No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500001 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2017-04-06COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 April 6, 2017 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) • Comments on new elements from this resubmittal: The application states that several by -right uses (agricultural service occupation, bed and breakfast, farm winery, commercial stable, and farm stands) will be operating on the same site. o What type of agricultural service occupation is planned for the site? Some of those uses (agricultural equipment repair, etc.) can need significant area for structures, parking, etc. o What uses or events will happen simultaneously? o Where on the site will different activities occur if they are simultaneous? o How many of these uses are in operation already? (Please note that if any special events or other uses requiring a special use permit are already underway, you will need to wait for SP approval before continuing them.) o The conceptual plan for the site should show how parking, access, and other features of these uses will be accommodated on the same site as the special events use. The application should state how the site will be managed to accommodate multiple uses happening simultaneously. Conceptual plan (generally): The previous drawn conceptual plan, which would have been sufficient with some modifications, has been replaced in this submittal with an aerial photo with labels. This new plan is insufficient to define the extent and scale of the use as needed for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to make an informed action on this proposal. The following elements needed on a conceptual plan are missing from this submittal: o Boundaries of the property o The full extent of the property o A scale o A north arrow o Delineations of which portions of the property would be used for the special events o Delineations of wooded areas, and notations on those wooded areas that would remain in place to provide screening and buffering, and on those that would be changed or removed. In addition, the following requirements from section 5.1.43(b) also need to be satisfied: o Concept plan. A preliminary schematic plan (the "concept plan') satisfying section 32.4.1. The concept plan shall identify the structure(s) to be used for the special event, This plan does not distinguish between structures to be used for the events and those not to be used. The concept plan needs to clearly show which buildings will be used for which activities. o include the area of the structures) in which the proposed special events will be conducted, Please clarify whether or not the entire manor house could be used for event activities. o the parking area, and the entrance to the site from the street. The concept plan shall address, in particular, provisions for safe and convenient access to and from the street, The proposed access shown on the plan does not meet Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requirements (see attached memo). Please modify the plan to show that their requirements can be met. Also, please provide documentation that you have the ability to use the private Roslyn Heights Road as a commercial accessway. o the location of the parking area, The label indicates that parking will be located on the driveway and in the field, but the full extent of the parking area is not shown on the plan. Please show the full extent of the parking areas. o the location of portable toilets if they may be required, The application should state whether indoor toilets or portable toilets will be used. If the latter, the plan should show locations. o proposed screening as required by this section for parking areas and portable toilets, No screening areas are delineated on the plan. Please show which areas would be dedicated to screening. o and information regarding the exterior appearance of the proposed site. Matters of appearance are addressed in the narrative. o Based on the concept plan and other information submitted, the board of supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of a site plan would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest. The level of detail included on this most recent conceptual plan is not sufficient to address site planning concerns. At this point, staff cannot recommend that the Board waive the requirement for a site plan for this use. Building code: Previous comments from the County's Building Official stated that all structures to be used for assembly -type functions need to be evaluated for building -code acceptability. Now that the events are proposed to occur in the "manor house," that same issue remains. Please contact the Building Official to have the house evaluated for the level of use you are proposing. We cannot recommend approval of the proposed use without verification from the Building Official that the structure can accommodate the use. If the house cannot accommodate the full 150 attendees, then any indoor events would need to be limited by condition to the number of attendees and employees that can be safely accommodated. Previous comments (please note: several of the comments from the previous review letters have not been addressed; see below for more details): • 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. Please provide a brief summary to explain exactly what is proposed for the events use. This summary would enhance the ability of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to understand your proposal without reading several pages of narrative. • The conceptual plan includes a portion of a property (TMP 61-ID) 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-ID is not included, removing or reducing the paddocks and other facilities that extend onto that property; (2) have the current owner of 61-ID provide permission for the SP application by signing onto the application; or (3) wait until you have ownership of 61-ID before proceeding with the review of this application. This comment has been satisfied, as the land in question is now owned by the applicant. • Also regarding TMP 61-I D — 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 ownership question has been resolved. However, the new conceptual plan does not show a protected buffer area. This comment must be addressed. • 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 resubmittal does not address the issue of permission for use of this road, but presumes permission based on the applicant's practice of plowing the road in question. This is not sufficient. Documentation of permission to use this road must be provided. Also note that VDOT does not support the use of the existing entrance on Roslyn Heights Road. • 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. With the removal of the barns from the proposed events use, this comment no longer applies. • 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. The most recent plan does not adequately address this comment. This previous comment requested more detail on parking, to verify that the claimed number of spaces could be accommodated. The replacement plan shows no detail, and places no boundaries on parking areas. Some delineation of parking areas should be shown on the plan. Otherwise our review must be based on the assumption that parking could be located anywhere on the property. • 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? No information on water supply or septic capacity was included in the resubmittal. No data or analysis was provided to support the statement that the existing water supplies and septic fields are sufficient to support the use. This comment has not been addressed. • 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. As the existing "manor house" is now the only structure proposed to be used for the events, this comment no longer applies. • 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 IOpm and the events ending by midnight. No time limits for amplified sound are included in the current resubmittal, so this comment has not been addressed. See "noise" comments below. The Board of Supervisors recently codified standards for farm breweries that permit amplified sound until 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights, and until 10 p.m. on other nights. We expect that the Board will want to see similar limitations for special events permits. • 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. See "noise" comments below. • The narrative says that "existing waterways will befitted with proper riparian zone vegetation. " However, no riparian planting areas are shown on the plan. What is the proposal? It appears that this proposal is no longer included. • 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. See comments on the new conceptual plan above. A revision of the previous drawn plan would be preferable to the current aerial photo. • Please revise the vegetation mapping to remove the trees shown around the cemetery, as those trees have been removed on the site. Please see comments on the new conceptual plan above. • 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. See comments on the new conceptual plan above. 0 Noise (Comment remaining from first review letter): o Please provide more specifics on precisely how the barn would be constructed/renovated to reduce sound impacts. o 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. o The most recent resubmittal does not include any information on sound -impact prevention or management. It is still not clear where amplified sound systems would be located on the property, or whether or not they would be limited to closed indoor spaces. The statement that "amplified music will be managed in accordance with section 4.18" is not helpful, as that section defines and sets limits on noise impacts, but does not define management techniques. Relationship with adjacent properties: o This resubmittal extensively discusses private issues between the applicant and some adjacent property owners. For example, private covenants of an adjacent subdivision and a request for reimbursement from adjacent landowners are discussed on page 4. Please be aware that the special use permit process is not a method for resolving private disputes. While impacts on adjacent properties are an important part of any special use permit review, it is not the County's role to resolve existing disputes between landowners. o This resubmittal suggests that adjacent properties owners should impose restrictions on themselves to protect themselves from this proposed use. All uses permitted by special use permit are expected to manage their impacts within their own site. The County can not, and would not, impose restrictions on adjacent properties to accommodate any given special use permit proposal. Special use permit process: Please let us know whether you intend to address the matters raised in this letter in a future resubmittal, or if you would prefer to proceed to the Planning Commission based on the information submitted so far. Please note that staff would be unable to recommend approval of this proposal at this point due to the extent of information still needed, and due to the recommendation against the proposed entrance from VDOT. Community meeting: Because of the many revisions that were expected after the initial submission, no community meeting has been held on this proposal yet. A community meeting must be scheduled and held according to the guidelines before this item can be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing. The community meeting will need to be on the agenda of a meeting of the Places 29 — Hydraulic Community Advisory Committee. Zoning (Francis MacCall� See attached memo. Historic Resources/Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszewski) Clarify if the proposal still includes the renovation of the barn and additions to the barn. If this work is still a part of the proposal, note the following: 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 building and the overall property. 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. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Prior to the commencement of the use, the property should be documented in photographs, including all buildings, structures, landscape and garden features, the cemetery, and the general character of the site. Current Development (Megan Yaniglos) A site plan will be required for this use. [Note: A special exception for the site plan may be possible if site planning are sufficiently addressed on the concept plan.] If parking can be seen from either Hydraulic Road or adjacent residences, landscape screening in accordance with 32.7.9 will be required during the site plan. Engineering (Frank Pohl) • Engineering comments will be forwarded as soon as they are available. Virginiapartment of Transportation Adam Moore) • 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