The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB201500197 Review Comments 2016-02-10 Johnathan Newberry From: Megan Yaniglos Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 10:59 AM To: Ammy George Cc: Johnathan Newberry; Bill Ledbetter; Leslie Tate; John Anderson Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500197 Old Trail Village, Blks. 5, 20 & 21 - Road Plans. Ammy: This road was included in the ZMA request for a private street that is going to the Board for approval tonight. That being said, this is just approval that this road can be private, it still needs to meet the design and details that were required under this road plan review. So if approval is given tonight, all the comments still remain and need to be addressed before the road plans can be approved. Megan Yaniglos, AICP Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 From: Ammy George [mailto:AGeorge@roudabush.com] Sent:Tuesday, February 09, 2016 1:28 PM To: Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org> Cc:Johnathan Newberry<jnewberry@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Planning Application Review for SUB201500197 Old Trail Village, Blks. 5, 20 & 21 - Road Plans. Good afternoon Megan, I was hoping to find out the status of the application SUB201500197. Do you know if it has gone before the Board? Of if not, when it is scheduled to go? A/4 34 5. creorge 1 yrA•_ r kiK 76 1,i a.J r.` COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper,Virginia 22701 Charles A.Kilpatrick,P.P. Commissioner November 24,2015 Mr.J.T.Newberry County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 Re: SUB-2015-00197 Old Trail Village Block 5,20 and 21 Private Street Request Dear Mr.Newberry, The Old Trail Village Block 5, 20 and 21 Private Street Request, with the latest revision date of September 19, 2015, has been reviewed. It is understood that this is a conceptual layout and we offer the following comments to be addressed during the site plan submittal: 1. The intersection site distance lines should be shown based on the design speed. 2. Block 5 Drive should be placed directly across from the entrance into future Block 26. Also,the Streets should intersect at right angles. If you need further information concerning this project, or if you wish to schedule a meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me at(434)422-9894. Sincerely, je-e-e&p,ejr/...44,c--) Shelly A. Plaster Land Development Engineer Culpeper District 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Johnathan Newberry From: Ammy George <AGeorge@roudabush.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 10:02 AM To: Johnathan Newberry Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500197 Old Trail Village, Blks. 5, 20 &21 - Road Plans. Just got it. Thanks, that is what we were hoping to address at the moment. Antm/j George From:Johnathan Newberry [mailto:jnewberry@albemarle.org] Sent:Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:58 AM To:Ammy George<AGeorge@roudabush.com> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500197 Old Trail Village, Blks. 5, 20& 21- Road Plans. Yes. I tried to send the attached email. Did you receive it? From:Ammy George [mailto:AGeorge@roudabush.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 10:16 AM To:Johnathan Newberry<inewberry@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500197 Old Trail Village, Blks. 5, 20&21- Road Plans. Good morning JT, I haven't heard back about the process for our requested variations. Did you a Megan get a chance to talk? f}vunte George From:Johnathan Newberry [mailto:inewberry@albemarle.org] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 5:36 PM To:Ammy George<AGeorge@roudabush.com> Cc: Bill Ledbetter<BLedbetter@roudabush.com>; David Brockman<dave@oldtrailvillage.com>; Megan Yaniglos <myaniglos@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500197 Old Trail Village, Blks. 5, 20&21- Road Plans. Hi Ammy, Thanks for your voicemail. I've briefly reviewed John's comments and I think I understand your question. I will need some time to get a final answer because this process is atypical, but I think we will likely be dividing his comments between what's relevant and necessary for the Variation Applications (going to the Board under Section 8.5.5.3 VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES,AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENTS) and what's relevant for the Private Street Authorization Request(going to the PC under Chapter 14-234).These answers are the next step of what I described in my email on 10/29. Megan and I plan to discuss it following our distribution meeting tomorrow afternoon. I'll plan to provide additional information following that meeting. 1 Thanks, J.T. From:Ammy George [mailto:AGeorge@roudabush.