The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB201800164 Correspondence 2019-06-21 ROUDABUSH, GALE &ASSOCIATES, INC. A A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION g p LAND SURVEYING Serving Virginia Since 1956 ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING ENGINEERING DEPART MEN I SURVEY DI:P\RTMEN"F 172 SOl'I'I I CAN FOPS DRIVE.s tE..% 914 MON I ICEI.1.0 ROAD JI\I L.I:\(i(iARI.lit. CIIARLO1-1I)SVII.I.E,VA 22911 CI LYRLOTRiSVII.LE.VA 22902 \\II.I.IAM J.u:DUE1"11'.R.I..s. DON PRA\(U.P.E. PI IONE(434)97941121 Pill/NE(434)977-020> BRIAN D.J:1\IIS(IN.L.S. DAVID NI.ROBINSON.P.I.. FAX(434)979.1681 1A\(434)296-522(1 KRIS IOPIIER('.\\'INIFRS.L.S. A\I\3\'M.GI:OROI.PI.A INI O ii ROl'UAl3l BSI I.CONI Mr.Andy Reitelbach,Senior Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 RE: SUB-201800164 Old Trail Block 32 Request for Private Street Authorization Dear Mr.Reitelbach, In accordance with Section 14-233 of the Albemarle County Code of Ordinances,we are requesting the authorization of private streets in Block 32 of Old Trail Village. Justification for the request is below. • Section 14-233(A)(1)(i)(ii) • The proposed Block 32 private streets would provide a streetscape that is consistent with the previously approved blocks within Old Trail. Prior development includes interconnectivity between public and private streets in multiple areas,such as Block 14,East Village,and Block 27.The proposed subdivision design will allow Old Trail to better achieve density goals of the both the ZMA and the County comprehensive plan. In accordance with Section 14-234(C),the proposed private streets in Block 32 satisfy each of the five requirements stated in this section. (1) These private streets will be adequately constructed to carry the traffic volume expected.The streets in Block 32 were designed using traffic volumes according to ITE trip generation calculations(9th ed.).The designs for these private streets meet VDOT standards for public and private road widths. (2) The ZMA for Old Trail does not require public streets in the approximate location of the proposed private streets. The use of private streets in Block 32 allows us to meet the ZMA development density goals and be consistent with the,comprehensive plan. (3) The ownership and maintenance associated with these private streets will be by the Old Trail Homeowners Association. (4) These private streets are not intended to be through street for neighborhood traffic,but rather provide rear access to amenity fronted lots. The primary travel way for Block 32 is along the proposed public road Bishopgate Lane. (5) The flood hazard overlay district requirements are not applicable for these private streets. Thank you for your consideration regarding this request.Please feel free to contact me with any questions. . Sincerely, • 91007, • Jeremy L. Fox,EIT For Roudabush Gale&Assoc.,Inc. ROUDABUSH, GALE &ASSOCIATES, INC. A A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION g p LAND SURVEYING Serving Virginia Sinee 1956 ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING ENGINEERING DEPARIAIEN1 SURVEY DPP:\R'IMI:NT 172 SOI;l'I I PAN IOPS DRIVE.tin:.A 414 MONI I('ELL(I ROAD 11AI L.L\<i(iAK1.1'.I.. ('IIARI. IiSVll.l.li,VA 2.4I1 CI IARL(I rrEsvll.LI:.VA 22902 1111.1.1;\AI J.Irinti;n .R.I..s. DUN PRAN('O.RE. PIIONE(434)974.8121 PHONE 1434)977.0205 • BRIAN D.J:\\IISON.L.S. DAVIT)Al.ROl3INSON.P.I:. FAX(434)479161?I FAX(434)246_3220 kRISFOPIIER C.WINI'LRS.1-.S. .A\IAIY Al.GEOROI.,PIA INI'))ii ROl'B:1131'SI LC(AI Mr.Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 RE: SUB-201800164'Old Trail Block 32 Request for Variation of Sec. 14-422(sidewalk and planting strip) Dear Mr. Reitelbach, Please see below our justification for the requested variations. Sec. 14-203.1 (B.) Variation from sec. 14-422.requirement. (1.) Request for a variation. In accordance with section 14-422,we are requesting a waiver for the requirement of planting strip and sidewalk along the southeast portion of private street Bishopgate Extended. (2.) Findings required for a variation. The Block 32 private street Bishopgate Extended serves as frontage for the northwestern lots as well as a secondary emergency access for fire and rescue.The overall intent to provide interconnectivity for pedestrian access and the required street landscaping will still be met with this waiver. Sec. 14-422(E.) Variation to sidewalk requirements. • (2.) Consideration. (iii.)We believe the location of the sidewalk is appropriate where it is shown on one side of the street. The requested waiver of sidewalk on the other side does not provide frontage or any reasonable access within the Block 32 development. (iv.)The waiver of the sidewalk requirement will still provide reasonable connections to the existing pedestrian system.(viii.)The waiver of the sidewalk requirement will still meet the intent of the comprehensive plan and the neighborhood model by providing pedestrian access and county design requirements. Sec. 14-422(F.) Variation to planting strip requirements. (2.) Consideration. (ii.)It is our hope that upon further review of the request for a waiver regarding these requirements,a sidewalk waiver will be granted, in turn granting us a planting strip waiver along Bishopgate Extended. Thank you for your consideration regarding this request for a waiver.Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, 9fruvivrt je Jeremy L. Fox,EIT For Roudabush Gale&Assoc., Inc. i J Roudabush Gale Assoc.pliexible Pavement Design Evaluation Worksheet Page 1 Project: Old Trail-BLK32 Date: 19-Dec-18 Street( or section): rBLK32=Bicknell Sf;Raynor PI, StedhamJ2!,Charnwo_od�Sti Chancery tn-Bishopgate Ext Testing Firm: ,(assumed for design purpose) �_^^ Testing Date(s): 1 Design ADT Soil Support Average Daily Traffic, or VPD: 1 _133 _ Measured CBR 1 5 Present Year: I �2018 �� Results: 2 _ Design Year: 2018 3 - v~ Growth Rate(%): 0 4 Design ADT at Design Year: 133 5 Percent Trucks: 0 Measured CBR Average: 5 Design Traffic Volume: 133 Design CBR: 3.3 . Resiliency Factor 1 Soil Support Value 3.3 Design Pavement Index: F u Total Proposed Thickness Index: ("99Ti CUD Material Equivalency Min. Max. Thickness, (h) Value, (a) Inches Inches (a x h) Surface Asphalt Concrete( M=2A,B, orC) (Superpave SM-9.5A) .:3 1.67 1.5 3 2.5 Prime&Double Seal or Blotted Seal Surface 0 0.84 * * 0.0 Intermediate Asphalt Concrete(IM-1A or 1B)(Superpave IM-19.0A) L 0 1.67 2 2 0.0 Base 1 Asphalt Concrete(BM-2 or BM-3)(Superpavep-25.0) 1.67 3 * 5.0 Full Depth Asphalt Concrete(BM-2 or BM-3)over Surface 0 1.60 6 * 0.0 Untreated Aggregate(21A or 21 B) 0 1.00 6 8 0.0 Cement Treated Aggregate 0 1.67 6 8 0.0 Cement Treated Select Material,Type II, min. CBR=20 0 1.50 6 8 0.0 Select Material Type I&II, non-plastic, min CBR=30 0 0.84 6 8 ' 0.0 V Select Material Type II, non-plastic, min CBR=20 0 0.60 6 8 0.0 Soil Cement 0 1.00 6 8 0.0 Cement Treated Select Material,Type II 0 - 1.17 6 8 0.0 Cement Treated Select Borrow 0 1.00 6 8 0.0 Base 2 Untreated Aggregate'(2IA or 21 B) _ 4 - ] 0.60 4 8 2.4 Cement Treated Aggregate 0 1.33 4 8 0.0 Select Material Type I, non-plastic, min CBR=30 0 0.50 4 8 0.0 Select Material Type I &II, non-plastic, min CBR=20 -0 0.40 4 8 0.0 Soil Cement 0 1.00 6 8 0.0 Soil Lime 0 0.92 6 8 0.0 Cement Treated Select Material,Type II _0 1.17 6 8 0.0 Cement Treated Select Borrow 0 1.00 6 8 0.0 Total Proposed Thickness Index:L::9:9 12/19/2018 Roudabush Gale Assoc.,fIllexible Pavement Design Evaluation Worksheet Page 1 Project: Old Trail-BLK32 Date: 19-Dec-18 Street( or section): [BL'K32=Bishopgate Ln`� Testing Firm: (assumed for design purpose) Testing Date(s): Design ADT Soil Support Average Daily Traffic, or VPD: 805 Measured CBR F 1 i 5 Present Year: 2018 Results: 2 i Design Year: L _ 2018 3 1u Growth Rate(%): 0 4 _ _ Design ADT at Design Year: 805 5 Percent Trucks: 0 Measured CBR Average: 5 Design Traffic Volume: 805 Design CBR: 3.3 Resiliency Factor 1 Soil Support Value 3.3 Design Pavement Index: 14 3 Total Proposed Thickness Index: [T5:4`3 FOKi Material Equivalency Min. Max. Thickness, (h) Value, (a) Inches Inches (a x h) Surface Asphalt Concrete(SM_2A,B, orC) (Superpave SM-9.5A) 16r:5 _ 2.25 1.5 3 3.4 Prime& Double Seal or Blotted Seal Surface I _- 0 0.84 * * 0.0 Intermediate Asphalt Concrete(IM-1A or 1 B)(Superpave IM-19.0A) 0 2.25 2 2 0.0 Base 1 Asphalt Concrete(BM-2 or BM-3)(Superpave PIM-25:0) 2.25 3 * 9.0 Full Depth Asphalt Concrete(BM-2 or BM-3)over Surface 0 1.60 6 0.0 Untreated Aggregate(21 A or 21 B) 0 1.00 6 7 0.0 Cement Treated Aggregate 0 1.67 6 7 0.0 _ _ Cement Treated Select Material, Type II, min. CBR=20 .0 1.50 6 7 0.0 Select Material Type I&II, non-plastic, min CBR=30 0 0.84 6 7 0.0 Select Material Type II, non-plastic, min CBR=20 0 0.60 6 7 0.0 _ Soil Cement 0 1.00 6 7 0.0 Cement Treated Select Material, Type II 0 1.17 6 7 0.0 Cement Treated Select Borrow 0 1.00 6 7 0.0 Base 2 Untreated Aggregate:21 or 21 B) 5 0.60 4 8 3.0 Cement Treated Aggregate 0 1.33 4 8 0.0 Select Material Type I, non-plastic, min CBR=30 0 0.50 4 8 0.0 Select Material Type I &II, non-plastic, min CBR=20 0 0.40 4 8 0.0 Soil Cement 0 1.00 6 8 •0.0 Soil Lime 0 0.92 6 8 0.0 Cement Treated Select Material,Type II 0 1.17 6 8 0.0 Cement Treated Select Borrow 0 1.00 6 8 0.0 Total Proposed Thickness Index: �1-5-41j 12/19/2018