HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 29 88 PC MinutesNovember 29, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 29, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present .were: Mr. David Bowerman,. Chairman; Mr.
Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark.
Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. John
Pullen, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy
County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Diehl and Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of November 15, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
SP-88-79 Medi lex Group, Incorporated (Revised) - Mediplex petitions the Board
of Supervisors to amend SP-80-60/SP-87-38 to allow.expansion of the
Mountainwood treatment center from 80 to 140 beds. Property, described as
Tax Map 76, Parcel 46F, consisting of 10.2616 acres is located on the east
side of Old Lynchburg Road (Rt. 780) across from Sherwood Manor in the
Scottsville Magisterial District. Deferred from Planning Commission Meeting
of October 19, 1988.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report concluded: "In summary, the
revised plan does not encroach on significant areas of steep slope. Staff
recommends approval of the proposed expansion subject to ... conditions."
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to whether or not the Commission
would see a preliminary plat for this project, Mr. Keeler explained that
staff was recommending administrative approval for the building addition.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that a condition could be added requiring that the
site plan be in general accord with the plan being submitted at this time.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Landess. He stated it was his
understanding that encroachment within the 20-foot buffer had been eliminated.
He explained that this project had involved three factors: (1) The rezoning
of 4 acres of property to allow for additional parking; (2) A special permit
to allow a hospital within a commercial zone; and (3) A site plan. He
explained that the site plan had been revised in order to address the Commission's
previous concerns about building in steep slope areas and retention of the
natural buffer area.
Mr. Kevin Bailey, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He summarized the changes that had been made in the site plan including:
(1) A new location adjacent to the existing main entry; (2) Existing
vegetation along Old Lynchburg will be maintained; (3) Elimination of
encroachment in buffer area.
Mr. Rusty Shaw, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He explained how the location of the new building had been selected and
also how it would be situated and interact with the existing building.
He
November 29, 1988 Page 2
,ir. Shaw confirmed that a waiver was no longer necessary.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Ron Brunk expressed interest in the front view of the facility.
Though the applicants were not able to accommodate this request, they
explained that the new building would be brick and would maintain
the appearance of the existing building.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark noted that.he felt Ms. Diehl's previous concerns about critical
slopes and encroachment in the buffer area had been addressed.
,Ir. Stark moved that SP-88-79 for Mediplex Group, Incorporated (Revised) be
recomended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Building setback of 100 feet from right-of-way of Route 780. Existing trees
in this area are to be maintained to the maximum extent practical;
2. Site plan approval to include provision of access to proposed realignment
of Route 631;
3. Approval of appropriate federal, state, and local agencies;
4. Approval is for a 140-bed residential care facility;
5. Reservation of right-of-way for relocation of Route 780;
6. Site play_ to be in genera]. accord with the plan submitted with the special
permit application.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-88-95 Sara Watson - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to locate a, single wide
mobile home on 9.465 acres, zoned RA, Rural rreas. Property, described as
Tax Map 30, Parcel 15E is located on the southwest side of Rt. 662 approximately
two -tenths of a mile west of its intersection with Rt. 660. white Hall
Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. The staff report explained: "The applicant
has requested that this permit be issued for a period of 6 years in order to
allow for the construction of a home on the site. However, the applicant
feels that it will not be possible to construct a home on the site in the
time period allotted under a temporary mobile home permit."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked for staff to explain the difference between a temporary
permit and a permanent one with a six -year time limit. ,ir. Fritz indicated
the :Hain difference was with requirements for placement of the mobile home.,
i.e. skirting is required for a permanent unit, etc. He added that this
November 29, 1988 Page 3
permit was being treated as a permanent one and the request for the time limit
had been the desire of the applicant.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Watson addressed the Commission. She indicated her plans were uncertain
at this time, i.e. she was uncertain as to whether or not she wanted to commit to
building on this piece of land now, or wait until she had actually lived on the
property for a while before making that decision. She was certain that if
she did decide to build a conventional dwelling, it would be started within
three years, but she could not be certain it would be completed within that
time. She stressed that she had no intention of the mobile home becoming
a permanent dwelling.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the special permit would be issued only to this.applicant
or if it would go with the land. Mr. Bowling responded that (as the conditions
are currently stated) the mobile home would remain with the property. Mr.
Horne added that though generally special permits are not tied to the applicant,
mobile homesmay be the exception where it is desirable to do so. He confirmed
the permit could be tied to the applicant if the Commission chose to do so.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the permit were tied to the applicant would it then be
possible for the applicant to relocate the mobile home to a different parcel.
Mr. Horne stated the permit would be both individual and parcel specific. He
stated it was advertised for a specific parcel, which sets where it is, and
the condition would then tie it to the applicant. Mr. Bowling agreed with
Mr. Horne.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Ute Cobbs, a neighboring property owner., addressed the Commission. She
expressed opposition to the request based on the feeling that it would
devalue property and she also expressed concern that the 6-year period
was too long.
lie=e being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
There was a great deal of confusion on the part of the Commission as to what
the applicant's intentions were and the best way to deal with the request.
Mr. Stark stated he was somewhat reluctant to approve the permit due to the
applicants lack of definitive plans.
Mr. Keeler stated he felt there was some misunderstanding about the character-
istics of a temporary permit. He explained that a temporary permit is issued
for a period of three years and construction on a conventional dwelling must
begin vi,tlmil8 months. Construction must then be completed within three years.
He added that the period can then be administratively extended for two successive
one-year periods by the Zoning Administrator. He concluded: "So you can
get a temporary mobile home permit for a period of five years, but you do
have to perform during that period, begin construction by a specified date
and proceed in good faith." It was determined that "begin construction"
means construction on the actual dwelling.
/20
November 29, 1988 Page 4
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant would have to locate the mobile home
on the property within 18 months of the issuance of this permit or the permit
would be void. He noted that the Zoning Administrator could not extend that
period.
Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant's request was for a permanent permit,
not a temporary one, and if approved by the Board, the applicant would have
18 months to Locate the mobile home on the property or this permit would be
void. He concluded that either way, either through a temporary permit or
a permanent one, the applicant would have to make "some decisions as to what
she wants to do."
The applicant indicated she had.been operating under some misconceptions
about the special permit because she had been told that under a temporary
permit the mobile home would have to be removed after three years, thus
the reason for -applying for a permanent permit, but requesting a 6-year
time limit. She indicated she would have "gone the other route" of applying
for a temporary permit had she realized it had the potential of a 5-year
period.
Mr. Rittenhouse expressed confusion about how a time period could be tied
to a permanent permit. Mr. Horne explained that "permanent is just a title --
you can call it Type d and Type B."
Mr. Bowerman interpreted it was the applicant's intent, if she decided to
occupy the property permanently, she would erect a conventional dwelling,
but that cannot be done initially. He suggested the applicant be issued a
permanent permit for three years, which doesn't require.a "period of
performance," but with the contemplation that the permit is to be for the
construction of a permanent home.. He also suggested that the permit be
limited to the applicant only and then could be reviewed at the end of
the three year period. He added that he felt a condition should be
added requiring the placement of the mobile home as shown on the plat.
'Ir. Bowling pointed out that the applicant would have to agree to this
approach.
Though Mr. Bowerman was under the impression the applicant would have to
come back before the Commission and the Board at the end of the three-
year period, Mr. Keeler felt that was not accurate. Mr. Keeler stated
he thought the applicant could then apply for a temporary .permit. I1r.
Horne added that even if that were to occur, "there is the specific term
of performance in there." He felt the applicant had indicated that if
a conventional dwelling is going to be built, it would be under construction
within three years. (Ms. Watson confirmed this.)
!SFr.. Bowerman asked if a temporary that is appealed must come back before
the Commission and the Board.. M.r. Keeler responded that "temporary permits
are issued administratively," with no notice and no appeal. Ms. Watson
added that it is not possible to apply for a temporary without "plans in
your hands," thus the reason for requesting the permanent permit.
/z'l
November 29, 1988
Page 5
The applicant indicated she had no objection to Mr. Bowerman's suggestion.
There was a brief statement by the applicant about screening requirements.
She suggested that screening requirements could be waived since the
mobile home will not be a permanent fixture on the property.
Mr. Bowerman expressed some concern that subsequent permits could be approved
administratively. He asked if this applicant could be required to come back
to the Commission if a renewal of the permit is sought. Mr. Bowling stated
that would not be possible under the conditions of the current Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman stated "I don't ant to tie the applicant up so badly that she
can't do anything, yet I want rremain protected from what I contemplate
happening actually happening."
Mr. Horne stated: "I think it is .reasonable to assume, however, that if you
issue a permanent mobile home permit for specific period of time, at the
end of three years, if it is necessary at that point to apply for a
temporary permit, that the Zoning Administrator will be aware that you issued
a permanent one for a specific time period... and it is reasonable to assume,
though I can't guarantee it, that the Zoning Administrator will make sure
that construction is taking place on a reasonable basis."
Mr. Horne added that though there were no guarantees here, he felt the three-
year time period was the best solution in terms of making sure, under current
law, that what the Commission wants to take place will take place.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-88-95 for Sara Watson 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. 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;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable
satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval of the local office
of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations;
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.
6. Mobile home permit shall be reviewed three (3) years from the date of
approval.
7. Mobile home shall be removed when a permanent house is built on the property;
8. Mobile home shall not be rented;
/J Z
November 29, 1988 Page 6
9. This permit is issued to applicant only and does not run with the property;
10. Mobile home shall be located as shown on plat presented to Commission
-November 29, 1988.
!1Ir. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
(Wilde Mae Hoover)
SP-88-86 Maurice J. Thomas, Jr. - Request in accordance with section 5.6 of
the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to locate a
single -wide mobile home on 5 acres, accessed off of a private easement, zoned
RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map 102, Parcel 1E, is located
on the west side of Rt. 20 approximately 2.7 miles south of intersection with
St. Rt. 742. Scottsville Magisterial District.
-Mx. Fritz gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Hoover addressed the Commission. She indicated the mobile home would be
occupied by her daughter. She explained how the.site for the mobile home
was chosen.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Gary Sarkozi, an adjacent property ourner, addressed the Commission.
He expressed his opposition to the request. He explained that his property
is being surrounded by property with special permits, the result of which
is that single-family rural living is being wiped out He was also
concerned about the possibility that the mobile home could eventually become
rental property.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Hoover again stressed the need to assist her daughter by providing this
property for the mobile home (already owned by her daughter). She also
pointed out that Mr. Sarkozi's dwelling was a modular unit which she
felt was little different from a mobile home.
Mr. Stark expressed some concern about the the possibility of the mobile homme.
beqX-_,±g a rental unit at some point. 'Mr. Bowerman stated that concern could
be addressed by adding a condition.
-Mr. Rittenhouse expressed some difficulty in understanding the County's approach
to mobile. home permits. He asked: "Are we trying to issue these special use
permits with -the thought that they are not permanent and will be turned into
a permanent (conventional) residence, and if we are not doing that, why did
we struggle so much ten minutes ago?"
Mr. Bowerman explained that a temporary permit contemplates the construction of
a conventional dwelling but a -permanent permit does not. He added: "It has
been my experience that when an applicant states that they do not wish to
apply for a temporary --they want a permanent --but it is their intention to
construct a permanent home there, the Commission has tried to incorporate some
language to that effect, or to make the approval cognizant of that fact and
encourage the eventual construction of that dwelling."
7'!51�
November 29, 1988
Page 7
Mr. Stark stated he considered the need of the.individual of more importance
than whether the request was for a permanent or temporary permit. He added
that he was "luke warm" on this request because the person who would be
occupying the mobile home was not present to present their case..
Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he was having difficulty understanding if the
decisions were really based on the need of the applicant, then why does it
matter what type of roof the unit has, or if it is a single or double wide, etc.
He felt it was difficult to evaluate these applications without a clear
checklist as to what is or is not acceptable.
Mr. Bowerman stated he did not find the application inconsistent with other
similar applications with the exception that the family member who owns
the property does not actually reside on the property. He suggested the
addition of the following two conditions:
r Mobile home shall not be rented.
• Mobile home permit is issue for use by the applicant or applicant's
immediate family only.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-88-86 for Maurice J. Thomas, Jr. 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. 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;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable
satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval of the Virginia
Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; .
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;
6. Mobile home permit is issued for use by the applicant or applicant's
immediate family.
7. Mobile home to be located as shown on attached plat, recorded in Deed
Book 560, page 635;
8. Mobile home shall not be rented.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
xovember 29, 1988
Page 8
Forest Lakes Maintenance Building Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a
2,500 square foot storage and maintenance building on 2.5 acres. 25,400 square
feet of outdoor recreation vehicle storage area is proposed. access is to
be from an existing access road in the Forest Lakes development. Property,
described as Tax Map 32, part of parcel 36, is located south of Rt. 649
just east of Rt. 29. Zoned R-1, Residential. Rivanna Magisterial District.
mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. (Dote: Mr. Pullen noted the following correction in the
suggested conditions of approval: The section cited should have been 32.7.9.8
in conditions 1(c) and 2 (b).)
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Denise Etheridge. Referring to a recent
newspaper article about public objection to the maintenance building, Ms.
Etheridge asked to be allowed to present the developer's "side of the story.
She stated that the site plan would show that the concerns of the neighbors
have already been addressed. She explained hoc the storage compound and
maintenance building would be screened: With a minimum six-foot high chain -link
fence made opaque by weaving slats between the links and additional landscaping
around the fence. She stated a 20-foot natural buffer around the area would
also remain. She stated that where vegetation was insufficient to hide the
fence, white pines would be added (16-20 foot white pines). She stressed that
the applicant would be very happy to comply with any of staff's requests
for landscaping. Ms. Etheridge presented several slides of the site, including
some showing the adjoining church property and its outbuildings. She pointed
out that there was neither screening nor landscaping around the church's
maintenance building. It was determined the building would be "pre-fab",
beige in color.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Sharon Jones addressed the Commission. She explained that she was concerned
not only about the visual appearance of the maintenance building, but also
about the possibility that the recreational vehicles which would be stored
at the compound would be travelling past her home at all hours of the day
and night. She was concerned that the proposed chain -link fence would
have the appearance of a junkyard fence.
Ms. Etheridge explained that the storage compound would be for storage of
recreational vehicles owned by the residents of Forest Lakes. She stated
that the storage building would be for the storage of -maintenance equipment
and would have no service area.
Mr. Frank Kessler, also representing the applicant, stressed that the fence
would not be visable to surrounding properties, and that he would keep
planting trees until that was a certainty. He invited staff to "put that
in writing and then come out and inspect us."
There being no further public comment,.the matter was placed before the
Commission.
4�
November 29, 1988
Page 9
It was determined the storage facility would eventually be maintained by the
Homeowners' Association.
Mr. Stark stated he felt the public concerns had been addressed and moved
that the Forest Lakes Maintenance Building 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. Planning staff approval of landscape plan. The landscape plan
shall meet the requirements of Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval;
b. Planning Staff review and approval of installation of opaque fencing
and vegetation buffer for compliance with Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. Administrative approval of final site plan.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business. the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
DS