Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198500098 Review Comments 2007-10-220 AIg� o� rte: vIRGINX County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: August 28, 2007 Subject: SP 2007 -027 Emmanuel Episcopal Church — second zoning comments I have reviewed the second submittal and have the following comments and questions: 1. The revised plan further addresses my first comment asking for clarity about what exists and what is proposed. However, it is not clear which parking exists and what is proposed. 2. Based on my research it appears that the "religious education building" was not included in the prior special use permit (SP 99 -48). Therefore, it has not been previously approved. Because the property on which it is located is part of this special use permit, it will become conforming as a result of this approval. It may possibly be relevant to determine when this use began in order to best know how to review it. If it was not previously approved and should have been, we should be certain it meets any relevant Building Codes for a change of use. In addition, because it has a separate entrance and parking and becomes somewhat of a freestanding use, it might be worthwhile to understand the use. For example, does it solely serve this church? In addition, if it "may be" used as a fellowship hall, what is the pedestrian path by which people will travel to it? 3. Even though the applicant has responded that they expect to avoid critical slopes for the proposed future structure and the storm water management facility, the proposed locations appear to necessitate critical slopes disturbance. It appears that alternative locations will eliminate the need to disturb critical slopes. We continue to recommend that we address this at this time. If not, please write a condition of approval that clearly states that the critical slopes disturbance is not approved and will require further PC approval or redesign of the plan. 4. We are typically not in support of plans showing "proposed future structure." Please write a condition of approval that will address the possible size and use of the "proposed future structure." If the applicant does not expect to begin construction within two (2) years, they should seek an extension of time for SP validity (Section 31.2.4.4). 5. Because this site is somewhat limited by topography, it may be difficult to provide additional parking if it will be necessary for the proposed uses. We suggest that a parking study be provided and reviewed at this time. It is not clear what parking exists and what is proposed. 6. Staff has mentioned the need to preserve trees and reduce the number that are lost. Significant trees should be identified and a tree conservation plan should be submitted as part of the site plan. If this issue is critical to the SP review, it should be done at this time in conjunction with parking approval by the Zoning Administrator. 7. Please clarify the applicant's response comment about VDOT requirements. It would be atypical if only a residential entrance is required.