The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-08 BOS Staff ReportCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #10-08 ADAM ARKFELD Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: November 25, 2008 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 09/03/08 Tabled 45 days by PC Planning Commission: 11/05/08 Recommended Approval Board of Supervisors: 12/10/08 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 250 Sister Chipmunk Lane. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 34-A-98 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant South: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant East: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant PROPOSED USE: This application is for a Motel/Bed and Breakfast . REVIEW EVALUATIONS: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 668, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT commercial standards. CUP #10-08-Adam Arkfeld November 25, 2008 Page 2 FIRE AND RESCUE: Plan approval recommended. INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT: Existing R5, under 5 sleeping units, requires no change of use per 2006 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. No permit or inspection required unless renovation or new structures are added. Our records indicate 4 bedroom dwelling with 8 occupancy. HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Contact the Office of Drinking Water for information regarding the well. No objections regarding drainfield. Per Office of Drinking Water, 8/7/08, no water testing required to limited number of potential guests. Maximum of 6 guests plus the inn keepers per day. REVISION 8/27/08: If the conditional use permit is approved, please submit an application to the Health Department for a Bed & Breakfast permit. The Bed & Breakfast permit will cover the inspection of the facility and serving of breakfast only. If other meals are provided, then a food facility permit will need to be applied for and a plan review done. Planning and Zoning: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for motel uses in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP); a bed and breakfast qualifies as motel use. This proposed three (3) bedroom bed and breakfast will take place on 58 acres of land. The applicant will be limited to a total of six (6) guests. No other activities will be associated on-site with this proposed bed and breakfast. The nearest structures from this proposed use are more than 150 feet away. There will be no employees associated with this proposed use, other than those residing on-site. Based on the limited scale of this proposed use and evaluation of the property, it appears that this proposed use would not have any significant impacts on the adjoining properties. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 09/03/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size. 3. No more than three (3) bedrooms and six (6) guests allowed with this bed and breakfast use. 4. No other activities will be associated on-site with this bed and breakfast. 5. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 09/03/08 MEETING: Seven persons spoke during the public comment portion of the public hearing; they were adjoining property owners or residents along Sister Chipmunk Road. Some of the speakers CUP #10-08-Adam Arkfeld November 25, 2008 Page 3 were relatives of the applicant. Those who spoke in opposition were concerned the increase in noise, traffic, outdoor lighting, and the intrusion of outsiders would negatively impact the beauty and tranquility of the area and consequently disturb their quality of life. A safety concern was raised by an adjoining property owner regarding outdoor activities because his family members were hunters. They did not believe non-residential uses were appropriate in their subdivision and business use did not conform to their subdivision covenants. A property owner at the entrance to Sister Chipmunk Lane was concerned he would be inundated with people searching for the bed and breakfast because the applicant’s property was difficult to find and he was only permitted one sign. In addition, they believed Mr. Arkfeld was manipulating their subdivision for his own purposes by selling a parcel from his property, having the new owners sign the subdivision covenants, and using Sister Chipmunk Lane as an access to the bed and breakfast. They objected to Mr. Arkfeld using their private subdivision road for his business clientele and they believed Mr. Arkfeld should provide his own access to the bed and breakfast. The three persons who spoke in favor, or who said they had no objections to the permit, did not believe the use would generate a great deal of activity or cause a major impact. The applicant answered questions from the Commission on why he wished to use Sister Chipmunk Lane as the primary access for the proposed bed and breakfast and what his intentions were towards contributing financially to the maintenance of the road. The applicant explained his proposed yoga studio would be an amenity for weekend retreat guests and he did not plan to have regular yoga classes for the public. He also wanted to offer the use of bike trails on his property for guests and would respect the neighbors’ property lines. Commission members asked the applicant who determined when the road needed repaired and what each individual’s financial share would be. Commission members suggested that a road maintenance agreement between all of the property owners, clearly defining the issues, would be beneficial. Commissioners advised the applicant to talk with the neighbors and attempt to work out an agreement on the maintenance of the road. The Planning Commission tabled the CUP application for 45 days to allow sufficient time for the applicant to make an effort to meet with the property owners along Sister Chipmunk Lane in an attempt to work out an agreement. The majority vote was: YES (TO TABLE): Unger, Watt, Ambrogi, Manuel, Ruckman, Oates, Kriz, Mohn NO: Wilmot, Thomas, Kerr (Note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 11/05/08 MEETING: Staff reported the Planning Commission had tabled this item to allow the applicant to address some private road issues raised by the neighbors at the Commission’s public hearing on CUP #10-08-Adam Arkfeld November 25, 2008 Page 4 September 3, 2008. Mr. Benjamin M. Butler, attorney representing Mr. Adam Arkfeld, reported he had researched the right-of-way which serves this property and it is well established by all of the property owners in the chain of title that Mr. Arkfeld’s property would be served by the right-of-way and go over the adjoining properties. He said one of the remaining questions was the maintenance issue and he believed this issue had been resolved with an agreement which has been signed by everyone except the Johnsons. He explained that the agreement essentially places a maximum amount the other property owners would have to pay at $200; he said if the other property owners paid for any materials, for example, gravel for the road or cleaning ditches, they would receive a credit against that $200. Mr. Butler believed everyone was satisfied with the agreement, except the Johnsons, who may be in agreement, but they could not be reached. Concerning staff’s recommended conditions, Mr. Butler spoke with the Commission about a one-time-only activity to take place in the Spring of 2009 to allow Mr. Arkfeld to have a Chamber of Commerce social. Mr. Butler asked the Commission to consider this one-time exception so they would not have to come back before the Commission in the Spring. A member of the Commission stated that many upset neighbors attended the public hearing on September 3, 2008, and the Commission wanted to give them an opportunity to work with the applicant and get some of the issues straightened out. Commission members believed the applicant had accomplished that task. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the CUP with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Any proposed business sign shall conform to the cottage occupation sign requirements and not exceed four-square feet in size. 3. No more than three bedrooms and six guests allowed with this bed and breakfast use. 4. No other on-site activities will be associated with this bed and breakfast. 5. Any expansion or modifications will require a new conditional use permit. 6. Allowance of a one-time Chamber of Commerce Social on site in the Spring of 2009. (Commissioners Ambrogi, Ruckman, Triplett, and Kerr were absent from the meeting.)