HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 04 87 PC MinutesAugust 4, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
August 4, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl;
and Mr. David Bowerman (was not present for public hearing; arrived at
8:10 for work session). Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community
Development; Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer; and Mr. Fred Payne,
Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Stark and Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of July 21, 1987 were approved
as submitted.
ZMA 87-8 University Village - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1
of the Zoning Ordinance to amend the proffer of ZMA-82-11 to permit develop-
ment as a retirement community. Amendments to include allowing building
to maximum height permitted by zoning for R-10 district. Property, de-
scribed as Tax Map 60, Parcel 53 is located on Old Ivy Road (Rt. 754)
adjacent to Huntington Village. Zoned R-10 with proffer. Jack Jouett
Magisterial District.
Staff was requesting deferral to September 1, 1987.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that ZMA 87-8 for University
Village be deferred to September 1, 1987. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-87-63 Stephen K. vonStorch - Request in accordance with Section
10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit
to allow for the division of two (2) existing parcels of 7.68 acres
and 21.25 acres to create a total of three (3) lots of approximately 14
acres, 11 acres, and 10 acres in size. Property, described as Tax Map
76N, Parcels 13 and 14, Tax Map 76, Parcel 49D (part of), and Tax Map
89, Parcel 73 (part of), is located within the Sherwood Farms
Subdivision on Chestnut Oak Lane. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
Applicant was requesting deferral to August 18, 1987.
Mr. Gould moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-87-63 for Stephen
vonStorch be deferred to August 18, 1987. The motion passed unanimously.
Briggs Site Plan Waiver - Mr. Keeler explained that this item was
scheduled for August 25. However, since the applicant had already met all
requirements, Mr. Keeler requested that staff be granted permission
to approve the waiver administratively. The Commission had no objection
to administrative approval. No formal vote was taken.
aA/11
August 4, 1987 Page 2
SP-87-64 Mission of Christ Church - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance for issuance of a special use permit
for a church on 25.42 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described
as Tax Map 128, parcels 65 and 70, is located on the west side of Rt. 725
about 300 feet south of Rt. 627 near Esmont in the Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Charles Jordan, a deacon of the
church. He offered no significant additional comment. He indicated he
understood the suggested conditions of approval.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-87-64 for Mission of Christ Church be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Sanctuary seating limited to 84 persons;
2. Approval is for worship usage only. Day care or other such uses
will require amendment of this permit;
3. Administrative approval of site plan after review by the Site
Review Committee.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.
Noting that the application included a cemetery, Ms. Diehl asked if the
Health Department placed any special restrictions on cemeteries such as
setback requirements. Mr. Keeler responded that the Health Department
did not exercise any control over cemeteries.
The previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously. The
matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on August 19, 1987.
WORK SESSION
Policy: Stormwater Management - Surface vs. Underground Detention.
Mr. Keeler presented the proposed policy.
There was a brief discussion about the possibility of tying the requirement
for subsurface detention to the density of the development. Mr. Cogan
suggested adding a statement to the effect that the higher the density
the more likely the possibility of underground detention being required.
However, Mr. Armm felt it would be difficult to tie the requirement to a
specific number because this is a site -specific issue. It was finally
decided that the statement would remain as presented by staff, with
no additions.
017ir
August 4, 1987 Page 3
Mr. Gould moved that the following policy statement related to
stormwater management be adopted and forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors:
"Section 32.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 18-22 of the
Subdivision Ordinance authorize the Planning Commission, upon recom-
mendation of the County Engineer, to approve stormwater management
facilities. It is the Commission's policy that where surface
detention facilities are proposed the County Engineer in making such
recommendation consider in addition to technical functioning of such
facilities, the general health, safety, and welfare of the public.
Such analysis should be performed on a case -by -case basis with
consideration to among other things, the following factors:
1. Public exposure as expressed by: population density;
proximity to pedestrian ways, play areas and other such areas
frequented by people; potential for loss of life or
property due to failure of the detention system.
2. The physical design of the proposed surface detention facility
including: ponding depth; steepness of side slopes; potential
for vermin habitat; and other factors related to health and
safety; fencing, guardrail and other improvements that must
be installed as part of surface detention; soil erodibility
and stabilization/landscaping required for maintenance.
3. The physical disturbance required to establish such surface
detention facility together with loss of open space or
developable land; the affect of an open detention basin on
traffic circulation and other physical requirements of the
site; the physical aesthetics of the method of stormwater
detention.
The Engineering staff will recommend alternatives to surface stormwater
detention where practical. In making such recommendation the staff will
assist the developer in determining the most appropriate alternative method
such as: infiltration trenches; oversizing storm sewers for capacity, or
other practical methods recognized in practice that do not require
surface detention.
The Commission recognizes that subsurface or other alternate means of
stormwater detention may be more expensive to construct than an open
detention pond. It should be recognized that subsurface detention:
• Will permit the developer to utilize more land for development
or amenities;
• Will provide a more pleasing and marketable residential environment;
• Will return value to the property not realizable by surface stormwater
detention; and
• Is comparable in maintenance costs to surface detention."
1
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
?'9
August 4, 1987
Page 4
WORK SESSION
Comprehensive Plan - Transportation and Public Services Subcommittee -
Consideration of staff recommendations for utilities in the Urban
Area and Communities. Utilities to 'be considered are water, sewer and
drainage facilities.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report and led the discussion.
(Note: Commissioners Wilkerson and :Diehl left the meeting at this
point. Mr. Bowerman joined the meeting at 8:10 p.m.)
Discussion centered around the following topics:
--There was some discussion about the Subcommittee's previously -
endorsed policy which stated that "changes in jurisdictional
areas should only be allowed where property is very near existing
lines and public health or safety is compromised." Mr. Brendt,
representing the Service Authority, addressed several questions
posed by Mr. Cogan. Mr. Cogan was concerned about existing
lines which are still in the jurisdictional area, but have
been taken out of the Comprehensive Plan and about existing
utilities in the jurisdictional area which are underused.
Mr. Brendt did not have any definitive answers to Mr. Cogan's
questions.
--There was a brief discussion about the relocation of 29N
utilities (in conjunction with ultimate improvements to 29N).
There was concern about the cost of this project since the
cost would be borne by the users. It was decided this would
be dealt with "when the time comes."
--There was concern about the possibility of Chris Green Lake
eventually becoming a primary water source. Commission felt
"we are watershedding outselves out of places to live."
Suggested looking at the possibility of serving that entire
area (Earlysville, Piney Mt.) from one main watershed, given
the addition of the Buck Mt. Reservoir.
The Commission endorsed the staff's ire commendations for water and
sewer projects with some amendment to the Chris Green Lake statement.
It also endorsed the two recommendations related to drainage facilities.
Miscellaneous:
The August 11 Comprehensive Plan Work Session was cancelled; it is
to be added to the regularly scheduled August 25 work session.
No meeting will be held on Tuesday September 8, but will be held
on Thursday, September 10.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
John Horne, Secretary
DS
a�L