Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100041 Action Letter 1991-12-12COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 December 12, 1991 Tom Muncaster 338 Rio Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action United Land Trust VA-91-41, Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D1 Dear Mr. Muncaster: This letter is to inform you that on December 10, 1991, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board denied your request for VA-91-41. 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, Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/srp cc: River Heights Assiciated Limited Partnership United Land Corporation COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator pw�/ FROM: Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning DATE: September 24, 1991 RE: Variances - BZA Agenda of October 8, 1991 BZA Agenda of October 10, 1991 These comments are offered without field review or discussion with the various applicants. NOTE: All five petitions for October 8, 1991 are along EC roadways. 1. VA-91-35 Ed ecomb Imported Auto; VA-91-37 Paul R. Opiela - Both petitions seek variances to reduce setback and increase size for signs along EC roadways. If a sign cannot be seen at the setback, then a variance is in order. However, to allow a sign to be closer and bigger would seem to grant special competitive advantage not enjoyed by those who comply with regulations. To the contrary, it would seem appropriate where setback is reduced that sign area should be reduced. Granting of such variances can also be deleterious to the Board of Supervisor's intent to maintain some dignity of design along Entrance Corridors. Variances of this nature abrogate ARB review at least to an extent. 2. VA 91-41 River Heights Associates - Variance to reduce number of required parking spaces from 174 spaces to 138 spaces. Parking regulations can be complied with by reducing building area and therefore no hardship exists. Section 4.12.1 PURPOSE of the parking regulations states in part that "development proposals Amelia Patterson Page 2 September 24, 1991 which seek to maximize building area or otherwise intensify development to the extent that these minimum regulations are not satisfied shall be deemed to be contrary to the purpose of this ordinance." Initial Site Review comments included 21 items from Planning to be address including: "It appears the plan attempts to maximize the development of this site compromising good site design as the plan necessitates variances, parking waivers, grading waivers, grading easements, and the utilization of a 480 foot retaining wall to allow the construction of a parking lot with circulation conflicts and a deficient landscape plan. It is recommended that the building be scaled back to allow a reduction of parking spaces providing more area for landscaping and improved traffic circulation (particularly where the loading spaces conflict with the travelway at the northern end of the site.1/ The applicant's justification states in part that "the retail center's multiple uses would surely be used similar to a shopping center and this interpretation would be more consistent with previous determinations of parking requirements for buildings of similar design" (underlining added). This request has been filed as a variance as opposed to an appeal for an interpretation. In 1988, the Board of Supervisors amended the shopping center parking standard to clarify that is available only to land zoned PD-SC: Shopping Center (Planned Development - Shopping Center District Only): Five and one half (5 1/2) spaces per each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross leasable floor area. (Amended 7-20-88). In the review of the Rio Hills Shopping Center rezoning staff stated that: Benefits to the applicant in seeking PD-SC zoning include: o A more favorable floor area -to -parking standard; and o A broader range of commercial uses Benefits to the general public derive from the opportunity to address the proposed development in broader terms than are realized under conventional zoning and site plan reviews. Amelia Patterson Page 3 September 24, 1991 Therefore, through this variance request the applicant seeks a benefit of PD-SC zoning, but does not offer any benefits to the general public as could be occasioned through the planned development rezoning process. In summary, the request appears to be: -not based on any discernible hardship but solely to allow overdevelopment of the site as defined in Section 4.12.1 of the Zoning ordinance and evidence by the Site Review comments; -inappropriate since the property is not zoned PD-SC and the Board of Supervisors intent is that this parking standard be made available solely to PD-SC properties as evidenced by the language of the ordinance; -contrary to the intent of the Board of Supervisors that some public benefit be realized (thorough the PD-SC process) in order to avail a development of the parking standard. No public benefit has been identified or perceived. RSK/jcw STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 10/8/91 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-41 OWNER/APPLICANT: River Heights Associates/United Land Corporation TAX MAP/PARCEL: 45-68D1 ZONING: Highway Commercial/Commercial Office ACREAGE: 3.089 LOCATION: Off Route 29 North west of its intersection with Hilton Heights Road REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 4.12.6.6.1(a), "Determination of Parking Spaces for Unspecified Uses" of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: For each commercial use of a retail character: One (1) space per each one hundred (100) square feet of retail sales for the first five thousand (5,000) square feet and one (1) space per each two hundred (200) square feet of retail sales area above five thousand (5,000) square feet. (Amended 7-20-88) Based on the square footage of the proposed development, 174 parking spaces would be required. The applicant would prefer to build only 138 spaces, a variance of 36 spaces from the number required. The applicant's justification includes the following: The retail center's multiple uses would surely be used similarly to a shopping center and this interpretation would be more consistent with previous determinations of parking requirements for buildings of similar design. RELEVANT HISTORY: In 1988, the Board of Supervisors amended the parking standard for shopping centers (5 and one-half spaces per each 1000 square feet) to make it clear that this standard is available only to land zoned Planned Development - Shopping Center (PD-SC). Under this amendment, fewer spaces are required for land zoned PD-SC than for land zoned Highway Commercial, Commercial Office or Commercial-1. In return for the reduction in required parking, a developer seeking a rezoning to PD-SC provides certain public benefits, since the property being rezoned must undergo a more comprehensive review than properties undergoing conventional rezoning or site plan review. The applicants have claimed that the site will be developed as a multi -use retail center and should therefore be accorded the same flexibility in parking standards as sites zoned PD-SC. It is important to note that the number of spaces proposed by the applicant falls short of even the PD-SC standards by 22 spaces. Moreover, as Planning Department staff has noted, "through this variance request the applicant seeks a benefit of PD-SC zoning, but does not offer any benefits to the general public as could be occasioned through the planned development rezoning process". RECOMMENDATION: This variance, while the only action before this Board, is only one of several modifications or waivers of the Zoning Ordinance that would be required in order for the applicant to develop the property as shown on the site plan. An earlier version of this site plan drew the following comments from the Planning Department: It appears the plan attempts to maximize the development of this site compromising good site design as the plan necessitates variances, parking waivers, grading waivers, [and] grading easements . . . Although the plan has been revised, it would still require modifications or waivers by the Planning Commission in order to grade critical slopes and to grade within 20 feet of adjoining residential property. The Planning Department has suspended its review of this site plan until your action. Staff recommends for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; The applicant could comply with the parking regulations by reducing the area of the building, or by changing the proportion of office to retail space. Section 4.12.1, which outlines the purpose of the parking regulations, states: "Development proposals which seek to maximize building area or otherwise intensify development to the extent that these minimum regulations are not satisfied shall be deemed to be contrary to the purpose of this ordinance". 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; and 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. If businesses that require a high proportion of parking spaces per square foot, such as restaurants and over-the-counter sales, were to occupy the retail center, customers may be forced to park on public roads or in other unapproved areas. Should you approve this variance, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The proportion of retail to office space shall not be altered to create more retail space.