HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800050 Correspondence 2018-09-05B OHLER ENGL4EERING
28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201, Warrenton, VA 20186
Professional Engineering Services Telephone: (540) 349-4500 Fax: (540) 349-0321
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
VIA: Hand Delivery
TO: Albemarle County
Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5832
ATTN: Cameron Langille
RE: SDP201800050
Final Site Plan for Block 4 Apartments — 2"d
Submission
Brookhill Development
Route 29 (Seminole Trail Road) and State Route
643 (Polo Grounds Road)
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Albemarle County
DATE: September 5, 2018
JOB NO: V152000
WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter ®Attached ❑ Prints ❑ Change order
COPIES JOB# DATE REVISION REVISION
DATE
1 V152000 9/5/18
11 V152000 6/8/18 1 8116/18
These Are Transmitted: ❑ For approval
® For review and comment
❑ Returned for corrections
REMARKS:
SHEET NO.
1-20 of 20
1-47 of 47
❑For your use
❑Approved as submitted
DESCRIPTION
Comment Response Letter
Final Site Plan
®As requested
❑Approved as noted
Enclosed please find the above mentioned items for the Brookhill Development project in Charlottesville, VA.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office at
(540) 349-4500.
COPY TO:
SIGNED:
I& """ 8N600-0
File Ryan Yauger, P.E.
TM
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 L.angille
Dear Mr. Langille:
28 Blackwell Park lane, Suite 201
Warrenton, VA 20186
PHONE 540.349.4500
September 7, 2018
Via Federal Express
Re: SDP201800050
Final Site Plan (Block 4A and 4B
Apartments)
l' 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 2na
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 continent is addressed and responded to as follows:
Planning — Cameron Lan ill
New Comments First Review of Block 4 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: Site plan application number for Block 4b has been added; SDP-2018-00014.
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 51.
Response 2: Acknowledged.
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
CIVILAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS - PROIECTMANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BQH LER
I
1e t N V
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 —Final Site Plan
1' Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 2 of 18
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.
Response 5: Acknowledged.
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 proposedlunder 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.
This comment will be addressed once the road plans are approved.
Response 7: Acknowledged.
Comment 14: [32.5.2 (a)] Please add a line to the Zoning and Site Tabulations table on Sheet C-102
titled `Block Classification" with "Urban Density Residential" as the block type for
Block 4A, as stipulated by the Brookhill Code of Development. Comment not fully
addressed. Please amend the Block Classification line on Sheet C-102 so that it states
"Block 4" instead of Block 4A.
Response 14: Block Classification line on Sheet C-102 has been updated to indicate "Block 411.
Comment 15: [32.5.2 (a)] Please amend the Building Yard Setbacks section in the Zoning and Site
Tabulations table on Sheet C-102. Please insert Table 2.3.2.2 from page 17 of the
Brookhill Code of Development that states the correct minimum and maximum setbacks
for Block 4. Comment not fully addressed. A variation to the rear setbacks in Block 4 is
currently under review. The setback table on Sheet C-102 may need to be revised if the
variation is approved and the required setbacks change.
Response 15: Acknowledged. Setback table has been revised to reflect the approved variation to
the COD. See Sheet C-102.
CIVILAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS - PROJECT MANAGERS - SURVEYORS - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BOH LER
T. N C 1 N E. E R 1 N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
1st Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 3 of 18
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 arc 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 sgft. 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 beingprovided 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?
Response 18: "Remaining Available Nan -Residential' figure has been updated to 15,000 SF. In
addition, the "other" section under "Site Use Area Tabulations" has been changed
to indicate "Open Space". Please refer to sheet C-102 for changes.
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.
Response 21: Steep slopes have been added to the grading plans. Please refer to sheets C401 & C-
402.
Comment 24: [32.5.2 (a)] Please amend the Block Area Summary table on Sheet C-105 so that it
includes the proposed acreage of Block 4C. Comment not addressed. Please amend Block
Area Summary on Sheet C-106 to include Block 4C.
