HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200700027 Approval - County 2008-03-19 letter Page 1 of 2
February 26, 2008 UJ.L
a L�
Mark Lieberth �j0 S �i/
_ " 310 East Main Street, Ste 200 �YL w
6r
Charlottesville, VA 22902 "19
RE: SP2007-00027 Emmanuel Episcopal Church Amendment(Sign #4)
Tax Map 70, Parcels 12, 13, 13A
Dear Mr. Lieberth:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 19, 2008, recommended approval of the
above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
•
Changes from the conditions approved with the previous application SP 1999-48 (conditions 1-6) are
shown with strikethroughs and underlines. Conditions 7;15 are new with SP 2007-27.
1. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without a separate special use permit.
2.
2. Approval from the Health Department for the septic system and well shall be required prior to
approval of an issuance of a building permit.
3. Future burials in the cemetery shall be limited to areas outside the 100-year flood plain.
4. No--Expansion of the mausoleum structure shall require amendment to this special use permit.
{Tombs inside may be added3
5. Any future expansion of the church structures and/or size of assembly area,et-use-shall require
amendment to this special use permit.
6. special Use Permit SP2007-27 Emmanuel Episcopal Church shall be developed in general
accord with the concept application plan, provided by the applicant and received December 21,
2007 (Attachment A.) However,the Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the concept
application plan to allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
7. Construction of the new building or the columbarium, as identified on the concept site plan 2.01$
(Attachment A) shall commence on or before March 19, 201117 or the portion of this special use
permit authorizing the new building and the columbarium shall be deemed abandoned and the
authority granted hereunder related to the new building and the columbarium shall be thereupon
terminate.
8. Tree protection measures shall be required on the erosion & sediment control plan in
accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and the tree protection
measures shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity.
9. The parking lot shall be paved using prime and double seal surface or, at the option of the
permittee, another surface material approved by the County Engineer deemed equivalent or
better than a prime and double seal surface in regard to strength, durability, sustainability and
long-term maintenance.
10. All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from the abutting
properties. A lighting plan reasonably limiting'the amount of adverse outdoor light pollution
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval as a condition of site plan approval.
http://wvwv.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of Superviso... 3/17/2008
letter Page 2 of 2
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes: Feb 19 and Feb 26, 2008
Return to regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on March 19, 2008.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action,please do not hesitate to contact
me at(434)296-5832.
Sincerely,
Joan McDowell
Principle Planner
Planning Division
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of Superviso... 3/17/2008
minutes Page 1 of 6
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 19, 2008
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, February
19, 2008, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph; Thomas Loach; Jon Cannon, Vice Chairman; Linda
Porterfield; Eric Strucko; Bill Edgerton and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting
representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Megan Yaniglos, Planner; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner;
Tamara Ambler, Natural Resource Manager; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2007-00027 Emmanuel Episcopal Church Amendment (Sign # 4)
PROPOSED: site re-organization including expanded parking, future office/education building,
columbarium, memorial garden
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre)
SECTION: 10.2.2(35)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes_x No
LOCATION: 7599 Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Rt. 250), Greenwood
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 70, Parcels 12, 13, 13A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
(Joan McDowell)
Ms. McDowell provided a Powerpoint presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report)
• The application proposes to expand the parking and to reorganize the parking. 'They now have
about 100 parking spaces, which are very loose. That is very typical for rural area churches.
They plan to reorganize and place in 133 parking spaces. The staff report indicates 132 parking
spaces, but that was changed to 133. The zoning administrator has agreed to that number.
They would like to build a future fellowship building with offices and other uses. The existing
education bldg would be brought into compliance with the special use permit since it was not
mentioned with the last application.
• Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. There is a critical slopes
waiver that goes with this application as well.
Mr. Morris asked if there were any questions for staff.
Ms. Joseph asked staff to talk about the lighting condition #10. She asked if reasonably limiting the
amount of adverse outdoor lighting pollution means that it, will be more or less stringent than the
existing ordinance.
Ms. McDowell replied that the existing ordinance shall apply and this is extra. The applicant has to
comply with the existing ordinance anyway. Mr. Cilimberg can address the origin of this condition.
t, Mr. Cilimberg noted that its origin has been with several churches and some other larger rural area
special use permits that went to the Board. There was a concern not only with cutoff fixtures, but also
about light pollution and the potential for light dispersion into other areas beyond just the site. The
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/Board_of Superviso... 3/17/2008
minutes Page 2 of 6
Board had asked for a condition that would deal with potential spillover and in general light pollution
beyond just what they might be covering with the specifics of the lighting ordinance itself. This was the
language that the County Attorney actually ultimately came up with that they have used at the board
level on several churches previously.
Ms. Joseph noted that there were a lot of lights being proposed. She wanted to make sure that all of
the lights were full cut off.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that they actually have a site plan as well that will be proceeding and it will be
subject to the ordinance provisions for all of those lights.
Ms. McDowell noted that the site plan was hold at this time.
Mr. Edgerton asked what the current violation on the building to the east that makes it
nonconforming.
Ms. McDowell replied that it is not in violation. They just wanted to bring the entire church master
plan and all the buildings and uses in to compliance. They are using that as an education building
now. The zoning department has not cited them for noncompliance. Staff just saw in their research
that building was part of the other 1999 special use permit.
Mr. Edgerton noted that it was shown as a separate parcel on the map as tax map 70, parcel 12. He
asked if that was part of the church property.
Ms. McDowell replied that it was part of the church property.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was also included in the legal description for this special use permit.
Mr. Edgerton said that staff mentions under factors unfavorable some mature trees will be removed in
order to accommodate the parking area. He asked which trees will be removed.
Ms. McDowell said that the master plan would not show that. But, there are some trees that the
parking would necessitate removing. She inherited this'project from Amy Arnold. The project started
last summer. Staff has worked closely with the applicant because there were additional trees because
of the parking location at the time that would be removed and they have worked with staff to reduce
that number as much as possible.
Joseph suggested that reword condition 7 - if don't do work then they will be in compliance.
Ms. Joseph noted that on page 13 it shows the little X's where the trees will be removed.
Ms. McDowell suggested that the applicant might be able to address that issue a little better.
Ms. Joseph suggested that condition 7 needs to ;be restructured in order to bring this into
compliance. Condition 7 says that this special use permit shall be deemed abandoned if the work is
not done. That condition should be reworded so that if they don't do this work that at least they are in
compliance with the existing building that is not currently.
Mr. Edgerton said that on page 6 of the staff report at the top of the page it is talking about the left
turn lane that the engineers are recommending. It says however if the applicant does not want to
construct the safety improvements a warrant analysis should be performed using projected traffic at
build out to establish the minimum requirements. These issues will be reviewed with the site plan.
Therefore, the condition of approval of SP-1999-48 pertaining to VDOT approval of the entrance has
been removed. He asked why they would remove that if it was a concern.
Ms. McDowell noted that she had a long discussion with both VDOT and the county engineer. It was
determined that those are the kinds of things they would address at the final site plan. Staff had the
condition in there sort of specifying what she just said in the report and the county engineer asked
that she remove it. They would work together to address the entrance condition.
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of Superviso... 3/17/2008
minutes Page 3 of 6
Mr. Cilimberg said that there was no additional special use permit, but there was a site plan that was
under review. That would be a requirement in the site plan review. So the condition does not
establish anything more than the site plan requirements.
Mr. Edgerton said that he was struggling with the fact that the engineer has called this out as
something they are concerned about. So why wouldn't they make this part of the special use permit.
He agreed with staffs initial reaction that it ought.to be listed as a condition just to make sure that it
does not get overlooked.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that he did not think that this one was going to get overlooked because the
requirements are under site plan review.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission.
John Savage, the immediate past Senior Warden of Emmanuel Episcopal Church, said that also
present were Charlie Mitchell, prior Senior Warden and Dick Hodgson who just finished a term on the
vestry. They are requesting the Commission's consideration and approval for the site plan for their
church. Emmanuel Episcopal Church is a noteworthy architectural structure. It is listed on both the
national and state registrar of historic places. The members of the church have this in the back of
their mind in any project that they put forward. A few years ago a survey was sent to their
congregation and the provision of safe and adequate parking was by far the most immediate request.
At present time even with two services they have cars parked on the lawns, under the Oak trees and
on both sides of this historic entrance drive. The congregation envisions a time when their present
parish hall built in 1917 and expanded in 1958 will become limited. A future parish hall is
anticipated, but may not be built for several years. Nevertheless, they felt it was important to locate a
site for this future building as they finalize improvements to their parking and accessibility issues. In
the fall of 2006 they selected the Charlottesville Landscape and Site Design Firm of LPDA and have
been working closely with one of their associates, Mark Liebieg. They gave several directives to the
firm. First, was to provide parking not only for their present congregation, but for anticipated ten year
growth. Second, was to remove the unsafe Sunday parking from the entrance driveway. Third, was to
integrate the reconfigured parking within the historic landscape while respecting the signature land
mark trees that surround the property. One of those trees is almost 300 years old. Finally, was to
provide the location for a future parish hall. The congregation has been unanimous in its acceptance
of LPDA's design to date. As Mr. Liebieg has worked with the County's Architectural Review Board he
has been able to get new parking outside of the areas covered by the tree canopy. The plans before the
Commission have been reviewed by the Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Historic
Resources. In a letter dated December 17, 2007 they concurred that, "the plan appears to be sensitive
to the historic setting of the church and preserves the view of the church from Route 250. By locating
the parking behind the church and taking advantage of the lower topography to the south and east the
visibility of the majority of cars will be limited as much as possible thereby preserving the integrity of
the church's setting and historic vista from Route 250 as the proposed project would have not
detrimental impact on the historic character of the church."
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Commission.
Mr: Loach said that the parking on the side towards 250 and how that might affect the visual view of
the church seems to have been addressed more than adequately. He agreed with Ms. Joseph that the
lighting not overtake the site. He was fully supportive of the proposal before the Commission.
Ms. McDowell asked to add a correction to condition 7. Condition 7 refers to the commencement of
the beginning of'this special use permit on March 9. It should be changed to March 19, 2013.
Ms. Joseph suggested that the condition be worded so that if the church does not start the
construction and this special use permit becomes void that the other little piece comes into
compliance. There was the little piece that Ms. McDowell said would also come into compliance as a
result of this special use permit. She wanted to make sure that it comes into compliance even if they
don't start the construction. She asked how that could work.
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/Board_of Superviso... 3/17/2008
minutes Page 4 of 6
Mr. Kamptner said that is one of the issues that they iron out between now and the Board date. He
understands the issue and will talk with the zoning administrator to see if they have ever kind of
bifurcated a special use permit from the portions of the use that require construction to which this
condition really addresses and those that don't.
Ms. Joseph noted that would be good.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that his understanding was she really wants to make sure that the existing
activities on each of the tax map parcels that are subject to the special use permit would not be made
nonconforming essentially by them not starting the new building and the columbarium.
Mr. Loach asked if the turn lane is supposed to be addressed later in the process.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the turn lane will be addresses as part of the site plan. The condition that
was struck through only referred to entrance width and entrance radius. So it would not be a good
condition if there was the need also for turn lanes. Virginia Department of Transportation approval is
required for the site plan. A condition that would basically say Virginia Department of Transportation
approval of the entrance improvements could be fair.
Mr. Loach said that he did not think they could make the determination because they are planning for
a future expansion. So they actually don't know how much they are expanding for except for the 135
parking spaces. He questioned how they would take that into consideration.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that they would base it on what they see in the site plan. The activity or traffic
generated by the site plan would be how they judge that. That is where the warrants analysis comes
in.
Mr. Edgerton said that the plan was developed with the intent of providing the additional parking that
would be needed at the time of the building of the new building.
Mr. Loach said that in terms of traffic he was worried about it on that stretch of Route 250 later as the
church expands. He questioned at what point they would take that into consideration.
Mark Liebieg pointed out that he prepared the plans for this project. That is the only provision that he
was concerned about. Generally the largest use of the church facility is on Sunday morning. That is
an off peak hour in church generation. So quite frankly he did not think that they should have to add
a left turn lane for off peak generation. He was not a transportation engineer and had not run
numbers, but it seemed a little unwarranted to do that. No other church or facility along that stretch
of Route 250 has that condition. In his preliminary discussions VDOT said that they would not
require a left turn lane. VDOT would require a right turn only with a taper. It was the county
engineer that suggested that they look at a left turn lane. As he understands the county does not take
precedence here because it is a state road and it would be VDOT. He understands that the county will
require VDOT to make that determination.
Mr. Loach said that he worried about the evening activities when R9ute 250 is fairly dark down that
stretch.
Ms. Joseph asked that the conditions will change so that whatever they are using out there now they
will come into compliance on.
Mr. Morris invited the architect to address the Commission.
Mr. Liebieg questioned item 10 regarding the light levels and asked how they determine what that is.
He asked what standards they would follow and to what level would they be held.
Mr. Strucko said that as the maker of the motion he was pleased with following the current county
ordinance.'
Mr. Cilimberg said that the condition stipulates that a lighting plan reasonably limiting the amount of
adverse outdoor light pollution shall be submitted to the zoning administrator for approval as a
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/FormsCenter/Departments/Board_of Superviso... 3/17/2008
minutes Page 5 of 6
condition of site plan approval. So it becomes part of the site plan approval process that the zoning
administrator would have to approve that. Therefore, the applicant would need to work with the
zoning administrator as part of that.
Mr. Cannon noted that his question was if they have to meet the lighting ordinance in any event what
additional increment of lighting precaution is being expected and is that going to be reasonable.
Mr. Liebieg agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it was a good question. He noted that the Board has asked that this be
included on all of the special use permits in the rural area.
Mr. Liebieg said that it would be nice to know what standard.
Mr. Morris said that working with zoning would be;the key.
Mr. Kamptner said that he did not have any specific standards. But, probably the one thing that the
Board may have been looking for was that the lighting ordinance applies to outdoor lighting luminaries
that submit 3,000 or more lumens. So anything less than that is not subject to those regulations. The
Board may be looking at regulating all outdoor lighting including those that are below that standard.
The other would be the footcandles at the property line, which the ordinance is 1/2 footcandle. In an
earlier draft of this condition it was set at .3 footcandles. He was not sure how low their equipment
allows measurements. But, he would assume that lit is in tenths of footcandles.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that there are also shields that can be put on the lights so that there is
nothing that goes behind them.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it was particularly about exposed lighting at any level.
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Loach seconded to approve SP-2007-00027, Emmanuel Episcopal
Church Amendment with the conditions recommended in the staff report, as amended in condition 7.
Changes from the conditions approved with the previous application SP 1999-48
(conditions 1-6) are shown with strikethroughs and underlines. Conditions 7-15 are new
with SP 2007-27.
1. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without a separate special
use permit.
2. Virginia Dcpartmc -- e - i
radii.
2. Approval from the Health Department for the septic system and well shall be required
prior to approval of an issuance of a building permit.
3. Future burials in the cemetery shall be limited to areas outside the 100-year flood
plain.
4. Ne-eExpansion of the mausoleum structure shall require amendment to this special
use permit. {Tombs inside may be added}.
5. Any future expansion of the church structures and / or size of assembly area, or-nse
shall require amendment to this special use permit.
6. Special Use Permit SP2007-27 Emmanuel Episcopal Church shall be developed in
general accord with the concept application plan, provided by the applicant and
received December 21, 2007 (Attachment A.) However, the Zoning Administrator may
approve revisions to the concept application plan to allow compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
7. Construction of the new building or the columbarium, as identified on the concept site
plan (Attachment A) shall commence on or before March 19, 2013, or the portion of
this special use permit authorizing the new building and the columbarium shall be
deemed abandoned and the authority granted hereunder related to the new building
and the columbarium shall be thereupon terminate.
8. Tree protection measures shall be required on the erosion & sediment control plan in
accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and the tree
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of Superviso... 3/17/2008
minutes Page 6 of 6
protection measures shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity.
9. The parking lot shall be paved using prime and double seal surface or, at the option of
the permittee, another surface material approved by the County Engineer deemed
equivalent or better than a prime and double seal surface in regard to strength,
durability, sustainability and long-term maintenance.
10. All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from the
abutting properties. A lighting plan reasonably limiting the amount of adverse outdoor
light pollution shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval as a
condition of site plan approval.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris said that the request will go before the Board of Supervisors on March 19, 2008 with a
recommendation for approval.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to PC actions letter
•
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/DepartmentsBoard_of Superviso... 3/17/2008
minutes Page 1 of 2
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 26, 2008
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, February 26, 2008,
at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach; Bill Edgerton; Jon Cannon, Vice Chairman; Linda Porterfield, Marcia
Joseph and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Eric Strucko was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative
for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Tamara Ambler, Natural Resource Manager;
Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Gerald Gatobu, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and established a quorum.
Old Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business.
SP-2008-00027 Emmanuel Episcopal Church—Waiver for disturbance of critical slopes (Joan McDowell)
Mr. Morris noted that last week the Planning Commission did not look at the waiver for disturbance for critical
slopes on this request.
Ms. McDowell said that this is a housekeeping item concerning a critical slopes waiver request that was not acted
_ on last week. The County Engineer is present to answer any questions. This is concerning where one of the new
buildings is being proposed to the rear of the property. There is quite a lot of critical slope in the shaded area
around the building and to the rear of the property. In the County Engineer's review it was determined that it
might be a little more critical slope disturbance than the applicant had originally proposed, but the
recommendation was still for approval.
Mr. Cannon asked the amount of critical slope disturbance,
Ms. McDowell replied that the applicant had asked for a disturbance of no more than 2,000 square feet. But, it
was determined that there might be an addition to that.
Mr. Brooks said that it was about 1/3 to 1/2 an acre of disturbance. There are basically 3 dips in the topography
and each of those areas would have a sediment trap built into it. Each one of those areas would be disturbed for
a portion.
Ms. Joseph asked if that is not exempt from erosion and sediment control, and Mr. Brooks replied that is a call
that they have to make as staff. When there is room to revise the site layout and an approach where they don't
have to do that staff brings it to the Commission because it is not avoidable and there are alternatives.
Ms. McDowell added that the applicant did change the location of the structure at staff's request. So this avoided
as much critical slopes as they could and get the same size building
Mr. Cannon asked what does avoidable mean.
Mr Brooks said that means that they would have to scale back the development or move it all over to the right
side behind the existing house. It would involve similar layout of the property or they would put the building on the
street side instead of the critical slopes side of the lot. But, he was just throwing out ideas.
Mr. Cannon noted that there might be up sides and down sides to those alternatives as well.
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of Superviso... 3/17/2008
minutes Page 2 of 2
Mr. Brooks agreed noting that staff does not feel comfortable deciding that and leaves it up to the Commission.
Ms. Joseph asked if with appropriate erosion and sediment control measures is this something that he could
support, and Mr. Brooks replied yes.
Mr. Morris noted that the applicant was not present. There being no further discussion, he asked for a motion.
Action on Critical Slopes Waiver
Motion: Mr Loach moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded to approve the waiver of Section 4.2 for critical slopes with
regards to SP-2008-00027, Emmanuel Episcopal Church.
The motion passed by a vote of 6.0. (Mr Strucko was absent.)
Mr Morris said that the critical slopes waiver for SP-2008-00027, Emmanuel Episcopal Church was approved.
Return to PC actions letter
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of Superviso... 3/17/2008