The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199800019 Review Comments 1998-08-04 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: August 4, 1998 STAFF REPORT VA-98-19 OWNER: Dorothy C. Quarles APPLICANT: John F. Matthews TAX/MAP/PARCEL: 60/36 ZONING: R1, Residential, pending rezoning to CO, Commercial Office ACREAGE: 0.47± LOCATION: The east side of Stillfried Lane, approximately 200 feet south of Rt. 250W, behind the Teague Funeral Home TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from two requirements within Section 21.7, Minimum Yard Requirements in commercial districts generally. One requirement relates to the building setback and the other relates to maintaining an undisturbed buffer on commercial adjacent to residential. Section 21.7.2 states that no portion of any structure shall be located closer than 50 feet to any residential zoning district. Section 21.7.3 states that no construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than 20 feet to any residential zoning district. A variance of 24 feet is requested to allow the property to be rezoned with the existing structure only 26 feet from the existing property line and the adjoining residential district. To reduce the buffer to zero feet, a variance of 20 feet is also needed to allow construction of a new driveway and parking area where this property and the adjacent parcel have always shared one driveway. RELEVANT HISTORY: There are no planning or zoning files on this parcel. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: The applicant in this case is a contract purchaser, John Matthews, who is going into the purchase with his eyes wide open and knowing that without the variances, he can not use the property as he plans. Mr. Matthews wants to change the zoning district and then use the existing structure for his home and his office, Mitchell-Matthews & Associates Architects. He is aware that if the rezoning is approved, he could raze the existing building and construct a new office building without variances. However, the existing dwelling is an old stone structure that has a certain charm and ambiance as well as plenty of space for his needs. The cost of demolition followed by new construction makes the property economically unfeasible for this applicant. The property is close to square and level, so that there are no exceptional features that relate to granting a variance. The use and development of the properties on three sides immediately adjacent to this parcel are reasons for granting a variance. The commercially zoned properties adjoining the subject parcel are the Teague Funeral Home to the north and a retail/service area to the northeast. Of the residentially zoned VA"98-19 2 August 4, 1998 properties on three sides, one is the University Heights Apartment (U-Heights) complex, one is the Kluge Children's Rehabilitation Center (owned by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia and not subject to our zoning ordinance) and one is a quadraplex owned by Mrs. Quarles. The U-Heights property contains a 21 foot right-of- way adjacent to the subject parcel making Mr. Matthews' structure a minimum of 59 feet from any possible development on that parcel. The external wall of the structure is 40 to 42 feet from the residential zoning line with Mrs. Quarles' quadraplex. The reason for the 26-foot request is that there is an external stairway from the second story to the parking area that juts out from the building and from which the variance must be measured. (When and if Mrs. Quarles were to rezone her remaining parcel to a commercial designation, the setback issues related to this variance would no longer apply. That parcel is the last one in the area currently recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial service.) These factors are physical reasons related to the property that give reason for granting a variance based on the use and development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Although the hardship is the self-inflicted zoning change, the granting of the variance would be directly related to the special conditions of the property. Regarding the variance of the buffer area: It would be a hardship for both parcels involved to require maintaining an undisturbed buffer since the area between the two zoning districts is currently occupied by a shared driveway and has very little vegetation. Mr. Matthews plans to keep the entrance onto the right-of-way on the U-Heights side and create a new entrance on the Stillfried Lane side. This will result in a narrow planting strip and a 20-foot driveway adjacent to the residential zone. The residential property will also have to create another entrance and partial new driveway. During the site plan process (which will be required due to the change in use and entrances) the Planning Commission or Planning staff can require landscaping and/or fencing as they find appropriate to separate the uses. This undue hardship is again caused by the use and development of the property immediately adjacent thereto. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship The applicant comments that the variance is necessary: • Due to the existing location of the stone house, the strict application of this ordinance would produce undue hardship by prohibiting the use of this property because neither the house nor the property line can be moved to comply with the ordinance. Staff opinion is that an unreasonable restriction as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance does exist in both cases—use of the structure and reduction of the buffer. IICOB 11VOL31DEPT\Building&Zonrng\Reports\VA98-19.dot "VA 08-19 3 August 4, 1998 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • The adjoining Teague Funeral Home does not comply with the setback requirements, and therefore this hardship is not shared by other properties. Staff agrees that there are nonconforming situations in the general area which do not share this hardship because they were created during the adoption of the current zoning ordinance and not examined one parcel at a time. The proposed rezoning causes a unique situation. Regarding the buffer: the existing shared driveway for commercial and residential use is unique. The separation of the commercial and residential traffic is a much better arrangement. 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. Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • An inspection of the existing conditions would indicate that the proposed site and parking layout permitted by this variance would serve to organize and structure the land use of the adjoining parcels which are presently loosely connected by a free- form gravel drive. • The owner of the affected adjacent parcel supports this variance request. (See attached letter.) • It is also reasonable to expect that this adjoining property, the last remaining parcel also designated but the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use in this area, will eventually also seek rezoning to commercial. When this occurs, the setback ordinances will be no longer relevant [to the parcel subject to this variance.] Staff agrees that granting the variance and thus allowing the rezoning and commercial use of the building will not change the character of the area. Allowing the buffer variance will improve the character of the area as landscaping and/or fencing can be required. 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. IICOB 11VOL31DEP71Buitding&Zonuig\Reports\VA98-19 dot .VA%-19 4 August 4, 1998 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since all three criteria have been met, staff recommends approval with one condition: The variance is for the existing structure only. Any addition to or replacement of this structure and all new structures shall comply with the then existing ordinance or apply for a new variance. (This excludes replacement structures built under Section 6.6.1) 11COB 11VOL31DEP71Buddrng&ZonrnglReporis1VA98-19 dot COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PLANNING COMMISSION f y 7),, ,,,� I 3 rnan " i'I�� — chairman chairman ��' ( : 7 ' --, -67 / secretary secretary ecre ary / /. /'‘."�/ -- - - /7 ('i !_ _- ., , I - _ . _ APiQ/L (-Z /96-a date date date CERTIFICATION: OWNER'S APPROVAL: This subdivision is made with the consent of the undersigned owners, proprie- This is a correct and accurate plat. tors. and/or trustees. All roads and streets, if not previously dedicated, are hereby pp 0tendered for dedication to public use. 2C N HA W K I NS FUNERAL CHAPEL, INC. D.B 382-164 I C 0 RWIERCA ot6.1—; 1 ,. '-"-\ 1 7.1 1RONI S77°-5750'E 160.90 I vOi PIPE �+ • r N w O O 0') N ►_ ? it �t IN°' ERNARD M. CAPERTON ixLOTA o0.8. 313-539 • : ' cri W O N F \ IN o \\ EXISTING m U VA h r O • 3 I 4,Q DWELLING j /� • \ a5 (�rN I �� D.8 251-5 a \qS ��. cc� , r` N � a N J O LC N \ J � (CH ILOREN'S REHABILITATI JN CENTER) \ air a OW r.-INIIIMOIMIllip. �p�� p rn AI N VI (74.-40'F . is o4 '9 M r. . :cnin3 411 r m RES i PRAM A L ~ M ALLEGANY LAND CO. _Lu cc N 0, LOT rr Bir \ o D.B. 408-79 N N o' Z`O rn \ N P i?tSt1)IMk" EXISIING \ I DWELLING ` ON. 6 \50• I ‘ 2•�5 � w0L50N I 519 PN C2�,2 532 OM N. MON ; SV5 0 g I I PLAT OF . LOTS 'tA" & rrB" BEING A } "_ • A t1. REDIVISION OF LOTS I & IA LOCATED ,, ` ` ,4 JUST WEST OF CHARLOTTESVILLE OFF ` ,- - t i U. S. RT. 250 IN ALBEMARLE CO. , VA. ,'t. • : SCALE: I"=40' DATE. 3/31/66 ' 1 •,.. • I. THOMAS D . BLUE CIVIL ENGINEER LAND SURVEYOR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA