Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200700027 Review Comments 2007-08-28 of AL � eau ��kGIN�P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: August 28, 2007 Subject: SP 2007-027 Emmanuel Episcopal Church —second zoning comments I have reviewed the second submittal and have the following comments and questions: 1. The revised plan further addresses my first comment asking for clarity about what exists and what is proposed. However, it is not clear which parking exists and what is proposed. 2. Based on my research it appears that the "religious education building" was not included in the prior special use permit (SP 99-48). Therefore, it has not been previously approved. Because the property on which it is located is part of this special use permit, it will become conforming as a result of this approval. It may possibly be relevant to determine when this use began in order to best know how to review it. If it was not previously approved and should have been, we should be certain it meets any relevant Building Codes for a change of use. In addition, because it has a separate entrance and parking and becomes somewhat of a freestanding use, it might be worthwhile to understand the use. For example, does it solely serve this church? In addition, if it "may be" used as a fellowship hall, what is the pedestrian path by which people will travel to it? 3. Even though the applicant has responded that they expect to avoid critical slopes for the proposed future structure and the storm water management facility, the proposed locations appear to necessitate critical slopes disturbance. It appears that alternative locations will eliminate the need to disturb critical slopes. We continue to recommend that we address this at this time. If not, please write a condition of approval that clearly states that the critical slopes disturbance is not approved and will require further PC approval or redesign of the plan. 4. We are typically not in support of plans showing "proposed future structure." Please write a condition of approval that will address the possible size and use of the "proposed future structure." If the applicant does not expect to begin construction within two (2) years, they should seek an extension of time for SP validity (Section 31.2.4.4). 5. Because this site is somewhat limited by topography, it may be difficult to provide additional parking if it will be necessary for the proposed uses. We suggest that a parking study be provided and reviewed at this time. It is not clear what parking exists and what is proposed. 6. Staff has mentioned the need to preserve trees and reduce the number that are lost. Significant trees should be identified and a tree conservation plan should be submitted as part of the site plan. If this issue is critical to the SP review, it should be done at this time in conjunction with parking approval by the Zoning Administrator. 7. Please clarify the applicant's response comment about VDOT requirements. It would be atypical if only a residential entrance is required. OF AL • County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner From: John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration Division: Current Development Date: January 24, 2008 Subject: Re: SP 2007-027 Emmanuel Episcopal Church These comments set forth in bold font address the waiver requests submitted on January 14, 2008. No revisions to the plan dated December 12, 2007 have been received. These revise my comments of January 4, 2008. 1. The response to comments proposes 133 spaces. The Zoning Administrator must approve this number of parking spaces. Please refer to her comments. 1/24/08: No additional comment. The applicant has applied for a variance to disturb critical slopes. That is not the correct process. This matter must be reviewed and approved by the planning commission as a waiver rather than as a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The request must address all criteria set forth in section 4.2. That information must be reviewed by a County engineer prior to the formulation of a recommendation to the Commission. 1/24/08: The applicant has applied for the critical slope waiver under section 4.2 as requested. The request must be reviewed by engineering staff. The current development division has no objection to the request. 4.2 CRITICAL SLOPES These provisions are created to implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation,water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the development of those areas described in the comprehensive plan as critical slopes. It is hereby recognized that such development of critical slopes may result in:rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock;excessive stormwater run-off; siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource;and in the event of septic system failure,a greater travel distance of septic effluent,all of which constitute potential dangers to the public health,safety and/or welfare. These provisions are intended to direct building and septic system locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on critical slopes,and to supplement other regulations regarding protection of public water supplies and encroachment of development into flood plains.(Amended 11-15-89) Where modification of regulations is sought pursuant to section 4.2.5,such request shall address each concern specified in section 4.2.(Added 11-15-89) 2. On November 15, 2007 I commented: (17-317 B) The revised concept plan shows the stream buffer on the site. The line must be revised to show that the buffer includes the flood plain. The plan was revised to show the stream buffer 100 feet from the flood plain. The ordinance requires .at the buffer extend 100 feet from me stream or the edge of the flood plain, whichever is greater. While it has no effect on the development that is proposed with this request the buffer should be revised again to meet the ordinance. 1/24/08: No additional comment. B. If the development is located within a water supply protection area, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial or intermittent streams,nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams, and flood plains. The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i)one hundred(100)feet on each side of perennial or intermittent streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands,measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands,or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or(ii)the limits of the flood plain. The stream buffer shall be no less than two hundred(200)horizontal feet wide from the flood plain of any public water supply impoundment. 3. On November 15, 2007 I commented: (4.17.4.a & 4.17.5) The light fixture shown on Sheet 6 / 7 does not meet the definition of full cut off luminaire. Section 4.17.5 sets forth the procedure to request a modification of this regulation. THIS IS A NEW COMMENT. The revised plan shows a fixture that does not meet the definition of full cutoff luminaire. The process to request a modification of this standard is set forth in section 4.17.5. The sections are copied below for reference. 12/24/08: After discussions with me the applicant has elected to address the lighting issues at the site development plan stage. This is not a feasibility issue. 4. This revision also contains a request for a variance of certain parking standards. Again, this is not the correct process. Section 4.12.2 & 4.12.3 provide the process to request a modification of parking standards set forth in section 4.12.15 and 4.12.16. The request must address all criteria set forth in section 4.12. That information must be reviewed by a County Engineer prior to the formulation of a recommendation to the Commission. These can be approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator upon the advice of the County Engineer. The plan indicates that the parking areas will be treated with "shot and chip paving." The County Engineer has informed me that this term should be deleted and replaced with "prime and double seal" to avoid any confusion about this standard. This could be included as a condition of approval. 12/24/08: The applicant has applied for waivers of parking lot standards for use of prime and double seal (4.12.15.a), rural cross section of travelways with no curb and gutter (4.12.15.g), reduced aisle width (4.12.16.c) and elimination of bumper blocks (4.12.16.e). The request must be reviewed by the County Engineer. The Zoning Administrator will support the findings of the County Engineer. 2. The zoning administrator may modify or waive a design requirement in sections 4.12.15, 4.12.16,4.12.17,4.12.18 and 4.12.19 only after consultation with the county engineer, who shall advise the zoning administrator whether the proposed waiver or modification would equally or better serve the public health, safety or welfare. 3. In granting a modification or waiver,the zoning administrator may impose such conditions as deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. In granting a request to modify the minimum number of parking spaces required by section 4.12.6,the zoning administrator may also require that the developer reserve an area on the lot equal to the reduced number of parking spaces for a specified period, and under conditions,imposed by the coning administrator. 4.12.15 MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARKING AREAS The following design requirements and minimum improvements shall be provided for all off-street parking areas consisting of four(4)or more parking spaces: a.Surface materials.All parking areas consisting of four(4)or more spaces shall be surfaced. The surface materials for parking areas and access aisles shall be subject to review and approval by the county engineer,based upon the intensity of usage and Virginia Department of Transportation pavement design guidelines and specifications.The county engineer may approve the use of alternative surfaces deemed equivalent in regard to strength,durability, sustainability and long term maintenance for the intensity of the use. as provided in Section 602 of the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual. g.Curb and gutter in parking areas and along travelways.Curbs shall be established at the edges of parking areas or access aisles in the following circumstances:(1)in all commercial or institutional developments requiring eight(8)or more parking spaces;(2)in all multifamily dwelling and townhouse developments requiring eight(8)or more parking spaces;(3) where necessary to control or direct stormwater runoff;(4)where a sidewalk is located closer than four(4)feet from the edge of an access aisle;and(5)where necessary to contain vehicular traffic to protect pedestrians and/or property.Gutters shall be required where necessary to control or direct stormwater runoff.The county engineer may waive or modify this requirement if deemed necessary to accommodate stormwater management/BMP facility design or existing uses located in the Rural Areas(RA)zoning district. 4.12.16 MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARKING SPACES WITHIN PARKING AREAS OR PARKING BAYS The following design requirements and minimum improvements shall be provided for all parking spaces within parking areas or parking bays: c.Minimum parking space size.Parking spaces shall be the minimum sizes,and have the minimum aisle width,provided below: 1.Perpendicular parking. For perpendicular parking,the minimum space and aisle widths shall be: Width(ft.)Length(ft.)Aisle Width(ft.) 10 18 20 9 18 24 2.Parallel parking. For parallel parking,the minimum space shall be: Width(ft.)Length(ft.) 9 20 3.Angled parking. For angled parking,the minimum space and aisle widths shall be: ANGLED PARKING DIMENSIONS-ONE WAY CIRCULATION ANGLE (DEGS.) AISLE WIDTH STALL • DEPTH WIDTH LENGTH A B E F G H I 60 1620.1 9 184.5 10.4 35.7 36.1 56.2 87.8 107.9 45 1419.1 9 186.4 12.7 31.8 33.1 52.278.998 30 12 16.8 9 18 7.8 18 25.8 28.8 45.6 66.6 83.4 ANGLED PARKING DIMENSIONS-TWO WAY CIRCULATION ANGLE (DEGS.) AISLE WIDTH STALL DEPTH WIDTH LENGTH A B E F G H I 60 20 20.1 9 18 4.5 10.4 35.7 40.1 60.2 95.8 115.9 45 20 19.1 9 18 6.4 12.7 31.8 39.1 58.290.9110 30 20 16.8 9 18 7.8 18 25.8 36.8 53.6 82.6 99.4 All depths,widths and lengths in the tables above are stated in feet.All angled parking must have a parking envelope that is nine(9)feet by eighteen(18)feet within each angled parking space. The dimensions of angled parking(as provided in the above tables in columns A,B,E,F,G,n dud I)shall be measured as provided in Section 602.1 (Figure 6-4)of the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual. e.Bumper blocks.Bumper blocks shall be provided in parking spaces in the following circumstances,unless waived by the county engineer:(1)the parking area has no curb or curb and gutter;(2)the parking has curb or curb and gutter and there is a sidewalk located closer than two(2)feet from the edge of the parking area,except that bumper blocks shall not be required where a sidewalk has a minimum width of six(6)feet.Bumper blocks shall be constructed of a durable material such as concrete or treated timbers.Each bumper block shall be a minimum length of six(6)feet,a maximum height of five(5)inches,and shall be securely anchored into the pavement in at least two(2)places. (§4.12.6.5, 12-10-80; 11-16-83;6-14-89;Ord.01-18(6), 10-3-01;Ord.03-18(1),2-5-03) Please contact me if you have questions.