HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000018 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2020-07-31� AI
�h
�lRGIN�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan Review
Project title:
Brady -Bushey Ford — Major Site Plan Amendment
Project file number:
SDP2020-00018
Plan prepares
Shimp Engineering, 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902
Justin Shimp, PE [ justin(i�shimp-engineeringxom ]
Owner or rep.:
Flow 1300 Richmond LLC / 500 West 5' Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
[ bthomasAflowauto.com ]
Plan received date:
4 Mar 2020
(Rev. 1)
26 Jun 2020
Date of comments:
7 Apr 2020
(Rev. 1)
31Jul 2020
Plan Coordinator:
Andy Reitelbach
Reviewer:
John Anderson
SDP2020-00018
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, 4' 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(if this is an intentional, 1-way easement), comment will be withdrawn.
�� Rz
SHRLL
PRO S
83 OR EM
M,KrP,11514M,
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
C4
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 7
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.
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 ollow-up: Please direct reviewer to sheet
showing SWM easement for proposed dry detention pond. It appears an identifying label was cutoff on C4.
6. Provide brief narrative of Stormwater Management on C I. 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 9AVAC25-870-66.0 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_y, post -development meets the Energy balance equation requirement.
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.
c. Do not locate proposed SWM facility on preserved steep slopes since SWM facilities are not listed
asa 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.
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.
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.
9. Resolve WPO2018-00088, 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 examplei 34312;0 image, below image removed with Rev. 1 comments) Also, please ref.
Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers, Existing conditions plan view information, V 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.'
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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 7
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.
su-
L
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.'
f
n o
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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 7
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
b. Exchange included Albemarle County Engineer who expressed not a preference but a requirement
for this design circumstance.
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.
d. Final Site plan checklist for plan reviewers, p. 1 /last item:
Retaining Wall Plans checklist. Any walls supporting roads or necessary infrastructure require
engineered plans (not generic manufacturer's details) and computations. {Design Manual, section 81 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 alleviate with layout spacing also. In any case, retaining walls will require
building permits at construction.
e. Retaining Wall checklist for plan reviewers,
Plans:
safety railing shown for retaining walls over 4' high
guardrail with VDOT designations or equivalent shown for retaining walls next to parking or travelways
VDOT approval for any walls in right-of-way
Accurate depiction of horizontal depth (batter) on site plans.
All structural reinforcement, steal, or geogrids specified.
All dimensions specified
_ Constructability; 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.
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 Comer parcel (4' Max. ht. wall).
Ref. SDP201800089 /SE. C5; orange highlight, image below. Engineering withdraws request for
GR-2 at 6' Max, In. wall for 22 parking spaces, location shown in lower right of image below.
16.
17
18.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 7
From SDP201800089, C5
M/1LLV1 VII
klCHVOND RD I IC,
IDD b090 PC 504
I ,EMV. pt�plNG E41i
W 45 PG 47}
r
Y Ybpli4 0.101
Mi HILL RpNL[
__
sea rvnxe
mxEcnal
yy
i
If
Fire Marshal's
u
Required m
I,
contact the .
y-si s
la
Morehcl otfics
_
Mechonmel N!
mechanical e
,
zn g Isuxa i
eaRo.a.
r.,....0. r...,
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.
C5 SDP202000018
L7)
Provide handrail (salety 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.
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.'
Engineering recommends provide distance from proposed revised entrance to adjacent entrances, east and
west (entrance 2, entrance 4, sheet C8). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
C5
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 7
19. Sidewalk at SE corner of new sales building (FFE 419.50) appears < 5' w. Ensure all sidewalks are 5'
minimum width. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Sidewalk at the SE comer 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.
22. Provide CG-12 pedestrian ramps at each entrance: 2, 3, 4. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-na,
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 ramps on C4. Note detail on C12.
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.
—asp FT To — ••• •� wNNw
FOPKPCO. CENTEL & ACSA
2o miu Tr [ASEPETr
PgN10P5 '4T�&� 97E KTfRHAT: =h
it i. M1A ENTR.CE ENT.M (Da 1168-546)
JJ
CROSSWALK
TYPICAL PLACEMENT
AT INTERSECTION
WITHIN CROSSWALK
�E»6saE
casrmlCnoN
of
!MC 5 FXE.
DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE
B (PARALLEL) APPLICATION
N A CIEPMTEtIT W �TNTION 201q
23, herever curb (CG-2) concentrates runoff against curbing, specify CG-6. Engineering understands this is
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,
C9
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 7
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.
26. Add SL-1 labels to profiles for MH In. >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.
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 seefollow- u at item 6. above.
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.
32. Revise stone 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 o 16%. All pipes
meet these standards.'
9.4.8.7 Maximum Grades
Slopes that incur uniform flow velocities in excess of 10 fps should be avoided because
of the potential for abrasion. Slopes in excess of 16% are not preferred because of the
need for anchor blocks. When anchor blocks are used, they should be installed at
every other pipe joint, as a minimum. (See Special Design Drawing No. A-73 and MA-
73 for Anchor Details for l'�ppPipe)
33. Pro �,a rctai�,�_ _ ,alety railing , I (Rev. 1) Addressed.
34. Provide LD-204, inlet design. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
SDP2020-00018 Brady -Bushey Ford FMJ 073120rev I