HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000004 Correspondence 2020-01-0828 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201
Warrenton, VA 20186
PHONE 540.349.4500
January 7, 2020
Via Federal Express
Albemarle County
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Attn: Tim Padalino, AICP
Re: SDP-2019-00048
Initial Site Plan — 2nd Review Responses
Hampton Inn
1628 State Farm Blvd
Rivanna Magisterial District
Albemarle County, Virginia
BE # V 172065
Dear Mr. Padalino,
Bohler Engineering is pleased to submit on behalf of Shamin Hotels, the I" Submission Final Site Plan
for the Hampton Inn project in Albemarle, Virginia. The following is our comment response letter
addressing comments received from Department of Community Development on October 23, 2019. Each
comment is addressed and responded to as follows:
Albemarle County Planning Service (Planner)- Tim Padlino
Comment 1: [ZMA201800005 Application Plan and Proffer Statement, and Z.O. 32.5.2.(a) and
32.5.2.(o)]: The proposed development shown on the initial site plan appears to be in
general accord with the Application Plan for ZMA201800005, as is necessary per
ZMA201800005 Proffer #1. However, in order to clarify, confirm, and otherwise ensure
that the proposed development will be in general accord with the Application Plan for
ZMA201800005, the following comments must be addressed on the final site plan:
A. Sheet C-301 contains information about the approximately 2.0-acre area in the rear
portions of the subject property, which is labeled as "Proposed easement to
County..." Please revise and supplement this information as follows:
This approximately 2.0-acre area in the rear portions of the subject
property must be designated as a "Special Lot" that is "reserved for
future dedication to the County for public use upon demand." (Definition
in Z.O. Section 3.1: Special lot. "Special lot" means a lot created to be
used exclusively for public or private streets, railroad rights -of -way and
railroad lines, public utilities, publicly owned or operated public
facilities, publicly owned or operated parks, publicly or privately owned
sites for personal wireless service facilities, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems as those terms are defined in Chapter 16,
stormwater management facilities, cemeteries existing on June 8, 2011,
conservation areas, preservation areas, open space, and greenways.)
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
Response 1:
Tim Padalino, AICP
Hamilton Inn
Initial Site Plan 2"d Review Response
January 7, 2020
Page 2 of 9
ii. The location, configuration, size, and boundary locations and dimensions
of the approximately 2.0-acre area in the rear portions of the subject
property must be accurately defined by a licensed surveyor using
standard surveying methods and must be depicted and described on the
final site plan.
iii. Because the pertinent proffer contains specific details about the process
and timing of any such future request for dedication, staff recommends
(but does not require) the addition of language such as "See
ZMA201800005 Proffer 2" to the label for that area.
B. Sheets C-301 and C-701 include information about the "proposed landscape wall"
along (near) the subject property's frontage on State Farm Boulevard. Please provide
the following information:
i. Specify the proposed height of the proposed landscape wall.
ii. Include a landscape wall detail on Sheet C-901 or C-902 (or other
detail sheet, as may be applicable).
iii. (Advisory / Not Required): Depending on the height of the proposed
landscape wall and the height of proposed landscaping, please
consider if the proposed design would be improved by inverting the
configuration of the wall and the landscaping along State Farm
Boulevard (so that the landscaping is located closer to the frontage,
with the landscape wall behind the landscaping as viewed from State
Farm Boulevard). Such a rearrangement could also potentially help
to resolve the conflict between the proposed landscape wall and
proposed underground utilities (please reference ACSA review
comments).
C. Please revise the "Zoning and Site Tabulations" infonnation on Sheet C-103 to more
clearly provide information from ZMA201800005; please see Planner review
comment #2 (below).
A. The 2.0 acre area has been designated a "Special Lot". The definition by a
licensed surveyor will be provided prior to plan approval with the easement
plat. The Proffer reference has been added to the label.
B. The height of the landscape wall has been provided on Sheet C-301 and the
detail will be provided prior to plan approval. The configuration has been
inverted as discussed with County staff in the meeting on 10/10/19.
C. The Zoning and Site Tabulations have been revised as requested.
Comment 2: [Z.O. 32.5.2(a)]: Please revise the "Zoning and Site Tabulations" information on the
Sheet C-103 as follows:
A. In the "Associated Plans" information, the reference to ZMA201800005 (approved
by the BOS on 6/19/2019) appears to have an incorrect date ("June "June 18, 2018").
Please revise. You may reference the approval date (6/19/2019), or the date of the
approved Application Plan (4/15/2019 with hand-written notes dated 6/19/2019), or
both
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
Response 2:
Tim Padalino, AICP
Hamilton Inn
Initial Site Plan in' Review Response
January 7, 2020
Page 3 of 9
B. In the "Stepbacks" information, please include additional language that states the
following (or similar): The proposed hotel will comply with the applicable minimum
front stepback requirements and with the applicable terms and details of
ZMA201800005.
C. Please include the following additional language (or similar), which is derived from
the approved Application Plan (dated 4/ 15/2019) and hand-written notes on
Application Plan Sheet 4 (dated 6/19/2019):
i. The proposed hotel will be in general accord with the building
elevations shown on Sheets 4 and 5 of the approved Application Plan
for ZMA201800005.
ii. The fagade treatment of the proposed hotel will be in substantial
conformance with "Exhibit 1" for ZMA201800005
iii. Membrane roof colors must be tan or brown, subject to approval by
the Director of Planning.
D. Please insert a copy of ZMA201800005 "Exhibit 1" onto Sheet C-103 near the
"Zoning and Site Tabulations" information or onto Sheet C-104 with the Proffers.
A. The approval date has been referenced under "Associated Plans".
B. The provided language has been added to "Stepbacks".
C. The provided language has been added to Sheet C-103.
D. A copy of ZMA201800005 "Exhibit 1" has been added to Sheet C-104.
Comment 3: [Z.O. 32.5.2(a)]: Please revise the Sheet Index on the Cover Sheet (C-101) to identify the
total number of sheets.
Response 3: The total number of sheets has been added to the Cover Sheet.
Comment 4: [Z.O. 32.5.2.(b)]: Please provide additional information to clarify the proposed maximum
amount of the subject property (in acres) for each different type of proposed use, as well
as the proposed maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. Note: Staff
acknowledges that the "Site Area" section of the "Zoning and Site Tabulations"
information on Sheet C-103 contains "Open Space" information; however, this
infonmation does not specify the acreage(s) dedicated to other different uses or the
maximum amount of impervious cover.
Response 4: The use and impervious areas have been added to Sheet C-103.
Comment 5: [Z.O. 32.5.2(n)]: Please revise the lighting plan (Sheet C-801) as follows:
A. The Luminaire Schedule must be revised to use a Light Loss Factor (LLF) of 1.0.
Currently, the LLF is specified as 0.95. Please revise.
Additionally, please note that the Final Site Plan cannot be approved unless and until all
the outdoor lighting information required by Z.O. 32.6.2(k) is provided to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable outdoor lighting requirements as specified in Z.O. 4.17,
and with all other applicable conditions of approval established through previous
legislative zoning approvals. However, this information is not required prior to County
approval of this Initial Site Plan (as may be applicable).
Response 5: The lighting plan has been revised on Sheet C-801 and lighting details have been
added to Sheet C-802.
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
Tim Padalino, AICP
Hamilton Inn
Initial Site Plan 2nd Review Response
January 7, 2020
Page 4 of 9
Comment 6: [Z.O. 32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.4, and 32.7.9.8]: The following issues were identified during the
initial Staff review of the Landscape Plan, and must be addressed and resolved on the
final site plan:
Response 6:
A. Conservation checklist: Because existing trees are being retained and used in the
calculations within the "Landscape Compliance Chart" on Sheet C-701 (in
accordance with Z.O. 32.7.9.4.b) in order to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable landscaping and screening requirements (contained in Z.O. Section
32.7.9), please address and resolve the following:
i. A Conservation Checklist will need to be completed, signed, and.
added to the Landscape Plan to ensure that the specified trees will be
protected during construction.
ii. The corresponding tree protection equipment and practices that are
intended to protect the existing tree canopy (including but not limited
to the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and
type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or
walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of
clearing) must be shown on Sheet C-701 (Landscape Plan). As
applicable, these equipment and practices must also be shown on
Sheet C-401 (Grading Plan) as well as on the WPO Plan.
B. Verification of compliance: Please add a note to the landscape plan to verify that the
landscape plan satisfies the minimum landscaping and screening requirements of
Zoning Ordinance Section 32.
C. Please include the following standard plant health note: "All site plantings of trees
and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the toping
of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support
the overall health of the plant."
Any additional detailed review comments pertaining to the Landscape Plan, if any are
necessary, will be provided with the SRC Action Letter, within 15 days or less of the
SRC meeting.
A. The Tree Conservation Checklist and corresponding tree protection practices
have been added to Sheet C-701. The signed checklist has been provided with
this submission.
B. The Verification of Compliance note has been added to Sheet C-701.
C. The provided tree health note has been added to Sheet C-701.
Comment 7: [Z.O. 32.7.2. Lb]: The "Minimum Standards" for "Vehicular Access to Site" require
VDOT approval of all proposed entrances onto State Farm Boulevard. Staff
acknowledges that VDOT's review comments (dated 10/18/19, received after the SRC
meeting on 10/10/19) identify deficiencies with the proposed southern entrance. This
issue (identified in VDOT review comment #6) will need to be resolved to VDOT's and
the County's Agent's satisfaction prior to final site plan approval.
• (Advisory / For Future Reference): Please note that the Final Site Plan cannot be
approved unless and until a complete application for a Water Protection
Ordinance Plan / VSMP Plan is submitted, reviewed, and approved by the
Engineering Services Division of the Community Development Department as
required per Z.O. 32.7.4.1 and County Code Chapter 17.
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
Tim Padalino, AICP
Hamilton Inn
Initial Site Plan 2°d Review Response
January 7, 2020
Page 5 of 9
It is anticipated that County Staff in the Engineering Services Division of the
Community Development Department will identify this requirement, as well as
any other requirements relating to stormwater management and drainage control,
including the dedication of easements for facilities for stormwater management
required per Z.O. 32.7.4.2(a).
(Advisory / For Future Reference): Please note that the Final Site Plan cannot be
approved unless and until the owner/developer dedicates to the Albemarle
County Service Authority for public use all water and sewer facilities required by
this chapter that are designed, constructed and approved to be dedicated as public
water supply and public sewage systems, and to establish an easement on the
land appurtenant thereto and extending to any abutting property identified by the
agent easements, as required per Z.O. 32.7.5.3.
• (Advisory / For Future Reference): Per Z.O. Sections 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(1), and
32.5.2(o), it will be necessary prior to final site plan approval to obtain County
approval of a plat showing all proposed easements as well as all areas intended
for reservation or dedication to the County for public use. The platting of
proposed easements and lands to be reserved for dedication to the County for
public use can be processed all together in one plat application, or separately,
however the applicant prefers.
Response 7: Acknowledged.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)- David James
Comment 1: Submit a VSMP plan for review (disturbance >lac). VSMP plan approval required prior
to FSP approval.
Response 1: Acknowledged. A VSMP Plan has been submitted for review.
Comment 2: Submit the Drainage Plan and design calcs. This can be included in the FSP and will need
to be shown in the SWM plan for review.
Response 2: The Drainage Plan and Design Calcs have been provided on Sheet C-503.
Comment 3: The designer should visually field verify existing conditions and topography of site
within the last year; please note this on plans.
Response 3: A note has been added to the Demolition Plan on Sheet C-201.
Comment 4: Show any offsite work in an easement (outside of property line).
Response 4: A temporary offsite work easement has been proposed for work in the ROW.
Comment 5: Walls over 4' in height or supporting roads or necessary infrastructure will require
engineered plans. Building permits required for walls 3' and higher.
Response 5: Acknowledged. Engineered wall plans will be provided prior to plan approval.
Comment 6: Show the heights of the landscaping walls.
Response 6: The height of the proposed landscape wall has been added to Sheet C-301.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS - PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
n
BOHLER
E N G t N E ER[ N G
Tim Padalino, AICP
Hamilton Inn
Initial Site Plan 2"d Review Response
January 7, 2020
Page 6 of 9
Comment 7: Provide proposed street, stormwater, sanitary & waterline profiles.
Response 7: Intersection sight distance profiles have been provided on sheet C-304. Stormwater
profiles have been provided on sheet C-503. The design for the private sanitary and
waterlines is provided via the lateral schedule and notes on Sheet C-502.
Comment 8: Sheet 301:
a. Provide 25' min curb radius on entrances.
b. Label pavement & guardrail with appropriate VDOT designations. Label
where any transitions occur in the pavement.
Response 8: The entrance curbs have been revised to a 25' radius and VDOT pavement has been
called out in the hatch legend.
Comment 9: Sheet 401:
a. The proposed grading in the rear of the property (contours elev. 504' & 508')
creates a steep slope situation (exceeds 2:1 max). Provide or extend retaining wall to
avoid this situation or show that the proposed grading will not exceed 2:1.
b. Entrances exceed 4% grade for a distance of 40' from intersected street.
c. The grade in the parking lot near entrance appears to be between 10-14% grade
(exceeds 5% grade).
Response 9: The grading has been revised on Sheet C-401 as requested.
Comment 10: Constructed slopes steeper than 3:1 must be permanently stabilized with vegetation
hardier than grass, which will not require mowing.
Links/refs:
https://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/StormwaterManagement/Erosion_Se
diment_Control_Handbook/Chapter%203°/020-%203.32.pdf
www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/StormwaterManagement/Erosion_Sediment
_Control_Handbook/C hapter%203%20-%203.37.pdf
t"V1WW10
ARmishve V
Name
st1�,4i $ r1il•:!
_ .._ .... '' » t`J -+e : ''iA!: wa�9tSYr•a -4q,
Chlnaoe LaWdm4
alydSON l rrO+mn
OtchAr8 Chtiaa
RadtoV
W"WP �t l ll
L44WW-*S COMMA
-
tM
r'Act owed %*0
�: ks�p illy
Obdhpft440&
awr
Ct�4n1�1�vtLrldt!
.,
��
1 � fAis
+r�
--
fall FasCure
�4we �#+lrl'b
LA 40M
~ANW
m�
'-� anti
aawe�w
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
Tim Padalino, AICP
Hamilton Inn
Initial Site Plan 2"' Review Response
January 7, 2020
Page 7 of 9
Response 10: Crownvetch planting has been proposed on the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,
provided with the VSMP.
Comment 11: Note: Stormwater Management design will be reviewed for local/state compliance with
the VSMP plan.
Response 11: Acknowledged.
Albemarle County Department of Fire & Rescue (Fire -Rescue) — Shawn Maddox
Comment 1: A Knox box shall be provided. Please add a note indicating the requirement and that the
location can be coordinated with the fire marshal's office.
Response 1: A Knox Box note has been added to the Sheet C-302.
Comment 2: Provide the ISO needed fire flow for the site along with the available fire flow based on
current conditions.
Response 2: The available fire flow has been provided on Sheet C-501. The ISO needed fire flow
will be provided prior to plan approval.
Comment 3: A hydrant must be provided within 100' of a FDC. The existing hydrant will not meet this
requirement. A hydrant should also be added on the site to meet the 500' hydrant spacing
requirements.
Response 3: An additional hydrant has been provided to meet the spacing requirements.
Comment 4: The overhang at the main entrance should have a minimum clearance of 13'6" to allow
for emergency apparatus access.
Response 4: Acknowledged.
Comment 5: Mark the entire on -site travel way No Parking Fire Lane.
Response: 5: The travel way has been marked as requested. See Sheet C-302.
Albemarle County Buildints Inspections (Inspections) — Michael Dellinger
Comment 1: Showing 3 accessible parking spaces, need 5.
Response 1: The parking has been revised to provide 5 accessible spaces.
Comment 2: Add the following note to the general notes page: Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in
height require a separate building permit. Walls exceeding 4 feet in height require a
stamped engineered design also. Walls require inspections as outlined in the USBC.
Response 2: The provided note has been added to Sheet C-103.
Comment 3: Add the following note to the general notes page: Accessible parking spaces and access
isles shall not have a surface slope greater than 1:48. Access isles shall be at the same
level as the parking space they serve.
Response 3: The provided note has been added to Sheet C-103.
Comment 4: Add the following note to the general notes page: ALL water lines, sewer lines, and fire
lines from the main to the structure MUST have a visual inspection performed by the
building department.
Response 4: The provided note has been added to Sheet C-103.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS - PROJECT MANAGERS - SURVEYORS - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
BOHLER
Tim Padalino, AICP
E N G r N E E= R I N G Hamilton Inn
Initial Site Plan 2na Review Response
January 7, 2020
Page 8 of 9
Comment 5: Add the following to the general notes page: All roof drains shall discharge in a manner
not to cause a public nuisance and not over sidewalks.
Response 5: The provided note has been added to Sheet C-103.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) - Richard Nelson
Comment l: I recommend SDP201900048 — Hampton Inn — Initial for approval with the following
conditions:
a. FDC's are required to be at least 100 feet from a fire hydrant.
b. Landscape walls are not permitted over ACSA utilities.
c. Provide fixture counts to confirm water meter size.
Response 1: An additional hydrant has been proposed to meet spacing requirements. The
landscape wall has been revised per discussions with County Staff. The fixture
counts have been provided on Sheet C-502.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) — Adam Moore
Comment 1: Please mill and overly to the adjacent travel lane and show on plans the limits of mill and
overlay. Also please add the WP-2 detail to the plans. The mill and overlay will require
work to centerline, so flagging operation and lane closures will be necessary. Please
provide a MOT plan in accordance with revised 2015 Virginia Work Area Protection
Manual.
Response l: Mill and overlay has been provided as requested and the WP-2 detail has been
added to Sheet C-902. The MOT Plan has been provided on Sheet C-303.
Comment 2: Please see VDOT's Road Design Manual Appendix F-109, table-4-3, design vehicle and
turning radius by land use. Radius needs to be 45 ft., on both sides of entrance.
Response 2: Per a Truck Turn Analysis, the minimum required radius of 25 ft is adequate and
has been provided.
Comment 3: Please provide trip generation data.
Response 3: Trip generation data has been provided on Sheet C-303.
Comment 4: The current design of the curb return does not meet the minimum width of 12ft., please
refer to VDOT's Road Design Manual Appendix F-pg., F-125, commercial entrance
designs along Highway with curb and gutter.
Response 4: The commercial entrances have been revised to meet VDOT standards.
Comment 5: Please provide sight distance lines and profiles on plan sheets.
Response 5: Sight distance lines and profiles have been provided on Sheet C-304.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS - PROJECT MANAGERS - SURVEYORS - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
',
BOHLER
IE Ni G I N E E R I N G
Tim Padalino, AICP
Hamilton Inn
Initial Site Plan 2nd Review Response
January 7, 2020
Page 9 of 9
Comment 6: The proposed design of the southern entrance in the vicinity of Martha Jefferson Drive
and State Farm Boulevard intersection, does not meet the spacing requirements. The
required spacing from an unsignalized intersection and partial access entrance on a
collector road is 259 ft., please refer to VDOT's RDM, pg., F-23, and table 2-2 minimum
spacing standards for commercial entrances and median crossovers.
Response 6: The VDOT 2014 Approved Functional Classification map does not classify State
Farm Boulevard as a collector road, therefore the 259 ft spacing requirement does
not apply. Additionally, an interparcel connection has been proposed on the
southwest side of the property so that when the adjacent parcel is developed, a
cross -access will be provided on that site and the southern right -in, right -out may be
closed.
Comment 7: Please show dimensions of face of wall and right of way line.
Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design
Manual Appendices B (1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or
other requirements. Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment
response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-
422-9866.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way.
The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency land Use Section at
(434) 433-9399 for information pertaining to the process.
Response 7: The dimension from face of wall to right of way line has been provided on Sheet C-
301.
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
r
Jo Wright, P.E.
J W/A/bb
H:A1711V 172065\Administrative\Letters\200107 Initial Site Plan 2nd Review CRL.doc
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM