HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800144 Review Comments 2008-08-12y pF ALR
IRCIN
rte` '`, ( \ 1 r' yl `, J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
August 12, 2008
Charles A Garcia
209 West Stone Ave
Greenville Sc 29609
Fax (434) 972 -4012
RE: SDP2008 -00003 Crown BMW Retail Parts & Service Building- Preliminary
Tax Map 78, Parcels 15B & 11511311
Dear Mr. Garcia
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on, July 29, 2008 approved the modification
of Section 4.2.3.2 to allow disturbance of critical slopes by a vote of 6:0.
The Department of Community Development hereby grants administrative approval to the above
referenced site plan.
The approval of the preliminary site plan is valid for (1) one year in accordance with Section 32.4.3.1 of
Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code. Therefore, the preliminary approval shall expire on August
12, 2009. If the preliminary site plan approval expires, a new application must be filed and processed.
Please address all of the requirements and conditions listed below and submit eight (8) tentative plan
copies to the Department of Community Development. This letter must be submitted with the tentative
plans, as a checklist, to document that you have addressed all requirements or conditions, or the tentative
plan will be denied.
Erosion and Sediment Control, BMP Stormwater Management, and road plans with the associated
applications and fees must also be submitted with the eight (8) tentative Plans.
Once the tentative plan is submitted and reviewed you will receive comments from all
departments /divisions /agencies that have made comment on the tentative plan. Any further
responses must be made directly to each department /division /agency that has further comment.
After all aforementioned departments/divisions/agencies have granted a tentative approval, you
must verify with the Planner that you may submit the final mylars (2 sets), two paper copies, the
final site plan application, and final site plan fee to the Department of Community Development.
Signing of the plans will occur within one week once it is determined that the final site plan mylars
reflect all tentative approvals.
The final site plan will be subject to all final site plan requirements (Zoning Ordinance Section 32.6), in
addition to the following conditions.
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature
until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained:
CF Al,
0 9
IRC
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: SDP -2008- 00144, Crown Automotive Site Plan
WPO -2008- 00093, Crown Automotive SWM and ESC Plans
Plan preparer: Ankita Kot, Freeland and Kauffman, Inc.
Owner or rep.: Crown Motorcar Company, LLC c/o Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.
Date received: 24 September 2008 (plan signed date 10 September 2008)
Date of Comment: 31 October 2008
Engineer: Phil Custer
The Final Site, SWM, and ESC plans for Crown Automotive, received on 24 September 2008, have been
reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will require the following changes /corrections
prior to final approval.
A. General review comments:
1. A boundary line adjustment appears to be necessary so that the building is only located on one
property. If the property boundary is not adjusted, the County Building Official may require a
firewall in the building between the two parcels.
2. An easement plat showing the required access, drainage, swm, private sanitary on the ACSA
property, and parking easements must be recorded prior to site plan approval.
3. Please note on all sheets and documents that the public road west of the site has been called
People's Place rather than Pantops Park Drive.
4. VDOT approval is required. At this time, VDOT comments have been forwarded to the
applicant. The applicant should work directly with VDOT regarding these comments.
B. Site Plan review comments:
1. Please make sure the date and source of the topography is listed on Sheet C2. [DM]
2. Please show all existing easements with deed book references, locations, and dimensions on
the properties involved.
3. Please shade all critical slopes on Sheet C2. [DM]
4. All slopes steeper than 3:1 will require a low maintenance, non - grassed groundcover. [DM]
5. The guardrails required at the top of the retaining walls must be a VDOT Standard. The site
plan must also specify the proper guardrail terminals as well.
6. A guardrail is needed in the southwest corner of TMP 78 -15. It appears that because of the
required distance the guardrail must be spaced from the face of the retaining wall, the wall will
need to be moved into the adjacent property and the easement will need to be larger.
Engineering review recommends working with TMP 78 -15C to eliminate the need for the 30ft
retaining walls by filling to meet grade.
A guardrail is also needed over the tiered retaining wall west of the building.
There cannot be a break at the guardrail at the filterra. The wall must be pushed into the
adjacent property. Engineering review recommends working with TMP 78 -15C to eliminate
the need for the retaining wall in this area.
Retailing walls B, C, E, and G should have both a guardrail and a taller safety /pedestrian
railing like the ail on Sheet RW5.-
10. In many places, it does not appear there is enough room for a few of the walls and guardrails
considering the loss of 7.1 degree stacking angle of some of the walls. At 7.1 degrees, you
lose 1 ft horizontal for every 8ft of wall height. For instance, at retaining wall C, the distance
between back of curb of the travelway and back of curb of the lot on sales office property is
4.5 ft. Considering the loss of 1 ft because of the slope of the wall, the 3.3 ft between the face
of wall and the back of the guardrail, and the 1.5ft width of the guardrail (total 5.8ft), there is
not enough room.
11. A private sanitary sewer easement is needed over the sewer lateral through TMP 78 -15B.
Also, a new drainage easement for pipe from the ACSA property to TMP 78 -15B will be
needed. A plat showing all of these easements (plus the existing and already proposed
easements in this set) must be recorded prior to site plan approval.
12. Please show drainage easements on the Landscape plan. No trees of significant size will be
allowed inside the drainage easements.
13. All entrances must have a VDOT designation. [DM]
14. All entrances must not exceed 4% for the first 40ft from the curbline of Route 250. [DM]
15. Please label all curbing with the proper VDOT designation. [DM]
16. There does not appear to be a loading space that meets 18- 4.12.18 provided on site. A waiver
from the Zoning Department will be required if one is not provided.
17. Please provide an island at the southwest corner of the new building that is at least 3ft wide.
18. An inlet should be provided east of the site entrance along Route 250. As currently designed,
close to 250 linear feet of 3.5 lanes will drain across the entrance and flow into inlet 4. Curb
inlet calculations should be provided for this new inlet and storm pipe. A drainage easement
will be required on this system of pipe.
19. All changes of direction in stormpipe systems must be at least 90 degrees.
20. Please provide traffic generation and distribution summarys.
21. Please use VDOT specifications in the parking lot pavement section.
22. Please correct the sidewalk detail. The sidewalk detail should not show a 6 " curb unless it
meets a VDOT CG designation. The sidewalk detail must also show in section 4 " of stone
base and 4" of concrete of 3000psi strength at 28 days or stronger that is reinforced with a
wire grid. Handicap ramps should be specified with a VDOT standard.
23. A dumpster pad detail meeting the requirements listed in the design manual is required.
24. The dumpster pad must be at least 18ft long.
25. Please provide more spot elevations in the area of the dumpster to assure that drainage does
drain across the footprint of the dumpster.
26. Please provide details for pipe systems running underneath a retaining wall. Pipes 11 -10, 15-
13, and 2 -1 will likely be close to the foundation slab of the proposed retaining walls.
27. The set appears to be missing several storm drain profiles. The following profiles should be
included in the set: RI -9, 15 -14, 18 -13, 12 -11, and 19 -9.
28. The following information needs to be shown un the drainage profiles:
a. A VDOT designation for each structure.
b. The throat length for each curb inlet.
c. The grate type for each grate inlet.
d. Structures will a vertical drop of 4ft or greater (including from the surface to the bottom of
the facility) must have VDOT Standard IS -1 specified.
e. All structures deeper than 12ft must have a VDOT Standard SL -1 (including existing
structure 7).
29. The drainage computations show that several of the proposed 36 "' pipes are undersized. Please
correct.
30. Drainage maps should be provided for the existing storm sewer main to estimate the flow
through the site. Currently, the drainage area map only shows the area draining to the new
proposed inlets. For instance, drainage area lines estimating the watershed for pipe system 19-
9 to determine the flow through pipe 9 -7.
3 1. In the drainage a.-.b, . maps, please include a hydrologic coeffici. and a time of concentration
for each drainage area.
32. Will there be any grading from the base of the tiered walls to Peoples Place? Please provide
spot elevations at the base of the walls in this area. Has inlet 22 been placed at its current
location to catch runoff from the swale on the east side of Peoples Place?
33. Please specify a 2% cross slope on the travelway from the building down to Filterra 2.
C. SWM review comments:
SWM facility maintenance agreements will need to be recorded for both properties before the
site plan can be approved. Please submit these documents with fees directly to Pam Shifflett
after consulting the guidelines available on the county website.
Please provide approval letters from the manufacturers of the prefabricated stormwater
systems ( Filterra and Contech) stating that as proposed, the facilities meet the minimum
standards and removal rates attributed to them by the Virginia DCR.
3. The output from the routing of the detention facility does not appear to meet the full
requirements of the design manual and state law in the cases when downstream channels are
inadequate. However, engineering review realizes that meeting those requirements with such
a small site is practically impossible and will grant a variation from the requirements.
Detention and satisfying the downstream channel limitations concerns will be approvable if
both the 2 and the 10 year storms are routed through only 3" orifice. The applicant may use
either the modified rational method (routing the critical storm) or the SCS method for the
facility. Please contact me to discuss this further.
4. In the post- development drainage area map for the detention facility, please provide the
acreage, hydrologic coefficient, and time of concentration. The acreage appears to be less than
the 2.8 acres that has been used in the routing calculations.
5. The post- development drainage area map is not correct. The drainage area line as drawn on
Sheet C20 appears to still be the limits of disturbance for the project rather than the drainage
area to the detention facility. For instance the drainage area to the facility should be extended
to the centerline of Route 250. Also, uilets 18 and 20 do not drain to the detention facility as
indicated in the map.
6. Engineering review has a few concerns regarding the Storinfilter systems:
a. As currently shown, both inlet pipes will be filled with water. Please place the inlet pipes
above the water elevation so that the upstream storm pipes are empty under normal
conditions.
b. The 4 " orifices in the concrete boxes limit will cause storms of a high intensity to bypass
the treatment facility. The current setup does not appear to match the detail approved by
DCR in the VSMH. I am concerned a large percentage of the first flush will not be treated
with the two facilities as proposed. By my calculations, any storm that is more intense
than 0.33 in/hr will use the bypass.
5. hilet 20 should drain to the detention facility and should be treated. A drainage easement will
be required on this pipe system.
6. The Stornfilter catch basins should be sized to treat the water quality volume for the drainage
area to them.
7. The SWM facility easement will need to be recorded on TMP 78 -15B before the site plan can
be approved.
