Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 15 85 PC MinutesOctober 15, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 15, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice - Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Richard Gould. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the October 1, 1985 meeting were approved as written. Discussion of October 29 Agenda - It was determined the agenda for this meeting would be as follows: 5:00 Mobile Home Work Session (Room 7) 6:00 Dinner (To be brought in) 7:00 Dr. Hurt Application (Room 7) 8:00 WPED Application (Auditorium) (Sign-up sheets will be used.) SP-85-70 David R. Slonim - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(10) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to locate a permanent single wide mobile home attached to an existing cabin on 21 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 33, parcel 41 (part of). (The mobile home currently exists on the property as interim housing.) Property is located on the northwest side of Rt. 747, ±0.7 mile northeast of the intersection with Rt. 600. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Bowerman asked what representations had been made at the time this was originally approved (1984). Mr. Keeler explained that it had not been reviewed by the Commission, but had been approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator for interim housing while a permanent dwelling was to be constructed. He confirmed that the repre- sentation made at the time the permit was granted was that a permanent dwelling was to be established, separate from the mobile home. He confirmed that this is the only basis for the granting of a temporary permit administratively. He further explained that during the life of such a permit, certain actions must be taken towards construction of the permanent dwelling. j0-Z., October 15, 1985 Page 2 In response to Mr. Gould's inquiry, Mr. Keeler explained it is old his understanding that the applicant plans to enclose the mobile home and guise it as though it is part of a permanent dwelling. Mr. Gould asked if that had been the understanding when the original permit was issued. Mr. Payne stated the permit was probably obtained with the idea of building a home, but those plans have now changed. Mr. Keeler stated he did not think a temporary mobile home permit would envision the conversion of a mobile home to a permanent dwelling. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question concerning public opposition at the time the original permit was issued, Mr. Keeler explained that notice to adjoining property owners is not required for a temporary permit. He further explained such permits are for a period of 18 months and can be extended for additional one year periods. He added that the permit requires that the applicant begin construction on the permanent dwelling within a specified period of time and he must proceed with construction in good faith. Ms. Diehl asked if this takes the place of the temporary mobile home permits that are reviewed by the Commission. *04 Mr. Payne stated the Commission does not review temporary permits. Ms. Diehl indicated she felt some of the permits approved by the Commission are temporary. Mr. Payne explained that the Co ission reviews requests for permanent mobile homes which may conditioned with some sort of time limit, whereas the temporary permit explained by Mr. Keeler is one which is inherently limited by the permit itself. He stated that if an applicant says that the mobile home is to be used until a permanent dwelling is constructed, but he has not sought the temporary permit from the Zoning Administrator, it is because he desires a longer time period than is provided by the temporary permit or his plans are not definite. Mr. Keeler explained the temporary permit had been issued in November, 1984, under Sec. 5.7, which is temporary housing intended for use while a permanent dwelling is being built. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Morse, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He made the following comments: --The applicant plans to build a separate dwelling on the property but is uncertain when this will be done. 30 3 October 15, 1985 Page 3 --The applicant envisions the existing mobile home will remain, to be used as a guest house. --Stockade fencing is already in place around the mobile home, though the gates have not yet been installed. --The mobile home does not currently have a permanent resident and is used "off and on." --Mr. Morse, an assistant to the owner, will eventually occupy the mobile home permanently. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan asked how the letter written by Mr. Morse, which described changes to be made to the mobile home, tied in with the application. Mr. Keeler explained that the letter actually had no connection to the special permit application, unless the Commission chose to make it a part of the conditions of approval. It was determined the mobile home would not be visible with the stockade fencing around it. Mr. Cogan indicated he was unclear as to what the applicant was proposing. He could not understand why the applicant would want to build a brick wall, etc. around a mobile home if he was planning to build a permanent dwelling at some future date. Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission may want to "preclude that" and just approve the mobile home for a specified period of time. Mr. Gould stated that he had originally understood that this was to be the permanent dwelling, but after hearing Mr. Morse's comments, that did not appear to be the case. Mr. Cogan indicated he might be willing to extend the temporary nature of the mobile home but he was not enthusiastic about turning a mobile home into a guest cabin. He explained that the Commission usually grants mobile home permits for units which will be used as dwellings for the owners, but not for a use such as this. Mr. Gould agreed. It was determined the temporary permit could be extended for a period of two years from the date of the Board of Supervisor's action. It was also determined that the structure must be removed from the premises upon expiration of the temporary permit. It was determined that the stockade fencing is already in place and thus condition No. 2 should remain. 644 October 15, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne how the motion should be made, i.e. should it be approved as a temporary permit or should the request for the permanent permit first be denied. Mr. Payne explained that historically the Commission has simply approved the application, subject to a time limit. Mr. Payne moved that SP-85-70 for David R. Slonim be 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 stockade fencing along frontage with Rt. 747; 3. The permit will have a time limit of two years from the date of approval by the Board of Supervisors; 4. Upon expiration of this special permit, the mobile home must be removed from the premises. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman explained to the Mr. Morse that the Commission's action contemplates that a second structure will be constructed, but whether or not a permanent structure is constructed, this permit will expire at the end of two years and the mobile home must be removed at that time. Ms. Diehl added that the applicant has the right to make a new request at that time. The above -stated motion was approved (4:1) with Messrs. Gould, Cogan and Bowerman and Ms. Diehl voting in favor, and Mr. Skove voting against. Mr. Skove explained that he could see no reason for not approving the unit as a permanent structure since it would not be visible. The application was to be heard by the Board on October 16, 1985. Mr. Bowerman explained to the applicant that the Commission has seldom approved a mobile home for rental use, though it has been generous in granting applications for owner -occupied mobile homes which are located on that owner's property. SP-85-72 William F. Parrott - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(10) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to locate a permanent single wide mobile home on a vacant three acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map 103, parcel 23C (part of) and is located on the west side of Rt. 795, 2.3 miles south of its intersection with Rt. 620. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. 3ci5 October 15, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Keeler explained that this area had once been reviewed for a mobile home subdivision. He explained that a letter of opposition had been received from a property owner to the north. Though the applicant, Mr. Parrott, was present, he offered no additional comments. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Daniel Veliky addressed the Commission and indicated he was in favor of the application. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the mobile home was 65 feet long. It was determined the trees on the property were of a mixed variety. Mr. Cogan suggested that the minimum distance of 75 feet be maintained between the mobile home and the property line to the north (Mr. Dudley) and that the trees in that area not be disturbed. He suggested that condition No. 2 could be reworded to make this requirement clearer. He also suggested that the buffer and setback along Rt. 795 be 125 feet as suggested by the applicant. It was determined condition No. 2 would be changed to read as follows: Maintenance of a 75 foot tree buffer and setback along north property line, and 125 foot buffer and setback along Rt. 795. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-72 for William F. Parrott be recom- mended 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 a 75 foot tree buffer and setback along north property line, and 125 foot buffer and setback along Rt. 795. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on October 16, 1985. OLD BUSINESS Joint City/County Resolution - It was determined this resolution RM10 October 15, 1985 Page 6 (which had been discussed at the October 8 meeting) had been finalized in its original form, i.e. the wording was not changed as had been requested by the University. Emerald Forest - Mr. Skove asked Mr. Payne if he had been able to determine what was "new and different" about the maintenance agreement for this development which had been referred to by the applicant. Mr. Bowerman recalled that the applicant had said there was a way to write the deed so that road maintenance would be included as a part of the deed. Mr. Payne explained that he had been interested in what was "new" about this since 400 of the maintenance agreements he sees are written in this way. He emphasized that he has not yet seen the Emerald Forest agreement, but from what he has heard so far, there does not really seem to be anything different about it. Mr. Keeler stated he had understood that an amount would be added to the sale price and would be set aside for road maintenance for the first five years. Mr. Payne stated if this is the case, and the agreement is different in the regard that this sort of arrangement is usually used only for condominiums, then it is a good idea. Ancona Project at Boar's Head - Referring to a discussion that had taken place at a previous meeting, Mr. Cogan asked what had happened to the letter that was supposed to have been sent informing the developer that no C.O. would be issued until the decel land on Rt. 250 had been installed and accepted by the Highway Department. Mr. Cogan stated that construction continues to progress but still no construction has begun on the road. The Commission asked staff to check into this matter and present a draft of a letter at the October 22 meeting. They stressed that bonding alone was not acceptable. Mr. Cogan pointed out that the applicant had volunteered to make these improvements. Mr. Bowerman recalled that the occupancy permit was conditioned upon this condition being satisfied, but the Commission wants to make sure that no temporary occupancy permit is issued since these improvements have been represented to the Commission for some time. NEW BUSINESS Proposed Amendment to the FY85-86 MPO Work Program - Proposal to Analyze the Impact of Alternative County Land Use Patterns in Order to Alleviate Traffic Congestion in the Route 29 North Corridor - Mr. Horne explained that the County is requesting an allocation of $23,400 in order to purchase the services of a transportation planning consultant as well as to support County staff efforts in this project. Mr. Horne explained he was thinking in terms of a computerized traffic generation model which would help not only on the 29 North debate, but also would help with differences which often occur between an applicant's analysis and a staff analysis of traffic patterns. He stated staff wishes to go to the MPO, through the Technical Committee and the Policy Committee, and request that funding lhn October 15, 1985 Page 7 which is currently in various other fairly inactive projects be re -allocated into hiring a consultant who will assist in purchasing a software system for the micro -computer and then will actually assist in setting up the system. He stated the estimated cost of the project is $23,400. He confirmed that the program will work on any area. He added that most programs have the ability to analyze 300-400 intersections and 500-600 connectors which will do the entire metropolitan area. He pointed out that the proposal before the Commission was preliminary since various other members of the MPO may wish to make slight changes. He added that he felt this would be of material benefit to the Commission when making decisions on general land use patterns and it will be very helpful when reviewing the Comprehensive Plan for testing broadscale assumptions. He stated it is hoped the program can be "up and actively analyzing projects" by the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 1986. Mr. Skove stated he felt it was excellent idea, but wondered which projects would be given less priority in order to move this project up. Mr. Horne indicated that some of the projects currently in the work schedule might actually be covered by this proposal, e.g. Coordination of the CAT Study with the County Comp Plan. He also indicated the scope of the Pedestrian Obstacle Study might be narrowed into a few top priority areas. Mr. Cogan asked if the program could be used to challenge a developer's traffic generation figures. Mr. Horne explained there are systems which are comprehensive enough to look at an entire network and then break down assumptions to a specific site. Mr. Horne pointed out that it is just an automated system which depends on the correct assumptions, but, hopefully, it will be flexible enough to change the assumptions when necessary. Mr. Cogan asked what precedent exists to say that the computer program would be correct and a developer's traffic analyst's figures wrong. Mr. Horne stated he did not think there would be a precedent but it would be possible to take the analyst's set of assumptions and compare them to the set of assumptions that the Commission desires. Mr.Horne pointed out that it is very important that the system be set up correctly and that the data fed into the system is accurate. He added he is very attracted by the flexibility of the system as opposed to, e.g., the VDH&T model in Richmond which takes months to change a set of assumptions. Mr. Cogan emphasized that it would have to be explainable in terms of making it understandable to the public, i.e. how figures or conclusions are arrived at. 509 October 15, 1985 Page 8 It was determined no action was required of the Commission and there was no opposition to staff's proposal. Mr. Horne stated he would keep the Commission appraised of the proposal's progress. Procedure for October 29 Meeting - A discussion took place as to whether or not sign-up sheets should be used for those members of the public wishing to speak on the WPED application. Those members of the Commission who had had experience with this procedure generally felt it was a good idea. Ms. Diehl suggested that it should be stated on the sheet that a certain amount of time would be allotted for each speaker. It was determined that a sign-up procedure would be followed and Mr. Bowerman was to confer with staff on the particulars. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. D5 '1O9J