HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201100042 Review Comments 2011-07-06 *New ‘14.6‘
' .
• COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA
• Soil and Water Conservation Board
Stfit7ixt,-
203 Governor Street, Suite 206,Richmond,
Virginia 23219
, i
Telephone (804)786-2064 P:4 : 0. ti
P' '
•744-4 ,4 EROSION AND SEDIMINT
C ONTROL '-••.•407-•'', :
RESPONSIBLE LAND r .
DISTURBER
.4 I
„f,`Filut)6
•
•
r, -,,,,-/•/: _.--- ,
L.,' _-• '-
. .
Expires Cta tific ate Number
Dominic N Moriando
06/17/2014 35953
--'''DCR
Dire,:tor ,
Divisiot of Soil ik Wats,. Coeswatiot
, . ...
COMMONWEALTH OF NTRGINTA
Soil and W. CAIIS -aticer.Boat
203 Crovsmor Stet. St.ite 20,6 Ag•1'445 '
f ;* l'.4 Richrr.,m1,Virginis 2321P
,k,;:,,,,,,,,,i:
V-:----,0
EROSION AND SEDLNIENT CONTROL
RESPONSIBLE LAND DISTURBER
Expires Certificate
Dominic N Morlanda
06/17.,2014 3593
...... .....-
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
[ EXPIRES ON
i,
9:.:•May land Dr.,Suite 400,Richmond 1,VA 23233 2 B
705144001
01-31-2014 To!ephone:(804)367-8500
„) ....•
BOARD FOR CONTRACTORS
CLASS A CONTRACTOR
*CLASSIFICATIONS* BLD H/H PAV
MORLANDO CONSTRUCTION LLC
8604 CLIFF CAMERON DR STE 155
CHARLOTTE, NC 28269
lk.4k74*('`
*...,...TT.
.',...,,.i/
--' /".
-3rJori:', Di%or., 1r'
A'.,E,R.Trst4,'...',7--.6 DC124 NE!.r■..5.€:Ai,:LH rk.frs+TI:7■11,CA OSEDY K:4EQP1-5 C,A FIVILIS OTTI
rPAI.,110f."NNW.,wor RE.S.Z,I 6.C;INIII.AL ufs3SE":::113341.TICIE.THE'.:-..74E C27 1■4:0,0,
le
(SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR NAME AND ADDRESS CHANGE)
,°:,f,—,4.-■ ,,uir
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
1 DEPARTMENT OF PRO FESSiONAL AND OCOUPAT1004AL REGULATION
BOARD FOR CONTRACTORS 29to thiodno Dr..Suns 400,Frolunor45,VA 23233
CLASS A CONTRACTOR
'CLASSIFICATIONS*BLD H/H PAW
NUMBER: 2705144001 EXPIRES: 01-31-2014 i
MORLANDO CONSTRUCTION
8604 CLIFF CAMERON DR STE 15t: ,•
CHARLOTTE,NC 28269
st :
1
,
'2.,-,IS:,-1.'...1,.*-tir SF AF-IT A 7.,7.P.A*Ch:No 1.1.:E.C7 F'_. tC..r.5,.;,4 If 4.41:C,.1;I"N VI 11,-...:;o-4.-14Ei,LW FIE.V I.:IN 7140.110.41.PAC,Sifiros JUDO i-ri CI CA 41.01.1.■
Page l of l
Philip Custer 0\3
From: Philip Custer 5\ S'°
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:41 PM (�v Q (�O
To: 'Ankita Kot'; 'Ankita Kot' \ /
Cc: Bill Fritz 0\8( �
Subject: Engineering Review of the Crown Automotive Site Plan (SDP-2008-00144)
Good evening,
Engineering review for Current Development has completed their review of the latest site plan submittal for the
Crown Automotive Retail, Parts, and Service Building (SDP-2008-00144). All outstanding comments have been
addressed and engineering review has no objection to the approval of the site plan once the receipt of plat
recordation for application SUB-2008-00286 is received.
The ESC and SWM plan had previously been approved. A grading permit can be issued for this project once:
-the final site plan is signed by all reviewing agencies
-the applicant delivers 4 full copies of the latest plan and 1 copy of the SWM set (sheets C1, C10, C17, C19, and
C21-C30) to engineering review
-a SWM facility maintenance agreement and fee are recorded for parcel 78-15.
-the WPO bond is posted (The forms and instructions to post the Water Protection Ordinance Bond can be found
on the Community Development Department Web site on www.albemarle.org. You may contact Pam Shifflett
(Albemarle County Department of Community Development) at ext. 3246 for further information on bonding
procedures.); and
-a preconstruction meeting is held between the contractor and county inspector
Please direct all questions regarding the site plan process to Bill Fritz. For any questions regarding the approval
of the WPO, please feel free to contact me.
Thanks,
Phil
3/30/2009
Page 1 of 1
,wriero, *woe
Philip Custer
From: Philip Custer
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:39 AM
To: 'Ankita Kot'
Cc: Bill Fritz
Subject: Engineering review of Crown BMW Parts, Service, and Retail Building Site and WPO plans
Attachments: E3_fsp esc swm_PBC_Crown Automotive.doc
Good morning,
Attached is the engineering comment letter for the third review of the Crown Parts, Service, and Retail Building
Site, SWM, and ESC plan (WPO-2008-00093 and SDP-2008-00144). There are two technical items that require
some modification regarding the site plan. The SWM and ESC plans are approved on the condition that a SWM
facility maintenance agreement is recorded for TMP 78-15. Once the required modifications to the site plan have
been made, please submit two copies of all amended sheets to the county.
The E&SC bond amount is$21,200. The SWM bond amount is $230,400. The forms and instructions to
post the Water Protection Ordinance Bond can be found on the Community Development Department Web site
on www.albemarle.org. You may contact Pam Shifflett(Albemarle County Department of Community
Development) at ext. 3246 for further information on bonding procedures.
The site plan can be approved once these finals issues are resolved, ARB approval has been received, and a
receipt of the easement plat recordation has been given to the county. A grading permit can be issued once the
site plan is approved, the SWM bonds have been posted, and several copies of the WPO plan have been
submitted to the county (I will contact you regarding this once the site plan has been approved). After all previous
items have been completed, to receive a grading permit, please contact the Inspections division.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Thanks,
Phil
(434)296-5832 x3072
3/6/2009
•
41.1111'' Ill �r
74$1.6207
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Project: SDP-2008-00144, Crown Automotive Site Plan
WPO-2008-00093, Crown Automotive SWM and ESC Plans
Plan preparer: Ankita Kot;Freeland and Kauffman, Inc.
Owner or rep.: Crown Motorcar Company,LLC c/o Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.
