HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199800010 Review Comments 1998-05-05 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: May 5,1998
STAFF REPORT VA 98-10
OWNER/APPLICANT: Adnan and Brenda Yousef (owners)
Shannon D. Herring (applicant)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56 / 32A
ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial
ACREAGE: 0.45 acres
LOCATION: This property was trading as the Crozet Corner Market. It is
located on the north side of RoUte 250 West, at the
intersection with Route 240 and Route 635.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant proposes to reopen this
convenience store with new fuel pumps and a canopy. The canopy will not meet the front
yard setback from Route 250 West and that is the cause for the variance request. The
new business will be called Herringbone's Deli and Grill. The applicant has not submitted
a change in or expansion in use, but instead has proposed to continue the prior use.
This is a request for relief from Section 21.7.1 for minimum yard requirements adjacent
to public streets within Commercial Districts. The ordinance requires a 30 foot setback
from a structure to the right-of-way. A variance of 30 feet is requested to allow a gas
pump canopy to be constructed 0 feet from the front property line.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
The Crozet Corner Market closed several months ago. Since that time, the underground
fuel tanks have been replaced. They will be extending public sewer to serve this site.
The property was originally developed prior to zoning regulation. It is nonconforming to
several requirements, including the requirement for a site plan for development. (If there
are any of these changes, a site plan is required: an intensification in use, a change in
use, a change in ingress/egress, or a change related to fuel sales.)
VA 88-50 was approved on August 9, 1988. It allowed two (2) wall signs within the scenic
areas highway. This was a variance to allow a second sign of ten (10) square feet.
VA 81-43 was approved on July 14, 1981. It allowed gas pumps and island to be located
12 feet from the right-of-way of Route 250 west. This was a variance of 138 feet
from the 150 foot setback requirement on a scenic highway. At that time, it was
called the Family Market.
VA 78-41 was approved in August, 1978, to allow a freestanding sign to be erected. This
was a variance of 145 feet. This variance was specifically granted to Mr. Yousef
and could not be transferred to another lessee or owner of the property.
The site was once a restaurant.
Page 2
Staff Report: VA 98-10
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This property was
acquired by the current owners prior to the current ordinance. The parcel is the same size
and shape now that it was in 1980 when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. There are
unusual size and shape restrictions which unreasonably restrict the use of this parcel. The
parcel is in a "B" shape with a dogleg which has frontage on Route 240. It is only about
53 feet deep at the deepest point. The existing development of the property dictates the
location of the canopy to a large degree. The pumps and therefore the canopy are in front
of the store and the parking is beside it. Even if the property were not built yet, it is virtually
impossible to meet setback requirements with a 24 foot wide canopy and a 30 foot
setback, given the shape of the property. The size is somewhat small; it is just over 1/3
acre.
There is a demonstrable hardship in this case to compliance with the ordinance for the
construction of a canopy. However, as the Board is aware, absent specific zoning text
amendments, staff has not considered gasoline pump canopies necessary to reasonable
use of commercial property. Therefore, we have typically not found sufficient grounds for
hardship in the event that a canopy could not be constructed. If it is the Board's opinion
that canopy is necessary for reasonable use of the property, this situation justifies the
hardship criteria.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT:
A review of the variance criteria is as follows:
Necessary Finding Number One: Hardship
The applicant comments that the variance is necessary:
• This property has been used as a convenience store for over 25 years as well as
a restaurant before that time. The store predates the 1969 Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance. All we want to do is cover the existing pump area.
• The only other alternative would be to demolish the existing store and this is not
financially possible.
• We would need for this variance to be granted in order for my business to be
competitive with other businesses in the area.
• The canopy would provide the convenience of shelter during inclement weather to
my customers. It would be an advantage to the elderly persons using my facilities.
Staff cannot dispute the applicant's contentions about the impact on sales and the ability
to be competitive; the applicant is the knowledgeable opinion in this area. Staff agrees
with the points made by the applicant. In addition, staff reminds the Board of the hardship
relating to the characteristics of this property: size, shape, existing development.
