Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300036 Action Letter 1993-11-10 pF AL1� 22 % COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE • Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 November 10, 1993 James A. and Linda T. Schmidt 217 Pineridge Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 32F, Parcel 01-B25 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schmidt: This letter is to inform you that on November 09, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (5:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-93-36, subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval shall be limited to this application. Any expansion or addition shall require an amendment. 2) Trees in this area (the side property line) shall be maintained, and replaced should they die or become diseased. 3) This approval is for a fifteen (15) foot variance. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side setback from 25 to 10 feet for the construction of a carport addition to the house. CORRECTED COPY STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING:November 9, 1993 STAFF REPORT - VA 93-36 OWNER/APPLICANT: James and Linda Schmidt TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32F/O1/B/25 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 1.29 acres LOCATION: In Terrybrook subdivision on the north side of Pineridge Lane near the cul-de-sac, off Terrybrook Drive on the north side of Route 649. This applicant requested that the Board hear this application, even in his absence if necessary. This request was heard at the regular October meeting. REQUEST: The applicant proposes to attach a carport onto an existing house, to shelter a recently purchased van. Due to the height of the van, it will not fit within the existing detached carport. Section 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance requires any primary structure (and attachments, such as garages and carports) to meet a 25 foot side yard setback. If the carport were detached, it would require only a 6 foot setback. This carport will be located 10 feet from the side property line. The proposed carport will be constructed of wood and will not have solid walls. The property is triangular in shape. The improvements (house, pool and existing carport) are located in the eastern corner of the land. A drainage easement crosses the property, and it slopes downward adjacent to the house westward towards the drainageway. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION: The applicant's justification includes: 1. To attach the carport would more aesthetically complement the existing residence, and would be more structurally secure than a non-attached freestanding structure. Although it could be done without a variance, it would be closer to the neighbor and could not sit on the existing concrete pad. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-36 PAGE 2 2. The lot is triangular in shape, with no useable land on the west side of the house (the land slopes to a creek). Trees adequately screen it from the adjoining neighbors. 3. Since a freestanding carport would meet current code restrictions, it would be a shame to deny a much better constructed carport which would be more visually appealing simply because it is attached to the house. The lay of the land makes it impossible to construct a carport elsewhere. Other lots have more useable space. 4. This alternative is the most attractive to all. It leaves all of the current buffer of trees to the adjoining lot. It uses the house and existing concrete pad for structural support and it will be finished in the same design as the current residence (roof line, etc). RELEVANT HISTORY: There is none in Zoning Department files. STAFF COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not completely endorse the aesthetic appeal argument, because with the proper care it can be achieved with a freestanding structure. The Board has undoubtedly seen many freestanding garages or even sheds which are built to be architecturally compatible, and have the same siding, colors and roof as the main structure to which they are appurtenant. While staff does not have expertise in structural stability, we question whether there is a significant difference if it is built properly as a freestanding structure. We also have a basic question of whether or not a carport is necessary. If one determines it is a part of reasonable use of the land, why does the applicant not reconstruct the existing carport so that it can shelter the van also? What strikes us as ironic in this and similar situations, is that the same structure can be built as close as 6 feet (and result in the loss of more tree buffer) if it were to be constructed as a freestanding structure. The applicant is correct in this situation, a tree buffer exists - mostly on the adjoining owner's property. That house is located over 50 feet away. That and other owners have signed their consent to this variance request. A brief field inspection shows that most of the homes have garages or carports. Due to the proposed manner in which it will be constructed, and the evidence of no objection, this request will meet the following criteria for approval: STAFF REPORT - VA-93-36 PAGE 3 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 location of the drainage easement, the topography of the land and the location of the existing improvements constrain the location of a carport. Due to the slope, it would not be practical to locate it on the other side of the house. The pool's location prevents it from being further back or on the rear of the house. 