Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200500009 Other 1997-09-02 C' li Jill 11111 le; .116V COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept of Planning & Community Development September 2, 1997 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 RE: Cafe No Problem The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on July 12, 1995 approved a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to the Cafe No Problem located at the intersection of Route 250W and Route 240, for sewer service only. This approval authorizes the construction and placement of a sewer line and associated pump station to serve the existing use (restaurant plus associated apartment for employee), existing structure (with the exception of facade treatment and those expansions which do not require variances of modifications to the ordinance), and existing capacity (equivalent of 100 seat restaurant generating not more than 5,000 gallons per day). I understand these limitations and will operate the site in accord with these limits. Richard A. Cooper Let-4) house. MOTION: Mr. Van Fossen made a motion to defer the request for 90 days to give the applicant a chance to pursue his options. SECONDED: Mr. Bailey. ROLE: Mr. Rennolds - Aye Mr. Bailey - Aye Mr. Van Fossen - Aye Mr. Cogan - No Mr. Kennedy - Aye (4:1) Deferred variance for 90 days with the condition that the applicant will solicit family members to see if an easement can be obtained and then bring back the evidence. This gives the applicant a chance to pursue his options. C. VA-95-05 - Richard A. Cooper Staff passed out a memo dated June 2, 1995 from Jesse Hurt, Director of Inspections. In exploring the issue, Mr. Kennedy stated that the memo indicated that the applicant was asking for a variance to add a second story to the structure, but Mr. Hurt stated that the structure was classified as a type 5B combustible and use group A2 category in the building code and a 2-story structure was not allowed. He stated that the maximum allowable was one-story, 20 feet in height and 4,200 square feet in area. Based on that he asked Mr. Cooper if he intended to pursue building a second story to the structure. Mr. Cooper stated that based on the memo his answer was no, but this was the first that he had heard of this because he had always been told it was classified as 3B of masonry. Mr. Jesse Hurt, Director of Inspections, pointed out that the Deputy Director had spoken with the applicant and had explained that it was a 5b building which was combustible. He had explained options there and that the applicant could go with a different construction type which would allow a 2-story building. 5B is all wood and a second story is not permitted. He pointed out that the building permit was for a 1-story structure. Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Hurt was pointing out that in order to have a second story on the building it was going to have to meet building code requirements, and he needs to be aware of this. He stated that it could be a 2-story building, but would have to be built with different materials or with sprinklers or meet other building code requirements. He stated that as long as Mr. Cooper was willing to meet those type of construction standards, then he could get a 2- 6 . story building under the building code. Mr. Cogan stated that in view of the variance it would be contingent upon the applicant meeting the building code. Mr. Kennedy stated that this board could assume that it was going to be two stories built out of proper materials. Mr. Hurt stated that he only wanted to make the board aware of what was allowable in the code. STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley STAFF REPORT - VA 95-05 OWNER / APPLICANT: Richard A. Cooper / T/A Cafe No Problem TAX MAP / PARCEL: 57 / 31A ZONING: Cl, Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 1.387 acres LOCATION: Bounded by Rt. 240 on the south, Rt. 680 on the east and Lickinghole Creek on the north and west. It is located just off U.S. Rt. 250 West at the Mechums River and the C & 0 Railway bridge. REQUEST: The applicant seeks relief from Section 21.7.1 of Commercial Districts, Generally, in order to construct a building addition. This is a request to reduce the building setback from 30 feet from public streets, to 7 feet from Rt. 680 and to 9 feet from Rt. 240. The building is currently located 16 feet from Rt. 680 and 18 feet from Rt. 240. (The Board may recall this proposal in appeal AP 95-02 heard at the last meeting. The appellant is in the process of seeking approval for those zoning violations discussed by that appeal.) The applicant has submitted a site plan for a building expansion, which includes the addition of a second floor for an apartment. The current variance request does not include a parking setback reduction; therefore, any new parking is expected to comply with the 10 foot setback required from public streets. The applicant has also submitted a request to the Board of Supervisors to provide public sewer to the proposed site plan. In addition, a special permit will be necessary if there will be fill in the floodplain. In the event the Board finds cause for approval of this variance, it will be subject to the conditions of these other approvals. 7 • Hardship Almost half of the existing structure is nonconforming as it sits and has sat for thirty-five years. A porch has been located there as well. The hardship resulting from moving half the building and porch is great. Uniqueness of Hardship As the site plan reveals, the topography of the site does yield exceptional conditions. The site is bounded by a creek that requires a setback to accommodate the parking lot - most of which is in the floodplain. Impact on Character of the Area I am unaware of any detriment that would result from granting this variance. Many, if not most of the structures located nearby are 2-story structures and some are three stories. Our structure would not change the character of the district. It is largely isolated. RELEVANT HISTORY: This restaurant was built prior to zoning in Albemarle. It has been called "Pop and Ethel's," "The Gallerie," and "The Ridge." The current owner has named it "Cafe No