HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800144 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2009-03-06ALg�,��
�'IRGINZ�
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:
All comments have been addressed.
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 lft 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 drawn accurately. Engineering review is particularly 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-
] 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 ]ft.
Also, the cover over the plastic pipe exceeds the maximum of 18ft so it must be replaced
with RCP Class V pipe. 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.oriz. 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.oriz. 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 @albemarle.org if you have any questions.
File: E3_fsp esc swm_PBC_Crown Automotive.doc