HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000018 Correspondence 2020-10-23 (3)SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
October 22, 2020
Andy Reitelbach
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Response Letter #2 for SDP2020-00018 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 July 31, 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 Adam Moore, VDOT, are attached
4. ACSA comments pending
Planning
Andy Reitelbach — Senior Planner
1. [30.6.3(a)2(b); SP1994-000041 This proposed project requires an amendment to special use
permit SP1994- 00004, for outdoor storage, display, and sales uses 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. An SP is not required, per
discussions with Zoning division. However, the 7 proposed new spaces labelled as
"employee/service" spaces in the center -front of the property, between the two entrances,
need to be removed, as they are not in compliance with the approved 1994 SP.
RESPONSE: Comment received, these 7 spaces have been removed.
2. [32.5.2(b); 32.5.2(n)] 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.
Comment has been addressed.
912 E. High Sr. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
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. There are only 240 parking spaces labelled as being for
customers/employees/service spaces, even though the cover sheet identities there
being 242 spaces. The discrepancy appears to be the small parking lot to the east of
Building B. There are only 18 spaces depicted, even though the label says there are
20 employee/service spaces. Revise the cover sheet to state there are only 240 spaces,
or add an additional 2 spaces in somewhere else.
In addition, the row of "13" spaces north of Buildings B and C actually only has 12
spaces. 12 spaces would make sense with the overall label for that area identifying
34 spaces (12 + the 22 spaces directly south of the preserved steep slopes), so revise
the "13" to a "12."
RESPONSE: The parking count has been updated as double-parked areas have been
removed. The total parking count is now 225.
c. This site cannot have more than 243 spaces, which is 20% more than the required
amount. See comment lle below.
RESPONSE: The parking count has been revised and now totals 225.
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. This comment has not
been addressed. Spaces for employee/service parking cannot be double-parked.
Areas of double -stacking that need to be revised include the two rows of 7 space
each between the two front entrances to the site, and the 16 spaces in the parking lot
east of Building B.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Double -stacked parking has been removed.
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. This comment has not been addressed.
What kind of parking is proposed here? Customer, display, service, storage,
something else? Elaborate.
RESPONSE: This was an incorrect label. The site plan has been updated to correctly
state that this is an existing paved storage area and should not count towards the overall
parking total.
3. [32.5.2(n); 4.12.13; 4.12.19] 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. Identity the height of the retaining wall around the
912 E. High St.. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.51401 shlmp-engineenrig.rom
dumpster pad.
RESPONSE: A note has been added, identifying that the retaining wall will be a maximum of 4',
with a handrail.
4. [32.5.2(n)] Railings or guard rails are required on the retaining walls. Show these rails. Is a
handrail proposed for the retaining wall around the dumpster pad behind Building B?
RESPONSE: Yes, a note has been added to the site plan.
5. [32.5.2(n)] Depict the obstruction -free two-ft. overhang required for parking spaces that are 16 ft.
in depth. Provide the 2-ft. overhang for the ten (10) spaces on the far eastern side of the
property, adjacent to TMP 78-9.
RESPONSE: Comment received, this has been added to the site plan.
6. [32.5.2(n)) Provide the footprint square footage of the new sales wings on the enlarged building
on TMP 78-7. The total proposed new square footage of the buildings as shown on the plan
does not match that which is identified on the cover sheet. There is a difference of about
3,000 square feet. Clarify this discrepancy. Is the building in the back paved parking area of
TMP 78-7 included within the square footage identified on the cover sheet?
RESPONSE: Yes, the total proposed square footage incorporates the existing building in the
back, which is 4,034 sq. ft. Regarding the comment below about the battery area, these are
intended to be storage buildings and the total proposed square footage has been updated to
incorporate their area.
[32.7.2.3] 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. Accessible ramps need to be
provided at all spots where the ends of sidewalks meet travelways, including between
Buildings B and C, and in front of Building A. Also, the sidewalk referenced in the comment
response letter connecting Route 250 to Building A does not appear to be depicted on the
site plan. Show this connection.
RESPONSE: A sidewalk from Route 250 is proposed leading up to the parking area. A crosswalk
has been added between this sidewalk and Building A.
8. [4.17; 32.7.81 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. It appears that the existing lights are labelled as "D" on the lighting plan. Include
this identification in the key on sheet C8.
RESPONSE: The table on C8 has been updated to include the existing light fixtures. Existing
fixtures are now labeled as "A."
9. [4.17; 32.7.81 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. Light B-2 now appears to be located within the required 2-ft. overhang for
the parking spaces. Revise the location of this fight.
RESPONSE: The lighting plan has been updated to address this issue. Please see the revised
landscape plan to see pole locations included on the sheet. They should no longer be in conflict
with the proposed trees.
912 E. High St.. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.51401 shlmp-engineering.rom
10. [32.7.9] 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. The dotted hatch
mentioned in the comment response letter does not appear on the landscape plan. Clarify
where the interior/parking lot landscaping is proposed on the plan. If the "low maintenance
ground cover" is the dotted hatch, these areas are not sufficient for the required
landscaping and are in the wrong locations for this required landscaping.
RESPONSE: The dotted hatch appears on the PDF but can have issues printing when the paper
size is smaller than 2406. The hatch for interior landscape area has now been changed to a more
visible pattern.
It. [32.7.9] 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. Revise this calculation to take into account the comments made in comment #11
above, so that staff can accurately review the required number of parking lot trees.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Landscape calculations have been updated to include the
display parking spaces.
12. [32.7.91 The required amount of tree canopy is proposing to use a significant amount of existing
tree canopy. Provide a conservation checklist in accordance with 32.7.9.4(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. Comment has been partially addressed. Remove the plants
that will not be at least 5 feet in height within 10 years from the canopy calculations.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Two plantings that will not reach at least 5' in height within 10
years has been removed from the total canopy calculations.
13. Identify what the battery area is and what is proposed there.
RESPONSE: The site plan has been updated to indicate that the battery areas are structures. The
area has been added to the cover sheet's land use calculation as well.
14. Now that staff has a better understanding of where the proposed parking is and which parking
spaces are proposed for each use, it has been determined that there is not enough parking on each
of the two lots for them to be able to stand separately if the parcels were sold to different owners.
A shared parking agreement will be required to be reviewed, approved, and recorded at the
courthouse for these two properties before the site plan can be approved, ensuring that sufficient
parking is provided for each use on each parcel.
RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will be coordinating with the
County Attorney for the shared parking agreement.
912 E. High St.. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.51401 shlmp-engineenrig.rom
Engineering
John Anderson — Civil Engineer II
Provide deed bk.-pg. ref. to interparcel access easements (Final Site Plan checklist, Easements, 4th
item). (Rev. 1) Comment persists. Applicant (6/15/20 letter): 'No interparcel access easements
exist.' This appears inconsistent with SDP201800089, Final Site Development Plan for Pantops
Corner (image below), which shows an interparcel 37' access easement. It seems there should be a
corresponding easement on the Brady -Bushey parcel, unless easement operates in one direction only
(it may), as easement that allows one-way travel from Brady -Bushey to Pantops Comer, but not travel
in the reverse direction. In that instance (if this is an intentional, I -way easement), comment will be
withdrawn. (IMAGE REMOVED FROM RESPONSE)
RESPONSE: Yes, this access easement only operates in one direction — its function is to allow
vehicle delivery trucks to enter the property. Those trucks (and customers/employees) will depart via
Rte 250 entrance.
2. Major site plan amendment approval requires an Approved VSMP /WPO plan. Please submit
VMSP/WPO application at earliest convenience. (Rev. I) May persist. Applicant: 'Acknowledged.
A VSMP plan has been submitted.' A quick county system (CV) search yields no match for Brady -
Bushey Ford VSMP, but Engineering anticipates WPO plan submittal, per Applicant response.
RESPONSE: A VSMP plan has been submitted as WPO202000032 on County View.
3. VMSP [WPO plan approval requires permanent SWM facility easement plat recordation (for any on -
site SWM facilities). (Rev. I) May persist. Applicant: ' Acknowledged. SWM easement is now
shown on the plans and an easement plat will he recorded prior to approval.' Asfollow-up: Please
direct reviewer to sheet showing SWM easement for proposed dry detention pond. It appears an
identifying label was cutoff on C4.
RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing our attention to this note cutoff. The label on C4 has now been
moved.
4. 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. (Rev. I) Addressed, but as ollow-up (please address via VSMP plan), please note that
discharge to mapped floodplain meets flood protection portion of 9AVAC25-870-66.C, but design
must also address channel protection (9AVAC25-870-66.B). Looking forward:
a. Relatively recent DEQ correspondence explains that energy balance applies at limits of
analysis for discharge to natural conveyance. That is, simply discharging to a natural
conveyance at limits of analysis is insufficient. Instead, at limits of analysis, discharge to
natural conveyance requires demonstration that Q1_yp post -development meets the
Energy balance equation requirement.
RESPONSE: noted, you are correct. This is condition has been met and is addressed in
the VSMP plan WPO202000032.
b. Please revise label, C5 to read: `Conveyance will be designed to meet channel and flood
protection requirements, see WPO plan' since this is where design will meet
requirements, and where Albemarle County will evaluate design for channel and flood
protection compliance.'
RESPONSE: This note has been updated with this language.
912 E. High St.. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.51401 shlmp-engineenrig.rom
c. Do not locate proposed SWM facility on preserved steep slopes since SWM facilities are
not listed as a by -right use (18-30.7.4.b.I.). Applicant may apply for a special use permit
to allow siting a SWM facility on preserved steep slopes —see 18-30.7.4.b.2.
RESPONSE: The proposed SWM facility is outside of the preserved slopes. Following
our correspondence on September 2, 2020, a note has been added to ensure no
disturbance of preserved steep slopes during construction and maintenance.
5. 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. Ref. code 17-600.A.
(Rev. I) May persist. Applicant: ' 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.' Note cannot be located. In this circumstance, a plan sheet reference would be very helpful.
Please guide reviewer to sheet with note.
RESPONSE: Note is located on C2, the note is located around property line L3-L4.
6. Show and label preserved and managed steep slopes on C3, C4, C5. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As
follow-up: Please label preserved and managed slopes on C3, C4, C5.
RESPONSE: The labels have been revised to be more visible on these sheets.
C'4
7. Provide autoturn figure for dumpster pad. Use single -unit (SU) truck design vehicle. Ref. Fig. 1,
VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B(1), 20-ft wheelbase. Include entering site, reverse
maneuver, and exiting site. (Rev.1) Partially addressed. As ollow-up: SU-30 does not align with
dumpster. Operation requires forks on waste management vehicle to align closely with slots in
dumpster; oblique alignment does not work. Ref. autoturn fig., C 13. Provide design sufficient to
allow proper operation. Note that in image below, vehicle strikes dumpster, dumpster enclosure, and
graves a curb with no appreciable clearance. (IMAGE REMOVED FROM RESPONSE)
RESPONSE: The curbing in the area has been slightly revised. The dumpster location has also been
revised and can now adequately accommodate truck movement. See updated automm diagram on
C13.
8. 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. (Ref. Retaining Wall Plan checklist for plan reviewers,
Plans, 2' item). (Rev 1) Not addressed. Applicant: `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.' As follow-up: Please
revisit/consider review -comment exchange for Oak Hill Convenience Store, SDP201800082 (SE
project):
a. Extensive exchange (email/perhaps meetings) to discuss guardrail for parking spaces fronting
retaining walls
RESPONSE: Noted, we have provided guardrail along retaining walls near parking areas.
b. Exchange included Albemarle County Engineer who expressed not a preference but a
requirement for this design circumstance.
RESPONSE: Noted.
912 E. High St.. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.51401 shlmp-engineenrig.rom
c. County Engineer affirmed rationale for guardrails for retaining walls next to parking (to prevent
vehicles from (however unlikely) crossing a retaining wall, from which there is no immediate
recovery) as structures that may help minimize risk of injury to persons, or damage to property.
