HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200700027 Review Comments 2008-01-17 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE •
Department of Planning&Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22901-4596
TO: J , 4-t<- FROM:
91
:-2 Date: /_ 7 -D
- ;mod 7 — m
JOB NO/FILE NAME ,i S e
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
These are transmitted as checked below:
❑ For approval ❑ As requested 4 or review and commen�___--
❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use i Resubmit copies for approval
❑ Approved as noted ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ Submit copies for distribution
❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Other
Remarks: /• 012!JP 1/ Q- 1 A ' c_ i-C C3ILCsS r OP
/.) .Cl/!/ 7c r - e4/2,,6.v4 .COT ,Q
GJ.Q-/ U LDS C
121-/ 4; 5
4iiixisters
ignature:
LPDA
January 14,2008
Ms.Joan McDowell
Community Development
401 McIntire Road North Wing
Charlottesville,VA 22902
RE:Emmanuel Episcopal Church SP 2007-027—Waiver for Design Standards for Parking Areas
Dear Joan:
This letter is to formally request a waiver for design standards for parking lots (Sections 4.12.15.a,4.12.15.g,
4.12.16.c and 4.12.16.e) at Emmanuel Episcopal Church. Specifically we are requesting waivers for the
following sections:
a. 18-4.12.15a Surface materials—We are requesting the use of Prime and Double Seal in place
of standard asphalt. The parking will be a hard surface but will look more like gravel and not
"suburban" asphalt.
b. 18-4.12.15g Curb and Gutter—Again to keep with the rural character,we are requesting not
to use curb and gutter. Four inch curbing will be installed in places close to the sanctuary
only. Drainage will be collected along the back of parking stalls thereby eliminating gutters.
c. 18-4.12.16c Minimum aisle width—We are requesting that this be reduced to 10'in the
northwest parking area in order to preserve tree root systems.
d. 18-4.12.16e bumper blocks—We are requesting to not use bumper blocks in order to keep
rural character.
The application of the zoning ordinance creates an aesthetic that we believe is not in keeping with the historic
church or the rural area. The materials that we have chosen to use,or not use,are intended to maintain the
integrity of the historic and picturesque site. By waiving these standards,the public health,safety and welfare
will not be compromised.
Sincerely,
Rove"( Le4vZ....-----•
Mark Lieberth,ALSA,LEED AP
Associate,Land Planning and Design
310 l:ast Alain S00c1
LAND PLANNING&DESIGN ASSOCIATES,INC. :""
hark>uc��illc.A"n'enna 22902
Landscape Architecture Planning 434 296 2108
Faa.434 29612109
u y%vc.lpda.nct
LPDA
January 14,2008
Ms.Joan McDowell
Community Development
401 McIntire Road North Wing
Charlottesville,VA 22902
RE: Emmanuel Episcopal Church SP 2007-027—Withdrawal of Variance
Dear Joan:
This letter is to formally withdraw our request for variance for Emmanuel Episcopal Church. I intended the
request to be a waiver,not a variance. It was my misunderstanding. Please refund the fee and withdraw the
request. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mark Lieberth,ALSA,LEED AP
Associate,Land Planning and Design
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 1pda.net
LPDA
January 14,2008
Ms.Joan McDowell
Community Development
401 McIntire Road North Wing
Charlottesville,VA 22902
RE:Emmanuel Episcopal Church SP 2007-027—Critical Slopes Waiver
Dear Joan:
This letter is to formally request a waiver for the development of critical slopes. We are proposing to disturb
approximately 2,000 sf,of critical slopes at Emmanuel Episcopal Church in order to grade for the new
structure. Section 4.2 states
"Where modification of regulations is sought pursuant to section 4.2.5,such request shall address
each concern specified in section 4.2." The concerns addressed in Section 4.2 are:rapid and/or
large-scale movement of soil and rock;excessive storm water run-off;siltation of natural and man-
made bodies of water;loss of aesthetic resource;and in the event of septic system failure,a greater
travel distance of septic effluent.
The disturbance of critical slopes proposed will not have an effect on the health,safety or welfare of the
public. The disturbance created by the grading of critical slopes:
1. Does not create rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock. The area is limited to a
relatively small area and is contained to fill.Large scale disturbance is not planned.
2. Does not create excessive storm water run-off. The area is currently steeply planted and will
remain so after disturbance. Therefore,there is no substantial increase in run-off.
3. Will not cause increased siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water. The plans will
follow all applicable Virginia Storm Water Management Regulations,and the disturbed area will
be seeded and planted when complete causing no increase in siltation.
4. Will not result in a loss of an aesthetic resource. In fact,it will enhance the area by allowing us
to preserve the views of the historic church from the entrance corridor.
5. Will not cause event of septic system failure,as the area to be disturbed is not in the path of
septic drainage.
Section 4.2.5 states that the requirement of section 4.2 may be modified or waived in an individual case and
states specific cases. Subsection 4.2.5.b.3 applies to this project.
4.2.5.b.3 Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of section 4.2.
In order for the new structure to be(1)minimally visible from the entrance corridor, (2) be in close proximity
to the sanctuary, (3)maintain the visual_character of the site,the best location for this structure was
determined to be behind the existing sanctuary. The church desires to have the new fellowship hall on axis
with the courtyard centered on the colonnade in following the historic precedence. The proposed location is
310 East Main Street
LAND PLANNING DESIGN ASSOCIATE%,INC. Suite 200
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902
Landscape Architecture Planning 434.296.2108
Fax:434.296.2109
www.lpda.net
LPDA
Page 2
in the best interest of the entire community,given the National Historic Registrar status to keep the
development orderly. The location is also best for the entrance corridor.
As stated above,the disturbance of critical slopes on this project does not create an impact on the health,
safety or welfare of the public. Furthermore,the benefit gained by the public of the placement of the new
structure outweighs the impact of the relatively small disturbance of critical slopes proposed. In short,this
location benefits the public interest,without endangering their health safety or welfare.
Sincerely,
Mark Lieberth,ALSA,LEED AP
Associate,Land Planning and Design
•
LPDA
January 14,2008
Ms.Amelia McCulley
Zoning Administrator
401 McIntire Road North Wing
Charlottesville,VA 22902
RE:Emmanuel Episcopal Church SP 2007-027
Dear Ms.McCulley:
I am writing you on behalf of the Church to ask for a formal ruling from the zoning department on the
parking required at Emmanuel Episcopal Church. As I understand in Section 4.12.6 of the code,the zoning
administrator determines parking for churches in the rural area.
If the straight zoning were used, 170 would be required on site. My calculations are below.,however,the
church feels that this is too many:
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 @10,000 net sf
(code requires study if school)
TOTAL 170 spaces
The current parking situation is very"loose"in nature. Spaces are not defined,and are not common
dimensions. Parishioners often park on the grass and on the entrance road leading to the front of the
church. The church feels that this is an unsafe condition,and wants to alleviate this problem,by removing
parking from the entrance road,and defusing proper spaces. Using a standard 10'space,I have determined
that there are approximately 100 existing parking spaces,including all of the"unsafe"spaces.
The Church Vestry has completed a parking study informally themselves. At the break between services,the
time with the greatest number of cars parked,the Vestry representative counted 94 cars.
It should be noted that the Vestry does not plan on adding on to the church sanctuary. If the congregation
increases,the church will add a third Sunday service during winter. The church does plan to expand in the
future by adding a structure behind the current church sanctuary that will serve as a new fellowship hall,
310 Last Main Street
LAND PLANNING&DESIGN ASSOCIATES,INC. State 200
Charlottes%ife,Virginia 22902
Landscape Architecture Planning 434.96 2108
1'a\ 434 296 2109
v„ti‘> ,da net
LPDA
Page 2
offices,and potentially classrooms. The church is planning this addition to be approximately 10,000 net
square feet.
The Church is asking for 133 total spaces, 122 of which are located at the church proper,and 11 are located
at neighboring house/meeting room that they own in the adjacent ranch style house. The Church feels that
this is an appropriate number to balance growth,site features,and provide safe conditions for the members.
