The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP200900028 Review Comments 2009-04-24Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District April 24, 2009 706 Forest St, Ste G Charlottesville VA 22903 975-0224 TO:Gerald Batobu Planning Department RE:Soils Report and Comments for: Wal-Mart Store Expansion Y..I ii e-14------ 43 0 w ILYa cciipp 0, "3,c c O 7 Q1 u.'yz3 A li Illifk Jn r) I U'i n 8 I" / Q a)7 cT, o - cool , \\\ f r-. A v AA . a ,,, E R 0 C 4, 0, ,,„ rcoa a lrs ()h i o AQ .,A y n n .trw.., 74kT 4 ,- . , - ` - . ''' 40 ' n Nom'r0vs., 4,i' o401gC faO m 41111LI! — 0 N vN$0 up W n n i.f g N oy L vOf 4 0 at 2803 c W` *.* 39b n m O n J N V 1 v W Q pi C7 4 J N AIn N y .r C)Y J J To V C7 PV^.l c .0 V O N I t0 N W p I. ..•,____,... d N W o C7 Jys' rcc= R7 W 4;..t,:i,,,, w P0 2J it: 3W N co co W 44 iii N T W 4+w O W n r S N Rl Vr,,,,-_ A j W a -, `390 / C7 sh AN co S "._ t ,' -' A W a J N J, Aor V W n 9 W W up W i /RL \ 6 A 0..,'‘) I' ' 3c2'.:('go ec• y fie. G co n W oil USDA United States Natural Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & WaterDepartmentofResourcesConservationDistrictAgricultureConservation434- 975 -0224 Service Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: WaI -Mart Store Expansion Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. 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 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. 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 X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Glenelg is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high 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 U. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 34D Glenelg loam, 15 10 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Glenelg is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high 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 4e. The Virginia soil management group is U. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 39D Hazel loan, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hazel is a moderately steep to steep, moderately deep, excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 10 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 Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 4/24/09 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 4e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 88 Udorthents, loamy Description Category: Virginia FOTG No description available for Udorthents, loamy. Map Unit: 91 Urban land Description Category: Virginia FOTG No description available for Urban Land. Map Unit: 93C Watt channery silt loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Watt is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is channery silt loam about 10 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a very 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 4e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soilisnothydric. Map Unit: 93D Watt channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Watt is a moderately steep to steep, moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is channery silt loam about 10 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a very 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 and capability classification is 6e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Mapunit Hydric Rating Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Not hydric slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes 39D Hazel loam. 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes 88 Udorthents, loamy Partially hydric 91 Urban land Not hydric 93C Watt channery silt loam, 7 Not hydric to 15 percent slopes 93D Watt channery silt loam, Not hydric 15 to 25 percent slopes Thomas Jetterson SWCD 2 4/24/09 Soil Shrink -Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent 1.5 slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 39D Hazel loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 88 Udorthents, loamy 0 91 Urban land 0 93C Watt channery silt loam, 7 1.5 to 15 percent slopes 93D Watt channery silt loam, 1.5 15 to 25 percent slopes Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Moderate slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 39D Hazel loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 93C Watt channery silt loam, 7 High to 15 percent slopes 93D Watt channery silt loam, High 15 to 25 percent slopes Thomas Jefferson SWCD 3 4/24/09 Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 278 Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent High slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 Low percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Low percent slopes 39D Hazel loam, 15 to 25 Low percent slopes 93C Watt channery silt loam, 7 High to 15 percent slopes 93D Watt channery silt loam, High 15 to 25 percent slopes Thomas Jefferson SWCD 4 4/24/09 Bradner, Brian From:Ron Higgins [rhiggins @albemarle.org] Sent:Tuesday, December 23, 2008 11:20 AM To:Bradner, Brian Cc:Eryn Brennan; Megan Yaniglos; Bill Fritz Subject:Walmart Expansion- Parking Modification Hello, Brian: I have reviewed the materials and data you submitted earlier this month, regarding the modification to the required parking for the Walmart expansion. The request is to reduce the total required parking from 624 spaces to 602 spaces, a 3.5% reduction. In accordance with Section 4.12.2 c. of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, this reduction to 602 total spaces, as illustrated on "Parking Study Exhibit B" and supported with appropriate data, is approved. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Ron Higgins, AICP Chief of Zoning 1 o ALa I 1411111 P V 'IRGIN P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 DATE: May 5 2009 Brian K. Bradner P.E. [Dewberry] 551 Piney Forest Road Danville, VA, 24540. RE: SDP - 2009 -00028 Mal -Mart Stores Major Amendment Dear Sir, 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 (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Planning (ARB Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Development Area Planner) Albemarle County Division of Inspections (Building Official) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA). Albemarle County Geographic and Data Services (GDS) Albemarle County Fire and Rescue 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 May 18 2009. 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, a l F/we " i . Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Current Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 Phone: (434)296 -5832 Ext 3385 Fax: (434)972 -4126 0Y AL13 J County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Brian K Bradner From:Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner Division: Zoning and Current Development Date:May 4, 2009 Subject: SDP2009 -00028 Wal -Mart Store Expansion [Major Amendment] The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend approval of the major site plan amendment referred to above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 32.5.6 The preliminary site plan shall contain the following information: Please add the site plan number SDP200900028 to the site plan for easy reference now, and in the future. Zoning; descriptions of all variances, zoning proffers and bonus factors applicable to the site; this parcel has approved special use permit(s) for outdoor display. Please scan onto the site plan the special use permit number and the associated special use permit conditions Minimum setback lines, Please add the 30 foot minimum front setback line to the site plan page ) sheet C31 b. Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the proposed use, including: Schedule of parking including maximum amount required and amount provided; parking figures shown on the site plan (proposed site analysis table on sheet C3) do not match what is shown on the site plan. I counted 616 spaces which includes 14 cart corral spaces. The parking spaces do not match what is outlined in the approved parking waiver. Please revise or explain how the figures on the site plan were derived. If a landscape plan is required, maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation areas. Please indicate the amount of paved parking and circulation area in square feet on the site plan. This figure will be use to calculate require interior landscaping. n. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements including: Sidewalks: [Albemarle County Code 32.7.2.8] Please consider providing sidewalk that would extend from the proposed bus stop location to State Route 29. Safe and Convenient Access: Albemarle County Code 32.7.2.7 Provide the necessary internal stop sign(s) by the right turn entrance off Route 29 South Loading Areas: Loading spaces shall be provided in addition to and exclusive of any parking requirement on the basis of: (1) one (1) space for the first eight thousand (8,000) square feet of retail gross leasable area, plus one (1) space for each additional twenty- thousand (20,000) square feet of retail gross leasable area; 1 32.6 FINAL SITE PLAN CONTENT LIGHTING PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST Lumen level (3000 or more must be full cutoff) Please provide cut sheets for all fixtures that emit more than 3000 Lumens. Cut sheets should provide proof that all fixtures that emit more than 3000 lumens are full cutoff. Bulb /lamp location (must be totally within house to be full cutoff) Luminaire schedule Catalog # coordinated with cut sheets Please provide cut sheets. Cut sheets and the catalog numbers on the luminaire schedule must match. Fixture quantity /types coordinated with quantity /types on lighting plan I could not find/count a lot of the fixtures on the site plan. Please consider making the fixture size bi • er and/or easier to locate. Pole height/mounting height (ARB) NA Colors /finishes (ARB) NA Tilt (must be 0 for full cutoff) Ensure that tilt is 0 or full cutoff Fixture locations Location conflicts with trees, utilities, etc. Please make sure that fixture locations do not conflict with trees and utility easements Coordination with other site plan sheets Thank you, this has been adequately addressed. Shielding issues (freestanding signs, wall fixtures, etc.) El All wall fixtures must be shielded. Photometric plan Adjacent zoning Thank you, this has been adequately addressed. Property lines Thank you, this has been adequately addressed. Excessive spillover: There is excessive spillover (more than 0.5 foot candles) onto public roads. Please revise or relocate the fixtures. Excessive lighting levels (ARB) N/A Maintenance factor = 1.0 Thank you, this has been adequately addressed. Standard lighting notes: Add the standard lighting note to the site plan as follows: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle." Landscape plan in conformance with section 32.7.9. Section 32.7.9.6: STREET TREES a) Street trees shall be required along existing or proposed public streets in any development which is subject to site development plan approval in all commercial and industrial districts and residential development of a density of four (4) dwelling units per acre or greater. The agent may waiver this requirement in certain cases where site conditions warrant an alternate solution. b) Street trees shall be selected from a current list of recommended large shade trees approved by the agent. Medium shade trees may be substituted, subject to the approval of the agent when site conditions warrant smaller trees. The agent may approve substitutions of species of large or medium shade trees. c) Street trees shall be planted with even spacing in a row adjacent to the public street right -of -way. c) One (1) large street tree shall be required for every fifty (50) feet of road frontage, or portion thereof, if twenty -five (25) feet or more. c) Where permitted, one (1) medium shade tree shall be required for every forty (40) feet of road front -age, or portion thereof, if twenty (20) feet or more. c) The agent may approve minor variations in spacing. d) In the case of development with units for sale, the trees shall be protected through an open space or easement arrangement and shall be maintained by a property owner's association. COMMENT: Please indicate on the landscape plan the number of street trees existing and the ones provided with this site plan. Section 32.7.9.7: PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING All development subject to site development plan review shall include the following required landscaping for parking lots consisting of five (5) spaces or more: a) Street trees: Street trees shall be planted in accordance with section 32.7.9.6 along the public street frontage which abuts a parking lot. a) The trees shall be planted between the street right -of -way and the parking area, within the parking setback. a) If required street trees cannot be planted within the parking setback or within ten (10) feet of the street right -of -way due to sight distance, utility easement or other conflicting requirements, then the planting strip shall be enlarged to accommodate the trees. a) If this requirement creates a hardship by causing the relocation of required parking spaces, then the additional planting area may be counted toward the interior landscaping requirement; b) Interior landscaping: Exclusive of the requirements of section 32.7.9.7 (a) and (c), an area equal to five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. b) This shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. b) Interior landscaping shall be located in reasonably dispersed planting islands or perimeter areas. Shrub plantings adjacent to a building shall not be counted as interior landscaping; c) Additional plantings along public streets: When a parking lot is located such that the parked cars will be visible from a public street, then additional landscaping of low street shrubs shall be required between the street and the parking lot. c) Shrubs shall be in a single row planted five (5) feet on center. c) Alternate methods of landscaping designed to minimize the visual impact of the parking lot may be approved by the agent. 3 COMMENT: Please indicate the number of interior landscape trees provided. Section 32.7.9.9: TREE CANOPY a. The foregoing notwithstanding, a minimum tree canopy shall be provided in accordance with this section. Tree canopy" or "tree cover" shall include all areas of coverage by plant material exceeding five (5) feet in height at a maturity of ten (10) years after planting. Selection of species for planting shall be in accord with section 32.7.9.4 a) Specifications for plantings shall be in accord with section 32.7.9.5 b) Existing trees to be preserved in accordance with section 32.7.9.4(h) together with trees required under sections 32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7 and 32.7.9.8 shall count toward satisfaction of the minimum tree canopy. b. The following minimum requirements shall apply: 1. Ten (10) percent tree canopy for a site to be developed with commercial, office or industrial uses; Oc. In the calculation of land area subject to this section, the following areas may be deducted at the option of the developer: 0-Farm land or other areas devoid of woody materials at the time of adoption of this section; 0-Recreation areas as required under section 4.16; 0-Open space areas as required under section 4.7; 0-Land dedicated to public use; 0-Playing fields and recreation areas attendant to schools, day care and the like; 0-Ponds or lakes deemed by the agent to constitute a desirable open space amenity; CI-Areas required for the preservation of wetlands, flood plain or other areas required to be maintained in natural state by this chapter or other applicable law; CI-Areas approved by the agent in accord with section 32.7.9.3. Deductions provided above shall be cumulative but shall not be duplicative. d. Where existing trees are maintained, a canopy bonus shall be granted as follows: 1. The area of canopy shall be calculated at ten (10) years of additional maturity; 02. The resultant area shall be multiplied by a factor of 1.25. Please Provide Tree Canopy Calculations to show how the required (10) percent tree canopy will/is achieved. Please contact Gerald Gatobu at the Division of Zoning and Current Development at 296 -5832 ext.3385 for further information. 4 pF ) III 7 `P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:Wal -Mart Major Amendment SDP - 2008 - 00028, WPO -2008- 00017] Plan preparer:Dewberry & Davis, Inc. Owner or rep.:Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Plan received date: 14 April 2009 Date of comments: 5 May 2009 Reviewer:Phil Custer The site plan amendment, ESC, and SWM plans for the Wal -Mart Expansion Project, received on 14 April 2009, has been reviewed. Comments for all three plans are provided in this letter. Engineering review recommends the applicant request deferral of the site plan amendment so that the comments regarding the ESC and SWM plans can be addressed. A. Final Site Plan [SDP 2009 - 00028] 1. On sheet C2, please note the date and source of the topography. 2. On sheet C2, please shade all critical slopes. A waiver is needed for critical slope disturbance. Engineering review of the critical slope waiver request is provided in a separate document. 3. The steepest slope allowed in the County is 2:1. All slopes steeper than 3:1 must have a low maintenance, non -grass groundcover. Though there are no slopes shown with proposed contours that fall into these categories, it is safe to assume that the steep slopes uphill of new walls will be disturbed. When the slopes are restored, show the proposed grading and make sure all slopes steeper than 3:1 have a low maintenance, non -grass groundcover. 4. Please show topography (existing and proposed, if necessary) and top of wall spot elevations on the wall detail on sheet C4.1. All segments of the wall taller than 4ft will require a safety railing. Please show this on the wall section detail and plan view. 5. On sheet C4.1. please show a dashed line on the plan where the back base of all walls will approximately be located. 6. VDOT approval is required. At this time, VDOT approval has not yet been received. 7. Engineering has reviewed the traffic study prepared by Ramsey Kemp and has some concerns with the calculations and findings. The appendix showed several movements within the study area with a level of service of E. The applicant should investigate possible improvements to bring those movements up to a level of service of at least D. The County's review of the study also questions whether a bypass reduction should be used for traffic on Hilton Heights Rd. In addition, the county believes the increase in peak hour traffic is underestimated because the ITE estimate for PM peak hour generation (370, considering bypass reduction) is well below the existing traffic counts for peak hour trips into and out of the site (607 4PM -5PM and 597 5PM -6PM). 8. Is this plan proposing to close the garden entrance? After visiting the site and watching traffic enter from Hilton Heights Road for a few cycles, I am concerned that pedestrians utilizing this northern entrance results in longer queues at the traffic light. Cars turning left into the parking lot may be forced to wait in the intersection as pedestrians enter and exit the building. Can this entrance be closed or can foot- traffic in this area be controlled? 9. All parking rows must be protected by a curb island of a 3ft minimum width. Exceptions can be made in the area of the handicap spaces as long as bollards are located at the corners of the Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 pavement hatching. Other than the handicap parking area, there are two instances where a curb island is required. 10. Because of the bollards at the end of the spaces in the parking area north of the building, the 18ft minimum depth is not provided. It appears as though the spaces are only 16ft long. Please provide 18ft long parking spaces in this area or request a waiver from the Zoning Administrator. Engineering review will not recommend approval of this waiver. 11. Please provide a sidewalk on the southern side of the parking lot from the bus stop to the sidewalk along Route 29. [18-32.7.2.8] The sidewalk must be a minimum of 5ft. If bumper blocks are not used when sidewalk is adjacent to perpendicular parking, the width must be 6ft. 12. With the current grading, the truck entrance will intercept most of the drainage area to the VDOT inlet and direct it into the site. Please provide a new curb inlet uphill of the entrance or modify the grading so a 4in/hr storm will continue draining to the existing DI -3 inlet. 13. Please reduce the truck exit travelway grade to 10% or flatter. 14. Please provide at least four spot elevations on the compactor pad showing that water does not run across it. 15. Please provide pavement sections for all new or replaced pavement. 16. Please provide typical sections for sidewalks and the compactor pad. These sections must be at least as strong as the sections described in the checklist of the County's Design Manual. 17. Please provide the Albemarle County General Construction notes in the plan set. 18. The modified inlet between the northern entrance and the truck exit must be a VDOT standard inlet. It appears that a DI -1 is best suited for this retrofit. 19. Please show the proposed grade in the drainage profiles. 20. Please show the depth of MH -1 in the drainage profile. 21. There is a discrepancy in the label of MH -2 between the profile and sheet C4. 22. In a parking lot drainage system, all changes in direction or slope require a VDOT standard manhole or inlet. 23. Please label the material and strength class for each pipe in the drainage system. 24. The minimum diameter of a private drainage system is 12 ". Engineering review recommends a minimum pipe diameter of 15 ". 25. All flow drops of 4ft or greater (surface to Inv Out or Inv In to Inv Out) require inlet shaping VDOT Standard IS-1). Please specify IS -1 on all necessary structures in the drainage profiles. 26. All new structures taller than 12ft require VDOT Standard SL -1. 27. A drainage area map has been excluded from this submittal. Please submit an inlet drainage area map which includes: drainage area lines to proposed structures and channels, acreages for each drainage area, hydrologic coefficients matching calculations, time of concentration for each drainage area, and the structure label. 28. Please specify the dimensions of the concrete ditch and provide capacity calculations. 29. Please provide headwater analyses for all new grate inlets. Please show spot elevations around DI- 5 showing that sufficient headwater is provided without backing water up into the walkway. B. Stormwater Management Plan [WPO- 2009 - 00017] 1. Before the plan can be approved, the applicant must submit a completed, signed Stormwater Facility Maintenance agreement and fee. This document is available online (document and procedures). For any questions regarding this process, please contact Pam Shifflett at 434 -296- 5832 x3246. 2. Please submit an approval letter from Filterra. 3. Please provide drainage area maps of the existing and proposed condition to confirm detention compliance. Each map should include: the drainage area from the point of analysis, acreage of the drainage area, average hydrologic coefficient, and time of concentration used. Without these Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 maps, it is difficult to verify that the calculations are accurate. 4. It appears as though the new impervious area is not being treated. Instead, the applicant is proposing to treat existing impervious areas within the parking lot. Please provide a separate exhibit showing that the drainage areas treated by the Filterras are equal to or greater than the new impervious area. 5. Please provide the County's General Construction Notes for Stormwater Management Plans in the set. 6. The detention pipes must be accessible at each end of the facility. The control orifice should be easily accessible. 7. Trash racks are required on all orifices. 8. The detention calculations are unclear and will require modifications. a. There are a few pages that analyze runoff from the entire site. The analysis should be restricted to the watershed of the detention facility. b. It does not appear the 2 -year storm was routed. c. The input data for on sheet 1 of 16 does not appear to match the characteristics of the proposed detention facility. d. Included in the calculation packet is a stage - storage table that appears to compute the volume of a singular 5ft diameter pipe that has no slope when the proposed system is two 4ft pipes at a 0.5% slope. I recommend using a routing program that can route pipe detention systems more easily. If requested, I can also provide you with a stage- storage table computed by the program the County uses. e. The program states that the storm being routed is the 24 hour storm, which usually has a peak of around 12 hours, but the routing results looks as if the Modified Rational Method was used. If the Modified Ration Method is used, the applicant must show that the critical storm was routed. f. The precipitation depth (P) for the 2 and 10 year storms in Albemarle County are 3.7in. and 5.6in. 9. Please clarify how rainwater from the new roof is directed to the detention system. 10. The SWM portion of the WPO bond will be calculated at the time of plan approval. C. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan [WPO 2009 - 00017] 1. Please provide more detail as to how the 30ft wall is to be constructed. It appears that a grading /construction easement will be needed onto the adjacent property unless pilings are used. The smaller wall between Sta. 0 +00 and 0 +90 may also require a temporary construction easement on the adjacent property. 2. Please include in the set the County's General Construction Notes for Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. 3. Please reduce the limits of construction to only the area being disturbed. For instance, the western slope does not need to be included in the limits of disturbance. Also, since no earthwork is being done in the majority of the parking lot, show limits of disturbance only around the islands and curbing that will be replaced. 4. Please provide a construction entrance on the plan. 5. Please show a realistic staging and parking area on the plan. The size of this area should be coordinated with zoning /planning to make sure adequate parking is maintained during construction. This staging /contractor parking area must be fenced off from the public parking lot during construction. The temporary fencing should also be provided around the top of the cut behind all walls. 6. Please provide ESC symbols PS, TS, and DC on the plan where applicable. 7. Please show all trees to be saved on the ESC plan with tree protection fencing at the drip line. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 8. Please provide a detail showing the existing soil boundaries. The plan appears to group several soil types in the same area. 9. The maximum drainage area for inlet protection is 1 acre. This comment will be confirmed once an inlet drainage map is submitted. 10. Please provide an adequate channel analysis meeting all of the requirements specified in the County's Design Standard Manual. Alternatively, the applicant may overdetain with the facility as sited by routing the 2 and the 10 year flows through a 3inch orifice. 11. The ESC portion of the WPO bond will be calculated at the time of plan approval. C.; vii County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Gerald Gatobu, Current Development planning From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:5 May 2009 Subject: Wal -Mart Amendment critical slope waiver request (SDP -2009- 00028) The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope disturbance on parcel 45-68D5 is necessary for a 35,000sf expansion of the existing store. The construction will extend the building about 95ft towards the south into an area that is shown on the plan as a parking aisle with spaces on both sides, though this area is currently used for storage. At the southwest corner of the expansion, the footprint encroaches on critical slopes. This area is the majority of the critical slopes disturbance on site. The slopes in this area are often at a grade steeper than 50 %. Secondary areas of critical slope disturbance must occur to construct a few parking spaces along the southern travelway to the entrance onto Route 29 and for some site work at the rear of the building. These slopes are graded at approximately 2:1. The analysis provided in this report is based on the drawing dated 13 April 2009. Areas Acres Total site 13.28 acres Critical slopes 1.89 14.2% of site Critical slopes disturbed 0.49 30.0% of critical slopes Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: There are no exemptions for the proposed disturbance. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 4.2.5.b: Below is the section of the Zoning Ordinance that specifies instances where the Director of Current Development may grant a waiver to allow critical slope disturbance. The engineering commentary regarding the ordinance text is written in bold italics. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this chapter, the agent may waive the prohibition of disturbing critical slopes on any parcel not within the Rural Areas (RA), Monticello Historic District (MHD) or Village Residential (VR) zoning districts in the following circumstances: (i) the critical slopes were created during the development of the property pursuant to a site plan approved by the county; or (ii) the critical slopes will be disturbed to replace an existing structure located on the critical slopes and the extent of the disturbance is the minimum necessary to replace the existing structure with a new structure whose footprint Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 does not exceed the footprint of the existing structure. The agent may grant a waiver if he or she finds that: This parcel is located in the Development Area and is zoned Highway Commercial. The critical slopes on site were created with the construction of site plan SDP - 1991 - 00060.) 1. The property is not identified in the open space plan as one having any protected resources and a field inspection has confirmed that there are no significant or critical features on the property identified for protection in the open space plan; The planner will determine whether these slopes are protected on the County's Open Space Plan.) 2. There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance of critical slopes; Any expansion of this magnitude to the existing building would necessitate the disturbance of critical slopes.) 3. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the program authority of an erosion and sediment control plan, regardless of whether the area disturbed is less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet; and The applicant has submitted an application for an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a review of the plan is currently being performed. Engineering review recommends that any administrative waiver for critical slope disturbance be given with a condition requiring approval of an ESC plan.) 4. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the county engineer of a plan that describes how the movement of soil and rock, stormwater runoff, siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water, the loss of aesthetic resources identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan and, in the event of the failure of a treatment works and subsurface drainfield, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, will be mitigated through design, construction techniques, revegetation, stormwater management and other best management practices. The Water Protection Ordinance Plan will address all concerns regarding siltation of waterbodies, stormwater runoff, and the movement of soil and rock. This site is served by public sewer. All slopes will be revegetated.) To conclude, it appears that the plan meets all of the standard requirements necessary for granting of an administrative critical slope waiver with the exception of the site plan having approval for Erosion and Sediment Control. Engineering review recommends approval of this critical slope waiver with the condition that the applicant obtain approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Serv Auth/r TO: Gerald Gatobu FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: May 4, 2009 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Wal -Mart Store Expansion SDP200900028 TM 45 -68D5 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. A 6 inch water line is located on site. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. X 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located on site. 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. X 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: The two fire hydrants and laterals on site are private. Provide a total plumbing fixture count to size the meter. 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 (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org COMMONWEALTH o f 1VIR I T.IA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER May 4 2009 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments May 7, 2009 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the May 7 2009 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2009 -00028 Walmart Store Expansion -Major (Gerald Gatobu) 1. A TIA was previously submitted for this expansion to ensure there were not significant impacts to the surrounding intersection. 2. An internal circulation should be shown to get the trucks into the loading/unloading docks. The right turn one way exit can be permitted but without proper internal circulation, trucks may attempt to use the exit ramp for backing into the docks. Please show how truck traffic will flow. 3. A permit will be needed for any construction on the existing state maintained route. SUB - 2009 -00051 Faulkner Falls (Summer Frederick) 1. The plat appears to match the approved site plan. SUB - 2009 -00062 Wickam Pond -Phase II -Block I- Preliminary (Summer Frederick) 1. The preliminary plat appears to be consistent with the approved plan. 2. Final plat needs to have items listed in VDOT's subdivision plat checklist included. 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. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 -293 -0011 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING C of A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 April 27, 2009 Brian Bradner Dewberry & Davis, Inc. 551 Piney Forest Road Danville, VA 24540 RE: ARB - 2008 - 163: Walmart; Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D 5 Dear Mr. Bradner: I have reviewed your submittal for the above - referenced project, which included the following drawings. Sheet ARB -0 -5, -8 dated 3/25/09. Sheet ARB -6 and 8 dated 10/31/08. Sheet ARB -9 -11 dated 1/22/09. Architectural Drawing Sheets 1 -11 dated 3/27/09. I have the following comments: 1. Comment: Lighting 1. All of the exterior wall light information has been included in the site plan; however, several of the proposed light fixtures exceed 3,000 lumens and are not full cutoff. Light Fixture L is a wall sconce located on the side and rear elevations. The 5200 lumen light fixture is the H1WSU style, which is an uplight, and is therefore not full cutoff. Light fixture F is a ground - mounted light fixture, and is therefore not full cutoff, and exceeds 3,000 lumens. Although the F light fixture illuminating the flag pole is acceptable, the five other F light fixtures do not meet the County code regarding full cutoff light fixtures. Light Fixture J also exceeds 3,000 lumens and is not full cutoff. 2. Footcandle readings beyond the east property line show light levels ranging from 0.6 to 1.7. Lighting in the public right -of -way may not exceed one half footcandles. 3. The monument sign drawing states that existing external lighting for the sign is to remain, but this note has not been included on the lighting plan. 4. The action letter dated March 6, 2009 stated, "Revise the color of the non - illuminated bollards, benches, and trash cans to one that is more coordinated with the color palette of the building and signage. Bronze or black would be appropriate for the benches and trash cans." The elevation drawings show that all the bollards, benches, and trash cans are black; however, there is no note on the plan indicating this. Revisions Needed: 1. Revise Light Fixtures L, F, and J to meet the County's definition of full cutoff. 2. Revise the lighting plan to show that no light levels will exceed one half footcandle on the public right -of -way. Add the following note to the lighting plan: "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle." 3. Include a note on the lighting plan stating that the existing external illumination for the monument sign is to remain. 4. Include a note in the site plan indicating that the trash cans and benches will be black. 2. Comment: Changes to the Southeast Corner Changes to the site plan since the previous submittal include a reconfiguration of the southeast corner of the building, which eliminated four of the proposed Lagerstroemia trees and relocated the set of windows from north of the Market and Pharmacy entrance bay to south of the entrance bay. The area where the windows were previously located north of the entrance bay is now shown as rectangular openings filled with beige split -face CMU. At the ARB meeting on April 20, 2009, the board commented on the revisions as an Other Business item. The ARB provided the following comments: It was the consensus of the ARB that the panels filled with painted c11214 should be revised to panels of the darker brick fused in the double - height soldier course circumscribing the exterior facades of the building] and trees should be added back to the southeast corner of the building. Revisions Needed: Revise the architectural drawings and site plan to add at least two trees in the southeast corner of the site near the large planter. Revise the architectural drawings to show the proposed painted CMU in the panels north of the Market and Pharmacy entrance bay changed to a darker brick matching the double - height soldier course on the building. Please provide one set of revised drawings addressing the above issues and a memo outlining how you've addressed each issue. Submit the attached "Revised Application Submittal" form with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. When staffs 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, Eryn Brennan Senior Planner Cc: ARB File Application #:SDP200900028 -.. Short Review Comrents Project Name: WaI -Mart Store Expansion - Major Major Amendment Date Completed:04/20/2009 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: NO OBJECTION. Date Completed:04/28/2009 Reviewer:Eryn Brennan ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: This application went before the ARB for general comments as an "Other Business" item on April 20, 2009 regarding a revised application submitted on April 10, 2009. ARB comments were provided and are included in the action letter. Date Completed:05/04/2009 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Date Completed:04/27/2009 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated April 13, 2009. No comments or conditions. Date Completed:04/28/2009 Reviewer:Judith Wiegand Planning Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: 1Staff has reviewed this site plan for compliance with the current Comprehensive Plan and with the draft Places29 Master Plan. The proposed expansion complies with the Comp Plan's regional service designation on this parcel. The expansion also complies with the draft Places29 Master Plan's commercial mixed use designation. Staff supports the expansion of an existing retail outlet that is located near transit access and closer to many of the users. The changes to the building's facade and landscaping will also be a great improvement. Date Completed:05/05/2009 Reviewer:Philip Custer Engineer Z &CD Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: 1ESC plan must be approved before the critical slope waiver can be granted. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 j st COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:Wal -Mart Major Amendment SDP - 2008 - 00028, WPO -2008- 00017] Plan preparer:Dewberry & Davis, Inc. Owner or rep.:Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Plan received date: 14 April 2009 Date of comments: 5 May 2009 Reviewer:Phil Custer The site plan amendment, ESC, and SWM plans for the Wal -Mart Expansion Project, received on 14 April 2009, has been reviewed. Comments for all three plans are provided in this letter. Engineering review recommends the applicant request deferral of the site plan amendment so that the comments regarding the ESC and SWM plans can be addressed. A. Final Site Plan [SDP- 2009 - 00028] 1. On sheet C2, please note the date and source of the topography. 2. On sheet C2, please shade all critical slopes. A waiver is needed for critical slope disturbance. Engineering review of the critical slope waiver request is provided in a separate document. 3. The steepest slope allowed in the County is 2:1. All slopes steeper than 3:1 must have a low maintenance, non -grass groundcover. Though there are no slopes shown with proposed contours that fall into these categories, it is safe to assume that the steep slopes uphill of new walls will be disturbed. When the slopes are restored, show the proposed grading and make sure all slopes steeper than 3:1 have a low maintenance, non -grass groundcover. 4. Please show topography (existing and proposed, if necessary) and top of wall spot elevations on the wall detail on sheet C4.1. All segments of the wall taller than 4ft will require a safety railing. Please show this on the wall section detail and plan view. 5. On sheet C4.1, please show a dashed line on the plan where the back base of all walls will approximately be located. 6. VDOT approval is required. At this time, VDOT approval has not yet been received. 7. Engineering has reviewed the traffic study prepared by Ramsey Kemp and has some concerns with the calculations and findings. The appendix showed several movements within the study area with a level of service of E. The applicant should investigate possible improvements to bring those movements up to a level of service of at least D. The County's review of the study also questions whether a bypass reduction should be used for traffic on Hilton Heights Rd. In addition, the county believes the increase in peak hour traffic is underestimated because the ITE estimate for PM peak hour generation (370, considering bypass reduction) is well below the existing traffic counts for peak hour trips into and out of the site (607 4PM -5PM and 597 5PM -6PM). 8. Is this plan proposing to close the garden entrance? After visiting the site and watching traffic enter from Hilton Heights Road for a few cycles, I am concerned that pedestrians utilizing this northern entrance results in longer queues at the traffic light. Cars turning left into the parking lot may be forced to wait in the intersection as pedestrians enter and exit the building. Can this entrance be closed or can foot - traffic in this area be controlled? 9. All parking rows must be protected by a curb island of a 3ft minimum width. Exceptions can be made in the area of the handicap spaces as long as bollards are located at the corners of the Albemarletounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 pavement hatching. Other than the handicap parking area, there are two instances where a curb island is required. 10. Because of the bollards at the end of the spaces in the parking area north of the building, the 18ft minimum depth is not provided. It appears as though the spaces are only 16ft long. Please provide 18ft long parking spaces in this area or request a waiver from the Zoning Administrator. Engineering review will not recommend approval of this waiver. 11. Please provide a sidewalk on the southern side of the parking lot from the bus stop to the sidewalk along Route 29. [18-32.7.2.8] The sidewalk must be a minimum of 5ft. If bumper blocks are not used when sidewalk is adjacent to perpendicular parking, the width must be 6ft. 12. With the current grading, the truck entrance will intercept most of the drainage area to the VDOT inlet and direct it into the site. Please provide a new curb inlet uphill of the entrance or modify the grading so a 4in/hr storm will continue draining to the existing DI -3 inlet. 13. Please reduce the truck exit travelway grade to 10% or flatter. 14. Please provide at least four spot elevations on the compactor pad showing that water does not run across it. 15. Please provide pavement sections for all new or replaced pavement. 16. Please provide typical sections for sidewalks and the compactor pad. These sections must be at least as strong as the sections described in the checklist of the County's Design Manual. 17. Please provide the Albemarle County General Construction notes in the plan set. 18. The modified inlet between the northern entrance and the truck exit must be a VDOT standard inlet. It appears that a DI -1 is best suited for this retrofit. 19. Please show the proposed grade in the drainage profiles. 20. Please show the depth of MH -1 in the drainage profile. 21. There is a discrepancy in the label of MH -2 between the profile and sheet C4. 22. In a parking lot drainage system, all changes in direction or slope require a VDOT standard manhole or inlet. 23. Please label the material and strength class for each pipe in the drainage system. 24. The minimum diameter of a private drainage system is 12 ". Engineering review recommends a minimum pipe diameter of 15 ". 25. All flow drops of 4ft or greater (surface to Inv Out or Inv In to Inv Out) require inlet shaping VDOT Standard IS -1). Please specify IS -1 on all necessary structures in the drainage profiles. 26. All new structures taller than 12ft require VDOT Standard SL -1. 27. A drainage area map has been excluded from this submittal. Please submit an inlet drainage area map which includes: drainage area lines to proposed structures and channels, acreages for each drainage area, hydrologic coefficients matching calculations, time of concentration for each drainage area, and the structure label. 28. Please specify the dimensions of the concrete ditch and provide capacity calculations. 29. Please provide headwater analyses for all new grate inlets. Please show spot elevations around DI- 5 showing that sufficient headwater is provided without backing water up into the walkway. B. Stormwater Management Plan [WPO- 2009 - 00017] 1. Before the plan can be approved, the applicant must submit a completed, signed Stormwater Facility Maintenance agreement and fee. This document is available online (document and procedures). For any questions regarding this process, please contact Pam Shifflett at 434 -296- 5832 x3246. 2. Please submit an approval letter from Filterra. 3. Please provide drainage area maps of the existing and proposed condition to confirm detention compliance. Each map should include: the drainage area from the point of analysis, acreage of the drainage area, average hydrologic coefficient, and time of concentration used. Without these Albemarle.county Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 maps, it is difficult to verify that the calculations are accurate. 4. It appears as though the new impervious area is not being treated. Instead, the applicant is proposing to treat existing impervious areas within the parking lot. Please provide a separate exhibit showing that the drainage areas treated by the Filterras are equal to or greater than the new impervious area. 5. Please provide the County's General Construction Notes for Stormwater Management Plans in the set. 6. The detention pipes must be accessible at each end of the facility. The control orifice should be easily accessible. 7. Trash racks are required on all orifices. 8. The detention calculations are unclear and will require modifications. a. There are a few pages that analyze runoff from the entire site. The analysis should be restricted to the watershed of the detention facility. b. It does not appear the 2 -year storm was routed. c. The input data for on sheet 1 of 16 does not appear to match the characteristics of the proposed detention facility. d. Included in the calculation packet is a stage - storage table that appears to compute the volume of a singular 5ft diameter pipe that has no slope when the proposed system is two 4ft pipes at a 0.5% slope. I recommend using a routing program that can route pipe detention systems more easily. If requested, I can also provide you with a stage - storage table computed by the program the County uses. e. The program states that the storm being routed is the 24 hour storm, which usually has a peak of around 12 hours, but the routing results looks as if the Modified Rational Method was used. If the Modified Ration Method is used, the applicant must show that the critical storm was routed. f. The precipitation depth (P) for the 2 and 10 year storms in Albemarle County are 3.7in. and 5.6in. 9. Please clarify how rainwater from the new roof is directed to the detention system. 10. The SWM portion of the WPO bond will be calculated at the time of plan approval. C. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan [WPO- 2009 - 00017] 1. Please provide more detail as to how the 30ft wall is to be constructed. It appears that a grading /construction easement will be needed onto the adjacent property unless pilings are used. The smaller wall between Sta. 0 +00 and 0 +90 may also require a temporary construction easement on the adjacent property. 2. Please include in the set the County's General Construction Notes for Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. 3. Please reduce the limits of construction to only the area being disturbed. For instance, the western slope does not need to be included in the limits of disturbance. Also, since no earthwork is being done in the majority of the parking lot, show limits of disturbance only around the islands and curbing that will be replaced. 4. Please provide a construction entrance on the plan. 5. Please show a realistic staging and parking area on the plan. The size of this area should be coordinated with zoning /planning to make sure adequate parking is maintained during construction. This staging /contractor parking area must be fenced off from the public parking lot during construction. The temporary fencing should also be provided around the top of the cut behind all walls. 6. Please provide ESC symbols PS, TS, and DC on the plan where applicable. 7. Please show all trees to be saved on the ESC plan with tree protection fencing at the drip line. Albemarlounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 8. Please provide a detail showing the existing soil boundaries. The plan appears to group several soil types in the same area. 9. The maximum drainage area for inlet protection is 1 acre. This comment will be confirmed once an inlet drainage map is submitted. 10. Please provide an adequate channel analysis meeting all of the requirements specified in the County's Design Standard Manual. Alternatively, the applicant may overdetain with the facility as sited by routing the 2 and the 10 year flows through a 3inch orifice. 11. The ESC portion of the WPO bond will be calculated at the time of plan approval. mot , arttE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:Wal -Mart Major Amendment SDP -2008- 00028, WPO -2008- 00017] Plan preparer:Dewberry & Davis, Inc. Owner or rep.:Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Plan received date: Rev. 1) 18 May 2009 14 April 2009 Date of comments: Rev. 1) 15 June 2009 5 May 2009 Reviewer:Phil Custer The site plan amendment, ESC, and SWM plans for the Wal -Mart Expansion Project, received on 18 May 2009, have been reviewed. Comments for all three plans are provided in this letter. A. Final Site Plan [SDP2009 - 00028] 3. The steepest slope allowed in the County is 2:1. All slopes steeper than 3:1 must have a low maintenance, non -grass groundcover. Though there are no slopes shown with proposed contours that fall into these categories, it is safe to assume that the steep slopes uphill of new walls will be disturbed. When the slopes are restored, show the proposed grading and make sure all slopes steeper than 3:1 have a low maintenance, non -grass groundcover. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The extent of the slope disturbance has not been shown on either the grading plan or the wall detail sheet. The impacts to this slope must be determined before many of these comments can be addressed. When the slope uphill of the wall is restored it cannot be restored to existing grade because some slopes are steeper than 2:1. Please show restoration grading and propose low- maintenance groundcover on any slope steeper than 3:1. 5. On sheet C4.1, please show a dashed line on the plan where the back base of all walls will approximately be located. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The extent of the slope disturbance has not been shown on either the grading plan or the wall detail sheet. The impacts to this slope must be determined before many of these comments can be addressed. 6. VDOT approval is required. At this time, VDOT approval has not yet been received. Rev. 1) VDOT approval has not yet been received. 7. Engineering has reviewed the traffic study prepared by Ramsey Kemp and has some concerns with the calculations and findings. The appendix showed several movements within the study area with Albemari,ounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 6 a level of service of E. The applicant should investigate possible improvements to bring those movements up to a level of service of at least D. The County's review of the study also questions whether a bypass reduction should be used for traffic on Hilton Heights Rd. In addition, the county believes the increase in peak hour traffic is underestimated because the ITE estimate for PM peak hour generation (370, considering bypass reduction) is well below the existing traffic counts for peak hour trips into and out of the site (607 4PM -5PM and 597 5PM -6PM). Rev. 1) The applicant's traffic study acknowledges that after the Walmart building expansion, three turning movements affected by development (Left and Thru from EB Hilton Heights and Left from NB 29) will be operating at an E Level of Service, which is considered by engineering review to not meet Section 18- 32.7.2 (Safe and Convenient Access). Engineering review recommends that the site plan not be approved unless the applicant addresses the delay experienced for the affected movements at the surrounding intersections. 8. Is this plan proposing to close the garden entrance? After visiting the site and watching traffic enter from Hilton Heights Road for a few cycles, I am concerned that pedestrians utilizing this northern entrance results in longer queues at the traffic light. Cars turning left into the parking lot may be forced to wait in the intersection as pedestrians enter and exit the building. Can this entrance be closed or can foot - traffic in this area be controlled? Rev. 1) On sheets 3 and 4, please provide a note at the east corner of the building that the garden entrance will be permanently closed and that no public entrance to the building will be provided 125ft of this building corner. 10. Because of the bollards at the end of the spaces in the parking area north of the building, the 18ft minimum depth is not provided. It appears as though the spaces are only 16ft long. Please provide 18ft long parking spaces in this area or request a waiver from the Zoning Administrator. Engineering review will not recommend approval of this waiver. Rev. 1) All bollards have been removed. Please provide a bumper block for the parking space east of the 6ft wide MS -1. 11. Please provide a sidewalk on the southern side of the parking lot from the bus stop to the sidewalk along Route 29. [18- 32.7.2.8] The sidewalk must be a minimum of 5ft. If bumper blocks are not used when sidewalk is adjacent to perpendicular parking, the width must be 6ft. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The sidewalk from the bus stop must be a full 5ft in width until the sidewalk along Route 29 is reached. If bumper blocks are not provided, for the parking spaces adjacent to the sidewalk, then the width must be 6ft. The sidewalk should be aligned through the existing hole in the vegetation at the front of the site. Please provide a note on the plan that all trees in the area are to remain undamaged and no more than one juniper will be removed if necessary. Please also show the sidewalk on the landscape plan. The existing shrub bed shown on sheet 7.0 should remain. 12. With the current grading, the truck entrance will intercept most of the drainage area to the VDOT inlet and direct it into the site. Please provide a new curb inlet uphill of the entrance or modify the grading so a 4in/hr storm will continue draining to the existing DI -3 inlet. Rev. I) On sheet 4 please provide the CG -9D callout note. The grading for the travelway also does not match the necessary vertical geometry of a CG -9D. Please provide a vertical profile detail for this entrance to verify that the all CG -9D standards are met. Albemart ounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 6 16. Please provide typical sections for sidewalks and the compactor pad. These sections must be at least as strong as the sections described in the checklist of the County's Design Manual. Rev. 1) Please specify the concrete for the sidewalk as 3000psi at 28 days or stronger. Please callout on the compactor pad detail that the heavy duty concrete section must be utilized. 18. The modified inlet between the northern entrance and the truck exit must be a VDOT standard inlet. It appears that a DI -1 is best suited for this retrofit. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 20. Please show the depth of MH -1 in the drainage profile. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 22. In a parking lot drainage system, all changes in direction or slope require a VDOT standard manhole or inlet. Rev. 1) Please show the manifold risers in the drainage profile. These structures must be a VDOT Standard MH -1. 26. All new structures taller than 12ft require VDOT Standard SL -1. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. B. Stormwater Management Plan [WPO- 2009 - 00017] 1. Before the plan can be approved, the applicant must submit a completed, signed Stormwater Facility Maintenance agreement and fee. This document is available online (document and procedures). For any questions regarding this process, please contact Pam Shifflett at 434 -296- Albemarm,,,ounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 6 5832 x3246. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 2. Please submit an approval letter from Filterra. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 3. Please provide drainage area maps of the existing and proposed condition to confirm detention compliance. Each map should include: the drainage area from the point of analysis, acreage of the drainage area, average hydrologic coefficient, and time of concentration used. Without these maps, it is difficult to verify that the calculations are accurate. Rev. 1) A drainage area map with the required information has been received but it will likely need to be revised based on comments to follow. 4. It appears as though the new impervious area is not being treated. Instead, the applicant is proposing to treat existing impervious areas within the parking lot. Please provide a separate exhibit showing that the drainage areas treated by the Filterras are equal to or greater than the new impervious area. Rev. 1) Please remove water quality structures 2 and 8. It is unlikely that their proposed locations will intercept much water with the current grading. Water quality requirements will be met by keeping the remaining 6 structures on the plan. 6. The detention pipes must be accessible at each end of the facility. The control orifice should be easily accessible. Rev. I) The minimum diameter outlet pipe is l5in. Also, the detention system should be arraigned in a way so that if the control orifice is clogged with debris it is easily accessible for maintenance. Right now, a clogged orifice would require someone diving into the manhole. 8. The detention calculations are unclear and will require modifications. c. The input data for on sheet 1 of 16 does not appear to match the characteristics of the proposed detention facility. Rev. 1) The drainage area to the detention facility as shown is 1.47 acres, not 0.88 acres. The inputs will change based on other requrements. e. The program states that the storm being routed is the 24 hour storm, which usually has a peak of around 12 hours, but the routing results looks as if the Modified Rational Method was used. If the Modified Ration Method is used, the applicant must show that the critical storm was routed. Rev. 1) Routing results are unsatisfactory. The applicant must route the facility using the modified rational method (using the critical storm) or the SCS method. Albemar,ounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 6 f. The precipitation depth (P) for the 2 and 10 year storms in Albemarle County are 3.7in. and 5.6in. Rev. 1) Comment has been noted by the applicant. 9. Please clarify how rainwater from the new roof is directed to the detention system. Rev. I) The county is compromising with this application by not requiring an MS -19 analysis as long as detention is provided to the maximum extent possible for the proposed building addition. Please either relocate the detention system and detain using a 3" orifice or find a way to route the building addition to the south and into the detention system at its current location. Otherwise, a full adequate channel analysis will be required. 10. The SWM portion of the WPO bond will be calculated at the time of plan approval. Rev. I) Comment remains unchanged. C. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan [WPO- 2009 - 000171 1. Please provide more detail as to how the 30ft wall is to be constructed. It appears that a grading /construction easement will be needed onto the adjacent property unless pilings are used. The smaller wall between Sta. 0 +00 and 0 +90 may also require a temporary construction easement on the adjacent property. Rev. 1) Please provide a note on both phases of the ESC plan in the area of both walls that the contractor is responsible for installing and maintaining appropriate shoring to construct the walls within the property boundaries. A temporary safety fence should also be shown at the property boundary. 3. Please reduce the limits of construction to only the area being disturbed. For instance, the western slope does not need to be included in the limits of disturbance. Also, since no earthwork is being done in the majority of the parking lot, show limits of disturbance only around the islands and curbing that will be replaced. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 4. Please provide a construction entrance on the plan. Rev. 1) Close and fence off the traffic aisle between the two fenced construction areas all the way to the edge of the existing building. Provide a note on the plan that the existing entrance aisle is to be used as the construction entrance. The onsite ESC and Zoning inspectors can authorize the opening of this traffic aisle if they feel vehicles can be safely managed through the construction area. 5. Please show a realistic staging and parking area on the plan. The size of this area should be coordinated with zoning /planning to make sure adequate parking is maintained during construction. This staging /contractor parking area must be fenced off from the public parking lot during construction. The temporary fencing should also be provided around the top of the cut behind all walls. Rev. 1) A temporary safety fence around the top of cut for the wall adjacent to the building addition is required. Albemar, ounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 6 of 6 10. Please provide an adequate channel analysis meeting all of the requirements specified in the County's Design Standard Manual. Alternatively, the applicant may overdetain with the facility as sited by routing the 2 and the 10 year flows through a 3inch orifice. Rev. 1) The county is compromising with this application by not requiring an MS -19 analysis as long as detention is provided to the maximum extent possible for the proposed building addition. Please either relocate the detention system and detain using a 3" orifice or find a way to route the building addition to the south and into the detention system at its current location. Otherwise, a full adequate channel analysis will be required. 11. The ESC portion of the WPO bond will be calculated at the time of plan approval. Rev. 1) Comment remains unchanged. a tGINl COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:Wal -Mart Major Amendment SDP- 2009 - 00028, WPO- 2009 - 00017] Plan preparer:Dewberry & Davis, Inc. Owner or rep.:Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Plan received date: Rev. 2) 13 July 2009 Rev. 1) 18 May 2009 14 April 2009 Date of comments: Rev. 2) 31 July 2009 Rev. 1) 15 June 2009 5 May 2009 Reviewer:Phil Custer The site plan amendment, ESC, and SWM plans for the Wal -Mart Expansion Project, received on 13 July 2009, have been reviewed. Comments for all three plans are provided in this letter. The plans can be approved after the following items have been addressed. A. Final Site Plan [SDP 2009 - 00028] 3. The steepest slope allowed in the County is 2:1. All slopes steeper than 3:1 must have a low maintenance, non -grass groundcover. Though there are no slopes shown with proposed contours that fall into these categories, it is safe to assume that the steep slopes uphill of new walls will be disturbed. When the slopes are restored, show the proposed grading and make sure all slopes steeper than 3:1 have a low maintenance, non -grass groundcover. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The extent of the slope disturbance has not been shown on either the grading plan or the wall detail sheet. The impacts to this slope must be determined before many of these comments can be addressed. When the slope uphill of the wall is restored it cannot be restored to existing grade because some slopes are steeper than 2:1. Please show restoration grading and propose low - maintenance groundcover on any slope steeper than 3:1. Rev. 2) The low maintenance non grass groundcover has been provided as required. However, the soil nail detail indicates disturbance to the property south of the development Permission from the adjacent owner will be required with the current plan. 6. VDOT approval is required. At this time, VDOT approval has not yet been received. Rev. 1) VDOT approval has not vet been received. Rev. 2) VDOT approval has not yet been received. A copy of the latest plan has been sent to VDOT. 7. Engineering has reviewed the traffic study prepared by Ramsey Kemp and has some concerns with the calculations and findings. The appendix showed several movements within the study area with a level of service of E. The applicant should investigate possible improvements to bring those movements up to a level of service of at least D. The County's review of the study also questions whether a bypass reduction should be used for traffic on Hilton Heights Rd. In addition, the county believes the increase in peak hour traffic is underestimated because the ITE estimate for PM peak hour generation (370, considering bypass reduction) is well below the existing traffic counts for peak hour trips into and out of the site (607 4PM -5PM and 597 5PM -6PM). Rev. 1) The applicant's traffic study acknowledges that after the Walmart building expansion, Albemari ounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 three turning movements affected by development (Left and Thru from EB Hilton Heights and Left from NB 29) will be operating at an E Level of Service, which is considered by engineering review to not meet Section 18- 32.7.2 (Safe and Convenient Access). Engineering review recommends that the site plan not be approved unless the applicant addresses the delay experienced, for the affected movements at the surrounding intersections. Rev. 2) Under Virginia Law, the applicant is not required to make any improvements to offset impacts. 12. With the current grading, the truck entrance will intercept most of the drainage area to the VDOT inlet and direct it into the site. Please provide a new curb inlet uphill of the entrance or modify the grading so a 4in/hr storm will continue draining to the existing DI -3 inlet. Rev. 1) On sheet 4 please provide the CG -9D callout note. The grading for the travelway also does not match the necessary vertical geometry of a CG -9D. Please provide a vertical profile detail for this entrance to verify that the all CG -9D standards are met. Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. The grading in this area does not appear to match a standard CG -9D entrance. In addition to CG -9D requirements, the entrance cannot be greater than 10% in grade, measured, from any point in the travelway not just the centerline. Another option could be that a new inlet is provided in the VDOT ROW immediately uphill of the entrance and modify the entrance to a CG -11 to address grading problems. 20. Please show the depth of MH -1 in the drainage profile. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. The depth should be shown graphically. 22. In a parking lot drainage system, all changes in direction or slope require a VDOT standard manhole or inlet. Rev. 1) Please show the manifold risers in the drainage profile. These structures must be a VDOT Standard MH -1. Rev. 2) The manifold risers should have VDOT standard ST -I, or equivalent, specified so the structures are accessible. B. Stormwater Management Plan [WPO- 2009 - 000171 6. The detention pipes must be accessible at each end of the facility. The control orifice should be easily accessible. Rev. 1) The minimum diameter outlet pipe is 15in. Also, the detention system should be arraigned in a way so that if the control orifice is clogged with debris it is easily accessible for maintenance. Right now, a clogged orifice would require someone diving into the manhole. Rev. 2) The manifold risers should have VDOT standard ST -1, or equivalent, specified so the structures are accessible. 10. The SWM portion of the WPO bond will be calculated at the time of plan approval. Rev. 2) The SWM portion of the WPO bond has been calculated to be $188,100. C. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan [WPO- 2009 - 000171 1. Please provide more detail as to how the 30ft wall is to be constructed. It appears that a grading /construction easement will be needed onto the adjacent property unless pilings are used. The smaller wall between Sta. 0 +00 and 0 +90 may also require a temporary construction easement on the adjacent property. Rev. 1) Please provide a note on both phases of the ESC plan in the area of both walls that the contractor is responsible for installing and maintaining appropriate shoring to construct the walls within the property boundaries. A temporary safety, fence should also be shown at the property boundary. Rev. 2) Please provide a note on both phases of the ESC plan in the area of both walls that the Albemarr ounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 contractor is responsible for installing and maintaining appropriate shoring to construct the walls within the property boundaries. Also, the plan currently shows that disturbance to the adjacent property will occur. 11. The ESC portion of the WPO bond will be calculated at the time of plan approval. Rev. 2) The ESC portion of the WPO bond has been calculated to be $46,600.