Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201000014 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2010-12-21A U �Sl-G �'IRGII314+ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 December 20, 2010 Brian Smith 105 W. High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP201000014 St. Stephen's Church Addition Dear Mr. Smith: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for a special use permit to bring existing church and adjunct cemetery into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and to allow a 1,596 square foot addition to the church and re- arrange parking on 2.35 acres. We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your goes to public hearing. Our comments are consolidated below: Planning Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. 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. Churches are integral to the historic context of rural communities. 1. Please remove reference to signs on plan. 2. Please provide the max. square feet of the proposed addition. 3. Correct setback note. 4. Correct lighting note. 5. Will there be any other uses in the church buildings, such as day care, after school care? If so, a separate special use permit may be required. 5. Suggest that the applicant request additional time for the special use permit to begin (usually five years instead of the required two years). This request will be included in the conditions of approval. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amelia McCulley: 1. The side setback in the Rural Areas is 25 feet from the property line. The setback on the south side is adjacent to Wynova Lane. If this is an access easement, the 25 ft setback is measured from the edge of the access easement. Please revise the notes and graphic BSL to reflect this. 2. It is not advisable to include signs (graphically or by note) on the plan at this stage. 3. The parking requirement is based on either fixed seats or area of assembly, whichever is greater (see below). However, in the Rural Areas, they can submit a parking study to show a different number of spaces to be necessary than the other stated calculation. Please clarify which standard is being proposed (stated number with greater requirement between the two, or through a parking study). 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) 4. The parking proposed at the entrance will involve handicapped vehicles backing into the entrance and this does not seem advisable. Please consider comments from Current Development on this. 5. Since we often condition a church addition by the general size and/or the major elements, it would be good to consider what is relevant to this application. With a proposed building addition at such an odd number, if we condition the size, I suggest that we give them a small amount of wiggling room. Current Development The following comments have been provided related to how your proposal may or may not be able to meet site plan or subdivision ordinance requirements in the future by Bill Fritz: 1. After approval of the special use permit the applicant will need to obtain Site Plan approval. 2. Parking spaces 1, 2 and 3 are located in close to the entrance and in an area of turning movements. These spaces should be eliminated. 3. Unless a modification is granted curbing will be required in the parking lot. (reference 4.12.15g) 4. The only place that it appears a drainfield can be located is under the parking lot. I would encourage the applicant to obtain health department approval prior to action on the special use permit. Health department approval will be required prior to site plan approval. 5. Limited area is available for stormwater management. The applicant is encouraged to take this into consideration at this time as it may possibly affect the layout of the development. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn Brooks: 1. The additions can be recommended for approval with a few minor changes. 2. The stream buffer should now be shown at the limit of the floodplain, which is greater than 100' in this case. 3. Water quality management will need to be provided. The Water Protection Ordinance does not have a threshold for water quality protection, only the 1 acre limit on detention requirements. Entrance Corridor /Historic Preservation: The following comments have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: 1. St. Stephens Church is a contributing resource in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. The location of the addition to the side and behind the line of the fagade of the historic church is appropriate. It is N recommended that the architectural design of the addition be compatible with the scale, style, materials, colors and general character of the existing church. Architecturral drawings were not submitted with the concept plan, so a determination cannot be made in this regard. 2. The lighting note included on the plan does not reflect the current ordinance language. If the note will remain on the plan, it should read as follows: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full coutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaries onto the public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle VDOT Comments from VDOT were provided by Joel DeNunzio, PE Staff Engineer: 1. Provide left and right turn lane warrant analysis for the entrance. 2. Show sight distances in accordance with Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual, page F -35. 3. Provide a drainage easement around the relocated culvert under the road. 4. The entrance dimensions need to be in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F, page F -98. Health Department Comments from the Health Department were provided by Bill Craun: The soils report shows suitable soils to support a drainfield area for their usage. Please let me know if you need additional information Fire and Rescue The following comment related to Fire Dept. issues has been provided by James Barber: Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Resubmittal or Public Hearing Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule (the full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page), OR (2) Request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission based on the information provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule as mutually agreed to by you and the County), OR (3) Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal. Unless you fail to respond within the time periods specified above, a public hearing with the Planning Commission will not be advertised until you advise us that the project is ready to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, a legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper and a staff report will be prepared to go to the Planning Commission. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. Sincerely, Joan McDowell Principal Planner Rural Areas CC: Esmont Episcopal Church Attn: Treasurer P.O. Box 337 Scottsville, VA 24590 Reis. 6 -140