HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 24 1991 PC MinutesSeptember 24, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, September 24, 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; Mr. Phil
Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs
Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Planner; Ms.
Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, and Mr. Jim Bowling,
Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
September 10 and September 3 were approved as submitted.
.KO]����1����[�i`h7:1
SUB-91-019 Vircrinia Farms Lot 6A Preliminary Plat - Proposal
to create a 21 acre parcel with 37.7 acre residue to be
served by a private road. Property, described as Tax Map
81, Parcels 74 and 75, is located at the end of Barn Field
Drive, a private road on the south side of Route 648
approximately one mile east of Route 22. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not
located in a designated growth area.
AND
SUB-91-099 - University Corporate Center Final Plat -
Proposal to create twelve lots.averaging 2.27 acres with
15.1 acres of open space to be served by a private road.
Property, described as Tax Map 76 (M)1, Parcel 2B, is
located on Route 631 (Fifth Street Extended) behind Hardee's
and Exxon and bordered by I-64 to the south. Zoned LI,
Light Industry and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in
the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is located
within a designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell briefly reviewed the requests.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the
Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-91-079 Woodbrook Village North Major Site Plan Amendment_
- Proposal to delete the required construction of a 24 foot
travel aisle on the north side of the Ron Martin building
and revise the Woodbrook Drive site entrance to allow two
inbound lanes and one outbound lane. Property, described as
Tax Map 45C, Section 2, Parcels 1 and 1A, is located at the
ORM
9-23-91
V0
intersection of Rt. 29N and Woodbrook Drive. Zoned HC,
Highway Commercial in the Charlottesville Magisterial
District. This site is located within a designated growth
area.
The applicant was requesting deferral to October 8, 1991.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the item
be deferred to October 8, 1991. The motion passed
unanimously.
ZTA-91-05 To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance -
in Section 5.6.2, Conditions of Approval for Mobile Homes on
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. Cilimberg briefly introduced the item.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Kevin Cox addressed the Commission. He felt the County
would benefit by a requirement that all single wides meet
the HUD Code's Federal Building Standards for Manufactured
Housing. Regarding the ZTA, he felt the issue was "Is the
Zoning Ordinance intended to enable a local governing body
to regulate the socio-economic make-up of its populace?" He
felt prohibiting the rental of single -wide trailers would
effect the socio-economic make-up of the County. He quoted
the following case law (City of Manassas vs. Rosson): "A
Zoning Ordinance must not discriminate arbitrarily either in
terms or application," and "When a landuse permitted to one
owner is restricted to another similarly situated, the
restriction is discriminatory and if not substantially
related to the public health, safety or welfare, denies
equal protection of the laws." He felt owners of double
wide units are "similarly situated" to owners of single wide
units and therefore should be allowed to rent their units
just as double wide owners are allowed to do.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson read a prepared statement, a copy of which is
made a part of this record as Attachment A. He presented a
copy of a North Carolina study on manufactured homes to Mr.
Cilimberg.
ao�4
9-23-91 3
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Board has recently deferred
(to January) two applications to amend special permits to
allow rental of single wides in order to allow time for the
Housing Committee to complete its study and submit a report.
He described two possible actions by the Commission: (1)
Approval of the ZTA as stated would "ensure some consistency
between administrative approvals and the Board's previous
actions," thus it would remove an inconsistency, but it
would not increase the availability of affordable housing by
making these units available as rental units; or (2) Denial
of the ZTA which would be consistent with the Board's action
of deferral because it would allow time for the Housing
Committee to complete its study. He pointed out that the
negative aspect of a denial is that the consistency sought
by the proposed amendment would not occur because there
would be no change in the present situation, at least for a
while. He stated he was in favor of the latter action
(denial) because he felt it was premature to "try to
determine how affordable housing is effected by the
allowance of single -wide mobile homes for rental units." He
wanted to wait for the report of the Housing Committee.
Ms. Huckle stated she supported the amendment for the
following reasons: (1) Allowing rentals will "slow the
impetus for the County to provide real affordable housing";
and (2) Because there is no inspection of rental property,
landlords could rent substandard, unsafe units. She did not
feel rental mobile homes were more affordable than
traditional rental units. Ms. Huckle indicated she had done
some research and discovered there are currently 1,536
trailers in the County which are appraised at a total of
$5,615,825 (average of $3,356/unit for an average of $26 per
unit in real estate taxes). She felt this was a low price
to pay for educating the children which these units will
house.
Mr. Grimm asked how the County could enforce a "no rental"
policy. Ms. Patterson addressed this question ?nd stated
that it was "extremely difficult" to enforce given the fact
that surveillance is required and the County does not have
the means to perform this type of function. She also noted
that she did not have access to documents which would verify
occupants' relationship to owners of the units.
Mr. Wilkerson expressed agreement with Mr. Rittenhouse's
position. However, he felt either a denial or approval
would be "sending a message." He suggested a deferral until
after the Housing Committee's report has been submitted.
Mr. Grimm agreed.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he had no opposition to a deferral.
9-23-91 4
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA-91-05 be indefinitely deferred
to allow time for the Housing Committee to complete its
study and submit a report. Ms. Andersen seconded the
motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he would support the deferral, but he
asked that the Commission request that the Housing Committee
consider the North Carolina study in an attempt to "see what
can be done to these manufactured homes to make them
acceptable and make them serve as low-cost housing." He
stated: "I would not be in favor of a review of the
situation just based on mobile homes as the seven of us view
them today but I think there are some changes in the Code
that could, as I have indicated in my statement (Attachment
A), make these very acceptable in the locations where they
are most apt to be placed and acceptable to the
neighbors —and also acceptable as low-cost housing."
The motion for deferral passed unanimously.
Mr. Johnson left the meeting at this point (7:40) because of
a previous committment.
STA-91-02 - To amend and reenact Section 18-43 Fees, Chapter
18, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of Albemarle.
AND
ZTA-91-08 Fee Schedule - To amend and reenact Section 35.0,
Fees of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and to repeal
language in Section 4.15.4.1, Sign Permits, Fees.
Ms Patterson presented the staff report, including an
explanation of the reasons for the proposed changes and the
process followed in arriving at the proposed fees.
Ms. Huckle suggested that an increase in the Erosion
Control fees be considered because that might allow for more
inspections of erosion control.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Grimm expressed support for the amendment. He felt the
increase in fees was "past due."
<V64
9-23-91 5
Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that STA-91-02 be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as
presented by staff (see ATTACHMENT B). The motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms Andersen, that ZTA-91-08
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as
presented by staff (see ATTACHMENT C). The motion passed
unanimously.
John Graham Waiver Reau - Request for a waiver of Section
18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a separate
entrance to serve a proposed 15 acre parcel on the south
side of Rt. 614 approximately 0.25 miles west of its
intersection with Rt. 678 (Ridge Road). Tax Map 42., Parcels
37H and 37F are zoned RA, Rural Areas and is in the White
Hall Magisterial District. This property is not located
within a designated growth area (R3).
Ms. Sprinkle presented the staff report. The report
concluded: "Staff opinion is that the applicants have not
demonstrated that the existing development, topography or
other physical considerations have precluded their enjoyment
of this property, nor would the waiver alleviate significant
degradation of the environment of the site. Staff
recommendation is for denial of the waiver request."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Andrew Middleditch,
(who also represented the Bergins [sellers] and the
Discrolls [buyers]), and Mr. John Graham. He felt the
applicant's proposal was the "best for the environment of
the site and for the adjacent properties." Regarding
staff's suggestion that the driveway be "taken around the
house and extended to the 15 acres" he noted the following:
(1) This alignment would cross both the existing and the
reserved septic drainfield; (2) This alignment would cross
a swale. Regarding the suggestion "to move the Bergin's
driveway to the proposed driveway" he noted: (1) An active
drainage Swale would have to be crossed; (2) The swale area
is heavily wooded with mature trees which maintain the soil
stability of the slopes and these trees would have to be
removed; and (3) The proposed connection would cause the
disturbance of an additional 300-400 feet of native slope in
the watershed of the Meechum's River. He pointed out: (1)
Both entrances meet the VDOT requirements for sight
distance; and (2) The existing driveway serving the
Bergin's existing residence has been used for 90+ years. He
concluded: "The proposed driveway to serve the 15 acres, as
proposed in our application, has the least impact on the
environment and adjacent properties." He pointed out the
a01
9-23--91 6
mistake made by the real estate department in treating the
parcel as two separate parcels. He noted that a subdivision
of the property was approved in 1984 but because Ms. Bergin
had been out of the country and failed to sign the plat, the
approval expired. The County had not been aware of the fact
that all the conditions of that approval had not been met
until 1991. He emphasized the applicant was just trying to
clear up an unusual situation and "was not trying to gain
anything different than was approved in 1984." He called
the Commission's attention to the minutes of the December
18, 1984 meeting which listed Ms. Bergin's reasons for
requesting the second entrance. Those comments pointed out
that the deeds were recorded separately and a mistake was
made by the divorce attorney.
Mr. John Graham, owner of the back piece of property,
addressed the Commission. He stressed that any attempt to
manipulate the narrow piece of land in question would create
enormous disturbance and destroy many trees. He noted that
the 15 acres had been purchased as an investment and were
never joined in "any official way." He also stated that the
parcels have been viewed as separate parcels (and billed
accordingly) by the Real Estate Department for 20 years.
Mr. Graham stressed also that a driveway as suggested by
staff would be a gross invasion of the Bergin's privacy
because it would result in vehicles coming very close to the
residence and shining lights directly into their living
room. He stated that there was never any intent that the
two parcels would be joined --the 15 acres was purchased as a
separate investment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle asked if it would make a difference if the
parcels were viewed as two separate parcels. Mr. Bowling
responded: "I assume that's why we're here --they're not two
separate parcels." It was determined the parcels had been
joined upon purchase of the 15 acres. Ms. Sprinkle
indicated this was correct, i.e. that the parcels were shown
as one on a recorded plat. She added: "And was just later
transferred by deed referring to that recorded plat,
ignoring the fact that it was to be added to part of another
parcel."
Mr. Graham asked why the parcels are shown as 37H and 37J if
they are, in fact, one piece of property. Mr. Bowling
commented: "I assume what happened --as part of the divorce
process --the lawyer then divvied out the parcels, one to one
person and one to the other --at that point in time the Real
Estate Office picks up the tax transactions from the Clerk's
Office and picked it up as two separate parcels at that
9-23-91 7
time. The mere fact that they were picked up as two separate
parcels by the Real Estate Department doesn't alleviate the
problem that the Planning Department has in carrying out
your Subdivision and Zoning rules and regulations."
Mr. Rittenhouse expressed confusion about the issue. Mr.
Bowling explained that it was staff's position that the
property was one parcel because it was never subdivided
according to the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance --"you never signed off on it; conditions have
never been met."
It was determined the Commission was being asked to grant a
waiver which would allow the applicant to obtain
administrative approval of the plat which would legally
establish the two lots which will be served by the two
roads. Mr. Rittenhouse explained: "The applicant is asking
us to waive a portion of the Subdivision Ordinance which
would then bring it into compliance with that waiver and
then staff could process the application for the subdivision
without there being a conflict with the waiver."
It was determined that if the Commission grants approval of
the request staff will approve the location of the driveway
as requested by the applicant. (Mr. Bowling pointed out
that was what had been approved by the Commission in 1984.)
Ms. Huckle stated she felt there would be significant
degradation to the site regardless of whether staff's
proposal or the applicant's is followed. She did not think
it would be environmentally sensitive "to add to the 900
feet another 400 feet of driveway which will require more
construction and tree cutting."
Mr. Wilkerson asked staff to comment on a statement made by
Jeff Echols of the Highway Department (recorded in the
minutes of the December, 1984 meeting) which stated that
there would be "no problems with having two individual
entrances... that it would be possible to achieve proper
sight distance," vs. a comment in a letter from VDOT of
9-6-91 which stated that the Highway Department supported
only one entrance. Mr. Bowling addressed the question and
explained that the Highway Department letter had gone on to
explain that the if it is the County's position that the
parcel is legally one parcel, then VDOT supports the
Subdivision regulation which allows one entrance.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that it was a question of
"environmental effect of only having one driveway as well
as, for the property owner, the effect on the residence vs.
9-23-91
8
the concern of having an additional entrance on a state
road ... which we do try to avoid in our subdivision
activity... there is a question of environmental effect vs.
public safety."
It was determined the two entrances would meet VDOT
requirements for separation of entrances.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that VDOT's comments were based on the
legality of whether or not this is a single plat and they
had not commented on the merits of the application.
Ms. Andersen stated: "We frequently talk about the intent
of the law. I would venture to say that it was never the
intent of the owners and the intent of the lawyer involved
to have a situation occur as it is occuring today. ... I
think we have to look at the element of people in the law as
well. I agree that we should look at the letter of the law,
but I think we also have to look at the element of how
people enter this. I think that should be a consideration."
Mr. Grimm felt approval of the request could possibly set a
precedent in terms of allowing more than one entrance.
Mr. Bowling commented: "You'd be hard pressed to ever see a
case like this again."
Mr. Jenkins commented: "If there were no houses involved --it
was just two parcels of land --there wouldn't be any question
about the decision. But the fact that one house is in place
and the fact that there is a rather significant swale
between the house and this proposed entrance --I don't like
granting the waiver either because of the fact that we are
now adding another entrance onto this road. But I think the
proper thing to do is to approve this item."
Mr. Jenkins moved that the John Graham Waiver Request be
granted. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
The motion passed, 5:1, with Commissioner Grimm casting the
dissenting vote.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Commission felt there were
extenuating circumstances of this request which made it
unique.
aro
9-23-91
VJ
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. cilimberg advised the commission that rir. Johnson had
asked him to pass on some material from the State
(Guidelines for the Protection of Natural, Historic, Scenic,
and Recreational Values in the Design and Location of Rights
of Way in Transmission Facilities) regarding the placement
of utility corridors (he referenced the Rappahannock
Electric powerline corridor), particularly the location of
these corridors in open fields vs. wooded areas. He felt
this would be of value to both the commission and Staff in
future review of these corridors.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
8:50 p.m.
m