HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800050 Correspondence 2018-10-08TM
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
Attn: Cameron Langille
Dear Mr. Langille:
28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201
Warrenton, VA 20186
PHONE 540.349.4500
October 8, 2018
Via Hand Delivery
Re: SDP201800050
Final Site Plan (Block 4A and 4B
Apartments)
2nd 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 Final Site Plan 3rd
Submission for the Block 4 Apartments located in the Brookhill Development project in Charlottesville,
Virginia. The following is our comment response letter addressing comments received from various
departments. Each comment is addressed and responded to as follows:
Planning — Cameron Langille
New Comments First Review of Block 4 Final Site Plan:
Comment 2: [ZMA201500007] There are currently two variations to the Brookhill Code of
Development under review. This includes a variation to the minimum 10' rear setback
requirement for Block 4, and the width of the Route 29 buffer around the VDOT
stormwater pond. These special exceptions/variations to the COD are schedule to go
before the Board of Supervisors at the September 5th BOS meeting. Staff cannot
approve the final site plan unless the BOS approves the requested variations, and if the
variations are approved, the final site plan cannot be approved until after September 5'
Rev. 1: On Sheet C-100 under "References" next to Code of Development — state
"Variations I and 2 Approved September 5, 2018. On Sheet C-102 under Zoning and
Site Data Tabulations" next to Associated Plans, state "Variations I and 2 Approved
September 5, 2018.
Response 2: Coversheet has been updated accordingly. See Sheet C-100.
Comment 3: [General Comment] Approval and recordation of an easement plat is required for all new
easements within Block 4 associated with stormwater, drainage, water, sewer, and
buffers. Please submit the easement plat application for review. The plat must be
recorded prior to final site plan approval and the final site plan must show the deed book
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
®BOHLER
E N G I N E E R I N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
2nd Review Response
October 8, 2018
Page 2of10
and page number in labels for all new easements. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed,
easement plat has not yet been submitted.
Response 3: Comment Acknowledged. Easement Plat scheduled to be submitted on 10/8/18
under separate cover.
Comments from SDP20170047 - Brookhill Block 4A Initial Site Plan Action Letter:
Comment 5: [32.5.2 (a)] Please show and label all proposed parcel boundaries with dimensions
associated with the development of Block 4A. Include a note stating the intended timing
for subdividing the Block 4A parcel. Comment not fully addressed. Two lot subdivision
and boundary line adjustment plat still under review. The final site plan for Block 4 will
need to show the revised property boundaries, the recorded instrument, and the accurate
TMP numbers of the new parcels/revised parcel lines, prior to final site plan approval.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The plat is now only a boundary line adjustment to
create a single parcel that contains all improvements proposed within Block 4. The plat
has not been approved and recorded yet. Once the plat is recorded, the final site plan will
need to be updated to state the correct TMP numbers, acreage of the Block 4 parcel, and
the recorded instrument number (deed book and page number). This data is shown on the
title sheet (TMP numbers under title bar, and topography/survey reference under Contact
Information), Sheet C-102 (Site data table- TMP numbers, site acreage), and on
numerous drawings that label the parcels with TMP numbers, deed book references, and
acreages).
Response 5: Site plan has been updated with revised TMP Parcels throughout the set to reflect
the recently approved BLA plat.
Comment 7: [32.5.2 (i)] The road plans for Roads A and B have not yet been approved by the County,
but this is required prior to approval of the final site plan. Please be aware that the final
site plan will need to accurately depict all improvements within the right-of-way of
Roads A and B. Please refer to the attached VDOT comment letter for additional
information.
a. Please shade out all road improvements that are subject to review and approval with
the road plan application. Add labels to all applicable drawings stating that Roads A
and B are proposed/under review and are shown for clarity purposes only on the
initial site plan for Block 4A. The roads are currently under review as part of road
plan SUB201700117.
Comment addressed.
b. State "proposed public right-of-way" in the labels for Roads A and B.
