Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200700065 Staff Report 2007-08-14L AA, �L��2r-� J % O � r y 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: August 14, 2007 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 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 currenty 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 flood -plain 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 and Special Use Permits relating to this proposal 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. 2501 (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 currenty 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 flood -plain 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 is for an extension of the above referenced special use permit (approval is pending). SP 2007-022 — This special use permit would allow the grading and till in the floodplain that are necessary to complete the construction of the access roads serving this site (approval is pending). 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 requested by the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver from two of the design specifications in the Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.12. l 5(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. 201 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. , g}3K�vr,q Sfivr� _� ri+ea'�•4d'�.a,:,3:Ai3 � .. .. Y' ! .� ,— i]M:63 C.,'YotAtilx 714Ri, WAD 4' Lw+ ftSi Proposed tie- in ie in location ' iu5'dwc7 E � ," �• � . � yam°.,• .- T - Intersection F'%4' Kx Elk Drive r t -tw r A;:�. m r _=Y34 1 Stony Point Rd. [Route 20] The concept plan approved with the Special Use Permit indicates that the proposed access road and parking areas Nvill be paved. However, the phasing plan submitted with the site plan anticipates that the proposed access road and parking will be installed as gravel. During Phase I, the infrastructure will be constructed, including the proposed access road and one-third of the parking area (as gravel). All building pads and remaining parking areas will be graded, but not constructed. Phase II is for the construction of a 2,500 square foot building within the footprint of the historical center. Ultimately, in Phase III, the building will be enlarged to 15,000 square feet, and the remainder of the parking area will be constructed. At that time, all of the parking and the proposed new access road will be paved. Based on the site plan that has been submitted, even after the proposed new portion of the access road has been paved, 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 gravel will require a waiver, even though it is anticipated to be a temporary situation. 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. 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 of jolcr (4) or more spaces shall be slit. -faced. The surface nlaterials.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, ditrabilim sustainability and long term tnaintenanee 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 oj' parking areas or access aisles in the,following circumstances: (1) in all commercial or institutional developments requiring eight (R) or more parking spaces; (2) in all nudtifamily dtii'elling and tovi,nhouse developments requiring eight (8) or tnore parking spaces; (3) where necessary to control or direct stormwater runoff (4) where a sidevi'alk is located closer than four (4) feet./rom the edge of an access aisle; and (5) where necessary to contain vehicldar- traffic to protect pedestrians and/or Property. Gutters shall be required where necessary to control or direct stornni'ater runoff. The county engineer Inay waive or modify this requircmctit if deemed necessary to acconinlodatc storinwater management/BMP facility design or existing rises 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 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 MODIFIC4TION, f"IkER OR SUBSTITUTION Any requlrelnent of section 32,7 mal' be modified, wailvd, oi- substituted, in an individual case, as proWded herein: a. The connnlsslon nlay modify, wali'e, or accept substltlttlon for ani' requi.remcni of scctlon 32.7 in a particular case upon a flndin, Mat requiring such lnlprol'Onellt li'ould Clot forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwisc serve the public health, sal�it , or welfarc; or- in the ruse of substitution, 4 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, 01' 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 cornnlission; provided that such modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or tivelfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices, of, to adjacent properties c. Upon finding in anv case that by substituting of technique, design or- materials of comparable quality, but differing fr-oin those required by section 3 2.7, a developer woldd 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 3 2.7, the commission nrav approve such substitution of technique, design or- materials. d. A developer requesting a modification, tivaiver, or- substitution pursuant to this .section shall file with the agent a written request which shall state reasons and justifications for such request together ivith such alternatives as pray be proposed by the developer. Such request shall be submitted prior to cornnrission consideration of the preliminary or final plan, but no later than the site review conunittec revision deadline. No .such request shall be considered by the commission until the commission has considered the recommendation of the agent. The agent nzay recommend approval, approval ivith conditions or- denial. A reconlnlendation of approval or- conditional approval shall be accompanied by a statement.frorn the agent as to the public purpose served by such recornniendation, 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 niay impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or- vvelfare. 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 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 sire, 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 ivould result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties, the requirement may be modijied or tivaived 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 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. In addition, staff is unable to support the phased surfacing of the access roads and parking areas. The phasing of these items is based on a number of factors, and the indetenninate timeframe for completion could result in the roadway remaining substandard indefinitely. c. Uponjinding in any case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable quality, but differing front those required by section 33.71 a developer would achieve results tit•hich substantially satisfv the overall pinposcs 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 has requested the use of gravel partially as a means of achieving best practices in stonnwater management (Attachment C). However, gravel is not considered by Albemarle County to be a pervious material for purposes of stormwater management. Thus, the proposed material as a substitute has not been shown to comparably meet the requirements of the ordinance. 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 several portions of the parking area. The proposed waiver request also includes relief of curb and gutter requirement for the travelway which 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. Curb and gutter is proposed for the new parking area provided with this project. Engineering staff has waived the curb and gutter requirements for portions of this proposed parking lot that drain directly to proposed biofilter (SWM/BMP) facilities. These areas are immediately adjacent to the biotilters and will be equipped with bumper blocks. The remaining parts of this project do not drain directly to a h SWM/BMP facility, and will be equipped with curb and gutter to direct the flow of the runoff. Engineering staff does not recommend approval to this waiver request and recommends the use of curb and gutter for the entire length of the travelway. 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 sire, 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 i-yaived by the commission; provided that such modification or waiver shall riot 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 airy case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable quality, but di ffering f om those required by section 3 2.7, a developer would achieve results li'hich substantially satisfy the overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the desired effects ofthe requirement in section 3-71. 7, the commission may approve such substitution of technique, design or materials. 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 WSllonse to such recommendations and, in the case of connnission rcvieit', the comments and recommendations of the agent. In addition, the commission ma'v consider such other evidence pertaining to the compliance of the preliminary site plan it'ith the technical requirements of this chapter as it deems nccessary for a proper review of the application. Iii approving a pi-climnarY site plan, the cominission inay determine to revieiil 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. At this time, the use and access cannot be supported until Special Use Permits relating to both are approved. Without these actions and approval of the necessary waivers, staff recommends denial of the preliminary site plan as submitted. Should the Planning Commission approve both of the related Special Use Pen -nits and 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. The proposed grading within the floodplain behind the building must be eliminated or an additional Special Use Permit must be approved to allow the grading as shown. ❑ 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. Stonnwater Management Plan. ❑ c. The proposed waterline, hydrant, and waterline easements cannot be located in the proposed biofilter. ❑ 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. ❑ 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 SDP07-065: Lewis and Clark (Note: Somiii Rel on map may not appear in legend) q til 62-30A �151 A 6 )166 62-301B IA -10 "61 61A-2 I�A_j 4 51A-3� 'A-11 75— ,6 r-13 A 6. RAN §2 4 62-95/ K, L2�r471 I /i� RE_EK 62-134 62-132%/� 6 2 3 `°162-11 62 4A"l 62-25 62-128 City of Charlottesville 62 231 E5 2-258 Illy ARm P.0 78-57 73-58)1 78-58E)1-53 ��Z I - - 8E 5SE -58A 7SE -H 78 H, h 78 O'=l78E=H, 7SE-H 76 -'i27 78B 03­16�14 0 v 8 Ei i GIS -Web 0 7 -129 78E -A Geographic Data Services �SE )ya E Ae, Awww.albemarle ong 4 w(434)2965832 78B 0' 78CC IA:, , 8 20 A" X E -,741, E — C 8 Ail -410 '76 58G 581,78E-5�,Rwk 4, 7 aL�y 8 E 43 7; YAQ�78E. 0% s 78-7 _Vo f) -5E! 7s -t5 7 �6 ';;, \78E -6 T E R, 7 E-f!9;47WP147_<" " T, I- , IS 78-4A' P1. SE� 78-9 ;_NZ c, E -G 78- 87 4 y7 7f3- 31qt3t- 8 I HMQKD; 7 4 77 78-1 A RICHMOND -RD 78-11 8.0 Feet J hell 141 77"11, 4. �-41 Map is for display purposes only - Aerial imagery 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia Legend SDP07-065: Lewis and Clark (Note: Somiii Rel on map may not appear in legend) q til 62-30A �151 A 6 )166 62-301B IA -10 "61 61A-2 I�A_j 4 51A-3� 'A-11 75— ,6 r-13 A 6. RAN §2 4 62-95/ K, L2�r471 I /i� RE_EK 62-134 62-132%/� 6 2 3 `°162-11 62 4A"l 62-25 62-128 City of Charlottesville 62 231 E5 2-258 Illy ARm P.0 78-57 73-58)1 78-58E)1-53 ��Z I - - 8E 5SE -58A 7SE -H 78 H, h 78 O'=l78E=H, 7SE-H 76 -'i27 78B 03­16�14 0 v 8 Ei i GIS -Web 0 7 -129 78E -A Geographic Data Services �SE )ya E Ae, Awww.albemarle ong 4 w(434)2965832 78B 0' 78CC IA:, , 8 20 A" X E -,741, E — C 8 Ail -410 '76 58G 581,78E-5�,Rwk 4, 7 aL�y 8 E 43 7; YAQ�78E. 0% s 78-7 _Vo f) -5E! 7s -t5 7 �6 ';;, \78E -6 T E R, 7 E-f!9;47WP147_<" " T, I- , IS 78-4A' P1. SE� 78-9 ;_NZ c, E -G 78- 87 4 y7 7f3- 31qt3t- 8 I HMQKD; 7 4 77 78-1 A RICHMOND -RD 78-11 8.0 Feet J hell 141 77"11, 4. �-41 Map is for display purposes only - Aerial imagery 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia �5 ee is Dominion Development Resources, LLC July 31, 2007 Mr. Glenn Brooks County Engineer Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center (SDP 2007-0065) Request for Waiver of Section 18.4.12.15g Dear Mr. Brooks: 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 434.979.8121 (p) 434.979.1681 (f) DDRVA.com In accordance with section 18.4.12.15g of the Zoning Ordinance, Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, Inc. does hereby requests that the requirement for curb and gutter associated with the parking lot, travelways, and access road be waived in accordance with the SDP application submitted. Runoff from the parking lots will enter the bio -filters through the wheel stops, providing multiple points for loading the bio -filters, and therefore improving efficiency. In addition, erosion and scouring will be limited if the runoff is allowed to discharge before picking up velocity in a gutter and inlet system. Additionally, the rural profile proposed for the access road conforms with existing road sections within the Park and no future connections are anticipated. The reasons given above demonstrate that the granting of a waiver will be in accord with Section 4 of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, J. Kelly Strickland J. Kelly Strickland Dominion Development Resources, LLC 