Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200800029 Legacy Document 2009-03-17COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP200800029 South Plains Staff: Scott Clark Presbyterian Church Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: March 24, 2009 May 13, 2009 Owner/s: South Plains Church Applicant: South Plains Church Acreage: 4.95 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.35, 35, church building and adjunct cemetery TMP: Tax Map 80 Parcel 116 Existing Zoning and By -right use: Location: 410 Black Cat Road, at the RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and intersection of Black Cat Road (Route 616) fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre and Louisa Road (Route 22) in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions or Proffers: Yes RA (Rural Areas) Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a Proposal: Addition of new fellowship hall and Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural sanctuary to existing church Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots) Character of Property: Historic church site Use of Surrounding Properties: on rural highway. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. There are no known significant 1. The proposed design has significant physical limitations that would prevent impacts on the historic character of the this expansion. existing church and site, as well as the Entrance Corridor. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with conditions. Petition: PROPOSED: Addition of new fellowship hall and sanctuary to existing church. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access SECTION: 10.2.2.35, 35, church building and adjunct cemetery COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 410 Black Cat Road, at the intersection of Black Cat Road (Route 616) and Louisa Road (Route 22) Character of the Area: The area is characterized by large farms on the east side of the Southwest Mountains, as well as some smaller residential parcels. The church site is included in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. The surrounding land is largely open, with scattered patches of woods. The church is located on Route 22, which is in the Entrance Corridor zoning overlay and is designated a Virginia Byway. Union Grove Church is located approximately 600 feet away to the east. The church's date of construction cannot be verified—some sources say it was built in the early 190' century, while others say it was built in the 1870s. The church is a good example of vernacular Gothic Revival architecture. The rectory was built in the 1870s to replace the original rectory, which had burned. Both structures contribute to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. See Attachment C for an aerial view of the site. The historic church has a footprint of 1,230 square feet and seats up to 80 people. The church is currently holding two services each Sunday in order to accommodate its membership. Specifics of the Proposal: The applicants are proposing to expand the church use by adding a fellowship hall with offices and Sunday school classrooms (5,218 square feet with 126 seats) and a connected larger sanctuary (3,200 square feet with 225 seats). The existing church and the rectory (or manse) would be retained at their current size. Neither of the new structures would connect to the existing church, but the manse would be attached to the rear of the new fellowship hall. See Attachment D for the proposed plan for the site, and Attachment E for an elevation. Planning and Zoning Histo South Plains Presbyterian Church is an existing nonconforming church, as it was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning in Albemarle County. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Rural Areas, emphasizing the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources. The Comprehensive Plan's "Vision for Rural Albemarle County" says that two important features of the Rural Areas are: • Protected historic structures, archaeological sites, and other cultural resources; • Rural citizens supported by community meeting places, a basic level of services, and rural organizations SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 2 and other cultural institutions at traditional rural scales, with opportunities to take part in community life and decisions; The Guiding Principles of the Rural Area chapter also state that historic resources and scenic resources are among the defining components of the Rural Areas. While this church currently provides a cultural institution and meeting place at a traditional rural scale, the proposed expansion would provide the same benefits at a more suburban scale (but one intended to support the church's larger and growing congregation). The proposed plan would retain the historic chapel (separate fro, but in close proximity to, the larger new buildings) but largely efface the historic manse by attaching it to the rear of a new structure. Regulatory Context: This application is subject to the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). One key provision of RLUIPA states: No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution — (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (italics added) 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1). RLUIPA also requires that land use regulations: (1) treat a religious assembly or institution on equal terms with nonreligious assemblies and institutions; (2) not discriminate against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination; and (3) not totally exclude religious assemblies, or unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions or structures, from the locality. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b). STAFF CONEUENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, Neighbors have expressed concerns over the visibility of the parking and structures from adjacent properties (see Attachment H). The applicants have moved the proposed parking from the rear of the property to the front. (Please note that this design change conflicts with staff design review comments discussed below.) However, the new buildings would be visible from the adjacent property to the southeast. Staff recommends a condition (#5) to create a vegetated buffer on the 0.38 -acre open area at the southeast side of the church property (see Attachment C) to reduce the visual impacts. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and The increasing sizes of rural churches raise concerns over their physical and aesthetic impacts on their surroundings. In this case, the surrounding district would still be rural in character, but this particular property would be more intensely developed. However, given the regulations discussed above under "Regulatory Context," an increase in a church's capacity is considered a part of its religious activity. This application has been reviewed by Architectural Review Board staff and design -planning staff, who have concerns about how the proposed plan would impact historic resources on the site and the historic character of the SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 3 area, views from the Entrance Corridor, and landscaping on the site. (Design issues with special use permits are typically reviewed by staff. The full Architectural Review Board analysis occurs during site -plan review, which occurs after special use permits are approved.) See Attachment F for design -review comments, and Attachment G for historic -preservation comments and a response from the Historic Preservation Committee. In summary, these concerns include: • Changes in historic character caused by locating the new, larger structures more prominently than the historic church • Loss of significant trees due to building construction, and the appropriateness of proposed plantings • Loss of the historic character of the manse (or rectory), and resulting incompatibility of building designs, if the manse is attached to the rear of the new fellowship hall • Visual impacts of the large front parking area on the Entrance Corridor Significant differences remain between the proposed plan and staff recommendations. Although staff had recommended that the applicants discuss these differences with the Commission at a work session, the applicants have decided to go directly to a public hearing with the attached proposal. Staff's standard practice with special use permits for churches is to only recommend approval in accord with a specific conceptual plan. However, given the extent of outstanding design issues in this case, staff is recommending that the church not be held to the proposed conceptual plan. This would allow the Architectural Review Board to do a full review of the design during the County's review of the site plan for this use, whereas a specific conceptual plan would severely limit the scope of their review. Therefore staff is recommending that only the size of the expansion be controlled by this special use permit. Proposed condition #1 would allow for a ten percent increase over the proposed building sizes in order to allow minor changes without the need for a special use permit amendment. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The Virginia Department of Transportation has confirmed that the planned entrance, which is located on Black Cat Road rather than on Route 22, is acceptable. The applicants have stated that 75 parking spaces are needed for the eventual total sanctuary seating capacity of 225 persons. Staff is recommending a condition of approval limiting parking to 75 spaces in order to ensure that traffic and water quality impacts do not increase beyond those expected from the current proposal. The applicants have proposed to use porous pavers in the parking area to reduce runoff, which staff supports. The specific pavers to be used will need to be approved by the County Engineer during site plan review in order to ensure that materials appropriate to the intensity of this use are installed. The submitted conceptual plan does not show stormwater facilities. At the site -plan stage, those facilities will need to be shown and approved by the County Engineer. SUNMARY: There are two distinct aspects to this review—the general health, safety, and welfare impact of the use, and the impact of this particular design on historic preservation and the Entrance Corridor. Staff feels that the use as proposed at this location is acceptable in terms of general health, safety, and welfare considerations. However, staff still has significant concerns about the design of the addition, and feels that design review should be carried SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 4 out by the Architectural Review Board at the site -plan stage without the limitations of a conceptual plan. Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application: 1. There are no known significant physical limitations that would prevent this expansion. Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application: 1. The proposed design has significant impacts on the historic character of the existing church and site, as well as the Entrance Corridor. RECOMMENDED ACTION• Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 2008-00029 South Plains Presbyterian Church with the following conditions: 1. The footprint of the new sanctuary shall not exceed 3,550 square feet. The footprint of the new fellowship hall shall not exceed 5,750 square feet. 2. Provided parking shall not exceed 75 spaces. 3. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to properties zoned Rural Areas. 4. Stormwater facilities and parking lot surface meeting the approval of the County Engineer shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use. 5. Staff approval of a landscape plan shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use. Plantings for screening of the church facilities, to consist of a naturalistic pattern of multi -species trees and shrubs, as listed in the brochure titled "Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau," published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, are to fill the open area shown on Attachment C of the staff report. These plantings are to be arranged in a density that would mitigate views of the new church facilities, with a spacing allowing the natural form/habit of the plant material to be recognized. 6. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; 7. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems. 8. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Area Map Attachment B - Detail Map Attachment C - Conceptual Plan Attachment D - Aerial Photo Attachment E - Elevation Attachment F - ARB Staff Comments Attachment G - Design Planner Comments on Historic Preservation (refers to original submission) Attachment H - Comment from neighboring landowners Attachment I - Letter to Planning Commission from Applicants SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 5 SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 6 1 1 Attachment A SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Attachment B Staff Report Page 7 SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Attachment C Staff Report Page 8 SP 2008-29 Attachment D PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 9 4 k SP 2008-29 Attachment D PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 9 SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 10 Attachment E COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 lug I �1► [�7:7:�t;11111u I TO: Scott Clark FROM: Brent Nelson RE: Design Planning comments on: SP 2008-29: South Plains Presbyterian Church, Construction of the Fellowship Hall, Sanctuary, and Parking Lot DATE: March 11, 2009 I have reviewed the revised plan submitted for the above -referenced proposal (Sheets A0, SP2, and SP3 dated 1/19/09; Sheet SP 1 with revision date of 11/14/08; Sheet SP4 with revision date of 1/17/09; and architectural rendering undated and received 2/17/09). I have the following comments related to Entrance Corridor issues. Issue: Loss of Significant Trees Comments: The pastoral setting of the historic church and manse is a primary feature of 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 site and building proposals that reflect designs which are compatible with historically significant architecture of Albemarle County. The location of the proposed sanctuary (Phase 2), as shown on the current submission, requires the removal of an existing 33" Red Oak located 20' northeast of the proposed sanctuary. This tree, and others like it, contributes significantly to the vernacular landscape of Route 22, so its loss would significantly impact the Corridor. It appears that shifting the location of the sanctuary and fellowship hall southeastward could avoid the removal of this tree. Staff cannot support a proposal that would remove significant trees when alternate building locations are available. Recommendations: Revise the Conceptual Site Plan to show the 33" Red Oak, located 20' northeast of the proposed sanctuary, remaining. Revise the plan by shifting the location of the proposed Sanctuary and Fellowship Hall footprints southeastward to avoid conflicts with the canopy and root system of the 33" Red Oak Issue: Proposed Building Design/Compatibility with Manse Comments: In this latest submission, the sanctuary footprint, previously 95'x48' (4,560 sf) has been reduced in size to 50'x65' (3,250 sf). The location of the northwest (EC) elevation of the sanctuary has been shifted southeastward, away from the Corridor, to align with the adjacent northwest (EC) elevation of the fellowship hall. Whereas the reduction in size and relocation of the sanctuary footprint represent positive steps in giving the existing church more visual hierarchy, the location and size of the fellowship hall continues to deemphasize the architecture of the existing historic church. Shifting the location of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall further southeastward, so the distance from the Entrance Corridor to the front (northwest) elevation of the existing church and the northwest (EC) elevation of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall is more equal, would give the architecture of the existing church more hierarchy, as viewed from the Corridor. This would further help to mitigate the imbalance in scale between the existing and proposed structures. SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 11 Attachment F The existing 2 -story, frame rectory, adjoining the south (rear) elevation of the proposed fellowship hall, originally designated for demolition, is designated as to remain in the current proposal. It appears that the upper section of this structure would be visible from the Entrance Corridor; however, it is not shown in the perspective drawing provided with this latest submission. The rectory, while an important historic structure that should be retained and reused, is of an architectural style and material (frame) composition that is not compatible with the sanctuary and fellowship hall. As a result, it would have an awkward and unresolved appearance in its current close proximity to the sanctuary and fellowship hall. This awkward relationship would be even more visible from the Corridor during Phase 1 of this development due to construction of the proposed sanctuary not taking place until Phase 2 of the development. Relocating the existing rectory to another location on the parcel where it maintains an appropriate distance from and orientation to the proposed structures would be more appropriate. Recommendations: Revise the Conceptual Site Plan by shifting the location of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall southeastward so the distance from the Entrance Corridor to the front (northwest) elevation of the existing church and the northwest (EC) elevation of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall is more equal, giving the architecture of the existing church more hierarchy, as viewed from the Corridor. If possible, relocate the existing rectory, displaced by the revised sanctuary/fellowship hall location, to a location on the parcel that would provide an appropriate distance from and orientation to the proposed structures. Issue: Proposed Parking/Location and Design Comments: In the previous submission, half of the proposed parking (45 spaces) was shown behind, southeast of, the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall. The other half (45 spaces) was shown in the northeast corner of the parcel, adjacent to the Route 22 Entrance Corridor. In this latest submission, all of the proposed parking (75 spaces) is shown in an L -shape lot centered in the north corner of the site, directly adjacent to the Route 22 Entrance Corridor and the Route 616 right-of-way. The edge of the parking lot is shown approximately 15' from the Route 22 pavement edge and 10' from the Route 616 pavement edge. Street trees are proposed, 35' on center, between the parking lot and the Route 22 Corridor. The urban -like appearance of this parking lot design, further hi-lited with the characteristic consistent spacing of street trees, is inappropriate for the rural setting of this Corridor. The location and design of the parking lot detracts from the architecture of the existing and proposed structures, while also reducing the wooded appearance that currently characterizes the setting. Recommendations: Revise the proposal to show a minimum of parking between the existing/proposed buildings and the Route 22 Entrance Corridor. Show the remaining parking at the rear of the site, behind the buildings. Provide a landscape proposal that retains the wooded character of the site, as seen from the Corridor, with the planting of additional trees. SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Attachment F Staff Report Page 12 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Clark FROM: Margaret Maliszewski DATE: March 11, 2009 RE: SP -2008-29: South Plains Presbyterian Church I have reviewed the revised plan submitted for the above -referenced proposal (Sheets A0, SP2 and SP3 dated 1/19/09; Sheet SP1 with revision date of 11/14/08; Sheet SP4 with revision date of 1/17/09; and architectural rendering undated and received 2/17/09). I have the following comments related to historic preservation issues. Sources differ as to the construction date of the South Plains Church. Some cite the early nineteenth century as the date of construction; others say the 1870s. The church is a good example of vernacular Gothic Revival architecture. The rectory was built in the 1870s to replace the original rectory which had burned. Both structures contribute to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. Issue: Parking/Wooded Area Comments: The parking layout has changed from the previous proposal. Parking is no longer proposed behind the church. It is now proposed in an L-shaped lot centered at the north corner of the site, along the Route 22 Entrance Corridor and along Route 616. This parking layout has a suburban appearance that is not appropriate for this EC and its location between the building and the EC diminishes the visual prominence of the church. Its location (and the proposed development, in general) also limits the ability of the site to maintain a wooded rural character that is the appropriate historic appearance for this corridor. Although the planting of new trees with the development is appropriate, the consistently spaced row of trees proposed along the parking area projects an appearance that is inconsistent with the historic character of the site and the corridor. The loss of mature trees is a concern. Recommendations: Maintain a minimal amount of parking at the front of the site. Move parking to the rear of the site. Maintain a rural wooded appearance along Route 22 and Route 616 by retaining existing trees and planting new trees. Issue: Position of new buildings Comments: The prominence of the historic church is reduced by the size and position of the fellowship hall and the phase 2 sanctuary. Placing the new structures forward of the front elevation of the historic church is not a positive aspect of this proposal. The perspective rendering can be a useful tool; however, architectural elevations illustrating the proposed additions together with the existing church are needed to fully assess the impacts of the proposal, particularly regarding compatibility of building heights and SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Attachment G Staff Report Page 13 scale. Recommendations: Locate the new structures so that they do not project forward of the front elevation of the historic church. Issue: Rectory Comments: • The proposal retains the rectory, which is positive. However, the integrity and significance of the rectory are destroyed by the method of connecting the buildings and the resulting relationship among the buildings. The junction of the buildings is expected to have an extremely awkward appearance. Building the new structures around the rectory, as proposed, ignores its historic significance and discounts its architectural form and character. • Should demolition of the rectory be considered to accommodate an alternate site layout, full documentation of the structure prior to demolition would be appropriate. Recommendations: If the rectory is to be retained, integrate it into the new development in a way that retains it historic character, significance and integrity. If the rectory will be demolished, provide the County will full documentation of the structure in photographs and drawings. The documentation shall be undertaken by a qualified architectural historian. The rectory shall not be demolished prior to approval of the site plan for the development. Issue: Pergola Comments: The pergola is represented differently on the rendering and the site plan. Located in front of the historic church, the pergola tends to diminish the church's significance. Recommendations: Coordinate drawings regarding the location of the pergola. Eliminate the pergola from in front of the historic church. General Recommendations: Any development plan for this historic site should be established in a way that maintains the prominence of the existing sanctuary. It is recommended that new structures be located to reinforce the existing church as the main resource on site. Positioning new structures behind the front face of the existing church is recommended. It is preferred that the rectory also be retained and fully integrated into the development, but maintaining the prominence of the existing church is the priority. Maintaining the character of the wooded site is also important, particularly along Route 22 and Route 616. This will require a significant reduction in the size of the parking lot at the front of the site. Historic Preservation Committee comments: Following the request of a member of the Historic Preservation Committee to see the proposal, the Historic Preservation Committee discussed the proposal at its meeting on December 22, 2008. The committee had the following comments regarding the 11/14/08 plan: • The historic character of the existing sanctuary should be respected. The sanctuary and the rectory are contributing structures in the Southwest Mountains Historic District. • The proposed development does not protect the historic character of the sanctuary or the rectory. • The historic nature of Route 22 and the landscape along it should be respected. • Access to the site should be limited to Black Cat Road; access should not be made from Route 22. • Trees located between the face of the addition and Route 22 should not be disturbed. Tree protection throughout the site is extremely important. • Establish additional vegetation to compensate for lost trees, particularly at Route 22/Black Cat Road. SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Attachment G Staff Report Page 14 January 30, 2009 Scott Clark, Senior Planner County of Albemarle, Community Planning Dept. 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: South Plains Church, Keswick, Site Plan — Revision 2 Dear Scott: Thanks for allowing me to review the newly revised site plan (dated January 20, 2009) of the South Plains Church. To recap, our property is Heathcote Farm, the 16.617 acre parcel that is T.M. 80 PAR. 114A, Parcel No. 08000- 00-00-114A0. Our property borders the church on the two sides where the church does not border public roads. In addition, not contiguous to the church, but within approximately 12-20 feet of its western border, we also own 4027 Louisa Road, Keswick, T.M. 80 PAR 115, Parcel No. 0800-00-00-11500, which will also be significantly impacted by development of the church property. We appreciate that the most recent revision has addressed our concerns regarding parking and traffic into the rear and interior of the site. Having the front of the new sanctuary face the front of the property and placing all the parking in the front areas of the property is a significant improvement that is better not only for us as the church's immediate neighbor, but for the entire community. We do, however, continue to share the County's other concerns raised in its review of the original plan regarding the loss of trees and the siting and size of the buildings, and their potential to diminish the beauty and significance of the original church. We do wish to note that even with the helpful changes in this revision, this project will still cause a significant disturbance to, and detrimental impact on, our property. As the winter photos of the area I sent to you last December illustrate, the existing buffer is made up of hardwood trees. When they drop their leaves, we have a clear view of the church and manse from our property, and we will have a clear view of the two new buildings as well. To reduce these negative impacts, we recommend that as a condition of the special use permit, evergreen trees be planted as added screening, perhaps along the line of the existing tree line. Because the location of these trees would be at a significantly lower elevation than the new buildings, it will take many years before that buffer adequately screens either Kirk Hall or the Sanctuary. Therefore, these evergreens should be planted in Phase One and be at least as large as those planted by the Little Keswick School as part of its construction of a dormitory on our western boundary, which was a condition of their special use permit. In your December comments, you suggested native plantings for a buffer, and we look forward to working with you on that. We hope these comments have been constructive and look forward to receiving your and the county's comments on the revised site plan. Sincerely, Jonathan Rintels Patricia C. Rintels SP 2008-29 Attachment H PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 15 A!'f ATWOOD ARCHITECTS INC. March 10, 2009 Mr. Scott Clark County of Albemarle Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville VA 22902 Re: SP 2008-00029 South Plains Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Clark and Planning Commissioners: The South Plains Church Special Use Permit request will be heard before the Planning Commission at their March 24`h, 2009 meeting. Below you will find the highlights of our proposal as it has evolved during the review process. We feel the concept plan as submitted responds to a majority of staff comments while balancing the needs of the congregation for space and basic requirements such as restroom facilities. • County engineering staff has indicated that concrete porous paver block system is appropriate for the parking lot. We have included information on the Advanced Pavement Technology system with this letter. This is a potential option for the parking lot that allows for water to permeate the surface and drain into the ground. Subsurface layers and drain are included for more extensive rain events. • Details of stormwater management for water quality and volume will be provided on the site plan. Our basic strategy for the site is to use permeable surfaces and rainwater harvesting to recharge the groundwater and keep as much water on site. • South Plains Presbyterian Church is located on a heavily wooded site with many large specimen trees. Of particular importance is a 51 inch White Oak tree that is located beside the Chapel and is potentially as old as the Chapel itself. The proposed concept plan represents minimal impact to the trees on this site by consolidating the parking areas to one location that avoids most trees and also provides convenient access to members of the congregation who are physically challenged. • The new proposal for South Plains contains a single entrance to the site at the safest possible location, internal circulation, and it avoids any damage to the 51 -inch White Oak. Please contact me to discuss any of our responses at 434-971-7202. Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. Sincerely, Ashley Cooper, AICP SP 2008-29 Attachment I PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 16 0� ADVANCED_ PAVEMEW Jl TECHNOLOGY Pedestrian Friendly, Environmentally Advanced The Aqua-Bric° Series Advanced Pavement Technology presents a pedestrian -friendly stormwater management system featuring Aqua -Brice permeable pavers. The smooth, flat surface created using Aqua -Brice meets ADA standards and is a superior choice for areas with high foot traffic - even for pedestrians in high heels or wheel chairs. Ideal for plazas, walkways, entrances and parking lots*, Aqua -Brice is used by Advanced Pavement Technology to implement the environmentally sound Bio -Aquifer Storm System (BASSI"') See back side for more information. Aqua -E Type 1 Dimensions: Nom. 5" x 10" x 23/8" Benefits of BASSTM with Aqua-Bric® • Meets pedestrian slip resistance standards from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Architectural Guidelines, as well as EPA Storm - water requirements • Provides smooth surfaces with minimal openings to make walking more comfortable • Allows for rapid removal of stormwater through void openings • Eliminates standing water for plazas and walkways without sloping • Maximizes design flexibility by enabling a wide range of creative patterns • Simplifies maintenance in climates with ice Patent pending. Additional sizes available. and snow * May be used in light vehicular designs with 4"x 8"x 3 Y4" pavers; see Advanced Pavement Technology for site-specific details. SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 17 When used as part of Advanced Pavement Technology's exclusive BASSTM method, these pavers allow for natural stormwater drainage and groundwater recharge, making the paved surface ecologically sound and economically smart. In fact, the BASSTM method is an acceptable post -structural Best Management Practice (BMP) used to meet the federal stormwater management requirements. Roads and parking lots created using BASSTM with these permeable pavers offer vast benefits: • Meeting EPA stormwater requirements with a superior solution for NPDES Phase II • Achieving significant savings and fostering eco- logical integrity through enhanced land planning • Outperforming other systems in harsh climates or with freeze/thaw cycles • Delivering maximum strength to handle heavy vehicular traffic (Aqua-LocTm and Eco -Brick TM) • Producing remarkable curb appeal and conve- nient maintenance access • Providing outstanding results on a 50 -year life- cycle cost analysis Aqua-Bric°, Aqua-Locim, Eco-BrickTm and Aqua-Bricloc® are licensed shapes, available only from Advanced Pavement Technology or selected national manufacturers. The pavers are manufactured according to ASTM C936 specifications. They can be produced in a variety of custom colors and installed using manual or mechanical methods. The new paver shapes can also be combined during installation to achieve a number of attractive patterns in an ecological pavement system. Bio -Aquifer Storm SystemTM Eco -Swale TM 1/8" Joints J Aqua -Brice Handl Tight Concrete `F Curb 2" Bedding Topsoil Fill X 4" Base 12" Sub -Base Min. a' Sub -Grade r Perforated Pipe Ecologically sound. Economically smart. And exclusively from Advanced Pavement Technology. For more information about the BASSTM program, please contact Advanced Pavement Technology toll-free at (877) 551-4200 or visit our website at www.advancedpavement.com. A 0 V A N C E 0, Ecological Paver Systems Division 0543 PAVEME11rr 67 Slon-free (7 Road Oswego, Illinois 1-420 ojl� Toll-free (877) 551-4200 I (630) 551-4200 I Fax (630) 551-4225 T E C H N O L O G Y crt@advancedpavement.com I pat@advancedpavement.com ♦��•�� www.advancedpavement.com © 2007 Advanced Pavement Technology. All rights reserved. BASSI"', ECO-SWALET"', Aqua -Loci'", and Eco-BrickT" are trademarks of Advanced Pavement Technology. Aqua -Eric® and Aqua-Bricloc® are registered trademarks of Advanced Pavement Technology. SP 2008-29 PC March 24, 2009 Staff Report Page 18