Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 13 1993 PC Minutes7-13-93 1 JULY 13, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 13, 1993, Auditorium, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of June 29, 1993 were approved as submitted. SP 93-19 John Alford was unanimously deferred to August 3, 1993 (at the request of staff). Moore's Lumber Major Site Plan Amendment was unanimously deferred to July 20, 1993 at the request of the applicant. ZMA-92-14 Wendell Wood - Proposal to rezone approximately 57 acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-15, Residential (proffered) on property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 50, 53, 54, 55, and 56 located on the east side of Rt. 606 approximately 0.6 miles south of Rt. 649. (The following additional parcels are affected by the proposed road network: Tax Map 32, Parcels 44, 45., 42A, 42B, 42C, 42D and 42E and Tax Map 46, parcel 5 to remain zoned RA, Rural Areas, but with proffers.) The site is in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is located in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) recommended for High Density Residential (10.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre). Deferred from the June 29, 1993 Commission Meeting. AND 5P-93-13 United Land Corporation - Proposal to establish a mobile home park [24.2(10)] on approximately 57 acres currently zoned RA, Rural Areas. (ZMA-92-14 is pending on this site.) Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcels 50, 53, 54, 55 and 56, is located on the east side of Rt. 606 approximately 0.6 miles south of Rt. 649 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) recommended for High Density Residential (10.01-34 dwelling units per acre.) Deferred from the June 29, 1993 Commission Meeting. 7-13-93 Oq Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. It was staff's position that the "favorable factors (of the request) warrent approval of the rezoning and special use permit with acceptance of relevant proffers...." Mr. Fritz added a 9th condition to the recommended conditions for the special permit: "Provision of access to TM 32, Parcel 46." Mr. Johnson questioned the accuracy of the Ordinance citations in the staff report. Mr. Fritz explained that the numbers for the park and the sales had possibly been interchanged. Mr. Johnson asked why the figures quoted for school enrollment were different from those found in several letters which had been received. He asked: "What is the source of these estimates; are they uniquely applicable and historically accurate?" Mr. Fritz explained that the multipliers used are the same as those used by the Education Department. Historically, he stated "sometimes our figures are high." He concluded: "We have no information that we should not be using these numbers." He added, however: "These multipliers do take into account the fact that multipliers for mobile homes are higher than they are for garden apartments, for example." Referring to the fact that the property is currently located in the Hollymead school district, Mr. Johnson asked about the projected growth for this school. Mr. Fritz could not answer this question. Mr. Cilimberg interjected that Hollymead is currently over capacity. In response to Mr. Johnson's request, Mr. Fritz pointed out the location of Road A on the plan. Mr. Johnson asked if it would connect to Rt. 29 ultimately. Mr. Fritz explained that possibility has been discussed and the possibility of such a connection at some future time has not been abandoned. Mr. Cilimberg added: "Any routing of that road will be part of the consideration of the balance of that property for rezoning." Regarding the roads, Mr. Fritz explained that all roads within the development will be private (except for Road A). Mr. Johnson asked for an explanation of the justification for private roads. Mr. Keeler explained that a special section of the Zoning Ordinance applies to mobile home parks which includes road standards. There was a discussion as to the method for determining if a mobile home meets the accoustical performance standards. Mr. Fritz explained that the Inspections Department has a method for making this determination. Later in the meeting Mr. Wood explained that the burden will be on the M 7-13--93 3 manufacturer of the mobile home to prove to the Zoning Administrator that the unit meets the performance standards. Units that cannot pass the test will not be allowed in the park. (Mr. Johnson called attention to a letter from Oakwood Mobile Homes dated July 2 which stated that their homes would not be able to meet the noise standards. Mr. Wood stated that Mr. Bob Provost had told him the opposite, i.e. that Oakwood Mobile Homes do meet the standards, though the manufacturer feels that the tests are unnecessary.) Mr. Johnson noted that the proffers do not limit the proposal to 236 units. Mr. Fritz acknowledged this and stated: "That number may rise,or fall as final engineering is done." Mr. Fritz noted, however, that based on density and minimum lot size, he did not think more than 236 units was feasible. Mr. Johnson estimated that "mathematically" it would be possible to achieve double the number of units proposed. Mr. Fritz pointed out that areas used for roads, setbacks, recreation, etc. must be factored in. Mr. Johnson asked about the timing of recreational facilities. Mr. Fritz explained that staff would ensure that the required recreational facilities would be installed at the proper times, with each phase of development. In response to Mr. Johnson's question about open space, Mr. Fritz explained that there are requirements for recreation areas and setback, but there are no other specific open space requirements. Ms. Huckle questioned who would be the participants in a road maintenance agreement (referred to in Condion No. 4). Mr. Fritz explained this would apply if part of the property were to be sold to another owner. He confirmed that owners of the mobile homes (who will be renting the lots) will not be required to participate in a road maintenance agreement unless it is included as a part of the rent for the lot. Regarding the recreational requirements, Mr. Fritz explained that those are described in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Andersen asked why staff would be approving a road maintenance agreement. She was of the impression that the County did not get involved in private agreements. Mr. Fritz explained that this is to ensure that there are provisions for the maintenance of the roads if the property is sold. He added that is the same as it would be for any other type of development. Mr. Keeler added that the County would not be a party to such an agreement and the terms of the agreement are enforceable between the parties to the agreement. Mr. Jenkins noted that the press (radio) had reported that this area had been added to the Broadus Wood school im 7-13-93 4 district. Mr. Cilimberg clarified that this was under consideration by the School Board but the change has not yet gone to public hearing. The applicant was represented by Mr. Wendall Wood. His comments included the following: --Since the time of its inception, the proposal has decreased from 300 units to 230 units, and increased by 7 acres. --4 units/acre is approximately 1/3 the capacity of a townhouse development. --A 50 foot setback from the property line will be required. (He felt this was "overly burdensome" in trying to provide affordable housing.) --The property is served by public sewer. --The applicant would like for the road from Rt. 606 to go through to Rt. 29 and is willing to build the road. This proposal anticipates that that roadway will be addressed at the time the commercial development on the front is proposed. The Comp Plan amendment was written in such a way that the development of the commercial frontage on Rt. 29 could not be developed until at least 100 spaces in the mobile home park have been developed. --The applicant will be responsible for the management of the property. (He has owned and operated the same type development in Verona, Va for 27 years.) --It is�anticipated the development will be at capacity in 3 years. --The development has been designed to accommodate (predominately) single -wide mobile homes. --A full-time resident manager will be present on the site at all times. --The applicant's experience shows no evidence there are more school age children with this type development than with any other kind. The applicant's engineer, Mr. Tom Muncaster, offered to answer questions. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons spoke in favor of the proposal: Ms. Virginia Butram (Deerwood); Mr. Bob Corey (Earlysville Forest); Mr. Reuben Clark (representing the Piedmont Environmental Council); Mr. Tim Lindstrom; Mr. Tom Zito. Their reasons for support included the following: --It is a good, partial answer to a persistent problem--i.e. it will provide decent, affordable housing. --The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. --The property is "relatively isolated" from other types of development. --The property is served by public utilitites. I?/ 7-13-93 V~ --This part of the county is well -suited for development. It is close to good transportation and is also Close to major, future and present, employment centers. --The development will increase employment opportunitites. --An alternative way to reach the airport is needed. --Denial would result in increased pressure to develop rural areas. --"It is not good policy for the County to ignor those who work here but cannot afford the average house, and trust that they will live in some other county." (Clark) --The applicant's other development of this type (Verona, Va.) has existed for 20 years and proven to be a very satisfactory community. The following persons were opposed to the proposal: Ms. Lisa Harmon (Earlysville Forest); Mr. William Sipe (Rt. 743); Ms. Karen Strickland (Mill Run); Kathy Stephenson; Ms. Nancy Hauseman (Broadus-Wood parent); Ms. Billie Kayser (Earlysville Forest); Ms. Reesey Modney; Ms. Lucille Miller. Reasons for opposition included: --Increased traffic on Rt. 743, a high-speed, dangerous, heavily travelled road. --Adverse impact on Broadus Wood Elementary School caused by overcrowding. --Skepticism that the projected number of school -age children was accurate. --Proposed density is too great. There was a feeling that there was potential for more than the 235 proposed units proposed. --Property's location within the airport noise impact area could result in harm to children's health as a result of the excessive noise and airplane exhaust. --Dangerous intersection at airport (606/649). --Nightime lights from the development can interfer with aircraft visibility. --Location of the property on an entrance corridor. The following persons voiced neither support nor opposition, but did express concerns about the proposal: Ms. Ann Messina; Mr. George Delegano. --A lack of balance, county -wide, in providing housing and services for low-income households. --Caution that "we are not building a facility which is taking advantage of those who have the fewest choices in our community and are the most vulnerable to exploitation." (Delegano) --Need for assurance that the infrastructure (roads, schools) will be adequate and in place as needed. --Need for assurance that this development will provide "an environment that people will be happy to call home." Mr. Craig Vandecastle, speaking for Willy Birckhead (TM32 Parcel 46), asked that provision for access to the 4A 7-13-93 6 Brickhead property be assured. He suggested there was also some question about a setback in relation to this property. He also questioned whether the applicant will be able to get the right-of-way necessary to install a proper turn lane. (Mr. Grimm addressed these comments: "Both those items you bring up are conditions of the special use permit and if, in fact, they cannot be met, then this project would not go through.") Mr. Tim Lindstrom asked: "Given the uncertainty about meeting several key conditions on the special permit, if the zoning map amendment is approved and subsequently the special permit conditions can't, be met, what happens to the zoning map amendment? Is there any way of ensuring that the affordable housing function of this action is followed through?" Mr. St. John replied: "If that happens, what you'll have is a piece of land that can't be used for the purpose that we're talking about tonight. You've got some statements in this staff report from the Airport Authority which cast a lot of doubt on the very question you're talking about. ... If that happens, what you're going to have is a 50-acre piece of land zoned R-15 which can't be used in accordance with this proffer but it's sitting there with by -right R-15 zoning. The question here is whether the Commission and Board of Supervisors want it to sit there and be used for some other R-15 purpose. If they do, that's fine. But if they don't, and if the only reason for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and for this rezoning are to fulfill this proffer about a manufactured home park and that falls through, the only way to eliminate the R-15 zoning is for Mr. Wood to proffer that if the mobile home park cannot be built, the R-15 zoning will revert back to its present zoning. ... and you can't put such a condition on it over the objection of the applicant. The only way to accomplish that would be for the applicant to proffer. You're right, the present proffer does not do this. ... If this question is a concern to you and it's a concern to the Board of Supervisors, it ought to be resolved before you deal with the ZMA ... because it will be too late to deal with it once the rezoning has passed." Mr. Lindstrom clarified that the PEC supports this proposal but "wouldn't support an R-15 development unless it was providing the affordable housing that we are concerned about here." Mr. Johnson noted that the property would retain the R-15 zoning after the mobile home use ceases (15 years as provided in the applicant's proffer). Mr. Wood made the following statement and proffer: "I'm under the impression that, by proffer, the only thirty` we could do is build a mobile home park. That's what I think I proffered, but, to cut through that, I am willing to proffer 93 7-13-93 7 that if I can't get the entrance permit the land would revert back. I'm willing to add that to my proffer." Mr. St. John: "That would totally solve the problem that Mr. Lindstrom has raised...." It was clarified that the property would revert back to the current zoning of RA. Mr. Lindstrom added: "That would address the concern I raised. The only thing I would add is that there are other conditions here which may not be met. I'm not questioning what you've said, bit it's still uncertain. One of them is whether the mobile home meets the AIA standards for noise. Can you get any mobile homes which will meet that?" He noted that was the same type issue. Ms. Andersen asked Mr. Wood: "So would your proffer cover that as well?" (Mr. Wood replied affirmatively.) In answer to a question from a member of the public as to why this proposal was being "rushed" through before all the outstanding questions have been answered, Mr. Grimm explained that the conditions of the special permit will ensure that all outstanding issues have been satisfactorily addressed or the development will not be able to proceed. Mr. Nitchmann added that this proposal has been in the making for some time and it received considerable publicity at the time the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (dealing with this property) was under consideration. He wondered why the public had not gotten involved in the process and made their objections known at that time. (The citizen who raised the question expressed.a feeling of having been "betrayed" by the local government. She also expressed frustration that the copy of the Comprehensive Plan which she had recently purchased did not reflect the amendment related to this property. Ms. Huckle suggested that she return the Plan to the County for a refund of her expense.) Mr. St. John also commented on the sequence of the approval process. Ms. Pamela Murray asked if there were any time limits for meeting the conditions of approval. Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant has 2 years (from the date of approval of the special permit) to commence construction. Mr. Jenkins pointed out that the County has no control over approvals from the FAA or VDOT. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In answer to Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Keeler used a map to point out the boundaries of the airport overlay district and 9� 7-13-93 8 noise impact area, including the residential subdivisions which lie within these areas. Mr. Keeler was unable to answer the question as to whether or not newer model mobile homes would be more likely to meet the sound requirements than would older models. Mr. Johnson felt R-15 zoning was "inappropriate." He pointed out that at the end of fifteen years (the applicant's proffer for the life of the mobile home park) the property could be developed at 4 or 5 times the population density of the mobile home park. He felt 11R-6 would be more appropriate at this stage of the game." Mr. St. John noted that the Comprehensive Plan establishes this property as a "high density residential area." He explained that R-6 is medium density and therefore an R-6 designation would be incompatible with the Comp Plan recommendation. (Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that high density is defined as 10.1 units/acre and above and the minimum density which will accommodate the lot sizes proposed by Mr - Wood is R-10.) Mr. Blue recalled (though he was not certain) that the request for R-15 had been on the recommendation of staff. Mr. Johnson acknowledged that Mr. St. John was "technically correct," but noted that given the public concern about the density, he stated that it would be easier to increase the density at a later time than to decrease it. Mr. Jenkins reminded Mr. Johnson that the applicant has proffered that if all the conditions cannot be met then the property will revert back to RA. (Mr. Johnson indicated that due to the bad acoustics in the auditorium he had misunderstood the applicant's intent.) Mr. Grimm interpreted that the property would remain at R-15 after year fifteen. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed: "It would remain at R-15." Ms. Huckle asked: "Even with the proffer Mr. Wood has just made?" Mr. Cilimberg: "Yes. That covers any inability to develop the mobile home park in the period in which this special use permit is applicable. Once the mobile home park is developed --he's guaranteed 15 years --and at the end of the 15 years it would be R-15 zoning." Ms. Huckle: "But if he is unable to develop the mobile home park?" Mr. Cilimberg: "It will go to RA." 95 7-13-93 9 Ms. Huckle: "And even after 15 years it would still be RA?" Mr. Cilimberg: "That's right." Mr. Johnson expressed concern that with R-15 the property could, by right, be developed with "individual detached homes with lots sizes down to just barely over 2,000 square feet with no requirements for open space or recreational areas." Mr. St. John advised: "I think it is in the Commission's Power to make amendments to this, but I would recommend that, first of all Mr. Wood's proffers have eliminated this concern that Mr. Lindstrom raised and that I had, and then I would recommend that we deal with what's before us and not come up with some new density. Ms. Huckle made the following statement: "When I first looked at this I felt it was totally premature because the necessary information was not available as to whether the easements would be given by the Airport Authority and by the FAA and also whether trailers which would meet the noise standards were even available. I'm still concerned about these things, but I have a lot of other concerns which I would like to mention to you. Obviously this is a win -win situation for the applicant --he gets income from the land while he waits 15 years for a more profitable use and he will sell new trailers to the residents. For the residents of the trailer park it will be a lose -lose situation. They will be required to provide noise -proof models, if they are available. The cost of these trailers meeting these standards plus the rent of the parking places...$120/month...I'm not sure that this constitutes low-cost housing. For the residents of the trailer park, they will not only have that expense, and even if their trailers do not permit all the noise to come in, what about the children playing outdoors? They are not only going to have the noise to contend with, but this park is located at the end of the runway (where planes often for sit awaiting takeoff) and expelling exhaust gases. If Mr. Wood builds this park, he has the option, after 15 years, to have a better offer that would make more money, therefore some other use and these people would have to be relocated. (She recalled relocation difficulties which were experienced some years past when a small city trailer park had been closed.) For the County it also is a lose -lose situation. The County will be forced to provide schools for hundreds of children but the taxes paid by the mobile home residents will be a small fraction of the taxes paid by permanent homes. The Board of Supervisors will doubtless be plagued by numerous phone calls of complaints by residents and should there be a traffic accident the County may be sued for damages for allowing residents in an Airport Overlay Zone. I reference the letter from the Airport Authority. 0 7-13-93 10 Last, but maybe most important, there has been much talk. This project was originally justified as providing low-cost housing and there has been much talk in an editorial or two criticizing those opposing this use as treating low and moderate -income families as second class citizens. To the contrary, I feel that those who support this use are saying, in effect, 'Let's put low and moderate income priced housing under the flight path. Those people don't deserve anything better . "' Mr. Nitchmann made the following statement: "Last October when this was before us, I viewed it at that time that this was an opportunity for us not to put low cost housing in, but affordable housing. I think that was the issue at the time. I don't know the difference between low cost and affordable, it depends on your income level, I guess. The question of --here's a group of individual who can't afford to go out an purchase a home in Albemarle with an average house costing $120,000-$130,000. But we're not going to give them the right to be able to move into decent, clean, livable housing in, yes, an area that may not be the most desirable area within the county. However, when we looked at this we realized that the infrastructure was in place (utilities, etc.) to support this. I believe we also knew at that time that, yes, there were some problems with the roads, but that's an issue in this county no matter where we build or what we build. Roads always come up; no matter what we're talking about roads are always unsafe which is starting to concern me because it means one of two things ---one, either VDOT doesn't care --or secondly, we as taxpayers aren't willing to pay the taxes necessary to bring the roads up to a safe standard. I would probably guess that it's the latter rather than the former. In regard to the noise level, I think that anbody that moves into that is moving into it, unless they are retired, as a temporary basis as a means of being able to afford a decent place to live, to be able to put money aside for a downpayment for a better situation than they might be in in a mobile home park. I am personally familiar with mobile home park living. ... I think the issue of what type of people live in mobile home parks, at least in my opinion, is a moot issue which I don't even think should be discussed because I think you'll end up with people in this mobile home park that will be on different echelons of income levels because that may be their preference of the way they wish to live. On the other hand, it's going to give people the opportunity to save the funds necessary to meet the 5% or 10% downpayment that it takes to buy a home. I believe we were also alert, when we made this Comprehensive Plan amendment, in regard to the school issue and I justified it in my mind that we have a school board made up of very intelligent, alert individuals that have the best interests at heart regarding the education of children. I feel they are going to take all issues into consideration ... and they're going to do 91 7-13-93 11 everything with public input. Again, it comes down to we can have the best educational system in the United States or we can have the poorest. It all depends on us as citizens and how much we are willing to pay for it out of our own pockets, which again comes to the issue of taxes. Growth is inevitable in this county .... It is inevitable in any county around this country. I believe we are trying to take advantage of what we have in place in regard to infrastructure in trying to, at least, address an issue that has been a problem in this county for a long, long time and that's one of permitting the people that work for the county, our policemen, our firemen, our teachers, the first-time homeowners, the guy that just got a job at General Electric, to live within this county in a location and in a type of home that, I believe, they can be proud of. Owning something means that you have equity in it. If you own something, like the individuals will who will move into this park, I believe that they will take good care of it. I also believe the applicant... is going to wish to operate this in a manner that's going to be beneficial.... What he does with his property in 15 or 20 years is his business and it's not up to us to say whether a developer or any individual is trying to line his pockets or not line his pockets. That's not the issue before us. I can back this recommendation, especially with the additional proffer ... I can give this my 100% support." Mr. Blue made the following statement: "Last fall I voted against this change in the Comprehensive Plan because at that time I didn't think that the additional affordable housing, which I was in favor of, was worth the tradeoff of having the additional commercial land on the west side of Rt. 29 which was not proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. I have since changed my mind. I still don't think a mobile home park, nice as it is, is going to completely solve the affordable housing problem in this county, but it is a step in the right direction and I think it is definitely worth it. I believe we have addressed the issues pretty thoroughly and I think the additional proffer that Mr. Wood made certainly takes care of one of the most serious issues, i.e. if the Airport Authority doesn't grant the easement or VDOT doesn't approve the entrance and the mobile home park is disallowed for that reason, the land will revert back to RA ..... 11 MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that ZMA-92-14 for Wendell Wood be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers, including the additional proffer made by the applicant verbally earlier in the meeting (as recorded previously in this record). Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. Discussion: 7-13-93 12 Mr. Johnson asked if it was appropriate that proffer no. 2, related to entrances on Rt. 29, be attached to this request since the entrances were not located on this property. Mr. Cilimberg responded: " Under ZMA-92-14's advertisement, we included these parcels as being effected by any potential road network. So they were part of the advertisement for the Zoning Map Amendment and, for that reason, we felt the proffer regarding future entrances on those parcels was appropriate." Mr. St. John added: "Your question is whether or not you can make proffers on a different piece of land from the land that is subject to the rezoning before you. Yes, you can." Mr. Grimm stated he could support the motion because he felt this is an attempt to address the problem of the lack of affordable housing. He felt the issues which were raised were "subordinate" to the need for affordable housing. Mr. Nitchmann asked for a clarification of the additional proffer the applicant had offered earlier in the meeting. Mr. St. John felt the statement made by Mr. Wood could not be improved upon. He stated: "You can get it right off the tape and put it in writing." Mr. Nitchmann asked: "And that did cover if for any reason the mobile home park could not be built; it would revert back to RA?" (Though Mr. Grimm indicated that was accurate, there was no other reply, either from the applicant or Mr. St. John, to Mr. Nitchmann's statement.) Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would confer with Mr. St. John on Wednesday..and secure a written proffer from the applicant prior to the Wednesday Board meeting. He stated he felt the intent of the proffer had been clearly established. Ms. Andersen stated that though she felt the arguments presented were valid, her vote on the motion would be the result of having weighed not only those arguments, but also other issues which the Commission has been dealing with over the past year. In answer to Ms. Andersen's question about the map, Mr. Cilimberg explained it was an "application plan map" and though three entrances on Rt. 29 are shown, the actual location of those entrances have not yet been determined. He confirmed that the balance of the property will also need to be rezoned prior to its development. The previously stated motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. SP-93-13 United Land Cor oration 7-13--93 13 Mr. Johnson expressed the feeling that the Commission should review the final site plan. He also suggested that a condition be added to assure the maintenance of the entire property. Mr. St. John suggested that condition No. 4 be amended so as to require a maintenance agreement if the property is divided at some future time. Regarding Mr. Johnson's suggestion that there be an agreement for lot maintenance, etc., he stated he did not think that type of requirement was customary and would be difficult for the Zoning Administrator to enforce. Mr. Cilimberg added that there are some requirements, such as,landscaping, which have to be met. It was decided "at such time as the property may be subdivided" would be added at the end of Condition No. 4. MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved that SP-93-13 for United Land Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Deletion/relocation of all lots within 50 feet of an adjacent parcel. 2. Planning Commission approval of final site plan. 3. Staff approval of all mobile home units proposed for location within the mobile home park to ensure compliance with the acoustical performance standards of Section 30.2.5. 4. Staff approval of private road maintenance agreements at such time as the property may be subdivided. 5. Maintenance of recreation facilities shall be the responsibility of the property owner in accord with Section y 4.16.3.2. 6. No direct connection to Route 29 shall be made without amendment of this permit. 7. Provision of a conventional "T" intersection with Route 606 constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation requirements. Access is shown on a plan initialled WDF dated 7/8/93. 8. No plan of development shall be submitted for review until the necessary easements and/or right-of-way acquisition for the Route 606 entrance have been obtained. 9. Provision of access to TM 32, Parcel 46. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously. /00 7-13-93 14 ZMA-93-06 United Land Corporation - Proposal to rezone 7.9 acres from RA, Rural Areas to HC, Highway Commercial (proffered) on property described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 43 and 43A located on the west side of Rt. 29 approximately 600 feet south of Timberwood Blvd. (The following additional parcels are affected by the proposed road network: Tax Map 32, Parcels 44, 45, 42A, 42B, 42C, 42D and 42E and Tax Map 46, parcel 5 to remain zoned RA, Rural Areas, but with proffers). This site is in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is located in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) recommended for Regional Service. Deferred from the June 29, 1993 Commission meeting. AND SP-93-14 United Land Corporation - Proposal to establish outdoor storage and display and sales of mobile homes (30.6.3.2(6 & 7)] on 7.9 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor (ZMA-93-06 is pending on this site). Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 43 and 43A, is located on the west side of Rt. 29 approximately 600 feet south of Timberwood Blvd. in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) recommended for Regional Service. Deferred from the June 29, 1993 Commission meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval of the requests, contingent upon the approval of the rezoning and special permit for the mobile home park. Mr. Fritz explained that a special permit is required for the mobile home sales because it involves outdoor storage and display. The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, offered to answer Commission questions. He pointed out that the ARB feels the use is acceptable and thinks it can be adequately screened. In answer to Ms. Huckle's question, he stated that the units would be able to be moved directly to the park without having to go onto Rt. 29. In answer to Mr. Nitchmann's question, he stated the road connecting the sales to the park will be a gravel road and will not be a convenient route and therefore he did not think unauthorized usage would be a problem. He noted that the road could be used as an emergency route in the event Rt. 606 was blocked. (Mr. Cilimberg added that this type of road is often controlled with a gate.) The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Tim Lindstrom, representing Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Commission. He stated: "I don't think we have an objection to this particular use on this 1®® 7-13-93 15 site except for concern that the Comprehensive Plan amendment was very carefully designed to assure that we didn't have piecemeal development of this rather large 50-acre tract of commercial.... We wanted to be sure that the mobile home park was well under way before any commercial rezoning would occur because that was the incentive to see that the park got done. Secondly, we didn't want more strip, piecemeal commercial development on 29 which is why there is supposed to be a master plan. My only concern is... if the reason that is OK is because it is directly related to the mobile home park, I think there are a lot of other commercially uses that would be equally, arguably, directly related. People from all over the country can buy a mobile home park at this particular sales and display. There is no restriction, nor should there be, that it is only available to the people in the park. (Likewise) there are other places the people in this park can buy their mobile homes. ... I am just concerned that this not, somehow, establish a precedent. I think you retain a lot of discretion on this so I don't think it is necessarily a legal issue, but just as a principle I think that it would be a shame to see this sort of disintegrate into a number of small separate applications, rather than following a master plan. ... I'm just concerned that we not lose site of this very carefully worded amendment to the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Blue asked: "I take it that the Piedmont Environmental Council is opposing this particular (proposal)." Mr. Lindstrom: "That's correct." In response to Mr. Blue's question Mr. Lindstrom stated he was speaking for the PEC, but NOT for the Architectural Review Board (of which he is a member). Mr. Blue asked if his position on the ARB ever presented a problem with his position with PEC. Mr. Lindstrom replied: "Nape." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Fritz clarified that the property is limited (by the proffer) to its existing use (a store) or mobile homes sales. Mr. Fritz interpreted that it was PEC's position that "you shouldn't approve this unless you have a plan for the whole regional service at the same time." He explained that if the Commission wanted to support that position it would recommend denial of the request. Mr. Blue interpreted that it was staff's feeling that the proposal was beneficial because it would allow persons in the mobile home park to purchase their mobile home and move it directly to the site without having to be on Rt. 29. /D,Q 7-13-93 16 Mr. Fritz commented: "We can see a direct connection between a mobile home sales center for a 236 mobile home park." Mr. Blue stated: "And you think that overcomes the objection of not seeing the whole thing at one time, if I understand it correctly." Mr. Fritz replied: "Right. That's our recommendation." Mr. Cilimberg added that staff felt this was "very unique." He pointed out that the staff report stated there would be no more commercial development approved without the overall plan. Mr. Johnson pointed out that this is the same situation as the previous two items --the commercial development cannot take place until after 100 units are signed up in the mobile home park --so what happens to the ZMA if the mobile home park cannot go forward. He asked: "Does it stay HC or would it go back to RA?" Mr. Fritz explained: "It would stay HC, but it would be limited to the existing use that's there now (grocery store and gasoline sales). Nothing would change." He added that one of the applicant's proffers states that "the site plan for the mobile home sales lot will not be signed until the site plan for a minimum of 100 mobile home units is signed." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-93-06 for United Land Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Andersen asked if, after having heard the Commission's discussion, the PEC's position remained the same. Mr. Lindstrom replied: "I am personally satisfied with the discussion, but I can't speak for my Board." Mr. Grimm stated he would support the motion. Mr. Johnson stated he would not support the motion because he felt this type of use was totally inappropriate for an entry corridor, particularly this close to the community, and it also was incompatible with the character of the district. The motion for approval passed (4:3) with Commissioners Grimm, Blue, Jenkins and Nitchmann voting in favor and Commissioners Andersen, Huckle and Johnson voting against. SP-93-14 United Land Corporation It was determined that the site plan would be approved administratively (unless called up before the Commission) and the ARB would also have to approve the plan. /03 7-13-93 17 Mr. Blue felt Mr. Johnson's argument was a good one. He asked staff to comment. Mr. Cilimberg replied: "Regional Service, which is the designation on the front and Rt. 29, implies all commercial uses, of which mobile home sales are a part. The entrance corridor concerns, we think, should be addressed by the SP as to whether or not it is appropriate. The ARB has determined that it can be appropriately accommodated. You have to decide whether you agree with that or not." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-93-14 for United Land Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed (4:3) with Commissioner Blue, Grimm, Jenkins and Nitchmann voting in favor and Commissioners Andersen, Huckle and Johnson voting against. SP-93-03 Stuart Birckhead - Petition to establish visible outdoor storage and display of modular buildings within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District [30.6.3.2(b)], 0.4752 acres zoned PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D(2), is located within the Pantops Shopping Center between First Virginia Bank and Taco Bell. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is located in a designated growth area (N3). Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Referring to the statement in the staff report which stated that "...since this is now requested as a permanent use, staff will require the parking spaces be paved." Mr. Johnson questioned why this was necessary given the small scale of the use. Mr. Blue wondered if allowing gravel parking would cause problems with other parking proposals. (He cited as an example the current Moore's proposal.) Mr. Keeler did not feel the two were comparable because Moore's is a considerably different situation. In answer to Ms. Huckle's question regarding limitation on the number of sheds allowed on the site, Mr. Keeler explained that would be determined by what is approved on the plan. The applicant, Mr. Birckhead, addressed the Commission. He explained that this is a "sideline" business for him and thus the reason most business will be conducted from his home. /O V 7--13-93 18 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that SP-93-03 for Stuart Birckhead be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions and including the recommendation that there be no requirement for paving of the parking space: 1. No items shall be located as to interfere with sight distance of Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive). 2. There shall be no occupancy of any shed or any on --site sales. 3. Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D(2) shall not be manned by an employee nor shall an office area be established. 4. The business owner shall, at all times, have an approved home occupation permit for shed sales from the County. This approval shall not include the storage and/or display of these structures at the home. 5. Administrative approval of a site plan waiver to include Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The motion for approval passed unanimously. Comprehensive Plan Review Survey, Mr. Nitchmann indicated support for the survey, provided the Commission would have the opportunity to review the questions prior to instigation of the survey. Mr. Johnson expressed support for a survey, but voiced some concerns. (See Attachment 1.) He felt this was a very complex process and he questioned the possibility that it could be commenced within 6 weeks. He felt questions should be more than Yes or No/True or False; they should include "alternatives." He felt a 6 month time schedule would be more realistic. Mr. Blue expressed support for the idea "if the Supervisors are willing to foot the cost and we get a chance to review the questions." Mr. Johnson questioned the productivity (based on past experience) of the Commission's review of the questions. He suggested a more efficient plan might be for a representative of the Commission, the Board, staff, and the consultant, to develop the questions. (Staff and other Commissioners agreed that was a good suggestion.) /OS 7-13-93 19 MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the Commission endorse the idea to conduct a survey and the community visioning ideas, "contingent upon acceptable definition and formulation." Ms. Huckle was uncertain of the meaning of "community visioning." The motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner Jenkins casting the dissenting vote. Mr. Jenkins explained he had a lot of reservations about the idea. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. DB rz