Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300030 Action Letter 1993-09-15 li_ <„ pF AL,,4 ?,Niiirot �%RGI COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 September 15, 1993 Steve Melton 195 Riverbend Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Buckingham Office; Tax Map 76, Parcels 12B, 12C & 12E Dear Mr. Melton: This letter is to inform you that on September 14, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (3:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-93-30, subject to the following condition: 1) The site shall be developed in general accordance with the site plan submitted with this application, dated June 23, 1993. This variance approval allows relief from Sections 21.7.2 and 21.7.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to 1) reduce parking setback from adjacent residential zoning (the State Dept. of Forestry) from 20 to 8 ft for 9 spaces and to 2) reduce the building setback from adjacent residential from 50 to 40 ft, to allow construction on an existing foundation. If you have any questions, please contact our office. ASincerely� .,� �� O.Lb ( 1i -- Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant $T/sp cc: Malcolm Woodward Inspections tt STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 9/14/93 STAFF REPORT - VA-93-30 OWNER/APPLICANT: Malcolm Woodward (Parcels 12B and 12C) Virginia Land Trust (12E) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76, parcels 12B, 12C and 12E ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial with Entrance Corridor and Floodplain overlays ACREAGE: 12B, . 2 acre; 12C, . 2 acre; 12E, . 72 acre LOCATION: On the south side of Fontaine Avenue, in the southeast quadrant of its intersection with Routes 29 and 250. REQUEST: The applicant wishes to use an existing foundation to build a two-story office building. This proposal requires variances for both the building and the parking lot. Section 21. 7 .2 requires buildings to be at least 50 feet from areas zoned residentially; the existing foundation lies about 40 feet from parcel 17A, which is zoned R-1. Section 21. 7 . 2 also requires parking spaces to lie at least 20 feet from areas zoned residentially; the applicant's proposal shows parking eight feet from the residential property line. Because the parking lot also requires grading within the 20-buffer required by Section 21.7 . 3, the applicant is seeking a modification from the Planning Commission to allow this grading. The applicant's justification includes the following: Hardship The application of this ordinance would impact the proposed project by the loss of nine parking spaces. Being active in the commercial market we feel this would greatly limit the marketability of this project either for sale or lease. Uniqueness of Hardship This is a unique situation in that our property is zoned Highway Commercial and is adjacent to land owned by the State Department of Forestry who is exempt from local zoning regulations. Although the operation is commercially oriented, the zoning is still maintained as R-1. Character of the Area As shown on the zoning map, the property is bounded to the North by Highway Commercial land, to the East by Morey Creek and Memphis University School (vacant) and to the South and West by R-1 zoned land occupied by the Department of Forestry, who is operating a commercial venture, which would coincide with our use. The steep embankment created by the Forestry Department offers a very Page 2 September 1, 1993 substantial buffer. The Buckingham Office project in our opinion will only enhance the character of the surrounding area. RELEVANT HISTORY: These parcels have existed in their current configuration, and zoned for business or commercial use, since at least 1968 . According to the applicant, the foundation was built in 1960, before zoning existed in the County. The building was abandoned and lost its status and as a legal non-conformity. The southwest corner of the building lies in the 100-year floodplain, which is at elevation 436. 38 . The finished floor of the basement will be raised from 435. 77 feet to 437 .44 feet to lift it out of the floodplain. In addition, the use of the basement is limited to storage. The applicant is also applying for a special use permit to fill a small portion of the property. The property currently consists of three small parcels. These parcels will be combined before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the commercial offices. RECOMMENDATION: The shape and topography of these lots, created before zoning existed in the County, complicate the development of this site. The site is long and narrow, only 200 feet wide at its widest point and tapering down to point. These three lots are proposed for one development. It is conceivable that the individual owners could propose separate businesses on each lot, requiring multiple variances. In addition to the shape and topography of the lot for which a variance is being requested, Section 34 . 