HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500197 Review Comments Private road request 2015-11-10Johnathan Newber
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, Bilks. 5, 20 & 21 - Road
Plans.
Attachments: SUB201500197 -Old 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).
Set. 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 pre] iminary plat or Wray, 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 eq uals 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 (5W) 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.
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 <inewberry @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.
14wLk,vte (:-, roe, CLA
Roudabush, Gale and Associates
914 Monticello Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
434 - 977 -0205 office
434 - 296 -5220 fax
From: John Anderson [ mailto :landerson2 @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 dewberry @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.
434.296 -5832 -x3069
YlAGIl`11A
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, AGeorge(abroudabush.com,
bledbetter(a)roudabush. com
Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100]
Dave Brockman, dave a,oldtrailvilla eg com
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 intersection 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.
15 R M[nimum
m
•- 10 R Minimum
25' R MInIMUm
Effective Radius
40' Mlnlmum —
Curb Extension (Bulb -Out)
Design must reflect VDOT Standards, including Subdivision Street Design Guide, p. B(1) -60, Notes L -3.
Notes relate to: geometry, sight lines, curb extensions, and overall design. [See 14- 412.B.]
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
8. A Road plan (RP) is required. Road plan will be reviewed against checklist integral to RP application.
Design will be compared with VDOT standards. Ref. Sec. 14- 412.13. 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. Engineering 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." Engineering reaffirms
this position, yet defers to Planning.
Contact John Anderson, Engineering Dept, if any questions. janderson2(a)albemarle.org / 434 - 296 -5832 - x3069.
File: SUB201500197 -Old Trail Village blocks 5, 20, 21 _pvt street 110515