HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300006 Action Letter 1993-04-15 �GF AL .
117
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
April 15, 1993
Steven W. Blaine
McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe
P. O. Box 1288
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
Monticello Oil Company
Tax Map 61, Parcel 151A
Dear Mr. Blaine:
This letter is to inform you that on April 14, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County
Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (5:0) approved your request for VA-93-06,
subject to the following conditions:
1) The dike, tank, fencing and canopy colors shall be approved by the Design Planner;
2) If VDOT allows landscaping within the right-of-way, the applicant shall provide a
landscape plan subject to the approval of the Design Planner; and
3) Should VDOT not allow landscaping within the right-of-way, the applicant shall
provide a landscape plan for the immediate area in front of the containment dike
fronting on Rio Road.
This variance approval allows relief from Section 21.7.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to 1) reduce the setback from Rio Rd (Rt 631) from 30 to 8 ft for a proposed canopy,
2) to reduce the setback from Rt 631 and Rt 650 from 30 to 2 and 5 ft for a proposed
containment dike and recently constructed 4,000 gal. replacement kerosene tank, and 3) to
reduce the setback from Rt 650 from 30 to 10 ft for a loading dock to remain as constructed.
April 15, 1993
VA-93-06.APP
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
C:1/16-&j\
John Grady
Deputy Zoning Administrator
JG/sp
cc: Monticello Oil Co.
Inspections
STAFF PERSON: John Grady
PUBLIC HEARING: April 14, 1993
STAFF REPORT - VA-93-06
OWNER/APPLICANT: Monticello Oil Company
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61/151A
ACREAGE: 0.936 acre
ZONING: C-1, Commercial
LOCATION: On the east side of Rio Road approximately three
( . 3) tenths of a mile south of the Huntington
Road and Rio Road intersection.
REQUEST:
The applicant requests relief from Section 21.7. 1 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, which states:
"21.7 . 1 Adjacent to public streets:
No portion of any structure, except signs, shall be
erected closer than thirty (30) feet to any public
street right-of-way. "
The applicant is seeking variances to allow the following:
1) A proposed twenty (20) by sixty (60) foot gas pump canopy to be
located eight (8) feet from the Rio Road right-of-way. A
variance of twenty-two (22) feet. Canopy will be white in color
to match the existing canopy.
2) A proposed thirty (30) by seventy-five (75) foot containment
dike to be located two (2) feet from the Rio Road right-of-way
and five (5) feet from the Route 650 right-of-way. This results
in variances of twenty-eight (28) and twenty-five (25) feet
respectively. The dike will be constructed of steel reinforced
concrete and will be approximately four (4) to five (5) feet in
height. A four (4) to six (6) foot chain link fence will be
installed atop the dike wall.
3) A four-thousand (4, 000) gallon replacement kerosene tank to
remain as built ten (10) feet from the Route 650 right-of-way
and eight (8) feet from the Rio Road right-of-way. This results
in variances of twenty (20) and twenty-two (22) feet
respectively. The tank is approximately ten (10) feet in height
and will be painted tan to match the existing tanks.
4) A fifteen (15) by fifteen (15) foot loading dock and canopy to
remain as built ten (10) feet from the Route 650 right-of-way.
A variance of twenty (20) feet. The canopy above the loading
dock is approximately fifteen (15) feet in height with steel
supports and a tin roof.
STAFF REPORT - VA-93-06
Page 2
The applicant's justification includes:
1) There has been a substantial decrease in land surface available
for business expansion due to VDOT right-of-way expansion.
2) The most practical and desirable locations for expansion have
now been restricted by VDOT right-of-way along Rio Road.
3) The only area left available for expansion is on the east side
of the site. The majority of this area adjacent to the Southern
Railroad right-of-way is comprised of steep slopes. Additional
construction in this area between the garage and storage
building would limit access to the garage bays and hinder
traffic flow.
4) Placing the new tank within the same containment dike with the
existing tanks and the new loading dock adjacent to the dike
insures greater protection coverage. This is not only the most
cost effective location but also the best location to address
environmental concerns.
5) Approximately seventy (70) percent of this property's boundaries
abut public right-of-ways. This feature is not shared by other
properties within the zoning district.
6) The variance request will not be of a substantial detriment to
adjacent properties. In fact, the dike containment construction
will enhance environmental protection and therefore poses a
substantial benefit to adjacent property.
HISTORY:
The site was developed in 1960, prior to the adoption of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in 1969 . The current owner
purchased the property in 1988.
