HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500007 Review Comments 2015-01-29Short Review Comments Report for:
SP201500007
SubApplication Type:
All Saints Chapel
New Special Use Permit
Date Completed:01/29/2015
Reviewer:Francis MacCall Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:QC OK
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/03/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:The ARB meeting for the project took place on March 2, 2015. A formal action memo or letter has yet
to be prepared but is forthcoming. Below I offer the following regarding 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.
Division:
Date Completed:03/04/2015
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/02/2015
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/26/2015
Reviewer:Josh Kirtley Health Department
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto: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
Division:
Page:1of4 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 27, 2016
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
Date Completed:03/02/2015
Reviewer:Michelle Roberge Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/26/2015
Reviewer:Shelly Plaster VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/28/2015
Reviewer:Francis MacCall Zoning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/27/2015
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on SP dated 1/12/15
No comments or objections
Division:
Date Completed:03/11/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski Historic Preservation
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:The Virginia Department of Historic Resources has confirmed that, if the work is completed as
shown, the proposal will not affect the contributing status of the chapel to the Southwest Mountains
Rural Historic District.
Division:
Date Completed:07/08/2015
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/06/2015
Page:2of4 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 27, 2016
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The ARB took the following actions on July 6, 2015.
Regarding the Special Use Permit request:
Motion: Mr. Lebo 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 existing fence design, the fence and its end posts shall be retained without change.
3. If it is determined that site conditions allow, switch the locations of the primary and secondary
drainfields.
4. If trees are removed or die as a result of drainfield installation, the trees shall be replaced with 2”
caliper trees.
5. If clearances between the edge of the entrance drive and the property line allow, relocate the
stone pier on the east side of the entrance drive.
Mr. Missel seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 3:0. (Chambers absent)
Regarding the initial site plan design:
Motion: Mr. Missel 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): None.
• Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines: None.
• 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. Add the standard equipment note to the architectural plan: “Visibility of all mechanical equipment
from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.”
4. If site or exterior building lighting is proposed, show it on the plan and ensure that all related
ordinance requirements are met.
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
1. Include the signed conservation checklist on the site plan. Check the boxes that apply.
2. No grading shall begin until all trees to be saved are marked and protected with fencing.
Mr. Lebo seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 3:0. (Chambers absent)
Division:
Date Completed:06/05/2015
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/16/2015
Reviewer:Shelly Plaster VDOT
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:3of4 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 27, 2016
Date Completed:07/03/2015
Reviewer:Josh Kirtley Health Department
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:“Phone call 7-2-15
The Health Department has no objections at this time. Soil work was not provided for the new
drainfield locations. Prior to final site plan approval soil work shall be submitted and approved.”
Division:
Date Completed:06/15/2015
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on SP dated 6/1/2015
No objections or comments
Division:
Date Completed:07/02/2015
Reviewer:Francis MacCall Zoning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/06/2015
Reviewer:Michelle Roberge Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/16/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The ARB will review this revised plan on July 6, 2015. Comments will be available after that meeting.
Division:
Page:4of4 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 27, 2016
OFA
4 '1 111 �rr
•+v
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
October 23, 2015
Marcia Joseph
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick Va 22947
RE: SP2015000007 All Saints Chapel
Dear Ms. Joseph:
On September 2,2105 the Board of Supervisors took action on your Special Use Permit application to
allow an expansion of an existing Church to construct a 795 SF building addition(social hall), associated
parking, and entrance upgrades under Chapter 18 Section 12.2.2(15)of the Zoning Ordinance on TMPs
04800-00-00-01600& a small portion of 04800-00-00-019E0 in the Rivanna District. The Special Use
permit was approved by the Board's adoption of the attached resolution and conditions.
Please be advised that although the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took action on the
project noted above, no uses on the property as approved above may lawfully begin until all
applicable approvals have been received and conditions have been met. This includes:
• compliance with conditions of the SPECIAL USE PERMIT;
• approval of and compliance with a SITE PLAN; and
• approval of a ZONING COMPLIANCE CLEARANCE.
Before beginning uses as allowed by this special use permit or if you have questions regarding the above-
noted action, please contact Rebecca Ragsdale at(434)296-5832 ext. 3226.
Sincerely,
David Benish
(Acting) Director of Planning
*Attachment*
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2015-07 ALL SAINTS CHAPEL
WHEREAS, the Trustees of St. Johns Mission Church is the owner of All Saints Episcopal
Church and of Tax Map and Parcel Number 04800-00-00-01600 and Dovedale LLC is the owner of
Tax Map and Parcel Number 04800-00-00-019E0, collectively the "Owners" and the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the Owners filed an application for a special use permit to expand the existing
church by constructing a 795 square foot building addition (social hall), associated parking, and
entrance upgrades on the Property, and the application is identified as Special Use Permit 2015-
00007 All Saints Chapel ("SP 2015-07"); and
WHEREAS, the proposed use is allowed on the Property by special use permit under
Albemarle County Code § 18-12.2.2(15); and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County
Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 2015-07 with modified conditions; and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2015, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly
noticed public hearing on SP 2015-07.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the
Transmittal Report prepared for SP 2015-07 and all of its attachments, the information presented at
the public hearing, and the factors relevant to a special use permit in Albemarle County Code § 18-
33.8, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves SP 2015-07, subject to the
conditions attached hereto.
* * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six
to zero, as recorded below, at a meeting held on September 2, 2015.
b'
IMO _1
Clerk, Bo.rd of Cc y Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd Y
Ms. Dittmar Y
Ms. Mallek Y
Ms. McKeel Y
Ms. Palmer Y
Mr. Sheffield Y
SP-2015-00007 All Saints Chapel Conditions
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled "All Saints Chapel
SP201500007" prepared by Joseph Associates LLC and dated June 1, 2015 (hereafter"Conceptual
Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with
the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
• building orientation
• building mass, shape, and height
• location of buildings and structures
• location of parking areas
• relation of buildings and parking to the street
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Side and rear setbacks shall be commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7(b) of the
Albemarle County 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 County Zoning Ordinance.
3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit;
4. The applicant shall obtain VDOT approval of a commercial entrance, if required by VDOT, prior to
approval of the final site plan.
5. The applicant shall obtain Virginia Department of Health approval of well and/or onsite sewage
system prior to approval of the final site plan.
6. The drainfields shall be placed in the areas shown on Exhibit A dated September 2, 1015 illustrating
the drainfield locations in the southern portion of the parcel.
7. Materials and colors of the addition shall be compatible with the materials and colors of the historic
chapel.
8. 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 new 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 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.
10. Prior to final site plan approval, the entrance to the site shall either be located entirely on the Church
Property(TMP 04800-00-00-01600) by adjusting the property line between TMP 04800-00-00-01600
and TMP 04800-00-00-019E0, or the applicant shall obtain an easement from the owner of TMP
04800-00-00-019E0 to allow the portion of the entrance to be located on that parcel.
11. The construction of any structure required for the use must commence within five (5) years from the
approval of the Special Use Permit.
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 2:52 PM
To: 'Marcia Joseph'
Subject: All Saints Chapel Comments
Attachments: CD2 July 8, 2015_5P2015-00007_All Saints Church and SDP2015-00003 initial site plan
comments.pdf
Marcia,
SP2015-00007 All Saints Church and SDP2015-00003 initial site plan comments
Attached are the comments for the above referenced project. Planning staff is currently awaiting a response
from the Director of Planning as to the availability of the August 18th PC meeting for the public hearing. I'll let
you know as soon as I find out and get it on the schedule, but in the meantime provide the fees and the owner
information in the letter for Dovedale LLC.
Thanks
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
1
` OF
S4Iiiinj
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4176
July 8,2015
Marcia Joseph
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick,VA 22947
RE: SP2015-00007 All Saints Chapel-Special Use Permit
Ms.Joseph:
All comments from all reviewers are provided in this letter:
Planning(Christopher P.Perez)
1.Prior to final site plan approval the entrance to the site shall be located entirely on the Church property,
TMP 04800-00-00-01600,this shall be accomplished through a Boundary Line Adjustment between the two
parcels.Or an access easement shall be granted by/recorded on the neighboring parcel TMP 04800-00-00-
019E0 to permit the entrance as depicted on the initial site plan.This shall be a condition of the Special Use
Permit.
2.Also,being the proposed entrance traverses a portion of TMP 04800-00-00-019E0,the landowners of this
property,Dovedale LLC,shall also be involved in the SP application.As such the following information
shall be provided for the adjacent property prior to the public hearing for the project taking place:
• One(1)copy of the most recent recorded plat,that shows the Deed Book/Page Number,of the
parcel(s)composing the proposed project,or a boundary survey if a portion of one or more parcels
compose the proposed project,both of which shall include a metes and bounds description of the
boundaries.
One(1)copy of ownership information(if'applicant is not also the owner).If ownership of the
property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including,but not limited to,the
name of a corporation,partnership or association,or in the name of a trust,or in a fictitious name,a
document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing has the
authority to do so.
-• Please attach the owner's written consent in the form of an additional Special Use Permit application
signature sheet with signature by owners having authority to sign on behalf of Dovedale LLC.
wr
Architectural Review Board Planner(Margaret Maleszewski)
The second ARB meeting for the project took place on July 6,2015.A formal action memo or letter has yet
to be prepared but is forthcoming.Below I offer the following regarding the Special Use Permit:
Motion:Mr.Lebo 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 existing
fence design,the fence and its end posts shall be retained without change.
3. If it is determined that site conditions allow,switch the locations of the primary and secondary drainfields.
4. If trees are removed or die as a result of drainfield installation,the trees shall be replaced with 2"caliper
trees.
5. If clearances between the edge of the entrance drive and the property line allow,relocate the stone pier on
the east side of the entrance drive.
The above conditions of the Special Use Permit have been slightly reworded in the conditions provided
below for clarity.Also,additional conditions for the initial site plan approval are attached.
Zoning(Francis MacCall)
1.No objections
VDOT(Shelly Plaster)
1. No objections
I .
Virginia Department of Health(Joshua Kirtley)
1.The Health Department has no objections at this time. Soil work was not provided for the new drainfield
locations.Prior to final site plan approval soil work shall be submitted and approved.
Building Inspections(Jay Schlothauer)
1.No objections
Fire and Rescue(Robbie Gilmer)
1.No objections
•
Engineering(Michelle Roberge)
1.No objections to the Special Use Permit.Conditions for the initial site plan approval are attached.
Below staff has provided recommended conditions for the Special Use Permit.Additional or modified
conditions may be warranted once the County Attorney and Zoning Administrator reviews the following.
Anticipated SP Conditions
1.Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled"Special Use
Permit "prepared by and dated (hereafter"Conceptual Plan"),as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan,
development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to
the design of the development,as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
limits of disturbance
• building orientation
• building mass,shape, and height
• location of buildings and structures
-• location of parking areas
• relation of buildings and parking to the street
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2.The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 1,400 square feet.
3.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.
4.There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use
permit;..
5.VDOT approval of commercial entrance.
6.Virginia Department of Health approval of well and/or septic system.
7.New construction shall not commence prior to approval of the final site plan.
8. Materials and colors of the addition shall be compatible with the materials and colors of the historic
chapel.
9. 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
existing fence design,the fence and its stone end piers shall be retained without change.
10.Relocate the stone pier at the east end of the gate to the east side of the entrance drive.
11.If it is determined that site conditions allow,switch the locations of the primary and secondary
drainfields.
12.If trees are removed or die as a result of drainfield installation,the trees shall be replaced with 2"
caliper trees.The location of replacement trees shall be shown on a revised landscape plan to be
approved by the Director of Planning or his designee.
13.Prior to final site plan approval the entrance to the site shall be located entirely on the Church
property,TMP 04800-00-00-01600,this shall be accomplished through a Boundary Line Adjustment
between the two parcels.Or an access easement shall be granted by/recorded on the neighboring parcel
TMP 04800-00-00-019E0 to permit the entrance as depicted on the initial site plan.
End of Anticipated SP Conditions
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter,please pay the fees mentioned below and specify when you would like to go
to the Planning Commission for public hearing.Planning staff is currently awaiting a response from the
Director of Planning as to the availability of the August 18t PC meeting for the public hearing.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission,payment of the following fees is needed:
$134.80 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners(minimum$200+actual postage/$1 per owner after 50
adjoining owners)
$334.80 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing,payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board
hearing needed.
$134.80 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$469.60 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to
be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
cperez @albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Christopher P.Perez
Senior Planner
•
enc: Draft Conditional Approval letter for the Initial Site Plan,to be finalized after Special Use Permit is
acted on at the Board of Supervisors public hearing.
OF
�
to���
H
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development --
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
July 8,2015
Marcia Joseph
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick,VA 22947
RE: SDP-2015-00003 All Saints Chapel_Site Plan-Initial
Dear Ms. Joseph:
Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan(dated 6-1-15)comments
are provided below:
1. [Comment]What is the current status of the"Stones"/"Possible burial stones"listed on the plan?
Has an archeologist made a determination as to whether these are truly headstones and to what extent
of the property is impacted by the potential grave sites?The location of these stones are within relative
close proximity to the proposed construction work to include the proposed drainfield locations.
As a condition of initial site plan approval the location and extent of the potential gravesites shall be
provided protective fencing before any site disturbance occurs. This shall be a condition of Initial Site
Plan approval.
2. [Comment] Currently the initial site plan depicts the proposed entrance to the site traversing a small
portion of the neighboring property's front yard(TMP 04800-00-00-019E0);however,the entrance to
the site shall be located completely on the Church property or an easement shall be granted
by/recorded on the neighboring parcel.Prior to final site plan approval an offsite easement shall be
granted by the owners of TMP 04800-00-00-019E0 for the Church's proposed entrance, OR a
Boundary Line Adjustment shall take place between the two properties to relocate the entire entrance
on the Church property while maintaining a minimum of 130' of frontage for TMP 04800-00-00-
019E0 as required in the VR district. This shall be a condition oflnitial Site Plan approval.
3. [Comment]The ARB has recommended that the stone pier at the east end of the gate be relocated to
the east side of the entrance drive. On the final site plan assure that this is correctly depicted to meet
the ARB requirement. This shall be a condition oflnitial Site Plan approval.
4. [17-1003] Groundwater Tier IAssessment.Per direction from County Engineering staff a Tier I
Groundwater Assessment is required prior to approval of final site plan. This shall be a condition of
Initial Site Plan approval.
5. [32.5.2(n),17-403] The site plan depicts the septic site location as not to cause trees to be taken down.
If trees are removed or die as a result of drainfield installation,the trees shall be replaced with 2"
caliper trees.The location of replacement trees shall be shown on a revised landscape plan to be
approved by the Director of Planning or his designee. This shall be a condition of the Special Use
Permit.
Nftio, Noe
6. [Comment]Virginia Department of Health approval of septic permit is required prior to final site plan
approval. This shall be a condition of Initial Site Plan approval.
7. [Comment]VDOT approval of the proposed entrance to the site shall be required prior to final site
plan approval. This shall be a condition of Initial Site Plan approval.
8. [4.12.16(c)1]As depicted the aisle widths adjacent to the parking spaces scale out at 19' wide;
however,they truly need to be 20' wide at a minimum.Assure this is corrected on the final site plan.
Also,the parking spaces proposed scale out to be 9'wide;however,for a 20' aisle with they are
required to be 10'wide. This shall be a condition oflnitial Site Plan approval.
9. [Comment]On the site plan TMP 48-19E is listed as AG/forest;however,this property is not located
in an Ag Forestal District.Please remove this labeling,or provide proof it is located in this district.
This shall be a condition of Initial Site Plan approval.
10. [32.5.2(n)&(p)] The following will also be required for final site plan approval:
- If any outdoor lighting is proposed-Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan
and location,description,and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec.
32.7.8&Sec.4.17]
ARB—Margaret Maliszewski
The second ARB meeting for the project took place on July 6,2015.A formal action memo or letter has
yet to be prepared but is forthcoming.Below I offer the following regarding the initial site plan design:
Motion: Mr. Missel moved that the ARB forward the recommendations outlined in the staff report to the
Agent for the Site Review Committee,as follows: .
• 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. Add the standard equipment note to the architectural plan:"Visibility of all mechanical equipment from
the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
4. If site or exterior building lighting is proposed, show it on the plan and ensure that all related
ordinance requirements are met.
•Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
1. Include the signed conservation checklist on the site plan. Check the boxes that apply.
2. No grading shall begin until all trees to be saved are marked and protected with fencing.
Mr.Lebo seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 3:0. (Chambers absent)
The above items shall be conditions oflnitial Site Plan approval.
Engineering—Michelle Roberge
1)Is the entrance encroaching another property?Please provide an access easement if it is on
another property.
2)The edge of parking near the stub out is 533.25. Show a 2:1 or 3:1 slope to the 532 contour line.If
steeper than 3:1 is used,show low maintenance groundcover(not grass)on the landscaping plan.
Now
3)Delineate the limits of disturbance and label to match the 8,085 SF on notes.
4) Show unobstructed sight distance lines at the entrance.
5) Shift handicap parking sign to be behind bumper block so it's in front of parking space.Remove the
sign in front of the handicap access aisle with striping.
6)Label trees"to be removed"within travelway and parking area.
The above items shall be conditions of Initial Site Plan approval.
Health Department-Josh Kirtley
1.The Health Department has no objections at this time. Soil work was not provided for the new drainfield
locations.Prior to final site plan approval soil work shall be submitted and approved.
VDOT—Shelly Plaster
No objections
•
Building Inspections—Jay Schlothauer
1)No objections
Fire and Rescue—Robbie Gilmer
1.No objections
E911—Andrew Slack
Previously Approved
Zoning—Francis MacCall
No objections.
Please contact Christopher P.Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez(a),albemarle.org or 434-296-
5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions.
o A
..# 11 111
8 ,ra,at.,
•
lifer's:
�I�r1lP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Date: July 10,2015
Greg Kamptner
County Attorney's Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Regarding:
Project Name: SP2015-00007 All Saints Chapel—Special Use Permit
Date of Public Hearing for Planning Commission: August 4, 2015
Dear Mr. Kamptner:
The above referenced project is schedule for Public Hearing with the PC on August 4th.Below I have provided draft
conditions of approval for the site which should be applied to the use. Please review and provide any feedback/suggestions
before the staff report is sent to the PC on July 22nd
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled"All Saints Chapel
SP201500007"prepared by Joseph Associates LLC and dated June 1,2015 (hereafter"Conceptual Plan"), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan,
development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of
the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
• building orientation
• building mass, shape, and height
• location of buildings and structures
• location of parking areas
• relation of buildings and parking to the street
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 1,400 square feet.
3. 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.
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit;
5. VDOT approval of commercial entrance.
'Vase °glue
6. Virginia Department of Health approval of well and/or septic system.
7. New construction shall not commence prior to approval of the final site plan.
8. Materials and colors of the addition shall be compatible with the materials and colors of the historic chapel.
9.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 existing fence design,the fence and its stone end piers
shall be retained without change.
10. Relocate the stone pier at the east end of the gate to the east side of the entrance drive.
11. If it is determined that site conditions allow,switch the locations of the primary and secondary drainfields.
12. If trees are removed or die as a result of drainfield installation,the trees shall be replaced with 2"caliper trees. The
location of replacement trees shall be shown on a revised landscape plan to be approved by the Director of Planning or
his designee.
13. Prior to final site plan approval the entrance to the site shall be located entirely on the Church property, TMP
04800-00-00-01600,this shall be accomplished through a Boundary Line Adjustment between the two parcels. Or an
access easement shall be granted by/recorded on the neighboring parcel TMP 04800-00-00-019E0 to permit the
entrance as depicted on the initial site plan.
Also,I have a legal question about comment#13, which is generated by the proposed entrance,which slightly
crosses over onto an adjacent property not involved with the SP application: TMP 48-19E, owned by Dovedale
LLC(see the attached plan w/sticky note). As depicted the small portion of the entrance which crosses onto the
adjacent parcel is within the VDOT prescriptive right-of-way easement. My question for you is: if the entrance is to
remain as proposed does the owner of TMP 48-19E(Dovedale LLC)truly need to grant an access easement over
their property or record a Boundary Line Adjustment for the portion of the entrance which is crossing over their
property OR does the fact that the entrance is within the VDOT prescriptive easement cover it and nothing needs to
be done.VDOT has no objections to the entrance being within the prescriptive easement. Bill and Megan both
believe that the VDOT prescriptive easement covers it,but they suggest I have you weigh in from a legal stand
point. Please consider this issue and provide guidance.
Also,note that conditions 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are conditions of approval requested/dictated by ARB to be placed
on the Special Use Permit.
At your earliest convenience,please review the above suggested conditions.Notably Ron Higgins of
Zoning will also be reviewing the language of the draft conditions.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
cperez @albemarle.org
(434)296-5832,phone ex.3443
of A
NNW •#4111lll
telt-1Wee
�'IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Date: July 10,2015
Ron Higgins
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Regarding:
Project Name: SP2015-00007 All Saints Chapel—Special Use Permit
Date of Public Hearing for Planning Commission: August 4,2015
Dear Mr. Higgins:
The above referenced project is schedule for Public Hearing with the PC on August 4th. Below I have provided draft
conditions of approval for the site which should be applied to the use. Please review and provide any feedback/suggestions
before the staff report is sent to the PC on July 22nd
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled"All Saints Chapel
SP201500007"prepared by Joseph Associates LLC and dated June 1,2015 (hereafter"Conceptual Plan"), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan,
development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of
the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
• building orientation
• building mass, shape, and height
• location of buildings and structures
• location of parking areas
• relation of buildings and parking to the street
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 1,400 square feet.
3. 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.
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit;
5.VDOT approval of commercial entrance.
6. Virginia Department of Health approval of well and/or septic system.
, 7.New construction shall not commence prior to approval of the final site plan.
8. Materials and colors of the addition shall be compatible with the materials and colors of the historic chapel.
9.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 existing fence design,the fence and its stone end piers
shall be retained without change.
10. Relocate the stone pier at the east end of the gate to the east side of the entrance drive.
11. If it is determined that site conditions allow, switch the locations of the primary and secondary drainfields.
12. If trees are removed or die as a result of drainfield installation,the trees shall be replaced with 2"caliper trees. The
location of replacement trees shall be shown on a revised landscape plan to be approved by the Director of Planning or
his designee.
13.Prior to final site plan approval the entrance to the site shall be located entirely on the Church property, TMP
04800-00-00-01600,this shall be accomplished through a Boundary Line Adjustment between the two parcels. Or an
access easement shall be granted by/recorded on the neighboring parcel TMP 04800-00-00-019E0 to permit the
entrance as depicted on the initial site plan.
Please note that conditions 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are conditions of approval requested/dictated by ARB to
be placed on the Special Use Permit. Notably Greg Kamptner is also reviewing the language of the draft
conditions. At your earliest convenience please review the conditions.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
cperez @albemarle.org
(434)296-5832,phone ex.3443
�1OFA `ue
i ®illy
V
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Date: July 10,2015
Greg Kamptner
County Attorney's Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Regarding:
Project Name: SP2015-00007 All Saints Chapel—Special Use Permit
Date of Public Hearing for Planning Commission: August 4,2015
Dear Mr. Kamptner:
The above referenced project is schedule for Public Hearing with the PC on August 4th. Below I have provided draft
conditions of approval for the site which should be applied to the use. Please review and provide any feedback/suggestions
before the staff report is sent to the PC on July 22nd
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled"All Saints Chapel
SP201500007"prepared by Joseph Associates LLC and dated June 1,2015 (hereafter"Conceptual Plan"),as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan,
development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of
the development,as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
• building orientation
• building mass, shape, and height
• location of buildings and structures
• location of parking areas
• relation of buildings and parking to the street
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 1,400 square feet.
i
3. 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
4setbacks associated with parking shall be commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7(a)of the Albemarle
Cie .w oning Ordinance.
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit;
OVDOT approval of commercial entrance.
Now Nile
6. Virginia Department of Health approval of well and/or septic system.
7.New construction shall not commence prior to approval of the final site plan.
8. Materials and colors of the addition shall be compatible with the materials and colors of the historic chapel.
9.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 existing fence design,the fence and its stone end piers
shall be retained without change.
10. Relocate the stone pier at the east end of the gate to the east side of the entrance drive.
11. If it is determined that site conditions allow, switch the locations of the primary and secondary drainfields.
12. If trees are removed or die as a result of drainfield installation,the trees shall be replaced with 2"caliper trees. The
location of replacement trees shall be shown on a revised landscape plan to be approved by the Director of Planning or
his designee.
13. Prior to final site plan approval the entrance to the site shall be located entirely on the Church property, TMP
04800-00-00-01600,this shall be accomplished through a Boundary Line Adjustment between the two parcels. Or an
access easement shall be granted by/recorded on the neighboring parcel TMP 04800-00-00-019E0 to permit the
entrance as depicted on the initial site plan.
Also, I have a legal question about comment#13,which is generated by the proposed entrance,which slightly
crosses over onto an adjacent property not involved with the SP application: TMP 48-19E, owned by Dovedale
LLC(see the attached plan w/sticky note). As depicted the small portion of the entrance which crosses onto the
adjacent parcel is within the VDOT prescriptive right-of-way easement. My question for you is: if the entrance is to
remain as proposed does the owner of TMP 48-19E(Dovedale LLC)truly need to grant an access easement over
their property or record a Boundary Line Adjustment for the portion of the entrance which is crossing over their
property OR does the fact that the entrance is within the VDOT prescriptive easement cover it and nothing needs to
be done. VDOT has no objections to the entrance being within the prescriptive easement. Bill and Megan both
believe that the VDOT prescriptive easement covers it,but they suggest I have you weigh in from a legal stand
point. Please consider this issue and provide guidance.
Also,note that conditions 8, 9, 10, 11,and 12 are conditions of approval requested/dictated by ARB to be placed
on the Special Use Permit.
At your earliest convenience,please review the above suggested conditions.Notably Ron Higgins of
Zoning will also be reviewing the language of the draft conditions.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
cperez@albemarle.org
(434)296-5832,phone ex.3443
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 11:30 AM
To: Greg Kamptner
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski
Subject: RE: All Saints Chapel comments
Attachments: gate and piers.pdf
Greg,
Thanks for the quick review. See my responses to your comments below in red.
Christopher P. Perez1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Monday,July 13, 2015 9:28 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: All Saints Chapel comments
Chris-
My comments:
1. In Condition 3,refer to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in both references. Ok, I will change it.
2. Reword Condition 5 to state: "The applicant shall obtain VDOT approval of a commercial entrance"and if we
• • - • •• • • ••.1*- - . "prior to approval of the final site plan" "•. ' • • •:, •- ••-• •:. Ok, I will change it.
3. For Condition 6, same comment as above for condition 5. Ok, I will change it.
4. Is the stone pier in Condition 10 part of the fence that is the subject of condition 9? No, see attached PDF
pic/explanation to help clarify. -• .. . . - • : "- - • - • •. -
The original ARB condition#10 reads: "If clearances between the edge of the entrance drive and the property line
allow, relocate the stone pier on the east side of the entrance drive. "Margaret and I assumed this wording wouldn't
be specific enough to enforce,and the plan shows sufficient room to move the pier. So,we suggested the simplified
wording.To be more clear,we then recommended: "If after meeting VDOT and County Engineering requirements,
clearances between the edge of the entrance drive and the property line allow, relocate the stone pier on the east
side of the entrance drive. "
In the ARB's discussion of the issue at their July 6''meeting, prior to finalizing their action,they did use the word
"consider" several times ("consider moving the pier") but this wording did not end up in the final action. Marcia
(the applicant) would like us to use the "consider" wording, but I assume that will not be specific enough for
enforcement of the condition. It might be good to have the County Attorney's office comment on this. Also,please
see the attached photo to see relationship among gate, fence and piers.
5. When does Condition 10 have to be satisfied? It should be moved prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
(CO).
6. Revise Condition 13 as follows(for now): "Prior to final site plan approval, the entrance to the site shall either
be located entirely on the Church Property (TMP 04800-00-00-01600) by adjusting the property line between
TMP 04800-00-00-01600 and TMP 04800-00-00-019E0, or the applicant shall obtain an easement from the
owner of TMP 04800-00-00-019E0 to allow the portion of the entrance to be located on that parcel. "This
comment assumes that the entrance fragment is actually within the fee simple interest boundaries of TMP 04800-
00-00-019E0. Ok, I will change it.
Can the entrance angle be shifted a few degrees to the left so that none of it has to be off of TMP 04800-00-00-
01600 and its frontage?No, I do not believe we can move it to the left any. The entrance is fixed on the left side
due to the fence and Stone pier which is to remain per ARB.
As to whether the entrance can remain as shown on the Conceptual Plan(spilling over onto TMP 04800-00-00-
019E0 or its frontage)with VDOT's consent,that's a good question. It may not be VDOT's consent to give. I
don't know whether this segment of Route 20 prior to VDOT acquiring a prescriptive easement in the early
1930's was a County public road and public right-of-way,whether the public right-of-way extended the full 30
feet or some lesser width, or whether the area where the fragment of the entrance will be located was(and is)still
part of TMP 04800-00-00-019E0. We need this information to figure out whether a BLA or easement from the
owner of TMP 04800-00-00-019E0 is needed or possible. It would be much simpler if the entrance can be shifted
so that it stays within the Church property and its frontage. I agree, but that's not what we're working with.
Marcia did provide the following reasoning and section of state code,which she believes allows the entrance to be
proposed as is without any off site easement or any boundary line adjustments being required(see her logic below
in purple).
"Because a prescriptive easement of 15' is on the adjacent property, it was thought that a portion of the entrance
radius could be located within the VDOT prescriptive easement. Please help us clarify this with
VDOT. Within the comments Dated July 8, 2015, VDOT has no comments concerning this concept.
§ 33.2-105. (Effective October 1, 2014) Evidence as to existence of a public highway.
When a way has been worked by highway officials as a public highway and is used by the public as such, proof
of these facts shall be prima facie evidence that the same is a public highway. And when a way has been regularly
or periodically worked by highway officials as a public highway and used by the public as such continuously for
a period of 20 years, proof of these facts shall be conclusive evidence that the same is a public highway. In all
such cases, the center of the general line of passage, conforming to the ancient landmarks where such exist, shall
be presumed to be the center of the way and in the absence of proof to the contrary, the width shall be presumed
to be 30 feet.
Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to convert into a public highway a way of which the use by
the public has been or is permissive and the work thereon by the highway officials has been or is done under
permission of the owner of the servient tenement.
(Code 1950, § 33-98; 1970, c. 322, § 33.1-184; 2014, c. 805.)"
This issue should not hold up the PC hearing, but we'll need to resolve it before this goes to the
Board. Understood.
Greg, also,to make it more clear, condition#9 has been revised to add the word"new" in front of gate.
9. 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 new 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 existing fence design,the fence and its
stone end piers shall be retained without change.
Greg Kamptner
Deputy County Attorney
County of Albemarle
2
gkamptnpr albemarle.org
(434)972-4067
3
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 11:42 AM
To: Greg Kamptner
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; Sharon Taylor
Subject: RE: Review Draft PC Action Memo 8-4-2015
Greg,
After discussing your latest version of the conditions with Margaret and taking into account Marcia's latest
email I offer the following revision in red to your draft conditions, essentially staff agree with Marcia that#7
should have a time frame associated with the trees dying. I originally came up with 1 yr; however, after
speaking with a landscape architect(Ellie Ray), she says there is no way to come up with an exact time frame
when trees would die from installation of a drainfield, some trees could be sick to begin with, some could hang
on for 5 or 10 years and then die, some could get sick from other causes and then die. She also said, there is no
way drainfields could be placed in a forest without severely damaging and/or killing trees. Thus it further
confirms our need to have this condition.
6. If it is determined by the Health Department that site conditions allow, the locations of the primary (identified
on the Conceptual Plan as"primary septic site") and secondary (identified on the Conceptual Plan as "reserve
septic site") drainfields shall be switched so that the primary drainfield depicted on the Conceptual Plan is
located where the secondary drainfield is depicted and the secondary drainfield depicted on the Conceptual Plan
is located where the primary drainfield is depicted; provided that the locations of both the primary and
secondary drainfields may be located further south behind the addition than where they are depicted on the
Conceptual Plan.
7. If trees of 6"caliper or greater are removed as a result of drainfield installation or die within 10 years of
drainfield installation, the trees shall be replaced with appropriate native saplings. The location of replacement
trees shall be shown on a revised landscape plan to be approved by the Director of Planning or his designee.
10. If the applicant determines that relocating the easternmost stone pier to the east side of the new entrance
drive it is cost prohibitive, 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.
Also,to answer your question on Questions on 6: If the drainfields are moved further south, do their respective
locations (switched) need to remain the same or does it matter? I believe that depends on how far south they are
able to go, if they are truly behind the addition, no it does not matter.
****Are we talking only about the primary drainfield moving to the southern end behind the addition (for no
other reason, it does not appear that the primary and secondary drainfields would fit back there)? The
applicant has not provided me any true guidance on that aspect of the proposal. What is on the concept plan is
what staff reviewed. They mentioned the 3rd option to Margaret and we thought it was a good idea to include
that into the condition; however, the applicant doesn't know where they can put the drainfields be they have not
done soil work for the locations depicted on the concept plan. Rather that's why Marcia wants: "Drain field may
be placed in or near the primary or the reserve location as shown on the Concept Plan, or in an area closer to the
rear of the property line." Frankly, I'm leaning towards her recommendation of a very general condition#6 so
they are not locked into the locations being we have condition#7 which holds them to replacing the trees that
die.
1
Christopher P.Perez J Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From:Greg Kamptner
Sent:Thursday,August 06, 2015 9:47 AM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez @albemarle.org>; Margaret Maliszewski<MMaliszewski @albemarle.org>; Sharon Taylor
<STAYLOR @albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Review Draft PC Action Memo 8-4-2015
Suggested wordsmithing with a couple of questions:
6. If it is determined by the Health Department that site conditions allow, the locations of the primary (identified
on the Conceptual Plan as "primary septic site") and secondary (identified on the Conceptual Plan as "reserve
septic site") drainfields shall be switched so that the primary drainfield depicted on the Conceptual Plan is
located where the secondary drainfield is depicted and the secondary drainfield depicted on the Conceptual Plan
is located where the primary drainfield is depicted; provided that the locations of both the primary and
secondary drainfields may be located further south behind the addition than where they are depicted on the
Conceptual Plan.
Questions on 6: If the drainfields are moved further south, do their respective locations (switched) need to
remain the same or does it matter? Are we talking only about the primary drainfield moving to the southern end
behind the addition(for no other reason, it does not appear that the primary and secondary drainfields would fit
back there)?
7. Question: My notes are incomplete on the discussion about this condition but there was a discussion about
having the church replacing only those trees that were removed because it would be hard to determine causation
if a tree died. Without listening to the hearing again, my notes are unclear as to whether the Commission
recommended removing the dead tree component. The corrections you made were captured in my notes (6"
caliper trees/appropriate native saplings) so let's go with your revised version of this condition.
10. If the applicant determines that relocating the easternmost stone pier to the east side of the new entrance
drive it is cost prohibitive, 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.
Greg Kamptner
Deputy County Attorney
County of Albemarle
gkamptner @albemarle.org
(434) 972-4067
From:Christopher Perez
Sent:Thursday,August 06,2015 9:10 AM
To:Greg Kamptner<GKamptne @albemarle.org>
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski<MMaliszewski @albemarle.org>;Sharon Taylor<STAYLOR @albemarle.org>
Subject: Review Draft PC Action Memo 8-4-2015
2
Greg,
Margaret Maliszewski has provided the following suggested changes to the revised conditions to be placed in
the action memo. Please consider her language while you are word smithing the revised conditions of approval.
See#6 and#10 below. Thanks
6. If it is determined that site conditions allow, switch the locations of the primary and secondary drainfields so
that the primary as depicted on the concept plan will now be the secondary and the secondary as depicted on the
concept plan will be the primary. e - - , , •, - - -- • - _ • - --
- ' - -- ••• -- ••• : •-- . The drainfields may also be located further south behind the
addition.
10. •- • - • :- --••- •: ; ; --• -- ; -- .•- -- -. •. - . -- - - - • . - If the applicant determines
that relocating the easternmost stone pier to the east side of the new entrance drive it is cost prohibitive, If it is
:- -` ; ;- = = -•:• • - ' : • - -- -•- , prior to its removal the applicant shall photograph t d
document it through the Virginia Department of Historic Resources(DHR). document the stone pier in
photographs and a to-scale, annotated line drawing. Copies of the documentation shall be provided to the
Design Planner for the County's files and for forwarding to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development ICounty of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent:Thursday,August 06, 2015 9:04 AM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez @albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: Review Draft PC Action Memo 8-4-2015
My suggestions:
addition.The drainfields may also be located further south behind the addition.•` -` ` : -' • ' : •- = - ' • -- -• :- - • - - • - • - If the applicant determines that
relocating the easternmost stone pier to the east side of the new entrance drive it is cost prohibitive,if--it-is-deter-mined
- - • - - - - - , 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 Design Planner for the County's files and for
forwarding to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
From:Christopher Perez
Sent:Thursday,August 06, 2015 6:56 AM
To:Sharon Taylor<STAYLORPalbemarle.org>
Cc:Stephanie Mallory<smallorv@albemarle.org>; Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein @albemarle.org>; Scott Clark
<Sclark@albemarle.org>; Greg Kamptner<GKamptne @albemarle.org>; Margaret Maliszewski
<MMaliszewski @albemarle.org>;Amanda Burbage<aburbage @albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Review Draft PC Action Memo 8-4-2015
3
ter° wti►
Sharon,
Please replace attachment#2 with the revised conditions I have attached to this email.
I sent these to Greg yesterday w/track changes for review and final word smithing. He may want to edit it before you
finalize it.
Otherwise all other Sp2015-7 items look good.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From:Sharon Taylor
Sent:Wednesday,August 05, 2015 6:00 PM
To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>;Scott Clark
<Sclark @albemarle.org>; Greg Kamptner<GKamptne@albemarle.org>; Margaret Maliszewski
<MMaliszewski @albemarle.org>;Amanda Burbage<aburbage @albemarle.org>
Cc:Stephanie Mallory<smallory @albemarle.org>; Sharon Taylor<STAYLOR @albemarle.org>
Subject: Review Draft PC Action Memo 8-4-2015
Dear Staff,
Please review the attached draft 8-4-2015 PC action memo and provide comments as soon as possible or prior to 5:00
p.m.on Thursday.8-6-15.
The action memo will be forwarded to the Planning Commission at that time.
If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks for your assistance in this matter.
Sharon C.Taylor, CMC
Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22901-4596
(434) 296-5832 Ext. 3437
Fax: (434)972-4126
stavlor@albemarle.org
4
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 I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I 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
• `
renovation of the fence to accommodate a new 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 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<cperez @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