The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP200700027 Review Comments 2007-11-02 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning&Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22901-4596 TO.1 /A- C na D FROM: ✓(JQ/K. , �)0r,4e!/ (0296-573 z x 3�) ive ix An ,Shc el Date: Oci . 2, , 2 7 .,//� ie a:hoh <✓De/ .4//rizin /.) - a..ra //4-- / i 4 /7X 41* JOB NO/FILE NAME ,- 'OC 2 -d 2 fir ' /.te--0/J J C c We are sending you the following items, 0 Attached, or 0 Under separate cover: ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Plats ❑ Specifications ❑ Other COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION ( I0 31 - C ? i rf..l;,u, vt.a,-7 PCa s 10 - I - 07 e.r Lod Ptzl.n►►i - Pr,"h (revktce&_. C,o rn m41 t! r n ees pog s) O These are transmitted as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ As requested For review and comment ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Other Remarks: 1v/5l/ ,/ahf / /%e f — v C �� 0e/27S c/- CYGL t" 7, Zt z/Z17. /Sf 20o 7 (/' -,-- ,22/77 S 4.., _ __ L.�feel--ed //J/ i /(.%✓ . 7-- Signature: . LPDA October 31,2007 Ms.Joan McDowell Community Development 401 McIntire Road North Wing Charlottesville,VA 22902 RE:Emmanuel Episcopal Church SP 2007-027 Dear Joan: Thank you for meeting with representatives from the church and myself on Tuesday. It was helpful to clear up the process and we were happy to hear that we are exactly where we wanted to be in the process with the exception of my procedural error in submitting preliminary site plans. I am requesting that you reactivate our Special Use Permit,as we are ready to proceed. Given the historic nature of the church and the picturesque setting, we are showing one deviation from the County Engineering requirements currently. It is the congregation's intention to keep the existing historic entry drive. The drive varies in width but averages 14 to 16 feet. This has served the church for many years and they feel that widening the drive to 20 feet and the associated grading to accomplish this would spoil the "front lawn". Despite the narrow width, the drive has level shoulders that can accommodate larger cars if need be. The church congregation feels that this is adequate width. Also as part of this permit we are asking for two conditions: 1. We are asking that the plans be approved with the future structure as shown with the condition that the specific design for the building is reviewed once undertaken. 2. We ask that the Special Use Permit be valid for at least five years. Please note that there was a numbering error on the sheets. There are seven sheets as the title block indicates;L-1.0- L1.6. I have corrected the error by hand on cover sheet and on sheet L 1.6. The following responses address comments made in letters of July 19, 2007 from Ms. Amy Arnold, August 21,2007 from Mr.Brent Nelson,and August 28,2007 from Ms. Amelia McCulley. Letter of July 19,2007 comments: Zoning and Current Development 1. We have added labels to existing and proposed improvements. 2. The future structure and possible stormwater management location has been moved off of critical slopes. We are not asking for a critical slopes waiver. 3. The flood plain is shown on the overall survey. 4. Neither the sanctuary nor the classroom area will be expanded. 310 East Main Street LAND PLANNING&DESIGN ASSOCIATES,INC. Suite 200 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 Landscape Architecture Planning 434.296.2108 Fax:434.296.2109 www.lpda.net -LPDA Page 2 5. The Church Vestry has completed a parking study informally. Given the loose nature of the current parking situation,it is difficult to determine exactly. However,using a standard 10' space,I have determined that there are approximately 100 existing parking spaces. The church is asking for 33 more. 6. The religious education building maybe used a fellowship hall during church services. We have shown a pedestrian connection. 7. The tax map and parcel numbers are listed. 8. A site plan is being submitted with this letter. As we discussed in our meeting,we will go straight to final plan after waivers and conditions have been set. 9. The entire cemetery exists and has for over 100 years to my knowledge;therefore I doubt there was a special use permit. The columbarium is proposed but will not be constructed for some time. 10. This issue will be addressed,but requires action by the greater church board. Either of the two options presented will be completed as a condition of the special use permit. Historic Preservation 1. The Department of Historic Resources has been contacted. To date they have expressed approval of the project and the improvements proposed. A response from DHR was submitted with the Special Use