Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500003 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2015-08-19� �'�RGINZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 August 18, 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. Our comments are provided below: The following divisions have no objection to this special use permit proposal: Planning, and Zoning. Engineering and Water Resources Engineering comments from Glenn Brooks are attached. Please note, I have revised the conditions per Glenn's comment # 7. (see attached revised blackline of conditions) VDOT Comments from VDOT are attached. SP Conditions The proposed SP conditions have been provided to Greg Kamptner for review. I will let you know if there are any substantive revisions needed to the proposed conditions prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. In general, primarily all of the staff comments have been addressed. The next available public hearing with the Planning Commission is October 6, 2015, and I have tentatively scheduled this project for that agenda. Page I of 2 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke You have until September 14, 2015 to formally request a public hearing with the Planning Commission and pay the legal ad fees, which are listed as follows: Notification and Advertisement Fees Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed: $165.25 Cost for newspaper advertisement $200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $365.25 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing needed. $165.25 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $530.50 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. My email address is cgrant @albemarle.or . Sincerely, 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 Revised Blackline of Conditions VDOT Comment Letter Page 2 of 2 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke dw i A k L�AGINU' County of Albemarle Department of Communitv Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Planning From: Glenn Brooks, Engineering Date: 27 Feb 2015 Rev. 1: 20 May 2015 Rev.2: 31 July 2015 Subject: North Point amendment (SP201500003, amending SP200700003) The special use permit application and floodplain development permit 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. 1: 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. Rev.2: Approval is recommended. 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. 1: 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 VDOT. Please provide a preliminary review or approval from VDOT that the 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. Rev.2: The double box arrangement appears approvable through final plans. 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 "O" at Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 4 station 5105 is shown in the culverts. On the model this station is upstream, although section "O" has been removed. L The model indicates a hydraulic jump in the culverts. This would seem to require inlet control, which when specified in the model changes headwater results. The worst case scenario should be used. In smaller storms, the hydraulic jump would likely occur downstream, necessitating more structured energy dissipation measures, which should be shown. Rev.2: Modeling issues have been addressed. 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 current 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. Rev.2: Addressed. 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. Rev.2: Addressed. 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. Rev.2: Addressed. 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. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 4 Rev. 1: This has been shown on a reduced size plan sheet. Please provide a full sized sheet, and include stationing and all sections used in the model in the vicinity of the crossing. Rev.2: Addressed. 7. Condition #1 should be revised to reflect new ordinance requirements. 18- 30.3.13 requires a Conditional Letter of Map 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. 1: 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. Rev.2: Under condition 1 of the special use permit, modify as follows: "The applicant must obtain a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR, or CLOMA) prior to final road plan approval, and a letter of map revision (LOMR or LOMA) prior to road acceptance." 8. Please show appropriate transition between the stream channel and the box culverts, clarifying the length of stream necessary to be disturbed. This will be for comparison with the arch. Rev. 1: Please provide information on the channel transitions. Rev.2: Addressed. 9. Conditions 2, 3, 4, and 9 are unnecessary, as these are required 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 /SWPPP may be required. Rev. 1: 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 -right 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 different item. It would need to follow the normal Water Protection Ordinance requirements for development. Rev.2: Condition removed. Adressed. 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. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 4 North Pointe Middle Entrance Amendment (SP 2015 - 00003) SP- 2007 -003, North Pointe Stream Crossing The applicant must obtain a map revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment as required from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all correspondence, since changes to the floodplain are proposed; and the applicant must obtain a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR, or CLOMA) prior to final road plan approval, and a letter of map revision (LOMR or LOMA) prior to road acceptance. (Intentionally deleted) 3. (Intentionally deleted) 4. (Intentionally deleted) 5. The culvert under North Side Drive shall be in substaRtial general conformance with the attached drawing titled "North Pointe SP Crossing of Flat Branch" prepared by Townes Site Engineering with a revision date of July 20, 2015 Gtaber 14, 2014 (Revision Date of April Modifications may be approved subject to the review and approval of the County Engineer; 6. (Intentionally deleted) 7. (Intentionally deleted) 8. (Intentionally deleted) 9. (Intentionally deleted) 10. Design Planner approval of a landscape plan. The landscape plan shall be shown on the road plans and erosion and sediment control plans submitted for North Side Drive. The landscape plan shall include a complete planting schedule keyed to the plan and shall provide the following: a. Existing tree line and proposed tree line to remain, the limits of clearing and grading, and tree protection; Provide an informal planting of mixed tree and shrub species and sizes to compensate for removed vegetation, and low- growing plants to stabilize slopes in the areas of proposed grading and tree removal; C. Provide large shade trees on the north and south side of North Side Drive, along the sidewalk and space reserved for the sidewalk, two and one -half (2'/2) inches caliper minimum at planting, forty (40) feet on center, for a minimum distance of four hundred (400) feet from the existing edge of pavement of Route 29 North, and 11. Design details of the retaining walls, including column cap design, pier design, stone finish, etc. shall be shown on the road plans and are subject to review of the Design Planner; and 12. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced within sixty (60) months after the permit is issued, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. 28076090_1 44 e, COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Cutpew Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner August 11, 2015 Ms. Claudette Grant Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SP -2015 -0003 North Pointe Middle Entrance Dear Ms. Grant: We have reviewed the proposed special use permit amendment exhibits with revision dates of 70`20 %2015 for a special use permit ammendment that would separate the stream and pedestrian crossings under the proposed road located at the middle entrance of the proposed development and offer the following comments: I . The box culvert will need to be designed and calculations provided to VDOT for review to determine the numberisize of chambers that will be required. This can be done during the road%site plan review process. 2. Final details/approval of the proposed box culvert and the maintenance access to the box culvert may occur during the road/site plan review process. Generally, VDOT does not object to the separation of the stream and pedestrian crossings. If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9782. Sincerely, kkx Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING