HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900057 Action Letter 2020-02-05r� 'AL
� IRGS?at�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
February 5, 2020
Herb White
WW Associates
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: SDP201900057 Block D-1 Stonefield — Initial Site Plan
Mr. White:
The Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby grants administrative conditional approval to the
above referenced site plan.
The approval shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this letter, provided that
the developer submits a final site plan for all or a portion of the site within one (1) year after the
date of this letter as provided in section 32.4.3.1 of Chapter 19 of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, and thereafter diligently pursues approval of the final site plan.
In accordance with Chapter 18 Section 32. 4.2. 8 Early or Mass Grading may be permitted after
the following approvals are received:
1. Engineering approval of a VSMP plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the
Code of the County of Albemarle.
2. Approval of all easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control.
3. Submittal of a tree conservation checklist with areas for tree preservation identified.
The final site plan will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following
items are received:
1. A final site plan that satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the
Code.
2. A fee of $1,613 for the final site plan application.
Please submit 9 copies of the final plans to the Community Development Department. The
assigned Lead Reviewer will then distribute the plans to all reviewing agencies (for ACSA,
please submit 3 copies of construction plans directly to them, as stated in their comments).
Once you receive the first set of comments on the final site plan, please work with each
reviewer individually to satisfy their requirements. Please note that there is a separate
application process for final ARB approval (please contact Margaret Maliszewski
mmaliszewski(a)albemarle.org).
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for
signature until tentative approvals for the attached conditions from the following agencies/
reviewers have been obtained:
1. Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)- 2 copies [John Anderson;
0anderson2Ca)-albemarle.org]
2. Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner)- 3 copies [Tori Kanellopoulos;
vkanellopoulos(a),albemarle.org]
3. Albemarle County Inspections Services (Inspections)- 1 copy [Michael Dellinger;
mdellinger(D-albemarle.org]
4. Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue- 1 copy [Shawn Maddox;
smaddox(a-)-albemarle.org]
5. Albemarle County Service Authority- See comments for number of copies to ACSA
[Richard Nelson; rnelson(a�.serviceauthority.org]
6. Virginia Department of Transportation- 1 copy [Adam Moore;
adam.moore(a)vdot.virginia.gov]
7. RWSA — 1 copy [Dyon Vega; dvega(cD-rivanna.org]
8. ARB — 1 copy [Margaret Maliszewski; mmaliszewski(d-)albemarle.org]
If you have any questions about these conditions or the submittal requirements, please feel free
to contact me at 434-296-5832 ext. 3270 or vkanellopoulos(a@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
V
Tori Kanellopoulos
Planner
1. kAl
kr .�
�'IRGiI31P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Herb White, WW Associates
From: Tori Kanellopoulos - Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: December 4, 2019
Revised February 5, 2020
Subject: SDP201900057- Stonefield Block D-1 - Initial Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department
Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the
following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those
that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added
or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable
reference to the Albemarle County Code.]
Initial Site Plan Comments:
Required Prior to Initial Site Plan Approval:
1. The Special Exception for the additional stories for this development must be
approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to conditional approval of the initial
site plan.
a. Update: This special exception was approved by the Board of
Supervisors on February 5, 2020.
Required Prior to Final Site Plan Approval:
Planning (Tori Kanellopoulos)
2. 18-4.7/18-4.16/Stonefield Code of Development Green/civic%pen space:
a. The required open space for Stonefield is referred to `Green and civic
space' in Stonefield's Code of Development, which replaces the 18-4.7
open space and 18-4.16 recreation requirements. Refer to the Green/civic
space plan dated 03/21 /2011 and uploaded to ZMA2013-9 and ZMA2001-
7 as `Code of Development'. The 2011 plan shows where the required
green/civic space is located.
b. Show how this requirement is being met. This may be done with a table
(e.g. X square foot courtyard, Z square feet of green space with trees).
The green/civic space should also be labeled on the plan on at least one
sheet.
c. Location of green/civic space may vary from the 2011 plan, however the
amount must remain the same.
d. The final green/civic space for this application must match the Special
Exception request, if the request is approved.