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 434-979-8121 ATTACHi\'IEN't' �uF ALfjF, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Parks & Recreation Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 296-5844 FAX (434) 293-0299 MEMORANDUM TO: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner FROM: Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation' DATE: May 14, 2007 RE: Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Phase I Plan rhe Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee, comprised of members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council, met on February 21, 2007 and endorsed Phase I of the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center's development plan. During Committee deliberations regarding the Phase I plan, the subject of proper environmental stewardship and storm water management was raised in the context of road and parking surfaces associated with the Center. The Committee wishes to inform the Albemarle County Department of Community Development of the strong commitment of the Lewis & Clark Center to best practices in storm water management and the strong support of the Committee for pervious surfacing as part of this development in Darden Towe Park, The Committee requests that the County staff, through the site plan review process, give every consideration to pervious surfaces in the roadways and parking areas adjacent to the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center. On behalf ofthe Darden 'Fcm e Memorial Park Committee I thank you for your consideration of this request. ATTACHIt'IENT C Page 1 of l David E. Pennock From: Marcia Joseph [marcia481 @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:57 PM To: David E. Pennock Cc: John Shepherd Subject: Lewis and Clark David, I'd like to call this site plan up for review by the planning commission. Item Number: SDP2007-00065 Project Lead Reviewer: David Pennock Project Name: Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center 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. 201, 0.5 miles north of its intersection with Richmond Road [Rte. 2501. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Parks and Greenway in Urban Area 3. thanks, Marcia Joseph, ASLA, AICP At Large Representative Albemarle County Planning Commission Joseph Associates LLC 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, Virginia 22947 Phone 434-984-4199 Fax 434-984-3098 A1'TACH`1ENT 1) 8/7/2007 i LK The following pictures show the existing conditions of the current travelway. Fig. 1: Existing gravel travelway that ties into Elk Drive at the T -intersection (on right) Fig. 2: Existing entrance from opposite direction (taken from intersection) ATTACHMENT E 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: August 14, 2007 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. 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 currenty 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 flood -plain 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 and Special Use Permits relating to this proposal 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. 201, 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(8) of the Zoning Ordinance, which require these areas to be hard -surfaced and constructed with curb and gutter, respectively (Attachment Q. CHARACTER OF AREA: This property is currenty 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 flood -plain 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 is for an extension of the above referenced special use permit (approval is pending). SP 2007-022 — This special use permit would allow the grading and till in the floodplain that are necessary to complete the construction of the access roads serving this site (approval is pending). 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 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. 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. However, the phasing plan submitted with the site plan anticipates that the proposed access road and parking will be installed as gravel. During Phase I, the infrastructure will be constructed, including the proposed access road and one-third of the parking area (as gravel). All building pads and remaining parking areas will be graded, but not constructed. Phase II is for the construction of a 2,500 square foot building within the footprint of the historical center. Ultimately, in Phase III, the building will be enlarged to 15,000 square feet, and the remainder of the parking area will be constructed. At that time, all of the parking and the proposed new access road will be paved. Based on the site plan that has been submitted, even after the proposed new portion of the access road has been paved, 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 gravel will require a waiver, even though it is anticipated to be a temporary situation. 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. 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 of four (4) or more spaces shall be surfaced. The sru,face materials. for parking areas and access aisles shall be subject to review and approval by the county engineer, based upon the intensitv 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(8), 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 sideivalk 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 4.122(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 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 Arty o requirement f section 32.7 may be modified, n,aived, or substituted, in an individual case, as provided herein: a. The commission may modifv, vi,aive, or accept substitution for anv requirement of section 32.7 in a particular case upon a finding that requiring such improvement tii,ould not forward the purposes of this chapter- or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare; or in the case of substitution, M 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, topograpbv, 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 Wray 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 anv case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable quality, but di ffering from those required by section 3 2.7, a developer mould achieve results which substantially satisfy the overall purposes of this chapter in a nranrier• 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 f om 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 oi• 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 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. R 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 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. In addition, staff is unable to support the phased surfacing of the access roads and parking areas. The phasing of these items is based on a number of factors, and the indetenninate timeframe for completion could result in the roadway remaining substandard indefinitely. 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 has requested the use of gravel partially as a means of achieving best practices in stonnwater management (Attachment Q. However, gravel is not considered by Albemarle County to be a pervious material for purposes of stormwater management. Thus, the proposed material as a substitute has not been shown to comparably meet the requirements of the ordinance. 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 several portions of the parking area. The proposed waiver request also includes relief of curb and gutter requirement for the travelway which 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. Curb and gutter is proposed for the new parking area provided with this project. Engineering staff has waived the curb and gutter requirements for portions of this 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 I SWM/BMP facility, and will be equipped with curb and gutter to direct the flow of the runoff. Engineering staff does not recommend approval to this waiver request and recommends the use of curb and gutter for the entire length of the travelway. 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, safch) 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 anv case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable quality, brit differing from those required by section 32.7, a developer tivould achieve results i.1'hich substantially satisfv 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 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 7 gutter, staff recommends denial of both waivers. Staff has reviewed the preliminary site plan for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. At this time, the use and access cannot be supported until Special Use Permits relating to both are approved. Without these actions and approval of the necessary waivers, staff recommends denial of the preliminary site plan as submitted. Should the Planning Commission approve both of the related Special Use Permits and 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. The proposed grading within the floodplain behind the building must be eliminated or an additional Special Use Permit must be approved to allow the grading as shown. ❑ 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. Stonnwater Management Plan. ❑ c. The proposed waterline, hydrant, and waterline easements cannot be located in the proposed biofilter. ❑ 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. ❑ 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 8 CS Ole ps b minion Development Resources. LLC July 31, 2007 Mr. Glenn Brooks County Engineer Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center (SDP 2007-0065) Request for Waiver of Section 18.4.12.15g Dear Mr. Brooks: 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 434.979.8121 (p) 434.979.1681 (f) DDRVA.com In accordance with section 18.4.12.15g of the Zoning Ordinance, Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, Inc. does hereby requests that the requirement for curb and gutter associated with the parking lot, travelways, and access road be waived in accordance with the SDP application submitted. Runoff from the parking lots will enter the bio -filters through the wheel stops, providing multiple points for loading the bio -filters, and therefore improving efficiency. In addition, erosion and scouring will be limited if the runoff is allowed to discharge before picking up velocity in a gutter and inlet system. Additionally, the rural profile proposed for the access road conforms with existing road sections within the Park and no future connections are anticipated. The reasons given above demonstrate that the granting of a waiver will be in accord with Section 4 of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, J. Kelly Strickland J. Kelly Strickland Dominion Development Resources, LLC 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 434-979-8121 ATTACHMENT C COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Parks & Recreation Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 296-5844 FAX (434) 293-0299 MEMORANDUM TO: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner FROM: Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, DATE: May 14, 2007 RE: Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Phase I Plan The Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee, comprised of members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council, met on February 21, 2007 and endorsed Phase I of the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center's development plan. During Committee deliberations regarding the Phase I plan, the subject of proper environmental stewardship and storm water management was raised in the context of road and parking surfaces associated with the Center. The Committee wishes to inform the Albemarle County Department of Community Development of the strong commitment of the Le -,vis & Clark Center to best practices in storm water management and the strong support of the Committee for pervious surfacing as part of this development in Darden ToNve Park, The Committee requests that the County staff. through the site plan review process, give every consideration to pervious surfaces in the roadways and parking areas adjacent to the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center. On behalf of the Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee 1 thank you for your consideration of this request. ATTACHMENT C SITE DATA TAX MAP 62, PARCEL 23 PHYSICAL ADDRESS: 1445 DARDEN TOWE PARK CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22911 OWNER: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE & COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 401 McINTIRE ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 APPLICANT: LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER P.O. BOX 281 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 CONTACT: DOMINION DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES, LLC 172 SOUTH PANTOPS DRIVE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22911 PHONE: (434) 979-8121 FAX: (434) 979-1681 ACREAGE: 18 ACRES PROPOSED LEASE ZONING: R -I RESIDENTIAL R -A RURAL AREA EC - ENTRANCE CORRIDOR SUP #2004-004 (APPROVED 01/04/06 - SEE SHEET C2 FOR DETAILS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIVANNA LEWIS 8a CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER 'ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SOURCE OF BOUNDARY SURVEY: SURVEY NOT PERFORMED, PLAT NOT AVAILABLE SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: KIRK HUGHES AND ASSOCIATES I� 220 E. HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 BENCHMARK: TEMPORARY BENCHMARK "X" ON NORTHMOST BASE BDLT OF FIRE HYDRANT LOCATED 495 FT. SW OF BUILDING LOCATION, ELEVATION = 382.79'. DATUM FOR ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN IS NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY BUILDING SETBACKS, PRE -DEVELOPMENT % POST -DEVELOPMENT % IMPERVIOUS: MINIMUM EXPLORATORY CENTER R I - FRONT YARD 25' 582' SIDE YARD 15' 39' REAR YARD 20' 172' STRUCTURE HEIGHT 35' 35' RA - FRONT YARD (EXISTING PUBLIC ROADS) 75' 36,909 SF FRONT YARD (INTERNAL PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROADS) 25' 0 SIDE YARD 25' TOTAL: REAR YARD 35' 99,841 SF STRUCTURE HEIGHT 35' 784,080 SF CURRENT USE: OPEN SPACE PROPOSED USE: HISTORICAL CENTER MAXIMUM NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES: LESS THAN 5 PARKING SCHEDULE: PROPOSED: 85 PARKING (4 HANDICAPPED) 2 BUS SPACES PARKING SPACES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4.12.7(c) OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH ACCOMODATES PARKING FOR PERMITTED USES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 4.12.6. APPROVALS CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLANNER CURRENT DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FIRS OFFICIAL i ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BUILDING OFFICIAL VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION JUNE 2509 2007 PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE i 1 � _ 11 / t � J\Jr •� , r i d NI LSON R\RDa WOLiZ C1 of 7 C2 of 7 C3 of 7 C4 of 7 C5of7 C6 of 7 C7 of 7 LEWIS AND CLARK Eaplorato ry Center tlFemulr �.:unry, \'ira,nlr \'IL\t'r f C\'P(�,R�TC�RI" ILMiR IA��\(1HL RItT„R SHEET INDEX Cover Sheet Concept Plan Existing Site Features Site Layout Grading and Utilities Landscape Plan Access Road Plan VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1'=2000' GENERAL NOTES 1. LIGHTING IS NOT BEING PROPOSED AT THIS TIME, 2. PHASING IS AS FOLLOWS: PHASE I - CONSTRUCT ALL UTILITIES / INFRASTRUCTURE ROUGH GRADE AND SEED BUILDING PAD FOR 15,000 SF BUILDING PRESERVE TREES FOR FUTURE TREE WELLS ROUGH GRADE AND SEED PARKING AREA GRADE ACCESS ROAD AND PROVIDE GRAVEL SURFACE RELOCATE DOG PARK FENCE PHASE II - CONSTRUCT A 2,500 SF BUILDING WITHIN THE 15,000 SF BUILDING PAD PROVIDE LANDSCAPING ALONG ACCESS ROAD AND FOR 31 PARKING SPACES AND 2 BUS SPACES CONSTRUCT GRAVEL PARKING AREA FOR 31 CARS AND 2 BUSES PROVIDE CURBING, WHERE SHOWN FOR 31 PARKING SPACES PROVIDE BUMPER BLOCKS FOR 31 CARS INSTALL BIOFILTER PLANTS INSTALL BOARD FENCE INSTALL PRIMITIVE TRAIL - PHASE III - CONSTRUCT THE REMAINDER OF THE 15,000 SF BUILDING CONSTRUCT THE REMAINDER OF THE PARKING AREA, PAVE ACCESS ROAD AND PARKING AREAS PROVIDE LANDSCAPING FOR THE REMAINDER OF SITE 3. AREAS OF CRITICAL SLOPES ARE SHOWN ON SHEET C3. A WAIVER TO ALLOW CRITICAL SLOPES DISTURBANCE IS BEING REQUESTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 4. THE PARCEL IS LOCATED IN ZONE AE AND ZONE X ON FEMA PANEL 5100.0O287D, 5. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION AT COMPLETION OF PHASE III = 500 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY AND 3 BUS TRIPS PER WEEK. ESTIMATES ARE BASED ON A COMPARISON WITH TRIP GENERATIONS FOR A LIBRARY AS TAKEN FROM "ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL, 7TH EDITION:' 6. THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A RESERVOIR WATERSHED. 7 IF ARCHITECTUAL DRAWINGS SUBMITTED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION SUGGEST THAT THE BUILDING WILL BE VISIBLE, ARB REVIEW WILL BE REQUIRED. 8. A CURB AND GUTTER WAIVER IS BEING REQUESTED FOR THE ACCESS ROAD AND PORTIONS OF THE PARKING AREA. LAND USE SCHEDULE AREA OF DISTURANCE FOR GRADING/BIOFILTERS: BUILDING AREA: 22,156 SF ENTRANCE ROAD: 67,306 SF PARKING AREA: 36,962 SF TOTAL: 126,424 SF TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 226,265 SF ATTACHMENT B 6�h � C N d smv,� �R eP C 0 N ? C N� SO O NN , I4 m Ufa Ce 4 ! ** KN0H OFA Timothy Ray Miller Lic. No. 30542 2. n � F A 7 �3 z � tx E- v z E, E O I --Ly V 1 W W W x� o U � q z W a w a LL' rsn DDR PROJECT N070(30 INDEX TITLE: C1 SHEET NO: 1 OF 7 DATE: 06-25-2007 PRE -DEVELOPMENT % POST -DEVELOPMENT % IMPERVIOUS: BUILDING: 0 SF 0 15,000 SF 15 TERRACE: 0 SF 0 4,653 SF 5 PARKING AREAS: 0 SF 0 36,909 SF 37 ACCESS DRIVE: 0 SF 0 43,279 SF 43 TOTAL: 0 SF 0 99,841 SF 100 PERVIOUS: 784,080 SF 100 684,239 SF 87 TOTAL: 784,080 SF 100 784,080 SF 100 AREA OF DISTURANCE FOR GRADING/BIOFILTERS: BUILDING AREA: 22,156 SF ENTRANCE ROAD: 67,306 SF PARKING AREA: 36,962 SF TOTAL: 126,424 SF TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 226,265 SF ATTACHMENT B 6�h � C N d smv,� �R eP C 0 N ? C N� SO O NN , I4 m Ufa Ce 4 ! ** KN0H OFA Timothy Ray Miller Lic. No. 30542 2. n � F A 7 �3 z � tx E- v z E, E O I --Ly V 1 W W W x� o U � q z W a w a LL' rsn DDR PROJECT N070(30 INDEX TITLE: C1 SHEET NO: 1 OF 7 DATE: 06-25-2007 J 1' OPEN SPACE TENNIS f/ \COURTS // 1 / r ELK'S CLUB ' � dE SPECIAL USE PERMIT INFO: R -- SUP # SP -2004-004 APPROVED ON JANUARY 4,2006 ALLOWING FOR HISTORICAL J ' 09 ql YEN YAKK N +��� i RA REAR SETBACK —� Em 1, THE SITE SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN GENERAL ACCORD WITH ALL SHEETS OF THE PLAN Q m R-1 REAR SETBACK ENTITLED "LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER" REVISED OCTOBER 18. 2005 O _ m AND PREPARED BY NELSON, BYRD, WOLTZ SETBACKS INDICATED IN THE TABLE ON SHEETS L3.1 AND L3.2 DO NOT SET INCREASED MINIMUM SETBACKS; RIVANNA RIVER m Ed 2. THE TOP OF THE LOOKOUT TOWER, MEASURED IN ELEVATION ABOVE MEAN SEA O / LEVEL, SHALL NOT EXCEED (AMSL+35). THE APPROVED HEIGHT SHALL AT NO TIME I BE TALLER THAT THE TALLEST TREE WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET OF THE LOOKOUT ! e w TOWER AND SHALL INCLUDE ANY BASE, FOUNDATION OR GRADING THAT RAISES ®W REALIGNED TO CONNECT TO EXISTING CROSS 3. A MAXIMUM OF TWELVE SPECIAL EVENTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5.1.42j COUNTRY TRAIL-:-�.e.-.,... EXISTING SECTION OF PROPOSED ACCESS r� CROSS COUNTRY TRAIL ROAD ��'�/ TO BE RELOCATED 5. A LIGHTING PLAN AND A LANDSCAPING PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED, REVIEWED z 1jm'T`Fy f cy N I'e' > EX#S-T1NG' AND APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN EXISTIN \ "-":"80CCER "; . q 4? DOG PARK FIELDS, EXISTING —J EXISTING STREAM 6. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 32.7.9.9 A TWENTY (20) PERCENT TREE CANOPY BARN SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE SITE BASED ON THE DISTURBED AREA FOR THE '' EXISTING PAVILION - - COUNTRY TRAILS \\ TO REMAIN 7. PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THE LIMITS OF THE m' PROPOSED ONE -HUNDRED { 100) -YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AND STREAM BUFFERS, WHERE ADJACENT i LEVVIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER EXISTING ATHLETIC, FIELDS EXIST. RESIDENCE FLAGGED AT TEN (10) FOOT INTERVALS BY A LAND SURVEYOR TO PREVENT ENCROACHMENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY, STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EXISTING zo SOCCER Y REALIGNED TO CONNECT I EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS AND ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS �\\ EXIST POND i TO EXISTING CROSS I'� DURING CONSTRUCTION; J 1' OPEN SPACE TENNIS f/ \COURTS // 1 / r ELK'S CLUB ' � dE SPECIAL USE PERMIT INFO: R -- SUP # SP -2004-004 APPROVED ON JANUARY 4,2006 ALLOWING FOR HISTORICAL J ' 09 ql CENTER AND MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 5.1.42 OFTHE ZONING ORDINANCE WITH N +��� i THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Em 1, THE SITE SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN GENERAL ACCORD WITH ALL SHEETS OF THE PLAN Q m ENTITLED "LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER" REVISED OCTOBER 18. 2005 O _ m AND PREPARED BY NELSON, BYRD, WOLTZ SETBACKS INDICATED IN THE TABLE ON SHEETS L3.1 AND L3.2 DO NOT SET INCREASED MINIMUM SETBACKS; m Ed 2. THE TOP OF THE LOOKOUT TOWER, MEASURED IN ELEVATION ABOVE MEAN SEA O / LEVEL, SHALL NOT EXCEED (AMSL+35). THE APPROVED HEIGHT SHALL AT NO TIME I BE TALLER THAT THE TALLEST TREE WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET OF THE LOOKOUT ! e w TOWER AND SHALL INCLUDE ANY BASE, FOUNDATION OR GRADING THAT RAISES THE TOWER ABOVE THE PRE-EXISTING NATURAL GROUND ELEVATION; 3. A MAXIMUM OF TWELVE SPECIAL EVENTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5.1.42j ARE AUTHORIZED PER CALENDAR YEAR; T ^ Ji �O 4. A MAXIMUM OF FOUR (4) FESTIVALS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5.1.42 i ARE ` G. ��'�/ AUTHORIZED PER CALENDAR YEAR; 5. A LIGHTING PLAN AND A LANDSCAPING PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED, REVIEWED z 1jm'T`Fy f cy N I'e' > AND APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN Lc IJc DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL; q 4? STREAM 6. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 32.7.9.9 A TWENTY (20) PERCENT TREE CANOPY SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE SITE BASED ON THE DISTURBED AREA FOR THE EXISTING CROSS HISTORICAL CENTER BUILDING, PARKING AND ACCESS ROAD; COUNTRY TRAILS TO REMAIN 7. PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THE LIMITS OF THE m' PROPOSED ONE -HUNDRED { 100) -YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AND STREAM BUFFERS, WHERE ADJACENT tS LEVVIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER TO CONSTRUCTED PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING THE AMPHITHEATER, TIMBER FORT, LOOKOUT TOWER, ENTRANCE ROAD AND RETAINING WALL, SHALL BE ZONING LINE FLAGGED AT TEN (10) FOOT INTERVALS BY A LAND SURVEYOR TO PREVENT ENCROACHMENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY, STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION ! zo Y REALIGNED TO CONNECT I EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS AND ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING CROSS I'� DURING CONSTRUCTION; > > COUNTRY TRAILS x s 8, OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED NOISE IS NOT ALLOWED ON SITE; AND PROPOSED PARKING E RA FRONT SETBACK 9 AS STIPULATED IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY AND COUNTY, THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY li AND COUNTY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE USES AVAILABLE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD THE VENTURE FAIL. APPROXIMATE LOCATION o OF EXISTING PROPERTY LINE I, \ LEASE LINE R-1 FRONT SETBACK z i u y � a � E � a 3 d Z E- U E , ' z � CD :J d W �d I E-� V] Z w d DDR PROJECT NO. 70130 ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT 1 INDEX TIITTLLE\�'//�/ V 150 0 150 300 450 SHEET NO SCALE C = 150' 2 OF 7 DATE 06-25-2007 ----- ----------_---------- —30 I, Y RA n —34v EXISTING TRAIL-, -- - `%L� - _- - \' . - . - / / - _ _ — — — — — — — — 50 -j' - - TO REMAIN 1 30 lr - - - X3--- J-----6ol — — — — _ — 3a9 �� \ // CO ' - / — cr;NGC ?OSS r 'NTR RAIL EXISTING TREE LINE- TO REMAIN \ i _ EXS VEGETATION / - _----_7---- -- - TO' BE REMOVED — / --r--- --- XISTING TREES � � / 0 REMAIN I EXISTING CROS$ COUNTRY TRAILS / __._ // COUNTRY TRAIL TO RELOCATED / EXISTING CROSS `n / COUNTRY TRAIL 0 BE REMOVED / TO BE RELOCATED E ISTNG TREE TO RFMAW �'/// \ \'`%`�•/ � / EXISTING C ROSS PRO"E ION -VAIN iRAll PROVICETO FEN It If- _ , X!S NG _CROSS COUN-RY TRAIL TO + TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CROSS + / XI ' / COUNTRY TRAIL — -- / REMAIN /` / - - - , I EXISTING VEGETATION EXISTING CROSS TO BE REMOVED - II'I EXIST NG VEGETATION / /� / // COUNTRY TRAIL 70 BE REMOVED i x TO BE REMOVED / d EXISTING TREE I - '`1EXISTING CROSS LINE - / TO REMAIN COUNTRY TRAIL TO BE REMOVED �---`-- I /II I I I I iZ i % */ CRI r'I ORE EXISTING SOCCER FIELDS J/ / � / EXISTING FENCE TO BE / _OSTINP TRAIL RELOCATED _ / TO BE �EMOVED i XISTNG �, -�ARc �1` / l GRAPHIC KEY EXISTING ELEMENTS TO REMAIN SHOWN IN LIGHT LINE AND TEXT ll `` - / _ - - _ x- // I +, li EXISTING ELEMENTS TO Be REMOVED SHOWN IN BOLD LINE AND TEXT 'I ' . '/ ir' / / / — _ 30 o 30 so Sar SCALE 1 = 30' ,1 ATTACHMENT B �G P Ty F �FG P cZ TNTC"ly NOj Mr,2r L.. NC 50542 n� C Y i7 z C, ✓� E- s �W w o a W EE- X d z x s z r � F -wi d w � w a � N DDR PROJECT NO 70130 INDEX TITLE C3 SHEET NO 3OF7 DATE 06-25-2007 \ —-- - - - - -- - CL 0 ----- -- — — —-_--- ------ — — _� / c m m C m tt • EXIST�G RAIL— / 0o ai -0 AND "cRIGGE TO °� r EE 'MPROVEC yi . o s�o ���� AT LATER DATE — — — — — — _' _ _. 3 FFER / EX STING CROSS " 7i S, FAV 9J — PROPOSED GRASS SURFACE LOADING A'C',ESS TO LOWER CNE PEj CCIJNTRY TRAL o Z E,_ cvoro%r,C v-\µ _ o R_MAIN o,ry Pay Mi er /yEPR 4- (GRASS) I Nc 30542 I \ / CC REALIGNED CROSS �o X2 nj / J i,k PROPOSED PLRMAN5N' i�COUN?RY -RAL CUMPSTER IODATION PRHAPSSEC PARK�NC� S6�P (GRASS) NAL OVERLOOK 11 �Q _� OVERLOOK (=N;LCSEC WITH WOODEN a - REALIGNIC CROSS FENCE) � Z PARKING OVERHANG - i z '/ COUNTRRAIL - TYP CAL) v 99 ' R(GRASSI // -- -_ EXSTING 9,'X6 CROSS OUN"RY TRAIL®g X C f ' m (CRASS) / ' PROPOSED /,/ I5•R' 3R QoS\\\ ✓ / AMPTL79EA TER PROPOSED PARKINGD 5'R 8 S°ACES ®9'X 6 % 2- 7 PROPOSED\\ ,✓\\ 6 S 5,000 SF BUILDING PHASE I'., 8 SPACES 5X16' 3'R SR . MAX HT. 35' 5'R �_ (PHASE 111) SQ�, �+ o / ` I ----------- PRCPCSEC EDUCATIONAL PROPOSED CURBING / TR•E 'WEL_ IPHASE m ,�Q- ?