Permit Application. Design Planning: 1. As discussed in our meeting,we will not relocate the parking behind the church,but will adapt the design to the landform. The adapted design,which follows the contour of the land,is shown on the site plan. 2. The site plan has been revised to remove parking from the center"green"and therefore preserve some of the most significant trees. We have made every effort to save all trees. Of the 11 trees that are being removed,all but 3,2 Ash and 1 Popular are not significant species or contribute to overall appearance of the site. 3. The existing plan shows buildings grouped together. As for the specific design,the future design will respect the integrity of the proposed church. Like material will be used. A letter from Mr. Doug Gilpin was attached to the Special use Permit and addressed this issue. County Engineering 1. A concept has been shown,and will be developed in the future site plan submission 2. We are showing a 100' taper and 150'turn lane. The curb radii are 35'per Mr.Denunzio. 3. We are not proposing to eliminate the entrance but will reduce the existing curb cut to a standard residential width. We are making the pedestrian connection suggested. County Water Resources 1. The buffers are shown on the overall sheet. VDOT LPDA Page 3 1. We will accommodate the taper and the radius at the entrance as requested. Letter of August 21,2007 comments: 1. We have removed the 16 spaces previously shown on the sketch plan. The parking is now terraced with the rural landform and grading is shown. We have added trees in a natural pattern in the new parking area. 2. The lot has been terraced. 3. The spaces exist and we are not proposing to change grade but merely define what is actually a parking space. The proposed parking area is a reduction in gravel paving as the site plan utilizes standard dimensions,unlike the existing parking. 4. The landscape plan is reflective of both the site and the rural nature of the setting by utilizing similar species in a natural form(not equally spaced). 5. Drip lines are shown. 6. A photometric plan is included. 7. The direction of travel has been added. 8. The materials will be harmonious with the historic nature of the site. A section has been included looking both from the east and west. 9. The existing contours haven been labeled and the survey included. Letter of August 28,2007 comments 1. The proposed and existing parking has been addressed in the sketch on sheet L 1.6. This also addresses coverage of the existing and proposed parking areas. 2. The house is rented as residence on the upper floor. The basement,which is not part of the rental unit,is occasionally used for church functions. 3. The proposed features have been moved from critical slopes. 4. The approximate size of this structure is shown on the plans. As part of the approval we would agree to a review of the design plans by the ARB. We ask that the plans we approved with this condition. Also,we ask that the length of the SP validity be at least 5 years. 5. A church member undertook the parking study. One Sunday,between services,the time of the greatest demand,actual cars were counted. 94 cars were on site parked on a regular Sunday. It is felt that given the future growth of the church,and the addition of the fellowship hall,that 122 spaces (discounting the 11 associated with the residence) are appropriate. If the zoning was used,but not required in the rural district, 170 would be parked on site. The church feels that this is too many: LPDA Page 4 Church: 1 space per 3 fixed seats (or) 75 @ 225 seats 1 space per 75 sf(greater) 32 @2,368 sf Meeting: 1 space per 75 sf 32 @2,380 sf Marsh LaRue House: 1 space per 200 sf(if office) 13 @2,560 sf New Building: 1 space per 200 sf(if office) 50 010,000 sf (code requires study if school) TOTAL 170 spaces At this time,the church believes that if additional expansion is required,an additional service will be added and they are comfortable with 133 total, 122 at the church proper. 6. Significant trees are noted on the landscape plan. 7. In preliminary discussions with VDOT,it was determined that given the off-peak primary use time of the church (Sunday morning),good sight distance,historic nature of the church and rural characteristics of the area,a residential standard entrance with the addition of a right turn lane would be acceptable,although combing them is not normal practice. It appears that VDOT has offered new standards in their comments of July 19,2007. Mr.Denunzio requested a 100'taper and 150'turn lane,with the 35' radius. We have addressed this comment on the plans. Sincerely, Mark Lieberth,ALSA,LEED AP Associate,Land Planning and Design Enclosures: (10) preliminary plans (1) 11x17 reductions