HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201100019 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2011-06-13ALg�,��
�'IRGINZ�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: SDP - 2011 - 00019, Stonefield (Albemarle Place) Preliminary Site Plan
Plan preparer: Mr. Herb White; W &W Associates
Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
Date received: 21 March 2011
(Rev. l) 25 April 2011 (traffic study received 1 June 2011)
Date of Comment: 12 April 2011
(Rev. 1) 13 June 2011
Engineer: Phil Custer
The first revision to the Preliminary Site Plan for Stonefield (Albemarle Place), received on 25 April 2011,
has been reviewed. I have divided the comments into items that are needed before I can recommend
approval of the preliminary site plan and comments the applicant must address for the review of the final
site plan. When what is normally a final site plan comment could have a considerable impact to the
preliminary plan layout, I have included it within the preliminary comments.
Engineering review can recommend approval to the preliminary site plan after the following comments are
addressed:
1. It seems that the applicant has provided the Ultimate Buildout sheets for the benefit of the
Planning Department's consideration of a variation that is yet to be submitted. This preliminary
site plan cannot be approved until the variation is approved by the Planning Department. Once all
variation issues are settled (prior to approval of the preliminary site plan), the Ultimate Buildout
sheets should be eliminated and all variation approval letters should be incorporated into the site
plan set. [18- 32.5.6.a] Current Development Engineering's review will only focus on the
preliminary site plan currently being proposed (excluding Sheets 7 -11 and 18).
(Rev. 1) Comment has been withdrawn. The phased sheets may remain in the set as is.
2. County Engineering has identified smaller items which may not be identified by the Planning
Department that also need to be considered in the review of the variation:
a. The plan does not show Second Street. Even if a variation is granted, an extension where
Second Street had been is needed to comply with Proffer 13. Please raise the elevation in
this area so that a street of no greater than 10% is needed to make the connection to
Commonwealth Drive or submit a rezoning amendment to modify this proffer.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
b. The green and adjacent plaza between buildings C5 and C6 shown on the application plan
and referred to on page 9 of the COD appears to have been removed. The green was
dimensioned as 30ft by 140ft (4200sf) on the application plan.
(Rev. 1) This variation has been granted by the Director of Planning.
c. The green, fountain, and plaza between buildings D1 and D2 shown on the application
plan and referred to on page 9 of the COD appears to have been removed. This seems to
have been intended as the principle public area within the project. It's not clear that the
residue land around the hotel will serve the same purpose.
(Rev. I) This variation has been granted by the Director of Planning.
d. The area and effectiveness of the planting buffer along the western edge of the property
has significantly been reduced from what was shown on the application plan. Currently,
there is 12ft from the rear of most retaining walls to the property line. This buffer area
was drawn close to 30ft in width on the application plan. The county's current landscape
screening standard is 20ft to establish two staggered rows of evergreens. There is
available space to plant trees beneath these walls but this would likely interfere with the
building itself and drainage behind the buildings. It will also be less effective than if the
trees were at the top of the wall. This is discussed on page 18 of the COD.
(Rev. 1) The Director of Planning has granted a variation to the plan to allow a
reduced buffer area of 10ft along the western property line provided "any site plan
requirements that might be applicable, including screening of objectionable features" is
considered. This ruling is very confusing because the Zoning Ordinance Standard the
Director of Planning alluded to requires 20ft of landscape screening or some
combination approved by the agent. Engineering review will yield to the Current
Development Planner for the interpretation of this variation and what the screening
requirements will be when the final site plans are reviewed.
e. The extension of Swanson Drive into the Sperry Marine property appears to have been
ignored in the current iteration of the plan. This is also a proffered requirement.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
f. North and South Main Streets have been eliminated. Any variation granted by the
Planning Department should stipulate what the design standard for New Main Street
between Stonefield Blvd. and Inglewood Drive should be.
(Rev. 1) This variation has been approved and the Director of Planning has stated the
design "is permissible as depicted."
g. Retention ponds will no longer be used in the long term Stormwater Management Plan.
(Rev. 1) Planning has not objected to the removal of the stormwater management
ponds and the Director of Community Development has conditionally approved the
underground stormwater management facilities. This is no longer an issue.
h. A bus stop does not appear to be provided anywhere on the plan. The original application
plan showed a stop on Hydraulic Road.
(Rev. 1) This is not a concern to the Planning Department.
i. Stonefield Boulevard has been reduced to a two lane road for a considerable portion of its
section. Table II within the Code of Development stipulated that this road would be 4
lanes.
(Rev. 1) The Director of Planning has stated this variation is acceptable on the
condition that the County Engineer and VDOT approve the modification. A Traffic
Impact Analysis was provided to the County on June Is`. A separate response to this
document will be provided at a later date. At this moment there is not enough
information in the traffic analysis for engineering to approve a reduced section of
Stonefield Blvd. to the intersection with Third Street.
j. The Code of Development (Table II and page 27) indicates that during the rezoning
application process it was never determined which streets were to be dedicated to VDOT
and which streets were to be privately maintained. In the latest submittal, the applicant
has only provided 1 street (Stonefield Blvd.) to be dedicated to public use. The Director
of Community Development, Mark Graham, has stated to me that this is acceptable.
However, to keep track of this decision, the variation provided by the Planning
Department should identify Stonefield Blvd. (Cedar Hill Extended and 4`h) as the only
public street within this development. All other streets (First, Second, Third, Inglewood,
Swanson, and New Main) were reviewed below as private.
(Rev. 1) The Director of Planning, in his response to the applicant's variation request,
stated that Stonefield Blvd. is acceptable as the development's only public street but is
subject to the review under applicable ordinance provisions. While private streets in the
3
H
commercial districts can normally be approved administratively, this cannot be done
when the private street connects two public streets [14- 234.0.41, as New Main Street is
currently doing. If New Main Street is made a public street, then Swanson would be
violating this ordinance provision in a similar manner. Because of this restriction on
private streets, the private road network will need to be authorized by the Planning
Commission (or a modification to Wayne's variation letter citing Table II could
eliminate the need for Planning Commission review). This can be done when the first
road plan is submitted for review.
This development has gone through a few iterations since it was first approved by the Board of
Supervisors. At each phase, an internal traffic study /analysis of the internal streets and
intersections was provided. The last version of the traffic study was dated October 14"' 2005 to
account for the changes in the uses in each of the blocks and street grid in the Preliminary Site
Plan submitted by The Cox Company (SDP- 2005 - 00122). In order for the current site plan to be
approved, this Internal Traffic Assessment must be updated using the latest "Ultimate Buildout"
traffic generation figures. Modifications to the intersections and building footprints shown on the
site plan may be necessary based on the findings of such a study. [18- 32.7.2, 18- 32.7.2.7, and 18-
32.5.6.s]
(Rev. 1) A traffic, trip generation, and intersection analysis was provided on June P
Engineering comments from this document will be provided at a later date. The general
alignment of the buildings and roadways seem to have the approval of the Director of
Community Development and the Director of Planning and the preliminary site plan can be
approved on the condition that concerns not alleviated by study will need to be addressed at the
stages of final site plan and road construction.
All streets within this development other than Stonefield Blvd. will be reviewed as private streets
(see comment 2.j). The standards for private streets [18- 32.7.3 and 14- 412.B] are variable and
subject to the discretion of the agent, the Chief of Current Development. Once the update to the
internal traffic analysis /study is submitted, the county will set the standards for these roads. Most
of these standards can be enforced at the time the final site and road plans are submitted. For
preliminary site plan approval, please make the follow corrections to the streets:
a. For all street cross - sections, please include the design speed of the road. Please keep in
mind the speeds listed in Table 11 of the COD. Please include any needed modification in
the variation request to the Planning Department. The design speeds will be confirmed or
commented on once the updated internal traffic study is provided (Comment 3).
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
b. Please remove the perpendicular parking on Inglewood Drive.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
c. For all entrances onto the streets in Table II of COD, sight distance must be measured
using the method detailed on page B(1) -20 of the Road Design Manual. The point of
analysis must be 20ft from the centerline of the closest through lane. For entrances onto
Stonefield Drive, a SDL of 300ft and SDR of 315ft are needed. For entrances onto streets
with a design speed of 20mph, a sight distance of 225ft is needed. For entrances onto
streets with a design speed of 15mph, sight distance of 170ft is needed.
(Rev. 1) There appears to be no sight distance concerns shown within the plan.
However, the parking garage entrance onto Inglewood Drive appears to have
obstructed sight lines. This issue will be resolved in the review of the final site plan
when the garage is developed.
d. North and South Main Streets have been eliminated. Any variation granted by the
Planning Department should stipulate what the design standard for New Main Street will
be between Inglewood Drive and Stonefield Boulevard.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
e. New Main Street must be crowned with runoff directed to curb inlets. The private lanes
and alleys are the only travelways where grate inlets can be used in the middle of the
pavement (Table II, Code of Development). Replace the truncated dome strips with CG -6
or CG -2. If the applicant wishes to keep this design concept within the plan, please
include it in the variation request. County engineering will likely not recommend that this
street section be approved by the Planning Department.
(Rev. 1) The Director of Planning has granted a variation to allow the curbless section
on Main Street on the condition that the County Engineer approves the section. After
further review, Engineering cannot approve the curbless section over concerns with
construction, maintenance, snow /sleet /freezing rain, and pedestrian safety.
The ROW line for Stonefield Blvd. will need to be widened to include all of the clear
zone.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
All of the streets ( Stonefield, First, Second, Third, Inglewood, Swanson, and New Main) must
include planting strips. [18- 32.7.2.3 and 14 -410] In areas of high pedestrian use (around New
Main Street, for instance), the planting strip can be reduced to simply a 6ft wide planter box at
each street tree. The sidewalks must also conform to streetscaping table of Appendix B. It
appears in many instances the sidewalk and planting area widths are not acceptable:
a. Planter boxes are shown as 5ft wide in many places. Please increase this width to 6ft and
show the planters in each street section, where applicable.