I have enclosed the site plan,two diagrams showing existing and proposed coverage,and a phasing diagram
for your review. Please review this request and return your ruling to me. As always,feel free to call with
questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
frviZ
Mark Lieberth,ALSA,LEED AP
Associate,Land Planning and Design
ir
, m ,_-. US ROUTE RITE x5a �--- LP DA
_ - t
.ywe• LAND PLANNING&DESIGN
..... I Nra•- . : a c 1 A r e
G »o EeateWn 9rrL 5. ema
aeocamAR� r • uAM ees:nle,1•r/.a.2W VOA
_____ 'w+aa'al'f: � /-- -. reisn .�� •N .saxioe•far uaxae ziw
ON 0.0
' may.%�` —w ""'2�"�.
,,.. ...s M .API, ^ _
:, . k--...---j::,:,
i4iêik'
f
ill ml.k'il71_,17&44,,*,r 4.i i,t ik„s,<,
cF, -- —;_—- --,t_——---,,..._._.,._—.:-- ,
I _ 1 ._
I/
• ..1-i.iii-,.,
f WIC:70 11. ipti .S6.---... .::
I ism.
14111,0/127 4"/:=7" .. 111000 Alt ''h.. .. .'"nk. .... ...... .1%1,siihil',....,,..,„_.,,,4 es,,,,,,, i ,, ' 'ii .7.....:- 7:-,,,.---,.,:_-- ..:-: -._.1,- 1--_---„.
411:
.�° O O �.� \�? � �C yi , \,„,.`s `` }"'"' /'
` I `-�'-. Emmanuel Episcopal
� o �' C � . ��"'" �. ," .�_ \ `. � -r •. Church
f i i a I (�iGl , KG,,i-• k 1-,6,;c on°ngoo cu
�° oo nE atl1 OrtmMeed,YgmY
7DtiThrO� r _ - r, \ -I_ 1 \ 1 os no P.ne PLAT
.`' sr �'. j
f,,...„... ...„_.5, ,,' I y rp1 , 'r '•. . Daa•t.i2a Z'
- ==�/ 11 E,u 1 ,14 MO� i 1 _ 1,` `\ `` 1 I� 4xaw nA
. +cp.
, .
, „
, „
, „k„.1,,, ,•,„,.....,
4,0 8 p ,..,,(
•
..".."".- '----.j-L 1 C j 0 air i I-tral-14.44111110dik:.;;.1;,'i';-47::4111* 3 2 7 4 l'rli.-::---- ' ... Att ;. , .27, - , ,,,, : ; . ,
-- ' —o_y__,,\.„:: _/.1,_ , ,1,11 -------Hrsurr„, _ , ot---,, ,,-iii ::,,..--,4,;,---_-- .77-:;-----,.„,-.qi,,,,kriti::‘,..."
# i
%,44.,,,„,,... .. .5„, „,„„ . ., i
aii
a
' �-"E _11r°6 - ' .:: ` 'i,i'.' �p• F.„,.
, <t``cam, s.I. j--.
_.
8
°� y,. ,,we s 1.. 1 =a Fri --' - _ `.v'..k `'+ ielr �sC°s'�"a-. .�.r uo e.....n+n.
7
` - 'f T Ott _ ' +.. �' •v , Ac.`. o o.a a..0 o. 15...
.r P.wlwr
o �y� a 'a _. .''`;'Sr`�,',,,�yta a fl
- 4fi :Fb` V';mm+ ' ��5' � ..er .-..0 o.�.A,.r. r Preliminary Plan
�t1:j �- g" _ r tC € ,y r•`Yx , 2 o.�er.�roc�e.�r
` - __ _ y � -4* Cill. «Na' .*ifl s^r y*i. / p .. ....'w..r�... Landscape Plan
9
----- ...- ..• , 4 s. ,,. ... .....
JT+/ • -...:17,...4.
, ,, �f� ., 'ter,I, v.�27
-- • . *ff.a' , t�z Jam' /r'�' 20✓s Z / 'sr,!1•UVY ar
__ -•-- iv-- ��''`- - >aRFc-s•e. 'Y':'..-_....x� _ .xak.}`:.—,F z aa YTf'
I
-•
` I&.yam_ ^ _ - } i
-l- !u �� -_-- __ _ = -
�LP DA
_.,_____,-___,____„:„;-;:;a:,-.::-_-,,,,
t _ _ t !_--__ - _�� _c'. -' !__- i -�3. _ LAND PIANNWG&DESIG N
ASSOCIATES
liglh
?�: I -yy � ]IOFiN 4an5e5 2ppA'P -E -�3 T ti n c' ' -�a -. --_^I T , cwmaHie.urvir. .hean.
