The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199900011 Review Comments 1999-06-01 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: June 1, 1999 STAFF REPORT VA-99-11 OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles F. and Sarah B. Pietsch TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32/17E1 ZONING: LI, Light Industrial ACREAGE: 1.67 LOCATION: East side of DobleAnn Drive approximately 500 feet north of its intersection with Rt. 649, Airport Road TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 26.10.2, Minimum Yard Requirements [Industrial Districts Generally] which states, "Adjacent to residential districts: No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any rural areas or residential district . . ." A variance of 25 feet is requested to allow a tower and its accessory equipment to be constructed 25 feet from the adjoining Rural Areas district. RELEVANT HISTORY: The original Airport Center was approved under the County's Subdivision Ordinance in 1983. In 1985, Mr. Pietsch bought the property and resubdivided it in 1987. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: Mr. Pietsch bought the property with full knowledge of our regulations including setbacks. Lot 2 has no topographic features that contribute to its choice as a tower site with regard to the County policy recommendations. Further, it has no unusual features, no exceptional size or shape restrictions and no topographic features that unreasonably restrict the use of this parcel. There are already two structures containing industrial businesses established on this lot. The area available for the tower without a variance will only minimally effect the parking area currently in use. The setback on this lot is for all structures, not just a tower, and obviously has not rendered the parcel useless. However, while no structure can be established in Area B, parking is permitted in part of the area. The parking must maintain a 30-foot setback and undisturbed buffer from the RA zone. If a tower is established in Area A, the existing parking can be moved into part of Area B. Granting this variance will be a convenience for the owner. This is not the same case as the tower setbacks of last month. We have no information on the type of tower or the height needed. Because this site and tower style may not meet the yet-to-be-adopted policy for tower locations currently being considered by the Board of Supervisors, Planning staff has requested that the BZA defer action on this request until more information is received and the tower policy adopted. (See Attachment A.) Variance Report, VA 99-11 2 June 1, 1999 APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship The applicant states: • While I cannot really consider this an undue or strenuous hardship it certainly would make a great deal of sense to allow the use of Area B [within the setback] and not just have that 2500 square feet stuck in the corner absolutely useless. Staff cannot identify any hardship as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. As previously stated, this would be a convenience for the owner. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • Most of the adjoining property is zoned LI, the same as Lot 2 and Lot 3. The balance remains zoned RA due to an existing house. It is just a matter of time before a zoning change is made. Staff understands that the adjacent zoning district establishes the setbacks for structures on this parcel in the LI zone, however, this is not unique. Even in this seven- lot subdivision both Lots 1 and 2 adjoin the RA zone and must abide by the 50-foot structure and 30-foot parking setbacks. Within a 0.5 mile radius, there are at least seven more LI properties that adjoin RA zoned land. 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. Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • I can see no adverse conditions regarding adjacent property. Staff disagrees that placing a tower 25 feet from a Rural Areas zoning district will not change the character of the district. Although it is a small piece of RA, it still deserves the protection provided by the ordinance. 3. The applicant has not provided evidence that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that IICOB_11VOL31DEPT\Building&ZoninglReports\VA99-11.doc Variance Report, VA 99-11 3 June 1, 1999 the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since none of the three criteria has been met, staff recommends denial. However, should the Board find cause to consider approving this request, staff recommends deferral until: 1) The Board of Supervisors adopts a policy on towers for wireless communications; and, 2) information is received to determine if the variance would allow the proposed tower to meet the County's policy. 11COB 11VOL31DEPT1Building&ZoninglReportslVA99-11.doc LOT p--' -Q9LOT 3 -o _O'P k p g :11 40, 109 S. F. 401329 S. F. o in D - - )N � v I w %- rn N C/38 -`g kri CD , tai t° • �/� _ � i co r U t Parcel l7B(5) -' YI S, . 289 F H. 1• -=es 17 0. 18 ' 1 7 2 0 7 T. M. 32 Par t o. e. 659 1 N 81°37152"w N 8 I o Zoned RA ;.41 L' I I �F A - -L? P'4? P in 1 4- .p; inC I6 s- Cu) 40, 23g S.F.LOT 6 1 0 � W I , .(. RA . 00 I , Fri "-- Jj r d` id- O N gi CD C�w9�l1Q in 1 11ID - -' I LOT 2 • :�w 1 / 72845 S . F. -2O O N N "-Ntolo7jo• - - ----0 S8I ° 23'25"E • W41 z NOTE: 153. 29' 1 TOTAL 4 0' F. M ITIONAL 8' WA TERLINE EASEM 9E ADDED T � g .. �' 0 THE WESTERN — - 9 EASEMENT LIMIT FOR THE �' co )E PORTION OF THE EXISTINGN • a UTILITY EASEMENT. �' N MENT. w ° co Portal I7A M I. i LQT 7 ii3 1 tr 135 56 ,721 S. F. 1891 z .v) fr _ . 49' N 8 I° 23r 25T . ADDITIONAL -44 c [ fL_ei M S' WATER LINE f� SUBO ESMT, SEE I b WILL NOTE g Cli ff I LOT // p• ` ad 54, 228 S. F. cri Fri. W a) ............_, 4) 11.er: tp so' ® ��, a F.H, _ oQsrre4 j c PIPE FM In) , �� , ® e ,� '4"—!si /4 ot4 LINE...i........... �I s�r;p R S �' ,R N6 0' '. • _ vrI •a, Ar�r ate .. _ D . , . 4—15-1 999 12:415PM FRUM kUL.A)ALUt_;H ANU L AL . tSl'4. c,ol.LlJ r. .� .-----11 .14...." s‘, • i /7 .- % /i • ,......7A\ ... .0 I \ , '• o \ •-' 'i / i r ,r� / / .- a 1 ( \ / f _. _� ! ( f � . .. c , I 1 \ \ i \ ` ,r // \` \\ /�, \ \ 1 ^ . . , \ \ C ti C- . f_\ \ 1 1 1 — C. . \ i-.. ' , ; \ i / r. •1 1 i ` �� 1 / , i ( '' I i , I 'v E N1 • � •,. / r �`v • r I#. , J ' f _ ! / •, Ii 1` 4. R' I / / / 7,. 1 ,�.�"r r�) L I ii j r\ i , l sao \ /� 1 . i .. , ,. 50-ff:,Bt \ .* /�,-�� r - an an \g, I• ) ("./` f • `/ / [ 11 I 1 k •� � ° `I � \ \• / � � 1`�'.jl err r L. �. � J 1' { ''�N. ,s 1 .4 . ,-,r, \ ., k , - , � i ;:.- . ' i ‘.. i /'... \ t ‘ 4 I N'0 1• 1 , l ___ , i '\, ‘1/4,,itrl '..#4 .: ' D , Rt I r \\ I rt'" I _ _ 1 ,--------i-- "` aP to xis 7 S• R. 649 • • dill/ 6. �: ± QLcG 5 Prop,o.5cr� C ` w�.� a 1 �" ra y is s a, + ° crams - Prc pG ecti LI • Variance Report, VA 99-11 4 June 1, 1999 ATTACHMENT A Jan Sprinkle From: Bill Fritz Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 5:00 PM To: Jan Sprinkle Subject: Pietsch Variance I understand that you are reviewing a variance for a tower. As you are aware the wireless design manual is under review. I would recommend deferral of the application until the design manual is adopted,or at a minimum until the Planning Commission can be consulted with. William D.Fritz,AICP Senior Planner 804-296-5823 ext.3385 • 11COB 11VOL31DEPT1Building&ZoninglReportslVA99-11.doc .�r