HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000018 Correspondence 2021-03-24SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
March 24, 2021
John Anderson
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Response Letter #4 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 March 23, 2021.Our responses are as follows:
1. 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. (Rev. 3) Persists.
Revised WPO Plan received 2/8/21, review pending, with comment due 3/8/21.
RESPONSE: WPO202000032 will be resubmitted for review.
2. 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).' (Rev. 3) Persists.
Engineering defers to VDOT. Applicant submitted Functional Analysis of Existing Entrances,
Albemarle County TMPs 78-6 & 78-7, d. 2/5/21 [revised, now 4th iteration] with most recent
plan submittal.
RESPONSE: Comment received. VDOT has approved of the proposed access management
exceptions.
3. 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.' (Rev. 3) Partially addressed. Circeo Geotech 12-sheet
wall design d. 2/7/21 is inconsistent with SDP labels specifying max. wall ht. (C4,
SDP202000018), and requirements at 18-4.3.3. Further, these walls, A-E, each requires building
inspection division review and approval. Each requires a building permit. Building inspections
division will likely flag or reject height that exceeds standard listed at 18-4.3.3. It is unfortunate
that now proposed 24' wall height and SDP stated maximum height (15') exceed county code
max. retaining wall ht. (all planning /zoning districts, not just steep slopes overlay). Once Wall E
design is revised consistent with code, Engineering recommends coordinate with building
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
inspections via building permit application process at earliest convenience. For future reference,
184.3.3: Max. wall In. measured from grade =10', otherwise, stepped walls required.
[Image removed in response #4 letter]
Portions of Wall E attain 24'. This height is impermissible.
Please compare SDP202000018, 10/22/20/Wall F and 2/8/21/Wall E (same wall with different
labels), with Circeo retaining wall design d. 2/7/21 [1 day prior to 2/8/21 SE SDP]. SDP (Oct.
/Feb.) states max. ht. =15' while Wall E design indicates max. ht. z24'. Engineering requests SE
revise SDP labels/design, and requests revised retaining wall design consistent with 18-
4.3.3/Grading Standards. Engineering anticipates three (3) stepped walls of 8' ht. each without
impact to preserved steep slopes.
Wall F, 10/22/20 SDP, sheet C4
[Image removed in response #4 letter]
Wall E, 2/8/21 SDP, sheet C4
[Image removed in response #4 letter]
RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Parking spaces have been removed in
this rear parking area to accommodate only one max. ht. 10' retaining wall. Please refer to the
revised geotechnical plans for this wall.
4. 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, 3) Addressed. WPO202000032 is under review.
RESPONSE: WPO202000032 will be resubmitted for review.
5. 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, 3) Addressed. WPO202000032 is under review.
RESPONSE: WPO202000032 will be resubmitted for review.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
keane@shimp-en ing 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