HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 18 89 PC MinutesJuly 18, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, July 18, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr.
Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and
Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. James Bowling,
Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr.
Bill Fritz, Planner.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of July 6, 1989 were approved
as submitted.
ZMA-89-6 Mechum River Land Trust - Request to rezone 192.410 acres from
RA, Rural Areas to R4, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 57,
Parcels 29 and 29D, is located between the C & O Railway and Rt. 240
approximately 1/2 mile west of intersection of Rt. 240 and Rt. 250, a
smaller piece of the property is located on the north side of Rt. 240
between Rt. 240 and Rt. 802. White Hall Magisterial District.
The applicant had requested deferral to July 25, 1989.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Mechum River Land Trust,
ZMA-89-6 be deferred to July 25, 1989. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-88-97 Christ Community Church - Request in accordance with Section
14.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance for issuance of a special use permit to
allow a church on. 7.63 acres zoned R2, Residential. Property, described
as Tax Map 45C-2, Parcel 6 is located in the Woodbrook Subdivision on the
east side of Idlewood Drive at the intersection with Brookmere Road south
of Brentwood Road. Please note that access is not proposed through
Woodbrook Subdivision. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
There was a brief discussion about parking lot lighting and condition
No. 4 which restricted such lighting to no more than 5 feet in height.
There was some question as to how the five feet limitation had been
determined and concern that at that height the light could be potentially
blinding to drivers. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the amount of light
that can trespass on adjoining properties is controlled by the Ordinance.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bruce Wardell, architect for the
project. His comments were related primarily to two issues: (1) Site
suitability; and (2) Floodplain. Regarding site suitability, he quoted
from the Engineer's report which explained how existing soils could be
replaced and concluded: "If this removal of poor soil and the placement of
new fill is properly done, buildings, parking areas, etc. can then be
supported by the fill, in our opinion."
SS
July 18, 1989 Page Z
Regarding the health hazard question of building on n former sewage lagoon,
he quoted from a letter from Dr. Carl Armstrong, Director of Division of
Health Hazards Control, dated January 10, 1989 which stated "... I see no
problem with proposed development of this area," though Dr. Armstrong had
advised that well water not be obtained from the site. Regarding the
issue of the floodplain, he stated the applicant is aware that an
engineering study will be required. However, he pointed out that approval
was given for expansion of the sewage lagoon in 1975 (three years after
ordinance requirements about building in the floodplain were instituted),
and he felt it was difficult to imagine that this expansion would have been
approved within a floodplain. He felt the applicant had gone as far as
possible to obtain circumstantial evidence that the site could be built
on, short of generating a costly engineering report before the special
permit is even granted. He also pointed out the following:
--A day-care center is not part of the proposal;
--The church will add no additional traffic to the subdivision;
--The applicant will meet any ordinance requirements related to
spill -over lighting;
--Visual impact on the subdivision is minimal.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their
support for the proposal:
--Rev. Harold Bare, Pastor of Covenant Church - He made a very
lengthy statement which included a description of the role
of churches today and throughout history. His comments also
implied that the County .was trying to regulate/restrict churches.
--Rev. Mark Beliles
--Mr. Mark Hartman - He presented a petition of support bearing
94 signatures -of church members and friends of the church.
He also read a letter of support written by Ms. Dana Matthew,
an attorney and .member o.f the church. Ms. 'Matthew's letter also
implied that an attempt was being made to "prohibit the free exercise
of religion."
--Rev. John ylanzano, Pastor of Christ Community Church
Their reasons for support included the following:
--The cost of commercially -zoned property is prohibitive for churches;
--The church has made every attempt to address the concerns of the
Woodbrook residents;
--Churches must be allowed to serve the role they are meant to serve
and be allowed to locate in residential areas.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their
opposition to the proposal:
--Mrs. Roseanne Barberio - (She explained that no additional letters
of opposition had been written because the Woodbrook residents
were not aware that the property had been sold.)
--fir. Gene Powell.
--Mr. Glen Henderson, Vice President of the Woodbrook Neighborhood Assoc.
--Kr. Peter Schrepfer
--Mr. Kain
--Ms. Juanita Godfrey
--Mr. Gus Hamre
--Ms. Eva Hofland
--Ms. Anne Hobson
--Ms. Phyliss Kain
Their reasons for opposition included the following:
6-6
July 18, 1989
Page 3
--Questionable suitability of the site for any type of development;
--Floodplain concerns;
Stormwater runoff concerns;
---Possible health hazard and odor which will occur during the soil
replacement process;
--"Spillover" onto residential properties.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Regarding the possibility of odor during construction, Mr. Wardell explained
that the matter involved is "inert" and therefore should not have an odor.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt the applicant had addressed many of the
previous concerns. He also pointed out that the sewage lagoon had been
an active part of the subdivision for a long time and, therefore, it was
difficult to place much value on the concept that there could be odor
involved with cleaning up the site. Regarding.the concerns about flooding,
he noted that though those concerns are real, they are a current problem
and cannot be tied to this development. He pointed out that the applicant
would have to deal with this problem before the property could be developed.
Regarding the issue of parking lot lighting, there was a brief discussion
as to whether or not to delete condition 4 and let the revised ordinance
address the concerns of lighting spillover. It was finally determined
that the condition would remain but the reference to a 5-foot height would
be deleted.
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that SP-88-97 for Christ Community Church be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Sanctuary area limited to 4,500 square feet;
2. Approval is for worship and related church uses only. Day care or other
such uses will require amendment to this permit;
3. A 30-foot undisturbed buffer shall be established between the building
and parking area and adjacent lots in Woodbrook. These buffer
areas shall be consistent with Section 32.7.9.8 (Screening) of
the Zoning Ordinance;
4. Should parking lot.lighting be installed in the future, it shall be
subject to 4.12.6.4 of the Zoning Ordinance;
5. The site plan shall be in general accordance with the plan
entitled "Christ Community Church," dated February 1, 1989;
6. Verfication by Department of Engineering and Inspections Department
for:
a) Site suitability for building construction;
b) Location of 100-year flood plain;
This vertification shall be made prior to review by the Planning
Commission.
7. Planning Commission shall review the preliminary site plan.
egl
July 18, 1989 Page 4
Mr. ?Michel seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Stark expressed concern about the flooding question and asked if staff
had any comments from the Engineering Department on this issue. wir.
Keeler responded that there is a 1991-92 CIP appropriation of $20,000
to improve the channel in that area. He confirmed that staff would
write a memo to the Engineering Department to encourage that this
project be reviewed, including various upstream detention facilities,
and in consideration of recent upstream development.
Ms. Diehl stated she .would support the motion. However, she expressed
concern about some of the public comments, particularly she stated she
was disturbed and insulted by the distortion that churches were
being discriminated against. She stressed the only issue before the
Commission was one of a special permit for the development of a.
site and its impact on a neighborhood, and in that regard a church
must be treated like any other applicant. She stated she did still
have concerns about drainage, soils and the floodplain inclusion, but
staff has assured that those issues will be addressed at site plan
evaluation.
Mr. Stark agreed with his. Diehl.
Air. Bowerman stated that though he had been opposed to the first
application, primarily based on the belief that the use would change
the character of the area, he was not opposed to the current
application because he felt it conformed to the three criteria
on which this type of application is judged: (1) It will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property; (2) The character of the
district will not be changed; and (3) It is in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that though
he was concerned about the flooding question, he was satisfied that this
approval contemplated County Engineer approval of a Certified Engineer's
Report on (1) the suitability of this land for a structure, and (2)
whether the site is outside the 100-year floodplain. He added that
after the development of this site and The Gardens site, if any pre-existing
drainage problems are not improved, then he felt the County Engineer
should re-evaluate this area and "see that we include in any capital
project an amount of money necessary to alleviate any problems that may
exist now or in the future, not the responsibility of this applicant or
any applicant at Rio Hills or any upstream developer."
Air. Keeler noted: "I don't want anyone to get the impression that the
County is going to resolve all drainage problems in Woodbrook because
a lot of the drainage comes from Woodbrook."
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 9:10 to 9:20. _
.7
July 18, 1989
Page 5
SP-89-52 MapleGrove Christian Church - Request in accordance with Section
13.2.2 0 0) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit
to allow for a church and parsonage facility to be located on a 4.1 acre
parcel zoned R1, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 29G
is located on the south side of St. Rt. 649 (Proffit Road), approximately
1,500' east of intersection with Rt. 29N. Rivanna Magisterial District.
AND
Ma le Grove Christian Church Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct
a 12,300 square foot church on 4.1 acres. This proposal is to have access
to Rt. 649 and is to be served by 116 parking spaces. Property, described
as Tax Map 32, Parcel 29G is located on the south side of Rt. 649
approximately three -tenths of a mile east of Rt. 29. Zoned R-1, Residential
in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
of the special permit subject to conditions, including the addition of
a second condition as follows: "Approval is for worship services and
related activities as described in the staff report for SP-84-40. Day
care, private school or other such activities shall require amendment of
this special permit." Also, staff was requesting administrative approval
of the site plan.
The staff report stated that the "site plan has been revised to reflect
all recommendations of the Site Review Committee except the staff
recommendation that the church and parsonage be served by public sewer."
Staff was requesting that the Commission resolve this issue in order to
authorize administrative approval of the site plan.
The applicant was represented by Mr. William Roudabush. He offered no
additional comment on the special permit application. Regarding the
issue of public sewer, he stated the applicant feels that it is
not reasonably available because connection would require crossing
rough terrain and would have to be extremely deep in the ground (approx-
imately 9 feet) in order to get gravity flow. In response to Mr.
Stark's question, he stated connection to public sewer would cost
approximately four times as much as a septic system ($20,000 vs. $5,000).
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-89-52 for Maple Grove Christian Church be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Administrative approval of the site plan.
2. Approval is for worship services and related activities as described
in the staff report for SP-84-40. Day care, private school or other
such activities shall require amendment of this special permit.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
�9
July 18, 1989
Page 6
Though approval of SP-89-52 for 'Maple Grove Christian Church included
administrative approval of the site plan, staff asked the Commission
to take action on the issue of connection to public sewer.
Mr. Hi.chel moved that the Commission find that public sewer is not
reasonably available to the Maple Crove Christian Church site at this
time.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
V. me Cilimbe , Se retary
DS
60