3. 18-4.7/18-4.16/Stonefield Code of Development Green/civic%pen space: The
special exception request for this development appears to show a courtyard
within this development, which could contribute to green/civic space. Please
clarify if there is a courtyard and show it on the plan.
4. 18-4.12.8 Parking alternatives and 18-4.12.10 Shared parking:
a. Include the most up to date parking reduction request letter with this
application. Staff's most recent request is dated 08/16/2019, and a request
was not included with the submittal of this initial site plan.
b. The 08/16/2019 does not clearly explain how parking requirements are
being met and where required parking spaces are located. Additionally:
i. The letter requests 351 parking spaces for the apartment in Block
D-1 (labeled incorrectly in letter as D-2), while the site plan shows a
parking garage with 447 spaces. Are these additional spaces for
another use?
ii. Note that the maximum reduction for all uses participating in the
reduction request is 35 percent.
c. If any shared and/or off -site parking is requested, an instrument to assure
off -site parking per 18-4.12.8(e) will be required. This would be required if
the Block D-1 proposal was subdivided as its own parcel off of TMP 61 W-
3-19A but continued to share parking with other parcels in Stonefield (as
SUB2019-150 seems to indicate).
5. 18-4.12.9 Street parking: It appears there may be street parking included with
this development, along Inglewood adjacent to the proposed building. Clarify if
there is street parking and include the spaces in the parking calculations. Ensure
they meet design standards (e.g. 9'X20'). If spaces are being removed, indicate
that on the demolition sheet.
6. 18-4.13 Loading spaces: This site plan references a loading space. Note that a
loading space per the County's Zoning Ordinance is not required for this
development and is optional.
7. 18-4.12.16 Parking space minimum design standards:
a. All parking spaces for this development must be shown on the site plan,
including those within the parking garage. Staff must be able to review and
scale all parking spaces and travelways to ensure they meet the minimum
design standards per 18-4.12.16.
b. Ensure that there are sufficient ADA-accessible spaces that meet design
standards requirements. The requirement is 7 ADA spaces (at least 2
being van -accessible spaces) for 201-300 dwelling units. ADA spaces
must be labeled on the site plan.
8. 18-4.12.19 Dumpster pad standards: Show the design of the dumpster/dumpster
pad area, so that staff can determine if 18-4.12.19 standards are being met.
9. 18-4.17 Lighting: Submit a lighting plan with the final site plan that meets the
requirements of 18-4.17 and ARB requirements. Indicate if there are any new
lights added. Cutsheets for new lights are required.
10.18-32.5.2 Contents of an initial site plan and 18-32.6.2 Contents of a final site
plan:
a. Note that the ownership information, boundary lines, DB/PG, and Tax Map
Parcel may need to be updated, based on the status of SUB201900150
and if this parcel is subdivided.
b. Include a note with the approximate number of each type of unit (e.g. X 1-
bedrooms, Y 2-bedrooms, and Z 3-bedrooms).
c. All new improvements must be shown on the `Site Layout Plan'. This
includes new landscaping and adjusted/new easements (not shown).
d. Include all required contents of a final site plan with the final site plan
submittal, including a grading plan.
e. Include estimates trip counts on the first sheet (trips per day).
11.18-32.7.4.2/18-32.7.5.3 Easements:
a. All new and revised easements must be shown on an easement plat,
which must be approved prior to final site plan approval. Updated
covenants/maintenance documentation must also be provided.
b. The Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan sheets should show existing
easements/utilities/structures, while the Site Layout Plan should show
new/revised easements/utilities/structures only.
i. For example, the Site Layout Plan should only show the relocated
filterra, not the existing filterra.
ii. If the ingress/egress easements are adjusted (as Sheet 1 indicates)
then the Site Layout Plan should show `revised ingress/egress
easement' and not the existing easement.
c. Clarify how the sidewalks will be maintained, as some will be onsite and
some will be offsite (that is, not located on the Block D-1 parcel being
subdivided through SUB2019-150). If the sidewalk maintenance easement
is being adjusted (as Sheet 1 indicates), revised maintenance easement
documentation and a revised Deed Book/Page Number must be provided.
d. Include reference to DB 4467 PG 302 for the Hydraulic ROW, as this
appears to be the most recent VDOT ROW dedication.
e. An easement for the Stonefield marquis sign should be provided, if the
parcel per SUB2019-150 for Block D-1 is ultimately subdivided, as the
sign would then be off -site.
