HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000018 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2020-08-2400UNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
July 31, 2020
Kendra Patrick, EIT
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
912 E. High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 227-5140 / kendra@shimp-engineering.com
RE: Comment Letter for SDP-2020-00018 (Brady Bushey Ford — Major Amendment); 2°" Submittal
Dear Ms. Patrick:
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department of Community
Development will recommend approval of the plan referred to above when the following items have been
satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional
comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by
the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.]
The original comments from the first review and action letter for SDP2020-00018 are in gray font. Follow-up
comments from the review of the second submittal are in bolded black font. Please address these follow-up
comments as well.
Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning
Ordinance), unless otherwise specified. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time;
additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review.)
Review comments from the other reviewing divisions and agencies are also attached.
Please submit ten (10) copies of the revised plan to the Community Development Department when revisions have
been made.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information or assistance.
Sincerely,
Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner / areitelbach@albemarle.org / (434)-296-5832 x 3261
1
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — Andy Reitelbach, areitelbachgalbemarle.org — Requested
Changes:
1. [32.4.2.1(1)] The mailing notification fee of $435.00 has not been paid. This fee must be paid prior to approval
of the major amendment being granted Comment has been addressed.
2. [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 SP1994-00004. 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 Zonin¢ 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.
3. [General Comment] This property is potentially located within the Monticello viewshed. It is recommended
that you reach out to Liz Russell (Irussellkmonticello.org) at Monticello to discuss this project. Comment has
been acknowled¢ed by applicant.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Include the application number for this project on the cover sheet, which is SDP2020-00018.
Comment has been addressed.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Include in the zoning note on the cover sheet that these properties are also located within the Flood
Hazard Overlay District, the Steep Slopes — Managed overlay district, and the Steep Slopes — Preserved overlay
district.
Depict the limits of these overlay districts on sheets C2, C3, C4, and C5 so that staff may determine the
relationship of the proposed improvements to the boundaries of each of these districts.
Any preserved slopes proposed to be disturbed must have a survey submitted to the County Engineer verifying
that those slopes are less than 25% grade. Otherwise, they cannot be disturbed Comments have been
addressed.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Include on the cover sheet of the site plan that this site lies within a state dam break inundation zone
(DBIZ). Depict the limits of this state DBIZ on sheets C2, C3, C4, and C5 so that staff may determine the
relationship of the proposed improvements to the boundary of this DBIZ. Comment has been addressed.
7. [32.5.2(a)] The source of title information for these two parcels is incorrect on the cover sheet. Revise with the
most recent source of title. (It appears that the title for both parcels was transferred to a new entity in January of
this year.) Comment has been addressed.
8. [32.5.2(f)] On the cover sheet, indicate whether the Upper Rivanna River watershed is a water supply watershed
or not. Comment has been addressed.
9. [32.5.2(a)] A copy of the special use permit and its conditions is required to be included in this site plan. Also,
refer to comment #2 above Comment has been addressed.
10. [32.5.2(a)] Include the zoning district(s) of the abutting parcels on the plan sheets, in addition to the TMP
numbers and property owner names. Comment has been addressed.
11. [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.
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
identifies 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 1112."
c. This site cannot have more than 243 spaces, which is 20% more than the required amount. See comment
Ile below.
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.
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.
12. [32.5.2(n); 4.12.13; 4.12.181 Add an additional loading space to the site. Four loading spaces total are required.
The loading space on the eastern boundary of the property, at the east side of TMP 78-7 needs to be moved. It is
not adjacent to the structure it serves and appears to be impeding vehicular circulation in that area.
Provide the dimensions of all loading spaces. Comments have been addressed.
13. [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 dumpster pad.
14. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed
ingress and egreq� Comment has been addressed.
15. [32.5.2(n)] It appcars that a portion of the front structure on TMP 78-7 is to be demolished. However, it is not
included in the demolition plan on sheet C3. Label any portion of the building proposed to be demolished.
Comment has been addressed.
16. [32.5.2(m)] Is the travelway on the western side of the property proposed to connect with the travelway on the
Pantops Corner property? Provide more detail about the interparcel connection. Comment has been addressed.
17. [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?
3
18. [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.
19. [32.5.2(n)] What is the semi -circular "paint' depicting on the eastern -most travelway on the site, to the east of
the building proposed to be enlarged? Comment has been addressed.
20. [32.5.2(b)] The sidewalk on the southeast side of the enlarged new sales building does not appear to be the
required width. In addition, the sidewalk and stairs on the east side of the existing sales and service building on
TMP 78-6 appears not to be a sufficient width either. Label the widths of all sidewalks on the property. Comment
has been addressed.
21. [32.5.2(n)] Accessible ramps are required for the sidewalk on either side of the entrance proposed to be enlarged
at the center of the property. Comment has been addressed.
22. [32.5.2(n); 4.20] The new parking spaces shown along the front of TMP 78-7 must be at least 10 feet from the
public street right-of-way. Comment has been addressed.
23. [32.5.2(n)] What is the service area on the west side of the enlarged service and sales building? Label this
element. Comment has been addressed.
24. [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?
25. [32.5.2(n)] Identify the enclosed space between the two new sales wings of the enlarged building on TMP 78-7.
Is this space for sales/service/display, etc.? Comment has been addressed.
26. [32.7.2.31 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.
27. [32.5.1(c)] Show all existing utility easements on the drawings. Include a label or call out for each easement
stating whether the easement is public or private, the owner of record and the recorded instrument number, and
easement width where existing easements are visible on the plans. There are a lot of easements that appear to
cross these two parcels. Comment has been addressed.
28. [32.5.2 (k)] Label all existing and proposed sewer and drainage easements by type and include a
size/width measurement. For existing easements, state the deed book and page of the recorded instrument.
Comment has been addressed.
29. [32.5.2 (1)] Label all existing and proposed utility easements by type and include a size/width measurement. For
existing easements, state the deed book and page of the recorded instrument. Comment has been addressed.
30. [4.17; 32.7.8] 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 fights are
labelled as "D" on the lighting plan. Include this identification in the key on sheet C8.
31. [4.17; 32.7.8] 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 light.
32. 132.7.91 An eastern redbud along Route 250 appears to be on top of a water line. Shift this tree over slightly so
that it is not on the utility. Comment has been addressed.
33. [32.7.91 Revise the number of street trees required to 12. Large street trees are required every 50 feet inclusively,
i.e., the first tree is planted at 0 feet, at the start of the street frontage, the next at 50 feet from the start of the
street frontage, the next at 100 feet, and so on, for the entirety of the street frontage. However, no additional trees
need to be provided as the required number of 12 is still less than the 14 that are provided on the landscape plan.
Comment has been addressed.
34. [32.7.91 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.
35. [32.7.91 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.
36. 132.7.91 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.
37. Identify what the battery area is and what is proposed there.
38. 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.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org — Pending review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB); see
the comment below:
This application is scheduled for ARB review on August 3. Comments will be provided after that meeting.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
John Anderson, janderson2galbemarle.org —Requested Changes; seethe attached memo.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Brian Becker, bbecker@albemarle.org — No objections at this time.
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Michael Dellinger, mdellingergalbemarle.org —No objections at this time.
Albemarle County Department of Fire -Rescue
Shawn Maddox, smaddox@albemarle.org — No objections at this time; see the comments below:
Thank you for addressing previous comments. Fire Rescue has no objections to the plans as submitted. SNM
5
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Richard Nelson, melson&serviceauthority.org — Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt
by Planning staff.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Adam Moore, Adam.Moorekvdot.vir ig nia.gov — Requested Changes; see the attached memo.
� 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
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 786-2701
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 786,2940
July 17, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Andy Reitelbach
Re: SDP-2020-00018- Brady Bushey Ford — Major Site Plan Amendment
Review #2
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plans as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated June
13, 2020 and offer the following comment.
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.
2. Please provide turn/taper warrants for both left and right turning movements into
proposed entrance.
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.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
If further information is desired, please contact Max Greene at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency land Use Section at (434) 422-9399
for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency