISION 02;
1. SHEETS 7 AND 9: SHIFT RETAINING WALL+- 8' TO THE EAST TO BE 3' FROM THE
BACK OF CURB. DIVIDE WALL INTO 2 WALLS, RETAINING WALLS #1 AND #2.
2. SHEET S. ADD TYPICAL SECTION B-B
9.0
M
L.�
A minimum 2 foot wide graded area with a maximum 6:1 slope, shall be
maintained adjacent to both sides of the path. A minimum 3 foot clearance shall
be maintained from the edge of the path to signs, trees, pales, walls, fences,
railing, guardrail, or other lateral obstructions. Where the path is adjacent to
canals, ditches or slopes 3:1 or steeper, a minimum 5 foot wide separation from
the edge of the path pavement to the top of slope is required.
Text image, above: VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix 13(1) Subdivision Street Design Guide, pg. B(1)-34.
hqp://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/LocDes/RDM/AppendB l.pdf )
8. Provide sealed retaining wall design for review /approval prior to LOR approval, if proposed retaining wall (1, 2, ...)
height >4' .
9. Provide safety railing for any proposed retaining wall ht. >4'.
Thanks, Mike —enjoy the weekend
best, J. Anderson
434.296-5832 -x3069
From: Mike Myers <mike@30scale.com>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 10:02 AM
3
To: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: Stonefield - Letter of Revision #2 SDP 2019-00012
John, Hello and good morning. I hope you are well! I just wanted to follow up on
LOR#2 for Stonefield Block D2 Phase 2 (SDP2019-00012). The only change on this LOR
was to shift the retaining wall that was along Inglewood Drive to get it out of the
Dominion Easement. I'm not sure if you have received the LOR, but we would certainly
appreciate your attention toward approval of it so as not to interfere with the
construction schedule of the wall contractor, who is currently onsite. We submitted the
LOR May 8, but it took some time to get it distributed (see below email from Tori).
Thanks very much, Mike
Michael Myers, PE, CFM 30 Scale, LLC I C: 434-242-2866 Web: 30Scale.com
From: Tori Kanellopoulos <vkanellopoulos@albemarle.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 8:10 AM
To: Mike Myers <mike@30scale.com>
Subject: Re: Stonefield - Letter of Revision #2 SDP 2019-00012
Hi Mike,
This LOR is in our review queue! It's under SDP2019-12 as its own line item. For some reason this LOR was not
distributed until last week, unfortunately. However, I hope to have any comments by the end of this week. I
just need Building Inspections and Engineering review. I finished my review yesterday and there are no
Planning comments. I will follow up with Building/Engineering and let you know if any changes are needed.
Best,
Tori
4