HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202100030 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2021-05-14� AI
?"h
�IRGRTF
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Project:
Scott's Ivy Exxon — Final Site Plan (FSP)
Project file number:
SDP2021-00030
Plan preparer:
Scott Collins, Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA
22902, scott(a)collins-engineering.coml
Owner or rep.:
SR&DR LLC, 1031 Milton Drive, Keswick, VA 22947
Plan received date:
20 Apr 2021
Date of comments:
14 May 2021
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Mariah Gleason
Engineering review below based on 1/22/21 Initial Site Plan review comments, GWA email (March 12, 2021
7:28 AM), and Applicant comment response letter d. 4/5/21. Please address items below for FSP approval.
Sheet 1
1. Revise Floodplain note to reference May 16, 2016, rather than February 4, 2005, per 18-30.3.2. (FSP)
Addressed.
2. 17-1000: A draft Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment (GWA) is required prior to approval of an initial site
plan for a new non-residential or nonagricultural use using < 2,000 gpd. A 41-pg. packet of information
was furnished to Planning Division as par[ of the special use permit review /approval process, this material
is distinctly not a GW Assessment, but rather is a groundwater contaminant well monitoring and sampling
report. This packet of information begins with a 5-p. letter narrative with tables and limited site location,
hydrology, and regional geology data (p. 2 /Also, Fig 1). This letter, from Michael L. Maloy, CPG,
Principal Geologist, Thomas P. Nelson, CPG, Senior Hydrologist, and Abby Conklin-Muchnick, EIT,
Environmental Protection Manager, ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC, is dated March 3, 2020, and is addressed to
Todd A. Pitsenberger, Petroleum Program Manger, VDEQ, Valley Regional Office. The bulk of the 41-p.
packet of information submitted to Albemarle County as part of the special permit review and approval
process reports on presence and concentrations of petroleum constituents in groundwater. This information
(apparently the only groundwater -related information submitted to Albemarle to date) appears specific to
state petroleum contaminant groundwater sampling requirements, has little bearing on watershed
characteristics or groundwater assessment (water balance/aquifer). Engineering accepts that the ISP
proposes no new water consumption; that is, Applicant makes presentation that expansion of Scott's Ivy
Exxon from a 3-bay to 7-bay service garage will place no additional demand on the existing on -site (water)
well, which serves the existing building/business. Engineering intends to provide guidance and possibly
additional comments once we receive afrnal Tier III GWA. Afrnal Tier III GWA is required prior to WPO
plan approval, and FSP approval. For the moment, please note:
a. After careful internal discussion, including earlier today, to be consistent with past evaluations,
although proposed expansion of the garage proposes no additional water use, approval by special
permit constitutes a change from existing conditions, use, and/or circumstance. This is not an
Engineering staff review -level determination. We are glad to discuss further via telecon.
b. As stated above, the 41-p. groundwater petroleum contaminant well -monitoring and sample
(report) is silent on topics deemed essential and necessary with a Tier III GWA. Please provide all
information required of a Tier III GWA with final Tier III GWA. Engineering accepts information
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
furnished to DEQ and subsequently provided to Albemarle has limited GWA relevance. Please
refer to items listed at ACDSM, p. 5. Information sent to DEQ may omit, and a coal Tier III
GWA is required to provide, the following (ACDSM, p. 5): [Image removed with ESP
review comments.]
c. Note: Engineering requests a standalone conventional final Tier III GWA prior to or with initial
WPO plan application, but no later than with ESP Application, for Engineering review /approval.
The 41-p. packet of information includes, toward the end, this (2-pg. DEQ Memo, May 2, 2019,
from David A. Fitt, DEQ, to UST File): `... DEQ requested one year of quarterly monitoring
which concluded in mid-2003. A second year of monitoring was requested which included
pumping on the most contaminated wells in an attempt to determine if free product was present on
the groundwater. Following the third monitoring report of the second year, the consultant
recommended that a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) be developed. DEQ requested CAP
development in early 2004.' And continues: '...A total of 578.69 tons of highly contaminated soil
was removed for disposal at Reco Biotechnology in Richmond.' `New tanks were installed at the
facility in January 2006 that prompted the removal of an additional 583.41 tons of contaminated
soil down -gradient of the previous tank basin location.' The Memo to UST file concludes: `In
September 2016, DEQ decided not to pursue the (Albemarle County) waterline extension. In
February 2017, the state contractor removed the CFU [?] from the property. No additional
investigation or remediation was performed or required at the site. Recommendation: No further
action and case closure.' Information furnished to Albemarle County to date in support of the SP
review/approval process is specifically relevant to UST monitoring, not groundwater assessment
required under code section 17-1003. (FSP) Withdrawn. A GWA has been determined not to be
required. (Ref. county engineer email, March 12, 2021 7:28 AM.)
