Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 05 89 PC MinutesJanuary 5, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Thursday, January 5, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The first item of business was the election of officers for 1989. Mr. Bowerman called for nominations for the office of Chairman. Mr. Stark nominated Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Michel seconded the nomination. It was determined there were no further nominations. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the nominations be closed. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Chairman called for a vote on the nomination of Mr. Bowerman for the position of Chairman. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Bowerman called for nominations for the office of Vice Chairman. Ms. Diehl nominiated Mr. Rittenhouse.. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. There being no further nominations, Mr. Stark moved that the nominations be closed. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Chairman called for a vote on the nomination of Mr. Rittenhouse for the position of Vice Chairman. The motion passed unanimously. The Chairman called for nominations for the office of Secretary. Mr. Stark nominated Mr. Horne. Mr.. Michel seconded the motion. There being no further nominations, Mr. Stark moved that the nominations be closed. Mr. Wilkerson seconded,the motion which passed unanimously. The Chairman called for a vote on the nomination of Mr. Horne for the posi- tion of Secretary. The motion passed unanimously. The minutes of. December 13, 1988 were approved as submitted. SP-88-103 Lois Beckwith - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2.28 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow one additional development right on 4.13 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcels 51B and 51 part, is located off the west side of Rt. 787, / 919 January 5, 1989 Page 2 approximately 1100 feet south of the intersection with Rt. 682, west of Ivy. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller ?Magisterial District. (:sir. :Michel disqualified himself from hearing this item due to a conflict. of Interests. He left the meeting.) Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The .report concluded: "The proposed development meets the intent of the Family Division exemption provision of the Subdivision Ordinance by maintaining the family estate within the family. There are, however, no provisions within the Zoning Ordinance. To staff's knowledge, this is the first request to allow additional development for use within the family and not for commercial sale or rent. While staff. is sympathetic to the request ... it does not meet the criteria outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this petition. Staff based their recommendation for denial on the following: "(1) It would be difficult to deny other requests with no development rights; (2) Special use permits for additional lots should not be permitted on land that drains to the reservoir; and (3) While the impact of this one additional dwelling is negligible, the precedent is significant." �1r. Bowerman asked if Albemarle County's ordinance for family divisions followed guidelines established by State legislation, or if it was unique to Albemarle County. Mr. Horne responded that it was not unique to Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman asked: "Did we contemplate that where development rights did not exist and the State statutes and our County ordinance allowed. family divisions, that in order to get one a special permit criteria would have to be applied?" 11r. Bowling resonded: "There's State law which sets out the family division rights, but it's under the. Subdivision Ordinance provisions of the State code, and that's the key to keep in mind, that the family division rights go hand -in -hand with the Subdivision Ordinance. .To meet that ordinance you still have to comply with your Zoning Ordinance." Referring to the fact that the building permit had been issued in error, Ms. Diehl asked if this type of error is common. Mr. Horne felt it was relatively uncommon. Mr. Stark asked if the fact that the building permit had been issued in any way committed the County. fir. Bottling responded: "It's possible he could be vested; I don't.know how much construction has occurred." Ms. Patterson added that the applicant has cleared the site but she was unsure as to what else had been done. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. David Hawkes, ms. Beckwith's son -in --law. He gave a personal history of the issue. He felt the technicalities were obscuring the nature of the request. He explained that though he could. build an addition to his house, it was the family's desire that everyone be able to maintain their independence, while at the same time being close enough to provide care for an aging parent. He stated he hoped the County would encourage families taking of each other. 1913 January 5, 1989 Page 3 The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Byrd Leavell, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission and expressed his support for the proposal. He explained there had been a severe lack of consistency in the information which had been provided by County staff who had indicated there would be no problem with the request. He viewed the request as an extension of the existing house. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. There was some discussion as to how the applicant had learned the building permit was in error. Mr. Hawkes was uncertain as to what had actually transpired. Mr. Bowerman asked: "In all cases we have always required that whenever a second dwelling or an outbuilding is built on a property --we always saw that it was subdividable--that there was a division right or there was a mechanism to at some point in the future separate that parcel off if it was necessary to do so, correct?" Ms. Patterson responded that a development right is required before an additional dwelling is allowed, but the Planning office does not usually get involved until it is the .third dwelling on a lot, in which case a site plan is required. Mr. Stark asked what would be necessary to allow the request tobe done by right. Mr. Patterson explained that at least two acres and a development right is needed for each dwelling, and in this case, the additional acreage and development right would have to come from adjacent property. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Ms. Patterson confirmed there was no way to acquire the additional development right at this point, except by the granting of the special use permit. Mr. Jenkins were possible to condition an approval in such a way that the additional cottage could not be sold separately at some future date, i.e. a sale of the property would include both dwellings. Mr. Bowling asked how a.reques.t of a rental cottage (i.e. an addition to a piece of property) would be handled. Mr. Horne. replied: "If it is so constructed to be an independent dwelling unit, it is an independent dwelling unit --it's not an accessory use." Mr. Stark indicated concern about the possibility that the proposed cottage could become rental property at some future date. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there was nothing that would preclude that from happening. He added that additional dwellings are often allowed on an agricultural piece of property for hired help or for family members, by right. Ms. Patterson confirmed this was accurate but stressed that a development right is still required. Mr. Horne stressed the sole issue in this request was that of the development right. He stated: "They don't happen to have the development right to put the second dwelling and that's what you're being asked to grant through the special permit." / 7`f January 5, 1989 Page 4 Both Commissioners Stark and Diehl expressed sympathy for the applicant's request, but felt that granting of the permit would set an .undesirable precedent. .As. Diehl asked if the special circumstance involved in this request, i.e. the issuance of the building permit in error, might preclude this from setting a precedent. Mr..Bowling responded that though this might be a consideration, he felt the vested right analysis was the wrong analysis of this case. He explained: 'Normally when we use that analysis, you have an individual who by right under the Zoning Ordinance has the right to do something and that right is taken away or effected by some change in legislation.... That is not really the situation here. What you have here is a situation where a County official made an error ... and.the Zoning Administrator does not have the right to change the Zoning Ordinance. A County Official, whoever he may be, doesn't have the power to bind the governmental body through his actions if his actions or his statements are contrary to the laws that are on the books." Mr. Bowling stated he would research this issue further before the Board hearing. Both Commissioners Bowerman and Stark, expressed sympathy for the application, but stated they could not supports/because of the precedent issue. Xis. Diehl stated she was uncertain that approval would set a precedent given the issue of the building permit error, but she felt the applicant did have an alternative, i.e. an addition to the existing dwelling. Mr. Jenkins :coved that SP-88-103 for Lois Beckwith be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board January 18, 1989. SP-87-98 JTQIK Properties, Inc. (Albemarle Carriage Museum) - JWK Properties, Inc. petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit to allow for an agricultural museum (Section 10.2.2(43) for the display of horse-drawn vehicles, to be located on 820 acres. Property, known as part of viewmont Farm, is described as Tax Map 112, Parcels 20, 21, 33A, and 37D and Tax Map 113, Parcel 6A, and is located on the east side of Rt. 20 South at Carter's Bridge. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Scottsville Magisterial District. AND SP-87-81 JWK Properties, Inc. (Albemarle Driving Center) - JL+TK Properties, Inc. petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a commercial stable and permanent horse show grounds (Section 10.2.2(12) and 10.2.2(16), on 820 acres. Property, known as part of Viewmont Farm, is described at Tax M-a.p 112, Parcels 20, 21, 33A, and 37D and Tax Map 113, Parcel 6A, and is located on the east side of Rt. 20 South at Carter's Bridge. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Scottsville Magisterial District. M;.Patkemon gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of both petitions, subject to conditions. January 5, 1989 Page 5 Staff suggested the addition of the following condition to both special permits: • This special use permit is for the use described by the applicant in the official application and materials in the public record of the public hearings.. Ms. Patterson also suggested the addition of the following to Condition 6 of SP-87-81: s ...track; the noise level shall not exceed 40 decibels at any property line. Ms. Diehl pointed out a discrepancy in traffic generation figures, i.e. at one point it was stated that this development would generate 2,000 vehicle trips/week and by -right development would generate 2,600 vehicle trips/week, yet throughout the report it was stated that this development would generate more traffic than by -right development. Ms. Patterson was uncertain about the discrepancy, but pointed out that "in combination" the uses would certainly generate more traffic than by -right, and peak events will generate more traffic. Ms. Diehl pointed out that one of the comments was attributable to the Highway Department. Referring to Section 5.1.30(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, which states: "Items for display in such museums must -be directly related to past or present agricultural or forestal uses in Albemarle County," Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was having trouble with the technical application of the ordinance. He indicated he would be somewhat less concerned if the. two special permits had been submitted as one request rather than the permit for the carriage museum being separate. He was concerned about precedent and