Loading...
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