Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500007 Correspondence 2015-07-10 Memo To: Christopher Perez From: Marcia Joseph RE: Response to Comments of July 8, 2015 concerning SP2015-00007 All Saints Chapel Special Use Permit SDP-2015-00003 All Saints Chapel Site Plan Initial Date: July 10, 2015 Site Plan Comments Community Development A. Current status of the "stones" and protection There has been no formal determination that any burials have taken place on the site. We have rearranged the proposed buildings and parking on the site to avoid the stones. We will illustrate fencing around the stones on the final Landscape Plan. 2. Locating entrance on the church property. 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. 1 (Code 1950, § 33-98; 1970, c. 322, § 33.1-184; 2014, c. 805.) 3. ARB recommendation to move the stone pier- Unfortunately, we misunderstood, and had thought that the ARB would request that we consider moving the stone pier. Moving the pier to accommodate the required 20' travel way to the parking lot may require an additional easement to place the pier on the adjacent property. Because VDOT requires the parking moved on site, this condition makes it difficult to find an entrance to the access the site. We ask that the language be revised to "consider" moving the stone pier. See also #10 Special Use Permit Conditions. 4. Groundwater Tier I Assessment This is entirely acceptable 5. Replacing trees within the septic drain field. Please clarify, does staff expect that the landscape plan revisions to illustrate trees to be replaced occur prior to special use permit approval? We cannot predict at this point in time if any trees will fail as a result of drain field installation. 6. Health Department requirements This is entirely acceptable 7. VDOT approval of entrance This is entirely acceptable 8. Parking dimensions The construction of the parking lot should be noted from the dimensions given on the plan, not from scaling the drawing. The drawing scales correctly indicating that the travel way and the length of the parking space equal 38' ( 18' for the space, 20' for the travel way). The width of the parking is 2' shy of the 66' that is required for one handicap space and 5 regular 10' wide spaces. This 2' error will be remedied. 9. Ag/Forest This was not to indicate that the property was in Ag/Forest District, just that the use itself was Agriculture and Forestry use. Please help and suggest how we might clarify this particular use. 10. Outdoor lighting The only outdoor lighting provided will be that required by the building code. ARB 1. COA required This is entirely acceptable 2 Nuie 2. Indicate existing and proposed materials This is entirely acceptable 3. Note on Plan "Visibility..." This note is on the plan submitted June 1, 2015 4. Lighting Outdoor lighting restricted to that required by the building code ARB-Grading Permit 1. Include Conservation checklist This is entirely acceptable 2. Mark trees to be preserved This is entirely acceptable Engineering 1. Easement required if the entrance encroaches See #2 Community Development comments 2. Slope consideration A note will be added to the plan indicating that all slopes created as a result of the parking area will be 3:1 3. Delineate limits of disturbance and label to match the aggregate Limits of clearing are depicted on the Landscape Plan. I will add a note to that plan naming the disturbed areas. 4. Sight distance lines Will be shown on the plan 5. Move Handicap sign Will be revised on the Plan 6. Label trees to be removed The trees to be removed are indicated as an X, as suggested by staff, on the Landscape Plan. Health Department 1. Provide new soils work This is entirely acceptable 3 r.r r..1 Special Use Permit Conditions 1. The condition noting that the construction be in general accord This is entirely acceptable. 2. Limiting the area of assembly to 1,400 square feet Please clarify, does this include the sanctuary and the social hall? 3. Requiring commercial setbacks The use proposed is able to comply with those standards. 4. Prohibiting day care This proposal does not contemplate day care with this special use permit request 5. VDOT approval of commercial entrance Could this be reworded to indicate "VDOT approval of a Low Volume Commercial Entrance"? 6. Health department approval of well and septic. This is entirely acceptable 7. New construction not to start until final site plan Could this be amended to allow for installation of the septic field and well prior to site plan approval? This would allow us to do the same sort of work that would normally be done if the site were to accommodate a residential use. 8. Materials and colors of the proposed addition to match the existing building This is entirely acceptable 9. Note concerning maintaining the fence This is entirely acceptable 10. Relocating the pier Please add "Consider relocating the stone pier..." This does not mesh with the recommendations from the ARB. They allow that if there is not enough space on the 2 acre Chapel site, then the reallocation does not have to occur. This may be a considerable expense if within the process of trying to move the pier the mortar disintegrates and the entire pier has to be rebuilt. The pier built in 1929 may be quite fragile. We won't know until we try and move it. We are more than willing to try and move the existing pier, if we have the property available and if we are able to move it intact. Because we are working within a rather tight budget, and because this, in the words of Design Planner Margaret Maliszewski "From a historic preservation perspective, maintaining 4 the pair of stone posts would be best. However, the proposed addition would help support the continued use of the historic church, a new entrance to the site is required, and there are considerable site constraints. Consequently, I can recommend that the ARB support the proposal that eliminates one stone post to establish the new entrance and support the continued use of the historic resource. It is understood that this proposal also maintains both lengths of the fence and the single stone post on the opposite side." (taken from an email message dated April 29, 2015) 11. Switching the primary and secondary drain fields Please help clarify what site conditions may cause the switching of the drain fields. 12. Tree replacement in the drain field area Please see #5 in Site Plan comments. Special Use Permit Comments 1. Locate entrance entirely on church property Please see #2 in Site Plan Approval 2. If the entrance on the adjacent property If the entrance is considered on the adjacent property a plat and information and written consent will be submitted ARB 1. Materials for addition compatible with existing Chapel This is entirely acceptable 2. Notation concerning fence This is entirely acceptable 3. Switch drain fields from primary to secondary See #11 under Special Use Permit conditions 4. Tree removal or death of trees as a result of drain field installation Please see #5 site plan comments community development 5. If clearances between edge of entrance drive allow relocate stone pier Concern that the condition of the Special Use Permit#10 do not match the ARB recommendation 5 Health Department 1. Need soils work This is entirely acceptable 6 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 1:21 PM To: 'Marcia Joseph' Cc: Corkey Shackleford Subject: RE: Response to All Saints Chapel comments, July 8, 2015 Attachments: Responce 7-13-15.docx Marcia, In response to your last correspondence, see the attached word doc, my responses are in red. Hope this helps. Also, to recap you are slated for the Aug 4th PC public hearing and a Sept 2nd BOS public hearing. Please assure your fees are paid, so we can keep these dates. 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: Friday,July 10, 2015 11:07 AM To:Christopher Perez Cc:Corkey Shackleford Subject: Response to All Saints Chapel comments,July 8, 2015 Christopher, We have read through the comments for the Special Use permit and the Site Plan and offer the following: Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Marcia Marcia Joseph Joseph Associates LLC 481 Clarks Tract Keswick,Virginia 22947 phone 434-984-4199 cell 434-996-1572 marcia48I @earthlink.net 1 Memo To: Christopher Perez From: Marcia Joseph RE: Response to Comments of July 8, 2015 concerning SP2015-00007 All Saints Chapel Special Use Permit SDP-2015-00003 All Saints Chapel Site Plan Initial Date: July 10,2015 Site Plan Comments Community Development 1. Current status of the"stones"and protection There has been no formal determination that any burials have taken place on the site. We have rearranged the proposed buildings and parking on the site to avoid the stones. We will illustrate fencing around the stones on the final Landscape Plan. 2. Locating entrance on the church property. 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.) I'm working with the County Attorney to respond to this item. It will not hold up the PC public hearing but needs to be addressed prior to the BOS public hearing. 3.ARB recommendation to move the stone pier-Unfortunately,we misunderstood,and had thought that the ARB would request that we consider moving the stone pier. Moving the pier to accommodate the required 20' travel way to the parking lot may require an additional easement to place the pier on the adjacent property. Because VDOT requires the parking moved on site,this condition makes it difficult to find an entrance to the access the site. We ask that the language be revised to"consider"moving the stone pier. See also#10 Special Use Permit Conditions. In the ARB discussion of the issue at their July 6th 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. I've discussed your request w/Margaret and we believe it's an enforcement issue. Thus we've went back to the drawing board and have come up with the following wording: "If after meeting VDOT and County Engineering requirements, clearances between the edge of 1 the entrance drive and the property line allow, relocate the stone pier on the east side of the entrance drive."I'm working with the County Attorney on the final wording of this condition. We've mentioned your concerns to him and upon his final review of the condition I'll let you know. 4. Groundwater Tier I Assessment This is entirely acceptable 5. Replacing trees within the septic drain field. Please clarify, does staff expect that the landscape plan revisions to illustrate trees to be replaced occur prior to special use permit approval? No, we do not. We cannot predict at this point in time if any trees will fail as a result of drain field installation. 6. Health Department requirements This is entirely acceptable 7. VDOT approval of entrance This is entirely acceptable 8. Parking dimensions The construction of the parking lot should be noted from the dimensions given on the plan,not from scaling the drawing. The drawing scales correctly indicating that the travel way and the length of the parking space equal 38' ( 18' for the space,20' for the travel way). The width of the parking is 2' shy of the 66' that is required for one handicap space and 5 regular 10' wide spaces. This 2' error will be remedied. 9. Ag/Forest This was not to indicate that the property was in Ag/Forest District,just that the use itself was Agriculture and Forestry use. Please help and suggest how we might clarify this particular use. "Residential property", as a house it located on it. 10. Outdoor lighting The only outdoor lighting provided will be that required by the building code. ARB 1. COA required This is entirely acceptable 2. Indicate existing and proposed materials This is entirely acceptable 3. Note on Plan"Visibility..." This note is on the plan submitted June 1, 2015 4. Lighting Outdoor lighting restricted to that required by the building code ARB-Grading Permit 1. Include Conservation checklist 2 Noway, ',woe This is entirely acceptable 2. Mark trees to be preserved This is entirely acceptable Engineering 1. Easement required if the entrance encroaches See#2 Community Development comments 2. Slope consideration A note will be added to the plan indicating that all slopes created as a result of the parking area will be 3:1 3. Delineate limits of disturbance and label to match the aggregate Limits of clearing are depicted on the Landscape Plan. I will add a note to that plan naming the disturbed areas. 4. Sight distance lines Will be shown on the plan 5. Move Handicap sign Will be revised on the Plan 6. Label trees to be removed The trees to be removed are indicated as an X, as suggested by staff, on the Landscape Plan. Health Department 1. Provide new soils work This is entirely acceptable Special Use Permit Conditions 1. The condition noting that the construction be in general accord This is entirely acceptable. 2. Limiting the area of assembly to 1,400 square feet Please clarify, does this include the sanctuary and the social hall? My original use of this standard condition was to encompass the existing church and the proposed addition,which is listed on the plans as being 1,395 SF. Zoning is currently reviewing the condition as well,they may require me to change it, as my use of the condition seems to be at odds with the intent of the condition. We'll see once they review it. 3. Requiring commercial setbacks The use proposed is able to comply with those standards. 4. Prohibiting day care This proposal does not contemplate day care with this special use permit request 3 Noire wool 5. VDOT approval of commercial entrance Could this be reworded to indicate"VDOT approval of a Low Volume Commercial Entrance"? I want to leave it general in the conditions, so it merely states a Commercial Entrance. VDOT only approved the entrance to be low volume based on the church's trip generation figures which the church attested to. If in the future it comes out that the trip generation is much more and the entrance standard is required to be upgraded, I do not want this condition to be in the way causing us to have to go through an SP amendment. Let's leave it general. 6. Health department approval of well and septic. This is entirely acceptable 7. New construction not to start until final site plan. Could this be amended to allow for installation of the septic field and well prior to site plan approval?The Health Department(HD) has not yet approved, nor even seen your soil work for this proposal yet. The HD approval will come with the final site plan. Also,this is a standard Zoning condition. I'll discuss this with Zoning if that is possible. This would allow us to do the same sort of work that would normally be done if the site were to accommodate a residential use. 8. Materials and colors of the proposed addition to match the existing building This is entirely acceptable 9. Note concerning maintaining the fence This is entirely acceptable 10. Relocating the pier Please add"Consider relocating the stone pier..." This does not mesh with the recommendations from the ARB. They allow that if there is not enough space on the 2 acre Chapel site,then the reallocation does not have to occur. This may be a considerable expense if within the process of trying to move the pier the mortar disintegrates and the entire pier has to be rebuilt. The pier built in 1929 may be quite fragile. We won't know until we try and move it. We are more than willing to try and move the existing pier, if we have the property available and if we are able to move it intact. Because we are working within a rather tight budget,and because this, in the words of Design Planner Margaret Maliszewski "From a historic preservation perspective, maintaining the pair of stone posts would be best. However,the proposed addition would help support the continued use of the historic church, a new entrance to the site is required, and there are considerable site constraints. Consequently, I can recommend that the ARB support the proposal that eliminates one stone post to establish the new entrance and support the continued use of the historic resource. It is understood that this proposal also maintains both lengths of the fence and the single stone post on the opposite side."(taken from an email message dated April 29, 2015) See comment#3 above in red. 11. Switching the primary and secondary drain fields Please help clarify what site conditions may cause the switching of the drain fields. The condition states: "If it is determined that site conditions allow switch the locations of the primary and secondary drainfields. " Essentially ARB would prefer the primary drainfield be in the place of where the reserve drainfield is depicted so more trees are preserved towards the road frontage. 12. Tree replacement in the drain field area 4 Nome Please see#5 in Site Plan comments. Special Use Permit Comments 1. Locate entrance entirely on church property Please see#2 in Site Plan Approval 2. If the entrance on the adjacent property If the entrance is considered on the adjacent property a plat and information and written consent will be submitted ARB 1. Materials for addition compatible with existing Chapel This is entirely acceptable 2. Notation concerning fence This is entirely acceptable 3. Switch drain fields from primary to secondary See#11 under Special Use Permit conditions 4. Tree removal or death of trees as a result of drain field installation Please see#5 site plan comments community development 5. If clearances between edge of entrance drive allow relocate stone pier Concern that the condition of the Special Use Permit#10 do not match the ARB recommendation See comment#3 above. Health Department 1. Need soils work This is entirely acceptable 5 Christopher Perez From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 3:01 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: RE: All Saints Chapel comments • Chris- Thanks. Regarding Condition 4,you are correct that"consider"would be difficult if not impossible to enforce unless the owner admitted that the matter was never considered. Regarding Condition 6,we can resolve this when I return to the office. I don't think the text in VC 33.2-105 helps the church's case, but how VDOT has administered that law over the past 80 years may—they may have always allowed the entrance radius to extend into the public right of way. Greg Kamptner Deputy County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptner@albemarle.org (434)972-4067 From:Christopher Perez Sent: Monday,July 13, 2015 11:31 AM To:Greg Kamptner Cc: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE:All Saints Chapel comments Greg, Thanks for the quick review. See my responses to your comments below in red. 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: 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 • - • - - • •• • • -••• :, : • : "prior to approval of the final site plan"or"prior to requesting••• • •• • - •_ •• • •• • - .Ok, I will change it. • Napo Noe 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 6th 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 2 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 gkamptner @albemarle.org (434) 972-4067 3