HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000082 Action Letter 1991-01-09 40°1i
17RGIN��
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
January 09, 1991
Charles G. Mitchell
Mitchell, Matthews & Associates
2350 Old Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-90-82 , Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C1
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
This letter is to inform you that on January 8, 1991 , during the
meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board
denied your request for VA-90-82 .
Anyone aggrieved by a decision of the Board can appeal their
decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty
(30) days of the decision.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
m
Amelia M. Patterson
Zoning Administrator
AMP/srp •
cc: Bill Fritz
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
_J;J'IIIII �r
J f"
MEMORANDUM
Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator
TO:
Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning C7�
FROM:
December 26 , 1990
DATE:
Variances : January 8 , 1991 Agenda
RE:
The following comments are offered without benefit of field
review or discussion with the various applicants :
,VA-90-82 Townside East Limited Partnership: to reduce number
of required parking spaces . In the past, both the Planning
Commission and staff have expressed concern that variances
of this nature provide a method to overdevelop a site. A
similar request for Herndon House furniture was disapproved.
VA-90-83 Percy F. Lawrence: to create two lots with
inadequate road frontage. A prior variance in the name of
Mariarose Seddon was disapproved. Under private road
provisions , this proposal is approvable under both the
zoning and subdivision ordinances , by usage of a joint
entrance. .
VA-90-84 Burger Busters : to reduce sign setback, allow
double faced sign, increase sign area, and increase number
of signs . The design of a Tacco Bell building is logo and
the building itself , therefore, can be viewed as a "sign. "
As in the past, staff is concerned about multiple variances
( i.e. - larger, more, closer, etc) .
RSK/jcw
STAFF PERSON: Amelia M. Patterson
PUBLIC HEARING: January 8, 1991
STAFF REPORT - VA-90-82
OWNER/APPLICANT: Townside East Limited Partnership
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 60/40C1
ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial
ACREAGE: 2 . 34 acres
LOCATION: On Rt 250 West on the west side of Colonnade
Drive, in front of U-Heights Apartments.
REQUEST:
The applicant requests relief from Section 4. 12 . 6. 6.2 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states:
"Section 4 . 12 . 6. 6. 2 SCHEDULE OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NUMBER
OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES
Shopping Center (PD-SC only) : Five and one-half (5 1/2) spaces
per each one thousand (1, 000) square feet of gross leasable
floor area. "
The applicant seeks a variance to reduce the parking requirements
by 35 spaces for proposed rezoning to PDSC from 192 spaces
required to 157 spaces existing. The building and parking
currently exist, and were built under the Townside East site plan
approved in June 1989 . As is the policy of the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors, the variance must be heard
prior to the rezoning, ZMA-90-25.
The applicant's justification includes:
1) This will allow a more flexible and simple method of leasing
space;
2) This one parking standard for the whole building regardless of
use or breakdown of space reduces the parking administration
for the County and the owner.
3) Due to the urban location and nearby apartments, etc. , there is
a high volume of pedestrian traffic and therefore, the full
parking requirements are not necessary.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
Staff recognizes that each variance is reviewed on its own merits,
and is not on its face precedent-setting. The following history
is provided for information:
There are multiple variances for this property:
VA-87-83, VA-88-52 and VA-90-83. The first three (3) were for
parking and building setback reduction along the scenic highway.
The fourth and most recent is for the freestanding business sign.
Staff Report - VA-90-82
Townside
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff agrees that the shopping center parking standard is
significantly simpler to administer. It would avoid recalculation
after review of building plans for each new tenant, because it is
a standard requirement regardless of use. However, this one
reason alone does not outweigh other considerations, such as the
actual adequacy of the parking provided. Staff is unable to
support this request for reasons similar to those in the Herndon
House VA-89-95.
Staff offers the following comments:
1. With no limitation as to uses based on available parking, a
parking shortage could occur. For example, eating
establishments, video rentals, and other high traffic
generators could cause parking shortages. This could result in
spillover onto adjoining properties and/or conflicts with
available parking for other tenants. This also tends to cause
people to park in areas not designated for and not suitable for
parking, such as fire lanes.
2 . No study of actual pedestrian traffic has substantiated the
reduction in parking.
3 . There is no apparent hardship or public purpose to be served by
granting the variance. They built a larger building than a
flexible parking standard can support.
Staff recommends denial for cause:
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict
application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship;
2 . The applicant has not 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 not 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.