Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201600025 Review Comments 2016-06-23Short Review Comments Report for: SDP201600025 SubApplication Type: Briarwood Recreation Area - Initial Initial Site Plan Date Completed:06/07/2016 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:05/06/2016 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:The proposed development falls within the Entrance Corridor overlay. If existing trees beyond the area of proposed grading are to remain, then the proposed development is not expected to be visible from the Entrance Corridor. The existing tree line and the proposed tree line to remain are not shown on the plan. Revise the plan to show both the existing tree line and the proposed tree line to remain. If trees to remain are insufficient to eliminate visibility, ARB review may be required. Division: Date Completed:05/24/2016 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated April 25, 2016. No comments or conditions. Division: Date Completed:05/31/2016 Reviewer:John Anderson Engineering Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:05/06/2016 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments:Approved. Division: Date Completed:05/15/2016 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 4/25/16. No comments or objections. Division: Date Completed:06/06/2016 Reviewer:Joel DeNunzio VDOT Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:06/09/2016 Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Page: 1 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On: June 24, 2016 Date Completed:06/06/2016 Reviewer:Rebecca Ragsdale Zoning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Application plans for Briarwood, and the plan of development approved with ZMA 95-20 for the Beard property (Proffer 19), require access to the primary recreation area in the location shown on the proposed site plan. ZMA 95-20 shows a 50' Reserved Access area but it still must be platted and recorded, if it hasn't been done already. The Briarwood applicant must work with Beard to obtain the necessary easements for the road and any grading easements necessary. Both property owners are subject to the requirements of the proffers and application plan that require the recereation area to be built. Division: Date Completed:06/08/2016 Reviewer:Victoria Fort RWSA Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed: Reviewer:John Anderson Engineering Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:06/23/2016 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: Division: Page: 2 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On: June 24, 2016 4 •or = Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 8:44 AM To: 'Allan Nathanson'; Allan Nathanson Subject: RE: Briarwood development activity... Allan, See my comments below in red. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development 'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 Original Message From: Allan Nathanson [mailto:ajn@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:18 AM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: Briarwood development activity... Hi Christopher- I've been watching for activity on the County View web site re: development in our neighborhood (Riverwood/Briarwood) and have a couple of questions. Re:SUB201600004 It looks like there's been some activity on this item with what appears to be two conflicting documents. First,there is an "Action Letter 2016-05-06"that suggests the preliminary subdivision plat had been approved by the Board of Supervisors. The May 6th action letter(approval w/conditions)was issued after the applicant paid the fee which was outstanding. The Board of Supervisors does not approve by right subdivision plats; rather,the Agent for the BOS does.The Agent being myself in this case. APPROVAL PACKAGE-SUB... Then, there is a "Review Comments Waiver,variation or substitution requirement 2016-05-06"document that the variation cannot move forward as proposed. Yes, correct.The variation which was requested by the applicant is to the phasing lines for the proposal. It's mentioned in the May 6th conditional approval letter(Planning's comment#25, and sub 1—4).The revised variation went beyond what was discussed and what can be done in a variation, thus I gave the applicant two options A) resubmit the request within the parameters of a variation OR B)go through a rezoning to modify the proffer for the lot mixs in the development.The applicant said they wanted to go w/option A.Thus I'm awaiting a resubmittal before moving it onto the BOS for their review/approval.The item is tentatively* placed on the BOS June 8th consent agenda. Nor * The item going to the 8OS on that date is predicated on a revision that staff will support and recommend approval of If We get the revision and do not recommend approval the Planning Commission must review it 1st and then it goes to the BOS. Is the plat and variation two different things that are both tied to SUB2016-4 ??? Yes.They are two different things. It's our Dept.'s policy that variations should be tied to either a sit7pl fora subdiv 't, plat and not the rezoning file. How can one piece be approved and the other not?The May 6tnditional approval lette onditions#25, and Sub 1-4) mentions the variation, if the applicant cannot get the variation approved then the final . b plat would just need to show what was required by the re oni"rig with=out a variation.The phasing variation is not a ajor element of the project and does not change what reviewed at the prelimirrary sub plat much at all. SDP20160002 - Recreation area No supporti : documents :-( We have a 2 page initial site plan in our office for this proposa,which is going through site review corn ittee (SRC) review meeting date:Thursday,June 9th. Notably we were provide• a supporting document, Hydrologic r nd Hydraulic Analysis, by the applicant(see below).Also, I attached is an email rom staff to the applicant identifying the need for a Special Use Permit(SP)to fill in the floodplain for this recreation area prior to final site plan approval. e email also covers the applicants' dispute of this requirement and then staff's reiteration of this requiremen,along with engineering staff's guidance to the applicant. RE:SDP2016-25 � Briarwood Recre... Briarwood HH Analysis.pdf SUB2016000094- Briar ood Sub. Plat- Phase 1A, 5, & 6 No supporting docum,nts :-( I have scanned this 'lat for your review(see attached). I was just assigned/handed it yester.ay at 4pm. We have 21 days to conduct our revi:w. I believe we'll take the entire 21 days on this one. Especially with the ariation pending a resubmittal and BO. review...etc. Notably the major thing that jumps out at me is the lots o page 3 being platted are listed as phase 6 an• IA; however,they are currently in phase 4 and were in phase 4 for the ezoning. If this is part of what the applicant lans to request for the phasing variation I do not believe we'd support t at all being the proffer states no lots in pha e 4 shall be platted without the primary rec area being built or platt:• prior to the first final plat for phase 4. Merely slidi : the phase lines and calling this phase 6 will not be permitted to •ypass the proffer. I have not reviewed this plat, the •hove is just my quick thoughts after scanning it for you. L="J SKM_364e-En16... 2 New .411e For the latter two, is there any more information available online? or should I plan a visit to your office to look things over? or is it just too soon? Honestly, it's pretty early in the review for staff to be able to provide you much of anything. But you can always come in and view the plans anytime. Thanks, -Allan Nathanson 2387 Jersey Pine Ridge Charlottesville,VA 22911 301 216 1899 (h) 3 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:01 PM To: 'Allan Nathanson' Subject: RE: Briarwood development activity ... Attachments: clear copy of phasing variation.pdf Allan, Sorry I got caught up in a couple other projects that were prior to this one, I am almost done with my comment letter for SUB2016-94 and hope to finish it up tomorrow by loam. This plat has a bunch of issues and is not approvable in form or scope. See my responses to your comments below in red. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road(Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Allan Nathanson [mailto:ajn@mac.com] Sent:Thursday,June 02, 2016 9:44 AM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Briarwood development activity... Any comments? thoughts? Thanks, - Allan 301-216-1899 (h) On May 27, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>wrote: Allan, Thanks for the email. I'll take a look at this on Tuesday and respond. Thanks for the notes/comments. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Allan Nathanson [mailto:ain@mac.com] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 11:36 AM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Briarwood development activity... Hi Christopher- I looked over the documents this morning and only have some minor comments/questions. Re: SUB201600094(site plan for the next section) 1 Now, 1.the walking trail that had been cutting the corner of the lot(Lot 124)has been moved. Yay! Yes, noted. 2. as you noted,the proposed lots were labelled as Phase 6 rather than the expected Phase 4. That needs to be corrected(no skipping past the recreation area commitments if/until such time that the per-proffer requirements might be changed). I've gotten into this issue and have a bunch of comments in my comment letter about it.Notably we have a phasing plan variation going to the BOS on June 8th(see attached), I'm recommending approval of it bc it reverts lots back to the original phase 4 lines prior to the variation to the phases in 2013. We had them revise the variation request 4 times to get it right. We're definitely holding them tight to this phase 4 rec area proffer.Notably the plat does not even match the proposed phasing variation...it'll have to match, which cuts a bunch of lots outta this plat. Re: SDP201600025 (recreation area)- I'll be jumping back on this one Friday after loam, and Monday and Tuesday. Hope to have all my comments finished up by Wednesday at noon. I'll utilize these comments in my letter. 1. The grade lines for the multi-purpose field suggest a 6' drop from one edge of the field to another. Could you play baseball on a field that's not level? How about football? soccer? lacross? (I'll check the grades and make a comment if applicable) PS. This is the initial site plan, a full grading plan is not completed yet/nor required. 2. Q? shouldn't the baseball/multi-purpose field include a backstop(behind whatever would be)home plate ?(I'll look at this in more detail and make a comment if applicable— 1st inclination is yes) 3. Q? if suggested,would exchanging one of the basketball courts for two to 's courts pass the requirements of the proffer?No—bc the proffer specifically calls out bas all courts, without a rezoning to change the proffer it'd have to stay. However, if they want to add tennis courts in addition to the minimum requirements that would be permitted. 4. Q?I believe that the proffer states that the recreation area be dedicated to the HOA. Does that imply/suggest that the HOA would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the rec area?Yes, absolutely. If so, would the HOA be able to limit who can use the rec area?Yes. Could we(the HOA) block access to the parking lot such that only HOA members be allowed access to our rec area?Yes. Could our HOA charge any outside organization a fee to use the rec area ... I don't know this answer, bc the park is specifically for briarwood residents, parking spaces are being dictated by the use not anticipated use of the fields being rented. especially since we'll be paying for the repair/upkeep? The grading of the multi-purpose field is a big issue. I'll check it out. PS. This is the initial site plan, a full grading plan is not completed yet/nor required. Thanks for your time. Have a great weekend. -Allan 301-216-1899(h) On May 26, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> wrote: 2 Niogre Allan, Sure thing, I'll put copies of both of those plans downstairs for your review. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 From:Allan Nathanson fmailto:ain@mac.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 25, 2016 5:14 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Briarwood development activity... How about Friday morning around 10:00am? - Allan On May 25, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Christopher Perez <cperezna,albemarle.org> wrote: Allan, I received your voicemail. I can place the plans for both projects downstairs anytime.Just let me know when you plan to swing by to view them. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Allan Nathanson [mailto:ain@mac.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 11, 2016 10:03 AM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Briarwood development activity... Christopher- First off,thank you very much for your prompt and detailed reply. Re: SUB2016000094 ... Very interesting that Phase 4 appears to have vanished from their plans. Re: SUB2016-4 ... Briarwood Phasing Variation I appreciate your comments re:the tot lots. Many of the residents have asked,repeatedly, when the("a")tot lot will be constructed. Personally, I see the developer holding off until the very last minute to start that work and will argue that he's not required to do so until the section has been filled out. At this time,Phase lA has not been completed(there's an entire section of 3 *se Nape townhomes that are likely years out)nor has Phase 1B been completed (again,waiting on the completion of townhomes that's likely years out). We're stuck waiting. Re: some of my thoughts ... We had our annual HOA meeting last month(yes, Wendell is the president) and part of our discussion was about the primary recreation area and the tot lots. For the primary recreation area,there was some concern on our(the owners) part about the location, who will be the primary users of the area(it's much more a part of Camelot then Riverwood),and how our HOA would end up being responsible for the ongoing maintenance and repair when we are unlikely to be the primary users. Somehow I don't think anyone would think kindly to our putting a gate up at the entrance to the parking lot with only our HOA members being allowed to enter. I think you and I have discussed this before with the guidance being that our HOA members would need to decide what"we"want to have re:the recreation area and then request a change to the proffer.But, until that happens, we should not let the developer off the hook re: his obligations. For the tot lots ... there are many owners who have little ones right now, want a tot lot now,and are getting impatient with the developer. If I were to allow the developer to delay construction of the primary recreation area I would like like to insist that they actually complete one of the smaller tot lots. Thanks again for your time/e-mail. Have a great week! -Allan On May 11, 2016, at 8:44 AM, Christopher Perez <cperez(aalbemarle.org> wrote: Allan, See my comments below in red. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development !County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 Original Message From:Allan Nathanson (mailto:ain@mac.com] 4 %Nor "erre Sent:Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:18 AM To:Christopher Perez<cperezPalbemarle.org> Subject: Briarwood development activity... Hi Christopher- I've been watching for activity on the County View web site re: development in our neighborhood (Riverwood/Briarwood) and have a couple of questions. Re: SUB201600004 It looks like there's been some activity on this item with what appears to be two conflicting documents. First, there is an "Action Letter 2016-05-06"that suggests the preliminary subdivision plat had been approved by the Board of Supervisors. The May 6=h action letter(approval w/conditions)was issued after the applicant paid the fee which was outstanding.The Board of Supervisors does not approve by right subdivision plats; rather,the Agent for the BOS does.The Agent being myself in this case. Then,there is a "Review Comments Waiver,variation or substitution requirement 2016-05-06" document that the variation cannot move forward as proposed. Yes, correct.The variation which was requested by the applicant is to the phasing lines for the proposal. It's mentioned in the May 6&hconditional approval letter (Planning's comment#25, and sub 1-4).The revised variation went beyond what was discussed and what can be done in a variation,thus I gave the applicant two options A) resubmit the request within the parameters of a variation OR B)go through a rezoning to modify the proffer for the lot mixs in the development.The applicant said they wanted to go w/option A.Thus I'm awaiting a resubmittal before moving it onto the BOS for their review/approval.The item is tentatively* placed on the BOS June 8th consent agenda. * The item going to the BOS on that date is predicated on a revision that staff will support and recommend approval of. If we get the revision and do not recommend approval the Planning Commission must review it 1=,and then it goes to the BOS. Is the plat and variation two different things that are both tied to SUB2016-4 ??? Yes.They are two different things. It's our Dept.'spolicy that variations should be tied to either a site plan or a subdivision plat and not the rezoning file. How can one piece be approved and 5 the other not?The May 6th conditional approval letter (conditions#25,and Sub 1-4) mentions the variation, if the applicant cannot get the variation approved then the final sub plat would just need to show what was required by the rezoning without a variation.The phasing variation is not a major element of the project and does not change what we reviewed at the preliminary sub plat much at all. SDP201600025-Recreation area No supporting documents :-( We have a 2 page initial site plan in our office for this proposal, which is going through site review committee (SRC) review meeting date:Thursday,June 9th. Notably we were provided a supporting document, Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis, by the applicant (see below).Also, I attached is an email from staff to the applicant identifying the need for a Special Use Permit (SP)to fill in the floodplain for this recreation area prior to final site plan approval.The email also covers the applicants' dispute of this requirement and then staffs reiteration of this requirement along with engineering staff's guidance to the applicant. SUB2016000094- Briarwood Sub. Plat- Phase 1A, 5, &6 No supporting documents :-( I have scanned this plat for your review(see attached). I was just assigned/handed it yesterday at 4pm. We have 21 days to conduct our review. I believe we'll take the entire 21 days on this one. Especially with the variation pending a resubmittal and BOS review...etc. Notably the major thing that jumps out at me is the lots on page 3 being platted are listed as phase 6 and IA; however, they are currently in phase 4 and were in phase 4 for the rezoning. If this is part of what the applicant plans to request for the phasing variation I do not believe we'd support it at all being the proffer states no lots in phase 4 shall be platted without the primary rec area being built or platted prior to the first final plat for phase 4. Merely sliding the phase lines and calling this phase 6 will not be permitted to bypass the proffer. / have not reviewed this plat, the above is just my quick thoughts after scanning it for you. 6 For the latter two, is there any more information available online? or should I plan a visit to your office to look things over? or is it just too soon? Honestly, it's pretty early in the review for staff to be able to provide you much of anything. But you can always come in and view the plans anytime. Thanks, -Allan Nathanson 2387 Jersey Pine Ridge Charlottesville,VA 22911 301 216 1899 (h) <APPROVAL PACKAGE - SUB2016- 4_Briarwood Phase 4 and 6 - Preliminary Subdi....pdf '<Mail Attachment.eml><Briarwood H&H Analysis.pdf <SKM_364e- En16051108330.pdf5 7 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:06 AM To: 'Larry&Lynette Lanning' Subject: SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreational Area—initial site plan Attachments: SDP201600025 Briarwood Recreational Area- initial site plan.pdf Lynette, SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreational Area—initial site plan Attached are the SRC comments for the above referenced plan. If you have any questions let me know. Thanks Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5 832 ext. 3443 From:Christopher Perez Sent:Thursday,June 02, 2016 10:46 AM To: 'Larry& Lynette Lanning'<Ilanning@comcast.net> Subject: RE: SDP2 01600025 Briarwood Recreational Area Lynette, SDP201600025 Briarwood Recreational Area—initial site plan I have scanned in the plan for your review (2 pages total). If you want to ask me some questions (via phone) about the project the next best time would be Friday anytime from noon—3pm or Monday anytime before 2:30pm. If in person, Monday anytime before 2:30pm works. The site review committee meeting(SRC) is Thursday the 9th at which time we'll meet with the applicant and discuss what they need to do in order to get the final site plan approved. Hope this helps. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development 'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 Original Message From: Larry& Lynette Lanning [mailto:llanning@comcast.net] Sent:Thursday,June 02, 2016 10:32 AM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: SDP2 01600025 Briarwood Recreational Area Dear Mr. Perez, 1 lye 411•1 My name is Lynette Lanning and I am a resident of the Briarwood subdivision in Northern Albemarle and I am also the president of the Briarwood homeowners association board of directors. I recently received the notice from the county regarding the site plan for a Briarwood recreational area. I would like to arrange a time to come in and see the site plan and ask some questions about it. I stopped by the office this morning but unfortunately none of the senior planners were available and the front desk attendant advised that I email you personally. Please let me know if you have any time in the next few days to meet with me.Thank you for your time and consideration. Lynette Lanning 434-962-1593 Ilanning@comcast.net 2