3. Provide Note stating GWA requirements apply to this ISP, list proposed daily use (gpd). (FSP)
Withdrawn. A GWA has been determined not to be required. (Ref county engineer email, March 12,
2021 7:28 AM.)
Sheet 3
4. 100-yr floodulain (Also, sheets 4, 5): Notwithstanding pending application for LOMR /LOMC with FEMA,
to the best of our knowledge (to date), FEMA map change process is incomplete. Please label existing and
prospective flood plain limits (labeled on sheet 2) on other (FSP) sheets, wherever linework for existing or
prospective or pending revised floodplam limits appear. This should in fact not be an issue with the final
site plan, since the FSP will not be approved without FEMA-approved and effective Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR). Please ensure that the final site plan presents unambiguous floodplain labels, that
cannot be misconstrued for anything other than existing FEMA-mapped floodplain boundaries. (FSP)
Partially addressed. Please delete 100YR floodplain labels on sheets 2, 3, 4 or wherever they reference a
proposed rather than FEMA-mapped (Eff.) or LOMR-Approved floodplain. See image, below:
IR >fr-
O / X
NO TREES /
REMOVED gyp, �J \
A4 8 WLW000 ]�O�
$.
/i O \ PROPOSED iFOfMF]WOEANM
/ \ LME ISUIN- EOODER REIIEW
/ O WITH li MLVUXDER REVIEW
/ WITH
R
6iIXG iLOpDPµIX& O \
PORUfffRTBISfDON / ��
COUNTY GIS & fEMA MAPPING
/ ?PO A
/ rV
STING SUNDING / IfM15
TO
REMAIN NA- TF \ I
°�\1 r—roe
5. Albemarle will require H&H modeling since the VDOT quad box culvert structure immediately adjacent to
the project site was replaced in 2018. Absence of FEMA Map Center/VFRIS LOMR and Eff. date of FIRM
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
Panel 51003CO265D appear to indicate that only the replaced structure was modeled/is reflected in mapped
floodplain at Little Ivy Creek /Rt. 250 crossing (project site). A LOMR must account for hydraulic
characteristics related to this relatively new but existing VDOT structure. (FSP) Comment persists.
Applicant response (4/5/21 letter): `This comment will be addressed with the LOMR.'
Web link to culvert schematic:
https://www.virginiadot.org/Proiects/Culpeper/asset upload file613 109367.pdf
Web link to VDOT project overview:
https://www.virginiadot.org/Projects/culi)eper/asset upload file417 109367.pdf
Also: https://www.blueridgelife.com/2018/07/26/albemarle-route-250-bridge-at-iW-is-open-to-traffic/
6. Please ensure FEMA-approved floodplains are shown on the final site plan, and that FSP conforms with
county ordinance requirements at 18-30.3. Flood Hazard Overlay District (
hops://library.municode.com/va/albemarle_county/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=CH18Z0_ARTIIID
IRE S30OVDI 530.3FLHAOVDIH ) (FSP) Comment persists. Applicant: `This comment is
acknowledged.'
7. 18-4.12.15.a, surface materials: SP2020-00006 (Approval /8/19/20), pg. 9, includes wa bo), below (blue
-e'- lewef le ). [ISP image removed with FSP comments.] Revise auto service parking gravel surface to
asphalt surface, per 18-4.12.15.a., and approved SP2020-00006. (FSP) Addressed.
8. Label ex. VDOT structure at Little Ivy Creek beneath U.S. Route 250 (quad box culvert), provide culvert
dimensions (L x W x H). (FSP) Addressed [ISP image removed with FSP comments.]
