HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 11 88 PC MinutesOctober 11, 1988
The Albemarle County rlanuing Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 11, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,.
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel;
and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; and Mr.
Jim Bowlin, Deputy .County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Diehl.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of September 27, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
SP-88-68 Albert & Grace Wyant - 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 property described as Tax Map 41, Parcel 49A1. The
property is located on the south side of Rt. 675, t.7 mile east of its
intersection with Rt. 614. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Mr. Fritz also reported that five letters
of objection had been received from adjacent property owners.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mrs. Wyant addressed the Commission. She indicated the dwelling could be
moved back to -the rear further if necessary. She also stated that the
site for the mobile home sat down in a slope. Mr. Wyant stated it was
220 feet from the center of the road to the edge of the trailer.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons expressed their opposition to the request: Mr. Forbes
Reback, attorney for Mr. Reid Ruben an absentee adjacent property owner;
Ms. Louise Ward; Mr. Jeff Stafford; Mr. Packy Denato; and Mr. Tom Haggerty.
All felt the location of a mobile home in the area would devalue their
property and would be incompatible with the surrounding property. There
was also some concern that allowing a mobile home in this area would be
setting a precedent.
There being no further public comment the matter was.'placed before the
Commission.
Mrs. Wyant confirmed that the dwelling would be a double -wide and would have
a peaked roof and a porch. She also stated that she and her husband had
owned the land since 1964.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-88-68 for Albert & Grace Wyant be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
N
October 11, 1988
Page 2
1. Albemarle County building official approval.
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for
district in which it is located. (deleted later in the meeting)
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to
be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. (deleted later in the meeting)
4. Screening in compliance with Section 32.7.9.8(.a) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Screening shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted
fifteen (15) feet on center. Screening shall be required in locations
necessary to screen the mobile home from the state road, adjacent dwellings
and property line. Screening trees shall be a minimum of four (4) to
five (5) feet in height when planted.
5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be
provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if
it should die.
(A condition No. 6 was added later.)
'Ar. Stark seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Stark stated he was in favor of granting the permit because it was
his feeling that when a person wishes to use his property for a primary residence
the County should not dictate what should be built on the property so long as it
falls within the Ordinance. He felt that with proper screening this dwelling
would not devalue surrounding property. He also pointed out that the Wyants
have owned the property since 1964.
There was a brief discussion about adding a condition which would prevent the
mobile home from becoming rental property. It was decided condition No. 6
would be added as follows: "Mobile home shall not be rented."
vIr. Michel and Mr. Wilkerson asked if the other Commissioners felt there cti*as
any need to relocate the unit so as to prevent its being visible to the
home to the west. Mr. Bowerman stated he was not concerned about that
issue given the fact that the mobile home would have the appearance of a
conventional dwelling. He stated he would prefer to deal with the issue of
the mobile home being as has been stated by the applicant, i.e. double wide
with a peak roof and and a porch. It was determined the unit would be placed
on a permanent foundation, though it would not have a basement.
Mr. ?Michel asked why condition No. i requiring skirting was included if the
mobile home was to be on a permanent foundation. Mr. Fritz explained that
this was standard wording from the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman stated he had no problem with moving the unit back and
screening it more, but he noted that usually screening is required because
sometimes it is found that the appearance might be objectionable. He felt
this would not be the case because this would be a double wide.
/D/
October 11, 1988
Page 3
Mr. Michel stated he agreed but noted that rarely are there so many objections.
Regarding the issue of screening, Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt there was
an "inconsistency in our approach." He explained that this condition that
is imposed for screening appears to be an effort to camouflage, thus
implying that this type of dwelling is less attractive than the conventional
dwelling. He stated: "If we think that it is undesirable enough that it
requires screening, I think we are somehow agreeing with some of the
objections (of the public)."
Mr. Bowerman felt this was a good point but explained: "I think it is an
attempt by the Board of Supervisors to recognize that an owner of a.piece
of property has a right to use it for .housing. I think it is a reflection
of that right vs. the rights of adjacent landowners. I think it's a
balancing."
Mr. Keeler added that to some extent our ordinances do reelect the opinions
of the public. He pointed out that the Commission had only recently endorsed
buffering and screening between various types of dwelling units.
There was a brief discussion about the elevation of the road and the slope
of the property. There was brief discussion about the possibility of
re -locating the mobile home slightly on the site. Mr. Fritz pointed out
that the proposed location is "the spot on the property that has the least
amount of vegetation inside that woodline." It was finally determined that
it was not necessary to relocate the mobile home. It was decided
the original condition No. 2 would be deleted and replaced with a new
condition No. 2 as follows:
• The mobile home is to be located as shown on the attached plat by Warren
F. Wade dated September 29, 1964. The mobile home shall not be located
farther than 60 feet from the rear property line.
It was also determined that original condition No. 3 would be deleted and
replaced with a new condition No. 3 as follows:
• Mobile home is to be on a permanent foundation.
Both Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Stark agreed to these amended conditions of approval
and the previously -made motion for approval remained on the floor.
The chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for approval
of SP-88-68.
The motion passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on October 19, 1988.
Colonnade Center/West Ivy Shops Preliminary Site Plans - These preliminary
plans have been submitted as a joint proposal and should be reviewed as
such. This is a proposal to locate 38,713 square feet of building area.
The proposed uses are retail, restaurant and offices. These site plans
/CPA
October 11 1988 Page 4
propose one joint entrance onto Route 1Du west, with an additional entrance
onto Colonnade Drive. These properties are located on the south side of
Route 250 West, in front of University Heights apartments, approximately
500 feet west of the intersection of Route 250 West and Old Ivy Road.
Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C1, 38 and 39. Zoned EC, Highway Commercial. Jack
Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions including the addition of (i): "Staff approval of lighting study for
the Colonnade Center site."
Mr. Bowerman noted that the BZA had granted this application a number of
variances -including the rear setback for parking. Mr. Pullen confirmed
staff felt this had been completely taken care of by the granting of the
15-foot landscape easement. He also confirmed that a variance had
been granted from the setback for the scenic highway designation (from 150
feet to 75 feet for the building).
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, fir. Pullen posted the landscape
diagram and explained the landscape plans.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mir. Roger O'Dell who offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson noted that most of the issues.had been resolved and moved that
the Colonnade Center/West Ivy Shops Preliminary Site Plans be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site development plan will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall design;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the design of
right-of-way improvements;
f. Department of Engineering approval of parking area specifications,
including parking area grades;
g. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
i. Staff approval of the lighting study for the Colonnade Center site.
2. A building permit will not be issued until the following condition is
met:
a. Virginia Department ofTransportation issuance of a commercial entrance
permit.
/03
October 11, 1988
Page 5
3. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition
is met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
4. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Crozet Elementary School Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 46,863
square feet of building area on 21.4 acres. The proposed use is an
elementary school. The applicant is currently seeking a variance from
required parking spaces. This site proposes one point of access onto Route
810. The property is located on the east side of Route 810, across the
street from the existing Crozet School. Tax Map.36, Parcels 64D and 66.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report, including the following correction:
"The widening of Route 810 in this area for the installation of turning and
transition lanes will require the dedication of additional right-of-way from
the existing and-reeently-aequired and proposed school properties. "
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. David Papenfuse, representing the Albemarle County School Board, addressed
the Commission. He stated there were no problems with any of the suggested
recommendations of approval. He also stated that either of the drop-off
areas would be acceptable. He concluded that the only concern was the coordina-
tion of the improvements to Rt. 810.
Mr. Robert Mojay, architect for the project, was also available to answer
questions.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Forbes Reback, attorney for the owner of the property ro the rear,
addressed the Commission. He asked if the playing fields would be lighted
at night. He also asked if there was going to be at least 50 feet of
right-of-way for his client to be able to get to the rear of his property.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Papenfuse addressed the issue of the playing fields and explained that
there were no plans at this time for lighted playing fields. He noted,
however, that he could not speak for the County Department of Parks and
Recreation. He confirmed that there were no lighted playing fields at
the Meriwether-Lewis School.
Regarding access for the residue acreage, staff confirmed this was a question
for negotiation between the school system and the adjoining landowner.
October 11, 1988 Page 6
Mr. Rittenhouse asked toran explanation of a statement made at the Site Plan
Review Meeting: "The two parking lots on the bus road would not be allowed
if it is State maintained, since traffic.would have to back out intothe bus
road." Mr. Pullen responded: "Initially there were parking spaces in this
area and the Highway Department had stated that they typically will maintain
a loop road for elementary schools, but if the parking area is. designed so
vehicles will be backing into the loop road that they will maintain, they
will not maintain the road.So the parking was redesigned to keep any
vehicles from backing out into the travelway." He confirmed that this was
not an issue for either parking scheme.
There was a brief discussion about improvements to Rt. 810. 21r. Keeler
stated that the project is a top priority in the Six -Year Plan. Mr. Keeler
felt the best way to coordinate the project was to "get the Highway Department
money, roll it in with County money and the County get the contractor to do
the work." Mr. Keeler noted that this project was critical because it was
necessary to obtain minimum sight distance. Mr. Bowerman asked if there
was any action the Commission could take in regard to the funding of the
improvements to Rt. 810. Mr. Keeler replied: "I don't think so; the
money's there." He added that it'sjust a question of the Highway Department
agreeing to let the County do the project.
In response to ?1r. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Keeler explained the process
involved in the issuance of a Commercial Entrance permit. Mr. Keeler explained
that the commercial entrance would have to be in place before the building
could be occupied.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was trying to understand the "resolution of it
on paper and the resolution of it in the field." He asked: "Is it resolved
when they approve the plan for doing it or is it resolved .when it's actually
constructed?" He added: "I want to make sure that they don't get hung up
by getting a building permit to work on the school while the State is going
through theprocess of being willing to issue the commercial permit. If that
could be the case, then I would say perhaps we could move that requirement
to a certificate of occupancy ..rather than to the obtaining of the building
permit. " After further discussion, Mr. Keeler stated Mr. Rittenhouse
was correct and suggested that condition No. 2 be deleted in its entirety
and condition 3(b) should be added as follows:
• Construction of commercial entrance in accordance with VDOT permit.
Regarding the drop-off design, the Commission felt scheme B was preferable
because it provided for a more efficient flow of traffic and was safer.
Mr. Stark moved that the Crozet Elementary School Preliminary Site Plan
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site development plan will not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements;
e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan.
JAC
October 11, 1988 Page 7
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition is met:
a) Final Fire Officer approval;
b) Construction of commercial entrance in accordance with VDOT permit.
3. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Miscellaneous
Mr. Keeler announced that Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official,
had resigned his position in order to accept a position in the Norfolk area.
Consent Agenda - Monitoring Report - Mr. Keeler led a brief discussion
about the effectiveness of the recently implemented Consent Agenda process.
The staff report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the consent agenda has
been demonstrated to be a valuable "streamlining" mechanism for all parties
involved. Staff recommends that the consent agenda be continued on a
permanent basis."
It was determined the Commission was in agreement with staffs assessment
of the process and Mr. Stark moved that the Consent Agenda be adopted
on a permanent basis including annual reviews of the procedure.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There was a brief discussion about the classification of double -wide mobile
homes and the differences between this type dwelling and a conventional one.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if "we are imposing different.requirements on single-
family dwellings as opposed to double -wide mobile homes?" He stated he would
like to see some minimum standards that aren't purely subjective.
Mr. Bowerman suggested Mr. Rittenhouse look at the issue further if he so
desired and decide if he feels the matter should be pursued further by the
Commission.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
' ! rDhw
i
John Horne, ecretary
/06