Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201600010 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2016-07-06COUNTY 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. 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 resubmittal for this special use permit. Please find review comments for this application included in this letter. Review Comments Planning (Scott Clark • Although the pattern of the new screening trees has been changed on the plan, the associated note still reads "double staggered" and "approximately 15' on center." Please change the note to just specify that native tree species will be used. This change can be made without a full resubmittal. Zoning (Francis MacCall) • All revisions look OK except the setback note. The setback note on the first page just references the parking and not the building as they say they would in their response. Need to state 30' building from Route 743 Earlysville Road. • The proposed plan shows the public road as 676 Woodlands Road not 743 Earlysville Road. Change to 743 Earlysville Road. • Planning note: If these changes are the only ones that need to be made, the plan can be revised and sent in without a formal resubmission or fee. Engineering (John Anderson) • Please see attached memo. • Planning note: Again, if the requested addition of the stream buffer line included in the Engineering comments is the only change to be made in response to these comments, a revised plan can be submitted without a formal resubmittal. However, if elements of the design are changing on the plan, then a resubmittal would be needed. Virginia Department of Transportation • 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 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 [craig.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 (Rev. 1) 6 Jun 2016 Date of comments: 2 May 2016 Comments Revised 13 May 2016 (Rev. 1) 16 Jun 2016 Reviewer: John Anderson Project Coordinator: Scott Clark Cc: Francis MacCall; 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 'ngi 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: We are cautious in considering request to expand Cornerstone Community Church parking areas within South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir 200' stream buffer (topic of 2 -May 2016 Engineering comments #1, 4). 11 -May, CD staff discussed proposed expansion of parking at Cornerstone Community Church within the stream buffer. If not for permissible expansion of the building, we may have faced different outcome, but given permissible expansion of structure within buffer, given that denial of expansion of parking would prohibit Applicant's ability to expand— proposed parking within stream buffer is permissible, as well. Though expanded parking is not prohibited, review considerations will likely condition approval. 1. Engineering accepts and concurs with view that expanded parking areas, nearly all entirely within 200' reservoir stream buffer, are permissible. 18-6.2.A.1 does not in this instance prohibit expansion of parking within South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir 200' stream buffer since exemption exists for expanding the church building under 18-6.3.A.2. 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. –Ref. item #8, below. (Rev. 1) Critical slopes were shown on initial Application (sheet C2.0.), but are not shown on current C2.0. Please restore critical slope shading. 4. Engineering does not object to parking area expansion within South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir 200' stream buffer. –Also, item #1, above. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 5. Engineering requests (does not require) mitigation plantings to help offset hardscape impacts of building expansion, sidewalks, and expanded parking areas. Project proposes significant stream buffer impacts. (Rev. 1) Comment retained. 6. New —Please show stream buffer, C2.0. Apologize for failure to request stream buffer be shown with prior comments. If not shown, it is more difficult to discuss stream buffer impacts. Also, please add shading or outlines that indicate limits of 1.68 Ac. existing and 0.24 Ac. additional impact to WPO buffer. Stormwater 8. 9. 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. (Rev. 1) 25 May 2016 Applicant response: Comment Acknowledged. 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 Q10 runoff event at non-erosive velocity (Q2) between site BMP outfall/s and (reservoir) water's edge, then no additional on-site attenuation measures would be required (Ref. 9VAC25-870-66). (Rev. 1) Applicant response: "Efforts will be made to return overflow to street (sheet) flow prior to crossing all property line(s), maintaining existing drainage patterns, not requiring easements." County GIS Images: CRITICAL SLOPES shaded tan ERWWWWWRI o Mode ow Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 Thank you 434-296-5832 —x3069 File: SP201600010_Cornerstone Community Church Addition -061616 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 [craig.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 Comments Revised 13 May 2016 Reviewer: John Anderson Project Coordinator: Scott Clark Cc: Francis MacCall; 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 Engineering 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: We are cautious in considering request to expand Cornerstone Community Church parking areas within South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir 200' stream buffer (topic of 2 -May 2016 Engineering comments #1, 4). 11 -May, CD staff discussed proposed expansion of parking at Cornerstone Community Church within the stream buffer. If not for permissible expansion of the building, we may have faced different outcome, but given permissible expansion of structure within buffer, given that denial of expansion of parking would prohibit Applicant's ability to expand— proposed parking within stream buffer is permissible, as well. Though expanded parking is not prohibited, review considerations will likely condition approval. 1. Engineering accepts and concurs with view that expanded parking areas, nearly all entirely within 200' reservoir stream buffer, are permissible. 18-6.2.A.1 does not in this instance prohibit expansion of parking within South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir 200' stream buffer since exemption exists for expanding the church building under 18-6.3.A.2. 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. –Ref. item #8, below. 4. Engineering does not object to parking area expansion within South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir 200' stream buffer. –Also, item #1, above. 5. Engineering requests (does not require) mitigation plantings to help offset hardscape impacts of building expansion, sidewalks, and expanded parking areas. Project proposes significant stream buffer impacts. Stormwater 6. 8. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 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. 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 (Q2) between site BMP outfall/s and (reservoir) water's edge, then no additional on-site attenuation measures would be required (Ref. 9VAC25-870-66). County GIS Images: CRITICAL SLOPES shaded tan a o oR l Mapped Floodplain e o o Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 200' Stream buffer /shaded orange Thank you 434-296-5832 —0069 File: SP201600010—Cornerstone Community Church Addition-051316revedit 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 Memorandum To: Scott Clark, Senior Planner From: Francis MacCall, Principal Planner Division: Zoning Date: May 5, 2016 Subject: SP 2016-0010 Cornerstone Church — initial zoning comments Consider the following comments: If the ordinance will allow for the expansion of the structure I believe that the same expansion of the necessary parking for the structure expansion must be permitted within the WPO steam buffer. Parking is required for any use thus cannot be a separate use when evaluating the permitted expansion of a structure that is for a nonconforming use determined to be exempt from the building site requirements. Even if the WPO cannot require mitigation the fact that a special use permit is required means that conditions that will mitigate the impact of the use can be imposed, thus a mitigation plan can be required. Final say of buffer disturbance and overall use approval is up to the BOS (See comment #2). This situation is very abnormal being that almost the entire site is in the designated stream buffer along with the improvements of the building, parking and access in said buffer. It has been determined that because of the nonconforming status of the church use that the expansion is not required to be built in a building site and for that expansion to happen the appropriate parking must be provided, thus the additional parking area would also be permitted. So, per engineering comments, Zoning does find that expansion of the existing parking area is permitted per 18-6.2. 2. If engineering cannot find that further disturbance of the buffer is permitted please remember that the applicant was told for their mandatory Preapp comments the following: The County Engineer advised that fill in the 100 year floodplain may require a SP. He also advised that there is a 200' stream buffer measured from the reservoir floodplain that the applicant is responsible to maintain undisturbed. The landward 50' of the 200' buffer may be disturbed with mitigation provided per Water Protection Ordinance requirements (Code Chapter 17, Article VI). Further disturbances of the buffer would need an exception from the Board of Supervisors. The applicant should make any such request and all necessary findings with the SP application. It is suggested with the request they provide a visual. It appears that the BOS will have to make the final decision on whether they can disturb the buffer further per the WPO. If disturbance of the buffer is permitted the mitigation plan should be a major element that must be maintained. 3. The number of parking spaces on site appears to be adequate to serve the use of a 250 seat church. SP 2016-0010 Cornerstone Church — initial zoning comments Page 2 of 2 4. 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. 5. Standard conditions for churches should apply, including appropriate "general accord" with major elements. 6. Extension of the time to commence the use beyond the standard 24 month may be necessary 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