Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 16 84 PC MinutesOctober 16, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, October 16, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Build- ing, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman. Mr. Cogan called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. after estab- lishing that a quorum was present. Mr. Cogan explained that due to a mix-up in mailing, the following three issues would be heard October 23, 1984 rather than at this meeting: Federal Express Site Plan; Fall Fields Preliminary Plat; and The Commons at Georgetown Site Plan. He apologized for the error. The minutes of the October 2, 1984 meeting were approved as written. SP-84-62 ETHEL MARTIN - Request to locate an individual mobile home on the east side of Route 601, about 1/2 mile south of Free Union. Property contains 93.32 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 29, Parcel 45. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Imhof gave the staff report. She added that the two objections that had been raised had been withdrawn (one in writing and one by phone). Mr. Cogan asked for comment from the applicant. Mr. Earl Martin, son of the applicant, addressed the Commission. He emphasized his mother's need for the mobile home because of poor health (making her unable to climb stairs) and also because of the poor condition of the present dwelling (i.e. inadequate heat, poor wiring, lack of hot water, etc.). It was determined the mobile home had been placed approximately 90' back from Route 601. Mr. Cogan invited public comment. Mr. Edward Bain, Jr., Attorney for the Goods, addressed the Commission and stated his clients were withdrawing their objection. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 67 October 16, 1984 Page 2 Ms. Imhoff again stated that the other objection (that of the Whitley's) had also been withdrawn (via phone). She added that this request would not have come before the Commission had it not been for those two objections. Ms. Diehl moved that SP-84-62 for Ethel Martin be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: (1) Compliance with 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) Screening from Rt. 601 to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on October 17, 1984. WORK SESSIONS Interstate Interchange Study - Ms. Diehl moved that this item be deferred until October 30, 1984. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Piedmont Corridor.Proposal - Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. She pointed out.that the Commission was not being asked to take any type of action on this proposal. Ms. Imhoff presented maps and aerial photographs of the proposed corridor. She stated this proposal.was initiated by requests from interests,in the Danville -Lynchburg area in order to provide a north -south route between Frederick, MD and Greensboro, NC. She stated this was in very preliminary planning stages and that it was not intended that it be.developed according to Interstate standards, but instead according to the standards of the state primary road system. She stressed that the proposal., including the actual route of the corridor, was only in the initial stages and has received no official endorsement. She stated the next step was for the Highway Department to prepare a document describing this proposal which would be reviewed by the Highways Department's Department of Quality Division. The next step would then be completion of an engineering and environmental study which would then be presented (within a few months) to local officials. Public hearings would be held at later dates. She stated that neither the proposed alignment, nor the environmental impact, have yet been examined. She added that if final approval is ultimately obtained, actual construction is scheduled to begin in approximately 30 years. She stated no funds have presently been allocated for this project. She explained that,the design of the corridor's alignment in Albemarle County has not yet been determined, but that it would consist of a four -lane divided highway with a varying right-of-way of 120' to 2001; it would be composed of 21 miles of new roadway, of which approximately N October 16, 1984 Page 3 17.5 miles are located within the South Fork Rivanna Watershed; it would also include 8 miles of improvements to Rt. 29S; in its present conceptual stage the corridor would follow the existing alignment of U.S. Rt. 29 to the North Garden area where it branches due north at the intersection of state Rt. 801, proceeding north parallelling Rt.710 and Rt. 708 through Taylor's Gap sub- division, it then proceeds northeast through Rosemont Farm and the existing I64 and Rt. 637 interchange, continuing northeast between Greencroft and Kearsarge. From its intersection with U.S. Rt. 250W, the corridor is approximately 3.5 miles from the City of Charlottesville corporate limits. From its intersection with Rt. 250, it parallels Ivy creek, passing east of the West Leigh and Candlewyck subdivisions and west of the Ivy Creek and Flordon subdivisions, it then proceeds north towards the Foxfield Racetrack, passing through the racetrack and bisecting Routes 601, 676 and the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, from there passing directly through the Fairgrove Subdivision and Mallard Lake Subdivision, it continues northeast coming within 1/3 mile of the Earlysville Village Center, passing through The Pines Subdivision and within 400' of Broadus Wood Elementary School, it then parallels Rt. 743 going east to the Advance Mills area, it then crosses Rt. 743 approximately 1,200 feet north of Advance Mills and then leaves Albemarle County between Advance Mills Subdivision and Rt. 641, rejoining U.S. Rt. 29N in Greene County. Mr. Gould joined the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Ms. Imhoff stated that the proposed route is very preliminary and could vary by many miles or not develop at all. She stated the person to contact in order to make comments on the proposal was Mr. Harold King, Commissioner of Highways and Transportation, 1221 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA, 23210. She added that the Board of Supervisors had also invited letters be sent to them where they would be collected and then sent on to the Highway Department. Mr. Cogan asked if staff was aware of what impact county authorities would have on the State Highway Department regarding this particular study. Ms. Imhoff indicated she did not know the answer to this but that she would look into the matter. She did state that public hearings would be held in each locality affected by the proposal. She did feel more of this type decision was made at the State level. Ms. Cooke commented that at a meeting of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, this same question had come up. She'said that organization had been told frankly that regardless of the amount of local input, the final decision was up to the Highway Department (or at the State level). She stated the members of the MPO had found this to be unsettling. She added that it had been pointed out at this meeting that the proposed route went directly through the Watershed, and even though the State authorities indicated they 39 October 16, 1984 Page 4 were not aware of this, the later aerial studies still showed the road going through the Watershed. Mr. Cogan felt that the drawing of one line,17k miles through the Watershed, would undo so much of what the County had worked to accomplish in the -last several years, including the conservation of rural areas. He indicated he was opposed to the proposed route. Mr. Cogan also questiorel whether it would actually be 30 years before this project was realized. He felt the Commission needed to be kept aware of this situation and should pursue all means that are available to impact on this particular study. Mr. Payne stated that the statute relating to this question (i.e., who has ultimate domain in the final decision) was 15.1-457 and that it did give this power to the State. However, he added that while the statute reserves the right of any state agency to carry out its authority, it also requires state agencies to furnish reasonable inforration requested by the Commission (not the Board of Supervisors) relative to the plans of the agency which might affect the Comprehensive Plan. He added that the agency (the Highway Department in this case) is required to collaborate andcooperate with the Commission in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan "to -the end that the Plan will coordinate the interests and responsibilities of all concerned." He interpreted this to mean that the . agency does not have to do what the Commission says, but if reasonable information is requested by the Commission and the agency does not comply, or furnishes inaccurate information, this would be unlawful. It was determined that a copy of the map showing the proposed route of the corridor was available to the public from the Planning Office at a cost of $.25/copy. It was determined that the 30-year time frame mentioned was not official, but had come from various discussions and from newspaper articles. Mr. Michel asked if the newspaper statement which said that local -authorities had very little input in this matter since it was not in the urban area, was correct. He also asked if this was a .Mate or a Yederal project. Ms. Imhoff responded that it was a state project and she did not feel that the fact that it was rural area vs. urban area made any difference. Ms. Imhoff suggested that a letter be drafted to the Highway Department at this time inquiring into some of the questions raised. Mr. Cogan agreed with this suggestion and also asked Ms. Imhoff to try to find out how much money had been allotted for this initial study since he felt this would be a good indication of how imminent this proposal was. '70 October 16, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Cogan.concluded by asking Ms. Imhoff to keep the Commission and the public informed of developments as they occur. Sidewalks in Approved Development - Review of several developments. Request for guidance. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, gave the report. He stated that the Highway Department's recent decision to implement its policy relating to sidewalk maintenance (passed in 1981) has resulted in the following: The Highway Department will not allow the following subdivisions to have sidewalks in the Highway Department right-of-way unless the County or some other perpetual organization guarantees maintenance: (Note: These projects have already been approved by the Planning Commission subject to the use of sidewalks.) (1) Riverrun (Riverrun and Dentree Drives) - Will accept only those walks already built. (2) Raintree Subdivision (Old Brook Road) - Will accept only the walk already constructed in Section One. (3) Willow Lake Subdivision (Island Court and Maple Place). (4) Squire Hills II (Hillsboro Drive and Mall Drive) Will accept Mall Drive only. (5) Heritage Acres (Hillsboro Drive). The following projects are acceptable for Highway Department maintenance either because they are eligible under the VDH&T policy or because they were approved prior to the 1981 policy change: (1) Biltmore Arms Road (the public road portion) (2) Hydraulic Road Garden Court Townhouses (along Hydraulic Road) (3) Riverbend Drive (4) Sachem Village (Whitewood Road) (5) South Pantops Drive (6) Pepsi Drive (7) Greenbrier Drive (Branchlands PUD) (8) Briarwood (Austin and Briarwood Drives) The following projects were approved by the Highway Department for maintenance and have already been constructed. Though they do not meet the policy requirements, the Resident Engineer will recommend to the District Office that they be accepted if the County will request a waiver of the policy. (1) Fieldbrook Subdivision (Old Brook Road) (2) Raintree Subdivision I (Old Brook Road) (3) Village Square I (4) Wynridge Subdivision (Westfield Drive) 1%/ October 16, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Elrod pointed out that the Commission should direct their concern to the first group listed (those that the Highway. Department will not accept) and also he requested the Commission to adopt a resolution requesting a waiver from Highway Department policy in regard tothe last group listed. Mr. Elrod then presented maps showing the location of those sidewalks in the first group which had been approved by the Commission but will not be accepted by the Highway Department. It was determined that generally the Highway Department will accept for maintenance those sidewalks that are close to schools and will be used by children to walk to school, or those that are in, or adjacent to, a commercial area. Mr. Elrod stated that in some of these cases, it had been suggested to the developer that the sidewalks be moved outside of the Highway Department right-of-way. In response to Ms. Diehl's question as to the difference between having it maintained by an outside organization whether it was in the right-of-way or not, Mr. Elrod stated that if it was in Highway Department right-of-way, a bond would.have to be posted. Mr. Cogan stated that the suggestion of moving some of the walks outside of the right-of-way might not be feasible in all cases because of the limited size of the lots. Mr. Elrod said that it might be possible in some cases to leave the sidewalks where they are and reduce the size of the right- of-way since some of the developers had made these right-of-ways wider than what was required. Mr. Cogan stated he felt it would be difficult to keep track of who was maintaining what, because of .the "hop-skotching" affect of the placement.of these walks. He also commented on the fact that a Public Works Department might be needed. Mr. Elrod stated that Mr. Donnelly had suggested that if the county did accept the maintenance of some of these walks, it should be done on a contract basis. (It was also mentioned that in some cases a Homeowners Association would probably eventually be responsible for this maintenance.) Mr. Cogan stated that since this would involve tax dollars, it should be studied carefully to see how badly sidewalks were needed in some cases. Mr. Cogan indicated that he felt an.apartment complex (e.g. Squire Hill) was a commercial usage. Mr.. Elrod stated he was unclear regarding the Highway Department's rationale in this issue. October 16, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Cogan stated that if sidewalks were going to be placed outside of right-of-ways, it might be necessary to adjust lot size and set -back requirements. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Elrod .confirmed that he felt some solution could be reached in all of the subdivisions listed in the first group with the exception of Willow Lake which had severe grade problems. Ms. Diehl stated she would be in favor of working something out (regarding Willow Lake), but that she would be reluctant to negate the sidewalk requirement in the other four subdivisions in question. Mr. Cogan stated his feeling that some sort of uniformity should be adhered to in dealing with these matters. Mr. Skove moved that the Commission request a waiver of Highway Department policy relating to sidewalk maintenance in the following subdivisions: Fieldbrook Subdivision (Old Brook Road), Raintree Subdivision I (Old Brook Road), Village Square I, and Wynridge Subdivision (Westfield Drive), and that said request be submitted to the Highway Department. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.. Ms. Diehl stated she still did not understand why the Commission was having to request this waiver since the Highway Department had already approved these sidewalks. Mr. Elrod stated it was his understanding that they had been approved inadvertantly. The motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Cogan stated an overall long-range plan was needed to deal with these issues in the future. In response to Mr. Elrod's question, Mr. Cogan felt it was desirable to wait until such a plan was developed before dealing with the first group of subdivisions (as listed previously), if possible. Mr. Elrod stated that Raintree and Squire Hill, and possibly Heritage, were the most pressing. Mr. Payne stated he felt the County's authority for maintaining sidewalks was very limited. He said the only authority for spending County money on a part of the highway, of which he was aware, was a few scattered statutes in Title 33 (Code of Virginia). He pointed out that the statutes had been in existence for a long time and he did not think the Board had ever used them. He concluded by saying he was not aware of any general authority for the County to maintain sidewalks, and if the County was going to get into this area, he felt this would be a major policy decision of the Board. _ In response to Mr. Michel's question pertaining to the Highway Department's.liability in regard to sidewalks, Mr. Payne stated the County had no liability, but it was possible that the Highway Department could be held liable. 73 October 16, 1984 Page 8 Mr. Payne stated he felt this problem to .be analogous to the private roads issue in terms of'maintenance. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Ms. Scala stated the present Ordinance requires sidewalks in developments of 2 units/acre or more. Mr. Cogan stated he was. in agreement with Mr. Skove that the sidewalks would have to be placed outside of Highway Department right-of-way and developers would have to adjust their lines to accommodate the sidewalks. He pointed out that this was for future issues and.did not apply to the five developments being presently discussed since they have already begun and had their plans approved. Mr. Payne stated his feeling that this could involve some fairly sophisticated questions regarding how the easements for these sidewalks were drafted. In view.of this, he stated he was not entirely sure that the Highway Department technically had. the right to.prohibit sidewalks in.their right-of-way. He pointed out that technically the statute says that when a road is shown.as being dedicated to public use in a subdivision, the fee goes to the county,and the law states that the county holds it as trustee for all the people of the Commonwealth. That being the case, Mr. Payne questioned the Highway Department's right to keep sidewalks out of the right-of-way. He added, he felt it was clearly their right not to accept the maintenance of such walks. Mr. -Payne felt a logical way to deal with this would be to plat a right-of-way dedicated to public use for vehicular traffic and at the same time plat a right-of-way dedicated to public use for pedestrian traffic. Mr. Payne said the Highway Department might be able to tell a developer he could not put a sidewalk in their right-of-way, but he felt they could not prohibit the county from doing so. Mr. Elrod confirmed that the Commission was requesting that he attempt to work out an agreement with the developers of the five subdivisions in question wherein they would place the sidewalks outside the right-of-way, trying to place them in a position that would, as near as possible, achieve the same purpose, and that either they (the developer) or a Homeowners Association would be responsible for..the maintenance of the walks. If such an agreement could not be worked out, the developers. would have to come before the Planning Commission again. The meeting recessed at 8:52 p.m., reconvening at 9:10,p.m. 7� October 16, 1984 Page 9 Presentation of Metropolitan Planning Organization Fiscal Year 1985 Unified Work Program -.Description of County's involvement in area -wide transportation planning. Discussion of on -going activities and studies such as Transportation System Management, Intersection Interchange Study, and Comprehensive Information System; as well as the review of proposed projects such as Pedestrian Obstacle Study, Transportation Analyses, and County Transit -Alternatives. Request for future direction for transportation planning. Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. She stated the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was just one area of responsibility for the Division of Community. Development and that she would be presenting a synopsis of all the other Divisions's projects at a later date. She defined the MPO as follows: "The organization is a forum for state and local officials formed to facilitate cooperative decision making on transportation issues that transcend jurisdictional boundaries, regional significance and impact. It is the forum fcr the continuing, cooperative, coordinating (The 3 C's) of the transportation planning process." The need for such an organ- ization is based on the requirement by the Secretary of Transportation that no projects will be approved in urbanized areas unless they are based on a continuing and comprehensive transportation planning process carried out cooperatively by the state and local communities. This is the basis for the funding that this locality receives from the Federal government. She stated the Charlottes- ville -Albemarle area qualified as an urban area as a result of the 1980 census. She added the present MPO is based upon a 1982 agreement, created as a federal effort, but she stated this area had what functioned as an MPO prior to that time, namely the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS). Ms. Imhoff continued, stating that in order to get Federal Highway Funds (FHWA) and Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA)funds, a MPO is required to review transportation improvement projects. She added that though the Department of Highways and Transportation controls these projects, the State of Virginia is responsible for the actual funding allocation and the local MPO is responsible for coming up with projects. She stated there to be three areas of focus: (1) Highways (Road Plannincjl; (2) Transit Planning; and (3) Para -Transit Planning. Funding is based on two major thrusts: transit planning and road construction. Funding for transit planning comes from FHWA and UMTA funding; funding for road construction comes from taxes (trucks and gasoline). She stated that the County does have to match funding that is received from the Federal government. Ms. Imhoff explained the local MPO is responsible for planning and administering the money that is received. She said the local MPO is made of two groups: (1) The Policy Committee; and (2) The Technical Committee. She stated one function of the MPO-is to set up guidelines forsocial agency use of local vans (e.g. JAUNT). Currently the MPO is mandated to prepare a 7�r October 16, 1984 Page 10 transportation improvement plan for transportation improvement projects. She also stated that funding could not be obtained..unless a Unified.Work Program was.done each year. She also stated that a Transportations Systems Management Program was strongly encouraged. Ms. Imhoff continued her report, stating that past projects of the MPO have.included the Secondary Road P1an.and the Facilities Inventory. She stated two projects undertaken last year are still being worked on: (1) Transportation Systems Management Program; and (2) Interchange Intersection Study. She stated reports on these two projects were scheduled to be reviewed by the Commission in the near future. She pointed out that.because these two projects were not completed last year within their alloted time frame, they are now being funded by the County. She stated that it was hoped that future projects could be com- pleted under the timetable. She noted that while some funding can be deferred for a while, other funding must be used within the year it is given or it is lost. Ms. Imhoff then called the Commission's attention to some of the various topics outlined on the report that had been presented to them. (Said report outlined the Division of Community Development's responsibilities in working with the MPO.) She called attention to Section 1.3, the Unified work Program, stating this to be a list of programs to be undertaken each year and inviting suggestions from the Commissioners regarding projects they would like to see reviewed. Ms. Imhoff suggested the sidewalk problem with the Highway Department just discussed might be a possible project of the MPO. Ms. Imhoff also.called attention to Section 2.1.1 of the report, Route 29 North - Eastern Bypass, stating that at the time the CATS Study was done, it was suggested that a solution to the traffic problems on Rt. 29N might be to develop a 29N Bypass. She stated this study did not.recommend that a western bypass be adopted, but rather than other solutions be examined. She added that when this western bypass idea was deleted in the CATS document, a deficiency was left in that study, and the.MPO has been working on possible alternatives to a western bypass. Ms. Imhoff continued stating that currently the CATS study is being made ready for publication. In regard to this, she asked the Commissioners what type of document would be preferred, i.e. a technical document or a synposis of the study. She asked what would be most useful to the Commission and she also asked if the Commission would desire to review the preliminary design of the project before it was put out to bid. She also asked for input from the Commission as to whether an attempt should be made to amend the deficiency in the study relating to Rt. 29N or should the Division proceed with publication knowing a de- ficiency.exists. Referring to Section 2.2.2, Pedestrian Obstacles, of the report, Ms. Imhoff stated this was scheduled to be reviewed by the Commission on October 30. (She noted that a.Sidewalk 7( October 16, 1984 Page 11 Plan had been written in 1979 but was never adopted.) Referring to Section 3.4, Transportation Analysis Plans, she stated she felt this was an area where the Planning Commission could offer a lot of direction. (She noted that 29N and the sidewalk issue would be appropriate items to review under this heading.) Referring to Section 4.1, Comprehensive Information System, she stated the Division is currently collecting 70 pieces of information on each of the 25,000 parcels of land in Albemarle County 'and this information was being computerized. Mobile Home Study - Addendum Report #1 responding to Planning Commission request for additional information/study. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. In response to Mr. Michel's question regarding developer interest, Ms. Scala replied that she believed some interest has been shown, but she could not say how much of this would actually be followed through. She added that the market need did exist and that some developers were trying to find a location. In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry regarding recommendation No. 8 (Current regulations governing replacement of non -conforming mobile homes should be relaxed to permit newer, larger units by right.), Ms. Scala confirmed that this referred to mobile homes which are on individual lots rather than those in parks. Mr. Cogan questioned whether this belonged in this particular study, saying he felt individual units should be segregated from the mobile home park study. Ms. Scala stated that while this might be true, the entire section of the Ordinance dealing with mobile homes was going to be amended. She added that it could be removed from this study, but followed up on at a later time. Referring to recommendation No. 1 (It is recommended that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit mobile home parks by special use permit in the R-4, R-6, R-10 and R-15 zones, in addition to the VR and RA zones.), Mr. Skove questioned why the R-1 and R-2 zones were not included. Ms. Scala responded that this was based on the typical density of a mobile home park being incom- patible with the R-1 and R-2 zones. It was her feeling that there would be no interest in developing a mobile home park at the lower densities. Mr. Michel stated his agreement with Mr. Cogan regarding recom- mendation No. 8. He added he was somewhat concerned about mobile home parks being allowed in the RA zones, though he said it was his understanding that they would be encouraged to develop elsewhere. October 16, 1984 Page 12 Mr. Cogan pointed out that recommendation No. 1 was by "special use permit." Mr. Payne stated that whether a mobile home development was a "park" or a "subdivision", the impact on the rural area was basic- ally the same, but this might not be the case for the urban area because of the renter vs. ownership character of the use. Ms. Diehl indicated her agreement with Mr. Cogan regarding recommendation No. 8 being deleted. She added, referring to recommendation No. 2 (.. Mobile home parks and subdivisions should be permitted in fringe areas near growth areas under the following conditions:...), that "should be" should be changed to "may be." Both Mr. Cogan and Ms. Diehl again stated their feeling that it was still very unlikely that these parks would develop in the R-4 districts because of the economic disadvantages. Referring to recommendation No. 6 (Expansion of existing parks in growth areas should be encouraged. The disadvantages of ex- panding an existing large park over 50 spaces must be weighed against theadvantages of an established location.), Ms. Diehl asked if any information were available on optimum size. Ms. Scala responded that she did not have any concrete information, everything being simply opinion.' Mr. Cogan commended the staff for their work on this study. it was determined that staff was asking the Commission to endorse the recommendations (amending"them if desired), so that staff could proceed with developing amendments to the Ordinance. Mr. Cogan stated his agreement with the recommendations with the changes that had been discussed (i.e., deleting No. 8 and changing "should" to "may" in No. 2). Mr. Skove stated his feeling that R-1 and R-2 should be included in recommendation No. 1. In regard.to this, Ms. Scala said that her research had indicated that mobile home parks should be located adjacent to uses with similar densities. Mr. Cogan said he felt it would be preferable to omit mobile home subdivisions from R- band R-2, rather than allow mobile home parks in those zones. Mr. Payne pointed out the reason for this, explaining one reason mobile home subdivisirnswere permitted essentially everywhere was because it was felt that if conventional dwellings were allowed, the character of the subdivision might change over time, i.e. some of the owners could eventually build a conventional home on their lot.. (This would not be allowed in a mobile home park.) 0 October 16, 1984 Page 13 Mr. Cogan stated he did not necessarily agree with this reasoning, but that he did agree with Mr. Skove that some inconsistency did exist. He added he was more inclined to remove subdivisions from R-1 and R-2, rather than put parks in R-1 and R-2. Mr. Michel stated his concern with allowing mobile home parks in the RA zone. Mr. Cogan stated his feeling that places may exist in the county where the parks would be suitable. He emphasized that they would be allowed by "special use permit." In an attempt to clarify what was being discussed, Mr. Cogan pointed out that mobile home subdivisions are already allowed in R-1 and R-2 zones, but mobile home parks are not. He stated it was his understanding that Mr. Skove would like to see parks allowed in R-1 and R-2 also, by special use permit. The other Commissioners indicated they would not be in favor of adding parks to the R-1 and R-2 zones at this time. Ms. Diehl moved that the following recommendations of staff regarding the mobile home study be approved: 1. It is recommended that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit mobile home parks by special use permit in the R-4, R-6, R-10 and R-15 zones, in addition to the VR and RA zones. 2. Mobile home parks and subdivisions should be encouraged to locate in the urban area and communities where public utilities are available. Mobile home parks and subdivisions may be permitted in fringe areas near growth areas under the following conditions: a. The site is not within a reservoir watershed; b. The site can be served by public utilities; C. Such development is consistent with County goals and objectives and rezoning criteria; d. The Comprehensive Plan is amended as necessary. 3_ Delete recommendation to subsidize the extension of utilities until the larger question of low and moderate income housing is studied. 4. It is not recommended that current mobile home park reg- ulations be relaxed. To the contrary, if the Zoning Ordinance is amended to permit parks in higher density zones in growth areas, the regulations should be expanded and made specific, in order to better protect residents of both the park and of nearby areas, and to promote a safe and well -maintained development. An Application Plan should be required as part of the special use permit application. W October 16, 1984 Page 14 5. Small developments (under 50 spaces) in various locations in growth areas should be encouraged. 6. Expansion of existing parks in growth areas should be encouraged. The disadvantages of expanding an existing large park over 50 spaces must be weighed against the advantages of an established location. 7. Mobile home developments in rural areas should be. limited to small developments not exceeding 20 units, as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. .Densities should be similar to those required for conventional dwellings. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was approved with the following vote; Messrs. Cogan, Wilkerson, Michel and Gould and Ms. Diehl voting,in .favor, and Mr. Skove voting against. (Mr. Bowerman was absent.) Planning Commission. Meeting Schedule - Request for endorsement of staff proposal. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. She stated the biggest change in the schedule was that site plans would be reviewed by the Commission on the second and fourth Tuesdays. Mr. Cogan stated he felt a review of the Charter of the Commission was needed in order to determine priorities. Mr. Payne stated the Commission was charged with dealing with all these matters, but it could determine where to put the priorities. He suggested the Commission might want to consider implementing a Committee system. Mr. Cogan said he did not feel the "streamlining" was actually saving the Commission any time, unless it would eventually lead to less review of some matters being needed by the Commission, while at the same time devising a way to keep the public adequately informed. He felt more time could be saved in this regard by permitting more staff approval. Ms. Imhoff stated the Community Development Division, of its own volition, had begun bringing matters to the Commission in order to gain additional input. She said it was not required that some of these matters be reviewed by the Commission and that it might be preferable to have those members of the Corunission who are more interested in long-range planning work with staff. Mr. Cogan stated a determination of priorities was called for to determine whether the Community Development Division needed more time in exchange for giving staff more power of approval.. 0 October 16, 1984 Page 15 Mr. Michel stated he would find it helpful when Community Devel- opment matters were reviewed by the Commission, for staff to be very specific and make quite clear exactly what was being asked of the Commission. Mr. Cogan stated he felt that much of the material would need to be condensed and summarized before it was brought before the Commission. Ms. Imhoff indicated she would.attempt to incorporate these ideas into her planning. It was determined a motion was not required on this issue. Mr. Cogan, deviating from the agenda schedule, stated he had given a citizen permission to address the Commission. He added he had also informed the citizen the best way to handle his concerns, was to process them through the normal channels. Mr. Craig Van de Castle addressed the Commission and expressed his concern regarding landscaping being done in the Ingleside development on Garth Road. (Note: Mr.Van de Castle referred to this development as Waverly; but it was later determined that it was actually Ingleside.) Mr. Van De Castle's concern dealt with the fact that most of the trees on both sides of the highway have been removed. Mr. Michel said he too had been aware of this and had discovered that the trees were in the Highway Department right-of-way and were removed to allow for a "turn lane." It was also pointed out that this had been approved (the development) before the new Zoning Ordinance. It was also determined that this was not an issue the Commission would have addressed. OLD BUSINESS Riverrun - Recreation Plan - for review and information. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. She stated this matter was being brought back to the Commission for two reasons, the first being in order to meet a requirement of Riverrun Phase VII, Revised Site Plan (approved 1/24/84)--the third phase to be developed --which stated that recreational amenities shall be provided by the time the third building phase is ready for occupancy and the amount of of the facilities (50 sq. ft./unit) shall be determined by the number of units to be completed at the end of the third building phase. At this time recreational equipment and details on the clubhouse and pool shall be approved by the staff. She reminded the Commission that in January, the developer had proposed a jogging trail, etc. but had dropped the proposal of the pool. The Commission objected to that change and required that the proposal for a pool be fulfilled. Thus, to satisfy this requirement, the applicant is submitting the current plan. eY% October 16, 1984 Page 16 The second reason for reviewing the plan at this time was because the original site plan (approved 9/15/81) had shown a slightly 41 different road layout. Ms. Scala stated that while staff was ready to approve this recreation plan, they wanted the Commission to be aware that it was a slightly different layout. She stated the developer has been, and would like to continue, submitting final site plans for each phase, asking for revision of the original plan at that time. She added the change being shown at this time was actually an improvement in the road location from the original site plan. Ms. Scala explained the current recreation plan includes a jogging trail, play areas (frisbee, etc.), a riverfront area, and a pool. (Ms. Scala indicated these areas on a map.) It was determined that the Phase VII site plan had been approved and the developer needed to meet this current requirement to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. It was also determined that Phase IV was scheduled to be the last section developed and the pool will be done at that time. y In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry., Ms. Scala stated that the original approval had stated: "By the time the third phase is ready to be occupied, recreational equipment and details on the clubhouse and pool shall be approved by the staff." She pointed out that it was not stated that the pool had to be completed by that time, but that it should be in the making. She said the developer had agreed to build the pool and she felt.this met the requirements. Mr. Cogan indicated the Commission had no problems with this matter.and left it in the hands of staff. Church of Blue Ridge Final Plat_ - Request for administrative approval of expired plat. Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. She stated the plat had been approved in 1979 subject to typical conditions. She said the applicant did record the plat, but had failed to get the necessary signatures. She added that subsequently the applicant had met all the conditions of approval and obtained most signatures, but had failed to get the Deputy County Attorney's signature due to a lack of understanding as to exactly what was required. She stated the applicant was now trying to . rectify this situation in order to have the plat legally recorded. She stated that four of the five lots in the subdivision have been sold. Mr. Payne stated that the problem with this matter is that the plat has expired and the staff cannot sign it without the Commission's authority. 41 October 16, 1984 Page 17 Mr. Michel moved that the Commission authorize staff to approve the Final Plat of the Church of the Blue Ridge. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. DS 'PIA -A A LV'6-'A-' James R. Donnelly Secretary IN