Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198500098 Review Comments 2007-10-22 (3)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph (434) 296 -5832 fax(434)972 -4012 July 19, 2007 Mark Lieberth Land Planning and Design Associates, Inc. 310 East Main Street, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP -07 -27 Emmanuel Episcopal Church Addition Dear Mr. Leiberth, Thank you for your application for a special use permit for re- configured and increased parking area, re- configuration of site circulation for vehicles, an additional building, columbarium, and memorial garden. As the first step in the review process, I have included comments regarding the proposed expansion of Emmanuel Episcopal Church from the following departments and agencies based on the submitted May 29, 2007: • Planning Division • Zoning and Current Development • Historic Preservation • Design Planning • County Engineering • Zoning and Current Development Division • Building Inspections • County Fire/Rescue • County Water Resources • Virginia Department of Transportation We have not heard from the Virginia State Department of Health to date; we will provide you with their comments as soon as we receive them. Planning Division: Amy Arnold, Planner The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as Rural Areas emphasizing the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as land use options. Under the Rural Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan the scale, type, and placement of the proposed parking areas, the scale of the proposed additional building, and the loss of mature trees on the site of this rural community church is of concern given the following Guiding Principles: "Protect the Rural Area's historic, archeological, and cultural resources. " "Protect and enhance rural quality of life for present and future Rural Area residents. " "Address the needs of existing rural residents withoutfostering growth and further suburbanization of the Rural Areas. " "Implement the applicable objectives of the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan. " • "Continue to identify and recognize the value of buildings, structures, landscapes, sites and districts which have historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance. " • "Pursue additional protection measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle's historic and archaeological resources in order to foster pride in the County and maintain the County's character. " Emmanuel Episcopal Church and adjacent properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The uses permitted by right under RA Zoning directly support agriculture, forestry, and the conservation of rural land. The Rural Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan includes the achievement, maintenance, and improvement of rural land patterning. Part of this vision includes the support of agricultural and forestal communities through community meeting places, at rural scales, that provide the opportunity to take part in community life. Planning staff feels the scale and character of this proposal as shown is not appropriate in the rural area and would like to see an alternative plan that includes: Locating the parking below and to the south of the ridge line and lessening the expanse of the proposed parking by utilizing smaller, multiple parking areas that work with the exiting contours of the ridge. This would place the parking between the existing land form, mature trees, and buildings and the forested area to the south. Reducing the size of the proposed additional building and incorporating the reduced building mass into the existing suite of buildings. Zoning and Current Development: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator 1. Please clarify what is existing and what is proposed as a result of this special use permit in terms of building, parking and the like. For example, it appears that the "religious education building" has been used as a house and will be converted to church use. 2 2. A portion of the "future structure" and the "possible stormwater management location" are on critical slopes. This will require a waiver from the Planning Commission. We suggest that this waiver be considered as part of this special use permit rather than later. 3. Please show floodplain. 4. Please clarify if either the sanctuary or Sunday School classroom area will be expanded as a result of this application. Do both occur at the same time? 5. Parking may be approved with a parking study. The number required under the ordinance without a study is based on EITHER fixed seats or area of assembly, not both. That said, the church has experience with insufficient parking such that cars are parking on the entrance road and not in parking areas. Please have the church clarify how many parking spaces exist and how many new ones are proposed. "Church: In the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan, if the area of assembly seats more than one hundred persons, one (1) space per three (3) fixed seats or per seventy -five (75) square feet of area of assembly, whichever shall be greater; if the area of assembly seats one hundred persons or fewer, one (1) space per four (4) fixed seats or per seventy -five (75) square feet of area of assembly, whichever shall be greater. In the rural areas identified in the comprehensive plan, the number of proposed spaces shall be shown in a parking study submitted by the church; the number of required spaces shall be determined by the zoning administrator, who shall consider the recommendations in the parking study, traffic generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, peak parking demands, and other relevant information. Nothing herein requires the parking study to be prepared by a transportation engineer. (Amended 2- 5 -03)" S. Will the religious education building be used at the same time or in conjunction with the church? If so, some type of pedestrian connection is advisable. Given the potential size of this building - please clarify the intended use and maximum square footage of this building on the sketch plan. 7. Please list the tax map and parcel numbers for these properties on the sketch plan. S. A site plan will be required for this proposed use. The applicant may chose to go directly to a final site plan if many of the physical design details and any waivers have been resolved. 