Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198900066 Action Letter _L' ~_H -5 f ~C\ .. ~3 ). 5e-~ '\ -:.. ,c;-- October 4. 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 59 Willoughby Corporate Park. Tax Map 76M(1), Parcel 2B. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 19 and September 26. 1989.) At the applicant's request. motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer this public hearing to;October 18, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: r., I I l AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain. Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. Agenda Item No.9. SP-89-66. Broadus Memorial Baptist Church. To allow for fill and culvert in the floodway fringe of an unnamed stream of the Rivanna River. Property on the east side of:Rt. 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. Bain said he would abstain from thi$ discussion since a member of his law firm is doing some work for this group. ,He left the room. Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: "Character of the Area: This site is located within the Rivanna District and is located on the east sid~ of Rt. 20 approximately 600 feet soutb of Franklin Drive. This pro~erty as well as adjacent properties are zoned RA. Rural Areas. ~e site bas flood plain in the area near Rt. 20. A large area witb slqpes in excess of 25 percent exists along tbe nortbern property line~ The majority of tbe site is gently to moderately rolling and wooded,; ~ I Staff Comment: The Engineering Depar~t has reviewed this request and has stated tbe following: :, Ii "We bave reviewed the flood plain qrossing proposed by Broadus Memorial Baptist Church. The loca~ion of the proposed crossing is on a branch of a tributary streap. to the Rivanna River. The flood plain wbich has to be crosse4 is a portion of tbe flood plain fringe and is actually a res~t of back water from tbe Rivanna River. It is not a direct ~esult of the tributary stream where the location of the crossing ~s being made. In our opinion the impact of this crossing on the ~levation of the 100 year flood level will be negligible. W~ recolllll6nd approvaL..". The Virginia Department of Transportatioh has stated tbat the proposed stream crossing sbould not affect draina~e on Rt. 20. Cason Farm Road. which lies on the north~rn property line of this development, does not provide access to this site. The topography in this area would require any proposed roati to cross a stream which is in the flood plain and then climb a banklwith grades in excess of 25 , percent. Therefore, to allow reasonable:usage of this property, crossing of the flood plain and intrusio~ into steep slopes is neces- sary. I i Staff recommends approval of SP-89-66 fot Broadus Memorial Baptist Church subject to the following conditio~s: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 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." I~ I ' L_~ 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. r 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 September 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 tbe future. The applicant is hereby put on notice that any additional uses, including day care, will require an additional 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 The Virginia Department of TransportatiOn has stated that this devel- opment can obtain an adequate entrance ~d construct the necessary 200 foot long turn lane and 200 foot long t4Per 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 is.. of the opinion that this request complies with Section 31.2.4.1 and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: ~ 'l. 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. I , ~ I ! ! Relating to a comment that Mr. Cilimberg;made in his staff report in which he stated that the proposed church location 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 saidlthat 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