HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 03 1991 PC MinutesSeptember 3, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, September 3, 1991, Meeting Room 7,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr.
Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen
Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other
officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney_
Absent: Commissioner Grimm.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
August 20, 1991 were approved as amended.
ZMA-91-04 Forest Lakes Associates - Request to rezone
236.212 acres from R-1, Residential, R-6, Residential and
PUD, Planned Unit Development to PUD, Planned Unit
Development. Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcels
26E, 27, 110, borders Powell's Creek on the east, Rt. 643 on
the south, Rt. 29 on the west and Hollymead Subdivision on
the north, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site
is located in the Community of Hollymead and is recommended
for low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre)
and medium density residential (5-10 dwelling units per
acre).
Staff was requesting deferral. The item was unanimously
deferred to September 17, 1991.
ZTA-91-05 - To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
in Section 5.6.2, Conditions of Approval for Mobile Homes in
Individual Lots by the addition thereto of a subsection "f"
reading: "No rental to be made of the mobile home, the same
to be occupied by the owner of the land on which the mobile
home is located, or by a lineal relative or bona fide
agricultural employee of the owner."
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report stated the
purpose of the amendment was "to ensure that mobile homes
approved administratively are subject to conditions of
approval as may be imposed by the Board of Supervisors."
Mr. Johnson asked staff to comment on the discussion which
had taken place at the State level which resulted in the
State Code allowing rental of double -wide mobile homes, but
not single wides, i.e. "what is the logic?" Mr. Cilimberg
did not think there had been any discussion of the rental
vs. owner -occupancy issue at the State level "in the case of
those which would become by -right in rural or agricultural
districts." He explained further: "As to the difference,
/7#
9-3-91 2
where one can be considered one way and one another; is the
essence of land use decision making and what localities are
empowered with and not empowered with. What this locality,
in its rural area district, is empowered to do, is allow
mobile homes not allowed by right under State law by special
use permit, and attach all appropriate conditions... related
to health, safety and welfare." He summarized that the
issue of whether rental or owner occupancy is considered to
be in the public interest is a land use decision.
Mr. Bowling added that the State Code says that "any unit
over 19 feet in width, if it meets the appropriate codes,
must be treated as any stick -built house."
Mr. Johnson asked if compliance with Section 5.6.2 should
also be required of special permits for mobile homes which
are administratively approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Keeler explained that all the conditions of 5.6.2 are
required and the Zoning Administrator decides whether or not
to grant administrative approval based on 5.6.2(e) which is
related to screening and landscaping, i.e. if there is no
public opposition to a special permit request, then the
Zoning Administrator is satisfied.
The following members of the public addressed the
Commission.
Mr. Kevin Cox - He felt the amendment was unnecessary. He
pointed out that the County's subdivision rules and land use
policy, along with the demand for lots, have contributed to
a dramatic increase in the cost of property, making land
unaffordable for many people who must look to single-wides
for housing. He felt the restriction against rental would
be very difficult to enforce. He felt the solution was:
"To allow single wides by -right --change the wording of the
current zoning text amendment so that it reads 'No rental to
be made of the mobile home during the first year following
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. During this
period the mobile home is to be occupied by the owner of the
land on which it is located or by his lineal relative or
bona fide agricultural employee."' He also felt an
additional condition should required that a single -wide be
placed on a permanent foundation.
Mr. Cox's comments had included references to staff's memo
dated September 3, 1991, which addressed general issues
related to mobile homes. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that
the Commission had not yet discussed the memo. Staff was
suggesting that a work session be held to discuss these
/?5
9-3-91
03
matters. Mr. Johnson suggested th
act on the ZTA until after the work
There followed a debate on whether
the ZTA or to defer it until after
Public comment continued.
e Commission should not
session had taken place.
or not to continue with
the work session.