9. Stream buffer: Approved SP2020-00006, sheet 9, includes graphic label that indicates possible relocation
of stream buffer. Note: Site plan review relies on stream buffer as shown on county GIS. This buffer
extends 100' either side of stream centerline. Please show /label stream buffer on layout plan, consistent
with GIS layer, or show /label revised stream buffer based on surveyed stream centerline, if (and only if)
the estimated 1,000-yr event of May 30, 2018 shifted stream centerline to the east, further away from
existing service station. (FSP) Addressed.
10. SP2020-00006, Approved 8/19/20, p.6-7, text excerpts below: (FSP) NA Applicant: `Unclear what this
comment is noting.' Engineering agrees. Text deleted.
11. 18-30.3.11, Permitted and prohibited uses and structures (table) prohibits storage of gasoline, kerosene and
other petroleum products within mapped floodplain floodway, or floodway fringe. Please see Storage as a
Primary of Accessory Use' section of table. Although no change is proposed to existing underground fuel
storage tanks, prohibition would apply to proposed (new) petroleum product storage. (FSP) Addressed.
Applicant: `Note has been added to sheet 3 stating that no fuel storage tanks will be located within the
floodplain.'
12. Submit CLOMR/LOMC application for Albemarle County Floodplain Administrator review and signature
(required prior to submittal to FEMA), at earliest convenience. (FSP) Persists. Applicant: `This comment
is acknowledged.'
13. Provide FEMA-approved LOMR as soon as possible (prerequisite to Final Site Plan approval). (FSP)
Persists. Applicant: `This comment is acknowledged.'
14. Submit Floodplain Development Permit Application that references current flood hazard overlay district, or
FEMA-approved revised limits of floodplain (see prior comments) (FSP) Addressed. FDP202100005
received /under review.
15. Submit VSMP/WPO application at earliest convenience. Engineering advises WPO plan review will
reference existing FEMA-mapped floodplain, eff, date May 16, 2016. [ Scott's Ivy Exxon circled, image,
below NFRIS: https://consal)psrpt.dcr.virginia.gov/vafloodrisk/vfris2.htmi ] (FSP) Addressed. VSMP
/WPO application WPO202100023 submitted 4/26/21, review pending.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
iFvwlpr
16. Sheet 4, (,, ceding and Drainage Plan: Rec. _,nd one or more notes consistent with 18-30.3.11 (table)
stream crossings and grading activities. While proposed grade does not appear to indicate fill within
mapped floodplain, given relative absence of proposed grade information, please provide floodplain impact
plan (with FDP application) indicating `that the grading will have no impact on the elevations or limits of
the floodplain and further provided that any cut or fill shall be only fine grading activity which will have no
impact on the floodplain.' For purposes of this provision, fine grading is defined as a balanced site
(cut/fill) with no changes to the base floodplain elevation or horizontal limits to the floodplain. (FSP)
Addressed. Note added to sheet 4.
New. with FSP
17. 18' travelway on west side of building will not accommodate 2-way traffic, please provide 'I -way traffic'
sign at SW comer of the building to minimize conflicts.
18. Sheet 6: Provide calculation indicating Asphalt Paving Travehvay section (2" SM-9.5, 3" BM-25, 5" 21-A)
will support 42.5 ton fire apparatus. Ref. Sheet 3, Note 5.
19. Sheet 4: Proposed 6.5% parking lot grade (behind building expansion) exceeds max. grade 5°/u; 18-
4.12.15.c). Please revise to 5% max.
20. Sheet 3: Label (Typ.)length of 4 (perpendicular) parking spaces fronting SWM facility.
21. WPO202100023 approval is required prior to ESP approval.
22. A SWM Facility Easement Plat is required to be recorded (with deed) prior to WPO plan approval.
23. A SWM Facility Maintenance Agreement is required to be recorded prior to plat /deed recordation.
24. FDP202100005 Approval is required prior to WPO plan approval.
25. LOMR, approved by FEMA, is required prior to FSP approval. Also, item 13 above.
26. WPO plan bond must be posted and nutrient credit (if purchase proposed) affidavit and bill of sale
documents must be reviewed and accepted prior to Albemarle County issuing a Grading Permit.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832-x3069.
Thank you
SDP2021-00030 Scott's Ivy Exxon ESP 051421