HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800003 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2008-04-16*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Patrick Lawrence, Current Development Project Planner
From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review
Date: 16 April 2008
Subject: Crown BMW Retail, Parts, and Service Building (SDP- 2008 - 00003)
The first revision to the preliminary site plan for the Crown BMW Retail, Parts, and Service Building has
been reviewed. The engineering review for current development cannot recommend approval to this
preliminary site plan. The following comments are provided.
1. This development will require a critical slope waiver. Please see Section 18 -4.2.5 for
guidance in applying for this waiver. It appears there is a greater area of critical slope
disturbance on site than the shaded area shows. [18 -4.2]
(Rev. 1) A report of the critical slope disturbance will appear in a separate document.
2. The maximum allowable grade in parking areas is 5 %. [18- 4.12.15c]
(Rev. 1) The request for a waiver of 4.1235c has been forwarded to the Zoning
Administrator. Engineering review does not recommend approval of this waiver.
3. The maximum allowable grade in a travelway is 10 %. [18- 4.12.17a]
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
4. Please provide pedestrian access from the lower parking lot to the service building.
[4.12.1]
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
5. A temporary off -site grading and a permanent sanitary easement will be required for the
development of this project. The applicant must provide a letter of intent from the
adjacent property owner displaying the neighbor's willingness to give these easements
before preliminary approval of the site plan can be recommended.
(Rev. 1) The applicant has supplied a letter from the ACSA, the owner of TMP 78 -15C,
that states that the service authority has no objections to the proposed easements,
permanent or temporary, that were shown to them in early February.
6. Please provide typical wall details. It appears that due to the height of the wall adjacent to
parcel 78 -15C, a permanent easement on that neighboring property might be needed.
(Rev. 1) The wall configuration shown on the site plan and the typical wall details do
not match; there are no guardrails shown on the site plan. The new wall adjacent to
the parking lot on the existing dealership property will need to be close to 5' off of the
top of curb as shown in the provided wall detail. This would relocate the wall into the
adjacent ACSA property. An amendment to the letter referenced above should be
provided referencing the latest set of permanent and temporary easements.
7. The service building appears to create internal sight distance issues. Please provide
internal sight distance in the manner described in the design manual. [4.12.1]
(Rev. 1) The request for a waiver of 4.12.15d has been forwarded to the Zoning
Administrator. Engineering review does not recommend approval of this waiver.
8. All parking spaces must be protected by a minimum 3ft wide curbed island. [18- 4.12.15f,
DM]
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
9. Engineering is concerned about the pedestrian and service doors on the east side of the
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
building and their proximity to the travelway. The pedestrian doors cannot exit into a
travelway. [4.12.13d, 4.12.1]
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The exits from the building (vehicular and
pedestrian) are located too close to the primary access travelway.
10. Please provide the site's removal rate spreadsheet. At this time, engineering review is
unable to determine whether the proposed treatment facilities are adequate for the site. It
appears that the grading and layout plan may need to be adjusted to direct more water into
satisfactory facilities if the required removal rate is not achieved on site with the current
plan.
(Rev. 1) The conceptual SWM is adequate.
11. Storm sewer pipe easements will require a greater width than those shown on the site plan.
Stormwater easements are only required for pipes carrying water from offsite properties,
and they must be sized according to the formula specified in the design manual.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed, though the plan should show an enlarged
easement over the pipe from 12 to 11 in the final plans. Engineering review is also
concerned about the considerable length of the 30ft tall wall within the public drainage
easement and recommends the applicant eliminate the walls adjacent to TMP 78 -15C
and meet the existing grade by filling.
12. Engineering is concerned about the two entrances onto Route 250 and their proximity to
one another. Engineering recommends closing the eastern entrance and providing an
access easement on both properties along the shared drive.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
13. The internal travelways adjacent to the site entrances off of Route 250 appear to create the
potential for cars queuing into the public ROW. Please provide a 50ft uninterrupted
entrance from the curb -line of Route 250. [DM]
(Rev. 1) The 50ft uninterrupted entrance has been provided on TMP 71 -15B1 but not
on TMP 71 -15B1.
The following comments are not required for preliminary site plan approval but will be during
the final review.
1. Existing inlet 20 should be relocated 40ft north to capture water before it runs across the
entrance. A grate inlet that is not in a sump condition may allow water to bypass during
intense storm events.
(Rev. 1) Because this inlet is in a sump, a grate inlet is acceptable, but the spread width
will need to be calculated in the final plan.
2. All walls adjacent to travelways or parking areas will require a guardrail. [18- 32.7.2]
(Rev. 1) This comment has been noted by the applicant.
3. An analysis of the downstream storm sewer main will be required to prove the adequacy
of the downstream conveyance system used for this development. [Minimum Standard 19,
VESCH]
(Rev. 1) This has been noted by the applicant.
File: E1_psp_sdp200800003.doc