Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 01 1992 PC Minutes9-1-92 1 SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 1, 1992, Meeting Room 7, 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. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 11, 1992 and August 18, 1992 were approved as submitted. SP-92-54 Adventure Bound Owner Donna Frantzen (applicant) - Petition to issue a special use permit to allow a boarding camp [10.2.2(20)] on 33.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 6, Parcels 24, 25B, 25B1 is located in the southern corner of the intersection of Blackwells Hollow Road (Rt. 810) and Boonesville Road (Rt. 687) in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Mr. Grimm's question as to the basis for the change in the requested use (from rural retreat to boarding camp), Mr. Fritz called attention to the Zoning Administrator's letter dated August 3, 1992, which outlined the justifications for the boarding camp designation. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Fritz to comment on suggested condition No. 3, particularly all that appeared after the first sentence. He questioned the feasibility of defining some of the terms, e.g. "easily and inexpensively," and he also questioned the purpose of the condition. [NOTE: Condition No. 3 was proposed as follows: "No new construction except for one new single-family structure (location to be approved by staff). Modifications to existing buildings and structures shall be undertaken in such manner so as to easily and inexpensively convert such buildings and structures to dwelling unit types (i.e. - single family detached, duplex, etc.) or other structures typically expected to accompany by -right uses (ex. barns) as may be permitted by right in the specific zoning district."] ,2Y 9-1-92 2 Mr. Fritz responded: "The purpose behind that is that we recognize that the site does have limited agricultural -forestal uses and we don't want to continue that or make it worse than it is. As far as enforceability, these conditions were presented to the Zoning Administrator; we did make some changes in some of them to provide enforceable language but I do not believe that is one of the conditions that we made revisions to." Mr. Johnson wondered why restrictions against modifications to existing buildings were being proposed. Mr. Fritz responded: "We're recognizing that these buildings do have limited agricultural or forestal use or limited potential. We are not prohibiting any revisions, and there are going to have to be some made to the building, but we don't want to create a situation were we are moving even further away from any potential agricultural forestal use." Mr. Cilimberg noted that he felt Mr. Johnson's primary concern was with the use of the term "easily and inexpensively." Mr. Fritz explained further that Condition No. 3 "echoes a condition that would have been imposed by the language of the Zoning Text Amendment that was subsequently disapproved." Also referring to condition No. 3, Ms. Huckle asked if there was anything to prevent the future renting of structures which might be converted to dwelling units. Mr. Fritz responded: "If they are going to be pursuing a boarding camp, if they are going to make use of this special use permit, then Condition No. 7 [Not more than two dwelling units shall be permitted.] applies. If they abandon the special use permit, the boarding camp, then, obviously they can convert to single family dwellings which they could even if this special use permit is denied. That is one of the options that is open to them." Ms. Huckle interpreted: "So as long as they met the density, they are entitled to do that." Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively. The applicant, Ms. Donna Frantzen, addressed the Commission. Regarding alterations to the property, she explained that the building referred to as "the school" will have the "interior division walls" taken down, woodwork replaced, and the exterior will be finished. She stated: "But we have no plan to make that into anything resembling a private dwelling." She also explained that it would be very difficult to turn either the school or the dormitory into a private dwelling unit and though it might be possible, she had no plans to make such rennovations. She explained that the recreation building would be converted to a private dwelling. 1Zq 9-1-92 3 The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Eleanor May, President of Adventure Bound School, addressed the Commission. She expressed her support for the proposal. She felt this was an acceptable use for the property and would not be incompatible with the existing neighborhood. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that SP-92-54 for Adventure Bound (owner), Donna Frantzen (applicant) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: [Note: Mr. Nitchmann's original motion was to recommend approval with condition No. 3 amended so as to remove the words "easily and inexpensively." Mr. Johnson again expressed the feeling that all of condition No. 3 should be deleted except for the first sentence. He did not think restrictions should be placed on the modifications to the structures. Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Blue agreed to change the motion accordingly.] 1. Food and lodging shall be provided only for boarding camp participants. This provision shall not be deemed to permit lodging or boarding of guests or transients not participating in the boarding camp; 2. The maximum number of boarding camp participants and residents at any given time shall not exceed a total population of 34; 3. No new construction except for one new single-family structure (location to be approved by staff); 4. Use shall not commence until approval for such use has been obtained from the Albemarle County Fire Official. The Fire Official shall thereafter inspect the premises at his discretion; 5. Use shall not commence until approval of permit has been obtained from the Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation of the Virginia Department of Health; 6. Not more than nine (9) rooms shall be available for overnight guests; 7. Not more than two dwelling units shall be permitted; 8. Use shall not commence until approval for such use has been obtained from the Albemarle County Building Official. 30 9-1-92 4 Mr. Grimm noted that there had been no opposition to the proposal in contrast to the overwhelming opposition to the previously existing school. The motion for approval passed unanimously. CPA-90-03 Amendment to the Land Use Plan Hollymead Wendell Wood - Located west of Rt. 29N and south and east of Rt. 606 in the Hollymead Community. This request to amend the Land Use plan for the Hollymead Community for approximately 125 acres west of Rt. 29 and south of Airport Road (Rt. 649). The proposed land use changes are from Industrial Service to Regional Service, High Density Residential. Mr. Benish presented the staff report. Staff was once again recommending "denial of the request until the fiscal impact model and analysis can be completed and a comprehensive evaluation of the expansion of Hollymead can be undertaken." In response to Mr. Blue's request, Mr. Benish pointed out the location of another request (Towers Land Trust). Regarding the applicant's possible participation in the extension of public sewer to the airport (as had originally been offered by the applicant), Mr. Benish explained that he had not discussed this issue with the applicant. He noted that the contract has been awarded for the sewer construction and right-of-way is being acquired. Mr. Blue noted that the plan did not reflect the staff report's statement that the high density residential designation had been moved outside the Airport Impact Area Overlay. Mr. Benish explained that that change had occurred after the plan was received and "was contingent upon Mr. Wood's ability to do the mobile home park in the industrial area." In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Benish explained why staff feels that this request should be considered concurrently with the Towers request. In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Benish pointed out the proposed location of the mobile home park and also the residential area. Mr. Benish explained that, "conceivably," the request could result in "commercial along the frontage, residential behind that and all of this light industrial with the mobile home park in this location." He explained that currently the property is all zoned RA, with a Comprehensive Plan designation for industrial service use. 11 9-1-92 5 It was determined that the only change in the proposal which the Board had not been aware of was the applicant's proposal to keep the high density residential designation outside the Airport Impact Area Overlay. some commissioners expressed surprise that residential zoning would be allowed within the Airport Impact Area. Staff explained that the dwellings would have to meet certain engineering criteria in terms of decibel levels from inside the structure. Mr. Cilimberg noted that residential designation had not been recommended for this area because of the close proximity to the airport and the lack of compatibility between the two types of use. It was noted that approval of this request would result in the removal of 45 acres (approximately 4%) from industrial service designation and the accompanying loss of employment opportunitites. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Wood stated 6 mobile homes could be placed on one (1) acre. The applicant, Wendall Wood, addressed the Commission. He explained the history of the application. His comments included the following: --Manufactured housing is the only way to meet the need for affordable housing in the County. --It is difficult to find acceptable property for a mobile home park. This land is suitable because of it's proximity to a major highway and employment and it has public utilities. --The mobile home park will be a "for -rent community." --The decibel level in today's mobile homes will meet engineering requirements. --The applicant contributed $250,000+ towards the construction of the airport sewer line and donated the right-of-way. --He offered to restrict access to Rt. 29 (along a mile of frontage) to three points. --Approximately 300 units are envisioned for the mobile home park (6/acre). --The request for commercial zoning is necessary to make the mobile home aspect of the request financially acceptable. (The applicant felt that the commercial request should be granted as incentive for him to do the mobile home park. He referred to the proposal as a "trade-off.") --Approval of this request will allow the frontage of Rt. 29 to develop in a planned, orderly fashion, which is preferable to by -right development which would result in strip development with multiple entrances onto Rt. 29. --In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Wood stated he felt that the additional commercial development would be needed to serve this area in the future. 