� (TY°- I ROADBED / GARDEN _ 1= _ i11 �\\\ 6 p�q, �- II II II �' PROPOSED ' �pS�OX\L'� _ --20'— TERRACE ON a 5 PS �I I 13R �3'R fl 9X\6 LOWER LEVEL i pp Q� I ®9'X16, rE5 ® - �' 1' g'XtS, A \p EXISTING CROS„ tir 5'R 8 SPACES o SpA n PROPOSED ' A SPACES ®9X15' SR SR COUNTRY TRAIL o _ 10'R 5{-3 SPACES ® .� I 1 TO REMAIN PROPOSED `.HARDSCAP NG.' 5'R g�-I I EDucaTIONAL POSED ----? (G ASSI GARDEN.< :t'•.• ;' PRO _-__________ _ CROSS R ------ PHASE vq �' CROSSWALK 5R n 7ROPO5ED �I� �� # x a °' a3' BUS PARKING \ 2' PARK NO OVERHANG COUNTRYDTRAIL R PROPOSED - I �� LEASE UNE I� I TREE WELL LL � I ✓ PROPOSED PRIMITIV�-R�L cl-' SYSTEM (PHASE III) (MATERIAL \ / o / TO BE DETERMINED °s FINAL ✓ %j S -E PLAN) R PHPS �pN� ZPROPOSED HARDSCAPINC r MN x MATERIAL TO BE DETERM,NEDPROPOSEC— EXISTING SOCCER F'ELD --) — PEDESTRIAN FINAL SITE P AN) z TiJ / 11 BRIDGE P PXERVPUj �f�� i --PROPOSED FUTURE CONNECTION O p RRCAJCEDOG - ¢ W PARK Er J�* (PHASE I) LPROPOSED HEADWA-L EX STING DOG PARK EXISTING SOCCER RED ) (,MATERIAL TO 9E (APPRCX. 25.000 S=) — J f 'DETERMINED 9 FNAL I I, v SITE PLAN _ j '� 2$ E^ REALIGNED CROSS 30 0 30 60 90 z COUNTRY TRAIL ' Q O + y� +2 os, (GRASS) SCALE 1" = 30, w 6 W _ --x DDR PROJECT NO 70130 INDEX TITLE EXISTING CROSS I COUNTRY TRAIL C4 (GRASS) I MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C7 _ SHEET NO ATTACHMENT B 4 OF 7 I - DATE. 06- 25-2007 - r 3 _ - -- - - ----- _-J_- }NING LAN.. GF<I4}OAL Ep -SLOPES 50 71 CRITICA SLOPES RI CaC-A: SLOPES - '00�- -a o d� I/� 7R 'I — \ PROPOSED GRAOsNG / 0 ✓' OFILTEP g3 i I ELEVATION � J r,I—_—�L--j- ��3 `/-3580 PROPOSEC AMP (THEATER // / / / + /3 0 I, I I PROPOSED / /�_— \ TERRACE / / ! �I PROP \ / r ,' - - ELEVVION/-- I i- I PROPOSED / C _ Q�c`j�-' STOR ATER 0 /'� / 9UILDWG / UPPER - - I CO EYANC \ ✓\ EVE T ELEV 64 _ — t �' I 'V6"% / / S�!of L �l �, J' oR LEVEL /V ELEV / /IllA b / eucanoNaL / J r 'I' -/ ✓ I x P G 1 11 OPE PHASE un /- / / J , � � � J _ / / / ROPOSED � • - � _ r _ _ _ - -- I IIS � — _ _ BIOFI�TtR JP.. POSEGRACING ��pLTF C � P oz T�r^rthy Rey M lei L,c No 'C_`.Z fSSrOh'4L EH N OS.D PROPOSED PROPOSED—4 E HY9RAN7 o PRCPos -WATERLINE �N ASSEMBLY �• HARDSCAPIN( j EouGA CONNECTION TV A IN BUILDNG P SE 111 I ------- PROPOSED GRADING - cemca s�aPss34 x =z� g I _max—x�k PEDR4+4 ,• i, I, �/-_- I OMITSVDGE + / I I �o WALLs / I _ d w max, m d NG"E x C 7 c.(XIS7!NG DOG PARK ',! �,'�I f I 'I 1 STORUWATER DETE4(ION SNOT REQUIRED FOR THIS /'; ✓J l' 'i � / 0 2 SEE CONDITION OF SP INFORMATION ON SH=ET C2 � (aP, ROX 25,000 SF) �II I REGARDING STAKE -CUT REOLIREMENT I E 'I ,3 z I r / _ I30 0 30 60 90 1 _ A SCALE 1" = 30' ` a � m DDR PROJECT NO 70130 INDEX TITLE' ,�' `/ Il MATCHLINE -SEE SHEET C7 C5 SHEET NO T B SOF7 ATTACHMEN 1�7 /I 1' I -)ATE 06-25-2007 3 ZONE —---------------- _ RA — _34'0 ,NINC ON CL 0 'c dw / Q� r� X60 t pr A. °cam° --00STc �� iI\ \ � ��_._�/!' .• j�Y /�� ��' —_ _/ —. ---_ _-- / / 5 '�C.• � �' 3�p ��L,LTH OF Timothy Roy Miller = / ! I �' / " / / / ' _ _ _ -- __ — — t LS Lic. No, 30542 L5' -i•/ - T�- -- - _ ' �� A� -so/ SSfON AL EN x e e / /PRO'xSED , ; / / /;I MP / / �� - Ls r old , \\ '� Ls B-Jv �'PRGTEjiT10N , / / i 5 -IG / $ dROPos6D P 6P0_EFJ� / /EDUCAn A:- / . MR EE WELL 'TO Bk (PHA5GARDLr!Il /l _ - - "� y / ! r ON / ; /'DESIGNED BASED ,'/ L—" SI'J \ 5 TO / ARCM EC XRE y0F BUIL-/INC / �,' I r � �—'l�- — — — _ / / / / ROPOSE6 / DS2A 1-sc bb x -� • -I-�-' / / /6NALIY (P SE III)/ r w� LS _ / CID j/ PROPCSEDT�EE / / TO 8`CESIGNED BASED ON (1/ / eTRCHITECTURj OF _51JILDIti6 / / - .� _J''• / _ _ — —. -- — — 3 (. _ — — - — �I PLANT LIST _ - - - - - - - CANCPr A?°4 .ARE TATA! Zr —3921-- 3 --" - �- KE'/ OTY iiOTANICh� NAM OOMMON NAVE SAL '1E:G^T PyMAR,15 5F' _ SF) 0 E -_"-- -- SrfAJE TREES 1 = st acflua Rotundaoo %tuna "bei 2" 206 2,884 w' firth 0'_i p' C'ump 464 2,764 E' y � r—r-- MC I s 1 Madero Pam fe a asaee cran9e z s" M Z ORNAME 'k'RFES U E- k Ac 3 IAm«unchwr 1-dmms.'Aut-1 3,Al cr 'Aot�mn Brlwonce 5erwceb<r.v ' IO' -12' I aamp 130 39C T �.� ' / / / / ! `°'w amcw..e�.. Ev ERGREENS = C ^ /�c�u e�r�s�`bu ' IP 6 he, "P,tnot Patr,ot Noll, 5'-6 16 96 Q 0 JV 37 Jumperus wgimana Eastern Redcedar 5'-6' I6 592 E- ' TO 31 Thula °ccdentd T ri y' i h r' Py.om dal Arborctee 5'-6' 1G 310 w / �•• %��/// / ' _ - ' / / xII w.nmu.w. STING,90G PARK SaRJ85 Ed m r d 26 82/ S lrub/C I mlepce 36° / / / .I �e� ���mqe ,,,e,w, �n„w p,e CA 19 Cle!hra aln fo a H gb rd 4umrrn b'd S- sweet 36” 6 30l / FENCING AND ARMORING n n m w� 16 -TO wm�"� "�� i HO yper cum sl n t !Gal 1' OC �T•' / / / ✓ ''3 �J� ' �,',��,r �v�wq�� p®,�W� IG 24 Ileo gabro Sh ni, Shamrock Invberr, IT, y 24" 21 552 W IV 27 Ileo wrgnco "He,,ys Garnet' 5weelspre 36° 16 432 .Yr Qi MC 27 M)r ca ter lera D Dwarr" "Dons Dwarf Woxmptle 36" 44 88 yy� ./ //•N ---------------- Ds..d YR 7 SO 11 �vburnumnd Iqm G da BArrawwoo yVoumumY 36'. _ U /t 36' 31 217 Zi (a1a ge g sn II ash the cCA110NA1 GA RDEN `CTAL.SF! 9931 F PERENNIAL- FOR T"+E EDU w� dicate �ec4on to the Lewis k Clor4 e.aed�bm 'cr e°ch pant) y ama9 Q ones Em,aceo areus w uraba -Narrow-leav<a canw'lawe. B,terroa; — — — — — — — — — r °]ws.�m,eJ�,.rw..a•w.ro..�wW.m,...r...a .,....0 murw ..oi,mumw4.Y', Evana.b�ia iemargeiulas -WSn wla On-th<-m°�ntain W a Q _ , — r-� adladla arhtata — Blanwe!6aw� GRAPHIC KEY O ti W a.r. TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE 226.265 SF ,✓/ f / 2CX REOL,RED CANOPY COVERAGE 45,253 SF EXISTING VEGETATION SHOWN IN CORRECT METHODS OF TREE FENCING .ws .....wie.ve.a.r"e..,.�::"..��w. , �.y a:.,'.w.m� PR^POSED CANOPY COVERAGE 245,392 SF DDR PROJECT NO: 70130 r / / / / LIGHT LINE AND TEXT REMAlnlvc ExlsnNc cnnoPr 235,461 sF 7 -JY / "m�gn,o e PROPOSED PLANT CANOPY 9,931 SF INDEX TITLE. CARVING LOT TREES REQUIRED 1/'0 SPACES = 9 PROPSED LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS PROPOSED 14 SHOWN IN BOLD LINE AND TEXT C% V 30 0 30 RO SHEET NO: yj iaM. .rw�wa. -,e a.re, CORRECT TRUNK ARMORING i SCALE: I" 30' B OF 7 TRIANGULAR BOARD FENCE ''TA/1 4V4F"T R DATE. QQ-25-2007 �S .,e Is on'. _ in c Development vy Resources. LLC ms "fo 4'e� ers its September 14, 2007 David Pennock, Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center TMP 62-23 SDP 07-065 Dear David: 172 South Pantops Drivc Charlottesville, VA 2291' This memo and attached drawings are in response to the Planning Commission meeting dated August 14, 2007 and your associated staff report. The following changes have been made: • The lease line has been amended based on recent approvals by the City and County. (The new lease line incorporates the existing barn.) • We have revised the phases. It is anticipated that the first two phases can be combined to include a 2,500 SF building with associated grading, utilities, biofilters, parking and landscaping. The second phase will include the remainder of the building, parking and landscaping. • Fill is no longer being proposed in the floodplain to the rear of the proposed building. • The proposed paving for the access road and parking area will be river -washed stone; similar to Montpelier and Ash Lawn. • Curbing has been eliminated in the parking area and along the access road. • We have added erosion matting in the ditch along the access road. • We have included calculations as requested by the Planning Commission. • A more detailed building footprint has been shown; including entrance steps and ramps. (There are approximately 28 steps to the building entrance because the first floor elevation has been lowered by 14'.) • We have reduced the parking from 88 spaces to 83 spaces; as per the approved application plan. • We have relocated the waterline, hydrant and waterline easement outside of the proposed biofilter. • We have included a general note regarding a possible future geothermal field to be located under the existing dog park. 434.979.8121 (p 434.979.1681 (f DDRVA.corr ATTACHMENT C Regarding 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 gutter, we would like and respectfully request the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center be in keeping with the rural feel of the park in that particular area. The premise of the Exploratory Center is based on the river which is an integral part of the story of Lewis and Clark. It is a goal of the Exploratory Center to encourage the public to the river and to appreciate its connection to Lewis & Clark in an ecologically sensitive setting. The existing access road leading to the proposed center is gravel with no curb and acts as a natural transition from the developed area of the park to the more rural area of the park. This transition lends itself to the riverine feel that we are trying to evoke with the development of the historical center. The original approved application plan indicates that the proposed Entrance Road would be either asphalt or resin -bound pavement. Based on that approved application plan, we are proposing a sealed, river -washed stone surface and are anticipating the volume of traffic to be approximately 200 trips/day. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact either Kelly Strickland or myself. i 1 Thank you, Jappt Miller, ASLA L'd Planning and Environmental Design Dominion Development Resources ATTACHMENT C s1 ss ,c �ais ominion Develo � N LLC September 14, 2007 David Pennock, Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center TMP 62-23 SDP 07-065 Request for Waiver of Curb and Blacktop parking areas. Dear David: This letter clarifies our request for a waiver from the requirements of the Zoning ordinance. As you are aware, the proposed plan does not show the 2" asphalt surface treatment typically required nor the required curbing. We have submitted drainage calculations with this application supporting our request for a waiver. The calculations demonstrate that we can effectively control the stormwater runoff in roadside ditches along the entrance road. Additionally, the plan shows three water quality facilities. The parking areas have been designed to sheet flow excess runoff over the impervious areas directly into the water quality facilities. Allowing water to sheet flow into the BMP facilities will improve the overall performance of the water quality measures on site. Since the overall design promotes sheet flow rather than concentrated runoff along curbs, the sealed river -washed stone surface will not be subject to the concentrated runoff that a traditional parking lot must endure and is an appropriate surface based on site drainage conditions. We believe that the reasons given above demonstrate the proposed design will effectively control erosion and excess runoff from the site. We feel that an overall design that promotes sheet flow rather than concentrated runoff is consistent with sound engineering practices. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, ✓_.�_ Jamin Shimp Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT C Page I of 1 David E. Pennock From: Marcia Joseph [marcia481 @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:57 PM To: David E. Pennock Cc: John Shepherd Subject: Lewis and Clark David, I'd like to call this site plan up for review by the planning commission. Item Number: SDP2007-00065 Project Lead Reviewer: David Pennock Project Name: Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center 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. 201, 0.5 miles north of its intersection with Richmond Road [Rte. 2501. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Parks and Greenway in Urban Area 3. thanks, Marcia Joseph, ASLA, AICP At Large Representative Albemarle County Planning Commission Joseph Associates LLC 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, Virginia 22947 Phone 434-984-4199 Fax 434-984-3098 ATTACHMENT D 8/7/2007 The following pictures show the existing conditions of the current travelway. Fig. 1: Existing gravel travelway that ties into Elk Drive at the T -intersection (on right) Fig. 2: Existing entrance from opposite direction (taken from intersection) ATTACHMENT E PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS FOR LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER August 28, 2007 LOCATION: Tax Map 62, Parcel 23 Rivanna District, Albemarle County, Virginia OWNER: County of Albemarle and The City of Charlottesville 401 McIntyre Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 APPLICANT: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center 1;jN=1211:74III :Y11a Dominion Development Resources 172 South Pantops Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 434.979.8121 (F) 434.979.1681 ATTACHMENT F LD -268 Roadside Ditch Calculation Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Gnrfh I PrM.,f - I in jj "SCC 2 0.9 0.5 0.3 1 CA ITc 112 JQ2 I Islope JAIIow n selec n=.03 n=.05v n=.015 110 Q10 DEP Remarks STA STA WS CA WS CA WS CA Inc Acc ft/ft Vel Vel Qn VEL DEP Qn IDEP jj "SCC 2 ��� 1 1 �' 1 1 �� 1 1� 1 • �� 1• ■ 1 11 � 1 1 1 1 .1 �__ .. 1 �® jj "SCC 2 21 20 10 0.021 441 0.051 137 0.095 0.166 0.166 5.0 5.5 0.91 0.100 4.0 0.05 0.05 2.83 0.36 7.07 1.17 0.39 EC -2 201 191 10 0.021 481 0.055 272 0.188 0.264 0.429 5.6 5.3 2.27 0.100 4.0 0.05 0.11 3.56 0.50 6.87 2.95 0.56 EC -2 191 181 10 0.021 36 0.041 110 0.076 0.138 0.567 6.1 5.1 2.92 0.100 4.0 0.05 0.15 3.79 0.55 6.71 3.81 0.61 EC -2 18 17 40 0.083 82 0.094 178 0.123 0.3 0.867 6.5 5.0 4.36 0.100 4.0 0.05 0.22 4.19 0.64 6.58 5.70 0.71 EC -3.;, 17 16 101 0.021 16 0.018 751 0.0521 0.0911 0.9581 6.91 4.91 4.71 0.100 4.0 0.05 0.24 4.27 0.661 6.46 6.19 0.74 EC�3`` 16 15 101 0.021 16 0.018143191 2.981 3.019 3.977 7.3 4.8 19.14 0.100 4.0 0.05 0.96 6.07 1.12 6.34 25.23 1.25 EC 3'.: 15 14 10 0.021 16 0.018 127 0.088 0.127 4.104 7.61 4.71 19.47 0.100 4.0 0.05 0.97 r, ncil 1 iql 6.26 25.71 1.25 EC,, -3,- PROJECT: Lewis-and--Cla-rk-E-xpdh=-tor Center_ Date: 88127107 Tc = 21.6 min CA= 0.30 x 12.8 = 3.84 x 3.85 (110) Road: Rood A Q10 = 14.78 cfs Station: 14+26 Culvert A CL Elev:325.34 Shoulder Elev:2•14 rnvlev: 321—QQ So: Q�100- Inv Elev: ,32Q48 L: _-52' _ HEADWATER COMPUTATIONS CONT OUTLET CULVERT TYPE & SIZE Q Inlet Con Outlet Control HW VELOCITY ELEV HW/D HW Ke do (dc+D)/2 ho I H I LSo I HW CM Smooth 24" RCP 14.78 1.11 2.22 0.5 1.40 1.70 1.70 0.57 0.5 1.75 323.22 1 7.77 PROJECT: LQwis- -and-�1Qrk-ExRIQro tor-y[C-niy-r_ Date: 8127107 Tc= 5.0 min CA= 0.65 x 0.20 = 0.13 x 7.1 (110) Road: Rood A 010 = 0.92 cfs Station: 17+97 Culvert B CL Elev: -349.55 Shoulder Elev: X49. 5 Inv Elev: 346,QQ So: Q.G4Z6 Inv Elev: 341QQ L: --63'-- S3'-HEADWATER HEADWATERCOMPUTATIONS CONT OUTLET CULVERT TYPE & SIZE 0 Inlet Con Outlet Control HW VELOCITY ELEV HW/D HW Ke do (dc+D)/2 ho H LSo HW CM Smooth 15" RCP 0.92 0.40 0.50 0.5 0.38 0.82 0.82 0.40 3.0 - 346.50 6.5 r �0FA1� IDES tf ft - $� �.� • Ct�K �.sIK 5�5 � � S�G6EST �'IRGIT�1P ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLA N1N� STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Fit 0 1. W tflWrf#1S1*D 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 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 waivers of two of the�N V 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 and Special Use Permits relating to this proposal are approved, staff recommends approval of the site plan with the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Itea— SAND vQ1,*1(t luaw 11a 5YIS. It Wqv.. P CftIr10KS A4?.&, tL110 01 Porvu 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 -i (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 Q. 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 is for an extension of the above referenced special use permit (approval is pending). SP 2007-022 — This special use permit would allow the grading and fill in the floodplain that are necessary to complete the construction of the access roads serving this site (approval is pending). 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 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. �x.ginn gyp@.,;. zr•r, ::F 1�1 �*r_Sf `v,w UIS- r,•.s.,*,s;;<-a,Tn wa 7wxa. , � 4r` SwF a Y1_'r'd IF:: Proposed tie- k" ex ., H >k=. 4 : in location fAM4 -44 Inter ection • eta [af MF^1•'ii-C_ ears^ ­�-M @ ", 54}:r;ti �'CCJn F -Ck'W S t ASK. x Elk Drive 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 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 of four• (4) or more spaces shall be surfaced. The surface materials for parking areas and access aisles shall be subject to revievi, 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(8), 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 multi family dwelling and townhouse developments requiring eight (8) or more parking spaces; (3) N'here 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 stormtivater 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 M 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 mould 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 anv 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 satisfv the overall pufposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the desired effects of the requirement in section 3 2.7, 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 necessaf:v 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 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, topographv, 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 differingfi^om those required by section 32.7, a developer lvould 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 the requirements of the ordinance. 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. 0 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 ofsection 32.7 would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties, the requirement may be modified or vn,aived by the commission; provided that such modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or h�elfare, 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 3 2.7, a developer xvould 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 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 32.42.6: 7 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 revien, 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. At this time, the use and access cannot be supported until Special Use Permits relating to both are approved. Without these actions and approval of the necessary waivers, staff recommends denial of the preliminary site plan as submitted. Should the Planning Commission approve both of the related Special Use Permits and 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. The proposed grading within the floodplain behind the building must be eliminated or an additional Special Use Permit must be approved to allow the grading as shown. ❑ 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. The proposed waterline, hydrant, and waterline easements cannot be located in the proposed biofilter. ❑ 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. ❑ 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 I SDP 07-065: Lewis and Clark Legal (Nota: Some Items on map may not appear in IegenC) r�j -� ` �1 �k a ae ti 1A-3r`i`ta City of Charlottesville f. 773- ata(.3c 1 "�Z'—RICHM 62-30fi ❑,'.,,N, GL 6 30 w y t , ,....22 2"4 Boo iA fRANKtZ % -;`��.•23. ��U?-?�13�Cq�CN°FgRM�RD 'u-1?�i \78' S7 5 SA r 78-s •- 10. �y�7t� =tir 78E -H 78-58 iu,�C 01-121gN�rw�4,178 1 t C iQ sr � 78Ei-ii:�`-1 IA71 ia� .7ct3E�i= zr3�` 20 73'-52Ii' 'G :Iz�-S3` . Jai-Ss3I r725E-t3 QR t ,%SE-C� 7iit 04--1. 17 �¢ � r� c�a 1 � +r t QaE-1' 78-SHG1 -- .Y'CIR 7 "i`�7EE-�ira3 73E -G' 863. 78E -V5 78-5E r 78-6 F�`W, E-8 73E:19�88-.1'l- 7 it a ✓iFsE-i MA.I•gO-! �,aH 7S-9 3-5G' RICHMOND -RD j: - P3`'73 Ii:'� 78-11 0 _ 551 Feet 8" 78�15ti''-.. � "`' f &S -Web "'r'14 Geographic Data Services ww amemane erg '♦ t'LRf,lti1 1 w(434) 296-5832 Map is for display purposes only • Aerial Imagery 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia August 1, A 0 SITE DATA TAX MAP 62, PARCEL 23 PHYSICAL ADDRESS: 1445 DARDEN TOWE PARK CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22911 OWNER: i CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE & COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE LEWIS & CLARK I 401 McINTIRE ROAD INDEX ' CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 SCHEDULE C 1 of 7 Cover Sheet APPLICANT ' ALBEMARLE COUNTY, V LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER i 0 15,000 SF 15 C3 of 7 Existing Site Features P.O. BOX 281 0 4,653 SF 5 0 36,909 SF 37 0 43,279 SF 43 C4 of 7 Site Layout CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 CONTACT: I DOMINION DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES, LLC 172 SOUTH PANTOPS DRIVE ' CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22911 PHONE: (434) 979-8121 FAX (434)979-1681 j li ACREAGE: 18 ACRES PROPOSED LEASE ZONING: R-1 RESIDENTIAL R -A RURAL AREA EC - ENTRANCE CORRIDOR SUP #2004-004 (APPROVED 01 /04/06 -SEE SHEET C2 FOR DETAILS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIVANNA SOURCE OF BOUNDARY SURVEY: SURVEY NOT PERFORMED, PLAT NOT AVAILABLE SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: KIRK HUGHES AND ASSOCIATES 220 E. HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 BENCHMARK: TEMPORARY BENCHMARK "X" ON NORTHMOST BASE BDLT OF FIRE HYDRANT LOCATED 495 FT. SW OF BUILDING LOCATION, ELEVATION = 382.79'. DATUM FOR ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN IS NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY BUILDING SETBACKS; MINIMUM EXPLORATORY CENTER R 1 - FRONT YARD 25 582' SIDE YARD 15' 39' REAR YARD 20' 172' STRUCTURE HEIGHT 35' 35' i RA - FRONT YARD (EXISTING PUBLIC ROADS) 75' FRONT YARD (INTERNAL PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROADS) 25 SIDE YARD 25' REAR YARD 35' STRUCTURE HEIGHT 35' CURRENT USE. OPEN SPACE PROPOSED USE: HISTORICAL CENTER MAXIMUM NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES: LESS THAN 5 PARKING SCHEDULE: PROPOSED: 88 PARKING (4 HANDICAPPED) 2 BUS SPACES PARKING SPACES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4 12.7(a) OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH ACCOMODATES PARKING FOR PERMITTED USES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 4.12.6. APPROVALS CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLANNER CURRENT DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FIRE OFFICIAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BUILDING OFFICIAL VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION JUNE 25, 2007 PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A F i -• �1J t t t i N1 LaON 91xD:: yOLTZ LEWIS AND CLARK ExPl."'. y Cen 1'1CU' i�f CYPLUR{IUR1 lLM"GR IRU�(THC RI VCA VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=2000' GENERAL NOTES 1. LIGHTING IS NOT BEING PROPOSED AT THIS TIME, I 2. PHASING IS AS FOLLOWS: PHASE 1 - CONSTRUCT ALL UTILITIES / INFRASTRUCTURE ROUGH GRADE AND SEED BUILDING PAD FOR 15.000 SF BUILDING PRESERVE TREES FOR FUTURE TREE WELLS ROUGH GRADE AND SEED PARKING AREA GRADE ACCESS ROAD AND PROVIDE GRAVEL SURFACE RELOCATE DOG PARK FENCE PHASE II - CONSTRUCT A 2;500 SF BUILDING WITHIN THE 15,000 SF BUILDING PAD , PROVIDE LANDSCAPING ALONG ACCESS ROAD AND FOR 31 PARKING SPACES AND 2 BUS SPACES CONSTRUCT GRAVEL PARKING AREA FOR 31 CARS AND 2 BUSES PROVIDE CURBING, WHERE SHOWN FOR 31 PARKING SPACES PROVIDE BUMPER BLOCKS FOR 31 CARS I INSTALL BIOFILTER PLANTS INSTALL BOARD FENCE INSTALL PRIMITIVE TRAIL PHASE III - CONSTRUCT THE REMAINDER OF THE 15,000 SF BUILDING li CONSTRUCT THE REMAINDER OF THE PARKING AREA, PAVE ACCESS ROAD AND PARKING AREAS PROVIDE LANDSCAPING FOR THE REMAINDER OF SITE 3. AREAS OF CRITICAL SLOPES ARE SHOWN ON SHEET C3. A WAIVER TO ALLOW CRITICAL SLOPES DISTURBANCE IS BEING REQUESTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 4. THE PARCEL IS LOCATED IN ZONE AE AND ZONE X ON FEMA PANEL 5100.0O287D. 5 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION AT COMPLETION OF PHASE III = 500 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY AND 3 BUS TRIPS PER WEEK. ESTIMATES ARE BASED ON A COMPARISON WITH TRIP GENERATIONS FOR A LIBRARY AS TAKEN FROM "ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL, 7TH EDITION:' 6. THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A RESERVOIR WATERSHED. 7 IF ARCHITECTUAL DRAWINGS SUBMITTED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION SUGGEST THAT THE BUILDING WILL BE VISIBLE, ARB REVIEW WILL BE REQUIRED. 8. A CURB AND GUTTER WAIVER IS BEING REQUESTED FOR THE ACCESS ROAD AND PORTIONS OF THE PARKING AREA. SHEET INDEX ' LAND USE SCHEDULE C 1 of 7 Cover Sheet PRE -DEVELOPMENT % POST -DEVELOPMENT % C2 of 7 Concept Plan IMPERVIOUS: BUILDING: 0 S i 0 15,000 SF 15 C3 of 7 Existing Site Features TERRACE: 0 SF PARKING AREAS: 0 S ACCESS DRIVE: 0 SF 0 4,653 SF 5 0 36,909 SF 37 0 43,279 SF 43 C4 of 7 Site Layout TOTAL: OSF 0 99,841 SF 100 C5 7 Grading and Utilities PERVIOUS: 784,080 SF 100 684,239 SF 87 of TOTAL' 784,080 SF 100 784,080 SF 100 C6 of 7 Landscape Plan AREA CF DISTURANCE FOR GRADING/BIOFILTERS: C7 of 7 Access Road Plan BUILDING AREA: 22,156 SF ENTRANCE ROAD: 67,306 SF PARKING AREA: 36,962 SF - TOTAL 126,424 SF TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 226,265 SF ATTACHNTENT 13 , I T, OF Timothy Ray Miller Uc. No. 30542 wa n � o „ � A o h 3 g - 5 3W d z H z W E~ U O U O � � .a d W W w x Eq O U �72 Q a z F Q d w DOR PROJECT NO 70130 INDEX TITLE' C1 SHEET NO I OF 7 DATE: 06-25-2007 SPECIAL USE PERMIT INFO: SUP # SP -2004-004 APPROVED ON JANUARY 4. 2006 ALLOWING FOR HISTORICAL j CENTER AND MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 5.1.42 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WITH FUTURE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 50'x50' FORT PEN PARKC ! 1. THE SITE SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN GENERAL ACCORD WITH ALL SHEETS OF THE PLAN ENTITLED "LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER" REVISED OCTOBER 18. 2005 AND PREPARED BY NELSON, BYRD, WOLTZ. SETBACKS INDICATED IN THE TABLE ON SHEETS L3.1 AND L3.2 DO NOT SET INCREASED MINIMUM SETBACKS; RA REAR SETBACK jl 2, THE TOP OF THE LOOKOUT TOWER, MEASURED IN ELEVATION ABOVE MEAN SEA ISI / LEVEL, SHALL NOT EXCEED (AMSC+35). THEAPPROVED HEIGHT AT NO TIME It yly BE TALLER THAT THE TALLEST TREE WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET OF THE LOOKOUT R-1 REAR SETBACK % %� TOWER AND SHALL INCLUDE ANY BASE, FOUNDATION OR GRADING THAT RAISES THE TOWER ABOVE THE PRE-EXISTING NATURAL GROUND ELEVATION; CT/ 3. A MAXIMUM OF TWELVE SPECIAL EVENTS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5,1 42 j ARE AUTHORIZED PER CALENDAR YEAR; - �' _ �� �� RIVANNA RIVER /� ��/ i � I 4. A MAXIMUM OF FOUR (4) FESTIVALS; IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 51.42.i ARE FUTURE��/ AUTHORIZED PER CALENDAR YEAR; TOWER i Oma/ 5. A LIGHTING PLAN AND A LANDSCAPING PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED, REVIEWED �+ AND APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN - `°, _..