HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201600025 Correspondence 2016-03-15 Niru
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 8:11 AM
To: Scott Collins
Cc: Rebecca Ragsdale; John Anderson; Ron Higgins; Johnathan Newberry
Subject: Briarwood Recreational Area-followup
Attachments: ZMA95-20 Ray Beard Rezoning -approval letter and attached plat.pdf
Scott,
See my comments below in red.
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
From:Johnathan Newberry
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:55 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc:Scott Collins<scott@collins-engineering.com>; Rebecca Ragsdale<rragsdale@albemarle.org>;John Anderson
<janderson2@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>
Subject: 2pm Exploratory Pre-app Notes with Scott Collins on Briarwood Recreational Area
Hey Chris,
Hope you're feeling better.
Scott, Wendell and Nena attended our meeting this afternoon and I think it was productive. I can catch you up
on the discussion with John, Rebecca and Ron, but the following are Planning-related questions that I'm happy
to help research. Ultimately, I think it makes sense for you to provide this information to Scott given the length
of your history and background with Briarwood, but we can research it together.
Here are questions/requests:
1. Scott requested more specific documentation on the exact location/alignment of access road to serve the
field area. Below I've pasted a section of a map from one of your attachments, but are there
metes/bounds anywhere for this access? Does the exhibit from the Beard rezoning possibly show
it? Attached is the action letter for ZMA95-20 Ray Beard rezoning and the exhibit (unrecorded plat)
referenced in proffer 19. This document provides more precise information.
a. As a follow-up, is there enough room within the easement(I do not believe this 50' reserved
access area is within a platted easement, the attached plat by SL Key was never recorded rather
it's merely an exhibit that is referenced in the action letter as proffer 19)to do sufficient grading
for construction of the access? Scott mentioned that even a 50' easement may not provide
enough room in this area due to the topography. Being there is no easement constraining the
grading,the applicant will need to work with the property owner Ray Beard to accomplish this
proposal which would likely involve grading throughout his entire lot to accomplish the access
and will allow him to develop his lot accordingly.
1
tier 'ewe
` JM:r"i
li
ct
Racal mrsoR '
e
AREA t
2. We need to confirm the County's expectations for the size of baseball/multipurpose field. A chart in the
Comp Plan shows an area of 180 yds. x 140 yds., but this is quite a large area. Are we sure this guidance
doesn't actually mean 180' x 140'? (Appendix)
That same chart provides a specific calculation for a baseball field too, 250' X 250' = 62,500 SF
Instead of using "Neighborhood Park Facility Standards', which is meant to serve a larger population of
people, utilize the `Pocket Park Facility Standard' this provides multi-purpose fields at 120 yards X 60
yards, when converted to feet calculates out to 64,800 SF.
Hope that helps.
3. Finally, we need to confirm the required parking standard for this recreational area. Using the standards
below, the parking area would also be quite large. Ron and Rebecca noted there's additional ordinance
language to consider beyond what's pasted below.
Baseball field - 20 spaces per field
Basketball courts - 2 spaces per basket
Playground equipment - 1 space per one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet of useable recreation area
Yes, it appears Ron and Rebecca are correct. The ordinance provides the following methodology to reduce the
number of parking spaces for this type of facility, see the section below taken from Section 4.12.6:
Recreation, commercial and residential:
Recreation Parking spaces required
Baseball field 20 per field
Basketball court 2 per basket
Golf course 4 per hole, plus 1 per employee
Horseshoe pits 2 per pit
Soccer field 24 per field
Skating rink 1 per 200 square feet of rink area
Swimming pool 1 per 125 square feet of water surface
Tennis court 2 per court
For each recreation use not specified above, one (1) space per one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet of
useable recreation area.
2
The minimum number of parking spaces required for a residential recreat. al facility within a
subdivision shall be reduced by the percentage of dwelling units withi a subdivision within one-
quarter mile of the facility."
Scott, please reply to Chris if the recap above doesn't include all of the information you requested.
Thanks,
J.T. Newberry
Planner
County of Albemarle, Planning Division
434-296-5832, ext. 3270
3
Noe
Follow-up to the pre application meeting of Ray Beard lot—Monday, September 28, 2015.
1)Property Lines for TMP 032E0-00-00-00200
The property lines depicted on the GIS for TMP 032E0-00-00-00200 are not accurate. Planning staff was
able to track down DB 464-469, see attached. This is the recorded plat which dedicated to public use the
50 R/W for the rest of St. Ives Road leading to and including the cul-de-sac serving the pump station.
This shall be corrected in the County GIS to avoid confusion in the future.
2) St.Ives Rd. the remaining section
The road plans for the unbuilt portion of St. Ives Rd has been approved and is located in SDP2006-41
Briarwood Phases lA-1, 1B-1, 4, and 8. See pages 12A, 20A,44,44A of the plan for this section of road.
It appears that this section of road is to be constructed along with phase 4 by the developers of Briarwood.
Proffer 8 of ZMA95-20 states that ...the primary rec area shall be built or bonded for its construction
prior to final plat approval of phase 4. Thus it appears that once the developer of Briarwood seeks
approval of the first final plat in phase 4 such improvements shall be built or bonded. However the proffer
goes on to say ...This recreational area shall be built prior to completion of phase 4...
Thus if Mr. Beard would like to develop his land per ZMA95-20 prior to the developer of Briarwood
completing this portion of St. Ives Road then either he or the developer of Briarwood would need to build
or bond that portion of road,which provides adequate frontage to divide these lots. This road would need
to be a Public Road that meets VDOT standards that were approved with the road plan SDP20106-41.
The reason this portion of road cannot be private is because the R/W is already dedicated to public use
and private roads shall not be placed over public R/W.
3)Frontage is required to subdivide lots per the Subdivision Ordinance
See sections 14-400, 403, 316. Link provided below:
http://www,albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/County Attorney/Forms/Alb
emarle County Code Ch14 Subdivision of Land.pdf
Definitions:
Frontage.The term"frontage"means the continuous uninterrupted distance along which a parcel abuts an adjacent street.
Street,private.The term"private street"means any street or other way or means of vehicular access approved as a"private street"pursuant to
sections 14-232 through 14-235 or as a"private road"under any prior ordinance regulating the subdivision of land,that is not designed,
constructed,bonded or approved to be maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation as part of the secondary system of state
highways,regardless of ownership.Any street identified on a recorded plat as a restricted road,access road or other designation which was not
approved by the county as a private street or a private road as described herein is not a private street.
Street,public.The term"public street"means a street which is encompassed by a right-of-way dedicated to public use and approved to be
maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation as a part of the primary or secondary system of state highways.Any requirement of this
chapter that refers to an existing public street shall mean a public street maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Sec.14-403 Lot frontage.
Each lot within a subdivision shall have frontage on an existing or proposed street;provided that this requirement shall not apply to any lot that
would be created from the subdivision of a parcel where two(2)or more dwellings existed on the parcel on October 14,2009 and one existing
dwelling would be located on each lot created.
Sec.14-316 Approval of entrance onto public streets.
The subdivider shall submit,prior to or with the final plat,evidence satisfactory to the agent that the entrance of the principal means of access for
each lot onto any existing or proposed public street complies with Virginia Department of Transportation standards;provided that this
requirement shall not apply to any subdivision of a parcel where two(2)or more dwellings existed on the parcel on October 14,2009 and one
existing dwelling would be located on each lot created.
4)Who is the park to benefit?
The `primary recreational area' is a park to serve the Briarwood neighborhood.Neither the proffers nor
the application plan require it to be dedicated to public use;rather,these documents state it shall be
. • constructed and maintained bye HOA.
5)What about a second connection to the park at Barnsdale Rd?
The proffers for ZMA2005-9 reference ZMA79-32 to dictate and limit access. ZMA79-32 does not
provide access adjacent to Barnsdale Rd. As the proffer states this issue shall be enforced during the site
planning or subdivision process which involves the park.
6)What is the standard of the `Vehicle Access' serving the park to be?
The road standard serving the park is not specified on the rezoning application plan as either public or
private; rather,ZMA79-32 (which dictates the entrance to the recreational area just says: "Vehicular
Access". See attached scanned copy of the ZMA79-32 application plan. Thus if ZMA95-20 remains
unchanged and Mr. Beards lots remain fronting on St Ives Rd, it appears the vehicle access road type may
be able to be(public, private, or a driveway type standard); however,this shall be determined during the
development of the park. At which time Zoning will need to make a determination as to what standard
this road shall be based on the rezoning.
For purposes of building this accessway in consideration for a rezoning, such a road standard would be
discussed/dealt with during the rezoning. Staff suggests it could be either public or private,but would
need to provide adequate frontage as dictated by the subdivision ordinance.
Below I offer a quick summary of some of the items discussed at the meeting:
A)the entrance to the park would need to be a commercial entrance.
B)The preserved slopes can be disturbed per the ordinance utilizing the existing rezoning; however, if a
rezoning is applied for,this"grandfathering" is no longer applicable and the slopes will be back in play as
truly preserved,then the applicant would need to make these preserved slopes part of the rezoning
application and make the necessary findings in the slope section of the ordinance.
C)ACSA advises that the developer will need grinder pumps to develop these lots
ver ,vise
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:27 AM
To: 'Scott Collins' •
Cc: John Anderson
Subject: RE: Briarwood Recreational Area -followup
Scott,
Briarwood Recreational Area
Today is my1St day back in the office after being out Monday and Tuesday. In response to your phone
call/voicemail about how to submit the Briarwood Rec Area site plan: the plan should be submitted as an initial
site plan.
Reason being the site plan for this area will need to be reviewed and approved prior to the final subdivision plat
for the section of Briarwood that we're currently reviewing. Thus we'll be going through initial, WPO, and final
site plan review process.
Christopher P. Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 Mclntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From:Christopher Perez
Sent:Tuesday, March 15, 2016 8:11 AM
To:Scott Collins<scott@collins-engineering.com>
Cc: Rebecca Ragsdale<rragsdale@albemarle.org>;John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins
<rhiggins@albemarle.org>;Johnathan Newberry<jnewberry@albemarle.org>
Subject: Briarwood Recreational Area -followup
Scott,
See my comments below in red.
