Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP199500038 Action Letter 000083 February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 20D, 20E, 20F, 20G, 21, 21D, 35, 35A; tax map 45, parcels 3C, SF, 5F4, 7A. This district shall be reviewed no more than seven (7) years from February 14, 1996. n Agenda Item No.9. SP-95-38. Ruth & Russell Shifflett. Public Hearing on a request to locate bridge across Doyles River within the flood plain of river on E sd of Rt 810 between Mount Fair & Browns Cove. TM15,P12. White Hall Dist. This property is not located in a designated growth area. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 1996.)) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a permanent part of the records of the Board of Supervisors. He said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 12, 1995, unanimously recom- mended approval of SP-95-38, subject to six conditions. Mrs. Humphris referred to the top paragraph of Page Two of the staff report relating to a recommendation by staff that access easements for Parcel 28A and Parcel 13A be made a condition of approval for this bridge and, similarly, future divisions of the subject parcel should be required to use this crossing for access to Route 810. She said Condition Number Six states that all future divisions of Tax Map 15, Parcel 12, shall use this stream crossing for access to Route 810, but she pointed out that Parcels 28A and 13A were not mentioned in this condition. Mr. Cilimberg responded that after writing the staff report and taking the matter to the Planning Commission it was found that legally such a condition for access to adjacent properties could not be required. It can be required for any further division of this property. Mrs. Thomas asked if the adverse impact situation will be handled by the Engineering Department. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. n There were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg from Board members, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. The Shiffletts were present but did not wish to speak. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-95-38 subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final bridge plans and details. The plans must include grading plans for the road and abutments in the flood plain with details of culverts through the embankment. Bridge plans must be sealed and signed by a profes- sional engineer; 2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic, hydraulic and structural computations prepared by a professional engineer. Computations shall include an analysis of the impacts to the one hundred year flood plain; 3. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan if the disturbance is more than 10,000 square feet; n 4. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wet- lands and watercourses. This will involve a Joint Permit Applica- tion through the Virginia Marine Resources Commission; 5. Albemarle County Engineering approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment; 6. All future divisions of Tax Map 15, Parcel 12, shall use this stream crossing for access to Route 810. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 000084 AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. n , - Agenda Item No. 10. SP-95-43. Claudius Crozet Park. Public Hearing on a request to relocate existing pool & construct addt'l recreational facilities on 22.4 ac zoned RA known as Claudius Crozet Park. TM56A2,Sec 1,P's72&72A. White Hall Dist. This site is recommended for public/semi-public use in the community of Crozet. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 12, 1995, unanimously recom- mended approval of SP-95-43 subject to six conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said at the Planning Commission there was concern expressed about the open-ended nature for uses under Condition #1 in the staff's report. The wording of that condition was changed by the Commission to read: "The use of the property shall be limited to the new pool complex, new parking and new walking trails, in addition to the uses which presently exist." Mr. Cilimberg asked that the Board also take action on one other item in addition to the special use permit. There is a property line which runs through the existing pool. Because of the way the building permit regulations and the Zoning Ordinance apply, that creates complications that would require unnecessary construction. After consulting with the county Attorney and with the Parks and Recreation Department, they have determined that the best way to avoid any of those complications would be to do a property line alteration that would go around the pool. That can be handled administratively, but staff asks that the Board take action to authorize staff to vary the section regarding setback from adjacent residential areas to accommodate the proposed pool under the require- ments of the Building Code. n . ' Mr. Cilimberg said this petition will come under the application of the mandatory connection changes to the ordinance recently made. It has been determined that the new pool house and the existing community building would be hooked to public sewer; the existing pool house septic system which will still exist on the site will be refit to allow it to be used for recreational vehicles (a dump station for the occasional recreational vehicle). This matter should also be considered as part of this approval. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the decibel level of 40 as stated in Condi- tion #5 is extremely low. It is not much louder than a whisper. He suggested that it be changed to 65 or 70. Mr. Cilimberg said this number was used because it is the number shown in the supplementary regulations at this time. Mrs. Humphris wondered how the Supervisors will know the appropriate noi.se level. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he is unsure if he has any advice on this matter. The noise regulation has been at the heart of some of the discussions the Supervisors have had, and the Zoning Department staff members have been working with this issue. The staff did not do an analysis of an alternative decibel level. n Mrs. Humphris recalled some letters of complaint from neighbors about a concert held at this park recently. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this was an event activity the staff felt could be addressed through the conditions. This has not existed under any special use permit previously, so the condition regarding noise would be one way to address this issue. He reiterated, though, that he cannot comment on the noise level of 40 decibels versus 60 decibels. Mrs. Thomas asked if there was any type of comparison which could be used as far as the noise levels are concerned. Mr. Martin inquired if a comparison could be made between this project and the noise level allowed at the tent at Boar's Head. He recalled that the maximum level at the Boar's Head tent is 45 decibels. Mr. Tucker suggested the staff look through the ordinance for this information while the public hearing is taking place. Mrs. Humphris agreed to Mr. Tucker's suggestion and immediately opened the public hearing on SP-95-43. Mr. David Anhold, President of the Claudius Crozet Park Board, said the project is making progress, which is due to a large part to the Board of Supervisors' financial, as well as its overall support of the Crozet Park. ...~..__._-~,. i