However, absent specific zoning amendments staff does not consider a canopy to be
Page 3
Staff Report: VA 98-10
necessary for reasonable use of property. Therefore, staff concludes:
The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance
would produce undue hardship.
Necessary Finding Number Two: Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
• Other businesses in the county who have received similar variances for canopies
are Belaire Exxon, Route 250 West; Trading Post, Route 29 South; Shadwell
Market, Route 250 East; Rio Superette, Route 29 North; and the Ridge Mini Mart,
which is located within 1 mile of my business. Without the variance, I would not be
able to be competitive in my gas sales.
• Due to the fact that a canopy provides convenience and comfort in inclement
weather, I feel persons having a choice as to whether to purchase gas under a
canopy as opposed to purchasing gas without any cover would of course prefer to
have the advantage of staying dry.
Again, staff has outlined conditions unique to this property which are not shared generally
by other properties in this vicinity or in this zoning district. In our opinion, this uniqueness
meets the Code criteria for approval of a variance. Therefore, staff finds:
The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by
other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity.
Necessary Finding Number Three: Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
• Due to the location of my business the granting of the variance will not affect any
adjacent property and will not be detrimental to the character of the district.
Staff agrees that the canopy will not change the character of the district. This is a
commercial property which has historically been used for this purpose. The building permit
will be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board for aesthetic purposes.
*** Staff must restate in this case the concern previously noted in other variances, that it
may be difficult if not impossible to comply with the maximum spillover requirement of 0.5
foot candles. This is an ordinance requirement which is not presently before the Board of
Zoning Appeals for variance and which is not subject to modification as the ordinance is
presently written. The applicant is advised to have a lighting contractor work with
photometrics for the site to determine if compliance is possible for a lighted canopy.
If the canopy can comply with lighting requirements and the ARB approves the building
permit, the canopy should not have a negative impact on the character of the area.
Page 4
Staff Report: VA 98-10
Therefore, staff agrees:
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 RECOMMENDATION:
Granting this variance would be a convenience for the applicants. They are already
enjoying use of the property without variance. Because of this and the fact that one of the
three variance criteria are not met, staff recommends denial for cause.
Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following
condition:
1. This variance is for the canopy described generally within this variance application
only. Any further addition or new construction will require a separate variance application.
2. A certificate of appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board is required for
the canopy design, lighting and any facade improvements.
A:\VA98-10.WPD
li
Y. y
••�,M s 1Ai" . •• • ' 4.1' e,.AO • (*
f A A 4 1, 2,
. 1,44.
A
If Itifi ;1 I, \\ " \\
t 0 �� // // it ;
:�: 0 * . gith, . ` \\
W. // // •,..„
A \\ /
Cl) t.
a 6 m„,,, ......... ..__ __. ..._..........._
\\-0- ,,,, .
„...„, „
....... gi
I 2 46.4 4 ‘\ ' :-.•••• it A
54
MI g ; , ` n IICl, // - // 1/ /
1 on // a % c if
s.
?gin; Z �, INN % _ , 11 //� II / / _
`` ' f/ // /J I( .4 - ///. tr
}}
\\ 11 If // V - ,_ i/ _ r / a
s It / _ _ 11 ; —
// / II i
1.4".".... "..":::."' :t'•,. . *
// ` // // _ \\ _ ammo
II 11 \' r/ ,�, ;I // 11 /,/
\\/ II // it / firs
/
\ 11 �� l/ 11 `// II \} .. /i \\ l� = !/ ..ssusstnsss
�// l/ ` . // II I i // 11 . it z
...............„,---------1) �+
ili� \ \1���/I // II \� \ \\ 8
111 1� • / III - \\ _ // If //
fl // ,a-- 11 \\ ' //
/ // // / // // i i
_ i1,, // \\ �!
_ _ _
- // // 0 11 ///mil//II /� II/_ /� /� �/
,/fl 11 \\
..„,-- 0 '
A il ri a 11 1/ . ..
