HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200500135 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2009-12-11*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Current Development planning review
From: John P. Diez, Current Development engineering review
Date: 14 Jul 2008
REV 1: 4 Aug 2008
REV 2: 7 Jan 2009
REV 3: 28 July 2009
REV 4: 10 December 2009
Subject: Kia Auto Dealership, Major Site Plan Amendment (SDP200500135)
The re- submittal of the Major Site Plan Amendment for Kia Auto has been reviewed. Current
Development engineering can recommend approval of the amendment after the following outstanding
comments have been addressed:
Please provide a date of the topographic information.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
2. A critical slopes waiver is required for the disturbance of critical slopes on TMP's 78 -9, 78 -I IE
and 78 -11Y.
REV 1: Comment addressed. Critical slopes were created with SDP200200130 and a waiver to
disturb critical slopes was granted with WPO200600075.
Please show and label with book and page the easement surrounding the existing stormwater
management feature on TMP 78 -57B.
REV]: Comment not addressed. Grading for this project is inclose proximity to the existing
stormwater facility, per 18- 32.5.6.j please show the easement on the final site plan.
REV 2: Comment not addressed.
REV 3: Comment addressed.
4. Easements or letters of intent are required for off -site work. It appears that a temporary grading
and construction easement will be necessary from TMP 78 -9 and a sidewalk easement on TMP 78-
11E in addition to the new easements shown on these plans. Please submit easement documents
for all new easements.
REV 1: Comment not addressed. No easements have been received by engineering for review.
REV 2: Comment not addressed.
REV 3: Comment not addressed.
REV 4: Comment not addressed. Please provide documents and label deed references for all new
easements on the plans.
It may be necessary for TMP 78 -11E to grant utility easements to TMP 78 -9A for the storm sewer
and sanitary and water service lines that run across the parcel.
REV 1: Comment not addressed. Boundary line adjustment needs to be completed or easements
need to be submitted.
REV 2: Comment addressed (SUB200800219).
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
6. Existing and proposed utilities are difficult to see on the Grading and Landscape Plan, please show
these utilities on the Site Plan or a separate Utility Plan.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
7. Please specify on the plan that proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 will be planted with low
maintenance ground cover, not grass.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
8. Portions of the proposed travelway as well as service and display parking spaces exceed the
maximum allowable 5% grade.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
9. Proposed service and customer parking spaces are show with a 16' length. This is acceptable only
in the case where a 2' "flat" section is available for overhang beyond the curb. Some of these
spaces are immediately adjacent to retaining walls or display parking spaces and a 2' "flat" area
does not exist. Please revise these spaces to the required 18' length.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
10. A travelway that exceeds 100 feet in length without adjacent parking must comply with the private
street horizontal and vertical standards. Please submit plan and profile sheets of the travelway,
REV 1: Comment addressed.
11. A section of the proposed travelway from Olympia Drive appears to be at an 8% grade within the
first 40' from the edge of Olympia Drive. Please revise to maintain a 4% grade within this first
40'.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
12. The construction of the travelway will be required to extend to the property line N34 °09'57 "W.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
13. Sidewalk is required to be constructed along the eastern side of the proposed travelway.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
14. Traffic control signs are required at the intersection of the proposed travelway with Olympia
Drive.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
15. Please label the widths of turn and taper lanes on Olympia Drive.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
16. Dumpster pads are required to be 10'x10' with 8' in front for wheel bearing, please revise the
proposed dumpster pad to these dimensions.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
17. The proposed the dumpster enclosure appears to be a low spot where runoff may collect and pond.
Please revise grading or show spot elevations that ensure ponding does not occur.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
18. The large tree proposed in the parking island adjacent to the dumpster enclosure may interfere with
or be damaged during trash collection. A smaller tree may be more appropriate in this location.
REV 1: Comment addressed, however the Canopy Provided figure listed in the Landscape
Requirements has not been updated.
REV 2: Comment addressed.
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
19. Labels of storm sewer inlets are provided on the Site Plan, however the pipes connecting them are
only shown on the Grading and Landscape Plan. The Grading and Landscape Plan is already
cluttered and difficult to read. Please provide a Drainage Plan showing existing and proposed
storm sewer as well as drainage areas corresponding to calculations which also need to be
submitted.
REV 1: Comment addressed, however, drainage area labels do not correspond with inlet labels,
and acreages do not match between the plan and the calculations.
REV 2: Stormwater Inlet Computations do not appear correct — if Qtotal =2.31 and
Qintercepted =1.53, how can Efficiency be 151%?
Storm Drain Design Calculations reference "Sheet R8" which has not been included with this
submittal. There are also several instances where the Total Flow exceeds the Pipe Capacity and
the Accumulated AC does not match the recently approved Town & County WPO Amendment
(WP0200600075).
Proposed contours along the proposed travelway do not tie in properly with the contours for the
new channel on TMP 78 -9B.
REV 3: Comment addressed.
20. Please simplify the Grading and Landscape Plan by removing easements which are to be vacated
as well as boundary line adjustment information. This Plan also appears to contain three different
sets of contours (1 existing and 2 proposed ?), please clarify the existing site conditions and the
proposed improvements.
REV 1: Comment addressed, however easement has also been removed from the Site Plan. The
existing easement must be on the site plan per 18- 32.5.6.j.
21. Will the existing retaining wall immediately north of the proposed 1 -story addition remain? It is
difficult to tell from the proposed grading.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
22. Gutter may be required in portions of the parking lot and travelway to convey stormwater runoff to
proposed inlets.
REV 1: Comment not fully addressed. Gutter is needed along the proposed travelway from
Olympia drive to the travelway terminus.
23. Guardrail is required where parking is adjacent to a wall or drop -off greater than 4'.
REV 1: Comment not addressed. Although the wall may be only 3.5 feet high, the total drop
between the upper and lower parking areas is 8 feet, this requires a guardrail.
REV 2: Comment addressed.
24. Olympia Drive improvements should be clarified as proposed improvements to be built by others.
Please clarify who will be constructing the storm sewer crossing of Olympia Drive.
REV 1: Comment addressed. However, Inlet ST -1 as well as this project's storm sewer outfall is
designated as being constructed by others. Inlet ST -1 will collect flow within the proposed display
parking area; this project can not be constructed without Inlet ST -1.
REV 2: Comment addressed.
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
25. A WPO application, erosion control plan and supporting documentation must be approved before
final site plan approval. As referenced in the Site Specific Notes, please show the location of the
Luxor Stormwater Management Facility SWM -1 and Olympia Drive SWM -3 on the WPO plans.
REV 1: Comment not addressed. Engineering will not recommend approval to the Site Plan
amendment until a WPO application has been submitted and approved.
REV 2: Comment not addressed. Site Plan amendment can not be approved before a WPO
application including Erosion & Sediment Control Plans has been submitted and approved.
REV 3: Comment addressed.
26. VDOT approval is required.
REV 1: Comment noted.
\ \Cob- dts01 \cityviewlnk\Docs \2005 Applications\2005 SDPs \SDP200500135 Kia Auto\E7_pmjSRC_JPD_Kia Auto.doc