Date received: 24 September 2008 (plan signed date 10 September 2008)
(Rev. 1) 20 November 2008(plan signed 19 November 2008)
(Rev. 2) 11 February 2009(plan signed 9 February 2009)
Date of Comment: 31 October 2008
(Rev. 1) 15 January 2009
(Rev. 2) 6 March 2009
Engineer: Phil Custer
The Final Site, SWM,and ESC plans for Crown Automotive,received on 11 February 2009,have been
reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will require the following changes/corrections
prior to final approval.
A. General review comments:
B. Site Plan review comments:
6. A guardrail is needed in the southwest corner of TMP 78-15. It appears that because of the
required distance the guardrail must be spaced from the face of the retaining wall,the wall will
need to be moved into the adjacent property and the easement will need to be larger.
Engineering review recommends working with TMP 78-15C to eliminate the need for the 30ft
retaining walls by filling to meet grade.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The dimensions of the walls drawn on the plan do
not appear to match the detail on sheet RW5. The face of the top of the wall should measure
as 5ft from the face of curb and it many cases it does not. Also, the widths of the walls due to
its slope are not drawn accurately. Engineering review is particularly concerned with Wall B
because of its considerable height.
- (Rev. 2)Please see comment#10.
10. In many places, it does not appear there is enough room for a few of the walls and guardrails
considering the loss of 7.1 degree stacking angle of some of the walls. At 7.1 degrees, you
lose 1 ft horizontal for every 8ft of wall height. For instance, at retaining wall C,the distance
between back of curb of the travelway and back of curb of the lot on sales office property is
4.5 ft. Considering the loss of lft because of the slope of the wall,the 3.3ft between the face
of wall and the back of the guardrail, and the 1.5ft width of the guardrail (total 5.8ft),there is
not enough room.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The dimensions of the walls drawn on the plan do
not appear to match the detail on sheet RW5. The face of the top of the wall should measure
as 5ft from the face of curb and it many cases it does not. Also, the widths of the walls due to
•
its slope are not,.. "EGn accurately. Engineering review is par. irly concerned with Wall B
because of its considerable height.
(Rev. 2)Please show all wall widths accurately, not just wall B. The Architectural Review
Board will not approve the site plan without the shrubs in the tiered walls of E,F, and G.
The two foot gap between the back of wall and the face of wall does not appear large
enough for the shrub specified.
26. Please provide details for pipe systems running underneath a retaining wall. Pipes 11-10, 15-
13, and 2-1 will likely be close to the foundation slab of the proposed retaining walls.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The walls above the pipes from 12-11 and 11-10
are not represented accurately on the drainage profile sheet. For instance, according to the
wall detail on RW3, the base of wall A is at 360.5'which conflicts with the top of both pipes.
A detail will be needed for both of these pipes.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. The crossings must meet VDOT Standards PC-
1 and PB-1. For the new RCP Class V pipe proposed underneath the leveling pad, the
distance from the bottom of the pad to the top of the outside of the pipe must be at least Ift.
Also, the cover over the plastic pipe exceeds the maximum of 18ft so it must be replaced
with RCP Class Vpipe. The detail for this pipe through the wall and leveling pad is not
satisfactory. There does not appear to be enough room around the pipe to ensure an even
distribution of the load.
C. SWM review comments:
1. SWM facility maintenance agreements will need to be recorded for both properties before the
site plan can be approved. Please submit these documents with fees directly to Pam Shifflett
after consulting the guidelines available on the county website.
(Rev. 1) The agreement has been received and its approval is pending.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. A maintenance agreement is needed for TMP
78-15.
16. The SWM portion of the WPO bond will be computed once the plan has been approved.
(Rev. 1)Please provide cost estimates from the suppliers of all pre fabricated SWM systems
so that they can be bonded. The estimates should also include a reasonable cost for
installation as well.
(Rev. 2) The SWM portion of the WPO bond has been calculated to be$230,400. The
forms and instructions to post the Water Protection Ordinance Bond can be found on
the Community Development Department Web site on www.albemarle.orz. You may
contact Pam Shifflett(Albemarle County Department of Community Development) at ext.
3246 for further information on bonding procedures.
D. Site ESC review comments:
14. The ESC portion of the WPO bond will be calculated once the plans are ready to be approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment remains unchanged.
(Rev. 2) The ESC portion of the WPO bond has been calculated to be$21,200. The forms
and instructions to post the Water Protection Ordinance Bond can be found on
the Community Development Department Web site on www.albemarle.orz. You may
contact Pam Shifflett(Albemarle County Department of Community Development) at ext.
3246 for further information on bonding procedures.
Please contact me at(434)296-5832 ext. 3072 or email pcuster(aialbemarle.org if you have any questions.
PROJECT NAME: ICrown Retail,Parts,and Service Building
FILE#: l WPO-2008-00093
DATE APPROVED: 3-6-2009; Estimate is based on the set sigend 2-9-09(site plan has a few issues at this time)
1 i
Item IUnit 'Amount Unit Cost Subtotal ,
Filterra 4x6(F1, F3,and F5) each 3, $7,750.00 $23,250
Filterra 6x8(F4) leach 11$11,300.00 $11,300 '
Filterra 4x12(F2) leach 11$12,500.00 $12,500, 1
Filterra Installation per project 51 $11,7631
Stormfilter(2 Cart.) each 1 $7,500.00 $7,500 I
Stormfilter(3 Cart.) each 2 $10,450.00 $20,900
Stormfilter Installation per project 31 $7,100
Detention Facilit each 11$60,000.00 $60,000
Detention Installation 50% $30,0001 --
SUBTOTAL $184,313
25%Contingency -- $46,078
TOTAL , $230,391===
ROUNDED TOTAL $230,400-
min total after reduction 1 $46,080 1
Nor Nur"
BOND ESTIMATE-EROSION CONTROL Spreadsheet last revised:12-5-01
PROJECT NAME: Crown Retail, Parts,and Service Building
PROJECT NUMBER: WPO-2008-00093
DATE OF ESTIMATE: 03/02/09
ESTIMATE BY: PBC
BASED ON: Drawing signed 2-9-09
WATER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL
SEED, FERTILIZE,MULCH ACRE 2.5 1500 3750
SILT FENCE LF 270 5 1350
SAFETY FENCE LF 720 3 2160
DIVERSION DIKE LF 200 3 600
SEDIMENT BASIN 1 ACRES 2.5 1000 2500
INLET PROTECTION EA 13 200 2600
PAVED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EA 2 2000 4000
SUBTOTAL 16960.00
CONTINGENCY&ADMINISTRATION LS 25% 4240.00
TOTAL 21200.00
BOND AMOUNT REQUIRED C 21200.00 J
FREELAND and KAUFFMAN, INC.
&,t 1/E/5W • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
February 9, 2009
To: Phil Custer
)
,c(73
oc(-0
From: Ankita Kot 7b0
Re: Crown BMW Retail Parts and Service Building
(Charlottesville, VA)
Please find 2 sets of revised plans, 2 copies of revised inlet calculation sheet, 3 copies of
revised easement plat and check of$300 review fee for the above referenced project
along with response letter for the comments received on January 15, 2009:
B. Site Plan review comments:
3) Critical slopes have been shown on Sheet C2 and sheet C10.
5)VDOT standard detail GR-2.2A has been specified for guiderail on retaining wall
drawing (RW5) and on sheet C10.
6)The actual wall thickness has been shown in the plans for retaining wall "B". Refer to
sheet C 10 & RW-2.
10)The actual wall thickness has been shown in the plans for retaining wall "B". Refer to
sheet C10 & RW-2.
13) Southern entrance has been designated as CG 1 1. Refer to sheet C4.
16) Phil Custer mentioned over the phone that waiver request has been approved.
18) Inlet calculations have been revised to show that inlet #26 is on grade. Also, 6'
throat length has been provided. 2 copies of revised calculations have been included in
this submittal.
22) Sidewalk detail has been revised. Refer to sheet C6.
25) A note has been added that all drainage shall run away from dumpster pad. Refer to
sheet C10.
26) Storm drain profiles have been revised to match retaining wall plans. Refer to sheet
C18. Also, refer to sheet RW5 for pipe pentration detail.
28)2' deep riprap has been provided for structure #2 & 7. Structure #7 has been shown
as new manhole. Refer to sheet C17, C18 & C19.
29) Drainage calculations from Flow Automotive (SDP 200800038) have been
forwarded to Philip Custer.
209 West Stone Avenue•Greenville, South Carolina 29609•Telephone 864-233-5497•Fax 864-233-8915
'vim ...e
30) Drainage calculations from Flow Automotive (SDP 200800038) have been
forwarded to Philip Custer.
C. SWM review comments
1) So ntoed.
6) StormFilter #2 detail has been revised. Refer to sheet C28.
13)As discussed with Mr. Philip Custer on 1/27/09, the equivalent of SL-1 is not
required for detention system.
15) Grading has been revised to show that flow drains towards Filterra 3. Refer to sheet
C10.
16) Cost estimates from Contech and Filterra have been forwarded to Philip Custer on
1/27/09.
D. Site ESC review comments
1) Phase 1 sequence of construction has been revised. Refer to item #4 on sheet
C11.
10) Storm drain pipe 7-21 will be constructed during phase 2 but it will be blocked.
Sequence of construction for phase 2 &3 has been revised accordingly. Existing swale
has been labeled as DV. Temporary diversion dike has been provided to divert runoff
from west side of property to sediment basin #1.
14)So noted.
15)
(a)A safety fence has been added with a sign stating "Danger, quick sand and do
not enter". Refer to sheet C12.
(b)Sequence of construction for phase 3 has been revised.
(c)Top surfaces shall be blocked for water quality devices. This has been added to Phase
3 sequence of construction. Inlets will not be blocked.
(d) Refer to item #9 of Phase 3 sequence of construction.
Please contact me if you have any questions at(864) 672-3433 or via e-mail akot @fk-
inc.com. Thank you.
Page 1 of 1
Philip Custer
From: Philip Custer
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:21 PM
To: 'Ankita Kot'
Subject: Engineering review of the Crown Automotive site and WPO plans
Attachments: E2_fsp esc swm_PBC_Crown Automotive.doc
Good evening,
Attached is the engineering review comment letter for our review of the site(SDP-2008-00144) and WPO(WPO-
2008-00093) plans for the Crown Automotive Retail, Parts, and Service Building.
The review of the plat has not been completed. I hope to have comments sent out Tuesday afternoon regarding
the plat.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Thanks,
Phil
1/21/2009
,pFALA,
o Ili II*
��IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Project: SDP-2008-00144, Crown Automotive Site Plan
WPO-2008-00093, Crown Automotive SWM and ESC Plans
Plan preparer: Ankita Kot; Freeland and Kauffman,Inc.
Owner or rep.: Crown Motorcar Company,LLC c/o Asbury Automotive Group,Inc.
Date received: 24 September 2008 (plan signed date 10 September 2008)
(Rev. 1)20 November 2008(plan signed 19 November 2008)
Date of Comment: 31 October 2008
(Rev. 1)15 January 2009
Engineer: Phil Custer
The Final Site, SWM, and ESC plans for Crown Automotive, officially received on 11 December 2008
because of a late payment of the WPO plan, have been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as
submitted and will require the following changes/corrections prior to fmal approval.
A. General review comments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
B. Site Plan review comments:
1 •
2. :: €7. .,.,
tax as: YF4`ele
3. Please shade all critical slopes on Sheet C2. [DM]
(Rev. 1) The shading of the critical slopes did not duplicate well on sheet C2. Also, it
appears that not all the critical slopes have been shaded.
4
` F1 T P711 ha, t,>,`saF [e d
5. The guardrails rep,ed at the top of the retaining walls must be`a'CTDOT Standard. The site
plan must also specify the proper guardrail terminals as well.
(Rev. 1)Please call out the VDOT standard on sheet CIO and the wall details.
6. A guardrail is needed in the southwest corner of TMP 78-15. It appears that because of the
required distance the guardrail must be spaced from the face of the retaining wall, the wall will
need to be moved into the adjacent property and the easement will need to be larger.
Engineering review recommends working with TMP 78-15C to eliminate the need for the 30ft
retaining walls by filling to meet grade.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The dimensions of the walls drawn on the plan
do not appear to match the detail on sheet RW5. The face of the top of the wall should
measure as 5ft from the face of curb and it many cases it does not. Also, the widths of the
walls due to its slope are not drawn accurately. Engineering review is particularly
concerned with Wall B because of its considerable height.
7.
8.
9.
10. In many places,it does not appear there is enough room for a few of the walls and guardrails
considering the loss of 7.1 degree stacking angle of some of the walls. At 7.1 degrees,you
lose 1 ft horizontal for every 8ft of wall height. For instance,at retaining wall C, the distance
between back of curb of the travelway and back of curb of the lot on sales office property is
4.5 ft. Considering the loss of lft because of the slope of the wall,the 3.3ft between the face
of wall and the back of the guardrail, and the 1.5ft width of the guardrail(total 5.8ft),there is
not enough room.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The dimensions of the walls drawn on the plan
do not appear to match the detail on sheet RW5. The face of the top of the wall should
measure as Sft from the face of curb and it many cases it does not. Also, the widths of the
walls due to its slope are not drawn accurately. Engineering review is particularly
concerned with Wall B because of its considerable height.
11.
a 1 a., fi 2t, :.{j A<,,
t f: +ad L.'?T t(5.
12. . ;.
13. All entrances must have a VDOT designation. [DM]
(Rev. I) The southern entrance should have a VDOT entrance called out as well.