the future possibility that someone might argue that the carriage museum was not an agricultural museum but was rather a transportation museum. He stated he was not concerned about the project itself, but rather with the application of the Ordinance to this "stand alone" special use permit that separates the carriage museum, in and of itself, away from the activities that relate to the horses. It was pointed out that horses were an important part of agriculture in Albemarle County, but Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the request is for a carriage museum and does not show a connection with horses. Mr. Bowerman recalled that at the time of the request for the zoning text amendment the applicant had been comfortable with the text that was adopted, and "at the time it seemed to some members of the Commission, at least to me, that it was stretching it, because we knew at that time what their use was, but I think it is up to the applicant tonight to demonstrate what the connection is and to satisfy you and any other member of -the Commission that it is applicable." Ms. Patterson explained that because of the number of unusual uses involved, there had -been some confusion about exactly what needed to be applied for, and the two special permits had finally resulted. She suggested that the applicant could be asked if there was any objection to a condition January 5, 1989 Page 6 linking the agricultural museum use in conjunction with the second special permit. Mr. Rittenhouse felt such a link would possibly weaken the precedent case. Mr. Jenkins expressed an interest in how many development rights would be left on this property after this development. Ms. Patterson stated the applicant had not offered to alter the building rights, nor had staff suggested a condition addressing this issue. She added that any subdivision of the property would require careful review to ensure that the nature of this approval is not changed. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. John Williamson was first to speak for the applicant. He pointed out that the term "horse-drawn vehicles" had been used in the request for the. special permit for the museum. He indicated there would be no objection. to combining the two permits if that was desirable, because the functions are certainly viewed as combined functions. Mr. Phillip de Villegas, Director of the proposed museum, addressed the Commission. He explained what was envisioned for the museum. Mr. Horne asked Mr. de Villegas if'he would be comfortable if the two permits were linked with "some sore of direct requirement that the keeping and using of the horses to draw the carriages and to train the drivers and the various active uses of the horses on the property is linked to the operation of the museum?" Mr. de Villegas replied: "1 totally agree that we think that." He confirmed that at any time during the operation of the museum there would be horses on the property and some activity related to the maintenance or training of the horses. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Williamson to comment on the right turn lane issue,. i.e. was the applicant opposed to the requirement for a right turn lane. Mr. Williamson responded: "At this point I do not wish to speak against it. We understand staff's argument and are not opposing it at this time. Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Virginia Department of Transportation, to comment .on the vehicular count and on the ability of Rt. 20 to handle this additional traffic. Mr. Echols responded that by -right development of the property could possibly generate more traffic than the museum on a daily basis, though less than periodic major events. He felt the impact on Rt. 2.0 would not be significant. Regarding the recommendation for aright -turn lane, he stated that VDOT feels it would be of some benefit and "very few enterprises have been built on Rt. 20 South in the last several years -- a few of them have turn lanes --most of them are mainly large farms or residential units." He stated right -turn lanes on Rt. 20 "are few and far apart," but most of the more recent applications have some form of turn lane. In reply to Mr. Michel's question, he stated there were no current plans to upgrade Carter's Bridge. /97 January 5, 1989 Page 7 The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Robert Carter, owner of property to the northwest of the proposal, addressed the Commission. His concern was what might happen to the property in the future in the event that circumstances change. He pointed out that because of the uniqueness of the museum building.it would be difficult to adapt to an alternative use. He stated that the museum would not be self-sustaining and asked if it would be endowed.. He felt that if the building were not going to be maintained "in perpetuity" it could create future problems. Ms. Ann Turner, owner of property on the opposite side of Rt. 20, addressed the Commission. She was not opposed to the proposal but felt that the commercial entrance should be located to the north of the existing farm entrance rather than to the south. Mr. Layne Witherell, representing Montdomaine Winery, addressed the Commission and expressed his support for the proposal. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. There was a brief discussion about waste treatment facilities. Mr. Horne stated he thought this would be tertiary treatment. Referring to the addition of the following condition to both special permits • This special use permit is for the use described by the applicant in the official application and materials in the public record of the public hearings. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff contemplated that this incorporated such things as hours of operation, number of employees, etc. as stated in the staff report and other materials submitted by the applicant. Ms. Patterson replied affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman asked how inconsistencies, such as the traffic generation figures, would be dealt with. He asked: "Is that ambiguous when there is a difference of opinion between what the applicant has stated and what we're looking at?" Mr. Bowerman expressed some uncertainty as to "what we're actually granting" given the addition of the condition stated by staff. Mr. Horne explained: "The intent of our general condition, which we intend to put on all permits, is that the applicant is generally bound by what is described in the public record. If there's anything specific, like hours of operation, if it is crucial to the Commission that it is precisely as described in here, I think it is appropriate that you make that a specific condition. We would anticipate that the staff or our department and the Zoning Department would have some latitude under the generalized condition so that if it goes to 22 employees and that was not a specific condition.., we may very well still consider that still within the general scheme of what was described to you. If it goes to 220 employees all of a sudden we would exercise our discretion and say that that has gone far beyond the scope, generally, of what was applied for.. ;- So if you see something specific in there that you feel is crucial to tie down very tightly, I think it is appropriate that you make that a /91 January 5, 1989 Page.8 specific condition. If you're comfortable with the general scheme as described and this moderate amount of discretion that the staff would then in future years apply in our enforcement of the permit, then you don't need that. I'm a little leaky when you say things like 'traffic generation limits' --I don't think we're in a position to say that if they slightly exceed 100 visitors a day, or even if they go to something like 150 or 200 visitors a day, that is necessarily beyond the scope of what has been described to you today." Mr. Horne stated staff's.condition was "not intended to be a restrictive statement." Mr. Bowerman's concern was related to how the condition would be applied in the event the staff's.interpretation was different than the Board's. Ms. _Diehl pointed out that the specifics could be tied dorm more at.the time of the site plan. Mr. Stark recommended that the Commission review the site plan., i.e. that it not be granted administrative approval. Referring to Mr. Carter's concern about future use of the structure, Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be possible to require that the structure be removed if this use should cease to operate. Mr. Horne felt this would be "1iavnnr1 tha scone of what is appropriate for this particular structure." Mr. Horne felt two points about the use were important: (1) If this use ceases to exist, any other use which occupies the land thereafter must be a permitted use or must obtain special permit approval, or rezoning, or whatever is necessary; and (2) It should be kept in ;Hind that this structure is unique and typically will not be particularly useful for other uses in the RA zone. Mr. Michel asked if there was any way to address the future developmentrights issue. Ms. Patterson stated this had not been discussed with the applicant. Ms. Diehl expressed concern about what might happen if this use continues, but the property changes hands at some future time.. There was considerable discussion about hors to address the issue of remaining development rights. Mr. Jenkins suggested that a condition be added which would require that any future development could be accomplished only by special permit. Mr. Bowerman suggested tying future development to traffic generation allowed by existing development rights. He stated: "I don't know why we couldn't limit it to total of traffic limited to what was there by right to begin with without special approval." He confirmed he meant "traffic generated by other uses, co-mbined with the ones granted by this permit and the total could not exceed that which was generated by right from the parcel." In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Williamson stated he was not aware of any future plans for the property. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Williamson if he would oppose any conditions which would limit the applicant's right to .the development of the property. Mr. Williamson replied: "I'm not sure I could address that." Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant could be prepared to address this issue before the Board of Supervisors. He clarified that some of the Commissioners were concerned about lack of control over additional uses of the property. Mr. Bowerman confirmed that the primary concern was with the possible January 5, 1989 Page 9 residential development of the property. Mr. Bowling confirmed that the Commission did not have a mechanism to deal with restricting future development unless limitations were offered by the applicant voluntarily. Mr. Bowling stated: "You can't take away what he has a right to do as a matter of right unless he voluntarily offers to do that." It was determined that it was the Commission's desire that staff make the Board aware of the concerns regarding future development of the property. Mr. Bowerman stated he could support both applications but he felt they should be linked together because they were originally viewed as one use. He stressed that he shared other Commissioners concerns about the ultimate use of the property. Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman. He also suggested the deletion, on both special permits, of the condition granting administrative approval of the site plan.. Referring to condition No. 4 on SP- 87-81 [Major competitions to be held not more than twice a calendar year], Ms. Diehl asked if there was any way to define "major" competition. Mr. Bowerman felt it was a matter of a 3,000 participant event vs. a 500 participant event. It was determined this was stated in page 2 of the staff report. Ms. Patterson suggested the addition of the following condition to SP-87-98 to link the two permits together: • Agricultural museum shall be operated in conjunction with SP-87-81. Ms. Patterson added: "The timing that links the two of those is the timing in the Zoning Ordinance for issuance of a special permit. You've got 18 months if no construction is involved and 2 years to begin the use if construction is