Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201100054 Review Comments Letter of Revision 3 2012-10-19�ill��• COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 October 16, 2012 Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC C/O Edens Inc. 7200 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 400 Bethesda, MD 20814 RE: Letter of Revision (LOR) # 3 for SDP - 2011 -00054 Stonefield Town Center Final Site Plan Dear Sir, This letter is in response to the attached LOR request letter dated September 25, 2012. The Department of Community Development hereby grants approval of a LOR for the improvements described in this letter for the Final Site Plan for Stonefield Town Center. This is the 3rd Letter of Revision for this site. A total of three (3) Letters of Revision are allowed before all changes to the plan are required to be submitted in the form of a site plan amendment. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Attachments: Letter of Request Site Plan Change (Revised sheets C -10, LT -2, LT -3, LT -12, LT -22, L -401, L- 402,.L -403 and phasing plan) Copy: Herbert F. White Andrew Kellerman — CEO SDP- 2011 -00054 (original final site plan) SDP - 2012 -00001 (minor amendment which replaced the entire final site plan) WA ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS. ASSOCIATES September 25, 2012 Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Letter of Revision Stonefield Town Center - Final Site Plan Amendment iV?z0id-W001 .­SPP- 2194. 900-5-and WPO- 2011 -00059 WWA Project No. 208026.45 To Whom It May Concern: This letter will serve as a Letter of Revision to the "Stonefield Town Center - Final Site Plan Amendment" dated 8/5/11 and approved on April 27, 2012. The purpose of this revision is to show the revised curb line at Bldg A -1, the connection to the adjacent property owned by Sperry, lighting changes at Buildings A -III and B -I along Rt. 29, updates to the landscaping plan, and the Stonefield Phasing Plan. The revised areas have been clouded on the affected plan sheets. Enclosed with this letter please find the following: 1 copy - Letter of Revision Application and Fee 4 copies - Revised plans (Dwgs. C -10, LT -2, LT -3, LT -12, LT -22, L -401, L -402, L -403, L -404, and L -404A ) 4 copies — Stonefield Phasing Plan Based upon the information provided in this letter of revision and the revised drawings we respectfully request the County's approval of this plan revision. Sincerely, WW Associates, Inc. Herbert F. White, III, P.E. President cc: Thomas R. Gallagher, Edens, Inc. 3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Telephone (434) 984 -2700 G Fax (434) 978 -1444 Lynchburg • Charlottesville Application for uI, Letter of Revision 71 Letter of Revision = $100 Final Site Plan Name and Number; SDP 2011 -00054 Stonefield -Town Center- Final Site Plan 0 Contact Person (Who should we call /write concerning this project ?): WW Associates, Inc., Attn: Herbert F. White, 111, PE Address 3040 Avemore Square Place City Charlottesville state VA Zip 22911 Daytime Phone d( 34) 984 -2700 Fax # n 984 -1444 Email hwhite@wwassocites.net OwnerofR.ecord Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC c/o Edens, Inc. Address 7200 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 400 city Bethesda Daytime Phone C 30�) 6552-7400 Fax # 3t 01 652 -3588 Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing ?): Thomas Gallagher Address 7200 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 400 city, Bethesda Daytime Phone ( 01 652 -7400 Fax# n 652 -3588 State MD zip 20814 1✓_maia tgailagher @edens.com State MD zip 20814 E -mail tallagher@edens.com SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 0 The appropriate fee, 0 The site plan number that the change applies to, '® A request letter describing the proposed changes from the owner or authorized agent, 0 4 copies of the plan that sho»ls the proposed changes, Changes must be shown on the sheet or sheets from the approved final site plan, or on an I P'XIT' copy of that portion of the approved final site plan. Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Z-5 '- Signature ofOwner, Agent Date Chris Haine 0� T� f- OF (301) 652 -7400 Print Name / l,C'�`n'1/�/�Es� ('(,�(sS 11',10 . Daytime phone number of FOR OFFICE USE ONLY LOR # Fee Amount S W Date Paid ', i� .~1, By wIro? 11), ales Receipt # CIS! County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126 1/1/2011 Page I of 1 . v Se �IL�s: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 August 13, 2012 Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC C/O Edens Inc. 7200 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 400 Bethesda, MD 20814 RE: Letter of Revision (LOR) # 2 for SDP - 2011 -00054 Stonefield Town Center Final Site Plan Dear Sir, This letter is in response to the attached LOR request letter dated July 26, 2012. The Department of Community Development hereby grants approval of a LOR for the improvements described in this letter for the Final Site Plan for Stonefield Town Center. This is the 2nd Letter of Revision for this site. A total of three (3) Letters of Revision are allowed before all changes to the plan are required to be submitted in the form of a site plan amendment. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Attachments: Letter of Request Site Plan Change (Revised sheets C -10, C -11, C -13, C -22, and L -104) 8 -13 -12 Engineering Email w/ conditions for approval. Copy: Herbert F. White Andrew kellerman — CEO SDP - 2011 -00054 (original final site plan) SDP- 2012 -00001 (minor amendment which replaced the entire fmal site plan) _Am ENGINEERS 10 SURVEYORS PLANNERS .ASSOCIATES July 26, 2012 Phil Custer Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Letter of Revision Stonefield Town Center - Final Site Plan Amendment SDPA.019--o0001 0nr,r 00@65=and WPO- 2011 -00059 WWA Project No. 208026.45 Dear Mr. Custer, This letter will serve as a Letter of Revision to the "Stonefield Town Center - Final Site Plan Amendment" dated 8/5/11 and approved on April 27, 2012. The purpose of this revision is to show the revised Filterra locations for structures 92.2, 93.2, 95.2, 98.2, 99.2, and 101.1, the as -built locations of the waterline servicing Building A -1, as well as a note revision on the Materials Plan. Please refer to the revised site plan sheets, Dwgs. C -10, C -11, C- 13,C -22, and L -104, accompanying this letter for details. The location of the Filterra units indicated have been adjusted to resolve conflicts with the footings required for the screening wall to be constructed between the Stonefield development and Northrop Grumman. The grading in the parking lots north of Buildings B -II, B -III, C24, and C2 -II has been revised to maintain the previously approved drainage areas treated by the Filterra units. The total approved drainage area for the Filterra units indicated is 2.76 acres. The total drainage area that will be treated with this revision is 2.91 acres. Enclosed with this letter please find the following: 1 copy - Letter of Revision Application and Fee 4 copies - Revised plans (Dwgs. C -10, C -11, C- 13,C -22, and L -104.) 3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Telephone (434) 984 -2700 • Fax (434) 978 -1444 Lynchburg • Charlottesville Based upon the information provided in this letter of revision and the revised drawings we respectfully request the County's approval of this plan revision. Sincerely, WW Associates, Inc. Herbert F. White, III, P.E. President cc: Thomas R. Gallagher, Edens, Inc. 3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Telephone (434) 984 -2700 • Fax (434) 978 -1444 Lynchburg • Charlottesville Page 2 of 2 Philip Custer From: Philip Custer Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 7:25 PM To: Christopher Perez; 'Tom Gallagher' Subject: Engineering review of Stonefield TC LOR Chris, Tom, I have reviewed the Letter of Revision for Stonefield Town Center, submitted 27 July 2012. Engineering review offers no objection to the approval of this LOR. This approval is conditioned on the applicant doing as much as reasonably possible to provide a pole for the XB lights that would minimize the risk of pedestrian exposure to an electrical current in the event a car collides with it. Generally, light poles without a concrete base are located well behind a curb and the chances of a car hitting it are much lower than the intent of the current application. Once all necessary agencies have approved this LOR, please provide me with 3 copies of the modified sheets to pass off to the WPO inspector. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil (434)296 -5832 x3072 Philip Custer From: Claudette Grant Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:08 AM To: Philip Custer Subject: RE: Albemarle Place /Stonefield Plaza /Park area near the hotel Phil, I would say this is an approval with recommended modifications. Thank you Claudette From: Philip Custer Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:06 AM To: Claudette Grant Subject: RE: Albemarle Place /Stonefield Plaza /Park area near the hotel Am I correct in interpreting this as an approval with recommended modifications or are these required changes? From: Claudette Grant Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:23 AM To: Philip Custer Subject: Albemarle Place /Stonefield Plaza /Park area near the hotel Hi Phil, I have reviewed the site plan for the subject project. The revisions are much improved and follow the intent of the plaza, green and civic space. We make the following suggestions as a way to make the space more shady and usable when it is sunny. This comment relates to the seating area near the intersection of Bond Street and District Avenue: Staff suggests the 3 Flame Amur Maples (AG) be moved to the west of the area (See the attached) in order to add another Autumn Flame Red Maple that would flank the west side of the bench area, to match the Autumn Flame Red Maple on the east side of the seating area; adding some symmetry to the landscape. Lastly, we suggest adding another shade tree (See attached for the general location) to the southwest area near the seating area. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thank you Claudette Grant Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 (434) 296 -5832, Ext. 3250 Fax: (434) 972 -4126 Philip Custer From: Philip Custer Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 5:50 PM To: Bill Fritz Subject: RE: Engineering Review of Stonefield Towncenter go I have reviewed the latest submittal of the Stonefield Towncenter Plan (SDP- 2011 - 00059) and all of my site plan comments have been addressed. In the previous submittal (see below), I had approved the WPO plan associated with this site plan. Engineering review has no objection to the approval of this site plan. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil x3072 From: Philip Custer Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 20116:47 PM To: 'TGALLAGHER @EDENSANDAVANT.COM'; Herbert F. White III, P.E. Cc: Bill Fritz; Ana Kilmer Subject: Engineering Review of Stonefield Towncenter Good evening, I have completed the third engineering review of the final site, swm, and esc plans for Stonefield Towncenter (WPO- 2011 -00059 and SDP - 2011 - 00059), received 7 November 2011. The ESC plan is approved on the condition that STR Temp -1 is upgraded to a 36" pipe. The SWM plan is approved. There are still a few site plan comments left to be addressed, however. Please refer to the attached letter for these comments. Because there are only a few left to be addressed, I can review these via pdf submittals if you want to upload the few modified sheets to your FTP site. I would prefer to review all changes at once, rather than each individual comment is addressed. The WPO bonds have been computed. The ESC bond is set at $135,800. The SWM bond is set at $438,700. To post these bonds, please contact Ana Kilmer after all comments have been addressed and the site plan has been signed. Before a grading permit can be issued, the Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement must be recorded. After it has been determined that the site plan is ready for signature, please provide 5 copies of the plan to me to pass along to the WPO inspector. If you do not wish to provide full sets, please contact me ahead of time and I can let you know what sheets will be needed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil 296 -5832 x3072 Thomas R. Gallagher Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC 7200 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 400 Bethesda, MD 20814 RE: Stonefield Town Center Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Gallagher: Enclosed is a copy of the construction plan approval letter dated November 30, 2011. A copy of the approved plan shall be on the job site throughout construction and shall be modified by the contractor to show as -built conditions. It is the contractor's responsibility to provide this information to you and your consultant for use in developing the final as -built plan, which shall be submitted in the format of one paper copy and one mylar copy. A preconstruction conference is required prior to the start of construction. I can be reached at 977 -4511 to schedule the meeting. The preconstruction conference will help to ensure project coordination, clarify ACSA requirements pertaining to construction, and answer any questions you may have. We have also enclosed copies of our "Utility Inspection Policy," "Letter of Dedication," and "As -Built Guide" for your information. These documents should be reviewed before the preconstruction conference. A water and sewer construction inspection fee will be invoiced to you at the time of the preconstruction conference. The inspection fee for this project is $3,010.32 for the water system and $1,609.20 for the sewer system, for a total of $4,619.52. The ACSA cannot set water meters until the Meadow Creek Interceptor upgrades are complete and placed in service and construction of the onsite utilities has been completed and approved for operation. The utility easements shall be reviewed and approved prior to recordation. Copies of the deed of easement, plat, as -built plan and Letter of Dedication shall be submitted as soon as possible following installation of the utility systems. Timely submission of these documents will help you avoid delays in receiving utility service. Please be advised the Albemarle County Department of Community Development is instructed to hold the water and sewer bond amount at a minimum value of 20% of the original amount until the dedication of the utility system is complete. The ACSA has reviewed the proposed development and has determined that as of this date there is an adequate supply of water and an adequate sewer capacity (upon 168 Spotnap Road ® Charlottesville, VA 22911 Tel (434) 977 -4511 ® Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthority.org completion of the Meadowcreek Interceptor upgrades) to serve the development. Water and sewer connections to the ACSA system are allotted on a first -come, first - served basis at the time connection fees are paid. The ACSA does not reserve capacity in its system for a specific project. Approval of water and sewer utilities for this project does not constitute a guarantee of future service. The plan approval is valid for a period of 18 months from this date. If construction is not in progress at the end of this time period, the approval shall be void. If you have any questions, or if we can be of assistance, please give us a call at (434) 977 -4511. Sincerely, Alexander J. Morrison Civil Engineer AJM :dmg cc: ACSA Inspector 050601 GallagherLtr113011 November 30, 2011 Mr. Herbert F. White 111, P.E. WW Associates, Inc. 3040 Avemore Square Place Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mr. White: The plan, entitled Stonefield Town Center Final Site Plan dated 5 August, 2011, last revised 28 October, 2011, is hereby approved for construction. One set of the approved plan is enclosed for your records. Any previously approved plans are voided with this approval. This approval is for basic compliance with the General Water & Sewer Construction Specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and does not relieve the contractor from responsibility for his work as it relates to the plan and specifications. The ACSA requires that a copy of the approved construction plan be on the job site. The contractor is responsible for marking up a copy of the approved construction plan showing as-built information and providing this data to your client at the completion of utility installation. The final as-built plan shall be submitted in a format of one paper copy and one mylar copy. A preconstruction conference shall be scheduled with the project manager to ensure coordination and answer any questions. This will be a short meeting to review the project, materials, test methods and schedule, in order to expedite construction. Please have the proper party call me at 977-4511 to schedule the meeting. This approval is valid for a period of 18 months from this date. If construction is not in progress at the end of this time period, the approval shall be void. 168 Spotnap Road ® Charlottesville, VA 22911 ® Tel (434) 977-4511 e Fax (434) 979-0698 www.serviceauthority.org If you have any questions, or if we can be of assistance, please give us a call at (434) 977-4511. AJM:dmg cc: Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC State Health Department Current Development, Bill Fritz Bldg Codes & Zoning Services Soil Erosion Inspector 05060IWhiteLtr1 13011 The Utility Inspection Policy details the responsibilities of the contractor and the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) representative during construction of water and wastewater infrastructure to be accepted by the ACSA. All water and wastewater infrastructure shall be inspected by an ACSA representative. The intent of the following items is to provide the Contractor with the appropriate level of ACSA inspection through proper planning and scheduling. Failure of the Contractor to adhere to this policy shall result in the ACSA denying acceptance of and /or providing connection to the infrastructure. The ACSA representative shall meet with the Contractor's representative prior to construction. The responsible Field Superintendent shall attend the Preconstruction Conference. 2. The Contractor shall maintain at the site for the duration of the project one set of approved construction drawings and a second set on which to record as -built information. The as -built record drawings shall be made available to the ACSA representative on demand. 3. The Contractor shall notify the ACSA representative of the on -site receipt of water and wastewater infrastructure materials to be used on the project. 4. The Contractor shall inform the ACSA representative of their schedule 48 hours prior to starting. If construction on water and wastewater infrastructure remains inactive for a period of two weeks, the Contractor shall notify the ACSA representative no less than 48 hours in advance of restarting. 5. The Contractor shall not backfill any fittings, thrust blocks, valves, hydrants, blow -off assemblies or drop manhole connections without first being inspected by an ACSA representative. 6. The Contractor shall contact the ACSA representative at least 24 hours in advance of the need for an inspection and at least 48 hours prior to the viewing of a test to schedule the site visit. 7. In the event water or wastewater infrastructure testing is unsuccessful, the developer shall be charged the hourly rate for each hour (minimum 1 hour) the ACSA representative has been occupied, including travel time to and from the site. 8. No changes from the ACSA approved construction drawings shall be made by the contractor without prior approval of the ACSA. 01 0702 Uti I ityi nspecti on policyrevised 041607 The undersigned, , (Name of Owner(s)) doing business at (Name of Organization & Address) hereby dedicates unto the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) certain (water and /or sewer) facilities in connection with the development of identified on certain plans and specifications described as follows and incorporated herein by reference: (Title of Plans & Specifications, if applicable) (Date & Revision Dates of Plans & Specifications, if applicable) (Name of Consulting Engineering Firm) The undersigned certifies: (1) That all requirements of the Rules & Regulations and General Water & Sewer Construction Specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority have been met. (2) That the undersigned is the owner of the above - described facilities. (3) That payment of all lawful claims of contractors, subcontractors, materialmen and laborers for all labor performed and material furnished in the completion of these facilities has been made. (4) That payment has been made by the undersigned for all fees relative to applications and inspections concerning the facilities. (5) That the undersigned, his heirs, assigns, or successor in interest shall be responsible for and obligated to correct any deficiencies in construction for a period of one year from the date of acceptance of these facilities by the Albemarle County Service Authority. (6) That one copy of a recorded plat showing the dedicated easements, a deed of easement and a copy of the Clerk's receipt for payment of the recording fees have been submitted to the Albemarle County Service Authority. (7) That as -built plans have been submitted to the Albemarle County Service Authority (two sets of blueline copies and one set of reproducible mylars). (8) That a cost estimate of the water and /or sewer facilities has been submitted to