14.
15.
16. There does not appear to be a loading space that meets 18-4.12.18 provided on site. A waiver
from the Zoning Department will be required if one is not provided.
(Rev. 1) The resp.,n e from the Zoning Administrator regardin'the request for a waiver
will be forwarded to the applicant when it is received by engineering.
17.
18. An inlet should be provided east of the site entrance along Route 250. As currently designed,
close to 250 linear feet of 3.5 lanes will drain across the entrance and flow into inlet 4. Curb
inlet calculations should be provided for this new inlet and storm pipe. A drainage easement
will be required on this system of pipe.
(Rev. 1) The curb inlet calculations indicate that this inlet is located in a sump when it is
actually on grade. Please adjust the inlet calculations. A larger throat on the inlet should
also be provided to increase the efficiency of the structure.
19.
20.
21.
22. Please correct the sidewalk detail. The sidewalk detail should not show a 6" curb unless it
meets a VDOT CG designation. The sidewalk detail must also show in section 4"of stone
base and 4"of concrete of 3000psi strength at 28 days or stronger that is reinforced with a
wire grid. Handicap ramps should be specified with a VDOT standard.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The sidewalk detail should not show a 6"curb
unless it meets a VDOT CG standard.
23.
24.
25. Please provide more spot elevations in the area of the dumpster to assure that drainage does
drain across the footprint of the dumpster.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
26. Please provide details for pipe systems running underneath a retaining wall. Pipes 11-10, 15-
13, and 2-1 will likely be close to the foundation slab of the proposed retaining walls.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The walls above the pipes from 12-11 and 11-10
are not represented accurately on the drainage profile sheet. For instance, according to the
wall detail on RW3, the base of wall A is at 360.5'which conflicts with the top of both
pipes. A detail will be needed for both of these pipes.
27.
28. The following information needs to be shown in the drainage profiles:
• r4 sn 6
d. Structures will a vertical drop of 4ft or greater(including from the surface to the bottom of
the facility)must have VDOT Standard IS-1 specified.
(Rev. 1)IS-1 is not required on the inlets with a 2ft riprap sump since they serve the same
purpose. Please remove one of the call outs in structure 2 and 7. Engineering review
recommends the use of IS-1 instead of the riprap scour protection so that there is not
permanent pool of water in the structure. Please note that it appears as though the
applicant is proposing a sump in inlet 7 which would require the replacement of the entire
structure (though might need to be replaced anyway). If that is case, the structure
should be shown as new in the profile.
29. The drainage computations show that several of the proposed 36"pipes are undersized. Please
correct.
(Rev. 1) Calculations could not be confirmed because a drainage area map for the
upstream system was not provided.
30. Drainage maps should be provided for the existing storm sewer main to estimate the flow
through the site. Currently,the drainage area map only shows the area draining to the new
proposed inlets. For instance, drainage area lines estimating the watershed for pipe system 19-
9 to determine the flow through pipe 9-7.
(Rev. 1) Calculations could not be confirmed because a drainage area map for the
upstream system was not provided.
31.
32.
33.
C. SWM review comments:
1. SWM facility maintenance agreements will need to be recorded for both properties before the
site plan can be approved. Please submit these documents with fees directly to Pam Shifflett
after consulting the guidelines available on the county website.
(Rev. 1) The agreement has been received and its approval is pending.
6. Engineering revio"ias a few concerns regarding the Stormfilter"systems:
a. As currently shown,both inlet pipes will be filled with water. Please place the inlet pipes
above the water elevation so that the upstream storm pipes are empty under normal
conditions.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
b.
13. The equivalent of the VDOT Standard SL-1 should be provided for in the details for this
detention structure.
(Rev. 1)I do not see where this has been provided.
15. The topography in the parking lot uphill of Filterra 3 creates a channel that appears to bypass
the filterra. Please correct.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
16. The SWM portion of the WPO bond will be computed once the plan has been approved.
(Rev. 1)Please provide cost estimates from the suppliers of all pre fabricated SWM systems
so that they can be bonded. The estimates should also include a reasonable cost for
installation as well.
D. Site ESC review comments:
1. There appear to be conceptual problems with the erosion and sediment control plan and a full
review could not be completed. There are considerable issues when the site transitions from
Phase II to Phase III with the current plan. Engineering review recommends building a
sediment basin,using structure 7 as the riser, immediately after the stormsewer main (11-10-9-
7)is constructed and directing all water during construction to it. This way,the ESC measure
is in the corner of the site and can be removed and filled once the rest of the site is deemed
adequately stabilized by the site inspector.
(Rev. 1)In phase 1 of the ESC plan,please note in the construction sequence that structure
7 needs to be retr.,jittted to be the sediment basin riser. -�
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. The silt fence on the west end of the site will not filter water but will act more as a diversion
dike. Please replace this silt fence dike(or using the existing swale)to direct sediment-laden
water to the sediment basin facility until the site is to grade. (Please see comment D.1).
(Rev. 1) The storm pipe 21-7 should not be constructed in Phase II but Phase III. The
existing swale should be diverted into the basin as long as the basin is active. Please label
the existing swale as a DV and provide a diversion dike near the basin, if necessary, making
it clear that runoff draining west from the site should be directed into the sediment basin.
11.
c.
d.
e.
12.
13.
14. The ESC portion of the WPO bond will be calculated once the plans are ready to be approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment remains unchanged.
15. Additional comments may be required based upon the required changes.
a. (Rev. 1)Please provide a safety fence around the sediment basin with a sign stating
"Danger, quick sand, do not enter." A safety fence should also be placed around the
entire site,especially areas near the existing crown building and parking lot.
b. (Rev. 1)Please clarify when and how the new entrance is to be constructed and the old
entrance closed.
c. (Rev. 1) The construction sequence mentions that the outlet pipes of the water quality
features are to be blocked during construction. Shouldn't the inlet pipes and surfaces
be blocked until the site is stabilized? Will sediment-laden water be sent through the
detention fac....tty of will the inlets upstream be sealed until s t stabilization has
occurred?
d. (Rev. I)Please provide a note in the Phase III construction sequence that the detention
facility is to be cleaned out once the site is stabilized to the satisfaction of the Erosion
and Sediment Control Inspector.
Please contact me at(434)296-5832 ext. 3072 or email pcuster@,albemarle.org if you have any questions.
ar..r
FREELAND and KAUFFMIAN, INC.
ENGINEER5 • LANP5CAPE ARG-iITECT5
November 17, 2008 N
To: Phil Custer
tv
From: Ankita Kot
Fro
Re: Crown BMW Retail Parts and Service Building
(Charlottesville, VA)
Please find 2 sets of revised plans and 2 sets of SWM computations for the above
referenced project along with response letter for the comments received on October 31,
2008:
A. General review comments:
1) A boundary line adjustment plat has been submitted to County.
