HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400065 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2014-10-01�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Stonefield Blocks G
Plan preparer: WW Associates, Inc
Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
Plan received date: 12 Sep 2012
Date of comments: 1 Oct 2013
Reviewer: Michelle Roberge
A. Road Plan (SUB201400149)
1) The entrance off Lenox Ave does not appear to have been approved by the County Engineer.
Please address or show letter from County Engineer.
2) Show revisions for str 188 and 187 ( stormsewer profile). The top elevation of DI's have
changed.
3) Show the revision to the entrance off Stoneridge Ave. to the open area. This should match
what is proposed on the site plan for Block G.
4) Show the revision to the entrance off Lenox Ave to Block G. This should match what is
proposed on the site plan for Block G.
5) The entrance grade off Lenox Ave to Block G should not exeed 4 %, measured anywhere in
the entrance. Please address.
6) Verify that all easements on SUB2014 -54 are not affected by this plan.
7) VDOT review is pending.
B. Site Development Plan (SDP201400065)
1) The stormsewer design, swm management design, and E &S will be reviewed under a separate
WPO application. Please submit a separate WPO application.
2) Remove SWM plans and E &S plans from this submittal as it will be reviewed under a WPO
application. Show filterras and stormewer layout on the site plan, but the design will be
reviewed with a WPO application.
3) It appears the segmental retaining wall north of Bldg G3 will be built after Stoneridge Ave.
Clarify the retaining wall footing width to ensure sidewalk will not need to be ripped out after
sidewalk is constructed.
4) The entrance off Lenox Ave has not been approved by the county engineer.
5) The right in/right out median from Block G to Lenox Ave should be at least 4' wide for
adequate pedestrian refuge. The minimum shown is 2'. Please revise. Also show spot
elevations for median.
6) Bldg G1 & G2 do not appear to have 12'x25' loading spaces. Please address.
7) The travelway to Bldg G3 and G4 does not appear to be wide enough. It will be difficult for
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
SU trucks to turn into. Please revise to 20' wide, the minimum travelway standard.
8) What will be developed on the empty lot near Bldg G4? The 18' travelway does not meet our
travelway standard.
9) Show low maintenance ground cover (not grass) on 2:1 slopes located west of Bldg G4.
Sincerely,
)�Fx�
Michelle Roberge