�. ,� \v Pn"- F`L '\ /5 / DEVELOPMENT APPROVA L; REALIGNED TO CONNECT .,�•�'" TO EXISTING CROSS —�`��- " ' _ \r / STREAM 6 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 32.7.9.9 A TWENTY (20) PERCENT TREE CANOPY COUNTRY TRAIL SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE SITE BASED ON THE DISTURBED AREA FOR THE EXISTING SECTION OF — PROPOSED ACCESS ^\ EXISTING CROSS HISTORICAL CENTER BUILDING, PARKING AND ACCESS ROAD: COUNTRY CROSS COUNTRY TRAIL ROAD \ 'd TO REMAIN RAILS TO BE RELOCATED 7. PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THE LIMITS OF THE PROPOSED ONE -HUNDRED (100) -YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AND STREAM BUFFERS, WHERE ADJACENT I 1 � LEWISANDCLARK TO CONSTRUCTED PROPOSED SED IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING THE AMPHITHEATER, EXISTiNG.. EXISTIN , -80CCER RK \ y, _ _= EXPLORATORY CENTER FLAGGED AT LOOEN KOUT FOOT IER, ENTRANCE BY ROAND AND SURVEYORNING WALL, PREVENT SHALL BE ,FIELDS; EXISTING �, ZONING LINE ''•"/ \ _ BARN, ENCROACHMENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY, STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION li - REALIGNED TO CONNECT EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS AND ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING CROSS DURING CONSTRUCTION; c<` i EXISTING COUNTRY TRAILS _____. _ PAVILION -� - `�',, \ Z PROPOSED PARKING 8. OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED NOISE IS NOT ALLOWED ON SITE AND v RA FRONT SETBACK 9. AS STIPULATED IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY AND COUNTY, THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY T AND COUNTY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE USES AVAILABLE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD THE VENTURE FAIL Ji APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING PROPERTY LINE ��� �• ,,,. i �.. � •� � LEASE LINE EXISTING ATHLETIC ` D R-1 FRONT SETBACK FIELDS S y (�� EXIST. RESIDENCE i\� /� / • \ EXISTING SOCCER FIELDS' �' ! EXIST. POND I I, OPEN SPACE TENNIS X111✓ ("'_COU LK'RTS i ES �' / CLUB U 1.7 ge J ��m90 de. E _o °'or m C m0� Edt O t M i oRl NA T OF O ,P � c _ Z 'imothy Ray MII!e, > No 36542 mo 1 fS�iON Ai "k,2 � o w a = ce � A 3 ai g II v U z W � r � a v i I U U E- F- Ll 6 r o �_ w j a CK N DDR PROJECT NO. 70130 INDEX TITLE ATTACHMENT B ^2 150 0 150 300 450 NO, N SHEET NO SCALE 1" = 150'j 2 OF 7 1+ DATE 06-25-2007 SII I r' I, 1 II zcwNc EXISTING TRAILS - - - 73 \III — llj v, XS. IVB CROSS COUNTRY TRAIL EXISTNG -REE LINE / ----------- i O RENAIN 'r % EXISTING VEGETATION- \\ TU BE REMOVED _ _ / f' _ --T- ----- If //F h'°TING 'REESD\ / ------ - 0 REMAIN \. G I I'I'I,-'✓ ��i � '� // ,�>\ -•;. moi-_ � � /� / _a / EXISTING CROSS COUNTRY TRAILS / - / EXISTING CROSS TO BE RELOCATED - , . �-� _ / COUNTRY ,TRAIL TO BE REMOVED I EXISTING CROSS I V�I COUNTRY TRAIL / /: � � / ' \ \ � +/ 4* / / OE RELOCATED -- - - - - --- -- - \>:/ ��1__-.--_-�---._ -_--. :� :\� 3 / / EXISTING CROSS--� kIS TING TREE Tn RFMA /Ls COUNTRY TRAIL, PROVIDE "REE ROTE TION FENCING i'TYP) EXISTING CROSS T EXISTING_CROSS / I? / COUNTRY TRAIL /� ! COUNTRY TRAIL TO' /T - / REMAIN �� TO BE REMOVED EXISTING vECErnrlUN EXISTING CROSS TO BE REMOVED / COUNTRY TRAIL EXISTING VEGETATION i0 BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED / � EXISTING 'REE O EMA.N EXISTING CROSS LEASE LINA. / COUNTRY TRAIL i%��'✓ ' I / TO BE REMOVED IRl I,1 OPE__ _ _ - Il,;�11';i1�'�f,''l:'�''' I>> EXISTING FENCE TO BE /--(49TING TRAIL EXISTING SOCCER FIELDS RELOCATED _ / TO BE REMOVED EXISTING GRAPHIC KEY Ir I I l �, Y 1x I I EXISTING ELEMENTS TO REMAIN SHOWN IN LIGHT LINE AND TEXT EXISTING ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED SHOWN IN BOLD LINE AND TEXT ,b I SCALE i" = so' TO REMAIN ATTACHMENT B \1 �_--_ _-_-_J U [NNE - —/c 0 0 W Y Kz'4•rK-______-__'-_ VNE -�--� c >�I O D _-_ � � 11 � �- � •w EX'STING TRAIL --- $o•�o c°o� 7 Q AN' , BRIDGE T0� RE IMPROVED ,r AT LATER DATE_ _ PM '-------- r�)` ExIST'NG CROSS_ _ POPOSED -PASS SURFACE COUN'RY TRAILpC STREAIJ BUF ERP a6 LOADING ACCESS TC LCWEP ONM\T5jT5 , \ 0 REMAIN Rcy Mii,er'EVELSNF>, `- -----G,:ASS) No 30542REA,IGNED CROSS FR1OSEC=ERMAN.NT� COUNTRY TRAL PLOCATION PROPOSED PARKING (GRASS) \� cf r l ,`��c I '� • �� OVERTOOK (ENCLOSED WITH N'CC.DEN I (PHASE IPI) J REALIGNED CROSS E4CE; 2' PARKING OVERHANG- COUNTRY G A TR)Y ?RAIL I TYPICAL) m �i O i... .^..•,. EX,STING CROSS 444/ll Y COJNTRY TRA --' - j -- (GRASS) PROPOSEDSIR ®9 Xjfi iA SIR P AMPHITHEATER I J II PROPOSED PROPOSED PARKING 5'R B SPACES oz iS�a x / r /PHASE h' X16, 'S,OCO SF BUILDING - ( `� g SFFCES ®9 g'R 1 J'R MAX HT 35' 9, \ g'R I / 'II (PHASE E \ I-----------I--- 1 �r v �\\ AQP PROP.nSEo FOCCALONAL GARDEN 2R POSED CURBING PROPOSED' - / -11m _- •� \ �R N �� TREE WEL_ (PHASE u1' �� 1A ,TYP 1------ - `� GPOSEC ' Qo�,e\J, \ _� / TERRACE ON --- Q�o� 1 I SIR 3'R 8 5P yJ5 - LOWER LEVEL 5'R B S OES ® \ � EXISTR CROSS c COUNTRY URA 3R TRMAINfi PROPOSED 10'R5'GRASS)•HARDSCAPI GARDENIEOOCATONAL PROPOSE UPROPOSED PHASECROSSWALK 43'�� BUS PARKING REALIGNED CROSS 2-PARKING OVERHANG --j COUNTRY TRAIL y o� � 3 PROPOSED -P (TYPICAL) / TREE WELL PROPOSED PRIMITIVA`TR�jl SYSTEM (PHASE II') (MATERIAL- z�oI !t ?0 BE DETERMINED FINAL STE PLAN) P - PROPOSED HARDSCAPING E 'MATERIAL TO BE DETRMINED EXIc71vG SOCCER FIE'_D PROPOSED w? >- RIAN @FINAL SITE PLANT PROPOSED FLTURE CONNECTION BRIDGE Z E- - RELOCATED DOG 'DARK FENCE O � I— i (P"ASE 1)— // ¢ / 'a L EX'STING SOCCER FIE_D C14 * PROPOSED HEACWALL Eh15T!NG DOG PARK j � (MATERIAL TO RE (APPROX 25,000 Sc) r U DETERMINED O PIPJAL SITE PLAN I, I �$ E- REALIGNED CROSS y'COUNTRY TRAP_ x_ -- x�'� I 30 0 30 80 90 OSgE KI GRASS) % ) _ a- x- I SCALE L" = 30' O ' w DOR PROJECT NO 70130 / / I EXISTING CROSS I INDEX TITLE COUNTRY `RAIL C4 (GRASS) MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET C7 I, SHEET NO 4 OF 7 is ATTACHMENT B DATE. 06-25-2007 30 __---- --- -,-� Imo- - J RA 20nE —�� _-� - .__ 34C. A-SLOPEs - - 60 -CR.aC?aL PROPOSED GRADING PROPOSED 1 �C BO�ILTEF �/3 EVATION PROPOSED AMPHITHEATER I I / PROPOSM TERRACE ELEVATIONh / PROPOSED' / auL DING / IPPFR LEVE'' LEV, - t 364 iy/ ELEV -A 350,5 %ucnrIONAL GARDEN (PHASE 1.1) POPOSED \� SGFI:' N� 1 P POS" GRADING \ "/ � ,% / ELEvaTION �J ,^� I'I I // ; / n_ +I' � ,� � / // ;.•.` / E HY9i2ANT /7e`PROPOSD LRSED i ASSEMBLY zPaPDs?D -WATERLINE 0ucayNAL �HAC. CONNE( ION TV na6En BUILDING z'ASE ol)' I � _ ---- I I i / - PROPOSED I . _ p " x ED' I I, III "' /� �� BR:DGE J •" � r WALLS / PRC 5TC co 1, v 9-'�- — --- I I I~�--I U � - - -fir - - "� - — . • ' / M ' I I I I `I _ __ — --- - - -- r � Ip KXSTING DOG PARK i (APFRox 25,00© S-) / 13 1 Af r — — J b T I _ - - -- PROFCSEDGRADING ---------------------------- - - - CRITICAL S CPES- — — — - -- BALLFIELC 'UMIls I\J S-ORMWATER DETENTION IS NOT WECUIRED FOR THIS SITE 2. SEE CONDITION 7 OF SP INFORMATION ON SHEET C2 REGARDING STAKE-0UT REO'UREMENT 30 0 30 60 90 SCALE 1" = 30' I MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C7 ATTACHMENT B oa" � s � Tlmefhy Fay M le' Lac Nc 20512 r fS5'ONA� EHE'\ d c� Ems-. U C"' 2 - �o O J 6 Fs. X E X d x s wd 0 ¢ w � w a � m DOR PROJECT NO 70130 INDEX TITLE- C5 SHEET NO 5OF7 )ATE 06-25-2007 / k/ 3 / — \` 1 _ ZONE,T ! N / 'Dm O. C 0 N 50 ,E y0: 00 1 \IIS ------- -- ''_ — --- / CP�/ �� / NN h M-dv t00_STRc �� //�!\\`\ --I __—✓'`_iw _ 1--- / /r 15-I ' ^nC.•'. i'// '���' y,�,PLiH pF`. _ _ Timothy Ray Miller I•� ' / .� ' `— ..! Ls tic No 30542 — ' Ls% /9g/OVAL EN 7 -CA+ SIC 3 -BN nial 8—JV/ U TREE / // \ �� ' / ✓ / / // / r , '� DTE(jTION 5 -IG ' \ \ �\ t IV i ; o V FENCi NG ,EDUCAT O AL /, MP 7EE WELL TO BE (PHASE nRUtNp /� _ 5 -TO !" /DESIGNED 6ASEC ON— �, ARCAilTECXRE QF BUS 71NG f/ S IG(e I ' I X�I -� is PROPOSE DS2A I sc (P SE III)/ "A':� I - ----- -\ -- j' 1p -TO i Z aoc rAii t u O "ROPOSEDT�EE WE_L- / :":•':. ; .� ;-'`�- 3 — — t� / i I 3 / TCB[ DESIGNEG BASED ON f ARCHITECTURE OF .BllILDIAl6 rirarl 11 _ _ _ PLANT L15T ,f / ` //�� /� ' • ' / �3 �-` -� --- -- -_—' .,HAD€ TREES L ON NAME UAL t1EIGHT P:EM1fAR� CANO,°Y AREAL AREA TOTA: 1 Z 1 KEY OTY 5CTANICAL NAM` OMM 1 'upuidambor st acltlua 'Rotunoloba' 'Rotund�loba' Sweet um 2' 20fi 2686 EW"'' / L / l I Clum 464 2,784 ON 6 Befulo n ra Hm toga Her loge Ryer Brch 1C -12' p z �i MC 6 Maclu�a pom fern Osp9e Orange 2 5" Z F 4 M ,.., F --I ORNAMENTAL-REE5 CW3 Z I AC 3 IAmeC er conadenss'Avtumn 8, 11 ante 'Autumn Brtl once" Servicebery 7O-12' ' Oamp , 9C ii T / / / — — — _ / 7 / I `, c�w.aw+eanma•�,mwe,®p....°ae,.bu IP 6 Ier.Patr of Palr of Hollr 5-fi 'Ifi 96 Q U /� — — — — / / / 7 JV 37 Jvn penis nrgn ana Eoslem Redcedar 5 fi lfi 592 _ a "rernny" 'TT&,,y' Pyambm Areawlee s' 6' la 310 a .SHRUBS Qy L'XISTING /DOG PARK // I I IJ v�m4.r.:.e`�'.,. O I A L wvm.a,.mr..�wmr,wusrm.+m.kw CF 7 Ca ycanih...tor aus 9weetshrub/carol np Allspice r 36" 26 182 ..a ' ❑ ��• �.�� ��„ CA 19 Clethru aln.lolla Hammingbxd '�iumm,n bwd Sammersweet 36" Ifi 16 -TO H e Icu nslFlorum J / m.v .ms,,. r�r m +n,.cem. - W r m ae St cohnsworl 1 Gal _ FENCING AND ARMORlNC o.x�mr' - „mw w�« 1C oc Wp] IG 24 Ilex glabro Shamrock Shamrock' Inwber^ Hail - 24 t! 552 �j �'3�"� x �'"`xm"'°'°° �'^""°""""^d a1°ec®"`°°" ly 27 Ilea nrgnca 'Henrys Garnet Henr 's Garnet" Sweetspxe }6° 16 A}2 M cer tern Dans Dwarf y E - / I MC 27 ycp Don's Beauty Waren He ]6" 44 — — — — — — — — — — — — ' FSC 1', SaV bum d ntaCumda 81 ArrrtawwooCYVbu num y 36... 31 217 V ❑cam R 9 531 � °ERENNIAL, FCR `HE ECLCATIONAL GARDEN eZj (Signage cal' Indicate the con echor tp the Lewis h Gc.r expedlban ran eo r plant _ __ ! mash - Camasn (!] K — _ ' — X — �I .,o. Iii J red<u.u,w m.r..s.rm rm o.wm eebw me..m Ouklaep�thella - Plnkt0ine5 cne owe W q // ,.^ — — — _�,._' i _ — — — • o r� Echmaceada�rgushl Bittern N`rraw-Ieaced C W IIWIW4Y Lew -news was wia. u — — — — — — _ — Euphorma morg� mo - S o -oo-the-m—tem _ w r i -� GaAlwdm anslala - 9lonkelAower 0 w —3 ! — — Mlmulas gattalas Iewlel — Manke lower GRAPHIC KEY m.um,rw m..wx.�....w� Pm..®�� TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE 226,265 SF /' _ — .u:^c'va t..mocmTomus. 207. REOUIRED CANOPY COVERAGE 45,253 SF EXISTING VEGETATION SHOWN IN / CORRECT METHODS OF TREE FENCING r R�.r �.rs s.`.� r�tl'•�.w..+w PROPOSED CANOPY COVERAGE 245,792 SF DDR PROJECT NO 70:30 — / "` "'° 'w•'""'" °"�"� LIGHT LINE AND TEXT REMAININGEnsnNccnnoP� z3sa61sF PROPOSED PLANT CANOPY 9,931 S F INDEX TITLE: 41i aARKINc I_or TREES OUIRED •/'a sPAces = 9 PROPSED LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS PR ' All x�rz IT ore,.a.ea e•°.ro w ��� nee,Me,r,..rk® ox,.ee, o«ae�.r.ux PaDPoscO 14 SHOWN IN BOLD LINE AND TEXT C6 xe9wexe III V �� I wwexaxx..we mwn, .n SHEET NO: e aw ,•,oe ,nrz 30 0 30 Ro lliliiZZZ 6 OF 7 CORRECT TRUNK ARMORING .m, $GALE: 1" s 30 .ATE: TRIANGULAR BOARD FENCE oxrucr wwcxwsew , . ' ATTACHMENT B 06-25—zoo? 9 \ ti OP�\�\SS aROPQ3E0 J TRS E TO BE — f��� REMOVE? _ Vii- -�,—R\vP� /�'' ��a• JEF�'�/ �� /' i � t PROPOSED CU_VcRT \ \ \ REALIGNED CROSS___ COUNTRY TRAIL / ------------ _ _ - EXISTING CROSS COUNTRY TRAIL TO / \ BE RELOCATED \ \ PROFOSED BOARC-RAIL Q FENCE / / EXISTING G5 YOUTH / \ SOCCER FIELDS v / -33j TIE INTO EXLS'1NG--__ \ i .ROAC " " / INTERSECTION A rEXISTING _ DIRT ROAD ------------ \ % EXISTING _ DIRT ROAD — r TG BE; REMOVED \ 0' �Nti B ---------- / ^ � _cN�'��ON SQA \ � \�7-✓ �{ Ic EXIS-ING C a5S RAiy,'�� % y-- / - �� a ,� O 0 in ,ORq Yrs` D • Al. /FST Timothy Ray Miller s C ^ Lia No. 30542 ri Jr, / ,' ' Il CS o•P R- / i ( o�fSS/ONAL ENG\ i I i U / � f 1 r \.\ f qSf bgRgqy �. �f%gTBO<'Ef0 Bf�H rn N OFC'1' Mq 9 pP , qNt c co, 30 0 30 so eoINTERSECTION "A" ALE: 1' - 30' a 8' S' 3 LL & SC LINE OF SIGHT DETAIL SCALE 1"=60' z E- z ----e'-a" c -R TO CTR —1 / cd O POS` CAP 7'-7" FACE TO FACE E— V sw POST /I A C j ;, Y� s�/4' FENCE eoARc hOMINA'_ / Z / W -< FWW- j 30' FENCE SECTION ELEVATION a �. y DDR PROJECT NO 70130 INDEX T■/I7�LE\�� '£ NOFOOTING WIDTH C. BE (2)X POST WIDTH NININUN GE -TI ,HI' RAIL DIST lA;.I —NOM HEI '' � V I ; 1/16 a8 GHT (H1l 7 / I / ' SHEET NO 3-80ARD STYLE FENCE DE -AIL i 7 OF 7 NOM 8' SECTION LENGTH, THREE BOARDS NOT TO SCALE 1 ATTACHMENT B DATEQs-25-200'] , C S .r. 1* CoCs orr, �n Development QJ N Resources. LLC ea"s °ts September 14, 2007 David Pennock, Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center TMP 62-23 SDP 07-065 Dear David: 172 South Pantops Driv Charlottesville, VA 2291 This memo and attached drawings are in response to the Planning Commission meeting dated August 14, 2007 and your associated staff report. The following changes have been made: • The lease line has been amended based on recent approvals by the City and County. (The new lease line incorporates the existing barn.) • We have revised the phases. It is anticipated that the first two phases can be combined to include a 2,500 SF building with associated grading, utilities, biofilters, parking and landscaping. The second phase will include the remainder of the building, parking and landscaping. • Fill is no longer being proposed in the floodplain to the rear of the proposed building. • The proposed paving for the access road and parking area will be river -washed stone; similar to Montpelier and Ash Lawn. • Curbing has been eliminated in the parking area and along the access road. • We have added erosion matting in the ditch along the access road. • We have included calculations as requested by the Planning Commission. • A more detailed building footprint has been shown; including entrance steps and ramps. (There are approximately 28 steps to the building entrance because the first floor elevation has been lowered by 14'.) • We have reduced the parking from 88 spaces to 83 spaces; as per the approved application plan. • We have relocated the waterline, hydrant and waterline easement outside of the proposed biofilter. • We have included a general note regarding a possible future geothermal field to be located under the existing dog park. 434.979.8121 (F 434.979.1681 DDRVA.cor ATTACHMENT C .,.01 Regarding 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 gutter, we would like and respectfully request the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center be in keeping with the rural feel of the park in that particular area. The premise of the Exploratory Center is based on the river which is an integral part of the story of Lewis and Clark. It is a goal of the Exploratory Center to encourage the public to the river and to appreciate its connection to Lewis & Clark in an ecologically sensitive setting. The existing access road leading to the proposed center is gravel with no curb and acts as a natural transition from the developed area of the park to the more rural area of the park. This transition lends itself to the riverine feel that we are trying to evoke with the development of the historical center. The original approved application plan indicates that the proposed Entrance Road would be either asphalt or resin -bound pavement. Based on that approved application plan, we are proposing a sealed, river -washed stone sR surface and are anticipating the volume of traffic to be approximately 200 trips/day. jl�p If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact either Kelly Strickland or myself. 'O'ank you, t k J�ngt Miller, ASLA Ldrid Planning and Environmental Design Dominion Development Resources ATTACHMENT C v y •. � .. .may . ------ 4- - ^"'°' - 3 s r eeOIS Dominion r�, eveiopment Q7 y Resources. LLC September 14, 2007 David Pennock, Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center TMP 62-23 SDP 07-065 Request for Waiver of Curb and Blacktop parking areas. Dear David: This letter clarifies our request for a waiver from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As you are aware, the proposed plan does not show the 2" asphalt surface treatment typically required nor the required curbing. We have submitted drainage calculations with this application supporting our request for a waiver. The calculations demonstrate that we can effectively control the stormwater runoff in roadside ditches along the entrance road. Additionally, the plan shows three water quality facilities. The parking areas have been designed to sheet flow excess runoff over the impervious areas directly into the water quality facilities. Allowing water to sheet flow into the BMP facilities will improve the overall performance of the water quality measures on site. Since the overall design promotes sheet flow rather than concentrated runoff along curbs, the sealed river -washed stone surface will not be subject to the concentrated runoff that a traditional parking lot must endure and is an appropriate surface based on site drainage conditions. We believe that the reasons given above demonstrate the proposed design will effectively control erosion and excess runoff from the site. We feel that an overall design that promotes sheet flow rather than concentrated runoff is consistent with sound engineering practices. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, �- ... Jirtin Shimo Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT C Page 1 of 1 David E. Pennock From: Marcia Joseph [marcia481@earthIink. net] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:57 PM To: David E. Pennock Cc: John Shepherd Subject: Lewis and Clark David, I'd like to call this site plan up for review by the planning commission. Item Number: SDP2007-00065 Project Lead Reviewer: David Pennock Project Name: Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center 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. 201, 0.5 miles north of its intersection with Richmond Road [Rte. 2501. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Parks and Greenway in Urban Area 3. thanks, Marcia Joseph, ASLA, AICP At Large Representative Albemarle County Planning Commission Joseph Associates LLC 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, Virginia 22947 Phone 434-984-4199 Fax 434-984-3098 ATTACHMENT D 8/7/2007 The following pictures show the existing conditions of the current travelway. Fig. 1: Existing gravel travelway that ties into Elk Drive at the T -intersection (on right) Fig. 2: Existing entrance from opposite direction (taken from intersection) ATTACHMENT E PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS FOR LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER August 28, 2007 LOCATION: Tax Map 62, Parcel 23 Rivanna District, Albemarle County, Virginia OWNER: County of Albemarle and The City of Charlottesville 401 McIntyre Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 APPLICANT: Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center PREPARED BY: Dominion Development Resources 172 South Pantops Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 434.979.8121 (F) 434.979.1681 ATTACHMENT F LD -268 Roadside Ditch Calculation Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Earth Protective Lining 0.9 1 0.5 j 0.3 CA ITc 112 JQ2 I ISIope JAIlow In selec n=.03 n=.05 I n=.015 110 Q10 DEP Remarks STA ISTA WS ICA JWS ICA JWS CA I Inc jAcc I I I I I ft/ft JVel I Vel 1Qn IVEL IDEP 10n IDEP 1-7 411 cU I I U.U/- i I 44 I U.Ua i 1,si I U.W10 MIMI U.1bb b.Uj b.b U.91 1 U.1UUj 4.0 U.U51 0.0512.831 0.36 1 7.071 1.17 0.39 LU -L 20 19 10 0.021 481 0.055 272 0.188 0.264 0.429 5.6 5.3 2.27 1 0.100 4.0 0.05 0.11 3.56 0.50 6.87 2.95 0.56 EC -2 19 18 10 0.021 361 0.041 110 0.076 0.138 0.567 6.1 5.1 2.92 0.100 4.0 0.05 0.15 3.79 0.55 6.71 3.81 0.61 EC -2 18 17 40 0.083 821 0.094 178 0.123 0.3 0.867 6.5 5.0 4.36 0.100 4.0 0.05 0.22 4.19 0.64 6.58 5.70 0.71 17 16 10 0.021 161 0.018 75 0.052 0.091 0.958 6.9 4.9 4.71 0.100 4.0 0.05 0.24 4.27 0.66 6.46 6.19 0.74 Eb 16 15 101 0.021 161 0.018 4319 2.98 3.019 3.9771 7.3 4.8 19.14 0.100 4.01 0.05 0.96 6.07 1.12 6.34 25.23 1.25 151 141 101 0.021 161 0. 181 1271 0.0881 0.1271 .1041 7.61 4.71 19.471 0.1001 4.01 0.051 1 0.97 6.09 1.13 6.261 25711 1.25 EC3n PROJECT: Lewis-4nd--Cl-c-rk -E—xRIQmto-r-y Cen-ter— Date: 8127107 Tc = 21.6 min CA= 0.30x12.8= 3.84 x 3.85 (110) Road: Rood A Q10 = 14.78 cfs Station: 14+26 Culvert A CL Elev:325.34 Shoulder Elev: 325.14 Inv Elev: 321 QQ So: Q 01QQ InvElev: 32Q4 - L: HEADWATER COMPUTATIONS CONT OUTLET CULVERT TYPE & SIZE Q Inlet Con Outlet Control HW VELOCITY ELEV HW/D HW Ke do (dc+D)/2 ho H LSo HW CM Smooth 24" RCP 14.78 1.11 2.22 0.5 1.40 1.70 1.70 0.57 0.5 1.75 323.22 7.7 PROJECT: Lewis-and-�lork -ExRIQrcg-toryCent�_ Date: 8127107 Tc = 5.0 min CA= 0.65 x 0.20 = 0.13 x 7.1 (110) Road: Road A _ 010 = 0.92 cfs Station: 17+97 Culvert 8 CL Elev: 349.55 Shoulder Elev: Z49.Z5 Inv Elev:-34fi,QQ So: Q,Q416 Inv Elev: -34Z.QQ L: --63' — HEADWATER COMPUTATIONS CONT OUTLET CULVERT TYPE & SIZE Q Inlet Con Outlet Control HW VELOCITY ELEV HW/D HW Ke do (dc+D)/2 ho H LSo HW CM Smooth 15" RCP 0.92 0.40 0.50 0.5 0.38 0.82 0.82 0.40 3.0 — 346.50 6.5 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 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 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: 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 APPLICANT: 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(8) of the Zoning Ordinance, which require these areas to be hard -surfaced and constructed with curb and gutter, respectively (Attachment Q. 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 requested by the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver from two of the design specifications in the Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.12.15(x) — 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. 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 areas will be graded, but not constructed. During Phase 1I, 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 Il 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 C). 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 stonnwater 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 of foitr (4) or more spaces shall be snrfaccd. The surface materials,/or parking areas and access aisles shall be subject to rcview and approval by the county engineer, based upon the intensity of usage and Virginia Departnient of Transportation pavement design guidelines and specifications. The county engineer may approve the use of alternative stufaces deemed equivalent in regard to strength, dttrability..sustainability, acrd long tern nzaintenancc.for the intensity of the use. and Section 4.12.15(8), 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. follotiring circumstances: (1) in all cornnrcrcial or institutional developments requiring eight (R) or snore parking spaces; (?) in all nudtifanrily dwelling and townhouse developments requiring eight (8) or more parking spaces; (3) inhere necessary to control or direct stormwater- runoff- (4) where a sidewalk- is located closer than fibrin (4) feet from the edge of an access aisle; and (S) ",here necessary to contain vehicular traffic to pt-rotect pedestrians and/or property. Gutters shall be required inhere necessary to control or direct stormtivater runoff The county engineer may waive or modify this requirement if deemed necessary to accommodate stortnwater managcment/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 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 Anv requirement of section 32.7 ntav be nodi fied, waived, or substituted, in an individual case, as provided herein: a. The commission may modify, waive, or accept substitution for any requiretnent ofsection 32.7 in a particular case upon a finding that requiring such improvement would not.forward the purposes of this chapter- or otherwise ser v,e 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, topographv, 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 ntav be rnodi fled or tit,ah ed 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'thc area, to sound engineering practices, or to adjacent properties c. Upon finding in anv case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable quralitt>, but differing froin those required by section 3 2.7, a developer would achieve results which substantially satisfy the overall pin poses 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 tirith the agent a written request which shall state reasons and justifications, fi)r such request together with such alternatives as nay be proposed b�= 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 tnodrftcation, waiver or substitution, the commission rnaV 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?.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(8). 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 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 indetenninate 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, topograph?v, shape of the property, location of the propertv or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietaiy 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 tivaiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safehy 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 dlf fering fronl those rcquired by section 32.71 a developer would achieve results which .substantially satisfv 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 z he requirements of the ordinance. 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(8), 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 biotilter (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, topographv, shape of the property, location of the property or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interests of the developer, strict application of the requirements ofsectlon 3 2.7 tii'ould 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 rcraivcr shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or ra,elfare, 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 anv case that by substituting Of teclnzique, design or materials of comparable quality, but dlffer'lrlg frOrn t{lOSe 1'eg1[ired by SCCtlon 32.7, a del'C'loper Yr'Ol,lld aC{llel'C' YC'S1l1tS rr'hrC{1 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 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 revictir% 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 necessarv.for a proper review of the application. In approving a preliminary site plan, the commission nray 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. 1:14. 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 �..._. r , \ BEE SEAS r ..c. .oa... W'—H RO BW STONE SURFACE Y7 /, Pavement, Section ---- -� Rivan�a NOT TO SCALE _ x Stormwater Swale NOT TO SCALE - ECI Matting // r.pl Lower Channels 5eed Mut' !g+ llFper Channels Seed Mix: FACW Wetland Mcodow Mix ` Conceptual BMP g>..1 ' ' NOrthe'dstet'n U� Road5lde ' p ERN MX 122 Native 5eed Mix. 5tormwater Swale 15 Ibs/acre- ERN MX 105; DA = 12.8 Acres �' 1` I 15 bulk lbs /acre Existing - Exsting U8 , Barn Soccer Field Prime and DOUble5Cal Pavement Existing U8 Soccer Field / Existing U8 / Soccer Field LeW15 and Clark ExploratoryCenter Entrance Goad ominion `�epvelopment Resources, LLC Exhibit A: 5tormwater Management in Lieu of Curb and Gutter 7riett 1n, VA 2911 0 • Ch�riC.tcsNllc, VA 2291 I �� 434 979.8121 ( ) 40 0 40 BO 120 t •�� F February 12, 2008 4349709�I6vAA1- SCALE 1 = 40' Sheet Attachment B �' StormwaterSwale J PRIME 10 J0u6EE SEAL wra aRowHs DNE s Rraz DA = 4.5 Acres \ —Lower Channels Seed Mix -- - `X1- FACW Wetland Meadow Mix 'Section ERN MX-122 NOT TO SCALL 15 Ibs/acre Storm-water Swale -- - NOT TO SCALE -- - ' / f / Lower Channels Seed Mix FACW Wetland Meadow Mix ERN MX-122 15 a I s/ cre b / Prime and Doubleseal Pavement e i 1 Ex15tmg Pond \ O. Existing / House I �eeeo�e Dominion Lewis and Clark ExploratoryCenter Entrance Load Development Resources, LLC ;e 172 South Pantar 0— L" B: 5tormwater Management in Lieu of Curb and Gutter Ga otee deDDRVA.1 ���� 434 979.8121 (p; 40 0 40 80 120 0ece+ 434.9791681 (q s DORVA.wm SCALEI = 40' February 12, 2008 Sheet 2 "I Attachment B Z `_ 120 0 120 240 380 ".-.,.�� •:``' `'��., � az `'`:�C: =`\ �'` LEWIS AND CLARK OCKAM `�~-- � �� '�• . RY CENTER SCAU, 200' EXPLORATO ROUGH T)zT�N TO BMP t _�•;- ~a+ DRAINAGE AREA MAP for Nth' TLN� ter., �►------ - �~~ ~`��``•' :. BMP �r &REEN SNL _ _.--- -_ -- NN IL 11 �' % � 1 �\ i 'i � • ii , , �� , �"` � � �� ti " - • l• ' � � , /;,• •. - ._.- __ '•.ti;:` 1. 1`\ - BMP -2 DA = I8 AG"'_'. �...;�., ,''` ��_: _ �•:- �,� J.>u � ��.� A' r\ !�`�; } 1 M •tits. A 0 100 fir.:.•..>_. -t 1 tt .• h`•'\ Y -. 00000 ----------------- \ • Z�4++ rSi�=iesr:.i r�Its::. .------._» ':-: ---� �• ��� •{: � - - -44 \ ._. .- .-._.. ~fit •7 i r i4 , � - a ��: r -. a iy i=ii lin Dominion Development Resources. LLC 172 South Panto" Dnve Charcot o vc• VA 2291 t 434.979.6121 (p) C., S 434.979.1681 (Q Attachment C 29 Megan Yaniglos Amy P{laum 1.44 PM From: September 10, 2008 Wednesday, Sent: Megan Yan;glos To: FW Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Subject: Clark 3rd.pdf Attachments: Lewis and 6 i { mailto. lshimp@dd,va •com] From: Justin Sh July 0S� 2008 2:50 PM Sent: Tuesday, Attachment C 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 From: Justin Shimp [mailto:jshimp@ddrva.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 2:50 PM Attachment C 9/10/2008 �" ,itt �i3 t!r�d � - `- ,., {j ` •;•e''j� '�i ii �' �$ ('. ,,,i „ a.' ,, ..�s i' #t; �. #`:. i .Pt 1:Ei.-i�,, �• 1,. ., , .. - 3E ,ii ., e ' F .• , 'C`i', f e•.P9B t t I'. :ii {I#i" il,,l, i ..E: ,. .,E'` :11''{i r', i� x £', _ ,. ,. .. . i •�. , , Il'a,it1. .: . , i , 1. . - ..:. ' # ��1.. , ,'Ei .'li .. •, ... ,. .ii ,.i;if. F: ii st., .. ,t „-. �P. {: .'!� f:..i ,; ], 'ii`i P''' �, ,. !'.i.'ii �` ,:I i .,. { x .I� •'d 4 x iil.'i?a{is From: Justin Shimp [mailto:jshimp@ddrva.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 2:50 PM Attachment C 9/10/2008 �" 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(8) 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 perniit 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 I 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(8), 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.follotil,ing circumstances: (1) in all cotnntercial or institutional developtnents requiring eight (8) or more parking spaces; (2) in all multi family dwelling and townhouse developments requiring eight (8) or more parking spaces; (3) "'here necessary to control or direct stortnwater runoff; (4) where a sidewalk is located closer than.fbur (4) foet, front the edge ofan access aisle; and (5) tit,here nccessary to contain vehicular traffic to protect pedestrians and/or property. Gutters shall be required where necessaty to control or direct stormwater runoff. The county engineer may waive or modify this requirement if'decnted necessaty to accontntodate storm",ater 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 Arty requirement ofsection 32.7 rnav be modificd, waived, or substituted, in an individual case, as provided herein.- a. erein:a. The cotnrnission rnav ntodifv, tii,aivc, or accept substitution for anv requirement of section 32.7 in a particular case upon a finding that requiring such irnproventent would not fortyard the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or wee fare; or in the case of substitution, that such alternative would satisfv the purpose of this chapter to at least an equivalent degree as the required improvement. b. Whenever, because ofunusual size, topagraphv, 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 33.7 xvould result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties, the requirement ntav be modified or waived by the connnission; provided that such modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or tiwclfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices, or to adjacent properties c. Upon finding in anv case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable quality, but differing.fi-orn those required by section 32.7, a developer would achieve results which substantially satisft, the overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the desired effects of the rcquirentent in section 32.7, the contntission may approve such substitution of technique, design or materials. d. A developer requesting a modification, ii,aiver, or substitution pursuant to this section shall file with the agent a ivritten request which shall state reasons and justifications jbr such request together with such alternatives as niav 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 revietit, committee revision deadline. No such request shall be considered by the commission until the contntission has considered the recontntertdation of the agent. The agent may rccontntend approval, approval ivith 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 recornntendation, particularly in regard to the purpose and intent o f this chapter, the subdivision ordinance, and the comprchensive plan. e. In granting such modification, waiver or substitution, the commission inav impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or iwelfare. 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 tivith section 4.1 2, off-street parking and loading requirements, subject to county engineer approval in accordance N,ith 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(8). 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 accordance with Section 4.12.15(8), 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 stonnwater 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 17-312.0: Storinwater managemcnt facilities shall be sited to capture, to the maximum extent practical, the runoff fr•oni the entire land development area. Curb and gutter on both sides of the road will capture stonnwater 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. Wienever, 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 tii,aivcd by the conunission; provided that such modification or vraiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or tirelfare, 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.fi-oin those required by section 32.7, a developer mould 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 connnission 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 stonnwater 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 Pen -nit. 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 contnzission review, the conznzission shall give due consideration to the reconinzendations of the site review committee, the statement of the developer in response to such r•ccomnzendations and, in the case of contntission review, the comments and reconznzendations of the agent. In addition, the cornntission stay 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 revietir of the application. In approving a preliminary site plan, the commission nzav determine to r•cvien, in whole or in part thefinal 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 staff's 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 j w.� 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. • Staff's 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 staff's 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 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 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 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 and Special Use Permits relating to this proposal 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(8) 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 is for an extension of the above referenced special use permit (approval is pending). SP 2007-022 — This special use permit would allow the grading and fill in the floodplain that are necessary to complete the construction of the access roads serving this site (approval is pending). 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 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. 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 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 of four (4) or more spaces shall be surfaced. The surface materials, for parking areas and access aisles shall be subject to revieiv 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. Cambs 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 closet- 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 tirhere necessary to control or direct stormwater runoff The county engineer may waive or modify this requirement ifdeemed necessary to accommodate stormtivater 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 M 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, ivaived, 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 forvvard the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare; or in the case ofsubstitution, that such alternative would satis_ fv 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 arty case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable quality, but differingfr�om 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 3 2.7, 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. Stich 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 oi• 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 nzth 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 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 unitsual 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 fi•ona 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 3 2.7, 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 the requirements of the ordinance. 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. 0 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 of - 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 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 anv case that by substituting of technique, design or materials of comparable quality, but differing from those required by section 32.7, a developer vt�ould 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 3 2.7, 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 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: 7 32.4.2.6 In the case of commission review, the commission shall give dire 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 neccssafy.fbr 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. At this time, the use and access cannot be supported until Special Use Permits relating to both are approved. Without these actions and approval of the necessary waivers, staff recommends denial of the preliminary site plan as submitted. Should the Planning Commission approve both of the related Special Use Permits and 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. The proposed grading within the floodplain behind the building must be eliminated or an additional Special Use Permit must be approved to allow the grading as shown. ❑ 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. ❑ c. The proposed waterline, hydrant, and waterline easements cannot be located in the proposed biofilter. ❑ 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. ❑ 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 ,F,c r Al City of Charlottesville SDP 07-065: Lewis and Clark _,Oof,,,R-AN K47-rjI ,,"C-4SOjV. FARMeRp Q! E r, BE; 0- A 0 F 20 S SIC q 4 A u -76-5& - �v 417 i 0 fa"Y. -T, .E 4A 100I OVYP4P�` "0 171 RIHM C Q;R RICHMONDAD ;,8 v,r =0 891 Feet 7 Z� Le9wd (Note: S—i items on map may not appear in legend) GIS -Web Geographic Data Ser,ce,; — alberrarle org w(334)296-5832 0'' ,F--711�r , on.. Map is for display purposes only - Aerial Imagery 2002 Commodwealn of Virginia August 7 2007 � pF ALg�,, 1� �IRG11}1P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 November 26, 2007 Kelly Strickland/DDR 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: SDP2007-00065 Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Dear Ms. Strickland: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 13, 2007, by a vote of 5.0, accepted your request for indefinite deferral of the above -noted petition. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, G)) David Pennock Principal Planner Zoning and Current Development Division Cc: Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center P.O. Box 281 Charlottesville, Va 22902 City Of Charlottesville & County Of Albemarle 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Va 22902