Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP199800011 Action Letter .....",.;., ,I. ,~~I .'-.c.' May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000251. Agenda Item No.9. SP-98-11. Southgate (Signs #43&44). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to extend SP-96-32, originally approved on October 9, 1996, to permit excavation in the flood plain in order to reestablish a pond on approx 12.009 acs. Znd HC (30.3.5.2). TM76,P12A. Located on N sd of Fontaine Av Ext (Rt 29 Business), near the intersect of Rt 702 (Reservoir Rd). Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 1998.) ..., Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. The actual special permit (SP-96-32) expired on April 9, 1998. There have been two changes since the initial application was approved: a change in ownership and the impact to the wetlands has been reduced from 0.9 acres to 0.56 acres. The original condi- tion five is also no longer applicable as that element has been satisfied. The recommendation from the staff and the Planning Commission is for approval with four conditions. At the Commission's meeting they added language to condition one which calls for a safety shelf and an addition to condition three to include survey or biological resources. The request is recommended to the Board for approval with four conditions. At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any comments. Mr. Michael Matthews, President of Brinkman Management and Development Corporation, began by saying that he was here 18 months ago asking to reestab- lish a pond, and has now returned to seek reapproval. The only reason they have not yet started is that they have taken up time with the approval process and studying the watershed. He stated that the safety shelf condition was sprung at them at the Commission meeting, and asked that latitude be given them to work with staff in this context of the wetland pond to come up with a plan that makes good sense and that is a safe pond for how it is planned to be used. - Ms. Thomas asked how he would envision a safety shelf requirement that was not a safety shelf requirement. Mr. Matthews stated that he hopes the pond grows up naturally and is surrounded by vegetation. The pond is not designed as a stand-alone storm pond, but as a natural area and a safety shelf would be an unnatural addition. Ms. Thomas then stated that the condition require the Engineering Department to approve the plans and details of the dam and there may be some latitude, but there is still a requirement for something that the Engineering Department would regard as a safety shelf, even if the width varies in places. She also noted that there was a residential neighborhood nearby, making the safety shelf a necessity to safeguard young children. Mr. Bowerman then asked why ten feet was considered a magic number in this case to which Ms. Thomas replied that the exact number wasn't an issue as much as the existence of some sort of safety shelf. Mr. Matthews added that, at this time, it was impossi- ble to even get within ten feet of the pond itself, due to the foliage surrounding it, making it much less necessary than with your average storm- water pond. Mr. Martin suggested the Board leave the condition as is, and let the applicant see if he could work out something with staff. Ms. Humphris asked if the Engineering staff would mind if the condition was left open as to the definition of a safety shelf, to let them work with Brinkman to determine what it should be. Mr. Cilimberg said that he thought they needed to consider the intent of the requirement, that in the usual case of a dammed stream, you are going to have a new ponded area in which you are artificially adjusting the waters' edge, so that if someone falls off the bank, they can stand up. Since this is a wetlands area that is not immediately accessible, it would require some additional activity in the area to create a safety shelf, and he is not sure how important that safety shelf is, in comparison to the disturbance to the area. Mr. Tucker suggested that Ms. Humphris' suggestion be followed, to put a period after the words "safety shelf" and let staff work out the definition. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the words "safety shelf" may lead Engineering to require a ten foot shelf, to which Ms. Thomas suggested using the phrase "safety provisions" instead. Mr. Davis asked if there would be a site plan required for the construction of the dam and facilities. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he did not think a site plan would be required for the dam, -I ..-k. ,,,0;.,..___ ._~~...j_u~_. ,. May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 000252 although Engineering plans would be required. ..., Mr. Davis suggested that since the Planning Commission has initiated the requirements, the safety shelf condition could be made waivable by the Commission as a part of the Engineering plan. Ms. Thomas replied that would still make the applicants have to make one more trip back to the Planning Commission, and suggested just requiring Engineering approval and safety provisions. Mr. Martin added that they could just have Mr. Cilimberg bring this issue back on the consent agenda, as well, after talking to the Engineer- ing staff. Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearing and asked for any comments. There being no members of the public wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-98-11 with the change of wording from "safety shelf" to "safety provision" in condition one. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of plans, details and supporting computations for the proposed dam and safety provision; 2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of computations and documentation to verify effects on the existing FEMA delineated flood plain; 3. Albemarle County Engineering approval of a Mitigation Plan in accordance with the Water Protection Ordinance, including a survey of biological resources; and - 4. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-98-05. Farmington Country Club (Signs #72&73). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend existing SP-97-28 to locate indoor tennis bldg on 273.472 acs. Znd RA [10.2.2(4)]. TM60E2,P1. Located on N sd of Ivy Rd, Rt 250 W. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 1998.) - Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. The applicant is request- ing permission to add an indoor tennis facility to Farmington Country Club. This area has been designated for some time as a rural area and the Club itself is on the Virginia Landmark Register. Staff does not feel the request to add the facility negatively affects resources or existing services in the rural areas. There could be an affect on water supply resources which can be addressed as part of the site plan. Staff does not see any substantial detriment to the surrounding golf course, as it is sited to minimize impact to adjacent properties. Since it is in an area of lower elevation, the building, although it will be 39 feet high, will only be approximately 16 feet above Old Mill Road. This is not a new proposal for a golf/tennis club; it already exists there and the area has been non-agricultural for some time and is expected to continue. Staff finds this request to be in compliance with the special use requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and approval is recommended with two conditions. - Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 24, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of SP-98-05 subject to the two condi- tions suggested by staff. Ms. Humphris noted that she was a member of Farmington, but felt that she could deal with the issue fairly and would participate. At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any comments. Mr. Peter Sheeran, from Sheeran Architects, stated that Mr. Cilimberg had done a good job in describing the project. He said that he had .