Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199900020 Review Comments 1999-08-03 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: August 3, 1999 STAFF REPORT VA-99-20 OWNER/APPLICANT: Dr. Raymond C. Doss, T/A Hydraulic Road Animal Hospital TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61 K/09-01 ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial ACREAGE: 0.913 LOCATION: The west side of Hydraulic Road about 300 feet south of Inglewood Drive TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant seeks relief from two 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." A variance of ten feet is requested to allow a 640 square foot addition to the existing building. This addition will be within the varied side setback of 40 feet, but new approval is required due to a condition of the prior variance which states, ". . . any expansion of this use shall require an amendment to the variance." This request is very similar to VA 96-10 which was modified by VA 97-04. The concept at that time was to allow the enclosure of the existing outdoor dog runs on both the sides and rear of the building, as well as, to add a reception and waiting area to the front. The variance also decreased the parking requirement from 22 to 16 parking spaces. The applicant would now like additional space on the north side of the building. A small part would be for an employee bathroom and storage. The remaining space would house digital imaging equipment, endoscopy equipment and further support the surgical portion of the business. Dr. Doss has explained that this is not an expansion of his business in terms of the numbers of patients that can be attended. It is actually space to provide better, more comprehensive, medical diagnosis and treatment for the existing clientele. Since additional clients are not envisioned, the variance for a reduced parking requirement is also requested. A 640 square foot addition to a veterinary office requires 6 parking spaces under our ordinance. However, since no more traffic or parking is anticipated, the applicant has calculated the maximum number of spaces he can fit on the site without removing or harming any trees. During the most recent parking lot construction, one extra parking space was created in the front lot. Therefore, if the variance is granted, only two new spaces need to be constructed. These can be accommodated at the rear of the site where employees will utilize them. Variance Report, VA 99-20 2 August 3, 1999 RELEVANT HISTORY: VA 84-24 (sign setback), VA 96-10 (described above), SP 96- 28 (approved the veterinary office and hospital which in turn allowed the expansion), and VA 97-04 (adjusted the varied setbacks of VA 96-10 to conform to a more exact property survey.) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This property was acquired in good faith by the applicant. With the approval of SP 96-28 the use conforms to the HC zoning district. Likewise, the building conforms to the setbacks established by VA 97-04. The property is somewhat odd shaped in its oblique alignment to Hydraulic Road. The building is aligned somewhat askew to both the road and the property lines causing the corners to seemingly jut out to the setbacks as opposed to the more traditional construction—parallel to at least one property line. Dr. Doss has completed the construction described in the prior variance, but has now purchased new, very expensive equipment that he would like to put in a protected space, away from the animals and potential hazards. Staff is sympathetic with the need for new equipment and the fact that technological advances are being made daily. However, if this area had been planned in the last variance review, the 640 sf would exist. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant regarding the setback request and comments by staff follows: Hardship The applicant comments that the variance is necessary: • Due to the existing configuration of the building, expansion would not be possible if the 50-foot setback were maintained. Although the addition will be no closer to the property line than the existing building, staff cannot identify any hardship as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. Reasonable use already exists with two variances. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • Adjacent properties are not zoned Highway Commercial and therefore do not have the same requirements. Staff agrees that this is a unique situation since there are only two other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning district. Neither shares this combination of odd-shape, existing development and commercial to residential setbacks. • C:IMy DocumentsUAN'SUANVARIVA99-20.doc Variance Report, VA 99-20 3 August 3, 1999 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: • This variance will not cause detriment to the adjacent property and will allow the expansion to be more efficient and aesthetically pleasing. Staff agrees that the addition of the type of storage space envisioned in this report will not change the character of the district. The addition will not be visible from anywhere except the adjacent property on the north. Due to the type of construction and the fact that there will be no operable windows, there should be no additional sound intrusion. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Granting the variance for setback would be a convenience for the applicant. He is already enjoying use of the property with two variances. Because of this and the fact that one of the three criteria has not been met, staff recommends denial for cause. However, should the Board find cause to approve the setback request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. This variance is for the 640 square foot addition described in this application only. Any further addition or new construction closer than 50 feet to the side or rear property lines will require a separate variance application. 2. Construction materials including "windows" of glass block shall be generally the same or better as the previous additions in their sound attenuation properties. Should the setback variance be denied, there is no requirement for additional parking and therefore, no variance request. However, if the Board finds cause to approve the setback request, the following will address the parking reduction request. The owner justifies his request with these statements: 1. He has never observed the need for more parking; 2. The additional building space will serve primarily as an area to house equipment, and will therefore not be increasing employees or clients; 3. Although some additional spaces may be possible, they would destroy existing trees and green space; and, 4. It would be preferable to determine if such a need really existed rather than destroying the existing attractive natural elements. C:1My DocumentslJAN'SUANVARIVA99-20.doc Variance Report, VA 99-20 4 August 3, 1999 Again, staff is sympathetic to the desire to maintain green space and trees in our urban area. The double-trunk pine at the entrance is the most endangered tree on the site. It has a very small area of soil to allow nutrients and water to access the root system now and if all the parking is required, it will have even less. Based on this applicant's experience, we may choose to examine the general parking requirement for veterinary offices more closely in the future. However, at this time, staff can find no hardship that satisfies the state code to recommend approval of the variance. Should the Board of Zoning Appeals find cause to approve this variance, staff recommends the following condition: All six parking spaces must be constructed unless for 90 days after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the construction proposed in this file, this department receives no complaints noting that clients of the veterinary office are parking on the street or in adjacent parking lots. If no complaints are received, the total parking requirement for this veterinary office and hospital shall be 19 spaces: 16 spaces required by VA96-10 and 3 by VA 99-20. C:1My DocumentsVAN'SVANVARIVA99-20.doc h / ". C, 2-46 "-4.ftiliit _________________________,______ 12.0 1 .- I 0 r II 01 aLi f 1, 0 I H ------ ,1 \ 3 ' s w • . V- \ ) V V ;--- , , z : ■ R i - . I i 7 r 16 E a i i it f II I I le '''' ---------- ‘411,1 / . I _- - e �5 Ib S . l; -►Z _ 13 14 <E. . 1,U >i, S I T P LA H H-(U AOLIG rg, ANIMAL HoSP, - '7/1/99 I" =to'-a" 'J ,..-".- I , ,....„7„.......„..-4.- A, --- , 5 \ID 1 D -- 't $ i ....---' S I 1 to ._ ..,,• i ; . 1 1 ! 1 1 . _ 1 1 ct) 1 . 1 _---------- --- \. 6 l' I) - )0<- 4 ,, 1c. 2.o' 0. ',- • .. 1.„ , 1 . \----\\ \ . ----- F ‘k --- 001\16gPerfAl,-- L-q f.31re-- FLAN ° 4 1-11`CPAOLI6 r ANIMAL (-1.05P 1/09 1" 2°1-0" J GI• i'� , ..-----------:;----- _,.// ,----,.., ) / Q 4. i r .>:,,,-;;, ;- -- ..--- - 4 . \. 5 V \-1 v .k, .___. -- , 1 1 \--3 2 t A ' 5 ....— \,,,r_________________ 1 NG 1 4\li c?) kJ r . 1 J 7 . I I r fi ' / r1, 21' • y.- I ::______' -13 1h 601\16 'pr AL_ 1 1 le 4 Ig- N6 1' PAkKli,16 611-5. PLAN '_.__ 1-rWKAU LIG r12 A. 11HAL FkDSP, - 201 Z 1, �2 -. Pot r L 1/6/99 I„ _ 20'_0" ' J .