HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200400069 Calculations 2004-09-08 Re: Tom Muncaster<tmuncaster@earthlink.net>Re: SDP 04-069 Hydrau lic Dental Cent... Page 1 of 3
Stephen Waller
From: Michael Matthews [mikem@matthewsdevelop.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11.03 AM
To: Steve Waller
Cc: Tom Muncaster; T. Thomas Kangur, DMD, MS
Subject: Re. Tom Muncaster<tmuncaster@earthlink net>Re; SDP 04-069 Hydrau lic Dental Center Tom
Muncaster<tmuncaster@earthlink.net>
Stephen,
How about this solution, per my voice mail yesterday. I have not confirmed the exact square footage with the
architect, but I believe our current gross square footage is 9,175, which gives a net of 7,340 sf for parking
purposes based on 80% net to gross.
Our original site plan had a net square footage for parking purposes of 6,956, so the new site plan added 384
net square feet. Only this extra square footage is subject to any new parking ordinance.
If we win our appeal on whether this is general office or dental office, I calculate the parking as follows for
general office:
7,340 sf x 1/200 = 36.7 spaces or 37 spaces total. We have 36, so we will just add one near the old
garage.
If we lose our appeal, parking will be as follows:
Original net 6,956 x 1/200 = 34.7 spaces
New extra 384 sf x 1/175 = 2.2spaces
Total parking required 36.9 spaces or 37 spaces, so we add one space by the garage. Same result!
If it would make things go faster, if you agree with this, let's not even worry about the classification, let's add
one parking space to the building near the garage, and be done with it. How does that sound? Right now our
goal is to get the amendment approved as fast as possible so the contractor can keep going, if it ever stops
raining that is.
Michael Matthews
Matthews Development Company LLC
One Boar's Head Pointe
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
(434) 972-7764 tel
(434) 972-7769 fax
mikem@matthewsdevelop.com
On 9/3/04 3:20 PM, "Stephen Waller" <SWALLER@albemarle.org> wrote:
Hi Mike,
I am not sure if this use can be considered simply as"office". I spoke to Jan Sprinkle about this earlier today
and she indicated that she had spoken to someone about the parking requirements that I forwarded you prior to
the submittal of the amended plan However, Section 4.12.7 allows the Zoning Administrator to determine the
minimum number of required parking spaces for any alternatives and/or hybrid types of uses that may not be
expressly listed in the Ordinance. I am forwarding your information to Jan,for further consideration. Either she
or I will advise as to whether or not you are heading in the right direction and if a more formal parking study and
request is need in addition to you calculations that you have provided below.
Thanks,
Stephen B Waller,AICP
9/9/2004
Re: Tom Muncaster<tmuncaster@earthlink.net>Re: SDP 04-069 Hydrau lic Dental Cent... Page 2 of 3
Senior Planner
From: Michael Matthews [mailto:mikem@matthewsdevelop.coml
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:23 PM
To: Steve Waller
Cc: Tom Muncaster
Subject: Tom Muncaster <tmuncaster@earthlink.net>Re: SDP 04-069 Hydraulic Dental Center
Tom Muncaster <tmuncaster@earthlink.net>
Thanks for getting this to us. Everything looks fine except the notation about the
amount of parking needed, which I would like to discuss. I understand the increase
in parking required for dental offices in the new ordinance, but we do not feel this
is a dental office.
Regarding the parking calculation, we have classified the incremental square
footage not as "dental" but as "office" on the site plan. The reasons include:
• The suite is entirely devoted to oral and maxillofacial surgery and is
therefore in the same classification as a medical office (now just "office" in
the ordinance), not dentistry. There is a higher parking demand for dentistry
and therefore a higher parking requirement due to the high volume of
patients in dental suites, including the fact that services can be delivered not
just by dentists, but also by hygienists. There are no hygienists at this office,
so the only service providers are the practitioners themselves, who are
usually engaged in long procedures or post-operative follow-up care.
• Another major demand factor for dentistry is high/volume, recurrent
prophylactic (routine preventative check-up) and elective (whitening, etc...)
service, while oral surgery is an interventional procedure specific to teeth,
jaw, and/or adjacent facial muscle & bone tissue. The patient through-put is
simply much lower in oral surgery.
• We did our own informal parking study for our own benefit to make sure we
had enough parking. The building will be used as follows at the peak hour as
reported by the doctors:
Practitioners: 3
Nurses: 6
Staff: 3
Tech: 1
Surgical Patients 4
Follow-up Patients 6
Surgical patients waiting (on deck) 4
Total = 27 parking spaces at peak hour
With 36 spaces provided, we have 33% more parking than we theoretically
need, which should be a comfortable safety factor for changes, business visitors,
and other possible users. Obviously offices don't function at peak loads all the time,
providing additional comfort with this informal parking study.
This type of practice is actually the type I had in mind when I did not vehemently
argue to have the Medical Office designation require additional parking when the
parking ordinance was rewritten. Although the vast majority of medical office
suites do need more parking than the office standard, some low-volume practices
like oral surgery, individual psychiatry counseling, spine centers, endoscopy suites
9/9/2004
Re: Tom Muncaster<tmuncaster@earthlink.net>Re: SDP 04-069 Hydrau lic Dental Cent... Page 3 of 3
and the like actually have lower demand. Primary care doctors and most of the
specialists require much more parking, like dentists, hence the prevalence of
waiver requests for medical space.
Based on these factors, we request that the incremental square footage added
since the initial site plan be classified as "office" for the purposes of parking
calculations, not "dental," such that no change is required to the submission for
this item. Please advise if you need any additional information.
Michael Matthews
Matthews Development Company LLC
One Boar's Head Pointe
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
(434) 972-7764 tel
(434) 972-7769 fax
mikem@matthewsdevelop.com
On 9/3/04 12:36 PM, "Stephen Waller" <SWALLER@albemarle.org> wrote:
Please dispose of the last copy of comments that were sent and use these.
From: Stephen Waller
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 12:34 PM
To: 'tmuncaster@earthlink.net'; 'Michael Matthews'
Subject: SDP 04-069 Hydraulic Dental Center
9/9/2004