Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201200001 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2012-04-18Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 8:00 PM To: 'Chris Haine' Cc: 'Tom Gallagher'; Bill Fritz; Sarah Baldwin; Margaret Maliszewski; Mark Graham Subject: CD2_Stonefield Minor Amendments—Town Center plans and the Building CHV (Cinema) plans Chris, Below are my comments with regards to the revised minor amendments of both the Stonefield Town Center plans and the Building CI -IV (Cinema) plans. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Stonefield Town Center — SDP2012 -00001 1) As shown on Sheet 10 of 51 on L..,..cvised plan two parking spaces were lost due to the addition of a new dumpster. Assure the parking calculations on the cover sheet are correct, as currently they are the same as was provided on the approved final site plan. Revise if appropriate. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 2) Also, throughout the plan Tree Wells have been replaced with larger Planting Areas. Inevitably this modification alters the impervious surface calculations for the plan. Assure the impervious surface calculations throughout the plan reflect these changes. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 3) There is an approved subdivision plat for this property. If the plat has been recorded, Sheet 1 and all other applicable notations throughout the plan will need to reflect the change in status of the parcels. Revise if appropriate. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 4) Within the most recent submittal of light plans (L1 -L22) that I received on the February 22nd were also a copy of the "Exterior Elevations Lighting Sheets A302 -A1, A3, A4, A5, B1, B2, B3, C1 -2, C1 -3, and C2 -2 ". If these sheets are to be included with the site plan amendment please revise sheet 1 of the final site plan to include these. If they were strictly for ARB review and not a part of the final site plan, please state this for clarification purposes. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. As you know the site plan amendment cannot be signed/approved until the ARB has approved the plan and all other comments have been addressed. Engineering has provided their comments to you individually. All of my initial comments have been addressed; however, I have additional comments which have been generated with the recent revisions (they are provided below). Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 5) The most recent revised minor amendment plan dated/signed 3 -26 -12 included revisions to pages 1, 4, 7, 11, 23, 28, 29, 33, 34, 41 -52 and appendix 1 -22. The initial minor amendment plan dated/signed 12 -22 -11 included revisions to pages 1, 7 -25, 27, 35 -36, 38, 40 -48, 52 and appendix 1 -22. For clarification purposes does the minor amendment for approval include only those pages provided in the set dated 3 -26 -12 or does it also include the pages from the initial submittal dated 12 -22 -11 as well? 6) After receiving your email dated 4 -17 -12 I have verified and made note that sheets LS -1 through LS -3 are from the C1 -IV Building amendment plan and are to be excluded from the Town Center amendment plans. However, in the initial submittal of the amendment for the Town Center plans and on sheet 1 of the revised amendment plan page 50 of 52/ drawing number LS -3 is clouded as being revised; however, this sheet is not included in the latest revised plans? Did anything change on this sheet from the initial submittal of the amendment plan to the revised version? And is this sheet to be included in the minor amendment of the plan? 7) On sheet 1, under Site Data (continued), within the Land Use Schedule: it appears that when the impervious calculations for the site were revised, all other calculations throughout the chart also changed including: Recreational Area, Civic Space, Green Space, Roads /parking, Buildings (footprint) and the Total Acreage for the site (from 927,284 Square feet (21.29 acres) to 932,860 Square feet (21.1 acres). Please explain why the calculations for the above mentioned items changed. 7) On sheet 4, above the Abbreviations, the chart which depicts Uses within the various Blocks of the development has been modified for Block E. Specifically the residential units have been modified from 0 to 250. For clarification purposed is this modification caused by the approval of The Haven? 8) On sheets L -101, 102, 103, and 104 the legend and the site plan have been modified to omit "green screening ". Is this item proposed to be removed from the plan completely or has it been given an alternative symbol or shown on other pages? 9) To avoid confusion on the revised plans sheet 34 of 52/ drawing number C -30 was previously sheet 33 of 51/ drawing number C -30 on the approved final plan. Revise if appropriate. Stonefield Building C1-IV — SDP2012 -00005 1) Sheet 9 of 35 depicts Block DI's parking area without 4' Planting Areas. Inevitably this modification alters the impervious surface calculations for the plan. Assure the impervious surface calculations throughout the plan reflect the changes (notably the cover sheet and sheet 18 of 35, for D1 Parking Area). (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 2) Also, throughout the plan Tree Wells have been replaced with larger Planting Areas. Inevitably this modification alters the impervious surface calculations for the plan. Assure the impervious surface calculations throughout the plan reflect these changes. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 3) Sheet 28 of 35 depicts an altered Parking Lot Pavement Section Detail, with regard to the 1" and 2nd layer's depth and material type. The new figure is similar to the Light Duty parking lot specifications which are specified in the Town Center plans, sheet 38 of 52. Please explain if and how these modifications to sheet 28 of 35 will affect the site and the reasons for the modification. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 4) Also, after having reviewed the Town Center plans it appears there has been some consideration taken for the amount of traffic which crosses over various portions of the parking lot through the use of Heavy Duty asphalt. Why has this strategy not been employed on the Building C1 -IV plan? (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. As you know the site plan amendment cannot be signed/approved until all comments have been addressed. Engineering has provided their comments to you individually. All of my initial comments have been addressed; however, I have additional comments which have been generated with the recent revisions (they are provided below). Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 5) The most recent revised minor amendment plan dated/signed 3 -26 -12 included revisions to pages 1, 7, 8, 17, 19, and 26 -28. The initial minor amendment plan dated/signed 12 -22 -11 included revisions to pages 1, 2, 7 -11, 13 -19, 26 -28, and 31 -34.1. For clarification purposes does the minor amendment for approval include only those pages provided in the set dated 3 -26 -12 or does it also include the pages from the initial submittal dated 12 -22 -11 as well? 6) On sheet 1, under Site Data (continued), within the Land Use Schedule: it appears that when the impervious calculations for the site were revised most other calculations throughout the chart also changed including: Civic Space, Green Space, Roads /parking, and the Total Acreage for the site (from 259, 310 Square feet (5.95 acres) to 256,238 Square feet (5.88 acres). Please explain why the calculations for the above mentioned items changed. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:33 AM To: 'Chris Haine' Cc: Tom Gallagher Subject: RE: Stonefield - Amendment #1 site plans Chris, I just received your phone message prompted by your email. This email will serve as a status update: Engineering: Provided their comments on Thursday to Tom Gallagher. See the email I forwarded you a couple minutes ago, which are Engineering's comments for both plan amendments. ARB: It appears Margaret gave ARB approval for the CI -IV minor amendment on 2- 29 -12; however, the Town Center minor amendment has yet to receive ARB approval, in county view she last requested comments on 1- 19 -12. 1 am not sure how her review was coming before she left. I know she was working with you personally on these revisions. Unfortunately she will not be in for the remainder of the week due to a death in the family. Planning: All of my initial comments which I sent to you via email were addressed on both plans; however after reviewing the revised plans, I noticed a couple new landscape sheets on the Town Center plans which were not included in the final approved plan (sheet LS -1 and LS -2 ?), nor were they apart of the previous submittal of this plan. I have completed my review of the CI -IV amendments and have no further comments (during the review of the Town Center I noticed the changes on sheet 1 and relooked at the Cinema Plans and noted they changed on this plan to, thus I have a couple minor comments for the Cinema as well) but am running behind on my review of the Town Center plans. I hope to have the Town Center plan amendment comments completed by COB Wednesday. I am very sorry for the inconvenience. If you have any questions feel free to call me. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 From: Chris Haine [mai Ito: CHaine@edens.com] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 9:46 AM To: Christopher Perez Cc: Tom Gallagher Subject: Stonefield - Amendment #1 site plans Chris, Per my voicemail: touching base on Stonefield final site plan approvals. Last week we discussed you were working on reviewing `Regal' and `Town Center' site plan amendment #1 documents that were resubmitted to the County last month. Can you provide an update and ETA when approval or comments from zoning? Thanks Chris, CH Chris Haine, AIA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT MANAGER EDENS 7200 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 400 Bethesda, MD 20814 www.EDENS.com P (301) 347 -3736 1 C (301) 518 -7137 1 F (301) 652 -3588 --e EEDEN- Mfacebook.com /WEareEDENS & @WEareEDENS NOTICE: This communication may contain information that is confidential to EDENS. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please delete and destroy all copies and immediately notify EDENS by sending a reply e-mail to the sender of this message. If you are the intended recipient of this communication, you should not copy, disclose or distribute this communication without EDENS' authority. Any views expressed in this communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be EDENS' views. Except as required by law, EDENS does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.