Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000024 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-07-24� AI ?"h �IRGRTF COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Project: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Plan received date: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) Date of comments: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) Reviewer: Project Coordinator: Site Plan review Stonefield, Block D-1, Final John Beirne, P.E., W W Associates / 968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 Charlottesville, VA 22911 [ ibeirne(a wwassociates.net ] OCT Stonefield Property Owner, LLC, 230 Royal Palm Way, Suite 200 Palm Beach, FL, 33480 [ odesai(d�oconnorcu.com ] 18 Mar 2020 18 May 2020 13 Jul 2020 15 Apr 2020 23 May 2020 24 Jul 2020 John Anderson Tori Kanellopoulos 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 Cl-IV Final Site Plan (WP02011-00055), dated June 20, 2011, approved 10/24/11, on sheet CC=1. (FSP) Comment persists. Please revise CC=1 Notes 4 and 5 (text image below) for accuracy 4. REFER TO 'STONEFIELD TOWN CENTER FINAL SITE PLAN AMENDMENT' 2011-00065; WPO 2014-00059) AND 'STONERELD BUILDING CI—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 plan references (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As ollow-uj2: Edit Note 8 to read SDP2011-00047 rather than WPO 2011-00047, Also, New (Rev. 1) this page (list WP02020-00016). (Rev. 2) Addressed. SDP2011-00065 (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. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 7 2. Include reference to WPO2011-00055, 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 WPO2011-00055. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 3. Revise C_1 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: (Rev. 2) a, b, c, below, persist. Applicant response, 7/8/20 letter: `Noted.' 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). (FSP) Addressed 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. ref to recorded Agreement with WPO2011-00055 Amendment Application /submittal. (FSP) Addressed. 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. C12. Also: item 24, below. 8. C=6: Show Ex. Filterra graphically to approx. true dimensions (Ex. Filterra, as shown, is —F 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, C=7 Demolition Plan: `Contractor shall provide shoring to protect embankment as retaining wall is removed. Contractor shall provide shoring plans to [ design] Engineer for approval.' [W W Associates, FOR] (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. CC9: 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 Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 7 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 are easily identifiable across plans (SDP201900057, WPO2011-0005, WP02011- 00055 Amendment). (FSP) Addressed. C-8: 16. Parking structure (internal to building): Note: Asfollow-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 aprofile 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, 16c. 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'f, 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 b. C. 1.1 e. g Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 7 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) Addressed. Applicant: `The sidewalk has been revised to provide separation between the sidewalk and the vehicles exiting from the parking garage.' 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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted. The sidewalk has been revised to provide separation between the sidewalk and the vehicles exiting from the parking garage.' 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 ollaw-uj2: 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.Q.iv.i., below. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `As discussed at our 12/6/19 meeting the architect intends to add mirrors internal to the parking garage.' 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.' 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.' 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.' 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: ILL CROSSWALK 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. Applicant: `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 pedestrian/s prior to proceeding to the next stop point, where operator obtains sight on Inglewood Drive. (FSP) Withdrawn. Also, 16.2.iv.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 16-2iv.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.' I. 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.iv.c., 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, Fig. 12 (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, C=8. 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 20. 21 22 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.' vnuu NEW ELECTRICAL �4,,*. 30 GENERATOR ER / _ III I LW If parallel space., revise design per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B(1), pg. B(1)-59, Curb Extensions, Fig : (FSP) Addressed. [ image removed with Rev. 1 comments] 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.). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Only one roof drain leader is provided.' 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. 24. 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 1:15 (6.67 percent).' C12: 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 stone events to the North UGD system.' As ollaw-u : Review profile, C12. Revise graphic portion or labels for consistency: identical INV OUT but different elevations in Qraphic portion of profile. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 10+00 10+30 11+00 o+30 12+ 12+30 13+ 13+•A 14+00 14+: Engineering Review Comments Page 7 of 7 25. CC10: Two civil details are oblique /images distorted (CG-6, ME frame and cover). Please revise. (Rev. 1) Addressed, 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.Q.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. W W Associates' Exhibit, 5/21/20, titled Stonefield Block DI Parking Garage Site Distance Exhibit (red dimension lines added by county engineering), d�ry ON 1 9 r \\ it IM"MON MWO�0 0-0- ®W!1® s m I R=����� °== o� ,o©o New (Rev.1) 27. Revise C-1 sheet index to list parking garage layout, landscape and lighting plans. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069 Thank you SDP2020-00024 Stonefield Block D-1 ESP 072420rev2