The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP200800003 Review Comments 2008-01-25ok 1 /IiA.4 j 1= c ., i; County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Patrick Lawrence, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 25 January 2008 Subject: Crown BMW Retail, Parts, and Service Building (SDP- 2008 - 00003) The preliminary site plan for the Crown BMW Retail, Parts, and Service Building has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development cannot reconmlend approval to this preliminary site plan. The following continents 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] 2. The maximum allowable grade in parking areas is 5 %. [18- 4.12.15c] 3. The maximum allowable grade in a travelway is 10 %. [18- 4.12.17a] 4. Please provide pedestrian access from the lower parking lot to the service building. 4.12.1] 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. 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. 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 ] 8. All parking spaces must be protected by a minimum 3ft wide curbed island. [18- 4.12.15f, DM] 9. Engineering is concerned about the pedestrian and service doors on the east side of the building and their proximity to the travelway. The pedestrian doors cannot exit into a travelway. [4.12.13d, 4.12.11 10. Please provide the site's removal rate spreadsheet. At this time, engineering review is unable to detennine 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. 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. 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. 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] Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 The following comments are not required for preliminary site plan approval but will be during the final review. 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. All walls adjacent to travelways or parking areas will require a guardrail. [18- 32.7.2] 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] 4Q s Sl 70 L1I 3'4 0 £— N' a N . 0 41d wi Q I II I e Qua V CJ I i I jl' I Iiil) rn N N D II z o z rn z N i IMPz L D a F Y BRADLEY g BMW RETAIL ' 0,- ._ , & BALL T FLOOR PLAN o RICHMOND ROAD (US ROUTE 250) o ARCHITECTS n 8 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA nkF ."-' 5621 -N WEST FRIENDLY AVE 4 27996.264ZPR3W494d062 -06" j`v llt' :1l.fj.lt is ll ' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: SDP200800003, Crown BMW Retail Parts and Service Preliminary Site Plan on Tax Map 78 Parcels # 15 B & 15 B 1 Primary Contact: Charles Garcia, c/o Freeland & Kaufman Surveyors & Engineers (864.672.3430) fax 864 233.8915) E -mall c(_yaarc1a(,td ;1 " 111c.com Owner: ASTAR AS VA2 LLC, c/o Eproperty Tax, Dept 114 P.O. Box 4900, Scottsdale, AZ 85261 Date received: 14 January 2008 Date of Comment: 4 February 2008 Planner: Patrick Lawrence, Senior Planner Site Review Committee Meeting — Room 235 Thursday, February 7, 2008, 10:00 AM The current Development Planning Division of the Albemarle County Community Development Department has reviewed the above referenced preliminary site plan received on 14 January 2008 has been reviewed for presentation to the Site Review Committee meeting listed above. The Planning division recommends approval of the preliminary site plan upon the resolution of the following comments. [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Zoning Ordinances (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code) unless otherwise specified.] L [32.5.6(a)] Please supply descriptions of all variances, special use permit conditions, and proffers, if applicable, zoning determinations for this property, zoning district, Magisterial District along with the minimum set -back lines. Note that approval of the associated Special Permit (SP07 -046) is required prior to approval of the minor amendment. ,,c /, , Z Xi, " 4p, 2. [32.5.6(b)J Please show the maximum height of all structures; schedule of parking including maximum amount required and amount provided; and maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. Also please provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation areas., /, 3. [32.5.6 (1)] Please show the location of all existing and proposed utilities and utility easements. 4. 132.5.6 (m)J Please show the location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection. 5. [3 2.5.6 (n)] Please show the dimensions of all facilities to be added to this site including: trash containers; outdoor lighting; loading and service areas together with the proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and driveways; signs. 6. [3 2.5.6 (q)] Please show, due to the intensity of development, estimated traffic generation figures for the site based upon current Virginia Department of Transportation rates. Indicate the estimated vehicles per day and direction of travel for all connections to a public road. 7. The two parcels 15B and 15B 1 will need to be combined into one parcel prior to final approval or a fire wall will be required along the parcel line when the building permit is approved. moo , Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District February 5, 2008 2134 Berkmar Dr Charlottesville, VA 22901 975 -0224 TO: Patrick Lawrence Planning Department RE: Soils Report and Comments for: Crown BMW FE8 d 8 2006 co c a;'Y DEVECOPMeWT 718 2 n0 \ 710 10 O 71D Sap g6 " 716 1 I1D - 71E 71C 41G 71D 79B 71B I m 79B 12E / 71E a 71C Q 72D3 , 12D J0 „`U, 7203 59E 718 2E 71D' g3 238 r 'C 71C 71E J ' 9 -7 ^ 2D33 17) B -,7 ID 5 718 @71D 71C 71 12C _ 12C n 796 713 A 71B 71E 3 13E 71C 238 ' 98 12C n 7283 \ 2 'c3 7 -D 3 76 706 U 716 i ?g 12C 2C1 / J 12D - 23C 1 c D 71. _ \ 71p 71D X38 23G 236 12 12D _ C 79B -` 7 a ^ ` d8f S71718 \F 71 B 88 v 71C ' 1D rp ;2f i1D ro 88 23B 23C ) O - 71b ) 71D ti 71c Ip R8 238 71E (`} 5qD ,.(_io 71C antaps - 1 2E t0 7 =C 7` / 59C 71E / 71D \\ 23B 71Cw 72C3 G 59E \ _ 71D 59C 3Ej - 59D 23B 79B \ 71D y., n I 59D 0i23C oQ i J \ 71C 238 23B O 23C 7 23 23C 71C IC 71D 710 — ];1D 23B 238 72C3 C J v 71D \ > 7 2D C3 v 3 2683 23C 23C C 88 2D3 72C3 718 O v 3E Q 23B C \ W 3 23B 23 a 72C 12E 238rL G 7F ,.. 