the Albemarle County Service Authority. Construction costs (labor and material only) Water $ Sewer $ (9) These facilities include feet of water line and feet of sanitary sewer line. The undersigned hereby requests the Albemarle County Service Authority to accept the facilities. ATTEST: (Signature) (Date) (Print or type name & title) My commission expires: (Organization) ATTEST: (Signature) (Date) (Print or type name & title) My commission expires: (Organization) ATTEST: (Signature) (Date) (Print or type name & title) My commission expires: (Organization) ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AS -BUILT REQUIREMENTS GENERAL (1) Drawings shall not be larger than 30 inches by 42 inches. Drawings of standard size 24 inches by 36 inches are preferred. (2) Show the same information as the approved plans. Cross out any proposed information and write the as -built correction boldly adjacent to the corrected data. (3) Accurately redraw plan and profiles where changes in alignment of over three (3) feet horizontal or one (1) foot vertical occur between the proposed design and the actual installation. (4) Label the type, class, and size of pipe installed. (5) Show all physical appurtenances, sidewalks, curb and gutters, buildings, lot corners and property lines. (6) Label street names, whether public or private. Label block and building letters or numbers. Label unit letters or numbers. (7) Show the proper title on each page along with phase or section as applicable. Where only a portion of a phase or section is complete, label the limits of construction to which the as -built applies. (8) Show a vicinity map on the first sheet. (9) Show the appropriate scale on all drawings. (10) Number each page. (11) Show a north arrow on each page. (12) Provide a revision block on the drawings and show: (a) any revision made to the drawings; (b) date plans were approved; and (c) as -built date. (13) At stream crossings, state the type of pipe, the depth to top of pipe at the centerline of the stream, casing size and limits of casing, include any valves and sample taps installed, and show on both the plan and profile. (14) Show all easements where lines are not installed within existing public right - of -way. (15) Show the location of storm drains or other utilities encountered during construction on the plan and profile. Show the actual separation measured by the contractor. (16) Datum reference and bench mark shown. (17) Drawings are to be certified by Professional Engineer or a certified Land Surveyor. WATER (1) Show water mains .installed and any deviation from design of horizontal or vertical alignment greater than two (2) feet horizontal or one (1) foot vertical. (2) Show location of service lines and water meter boxes installed and indicate size of service line. (3) Show location of all bends, fittings, valves, hydrants, and other appurtenances installed. SEWER (1) Show location of manholes within an accuracy of two (2) feet. Location measurements are to be made to center of manhole and not to center of manhole cover. Provide the horizontal length between manholes as installed. (2) Provide installed rim and invert elevations and slope grades. Centerline invert elevations are permissible when the drop through the manhole does not exceed 0.2 feet. Where the drop exceeds 0.2 feet and when drop connections are made show actual pipe inverts. (3) Show distance or provide stations and offsets from the downstream manhole to each upstream lateral wye or tee installed and for the location of the end of each lateral. (4) Show all stub -outs provided for future extension of the sewer main. (5) Note all watertight manhole covers installed and provide location and elevation of the top of the vents. 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 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 (Rev. 2) 7 November 2011 Date of Comment: 4 October 2011 (Rev. 1) 21 October 2011 (Rev. 2) 29 November 2011 Engineer: Phil Custer The third submittal of the SWM and site plans for Stonefield Town Center (WPO- 2011 -00059 and SDP - 2011- 00054), received on 7 November 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. (Rev. 1) Comment remains unchanged. 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. (Rev. 2) WPO bond estimates will be provided. B. Site Plan Review Comments 1. Che 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 II 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. (Rev. 2) This plat has been approved. The site plan cannot be signed until this plat is recorded. 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. (Rev. 2) The Planning Department will review the plan's park proposal. I will forward you their response once it is received. 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 Sft width so there is no confusion. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 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. I) 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 l Oft 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. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 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 -I 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 A -V. [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. (Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. The ARB restrictions still allow for some sort of pedestrian connection to Building A -L North of the row of Leland Cypress shrubs, a connection can be made to the back -of -curb. The walkway can then turn east behind the screening trees and directed to the current proposed sidewalk adjacent to the building. Steps and a railing will likely be needed to account for grade differences between the sidewalk along Hydraulic and the parking lot. 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. I) 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. I) 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 14`h, 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. (Rev. 2) A vertical profile, similar to that of Houston Street, must be included in this sheet set for Blackbird Lane. This road was first called out as Second Street in the initial submittal. 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. 1) 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 for all of my concerns regarding the trench calculations. (Rev. 2) Please update all calculations using a "Reticuline Grate" rather than a P -1 -718 grate. The proposed grate in Bond Street is more comparable to a reticuline grate than to a P- 1 -718. 19. Bumper blocks are needed in parking spaces where there is no curb. [18- 4.12.16.e] (Rev. 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. (Rev. 2) A building is located through a sight distance line and easement at the intersection of Bond and District. It appears as though the sight line is overly conservative and an adjustment will reveal no sight distance issues. If this corrects the issue, please adjust the sight distance triangle at this intersection on this site plan and the plat currently under review. Otherwise, please modify the building so the sight line is maintained. 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. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 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. I) 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. l) Please draw the detectable warning surface as 2ft wide to avoid confusion. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. File: E3_swm fsp_PBC _ wpo- 2011 -00059 sdp- 2011 -00054 Stonefield Town Center.doc pF AL �IRGII31P+ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 October 25, 2011 Herbert F. White WW Associates 3040 Albemarle Square Place Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: SDP 2011 -54 Stonefield Town Center Final Site Dear Mr. White, I have reviewed the most recent revisions dated October 14, 2011 and have the following comments: 1. Remove the all sheets associated with lighting in order to address the comments of the Architectural Review Board. These are sheets 49 -67 also labeled LT -19. 2. I reviewed the landscape plans but was unable to find the note addressing potential conflicts between the landscape schedule and the landscape plans. 3. Sheet L404 has a note that reads "Plant schedule see sheet L104 ". Sheet L104 is the furnishing legand. 4. Sheets L402 and L403 have a note that reads "Plant schedule see sheet LA -3 ". There is no sheet LA -3. 5. The note on sheet 6 dealing with the parcel boundaries will need to be updated to reflect the deed book and page reference for the plat that has recently been reviewed. Revisions addressing the above comments do not have to be submitted. They may be included in the plan submitted for signature. The site plan may be signed once the following approvals have been received: 1. Current Development Engineer approval. (Contact Phil Custer) 2. Zoning approval of compliance with the Code of Development and Proffers. (Contact Sarah Baldwin). Please note Claudette Grant has offered the following comments: "There was a variation request dated 4/29/11 for #'s 1, 2, and 3 relating to changes to the location, design layout, size and orientation of each plaza, civic, open and green space. The intent of the plaza, green and civic space is an area that is landscaped and outfitted with benches to encourage informal gatherings. It is also intended that this area will serve as both an active and passive amenity space. After reviewing the final site plan, staff feels the two proposed park areas in front of the hotel need to provide some form of active amenity space, such as a path way lined with benches. Staff notes that this area has also been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. In order to accommodate pathways in the park areas, shrubs that are shown on the plan as lining the periphery of the park area, might need to be located in different peripheral areas of the park area. Staff is okay with this change, as long as the number of shrubs that were approved by the ARB, in the subject park areas, is maintained." 3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval, to include approval by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. I have received the following comments from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority: "The Stonefield Development will produce well over 40,000 gallons average daily sewage flow, requiring a capacity certification from RWSA. Per previous correspondence between RWSA and Albemarle County, RWSA will not be able to accept new flows from this development until the new Meadowcreek Interceptor is online. RWSA's approval of the above - referenced plat is not contingent upon the completion of the Interceptor Upgrade; however, we wanted to make the county aware that this was still the case." 4. Architectural Review Board approval. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz, AICP Chief of Current Development 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 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 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 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 Date of Comment: 4 October 2011 Engineer: Phil Custer The SWM and site plans for Stonefield Town Center (WPO- 2011 -00059 and SDP - 2011 - 00054), received on 11 August 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. 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? 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). 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. 5. Please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the county engineer to receive an SWM bond. B. Site Plan Review Comments 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 II 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7. Please provide a sidewalk around the east side of Building A -III. [18- 32.7.2.8] 8. Please extend the curbing into an island at the end of the parking row west of Building A -I enough to protect the vehicle parked at the end of the row. [18- 4.12.15.f] 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] 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] 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. 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] 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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] 19. Bumper blocks are needed in parking spaces where there is no curb. [18- 4.12.16.e] 20. Please show all sight distance lines as they had been approved on the preliminary site plan with regard to geometry and required distances. 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. 22. Where is "Main Street Alley" located on site? 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. 24. The detectable warning surface along the curbless section of Main Street must be 2ft wide to be compliant with ADA standards. File: E1_swm fsp_PBC _ wpo- 2011 -00059 sdp- 2011 -00054 Stonefield Town Center.doc pF AL �IRGII31P+ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Herb White 3040 Avemore Square Place Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: SDP 2011 -54 Stonefield Town Center Final Site Plan Dear Mr. White, I have reviewed the above referenced site plan stamped 8/5/11 and have the following comments: [Each comment is followed by the applicable section from Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle.] 1. In the lighting information submit there is no bulb type for the Flourescent Small Intergral II Linear light fixture. Please confirm that this fixture emits less than 3,000 lumens. If it emits 3,000 lumens or more the fixture cannot be approved as it is not a full cut off fixture. Also, the lighting information will need to somehow be tied to the site plan. [32.6.60)]. 2. Provide a detail of the base of the lighting that will be provided in the parking lots. The intent of the base is to show that the fixtures will be located in the intersection of four parking spaces and still provide adequate area for parking. [32.5.6(s), 32.6.6(a) and (e)] 3. Please add a note to the landscape plan that any conflict in the number of trees or other plantings that occurs between the table shown on sheet L104 and the information on sheets L101, L102, L103 and L104 shall be resolved by the information shown on sheets L101, L102, L103 and L104. [32.6.6(1)] 4. On sheet L102 a pipe is shown adjacent to Sperry that does not appear on any other sheet. [32.6.6(d)] 5. A condition of the preliminary site plan was further review of the loading space locations. The loading space locations are approved. [4.12.13] 6. Parcel boundaries must be shown. They will have to be modified to reflect the new boundaries proposed with SUB 2011 -115 and SUB 2011 -118. [32.5.6(a)] 7. Bus and transit stop locations are not shown. (Preliminary Site Plan Condition) 8. Update plan to show approved street names. (32.5.6(1) These comments address the site design issues only. Sarah Baldwin will address compliance with the Code of Development and Proffers for this property. This site plan may be signed once the following approvals have been received: 1. Current Development Planner approval (see above comments). 2. Current Development Engineer approval (see Phil Custer's comments). 3. Zoning approval of compliance with the Code of Development and Proffers. (Contact Sarah Baldwin) 4. Albemarle County Service Authority Approval (to include approval by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority). 5. VDOT approval. 6. Architectural Review Board Approval. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz, AICP Chief of Current Development From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:31 AM To: Andrew Kellerman Cc: Sarah Baldwin Subject: RE: Stonefield LOR #3 Andrew, The final site plan this LOR (LOR #3) and the other 2 LORs are tied to is SDP201100054 Stonefield Town Center (see countyview). However, do not be fooled because SDP2012 -00001 was a Minor Amendment which essentially replaced the final site plan (SDP2011 -54). Thus this LOR #3 is "truly" amending SDP2012- 00001, as was LOR #2 and LOR #1. But all the LORs are attached in Countyview to SDP201100054. I've tried to keep good documentation of this little anomaly in the files as well as in approval letters. 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