HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500003 Review Comments 2015-02-27 AOOFF A
$�lii+�llllll
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
From: Francis MacCall, Principal Planner
Division: Zoning
Date: February 27, 2015
Subject: SP 2015-007 All Saints Chapel - Church— initial zoning comments
Please consider the following comments:
1. The analysis of the parking spaces provided by the applicant is sufficient for use that currently
exists and for the expansion of the social hall. If additional parking is needed they should be
able to work out a parking agreement with the school and any pedestrian access to the church
from the school parking lots should be made part of the concept plan.
2. Standard church conditions should apply, including the appropriate "general accord"with major
elements condition.
3. Zoning has no issue with the site plain exception request.
4. Extension of the time to commence the use beyond the standard 24 months may be
necessary.
a VIII 'fir
,
Christopher Perez
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 4:58 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: All Saints
Christopher,
I don't have a formal action memo or letter yet, but here is the ARB's actions on the All Saints plan and SP from today's
ARB meeting. Please let me know if you have questions.
Margaret
ARB-2015-12: All Saint's Chapel-Initial Site Plan and Special Use Permit(TM/Parcel 04800000001600)
Proposal:To construct an addition to an historic church and to undertake associated site improvements.
Location: 3929 Stony Point Road, on the south side of Stony Point Road, approximately 125'west of Merrie Meadows
Lane
,° Regarding the Request for the Special Use Permit:
Motion: Mr. Missel made a motion that the ARB forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors regarding ARB-2015-12,All Saint's Chapel.
The ARB has no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit with the following conditions:
" € 1. Materials and colors of the addition shall be compatible with the materials and colors of the historic chapel.
2. Except for repair and maintenance of the fence where there is no substantial change in design, and except for
renovation of the fence to accommodate a gate to provide access from the parking area to the existing front
entrance of the chapel where the gate design is compatible in form and materials with the fence design, the fence
and its end posts shall be retained without change.
Mr. Lebo seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0.
regarding the initial site plan design:
Motion: Mr. Lebo moved that the ARB forward the recommendations outlined in the staff report to the agent for the Site
Review Committee, as follows:
• Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per§ 18-30.6.4(2), (3)and (5):
1. Show on the plan existing trees to be retained or new trees to be planted to meet frontage requirements west of the
western fence/fence post.
2. Revise the plan to show 3 additional trees(existing to be retained or new to be planted)along the south and east
sides of the parking lot to meet the perimeter parking lot requirement.
3. Revise the plan to show the existing fence posts. Include a note on the plan indicating except for repair and
maintenance of the fence where there is no substantial change in design, and except for renovation of the fence to
accommodate a gate to provide access from the parking area to the existing front entrance of the chapel where the
gate design is compatible with the fence design,the fence and its end posts shall be retained without change.
• Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
1. Reconfigure the entrance drive ann parking to reduce clearing and paving in close proximity to the EC.
to Regarding recommended conditions of initial plan approval:
1. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval.
2. Indicate existing and proposed materials and colors on the elevation drawing.New materials and colors shall be
compatible with those of the historic chapel.
3. Provide window glass specs on the elevation drawing: Include a note stating that Visible Light Transmittance
(VLT) shall not drop below 40%and Visible Light Reflectance(VLR) shall not exceed 30%.
4. Add the standard equipment note to both the site plan and the architectural plan: "Visibility of all mechanical
equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
5. If lighting is proposed, show it on the plan and ensure that all related ordinance and site plan requirements are
met.
6. Show on the plan existing trees to be retained or new trees to be planted to meet frontage requirements west of the
western fence/fence post.
7. Revise the plan to show 3 additional trees(existing to be retained or new to be planted)along the south and east
sides of the parking lot to meet the perimeter parking lot requirement.
8. Revise the plan to show the existing fence posts. Include a note on the plan indicating except for repair and
maintenance of the fence where there is no substantial change in design,and except for renovation of the fence to
accommodate a gate to provide access from the parking area to the existing front entrance of the chapel where the
gate design is compatible in form and materials with the fence design,the fence and its end posts shall be retained
without change.
9. Show on the plan the sidewalk proposed from the parking area to the church. Coordinate its location with the
existing fences,without altering the fences.
10. Outside the"tree line to remain"show all individual trees to remain on the plan,with size and species identified.
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
1. Show tree protection fencing on the plan. Provide a Conservation Checklist.
Mr. Missel seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0.
Margaret M.Maliszewski,Principal Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Charlottesville,VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3276
2
"IOW Nig"
Christopher Perez
From: Victoria Fort[vfort@rivanna.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:03 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: SP201500007 All Saints Chapel-Special Use Permit
Chris,
RWSA has reviewed application SP201500007—All Saints Chapel—Special Use Permit. Below is a completed copy of the
form that was provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP&ZMA Applications.
To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's
1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known
2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes X No
3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known
4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Victoria
Victoria Fort, EIT
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville,VA 22902
(P):(434)977-2970 ext.205
(F):(434)295-1146
1
Christopher Perez
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [Joshua.Kirtley @vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 11:11 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: All Saints Chapel (SP201500007)
Good morning, Chris. Hope that you're doing well.
I've reviewed the above mentioned application and wanted to let you know that things look pretty good. The
applicant included soils work in their submittal showing the proposed sewage disposal system and well. I have
no major issues with the work as submitted.
Please note that it doesn't appear that we've received the plans nor that we've issued the permit to install
either the septic system or well. Just wanted to throw that out there because I don't want the applicant to
think that the SP approval is the same as the VDH approval. Please inform the applicant of this observation.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
Have a good day,
Josh
Josh Kirtley
Environmental Health Technical Consultant
Onsite Sewage and Water Programs
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville,Virginia 22903
Office(434)972-6288
1
`otrie ',wow
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:12 PM
To: 'Marcia Joseph'
Subject: SP2015-7 All Saints Chapel Special Use Permit and SDP2015-3 All Saints Chapel Initial Site
Plan
Attachments: SP2015-00007 All Saints Church_3-4-15_First comment letter.pdf; SDP201500003-All
Saints Chapel - Initial Site Plan Comments 3-4-15.pdf
Marcia,
Attached are all the comments for the proposal. Again, I held off from sending you the SRC comments on the
initial site plan till I was able to finalize the SP comments (which technically were not due till the 6th)
For tomorrow's SRC meeting if we're open tomorrow SRC is still on. If we're closed,the meeting will be
cancelled. (if it's canceled we can meet to discuss any questions you have,potentially at a pre app meeting with
all reviewers you want to attend). Notably I have not heard a peep out of anyone in the community about this
project.
ChrictopheI P.Perez j Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle.Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Marcia Joseph [mailto:marcia481(aearthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:23 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: Re: site review comments
thanks so much for the update.
On Mar 3, 2015, at 6:12 PM, Christopher Perez<cperez(aalbemarle.org>wrote:
Marcia,
I have the initial site plan comments complete (SRC); however, I am working on finishing the Special Use
Permit comments.
Because these items are going together I want to assure that both comment sets work together and do not
contradict each other or cause undue confusion. I plan to send the initial site plan comments to you tomorrow.
Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development County of Albemarle.Virginia
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Marcia Joseph [mailto:marcia481(aearthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 6:09 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: site review comments
Chris,
1
I thought I had read somewhere that we would receive comments on the All Saints project sometime on
Tuesday.
I wanted to make sure that you had a correct email address for me.
See you on Thursday, weather permitting.
Marcia
Marcia Joseph
Joseph Associates LLC
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick,Virginia 22947
phone 434-984-4199
cell 434-996-1572
marcia481.c earthlink.net
Marcia Joseph.ASLA,AICP
Joseph Associates LLC
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick,Virginia 22947
phone 434-984-4199
cell 434-996-1572
fax 434-984-3098
marcia481 a,earthlink.net
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:56 PM
To: 'Marcia Joseph'
Subject: potential grave site situation
Marcia,
This email is to guide you through the potential grave site situation you called me about yesterday. Staff
suggests you wait to resubmit the SP and concept plan until after you have located all of the grave sites. This
will allow you to make an informed decision on the total impacts of these findings and will help guide the
location of the proposed addition (if relocation is in fact required). This is the most cautious approach and
seems reasonable based on the church's limited funds. It also avoids the possibility of the church having to
return for an amendment to the Special Use Permit to revise an approved building envelope for the addition
(assuming the PC and BOS are comfortable approving the SP with this unknown of the grave site situation).
If you choose to move forward, we could craft a condition of approval, subject to Zoning and County Attorney
review, that would say something to the affect that because of the unknown grave locations at the SP stage, the
building addition may need to be adjusted to the left or to the right prior to final site plan approval, pending
results of the grave study. If you go this route, we would also request that an envelope be depicted on the
concept plan showing where the building could be shifted. Please note that Margaret's recommendation is that
the addition should not move forward of the rear plane of the existing building to best support the historic
character of the building.
Christopher P. Pere:z1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
1
lore
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:46 AM
To: 'Marcia Joseph'
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; 'Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)'
Subject: FW: All Saints Chapel (SP201500007)
Marcia,
Let this email be my response to your phone inquiry about the septic fields being slightly modified from what
was depicted on the initial submittal.
You can do it one of two ways, it's really up to you and the applicant:
1) You can have the soil work redrafted up now to match what the new proposed septic locations are and then
submit this new soil work with the resubmitted/revised SP and Initial Site Plan. What this does is allow the
Health Department to get their eyes on it at the SP stage and advise whether it seems like there are any issues
with it. Regardless, a standard condition of the SP will be that Health Department approval happen prior to final
site plan approval.
OR
2) You can wait to revise the soil work till the SP and Initial Site Plan are approved, knowing that before the
final site plan can be approved that the soil work will have to be revised to show the new locations and
approved by the Health Department.
So at this point it's really up to you as how to proceed. The above discussion being reliant on the proposed
septic system as discussed by you was still in the same general location as originally shown but slightly
modified to avoid trees.
Hope this helps.
Chrisropllet P. Pere?I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle.Virginia
401 Mclntire Road I Charlottesville.VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley(a>vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 11:11 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: All Saints Chapel (SP201500007)
Good morning, Chris. Hope that you're doing well.
I've reviewed the above mentioned application and wanted to let you know that things look pretty good. The
applicant included soils work in their submittal showing the proposed sewage disposal system and well. I have
no major issues with the work as submitted.
1
Please note that it doesn't appear that'we've received the plans nor that we've`ssued the permit to install
either the septic system or well. Just wanted to throw that out there because I don't want the applicant to
think that the SP approval is the same as the VDH approval. Please inform the applicant of this observation.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
Have a good day,
Josh
Josh Kirtley
Environmental Health Technical Consultant
Onsite Sewage and Water Programs
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville,Virginia 22903
Office(434)972-6288
2
'Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:18 PM
To: 'Marcia Joseph'
Cc: Michelle Roberge
Subject: SDP2015-3 All Saints Chapel -site plan -initial
Marcia,
As you know the County has requested a revision to the initial site plan to address the major concerns
mentioned in the initial site plan and SP comment letter: the entrance location, parking lot layout, septic system
location and how these elements might affect the development of the site. At the 3-5-15 SRC meeting you
requested I provide you with resubmittal guidance. I've pulled the applicable section of the ordinance and have
provided you my guidance below:
Pursuant to Section 32.4.2.5 of County Code,the County shall take an action on the initial site plan within 60
days of submittal, unless the provisions of Section 32.4.2.5(b)1 apply at which point the time frames in this
section apply. The initial site plan was submitted 1-20-15, thus the deadline for action is 3-20-15, unless the
clock is stopped. The clock was stopped on 3-4-15 when I sent the comment letter requesting a resubmittal of
the initial site plan. Thus we've burned 43 days in the 60 day allotment. We have 17 days remaining on the
clock. So whenever you resubmit the revisions we'll have 17 days to take action (approve or deny). Being this
project is tied to a Special Use Permit which relates to the "use",the initial site plan cannot be approved till the
SP is approved, ie approval of the "use". Once you resubmit the initial site plan we'll have 17 days to review
the plans to assure you have made all the required revisio we'll try and onl take 14 o those allowable 17
da s leo • i avin• the S.ecial Use Permit approved.
Because you are using the initial site plan as the concept plan for the Special Use Permit, you should resubmit
the initial site plan on the resubmittal schedule for the Special Use Permit. The upcoming resubmittal dates are:
March 16th or April 6th. The required changes prior to approval of the initial site plan are:
1. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning. The Special Use Permit for the church use shall be approved. The site plan cannot be
approved until the Special Use Permit has been approved. (Comment by Planning)
2. The proposed entrance will need to meet the minimum design requirements for a Moderate Volume
Commercial Entrance. See appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual. I.E. Minimum entrance/exit
radius is 25' rather than 15' as shown. (Comment by VDOT)
3. Adequate intersection sight distance will need to be verified. (Comment by VDOT)
4. Drainage shall be considered in the design of the entrance grades and along the right of way at the
entrance. The Maximum grade for a commercial entrance is 8%. (Comment by VDOT)
5. VDOT would like the owner to contribute 25' of road frontage to be dedicated as right of way.
(Comment by VDOT)
6. A maintenance of traffic plan will be required. (Comment by VDOT)
1
7. The gravel in the existii ull off/parking area should be removeaRtnd reseeded. Positive drainage
should also be established in this area. (Comment by VDOT)
8. Show on the plan existing trees to be retained or new trees to be planted to meet frontage requirements
west of the western fence/fence post. (Comment by ARB)
9. Revise the plan to show 3 additional trees (existing to be retained or new to be planted) along the south
and east sides of the parking lot to meet the perimeter parking lot requirement. (Comment by ARB)
10. Revise the plan to show the existing fence posts. Include a note on the plan indicating except for repair
and maintenance of the fence where there is no substantial change in design, and except for renovation
of the fence to accommodate a gate to provide access from the parking area to the existing front entrance
of the chapel where the gate design is compatible with the fence design, the fence and its end posts shall
be retained without change. (Comment by ARB)
11. Reconfigure the entrance drive and parking to reduce clearing and paving in close proximity to the EC.
(Comment by ARB)
12. Side and rear setbacks shall be commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7(b) of the
Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, and shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or residentially zoned
properties. Front yard setbacks associated with parking shall be commercial setback standards, as set
forth in Section 21.7(a) of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance. (Comment by Planning)
13. Is the current proposed location of the septic site being relocated? Or is it to remain as currently
proposed? If it is to be relocated staff requests the initial site plan/concept plan be revised to depict it's
revised location. (Comment by Planning)
While the above are the required changes for initial site plan approval, I'd suggest you address as many of the
other comments in the 3-4-15 comment letter as well being they will need to be addressed prior to final site plan
approval. If you have any questions give me a call. Hope this helps. Also, I believe Michelle Roberge is
working on responding to your other inquiry from SRC about a possible downgrade from the required Tier III
groundwater study to a tier II or Tier I study, or a waiver of that requirement all together.
Christopher P. Perez;Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle.Virginia
401 McIntire Road(Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
2
'vow 'ore
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:50 PM
To: 'Marcia Joseph'
Cc: Corkey Shackleford; Mark Graham
Subject: RE: All Saints- Entrance
Marcia,
SDP2015-3 All Saints Chapel
See my comments/responses to your questions below in red.
Also, the initial site plan is currently deferred and needs to be reactivated. Please send me an email requesting
the site plan be reactivated.
Also, as for the Health Department approval—you should submit the soil work to me with the final site plan(3
copies), I will then send that soil work to the Health Department for their review/approval...I need their
approval prior to final site plan approval.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Marcia Joseph [mailto:marcia481 @earthlink.net]
Sent:Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:09 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez @albemarle.org>
Cc:Corkey Shackleford <dovedalel @aol.com>; Mark Graham<mgraham @albemarle.org>
Subject: Re:All Saints- Entrance
Chris,
We will be submitting the site plan illustrating the removal of the pier.
As discussed over the phone, being the entrance is not being modified from the last submittal of the initial site
plan then there is no need to resubmit a revised initial site plan(I have a clean copy in my office); rather, I can
approve the version I have with conditions(the conditions will be the reviewer comments from the initial site
plan review). Those conditions will need to be addressed/met on the final site plan prior to its approval.
Please let me know what sort of documentation you require us to submit that indicates that removal of the pier
is "cost prohibitive".
There is no documentation required or mentioned in the condition of the SP, thus a simple email from you or
the applicant saying it is cost prohibitive, then it is done. As a reminder before you remove that pier assure
condition#9 is addressed with regard to the documentation required to be provided to Margaret (if you have
questions about what to submit,please get with Margaret).
Condition 8 and 9 state:
"8. Except for repair and maintenance of the fence where there is no substantial change in design, and except for
1
1+enovation of the fence to accommodate *or new gate to provide access from the parking ra ea to the existing front entrance
of the chapel where the gate design is compatible in form and materials with the existing fence design, the fence and its
stone end piers shall be retained without change,provided that the easternmost stone pier forming the existing gate edge
need not be retained if the applicant determines that the cost of retention is cost prohibitive as provided in Condition 9.
9. If the applicant determines that relocating the easternmost stone pier to the east side of the new entrance drive is cost
prohibitive,prior to its removal the applicant shall document the stone pier in photographs and a to-scale, annotated line
drawing. Copies of the documentation shall be provided to the County's Design Planner for the County's files and for
forwarding to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. "
Thank you,
Marcia
On Sep 22, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Christopher Perez<cperezna albemarle.org> wrote:
Marcia,
I have received the following guidance/advice from the County Engineer.
The access aisle is required to be 20' wide pursuant to Section 4.12.17c; however, Section
4.12.2c allows for modification or waiver by the zoning administrator upon advice from the
County Engineer that the proposed waiver or modification would equally or better serve the
public health, safety or welfare. The County Engineers advice is:A 10'aisle would not equally
serve. An 18'wide aisle would equally serve. A split aisle/entrance with 9'lanes and a 4'
median would equally serve.
I agree with Glenn's findings and can support an administrative waiver as outlined in Section
4.12.2c. This is also consistent with Michelle's previous guidance. Please take the above
guidance into consideration when redesigning the entrance/access aisle prior to final site plan
submittal.
How do you wish to proceed? I suggest we move forward with initial site plan conditional
approval (w/one of the conditions being something to the effect that"Prior to final site plan
approval the entrance and access aisle shall be redesigned and approved by VDOT,
Engineering, and Planning while staying in conformity with the SP conditions of approval").
Let me know. Thanks
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road i Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
2