2) An easement plat will be submitted at a later date.
3) Name of the public road on west of the site has been changed from "Pantops Park
Drive" to "People's Place".
4) So noted. We will submit revised plans to VDOT directly.
B. Site Plan review comments:
1) Date and source of the topography has been listed on sheet C2.
2) All existing easements with deed book references, locations and dimensions have
been provided on sheet C2.
3) Critical slopes have been shaded on sheet C2.
4) A note has been added on Landscape Plan.
5) The guide rails required at the top of the retaining walls are VDOT standard. Refer to
details GR-2 and GR-6 provided on Site Details sheets.
6) Guide rail and fence have been provided along retaining wall which is located
southwest corner of TMP 78-15.
7) A guiderail and fence have been provided along tiered wall which is located west of
the proposed building.
8) Guiderail has been removed along retaining wall "A".
209 West Stone Avenue•Greenville.South Carolina 29609•Telephone 864-233-5497 •Fax 864-233-8915
ti..r
9) Guiderail and fence have been provided for retaining wall B, C, E and G.
10) As per retaining wall design details distance between face of wall and back of guide
rail has been provided 3.3'.
11) 20' sanitary sewer easement has been provided for sewer lateral through TMP 78-
15B. 56' Drainage easement has been provided for pipe from the ACSA property to
TMP 78-15B. All easement have been shown on easement plat which will be
submitted at a later date.
12) Drainage easements have been shown on Landscape Plan. No trees of significant
size have been provided inside the drainage easements. Refer to sheet C31.
13) CG11 has been specified for entrance from Route 250. Refer to sheet C4.
14) Profile has been revised to show that grade does not exceed 4% for the first 40
feet. Refer to sheet C33.
15) CG6 has been specified for all curb and gutter. Refer to sheet C4.
16) A waiver has been provided for loading space.
17) Bollard has been provided at the southwest corner of the new building.
18) An inlet #26 has been provided east of the site entrance along Route 250. Curb
inlet calculations have been provided in SWM report. Also 20' drainage easement
has been provided along this new pipe.
19) So noted.
20) Traffic generation and distribution summaries have been provided for both
entrances. Refer to sheet C4.
21) VDOT specifications have been used for parking lot pavement section.
22) Sidewalk detail has been revised. Handicap ramps have been specified with a VDOT
standard. Refer to sheet C6.
23) Refer to architectural drawings for dumpster detail. Dumpster pad detail has been
provided on sheet C6.
24) Dumpster pad is 24'x11.33'.
25) Spot elevations have been provided for dumpster to assure that drainage does drain
across the footprint of the dumpster. Refer to sheet C10.
26) The pipes located under the retaining wall are designed to take heavy fill loads. It is
critical that compaction of the soil around and below the pipe be achieved. This will
create equal soil pressure around the pipe and will not allow it to deflect.
27) Storm drain profiles have been provided for pipes. Refer to sheet C17, C18 and
C19.
28) VDOT structure designation, throat length for each curb inlet, grate type for grate
inlet, VDOT standard IS-1 and VDOT standard SL-1 have been specified for drainage
structures. Refer to sheet C17, C18, C19 and C20.
29) Existing 36" storm drain analysis has been provided in SWM Report.
30) Drainage area map has been provided for existing storm sewer main to estimate the
flow through the site. Refer to SWM report. Refer to section 10 and 11 of SWM
report.
31) Hydrologic coefficient and a time of concentration for each drainage area has been
provided. Refer to Section 10 of SWM report.
32) Yes, there will be grading at the base of tiered wall provided along People's place.
Spot elevations have been provided at the base of tiered wall. There is an existing
swale on east side of People's Place and a new swale is proposed to carry the flow to
Inlet #21.
33) A note has been provided on Grading plan to specify 2% cross slope on the
travelway from the building down to Filterra 2. Refer to sheet C10.
C. SWM review comments:
1) SWM facility maintenance agreement will be submitted at a later date.
2) Approval letters from Filterra and Contech have been provided with this submittal.
3) 3" orifice and 15" outlet pipe has been provided to control 2 and 10 yr runoff. Refer
to SWM Report.
4) The acreage, hydrologic coefficient and time of concentration have been provided
for post developed drainage area map. 2.26 ac drains to underground detention
system.
5) Post developed drainage area map has been revised. Refer to sheet C22.
6) Inlet pipe elevation for stormfilter #2 has been revised. Refer to sheet C28. Mr.
Adam with Contech has discussed the stormfilter comments with Mr. Phil Custer
and has resolved the comments.
7) Inlet #25 draings to detention facility and has been treated. Catch basin Stormfilter
#3 has been specified for inlet #25.
8) Access risers have been provided for all inlet and outlet points.
9) A trashrack has been provided for 3" orifice. Detail has been provided on
Underground detention system drawings.
10) Note has been added that all manhole access to the detention facility must meet all
OSHA standards. Refer to sheet C10.
11) The equivalent of VDOT standard SL-1 has been provided for detention structure.
12) All pipes entering and leaving the facility are minimum 15".
13) A note has been provided that flow shall be directed to Filterra 3.
14) So noted.
15) So noted.
D. Site ESC review comments:
1) Sediment basin has been proposed using existing structure #7 as the riser. Refer to
revised erosion control plans.
2) Construction entrance has been provided for each phase of the ESC plan.
3) Existing entrance from People's Place and existing drive from Route 250 will be used
as construction entrance during Phase 1 & 2. For phase 3, entrance drive from
Route 250 will be used as construction entrance.
4) Pipe outlet sediment trap has been removed. Sediment basin has been designed for
erosion control.
5) Critical slope has been shown on Phase 1 plan.
6) Dust control has been specified on the erosion control plans.
7) Parking and staging area has been specified for each phase.
8) Soil stockpile area has been specified for each phase.
9) A note has been provided in Phase 1 E&S Plan that contractor will specify location of
borrow site at pre-construction meeting. Also this note has been added to Erosion
control narrative under Offsite areas. Refer to SWM report for Erosion control
narrative.
10) Silt fence has been provided on east side of People's Place. A swale is proposed on
east side of People's Place to divert the water to sediment basin. Since a swale is
proposed there is no need to diversion dike.
11) Refer to revised erosion control narrative provided in SWM report.
12) Inlet protection has been provided for existing inlets.
13) Existing entrance has been removed from People's Place. New curb and gutter has
been proposed at this place.
14) So noted.
1 5) So noted.
Please contact me if you have any questions at (864) 672-3433 or via e-mail akot @fk-
inc.com. Thank you.
vr.r
Ankita Kot
Freeland and Kauffman, Inc. an
209 West Stone Avenue [terra
Greenville, SC 29609
Bioretention Systems
November 13,20080 A Growing Icea m Stotmwater Filtration
Plan Review of Filterra®
BMC Service Center, Albemarle County, VA
Dear Sirs
Thank you for submitting the revised partial plans on 05 November 2008 for our review
of the BMW Service Center project.
Filterra®structures Fl (6x4), F2 (12x4), F3 (6x4), F4 (8x6)and F5 (6x4) were studied
for;
• Planned Filterra®box size
• Filterra® contributing drainage area meeting project's regional sizing specification
• Spot elevations(TC) for Filterra®and bypass relief
• Filterra® invert elevations are 3.5' below TC
• Filterra® invert elevations are higher than effluent invert elevations
•The bypass is lower than the Filterra® elevation (spot elevations)
• The grading pattern encourages cross linear flow and not head-on flow
• The Filterra®outlet drain pipe is sized correctly and exits perpendicular to the wall
•For any conflicting structures such as storm drain pipes below Filterra®
• For most efficient placement of Filterra®units
• 4-6" opening throat detail and standard notes on plans
The plan review concluded that the Filterra®structures listed above were sited and sized
appropriately to treat stormwater to our published specifications.
Operational consistency with these specifications is contingent upon the stormwater units
being installed correctly and according to the plans, as well as regular maintenance being
performed. Installation Help documents will be forwarded to the Buyer at time of order.
The Filterra®Installation, Operation and Maintenance Manual will be forwarded to the
Owner when the units are activated by Americast.
Yours sincerely
Dean Baddorf
Engineer Support Manager
Filterra®Bioretention Systems
Manufactured by Americast T:(804)798-6068 A E R I CAST
11352 Virginia Precast Road F:(804)798-8400 not just concrete.concrete solutions.
Ashland,VA 23005 E:design @filterra.com www.filterra.com
NINNY
Noel
w \i%&JTcwu®
1i A I Li n
STORMWATER
SOLUTIONS».
November 14, 2008
Ankita Kot
Freeland& Kaufman, Inc.
209 West Stone Avenue
Greenville, SC 29609
RE: Review of StormFilter Design for Crown BMW.
The purpose of this letter is to document for Albemarle County our review of the plans and the proposed
application of the Catchbasin StormFilters at this site as you have requested.
CONTECH Stormwater Solutions has reviewed the StormFilter design for Crown BMW. We believe the
Catchbasin StormFilter is an appropriate water quality solution for this site. The StormFilter system has
received a certification from VDCR for 50% Phosphorous removal.
The engineer of record reports the following information:
Drainage Area(acres) Impervious Area (acres) C-factor Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
CBSF#1 0.19 0.17 0.85 1.08
CBSF#2 0.29 0.29 0.9 1.99
CBSF#3 .37 .32 .85 2.08
The Catchbasin StormFilter is designed as a flow based system and is sized by calculating a peak water
quality treatment flow rate using the rational method and assuming an intensity of .35"/hr. The
StormFilter is designed to remove 80%TSS and 50% TP while treating the '/"water quality volume. To
adequately treat the areas, two 3-cartirdge Catchbasin StormFilters and one 2-cartridge Catchbasin
StormFilter is recommended.
As with all BMPs, the StormFilter will require periodic maintenance to operate properly. The system
appears to be constructible and is located in order to facilitate maintenance activities. Given typical street
pollutant loading rates, CONTECH Stormwater Solutions recommends maintenance on an annual basis.
In summary,these systems are expected to operate in accordance with CONTECH Stormwater Solutions'
design intent.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Isham Khan
Design Engineer
CONTECH Stormwater Solutions, Inc.
CONTECH. www.contechstormwater. corn
The Stormwater Msnagemen
YVortechss R Cll..i -"r"" - _
CMPDETENT�ONSYSTEMS
Ca�� StormFilter (DETENTION SYSTEMS
m U) 1 cn
•
O N Cn ((D OO cD
: 3 D
m
3
v
cnw CA) . ( m
ona?73
0
m
m m
o
cn cn cn co
- cn Z
m C)
0
m
cD
D 'r
N N N (D
0o *co 0o fl)
c�
CD
co co co
O O O cn
co CO 00
-a O O D
O N N
-� -.I CJ1 �'
00 CO O
C V . CD 0
CO C
CO CD 0 3
cD
.pOO ro
Cn
CD
cD
-o
o, Z
O o 0
6 in in cn
w w w
03 CO CO
CA) iv 0
co o CO
oww 5'
w
A Cd4 N 0 O
CO O CO N —
0) O " .+
-.10303
v CD
O O O
N O O ED
•
00o co can 0
O O o v— O�
Co 6 O C
O — Q
cn
Page 1 of 1
Philip Custer
From: Philip Custer
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 2:36 PM
To: 'Ankita Kot'; 'mcraddock @crownauto.com'
Subject: Engineering Review for Crown Automotive
Attachments: E1_fsp esc swm_PBC_Crown Automotive.pdf
Good afternoon.
Attached is the engineering review letter for the Crown Automotive site, esc, and swm plans. Please contact me
should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Thanks,
Phil
(434)296-5832 x3072
10/31/2008
Nero
�pFALg�
1111111F.
var.
IRGtN).P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Project: SDP-2008-00144, Crown Automotive Site Plan
WPO-2008-00093, Crown Automotive SWM and ESC Plans
Plan preparer: Ankita Kot; Freeland and Kauffman,Inc.
Owner or rep.: Crown Motorcar Company,LLC c/o Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.
Date received: 24 September 2008 (plan signed date 10 September 2008)
Date of Comment: 31 October 2008
Engineer: Phil Custer
The Final Site, SWM,and ESC plans for Crown Automotive,received on 24 September 2008,have been
reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will require the following changes/corrections
prior to fmal approval.
A. General review comments:
1. A boundary line adjustment appears to be necessary so that the building is only located on one
property. If the property boundary is not adjusted, the County Building Official may require a
firewall in the building between the two parcels.
2. An easement plat showing the required access, drainage, swm,private sanitary on the ACSA
property, and parking easements must be recorded prior to site plan approval.
3. Please note on all sheets and documents that the public road west of the site has been called
People's Place rather than Pantops Park Drive.
4. VDOT approval is required. At this time,VDOT comments have been forwarded to the
applicant. The applicant should work directly with VDOT regarding these comments.
B. Site Plan review comments:
1. Please make sure the date and source of the topography is listed on Sheet C2. [DM]
2. Please show all existing easements with deed book references, locations, and dimensions on
the properties involved.
3. Please shade all critical slopes on Sheet C2. [DM]
4. All slopes steeper than 3:1 will require a low maintenance,non-grassed groundcover. [DM]
5. The guardrails required at the top of the retaining walls must be a VDOT Standard. The site
plan must also specify the proper guardrail terminals as well.
6. A guardrail is needed in the southwest corner of TMP 78-15. It appears that because of the
required distance the guardrail must be spaced from the face of the retaining wall,the wall will
need to be moved into the adjacent property and the easement will need to be larger.
Engineering review recommends working with TMP 78-15C to eliminate the need for the 30ft
retaining walls by filling to meet grade.
7. A guardrail is also needed over the tiered retaining wall west of the building.
8. There cannot be a break at the guardrail at the filterra. The wall must be pushed into the
adjacent property. Engineering review recommends working with TMP 78-15C to eliminate
the need for the retaining wall in this area.
9. Retaining walls B, C, E, and G should have both a guardrail and a taller safety/pedestrian
Nor'
railing like the de,uil on Sheet RW5. 'wire
10. In many places, it does not appear there is enough room for a few of the walls and guardrails
considering the loss of 7.1 degree stacking angle of some of the walls. At 7.1 degrees,you
lose 1 ft horizontal for every 8ft of wall height. For instance, at retaining wall C,the distance
between back of curb of the travelway and back of curb of the lot on sales office property is
4.5 ft. Considering the loss of lft because of the slope of the wall,the 3.3ft between the face
of wall and the back of the guardrail, and the 1.5ft width of the guardrail(total 5.8ft),there is
not enough room.
11. A private sanitary sewer easement is needed over the sewer lateral through TMP 78-15B.
Also, a new drainage easement for pipe from the ACSA property to TMP 78-15B will be
needed. A plat showing all of these easements(plus the existing and already proposed
easements in this set)must be recorded prior to site plan approval.
12. Please show drainage easements on the Landscape plan. No trees of significant size will be
allowed inside the drainage easements.
13. All entrances must have a VDOT designation. [DM]
14. All entrances must not exceed 4%for the first 40ft from the curbline of Route 250. [DM]
15. Please label all curbing with the proper VDOT designation. [DM]
16. There does not appear to be a loading space that meets 18-4.12.18 provided on site. A waiver
from the Zoning Department will be required if one is not provided.
17. Please provide an island at the southwest corner of the new building that is at least 3ft wide.
18. An inlet should be provided east of the site entrance along Route 250. As currently designed,
close to 250 linear feet of 3.5 lanes will drain across the entrance and flow into inlet 4. Curb
inlet calculations should be provided for this new inlet and storm pipe. A drainage easement
will be required on this system of pipe.
19. All changes of direction in stormpipe systems must be at least 90 degrees.
20. Please provide traffic generation and distribution summarys.
21. Please use VDOT specifications in the parking lot pavement section.
22. Please correct the sidewalk detail. The sidewalk detail should not show a 6"curb unless it
meets a VDOT CG designation. The sidewalk detail must also show in section 4"of stone
base and 4"of concrete of 3000psi strength at 28 days or stronger that is reinforced with a
wire grid. Handicap ramps should be specified with a VDOT standard.
23. A dumpster pad detail meeting the requirements listed in the design manual is required.
24. The dumpster pad must be at least 18ft long.
25. Please provide more spot elevations in the area of the dumpster to assure that drainage does
drain across the footprint of the dumpster.
26. Please provide details for pipe systems running underneath a retaining wall. Pipes 11-10, 15-
13, and 2-1 will likely be close to the foundation slab of the proposed retaining walls.
27. The set appears to be missing several storm drain profiles. The following profiles should be
included in the set: R1-9, 15-14, 18-13, 12-11, and 19-9.
28. The following information needs to be shown in the drainage profiles:
a. A VDOT designation for each structure.
b. The throat length for each curb inlet.
c. The grate type for each grate inlet.
d. Structures will a vertical drop of 4ft or greater(including from the surface to the bottom of
the facility)must have VDOT Standard IS-1 specified.
e. All structures deeper than 12ft must have a VDOT Standard SL-1 (including existing
structure 7).
29. The drainage computations show that several of the proposed 36"pipes are undersized. Please
correct.
30. Drainage maps should be provided for the existing storm sewer main to estimate the flow
through the site. Currently,the drainage area map only shows the area draining to the new
proposed inlets. For instance, drainage area lines estimating the watershed for pipe system 19-
9 to determine the flow through pipe 9-7.
31. In the drainage ai.,a maps,please include a hydrologic coefficient and a time of concentration
for each drainage area.
32. Will there be any grading from the base of the tiered walls to Peoples Place? Please provide
spot elevations at the base of the walls in this area. Has inlet 22 been placed at its current
location to catch runoff from the swale on the east side of Peoples Place?
33. Please specify a 2% cross slope on the travelway from the building down to Filterra 2.
C. SWM review comments:
1. SWM facility maintenance agreements will need to be recorded for both properties before the
site plan can be approved. Please submit these documents with fees directly to Pam Shifflett
after consulting the guidelines available on the county website.
2. Please provide approval letters from the manufacturers of the prefabricated stormwater
systems(Filterra and Contech) stating that as proposed,the facilities meet the minimum
standards and removal rates attributed to them by the Virginia DCR.
3. The output from the routing of the detention facility does not appear to meet the full
requirements of the design manual and state law in the cases when downstream channels are
inadequate. However, engineering review realizes that meeting those requirements with such
a small site is practically impossible and will grant a variation from the requirements.
Detention and satisfying the downstream channel limitations concerns will be approvable if
both the 2 and the 10 year storms are routed through only 3"orifice. The applicant may use
either the modified rational method(routing the critical storm)or the SCS method for the
facility. Please contact me to discuss this further.
4. In the post-development drainage area map for the detention facility, please provide the
acreage,hydrologic coefficient, and time of concentration. The acreage appears to be less than
the 2.8 acres that has been used in the routing calculations.
5. The post-development drainage area map is not correct. The drainage area line as drawn on
Sheet C20 appears to still be the limits of disturbance for the project rather than the drainage
area to the detention facility. For instance the drainage area to the facility should be extended
to the centerline of Route 250. Also, inlets 18 and 20 do not drain to the detention facility as
indicated in the map.
6. Engineering review has a few concerns regarding the Stormfilter systems:
a. As currently shown,both inlet pipes will be filled with water. Please place the inlet pipes
above the water elevation so that the upstream storm pipes are empty under normal
conditions.
b. The 4"orifices in the concrete boxes limit will cause storms of a high intensity to bypass
the treatment facility. The current setup does not appear to match the detail approved by
DCR in the VSMH. I am concerned a large percentage of the first flush will not be treated
with the two facilities as proposed. By my calculations, any storm that is more intense
than 0.33 in/hr will use the bypass.
5. Inlet 20 should drain to the detention facility and should be treated. A drainage easement will
be required on this pipe system.
6. The Stormfilter catch basins should be sized to treat the water quality volume for the drainage
area to them.
7. The SWM facility easement will need to be recorded on TMP 78-15B before the site plan can
be approved.
