Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 15 85 PC MinutesJanuary 15, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, January 15, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Normal Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the December 18 and 20, 1984 meetings were approved as amended. Since the applicant for the first agenda item was not present, the second item was presented first. ZMA-84-25 Clarence and Mary Elder - Request to re -zone 1.0 acre from RA, Rural Areas, to C-1, Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 59, Parcel 15A (part), is located on the south side of 250 West, approximately 1500 feet past the intersection of Routes 250 and 677. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained that basically staff is recommending approval of the re -zoning provided there are constraints placed on the re -zoning limiting the usage of the property to expansion of the 1740 House. He confirmed that this would have to be offered by the applicant, but nothing has been received from the applicant in this regard. He stated this had not been discussed with the applicant. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Lecky Stone, attorney for the applicants, addressed the Commission. He stated his clients are concerned with the 1740 House and the fact that it is on the National Historic Registry. He added they are concerned vith maintaining the existing use as an antique shop and they desire to maintain the existing appearance of the property. He stated this is the only intent of the applicant and indicated his clients were prepared to live with most any kind of restrictions. He presented photographs of the building that is to be placed on the property. He explained the applicants had purchased the building in Halifax County, that it dates around 1800, and is of the same design as the current building. He stated the 1740 House is also the residence of the applicants, and it has not yet been decided whether they will continue to live in this building or if the new building will become their residence. He stated his clients were agreeable to amending the request in order to place these restrictions on it. �9� January 15, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Stone stated he did not feel there would be any problems with 11 the scenic set -back requirements. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Skove indicated he was in agreement with staff and that he felt this was a reasonable request. He stated he was unsure as to how the proffer would be handled. Mr. Bowerman explained that in other applications, where it was felt that a proffer was needed before the Commission could grant approval, the application has been denied with the statement that "the Commission could have accepted the proposal if...." That then leaves the applicant free to do what he chooses prior to review by the Board. Mr. Cogan stated he would also like to see the issue of the set -back dealt with in the proffer. Ms. Diehl indicated she could not support the request as stated, but that she could support a re -zoning that incorporated the structure as presented in the photographs, including no variance from the set -back requirements. Mr. Cogan indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Skove and Ms. Diehl. It was determined the proffer should state that the proposed usage be consistent with the use now in existence and that the proposal would not require a variance from the scenic highway set -back requirement. It was determined the highway requirements would be dealt with at the time of site plan review. Mr. Keeler confirmed that since this is clearly an expansion of an existing use a site plan is required. He also stated the Highway Department has already indicated that the entrance does not meet current standards. Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-84-26 for Clarence and Mary Elder be recommended to the Board for denial, with the understanding that the Commission could recommend approval if the uses are consistent with the current usage and the usage does not require an additional variance from the scenic highway set -back requirement. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on February 6. Mr. Keeler informed the applicant if he wished to make written proffers for the ward Iscrnsideration, and desired staff assistance, staff would need to have the proffers at least ten days before the meeting. 197 January 15, 1985 Page 3 SP-84-85 Robert Adcock - Request to locate a double wide mobile home on 2.18 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 41, Parcel 20 (part), is located on the east side of Route o80 about 3/4 mile south of its intersection with Route 810. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. Mr. and Mrs. Adcock, the applicants, addressed the Commission. He stated the neighbor who had expressed opposition lived two miles away. He presented photographs of the proposed unit. He indicated he had contacted most of the other neighbors and had discovered no other opposition to the proposal. It was determined the mobile home would be for applicant use. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan, being familiar with the area, stated the mobile home would not be visible from the highway. He also stated that although Ms. Woodson (the opposing neighbor) does live two miles away, she cFTs property across the street from the applicant's lot. How- ever, he stated he felt Ms. Woodson would probably withdraw her objection if she could see the photographs of the proposed unit. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-84-85 for Robert Adcock be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the conditions of staff. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. Mr. Michel expressed interest in the difference between a regular mobile home and a double -wide. Mr. Keeler stated he was under the impression the Commission did not wish to get involved with the aesthe-ics of the issue. Mr. Cogan stated he did not recall the Commission ever having decided not to take that into consideration. He indicated that historically it has been shown that opposition to a mobile home is withdrawn when it is discovered that it is to be a double - wide on a permanent foundation. He indicated he felt this was a significant issue. The applicant indicated the double -wide shown in the photographs was identical to the unit he was purchasing. He stated he would have no objection to an added condition of approval which would restrict the unit to one similar to that in the photograph. Mr. Cogan amended his motion to include condition (3) as follows: 3. Mobile home to be placed upon _lot shall be similar to that shown in photograph submitted by applicant. /9� January 15, 1985 Page 4 SP-84-85 was unanimously recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Maintenance of vegetation along fence line for screening purposes. 3. Mobile home to be placed upon lot shall be similar to that shown in photograph submitted by applicant. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on January 16, 1985. Further Discussion: Regarding the issue of differences in taxation for double-wides or single -wide mobile homes, Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be desirable for the Commission to obtain clarification from the finance area, since this could be of assistance in differentiating between the different types of mobile homes. Mr. Harold Morris, owner of a mobile home dealership in Fishersville, addressed the Commission. In an attempt to help clarify matters, Mr. Morris stated that any time a double -wide is placed on a basement or floor foundation, Albemarle County automatically taxes it as real estate. A single -wide which has any attachement to it, i.e. a porch, garage, etc., is also taxed as real estate in most cases. He indicated he felt it was wrong for the Commission to differ- entiate between the two. Mr_. Bowerman indicated that a double -wide on a permanent foundation is actually a house, and houses do not have to have Commission approval. Mr. Morris differed with this and stated that unless it is a BOCA code unit, it does have to come before the Commission. Mr. Keeler stated all this had been covered in the Mobile Home Study and there is currently legislation before the General Assem- bly that may have dramatic effect on how mobile homes are dealt with in the future. Therefore, he indicated he felt it would be better to wait until a later time to pursue the taxation question. Mr. Bowerman repeated that he would still like to have further information on taxation. ZMA-84-20 Keswick P.U.D. - Located south of Keswick, bordered by I-64 on the south, Route 616 on the east, and Route 731 on the west. Proposal to rezone 522.20 acres from RA, Rural Areas to P.U.D., Planned Unit Development. A total of 145 units is load 199 January 15, 1985 Page 5 M proposed (80 cluster units on 36 acres for a density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre, and 65 lots on 280.95 acres for a density of one dwelling unit per 4.01 acres). Total gross density pro- posed is one dwelling unit per 3.5 acres. Other facilities include equestrian center on 6 acres; clubhouse, pool and guest rooms on 14.75 acres; golf course on 1.33.68 acres, tennis courts and sup- port facilities on 9.64 acres; wastewater treatment site on 4.1 acres; added open space on 11.00 acres; subdivision roads on 11.08 acres; and non --specified lot on 15.00 acres. Tax Map 80, Parcels 8, 8B, 8B-1, 8C, 8I, 8J, 8K, 8N, 8N-1, 8P, 8Q, 8U, 8V, 8-H--1, 8X, 9, 31, 60A, 61, 61F, 61J, 62 (part) , 70 (part) , 97 and on Tax Map 94, Parcels 41 (part), and 42. (part). Rivanna Magisterial District. Unanimously deferred until January 29, 1985. SP-84-86 Earl Malisoff - Request to utilize the existing Farmington Hunt Club, clubhouse, and pool for commercial activities such as aerobics, gymnastics, and physical fitness. Property, described as Tax Map 43, Parcel 11A consists of 30 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Located on the south side of Route 601 at its inter- section with Route 676. (Across from Hunt Country Store). Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Unanimously deferred until February 12, 1985. OLD BUSINESS Section 8 Rental Assistance Program - Description of current housing program for the Planning Commission's information which provides rental subsidies to 180 lower income families in Albemarle County. The Section 8 Program is one program under the Division of Community Development, Department of Planning. Ms. Imhoff stated the staff in the Housing Department had provided a slide show describing the Section 8 Housing Program. She explained that Ms. Linda Winkler, administrator of the Section 8 Program, would be giving the presentation, assisted by Ms. Joyce Dudek, housing inspector and computer technician. She reminded the Commission that when the Division of Community Development had been formed, the Housing Office, which had been separate, was incorporated into the Department of Planning and Community Develop- ment. Ms. Winkler presented the slides. She stated that the program operates under the Federal Rental Assistance Program and Albemarle County has been allocated 180 units. She stated the units are located throughout the County and can be either apartments or single-family dwellings. She explained that federal money is supplied by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is dispersed, on the local level, by Virginia Housing, which was created by the General Assembly in 1972. The program makes rental assistance available to income -eligible families or to handicapped or disabled individuals. She explained that families M January 15, 1985 Page 6 pay no more than 300 of their adjusted income for rent and utilities. She stated gross rent for the units cannot exceed the fair market rates which have been established by HUD for our locality. Families can choose any unit within the County, provided that the property meets housing quality standards for decent, safe and sanitary housing, and provided that it falls within the fair market rates. Ms. Winkler further explained that the payments for the contract rent are paid directly by Virginia Housing or the family. She stated that in 1984 Virginia Housing paid out to landlords approx- imately $468,961; utility checks amounted to approximately $28,000. The administrative fees paid to the County to operate this program were $45,000 and operational expenses for 1984 were $43.339.44. She stated the operation of the program for 1984 was run at no cost to Albemarle County and generated revenues overall amounting to $500,000. Referring to the flow chart that had been presented to the Commission, she described the procedure followed by an applicant from the time of application until a lease is signed. In answer to the Commissioners' questions, the following information was pointed out: The program allows people to locate housing of their choice rather than placing them in designated housing projects. Some people must be denied assistance because not enough funding is available. A much needed service is provided at no expense to the County. 180 families are currently receiving assistance. A waiting list is maintained that is usually opened only once a year for a period of 60 days. The program deals only with existing housing. A great deal of time is spent verifying changes in applicants' circumstances which may result in taking them off the program. This helps to insure that as many eligible persons as possible receive assistance. Although additional units have been requested, Albemarle County is not considered as needy as some other areas, and requests have been denied. VHDA will reimburse landlords up to two months' contract rent for damages to units. If the damage exceeds such amount, the landlord's only recourse is through the courts. (Ms. Winkler pointed out this is true of any tenant, not just Section 8 tenants.) January 15, 1985 Page 7 The Housing Office does often act as mediator between landlords and tenants. If it cannot be determined who is at fault, the tenant is referred to Legal Aid and the landlord to his own private counsel. (Ms. Winkler stated very few disputes actually go to court.) In case of damages, a landlord must go to court to recover. If he is awarded damages, then the Housing Office sees that he is reimbursed, up to two months' rent. If he seeks any amount in excess of that, he must try to recover it from the tenant in the form of wage garnishment, etc. (Ms. Winkler explained that a tenant involved in such a case would not be eligible for future assistance until he has made reimbursement to VHDA for any money paid on his behalf, in addition to any extra amount that may have been due to the owner.) A computer record is now being kept on all Section 8 tenants that is available to all localities involved in this program. Regarding limitations on rent, the fair market rate, including utilities,is: $361 for a one bedroom; and $415 for a two bedroom. Unfortunately, Albemarle County is compared to places such as Orange, Fluvanna and Greene counties, whose housing and rent markets differ greatly from Albemarle, for determination of fair market value. The Chairman commended Ms. Winkler for her informative and concise presentation. Brookmill Condominiums - Mr. Keeler explained that the developer had requested that the final plat be given administrative approval. He stated the Commission had failed to act on that request and unless the Commission objected, the staff would approve the final plat administratively. Mr. Keeler indicated a bike path would be included on the plat. No objection was made to allowing staff administrative approval. South Pantops Drive - Mr. Keeler stated this issue was before the Commission at this time because on several occasions in the past the Commission has seen site plans on South Pantops Drive in which the road has been described as an urban cross section with curb and gutter and sidewalks. He explained the developer has now made a request to change to a rural cross section. He stated the Commission had not specifically required an urban cross section. He stated the County Engineer has indicated he can support a rural cross section, and the Highway Department has indicated, if the Commission approves a rural cross section, they will accept it into the state system. However, he stated Mr. Roosevelt (Highway Department) was concerned that, given the aOv? January 15, 1985 Page 8 expected volume on the road, the drainage and maintenance problems would be greater with a rural cross section than with an urban one. In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Payne explained no action was required of the Commission because the condition of the site plan was for the County Engineer and Highway Department to approve the design of the road. However, since it had been presented as an urban cross section, neither the staff nor the applicant was comfortable with making such a change without in- forming the Commission. Mr. Elrod ('County Engineer) stated he had nct approved any design at this time. However, he indicated he agreed with the developer that a rural cross section would be appropriate. He indicated he did not feel the maintenance required for the two types of roads would be much different in terms of expense. Mr. Roosevelt (Highway Department) addressed the Commission. He indicated he felt the County Engineer looks at matters such as this in a different light than does the Highway Department. He stated when this area was fully developed it would be urban in nature, and while no problems currently exist with the ditch - line, they are likely to develop as development in the area increases He stated he felt there would be problems with a two-lane rural cross section, such as low shoulders and vehicles pulling onto the shoulders to pass. He stated the Highway Depart- ment stands by its original recommendation for an urban cross section. He stressed, however, that the Highway Department has no authority to require curb and gutter on any new street, and if the Commission sees fit to reduce this standard to a rural cross section, it is acceptable to Highway Department standards. Mr. Keeler stated it was his understanding that if a rural cross- section were approved, urban -designed entrances would still be required. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the option of curb and gutter on the commercial entrances, or to build them as a rural section, would rest with the developer. However, he stated he felt it would be difficult to get a rural cross section at the entrance given the right-of-way that is anticipated. The Chairman invited comments from the applicant. Dr. Charles Hurt addressed the Commission. He stated. that the road had been built six or seven years ago according to Highway Department recommendations at that time. He indicated he objected to paving all of Pantops for traffic that will prob- ably never be generated. In answer to Mr. Bowerman's question, Dr. Hurt stated very few improvements would need to be made to the road for it to be a rural cross section.(similar to Greenbriar Drive). He explained some blacktop would need to be added. ,�?o3 January 15, 1985 Page 9 Referring to the fact that the County Engineer and the Highway Department were of different opinions on this matter, Mr. Bowerman asked to whom the Commission should look for guidance. Mr. Roosevelt stated the traffic generation figure had been agreed upon by the County Engineer and the Highway Department (3,000 to 5,000 vehicle trips per day). The Subdivision Standards Book, issued by the State Highway Department, and followed by the County, indicates the standards that must be met for this amount of traffic, i.e. two lanes (24 feet wide) for a rural section, or four lanes (48 feet), curb and gutter, for an urban section. He confirmed that both could handle the same amount of traffic; however, the four lane plan could handle commercial entrances off of it without turn lanes, while the two lane would require turn lanes wherever there were major commercial entrances. Mr. Payne stated it was not necessary for the Commission to teke any action, unless it so desires. All that is required is for the Commission to advise the County Engineer to use his judgment in the matter. He further stated it was his understanding that whichever road Dr. Hurt builds, it will meet VDH&T standards and could be accepted into the state system. Mr. Roosevelt confirmed this (provided the road meets Fighway Department standardq. 1%W Mr. Elrod stated he had been under the impression, when he had agreed to the deletion of the curb and gutter, that the road would still be four lanes (i.e. a four lane rural road, not two lanes). He indicated he agreed with Mr. Roosevelt that the road should still be four lanes, with the two outside lanes serving as turn lanes. Mr. Gilliam, attorney for Dr. Hurt, addressed the Commission and stated that until this meeting both he and Dr. Hurt were under the impression that a two lane road was being discussed. He again stated Dr. Hurt was concerned about building more than was required. Mr. Elrod indicated he would have no objection to a two lane road with the criteria that any future development would be required to put in turn lanes as needed. Mr. Gilliam confirmed that this was what Mr. Hurt had in mind, and was acceptable to him. Mr. Roosevelt stated the Highway Department and the County Engineer had not had sufficient time to review this matter. It was the consensus of the Commission that it be left up to the County Engineer, the Highway Department and the applicant as to what type of rural cross section would be appropriate. -�?O7 January 15, 1985 Page 10 Flow Charts - Regarding future activities of the Commission vs. future activities of the committee being formed to study the ordinances, Mr. Skove asked if the Commission wished to continue to examine the flow charts recently developed by staff or if this should be left up to the new committee. It was determined the Commission would not deal with the charts and they would be taken up by the committee. Ms. Diehl stated she would like to receive copies of the charts for her own infor- mation. Regarding certain other items such as bonuses, land- scaping requirements, mobile home recommendations, etc., it was determined that staff should prepare suggested changes which would still be reviewed by the Commission with the possibility that some of these changes might be implemented. Ms. Diehl stated it was her understanding that the committee would be submitting, recommendations to the Commission for speeding up the permit process. It was determined the Commission wished to kept informed of the committee's progress. Joint Meetin2 with Board of Supervisors - Mr. Donnelly reminded the Commission of a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors scheduled for February 6 at 3:30 p.m. Mr. Bowerman requested that staff compile an agenda of items to be taken up at the meeting (including bonuses). Financial Disclosure Statements - Mr. Bowerman reminded the Members of the Commission of their obligation to submit their financial disclosures (due January 15). Mr. Bowerman welcomed Ms. Cooke back as the liaison between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission for the coming year. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. IYA"JA PY4 James R. onnelly, Secretary DS K