Mr. Greg Davis - He felt the amendment was an "effort to
legislate away poverty." He noted that few people would
choose to live in a mobile home if they had a choice. He
stated: "Just because housing is considered by some to be
undesirable is not, in itself, a reason to legislate it
away . "
Mr. Ed Wayland - He was opposed to the amendment. He
stressed that housing is a serious problem in the community
because there are many persons who cannot afford traditional
housing and to take a step eliminating a certain type of
housing which could accommodate these persons is "a step in
the wrong direction." He felt this was sending the message
to a segment of the population that "We're sorry but there
is no place here for you to live and was a serious misuse of
the power of landuse planning." He stated that proper
landuse planning requires planning for all segments of the
population. He felt this step should not be taken unless
there is an alternative provided. He also pointed out that
the special permit process is "humiliating."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the commission.
Ms. Huckle pointed out that the amendment would not prevent
persons from buying and occupying mobile homes; rather it
would prevent the rental of mobile homes. She indicated she
was in favor of continuing the policy of the Board of
Supervisors, and noted that the restriction against rental
of mobile homes had been in the original Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Johnson felt a "salient feature of the whole subject"
was its relation to low cost housing.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that there has historically been a
policy of restricting mobile homes from rental and felt the
amendment was a clarification of an existing policy. He also
stated that he was not ready to acknowledge that the rental
of mobile homes was a solution to the issue of affordable
housing. He stated that the fact that mobile homes still
require the issuance of a special permit implies that the
public views this type of housing differently. He concluded
he was willing to support the proposed amendment and he did
not think the amendment was "an attempt to deny affordable
housing by manipulating rental or owner occupancy of mobile
homes."
/T4
9-3-91
4
Ms. Andersen was in favor of deferral of the ZTA until after
a work session has been held to discuss all mobile
home -related issues.
Ms. Andersen moved that ZTA-91-05 related to the rental of
mobile homes be deferred to September 24, 1991 and that a
work session be scheduled for September 10, 1991.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Johnson asked staff to consider the question of "is
there any way to satisfy both problems, i.e. acceptability
and availability?"
STA-91-1 Private Roads - The Albemarle County Planning
Commission has adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend
Chapter 18 Subdivision of Land of the Albemarle County Code
to incorporate VDOT mountainous terrain and rolling terrain
standards as design standards for private roads.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The purpose of the
amendments are "to revise private road design standards to
duplicate VDOT standards which in turn are based on
nationally recognized AASHTO standards."
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the only aspect of the
amendments which had not been discussed by the Private Roads
Committee had been the recommendation that if a special
permit is needed to cross a flood plain, then the permit
must be obtained before the subdivision plat can be
approved. He explained that staff feels an administrative
act (subdivision plat approval) should not compromise a
legislative act (special permit).
Mr. Keeler summarized: "For a rural subdivision served by
private roads, there is no change in the standard, up to 5
lots, from the current ordinance--6 lots or more could go to
VDOT mountainous standards. Private roads in growth areas
serving townhouse complexes, commercial and industrial
developments, would be to VDOT rolling terrain standards.
The reason we provide for private roads for townhouses is
that VDOT will not allow parking bays directly off a
travelway. A completely separate parking area with
/?7
9-3-91
5
commercial entrances, etc. is why private roads are ls required. HistoricalZ th
multi -family type developmentwed in the growth areas�forat
In response to
the VDOT table of- Johnson's question
Pavement specifications�foreler explained
classifications.
amendments (Sec.
Keeler also explained thatethefferent
ec. 18.36.e.1) refer
specifications MOT S back to VDOT s Keeler also answered Subdivision Street Requirements).
of
Reeler
of-wa Johnson's qs abounts). Mr.
Y in relation to residentialtsidewalks.
Mr- Johnson recalled there had
(developers) to VDOT's SubdivisionStreetRelic o
adopted. Opposition
Mr. ted. He asked responded negatively staff was ignoringguzreosits when
the concerns negativel that opposition.
are met with y and indicated that some of
this amendment.
Ms. Huckle asked
multi -family who would maintain private roads in
be maintaineddbVelopments. Mr. Keeler ex
units y a homeowner's associationlor, they would
the corporation. for rental
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the
not change the fact that Proposed amendment does
not the rule. He stated private roads are the exception and
Choose to allow private just states that
would now be roads in lieu of "where swe
,
by the Ordinance)_
to a recognized standards roads, they
1 He emphasized that the (established
role of the Commission and Board in allowing private roads
In response to Ms. Huckle's
that the requirement for questions, it was determined
was a subjective determination
gutter (for private roads)
for the Commission to make.