8. Access should be provided in the detention facility to all inlet and outlet points.
9. A trashrack is required on all orifices.
10. Please provide a note on the plan that all manhole access to the detention facility must meet
all OSHA standards.
11. The equivalent of the VDOT Standard SL-1 should be provided for in the details for this
detention structure.
12. All pipes entering or leaving the facility must be a minimum 15" in diameter.
13. The topography in the parking lot uphill of Filterra 3 creates a channel that appears to bypass
••40.,
the filterra. Pleas.,correct.
14. The SWM portion of the WPO bond will be computed once the plan has been approved.
15. Additional comments may be required based on the changes to the plan.
D. Site ESC review comments:
1. There appear to be conceptual problems with the erosion and sediment control plan and a full
review could not be completed. There are considerable issues when the site transitions from
Phase II to Phase III with the current plan. Engineering review recommends building a
sediment basin,using structure 7 as the riser, immediately after the stormsewer main (11-10-9-
7)is constructed and directing all water during construction to it. This way,the ESC measure
is in the corner of the site and can be removed and filled once the rest of the site is deemed
adequately stabilized by the site inspector.
2. A construction entrance is needed for each phase of the ESC plan.
3. The construction entrance must be placed in a location that does not require any initial
grading. The location proposed in phase I and II requires grading. Engineering review
recommends using the existing entrance(across from the entrance to Peoples Place)during the
initial phases of construction.
4. Pipe outlet sediment traps require a variance from the program authority. Please provide a
letter justifying the use of this facility if you continue to use it in place of a standard in the
VESCH and a fee for a variance request of$760.
5. Please label the critical slopes on the phase I plan.
6. Please provide dust control on site.
7. Please provide a parking and staging area for each phase of construction.
8. Please provide a location for a soil stockpile for each phase of construction.
9. This site will require significant amounts of soil in order to construct. Please specify the
borrow site so we can confirm the site has an adequate erosion control plan. Please include
this in the Offsite areas of the ESC Narrative.
10. The silt fence on the west end of the site will not filter water but will act more as a diversion
dike. Please replace this silt fence dike(or using the existing swale)to direct sediment-laden
water to the sediment basin facility until the site is to grade. (Please see comment D.1).
11. Please make the following changes in the ESC narrative:
a. A title is needed.
b. Please identify all steep slopes on the Crown parcel and the adjacent slopes on the ACSA
property as critical areas.
c. The please remove the reference to Flat Branch and Bull Run from the narrative. Those
water bodies do not exist in Albemarle County.
12. Inlet protection is needed on the existing inlets in the parking lot of the existing sales property.
13. Please remove the existing entrance from People Place in Phase III of the plan.
14. The ESC portion of the WPO bond will be calculated once the plans are ready to be approved.
15. Additional comments may be required based upon the required changes.
Once these comments have been addressed,please submit 2 copies of the revised plans,
calculations, and narratives to Current Development Engineering.
Please contact me at 434-296-5832 ext. 3072 or email pcuster @albemarle.org if you have any questions.
File:E1_fsp esc swm_PBC_Crown Automotive.doc
FREELANC} aicK; ciJFF1v1AN INC.
EkANEERS LANR5CAPE: ItkatiThi:16
September 11 , 2008
To: Bill Fritz
From: Ankita Kot
Re: Crown BMW Retail Parts & Service Center
(Charlottesville, VA)
Please find enclosed 1 copy of preliminary approval letter, 8 sets of plans and 8
copies of SWM Report for the above referenced project. Please contact me with any
questions at 864-672-3433 or via e-mail at akot@fk-inc.com. Thank you.
•
209 West Stone Avenue Greenville,South Carolina 29609•Telephone 864-233-5497 Fax 864-233-8915
. ,
..r
CO
..,,\V..;41'27 .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
40l McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax (434)972-4012 •
August 12, 2008
Charles A Garcia
209 West Stone Ave
Greenville Sc 29609
RE: SDP2008-00003 Crown BMW Retail Parts & Service Building- Preliminary
Tax Map 78, Parcels 15B & 15B1 .
Dear Mr. Garcia:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on, July 29, 2008 approved the modification
of Section 4.2.3.2 to allow disturbance of critical slopes by a vote of 6:0.
The Department of Community Development hereby grants administrative approval to the above
referenced site plan.
The approval of the preliminary site plan is valid for(1) one year in accordance with Section 32.4.3.1 of
Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code. Therefore, the preliminary approval shall expire on August
12,2009. If the preliminary site plan approval expires, a new application must be filed and processed. ,•
Please address all of the requirements and conditions listed below and submit eight(8) tentative plan
copies to the Department of Community Development. This letter must be submitted with the tentative
plans, as a checklist,to document that you have addressed all requirements or conditions, or the tentative
plan will be denied.
Erosion and Sediment Control, BMP Stormwater Management, and road plans with the associated
applications and fees must also be submitted with the eight(8)tentative Plans.
Once the tentative plan is submitted and reviewed you will receive comments from all
departments/divisions/agencies that have made comment on the tentative plan. Any further
responses must be made directly to each department/division/agency that has further comment.
After all aforementioned departments/divisions/agencies have granted a tentative approval,you
must verify with the Planner that you may submit the final mylars (2 sets), two paper copies, the
final site plan application, and final site plan fee to the Department of Community Development.
Signing of the plans will occur within one week once it is determined that the final site plan mylars
reflect all tentative approvals.
The final site plan will be subject to all final site plan requirements(Zoning Ordinance Section 32.6), in
addition to the following conditions.
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature
until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained:
LI' I. The Final Site Plan shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18, Section 32.6 of the
Albemarle County Code
0 2.Current Development Planner approval to include
❑ a. Landscape plan
c b. Lighting plan
❑ c. All necessary easements for access.
❑ d. Plat combining Tax Map 78, Parcels 15B and 15B1
3.Current Development Engineer approval to include:
❑ a. Provision of minimum 100 feet of sight distance for all travelways.
❑ b. All necessary easements for construction and maintenance of walls, slopes and
drainage improvements.
o 4.Albemarle County Building Official approval.
❑5.Albemarle County Service Authority Approval to include:
❑ a. Water and Sewer plans.
❑ b. Agreements for activity within existing or proposed utility easments and on
Service Authority property.
6.Fire and Rescue Division approval to include:
❑ a. Adequacy of fire flow.
❑ b. Location of Fire Hydrants.
7.Architectural Review Board approval.
o 8.Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrances.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at(434)296-5832.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Chief of Current Development
•
Zoning and Current Development Division
Cc. Mike Craddock
•
3633-C West Wendover Ave •
Greensboro Nc 27407
Astar Asb Va2 LIc C/O Eproperty Tax/ Dept 114
P O Box 4900
•
Scottsdale Az 85261
File: SDP-08-3