8. Access should be provided in the detention facility to all inlet and outlet points.
9. A trashrack is required on all orifices.
10. Please provide a note on the plan that all manhole access to the detention facility must meet
all OSHA standards.
11. The equivalent of the VDOT Standard SL -1 should be provided for in the details for this
detention structure.
12. All pipes entering or leaving the facility must be a minimum 15" in diameter.
13. The topography in the parking lot uphill of Filterra 3 creates a channel that appears to bypass
the filterra. Plea—.:orrect.
14. The SWM portion of the WPO bond will be computed once the plan has been approved.
15. Additional comments may be required based on the changes to the plan.
D. Site ESC review comments:
1. There appear to be conceptual problems with the erosion and sediment control plan and a full
review could not be completed. There are considerable issues when the site transitions from
Phase II to Phase III with the current plan. Engineering review recommends building a
sediment basin, using structure 7 as the riser, immediately after the stormsewer maul (11 -10 -9-
7) is constructed and directing all water during construction to it. This way, the ESC measure
is in the corner of the site and can be removed and filled once the rest of the site is deemed
adequately stabilized by the site inspector.
2. A construction entrance is needed for each phase of the ESC plan.
3. The construction entrance must be placed in a location that does not require any initial
grading. The location proposed in phase I and 11 requires grading. Engineering review
recommends using the existing entrance (across from the entrance to Peoples Place) during the
initial phases of construction.
4. Pipe outlet sediment traps require a variance from the program authority. Please provide a
letter justifying the use of this facility if you continue to use it in place of a standard in the
VESCH and a fee for a variance request of $760.
5. Please label the critical slopes on the phase I plan.
6. Please provide dust control on site.
7. Please provide a parking and staging area for each phase of construction.
8. Please provide a location for a soil stockpile for each phase of construction.
9. This site will require significant amounts of soil in order to construct. Please specify the
borrow site so we can confirm the site has an adequate erosion control plan. Please include
this in the Offsite areas of the ESC Narrative.
10. The silt fence on the west end of the site will not filter water but will act more as a diversion
dike. Please replace this silt fence dike (or using the existing swale) to direct sediment -laden
water to the sediment basin facility until the site is to grade. (Please see cotnment D.1).
11. Please make the following changes in the ESC narrative:
a. A title is needed.
b. Please identify all steep slopes on the Crown parcel and the adjacent slopes on tine ACSA
property as critical areas.
c. The please remove the reference to Flat Branch and Bull Run from the narrative. Those
water bodies do not exist in Albemarle County.
12. Inlet protection is needed on the existing inlets in the parking lot of the existing sales property.
13. Please remove the existing entrance from People Place in Phase III of the plan.
14. The ESC portion of the WPO bond will be calculated once the plans are ready to be approved.
15. Additional comments may be required based upon the required changes.
Once these comments have been addressed, please submit 2 copies of the revised plans,
calculations, and narratives to Current Development Engineering,
Please contact me at 434 -296 -5832 ext. 3072 or email pcuster( &albemarle.or if you have any questions.
File: E1_fsp esc sain PBC Crown Automotive.doc
a,
ti OF ALg,
fR(GI^
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: SDP -2008- 00144, Crown Automotive Site Plan
WPO -2008- 00093, Crown Automotive SWM and ESC Plans
Plan preparer: Ankita Kot; Freeland and Kauffman, hic.
Owner or rep.: Crown Motorcar Company, LLC c/o Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.
Date received: 24 September 2008 (plan signed date 10 September 2008)
Rev. 1) 20 November 2008 (plan signed 19 November 2008)
Date of Comment: 31 October 2008
Rev. 1) 15 January 2009
Engineer: Phil Custer
The Final Site, SWM, and ESC plans for Crown Automotive, officially received on 11 December 2008
because of a late payment of the WPO plan, have been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as
submitted and will require the following changes /corrections prior to final approval.
A. General review comments:
1.
2.
3.
H
B. Site Plan review comments:
1.
2.
Please shade all critical slopes on Sheet C2. [DM]
Rev. 1) The shading of the critical slopes did not duplicate well on sheet C2. Also, it
appears that not all the critical slopes have been shaded.
H
The guardrails reZMired at the top of the retaining walls must bL-5 VDOT Standard. The site
plan must also specify the proper guardrail terminals as well.
Rev. 1) Please call out the YDOT standard on sheet C10 and the wall details.
A guardrail is needed in the southwest corner of TMP 78 -15. It appears that because of the
required distance the guardrail must be spaced from the face of the retaining wall, the wall will
need to be moved into the adjacent property and the easement will need to be larger.
Engineering review recommends working with TMP 78 -15C to eliminate the need for the 30ft
retaining walls by filling to meet grade.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The dimensions of the walls drawn on the plan
do not appear to match the detail on sheet RW5. The face of the top of the wall should
measure as 5ft from the face of curb and it mane cases it does not. Also, the widths of the
walls due to its slope are not drawn accurately. Engineering review is particularly
concerned with Wall B because of its considerable height.
7.
N
9
10. In many places, it does not appear there is enough room for a few of the walls and guardrails
considering the loss of 7.1 degree stacking angle of some of the walls. At 7.1 degrees, you
lose 1 ft horizontal for every 8ft of wall height. For instance, at retaining wall C, the distance
between back of curb of the travelway and back of curb of the lot on sales office property is
4.5 ft. Considering the loss of Ift because of the slope of the wall, the 3.3ft between the face
of wall and the back of the guardrail, and the 1.5ft width of the guardrail (total 5.8ft), there is
not enough room.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The dimensions of the walls drawn on the plan
do not appear to match the detail on sheet RW5. The face of the top of the wall should
measure as 5ft from the face of curb and it many cases it does not. Also, the widths of the
walls due to its slope are not drawn accurately. Engineering review is particularly
concerned with Wall B because of its considerable height.
11.
12.
13. All entrances must have a VDOT designation. [DM]
Rev. 1) The southern entrance should have a VDOT entrance called out as well.
14.
15.
16. There does not appear to be a loading space that meets 18- 4.12.18 provided on site. A waiver
from the Zoning Department will be required if one is not provided.
Rev. 1) The respl"nse from the Zoning Administrator regard'Mg the request for a waiver
will be forwarded to the applicant when it is received by engineering.
17.
18. An inlet should be provided east of the site entrance along Route 250. As currently desigmed,
close to 250 linear feet of 3.5 lanes will drain across the entrance and flow into inlet 4. Curb
inlet calculations should be provided for this new inlet and storm pipe. A drainage easement
will be required on this system of pipe.
Rev. 1) The curb inlet calculations indicate that this inlet is located in a sump when it is
actually on grade. Please adjust the inlet calculations. A larger throat on the inlet should
also be provided to increase the of . ficiency of the structure.
19.
20.
21.
22. Please correct the sidewalk detail. The sidewalk detail should not show a 6 "" curb unless it
meets a VDOT CG designation. The sidewalk detail must also show in section 4" of stone
base and 4" of concrete of 3000psi strength at 28 days or stronger that is reinforced with a
wire grid. Handicap ramps should be specified with a VDOT standard.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The sidewalk detail should not show a 6" curb
unless it meets a hDOT CG standard.
23.
24.
25. Please provide more spot elevations in the area of the dumpster to assure that drainage does
drain across the footprint of the dumpster.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
26. Please provide details for pipe systems running underneath a retaining wall. Pipes 11 -10, 15-
13, and 2 -1 will likely be close to the foundation slab of the proposed retaining walls.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The walls above the pipes from 12 -11 and I1 -10
are not represented accurately on the drainage profile sheet. For instance, according to the
wall detail on RW3, the base of wall A is at 360.5' which conflicts with the top of both
pipes. A detail will be needed for both of these pipes.
27.
28. The following information needs to be shown in the drainage profiles:
d. Structures will a vertical drop of 4ft or greater (including from the surface to the bottom of
the facility) must have VDOT Standard IS -1 specified.
Rev. 1) IS -1 is not required on the inlets with a 2ft riprap sump since they serve the same
purpose. Please remove one of the call outs in structure 2 and 7. Engineering review
recommends the use o f IS -1 instead of the riprap scour protection so that there is not
permanent pool of water in the structure. Please note that it appears as though the
applicant is proposing a sump in inlet 7 which would require the replacement of the entire
structure (thought might need to be replaced ani If thM is the case, the structure
should be shown as item in the profile.
29. The drainage computations show that several of the proposed 36 " pipes are undersized. Please
correct.
Rev. 1) Calculations could not be confirmed because a drainage area map for the
upstream system was notprovided.
30. Drainage maps should be provided for the existing storm sewer main to estimate the flow
through the site. Currently, the drainage area map only shows the area draining to the new
proposed inlets. For instance, drainage area lines estimating the watershed for pipe system 19-
9 to determine the flow through pipe 9 -7.
Rev. 1) Calculations could not be conftrned because a drainage area map for the
upstream system was not provided.
31.
32.
33.
C. SWM review comments:
SWM facility maintenance agreements will need to be recorded for both properties before the
site plan can be approved. Please submit these documents with fees directly to Pam Shifflett
after consulting the guidelines available on the county website.
Rev. 1) The agreement has been received and its approval is pending.
6. Engineering reviM has a few concerns regarding the Stormfilt systems:
a. As currently shown, both inlet pipes will be filled with water. Please place the inlet pipes
above the water elevation so that the upstream storm pipes are empty under nonnal
conditions.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
I'll
13. The equivalent of the VDOT Standard SL -1 should be provided for in the details for this
detention structure.
Rev. 1) I do not see where this has been provided.
15. The topography in the parking lot uphill of Filterra 3 creates a channel that appears to bypass
the filterra. Please correct.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
16. The SWM portion of the WPO bond will be computed once the plan has been approved.
Rev 1) Please provide cost estimates from the suppliers of all pre fabricated STVM systems
so that the1 can be bonded. The estimates should also include a reasonable cost for
installation as well.
D. Site ESC review comments:
There appear to be conceptual problems with the erosion and sediment control plan and a full
review could not be completed. There are considerable issues when the site transitions from
Phase II to Phase III with the current plan. Engineering review recommends building a
sediment basin, using structure 7 as the riser, immediately after the stormsewer main (11 -10 -9-
7) is constructed and directing all water during construction to it. This way, the ESC measure
is in the corner of the site and can be removed and filled once the rest of the site is deemed
adequately stabilized by the site inspector.
Rev. 1) In phase I of the ESCplan, please note in the construction sequence that structure
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
7 needs to be retfitted to be the sediment basin riser.
10. The silt fence on the west end of the site will not filter water but will act more as a diversion
dike. Please replace this silt fence dike (or using the existing swale) to direct sediment -laden
water to the sediment basin facility until the site is to grade. (Please see comment D.1).
Rev. 1) The storm pipe 21 -7 should not be constructed in Phase II but Phase III. The
existing svale should be diverted into the basin as long as the basin is active. Please label
the existing swale as a DV and provide a diversion dike near the basin, if necessan making
it clear that runoff draining west from the site should be directed into the sediment basin.
11.
C.
d.
e.
12.
13.
14. The ESC portion of the WPO bond will be calculated once the plans are ready to be approved.
Rev. 1) Comment remains unchan
15. Additional comments may be required based upon the required changes.
a. (Rev. 1) Please provide a safeti fence around the sediment basin with a sign stating
Danger, quick sand, do not enter. " A safety fence should also be placed around the
entire site, especially areas near the existing crown building and parking lot.
b. (Rev. 1) Please clarify when and how the new entrance is to be constructed and the old
entrance closed.
c. (Rev. 1) The construction sequence mentions that the outlet pipes of the water quality
features are to be blocked during construction. Shouldn't the inlet pipes and surfaces
be blocked until the site is stabilized? Will sediment -laden water be sent through the
detention facnity of will the inlets upstream be sealed u1mrsite stabilization has
occurred?
d. (Rev. 1) Please provide a note in the Phase III construction sequence that the detention
facility is to be cleaned out once the site is stabilized to the satisfaction of the Erosion
and Sediment Control Inspector.
Please contact me at (434) 296 -5832 ext. 3072 or email pcusterLvalbemarle.or if you have any questions.
Page 1 of 1
Philip Custer
From:Philip Custer
Sent:Friday, January 23, 2009 4:06 PM
To:Ankita Kot'
Subject: Crown Automotive Loading Space Waiver
Ankita,
I just spoke with the County Zoning Administrator regarding the loading space requirement/waiver. She felt
comfortable not requiring a loading space for this site plan. This addresses comment B.16 from my latest letter.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Phil
1/23/2009
rY
pF ALg,
7
RGINN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: SDP -2008- 00144, Crown Automotive Site Plan
WPO -2008- 00093, Crown Automotive SWM and ESC Plans
Plan preparer: Ankita Kot; Freeland and Kauffman, Inc.
Owner or rep.: Crown Motorcar Company, LLC c/o Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.
Date received: 24 September 2008 (plan signed date 10 September 2008)
Rev. 1) 20 November 2008 (plan signed 19 November 2008)
Rev. 2) 11 Februan 2009 (plan signed 9 Februarp 2009)
Date of Comment: 31 October 2008
Rev. 1) 15 January 2009
Rev. 2) 6 March 2009
En Phil Custer
The Final Site, SWM, and ESC plans for Crown Automotive, received on 11 February 2009, have been
reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will require the following changes /corrections
prior to final approval.
A. General review comments:
B. Site Plan review comments:
6. A guardrail is needed in the southwest corner of TMP 78 -15. It appears that because of the
required distance the guardrail must be spaced from the face of the retaining wall, the wall will
need to be moved into the adjacent property and the easement will need to be larger.
Engineering review recommends working with TMP 78 -15C to eliminate the need for the 30ft
retaining walls by filling to meet grade.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The dimensions of the walls drawn on the plan do
not appear to match the detail on sheet RW5. The face of the top of the wall should measure
as 5ft from the face of curb and it man?v cases it does not. Also, the widths of the walls due to
its slope are not drawn accurately. Engineering review is particularly concerned with Wall B
because of its considerable height.
Rev. 2) Please see comment #10.
10. In many places, it does not appear there is enough room for a few of the walls and guardrails
considering the loss of 7.1 degree stacking angle of some of the walls. At 7.1 degrees, you
lose 1 ft horizontal for every 8ft of wall height. For instance, at retaining wall C, the distance
between back of curb of the travelway and back of curb of the lot on sales office property is
4.5 ft. Considering the loss of 1 ft because of the slope of the wall, the 3.3ft between the face
of wall and the back of the guardrail, and the 1.5ft width of the guardrail (total 5.8ft), there is
not enough room.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The dimensions of the walls drawn on the plan do
not appear to match the detail on sheet RW5. The, face of the top of the wall should measure
as 5ft from the_ face of curb and it manv cases it does not. Also, the widths of the walls due to
its slope are not .. -im accurately. Engineering review is pai alarly concerned with Wall B
because of its considerable height.
Rev. 2) Please show all wall widths accurately, not just wall B. The Architectural Review
Board will not approve the site plan without the shrubs in the tiered walls o f E, F, and G.
The two foot gap between the back of wall and the face of wall does not appear large
enough f )r the shrub specified.
26. Please provide details for pipe systems running underneath a retaining wall. Pipes 11 -10, 15-
13, and 2 -1 will likely be close to the foundation slab of the proposed retaining walls.
Rev. 1) Continent has not been addressed. The walls above the pipes, f rom 12 -11 and 11 -10
are not represented accurately on the drainage profile sheet. For instance, according to the
ivall detail on RW3, the base of wall A is at 360.3 ' which conflicts with the top of both pipes.
A detail will be needed, for both of these pipes.
Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. The crossings must meet VDOT Standards PC-
1 and PB -1. For the new RCP Class V pipe proposed underneath the leveling pad, the
distance from the bottom of the pad to the top of the outside of the pipe must be at least Ift.
Also, the cover over the plastic pipe exceeds the maximum of 18ft so it must be replaced
with RCP Class Vpipe. The detail for this pipe through the wall and leveling pad is not
satisfactory. There does not appear to be enough room around the pipe to ensure an even
distribution of the load.
C. SWM review comments:
1. SWM facility maintenance agreements will need to be recorded for both properties before the
site plan can be approved. Please submit these documents with fees directly to Pam Shifflett
after consulting the guidelines available on the county website.
Rev. 1) The agreement has been received and its approval is pending.
Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. A maintenance agreement is needed for TMP
78 -15.
16. The SWM portion of the WPO bond will be computed once the plan has been approved.
Rev. 1) Please provide cost estimates from the suppliers of all pre- fabricated SWM systems
so that they can be bonded. The estimates should also include a reasonable cost
installation as well.
Rev. 2) The SWMportion of the WPO bond has been calculated to be $230,400. The
forms and instructions to post the Water Protection Ordinance Bond can be found on
the Community Development Department Web site on www.albemarle.o You may
contact Pam Shifflett (Albemarle County Department of Community Development) at ext.
3246 for further information on bonding procedures.
D. Site ESC review comments:
14. The ESC portion of the WPO bond will be calculated once the plans are ready to be approved.
Rev. 1) Comment remains unchanged.
Rev. 2) The ESCportion of the WPO bond has been calculated to be $21,200. The forms
and instructions to post the Water Protection Ordinance Bond can be found on
the Community Development Department Web site on www.albemarle.or -- . You may
contact Pam Shifflett (Albemarle County Department of Community Development) at ext.
3246 for information on bonding procedures.
Please contact me at (434) 296 -5832 ext. 3072 or email pcuster a(albemarle.org if you have any questions.
Bill Fritz
From: Bill Fritz
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 4:48 PM
To: 'Ankita Kot'
Subject: RE: Crown BMW
Ankita,
This project has a preliminary site plan, SDP 2008 -03 that was approved on 8/12/08. A final site plan was submitted on
9/25/08. The submittal of the final site plan within a year of the preliminary approval kept the preliminary approval
valid for a period of 5 years (until 8/12/13). However, a change in the Code of Virginia has since modified that time
period. The approval of the preliminary site plan is now valid until 7/1/14. 1 have attached the two most recent email
correspondence from the County to you providing the status of the final site plan. (I have confirmed that you do have
ARB approval.) If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me.
From: Bill Fritz
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 9:23 AM
To: 'Ankita Kot'
Subject: FW: SUB - 2008 -286 Crown BMW
Below is the response I received from the County Attorney. With that change the easement plat may be
approved.
The site plan may be signed after the plat has been signed and you have the following approvals:
1. Architectural Review Board Approval - Margaret Maliszewski 296 -5823 ext 3276
2. Current Development Engineer Approval - Phil Custer 296 -5823 ext 3072.
The revised maintenance easement document received Sunday 1/4/09 has been approved. The easement plat
SUB 2008 — 286) may be signed with:
1. Revised Easement document as noted by County Attorney
2. Provide owner's signature on the plat. Be aware that both owners's (Baumgardners and the
owner of Tax Map 78, Parcel 15 must sign the plat. Our records show that Tax Map 78, Parcel
15 is owned by Crown Motor Car Company LLC, the plat shows it owned by ASTAR ASB VA2
LLC.)
3. Provide a notary seal for both owner's signature.
The boundary line adjustment plat (SUB 2008 — 264) may be signed with
1. Addition of information required by Section 14 -303A
14 -303 Contents of final plat.
A. Statement of consent to division. A statement that: "The division of the land described herein is with the free
consent and in accordance with the desire of the undersigned owners, proprietors and trustees. Any reference
to future potential development is to be deemed as theoretical only. All statements affixed to this plat are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge."
Of course the plat will also need to be signed by the owners and notarized in the same manner as the other
plat)
William D. Fritz, AICP
Chief of Current Development
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3242
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:21 PM
To: Bill Fritz
Cc: Eileen Seaman
Subject: SUB - 2008 -286 Crown BMW
Bill- The drainage easement deed is fine with one recommended change — delete the reference to Virginia
Code 58.1- 811(C)(4) at the top of page 1. That reference is outdated and no longer appears in the current
templates.
Greg Kamptner
Deputy County Attorney
County of Albemarle
gkamptner@albemarle.org
434 - 972 -4067
Notice: This email may contain attorney - client privileged information, privileged work product, or other
confidential information. It is intended only for the designated recipient. If you receive this message
and are not a designated recipient you are requested to delete this message immediately and notify me
that you have received this by mistake. Thank you.
Philip Custer
From: Philip Custer
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:41 PM
To: 'Ankita Kot'; 'Ankita Kot'
Cc: Bill Fritz
Subject: Engineering Review of the Crown Automotive Site Plan (SDP- 2008 - 00144)
Page 1 of 1
3/30/2009
Good evening,
Engineering review for Current Development has completed their review of the latest site plan submittal for the
Crown Automotive Retail, Parts, and Service Building (SDP- 2008 - 00144). All outstanding comments have been
addressed and engineering review has no objection to the approval of the site plan once the receipt of plat
recordation for application SUB - 2008 -00286 is received.
The ESC and SWM plan had previously been approved. A grading permit can be issued for this project once:
the final site plan is signed by all reviewing agencies
the applicant delivers 4 full copies of the latest plan and 1 copy of the SWM set (sheets C1, C10, C17, C19, and
C21 -C30) to engineering review
a SWM facility maintenance agreement and fee are recorded for parcel 78 -15.
the WPO bond is posted (The forms and instructions to post the Water Protection Ordinance Bond can be found
on the Community Development Department Web site on www.albemarle.org. You may contact Pam Shifflett
Albemarle County Department of Community Development) at ext. 3246 for further information on bonding
procedures.); and
a preconstruction meeting is held between the contractor and county inspector
Please direct all questions regarding the site plan process to Bill Fritz. For any questions regarding the approval
of the WPO, please feel free to contact me.
Thanks,
Phil
William D. Fritz, AICP
Chief of Current Development
434 -296 -5832 ext. 3242
From: Ankita Kot [mailto:amodi @fk- inc.com]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:24 PM
To: Bill Fritz
Subject: Crown BMW
Bill
I hope you remember me as we talked long time back regarding Crown BMW project in Charlottesville (at Route 250). The
project was permitted in 2009 but was not constructed. Can you please let me know if approvals are still good or any other
procedure is required for project to begin?
Tax map 78, Parcel 15, 15B and 15131
Thank you.
Ankita Kot
Freeland and Kauffman, Inc.
209 West Stone Avenue
Greenville, SC 29609
Tel (Direct): (864) 672 -3433
Tel (Main): (864) 233 -5497
Fax: (864) 233 -8915
www.fk - inc.com
N T1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126
Project: Crown Automotive ESC and SWM Plans (WPO- 2011- 00042)
Crown Automotive Minor Amendment (not yet submitted)
Owner: Rickey Lee and Donna G. Baumgardner
Applicant: Ms. Ankita Kot; Freeland and Kaufman
Plan received date: 3 July 2011
Date of comments: 23 July 2011
Reviewer: Phil Custer
A. Minor Site Plan Amendment (not yet submitted)
1. No runoff from the carwash process must enter the storm drainage system. It appears that the
current design of the site plan accomplishes this. To confirm, please provide send me pdfs of the
architectural drawings for the carwash so that I can see that there are internal drains and a roof
over the wash area (which isn't clear on the site plan).
2. The easement plat reviewed under application SUB - 2008 -00286 must be recorded prior to
approval of any site plan and a grading permit. Please provide the receipt of recordation for this
plat once it is recorded.
B. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (WPO- 2011- 00042)
1. Since the original plan approval, the county has added two more notes to its General Notes for
ESC plans. Please add these two notes to the plan. Please find the new note set in the current
edition of the design manual, available online
2. The previously computed ESC and SWM bonds must be updated. To receive revised bond estimates,
please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the County Engineer.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (WPO -2011- 00042)
1. The addition of the washing area has revised the design of one of the stormfilter chambers. Please
provide a new approval letter of Contech.
2. A stormwater maintenance agreement for original Crown parcel, TMP 78 -15, is still needed. After
reading the instructions for this form, please submit a completed agreement to Ana Kilmer's
attention in the Albemarle County Community Development Department as soon as possible.
3. The previously computed ESC and SWM bonds must be updated. To receive revised bond estimates,
please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the County Engineer. Please also provide
updated cost estimates of the manufactured systems (detention and Stormfilters) so that they can be
used in the bond. Please specify whether these cost estimates include labor /installation.
o fir'
U M
R
IRGINIP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176
July 27, 2011
Rick Ball
Bradley & Ball Architects
5921 -H West Friendly Ave.
Greensboro, NC 27410
RE: ARB- 2011 -81: Crown BMW Amendment
Dear Rick,
I have reviewed the above - referenced application for a county -wide Certificate of Appropriateness for a minor amendment.
Your proposal meets all of the design criteria outlined by the Architectural Review Board for this type of Certificate. You
may consider this letter your Certificate of Appropriateness.
This approval is predicated on the fact that the design and materials, as proposed for review, will be used. The acceptance of
approval implies that the applicant has agreed to execute the design as indicated on the site plan, attachments, materials,
samples, and other submittal items presented. Any change in the approved design or materials will require an amendment to
the plan and a new application.
Please note the following:
1. This application is approved with the condition that mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the Entrance
Corridor.
2. Changes made to the site or architectural plans after issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness can delay the signing of
mylars and the approval of building permits. It is in the applicant's best interest to notify ARB staff of such changes and
to initiate the review of amendments to ARB- approved plans to avoid future delays.
3. Certificates of Appropriateness are valid for the same period that the corresponding site plan is valid. If there is no site
plan required for the proposed work, the Certificate of Appropriateness is valid for 3 years. Applicants requesting an
extension of the period of validity must do so in writing. The letter must be received by the Director of Planning prior to
the expiration date.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: ARB- 2011 -81
Bill Fritz (via email)
Crown Motorcar Company LLC, 2905 Premiere Parkway, Suite 300, Duluth GA 30097
Ricky Lee or Donna G Baumgardner, 1252 Still Meadow Ave., Charlottesville VA 22901
pF ALg,,
tIRG1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
August 9, 2011
Ankita Kott
209 West Stone Avenue
Greenville, South Carolina 29609
RE: SDP 2008 —144 Crown BMW Retail Parts and Service Building Final Site Plan
Dear Ms Kott,
I have reviewed the plans submitted July 18, 2011. This site plan may be approved and signed once the
following items are addressed:
1. Current Development Engineer Approval - Phil Custer 296 -5823 ext 3072.
2. Approval and recordation of the easement plat (SUB 2008 — 286). This plat may be signed with:
a. Revised Easement document as noted by County Attorney, "delete the reference to Virginia
Code 58.1- 811(C)(4) at the top of page 1. That reference is outdated
b. Provide owner's signature on the plat. Be aware that all owners must sign the plat. According
to our records the ownership is
Tax Map 78, Parcel 15 — Crown Motorcar Company LLC
Tax Map 78, Parcel 15B 1— Ricky Lee or Donna Baumgardner
Tax Map 78, Parcel 15B — Ricky Lee or Donna Baumgardner
c. Provide a notary seal for all owner's signature.
3. Approval and recordation of the boundary line adjustment plat (SUB 2008 — 264). This plat may be
signed with
a. Addition of information required by Section 14 -303A. Specifically the following statement
must be added to the plat:
The division of the land described herein is with the free consent and in accordance with the
desire of the undersigned owners, proprietors and trustees. Any reference to future potential
development is to be deemed as theoretical only. All statements affixed to this plat are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge."
Of course the plat will also need to be signed by the owners and notarized in the same manner
as the other plat)
4. VDOT approval.
5. Albemarle County Service Authority Approval.
6. The site plan will need to be updated to reflect the deed book and page r6 erences for the two plats that
must be recorded prior to approval of the site plan.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Chief of Current Development
Bill Fritz
From:DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent:Thursday, August 18, 2011 3:16 PM
To:Bill Fritz
Cc:Philip Custer; Ankita Kot
Subject:Crown BMW Final SDP - 2008 -00144
Crown BMW Final SDP - 2008 -00144
MI
I have reviewed the subject plan and have the following comments:
1. Since the initial approval of this plan in 2008, VDOT implemented the WP -2 Standard for pavement
widening. This standard needs to be added to this plan in place of the recommended pavement structure for
the route 250 widening on sheet C -6. The WP -2 standard will require the contractor to core sample along the
existing road and match the existing pavement layers at a, minimum. The standard also will require adjacent
lane overlay of surface asphalt. This overlay will lead to a need for some additional pavement markings on
Route 250 to replace what was milled in the overlay.
2. Standard UD -4 underdrains will be required along route 250. They will need to run from the relocated
DI -3B to the existing UD -4 on People Place.
3. The surveyed existing conditions should be updated to reflect completed construction of People Place
and improvements made for the Flow Automotive site. Construction at the Flow site may not have been
completed in accordance with the approved plan due to field conditions. This site will be required to make
any necessary adjustments to ensure the right turn lane is continuous to the recent Flow improvements.
4. All work within the VDOT right of way shall be in accordance with the VDOT 2007 Road and Bridge
Specifications, the VDOT 2008 Road and Bridge Standards and the VDOT Road Design Manual.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
VDOT Culpeper
Land Development
joel. den unzio(c vdot.virginia cov
Service . Au
H _ff-f 5
August 22, 2011
Ankita Kot
Freeland and Kauffman, Inc.
209 West Stone Avenue
Greenville, South Carolina 29609
Re: Crown BMW Retail Parts & Service Building
Dear Ankita Kot:
The plan, Crown BMW Retail Parts & Service Building dated August 9,
2011, is hereby approved for construction. One set of the approved plan is
enclosed for your records. Any previously approved plans are voided with this
approval. This approval is for basic compliance with the General Water & Sewer
Construction Specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and
does not relieve the contractor from responsibility for his work as it relates to the
plan and specifications.
The ACSA requires that a copy of the approved construction plan be on the
job site. The contractor is responsible for marking up a copy of the approved
construction plan showing as -built information and providing this data to your client
at the completion of utility installation. The final as -built plan shall be submitted in a
format of one paper copy and one mylar copy.
A preconstruction conference shall be scheduled with the project manager to
ensure coordination and answer any questions. This will be a short meeting to
review the project, materials, test methods and schedule in order to expedite
construction. Please have the proper party call me at 977 -4511 to schedule the
meeting.
This approval is valid for a period of 18 months from this slate. If
construction is not in progress at the end of this time period, the approval shall be
void.
The pressure for water may exceed 80 Dsi at some meter locations.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville, VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977-4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org
If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please give us a call
at (434) 977 -4511.
Sincerely,
Alexander J. Morrison
Civil Engineer
AJM /dbh
cc: Hurt Investment Company, Inc.
State Health Department
Va. DEQ
Current Development, Bill Fritz
Bldg Codes & Zoning Services
Soil Erosion Inspector
050601 CrownBMWEngrApprovalLtr082211