Response 24: Block Area Summary Table has been updated to include the figure for Block 4C;
Please refer to sheet C-106.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BO H L E R Cameron Langille
` I `` I U Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
I' Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 4 of 18
Comment 25: [32.5.2 (e)] Please provide more details about the existing landscape features as described
in Section. 18-32.7.9.4(c). Specify the areas of existing vegetation that will be removed
through grading associated with the WO plan. This includes any areas within the 70'
undisturbed buffer portion.
a_ [ZMA201500007] In accordance with Code of Development Section 3.2.3, please
provide the locations, species, and sizes of existing trees with diameter at breast
heights greater than 18 inches within the buffer area along Route 29. Comment not
fully addressed. The existing conditions, grading, and landscaping drawings do not
identify any qual Eying vegetation. Please verify whether these features exist, and if
so, show the locations, species, and sizes of existing trees with diameter at breast
heights greater than 18 inches within the Route 29 buffer and the greenway area at
the north of Block 4A.
Response 25: Per the erosion and sediment control sheets included in the WPO plan, tree
protection shall be provided along all of the Route 29 buffer and greenway areas
surrounding Block 4A, thus protecting all existing trees with diameters greater than
18 inches. Please refer to the WPO plans for the above mentioned sheets.
Comment 26: [32.5.2 (a)] The building setback lines shown and labeled on the plans are incorrect, per
Table 2.3.2.2 of the Code of Development_ Please amend the minimum and maximum
setback line 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. Setback lines
should be measured from the proposed right-of-way. Comment not fully addressed. The
setback lines may need to be amended pending BOS approval of the variation to the
setback requirements of Block 4.
Response 26: Acknowledged. Plans are compliant with revised COD corresponding to the recent
variation approval.
Comment 37: [32.7.9.8 (a)] Please provide a calculation for the minimum tree canopy required and
proposed in Block 4A based on the proposed density of residential uses. It appears that
the proposed density of Block 4A is 18.5 du/acre, which means that the minimum tree
canopy is 15%, not 10% as currently stated on Sheet C-102. Comment not addressed.
Block 4A tree canopy is 15%, not 10% as stated on Sheet C-703 based on the proposed
density ofDU/acre. Please revise the Landscape Plans to comply with this requirement.
Response 37: Landscape plans have been updated accordingly to comply with the minimum
requirements for tree canopy cover,15%. Please see sheets C-702 & C-703.
Comment 38: [General Continent] 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.
Response 38: Acknowledged, the site plan currently shows the proposed 2-lot subdivision as an
existing condition. If needed, Final Site Plan will be updated once the Plat is
recorded.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOH LERENGINEERING.COM
BOH LER
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
I' Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 5 of 18
Comment 45: [32.7.9] Please revise the Landscape drawings, Sheets C-700 through C-704 so that each
drawing has a Landscape Schedule that specifies the species, quantity, and spacing of
landscaping proposed only on that drawing.
a. Please revise all Landscape Schedules so that the Botanical Name and Common
Name of each species is included, the proposed caliper and height at time of
installation. Comment not fully addressed. Section 32.7.9.6 and Section 32.7.9.8
require a minimum caliper for large shade trees to be between 1 % - 1 3/ " at time of
installation. Medium shade trees may be installed at calipers between I " — 1 114. "
Please add a column to the Landscape Schedules stating whether the proposed tree
species are medium or large shade trees. If any large shade trees are proposed,
please revise the calipers within the Landscape Schedules on Sheets C-701 and C-
702 to show calipers meeting the minimum requirement. Please revise.
Response 45: Landscape Schedules have been revised to meet the minimum requirements for
calipers size according to Section 32.7.9.6 of the Albemarle County Code. Please see
sheets C-701 through C-703.
Comment 47: [32.7.8 and 4.171 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 Lighting Plan shows footcandle spillover exceeding the maximum permitted 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 any portion of public right of ways does
not exceed 0.5 footcandles.
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.
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.
Please provide documentation that any luminaire exceeding 3, 000 lumens will be
equipped with a full cutoff shield, in compliance with Section 4.17.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Response 47: The Lighting Plan has been revised to meet the listed requirements. Please see
Sheets C-704 and C-705.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECTMANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
B4 H L E R Cameron Langille
L N G I L' R 1 N G Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
I' Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 6 of 18
Comments from SDP20180018 Brookhill Block 4B Initial Site Plan Action Letter:
Comment 1: [General Comment] Please see VDOT comment #1 regarding the driveway entrance
proposed along Stella Lane for Block 4B. The entrance does not meet the required
minimum spacing distance of 225' for separation from the roundabout. VDOT staff have
stated that Access Management Exception requests typically do not get approved for new
developments along new roads. As such, the design of the site may need to shift in order
to provide greater separation between the Block 4B driveway and the roundabout.
