HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800049 Correspondence 2018-09-24TPA
IT BOHLER
E N G I N E E R I N G
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(434)296-5832
Attn: Cameron Langille
Dear Mr. Langille:
28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201
Warrenton, VA 20186
PHONE 540.349.4500
September 24, 2018
Via Hand Delivery
Re: SDP201800049
Brookhill Block 3A — Ice Rink)
Final Site Plan — I s' Review Response
Brookhill Development
Route 29 (Seminole Trail Road) and
State Route 643 (Polo Grounds Road)
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Albemarle County
BE # V 152000
Bohler Engineering is pleased to submit on behalf of Riverbend Development, the 2nd Submission Final
Site Plan for the Brookhill Development project in Charlottesville, Virginia. The following is our
continent response letter addressing comments received from various departments. Each comment is
addressed and responded to as follows:
Albemarle County Department of Community Develo meat - Cameron Langille
Comments from SDP20180021 — Brookhill Block 3A Initial Site Plan Action Letter:
Comment 1: [32.5.2 (i)] Please address the following comments related to road improvements:
a. Per staff discussion with Ryan Yauger and Alan Taylor on May 18, 2018, Road 113
will be constructed and dedicated as a public street. During a follow-up conversation
with Ryan Yauger and Alan Taylor on June 1, 2018, County staff identified the
"Neighborhood Street" cross section as the applicable road type for Road I (Figure
8 on page 25 of the Code of Development). This street type requires one side of on -
street parking, in addition to two vehicle travel lanes. The final site plan and road
plans for Road 1B will need to include on -street parking on one side of the street.
Comment addressed. Road I is being designed to the Neighborhood Street standard
and is under -review through SUB2018-115.
b. A variation to the Code of Development will need to be approved by the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors in order for Road IB to be designed to the "Connector
Road" cross section as shown in Figure 9 of the Code of Development. This cross-
section requires bike lanes on both sides of the street and no on -street parking. Please
submit the following APPLICATION and all supplemental materials to justify the
request. Please be aware that the road plan application for Road I and final site plan
application for Block 3A cannot be approved prior to Board of Supervisor approval
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PROJECT MANAGERS -SURVEYORS -ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BOH LER
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Block 3A (Ice Rink) — Final Site Plan
Initial Site Plan Review Response
September 24, 2018
Page 2 of 10
of the variation request. Comment addressed. Road 1B is being designed to the
Neighborhood Street standard and is under review through SUB2018-115.
c. On Sheet C-100, please state the application numbers for the road plans under the
section titled "Road Improvement Plans." Include the County approval date.
Comment not fully addressed. Road plan application number is SUB2018-11 S,
please add to Sheet C-101. Once the Road IB plan is approved, add the County
approval date to this sheet.
d. On the final site plan for Block 3A, please shade out all road improvements that were
subject to review/approval through the road plan application for the proposed Road
1B. The final site plan for Block 3A will need to accurately depict all improvements
within the right-of-ways visible on the plans. Comment addressed.
e. Please label all roads visible on Block 3A final site plan with a width measurement
and state whether the road is public or private. Prior to final site plan approval, all
street right of ways that have been dedicated to public use should feature a label
stating the deed book and page number of the recorded instrument. Comment not
fully addressed. The road plans have not yet been approved and the right of way has
not yet been platted and recorded. The final site plan will need to be revised to
include the instrument numbers for the Road 1B right of way prior to final site plan
approval.
f. Road plans must be approved, and the road improvements must be constructed or
bonded for Stella Lane, Road A, and Road B1 prior to Block 3A final site plan
approval. Comment not fully addressed. The right of way for Road 1B must be
dedicated prior to final site plan approval. Please submit a subdivision plat that
shows the right of way dedication. This will need to be reviewed, approved, and
recorded prior to final site plan approval. The instrument number for the right of way
will need to be added to all applicable drawings that show Road 1B.
Response 1: Acknowledged. Road plan has been referenced on the Cover Sheet as requested.
Comment4: [32.5.2 (a)] Please provide information on the proposed parcel/lot for Block 3A. Will a
new parcel be subdivided to contain all of the required improvements, landscaping, and
the building shown on the Block 3A initial site plan? Based on the `5proposed ROW" line
shown on the drawings and the extent of Road 113 proposed to be constructed, it is
difficult to determine whether another segment of road will be constructed along the
"proposed ROW" line, or if that will be a parcel line. Comment not fully addressed. The
site plan does not show the full property boundaries of Block 3A. The southern and
eastern property lines are shown, but not the northern and western lines. Please revise
the drawings and ensure that a property line is shown that meets the 300' — 650' block
length requirement. See comment #21 and #34a below regarding moving the property
lines to include the loading space and required landscaping behind the ice rink. A
subdivision plat to create the Block 3A parcel will need to be submitted, reviewed,
approved, and recorded prior to approval of the final site plan.
a. Block 3A should be located in a parcel meeting the block characteristics specified in
Table 2.2.2 and Table 2.3.2.2 of the Code of Development. This includes
minimum/maximum block length, setbacks, relegated parking, minimum required
parking and landscaping, etc. Comment not fully addressed. The site plan does not
show the full property boundaries of Block 3A. The southern and eastern property
lines are shown, but not the northern and western lines. Please revise the drawings
and ensure that a property line is shown that meets the 300' 650' block length
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BOHLER
E n I N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Block 3A (Ice Rink) — Final Site Plan
Initial Site Plan Review Response
September 24, 2018
Page 3 of 10
requirement. See comment #21 and #34a below regarding moving the property
lines to include the loading space and required landscaping behind the ice rink.
b. The south building wall which fronts the proposed Road 1B does not currently meet
the maximum 25' front setback required by Section 2.3.2.2 of the Code of
Development. The building should be moved closer to the proposed right of
way/parcel boundary. Based on discussions with Ryan Yauger and Alan Taylor on
June 1, 2018, the Road 1B right of way will be straightened and moved further
north so that the south building facade meets the maximum 25' front building
setback. Comment addressed.
Response 4: Inset has been added to show the entirety of the property lines. Building location
and setbacks shown have been revised as needed. Please see Sheet C-301.
Comment 6: 32.5.2 (a)] Prior to final site plan approval, please revise Sheet C-100 and Sheet C-102
so that the correct Tax Map Parcel numbers for the Block 3A Ice Rink are shown. All
TMPs within Brookhill are currently listed, but Block 3A appears to only be within the
parcel currently identified as TMP 46-19B3. Comment not fully addressed. The TMP
numbers provided on Sheet C-101, and C-103 are not correct according Albemarle
County GIS. Block 3A appears to only be within the parcel currently identified as TMP
46-19B3. Please ensure the appropriate TMP numbers are shown on Sheet C-101, and
show the correct TMP numbers in the parcel labels on the Existing Conditions drawings.
a. Please revise the owner name listed on the Cover Sheet because it is incorrect.
Albemarle County GIS identifies the owners of TMP 46-19A, TMP 46-19B1, TMP
46-19B3, TMP 46-19B4 as Crockett Corporation, address of 435 Park Street,
Charlottesville, VA 22901. Comment Addressed.
Response 6: Tag map number of the existing parcels have been revised as necessary. Please see
Sheet C-201.
Comment 7: [32.5.2 (a)] There is currently a two -lot division plat under review to create the Block 4B
Parcel, and this may be approved and recorded prior to final site plan submittal for Block
3A. On the Block 3A final site plan, please show and label all existing parcel boundaries
with dimensions. Please be aware that the TMP numbers and parcel acreages may change
between the initial and final site plans for Block 3A. Staff may request that the tax map
numbers, parcel acreages, and ownership information be updated on the final site plan to
reflect any recorded plats that may be approved prior to the Block 3A final
site plan approval. Comment not fully addressed. A boundary line adjustment plat is
currently under review. Additionally, staff was informed by the developer that a new
parcel will be subdivided around the improvements proposed as part of the Block 3A
final site plan. Prior to final site plan approval, the correct TMP numbers and boundary
lines must be shown on Sheet C-101, C-103, and all other applicable drawings. The
property labels should include the TMP number and most recently recorded instrument
for any subdivision plats that create new lots.
Response 7: Acknowledged.
Comment 8: 32.5.2 (a)] Please add pages 9 and 10 of the approved ZMA proffer statement to the final
site plan. These are currently missing between Sheets C-103 and C-104. Comment not
addressed. Pages 9 and 10 ofZMA201500007 proffers are still missing.
Response 8: Pages have been added. Please see sheet C-104.
CIVILAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BOHLER
I
It 1
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Block 3A (Ice Rink) — Final Site Plan
Initial Site Plan Review Response
September 24, 2018
Page 4 of 10
Comment 21: 32.5.2 (b) and 4.12.13 (d)] Due to the nature of the use, a minimum of one loading space
should be provided within the Block 3A area. Loading spaces must meet the design
standards specified in Section 18-4.12.18 of the Zoning Ordinance. Comment not fully
addressed. The proposed loading space behind the ice rink structure needs to be located
within the parcel boundaries of the Block 3A ice rink property. Please amend all
drawings to show the loading space within the property lines. Otherwise, an offsite
access easement will need to be platted granting the owners of the ice rink lot access to
and use of the loading space if it will not be located on the same parcel. Easement plat
will need to be reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
Response 21: Access easement has been added and will be included in the easement plat.
Comment 22: 32.5.2 (a)] Per Table 2.3.2.2 of the Code of Development, please show the minimum and
maximum setback lines locations across all applicable drawings. Label each setback line
as a front, side, corner side, or rear setback and state the dimensions in the label.
Setbacks should be measured from the proposed right-of-way. Comment not fully
addressed. The minimum 5' setback line and 25' maximum setback line shown behind the
ice rink are incorrect; that lot line will be a side parcel boundary according to the way
the plan is currently drawn. Please show a minimum 5' side setback line (label
correctly) and remove the maximum setback line on all applicable drawings. There are
no maximum side setbacks required in Urban Density Residential blocks ofBrookhill.
Response 22: Setback lines have been revised as necessary. Please see Sheet C-301.
Comment 26: [32.5.2 (k)] Please show the location of all proposed sewer and drainage easements.
Label as "proposed" with a size/width measurement. Comment partially addressed.
Please be aware that all required stormwater and drainage easements will need to be
reviewed, approved, and recorded through a separate easement plat application prior to
final site plan approval.. All applicable drawings showing these easements should be
labeled with the instrument number of the approved plat and deed once it is recorded.
These easements should also be noted as `private" easements.
Response 26: Acknowledged. Note has been added to the Utility Plan to indicate all storm
easements as private.
Comment 27: [32.5.2 0)] Please label all utility easements as "proposed" with a size/width
measurement. Comment partially addressed. Pending ACSA comments, the water and
sewer utility easements may need to be reviewed, approved, and recorded through a
separate easement plat application prior to final site plan approval. IfACSA will require
this, all applicable drawings will need to be updated to include the instrument number of
the recorded plat/deeds for those easements.
Response 27: Acknowledged. Easement labels have been revised as needed. Please see Sheet C-
501.
Comment 29: [32.7.91 All required street trees within the right of way of Road 113 will be reviewed and
approved with the road plan application, SUB201700117. The final site plan should
contain labels stating which landscaping items are proposed with the Block 3A site plan,
and which are part of the road plan application. Comment not fully addressed. On Sheet
C-301, please add the road plan application number to Note 2. Please add the road plan
application number to the callout on Sheet C-701 and Note 1 on Sheet C-701.
Response 29: Application number for the Road Plan has been added as requested.
CIVILAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BOHLER
R [ 'V
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Block 3A (Ice Rink) — Final Site Plan
Initial Site Plan Review Response
September 24, 2018
Page 5 of 10
Comment 34: [32.7.9.8 (a)] On Sheet C-702, please provide a calculation for the minimum tree canopy
required and proposed in Block 3A based on the use type. The minimum tree canopy is
10% for this portion of Block 3A. Comment not addressed. The Tree Canopy calculation
on Sheet C-703 states that only 6.93% of overall tree canopy is being provided, but a
minimum of 10% is required. Please install additional landscaping to bring the tree
canopy into compliance.
a_ [32.7.9.8 (b)] Please provide a Landscape Schedule on Sheet C-702 that lists the
Botanical Name and Common Name of each species is included, the proposed
caliper and height at time of installation, and the canopy coverage area per plant
species as stated on the Albemarle County Plants Canopy Calculations (this table
should be specifically for the 10% minimum tree canopy requirement). Comment
not fully addressed. The proposed Japanese Katsura trees are not a species on the
Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. Please provide a different tree
species from the approved list.
The proposed lot lines for the Block 3A parcel need to include all landscaping
required to meet the Zoning Ordinance. There are some trees being installed
behind the ice rink that are outside of the parcel boundaries.
Please see ARB comments below for additional landscaping requirements.
Response 34: Tree canopy calculation has been updated, and the Japanese Katsura tree species
has been replaced as requested.
Comment 38: [32.7.8 and 4.17] The final site plan lighting plan must meet the minimum requirements
of Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. Some footcandle measurements along the Road
1 B exceed the maximum 0.5 footcandles permitted.
a. Please provide further documentation that luminaries proposed in Block 3A are
full -cutoff fixtures. Comment not fully addressed. Provide manufacturers'
specifications and cut sheets for the proposed light fixtures with the final site plan.
Note that the tilt of all full cutoff models must be 0. In addition, provide the total
lumens (not lum. watts) for each fixture in the luminaire schedule and ensure that
the photometric values are calculated using an LLF equal to 1.0 (not 0.98, which is
currently listed in the luminaire schedule).
Provide the standard lighting note on the lighting plan (C-703); Each outdoor
luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a
full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from
adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of
lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural
areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle.
Please state the proposed pole heights for all freestanding luminaries within the
Block 3A site.
Response 38: The LLF value has been adjusted as requested. Lighting note has been added.
Fixture height has been included in Luminaire Schedule.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECTMANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
WIM BOHLER
F: N G I N L E R 1 N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Block 3A (Ice Rink) - Final Site Plan
Initial Site Plan Review Response
September 24, 2018
Page 6 of 10
Comment 39: [32.5.2 (o) and 2MA201500007] Please expand the Block Area Summary on Sheet C-
106 to include all the columns contained in Table 2 of the Code of Development. The
required and proposed acreages of each feature should also be stated so that staff can
verify compliance with the minimum requirements for greenspace/amenities, as well as
the development area requirements. Although no Greenspace/Amenities are required in
Block 3, providing updated versions of this table on all site plans and subdivision plats
will allow accurate tracking of land use acreages as each block develops. Comment not
fully addressed. The Block Area Summary does not include an entry for the proposed
acreages of land uses for Block 4C, please revise.
Response 39: Block Area Summary has been revised as requested.
New Planning Comments First Review of Block 3A Final Site Plan:
Comment 1: [General Comment] On Sheet C-106, please add the approved initial site plan application
number within the Block 4B parcel/area.
Response 1: Plan numbers have been added as requested.
Comment 2: [ZMA2015000071 Per Table 2.2.2. on page 10 of the Code of Development, a minimum
of one bicycle rack must be provided per 5,000 sq. ft. of non-residential space. A total of
six (6) bicycle racks need to be shown on the site plans. Staff suggests showing the
bicycle racks in front of the ice rink building between the ornamental trees adjacent to the
sidewalk, but they can be installed elsewhere should the applicant wish to do so.
Response 2: Bicycle racks have been added as required. Please see Sheet C-301.
GDS - Elisa Kfewra
Comment 1: Road 113 will require a road name.
Per Sec. 7-200-B of the County's
(Page 2 of PDF).
Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are
designed to serve three (3) or more dwelling units or business structures shall be
named."
We recommend providing three (3) candidate names for each road to our office for
review, in case your first choices are not acceptable.
A PDF Version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
h s://www.albemarle.or albemarle/u load/ima es/weba s/roads/
Parcel and mapping information can be found here: h4P:Hgisweb.albemar1e.orQJ
Response 1: Acknowledged. Road name will be provided on the plan once determined.
Albemarle County De artment of Community Development - Emily Cox
General Continents
Comment 1: WPO Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
Response 1: Acknowledged.
CIVILAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BOH LER
E N U k N >! F 17, r y G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Block 3A (Ice Runk) — Final Site Plan
Initial Site Plan Review Response
September 24, 2018
Page 7 of 10
Comment 2: Road Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
Response 2: Acknowledged.
Comment 3: VDOT approval is necessary before site plan can be approved.
Response 3: Acknowledged.
Comment 4: Show steep slopes on all applicable sheets. It is unclear if there are any in this area.
Response 4: All steep & managed slopes in the area have been shown. Please see Sheet C-201.
Comment 5: Consider adding site plan Ws to sheet C-107.
Response 5: Plan numbers have been added.
Comment 6: Add approved plan # that created the SWM access road to the existing SWM access road
label.
Response 6: Approved plan number has been added.
Comment 7: Sheet C-201 shows the proposed road IB, however this is the existing conditions sheet.
Please revise or put a note explaining as this road is not existing conditions on site.
Response 7: Existing conditions have been revised to show actual conditions.
Comment 8: Sheet C-301 shows structures, but not pipes. Please show entire storm network, or
remove the structures from this sheet.
Response 8: Above -ground storm structures are shown on the Site Plan sheet, as is typical.
Underground pipes are not typically shown on this sheet.
Comment 9: Consider adding road plan # where "another cover" is referenced.
Response 9: Road plan number added.
Comment 10: Topography should be field verified within the last year. Provide the date on the cover
sheet.
Response 10: Field visit date has been added. Please see Sheet C-201.
Comment 11: Provide cross section and calculations for the ditch to Str A03 shown on Sheet C-401.
Response 11: Ditch computations have been added. Please see Sheet C401.
Comment 12: Provide drainage divides to go along with the storm drain calculations.
Response 12: Drainage divide sheet has been added. Please see Sheet C-800.
Comment 13: Provide VDOT form LLB-347 for the HGL calculations. It appears the HGL calculations
provided are slightly different.
Response 13: Clarification note has been provided to explain the slight difference.
Comment 14: Please explain the headwater computations. The WSE elevation is shown at the rim
elevation?
Response 14: Headwater computations have been corrected.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS -ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS * LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOH LERENGINEERING.COM
BO� H: L E R Cameron Langille
G Brook1fi1I Development
Block 3A (Ice Rink) — Final Site Plan
Initial Site Plan Review Response
September 24, 2018
Page 8 of 10
Comment 15: The velocity from A2 to Al is very high. Per VDOT drainage manual section 9.4.8.7,
velocities should be kept to 10 ftls if possible.
Response 15: In order to keep the pipes at a reasonable depth, the pipes must maintain a steep
slope to follow the grade.
Comment 16: Ensure drainage easements meet the requirements in the design standards manual, page
15. Show the calculation. Also, why does the proposed storm easement stop at structure
A04?
http://www.albeniarle.or u load/ima es/forms center/d artments/communit develop
mentlforms/desi standards manual/Albemarle CogAty Desigg Standards Manual 20
15-04-25_draft.pdf
Response 16: Drainage easements are now provided at the required depth. Calculation is shown.
Comment 17: Label all entrances with a VDOT designation (CG-9a, etc).
Response 17: Entrance have been labeled as required. Please see Sheet C-301.
Comment 18: Why is the western side of the parking area not curbed? Also, why is there not a curbed
island at the end of the parking? (edge of pavement and striping is shown.)
Response 18: This is in anticipation of the ultimate condition in that area. The parking lot shall
be extended in that direction to serve the future adjacent uses.
Comment 19: Provide sight distance lines or profiles.
Response 19: Sight distance profiles have been added from the Road Plan.
Block 3 Initial/Final SDP review continents
Comment 1: A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. Complete
comments on architecture and landscaping will be provided with an ARB review of the
Final Site Development Plan. Provide all of the items on the Final Site Development Plan
Checklist for future review.
Response 1: Acknowledged.
Comment 2: Consider additionally integrating the refuse area (dumpster) in the northwest corner of
the parking area with the site with shrubbery as well as the one provided tree.
Response 2: Acknowledged. Further screening/landscaping will be provided in a future phase.
Comment 3: Add the standard mechanical equipment note to the General Site Plan Notes on C-102 or
C-103 of the site plan set as well as to the architectural drawings: Visibility of all
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.
Response 3: Note has been added.
Comment 4: Provide manufacturers, specifications and cut sheets for the proposed light fixtures with
the final site plan. Note that the tilt of all full cutoff models must be 0. In addition,
provide the total lumens (not lum. watts) for each fixture in the luminaire schedule and
ensure that the photometric values are calculated using an LLF equal to 1.0 (not 0.98,
which is currently listed in the luminaire schedule).
Response 4: Cut sheet have been provided. Lumens and LLF values have been corrected.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS ■ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOH LERENGINEERING.COM
BOH LER
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Block 3A (Ice Rink) — Final Site Plan
Initial Site Plan Review Response
September 24, 2018
Page 9 of 10
Comment 5: Reduce the footcandle values in excess of 0.5 fc on the southern property line.
Response 5: Footcandle value has been reduced as required.
Comment 6: Provide the colors of the proposed freestanding and wall -mounted light fixtures on the
lighting plan.
Response 6: Note has been added specifying the fixture colors proposed.
Comment 7: Provide the standard lighting note on the lighting plan (C-703): Each outdoor lum;naire
equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff
luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining
residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from
luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts
shall not exceed one half footcandle.
Response 7: Note has been added as requested.
Comment 8: Consider providing trees in a median between the sidewalk on the west elevation of the
building and the 26 parking spaces to the immediate west of the building, which would
serve a dual purpose of providing shade the adjacent sidewalk and parking area.
Response 8: Acknowledged. Landscape Plan has been modified appropriately.
Comment 9: Add perimeter parking area trees that have an average planting distance of 40' o.c.
Provide trees and shrubs on the west side of the parking area in order to mitigate views of
parked cars from the EC.
Response 9: Per discussion with the ARB reviewer, this comment no longer applies.
Comment 10: Disperse the 9 interior parking area trees throughout the entire parking area rather than
concentrating them all on the cast side of the parking lot.
Response 10: Interior parking trees will be added during future phases of this project area.
Comment 11: Correct the quantities of each proposed plant species listed in the plant schedule on the
landscape plan (C-701). Reduce the number of each proposed plant for any one species to
25% of the total proposed for that plant type (i.e., tree or shrub), specifically by
introducing additional varieties of shrubbery.
Response 11: Quantities have been corrected as required.
Comment 12: The Code of Development requires a 20-foot landscape buffer around the historic
Brookhill house property, directly south of Block 3. A portion of the northern buffer area
is depicted on the landscape plan (C-701) but is unpopulated with trees and shrubbery.
Please provide the required landscaping within the northern swath of the 20-foot
landscape buffer around the historic Brookhill property with this site plan.
Response 12: The required 20' buffer area will be planted with the Road Plan.
VDOT — Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Comment 1: The Road Plan associated with this site, currently under review, has not been approved at
the time of this letter.
Response 1: Acknowledged.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
B O H L E R Cameron Langille
G Brookhill Development
Block 3A (Ice Rink) — Final Site Plan
Initial Site Plan Review Response
September 24, 2018
Page 10 of 10
Comment 2: Sufficient intersection sight distance lines and profiles must be provided on this plan or
the road plan, preferably both.
Response 2: Sight distance profiles associated with the applicable entrances have been added
from the Road Plan.
Should you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (540) 3494500.
Sincerely,
Bohler Engineering VA, LLC
Ryan Yauger, P.E.
RY/bb
llbohlereng.netlshareslVA-PROJECTSI151V 1520001AdministrativelLettcn\Block 3 (Ice Rink)1Final Site Plan Ice Rink1180924 Final Site Plan
(Block 3A - Ice Rink) 1 st Review CRL.doc
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM