Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000024 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-06-25County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Herb White, WW Associates From: Tori Kanellopoulos — Senior Planner Division: Planning Services Date: June 25, 2020 REV 1: Final Site Plan dated 05-21-20 Subject: SDP2020000024 — Stonefield Block D-1 — Final Site Plan The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approval of 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.] Planning (Tori Kanellopoulos) ZMA2001-7 and ZMA2013-9 Code of Development Uses. Provide the specific use proposed per the COD, and ensure it is a permitted commercial use. a. REV 1: Can be addressed with future zoning clearance. Ensure that any commercial or retail use proposed for the space is included as a permitted use in the Code of Development for Stonefield (ZMA200100007; most recently amended per ZMA201300009) 2. 18-4.11.4 Easement conflicts. It appears there may be easement conflicts with the existing gas easement and existing power easement. Contact Charlottesville Gas and Dominion Power directly to ensure building is not conflicting with easements. Attached is additional guidance for Dominion Power easements. a. REV 1: Buildinq is no longer within Dominion Power easemen, b. REV 1: Note that Dominion Power may require an easement around the relocated transformer. Ensure coordination with Dominion. DB 4160 PG 199 indicates that the transformer is property of Dominion. c. REV 1: Provide a letter from the gas line easement holder (signed) indicating their approval of the improvements shown within the easement. 3. 18-4.7/18-4.16/Stor, _ .eld Code of L, - alopment Green/civic%pen space: a. The green/civic spaces should be labeled on one of the plan sheets, such as the layout plan. i. REV 1: Addressed. 4. 18-4.12.6 Minimum parking spaces: See letter from Zoning attached, dated April 21, 2020. a. REV 1: Addressed. See minor recommended changes from Zoning. 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. If spaces are being removed, indicate that on the demolition sheet. a. REV 1: Addressed. 6. 18-4.12.13 Loading spaces. Indicate how the following requirement is being met: Loading spaces shall be provided in addition to and exclusive of any parking requirement on the basis of.(1) one space for the first 8, 000 square feet of retail gross leasable area. a. REV 1: Addressed 7. 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. i he lighting plan must also be included with the final site plan submittal, not just the ARB submittal, as it is a Zoning Ordinance requirement. a. REV 1: Show additional foot candle measurements along Inglewood Drive, closer to the existing townhouses. Ensure that spillover adjacent to the townhouses is 0.5 foot candles or less. b. REV 1: Clarify which lights are existing and which are new. 8. 18-32.5.2 Contents of an initial site plan and 18-32.6.2 Contents of a final site plan: Full curb on entrance to parking garage on IngleNA ood does rnt nopear to be shown. a. REV 1: Addressed. b. 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. i hib Plai ryas i1ui YeL U6UH suUrr iLLe'U io We a. REV 1: SUB201900150 is under review, revised as both a subdivision plat and easement plat. Ensure ownership information on the final site plan matches after SUB201900150 is approved and recorded. c. Include a note with the approximate number of each type of unit (e.g. X 1- bedrooms, Y 2-bedrooms, and Z 3-bedrooms). a. REV 1: Addressed. d. Include the site plan number SDP202000024 on Sheet 1. a. REV 1: Addressed. e. Include the signed/approved resolution for the Special Exception approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 5, 2020. Ensure the conditions are being met. The resolution is attached for reference. a. REV 1: Partially addressed. Show how Condition 3(b) is being met. This should show elevations/stories of each side of the building, to ensure this requirement is being met. f. Advisory: Note that retaining walls require building permits. Coordinate with Building Inspections. a. REV 1: A- comment will be addressed with building permit. 9. 18-32.6.2/18-32.7.4.2/18-32.7.5.3 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. a. REV 1: Show and label all existing easements, including ACSA easements. b. REV 1: Previous application SUB201900150 has been resubmitted as an easement plat and subdivision plat. Review comments on the plat will be sent separately. Once recorded, include DB/PG for all new and revised easements on the final site plan. i. Ensure all new and revised easements are shown. For example, the new SWM easement around the filterra is not shown or labeled. ii. There appear to be other discrepancies between the site plan and plat as well. For example, the plan shows the access easement of District Avenue being adjusted, while the plat shows the access easements of Inglewood and Bond being adjusted. Ensure both submittals match. b. Include reference to DB 4_,�7 PG 302 for the Hydraulic ROW, a- this appears to be the most recent VDOT ROW dedication. a. REV 1: Addressed. c. 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. a. REV 1: Being addressed with easement plat. 10.18-32.5.5/18-32.6.3/18-32.7.3 Parking structures: a. McIuue Mid iWuMily rettuHrea irflurrfladerr: 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. r-lrlp " - Addressed b. 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. a. REV 1: Partially addressed. Requirement 32.7.3(a) requires that mechanical equipment be screened from public view, not just the Entrance Corridor. Revise Note 3 on Sheet 1 to meet this requirement: Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or building shall be screened from public view to the reasonable satisfaction of the agent with materials harmonious with the building or they shall be located so as not to be visible from public view. c. Refer to Engineering comments as well. a. REV 1: Relevant Engineering comments have been addressed. 11.18-32.7.2.3 Sidewalks and other pedestrian ways: Include safe pedestrian access across the structured parking entrance. Refer to Engineering for more detailed comments. a. REV 1: Addressed with Engineering comments. 12.18-32.7.9.4(b) Landscape plan/preservation of existing trees: Include the Conservation Checklist. a. REV 1: Addressed. 13.18-32.7.9.5 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. REV 1: Addressed. b. The landscaping plan must also be included with the final site plan submittal, not just the ARB submittal, as it is a Zoning Ordinance requirement. a. REV 1: Addressed. 14. ZMA20010007 and ZMA20130009 Proffers: c. Please note that the following proffers are directly applicable to this project: ii. Proffer 6: $3,000 cash contribution per unit for each unit above 500 total units in Stonefield. Please coordinate with Rebecca Ragsdale (rragsdale(a)albemarle.org) in Zoning. iii. REV 1: Will be addressed after final site plan approval (with building perr -). 15.Additional applications: The following applications and approvals are required prior to final site plan approval: d. 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. This plat has not been submitted to the County for signature. a. REV 1: See easement plat comment below e. 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. See Engineering comments on required SWM easements. One easement plat may be submitted for all non-ACSA easements, however Engineering has separate deed requirements for SWM easements. a. REV 1: Review of SUB201900150 (now an easement and subdivision plat) is in progress and review comments will be sent separately. f. Architectural Review Board: A Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB is required prior to final site plan approval. Coordinate directly with Margaret Maliszewski (mmaliszewski(cD_albemarle.orq). a. REV 1: ARB review is in progress. See ARB comments below. g. 18-32.7.4.1: Approval of a VSMP Plan is required prior to final site plan approval. See Engineering comments. Coordinate directly with John Anderson (0anderson2(@albemarle.orq). a. REV 1: VSMP/WPO review is in progress. Engineering (John Anderson) 1. REV 1: See attached letter dated May 23, 2020. Review items 1, 24, 27 require follow-up; remaining prior review comments addressed. Also, see WPO2020-00016 review comments dated 5/23/20. VDOT (Adam Moore) 1. No objection. See attached letter dated May 14, 2020. Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox) 1. REV 1: Please provide the ISO needed fire flow for the structure, not the sprinkler system flow. This can be provided by email and the comment will be updated accordingly. ACSA (Richard Nelson) 1. REV 1: Continue to coordinate directly with ACSA. RWSA (Dyon Vega) RWSA will require a sewer flow acceptance prior to final site plan approval. The request will need to be sent to us by ACSA and will include the following: • Estimated average daily dry weather sewage flow (ADDWF) • Point of connection into RWSA system (which manhole) • Number of units/square footage • Estimated in-service date Inspections (Michael Dellinger) 1. REV 1: Total parking for accessibility must be in compliance with ICC ANSI A117.1-09. Verify conditions at https Wcodes. iccsafe.org/content/VCC2015P2/chapter-11- accessibility#VCC2015P2_Ch11_Sec1106 and provide documentation of entire site due to numerous changes. Accessible parking is not aligning with requirements: TABLE 1106.1 (7) ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES FOR GROUPS A, B, E, M, R-7, R-2 AND P TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVICEO REQUIRED MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES 1-25 25 - 50 2 S1 - 95 3 76-100 4 ICI - 125 5 126 -150 6 151 -200 7 201 - 30C 9 301 -4M 9 401 - 500 10 501 - i 000 2 33% o4 total 1;001 aIM over 23. plus one for Each 100. or 6acVm thereof over 1,000 a Gmrtbrnmum Fnknpm Gfatp.4F0.'C.W�`NGR wlseprAnp iSpMolNE:rtNp`v[hesesTSN pem Yz-xdar�[e rviM TaNe rIG6.11:l 2. REV 1: Provide accessible parking detail along with accessible signage. Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszewski) 1. See attached letter dated 06-16-20. Reference ARB-2020-56. Revised drawings addressing the ARB's conditions of approval are required. Zoning/Parking Reduction Request (Kevin McCollum) 1. See attached letter dated June 23, 2020. Parking reduction has been approved by Zoning. The following is a summary of the remaining comments: On Sheet 1, Show the parking requirements for this site: • 9 spaces for retail • 370 spaces for residential • 379 total On Sheet 1, Include the following note- "Parking reduction approved by Zoning, per letters dated February 26, 2020 and June 23, 2020. Total parking provided: 347 spaces." Remove other parking information on Sheet 1 of the site plan for other areas of Stonefield. This information was needed for Zoning to make a determination; however it is not necessary to include it on the final site plan. O' AI,��, r, � ��rtGtr'aTt 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., WW Associates / 968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 Charlottesville, VA 22911 [ jbeimckwwassociates.net ] Owner or rep.: OCT Stonefield Property Owner, LLC, 230 Royal Palm Way, Suite 200 Palm Beach, FL, 33480 [ odesaiL&oconnorcp.com ] Plan received date: 18 Mar 2020 (Rev. 1) 18 May 2020 Date of comments: 15 Apr 2020 (Rev. 1) 23 May 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 C1. (FSP) Comment persists. Please revise C1 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—Iv 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 plan references (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Edit Note 8 to read SDP2011-00047 rather than WPO 2011-00047. Also, New (Rev. 1) this page (list WP02020-00016). SUl'2011-00065 (Keswick) SDP2011-00065 (F&R Outbuilding Addition) WP0201400059 (Briarwood) WP0201400047 (Old Trail) WP0201100047 (Timberwood Commons) Accurate references: (Rev 1) Listed at Note 8. WP0201000023 (Albemarle Place) WP0201300069 (Stonefield blocks F& G, Final) WP0201100055 (Stonefield) WP0201100036 (Stonefield Blvd Road Plan) New (Rev. 1): Please also list WP0202000016. 2. Include reference to WP02011-00055, Stonefield Building Cl-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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 7 3. Revise C1 Site Plan Note 2. Approved WPOs do not convey coverage to this proposed development. WPO2011-00055 Plan Amendment Application is required. Please see FSP item 6., below. (FSP) Comment persists. Also: item 2, above; item 6, below. WPO202000016 is under review. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. Revise C-3 Stormwater Narrative, consistent with comments elsewhere. (FSP) Comment persists. WPO202000016 is under review. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. Notes: a. WPO2011-00055 Amendment approval is required prior to FSP Approval. (FSP /Rev. 1) Comment persists. (WPO2011-00055 Amendment is assigned WPO202000016). b. (SWM Facility /Facility Access) Easement Plat 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). bk.-pg. 4135-223. (Rev. 1) UPDATE: See WPO202000016 SWM Plan review items 4.h., and 6. c. A Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement is required prior to final WPO2011-00055 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. re£ to recorded Agreement with WPO2011-00055 Amendment Application /submittal. «eu) ,. ddFes a See 5.b., above. (Rev. 1) UPDATE: See WPO202000016 SWM Plan review item 2.b. For Final Site Plan Approval: (FSP) Partially addressed /see below. WPO202000016 under review; see review comments d. 5/23/20. 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: [ Remainder of this comment relocated to WPO202000016 since WPO-related.] (Rev. 1) Addressed. 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. 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 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) Comment persists. Copy text note from WPO202000016, 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] (Rev. 1) Addressed. 10. C=7: 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. C9: 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 WPO2011-00055, but transfer table data from WPO2011-00055 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 WPO2011-00055 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 itein 6.b., above. No increase in volume or rate of runoff. (FSP) Addressed. Also: Item 24, below. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 7 15. Ensure structure IDs are easily identifiable across plans (SDP201900057, WPO2011-0005, WP02011- 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.) (Rev. 1) Addressed. Additional: see below 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-1). As follow-up, please see item 23, below. 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.). (FSP) Addressed. Request for cutaway profile section withdrawn. c. Ensure parking garage design meets each relevant or applicable 18-4.12.15 requirement. (FSP) Addressed. 18-4.12.15 does not apply to parking garages. 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. (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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Additional: see below. i. Relocate entrance 60't, 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. iii. Provide a median space /pedestrian refuge (1-lane width) 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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `The concrete crosswalk will be provided with a 2% cross slope away from the building. Crosswalk markings have been added to the plans at this location as requested. Please refer to the architectural plans for additional details on the interior of the parking garage.' 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. (Rev. 1) Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 7 Addressed. Applicant: `The sidewalk has been revised to provide separation between the sidewalk and the vehicles exiting from the parking garage.' b. Consider alternative sidewalk /garage entrance -exit design/s. Offer improved pedestrian right-of-way and safety at garage entrance. (FSP) Comment persists v request for specific revision. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted. The sidewalk has been revised to provide separation between the sidewalk and the vehicles exiting from the parking garage.' 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, ' , ;, ' ,, (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `As discussed at our 12/6/19 meeting the architect intends to add mirrors internal to the parking garage.' d. Albemarle intends to minimize risk to pedestrians first, vehicles second. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted. Pedestrian safety within Stonefield is a primary concern for all parties involved with the development of this project.' e. Pedestrian safety is paramount. Vehicle operator inconvenience /exit wait times are a secondary concern. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted. Pedestrian safety within Stonefield is a primary concern for all parties involved with the development of this project.' 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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `As discussed at our 12/6/19 meeting the entrance to the parking garage is open for the full 42.37' dimensions shown on the plans. This will allow vehicles to see pedestrians approaching the garage entry/exit. Please note as previously stated mirrors will be provided within the garage to enhance visibility.' g. Design assumes vehicles will proceed to walk, stop on walk, then exit onto Inglewood. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `The sidewalk has been revised to provide separation between the sidewalk and vehicles exiting from the parking garage.' C-8, —2.0' separation provided: JLL CROSSWALK YY w .so R10' R10't � # `� EGG-1 Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 7 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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Ap lip cant: `Mirrors will be provided within the garage to enhance visibility.' 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. (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 de;-- �wr - similar. (FSP) Also, item 16,g iv.c., above. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted. Pedestrian safety within Stonefield is a primary concern for all parties involved with the development of this project.' 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). (FSP) Comment persists. Also, item 16,g iyc., above. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `The entrance to the parking garage is open for the full 42.37' dimension shown on the plans. This will allow vehicles to see pedestrians approaching the garage entry/exit. Please note as previously stated mirrors will be provided within the garage to enhance visibility.' 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, FigT12 (Traffic calming details /Raised Crosswalk. (FSP) Comment persists. Also: Item 26, below. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `As discussed at our 12/6/19 meeting the entrance to the parking garage is open for the full 42.37' dimension shown on the plans. This will allow vehicles to see pedestrians approaching the garage entry/exit. Please note as previously stated mirrors will be provided within the garage to enhance visibility. The crosswalk at the entrance to the garage will be marked as shown on the plans and provided with an alternate surface/pattern than the surrounding travel lanes.' 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. (FSP) Addressed. C=8 lists ref. to D.B. 4135-249 23' ingress /egress easement. 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: https://www.cbsl9news.com/content/news/Pedestrian-safety-at- Stonefield-394341101.html. 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. (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, C8. Also, please revise sight distance left (left out) which appears to pass through the bldg. (blue circle, below) (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `The parallel parking stripes are shown as requested. The entrance to the Engineering Review Comments Page 6 of 7 parking garage is open for the full 42.37' dimension shown on the plans. The site distance is shown correctly and does not conflict with the building at this location.' w 9o- HB .r,, r w w DROP INI.E7 w— w w w w— FIRE SERVICE LINE cRarF CROSSWALK TOP=505.50 R10' Ic r QI 7ANC t _CG-12 _ Wig IGHr plSLgh(CE LEfr=170— -- - EYE METER NEW CONCRETE EYE VAULT SIDEWALK, TYP. 42.3T CG NEW ELECTRICAL �-- 30 TRANSFORMER GENERATOR 20. 1, p,iiailel spaces retained, revise desigiI per VDOT Road inual, Appendix B(1), pg. B(l)-59, Curb Extensions, Fig. (FSP) Addressed. [ image removed with Rev. 1 comments] 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 roof drain leader (at E corner of bldg.). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Only one roof drain leader is provided.' 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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 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 ranlps that are utilized for vertical circulation as well as_for parking shall not exceed a slope of 1:15 (6.67 24. C-12: Storm profile 46 thru 46.8 shows 18" HDPE downstream of 24" DIA pipe. Increase receiving pipe diameter. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant: `The 18" HDPE pipe in question discharges to the biofilter on District Ave. Storm manhole 46.1 upstream of the pipe is a flow control structure and is designed to allow low flows to the biofilter and pass larger storm events to the North UGD system.' As follow-up: Review profile, C-12. Revise graphic portion or labels for consistency: identical INV OUT but dif portion or prorate. 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+! Engineering Review Comments Page 7 of 7 25. C-10: Two civil details are oblique /images distorted (CG-6, MH frame and cover). Please revise. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 26. C8: 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 - have right-of-way. Also, item 16.g iv.a., above. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `A detail is provided as a separate exhibit. Please note that this is a subjective exercise as the distance from the front overhang to the driver's eye varies significantly for different drivers and vehicles.' As follow-up: Exhibit indicates a non - negligible distance (-30') between driver and pedestrian approaching garage exit from either direction affords driver a chance to recognize oncoming pedestrian, and to yield right-of-way to pedestrians. Ref. WW Associates' Exhibit, 5/21/20, titled Stonefield Block D1 Parking Garage Site Distance Exhibit (red dimension lines added by county engineering). INGLEWOOD ❑RIVE 0 51 SITL DMANCL MITHIT 42.37' OF WTIH CROSSWALK ENCROACH MENT ING YNGTH suxc r.i9' INGLEW000 PRIME �rt � \ r 5 SITE DISTANCE EXHIBIT 42.3r OF Wm10I1TCROSSWALKMCROA(liA1F.NT NING IMVrH SfiLE 1'-19' u SlWC"�ELSB�BLO� 01 `� Al9P5WIF LWN11%, rcwmr. m.teo New (Rev. 1) 27. Revise C-1 sheet index to list parking garage layout, landscape and lighting plans. Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069 Thank you SDP2020-00024 Stonefield Block D-1 FSP 052320revl of At&, Q FyP t' �11 x COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 June 16, 2020 Mr. Alan Wong Mitchell Matthews 300 Twin Sycamore Lane Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: ARB-20194: ARB-2020-56: Stonefield D1 (TMP 061 WO-03-00-019AO) Dear Mr. Wong, The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday, June 15, 2020. The Board unanimously approved the request, pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions: 1. Confirm with staff that proposed colors are consistent with the renderings. 2. Identify the material and color of the site walls shown in the elevation drawings. 3. Revise the lighting plans to include a complete luminaire schedule. Identify all options for proposed fixtures, including finish, wattage, color temperature (not to exceed 3000K), mounting height etc. 4. Make all light fixture labels legible. 5. Reduce illumination to not exceed 20 fc at the ground. 6. Revise the lighting plans to indicate color temperatures for all proposed fixtures, not to exceed 3000K. 7. Revise the lighting plans to identify a consistent color/finish for all fixtures. 8. Revise the lighting plans to clearly show that pole -mounted fixtures will not exceed 20' in height, including any bases. 9. Include clearly identified utilities and easements on the landscape plan. Ensure coordination of landscaping with utilities and easements without reducing plant quantities. 10. Consider replacing the Miscanthus Sinensis with a locally native species. 11. Include the landscape and lighting plans as part of the overall site plan set. 12. Coordinate the site, demolition, and landscape plans regarding the trees to remain on Inglewood Drive. Show tree protection fencing. Please provide: 1. A full set of revised drawings, in paper and PDF formats, addressing each of these conditions. Include updated revision dates on each drawing. 2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. 3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Chief of Planning/Resource Management 434-296-5832 x3276 mmaliszewski@albemarle.org cc: OCT Stonefield Property Owner LLC 230 Royal Palm Way, Ste 200 Palm Beach, FL 33480 File County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Tori Kanellopoulos From: Kevin McCollum Division: Zoning Date: 6/23/2020 Subject: SDP202000024 — Stonefield Block D1 Final Site Plan • This development is only for Block D1 of Stonefield so there is no need to include the parking information on the first sheet. • Please include the Parking Analysis determination approved 2/26/2020 for reference. • Please include only the parking data for this site: o 220 units and 2034 square feet of retail • Per the Code of Development - The parking requirement (4.5 spaces / 1000 square feet of gross leasable area) for 2034 sf of retail is (2034 / 1000) * 4.5 = 9.153 spaces. This rounds down to 9 required parking spaces for retail. • Per the Code of Development and Section 4.12.6 - The parking requirement for the proposed number of residential units is: 0 14 studio apartments (1.5 spaces/unit, 1.25 spaces/unit if less than 500 square feet): 21 required spaces 0 126 one -bedroom apartments (1.5 spaces/unit): 189 required spaces 0 70 two -bed apartments (2.0 spaces/unit): 140 required spaces 0 10 three -bed apartments (2.0 spaces/unit): 20 required spaces o Total required spaces: 370 parking spaces • The total parking requirement for this development o Commercial Retail: 9 parking spaces o Residential: 370 parking spaces o Total: 379 required parking spaces • The Applicant has proposed providing 347 parking spaces total. This is a reduction of 32 spaces, or an 8.44% reduction. o 379 — 347 = 32 parking spaces Zoning Review Comments for SDP202000024 • Zoning agrees with the analysis in the letter "Ref: Stonefield Block D1 — Parking Reduction Request," dated 6/8/2020 that there will be sufficient parking given this reduction. • Zoning approves the proposed parking reduction and the total of 347 provided parking spaces. • Any change in parking counts will require additional Zoning approval.