Comment may be addressed, pending VDOT approval.
a. Per VDOT correspondence with Planning staff, the initial site plan can be approved
so long as the driveway is shifted and shown on the final site plans in accordance
with the 225' minimum spacing requirement. Planning staff would like to discuss
this further at the Site Review Committee meeting to verify that this condition can be
met on the final site plan. Comment may be addressed, pending VDOT approval.
Response 1: Acknowledged.
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
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.
Response 4: Acknowledged. Final Site Plan will be updated once the Plat is recorded.
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.
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 Stella
Lane and Road A are proposed/under review and are shown for clarity purposes only
on the initial site plan for Block 4B. The roads are currently under review as part of
road plan SUB201700117. Comment not fully addressed, SUB201700117 still under
review.
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.
Response 5: Proposed public Right -of -Way labels have been indicated on the plans along road
for Stella and Archer. Please see sheets C-301 & C-302.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECTMANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOH LERENGINEERING.COM
.&-BOHLER-
NGINEERINC
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
1 gc Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 7 of 18
Comment 7: [32.5.2 (a)] Proffer 4 requires 15% of the total residential units constructed within
Brookhill to be affordable housing. Please provide information on whether any
affordable housing units will be within Blocks 4A/4B. If none, please provide staff with
an update on the status of how this proffer will be met. Comment not fully addressed.
Please provide staff with an update on whether affordable units will be provided in Block
4 as a note on Sheet C-102.
Response 7: Per Proffer 4, we have included a note in Sheet C-102 indicating that there will be
affordable housing provided in future block areas.
Comment 12: [32.5.2 (a)] Please amend the Building Yard Setbacks section in the Zoning and Site
Tabulations table on Sheet C-102. Please insert Table 2.3.2.2 from page 17 of the
Brookhill Code of Development that states the correct minimum and maximum setbacks
for Block 4. Comment not fully addressed. A variation to the rear setbacks in Block 4 is
currently under review. The setback table on Sheet C-102 may need to be revised if the
variation is approved and the required setbacks change.
Response 12: Acknowledged.
Comment 15: [32.5.2 (b)] Please state the square footage and acreage occupied by each use in Block 4B
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 sgft. per Table 5 on page
15 of the COD.
b. Please clarify the types and sizes of recreation facilities proposed between Blocks 4A
and 4B (i.e. pool, tot lot, basketball courts). If indoor fitness facilities or meeting
spaces will be provided in any of the buildings, this counts toward the minimum
recreation square footage of required recreation space. 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?
Response 15: "Remaining Available Non -Residential" figure has been updated to 15,000 SF. In
addition, the "other" section under "Site Use Area Tabulations" has been changed
to indicate "Open Space". Please see sheet C-102 for changes.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS* PROJECT MANAGERS* SURVEYORS a ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS -LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Vp
BOIH LER
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
1 ' Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 8 of 18
Comment 16: [32.5.2 (b)] Please state the permitted and proposed gross residential density of Block
414B 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.
a. The total number of proposed residential dwelling units should be clearly stated in
the density calculation. Comment addressed.
b. Please state the proposed square footage of non-residential uses proposed in Block 4,
and state the remaining available non-residential use square footage allowed in Block
4, per Table 5 of the Code of Development. Comment not fully addressed. 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 nonresidentialsquare 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.
Response 16: "Remaining Available Non -Residential" figure has been updated to 15,000 SF.
Please see sheet C-102 for changes.
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.
Response 18: Steep slopes have been added to the grading plans. Please see sheets C-401 & C-402.
Comment 21: [32.5.2 (e)] Please provide more details about the existing landscape features as described
in Section 18-32.7.9.4(c). Sheet C401 shows grading within the 30' planted/reforested
portion of the buffer and some areas of the 70' undisturbed buffer.
a. [2MA201500007 and 32.5.2 (e)] In accordance with page 33 of the Code of
Development Section 3.2.3, please provide the locations, species, and sizes of
existing trees with diameter at breast heights greater than 18 inches within the Route
29 buffer and the greenway area at the north of Block 4B. Comment not fully
addressed. The existing conditions, grading, and landscaping drawings do not
identify any qualifying vegetation. Please verify whether these features exist, and if
so, show the locations, species, and sizes of existing trees with diameter at breast
heights greater than 18 inches within the Route 29 buffer and the greenway area at
the north of Block 4B.
b. Staff has been informed that the existing treeline does not occupy the entire 70'
portion. As discussed via email with Ryan Yauger on July 28, 2017, the applicants
were to provide an arborist report or drawings that show the species, density, and
locations of existing vegetation in the 70' portion. The applicants stated that they
may need to perform some grading in the 70' portion of Block 4A, and staff stated
that disturbances to the 70' buffer may be permitted if additional landscaping needs
to be installed. However, this will require approval from the Director of Community
Development, as specified in Section 2.4.2 (page 19) of the Code of Development.
Comment addressed.
c. The Albemarle County Conservation Plan Checklist and Chapter 3.38 of the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control handbook. The Conservation Plan Checklist will need
to be signed by the owners and provided as an exhibit on the final site plan for Blocks
CIVILAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BOHLER
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
V Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 9 of 18
4A/4B. Comment not fully addressed. Please provide a signed version of the
Conservation Plan Checklist as an inset somewhere on the landscaping plans.
Response 21: Per the erosion and sediment control sheets included in the WPO plan, tree
protection shall be provided along all of the Route 29 buffer and greenway areas
surrounding Block 4A, thus protecting all existing trees with diameters greater than
18 inches. Please refer to the WPO plans for the above mentioned sheets. In
addition, a signed copy of the Conservation Plan Checklist has been added to the
plans; See sheet C-703.
Comment 22: [32.5.2 (a)] The building setback lines shown on the plans are incorrect, per Table 2.3.2.2
of the Code of Development. Please amend the minimum and maximum setback line
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 setback lines may
need to be amended pending BOS approval of the variation to the setback requirements
of Block 4.
Response 22: Acknowledged.
Comment 27: [32.5.2 (n)] Will the trash compactor be located within a roofed/walled enclosure?
Dumpster pads must be screened in accordance with Section 32.7.9. Please provide a
cut -sheet detail on the final site plan showing the dimensions and materials of any
constructed enclosures that will be used to screen the compactor. Comment not fully
addressed. Please see ARB comments.
Response 27: Trash enclosure details have been referenced on the final site plans; See sheet C-903.
For complete details please refer to the architectural drawings.
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 quantity provided and revise the trees provided
column if necessary.
Response 34: Tree count has been verified for Block 4B. There are a total of 31 parking lot trees
confirmed.
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 4B 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.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROIECTMANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
E= BOH LER
Lt I N E k R 1 N +:
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 - Final Site Plan
V Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 10 of 18
Response 36: Landscape Schedules have been revised and updated for Block 4A. The required
tree canopy cover has been changed to 15%. We are currently providing 15.4% of
tree canopy coverage. Please refer to sheets C-701 through C-703.
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. Comment not fully addressed.
The Lighting Plan shows footcandle spillover exceeding the maximum permitted 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 any portion of public right of ways
does not exceed 0.5 footcandles.
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.
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.
Please provide documentation that any Luminaire exceeding 3, 000 lumens will be
equipped with a full cutoff shield, in compliance with Section 4.17.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Response 41: The Lighting Plan has been revised to meet all requirements listed.
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.
a. The site plan does not identify the greenspace (particularly the greenway) area
boundary. Please identify the overall greenspace boundary on the drawings and label
"greenspace and future greenway area per ZMA20150007 Code of Development."
Comment not fully addressed. Please show the greenway and greenspace boundary
across all drawings and include a label.
b. Per Section 2.4 and 2.4.1 on page 18 of the Code of Development, the greenway
encompasses all land within the 100 foot stream buffer, wetlands, and all land located
within the floodplain. Are any of these features located within the proposed parcel
boundary of Block 413? 1f so, identify them on the plans. Comment not fully
addressed The final site plan does not specify whether these features are within the
proposed parcel boundary of Block 4. The Brookhill Application Plan shows some
open space within Block 4 boundaries. Will the new parcel boundary of Block 4B
include some of the open space area shown on the Application Plan that lies outside
of the future greenway area? In order to minimize issues with the minimum acreage
of greenspace required in Block 4, staff suggests incorporating some of the open
CIVILANDCONSULANGENGINEERS • PROJECTMANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOH LERENGINEERING.COM
BOH LER
ENGiN'FRI
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
1" Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 11 of 18
space outside of the greenway into the northern portion of the Block 4B parcel that is
currently under review as a two -lot division. Please see comment #42c below for
additional information.
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
GreenspacelAmenities 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 greenspace 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 plat to be reviewed,
approved, and recorded.
d. Per proffer #2A, the greenway portion of the overall greenspace area must be
dedicated to the County for public use through a deed of dedication and easement but
not prior to the issuance of the 500th permit for a dwelling within the project. The
proffer states that portions of the greenway may be voluntarily dedicated sooner
through a subdivision plat. Please provide more information on the anticipated timing
and method of dedication for the public greenway easement within Block 4B.
Comment not fully addressed. Please respond to this comment letter and provide a
timeline for when the greenway will be dedicated. It could partially be done now in
order to satisfy the minimum greenspace acreage required in Block4 (as mentioned
in the above comment) or it could be done later. Please do not hesitate to contact
staff with questions about these comments.
Response 42: Total acreage for Block 4 has been revised and will not exceed the 15% maximum
change allowed. The block area summary has been revised to include all land use
areas, and an exhibit has been provided on C-106A for clarity. The proposed
Greenway will be dedicated in the future, after plan approval, via a proposed plat
and deed to the County.
Comment 43: [ZMA201500007] The site plan is proposing to count the parking spaces inside of the
garages and the spaces in front of the garages toward meeting the required minimum
parking count. Will the garages be leased in combination with specific units (so that
lessees have designated parking spaces)? It is possible that these parking spaces may not
county toward meeting the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance if the garages
and the associated stacked parking will not be assigned to specific units upon rental.
Comment not fully addressed. This requested information was not provided. Please
verify whether the garages will be leased in combination with specific units (so that
lessees have designated parking spaces). It is possible that these parking spaces may not
county toward meeting the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance if the garages
and the associated stacked parking will not be assigned to specific units upon rental.
Response 43: The garage space and the space in front of the garage will be rented together to the
same renter.
CIVILAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BOH LER
E N G I iN E is R I N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
V Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 12 of 18
Comment 45: [ZMA201500007 — Proffer 41Ej 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 sure transit stop. This comment will be addressed once
SUB201700117 is approved.
a. Please contact the County's transportation planner, Kevin McDermott, at
kmcdermott@albemarle.org or 434-2965832ext. 3414 for assistance with
coordinating the stop location and design with Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT).
Response 43: Acknowledged.
Engineering — EmiLy Cox
Comment 1: WPO Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
Response 1: Acknowledged.
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.
Response 4: Steep slopes have been added to the grading plans. Please see sheets C-401 & C-402.
There is currently grading shown within a preserved slope area within Block 4B,
however we believe that the GIS hatch is inaccurate based on the existing grading.
We are coordinating with the survey team in order to show it based on field data.
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
Larne, correct?
Response 5: Stormwater management facility easements have been added and labeled in the
Utility plans; Please see sheets C-501 & C-502. Yes, they are intended to be
processed with the subdivision plat in the future.
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.
Response 6: Labels have been removed from the final site plan package.
CIVILAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BQH LER
F N G; N' L F. R I N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
I" Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 13 of 18
Comment 7: Sidewalk adjacent to parking should be 6' wide, unless bumper blocks are provided. See
design standards manual, section 7.C.
http://www.albemarle.orgluploadlimageslfortns__centerldepartmentslcommunity_4evelop
ment/forms/design_standards manuallAlbemarle_County_Design Standards Manual 20
15-04-25_draft.pdf
Response 7: Sidewalk adjacent to parking have been revised to a 6-foot width. Please see sheets
C-301 & C-302.
Comment 8: Label all 3:1 and 2:1 slopes.
Response 8: Labels have been added to the grading plans. Please see sheets C-401 & C-402.
Comment 9: Proposed 2:1 slopes must specify low maintenance (not grass) ground cover. Please note
this on the landscape sheets.
Response 9: This note has been added to the landscape sheets. Please see sheets C-701 & C-702.
Comment 10. Provide drainage divide sheet for the storm pipes. This was included in the WPO plan,
but should accompany the pipe calculations.
Response 10: Erosion and Sediment control sheets were added, for informational purposes only,
to the final site plan. Please see sheets C-809—C812.
Comment 11: Label proposed curbing (CG-6, etc.)
Response 11: Labels have been added to indicate CG-6 curbs, catch and spill. Please see sheets
C-301 & C-302.
Comment 12: Provide dumpster/trash compactor pad detail.
Response 12: Trash compactor detail has been added to sheet C-903. Please refer to architectural
drawings for full details on trash compactor and enclosure.
Comment 13: The location of loading spaces is not clear. Please label and show dimensions.
Response 13: Per discussion with the Engineering Reviewer, loading spaces will not be provided.
Comment 14: Per the COD, Page 23, provide final design of retaining walls and approval to be over 6
feet in height.
Response 14: Proposed retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height have been removed from the
plan. Design documents are being prepared for all other proposed walls between 3'
and 6' in height.
Comment 15: Retaining wall should not be so close to stormwater facility and easement. There must be
enough space for equipment/maintenance of stormwater facility. See Section 6 of the
Design. Standards Manual equipment landing graphic.
Response 15: The stormwater facility has been revised to allow for enough space to maintain the
retaining wall if needed. Please see sheet C-402 for revised grading.
Comment 16: Show the handicap parking areas on the grading plan with spots verifying ADA
compliant grading.
Response 16: Grading spots were added to verify that ADA parking areas are compliant. Please
see sheets C-401 and C-402.
CIVILAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS - PROJECTMANAGERS - SURVEYORS - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
�r BOH LER
N G+ N E E R i N :.
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
1st Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 14 of 18
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.
Response 17: Storm drain easements were removed as necessary. Please see sheet C-501 & C-502.
Comment 18: Provide calculations for the ditches going to the level spreader.
Response 18: Swale calculations have been added. Please see sheet C-401.
Comment 19: Provide Rip -rap sizing calculations.
Response 19: Rip -Rap sizing calculations have been added. Please see sheet C-808.
Comment 20: Show HGL line on storm profiles. Also, provide VDOT form LD-347 for HGL
calculations. It appears rim elevation was missing on sheet C-808.
Response 20: HGL lines and rim elevations have been added. Please see sheets C-806 through C-
808.
ACSA — Richard Nelson/ Alex Morrison
General Comment
Comment 1: SDP201800050 - Brookhill Block 4A and 4B Apartments - Final Site Plan is currently
under water and sewer review. Approval of this plan is contingent on the approval of the
Polo Grounds Road and Brookhill Section 1 Road Plans. An updated master plan and
hydraulic model will be required prior to final approval.
Response 1: Acknowledged.
Sheet C-100
Comment 1: Resubmit 3 copies of the plan with the indicated sheets removed. Ensure PE signature on
page I is original. Include water and sewer data sheets.
Response 1: Acknowledged. Water & sewer data sheets shall be submitted for review.
Comment 2: Remove indicated sheets from ACSA resubmittal.
Response 2: Indicated sheets have been removed from this submittal.
Sheet C-102
Comment 1: Add ACSA Water and Sewer General Conditions.
Response 1: General Conditions have been added.
Sheet C-501
Comment 1: 1.5/2" Meter Vault
Response 1: Vault added.
Comment 2: Relocate Domestic Service
Response 2: Domestic line has been relocated.
Comment 3: FHA and 1/5/2" Meter Vault
Response 3: Hydrant and meter vault have been added.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECTMANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOH LERENGINEERING.COM
to, L OH L E R- Cameron Langille
t E R I N G Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
I' Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 15 of 18
Comment 4: Call -out all valves and fittings.
Response 4: Valves and fittings have been called out.
Comment 5: Adjust light poles for separation with meter vaults and FHA's.
Response 5: Light pole and tree conflicts have been resolved.
Comment 6: Update loop size based on modeling and Section 1 Road Plan Comments.
Response 6: 8" waterline loop size will be confirmed with the approval of the water model.
Comment 7: Relocate FHA to here.
Response 7: Hydrant has been relocated.
Comment 8: 1.5/2" Meter Vault, fireline and BOA.
Response 8: Meter vault has been added.
Comment 9: 1.5/2" Meter Vault, BOA and Fireline. 6" line from between 2 x 45 degree bends in
travel -way.
Response 9: Meter vault has been added from connection between the 45-degree bends.
Comment 10: Adjust private sewer for 10' separation with public water mains.
Response 10: Minimum 10' separation between private sewer & public water has been provided.
Comment 11:
FHA
Response 11:
Hydrant added.
Comment 12:
Remove FHA.
