The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWPO201100036 Review Comments Stormwater Management Plan 2011-09-23Philip Custer From: Mark Graham Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:01 PM To: Bill Fritz; Philip Custer; Glenn Brooks Subject: FW: Stonefield Boulevard Road Plan VDOT Review FYI, VDOT has said they are fine with my understanding. From: Mark Graham Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:14 PM To: Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Cc: Sprinkel, D. Brent P.E.; Barron, L. Marshall Subject: RE: Stonefield Boulevard Road Plan VDOT Review Thanks Joel, While you never actually said that we should consider this VDOT's approval of the road plan, I am taking your statement that it meets VDOT standards to mean this. If that assumption is wrong, please let me know. Mark From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ mai Ito: Joel. DeNunzio(a)VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 10:33 AM To: Mark Graham Cc: Sprinkel, D. Brent P.E.; Barron, L. Marshall Subject: Stonefield Boulevard Road Plan VDOT Review Stonefield Boulevard Road Plan VDOT Review Mr. Graham, In accordance with the Virginia Administrative Code 24 VAC30- 92 -20, Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements, VDOT has reviewed the subject plan at the request of Albemarle County for streets that are proposed for maintenance by an entity other than VDOT. In this review we have found that the streets meet the minimum requirements set forth by the VDOT Road Design Manual and the VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications with the exception of the proposed four way stop at the intersection of Stonefield Boulevard and Main Street and the installation of the waterline within the proposed public road pavement. Four way stop type of traffic control requires a warrant analysis as described in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control which should be submitted and approved prior to its installation. The installation of utilities within the proposed public road right of way should be located outside of the pavement and within the outer 3 to 5 feet of the right of way. This review does not represent VDOT's commitment to accept the proposed street into the State Secondary System of Highways as stated in 24 VAC30 -92 -20 section A but is provided to assist Albemarle County with general guidance in the review process. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 - 589 -5871 ioel .denunzioCa)vdot.viroinia.4ov Philip Custer From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:27 PM To: Glenn Brooks; Mark Graham; Bill Fritz; Philip Custer Cc: Claudette Grant Subject: RE: Stonefield Boulevard Road Plan VDOT Review As a matter of fact, we could take this one step further; strike out the stop signs and waterline with a red marker, and approve the plan as marked. These are not necessary for the road plan anyway. From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:22 PM To: Mark Graham; Bill Fritz; Philip Custer Cc: Claudette Grant Subject: RE: Stonefield Boulevard Road Plan VDOT Review A public road plan has been submitted. I don't read an approval for a public road plan.To me this says VDOT is offering "guidance in the review" of a private road. We could only approve a private road after the proffer is changed accordingly. For a public road plan approval, it appears the same plan revisions are requested; move the waterline, and remove the four stop signs on the main route. (Four way stops can be requested with warrant analysis when traffic can be measured.) My recommendation to the board will be to move the waterline,and remove the four stop signs. Simple. From: Mark Graham Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 10:39 AM To: Bill Fritz; Glenn Brooks; Philip Custer Subject: RN: Stonefield Boulevard Road Plan VDOT Review Phil, I assume we should treat this as the road plan approval by VDOT. From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. fmailto:Joel.DeNunzio@VDOT.virainia.aovl Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 10:33 AM To: Mark Graham Cc: Sprinkel, D. Brent P.E.; Barron, L. Marshall Subject: Stonefield Boulevard Road Plan VDOT Review Stonefield Boulevard Road Plan VDOT Review Mr. Graham, In accordance with the Virginia Administrative Code 24 VAC30-92-20, Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements, VDOT has reviewed the subject plan at the request of Albemarle County for streets that are proposed for maintenance by an entity other than VDOT. In this review we have found that the streets meet the minimum requirements set forth by the VDOT Road Design Manual and the VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications with the exception of the proposed four way 1 atop at the intersection of Stonefir Zoulevard and Main Street and the ir- 'ration of the waterline within the proposed public road pavemetwor, Four way stop type of traffic control'Mires a warrant analysis as described in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control which should be submitted and approved prior to its installation. The installation of utilities within the proposed public road right of way should be located outside of the pavement and within the outer 3 to 5 feet of the right of way. This review does not represent VDOT's commitment to accept the proposed street into the State Secondary System of Highways as stated in 24 VAC30-92-20 section A but is provided to assist Albemarle County with general guidance in the review process. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434-589-5871 ioel.denunzioftvdot.virginia.gov 2 BOND ESTIMATE - EROSION CONTROL Spreadsheet last revised:12 -5 -01 PROJECT NAME: Stonefield Blvd. ESC Plan PROJECT NUMBER: WPO- 2011 -00036 DATE OF ESTIMATE: 09/29/11 ESTIMATE BY: PBC BASED ON: Plan signed 9/14/2011 WATER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL SEED, FERTILIZE, MULCH ACRE 5.1 1500 7650 SILT FENCE LF 2700 5 13500 SAFETY FENCE LF 0 3 0 TEMPORARY FILL DIVERSION LF 0 3 0 DIVERSION DIKE LF 1680 3 5040 TEMPORARY SLOPE DRAIN LF 0 20 0 SEDIMENT TRAP 1 ACRES 1.6 1000 1600 INLET PROTECTION EA 19 200 3800 OUTLET PROTECTION EA 1 200 200 ROW DIVERSION LF 50 20 1000 RIP -RAP LF 0 55 0 CHECK DAMS SQ.YD. 0 30 0 21" HDPE PIPE LF 57 33.6 1915.2 STORMWATER STRUCTURES EA 2 2000 4000 PAVED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EA 1 2000 2000 subtotal 40705.20 project management 6105.78 subtotal 46810.98 CONTINGENCY LS 10% 4681.10 TOTAL 51492.08 BOND AMOUNT REQUIRED 51500.00 PROJECT NAME: Stonefield Blvd. SWM Plan FILE #: WPO- 2011 -00036 DATE COMPUTED: 29- Sep -11 Item Unit Amount Unit Cost Subtotal trees & shrubs ball/burlap planted 61 $100.00 $6,100 underdrain stone cubic yard 79 $17.00 $1,343 biofilter surface area/ 27* 1' dept stone delivery load 8 $45.00 $360 underdrain pipe, 6" PVC linear foot 130 $1.35 $176 filter fabric square yard 117 $10.00 $1,170 biofilter surface area/ 27* 1' dept sand /soil mixture cubic yard 199 $20.00 $3,980 biofilter surface area / 27* 2' dept EC -1 outlet protection each 1 $200.00 $200 48" concrete riser structure each 1 $1,000.00 $1,000 Concrete pipe linear foot 63.00 $25.00 $1,575 Forebay Wall 1.00 1,500.00 1,500 subtotal $17,4N project management $2,611 subtotal $20,014 10% Contingency $2,001 TOTAL $22,015 ROUNDED TOTAL $22,100 min total after reduction $4,420 Philip Custer w.. From: Philip Custer Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:07 AM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: FW: SDP-2011-00047 The Shops at Stonefield Regal Cinema Final From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto:Joel.DeNunzio(aVDOT.virginia.govj Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2011 2:47 PM To: Gerald Gatobu Cc: Philip Custer Subject: SDP-2011-00047 The Shops at Stonefield Regal Cinema Final SDP-2011-00047 The Shops at Stonefield Regal Cinema Final Gerald, I have reviewed the subject site plan and have the following comments: 1. The water line along the proposed Stonefield Blvd needs to be placed behind the curb in the utility strip. 2. There is a "utility pole by others" shown in the middle of the sidewalk on sheet 8. Whoever the "others" is should locate the pole somewhere else. 3. Street trees at entrances need to be in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual, B(1)-44. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434-589-5871 joel,denunziovdot.virginia.gov 1 Philip Custer From: Philip Custer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:21 PM To: 'Herbert F. White Ill, P.E.'; 'Rob Umberger'; 'Tom Gallagher' Cc: Gerald Gatobu; Bill Fritz; Mark Graham; Glenn Brooks Subject: Engineering review of Stonefield Blvd. and Regal Cinema Attachments: E2_ecp swm fsp_PBC_sdp-2011-00047 The Shops at Stonefield-Regal Cinema.doc; E2_ecp swm rp_PBC_wpo-2011-00036 Stonefield Blvd. Road Plan.doc Good evening, Attached are the engineering comment letters from the review of the applications for the Stonefield Blvd. Plan (WPO- 2011-00036 and SUB-2011-00109), received 15 September 2011, and the Regal Cinema Site Plan (SDP-2011-00047 and WPO-2011-00055), received 31 August 2011. Both plans are close to receiving technical approval and require a few modifications. These technical issues can be addressed by W&W sending me pdfs of these changes on Monday. These changes include: Stonefield Blvd. -removal of stop signs and stop bars and intersections 3 and 6. -addition of hatching and a note regarding the intersection with 2nd st. Regal Cinema -extension of the curb along west main street -providing a new branch to the temporary pipe system west of Stonefield Blvd.to accept water from the construction of the parking lot that bypasses the inlets on grade (see comment B3 for more details) -increasing the size of the new temporary pipe system to 30" (see comment B3) Please email the pdfs of all of the changes at one time (if not in one email)so they can be reviewed at one time. Once I have signed off on all changes, I will provide ESC and SWM bond estimates for both plans and let you know how many copies of each plan I will need for the WPO and road inspection files(Gerald is coordinating the site plan file). There is one administrative issue left in the comment letter regarding the construction of the sanitary sewer line on the Northrup Grumman property. Generally,we require the easement plats to be recorded before final site plans are signed. I don't have my arms around this issue completely, but in talking with some people here,the final site plan could be signed if ACSA guarantees the easement since they have the power of condemnation. The county should have clarification on this early next week. Please let me know if you have any questions. I will be in the office tomorrow and can respond to any immediate questions that you have then. Thanks, Phil (434)296-5832 x3072 1 ALg�,�� 'IRGINZ� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Stonefield Blvd. Road, ESC, and SWM Plans; WPO- 2011 -00036 & SUB - 2011 -00109 Plan preparer: Mr. Herb White, PE; W & W Associates Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC Date received: (Rev. 1) 15 September 2011 16 June 2011 (Traffic Study Received 1 June 2011) Date of Comment: (Rev. 1) 23 September 2011 3 August 2011 Engineer: Phil Custer The Road, ESC, and SWM plans for Stonefield Blvd. (WPO- 2011 -00036 and SUB - 2011 - 00109) received on 15 September 2011, have been reviewed. The plans can be approved after the following comments have been addressed: A. Traffic Study Review (SUB- 2011 - 00109) 1. Please elaborate on the figures (peak hour and ADT) used for the multiplex theater. The county only possesses the 7th edition and an ADT per seat is not available in that edition. The only per day traffic figure for the theater is based off of screens, which yields 4095 trips for this project. The applicant's estimate of 1310 seems low. Also, for a PM peak hour, a theater usually generates more entering traffic. (Rev. 1) After conversations with VDOT, this comment has been withdrawn. 2. The report assumes 15% of total residential trips will be pedestrian only which seems to be overly optimistic for this project. Please provide the source for this assumption. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 3. While I understand the reasoning for the commercial - commercial reduction, I don't think it is a sound. Please provide a source for the use of this reduction technique. It seems to me it would be more reasonable to use an average of the three commercial ADT estimates (21850 for Phase 1I and 24631 for Phase III). (Rev. 1) Comment has been withdrawn. 4. The passby capture is not justified for this type of analysis. The pass -by capture should only be used for traffic impact analyses which this report is not, despite its title; this report looks at new internal intersections constructed with this development, not the development's impacts on Hydraulic and Route 29. This analysis was performed with the rezoning application and no additional analysis of this kind is needed. (Rev. 1) Comment has been withdrawn. 5. Please provide a graphic such similar to those in Appendix A that distributes the Phase III ADT (vehicles, not percentages) throughout the road grid. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 6. Table D2 shows that Southbound Stonefield Blvd. shows that 100% of the traffic wishes to go straight through the intersection. I don't think this is realistic. If it is correct, a left turn lane is not needed. I also think that more traffic will wish to turn left from Eastbound D3 drive than —16 %. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 7. Given the layout of the development, I do not suspect that Inglewood Drive between I" and 3rd Streets will be carrying any significant amount of through traffic. The —1500 vehicles a day through this street should not preclude use of angled parking along this street. Per the variation letter issued by the Director of Planning, angled parking may be used but the details will be subject to the review of the planner and engineer assigned to the project. The dimensions of the angled parking should be drawn to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance (18 -4.12) and the County Design Manual. County staff may also require the entrances to parking areas off this road to be consolidated to simplify the sight lines for vehicles backing out of spaces. 8. County engineering does not support the use of four way stops at Sta. 15 +11 and Sta. 17 +11. (Rev. 1) Please remove the stop signs and stop bars for the north and south movements on Stonefield Blvd. through the intersections with Main Street and the parking lot south of the Sperry Marine Entrance. These stop conditions are not warranted at this time. 9. Since approximately 2/3 of all Northbound Stonefield Blvd. vehicles will be making a right turn at 3`d St., engineering review feels it is reasonable to maintain a 2nd Northbound lane from the entrance to Sperry Marine to 3`d St. Since the fourway stop at Stonefield Blvd. and 3`d St. will meter the traffic flow through southbound Stonefield Blvd. the second southbound lane may be eliminated per the variation approved by the Director of Planning. (Rev. 1) Since the road terminates at this intersection and no development of Blocks F and G are proposed at this time or in the immediate future, the design of this intersection does not need to be settled now. However, on all sheets showing the northern terminus of Stonefield Blvd., please hatch an area and ROW large enough for a 200ft right turn lane and add a note stating: "The design of the intersection of Stonefield Blvd. (District Ave.) and Second Street has yet to be approved and a future right hand turn lane will likely be needed. This intersection will be reviewed when the construction documents for Block F, Block G, or, possibly, the permanent extension of Stonefield Blvd. (District Ave.) to Route 29 is submitted." B. Road Plan Review (SUB- 2011 - 00109) 1. 1llG wuuny LnwgCS oz.-)u 1ur the review of all public road plans. Please provide a check for $250 to the county for this review of the plan with a completed SUB Application with the appropriate Road Plan Review box checked. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. The SUB application for this road plan is SUB -2011- 00109. 2. Please make the necessary adjustments to the plans to address comments A8 and A9. (Rev. 1) Please refer to these comments above. 3. On southbound Stonefield Blvd., the wide median does not appear necessary. More stacking area could be provided if the 2nd left turn lane was extended to the intersection with Main Street. (Rev. 1) No modifications were required. 4. I don't believe structure 38.1 has been approved on any county plan. The approved SWM plan has no structure from 38 to 39. Please update this set accordingly. (Rev. 1) The applicant has stated this has been modified on an amendment that was approved by other county staff. 5. For storm drain and road profiles, please also show the existing grade line of the site before the mass grading plan was enacted. (Rev. 1) County Engineering has provided relief on this requirement to allow a cut fill exhibit to address this comment. C. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Review (WPO- 2011 - 00036) 1. Because of strict requirements of Water Protection Ordinance Section 17- 207.B.2, erosion and sediment control plans for projects of such a large size must be designed to be closed out as soon as possible. For this reason, subsequent plans cannot assume that the sediment basins constructed with the mass grading application will remain online. Therefore, each ESC plan must be a standalone application. This road plan assumes that the mass grading plan has been completed and is stabilized, but still relies on the sediment basin for ultimate sediment treatment. This ESC plan must be a standalone plan. (Rev.]) The current plan is acceptable. However, the plan is not a standalone plan, but relies on a sediment basin and temporary pipe system that was approved and constructed under WPO- 2009 - 00074, Albemarle Place Mass Grading. Without this plan, the plan currently under review (WPO- 2011 - 00036) would not meet state standards. The nine month disturbance limit for this mass grading plan will be reached on 112612011. Before that date, an extension must be approved by the Board of Supervisors since the reason for the extension is a construction sequencing decision made by the applicant, and not something out of the applicant's control such as poor weather. To receive this extension, the applicant must provide a request for extension by 1112312011 to the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. If the Board of Supervisors does not allow a portion of the mass grading plan that is relied upon by a subsequent plan to remain active, that plan approval would be invalidated and a stop work order for all related construction will be issued until an amendment is approved that meets state regulations without the basin. 2. Sediment -laden water must not enter the stormsewer system and detention facilities. Inlet protection is more often than not an inadequate measure because the inlets are constructed well after initial land disturbance. Even after installation, storm inlets are often bypassed because their rim elevation is higher than the subbase and gravel around them until the final stage of construction. Much of the runoff with this project will be directed out of the north end of the road. The remainder will escape out the graded entrances unless diversions and ROW diversions are utilized. A sediment trap or basin at the north end of the road and perhaps one or two on the east side of the road south of the Sperry site appears to be necessary. (Rev. 1) Sediment -laden water will be allowed to travel through temporary pipe systems that are filled in after stabilization has occurred. The county will consider these systems as temporary slope drains since they are not permanent and carry sediment -laden water to settling facilities. Please see the previous comment. 3. Please provide clearer language on the plan that the mass grading plan is to be completed prior to the start of this application. It is important to the implementation of this plan that the area to the west is stabilized. (Rev. 1) Please refer to comments Cl and C2. 4. For simplification of the design of the ESC plan, I recommend that the ESC plan for the cinema, parking lot for the cinema, and Stonefield Blvd. are combined into one plan, assuming all projects can be completed in 9 months. (Rev. 1) This comment was only a recommendation. 5. Please detail how the Sperry traffic is to be dealt with during construction. How will Sta. 19 +00 to Sta. 20 +50 of Stonefield Blvd. be constructed? (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. I have some concerns about the practicality of the solution of having flaggers on site but will not impose any restrictions because the general public is not affected. 6. Please show the grading for the cleanwater diversion west of the road. Please remove the inlet protection for this inlet (it should be cleanwater and therefore not need protection) and make sure there is an adequate sump for the discharge to this facility. A ROW diversion should also be constructed across this entrance to keep runoff from the construction area from going into this drop inlet. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 7. Because this plan will be implemented after stabilization of the mass grading plan, please confirm there will be no construction traffic wanting to access the north end of the site. (Rev. 1) Please refer to comments Cl and C2. 8. Please remove all references to the biofilter from the ESC plan sheet. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 9. Please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the county engineer to receive an ESC bond. (Rev. 1) A completed Bond Estimate Request Form has been received and estimates will be provided shortly. D. Stormwater Management Plan Review (WPO- 2011 - 00036) 1. Every parcel that requires a stormwater management facility must sign a Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement with the County. Please complete this form and submit it to Ana Kilmer with a $17 recordation fee after reading the instructions online. Another agreement may be required for the master stormwater management plan approved under WPO- 2010 - 00023. (Rev. 1) Ana Kilmer has determined that the previously recorded Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement for the project covers all new facilities. 2. Biofilters must have 2.5' of state approved mix. Please increase the media depth by 6 inches. The county allows a minimum of lft of stone below the media mix. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 3. The 5% impervious area sizing methodology for biofilters assumes that lft of ponding is provided. The 6" provided in this plan is not adequate. The goal with a biofilter treating to a 65% removal rate is to treat the volume of water of 1" of rain falling on the impervious area. In this case, the target volume is about 2850cf but a volume of 1110cf is provided. The simplest solution would be to raise the rim of the DI -7 another 0.5ft. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 4. Please provide outlet protection at the outlet of the storm drain system in the forebay. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 5. Please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the county engineer to receive a SWM bond. (Rev. 1) A completed Bond Estimate Request Form has been received and estimates will be provided shortly. „..., .....„ w A ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS ASSOCIATES September 14,2011 Mr. Philip Custer, P.E. Civil Engineer I Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Stonefield Boulevard Road Plan WPO 2011-00036 WWA Project No. 208026.02 Dear Mr. Custer: This letter is to document and respond to your review comments dated August 3, 2011. Our responses are as follows: A. Traffic Study Review These issues have been deferred to VDOT per previous meetings. B. Road Plan Review 1. Comment: The county charges $250 for the review of all public road plans. Please provide a check for$250 to the county for this review of the plan with a completed SUB Application with the appropriate Road Plan Review box checked. Response: A completed SUB Application and $250 review fee has been provided with this submittal as requested. 2. Comment: Please make the necessary adjustments to the plans to address comments A8 and A9. Response: These issues have been deferred to VDOT per previous meetings. 3. Comment: On southbound Stonefield Blvd., the wide median does not appear necessary. More stacking area could be provided if the 2'd left turn lane was extended to the intersection with Main Street. 3040 Avemore Square Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22911 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 .................................................................................................................................................. Lynchburg•Charlottesville Response: The necessary stacking has been provided in accordance with the traffic study. No modifications have been made to the median with this revision. 4. Comment: I don't believe structure 38.1 has been approved on any county plan. The approved SWM plan has no structure from 38 to 39. Please update this set accordingly. Response: The stormwater management plans have been revised and will be submitted under separate cover. 5. Comment: For storm drain and road profiles,please also show the existing grade line of the site before the mass grading plan was enacted. Response: A cut/fill exhibit has been provided for reference with this submittal. C. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Review (WPO-2011-00036) 1. Comment: Because of strict requirements of Water Protection Ordinance Section 17-207.B.2, erosion and sediment control plans for projects of such a large size must be designed to be closed out as soon as possible. For this reason, subsequent plans cannot assume that the sediment basins constructed with the mass grading application will remain online. Therefore, each ESC plan must be a standalone application. This road plan assumes that the mass grading plan has been completed and is stabilized, but still relies on the sediment basin for ultimate sediment treatment. This ESC plan must be a standalone plan. Response: All final site plans for blocks "A"—"Dl", have been submitted. The road plans and site plans are to be built concurrently and coordinated during construction. These plans have been revised to show the temporary south diversion pipe the Albemarle Place Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, WPO-2009-00074 to transport silt laden water to the south sediment basin. A temporary sediment trap has been added below the intersection of Stonefield Boulevard and Second Street to capture runoff from the areas that do not get picked up in the temporary diversion pipe to the south sediment basin. 2. Comment: Sediment-laden water must not enter the stormsewer system and detention facilities. Inlet protection is more often than not an inadequate measure because the inlets are constructed well after initial land disturbance. Even after installation, storm inlets are often bypassed because their rim elevation is higher than the subbase and gravel around them until the final stage of construction. Much of the runoff with this project will be directed out of the north end of the road. The remainder will escape out the graded entrances unless diversions and ROW diversions are utilized. A sediment trap or basin at the north end of the road and 3040 Avemore Square Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22911 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 Lynchburg•Charlottesville Page 2 of 5 perhaps one or two on the east side of the road south of the Sperry site appears to be necessary. Response: These plans have been revised to show the temporary south diversion pipe the Albemarle Place Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, WPO-2009-00074 to transport silt laden water to the south sediment basin. A temporary sediment trap has been added below the intersection of Stonefield Boulevard and Second Street to capture runoff from the areas that do not get picked up in the temporary diversion pipe to the south sediment basin. 3. Comment: Please provide clearer language on the plan that the mass grading plan is to be completed prior to the start of this application. It is important to the implementation of this plan that the area to the west is stabilized. Response: The road plans and site plans are to be built concurrently and will be coordinated during construction. 4. Comment: For simplification of the design of the ESC plan, I recommend that the ESC plan for the cinema,parking lot for the cinema, and Stonefield Blvd. are combined into one plan, assuming all projects can be completed in 9 months. Response: The road plans and site plans are to be built concurrently and will be coordinated during construction. 5. Comment: Please detail how the Sperry traffic is to be dealt with during construction. How will Sta. 19+00 to Sta. 20+50 of Stonefield Blvd. be constructed? Response: Notes have been added to the plans stating that the Contractor shall proved flaggers at this intersection to direct traffic. Please refer to Dwg. C-12 for details. 6. Comment: Please show the grading for the cleanwater diversion west of the road. Please remove the inlet protection for this inlet (it should be cleanwater and therefore not need protection) and make sure there is an adequate sump for the discharge to this facility. A ROW diversion should also be constructed across this entrance to keep runoff from the construction area from going into this drop inlet. Response: As requested grading has been added for the cleanwater diversion west of the road,the inlet protection has been removed, and ROW diversions have been added. Please refer to Dwg. C-12 for details. 7. Comment: Because this plan will be implemented after stabilization of the mass grading plan,please confirm there will be no construction traffic wanting to access the north end of the site. 3040 Avemore Square Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22911 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 .................................................................................................................................................. Lynchburg•Charlottesville Page 3 of 5 Response: The road plans and site plans are to be built concurrently and will be coordinated during construction. 8. Comment: Please remove all references to the biofilter from the ESC plan sheet. Response: The label has been removed from the biofilter as requested. Please refer to Dwg. C-12 for details. 9. Comment: Please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the county engineer to receive an ESC bond. Response: Noted. D. Stormwater Management Plan Review (WPO-2011-00036) 1. Comment: Every parcel that requires a stormwater management facility must sign a Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement with the County. Please complete this form and submit it to Ana Kilmer with a$17 recordation fee after reading the instructions online. Another agreement may be required for the master stormwater management plan approved under WPO-2010-00023. Response: Noted. 2. Comment: Biofilters must have 2.5'of state approved mix. Please increase the media depth by 6 inches. The county allows a minimum of 1 ft of stone below the media mix. Response: The media depth for the biofilter has been increased to 2.5'. Please refer to Dwg. C-22 for details. 3. Comment: The 5% impervious area sizing methodology for biofilters assumes that 1 ft of ponding is provided. The 6"provided in this plan is not adequate. The goal with a biofilter treating to a 65%removal rate is to treat the volume of water of 1" of rain falling on the impervious area. In this case, the target volume is about 2850cf but a volume of 1110cf is provided. The simplest solution would be to raise the rim of the DI-7 another 0.5ft. Response: The biofilter has been revised to provide a ponding depth of 1'. Please refer to Dwg. C-22 for details. 4. Comment: Please provide outlet protection at the outlet of the storm drain system in the forebay. Response: Outlet protection has been provided at the outfall of the storm sewer in the forebay of the biofilter. Please refer to Dwg. C-12 for details. 3040 Avemore Square Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22911 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 .................................................................................................................................................. Lynchburg•Charlottesville Page 4 of 5 Nisr, Noe' 5. Comment: Please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the county engineer to receive a SWM bond. Response: Noted. I trust that the above responses and plan changes properly address the outstanding issues. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, WW Associates, Inc. Herbert F. White III, P.E. President cc: Thomas R. Gallagher, Edens and Avant 3040 Avemore Square Place•Charlottesville,Virginia 22911 Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444 .................................................................................................................................................. Lynchburg•Charlottesville Page 5 of 5 Philip Custer From: Philip Custer Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:58 PM To: 'Herbert F. White Ill, P.E.'; 'Tom Gallagher' Cc: Glenn Brooks; Gerald Gatobu; Mark Graham Subject: Engineering review of Stonefield Blvd. and Regal Cinema Attachments: E1_ecp swm rp_PBC_wpo-2011-00036 Stonefield Blvd. Road Plan.doc; E1_ecp swm fsp_PBC_sdp-2011-00047 The Shops at Stonefield-Regal Cinema.doc Good evening, Attached are the comment letters from engineering's review of the Stonefield Blvd. (WPO-2011-00036) and Cinema (SDP-2011-00047) plans. I apologize for the delay in getting comments to you. My workload is steadily dwindling, so any future reviews will be much swifter. We will also do our best to help meet any deadline you may have. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. We can also discuss any of these comments in the meeting Gerald has scheduled on Monday. Or, if a more immediate meeting is needed, please let me know and I can try to schedule another time. Thanks, Phil 296-5832 x3072 1 ALg�,�� 'IRGINZ� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Stonefield Blvd. Road, ESC, and SWM Plans; WPO- 2011 -00036 Plan preparer: Mr. Herb White, PE; W & W Associates Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC Date received: 16 June 2011 (Traffic Study Received 1 June 2011) Date of Comment: 3 August 2011 Engineer: Phil Custer The Road, ESC, and SWM plans for Stonefield Blvd. (WPO- 2011 - 00036) received on 16 June 2011, have been reviewed. The traffic study requested during the review of preliminary site plan, but was received on 1 June 2011, has also been reviewed. The plans can be approved after the following comments have been addressed: A. Traffic Study Review (Unnamed SUB application) 1. Please elaborate on the figures (peak hour and ADT) used for the multiplex theater. The county only possesses the 7t'' edition and an ADT per seat is not available in that edition. The only per day traffic figure for the theater is based off of screens, which yields 4095 trips for this project. The applicant's estimate of 1310 seems low. Also, for a PM peak hour, a theater usually generates more entering traffic. 2. The report assumes 15% of total residential trips will be pedestrian only which seems to be overly optimistic for this project. Please provide the source for this assumption. 3. While I understand the reasoning for the commercial - commercial reduction, I don't think it is a sound. Please provide a source for the use of this reduction technique. It seems to me it would be more reasonable to use an average of the three commercial ADT estimates (21850 for Phase II and 24631 for Phase III). 4. The passby capture is not justified for this type of analysis. The pass -by capture should only be used for traffic impact analyses which this report is not, despite its title; this report looks at new internal intersections constructed with this development, not the development's impacts on Hydraulic and Route 29. This analysis was performed with the rezoning application and no additional analysis of this kind is needed. 5. Please provide a graphic such similar to those in Appendix A that distributes the Phase III ADT (vehicles, not percentages) throughout the road grid. 6. Table D2 shows that Southbound Stonefield Blvd. shows that 100% of the traffic wishes to go straight through the intersection. I don't think this is realistic. If it is correct, a left turn lane is not needed. I also think that more traffic will wish to turn left from Eastbound D3 drive than —16 %. 7. Given the layout of the development, I do not suspect that Inglewood Drive between I" and 3`d Streets will be carrying any significant amount of through traffic. The —1500 vehicles a day through this street should not preclude use of angled parking along this street. Per the variation letter issued by the Director of Planning, angled parking may be used but the details will be subject to the review of the planner and engineer assigned to the project. The dimensions of the angled parking should be drawn to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance (18 -4.12) and the County Design Manual. County staff may also require the entrances to parking areas off this road to be consolidated to simplify the sight lines for vehicles backing out of spaces. 8. County engineering does not support the use of four way stops at Sta. 15 +11 and Sta. 17 +11. 9. Since approximately 2/3 of all Northbound Stonefield Blvd. vehicles will be making a right turn at 3`d St., engineering review feels it is reasonable to maintain a 2nd Northbound lane from the entrance to Sperry Marine to 3`d St. Since the fourway stop at Stonefield Blvd. and 3`d St. will meter the traffic flow through southbound Stonefield Blvd. the second southbound lane may be eliminated per the variation approved by the Director of Planning. B. Road Plan Review (Unnamed SUB application) 1. The county charges $250 for the review of all public road plans. Please provide a check for $250 to the county for this review of the plan with a completed SUB Application with the appropriate Road Plan Review box checked. 2. Please make the necessary adjustments to the plans to address comments A8 and A9. 3. On southbound Stonefield Blvd., the wide median does not appear necessary. More stacking area could be provided if the 2nd left turn lane was extended to the intersection with Main Street. 4. I don't believe structure 38.1 has been approved on any county plan. The approved SWM plan has no structure from 38 to 39. Please update this set accordingly. 5. For storm drain and road profiles, please also show the existing grade line of the site before the mass grading plan was enacted.. C. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Review (WPO- 2011 - 00036) 1. Because of strict requirements of Water Protection Ordinance Section 17- 207.B.2, erosion and sediment control plans for projects of such a large size must be designed to be closed out as soon as possible. For this reason, subsequent plans cannot assume that the sediment basins constructed with the mass grading application will remain online. Therefore, each ESC plan must be a standalone application. This road plan assumes that the mass grading plan has been completed and is stabilized, but still relies on the sediment basin for ultimate sediment treatment. This ESC plan must be a standalone plan. 2. Sediment -laden water must not enter the stormsewer system and detention facilities. Inlet protection is more often than not an inadequate measure because the inlets are constructed well after initial land disturbance. Even after installation, storm inlets are often bypassed because their rim elevation is higher than the subbase and gravel around them until the final stage of construction. Much of the runoff with this project will be directed out of the north end of the road. The remainder will escape out the graded entrances unless diversions and ROW diversions are utilized. A sediment trap or basin at the north end of the road and perhaps one or two on the east side of the road south of the Sperry site appears to be necessary. 3. Please provide clearer language on the plan that the mass grading plan is to be completed prior to the start of this application. It is important to the implementation of this plan that the area to the west is stabilized. 4. For simplification of the design of the ESC plan, I recommend that the ESC plan for the cinema, parking lot for the cinema, and Stonefield Blvd. are combined into one plan, assuming all projects can be completed in 9 months. 5. Please detail how the Sperry traffic is to be dealt with during construction. How will Sta. 19 +00 to Sta. 20 +50 of Stonefield Blvd. be constructed? 6. Please show the grading for the cleanwater diversion west of the road. Please remove the inlet protection for this inlet (it should be cleanwater and therefore not need protection) and make sure there is an adequate sump for the discharge to this facility. A ROW diversion should also be constructed across this entrance to keep runoff from the construction area from going into this drop inlet. 7. Because this plan will be implemented after stabilization of the mass grading plan, please confirm there will be no construction traffic wanting to access the north end of the site. 8. Please remove all references to the biofilter from the ESC plan sheet. 9. Please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the county engineer to receive an ESC bond. D. Stormwater Management Plan Review (WPO- 2011 - 00036) 1. Every parcel that requires a stormwater management facility must sign a Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement with the County. Please complete this form and submit it to Ana Kilmer with a $17 recordation fee after reading the instructions online. Another agreement may be required for the master stormwater management plan approved under WPO- 2010 - 00023. 2. Biofilters must have 2.5' of state approved mix. Please increase the media depth by 6 inches. The county allows a minimum of lft of stone below the media mix. 3. The 5% impervious area sizing methodology for biofilters assumes that lft of ponding is provided. The 6" provided in this plan is not adequate. The goal with a bioiilter treating to a 65% removal rate is to treat the volume of water of 1" of rain falling on the impervious area. In this case, the target volume is about 2850cf but a volume of 11 10c is provided. The simplest solution would be to raise the rim of the DI -7 another 0.5ft. 4. Please provide outlet protection at the outlet of the storm drain system in the forebay. 5. Please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the county engineer to receive a SWM bond. File: El_ecp swm rp_PBC _ wpo- 2011 -00036 Stonefield Blvd. Road Plan.doc Philip Custer From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 4:46 PM To: Philip Custer Subject: FW: Stonefield - Traffic Impact Analysis Phil, Below are the comments VDOT sent to Stonefield about the internal road lane configurations and 4 -way stop conditions. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 - 589 -5871 joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 12:50 PM To: 'Erich Strohhacker' Cc: 'Mark Graham'; 'Gerald Gatobu'; steets @edensandavant.com; 'Tom Gallagher'; Proctor, Charles C.; Hartmann, William L.; Perry, Richard; Barron, L. Marshall; Glenn Brooks Subject: Stonefield - Traffic Impact Analysis Stonefield - Traffic Impact Analysis Erich, VDOT North West Regional Operations traffic engineers and Culpeper District Planning and Land Development sections have reviewed the traffic analysis submitted for the proposed Stonefield development and have the following comments: 1. The three proposed multi -way stops at the intersections of Stonefield Blvd & Main St, Stonefield Blvd & Block C2, and Stonefield Blvd & Third Street are not warranted in Phase I construction and only the intersection at Stonefield and Main St may meet any of the warrants in Phase II. VDOT cannot permit the installation of these unwarranted traffic control devices. 2. Traffic Signal warrant analysis will need to be performed for the locations of Hydraulic Rd. & Stonefield Blvd. and for the intersection of Rt. 29 & Fourth St. Additionally; the warrants will need to be performed for the different Phases of build -out to determine when the proposed traffic signal should actually be installed. The traffic signal warrant analysis should be performed in the Northwest Region format. 3. The assumption that all of the internal capture trips between the residential and commercial component of the development are pedestrian is not acceptable. However, the development has some (clarify percentage) residential units integrated into the town center and this could be used to support this assumption if documented The Revised TIA Manual has guidelines for reduction for pedestrian and bicycle based on the amount and type of facilities included in the development. 4. Shopping Center ITE code 820 is used for the retail use on the site. This use includes an internal capture reduction and cannot be reduced further. Consider using ITE Code 820 for the entire non - residential use on the site for determining the external trips, and the difference between the total and the separate north /south generation as the additional internal trips between the two commercial areas. 5. It would be helpful to have a legend to accompany the report the type of use for each block so that a more accurate possible pedestrian use could be reviewed. Such as indicating where the overflow parking is to be located and other land uses. 6. Please review the lane usage for the southbound approach to Stonefield Blvd. & Block C2. With the number of southbound PM trips leaving the Sperry Marine office it may be necessary to have two through lanes. 7. Stonefield Blvd. & Fourth St. should terminate at an intersection. This will enable through traffic from /to Rt. 29 to avoid two additional intersections, and possibly may enhance the movement of traffic within the adjacent parking areas. 8. There appears to be some typos and minor errors on all of the percent distribution figures. Check the in /out volume for each block make sure they are balanced and the totals are correct. Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 - 589 -5871 ioel . den unzioCcbvdot.vir4inia.00v