Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199600010 Review Comments 1996-08-06 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: August 6, 1996 STAFF REPORT VA-96-10 OWNER/APPLICANT: Dr. Raymond C. Doss TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61 K/09-01 ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial ACREAGE: 0.913 acres LOCATION: The west side of Hydraulic Road about 300 feet south of Inglewood Drive REQUEST: The applicant seeks relief from two separate ordinance sections: Section 4.12.6.6.2, the Schedule of specific requirements for number of off-street parking spaces, which requires "one space per one hundred square feet of gross floor area exclusive of that area to house animals"; and, Section 21 .7.2, which states (among other things), "No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be located closer than fifty feet to any residential or rural areas district." The applicant's justification includes the following: Hardship To expand along the required building setback lines causes the architecture to produce oblique angles which are difficult to build, inefficient, and without reason with respect to the existing building. The reduction of parking spaces is not an issue of hardship although the expense of additional parking for no gain seems excessive. Uniqueness of Hardship Adjacent properties are not zoned commercially, and therefore, do not have the same (setback) requirements. The Hospital is surrounded by unlike uses and therefore cannot be related in an equitable way. However, excessive parking requirements are in no way beneficial to the surrounding neighbors nor aesthetically pleasing. Impact on the Character of the Neighborhood The setback variance will not cause substantial detriment to the adjacent property and will allow the expansion to be more efficient and aesthetically pleasing. The parking variance may improve the character of the neighborhood (over what will be required if it is not granted.) The adjacent properties are of dissimilar uses relative to the animal hospital. They will in no way be harmed or deprived if the parking variance is granted. RELEVANT HISTORY: On April 17, 1984, VA-84-24 was approved allowing an existing sign to be located 1 foot from the right-of-way of Rt. 743. STAFF REPORT - VA-96-10 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: This property was acquired in good faith by the current owner. The veterinary hospital use exists now as a legal non-conformity and it can continue within the same building area indefinitely. However, the owner is currently pursuing a special use permit to bring the use into conformity so that he can expand the building and the use within it as required by Section 6.4.1. The structure is also a legal non-conformity due to its extension into the setbacks. Bringing this structure into conformity by variance will accomplish two things. First, it will alleviate the time restriction for rebuilding any areas that extend into the building setbacks if the structure were to be damaged or destroyed. (Section 6.6.1 allows reconstruction only if commenced within one year and completed within 2 years of the date of the damage.) Second, the owner would have more latitude for building design and be able to extend the current walls in a rectilinear manner rather than adding odd angles to make the addition fit within the setbacks. This property is somewhat odd shaped in its oblique frontage on Hydraulic Road. The building is sited to align with the road which causes the corners to protrude into the setbacks. It is the existing corners, right front and left rear, as well as the new addition on the front that would be allowed and protected by the granting of the variance for setback reduction. Another contributing factor to this existing situation is the residential use and zoning on all but approximately 140 feet of the boundaries of the adjoining properties. This residential to commercial zoning district situation imposes a 50-foot building setback on the commercial structure even though the commercial structure and use predate both zoning and the adjoining apartment buildings. For these reasons, staff finds that the strict application of the ordinance in regard to the setbacks produces undue hardship as allowed by the Code of Virginia. Regarding the parking variance request, Dr. Doss currently meets or exceeds the parking requirement. Since the spaces are not marked, it is difficult to say exactly how many cars can be accommodated, but the required number could definitely be met. The building addition that he plans is not designed to expand his business. Enclosing the dog kennels and runs is designed to be a good neighbor and muffle the sound of the barking dogs. (The Zoning Department has had a few complaints from the adjoining apartment residents and Dr. Doss has had even more.) The addition that is planned on the front of the building is designed to make the reception and waiting areas more spacious. The result of the addition is that there is more gross square footage which adds more required parking. Staff cannot identify any hardship in this request. STAFF REPORT - VA-96-10 Page 3 Staff recommends approval for cause for the setback request: 1) The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; The oblique shape coupled with the existing structure's siting and the surrounding residential development create an 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; No other properties in the vicinity and same zoning district have this combination of odd- shape and existing development. 3) The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and has provided evidence that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. The areas of the building that will protrude into the setbacks should be of no detriment to adjacent properties and in fact may be more aesthetically pleasing than the odd angled structure that could be built without the variance. For the parking request, staff recommends 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; Other commercial properties in this area meet their parking requirements. 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 find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. This approval is valid only with approval of the related special permit. Any expansion shall require an amendment.