Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 06 1992 PC Minutes10-6-92 1 OCTOBER 6, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 6, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Grimm and Jenkins. The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of September 1, September 15, and September 22 were approved as submitted. Consent Agenda Preview - (Berkmar Lot 6 Final Site Plan) - Nx. Keeler presented brief preview of this item. Mr. Johnson suggested that consideration be given to changing the 6-month limitation to, perhaps, 9 months. Mr. Keeler explained that staff is currently considering changes to the Subdivision Ordinance which will include changes to approval and lapsing time periods. Ms. Huckle asked if there was a "physical barrier between the parking and the detention basin." Mr. Keeler stated he would make the County Engineer aware of Ms. Huckle's question. ZTA-92-08 - To amend RA, Rural Areas and VR, Village Residential zones to allow individual mobile homes by -right. Prior to the staff report, Mr. Johnson explained that currently "manufactured housing that are 19 feet or more in width are allowed in the rural area by -right." Therefore, only those less than 19 feet wide are addressed through the proposed amendment. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report stated the purpose of the proposed amendment as follows: "To increase opportunities for affordable housing; to reduce housing costs associated with governmental review; to remove uncertainty related to special use permit process." The following members of the public commented: Ms. Owey Samuels: She questioned whether mobile homes are critical for low-income housing or if there might be better alternatives at the same price. She asked if there were some way to retain a way for adjoining property owners to voice their opinions. (Mr. Blue pointed out that adjoining 7S 10-6-92 2 property owners have no opportunity to express their opinions if a conventional dwelling is being proposed and he felt it was "unfair" for manufactured homes to be treated differently.) She expressed concern about devaluation of adjoining land. (Mr. Johnson commented: "The economics of the situation are essentially beyond the purview, the authority, and the charter of the Commission. The economics of the situation are an individual perrogative and responsibility ... rather than being a governmental aspect of the operation." Mr. Johnson explained that the need for manufactured homes had been recommended in the Housing Committee Report. He also stated that single -width homes range from $12,000 to $17,000. He stated he was not aware of any "competitive facility." Mr. Blue pointed out that the proposed amendment was "not really changing anything except making it a little easier (by) reducing some government regulations." He noted that currently 97% of special permit applications for mobile homes are approved. He added that the County Attorney had advised that treating those permits to which objections are received differently than those which receive no objections was "probably not constitutional." He also felt that it was a "humiliating" experience for applicants and "served no useful purpose." Mr. Blue felt this "was not a radical change from what Albemarle County has had before." Ms. Huckle noted that outside the growth area ("right around the edges of Charlottesville"), all subdivisions are still zoned Rural and unless a subdivision has restrictive covenants preventing mobile homes, this amendment will allow mobile homes to be placed in these subdivisions. (Mr. Blue pointed out that covenants usually address the number of required square feet of living area and most of those will exceed that of a mobile home.) Mr. Robert Aldred (representing the Key West/Cedar Hills Community Association): He asked if mobile homes could be used as guest cottages as a result of this amendment. Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively. He pointed out, however, that the density of the subdivision must be maintained. Mr. Aldred stated that most of Key West's covenants have expired. He asked if there was any protection for a subdivision in "that situation." (Ms. Andersen responded: "No there isn't. We're hoping that if you have feelings about this subject, that you will voice them.) (Mr. Blue suggested that the homeowners attempt to reinstate the covenants.) (Mr. Johnson noted that economics, to a degree, will be an automatic controlling factor.) Ms. Huckle noted that there are probably many vacant lots in subdivisions. She stated: "It's not improbable that a person who has a vacant lot which is not bringing forth any 10-6-92 3 revenue, might want to put a trailer on it or rent it to someone for a trailer." There was a brief discussion as to whether or not a "Permanent" foundation would be required. Mr. Blue read the proposed language: "Such mobile homes shall be located on a foundation approved pursuant to Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code." Mr. Tim Lindstrom (Piedmont Environmental Council): He asked for an explanation of the reasoning behind the limitation of the provision to VR and RA. (Mr. Cilimberg explained the Ordinance currently allows mobile homes by special permit in individual lots in the RA and VR zones and in other residential zones ... you have mobile home subdivisions and mobile home parks and they are by special use permits, but you don't have them on individual lots in other zoning districts. He concluded: "In this case we were just addressing what was currently by special use permit, based on the last work session of the Planning Commission and changing that to a by -right allowance. We did not get into a discussion, with the Planning Commission, of other residential districts.) Mr. Blue added that he felt there was also a practical reason, i.e. "that there would be very little demand in the R-1 and multi -family (zones)." Mr. Lindstrom interpreted: "I guess the reason for eliminating the distinction, is because it is not a justifiable distinction. The question has to be raised, 'Why is there still a distinction?' ... I guess the question is, if you're honest, with respect to single-family dwellings --What you're saying if you adopt this is that there really isn't a justifiable distinction with respect to mobile homes on a permanent foundation. I was merely trying to find out if some serious thought had been given to this or if it is just the way it came up." Mr. Johnson commented: "I don't think there was any serious thought from that standpoint. I think there was serious thought that led from the Code provisions, that it's applicable only to rural, with the double size and thinking 'Well, if we restrict single size vs. double size, it might be discriminatory. I don't recall any discussions relative to any other areas." (Mr. Bowling commented: "Legally, as we've said before, I think you can make that distinction and I think the Courts have unheld that distinction as a rational one as far as mobile homes are concerned." Mr. Cilimberg also stated the County Attorney had expressed concern about a "special permit process that is kicked in by a letter of complaint." He added: "This was really a response to all of that." Mr. Bowling added: "It was our objection that you had an administrative process where somebody had no conditions put 757' 10-6-92 4 on his property, he could rent it or do what he wanted to, but if a neighbor objected, he had a 'You shall not rent your property' restriction put on it. That did not seem legally supportable." Ms. Huckle asked if requiring Commission review of all special permits would be legally supportable. Mr. Bowling responded: "I think you can do that." Ms. Huckle noted that the City has not allowed mobile homes in the city, except in mobile home parks, for many years. She concluded: "So I guess there's a lot of precedent for not allowing it in the growth areas." Mr. Blue noted that the City has many more options for low rent housing than does the County. Ms. Huckle was in favor of the County addressing the issue of affordable housing in some other way "which might be more to the benefit of all the people in the County." She questioned whether mobile homes were really that "affordable" when taking into consideration the cost of the unit, the land, the well, the septic system, etc. She noted also that mobile homes depreciate rapidly and "maybe when it's all over with they are going to be worse off than they would be if the County or various groups had made it possible for them to have a real house." Ms. Huckle described a "downpayment assistance program" available in the City. She felt emphasis should be placed on this type of program instead of being "stampeded into doing something today which is really not going to be in the best interests of all the people in the County." Public commented continued. Ms. Karen Brazewell expressed support for the downpayment assistance program referred to by Ms. Huckle. She also felt there should be equity in the permit process. (Mr. Keeler asked that the record show that a letter from the League of Women Voters had been distributed to the Commission.) There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that it will no longer be possible to require screening if the proposed amendment is approved. Mr. Keeler noted, however, that screening had been addressed on Commission -approved permits since administratively approved permits did not require screening. Mr. Blue noted that there are no provisions requiring screening between other types of dwellings. 74, 10-6-92 5 Mr. Blue agreed with Ms. Huckle regarding other measures that the County can take to address the issue of affordable housing. However, he felt this is something that can be done immediately "to give some reality to addressing the affordable housing situation." He again stressed that this is not a radical change from what has been taking place since 97% of requests are approved. Rather, the change is in the procedure. He felt this was a chance to give low-income citizens the opportunity to own a home without requiring them to go through a time-consuming, expensive, and sometimes humiliating, experience. He felt concerns about devaluation of property would be "taken care of by economic interests." Ms. Huckle felt that the fact that 97% of applications are approved shows that no one is being "deprived of the opportunity" to own a mobile home. She concluded: "However, if we remove what little regulation we have, we will have one of the weakest mobile home ordinances in the area. ... When we've had something that has worked so well for years, I hate to venture into an unknown area. We may be diluged with mobile homes from other jurisdictions." Mr. Blue felt that land costs in Albemarle County would prevent an influx of mobile homes. Ms. Andersen noted that most all the surrounding counties have limitations on mobile homes. She felt that the proposed amendment was a "deregulation" and it is not possible to predict what will happen and how "people will take advantage of this particular amendment." She concluded that she was not comfortable with the amendment at this time. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the Housing Committee had worked 18 months on its report and one of its recommendations had been "to permit it." Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZTA-92-08, to amend the RA, Rural Areas and VR, Village Residential zones to allow individual mobile homes by -right be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows: 1. Amend 3.0 DEFINITIONS as follows: Mobile Home: A building unit constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as a dwelling; or two (2) or more such units separately towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which is designed for removal to and installation or erection on other sites. This definition shall not include an industrialized building unit which is labelled as meeting 77 10-6-92 the Building Official and Code Administration Code (BOCA) for one- and two-family units. 2. Under 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, repeal 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS and replace with the following: 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS While the Code of Virginia sRecifically Rrovides for the restriction of mobile homes solely to mobile home parks among other regglatory Provisions applicable to mobile to be situated on individual lots in certain zoning districts. To ensure usage of such mobile homes for residential purposes the following regulations shall a 1 : a. Such mobile homes shall be located on a foundation approved Pursuant to Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code: b. Such mobile home shall not be used for any purpose other than a primary place of residence. 3. In the RA zone, repeal 10.2.2.10 and add: 10.2.1.19 Mobile homes on individual lots reference 5.6). 4. In the VR zone, repeal 12.2.2.10 and add: 12.2.1.14 Mobile homes on individual lots reference 5.6). Mr. Blue seconded the motion. Discussion Mr. Johnson stated he strongly supported the change and he felt the economics would be the controlling factor. He did not want to "be involved with discriminating against those who can only afford one size where one twice that size has no limitations on it." However, he had a "technical" objection to the definition. He noted that both the State and Federal government have definitions of "manufactured home". He was opposed to the definition presented in the staff report. He read the following definition from Chapter 4.1 (Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Law) of the Code of Virginia (Sec. 36.85.3): "'Manufactured home' means a structure subject to federal regulation, which is transportable in one or more sections; is eight body feet or more in width and forty body feet or more in length in the traveling mode, or is 320 or more square feet when erected on site; is built on a permanent chassis; is designed to be used as a single-family dwelling, with or without a permanent foundation, when connected to the 7-V 10-6-92 7 required utilities; and includes the plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems contained in the structure." He felt this would prevent future problems with interpretation of the definition. Mr. Blue asked staff to comment on Mr. Johnson's suggestion. Mr. Keeler explained that of the 1,500 existing mobile homes, approximately 900 would not fit the definition read by Mr. Johnson, and would therefore be considered non -conforming. He suggested that the definition could be amended so as to inlcude manufactured homes, but changing solely to the Code definition, "you would be saying that only mobile homes built under Federal regulations that came in '74 or '76 would be permitted in the County." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this would mean that all the non -conforming units could not be moved to another parcel unless they were upgraded to meet the regulations. Mr. Johnson felt this might be advantageous since it would be a way of "progressively eliminating" those structures which could not be upgraded. Mr. Keeler questioned whether the older units could be upgraded to meet the specifications since they were built under an entirely different code. He also pointed out that there is a provision in the Building Code which "allows their continuation and relocation." Mr. Johnson noted that the proposed definition would allow the placement of "anything that can go on two wheels" to be placed in a mobile home park. (Mr. Blue felt Health Department and Building Code requirements would offer some control over this situation.) He felt the Code definition offered a degree of control in mobile home parks where economics may not be a controlling factor. Mr. Blue stated he agreed with Mr. Johnson; however, he said he was willing to support the definition as presented by staff. He felt Mr. Keeler had a good point, i.e. that problems could be created for people who wish to move their mobile homes. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the definition could be amended at any time in the future, with proper advertising, etc. Mr. Blue asked if the item would have to be re -advertised if the definition proposed by Mr. Johnson were to be favored. Staff stated that since the Code definition is more restrictive, readvertisement would be required. No amendment to the previously stated motion was offered. The motion for approval passed (3:2) with Commissioners Blue, Johnson and Nitchmann voting in favor and Commissioners Andersen and Huckle voting against. 79 10-6-92 8 Mr. Johnson asked that the recommended that the Board to reflect that in the Code recorded). record show that he strongly consider changing the definition of Virginia (as previously SUB-92-110 - Timbercreek Preliminary Plat - Rural Preservation Development proposal to create twenty development lots averaging approximately 2.5 acres with two rural preservation tracts (84 and 139 acres) on a 298.2 acre site. 10.2 acres is proposed as open space/common area. The lots are proposed to be served by private roads. This property has previously been platted as the Red Acres/Far Hills subdivision. Property, described as Tax Map 59, Parcels 27B1, 27C, 27D, 27E, 27F, 27G, 27H, 27I, 27J, 27K, 27L, 27M, 27N, 27P, 27Q, and Tax Map 43 parcel 18D (part), is located on the east side of Old Ballard Road (Rt. 677) approximately 1 3/4 miles north of Ivy Road (Rt. 250). Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This property is not located in a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that Lots 11, 12 and 13 (in addition to Lot 10) were also double frontage lots. Mr. Fritz noted, however, that Lots 11, 12 and 13 are restricted to the internal roadway. In response to Mr. Johnson's comments, Mr. Fritz confirmed the terms "easements," "private roads," and "private streets" are interchangable. Mr. Johnson was in favor of "consistency in terminology." Since it is already in existence, Mr. Johnson asked what justification had been given for Far Hill Road being a private road. Mr. Fritz explained that the justification had come under Sec. 18.36(c) which is a "catch-all" for reasons other than environmental ones. Mr. Blue ask if a road could be extended across the rural preservation tract to reach adjacent properties at some future time. He noted that the road already exists. Mr. Fritz explained that an amendment to the plat would be required, but confirmed that it would be possible. Mr. Blue asked the same question about rural preservation tracts in general. Mr. Cilimberg explained that it would depend on the language of the easement. Mr. Johnson asked why VDOT of approval was required [1(d)] if these were to be private roads. Mr. Fritz explained that VDOT approval was required for the entrance onto the state road. Mr. Fritz explained that though the road plans had us 10-6-92 9 been reviewed before, it was being included in the event that there were still outstanding items. He confirmed that a final plat had been put to record on the prior subdivision and road plans had been submitted to VDOT. Mr. Johnson suggested that 1(d) be changed to read: "Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and calculations for entrance to public road." Mr. Blue asked: "If that subdivision plat was put to record and it was designed for VDOT approval and they approved the plans, if the plat has a statement on it that the roads are dedicated to public use, how is that going to effect this now?" Mr. Bowling responded: "He is going to have to vacate it if it's an effective dedication." Mr. Fritz noted that VDOT was aware that the roads were going to be replaced with private roads. The appliocant was represented by Mr. Randall Arendt and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. Regarding the road issue, Mr. Gloeckner explained that the road has not been accepted into the State system and the plat will be vacated and superceded by this subdivision once it has been approved by the County. He did not think Board approval was necessary for the vacation of the plat (in order to vacate the road). He felt "the superposition of the plats will suffice ... the approval of the plat will formally vacate the dedication of the road." Mr. Arendt presented a series of slides showing how the proposal would effect the property vs. a by -right alternative. Mr. Blue asked if the lot owners would have any "deeded right" to use the rural preservation tract. The applicant replied: "It will remain with the applicant." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Commission expressed no concerns about the proposal. Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the Timbercreek Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering drainage plans and calculations. b. Department of Engineering drainage plans and calculations. C. Department of Engineering control permit and runoff control approval of grading and approval of road and issuance of an erosion permit. 10-6-92 10 d. Virginia Department of Transportation of approval of drainage plans and calculations for entrance to public road. e. Staff and Recreation Facilities Authority approval of a rural preservation easement to include language limiting rural preservation tracts to no dwellings. f. Staff approval of road names. g. Staff approval of building site locations for all lots. 2. Administrative approval of the final plat. The motion passed unanimously. WORK SESSION - Historic Preservation Mr. Keeler presented a memo which was concerned primarily with procedure. Three alternatives were suggested: (1) Set the proposed program aside and recommend that the Board of Supervisors immediately appoint a Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, to review and evaluate Citizens' proposal as well as to undertake inventory and other activities; (2) Proceed with the Historic Zoning Ordinance at this time, but in the enactment of it to have a significant lag time between the enactment date and the effective date to allow for increased staffing, for the establishment of a Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, and to allow for the legal orientation and all the mechanics necessary to actually implement a Historic Ordinance, including inventory of sites; and (3) Proceed with the Ordinance, but at this time make the applicability section of the ordinance apply only to landmarks that are on the Virginia Register. Staff favored No. 1. Mr. Keeler explained that staff had restructured the Citizens' for Albemarle draft so that it would fit the format of the County Ordinance. He felt staff's redraft maintained the intent of the original draft. The Commission delayed discussion of the Draft Ordinance until October 20, when a full Commission was anticipated. However, public comment was accepted. Ms. Helen Schweso, Mr. Jared Loewenstein and Mr. Paul Burke, members of Citizens for Albemarle who had served on the Committee which developed the proposed Historic Zoning District Ordinance, briefly addressed the Commission. Ms. Schewso expressed support for staff's revisions to the Committee's draft. rA 10-6-92 11 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. iV:3 was S.3