Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201200049 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2012-09-05Hof ALg J$ S ®� � IRGINt� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Frank Pohl From: Christopher P. Perez- Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: September 5, 2012 Subject: SDP201200049 Church of Our Saviour - Preliminary Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] Access Issues 1. [Chapter 18 Section 32.71 Section 32.7 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies minimum standards for improvements on sites that require site plan review. Section 32.7.3 states: "In the case of any site plan involving multiple uses, including multiple dwelling units, the principal means of access thereto shall conform to the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation, or, in the case of a private road, to the applicable standards for private roads set forth in the subdivision ordinance, whether or not the property is proposed to be subdivided... " The proposed access to this site serves multiple parcels and is considered to be a private street (Rio School Lane); as such it must meet subdivision street standards. These design requirements are defined in the Subdivision Ordinance in Section 14- 412. Section 14- 412(b) states: "...each private street authorized to serve non- residential uses under sections 14 -232 or 14 -233 shall satisfy Virginia Department of Transportation standards or an alternative standard deemed adequate by the agent, upon the recommendation of the county engineer, to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual, so as to adequately protect the public health, safety or welfare. " Rio School Lane does not meet VDOT requirements. County Engineering staff has analyzed the existing access to the site and has concluded that current conditions on Rio School Lane are deficient. Existing road conditions are poor, which has created washout and erosion which impacts the runoff for the site. In order to improve the access to an acceptable standard, the roadway will need to be widened, paved, and provided with curb and gutter. This will serve to control the existing drainage as well as increase from this development. Easements from adjacent property owners will likely be required in order to facilitate this type of construction. Please work with these owners to receive the necessary easements. Critical Slopes Waiver 2. [Chapter 18 Section 4.2.5(b), 4.2.6a 32.6(d)] Critical slope waiver is required pending a determination of 18- 4.2.6.a of the County Code, however, the new building appears to be 4' wider than the existing building and may not meet the requirements of 18- 4.2.6a]. Zoning 3. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(a)] Assure the correct zoning is depicted on the plan. County Maps depict TMP 06100 -00 -00 -14400 is zoned R -2 Residential and TMP 06100- 00- 00 -146DO is zoned C -1 Commercial. Revise general note #4 on sheet C -1. Also for TMP 06100 -00 -00 -14400 there is an approved Special Use Permit w/ condition (SP2000 -60), assure this information is listed under the site's zoning. Waiver to Disturb 20' Buffer 4. [Chapter 18 Section 21.7(c)] & 32.5.6(a)] As proposed the buffer zone adjacent to residential districts is being disturbed. The above section of the ordinance states: No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. A waiver by the Board of Supervisors is required to move forward with this proposal. It may be beneficial to apply for this waiver at the same time as the critical slopes waiver noted above. 5. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(a)] On the plan assure the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property is depicted. Parking 6. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(b), 4.12.61 On the plan provide the parking schedule /calculations for the Church uses on each lot, to include the amount required and the amount provided. This requirement is based on the County's need to assure that each of the uses on separate tax map parcels has the required parking it needs if the lots were ever in separate ownership. * For the Existing Church on TMP 06100- 00 -00- 14400, the last time parking calculations were completed was in 1987 during the site's initial site plan. Below is the formula for the calculation, also attached to this letter is a copy of the 1987 parking schedule for reference. Please update it and provide it on the plan. * For the New Building on TMP 06100- 00 -00- 146130, the parking calculations should be based on the multipurpose assembly area in the building (per your email dated 8- 20 -2010 that number is 2,050 SF). Thus the formula for the calculation is 1 space per 75 SF of assembly area. Provide this information on the plan. Church: In the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan, if the area of assembly seats more than one hundred persons, one (1) space per three (3) fixed seats or per seventy-five (75) square feet of area of assembly, whichever shall be greater; if the area of assembly seats one hundred persons or fewer, one (1) space per four (4) fixed seats or per seventy-five (75) square feet of area of assembly, whichever shall be greater. [4.12.6] 7. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(b) & (n) & 4.12.6] For TMP 06100- 00- 00- 146D0, on the plan depict all parking areas, to include dimensions of spaces. Waiver of Parking Standards 8. [Chapter 18 Section 4.12.15 & 4.12.2(c)] Per the site plan, it appears the applicant does not intend to pave the parking area. Thus in order to avoid meeting the parking design standards of section 4.12.15, a waiver shall be applied for under section 4.12.2(c). It may be beneficial to apply for this waiver at the same time as the other two waivers noted above. 9. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(b)] On the plan provide the maximum amount of impervious cover for the site; also provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation areas. Other 10. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(a)] There appears to be minor typographical errors throughout the site plan with regard to the name of the owner and the spelling of "Saviour ". Per County Record the owner's name is spelled "Church of Our Saviour ". Revise if appropriate. 11. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(a)] Sheet numbers on the plans have been modified by hand; assure these are also corrected when revised. 12. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(a)] Assure the present use of all adjacent properties is provided on the plan. 13. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(I)] On the plan label the private road, Rio School Lane. 14. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(J) & (L)] Sheet C -4 depicts a new sanitary sewer pump station w/ sewer line and an existing water service line to the proposed building. Do these lines have easements associated with them? If so provide them on the plan, along with the size of the easement and DB reference number. 15. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(m)] On the plan show the distance to centerline of nearest existing street intersection. 16. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(n)] How will waste /trash from the facility's daily use be disposed? Is there to be a dumpster onsite? If so, on the plan depict where the dumpster pad will go and how it will be screened. Also, for the dumpster pad assure it extends a minimum of 8' beyond the front of the dumpster. [ 18- 4.12.19] 17. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(n)] On the plan provide the dimensions of the covering over the walkway, also provide the paving material for the covered walkway and sidewalks; it appears to be the same material as the concrete decks, to avoid confusion please label. 18. [Chapter 18 Section 32.5.6(p)] Please be advised that the following will be required for final site plan approval: - Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8.2 & Sec. 4.171 - A landscape plan in accordance with [Sec. 32.7.9]. Engineering Comments — Max Greene 1. The existing Rio School Road does not appear to meet Road Standards and may need to be upgraded with this site plan. Please see AP200700006 for Rio School Road (Also AP200700005 and SDP2005000830) for additional information. 2. Critical slope waiver is required pending a determination of 18- 4.2.6.a of the County Code, however, the new building appears to be 4' wider than the existing building and may not meet the requirements of 18- 4.2.6a. [18- 4.2.5, 18- 32.6.6, 14 -302]] 3. Final site plans will need to meet all requirements of 18 -32.6 of the County Code. 4. Off -Site Grading easements may be required for final approval. 5. Please certify the topography. All topography should be at least visually field verified by the designer within the last year [18- 32.6.6, 14 -302, Policy for date] ARB Comments — Margaret Maliszewski 1. The new two -story building is expected to have some visibility from the Entrance Corridor, particularly during the winter months. It appears that the proposal will qualify for a "Countywide Certificate of Appropriateness for a structure located behind a structure that fronts the Entrance Corridor ". Approval of that application will be required prior to final site plan approval. ARB applications, checklists and guidelines are available on line at www.albemarle.org /arb. RWSA Comments — Victoria Fort 1. On all sheets, please adjust draw order so that RWSA waterline and easement are visible across the entire disturbed area. 2. Label RWSA waterline as `30" RWSA DIP Waterline'. 3. When a final site plan is developed, please note that for all utility crossings with the existing RWSA waterline, there must be at least 18" of vertical separation. Test pits may be required to confirm depth of existing facilities. 4. RWSA would like to discuss the possibility of widening the existing easement, since it is undersized for a 30" waterline. RWSA is proposing an additional 10' on the east side of the waterline for a total of 30'. E911— Andrew Slack No objections Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer No objections ACSA — Alex Morrison 1. Requesting additional information from the applicant: does the building in question currently have public water and sewer service? If so, how is it supplied? If not, will they desire water and sewer service? Fire and Rescue Comments - Robbie Gilmer 1. Verify Fire Flow requirements of 1000 gpm. VDOT Comments — Joel DeNunzio Pending Comments from VDOT are pending and will be provided to the applicant once they are received. Please contact Christopher P. Perez at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information.