(Rev. 1) The Director of Planning has granted a variation to allow for 5ft wide planting
strips and planter boxes.
b. There should be at least 14ft behind each curb along New Main Street which yields a
building to building distance of 69ft when two lanes of parallel parking are provided. The
current proposed distance is —62ft. In the application plan, this distance was 73ft. In the
previously approved preliminary site plan, this distance was 83ft.
(Rev. 1) This comment was made assuming a 6ft wide planting strip would be required
and the 8ft minimum sidewalk strip would be required. It is my understanding that
variation #14 does not apply to this section of the development and the 8ft minimum is
still required. However, the Director of Planning did grant a variation to allow 5ft
planter boxes. So now, only 13ft from the back of the curb to the building face is
needed. Currently, the plan is in compliance.
c. The planting strips along Swanson Drive are only 5ft wide.
(Rev. 1) The Director of Planning has granted a variation to allow for 5ft wide planting
strips and planter boxes.
d. A minimum of 14ft behind each curb is needed along Swanson Drive.
(Rev. 1) This comment was made assuming a 6ft wide planting strip would be required
and the 8ft minimum sidewalk strip would be required. It is my understanding that
variation #14 does not apply to this section of the development and the 8ft minimum is
still required. However, the Director of Planning did grant a variation to allow 5ft
planter boxes and strips. So now, only 13ft from the back of the curb to the building
face is needed. Currently, the plan is in compliance.
e. The planting strip has been eliminated for a portion of the east side of Inglewood Drive.
(Rev. 1) It is my understanding that his variation has been denied.
f. The planting strip along Inglewood Drive is drawn at 5ft wide.
(Rev. 1) The Director of Planning has granted a variation to allow for 5ft wide planting
strips and planter boxes.
g. The sidewalk on the east side of Inglewood Drive must be 8ft wide because it is adjacent
to commercial development.
(Rev. 1) Variation 14 has allowed this section of development to use 5ft sidewalks as
long as bumper blocks are used in the adjacent parking spaces if vehicles can overhang
into the pedestrian area.
h. Sidewalks are missing on the north side of First and Third Street.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
i. Planting strips are missing on both sides of First and Third Street.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
If the applicant wishes to not provide any of the standards detailed above, please include the
necessary modification in the variation request. The approved rezoning plan and the previously
approved preliminary site plan appeared to honor these road sections.
6. Internal sight distance within parking lots must be 100ft when the point of analysis is loft from the
edge of the curb of the intersected travelway. In this southwest area, smaller buildings and larger
distances between buildings will be necessary to achieve the 100ft sight distance. The limited
sight distance naturally occurring on the internal travelways is compounded by the proximity of the
garages to the travelway. When backing out of the garages, safe sight distances will not be
available until the vehicle is across the center of the travelway. The plan is also lacking
satisfactory pedestrian provisions for walking around this community as well as interconnections
to the surrounding areas. For these reasons, I recommend to the Planning Department that the
variation not be approved until a safer layout is provided. If the Planning Department does grant
the variation for the current layout, the Zoning Administrator will need to approve the reduced
sight distances within the plan through the procedure outlined in 18- 4.12.2.c.
(Rev. 1) The current layout of the condo /townhouse block is unacceptable. There is a safety
concern with vehicles backing out of the garage and not seeing vehicles within the travelway. A
minimum of 9ft will be needed from the edge of the travelway to the garage door in order to
satisfy county concerns. Also, the plan does not provide an acceptable sidewalk network for
pedestrians to safely walk between buildings on site. Before the final site plan is designed for
this area, I recommend that the applicant meet with the county to determine what changes to
the layout would address these concerns. [18- 32.7.2.8, 18- 32.7.2.7]
7. Generally, parking garages cannot meet many of the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. It looks
as though sight distance [18- 4.12.15.d.] and "protective barriers and design" [18- 4.12.15.f] will be
an issue inside the garage. Parking is usually covered by a curb at the end of a parking row. In the
case of garages, parking spaces protected by a column or bollard would meet this standard, but it
does not look like this has been provided. Please request a waiver of these design standards to the
Zoning Administrator through 18- 4.12.2.c.
(Rev. 1) This issue will be addressed during the review of the final site plan.
8. One more future extension to the Sperry Marine Property (in addition to the Swanson Drive
connection) must be provided to comply with Proffer 13.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
9. Third Street is consistently mislabeled throughout the plan. It is labeled as First Street on Sheet 16
and Second Street on all other sheets (7, 11, 18, and 19).
(Rev. 1) The Director of Planning has granted a variance to allow the latest layout, which
shows First and Third (labeled Second) Streets.
10. Many of the parking spaces throughout the site are drawn as 8.5ft wide, which is 6inches smaller
than the standard in the County Ordinance. Please revise the drawing so 9ft parking spaces are
provided or request a waiver to the Zoning Administrator per 18- 4.12.2.c. [18- 4.12.16.c.1]
(Rev. 1) A waiver has been requested to the Zoning Administrator.
11. The slope in the parking lot east of Building E2 -III is greater than the maximum slope of 5 %.
Please revise the grading or request a waiver to the Zoning Administrator per 18- 4.12.2.c. Please
check other areas of the site to make sure this standard is not violated elsewhere. [18- 4.12.15.c]
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
12. It is evident that the Zoning Administrator will need to waive certain requirements of 18- 4.12.13
per 18- 4.12.13.f in order for the proposed layout to be authorized. The current proposed site plan
has been modified from the original application plan in such as way as to eliminate most of the
service areas that would generally be used for loading and dumpster pads. For the most part, these
uses now appear to be incorporated within the parking lots and, overall, less area appears to be
dedicated for these functions than might be necessary. According to the equation detailed in 18-
4.12.13.c, 17 loading spaces are needed for 310,OOOsf of Gross Leasable Area; only 12 loading
spaces appear to have been provided. Please label each loading space on the plan.
This section of the ordinance also stipulates that, when provided, dumpsters should not "impede
any required parking or loading spaces, nor any pedestrian or vehicular circulation aisles." In
nearly all cases, it looks as though the dumpster is placed behind a loading space. The
loading /dumpster pad also consistently disrupts pedestrian circulation on sidewalks. This standard
would also need to be waived by the Zoning Administrator in order for this plan to be acceptable.
(Rev. 1) The first revision to the preliminary site plan made significant improvements with
regard to the loading and dumpster areas and their association with the sidewalks. There may
still be some improvements necessary. Each building, loading space, dumpster area, and
adjacent sidewalk will be reviewed in greater detail when the final site plan is submitted.
13. Please provide better pedestrian access to the parking garage /theater directly from Swanson Drive
and Stonefield Boulevard. [18- 32.7.2.8]
(Rev. 1) A sidewalk and crosswalk area will be needed to Cedar Hill Drive.
14. Please regrade the areas south of E2 -II so that a sump condition is not present.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
The applicant should keep in mind that the following comments will likely need to be addressed when the
final site plan is submitted. A full review of the final site plan issues has not performed. Again, the
following comments do not need to be addressed upon resubmittal of the preliminary site plan:
1. The final site plan(s) should be drawn at 20 scale, unless otherwise approved by the agent. [18-
32.5.5, 18- 32.6.51
2. When sidewalk abuts perpendicular parking spaces, the width must be 6ft, exclusive of curb,
unless bumper blocks are provided in the parking space.
3. The design of the horizontal and vertical elements of the three street connections (First, Second,
and Third) will be needed at the final site plan submittal for the county to be assured the
surrounding infrastructure (walls, buildings, etc.) will not be disrupted during construction of these
connections by others.
4. All standard county notes will need to be updated. The latest version of these notes can be found
in the Design Manual, available online.
5. I anticipate that the grading around the movie theatre will likely need to be revised to provide for
emergency egress from nearly all sides.
6. A guardrail appears to be needed at the southeast corner of the property above the retaining walls
along Hydraulic and Inglewood Drive. The VDOT ROW will need to be extended to lft behind
the state maintained element (guardrail or sidewalk).
7. Supplemental SWM facilities will be needed throughout the project in order for the SWM plan to
achieve the required removal rate.
8. The county and VDOT have approved a plan prepared by the applicant entitled "Albemarle Place
Road Improvement" (WPO- 2010 - 00059, formerly WPO- 2008 - 00068), which appeared to address
the improvements depicted in Exhibit F and required by Proffer 7. After reviewing this plan, it
seems that items 4, 9, and 11 have not been included. This comment is simply noting the status of
this proffer. It appears that item 4, 9, and 11 may be considered part of "offsite improvements"
covered by Proffer 8 which would need to be requested by the county. Please note that the Zoning
Administrator "may require these improvements to be completed as a prerequisite to the issuance
of any certificates of occupancy."
9. Please remove the storm drain from underneath the parking garage. This pipe should be taken
through the courtyard and connected to the drainage system underneath New Main Street.
File: E2_psp_PBC_sdp201100019 Albemarle Place - Stonefield.doc
AI "'� lli-2 .
�y 3'
COUNT
Y OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
06/13/2011
Herbert F. White
WW Associates
3040 Albemarle Square Place
Charlottesville, VA, 22911
RE: SDP - 2011 -00019 Stonefield Preliminary Site Plan
Dear Sir:
The Department of Community Development hereby grants administrative approval to the above
referenced site plan.
The approval of the preliminary site plan is valid for (1) one year in accordance with Section 32.4.3.1 of
Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code. Therefore, the preliminary approval shall expire on
06/13/2012. If the preliminary site plan approval expires, a new application must be filed and processed.
Please address all of the requirements and conditions listed below and submit eight (8).tentative plan
copies to the Department of Community Development. This letter must be submitted with the tentative
plans, as a checklist, to document that you have addressed all requirements or conditions, or the tentative
plan will be denied.
Erosion and Sediment Control, BMP Stormwater Management, and road plans with the associated
applications and fees must also be submitted with the eight (8) tentative Plans.
Once the tentative plan is submitted and reviewed you will receive comments from all
departments /divisions /agencies that have made comment on the tentative plan. Any further
responses must be made directly to each department /division /agency that has further comment.
After all aforementioned departments /divisions /agencies have granted a tentative approval, you
must verify with the Planner that you may submit the final mylars (2 sets), two paper copies, the
final site plan application, and final site plan fee to the Department of Community Development.