Hope this helps.
Christopher P. Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From:Johnathan Newberry
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:55 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc:Scott Collins<scott@collins-engineering.com>; Rebecca Ragsdale<rragsdale@albemarle.org>;John Anderson
<janderson2@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>
Subject:2pm Exploratory Pre-app Notes with Scott Collins on Briarwood Recreational Area
Hey Chris,
Hope you're feeling better.
i
Nue
Baseball field - 20 spaces per field
Basketball courts - 2 spaces per basket
Playground equipment - 1 space per one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet of useable recreation area
Yes, it appears Ron and Rebecca are correct. The ordinance provides the following methodology to reduce the
number of parking spaces for this type of facility, see the section below taken from Section 4.12.6:
Recreation, commercial and residential:
Recreation Parking spaces required
Baseball field 20 per field
Basketball court 2 per basket
Golf course 4 per hole, plus 1 per employee
Horseshoe pits 2 per pit
Soccer field 24 per field
Skating rink 1 per 200 square feet of rink area
Swimming pool 1 per 125 square feet of water surface
Tennis court 2 per court
For each recreation use not specified above, one (1) space per one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet of
useable recreation area.
The minimum number of parking spaces required for a residential recreational facility within a
subdivision shall be reduced by the percentage of dwelling units within the subdivision within one-
quarter mile of the facility."
Scott, please reply to Chris if the recap above doesn't include all of the information you requested.
Thanks,
J.T. Newberry
Planner
County of Albemarle, Planning Division
434-296-5832, ext. 3270
3
New *401
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:41 AM
To: 'Scott Collins'
Cc: John Anderson; Megan Yaniglos; Margaret Maliszewski
Subject: SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan (Requires a Special Use Permit
(SP)to fill in the floodplain)
Scott,
SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
I have received the above referenced site plan. The proposal is being distributed for review by SRC. There are
two large items I wanted to bring to your attention as soon as possible before this plan gets too far along in the
review. These two items will also be mentioned in the SRC comments.
1) You did not pay the correct application fee for this project's review. Yo aid the $752 for an initial site plan
with an approved pre application plan; however, you should have paid t $1,290 review fee be this project
does not have an approved pre application plan associated with it. Ple e workwit intake to correct this prior
to receiving review comments for SRC. (O r='4
2) Upon review of the design for the recreational area it appears your proposal will require a Special Use Permit
(SP) to fill in the floodplain. Prior to final site plan approval this item shall be applied for and acted
on/approved by the PC and BOS. Per discussions with the Zoning Administrator this item can be a condition of
initial site plan approval. Notably the SP will not be approved until FEMA approves the CLOMR-F. See Engineering's
summary of this in the email below dated 4-29-16.
Christopher P. Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From:John Anderson
Sent: Friday,April 29,2016 4:08 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc:Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham
<mgraham@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>; Greg Harper<gharper@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE:SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
Christopher,
Thanks for your patience.
I spoke with Amelia McCulley on 27-Apr, and Mark Graham earlier today.
I've copied your questions—blue text responses reflect Zoning Administrator/Floodplain Administrator/Departmental
consensus:
Questions I would like answers/clarification to from Zoning and Engineering:
Is an SP truly needed for the use to fill in the floodplain to facilitate the construction of ballparks/recreational fields. Yes;
design alters limits of floodplain. Fill or cut(to construct athletic fields)that alters floodplain limits is not by-
right. Athletic fields are a by-right use provided there is no change to floodplain limits. Picnic shelter/parking are by-
right in the floodway fringe,prohibited in the floodway. Table at 18-30.3.11: `Grading activities, including cut or fill, in
1
%Nor vote,
compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance,but for which the floodplain administrator determines will or may cause
the base flood elevation to rise or the horizontal limits of the floodplain to expand' requires an SP. Proposed design may
cause the BFE to rise. Note on sheet 1 (Collins Engineering, 4/25/16): `Proposed new 100 YR Floodplain. CLOMR-F
under review with FEMA for filling within the I OOYR floodplain as shown.' We are grateful Applicant is coordinating
with FEMA. Engineering requests Applicant show existing/proposed floodway and floodplain boundaries with future
Site Plans, and SP/FDP Applications. Applicant should submit Floodplain Development(FDP) and VSMP Permit
Applications. Applicant should submit an SP in addition to CLOMR-F Application filed with FEMA.
Design is ineligible for 18-30.3.11/BR use: `Grading activities in compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance;
provided that it is demonstrated, in a floodplain impact plan that the grading will have no impact on the elevations or
limits of the floodplain and further provided that any cut or fill shall be only to level areas for playfields, correct erosion
problems, build trails, or other fine grading activities which will have no impact on the floodplain.' Proposed Recreation
Area impacts are unknown. CLOMR-F is required.
Also, is it appropriate to conditionally approve the initial site plan with the SP as a condition prior to final site plan
approval? Yes. We recommend additional condition(or Note) stating that a Grading Permit will not be issued until an SP
is approved.
Also, is it appropriate to conditionally approve the initial site plan with the C-LOMA as a condition prior to final site plan
approval? Yes,by extension. We recommend condition of FSP approval stating that SP will not be approved until
FEMA approves CLOMR-F showing no increase in the water surface elevation of the base flood under the proposed
design(No Rise in BFE).
I apologize for the delay responding. Please call if any questions.
Thank you
-x3069
John E.Anderson, PE I Civil Engineer II
Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3069
From:Christopher Perez
Sent:Wednesday,April 27, 2016 3:13 PM
To:John Anderson<landerson2@albemarle.org>
Cc:Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>
Subject:SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
John,
SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
The above referenced site plan is being generated by the Briarwood rezoning-proffer 4—primary recreational
area. At yesterday's distribution meeting Planning and Engineering staff opened up the initial site plan which
was just submitted/distributed (4-25-16) and we believe a Special Use Permit should be required to fill in the
floodplain. During the two pre application meetings for this item I do not believe staff was privy to a design that
required filling within the floodplain. Rather all the pre app discussion relied on verbal discussion that the
floodplain would be relocated through a C-LOMA or LMOA and that Scott would do all the required
calculations to prove there would be no increase in flood elevations.
Questions I would like answers/clarification to from Zoning and Engineering:
Is an SP truly needed for the use to fill in the floodplain to facilitate the construction of ballparks/recreational
2
fields.
Now `101
Also, is it appropriate to conditionally approve the initial site plan with the SP as a condition prior to final site
plan approval?
Also, is it appropriate to conditionally approve the initial site plan with the C-LOMA as a condition prior to
final site plan approval?
Thank you for your help
PS. I noticed that the applicant paid the incorrect fee with the site plan.
Christopher P. Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
3
Christopher Perez
From: Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 5:39 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Cc: John Anderson; Megan Yaniglos; Margaret Maliszewski
Subject: RE: SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan (Requires a Special Use Permit
(SP)to fill in the floodplain)
' Attachments: Briarwood H&H Analysis.pdf
Chris-
Thanks for the email. I apologize about the fees, and will look into it/get it rectified immediately. Thank you for allowing
it to move forward.
4 i'- �` j. a �S5`.y' Ki --:.i RY y* '4 t . Y $
lir , toc leC�rt' r11 submit—tin/Obis itpdrt-Olit PEKM
*i and anAarly grading plan this week Bet-tb sutn up'thi report,the-fill as rchewrlt an tt ' t
iia tes a honk che. ge/rise in the floodplain elevation. Therefore,the placement of the fill for�the recreational fields
ldbe considered as a by-right action. t 4
Thx.
Scot
or-./,7'
Scott
D �t
From:Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@albemarle.org] �
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:41 AM s- i -le
To:Scott Collins
Cc:John Anderson; Megan Yaniglos; Margaret Maliszewski
Subject:SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan (Requires a Special Use Permit (SP)to fill in the
floodplain)
Scott,
SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
I have received the above referenced site plan. The proposal is being distributed for review by SRC. There are
two large items I wanted to bring to your attention as soon as possible before this plan gets too far along in the
review. These two items will also be mentioned in the SRC comments.
1) You did not pay the correct application fee for this project's review. You paid the $752 for an initial site plan
with an approved pre application plan; however, you should have paid the $1,290 review fee be this project
does not have an approved pre application plan associated with it. Please work with intake to correct this prior
to receiving review comments for SRC.
2) Upon review of the design for the recreational area it appears your proposal will require a Special Use Permit
(SP) to fill in the floodplain. Prior to final site plan approval this item shall be applied for and acted
on/approved by the PC and BOS. Per discussions with the Zoning Administrator this item can be a condition of
initial site plan approval. Notably the SP will not be approved until FEMA approves the CLOMR-F. See Engineering's
summary of this in the email below dated 4-29-16.
Christopher P. Peter Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 Mclntire Road;Charlottesville.VA 22Y02
434296.5832 ext. 3443
1
giamiemermimmiainew
rrnr INV
From:John Anderson
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 4:08 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc:Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham
<mgraham@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>;Greg Harper<gharper@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
Christopher,
Thanks for your patience.
I spoke with Amelia McCulley on 27-Apr, and Mark Graham earlier today.
I've copied your questions—blue text responses reflect Zoning Administrator/Floodplain Administrator/Departmental
consensus:
Questions I would like answers/clarification to from Zoning and Engineering:
Is an SP truly needed for the use to fill in the floodplain to facilitate the construction of ballparks/recreational fields. Yes;
design alters limits of floodplain. Fill or cut (to construct athletic fields)that alters floodplain limits is not by-
right. Athletic fields are a by-right use provided there is no change to floodplain limits. Picnic shelter/parking are by-
right in the floodway fringe,prohibited in the floodway. Table at 18-30.3.11: 'Grading activities, including cut or fill, in
compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance,but for which the floodplain administrator determines will or may cause
the base flood elevation to rise or the horizontal limits of the floodplain to expand' requires an SP. Proposed design may
cause the BFE to rise. Note on sheet 1 (Collins Engineering, 4/25/16): `Proposed new 100 YR Floodplain. CLOMR-F
under review with FEMA for filling within the 100YR floodplain as shown.' We are grateful Applicant is coordinating
with FEMA. Engineering requests Applicant show existing/proposed floodway and floodplain boundaries with future
Site Plans, and SP/FDP Applications. Applicant should submit Floodplain Development (FDP) and VSMP Permit
Applications. Applicant should submit an SP in addition to CLOMR-F Application filed with FEMA.
Design is ineligible for 18-30.3.11/BR use: `Grading activities in compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance;
provided that it is demonstrated, in a floodplain impact plan that the grading will have no impact on the elevations or
limits of the floodplain and further provided that any cut or fill shall be only to level areas for playfields, correct erosion
problems, build trails,or other fine grading activities which will have no impact on the floodplain.' Proposed Recreation
Area impacts are unknown. CLOMR-F is required.
Also, is it appropriate to conditionally approve the initial site plan with the SP as a condition prior to final site plan
approval? Yes. We recommend additional condition(or Note) stating that a Grading Permit will not be issued until an SP
is approved.
Also, is it appropriate to conditionally approve the initial site plan with the C-LOMA as a condition prior to final site plan
approval? Yes,by extension. We recommend condition of FSP approval stating that SP will not be approved until
FEMA approves CLOMR-F showing no increase in the water surface elevation of the base flood under the proposed
design(No Rise in BFE).
I apologize for the delay responding. Please call if any questions.
Thank you
-x3069
John E. Anderson, PE Civil Engineer II
Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3069
2
PON
r
'4110r %We
From:Christopher Perez
Sent:Wednesday,April 27, 2016 3:13 PM
To:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>
Cc:Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos<mvaniglos@albemarle.org>
Subject:SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
John,
SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
The above referenced site plan is being generated by the Briarwood rezoning- proffer 4—primary recreational
area. At yesterday's distribution meeting Planning and Engineering staff opened up the initial site plan which
was just submitted/distributed (4-25-16) and we believe a Special Use Permit should be required to fill in the
floodplain. During the two pre application meetings for this item I do not believe staff was privy to a design that
required filling within the floodplain. Rather all the pre app discussion relied on verbal discussion that the
floodplain would be relocated through a C-LOMA or LMOA and that Scott would do all the required
calculations to prove there would be no increase in flood elevations.
Questions I would like answers/clarification to from Zoning and Engineering:
Is an SP truly needed for the use to fill in the floodplain to facilitate the construction of ballparks/recreational
fields.
Also, is it appropriate to conditionally approve the initial site plan with the SP as a condition prior to final site
plan approval?
Also, is it appropriate to conditionally approve the initial site plan with the C-LOMA as a condition prior to
final site plan approval?
Thank you for your help
PS. I noticed that the applicant paid the incorrect fee with the site plan.
Christopher P. Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 Mclntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5 832 ext. 3443
3
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 7:16 AM
To: Robert Eastman
Cc: Carla Harris-CDD
Subject: SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
Attachments: Briarwood H&H Analysis.pdf; RE: SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
(Requires a Special Use Permit(SP)to fill in the floodplain)
Robert,
SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
Staff just received the attached document from the applicant. Also, I have attached the latest email to come from
the applicant. Otherwise at this time we have no additional documents for review.
What aspect of the plan are you interested in? Give me a call if you have any questions.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From:Carla Harris-CDD
Sent:Wednesday, May 04, 2016 11:20 AM
To: Robert Eastman <eastmanrg@gmail.com>
Cc:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE:April 25, 2016(SDP) Memo.docx
Hi Rob,
I am forwarding your email to the planner handling this project.
Thanks,
Carla Harris
BZA Clerk/Zoning Support
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
434-296-5832 ext 3834
charris@albemarle.org
.'
Sent:Wednesday, May 04, 2016 9:35 AM
To:Carla Harris-CDD<CHARRIS@albemarle.org>; Places29 North Community Advisory Committee
1
<p29northcac@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: April 25, 2016 (SDP) Memo.docx
Thank you Carla!
f E` > : . " .l ckicrnen#atinn availableo revtecr` e'�" itiYi T�i~ ational Area's initial site pieta
.,k
!Thanks,
iltob Eastman, Places 29 North CAC member
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Carla Harris - CDD <CHARRIS@albemarle.org> wrote:
April 25, 2016—(SRC) Site Plan Submittal
2
',Noy Nur
Christopher Perez
o. e
From: John Anderson S
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 2:31 PM ►
To: Scott Collins; Christopher Perez 4/,
Cc: Megan Yaniglos; Margaret Maliszewski; Mark Graham — �j i,,��'�' Ivt'n. 47744—.
Subject: RE: SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan (Requires a Splscial Use Permit
(SP)to fill in the floodplain)
Scott,
Thanks for your note. I apologize for delay responding. Please ref. blue text embedded in email,below.
In addition: We express caution that applications(Applicants)may present model data suggesting No-Rise/no impact, but
this is a position—a perceived outcome. It's a bit soon to say that the fill for the primary recreation area at Briarwood will
have no impact,or cause no rise in base flood elevation. Applications(SP,CLOMR-F, FDP, VSMP)initiate county
/FEMA review. Acceptance of No Rise project impact is reserved by ordinance for Albemarle County floodplain
administrator. Any rise in BFE(within floodway fringe)requires FEMA approval. Email below traces review outcome
reserved for the county. Also, it is too soon to submit an early grading plan. (This is our first glimpse of HEC-RAS
data.) I am unsure what is meant by an Early Grading plan. A VSMP Application is required for the primary recreation
area south of St. Ives. A FEMA CLOMR-F Application is required. A Floodplain Development Permit Application is
required—see 18-30.3.12.A.
As acting Floodplain Administrator, I cannot certify that requirements of 18-30.3.14.A.-D. have been satisfied. Also, 18-
30.3.12.B.*:
* I spoke briefly with Graham about this project,this section of code, and our need for an FDP Application earlier today.
B. Grading permit No grading permit shall be issued for fill in the floodHuy fringe unless the
floodplain administrator determines that the proposed fill satisfies the requirements of section
30.3 14.
Report—Data
1
HEC-RAS River:NorthForkRivanna Reach:Briarwood Profile:100-yr
Reach River Sta Profile Plan 0 Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Crit W.S. E.G.Elev E.G.Slope . V
(as) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ftlft)
Briarwood 2940 100-yr PropGrading 30000.00 368.00 395.40 395.47 0.000155
Briarwood 2940 100-yr ExCond 30000.00 368.00 395.36v 395.43 0.000156
Brla%wood 2725 100-yr PropGrading 30000.00 368.00 395.31 395.41 0.000247
Briarwood 2725 100-yr ExCond 30000.00 368.00 395.27 395.37 0.000249
Briarwood ,2360 100-yr ProgGrading 30000.00 368.00 394.78 395.23 0.000941
Briarwood 2360 100-yr ExCond 30000.00 368.00 394.73 395.19 0.000949
Briarwood 2077 100-yr PropGrading 30000.00 368.00 394.79 394.96 0.000360 -
Briarwood 2077 100-yr ExCond 30000.00 _ 368.00 394.80 394.92 0.000310
Brie/wood 1520 100-yr PropGrading 30000.00 368.00 394.66 394.80 0.000295
Briarwood 1520 100-yr ExCond 30000.00 368.00 394.69 394.78 0.000257
Briarwood 1307 100-yr PropGrading 30000.00 368.00 394.63 394.73 0.000224
(Maywood 1307 100-yr ExCond 30000.00 368.00 394.66 394.73 0.000184
Briarwood 1049 100-yr PropGrading 30000.00 368.00 394.49394.66 0.000319
Briarwood 1049 100-yr ExCond 30000.00 368.00 394.49 394.66 0.000319
Briarwood 560 100-yr PropGrading 30000.00 364.00 394.40 378.02 394.52 0.000214
Briarwood 560 100-yr ExCond 30000.00 364.00 394.40 378.02 394.52 0.000214
Report-Excerpt
IIMWATERWAYS
CONSULTING, INC.
The Route 29 crossing downstream of the proposed project was not modeled as part of this
analysis. Roughness values(Mannings n)for existing conditions were set at 0.06 for within
the channel and 0.06 for overbank areas,per Table 4 of the FIS. These roughness values
were maintained for proposed conditions;except at fill locations where the roughness was
set at 0.03 to match anticipated vegetation conditions(grass).
Again,please see blue text, below.
Thanks, Scott
434.296-5832-x3069
From:Scott Collins [mailto:scott@collins-engineering.com]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 5:39 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>; Margaret Maliszewski
<MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area-initial site plan(Requires a Special Use Permit(SP)to fill in the
floodplain)
Chris-
2
w ...,
Thanks for the email. I apologize about the fees, and will look into it/get it rectified immediately. Thank you for allowing
it to move forward.
For the floodplain,this fill is by-right. Proposed grading will affect limits of floodplain—ref.18-30.3.11 /Table—Stream
Crossings and Grading Activities(30.3.11 table—image below). Grading, including cut or fill, which the floodplain
administrator determines will or may cause the base flood elevation to rise or the horizontal limits of the floodplain to
expand may be permitted by special permit. This is project circumstance. The floodplain administrator exercises caution
when considering grading/fill within floodplain. Also, 'no net change/rise in the floodplain elevation' is not
confirmed. We appreciate,yet just received,this report. Ref. 18-30.3.14.A.-E. for project design requirements(text
images, below). We just received the final report (attached). I am submitting this report,our FEMA application, and an
early grading plan this week. Please do not submit an early grading plan(explanation,above). But to sum up this report,
the fill as shown on the initial site plan creates a no net change/rise in the floodplain elevation. Data submitted with
email is supportive information that requires evaluation. The Report alone does not constitute an FDP Application, or
merit acceptance without review. HEC-RAS Data(table above)uses n=0.03 (grass)through the fill section. If recreation
area playing fields are higher than BFE, grass playing surfaces should not affect hydrology/hydraulics. The fields are not
an overbank area.
Channel and overbank areas through the fill section are unchanged on the north bank apart from height/length of
stabilized fill slope. Every other contour of the channel and overbank areas(north bank)match existing conditions
(except proposed SWM). The south bank matches existing conditions. A proposed SWM facility introduces uneven
contours that may create turbulence(roughness>0.03). If planted,a SWM facility may even increase roughness above
existing through the fill section. Engineering is skeptical. As Acting Floodplain Administrator, I cannot certify that this
design satisfies requirements of 18-30.3.12.A.-D. No rise is determined by FEMA CLOMR-F review. This design
requires Albemarle County Floodplain Administrator issue opinion that fill will not result in any increase in the base flood
elevation above that authorized in section 30.3.13 (opinion withheld). Engineering requests that model use Manning n
=0.06 for existing and proposed conditions to evaluate effect of proposed fill on BFE. If modeled results using n=0.06
show encroachment would increase the water surface elevation of the base flood,then Owner must first apply with
floodplain administrator's endorsement for a conditional letter of map revision(CLOMR)and receive the approval of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
This process is defined by ordinance.
Data table values show the first three and last two river station W.S. Elev. are virtually unchanged from(or slightly higher
than BFE)existing conditions. Then, switching to roughness/n=0.03 for the fill section,data show very slight decrease
in W.S. Elev. Concern with using n=0.03 through the fill section is related to velocity effects. Report indicates channel
velocity increases(Vel Chnl)through this section only. This single mechanism appears to ensure No Rise in BFE. Please
note PropGrading-ExCond velocity values upstream and downstream of highlighted PropGrading velocity values(fill
section). Top width narrows substantially through the fill section,yet proposed(modeled) BFE is slightly lower than
existing BFE. Therefore,the placement of the fill for the recreational fields should be considered as a by-right action.
Thx.
Scott
18-30.3.11/Table:
3
ter/
Stream Crossings sad Grading Activities*
Stream crossings for driveways serving single-family dwellings and pedestrian
trails, including, but not limited to, pedestrian and multi-use paths that are within
county-owned or operated parks and greenways,and any footbridges necessary to
cross tributary streams, watercourses and males, that: (I) meet the applicable
requirements of sections 17-406 and 17-604; (ii) demonstrate, in a floodplain
impact plan, to the floodplain administrator's satisfaction, that construction of the BR 13R
crossing will have no impact on the elevations or limits of the floodplain;and(nt)
will serve one dwelling unit that could not be accessed by any other means.
Bridges,ferries and culverts not serving single-family dwellings SP SP
Grading activities in compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance; provided
that it is demonstrated, in a floodplain impact plan that the grading will have no
impact on the elevations or limits of the floodplain and further provided that any cut
or till shall be only to level areas for playtields, correct erosion problems, build N BR
trails,or other fine grading activities which will have no impact on the floodplain.
Grading activities, including cut or till, in compliance with the Water Protection
Ordinance,but for which the floodplain administrator determines will or may cause
the base flood elevation to rise or the horizontal limits of the floodplain to expand N SP
Miscellaneous Structures*
30.3.14 ENCROACHMENT STANDARDS; FILL iN THE FLOODWAY FRINGE
Any till in the floodway fringe authorized by special use permit under section 30.3.11 shall, in addition to
any condition of approval of the special use permit and any applicable encroachment standard in section
30.3.13,be subject to the following:
A. Minimize obstruction. The fill shall be designed and constructed to minimize obstruction to and
effect upon the flow of water such that: (i) the till will not, in the opinion of the floodplain
administrator, result in any increase in the base flood elevation above that authorized in section
30.3.13;and(ii)no till is placed in the regulatory floodway.
18-30-12.8
Zoning Supplement#84,3-5-14
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
B. Protect against erosion. The till shall be effectively protected against erosion by vegetative cover,
riprap, gabions, bulkhead or another method acceptable to the floodplain administrator. Any
structure, equipment or material installed to protect against erosion shall be firmly anchored to
prevent dislocation due to flooding.
C. Non-polluting.The fill shall be of a material that will not pollute surface water or groundwater.
D. Additional information. The floodplain administrator may require any owner to submit additional
topographic, engineering and other data or studies as the administrator deems necessary to
determine the effect of flooding on a proposed structure or fill,the effect of the structure or till,or
both,on the flow of water during a flood.
E. Certification by floodplain administrator_ No fill activity shall occur before the owner submits a
site plan for review,the floodplain administrator certifies that the requirements of subsections(A)
through(D),and all other applicable requirements ot'the Code,have been satisfied.
(§§30.3.06,30.3.06.1, 12-10-80:§30.3.14;Ord. 14-18(1),3-5-14)
State law reference—Va Code 33 15.2-2280,15 2-2286
From:Christopher Perez (mailto:cperezt albemarle.orgj
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:41 AM
To:Scott Collins
4
Nee 'Nue
Cc:John Anderson; Megan Yaniglos; Margaret Maliszewski
Subject:SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan (Requires a Special Use Permit(SP)to fill in the
floodplain)
Scott,
SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
I have received the above referenced site plan. The proposal is being distributed for review by SRC. There are
two large items I wanted to bring to your attention as soon as possible before this plan gets too far along in the
review. These two items will also be mentioned in the SRC comments.
1) You did not pay the correct application fee for this project's review. You paid the $752 for an initial site plan
with an approved pre application plan; however, you should have paid the $1,290 review fee be this project
does not have an approved pre application plan associated with it. Please work with intake to correct this prior
to receiving review comments for SRC.
2) Upon review of the design for the recreational area it appears your proposal will require a Special Use Permit
(SP) to fill in the floodplain. Prior to final site plan approval this item shall be applied for and acted
on/approved by the PC and BOS. Per discussions with the Zoning Administrator this item can be a condition of
initial site plan approval. Notably the SP will not be approved until FEMA approves the CLOMR-F.See Engineering's
summary of this in the email below dated 4-29-16.
Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development ICounty of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From:John Anderson
Sent: Friday,April 29, 2016 4:08 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc:Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham
<mgraham@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>; Greg Harper<gharper@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE:SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
Christopher,
Thanks for your patience.
I spoke with Amelia McCulley on 27-Apr, and Mark Graham earlier today.
I've copied your questions—blue text responses reflect Zoning Administrator/Floodplain Administrator/Departmental
consensus:
Questions I would like answers/clarification to from Zonine and Engineering:
Is an SP truly needed for the use to fill in the floodplain to facilitate the construction of ballparks/recreational fields. Yes;
design alters limits of floodplain. Fill or cut(to construct athletic fields)that alters floodplain limits is not by-
right. Athletic fields are a by-right use provided there is no change to floodplain limits. Picnic shelter/parking are by-
right in the floodway fringe, prohibited in the floodway. Table at 18-30.3.11: `Grading activities, including cut or fill, in
compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance, but for which the floodplain administrator determines will or may cause
the base flood elevation to rise or the horizontal limits of the floodplain to expand' requires an SP. Proposed design may
cause the BFE to rise. Note on sheet 1 (Collins Engineering, 4/25/16): `Proposed new 100 YR Floodplain. CLOMR-F
under review with FEMA for filling within the 100YR floodplain as shown.' We are grateful Applicant is coordinating
with FEMA. Engineering requests Applicant show existing/proposed floodway and floodplain boundaries with future
5
Site Plans, and SP/FDP Applications. Applicant should submit Floodplain Development(FDP)and VSMP Permit
Applications. Applicant should submit an SP in addition to CLOMR-F Application filed with FEMA.
Design is ineligible for 18-30.3.11/BR use: `Grading activities in compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance;
provided that it is demonstrated, in a floodplain impact plan that the grading will have no impact on the elevations or
limits of the floodplain and further provided that any cut or fill shall be only to level areas for playfields,correct erosion
problems, build trails,or other fine grading activities which will have no impact on the floodplain.' Proposed Recreation
Area impacts are unknown. CLOMR-F is required.
Also, is it appropriate to conditionally approve the initial site plan with the SP as a condition prior to final site plan
approval? Yes. We recommend additional condition(or Note) stating that a Grading Permit will not be issued until an SP
is approved.
Also, is it appropriate to conditionally approve the initial site plan with the C-LOMA as a condition prior to final site plan
approval? Yes,by extension. We recommend condition of FSP approval stating that SP will not be approved until
FEMA approves CLOMR-F showing no increase in the water surface elevation of the base flood under the proposed
design (No Rise in BFE).
I apologize for the delay responding. Please call if any questions.
Thank you
-x3069
John E.Anderson, PE Civil Engineer II
Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3069
From:Christopher Perez
Sent:Wednesday,April 27, 2016 3:13 PM
To:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>
Cc:Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>
Subject:SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
John,
SDP2016-25 Briarwood Recreation Area—initial site plan
The above referenced site plan is being generated by the Briarwood rezoning -proffer 4—primary recreational
area. At yesterday's distribution meeting Planning and Engineering staff opened up the initial site plan which
was just submitted/distributed (4-25-16) and we believe a Special Use Permit should be required to fill in the
floodplain. During the two pre application meetings for this item I do not believe staff was privy to a design that
required filling within the floodplain. Rather all the pre app discussion relied on verbal discussion that the
floodplain would be relocated through a C-LOMA or LMOA and that Scott would do all the required
calculations to prove there would be no increase in flood elevations.
Questions I would like answers/clarification to from Zoning and Engineering:
Is an SP truly needed for the use to fill in the floodplain to facilitate the construction of ballparks/recreational
fields.
Also, is it appropriate to conditionally approve the initial site plan with the SP as a condition prior to final site
plan approval?
Also, is it appropriate to conditionally approve the initial site plan with the C-LOMA as a condition prior to
6
•
Nor -woe
final site plan approval?
Thank you for your help
PS. I noticed that the applicant paid the incorrect fee with the site plan.
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
7