HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200700065 Legacy Document 2008-09-17o g.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP 07 -065: Lewis and Clark
Staff: Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner, Amy
Exploratory Center
Pflaum- Senior Civil Engineer
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
September 23, 2008
Not applicable
Owners: County of Albemarle and City of
Applicant: Dominion Development
Charlottesville
Resources, Inc.
Acreage: 12 acres within the 101.4 acre park
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 62, Parcel 23
By -right use: R -1, Residential, and EC,
Location: West side of Stony Point Road
Entrance Corridor
[Rte. 20], 0.5 miles north of its intersection
with Richmond Road [Rte. 250]
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Proffers /Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Lots: n/a
DA— X RA —
Proposal: Request for preliminary site plan approval
Comp. Plan Designation: Parks and
for construction of a 15,000 square foot historical
Greenway in Urban Area 3
center on approximately 12 acres within existing
Darden Towe Park, including a waiver of curb and
utter
Character of Property: This property is currently
Use of Surrounding Properties:
partially wooded, with several grassed meadow
Adjacent to the Rivanna River, Darden
areas. The site is bordered by the Rivanna River
Towe Park, and Trevillians Creek with
and Trevillians Creek travels through a portion the
some residential property beyond, both
site. Much of the area adjacent to the proposal is in
in the County and in the City
floodplain and stream buffer.
Factors Favorable: (see report)
Factors Unfavorable: (see report)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested waivers and the preliminary site plan.
In the event that the waiver is approved, staff recommends approval of the site plan with the
conditions listed in the Staff Report.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
SITE PLAN:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
Megan Yaniglos, Amy Phlaum
September 23, 2008
SDP 07 -065: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center
County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville
Dominion Development Resources, Inc.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
This is a request for preliminary site plan approval for construction of a 15,000 square foot historical
center on approximately 12 acres within existing Darden Towe Park. The property, described as Tax
Map 62, Parcel 23, is zoned RA (Rural Areas), R -1 (Residential), and EC (Entrance Corridor) and is
located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the west side of Stony Point Road [Rte. 20], 0.5 miles
north of its intersection with Richmond Road [Rte. 250] (Attachment A). The portion of the property
that the proposal is located within is zoned R -1. As part of the proposal, the applicant is also requesting
a waiver of the design requirements for parking and travelways in the Development Areas, as specified
in Section 4.12.15(g) of the Zoning Ordinance, which require these areas to be constructed with curb and
gutter (Attachment B).
CHARACTER OF AREA:
This property is currently partially wooded, with several grassed meadow areas. The site is bordered by
the Rivanna River and Trevillians Creek travels through a portion the site. Much of the area adjacent to
the proposal is in floodplain and stream buffer. Access to the park is proposed along an existing gravel
road that extends from the end of Elk Drive and circles around the park to the east along the Rivanna
River. This road would be extended approximately a quarter mile from where it currently ends in the
park.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SDP 1986 -045: Rivanna Park — This site plan was for construction of many of the current features of the
park, including most of the fields, roads, and trails.
SDP 1997 -030: Darden Towe Park, Minor Amendment — This site plan amendment was for the addition
of the overlook platform.
SP 2004 -004: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center — A special use permit approved in January of 2006
allowed the placement of an historical center on the property.
SP 2007 -024 — This special use permit was approved for an extension of the above referenced special
use permit.
SP 2007 -022 — This special use permit was approved to allow the grading and fill in the floodplain
necessary to complete the construction of the access roads serving this site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Parks and Greenway in Urban Area 3.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
This item had previously been called up for review of the preliminary site plan by the Planning
2
Commission, in accordance with Section 32.4.2.6.
As part of the preliminary site plan review, the Planning Commission must also consider the waiver
requested by the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver from one of the design specifications in
the Zoning Ordinance:
Section 4.12.15(g) — requires that parking and travelways must be constructed with curb and
gutter.
The Planning Commission must act on this waiver as well as the review of the preliminary site plan.
BACKGROUND:
This item came before the Planning Commission on November 13, 2007 (Attachment A). At that time,
two waiver requests were presented, one for curb and gutter, and the other for hard - surface material for
the parking and travelways. At the meeting, the item was deferred so that the applicant could revise the
plan to address engineering's concerns for the proposed waivers. The applicant has since revised the
plan so that the waiver for hard- surface is no longer needed. The applicant anticipates that the new
development will generate 200 trips per day on the access road, Engineering is in general accord with
this prediction. Per VDOT's Pavement Design Manual, 6 -inch prime and doubleseal aggregate is an
acceptable design for up to 250 vehicle trips per day. Since the proposed surface for the parking lot and
travelway meet VDOT standards, no waiver is required for installation.
However, a curb and gutter waiver is required. Staff has reviewed the request for the curb and gutter
waiver and the analysis for the waiver is provided herein. The County Engineer has also provided
supplemental information concerning the waiver request [Attachment C]. At the November meeting, it
was stated by engineering staff that if the applicant wanted to show bio - swales that engineering staff
could support it in lieu of the curb and gutter, and the waiver could be granted administratively and this
item could be added to the consent agenda. However, the applicant has not shown bio - swales in all of
the required areas, and therefore, this waiver could not be granted administratively.
REVIEW OF WAIVER OF SECTION 4.12.15:
Section 4.12.15 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the "minimum design requirements and
improvement for parking areas ". The applicant requested waiver of Section 4.12.15(g), which requires
that parking and access aisles must be constructed with curb and gutter:
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.
The regulations governing the modification or waiver of requirements from this section are included in
Section 4.12.2(c), which allows these design requirements to be waived by the Zoning Administrator in
consultation with the County Engineer. However, in this case, engineering staff was unable to
administratively support the requested waiver. As a result, these waivers can be considered as part of the
preliminary site plan review by the Planning Commission, as specified in Section 32.3.10:
32.3. 10 MODIFICATION, WAIVER OR SUBSTITUTION
3
Any requirement of section 32.7 may be modified, waived, or substituted, in an individual case, as
provided herein:
a. The commission may modify, waive, or accept substitution for any requirement of section 32.7 in a
particular case upon a finding that requiring such improvement would not forward the purposes of
this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare; or in the case of substitution,
that such alternative would satisfy the purpose of this chapter to at least an equivalent degree as the
required improvement.
b. Whenever, because of unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or
other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interests of the developer, strict application of
the requirements ofsection 32.7 would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent
properties, the requirement may be modified or waived by the commission; provided that such
modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly
development of the area, to sound engineering practices, or to adjacent properties
c. Upon finding in any case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable
quality, but differing from those required by section 32.7, a developer would achieve results which
substantially satisfy the overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the
desired effects of the requirement in section 32.7, the commission may approve such substitution of
technique, design or materials.
d. A developer requesting a modification, waiver, or substitution pursuant to this section shall file
with the agent a written request which shall state reasons and justifications for such request together
with such alternatives as may be proposed by the developer. Such request shall be submitted prior to
commission consideration of the preliminary or final plan, but no later than the site review
committee revision deadline. No such request shall be considered by the commission until the
commission has considered the recommendation of the agent. The agent may recommend approval,
approval with conditions or denial. A recommendation of approval or conditional approval shall be
accompanied by a statement from the agent as to the public purpose served by such
recommendation, particularly in regard to the purpose and intent of this chapter, the subdivision
ordinance, and the comprehensive plan.
e. In granting such modification, waiver or substitution, the commission may impose such conditions
as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare.
In this case, the specific section that must be waived or modified is Section 32.7.2.7:
32.7 Z 7 On -site parking and circulation shall be designed and constructed in accordance with section
4.12, off - street parking and loading requirements, subject to county engineer approval in accordance
with sound engineering practices, including but not limited to grade, drainage and paving
specifications; and agent approval of the safe and convenient vehicular circulation patterns.
For the review of these waivers, staff has considered the requirements of both of the above referenced
sections and the specific regulations listed in Section 4.12.15(g). Below, an analysis of the requested
waiver is presented, along with a presentation of the findings in Section 32.3.10 that are necessary in
order for the Planning Commission to approve the requested waiver.
CURB AND GUTTER IN PARKING AREAS AND ALONG TRAVELWAYS:
Engineering Analysis of Modification
The applicant has requested a waiver of the construction of curb and gutter for the parking area and the
travelway. In addition, they are requesting a waiver of curb and gutter installation for the existing
portion of the travelway that provides access from Elk Drive to the building and parking area. This
segment of the travelway was built before the County Code required curb and gutter street design. In
1i
accordance with Section 4.12.15(g), the County Engineer may waive or modify this requirement if
deemed necessary to accommodate SWM/BMP facility design. This waiver was not granted
administratively.
Many of the surrounding existing travelways and parking areas within the park have curb and gutter.
The use of curb and gutter will also assist with the containment of the drainage from the travelways.
Engineering staff previously granted a waiver of the curb and gutter requirements for portions of the
proposed parking lot that drain directly to proposed biofilter (SWM /BMP) facilities. These areas are
immediately adjacent to the biofilters and will be equipped with bumper blocks. The proposed grading
is such that runoff will sheet flow and gutter is not necessary on any portion of the parking lot to direct
the flow to the proposed biofilters. The installation of curb will neither facilitate nor hinder stormwater
flow in the remaining areas of the lot. Engineering concludes that waiving the curb requirement within
the entire parking lot will equally serve the public health, safety or welfare (County Code section 18-
4.12.2.c.2) and therefore has approved the waiver in these areas.
The applicant has newly proposed a stormwater swale in lieu of curb and gutter to treat flow from the
new portion of the access road. The applicant anticipates that the swale is a better alternative to curb and
gutter as it will encourage infiltration and decrease the velocity of stormwater runoff.
For Engineering to administratively waive the requirement of curb and gutter, all new portions of the
access road must drain to and subsequently be treated by a water quality swale or another BMP. The
conceptual stormwater management plan submitted by the applicant does not provide for the swale along
all portions of the road, therefore, Engineering can not administratively waive the requirement for
stormwater purposes.
Engineering basis for not being able to recommend approval of the waiver to the Zoning Administrator
is in the Ordinance, Section 17- 312.C:
Stormwater managementfacilities shall be sited to capture, to the maximum extent practical, the runoff
from the entire land development area.
Curb and gutter on both sides of the road will capture stormwater and direct it to whatever BMP is
necessary to achieve the required removal rate. Allowing water to sheet flow off the road to no BMP
does not satisfy Section 17- 312.C, and does not equally serve the public welfare.
Therefore, Engineering does not recommend approval of this waiver request. Engineering recommends
the use of curb and gutter to direct runoff to a proposed BMP, or a water quality swale on each side of
the access travelway for the entire length of the new portion.
Section 32.3.10
The necessary findings of Section 32.3. 10 are included here (in italics) with staff comment following.
b. Whenever, because of unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or
other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interests of the developer, strict application of
the requirements of section 32.7 would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent
properties, the requirement may be modified or waived by the commission; provided that such
modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly
development of the area, to sound engineering practices, or to adjacent properties
The engineering analysis presented above does not indicate any unusual circumstances or detriment to
sound engineering practices that support this waiver. Waivers have been granted administratively for
5
portions of the parking areas that met this requirement. In addition, the existing development pattern
within the park and surrounding projects includes curb and gutter.
c. Upon finding in any case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable
quality, but differing from those required by section 32.7, a developer would achieve results which
substantially satisfy the overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the
desired effects of the requirement in section 32.7, the commission may approve such substitution of
technique, design or materials.
As mentioned above the applicant has revised the plan to support the requested waiver of the curb and
gutter requirement. Engineering staff has reviewed this plan and has concluded that curb and gutter on
both sides of the road would capture stormwater and direct it to whatever BMP is necessary to achieve
the required removal rate. Thus, the engineering analysis concludes that the alternative design does not
equally or better serve the purposes of the ordinance. Engineering recommends the use of curb and gutter
to direct runoff to a proposed BMP, or a water quality swale on each side of the access travelway for the
entire length of the new portion. Staff recommends denial of the waiver request regarding curb and
gutter.
REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
This preliminary site plan had been requested for review by the Planning Commission, in accordance
with Section 32.4.2.5(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. This project was reviewed administratively for
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, as well as the conditions of the Special Use Permit. This project
has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee. The applicant has worked with members of the Site
Review Committee to resolve issues presented during the initial review of the site plan. However, this
proposal cannot be approved as submitted without Planning Commission approval of the requested
waiver. In accordance with Section 32.4.2.6:
32.4.2.6
In the case of commission review, the commission shall give due consideration to the
recommendations of the site review committee, the statement of the developer in response to such
recommendations and, in the case of commission review, the comments and recommendations of the
agent. In addition, the commission may consider such other evidence pertaining to the compliance of
the preliminary site plan with the technical requirements of this chapter as it deems necessary for a
proper review of the application. In approving a preliminary site plan, the commission may determine
to review in whole or in part the final site plan.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Based on the analyses presented above relating to the waiver of curb and gutter, staff recommends denial
of this waiver. The applicant has not submitted a revised preliminary site plan reflecting the changes
shown in the submitted plan for the entrance road. Staff has previously reviewed the preliminary site
plan for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Special Use Permits. Without
approval of the necessary waiver, staff recommends denial of the preliminary site plan as submitted.
Should the Planning Commission approve the requested waiver, staff recommends approval of the
preliminary site plan with the following conditions:
Conditions:
1. The applicant submit a revised preliminary site plan showing all revisions and improvements to
the site including improvements to Elk Drive.
M
ATTACHMENTS:
A. November 13, 2007 Staff Report and Meeting Minutes
B. Plan Exhibit
C. County Engineer supplemental information
Ms. Joseph asked if NGIC could be woven into the discussions when Places29 comes back
Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff will look at that. There are some Places29 work sessions coming up to
discuss land uses. The Commission could ask the questions then as to how that interrelates.
Ms. Joseph noted in talking about the church, the last time they met staff talked about the fact that the
Commission may be looking at rural area implementation, which would mean uses in the rural areas.
She asked if churches could be included in that discussion since scale is becoming a big factor in the
rural area.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it could be. But, considering the work program and the current staffing
situations this discussion will have to be held down the road a little ways. It is not going to be something
that they will be getting to in the next year. There are some questions about how they might better
address churches in the rural areas. Some of the federal requirements make it difficult to deal with a
church as it relates to land use impacts and fits in the rural area.
Deferral Request
SUB - 2007 -00292 Lee Grossman — Preliminary
The request is for preliminary plat approval to create two (2) lots on 5.26 acres. The property is zoned RA
(Rural Area). The property, described as Tax Map 59A Parcel (2)4 is located in the Jack Jouett
Magisterial District on Broomley Road approximately 0.75 mile from the intersection with Ivy Road [Route
#250]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 1. (Summer Frederick)
Ms. Joseph noted that the applicant has requested deferral of the request.
Mr. Shepherd said that he had received a letter from Roger Ray's Office this morning asking an indefinite
deferral of the request. Staff recommends acceptance of the request.
Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing
was closed to bring the matter before the Commission.
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Zobrist seconded, for approval of the applicant's indefinite deferral
request for SUB - 2007 - 00292, Lee Grossman - Preliminary.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Mr. Morris and Mr. Strucko were absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SUB - 2007 - 00292, Lee Grossman — Preliminary was indefinitely deferred.
Deferred Items:
SDP - 2007 -00065 Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center DEFERRED FROM AUGUST 14, 2007.
The request is for a preliminary site plan approval for construction of a 15,000 square foot historical
center on approximately 12 acres within existing Darden Towe Park. The property, described as Tax Map
62, Parcel 23, is zoned RA, Rural Areas, R -1, Residential, and EC, Entrance Corridor and is located in
the Rivanna Magisterial District on the west side of Stony Point Road [Rt. 201, 0.5 miles north of its
intersection with Richmond Road [Rt. 250]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Parks
and Greenway in Urban Area 3. (David Pennock)
Mr. Pennock presented a power point presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a deferred item. It was first heard by the Planning Commission at its August 14, 2007
meeting. The proposal is for what will ultimately become a 15,000 square foot historical center
within a leased area in the existing Darden Towe Park. They have made some changes to the
plan since the previous hearing. The last version of this plan required 2 waivers that the applicant
was requesting. One was for the original curb and gutter within the travel ways and the other was
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 13, 2007 Attachment A
for a gravel surface area to be installed at least with phase and in some areas throughout the
entire project.
The changes to the plan are summarized in Attachment C of the staff report. Basically, the
applicant has narrowed it down to two phases instead of three. The first phase would be the
construction of the 2,500 square foot building as well as the installation of most of the parking and
improvements to the travel way to the full intent basically. They are no longer proposing curb in
any of the parking areas. Originally, they had proposed curb around most of it with the exception
of the areas that were immediately adjacent to storm water management facilities. Now they
have gone to what is more of a sheet flow type of a design. They are not proposing curb in any of
it in anticipation that the ditches proposed will naturally cycle the water down to more of a rural
feel as described in the application.
The other issue that came up during the last discussion had to do with the adequacy of those
channels to handle the anticipated run off. They have provided calculations to support their
design. The revised plan shows 83 spaces and the building is more or less within the footprint of
the overall structure. They would add an additional 12,500 square feet with phase two. The
proposed road is what they calling "riverwashed and sealed stone." A picture of a similar product
that was installed at Monticello was provided.
The main issue can be broken into two pieces. There are three actions that will ultimately be
asked for tonight. One is that the site plan itself, which was called up for review by the Planning
Commission. In order for that to be approved there are two waivers that are also necessary.
Staff has broken their analysis down into two parts. One has to do with the proposed surface and
curb and gutter waivers for the actual area of the site plan itself. That is the area that they are
doing the work. The other is in the area of the access road. The existing access road through
the park, which its current state is gravel, our ordinance would require that also to be upgraded.
They are asking for a waiver to not change the existing condition of that road.
Last time staff did a presentation to basically orient everyone within the site. He basically
reviewed that information again in the power presentation. Staff's biggest concern had to do with
the adequacy of the ditches to contain the runoff, but also the existing conditions if they were able
to handle the additional volume of traffic that was anticipated and the runoff that may come from
this proposal. The general practice within the development area is to design with the
Neighborhood Model standards in mine. Curb and gutter is usually a way to direct storm water
flow, but also to channelize it into pipes and things to convey it to adequate outfalls. There is
going to be some run off that flows down towards the existing roadway. The other portion of
staff's analysis had to do with that.
Allan Schuck was able to take a look at the site during the last rain storm. It is one of those
situations where a picture sometimes basically says more than what they can say. In the
photographs taken a few weeks ago it shows that in the areas with the curb and gutter there were
not too many ponding situations. The water was basically being conveyed down the sides of the
road as anticipated. On the sections of the road that were graveled there was some ponding and
channelization. There were areas that showed that the water was running out as it went down
the drive. In some cases the gravel was blown out at the side of the roadway and obviously
rutted out as it was finding its way down. That is the main concern. At the last meeting that was
part of the debate. In staff's recommendation for denial there was some question as to whether
or not the proposed ditches were going to be able to accommodate it. Also, the existing
conditions were the second part of that waiver.
Staff analyzed the ditch calculations provided and concurred that the applicant's calculations as
provided seemed to be correct. Based on those calculations the proposed plan would handle the
expected run off. Based on the standards in the ordinance staff is still recommending denial of
both of those waivers.
A memo from the Memorial Park Committee from the Parks and Rec Department in support of
the project was distributed.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for staff.
Mr. Cannon asked who would maintain the road.
Mr. Craddock questioned the amount of traffic on the gravel road.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 13, 2007
Mr. Pennock noted that the applicant indicated that it would be about 200 trips per day for the anticipated
use of the site.
Mr. Craddock asked if the proposal was better than tar and gravel.
Mr. Schuck noted that the proposal was basically for the prime and seal where the layer of gravel was put
down with a level of tar over top that binds the top layer of gravel down to a certain depth. That gives it
the consistency of it. The main trouble with that compared to the 2" of asphalt is that over time the
maintenance and wear and tear there was the potential with the high vehicle usage to get more of a rut
per say when using the method.
Mr. Craddock asked if the state allows this method.
Mr. Schuck replied that the state does allow this standard for public streets up to a certain standard of
anticipated traffic.
Mr. Cannon asked who would maintain these roads.
Mr. Schuck replied that it was a private street, but he did not know if they would have an agreement set
up with the Parks and Rec. Therefore, he deferred the question to the applicant.
Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Fran Lawrence, President of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, noted that they were represented
by Roger Stein, Program Chair and Mr. Hemingway, Vice President; Alexander Sorrels, Director of
Operations; Chancy Hutter, Kay Slaughter, a member of the Board of Directors; and Diane Marabordie, a
Board member. He noted that within the last several months Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center
received several awards. But, he realized that the issues to be discussed were technical issues. Others
present to discuss some of the technical issues include Mr. Wells, who did their concept plan, Dominion
Development Resources and Justin Shimp. To have a brown pavement double seal road is very
important to them aesthetically. They are concerned about financing their project, too. It is very important
that the curbs and gutter not be there, but it also costs more. It is more about the look and the feel of the
aesthetics of the curb and gutter since they don't like asphalt. Ms. Miller will discuss this further and ask
that the Commission give them an option for some new pavements out there. A brown stone road with
nice ditches would be much better. They think that such a road can clearly cover the traffic because
VDOT permits it. They feel that they have a dual maintenance duty. As a condition of the special use
permit they have to maintain their road or be in violation of their permit. Secondly, under the terms of
their lease with the city and county who own Darden Towe Park he was about 95 percent confident that
they have a duty to both build and maintain the road. He recognized that they have a duty to the extent
that the Commission requires them to do that to create road improvements all the way back to the T-
section.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the special use permit conditions when granted states that the access road would
be paved with asphalt or resin bound pavement. That has changed and is what they are discussing.
Mr. Lawrence agreed that they were obligated to do that. He recalled that they said they were going to
come back to the Commission and ask for some alternatives even though they recognized that was the
base line. They have no complaint if the Commission makes them do that.
Mr. Edgerton asked staff if that requirement on the special use permit did not require the curb and gutter.
Mr. Pennock replied yes, the curb and gutter was not specifically spelled out on the special use permit.
But, that is what staff is asking for now.
Mr. Edgerton said that the special use permit was approved with asphalt or resin bound pavement, but
not curb and gutter.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 13, 2007 4
Mr. Pennock replied that was correct and that the material of the existing gravel road was not specified
additionally on the special use permit.
Justin Shimp said that regarding the curb and gutter waiver request previously there was a discussion
about whether the ditches proposed would handle the drainage. They submitted the calculations to the
county to show that was okay. The big point was that the out fall would be better served by a storm
sewer system rather than curb and gutter. He argued that the County's Design Standards Manual and
the State Erosion Sediment Control Handbook would require them to provide the same outlet protection,
the same erosion control measures and to verify that the downstream channels are adequate whether or
not they do curb and gutter or ditches. He checked for reference the velocities of the ditches and found
that they were comparable at 6' per second to what a storm sewer would be. The outlet velocities are not
going to change. The requirements are not going to change for the downstream protection of the
channels. So the ditches would meet the intent of the ordinance.
Mr. Cannon asked if he had information as to which system, either the proposed ditches or the curb and
gutter that is proposed by staff, would result in less run off or less sediment reaches the Rivanna River.
Mr. Shrimp replied that the run off or the amount of water is the same whether the curb or the ditches is
used. When the water is channelized and put into concrete curb and discharge it through concrete or
plastic pipes the velocity is going to be higher than if it was in a grass lined ditch. The County's Design
Standards Manual and the Erosion Control Handbook require them to do calculations at the final site plan
to provide the downstream channels. There would be no different in the sediment or erosion of one
versus the other.
Ms. Joseph suggested that they consider a bio -swale along the roadway.
Janet Miller, landscape architect, said that they started to look at the issue of bio- filters along the access
road, but have not addressed it. She felt that Mr. Lawrence had adequately addressed the prime and
double seal issue. From an environmental aspect of it she would like to see something less toxic than the
suggested pavement, which was why they suggested the stone and seal pavement. She provided
information on the "Natural Pave Resin Pavement." This pavement would reduce the heat island effect
and also would be in keeping in context with a more sustainable development. If they were going to
LEED points it would help them in that aspect. There was also a similar pavement, which she is trying to
investigate. VCU is under construction for the Rice Environmental Center and they are using a similar
pavement.
Mr. Zobrist asked why they are discussing this type of pavement if the special use permit allows it.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the applicant is asking for brown stone and prime and double seal.
Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Schuck if he had looked at this.
Mr. Schuck replied that he had not and it was brand new stuff.
Ms. Joseph said that this is difficult because they have some really good engineers on staff and the
Commission relies on them when looking at this stuff. She invited other public comment.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that they ask for a deferral.
Ms. Joseph said that if they go in this direction they need the engineers to take a look at this and give
advice on how to move forward.
There being no public comment, Ms. Joseph closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 13, 2007 5
Mr. Lawrence requested a deferral of the request in order to work out the issues with staff and get it back
on the agenda as quickly as possible. They want to get approval by the end of the year.
Mr. Zobrist asked what questions staff had for the Commission to respond to.
Mr. Pennock replied that the question about the Resin Natural Pavement would involve some staff
analysis. Based on the words it meets the conditions of the special use permit. But, whether or not it
meets the standards of the ordinance staff would need to take a look at that. That would be question one.
Mr. Schuck noted from an engineering standpoint they have the two waivers before us. On the use of the
alternative surface staff would be glad to take a look at that. The one concern he wanted to bring up is
they are proposing no improvements for the first section that currently is graveled. If they wanted to do
this type of pavement, staff would recommend that they do it for the whole section up towards the T -bone
ends as opposed to just leaving it as gravel as currently proposed just to have the consistency of it. Staff
would be glad to take a look at that. The other item was the curb and gutter waiver. If they wanted to do
bio- swales or use it for storm water management, that waiver could be done administratively through
staff. So if it is an option that they would like to proceed forward with, staff would be glad to take a look at
it. If it is something that they can incorporate in the plan, then this waiver could be done administratively.
In some of the parking area staff has waived some of the curb and gutter previously. So if that is an
option that the applicant would like to proceed forward with, staff would be willing to work with them and
take a look at that. Therefore, that waiver may go away administratively.
Mr. Zobrist assumed if staff determined that this resin pavement meets the special use permit, then the
applicant would not have to come back to the Commission.
Mr. Schuck replied if the applicant would want to show it for the entire section and it meets the intent of
the ordinance, then the only item would be the site plan that has been called up for approval. If they take
care of these waivers ahead of time they may be able to take care of that without going through this entire
process for the entire waiver.
Mr. Zobrist said that it was a great solution.
Mr. Pennock clarified that the resin pavement on the surface sounds like it would meet the conditions of
the special use permit. But, there is a possibility that it could meet the special use permit and still require
a waiver of the ordinance. It is something that staff will have to look at to make sure that it meets the
requirements.
Mr. Zobrist said that hopefully it could be worked out in such a way that they don't have to come back.
Mr. Pennock noted that they may still need the curb and gutter waiver.
The Planning Commission discussed the outstanding issues. In order for the site plan to be approved
there are two waivers that are also necessary. There were two issues in staffs analysis. One has to do
with the proposed surface and curb and gutter waivers for the actual area of the site plan itself. It
includes the area where they are doing the work. The other is in the area of the access road. The
existing access road through the park is gravel and would be required to be upgraded as per the
ordinance. The applicant requests a waiver to not change the existing condition of that road. It was
questioned whether the prime and double seal road was acceptable and specifically if the Natural Pave
Resin Pavement could be approved by engineering staff. Staff noted that this product has not been used
before in the County.
Ms. Joseph asked how the Commission should proceed because of all of the issues that are up in the air.
Mr. Cilimberg said that he did not know if the preliminary site plan can be acted on without the waivers.
Without the waivers they can't do anything but curb and gutter and asphalt. Otherwise, the Commission
could act on the preliminary site plan potentially or if they just wanted to defer the whole item and if it falls
into place that what is being proposed for the site plan and the waivers is what they anticipated coming
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 13, 2007 6
out of today's meeting, then it could be placed on their consent agenda. That would eliminate staff having
to find a spot on the agenda for its discussion.
Ms. Joseph asked if the Commission has to take an action.
Mr. Kamptner said that their action is to accept the applicant's request for deferral and it is to be placed
on the consent agenda once staff has completed its review of the information.
Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Craddock seconded, for approval of the applicant's request for deferral of
SDP - 2007 - 00065, Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, with the condition that it be placed on the consent
once staff has completed its review of the information.
The motion for approval passed by a vote of 5:0. (Mr. Strucko and Mr. Morris were absent.)
SDP - 2007 -00078 NGIC Expansion — Preliminary DEFERRED FROM OCTOBER 9, 2007.
This is a request for preliminary site plan approval for construction of two four -story office buildings
totaling 178,800 square feet and site preparation work related to a future project on approximately 15
acres zoned CO - Commercial Office and EC - Entrance Corridor. The property, described as portions of
Tax Map 33, Parcels 1D and 1F, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District east of Seminole Trail
[Route 29N] at the end of Boulders Road [Private]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Industrial Service in the Community of Piney Mountain in the Development Area. (David Pennock)
Mr. Pennock summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report)
• This is a deferred item from the October 9, 2007 meeting. The proposal is adjacent to the
existing NGIC facility. A rezoning and two special use permits were approved to ultimately allow
construction of two office buildings as well as a residential building.
• Last time this was before the Commission the biggest concerns were based on staff's analysis.
The application plan that was proffered as part of the rezoning had basically changed on the site
plan such that the stormwater management facility that was originally proposed to be downstream
on the federal government's property had moved onto the property that is under review with this
plan. It was impacting a required buffer as well as some of the areas off site.
• Staffs biggest concerns were:
1. There was a required waiver in order to disturb that landscape buffer.
2. The compliance with the application plan that came in with the rezoning.
• Since that time the applicant has amended the plan. Now the stormwater management facility is
still on their site, but it is within the boundaries of what will ultimately be phase two of the
construction of their residential building. The zoning administrator has issued a determination
that finds that plan to be in compliance with the application plan. The conditions there are that
they still don't disturb that landscape buffer. It is a little tight on the plan since they are coming
right up to it. Staff will have to make sure that they look at that closely at the final site plan. But,
as the plan shows they are not impacting that buffer. That would be one of the conditions. The
other one is ultimately if this site is developed further that it be in accord with the application plan
that was approved, which shows the residential building over top of where the stormwater
management facility is. It is a temporary facility in as much as when phase two goes forward they
will have to either move it off site downstream or address it in some other way.
• Therefore, all the issues from last time have been taken care of from staffs perspective. The
waiver is no longer necessary and the plan is found to be in accord with the application plan. The
item was called up for Planning Commission review. Staff is recommending approval with the
conditions outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Scott Collins said that he was present to answer questions. He said they agree to all the conditions.
Mr. Edgerton asked where the stormwater management would move when phase two occurs.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 13, 2007
Al,
o
X11 ��RC:LN�p'F
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP 07 -065: Lewis and Clark
Staff: David Pennock, Jonathan Sharp, Allan
Exploratory Center
Schuck
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
November 13, 2007
Not ap licable
Owners: County of Albemarle and City of
Applicant: Dominion Development
Charlottesville
Resources, Inc.
Acreage: 12 acres within the 101.4 acre park
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 62, Parcel 23
By -right use: R -1, Residential, and EC,
Location: West side of Stony Point Road
Entrance Corridor
[Rte. 201, 0.5 miles north of its intersection
with Richmond Road [Rte. 250]
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Proffers /Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Lots: n/a
DA— X RA —
Proposal: Request for preliminary site plan approval
Comp. Plan Designation: Parks and
for construction of a 15,000 square foot historical
Greenway in Urban Area 3
center on approximately 12 acres within existing
Darden Towe Park, including waivers of two of the
design requirements for parking and travelways in
the Development Areas, which require these areas
to be hard - surfaced and constructed with curb and
utter
Character of Property: This property is currently
Use of Surrounding Properties:
partially wooded, with several grassed meadow
Adjacent to the Rivanna River and
areas. The site is bordered by the Rivanna River
Trevillians Creek with some residential
and Trevillians Creek travels through a portion the
property beyond, both in the County
site. Much of the area adjacent to the proposal is in
and in the City
floodplain and stream buffer.
Factors Favorable: (see report)
Factors Unfavorable: (see report)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of both requested waivers and the preliminary site plan.
In the event that the waivers are approved, staff recommends approval of the site plan with the
conditions listed in the Staff Report.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
SITE PLAN:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
David E. Pennock, Jonathan Sharp, Allan Schuck
August 14, 2007
SDP 07 -065: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center
County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville
Dominion Development Resources, Inc.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
This is a request for preliminary site plan approval for construction of a 15,000 square foot historical
center on approximately 12 acres within existing Darden Towe Park. The property, described as Tax
Map 62, Parcel 23, is zoned RA (Rural Areas), R -1 (Residential), and EC (Entrance Corridor) and is
located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the west side of Stony Point Road [Rte. 20], 0.5 miles
north of its intersection with Richmond Road [Rte. 250] (Attachment A). The portion of the property
that the proposal is located within is zoned R -1. As part of the proposal, the applicant is also requesting
a waiver of two of the design requirements for parking and travelways in the Development Areas, as
specified in Sections 4.12.15(a) and 4.12.15(g) of the Zoning Ordinance, which require these areas to be
hard - surfaced and constructed with curb and gutter, respectively (Attachment C).
CHARACTER OF AREA:
This property is currently partially wooded, with several grassed meadow areas. The site is bordered by
the Rivanna River and Trevillians Creek travels through a portion the site. Much of the area adjacent to
the proposal is in floodplain and stream buffer. Access to the park is proposed along an existing gravel
road that extends from the end of Elk Drive and circles around the park to the east along the Rivanna
River. This road would be extended approximately a quarter mile from where it currently ends in the
park.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SDP 1986 -045: Rivanna Park — This site plan was for construction of many of the current features of the
park, including most of the fields, roads, and trails.
SDP 1997 -030: Darden Towe Park, Minor Amendment — This site plan amendment was for the addition
of the overlook platform.
SP 2004 -004: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center — A special use permit approved in January of 2006
allowed the placement of an historical center on the property.
SP 2007 -024 — This special use permit was approved for an extension of the above referenced special
use permit.
SP 2007 -022 — This special use permit was approved to allow the grading and fill in the floodplain
necessary to complete the construction of the access roads serving this site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Parks and Greenway in Urban Area 3.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
This item has been called up for review of the preliminary site plan by the Planning Commission, in
accordance with Section 32.4.2.6 (Attachment D).
As part of the preliminary site plan review, the Planning Commission must also consider two waivers
2
1S
requested by the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver from two of the design specifications
in the Zoning Ordinance:
Section 4.12.15(a) — requires that parking areas and travelways must be hard - surfaced;
Section 4.12.15(g) — requires that parking and travelways must be constructed with curb and
gutter.
The Planning Commission must act on both of these waivers as well as the review of the preliminary site
plan.
BACKGROUND:
Currently, the entrance in to Darden Towe Park from Stony Point Road [Rte. 20] is via Elk Drive. After
0.31 miles, Elk Drive widens to a boulevarded T- intersection. All of Elk Drive to that point is paved,
with curb and gutter on both sides (photos in Attachment E). Access to the proposed historic center is
via the existing lane that extends left from this intersection 0.25 miles along the river to existing soccer
fields. This lane is gravel, and does not have curb or gutter. At the turn to the parking area for these
soccer fields, the proposed access road will continue approximately 0.25 miles to the proposed new
parking area.
Proposed tie-
in location
3
SAM
T- '� Ii 3,;=
Intersection1 -
Elk Drive
t
jf� k
f
Stony Point Rd.
[Route 20]
The concept plan approved with the Special Use Permit indicates that the proposed access road and
parking areas will be paved as asphalt or resin -bound pavement. The applicant wishes to construct these
areas as river - washed stone with a seal coat. During Phase I, the infrastructure will be constructed,
including the proposed access road and one -third of the parking area. A 2,500 square foot building will
also be constructed within the footprint of the historical center. All building pads and remaining parking
3
I�
areas will be graded, but not constructed. During Phase II, the building will be enlarged to 15,000
square feet, and the remainder of the parking area will be constructed.
Based on the site plan that has been submitted, the section between the T- intersection at Elk Drive and
the new section of roadway will remain gravel. Neither that section of roadway nor the new section will
include curb and gutter. Thus, as detailed in the following sections of the staff report, waivers of
requirements from the Zoning Ordinance are necessary for several items. The installation of the new
access road and parking area as a sealed stone surface will require a waiver. In addition, the existing
section of the access road that is currently gravel must be surfaced or a waiver must be granted. Both
portions of the access road must include curb and gutter or a waiver must be granted. Each of these
items is analyzed further below.
At its meeting of August 14, 2007, the Planning Commission accepted the applicant's request for
deferral of decision regarding these items. Concerns were raised regarding the ability of the existing
gravel roadways to handle the potential increase in runoff during Phases I and II as well as the suitability
of the proposed roadside ditches to convey stormwater to an adequate channel. The applicant has
provided additional data, which has been analyzed by County engineering staff. In addition, the
applicant has proposed other changes and has updated the request letters to reflect these changes
(Attachment Q. To summarize briefly, the phasing plan has been stream -lined since the previous
submittal, and the asphalt and curbing that were provided in some areas on the previous plan have been
removed in favor of the sealed river - washed stone with additional stormwater facilities included to treat
the runoff.
REVIEW OF WAIVERS OF SECTION 4.12.15:
Section 4.12.15 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the "minimum design requirements and improvement
for parking areas ". The applicant requested waivers of Section 4.12.15(a), which requires that parking
areas and access aisles must be hard - surfaced:
a. Surface materials. All parking areas consisting offour (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.
and Section 4.12.15(g), which requires that parking and access aisles must be constructed with curb and
gutter:
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.
The regulations governing the modification or waiver of requirements from this section are included in
Section 4.12.2(c), which allows these design requirements to be waived by the Zoning Administrator in
consultation with the County Engineer. However, in this case, engineering staff was unable to
4 1�
administratively support the requested waivers. As a result, the applicant has requested that these
waivers be considered as part of the preliminary site plan review by the Planning Commission, as
specified in Section 32.3.10:
32.3. 10 MODIFICATION, WAIVER OR SUBSTITUTION
Any requirement of section 32.7 may be modified, waived, or substituted, in an individual case, as
provided herein:
a. The commission may modify, waive, or accept substitution for any requirement of section 32.7 in a
particular case upon a finding that requiring such improvement would not forward the purposes of
this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare; or in the case of substitution,
that such alternative would satisfy the purpose of this chapter to at least an equivalent degree as the
required improvement.
b. Whenever, because of unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or
other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interests of the developer, strict application of
the requirements of section 32.7 would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent
properties, the requirement may be modified or waived by the commission; provided that such
modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly
development of the area, to sound engineering practices, or to adjacent properties
c. Upon finding in any case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable
quality, but differing from those required by section 32.7, a developer would achieve results which
substantially satisfy the overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the
desired effects of the requirement in section 32.7, the commission may approve such substitution of
technique, design or materials.
d. A developer requesting a modification, waiver, or substitution pursuant to this section shall file
with the agent a written request which shall state reasons and justifications for such request together
with such alternatives as may be proposed by the developer. Such request shall be submitted prior to
commission consideration of the preliminary or final plan, but no later than the site review
committee revision deadline. No such request shall be considered by the commission until the
commission has considered the recommendation of the agent. The agent may recommend approval,
approval with conditions or denial. A recommendation of approval or conditional approval shall be
accompanied by a statement from the agent as to the public purpose served by such
recommendation, particularly in regard to the purpose and intent of this chapter, the subdivision
ordinance, and the comprehensive plan.
e. In granting such modification, waiver or substitution, the commission may impose such conditions
as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare.
In this case, the specific section that must be waived or modified is Section 32.7.2.7:
32.7.2.7 On -site parking and circulation shall be designed and constructed in accordance with section
4.12, off - street parking and loading requirements, subject to county engineer approval in accordance
with sound engineering practices, including but not limited to grade, drainage and paving
specifications; and agent approval of the safe and convenient vehicular circulation patterns.
For the review of these waivers, staff has considered the requirements of both of the above referenced
sections and the specific regulations listed in Section 4.12.15(a) and 4.12.15(g). Below, an analysis of
each of the requested waivers is presented, along with a presentation of the findings in Section 32.3. 10
that are necessary in order for the Planning Commission to approve the requested waivers.
SURFACE MATERIALS:
Engineering Analysis of Modification
The site plan is located entirely within a development area. In addition, based on the use, engineering
5
l�
staff anticipates a high volume of traffic on the proposed travelways and parking areas serving the site.
Engineering staff does not recommend the usage or approval of alternative surfaces due to the intensity
of the use. Rather, staff recommends that the entire travelway and parking areas be surfaced with a
minimum 2" depth of asphalt with an appropriate base depth of stone, as is typical for sites in the
Development Areas. Due to the indeterminate time frame regarding completion, staff recommends that
this asphalt pavement be installed with the first phase of construction.
Section 32.3.10
The necessary findings of Section 32.3.10 are included here (in italics) with staff comment following.
b. Whenever, because of unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or
other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interests of the developer, strict application of
the requirements of section 32.7 would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent
properties, the requirement may be modified or waived by the commission; provided that such
modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly
development of the area, to sound engineering practices, or to adjacent properties
The engineering analysis presented above does not indicate any unusual circumstances or detriment to
sound engineering practices that support the waiver. The previously approved Special Use Permit
proposed asphalt surface or pavement for all new portions of the roadway and parking areas. Due to the
anticipated use and the volume of traffic generated, this standard should be applied to all portions of the
access through the site, including the portion that is currently graveled.
c. Upon finding in any case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable
quality, but differing from those required by section 32.7, a developer would achieve results which
substantially satisfy the overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the
desired effects of the requirement in section 32.7, the commission may approve such substitution of
technique, design or materials.
The applicant is requesting the use of a sealed stone surface instead of the asphalt typically required in
the Development Areas. No detail was provided regarding the installation of this product. However,
comparable installations of gravel with a top -coat have not proven durable in high- traffic areas or
durable for long -term use. As a result of these comparisons, the proposed material as a substitute has not
been shown to comparably meet t
6 q
1
he requirements of the ordinance.
0
Staff recommends denial of the waiver request regarding surface materials.
CURB AND GUTTER IN PARKING AREAS AND ALONG TRAVELWAYS:
Engineering Analysis of Modification
The applicant has requested a waiver of the construction of curb and gutter for the parking area and the
travelway. In addition, they are requesting a waiver of curb and gutter installation for the existing
portion of the travelway that provides access from Elk Drive to the building and parking area. This
segment of the travelway was built before the County Code required curb and gutter street design. In
accordance with Section 4.12.15(g), the County Engineer may waive or modify this requirement if
deemed necessary to accommodate SWM /BMP facility design. This waiver was not granted
administratively.
Many of the surrounding existing travelways and parking areas within the park have curb and gutter.
The use of curb and gutter will also assist with the containment of the drainage from the travelways.
Engineering staff previously granted a waiver of the curb and gutter requirements for portions of the
proposed parking lot that drain directly to proposed biofilter (SWM /BMP) facilities. These areas are
immediately adjacent to the biofilters and will be equipped with bumper blocks. The remaining parts of
this project do not drain directly to a SWM/BMP facility, but will utilize ditches and erosion matting to
direct the flow of runoff
Section 32.3.10
The necessary findings of Section 32.3.10 are included here (in italics) with staff comment following.
b. Whenever, because of unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or
other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interests of the developer, strict application of
the requirements of section 32.7 would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent
properties, the requirement may be modified or waived by the commission; provided that such
modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly
development of the area, to sound engineering practices, or to adjacent properties
The engineering analysis presented above does not indicate any unusual circumstances or detriment to
sound engineering practices that support this waiver. Waivers have been granted administratively for
portions of the parking areas that met this requirement. In addition, the existing development pattern
within the park and surrounding projects includes curb and gutter.
c. Upon finding in any case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable
quality, but differing from those required by section 32.7, a developer would achieve results which
substantially satisfy the overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the
desired effects of the requirement in section 32.7, the commission may approve such substitution of
technique, design or materials.
As mentioned above in the "background" section of the report, the applicant has supplied additional data
to support the requested waiver of the curb and gutter requirement. This data includes calculations that
show that the proposed ditches will be adequate to carry the anticipated volume of runoff relating to the
function of the proposed ditch (Attachment F). Engineering staff has analyzed this data and concurs that
10
23
the design appears to indicate that the ditches would be adequate to convey the anticipated volumes of
runoff that they would receive. However, existing conditions on the site indicate that the flow of runoff
from the project area in the pre - development condition already has resulted in channelization of the
roadway and erosion downstream of where the ditches would end. The provision of curb and gutter to
an improved outfall would help correct this problem. Thus, the engineering analysis concludes that the
alternative design does not equally or better serve the purposes of the ordinance. Staff recommends
denial of the waiver request regarding curb and gutter.
REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
This preliminary site plan has been requested for review by the Planning Commission, in accordance
with Section 32.4.2.5(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. This project was reviewed administratively for
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, as well as the conditions of the Special Use Permit. This project
has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee. The applicant has worked with members of the Site
Review Committee to resolve issues presented during the initial review of the site plan. However, this
proposal cannot be approved as submitted without Planning Commission approval of both Special Use
Permits and both requested waivers. In accordance with Section 32.4.2.6:
32.4.2.6
In the case of commission review, the commission shall give due consideration to the
recommendations of the site review committee, the statement of the developer in response to such
recommendations and, in the case of commission review, the comments and recommendations of the
agent. In addition, the commission may consider such other evidence pertaining to the compliance of
the preliminary site plan with the technical requirements of this chapter as it deems necessary for a
proper review of the application. In approving a preliminary site plan, the commission may determine
to review in whole or in part the final site plan.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Based on the analyses presented above relating to the waivers of surfacing and the provision of curb and
gutter, staff recommends denial of both waivers. Staff has reviewed the preliminary site plan for
compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Special Use Permits. Without approval
of the necessary waivers, staff recommends denial of the preliminary site plan as submitted.
Should the Planning Commission approve both of the requested waivers, staff recommends approval of
the preliminary site plan with the following conditions prior to final site plan approval:
❑ 1. Current Development Planner approval, to include:
• a. Approval of Lighting Plan, including specification sheets and photometric layouts for
proposed new lights, in accordance with Section 4.17.
• b. Approval of Landscaping Plan, including required screening, in accordance with Section
32.7.9.
• c. Approval of Conservation Plan, in accordance with the approved Application Plan.
❑ 2. Current Development Engineer approval, to include review of all applicable items as specified
in the Design Standards Manual, as well as:
• a. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
• b. Stormwater Management Plan.
❑ 3. Albemarle County Building Official approval, to include:
❑ a. When the Exploratory Center is enlarged to more than 12,000 sq. ft., it must be protected
with a sprinkler system.
11 Z 4
❑ 4. Fire and Rescue Division approval, to include:
❑ a. Indicate the location of fire hydrants. Hydrants must be within 400 feet of the building by
way of a prepared travelway.
❑ b. Verify adequate fire flow is available..
❑ 5. Albemarle County Service Authority approval.
❑ 6. Architectural Review Board approval, to include Certificate of Appropriateness prior to final
site plan approval.
❑ 7. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrances into the site.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Preliminary Site Plan
C. Applicant requests for waivers
D. Request for review by Planning Commission
E. Photos
F. Ditch analysis by applicant
12
-7�or
PI �IME AND DOUBLE SEAL - - - - - - - - -
/FW BROWNSTONE SURFACE
Mir-7-7
21A
.: Pavement Section
P
Ver ---------
NOT TO SCALE
ti.. . . .. ... ....... ...
, WX
v- A
......... .
Stormwater Swale
NOT TO SCALE ;' :l _ / 84 . � `�\ _
nCCFitql E
5torTnwater
Prime and Double5cal Pavement
Existing U8
Soccer Field
Existing U8
Soccer field
Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Entrance Road
Exhibit A: 5tormwater Management in Lieu of Curb and Gutter
February 12, 2008
fi
40 0 40 50 120
%Aew%rw�
SCAUA " = 40'
Dominion
development
•
Resources, LLC
172 South Pinto" Dt
Chariatto%nile. VA 22911
434.979.6121 (p)
434.979.1681 (1)
DDRVA.—
5heet I
Attachment B
ivement Section
TO SCALE
Stormwater Swale
NOT TO SCALE
� � -Lower Channels Seed Mix
FACW Wetland Meadow Mix
ERN MX -122
/ 15 Ibs/acre
Prime and Doubleseal Pavement
FACW Wetland Meadow Mix
ERN MX -122
15 IbSdacre
Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Entrance, Road
Exhibit B: Stormwater Management in Lieu of Curb and Gutter
February 12, 2008
IITI
40 0 40 00 120
SCALE�1 a 40'
IS Dominion
Development
0 '
Resources, LLC
`
4a �-
e.
172 SaRh h,dopa D-
Ch ebttroWle, VA 2291 1
434.979.8121 (p)
434.979.1681 (f)
OMVX
Sheet 2
Attachment B
Page 1 of 2
Megan Yaniglos
From: Amy Pflaum
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 1:44 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: FW: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center
Attachments: Lewis and Clark 3rd.pdf
From: Glenn Brooks
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 9:38 AM
To: Mark Graham; Wayne Cilimberg; Bill Fritz
Cc: 'Janet Miller', 'Justin Shimp'; Amy Pflaum
Subject: RE: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center
Mark, Wayne and Bill.
The Lewis & Clark Center site plan is at a stand still over a waiver issue. The applicant is asking for a waiver of
the curt) and gutter requirement for roads /travelways in the development area 0 8- 4.12.15. -, 14- 410H.1). As I
understand it, the Planning Commission expressed a desire to have the entry road /travelway provide water quality
swales, and asked that engineering look into this with the implied intent to waive the curb and -utter in this
manner administratively.
If this is treated as a travelway, engineering can waive curb and gutter "...to accommodate stormwater
mina- emernt/13NIP facility design..." (18- 4.12.15. - ). Engineering is careful to do this only to accommodate
design. We have lots of requests, as curbing is expensive, and this is a great way to cut costs on a proiject. For
example, a parking area with 4 sides has a BMP facility on l side. Curt) and gutter is not waived on all 4 sides
but only on the side necessary to drain to the facility, and then maybe only partially for a sufficient break in the
curbing. Thus. we accommodate BNIP design, and also preserve the neighborhood model requirements.
In this case, engineering cannot waive all the curb and gutter. The applicant could only provide the desired water
quality swales on one side, as shown in the attached graphic f-om the applicant. However, the applicant would
still like all the curb and -utter waived, and {'eels that was the intern of the Plannin- Commission. The applicant
has made an effort to provide the desired water quality features.
N1v suggestion is to e -mail this message to the Planning Commissioners. If this was indeed the intent, and
engineering should waive the curb and gutter requirements for the entry travelway and/or parking areas, the
commissioners could let us know by e -mail. 'Phis would avoid the Lewis h Clark Center having to schedule
another public hearing for this waiver.
Please let me know if this is an acceptable step to get this project moving, or forward this on as appropriate.
Thanks.
Glenn Brooks, P.E.
County Engineer
Albemarle County
From: Justin Shimp [mailto:jshimp @ddrva.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 2:50 PM
Attachment C
9/10/2008
120 0 120 240 380 I x►.'' .� .; ;�� a LEWIS AND CLARK
' SCALE: t" = 200
=: 'y EXPLORATORY CENTER
UE L =NE — TREAT2 NG TNRaUc,H �TT�H TO BMP ~�'- Q' DRAINAGE AREA MAP for
W GREEN l rpjL .- NOT TR�T'LN0 ,,.------ - BMP
•- � � / `�.. � -__ - - -- � MPS •;� 'i:' - .� -�:.. •� .. \..: —
BMP -2 DA = 1 0.68 AC5�.;„
jj
y
A= 5.14 AC)*
r . v t�
• •i + 1,
ONO
s • -• —• • -• • -. . -. - ,- , -._._. �-- � `a. `gyp �rJ,�.:•.. �
i
olcors Dominion
ar
' Development
" n
Resources, LLC
172 South pantops Drwe
\ d Charlottoawllo, VA 2291 1
t *,. *A I i ; �.e 434.979.8121 (p)
`:` f011S 434.979.1681 (p
- ' a DDKVA.com
Attachment C