5 9D 23C 71D ~ \ 73D 89B 88 23C 12E 10 13E \ 71D 580 72C3 72C3 4 } 72D 83 130 IG 72C3 258 71C 7 IC 71D - 13E 12E ^ , 58D 71C 71C 10 71C 71D 71D 796 83 710 I CMESAPEAKE -- 58C 71E `- 12C 13E ` 83 73E 59E 59E \ \ ' 83 12E 7 10 Sge 236 7 1 2E.3 v 71E \ iID 72D3 12D 59D 58D 59E" 23C 238 23B /C'' m 238 n v 71E 710 7263 \ 71D \ 13E,- - 72C3 efferson 71C 23C 72D3 13E i omb 0v,; \ 58D 71C iE 71D 3 58D }i / /n/ \ co V U 71E 238 ` 72E.3 71C 12D h 236 71 E 7ID -718' 79B58D 71C 718 „Q SSp / 718 iZ1C i ,71C 718 7ID 59D 71C 72C3 v > 72D3 / \ 23B /30 796 72B3 72D3 fed WQ 12D { G \ 23C12E 4W 7283 72C3 -C 71C /72C3v ^ 79B 71C - C3 718 U ) ` G3E ^ 23B water v v v 71D 238 12D 0 71D N 2O3 71E 23B 23B / 5i 1 20 aC72C3 v 79e` _ _ - v 71D 51 D 89B 71C 0 71P 099 r 13E n 58Bv 71C G 120 23B 71C \ 51C 51 71 71D r'nnn r;PA+ annn 3000 2000 79B 's sheet 21) aepu)6K , vj SCALE 1:15 840 1000 0 . USDA United States NaTura I Department of Resources Agriculture Conservation Service Prepared by: Thorrfas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District 434 - 975 -0224 Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Crown BMW Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 13E Catoctin very stony silt loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Catoctin is a steep, moderately deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 7e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit. 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Davidson is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 4 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Louisburg is a moderately steep to steep, deep or very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is rapid. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 7e. The Virginia soil management group is FF. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 6 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 6e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 71E Rabun clay loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 6 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 2/5/08 The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 7e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 88 Udorthents, loamy Description Category: Virginia FOTG No description available for Udorthents, loamy. Small Commercial Buildings - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 13E Catoctin very stony silt Very limited loam, 25 to 45 percent Rating 13E Catoctin very stony silt slopes loam, 25 to 45 percent 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Very limited to 25 percent slopes to 25 percent slopes 71 D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Very limited 71E Rabun clay loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 71E Rabun clay loam, 25 to 45 Very limited percent slopes 88 Udorthents, loamy Not Rated Mapunit Hydric Rating Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 13E Catoctin very stony silt Not hydric loam, 25 to 45 percent Rating 13E Catoctin very stony silt slopes loam, 25 to 45 percent 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Not hydric to 25 percent slopes to 25 percent slopes 71 D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric 71E Rabun clay loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 71 E Rabun clay loam, 25 to 45 Not hydric percent slopes 88 Udorthents, loamy Partially hydric Soil Shrink -Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth: 0 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 13E Catoctin very stony silt 1.5 loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 1.5 to 25 percent slopes 71 D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 71E Rabun clay loam, 25 to 45 1.5 Fhomas Jefferson SWCD 2 2/5/08 percent slopes 88 Udorthents, loamy 0 Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 13E Catoctin very stony silt Moderate loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Moderate to 25 percent slopes 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Moderate percent slopes 71 E Rabun clay loam, 25 to 45 Moderate percent slopes Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 13E Catoctin very stony silt High loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 High percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Low to 25 percent slopes 71 D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 7113 Rabun clay loam, 25 to 45 High percent slopes Thomas Jetterson SWCD 3 2/5/08 Application #: SDP200800003 shOrt 1"t$VIeW omr ?n s Project Name:' Crown BMW Retail Parts & Srvc Bldg - Prel - 'Preliminary - Non - residential Date Completed:02/01/2008 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:NO OBJECTION. Date Completed:04/04/2008 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated February 26, 2008 Delete the property line that bisects the propos building_ Date Completed:01/31/2008 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated January 1, 2008. Delete the property line that bisects the proposed building. Note: Due to the size of the building ( >12,000 sq. ft.) it must be provided with a spr system. — -' Date Completed:04/10/2008 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:IAn ARB submittal is required. See attached action letter. Date Completed:02/01/2008 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:This proposal is scheduled for ARB review on February 19, 2008. Comments will be provided after that date. -- -___ - -- - Date Completed: 02/22/2008 Reviewer: Patrick Lawrence Planner Z &CD Review Status: Administrative Denial Reviews Comments: [Suspended, actually, did not meet resubmittal deadline 2/18/08 can be re- instated. Date Completed: Reviewer: Patrick Lawrence Review Status: Pending Reviews Comments: 'iDistributed 3/31/08 JPL Planner Z &CD Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Thursday, April 17, 2008 t 1 fit RC1yP .- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 February 7, 2008 Charles A. Garcia Freeland & Kaufman Surveyors & Engineers 209 West Stone Avenue Greenville, SC 29609 RE: SDP - 200800003 Crown BMW Retail Parts Preliminary Site Plan Dear Sir: Fax(434)972 -4035 The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Historic Preservation) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Water Protection) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Health Virginia Department of Transportation Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by Monday, February 18, 2008. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Patrick Lawrence Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development OF :V.lj, IL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Project: Primary Contact: Fax (434) 972 -4126 SDP200800003, Crown BMW Retail Parts and Service Preliminary Site Plan on Tax Map 78 Parcels # 15 B & 15 B I Charles Garcia, c/o Freeland & Kaufman Surveyors & Engineers (864.672.3430) fax 864.233.8915) E -mail — c<mrci.u tk- inL.com Owner: ASTAR ASB VA2 LLC, c/o Eproperty Tax, Dept 114 P.O. Box 4900, Scottsdale, AZ 85261 Date received: 14 January 2008 Date of Comment: 4 February 2008 Planner: Patrick Lawrence, Senior Planner Site Review Committee Meeting — Room 235 Thursday, February 7, 2008, 10:00 AM The current Development Planning Division of the Albemarle County Community Development Department has reviewed the above referenced preliminary site plan received on 14 January 2008 has been reviewed for presentation to the Site Review Committee meeting listed above. The Planning division recommends approval of the preliminary site plan upon the resolution of the following comments. [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Zoning Ordinances (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code) unless otherwise specified.] 1. [32.5.6(a)] Please supply descriptions of all variances, special use pennit conditions, and proffers, if applicable, zoning determinations for this property, zoning district, Magisterial District along with the minimum set -back lines. Note that approval of the associated Special Pen (SP07 -046) is required prior to approval of the minor amendment. 2. [32.5.6(b)] Please show the maximum height of all structures; schedule of parking including maximum amount required and amount provided; and maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. Also please provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation areas. 3. [3 2.5.6 (1)] Please show the location of all existing and proposed utilities and utility easements. 4. [32.5.6 (m)] Please show the location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection. 5. [3 2.5.6 (n)] Please show the dimensions of all facilities to be added to this site including: trash containers; outdoor lighting; loading and service areas together with the proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and driveways; signs. 6. [3 2.5.6 (q)] Please show, due to the intensity of development, estimated traffic generation figures for the site based upon current Virginia Department of Transportation rates. Indicate the estimated vehicles per day and direction of travel for all connections to a public road. 7. The two parcels 15B and 15B 1 will need to be combined into one parcel prior to final approval or a fire wall will be required along the parcel line when the building permit is approved. JCS w County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Patrick Lawrence, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 25 January 2008 Subject: Crown BMW Retail, Parts, and Service Building (SUP -2008- 00003) 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] 2. The maximum allowable grade in parking areas is 5 %. [18- 4.12.15c] 3. The maximum allowable grade in a travelway is 10 %. [18- 4.12.17a] 4. Please provide pedestrian access from the lower parking lot to the service building. 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. 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. 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] 8. All parking spaces must be protected by a minimum 3 f wide curbed island. [18- 4.12.15f, DM] 9. Engineering is concerned about the pedestrian and service doors on the east side of the building and their proximity to the travelway. The pedestrian doors cannot exit into a travelway. [4.12.13d, 4.12.1 ] 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. 11. Storm sewer pipe easements will require a greater width than those shown on the site plan. Storinwater 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. 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. 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 5011 uninterrupted entrance from the curb -line of Route 250.[DM] Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 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. 2. All walls adjacent to travelways or parking areas will require a guardrail. [18- 32.7.2] 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] Albemarle (Ou Service Auth4rit February 14, 2008 Ms. Ankita Kot Freeand & Kauffman, Inc. 209 West Stone Ave. Greenville, South Carolina 29609 Re: Crown BMW Dear Ms. Kot: The Albemarle County Service Authority has reviewed the Crown BMW preliminary site plan and approves the proposed permanent and temporary easements. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 434) 977 -4511, Ext. 116. Sincerely, 6Uf k) Gary M. Whelan, L.S. Civil Engineer GMW:dmg 0901 CrownBMW021408 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville, VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthority.org t ziervice Authtrity TO: Pat Lawrence FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: January 31, 2008 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Crown BMW Retail Parts & Service Building SDP200800003 TM 78 -15B The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service X 2. An 8 inch water line is located on site.. X 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located on site, is 4,794 Gpm at 20 psi residual. X 4. A 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 15' distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. X 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7. and plans are currently under review. 8. and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: Show Pantops Park water line. Show meter location. Provide plumbing fixture count. Backflow prevention is required. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434977 -4511 • Fax (434)979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 David S. Ekern, P.E. VirginiaDOT.org COMMISSIONER February 6` 2007 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments February 7` 2007 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the February 7` 2007 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2008 -00003 Crown BMW Retail Parts & Service Building- Prelim. (Pat Lawrence The western most entrance on route 250 needs to be removed. This access does not meet the minimum spacing requirements for this type of entrance assuming that route 250 will have a raised median in the future and the entrance will be a partial two way access. The main access point for 250 needs to be where the proposed eastern most entrance is shown. This entrance needs to be a minimum of 30 feet wide with minimum radii of 25 feet. Proposed entrances need to show an entrance grade that meets the minimum requirements of the CG -11 standard. Sight distances need to be shown at the entrance locations. Final plans will need to include pavement and drainage design in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual and The Road and Bridge Standards. SDP - 2008 -00007 Pollak Vinevards LLC — Preliminary (Megan Yaniglos An entrance permit was applied for, installed, and completed for a farm entrance to this site in 2007. The width shown on the permit does not meet the minimum requirements for a commercial entrance. The road on the site plan shows 18 feet in width and the entrance should be at least the same width as the entrance road. Adequate sight distance needs to be shown in accordance with commercial entrance standards. fYEARS OF TRANSPORTATION ERCEIIENCf 1 9 0 6 2 0 0 6 SUB - 2008 -00014 Biscuit Run / Block 11 / Breeden Property —Final (Summer Frederick) No plan was received on this subdivision. 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 Page 1 of 1 Philip Custer From:Philip Custer Sent:Friday, February 08, 2008 11:12 AM To:akot @fk- inc.com' Cc:Patrick Lawrence Subject: RE: Engineering Comments, SDP - 2008 - 00003, BMW Retail, parts, and service building; Ankita, I met with the engineering review group yesterday afternoon and I have the following to report: Comment #10- The other engineers believe that the proposed treatment facilities are reasonable. The areas you have showed being treated by the two stormfilter systems will be adequate. Though, as I mentioned in our meeting yesterday, the grading of the site should be adjusted in the final plan so more runoff will pass through the filterra facility. Comments #7 and 9- To be consistent in the engineering review of preliminary site plans, adding stop signs in the locations I mentioned yesterday will NOT address the concern about safe sight distance. Both of the corners that were discussed yesterday must meet our 100ft sight distance requirements regardless of traffic control signs. Please show the sight distance triangles with your next submittal. The 10% grade through the southeastern intersection is too severe as well and will need to be flattened out so there are not any unusual turning movements. (It appears that given the grading constraints already on site, an alternative layout may need to be considered.) Downstream Analysis (MS -19)- I believe I have located site plans for the ACSA parcel, the existing crown automotive parcel, and the two other properties the main pipe travels through past the Pantops Park project. I will have the archived files pulled. If you would like me to send you copies, I have been told I can do so, but we do forward the copying bill to you(It is roughly $2 a sheet). Please let me know what you would like. Again, this would be needed with the final plan and you do not have to consider this now. In talking with Patrick earlier today, I understand that you will be submitting a different layout on your next submittal. Please be sure to mention the design vehicle you plan on using. If your plan calls for a tractor trailer traveling through the site, we'll need to see internal turning movements to assure that the vehicle can safely manuever. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil Custer 434)296 -5832 (ext. 3072) 2/8/2008 All RCNI r; COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 March 7, 2008 Richard Ball/ Architect 5921 -H West Friendly Ave Greensboro Nc 27410 RE: ARB2008 -00003 Crown BMW Retail Parts & Service Building Tax Map 78, Parcel 15B Dear Mr. Ball: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on February 19, 2008, completed a preliminary review of the above -noted request to construct a 1,500 sf. parts, retail and service building at the southeast corner of Richmond Rd. and Pantops Park Drive, with associated site improvements. The Board offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal. Please note that the following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review and changes to the plan. 1. Reduce the height of the central bay of the building, and make corresponding changes to the heights of the end bays, to reduce the top -heavy appearance of the EIFS and to bring the parts and service building into scale with the dealership building, while maintaining screening of rooftop equipment. 2. Indicate the color /finish for the inside surface of the taller parapet wall that is adjacent to the curved parapet. 3. Revise the plan to add a planting strip, with planting, along the left elevation. 4. Add the rooftop equipment to the building elevations and sections. Revise the plans to include locations of all equipment, loading and refuse areas, or indicate in writing that no other such areas are proposed. Add a note to the site plan and architectural drawings indicating that equipment shall not be visible from the EC. Elaborate and provide section from Entrance Corridor through the building showing the parapet as it relates to the site line. 5. Revise the grading plan to make all proposed grading complete and legible. Provide accurate existing tree lines to remain ". Provide top of wall and bottom of wall elevations for the westernmost wall. Correct the wall heights in the vicinity of the southwest corner of parcel 15. Provide material /color samples for the proposed retaining walls. Indicate these materials /colors on the site plan. Revise the building elevations to include the retaining walls. Provide sufficient spacing between the two westernmost walls to accommodate required planting. Revise the perspective drawings to accurately show the retaining walls. 6. Revise the landscape plan to: a. Provide accurate "existing tree lines to remain" (particularly in the vicinity of Pantops Park Drive and south and east of parcel 15B). b. Coordinate the plan with the Flow landscape plan. c. Move the electric lines to avoid conflicts with trees. Revise the utility plan and all other sheets of the site plan as necessary. d. Add a note to the plant list indicating that the caliper size rules for the Oak and Maple and the height size rules for the Redbud, Serviceberry and shrubs e. Clarify the location /existence of the "existing overhead electric line" shown along the dealership frontage. f. Identify existing trees to remain as existing trees to remain. g. Revise the Serviceberry trees along the western side of parcel 15131 to large trees. h. Delineate marking spaces on the plan. Ensure that mast one tree is provided at the interior of the parking area for every ten spaces proposed, evenly distributed throughout the site. i. Provide shrubs, minimum 24" high at planting, along the EC frontage and in the planting islands located between the buildings and the EC. j. Provide a planting area along the left (east) elevation to mitigate the blank wall area. k. Show how the filterras will be coordinated with the planting plan. I. Provide for coordination of the relocated monument sign with the planting plan. m. Revise the perspective drawing to coordinate with the landscape plan. n. Coordinate the landscape proposal with existing landscaping on the Flow parcel. 7. Include the revisions to the entrances in the next ARB submittal. 8. Revise the site plan to include the identification of each type of parking space (display, customer, employee, service, etc.) throughout the site. 9. Provide for review all details on the wall sign illustrated in the elevations, and all other proposed wall signs (if any). Coordinate the new monument sign location with the planting plan. 10. Relieve the blank appearance of the front elevation with architectural features; relieve the blank appearance of the side elevation with landscaping. 11. Provide retaining wall materials. You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on -line at www.albemarle.org /planning Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing. Please provide a memo including detailed responses indicating how each comment has been addressed. 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. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner Cc: Crown Automotive/ Mike Craddock 3633 -C West Wendover Greensboro Nc 27407 Baumgardner, Rickey Lee Or Donna 1252 Still Meadow Ave Charlottesville, Va 22901 ARB File 10 1 L .J kGIN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 March 7, 2008 Richard Ball/ Architect 5921 -H West Friendly Ave Greensboro Nc 27410 RE: ARB2008 -00003 Crown BMW Retail Parts & Service Building Tax Map 78, Parcel 15B Dear Mr. Ball: 1 Fax(434)972 -4126 1 I d. The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on February 19, 2008, completed a preliminary review of the above -noted request to construct a 1,500 sf. parts, retail and service building at the southeast corner of Richmond Rd. and Pantops Park Drive, with associated site improvements. The Board offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal. Please note that the following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review and changes to the plan. 1. Reduce the height of the central bay of the building, and make corresponding changes to the heights of the end bays, to reduce the top -heavy appearance of the EIFS and to bring the parts and service building into scale with the dealership building, while maintaining screening of rooftop equipment. 2. Indicate the color /finish for the inside surface of the taller parapet wall that is adjacent to the curved parapet. 3. Revise the plan to add a planting strip, with planting, along the left elevation. 4. Add the rooftop equipment to the building elevations and sections. Revise the plans to include locations of all equipment, loading and refuse areas, or indicate in writing that no other such areas are proposed. Add a note to the site plan and architectural drawings indicating that equipment shall not be visible from the EC. Elaborate and provide section from Entrance Corridor through the building showing the parapet as it relates to the site line. 5. Revise the grading plan to make all proposed grading complete and legible. Provide accurate existing tree lines to remain ". Provide top of wall and bottom of wall elevations for the westernmost wall. Correct the wall heights in the vicinity of the southwest corner of parcel 15. Provide material /color samples for the proposed retaining walls. Indicate these materials /colors on the site plan. Revise the building elevations to include the retaining walls. Provide sufficient spacing between the two westernmost walls to accommodate required planting. Revise the perspective drawings to accurately show the retaining walls. 6. Revise the landscape plan to: a. Provide accurate "existing tree lines to remain" (particularly in the vicinity of Pantops Park Drive and south and east of parcel 15B). b. Coordinate the plan with the Flow landscape plan. c. Move the electric lines to avoid conflicts with trees. Revise the utility plan and all other sheets of the site plan as necessary. d. Add a note to the plant list indicating that the caliper size rules for the Oak and Maple and the height size rules for the Redbud, Serviceberry and shrubs e. Clarify the location /existence of the "existing overhead electric line" shown along the dealership frontage. f. Identify existing trees to remain as existing trees to remain. g. Revise the Serviceberry trees along the western side of parcel 15131 to large trees. h. Delineate all parking spaces on the plan. Ensure that at least one tree is provided at the interior of the parking area for every ten spaces proposed, evenly distributed throughout the site. i. Provide shrubs, minimum 24" high at planting, along the EC frontage and in the planting islands located between the buildings and the EC. j. Provide a planting area along the left (east) elevation to mitigate the blank wall area. k. Show how the filterras will be coordinated with the planting plan. I. Provide for coordination of the relocated monument sign with the planting plan. m. Revise the perspective drawing to coordinate with the landscape plan. n. Coordinate the landscape proposal with existing landscaping on the Flow parcel. 7. Include the revisions to the entrances in the next ARB submittal. 8. Revise the site plan to include the identification of each type of parking space (display, customer, employee, service, etc.) throughout the site. 9. Provide for review all details on the wall sign illustrated in the elevations, and all other proposed wall signs (if any). Coordinate the new monument sign location with the planting plan. 10. Relieve the blank appearance of the front elevation with architectural features; relieve the blank appearance of the side elevation with landscaping. 11. Provide retaining wall materials. You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on -line at www.albemarle.org /piagning Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing. Please provide a memo including detailed responses indicating how each comment has been addressed. 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. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner Cc: Crown Automotive/ Mike Craddock 3633 -C West Wendover Greensboro Nc 27407 Baumgardner, Rickey Lee Or Donna 1252 Still Meadow Ave Charlottesville, Va 22901 ARB File of AI h y l IR a X COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Project: Primary Contact Owner: Date received: Date of Comment Planner: Fax(434)972 -4126 SDP200800003, Crown BMW Retail Parts and Service Preliminary Site Plan on Tax Map 78 Parcels # 15 B & 15 B 1 Charles Garcia, c/o Freeland & Kaufman Surveyors & Engineers (864.672.3430) fax 864.233.8915) E -mail - °gar mc.com ASTAR ASB VA2 LLC, c/o Eproperty Tax, Dept 114 P.O. Box 4900, Scottsdale, AZ 85261 27 March 2008 16 April 2008 Patrick Lawrence, Senior Planner The current Development Planning Division of the Albemarle County Community Development Department has reviewed the above referenced preliminary site plan received on 27 March 2008 The Planning division recommends denial of the preliminary site plan without the resolution of the following comments. [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Zoning Ordinances (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code) unless, otherwise specified.] Nile • i 1. [3 2.A.6(a)] Please supply descriptions of all variances, special use permit conditions, and proffers, if G\ applicable, zoning determinations for this property, zoning district, Magisterial District alo . - n4i=w11m ,et_hng 1; A - is re 1 of the -tai . Additional proposed parking is shown on the existing Crown site requiring modification of the existing Special Use Permit. Should parking exceed 120% of the required parking, a modification is required. Display parking west of the existing dealership will not be allowed without a special use permit. PePnP1 ring shown east nfthP nr n P,l 1, 'la' a + * ; ; ; <i „ ucr hip t- ...a „,nrlifirti moo - ,.,Pl cites r*1? g nrr r 2. [32. S. 6(b)] Please show a schedule of parking including maximum amount required by code and the amount f provided. By noting "seat” are you referring to the number of employees? Please show parking schedule designating the use, number of spaces required and the number of spaces provided. — Fe - „ )' °_ ^. - ' tcr 1` yG C F . z K •P 3. [32.5.6 (nz)] Please show the legation ofa_xu g af4 rr-o + o and caress t om- , showing4he distance to the centerline of the nearest exiting street, iz . u; r M p y ,,, . The deyelt plan submitted March 27th i Virginia Department of Transportations standards. This was discussed at the February 7 ch Site Review Committee meeting. Albemarle County Continunity Development Engineering Review Continents Sheet 2 of 2 4 . [32.5.6 (n)] P}aesl t '°° a r t Ott +;t;r;P .o „aa<i ,; ;its i.,l t s; i- ng- arrd- srice -was- tags -they- with- thy- Prepese s, p ;palntc anrt rlriyPU._aic icmco 5. The two parcels 15B and 15B 1 will need to be combined into one parcel prior to final approva4or -acall 6._ciuETftran,te- -e x;ll hP ir-ed - ffom - VDbT prior tc approvaloftlw fina"ite-pl -an. 7. -Ploa-,e44&s-t emments f6 _ -- - - 8. _Pkase-xespond -to Af Cm= s7 i ?008. Based upon the comments from County departments and State agencies reviews this Department will recommend denial of approval of this site plan to the Planning Commission. 4 kW 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. 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. The maximum allowable grade in parking areas is 5 %. [18- 4.12.15c] Rev. 1) The request for a waiver of 4.12.15c has been forwarded to the Zoning Administrator. Engineering review does not recommend approval of this waiver. 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. Please provide typical wall details. It appears that due to the height of the wall adjacent to parcel 78 -15C, a pennanent 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 ofpermanent and temporary easements. 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. 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 evits from the building (vehicular and pedestrian) are located too close to the primary access travelway. 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 30jt 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 TAMP 71 -15B1 bcrt 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. 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 ' 4 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. fF l . 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 -4.21 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'4.12.15c has been forwarded to the Zoning Administrator. Engineering review does not recommend approval of this waiver. 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 he 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 v internal sight distance in the manner described in the design manual. [4.12.1 ] Rev. 1) The request for a waiver of 4.1235d has been forwarded to the Zoning Administrator. Engineering review does not recommend approval of this waiver. 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 yf x ` 11 n.12. 13 building and their proximity to the travelway. The pedestrian doors cannot exit into a travelway. [4.12.13d, 4.12.1 ] Rev.]) Comment not addressed. The exits from the building (vehicular and pedestrian) are located too close to the primary access travelway. 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 front 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. 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. 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 -1581 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 -rate 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- 32.7.21 Rev. 1) This comment has been noted by the applicant. 1. 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. c ` J 1 'P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Patrick Lawrence, Current Development planning and zoning review From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 16 April 2008 Subject: Crown BMW Retail, Parts, and Service Center critical slope waiver (SDP -2008- 00003) The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The construction of the Crown BMW Retail, Parts, and service building will require critical slope disturbance on 4 parcels near the intersection of Route 250 and Pantops Park Drive (Proposed) on Pantops Mountain. The majority of the slope disturbance will occur on three parcels: 78 -15 (Existing BMW sales site), 78 -15B (vacant lot), and 78 -15B1 (gravel parking area used to support adjacent BMW site). The fourth parcel is located to the south of the development and temporary disturbance of critical slopes on it will be required to construct the proposed site. The critical slope disturbance is requested by the applicant in order to construct a 34 building, surrounding parking areas, travel ways, and retaining walls. The retaining walls proposed by this development are of concern to engineering review. The wall adjacent to TMP 78 -15C (ACSA property) ranges in heights from 1 -3 1 tt and is located within 5 f of travel and parking areas. It appears that the majority of the slopes disturbed by this plan are manmade. For the purposes of the critical slope analysis summary, all of the BMW parcels have been included in one table. The adjacent ACSA property has its own summary table. TMP 78-15 ( Exxisting BMW Property), TMP 78 -15B1 (Service Center Property -1), and TMP 78 -15B Service Center Proper4-2) Areas Acres Total sites 3.61 acres approximately Critical slopes 0.74 20.5% of site Critical slopes disturbed 0.66 9W,o of critical slopes TMP 78 -15C (Service Authority Property) Areas Acres Total site 5.018 acres approximately Critical slopes unknown Critical slopes disturbed 0.1 Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: There are no exemptions to critical slope disturbance. Albemarle (- -wanty Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4,2: movement of soil and rock" Construction of the building and other site features will most likely require a temporary increased flow down the critical slopes during a rain event. Movement of soil can be caught with an appropriate sediment trapping measure before site runoff enters the existing stormwater system. However, due to the fact that area low points exist over the proposed lower parking lot and other fill areas, erosion and sediment control will be difficult and may require a phased erosion and sediment control plan. excessive stormwater runoff' Stonnwater runoff will be controlled on site by an underground detention facility. No site runoff will run across critical slopes in the post development condition. siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. loss of aesthetic resource" The critical slopes on site are not an aesthetic resource in the opinion of the reviewing engineer. septic effluent" This site is serviced by public sewer. Engineering review recommends approval of the critical slope waiver. The design and enforcement of any erosion and sediment control plan for this layout will be challenging but can be reasonably handled by a detailed and phased construction sequence. e, 7 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Patrick Lawrence, Current Development planning and zoning review From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 16 April 2008 Subject: Crown BMW Retail, Parts, and Service Center critical slope waiver (SDP -2008- 00003) The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The construction of the Crown BMW Retail, Parts, and service building will require critical slope disturbance on 4 parcels near the intersection of Route 250 and Pantops Park Drive (Proposed) on Pantops Mountain. The majority of the slope disturbance will occur on three parcels: 78 -15 (Existing BMW sales site), 78 -15B (vacant lot), and 78 -15B 1 (gravel parking area used to support adjacent BMW site). The fourth parcel is located to the south of the development and temporary disturbance of critical slopes on it will be required to construct the proposed site. The critical slope disturbance is requested by the applicant in order to construct a 34,000ft building, surrounding parking areas, travel ways, and retaining walls. The retaining walls proposed by this development are of concern to engineering review. The wall adjacent to TMP 78 -15C (ACSA property) ranges in heights from 1 -31 ft and is located within 5ft of travel and parking areas. It appears that the majority of the slopes disturbed by this plan are manmade. For the purposes of the critical slope analysis summary, all of the BMW parcels have been included in one table. The adjacent ACSA property has its own summary table. TMP 78 -15 (Existing BMW Property), TMP 78 -15B1 (Service Center Property -1), and TMP 78 -15B Service Center Property-2) Areas Acres Total sites 3.61 acres approximately Critical slopes 0.7 f site Critical slopes disturbed 0.6 ritical slopes TMP 78 -15C (Service Authority Property) Areas Acres Total site 5.018 acres approximately Critical slopes unknown Critical slopes disturbed 0.1 Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: There are no exemptions to critical slope disturbance. Albemarle County Community Development /' I Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2: movement of soil and rock" Construction of the building and other site features will most likely require a temporary increased flowdownthecriticalslopesduringarainevent. Movement of soil can be caught with an appropriatesedimenttrappingmeasurebeforesiterunoffenterstheexistingstormwatersystem. However, due tothefactthatarealowpointsexistovertheproposedlowerparkinglotandotherfillareas, erosion and sediment control will be difficult and may require a phased erosion and sediment control plan. excessive stor nwater runoff' Stormwater runoff will be controlled on site by an underground detention facility. No site runoff willrunacrosscriticalslopesinthepostdevelopmentcondition. siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Properstabilizationandmaintenancewillensurelongtermstability. loss of aesthetic resource" The critical slopes on site are not an aesthetic resource in the opinion of the reviewing engineer. septic effluent" This site is serviced by public sewer. Engineering review recommends approval of the critical slope waiver. The desi and enforcement of anyerosionandsedimentcontrolplanforthislayoutwillbechallengingbutcanhereasonablyhandledbyadetailedandphasedconstructionsequence. Page |uf1 Philip Custer From:Philip Custer Sant Friday, May 1G.20081848AM o:Y\nWtsKot' Cc:Ron Higgins Bill Fritz Subject:FVV: Crown Waiver Requests Attachments: havelwaynketch_5-18_PBC.POF Good morning Ankita, Below is an email from Ron Higgins. the Manager of Zoning Administration, regarding the waivers you requested.This email was in reference to the last official submittal to the County. / prefer the drawing you ant in email to me yesterday to the one we previously received because the 5Y6 slope was eliminated, but the oningocia| granted the waiver of the parking lot slope requirements only if the spaces are not tube used b npoke with the other engineers regarding the use of the mirror to eliminate our sight distance concern but we all agreed it would not beadequate, VVe still have on issue with this corner. The easiest solution k/ the problem would be to pull the travelway that runs North-South farther away from the building so that the travelway wasstraight. Please see the attached concept sketch. The sketch obtains sight distance for the movement homthe west into this intersection. There still ma problem from the mouth looking west. This sight distance problem could be addressed if the southern travelways was shifted further from the building. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil From: Ron Higgins Sent: Thursday, May 1S,20O89:34AM To: Philip Custer Subject: Crown Waiver Requests Hello, Phillip: Regarding the two waiver requests for the Crown Automotive plan that we discussed Friday, May 1. The request for the sight distance reduction around the corner of the maintenance building is denied due totapparentabilityofthesitetoaccommodateashifttothedriveway, making this unnecessary. It is not felt that 2. The request for the waiver from the maximum slope for parking is acceptable if the parking is not to beusedforcustomerparking. Ron Higgins Ld i 77 cn r- D N .-gyp 00 L1 mo / I \8b O N V rnIf in X N Oc LO DC ch \ vv:vv v ICI f111 II v v I w ILIi +If {I11'j { Ij 1I Ij111II \ \ \ 111 I I I I i I I tlIl 111111I /! __; . cia0111111 { I III \ 11 / { { - ON v 9'9L M8 oO ozgB ", Mi I \ I {.III I {Ip111111 [ vvvv I aCc jlilllljljIljljlll'1 I v " \VAV— - -Lll i 1 \ \V V E I(Itlljlllll1 L `- LL tf 1, HI I I j j i i I IiIIII I'. Of MIi• {'Ij j f I j l 11 I{ II { I I I I IIII _ m A e I t I I t 1 1 11 I i { j II II I { I II J I I LI f f f I f I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1W I ` I I _ I i I II L I\ I J 1 I 1 1 l i{ I \\ \ Q M LL J m §' { 1 L c 111 1 0 m I j j t II I II \ 1 I ! I S 1 1 1 1 IV A AV A \ V Q -0 V 2,0 ° i1, ICI \vi I v vv ccc', Q m CJI rn1 1 f 1 I I f \\ \\ 6 (5) I\ S TB ACK IN I \ CL \ \ CID ON r- \ 3 .. A-- CIN 1171- AQ w County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Patrick Lawrence, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 6 June 2008 Subject: Crown BMW Retail, Parts, and Service Building (SDP -2008- 00003) The second 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 the preliminary site plan at this time. The following comments are provided. 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. 2) A report of the critical slope disturbance will appear in a separate document. The maximum allowable grade in parking areas is 5 %. [18- 4.12.15c] Rev. 1) The re quest f n a waiver of 4.12.15c has bec rn to the Zoning Administrator. Engineering review does not recommend approval cif this waiver. Rev. 2) The currentgrading scheme does not require a waiver of the 5% maximum grade parking lot standard. However, the Deputy Zoiiiitg Admittisti'atorgr(iiited the waiver of the standard as shown in the drawing signed 3111108 as long as the spaces are not used for customer parking. Please refer to Ron Higgins' email dated 511 S /08 the language of'this determination. Engineering review prefers the current proposed parking alignment this area using 5% grades as the maximum slope. 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 the.4CS.4, the owner of'TMP 78 -15C, that states that the service « uthoritt has no ohfections to the proposed easements, permanent or temporay, that were shown to them in early February. Rev. 2) An updated letter or email from the service authorit} approving the latest temporaiy and permanent easements will be required because there will are new easements that were not present on the drawing approved by ACSA ill Februai3 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 shotivn on the site plan and the h -pical wall details do not match; there are no guenyli•aiLs shotirn on the site plan. The netir 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 tirall detail. This would relocate the wall into the adfacent 4CSA property. Ain amendment to the letter referenced aboveshould be provided Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 referencing the latest set of per manent and teinporary easements. Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. There is no guardrail above the wall near the replacement parking spaces on the existing BMW sales property. A chain -link fence is not adequate in this location. In addition, a permanent easement needs to be shown along this boundary the construction of the wall. Again, engineering review recommends eliminating the wall and meeting grade by filling into TMP 78 -15C. 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. I5(1 has been for ivarded to the Zoning Administrator. Engineering review does not recommend (approval of this waiver. Rev. 2) This comment has not been addressed. The waiver for internal sight distance was not granted. The convex mirror proposed in the latest revision does not address the sight distance issue either. Also, the latest alignment of the travelway east of the proposed building does not meet engineering's requirements for safe and convenient access. 132.7.21 Engineering is concerned about the pedestrian and service doors on the east side of the building and their proximity to the travelway. The pedestrian doors cannot exit into a travelway. [4.12.134, 4.12.1 ] Rev. 1) Connnent not ad(h The exits from the budding (vc'hieular and pedestrian) are located too close to the prinuny access travehcci_v. Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. 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 adcb•essed, though the plan should show an enlarged easement over the pipe from 12 to I I in the final plans. Engineering review is (also concerned about the considerable length of the 30ft tall ball within the public (lrain(age easement and recoinnnends the applicant eliminate the ivalls adjacent to TRIP 78 -I5C and meet the existing grade bvfilling. Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. Engineering review still recommends eliminating the walls along the boundary to TMP78 -1 SC and making up the difference by filling to neetgrade but will not make this a requirement. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 The following comments are not required for preliminary site plan approval but will be duringthefinalreview. 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 duringintensestormevents. Rev. 1) Because this inlet is in ct sump, a grate inlet is acceptable, but the .spread width will need to be calculated in the final plan. Rev. 2) Comment remains unchanged. 2. All walls adjacent to travelways or parking areas will require a guardrail. [18- 32.7.2] Rev. 2) 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. 2) This has been noted bt the applicant