The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP202100030 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2022-03-10� 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 Project: Project file number: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Plan received date: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) Date of comments: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) Reviewer: Project Coordinator: Site Plan review Scott's Ivy Exxon — Final Site Plan (FSP) SDP2021-00030 Scott Collins, Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA 22902, scott(a)collins-engineering.coml SR&DR LLC, 1031 Milton Drive, Keswick, VA 22947 20 Apr 2021 22 Jul 2021 7-Mar2022 14 May 2021 5 Aug 2022 [reconstructed 3/1022 since original Rev. 1 comments cannot be located] 10-Mar 2022 John Anderson Mariah Gleason / Revisions: Bill Fritz 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, FIT, 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 afinal 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. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 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 ftnal Tier III GWA. Engineering accepts information 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 na/ 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 floodplain (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 floodplain 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. mow:: [ Image removed with Rev. 1 comments] (Rev.1) Addressed. 100YR FLOODPLABQ labels have been removed. 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 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.' (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Applicant response (letter d. Jul-1, 2021): `This plan requires a LOMA not a LOMR, which is under review with FEMA. The original open span bridge was replaced relatively recently with quad boxes by VDOT. These quad boxes have either the same or restricted area of flow and would have been analyzed by VDOT before they installed it. This means that the same or less flow would be in the stream at our Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 property which is downstream of the quad boxes. We are not affecting these quad boxes and are not analyzing them as part of the plan.' Engineering acknowledges and appreciates this circumstance. Web link to culvert schematic: htti)s://www.virginiadot.org/Proiects/Culpeper/asset upload file613 109367.pdf Web link to VDOT project overview: htti)s://www.virginiadot.org/Proiects/Culpeper/asset upload file417 109367.pdf Also: htti)s://www.biucridgelife.com/2018/07/26/albemarle-route-250-bridge-at-ivv-is-open-to-traffic/ 6. Please ensure FEMA-approved floodplains are shown on the final site plan, and that ESP conforms with county ordinance requirements at 18-30.3. Flood Hazard Overlay District ( htti)s:Hlibrary.municode.com/va/albemarle county/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=CH18ZO ARTIIID IRE S30OVDI 530.3FLHAOVDIH ) (FSP) Comment persists. Applicant: `This comment is acknowledged.' (Rev. 1) Applicant: `It seems this comment will persist until the LOMA is approved and the updated FIRM revises the project outside of the floodplain, and subsequently outside of the FH overlay. (30.3.2 "The Flood Insurance Rate Map, including all of the special flood hazard area zone designated thereon, is hereby adopted as the zoning map of the flood hazard overlay district.")' (Rev. 2) Addressed. LOMR 21-03-1595A Approved by FEMA 12/2/21. As ollow-up /Sheet 2: Revise floodplain label to read: `FEMA-Approved 100 year floodplain. See LOMR 21-03-1595A.' 7. 18-4.12.15.a, surface materials: SP2020-00006 (Approval /8/19/20), pg. 9, includes teiEt b&E, below (blue ciFele lower ower lower is ). [ISP image removed with ESP 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 ESP 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.' (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `LOMA was submitted to Albemarle County Floodplain Admin and since then we have received comments from FEMA on LOMA application. We have addressed those comments and resubmitted to FEMA. These updated sheets have also been uploaded to the Floodplain Admin.' 13. Provide FEMA-approved LOMR as soon as possible (prerequisite to Final Site Plan approval). (FSP) Persists. Applicant: `This comment i edged.' (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant: `LOMA is under review.' (Rev. 2) Addressed. LOMR 21-03-1595A Approved by FEMA 12/2/21. 14. Submit Floodplain Development Pen. _ation 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. r Scott's AT c.,.,,.n circled,image, below /VFRIS: https://Consappsrpt.dcr.virginia.gov/vafloodrisk/vfris2.htmi ] (FSP) Addressed. VSMP /WPO application WPO202100023 submitted 4/26/211 review pending. [Image removed with Rev. 1 ] Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 16. Sheet 4, Grading and Drainage Plan: Recommend 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 ESP 17. 18' travelway on west side of building will not accommodate 2-way traffic; please provide `1-way traffic' sign at SW corner of the building to minimize conflicts. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `A typical section for fire apparatus is 2" SM-9.5 over 8" stone. This section exceeds this by also including 3" of BM-25 over 5" of stone.' 19. Sheet 4: Proposed 6.5% parking lot grade (behind building expansion) exceeds max. grade (5"/6; 18- 4.12.15.c). Please revise to 5% max. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 20. Sheet 3: Label (Typ.) length of 4 (perpendicular) parking spaces fronting SWM facility. (Rev. 1) Addressed. (Rev. 1 Note): Items 21-26 Acknowledged by Applicant. 21. WPO202100023 approval is required prior to ESP approval. (Rev. 2) Persists. SWM facility easement plat recordation is required prior to WPO plan approval. WPO plan 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. (Rev.2) Persists. Applicant response (letter d. 2/14/21): `Attached is the approved LOMR. The VSMP plan is ready for approval, once the nutrient credits have been purchased.' CORRECTION: The VSMP plan may be approved once the SWM easement plat is reviewed, approved, and recorded, and SWM Maintenance Agreement is approved /recorded by Albemarle County. Nutrient credit purchase is required to acquire a Grading Permit but is not required prior to VSMP /WPO plan approval. The WPO plan may be approved prior to nutrient credit purchase. Also, please see items 21, 23. 23. A SWM Facility Maintenance Agreement is required to be recorded prior to plat /deed recordation. (Rev. 2) Persists. Please Note: A SWM Maintenance Agreement is required prior to VSMP /WPO plan approval. 24. FDP202100005 Approval is required prior to WPO plan approval. (Rev. 2) Addressed. LOMR 21-03- 1595A Approved by FEMA 12/2/21. 25. LOMR, approved by FEMA, is required prior to ESP approval. Also, item 13 above. (Rev. 1) Applicant: `... and the LOMR will [be] sent when FEMA has approved it.' (Rev. 2) Addressed. LOMR 21-03-1595A Approved by FEMA 12/2/21. 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. (Rev. 2) Persists. Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832-x3069. Thank you SDP2021-00030 Scott's Ivy Exxon ESP 031022rev2