HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200800032 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2008-12-02County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 15 July 2008
Rev. 1: 6 Oct 2008
Rev.2: 2 Dec 2008
Subject: Central Virginia Recycling Center (SP200800032)
1. Please show all streams on the property. Intermittent streams require buffers. The letter from
Environmental Control Opportunities, LLC mentions many unmapped intermittent streams, but none are
shown on the plan. It appears there may be one through the middle of the project area.
Rev. 1: This is still not clear on the plans. The Certified Engineer's Report indicates two primary
intermittent streams. Buffers appear on the plan for these, but the contour information is irregular, and
there are no stream lines. The report also indicates two additional branches off the southern stream, which
should have buffers.
Rev.2: This appears to have been addressed.
2. A certified engineer's report should be provided with the SP. The report indicated sound testing, but
results were not provided. Other performance standards for the operation, and for the garage/shop should
be addressed.
Rev. 1: This has been received. One of the primary issues appears to be noise. The report indicates tests
were performed, but the results were not found in the appendix as indicated, and there was no summary.
(In addition, the following concerns relayed by the neighbors were sent by email on 30 Oct.;) Odor has
been mentioned as a concern. The certified engineer's report says there will be none. Most mulching
operations, or aging processes, apparently have odor. Vehicle storage, and borrow or waste areas on the
remaining property, may be raised as issues.
Rev.2: It is not clear whether the intended use can meet the maximum noise limits allowed by the zoning
ordinance. With regard to noise and the other performance standards (vibration, lighting, air pollution,
etc.) the primary response to the likelihood of expected concerns are promises to adhere to operational
limits (not putting equipment in certain locations, not operating at night, turning off equipment not in use,
watering down dusty areas, limit the traffic to the facility, etc.). Physical measures (screening and walls,
barriers, distance, reduced site area, etc.) are preferable, and far more reassuring, not just to meet ordinance
requirements, but to address neighbor's concerns, which may be to lower thresholds than allowed by
ordinance. Operational measures are far less likely to work, and rely solely upon the vigilance of
neighbors and their willingness to persistently police the operation.
3. A traffic study should be provided, assessing the need for turn lanes on Rt. 250. The proximity to the
fork with Rt. 794 also appears problematic.
Rev. 1: This has been provided and is satisfaetefy. (This comment was amended by email on 30 Oct, as
given below)
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
The gist of the complication with the traffic information is in how it relates to the operational area shown
on the plans. For example, given your trucking information, I have computed an area needed of a little
over an acre. This is attached, with the program to run the math in the text file if you want to change
things, or if I have made a mistake. This area is approximated on your plan below;
trips:
retail or pickup = 5
sa_truck = 50
trailers = 5
employees = 10
expected export in cy
daily_Vol = (pickup*2)+(sa_truck*6)+(trailers*20)
daily_Vol = 410.00 cy
area of storage required
pile—ht = 12 ft
pile_a = 20 degree at base of triangular pile
hyp = pile_ht/sin(pile_a) hyp = 35.09 ft
pile—base = 2*hyp*cos(pile_a) pile_base = 65.94 ft
cx_area = pile_base*pile_ht*0.5 cx_area = _395.64 sf
length = daily_Vol*27/cx_area length = 27.98 ft
storage—area = length*pile_base
storage—area = _1845.00 sf
area of storage with 20 days supply + 50% area for
operations
area = 20*storage_area*1.5
area = _55350.00 sf
area^0.5 = _235.3 ft a side for square area
It appears there is a lot more area for operations than the traffic study would suggest. The traffic
assumptions need to be related to the site plan and operations directly in some manner. Some related
details; your plan table says there are 15+ acres of pavement and 8+ of gravel, which looks off using the
graphic above. ITE Code 140 has been suggested for use, but I have not compared that directly. It has
also been mentioned that single -axle trucks are a rarity, and double axle are mostly used. In any case, in
the absence of actual measured data at similar facilities, the assumed traffic will be open to this sort of
conjecture.
Rev.2: The applicant has responded that my estimates are in error and all the extra site area is needed for
operations; i.e. aging and coloring. As I have shown above, I estimated 20 days supply and increase the
area by 50% for operations. These seems conservative to me. Without a more specific address of this
issue, I must conclude that traffic, and more specifically trucking, has been underestimated.
4. The parking and travelways on the plan do not appear to meet the requirements of 18-4.12.15..
Rev. 1: This has been revised, and can be addressed in detail on the site plan.
Rev.2: no change to comment.
rie: E3_5p_GEB_CVK.doe