12.18-32.5.5118-32.6.3/18-32.7.3 Parking structures:
a. Include the following required information: The application for an initial
site plan shall include architectural elevations, drawings, photographs or
other visual materials showing any parking structure proposed on the site
and surrounding structures and land uses.
b. Include labeled entrances/exits.
c. Include a visual of each level with all parking spaces shown and ADA
spaces labeled.
d. Include a note that the 18-32.7.3 requirements are met: mechanical
equipment is screened/not visible; air handler emissions are away from
adjacent residential uses; and the structured parking is designed so that
light is not shining outside the structure.
e. Refer to Engineering comments as well.
13.18-32.7.2.3 Sidewalks and other pedestrian ways: Include safe pedestrian
access across the structured parking entrance. Refer to Engineering for more
detailed comments.
14.18-32.7.9.4(b) Landscape plan/preservation of existing trees: Include the
Conservation Checklist.
15.18-32.7.9.5 Street trees:
a. Show how the street tree requirement is being met. The frontage
calculation and how the requirement is being met for each street should
be included with the landscape plan. The requirement is:
One large street tree shall be required for every 50 feet of street
frontage, or portion thereof, if 25 feet or more. Where permitted,
one medium shade tree shall be required for every 40 feet of road
frontage, or portion thereof, if 20 feet or more.
b. The requirement does not appear to be met along the full length of
Inglewood Drive. Provide street trees meeting the above requirement
along Inglewood.
16. ZMA20010007 and ZMA20130009 Proffers:
a. Please note that the following proffers are directly applicable to this
project:
i. Proffer 6: $3,000 cash contribution per unit for each unit above 500
total units in Stonefield.
17.Additional applications: The following applications and approvals are required
prior to final site plan approval:
a. SUB201900150 is under review, pending a resubmittal to address
remaining review comments. Subdividing this parcel is not required for site
plan approval. However, if the parcel is subdivided and ownership
changes, this must be reflected on the site plan.
b. 18-32.7.4.2 and 18-32.7.5.3: Easement Plats: All new and adjusted
easements must be shown on an easement plat, which must be approved
prior to final site plan approval, and must match the final site plan.
c. Architectural Review Board: A Certificate of Appropriateness from the
ARB is required prior to final site plan approval.
d. 18-32.7.4.1: Approval of a VSMP Plan is required prior to final site plan
approval. See Engineering comments.
Engineering (John Anderson)
1. See review comments per attached letter dated November 19, 2019.
VDOT (Adam Moore)
1. No Objection. See attached letter dated November 21, 2019.
Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox)
1. The FDC must be shown on the plan and located within 100' of a hydrant. Based
on the height of this building the hose required to connect the FDC to the hydrant
shall not impact travel lanes.
2. A knox box is required. Please add a note indicating this requirement and that
the location can be coordinated with the fire marshal's office.
3. The travel way along one contiguous side of the structure must be 26' of
unobstructed travel way. There can be no utility lines, trees or other obstructions
along that side of the structure that would impede aerial fire apparatus access.
Based on the special exception requested for additional height this requirement
may change to more than one side.
4. Any overhang or covered entrance must have a clearance of 13'6".
5. Please provide the ISO needed fire flow AND a current fire flow test to show what
is available on site.
ACSA (Richard Nelson)
1. Submit 3 copies ATTN: Alex Morrison.
2. RWSA Capacity Certification will be required.
3. Contact Alex Morrison for draft connection fees
(amorrison(aD-serviceauthorit r�org).
RWSA (Dyon Vega)
1. RWSA Capacity Certification will be required.
Inspections (Michael Dellinger)
1. Sheet 1 does not address required accessible parking spaces, please provide.
2. Sheet 3: number 10, the state does not enforce the ADA rather the ICC ANSI
A117.1. Please refer to this code for accessibility requirements.
3. Sheet 8: drive thru canopy will require non-combustible construction due to the
proximity of the property line.
Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszewski)
1. This item is scheduled for the December 16 ARB meeting. Comments will be
provided at that time.
Zoning/Parking Reduction Request (Kevin McCollum)
1. Based on my analysis of the parking at Stonefield I cannot approve the
requested parking reduction associated with SDP2019-57 at this time. It appears
that the proposal of adding 234 apartment units to Block D1 would create a
parking shortage as this existing lot has been allocated as parking for two
already approved site plans, SDP2012-5 (the theater) and SDP2012-1 (the town
center). The Applicant needs to provide any additional information needed to
prove that this request would not create a shortage of parking that is required by
any of the applicable site plans. If any of the information I have is incorrect (since
our calculations for requirements and what is existing are different) they need to
provide evidence that their information is correct. I have used the approved site
plans that we have on file and I assume that those numbers are correct.
2. See attached documents entitled "Blocks and Parking Maps" and "Stonefield
Parking Analysis" for further details.
3. Parking reductions requested for other applications that have not submitted a site
plan (Block C2-1) cannot be processed without a site plan.
E911 (Brian Becker)
4. No Objection.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Project:
Stonefield, Block D-1, Initial
Plan preparer:
Herb White, P.E., Pres., WW Associates / 968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1
Charlottesville, VA 22911 [ hwhite(&wwassociates.net ]
Owner or rep.:
OCT Stonefield Property Owner, LLC, 230 Royal Palm Way, Suite 200
Palm Beach, FL, 33480 [ odesai@oconnorcp.com ]
Plan received date:
24 Oct 2019
Date of comments:
19 Nov 2019
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Tori Kanellopoulos
SDP2019-00057
For Initial Site Plan Approval:
1. Include reference to SDP2011-00047, Stonefield Building C1-IV Final Site Plan (WP02011-00055), dated
June 20, 2011, approved 10/24/11, on sheet C-1.
2. Include reference to WP02011-00055, Stonefield Building C1-IV (SDP2011-00047), d. June 20, 2011,
approved 4/12/12, on sheet C-1.
3. Revise C-1 Site Plan Note 2. Approved WPOs do not convey coverage to this proposed development.
WP02011-00055 Plan Amendment Application is required. Please see FSP item 6., below.
4. Revise C-3 Stormwater Narrative, consistent with comments elsewhere.
5. Notes:
a. WP02011-00055 Amendment approval is required prior to FSP Approval.
b. (SWM Facility /Facility Access) Easement Plat recordation is required prior to WP02011-00055
Amendment approval. Applicant to provide Planning /Engineering circuit court deed bk.-pg. ref
to recorded easement. Engineering will format deed of dedication of easement once plat review
comments are addressed (once plat date of last revision is known).
c. A Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement is required prior to final WP02011-00055
Amendment approval. Albemarle records Agreement for any new SWM Facilities, once executed.
(Albemarle formats Agreement.) If there are no new SWM Facilities; that is, if only SWM are
facilities shown on WP02011-00055, then Albemarle requests deed bk.-pg. refto recorded
Agreement with WP02011-00055 Amendment Application /submittal.
