Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300013 Action Letter 1995-09-13 of A lir . V�RGIN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060 TDD (804) 972-4012 September 13, 1995 Condominium Management of Charlottesville, Inc. P. O. Box 1501 Charlottesville, VA 22902 ATTN: Jack Rudolph, Managing Agent RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action University Commons Sign VA-93-13, Tax Map 060A, Parcel 11-A Dear Mr. Rudolph: This letter is to inform you that on September 12, 1995, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (4:0) approved your request for withdrawal of VA-93-13. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C.P. Zoning Administrator st/ cc: VA-93-13 STAFF PERSON: Amelia G. McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: April 28, 1993 STAFF REPORT VA 93- 13 OWNER / APPLICANT: University Commons Association TAX MAP / PARCEL: 60A / 11A ZONING: R-6, Residential ACREAGE: 1.992 acres LOCATION: On the west side of Rt. 656 (Georgetown Road), at the intersection with Rt. 654 (Barracks Rd). REOUEST: The applicant requests a variance to reduce the front setback from Georgetown Road for the location of a freestanding business sign, from 10 to 0 feet. This involves Section 4.15.12.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, and is a requested reduction of 10 feet. They propose to utilize a single post, hanging sign on the south side of the Georgetown entrance. The sign itself will be 32" x 24" (approximately 5.4 square feet in area), with an overall height of less than 10 feet. It will state the address, management company and phone number for the development. It will be painted in colors similar to the building trim: cream, off-red and black. Hardship: Due to the wide right-of-way and the location of existing trees, location of the sign at the required setback would nullify the principle purpose of the sign - identification of the street address and entrance. Uniqueness of Hardship: This development has existed for some time, and many are not aware it is there. The current management company and potential future owner are attempting to complete significant improvements to the property. Across this property frontage, Georgetown Road will be expanded to include a right-turning lane onto Barracks Road. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-13 Page 2 Character of the Area: Because this property has not been well maintained, and a major facelift is planned, the character of the area will be improved. RELEVANT HISTORY: These buildings were built in 1972, under a zoning classification which allowed higher density than the current zoning does. In 1983, then-owners proposed and received approval for the conversion of the rental apartments into condominiums. There are a total of 26 finished units, and 4 roughed-in units which have zoning approval. (For a complete explanation, read the Official Determination letter to the file dated February 11, 1993.) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department has commented as follows: "The new sign provisions were intended to provide more reasonable setback provisions to reduce the number of variance requests. The question here 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. Zoning staff is in concurrence with the opinion of Planning staff. The new sign provisions set reasonable setbacks, in all but the most unusual of unique circumstances. We applaud the owner/applicant for the good intentions in the improvements of the property. We also agree that the development needs identification to create a sense of place, and to direct motorists to the entrance. The proposed sign is designed in good taste, without the size and copy to blare out the message. Therefore, this proposal will meet the third criteria for approval of a variance: 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. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-13 Page 3 However; staff cannot support a decreased setback. And, if one is granted we endorse the conditions as suggested by the Planning Department, to include a minimum of a 1 foot setback. It appears that the planned road project and the applicants plans to trim trees should further increase the visibility of a sign at the required setback. Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. It appears that after the planned improvements by both V.D.O.T. on Georgetown Road and the applicant with tree-trimming across the frontage, a sign at the required setback will be sufficiently visible. It may be necessary to change the design to a larger, ground-mounted or pedestal sign. Another alternative would be to utilize a new wall sign, and some sort of decorative wall or gate to highlight the entrance. 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. Other properties of a commercial nature are found in a similar situation. The applicant has not noted what distinguishes this property from others in the same area. Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The sign size under this decreased setback shall be limited to 6 square feet; 2. This approval is for a 1 foot setback. The actual sign location shall be verified for approval by either the V.D.O.T. or the applicant's surveyor or otherwise qualified person; COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ��pF ALA 11. 7 �4 'ui ., -w y 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. VA-93-07 Keswick Corporation: to reduce front setback from 25 feet on internal private road as follows: building #1 to 21 feet; building #2 to 5 feet; building #3 to 10 feet. 'EJe.A.: S (4.` 1s --§ 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) . ; � ,-i. , fi` : 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 questioner 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 pF A1,Q.c,, 0 erO tn a1 .r IIRGINOP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 MEMORANDUM TO: File, University Commons FROM: Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator DATE: February 11, 1993 RE: Zoning Approvals Necessary for Conversion of 4 Spaces in Basement into Apartment Units - OFFICIAL DETERMINATION This is to provide a written determination for the record. University Commons consists of three existing buildings with 26 existing apartments on a total of 3 .3451 acres. Within the basement of building #117, there are four unfinished units. These findings result after consultation with the County Attorney and the Chief of Planning, and after a review of the history files for this property from the Zoning and Planning Departments. In addition, I have reviewed relevant opinions from zoning treatises, such as Anderson's and Yokely's volumes. It is my opinion, these unfinished basement spaces may be converted into independent residential units without either a rezoning or a density variance. This decision relies in part, on the "Non-conformities" Section 6.4.3, which states "a nonconforming activity may be extended throughout any part of a structure which was arranged or designed for such activity at the time of enactment of this ordinance. " This opinion is not inconsistent with either Judge Peatross's ruling in the tax sale, or the zoning in effect when this property was developed. At the time the buildings were constructed, the four (4) unfinished spaces were permitted by the zoning, and would not have exceeded the maximum allowable residential density. For some technical or other non-regulatory reason, they were not completed. Their existence is therefore "grandfathered" or non- conforming. February 11, 1993 Uuiversity Commons Page 2 An explanation of the history of this property will clarify this determination, and follows. The property was developed under the site plan named "Georgetown Square Townhouse Apartments. " It was built in 1972 when the property was zoned R-3, Residential. This zoning under a prior ordinance allowed up to 35 dwelling units per acre. The initial site plan proposed 34 side-by-side townhouse rental units on 2.238 acres. At that time, site plan review was cursory. The site was not built according to plan. A variance (VA 83-41) was approved on July 12, 1983 to allow the subdivision of the 26 living units, a variance of 1.7727 dwelling units per acre for a total variance of 5.93 dwelling units. On May 24, 1983, the Albemarle County Planning Commission approved the University Commons Condominium Final Plat. That approval was limited to the 26 finished units. This plat shows a new parking area, which was to allow for compliance with the Ordinance standard of 2 spaces per apartment. It was not completed, and was bonded. The bond was released after it was determined that the plan expired and was therefore, void. These basement areas may not have been completed due to the inability to provide gravity public sewer. The interior walls are framed, and they are roughed-in. They have been used for a laundry area. When I visited the site prior to the court tax case, they were full of refuse, including old appliances. It appeared that they had been occupied by transients. Judge Peatross, Jr. determined that "since the Planning Commission's approval of the condominium plat did not include the conversion of these four condominium units, as a matter of law, they became common elements and each of the 26 owners of the units converted have an ownership interest in these four units. " An individual has approached the County with the proposal to obtain ownership of these four units of common elements, and to complete them. For file information, but not relevant to this determination, he intends to provide low and moderate cost housing, and substantially refurbish / repair the buildings. A technical feasibility issue is the availability of public sewer, which is a requirement. The site is nonconforming with respect to parking. Approximately 21 unmarked spaces exist. The current ordinance requires 30 units x 2 spaces/unit = 60 spaces. The applicant proposes to provide 8 to 10 new spaces, such that the new units will be in compliance with the ordinance. A variance is not necessary. An as-built site plan with the proposed parking addition will be required, and may be approved administratively. This has been discussed with Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning. February 11, 1993 Uuiversity Commons Page 3 A situation such as this is a relevant application of the principles of Section 6.4.3 because the structure was constructed with the clear intention of utilizing the basement area as apartments in the future. This area has little reasonable use available as common area. These apartment buildings are "grandfathered, " because they were built under a prior ordinance, and are not conforming to the current zoning with respect to residential density. It is irrational to isolate an individual apartment, or in this case four apartments, and not consider the whole complex as a nonconformity. In conclusion, conversion of these basement spaces into no more than four apartments may occur with a site plan which shows a minimum of 8 additional parking spaces. The condominium subdivision plat will follow. A reasonable completion schedule for site improvements such as installation of the parking will be required. cc: George St. John Ron Keeler Jack Rudolph Reading File