Problem." The full history was discussed with the appeal, AP 95-02. The Board of Zoning Appeals, on May 2, 1995, confirmed the determination of zoning violations rendered by the Zoning Administrator. STAFF COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION: Further development of the property is limited by several factors: the property is triangular in shape, with public roads on two borders and a creek on the third. The presence of public roads imposes a 30 foot building and 10 foot parking setback on two borders. The creek has associated floodplain and, additionally, has setbacks imposed by the water resource protection ordinance and the runoff control ordinance. The location of the existing development on the property further dictates available area of building expansion. The building addition to the rear is towards the creek, to the east and south is towards Rt. 680 and Rt. 240, and to the west side it would encroach into the available parking area. The parking area is constrained from expansion by the creek floodplain and buffer area setback. The applicant has explained that the proposed building expansion is not an expansion of use. The building changes in the restaurant area (downstairs) will not increase the seating capacity, but will shelter what was previously outdoor seating. There was a trellis around 3 sides of the building, with terrace seating. This plan proposes to place these areas inside the building. The second floor residence is permitted within the commercial district for a night caretaker. In this case, there are two things we should consider: the extension of public sewer and the 8 issuance of the building permit. Mr. Cooper extended the public sewer line a significant distance, including through areas of rock. This was necessary to provide permanent and approvable sewage disposal. Some of the work has already been done according to the approved plans. This includes the digging of footings and forming for the foundation of the building extension. Mr. Cooper had proceeded in good faith reliance on the County's approval of the building permit. In the event the variance is not granted, he has estimated a cost of at least $10,000 to redesign the plans and to finish out the building extension to return it to the existing structure setback. Staff is sympathetic to the time, cost and effort that the applicant has expended; however, this hardship does not appear to be an undue hardship approaching confiscation. It is difficult to substantiate that the proposed addition is necessary for reasonable use of the property. The hardship caused by the approved building permit is in part, self-imposed. The location of a 2- story structure in proximity to the road does not justifiably improve the character. The building renovation itself, with new facade and the like, will improve the character of the area. Staff does agree that the constraints of the property, ranging from shape to topography and the location of roads, are unique. Expansion of the building is limited by these. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. It is staff's position that further development of the property is not necessary for reasonable use of the property. Although work on the building addition has begun, the hardship is, in some part, self-imposed. 3. The applicant has not provided evidence that with the authorization of such variance, the character of the district will not be changed. The building renovation, without building extension, will itself improve the character of the area. There is no justification that this specific proposal will not change the character of the district. It will result in a 2-story structure being relatively close to two public roads. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. This variance is granted for the work currently proposed with the building permit, AC 94-530, including the full second story. Any additional square footage which would encroach the required setback, or any change which is determined to be substantial by the Zoning Administrator, shall require amendment of this variance; 9 • 2. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of sight distance at all intersections impacted by this structure. In the event that the building addition reduces the sight distance, that area of addition shall not be permitted; 3. This variance approval is based on approval of any other applicable applications, including the site plan and the public sewer service. This approval anticipates review and approval of a certificate of appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board." Ms. McCulley mentioned that Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, was present and could answer any questions about the site plan or public sewer extension; Marcia Joseph, Design Planner, could answer questions for the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Cooper pointed out that one structure, a water tower, had been demolished toward the stream, and should be part of the footprint. Mr. Kennedy stated that the board was only discussing this application for a variance from the road setback. Ms. McCulley stated that was correct since the request was for a variance for the building setback from the two roads. She stated that it was currently located 16 feet from Route 680 and they would be reducing it to 7 feet with an additional encroachment of 9 feet. Currently from Route 240 it was located 18 feet from the right-of-way line, which would reduce that to 9 feet, which would be a 9 foot variance. Mr. Kennedy stated that the variance was only for the winged projections, and Ms. McCulley agreed. Mr. Cogan asked if he built back on the same site if he would still need a variance, and Ms. McCulley stated that he would. SPEAKER FOR REQUEST: Mr. Richard Cooper stated that once he got the building permit and started construction that he obviously did not realize that a variance was needed. He stated that they proceeded in good faith after they obtained the building permit in good faith. He pointed out that the topography was unusual and that he was not increasing the capacity of the site with the addition of the second story for an employee apartment. He stated that the Zoning Administrator brought to his attention that he would require a parking setback variance, and therefore he asked for a variance for 5 feet. Mr. Kennedy stated that the parking setback could not be heard today since that had not been advertised. Mr. Cooper passed out photographs for the board's review. 