HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201100002 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2012-03-15*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Joan McDowell, Principle Planner
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 30 Mar 2011
Rev. 1: 15 Mar 2012
Subject: Castle Hill Cider (SP201100002)
The application for special events of up to 3000 people has been reviewed. The following comments are
offered for your use.
A traffic study is recommended. The number and times of events may need to be limited to
manage traffic concerns at the entrance on the public road. Improvements to the road and
entrance, or some sort of traffic control may be warranted.
Rev. 1: No response has been received for this comment.
2. It is recommended that the entrance drive meet one of the private or public road standards. The
drive is currently 10' wide gravel with a vertical curve just beyond the public road entrance which
has poor sight distance. The lowest road standard at the County which might be applied is the
private road standard which applies to subdivision of 3 -5 lots, and requires a 14' wide travelway
with 4' shoulders and a minimum of 100 feet of sight distance. The public road standard for rural
roads is 18' wide with 4' shoulders. The spot road widening proposed on the vertical curve where
the sight distance problem exists helps this situation, but most of the road will only allow one -way
traffic.
Rev. 1: No response has been received for this comment. The plan has proposed 2' wide centerline
grass strips at select curve locations on the road. A 2' wide grass strip is not a practical lane
division, and does not address the issue of stopping sight distance. It is recommended the entire
road be widened to 14 feet in width, with vertical curves corrected.
3. In the rural areas, parking areas have been granted waivers of the zoning ordinance requirements
to allow for gravel parking lots with some form of edge treatment and parking space delineation,
typically landscaping timbers. Allowing a grass field to be used for parking, without a limit to the
frequency of use, is beyond what is typically allowed, and may result in significant erosion.
Rev. 1: I have no change to my comments, but to advise that some reasonable parameters be set so
that all applicants can be treated consistently.
4. I cannot find that the dam recently constructed behind the events building had any permits from
the County or FEMA. The stream on which this dam was constructed has a FEMA floodplain,
and is in the Flood Hazard Overlay. A special use permit is required by Chapter 18 section
30.3.05.2.2 In addition, the culvert crossing for the driveway upstream appears to have been
recently improved, and if this is the case, also requires a special use permit. Applications should
include an analysis, plan and measurements of the structures and fill, and the impacts to the
floodplain, showing before and after limits and elevations. An application to FEMA to change the
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
floodplain limits will need to be made. The requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance with
regard to mitigation and the stream crossing should be addressed.
Rev. 1: I have tried to review the information submitted in response to this comment; plan sheets 2
through 6, and a package of computer printouts. I find it very difficult to decipher when there is
no explanation provided, so these comments are only conceptual;
a. The plan sheets indicate floodway where the dam has been placed. Fill is not permitted by
Special Use Permit in the Floodway (Zoning Ordinance section 30.3.05.2.1). I do not find
a way that it can be approved in the Zoning Ordinance.
b. Please consult section 18 -30.3 of the County Code. Reference the sections under which
approval is sought for the culvert crossing, and for the dam.
c. Please provide a narrative to explain the conditions prior to disturbance, and the
disturbances and construction which are now being requested for approval. Explain the
data and measurements used, including sources of topography and surveys. Explain the
model, the assumptions, references and parameters, and provide a disc with the computer
files. Explain the differences between model results and the FEMA maps. Explain the
physical design of features in the floodplain, to prevent future erosion or channel
instability.
d. Provide a conceptual mitigation plan for all stream buffer disturbances per item (a) and in
compliance with section 17 -322. Included must be an explanation of why the stream
crossing does meet even the minimum requirements of 17- 320D.1.a.
Rev. 1: The erosion and sediment control plan cannot be reviewed or approved as part of the
Special Use Permit plan. It can be provided separately as information, or made a condition of
approval, but should not be part of a zoning action. It must be submitted with a Water Protection
Ordinance application and fees subsequent to the approval of the zoning.
file: E2 SP2011 -2 GEB CastleHillCider.doc