Signing of the plans will occur within one week once it is determined that the final site plan mylars
reflect all tentative approvals.
The final site plan will be subject to all final site plan requirements (Zoning Ordinance Section 32.6), in
addition to the following conditions.
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature
until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained:
Zonine & Current Development approval to include:
❑. All pending variation requests must be addressed and approvals given by the Director of
Planning before final site plans are submitted.
❑ The Zoning Administrator must act on the 8.5 -foot parking space width reduction waiver
before final site plans are submitted.
❑ Minimum buffer area regulation details (request to change the width of the buffer area at
the western edge of the project property line at select locations to ten (10) feet). in relation
to variation, #15, will be worked out at the final site plan stage. The buffer is located next
to the Commonwealth Townhouses.
❑ The submitted /pending proffer amendment must be approved before final site plan
approval is granted.
❑ Bus and transit stop locations will be finalized at the final site plan stage.
❑ [Section 18- 4- 12.13] Further review of loading space locations will be done with each
final site plan submittal. Loading spaces shall be designed so as not to impede any
required parking spaces, or any pedestrian or vehicular circulation.
❑ All final site plan submittals must comply with the content requirements found in
[section 18 -32.6] of the Zoning Ordinance.
Please contact Gerald Gatobu at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3385 if you have questions or require additional
information.
Engineering approval to include:
❑ [17 -200 thru 17 -215] Intermediate ESC plans to protect the site during construction of
each individual final site plan
❑ [Proffer 131 The raising of the travelway west of building E2 -III so that a street
connection of 10% can be made to Commonwealth Drive or approval of an amendment
to the rezoning plan to eliminate this requirement in Proffer 13
❑ [Compliance with the application plan] Approval of the traffic analysis justifying the
reduced width on Stonefield Blvd. close to the intersection with Third Street
❑ [14- 234.C.4] Planning Commission private street authorization for Main St. or a
modification to the Director of Planning's variation response letter authorizing Main St.
as a private street
❑ [14- 410,18- 4.12.15.h, Compliance with application plan] The removal of the
perpendicular parking on Inglewood Drive and the extension of the normal road section
(5ft planting strip and sidewalk) from Main Street to Third Street
❑ [18- 32.7.2,18- 4.12.17.b] Establishment of sight distance for the parking garage's exit
onto Inglewood Drive
❑ [Code of Development, 14-410, 14-412.B ] Main Street must be designed using a crown
and curb - and -gutter section
❑ [14 -410] The addition of 5ft planting strips along all sections of First and Third Streets
❑ [18- 32.7.2.8,18- 32.7.2.7] The townhome /condominium block in the southwest corner
must be redesigned to provide 9ft from the edge of the travelway to the garage of each
unit and better pedestrian access
❑ [18- 32.7.2.8] A sidewalk and crosswalk across the travelway will be needed from the
movie theater parking garage to Stonefield Blvd.
❑ [14- 412.B, VDOT Standards] Engineering approval of all private street plans
❑ [Chapter 17, Chapter 18, and Design Manual] Compliance with all engineering items
of the Water Protection Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, and State Law
For further clarification, please see the second engineering comment letter, available online. Please
contact Phil Custer at 434 - 296 -5832 (x3072) if you have questions or require additional information.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) approval to include:
❑ Sewer capacity is not available until the Meadow Creek Interceptor work is complete.
❑ Sanitary Sewer can't run under theater (C1 -IV) since it serves more than one customer.
❑ 12" ACSA Waterline along 29 South is abandoned. 8" ACSA Waterline along 29 South
will not support development. You will have to coordinate with RWSA to tie into 18"
RWSA Waterline in Route 29 median.
❑ Add waterline connection at Inglewood Drive to 10" D.I.P. ACSA waterline to loop water
system in development.
❑ When available, ACSA would like to review overall utility plan for development.
❑ We met with WW Associates at the ACSA offices on April 26, 2011 to discuss
comments and concerns. We are currently awaiting 3 sets of sewer and water plans from
WW Associates to review.
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) has reviewed the preliminary site
plans for Stonefield dated 3/21/2011 and has the followine comments:
❑ Sheets 8 & 13 show a proposed water connection to an existing 12" ACSA waterline.
Our records indicate that this connection may not be viable, as this 12" line appears to
have been abandoned. Previous submissions for Albemarle Place showed two
connections to the 18" RWSA waterline in Route 29. Please verify the locations of
existing utilities and the points) of connection for water service.
❑ Phase I of Albemarle Place will produce well over 40,000 gallons average daily sewage
flow, requiring a capacity certification from RWSA. Per previous correspondence
between RWSA and Albemarle County, RWSA will not be able to accept new flows
from this development until the new Meadowcreek Interceptor is online.
Please contact Alexander Morrison (ACSA) at 434 - 977 74511 and Victoria Fort (RWSA) at
434.977.2970 ext. 205 if you have questions or require additional information.
Fire & Rescue approval to include:
❑ Final approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Must comply with the
Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code.
Please contact James Barber at 434 - 296 -5833 if you have questions or require additional information.
VDOT approval to include:
❑ The connection of Swanson to Hydraulic Road was give a design exception to the VDOT
spacing requirements based on certain conditions. The Hydraulic Road plan is currently
under review and comments were sent by VDOT and the conditions have not necessarily
been met. Final approval of the plan should be considered conditional upon meeting the
VDOT requirements of the spacing exception.
❑ The four way stops on Stonefield Blvd. are under review at VDOT and may require
revisions if the four way stop condition is not approved by VDOT. I do not expect that
the building layout would require modifications if changes are required for the traffic._
patterns.
❑ An analysis has been submitted to VDOT for the internal traffic patterns and is currently
under review. Revisions may be required to the road sections based on this review.
❑ Road and Drainage plans will be required for Stonefield Blvd. Any revisions that are
needed from comments 1 to 3 should be able to be addressed with the road plan.
Please contact Joel DeNunzio at 434 -589 -5871 if you have questions or require additional information.
ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT/DIVISION /AGENCY approval to include:
Geoeraphic and Data Services: E -911 Addressine (Andrew Slack)
❑ THE FOLLOWING ROAD NAMES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE ROAD NAMES:
STONEFIELD BOULVARD, MAIN STREET, FIRST STREET, AND SECOND
STREET.
❑ ON THE PLANS THE NAMES "INGLEWOOD DRIVE" AND "SWANSON DRIVE"
NAMES ARE SHOWN EXTENDING THE EXISTING STREETS. "CEDAR HILL
ROAD" IS AN EXISTING ROAD NAME AS WELL AND SHOULD BE USED IN
PLACE OF " STONEFIELD BOULVARD" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ROAD
NAMING AND PROPERTY NUMBERING ORDINANCE.. THE DEVELOPER
SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) PROPOSED
ROAD NAMES TO REPLACE THE OTHER NAMES LISTED ABOVE.
Please contact Andy Slack at 434 - 296 -5832 ext 3384 if you have questions or require additional
information.
Architectural Review Board Comments (Margaret Maliszewski)
In addition to the previous comments (copied below), an additional feature of the plan
has been noted as a potential issue for the ARB: The concrete screen and retaining walls.
EC guidelines state that 'Retaining walls 6 feet in height and taller, when necessary, shall
be terraced and planted to blend with the landscape." Also, for all walls visible from the
Entrance Corridor, the wall material is subject to ARB review. An appropriate finish
material for the walls will be required.
This site falls with the Route 29 and Hydraulic Road Entrance Corridors. ARB approval
is required prior to final site plan approval, but the applicant is encouraged to begin the
ARB preliminary review process as soon as possible. SDP - 2011 -19 dated 3 -21 -11 has not
been reviewed for the ARB; however, some features of the plan have been noted as
potential issues for the ARB: the appearance of the interim stormwater management
facility, the lack of utility -free landscape area along the ECs, the EC streetscape treatment
of Block D with the retaining walls. The applicant is encouraged to address these issues
in the ARB submittal, and to submit a preliminary landscape plan that is coordinated
with, and clearly illustrates, utilities as soon as possible.
Please contact Margaret Maliszewski at 434 - 296 -5832 ext 3276 if you have questions or require
additional information.
Sincerely,
Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner
Current Development Division
File: SDP - 2011 -19
Cc:
4
�IIIIII�•I► "
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald Gatobu
FROM: Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
DATE: May 16, 2011
RE: Albemarle Place (Stonefield) Preliminary Site Plan, March 21, 2011
Determinations Under Section 8.5.5.3
Section 8.5.5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Director of Planning to allow a site plan to vary
from an approved general development plan or code of development in the Neighborhood Model
District if, among other provisions, the director determines that the variation is in general accord
with the purpose and intent of the approved application plan and code. The following is an analysis
of certain features previously identified or currently being requested to vary from the approved
application plan and code as they relate to the current site plan (dated March 21, 2011). Features
consistent with the plan and code or variations allowable under Section 8.5.5.3 are so noted.
Theater Location and Relationship to Hydraulic Road (Previously addressed in 5/25/06
variation)
The proposed relocation of the theater from the southwest corner of the site to a location along
Hydraulic Road east of Cedar Hill Road varies from the application plan that prescribes townhouses
along this portion of Hydraulic Road. The intent of the townhouses was to "activate" this edge of
the project and provide a visible transition from Hydraulic Road, an Entrance Corridor, to the back
of the department store proposed in the application plan. Staff has previously indicated that the
applicant needs to demonstrate that the proposed changes will be a suitable design substitute for
the townhouse units shown on the application plan, most particularly to the satisfaction of the ARB.
This is an allowable variation provided that all ARB conditions are complied with.
Second Floor Uses (Previously addressed in 5/25/06 Variation)
The application plan illustrated uses on both the first floor and upper levels throughout the project.
While vertical mixed use would be a positive and desirable feature of this development, it was not a
requirement of the application plan and code. Thus, the site plan is considered consistent.
Block A (Previously noted in 9/28/09 Advisory Comments)
Parking lots adjacent to Rt. 29 and Hydraulic Rd. in the initial plan are to be relegated (that is that it
is not any closer to the street than the front line of the buildings along the street) and /or screened
to the satisfaction of the ARB.
Block B (Previously noted in 9/28/09 Advisory Comments)
Parking lots adjacent to Rt. 29 in the initial plan are to be relegated (that is that it is not any closer
to the street than the front line of the buildings along the street) and /or screened to the satisfaction
of the ARB.
Block C (Previously noted in 9/28/09 Advisory Comments)
Please refer to theater location and relationship to Hydraulic Rd. above. Also, note that the Code
of Development says minimum 2 stories (up to 5) except for restaurants, outdoor cafes and retail
kiosks in Block C.
Block E
Note 3/12/07 variation, if still applicable (attached).
4129/11 Variation Requests:
#s 1, 2 and 3 — Changes to the location, design, layout, size and orientation of each plaza, civic,
open and green space are granted consistent with the findings under Section 8.5.5.3 (c.) as you have
presented and are permissible as depicted.
#s 4, 5 and 6 — Modifications to allow for the width of sidewalks, planting strips and planters can
be granted consistent with the findings under Section 8.5.5.3 (c.) as you have presented subject to: a
minimum sidewalk width of 5' between planting strips /boxes and the interior edge of sidewalks; no
parking overhang onto sidewalks in parking lots next to sidewalks; and all planting strips /boxes
located between edge of street and sidewalk and a minimum of 5'.
#7 — Change to the design of Stonefield Blvd. from a four (4) lane section to a (2) lane section as
noted can be granted consistent with the findings under Section 8.5.5.3 (c.) as you have presented
subject to County Engineer /VDOT approval based on applicable traffic studies.
#8 — Change to the layout and orientation of parking spaces along Inglewood Drive such that the
spaces are oriented perpendicular to Inglewood cannot be granted as Inglewood will function as a
parallel street to the narrowed Stonefield Blvd. (see #7 above) and such parking is not in general
accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning for the Albemarle Place street system.
Parallel parking is desired, but it is possible for angled parking to be considered under County
regulations (provided this street is approved as a private street), dependent on the impact of the
angled parking to the functionality of the street based on applicable traffic studies.
#9 — Modification of Main St. design to allow curbless sections can be granted consistent with the
findings under Section 8.5.5.3 (c.) as you have presented subject to County Engineer approval.
2
#10 — Allowance of Stonefield Blvd. as the only road dedicated to public use within the project is an
option permitted on pages 28 and 29 of the Code of Development under "Street Classifications"
and is subject to review under applicable ordinance provisions.
#11 — Allowance of right -in turn from southbound Rt. 29 into Block B can be granted consistent
with the findings under Section 8.5.5.3 (c.) as you have presented subject to County
Engineer /VDOT approval based on applicable traffic studies.
#12 — Modification of the Block D and Block E boundaries is granted consistent with the findings
under Section 8.5.5.3 (c.) as you have presented and is permissible as depicted.
#13 — Allowance of six (6) story hotel as long as it is no taller than ninety (90) feet is granted
consistent with the findings under Section 8.5.5.3 (c.) as you have presented and is permissible as
depicted.
#14 — Modification to allow for 5' minimum sidewalks along exterior of rear of some buildings can
be granted consistent with the findings under Section 8.5.5.3 (c.) as you have presented subject to
no parking overhang onto sidewalks in parking lots next to sidewalks.
#15 — Changes to the width of the buffer area at the western edge of the project property to a
minimum of 10' can be granted consistent with the findings under Section 8.5.5.3 (c.) as you have
presented subject to compliance with the second paragraph on page 18 of the Code of
Development under "Exterior Landscaping and Visual Impact Mitigation" and any site plan
requirements that might be applicable, including screening of objectionable features.
5113111 Variation Request:
Replacement of North and South New Main Streets between Buildings D I and D2 with a single
road is granted consistent with the findings under Section 8.5.5.3 (c.) as presented and is permissible
as depicted.
Please note that development under this request is still subject to all other applicable zoning, site
plan and building permit provisions and these variations do not supersede those requirements.
II
COMMONWEALTH of VIRC NIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911
GREGORY A. WHIRLEY
COMMISSIONER
April 12`h, 2011
Mr. Glenn Brooks
Department of Engineering and Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments March 3, 2011 site review meeting
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the April 14"', 2011 Site Review Committee
Meeting:
SDP - 2011 -00019 Stonefield (Gerald Gatobu)
1. Road and drainage plans will need to be submitted and reviewed by VDOT. The road plans
may require changes to this site plan.
2. Projected traffic on Stonefield Blvd. needs to be added to the plan.
3. Stonefield Blvd. will need to be designed as an Urban Collector Road with a 25 mph design
speed.
4. Intersection sight distances are SDL =300' and SDR =315' in accordance with the VDOT Road
Design Manual, Appendix F, Table 2 -7. All sight distances shown on this site plan are 125'.
5. Warrants for the 4 -way stops along with the traffic analysis for the intersection treatments need
to be submitted and approved by VDOT. Changes to the plan will be required if the proposed
intersection treatments are not warranted or approved by VDOT.
6. The proposed right in/out on both sides of Stonefield Blvd. for building D1 -I and the first
parking lot will not adequately restrict left turns in and out of these entrances and will require
modification. A solution would be to extend the 4 foot median at least up to the first full
access intersection. The entrance on the east side is also too wide to either restrict traffic to
right in/out and does not meet the VDOT standards. Instead of hatching out the pavement, a
CG -3 should be used with a reinforced 7 inch concrete pad to allow truck traffic to use the exit.
7. If one or both of the four way stops are warranted and permitted by VDOT, modifications will
be required to ensure safe operation. Enough median width will be required for stop sign
placement for the left most lanes or the intersections need to be reduced to one approach lane
in all directions. A request has been made for VDOT Traffic Engineers to review the situation
and more information will be provided. Further traffic analysis will likely be required to
ensure adequate operations.
8. All entrances to Stonefield Blvd. need to be designed in accordance with section 4 of
Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual.
a. Entrance radii need to meet the minimum requirements of Table 4 -1 with a minimum
of 25 feet.
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
b. Entrance throats need to meet the requirements of Table 4 -2 in appendix F. Entrances
with a one lane egress require a 30' throat length and a two lane egress requires a 75'
throat length. The proposed Sperry security building is within the entrance throat.
c. The minimum width of entrances is 30' and this width needs to be continued for a
minimum distance of the length of the throat at each proposed entrance.
9. The clear zone needs to be in accordance with Table A -2 -1 of the VDOT Road Design Manual
for the projected volume of traffic and the proposed design speed. In a recent meeting with the
developer, it was indicated that there would 1500 -6000 VPD on this road and the
corresponding clear zone is 12 to 14 feet. 12 feet will be sufficient for this road due to its low
design and anticipated operating speed.
10. Sidewalks outside of the proposed right of way will need to be under maintenance agreement
between VDOT and Albemarle County.
11. Swanson Dr. should have a raised island median at the intersection with Hydraulic Rd. for the
placement of a stop sign.
Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you
have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the
applicants.
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Land Use Engineer
VDOT Land Development
434 -589 -5871
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
pF AL
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: SDP - 2011 - 00019, Stoneiield (Albemarle Place) Preliminary Site Plan
Plan preparer: Mr. Herb White; W &W Associates
Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
Date received: 21 March 2011
Date of Comment: 12 April 2011
Engineer: Phil Custer
The Preliminary Site Plan for Stoneiield (Albemarle Place), received on 21 March 2011, has been
reviewed. I have divided the comments into items that are needed before I can recommend approval of the
preliminary site plan and comments the applicant must address for the review of the final site plan. When
what is normally a final site plan comment could have a considerable impact to the preliminary plan layout,
I have included it within the preliminary comments.
Engineering review can recommend approval to the preliminary site plan after the following comments are
addressed:
1. It seems that the applicant has provided the Ultimate Buildout sheets for the benefit of the
Planning Department's consideration of a variation that is yet to be submitted. This preliminary
site plan cannot be approved until the variation is approved by the Planning Department. Once all
variation issues are settled (prior to approval of the preliminary site plan), the Ultimate Buildout
sheets should be eliminated and all variation approval letters should be incorporated into the site
plan set. [18- 32.5.6.a] Current Development Engineering's review will only focus on the
preliminary site plan currently being proposed (excluding Sheets 7 -11 and 18).
2. County Engineering has identified smaller items which may not be identified by the Planning
Department that also need to be considered in the review of the variation:
a. The plan does not show Second Street. Even if a variation is granted, an extension where
Second Street had been is needed to comply with Proffer 13. Please raise the elevation in
this area so that a street of no greater than 10% is needed to make the connection to
Commonwealth Drive or submit a rezoning amendment to modify this proffer.
b. The green and adjacent plaza between buildings C5 and C6 shown on the application plan
and referred to on page 9 of the COD appears to have been removed. The green was
dimensioned as 30ft by 140ft (4200sf) on the application plan.
c. The green, fountain, and plaza between buildings D1 and D2 shown on the application
plan and referred to on page 9 of the COD appears to have been removed. This seems to
have been intended as the principle public area within the project. It's not clear that the
residue land around the hotel will serve the same purpose.
d. The area and effectiveness of the planting buffer along the western edge of the property
has significantly been reduced from what was shown on the application plan. Currently,
there is 12ft from the rear of most retaining walls to the property line. This buffer area
was drawn close to 30ft in width on the application plan. The county's current landscape
screening standard is 20ft to establish two staggered rows of evergreens. There is
available space to plant trees beneath these walls but this would likely interfere with the
building itself and drainage behind the buildings. It will also be less effective than if the
trees were at the top of the wall. This is discussed on page 18 of the COD.
e. The extension of Swanson Drive into the Sperry Marine property appears to have been
ignored in the current iteration of the plan. This is also a proffered requirement.
f. North and South Main Streets have been eliminated. Any variation granted by the
Planning Department should stipulate what the design standard for New Main Street
between Stonefield Blvd. and Inglewood Drive should be.
g. Retention ponds will no longer be used in the long term Stormwater Management Plan.
h. A bus stop does not appear to be provided anywhere on the plan. The original application
plan showed a stop on Hydraulic Road.
i. Stonefield Boulevard has been reduced to a two lane road for a considerable portion of its
section. Table H within the Code of Development stipulated that this road would be 4
lanes.
j. The Code of Development (Table H and page 27) indicates that during the rezoning
application process it was never determined which streets were to be dedicated to VDOT
and which streets were to be privately maintained. In the latest submittal, the applicant
has only provided 1 street (Stonefield Blvd.) to be dedicated to public use. The Director
of Community Development, Mark Graham, has stated to me that this is acceptable.