10 SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION: Carolyn Bond, an adjoining property owner, spoke in opposition of the request. She pointed out that the biggest concern was the second story as well as the traffic visibility. Mr. Van Fossen stated that the second story was not an issue before this board. Mr. Bailey stated that Ms. McCulley limited this to Building Permit 94-540 to one-story. Mr. Davis stated that Ms. McCulley had amended the condition that the board could consider the 3rd story. Mr. Cooper stated that he was asking for new footings but only for the triangular area. Mr. Davis stated that the board could put conditions on the variance and could limit it to a 1- story building if they so choose. He stated that if the board granted the variance without conditions the second story residential use is permitted by right in the zoning ordinance, but would still have to meet site plan approval, but that was something that the applicant could probably get. The second complicating factor is the board of supervisors granted the jurisdictional area for public sewer placed with conditions upon that approval, and one of those was that it was limited to the existing structure. Therefore, before he can make any expansion to the existing structure toward the roads or up in height, the applicant would have to get that condition modified by the Board of Supervisors. The applicant is requesting that modification from the board tomorrow from the board. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AND THE MATTER PLACED BEFORE THE BOARD. MOTION: Mr. Bailey felt that the variance should be approved since it was a hardship case and he has gotten permits for water and sewer, and the County granted that. As for changing the character of the community, he felt that if the applicant put in the second story that it would change the character of the district. If the restaurant was rebuilt basically as it was, with the addition under canvass, then he did not think that changed the character of the community. He moved that VA-95-05 be approved with the conditions as they are written for building permit 95-530 which would only be for a one-story building. Mr. Davis suggested one clarification in #2 which might read that this variance is contingent upon approval of all other related applications, because there will be several others. He pointed out that they did not want this variance to survive if the project dies. Mr. Kennedy stated that the second sentence of condition #3 would read that this approval is contingent upon approval of all other applications. Mr. Cogan pointed out that condition #2 had to be done anyway, which was redundant and could 11 be eliminated. Mr. Bailey stated that if Mr. Cogan wanted to make an amended motion that he would withdraw his. Mr. Cogan did not make another motion. Mr. Bailey stated that the applicant was requesting a 9 foot variance from Route 240 and a 7 foot variance from Route 680 which was the motion with all those conditions set forth. SECONDED: Mr. Van Fossen seconded the motion. ROLE: Mr. Rennolds - Aye Mr. Bailey - Aye Mr. Van Fossen - Aye Mr. Cogan - Aye Mr. Kennedy - Aye Approved (5:0) the variance with the following conditions: 1) This variance is granted for the work currently proposed with building permit AC 94-530. Any additional square footage which would encroach the required setback, or any change which is determined to be substantial by the Zoning Administrator, shall require an amendment of this variance; 2) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of sight distance at all intersections impacted by this structure. In the event that the building addition reduces the sight distance, that area of addition shall not be permitted; 3) This variance approval is contingent upon approval of any other related applications, including the site plan and the public sewer service. This approval is contingent upon approval of a certificate of appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board. Staff asked to retain the pictures submitted by the applicant for the record. D. VA-95-06 - Marie W. Morris & Rose A.E. Walton STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle STAFF REPORT VA-95-06 OWNER/APPLICANT: Marie W. Morris and Rose A. E. Walton TAX MAP/PARCEL: 41 A/118, 121, & 122 12 • ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 1.1 LOCATION: Lots 18 through 22, Lake Albemarle on the north side of the lake REQUEST: The applicants wish to sell these lots as one parcel which could accommodate construction of a three bedroom house in the Lake Albemarle subdivision (of William and W.P. Ballard, Jr.,) shown on a plat dated May 1944. They have been unable to locate the full (100%) reserve septic field required by Section 4.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. The soil scientist can only locate sufficient area for a 50% reserve system. The applicants request relief from Section 4.1.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: For lots not served by a central sewer system, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic disposal fields adequate to serve such use. For residential usage, at a minimum, each septic field shall consist of suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal for a three (3) bedroom dwelling as determined by current regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. The applicants' justification includes the following: Hardship - Strict application of the ordinance would render these lots uninhabitable and unmarketable, a severe hardship. - Mr. Morris and Mr. Walton, the husbands of the applicants, acquired these lots in good faith in 1973 in reliance on the covenants and restrictions that run with the land and which stipulate that "All sewerage disposal shall be in accordance with the State Health Department." - The owners are offering the parcels as a single homesite of approximately one acre. 13