Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201600009 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2016-07-06 331 Albemarle County Planning Commission August 23 2016 I The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, { August 23, 2016, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Mac Lafferty, Pam Riley, Jennie More, Daphne Spain, Tim Keller, Chair; Karen Firehock, Vice Chair and Bill Palmer, UVA representative. Members absent were Bruce Dotson. Ms. Firehock arrived at 6:08 p.m. Other officials present were Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior 1 Planner; John Anderson, Engineer; J.T. Newberry, Senior Planner, Elaine Echols, Acting Chief of Planning; David Benish, Acting Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and John Blair, Senior Assistant County Attorney. I Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Keller, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and established a quorum. A SP-2016-00009 Faith Christian Center International and SP-2016-00013 Faith Christian Center International- Daycare Amendment (Sign 102) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000047A0 LOCATION: 2184 Richmond Rd PROPOSAL: Amend existing special use permits to change planting standards in stream buffer PETITION: Church, as permitted under Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance. Day care facility, as permitted under Section 10.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. No dwellings proposed. 1 ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources; residential (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots) (Scott Clark) Mr. Clark summarized the staff report in a PowerPoint presentation. These are two special use permit amendment requests of previously approved special I use permits with one for a church on the site and one for a daycare center. The church ,$ is located in the rural areas in the Shadwell area across from the Shadwell property just outside of the Pantops portion of the development area. The first slide is an aerial of the property, which was before the development of the church that is being built on the site now. However, probably the important thing to note ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—August 23,2016 1 Draft Partial MINUTES 16-581 and 16-582 Faith Christian Center for tonight's hearing is that you can see that Shadwell Creek borders the edge of the property at the upper end. It goes adjacent to the property, but just off the property line to the east. Just to give a little history for what is being amended here there are two existing special use permit approvals on the property. Back in 2010 the Board approved a 399 church J for the site and also a 50-child daycare. Since that time the daycare has already been amendment once to increase the attendance from 50 to 120. Those permits are already approved on the site. It is actually under development as we speak. I This is the original conception plan for the church and the daycare that was approved back in 2010. On the conceptual plan he pointed out Route 250 and the entrance road 1 going back to the new church building and the parking areas. The area between the property line and the black line on the plan is the replanting area that is referred to in the conditions of approval. < Part of that still has trees on it and part of it was disturbed before the church project ever began. There was a mobile home park on the site. So a part of that buffer was already disturbed before the church came along. • The next slide is a view of the buffer area to the right that is near the entrance at US 250 on the property, which shows the entrance road and the building under construction in the center. The stream is behind those trees on the right. If you get a little closer to the building that is under construction we can see the existing trees that are in the buffer area; however, that 100' buffer new planting area extends beyond those trees onto the slope that is part of the grading and construction for the site. A lot of that area has been 1 graded on since then. However, a lot of that was disturbed when the mobile home park was there. J The proposal is to change the planting standards for the buffer; the area of the buffers remain the same. It is just changing the reference from the replanting requirements table that in the Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) document that we 4 used as a reference at the time. So it is changing from Table A to Table B, which he I would show them what that means. Restoration Table A from the DCR report requires 3 a planting for every 400 square feet of a certain number of canopy trees, understory trees and small shrubs. This standard was developed for sites of a quarter of an acre or less. The replanting area in this case is over an acre. In fact, the more appropriate standard and what the applicants are requesting is what is in Table B, which gives a few different options. The applicants are looking at part B of Table B in which the first 50' of j the buffer, except from the creek, about 50' would be the same as Table A. But, the outward 50' could use varied seedlings, whips or tree tubes instead of having a little more precise pattern of larger plants. Both of these are recommended. Appropriate standards from DCR and Table B is actually more appropriate for the size of the area that has been designated as the replanting area in this case. 1 1, Just to give you a more detailed idea here, the applicant provided this illustration that shows the grade line that is the creek, which is not actually on the property. It is partly on the neighboring property and so we are measuring the buffer back from that creek I ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—August 23,2016 2 Draft Partial MINUTES 16-581 and 16-582 Faith Christian Center 100'. You can see the hatching of the outer portion of the buffer area that would be allowed for the tree tubes and whips. The cluster portion, which if there are any areas nl disturbed there, would need to be planted with the Table A standard. He just wanted to point out that a lot of this as we saw in the pictures already has trees on it. So those areas would not need to be cut and replanted with the new standard; they are already taken care of. j In summary the proposed change meets the Department of Conservation and Recreation's standards for riparian buffer planting areas; and the proposed change will I still result in an improved riparian buffer. It also is for the applicant's concerns because it is going to be less expensive for them. The applicants feel like they are going to be 1 largely planting on the slopes on the outer edge of the buffer. We think they will have better luck maintaining and working for the survival of the plantings if they have the tree tubes than if they have the larger plants required in Table A. Staff recommends approval of both special use permit amendments with conditions. I Just in summary he wanted to lay out what has changed in the conditions. There were ti a couple of fixes that are happening as well as the proposal. In condition 4 for each'permit, which is about lighting, the words "shall be I required" are being deleted to fix a grammatical error. II • In condition 6 for each permit, the change in the planting standard is made as 1 discussed; and also a clarification just to be absolutely clear that those portions 1 of the buffer that still have trees don't need to be cleared or replanted in this new pattern that they can stay as they are. I • In condition 7 of the special use permit for the church, which set the time limit for construction work to begin on proposed uses, is being deleted. Work has already begun on the site and this condition is no longer needed. The matching condition { on the day-care special use permit was already deleted as part of the approval of the amendment back in 2012. t There are two different sets of conditions and motions to go over. First with the church these are the existing conditions with the changes marked again with 3 words being removed from condition 4; a change in condition 6 which was actually something not included in the staff report to make the clarification that the area shall be planted where tree cover does not already exist and changing the reference from Table A to Table B; and last deleting condition 7 about the start date for construction. There are a couple of motions for the church and if you like we can go ahead and take I your questions. Mr. Keller invited questions for staff. Ms. Firehock said she was looking at the site plan that was submitted with the packet and she was sorry but it was very small. She asked about the corner of the parking lot because she could not tell if it was going into the stream buffer. It looks like it is, but then there is a funny line there. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—August 23,2016 3 Draft Partial MINUTES 16-581 and 16-582 Faith Christian Center 1 3 A Mr. Keller noted it was on the northeast corner. 0/ Ms. Firehock asked if the speckled dots on the site plan were plantings. Mr. Clark replied that the speckled dots are the limits of the 100' buffer. 3 I Ms. Firehock pointed out there was a notation that says area buffer set aside for -4 required parking lot landscaping, and then there is a line going into the speckled dots. 01 She was trying to figure out what is all of that is telling me. r Mr. Clark replied that he was not sure and would go back and look at the original conceptual plan. He noted this is actually the final site plan for site, which has already I been approved and the construction is going on. Unfortunately, he does not have a copy of that site plan; but, we can see on the original conceptual plan that the parking was shown as staying out of that buffer area. He said it was hard to tell because this 0 illustration is not meant to be a new conceptual plan for the use and we don't actually I refer to this illustration. 31 Ms. Firehock pointed out she was trying to determine the extent of buffer disturbance in 1 thinking about the variance that they are asking for with the plantings. She said that I was why she was curious. Mr. Clark suggested that perhaps the applicants can tell us more if he did not answer .0 her question. Mr. Keller asked if there were further questions binvited we open for the applicant. There 0 being none, Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and the applicant to come forward and present. Doctor Wayne Frye, Senior Pastor of Faith Christian Center International, said he was 3 I here just to answer any questions you may have based upon our proposed amendment. 4 Ms. Firehock asked if he could explain the drawing of the corner of the parking lot and I what is happening in that corner. Doctor Frye replied yes, that little jagged area was added due to the required number of I parking spaces. They had extensive discussions with county engineering and as is in the notes John Anderson allowed us to use that small space just to formulize a parking space there to meet the required number of parking spaces. 4 Ms. Firehock said she was sad to hear that the county was more concerned with getting one or two more car spaces rather than the encroaching in the buffer. She was just expressing her sadness. It is nothing you can do; if they required you do that they did. Doctor Frye replied yes, ma'am. ALBEMAIRLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—August 23,2016 4 1, Draft Partial MINUTES I 16-581 and 16-582 Faith Christian Center / I Mr. Keller asked is the construction of this parking lot under way, and Doctor Frye replied yes, sir it is. Ms. Spain said this is just a comment. She thinks this is the second church application that we have had for increased coverage for daycare. She thinks that is a very good thing and we should thank you for enhancing the daycare coverage in the county because it is something that is needed. Mr. Keller asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. There being no further questions for the applicant he thanked Doctor Frye and invited other members of the public who wished to speak on this project. There being none, Mr. Keller closed the public hearing to bring the before the Commission for discussion and action. Ms. Firehock said that she can concur with our staff's understanding and recommendation that the smaller whip sized trees actually have a much higher survival rate than do 1" to 2" to 3" caliper trees. The only question she has for staff along those lines is the State Code certifies a certain survival percentage and who checks that. We don't really have the staff to go out and say that the 50% of the saplings that were I required to survive did indeed survive. Mr. Clark replied that she was right that we don't have the staffing to do that. He thinks we are referring to the pattern in the condition and not so much to a survival rate. This was originally developed by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department meaning that they have different requirements in the bay area and we are in the 1"'x Tidewater Coastal Plain for specific requirements for survival. We were just`using this as a reference for the planting pattern. Ms. Firehock said it would be somewhere along the line of a 50% survival rate. Mr. Clark said we hoped for an outcome and were not trying to mandate a particular area. IMs. Spain said she was the pervious pavement questioner tonight. She asked what the surface of this parking lot is. Mr. Clark replied that as far as he knew it was all asphalt; however, he only looked at the buffer and did not actually go up and check the parking surface on the most recent visit. But, unless John Anderson who is here tonight knows different from the site plan review which he was not involved in. He did not remember hearing that there were special paving types being installed. Ms. Spain asked if that would help with the slight overlap with the buffer. Ms. Firehock noted that it was probably too late because it is already under construction. In terms of permeable pavement or permeable pavers usually those are 4 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—August 23,2016 5 Draft Partial MINUTES 16-581 and 16-582 Faith Christian Center I not recommended for use in the floodplain. She was not looking at a floodplain diagram right now; but considering where the site is located it probably does include significant portions. Mr. Lafferty noted that it did not. Ms. Firehock said in any case even a 200-year flood we try not to put permeable pavement too close to riparian systems because when the water does get up high enough it deposits sediments and clogs the pores of those pavers. Grass creep is something that we will probably discuss tonight and that can handle some siltation from a flood event. So that is the kind of thing that would work in this environment. Mr. Lafferty noted that is not even the proposal before us; the proposal is to change the buffer, and Ms. Firehock agreed. F Mr. Keller invited further discussion. There being none he asked for a motion. Ms. Firehock moved to recommend approval of SP-2016-00009 Faith Christian Center I International with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Ms. Spain seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6:0:1 (Dotson absent). Mr. Keller noted that there was a second piece to this. Regarding SP-2016-00013 Faith Christian Center International — Daycare Amendment j Mr. Clark pointed out the condition changes on this one for the correction to the land condition and the two changes for the buffer condition are the same from the other special use permit. The deadline condition for start of work on this site has already I been removed in an earlier amendment so it is just the changes to conditions 4 and 6 in this case. Ms. Firehock moved to recommend approval of SP-2016-00013 Faith Christian Center 1 International -Daycare Amendment with the conditions outlined in the staff report. 1 j Ms. Riley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6:0:1 (Dotson absent). I Mr. Keller said the special use permits would move forward to the Board of Supervisors for their final decision. He thanked the applicant for providing more daycare in the community. The meeting moved to the next item.• ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—August 23,2016 6 Draft Partial MINUTES I! 16-581 and 16-582 Faith Christian Center 1 - 1 1 i 1 .,41" y 0 ,,- ET.0009,,I,,OZdS 600009TOZ:?id? c�Q seely luewdoieneO 1 ©���y�� �i qua uersiay Lill l p t 4. r Gel s/ti[C3iV11 /2i \ t ` rotik \ c £ � ' a ro- y ,ra. y , r1c �„ L� � ?. .,µ,AL. 4. 4. 1115' d�1 h11d1tdttW S s x k o3 . �, :.815 i .5 �j5 f v. A' 2 z 4 ” / 45?:tr.,,,,,eft,41 ,"5...,. ,:44-,5,...,-5,":1515;.,;..':"''55.N. 41,,,,5' '5',554,J.„...,;',.554.455', '-' t :.• 4 ':� '.. a ., - - n. a " " e t,: (--j ,.,40-41,,,...,,t.,48.4,,.0,,;;Alq, .-.,At'ra. •~4sil:. "'194-K..--'..' '."re,' "-,,..,o,...4„:„.°4'4,4..,„t? 1 [ aCU ' ' 1 i load. aas asz z o ' 1OOO ZOZdS - 600009/IOZdS / saang aaueu!pip uolooad J } 7'% /f seaay 4uowdo!ai e0 � ry �11 epF ---------,,,. ells ie ua0 ueiisugo u4!e r-.0.0,44 ,,,,,,,,, , 00,,,,,,,,,,,„,o, - e„,...,0.0, i / A. Ao 0,,,,,,,, , ,,,,,, ,,,, , . / , / : , A/ , , pei, 11 / I / /*/ a '.4 / 10, Of*1 /roe /1 / 00/ - 1 ‘,4.o Its r ; tng ed . ,yP r - .,,..7.--.,,,-,,e17:::.'.1'...-:.,'77. .,'..-.'..::''. .,. "r y..., ,rte. _.nr..yr -- ,wwrt. _ I .✓ ✓ r^e .., zg, ^ ui " S" >F¢ �. ,µ4 ' ' � P3 : » n ' m° r4M,t rormes ` dP" `° xa a ro, ur Q yvy `u ^€_ r,.� '�,�- :a`F Pg .s:' t .ur. R - I 'C M1' ^ r`' F � a`A "mss_ - �� .; z.y � ' y k � � ���aG� �� r 30..E ': "r lid q "7- "` c ,.3' � "'� a° , + , • ,n. a :c v� �C "a1' :'a , yy. 4i.-. k ; iro�.,k�{ i&M1 m &Zv 'M i l '"'d'+ ^j 2 '„"yy � S'i ry ,i: "'f" h �pqy �, Fiw. � � ✓ ¢I� YF a� �r °q � • �--t , � U� • 3 m � W '3� r r:-a '8rs, •, " �m a�# '` "d ry r� G'�rr } , y ` � �4 i �f i 3 r% � IX r M1 K,''- �° %v''`:" - 'r ..':i a oma ..,4 x'"' %' '' ,,�'�, h ` F jcnu j *Puup n geoWtt13 uletigelill ... r`.:. . ;':;','-',..",.-.:',1'.:.:'1:14;11,1,,:.,„:„,,,...','1 ':... 1. _ #"lam4.. 4, 'r• 0.a ' ''' `f - ,p m `x` 7 1 ?44p! �, 'i ii,,u , i fr itO 1 .al, "; : +ttrrsl`" 11 ;;M '`' s r' �,'' ' ± u �t:'2 l '%; 1" 0%"'''-a..4.1111.0,1 'I% p 7 `-•;7• 1-`: `� %, -<.,.;iJro•..�: ..�,vtnSr r.,. ..I : '' : ;; +�a. ,• .: , . ,iii, t r m„ # r'- .M u' : ., 1. " "* !:a :` , Mr1y :�to'n Asx„ ctomu O :Pd�t �„y�c�:' '•F."". ."„.,Y�.({ „ '� Miia��'�.�°�Y11:1�^�l�L,��T""Pat}� „ .w. I '”` �� a"��3r�"'d4w" ' '; .,"ttfr. ''''',,i;,:::::,,:,-,;,:::':'',,i:1;',', .w",". `:'a =+y': ,: 'd�q" ,.�t.n, , I V ,•... , _ �� J��t '�� c� �`�: i ���,M .. ti.. ,i , ;,.. ' '• 'pu.' l . `i o `p jm. oj:r,140;j' j'nq jo :' ,r 1 is(W ..5 t :a e , r {res,; , fi ,,, ' .t 1n/rata-AR :.J$p?3 4 r .11‘!!.444' 0 e . u``J :c?.1. ;> .;:. ' ' ' ' 1 J $ 46 I thTt e ,i5/144,011 c&03; t, ": �•w�'..nr.l .1 • $`` i,. ':y-.•' ,/y f+ J "7 jyAy{t/�'�,j(r 3 ,« j(�f,. r+F#i' .utF`r°'.. - .. .. ::r - tom : 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 6, 2016 Mr. Mark Keller Terra Concepts 2046 Rock Quarry Rd Louisa VA 23093 RE: SP201600009 Faith Christian Center International SP201600013 Faith Christian Center International — Daycare Amendment Dear Mr. Keller -- Thank you for the recent resubmission for SP201600009 and SP201600013. Please find review comments for this application included in this letter. Review Comments Planning (Scott Clark) • No further comments. • Planning will recommend approval of the text change to the planting -standards condition. • The submitted planting plan can be used as an illustration for the Planning Commission. Please provide a version with non -approved elements (driveway landscaping, note about LORs, etc.) removed as mentioned in the ARB comments below. A formal resubmittal is not needed — please just supply the modified plan. Once we have that plan, we can schedule the Planning Commission hearing. • Note that specific planting plans and requested landscaping changes should be handled separately from the special use permit approval, as part of the site plan process. Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszewski) • For clarity, I recommend eliminating from the plan all non -approved items other than those specifically related to the SP request. Note that any changes proposed to the approved entrance drive landscaping will require an ARB application for an amendment to an approved Certificate of Appropriateness and review by the ARB, in addition to an amendment to the site plan. Engineering (John Anderson) • Please see attached memo. However, note that the most recent Engineering comments relate to the site -plan changes that would happen after the special -use permit amendment approval. The requested information does not need to be provided before the special use permit request goes to public hearing. 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 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Project: Faith Christian Center International —Special Permit Plan preparer: Brian Smith; Brian P. Smith, PE, Civil Engineering 4835 Three Chopt Road, Troy, VA 22974 — bpspegembargmail.com Mark Keller, Terra Concepts, PC /2046 Rock Quarry Road, Louisa, VA 23093 mkellerAterraconceptspc. com Owner or rep.: Faith Christian Center International, Inc -Pastor Wayne Frye [P. O. Box 2306, Charlottesville, VA 22902] Plan received date: 6 Apr 2016 (Rev. 1) 6 Jun 2016 Date of comments: 2 May 2016 (Rev. 1) 16 Jun 2016 (Exhibit submittal) Reviewer: John Anderson Special Permit Coordinator: Scott Clark (Site Plan Coordinator: Rachel Falkenstein) 17 Jun 2016 Enizineeriniz review comments: 1. If change to conditions of Approval for SP200700028 and SP200700029 relating to Mitigation planting requirements are approved by Planning, it appears Final Site Plan Mitigation Plan (SDP201500019, L5.2 requires Amendment. Engineering recommends Applicant coordinate Site Plan requirements associated with any change in (SP conditions relating to) Mitigation planting requirements with Site Plan Coordinator. 2. Exhibit titled Composite Planting Plan, sheet 3 of 4, d. 5-19-16 received 20 -May 2016, identifies: a. 0.34 Ac. Area for Mitigation Plantings in nearest 50' of stream buffer (Typ. /Shadwell Creek). b. 0.97 Ac. Area for Mitigation Plantings in furthest 50' of stream buffer. 3. Provide PLANT SCHEDULE identifying plant types and quantities corresponding with nearest /furthest acreage values listed above for comparison with Riparian Buffer Guidance Manual Table B, Option B. [Please ref. initial Engineering SP review comments, below] Initial Engineering SP review comments, below A. Special Permit (SP201600009) Engineering does not object to (undated Statement of Justification) request for reconsideration of the conditions of approval pertaining to SP200700028 and SP200700029, specifically, requirements tied to Table A in Appendix D of the "Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Manual" published by the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation's Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance program. Applicant requests to be allowed to plant areas labeled Re -Planting Areas on Site Plan SDP201500019 according to Table B designed for stream buffer impacts > 1/4 Ac. Statement of Justification reports that "1.13 acres is to be disturbed (this is accurate, ref. SDP201500019, sheet L5.2, Approved 9/17/15; images below), and, therefore, mitigated." Since impact exceeds 1/4 Ac, from a resource perspective, apart from any superseding requirement, Engineering review (site, special use, or WPO), considers 1.13 Ac. buffer impact as eligible for Table B, planting option B. Engineering would not recommend that more stringent Table A mitigation planting requirements apply. In addition, certain slope and replanting area access constraints favor Table B planting option. Engineering agrees Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 with Applicant that "It is simply what should be required, barring any desire by the County to impose an over-riding, special requirement upon the church." 1. Engineering supports revision to Final Site Plan Mitigation Plan (SDP201500019, L5.2), and encourages Applicant to consider Table B and propose revision to Stream Buffer Mitigation Program Notes, L5.2. 2. Approval likely requires Final Site Plan Letter of Revision or Amendment. Applicant should contact and coordinate any LOR or Amendment requirements with Site Plan project coordinator, Rachel Falkenstein. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 SDP201500019 —L5.2 (Approved 9/17/151 STREAM BUFFER MITIGATION ]PROGRAM NOTES REQUIREMENT CALCULATION SF ACRES % AREA OF SITE WITHIN 100' WPO BUFFER 108,716 2.50 100 AREA OF WPO BUFFER TO BE DISTURBED 49,341 1.13 45 REQUIRE[> MITIGATION AREA EQUALS DISTURBED WPO SUFFER AREA X 2. THEREFORE, MITIGATION AREA REQUIREMENT EQUALS 49,341 SF X 2 EQUALS 98,682 SF (2.27 AC). BY ACTION TAKEN BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (BOS) REGARDING SP -2007-000289 DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2010, THE SPECIAL PERMIT WAS GRANTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION ASSOCIATED MITIGATION OF DISTURBED WPO BUFFER AREA: THE AREA LABELED "RE—PLANTING AREA" ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHALL BE REPLANTED ACCORDING TO "RESTORATION / ESTABLISHMENT TABLE A" IN APPENDIX D OF THE "RIPARIAN BUFFERS MODIFICATION & MITIGATION MANUAL," PUBLISHED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & RECREATION'S CHESAPEAKE BAY LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THIS AREA SHALL BE REPLANTED WITH SPECIES LISTED IN THE BROCHURE TITLED "NATIVE PLANTS FOR CONSERVATION, RESTORATION AND LANDSCAPING: PIEDMONT PLATEAU," PUBLISHED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & RECREATION. TABLE A REFERRED TO IN THE BOS ACTION IS IMPLEMENTED ON A "UNIT BASIS", WHERE A UNIT OF MITIGATION IS EQUIVALENT TO 400 SF. TAKING THE REQUIRED MITIGATION AREA OF 98,682 SF AND DIVIDING BY 400 YIELDS A REQUIREMENT OF 247 MITIGATION UNITS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 400 SF MITIGATION UNIT UNIT INCLUDES 1 -CANOPY TREE, 1 UNDERSTORY AND 1 SMALL EVERGREEN TREE AND 3 SMALL SHRUBS - 450 SF CANOPY THERE ARE AREAS OF THE SITE THAT FALL WITHIN THE 100' WPO BUFFER THAT ARE NOT PROPOSED TO BE DISTURBED. THESE AREAS WERE INVESTIGATED A5 POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR ON—SITE MITIGATION. THESE AREAS DISPLAYED NO NOTEWORTY EROSION AND WERE FOUND TO SUPPORT NATIVE CANOPY, UNDERSTORY AND GROUNDCOVER AND, AS SUCH, ARE ALSO NOT GOOD CANDIDATES FOR MITIGATION, MITIGATION PLANTINGS ARE TO OCCUR WITHIN THE 100' WPO BUFFER. SUBTRACTING ALREADY STABLE AND VEGETATIVELY DIVERSE AREAS TO BE PRESERVED WITHIN THE 100' WPO BUFFER AS WELL AS WOODED AREAS WITHIN THE 20' BUFFER AND OVERHEAD UTILITY EASEMENTS, AN AREA OF ROUGHLY 51,200 SF WITHIN THE WPO BUFFER IS CONSIDERED SUITABLE FOR MITIGATION PLANTINGS. THIS REPRESENTS 128 MITIGATION UNITS — SHORT OF THE 247 MITIGATION UNITS REQUIRED. THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS SUGGESTED THAT INCLUSION OF ALTERNATIVE WATER QUALITY MEASURES, SUCH AS INSTALLATION OF FILTERRA UNITS, WILL BE ACCEPTABLE IN MEETING THE BALANCE OF THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENT. THESE FILTERRA UNITS AND ANY OTHER MITIGATION MEASURES INTENDED AS PART OF THE MITIGATION PROGRAM SHALL BE INCLUDED ON THE FINAL SITE DEWELOPMENT PLANS AND WPO SUBMISSIONS TO BE FILED FOR THIS PROJECT. TO INSURE CLARITY, THIS PLAN GRAPHICALLY REFLECTS THE MITIGATION PLANTINGS AS A SERIES OF IDENTICAL MITIGATION UNITS. IN THIS GRAPHIC MANNER THE MITIGATION PLAN CAN BE EASILY QUANTIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. IN PRACTICE, AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION, PLANTS MAY BE SHIFTED WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA IN WHICH THEY ARE GRAPHICALLY PROPOSED ON THE PLAN TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, EXITING VEGETATION, TO RESPECT THE LIMITS OF THE 20' BUFFER, WHICH IS TO BE UNDISTURBED AND TO INSURE THAT THEY RESIDE WITHIN THE 100' WPO BUFFER LIMITS. Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 Table B: RIPARIAN BUFFERS MODIFICATION & 1VIITIGATION GUIDANCE MANUAL Greater than'/4 acre of buffer More than 10,890 square feet A. Plant at the same rate as for'/4 acre or less. B. The waterside 50% of the buffer (from the waterline inland for the first 50 feet. For every 400 square -foot unit (20'x20') or fraction thereof plant: one (1) canopy tree @ 11/2,,- 2„ caliper or large evergreen @ 6' two (2) understory trees @ 3/4,,— 1 ''/2„ caliper or evergreen @ 4' or one (1) understory tree and two (2) large shrubs @ 3'-4' three (3) small shrubs or woody groundcover @ 15,,-18,, AND The landward 50% of buffer (from 50 feet inland to 100 feet inlandt. either plant Bare root seedlings or whips at 1,210 stems per acre', approximately 6'x6' on center (Minimum survival required after two growing seasons: 600 plants) or Container grown seedling tubes at 700 per acre approximately 8'x 8' on center (Minimum survival required after two growing seasons: 490 plants) Please feel free to call 434.296-5832—x3096 to discuss this project. File: SP201600009 FCCI SP 061616rev.I (IS (tij 1 !. A) CONCEPTS PC 1 Transmittal/Fax 3 j Date. 5-19-16 Pages: 1 of 1 -0 1 From: Mark Keller I To: Rachel Falkenstein—Community Development Fax: Re: Request for EIOS Re-Visitation;SP 201600009 and SP 201600012 - FCCI 1 I For: X Distribution X Review&Comment Records Other: 14 Transmitting the Following: 1 Qty. Item I 17 Revised Sheet 3 of Exhibit Set Comments: 1 Rachel- The only change made to the application per comments has been to add a note to Exhibit 3 that 1 refers to the graphics showing entry drive tree plantings.We appreciate that a Letter of Revision (LOR)will subsequently be required of this application to formalize the changes to the mitigation plan , 1 under consideration. Inasmuch as the Applicant also has a desire to subsequently propose some i changes to the entry drive it was our recommendation to them that we reflect those changes in a i simple manner on Exhibit 3 as well. We believe that the plantings now reflected are n accordance 1 with the entry drive comments received from the ARB during the site plan review/approval process. By adding the note and leader referencing the entry drive plantings we are simply acknowledging and setting to record that this unrelated change will be addressed at the next stage of consideration of this application. Let us know if there is anything further we can do and what dates are eventually set for this 1 application . F I -Mark I g 5-19-16,Falkenstein,Rev SP Request Trans.doc 1 11 NOTICE: This contains designer-client privileged information,privileged work product,or other confidential information.It is intended only for the designated recipient If you receive this and are not the designated recipient you are requested to destroy or deliver this message to the designated recipient immediately;otherwise,notify us that you received this document by mistake.Thank you. MASTER&SITE PLANNING • ENTITLEMENT PROCESSING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2046 Rock Quarry Road,Louisa,Virginia 23093•Office 434-531-3600•mkeller@terraconceptspc.coni COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 May 6, 2016 Mr. Mark Keller Terra Concepts 2046 Rock Quarry Rd Louisa VA 23093 RE: SP201600009 Faith Christian Center International SP201600012 Faith Christian Center International — Daycare Amendment Dear Mr. Keller -- Thank you for the recent application for SP201600009. Please find review comments for this application included in this letter. Please note that we have added a second application number for this proposal, as the day-care SP for this site has the same stream -buffer condition and must also be amended. (There is no additional fee for the second permit number.) 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.) Review Comments Planning (Scott Clark) • Planning has no objection to the proposed change to the required planting standards, given the extent of grading that has proven to be necessary on the site. Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszewski) • The proposed revised planting standards for the stream buffer are expected to have an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor. However, please note that the planting shown along the entrance drive is not the approved landscape design. To avoid confusion, the approved landscaping should be shown or a note should be added to the plan noting the discrepancy and referring to the approved plan. Engineering (John Anderson) • 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 OF Aig�,. EC'y `fir C Y� `l� m am VrRGIN14+ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Project: Faith Christian Center International —Special Permit Plan preparer: Brian Smith; Brian P. Smith, PE, Civil Engineering 4835 Three Chopt Road, Troy, VA 22974 — b1)s1)e a,embargmail.com Owner or rep.: Faith Christian Center International, Inc -Pastor Wayne Frye [P. O. Box 2306, Charlottesville, VA 22902] Plan received date: 6 Apr 2016 Date of comments: 2 May 2016 Reviewer: John Anderson Special Permit Coordinator: Scott Clark (Site Plan Coordinator: Rachel Falkenstein) A. Special Permit (SP201600009) Engineering does not object to (undated Statement of Justification) request for reconsideration of the conditions of approval pertaining to SP200700028 and SP200700029, specifically, requirements tied to Table A in Appendix D of the "Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Manual" published by the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation's Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance program. Applicant requests to be allowed to plant areas labeled Re -Planting Areas on Site Plan SDP201500019 according to Table B designed for stream buffer impacts > 1/4 Ac. Statement of Justification reports that "1.13 acres is to be disturbed (this is accurate, ref. SDP201500019, sheet L5.2, Approved 9/17/15; images below), and, therefore, mitigated." Since impact exceeds '/4 Ac, from a resource perspective, apart from any superseding requirement, Engineering review (site, special use, or WPO), considers 1.13 Ac. buffer impact as eligible for Table B, planting option B. Engineering would not recommend that more stringent Table A mitigation planting requirements apply. In addition, certain slope and replanting area access constraints favor Table B planting option. Engineering agrees with Applicant that "It is simply what should be required, barring any desire by the County to impose an over-riding, special requirement upon the church." 1. Engineering supports revision to Final Site Plan Mitigation Plan (SDP201500019, L5.2), and encourages Applicant to consider Table B and propose revision to Stream Buffer Mitigation Program Notes, L5.2. 2. Approval likely requires Final Site Plan Letter of Revision or Amendment. Applicant should contact and coordinate any LOR or Amendment requirements with Site Plan project coordinator, Rachel Falkenstein. SDP201500019 —L5.2 (Approved 9/17/15) STREAM BUFFER MITIGATION ]PROGRAM NOTES RFQLIIRE&MENT CALCULATION SF ACRES AREA OF SITE WITHIN 100' WPO BUFFER 108,716 2.50 100 AREA OF WPO BUFFER TO BE DISTURBED 49,341 1.13 45 REQUIRED MITIGATION AREA EQUALS DISTURBED WPO BUFFER AREA X 2. THEREFORE, MITIGATION AREA REQUIREMENT EQUALS 49,341 SF X 2 EQUALS 98,682 SF (2.27 AC). BY ACTION TAKEN BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (BOS) REGARDING SP -2007-000289 DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2010, THE SPECIAL PERMIT WAS GRANTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION ASSOCIATED MITIGATION OF DISTURBED WPO BUFFER AREA: THE AREA LABELED "RE -PLANTING AREA" ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHALL BE REPLANTED ACCORDING TO "RESTORATION / ESTABLISHMENT TABLE A" fN APPENDIX D OF THE "RIPARIAN BUFFERS MODIFICATION & MITIGATION MANUAL," PUBLISHED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & RECREATION'S CHESAPEAKE BAY LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THIS AREA SHALL BE REPLANTED WITH SPECIES LISTED IN THE BROCHURE TITLED "NATIVE PLANTS FOR CONSERVATION, RESTORATION AND LANDSCAPING: PIEDMONT PLATEAU," PUBLISHED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & RECREATION. TABLE A REFERRED TO IN THE BOS ACTION IS IMPLEMENTED ON A "UNIT BASIS", WHERE A UNIT OF MITIGATION IS EQUIVALENT TO 400 SF. TAKING THE REQUIRED MITIGATION AREA OF 98,682 SF AND DIVIDING BY 400 YIELDS A REQUIREMENT OF 247 MITIGATION UNITS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, 400 SF MITIGATION UNIT UNIT INCLUDES 1 -CANOPY TREE, 1 UNDERSTORY AND 1 SMALL EVERGREEN TREE AND 3 SMALL SHRUBS = 450 SF CANOPY THERE ARE AREAS OF THE SITE THAT FALL WITHIN THE 100' WPO BUFFER THAT ARE NOT PROPOSED TO BE DISTURBED. THESE AREAS WERE INVESTIGATED AS POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR ON—SITE MITIGATION. THESE AREAS DISPLAYED NO NOTEWCRTY EROSION AND WERE FOUND TO SUPPORT NATIVE CANOPY, UNDERSTORY AND GROUNDCOVER AND, AS SUCH, ARE ALSO NOT GOOD CANDIDATES FOR MITIGATION, MITIGATION PLANTINGS ARE TO OCCUR WITHIN THE 100' WPO BUFFER. SUBTRACTING ALREADY STABLE AND VEGETATIVELY DIVERSE AREAS TO BE PRESERVED WITHIN THE 100' WPO BUFFER AS WELL AS WOODED AREAS WITHIN THE 20' BUFFER AND OVERHEAD UTILITY EASEMENTS, AN AREA OF ROUGHLY 51,200 SF WITHIN THE WPO BUFFER IS CONSIDERED SUITABLE FOR MITTIGATION PLANTINGS. THIS REPRESENTS 128 MITIGATION UNITS — SHORT OF THE 247 MIITIGATION UNITS REQUIRED. THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS SUIGGESTED THAT INCLUSION OF ALTERNATIVE WATER QUALITY MEASURES, SUCH AS INSTALLATION OF FILTERRA UNITS, WILL BE ACCEPTABLE IN MEETING THE BALANCE OF THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENT. THESE FILTERRA UNITS AND ANY OTHER MITIGATION MEASURES INTENDED AS PART OF THE MITIGATION PROGRAM SHALL BE INCLUDED ON THE FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND WPO SUBMISSIONS TO BE FILED FOR THIS PROJECT. TO INSURE CLARITY, THIS PLAN GRAPHICALLY REFLECTS THE MITIGATION PLANTINGS AS A SERIES OF IDENTICAL MITIGATION UNITS. IN THIS GRAPHIC MANNER THE MITIGATION PLAN CAN BE EASILY QUANTIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. IN PRACTICE, AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION, PLANTS MAY BE SHIFTED WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA IN WHICH THEY ARE GRAPHICALLY PROPOSED ON THE PLAN TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, EXISTING VEGETATION, TO RESPECT THE LIMITS OF THE 20' BUFFER, WHICH IS TO BE UNDISTURBED AND TO INSURE THAT THEY RESIDE WITHIN THE 100' WPO BUFFER LIMITS. Table B: RIPARIAN BUFFERS MODIFICATION & MITIGATION GUIDANCE MANUAL Greater than'/4 acre of buffer More than 10,890 square feet A. Plant at the same rate as for'/4 acre or less. B. The waterside 50% of the buffer (from the waterline inland for the first 50 feet For every 400 square -foot unit (20'x20') or fraction thereofplant: one (1) canopy tree @ 1'/2„ - 2„ caliper or large evergreen @ 6' two (2) understory trees @3/4,, —1 %2„ caliper or evergreen @ 4' or one (1) understory tree and two (2) large shrubs @ 3'-4' three (3) small shrubs or woody groundcover @ 15,,— 18,, AND The landward 50% ofbuffer (from 50 feet inland to 100 feet inland) - either plant Bare root seedlings or whips at 1,210 stems per acre', approximately 6'x6' on center (Minimum survival required after two growing seasons: 600 plants) or Container grown seedling tubes at 700 per acre approximately 8'x 8' on center (Minimum survival required after two growing seasons: 490 plants) Please feel free to call 434.296-5832-0096 to discuss this project. File: SP201600009 FCCI SP 050216 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 May 6, 2016 Mr. Craig Kotarski Timmons Group 111 West High St Charlottesville VA 22902 RE: SP201600010 Cornerstone Community Church Addition Dear Mr. Kotarski -- Thank you for the recent application for this special use permit. Please find review comments for this application 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.) Review Comments Planning (Scott Clark) • Please note that the Engineering comments are, in this case, the most critical, as they deal with the amount of expansion that can be permitted on this site. • The application states that "initially" the church would have two services. Please (1) explain if there is any plan to change from the two -service plan, either for one larger service or for more than two, and (2) provide an outline of the plan and timing for clearing out cars from the first service before people would arrive for the second service. • Please provide more detailed estimates of the number of people using the facility Monday through Saturday. • Conceptual Plan: o Please label the two halves of the plan sheet "Existing Conditions" and "Proposed" (or something similar). Or submit a single "proposed" plan that shows both existing and proposed building footprint and vegetation boundaries. o Please show the entire property on the proposed plan, even if the limits of the topographic survey remain. We would recommend that as much of the wooded area northeast of the church as possible be delineated with a tree line and labelled as "wooded area to remain." o The proposed plan should show both existing and proposed tree lines, taking into account the grading necessary around the parking and the biofilters. These lines can replace the labels that read "20' Existing Vegetated Buffer." o Please use existing open areas (for example, near the western corner of the proposed parking) to fill in with native tree species. New planting areas can help to offset the vegetation losses elsewhere on the site. o Please clarify what the gray -shaded area on the plan represents. If it is meant to show critical slopes, our GIS data suggests that those slopes are actually located on the adjacent reservoir parcel. o For the new parking screening, please specify native tree species and indicate a more "natural" planting pattern that adds to the screening of the existing vegetation, rather than the double -staggered row. Zoning (Francis MacCall) • The number of parking spaces on site appears to be adequate to serve the use of a 250 seat church. • Reference setbacks as follows 30' Front (Building) 50' Side (Building) Setbacks along the water side should be limited to where the parking may eventually be approved at. This could be a major element (See comment #5). The 20' setback is in the floodplain thus not possible, so remove this parking setback reference. • Standard conditions for churches should apply, including appropriate "general accord" with major elements. • Extension of the time to commence the use beyond the standard 24 month may be necessary Engineering (John Anderson) • Stream buffer comments are included in attached memo. • Stormwater: o Water Quality: Applicant discusses off-site nutrient credit purchase, but expresses resource protection goal in proposing on-site (potential) biofilters located within the 200' stream buffer. While recognizing site plan/WPO may ultimately require limited off-site nutrient credit purchase, Engineering commends Applicant for proposing on-site non-proprietary or manufactured BMPs. Engineering also accepts proposed locations as only practical available on-site locations. These locations are approximately 60' from water's edge, South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. o Water Quantity: Site discharge must cross a strip of land owned by City of Charlottesville. Proposed conceptual biofilter design requires drainage easement to connect site and reservoir. Engineering accepts Applicant's stated position that with property line located 40'-50' from water's edge "there is no benefit to on-site detention." And: "it is better for the larger overall drainage area system to see our site's runoff immediately, allowing it to move downstream ahead of additional upstream peak flow" (3/21/2016 letter). Provided Applicant obtains easement to construct and maintain a riprap channel that contains the Qio runoff event at non- erosive velocity (Qz) between site BMP outfall/s and (reservoir) water's edge, then no additional on-site attenuation measures would be required (Ref. 9VAC25- 870-66). Building Code (Jay Schlothauer) • No objection to the Special Use Permit application. • Due to the increase in total square footage, the building must include an automatic sprinkler system or it must be divided, by firewalls, into smaller fire areas. Virginia Department of Transportation • VDOT comments are not yet available, but should be provided during the week of May 9th. We apologize for the delay. The comments will be sent out to you as soon as they are available. Given the importance of traffic concerns on this particular site, we would suggest that you not make any resubmittals until you have received and reviewed the VDOT comments. 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 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Project: Cornerstone Community Church Addition Plan preparer: Craig Kotarski, Timmons Group /608 Preston Ave #200 Charlottesville, VA 22903 [craijz.kotarski(a)timmons.com] Owner or rep.: Monticello Wesleyan Church & Wesleyan Church Inc., T J Moon, Jr, et al. 2001 Earlysville Rd, Earlysville, VA 22936 Plan received date: 6 Apr 2016 Date of comments: 2 May 2016 Reviewer: John Anderson Project Coordinator: Scott Clark Cc: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator; Mark Graham, Director Albemarle County Community Development Attachment: E-mail (chain) re expansion of structure within stream buffer, Wed 4/6/2016 8:19 AM SP201600010 En ing eering comments: As discussed during interdivisional meeting 20 -Apr 2016, stream buffer impacts associated with Cornerstone Community Church Addition appear to benefit from recent departmental review* that traces a similar proposed structural addition through ordinance to clarify basis allowing certain structural modifications to nonconforming structures within stream buffers, including expansion. (*email: M. Graham, Director, to Steve Miller 4/6/2016 8:19 AM; E-mail also available in CV database system.) Note: 4/6 email is zoning -intensive and requires research to establish that TMP# 45-31D was a lot of record prior to Feb 11, 1998. Email (Attached) is helpful, yet requires close examination. Engineering defers to Zoning Division's understanding of effect of ordinance on proposed expansion of structure, and parking. Using example of similar project, if TMP# 45-31D was lot of record prior to February 11, 1998, then structural expansion within stream buffer appears not simply eligible for approval but also exempt from buffer mitigation requirements. Evaluation of proposed expanded parking, however, raises several questions. (Ref. Application Plan, 1/25/2016) Parking areas are not part of a structure, yet substantial increase in parking within stream buffer is directly tied to (necessary to) the expansion of a nonconforming structure within stream buffer. Engineering draws attention to 18- 6.2.A.1 Nonconforming Use, Occupation or Use of Additional Area. This section of code does not trace the same path to allowable expansion of use as traced for allowable expansion of structure. Evaluation of expansion of structure follows outline provided by 4/6/2016 e-mail, while proposed occupation or use of additional area for parking appears to require separate evaluation against 18-6.2., if it is even possible to get there (item #4, below). 1. Engineering recommends Zoning Administrator review and comment on proposed expanded parking areas, nearly all entirely within 200' reservoir stream buffer. Also, item #4 /GIS images. 2. Note: No development (defined as man-made change) is proposed within mapped floodplain. A floodplain development permit application is not required with this proposed project. 3. Critical slopes impacts are shown, including areas to be graded or paved for parking. Design should avoid critical slopes, or obtain critical slopes waiver. 4. Unless Zoning finds exemption to allow expansion of parking within stream buffer, Engineering recommends against expanded parking within buffer, which would in effect prohibit likely -allowable church expansion. Please note referential links from one code section to the next used to trace evaluation of proposal to expand a structure begins with 17-603.A. Engineering cannot find equivalent point of departure leading from Water Protection Ordinance (Ch. 17) to Zoning Ordinance. This path so necessary and helpful in evaluating structural expansion does not (appear to) exist in case of parking expansion. 17- 604.A. allows consideration of development within the landward 50 horizontal feet of a stream buffer. This is of limited value in this case since buffer is expansive (200'). Allowing development (with mitigation) within the landward 50' is limited to areas far from proposed parking near the reservoir. The practical effect is (likely) to prohibit proposed building expansion. Engineering cannot identify path to approval. 5. County GIS Images: CRITICAL SLOPES shaded tan Mapped Floodplain Thank you 434-296-5832 —0069 File: SP201600010—Cornerstone Community Church Addition 050216 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Project: Faith Christian Center International —Special Permit Plan preparer: Brian Smith; Brian P. Smith, PE, Civil Engineering 4835 Three Chopt Road, Troy, VA 22974 — bpspe(a)embargmail.com Owner or rep.: Faith Christian Center International, Inc -Pastor Wayne Frye [P. O. Box 2306, Charlottesville, VA 22902] Plan received date: 6 Apr 2016 Date of comments: 2 May 2016 Reviewer: John Anderson Special Permit Coordinator: Scott Clark (Site Plan Coordinator: Rachel Falkenstein) A. Special Permit (SP201600009) Engineering does not object to (undated Statement of Justification) request for reconsideration of the conditions of approval pertaining to SP200700028 and SP200700029, specifically, requirements tied to Table A in Appendix D of the "Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Manual" published by the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation's Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance program. Applicant requests to be allowed to plant areas labeled Re -Planting Areas on Site Plan SDP201500019 according to Table B designed for stream buffer impacts > %4 Ac. Statement of Justification reports that "1.13 acres is to be disturbed (this is accurate, ref. SDP201500019, sheet L5.2, Approved 9/17/15; images below), and, therefore, mitigated." Since impact exceeds %4 Ac, from a resource perspective, apart from any superseding requirement, Engineering review (site, special use, or WPO), considers 1.13 Ac. buffer impact as eligible for Table B, planting option B. Engineering would not recommend that more stringent Table A mitigation planting requirements apply. In addition, certain slope and replanting area access constraints favor Table B planting option. Engineering agrees with Applicant that "It is simply what should be required, barring any desire by the County to impose an over-riding, special requirement upon the church." 1. Engineering supports revision to Final Site Plan Mitigation Plan (SDP201500019, L5.2), and encourages Applicant to consider Table B and propose revision to Stream Buffer Mitigation Program Notes, L5.2. 2. Approval likely requires Final Site Plan Letter of Revision or Amendment. Applicant should contact and coordinate any LOR or Amendment requirements with Site Plan project coordinator, Rachel Falkenstein. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 SDP201500019 —L5.2 (Approved 9/17/151 STREAM BUFFER MITIGATION ]PROGRAM NOTES _ REQUIREMENT CALCULATION SF ACRES % AREA OF SITE WITHIN 100' WPO BUFFER 108,716 2.50 100 AREA OF WPO BUFFER TO BE DISTURBED 49,341 1.13 45 REQUIRE[> MITIGATION AREA EQUALS DISTURBED WPO SUFFER AREA X 2. THEREFORE, MITIGATION AREA REQUIREMENT EQUALS 49,341 SF X 2 EQUALS 98,682 SF (2.27 AC). BY ACTION TAKEN BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (BOS) REGARDING SP -2007-000289 DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2010, THE SPECIAL PERMIT WAS GRANTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION ASSOCIATED MITIGATION OF DISTURBED WPO BUFFER AREA: THE AREA LABELED "RE—PLANTING AREA" ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHALL BE REPLANTED ACCORDING TO "RESTORATION / ESTABLISHMENT TABLE A" IN APPENDIX D OF THE "RIPARIAN BUFFERS MODIFICATION & MITIGATION MANUAL," PUBLISHED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & RECREATION'S CHESAPEAKE BAY LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THIS AREA SHALL BE REPLANTED WITH SPECIES LISTED IN THE BROCHURE TITLED "NATIVE PLANTS FOR CONSERVATION, RESTORATION AND LANDSCAPING: PIEDMONT PLATEAU," PUBLISHED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & RECREATION. TABLE A REFERRED TO IN THE BOS ACTION IS IMPLEMENTED ON A "UNIT BASIS", WHERE A UNIT OF MITIGATION IS EQUIVALENT TO 400 SF. TAKING THE REQUIRED MITIGATION AREA OF 98,682 SF AND DIVIDING BY 400 YIELDS A REQUIREMENT OF 247 MITIGATION UNITS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 400 SF MITIGATION UNIT UNIT INCLUDES 1 -CANOPY TREE, 1 UNDERSTORY AND 1 SMALL EVERGREEN TREE AND 3 SMALL SHRUBS - 450 SF CANOPY THERE ARE AREAS OF THE SITE THAT FALL WITHIN THE 100' WPO BUFFER THAT ARE NOT PROPOSED TO BE DISTURBED. THESE AREAS WERE INVESTIGATED A5 POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR ON—SITE MITIGATION. THESE AREAS DISPLAYED NO NOTEWORTY EROSION AND WERE FOUND TO SUPPORT NATIVE CANOPY, UNDERSTORY AND GROUNDCOVER AND, AS SUCH, ARE ALSO NOT GOOD CANDIDATES FOR MITIGATION, MITIGATION PLANTINGS ARE TO OCCUR WITHIN THE 100' WPO BUFFER. SUBTRACTING ALREADY STABLE AND VEGETATIVELY DIVERSE AREAS TO BE PRESERVED WITHIN THE 100' WPO BUFFER AS WELL AS WOODED AREAS WITHIN THE 20' BUFFER AND OVERHEAD UTILITY EASEMENTS, AN AREA OF ROUGHLY 51,200 SF WITHIN THE WPO BUFFER IS CONSIDERED SUITABLE FOR MITIGATION PLANTINGS. THIS REPRESENTS 128 MITIGATION UNITS — SHORT OF THE 247 MITIGATION UNITS REQUIRED. THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS SUGGESTED THAT INCLUSION OF ALTERNATIVE WATER QUALITY MEASURES, SUCH AS INSTALLATION OF FILTERRA UNITS, WILL BE ACCEPTABLE IN MEETING THE BALANCE OF THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENT. THESE FILTERRA UNITS AND ANY OTHER MITIGATION MEASURES INTENDED AS PART OF THE MITIGATION PROGRAM SHALL BE INCLUDED ON THE FINAL SITE DEWELOPMENT PLANS AND WPO SUBMISSIONS TO BE FILED FOR THIS PROJECT. TO INSURE CLARITY, THIS PLAN GRAPHICALLY REFLECTS THE MITIGATION PLANTINGS AS A SERIES OF IDENTICAL MITIGATION UNITS. IN THIS GRAPHIC MANNER THE MITIGATION PLAN CAN BE EASILY QUANTIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. IN PRACTICE, AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION, PLANTS MAY BE SHIFTED WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA IN WHICH THEY ARE GRAPHICALLY PROPOSED ON THE PLAN TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, EXITING VEGETATION, TO RESPECT THE LIMITS OF THE 20' BUFFER, WHICH IS TO BE UNDISTURBED AND TO INSURE THAT THEY RESIDE WITHIN THE 100' WPO BUFFER LIMITS. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 Table B: RIPARIAN BUFFERS MODIFICATION & 1VIITIGATION GUIDANCE MANUAL Greater than'/4 acre of buffer More than 10,890 square feet A. Plant at the same rate as for'/4 acre or less. B. The waterside 50% of the buffer (from the waterline inland for the first 50 feet. For every 400 square -foot unit (20'x20') or fraction thereof plant: one (1) canopy tree @ 11/2,,- 2„ caliper or large evergreen @ 6' two (2) understory trees @ 3/4,,— 1 ''/2„ caliper or evergreen @ 4' or one (1) understory tree and two (2) large shrubs @ 3'-4' three (3) small shrubs or woody groundcover @ 15,,-18,, AND The landward 50% of buffer (from 50 feet inland to 100 feet inlandt. either plant Bare root seedlings or whips at 1,210 stems per acre', approximately 6'x6' on center (Minimum survival required after two growing seasons: 600 plants) or Container grown seedling tubes at 700 per acre approximately 8'x 8' on center (Minimum survival required after two growing seasons: 490 plants) Please feel free to call 434.296-5832—x3096 to discuss this project. File: SP201600009 FCCI SP 050216