, / ......
,� // fT 1 +
R t 63 „J. ,,,,,,,,,..:,,,„, ,, ,,,.,-',i,t., .: , •
tt
„,,,,
(,) ., ..., . ,,, -- # )1, i
. (-Az • t 4 II
kwn7J (.$4 IN) ' -\' ' - . „ .5.2•1i' I
i _.nlalb ,.tI II \1 , \\ l/ f II 11 /i
ri
•IP`P /'111111i 11 : � II - II /
i i , -;-
fi _...�,.�... _ `CO Nil CD 'y \\ 0/ _ ! , II // 11 C:D........1.0
/� rili, - 1
*L
N4444...N00%
. 465:40
// ii , / \\ --4/ $;Iiii, - \\ .,i _ 7
Qv) % ,1:,...„... //''..,,,, 1 1/1
„ ..,...,...,,,,,„ 0.,
CD M
—� ...�'� CD M !'..,,�T I l r I \\ iI I`\II / I I // 11 11 11 —
// / 1 // . 1 i i/`� ,%
Jim Is Jr& •
FRAME BLDG.
COUNTRY STORE
NE
ASPHALT
gliSimmimm.m7FERHANG
ASPHALT
. e ,
% CA N 0 P ' Ittielr;
• AIR'. ''''
Als
2 4 I, ' p
250 RIGHT OF WAY .
Ill
r
. ,
/ S.zi ' GRASSY MEDIAN
, ch
Al '
;CI
1 , c
ROUTE 250 [C.12-• il,
.:-
L._--.1.7:=:.-.::::...—' —
4,4,
, ,,,, ,,,,
NOTE: R.O.W,Margins of U.S.ROUTE 250 and
ST.RT.240 ware established from plats
_ _ of record and physical pavement centerlines
and are subject to R.O.W.as shcwn on plans
for U.S.ROUTE 250 Protect 700 A 2
I 4 h,
O O 47
I
ea
O 5rJd' U"El74.r3z _- _ _ ye c�v A, W � o
X.
h ' - ..-, — STATE ROUTE 7 J .rQ.Up.:E` 197.35' 1 — a �3 a o �-
al •
'v — 30 EASEMENT `-- h r R u'
al V \ V b O
r_
,\ y
" �i T. M. 56- 32
Q 40= ' 1.5G3 ACHES Pipe Ia Road ,�
• Old Ironfawn! — r..
� 80l1!gun?
`J {
rjk' 07 10' • 55,0o T. M. 56- 340 ti• 1' ,f !
10
co 1,, S H4 0740"E M r
0. 53550.
05'S2''0 IV
O,!!d ACHE 1ti"/y I 2� ,� ron sa! •' ,yG T. M, 36- 32A O.IJ36 ACRE 3500' DD 526-490 . ' I
,,, S85 28'300: {o_- O.234 ACRE C 0,,l02 AC. Plal h0 p /
0. 62.t 0' +'nT DD 2(0-244 P/o! �\` S 39°0740'[ p r�'fie
0. 1+178 47,33 l ;'�';Y,t
Iron NBG'43%O"IY SQ Er5. /
s p es/ I. .19' 4$•�.�! !/'
tr N 07'34%0"W
Iron N 06.14'!O"W . -
del
-----u U, S, ROUTE 250
Illf .
635
RT. 35
, __________
I,1.1,i tiz, PLAT SNOWING SURVEY OF
ti sniclt* Ian
`�"�'" c.,, THREE PARCELS OF LAND OWNED BY
c, i M ,,,,RRiS FOSTER ADMAN M. & pRENDA J. YOUSEF
'' ctw,
;.r Sa 113iai9?8 o r
ba1T3(b;lli i� Situated at Brownsville in the ,
`' Lnnr Ski" White Hall Magisterial District of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA
W. MORRIS FOSTER SCALE :I" r. CO' Sept. 8 , 19138
Land Surveyor
REVISED 9-21I-130
Nollysford,Virglnlo
G Z •