For Final Site Plan Approval:
6. Submit VSMP Amendment Plan to WP02011-00055. Although WP02011-00055 is approved, site layout
has changed. WW Associates prepared WP02011-00055 /SDP2011-00047, so plan sheets and design data
are likely readily available. At a minimum, please include the following with WPO Plan Amendment:
a. (LOD) Limits of Disturbance. Ref. SDP C-15, DA Parking Area: Project Area =3.01 Ac.
b. Since claiming this is a grandfathered project, ref. /address conditions required for Grandfathering
to guide review and approval, including 9VAC25-870-48.A. L(iv): `...has not been subsequently
modified or amended in a manner resulting in an increase in the amount of phosphorus leaving
each point of discharge, and such that there is no increase in the volume or rate of runoff.' This
means if apartment development runoff exceeds parking lot runoff, then on -site preliminary and
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
modest detention may be required prior to discharge to overall Albemarle Place detention system
installed beneath Costco parking lot. Design should provide and review will consider: points of
discharge, amount /rates of storm release from D1, especially whether apartment development
increases overall site imperviousness even slightly, which it appears may be the case. Please ref.
9VAC25-870-48, as well as SDP2011-00047, sheets C-15, -16 (Storm Sewer Design comps), etc.
c. Revised storm sewer design computations. Also, see item 7., below.
d. ESC Plan: show tree protection (TP) for trees that are to remain.
e. SDP2011-00047, C-18 includes typ. ESC measure details required during parking lot construction.
Provide ESC measures appropriate for parking lot demolition, and apartment construction. These
may consist of IP, RWD, TS, SAF, etc. but prior -approved WPO does not consider current
development, only past development. ESC plan is required with WP02011-00055 Amendment.
f. SWPPP: Use county template; please also include:
i. 2019 VPDES Permit Registration Statement
ii. 2019 CGP Termination Form
iii. 2019 CGP (26-pg.)
Links:
a. http://www.albemarle.org/unload/images/forms_center/departments/Communi1y Develo
pment/forms/En ingi eering_and_WPO_Forms/CGP_Re,gistration_Statement_2019_FINA
L 201904.pdf
b. hqp://www.albemarle.or2/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community_Develo
pment/forms/En ing eering_and_WPO_Forms/CGP_Notice_of Termination _2019_FINA
L 201904.pdf
c. hqp://www.albemarle.or2/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community_Develo
pment/forms/En ing eering_and_WPO_Forms/CGP_2019.pdf
g. VSMP /WPO Plan Amendment Fee: $200
h. Approved Easement Plat for SWM Facilities (for final Amendment approval), including relocated
Filterra unit/s and any additional on -site SWM: detention, for example, if required to qualify for
Grandfathering. A separate Easement Plat Application with fee, as well as separate independent
review of plat, is required. Please re£ county website, Planning documents. Tori Kanellopoulos
may be a helpful resource guide.
i. Additional information from WP02011-00055, including tables, civil details, ESC legend, SWM
Plan data (Filterra unit/s [relocation /size]; VA SWMH, 1999, Vol. II, Appendix 5D Worksheets
[revise, as needed; ref. SDP2011-00047, C-23]), including ref. to approved WPOs, to prepare a
comprehensive standalone Amendment to WP02011-00055.
7. Evaluate existing storm sewer pipes for capacity, since existing conveyance was designed for parking lot,
while configuration (and possibly amount /rate) of runoff reaching existing inlets and pipes is modified with
proposed apartment development.
8. C 6: Show Ex. Filterra graphically to approx. true dimensions (Ex. Filterra, as shown, is —I' wide).
9. C=7: It is unclear how removing Ex. retaining wall and railing works with final grade or may compromise
pedestrian safety. With Site Plan and WP02011-00055 Amendment, provide pedestrian safety relative to
proposed grade, once retaining wall and railing are demolished along Inglewood Drive (C-7, C-8).
10. C7: Recommend provide replacement illumination for Ex. lampposts to be removed along Bond St. (X 2).
Engineering defers to Planning.
11. C-9: Revise Pavement Section Detail to identify which travelways are covered (Bond, District, Inglewood).
12. C9: Provide typical civil details, including: inlet shaping, Nyoplast elements (grates, risers, pipes, etc.).
13. Provide LD-204, LD-229 for all inlets and storm pipes. Do not simply reference WP02011-00055, but
transfer table data from WP02011-00055 to this site plan, and to WPO Plan Amendment. Report values
that correspond with design for proposed apartment development. These values will differ from initial
WP02011-00055 LD-204 /LD-229 table values, in some instances.
14. Provide drainage profiles. Label rim, INV MOUT, pipe material, slope, DIA, and length. Also, please see
item 6.b., above. No increase in volume or rate of runoff.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
15. Ensure structure IDs are easily identifiable across plans (SDP201900057, WPO2011-0005, WP02011-
00055 Amendment).
C-8:
16. Parking structure (internal to building):
a. Provide a series of 6-7 parking plan views, one per story. Recommend all levels of parking garage
be displayed on a single site plan sheet with each plan view clearly labeled (Story G, 1, 2, 3...)
b. On this plan sheet (item, a.), provide a profile section view from ground to top of structure, with
each deck /story of garage labelled to correspond with plan views (item a.).
c. Ensure parking garage design meets each relevant or applicable 18-4.12.15 requirement.
d. Provide posted garage speed, yield, ped-crossing, etc. signs throughout the structure, as needed, to
help ensure pedestrian and vehicle safety, and to help minimize pedestrian -vehicle conflicts.
e. Ensure garage entrance design meets 18-4.12.17.b. requirements for landing grade and sight
distance (VDOT Standards apply).
f. Ensure max. grade for parking spaces and access aisles abutting parking spaces does not exceed
five (5) percent. Ref. 18-4.12.15.c. Label access aisle grade on each plan view of garage, each
floor of garage structure.
g. At 1556 VDP (vehicle per day), in the interest of pedestrian safety, improved sight distance, and to
limit queuing on Inglewood Drive (predictable with collocated entrance /exit), queuing within
structure near or beyond gates, Engineering recommends design separate garage entrance /exit.
Recommendations:
i. Relocate entrance 60'f, or as far as possible to the west.
ii. Lengthen and widen exit throat to accommodate two lanes, left and right exit, to help limit
queuing within the parking structure.
iii. Provide a median space /pedestrian refuge (I-lanewidth) between left turn /rt. turn exits.
iv. Revise pedestrian crossing by whatever means necessary to ensure pedestrian right-of-
way at entrance /exit points (calming, raised sidewalk, exit lane separation, mirrors,
sidewalk -building offset, etc.).
a. Note sight distance lines place vehicle (operator) `eye' on sidewalk, meaning
vehicle is assumed to stop on sidewalk prior to exiting. This design cannot be
approved. If vehicles must stop at this point, then pedestrians are routinely
prevented from safely crossing entrance /exit point. One car after another will
proceed to this point, and block the sidewalk. Potential pedestrian -vehicle
conflicts are unacceptably high, not intentionally yet unavoidably, by design.
b. Consider alternative sidewalk /garage entrance -exit design/s. Offer improved
pedestrian right-of-way and safety at garage entrance.
c. City of Charlottesville developments along Main Street (The Standard) and
Roosevelt Brown Blvd (The Uncommon) and pending new towns and apartments
near the downtown mall on Main Street offer little by way of design to alleviate
pedestrian -vehicle conflicts as vehicles exit these developments, virtually blind.
d. Albemarle intends to minimize risk to pedestrians first, vehicles second.
e. Pedestrian safety is paramount. Vehicle operator inconvenience /exit wait times
are a secondary concern.
f. Proposed design provides vehicle operators negligible to no sight of pedestrians
approaching garage entry /exit, which is at edge of the building. Sidewalk also
touches building exterior.
g. Design assumes vehicles will proceed to walk, stop on walk, then exit onto
Inglewood.
h. At a minimum, provide multiple signs /warnings of pedestrian crossing,
including: SLOW, YIELD, Ped. Crossing using typ. and standard VDOT icons,
with typ. VDOT striping on sidewalk to indicate pedestrians have right-of-way.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
i. Provide wall mount mirrors to provide view of sidewalk in both directions.
Mount so useful at vehicle operator eye level.
j. Provide a STOP sign inside the parking garage, prior to sidewalk, so a vehicle
must come to a complete stop and yield to possibly unseen pedestrians prior to
proceeding to the next stop point, where operator obtains sight on Inglewood
Drive.
k. Safety is the paramount design consideration. A visit to the The Standard (Main
Street /C'ville) may be instructive, or helpful, since designs are so similar.
1. Architectural design may provide enhanced pedestrian safety via an `open' wall
/column design. Recommend an open ground -level North building face with an
unrestricted view between columns, with minimal parapet wall ht. (2.5 -3.0' ht.,
max., if possible).
17. CG-12 ramps at parking garage entrance /exit: Provide landing prior to point sidewalk and entrance /exit
intersect. That is: do not have sloped CG-12 ramp ending at point entrance /exit intersect ramp, to help
prevent rollaway incident at what is a blind intersection. It may be better to ensure at -grade walk, with
ramps for vehicles. Pedestrians take priority over vehicle operator convenience. Please ref. VDOT Road
Design Manual, Appendix B(1), pg. B(1)-52, Fig. 12 (Traffic calming details /Raised Crosswalk.
18. Label 2-way travel way width on Bond St. between Hyatt Place Hotel and semi -circular drop-off point in
front of proposed Apartment building.
19. Given obstructed sight view for vehicles exiting garage and abiding pedestrian concern, eliminate three
parallel parking spaces west of exit and two parallel spaces east of exit. Push sidewalk away from building
face and provide vehicle operators exiting both opportunity to see pedestrians, and to see oncoming traffic
before pulling onto Inglewood. Planning may consider any waiver required, in interest of pedestrian and
vehicle operator safety. Note: a tragic pedestrian fatality occurred in 2016 within tight design confines of
Stonefield Town Center. Article at: htips://www.cbsl9news.com/content/news/Pedestrian-safety-at-
Stonefield-39434110Lhtml. Engineering views safety a surmountable design challenge, and extremely
relevant. Accident occurred in 2016 at District Ave. and Bond St. (Link) article above is worth reading.
20. If parallel spaces retained, revise design per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B(1), pg. B(1)-59,
Curb Extensions, Fig. below:
i0
1513 Minimum
10' R Minimum
26 R Minimum
Effective Radius
40' Minimum
Curb Extension (Bulb -Out)
21. Show /label all roof leader lines. Show all roof storm collection points of connection with existing or
proposed storm sewer.
22. Provide Note with offset distance, south face of building to sidewalk (0.0' if adjacent).
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069
Thank you
SDP2019-00057 Stonefield Block D-1 ISP 111919
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper virginia 22701
November 21, 2019
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
tttn: Tori Kanellopoulos
: Stonefield-Block D-1- Initial Site Plan
SDP-2019-000157
Review #1
Dear Ms. KanellopoulJ
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced as submitted by, W&W Associates, dated
October 17, 2019, and find it to be generally acceptable.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is
desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
In Cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Health District ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE
State Department of Health FLUVANN COUNTY
(STAY IRALMVRA)
1138 Rose Hill Drive GREENE COUNTY ISTANTY(LO LLE)
LOVISA COVNTY)LOVISA)
Phone (434) 972-6219 P. O. Box 7546 NELSON COUNTY (LOVINGSTON)
Fax (434)972-4310
Charlottesville. Virginia 22906
December 3, 2019
Tori Kanellopoulos, Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Stonefield Block D-1
Initial Site Plan
SDP201900057
Ms. Kanellopoulos:
As requested, I've reviewed the subject initial site plan, dated October 17, 2019. All
water and sanitation are to utilize ACSA utilities, and therefore I have no concerns and
recommend approval.
If there are any questions or concerns, please give me a call, 434-972-4306.
Sincerely,
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Thomas Jefferson Health District
alan.mazurowskikvdh.vir ig nia.gov
Stonefield Parking
Please refer to the Stonefield Blocks Map and Stonefield Site Plan Map attached. These .pdfs
more clearly show the locations of the blocks and which site plans apply to which blocks.