RESPONSE: noted.
d. Final Site Plan Checklist for plan reviewers, p. Mast item:
Retaining Wall Plans checklist. Any walls support roads or necessary infrastructure require
engineered plans (not generic manufacturer's details) and computations. {Design Manual,
section 8) This will also be required where walls are close to property lines and there is the
danger of affecting neighboring property, either during construction, with later failures, or with
pedestrian or vehicle safety. These concerns can be alleviated with layout spacing also. In any
case, retaining walls will require building permits at construction.
RESPONSE: you are correct, retaining wall checklist dictates guardrails shall be installed with
new retaining walls.
e. Retaining Wall Checklist for plan reviewers,
Plans:
i. Safety railing shown for retaining walls over 4' high
ii. Guardrail with VDOT designations or equivalent shown for retaining walls next to
parking or travelways
iii. VDOT approval for any walls in right-of-way
iv. Accurate depiction of horizontal depth (batter) on site plans
v. All structure reinforcement, steal, or geogrids specified
vi. All dimensions specified
vii. Constrnctability; there should be no vertical cuts on property lines during construction,
such that abutting property does not become unstable. Adequate room for construction
needs to be available.
RESPONSE: you are correct, retaining wall checklist dictates guardrails shall be installed
with new retaining walls.
f. Given this, emphasizing that (county) Engineering position is unchanged (nor will it), please
consider and response to initial comment and provide guardrail at proposed 4' and 15'
maximum height walls west of 18 parking spaces, and east of 13 parking spaces. These are not
display spaces, but sections of a 54-parking space employee/service space parking lot. East of
this parking lot are unrecoverable preserved steep slopes (beyond 15' max. height wall); west
of this parking lot are proposed 2:1 (falling) to a 7' retaining wall on Pantops Comer parcel (4'
max. height wall). Ref. SDP201800089 / SE, C5; orange highlight, image below. Engineering
withdraws request for GR-2 at 6' max. height wall for 22 parking spaces, location shown in
lower right of image below.
From SDP201800089, C5 (IMAGE REMOVED FROM RESPONSE)
RESPONSE: walls have now been provided for 4' and 15' height walls where marked on
image.
g. New: Provide GR-2 at 18 display spaces, image, below. Existing slopes west of these 18 spaces
are 0.5:1 (10'h, 20'v) with a series of tiered walls presenting —20' drop onto the adjacent parcel.
40' grade break over 25' horiz represents unacceptable risk (at present, without guardrail), and
risk should Malloy convert display spaces to public use, or should parcel transfer or rezoning
require transition from display to public use parking spaces. Engineering requests design
revision; there may be an argument from a design or approval perspective, but only guardrail
alleviates risk inherent at these now -unprotected display spaces, and at other locations shown
with this major amendment. Please consider plan review checklists. Inadvertent risk presented
by proposed design and recently -constructed offsite improvements are the basis of review
comment request.
912 E. High St.. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.51401 shlmp-engineenrig.rom
C5. SDP2020000018 (IMAGE REMOVED FROM RESPONSE)
RESPONSE: The existing slopes at west of that parking lot were shown based on a survey
completed at time of offsite retaining wall construction. Those slopes showed the cut required
to install the walls along with backfill and geogrid. Currently, there is only a 4' vertical drop
from the curb to the off -site walls. The top offsite wall is located about 13' from the back of the
curb — so the existing slope adjacent to the parking lot is about a 30% grade (slightly flatter than
a 3:1 slope.) So the biggest issue was that the topo that was shown is not representative of the
current site conditions, and has now been fixed.
Based on the VDOT GRIT manual, Figure 1 page 1-5, a guardrail is not warranted for 30%
slopes. Since there is an existing 13' wide 30% slope adjacent to the parking lot, this should
satisfy VDOT requirements.
For additional consideration, if Engineering were to interpret that the retaining walls offsite add
an additional 20' drop, there is no ordinance that requires an applicant to improve existing
conditions based on an existing offsite retaining wall. We do agree that if the applicant builds a
wall that requires guardrail, they have to provide that guardrail. However, the retaining wall
checklist covers new construction - construction completed as part of the site work. In this case,
the wall is simply an existing condition, albeit a recent one. Technically, the wall applicant
should have built a guard rail for the wall, if a guard rail were required.