However, to keep track of this decision, the variation provided by the Planning
Department should identify Stonefield Blvd. (Cedar Hill Extended and 4`h) as the only
public street within this development. All other streets (First, Second, Third, Inglewood,
Swanson, and New Main) were reviewed below as private.
3. This development has gone through a few iterations since it was first approved by the Board of
Supervisors. At each phase, an internal traffic study /analysis of the internal streets and
intersections was provided. The last version of the traffic study was dated October 14`h 2005 to
account for the changes in the uses in each of the blocks and street grid in the Preliminary Site
Plan submitted by The Cox Company (SDP- 2005- 00122). In order for the current site plan to be
approved, this Internal Traffic Assessment must be updated using the latest "Ultimate Buildout"
traffic generation figures. Modifications to the intersections and building footprints shown on the
site plan may be necessary based on the findings of such a study. [18- 32.7.2, 18- 32.7.2.7, and 18-
32.5.6.s]
4. All streets within this development other than Stonefield Blvd. will be reviewed as private streets
(see comment 2.j). The standards for private streets [18- 32.7.3 and 14- 412.13] are variable and
subject to the discretion of the agent, the Chief of Current Development. Once the update to the
internal traffic analysis /study is submitted, the county will set the standards for these roads. Most
of these standards can be enforced at the time the final site and road plans are submitted. For
preliminary site plan approval, please make the follow corrections to the streets:
a. For all street cross - sections, please include the design speed of the road. Please keep in
mind the speeds listed in Table II of the COD. Please include any needed modification in
the variation request to the Planning Department. The design speeds will be confirmed or
commented on once the updated internal traffic study is provided (Comment 3).
b. Please remove the perpendicular parking on Inglewood Drive.
c. For all entrances onto the streets in Table II of COD, sight distance must be measured
using the method detailed on page B(1) -20 of the Road Design Manual. The point of
analysis must be 20ft from the centerline of the closest through lane. For entrances onto
Stonefield Drive, a SDL of 300ft and SDR of 315ft are needed. For entrances onto streets
with a design speed of 20mph, a sight distance of 225ft is needed. For entrances onto
streets with a design speed of 15mph, sight distance of 170ft is needed.
d. North and South Main Streets have been eliminated. Any variation granted by the
Planning Department should stipulate what the design standard for New Main Street will
be between Inglewood Drive and Stonefield Boulevard.
e. New Main Street must be crowned with runoff directed to curb inlets. The private lanes
and alleys are the only travelways where grate inlets can be used in the middle of the
pavement (Table H, Code of Development). Replace the truncated dome strips with CG -6
or CG -2. If the applicant wishes to keep this design concept within the plan, please
include it in the variation request. County engineering will likely not recommend that this
street section be approved by the Planning Department.
f. The ROW line for Stoneiield Blvd. will need to be widened to include all of the clear
zone.
All of the streets (Stoneiield, First, Second, Third, Inglewood, Swanson, and New Main) must
include planting strips. [18- 32.7.2.3 and 14 -410] In areas of high pedestrian use (around New
Main Street, for instance), the planting strip can be reduced to simply a 6ft wide planter box at
each street tree. The sidewalks must also conform to streetscaping table of Appendix B. It
appears in many instances the sidewalk and planting area widths are not acceptable:
a. Planter boxes are shown as 5ft wide in many places. Please increase this width to 6ft and
show the planters in each street section, where applicable.
b. There should be at least 14ft behind each curb along New Main Street which yields a
building to building distance of 69ft when two lanes of parallel parking are provided. The
current proposed distance is - -62ft. In the application plan, this distance was 73ft. In the
previously approved preliminary site plan, this distance was 83ft.
c. The planting strips along Swanson Drive are only 5ft wide.
d. A minimum of 14ft behind each curb is needed along Swanson Drive.
e. The planting strip has been eliminated for a portion of the east side of Inglewood Drive.
f. The planting strip along Inglewood Drive is drawn at 5ft wide.
g. The sidewalk on the east side of Inglewood Drive must be 8ft wide because it is adjacent
to commercial development.
h. Sidewalks are missing on the north side of First and Third Street.
i. Planting strips are missing on both sides of First and Third Street.
If the applicant wishes to not provide any of the standards detailed above, please include the
necessary modification in the variation request. The approved rezoning plan and the previously
approved preliminary site plan appeared to honor these road sections.
6. Internal sight distance within parking lots must be 100ft when the point of analysis is loft from the
edge of the curb of the intersected travelway. In this southwest area, smaller buildings and larger
distances between buildings will be necessary to achieve the 100ft sight distance. The limited
sight distance naturally occurring on the internal travelways is compounded by the proximity of the
garages to the travelway. When backing out of the garages, safe sight distances will not be
available until the vehicle is across the center of the travelway. The plan is also lacking
satisfactory pedestrian provisions for walking around this community as well as interconnections
to the surrounding areas. For these reasons, I recommend to the Planning Department that the
variation not be approved until a safer layout is provided. If the Planning Department does grant
the variation for the current layout, the Zoning Administrator will need to approve the reduced
sight distances within the plan through the procedure outlined in 18- 4.12.2.c.
7. Generally, parking garages cannot meet many of the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. It looks
as though sight distance [18- 4.12.15.d.] and "protective barriers and design" [18- 4.12.1511 will be
an issue inside the garage. Parking is usually covered by a curb at the end of a parking row. In the
case of garages, parking spaces protected by a column or bollard would meet this standard, but it
does not look like this has been provided. Please request a waiver of these design standards to the
Zoning Administrator through 18- 4.12.2.c.
8. One more future extension to the Sperry Marine Property (in addition to the Swanson Drive
connection) must be provided to comply with Proffer 13.
9. Third Street is consistently mislabeled throughout the plan. It is labeled as First Street on Sheet 16
and Second Street on all other sheets (7, 11, 18, and 19).
10. Many of the parking spaces throughout the site are drawn as 8.5ft wide, which is 6inches smaller
than the standard in the County Ordinance. Please revise the drawing so 9ft parking spaces are
provided or request a waiver to the Zoning Administrator per 18- 4.12.2.c. [18- 4.12.16.c.1]
11. The slope in the parking lot east of Building E2 -III is greater than the maximum slope of 5 %.
Please revise the grading or request a waiver to the Zoning Administrator per 18- 4.12.2.c. Please
check other areas of the site to make sure this standard is not violated elsewhere. [18- 4.12.15.c]
12. It is evident that the Zoning Administrator will need to waive certain requirements of 18- 4.12.13
per 18- 4.12.13.f in order for the proposed layout to be authorized. The current proposed site plan
has been modified from the original application plan in such as way as to eliminate most of the
service areas that would generally be used for loading and dumpster pads. For the most part, these
uses now appear to be incorporated within the parking lots and, overall, less area appears to be
dedicated for these functions than might be necessary. According to the equation detailed in 18-
4.12.13.c, 17 loading spaces are needed for 310,000sf of Gross Leasable Area; only 12 loading
spaces appear to have been provided. Please label each loading space on the plan.
This section of the ordinance also stipulates that, when provided, dumpsters should not "impede
any required parking or loading spaces, nor any pedestrian or vehicular circulation aisles." In
nearly all cases, it looks as though the dumpster is placed behind a loading space. The
loading /dumpster pad also consistently disrupts pedestrian circulation on sidewalks. This standard
would also need to be waived by the Zoning Administrator in order for this plan to be acceptable.
13. Please provide better pedestrian access to the parking garage /theater directly from Swanson Drive
and Stonefield Boulevard. [18- 32.7.2.8]
14. Please regrade the areas south of E2 -11 so that a sump condition is not present.
The applicant should keep in mind that the following comments will likely need to be addressed when the
final site plan is submitted. A full review of the final site plan issues has not performed. Again, the
following comments do not need to be addressed upon resubmittal of the preliminary site plan:
1. The final site plan(s) should be drawn at 20 scale, unless otherwise approved by the agent. [18-
32.5.5, 18- 32.6.51
2. When sidewalk abuts perpendicular parking spaces, the width must be 6ft, exclusive of curb,
unless bumper blocks are provided in the parking space.
3. The design of the horizontal and vertical elements of the three street connections (First, Second,
and Third) will be needed at the final site plan submittal for the county to be assured the
surrounding infrastructure (walls, buildings, etc.) will not be disrupted during construction of these
connections by others.
4. All standard county notes will need to be updated. The latest version of these notes can be found
in the Design Manual, available online.
5. I anticipate that the grading around the movie theatre will likely need to be revised to provide for
emergency egress from nearly all sides.
6. A guardrail appears to be needed at the southeast corner of the property above the retaining walls
along Hydraulic and Inglewood Drive. The VDOT ROW will need to be extended to lft behind
the state maintained element (guardrail or sidewalk).
7. Supplemental SWM facilities will be needed throughout the project in order for the SWM plan to
achieve the required removal rate.
8. The county and VDOT have approved a plan prepared by the applicant entitled "Albemarle Place
Road Improvement" (WPO- 2010 - 00059, formerly WPO- 2008 - 00068), which appeared to address
the improvements depicted in Exhibit F and required by Proffer 7. After reviewing this plan, it
seems that items 4, 9, and 11 have not been included. This comment is simply noting the status of
this proffer. It appears that item 4, 9, and 11 may be considered part of "offsite improvements"
covered by Proffer 8 which would need to be requested by the county. Please note that the Zoning
Administrator "may require these improvements to be completed as a prerequisite to the issuance
of any certificates of occupancy."
9. Please remove the storm drain from underneath the parking garage. This pipe should be taken
through the courtyard and connected to the drainage system underneath New Main Street.
File: El_psp_PBC_sdp201100019 Albemarle Place- Stonefield.doc
�, I l(II 1111 -, -
-W WO
:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
DATE: April 11, 2011
Herbert F. White
3040 Albemarle Square Place
Charlottesville, VA, 22911.
RE: SDP - 2011 -00019 Albemarle Place Town Center (Stonefield)
Dear Sir,
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for
the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are
attached:
Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner)
Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer)
Albemarle County Division of Inspections (Building Official)
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Albemarle County Geographic and Data Services (GDS)
Albemarle County Fire and Rescue
Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be
considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval
of the proposed project.
Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review
Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not
incorporating such revisions. Submit (8) full size copies and one 11 x 17 copy to the Department of Community
Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by Monday
April 25, 2011. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule.
Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
Since y,
Ger ld Gatobu, Principal Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Current Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596
Phone: (434)296 -5832 Ext 3385
Fax: (434)972 -4126
�'IRGINZP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5834
Memorandum
To: Herbert F. White
From: Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner
Division: Zoning and Current Development
Date: April 11, 2011
Subject: SDP 2011 -00019 Stonefield Preliminary Site Plan
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Division of Current Development will grant or recommend approval of the
preliminary site plan referred to above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is
preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise
specified.]
1. [8.5.5.3] VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF
DEVELOPMENTS: The director of planning may allow a site plan or subdivision plat for a planned
development to vary from an approved application plan, standard of development and, also, in the case,
of a neighborhood model district, a code of development. The applicant needs to request a variation to
the approved general development plan and code of development for ZMA2001 -07 Albemarle Place.
Under section 8.5.5.3 of the zoning ordinance a variation may be approved administratively by the
director of planning. Variation requests have not been submitted. Preliminary site plan approval cannot
be granted without variation approvals from the Director of Planning.
2. Bus and Transit Stops: transit stop facilities, with seating capacity located on public streets contiguous
to Stonefield shall be included in this preliminary site plan. Per the Code of development, one such
transit stop had been programmed within block D adjacent to Hydraulic Road to provide access to
shoppers and future resident's alike (page 24 of the code of development). The applicant needs to
coordinate with local transit providers, Charlottesville Transit Service and University Transit to
determine the appropriate means of serving local transit. (Jaunt comments are enclosed)
3. [4.12.6 Parking]: Please provide a more specific parking plan that articulates the desired approach for
meeting County parking requirements. Provide a sheet layer that shows the provided parking and the
parking required. It is difficult to count all the parking spaces with details of other improvements shown
on the site plan. A sheet with nothing but buildings and designated parking would be helpful in trying to
determine the number of parking spaces required and those provided.
4. [4.12.13 LOADING AREAS and 32.5.6.n] Loading and Stacking: A flexible approach is to be
taken in the location and design of loading and stacking spaces. Loading and stacking spaces were to be
provided in general locations as shown on the application plan with final tenant requirements. Loading
and service areas need to be shown. The code of development gives allowances or flexibility as to where
the loading and service areas need to be shown, but ultimately these need be shown at final site plan
stage. As noted above the application plan shows service drives and service courts that would function
as loading and staking areas.
5. [4.17 and 32.5.6.n] Lighting Sources will satisfy the standards in the County of Albemarle
Ordinance (Section 4.17). Locations and dimensions of existing and proposed improvements that
include lighting are required under this section. The code of development speaks to the lighting
requirements on page 24. Photometric plans and cut sheets must be submitted at final site plan stage.
6. The Albemarle Place Green and Plaza planned for the quadrant between South and North New Main
Street per the application plan is intended to serve as the core public activity zone within the project.
This amenity is missing from this preliminary site plan. Please apply for a variation from the approved
code of development. The Green and adjacent plaza are identified as elements that must be included in
Block Group 1: Blocks A, B, C, and D. (Refer to page 9 of the Code of Development). For Block E an
urban plaza, green spaces and passive recreational amenities shall be included in the Block per the code
of development.
7. [32.7.2.8 and Page 25 of the code of development] Provision shall be made for sidewalks and
pedestrian walkways which will enable pedestrians to walk safely and conveniently between buildings
on the site and from the site to adjacent property. Please make sure that sidewalks in the development
enable pedestrians to walk safely and conveniently between buildings on the site and from the site to the
adjacent commercial area for cases where residents need to walk from the residential area in Block D2
to the commercial areas in Block C.
8. [32.7.9.1] whenever a site plan is required by this chapter, a landscape plan shall be required as
precedent to final site plan approval. As noted on proffer #1C, Landscape improvements and associated
streetscape improvements to serve the planned building improvements within each block shall be
reviewed at the time of final site plan review for each block. The project shall have a consistently
designed and planted streetscape along Route 29 and Hydraulic
Proffers:
1.
13.
A. Phasing of Albemarle Place Improvements: As part of phase 1, the owner shall design and
construct Stonefield Boulevard from Hydraulic Road to the point where Stonefield Boulevard
connects with the new planned western entrance to Sperry Marine facility in the location shown on
the application plan. This site plan shows an initial layout plan that includes Block E. No more than
three hundred seventy thousand (370,000) square feet of commercial space and one hundred
and seventy (170) dwelling units may be constructed within the project until the remainder of
Stonefield Boulevard is constructed to the new planned intersection with U.S. Route 29 as
shown on the application plan.
B. Phase 2: Block E has been included in the overall initial plan. Block E is in phase 2 of the project
per the proffers. With the inclusion of Block E in the overall initial plan, should the numbers above
(three hundred seventy thousand (370,000) square feet of commercial space and one hundred
and seventy (170) dwelling units) be exceeded at any point, the owner shall design and
construct Stonefield Boulevard from the point where it connects with the new planned western
entrance to the Sperry Marine facility north and east through blocks E, F, and G to the new
planned intersection with U.S. Route 29 as shown on the application plan.
Proffer # 6, 7, 8 and 14 have to be satisfied at final site plan approval, or have events that will
be triggered by the approval of the first final site plan for phase for the initial phase of
Albemarle Place ( Stonefield).
Other "Super Block" Street Connections: Please show on the preliminary site plan the required inter -
parcel street connections for purposes of future construction by others within the "Super Block" at the
following locations; Second Street (to the west to Commonwealth Drive), Third Street (to west to
Commonwealth Drive) and Swanson Road Extended (to North to "Sperry Property ") and two additional
locations into Sperry Property.
Please contact Gerald Gatobu at the Division of Zoning and Current Development at agg tobu@albemarle.org or
434 - 296 -5832 ext.3385 for further information.
2
�I- '�ill� 1111��•
-w
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of-Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: SDP - 2011 - 00019, Stonefield (Albemarle Place) Preliminary Site Plan
Plan preparer: Mr. Herb White; W &W Associates
Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
Date received: 21 March 2011
Date of Comment: 12 April 2011
Engineer: Phil Custer
The Preliminary Site Plan for Stonefield (Albemarle Place), received on 21 March 2011, has been
reviewed. I have divided the comments into items that are needed before I can recommend approval of the
preliminary site plan and comments the applicant must address for the review of the final site plan. When
what is normally a final site plan comment could have a considerable impact to the preliminary plan layout,
I have included it within the preliminary comments.
Engineering review can recommend approval to the preliminary site plan after the following comments are
addressed:
1. It seems that the applicant has provided the Ultimate Buildout sheets for the benefit of the
Planning Department's consideration of a variation that is yet to be submitted. This preliminary
site plan cannot be approved until the variation is approved by the Planning Department. Once all
variation issues are settled (prior to approval of the preliminary site plan), the Ultimate Buildout
sheets should be eliminated and all variation approval letters should be incorporated into the site
plan set. [18- 32.5.6.a] Current Development Engineering's review will only focus on the
preliminary site plan currently being proposed (excluding Sheets 7 -11 and 18).
2. County Engineering has identified smaller items which may not be identified by the Planning
Department that also need to be considered in the review of the variation:
a. The plan does not show Second Street. Even if a variation is granted, an extension where
Second Street had been is needed to comply with Proffer 13. Please raise the elevation in
this area so that a street of no greater than 10% is needed to make the connection to
Commonwealth Drive or submit a rezoning amendment to modify this proffer.
b. The green and adjacent plaza between buildings C5 and C6 shown on the application plan
and referred to on page 9 of the COD appears to have been removed.. The green was
dimensioned as 30ft by 140ft (4200sf) on the application plan.
c. The green, fountain, and plaza between buildings D1 and D2 shown on the application
plan and referred to on page 9 of the COD appears to have been removed. This seems to
have been intended as the principle public area within the project. It's not clear that the
residue land around the hotel will serve the same purpose.
d. The area and effectiveness of the planting buffer along the western edge of the property
has significantly been reduced from what was shown on the application plan. Currently,
there is 12ft from the rear of most retaining walls to the property line. This buffer area
was drawn close to 3Oft in width on the application plan. The county's current landscape
screening standard is 20ft to establish two staggered rows of evergreens. There is
0
Cl
available space to plant trees beneath these walls but this would likely interfere with the
building itself and drainage behind the buildings. It will also be less effective than if the
trees were at the top of the wall. This is discussed on page 18 of the COD.
e. The extension of Swanson Drive into the Sperry Marine property appears to have been
ignored in the current iteration of the plan. This is also a proffered requirement.
f. North and South Main Streets have been eliminated. Any variation granted by the
Planning Department should stipulate what the design standard for New Main Street
between Stonefield Blvd. and Inglewood Drive should be.
g. Retention ponds will no longer be used in the long term Stormwater Management Plan.
h. A bus stop does not appear to be provided anywhere on the plan. The original application
plan showed a stop on Hydraulic Road.
L Stonefield Boulevard has been reduced to a two lane road for a considerable portion of its
section. Table H within the Code of Development stipulated that this road would be 4
lanes.
j. The Code of Development (Table II and page 27) indicates that during the rezoning
application process it was never determined which streets were to be dedicated to VDOT
and which streets were to be privately maintained. In the latest submittal, the applicant
has only provided 1 street (Stonefield Blvd.) to be dedicated to public use. The Director
of Community Development, Mark Graham, has stated to me that this is acceptable.
However, to keep track of this decision, the variation provided by the Planning
Department should identify Stonefield Blvd. (Cedar Hill Extended and 4t') as the only
public street within this development. All other streets (First, Second, Third, Inglewood,
Swanson, and New Main) were reviewed below as private.
This development has gone through a few iterations since it was first approved by the Board of
Supervisors. At each phase, an internal traffic study /analysis of the internal streets and
intersections was provided. The last version of the traffic study was dated October 14'h 2005 to
account for the changes in the uses in each of the blocks and street grid in the Preliminary Site
Plan submitted by The Cox Company (SDP- 2005 - 00122). In order for the current site plan to be
approved, this Internal Traffic Assessment must be updated using the latest "Ultimate Buildout"
traffic generation figures. Modifications to the intersections and building footprints shown on the
site plan may be necessary based on the findings of such a study. [18- 32.7.2, 18- 32.7.2.7, and 18-
32.5.6.s]
All streets within this development other than Stonefield Blvd. will be reviewed as private streets
(see comment 2.j). The standards for private streets [18- 32.7.3 and 14- 412.B] are variable and
subject to the discretion of the agent, the Chief of Current Development. Once the update to the
internal traffic analysis /study is submitted, the county will set the standards for these roads. Most
of these standards can be enforced at the time the final site and road plans are submitted. For
preliminary site plan approval, please make the follow corrections to the streets:
a. For all street cross - sections, please include the design speed of the road. Please keep in
mind the speeds listed in Table II of the COD. Please include any needed modification in
the variation request to the Planning Department. The design speeds will be confirmed or
commented on once the updated internal traffic study is provided (Comment 3).
b. Please remove the perpendicular parking on Inglewood Drive.
c. For all entrances onto the streets in Table II of COD, sight distance must be measured
using the method detailed on page B(l) 20 of the Road Design Manual. The point of
analysis must be 20ft from the centerline of the closest through lane. For entrances onto
Stonefield Drive, a SDL of 300ft and SDR of 315ft are needed. For entrances onto streets
with a design speed of 20mph, a sight distance of 225ft is needed. For entrances onto
streets with a design speed of 15mph, sight distance of 170ft is needed.
d. North and South Main Streets have been eliminated. Any variation granted by the
Planning Department should stipulate what the design standard for New Main Street will
be between Inglewood Drive and Stonefield Boulevard.
e. New Main Street must be crowned with runoff directed to curb inlets. The private lanes
and alleys are the only travelways where grate inlets can be used in the middle of the
pavement (Table H, Code of Development). Replace the truncated dome strips with CG -6
or CG -2. If the applicant wishes to keep this design concept within the plan, please
include it in the variation request. County engineering will likely not recommend that this
street section be approved by the Planning Department.
f. The ROW line for Stonefield Blvd. will need to be widened to include all of the clear
zone.
5. All of the streets ( Stonefield, First, Second, Third, Inglewood, Swanson, and New Main) must
include planting strips. [18- 32.7.2.3 and 14 -410] In areas of high pedestrian use (around New
Main Street, for instance), the planting strip can be reduced to simply a 6ft wide planter box at
each street tree. The sidewalks must also conform to streetscaping table of Appendix B. It
appears in many instances the sidewalk and planting area widths are not acceptable:
a. Planter boxes are shown as 5ft wide in many places. Please increase this width to 6ft and
show the planters in each street section, where applicable.
b. There should be at least 14ft behind each curb along New Main Street which yields a
building to building distance of 69ft when two lanes of parallel parking are provided. The
current proposed distance is —62ft. In the application plan, this distance was 73ft. In the
previously approved preliminary site plan, this distance was 83ft.
c. The planting strips along Swanson Drive are only 5ft wide.
d. A minimum of 14ft behind each curb is needed along Swanson Drive.
e. The planting strip has been eliminated for a portion of the east side of Inglewood Drive.
f. The planting strip along Inglewood Drive is drawn at 5ft wide.
g. The sidewalk on the east side of Inglewood Drive must be 8ft wide because it is adjacent
to commercial development.
h. Sidewalks are missing on the north side of First and Third Street.
i. Planting strips are missing on both sides of First and Third Street.
If the applicant wishes to not provide any of the standards detailed above, please include the
necessary modification in the variation request. The approved rezoning plan and the previously
approved preliminary site plan appeared to honor these road sections.
6. Internal sight distance within parking lots must be 100ft when the point of analysis is l Oft from the
edge of the curb of the intersected travelway. In this southwest area, smaller buildings and larger
distances between buildings will be necessary to achieve the l 00ft sight distance. The limited
sight distance naturally occurring on the internal travelways is, compounded by the proximity of the
garages to the travelway. When backing out of the garages, safe sight distances will not be
available until the vehicle is .across the center of the travelway. The plan is also lacking
satisfactory pedestrian provisions for walking around this community as well as interconnections
to the surrounding areas. For these reasons, I recommend to the Planning Department that the
variation not be approved until a safer layout is provided. If the Planning Department does grant
the variation for the current layout, the Zoning Administrator will need to approve the reduced
sight distances within the plan through the procedure outlined in 18- 4.12.2.c.
7. Generally, parking garages cannot meet many of the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. It looks
as though sight distance [18- 4.12.15.d.] and "protective barriers and design" [18- 4.12.15.f] will be
an issue inside the garage. Parking is usually covered by a curb at the end of a parking row. In the
case of garages, parking spaces protected by a column or bollard would meet this standard, but it
does not look like this has been provided. Please request a waiver of these design standards to the
Zoning Administrator through 18- 4.12.2.c.
8. One more future extension to the Sperry Marine Property (in addition to the Swanson Drive
connection) must be provided to comply with Proffer 13.
9. Third Street is consistently mislabeled throughout the plan. It is labeled as First Street on Sheet 16
and Second Street on all other sheets (7, 11, 18, and 19).
10. Many of the parking spaces throughout the site are drawn as 8.5ft wide, which is 6inches smaller
than the standard in the County Ordinance. Please revise the drawing so 9ft parking spaces are
provided or request a waiver to the Zoning Administrator per 18- 4.12.2.c. [18- 4.12.16.c.1]
11. The slope in the parking lot east of Building E2 -III is greater than the maximum slope of 5 %.
Please revise the grading or request a waiver to the Zoning Administrator per 18- 4.12.2.c. Please
check other areas of the site to make sure this standard is not violated elsewhere. [18- 4.12.15.c]
12. It is evident that the Zoning Administrator will need to waive certain requirements of 18- 4.12.13
per 18- 4.12.13.f in order for the proposed layout to be authorized. The current proposed site plan
has been modified from the original application plan in such as way as to eliminate most of the
service areas that would generally be used for loading and dumpster pads. For the most part, these
uses now appear to be incorporated within the parking lots and, overall, less area appears to be
dedicated for these functions than might be necessary. According to the equation detailed in 18-
4.12.13.c, 17 loading spaces are needed for 310,000sf of Gross Leasable Area; only 12 loading
spaces appear to have been provided. Please label each loading space on the plan.
This section of the ordinance also stipulates that, when provided, dumpsters should not "impede
any required parking or loading spaces, nor any pedestrian or vehicular circulation aisles." In
nearly all cases, it looks as though the dumpster is placed behind a loading space. The
loading/dumpster pad also consistently disrupts pedestrian circulation on sidewalks. This standard
would also need to be waived by the Zoning Administrator in order for this plan to be acceptable.
13. Please provide better pedestrian access to the parking garage /theater directly from Swanson Drive
and Stonefield Boulevard. [18- 32.7.2.8]
14. Please regrade the areas south of E2 -II so that a sump condition is not present.
The applicant should keep in mind that the following comments will likely need to be addressed when the
final site plan is submitted. A full review of the final site plan issues has not performed. Again, the
following comments do not need to be addressed upon resubmittal of the preliminary site plan:
1. The final site plan(s) should be drawn at 20 scale, unless otherwise approved by the agent. [18-
32.5.5, 18- 32.6.5]
2. When sidewalk abuts perpendicular parking spaces, the width must be 6ft, exclusive of curb,
unless bumper blocks are provided in the parking space.
3. The design of the horizontal and vertical elements of the three street connections (First, Second,
and Third) will be needed at the final site plan submittal for the county to be assured the
surrounding infrastructure (walls, buildings, etc.) will not be disrupted during construction of these
connections by others.
4. All standard county notes will need to be updated. The latest version of these notes can be found
in the Design Manual, available online.
5. I anticipate that the grading around the movie theatre will likely need to be revised to provide for
emergency egress from nearly all sides.
6. A guardrail appears to be needed at the southeast corner of the property above the retaining walls
along Hydraulic and Inglewood Drive. The VDOT ROW will need to be extended to lft behind
the state maintained element (guardrail or sidewalk).
7. Supplemental SWM facilities will be needed throughout the project in order for the SWM plan to
achieve the required removal rate.
8. The county and VDOT have approved a plan prepared by the applicant entitled "Albemarle Place
Road Improvement" (WPO- 2010 - 00059, formerly WPO- 2008 - 00068), which appeared to address
the improvements depicted in Exhibit F and required by Proffer 7. After reviewing this plan, it
seems that items 4, 9, and 11 have not been included. This comment is simply noting the status of
this proffer. It appears that item 4, 9, and 11 may be considered part of "offsite improvements"
covered by Proffer 8 which would need to be requested by the county. Please note that the Zoning
Administrator "may require these improvements to be completed as a prerequisite to the issuance
of any certificates of occupancy."
9. Please remove the storm drain from underneath the parking garage. This pipe should be taken
through the courtyard and connected to the drainage system underneath New Main Street.
�: aJ
rN��"yrt
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911
GREGORY A. WHIRLEY
COMMISSIONER
April 12�, 2011
Mr. Glenn Brooks
Department of Engineering and Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments March 3, 2011 site review meeting
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the April 10, 2011 Site Review Committee
Meeting:
SDP- 2011 -00019 Stonefield (Gerald Gatobu)
1. Road and drainage plans will need to be submitted and reviewed by VDOT. The road plans
may require changes to this site plan.
2. Projected traffic on Stonefield Blvd. needs to be added to the plan.
3. Stonefield Blvd. will need to be designed as an Urban Collector Road with a 25 mph design
speed.
4. Intersection sight distances are SDL =300' and SDR =315' in accordance with the VDOT Road
Design Manual, Appendix F, Table 2 -7. All sight distances shown on this site plan are 125'.
5. Warrants for the 4 -way stops along with the traffic analysis for the intersection treatments need
to be submitted and approved by VDOT. Changes to the plan will be required if the proposed
intersection treatments are not warranted or approved by VDOT.
6. The proposed right in/out on both sides of Stonefield Blvd. for building D 1 -I and the first
parking lot will not adequately restrict left turns in and out of these entrances and will require
modification. A solution would be to extend the 4 foot median at least up to the first full
access intersection. The entrance on the east side is also too wide to either restrict traffic to
right in/out and does not meet the VDOT standards. Instead of hatching out the pavement, a
CG -3 should be used with a reinforced 7 inch concrete pad to allow truck traffic to use the exit.
7. If one or both of the four way stops are warranted and permitted by VDOT, modifications will
be required to ensure safe operation. Enough median width will be required for stop sign
placement for the left most lanes or the intersections need to be reduced to one approach lane
in all directions. A request has been made for VDOT Traffic Engineers to review the situation
and more information will be provided. Further traffic analysis will likely be required to
ensure adequate operations.
8. All entrances to Stonefield Blvd. need to be designed in accordance with section 4 of
Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual.
a. Entrance radii need to meet the minimum requirements of Table 4-1 with a minimum
of 25 feet.
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
b. Entrance throats need to meet the requirements of Table 4-2 in appendix F. Entrances
with a one lane egress require a 30' throat length and a two lane egress requires a 75'
throat length. The proposed Sperry security building is within the entrance throat.
c. The minimum width of entrances is 30' and this width needs to be continued for a
minimum distance of the length of the throat at each proposed entrance.
9. The clear zone needs to be in accordance with Table A -2 -1 of the VDOT Road Design Manual
for the projected volume of traffic and the proposed design speed. In a recent meeting with the
developer, it was indicated that there would 1500 -6000 VPD on this road and the
corresponding clear zone is 12 to 14 feet. 12 feet will be sufficient for this road due to its low
design and anticipated operating speed.
10. Sidewalks outside of the proposed right of way will need to be under maintenance agreement
between VDOT and Albemarle County.
11. Swanson Dr. should have a raised island median at the intersection with Hydraulic Rd. for the
placement of a stop sign.
Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you
have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the
applicants.
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Land Use Engineer
VDOT Land Development
434 -589 -5871
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Albemarle County
Service Authority
Serving +Conserving
TO: Gerald Gatobu
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, Civil Engineer
DATE: April 7, 2011
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: STONEFIELD: SDP201100019
The below checked items apply to this site.
1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
A. Water and sewer X
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
2. An 18 inch water line is located approximately 86' distant. (RWSA LINE)
3. .Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
4. A 10 inch sewer line is located approximately 13' distant.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
8. and plans have been received and approved.
9. No plans are required.
10. Final SEWER and WATER plans are required for our review and
approval prior to granting tentative approval.
11. Final site plan may /may not be signed.
12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. X
13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
Comments:
• Sewer capacity is not available until the Meadow Creek Interceptor work is complete.
• Sanitary Sewer can't run under theater (C1 -IV) since it serves more than one customer.
• 1.2" ACSA Waterline along 29 South is abandoned. 8" ACSA Waterline along 29 South
will not support development.,You will have to coordinate with RWSA to tie into 18" RWSA
Waterline in Route 29 median.
• Add waterline connection at Inglewood Drive to 10" D.I.P. ACSA waterline to loop water
system in development.
• When available, ACSA would like to review overall utility plan for development.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 - Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthoriy.org
SDP201100019 Stonefield
From:
Victoria Fort [vfort@rivanna.org].
Sent:
Tuesday, April 12, 20111:26 PM
To:
Gerald Gatobu
Cc:
amorrison @serviceauthority.org
Subject:
SDP201100019 Stonefield
Gerald,
Page 1 of 1
RWSA has reviewed the preliminary site plans for Stonefield dated 3/21/2011 and has the following comments:
- Sheets 8 & 13 show a proposed water connection to an existing 12" ACSA waterline. Our records indicate that
this connection may not be viable, as this 12" line appears to have been abandoned. Previous submissions for
Albemarle Place showed two connections to the 18" RWSA waterline in Route 29. Please verify the locations of
existing utilities and the point(s) of connection for water service.
Phase I of Albemarle Place will produce well over 40,000 gallons average daily sewage flow, requiring a
capacity certification from RWSA. Per previous correspondence between RWSA and Albemarle County, RWSA
will not be able to accept new flows from this development until the new Meadowcreek Interceptor is online.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information on either of these items.
Thanks,
Victoria
Victoria Fort, EIT
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: 434.977.2970 ext. 205
Fax: 434.295.1146
file: /A \cob- dts01 \CityViewLnk \Docs \2011 \SDP \SDP201100019 Albemarle Place Town C... 4/12/2011
April 4, 2011
Gerald Gatobu
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
Dear Mr. Gatobu,
Thank you for the opportunity to review materials for SDP201100019, Stonefield. JAUNT has
the following advisory comments on the Ultimate Plan (we have no additional comments on
the Initial Plan).
1. This area is in the urban fare zone for JAUNT, where we provide trips primarily for
people with disabilities. Charlottesville Area Transit would be the main transit option for
the general public, which is reflected in the proffers.
2. No designated bus stops or bus loading areas were visible on the site plan. It may be
appropriate to include a designated stop near the theater (see item below).
3. The internally connected street network is helpful and traffic circulation patterns appear
generally adequate for JAUNT vehicles.
a. I assume the garage level of Building C1 -IV (theater) will not have adequate
vertical clearance for JAUNT vehicles (11'). It will be important to ensure that
there is an area for JAUNT to load and unload (such as a bus stop) along a direct
accessible pedestrian route to an accessible building entrance. I was not able to
tell from the site plan where such a route or entrance would be (follow -up
requested).
b. Building D3 -1 (hotel) shows a covered drop -off circle. Please advise of vertical
clearance (follow -up requested).
c. Some streets in the D2 residential area may be too tight for JAUNT vehicles to
maneuver, but the sidewalk network appears adequate to allow residents to
meet JAUNT on Inglewood Dr.
4. Pedestrian connections to transit
Although it is not a pedestrian - friendly intersection, pedestrians do cross at the
U.S. 29 /Hydraulic Rd. intersection, in part to access transit stops. The new dual
right -turn lanes shown on the site plan will make this crossing more challenging.
Pedestrian crossing improvements such as refuge islands should be considered
and coordinated with VDOT. Also, no ADA ramps were shown here.
104 Keystone Place, Charlottesville VA 22902 www.rideiaunt.org info @rideiaunt.org (434) 296 -3184
b. Consider providing a more direct pedestrian connection to the B -111
retail /restaurant building from sidewalks along U.S. 29 to avoid an unsightly.
worn path developing in the future.
c. The site plan shows ADA ramps in most of the appropriate locations. Exceptions
are as follows, where more attention may be needed to maintain accessible
routes: where dumpster access drives cross sidewalks, in front of the hotel drop -
off circle, and throughout area E2.
d. East of the D section, there is a skewed pedestrian crosswalk across Stonefield
Blvd. Consider straightening this crosswalk to continue the line of the building
sidewalk to the west and provide a shorter crossing (requires using directional
ADA ramps instead of a single diagonal ramp).
Please contact me with any questions.
Peter Ohlms, JAUNT Mobility Manager - petero @rideiaunt.or - 296 -3184, ext. 120
Review Comments
Project, Name: Stonefield Preliminary — Residential
Date Completed: Imonday, April 11, 2011
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski
Department/Division /Agency: ARB
Reviews
This site falls with the Route 29 and Hydraulic Road Entrance Corridors. ARB approval is required prior to final site
plan approval, but the applicant is encouraged to begin the ARB preliminary review process as soon as possible.
SDP - 2011 -19 dated 3 -21 -11 has not been reviewed for the ARB; however, some features of the plan have been
noted as potential issues for the ARB: the appearance of the interim stormwater management facility, the lack of
utility-free landscape area along the ECs, the EC streetscape treatment of Block D with the retaining walls. The
applicant is encouraged to address these issues in the ARB submittal, and to submit a preliminary landscape plan
that is coordinated with, and clearly illustrates, utilities as soon as possible.
Review Status: Requested Changes
Page: 11 a s MI _� o ) County of Albemarle Printed On:
Review Comments
Project Name: Stonefield Preliminary — Residential
Date Completed: IThursday, April 07, 2011
Reviewer: James Barber
Department/Division /Agency: Fire Rescue
Reviews
IMust comply-with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field inspection and
verification.
Review Status: No Objection
Page: 11,11,11 0,10, 540 I County of Albemarle Printed On:
1 n
Review Comments
Project Name: Stonefield Preliminary — Residential
Date Completed: IThursday, March 31, 2011
Reviewer: Andrew Slack
Department/Division /Agency: E911
Reviews
THE FOLLOWING ROAD NAMES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE ROAD NAMES:
STONEFIELD BOULVARD
MAIN STREET
FIRST STREET
SECOND STREET
ON THE PLANS THE NAMES "INGLEWOOD DRIVE" AND "SWANSON DRIVE" NAMES ARE SHOWN
(EXTENDING THE EXISTING STREETS. "CEDAR HILL ROAD" IS AN EXISTING ROAD NAME AS WELL AND
SHOULD BE USED IN PLACE OF " STONEFIELD BOULVARD" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ROAD NAMING
AND PROPERTY NUMBERING ORDINANCE. THE DEVELOPER SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A
LIST OF THREE (3) PROPOSED ROAD NAMES TO REPLACE THE OTHER NAMES LISTED ABOVE.
Review Status: Requested Changes
Page: I County of Albemarle Printed On: