HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 18 84 PC MinutesSeptember 18, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 18, 1984, 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. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr.
Harry Wilkerson; and Ms. Patricia Cooke. Other officials present were: Mr.
Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley,
Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. Tim
Michel.
Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that
a quorum was present.
The first item to be taken up was the approval of the minutes for the September 4,
1984 meeting. The following changes were noted: Page 3, next to last para-
graph, change "motion" to "discussion" ; Page 12, fifth paragraph, change last
sentence to read "It was determined that all members of the Commission would
like to receive a copy of these minutes." In addition, the following changes
had previously been pointed out: Page 5, last paragraph, change "committed"
to "permitted"; Page 6, third paragraph, last sentence, insert "but" between
the words "that because"; Page 11, paragraph eight, change "BR" to "VR"; and
Page 5, third paragraph, last line, change "right -offs" to "write-offs".
There being no other changes, the minutes were approved as written with the
above -noted changes.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that, in the interests of saving time, it was not necessary
to include in the minutes letters or statements which the Commissioners had
already received copies of.
SP-84-52 WALTER F. & LYDIA P. GIBSON - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(10)
of the Zoning Ordinance to remove an existing single wide mobile home on 2.0
acres and replace it with a double wide mobile home. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 65, parcel 119C, is located t300 feet off private
easement on east side of Route 740, ± .4 mile north of its intersection with
Route 22. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Ronald Keeler gave the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to read the letter from Mozelle Keyes which was
included in the Commissioners' packet as it was almost illegible.
Mr. Keeler complied.
Ms. Diehl inquired as to the history of the mobile home.
Mr. Keeler replied there to be no permit on the mobile.home of which he,was aware.
He stated the mobile home was nonconforming and when a nonconforming use is
enlarged, compliance with the ordinance is required, making a special use permit
necessary. He further stated this to be a peculiarity in the nonconforming section
in that if the said mobile home were replaced with a unit of the same size, a
special use permit would not be needed.
September 18, 1984 Page 2
Mr. Gould asked if the mobile home would be placed in the same location as the
old one.
The applicant stated the new mobile home would be farther back on the property
than the existing one.
Mr. Bowerman then called on the applicants, or their representative, for
comments.
Mr. Frank Johnson, a representative of Valley Suburban homes, described the
differences in the Gibson's present mobile home and the one they are seeking
to purchase, pointing out that it is larger', nicer and meets all HUD standards.
He further stated that the lot islarge enough to accommodate the increased
size and that a mobile home has existed on the property since 1965. He
emphasized that the applicants were merely updating their living standards.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Bowerman placed the matter before
the Commission.
Mr. Gould moved that SP-84-52 for Walter F. and Lydia P. Gibson be approved with
the conditions as outlined by staff. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
There being -no further discussion, SP-84-52 was unanimously approved and was
scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on October 3, 1984.
SP-84-50 JOHN & DOROTHY M. COLLIER - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(10)
of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home on 59.0 acres which
has existing one (1) house and three (3) mobile homes. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 9, parcel 8, is located on the southwest side of
Route 633, ±1200 feet west of its intersection with Route 603. White Hall
Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report and amended the first condition recommended by
staff to read as follows:
Planning Commission approval of a site plan showing all four
mobile homes served by a common entrance and Unit 4 to be
located at least one hundred fifty (150) feet from the western
property line and at least one hundred fifty (150) feet from
Unit 3.
He explained that while the applicant was proposing a separate entrance for
Unit 4, staff was recommending that the present entrance be extended back
to serve this unit also.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Commissioners had received copies of letters
of objection from five property owners. He stated three of these neighboring
property owners could see the existing trailers from their property, but he
was unsure as to their visability to the other two property owners.
Ms. Diehl inquired as to what would be needed to upgrade the entrance, and if
this would be required.
Mr. Keeler explained that if the current entrance dial not meet Highway
Department standards, it would have to be improved. He explained that it
C2-15,�
September 18, 1984 Page 3
was a very wide, paved entrance, but he did not know if it met Highway Depart-
ment commerical standards. He further'stated that a note in the file indicated
that the Highway Department had approved the entrance for the existing mobile
homes.
Mr. Bowerman then called on the applicant for comments.
Mr. Collier first asked Mr. Keeler to clarify where he was recommending that
the fourth mobile home be placed. It was determined that the recommendation
was for the fourth unit to be placed behind the third unit. Mr. Collier then
explained that the soil in that area might not be suitable for a drain field
and he feared the Health Department would not approve a septic system in that
location.
Mr. Bowerman then asked for public comment.
Ms. Brenda Graves, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission and
pointed out that the Commissioners had a copy of a letter of objection she
had written regarding this matter. She first stated her feeling that it would
be unfair for Mr. Collier to be allowed two entrances to his property when
she had not been allowed one, and had to share a common driveway. She further
stated that the trailers were very visible and she introduced photographs
to make this point. She pointed out that .though it was her understanding that
screening had been required, it had never been put in. Ms. Graves also
questioned the accuracy of the 100 foot wide entrance as shown on the site
plan, stating she believed it to be much narrower than that. She also said
she did not understand why Mr. Collier was allowed to have three mobile homes
clustered so close together when he had 59 acres of land on which to locate
said homes. She asked that if the Commission chose to allow this application,
it be required that the fourth mobile home be placed behind Mr. Collier's
house, farther from her property line. She felt that three mobile homes
next to her property line were more than enough. Ms. Graves said she was
concerned that Mr. Collier's next step would be to request a permit for a mobile
home park. She added that she had learned that Mr. Collier had just purchased
11.2 additional acres. She also requested that an open meeting be held in
regard to Mr. Collier's site plan as she did not feel this site plan should
be approved administratively. She concluded by saying that she was misled
when the existing trailers had been placed on the property and that she had only
known about one.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Bowerman placed the matter before
the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the topography of the site.
Mr. Keeler responded that it dropped off behind the third mobile home.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this would place any limitations on the placement of
the fourth mobile home.
Mr. Keeler explained that he felt Mr. Collier was referring to the soil not
being suitable for drain fields (as opposed to the steepness of the land).
Mr. Bowerman expressed his confusion in regard to the date of the original
application for site plan approval. He understood a request for administrative approval
of the site plan was made in 1981 and no action had been taken until the
.V6
September 11, 1984 Page 4
middle of this year. (A letter dated September 14, 1981 from Ms. Imhoff to
Mr. Collier had explained what was necessary before administrative approval
of the site plan could be granted.) It was Mr. Bowerman's understanding
that this current application was all that had.been done since that time.
Mr. Keeler confirmed this understanding.
Mr. Cogan stated his interest in the overall plan of Mr. Collier.
Mr. Collier stated that this would be the last Mobile home he would locate
on the property. He stated the Zoning Department had told him he could have
one more unit.
Mr. Cogan asked if it would be for his own. use (Mr. Collier's) or for rental.
Mr. Collier responded it would be for rental, but to family members.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the relationship of the occupants of the existing
mobile homes.
Mr. Collier responded that some were used by family members and one was being
rented to a close family friend.
Mr. Skove said this seemed to be approaching a mobile home park.
Ms. Diehl said she could not support the request. She pointed out that the
photographs had shown that the screening had not been put in .place and it did y
not seem that an effort had been made to make that area more attractive.
Mr. Bowerman stated he shared Ms. Diehl's .concerns. He added that he was
especially concerned with the fact that this was rental property.
There being no further comments, Ms. Diehl moved that SP 84-50 for. John and
Dorothy M. Collier be denied. ti1r. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
The motion to deny SP-84-50 was defeated with '21r. Bowerman, Ms. Diehl and Mr.
Wilkerson voting in favor and Mr. Skove, Mr. Cogan and Mr. Gould voting
against.
