Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201600001 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2016-07-01Short Review Comments Report for: SP201600001 SubApplication Type: Kapp Driveway - Stream Crossing New Special Use Permit Date Completed:03/04/2016 Reviewer:Scott Clark CDD Planning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:07/06/2016 Reviewer:Scott Clark CDD Planning Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:01/25/2016 Reviewer:Francis MacCall CDD Admin Zoning Review Review Status:QC OK Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:02/14/2016 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 1/19/16. 1. Stream crossing shall be designed to suppport the weight of fire apparatus (64,000lbs) with a minimum 10' clear travel way. Division: Date Completed:02/23/2016 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:07/01/2016 Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Page:1 of 1 County of Albemarle Printed On:May 10, 2017 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 July 6, 2016 Mr. Justin Shimp Shimp Engineering 201 E. Main St., Suite M Charlottesville VA 22902 RE: SP201600001 Kapp Driveway Justin -- Thank you for the recent resubmission for this special use permit. Please find review comments for this application included in this letter. Review Comments Planning (Scott Clark) • This item is scheduled for the July 18, 2016 Agricultural -Forestal Districts Advisory Committee meeting. It will be important to have someone representing the applicants attending the meeting to answer questions from the Committee. The Committee's role is to comment on the proposal's potential impacts on the adjacent District. The meeting will be at 5:30pm on 7/18 in Room 235 of the County Office Building. • No further comments. This project can be scheduled for its Planning Commission public hearing. Zoning (Amelia McCulley) • Please see attached memo. Engineering(Matthew Wentland) • Engineering has no further comments for the Kapp Stream Crossing and has no objection to the SP. If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the issues raised by this application. Sincerely, Scott Clark Senior Planner, Planning Division County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Scott Clark, Senior Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Date: July 6, 2016 Subject: SP 2016-001 Kapp Driveway — Stream Crossing 2nd Zoning Review 1. (For further discussion and staff recommendation) This special use permit appears to be preparing this property for development. Why are both crossings necessary? We are under no obligation to approve two crossings. Because the applicant owns several adjoining properties, this is an opportunity to consolidate access. 2. (Satisfied — the floodway is not delineated for this area.) Please revise the plan to show the floodway versus the floodway fringe. 3. (Information submitted to Engineering that will be their review.) Further information, such as is provided with a floodplain development permit should be included. PROJECT MANAGEMENT CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING IN IN . June 6, 2016 Mr. Scott Clark Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Regarding: SP2016 00001 —Kapp Driveway request Dear Scott, The attached revised "concept plan" (revision date 06-06-16) addresses the most recent Staff comments as follows: Planning(Scott Clark) • This application proposes new impacts to the Flood Hazard Overlay District and the natural resources within it. It may be possible to mitigate those impacts, but more details on the designs and mitigation measures are needed before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors can evaluate the impacts or the mitigation(see Engineering Comments). A Conceptual Mitigation Plan is provided (see sheet 4 of the Concept Plan). However, whether or not the floodplain impacts can be mitigated, approving stream crossings for road access to developable land would run counter to the County's comprehensive plan goals to limit residential development in the Rural Areas. Albemarle County is committed to preserving its rural heritage. The County encourages residential development in the Development Areas, where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with agricultural/forestall and conservation of natural resources or other objectives for Rural Area. (Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 7) New homebuilding is not desired in the County's Rural Area because it undermines the preferred uses. (Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 7) If the landowners want one new entrance and crossing for the existing house but aren't planning development, then the application should include a proposed condition of approval prohibiting use of the crossing for future development. In that case,the review would focus on the impacts and mitigation. 2,07,3 ld G But if the owners want the option of using these crossings for future residential development,please be aware that staff may recommend denial of the special use permit. The SP with the condition of a private road standard in conjunction with Section 41,014 Le 72 .z 14-412.A.2(a)will effectively limit the development of 997 acres of rural area land to .acv 5 lots, including the existing home on Parcel 14. While the owners do not have C 455 current plans to build or develop any new residences on parcels 4C,2B,3, 12, or 14; Lfj ) they do not wish to incur any further development restrictions on their property at a,, this time. TA,-,l i " -4- `'("A • The current plan shows most of the proposed site work occurring on TMP 98-4C, with +" 4'a1 �'`'` some grading extending onto TMP 98-14. Note that TMP 98-14 is located within the Chalk Mountain Agricultural-Forestal District, and TMP 98-4C is adjacent to the District. o If any work related to the special use permit occurs on TMP 98-14, the Board of Supervisors cannot approve the proposal unless they make determination that it is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 3 of the County Code: Sec. 3-100 Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this chapter are as follows: A. It is the policy of county to conserve and protect, and to encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural and forestall lands for the production of food and other agricultural or forestall products. It is also the policy of the county to conserve and protect agricultural and forestall lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open spaces for clean airsheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and for aesthetic purposes. B. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to provide means by which agricultural and forestall lands of either statewide or local significance may be protected and enhanced as a viable segment of state and local economics, and as important economic and environmental resources. No work related to the special use permit is proposed for TMP 98-14 and all work related to the special use permit will be mitigated in accordance with Albemarle County guidelines. The first step in this determination would be a presentation by the applicant to the Agricultural-Forestal Districts Committee at one of their scheduled meeting. A request has been made to provide a presentation at the July meeting of the Committee. As it would be difficult to make a termination that floodplain impacts and increased development potential are consistent with those purposes, we recommend that the proposal be changed to remove any work from TMP 98-14. W 3 No work related to the special use permit is proposed for TMP 98-14, all work related to the special use permit will be mitigated in accordance with Albemarle County guidelines. The potential increase in development potential is insignificant in considering that approval of the SP would allow a maximum of 5 lots (including an existing house) to be created on 5 parcels encompassing 997 acres. o Whether or not the work on TMP 98-14 is included in the proposal, the proposed work on TMP 98-4C will need to be considered by the Agricultural-Forestal District Committee, as are all special use permits located adjacent to Districts. The Committee's role is to advise the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on the impacts of such proposals on the District. The applicant would need to make a presentation to the Committee about the proposal. A request has been made to provide a presentation at the July meeting of the Committee. Zoning (Amelia McCulley) 1. This special use permit appears to be preparing this property for development. Why are both crossings necessary?We are under no obligation to approve two crossings. One crossing is requested to access an existing homesite on Parcel 14,which does not currently have an adequate access across the tributary of the south branch of the north fork of the Hardware River. The second crossing is requested to access 138 acres for the potential of one homesite. 2. Please revise the plan to show the floodway versus the floodway fringe. The area shown on the concept plan is "Zone A" of the Flood Insurance Rate Map. The floodway and floodway fringe are not delineated for this area. 3. Further information, such as is provided with a floodplain development permit should be included. Further information is provided in the attached report. Engineering (Matt Wentland) 1. Please provide detail on both of the crossings. This will allow the Planning Commission and the Board to see the extent of the buffer disturbance. We are providing a full detail and analysis of the primary stream crossing to be reviewed with this application. Both stream crossings will require an additional analysis/review with a road plan submittal after the SP is approved. 2. Section 17-604-C-7 allows only one crossing to serve all lots and TMP 98-14 appears to already have access on Sutherland Road. Provide justification for the second crossing. Please see the attached narrative. The existing crossing on Sutherland Road is not adequate, per County ordinance. 3. Disturbances in the buffer will require that mitigation be performed. Please provide at a minimum a concept mitigation plan for the buffer disturbance as part of the SP application. Please see sheet 4 of the concept plan. 4. Even if the total disturbance is below 10,000 sf, the stream crossings should require a WPO submittal, including an erosion control plan, a mitigation plan, and drainage calculations, to ensure the crossings will be properly constructed and stabilized and that safe access will be provided for emergency services.. Please see the attached Floodplain Impact Study included with this submittal. 5. A floodplain development permit and a floodplain impact study should be submitted as part of the SP application [18.30.3.12]. The Planning Commission and the Board may want to know the extent of the possible impacts. Please see the attached Floodplain Impact Study. Note that at station 1445, there is no post-development increase in the 100-year floodplain, and thus adjoining properties are not affected. It is our understanding that these revisions will address any outstanding comments.And it is our wish to schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission at the next available date after these revisions are reviewed by County Staff. If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions please feel free to call me at (434) 227-5140 and we can discuss any questions that you may have in further detail. J,stin himp Engineering, P.C. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 March 3, 2016 Mr. Justin Shimp Shimp Engineering 201 E. Main St., Suite M Charlottesville VA 22902 RE: SP201600001 Kapp Driveway Justin -- Thank you for the recent application for this special use permit. Please find review comments for this application included in this letter. Please see the attached re -submittal schedule for a list of dates on which you can submit your revisions and responses to review comments (below and attached), as well as for possible Planning Commission dates. (Please note that the listed dates are the earliest possible, but actual dates need to be selected to suit the revision schedule for each project.) Review Comments Planning (Scott Clark) This application proposes new impacts to the Flood Hazard Overlay District and the natural resources within it. It may be possible to mitigate those impacts, but more details on the designs and mitigation measures are needed before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors can evaluate the impacts or the mitigation (see Engineering Comments). However, whether or not the floodplain impacts can be mitigated, approving stream crossings for road access to developable land would run counter to the County's comprehensive plan goals to limit residential development in the Rural Areas. Albemarle County is committed to preserving its rural heritage. The County encourages residential development in the Development Areas, where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with agriculturalfforestal and conservation of natural resources or other objectives for the Rural Area. (Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 7) New homebuilding is not desired in the County's Rural Area because it undermines the preferred uses. (Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 7) If the landowners want one new entrance and crossing for the existing house but aren't planning development, then the application should include a proposed condition of approval prohibiting use of the crossing for future development. In that case, the review would focus on the impacts and mitigation. But if the owners want the option of using these crossings for future residential development, please be aware that staff may recommend denial of the special use permit. The current plan shows most of the proposed site work occurring on TMP 984C, with some grading extending onto TMP 98-14. Note that TMP 98-14 is located within the Chalk Mountain Agricultural -Forestal District, and TMP 984C is adjacent to the District. o If any work related to the special use permit occurs on TMP 98-14, the Board of Supervisors cannot approve the proposal unless they make determination that it is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 3 of the County Code: Sec. 3-100 Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this chapter are as follows: A. It is the policy of county to conserve and protect, and to encourage the development and improvement of, its agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural or forestal products. It is also the policy of the county to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open spaces for clean airsheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and for aesthetic purposes. B. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to provide means by which agricultural and forestal lands of either statewide or local significance may be protected and enhanced as a viable segment of state and local economies, and as important economic and environmental resources. The first step in this determination would be a presentation by the applicant to the Agricultural -Forestal Districts Committee at one of their scheduled meetings. As it would be difficult to make a determination that floodplain impacts and increased development potential are consistent with those purposes, we recommend that the proposal be changed to remove any work from TMP 98-14. o Whether or not the work on TMP 98-14 is included in the proposal, the proposed work on TMP 984C will need to be considered by the Agricultural -Forestal Districts Committee, as are all special use permits located adjacent to Districts. The Committee's role is to advise the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on the impacts of such proposals on the District. The applicant would need to make a presentation to the Committee about the proposal. Zoning (Amelia McCulleyl Please see attached memo. Engineering (Matthew Wentland) Please see attached memo. Fire/Rescue (Robbie Gilmer) Stream crossing shall be designed to support the weight of fire apparatus (64,000lbs) with a minimum 10' clear travel way. If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the issues raised by this application. Sincerely, Scott Clark Senior Planner, Planning Division County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Scott Clark, Senior Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Date: February 29, 2016 Subject: SP 2016-001 Kapp Driveway — Stream Crossing 1. This special use permit appears to be preparing this property for development. Why are both crossings necessary? We are under no obligation to approve two crossings. Because the applicant owns several adjoining properties, this is an opportunity to consolidate access. 2. Please revise the plan to show the floodway versus the floodway fringe. 3. Further information, such as is provided with a floodplain development permit should be included. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Scott Clark, Planning From: Matt Wentland, Engineering Date: 25 February 2016 Subject: Kapp Driveway (SP201600001) The SP for the Kapp Driveway project has been reviewed. The following concerns should be addressed; 1. Please provide detail on both of the crossings. This will allow the Planning Commission and the Board to see the extent of the buffer disturbance. 2. Section 17-604-C-7 allows only one crossing to serve all lots and TMP 98-14 appears to already have access on Sutherland Rd. Provide justification for the second crossing. 3. Disturbances in the buffer will require that mitigation be performed. Please provide at a minimum a concept mitigation plan for the buffer disturbance as part of the SP application. 4. Even if the total disturbance is below 10,000sf, the stream crossings should require a WPO submittal, including an erosion control plan, a mitigation plan, and drainage calculations, to ensure the crossings will be properly constructed and stabilized and that safe access will be provided for emergency services. 5. A floodplain development permit and a floodplain impact study should be submitted as part of the SP application [18.30.3.12]. The Planning Commission and the Board may want to know the extent of the possible impacts.