Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900076 Review Comments 2009-09-25LOUISA ALBEMARLE NELSON FLUVANNA Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District 706 Forest St, Ste G Charlottesville, VA 22903 975 -0224 September 25, 2009 TO:Megan Yaniglos Planning Department RE:Soils Report and Comments for: Old Trail Village Phase 9 r 1 i i"258 8e, 3ia4Ey`x 33G Ni 366 5 i -\ 3s(^ mow.._7 9C "6 , \..B 36B 81E3 7C 7--A360 w v 812.-81 3 V 1'cam * 8, ` 5 E;) 7[33 7B 36D 380 78 N 1 '``a 3763 v r b Yy . 37D3 s..a ili3 )O r 36 v yr 25C 366 258 it ° ll 4C, 2663 v t>FG f 66f. \J{ v 90B g /G 1 7,r 58\ t is 26C 3 1 7 2..R C 4 37D. 258 568 t 58 • 258 366 V 8 0 52563 17 c}. 1'" I .a.:•. 2683 25B C .I Jlcrr- , 2S b p 17 R/.C - ,-. , , - 1 - f - 1C68 \ 258 y6 2663 3 7f. 36D\ __, 49 256 f.'1 r 0 i ' 26D3 1' 78 25B 3 r 1 31rc33 25B iEC:17 Sf2 Al_ J 58 4- 36G . a A/ ,7 3 fr ^r 386 r 256 25F3 u ,` ! /*:' B l 258 tiC 25B v.—, ..e; , 41 ,252 37D3 9B 36 © 7 46 .._._._266 3 4D v,41 C 14E3 56B `3\ 258 26C3 -,26C3,;3'i 77 ' 1- ! - -- ---- J 03 5g'' , C Piejmont Church yctri B 91 -Henley78 4r SB School N\3703 1 r j ai Q` P 77 V37C jd , 8 ' 1 I UV c;37C 3 i 411 U u 816 y5 8'l 35 ~ 4V/61 0r'—"" 8r , 36B 5B 3 37r i 78 I 36B t v7 i 3 HiGfl noro c Chu ch C f , E79:E J Y .-7,..c Mils 7i,J E3 l'a 88 5,..3 31 _3 A 3,:C 78 f s.\ ,, z \ 2 .,,,, 3703 .....)q Of 7t 3 6rE a 3703 56B 436Goff'f ?U(:3 t : 4,,, 86 7F 3 ' 3 S 2663 2 ` ,4 3 /7Cg Illho,1:B 44 3' 4E) ..,./..,,-./.! „...,...-' Es 4E Cseeh m 76 O''' 553 - •L 43 37C3 36B ., -. 4E 76 V i 4E 7 t 56 Oii- I i Jr t1 J 3 l 1 ' v 376.? USDA United States Natural Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Department of Resources Conservation District Agriculture Conservation 434 - 975 -0224 Service Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Old Trail Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Ashe is a moderately steep to steep, moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 10 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 6e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Ashe is a steep, moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 10 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 7e. The Virginia soil management group is B. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 5B Belvoir loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Belvoir is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 12 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is slow. It has a very low available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 18 inches. The land capability classification is 3w. The Virginia soil management group is BB. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Braddock is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is 0. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 26C3 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Dyke is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is 0. This soil is not hydric. Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 9/25/09 Map Unit: 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hayesville is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hayesville is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hayesville is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hayesville is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 6e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 37E3 Hayesville clay loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hayesville is a steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 7e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 77 Riverview - Chewacla complex Description Category: Virginia FOTG Riverview is a nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 12 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is occasionally flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 48 inches. The land capability classification is 2w. The Virginia soil management group is G. This soil is not hydric. Chewacla is a nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest 1 homas Jetterson SWCD 2 9/25/09 permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is occasionally flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 12 inches. The land capability classification is 3w. The Virginia soil management group is I. This soil is not hydric. Dwellings With Basements - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 Very limited percent slopes 5B Belvoir loam, 2 to 7 Very limited percent slopes 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 26C3 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Not limited percent slopes 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Somewhat limited 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Very limited to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded 37E3 Hayesville clay loam, 25 Very limited to 45 percent slopes, severely eroded 77 Riverview - Chewacla Very limited complex Septic Tank Absorption Fields - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 Very limited percent slopes 5B Belvoir loam, 2 to 7 Very limited Thomas Jetterson SWCD 3 9/25/09 percent slopes 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 26C3 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Somewhat limited 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Very limited to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded 37E3 Hayesville clay loam, 25 Very limited to 45 percent slopes, severely eroded 77 Riverview - Chewacla Very limited complex Mapunit Hydric Rating Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes 4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 Not hydric percent slopes 5B Belvoir loam, 2 to 7 Partially hydric percent slopes 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 26C3 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes, severely eroded 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Not hydric 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Not hydric to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded 37E3 Hayesville clay loam, 25 Not hydric to 45 percent slopes, severely eroded 77 Riverview - Chewacla Partially hydric Thomas Jefferson SWCD 4 9/25/09 complex Soil Shrink -Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 1.5 percent slopes 5B Belvoir loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 26C3 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to 1.5 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 1.5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded 37E3 Hayesville clay loam, 25 1.5 to 45 percent slopes, severely eroded 77 Riverview - Chewacla 1.5 complex Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 High percent slopes 5B Belvoir loam, 2 to 7 High percent slopes Thomas Jetterson SWCD 5 9/25/09 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes 26C3 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes, severely eroded 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Moderate to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded 37E3 Hayesville clay loam, 25 Moderate to 45 percent slopes, severely eroded 77 Riverview - Chewacla Moderate complex Thomas Jefferson SWCD 6 9 /25/09 0„ ALB,J County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner From:Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:October 2, 2009 Subject: SDP200900076, Old Trail Phase 9, Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14 - Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan for Old Trail Phase 9, submitted on September 14, 2009, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering can recommend approval once the following comments have been addressed: General Site Plan Comments 1. The boundaries of the Preliminary Plat as shown on Sheet 2 do not match the approved Final Plat for Old Trail Village Center Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14 (SUB200900103). Please clarify the boundaries of this project. 2. On the General Notes on Sheet 1, please specify which roads or road portions will be built with the different phases of this project. 3. Please revise the note on Sheet 1 to state that this property is in the Lickinghole Creek Watershed 18- 32.5.6.f]. 4. Street cross sections show a width of 7 -feet provided for on- street parking. The Street Specifications table provided on the same sheet shows that the Code of Development requires 8- foot parking lanes. 5. Right -of -way widths shown for streets on the plans and in the cross sections do not meet the requirements of the Street Specifications table from the Code of Development. 6. The Code of Development requires an 8 -foot sidewalk along Glen Valley Drive between Old Trail Drive and Claremont Lane. 7. Road plans for Claremont Lane between Golf Drive and Upland Drive and Upland Drive between Old Trail Drive and Claremont Lane were approved on April 17, 2009 (Phase 2 -Block 4 Road Plans WP0200800106). Several discrepancies exist between the approved plans and the Phase 9 Site Plan including right -of -way widths, cross - sections, entrance locations, and stormsewer layout. These approved plans will need to be amended. 8. Road plans for portions of Glen Valley Drive and Claremont Lane were previously submitted with the Final Site Plan for Old Trail Village Blocks 15 & 31 (SDP200800072). Street cross sections and layouts do not correspond between the plans. Previously submitted road plans should be revised or withdrawn. 9. The alley intersection of Block 13 to Golf Drive should align with the travelway exiting Block 2. 10. The Block 4 and Block 13 entrances onto Claremont Lane should align for a proper intersection. 11. Please show sight distance triangles at the intersections of Upland Drive and Glenn Valley Drive with Old Trail Drive. [18- 4.12.17.b] 12. Please show sight distance triangles at the intersection of Golf Drive with Old Trail Drive to ensure that the building proposed in Lot 30, Block 4 is not encroaching. [I8-4.12.17.b] 13. Please show the sight distance triangles at the intersection of the two private roads within Block 14. [ 18- 4.12.17.b] 14. A portion of the buildings in Lot 14 -Block 4, Lot 6 -Block 13, Lot 6 -Block 14, and Lot 13 -Block 14 appear to be within the sight distance triangles. [ 18- 4.12.17.b] 15. Vehicles exiting the garages on Lots 14 -19 of Block 4 pose a circulation hazard. Sight lines for a reversing vehicle will be limited until the vehicle is sufficiently clear of the garage, causing the vehicle to be well within the travelway prior to a clear line of sight being established. All traffic entering and exiting Block 4 will pass by Lots 14 -16, this is an unsafe situation. The same problem with inadequate driveway lengths appears throughout Blocks 13 and 14. [18- 32.7.2] 16. The proposed building in Lot 29, Block 4 is within the proposed sidewalk and landscape easement to be dedicated to VDOT. 17. Bumper blocks are required in parking spaces that abut sidewalk, unless the sidewalk has a minimum width of6 -feet. [18- 4.12.16.e] 18. Bumper blocks are required within the tandem parking spaces proposed in 14. [18- 4.12.16.e] 19. The proposed contour labels are illegible, slopes of parking lots and streets can not be reviewed. 18- 32.5.6.d] 20. The proposed development within the blocks is different than what was shown in the Pos- Development Drainage Analysis provided with Old Trail Village Blocks 15 & 31 WPO200800046). Is the proposed bio -filter taking into account the higher density development? 21. Are the impervious area calculations on Sheet 4 accounting for all the impervious area shown on this sheet, or just the impervious areas from Blocks 4, 11, 13, and 14? 22. Without the completion of Blocks 2, 15, 16, 17, and 18, this proposed development lacks the infrastructure necessary for storm sewer outfall. Adequate channels would need to be designed from the points of release to the appropriate stormwater facilities. Final Site Plan comments (for information purposes only) 23. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Block 4 shown through Claremont Lane to the Ballard Field Pond or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 24. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Blocks 11 and 14 shown through future Blocks 15, 17, and 18 or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 25. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Block 13 through future Block 16 or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 26. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the Bio- Filter proposed to the west of future Block 16, or an alternative stormwater facility have been designed and approved. 27. Final Site Plan can not be approved until all roads depicted on this site plan have been designed and approved. Road plans should be submitted with an accompanying plat of the required public right -of -way. V41OS Qlr it t(CoA S F A,, ,t f i's: ovici 4 T' i S ((at 23 IGI "- - County of Albemarle Department of Community, Development Memorandum To:Scott Collins ( scott(i)collins- engineerin2.com) Justin Beights- March Mountain Properties (justin @beights.com) From:Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date:October 6, 2009 Subject: SDP -2009 -076- Old Trail Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14- Preliminary Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 32.5.6 (a)] If the plat for this area has been recorded and a new tax map and parcel number is available, please revise to show the new information. t./ [32.5.6 (b)] Revise parking table to include total amount provided and total amount required. Also, check the parking table, some of the totals and numbers are not correct. One is the total for required residential parking- one of the numbers was missed for block 11. Make sure that all the subtotals for each block are being shown in the chart, some are missing, specifically for parking provided on lots and shared parking lot. It appears that another column needs to be added to subtotal the blocks for provided parking. 32.5.6 (b)] From my calculations, it appears that there is 359 parking spaces provided,3 and 433 required. Therefore, the plan is short 74 parking spaces. Revise the plan to meet the required number of spaces. r [32.5.6 (b)] The LA for Block 11, units 40 through 44 are incorrect. Revise to the correct LA. 32.5.6 (b)] On the title sheet it states that the shared parking is subject to zoning approval, however no shared parking agreement and information has been submitted. Kt( 6. 32.5.6 (c)] Show the phase lines and proposed timing of development. Srdf WAS Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] Blocks 13 and 14 the single family setback for VAS the front yard is ten (10) feet- the porches in these blocks encroach into this setback. Per the zoning ordinance 18- 4.11.1 the front porch may encroach into the setback a maximum of four (4) feet, so the porch would be at least six (6) feet from the property line, however many of the single family units are encroaching more than the four feet allowed. Revise to meet this requirement. Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] Blocks 4 and 11- the rear yard setbacks are fteen (15) feet minimum for townhouses. Revise to meet this requirement. Proffer #2- Affordable Housing] Show on the plan which units are the affordable units. 1 [Code of Development] In Block 13, Lots 7 through 10 do not front on a green mall as required by the Code of Development. Revise to either front on a public street, or on a green mall. Code of Development, Page 25- Table 4] Office is not an allowable use in Block 14. Revise to show a use that is allowable in that Block. 1 Z. , [Proffer #2- Afforiable Housing] No more than 30% shall beTor rent apartments. ThisJplanisshowing58.2% for rent apartments. Revise so that there are no more than 30% for 01 rent apartments. Code of Development, Page 36- Spatial Enclosure] Reference the table 6A for the requirements for spatial enclosure. Many of the buildings are not meeting the requirement, specifically between Block 13 apartment building and Block 2. Revise the buildin to meet these requirements. Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] The distance to the garage or carport shall be five (5) feet or sixteen (16) feet or more, but not in between. Revise single family lots to meet this requirement. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. 2 OF AE (t t tom.. Ifi 7 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner From:Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:October 2, 2009 Subject: SDP200900076, Old Trail Phase 9, Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14 - Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan for Old Trail Phase 9, submitted on September 14, 2009, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering can recommend approval once the following comments have been addressed: General Site Plan Comments 1. The boundaries of the Preliminary Plat as shown on Sheet 2 do not match the approved Final Plat for Old Trail Village Center Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14 (SUB200900103). Please clarify the boundaries of this project. 2. On the General Notes on Sheet 1, please specify which roads or road portions will be built with the different phases of this project. 3. Please revise the note on Sheet l to state that this property is in the Lickinghole Creek Watershed 18- 32.5.6.f]. 4. Street cross sections show a width of 7 -feet provided for on- street parking. The Street Specifications table provided on the same sheet shows that the Code of Development requires 8- foot parking lanes. 5. Right -of -way widths shown for streets on the plans and in the cross sections do not meet the requirements of the Street Specifications table from the Code of Development. AThe Code of Development requires an 8 -foot sidewalk along Glen Valley Drive between Old Trail Drive and Claremont Lane. S 1 7. Road plans for Claremont Lane between Golf Drive and Upland Drive and Upland Drive betweenvl \; _ Old Trail Drive and Claremont Lane were approved on April 17, 2009 (Phase 2 -Block 4 Road t .,; ans WP0200800106). Several discrepancies exist between the approved plans and the Phase 9 l a J t(.) Site Plan including right -of -way widths, cross - sections, entrance locations, and stormsewer layout. These approved plans will need to be amended. 8. Road plans for portions of Glen Valley Drive and Claremont Lane were previously submitted with the Final Site Plan for Old Trail Village Blocks 15 & 31 (SDP200800072). Street cross sections v and layouts do not correspond between the plans. Previously submitted road plans should be V revised or withdrawn.A 9. The alley intersection of Block 13 to Golf Drive shotilc align with the travelway exiting Block 2. 10. The Block 4 and Block 13 entrances onto Claremont Lane should align for a proper intersection. 11. Please show sight distance triangles at the intersections of Upland Drive and Glenn Valley Drive with Old Trail Drive. [18- 4.12.17.b] y 12. Please show sight distance triangles at the intersection of Golf Drive with Old Trail Drive to ensure that the building proposed in Lot 30, Block 4 is not encroaching. [18- 4.12.17.b] 13. Please show the sight distance triangles at the intersection of the two private roads within Block 14. [18- 4.12.17.b] 14. A portion of the buildings in Lot 14 -Block 4, Lot 6 -Block 13, Lot 6 -Block 14, and Lot 13 -Block 14 appear to be within the sight distance triangles. [18- 4.12.17.b] 15. Vehicles exiting the garages on Lots 14 -19 of Block 4 pose a circulation hazard. Sight lines for a e"reversing vehicle will be limited until the vehicle is sufficiently clear of the garage. causing the vehicle to be well within the travelway prior to a clear line of sight being established. All traffic Cu. nE entering and exiting Block 4 will pass by Lots 14 -16, this is an unsafe situation. The same problem with inadequate driveway lengths appears throughout Blocks 13 and 14. [18- 32.7.2] 16. The proposed building in Lot 29, Block 4 is within the proposed sidewalk and landscape easement to be dedicated to VDOT. 17. Bumper blocks are required in parking spaces that abut sidewalk, unless the sidewalk has a minimum width of 6 -feet. [18- 4.12.16.e] 18. Bumper blocks are required within the tandem parking spaces proposed in 14. [18- 4.12.16.e] 19. The proposed contour labels are illegible, slopes of parking lots and streets can not be reviewed. 18- 32.5.6.d] 20. The proposed development within the blocks is different than what was shown in the Pos- Development Drainage Analysis provided with Old Trail Village Blocks 15 & 31 WPO200800046). Is the proposed bio- filter taking into account the higher density development? 21. Are the impervious area calculations on Sheet 4 accounting for all the impervious area shown on this sheet, or just the impervious areas from Blocks 4, 11, 13, and 14? 22. Without the completion of Blocks 2, 15, 16, 17, and 18, this proposed development lacks the infrastructure necessary for storm sewer outfall. Adequate channels would need to be designed from the points of release to the appropriate stormwater facilities. Final Site Plan comments (for information purposes only) 23. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Block 4 shown through Claremont Lane to the Ballard Field Pond or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 24. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Blocks 11 and 14 shown through future Blocks 15, 17, and 18 or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 25. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Block 13 through future Block 16 or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 26. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the Bio- Filter proposed to the west of future Block 16, or an alternative stormwater facility have been designed and approved. 27. Final Site Plan can not be approved until all roads depicted on this site plan have been designed and approved. Road plans should be submitted with an accompanying plat of the required public right -of -way. F ALk_ F tij Effi® kGtNl COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 October 6, 2009 Mr. Scott Collins Collins Engineering 800 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: SDP - 2009 - 076 - Old Trail Village Blocks 4, 11, 13 and 14 Preliminary Site Plan Mr. Collins: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Zoning Inspections Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Transportation Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by October 19 2009. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Megan Yaniglos Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development kGIN County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Scott Collins ( scott @collins- ent;ineering.com) Justin Beights- March Mountain Properties (justin @beights.com) From: Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date:October 6, 2009 Subject: SDP -2009 -076- Old Trail Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14- Preliminary Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 1. 32.5.6 (a)] If the plat for this area has been recorded and a new tax map and parcel number is available, please revise to show the new information. 2. 32.5.6 (b)] Revise parking table to include total amount provided and total amount required. Also, check the parking table, some of the totals and numbers are not correct. One is the total for required residential parking- one of the numbers was missed for block 11. Make sure that all the subtotals for each block are being shown in the chart, some are missing, specifically for parking provided on lots and shared parking lot. It appears that another column needs to be added to subtotal the blocks for provided parking. 3. 32.5.6 (b)] From my calculations, it appears that there is 359 parking spaces provided, and 433 required. Therefore, the plan is short 74 parking spaces. Revise the plan to meet the required number of spaces. 4. 32.5.6 (b)] The LA for Block 11, units 40 through 44 are incorrect. Revise to the correct LA. 5. 32.5.6 (b)] On the title sheet it states that the shared parking is subject to zoning approval, however no shared parking agreement and information has been submitted. 6. 32.5.6 (c)] Show the phase lines and proposed timing of development. 7. Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] Blocks 13 and 14 the single family setback for the front yard is ten (10) feet- the porches in these blocks encroach into this setback. Per the zoning ordinance 18- 4.11.1 the front porch may encroach into the setback a maximum of four (4) feet, so the porch would be at least six (6) feet from the property line, however many of the single family units are encroaching more than the four feet allowed. Revise to meet this requirement. 8. Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] Blocks 4 and 11- the rear yard setbacks are fifteen (15) feet minimum for townhouses. Revise to meet this requirement. 9. Proffer #2- Affordable Housing] Show on the plan which units are the affordable units. 10. [Code of Development] In Block 13, Lots 7 through 10 do not front on a green mall as required by the Code of Development. Revise to either front on a public street, or on a green mall. 11. [Code of Development, Page 25- Table 4] Office is not an allowable use in Block 14. Revise to show a use that is allowable in that Block. 1 12. [Proffer 412- Affordable Housing] No more than 30 %. shall be for rent apartments. This plan is showing 58.2%. for rent apartments. Revise so that there are no more than 30% for rent apartments. 13. [Code of Development, Page 36- Spatial Enclosure] Reference the table 6A for the requirements for spatial enclosure. Many of the buildings are not meeting the requirement, specifically between Block 13 apartment building and Block 2. Revise the buildings to meet these requirements. 14. [Code of Development. Page 31- Table 7] The distance to the garage or carport shall be five (5) feet or sixteen (16) feet or more, but not in between. Revise single family lots to meet this requirement. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. lgsaf COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO:Megan Yaniglos FROM:Claudette Grant DATE:October 6, 2009 RE:SDP2009- 076 \Old Trail Village Phase 9 (Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14) Preliminary The subject submittal has been reviewed and the following comments need to be addressed: 1) Per the Code of Development (COD) it does not appear that office use is an allowable use in Block 14; however, the cover sheet describes this as a use in Block 14. 2) The building relationship between Blocks 4 and 11 needs to be addressed. The buildings in Block 4 face the street, which is good, but they are also facing the sides of the buildings in Block 11. The face or front of the buildings should relate to each other. 3) Are the interior buildings in Blocks 11 and 13 facing a green area? Per the COD, buildings should face a green or road, and relate to each other. 4) Parking areas in Blocks 13 and 14 do not seem to be relegated. Is there a street wall or treatment that will help to screen these areas? Per the COD parking should be relegated. 5) It seems that the spatial enclosure needs to be corrected /adjusted for Blocks 14, 13, and 4. 6) What is the corner treatment for Blocks 13 (Golf Drive and Fielding Run Drive), Block 14 (Upland Drive and Fielding Run Drive; Upland Drive and Claremont Lane)? 7) It appears that there may be site distance issues in Block 11 8) Setbacks do not seem to be consistent with the requirements in the COD. Check to make sure the correct setbacks are being used for each of these blocks. 9) A landscape plan is not typically required during this preliminary site plan stage; however, one would be helpful in order to see things such as the corner treatment, screening of parking areas, and green areas. 10) Make sure retail uses are phased as specified in the proffers. 11) Make sure there are accommodations for pocket parks. See page 21 of the COD. plA1 a "IUI 9s y jai f {GIMP County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner From: Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:October 2, 2009 Subject: SDP200900076, Old Trail Phase 9, Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14 - Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan for Old Trail Phase 9, submitted on September 14, 2009, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering can recommend approval once the following comments have been addressed: General Site Plan Comments 1. The boundaries of the Preliminary Plat as shown on Sheet 2 do not match the approved Final Plat for Old Trail Village Center Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14 (SUB200900103). Please clarify the boundaries of this project. 2. On the General Notes on Sheet 1, please specify which roads or road portions will be built with the different phases of this project. 3. Please revise the note on Sheet 1 to state that this property is in the Lickinghole Creek Watershed 18- 32.5.6.f]. 4. Street cross sections show a width of 7 -feet provided for on- street parking. The Street Specifications table provided on the same sheet shows that the Code of Development requires 8- foot parking lanes. 5. Right -of -way widths shown for streets on the plans and in the cross sections do not meet the requirements of the Street Specifications table from the Code of Development. 6. The Code of Development requires an 8 -foot sidewalk along Glen Valley Drive between Old Trail Drive and Claremont Lane. 7. Road plans for Claremont Lane between Golf Drive and Upland Drive and Upland Drive between Old Trail Drive and Claremont Lane were approved on April 17, 2009 (Phase 2 -Block 4 Road Plans WP0200800106). Several discrepancies exist between the approved plans and the Phase 9 Site Plan including right -of -way widths, cross- sections, entrance locations, and stormsewer layout. These approved plans will need to be amended. 8. Road plans for portions of Glen Valley Drive and Claremont Lane were previously submitted with the Final Site Plan for Old Trail Village Blocks 15 & 31 (SDP200800072). Street cross sections and layouts do not correspond between the plans. Previously submitted road plans should be revised or withdrawn. 9. The alley intersection of Block 13 to Golf Drive should align with the travelway exiting Block 2. 10. The Block 4 and Block 13 entrances onto Claremont Lane should align for a proper intersection. 11. Please show sight distance triangles at the intersections of Upland Drive and Glenn Valley Drive with Old Trail Drive. [18- 4.12.17.h] 12. Please show sight distance triangles at the intersection of Golf Drive with Old Trail Drive to ensure that the building proposed in Lot 30. Block 4 is not encroaching. [18- 4.12.17.b] 13. Please show the sight distance triangles at the intersection of the two private roads within Block 14. [18- 4.12.17.h] 14. A portion of the buildings in Lot 14 -Block 4, Lot 6 -Block 13, Lot 6 -Block 14, and Lot 13-Block 14 appear to be within the sight distance triangles. [18-4.12.17.b] 15. Vehicles exiting the garages on Lots 14 -19 of Block 4 pose a circulation hazard. Sight lines for a reversing vehicle will be limited until the vehicle is sufficiently clear of the garage, causing the vehicle to be well within the travelway prior to a clear line of sight being established. All traffic entering and exiting Block 4 will pass by Lots 14 -16, this is an unsafe situation. The same problem with inadequate driveway lengths appears throughout Blocks 13 and 14. [ 18- 32.7.2] 16. The proposed building in Lot 29, Block 4 is within the proposed sidewalk and landscape easement to be dedicated to VDOT. 17. Bumper blocks are required in parking spaces that abut sidewalk, unless the sidewalk has a minimum width of 6 -feet. [18- 4.12.16.e] 18. Bumper blocks are required within the tandem parking spaces proposed in 14. [ 18- 4.12.16.e] 19. The proposed contour labels are illegible, slopes of parking lots and streets can not be reviewed. 18- 32.5.6.d] 20. The proposed development within the blocks is different than what was shown in the Pos- Development Drainage Analysis provided with Old Trail Village Blocks 15 & 31 WPO200800046). Is the proposed bio- filter taking into account the higher density development? 21. Are the impervious area calculations on Sheet 4 accounting for all the impervious area shown on this sheet, or just the impervious areas from Blocks 4, 11, 13, and 14? 22. Without the completion of Blocks 2, 15, 16, 17, and 18, this proposed development lacks the infrastructure necessary for storm sewer outfall. Adequate channels would need to be designed from the points of release to the appropriate stormwater facilities. Final Site Plan comments (for information purposes only) 23. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Block 4 shown through Claremont Lane to the Ballard Field Pond or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 24. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Blocks 11 and 14 shown through future Blocks 15, 17, and 18 or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 25. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Block 13 through future Block 16 or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 26. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the Bio- Filter proposed to the west of future Block 16, or an alternative stormwater facility have been designed and approved. 27. Final Site Plan can not be approved until all roads depicted on this site plan have been designed and approved. Road plans should be submitted with an accompanying plat of the required public right -of -way. Application #:1 SDP200900076 Short Review Comr nts Project Name:10Id Trail Village Phase 9 (Blocks 4,11,13,14) - Prelim.Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed:09/28/2009 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: [APPROVED. Date Completed:09/24/2009 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: I' Block 4 (ARB 07 -59) was previously reviewed and approved by the ARB; however, the proposal has changed with this latest submission. A new ARB application will be required for review and approval. Block 11, Phase 1 (ARB 07 -96), Preliminary Site Plan was previously reviewed and an Action Letter was sent to the applicant outlining remaining issues. A resubmission has not been received. The proposal has changed with this latest submission; therefore, a new ARB application will be required for review and approval. All other phases of Block 11 and Blocks 13 and 14 will need to be reviewed and approved by the ARB. Applications have not been received to date. Date Completed:10/06/2009 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: !Please indicate the location of fire hydrants. Hydrants must be located within 400 feet of all portions of lot frontages (residential) and 400 feet of the building (commercial). 1Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Date Completed:10/02/2009 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated September 14, 2009. Add one more barrier free parking space for Block 4, Lot 30 (total 3), for Block 11, Lot 1 (total 1), for Block 13, Lot 13 (total 3) and for Block 14, Lot 14 (total 3). At each of these four locations, there must be at least one van - accessible barrier -free parking space. Date Completed:09/23/2009 Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CommDev- Current Development Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: Ithis entry was submitted under the wrong site plan number- see SDP2009 -055 1 1 Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 Service AuthOrity rly,,v1 :1( TO: Megan Yaniglos FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: September 30, 2009 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Old Trail Village Phase 9 Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14 SDP200900076 TM 55E -1 -A1 The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service 2. A 12 inch water line is located on site. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. X 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located on site. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. X 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7.and plans are currently under review. 8.and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. X 10. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. X 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: This project will require capacity certification from RWSA. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org I4;; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER October 8` 2009 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments October 8` 2009 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the October 8 2009 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2008 - 00119 Treesdale Park - Preliminary (Summer Frederick) 1. The bus turn out may cause weave issues and sight distance problems on Rio Road. These issues were discussed during the rezoning of this project and it was decided that this turn out would be removed from the plan and shown as an easement for a possible future turnout to be considered if appropriate after Meadowcreek Parkway is constructed. 2. The minimum lateral setback for clear zone is 8 feet beyond the face of curb or 1 foot behind the sidewalk, whichever is greater in accordance with VDOT's Road Design Manual Section A -2. This is the location where the right of way needs to be shown. 3. Sight lines need to be within sight easements. 4. The width of the entrance may not accommodate the design vehicle with the proposed radius on the curve. A single unit truck should be able to make this turn. 5. The improvements shown to Rio Road do not appear to match the plan that was submitted for the Stonewater subdivision and have improper transitions shown. SDP - 2009 - 00075 Pleasant Grove New Santuary - final (Elizabeth Marotta) 1. The location map shows the wrong location for this site. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 2. The proposed site entrance needs to show sight lines in accordance with The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways. 3. The entrance needs to show an entrance profile. 4. Show the drainage area to the culvert and the design data to show headwater elevation to pass the 10 year storm with adequate headwater in accordance with chapter 8 of VDOT's Drainage Manual. 5. Indicate proposed materials for the entrance. 6. The geometry of the entrance needs to be in accordance with The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways and the dimensions need to be shown on the plan. 7. SDP - 2009 - 00065 Old Trail Village Phase 9 Prelim. (Megan Yaniglos) 1. Claremont Lane has a 20 mph design speed and the corresponding site distance is 225'. The connections to Claremont do not have adequate site distances shown. Sight distance triangles need to be contained within easements. The sight lines shown appear to cross structures or be very close to structures. 2. In accordance with VDOT's Road Design Manual, Appendix B, page B -15, intersections entering from the same side of the major street should have a spacing of 500 feet but with lower traffic volumes can be spaced at 250 feet. 3. Show sight lines and distances for the roundabout to ensure that the proposed building does not block the sight distances. 4. The final plans need to show entrance profiles for all proposed entrances to the streets. SDP - 2009 - 00078 CTS Operation Center - Major (Summer Frederick) 1. This plan amendment does not appear to change the improvements to Avon Street or the proposed site entrances. SUB 2009 - 00129 Next Generation LLC — Final (Summer Frederick) 2. Will the new lot be developed and have an additional entrance on Boulders Road? Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 -293 -0011 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Page 1 of 1 Megan Yaniglos From: Kirsten Munz [kirsten©collins-engineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:38 PM To:Megan Yaniglos Cc:Scott Collins Subject: RE: SDP2009 -076- Old Trail Blocks 4, 11, 13 and 14- Preliminary Plan Megan, As we discussed, please accept this request for a deferral to SDP - 2009 -076 — Old Trail Blocks 4, 11, 13 & 14 Preliminary Plan. We understand you have a couple of outstanding issues, and other reviewers may as well. Please forward the comments you have and let us know which reviewers have not yet provided you with their comments. We are anxious to wrap these up as soon as possible. Additionally, is it possible in the future to let us know when a project is initially submitted the date of the approval/ denial deadline? This may help us in our planning. Thanks for your help. Kirsten Munz, P.E., A.I.C.P. COLLINS ENGINEERING, LLC 800 East Jefferson Street, Suite 300 Charlottesville, VA 22902 phone: (434)566 -3013 fax: (434)293 -3719 kirsten @collins - engineering.com From: Megan Yaniglos [mailto:myaniglos©albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:12 PM To: Scott Collins Cc: Kirsten Munz; Justin Beights Subject: SDP2009 -076- Old Trail Blocks 4, 11, 13 and 14- Preliminary Plan Scott: Attached are the comments for the above submittal. I have not received comments from VDOT yet, but will forward them onto you once I receive them. Questions concerning the comments can be addressed at the site review meeting on Thursday. Thank you. megan yaniglos senior planner Albemarle County Community Development Department Division of Zoning and Current Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3004 fax: 434.972.4126 11/4/2009 nt ALg Z Iiil11N+yx County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Scott Collins ( scott (aiicollins- engineering.com) Justin Beights- March Mountain Properties (justinnbeights.com) From:Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: Revl: November 3, 2009 Subject: SDP -2009 -076- Old Trail Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14- Preliminary Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 3. 32.5.6 (b)] From my calculations, it appears that there is 359 parking spaces provided, and 433 required. Therefore, the plan is short 74 parking spaces. Revise the plan to meet the required number of spaces. Revl: Comment not addressed. A parking agreement must be submitted in order to have shared parking and to meet the parking requirements. 5. 32.5.6 (b)] On the title sheet it states that the shared parking is subject to zoning approval, however no shared parking agreement and information has been submitted. Revl: Comment not addressed. A parking agreement must be submitted prior to preliminary approval in order to have shared parking and meet the parking requirements. 7. Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] Blocks 13 and 14 the single family setback for the front yard is ten (10) feet- the porches in these blocks encroach into this setback. Per the zoning ordinance 18- 4.11.1 the front porch may encroach into the setback a maximum of four (4) feet, so the porch would be at least six (6) feet from the property line, however many of the single family units are encroaching more than the four feet allowed. Revise to meet this requirement. Revl: The Code of Development does specify a minimum eight (8) foot build to line, which contradicts the setbacks for the single family units. Apply for a variation during final site plan to clarify this requirement. 13. [Code of Development, Page 36- Spatial Enclosure] Reference the table 6A for the requirements for spatial enclosure. Many of the buildings are not meeting the requirement, specifically between Block 13 apartment building and Block 2. Revise the buildings to meet these requirements. Revl: Comment not addressed. The apartment building in Block 13 does not meet the requirements. The spatial enclosure must be met during preliminary, or a variation must be submitted and approved before preliminary approval. 14. [Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] The distance to the garage or carport shall be five (5) feet or sixteen (16) feet or more, but not in between. Revise single family lots to meet this requirement. Revl: Comment not addressed. Engineering has determined that a 5 foot setback is not acceptable for safe and convenient access and is requiring the 16 feet setback; a variation must be submitted and approved if the 16 foot setback is not desired. Additional Comments to be addressed at Final Site Plan: 1. Table 3: Street Specifications in the Code of Development does not allow for a reduction in rights of way widths. Apply for a variation to clarify the notes to allow variable rights of way when the dimensions of the streets and parking lanes are allowed to be adjusted. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. ni AL &fit, ,,. aIII 4,),., t ,EZGI .„ County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Scott Collins (scottri,collins -en g ineering.com) Justin Beights- March Mountain Properties (justin(a,beights.com) From:Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: Revl: November 3, 2009 Subject: SDP -2009 -076- Old Trail Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14- Preliminary Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] q _ /1 go [32.5.6 (b)] From my calculations, it appears that there is 359 parking spaces provided. No 6 and 433 required. Therefore, the plan is short 74 parking spaces. Revise the plan to meet the required number of spaces. Revl: Comment not addressed. A parking agreement must be submitted in order to 16 . 04,to have shared parking and to meet the parking requirements. 32.5.6 (b)] On the title sheet it states that the shared parking is subject to zoning 70.0.0.(ot approval, however no shared parking agreement and information has been submitted. Revl: Comment not addressed. A parking agreement must be submitted prior to preliminary approval in order to have shared parking and meet the parking requirements. Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] Blocks 13 and 14 the single family setback for the front yard is ten (10) feet- the porches in these blocks encroach into this setback. Per the zoning ordinance 18- 4.11.1 the front porch may encroach into the setback a maximum of four (4) feet, so the porch would be at least six (6) feet from the property 1 line, however many of the single family units are encroaching more than the four feet allowed. Revise to meet this requirement. Revl: The Code of Development does specify a minimum eight (8) foot build to line, which contradicts the setbacks for the single family units. Apply for a variation during Unal site plan, to clarify this requirement. Code of Development, Page 36- Spatial Enclosure] Reference the table 6A for the requirements for spatial enclosure. Many of the buildings are not meeting the requirement, specifically between Block 13 apartment building and Block 2. Revise the buildings to meet these requirements. Revl: Comment not addressed. The apartment building in Block 13 does not meet the requirements. The spatial enclosure must be met during preliminary, or a ariation must be submitted and approved before preliminary approval. Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] The distance to the garage or carport shall be five (5) feet or sixteen (16) feet or more, but not in between. Revise single family lots to meet this requirement. Revl: Comment not addressed. Engineering has determined that a 5 foot setback is not acceptable for safe and convenient access and is requiring the 16 feet setback; a variation must be submitted and approved if the 16 foot setback is not desired. Additional Comments to be addressed at Final Site Plan: 00_ t "',„,.. 1 . .Table 3: Street Specifications in the Code of Development does not allow for a a1.5`,reduction in rights of way widths. Apply for a variation to clarify the notes to allow i •variable rights of way when the dimensions of the streets and parking lanes are allowed to be adjusted. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. 1 1t , y Egreffial III IIM 7 - s . County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner From:Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:October 2, 2009 REV #1: December 1, 2009 Subject: SDP200900076, Old Trail Phase 9, Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14 - Preliminary Site Plan The revised preliminary site plan for Old Trail Phase 9, submitted on November 13, 2009, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering can recommend approval once the following comments have been addressed: General Site Plan Comments 1. The boundaries of the Preliminary Plat as shown on Sheet 2 do not match the approved Final Plat for Old Trail Village Center Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14 (SUB200900103). Please clarify the boundaries of this project. REV #1: The revisions to Sheet 2 include changing the title of the sheet to Limits of Preliminary Site Plan, however, the Table of Contents on Sheet 1 continue to designate Sheet 2 as Limits of Preliminary Plat. Please clarify the intentions of Sheet 2. 2. On the General Notes on Sheet 1, please specify which roads or road portions will be built with the different phases of this project. REV #1: Phasing of the roads is still unclear. The roads are necessary to provide frontage for the proposed buildings and must be built with the blocks. Please revise the Phasing portion of the General Notes with the following: Phase A: Block 4, Golf Drive between Old Trail Drive and Claremont Lane, Claremont Lane between Golf Drive and Upland Drive, Upland Drive between Old Trail Drive and Claremont Lane Phase B: Block 13, Golf Drive between Claremont Lane and Fielding Run, Upland Drive between Claremont Lane and Fielding Run Drive, Fielding Run Drive between Golf Drive and Upland Drive Phase C: Block 11, Claremont Lane between Upland Drive and Glen Valley Drive, Glen Valley Drive between Old Trail Drive and Claremont Lane Phase D: Block 14, Glen Valley Drive between Claremont Lane and Fielding Run Drive, Fielding Run Drive between Upland Drive and Glen Valley Drive 5. Right -of -way widths shown for streets on the plans and in the cross sections do not meet the requirements of the Street Specifications table from the Code of Development. REV #1: Variations to the right -of -way widths approved the ZMA must be approved by the Chief of Planning. 15. Vehicles exiting the garages on Lots 14 -19 of Block 4 pose a circulation hazard. Sight lines for a reversing vehicle will be limited until the vehicle is sufficiently clear of the garage, causing the vehicle to be well within the travelway prior to a clear line of sight being established. All traffic entering and exiting Block 4 will pass by Lots 14 -16, this is an unsafe situation. The same problem with inadequate driveway lengths appears throughout Blocks 13 and 14. [18- 32.7.2] REV #1: On page 19, the Code of Development states, "Detached garages for single family residences and townhouses shall be located at the rear of their lots. Garages shall be accessed via alleys wherever possible." Alleys, as proposed on the Code of Development Transportation Plan, have a 24' ROW and 16' pavement, allowing a 4' grass strip between the travelway and the property line. If the garages were fronting on alleys, the 5 feet is potentially approvable (because it would actually be 9 feet), but throughout Phase 9, the garages are fronting onto private roads and parking lot travelways which are paved to within 1' of the ROW line. A 5 -foot setback would be allowed on true "alleys" that meet the alley cross - section proposed in the Code of Development's Transportation Plan. None of the roads" proposed in these blocks meet that cross - section. This was discussed at a meeting with the applicant's consultants on 11/13. The applicant will be submitting a variation requesting an appropriate garage setback. 20. The proposed development within the blocks is different than what was shown in the Pos- Development Drainage Analysis provided with Old Trail Village Blocks 15 & 31 WP0200800046). Is the proposed bio -filter taking into account the higher density development? REV #1: Adequate bio - filter sizing will be verified with the Final Site Plan and the Water Protection Ordinance application. 2L Are the impervious area calculations on Sheet 4 accounting for all the impervious area shown on this sheet, or just the impervious areas from Blocks 4, 1 I, 13, and 14? REV #1: The impervious area calculation differentiates between the area to be captured in the Ballard Field Pond and that to be captured in a proposed bio - filter. However, the plan shows two proposed bio - filters that will capture stormwater from this project, one behind Block 2 and one behind Block 16. Please further differentiate the flow pattern of stormwater from this project so that it can be demonstrated that the conceptual size shown for the bio - filter behind Block 16 is adequate and that the previously designed bio -filter behind Block 2 is properly sized. Please add the floor area, as designed, of the Block 2 bio - filter to this plan. The WPO application for this project will require that the floor area of the Block 2 bio - filter be verified (if already constructed) and a calculation of all impervious area captured by it, including areas from Blocks 2 and 3. Final Site Plan comments (for information purposes only) 23. Final Site Plan can not he approved until the stormsewer outfall for Block 4 shown through Claremont Lane to the Ballard Field Pond or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 24. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stonnsewer outfall for Blocks 1 I and 14 shown through future Blocks 15, 17, and 18 or an alternative adequate outfaIl has been constructed. 25. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Block 13 through future Block 16 or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 26. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the Bio- Filter proposed to the west of future Block 16, or an alternative stormwater facility have been designed and approved. 27. Final Site Plan can not be approved until all roads depicted on this site plan have been designed and approved. Road plans should be submitted with an accompanying plat of the required public right -of -way. New Comments on 2 " submittal 28. Please add a note to the Utility Plan explaining what will happen to the existing 12" waterline that runs through the site. It must be abandoned and relocated with this project if the Block 2 and Blocks 15 & 31 Plans are not constructed first. 29. Buildings in Block 13 are shown within a proposed 20 -foot utility easement. This can be resolved with the Final Site Plan. 30. Without the construction of Blocks 15 & 31, Blocks 11 & 14 have no sanitary sewer outfall. The timing of the construction of the outfall ew-be resolved with the Final Site Plan. f rrr l 1-ti 4 Vii i 61 c zailINT r 1y (S w County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Scott Collins (scottr)collins -en ` ineering.com) Justin Beights- March Mountain Properties (justin(&beights.com) From:Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: Rev2: January 4, 2010 Subject: SDP -2009 -076- Old Trail Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14- Preliminary Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 3. 32.5.6 (b)] From my calculations, it appears that there is 359 parking spaces provided, and 433 required. Therefore, the plan is short 74 parking spaces. Revise the plan to meet the required number of spaces. Rev2: Comment not addressed. Parking Analysis missing from Sheet 6, therefore a review could not be completed. 5. 32.5.6 (b)] On the title sheet it states that the shared parking is subject to zoning approval, however no shared parking agreement and information has been submitted. Rev2: Comment addressed A shared parking agreement was received and is now being reviewed by Zoning. 1 7. Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] Blocks 13 and 14 the single family setback for the front yard is ten (10) feet- the porches in these blocks encroach into this setback. Per the zoning ordinance 18- 4.11.1 the front porch may encroach into the setback a maximum of four (4) feet, so the porch would be at least six (6) feet from the property line, however many of the single family units are encroaching more than the four feet allowed. Revise to meet this requirement. Rev2: Comment addressed. A variation will be submitted during final. 13. [Code of Development, Page 36- Spatial Enclosure] Reference the table 6A for the requirements for spatial enclosure. Many of the buildings are not meeting the requirement, specifically between Block 13 apartment building and Block 2. Revise the buildings to meet these requirements. Rev2: Comment addressed. Apartment building has been rotated and now meets the spatial enclosure requirements. 14. [Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] The distance to the garage or carport shall be five (5) feet or sixteen (16) feet or more, but not in between. Revise single family Tots to meet this requirement. Rev2: Comment addressed Additional Comments to be addressed at Final Site Plan: 1. Table 3: Street Specifications in the Code of Development does not allow for a reduction in rights of way widths. Apply for a variation to clarify' the notes to allow variable rights of way when the dimensions of the streets and parking lanes are allowed to be adjusted. Rev2: Comment addressed. Variation request is now under review. However, the request would better serve you if you asked for a variation to change note #6 that is associated with Table 3: Street Specifications on page 23 of the Code of Development. Note #6 allows the dimensions of the streets and parking lanes to change during final site plan, and by changing this language to also include right of way widths (and anything else in the chart that you may want to potentially change from what is listed), this would allow _future changes to other streets /blocks where you may want to retake the sane adjustment. If you would like to make this your request instead, just fill out another Variation Request application with the new information /request and the new language for note #6 and I will forward it onto Claudettefor review. No new fee will be required. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. 3 Service Authrity Serving Conserving January 28, 2010 Beights Development Corporation Attn: Mr. Justin Beights 800 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Old Trail Village Letter of Agreement Dear Mr. Beights: On Tuesday, January 5, 2010, a meeting was held at the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) to discuss the sanitary sewer capacity of the Crozet Interceptor and other downstream facilities, and its impact to the Old Trail Village development. At this meeting, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) reiterated their position that based on their two -year storm event sewer model, there was Insufficient capacity in the interceptor for any additional flows. Therefore, the developer was currently delayed until the Old Trail Village Agreement was executed and RWSA's Capital Improvement Program was updated to include the projects necessary to accommodate the additional projected wastewater flows from the Old Trail Development. The developer indicated that several lots within Old Trail previously approved by the ACSA and RWSA have been abandoned due to site plan revisions. The developer asserted that its newly proposed lots under review by the ACSA and RWSA should be approved in lieu of the now abandoned, previously approved lots. The developer has provided and RWSA and ACSA have accepted a summary of these abandoned, previously approved lots which can be applied toward approval of new lots under review. The ACSA received a spreadsheet (attached) on January 14, 2010 entitled "Old Trail, Comparison of Current Approvals vs. Originally Vested Approvals." The ACSA completed a review of this spreadsheet and concluded that a reduction of 67 single - family units, from what was originally approved, may be realized. This spreadsheet was forwarded to the RWSA, who concurred with the reduction of 67 single - family units. Therefore, it is agreed by the two parties that the ACSA and RWSA will allow a reallocation of 67 single - family units that had been previously approved and included in RWSA's sewer model. 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville, VA 2291 1 • Tel (434) 977.4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceau thority,org Albemarle County Service Authority Authorized Agent) J°Date) Beights Development Corporation Authorized Agent) 12.6 Date) JML /anw /dbh 03010101dTrailVillag eLetterofAgreement012210 3r J4 . , -'11', 111, I County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner From: Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:October 2, 2009 REV #1: December 1, 2009 REV #2: April 20, 2010 Subject: SDP200900076, Old Trail Phase 9, Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14 - Preliminary Site Plan The revised preliminary site plan for Old Trail Phase 9 has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering can recommend approval once the following comments have been addressed: General Site Plan Comments REV #2: Comment has been addressed. REV #2: Phasing notes have been clarified on the plan. Road Plans that have previously been submitted and /or approved (WP02008 -106, SDP2008 -72, and SDP2009 -45) will need amendments to match this proposed site plan. This must be done before approval of final site plan. 5. Right -of -way widths shown for streets on the plans and in the cross sections do not meet the requirements of the Street Specifications table from the Code of Development. REV #1: Variations to the right -of -way widths approved in the ZMA must be approved by the Chief of Planning. I` REV #2: Variation approval still pending. REV #2: It appears that along Old Trail Drive adjacent to Block 11, the sidewalk changes from a width of 5 feet to 8 feet. The required sidewalk width here is 8 feet. REV #1: Amendments to the previously approved road plans must be approved prior to Final Site Plan approval for this project if discrepancies continue to exist. REV #1: Amendments to the previously approved road plans must be approved prior to Final Site Plan approval for this project if discrepancies continue to exist. is :: • .. REV #2: The sight distance triangles from Upland Drive and Glenn Valley onto Old Trail Drive appear to be based on a speed of 20 mph, Old Trail Drive's design speed is 40 mph. REV #2: Garages have been removed from lots in Blocks 4 and 13, as well as some lots in 1 Block 14. However, Lots 1 through 6 in Block 14 do not appear to meet the requirements of Proffer #7H. It must be demonstrated that this proffer is being met prior to subdivision of the lots. REV #1: Adequate bio- filter sizing will be verified with the Final Site Plan and the Water Protection Ordinance application. REV #2: Comment has been addressed. WPO application will be required with final site plan. REV #1: Adequate channel will be addressed with the Final Site Plan and the Water Protection Ordinance application. Final Site Plan comments (for information purposes only) 23. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Block 4 shown through Claremont Lane to the Ballard Field Pond or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 24. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Blocks 11 and 14 shown through future Blocks 15, 17, and 18 or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 25. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the stormsewer outfall for Block 13 through future Block 16 or an alternative adequate outfall has been constructed. 26. Final Site Plan can not be approved until the Bio- Filter proposed to the west of future Block 16, or an alternative stormwater facility have been designed and approved. 27. Final Site Plan can not be approved until all roads depicted on this site plan have been designed and approved. Road plans should be submitted with an accompanying plat of the required public right -of -way. Previously submitted and/or approved Road Plans (WPO2008 -106, SDP2008 -72, and SDP2009 -45) must be amended to match the site plan. New Comments on 2 submittal fi REV #2: Comment has been addressed. 29. Buildings in Block 13 are shown within a proposed 20 -foot utility easement. This can be resolved with the Final Site Plan. 30. Without the construction of Blocks 15 & 31, Blocks 11 & 14 have no sanitary sewer outfall. The timing of the construction of the outfall can be resolved with the Final Site Plan. New Comments on 3 submittal 31. These plans continue to label all "accessways" as Private Roads. If these are to be Private Roads, they must meet the appropriate standard as defined in the AC Design Manual. If they are to be v ,_ alleys, they must meet the alley standard defined in the Old Trail Code of Development, upgrades 1 may be required in areas where the alleys provide the only emergency access to lots. If they are torbetravelways, they must meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance with an easement width that is at least one foot behind the back of curb. The designation of these accessways will then determine the design of their entrances onto the designated public roads. These entrances will need to meet the standards in VDOT's Appendices B(1) and F accordingly. 32. At the time of subdivision of the lots in these blocks, it must be demonstrated that the requirements Proffer #7 have been met. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 April 7, 2010 Mr. Scott Collins Collins Engineering 800 E. Jefferson St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Request, dated September, 14. 2009, revised January 13, 2010, for variation from the approved code of development for ZMA 2004 -0044 Old Trail Village Dear Mr. Collins: The referenced variation is being requested in association with Old Trail Village Preliminary Site Plan SDP2009 -076), Sheet 3 of 6, prepared by Collins Engineering, issued September 14, 2009, revised October 19, 2009. The site plan includes: blocks 4, 11, 13 and 14. Block four includes one three story building consisting of retail space on the first level and residential apartments on the upper two levels, 16 townhouse units, 6 affordable townhouse units and 7 single family detached units and related parking. Block eleven includes 32 townhouse units, and 12 affordable townhouse units and related parking. Block thirteen includes a three story building consisting of commercial space and 28 apartments, 22 single family detached units and related parking. Block 14 includes a three story building consisting of office space and 28 apartments. 13 single family detached units and related parking. This request is for variations to the code of development, Table 3: Street Specifications. The specifics of the variation request relate to the number of parking lanes and dimensions of street sections found on page 23 of the approved code of development for the subject project. Revisions to page 23 of the Code of Development are attached. Details regarding the revisions are as follows: 1) Specifically, the following columns have been eliminated in order to make Table 3 easier to follow: Parking Lanes, Parking Lane Width, and ROW Width. 2) Note number one has been revised to eliminate the first sentence because as shown on the attached Old Trail Village Approximate On- Street Parking Plan, there will be blocks with no on- street parking. Also as shown on the On- Street Parking Plan, and stated in Table 3 of the Code of Development, the applicant has to provide at least 300 on- street parking spaces. 3) Note number six has been revised to allow flexibility relating to the number of parking lanes, which will vary based on the design of individual site plans. 4) Note number eight is added to allow right -of -way widths to vary in order to accommodate changes in street sections and parking lanes. 5) Since the parking lane width column has been eliminated, note number nine is added to describe all parking lane widths for each road type listed in the table to be eight feet. You indicated the need for greater flexibility in using Table 3: Street Specifications because you are finding the level of detail and specificity of the approved table to be a constraint as you develop each site plan, in which some dimensions may vary slightly from that described in the code of development depending on the layout and design of the site plan. The analysis of the variation request is provided below. Section 8.5.5.3 allows the director of planning to grant minor variations from the approved code of development as long as: 1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Interconnections, a mix of uses and housing types and buildings that are close to the street will remain. 2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development. The variation will not increase the approved density or intensity of development. The mixed use facilities, and residential units within this development remain within the maximum dwelling units and gross density specified in the code of development for mixed use. 3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district. The variation does not affect any timing or phasing of this or any other development. 4) The variation does not require a special use permit. The variation does not require a special use permit. 5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application. The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning. The development resulting from the variation continues to provide a mixture of uses, interconnections, and a pedestrian friendly environment in Old Trial Village. Based on the findings noted above the requested variations are approved. Please provide our office with an updated code of development that reflects the changes approved with this variation. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Claudette Grant or myself at 296- 5832. Sincerely, V. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning Attachments C: Megan Yaniglos Claudette Grant ooy AL 8 O IRGtN " COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fas (434) 972 -4126 April 21, 2010 Scott Collins Collins Engineering 800 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Old Trail Village, Blocks 4, 11, 13 and 14 Shared Parking Analysis Dear Mr. Collins: You have provided a parking analysis that supports the provision of 361 parking spaces to serve Blocks 4, 11, 13, and 14 in Old Trail Village to accommodate the following uses: Block 4 -37 residential units, 4500 square feet of gross leasable area of retail; Block 11 -43 residential units; Block 13 -50 residential units and 3000 square feet of retail; Block 14 -41 residential units and 3000 square feet retail. The required parking as determined by the schedule in Section 4.12.6 is calculated to be 445 spaces. I agree with the conclusion of your Parking Analysis, dated April 2, 2010 that a shared parking arrangement utilizing 361 parking spaces to serve the proposed uses is reasonable. Per Section 4.12.6, the required parking is outlined below for the specified uses along with the figures and phasing you have proposed for the parking agreement: Phase Parking Cumulative Parking Cumulative Percentage Required Per Parking Provided Per Parking Shared Phase Required Phase Provided Cumulative A 64 64 75 75 0 B 34 98 34 109 0 B -1 90 188 55 164 0 A -1 46 234 0 164 30 C 105 339 132 296 13 D 26 365 26 322 12 D -1 80 445 39 361 19 TOTAL 445 19 Scott Collins April 21, 2010 Page 2 For Blocks 4, 11, 13, and 14: Total required spaces per zoning ordinance =445 Total provided spaces=361 Deficit 84 Percentage of reduction 19% The shared parking analysis is approved based on the following information: 1) Your analysis, proposes that Blocks 4, 11, 13 and 14 will share a total of 361 spaces, when the required parking for all uses is 445 spaces. This results in a deficit of 84 spaces. The percentage of this reduction is 19 %. Even though the anticipated residential and retail uses can "share" space with office use, the ratio of 437 spaces (353 residential /84 retail) to the 8 spaces required by the office use is not a significant factor in approval of this parking agreement. The key factor for approval would be the provision of the 361 spaces, resulting in only a 19% reduction, far below the allowed maximum reduction of 35 %. 2) You have stated in your request that the four blocks are immediately adjacent to one another and have been designed with extensive pedestrian infrastructure. As Old Trail Village is zoned Neighborhood Model District with the intent that pedestrian - friendly design is encouraged, it is anticipated that many of the patrons of the village and residents of the neighborhood will consider walking, as well as other modes of transportation. 3) The chart provided in your analysis shows a phasing plan where the deficit never exceeds 30% at any given time during construction. Assuming that the phasing as provided in the agreement is reliable, this agreement is acceptable. Please contact me should you have any questions on this information. Sincerely, Sherri S. Proctor Senior Permit Planner Enclosed: Shared Parking Agreement Request, dated April 2, 2010. Block 4 (Phases A and A -1) Uses Required Spaces Percent of Spaces Provided Deficit 37 residential units 74 4500 sq. ft. retail space (80% of GFA)36 Total 110 68 38.2% Block 11 (Phase C) Uses Required Spaces Percent of Spaces Provided Deficit 43 residential units 97 2000 sq. ft. office 8 Total Required 105 137 0% Block 13 (Phases B and B -1) Uses Required Spaces Percent of Spaces Provided Deficit 50 residential units 100 3000 sq. ft. retail (80 °A) of GFA)24 Total Required 124 103 16.9% Block 14 (Phases D and D -1) Uses Required Spaces Percent of Spaces Provided Deficit 41 residential units 82 3000 sq. ft. retail (80 % of GFA)24 Total Required 106 65 38.7% Amy Pflaum From:Amy Pflaum Sent:Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:57 AM To:Kirsten Munz'; 'Scott Collins' Cc:Megan Yaniglos; 'DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E.' Subject:FW: SDP200900076 Old Trail Phase 9, Blocks 4, 11, 13, & 14 Kirsten, All Engineering comments have been addressed on this Preliminary Site Plan except # 31: 31. These plans continue to label all "accessways" as Private Roads. If these are to be Private Roads, they must meet the appropriate standard as defined in the AC Design Manual. If they are to be alleys, they must meet the alley standard defined in the Old Trail Code of Development, upgrades may be required in areas where the alleys provide the only emergency access to lots. If they are to be travelways, they must meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance with an easement width that is at least one foot behind the back of curb. The designation of these accessways will then determine the design of their entrances onto the designated public roads. These entrances will need to meet the standards in VDOT's Appendices B(1) and F accordingly. It does not appear that the entrances onto public streets are meeting VDOT standards for commercial entrances. Please see the mails from VDOT below. If you would like to continue with the current proposal, please submit the Autoturn diagrams for review. Amy From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto:Joel.DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:21 AM To: Amy Pflaum Subject: RE: SDP200900076 Old Trail Phase 9, Blocks 4, 11, 13, & 14 Amy, A private entrance serves no more than two single family dwellings. Everything else is considered a commercial entrance. All of these entrances should meet the commercial entrance standard. If they are proposing less than the standard, they should demonstrate that the design is adequate based on some Autoturn diagrams for the design vehicle. The design vehicle should be selected based on the type of vehicle that will use the entrance on a regular basis. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 ioel.denunzioCa vdot.virginia.gov From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto: Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:12 AM To: Amy Pflaum Subject: RE: SDP200900076 Old Trail Phase 9, Blocks 4, 11, 13, & 14 1 Amy, The minimum width for a commercial entrance on a local road is 24 feet and the minimum radius is 25 feet. The minimum radius should be calculated as the effective radius which means if there is a parking lane on the street, you add that width to the actual radius to get the effective radius. So is they are showing a 20 foot radius and a 7 foot parking lane, the effective radius is 27 feet and that can be adequate for the design vehicle. VDOT now has a minimum recommended radius in the Access Management Standards for all design vehicles. Most likely, the residential commercial entrances need to accommodate a passenger car or in some cases a single unit truck. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 ioel .denunzioiavdot.virginia.gov From: Amy Pflaum [mailto:apflaum ©albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:49 PM To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. Subject: SDP200900076 Old Trail Phase 9, Blocks 4, 11, 13, & 14 Joel, Are the proposed curb return radii of 15' and 20' width for all the entrances off of the public streets okay? I thought VDOT's minimum commercial entrance standard would use 25' radii and a 24' width. Would these entrances to residential developments (single & multi - family w/ office & retail) need to meet commercial standards? Thanks, Amy Amy D. Pflaum. P.E. Senior Civil Engineer Albemarle County Department of Community Development 434) 296 -5832 x3069 apflaum a@albemarle. orq 2 OLD TRAIL COMPARISON OF CURRENT APPROVALS VS. ORIGINALLY VESTED APPROVALS 7 01.0 APPROVAL COMMERCIAL TRAIL APPROVED PLAN DATE SF UNITS TH UNITS APT UNITS TOTAL UNITS SF SECTION INITIAL APPROVAL Ballard Field final plat 12/27/2004 63 112 0 175 n/a Boundary Line Adjustment Landscape, Sidewalk and 7/31/2007 0 0 0 0 n/a 4 Maintenance Easement ADJUSTMENTS PER Plat a3 SUBSEQUENT APPROVALS Ballard Field Phase III plat 6/5/2008 8 13 0 5 n/a Resubdlvlston of Ballard 7/28/2009 6 11 0 5 n/a Field Phase V plat NET UNITS AT PRESENT 77 88 0 165 n/a CHANGE FROM INITIAL APPROVAL 14 24 0 10 n/a INITIAL APPROVAL Old Trail Ballard Field Phase 3/20/2009 18 0 0 18 n/a IV final plat r! NET UNITS AT PRESENT 18 D 0 18 n/a CHANGE FROM INITIAL APPROVAL 0 0 0 0 n/a se INITIAL APPROVAL Clayton Preliminary plat 3/27/2006 27 0 0 27 n/a cd SUB. 2006 -007 Le ADJUSTMENTS PER L7 Carriage Park final plat 3/19/2007 0 0 0 0 n/a SUBSEQUENT APPROVALS , 1/3 lE,, 6 NET UNITS AT PRESENT 27 0 0 27 n/a CHANGE FROM INITIAL APPROVAL 0 0 0 0 n/a INITIAL APPROVAL Creekslde Preliminary plat 10/1.8/2005 96 0 0 96 n/a SUB- 2005 -259 w Old Trail Creekslde Phase I 35 4/i6/2006 0 0 35 n/a FINAL APPROVALS final plat platted) Old Trait Creekside Phase II 4/21/2008 19 0 0 19 n/a final plat platted) NET UNITS AT PRESENT 54 0 0 54 n/a CHANGE FROM INITIAL APPROVAL 42 0 0 42 n/a 2 INITIAL APPROVAL Preliminary plat 43 0 0 0 n/a 15 "- ADJUSTMENTS PER Upper Ballard Field & Old 12/7/2004 0 0 0 0 n/a L-SUBSEQUENT APPROVALS Trail Drive final plat NET UNITS AT PRESENT CHANGE 43 0 0 0 c/a FROM INITIAL APPROVAL 0 0 0 0 n/a Block 1 pre(fminary SDP- 10/19/2007 0 0 78 78 54,500 2007.28 Blot.: 2 preliminary SDP-7/8/2009 0 0 78 78 56,529 INITIAL 2008 -174 0 APPROVALS Block 3A (pool site)0 0 0 0 4,000 y Blocks 15/31 preliminary,-, 7/5/2007 15 0 0 15 0 gsite plan SOP - 24307.53 ` a Block 1 final site plan 0 0 78 78 48,462 9 FINAL Block 2 final slte plan 0 0 78 78 S6,529 APPROVALS Block 3 Phase A final slte 0 0 0 0 4,000 plan NET UNITS / SF AT PRESENT 0 0 156 156 108,991 CHANGE FROM INITIAL APPROVAL 15 0 0 15 6038 OVERALL CHANGE FROM ORIGINAL APPROVALS 43 24 0 67 6038 A rL4 j v