HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201200005 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2012-05-11Christopher Perez
From:
Christopher Perez
Sent:
Friday, May 11, 2012 3:14 PM
To:
Christopher Perez; 'Chris Haine'
Cc:
'Tom Gallagher'; 'Peter Melmed'; Margaret Maliszewski; Mark Graham; Bill Fritz; David Benish
Subject:
Site plan amendments signature
Chris,
Stonefield Town Center:
I've completed my review of the Stonefield Town Center plans and have provided my comments below:
1) It appears that the cover sheet incorrectly lists which pages have been modified with this minor amendment. Notably,
the cover sheet lists 1, 11 -13, 23, 28 -29, 33 -34, 41 -44 as having changed from the approved final SDP, however; in
addition to the pages listed, the following pages have also been modified from the approved final SDP: pages 4, 7, 8, 9,
10, 14 -22, 24 -25, 27, 35 -38, 45 -48. Additionally, Appendix 1 -22 was not included in the approved final SDP, thus it
should also be called out on the cover sheet as having been modified since the final approved SDP.
I plan to redline the above pages on the cover sheet as having been modified through clouding them as the others have
been clouded. Is this ok with you and your Engineer's that I redline the cover sheet for these plans? Otherwise provide a
revised cover sheet for each plan to be signed with the above revisions.
The above is merely for consistency purposes, as you provided and entire revised plan which includes every sheet.
Essentially this minor amendment plan will replace the previously approved final SDP, which will make it easier to use
due to the amount of changes.
2) While you received ARB approval of the plan, I need to assure ARB is fine with this final copy for signature. Margareta
is out of the office today and Monday but she should be back Tuesday at which point I'll ask her if she's ok with the plans
as submitted.
Once the above have been addressed, the plans should be ready to sign; last I spoke to Phil he did not have any pending
concerns.
Building CHV (Cinema):
I've completed my review of the Cinema plans and have provided my comments below:
1) It appears that the cover sheet incorrectly lists which pages have been modified with this minor amendment. Notably,
the cover sheet lists 1, 7, 8, 17, 19, 26 -28 as having changed from the approved final SDP, however; in addition to the
pages listed, the following pages have also been modified from the approved final SDP: pages 2, 4, 9 -11, 13 -19, 23, 26-
28, 31, 32, 32.1, 32.2, 33, 34, 34.1.
I plan to redline the above pages on the cover sheet as having been modified through clouding them as the others have
been clouded. Is this ok with you and your Engineer's that I redline the cover sheet for these plans? Otherwise provide a
revised cover sheet for each plan to be signed with the above revisions.
2) Additionally, page 35 sheet LS -4 "Guard Rail Details" formerly titled as "SWM Landscape Plan" has been omitted from
the plan? Unless ARB has determined this page to be unnecessary, please provide a slip sheet of this page for all the
plans to be signed.
The above is merely for consistency purposes, as you provided and entire revised plan which includes every sheet.
Essentially this minor amendment plan will replace the previously approved final SDP, which will make it easier to use
due to the amount of changes.
3) While you received ARB approval of the plan, I need to assure ARB is fine with this final copy for signature. Margareta
is out of the office today and Monday but she should be back Tuesday at which point I'll ask her if she's ok with the plans
as submitted.
Once the above have been addressed, the plans should be ready to sign; last I spoke to Phil he did not have any pending
concerns.
If you have any questions feel free to call me, or email me.
Thanks
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 [mailto:CHaine@edens.com]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:20 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Cc: Tom Gallagher; Peter Melmed
Subject: Site plan amendments signature
Chris,
Can you advise on the status of signatures on minor site plan amendment plans which are required for release of B3 blgd
permit?
FYI, Tom Gallagher informed me the bond payments were delivered to the county yesterday.
Thx
Chris Haine,
AIA
Planning & Development Manager
EDENS
7200 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 400
Bethesda, MD 20814
www.EDENS.com
(301) 347 -3736 1 C
(301) 518 -7137 1 F
(301) 652 -3588
facebook.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.
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 4:04 PM
To: 'Chris Haine'
Cc: Tom Gallagher; Sarah Baldwin; Bill Fritz; Margaret Maliszewski; Philip Custer
Subject: Stonefield Town Center (SDP201200001 ) and Building C1 -IV (SDP201200005) Minor
Amendment
Chris,
After having reviewed the latest pages of the minor amendments for Stonefield Town Center I have no further
comments. It appears that all technical comments from all reviewers have been addressed on both
plans (Stonefield Town Center (SDP201200001) and Building C14V (SDP201200005) Minor
Amendment):
Town Center Minor Amendment SDP201200001
- ARB approval was granted 4 -25 -12
Community Development /my comments on the plan have been addressed per this email 5 -2 -12 (as
aiscussea toaay via the yarn phone can assure LS -3 SWM landscaping pan morn the nnai aNNroved
plans are depicted on the cover sheet as this sheet is still applicable and did not change)
- Engineering's technical comments on the plan have been addressed per Phil's 4 -27 -12 email.
- ACSA granted approval of construction plans per 4 -12 -12 letter
Building CI-IV /Regal Minor Amendment SDP201200005
- ARB approval was granted in 2 -29 -12
- Community Development /my comments on the plan have been addressed per 5 -2 -12
- Engineering's technical comments on the plan have been addressed per Phil's 4 -12 -12 email.
- ACSA granted approval of construction plans per 4 -12 -12 letter
For approval please submit 4 signed and sealed paper copies of the amendments for each
plan (provide additional copies if desired) - one copy will go to the applicant, one copy for the file,
two copies for the CEO.
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
Christopher 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.
Philip Custer
From: Philip Custer
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 5:48 PM
To: 'Tom Gallagher'; 'Tom Gallagher'; 'hwhite @wwassociates.net'
Cc: Glenn Brooks; Christopher Perez; Mark Graham
Subject: Engineering review of Stonefield Plans
Attachments: E2_mia esc swm_PBC_sdp- 2012 -00001 wpo- 2011 -00059 Town Center Amendment.doc
Good evening,
I have completed my review of the latest submittals for Stonefield.
The private street plans, SUB - 2012 - 00005, are hereby approved. A determination will need to be made by the county
engineer whether a bond adjustment will be necessary. Additional copies may be required to pass off to the inspections
division. If necessary, these will be requested by staff at a later date.
The stormwater management plan associated with the private street (WPO- 2012 - 00001) is hereby approved on the
condition that a stormwater facility maintenance agreement referring to this latest plan is recorded. A new SWM bond
also must be posted. Please provide a bond estimate request form to the county to receive an estimate. The site plan
amendment for the cinema cannot be approved until this bond is posted and the maintenance agreement recorded.
The ESC bond will remain unchanged under WPO- 2011 - 00036, but when the new SWM bond is posted, the old SWM
bond can be released. Additional copies may be required to pass off to the inspections division. If necessary, these will
be requested by staff at a later date.
All technical comments regarding the cinema site plan amendment (SDP- 2012 - 00001) have been addressed. However,
this plan cannot be approved until the SWM bond is posted and the maintenance agreement recorded for the swm
amendment to the road plan. Also, because the swm plan is no longer being completely thrown out, since 2 filterras
remain, a swm amendment will need to be processed. The plan itself is fine, but a $180 fee will be required. Please
direct this fee to original swm plan, WPO- 2011 - 00055. The $180 fee that was provided with the first submittal is now in
the process of being refunded to the applicant and cannot be recalled. After this fee is received, the new SWM bond for
the private road posted, and the maintenance agreement for the new road SWM is recorded, the applicant can request
a new bond computation for WPO- 2011 -00055 by submitting a bond estimate request. Additional copies will be
required to pass off to the inspections division. These will be requested by staff at a later date.
The Towncenter site and stormwater plan amendment cannot be approved at this time. Please refer to the attached
memo for further detail.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Phil
(434) 296 -5832 x3072
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:05 PM
To: 'Chris Haine'
Cc: Bill Fritz; Sarah Baldwin
Subject: Stonefield (Town Center and Building C1 -IV) final site plan amendments
Chris,
Below are my comments for Stonefield (Town Center and Building C1 -IV) final site plan amendments.
Stonefield Building C1 -IV — SDP2012 -0005
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).
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.
3) Sheet 28 of 35 depicts an altered Parking Lot Pavement Section Detail, with regard to the 0 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.
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?
Stonefield Town Center — SDP2012 -0001
1) As shown on Sheet 10 of 51 on the revised 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.
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.
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.
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.
As you know the site plan amendments cannot be signed/approved until the ARB has met and approved the plan
and all other comments have been addressed. The ARB will meet this upcoming Monday and discuss the plan.
Engineering has provided their comments to you individually, and mine are above in this email. If you have
any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you for your patience.
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
ALg�,��
i'IRGINZ�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: The Shops at Stonefield -Regal Cinema Minor Amendment; SDP - 2012 -00005
Plan preparer: Mr. Herb White, PE; W & W Associates
Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
Date received: 24 January 2012
Date of Comment: 22 February 2012
Engineer: Phil Custer
The minor amendment for The Shops at Stonefield -Regal Cinema (SDP- 2012 - 00005), received on 24
January 2012, has been reviewed. The plan can be approved after the following comments have been
addressed:
1. Please refer to the separate SWM memo provided at the same time as this comment letter.
2. A WPO review for this project will not be necessary because all stormwater measures associated
with the Regal Cinema site plan are being eliminated. The water quality treatment removed with
this application will be replaced with changes to the SWM plans of Stonefield Blvd. and Town
Center. This site plan amendment cannot be approved until those SWM modifications are
approved and bonded. At that time, the SWM facilities in WPO- 20 1 1 -0005 5 will be crossed out
in the approved set, and that bond will be reduced. A refund of the $180 review fee will be given
back to the applicant and WPO- 2012 -00009 will be closed.
3. Inlet 62 is designed as a sump condition but the calculations indicate it is on grade. Please provide
sump calculations for this inlet.
4. Because of the small changes, an ESC plan amendment will not be necessary. However, at the
time of plan approval, I will pass of a copy of the amendment to the inspector so he has the latest
information. Please provide one additional copy to the county addressed to me when the
amendments are submitted for approval.
File: El_mia_PBC _ sdp- 2012 -00005 Regal Cinema Minor Site Plan Amendment.doc