9. How much of the cemetery is existing or was already approved under the 1999 special use permit? Please clarify existing versus proposed. Is any expansion of the mausoleum proposed? We will need topography and floodplain delineation (if any) for this entire area on the site plan. 10. (An issue which can be addressed with the site plan) — we suggest that the parcels be combined into one. If this is not done, we will need an easement plat for various features such as parking, stormwater management, etc. Historic Preservation: Julie Mahon, Historic Preservation Planner The Emmanuel Episcopal Church complex was listed in the Virginia Landmarks Register in 1981 and the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. The site is also included in the proposed Greenwood Rural Historic District and numerous individually significant historic resources stand in the area. The church is described by Ed Lay as an "outstanding example of early twentieth century Georgian Revival style ecclesiastical architecture in Albemarle County ". (Lay, The Architecture of Jefferson Country, pages 204 -06.) The church was first constructed in 1862 -63. In 1905 a bell tower was added and the front entrance was renovated. Between 1911 and 1914 the interior was renovated, and a larger bell tower, arcade, and parish house were added, all according to the designs of architect Waddy Wood. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources survey information states that Wood's work "exhibits the refinement and excellent craftsmanship associated with the best of early Colonial Revival buildings." (VDHR, Reconnaissance level survey form) DHR also notes that throughout its history, the church was associated with prominent local citizens. After a fire in the mid - twentieth century, the church was renovated and the parish hall was enlarged by Milton Grigg. Sited on the south side of Route 250 West, the church complex is a picturesque assemblage of buildings and mature trees. The siting of the main buildings on a ridge in this pastoral setting contributes to the scenic quality of the site, and the site, in turn, contributes significantly to the rural character of the overall corridor. Proposed changes and additions to the site should respect the siting of the historic buildings, the mature trees, and the rural character of the property. To maintain the character of the historic property, the visibility of formal parking areas should be further minimized and mature trees should be maintained. Moving parking areas away from the existing buildings to locations further to the south (behind the existing buildings) would be appropriate. This would reduce visibility of the parking from Route 250 and from the entrance into the site, thereby maintaining the prominence of the historic buildings within the site. It would also help preserve an important element within the corridor landscape. The "future building" is also a concern. At the size illustrated, it could overshadow the historic buildings and de- emphasize their importance. A smaller size and alternate location could result in a stronger (but still respectful) relationship to the existing buildings on site and could provide other opportunities for less visually intrusive parking locations. Because the site is significant and is listed in the state and national registers, it is recommended that the applicant contact the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and obtain their endorsement for the proposal as a condition of SP approval. Design Planning: Brent Nelson, Landscape Planner Issue: Disruption of existing vistas and views/Proposed parking and grading Comments: The bucolic setting of the historic church complex along the prominent ridge line is a primary feature in the site's scenic quality. The setting of the church contributes significantly to the character of the rural corridor. The Architectural Review Board is charged with approving only those proposals reflecting designs which are compatible with historically significant architecture of Albemarle County. This charge takes on special relevance and meaning given the site's aforementioned qualities, and the church's place on the Virginia Landmarks Register, and the National Register of Historic Places. The application plan calls for the reorganization of existing parking currently located in the northwest corner of the site, adjacent to the entrance corridor, and around the church complex and Marston/LaRue House. The random unregulated nature of the existing parking precludes the gathering of accurate existing parking totals. Total parking proposed with this application plan (excluding spaces in front of the Religious Education Center) would be 142 spaces with the majority (12 1) to occur along the prominent ridge line occupied by the church complex and Marston/LaRue House. This proposed parking layout would replace the rolling form of the ridge line with the more structured urban landform associated with parking lot design. A 140' long, 6' tall retaining wall is shown along the front (north) edge of the project area, northeast of the Marston/LaRue House. This wall would be one of the more visible site elements from the EC and is needed to support parking that is proposed on the steep hillside. The proposed landform would be contrary to the EC guideline that requires grading that does not change the basic relationship of the site to the surrounding conditions, grading that should instead blend into the surrounding topo creating a continuous landscape. In addition, the proposed parking layout encroaches upon the setting of the historic Marston/LaRue house, leaving little open space between its walls and the rows of parking just 20' away. Views of these historic structures from the Route 250W entrance corridor would be significantly hampered by the close proximity of parked vehicles. A hard surface parking area /travelway currently exists from the rear (south end) of the Parish Hall eastward behind the church to an area behind (south of) the Marston/LaRue House. Relocating parking proposed along the ridge line to that area, with expansion southward along the hillside behind, would preserve and respect the integrity of the church setting as seen from the EC and adjacent properties. The drop -off area proposed in front of the church, combined with additional handicap spaces in a location strategic to the church entrance, could meet the needs of those with accessibility issues. Recommendation: Relocate parking proposed along the ridgeline to the area directly behind the church complex and Marston/LaRue House. Issue: Loss of significant trees Comments: The application plan proposes the retention of a number of mature trees around the church complex, which is a positive reflection of ARB guidelines. Accurate representations of the drip line for these trees are not shown; therefore, impacts on these trees by proposed site improvements cannot be adequately assessed. Given the size of the trees to remain, it would appear that proposed grading will likely occur within the drip line of most, if not all, of these trees. It has been Planning /Community Development and ARB policy not to approve work within the drip line of trees to remain. It has been shown that trees are ultimately lost when development occurs within such close proximity, particularly when the trees are in the late stage of their life as so many of these are. 5 For this reason, it will be difficult for the ARB to approve a site plan that reflects the site and grading improvements as outlined in this application plan. Should an alternate parking layout not be feasible, the application plan should be revised to provide for replacement trees (large deciduous trees 3 1/2" caliper minimum and evergreen trees 10'— 12' tall minimum) for trees lost due to work within the drip line. Due to the high visibility of this site from the EC, this same standard should apply to all proposed trees visible from the EC, even when not acting as replacements. For many decades, vehicles have parked in an unregulated fashion beneath the grove of mature oaks located between the entrance corridor and the north end of the cemetery. The application plan shows this area being reorganized with parking spaces and travelways of a standard size with a gravel surface. Because proposed grading contours are not shown in this area, it cannot be determined from the information provided what, if any, disturbance would occur to the root area of these trees. Additional details are needed regarding installation and maintenance of the gravel surface to clarify this impact. The application plan also calls for the removal of a 24" caliper Spruce on the west side, and a 30" caliper Hemlock on the east side, of the entrance from Route 250W. Both trees are quite large and appear to be in relatively good health. Site improvements requiring their removal are not apparent. Due to their size and location, these trees contribute significantly to the vernacular landscape of the Route 250 corridor and should be retained. Recommendations: Revise the application plan to show an accurate representation of the drip line for all existing trees shown. Should an alternate parking layout not be feasible, revise the application plan to provide for replacement trees (large deciduous trees 3 1/2" caliper minimum and evergreen trees 10' —12' tall minimum) for trees lost due to work within the drip line. Revise the application plan to show all proposed trees visible from the EC, even those not acting as replacements, installed using these same minimum sizes. Provide additional information regarding the installation and maintenance of the gravel parking surface at the north end of the cemetery, clarifying the degree to which disturbance would occur within the drip line of the existing trees. Issue: Proposed building/Need for an interconnection /relationship with the existing church Comments: The application plan calls for a future structure, one -story at the front (north elevation), two or three stories at the rear (south elevation), located 90' behind (south of) the existing church, with a double stacked parking lot in between. The building would have a 50'x 120' footprint (6,000 sf) and represents a significant contrast to the 2,500 sf footprint of the sanctuary. Expansion on this site is constrained by the significant change in relief of the landform, the historic setting, and the proximity and size of the existing cemetery. As a result, the careful design and placement of building forms is even more critical if a unified and coherent building and site design is to be achieved. Entrance Corridor guidelines encourage the use of arcades, colonnades or other architectural connecting devices to unify groups of buildings within a development. The previous addition at Emmanuel Church was designed in this way. A carefully designed arcade successfully ties the 20'h 2 century parish hall to the 19th century sanctuary. Completing the next addition in a similar form and character would not only meet the ARB guidelines, but could present a logical, balanced site layout that maintains the integrity of the original resource and enhances the overall corridor. The applicant has indicated that the location of the future building was chosen largely out of a desire to reduce its visibility from the entrance corridor. Entrance Corridor guidelines, however, do not necessitate this approach. Showing the proposed structure as a visible addition to the church complex could enhance Entrance Corridor views, while in turn allowing parking to occupy the less visible portion of the site currently reserved for the proposed building. Recommendations: Revise the application plan to group building elements together and use buildings and existing landforms to screen views of site improvements. Show the proposed building expansion as an addition to the existing church complex, using arcades, colonnades or other architectural connecting devices to tie the proposed structure with the existing complex. The design should reflect a balance of existing and proposed building mass that respects the integrity of the original church complex. County Engineering: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer • A stormwater management concept is needed for the entrance road and 15 space parking area on the right. • 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. • 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. Building Inspections: Jay Schlothauer, Director of Inspections / Building Official No objection. County Water Resources: Tamara Ambler, Natural Resources Manager The rear of the properties (southeast) has floodplain and stream buffer restrictions. It appears that proposed improvements are outside of these areas, but it would be helpful to show the limits of these areas to ensure that the conceptual plan takes this into account. Virginia Department of Transportation: Joel DeNunzio, VDOT Charlottesville Residency After visiting the site, the Virginia Department of Transportation has asked that a 150 foot turn lane and a 100 foot taper with a 35 foot radius be incorporated into the design of the vehicular entrance at Route 250 west. Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues pertaining to the approval of the proposed project. If you choose not to address the requested revisions, please submit justification in writing. Submit seven sets of the additional information 7 requested to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Responses to the attached comments of the Site Review Committee must be submitted by Friday, August 17, 2007. Failure to submit this information by this date may result in suspension of the review schedule. Once you all have had the opportunity to review the comments, please give me a call. I would like to arrange to meet with you all to discuss the next steps in the process. Sincerely, Amy Ransom Arnold Planner, Rural Areas 434 - 296 -5832 ex 3272 aarnold@albemarte.org