involved. So, both must be in operation within two years because construction is involved on both the way I see it." Mr. Rittenhouse asked if staff's suggested condition would require the applicant to continue operation of the driving school in order to continue operation of the museum, and if so, is that acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Horne replied: "In my mind it would require that they continue operation of the driving school or a similar use that would fit the definition of commercial stable/horseshow grounds which is what we're approving it under. So, if it is not a driving school, there need to be activities similar to a commercial stable/horseshow grounds that are related to the agricultural museum and it may not be exactly a driving school at that point. " Mr. Williamson stated he believed this was acceptable to the applicant. He did express some confusion about the time limit on the construction He asked for clarification. Ms. Patterson quoted from Section 31.2.4.4 of the Ordinance: "For the purposes of this section the term 'commence' shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within two years from the date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within January 5, 1989. Page 10 one year." It was interpreted this allowed a total of three years for construction. Mr. Williamson indicated this was acceptable assuming that it was "two plus one and not just one from the date of commencement." Ms. Patterson indicated she interpreted it was "two plus one." It was also noted that if problems should arise it was possible for the applicant to request extensions. Mr. Michel moved that SP-87-89 for JWK Properties, Inc. (Albemarle Carriage Museum) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance with right and left turn lanes. 2. Appropriate local and state agency approval of the provision of sewage disposal and water supply. 3. :Museum gift shop is permitted for the.sale of material related to museum artifacts; sales area shall not exceed 10% of the total museum building area. 4. Landscape screening shall be provided from Rt. 20 in accordance with Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. This special use permit is for the use described by the applicant in the official application and materials in the public record of the public hearings. 6. The Agricultural Museum shall be operated in conjunction with SP-87-81. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Michel moved that SP-87-81 for.JWK Properties, Inc. (Albemarle Driving Center) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for.approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of co=ercial entrance with right and left turn lanes. 2. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies. 3. Major competitions to be held not more than twice a calendar year. 4. Ninety (90) days prior to each major event, the applicant.shall.notify the following: a. The Health Department for approval of the provision of restroom facilities; b. The Fire Department and Rescue Squad; and c. The Police Department for traffic control, as deemed necessary by the Chief of Police. AO/ January 5, 1989 Page 11 5. No billboards, grandstands, or lighting on the track; the noise level shall not exceed 40 decibels at any property line. 6. No more than one (1) additional entrance other than the main entrance may be permitted, its location shall be subject to staff approval. 7. This special use permit is for the use described by the applicant in the official application and materials in the public record of the public hearings. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Commission asked staff to advise the Board that it may wish to address the issue of possible future residential development of the property and whether voluntary limitations by the applicant might be appropriate. In response to Mr. Bowling's question, Mr. Horne confirmed that all the property was submitted in the special permit request. Mr. Bowling interpreted this meant it was all subject to site plan review and if any change was anticipated it would have to be approved unless the special permit were abandoned, in which case the applicant would still be entitled to by --right development of the property. Mr. Bowling explained that with the approval of a special permit a "hybrid" is, in effect, created which alters what an applicant can do by -right. Based on these comments by Mr. Bowling, there was some feeling on the part of the Commission that conditions could be added to the special permits requiring Commission review of any further development. However, it was finally decided this could possibly addressed as a note on the site plan. Mr. Horne stated staff would discuss this issue with Mr. Bowling further before the Board review so that it would be clearer. SP-88-99 Steven Sullivan (Clifford Land Trust) - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2.22) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for a Country Store on 2.71 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, -described as Tax Map 41, Parcel 29, is located on the south side of Rt. 614 approximately 1,800 feet east of Rt. 810 at White Hall in the White Hall Magisterial District. The applicant had requested deferral to February 7. Mr. Stark moved that SP-88-99 for Steven Sullivan be deferred to February 7, 1989. The motion was seconded by Ms. Diehl and passed unanimously. Montfair Driving Range - Request for Extension - Ms. Patterson explained that the site plan expired "today" (i.e. January 5, 1989), and the special permit expires July 15, 1989. She stated there had been no relevant change of cir- cumstance and that all tentative approvals, with the exception of an entrance permit, had been received. Staff recommended approval of a six-month extension to expire concurrent with the special use permit on July 15, 1989. January 5, 1989 Page 12 Mr. Jenkins moved that the Montfair Site Plan be granted a six-month extension. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.. -Annual Report for 1988 - Mr. Rittenhouse was chosen to prepare the annual report for 1988. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. DS 7 ao3