Response 12:
Hydrant removed.
Comment 13:
FHA
Response 13:
Hydrant added.
Comment 14:
1.5/2" Meter Vault before 6" GV for FHA
Response 14:
Meter vault added prior to hydrant.
Comment 15:
Show FHA from Section 1 Road Plans
Response 15:
FHA's are now showing.
Comment 16:
Show FHA from Section 1 Road Plan
Response 16:
FHA's are now showing.
Comment 17:
Private sewer
Response 17:
Sewer has been revised to be private.
Comment 18:
Show proposed FHA from Section 1 Road Plans.
Response 18:
FHA's are now showing.
CIVILAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOH LERENGINEERING.COM
BOH LER
Sheet C-502
Comment 1: 1.5/2" Meter Vault, BOA and Fireline
Response 1: Meter vault has been added.
Comment 2: Extend FHA for 10' separation with lateral and water.
Response 2: Hydrant location extended to provide 10' separation.
Comment 3: Private
Response 3: Sewer has been revised to be private.
Comment 4:
1.5/2" Meter Vault
Response 4:
Meter vault has been added.
Comment 5:
FDC?
Response 5:
FDC has been added.
Comment 6:
Tap 5/8" meter before 6" gate valve for FHA.
Response 6:
Meter has been added.
Comment 7:
1" Meter (Confirm size with fixture count)
Response 7:
Meter has been added.
Comment 8:
Remove
Response 8:
Fitting has been removed.
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
I' Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 16 of 18
Comment 9: Label all gate valves and fittings. Update water main size based on modeling.
Response 9: Valves and fittings have been labeled. Main size will be confirmed by water model.
Comment 10: Private
Response 10: Sewer has been revised and is no longer public.
Comment 11:
1" Meter
Response 11:
Meter has been added.
Comment 12:
1.5/2" Meter Vault
Response 12:
Meter vault has been added.
Comment 13:
FHA
Response 13:
Hydrant has been added.
Comment 14:
FDC?
Response 14:
FDC has been added.
Comment 15:
1.5/2" Meter Vault
Response 15:
Meter vault has been added.
CIVILAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECTMANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BOHLER
E N C; I N E E R I�, G
Comment 16: FHA
Response 16: Hydrant has been added.
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
I' Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 17 of 18
Sheet C-701
Comment 1: Update based on new FHA, BOA and Meter Vault locations.
Response 1: Tree locations have been revised based on current utility layout.
Sheet C-702
Comment 1: Update based on new FHA, BOA and Meter Vault locations.
Response 1: Tree locations have been revised based on current utility layout.
Sheet C-801
Comment 1: 95% Compaction
Response 1: Note has been included.
Comment 2: Do not exceed 4.5' of cover at this location.
Response 2: Grading has been revised in this area to reduce depth.
Sheet C-803
Comment 1: Update depth based on Section 1 Road plan comments for connecting manholes.
Response 1: Sanitary sewer has been revised to reduce depth to the extent possible.
Sheet C-804
Comment 1: Update depth based on Section 1 Road plan comments for connecting manholes.
Response 1: Sanitary sewer has been revised to reduce depth to the extent possible.
CDD Inspections - Michael Dellinger
Comment 1: Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls
exceeding 4 feet in height require an stamped engineered design also.
Response 1: Acknowledged. Will be provided under separate cover.
CDD E911— Elise Kiewra
Comment 1: One (1) road name will be needed for each set of apartment buildings (one for 4A and
one for 4B). See screenshots below.
This site will require a one (1) new private road name for Road "A". Per Sec. 7-200-B of
the Count 's Road Naming and PropertyPmpggy Numbering Ordinance (Page 2 of PDF).
"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.
Response 1: As discussed via email, Crockett Circle and Crafton Circle have been reserved for
this requirement.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS -PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOH LERENGINEERING.COM
�- BOH LER
`,. N k� 14 E L R 1 N G
Cameron Langille
Brookhill Development
Section 1, Block 4 — Final Site Plan
I' Review Response
September 7, 2018
Page 18 of 18
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
yld- Nr
Ryan Yauger, P.E.
RY/ib/bb
H:1151V 152000IAdministrativelLetterslBlock 4 (Apartments)IFina] Site Plan Block 4 Apartments1180907 Final Site Plan (Block 4) 1 st Review
CRL.doc
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS - PROJECTMANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM