Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198900063 Minutes _ __ L~__ I l___ 1 October 4. 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 60 Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission. at its meeting on September 7. 1989. unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to the conditions set out in the staff's report. I Mr. Way suggested that Mr. Cilimberg give the staff report for the special use permit request so that public comments could be taken on both requests simultaneously. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-89-63. Broadus Memorial Baptist Church. For a church facility to be located on a vacant 9.269 acre parcel zoned RA. Rural Areas. Property located on the east side ofRt. 20 North approximately 600 feet south of Franklin Drive. Tax Map 62. Parcel 25. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on Septemb~r 19 and September 26. 1989.) Mr. Cilimberg then gave the staff report for SP-89-63 as follows: "Staff Comment: The applicant has submitted information regarding the proposed church and its design. The applicant has stated that they plan to request use of this site for a day care center in the future. The applicant is hereby put on notice t~at any additional uses. including day care. will require an add~tional Special Use Permit. The'proposed church location is such that it will not have an impact on adjacent properties. No letters hav~ been received from adjacent property owners regarding this petition~: It should be noted that the 9.3 acres covered by this Special Use P~rmit was recently designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a low denstty residential expansion of Neighborhood 3. ' - I I I I The Virginia Department of Transportatidn has stated that this devel- opment can obtain an adequate entrance ~d construct the necessary 200 foot long turn lane and 200 foot long taper lane within the existing right of way. ' Staff has reviewed this special use permit for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, and i~,of the opinion that this request complies with Section 31.2.4.1 ~nd recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: ~, 1) Planning Commission approval of site plan; 2) Any future uses. to include day ca~~. shall require an additional special use permit." Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Co~ission. at its meeting on September 7. 1989. unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to the conditions set out in the staff report. t . ~ I ! ! Relating to a comment that Mr. Cilimbergimade in his staff report in which he stated that the proposed church locat.ion would not have an impact on adjacent properties, Mr. Lindstrom wondered if there would be a direct view of the proposed church from Route 20. Mr. Cilimberg answered that. based upon the staff's initial analysis. he does not bel~eve that there will be a direct view of the church from Route 20 or from adja~ent properties because the area is wooded. and although the property is elevated. it should not be the type of visibility that is greatly apparent. He said!that the church could be sited to have minimal visual impact on Route 20 and,adjacent properties. He added that the staff would be considering this duri~g site plan review. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Cilimberg feels the staff has adequate author- ity at site plan review to handle the visual impact. or should this condition be considered by this Board. Mr. Cilimberg r~plied that the condition could be added to the conditions. but he feels the ~taff can address it during site __I_~J r--, i. ! r I r- --I October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting), (Page 5) 61 plan review. He said the Planning Commission recommend approval of SP-89-63 with the two conditions that are listed in the staff report. Mr. Bowie wondered what instigated the Route 20 visibility issue. Mr. Cilimberg responded that in this particular location there is an elevation of approximately 350 feet at Route 20. The elevation proposed in the siting. however. is approximately 410 to 415 feet. He added that. because Route 20 is a State Scenic Byway. the staff felt, that one thing to be considered in developing that site was to maintain natural vegetation and limit any visibi- lity of the site from Route 20 as well as from adjacent properties. He went on to say that it would seem this opportunity would exist in a wooded area. He said that the applicant may want to comment further on this matter. Mr. Bowie remarked that this property is now classified for low density residential zoning, and it would be impossible to put houses in that area without them being seen from the road. Mr. Cilimberg agreed and said that if the area developed residentially, screening could be-done and natural vegeta- tion could be retained, but the houses would:: be seen. in most cases. There were no further questions for Mr.Cilimberg from the Board. so Mr. Way opened the Public Hearing for SP-89-66 and SP-89-63. .j, Mr. F. A. Iachetta. the Site Committee Chairman for the Broadus Memorial Baptist Church. stated that he would be gladjto answer any questions on either of the Special Use Permits. He commented. h9wever. that he does expect the church to be seen. He said that natural veg~tation would be retained as much as possible. but the church would not be hid4~n in a hollow. He said the church would not be offensive. and. architec~urally. it should be a contribu- tion to the area. He added that the church ~ould not be hidden at that elevation. and that he has been on the site ~d has looked west from the site. He said that the cover on the site is mostly;~scrub brush. except for some walnut trees on the higher ground. He state1:that he did not want to leave the impression that the church will be hi~de~,';,' because it will not be possi- ble. He said the church will be blended 1nt4 the surroundings so that it is not offensive. " r Mr. Bowie asked if the staff's comment tegarding future uses was accept- able to the church group. Mr. Iachetta agre~d that this condition was accept- able. He went on to say that the day care us,e was included in the original information at the request of the planners. pe said that, at that time. he did not realize that this use would require an additional special use permit. but he had wanted this use on record. He ad~f!d that one day. the church may also want to operate a senior adult center. J' Mr. Lindstrom asked if the 10.000 feet t~t is shown on the sketch is the entire developed area. or is it just the buil~ing. Mr. Iachetta responded that this sketch is a first drawing that the staff had requested. He stated that at this point his group has received no professional advice on the site as far as architecture is concerned. He mentioned that it is hoped that the church will house a congregation of 500. He ~dded that the building will probably be shaped differently from the rectangle shown. and he hopes that the building can take advantage of the contours of the land so that no more soil will be disturbed than is necessary. He said!that he is very conscious of the need for the building to blend into the side ~f the hill. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that he drives R~ute 20 frequently and he is aware of the backdrop of the Southwest Mountains behind that site. He said that coming from the west. except for the dev~lopment at Franklin, there is not much visual intrusion in that area. He b~lieves that everything should be done to soften the impact of a building of th~s size. Mr. Iachetta responded that the building will not be a rectangle bec~use the land does not lend itself to constructing the church in that manser. He indicated that the part of the building facing the road would probabl~ be two and one-half stories in height. and will look like a church. with a mQdest steeple. '\ I Ms. Judy Vermillion commented that she ljves at Franklin and is happy that the church has made this request. She a4ded that she knows the church group will do a good job in building the church. and she looks forward to having the church in her neighborhood. She m~ntioned that since that area has been rezoned, she hopes that the Board is as cionscientious in the future when 'I 'I II IL J_ L; October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 62 the rest of the land is developed. She said her main concern is that there never be lights in the Rivanna Park. Ii Mr. Bowie asked Ms. Vermillion. since she will be the closest resident to the church. to comment on the screening from Route 20. Ms. Vermillion respon- ded that she is a member of the church, and she said that it is important to the church members that they blend in with the community and preserve the rural environment. She has no concerns about the view from Route 20. but she said that she does want the church to be screened. and she wants it to be done right. She added that she would be working ~ith the church group to make sure that the screening. etc.. is done appropriat~ly. Mr. Iachetta stated that he did not mention before that along the steep part of th~ property. next to the branch that flows along the northern boun- dary, there are some magnificent older oaks.: He said that everything will be done to keep them as screening from the north. He added that there is not much in the way of larger treeS elsewhere on'the site. Ms. Mary Wheeler spoke next and stated ~hat she lives approximately one-quarter of a mile from the site. She sa~d that she thinks the church will be pretty located there. She mentioned that;she is also a member of the church, and she believes that a pretty churc~ will be built that will make everyone proud. Ms. Vermillion said that she would like~to verify for future reference that the Cason Farm Road is a private road. !She stated that. in considering access from Cason Farm Road, property owners 'who own the road frontage would have to be contacted. There was no one else who wished to spe~, so Mr. Way closed the Public Hearing and placed the matter before the Board. r, I 'I Mrs. Cooke commented that she wished that the word "screening" could be taken out of the Board's vocabulary. She thftucs that the word "landscaping" is more applicable to the discussion in most cases. She sees no reason to screen the church from view and agrees with t~e church group. She thinks that a church in a countryside rural setting enhances the setting and is beautiful. She pointed out that she had suggested at th~last meeting that the word "landscaping" be used in most cases instead d:f "screening." i> Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and secQnded by Mrs. Cooke to approve SP-89-66 and SP-89-63 subject to the conditio~s recommended by the Planning Commission. ~ r I , , ':;1 /i Mr. Lindstrom stated that he believes th~ people in the congregation are sincere in their concern about the church. however, he thinks that this church use should be considered as any other application on Route 20. He went on to say that Stony Point Road is virtually undeveloped. and there will be consid- erable development over the next ten years. Ue thinks that from the beginning the Board needs to set good habits as far as gealing with applications no matter how sure the Board is that the applica,ts will carry out the necessary requirements. He suggested that a condition ~e added to SP-89-63 regarding the location which would state that the strucjure shall be in the approximate location shown on the sketch. and that it shoqld be located so as to minimize the visual impact of the structure. He said ~hat with any other application of this nature that comes before the board. t~e Board should be considering how it can ensure that the structures are intEi!grated into the sites. He mentioned that the hillside is very noticeabl~ and. at this point, is rela- tively undeveloped. He added that he does no~ think this will impose any restraints on the applicant. but he thinks it;~oes set a good precedent to follow. He then noted that for the future. t~ Board should be aware of significant visual vegetation. particularly o~ roads such as Route 20 North. He assumes that in most cases a staff member w.ill go out and look at the site, and he would like for the staff report to aCkrlPwledge the staff member's views so that if there is a particular problem that 'heeds to be addressed, the problem can be identified. He said that year~ after a project is underway and trees are removed, it is too late to do anyth~g about the problem. He said again that he would recommend that a conditio~ be added ,to the special use permit that would stipulate that the locationpf the structure be in the approximate location as it is shown on the sk~tch and that it be located so as ~, LnL October 4. 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 63 to minimize the visual impact. He asked that the condition also state that significant existing vegetation. other than scrub brush, be preserved. He said that obviously no one wants to eliminate the sight of the church. and he does not believe that it can be eliminated. ~ Mr. Bowie commented that he usually asks Mr. Cilimberg to initial the information, when it is a part of the application, that the project will be done generally as it is shown. He said he has no problem with the location of the church as long as the location is stipulated in the application. He said that proper wording of a statement to this effect is necessary. At this point. Mr. Lindstrom said that the statement should read, "The structure will be located in the approximate location shown on the plat initialed by Mr. Cilimberg." Next. Mr. Bowie said Mr. Iachetta has aiready indicated that he is not building a huge church with spotlights. etc.! He stated that he has no concern about the existing vegetation being preserved because Mr. Iachetta has already stated that the big trees would be preserved~ He reminded Mr. Iachetta. however, that the proposed church will be lo~ated on a scenic highway. He said that he knows that the church will be visible. but it should be tasteful- ly done. ' Mr. Iachetta asked if the Board members~ conditions will not be covered in the site plan approval. Mr. Bowie explained that once the application leaves the Board of Supervisors. there is no 'guidance from the Board at the site plan review unless there are conditions::stated. He told Mr. Iachetta that he wanted to be sure that the Board's conditions did not conflict with anything that the church group wanted to do.:; He suggested a condition, maintenance of existing major vegetation oth~r than scrub. be added. rj l I i Motion was again offered by Mr. Bowie ~d seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve both SP-89-66 subject to the conditiqns recommended by the Planning Commission and SP-89-63 subject to the condit.ions recommended by the Planning Commission and those added during discussion;! Mr. Lindstrom stated that he has never believed. at a site plan review. that the staff has a great deal of authority:;in telling an applicant where a structure will be located on the site. He s~id that this was his primary concern. and he thinks that it is especially;jmportant for some guidance at the site plan review when the tract is fairl~,large, and it is relatively important where the structure should be loca~ed. 'j Mr. Way asked Mr. Bowie if he was incorpprating Mr. Lindstrom's condi- tions into his motion. Mr. Bowie replied. "yes. if the seconder agrees." Mrs. Cooke. as the seconder, agreed withithe conditions of the motion. She then said that. since lighting of the church has been brought out, she assumes that there will be no lighting in the! parking lot for night events. She asked Mr. Bowie if he will include this stipulation in his motion. Mr. Iachetta remarked that it would be impossible to use a parking lot at night without any lighting. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there should be some security lighting. He added that security lighting usually has very low illumination. n t I Mrs. Cooke said that since Mr. Bowie had',mentioned the lighting of the church earlier in his motion. she thinks thari.this matter should be clarified. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the County does not have a requirement for any type of commercial lighting for this kind of church development. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he thinks t~at Mrs. Cooke has brought up a good point. He said that he drives around tetritory that is essentially undeveloped. and he sees more and more light ~ollution, with the public institutions as the biggest offenders. He me$tioned McIntire Park and stated that he does not understand why the park has ia be lit so brightly when he has never seen a single person at the park at nigjt. He said that he understands that the church will not have a lot of lights~: but Mrs. Cooke's point is not whether or not lighting will be required, butr'can it be minimized. ; , ..i...--_t '-----n--' --, ,-- -,~ ~ /I 1 ~i October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Heeting) (Page 8) 64 Mr. Bowie then said that since Mr. Iachetta and his church group do not plan to have any other night lights besides security lighting. he would add as a Board condition to his motion that night lighting be limited to security lighting. Mr. Lindstrom said that in the future. staff reports should include items such as significant vegetation at the site. r There being no further discussion at this time. roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke. Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Bain. (Note: The conditions of approval for SP-89-66 read as follows:) 1. Department of Engineering approval of final design of the stream crossing; 2. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit as applicable; 3. Compliance with all Federal. State, and local permit requirements pertaining to construction. reconstruction or alteration of any perennial streams. creeks or rivers. (Note: The conditions of approval for SP-89-63 read as follows:) 1. Planning Commission approval of site plan; 2. Any future uses, to include day care. shall require an additional special use permit; r- 3. Structure to be located on the site approximately as shown on the plat dated October 4, 1989. and initialed by V. Wayne Cilimberg; 4. Maintenance of existing major vegetation other than scrub; 5. Development in a manner so as to minimize visual impact from Route 20; 6. Outdoor night lighting is limited to security lighting. (On the following petition. the applicant erroneously indicated "Bethel" when the church is actually known as Bethany Baptist Church.) Agenda Item No. 11. SP-89-67. Bethany Baptist Church. To add a social room onto an existing church facility. Property located on the west side of Route 745 adjacent to the Southern Railroad tracks. approximately one-half mile south of intersection with Route 29. Tax Map 89, Parcel 5A. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 19 and September 26. 1989.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: - I "Proposal: To construct a social room of approximately 24 feet x 32 feet. Character of the Area: The site contains an existing church and adjacent cemetery. The topography is steep. with limited flat surface for major expansion or vehicle parking. The property is in close proximity to Moores Creek, but is outside the one hundred year flood plain. The surrounding area is rural in character. Staff Comment: This proposal would allow the church to construct a separate meeting room where various social events could take place. The existing church sanctuary serves as a meeting room for church suppers and other social events for the 28 member congregation. However. church pews must be moved for each such social event. This