HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800040 Correspondence 2021-07-26 (2)SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
July 21, 2021
David James
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Response Letter #3 for SDP201800040 Hunters Way — Major Site Plan Amendment
Dear David,
Thank you for your review of the major site plan amendment for Hunters Way. This letter contains responses to County
comments dated February 1, 2021. Our responses are as follows:
1. WPO plan/amendment must be approved before site plan amendment is approved.
Acknowledged - WPO2016-52 amendment.
(Rev.2/3/4) Comment still valid.
(Rev.5) Comment still valid. SWM easement deed & plat will need to be recorded prior to SDP
approval,as well.
Noted, we have hired RWR & Associates to complete this easement plat. Additionally, we
will resubmit this WPO amendment soon.
2. VDOT entrance permit required.
(Rev.1) Addressed; N/A.
VDH permitting required.
(Rev.1) Acknowledged.
4. Provide date of boundary and topo survey.
(Rev.1) Addressed.
5. Provide curb and gutter in parking areas and along travelways [18-4.12.15].(Rev.1)
TBD. Chris P.
(Rev.2) No objection.
Show sight distance lines.
(Rev.1) Addressed; N/A.
Adjust the drive aisle from 24' to 12' before the parking spaces, and relocate curbing & "DO NOT ENTER"
sign accordingly.
(Rev.1) TBD. Frank A
(Rev.2) Addressed; Design changed.
8. Provide stormwater profiles & details.
(Rev.1) Addressed.
9. Provide engineered plans and computations for the retaining wall design for all the walls that are next toparking or
travelways. Specify all structural components and dimensions of wall.
The following items will be required [DSM]:
a. A typical detail. (VDOT standard walls are acceptable)
b. Specific details as required for unusual or possibly conflicting areas. An example is where
utilitiesare expected to go through walls or footings.
c. Certified computations to support the design (for wall over 5' high). All soil and
bearing assumptions, as well as reinforcement materials and assumed loadings must
be included.
(Rev.1) Acknowledged; Wall design will be provided.
(Rev.2/3) Wall was removed.
10. (Rev.1) Provide safety provision(s) for vehicles and pedestrians for walls over 30" high. This is typically a
guardrail, wall, or fencing [DSM].
(Rev.2/3) Wall was removed.
11. (Rev.1) Provide guardrail around curve of drive thru travelway and extend a little beyond end of retaining wall.
(Rev.2) Guardrail warranted before>3:1 slopes.
(Rev.3) Addressed.
12. Label location of wall maximum height and TW/BW elevations.
(Rev.1) Addressed.
13. A vehicle stopped at 'MENU SIGN' will cue onto the drive aisle and my warrant further review.
(Rev.1) Addressed.
14. The vehicle parking spots near the drive through my warrant further review.
(Rev.1)Addressed.
15. Private well & septic system may warrant further review and inspection (DSM, Sect.2).(Rev.1/2)
TBD. Frank P.
(Rev.3) VDH will review.
16. Three (3) sanitary line connections to buildings may be required.(Rev.1)
TBD. Chris P.
(Rev.2) Addressed.
17. Sheet 2 -
a. Show existing easements, DB/PG.
b. Show demo area for parking island extensions.
(Rev.1) Addressed.
18. (Rev.1) Concrete inlet shaping (IS-1) shall be provided in any drainage structure with a 4' or greater drop
(i.e. Ex MH connection).(Rev.2) Not addressed.
(Rev.3) Addressed.
19. (Rev.1) Label proposed SWF easement over the LID system and size width dimensions according to the pg. 15,
DSM calculation.
(Rev.2) Addressed.
20. (Rev.1) Locate MH access next to the weir plate location of the UD system.
(Rev.2) Provide access ladder, show
detail.(Rev.3) Addressed.
21. (Rev.1) Provide minimum 3" orifice.
(Rev.2) Not addressed.
(Rev.3) Acknowledged. Engineering recommends a larger orifice because this will become a
maintenance issue.
(Rev.4/5) This remains an issue and should be addressed with the VSMP plan revie
Noted, since the previous submittal we have been made aware of the County's new policy on minimum 3"
orifices. This has now been provided.
22. (Rey- ----------- ----- -
design for LID system that shows this.
(Rev.2/3) Wall design was eliminated.
23. (Rev.2) Critical slope areas shown do not quite match those on the County's GIS overlay.
(Rev.3) TBD. Frank P. is reviewing critical slope waiver.
(Rev.4) Addressed.
24. (Rev.2) Sheet C1- Change text to reflex that Critical Slopes are proposed to be disturbed.(Rev.3)
Addressed.
25. (Rev.2) Sheet C4 -
a. Disturbance to critical slopes is not allowed. (18-4.2}
(Rev.3) TBD. Frank P.is reviewing critical slope waiver. If a retaining wall is required than
wall comments might still apply.
(Rev.4) Addressed.
Callout grate inlet structure type.
(Rev.3) DI-7 not recommended, recommend side inlet. [DSM, pg.181
(Rev.4) The details indicate 18-30" dia. riser, but 36" access is called for in the profiles for
the60" pipe. 2'x2' grate access would seem too narrow an access in either case. Please use
appropriate size for 30" or 36" dia. MH. -Need to confirm minimum MH access size.
(Rev.S) Acknowledged.
26. (Rev.2) Sheet C7 —Correct the storm profile & detail. (Rev.3)
Addressed.
27. (Rev.3) Sheet C5 -Show the low -maintenance ground cover plantings for proposed areas where grading
over3:1 proposed. (Rev.4) Addressed.
28. (Rev.3) Show SWM design table/worksheet.
(Rev.4/5) Acknowledged. The drainage design will need to be reviewed/approved with the VSMP
priorto FSP approval.
29. (Rev.3) Show roof drains and where they outlet.(Rev.4) Addressed.
30. (Rev.4) Cover -Correct the sheet number for Lighting locations.
(Rev.S) Addressed.
31. (Rev.4) Sheet C6 —An Ornamental Tree is shown within the SWIM easement and will need to be removed.
(Rev.S) It's this one actually, to be moved
Noted, this tree has been moved out of the SWM easement.
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
32. (Rev.4) Provide reverse slope bench and/or surface water diversion for 2:1 graded slope at
front ofproperty. (18-30.7.5 C.)
Response: The above section refers to managed and preserved slopes,
howerer, the slopes on theproperty are designated as critical.
(Rev.5) Correct, I apologize the proper citation is found at 18-4.3.3 C.
This is not a requirement per 18-4.3.3 C because the height of the 2:1 slope does not exceed 20'.
There is no need for this feature as there is an existing stabilized ditch at the toe of the slope
already.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
keane@skimp-en ing eering corn or by phone at 434-227-5140.
Regards,
Keane Rucker, ETr
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
912 E. High Sr. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com