Referring to Table A, footnote "**IF
reasonable it was to Mr. Johnson that the proposed right-of-wayplace the responsibilit asked how
travelway on a surveyor. was adequate oo accommodate certifying
responsibility Staff explained that was the
licensed b Y °f a surveyor, and that is wh
proposed Y the state. Mr. Keeler Y they are
P changes to that Pointed out there were no
part °f the Ordinance for a number of
part of the table and it has been a
continued to question the �� Years.
responsibio feasibility', of Mr. Johnson
y on the surveyor. Placing that
There being no
Placed before theblmc comment, STA-91-1 Private
Commission. Roads was
9-3-91
N.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that STA-91-1 related to Private Roads
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as
presented by staff (See ATTACHMENT A to these minutes).
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA-91-06 - To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
in Section 10.4 to amend building setback regulations in the
Rural Area zone related to private roads.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He explained that
the amendment would compensate for increased right-of-way
requirements related to the Subdivision Text Amendment which
had just been acted upon, i.e. right-of-way requirements
increase from 30 feet to 50 feet, thus the setback
requirements must be adjusted. The staff report pointed out
other advantages of the amendment, i.e. greater flexibility
in house site location; reduced construction costs; reduced
number of variances from setback requirements; less
environmental/aesthetic degradation.
It was determined that this amendment would effect only the
RA zone since it already exists in all other zones. Mr.
Keeler noted: "This would only be internal within
subdivisions --it would allow you to get closer to the road."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Greg Davis expressed concern that decreasing setbacks
would invite greater intensity development.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that ZTA-91-06 related to setback in the
Rural Areas be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval as follows:
Amend Table 10.4 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS:
Yards, minimum:
Front (existing public road) 75 75
Front internal public or
private road) 25 25
Side 25 25
Rear 35 35
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
7g
9-3-91
7
Discussion:
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if staff could envision a situation
where this proposed amendment might make a parcel
developable which otherwise might not be. Mr. Keeler could
not think of any such situation.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SP-91-38_General Machinery Corporation - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use
permit for a home occupation Class B to permit a telephone
business with two employees in an accessory structure
[10.2.2(31)] on 92.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 84, Parcel 39 is located in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 636 and 691 in
the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not
located within a designated growth area (Rural Areas 3).
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions. Mr. Keeler suggested the
following changes to the proposed conditions:
1. Use shall be limited to three persons, whether or
not the same are employees.
3. Except as otherwise provided herein, compliance
with Sec. 5.2.2 of the Zoning ordinance.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Gary Epsonhart. He
explained that the use would not create any additional
traffic and would have no effect on the existing
environment. He confirmed that all three employees
currently reside on the property.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bob Hoffman asked if the permit would be issued to this
applicant only or if it would be attached to the property.
He expressed concerns about possible parking in a dangerous
curve. Mr. Bowling explained that a special permit for a
home occupation is personal to the applicant by it's
definition; however, he stated that the Commission could add
a condition limiting the permit to the applicant if
desired. (A condition was later added to address this
concern.)
Ms. Patty Sutker expressed concerns about parking on the
site because of the dangerous curve and intersection. She
noted that it was her understanding that there could be no
parking area established to serve the business, but there
are cars parked on the site from time to time presently.
Aro
9-3-91
She asked how non-com 8
addressed. Mr, ciZiPerance with the conditions would be
condition No. 2 to g stated it was not the intent of
temporarily prevent a service vehicle from
that the applicant
parking on the property.
vehicle to park
would have the Mr. Bowling pointed out
park on the site occasional) ht to allow a service
explained haw the Zoning Administrator deals witheler
be allowed to Sutker felt even service vehicles should not
was not the a park on the property
applicant's intent to• Mr. Keeler explained it
the use --vehicles would be park an
Parked at the Y vehicles to serve
Ms. Susan Chase a house.
She S expressed the same concerns
and suggest the building. any serv- e vehicles as Ms. Sutker.
park at the house
The applicant explained
that switching box on the site andtmusthe elephone company time (3-4 times a park there from timetoProperty month) to service this box and
Y owner must park on
to tend his cattle. the site each dayalso the
these two situations,He stated he would have ohcontron he l000fs
reason to park in He emphasized this use will have no
erect a sign the front of the builin
erectOccasionally directing any vehiclestru g' He offered to
STOP sign visit the site, p the road's which
gn be erected at the intersectz nalso cofinended that a
696.
Rts. 691 and
There being no further
before the Co public comment, the matter was
Commission. placed
Mr. Rittenhouse summarized the applicant
positions. it was noted that thaand t
control the applicant could not
the propertyparking of the phone company nor the owner of
Mr. Jenkins moved that gp_
Corporation be recommended to BoardeOflSuaeriis r approval subject to the following Supervisors for
g conditions:
1- Use shall be
not the same are employeested to three persons
2• No entrance to the state r whether or
be allowed to serve thiate road or
use, parking area shall
3• Except as otherwise
With Sec. 5.2.2 of the Zoning provided herein compliance
4. Permitg Ordinance.
is limited to applicant only,
Pointed out that the applicant is
Machinery Cor a business__ (Mr. Keeler
he would Corp,which could potential) General
the co provide the Board with the names bofsthe •owreiersuted
corporation.)
f
9-3-91 9
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson called attention to Section 5.2.2.1(d) of the
Ordinance. "Any accessory structure which does not conform
with the setback and yard regulations for main structures in
the district in which it is located shall be not be used for
any home occupation." He felt approval of the request would
constitute a waiver of this regulation "under the almost
unenforceable situation of potentially establishing a safety
problem."
Mr. Bowling commented: "That's what it says but it goes on
to say 'The Commission and Board of Supervisors may vary or
waive any provision of this section (d) appropriate in a
particular case."' He noted that it was staff's position
that "approval of this request in regards to setback would
not be inconsistent with the purpose of this section." He
concluded: "That is ultimately the decision of this
Commission and the Board of Supervisors."
Mr. Rittenhouse stressed that the motion clearly
contemplated that there would be no increase in traffic
caused by this use.
The motion for approval passed (5:1) with Commissioner
Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
SP-91-25 WCYK AM -FM - Petition to locate two satellite
dishes atop the Jefferson Savings Bank [23.2.2(3)] on 1.186
acres zoned CO, Commercial Office. Property, described as
Tax Map 61, Parcel 123A, is located in the northeast corner
of the intersection of Rt. 29 and Rio Road. This site is
located in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. The
site is located within a designated growth area
(Neighborhood II) and is in the EC, Entrance Corridor
Overlay District.
Ms. Huckle excused herself from the meeting due to a
possible conflict of interest.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He reported that the
Architectural Review Board had approved the proposal. Staff
recommended approval subject to conditions, which were
amended by Mr. Keeler.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Kevin Dalton who stated
the applicant was prepared to meet both conditions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
/8a
9-3-91 10
Mr. Andersen moved that SP-91-025 for WCYK AM -FM be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Approval is limited to two, eight -foot diameter
dishes. Dishes to be located as shown on attached sketch
dated August 21, 1991 and initialled W.D.F.
2. Dishes shall be painted same color as building.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Ms. Huckle returned to the meeting.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Rittenhouse appointed Mr. Grimm to serve on the Water
Resources Committee along with Ms. Huckle.
Mr. Johnson commented on the previous week's CIP Work
Session, particularly requests for more floor space. He
felt there was "no obvious coordination or interrelationship
between these and no overall view." He understood there was
an effort underway to "coordinate and review them all." He
concluded: "Pending that, we should be very careful about
putting these in any kind of priority. Necessary would be a
justifiable reason for additional floor space and
identification and evaluation of empty floor space available
in the County and then the consideration as to what would be
the most effective utilization and re -arrangement." He
referred particularly to the Library. Regarding a request
for $700,000 for computer equipment, he noted there had been
no justification presented for that request and, in fact, a
statement had been made to the effect that "we don't know
what type of capacity would be provided." He noted there is
no other type of equipment which describes capacity better
than computer equipment. He felt this lack of justification
and information should be taken into account until this
information has been provided.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:15 p.m.
I8.3