Mr. Gould moved that SP 8.4-50 for John and Dorothy M. Collier be anproved.with ammend-
ed recommendations of staff and strict enforcement of said recommendations.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, fir. Cogan again asked for clarification of Mr. Keeler's
amendment to the staff recommendations. He wished to know where exactly the
unit would be located as a result of this amendment and if it would be served
by the .same entrance that is presently in existence.
Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively and stated the amendment would put the unit
farther away from the western property line and Ms. Graves' property.
Ms. Diehl said she did feel the County does have some responsibility to provide
residence for a family who has purchased a piece of property and wishes to live
on it, but that she felt very differently about the use of mobile hones as an
enterprise without any kind of consolidated planning.
d V
September 18, 1984 Page 5
The motion to approve SP-84-50 was also defeated with Mr. Skove, Mr. Cogan and
Mr. Gould voting in favor, and Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Diehl and Mr. Wilkerson voting
against.
Since agreement was not reached on either motion, SP-84-50 for John & Dorothy
M. Collier was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with no recommendation,
and was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on October 3, 1984.
Mr. Keeler suggested that Mr. Collier might want to get in touch with the
Health Department to see if a drain field in the proposed location could be
approved.
MOBILE HOME PARK STUDY - Work Session
Mr. Bowerman began by saying that the recommendations proposed by staff on
page 16 of their study were in line with his feelings. He did have a concern
in regard to recommendation No. 3 and the subsidizing of utilities. He stated
that even though Mr. Payne had indicated that it would be difficult to distinguish
between extending utilities to a mobile home subdivision and another type of
low-cost subdivision, he felt it u-Quld.be possible in some way to subsidize
utilities to low cost housing in general. However, his concern with this method
was that if applicable to different types of low-cost housing, mobile home
subdivisions would still not be encouraged because of economics, but some other
type of low-cost housing would be encouraged. He asked Mr. Payne if there would
be any way to discriminate between the low-cost housing.
Mr. Payne said he was not aware of any definitive authority on the matter, so
the answer would be "maybe". but he felt that this type of discrimination would
probably not be possible. He said a problem could arise if, after utility
lines had been lain, the development could possibly change course (e.g.
bankruptcy of developer, death of developer, etc.) and a successive developer
would want to put in something different. He felt it would be difficult to
enforce the use of that utility line to one particular use. He repeated his
former comment that a developer could not be forced into developing a mobile
home park. He said he questioned whether the Service Authority would permit
a utility line being limited to one particular use since their projects are
required to pay for themselves and he felt they would be unlikely to approve
a line that could possibly end up not producing any income.
Ms.. Diehl pointed out that even if a special use permit were approved with
long-term proffers, it still would not ensure that the property were developed
in that way if the original developer were to be lost. The property could
still just sit there and not be developed at all.
Mr. Payne stated that though.he could not say that it would not work under any
circumstances, he had questions about its legality and its practicality.
Mr. Payne added that it has been at least fifteen (15) years since a mobile
home park has been developed in the growth areas because they have not been
permitted, so community reaction to the idea is not really known at this time.
Mr. Payne agreed with Mr. Skove that merely allowing these developments in
the more intensive zones Cupzoning"), could in itself.be sufficient incentive.
He recalled that this had been done in the . planning and development
district in the ordinance prior to 1980--i.e. land that had been zoned for
September 18, 1984
Page 6
some intense use was rezoned to Al with an attached application for a
special use permit for a PUD. He said there were occasions when the developers
expressed concern about this, stating that it was to be understood that Al
zoning was not desired unless the PUD was going to be approved.
Mr. Keeler stated that he has discussed mobile home parks with developers and
interest has been shown in the last several months to develop said parks in some
of the higher density areas. He added that the concern of one particular devel-
oper was the rezoning of rural areas for mobile home parks. He felt developers
would respond to the market. He added that some of the larger developers who
own large amounts of land might find it desirable to put a mobile home park
on some of this land for ten or fifteen years until it could be consumed by
the conventional market, rather than let the land lie idle. He restated his
feeling that mobile home parks would be temporary uses in the growth areas because
the property values go up too much.
Mr. Payne agreed that this was probably true but that he felt this was disincentive
for developers to develop mobile home parks in the growth areas with the
ordinance the way.it is no% He explained that if the developer has a five-year
time schedule.for his park, then decides to do something else with it, if he
has to rezone it to RA, subject to his q.ecLal use permit, he will abandon the
special use permit when he abandons the park and then he has to face the risk
of not having the land rezoned back to some more intensive use.
Mr. Skove, referring to recommendation (1..) regarding R-4, R-6, R--10 and R-15
zones, stated that his impression of the map was that the bulk of the unused
land in the undeveloped urban area is zoned R-1. He asked why this had not
been included in the recommendation.
Mr. Keeler responded that in the original draft the staff had recommended mobile
home parks by special use permits in all conventional residential districts.
He stated there had been public opposition to that and they were therefore
stricken from all the districts except village residential and the rural
areas districts. He stated they were now being recommended by special permits
in certain residential districts but not in the suburban single-family
type districts, the R-1, R-2 districts. He said those are the only two
residential districts which are exclusively single-family. Mr. Keeler stated
that in'78 or'79 the definition of "family" had been changed in the zoning
ordinance because of rental of single-family dwellings in developed subdivisions.
He added that subsequent to that, under the new ordinance, duplexes (basement
apartments) were not provided for in the R-1 and R-2 districts.
Mr. Skove stated that he concluded from this that R-I and R-2 are strictly
for single-family units and therefore inappropriate for mobile homes and thus the
reason for omitting them from the recommendation.
1.4r. Keeler confirmed that this was the result of the public hearing process.
ALs. Scala pointed out that since mobile home parks are usually developed in
densities of 6,.8 or 10 units per acre, the idea was to put them in zones
where they would be compatible with similar densities.
Mr. Skove stated it did not seem consistent to allow theta in the agricultural
zones and exclude them from the Rl and R2 zones.
Mr. Keeler pointed that duplexes are allowed in the RA and VR zones and then
they skip the RI and R2 and are allowed in R4 on up.
EFTWI
WIA
September 18, 1984
Page 7
Ms. Diehl stated she believed there to be an emotional response involved
because people have more land to use as buffers in an RA zone than in the
RI and R2 areas. She did not feel there to be the same feeling of area
ownership in the higher densities.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that in the higher densities a more rental type of
environment existed. He also stated a mobile home park is a rental type of
environment.
Mr. Cogan said this all comes back to the matter of location, which he felt
to be the foundation of all that is trying to be accomplished in this matter.
He went on to state that he agreed with the.recommendations listed on page
16 in the staff report, with the exception of No. 3 regarding subsidizing
utility lines. He asked if it was the Commission's goal to try to pinpoint
locations for mobile home parks and subdivisions, or would it be better to
try to establish criteria as to what would be required in the placing of
said subdivisions and then, as applications came in, decide if a certain
place were acceptable. He felt the latter would be the best course to follow.
Mr. Cogan then presented some basic ideas on the matter for the Commission's
consideration: (1) Location - The possibility of a mobile home overlay
district which could be obtained through the special use permit process.
He stated that this is basically what is presently being done. He said this
might make the mobile home park more permanent, rather than having to face
this problem again in ten years. He said a site plan should be required at
the time a person applied for a special use permit so that the Commission
could make recommendations at that time. He felt it was of importance
that the Commission concentrated on the upgrading of the appearance of the
environment in the mobile home parks with the hope that neighborhood
objections would be reduced. (2). Should establish criteria for tying in
utilities which would be harmonious with the surrounding area; topography
of land should be workable; storage areas should be provided for. Mr. Cogan
stated that some areas which might be considered for this type of development
are the growth areas, if a developer can be found, or, if not, adjacent to
the growth areas, if utilities could be obtained, even if this meant extending
the jurisdictional line to a slight degree, provided, however, it would not be
in the watershed area. (3) Some locations which should be considered are
those close to high traffic areas.