1
C N.1a9410a•Faa 0,2934103
` r , !d A �
its
nr r7 `s, `fir = "----'-_=t; - �� ,fir $ _ f.
e_70 - '4 I x•‘ y..— ,"I .;{, L. Q`-CZ-- _ `ate.- i -r ,-;.A- t,-
-yt *` ,,� ` ` ,I S,t S �} —/ r / \ e‘S1 1 S
-K O �m 1L a `t,i ````,t � 'S i "V0 � I p� 7"I� 1 ' ``?C' �Sy,�;
11-k
1 •' 1 i i iii1it``O`�� Ii it , \.l—F iiiis,, ‘\ 4/
VQo � - ''f.A ., =1 •
T. .4 t , l;s' , [JlJ�I ' ---� �lA LIG; ;<;,} ,,, I '
'moo - ' _' ,'t - -3a 9 v ,;
o ;,— - :, , ,;,f; pro ,� _ - ; , ;
c?:`-t' - -- -fir ; ,%;';,;1-, .1�;',_' 1 i:' Is' a
•Appm7nrYy 100 swam awn i33 spear Vwn T
0 EXISTING SITE COVERAGE AND PAR/ONG 0 PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE AND PARKING Emmanuel Episcopal
t,-so 1•aag' 1111.e....^ Church
f R 137 Grsmeeod•Vestals
Saks 1^OV i
-
..
U _ _ -
ne<I Sight or a`�.•
T T
C C 1 **Cma-all-a MI..
It a possible approximately 50%t0 75%of the above ground height of
0 LIRE OF SIGHT SEC11ON C the proposed structure will be vlslble fore window of appr0ornately - _
400 feet as drivers Pavel east to west along Route 250.Three factors
Ca 20 decreasevisibility-.
1.A 20 degree core of vision for advise at 55 mph lint News to the
extreme tall.
2.Foregrrnmd screening by existing vegetation,including the existing
Oak trees partially hide the stricture.
3.The proposed structure a Than
no closer an 420'at a 90 degree angle ~ I I I'
to the road-Ins distance thorn
e toad diminishes its prominence. a^ -- -c
..........
,•••Preliminary Plan
LP"'
.. _- Site Coverage
Site Sections
D D
Given
and the steep bank a foreground screening by the existing
40 UNE OF SIGHT SECTION D church and vegetation(not shown),are new structure will not be
visible when traveling east to west along Route 250. L 1.6
1'=20 rL7t1l1 '""1 Saar 7 as
f ar d i.......
sae:vane
.-�,.,?+T r-,+4-may- _ _ ' -- __ - _- - C- •►t,?„r2 1��--r-���•• 1.'�/.,r�_ I Lwn PLANNING&DESIGN
�- , A i i O
i�i ,y- _-_-_ I'L�J �� , \ i� • _„ '��iR~_• _- __...•1! .77
i � J10Eula VW.•6 2V0 i
Cheaftsvil
\ - - - /�i` - T' �__ I_, �V r j -- .�•-��_-_-_- - T ' ��i .2Y1 Z10! iu ANZIb210Y
..•' (3 0 Ar::.-..-..• .... ,...v.< 11.,. ib , i I
Lar---siff.
4\1•1:1:--,:s4::::-(:).-71:-:::::-Iii:-!:_,3--
booAa. ri,. .......____,
m/ a, LI_ � ,\,- `.`ltat o� -: �� irk " .�:,`,`��;,I, ;��! �� . � ��:4.= `l I� 1 ``t\Itt\�`1T t1� ' , r'-.��' _-0 t It t t t ttt�•�:�tl ' i
-o rbflew
1 " 4t,', .r_; ;` )1 ,, r �O[ � - til �•� ,,`,I;,��F
00
OPlumb 1 A 0 PHASE i B Emmanuel Episcopal
r•rlr 1"_ Church
p.emwmd Yryau
f I
•111,
•. r mvw�' 1', -a` __ I-- j .,� �n •s
.-\ 'c!:i` `_, 7-I r �� � ---^r \ I ' -- � .. ,P i 3� —,„ - ,-13y -=-a � t I `- ; _��� - Ti . � _ +- _
•
•
_ems.iFi rj -amaA....---=mwr....---••:....‘...._( \ ; .NENE_ it....,..„, i ii..________ii ,c ......._.‘....r....1.,..±..„11 _.s. 0.\\\,,,\1— r _J--
0,irczli illaiu i ,
K_/ .,/kie., i
-0; *aR h' I t t'`•\tZ 1� ' f 7�-JCl � ( -0 f �'`I t',•`a�i t fpppfs�' 4«a
7OD �/ • -8l ' •t � 'I„`t`t I�`.', V'r J -a ,„, I , en.
777T'''•••• I t t t tt t t ' , 1v, . - r * 1 t t t t r I y,. Pal,m'u, Plan
Ar c r • r, t't`',;i Ir 7� ,� �?._r �� Y ri r iiJ It`,',t 14i
o l l ,, OA �x ;ram ��,o'�� r -. % I
o / i,�t o %/� Yt
_�7?�•p-e:s'sss-a!'!3 r _ c i,^f } ,l _ 6 - bf y Y � _ 1 3K"gyp= s ,.,: q P ' 1
//�J - - �' '--- - _ - -'f�-,1's„'. j^7 Wz-
_ - -_-- - ` ` '.1 �.'- i�' ,r„'�. Site Phasing
�,/ ����` --- -- ,Sw,1. ice.S--:, r- 4' _ �-,:-_ Diagram
e:,sore
O PHASE I c Oa PFNBE 2 _ye ^� «.-*-
r v v
r•ee r.ev ask rows
gAOF n
e
c
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Joan McDowell, Principle Planner
From: Glenn Brooks,County Engineer
Date: 7 Jan 2007 (Rev 4 comments below)
Subject: Emmanuel Episcopal Church(SP200700027)
The revised application plan and documents have been reviewed. Current comments are the Rev.4
comments below. I have included in this memo the previous comments for reference.
Comments of 11/12/2007
1. It still appears as though there are parking areas not captured by stormwater management. The proposed
stormwater management concept should be revised. Underground stormwater management should be
a last resort for very dense sites in the urban area. It is undesirable because of the difficulties of
monitoring, maintenance, and replacement. The applicant should perform a preliminary removal rate
computation for drainage areas, and provide a concept to meet it.
Rev.4: Underground stormwater management has been proposed in three locations. Underground
stormwater management is not appropriate on this site.
2. Left and Right turn lanes should be provided on Rt. 250. If the applicant does not wish to provide
these safety improvements, a warrant analysis should be performed using projected traffic at build-out
to establish the minimum requirements.
Rev.4: The applicant has refused to provide any additional information, citing the VDOT comments,
and a desire to keep the rural nature. Rt. 250 is a major arterial high-speed highway which continues
to grow. The safety of the parishioners and traveling public would be improved with turn lanes.
3. There are many narrow travelways and areas on the plan with dimensions and circulation concerns
which would not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements of 18-4.12. Curb and gutter and paving are
also required by this section.
Rev.4: The one-way circulation and drop-off at the end of the site loop do not appear practical. The
dimensions of parking and aisles appear otherwise as though they could meet ordinance requirements.
The curb and gutter requirement of 18-4.12 would need to be modified.
4. A critical slope waiver appears necessary. (18-4.2)
Rev.4: A separate memorandum has been provided.
Comments of 6/20/2007, repeated on 8/30/2007
1. A stormwater management concept is needed for the entrance road and 15 space parking area on the
right.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
2. Left and Right turn lanes should be provided on Rt. 250. If the applicant does not wish to provide
these safety improvements, a warrant analysis should be performed using projected traffic at build-out
to establish the minimum requirements.
3. An entrance could be eliminated on Rt. 250 by a frontage road connecting the religious education
building to the main site. At the least, a pedestrian connection could be established.