Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199600004 Review Comments 1996-05-28 �yot ni.y�r, J � COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning, Room 223 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4035 TDD (804) 972-4012 May 28, 1996 Deborah Reyes P 0 Box 162 North Garden, VA 22959 RE: Variance Application, VA-96-04 Tax Map 111, Parcel 51A Dear Applicant: For your convenience and to allow you or organize your thoughts prior to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on Tuesday, June 4, 1996, please find attached the staff report for your It will be necessary for someone to be present to speak for the variance application. If you have any questions, please contact our office Sincerely, cc--put—jt-6L. Jan Sprinkle Zoning Assistant JS/db cc: Robert W. Jones STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: June 4, 1996 STAFF REPORT VA-96-04 OWNER: Robert W. Jones APPLICANT: Deborah Reyes ZONING: Rural Areas, RA ACREAGE: 0.5 LOCATION: East side of Route 717 approximately 0.6 miles north of its intersection with Route 712 REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a rear yard to be 35 feet. A variance of 15 feet is requested to allow a dwelling to be constructed 20 feet from the rear property line. (As an alternate, the applicant would request a reduction in the front yard from 75 feet to 60 feet, a variance of 15 feet.) The applicant's justification includes the following: Hardship - Mr. Jones is going to give the property to his daughter who is a single mother of three children. - The current road was cut after the property was originally purchased. - They have already spent a lot of time and money and received all permits needed to construct the house. Uniqueness of Hardship - There is no other property within a quarter of a mile shaped like this. Impact on Character of the Area - The property is surrounded by family owned property. - There is no other construction of any kind going to be done. RELEVANT HISTORY: There is no history in the files of either the Departments of Zoning or Planning and Community Development on this parcel. STAFF COMMENT: This property was acquired in good faith by Ms. Reyes' father, Robert W. Jones, in 1985. The parcel is the same size and shape now that it was in 1980 when the Zoning Ordinance STAFF REPORT - VA-96-04 Page 2 was adopted. Mr. Jones plans to transfer the property to his daughter whenever it is determined that she can construct her home. This extended family has already established their "neighborhood" on the two adjacent parcels (51 and 51 B) and would like this to be the third. Mr. Jones lives on parcel 51B on the west side of Rt. 717 directly across from the subject property. The adjacent parcel 51 belongs to Mr. Jones' other daughter and her husband, Charles and Diane Trader. A second dwelling on parcel 51 is occupied by yet a third daughter and her husband, Cindy and Gary Ferland. At only 0.5 acres, this is a small, non-conforming parcel. The two sides are perpendicular to the rear property line but the front is formed by a curve in the state road. This curve is the cause of the need for the variance. By reason of the exceptional narrowness (only 120 feet), shallowness (only 205.86 feet on the long side and 144.17 feet on the short side), size (0.5 acres) and shape (irregular) of this piece of property at the time of the effective date of this ordinance, the strict application of the ordinance would, in fact, restrict the use of the property. The question is if it is an unreasonable restriction. When the setbacks are applied, there is sufficient area to construct a dwelling. The restriction arises due to the shape of the buildable area and the chosen dwelling unit type. Ms. Reyes wants to purchase and place on this parcel a double wide mobile home. Due to its 70-foot length, it fits exactly between the two 25-foot side setbacks. (25' + 25' + 70' = 120') However, the curve of the road allows the 28-foot depth of the house to fit fine on one end but not the other. (See Attachment A) This large "footprint" will take up the entire rear portion of the building area. Staff is concerned that if established, the applicant will later feel the need for something larger than a four foot wide stoop and stairway down to the rear ground level. Four feet is all that is allowed to encroach in the rear setback, thus the potential for additional variance. A house of a different shape could be placed in the building envelope, have the same square footage, not be confined for future porches or additions, and not need a variance. The only reason this is before you is that the particular building chosen does not fit in the building envelope. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees with the applicant that this request meets the second and third criterion for approval of a variance: 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 general area of this property, other than the dwellings already described as family, is undeveloped for approximately a mile to the north and a half-mile to the south. Most of the properties in this area are large forested tracts which have large areas available for building sites. STAFF REPORT - VA-96-04 Page 3 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. Mr. Jones' dwelling across Rt. 717, on parcel 51B, is relatively new and meets the 75-foot front setback. The dwelling on parcel 51 to the north of this request is an older, non- conforming structure which is only about 50 feet from the right-of-way. A garage on that same parcel is only about 10 feet from the r/w. Six tenths of a mile south at the intersection with Rt. 712, there are three dwellings, each within 15 feet of the state roads. Therefore, granting the variance will not change the character of the district nor will there be any detriment to the adjacent properties. There are even several factors which lessen the impact of the proposed dwelling even if a variance is granted. It is unlikely that the dwelling will be highly visible from the road anywhere other than immediately in front of it due to: - the sloping topography from the r/w to the building site (about 15%) which puts the building site approximately 9 feet below the road elevation; - the curve in the road which puts the building site "behind" the Trader development when viewing from the north; (development includes a house, garage, storage sheds, dog pens and children's play equipment); and, - the heavily wooded properties both to the rear of the building site, on parcel 51 , and on the south, on parcel 52. However, the granting of this variance would be a convenience for this owner. There are other options available which do not require a variance. Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause: 1) The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Although when considering the front setback reduction, this seems to be a small area (estimated to be 105 to 230 sf) that requires the variance, the fact remains that this is a self-imposed hardship and affords no basis for the granting of a variance. Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff would argue for the front reduction (rather than the rear) with one condition. The front reduction will have the least impact on the visual aspect and on the planning principle of providing "yards." Maintaining the entire rear yard will afford some privacy for outdoor living activities and some separation of children's play area from the road and traffic. To minimize the effect of the variance, and to allow only the front corner of the dwelling encroach the 75 foot setback, staff would recommend the following condition: The front setback is hereby reduced to 60 feet only to the extent indicated on the drawing submitted by the applicant—not across the entire frontage—with zoning staff approval of the preliminary zoning at the time of the footing inspection.