Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198200064 Action Letter 1 516 December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) At 9:05 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 P.M. n ~ l_ : r U [, n Agenda Item No.5. SP-82-64. Albemarle Baptist Association. Request to locate a church on 5.087 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Located at the intersection of Hydraulic Road and Route 657. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 6. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 1982.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report and the Planning Commission recommendation as follows: Request: Church (10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery) Acreage: 5.087 acres Zoning: RA, Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61, parcel 6, is located on the west side of Hydraulic Road (Route 743) north and adjacent to Lamb's Road (Route 657). Character of the Area: R. E. Lee Construction Company and United Parcel Service abut this property. The Albemarle High School complex is across Lamb's Road. Properties across Hydraulic Road, located within the Urban Area, are primarily in commercial usage. This property is undeveloped and wooded. A stream surfaces on this property and travels about 3,000 feet to the South Fork Rivanna River. Small areas of steep slope occur adjacent to the stream. The average slope of this site is calculated at 11.5%. This property is not within an Albemarle County Service Authority service area, and therefore public water and sewer are not currently available. Comprehensive Plan: Prior to April, 1980, this area was shown in the Comprehensive Plan as a part of the Urban growth area. The Board of Supervisors, as a reservoir protection measure, deleted this area from the growth area plan. Though urban type development exists, this area is currently designated as a rural area, indicating that future urban uses should be discouraged. Applicant's Proposal: The Albemarle Baptist Association is evaluating this property as a future church site. (The request does not include any cemetery usage). The applicant retained a consultant to determine the maximum building area which could be accommodated on the site. Assuming public water and sewer were made available, the consultant estimated that the site could be developed with a 25,000 square foot building and parking for 175 autos (see September 30, 1982 letter from John W. Greene to Dr. Roy Thomas). The building is envisioned as consisting of a 5,000 square foot sanctuary and 20,000 square feet devoted to classrooms, offices, and the like. Both the sanctuary and educational areas would have seating capacities of 500 persons. Staff Comment: In approval of a special use permit, the zoning ordinance states that the Board of Supervisors find that the proposed use "will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the pUblic health, safety and general welfare." Substantial detriment to adjacent property; character of district will not be changed: Staff has received no comment from adjoining property owners nor any member of the public regarding this special permit request. Staff opinion is that a church in this location would not be of substantial detriment to the adjoining industrial uses or the public school complex. Staff opinion is that a church on this site will not change the character of the immediate area. Harmony with purpose and intent of zoning ordinance: Staff has reviewed this application for consistency with the statement of intent of the RA district, and it is staff opinion that the statement of intent is generally inapplicable to this property, given the character of surrounding development. While the Comprehensive Plan recommends rural uses for this area, uses of adjoining properties in staff opinion are deterrents to agricultural or residential usage of the property (while staff opinion is that the property is not highly suited to residential use due to the long hours of operation of R. E. Lee and particularly United Parcel Service, it should be noted that two duplexes were recently constructed adjacent to these uses). Public health, safety and welfare: The rural areas statement of intent says that "it is intended that such development occur in locations and at scales compatible to the physical characteristics of the land and to the availability of public utilities and facilities to support such development." December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) In terms of intensity of development, the initial feasibility study envisioned availability of pUblic water and sewer. Staff could not support a use which would require public utilities in order to be accommodated on the site, since that would be clearly contrary to the rural area intent and the Comprehensive Plan. Subsequently, the applicant has submitted a preliminary plan to demonstrate that the site could be developed without requiring public utilities. Also, it appears from preliminary review that all ordinance requirements could be satisfied including the runoff control ordinance. No land or vegetative disturbance is proposed within one hundred feet of the stream, which is consistent with the Watershed Management Official's October 15, 1982, memorandum. Under the plan, building coverage has been reduced from 25,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet which staff considers a substantial improve- ment in terms of reduced impervious coverage. Also, this building coverage is more consistent with existing development. (The total building area of R. E. Lee is about 15,000 square feet, the school's vehicular maintenance facility is about 14,000 square feet and UPS is about 5,500 square feet.) No comparison of total impervious coverage has been made. J ! -] W Summary: As stated earlier, except in regard to reservoir protection, rural area zoning does not appear particularly suitable to this property given surrounding development. Absent church ownership, staff would expect requests for some rural area usage of a comparable or more intensive nature (i.e., country store, public garage, private school, day care center). Due to infrequency of use, the church would likely generate less traffic and have less sewer demand than some other rural area uses, staff opinion is that a church is an appro- priate use for this property. Should the Board choose not to provide public sewer to this site, staff would recommend more extensive study of the physical capabilities of the site including delineation of two drainfield locations and written Health Department comment prior to making a final recommen- dation. Should the Board choose to make public sewer available, staff recom- mends approval subject to: 1) Only those areas intended for development shall be cleared. All other areas shall remain in a natural state. The site develop- ment plan shall reflect this condition as well as the October 15 and November 2 memorandums of the Watershed Management Official; 2) Access to the property shall be restricted to Route 657 in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tation comments of October 19, 1982. 'j Mr. Tucker stating that at its meeting of November 9, 1982, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this special use permit subject to the following two conditions: 1. Only those areas intended for development shall be cleared. All other areas shall remain in a natural state. The site development plan shall reflect this condition as well as the October 15* and November 2, 1982*, memoranda of the Watershed Management Official; *Set out in full below 2. Access to the property shall be restricted to Route 657, in accordance with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comments contained in letter of October 19, 1982. *"To: From: Date: Re: Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official October 15, 1982 SP-82-64 Albemarle Baptist Association Tax Map 61, Parcel 6 The property being considered for the construction of a church at the intersection of Hydraulic Road and Route 657 is located within the immediate drainage area of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed. J A strong spring area is located within the property being considered. There is a good flow of water leaving the site by way of a small stream which exists near the b-ck side of the property and then travels a short distance into the reservoir proper. Due to the apparent strength of the spring, an extensive subsurface examination should be made of the property to determine the extent of the spring recharge area. Care should be taken to confine all construction and earth disturbing activities out of those areas that supply water for the spring. Also the area immediately adjacent to the spring, its recharge area and the stream flowing from the site should be maintained in natural vegetation for a distance of 100. feet on either side of the stream and spring as a watershed management area to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. u Extreme caution should be taken during any construction or earth-disturbing activities on the site t.o assure that no runoff enters the spring area or the streams on, or immediately adjacent to, the site. Requirements of the Runoff Control Ordinance will have to be adhered to. Until plans for the proposed structure, and the grading and drainage plans for the site are made available for closer examination, this special permit application should not be approved." 518 ''''\ ~, December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) *"To: From: Date: Re: Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official November 2, 1982 Preliminary Site Plan SP-82-64 Albemarle Baptist Association Tax Map 61, Parcel 6 A review of the Preliminary Site Plan for the Proposed Baptist Church (Thursday, October 28, 1982) indicates that this site could accommodate a church of this size. n \ . rl l Even though water and sewer facilities could be located on the site, a septic system sized to the proposed church would require a large portion of the lower end of the lot and could, if it were to fail, have detrimental effects on the tributary stream on and adjacent to the site. These small streams join to form a tributary to Ivy Creek, a major tributary to the South Fork Rivanna reservoir. The preliminary site plan indicates that if the church were to locate on this site that a 100 foot buffer would be established along the tributary stream and spring on the site. This should be done following the guidelines for watershed management areas contained in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. This site should be required to have public sewer facilities. However, if public sewer facilities are not available, then the applicant should re-evaluate the site and redesign the proposal to take into account the environmental limi- tations of the site. More detailed studies should show that the site can accom- modate not only a church of the size proposed, but also a septic field and replacement area sized to serve it. If the site will not accommodate sufficient septic field and replacement areas while adhering to the watershed management area along the stream for a building of the size proposed, then the building size should be reduced. Unless the proposed church is designed to suit both the physical and environmental limitations of the site or unless public water and sewer are required, this special permit application should not be approved. ~ l I Mr. Fisher asked if the septic field was proposed to be located under the parking area. Mr. Tucker said that is the way it is shown on the preliminary plat. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the parking surface was proposed to be impervious. Mr. Tucker said new Health Department regulations require the ground surface of a parking lot to be impervious if it is located above a septic system, and the septic system must be placed at a greater than normal depth. Mrs. Cooke asked if any recommendation was received from the Fire Official. Mr. Tucker said in a letter dated October 11, 1982, from Ira B. Cortez, that the following recommendation was made: "The owner should have an engineering survey to ensure adequate fire flow at this site. If a 25,000 square foot building is to be erected, the fire flow requirement could be as much as 2,000 gallons per minute at twenty pounds per square inch." r There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Fisher.declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Dr. Roy Thomas, representing the Albemarle Baptist Association. Dr. Thomas read from a prepared statement which noted the Association's reasons for selecting this particular site, the fact that a geological feasibility study has been conducted by E. O. Gooch and Associates; W. S. Roudabush, Inc., has completed an engineering feasibility study and prepared a preliminary site plan; and the Thomas Jefferson Health Department has given preliminary approval of the proposed septic tank and drain- fields. (Note: Copy of this statement dated December 1, 1982, is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Next to speak was Ms. Martha Martin speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters. Ms. Martin read a prepared statement noting that the League has consistently opposed intensive development in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, and would urge the Board to deny this application. (NOTE: Copy of this statement dated December 1, 1982, is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) No one else from the public, either for or against this application, wished to speak and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke to approve the application as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern about the County Engineer and the Watershed Manage- ment Official's recommendation to use pUblic sewer and water. Also, Mr. Lindstrom stated his concern about the potential long-term intensity of use created by a church. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not support this application. [I Miss Nash said the proliferation of housing in this area of the County which would occur if public sewer were available is probably something not considered by the County Engineer at the time his recommendation was written. Miss Nash said she would support the application. Mr. Henley said he felt this use would create even fewer problems than a residence because of the less frequent use. Mr. Fisher expressed concern that if the well or septic system become unusable in several years, the applicant will come back before the Board of Supervisors~king public water and sewer. Mr. Fisher said this is a marginal site which just barely meets ordinance requirements and he would not support approval of this application. Roll was then called and the motion to approve SP-82-64 with the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. 5~9 December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) tJ \ Agenda Item No.6. Albemarle Baptist Association. Request to amend the project areas map of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Parcel 6, Tax Map 61 for water and sewer service. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 1982.) Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter dated November 24, 1982, from Roy S. Thomas, III, Chairman of the New Work Committee for the Albemarle Baptist Association as follows: "I am writing on behalf of the Albemarle Baptist Association to request with- drawal without prejudice of our petition to amend the Albemarle Service Authority Jurisdictional Area to include Parcel 6 of Tax Map 61. We respectfully request that this item be therefore removed from the agenda of the December 1 meeting of the Board of Supervisors." Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept the request for withdrawal without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried.by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No.7. ZTA-82-16. Request from Barry Dofflemyer to permit indoor kennels only by special use permit in the HC Highway Commercial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 11 and November 24, 1982.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the Planning Staff Report as well as the Planning Commission recommendation as follows: ZTA-82-16. Indoor Kennels by Special Use Permit in the HC Highway Commercial District. Barry Dofflemyer has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend the HC Highway Commercial district to provide for "indoor kennels" by special use permit. Commercial kennels are currently permitted in the RA Rural Areas and HI Heavy Industrial districts by special use permit. Staff recommends favorably on the proposed amendment for the following reasons: 1. Section 5.1.11 of the supplementary regulations is primarily intended to control noise. These regulations are fairly restrictive; Since the use would be by special use permit, additional conditions could be added, or if appropriate, the use could pe denied; 3. Since the proposal is for indoor kennels, noise problems can be more easily controlled; 2. 4. The amendment does not appear inconsistent with the intent of the HC Highway Commercial district. Staff recommends the following wording: Add to Section 24.2.2 a number (11): Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11) This amendment would also permit this use in the PD-MC District by special use permit. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of November 9, 1982, voted to recommend the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Staff. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing open and first to speak was Mr. Craig White, representing Mr. Dofflemyer. Mr. White said the reason for this requested amendment is to make a commercial kennel more accessible to the public. Mr. Fisher asked if a specific site is being considered. Mr. White said no specific site is under consideration at this time, but the amendment is being requested for future consideration. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this amendment and Mr. Fisher declared the pUblic hearing closed. Mr. Fisher asked if this could cause a problem where Highway Commercial Districts adjoin residential districts. Mr. Tucker said that is the reason this would be allowed by special permit only, to give the Board and Planning Commission the opportunity to place conditions on a request or deny the request completely. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to amend and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by adding to Section 24.2.2 a number (11) reading: "Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11)", with said amendment becoming effective on January 1, 1983. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. I' u o o o o