HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000018 Correspondence 2020-06-15 (2)SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
June 15, 2020
Andy Reitelbach
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Response Letter #1 for SDP-2020-00018 Brady Bushey Ford — Major Amendment
Dear Andy,
Thank you for your review of the Major Amendment for 1300 Richmond Road. This letter contains
responses to County comments dated April 9, 2020. Our responses are as follows:
1. Responses to Andy Reitelbach, Planning, are attached
2. Responses to John Anderson, Engineering, are attached
3. Responses to Brian Beck, Information, are attached
4. Responses to Michael Dellinger, Building Inspections, are attached
5. Responses to Shawn Maddox, Fire Rescue, are attached
6. Responses to Richard Nelson, ACSA, are attached.
7. Responses to Adam Moore, VDOT, are attached.
Planning
Andy Reitelbach Senior Planner
1. The mailing notification fee of $435.00 has not been paid. This fee must be paid prior to approval
of the major amendment being granted.
RESPONSE: This fee has now been paid.
This proposed project requires an amendment to special use permit SP1994-00004, for outdoor
storage, display, and sales use in the Entrance Corridor. The changes proposed on TMP 78-6 are
not in general accord with the concept plan approved as part of SP 1994-00004. An additional
building is proposed for this parcel, along with new display spaces that are not shown on the
approved plan. These changes will require an amendment to the special use permit.
Because some of these proposed changes and display spaces cross onto TMP 78-7, it is
recommended that a boundary line adjustment occur prior to the SP so that parcel 7 can remain
separate and not be considered as a part of the special use permit.
RESPONSE: Comment has been resolved — special use permit no longer required as there is not
any additional display parking (which is now made clear with parking labels).
3. This property is potentially located within the Monticello viewshed. It is recommended that you
reach out to Liz Russell at Monticello to discuss this project.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The architect has been in contact with her.
4. Include the application number for this project on the cover sheet, which is SDP2020-00018.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
RESPONSE: Completed. It is now included in the title of the cover sheet.
Include in the zoning note on the cover sheet that these properties are also located within the
Flood Hazard Overlay District, the Steep Slopes — Managed overlay district, and the Steep Slopes
— Preserved overlay district.
Depict the limits of these overlay districts on Sheets C2, C3, C4, and C5 so that staff may
determine the relationship of the proposed improvements to the boundaries of each of these
districts.
Any preserved slopes proposed to be disturbed must have a survey submitted to the County
Engineer verifying that those slopes are less than 25% grade. Otherwise, they cannot be
disturbed.
RESPONSE: The zoning note on the cover sheet now includes these overlay districts. The
districts are now depicted on plan sheets as well. LIDAR data showed that the slopes we had
previously proposed to be disturbed were less than 25%, however we have no way of submitting
a certified survey now because approximately 3,000 CY dirt have been placed directly blocking
those slopes. The site plan has been revised showing 4 less parking spaces in that area to allow
for the retaining wall to remain outside of the preserved slopes district.
6. Include on the cover sheet of the site plan that this site lies within a state dam break inundation
zone (DBIZ). Depict the limits of this state DBIZ on Sheet C2, C3, C4, and C5 so that staff may
determine the relationship of the proposed improvements to the boundary of this DBIZ.
RESPONSE: This information is now included on the cover sheet under zoning. The limits of
state DBIZ are now shown on plan sheets as well. The area is not entirely hatched in since it
becomes hard to read, but the outline is shown.
7. The source of title information for these two parcels is incorrect on the cover sheet. Revise with
the most recent source of title (it appears that the title for both parcels was transferred to a new
entity in January of this year
RESPONSE: The source of title has been updated on the cover sheet.
On the cover sheet, indicate whether the Upper Rivanna River watershed is a water supply
watershed or not.
RESPONSE: It is now stated on the cover sheet that the watershed is not part of a water supply
protection area.
9. A copy of the special use permit and its conditions is required to be included in this site plan.
Also, refer to comment #2 above.
RESPONSE: The action letter is included on Sheet C2 — this is the only document I can find but
please let me know if there is a different document I should include.
10. Include the zoning district(s) of the abutting parcels on the plan sheets in addition to the TMP
numbers and property owner names.
RESPONSE: The zoning districts of abutting parcels are now included.
11. Revise the parking schedule on the cover sheet of the site plan and the labels on the plan sheets.
a. The number of spaces added up between the two different uses listed in the parking
schedule is 242; however the total number of spaces said to be provided is 243.
b. Counting the number of spaces on Sheet C4, there are more than 243 spaces provided,
including the accessible spaces in front of the sales and service buildings on TMP 78-6,
which do not appear to be included in the total of 243 when counting the full number of
spaces.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
This site cannot have more than 243 spaces, which is 20% more than the required
amount.
d. Clearly label which spaces are for display, which are for employee parking, and which
are for customer parking. Some areas are not clear. There are new areas of parking spaces
on TMP 78-6 that are double stacked. These spaces are not labelled as display. However,
employee/customer parking spaces cannot be double -stacked.
e. Identify the types of spaces in the "existing paved parking area" at the rear of TMP 78-7.
Are these display, customer, storage, etc.? These spaces were not included in the overall
parking count and could possibly increase the number of spaces on the site even more
over the 243 maximum number permitted.
RESPONSE: The parking schedule has been corrected to total 242 spaces provided. All spaces
are now labeled to distinguish between customer, employee, and existing display.
12. Add an additional loading space to the site. Four loading spaces total are required.
The loading space on the eastern boundary of the property at the east side of TMP 78-7 needs to
be moved. It is not adjacent to the structure it serves and appears to be impeding vehicular
circulation in that area.
Provide the dimensions of all loading spaces.
RESPONSE: The loading space on the eastern boundary of the property has been moved to the
other side of the travelway so that it will not be in the way of vehicular circulation. Dimensions of
all loading spaces are now provided, they are all 12'x25'.
An additional loading space has been added near Building Al.
13. Provide the dimensions of the dumpster pads. The dumpster pad on TMP 78-7 appears to
interfere with vehicular circulation. Revise the location.
Screening of dumpster pads is required. Provide the screening materials proposed to be used and
profile of the enclosure.
RESPONSE: The existing dumpster pad on TMP 78-7 is 21.37' from the building at its closest,
allowing for circulation in that area. However, the 3 parking spaces that were adjacent to the
building have been removed since those would have interfered with circulation. The dimensions
are now provided. Neither dumpster pad location is visible from any public street or adjacent
residential area due to their locations on the site and their elevations.
14. Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed
ingress and egress.
RESPONSE: Distances are now shown on the site plan.
15. It appears that a portion of the front structure on TMP 78-7 is to be demolished. However, it is
not included in the demolition plan on Sheet C3. Label any portion of the building proposed to be
demolished.
RESPONSE: The portion of the building to be removed is now labeled.
16. Is the travelway on the western side of the property proposed to connect with the travelway on the
Pantops Corner property? Provide more detail about the interparcel connection.
RESPONSE: The travelway is proposed to connect to Pantops Corner Way. The linework for the
Pantops Corner property is now shown on this site plan so that the details of the connection can
be seen.
17. Railings or guard rails are required on the retaining walls. Show these rails.
RESPONSE: Handrails for the retaining walls are now shown.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
18. Depict the obstruction -free two-ft overhang required .Y parking spaces that are 16 ft in depth.
RESPONSE: This area is now shown on all sheets. I realized a light pole was placed in the way
and has now been moved.
19. What is the semi -circular "paint" depicted on the eastern -most travelway on the site, to the east of
the building proposed to be enlarged?
RESPONSE: It is paint reminiscent of a race track to make people feel fancy with their new
Porsches. It is also practically used to indicate for customers to turn around rather than loop
around the building.
20. The sidewalk on the southeast side of the enlarged new sales building does not appear to be the
required width. In addition, the sidewalk and stairs on the east side of the existing sales and
service building on TMP 78-6 appears not to be a sufficient width either. Label the widths of all
sidewalks on the property.
RESPONSE: The sidewalk on the southeast side of the enlarged new sales building (now named
Building A) is 5 ft. The sidewalk and stairs on the east side of the existing sales and service
building on TMP 78-6 (now named Building B) is 4 ft in the existing conditions. I have now
shown them to be removed and rebuilt at 5 ft.
21. Accessible ramps are required for the sidewalk on either side of the entrance proposed to be
enlarged at the center of the property.
RESPONSE: Accessible ramps are now shown on either side of the modified entrance.
22. The new parking spaces shown along the front of TMP 78-7 must be at least 10 feet from the
public street right-of-way.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The plan no longer specifies regrading the existing parking spaces.
23. What is the service area on the west side of the enlarged service and sales building? Label this
element.
RESPONSE: It is a service reception area and is now labeled.
24. Provide the footprint square footage of the new sales wings of the enlarged building on TMP 78-
7.
RESPONSE: The building is now labeled with both the remaining existing building square
footage and new building square footage.
25. Identify the enclosed space between the two new sales wings of the enlarged building on TMP
78-7. Is this space for sales/service/display, etc.?
RESPONSE: This is an employee breakroom area / conference room area / file storage. It has
been labeled "Shared Office Space."
26. Provide internal sidewalks or crosswalks on the site to connect the buildings and to connect the
sidewalk along Route 250 with the enlarged sales building. Provide an accessible ramp for the
sidewalk in front of the enlarged sales building.
RESPONSE: The sidewalk has been extended buildings C and B (future Mazda and Volkswagen)
to connect the two buildings. A sidewalk and ramp has been added to connect the sidewalk along
Route 250 to the enlarged sales building (future Audi and Porsche). Sidewalk connections were
not made between the two parcels as they are intended to remain separate. We do not anticipate
the same clientele who comes to look at Audis or Porsches to also look at the Mazdas/VWs.
27. Show all existing utility easements on the drawings. Include a label or call out for each easement
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
stating whether the easement is public or private, the owner of record and the recorded instrument
number, and easement width where existing easements are visible on the plans. There are a lot of
easements that appear to cross these two parcels.
RESPONSE: Existing utilities are now labeled on the plans, along with owner and deed book and
page number.
28. Label all existing and proposed sewer and drainage easements by type and include a size/width
measurement. For existing easements, state the deed book and page of the recorded instrument.
RESPONSE: No sanitary easements exist or are proposed. Existing and proposed drainage or
SWM easements are labeled, including width and deed book & page.
29. Label all existing and proposed utility easements by type and include a size/width measurement.
For existing easements, state the deed book and page of the recorded instrument.
RESPONSE: All existing utility easements are now labeled and include the deed book & page
and width measurement.
30. Include footcandle measurements for the existing lights to demonstrate that the combination of
the existing non -conforming lights with the proposed new lights does not increase the footcandle
measurements above the permitted range, where the light from the poles would overlap.
RESPONSE: Existing lights are now shown on the plans. The existing lights in front of
Porsche/Audi are slightly more than 0.5 footcandles at the property line, but none of the added
lights are affecting this.
31. There are several new light poles that appear to be placed on top of trees shown on the
landscaping plan. These lights include the following: B-1, B-2, and B-12. Shift either the light
poles or the trees.
RESPONSE: The tree and light pole locations have been revised.
32. An eastern redbud along Route 250 appears to be on top of a water line. Shift this tree over
slightly so that it is not on the utility.
RESPONSE: The redbud has been relocated off of the waterline.
33. Revise the number of street trees required to 12. Large street trees are required every 50 feet
inclusively, i.e., the first tree is planted at 0 feet, at the start of the street frontage, the next at 50
feet from the start of the street frontage, the next at 100 feet, and so on, for the entirety of the
street frontage. However, no additional trees need to be provided as the required number of 12 is
still less than the 14 that are provided on the landscape plan.
RESPONSE: This calculation has been updated to entrance corridor guidelines, 1 tree every 35
feet, starting at 0 feet.
34. Identify the location(s) of the 14,102 sq ft of the required interior/parking lot landscaping, as well
as the trees and shrubs used for this landscaping.
RESPONSE: The dotted hatch shown on the landscape schedule indicates the areas of interior
landscaping. All trees and shrubs planted within those areas are the ones counted towards interior
landscaping requirements.
35. Revise the "tree per 10 parking spaces" calculations, as the display spaces must be included as
well. Provide the additional trees required once these spaces are included in the calculations.
RESPONSE: The calculations have been revised to include display spaces. Additional trees are
now provided to satisfy this requirement.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
36. The required amount of tree canopy is proposing to use a significant amount of existing tree
canopy. Provide a conservation checklist in accordance with 32.7.9.a(b)2 in order to satisfy this
requirement. Also, identify those trees and landscaped areas proposed to be preserved in order to
meet this requirement.
RESPONSE: 43,000 sf existing tree canopy is proposed to remain to satisfy tree canopy
requirements. This area is delineated in a separate detail since the entire area cannot be seen on
the landscaping plan. Tree protection fencing is shown along areas that are within 40' of proposed
grading. A signed conservation checklist is provided on the landscaping details sheet.
Engineering
John Anderson
1. Recommend revise title to include re£ to project file number: SDP202000018.
RESPONSE: The project file number is now included in the title on the Cover Sheet.
2. Provide deed book page reference to interparcel access easements.
RESPONSE: No interparcel access easements exist.
3. Major site plan amendment approval requires an approved VSMP/WPO plan. Please submit
VSMP/WPO application at earliest convenience.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A VSMP plan has been submitted.
4. Include title sheet note that preserved and managed steep slopes exist on parcels.
RESPONSE: This is now included on the cover sheet under Zoning.
5. VSMP/WPO plan approval requires permanent SWM facility easement plat recordation (for any
on site SWM facilities).
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. SWM easement is now shown on the plans and an easement plat
will be recorded prior to approval.
6. Provide brief narrative of Stormwater Management on C 1. Consider stormwater quantity and
quality in context of increased impervious area/post-developed land cover, 100 year floodplain,
stream buffer, etc.
RESPONSE: A brief narrative of the stormwater management plan is now included on Sheet C1.
7. Evaluate drainage feature at north property boundary for perennial stream features. Include note
on plans that perennial stream exists or does not exist on subject parcel. GIS stream buffer layer
may be unreliable at this location. Provide date of field evaluation, and any field data.
RESPONSE: USGS maps categorize this stream as intermittent. This was field verified on May
21, 2020 by Justin Shimp, P.E. No aquatic life was found in the stream. Stream bottom was rounded,
rather than cut with deep grooves. Additionally, debris was blocking a portion of the stream which
suggested that flows were not strong enough to clear out the debris. A note is now included on the plans
near the stream location stating that it is intermittent and was field verified.
8. Show and label preserved and managed steep slopes on C3,C4,C5.
RESPONSE: Preserved and managed slopes are now shown on all sheets.
9. Resolve WPO2018-00088, Amendment 1 as prerequisite to SDP202000018 approval (email, this
date).
RESPONSE: Revised plans have been submitted and approved.
10. Revise C3 consistent with actual existing conditions. Shimp Engineering should have access to
designs for development on adjacent parcels to the west. Please rely on these, as well as satellite
imagery. Also, please reference Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers, Existing conditions
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
plan view information, I" item: `accurate current existing topography at the time of submittal,
including all existing features, and any recent disturbances.'
RESPONSE: The existing conditions page has been updated to show the stockpiles that exist on
site currently. Please note that the original topography (without stockpiles) is shown on other grading
pages, as stockpiles will be moved at the beginning of construction and it is easier to see how the grading
will tie in once the stockpiles are removed.
C4
11. Show pipes as well as storm MH/inlet structures on C4, or turn storm utility MH/inlet layer off.
RESPONSE: The inlets are shown on the site plan since they are visible from above ground. I
have turned the text off so that they are not distracting.
12. Revise loading zone east of existing service building, TMP 78-7, Lot 8, since not adjacent to the
structure it serves and since it impedes parking spaces to north, and circulation, generally.
RESPONSE: The loading zone has been moved to the other side of the travelway so that it does
not impede circulation.
13. Provide autotum figure for dumpster pad. Use single -unit (SU) truck design vehicle. Reference
Figure 1, VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B(1), 20ft wheelbase. Include entering site,
reverse maneuver, and exiting site.
RESPONSE: A truck circulation detail is now provided. A WB-40 is shown traveling through the
site, and an SU-30 is shown maneuvering around the dumpster pads on site.
14. Provide field survey data that supports note that `portion of preserved slopes disturbed is less than
25%.' Engineering Division has received no information that would exclude a portion of the steep
slopes overlay district (preserved steep slopes) from limits against disturbance or development
found at 18-30.3.
RESPONSE: LIDAR data showed that the slopes we had previously proposed to be disturbed
were less than 25%, however we have no way of submitting a certified survey now because
approximately 3,000 CY dirt have been placed directly blocking those slopes. The site plan has been
revised showing 4 less parking spaces in that area to allow for the retaining wall to remain outside of the
preserved slopes district.
15. Provide guardrail (VDOT GR-1 or GR-2) at top of 4', 13', and 6' proposed retaining walls along
northern edge of parking on TM 78-6, Lot 7.
RESPONSE: Guardrail has been provided along the northern -most wall where a car would be
traveling with potentially greater speed in the direction of the wall. The other walls are along parking
spaces where cars would be either stopped or driving slowly, and we do not see the need for anything
other than handrails in these locations.
16. Provide handrail (safety railing) labels for retaining walls over 4' high.
RESPONSE: Handrail is now specified for the retaining walls on site.
17. Engineering defers to VDOT on entrance requirements from Richmond Road.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This is still being worked out with VDOT.
18. Engineering recommends provide distance from proposed revised entrance to adjacent entrances,
east and west.
RESPONSE: The distance between entrances is now listed on the site plan sheet.
19. Sidewalk at SE corner of new sales building (FFE 419.50) appears <5' width. Ensure all
sidewalks are 5' minimum width.
RESPONSE: Sidewalk at the SE corner of the new sales building (now labeled Building A4) is 5
ft. The dimension is now shown. It does taper off to a smaller width, but it is used to facilitate vehicular
circulation, not pedestrian circulation since there is no door in that location.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
20. Label all sidewalk widths.
RESPONSE: All sidewalk widths are now labeled.
21. Label drive aisle width between curbing from entrance 2 to buildings that are interior to TM 78-6,
Lot 7.
RESPONSE: The existing aisle width for entrance 2 travelway is now labeled.
22. Provide CG-12 pedestrian ramps at each entrance.
RESPONSE: CG-12 ramps are now provided at each entrance.
C5
23. Wherever curb (CG-2) concentrates runoff against curbing, specify CG-6. Engineering
understands this is a dealership and that parking will be primarily for stored vehicles (automobile
sales, services, and display). Nevertheless, storm conveyance is critical to pavement integrity,
which may affect retaining wall stability.
RESPONSE: CG-6 is now specified in the northwestern parking lot where runoff concentrates
against the curb.
24. Include notes that this development:
a. May not impact preserved steep slopes,
b.Is not authorized to impact preserved steep slopes,
c.Is subject to steep slopes overlay district requirements (18-30.3), and
d.That preserved or managed steep slopes will be staked/flagged prior to land disturbance,
and that flags/stakes will be maintained for the duration of the project, to final
completion.
RESPONSE: A "Preserved Steep Slopes Notes" section has been added to the cover sheet.
25. Proposed 4', 6', and 13' high retaining walls support parking (infrastructure). Please submit
geotechnical retaining wall design (PE -sealed) to Engineering as prerequisite to recommendation
to approve major site plan amendment Note: detailed geotechnical design is also required with
building permit applications for retaining walls.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We have contacted a geotechnical engineer and retaining wall
design will be provided prior to approval.
C9
26. Add SL-1 labels to profiles for MH ht.>12'. MH Str A3 and A3a, for example.
RESPONSE: SL-1 is now called out on structures greater than 12 ft in height.
27. At Str A2 and any MH Str with vertical drops >4', include note/label for'/z" steel plate in floor of
structure. Reference VDOT Drainage Mar ' -1 4.8.7 (pg 37-3"
RESPONSE: Notes have been added to the profiles for structures with 4' drops or more to
include a %2" steel plate at the bottom.
28. Provide VDOT SL-1, IS-1, P13-1, GR-1, CG-6, CG-9a details on the plans.
RESPONSE: These details are all now provided on the details sheets.
29. Provide and label dimensions of existing outlet protection at Str Al. Design relies on existing
riprap ditch. Provide dimensions of existing riprap ditch (typ).
RESPONSE: The existing outlet protection is now dimensioned on the plans (4 ft).
30. Design relies on existing ditch downstream of Str. A1. Include notes on plans that existing riprap
ditch meets design requirements for channel and flood protection for manmade conveyance, if
that is the case.
RESPONSE: This is now noted on the site plan. The VSMP includes more specific information
about the existing conveyance channel adequacy.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
31. If existing riprap ditch does not provide adequate channel or flood protection, provide adequate
design.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
32. Revise storm Al-A6 design. Every pipe in this run has velocity that exceeds 10 fps standard.
RESPONSE: The referenced section is for concrete pipes. HDPE pipes are significantly more
resistant to abrasion. The design standards manual states design velocities should be between 3 and 20 fps
with a maximum pipe slope of 16%. All pipes meet these standards.
33. Provide retaining wall safety railing detail.
RESPONSE: A "sleeve -it" detail is now provided for the retaining wall handrails.
34. Provide LD-204, inlet design.
RESPONSE: Inlet design is now included on the storm details sheet.
Information (E911)
Brian Becker
1. Critical Issues: The two buildings labeled "Ex Sales & Service" and "New Sales & Service" may
require addresses. Please specify the purpose of the two buildings so this office can determine if
address assignment is warranted.
RESPONSE: These buildings will need separate addresses, they are each a different
manufacturer.
Building Inspections
Michael Dellinger
1. Add the following note to the general notes page: `Accessible parking and routes must comply
with ICC ANSI Al 17.1-09.
RESPONSE: This note has been added to the cover sheet general notes as number 15.
2. Provide accessible parking detail and signage to plans.
RESPONSE: Accessible parking signs are now called out on the site plan & a detail is provided
on the Site Details sheet.
3. Add the following to the general notes page: `All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to
cause public nuisance and not over sidewalks.
RESPONSE: This note has been added to the cover sheet general notes as number 16.
Fire Rescue
Shawn Maddox
1. It appears the new sales and service building, and some existing structures, are more than 250'
from a hydrant. Either add a hydrant on site or show an existing hydrant on Pantops Corner that
could be used to service the buildings.
RESPONSE: A new fire hydrant is now proposed near the middle of the site that would reach the
existing one story metal block building.
2. Provide the ISO Needed Fire Flow for the building with the highest fire flow on the S1Le.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. To be provided prior to next submittal.
3. If any of the buildings are going to be sprinklered the FDC must be shown and located within
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
100' of a hydrant.
RESPONSE: Sprinklers are proposed for Buildings C and B. A new fire hydrant has been located
between the buildings, with FDCs shown.
4. A knox box must be provided on all new structures. Please add a note to the plans indicating this
requirement and that the location can be coordinated with the fire marshal's office.
RESPONSE: This note has been added to the cover sheet under "Fire Marshal's Notes."
5. Provide a current fire flow test for the site prior to final acceptance of the site plan.
RESPONSE: A fire flow test was performed June 2. Results are included with this submittal.
ACSA
Richard Nelson
1. Provide fixture counts for new additions and building.
RESPONSE: To be emailed separately.
2. Show existing water meters.
RESPONSE: Existing water meters were shown but were not clearly labeled. The labels have
been adjusted — note that one of the existing meters is now to be relocated behind the modified
entrance to TMP 78-6.
3. Connection fees will apply to new building.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
VDOT
Adam Moore
1. Current entrances do not meet spacing requirements. Route 250 is a principal arterial road.
Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual requires that commercial entrances be shared
where feasible. If this is not possible the Department expects documentation demonstrating this
effort. Please refer to F-29 Virginia Code 24VAC30-73-120, exceptions to the spacing standards
and access management requirements. Please be aware that an Access Management plan for this
area is being pursued by Albemarle County.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
2. Please provide turn/taper warrants for both left and right turning movements into proposed
entrance.
RESPONSE: A revised report will be submitted separately.
3. Please provide a truck circulation plan for deliveries of new/used vehicles, etc.
RESPONSE: This is now provided as a detail on Sheet C 13.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
kendrakshimp-en ing eering com or by phone at 434-227-5140.
Regards,
Kendra Patrick, EIT
Shimp Engineering, P.0
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com