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 9:27 AM To:Johnathan Newberry<jewberry@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org> Cc: Bill Ledbetter<BLedbetter@roudabush.com>; David Brockman<dave@oldtrailvillage.com> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500197 Old Trail Village, Blks. 5, 20&21- Road Plans. Good morning JT and Megan, I would like to talk with one or both of you about the actual process for the Variations and Private Street Authorization Requests. I am afraid that I am missing something after receiving John's comments about requiring a road plan. We were not anticipating this requirement; the submitted plan was for illustrative purposes to go along with the requested variations and private street authorization. A-1441/148 George, CL 4 Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 434-296-5220 fax From:John Anderson [mailto:janderson2@albemarle.org] Sent:Thursday, November 05, 2015 7:05 PM To:Ammy George<AGeorge@roudabush.com> Cc: Bill Ledbetter<BLedbetter@roudabush.com>; David Brockman<dave@oldtrailvillage.com>; Glenn Brooks <GBROOKS@albemarle.org>;Johnathan Newberry<jewberry@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.orr> Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201500197 Old Trail Village, Blks. 5, 20&21 - Road Plans. The Review for the following application has been completed: Application Number=SUB201500197 Reviewer =John Anderson Review Status = Requested Changes Completed Date = 11/05/2015 Thanks for your patience. Attached also available in County CV database system. 434.296-5832—x3069 2 Johnathan Newberry From: Johnathan Newberry Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:46 PM To: 'Ammy George' Cc: 'Bill Ledbetter'; 'David Brockman'; Megan Yaniglos; John Anderson Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500197 Old Trail Village, Blks. 5, 20 &21 - Road Plans. Attachments: SUB201500197-OId Trail Village blocks 5 20 21_pvt_street_110515Jtn.pdf Ammy, I've highlighted John's comments in yellow that need to be addressed prior to the Board's consideration of the variations. Providing these details and changes helps to demonstrate that the changes being requested meet each of the five criteria for variations shown below.They also assist the Board's and the public's understanding of the potential impacts of the request. (1) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan; (2) does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development; (3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district; (4) does not require a special use permit; and (5) is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved application. After the Board considers the variations,then the Planning Commission will consider the private street authorization request.John's comment#8 asks for a "road plan," but the information needed to process this request is actually found in 14-234(a)(1)(a) and (b). 1 Sec. 14-234 Procedure to authorize private street and related matters. Requests under sections 14-232 and 14-233 shall be submitted, processed and acted upon as follows: A. A subdivider shall submit a request in writing to the agent at the time of the submittal of the preliminary plat or may,within the development areas,submit the written request prior to submittal of a preliminary plat or with an application to rezone the land. 1. The request shall state the reasons and justifications for the request, and shall particularly address one or more applicable bases for granting the request as identified in sections 14-232 or 14-233,and each of the five findings identified in paragraph(C)required to be made. (a) The request shall include: (i) a map of the subdivision having contour intervals of not greater than twenty (20) feet showing the horizontal alignment; (ii) field-run profiles and typical cross-sections of the proposed streets;(iii)the maximum number of lots to be served by each private street; and (iv) documentation explaining how the perpetual maintenance of the private street including, within the development areas, the curb, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and planting strip landscaping will be funded,and identifying the person or entity that will be responsible for maintaining the improvements. The county engineer may waive the requirement for the field-run profile in the case of an existing street or where deemed appropriate due to topography,or if the topographic map is based on aerial or field collected data with a contour interval accuracy of five (5) vertical feet or better. A request under section 14- 232(A)(1)shall include earthwork computations demonstrating significant degradation. (b) If the request is made prior to submittal of a preliminary plat or with an application to rezone the land, it also shall include: (i) a justification for the request (ii) a vicinity map showing a larger street network at a scale no smaller than one(1)inch equals six hundred(600)feet;(iii)a conceptual plan at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet showing surveyed boundaries of the property; (iv)topography of the property at five(5)foot intervals for the property being subdivided and on abutting lands to a distance of five hundred(500)feet from the boundary line or a lesser distance determined to be sufficient by the agent;(v)the locations of streams,stream buffers,steep slopes, floodplains, known wetlands; (vi)the proposed layout of streets and lots, unit types, uses, and location of parking, as applicable; (vii) proposed private street profiles; and (viii)the maximum number of lots to be served. If you would still like to discuss, then please let me know and I'll give you a call. Thanks, J.T. Newberry Planner County of Albemarle, Planning Division 434-296-5832, ext. 3270 From:Johnathan Newberry Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 5:36 PM To: 'Ammy George' <AGeorge@roudabush.com> Cc: Bill Ledbetter<BLedbetter@roudabush.com>; David Brockman <dave@oldtrailvillage.com>; Megan Yaniglos <myaniglos@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500197 Old Trail Village, Blks. 5, 20& 21 - Road Plans. Hi Ammy, Thanks for your voicemail. I've briefly reviewed John's comments and I think I understand your question. 2 I will need some time to get a final answer because this process is atypical, but I think we will likely be dividing his comments between what's relevant and necessary for the Variation Applications (going to the Board under Section 8.5.5.3 VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES,AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENTS) and what's relevant for the Private Street Authorization Request(going to the PC under Chapter 14-234).These answers are the next step of what I described in my email on 10/29. Megan and I plan to discuss it following our distribution meeting tomorrow afternoon. I'll plan to provide additional information following that meeting. Thanks, J.T. From: Ammy George [mailto:AGeorge@roudabush.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 9:27 AM To:Johnathan Newberry<inewbei-ry@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org> Cc: Bill Ledbetter<BLedbetter@roudabush.com>; David Brockman <dave@oldtrailvillage.com> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500197 Old Trail Village, Blks. 5, 20& 21 - Road Plans. Good morning JT and Megan, I would like to talk with one or both of you about the actual process for the Variations and Private Street Authorization Requests. I am afraid that I am missing something after receiving John's comments about requiring a road plan. We were not anticipating this requirement; the submitted plan was for illustrative purposes to go along with the requested variations and private street authorization. ,4-144,14t1 4eor e, CLA- Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 434-296-5220 fax From:John Anderson [mailto:ianderson2@albemarle.org] Sent:Thursday, November 05, 2015 7:05 PM To: Ammy George <AGeorge@roudabush.com> Cc: Bill Ledbetter<BLedbetter@roudabush.com>; David Brockman <dave@oldtrailvillage.com>; Glenn Brooks <GBROOKS@albemarle.org>;Johnathan Newberry<iewberry@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org> Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201500197 Old Trail Village, Blks. 5, 20& 21 - Road Plans. The Review for the following application has been completed: Application Number = SUB201500197 Reviewer = John Anderson Review Status = Requested Changes Completed Date = 11/05/2015 Thanks for your patience. Attached also available in County CV database system. 3 Johnathan Newberry From: Johnathan Newberry Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 2:07 PM To: 'David Brockman' Cc: Mark Graham; Wayne Cilimberg; David Benish; Glenn Brooks; Megan Yaniglos; John Anderson; Rebecca Ragsdale; 'Bill Ledbetter; 'Leslie Tate'; 'Ammy George' Subject: RE: block 5_20_21 Attachments: OTV Block 5 Layout 09192015.pdf Hi Dave, I have spoken to Mark and received clarification on the attached drawing. I think it's very important to note that there comments should be considered ADVISORY ONLY. Official comments cannot be provided until an application has been submitted. With that said, I believe the question is"Would Planning and Engineering support the attached drawing by recommending the necessary variations and private street request be heard on the consent agenda of the BOS and PC respectively?" Planning and Engineering would likely look favorably on the attached drawing by recommending the necessary variations be considered on the consent agenda of the BOS and recommending the private street request (with all of its waivers/modifications) be considered on the consent agenda by the PC. Any additional information provided or requested during the review of an application may change this view. Under the existing Code of Development, here is a list of the necessary variations: 1. To remove the connection between Golf Drive and Old Trail Drive (identified as B Street on Sheet 4 of the approved Application Plan). 2. To classify E Street between Blocks 5 and 20, as well as B Street adjacent to Block 5 ("Block 5 Drive") as a private street, which are currently designated as public streets in Table 3 of the Application Plan (p. 23). This variation would also be needed for Block 6 in the future. 3. To remove the sidewalk along the frontage of Block 21 and along the western side of"Block 5 Drive." Street trees are assumed as being provided on both sides of Upland Drive and Block 5 Drive. 4. The exhibit doesn't identify the height of the proposed structures, but Blocks 20 and 21 are in the CT4 zone so they may require a variation for height and/or spatial enclosure. Table 6A(p. 36)shows the maximum number of stories is 3.5 and the maximum average eave height is 40' if there is 80'from face to face of primary building. Here's comment on the private street request: • A private street authorization request would be required for the Planning Commission to authorize Upland Drive and Block 5 Drive as a private street.The Engineering Division will not support the current design of the intersection between Upland Drive and Block 5 Drive. However,the Planning Division can support it, so it could be considered on the Consent Agenda. Please note that additional information (such as anticipated traffic volumes, sight distance lines, etc.) would be needed to fully evaluate the request and further minor modifications may be needed. Thanks, J.T. Newberry Planner County of Albemarle, Planning Division 434-296-5832, ext. 3270 From: David Brockman [mailto:dave@oldtrailvillage.com] Sent:Thursday, October 08, 2015 12:01 PM To:Johnathan Newberry<jnewberry@albemarle.org> Subject: block 5_20_21 Hi JT, Did you get a response from Mark on the road layout for block 5/20/21? I would hope he could support this as it is just like the 3 or 4 other areas in Old Trail with internal streets and alleys. This apartment project is on hold waiting to hear whether we have a plan to work with or not. Thanks for looking into it. Dave Brockman 2 John Anderson From: Bill Ledbetter <BLedbetter@roudabush.com> Sent: Tuesday,June 02, 2015 2:01 PM To: John Anderson Cc: Dave Brockman;Johnathan Newberry Subject: RE. Revised street sketch in OTV Block 5, 20 and 21 John The 2 options on the sketch both provide 200' minimum cl radius. If the apartment plan moves forward, a submission will be made with everything you request for a formal review. Thanks for getting us an answer to the variation vs. rezoning question concerning road location. Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax From: John Anderson [mailto:janderson2@albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 12:01 PM To: Bill Ledbetter Cc: Glenn Brooks; Johnathan Newberry; Megan Yaniglos; Rebecca Ragsdale; David Brockman Subject: RE: Revised street sketch in OTV Block 5, 20 and 21 Bill, Engineering response to sketch sent 22-May. Engineering recognizes VDOT request for 200' minimum centerline radius. Please confirm if black-and gray-line alignments are proposed as 200' horizontal curves. It appears the reverse curves(gray-line)may not be. Engineering would not object if Glen Valley Drive ends behind Block 20(a change to the Zoning layout/eligible for Variation). With respect to buffers, Engineering agrees that gray-shade alignment shows relatively minor incremental impact to Slabtown Branch stream buffer(yellow). Stream buffer impacts require mitigation. To clearly establish what is being proposed or approved requires scale drawings. We are glad to review .PDF scale drawings. It may be best to limit(sketch)review comments to tentative confirmation that: • Engineering supports public street designation,VDOT geometric design standards(200' R) • No objection if design eliminates south portion of Glen Valley on Blocks 20/21 (eligible for approval as Variation) • No objection to incremental stream buffer impact, if propose reverse-curve alignment(yellow image) 1 t _ • No objection to stream buffer impact associated with ZMA200400024 roadway alignment's (Mitigation is required for stream buffer impacts) We understand the need to reliably know how plans will be reviewed before proceeding too far. Please be sure to confirm zoning/planning needs with Johnathan,Rebecca,and Megan,as circumstance dictates. Engineering does not speak for Planning,or Zoning. With.PDF review or site/plat or road plan submission,please: • Calculate stream buffer impacts • Provide Mitigation • Label CL radius • Provide scale • Show stream CL • Show 100' stream buffer (50'offset LINE is also helpful/thank you) Thanks for your patience. Please call if questions. I'll be in and out,today. I'll be away 10-19 June. 434.296-5832—x3069 From:John Anderson Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:11 PM To:Johnathan Newberry; Glenn Brooks; Megan Yaniglos; Rebecca Ragsdale Subject: RE: Revised street sketch in OTV Block 5, 20 and 21 Glenn, Yellow shows incremental impact: gray-over black-line(Upland Drive/scroll down to JT's email). I can confirm if incremental impact is within the landward 50 feet. I can't estimate area(SF)with detail provided,but could request RGA estimate using design software. Given design requirement to meet 200'centerline radius,could OTV/RGA request impact within the landward 50 horizontal feet under 17-604.A.(i)—thanks,Glenn. n C84136.49 19-4 C8•N33'42'25'K r 1 ¢ Lc•59.j, Lc.51.15 _ r 1 R'3aa a•585.50 a 64 1 4 A.70 d 83.95 a= '0!'M _ ow y 4 1'E Pr 3O I ~ S 42'50-E l24.59' ap' 95 C15 • • BLOCK • _-- - 2 • L Sec. 17-604 Types of structures, improvements and activities which may be allowed in a stream buffer by program authority. Structures, improvements and activities mad be authorized by the administrator in the circumstances described below,provided that a mitigation plan sausfi tng the requirements of section 17-406.is submitted to,and approved.bs'the administrator: A II'ttlun the landward 50 hort_ontal jest. On a lot within the fitly (50) horizontal feet of a stream buffer that is the most landward (furthest from the stream), if the structures. improvements or activities either: (i)would be fire necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the lot or(u) would be on a lot that is within a water supply protection area where the stream buffer protects an intermittent stream and the lot is within a development area_ In all cases under this subsection,any new building site and sewage disposal system shall be located outside of the stream buffer. From:Johnathan Newberry Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:31 PM To: Glenn Brooks; Megan Yaniglos;John Anderson; Rebecca Ragsdale Subject: Revised street sketch in OTV Block 5, 20 and 21 In response to the answer emailed earlier today, Bill Ledbetter has provided an alternate sketch to the one we discussed on May 11th His description is that Upland Drive would have a 200'turning radius and be a public or private street. It would provide interconnection across Old Trail Drive and Golf Drive. Glen Valley Drive would be end behind Block 20 as shown on the previous sketch. Is this something that could pursued via variation? It looks like the option in gray marker impacts the buffer too much, but it looks like black-lined Upland Drive would work. 3 , EN13 S ..g" • 530 '36' 4' - 32' L3 181.05 C2 Y . 70 ii. - - - 1 ___20' UTILITY EASEMENT I 0 D.8. 3442 pp. 188-194 PLAT) L2 11 1/ LI A / ' ; \.. - 71 .41_•20' UTILITY EASEMENT 6 .__ 0.B. 3442 pp. 188-194 (PLAT) Pi I. V N. �� cc . t s v qI- u- 41 BLOCK 5 t i ( 3.57Ac. TOTAL c, ., (2.62 AC.) Lrl ' ' cn i 10' LANDSCAPE 6 I7-SIDEWALK EASEMENT D.B. 3442 pp. 188-194 (PLAT) - • 1 I or 1 4g'09" C80N33'42'25'W C6-N36' W Q� Lc-69,88' LC=61- !5' C3 • �, • • r +�. f R-328.50' R-585.5 ' 11111 84,41 i ' C4 A•70 01 82.95' s• N 'Of"II ti _--/ / .0J + "E ado S30'42'50'E 124.5B' / C15` ti . ,, _ \ ___,..----'2 '0 BLOC From: Bill Ledbetter[mailto:BLedbetter@roudabush.com] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:10 PM To:Johnathan Newberry Cc: Dave Brockman Subject:OT BLOCK 1/3 JT 4 Attached is a sketch showing a possible road layout that we think will eliminate the need for a rezoning and allow us to move forward with only the variation to eliminate the south portion of Glen Valley on Blocks 20/21. The sketch shows 2 possible intersection connections of Upland and Glen Valley with a <200' centerline radius. Both connections are pretty much in the same place as shown on the ZMA plan and require only minimal mitigation measures for stream buffer disturbances. We are not stopping our pursuit of other ways to address this issue without requiring a rezoning, but in an effort to keep all of us moving forward we offer this as a preliminary solution. Thoughts?? Thanks and have a great weekend. Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax 5 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE OY Department Community Development Planning Services Division Amilar 401 McIntire Road North Wing• Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 ''/ii t• Phone: (434)296-5823 • Fax: (434)972-4035 Transmittal From: JT Newberry Date: 11/05/15 To: John Anderson- Engineering OJay Schlothauer- Inspections ()Alex Morrison-ACSA 0 OShelley Plaster-VDOT 0 ORobbie Gilmer-Fire and Rescue 0 OAndrew Slack- E911 0 JOB #/FILE NAME:SUB-2015-00197 Old Trail Block 5, 20 and 21 - Private Street Request We are sending you the following items: ® Attached or ❑ Under separate cover n Copy of Letter ❑ Prints H Plans ❑ Plats (1 Specifications n Other # of Date Description Copies 1 9/19/15 Old Trail Village Block 5 - Conceptual Block Layout These are transmitted as checked below: ® For review and comments 171 For approval n Other Remarks: Please note that no site plan or subdivision plat has yet been submitted for these blocks. The applicant is seeking approval for private streets in this area (as opposed to the public streets shown in the application plan) as well as various special exceptions, including one for building height. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Comments are due in City View or email by: 11/23/15 Signature: JT Newberry PHONE(434)977-0205 FAX(434)296-5220 —`o, INFO@R UDABUSH.COM SI ROUDABUSH, GALE &ASSOCIATES, INC. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAND SURVEYING Serving Virginia Since 1956 ENGINEERING LAND PIANNING 914 MONTICELLO ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA 22902 WILLIAM J.LEDBETTER,L.S. J.CLINT HARMON,L.S. CHRISTOPHER C.MULLIGAN,P.E. DAVID A.JORDAN,L.S. AMMY M.GEORGE,L.A. BRIAN D JAMISON,L.S. October 27, 2015 Mr.J.T. Newberry, Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 Regarding: Old Trail Village Block 5, 20 and 21 Request for Private Street Authorization Dear Mr. Newberry, In accordance with Section 14-233 of the Albemarle County Code of Ordinances,we are requesting the authorization of private streets in Blocks 5, 20 and 21 of Old Trail Village, using the Neighborhood Model Development [Section 14-233(A)(1)(ii)] as justification. Specifically,we are requesting the authorization for the interior drives - Upland Drive, Block 5 Drive and Block 20/21 Drive to be private streets in order to better achieve the density goals of the comprehensive plan. The public road standards in this instance break the three blocks into fragments, which cannot be used efficiently to achieve a density that is similar to the surrounding blocks. The grid-like street pattern with T-intersections in lieu of a 200' centerline radius allows a greater flexibility and efficiency for building and parking layout. This efficiency and flexibility allows for a density similar to that of the surrounding blocks and more in line with the Old Trail Village Code of Development. In addition, the grid-like pattern of the proposed streets is similar to the street layout of the surround blocks.Also, the proposed private streets, Upland Drive and Block 5 Drive, will mirror the surrounding public streets with a similar cross-section: on-street parallel parking, planting strips and sidewalks. In accordance with Section 14-234(C), the proposed private streets, Upland Drive, Block 5 Drive, Block 20/21 Drive satisfy one or more of the requirements in Section 14-234(C); 1. These private streets will be adequately constructed to carry the traffic volume expected; Yes, the private streets will be adequately constructed to carry the anticipated traffic volumes. Upland Drive and Block 5 Drive are expected to have 896 vehicles per day. Block 20/21 Drive is expected to have 369 vehicles per day. 2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the proposed private street; Yes, the comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in this location (B Street and E Street). 3. The fee of the private street will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right-of-way thereof or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to any easement for the benefit of all lots served by the street; Yes, the fees associated with these private streets will be owned by the Old Trail Homeowners Association. 4. Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose,the private street will not serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location; Block 20/21 Drive will serve as an entrance/exit for the apartments on Blocks 20 and 21. Block 20/21 Drive will not serve through traffic. Block 20/21 Drive will intersect Old Trail Drive, a public road, in only one location. Upland Drive and Block 5 Drive will serve as the entrance/exit for the apartments and commercial building on Blocks 5 and 20. Upland Drive will intersect Old Trail Drive,while Block 5 Drive will intersect Golf Drive. It is possible that through traffic will utilize Upland Drive/Block 5 Drive to access Old Trail Drive from Golf Drive and vice versa. 5. If applicable, the private street has been approved in accordance with section 30.3, flood hazard overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law. The flood hazard overlay district requirements are not applicable for these private streets. Thank you for your consideration regarding this request, and as always, if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me through email at ageorge@roudabush.com or by phone, 434-977-0205. Sincer y, � Arr ��i Gorge, PHONE(434)977-0205 FAX(434)296-5220 INFO@ROUDABUSH.COM ROUDABUSH, GALE &ASSOCIATES, INC. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAND SURVEYING Serving Virginia Since 1956 ENGINEERING 914 MONTICELLO ROAD LAND PLANNING CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA 22902 WILLIAM J.LEDBETTER,L.S. J.CLINT HARMON,L.S. CHRISTOPHER C.MULLIGAN,P.E. DAVID A.JORDAN,L.S. AMMY M.GEORGE,L.A. BRIAN D.JAMISON,L.S. TO: Mr. JT Newberry, Planner DATE: October 27, 2015 County of Albemarle JOB #: Department of Community Development PROJ: Old Trail Village, Blocks 5, 20-21 401 McIntire Road, Suite 227 Charlottesville,Va. 22902-4596 X Attached Under separate cover via the following items: # of Copies Date Job# Description 1 Application for Special Exception 3 9/19/15 Conceptual Layout for Old Trail Village Block 5 1 Fee Check for Variations-$425 (Check No. 2308) 1 Variation Application Blocks 5 20 and 21 - Private B Street and E Street 1 Variation Application Blocks 5 20 and 21 -Connection Golf Drive between Old Trail Drive 1 Variation Application Blocks 5 20 and 21 -Sidewalk 1 Variation Application Blocks 5 20 and 21 - Building Height 1 Application for Road Plan Approval 8 9/19/15 Conceptual Layout for Old Trail Village Block 5 1 10/27/15 Private Street Authorization Request- Blocks 5 20 and 21 1 Fee Check for Private Street Authorization -$670 (Check No. 2309) These are transmitted as checked below: _For approval For your use Please return As requested Resubmitted w/revisions X Review/Comment For Bids due Other REMARKS: SIGNED: Awtony George COPY TO: If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. _ EMT I tSD - - _=_-- ilk OPT.BLDG. ,, 'd d + , 54 UNITS = : __ sl ,PROP.ITT.BL G.87 r ,I W/BASEMENT L; ,' Prov :-:/STOP bar; � I' S% GARAGE 11 1` .. distance / W/BASEMEN3'GARAGE •/• ,• t ,' /. triangle / '11 4 - - �+ ',/ • W, 4 i i ---- i i i -CROSSWALK ' ti i ' I ' ' / I I -, -_/ I / / i / i a I // / _ - - "` / / / / // , 'I / ( / / , / --- r , 10 • •) I _ _ --- - yy - a 4 I f ` + '� .-'--- N 1 1i ,I l , , , II.ei IA I 1 ii kiii/i /f/PL Prgvide`STOP ba • _ - . •-1__ - ,1 I. ♦i�'/' ' i i, i ,�I ' _ ight distance % l / .. .�'' triangle 4 r• - ,' / '/ / i/ I♦'�I'// ,i `- - _ g — - i'I , / / / / / , / ' f' 1 •, `/ / / / i / I' --. _- • ,/ ♦ • /. / i =ti • /` Provide;�STORE�ar;j / / R`' / % : -' 1. _ /� , r / /. / I I , I- -0 'a. . _ a --c„........* ,_ ._ _.,: _, sigbt-distance / /' i/ / / I'/ / // ,-'- a' ` ^.1Mo*MUG -"triangle / •.� j I,'�/ i7- -J11111011 ' % f / , , / __ __- -- "'----- , yd / i' / ' / rovide:STOP bac-eight' ,f•` -• // ,•' ,, 'ice __ . istance friangie i / „e , / / ♦ / I I 4 / %' / •/'' -_ -_^ / %I4 .) , ' , • 1 IEI! Ij1[7 �+ � tiL� III , ' � �• Lipa�, �� r � ,,,,o atm � to Is» II , IrW ' . 1 Illiat 4'1W11 )1 I 1 I t ‘ go, ,2:1 „..,.. , p \‘, xi -- �. +� fN��7� ��?�T�� ",_ I::TJJ �, Vd��iiii�l�� _Ei l� a,u.crao V �e - LJ _ 1 �� am' ��/�f / '�3" 00. _ irtit,* 0. , �_ OLD TRAIL DRIVE — _ _ —s T —}__ •. I •. ii aaorwr' E.� "exwnro Di:iii e BLOCKS Illir-- �'�H°c !- 1� - - �- -- i'°° , NSiT / i y �// cp RELOCATEDi- -,) --- - - ��UTWRE,�L• 0 - \ \ __ .,74,/ Q�X i•1- FUTURE jj Iii * . ' A rAT 1•i a t„_ D, • BLOCK 6 ' / 2s7es SF wT GARAGENi E ,,TOP na,, UNITS l / GARAGE a M a wI BASEMeaccw AGE a ^ \ ./ } 1r l{f ,1 I • ;,:l_ j FUTURE BLOCK'2kor. ` e i�""w�PEE COUNTY /' III 1�` ;. I ■ ' "a `'= .1.M I 'STOP Gar i 1_,' t J e' /// rr%% i' omo I o. b?r1111111 _ '/ j 1 _—fB0CK32i \.\ au�r to aou, -1' 11 ,! 1 ,b. ,--. i-i I.� n 9iGPb•r ✓ 'O •AxGT•ATTxxwAxEA•xw,EVER„F•E ELEMENT, WY e"L, / 1 ro� T• ,7 _ •� an.LAYOUT POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT i,.x 1.10 1 a i. 1 1 'li �J 3! r...''''' -'.w� . 0/ f BLaxNINCLUDING, :� ' ffe ::// , ..�I.. PARAMETERS FOR THA DEVELOPMENT OF BLOCK MATRON THE COOE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR USE AS A GUIDELINE B 17 ARE NO,INTENDED AS o o0R0I.�.B.M 1Ti� �, T% _ / La« ur FOPTHE,ONIAGx,roe�aVE AS NEEDED WHEN MARKETS ARO THESE GENERA/PARAMETERS WAL ENSURE THE GOYS°,OLO TRAIL VILLAGE AREA oE..w•ow•.. tRET1\ ' +roves STOP mx<yG, i*Imo.11.19nRI• T . ./ FUTURE 1"/ -1-q- NT7(.ANGLES BETWEEN \— — /, r j�,.+�.• •,( ,r a,,..,.., BLOCK 26 /1 _-,v 4 80-90 A$ALLOWED By s u�CY r /5� W 4 1 E/BOT .Y.-o-• 2� / uTr -4•• � _�"d"d' Taorlffi°�°}-'— - r e r PS 'n T5 M ' \N, �T - f0[Yr MT TA .IIr .�.'i J U ---/ �?' -�-�-� -- -. 100'STREAM BUFFER r�_— Ik 9 b r f,I� f 1 F f , O I ,I.O// - •��__ f i w }u! Q J - ,p / OPEMBPADE ' / a p _ / /I; TYPICAL SECTION pl p. /, MAI O III p ` - _ _ — — ' ti - x EFPr p! ,I p 1 I1 • a `I9 FUTURE = OCK 22 — ' ffiT' ••• III • srl r�!e� Mr Mr 1 Vy / / ip[ ! yaw •.�.. mu ...,....E I^ ' li mer[ t t r r Ii —r r f — p III / • ' / B "{pr ei Iw"�°. ■.a Ial[ M•A Y doos 11 ' III .v w II II - ,/ /' TYPICAL SECTIONIIPMT II III , - / BLOCK 6 DRIVE ( S et I = vow ax to h .Q r:vw4c C •v.LaA-;ft.% feTttesk v=%v,=� `Alla:if Noita County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Project: Old Trail,Blocks 5,20&21—Road Plans,Private Street Authorization Request Plan preparer: Ammy George,Bill Ledbetter—Roudabush,Gale&Assoc,Inc 914 Monticello Road,Charlottesville,VA 22902,AGeorgea,roudabush.com, bledbetter@roudabush.com Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties LLC[1005 Heathercroft Circle,Suite 100] Dave Brockman,dave(a,,oldtrailvillage corn Plan received date: 5 Nov 2015 Date of comments* 5 Nov 2015 Reviewer: John Anderson Project Coordinator: J.T.Newberry SUB2015-00197 1. Note:Planning Division email(10/8/2015 2:08 PM)reads,in part."The Engineering Division will not support the current design of the mtersection between Upland Drive and Block 5 Drive.However,the Planning Division can support it,so it could be considered on the Consent Agenda." 2. 10/8 email continues:"Please note that additional information(such as anticipated traffic volumes,sight distance lines,etc.)would be needed to fully evaluate the request and further minor modifications may be needed." 3; As follow-up to 10/8 email,please provide anticipated traffic volumes and sight distance lines to fully evaluate request and determine whether further minor modifications may be needed 4. Intersection of Upland Drive and Block 5 Drive is a 3-way intersection,not a continuous street. Please ref. block 5 Layout 09192015 file(Attached;relevant to 10/8 email),a third conceptual design d.July 20 2015 (3 designs have identical date). No conceptual design since 3-June(Attached email)has been reviewed by Engineering. (Review not requested.) 5. Provide intersection features consistent with VDOT standards for public streets. At a minimum,provide: (3-way)stop signs,stop bars,pedestrian crosswalks(defer to Planning),and sight distance lines. —Ref. Attached 09192015 RGA annotated design file 6. VDOT Subdivision Street Design Guide,Appendix B(1),Sec.6,Traditional Neighborhood Design,F.Curb Extensions:Revise on-street parking consistent with Sec.6/image below(Attached). Proposed design appears inconsistent with Design Guide detail. F. Curb Extensions — Curb extensions at intersections are frequently used in Traditional Neighborhood Developments. Curb Extensions are also used to protect parking areas and to reduce pedestrian crossing times. 16.R labors --- let►ime= Ze'R Mmmum Effective Rad. �- IC MNrten Curb Extension(Bub-Out) 7. Design must reflect VDOT Standards,includmg Subdivision Street Design Guide,p.B(1)-60,Notes 1 -3. Notes relate to:geometry,sight lines,curb extensions,and overall design. [See 14-412.B.] r"61• :p�V Se•1 1's•'1 tt7 ¶'taoV "AI 1$>.f;v•/4 4.1J.A Engineering Review Comments 'NIA) Page 2 of 2 IIIIIIIIIINVtsk(RIIIIkrequOMIFRoad plan will be reviewed against checklist integral to RP application. Design will be compared with VDOT standards. Ref.Sec.14-412.B. These comments are response to private street authorization request 9. Applicant cover letter d 27-Oct 2015,p.2,item#4 makes note that:"It is possible that through traffic will utilize Upland Drive/Block 5 Drive to access Old Trail Drive from Golf Drive and vice versa." This appears inconsistent with requirements at Sec. 14-234.B., 14-234.C.4 Sec. 14-234.A.2 makes explicit reference to Engineering review. 10. Note:Old Trail Village is zoned Neighborhood Model District. Planning Division Staff,Community Development Director,Chief of Planning and others may have participated in review or reached agreement or acceptance on particular design features of conceptual site layout,block 5,but this is first request for Engineering review comment since June. 11 Engineenng Division email sent June 02,2015 12:01 PM reads,in part:"Engineering supports public street designation,VDOT geometric design standards for roads and intersections." Engineenng reaffirms this position,yet defers to Planning Contact John Anderson,Engineenng Dept,if any questions. ianderson2na,albemarle org/434-296-5832-x3069 File SUB201500197-Old Trail Village blocks 5 20,21 pvt_street 110515 F. Curb Extensions — Curb extensions at intersections are frequently used in Traditional Neighborhood Developments. Curb Extensions are also used to protect parking areas and to reduce pedestrian crossing times. v c 15' R Minimum 10'R Minimum 25'R Minimum Effective Radius 40' Minimum Curb Extension (Bulb-Out)