HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800038 Review Comments Letter of Revision 1 2009-03-20From: Amy Pflaum
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:37 PM
To: John Shepherd
Subject: RE: Flow Auto - parking modification request
John,
The western -most island slated for removal is designed to contain an 8' curb -
opening inlet (DI -3B) that captures flow from the building rooftop and the
parking lot. The applicant needs to address changes to the site drainage
patterns which will result from the removal of this inlet. New drainage
computations must be submitted.
Thank you,
Amy D. Pflaum
Senior Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
(434) 296 -5832 x3069
apflaum @albemarle.org
From: John Shepherd
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:41 PM
To: Amy Pflaum
Cc: kirsten @collins - engineering.com
Subject: FW: Flow Auto - parking modification request
Amy,
I ask for your comments on this modification request. This is associated with
SDP - 2008 -38.
Thank you.
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
(434) 296 -5832 ext. 3023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kirsten Munz [mailto: kirsten @collins - engineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:58 PM
To: John Shepherd
Cc: Scott Collins
Subject: Flow Auto - parking modification request
John,
Please find a waiver attached requesting to remove parking islands at Flow Auto.
This project is underway and the owner is hoping to get this resolved as soon as
possible so he can begin paving. If you are not the correct person to work with
on this, please let me know.
Thanks for your help.
Kirsten Munz, P.E., A.I.C.P.
COLLINS ENGINEERING, LLC
800 East Jefferson Street, Suite 300
Charlottesville, VA 22902
phone: (434)566 -3013
fax: (434)293 -3719
kirsten @collins - engineering.com
�'IRGINLP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012
August 5, 2008
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
800 E. Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA 22904
Peter Sheeran
Sheeran Architects
226 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB 2007 -98: Flow Auto — Display Parking Addition, Building Addition
Dear Scott and Peter:
I have reviewed the recent submittal for the above - referenced proposal, including architectural
plans CS, A1.4, A4.1, A4.3 with revision date of 7/14/08; Al. 1, A1.2, A2.1, A2.3, and A7.1 with
revision date of 5/28/08; and A2.2 with revision date of 4/14/08. The changes made in this set of
drawings sufficiently satisfy the outstanding conditions of ARB approval. You may consider this
letter your Certificate of Appropriateness. However, please note the following:
1. There remains a floating "HVAC #1" note on sheet A7.1 that should be deleted.
2. If changes are made to this site plan following the resolution of the issue regarding the
planter located between parcels 14D and 15D (as outlined in my August 5, 2008 letter on
ARB 2007 -95: Flow Maintenance Building), a set of revised plans must be submitted to
me for the ARB file.
3. This application is approved with the condition that mechanical equipment shall not be
visible from the Entrance Corridor.
This approval is predicated on the fact that the design and materials, as proposed and exhibited
for review, will be used. The acceptance of approval implies that the applicant has agreed to
execute the design as indicated on the site plan, attachments, materials, samples, and other
submittal items presented. Any change in the approved design or materials will require an
amendment to the plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
If you have questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: File
Michael Wall, Flow Companies, Inc., via email
From: Jonathan Sharp
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:38 AM
To: 'Scott Collins'
Cc: Amy Pflaum; Michael G. Wall; peter @sheeranarchitects.com; kirsten@collins -
engineering.com
Subject: Flow Auto
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Flow Automotive - Final [SDP200800038]
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [email: scott @collins -
engineering.com]
Primary contact: Mike Wall [email:]
Plan received date: 11 Mar 2008
16
19
22
Date of comments: 31 Mar 2008
24
03
23
Reviewer: Amy Pflau
Apr 2008 (Revl)
May 2008 (Rev2)
July 2008 (Rev3)
Apr 2008 (Reel)
July 2008 (Rev2)
July 2008 (Rev3)
n, Jonathan Sharp (Revl, Rev2, Rev3)
Bond amounts are listed below. Please contact Pam Shifflett in regards to
bonding: pshiffl @albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3246.
Also, please note that bonds cannot be posted until the plans have been approved
(all outstanding comments have been addressed by all departments and divisions,
easement plats received, all plan copies received, etc.).
A. Final Site Plan comments
All outstanding easement plats must be deeded, approved, and recorded prior to
final site plan approval. Please submit one (1) copy of the drainage
calculations for our files.
B. Stormwater Management comments
The SWM bond is set at $71,000. Please submit three (3) copies of
the SWM plans for our files. Please submit one (1) copy of the SWM calculations
for our files.
C. Erosion Control Plans
The ESC bond is set at $20,000. Please submit four (4) copies of the
ESC plans and narratives for our files.
Page 1 of 2
Megan Yaniglos
From: Hamidi, Ajmal [Ajmal.Hamidi@a VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:36 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Cc: Jonathan Sharp; Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: RE: SDP - 2008 -038 Flow Automotive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Attachments: FLOW AUTO S -1 SITE PLAN.pdf; FLOW -S -2 GRADING REV.pdf; FLOW AUTO S- 3.pdf;
FLOW DP -2 PROFILES REV.pdf; table 7.pdf
SDP - 2008 -038 Flow Automotive
Megan Yaniglos,
Collins Engineering has addressed all of our comments regarding the Flow Automotive site plan. I have attached
PDF files of their revised plans.
Before any roadwork on our right -of -way begins for this site, a permit must be obtained from the Charlottesville
Residency.
If you have any questions about this site plan review, please contact Joel DeNunzio or me.
AJ Hamidi
Tech I I I
Charlottesville Residency
(434)293 -0011
From: Hamidi, Ajmal
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:01 PM
To: 'myaniglos @albemarle.org'
Cc: 'jsharp @albemarle.org'; Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: SDP - 2008 -038 Flow Automotive
SDP - 2008 -038 Flow Automotive
Megan Yaniglos,
We have reviewed the above plan and have the following comments:
• One of the comments from the April 3rd, 2008 Site Review Committee Meeting was that the curb radius on the east
end of the property needed to be increased from 13' to 25'. The newest site plan dated 4/15/2008 proposes a 20'
radius instead of 25'.
• Since drainage structure EX5 will no longer receive any runoff, the drainage area for structure EX4 will become
larger. This larger drainage area will increase the spread on structure EX4 beyond the maximum allowable limit of
8'. Therefore, another drainage structure is needed somewhere between structure 18 and EX4 to reduce the spread on
structure EX4.
• A CG -12 ramp is required on the east end of the site.
• Sheet S -2, the grading plan, incorrectly identifies the proposed VDOT right -of -way as a proposed sidewalk easement.
7/21/2008
Page 2 of 2
The pavement design shown on sheet S -2 for the Route 250 right turn lane is not adequate. As stated on note 7 of the
CG -11 standard, the pavement design for the right turn lane and the entrance up to the proposed VDOT right -of -way
line must at least match that of the mainline pavement. The pavement design of Route 250 at this location is the
following:
➢ Surface: 1.5" of 9.51)
➢ Base: 6" of BM 25A
➢ Subbase: 6" of 21B
• On sheet DP -2 cross - section 12 +75.00 provides a profile for the eastern entrance to the site. According to this cross -
section, there will be a slope change of 8.94% ( -2% to +6.94 %). This exceeds the maximum allowable slope change
of 8% specified in the CG -11 standard. The CG -11 standard also requires a 10' vertical curve to connect grade
changes which has not been proposed in this plan. This entrance must be redesigned to comply with the CG -11
standard.
• The contour lines on sheet S -2 show that the grade of the right turn lane between stations 11 +50 and 11 +75 is
approximately 8 %. This grade is excessively high and should be reduced.
• The top -of -curb elevation at station 10 +00 should be reduced from 409.70' to 408.87' so that the right turn lane's
grade changes from roughly 1% to 4 %. When Crown BMW connects its right turn lane to this one, a 4% grade will
create a smoother connection. A taper should then be constructed from station 10 +00 to the drainage structure EX4 to
ensure proper drainage.
We also have the following notes which should be considered:
In the near future, Crown BMW Retail Parts and Service Center will be constructing a right turn lane that will connect
to the Flow Automotive's right turn lane. Coordination between these two construction projects is highly encouraged
to produce a smooth, continuous right turn lane.
Chapter 9 of the VDOT Drainage Manual (Section 9.4.8.6) requires that the velocities in pipes must not be less than 3
fps to deter settling. Pipe run 16 -14 has a velocity of 2.61 fps which is below the minimum.
Section 9.4.8.7 discourages velocities greater than 10 fps in pipes to avoid the potential for abrasion. Pipe runs EX4-
14, 14 -EX2, EX2 -OUT, 2 -EX2, and 10 -DET all have velocities which exceed 10 fps.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Joel DeNunzio or me.
Thanks,
A.J. Hamidi
Tech III
Charlottesville Residency,
(434) 293 -0011
7/21/2008
From: Hamidi, Ajmal [ Ajmal.Hamidi @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:36 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Cc: Jonathan Sharp; Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: RE: SDP - 2008 -038 Flow Automotive
Attachments: FLOW AUTO S -1 SITE PLAN.pdf; FLOW -S -2 GRADING REV.pdf;
FLOW AUTO S- 3.pdf; FLOW DP -2 PROFILES REV.pdf; table 7.pdf
SDP - 2008 -038 Flow Automotive
Megan Yaniglos,
Collins Engineering has addressed all of our comments regarding the Flow Automotive site plan.
I have attached PDF files of their revised plans.
Before any roadwork on our right -of -way begins for this site, a permit must be obtained from the
Charlottesville Residency.
If you have any questions about this site plan review, please contact Joel DeNunzio or me.
AJ Hamidi
Tech III
Charlottesville Residency
(434)293 -0011
From: Hamidi, Ajmal
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:01 PM
To: 'myaniglos @albemarle.org'
Cc: 'jsharp @albemarle.org'; Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: SDP - 2008 -038 Flow Automotive
SDP - 2008 -038 Flow Automotive
Megan Yaniglos,
We have reviewed the above plan and have the following comments:
• One of the comments from the April P, 2008 Site Review Committee Meeting was that the curb
radius on the east end of the property needed to be increased from 13' to 25'. The newest site plan
dated 4/15/2008 proposes a 20' radius instead of 25'.
• Since drainage structure EX5 will no longer receive any runoff, the drainage area for structure
EX4 will become larger. This larger drainage area will increase the spread on structure EX4
beyond the maximum allowable limit of 8'. Therefore, another drainage structure is needed
somewhere between structure 18 and EX4 to reduce the spread on structure EX4.
• A CG -12 ramp is required on the east end of the site.
• Sheet S -2, the grading plan, incorrectly identifies the proposed VDOT right -of -way as a proposed
sidewalk easement.
• The pavement design shown on sheet S -2 for the Route 250 right turn lane is not adequate. As
stated on note 7 of the CG -11 standard, the pavement design for the right turn lane and the
entrance up to the proposed VDOT right -of -way line must at least match that of the mainline
pavement. The pavement design of Route 250 at this location is the following:
➢ Surface: 1.5" of 9.51)
➢ Base: 6" of BM 25A
➢ Subbase: 6" of 21B
On sheet DP -2 cross - section 12 +75.00 provides a profile for the eastern entrance to the site.
According to this cross - section, there will be a slope change of 8.94% ( -2% to +6.94 %). This
exceeds the maximum allowable slope change of 8% specified in the CG -I I standard. The CG -11
standard also requires a 10' vertical curve to connect grade changes which has not been proposed
in this plan. This entrance must be redesigned to comply with the CG -11 standard.
The contour lines on sheet S -2 show that the grade of the right turn lane between stations 11 +50
and 11 +75 is approximately 8 %. This grade is excessively high and should be reduced.
The top -of -curb elevation at station 10 +00 should be reduced from 409.70' to 408.87' so that the
right turn lane's grade changes from roughly 1 % to 4 %. When Crown BMW connects its right
turn lane to this one, a 4% grade will create a smoother connection. A taper should then be
constructed from station 10 +00 to the drainage structure EX4 to ensure proper drainage.
We also have the following notes which should be considered:
• In the near future, Crown BMW Retail Parts and Service Center will be constructing a right turn
lane that will connect to the Flow Automotive's right turn lane. Coordination between these two
construction projects is highly encouraged to produce a smooth, continuous right turn lane.
• Chapter 9 of the VDOT Drainage Manual (Section 9.4.8.6) requires that the velocities in pipes
must not be less than 3 fps to deter settling. Pipe run 16 -14 has a velocity of 2.61 fps which is
below the minimum.
• Section 9.4.8.7 discourages velocities greater than 10 fps in pipes to avoid the potential for
abrasion. Pipe runs EX4 -14, 14 -EX2, EX2 -OUT, 2 -EX2, and 10 -DET all have velocities which
exceed 10 fps.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Joel DeNunzio or me.
Thanks,
A.J. Hamidi
Tech III
Charlottesville Residency,
(434) 293 -0011
Page 1 of 2
Megan Yaniglos
From: Hamidi, Ajmal [ Ajmal. Ham idi@VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:01 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Cc: Jonathan Sharp; Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: SDP - 2008 -038 Flow Automotive
SDP - 2008 -038 Flow Automotive
Megan Yaniglos,
We have reviewed the above plan and have the following comments:
• One of the comments from the April 31d, 2008 Site Review Committee Meeting was that the curb radius on the east
end of the property needed to be increased from 13' to 25'. The newest site plan dated 4/15/2008 proposes a 20'
radius instead of 25'.
• Since drainage structure EX5 will no longer receive any runoff, the drainage area for structure EX4 will become
larger. This larger drainage area will increase the spread on structure EX4 beyond the maximum allowable limit of
8'. Therefore, another drainage structure is needed somewhere between structure 18 and EX4 to reduce the spread on
structure EX4.
• A CG -12 ramp is required on the east end of the site.
• Sheet S -2, the grading plan, incorrectly identifies the proposed VDOT right -of -way as a proposed sidewalk easement.
• The pavement design shown on sheet S -2 for the Route 250 right turn lane is not adequate. As stated on note 7 of the
CG -11 standard, the pavement design for the right turn lane and the entrance up to the proposed VDOT right -of -way
line must at least match that of the mainline pavement. The pavement design of Route 250 at this location is the
following:
➢ Surface: 1.5" of 9.513
➢ Base: 6" of BM 25A
➢ Subbase: 6" of 21B
• On sheet DP -2 cross - section 12 +75.00 provides a profile for the eastern entrance to the site. According to this cross -
section, there will be a slope change of 8.94% ( -2% to +6.94 %). This exceeds the maximum allowable slope change
of 8% specified in the CG -11 standard. The CG -11 standard also requires a 10' vertical curve to connect grade
changes which has not been proposed in this plan. This entrance must be redesigned to comply with the CG -11
standard.
• The contour lines on sheet S -2 show that the grade of the right turn lane between stations 11 +50 and 11 +75 is
approximately 8 %. This grade is excessively high and should be reduced.
• The top -of -curb elevation at station 10 +00 should be reduced from 409.70' to 408.87' so that the right turn lane's
grade changes from roughly 1% to 4 %. When Crown BMW connects its right turn lane to this one, a 4% grade will
create a smoother connection. A taper should then be constructed from station 10 +00 to the drainage structure EX4 to
ensure proper drainage.
We also have the following notes which should be considered:
In the near future, Crown BMW Retail Parts and Service Center will be constructing a right turn lane that will connect
to the Flow Automotive's right turn lane. Coordination between these two construction projects is highly encouraged
to produce a smooth, continuous right turn lane.
Chapter 9 of the VDOT Drainage Manual (Section 9.4.8.6) requires that the velocities in pipes must not be less than 3
fps to deter settling. Pipe run 16 -14 has a velocity of 2.61 fps which is below the minimum.
Section 9.4.8.7 discourages velocities greater than 10 fps in pipes to avoid the potential for abrasion. Pipe runs EX4 -
14, 14 -EX2, EX2 -OUT, 2 -EX2, and 10 -DET all have velocities which exceed 10 fps.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Joel DeNunzio or me.
7/15/2008
Page 2 of 2
Thanks,
A.J. Hamidi
Tech III
Charlottesville Residency,
(434) 293 -0011
7/15/2008
�'IRGINLP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012
July 10, 2008
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
800 E. Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA 22904
RE: ARB 2007 -98: Flow Auto — Display Parking Addition, Building Addition
Dear Scott:
I have reviewed the recent submittals for the above - referenced proposal, including:
• architectural plans CS, D1.1, A1.1 and A1.4 with revision date of 5/5/08; A1.2, A2.3,
A4.1 and A7.1 with revision date of 5/28/08; A2.1 with revision date of 2/19/08; A2.2
with revision date of 4/14/08; and
• site plan sheets T1, S1, S2, S5, DP1, SWM1, ESC2, ESC3, LL1 and LL3 with revision
date of 5/28/08; E1, DP2, SP3 and SWM3 with revision date of 5/12/08; S3 and LL4 with
revision date of 4/15/08; S4, SWM2 and ESC with revision date of 9/24/07; and LL2
with revision date of 12/8/07.
I have the following comments.
1. Earlier review comments stated that the standard "No mechanical equipment shall be visible
from the Entrance Corridor" note should be added to the architectural plans and to the site
plans. The note appears on the site plan but not on the architectural plans.
2. The plans are still not completely coordinated regarding rooftop equipment.
• All equipment previously shown on the roof plan has been deleted from the drawing,
although one "HVAC #1" note remains.
• The cross section drawing shows rooftop equipment on the existing building and on
the addition.
Please do the following:
1. Indicate clearly in a memo if rooftop equipment is proposed on the existing building or on
the addition.
2. If rooftop equipment is proposed, submit revised architectural plans that show the equipment
locations on the roof plan and ensure that all drawings are coordinated throughout.
3. If no rooftop equipment is proposed, delete the equipment from the cross section drawing.
4. If existing equipment on the roof of the existing building is to remain in place unchanged,
show the equipment on the architectural and site plans and provide a note that indicates that
the equipment is existing to remain.
5. Include the following note on the architectural plans: "No mechanical equipment shall be
visible from the Entrance Corridor ".
Please note that a letter regarding the maintenance building project (ARB- 07 -95) will be
forwarded separately.
Please provide:
1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB
revision dates on each drawing and an ARB approval signature panel.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If
changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also.
Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate
review and approval.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your
revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a
Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: Peter Sheeran, Sheeran Architects, 226 East High Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902
File
Michael Wall, Flow Companies, Inc., via email
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County
staff has indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to
submit additional information please explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans
must be collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted for submittal.
TO:
PROJECT NAME: ARB- 2007 -98: Flow
DATE:
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions ( ) indicates submittal Code
County Project Number
# Copies
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E &S)
# Copies
Distribute To:
Mitigation Plan (MP)
2
M. Maliszewski
Waiver Request (WR)
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
Road Plan (RP)
Private Road Request, with private /public comparison
(PRR)
Private Road Request — Development Area (PRR -DA)
Preliminary Site Plan (PSP)
Final Site Plan (or amendment) (FSP)
Final Plat (FP)
Preliminary Plat (PP)
Easement Plat (EP)
Boundary Adjustment Plat (BAP)
Rezoning Plan (REZ)
Special Use Permit Concept Plan (SP -CP)
Reduced Concept Plan (R -CP)
Proffers (P)
Bond Estimate Request (BER)
Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D -GWMP)
Final Groundwater Management Plan (F -GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report (GWAR)
Architectural Review Board (ARB)
ARB- 2007 -98
2
Other: Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
ARB
2
M. Maliszewski
� OF AL
,. vIRGI1`IZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Flow Automotive - Final [SDP200800038]
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [email: scott@collins-enaineerin,-.co m]
Plan received date: 11 Mar 2008
16 Apr 2008 (Rev I)
19 May 2008 (Rev2)
Date of comments: 31 Mar 2008
24 Apr 2008 (Rev 1)
03 July 2008 (Rev2)
Reviewer: Amy Pflaum, Jonathan Sharp (Rev I, Rev2)
The final site plan for Flow Automotive has been reviewed. Before engineering can recommend approval
the following items must be addressed:
A. Final Site Plan comments
1. It does not appear that the fill in the southwest corner of the site (near existing STM manhole 5)
can tie to existing grading without exceeding a 2:1 slope. [ 18- 32.6.6]
Rev]: comments addressed.
2. The disturbance of existing areas of critical slope will require a waiver by the Planning
Commission. [18 -4.2, 14 -304]
Rev]: This item is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission.
Rev2: A critical slopes waiver was granted on May 6`", 2008.
3. One hundred feet on -site sight distance must be maintained by use of curbed islands a minimum 6'
off building corners or other obstructions. Please provide curbed islands (minimum 3'x6') at the
northeast and southeast corners of the existing portion of the building.
Rev]: comments addressed.
4. All parking rows must be protected by curbed islands. The proposed parallel parking along the
eastern property line of the site must be flanked by curbed islands. [18 -4.12]
Rev]: comments addressed.
5. Curbing is required on all parking areas, please show curbing along the proposed parallel parking
on the eastern property line of the site.
Rev]: comments addressed.
6. Proposed parking areas may not exceed 5% grade in any direction. All new parking spaces must
meet this criteria, including those proposed on existing pavement.
Revl: An administrative waiver request for this item is being reviewed by Engineering and Zoning
Staff.
Rev2: ?
7. Proposed sidewalks must be a minimum of 5' wide, exclusive of the curb. Those shown around
the proposed showroom appear to scale less than this. As this is a very "tight" site, please verify
the dimension.
Rev]: comments not addressed.
Rev2: comments addressed.
8. Please revise the Sight Distance Exhibit to state proper scale, show lane lines on Route 250, and
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
shade the site triangles. Please see VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix B, Page B -11.
Rev]: comments addressed.
9. Please revise the Easement Exhibit to include information pertaining to the parties easements will
be dedicated to and from.
Revl: All offsite drainage easements and any necessary construction easements will need to be
recorded prior to final site plan approval.
Rev2: Easement comments are attached at the end of the comment letter. Any drainage
easements dedicated to public use must be accompanied by a deed approved by the County
Attorney.
10. An easement is not required on the portion of the 4" sanitary sewer service lateral that is on the
parcel under review. Where the lateral leaves this parcel and enters another, an easement is
required there. [ 18- 32.7.4]
Rev]: comments addressed.
11. Please label the two round symbols found in the center of TMP 78 -15E on the Site Plan, they do
not show up on the Existing Conditions Plan.
Rev]: comments addressed.
12. There is an existing retaining wall shown on TMP 78 -15 in the area of proposed grading. Is this
wall to be removed?
Rev]: comments addressed.
13. The labeling of the storm sewer system is confusing. For example, the existing STM manhole
near the southwest corner of the site is labeled as both "BX1" and "5 ". On the Profile sheet it is
labeled as "EX STR 1" in one profile and "EX STR 5" in another. Please clarify this labeling. It
is also unclear which portions of the storm sewer pipes are to be abandoned and which are to
remain. Please clarify by shading the existing pipes and labeling the proposed pipes with sizes and
lengths.
Rev]: comments not addressed.
Rev2: comments addressed.
14. On the border of the two sheets pertaining to erosion & sediment control, "erosion" is spelled
incorrectly in the title block.
Revl: comments addressed.
15. Comments on the Drainage Areas and Computations, Stormwater Management Plan, and Erosion
& Sediment Control Plan will be forthcoming with the review of the previously submitted WPO
application (WPO200800020).
16. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the public right -of -way.
Revl: A copy of the plans has been forwarded to VDOT for review.
Rev2: We have not yet received any comments from VDOT. The latest copy of the plans should
have been forwarded to VDOT for review.
17. More comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
Additional comments:
18. All slopes steeper than 3:1 require non grass low maintenance ground cover.
Rev2: comments addressed.
19. Parking spaces adjacent 20 feet wide travelways must be 10 feet in width.
Rev2: comments addressed.
20. The note for pipe profile Ex. Str. 5 to Ex. Str. 15 is confusing. It states that the existing storm
sewer will be abandoned when it appears that it is to remain.
Rev2: comments addressed.
21. For the pipe profile Ex. Str. 5 to ex. Str. 15, the revised Ex. Str. 3 length is not provided.
Rev2: comments addressed.
22. On DP -1, the match -line refers to sheet S -2 when it should refer to the insert at the bottom of the
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
sheet.
Rev2: comments addressed.
23. Please provide pipe calculations for Ex. Str. 4 to Structure 18.
Rev2: comments addressed.
24. Please provide pipe profiles for Str. 17 to Ex. Str. 4.
Rev2: comments addressed.
25. For the pipe profile Str. 6 to Proposed Raintanks, the invert in for pipe 7 at Str. 10 is shown
incorrectly.
Rev2: comments addressed.
26. Please include the following on the pipe profiles:
a. A VDOT designation for each structure
b. A throat length or grate type for each inlet.
c. Inlet shaping (IS -1) in all structures
d. Safety slabs (SL -1) in any structures taller than 12 feet.
Rev2: comments not addressed.
27. Drainage area maps are incorrect, causing inlet and pipe calculations to be incorrect. For the
drainage plans, drainage going to Filterras should assume overflow for the 2 and 10 year storm,
and the drainage areas should be included with the downstream inlets. For example, there should
be 1.27 acres draining to Structure 6.
Rev2: comments addressed.
28. Drainage area maps should have the destination structure labeled for each drainage area.
Rev2: comments addressed.
29. All spreads must be less than 10 feet.
Rev2: No inlet calculations have been provided with this submittal.
B. Stormwater Management comments
30. Please provide a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement signed by the land owners of TMP 78 -14D,
15D, and 15E. Please include the appropriate $17 fee. Please send to Pam Shifflett.
Rev2: comments not addressed.
31. Please provide a Filterra approval letter.
Rev2: comments addressed.
32. The proposed drainage area map appears to be missing the 0.10 acres draining to Structure 16.
Rev2: comments addressed.
33. Please label the elevations of the orifice and weir, and label the weir length and location in the
manhole (is it centered in the manhole ?).
Rev2: The proposed pipe configuration out letting from the raintanks is inadequate. The pipe
inverts are too close together and are overlapping.
34. Please specify a trash rack over the orifice.
Rev2: comments addressed.
35. Please label the length and width of the raintank facility, as well as indicate the number of milk
crates used per length, width, and height.
Rev2: comments addressed.
36. Please provide the routing model and results for the detention facility, as well as graphs of routings
for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm.
Rev2: comments addressed.
37. Please indicate the critical duration used for each storm event.
Rev2: comments addressed.
38. Please provide computations for composite land use coefficients.
Rev2: comments addressed.
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
39. Times of concentration should generally decrease with development.
Rev2: comments addressed.
40. Please provide contour areas and elevations used for storage, matching the plans.
Rev2: comments addressed.
41. Please provide the hydraulic dimensions and coefficients for each weir, orifice, culvert or other
control structure used in the routing model, matching the plans.
Rev2: comments addressed.
42. A SWM bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
C. Erosion Control Plans
43. Please show existing vegetation on the plans.
Rev2: comments addressed.
44. Please identify the SW corner of the site as a critical erosion area, as a small portion drainage will
pocket in the corner as there is a low point in the silt fence. This area will need to be cleaned
regularly.
Rev2: comments addressed.
45. The temporary slope drain (TSD) is shown in a sump location running uphill and is very close to a
15" CM pipe to be removed. Please show the grading required to install the TSD.
Rev2: comments addressed.
46. Please remove Inlet Protection from the manhole.
Rev2: comments addressed.
47. Please clearly show details of how the TSD will tie into a manhole. Safety is a concern. The
manhole will be upwards of 15 feet deep and is very close to pedestrian areas.
Rev2: Will the manhole be large enough for the TSD to fit inside it? A standard VDOT
manhole only has a 20.5" opening.
48. The TSD must be 21 inches in diameter to meet VESCH standards.
Rev2: comments addressed.
49. Please provide calculations to show that the downstream drainage system is adequate. [MS -19]
Rev2: An analysis should be provided from the site down to the Rivanna River (17oodplain).
50. An ESC bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
J �
vIRGIN�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Patrick Lawrence, Planner
From: Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review
Division: Current Development
Date: June 11, 2008
Subject: SUB200800105,106,107 Flow Automotive (SDP200800038, WP0200800020)
The easements for Flow Automotive, TM 78, Parcels 14D, 15D and 15E, received on 24 April 2008, has
been reviewed. The engineering review for current development can not recommend approval of the
easements until the following items are adequately addressed:
A. SUB200800105:
1. Because the proposed 24 -inch storm sewer pipe between inlets EX and EX4 will be
approximately 20 -feet deep, a standard 20 -foot easement will not be adequate. Although it is
understood that a portion of this easement will be on the neighboring property (TMP 78 -15), it
appears that the portion on TMP 78 -15E will need to be increased. Please see the Albemarle
County Design Standards Manual for the required width.
2. Drainage easements must be labeled as "dedicated to public use ".
B. SUB200800106:
3. The 14 -foot wide strip along the Route 250 right -of -way is shown differently on the site plan
(SDP200800038). On the site plan, at the eastern end, the strip is only 8 -feet wide. Please revise
the plans to match.
C. SUB200800107:
4. Because the proposed 24 -inch storm sewer pipe between inlets EX and EX4 will be
approximately 20 -feet deep, a standard 20 -foot easement will not be adequate. Although it is
understood that a portion of this easement will be on the neighboring property (TMP 78 -15E), it
appears that the portion on TMP 78 -15 will need to be increased. Please see the Albemarle
County Design Standards Manual for the required width.
5. Drainage easements must be labeled as "dedicated to public use ".
�'IRGINLP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012
April 8, 2008
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
800 E. Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA 22904
RE: Flow Auto — Display Parking Addition
Dear Scott:
I have reviewed the site plan (SDP- 2008 -38) with latest revision date of 12/28/07. 1 have the
following comments based on the ARB action letter dated November 15, 2007.
1. This ARB comment was not addressed: "Provide revised architectural elevations for the
addition to the existing building. Coordinate the size of the building illustrated in the
elevations with the size of the building illustrated on the plan. Maintain the window at the
south end of the west elevation in the revised design." Please address this comment now,
ensuring that the architectural plans and site plans are fully coordinated.
2. This ARB comment was not addressed: "Revise the existing conditions plan to include the
existing plants on the east side of parcel 15." The existing conditions plan identifies the area
with an existing tree line and other sheets "ghost" the individual plants. The point of the
original comment was to identify the existing plants on the adjacent parcel so that the
proposed replacement plants could be compared to the existing plants in terms of quantity,
size, species, etc. Please revise the existing conditions plan to identify the existing plants on
the east side of parcel 15 and, because those plants are to be removed, do not show them on
the other sheets. For further clarity, please identify the other plants on parcel 15 as "existing
to remain ".
3. ARB comment #22 reads, in part: "Resolve the grading issues on the west and south sides of
the site regarding retaining walls, level planting area, filteras, etc." The engineering review of
this plan included the following comment: "It does not appear that the fill in the southwest
corner of the site (near existing STM manhole 5) can tie to existing grading without
exceeding a 2:1 slope. [18- 32.6.6]." Please provide for review the revised grading plan that
addresses the engineering comment.
4. Sheet E -1 identifies the existing signs on parcel 15D as "existing to be relocated ". These
nonconforming signs cannot be relocated without major redesign and review, so revise the
note to read "existing signs to be removed ".
5. Sheet E -1 identifies existing light poles as "remove and replace existing lights (typ.) ". The
existing light poles appear on the other sheets, but should not, since they will be removed.
Delete the existing light poles from all sheets but E -1.
As we discussed on the phone yesterday, the November 15, 2007 ARB action on this project
stated that the proposal would have to return to the ARB for additional review. I recommend you
proceed in this manner:
1. Submit an application for final ARB review as outlined in the November 15, 2007 letter.
2. You must address comment #1, above, in the final ARB submittal.
3. We can review the final ARB submittal and include comments 2 -5, above, as recommended
conditions of approval in our staff report. Alternatively, you can make changes addressing
these issues now and include the revisions in your final ARB submittal, thereby eliminating
these conditions from the staff report.
4. Given the confusion with the various reviews of this project, I will try to work with you on
the scheduling of the ARB review. Scheduling will depend on the timing of your submittal,
the quantity of changes to the plans that were not requested (which lengthens review time)
and the number of items already included on the various ARB meeting agendas. Please note
that the May 19 agenda is already full.
5. If you include changes other than those requested, please outline these clearly in a memo to
facilitate review.
Please let me know if you have questions and when you anticipate making your submittal.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
� OF AL
,. vIRGI1`IZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Flow Automotive - Final [SDP200800038]
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [email: scott@collins-enaineerin,-.co m]
Plan received date: 11 Mar 2008
16 Apr 2008 (Revl)
Date of comments: 31 Mar 2008
24 Apr 2008 (Revl)
Reviewer: Amy Pflaum, Jonathan Sharp (Rev I)
The final site plan for Flow Automotive has been reviewed. Before engineering can recommend approval
the following items must be addressed:
A. Final Site Plan comments
1. It does not appear that the fill in the southwest corner of the site (near existing STM manhole 5)
can tie to existing grading without exceeding a 2:1 slope. [ 18- 32.6.6]
Rev]: comments addressed.
2. The disturbance of existing areas of critical slope will require a waiver by the Planning
Commission. [18 -4.2, 14 -304]
Rev]: This item is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission.
3. One hundred feet on -site sight distance must be maintained by use of curbed islands a minimum 6'
off building corners or other obstructions. Please provide curbed islands (minimum 3'x6') at the
northeast and southeast corners of the existing portion of the building.
Rev]: comments addressed.
4. All parking rows must be protected by curbed islands. The proposed parallel parking along the
eastern property line of the site must be flanked by curbed islands. [18 -4.12]
Rev]: comments addressed.
5. Curbing is required on all parking areas, please show curbing along the proposed parallel parking
on the eastern property line of the site.
Rev]: comments addressed.
6. Proposed parking areas may not exceed 5% grade in any direction. All new parking spaces must
meet this criteria, including those proposed on existing pavement.
Rev]: An administrative waiver request for this item is being reviewed by Engineering and
Zoning Staff.
7. Proposed sidewalks must be a minimum of 5' wide, exclusive of the curb. Those shown around
the proposed showroom appear to scale less than this. As this is a very "tight" site, please verify
the dimension.
Rev1: comments not addressed.
8. Please revise the Sight Distance Exhibit to state proper scale, show lane lines on Route 250, and
shade the site triangles. Please see VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix B, Page B -11.
Rev]: comments addressed.
9. Please revise the Easement Exhibit to include information pertaining to the parties easements will
be dedicated to and from.
Rev]: All offsite drainage easements and any necessary construction easements will need to be
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
recorded prior to final site plan approval.
10. An easement is not required on the portion of the 4" sanitary sewer service lateral that is on the
parcel under review. Where the lateral leaves this parcel and enters another, an easement is
required there. [ 18- 32.7.4]
Rev]: comments addressed.
11. Please label the two round symbols found in the center of TMP 78 -15E on the Site Plan, they do
not show up on the Existing Conditions Plan.
Rev]: comments addressed.
12. There is an existing retaining wall shown on TMP 78 -15 in the area of proposed grading. Is this
wall to be removed?
Rev]: comments addressed.
13. The labeling of the storm sewer system is confusing. For example, the existing STM manhole
near the southwest corner of the site is labeled as both "EX1" and "5 ". On the Profile sheet it is
labeled as "EX STR 1" in one profile and "EX STR 5" in another. Please clarify this labeling. It
is also unclear which portions of the storm sewer pipes are to be abandoned and which are to
remain. Please clarify by shading the existing pipes and labeling the proposed pipes with sizes and
lengths.
Rev]: comments not addressed.
14. On the border of the two sheets pertaining to erosion & sediment control, "erosion" is spelled
incorrectly in the title block.
Rev]: comments addressed.
15. Comments on the Drainage Areas and Computations, Stormwater Management Plan, and Erosion
& Sediment Control Plan will be forthcoming with the review of the previously submitted WPO
application (WPO200800020).
16. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the public right -of -way.
Rev]: A copy of the plans has been forwarded to VDOT for review.
17. More comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
Additional comments:
18. All slopes steeper than 3:1 require non grass low maintenance ground cover.
19. Parking spaces adjacent 20 feet wide travelways must be 10 feet in width.
20. The note for pipe profile Ex. Str. 5 to Ex. Str. 15 is confusing. It states that the existing storm
sewer will be abandoned when it appears that it is to remain.
21. For the pipe profile Ex. Str. 5 to ex. Str. 15, the revised Ex. Str. 3 length is not provided.
22. On DP -1, the match -line refers to sheet S -2 when it should refer to the insert at the bottom of the
sheet.
23. Please provide pipe calculations for Ex. Str. 4 to Structure 18.
24. Please provide pipe profiles for Str. 17 to Ex. Str. 4.
25. For the pipe profile Str. 6 to Proposed Raintanks, the invert in for pipe 7 at Str. 10 is shown
incorrectly.
26. Please include the following on the pipe profiles:
a. A VDOT designation for each structure
b. A throat length or grate type for each inlet.
c. Inlet shaping (IS -1) in all structures
d. Safety slabs (SL -1) in any structures taller than 12 feet.
27. Drainage area maps are incorrect, causing inlet and pipe calculations to be incorrect. For the
drainage plans, drainage going to Filterras should assume overflow for the 2 and 10 year storm,
and the drainage areas should be included with the downstream inlets. For example, there should
be 1.27 acres draining to Structure 6.
28. Drainage area maps should have the destination structure labeled for each drainage area.
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
29. All spreads must be less than 10 feet.
B. Stormwater Management comments
30. Please provide a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement signed by the land owners of TMP 78 -14D,
15D, and 15E. Please include the appropriate $17 fee. Please send to Pam Shifflett.
31. Please provide a Filterra approval letter.
32. The proposed drainage area map appears to be missing the 0.10 acres draining to Structure 16.
33. Please label the elevations of the orifice and weir, and label the weir length and location in the
manhole (is it centered in the manhole ?).
34. Please specify a trash rack over the orifice.
35. Please label the length and width of the raintank facility, as well as indicate the number of milk
crates used per length, width, and height.
36. Please provide the routing model and results for the detention facility, as well as graphs of routings
for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm.
37. Please indicate the critical duration used for each storm event.
38. Please provide computations for composite land use coefficients.
39. Times of concentration should generally decrease with development.
40. Please provide contour areas and elevations used for storage, matching the plans.
41. Please provide the hydraulic dimensions and coefficients for each weir, orifice, culvert or other
control structure used in the routing model, matching the plans.
42. A SWM bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
C. Erosion Control Plans
43. Please show existing vegetation on the plans.
44. Please identify the SW corner of the site as a critical erosion area, as a small portion drainage will
pocket in the corner as there is a low point in the silt fence. This area will need to be cleaned
regularly.
45. The temporary slope drain (TSD) is shown in a sump location running uphill and is very close to a
15" CM pipe to be removed. Please show the grading required to install the TSD.
46. Please remove Inlet Protection from the manhole.
47. Please clearly show details of how the TSD will tie into a manhole. Safety is a concern. The
manhole will be upwards of 15 feet deep and is very close to pedestrian areas.
48. The TSD must be 21 inches in diameter to meet VESCH standards.
49. Please provide calculations to show that the downstream drainage system is adequate. [MS -19]
50. An ESC bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
II
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
David S. Ekern, P.E. VirginiaDOT.org
COMMISSIONER
April 3rd, 2008
Mr. Glenn Brooks
Department of Engineering and Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments April 3rd, 2008 site review meeting
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the April 3rd, 2007 Site Review Committee
Meeting:
SDP - 2008 -00038 Flow Automotive -Final (Megan Yaniglos)
• Adjacent property TMP -78 -15 has a site plan to continue the right turn lane. Effort
should be made to coordinate the construction of these sites to minimize traffic
interruption and construction costs.
• The radius of 13 feet at the east end of the property should be 25 feet and CG -6 should be
used.
• The flow line at the eastern entrance should be adjusted to allow for future extension of
the right turn lane. Sight distance towards the east needs to be shown at this entrance.
• The drainage areas need to be checked on the road sections. It appears that the centerline
of the road is the divide and this section of road is in a full super section. Structure EX5
needs to be relocated instead of removed and because the spread on EX -4 is greater than
the allowable spread.
SDP - 2008 -00039 Durkin Property / Verizon Wireless Final (Gerald Gatobu)
• No comments
SDP - 2008 -00040 Final Touch — Prel. (Summer Frederick)
• The sight distance at the existing entrance needs to be shown.
• Show the proposed ROW lines.
• The final plan will need road and drainage plans.
• Any work within the VDOT ROW will need a Land Use Permit.
��i'EARS OF
Tit
AHSPORiAikOH El[C4LEHCE
a 9-D G 2 0 0 6
SDP - 2008 -00041 North Pointe - Northwest Residential -prel. (Gerald Gatobu)
• Proffered items under phase III road construction are supposed to be complete prior to
this site plan approval.
• Proffer V- 5.3.1 -ci is missing from the proffers at the beginning of the plan.
• The ingress to the site off route 29 should either be a yield condition or accommodate a
proper merge according to AASHTO standard merge lengths.
• The egress onto route 29 needs to have a lane configuration and lengths to accommodate
the queue from the traffic study queue analysis.
• The lane shifts on route 29 need to be a minimum of 720 feet in length. The lane shift on
Northwest Passage needs to be in accordance with the design speed of the road.
• The CG -6 on the north side of the entrance needs to have a minimum 12 foot offset and
an appropriate taper to tie back into the pavement on route 29.
• Road and drainage plans will be needed with the final site plan.
• A Land Use Permit will be needed for any work within the VDOT ROW.
SDP - 2008 -00042 Buck Mountain Episcopal Church / Verizon (Megan Yaniglos)
• Sight distance needs to be shown for the connection to Earlysville Road.
SUB - 2008 -00076 Old Trail- Ballard Field Townhomes -Phase III (Summer Frederick)
• No comments
Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you
have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the
applicants.
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Residency Program Manager
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
434 - 293 -0011
cc Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, Judith Wiegand,
Margaret Maliszewski, David Pennock, Francis McCall, Jon Sharp, Summer Frederick, Patrick
Lawrence, and John Giometti
ALg�,��
�'IRGINZ�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
To: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
From: Amy Pflaum, Engineer
Subject: SDP - 2008 - 00038, Flow Automotive, Final Site Plan, Critical Slope Waiver
Request
Date received: 15 April 2008
Date of Comment: 23 April 2008
The request for a waiver to develop on areas of critical slope for grading incorporated with the new
construction proposed on TMP's 78 -15D and 78 -15E was received on 15 April 2008. The existing critical
slopes and proposed grading are shown on the Final Site Plan dated February 20, 2008.
The engineering analysis of the request follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The critical slope areas within TMP's 78 -15D and 78 -15E appear to contain both natural and man -made
slopes. The apparent man-made slopes appear to have been embankments created when asphalt and gravel
parking and travelways were constructed on the Flow Automotive site. The presumably natural critical
slopes are wooded low spots on TMP 78 -15E.
The critical slope disturbances are in the form of commercial construction including parking spaces,
landscaped curb islands, underground detention and stormwater facilities.
Areas
Acres
Total site area
1.95
Area of critical slopes
(man -made & natural)
Man -made = 0.09
Natural = 0.07
4.6% of development
3.6% of development
Total critical slopes area
0.16
8.2% of development
Total critical slopes disturbed
0.16
100% of critical slopes
Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed:
"rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock ": The areas of existing critical slopes
on this site are small and scattered. In most cases, the slopes are being filled over rather than
cut into. Large scale movement of soil and rock is not anticipated to occur as a result of this
construction.
2. "excessive stormwater run - off": The applicant has submitted a Stormwater Management
Plan which is being reviewed for County compliance. Stormwater facilities are being
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
proposed to control the drainage generated by this site through underground detention and
proper conveyance systems. Excessive stormwater runoff is not expected as a result of
disturbance of these critical slopes.
3. "siltation of natural and roan -made bodies of water ": The applicant has submitted an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which is being reviewed for County compliance. The
submitted Plan consists of two phases — the first providing E &S control measures during
earth - moving activities such as dust control, silt fence and temporary seeding, and the second
proposing storm sewer inlet protection and permanent seeding on exposed ground during the
final stages of construction. These measures are anticipated to reduce sediment -laden runoff
from leaving the site. Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control
during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
4. "loss of aesthetic resource": The disturbance of the existing critical slopes with this
development does involve the removal of existing trees. The applicant has submitted a
detailed landscaping plan which includes the addition of several trees and shrubs
anticipated to screen and enhance the proposed parking area. This site is located within
the highly visible Entrance Corridor along Route 250, and is therefore subject to approval by
the ARB.
"septic effluent ": No septic systems or drainfields are proposed in this project. This site is
accessible to the public sanitary sewer system.
This site does drain into a waterway that is a public drinking water supply for Albemarle County. No
portion of this site plan is located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated 04
February 2005.
Based on the above review, there are no engineering concerns which prohibit the disturbance of the critical
slopes as shown on the plans.
Copy: SDP - 2008 - 00038, Flow Automotive Final Site Plan
File: El_csw_ADP_sdp200800038