Mr. Diehl said she was not sure she saw an advantage to a mobile home overlay
district as opposed to just allowing a special permit. She felt a key to
acceptability of the parks would be the size that was allowed.
Mr. Cogan said that a 50 unit limit had always been followed and that the
staff report recommended that those parks outside the growth areas be limited
to 20 units.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he liked Mr. Cogan's suggestion of a site plan for a
proposed development accompanying a special permit application. He said that
would give the Commission, and the community, a better idea of exactly what
was being proposed.
r Ms. Cooke stated that all of her research had indicated that mobile homes
depreciate. She was interested in knowing how the Commission would propose
to maintain the quality of these parks on a long term (as people moved out
and sold their units, etc.).
&d
September 18, 1984 Page 8
Mr. Skove stated.that he disagreed that the modern mobile home depreciates. He
said it does appreciate, though not as fast as a conventional building.
tits. Cooke stated none of the material she had consulted indicated that mobile
homes have .any appreciation value.. She felt this was a matter that should be
considered, because of its long-term affect on what these parks become.
Mr. Skove did not feel that the long-term affect would be a problem because
the parks would not exist that long (built-in obsolescence).
Ms. Cooke said the County is facedwiththe problem of what:to. do.about housing
for low-income people, but it was her fear drat in it's haste to solve this
problem, the County .would addressAt with a-"bandaid" solution.:rather than a
long-term solution.
Mr. Skove said he.perceived the problem to be not just mobile homes, but.
low-cost housing.
Ms. Cooke said that many mobile homes are not truly lot: -cost housing, and the
problem being .dealt with here should be affordable, low-cost housing.
GIs. Diehl said that by allowing the mobile home parks in the higher density
areas, which would be eventually put to some other use., the deterioration.factor
would be negated: She felt that about all the Commission could do would be to
see that the site plan provided all the necessities. She stated there was a.
point beyond which the Commission did not have Bauch control.
Ms. Cooke stated her concern of what was to be done with the displaced people
when the mobile home parks were eventually put into.higher and better uses.
She felt that would bring us back to the same problem that is being addressed
at this time.
Mr. Skove stated he would.not feel so strongly about mobile home parks if there
were other housing available for low and moderate income people. He said if
there were more SectionkVIII housing it would help.
Mr. Bowerman stated there had been allowances for that yet no Section VIII
housing had been seen.
Mr. Cogan felt the problem to be two -fold: (1) The mobile home itself; and(2)
The mobile home park.. He said in regard to the deterioration of the mobile home,
that they would have to be taken care of, as does any other home. As to the
mobile home park, he felt this to be a good opportunity for the Commission,
through the site plan process, to insure that the park itself would remain
attractive.
Ms. Cooke pointed out that everytime a restriction was established to encourage
a high level of maintenance, the cost goes up, thus making these parks no longer
low-cost housing.
Mr. Cogan agreed that this would have to be kept in mind, and a balance would
have to be reached.
Though sir. Bowerman pointed out that this was a work session, he called on
a person in the audience who had indicated a desire to speak.
J i
September 4, 1984 Page 9
Ms. Sally Smith, a representative of the Albemarle Housing.Coalition, expressed
the feeling of her organization of the tremendous need for low and moderate
income housing. Ms. Smith stated that mobile homes must meet HUD standards
which are more stringent than building codes and that the double -wide units
are very similar in appearance to conventionally built homes. She stated
that statistics show that 90. of mobile homes are never moved from their
original site. She stated further that there was some tax benefit to the
locality since the 3% sales tax that is charged goes directly back to the
locality where the mobile home is placed. She said that her sources also
state that mobile homes do appreciate and that this should be taken into
account as personal property tax. She concluded by saying that it was the
hope of her organization that the Commission would give strong consideration
to the types of laws that had been passed by other states in regard to
the similar appearance idea, and that she hoped the Commission would take
strong action to encourage more mobile homes in conjunction with other forms
of low and moderate income housing.