So to summarize, I think the recoverable 30% slope does not require a GR at this location
(based on VDOT chart), and even if that wall were to require a GR, the ordinance should have
required the wall applicant provide that during wall construction. So for these reasons, we
cannot find requirements for our client to install a guardrail above the existing offsite retaining
wall at the western boundary near TMP 78-5A.
9. Engineering defers to VDOT on entrance requirements from Richmond Road, U.S. Rt. 250.
(Rev.1) Persists. Applicant: `Acknowledged. This is still being worked out with VDOT.'
RESPONSE: Coordination with VDOT is ongoing. It is likely that VDOT will approve the
current strategy (one full entrance with one right -in -only entrance)
10. Label drive aisle width between curbing between entrance 2 to buildings that are interior to TM
78-6, Lot 7.
RESPONSE: This dimension (57.08') has been added.
11. Provide CG-12 pedestrian ramps at each entrance: 2, 3, 4. (Rev.1) Partially addressed. As
follow-up: depict ramps as shown in CG-12 detail (radially/curbed); see detail, C12, or, modify as
needed if CG-12 does not offer precise depiction required to align ramps with pedestrian
direction of travel. A visually impaired pedestrian may `read' detectable ramp surfaces to align
travel (similar to reading braille, by touch). Note orientation of schematic representation of CG-
12 ramps on C4. Note detail on C12. From C4: Examine orientation/graphic depiction of every
CG-12 adjacent to U.S. Rt. 250, some with Rt. 250 RW. Virtually all require revision to show
orientations that align detectable surfaces with receiving ramps such that a visually impaired and
ambulatory impaired, alike. Other VDOT standards/devices alert when it is safe to enter a
crosswalk; pavement markings and traffic signs alert motorists to the presence of pedestrians. All
of it may be needed to protect pedestrians, especially in high speed or high traffic volume
locations. U.S. Rt. 250 presents both. CG-12 at this location is a critical design element; please
show ramps in plan view, as they are intended to be built to safely direct any pedestrian from one
ramp to the next. (IMAGE REMOVED FROM RESPONSE)
912 E. High St.. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.51401 shlmp-engineenrig.rom
C5
C9
RESPONSE: Comment received. CG-12's have been revised to meet VDOT standards. See
revised plan sheets throughout.
12. Proposed 4', 6' and 13' retaining walls support parking (infrastructure). Please submit
geotechnical retaining wall designs (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. (Rev.1) Persists. Applicant: `Acknowledged. We
have contacted a geotechnical engincer and retaining wall design will be provided prior to
approval.' Engineering appreciate ',is.
RESPONSE: this is indeed ongoing, geotech has not yet completed ret. wall plans.
13. Provide and label dimensions of existing outlet protection at Str. Al. Design relies on existing
riprap ditch. Provide dimensions of existing riprap ditch (typ). (Rev.1) May persist. Applicant:
`The existing outlet protection is now dimensioned on the plans (4 ft).' As follow-up: Please direct
reviewer to which plan sheet shows dimensions of existing outlet protection.
RESPONSE: The dimension is located on C3, C4, and C5. It is under the label "ex. rip rap ditch"
and besides the metes and bounds label "N1202'37E 781.67."
14. If existing riprap ditch does not provide adequate channel or flood protection, provide adequate
design. (Rev.1) May persist. VSMP plan should present details concerning adequate channel and
flood protection.
RESPONSE: A VSMP plan has been submitted and received by the county.
912 E. High St.. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.51401 shlmp-engineenrig.rom
VDOT
Adam Moore —Area Land Use Engineer
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: Comment received. A revised Functional Analysis of Existing Entrances report will
be provided to VDOT.
2. Please provide turn/taper warrants for both left and right turning movements into proposed
entrance.
RESPONSE: Comment received. A revised Functional Analysis of Existing Entrances will be
provided to VDOT.
3. Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or other
requirements.
RESPONSE: Comment received.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
keane@shimp-en 'ngr eering com or by phone at 434-227-5140.
Regards,
Keane Rucker, EIT
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
912 E. High St.. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.51401 shlmp-engineenrig.rom