Comment addressed.
c. All construction details, road profiles, etc. related to the design/construction of Road
A and B improvements within the proposed public right-of-way will be approved
through SUB201700117. These details do not need to be included with the initial site
plan.
Comment addressed.
d. Please remove the Street Construction Notes on Sheet C-102. The streets comprising
the internal road network of Brookhill that will provide frontage for the Block 4A
parcel are currently under review as a road plan application, SUB201700117 and all
design and construction associated with the roads will take place prior to final site
plan approval. Comment not fully addressed. SUB201700117 still under review.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
®BOHLER
E N G I N E E R I N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
2nd Review Response
October 8, 2018
Page 3 of 10
This comment will be addressed once the road plans are approved. Rev. 1: Road
plans still under review. This comment will be addressed once the road plans are
approved.
Response 7: Comment Acknowledged.
Comment 18: [32.5.2 (b)] Please state the square footage and acreage occupied by each use in Block 4A
on Sheet C-102. This includes residential uses (including square feet of individual
buildings), ancillary uses (including recreational areas), non-residential uses, parking and
vehicle circulation areas, percentage of open space, etc.
a. Please be aware that recreation areas are classified as ancillary uses to residential
uses, per Section 2.2.2 (page 10) of the Code of Development. Per Table 5 Density
Regulations (Page 15), ancillary uses do not count against the maximum non-
residential square footage permitted in each block. Comment not fully addressed. No
nonresidential square footage/use is being provided in Block 4 according to this final
site plan. Recreational uses are classified as ancillary uses and do not count against
the maximum permitted non-residential square footage. The "Remaining Available
Non -Residential "figure should be revised to state 15, 000 sq.ft. per Table 5 on page
15 of the COD.
b. Please state what types of recreation facilities are being provided within the amenity
area (i.e. pool, tot lot, basketball court, etc.) Comment not fully addressed. Please
clarify the "Amenity Area" portion of the "Site Use Area Tabulations" on Sheet C-
102. No non-residential square footage/use is being provided in Block 4 according to
this final site plan. Recreational uses are classified as ancillary uses and do not count
against the maximum permitted non-residential square footage. Is the "Other" figure
supposed to represent the area of open space that will be provided in Block 4 to meet
the minimum recreation requirements?
Rev. 1: The Land Use Exhibit shows that 1.38 acres of civic space being provided
between Block 4A and 4B. Per the COD (page 6 and page 22) Block 4 requires a
minimum of 0.2 acres (10,000 sq. ft) of civic space/parks. Please update the Site
Area Tabulation on Sheet C-102 so that it states the acreage of civic space under
"Amenity Area. "
Response 18: Area tabulation has been updated, please see Sheet C-102.
Comment 21: [32.5.1 (c)] Please show the boundaries and dimensions of all Managed and Preserved
Steep Slopes and wetlands areas on the existing conditions and grading drawings.
Comment not fully addressed. Preserved steep slopes are not shown across all drawings.
Please revise the plans. Rev. 1: See Engineering comment #4 regarding disturbances of
preserved steep slopes in Block 4B. The grading drawings show disturbances to
Preserved Steep Slopes in the upper corner of that parcel. Refer to County Code Section
30.7.4.b.l.h regarding submission of new topographic information showing slopes less
than 25%. Proposed disturbance to preserved steep slopes as shown is not permitted.
Response 21: Steep slopes have been added to the grading plans. Please refer to sheets C-401 & C-
402. After further field analysis, it was determined that a wall would need to be
proposed to stay out of the preserved slopes. Therefore, a wall 6' in height is shown
on C-401.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
®BOHLER
E N G I N E E R I N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
2nd Review Response
October 8, 2018
Page 4of10
Comment 38: [General Comment] Please be aware that the TMP numbers and parcel acreages may
change between the initial and final site plans. The developers have stated that they will
subdivide a large parcel for Block 4A in the near future. 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 final site plan approval.
Comment not fully addressed. A two -lot subdivision plat and boundary line adjustment is
still under review; final site plan must be updated with boundaries and Deed Book and
Page references after approval and recordation of subdivision plat across all applicable
drawings. Rev. 1: BLA plat still under review and is not yet approved and recorded. See
comment #2 above for further details regarding revisions that must be made to final site
plan regarding TMP numbers, acreage, and deed book and page references.
Response 38: Comment Acknowledged.
Comment 47: [32.7.8 and 4.17] The final site plan will need to include a lighting plan showing all
proposed outdoor lighting locations, luminaire types, heights, footcandle measurements
inside of the property and along all proposed property lines, and include manufacturer
specifications demonstrating compliance with full -cutoff standards in accordance with
Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Comment not fully addressed.
The Liahtina Plan shows footcandle spillover exceeding the maximum nermitted 0.5
footcandles within the Archer Avenue public right of way adjacent to Block 4B, and
within the Stella Lane public right of way adjacent to Block 4A. Please revise the plans
so that the maximum footcandle measurement within anv portion of public right of ways
does not exceed 0.5 footcandles. Rev. 1: Spillover is still higher than 0.5 footcandles at
the driveway entrance onto Archer Avenue. Please revise the lighting to comply with the
maximum footcandle requirement.
The Luminaire Schedules on Sheets C-704 and C-705 do not Drovide the lumens of the
three proposed luminaires. This information must be shown to verifv compliance with
Section 4.17.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Two new
luminaries have been added to the plans, and the schedule on Sheets C-704 and C-705
does not include figures for the lumens, LLF, and luminaire watts. Please include this
information in the table. Additionally, there appears to only be 72 Model D lights
provided, not 76 as stated in the Luminaire Schedule.
Please add a column to the Luminaire Schedules on Sheets C-704 and C-705 stating the
lamp type (e.g. LED, metal halide, fluorescent, etc.) to verify compliance with Section
4.17.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed, this column and
information was not added to the Luminaire Schedules on either sheet.
Response 47: The photometric values and schedule have been revised, please see sheets C-704 and
C-705.
Comments from SDP20180018 Brookhill Block 4B Initial Site Plan Action Letter:
Comment 4: [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. On the
final site plan, please show and label all parcel boundaries with dimensions for the Block
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
®BOHLER
E N G I N E E R I N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
2nd Review Response
October 8, 2018
Page 5 of 10
4B. Please be aware that the TMP numbers and parcel acreages may change between the
initial and final site plans. 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 final site plan approval. Comment not fully addressed.
Two -lot subdivision plat and boundary line adjustment is still under review; final site
plan must be updated with boundaries and Deed Book and Page references after approval
and recordation of subdivision plat across all applicable drawings. Rev. 1: BLA plat still
under review and is not yet approved and recorded. See previous comments #2 and #38
above for further details regarding revisions that must be made to final site plan
regarding TMP numbers, acreage, and deed book and page references.
Response 4: Comment Acknowledged.
Comment 5: [32.5.2 (i)] The road plans for Stella Lane and Road A have not yet been approved by the
County, but this is required prior to approval of the final site plan. Please be aware that
the final site plan will need to accurately depict all improvements within the right-of-
ways. Please refer to the attached VDOT comment letter for additional information.
b. State "proposed public right-of-way" in the labels for Stella Lane and Road A.
Comment not fully addressed. "Proposed public ROW" labels not shown for Stella or
Archer. Rev. 1: Please update the road labels on Sheets C-301 and C-302 so they
state "Proposed public right of way reserved for future dedication upon demand by
the County. "
Response 5: Proposed public Right -of -Way labels have been added accordingly. Please see
sheets C-301 & C-302.
Comment 16: [32.5.2 (b)] Please state the permitted and proposed gross residential density of Block
4/4B in the Zoning and Site Tabulations table on Sheet C-102. Per Table 5 Density
Regulations (page 15) of the Code of Development, the permitted density range of Block
4 is 6-34 units/acre. Rev. 1: Once the BLA plat is approved and the new lot is created that
will contain both Block 4A and 4B, please verify that the acreage figures and proposed
residential density is accurate on Sheet C-102.
Response 16: Comment Acknowledged. The acreages reflect the future condition of the ROW
being dedicated.
Comment 18: [32.5.1 (c)] Please show the boundaries and dimensions of all Managed and Preserved
Steep Slopes and wetland areas on the site plan. Comment not fully addressed. Preserved
steep slopes are not shown across all drawings. Please revise the plans. Rev. 1: See
Engineering comment #4 regarding disturbances of preserved steep slopes in Block 4B.
The grading drawings show disturbances to Preserved Steep Slopes in the upper corner
of that parcel. Refer to County Code Section 30.7.4.b.l.h regarding submission of new
topographic information showing slopes less than 25%. Proposed disturbance to
preserved steep slopes as shown is not permitted.
Response 18: Steep slopes have been added to the grading plans. Please refer to sheets C-401 & C-
402. After further field analysis, it was determined that a wall would need to be
proposed to stay out of the preserved slopes. Therefore, a wall 6' in height is shown
on C-401.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
®BOHLER
E N G I N E E R I N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
2nd Review Response
October 8, 2018
Page 6of10
Comment 34: [32.7.9.6 (a)] Please revise the calculation for the minimum number of trees required
within the parking area based on the number of proposed parking spaces on Sheet C-702.
305 parking spaces are required, which means 31 trees must be provided in the parking
area. As a reminder, one (1) large or medium shade tree is required per ten (10) parking
spaces or portion thereof. Comment not fully addressed. Sheet C-703 states that 31
parking lot trees are provided in the lot for Block 4B, but staff only counts 30 trees on the
Landscape Plan. Please verify the quantijy provided and revise the trees provided
column if necessary. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. There are 37 qualifying
shade trees provided throughout the Block 4B parking lot but the figure in the table on
Sheet C-701 only states 31. Please revise. Additionally, the chart on C-701 states that
233 parking spaces are provided in Block 4B, but there are actually 293, please revise
this chart and state that 29 trees are required and 293 parking spaces are provided.
On Sheet C-702, the number of parking spaces provided is incorrect — it should state 266
parking spaces are provided in Block 4A, and 26 trees are required.
Response 34: Parking counts associated with the landscaping has been revised, please see sheets
C-701 and C-702.
Comment 36. [32.7.9.8 (a)] On Sheet C-702, please provide a calculation for the minimum tree canopy
required and proposed in Block 413 based on the proposed density of residential uses. It
appears that the proposed density of Block 4B is 22.79 du/acre, which means that the
minimum tree canopy is 10%.
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. Comment not fully
addressed. Please see ARB comment regarding revisions to the Landscape Schedule
calculations on Sheet C-703. Rev. 1: See ARB comments regarding errors in the
Landscape Schedules on Sheets C-701, C-702, and C-703. Some proposed species
have been omitted from the landscape schedules, and others have incorrect quantities
provided. The Landscape Plans provided with the final site plan must match the ARB
plans currently under review. The ARB comments include a copy of each landscape
drawing with markups from staff identifying quantities of species that are
incorrect/do not match the amount of plants provided on the drawing.
Response 36: Comment Acknowledged. Landscaping Schedules have been updated.
Comment 41. [32.7.8 and 4.17] The final site plan will need to include a lighting plan showing all
proposed outdoor lighting locations, luminaire types, heights, footcandle measurements
inside of the property and along all proposed property lines, and include manufacturer
specifications demonstrating compliance with full -cutoff standards in accordance with
Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See
Planning comments below in addition to the ARB comments regarding errors on the
Lighting Plans.
The Lighting Plan shows footcandle spillover exceeding the maximum permitted 0.5
footcandles within the Archer Avenue public right of wa�djacent to Block 413, and
within the Stella Lane public right of way adjacent to Block 4A. Please revise the plans
so that the maximum footcandle measurement within any portion of public right of ways
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
®BOHLER
E N G I N E E R I N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
2nd Review Response
October 8, 2018
Page 7of10
does not exceed 0.5 footcandles. Rev. 1: Spillover is still higher than 0.5 footcandles at
the driveway entrance onto Archer Avenue. Please revise the lighting to comply with the
maximum footcandle requirement.