2 of the Ordinance notes that the use of adjoining property may also be considered. The applicant has pointed out the commercial nature of the Forestry Department, which would be the property most affected by the variance. The area closest to the applicant's property is used by the Forest Department to park heavy equipment. The land rises sharply between the applicant's property and parcel 17A, making it unlikely that either the building or the parking lot would be visible from the parking lot of the Forestry Department. If the Forestry Department property were zoned as it is used, for commercial use, there would be no setback required for either the parking lot or the building on the applicant's property. The Planning Department has reviewed this request and made the following comment: The existence of a non-residential use on the adjacent property and the terrain of the adjacent property reduces the value and significance of maintaining setbacks and undisturbed buffers. Page 3 September 1, 1993 Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. It would be costly for the applicant to remove the existing foundation and build a new one for the offices. 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. Few commercial lots are this long and narrow and bordered by properties zoned residentially but used commercially. 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. The foundation lies in a resource protection area. Demolishing and rebuilding the foundation would damage Morey Creek more than simply building on the existing foundation. This Department has received a letter from the Virginia Department of Forestry stating that the Department does not object to the variance for the parking lot. As mentioned earlier, the topography should prevent the parking lot and building from visually intruding upon the Forestry Department property. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general accordance with the site plan submitted with this application, dated June 23 , 1993 . �pF AL&n. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060 _ TDD (804) 972-4012 MEMORANDUM (Corrected Copy for Floodplain Elevation) TO: William Fritz, Senior Planner FROM: Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator Q 0k) DATE: August 18, 1993 RE: Buckingham Office Building This memo is to clarify two issues for our files and for those of the applicant. The issues relate to the building setback and the floodplain implications of the existing foundation. The property is presently improved with a foundation, and no walls and roof. It has never been occupied. The foundation does not meet rear yard setbacks. It scales to be about 40 feet from the rear property line (common with the State Department of Forestry), which is 10 feet short of the 50 foot setback from residentially zoned adjacent property. Based on a recent flood study submitted by the applicant and approved by the Engineering Department, the southwest corner of the foundation is in the floodplain. The applicant has provided the contractor's cost sheet to document that the foundation materials were priced in 1960. As you know, this predates the zoning ordinance. However, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance specifically states that the "grandfathering" or nonconformity is extinguished after two (2) years of abandonment. Section 6.1 .3 states: "Any such use, activity or structure which is discontinued for more than two (2) years shall be deemed abandoned and shall thereafter conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which the same is situated." August 18, 1993 . . Bill Fritz/Buckingham Office Building Page 2 It is my opinion that construction of the building, albeit on the same foundation, requires a setback variance. This is due to the abandonment of the original nonconforming structure. This variance as well as one relating to the proposed parking setback, has been submitted for public hearing on September 14th. Relating to the proposed parking setback reduction, is a request to reduce the 20 foot buffer requirement adjacent to residential property. This request for buffer waiver will be addressed most appropriately by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 21 .7.3. With regard to the floodplain, please take note of the attached prior correspondence on this property. The floodplain is at elevation 436.38 feet. The southwest foundation corner is in the floodway fringe portion of the floodplain. The site plan proposes to raise the finished floor of the basement from 435.77 feet to 437.44 feet and to fill a small portion of the property. This is permitted with a special permit with the limit to the use of the basement as storage only and no "habitable space." The special permit has been submitted and is pending. The applicant was given a choice of either a) raising the finished floor elevation above the floodplain elevation after filling with a special permit; or b) filling at the southwest corner to remove the entire structure from the floodplain overlay. They chose option a1, which is allowed with a special permit with limitations as to use. Option b" requires approval from the Army Corps of Engineers to amend the flood insurance maps. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Anyone aggrieved by this decision may appeal in writing, within thirty days. AGM/ cc: Steve Melton Jack Kelsey Babette Thorpe (site plan file) Variance 93-30