HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 04 89 PC MinutesApril 4, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday`,
April 4, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson;
Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; and Mr.
James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:.30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of March 21, 1989 were approved
as amended.
CONSENT AGENDA
Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of eight parcels
totalling approximately 1,185 acres located on the north side of Rt. 674,
the east side of Rt. 673, and also on the east side of Rt. 810, south of Rt.
672. The proposed time period is ten years. The Commission is not required
to take action at this time, other than to receive the applications from
the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-89-13 JoAnn Hamm - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to locate a double wide
mobile home on 3.3 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as
Tax Map 80, Parcel 55C, is located on a private road off of Rt. 250E,
1/10 mile west of the intersection of Rt. 250E and Rt. 744. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The following statement in the staff
report generated considerable discussion:
"Staff does not recommend two conditions of approval typically found
in special use permits for single wide mobile homes. These conditions,
'Mobile home is not to be rented' and 'Special use permit is issued
for use by the applicant only' are not necessary due to the permanent
characteristics of the mobile home (permanent foundation and peaked
roof)."
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Fritz explained staff's reasoning
on this issue. Mr. Fritz explained that restricting the permit to the
applicant only would result in the foundation being left (without the
dwelling) if the applicant should ever sell the property. Regarding the
rental issue, he stated that because the dwelling is basically the same
as conventional housing, staff felt that condition was not necessary.
1?/r
April 4•, 1989
Page 2
Mr. Horne added: "Staff is moving toward the conclusion that if the
mobile home is on a permanent foundation and has.a peaked roof, there
is virtually no difference, under current standards, any material
difference in terms of public purpose where we would allow a :nodular home
to be built on a permanent foundation with a peaked roof by right.... We
would like to come through at a later date and provide those by right in
the Ordinance. I think we may have some other slight modifications as
to conditions we would like to allow them under general regulations.
But, in this case, with a relatively new mobile home built to HUD
standards with a permanent foundation, it's a home just like a modular
home, essentially. We don't feel it is necessary to have some kind of
special condition limiting the property owner's use of a structure with
those characteristics to some temporary use. It's the same as any other
home to us."
In response to Mr. Stark's inquiry, it was determined condition No. 3,
dealing with skirting around the mobile home, was not necessary because
the structure would be placed on a permanent foundation.
Mr. Bowerman stated he had no problems with staff's concept regarding
rental and issuance to the applicant only, but he did question the timing,
i.e. should these applications continueto be treated in a consistent
fashion until such time as the Ordinance has been amended?
Mr. Rittenhouse felt "peranent foundation," as referred to in condition
No. 6, should be defined more clearly. It was determined condition
6 would be amended as follows:
& Mobile home is to be placed on a permanent continuous masonry foundation,
and have a peaked roof.
It was also determined that the word "reasonable" would be deleted from
conditions 4 and 5.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Shirley Covey (owner of the property) addressed the Commission.
She presented photographs of the the proposed dwelling. She explained that
the foundation would be continuous brick veneer over cinderblock.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, she explained that the location
of the dwelling was determined by the drainfield location. (Note: It
was later determined that the unit could not be moved further back
from the road because of interference with rear and side setback
requirements.)
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Marsha Parker, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission.
She expressed the following concerns: (I) Referring to the physical
characteristics of the road, she questioned whether it would be possible
for the dwelling to be delivered without either damage to the road.or
the securing of permission from other property owners for the delivery
truck to traverse private property; (2) Are the soils on the property
suitable for proper drainfields and drainage; and (3) Devaluation of
surrounding properties.
J/r
April 4, 1989
Page 3
Ms. JoAnn Hamm, owner of the property, pointed out that the land had been
owned by her family for many years..
Mr. Neal Means, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission.
He expressed concerns about setback and asked if the unit could be
set back farther from the road.
It was determined the mobile home would be setback 25 feet from the side
yards, 35 feet from the rear boundary and 55 feet from the center line of
the road, and these meet the requirements of the Ordinance.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Fritz stated he did not have
written comments from the Health Department.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Fritz described the condition
of the road and, in addition, Ms. Covey presented photographs of the
road.
Mr. Bowerman asked why staff had chosen to raise the issues of rental
use and permanent foundation at this particular time.
Mr. Horne replied and explained that staff has, within the past year, received
recommendations from two independent bodies (UVA School of Architecture and
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District) regarding actions that could be
taken to enhance the ability of people to construct moderate -priced housing
in Albemarle County. 'Therefore, staff has been thinking of ways that certain
types of mobile homes might be accommodated without putting them through
these unusually stringent reviews. He explained that these two applications
had appeared at a relatively convenient time to "bring this issue out."
Ms. Diehl asked if any future changes in the Ordinance would be retroactive
to already --approved double -wide mobile homes. Mr. Horne replied negatively
and stated: "If they are under existing special permit, that would override
any changes in legislation later." Mr. Bowling confirmed this was correct.
Mr. Michel expressed some concern about how long it might take for the
amendments to be approved.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bowling to comment on the timing question, i.e.
considering these two applications in a different light than what they
have been in the past, before an actual change in the Ordinance has
occurred.
Mr. Bowling responded: "Given what staff has said, I, frankly, would have
a tough time if this gentleman or this lady showed up a month down the road
and said I want to sell my mobile home or I want to rent it --and trying
to enforce the Commission's restriction that they can't rent it."
Mr. Horne .pointed out that this was part of the basis for the anticipated
changes, i.e. "whether we feel we necessarily want to or not, under
certain conditions, absolutely we would agree with Mr. Bowling, if
push came to shove, I don't think we could satisfactorily demonstrate
any material public purpose type of difference between a double -wide meeting
HUD standards on a permanent foundation and a modular that may actually
1/?
April 4, 1989
Page 4
be smaller and narrower that happens. to be built to BOCA standards on a
permanent foundation."
Mr. Bowerman asked: "But you see no.conflict with the interpretation for
... a typical mobile home on a temporary foundation and being able to continue
to apply these conditions to that and not having them apply to a double wide
with a permanent foundation?"
:sir. Horne replied: "Many jurisdictions are doing that; if there's a problem
with it it hasn't been brought out in a lot of .other jurisdictions that have
been doing this exact kind of thing for a number of years."
Mr. Bowerman stated he was having -problems because the same provisions cover
both.
Mr. Horne responded: "Yes, currently they do. We would have to amend actual
Ordinance provisions to call this kind of thing something different. ... We'll
have to come up with a different title and make that a permitted use while
the traditional mobile home on a temporary foundation we'll call something else
and continue it as a special permit."
Ms. Diehl asked: "If we approve these without these conditions tonight,
are we limiting ourselves if in the near future someone comes in with a
plan for 2, 3 or 4 that are intended for sale or rental?" M-r. Bowling
responded: "Each case has to be decided on it's own merits." Ms.
Diehl asked: "So you don't think any precedent would be set by eliminating
those two (conditions)?" Mr. Bowling responded: "No, not as far as the
special use permit is concerned because I think each special use permit
has to be considered on its own individual peculiarities and if there is
a good planning reason for denying a special use permit request in the
future that denial will stand on its own. I don't think this particular
approval or denial will effect that situation in the future."
Mr. Horne pointed out that these applications must also be reviewed by
the Board. He stated: "I think the Board of Supervisors is also clear
in their minds of what their intent is on mobile homes whether it is
this type of mobile home or the traditional single -wide without these
characteristics. And the intent is, in all but the most extreme circumstances,
to approve those with appropriate conditions being that it is one of the
very few ways in this County we can provide affordable housing. .... They
are unanimous in what they think their overall intent is...."
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that this has also been the Commission's intent.
He noted that he had not heard any disagreement among the Commission
regarding the staff's suggested Ordinance change.
The Commission discussed briefly several minor amendments to the suggested
conditions of approval, all of which had beer. discussed earlier in the
meeting.
Referring to Ms. Parker's concern about the adequacy of the road to accommodate
delivery of the mobile home, Mr. Bowerman pointed out that delivery of the
unit was not a matter before the Commission. He stated: "It's at the
applicant's risk as to whether they can locate this on the site."
0
April 4, 1989
Page 5
Mr. Stark moved that SP-89-13 for JoAnne Hamm (Alvey and Shirley Covey) be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for
district in which it is located;
3. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the satis-
faction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local office
of the Virginia Department of Health if applicable under current
regulations; (Note: The phrase "if applicable under current
regulations" was later deleted from this condition.)
4. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be
provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Required
screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it
should die;
5. Mobile home is to be placed on a permanent continuous masonry foundation
and have a peaked roof.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Diehl asked for an explanation of the phrase 'cif applicable under current
regulations" in condition 3. Mr. Horne explained that the language mirrored
the Ordinance language and contemplated that there might be certain conditions
where there would be no reason for Health Department approval (e.g. a pre-existing
facility on the site), or in future years there could be some other provision
to address this issue.
It was agreed this phrase would be deleted and condition No. 3 would read:
• Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the satisfaction
of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia
Department of Health if applicable under current regulations.
Both Mr. Stark and Mr. Michel agreed to this change in the motion.
The previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
In response to the applicant's question about screening requirements, Mr.
Fritz explained this was to be left up to the Zoning Administrator. Mr.
Bowerman pointed out that the Commission had required no additional screening
over and above what the Zoning Administrator would require.
April 4, 1989 Page 6
SP-89-10 David J. Via - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the zoning
Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to replace a single wide
mobile home with a double wide mobile hone on 18.368 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 55, Parcel 41B, is located on Rt. 788
approximately one-half mile northwest of the intersection with Rt. 684 and
Rt. 788. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. This request was similar to SP-89-13
(Hamm). As Mr. Fritz read the staff report he amended the suggested conditions
of approval as the Commission had amended them for SP-89-13.
It was determined the proposed site for the mobile home was the only possible
location.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Dan Bucca, Mr. Via's son-in-law who would be occupying the dwelling,
addressed the Commission. He explained that he was living in the existing
mobile home and was seeking approval for the double -wide so that he will
have the option available. He explained that it was his intent to
subdivide the land but he is having difficulty locating backup septic fields
on each piece of property and if that cannot be accomplished, "it is
unlikely that I will move the double -wide in."
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that whether or not a subdivision of the property
can be accomplished was not pertinent to the issue before the Commission
and if the permit is approved but not followed through there would be
no penalty.
The Chairman invited public comment.
M.r. Nelson. Davis, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission.
He explained problems he has incurred on his property with water and
drainage and questioned whether it would be possible to locate an adequate
drainfield on this property.
Mr. David Via, the owner of the property, addressed the Commission. He
indicated he had had no problems with adequate water supply.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
It was determined the permit for the existing mobile home was a permanent one.
Mr. Bucca explained that the existing drainfield and backup have been
approved but a site has not been approved for that part of the property
on which he wants to locate the double -wide.
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not to restrict the location
of the mobile home to a specific location on the.property. Mr. Horne
explained that if this was of importance to the Commission the permit could
be issued "for this parcel at this acreage only." Mr. Bowerman felt the
site would be determined by the developability of the parcel. Mr. Bowerman
stated he had no problem with the application as presented.
.,OA
April 4, 1989
Page 7
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-89-10 for David J. Via be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
2. Conformance of all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for
district in which it is located;
3. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by local office of
the Virginia Department of Health;
4. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be
provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Required
screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should
die;
5. Mobile home is to be placed on a permanent continuous masonry foundation,
and have a peaked roof.
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Note: Ms. Diehl asked that applicants be encouraged to make a legible
sketch plan showing the location of the mobile home.
SP -89-9 Faith Mission Home - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(35) of
the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for
the expansion of a church facility. Property, described as Tax Map 3, Parcel
1B, is located on the west side of St. Rt. 601 adjacent to the Greene County
line at Mission Home. White Hall Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting deferral to April 25, 1989.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that SP-89-9 be deferred to
April 25, 1-989. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-89-4 Evangelical Lutheran Church - Request in accordance with Section
33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 5.29 acres from RA, Rural Areas to
LI, Light Industrial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 42A and
42C is located on the west side of Rt. 29, approximately 1/2 mile north
of Hollymead Drive. Rivanna Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting deferral to April 25, 1989.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that ZMA-89-4 for Evangelical
Lutheran Church be deferred to April 25, 1989. The motion passed unanimously.
Heather Glen (Forest Lakes) Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 41 lots
from 15.8 acres. These lots will be served by proposed internal roads.
Properties, described as Tax Map 49, Parcels 29 and 29E are located at
April 4, 1989
Page 8
the intersection of Timberwood Boulevard and the proposed Cross Timber Road,
in the Forest Lakes Development. Zoned R-4, Residential, with proffer.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
-Mr. Pullen presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions including the addition of condition No. 2: "Administrative
approval of the final plat."
Mr. Rittenhouse suggested that condition 1(d) be amended so as to reflect
the more descriptive language on page one of the staff report. It was
decided 1(d) would be amended to read as follows:
o Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations; to include installation of a 100 foot long, 12 foot wide right turn
lane with a 100 foot taper on Timberwood Parkway to serve Cross Timbers
Road, and a 100 foot taper lane on Cross Timbers Road to serve Heather
Glen Road.
Because staff was uncertain as to which section of development the lake was tied,
it was decided condition 1(b) would be amended to read as follows:
o Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations to include approval of dam for the proposed lake.
Ms. Etheridge, representing the applicant, explained that the calculations
for the dam had already been approved by the County Engineer and the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that was a part of this application's approval.
Ms. Eitheridge responded: "Either that or E, F S G; i don't know how you
want to do it."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Etheridge offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to a statement in the staff report that "this area is moderately
sloped with areas of critical slopes," Ms. Diehl asked "How much square footage
does each lot have to include of less than 25X slopes?" Mr. Pullen responded:
"Because of the zoning, each parcel only has to have an area typically large
enough to locate the building on." Ms. Diehl asked if this included driveways.
Mr. Pullen stated that the driveway locations are typically approved by the
County Engineer. Mr. Steve Cresswell, Assistant County Engineer, stated that
was not entirely true. He explained: "On subdivisions that you have seen
in the past, like Mill Creek, where there are excessive amounts of 25% slope
we have reviewed that on a case -by -case basis on critical lots. But as a
general rule we don't do every driveway that comes through. This area has
some 25% slopes but 1 don't consider it's an area where they are excessive.
You could add that as a condition if you want us to look at them, but we
didn't see that as a problem with this area." Ms. Diehl stated her concern
was more when this issue would be addressed. Mr. Pullen indicated it is
usually addressed in the preliminary stages if it is expected to be a
problem, but that is not the case here.
April 4, 1989
Page 9
Mr. Michel moved that the Heather Glen (Forest Lakes) Preliminary Plat be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been
met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations to include approval of dam for the proposed lake;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations, to include installation of a 100 foot long 12 foot
wide right turn lane with a 100 foot taper on Timberwood Parkway to
serve Cross Timbers Road and a 100 foot taper lane on Cross Timbers
Road to serve Heather Glen Road.
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer
plans.
2. Administrative approval of final plat.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Carrsbrook/Route 29 North Slope Stud - Mr. Pullen presented the staff report
and led the discussion.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Pullen confirmed the recommended
fencing was intended to be a physical buffer at the top of the slope and was
not meant to replace seeding and landscaping measures that will retard
erosion.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Pullen confirmed that the only
recourse the County currently has is through the development of each proposed
lot. Mr. Horne pointed out that the Commission had advised staff not to
grant final approval for The Garden Patch until this issue had been
resolved. It was also noted that administrative approval of the Auto Mart
was being withheld until this issue was addressed.
Ms. Diehl expressed concern about how to assure that fencing would be
contiguous and uniform since it would be installed at different times by
different developers. Mr. Horne stated staff was aware of this concern
and would make every effort to assure that a design was chosen which was
easily replicated.
Referring to comments from Mr. Gordon Yager, Soil Conservationist, Mr.
Rittenhouse wondered if his recommendation for a retaining wall throughout
should be followed, even in areas with stable slopes. Mr. Cresswell
was asked to comment.
Mr. Cresswell stated the County Engineer's office did not entirely agree
with Mr. Yager's assessment. He explained that there are many ways to
stabilize a slope and, therefore, the applicants should be allowed some
flexibility. He confirmed that performance criteria would be imposed on
the applicant.
It JSO
April 4, 1989 Page 10
Mr. Rittenhouse called attention to a letter from McKee/Carson, representing
the Auto.Mart, in which it was stated that honeysuckle was proposed as a ground -
cover for the unvegetated part of the bank. He noted that this was not one
of the groundcovers listed by the County Engineer's staff. Mr. Pullen
explained that the County Engineer has not issued final approval on either
the Garden Patch or the Auto Mart and one of the groundcovers, consistent
with their recommendations, will be required. Mr. Horne added that staff
views the letter (from McKee/Carson) as evidence that the applicant is willing
to plant an acceptable vegetative cover and staff will specify.what that
cover is to be. He stated the Commission is not being asked to approve that
specific letter.
Mr. Jenkins asked about measure No. 3, "Staff would recommend where the slope
is currently stable, grading on the slope be limited as much as possible,"
which suggests that the slope can be disturbed again. Mr. Pullen responded
that the slope can be further stabilized after grading has taken place with
recommendations by the County Engineer, but staff will recommend that the
grading be limited as much as possible.
Mr. Bowerman stated he would not like to see any additional grading on the
slope at all, with the exception of taking off whatever is necessary at the
toe of the slope for the retaining wall. He stated the only grading he would
favor would be that which might be needed to make the slope more stable.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out if the slopes are already critical, as defined
by the Ordinance, then building on them would be precluded in any case.
'Mr. Pullen explained that the toe of the slope was moderately sloped, but
it then becomes critical. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that staff might need
to address the toe of the slope because the Ordinance would cover the
upper portions of the slope.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the spirit of the Commission's intent was not to
exacerbate the situation "at the expense of the slope to the benefit of
the property owner."
Mr. Pullen asked: "You're saying that if we let them grade on the toe
and they propose sufficient structural measures, then you don't want
them to go any further than that?" Mr. Bowerman responded affirmatively
and added: "Because that would otherwise make the site more buildable,
it would make a higher retaining wall and even though it met sound
engineering practices would not be in the spirit of what we are trying to
accomplish, period."
Mir. Bowerman confirmed he was suggesting a change in measure No. 3 to
reflect no grading "except with enough flexibility* to allow staff
discretion to allow a retaining wall at the toe to make it even more
stable because that would effectively lessen the slope if they put up
a retaining wall without otherwise changing the slope."
The Chairman invited public comment.
19124
April 4, 1989
Page 11
Mr. Jim Darnell, owner of the Garden Patch, addressed the Commission. He
expressed opposition to betig required to construct an 8-foot high fence
behind his property. He asked that the type of screening be left up
to the effected property owners and indicated he would go along with their
wishes. Mr. Pullen pointed out that staff had met with the property
owners and it was determined that a fence was their choice.
The following Carrsbrook property owners, whose yards are bounded by the slope
in question, addressed the Commission: Mr. Lucas, Mr. John Kirk and Mr. John
McGraw. They pointed out that each property was effected differently and
therefore different measures would be necessary to address different problems,
e.g. in some cases the fence would need to be higher than in others, etc.
Mr. Lucas stated he was not in favor of a fence on his property, but he
agreed that he would go along with the majority.
Ms. Martha Hardy, representing the Auto Mart, pointed out that Auto Mart
was willing to work with staff and adjacent property owners to provide
whatever screening is required.
Regarding the fencing, Mr. Cresswell asked that the staff be given latitude
in locating the fencing. Mr.Horne confirmed that though the fence might
be different heights in different locations, the top line would be uniform.
Mr. Bowerman noted that there appeared to be no opposition on the part
of the Commission. He stated he felt that'btaff had enough flexibility
to not only deal with the applicants.of these properties but also with
the adjacent property owners to come up with a commonly acceptable design
which is consistent in some fashion along the length without specifying it."
He added that the specifics are unknown at this point and it if is later
found that the specifics cause problems, the Commission will be informed.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Carrsbrook/Rt. 29 Slope Study be endorsed
as the policy for the development of those parcels of land bordering on
the slope in question.
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Bowerman stressed that the Commission had not issued any "ultimatums --that
it's all flexible."
Mr. Bowerman commended Mr. Pullen for a well -prepared study.
Auto Mart - Request for Administrative Approval - The slope issue having been
addressed, staff requested administrative approval of the final plat for the
Auto Mart.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that staff be granted administrative
approval of the final plat for the Auto Mart. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meet' g adjourned at 9:2 p.m.
John Horne, ecretary
DS
3z7`
ram'
IL