Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 07 1992 PC Minutes7-7-92 1 JULY 7, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 7, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Plannerp and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of June 23, 1992 were approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg presented a brief summary of actions taken at the July 1, 1992 Board Meeting. SP-92-40 Elvin & Martha Taylor - Petition to locate a single wide mobile home on 5.05 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, Property, described as Tax Map 7, Parcel 56A, is located on a private road on the north side of Rt. 810 about one-half mile east of Boonesville in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. The applicant, Mr. Elvin Taylor, addressed the Commission. He expressed a lack of understanding as to why Mr. Swift, an adjacent property owner, objected to his request given the fact that Mr. Swift also lives in a mobile home. The following persons expressed opposition to the request: Mr. Khusrau Eric Swift and Ms. Radha J. Parker. Mr. Swift felt that single -wide mobile homes are not adequate housing and he objected to the placement of another mobile home in the area. Mr. Swift and Ms. Parker confirmed that they presently hold a permanent mobile home permit for their property (which they occupy) and they also confirmed that they would not be able to see Mr. Taylor's mobile home from their property. Mr. Swift asked, in the event the permit is approved, that the Taylors be required to participate in the maintenance of private road. He also asked that screening on the site be preserved. It was Mr. Swift and Ms. Parker's intent to build a conventional dwelling on their property in the near future. In response to Ms. Huckle's questions, it was determined that the roadway which exists is maintained by Mr. Swift and ,:Zg 7-7-92 2 4 other property owners. Mr. St. John determined that the property owned by Mr. Taylor is not part of the property which was subdivided by Mr. Swift. Mr. St. John concluded that the maintenance agreement mentioned by Mr. Swift had no relation to Mr. Taylor'•s request. Mr. Kevin Cox expressed support for the proposal. He noted that the applicant was only asking for the same freedom to use his land in the same manner as the neighbor who is objecting. Mr. Cox also suggested that the Board try to establish a way to deter the filing of "frivolous complaints." He suggested the following: (1) Charge the complainant a filing fee; or (2) Allow administrative approval of requests if the complainant does not appear at the public hearing. He stressed that frivolous complaints waste a lot of time and cause a great deal of stress and humiliation to the applicants. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Blue moved that SP-92-40 for Elvin & Martha Taylor 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 by 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. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. Discussion: It was confirmed that the Board of Supervisors had decided to remove the rental restriction on mobile home permits. Mr. St. John noted that the complaint procedure is also "under scrutiny" by the Board of Supervisors, i.e. the fact 83 7-7-92 3 that a complaint triggers a much longer and more complicated procedure. In response to Mr. Johnson's question about public access to the property, it was determined that only private access is available. Mr. St. John noted that the question of access is not before the Commission. The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. ZTA-92-03 Henry J. Eiden - Petition to amend Section 10.2.2 to permit rural retreat facilities including lodging and recreational activities by special use permit in the Rural Areas. Deferred from the May 19, 1992 Planning Commissing Meeting. Before presentation of the staff report, Mr. Fritz distributed copies of a petition of opposition bearing 28 signatures. [NOTE: Ms. Andersen expressed concern about the lack of addresses and verification of signatures on this petition. Staff had attempted to verify as many signatures as were legible. Mr. Fritz explained that most of the signatures on the last three pages had been checked and they were located near Mr. Eiden's property.] Keeler presented the staff report. Commission discussion centered on the definition which the staff report explained was a composite of 6 proposed definitions (4 by the applicants, 1 by the Zoning Administrator and 1 from the Planning staff). That definition was as follows: "RURAL RETREAT: Land and/or buildings used, whether for profit or not, for personal and organizational seclusion including lodging, boarding and diversionary entertainment/recreation which are involved in: introspections, meditation, focused and creative thought, literary, artistic, or other mentally creative tasks; and, therapies as distinguished from a resort or other use in which exercise, entertainment, and other physical activities are emphasized. Participation shall be voluntary rather than mandated by an institution such as the courts or social services. This definition shall not include resorts, executive offices, motels, hotels, boarding houses, or restaurants." Much of Commission discussion and public comment included both the ZTA proposal AND the special permit request from Ms. Frantzen, which was to follow on the agenda, though the staff report for the special permit had not yet been presented. .:�35 7-7-92 4 Mr. Henry Eiden, tiie applicant, addressed the Commission. He noted that his proposal was different from Ms. Frantzen's in that the "users" are different. His participants will be corporate personnel. He hoped that the opposition had not been a "knee-jerk reaction" and suggested that it might be best to save the opposition until a special permit is actually applied for on his property. He stressed that this was a "text" amendment and he hoped that opposition to a particular proposal would.not cause the text amendment to be defeated. His only objection to staff's proposed language was that requiring that a use be located close to a tourist route. The following members of the public addressed the Commission and expressed support for the proposal; --Ms. Donna Frantzen (applicant for the special permit). She expressed concern about only one aspect of staff's report (for the special permit), that which she understood would require that a special permit would be needed before a private residence could be built on the property. Mr. Keeler explained that the purpose of such a condition would be "not to put more people on the property than it can hold by right." Ms. Frantzen felt that her proposed use would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's goals for rural areas in terms of the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands. She did, however, express a lack of understanding of the actual meaning of "agricultural and forestal land" in relation to Albemarle County. --Mr. Jim McVey felt this type of use could support rural areas by creating greater awareness and appreciation. --Ms. Eleanor May, President of Adventure Bound School, the property involved in Ms. Frantzen's special permit application, felt that rural retreats were similar to parks, which are allowed in the rural areas. She pointed out that this property, like much property in the rural areas is not suitable for any type of agricultural or forestal production. She noted that a rural retreat would generate much less traffic than had the school. --Ms. Mary Jannick, a regular retreat participant, expressed a lack of understanding as to how anyone could object to a small group of persons gathering for a quiet, peaceful time. The following persons expressed opposition to the proposal.- --Mr. James Brooks, a Free Union resident and the person who had circulated the petition. He stressed that the persons who signed the petition lived in different areas of the county and they were opposed to the zoning text amendment and NOT to any particular proposal. He felt the proposal was inconsistent with rural areas objectives. After closing the public hearing, the Chairman invited comment from the County Attorney. , 317 7-7-92 5 Mr. St. John commented: "i think that 95% of this amendment, both the definition, and the supplemental regulations, are absolutely unenforceable and, in my opinion, this kind of language is so ephemeral.... There is no teeth in this thing and you can't put any in it to make sure that the image that is conjured up in your mind while they spoke is actually what you will see." He stated that terms like "for seclusion," "diversionary entertainment," "introspection," "meditation," "focused and creative thought" are "good philosophical language but should not be incorporated into any ordinance." He also stated that the types of groups who would be using the facility had to be left "solely to the proprietor." Mr. St. John indicated that he felt there was no difference in a "resort" and a "rural retreat" because "the only difference is what goes on in the people's minds when they're at these things and you can't monitor that." He stated that only those elements dealing with the physical layout of the property were enforceable. Commission comments and concerns were as follows: --Mr. Johnson questioned the purpose of paragraph (e) requiring that such uses be located "convenient to primary tourist routes." it was staff's feeling that "if tourist uses are going to be introduced into the Ordinance there should be some consistent guidelines as to where they should be located." -- Ms. Andersen questioned the use of the term "tourist." She felt that participants in this type of function would not be typical tourists. --Ms. Huckle questioned the meaning of "mental therapy." --Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the fact that the applicant planned to allow the facility to be used by other groups from time to time. Ms. Frantzen assured her that requests would be screened very carefully and most, though not all, will be religious in nature. --Mr. Blue stated that though he was very reluctant to compromise the RA zone, he was sympathetic with the use of the Adventure Bound property because he did not want to see it go to waste. He wondered if the use proposed by Ms. Frantzen could be accomplished without the zoning text amendment. This question was discussed at length. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the application for the zoning text amendment had been separate from Ms. Frantzen's application. And because Ms. Frantzen had already met with the Zoning Administrator, and it had been the Zoning Administrator's feeling (though it was not an official ruling) that the use, as described by the applicant, did not fit any of the existing ordinance definitions, it was Ms. Frantzen's decision to submit her proposal along with the rural retreat application. She had made no attempt to amend any other existing definitions. Mr. St. John felt it might be possible to "fine tune" the definition of boarding camp so that this ,3VO 7-7-92 6 use would fit. Mr. Keeler recalled that the problem with boarding camp had been related to its seasonal nature. He also stated that all the uses in the rural areas had been considered and had been "discounted for one reason or another," either by the Zoning Administrator or the applicant. --Regarding the issue of compatibility with ag/forestal areas, Mr. Johnson felt these areas were "more than plants and animals." He felt this type of use was completely compatible with the rural environment. He was in favor of following Mr. St. John's suggestion to "fine tune" an existing definition so as to make this use fit. He noted that restrictions can be placed on individual requests on a case -by -case basis via the special permit. --Ms. Huckle felt that a rural retreat was not compatible with the rural areas. She noted that agricultural operations often are not as quiet and peaceful as this type of use requires. She also expressed fear that the amendment, as presented, was very broad and offered little control over these uses. She was in favor of denying the request. --Mr. Grimm felt a rural retreat was compatible with the rural areas, but he agreed with Mr. St. John that the language presented was largely unenforceable. --Ms. Andersen indicated she agreed with Mr. Grimm and was in favor of pursuing the possibility of amending the definition of boarding camp. --Mr. Blue suggested that, in the future, this type of proposal should be reviewed by the County Attorney prior to the public hearing, so as to avoid "public embarassment." Both staff and Mr. St. John explained that the amendment was reviewed by the County Attorney prior to the meeting, as is always the case, but the language presented was largely that of the applicant and staff is not in a position to refuse an applicant his right to present his proposal to the Commission. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that staff's original report had advised that it would be difficult to prevent this use "from turning into other types of uses." The Commission, at that time, had directed staff to develop a more descriptive definition. Mr. Johnson asked if the zoning text amendment were denied, could the special permit request then be approved, not as a rural retreat, but rather with the understanding that the Commission deemed it to be "compatible" with the definition of boarding camp? Mr. St. John responded that though Mr. Johnson's suggestion was possible, he cautioned against overruling an official determination of the Zoning Administrator. However, it was his understanding that the Zoning Administrator had never been asked to make an "official" ruling on this request. Mr. Blue pointed out that the Zoning Administrator had already offered her opinion that the use did not fit either boarding or day camp. 7-7-92 F6 Mr. Grium attempted to bring the discussion back to just the zoning text amendment. He asked the applicant, Mr. Eiden, to comment on his preference. Mr. Eiden asked that the Commission take action on the request. He did not see the problem with the proposal, since any request for this use will have to pass the scrutiny of a special permit review. The Chairman called for a motion. Ms. Huckle moved that ZTA-92-03, to add Rural Retreat as a use by special permit in the rural areas, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. (She later withdrew her second.) Discussion: Mr. Nitchmann noted that he had participated in rural retreats and he believed this type use would be compatible with the rural areas. He wondered why the proposal had been brought to the Commission in this fashion. He stated: "1 think it is the right of the Planning Staff --they should have gone back to the applicant and told the applicant that our legal staff has advised us that this information is not enforceable and we're going to present that to the Planning commission as such. He suggested that the proposal be amended so as to include only a brief definition of Rural Retreat as follows: "Land and/or buildings used, whether for profit or not, for personal and organizational seclusion including lodging, boarding and diversionary entertainment and recreation." Mr. Keeler called the Commission's attention to the original staff report which contained the following proposed definition: "Land and/or buildings used, whether for profit or not, for personal and organizational seclusion and solitude involving lodging, board and entertainment including recreational activites." He pointed out that staff had at that time advised the Commission, in the presence of the applicants and the Deputy County Attorney, that the type of language presented in this susequent report was "not workable" but, nevertheless, the staff had been directed to re -write the proposal. Mr. Nitchmann recalled that there were members of the commission who would have voted against the original definition so it was sent back to staff to try to put "more teeth" into it. `31{U 7-7-92 8 Isis. Andersen also recalled that the legal staff present at the original hearing had not advised the Commission that a more elaborate definition would be unenforceable. Ms. Huckle interpreted that passage of the briefer definition could mean that the use could include "any kind of a resort, or inn, or restaurant." Mr. St. John agreed that was true, but felt that this use could be called a resort. He again stated that to distinguish between the two would require trying to define "mental activity that people are engaged in" which is impossible to do. Ms. Huckle felt that in the past Boards of Supervisors have not wanted such uses in the rural areas. Mr. Nitchmann responded: "Then why don't we let the Board make that decision again. That was 10 years ago." Mr. Johnson asked if the Commission was limited to taking action on only that language which was presented in the staff report. Mr. Cilimberg replied negatively and explained that the Commission could recommend approval of the original definition if it so desired. Mr. St. John explained: "When you have a Zoning Text Amendment, and it's advertised and you hold a public hearing, the very purpose of the public hearing is, perhaps, to entice you to either pass it or deny it, but in there is also the latitude to change it in response to the public hearing, and if it addresses the same subject matter and it doesn't involve a rezoning to a more intensive use than that which was advertised, then you can go on and do it without any more advertising." In conclusion, Mr. St. John confirmed that the Commission could act on ZTA-92-03 with different language than presented in the staff report. Ms. Huckle's motion for denial died because Ms. Andersen withdrew her second. Mr. Nitchmann then moved that ZTA-92-03 (Henry J. Eiden), to permit rural retreat facilities by special use permit in the Rural Areas, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows: 1. Amend Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS to include "Rural Retreat" as follows: Land and/or buildings used, whether for profit or not, for personal and organizational seclusion including lodging, boarding and diversionary entertainment and recreation. 2. Amend Section 10.2.2 to add by special permit "Rural Retreat." (It was clarified that the motion did not include any amendment to Supplementary Regulations.) -�!,d�-z 7-7-92 9 Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Blue attempted to clarify the intent of the motion further: "You feel that anything that is deemed objectionable by people can be addressed in the special permitting process. By this we are not saying that we are opening up the rural areas to all sorts of things." Mr. Nitchmann responded: "That's my intention." Mr. St. John felt the motion was "reasonable." Discussion: Ms. Eleanor Santic, a member of the public, objected to the changing of the wording. She indicated this would have had an effect on public comment, because her organization (Citizens for Albemarle) had objected to the "broad" definition when it was first proposed. (Mr. Cilimberg noted that Ms. Santic's comments, at the first public hearing, are a matter of record and will be forwarded to the Board "in terms of the opposition to the original definition." The motion for approval of ZTA-92-03, as stated above, passed (5:2) with Commissioners Huckle and Jenkins casting the dissenting votes. SP-92-23 Donna Frantzen (applicant). Adventure Bounder Inc (owner) - Petition to permit a rural retreat (10.2.2.44 (proposed by ZTA-92-03 Henry Eiden)] on 33 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 6, Parcels 24 and 25B, is located in the southern corner of the intersection of Rt. 810 and Rt. 687 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). (See ZTA-92-03 Henry J. Eiden). Deferred from the May 19, 1992 Commission Meeting. Mr. Fritz presented a brief staff report. The report concluded: "Due to the existing nature of development the site has a limited number of reasonable uses. Staff opinion is that providing a reasonable use of the land outweighs negative factors and staff supports this petition primarily on this basis. Staff's recommendation for approval is based on the existing nature of development." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. NOTE: Based on the action taken by the Commission on the previous item (ZTA-92-03) Mr. Fritz recommended that condition No. 1 be deleted and that the last three words ("as described hereinabove") be deleted from No. 2. Mr. Fritz explained how condition No. 3 had been arrived at. ["The maximum member of retreat participants at any given AJ44 7-7-92 10 time shall not exceed 28.11] He explained: "It had to do with calculating the level of activity the applicant was proposing and relating that to the existing level of activity that Adventure Bound has." [Mr. Fritz later explained that Adventure Bound currently has a day -time population of approximately 34 persons. The 28 figure is derived from subtracting the two dwelling units (6 persons) from the existing level of activity.] Mr. Blue asked how this would effect the applicant's ability to sell part of the property (as she had mentioned earlier). Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant had the right to "sell off one of the dwelling units onto a separate parcel." In response to Mr. Johnson's comment, Mr. Fritz confirmed that the entire parcel was subject to this special permit. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "If she was dividing off one of the (existing) two dwelling units, she could do that and it would still fall under the permit but it would be allowable under the permit. It would only be to divide a piece of the parcel.to create a new building site (that would require an amendment to the special permit). This is attempting to essentially make this equivalent to it being used under its allowable development rights and it is just specifying that in the special use permit because you have some non-residential activities occurring." In response to Ms. Huckle's question, it was confirmed that the permit would be attached to the property (not to the applicant) . The applicant, Ms. Frantzen, addressed the Commission. She explained: "The idea of the lot was to allow a private residence for myself that was not part of the retreat facility. I want at some point to be able to build a home for myself.... It is not to increase the usage of the property.in any way." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the commission. It was clarified that the 28 figure applied to retreat guests and the two dwelling .units. No limitation of employees is proposed. Mr. Johnson, for clarification, reiterated: "We have defined the size of the land, the number of people who can be there, and the number of buildings. ... Any deviation from that which is not compatible with this will need further approval." Mr. St. John confirmed: "The permit applies to the whole thing." Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-92-23 for Donna Frantzen (applicant), Adventure Bound, Inc (owner) be recommended to 7-7-92 11 the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Food and lodging shall be provided only for retreat participants. This provision shall not be deemed to permit lodging or boarding of guests or transients not participating in a retreat program. 2. The maximum number of retreat participants at any given time shall not exceed 28. 3. No new construction. Modifications to existing buildings and structures shall be undertaken in such manner so as to easily and inexpensively convert such buildings and structures to dwelling unit types (i.e. - single family detached, duplex, etc.) or other structures typically expected to accompany by -right uses (e.g. barns) as may be permitted by right in the specific zoning district. 4. Use shall not commence until approval for such use has been obtained from the Albemarle County Fire Official. The Fire Official shall thereafter inspect the premises at his discretion. 5. Use shall not commence until approval of permit has been obtained from the Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation of the Virginia Department of Health. 6. Not more than nine (9) rooms shall be available for overnight guests. 7. Not more than two dwelling units shall be permitted. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins called attention to the problems which had occurred with the Adventure Bound School. He wondered if any steps could be taken to "protect the neighbors from this becoming an unneighborly facility." Mr. St. John responded: "I don't know that there's anything that you can do (to prevent that)." Mr. Grimm pointed out that the special permit process and the definition of rural retreat should offer some control.. Though Ms. Huckle supported this applicant's proposal, she expressed concerns about other groups using the facility who might not be as responsible as Ms. Frantzen or what might happen if the facility were to be sold. Mr. Keeler commented that he did not think it would be appropriate to attach this permit to the applicant only because a large part of the staff's reason for recommending 7-7-92 12 approval was to allow reasonable use of the existing buildings. Mr. Cilimberg added that the County Attorney has advised staff that only under very limited circumstances (e.g. home occupations) should permits be restricted to the applicant only. Mr. St. John added: "The fundamental rule is that land use decisions are made on the basis of the use of the land and not who owns the land, and not the personality of the individual who is using the land." He pointed out it would be impossible to secure financing on property which had a special permit attached to a particular person. He concluded: "In order to recommend this special use, you got to find that this location is a suitable place for a rural retreat as defined --not that this lady is a suitable person to run a retreat --but that this land is a suitable place for such an activity to be run." He added that the Common Law, related to nuisance, and the Criminal Law, not land use law, are the only remedies available to ensure that a situation as existed with Adventure Bound School does not happen again. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that any future owner would have to get approval for any use which did not conform to this special permit. Any public concerns could then be addressed at the public hearing for the permit. Mr. Johnson added that a subsequent use would have to meet the definition of rural retreat. The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. In the interests of representing the Commission's action accurately to the Board, Mr. Cilimberg made the following summary statement: "You were originally given a very general definition for rural retreat, with no supplementary regulations, simply adding it as a definition and in the special permit uses of the RA district, which you were uncomfortable with based on the comments made that night. You asked us to go back, with the applicant, and try to become more specific. When we came back, what was specific was too specific and really uneforceable at the advice of the County Attorney and for all practical purposes --which you didn't know initially. Your action, then, was simply to go back to where you were originally and you felt comfortable enough to pass the ZTA and the conditions in the special use permit reflect what would have been supplementary reps to a great extent, but you will consider those on a case -by -ease basis." The Commission expressed no opposition to Mr. Cilimberg's statement. SP-92-41 and SP-92-42 Bloomfield Inc. - Petition to establish a convent [10.2.2(41)] and a private school [10.2.2(5)] on 63.66 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map 59, Parcel 12 is located on the west 3 aL 7-7-92 13 side of Rt. 677, approximately 0.4 miles south of Rt. 250 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Staff was requesting deferral to July 21, 1992. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen that the.items be deferred to July 21, 1992. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Andersen asked if staff had been able to come up with a list of localities which have enacted mobile home provisions. Staff responded that they were in the process of developing this list. Housing Report Work Sessions - Mr. Johnson suggested that a representative from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Council and the University be invited to attend these sessions. He noted that one of the recommendations of the report was it be a "coordinated effort." He also called attention to the recommendation of the report that 250 units of affordable housing be provided each year, which is 32% of the total number of new dwelling units which have been built in the past eight years. He felt this was one of the important aspects of the report. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Committee which had prepared the report had already received input from these entitites. Mr. Cilimberg also noted that there is already a "regional cooperative effort" called the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (staffed by the Planning District) and a county representative is a part of that project. Mr. Johnson was afraid that "we are looking at how to get physical structures without addressing how to improve the quality of life in the County via physical structures." He felt the strategy was aimed more at treating the symptoms than getting at the cause. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. 0 `-' Lt �_ V. Wayne/)Cilimberg, S 31/9