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONTAINMENT DIRE:
Staff is aware of the requirements being mandated by the State
Water Control Board that above-ground tanks be placed in
containment dikes. Staff agrees that the applicant has chosen the
most practical and environmentally sound location for the
containment dike, replacement tank and the loading dock facility.
Therefore, staff recommends approval for the dike, replacement tank
and loading dock.
1) The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application
of the ordinance would produce undue hardship.
STAFF REPORT - VA-93-06
Page 3
Requiring a secondary containment dike or another location for
the loading dock would require substantial additional cost and
offer less protection against environmental impacts should a
breach or fire occur. The VDOT right-of-way expansion removed
a substantial portion of the most desirable topography on the
site.
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.
The property is bordered by Route 631 (Rio Road) on the west,
Route 650 on the north and northeast, and the Southern Railroad
right-of-way on the east. As a result of the property's
configuration, over seventy (70) percent of the property's
boundaries abut public right-of-ways. This results in full
front setback (30 feet) from most of the property.
3) The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of
this variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property nor change the character of the district.
The loading dock and replacement tank will be no closer to a
right-of-way or property line than the existing tanks and
garage. When the dike containment facility is completed it will
enhance environmental protection and pose a substantial benefit
to adjacent property.
RECOMMENDATION FOR CANOPY:
Staff agrees with the applicant that fuel pump canopies do provide
their customers as well as their equipment with a certain amount of
protection. Staff also agrees that construction of the proposed
canopy should not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
properties. Other properties along Rio Road that do not meet
setback requirements because of the expanded right-of-way include
Rio Road Chevron, Etna Gas and several residential units. However,
staff feels the applicant has reasonable use of the property and
canopies are more of a convenience than a necessity. It is also
staff's opinion that the applicant has not adequately addressed the
remaining criteria needed to approve this section of the variance.
Therefore, staff must recommend 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.
STAFF REPORT - VA-93-06
Page 4
Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff
recommends the following conditions for both part I and part II of
this request:
1) The dike, tank, fencing and canopy colors shall be approved by
the Design Planner;
2) If VDOT allows landscaping within the right-of-way, the
applicant shall provide a landscape plan subject to the approval
of the Design Planner; and
3) Should VDOT not allow landscaping within the right-of-way, the
applicant shall provide a landscape plan for the immediate area
in front of the containment dike fronting on Rio Road.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
pF AL
AW'111 9
V
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
FROM: Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning ,
DATE: March 29, 1993
RE: Variance Comments
The following comments are offered without review of all files or
field inspection:
VA-93-03 Mt. Ararat Lodge: to reduce front setback from 75 to 49
feet and rear setback from 35 to 26 feet. Due to the shape of
the lot, this variance would appear appropriate. RA setback and
yard requirements are intended to maintain a rural character and
to provide fire separation. Prior to 1976, front setback was 30
feet and rear yard was 35 feet in depth.
VA-93-04 Kroger Company: to increase height of a wall sign from
20 to 27 feet. This does not appear to be a request for.
increased sign area, but configuration. Dimensions of Kroger
sign at Hydraulic/Route 29 should be investigated. The sign
provisions, adopted in July, 1992, were intended to be reasonable
and to avoid variance. The BZA is entreated to be cautious in
granting variances which would set precedent to undermine the
sign regulations.
VA-93-05 Joseph B. Orlick: to reduce side yard from 25 to 7
feet. Yard requirements, among other things, are intended to
provide fire safety. Recommend that analysis of this request
should be in accord with Section 4. 11. 3 and that appropriate fire
agencies be consulted.
.. F ,. to reduce setback from Route
631 from I to 8 feet for a proposed canopy; to reduce setback
from Route 631 to Route 650 form 30 to 2 and 5 feet respectively
for a proposed containment dike and recently constructed 4,000
gallon replacement kerosene tank; to reduce setback from Route
650 from 30 to 10 feet for a loading dock to remain as
constructed. New construction was done with no building permits
or other County approvals, but was at the direction of some state
Amelia McCulley
March 29, 1993
Page 2
agency. This agency should be contacted as to the particulars of
this case. Appropriate fire agencies should be consulted as to
safety issues of volatile fluids in such close proximity to a
heavily traveled public road. If recommended by such agencies,
kerosene tank should be relocated for safety purposes or possibly
protected by collision structure.
VA-93-07 Keswick Corporation: to reduce front setback from 25
feet on internal private road as follows: building #1 to 21 � s
feet; building #2 to 5 feet; building #3 to 10 feet. *EizA:
O
VA-93-08 New Green Mountain Church: to reduce setback required
for structures 68 feet in height from 68 to 40 feet (front) and
63 feet (side) . Presumably, this is a variance from the
requirements of Section 4. 10 . 3 , which places this decision in the
hands of the Planning Commission. I have expressed concern in
the past and reiterate here, that when the zoning ordinance
specifies the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board,
Public Recreation Facilities Authority, Board of Supervisors, or
various other governmental agencies/staff with authority to
decide an issue, it is inappropriate for such provision the be
subject of variance. I do not believe under the language of the
Code, the BZA is authorized to grant variance from procedural or
administrative matters.
VA-93-09 Mark Deaton: to reduce front setback from Route 626
from 75 go 40 feet for installation of gas pumps of gas pumps.
As I understand, this variance is for reinstallation of gas pumps
farther back from the public road and outside of the James River
floodplain. During development of the 1980 zoning map, staff had
recommended that existing Country stores be afforded C-1
Commercial zoning. If that had been the case, thus variance
would be unnecessary.
VA-93-10 Dennis and Jane Sigloh: to create a lot with no backup
septic field. As cited in VA-93-08 , the zoning ordinance
(Section 4. 2. 5 ) places this decision in the hands of the Planning
Commission, and I do not believe is appropriate to variance by
the BZA. I have viewed this property and reviewed Mr. E. 0.
Gooch' s letter. Should the BZA choose to grant variance it is
strongly recommend that easement be provided on the parent tract
for a replacement drainfield. Reasons for this recommendation
are as follows:
Amelia McCulley
March 29, 1993
Page 3
1) This property is situated in a reservoir watershed
which heightens health concerns should the existing
field malfunction.
2) Once the property is in divided ownerships, discontinue
of use of the older home ( in the event of septic system
failure) would be more difficult in terms of reasonable
use of the land. In an undivided state, the owner
would continue to enjoy residential use of the new
dwelling.
3 ) Providing such easement would not be a hardship or
otherwise excessive condition. To the contrary it
could be viewed as "insurance" to the Sigloh daughter
should she wish to sell the property or should her
parents sell their property.
4) Providing such easement would allow the division and
would (to an extent) satisfy the intent of Section 4. 1
and 4. 2. No construction would be necessary until
failure of the existing drainfield.
VA-93-11 Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation: to increase area
of temporary event sign from 32 to 84 square feet and to increase
the time period from 15 to 315 days.
VA-93-12 Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation: to increase the
size of a temporary event sign from 32 to 266 square feet and to
increase time period from 15 to 315 days.
1) VA-93-12 has not been signed by the property owner;
2) VA-93-12 includes request that the authorized time
period be 21 times the length of time specified by the
ordinance. Under such circumstances, it may be more
appropriate to treat that sign as an "off-site
advertising sign" which can only be authorized by
issuance of a special use permit;
3 ) The sign under VA-93-11 is about three times the sign
area allowed in the RA zone. The sign in VA-93-12 is
about 2 1/2 times the size of the largest sign allowed
in commercial zoned;
Amelia McCulley
March 29, 1993
Page 4
4) To grant the requested variance to sign area could be
deemed as acknowledgement that the maximum area
permitted by the newly adopted sign provisions is
inadequate. If temporary display is employed to
justify this factor, then why not allow all temporary
signs to be 266 square feet as opposed to 32 square
feet. That is to say, if a hardship exists due to
setback from the roadway as to the ability of a
traveler to receive the message, then such hardship
would presumably exist for any other signs similarly
situated (i.e. - compare location from public roads to
VA-93-04) .
VA-93-13 University Commons Condominiums: to reduce setback from
Route 656 from ten feet to zero feet. The new sign provisions
were intended to provide more reasonable setback provisions to
reduce the number of variance requests. The question her is
simple: Is the proposed sign readable at the required setback?
If not, then setback should be reduced only to the extent
necessary for the sign to be readable. Virginia Department of
Transportation should verify that no additional right-of-way will
be necessary along Georgetown Road for future improvements. A
zero foot setback for any structure should always be conditioned
upon verification by the applicant' s surveyor (including stamp)
that the structure has been located accordingly. Zero foot
setbacks simply invite neighbor disputes in the future and should
only be granted under the most extreme circumstances. It would
be very difficult for a property owner to demonstrate that a one
or two foot setback (i.e - some margin of error) would constitute
a hardship.
RSK/mem/blb