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. However, because there is the alternative of reconstructing the existing carport and the other criterion remains unmet, staff must recommend denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. This and other such applications have not proven that a carport is necessary to reasonable use of the land. If it is, the applicant has the option of refitting the existing carport. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Approval shall be limited to this application. Any expansion or addition shall require an amendment. 2. Trees in this area (the side property line) shall be maintained, and replaced should they die or become deceased. STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING:November 9, 1993 STAFF REPORT - VA 93-36 OWNER/APPLICANT: James and Linda Schmidt TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32F/01/B/25 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 1.29 acres LOCATION: In Terrybrook subdivision on the north side of Pineridge Lane near the cul-de-sac, off Terrybrook Drive on the north side of Route 649. This applicant requested that the Board hear this application, even in his absence if necessary. This request was heard at the regular October meeting. REQUEST: The applicant proposes to attach a carport onto an existing house, to shelter a recently purchased van. Due to the height of the van, it will not fit within the existing detached carport. Section 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance requires any primary structure (and attachments, such as garages and carports) to meet a 25 foot side yard setback. If the carport were detached, it would require only a 6 foot setback. This carport will be located 10 feet from the side property line. The proposed carport will be constructed of wood and will not have solid walls. The property is triangular in shape. The improvements (house, pool and existing carport) are located in the eastern corner of the land. A drainage easement crosses the property, and it slopes downward adjacent to the house westward towards the drainageway. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION: The applicant's justification includes: 1. To attach the carport would more aesthetically complement the existing residence, and would be more structurally secure than a non-attached freestanding structure. Although it could be done without a variance, it would be closer to the neighbor and could not sit on the existing concrete pad. 2. The lot is triangular in shape, with no useable land on the west side of the house (the land slopes to a creek). Trees adequately screen it from the adjoining neighbors. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-36 PAGE 2 3. Since a freestanding carport would meet current code restrictions, it would be a shame to deny a much better constructed carport which would be more visually appealing simply because it is attached to the house. The lay of the land makes it impossible to construct a carport elsewhere. Other lots have more useable space. 4. This alternative is the most attractive to all. It leaves all of the current buffer of trees to the adjoining lot. It uses the house and existing concrete pad for structural support and it will be finished in the same design as the current residence (roof line, etc). RELEVANT HISTORY: There is none in Zoning Department files. STAFF COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not completely endorse the aesthetic appeal argument, because with the proper care it can be achieved with a freestanding structure. The Board has undoubtedly seen many freestanding garages or even sheds which are built to be architecturally compatible, and have the same siding, colors and roof as the main structure to which they are appurtenant. While staff does not have expertise in structural stability, we question whether there is a significant difference if it is built properly as a freestanding structure. We also have a basic question of whether or not a carport is necessary. If one determines it is a part of reasonable use of the land, why does the applicant not reconstruct the existing carport so that it can shelter the van also? What strikes us as ironic in this and similar situations, is that the same structure can be built as close as 6 feet (and result in the loss of more tree buffer) if it were to be constructed as a freestanding structure. The applicant is correct in this situation, a tree buffer exists - mostly on the adjoining owner's property. That house is located over 50 feet away. That and other owners have signed their consent to this variance request. A brief field inspection shows that most of the homes have garages or carports. Due to the proposed manner in which it will be constructed, and the evidence of no objection, this request will meet the following criteria for approval: STAFF REPORT - VA-93-36 PAGE 3 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. The location of the drainage easement, the topography of the land and the location of the existing improvements constrain the location of a carport. Due to the slope, it would not be practical to locate it on the other side of the house. The pool's location prevents it from being further back or on the rear of the house. 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. However, because there is the alternative of reconstructing the existing carport and the other criterion remains unmet, staff must recommend denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. This and other such applications have not proven that a carport is necessary to reasonable use of the land. If it is, the applicant has the option of refitting the existing carport. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Approval shall be limited to this application. Any expansion or addition shall require an amendment. 2. Trees in this area (the side property line) shall be maintained, and replaced should they die or become deceased.