HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000024 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-04-15�pF A
Vt7{GlN1A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax
Site Plan review
Project: Stonefield, Block D-1, Final
Plan preparer: John Beirne, P.E., Pres., WW Associates / 968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1
Charlottesville, VA 22911 [ ibeirne&wwassociates.net ]
Owner or rep.: OCT Stonefield Property Owner, LLC, 230 Royal Palm Way, Suite 200
Palm Beach, FL, 33480 [ odesaigoconnorcp.com ]
Plan received date: 18 Mar 2020
Date of comments: 15 April 2020
Reviewer: John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Tori Kanellopoulos
972-4126
SDP202000024 — FSP Also: SDP2019-00057; review comments 1.-22. provided as Initial Site Plan review comments, 19 Nov
2019)
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. (FSP) Comment persists. Please revise C=1 Notes 4 and
5 (text image below) for accuracy.
4. REFER TO "STONEFIELD TOWN CENTER FINAL SITE PLAN AMENDMENT- (SDP 2011-00065; WPO
2014-00059) AND-STONEFIELD BUILDING C1-N FINAL SITE PLAN AMENDMENT" (SDP 2011-00055;
WPO 2014-00047) FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GENERAL NOTES AND
DETAILS, STORM DRAINAGE AREA MAPS AND CALCULATIONS, AND LANDSCAPING DETAILS AND
CALCULATIONS.
5. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR THE AREA ENCOMPASSED WITH THIS PLAN ARE PROVIDED WITH WPO
2010-00023. WPO 2013-69, WPO 2011-00047, WPO 2011-00055, AND WPO 2011-00036. THIS
PLAN IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR QUANTITY AND QUALITY CONTROLS AS WELL
AS MS-19.
Please edit or delete these Dlan references
SDP2011-00065 (Keswick)
SDP2011-00065 (F&R Outbuilding Addition)
WP0201400059 (Briarwood)
WP0201400047 (Old Trail)
WP0201100047 (Timberwood Commons)
Accurate references:
WP0201000023 (Albemarle Place)
WP0201300069 (Stonefield blocks F& G, Final)
WP0201100055 (Stonefield)
WP0201100036 (Stonefield Blvd Road Plan)
2. Include reference to WP02011-00055, Stonefield Building C1-IV (SDP2011-00047), d. June 20, 2011,
approved 4/12/12, on sheet C-1. (FSP) Comment persists. Please revise Stormwater Narrative, C=3, to
ref. WP02011-00055.
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. (FSP)
Comment persists. Also: item 2, above; item 6, below. WP0202000016 is under review.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 9
4. Revise C-3 Stormwater Narrative, consistent with comments elsewhere. (FSP) Comment persists.
WPO202000016 is under review.
5. Notes:
a. WPO2011-00055 Amendment approval is required prior to FSP Approval. (FSP) Comment
persists. (WPO2011-00055 Amendment is assigned WPO202000016)
b. (SWM Facility /Facility Access) ,- -. Flat recordation is required prior to WPO2011-00055
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). (FSP) Addressed bk.-pg.
4135-223.
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 WPO2011-00055, then Albemarle requests deed bk.-pg. ref. to recorded
Agreement with WPO2011-00055 Amendment Application /submittal. (FSP) Addressed. See
5.b., above.
For Final Site Plan Approval: (FSP) Partially addressed /see below.
WPO202000016 review is pending.
6. Submit VSMP Amendment Plan to WPO2011-00055. Although WPO2011-00055 is approved, site layout
has changed. WW Associates prepared WPO2011-00055 /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. (FSP)
Comment persists. As follow-up, revise WPO C-3 to include label /leader line indicating 2.66 Ac.
disturbance.
b. Since claiming this is a grandfathered project, ref. /address conditions required for Grandfathering
to guide review and approval, including 9VAC25-870-48.A.1.(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
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.
(FSP) Comment revised to request that WPO202000016 confirm any increase in rate of runoff or
amount of phosphorus leaving SWM detention facility beneath Costco parking lot (easement
shown on bk.-pg. 4135-223).
c. Revised storm sewer design computations. Also, see item 7., below. (FSP) Partially addressed.
As follow-up: see item 24, below.
d. ESC Plan: show tree protection (TP) for trees that are to remain. (FSP) Addressed /shown on
WPO202000016 C-3.
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 WPO2011-00055 Amendment.
(FSP) Addressed. WPO202000016 is under review
f. SWPPP: Use county template; please also inclu(a (FSP) Addressed -see WPO202000016 for
follow-up comments.
i. 2019 VPDES Permit Registration Statement
ii. 2019 CGP Termination Form
iii. 2019 CGP (26-pg.)
Links:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 9
a. http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Develo
pment/forms/En ing eerinp�and_WPO_Forms/CGP_Registration_Statement _2019_FINA
L 201904.pdf
b. http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/CommunityDevelo
pment/forms/En ing eeringtand_WPO_Forms/CGP_Notice_of Termination _2019_FfNA
L 201904.pdf
c. http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/CommunityDevelo
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 ref. county website, Planning documents. Tori Kanellopoulos
may be a helpful resource guide. (FSP) Comment persists. Compare plat at bk.-pg. 4135-221
with SDP202000024 C=8 relocated filterra (Bond St.). A SWM facility easement is required for
this relocated filterra. Also: WP0202000016 review comments /comments pending.
l NEW 9.50' SIDEWALKS
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
RESERVED FOR DEDICATION l
UPON DEMAND OF THE COUNTY z.
(TYPICAL) 1 0 G 1 PARCEL 1 RESIDUE U
g N 1,288,127 SF �l
N 29.571 AC
4j 0Z
CQ W F J
QL
�I�.Iy I FG 0 U }�� NEW SIGHT DISTANCE WT4
Lifi4'pI l a r' W �a�! L166 EASEMENT RESERVED z W
I' I LS x !'L FOR DEDICATION ( I i
PARCEL 1 RESIDUES II�E UPON DEMAND
OF
1,288,127 SF m- I z W 0
I 29.571 AC a °III a
i� �d �I.rl JI0JI
`yI' pg o
0 NEW SIGHT DISTANCE
EASEMENT RESERVED III k. Z I v I Z
IFOR DEDICATION I A. O O I z
�C! UPON DEMAND OF I i
THE COUNTY I l NEW 23'
INGRESS/EGRESS F i
LT la SET c�� I m� EASEMENT !1I
(Pj?TV, , C66 C45 ^ 4 L709 _ _ _ a`
3 NEW -0551 J 3� c`� �� - — ND STREET (PRIVATE) L9 y
1GRESS 31
cQg 1 t -- �-�a
�ASE,��RESS �ji o J C11 L22 11 fh`
j 10' PUBLIC DRAINAGE
oS -+i.I w EASEMENT RESERVED a� mI_WI
FOR DEDICATION UPON 5i
i. Additional information from WP02011-00055, including tables, civil details, ESC legend, SWM
Plan data (Filterra unit/s [relocation /size]; VA SWMH, 1999, Vol. I1, 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. (FSP) Comment persists. For
example: WP0202000016, C7, Stormwater Narrative relies on biofilter `installed as part of the
Stonefield Blvd Road Plan (WP0201100036).' WP02011-00036 (C-22) shows a biofilter at
present-day Int. of District and Houston. Please provide an As -built drawing comparing as -built
condition of this biofilter against design (WP0201100036, C-22). Note: WP0201100036, C-22,
calculations provide that load removed by biofilter (C-22) = 5.26 X 0.65=3.42lbs. If later WPO or
WPO Amendment revised biofilter design to provide WP0202000016 C=7 pollutant removal of
9.69 lb, reference WPO# on SDP202000024 and WP0202000016. Also, please revise
WP0202000016 C7 text /calculations (Narrative), consistent with as -built condition of Houston -
District biofilter, and approved SDP /WPOs, including biofilter landscaping (as -built v. design).
WP0201100036 plan /GIS /Pictometry2 images —biofilter location circled:
Plan, C-1
—0
C-22
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 9
;, IN 7. aYtl Itt.- Iciy.. II ill ��V�YF It tw 1 �, 1'I L .fit L ,9`:
]lung 11 !Y"l fill
• �*1111111fil
IL
ti s1111111`HIM
a
h IF THIS DRAWING IS A REDUCTION
GRAPHIC SCALE MUST BE USED
BID -FILTER PLAN SCALE: 1' - 20'
20' D 20'
EX
5.X2V
-�,�_.
EC-1 LANDSCAPE
I R1P-RAT' STONE POOL
spo
\
,r
-` I
MH-I WITH
,7 TOP
I
ZFOUTMSTONE
LANDSCAPE
_
I
WEIR WALL
42- 6
46
B10-AIL RR
`- -
E
~
-N c
{---- — --
CD _
CO
------- Co
25'
2 JFFER— -- -- -
-----
_- ' = ----�
MAINTENANCE
EASEMENT
-- ' BIO-PETER
8' PERFORATED REFER TO LANOSCPPE PLAN
-
I
SECTION
PVC UNDERORMN ON DWG N0. C-24 FOR
BIOLFILTER PLANTING DETAILS
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 9
GIS
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. (FSP) Addressed. C-12. Also: item 24, below.
8. C 6: Show Ex. Filterra graphically to approx. true dimensions (Ex. Filterra, as shown, is —P wide). (FSP)
Addressed.
9. C7: It is unclear how removing Ex. retaining wall and railing works with final grade or may compromise
pedestrian safety. With Site Plan and WPO2011-00055 Amendment, provide pedestrian safety relative to
proposed grade, once retaining wall and railing are demolished along Inglewood Drive (C-7, C-8). (FSP)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 9
Comment persists. Copy text note from WP0202000016, C-3, to SDP202000024, C7, Demolition Plan:
`Contractor shall provide shoring to protect embankment as retaining wall is removed. Contractor shall
provide shoring plans to [ design] Engineer for approval.' [WW Associates, EOR]
10. C7: Recommend provide replacement illumination for Ex. lampposts to be removed along Bond St. (x 2).
Engineering defers to Planning. (FSP) Withdrawn. Engineering assumes adequate lighting at apartment
main entrance on Bond Street.
11. C-9: Revise Pavement Section Detail to identify which travelways are covered (Bond, District, Inglewood).
(FSP) Addressed. C-10 pavement demolition and parking areas pavement section details appear adequate.
12. C-9: Provide typical civil details, including: inlet shaping, Nyoplast elements (grates, risers, pipes, etc.).
(FSP) Addressed. Also: Item 25, below.
13. Provide LD-204, LD-229 for all inlets and storm pipes. Do not simply reference W002011-00055, 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. (FSP) Addressed. Request for revised
inlet table (LD-204) withdrawn since roof leader line direct connection with storm sewer accounts for most
post -developed site runoff reaching the storm system.
14. Provide drainage profiles. Label rim, INV IN/OUT, pipe material, slope, DIA, and length. Also, please see
item 6.b., above. No increase in volume or rate of runoff. (FSP) Addressed. Also: Item 24, below.
15. Ensure structure IDs ai Zsily identifiable across plans (SDP201900057, WP02011-0005, WP020I1-
00055 Amendment` (FSP) Addressed.
C-8:
16. Parking structure (internal to building):
(Note: As follow-up to 12/6/19 Engineering -Applicant meeting (Engineering absent from 12/5/19 SRC),
Engineering defers to building inspections on virtually all parking garage interior configuration concerns,
and related ISP parking garage -related comments.)
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...)
(FSP) Addressed (sheet AP -I). As follow-up, please see item 23, below.
b. On this plan sheet (item, a.), provide a profile section view ti-om ground to top of structure, with
each deck /story of garage labelled to correspond with plan views (item a.). (FSP) Addressed.
Request for cutaway profile section withdrawn.
c. Ensure parking garage do -it or applicable 18-4.12.15 requirement. (FSP)
Addressed. 18-4.12.15 does not apply to parking garages.
d. Provide posted garage spc_ -Id, ped-cross. throughout the structure, as needed, to
help ensure pedestrian and vehicle safety, and to help minimize pedestrian -vehicle conflicts. (FSP)
Withdrawn.
e. Ensure garage entrance design meets 18-4.12.17.b. requirements for landing grade and sight
distance (VDOT Standards apply). (FSP) Withdrawn. Also, 16.c., above.
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. (FSP) Withdrawn /review error. Max. grade for parking garage ramps
=6.67%. Also: Item 23, below.
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: (FSP) Items discussed with Applicant at 12/6/19 meeting. Items i.-iii. below
are recommendations (FSP not required to reflect i.-iii. recommendations). Item iv. is revised to
request specific and non-specific design response, including revision. Please call if any questions.
i. Relocate entrance 60'±, or as far as possible to the west. (FSP) Withdrawn (infeasible).
ii. Lengthen and widen exit throat to accommodate two lanes, left and right exit, to help
limit queuing within the parking structure. (FSP) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 9
iii. Provide a median space /pedestrian refuge (I-lanewidth) between left turn /rt. turn exits.
(FSP) Withdrawn (infeasible).
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.). (FSP) As follow-up: Provide a detail to clearly indicate
crosswalk v. garage exit profile: raised v. level grade. Also: indicate pedestrian crosswalk
pavement markings at garage entry /exit, if any.
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.
(FSP) Persists. Ref. item 26, below, which requests revision.
b. Consider alternative sidewalk /garage entrance -exit design/s. Offer improved
pedestrian right-of-way and safety at garage entrance. (FSP) Comment persists
without request for specific revision.
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. (FSP) As follow-up: An incorrect statement: The Standard offers
mirrors and columns at entry /exit which allow drivers to see pedestrians, and to
see farther more easily. Engineering requests mirrors for this apartment
development project. Also, 16.g.iv.i., below.
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.
(FSP) Withdrawn. 12/6/19 meeting provided informed understanding of limits
of review, relative to garage interior. During meeting, Applicant explained
adequate posted guide indicators will be placed inside the parking garage.
i. Provide wall mount mirrors to provide view of sidewalk in both directions.
Mount so useful at vehicle operator eye level. (FSP) Comment persists.
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 pedestrian/s prior to
proceeding to the next stop point, where operator obtains sight on Inglewood
Drive. (FSP) Withdrawn. Also, 16. .ig v.h., above.
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.
(FSP) Also, item 16,g iv.c., above.
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 lat. (2.5 -3.0' ht.,
max., if possible). (FSP) Comment persists. Also, item 16,g iv.c., above.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 9
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. (FSP)
Comment persists. Also: Item 26, below.
18. Label 2- . _ivci 3ond St. between Hyatt Place Hotel and semi -circular drop-off point in
front of proposed Apartment building. (FSP) Addressed. C=8 lists ref. to D.B. 4135-249 23' ingress /egress
easement.
19
20
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: https://www.cbsl9news.com/content/news/Pedestrian-safety-at-
Stonefield-394341 IOI .html. Engineering views safety a surmountable design challenge, and extremely
relevant. Accident occuffed in 2016 at District Ave. and Bond St. (Link) article above is worth reading.
(FSP) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Provide pavement markings to delineate parallel spaces that
remain. No request to remove remaining parallel parking spaces SW of parking garage entrance, C=8.
Also, please revise sight distance left (left out) which appears to pass through the bldg. (blue circle, below)
S �so' rie � - -
-- 4 DROP INLET ...,,,.......... . - 4:
F—JjjGENERATOR -.__.. _
If-jpaara1llel spaces retained, revise design per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B(1), pg. B(1)-59,
Curb Extensions, Fig. below: (FSP) Addressed.
Y
E N
C. G
U
'v o
15' R Minimum
is a
19 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. (FSP) May persist. Please confirm only one roof drain leader (at E corner of bldg.).
22. Provide Note with offset distance, south face of building to sidewalk (0.0' if adjacent). (FSP) Withdrawn.
New (FSP)
23. AP-1 Parking Garage Layout provides no dimensions. Recommend provide parking space and drive aisle
widths.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 9 of 9
Recommend, for example, labels to indicate ramp slope < 6.67% max. grade allowed for parking garage
ramps. J. Gorman email to Engineering, December 6, 2019 10:03 AM, is helpful, and includes this text: `
Section 406.4.4 Ramps
Vehicle ramps shall not be considered as required exits unless pedestrian facilities are provided. Vehicle
ramps that are utilized for vertical circulation as well as for parking shall not exceed a slope of]: 15 (6.67
percent).'
24. C-12: Storm profile 46 thru 46.8 shows 18" HDPE downstream of 24" DIA pipe. Increase receiving pipe
diameter.
25. C-10: Two civil details are oblique /images distorted (CG-6, MH frame and cover). Please revise.
26. C=8: Provide inset detail showing sight distance line (eye /object) if typ. passenger sedan stops without
breaking plane of the sidewalk. Provide detail showing how far a driver exiting the parking garage can see
before vehicle begins to break plane of edge of sidewalk. At garage exit, pedestrians, not vehicles, have
right-of-way. Also, item 16.g.iv.a., above.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069
Thank you
SDP2020-00024 Stonefield Block D-1 FSP 041520