HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300041 Review Comments 2013-08-08�� OF AL8
�$
O �E-
�'IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
August 22, 2013
Herbert White
Rob Umberger
3040 Avemore Square Place
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: SDP201300041 Stonefield Blocks F and G- Initial Site Development Plan
Variation 1, Elements A -D dated June 14, 2013
Gentlemen:
The Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby grants administrative approval to the above referenced site
plan. The variations are also approved with conditions as outlined below.
This approval shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this letter, provided that the
developer submits a final site plan for all or a portion of the site within one (1) year after the date of this
letter as provided in section 32.4.3.1 of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, and thereafter
diligently pursues approval of the final site plan.
An Erosion and Sediment Control Permit may be issued after the following approvals are received:
1. Approval an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the
Code of the County of Albemarle.
2. Approval of a Storinwater Management Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the
Code.
3. Approval of all easements for facilities for stonnwater management and drainage control.
4. Approval of a mitigation plan for the disturbance of Water Protection Ordinance buffers.
5. Submittal of a tree conservation checklist.
The final site plan will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following items are
received:
1. A final site plan that satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. A fee of $1,500.
3. Submittal of plans directly to each of the agencies /departments listed below necessary to satisfy
the conditions of approval.
The final site plan will not be approved until the following conditions are met:
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature
until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained:
Planning Division Approval o£ (2 Copies are required to be submitted for review)
1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. [32.5.2(b) & Code of Development and Application Plan] The parking proposed in front of
Buildings G -3, 4 and 5 does not meet the intent of the application plan and code of development;
please remove. Parking must be relegated.
3. [Application Plan] The location of proposed buildings G -1 through G -5 is not in accord with the
Application Plan. Although the locations are shown on Exhibits in Variation 1, there was no
justification or information to address the intent of 8.5.5.3. A variation must be submitted or the
buildings moved to reflect the application plan.
4. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify if any outdoor lighting is proposed; if it is, note the location(s) and provide a
lighting plan.
5. [8.5.5.3] Approval of Variation 1, Elements A -D submitted on 6/14/13 pending engineering
approval of comments for Variation 1B (attached). This approval does not include the
parking located in front of buildings G -1 through G -5 as depicted on the Exhibits 1.1 -2.
Inspections Division Approval of. Copy is required to be submitted for review)
1. Rearrange the barrier -free parking spaces at Buildings G -2 and G -3 so that at least one space at
each building is van - accessible.
Information Services Approval of 1 Copy is required to be submitted for review)
1. It is suggested that the road naming scheme be altered. Perhaps "District Avenue" should end at
the intersection of "Blackbird Lane ". Have "Blackbird Lane" extend to the point of the "Future
Extension" noted on the plan and a new road name begin that would be the "Future Extension ". A second
road name could be created for the road way that would connect to Route 29 (currently labeled as District
Avenue). The applicant should contact this office with a list of potential road naive to cover the two areas
that have been recognized. Please contact this office with any questions.
Engineering Division Approval of: G Copy is required to be submitted for review)
1. Please provide the regional distribution for Rte 29 and for Hydraulic Road from the traffic study.
This will help determine the following:
a) The corner clearance from District Ave intersection (near The Haven at Stonefield) and
entrance into the box store is too close and needs to be relocated south to prevent stacking of
left turn movements.
b) The entrance to bldg G -2 from Rte 29 will cause stacking of left turn movements and may
need median extended west.
c) The fuel station configuration may cause a queue, which interferes with the intersection on
NE corner. The fuel station layout may need to be flipped.
2. Please provide traffic movement for semi - trailer trucks (or largest vehicle for each bldg) for F -1
and G to G5 to verify turning radius will work on site.
3. The intersection on SE corner of fuel station shall show a 35' entrance throat. Please provide the
same for entrance to bldg G -2.
4. I recommend the parking area to the far west to be rotated so that all parking is perpendicular to
travelway. Also, please place an island between parking, located south of proposed island, to
restrict movement within travelway.
5. In conjunction with comment 4, the sump inlets can be removed and DI can be placed at corner of
parking row.
6. Please provide spot elevations for island west of bldg F -1 to show positive drainage to sump
inlets located north of bldg F -1.
7. Please provide details for all proposed retaining walls on site. Also, please provide the top and
bottom elevations for the retaining wall located south of site.
2
8. It appears there is a wall west of 4 loading docks for bldg F -1. Please provide detail and spot
elevations on plan.
9. For southwest entrance (on Blackbird Lane), please extend the curb north to match pavement
striping. Also, the 14' travel aisle shall be revised to 24'.
10. Please provide VDOT's CG -6 standard curb detail.
11. Please provide VDOT's curb ramps, CG -12, on plan and also show detail.
12. The curb SW of bldg F -1 just ends. Show spot elevation or show island rather than pavement
striping.
13. Provide a radius for travelway SE of bldg G -1 instead of sharp corner. Also, provide a uniform
width (12' for one way, or 20' for two way).
14. Provide spot elevation for curb radii SE of bldg G -1 to show positive drainage to proposed inlet.
It appears an inlet will be needed at corner mentioned in comment 13.
15. Please clarify what appears to be a headwall on sheet 8 located on the far west of page.
16. The travelway north of fuel station is misaligned at intersection. Please revise.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. (8 Copies
are required to be submitted for review)
1. Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18- 30.6.4(2); (3) and (5):
None.
2. Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
None.
3. Regarding recommended conditions of initial site plan approval:
A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. The applicant is
advised that:
a. The standard lighting, landscaping and mechanical equipment notes are required on the site
and architectural plans.
b. The quantity of tree required along the EC frontage may be greater than the guidelines
minimum to compensate for the tree size limits imposed by the existing utility easements.
c. Details on screening wall design will be required with the final site plan submittal. Screening
walls should be compatible with the appearance of building designs determined appropriate
for the EC's.
4. Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading pen-nit:
None.
Albemarle Countv Fire & Rescue Approval. 0 Covv is required to be submitted for review
1. Hydrants spacing shall be 400 ft. per travelway.
2. Buildings with Sprinkler systems shall have the FDC located on the address side of the building
and within 50 ft. of a hydrant.
3. All buildings shall have an approved key box in a location approved by the fire official.
Albemarle County Service Authority Approval (2 Copies are required to be submitted for review)
1. Submit 3 copies of the final site plan for utility design review and approval.
Virginia Department of Transportation Approval �1 Colo, inquired to be submitted for review)
Any comments will be forthcoming.
If you have any questions about these conditions or the submittal requirements please feel free to contact
me at extension 3313 or sbaldwin @albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Sarah aldwin
Senior Planner
Copy: Steve Teets
��OF �.4��
J
��RGIN�P'
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
From: Glenn Brooks, County- Engineer
Date: 5 July 2013
Subject: Stonefield variations for SDP201300041, and ZMA201300009
The following variances, and the rezoning, are for the proposed plan elements outlined below in red. The
original zoning plan elements are in blue.
lyy } Y
� f z �" � a x z36r i•C. I
i
1..._.. .• ti , � � �� 5 i Si 4LL _ f "9�`� •� l 7 � I. 1'�y ��
e
v�
jam+ ii .........)
if
3
i;
ik 3K unn— �mn °
E 4 ^ i•�.i "g
v +
i
A<:
..
................:_
i r:........'. !
:..........
............................................
..:..........:.................. ..................... ... ..... ..... .... .........
:................:
Variation IA: Change in boundaries of Block F and G (the right/north side of the plan above). As is
evident in the comparison above, this allows for a bigger, big box with the parking field in front. This
zoning plan was always a capitulation to the big box development pattern on the north side, while
trying to maintain the neighborhood model, mixed use pattern on the south side. This just stretches the
concept further.
Variation 1B: Change in the District Avenue road alignment (from point A to B in the graphic). Realigning
this road on the north side to accommodate a larger big -box layout, pushing it toward Rt. 29, has the
potential to affect turning movements adversely, if stacking at the turns and signal conflict. The
applicant has provided a traffic simulation, which shows no conflicts. However, the simulation does
not seem to consider turning movements in or out of the site entrances, which could be a significant
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
hindrance to traffic flow. It also illustrates a misalignment of the through movement at the future
fueling center, which needs a transition to account for the width of the left turn lane. Furthermore, the
change from continuous road bends to T- intersections will make this function more like a parking lot
than a road, at least until the future extensions are built, and provided they do not just end in parking
lots.
It is noted that previous actions regarding District Avenue have limited its use as a road. The original
zoning plan (in blue on the graphic) contained a hard right- angled turn in the road at the big -box store,
which prohibits the smooth flow of traffic, forcing an unwarranted stop condition for the heaviest
traffic movement, which confuses or annoys drivers. This plan will add two more such turns.
Variation 1C: Change in location of future extensions to the north and south. Same as 1B. These
extension are a function of the road location.
Variation 1D: Change in building orientation and size. Same as IA.
Variation 2: Removal of the "cafe ", and provision of a "pedestrian corridor ". I have no objection to
removal of the "cafe" concept, which was the small island in the middle of the big -box parking lot.
Like all the connections to Commonwealth Drive, it was never a very tenable idea. The "pedestrian
corridor" being offered is equally weals. Most of it is sidewalks along District Avenue, which should
already be required. The rest, consisting of walkways within parking islands, is too hard for most
people to access, and outside of the big -box parking lot, crosses too many busy travelways to be
considered more practical than walking elsewhere. The county has something similar in the
Hollymead Town Center. This is decidedly not a pedestrian shopping experience. Short of a true
pedestrian orientation for shopping, it would work better if there was a walkway within each parking
row, and along the front of the stores, and both sides of District Avenue, but a token effort is better
than none.
ZMA201300009: F5 outparcel change (shown in the lightest shade of red in the graphic above)
I have no objection to the use, only the location. The proposed fuel center (or restaurant /retail option)
is located directly in the entrance to the big -box parking lot. I do not think it likely that most traffic
will enter from the central entrance, while there is a straight movement from Rt. 29, and a more direct
route from Hydraulic Road. Routing the majority of entering traffic through an ancillary use and
stacking area is not recommended. Maintaining curvature in District Avenue, rather than creating an
intersection at this location, would improve the situation. So would relocating the outparcel.
It is noted that the Kroger parking lot at Rio Hill was treated in the same manner when fuel islands
were installed. The fuel center was placed in one of the primary entrance locations, contrary to
recommendations, and the circulation has been adversely affected.
,:.
,... v:. rt .;,x<s...:.ri:1 >.... [;>rrc:
�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 F &G
Plan preparer: WW Associates, Inc
Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
Plan received date: 24 Jun 2012
Date of comments: 5 Aug 2013
Reviewer: Michelle Roberge
A. Site Development Plan (SDP201300041)
1. Please provide the regional distribution for Rte 29 and for Hydraulic Road from the traffic study.
This will help determine the following:
a) The corner clearance from District Ave intersection (near The Haven at Stonefield) and
entrance into the box store is too close and needs to be relocated south to prevent stacking of
left turn movements.
b) The entrance to bldg G -2 from Rte 29 will cause stacking of left turn movements and may
need median extended west.
c) The fuel station configuration may cause a queue, which interferes with the intersection on NE
corner. The fuel station layout may need to be flipped.
2. Please provide traffic movement for semi - trailer trucks (or largest vehicle for each bldg) for F -1
and G1 to G5 to verify turning radius will work on site.
3. The intersection on SE corner of fuel station shall show a 35' entrance throat. Please provide the
same for entrance to bldg G -2.
4. I recommend the parking area to the far west to be rotated so that all parking is perpendicular to
travelway. Also, please place an island between parking, located south of proposed island, to
restrict movement within travelway.
5. In conjunction with comment 4, the sump inlets can be removed and DI can be placed at corner of
parking row.
6. Please provide spot elevations for island west of bldg F -1 to show positive drainage to sump inlets
located north of bldg F -1.
7. Please provide details for all proposed retaining walls on site. Also, please provide the top and
bottom elevations for the retaining wall located south of site.
8. It appears there is a wall west of 4 loading docks for bldg F -1. Please provide detail and spot
elevations on plan.
9. For southwest entrance (on Blackbird Lane), please extend the curb north to match pavement
striping. Also, the 14' travel aisle shall be revised to 24'.
10. Please provide VDOT's CG -6 standard curb detail.
11. Please provide VDOT's curb ramps, CG -12, on plan and also show detail.
12. The curb SW of bldg F -1 just ends. Show spot elevation or show island rather than pavement
striping.
13. Provide a radius for travelway SE of bldg G -1 instead of sharp corner. Also, provide a uniform
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
width (12' for one way, or 20' for two way).
14. Provide spot elevation for curb radii SE of bldg G -1 to show positive drainage to proposed inlet. It
appears an inlet will be needed at corner mentioned in comment 13.
15. Please clarify what appears to be a headwall on sheet 8 located on the far west of page.
16. The travelway north of fuel station is misaligned at intersection. Please revise.
Sincerely,
Michelle Roberge