3; 9-1-92 6 --Mr. Wood envisioned that the "airport road" will become only a road to the airport in the future and the new road will be used by persons from Earlysville wishing to go south on Rt. 29 and will therefore be beneficial to the County as well as the developer. --In response to Ms. Huckle's questions regarding the applicant's plans for the R-15 area, Mr. Wood explained that he had agreed, in exchange for allowing the mobile home park in the industrial area, to withdraw the request for the permanent R-15 zoning. (Though Mr. Wood stated that R-15 zoning was necessary for a mobile home park, Mr. Cilimberg explained that a mobile home park was possible in R-4 through R-15 zoning, by special use permit.) Mr. Wood stated that if the mobile home park is not allowed in the industrial area, then there is no choice but to request the high density zoning because those are the only zones which allow that type of use. --Because of his investment in the sewer line, Mr. Wood stated that he was forced to develop the property and if this proposal is not approved, he will have no choice but to develop the property by -right. --Mr. Wood agreed that there was no need for further commercial development on Rt. 29 at the present time and he agreed to restrict the development of the commercial property for ten years. He agreed that the current request was "insurance" for the future, but he also felt it was good planning. Mr. Blue stated that the main issue of the request is to determine if the need for affordable housing, in the form of a mobile home park, justifies the trade-offs. He stated that he was unsure, from Mr. Wood's statements, if he would still be willing to do the mobile home park, outside the industrial area, without anything in addition. Mr. Wood responded to this question and stated "I would restrict it to that, (a mobile home park)" provided the commercial area was approved. However, he stated he would not move the park out of the Airport Impact Area because it would not leave enough commercial land. Mr. Blue questioned whether by -right development of the property (assuming the property could be rezoned to LI as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan) would be profitable for the applicant. Mr. Wood agreed it was "less attractive than what (he) could wait for in the future." He repeatedly stressed that he felt his current proposal would be a benefit to the County because it would allow more control of the property than currently exists. In response to Mr. Jenkins' question, Mr. Wood anticipated that the mobile home park would be under construction within a year, "if the process went smooth." 33 9-1-92 7 Mr. Wood noted that there had been no public opposition to the proposal. In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding amenities, Mr. Wood stressed that this was meant to be affordable housing and was "not something that you pile on restrictions to." He indicated that playgrounds and tot lots would be provided, and possibly some form of day care and a grocery store. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about a lack of space in this type of development. He indicated that the lot sizes would be larger than those in Briarwood. Mr. Wood confirmed that if the park is allowed in the industrial area at this time, it will at some time in the future (10, 15 or 20 years) be removed from that area. He referred to this as a "transition" situation, but felt it fills an immediate need for affordable housing and for several years in the future. Mr. Johnson attempted to determine if Mr. Wood felt his propsal was the best possible plan for the property. Mr. Wood responded affirmatively. Mr. Johnson wondered if R-15 designation would not offer more protection for the residents than would a LI designation in the event of a future change in ownership of the property. Mr. Wood agreed and stated that had been the basis for his original request. Mr. Johnson felt that R-15 designation had advantages over the re -designation of LI to accommodate the mobile home park. [Mr. Cilimberg noted: "Keep in mind that the re -designation of LI or the allowance under LI to do the mobile home park was just presented on its own as an alternative to allow mobile home parks in industrial areas. It wasn't in combination with the other proposals here, it was in lieu of.11 j Mr. Wood again expressed the willingness to proffer only 3 access points to Rt. 29. (Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the item before the Commission is a Comprehensive Plan amendment and not a rezoning. He explained that discussions about proffers would come at the time of rezoning.) It was noted that the proposed mobile home park would not be visible from Rt. 29. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Don Wagner, representing Towers Land Trust, addressed the Commission. He explained the history of the upcoming proposal from Towers. He confirmed that a mobile home park was not a part of that proposal. He supported staff's recommendation that the two proposals be reviewed concurrently. He suggested that the Commission might consider acting on the mobile home part of the request and defer action on the other aspects of the request. 9-1-92 8 Mr. Kevin Cox expressed support for the proposal based on the number of affordable housing units which will be the result of the plan. He felt the benefits would outweigh the negative factors associated with development in close proximity to the airport. Regarding the actual affordability of these dwelling units, given the monthly payments and the rental on the lot, Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Cox if he felt this was truly affordable housing. Mr. Cox replied that he felt there was a need for afforable housing at the middle income level as well as the low income level. Mr. Wood clarified that this will be a mobile home "park," i.e. he will be leasing the lots but will not own the mobile homes. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins asked staff to once more comment on their recommendation for a deferral so that both this proposal and the Towers proposal can be reviewed simultaneously. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "The idea was so that you were considering the amount of commercial area as well as residential area that was being requested in the general Hollymead growth area at one time and you can consider if, in fact, you felt it was enough or too much and whether it was in the proper location. As far as the mobile home park aspect, you may want to address that differently. But I think we were looking at an overall landuse plan and not just the mobile home park issue specifically. The idea of the light industrial area accommodating mobile home parks was a way, with its drawbacks and positives, to address the mobile home park issue separately and you may not be comfortable with that and that may not be an amendment you want to pursue. We simply were trying to, as much as possible, bring two fairly significant proposals that proposed some of the same landuse changes together to you at one time." Mr. Blue felt the issue "boils down to 'Is the Comprehensive Plan for this area correct now and if it is is the affordable housing that is coming in the mobile home park worth the negative aspects created by changing the Comprehensive Plan?"' Mr. Blue felt that the new road proposed would take some of the burden off the Airport Road, even if some of the Earlysville residents used the proposed commercial area. He questioned the correctness of the Comprehensive Plan's determination that all commercial area should be east of Rt. 29, even if it has to go further north. He reasoned: "Because it seems to me that as the urban area gets more densely populated going northward, it seems kind of unreasonable to skip and put a commercial area J51 9-1-92 9 further north just because you have to do it on the east side of 29 when there's a portion on the west side that would be available and closer to the more dense area." Mr. Benish noted that the Comprehensive Plan does recommend commercial land west of Rt. 29. He added: "The intent of the Plan as we laid out the recommendations for the development of Hollymead was to consolidate major regional large scale commercial areas at that major intersection. There were specific comments to limit commercial areas up to the Hollymead area, to encourage them on the east side where the major residential area was for neighborhood and community level services --those types of commercial services that tend to serve the immediate needs of residential areas. It is not to say that it isn't necessarily inappropriate to have land uses on the west side, but that was the intent of the Plan for the development of Hollymead at that time --to encourage them at the intersections of Airport and Proffit Road --and to avoid stripping Rt. 29 from the river to Airport Road. We have been trying to maintain the capacity of that roadway, particularly lately with the decision for the Rt. 29 Bypass to begin south of the river it becomes that much more important to keep the area north of where that Bypass is as free flowing and containing capacity as possible. Regarding the road, the comments from VDOT that we received were that that type of road would take some traffic from Rt. 606 and Rt. 743 but would not take significant enough traffic so as to reduce the need to expand those roads. Major improvements to Rt. 606 and 743, to some extent, would still be necessary." Mr. Benish concluded that the benefits of the road proposed would have to be weighed against adding another major traffic intersection in a roadway that still does not necessarily, according to VDOT, significantly reduce the need for already planned major improvements. Ms. Huckle noted that Rt. 606 is a very dangerous road and the point of intersection shown by Mr. Wood's plan is one of the most dangerous points on the road. Mr. Blue noted that changes would be made to the intersection to improve it. Ms. Huckle felt that realignment of the road was somewhat limited because of the presence of the runway. Mr. Benish explained that staff had felt that the possible benefits of the proposed road were less significant than other aspects of the proposal. Mr. Blue interpreted from the staff report that staff felt the negative aspects of the proposal outweighed the positive aspect of the mobile home park. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was the Commission's determination as to whether or not the offer of the mobile home park was worth the trade-offs, i.e. approving the applicant's request for the commercial area. Mr. Cilimberg also pointed out that staff must look at the overall, area -wide planning and, in this area, "there 3( 9-1-92 10 is a lot that's on the table beyond what is being requested at this time." He added: "I don't think we necessarily concluded that there should never be commercial where Mr. Wood is requesting it. Because as we look at the plan, ultimately, and start trying to look 20 years again when we do our next review of the plan, it may be necessary that there be more commercial area. It may be where Mr. Wood is requesting it; it may be where Great Eastern Management (Towers) is requesting it. It could be both. ... From the planning standpoint of where we are right now, we try to protect 29 as much as possible, above the South Fork Rivanna River from strip development. I think Mr. Wood's offer to avoid stripping in terms of access, is consistent with that, but also playing into all this is 'Is that the right location for commercial uses that will need several access points on Rt. 29?' VDOT, right now, is trying to get us to work with them to reduce the number of major intersections on Rt. 29 north of the South Fork Rivanna River. We would be creating a new intersection with the road as planned." Mr. Blue interpreted, from Mr. Cilimberg's comments, that though staff was recommending denial of this particular request, there was the possibility that when this proposal is considered along with the Towers proposal staff could support at least some of Mr. Wood's proposed commercial area. Mr. Cilimberg concluded: "One of the worst things we can do, even if you go to a land use change in this request, is go and simply designate a line on the map that nobody has really considered for its impact to 29's potential traffic and whether or not it is, in fact, in the right location." He stated that leads to road alignments that don't fit well. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this was designated as an "employment generating center" in the Comprehensive Plan because it is near the airport and along a major highway. He added that anticipated uses of industrial service include uses other than just light industry, such as office uses and supporting commercial uses. Mr. Blue pointed out that the applicant stated that he has no plans to develop the commercial property immediately so the main issue is whether or not the mobile home park is worth the trade-offs. Ms. Huckle again questioned if this was actually affordable housing. Mr. Blue referred back to Mr. Cox's statements, i.e. that affordable housing does not mean low-income housing and "it is affordable to the people who can afford it." He concluded: "We have to decide whether it is worth that to us.,, Ms. Huckle did not think anyone would choose to live under a flight path if they had any alternative. 37 9-1-92 11 Mr. Grimm agreed with Mr. Blue that this would be a type of affordable housing. Mr. Grimm stated that he was unable to project 20 years into the future. However, the issue of affordable housing is an immediate one and this is an opportunity to address that issue. He also felt that this area of Rt. 29 would eventually develop into either commercial or industrial uses. He concluded that he could support the request for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Nitchmann agreed with Mr. Grimm. He felt this was a good use of the land. Regarding the noise issue, he stated that was a matter of individual choice. He felt the road issue was several years away also. He noted that the applicant could develop the property by -right with many more entrances onto Rt. 29 than are proposed with this plan. He felt this was a positive proposal for both the County and the applicant. Ms. Andersen stated that though she did not have any objections to Mr. Wood's plan, she would support staff's recommendation for deferral so that the proposal could be reviewed along with the Towers proposal. Ms. Huckle felt it was the Commission's job to "do long term planning." Mr. Johnson agreed that another major intersection on Rt. 29 was not desirable, but he wondered if having a series of several entries was even Less desirable. He indicated he was inclinced to support the request but wondered if it would not be preferable to "go the R-15 route" rather than LI. He felt R-15 would give more permanency to the residential concept and the tenure of the mobile home park and would eliminate the temptation to "divest the mobile park to change it to an industrial use." Mr. Grimm asked staff if that was a possibility. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the LI option had been staff's proposal "to present another opportunity to at least to try to accomplish more mobile home parks in land that was designated for uses other than residential." He concluded: "It think you should look at that separately; you may not want to address that tonight. I don't think that should be tied directly into Mr. Wood's request." He stated that the land use issue should be dealt with separately. Mr. Cilimberg clarified that the request before the Commission was for "regional service use, residential, high -density use, and to keep the rest in industrial service." 3$ 9-1-92 12 Mr. Cilimberg attempted to clarify the Commission's intent in regards to the two different plans (Attachments 3 and 4 to the staff report). He stated: "We would not want to make a specific recommendation regarding the road, itself. I think the road should be held for future consideration. You do want to get some statement in the plan limiting access along the frontage, as Mr. Wood has proposed. We need to know, for the Board, what you feel is the best way to lay the land use out, if you are going to go with regional service, residential and industrial combination." Mr. Nitchmann asked the applicant if either plan was acceptable. Mr. Wood responded: "Yes. I don't care if you make it all R-15, I would like to make it enough to do at least 300 units." (Staff responded affirmatively.) He confirmed that the mobile home park could be placed in either plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the mobile home park would be designated "high density residential" rather than R-15. He clarified that the LI use would,remain. He concluded that the Commission was contemplating, in either case, "retaining industrial service and adding commercial and residential." He asked the Commission to clarify which approach it felt was most appropriate. Mr. Jenkins expressed some confusion about the two plans. He noted that one plan shows R-15 "below the road" and the other shows LI "below the road." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that one plan had less land inside the Airport Impact Area. (He did not identify this plan by name but just pointed to it.) Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the Commission could pass the request on to the Board without recommending one plan over the other, but rather a recommendation to "keep the accesses limited, allowing commercial on the frontage, allowing enough residential area for 300 mobile homes and the rest in industrial service." Mr. Johnson expressed a lack of confidence in this approach because it does not address Mr. Wood's agreement to proffer limited access. Mr. Cilimberg added that Mr. Wood has indicated that he is willing for the Comprehensive Plan language to include a limitation to the "commercial frontage in this area as to the number of entrances to three." Mr. Cilimberg stated that could be put in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benish pointed out that even though the language is in the Comprehensive Plan recommending a limitation on entrances, such a limitation is only enforceable at the time of a rezoning. Ms. Huckle asked what circumstance is different now than when this request.was first previously recommended for denial. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the only new item is .i 17 13 the possibility of a Meadowcreek alignment. Ms. Huckle felt this was another reason for deferral. Mr. Benish stated there had been no substantial changes in the application, nor in the offers by the applicant. The Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Commission should not recommend one of the two plans. He stated he favored the "top" one (Attachment 3). Mr. Johnson wondered if it might be preferable to "leave it open" in the event it is determined that one is more suitable, topographically, than the other. Mr. Benish stated staff did not feel there was a significant topographic difference. Mr. Benish noted that he felt the applicant favored the "top" plan. (Mr. Wood confirmed this was accurate, but stated it was not a strong preference.) Mr. Nitchmann moved that CPA-90-03 to amend the Land Use Plan for the Hollymead area be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented as Attachment 3. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Cilimberg asked if the motion included the road as recommended. He again explained that the main question is whether or not to include a line in the Comprehensive Plan which shows a connection creating a new major intersection that is not controlled and does not have a crossover. He explained that staff feels uncomfortable committing to lines on a map when no impact study has been performed. Mr. Nitchmann asked how the plans for the park could move forward if the location of the road wasn't shown. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the developer could develop an internal access road system as part of their plan. Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Wood to comment. Mr. Wood stated that he did not think the County would build any major road in this area in the next 10 to 15 years. Mr. Nitchmann concluded that the absence of the inclusion of the road would mean that the developer would be responsible forproviding access to the property. He stated his concern was that the development not be held up because of the omission of the road. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "In terms of having a line or not having a line, that would not really impact the development moving forward. 9-1-92 14 Mr. Nitchmann amended his motion to recommend that the location of the connector road between Rt. 606 and Rt. 29 be excluded. Mr. Jenkins agreed to this change in the motion. Ms. Huckle stated she would not support the motion because of the undesirability of living under a flight path and the feeling that this wwas not actually affordable housing. Ms. Andersen stated she would not support the motion because she agreed with staff's recommendation that it be looked at "in the bigger picture." She also noted that the Affordable Housing Committee had made many recommendations and this had been only one small strategy that was recommended. The motion for approval passed (4:3) with Commissioners Andersen, Blue and Huckle casting the dissenting votes. MISCELLANEOUS Resolution of Intent Z Mobile Homes - Mr. Nitchmann moved that a Resolution of Intent be adopted to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow all mobile homes by -right in the rural area and village residential zones provided that such mobile homes shall be located on a permanent foundation and shall not be used for any purpose other than a primary place of residence and that the item be scheduled for public hearing. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Huckle expressed the opinion that other areas' experiences with this situation should be studied further. Mr. Blue noted that the staff report indicated that all experiences have been different. He concluded: "We ought to just vote on what's right, what we think is right." Mr. Grimm agreed. The motion to adopt a resolution of intent passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson recommended that mobile homes be referred to as "manufactured homes" so as to be compatible with the Code. He also suggested that the proposal might be more acceptable to the public if a requirement that the wheels, axles, and towbar be removed be included in the regulations. All 9-1-92 15 Mr. Cilimberg stated that if the Commission agreed with Mr. Johnson's suggestion, it should be included in the action so that it could be advertised. There was a brief discussion as to how this requirement would effect old units (pre-1970). Mr. Cilimberg explained that old units would be grandfathered provided they stayed in their original location, but if they were to be moved, then the regulation could be applied and he questioned whether it would be possible to remove this apparatus without creating structural problems. Mr. Jenkins indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Johnson's suggestion regarding the term "manufactured housing," but he was opposed to getting caught up with "little bits and pieces." Mr. Grimm agreed. No change was made to the motion. NEW BUSINESS Crozet Co-op Buildin - Mr. Jenkins reported that the owners of this building had called him with a proposal to rent the main building for a restaurant. He presented a 1980 site plan on which "they were asked to do diagonal parking and put a bar four feet from the highway so that people could not back into the highway." The bar was never installed because the Co-op had were under the impression they had been relieved of that requirement. Mr. Jenkins described the traffic pattern. Mr. Jenkins asked if the Commission was comfortable with the site remaining as is, i.e. "with straight -in parking and the absence of the bumper," in which case the rental arrangement could proceed. However, if the Commission was not comfortable with the existing conditions, then a site plan, etc. would be prepared. He stated that VDOT is not happy with all traffic exiting onto Rt. 240. Mr. Johnson stated that there is currently no problem with getting in and out of the parking spaces, but there could be a problem if the traffic were all routed to the intersection. Ms. Andersen agreed and stated that she felt that the island (bumper) was not a good idea. Mr. Cilimberg explained that this would be considered a site plan amendment and a staff report would include VDOT's comments regarding the island. Adjacent property owners would be notified. He explained that he could not authorize this type of change administratively, i.e. he would have to bring it before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins stated he was in favor of "leaving it like it is." *1 9-1-92 16 Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Crozet Co-op Site Plan be relieved of the requirement to install the traffic island. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed (6:0:1) with Commissioner Jenkins abstaining. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. 9: 441