Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200040 Action Letter 1992-12-09 l Ar.L\ 'ts7 IlRGINV' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 December 9, 1992 Robert T. Smith 2004 A. Morton Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-92-40, Tax Map 61M, Parcel 12-1B Dear Mr. Smith: This letter is to inform you that on December 8, 1992, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (5:0) denied your request for VA-92-40. 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, Abe/Ye WA'OCIaj2P-- Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/sp cc: Dominion Lands, Inc. Planning Department STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 12/8/92 STAFF REPORT - VA-92-40 OWNER/APPLICANT: Dominion Lands, Inc. (owner) Robert T. Smith (applicant) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61M-12-1B ZONING: Planned Development-Mixed Commercial ACREAGE: 8 .73 LOCATION: The southwest quadrant of the intersection of Berkmar Drive and Rio Road. SURROUNDING USES: North: Medium-density residential West: Low-density residential South: Low-density residential and commercial East: Bounded by roadway REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 21.7 .2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which requires that structures be set back at least 50 feet from residential areas. The applicant asks for this variance in order to place a sales and warehousing structure measuring 16,200 square feet 25 feet from a residential property line. The applicant's justification is provided in Attachment A. RELEVANT HISTORY: The Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning of this property from R-6 and C-1 to PD-MC on June 18, 1992 . The sketch plan accompanying the rezoning application showed apartments in the location now proposed for commercial structure "F" . As part of the rezoning, the Board allowed the applicant to grade within the 20-foot buffer required by the Ordinance. The site was graded and the vegetation 20 feet ,from the property line removed. , i jam, �t p p^� p-� #`���,.�_ .$[�q :r°.i_�# is �a_�i ft,`;`- %d f i 4:i �' _ k ^x. 4 a� e�20 '?- ' ',sf "6,a? '-.�c- -tv, t.c The applicant is now' proposing that the apartments bd replaced with t -¢ the commercial building shown on the plan. Because of this change, /_ _ the applicant is submitting another application for rezoning. , F Before the Planning Commission and Board will hear the rezoning, ` ` ' `` the Board of Zoning Appeals must act on this request. 8 ¢ 4 ' a RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The topography may make it more expensive for the applicant to place parking spaces 20 feet from the residential property line as allowed by the Ordinance. However, the applicant has not provided evidence that this expense and inconvenience would create an undue hardship approaching confiscation if this variance is not granted. Reducing the size of the building so that it meets the setback is another option. Page 2 November 30, 1992 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. tea The applicant has taken steps to reduce the impact of this k, structure by offering to provide a privacy fence with trees between the fence and the building. The finished floor of the �`'=- t` lie about 18 feet lower than the propertylinglp building will _*'.. � l --a�f-thePvburld�i•ng..,.,.(if-built-to,a-height:.,.off feet) easily visible to its neighbors, particularly heating, -T M cooling and ventilation systems on the roof. The trees will k, eventually screen more of the building from view, but this will take some time. Taller trees and closer spacing than that proposed by the applicant would result in better, faster screening. This Department has received no letters of objection to this request. Staff believes that a light warehousing/retail use could produce less noise, light and other nuisances detrimental to the residential neighborhood than a parking lot placed 20 feet away from the property line. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The -rear-facade of the building`should be faced with material compatible with the exterior appearande of residential buildings. ', .. .3 .• 1) r$, ( 1E = d 2 . Heating, cooling and ventilation systems shall be screened from the view of adjoining property owners. 3 . The Design Planner shall review and approve the treatment of the rear facade and lighting to insure their compatibility with the residential neighborhood. 4 . The trees placed between the rear of Building F and the fence shall be white pines, at least ten feet in height, placed on 15-foot centers. zAca -aa- ) cad.