Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000009 Action Letter 1990-06-14 ll N./i6, lYY •-. 5,711crp:p" COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Rood Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 459 (804) 296-5875 June 14, 1990 Parker, McElwain & Jacobs, PC F & M Bank Building 1425 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, VA 22901 ATTN: Larry McElwain RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-90-09, Tax Map 17, Parcel 13B Dear Mr. McElwain: This letter is to inform you that on June 12 , 1990, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board denied your request for VA-90-09. Anyone aggrieved by a decision of the Board can appeal their decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) days of the decision. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, C5cjirxtUILY), aist(tivr Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/srp cc: Mariarose Seddon VA-90-09 STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: June 12 , 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-09 OWNER/APPLICANT: Percy Lawrence/Mariarose G. Seddon (purchaser) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 17/13B ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 4 .75 acres LOCATION: On the west side of Route 601, approximately 2 . 3 miles north of Free Union, just south of Route 667 . REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations Minimum frontage internal public or private roads. . . 150 feet" "Yards, minimum Front. . . 75 feet" The applicant proposes subdivision into two lots and requests two variances to: a) reduce the private road frontage from 150 feet to 50 feet; and to b) reduce the front setbacks from 75 feet to 1) 20 feet from an existing house and 2) 48 feet to a proposed house location. Both lots are to share a new joint driveway. The owner has relied on the value of his land for subdivision. RELEVANT HISTORY: Staff recognizes that each variance is reviewed on its own merits, and is not on its face, precedent-setting. The following history is provided for information: On February 20, 1990, the Board of Zoning Appeals heard VA-90-09 as a request for reduced road frontage for two lots with separate entrances. The request was deferred by the Board of Zoning Appeals until the next month's meeting, to consider a redesign of the subdivision using one joint driveway. In the interim, the applicant withdrew and then reactivated this variance. Page 2 Staff Report - VA-90-09 RECOMMENDATION In the previous report, staff recommended utilizing a shared driveway. This would reduce the number of conflict points and increase sight distance on the curve. Due to the location of the existing house, a variance to reduce the joint driveway (internal private road frontage) is unavoidable. This house is only 50 feet from the edge of State road 601. Existing development and the proposed drainfield and house constrain setbacks from the joint driveway. It appears that the setback variance is also unavoidable. The Board must determine if the owner would be prohibited from reasonable use of the land, were it not permitted to subdivide. The property is presently improved with a residence. If the Board of Zoning Appeals should find that the owner does not enjoy reasonable use of the property without permitting subdivision, staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 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; 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 PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: June 12 , 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-09 OWNER/APPLICANT: Percy Lawrence/Mariarose G. Seddon (Purchaser) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 17/13B ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 4 . 75 acres LOCATION: On the west side of Route (-)01 , approximately 2 . miles north of Free Union, just south of Rout.: 667 . FEWEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: " 10. 4 Area and Bulk Regulations Minimum frontage internal, public or private roads. . . 150 feet" "Yards, minimum Front. . . 75 feet" The applicant proposes subdivision into two lots and requests two variances to: a) reduce the private road frontage from 150 feet to 50 feet; and to b) reduce the front setbacks from 75 feet to I) 20 feet from an existing house and 2) 48 feet to a proposed house location. Both lots are to share a now joint driveway. The owner has relied on the value of his land for subdivision. RELEVANT HISTORY: Staff recognizes that eneh vnrinnce is reviewed en its own merits, and is not on its face, precednf-:ieiting . The Totiowinghi at a is provided for in un Feb ClIZ11:`y" 20 199n , Li-L‘.1r t nj nppb a Pen ad cy--) as a request to rc:lu ,; :c roa,1 1.:•cohtag tet, two Ipts with spiLnt entrances . The request-. was deferred by Inc. Board of Zotihr- Appals until the next month 's meeting , to considi a f:edesign at the subdivision using ono joint driveway. In the inter a, th,2 cuiplicant withdrew and then r, activated this variance. Page 2 Staff Report - VA-90-09 RECOMMENDATION In the previous report, staff recommended utilizing a shared driveway. This would reduce the number of conflict points and increase sight distance on the curve. hut. to the location of the existing house, a variance to reduce the joint driveway ( internal private road frontage) is unavoidable. This house is only 50 feet from the edge of state road 601 . Existing development and the proposed drainfield and house constrain setbacks from The joint driveway. It appear.,, that the L-Aback variance is also unavoidable. The Board must determine if the owner would be prohibited from reasonable use of the land, were it not permitted to subdivide. The prorerty is presently improved with a residence. If the. Board of Zoning Appeals should find that the owner does not enjoy reasonable use of the property without permitting subdivision, staff recommends approval for cause: I . The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 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 ; . 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 PERSON: Amelia M. Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: February 20, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-09 OWNER/APPLICANT: Percy Lawrence/Contract _Rureha-ser Mariarose G. Seddon/owner TAX MAP/PARCEL: 17/13B ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 4.75 acres LOCATION: On the west side of Route 601, approximately 2 . 3 miles north of Free Union, just south of Route 627 REQUEST: The applicant requests two (2) variances (lot frontage and width) for proposed subdivision into two (2) lots. 1) The applicants request relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "10. 4 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS Minimum frontage existing public roads 250 feet . . . " The lots are proposed with individual entrances and road frontages of 101 and 120 feet, variances of 149 and 130 feet respectively. 2) The applicants request relief from Section 4 . 6. 1. 3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "4 . 6. 1. 3 Minimum lot width shall be measured at the building setback line and shall be at least the same width as the frontage required for the district in which such lot is located. Lot width shall not be reduced under section 4 . 6. 1. 1. " The lots are proposed for lot width of 135 feet, variances of 115 feet for each lot. *Further soils analysis shows that a variance is not necessary for the proposed septic field. Soils are adequate to accommodate a three (3) bedroom house. If both proposed lots were to share a common driveway, these variances would not be necessary. However, the applicants' verbal justification notes that a shared driveway would be a) infringement on privacy, and b) destruction to the yard caused by sharing a driveway. Page 2 Staff Report VA-90-09 Percy Lawrence/Mariarose G. Seddon RECOMMENDATION: The property is presently improved with a residence. There is no driveway per se, but a parking pull-off in front of the house. The road curves north of this property. The existing parking area entrance does not have adequate sight distance. Sight distance would improve if a shared driveway were utilized. Available sight distance to the north is +/- 270 feet; required sight distance will depend on travel speeds, from 250 - 450 feet. Lot frontage requirements are based on the goals of 1) providing adequate separation between properties consistent with the Rural Areas intent; and 2) limiting the number of entrances onto a public road. The Zoning Ordinance permits two different frontage/width requirements, depending on whether the road frontage is from an external existing public road, or an internal public or private road. It is staff's opinion that this variance request does not satisfy the criteria. Furthermore, a shared driveway will improve public safety based on sight distance over the existing driveway. There does not appear to be a conflict with existing or proposed well, septic, or building, if a joint driveway were utilized. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. 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. 3 . The applicant has not 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.