HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000018 Correspondence 2021-02-08SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
February 5, 2021
John Anderson
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Response Letter #3 for SDP-2020-00018 (Brady Bushey Ford — Major Amendment)
Dear John,
Thank you for your review of the major site plan amendment for Brady Bushey Ford. This letter contains
responses to County comments dated December 9, 2020.Our responses are as follows:
1. Recommend revise title to include ref to project file number: SDP202000018. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
2. 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), [image removed with Rev. 2 review comments] 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 Corner, but not travel in the reverse direction. In
that instance (if this is an intentional, 1-way easement), comment will be withdrawn. (Rev. 2)
Addressed. Applicant response (10/22/20 letter): `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.'
3. Major site plan amendment approval requires an Approved VSMP /WPO plan. Please submit
VMSP/WPO application at earliest convenience. (Rev. 1) 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. (Rev. 2) Addressed. WPO202000032 review is in process.
4. Include title sheet Note that preserved and managed steep slopes exist on parcels. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
5. VMSP /WPO plan approval requires permanent SWM facility easement plat recordation (for any
on -site SWM facilities). (Rev. 1) May persist. Applicant: `Acknowledged. SWM easement is now
shown on the plans and an easement plat will be recorded prior to approval.' As follow-up: Please
direct reviewer to sheet showing SWM easement for proposed dry detention pond. It appears an
identifying label was cutoff on C4. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed, but as follow-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
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
conveyance at limits of analysis is insufficient. Instead, at limits of analysis, discharge to
natural conveyance requires demonstration that Q1-yr post -development meets the
Energy balance equation requirement. (Rev. 2) Addressed via WP0202000032.
Applicant: `Noted ... This condition has been met and is addressed in the VSMP
plan WP0202000032.'
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. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
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.1.). 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. (Rev. 2)
Addressed. Applicant: `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.'
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. Ref. code
17-600.A. (Rev. 1) 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. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Applicant: `Note is located on C2, the note is located around property line L3-L4.'
8. Show and label preserved and managed steep slopes on C3, C4, C5. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed.
As follow-up: Please label preserved and managed steep slopes on C3, C4, C5. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
9. Resolve WP02018-00088, Amendment 1 as prerequisite to SDP202000018 approval (email, this
date). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Revised plans have been submitted and approved.'
10. Revise C3 consistent with actual existing conditions (image, below). Shimp Engineering should
have access to designs for development on adjacent parcels to the west. Please rely on these, as
well as satellite imagery (for example: 3/13/20 —image, below image removed with Rev. 1
comments) Also, please ref. Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers, Existing conditions plan
view information, 1 st item: `accurate current existing topography at the time of submittal,
including all existing features, and any recent disturbances.' (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `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.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
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. Ref.
18-4.12.13.a.b. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
13. 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 follow-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 grazes a curb with no appreciable clearance. (Rev. 2) Addressed. `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 autoturn diagram on C 13.' [Image removed in
comment response #3]
14. Provide field survey data that supports note that `portion of preserved slopes disturbed is less than
25%.' Engineering Div. 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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `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.' [Image removed in
comment response #3]
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. (Ref. Retaining Wall Plan checklist for plan
reviewers, Plans, 2nd 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 (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `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. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted.'
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. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted.'
d. Final Site plan checklist for plan reviewers, p. 1 /last item: (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Applicant: `...correct, retaining wall checklist dictates guardrails shall be installed
with new retaining walls.' [Image removed in comment response #3]
e. Retaining Wall checklist for plan reviewers, (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant:
`......correct, retaining wall checklist dictates guardrails shall be installed with new
retaining walls.' [Image removed in comment response #3]
f. Given this, emphasizing that (county) Engineering position is unchanged (nor will it),
please consider and respond to initial comment and provide guardrail at proposed 4' and
15' Max. 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. ht.
wall); west of this parking lot are proposed 2:1 slopes (falling) to a 7' retaining wall on
Pantops Corner parcel (4' Max. ht. wall). Ref. SDP201800089 /SE, C5; orange highlight,
image below. Engineering withdraws request for GR-2 at 6' Max. ht. wall for 22 parking
spaces, location shown in lower right of image below. [image removed with Rev. 2
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
review comments] (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Walls have now been provided for
4' and 15' height walls where marked on image.'
From SDP201800089, C5 I image removed with Rev. 2 review comments]
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; here 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. (Rev. 2) Withdrawn.
Applicant: `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.' As follow-up:
• Request for guardrail is withdrawn.
• Request for GR was made, but is now withdrawn.
• Engineering recommends guardrail.
• If no GR, Engineering recommends a low -profile block wall that may prevent a
car inadvertently mounting curb, crossing the 13' strip, and possibly experiencing
a 20' vertical drop.
• A specific, unambiguous requirement may not exist in ordinance that requires
applicant (SE client Malloy Ford) to install a guardrail above the existing oflsite
retaining wall at the western boundary near TMP 78-5A. Malloy Ford may
simply want to weigh the decision and minimize potential liability that attends
design that forsakes protection beyond a modest concrete curb.
• Engineering rejects the argument that a pre-existing off -site 20' high retaining
wall forecloses site plan review request for GR on the Malloy Ford parcel.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
Consider this example (though not the case here): Site A constructs a 20'
retaining wall to develop Site A. This wall provides 20' vertical break to adjacent
Site B, at higher elevation. Site B is undeveloped at time Site A application is
approved. There is no indication that parking will be proposed in close proximity
to the top of this newly constructed retaining wall. As consequence, Engineering
requests handrail for the retaining wall, but not guardrail. Later, Site B is
developed. Site B proposes parking 13' from the top of the retaining wall /20'
drop. Engineering requires GR adjacent to parking as a barrier to minimize risk
that a vehicle may mount the curb, and within space available, be unable to halt
progress across a strip between curb and wall. Engineering requests GR to
protect Site B personnel, public, etc. In this example, Site A, developed first, is
allowed to construct a 20' high wall without GR, since no indication Site B will
in the future need GR to accompany unforeseen design /parking proximity.
This example highlights circumstance where GR is required later but not with
initial wall. Request for GR reflects reviewer's PE-credentialed approach that
recognizes public welfare as a consummate principle (minimize risk); request for
GR provides assurance that recognizes and helps protect this Applicant's
interests, now and in the future. Intent is not argumentative, intent is conservative
approach to design that recognizes risk, that seeks the best outcome. Engineering
does not impose requirements where none exist, however finely drawn.
Engineering (with GR comment) had hoped to engage on topic of safe,
conservative design in the public and Applicant's interest. We now recommend a
barrier behind existing concrete curb, to mitigate effects of unforeseen
circumstance. The case here: Engineering, during review of Pantops Corner FSP,
raised issue/s relating to retaining walls with Shimp Engineering (SE), then
representing Pantops Corner. In comment response, above, SE draws a
distinction between requirements then vs. now, stating `Technically, the wall
applicant should have built a guard rail for the wall, if a guard rail were
required.' We appreciate and would like to examine this response in light of SE
response when issue of retaining walls /offsite easement (with Malloy Ford) was
raised with SE by J. Anderson during review of Pantops Corner SUB201900059)
plat. Engineering did not request GR for the Pantops Corner retaining walls. It is
unclear we would have ever requested GR. In all likelihood, we would not have
since GR would have to be installed on adjacent parcel (Malloy Ford). Retaining
wall design for Pantops Corner ran to the property line and left no room to install
GR on Pantops Corner parcel (since wall locations critical to site development —
hotel, Wawa, etc.). We cannot be certain, since we did not request GR with
Pantops Corner development. What we do know is SE response when
Engineering attempted to engage on topic of retaining wall /off -site easement
requirements when reviewing Pantops Corner development. Please consider
whether it is perhaps disingenuous to now state that Engineering should have
committed to require GR for these retaining walls, given resistance when
Engineering raised topic of easements (in 2019) tied to retaining walls to be
constructed on Pantops Comer parcel. It is one thing to say Engineering should
ensure requirements are met contemporaneous with development. It is another to
say this while at the same time forcefully resisting Engineering overtures to do
that —to identify or ensure valid ordinance requirements are met. Quotes below,
from SE response to review comments, Pantops Corner easement plat
(SUB201900059).
o Applicant [SE] response: `Regardless of whether this is a current issue,
you have brought up a site plan review item. This is an easement plat, so
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
while this comment may be appreciated on the site plan (if indeed the
County Attorney deemed it an issue), this should not be applicable to this
easement plat.'
Applicant response: `The temporary grading easement on TMP 76-6, as
shown on previously submitted site/road plans for Pantops Corner, was
already recorded in DB4553 PG 473-486. This is not a proposed
easement, nor is it onsite so therefore it will not be shown on this plat.'
Applicant response: `Plats are required to show all known easements on
the subject property. These are known easements, recorded in the
Albemarle courthouse in DB5147 PG 221, 228 & 229, therefore they
will be shown. We would like to remind County Engineering that their
review is for engineering items on this easement plat only. Please leave
legal questions, such as debating whether a recorded item is an easement,
to the County Attorney, who is the qualified professional in this matter.
The existing easement will remain on the plat as it is required to be
shown.'
Again, Engineering did not request GR for Pantops Corner proposed
retaining walls, either when reviewing Pantops Corner Final Site Plan
(SDP201800089) or easement plat (SUB201900059). There was,
however, a clear attempt to engage on topic of retaining walls and off -
site grading easement (on Malloy Ford parcel), but SE appeared
disinclined to engage on any but technical grounds, and Engineering
relented, on both points.
Engineering encourages Malloy Ford (SE client) to consider
consequence that may arise should a vehicle, however unlikely, cross
curb and retaining wall with a 20' vertical drop.
C5. SDP202000018
16. Provide handrail (safety railing) labels for retaining walls over 4' high (see Retaining Wall
checklist). (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Provide handrail label for retaining wall
(Max. ht. =8') east of building B. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. 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.' (Rev. 2)
Addressed. Applicant: `Coordination with VDOT is ongoing. It is likely that VDOT will approve
the current strategy (one full entrance with one right -in -only entrance).'
18. Engineering recommends provide distance from proposed revised entrance to adjacent entrances,
east and west (entrance 2, entrance 4, sheet C8). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
19. Sidewalk at SE corner of new sales building (FEE 419.50) appears < 5' w. Ensure all sidewalks
are 5' minimum width. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `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.'
20. Label all sidewalk widths. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
21. Label drive aisle width between curbing from entrance 2 to buildings that are interior to TM 78-6,
Lot 7. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
22. 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 /curved), 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
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
C5
M.
ramps on C4. Note detail on C 12. From C4: Examine orientation /graphic depiction of every CG-
12 adjacent to U.S. Rt. 250, some within Rt. 250 RW. Virtually all require revision to show
orientations that align detectable surfaces with receiving ramps such that a visually impaired
person does not stray into Rt. 250 by mistake. CG-12 design assists 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 highspeed 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. (Rev. 2) Addressed. [Image removed with comment response 43]
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
24. Include notes that this development: (Rev. 1) Addressed.
a. May not impact preserved steep slopes,
b. Is not authorized to impact preserved step 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.
25. Proposed 4', 6' and 13' high 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 engineer and retaining wall design will be provided prior to
approval.' Engineering appreciates this. (Rev. 2) Persists. Applicant: `This is ongoing, geotech
has not yet completed ret. wall plans.'
RESPONSE: Retaining wall designs have been provided with this submission.
26. Add SL-1 labels to profiles for MH ht. >12'. MH Str. A3 and A3a, for example. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
27, At Str. A2 and any MH Str. with vertical drops > 4', include note /label for %" steel plate in floor
of structure. Ref. VDOT Drainage Manual, 9.4.8.7. (p. 9-37, 9-38). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
28. Provide VDOT SL-1, IS-1, PB-1, GR-1, CG-6, CG-9a details on the plans (safety slab, inlet
shaping, pipe bedding, guardrail, curb /gutter, commercial entrance). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
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). (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. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
30. Design relies on existing ditch downstream of Str. Al. Include notes on plans that existing riprap
ditch meets design requirements for channel and flood protection for manmade conveyance, if
that is the case. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `This is now noted on the site plan. The VSMP
includes more specific information about the existing conveyance channel adequacy.' Also,
please see follow-up at item 6., above. (Rev. 2) Addressed. WPO202000032 is under review.
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. (Rev. 1) May persist. VSMP plan should present details concerning adequate channel and
flood protection. (Rev. 2) Addressed. WP0202000032 is under review.
32. Revise storm Al -A6 design. Every pipe in this run has velocity that exceeds (VDOT Drainage
Manual 9.4.8.7.) 10 fps standard. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Review error. Applicant: `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 o16%. All pipes meet these standards.' [Image removed from comment response #3]
33. Provide retaining wall safety railing detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
34. Provide LD-204, inlet design. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
Keane@shimp-en ine eering com or by phone at 434-227-5140.
Regards,
Keane Rucker
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com