Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500001 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2016-02-17COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 February 17, 2016 Ms. Sue Albrecht 255 Ipswich Place Charlottesville VA 22901 RE: SP201500001 Roslyn Farm Dear Ms. Albrecht -- Thank you for the recent resubmittal for this special use permit request. Please find review comments included in this letter. Please see the attached re -submittal schedule for a list of dates on which you can submit your revisions and responses to review comments (below and attached), as well as for possible Planning Commission dates. (Please note that the listed dates are the earliest possible, but actual dates need to be selected to suit the revision schedule for each project.) The comments in this letter and feedback from the upcoming community meeting should be addressed before this request is scheduled for a hearing with the Planning Commission. Review Comments Planning — Rural Areas (Scott Clark) • As the narrative is quite long, please provide a one -page (or less) summary sheet with the basic details of what is actually proposed for the site, so that all the details can be seen in one place. • The conceptual plan includes a portion of a property (TMP 61-1D) that is not currently owned by the applicant or included in the special use permit request. The permit cannot be approved on a property without the owner's permission (through their signature on the application). Please either (1) revise the plan so that 61-1 D is not included, removing or reducing the paddocks and other facilities that extend onto that property; (2) have the current owner of 61-1 D provide permission for the SP application by signing onto the application; or (3) wait until you have ownership of 61-1D before proceeding with the review of this application. • Also regarding TMP 61-1D — if the wooded cover on this property is claimed as an effective sound and visibility buffer for the proposed use, the parcel must be included in the application (as noted above) and the special use permit, if approved, would need to have a condition requiring that the wooded cover on that parcel be maintained. Please clarify if you would be purchasing all of 61-1 D, or just the triangular portion shown within the boundary on the conceptual plan. • The change of entrance location means that the proposed use would now rely on a private road for access. Do you have whatever permissions are necessary under the road maintenance agreement with the other road users to use that road for a commercial use? • The conceptual plan shows an area of "ADA & Trailer Turf Parking." Note that ADA parking and accessways must be on hard -surfaced, stable materials. Those areas should be shown on the conceptual plan and should not be built within the stream buffer. • On the conceptual plan, the turf parking areas should show standard parking space and travelways according to County site -plan requirements. While the spaces would not necessarily need to be demarcated on the ground, the plan should verify that these parking areas can accommodate the claimed number of parking spaces. • While the resubmittal narrative states that the property has ACSA water service, the property is designated as "limited service" with a limitation reading "no structures." Therefore the application should be revised to show how the proposed uses can be supported by well water from the site. Are there existing wells on the site? What is their capacity? Do they meet with Health Department requirements for commercial uses of this sort? • Please show the existing barn outline and the expansion/addition area separately on the plan. It is not entirely clear on the plan where the east face of the existing barn lies with respect to the stream -buffer boundary. Therefore it is not clear that the building addition would be entirely outside the stream buffer. It would be preferable to keep all construction out of the stream buffer. Some construction might be approved in the outer fifty feet of the buffer with a mitigation plan, but we cannot be sure that such a plan would be approved. Therefore we recommend that the plan be revised to place all construction outside the buffer. This also meshes with the historic -preservation recommendation that the new event building be separate from the existing barn, rather than added on to it. • The narrative states that amplified sound would end at midnight. To reduce impacts on the surrounding areas, we recommend that the proposal be revised to meet the previous Zoning recommendation, with amplified sound ending at 1 Opm and the events ending by midnight. • It appears that the proposal is to have amplified sound only in the event building, and not elsewhere on the site. Can you confirm that no amplified sound would be used for outdoor ceremonies or other outdoor activities? Also — please describe the nature of the sound limitation provided by the "acoustically controlled arced terrace" in the existing house. • The narrative says that "existing waterways will be fitted with proper riparian zone vegetation." However, no riparian planting areas are shown on the plan. What is the proposal? • Please revise the tree buffer shown along the driveway to the barn to correctly show that it is interrupted by the existing driveway that will connect to the grass parking area. • Please revise the vegetation mapping to remove the trees shown around the cemetery, as those trees have been removed on the site. • Note that staff will make a decision on whether or not to support a Board waiver of the site -plan requirement after a revised conceptual plan that addresses the concerns listed in this letter is submitted. • Previous comments: • Noise o Please provide more specifics on precisely how the barn would be constructed/renovated to reduce sound impacts. ■ The application still does not include substantive information on construction methods that will be used for sound control. The "sound study" mentioned in the most recent application narrative should be submitted for review before this request goes to public hearing. Without that information, staff is unable to accurately assess the noise impacts of this proposed use. Zoning (Francis MacCall) • Please see attached memo. Historic Resources/Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszewski) • The applicant is encouraged to pursue nomination of the property to the state and national historic registers. The local architect, Virginia -based landscape architect, and connections to the county's first African American extension agent are important. • Trees have been cleared from the front portion of the property, including some around the cemetery. It is possible that some of the historic setting of the cemetery has been destroyed. A cemetery treatment and maintenance plan is recommended. • Prior to the commencement of the use, the property should be documented in photographs, including all buildings, structures, landscape features, the cemetery, and the general character of the site. • The barn appears to be a significant resource on the property. The size and location of the additions and the renovations to the barn could jeopardize its historic character and significance. Care must be taken to preserve the historic character and integrity of the barn while making changes to the property and undertaking the new use. Important elements of the barn include, but are not limited to: the roof form and material, the cupola, the widow's peak, the loft doors, all original windows and doors and window/door openings, interior structural elements and exposed structural framework, and any original interior open expanses/internal volumes. Placing an addition on the east end of the barn would obscure and likely destroy the character -defining features located there. The size of the addition illustrated on the conceptual plan would visually overwhelm the historic structure. It is recommended that a separate event structure be built instead of an addition. The location of the new structure should preserve the historic setting of the property. If an addition is built, it should be built in a way that minimizes damage to external walls. It should be compatible with the historic barn, but different enough that it is not confused with what is truly historic. It should be simple in form and detail, it should not be overwhelming in size, and it should not alter the principle form of the barn. The expertise of an expert who is familiar with the evaluation of historic agricultural buildings should be employed for the project. Engineering_(Glenn Brooks) • There are no objections to the use. All site issues can be addressed with final plans where required. Virginiapartment of Transportation (Troy Austin) • Please see attached memo If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the issues raised by this application. Sincerely, Scott Clark Senior Planner, Planning Division