Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199400001 Action Letter 1994-02-09 • (1.40111°*1 �'IRGtN�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 February 9, 1994 Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. 724 Chapel Hill Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 61, Parcels 124E1 and 124E (part of) Dear Mr. Wood: This letter is to inform you that on February 8, 1994, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (4:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-94-01, subject to the following condition: 1) Planning staff approval of screening adjacent to the residential property. This variance approval allows relief from Section 21.7.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side setback from 50 to 10 feet adjacent to residential to the east. This is to allow an expanded putt-putt course, bumper boats, batting cages and a go-cart facility. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, i I Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator AGM/sp cc: Bill Fritz, Planning Department Inspections Department • of AqL r U ��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 • CORRECTED COPY March 23, 1994 Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. 724 Chapel Hill Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Putt-Putt; Tax Map 61, Parcels 124E1 and 124E (part of) Dear Mr. Wood: This letter is to inform you that on February 8, 1994, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (4:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-94-01 , subject to the following condition: 1) Planning staff approval of screening and fencing adjacent to the residential property. This variance approval allows relief from Section 21.7.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side setback from 50 to 10 feet adjacent to residential to the east. This is to allow an expanded putt-putt course, bumper boats, batting cages and a go-cart facility. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, ) ,// Amelia G. McCui`1tey-,' Zoning Administrator AGM/sp cc: Bill Fritz, Planning Department Inspections Department STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: February 8, 1994 STAFF REPORT - VA 94-01 OWNER/APPLICANT: Lloyd F., Jr. and Patricia E. Wood (owners) T/A: Putt Putt Golf Course TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61/ Parcels 124E1 and 124E (part) ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial and C-1, Commercial ACREAGE: 3.8 acres LOCATION: On the east side of Rio Road, adjacent to Bonanza (beside it) and Nations Bank (behind it). REQUEST: The proposal is to expand the existing miniature golf course and add these other features: bumper boats, batting cages, a gameroom/clubhouse and a go-cart track. A special permit review for the commercial recreational use expansion is pending action on the variance (S.P. 93-34). In addition, a rezoning request to rezone 0.53 acres in the northeast corner of the property, is pending. This is a proposal to rezone from R-15, Residential to C-1, Commercial. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this entire area as Office Service. The setback reduction is sought from adjoining property to the east, which is zoned R-10, Residential. The front portion is zoned CO, Commercial Office and has been used as R.D. Wade's Construction Company offices, and previously as a repair garage. The applicant requests relief from Section 21.7.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: Adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any residential or rural areas district. In addition, Section 5.1.16 of the Supplementary Regulations requires a 75 foot setback for a swimming pool, which has been applied to other similar outdoor uses. This waiver can be addressed by the Planning Commission during their review of the special permit. The applicant's justification includes the following: Hardship 1. The strict application of this ordinance goes beyond the intent of the ordinance for the proposed remodeling and expansion of the existing use. Since the adjoining property has been all commercial uses for over 25 years and the fact that the Comprehensive Plan recognizes it as office-commercial, it would create an undue hardship on the existing business use if strict compliance of the 50 foot setback is required. STAFF REPORT - VA-94-01 PAGE 2 Hardship continues... 2. When the Nations Bank was built in 1992, the extreme width of the entrance street required to meet VDOT and County standards left the Putt Putt property with its existing limited, narrow width. 3. Because the current miniature course has existed for 34 years since 1966, it seems that it should be exempt from this section of the ordinance. Uniqueness of Hardship 1. This hardship is unique to this use and this zone and this property. It is not shared generally. 2. Numerous other designs have been explored, and do not provide the management control over the uses necessary. 3. Some design requirements are rigid. For example, to meet insurance requirements, the batting cages must be oriented as shown. Character of the Area 1. The proposal will not be a detriment to adjacent property as the building setback lines and uses will conform. The putting surfaces, batting surfaces and bumper boats are more similar to parking surfaces than to buildings. Therefore, it is in compliance with the more appropriate parking setback of 10 feet. 2. If granted, the character of the district will remain the same as it has been for over 25 years. 3. These are modern and improved equipment. The go carts intended for use are much quieter than the earlier models. The applicants will be submitting information regarding the nuisance impacts of the use, such as noise and lighting. They will show that they can utilize the site as proposed, with minimal noise or lighting spillover at the residential property line. RELEVANT HISTORY: This information has been explained within the "Request" section. STAFF REPORT - VA-94-01 PAGE 3 RECOMMENDATION: According to the applicant, there have been several discussions with the owners of the relevant residential property. The applicants contend that despite the fact that it is currently zoned residentially, the property will undoubtedly be developed commercially. Otherwise, it would not be cost-effective. Staff suggested that the applicants seek some mutually beneficial solution with the adjacent owners. According to Bill Fritz of the Planning Department, it is likely that a solid wood fence will be required at the property line. In addition, it is expected that noise levels at that line will be about 60 decibels. This is a difficult variance review. It is complicated by the fact that the adjoining property while zoned residentially, is designated for commercial use within the Comprehensive Plan. That designation would be considered a favorable factor in a rezoning request. If the property is zoned commercially, no variance would be necessary because there are no zoning building setbacks between commercial properties. In the event the adjoining property is developed residentially, it is important to consider the noise, lighting and other aspects of the recreational center's impact upon it. Staff is not in a position to evaluate the financial aspects and the like, to determine the type of use which will be built adjacent to the recreational use. The initial evaluation will consider the situation should the adjacent property be developed residentially. Staff has the following points to consider against the proposal: 1. The hardships are mostly related to the number of uses and design guidelines, as opposed to those inherent in the land itself. The wide right-of-way allows for a distance of 240 feet from parking setback to parking setback (the road to the residential property). It allows for a distance of 125 feet of building area from the face of curb after meeting a 50 foot setback. Staff has questioned whether the number of uses or their design could be altered to meet the setback requirement. Or, staff has suggested that the parking be located adjacent to the residential property line to provide increased separation from the uses. It is difficult to see an undue hardship. 2. There is no guarantee that the adjoining property will be developed commercially. The Comprehensive Plan is currently being reviewed and may change. We do not know that this will stay commercial. 3. Staff is hesitant to approve a variance which could allow a use generating a potential noise and lighting nuisance. It seems premature to have this review without an engineer's statement that this use as proposed on this site will fall within acceptable standards. In that event, it would fail the standard for the maintaining the character of the area. 4. The applicant has not offered any specific mitigating efforts. STAFF REPORT - VA-94-01 PAGE 4 Staff has the following points to consider in favor of this request: 1. The Comprehensive Plan designation and the market. ' This does create a unique situation, thus satisfying the second criterion of variance review. 2. The special permit will consider impacts on the neighboring properties and the like. Staff is unable to recommend approval, given the current zoning of the adjacent property. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1) The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; There appear to be options for redesign. It may not be possible to accommodate this many uses within this area. 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. Information regarding noise and lighting levels has not been received at the time of this writing. The proposed setback will be even closer than the existing putt putt currently is to the side property line. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Planning staff approval of screening adjacent to the residential property. 2. Zoning Administrator approval of lighting and noise levels through special permit review.