The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199000024 Public Notification 1990-04-18 .. . �. Atdo r4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 April 18, 1990 Glen and Dan Weast 102 Phillips Court Lynchburg, VA 24502 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-90-24, Tax Map 55, Parcels109A & 110 Dear Sirs: This letter is to inform you that on April 10, 1990, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-90-24, subject to the condition that this variance applies only to the current proposed addition of 2,300 square feet. This variance allows relief from Sections 30.5.6.2.1 and 30.5.6.2.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the scenic highway setback for a proposed building addition from 150 feet to 14 feet from Route 250. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, OAry4;ti On. ec '7(44_ 4 ,) Amelia M. Patterson ,/ y�! " Zoning Administrator 1 1 h ( �1 AMP/srp LOiLl cc: 4A-90-24 �,� n1 �ki (/1f ST. PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: April 10, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-24 OWNER/APPLICANT: Glen and Dan Weast TAX MAP/PARCEL: 55/109A and 110 ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial ACREAGE: 2.86 acres total LOCATION: On the south side of Route 250 west, approximately 0.5 mile east of the Interstate 64 interchange. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Sections 30.5.6.2. 1 and 30.5.6.2.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which state: "30.5.2.2 SA-HIGHWAYS SA-highway overlay districts are hereby established along the following corridors in Albemarle County for a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet on each side of the right-of-way: a. U.S. Route 250 from the western corporate limits of the City of Charlottesville to the western Albemarle County border. . . 30.5.6.2 SA-HIGHWAYS 30.5.6.2.1 No buildings or structures other than permitted under Section 4.11, except as hereafter provided in the case of certain signs, shall be constructed within any SA-highways overlay district. (Amended 12-2-87). . . 30.5.6.2.2 No off-street parking or loading shall be allowed closer than fifty (50) feet to the right-of-way line of an SA-highway which is all or part of off-street parking facilities required or de- signed to accommodate more than two (2) motor vehicles." The applicant proposes sale of the property to the current building tenants. They intend to expand the building eastward along the current building front line, which is setback 14 feet. They request a variance to reduce the scenic highway setback from 150 feet to 14 feet from Route 250. Parking will remain in its current location. The entire facade of the building will be refaced. Page 2 Staff Report - VA-90-24 The applicant's justification includes: 1. Due to the extraordinary shallowness of the property, any development would encroach on the scenic district; 2. The preexisting development, the location of the current building with respect to Route 250 is unique; 3. Because the building currently does not comply with the setback, and it will not be further reduced, there is no substantial detriment to adjacent properties or the district. 4. The proposed addition, facade improvements and landscaping will better meet the intent of the scenic area overlay. RELEVANT HISTORY: Staff recognizes that each variance reviewed on its own merits, and is not on its face, precedent-setting. The following history is provided for information: VA-75-09 Country Antiques was approved on April 8, 1975 for a sign setback re- duction, for the applicant only. VA-75-12 Calico Cat was approved on May 13, 1976 for a sign setback reduction, for the applicant only. VA-77-63 Greenwood Burners was approved on November 9, 1977 for a sign setback reduction. VA-80-10 Dan Weast/Billy Mills was withdrawn for a structure setback reduction. VA-80-11 Dan Weast was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on March 25, 1980 for a sign setback reduction, for the applicant only. RECOMMENDATION Staff concurs with the applicant's justification. Staff would note that the current building is relatively small, approximately 2500 square feet. - -may,,be--pass- e- t the €a tune, -if _. .. public water and sett e-=edZr 15t-provided and—ai.te plan requirements,met. Page 3 Staff Report - VA-90-24 Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 2. The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; 3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: April 10, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-24 OWNER/APPLICANT: Glen and Dan Weast TAX MAP/PARCEL: 55/109A and 110 ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial ACREAGE: 2.86 acres total LOCATION: On the south side of Route 250 west, approximately 0.5 mile east of the Interstate 64 interchange. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Sections 30.5.6.2.1 and 30.5.6.2.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which state: "30.5.2.2 SA-HIGHWAYS SA-highway overlay districts are hereby established along the following corridors in Albemarle County for a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet on each side of the right-of-way: a. U.S. Route 250 from the western corporate limits of the City of Charlottesville to the western Albemarle County border. . . 30.5.6.2 SA-HIGHWAYS 30.5.6.2. 1 No buildings or structures other than permitted under Section 4.11, except as hereafter provided in the case of certain signs, shall be constructed within any SA-highways overlay district. (Amended 12-2-87) . . . 30.5.6.2.2 No off-street parking or loading shall be allowed closer than fifty (50) feet to the right-of-way line of an SA-highway which is all or part of off-street parking facilities required or de- signed to accommodate more than two (2) motor vehicles." The applicant proposes sale of the property to the current building tenants. They intend to expand the building eastward along the current building front line, which is setback 14 feet. They request a variance to reduce the scenic highway setback from 150 feet to 14 feet from Route 250. Parking will remain in its current location. The entire facade of the building will be refaced. Page 2 Staff Report - VA-90-24 The applicant's justification includes: 1. Due to the extraordinary shallowness of the property, any development would encroach on the scenic district; 2. The preexisting development, the location of the current building with respect to Route 250 is unique; 3. Because the building currently does not comply with the setback, and it will not be further reduced, there is no substantial detriment to adjacent properties or the district. 4. The proposed addition, facade improvements and landscaping will better meet the intent of the scenic area overlay. RELEVANT HISTORY: Staff recognizes that each variance reviewed on its own merits, and is not on its face, precedent-setting. The following history is provided for information: VA-75-09 Country Antiques was approved on April 8, 1975 for a sign setback re- duction, for the applicant only. VA-75-12 Calico Cat was approved on May 13, 1976 for a sign setback reduction, for the applicant only. VA-77-63 Greenwood Burners was approved on November 9, 1977 for a sign setback reduction. VA-80-10 Dan Weast/Billy Mills was withdrawn for a structure setback reduction. VA-80-11 Dan Weast was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on March 25, 1980 for a sign setback reduction, for the applicant only. RECOMMENDATION Staff concurs with the applicant's justification. Staff would note that the current building is relatively small, approximately 2500 square feet. Construction of a separate structure that could comply with setbacks may be possible in the future, if public water and sewer can be provided and site plan requirements met. Page 3 Staff Report - VA-90-24 Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 2. The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; 3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance.