Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300007 Action Letter 1993-04-15 �l�F AL ®�. \RGIC»P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 April 15, 1993 Pete Bradshaw 701 Country Club Drive Keswick, VA 22947 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-93-07; Tax Map 80, Parcels 8Z & 9 Dear Mr. Bradshaw: This letter is to inform you that on April 14, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (5:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-93-07, subject to the following condition: 1) County Engineering Department review to determine if any special measures are necessary to avoid or minimize loss-of-control accidents involving the building. If any are necessary, they shall be implemented within six (6) months of the date of this variance approval. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front setback from 25 ft on the internal private rd, Club Drive as follows: building #1 (office) to 21 ft; building#2 (office) to 5 ft; and building #3 (maintenance) to 10 ft. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, CUM26, C Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C�P. Zoning Administrator AGM/sp cc: Engineering Dept. STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: April 14, 1993 STAFF REPORT - VA 93-07 OWNER/APPLICANT: Keswick Corporation TAX MAP/PARCEL: 80/8Z and 9 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 147 and 9.5 acres LOCATION: On Club Drive, off the east side of Route 731 at Keswick. REQUEST: The owner/applicant requests variances to reduce the front setback on an internal private road, Club Drive, to allow 3 buildings to remain. The variances are to reduce the setback from 25 feet as follows: . Building #1 (Office) to a 21 foot setback (a 4 foot variance) ; . Building #2 (Office) to a 5 foot setback (a 20 foot variance) ; . Building #3 (Maintenance) to a 10 foot setback (a 15 foot variance) . These buildings were constructed some time ago, possibly in conjunction with the original Keswick club. It is only with the platting of the access easement/private road to serve the Keswick club and new subdivision lots, that these buildings become noncompliant. These buildings are currently being used for various functions related to the Keswick development - the inn, the golf course and the subdivision. They were improved to accommodate the Keswick Corporation's offices and the like. They propose demolition of building #2 after 2 years. The applicant's justification includes: 1. Removal and reconstruction of these buildings would require significant unnecessary expense on the part of the owner, and this would produce undue hardship. 2 . This is a situation which is unique within this zoning district and vicinity. These buildings support a commercial use in a rural area in Keswick. They have been located there, close to Club Drive, for some time. This type of land use in this zoning district is unique. It becomes particularly unique because the buildings have been there so long. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-07 PAGE 2 3 . Approval of this variance will not be of detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the district will actually be enhanced by the improvement of these buildings. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors concurred with this opinion when it approved the Keswick Estate master plan with 3 special permits. RELEVANT HISTORY: The three special permits on the property are as follows: S.P. 92-57, 58 and 59. In combination, they allowed a 37 lot subdivision, an inn, and golf course and clubhouse. They also permitted a central well, construction in the flood plain, and other work related to this development. Recently, they were amended to permit private roads and various other modifications. A special permit request for a helipad is in the process. STAFF COMMENT: In our review, we have considered the pre-existence of the buildings and the road, the limits to the road alignment, the intended uses of the buildings, safety impacts and visual impacts by reducing the setback. Hardship Because the buildings are pre-existing, the only alternatives to a variance would be relocation of the buildings or of the road. Moving the buildings or demolition and rebuilding would be costly and an impractical / unwarranted economic hardship. The road location has been refined several times, and is determined by the existing road location, the engineering standards for the design/construction of such a road, and the desire to save as many trees as possible. Uniqueness of Hardship Staff is unaware of similar cases in the zoning district or vicinity. There are certainly other subdivisions, clubs and inns. However, there are none that come to mind with existing buildings and existing roads which are required to meet new standards and to become recorded access easements so as to require setbacks. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-07 PAGE 3 Character of the Area Because the road and the buildings exist, there should be none or relatively no change to the character of the district and to the impact on adjacent property. Because these buildings will be related to and maintained by the same entity who is involved with the inn and clubhouse, it will be in their interest to maintain these buildings so that they are not an eyesore. The only remaining issue relates to the safety of buildings so close to a road. Keep in mind that the road is not at the property line, so the actual edge of pavement is probably 10 feet further away. In order to address this properly, staff recommends a condition which requires County Engineering review to determine if any special measures (signs, reflectors, bollards, etc. ) are warranted. RECOMMENDATION: It is staff's opinion that this request satisfies that three criteria for approval of a variance. Instead of accepting the applicant's 2 year timeline for demolition of building #2 , we suggest 3 years, to build in time for unforeseen delays. 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. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. County Engineering Department review to determine if any special measures are necessary to avoid or minimize loss-of- control accidents involving the building. If any are necessary, they shall be implemented within six (6) months of the date of this variance approval. 2 . Building #2 shall be removed to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator, within three (3) years of the date of this variance approval. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE :411Wi 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. VA-93-06 Monticello Oil Company: to reduce setback from Route 631 from 30 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. to reduce front setback from 25 ee on internal priva e road as follows: building #1 to 21 feet; building #2 to 5 feet; building #3 to 10 feet. .E , kQ s --` 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