The Luminaire Schedules on Sheets C-704 and C-705 do not provide the lumens of the
three proposed luminaires. This information must be shown to verify compliance with
Section 4.17.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Two ne
luminaries have been added to the plans, and the schedule on Sheets C-704 and C-705
does not include figures for the lumens, LLF, and luminaire watts. Please include this
information in the table. Additionally, there appears to only be 72 Model D lights
provided, not 76 as stated in the Luminaire Schedule.
Please add a column to the Luminaire Schedules on Sheets C-704 and C-705 stating the
lamp type (e.g. LED, metal halide, fluorescent, etc.)to verify compliance with Section
4.17.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed, this column and
information was not added to the Luminaire Schedules on either sheet.
Response 41: Comment acknowledged, lighting schedules have been updated.
Comment 42. [32.5.2 (o) and ZMA201500007] Table 2 on page 6 of the Code of Development
identifies the minimum Greenspace/amenity area requirements that must be met in Block
4 (0.2 acres of civic/parks, 3.4 acres of greenway, 1.9 acres of open space, 2.9 acres of
buffer). The approved Application Plan shows a portion of the required 3.4 acre
greenway located within Block 4B.
c. 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 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
(maximum 19.0 acres overall through Block 4). Comment not fully addressed. Per
Table 2 on Page 6 of the Code of Development, no block size shall be modified more
than 15% of the gross land area shown in Table 2. Sheet C-106 says that the
proposed Block 4 total acreage is 21.6 acres, which is a 21 % modification.
Additionally, the Block Area Summary does not state the proposed acreage of
Greenspace/Amenities being provided in Block 4. The 100' Route 29 buffer is a
portion of the required minimum open space. In order to address the COD
requirements for providing the minimum acreage of rg eenspace in Block 4, an
easement must be recorded over the 100' Route 29 buffer in Block 4 with a deed that
dedicates it to the Brookhill HOA. Please submit an easement Dlat to be reviewed.
approved, and recorded. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed. The 15%
modification comment no longer applies since the acreage change is within the
permitted 15% modification. However, the table does not state the amount of
Greenspace/Amenities required and Greenspace/Amenities proposed. It only state
what appears to be proposed. Please add columns with the required acreage for
each item, per the COD, and then state the proposed acreages of each.
Furthermore, the deed of dedication for the buffer easement must be included with
the easement plat requested in previous comments.
Response 42: Comment Acknowledged. Table has been updated, see Sheet C-106. Easement plat
will be submitted under separate cover.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
®BOHLER
E N G I N E E R I N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
2nd Review Response
October 8, 2018
Page 8of10
Comment 45: [ZMA201500007 — Proffer #1E] Please provide an update regarding the proposed timing
for construction and installation of the transit stop. The Brookhill Application Plan shows
a generalized location for the transit stop at the northeast corner of the traffic circle at the
intersection of Archer Avenue and Stella Lane. The proffer states that the transit stop
shall feature certain improvements including a shelter, rest bench, pedestrian access, and
signage. Furthermore, the stop shall be installed and completed concurrently with the
installation of roads and sidewalks within Block 1. Comment not fully addressed. The
road plans for Stella Lane and Archer Avenue are under review. Per the last road plan
application review, staff requested that a pull -off be added to Stella Lane to accommodate
a bus stop/future transit stop. This comment will be addressed once SUB201700117 is
approved. Rev. 1: This comment will be addressed once the road plans are approved.
Response 43: Comment Acknowledged.
Engineering — Emily Cox
Comment 1: WPO Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment
not addressed.
Response 1: Acknowledged.
Comment 2: Road Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment
not addressed.
Response 2: Acknowledged.
Comment 3: VDOT approval is necessary before site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment
not addressed.
Response 3: Acknowledged, to my knowledge VDOT has approved the Apartment Plans.
Comment 4: Show steep slopes on all applicable sheets. Rev. 1: Refer to County Code Section
30.7.4.b.l.h regarding submission of new topographic information showing slopes less
than 25%. Proposed disturbance to preserved steep slopes as shown is not permitted.
Response 4: Steep slopes have been added to the grading plans. Please refer to sheets C-401 & C-
402. After further field analysis, it was determined that a wall would need to be
proposed to stay out of the preserved slopes. Therefore, a wall 6' in height is shown
on C-401.
Comment 5: Show stormwater management facility easements. These will need to be recorded with a
deed. These are intended to be processed with the subdivision plat of Archer and Stella
Lane, correct? Rev. 1: Please label these as stormwater management facility easements,
not storm drain easements. These will need deeds when they are recorded.
Response 5: Easements have been revised. Comment Acknowledged.
Comment 6: There is no existing 100 buffer on the northern end of the site. Please remove label. This
is proposed greenspace/buffer or open space. Rev. 1: Sheet C-106A still shows this label.
Response 6: The label has been removed.
Comment 8: Label all 3:1 and 2:1 slopes. Rev. 1: Labels are not visible. Please ensure they are
shown.
Response 8: A label and hatch has been added to the plans showing the proposed 2:1 slopes
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
®BOHLER
E N G I N E E R I N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
2nd Review Response
October 8, 2018
Page 9of10
Comment 9: Proposed 2:1 slopes must specify low maintenance (not grass) ground cover. Please note
this on the landscape sheets. Rev. 1: The type ofplanting that can withstand this slope
must be actually specified on the landscape plan.
Response 9: Planting of the Crownvetch (Securigera Varia) has been specified on the landscape
plans both with a label and a note on the plans. See note 5 on the Landscaping
Sheets, and the labels on the slopes.
Comment 12: Provide dumpster/trash compactor pad detail. Rev. 1: Provide detail for the PAD. Ensure
dumpster pad detail or specification has a minimum 4 " stone base and 6 "concrete of
3000psi at 28 days, or stronger, reinforced with a minimum grid of wire reinforcing or
#4 bars at 12" on center.
Response 12: Dumpster detail has been added. See Sheet C-903.
Comment 14: Per the COD, Page 23, provide final design of retaining walls and approval to be over 6
feet in height. Rev. 1: Comment still valid.
Response 14: Plans have been provided under separate Cover.
Comment 17: Storm drain easements are not necessary on all pipes. They are needed for stormwater
management facilities and public systems. See Section 6 of the Design Standards Manual.
Contact engineering with any questions. Rev. 1: Ensure that all pipes associates with
SWMfacilities are in an easement. This includes the isolator row and the outfall from the
underground storage. Also, the ditches to the level spreaders should be in an easement.
Response 17: Easements have been provided, please see corresponding plan view sheets.
Comment 18: Provide calculations for the ditches going to the level spreader. Rev. 1: Swale
calculations shown, however it is not clear which channel is which? Also, please provide
the drainage area to these swales (show how Q was calculated).
Response 18: Swale comps are shown on Sheet C-401, and have corresponding cross section labels
shown on this sheet as well. DA to swale is shown on E&S phase 2 sheet C-809.
Comment 21: Rev. 1: Velocity from pipe Al or AO is too high. Velocity must be less than 15 ft/s.
Response 21: Pipe has been revised to lower the velocity. See Sheet C-808.
CDD E911— Elise Kiewra
Comment 1: If this plan is resubmitted, please make sure to label Crockett Circle and Crafton Circle
on any page that
1) Shows these roads, and
2) Labels other roads (like Stella Lane, Archer Avenue).
There are multiple pages where major roads are labeled and Crockett Circle and/or
Crafton Circle are not.
Response 1: Road Labels have been added.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
®BOHLER
E N G I N E E R I N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
2nd Review Response
October 8, 2018
Page 10 of 10
Should you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (540) 349-4500.
Sincerely,
Bohler Engineering VA, LLC
Ryan Yauger, P.E.
RY/bb
H:\15\VI52000\Administrative\Letters\Block 4 (Apartments)\Final Site Plan Block 4 Apartments\181008 Final Site Plan (Block 4) 2nd Review
CRL.doc
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM