Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200700028 Study 2007-03-26Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District March 26, 2007 2134 Berkmar Dr Charlottesville, VA 22901 975-0224 TO: Megan Yaniglos Planning Department RE: Soils Report and Comments for: Old Trail Village — Block 1 water Ib 11D 3 5B - SIB 7 L325B 7B 2fF3 j 17.' F 4E 2bC 25H 7 7 4E 26C3 AfIH 81C tv 7B 7c 3 41 78 Ql Church I 9B) ibc j 2)C3 36C 26C 3 1, V 76 16 if 316B 76 k \ 36C united States NaturalUSDADepartmentofResources Agriculture Conservation Service Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil 8r Water Conservation District 434 - 975 -0224 Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Old Trail — Block 1 Soil Survey: 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 JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Dyke is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt 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 O. 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 O. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak 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 moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a low 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 X. This soil is not hydric. Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 3/26/07 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. Tile 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: 3 7C3 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. Dwellings With Basements - Dominant Condition 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 25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 260 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 280 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 3703 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 Fhomas Jetterson SWCD 2 3/26/07 Lawn, Landscape, Golf Fairway - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 413 Ashe loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 Very limited percent slopes 25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 Not limited percent slopes 260 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 280 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Somewhat limited 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 37133 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Very limited to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Local Roads and Streets - Dominant Condition 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 25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 Very limited percent slopes 26C3 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes, severely eroded 280 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes, severely eroded 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 3703 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 Thomas Jetterson SWCD 3 3/26/07 Septic Tank Absorption Fields - Dominant Condition 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 25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 260 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 280 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 370 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 Mapunit Hydric Rating 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 25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 260 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes, severely eroded 280 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes, severely eroded 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 370 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Not hydric 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 37133 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Not hydric to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Thomas Jetterson SWCD 4 3/26/07 Soil Shrink - Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth : 0 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 25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 26C3 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 280 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 4.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 370 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 Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 High percent slopes 25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes 260 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes, severely eroded 280 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes, severely eroded 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 Fhomas Jetterson SWCD 5 3/26/07 Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 Low percent slopes 4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 Low percent slopes 25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 High percent slopes 260 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes, severely eroded 280 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes, severely eroded 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes 370 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Moderate to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded l homas Jetterson SWCD 6 3/26/07 0Y Af t xn 071N County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From: Jonathan Sharp, Current Development engineering review Date: 28 Mar 2007 Subject: Old Trail Village Block 15 and part of 31 (SDP200700029) The preliminary site plan has been reviewed. Engineering can recommend approval when the following comments have been addressed: 1. The proposed SWM plans shown for the recent submittals of the site plans at Old Trail Village vary from the proposed SWM plan approved with the rezoning. The applicant needs to submit a variance application to the County for determination of general accord to the rezoning plan. There is a concern with the location of the biofilter, as well as the retaining wall and steep slopes associated with it. The biofilter is located very close to adjacent proposed residences, and appears to be potentially hazardous. Also, the location and design differs from the plans in Old Trail Block 4. 3. Please show the floodplain more clearly. [17 -317] 4. Provide a benchmark for topography on the plans [DSM CD -15] 5. Provide sight distances at entrances. [VDOT, CD -15] The following comments pertain to the approval of the final site design: 1. Grading will need to conform to all the conditions of proffer # 7 (overlot grading plan) for Old Trail Village. 2. We will provide the pro rata share cost for water quality control for Licking Hole Drainage Basin. 17 -316] 0" RGLNP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 April 3, 2007 Mr. Scott Collins Collins Engineering 800 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: SDP - 2007 -028- Old Trail Village Block 1 (Village Center)- 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 infonnation 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 April 16, 2007. 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 Planner Zoning & Current Development DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 David S. Ekern, P.E. VirginiaDOT org COMMISSIONER April 2, 2007 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments April 5th, 2007 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the April 5th, 2007 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP- 2007 -00028 Old Trail Village Block I (Village Center) Megan YaniWos The connection shown between the roundabouts on Old Trail Drive was not shown on the approved code of development and should be removed from the plan. Sanitary manholes should not be placed in sidewalks. Projected tragic on the proposed streets needs to be shown. The parking lanes in mixed use development should be 8 feet wide. Typical dimensions are determined by the proposed tragic which is not shown. The right of way lines should be placed I foot behind the proposed sidewalks. The typical sections are not in accordance with the approved code. Parking should not be allowed on the block approaching the roundabout. Final plans need to include road plans and drainage computations. Any work within existing state right of way requires a permit from VDOT. SDP -2007 00029 Old Trail Village Block 15 and 31— Preliminary (Megan Yanhdos) Will this section have driveways in the alley? If driveways are to be on the public R/W they need to be shown on the site plan. The plan appears to be in accordance with the approved code of development. Final plans need to include the connections to the proposed public road and drainage plans. YEAR5 {}F 11tANSFd?RiATkOd ERCELdEfiCE 1 9 0 6 7 19 0 6 SUB - 2007 -00102 Warthen Estates — Preliminary (Summer Frederick) The connection to the public street needs to include horizontal and vertical design data. The final plan needs to include drainage design and computations. Any work within the public R/W will require a permit from VDOT. 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. Residency Program Manager VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 - 293 -0011 cc Allan Schuck, Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, Judith Weigand, Margaret Maliszewski, David Pennock, Francis McCall, Jon Sharp, Summer Frederick, Patrick Lawrence, and John Giometti nL IRGIN County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Scott Collins ( scott(acollins- engineering.com) March Mountain Properties LLC (Justin @beightsdevelopment.com) From: Megan Yaniglos- Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: April 2, 2007 Subject: SDP - 2007 -028- Old Trail Block 1 (Village Center) 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); Proffer #2] The affordable housing proffer mix in the chart is incorrect. Revise according to John Shepherd's comments for Block 4 Final. The chart also shows the wrong amounts for Block 4, currently it reads 6 For Sale Units and 2 For Rent Apartments, however on the Final Block 4 plan there are 5 For Sale Units and 3 For Rent Apartments, please coordinate between the blocks. 2. [32.5.6 (a)] Show the North Point on Sheet 1. 3. [32.5.6 (a)] Check the math for the % of total affordable units. Some of the percentages are incorrect. 4. [32.5.6 (b)] The charts on Sheets 3 and 6 state `Lot W. Either revise to refer to the building letter, not the lot number (i.e. Building `A' instead of Lot 1), or add the building letter information to the charts as well. 5. [32.5.6 (b)] Show the parking on Block 2 that will provide the parking requirement for Block 1. 6. [32.5.6 (i)] Label Old Trail Drive on all sheets where road is shown. Also, label Brookley Drive on Sheet 2. 7. [32.5.6 (m)] The proposed preliminary plan for Block 1 varies from the approved rezoning plan. The entrance into Block 1 from Old Trail Drive was not approved with the rezoning plan. Submit a variation application to the County for determination of general accord to the rezoning plan. 8. [32.5.6 (n)] Sheet 1 states that there are no street lights proposed, however on Sheet 6 note #16 states the following: "All streetlights shall be located a minimum of 9.5' from the edge of pavement on curb and gutter streets and/or located a minimum of 5.5' behind the ditch line on open ditch streets." Revise or delete note #16 on Sheet 6 so that it coordinates with the note on Sheet 1. 9. [32.5.6 (n)] Clarify building outlines. Currently, Building `A' is shown as 2 separate footprints and it is not clear whether Building `A' is one continuous building, or two separate buildings. Please clarify for all three buildings shown. 10. [32.5.6 (n)] Show the dimensions for the internal sidewalks and courtyard area behind Building `B'. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. AIL, S 'rRGN1P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From: Jonathan Sharp, Current Development engineering review Date: 28 Mar 2007 Subject: Old Trail Village Block 1 Village Center (SDP200700028) The preliminary site plan has been reviewed. Engineering can recommend approval when the following comments have been addressed: 1. The proposed SWM plans shown for the recent submittals of the site plans at Old Trail Village vary from the proposed SWM plan approved with the rezoning. The applicant needs to submit a variance application to the County for determination of general accord to the rezoning plan. 2. There is concern with providing a right turn in /out only to the entrance of block 1 to Old Trail Drive. 3. Please show the temporary parking area on block 2 to provide adequate parking for block 1. 4. Provide a benchmark for topography on the plans [DSM CD -15] 5. Provide sight distances at entrances. [VDOT, CD -15] 6. A parking waiver from the Zoning Administrator for sight distance for the parking garage is necessary for the proposed layout shown. The following comments pertain to the approval of the final site design: 1. All (two -way traffic) travelways need to maintain a minimum 20 feet in width. [ 18- 4.12.]7c l ] 2. There appears to be a pipe running under one of the buildings. 3. Grading will need to conform to all the conditions of proffer # 7 (overlot grading plan) for Old Trail Village. 4. We will provide the pro rata share cost for water quality control for Licking Hole Drainage Basin. 17 -316] TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Megan Yaniglos, Planner Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer March 29, 2007 Site Plan Technical Review for: Old Trail Village Block 1 Village Center TM 55E -1 -A1) The below checked items apply to this site. SDP - 2007 -00028 X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's Comments: Landscaping conflicts. Provide sewer flow capacities for Old Trail Village and proposed connection points. Participation will be required in the upgrade of the Moore's Creek Sewer Interceptor. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations waterline size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service X 2.A 12 inch water line is located onsite. 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 approximately 1985' distant. 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. Comments: Landscaping conflicts. Provide sewer flow capacities for Old Trail Village and proposed connection points. Participation will be required in the upgrade of the Moore's Creek Sewer Interceptor. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations waterline size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands Application #: SDP200700028 .. Short Review Comi ,ntS Project Name:, Old Trail Village - Block 1 (Village Center) - Preliminary - Preliminary — Non - residential Preliminary — Residential Date Completed: 03/30/2007 Reviewer: Andrew Slack E911 Review Status: Requested Changes Reviews Comments: THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE TO REQUEST TWO (2) ROAD NAMES FOR THE NEW ACCESS AREAS INTO BLOCK 1. Date Completed: 04/03/2007 Reviewer: Brent Nelson ARB Review Status: Pending Reviews Comments: (This block is visible from the EC and will require ARB review and approval. Date Completed:04/02/2007 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:I Indicate the location of fire hydrants. Verify adequate fire flow is available. Approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Date Completed:03/23/2007 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated March 12, 2007 Date Completed: Reviewer: Review Status: Reviews Comments Provide on -site surface, barrier -free parking spaces, with associated access aisles and curb cuts, dedicated to the buildings as follows: Building "A ": three (3) barrier -free parking spaces, one of which is van - accessible. Building "B": two (2) barrier -free parking spaces, one of which is van - accessible. Building "C: three (3) barrier -free parking spaces, one of which is van - accessible. 04/02/2007 Megan Yaniglos CDZCD Requested Changes sent comments to applicant on 4.2.07 via email. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 p¢ 4LliF.fi County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From: Jonathan Sharp, Current Development engineering review Date: 23 Apr 2007 Subject: Old Trail Village Block 1 Village Center (SDP200700028) The preliminary site plan has been reviewed. Engineering can recommend approval when the following comments have been addressed: The proposed SWM plans shown for the recent submittals of the site plans at Old Trail Village vary from the proposed SWM plan approved with the rezoning. The applicant needs to submit a variance application to the County for determination of general accord to the rezoning plan. Rev]: It is m} , understanding that a variance to the SWM rezoning plan has been submitted. The preliminarj site plan will need to reflect approved changed to the SWM rezoning before it can be approved. The following comments pertain to the approval of the final site design: 1. All (two -way traffic) travehvays need to maintain a minimum 20 feet in width. [18- 4.12.17cl] 2. There appears to be a pipe running under one of the buildings. 3. Grading will need to conform to all the conditions of proffer # 7 (overlot grading plan) for Old Trail Village. 4. We will provide the pro rata share cost for water quality control for Licking Hole Drainage Basin. 17 -316] qOF AL, County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Scott Collins (scottCcollins- engineering.com) March Mountain Properties LLC (justinea beightsdevelopment.com) From: Megan Yaniglos- Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: May 2, 2007 Subject: SDP -2007 -028- Old Trail Block 1 (Village Center)- 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 continent is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 32.5.6 (b)] Show the parking on Block 2 that will provide the parking requirement for Block 1. Rev 1: Add an additional comment to the parking surface parking note that states that parking needs for Block 1 will be met at all time. 32.5.6 (m)] The proposed preliminary plan for Block 1 varies from the approved rezoning plan. The entrance into Block 1 from Old Trail Drive was not approved with the rezoning plan. Submit a variation application to the County for determination of general accord to the rezoning plan. Rev 1: Submit a variation application for the approval of the new entrance. 32.5.6 (n)] Sheet 1 states that there are no street lights proposed, however on Sheet 6 note #16 states the following: "All streetlights shall be located a minimum of 9.5' from the edge of pavement on curb and gutter streets and /or located a minimum of 5.5' behind the ditch line on open ditch streets." Revise or delete note on Sheet 6 so that it coordinates with the note on Sheet 1. Rev 1: Show the location of all streetlights on the plan to verify that lights are not conflicting with street trees, etc.. Additional comments: 1. [Code of Development pg. 35 -371 State which spatial enclosure ratio is proposed for the block, and show the calculations for building height associated with the spatial enclosure ratio. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. Megan Yaniglos J of A IRG1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 August 29, 2007 Collins Engineering c/o Scott Collins 800 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ARB- 2007 -53: Old Trail Block 1 Tax Map 55E, Section 1, Parcel Al Fax (434) 972 - 4012 The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on August 20, 2007, completed a preliminary review of the above -noted request to construct a mix of residential and commercial units as a part of Block 1. The Board offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal. Please note that the following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review and changes to the plan. I . Add a phasing note to the site plan indicating that building A will be phase one. 2. Add trees along the alley between Buildings A and C. 3. Revise the layout of proposed street trees so as to maintain a consistent 40' spacing. Provide a detailed explanation for any locations where this may not be feasible. Provide documentation clearly indicating that street trees are permitted within the public right -of -way and the party responsible for their maintenance. 4. Revise the proposed Block 1 site and building layout, as shown on Sheet 6 Cross - Section, to correspond with what is proposed on other drawings in this submission. Remove the proposed parking lot northeast of Block 1, on the east side of Claremont Lane. 5. Revise the site plan to show the location of all proposed building, site and decorative lighting. Include a luminaire schedule of all proposed exterior lighting on a photometric plan indicating all lighting options chosen, and colors proposed for all fixtures and poles. All fixtures exceeding the 3,000 lumens threshold shall be a full cutoff style. The proposed lighting shall also be shown, if any, for the cupola and the clock. 6. Revise all applicable drawings to show the location of all proposed HVAC units and the method of concealment from EC views. 7. Provide a north arrow on Sheet 6 Cross- Section. 8. Note the existing and proposed contour intervals on all topographic drawings. 9. Provide original and revision dates on all drawings. 10. Revise the building elevation drawing to include a title block with the consultant's business name, drawing title, sheet number, and original /revision dates. 11. Revise all site plan drawings using line weights giving the most important elements of the drawing highest visibility, while allowing other related elements visibility but to a lesser degree. 12. Revise Sheets 2 Site Plan and 4 Landscape Plan by removing the bold dashed lines whose relevance is not evident or provide a justification for their appearance. Remove lines that have little relevancy to the drawing under review. 13. Revise Sheet 4 Landscape Plan by moving labeling "REAS CREEK DRIVE (ROAD A) 61 ' R/W" currently blocking visibility of the proposed sidewalk and street tree layout underneath. Make sure labeling on all drawings is arranged so as not to obscure the important elements of the drawing. 14. Provide actual samples of all proposed materials and colors. 15. Provide, for review, the rear schematic elevation of building C, including proposed materials, or show that it is not visible from the EC. 16. Provide axonometric line drawings for each block elevation along Old Trail Drive and Reas Creek Drive. The drawings do not need to be in color. They should clarify the building forms, rooflines and gables. 17. Provide roof plans for review. 18. Note accurately the building heights for each section of building. You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on -line at www.albemarte.org /planning Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing. Please provide a memo including detailed responses indicating how each comment has been addressed. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Brent Nelson Landscape Planner Cc: Megan Yaniglos Zoning and Current Development File: ARB2007 -53 Page 1 of 1 Megan Yaniglos From: Jonathan Sharp Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 4:20 PM To: 'Kirsten Munz' Cc: Megan Yaniglos Subject: Old Trail block 1 prelim comments Kirsten, The following is required before Engineering can recommend preliminary approval for Old Trail Block 1: 1) Curb and gutter is required in the temporary parking area. Please show curb and gutter, or request a waiver of curb and gutter (which must be approved by the planning commission prior to preliminary approval). 2) Please show the temporary parking area to be treated by biofilters proposed to treat Block 2 per the Application Plan (as the temporary parking area is located in Block 2). A conceptual drainage plan is needed showing how runoff will drain from the parking area to the biofilter (any proposed ditch locations or locations of pipes or structures). Please submit plan revisions to Megan. Thanks, Jon Sharp 10/22/2007 Application #: SDP200700026 _ Short Review {i(7n1,ents Project NameaOld Trail Village -Block 1 (Village Center) - Preliminary J 'Preliminary - N residential Preliminary - Residential Date Completed:04/24/2007 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:THE DEVELOPER SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH THREE (3) POTENTIAL ROAD NAMES FOR THE INTERIOR ROAD IN THIS SECTION.J Date Completed:04/30/2007 Reviewer:Bill Fritz Planner Z &CD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:I will need a recommendation from the reviewing engineer to grant a modification of the sight distance for the parking garage. Jonathan is working on this. Date Completed:04/18/2007 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:This block is visible from the EC and will require ARB review and approval. An ARB submission has not been received. Date Completed: Reviewer: Review Status: Reviews Comments: 04/24/2007 Gary Whelan ACSA Approved Megan, The Service Authority approves the Old Trail Village Block 1 Village Center Preliminary Site Plan. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. The applicant will have to provide sewer flow capacities for Old Trail Village and proposed connection points. Participation in the upgrade of the Moore's Creek Interceptor will be required along with RWSA approval for any water and /or sewer connections. Gary Date Completed: 04/02/2007 Reviewer: James Barber Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: (`Indicate the location of fire hydrants. Fire Rescue Verify adequate fire flow is available. Approval is subject to field inspection and verifica Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On. Wednesday, May 02, 2007 Page 1 of 1 Megan Yaniglos From:Jonathan Sharp Sent:Friday, October 19, 2007 4:12 PM To:Scott Collins Cc:Megan Yaniglos Subject: old trail block 1 preliminary plans Scott, I received a latest copy of the plans. All preliminary Engineering comments have been addressed. Thanks, Jon 10/22/2007