Blocks A, B, C1, C2, D3, and E1 are subject to Site Plan SDP2011-54 "Stonefield, Town Center
— Final" and Site Plan SDP2012-1 "Stonefield Town Center — Minor." The parking requirements
for these blocks are provided on these site plans.
Required Shopping Center Parking: 925 spaces (4.5 spaces / 1000 GLA)
Required Hotel Parking: 172 spaces (1 space / room, 1 space / 75 SF Conference room,
13 spaces / 1000 SF of Cafe)
Total Required: 1097 spaces
Total Provided: 1066 spaces
This Site Plan indicates that some of the spaces on Block D1 are to be used to meet the
parking requirement since Block D1 has a surplus.
SDP2012-5 shows parking for Blocks C (Just the Theater) and Block D1
Required Parking: 308 spaces (4.5 spaces / 1000 GLA)
Provided Parking: 460 spaces (170 garage, 26 street spaces, 264 lot spaces (Block
D1))
Since there is a surplus of parking provided on Block D1 some of those parking spaces were
allowed to be allocated for SDP2012-1. This site plan also indicates that 26 street parking
spaces were used towards this parking calculation. It is unclear whether or not these street
parking spaces were also used in calculating the provided totals for SDP2012-1.
Total Required across Blocks A, B, C1, C2, D1, D3, and E1: (1097 + 308) = 1405 spaces
Total Provided: (1066 + 460) = 1526 spaces
Block D1 Proposal: 234 apartment units
Required: 351 spaces (1.5 spaces / unit)
This requested rate requires Administrative approval. The Code of Development
indicates a rate of 1.75 spaces / unit for Residential.
Provided: 447 (structure) Given reduction
Because this development would replace the 264 existing parking spaces on D1 the new
totals for Stonefield Blocks Blocks A, B, C1, C2, D1, D3, and E1 would be:
New Requirements: 1405 + 351 = 1756 (if granted reduction)
Provided: 1526 — 264 + 447 = 1709
Shortage: 47
Because the lot that currently exists on Block D1 currently provides some of the
minimum parking required by SDP2012-1 and SDP2012-5, the proposal: Initial Site Plan
SDP2019-57 does not provide adequate parking for the Stonefield Development. At this
time the parking reduction request to approve a parking rate of 1.5 spaces / unit for the
proposed apartments on Block D1 cannot be approved.
SDP2011-47 The Shops at Stonefield — Regal Cinema
https://Ifweb.albemarle.org/weblink/search.aspx?dbid=3&searchcommand=%7b%5bCDD-
Planning%5d:%5bApplicationNumber%5d=%22SDP201100047%22%7d
SDP2012-5 Stonefield, Building C1-IV Minor Amendment
https://Ifweb.albemarle.org/weblink/search.aspx?dbid=3&searchcommand=%7b°/a5bCDD-
Planning%5d:%5bApplicationNumber%5d=%22SDP201200005%22%7d
SDP2011-54 Stonefield, Town Center — Final
https://Ifweb.albemarle.org/weblink/search.aspx?dbid=3&searchcommand=%7b%5bCDD-
Planning%5d:%5bApplicationNumber%5d=%22SDP201100054%22%7d
SDP2012-1 Stonefield Town Center — Minor
https://Ifweb.albemarle.org/weblink/search.aspx?dbid=3&searchcommand=%7b%5bCDD-
Planning%5d:%5bApplicationNumber%5d=%22SDP201200001 %22%7d
ED
All 13M
AV
:A0
XT) 1v
Ole�y ass
417%
F441
j..'Yj
arm
spi
AT"a
tr 13
Ilk
;Lw
!On
I-ALf
•
X�)
VXA
•
4
44 x7ll 40 �
Alr w
tzL Al
AT'
AL
o
waad�' A -
Alpo
ZAA
AM
It
, 00 v
@P pt
*Samoan
I-Oo
PIPW
000
#
Ar
Met
Or 0 200
Aw 41
FWW
i r
o[ 40