The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP201500003 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2015-06-030 A �'IRGINZ�` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 June 3, 2015 Ms. Valerie Long Williams Mullen 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -3200 RE: SP2015 -00003 — North Pointe Middle Entrance Amendment Dear Valerie: Staff has reviewed your re- submittal to amend conditions of approval for SP2007- 00003. We have a few questions and comments which should be addressed before your proposal goes to public hearing. Our comments are provided below: Planning In Condition 5, the drawing that is referred to should be described as being attached. Zonin The following comments related to zoning issues have been provide by Sarah Baldwin: • In Condition 5, it is recommended that in "substantial' conformance.... be changed to state in "general' conformance..... • Is Condition 8 needed? This condition is required by ordinance and therefore should be eliminated. Engineering and Water Resources Engineering comments from Glenn Brooks are attached. VDOT Comments from VDOT are attached. ARB The following comments related to ARB issues have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: • No objections. Page I of 2 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke ASCA Comments-from ACSA will be provided upon receipt. - - - - - SP Conditions Language for the SP conditions will need to be appropriately revised. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be found at this address: http: / /www.albemarle.org /upload /images /forms center /departments /Community Devel ooment /forms /schedules /Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.odf (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cgrant@albemarle.org. Sincerely, 1 Claudette Grant Senior Planner Community Development C: CWH Properties LP, and Violet Hill Associates, LLC North Pointe Charlottesville, LLC, c/o Great Eastern Management Co. Attn: David Mitchell P.O. Box 5526 Charlottesville VA 22905 Enc: Engineering Comment Letter VDOT Comment Letter Resubmittal Form Page 2 of 2 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke pF .4Ll7F, County of Albemarle Department of Community Development. Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Planning From: Glenn. Brooks, Engineering Date: 27 Feb 2015 .Rev. 1: 20 May 2015 Subject: North Point amendment (SP201.500003,.amending SP200700003) The special use: permit application and floodpplain development pen-nit for amending the middle .entrance crossing of Flat Branch. at'the proposed North Point development has been reviewed. There is not enough information provided to make a full review of the floodplain impacts and: changes to the special use permit. The following.comments and requests for information are provided for Planning and the applicant; Rev. .: Please see the. comments for revision '1 below. There are too many issues with the computer .model. and the proposed design `to recommend approval with this. revision. 1. Please provide a comparison of the approved arch span and :the .proposed amendment using box culverts. ;Show the differences to the stream and to the floodplain, as well as the hydraulic models. Rev.:l.; The comparison shows an unexpected .result. It was:expected that .the culverts: would have. less hydraulic efficiency, and that both the arch and culverts would have:a headwater. The revised . application documents and model seem to propose that the .culverts (and :arch) will have no impacts, and actually reduce,.rather than increase the floodplain limits upstream. This is highly unusual. In the case of the box culverts, it seems to have been done by proposing four:culverts where two might suffice. This is not likely to stand up to final plan review through . OT: Please provide a preliminary review: or approval from. VDOT that th.e extent of culverts proposed. will be acceptable for the public road., Typically; VDOT will require that the number of culverts be minimized, and lengths be reduced, and the fill over the culverts as low as possible, to allow for maintenance. 2. Please provide the HEC -RAS analysis on disc. The computer files are needed for adequate review, Rev. 1: Thank you .for. providing the model.. Please address the .following. issues with the model a:: The ineffective flow areas upstream. and downstream of the. culverts do :not appear correct. b. Additional-cross-sections are required upstream and downstream of the culverts to model, the expansion and contraction correctly. Refer to HEC-RAS modeling instructions on -line. c. Modify the: channel sections: to model the enlargement and armoring of the channel. on either side of the. culverts: d. :Provide Hydrologic computations to adjust flows for proposed development. FEMA values typically only reflect existing conditions at the -time .the model is developed. This is part of a development proposal and should reflect the build -out year also. e. The.extent of the culvert in the model appears incorrect: On. the plan drawing section "0" al station 51.05 is shown in. the culverts. On: the model this station is upstream, although. section " O has been removed. f. The model indicates .a hydraulic jump in. the. culverts. This would seem: to require inlet control, which when :specified :in the model changes:.head.water results. The worst case scenario should be used. In smaller storms, the.l ydraulic jump would. likely occur downstreatn, necessitating .more Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of .3 structured energy dissipation measures, which should be shown. .3. The .HEC -RAS model appears to be independently generated. The FEMA model must be used. Please obtain the FEMA model for Flat Branch, and update the existing model with the surveyed cross - sections to establish the base flood. Use the existing model to generate the proposed model. Rev. 1: Provide verification this is the most cwxent.model from FEMA. The current FEMA Flood. Insurance Study for Albemarle . gives an elevation of 423' at section "O ", and 1950cfs at the North Fork Rivanna and 1290cfs at the study limit. This data does not appear to match .the model. 4. Please provide.data to demonstrate compliance with 18- 30.3.13B and 18- 30.3.14. Specify the floodplain rise, how obstruction or fill is minimized and protected against erosion or pollution: Rev.1: a. It is not clear that anything has been .done to reduce the amount of fill in the floodplain. For example, if the road were lowered and crossed more perpendicular to the stream, it could significantly reduce grading and culvert lengths. b. The .culverts entrances are too skewed in. relation to the creek, with .the potential to push water into the left bank. This appears to be caused by both the angle of the crossing, the grading for the multi -use path, and the placement of wingwalls. The .culvert entrance should be more perpendicular, with the wing =walls arranged to accommodate the fill slopes and protect the banks. 5. Much of the grading activity shown on the plans.is not for the crossing. ..Please clarify that this fill area is not part of this permit. Rev. 1: A note may not be sufficient. It would be better to remove this from the plan or separate it somehow. The WPO does not allow encroachment more than 50ft, into the buffer on the sides, which is not related to the stream crossing, but appears to be for the commercial area and stormwater basin, and for the multi. -use path. 'It should be clear that the.road layout.and grading .are not part of the plan for the special use permit, and the extent of the. grading for the commercial area and stormwater management, and the roadway :features and.intersection are .not included in any action. 6. The plans show only one . floodplain line beyond the fill area, implying there is no change. This is not usually the case in front of a.culvert constriction. Please show lines before and.:after.the proposal, so the.changes to the floodplain are clear. Rev. 1: This has been shown on a ' r ' educed size plan sheet. Please provide afull sized sheet, and include stationing .and all sections use in the model in the vicinity of the crossing. 7. Condition #1 should be.revised.io reflect new ordinance requirements. 1.8- 30.3.13 requires .a Conditional Letter ofMap Revision prior to construction. A Letter of Map Amendment or Revision is required after. construction. It is :recommended that plan and plat approvals be conditioned on both these FEMA approvals. Rev.l : Please reflect the distinction between a conditional letter of map revision, and a letter.of map revision. The former is obtained prior to construction, and the latter after. 8. Please. show appropriate transition between the stream channel and the box .culverts, .clarifying the - Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page -3 of.3 length of stream necessary to be disturbed. This will be for comparison. with the arch. Rev.:1. :.Please provide information on the channel. transitions. 9. Conditions 2; 3; 4, and 9 are unnecessary, as these are Tequired by ordinance, As an example; in condition #9; the county no.longer has.a,Natural Resources Manager position,, and in addition to mitigation .and erosion control. plans, a; VSMP /SWP.P.P may be required. Rev. l:. Regarding revised conditions; a. New:condition. 4:.implies that the: county engineer can permit disturbances closer than 50 feet to the :channel. bank. Buffer requirements in the Water Protection Ordinance do not appear to give the county engineer this authority.. Condition 4 also implies permission to build the multi =use path: within: the buffer. Where the path :encroaches into, the .buffer, such permission will need to 'be separate from the. SP for the crossing. .Nature trails are a by -bight use.in the. buffers, as they involve no clearing and grading. This path is shown on exhibits as a multi -use, graded.and surfaced path, which is.a.differen.ritem. It would .need to follow the: normal Water Protection Ordinance requirements for development. 10. Please provide a copy of the wetland. and stream disturbance documentation submitted to'the state. The difference in stream: impacts at this crossing is :pertinent to the review, .as :it appear -the prior approval, emphasized minimizing impacts to the stream in the use of the arch. Rev.1: This has been received. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount S Date Paicl By who? Receipt 4 Ck# By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or ^1 Zoning Map Amendment ,yam •aroiNi' PROJECT NUMBER: SP 020'5( 0oo PROJECT NAME: P611nk 1 o I'Ad li e cVi c' 'ICP Y11Zy1d�v►geJ /Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required Community Development Project Coordinator �� (10 511's Signature Jate Name of Applicant Signature. FEES Phone Number Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 ii YY Y tF• -.� 3%. ✓£,�i,� ai ', 4'LN1 {4d.ei4�iYR�...I.;F r.$Y,d7��.: rY'... r .45 A:'4��,s ka..�,�. `C .,.iY�>;�.':'[�)�e, .� 34-.K 1 S- i' eE� th"it 1'l"a•' ,,1 iJNj�` '`C�: a `k Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE Each additional resubmission. $1,000 , A - i Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,250 i( ^x c- i�.,;t .. i.l. �'r. �r. '�Y.:�,: 3�va F,�ST`e+.y •yS gTl: ?; iY .xE ESQ �c t�. �.tz ¢ M.. � .vs f t.r )b ^s "En '. R.. '` Vii: r arf .�i 1'S`h$., ,�r% id° � e t a} '1 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,750 �' t ��. � ) y ,T } §F � i�V< rE �7`.;kri � 1•n.T C 5e .� it � yj rte^ � t{ i *ik 1 ih.'! -9 it,..51t '1 l F� W�` . y i a .i,'.; YL r) s aR.��' Ci„t 15Y*f i`at{ aZ ��d ' �t 54` � 2. ' 1 $� ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request— Add'l notice fees will be required $180 To be Daid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be beard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE /PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first -class postage > Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.00 for each additional notice+ actual cost of first -class postage r > Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126 6/7/2011 Paee 1 of 1