No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 04 84 PC MinutesSeptember 4, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, September 4, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, 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. Patricia Cooke (who entered the meeting late). Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Norma Diehl. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY WAIVER REQUEST - Request that the Planning Commission authorize in accordance with Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance the location of a forty-five (45) foot high lime storage silo at twenty-three (23) feet from the southern property boundary. Tax Map 45, Parcel 68B. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Ronald Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Williams, a representative of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, stated that two approaches were possible: (1) The possibility of two silos; and (2) The possibility of a shorter, wider tank. The problem, he added, with a shorter tank is that the lime won't flow, and tends to collect moisture. The other problem is the prohibitive cost of the two tanks. He further stated that the color of paint for the silos, while usually white, could be made an earthen color, depending on the preference of the Commission. It was determined that the color of the water tower on Rt. 29 was Parkway Green. Mr. Bowerman determined there was no public comment regarding the request for the waiver, and placed the matter before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated that the information presented showed that there were not only economic reasons but functional and operational reasons for the originally submitted design. Mr. Gould asked if there was any question about the trees remaining in place and Mr. Williams replied that the trees on the Rivanna property would remain in place. Mr. Skove moved that the request of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to waive the distance that the silo can be located from the property line by a maximum of twenty-three (23) feet be approved. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. The waiver request was unanimously approved. I September 4, 1984 Page 2 SP-84-49 DANIEL BECKER - Request to locate a single -wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map 100, Parcel 27F (part of). Property is located on the southeast of Route 706, approximately 1/2 mile northeast of its intersection with Route 708. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Ronald Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Bowerman mistakenly asked Ms. Carson (a property owner) if she would like to comment on her application. (Note: She was not the applicant.) Ms. Carson stated that when she sold the property it had been agreed that there would be no trailers. At this time Mr. Bowerman realized his mistake, stating that he had meant for Mr. Becker (the applicant) to speak. However, he instructed Ms. Carson to finish. Ms. Carson stated that (a restriction against mobile homes) had not been put in the deeds due to an oversight by her attorney. She added that all other property owners had put homes on their sites. Mr. Becker then spoke stating he had purchased the 21 acres with the in- tention of building and that he hoped to be able to start within two or three years. He further stated that his deed had no restrictions against mobile homes. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Becker if he would be satisfied with a permit that had a fixed period of time, e.g. three to five years. Mr. Becker replied that he would be agreeable, adding that the only reason he had asked for a permanent permit was so that he would not be restricted in case something happened and he could not begin building within a certain time limit. Mr. Bowerman again asked Mr. Becker if it was his intent to build a permanent dwelling. Mr. Becker replied affirmatively. Ms. Carson stated that she felt there was no such thing as a "temporary" permit, adding that even though it might be in writing, she had heard that it could still go on indefinitely. Mr. Allen Stiener, a neighboring property owner stated that because he could see Mr. Becker's property very clearly from his own, he felt placement of a mobile home on this property would de -value his own property. Ms. Kathleen Carson, another neighboring property owner stated that although she would not actually object to a temporary permit, she, too, felt it would devalue her property. Mr. John Grady, a property owner to the west of Mr. Becker's lot, stated he would not object to a temporary permit but that he would object to a permit being issued with no time restriction. 2 September 4, 1984 Page 3 There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the commission. Mr. Michel asked if the location of the mobile home could be such so that it could not be seen by neighboring property owners. Mr. Keeler stated that Mr. Stiener's property was across from Mr. Becker and was elevated. He added that Mr. Becerk's lot was heavily wooded, and he did not think it would make much difference as to the placement of the mobile home. He said that, in his opinion, he did not think it would be visible, explaining that the timber on the lot was mixed tardwood and pines, emphasizing there were evergreens on the lot. Ms. Cooke entered the meeting at this point. Mr. Bowerman asked what kind of time limits had been used in the past -- one to five years? Mr. Cogan stated that he could not support permanent permit, but that he would consider a temporary permit: of three (3) years. Mr. Gould asked if the recommendations stated by staff were not similar to others recently considered. Mr. Keeler confirmed this, adding there was nothing in his conditions regarding a time limit. He further stated that a temporary mobile home permit is available and can be issued administratively while a permanent dwelling is being constructed. He stated that Mr. Becker could not meet the time restraints (eighteen (18) months) of that permit. He confirmed these permits to be extendable by approval of the Zoning Administrator for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each. Mr. Keeler further stated that at this time the Zoning Administrator is now requiring application for a building permit for a permanent dwelling to be issued to an applicant before issuance of a temporary mobile home permit. He added, however, that Mr. Becker would not be eligible for that permit because he did not intend to start building for two (2) or three (3) years. Mr. Cogan stated that he felt that three years was a reasonable time. He felt that if the time limit was too long, there was no incentive to get the permanent dwelling underway. It was determined that only the Zoning Administrator could extend the temporary permits and a Special Permit recommended at this time could only be extended by action of the Board of Supervisors. There being no further discussion, Mr. Bowerman called for a motion. Mr. Cogan moved that Special Permit 84-49, Daniel Becker, be recommended for approval to the Board of.Superivsors with the conditions as outlined by staff, and with the further condition that this special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire three (3) years from the date of approval by the Board of Supervisors. September 4, 1984 Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Page 4 Special Permit 84-49 was unanimously approved and was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 12, 1984. MOBILE HOME STUDY GIs. Scala presented the staff report. Mr. Bowerman stated that tics. Scala had put together quite a comprehensive report making it possible for the Commission to formulate something that could be workable. He added that her report suggests there are all sorts of regulations and standards that could be applied to mobile home parks when they are built which would protect the surrounding residential areas as well as benefit those people living in the park.. He stated that this answered one of his main concerns. X.s. Scala stated that when parks like Crenshaws and others on Rt. 29 were developed, that area was basically rural and no utilities were available. She further stated that at that time that was the best use for that property. She stated that she believed that areas existed now in the growth area where utilities probably may not be extended for another ten years if the developers are left to their own devices. She felt these were the places mobile parks could go, for perhaps the next ten years, if they are given help with utility lines. This would not only give developers incentive to locate in a particular place, but would also encourage this type of de- velopment in the areas where it should go. 'Mr. Bowerman stated the concern that wouldn't the extension of the utilities themselves tend to promote a higher use for that property once the utilities were there. Ms. Scala replied that it would have to be worked out that if a subsidy were given for low-income development, it would have to remain that for a certain number of years and she was not sure if it would be possible to restrict it in this way. '.Kr. Cogan expressed his concern as to how that could be accomplished. Ms. Scala replied that it would be similar to all federal subsidy for low- income housing, i.e. if the subsidy is given to build, then it .has to remain low-income housing. She believed there to be a contract involved in these instances. She further stated that she did not believe there to be an easy solution to this matter but that her report was an updating of infor- mation that is available now and might help the Commission to decide. Mr. Cogan stated that ,he felt the key element to be considered was location. He agreed that because of the restrictions of the Health Department, they would have to be permitted in areas where public utilities are available or could be made available. He added that trying to develop something of this nature in areas where septic tanks, etc. were needed would require too much space .and was not feasible. Al September 4, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Cogan went on to state that mobile home parks can be attractive and if this would be a goal it would help to remove the stigma that surrounds mobile home parks. He added that good planning and sound requirements aren't necessarily expensive but should blend with an attractive development to help overcome that stigma. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would be interested in knowing, for instance, in the R4 and R10 zone, what densities are allowed under the current ordinance, what the economics are in terms of the developer if a mobile home park in that type of zoning could be economically comparable to what it would be if it were developed in a conventional one. He felt that if there were not some sort of balance, nothing would be accomplished because no one would come forward. He felt there had to be a motive. Mr. Cogan addressed this statement explaining that there was much more of an incentive for a developer to develop permanent type structures, townhouses, etc., because of the greater tax advantage. He added there to be little or not tax advantage to the developer of a mobile home park, there being few write-offs connected with this type of development. Ms. Cooke asked Mr. Payne how any new restrictions and requirements would affect present parks. Mr. Payne replied they would be affected to the extent of any other non- conforming use. Ms. Cooke asked if a unit moved out and a new unit moved in, would the new unit be effected by new rules? Mr. Payne responded that in the case of normal turnover (two or three days), the new unit would not be effected. However, he added that would not be the case if a whole section were discontinued for a long period of time (e.g. two years). In such an instance, that section would have to be upgraded to conform to current rules. An exception to this would be if a section were forced to close because of septic field failure or something of that nature. Mr. Michel referred to the item of "cross -listing" as mentioned in Mr. Cortez's memo of August 21, 1984. He asked if there was any validity to this. Ms. Scale responded that, according to Mr. Varney, there was not any validity to this, that either a unit was labeled BOCA or it is not. It has to meet the BOCA code in order -to be considered a single family dwelling. Mr. Cogan stated that some sort of incentive was needed to encourage this type of development. He added that extending the jurisdiction lines was not acceptable and the only alternative would be to increase the density of the urgan areas. He stated also that in exchange for changing the regulations in the RA areas, some good practices and regulations for landscaping, spacing, etc. could be established. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Payne if subdivision would be included in this in respect to increasing the density. Mr. Payne replied that avbdivision was already permitted. S.:J September 4, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Bowerman asked :sir. Payne if the Commission were to approve some sort of subsidy to encourage this development would it necessarily have to be extended to other forms of low-income housing? Mr. Payne said he would find it difficult to distinguish between two kinds of low- and moderate -cost income housing. He pointed out that mobile homes are not necessarily low-cost housing and most are probably moderate -income housing and are occupied by.their owners in most cases. He stated that the very low-income would not be able .to afford mobile homes. He felt it would be difficult to subsidize (in the general sense) mobile home (moderate -income) housing and not do the same for the really .low-income housing (fully subsidized apartments, etc.). He felt this would be shakey ground if challenged. .ir. Payne said that one thing he felt should be considered was the question of whether or not mobile home parks have really been an answer in an urban area for a number of years because in the development stages of the city, mobile home parks were.permitted only in industrial zones. The city has recently changed that, but because city development areas have been so limited for the last ten (10) years that it is not really a fair test. Mr. Payne further stated that in regard to the Commission's power to grant subsidies, he felt that it was limited. He stated that it could be done by allowing them.in higher density zones, but as to the question of bonuses, he felt this could probably be done but he did not know if it could be done with one type of housing and not another. He added there is already a bonus for low- and moderate -income housing and no one has ever used it. He felt if that were to remain and was not killed off in the bonus study, and mobile home parks were added in the denser residential zones in the urban areas, it might be usable. Mr. Cogan asked if, for instance, in an R2 area, as a bonus incentive, if the use were to be a a mobile home park, the density would be increased to R5 or R6, or something of that nature. Would that create a problem? It would remain R2 unless it were used for a mobile home park. Mr. Payne said he felt that would be difficult to defend. Mr. Cogan said the basic problem is lack of mobile home space in the county at this time. He felt there to be a very specific need and that using that.(the increased density as a bonus incentive) would be justified. Mr. Payne replied that Mr. Cogan's example may have just been ill chosen. He explained that the R2 district was very restrictive. He felt that what Mr. Cogan was talking about was R6 shading into R10. That is more like what is already in existence, if mobile homes were to be allowed into the R6 district. Then mobile homes would be treated just like any other low- and moderate - income housing and they would be allowedin the denser districts. He further stated that he felt a change.of greater magnitude, i.e. from R4 to R15 or something of that nature, would be excessive and difficult to defend, but something along the lines of what is already in existence is probably defensible. Mr. Cogan clarified that Mr. Payne was referring to the low-income bonus as being "what we already have." September 4, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Cogan pointed out that the low-income bonus was about to be done away with along with several other bonuses. Mr. Payne stated that it might be possible to combine the two things. Mr. Cogan restated his feeling of the specific problem at this time being not enough mobile home sites available. Mr. Keeler said he agreed that there is a need and he felt the developers would respond to that need when they see there is a demand. He continued that he had spoken with several developers about mobile home parks, two of which were in high density zones, R6 and R10. One developer's hesitancy, he stated, was related to rezoning the property Rural Areas at this time in order to be eligible for a mobile home park. The developer did not want to lose the underlying zoning. Mr. Keeler said that mobile home parks in Albemarle Co., by their nature, were not going to be permanent uses. He felt that if they were in growth areas, as property values increased, this would be a recurring type of situation, with new parks (mobile home) being needed as old ones are discontinued. He added that, according to figures he had recently been made aware of, the 100-150 spaces needed, could be raised to 150-200 spaces (replacement spaces). He added that all the information may not be in at this time concerning this. In conclusion, he said he did feel developers were making an effort to respond to what they perceive is a market demand, if profitable, as pointed out by Mr. Cogan. Mr. Keeler agreed that profit was a factor and said he did not know if any of the developers were considering a mobile home park as a permanent use. Mr. Cogan restated his concern that the developers would not be inclined to choose mobile home park development over another more profitable type of development in the urban areas. He stated further that this led back to his former statement that perhaps the answer lies in the jurisdictional lines. He felt that idea had not gained very high acceptance. Mr. Payne said one way'to do this was to take it one step at a time, i.e. amend it and allow mobile home parks in these denser zones, let them remain for a time and see what happens. Mr. Cogan agreed that to be a good idea but stated the fact that there may not be time for that. Mr. Payne pointed out, and Mr. Cogan agreed, that developers could not be made to develop these mobile home parks. Mr. Michel stated that all that could be done was to encourage the developers. Mr. Cogan felt that it all came back to location. Where could the parks be placed to satisfy the county's desires in regard to the overall compre- hensive plan, while at the same time giving developers incentive? Mr. Bowerman stated that all these issues needed to be considered carefully along with the staff report to see if some practical solutions could be formulated two weeks from this meeting (September 18). September 4, 1984 Ms. Cooke raised the question as slated to get this matter before She felt it would be useful for for their review. Page 8 to whether the Board of Supervisors was the Commission had completed their analysis. the Board to have copies of the report Mr. Bowerman agreed that there might be some thoughts the Board would wish to share with the Planning Commission members. 8:50 p.m. - 10 minute recess BONUS PROVISIONS - Request for resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance to delete Density Bonus Factors; to amend Zoning Ordinance to provide for increased residential density for dedication of land to public use. yLr. Bowerman stated that taking into consideration some of the comments made previously in the meeting, Mr. Keeler felt it might be preferable to defer this matter until after the mobile home matter had been taken up at the September 18 meeting. That would reduce the possibility of having to change the recommendations twice. Mr. Keeler stated that if a low- and moderate -cost housing bonus was not to be maintained, then the current recommendations would stand, but if the Commission chooses to maintain said bonus, then the report would have to be reworked. It was thus decided to defer this item until the September 18 meeting. DRIVE --INN WINDOWS; PARKING GAGES - Request for resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance to permit parking garage structures and drive-in window features by special use permit only. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Keeler stated that he was asking the Commission to adopt a resolution so that this could be brought to public hearing. He stated that a couple of section numbers needed to be added before this was brought back to the Commission. Mr. Payne stated that in regard to parking structures, this amendment would outlaw parking structures in the lower density residential districts. Therefore, they would not be permitted in rural areas VR, R1, R2, R4 or R6. Mr. Skove moved for adoption of a resolution of intent for parking structures and drive-in windows to be permitted only by special use permit. ;sir. Michel seconded the motion. 1) �1r. Payne pointed out, for the record, that these were not necessarily related problems. i September 4, 1984 Page 9 Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that one site plan (drive-in window) was in hand that had been deferred indefinitely and would not be affected by these amendments since it was submitted under the current ordinance regulation. There being no further discussion, the resolution of intent was approved unanimously. It was determined that these would probably come before the Commission in October. KESWICK PUD - Request for resolution of intent to amend Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. Mr. Bowerman stated that it was necessary for all aspects of the entire Comprehensive Plan to be considered in examining this one proposal. Ms. Imhoff concurred. Mr. Skove asked if his understanding of the population figures to be about 750 was correct? Ms. Imhoff responded affirmatively. Mr. Skove asked if it could range up to about 1,000? Ms. Imhoff responded that it would depend on where the boundaries were established for the growth area. Mr. Skove asked how this compared with the Village of Earlysville? Ms. Imhoff responded that she thought Earlysville was smaller. She did not recall it having the commercial acreage that this development (Keswick) has. Mr. Bowerman stated that part of it was inside the Earlysville Village. Ms. Imhoff stated that there was about five acres of commercial area in the Earlysville development and she thought it to have been PRD.. Mr. Skove expressed concern over the water and sewer arrangements available in the area. He felt this should be part of the Comprehensive Plan for total impact of such a project. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the most important features of Ms. Imhoff's report were (1) the need for extensive preparation prior to public hearing, including consultation with the Site Review Committee, RWSA, Education Department, Parks and Recreation, etc. and (2) the possibility of reviewing only the rezoning request at this time. He further stated that he felt the applicant might have some difficulty getting re-zonning in view of the lack of water and sewer facilities. He stated his concern for the possibility of spending September.4, 1984 Page 10 a lot of effort on this matter and then finding that it was not feasible because utilities would not be obtained. He.did no* that private sewage treatment plants for a PUD of this nature have been discouraged in the past. He stated more information is needed as to how the Sewer Authority would feel about this and added that he felt this to be the key element of this entire plan. ?sir. Xi.chel concurred with Mr. Cogan's concern and said he would be interested in the Highway Department's response to private roads. Mr. Bowerman stated he agreed with all that had been expressed to this point and restated that additional information was needed prior to any action being taken. He added that perhaps the Comprehensive Plan amendment approach would be the way to accomplish this. He pointed out that in the past applications had been denied because they were not in compliance. -Mr. Bowerman asked for clarification.as to when the entire Comprehensive Plan was scheduled to be reviewed by the Commission. Ms. Imhoff replied that the .staff would begin revising it about this time next year and then it would not become before the Planning Commission for another six months to one year after that. She stated it should be adopted by 1987. Both Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Michel expressed interest in determining why the Citizens' Committee recommended removing Keswick as a village. Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not wish to take action on this at this time because he had.not studied all the implications. He asked if the other Commissioners were agreeable to this. He said he felt if a resolution of intentwas formulated at this time, it would require an enormous amount of work and at this time it is not even known if some of these items are even attainable. Mr. Payne stated that if it was decided to study the Comprehensive Plan, he did not know that the rezoning application had any particular bearing. on that. He said he felt the point to be that if it is desirable.to have growth in Keswick, then whether a particular developer wants to develop it, and when or how he may wish to develop it, though of some interest, shouldn't constrain the Commission. Mr. Michel asked if it were possible to ask RWSA, the Highway Department, etc. for preliminary responses. Ms. Imhoff said she believed this to be perfectly acceptable. She asked if the response should relate to the PTJD or to growth? Mr. Michel replied he would want it on the PUD. Concern was again expressed by the Commission regarding utilities, traffic problems, etc. Air. Skove stated he would need more information before he would even consider an amendment. l© September 4, 1984 Page 11 Mr. Keeler pointed out to the chairman that the request was to amend the Comprehensive Plan and this might be considered as a citizens' proposal to be reflected in that amendment. He felt that the two could not be separ- ated. Though he hesitated to disagree with Mr. Payne, he felt that was what the applicant was asking in terms of the Comprehensive Plan. He felt the matter to be twofold: (1) Whether or not there should be growth there and what it should look like; and (2) To respond to a specific proposal in the Comprehensive Plan amendment, looking at that as a Comprehensive Plan amendment as opposed to a PUB. Mr. Bowerman stated that the two might not be necessarily one and the same. Mr. Keeler agreed. Mr. Bowerman continued that a Comprehensive Plan amendment for.this particular area might accomplish more or less than this proposal. Mr. Keeler agreed but stated that the basic policy issues of whether the RSWA wants to take over another treatment plant after just discontinuing a number of them and similar types of basic policy issues should be addressed in any kind of comprehensive plan amendment. He stated he understood this would be difficult to do. Mr. Skove stated that before he could address the Comprehensive Plan he would need more information on all aspects of the matter. Mr. Cogan expressed the concern as to why it should even be considered as a growth area if utilities could not be made available. Mr. Payne stated, for example, that if the density was limited to VR scale public utilities would not be needed. With 60,000 square foot lots, individual wells would be possible. He stated this to be a consideration, but added that it would not be the same type of problem as it would be for quarter - acre lots. Mr. Cogan stated that he would like to see, if possible without a great deal of effort, some input from RWSA, the Highway Department, Board of Education and the report of the Citizens' Committee as to why it was taken down from a village. Mr. Cogan restated that what was being asked at this time was how those four (4) agencies feel about the impact of the growth of that area. He stated it was necessary to be more specific at this time. Mr. Wilkerson asked to add to that any study that might be available on the water table, wells going dry, or water in that location. Ms. Imhoff indicated understanding. Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any other concerns and asked Ms. Imhoff to bring this information back to the Commission at such time as it was collected. Ms. Imhoff indicated that it would probably take two (2) weeks to gather the information. September 4, 1984 Page 12 • Mr. Bowerman noted that no action would be taken on the Keswick PUD request at this time. At this time a citizen began to speak and though 'Mr. Bowerman pointed out that this was not a public hearing, he was allowed to continue. Mr. Little, a resident of the Keswick area, expressed concern over the increased traffic flow on Rt. 250 that would result as a by-product of the development of the Keswick project. Mr. Bowerman determined there to be no OLD BUSINESS to be considered at this time. NEW BUSINESS �lr. Bowerman asked if any of ttae Commissioners were interested in receiving the minutes of the Board of Superivsors' meetings as had been done in the past. It was determined that all Commissioners would like to receive a copy of these minutes. Mr. Cogan said that it had been brought to his attention that the City of Charlottesville had cracked down on placing of U-Haul and 3artran trucks and trailers at service stations. Having been removed from the city, these 49 have now been placed at stations in the county. He stated he had been asked if there were regulations against the parking of these vehicles in the county. Mr. Bowerman stated he did not believe there to be any restrictions on them at this time. Mir. Payne stated he believed there to be some places in the.ordinance where rental trailers, trucks, etc. is a specifically permitted use. He recalled this having come up several years ago and the principal issue was whether they were truly accessory. Mr. Keeler stated that if vehicles were going to be kept on these lots they should be in designated areas. y1r. Payne stated that it can be considered an accessory use, depending upon the magnitude of the use. An accessory use is always a case -by -case situation. Mr. Cogan asked if it were no more specific than that and Mr. Payne replied that it was not. Payne stated he thought there were specific provisions in the ordinance to deal with this if it were to become a problem and at that time it .may be necessary to make specific provisions to expressly limit them to certain places and not permit them as accessory uses. 0 Mr. Keeler stated that with the increased student activity at this time of the year, it probably should just be tolerated. `4 DS September 4, 1984 Wage 13 Mr. Cogan stated that the influx was created by the city's cracking down on the vehicles. It being determined there was not other new business, the meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m. .Tames R. Donnelly cretary 0 /9