HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201100059 Review Comments Stormwater Management Plan 2011-10-21ALg�,��
�'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 Town Center SWM and Site Plan; WPO- 2011 -00059 & SDP - 2011 -00054
Plan preparer: Mr. Herb White, PE; W & W Associates
Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
Date received: 11 August 2011
(Rev. 1) 17 October 2011
Date of Comment: 4 October 2011
(Rev. 1) 21 October 2011
Engineer: Phil Custer
The second submittal of the SWM and site plans for Stonefield Town Center (WPO- 2011 -00059 and SDP -
2011- 00054), received on 17 October 2011, have been reviewed. The plans can be approved after the
following comments have been addressed:
A. Stormwater Management Review Comments
1. Please provide an approval letter from Filterra that the current layout is acceptable to them. I have
concerns with a few of the structures not operating well in the field. For instance, the water
running in the curb uphill of structure 104.1 would have to reverse direction in order for the
Filterra to operate efficiently. A smaller facility on the curb line farther south of Inlet 104 should
be looked at.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
2. What is the minimum cover required on the roof drain collection lines to the Filterras located in
the middle of parking islands? Are the loads these pipes are going to encounter in the parking lot
acceptable?
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
3. Please provide a cross - section detail for crowned gutter pan between the two sets of paired filterras
(82.1 & 82.2 and 81.1 & 81.2).
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
4. This application will require that a new Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement
be recorded. Please complete this form and submit it to Ana Kilmer with a $17 recordation fee
after reading the instructions online. Please include all parcels contained in this site plan on this
agreement.
(Rev. 1) The applicant has been made aware of this comment and will work with Ana Kilmer
once all comments have been addressed.
5. Please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the county engineer to receive an
SWM bond.
(Rev. 1) A completed Bond Estimate Request Form has been submitted. Bond estimates will be
provided after all WPO comments have been addressed.
B. Site Plan Review Comments
1. The Director of Planning, in his response to the applicant's variation request during the
preliminary site plan, 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 commercial districts can normally be approved administratively, this cannot be done when the
private street connects two public streets [14- 234.C.4], 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, it is my opinion that
the private road network will need to be authorized by the Planning Commission (or a
modification to Wayne's variation letter citing Table H could eliminate the need for Planning
Commission review). This was a condition of preliminary site plan approval. The final
interpretation of this variance and how the private street standards are applied to the streets of this
development will be made by the Chief of Current Development who is performing the Planning
Review of this project.
(Rev. 1) The Director of Planning has provided clarification in an email to me and authorizes
Main Street (Bond Street) as a Private Street. Comment has been addressed.
2. A boundary line adjustment plat appears to be necessary to eliminate or modify lot lines that bisect
buildings before a site plan is approved. Otherwise, a firewall would need to be constructed on the
property line.
(Rev. 1) A boundary line adjustment is currently under review.
3. The plan does not appear consistent with the application plan in that there is no park area in front
of the hotel. The application plan clearly showed a park area in Block D that was designated as
"Congregation Area" that was "intended to serve as the core public activity zone within the
project ", but this final site plan seems to show an isolated lawn area that is closed off completely
by shrubs. These areas were designated as "parks" in the preliminary site plan that the Director of
Planning reviewed when considering the variation for the site layout. Please make both of these
Green Spaces usable parks.
(Rev. 1) The modifications to this park area do not seem to me to meet the Application Plan's
and Code of Development's intention. Originally, the park /plaza was designated as public
activity zone within the project. The grass lawn park that's shown in this site plan does not
appear to accomplish this. I have asked the Planning Department to weigh in on the design of
the park to determine whether the current proposal is consistent with their expectations when
the variation was granted. This review will be provided next week.
4. To be consistent with the variation granted by the Director of Planning on 5/16/2011, all tree wells
and planting strips must be at least 5 feet in width.
(Rev. 1) Please draw all tree wells to a 5ft width so there is no confusion.
5. To be consistent with the variation granted by the Director of Planning on 5/16/2011, please
remove the perpendicular parking spaces on Inglewood.
(Rev. 1) The Director of Planning has provided clarification in an email to me and authorizes
the use of the 6 perpendicular parking spaces on Inglewood as long as they are designate as for
valet only.
6. The County Engineer has approved the waiver of curb and gutter on Main Street in the area shown
by the applicant. This approval is conditioned on keeping water flowing out of the travelway and
in the parking space that a more traditional cross - section achieves with a curb. However, because
of the flat grades, there needs to be a greater delineation between the parking portion of the cross -
section and the sidewalk. Please provide planter boxes, street furniture, and bollards along the
street in similar spacing that was shown in the exhibits of other curbless streets located throughout
the country that were provided to the county when the waiver was requested by the applicant.
I understand why the trench drains were placed at tree well locations, but I am concerned that a
frequent flow of water may washout the mulch and other debris from these boxes and may clog the
system in the future. Is there any way to mitigate this concern with the design? Perhaps each
trench drain could be moved just upstream of the planter box or 6inch curbs (or greater to allow
for seating) could be installed around each tree well.