Mr. Cogan, referring back to his comment on the overlay idea, stated he was
not talking about an overlay district per se, but if this is something that
is going to be developed because compromises have been made, i.e. allowing
them adjacent to the growth areas, then his goal would be something that would
make them more permanent, that they could only be used as a mobile home park
and not subsequently converted to some other use. He said this would tend
to get away from "spot" zoning.
Mr. Bowerman stated that any mobile home park in an area such as this is
ultimately going to be displaced by a higher intensity use more profitable
to an owner. For that reason, he stated he was not receptive to extending
the jurisdictional lines. He added that he could see uses on.the fringe of
the growth area, accessible'to utilities, that would meet the needs of urban
people. He felt these areas would tend to be more permanent because it would
take growth longer to reach that area. He said he did not feel it would
be possible to impose a restriction of a time limit on a mobile home park.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that if it were a mobile home zone, a rezoning would
be necessary to change the.use.
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Cogan that nothing is permanent, and that he
felt this could be handled through a zoning, not necessarily an overlay,
and that some general criteria could be established for the location,
e.g. availability of utilities, road structure, etc. He felt this would
be possible through a rezoning request, a site plan application and strict
criteria for location, but with flexability so that these can be located in
many different locations. Mr. Bowerman added that he had a problem with
allowing these in the R4 zones because they are adjacent to R2, and that
there might be less of a problem, and the density requirements might be
better, starting in the R6 zones.
Mr. Payne pointed out that more than four units per acre are allowed in
the R4 districts and this was probably what the staff had in mind.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt there would be a potential conflict with
the community.
'FIZ
September 18, 1984 Page 10
Ms. Diehl stated some confusion as to what was being diseussed,-special permits
in these zones, or actual rezoning.
Mr. Bowerman stated that they were only allowed by special permits and that
staff is recommending that they be allowed in R4 through It15 by special permit.
He explained: that he felt more comfortable with.them being allowed in.R6
through R15. He further explained that in the fringe of the urban area, there
probably wasn't anything but rural areas or Rl'or R2. Therefore, in order.to
locate a mobile home park in one of these areas, he anticipated that there might
be a request for rezoning before a special use permit application for a mobile
home park. He said his concern if they were allowed in the R4.zone, was that
the areas surrounding R4 are somewhat lower density.
Mr. Cogan said he felt it should be dealt with on a case -by -case basis and that
the Commission should keep itself open to any zone. He said it was his under-
standing that staff was recommending that these zones just be added on to what
already exists; he did not believe they were excluding VR and RA.
M.r. Skove asked if his understanding that the only zones being excluded were
Rl and R2 was correct..
Mr. Cogan replied affirmatively.
Mr. Bowerman repeated that he was suggesting excluding R4 also. He added that
he agreed with Mr. Cogan that places might exist on the fringe of the urban
area which might be very acceptable for mobile home narks.. He added that it.
might be necessary to extend the service authority area some distance.
Mr. Cogan'said he did not think the county would have to pay for this extension,
but that should be left up to the developer. He repeated that he did not
feel the county should subsidize anything.
Mr. Bowerman said he felt the subsidy should be considered, but that he did
think it was a workable idea.
Mr. Cogan repeated his feeling that some sort of mobile home zone is needed,
but not necessarily in every case.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission wished to ask.staff to draw up some
proposals, based upon the 'recommendations in the report with the exclusion
of No. 3, and adding to those recommendations that a site plan be considered
as an integral part of the application process for a special use permit
for a mobile home park. In addition, to see if this could be incorporated
into the ordinances or in the supplemental regulation.
GIs. Scala indicated this would be possible. She asked if she was being asked
to actually begin preparing the criteria and regulations on mobile home parks.
Mr. Bowerman indicated this should be a general outline to see if it is workable.
Ms. Scala said this was a feasible project. She asked if the Commission
agreed with recommendation No. 1, this being a main issue.
tilr. Skove said it should be made clear that this included RA and VR zones.
Mr. Bowerman said that he understood it was Mr. Keeler's feeling that if
September 4, 1984 Page 11
said parks had been allowed in those zones, maybe there would have been some
applications for this type of development. He felt a developer is not willing
to rezone now and then face the risk of having to rezone later if he decides
to change the use of the land. For this reason, Mr. Bowerman said he was willing
to consider putting it in the ordinance to allow them in these zones by special
permit.
Mr. Skove said he felt it would be worth trying to see if any developers did
come forward.
Mr. Payne stated that when dealing with any special permit, normal special permit
criteria would apply. One of these criteria would be to take into account any
existing development and the uses permitted by right in the district. In light
of that, he said that regardless of whether or not the existing provision,
where the Board of Supervisors sets the density when it approves the permit, is
amended, the density is going to be commensurate with the density in that area.
So if a proposal were made in an R1 district, the density would be very low,
and the cost would be high, i.e. the cost of a mobile home on one acre in the
urban area is likely to he prohibitive. So unless the idea of keeping the
density of the park commensurate with existing zoning is abandoned, no parks
are going to be developed in the R1 aid R2 areas.
Mr. Wilkerson asked Ms. Smith if her statement regarding the appreciation value
of mobile homes was based on the location being a mobile home park or a
privately owned lot.
Ms. Smith answered that she had said that they "appreciate generally but
especially on private property."
Mr. Wilkerson stated that all bankshave."books" on cars, campers, mobile homes,
etc. showing their value and that he had never seen one which indicated a
mobile home appreciated in regard to the value that a bank will loan on
said home.
Ms. Smith responded that her source believed the "book" should be revised.
Mr. Bowerman asked the Commission if they wished to discuss Mr. Cogan's
overlay idea.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that this was just a suggestion as a possible way of making
this type of development more permanent.
Mr. Bowerman stated his confusion with this idea because he understood that
a zone allows uses but that it does not exclude uses.
Mr. Cogan stated that a mobile home zone would be for a mobile home park and
it would not necessarily permit another type of use. It would depend on what
permitted uses were tied in with that zone.
Ms. Diehl asked how a rezoning would be denied.
Mr. Cogan stated that would have to be dealt with at the time it occurred.
.3�
September 18, 1984,Page 12
Mr. Bowerman said he still did not understand how any restrictions placed on a
mobile home parkwould really be -long term since the applicant can..always make
a request tochange, and if the conditions warrant such a change, the
Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors could rezone the property.
He said it all comes back to economics and that the Commission should allow for
their establishment in areas where a better or higher use is not likely to
come in for a long periodof time.
Mr. Cogan said he felt it could be sufficiently taken care of by the special
use process and he had just thrown the overlay suggestion out as something to
think .about..
Mr. Skove stated that he was not sure he agreed with staff recommendation No.
b regarding encouraging expansion of existing mobile home parks and also -he
said he was confused as to what was being suggested in regard to recommendation
No. 3.
Mr. Bowerman explained that he had originally felt subsidizingutilities night
be an incentive for developers, but if the same privileges had to be extended
to other types of low and moderate income housing, the benefit would be lost
because the money would flow to these other types of housing.
Mr. Skove asked if all the potential development of these mobile home parks
was being left in the growth area. He stated Mr. Cogan had spoken in regard
to their being adjacent to the growth areas and extending the utility lines.
He stated the growth areas seemed to be defined by the areas that have
water and sewer facilities.
fir. Bowerman stated,.as Mr. Cogan had pointed out before, that these parks
have not developed in the growth areas because of economics (it being more
profitable for developers to develop other types of housing). However, he
felt if these were on the fringe of the growth areas, even if an extension
of the Service Authority Area beyond its present boundaries, but not into
the watershed, was needed, they might be more attractive to developers and
more permanent, because the demand for the land is not as great.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Commission might want to consider another possibility:
Not extending the service authority outside the growth area, but if a proposal
presents itself which seems appropriate, then amend the growth area in the
Comprehensive Plan. He felt it would be inadvisable to take any -kind of action
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.for any type of residential
development because of future problems this could create..
Mr. Payne agreed this was a possibility but said that he felt the Plan was a
little more flexible that either the ordinance or the jurisdictional area.
He stated there would be two options: (1) Amend the Plan; (2) Take advantage
of the flexibility built into the Plan. He added that if the ,Plan were going
to be adhered to in principal, it should, basically, be followed.
Ms. Diehl, referring to recommendation No. 8, stated that while she was
generally in agreement,' she was concerned that it might not be possible
to relocate.a larger unit because of limitations of the lot.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that if a unit were non -conforming to begin with,
little would be known about it, and the Commission should probably review
September 18, 1984 Page 13
the placement of a larger unit izterms of location and other physical features.
Mr. Payne stated that the general rule on non -conforming use is expansion. If a
possible use is deleterious to a neighborhood, it cannot be eliminated, but it
is hoped that it will not get any larger. With a mobile home, however, a larger
unit is aimed at improving its surroundings.
Ms. Diehl stated that she did not necessarily agree with this, that while it
could be true in some cases, it is also possible that an increase in size would
not bring about a positive change.
Mr. Bowerman then asked the staff to study the following items: (1) A way to
make mobile home parks more permanent; (2) Location - aiming at being close
to or in the urban area or growth area; (3) Location - in regard to their
accessibility to public utilities; and (4) The practicality of including with
the special permit application some mechanism for reviewing the total proposal
at that time. Mr. Bowerman felt with some staff study in these areas, the
Commission would be in a better position to proceed to the next step.
As a result of Mr. Keeler's stating there to be a number of items coming up
which the Commission needs to review, Mr. Bowerman scheduled a Work Session
for Thursday, October 11, 1984 at 4:30 p.m., said session not to last more
than two hours.
The meeting recessed at 9:23 p.m., reconvening at 9:35 p.m.
BONUSES - Request for Resolution of Intent - Amend Zoning Ordinance to Delete
Density Bonus Factors; Amend Zoning Ordinance to provide for Increased
Residential Density for Dedication of Land to Public Use.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that, as the amendment is drawn up, the only bonus
that is to be preserved is the one for dedication of land to public use.
Mr. Bowerman clarified that the current proposal is to drop everything except
the dedication to public use.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that though the bonuses for low and moderate income
housing have been in existence for four years, they have never been used.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Resolution of Intent to amend the Ordinance regarding
bonuses be adopted. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
The motion was unanimously approved.
SIDEWALKS
Mr. Keeler stated that the last time this issue was discussed, it was suggested
that a committee be established with the School Board to look at sidewalk
policies in relationship to their proximity to public schools. Mr. Keeler
presented a letter that he had drafted to the School Board regarding this matter.
September 18, 1984 Page 14
He added that on October 9th or llth a. report would be available regarding
those situations where the Commission has required sidewalks in developments,
but that these may not be acceptable for State maintenance.
Mr. Keeler stated:he did not feel the sidewalk issue would require more than
a couple of meetings.with.School Board. The first meeting would be for the
staff to explain to School Board members Highway Department policy in relation-
ship to public schools.
Mr. Bowerman appointed himself and Mr. Wilkerson as a committee to meet with
the School Board on this matter.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Keeler presented copies of two General Assembly -House joint resolutions
and stated it was merely for the Commissions information. He.stated-the
first resolution dealt with manufactured housing and the second one dealt
with off -site road improvements.
It was noted that a mistake had been made in Xeroxing these resolutions
and that the resolutions and bills had been switched.
It was determined that the Commission was not being asked to take any action.
Mr. Bowerman reminded the Commissioners that a joint meeting with the Board
of Supervisors had been scheduled for October 3. He added that since the
Commission is currently in the middle of several projects, it might be
preferable to change this meeting to a later time. A meeting time of November
7 was suggested and Mr. Bowerman stated he would check with Mr. Fisher to see
if this were possible.
It was noted that an open meeting with UNOGEN was scheduled for the following
night (September 19) at Murray Hill School.
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Q11
ame4� - 01
�D*MM
RDDnnelly, cretary
J 7