(Rev. 1) The plan does not call for planter boxes and bollards in the area of the curbless
section. It appears that the only modification to this plan was the addition of two photographs
to the set, on Sheet L -104, showing planter boxes and bollards. Beneath these photographs,
please add the following note:
Planter boxes, bollards, and street trees will be spaced at no less than loft on center along
the curbless portion of Bond Street.
Beneath the curbless section on sheet C -33 and in the area of the curbless section on Sheets C-
7, C -8, L -102 and L -103, please refer to the photographs and note on Sheet L -104.
7. Please provide a sidewalk around the east side of Building A -III. [18- 32.7.2.8]
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
8. Please extend the curbing into an island at the end of the parking row west of Building A -1 enough
to protect the vehicle parked at the end of the row. [18- 4.12.15.f]
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
9. Please locate the concrete island north of Building B -II —40ft to the west so that it lines up with the
concrete walkway between buildings. [18- 32.7.2.8]
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
10. Please provide pedestrian connections from Hydraulic Road into the southeastern parking lots by
Building A -I and Building AN. [18- 32.7.2.8]
(Rev. 1) No connection has been provided from Hydraulic Road to the sidewalk around
Building A -L When the Chief of Current Development returns, I will discuss this comment
further with him.
11. Please provide more spot elevations along Swanson Ave. This road is fairly flat and it's difficult
to tell where the intended watersheds for each structure end.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
12. The standard duty pavement provided in most of the parking lots looks to be acceptable for
approximately 1000 vehicles a day according to the VDOT pavement design manual. The heavy
duty pavement in the hotel lot can handle approximately 3000 vehicles a day. It's likely that many
of the travelways within the parking lot will experience more than 1000 vehicles a day. Please use
heavy duty pavement along primary travelways within the parking lots, especially areas where
truck delivery and dumpster removal routes are expected. [18- 4.12.15.a]
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
13. Please provide more stop signs within the parking lots to allow the primary travelways freer flow.
In particular, the areas of the parking lots with wide curves for truck traffic need the most
attention.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
14. Please show the potential extension of First Street without any horizontal curves. If this road is to
ever be constructed, it's not logical that any future re- developer of these duplex properties would
use up space with a horizontal curve.
(Rev. 1) The Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, and a Zoning
Representative, Sarah Baldwin, both believed that a horizontal alignment would be acceptable
to meet this proffer /condition /requirement.
15. Please show a profile of Second Street to confirm that a connection can be made to
Commonwealth Drive per Proffer 13. Similar to the comment made regarding the profile of First
Street, show this as a straight connection with as few horizontal curves as possible.
(Rev. 1) The latest set of proffers approved by the Board of Supervisors on September lot ", 2011
still included the connection of Third Street to Commonwealth as a requirement. I will discuss
this issue with the Planning Director once he returns to the office.
16. Where is the low point in the exit of Main Street onto Route 29? Is the spot elevation 77.55 the
low point? It appears that another inlet may be necessary to prevent concentrated water from
flowing across this travel lane.
(Rev. 1) I have discussed this issue with Joel DeNunzio at VDOT and he has assured me that
the design this entrance on latest edition of the Route 29 plan maintains a flow line between the
curb inlets D -2A and D -3A. Comment has been withdrawn.
17. Please remove Note 4 on Sheet C -28 and replace it with a callout of the product number of the
grate. The grate type is critical to the adequacy of the drainage system. It appears as though
Product #12.504G.FB has been specified.
(Rev. I) Comment has been addressed.
18. Please provide a sample written out calculation for the trench drains on grade in the tables on the
right of C -23. [18- 4.12.15.b]
(Rev. 1) The calculations were performed assuming a P -1 -718 grate. The proposed grate is
much more hydraulically restrictive the P -1 -718 (please see Appendix 9D -1 of the VDOT
Drainage Manual). Please refer to all emails from this morning and afternoon foram of my
concerns regarding the trench calculations.
19. Bumper blocks are needed in parking spaces where there is no curb. [18- 4.12.16.e]
r. 1) Comment has been addressed.
20. Please show all sight distance lines as they had been approved on the preliminary site plan with
regard to geometry and required distances.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Entrances onto streets with a design speed of
15mph need 170ft of sight distance. Entrances onto streets with a design speed of 20mph need
225ft of sight distance. Please darken all sight lines that were reviewed with the Stonefield
Blvd. Road Plan.
21. Street furniture must be shown on all streets required by Appendix B of the Code of Development.
Location and frequency of street furniture must be approved by county staff.
(Rev. 1) Street furniture is missing from Swanson and Inglewood Drive.
22. Where is "Main Street Alley" located on site?
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
23. Please provide typical retaining wall details in the set. The detail should include a handrail since
many of the walls are greater than 4ft tall.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
24. The detectable warning surface along the curbless section of Main Street must be 2ft wide to be
compliant with ADA standards.
(Rev. 1) Please draw the detectable warning surface as 2ft wide to avoid confusion.
File: E2_swm fsp_PBC _ wpo- 2011 -00059 sdp- 2011 -00054 Stonefield Town Center.doc