HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199900005 Review Comments 1999-03-02 - 1 -
STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: March 2, 1999
STAFF REPORT VA-99-05
OWNER/APPLICANTS: John and Leslie Williams
TAX/MAP/PARCEL: 43 / 33A
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 0.585 acres
LOCATION: On the west side of Route 601 (Free Union Road),
approximately 0.2 mile north of its intersection with Route
676 at Hunt Country Store.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicants request relief from
Section 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance for two setback reductions: the front and the
stern side yard setback requirements. The front setback reduction is from 75 feet to
20 eet from Route 601 , a variance of 55 feet. The side setback reduction is from 25 to
fp feet, a variance of 10 feet. The purpose of this request is to permit building addition
as follows:
.` 1. an existing first floor porch on the east side rear of the house will be enclosed (front
` setback variance);
2. a second floor bathroom will be built onto the east side front of the house above the
existing bathroom (front setback variance) and
3. a deck will be added onto the rear of the house (front and side setback variance)
The entire house is presently located within the front yard setback. The west side of the
house is as close as 14 feet to the side property line and does not comply with the side
yard setback requirement.
The side pnrch is proposed to remain its present size. It is currently the primary
entrance to the house and will remain so. There is presently only one bathroom for the
house. There are two bedrooms on the second floor. They plan to add a second
bathroom by building directly above the existing bathroom. This would not extend the
existing outer boundaries of the house. The exterior finish of the additions will be done
in a manner consistent with the rest of the house. The deck will extend 20 feet wide
and 32 feet long along the rear of the house.
The property is also improved with a detached workshop located in the rear of the lot. It
was used by the previous owners in their home occupation for a pottery kiln. The house
is presently located 21 feet from Route 601 and 14 feet from the closest side property
line.
VA 99-05
John and Leslie Williams
March 2, 1999
2
RELEVANT HISTORY:
• At some point prior to zoning in Albemarle, this house was built or subsequent to
construction of the house, the road was relocated.
• The Board of Supervisors approved SP 88-45 Henry Pope and Mary Mikkelsen on
August 17, 1988. It permitted a home occupation class B for a pottery studio with
kiln.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS:
The current applicants purchased the house in January. They are in the process of a
major remodel. According to County Real Estate records, the house presently consists
of 1 ,400 gross square feet.
The entire house is presently entirely within the required 75 foot front yard setback.
Given the location of the existing house, it is not possible to do an addition which would
meet the front setback. The proposed additions do not result in further encroachment
into setbacks, but maintain the current setback lines.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance
criteria provided by the applicants and comments by staff follow:
Hardship
The applicant comments that the variance is necessary:
• Our house was built prior to current ordinances that severely restrict even relatively
minor modifications of existing floorplans. This restriction is due to proximity of the
house to the road in front of the house.
• Current codes prevent us from making improvements without moving the entire
house back. This is not feasible because of the small size of the parcel, location of
the septic field behind the house and location of the workshop in the rear of the
property.
Staff notes these points in favor of consideration of a hardship:
• The location of existing development (house, septic, etc) constrains building addition
such that a variance is unavoidable if such a project is undertaken.
• The small size of the parcel and the location of septic, the workshop and the like,
limit new building construction.
C IWINDOWSITEMPIVA99-05 DOC
VA 99-05
John and Leslie Williams
Match 2, 1999
Staff offers these comments which do not support findings of hardship:
• Staff is not able to make findings that denial of the proposed construction is an
undue hardship. This house has existed for over 30 years as is. It is not completely
impractical to have a smaller house with only one bathroom. With respect to the
deck and enclosing the porch, staff has taken the position that these are not
necessary for reasonable use of a place of residence.
• The present owners purchased the property after zoning regulations were imposed
which restrict further building. Therefore, they went into this "with their eyes open."
In summary, it is staff's opinion that
The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant comments that the variance in necessary:
• Unlike ours, other homes in this area are generally located on larger parcels of land
and conform to current ordinances governing boundary and setback distances.
• Because of the proximity of our home to the front boundary line, current codes
prevent us from making improvements — even those that do not require addition of a
new structure positioned closer to the boundary. Our request is to enclose a porch,
"stack" a second bathroom and add a deck.
Staff finds:
• It is not atypical to find buildings constructed prior to zoning that are close to the
road. This has been an issue of recurring variance and will be considered with the
zoning text amendment. The zta will be going through public hearings in the near
future.
• The fact that the entire house is in the setback and no addition can be made which
complies is somewhat unique.
In summary, staff finds:
2. Evidence has not been provided that such hardship is not shared generally
by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity.
C.IWINDOWSITEMPIVA99-05 DOC
VA 99-05
John and Leslie Williams
March 2, 1999
4
Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
• The proposed improvements will not detrimentally affect adjacent properties in terms
of either encroachment or visual integrity.
• None of the three proposals result in new structures being placed closer to the front
or side boundaries of the property.
• Rather than being detrimental, preserving and improving the property will serve to
maintain the unique character of this district.
Staff notes this:
• There are high (standing eye-level) bushes along the frontage of the property. In
addition, there are trees along the western side of the property. These landscape
features provide a natural visual buffering.
• The addition of a second story bathroom will be the most visible. It will be visible to
those travelling on Route 601. However, this addition will not extend beyond the
existing front of the house. Construction which is compatible in style, color, etc. with
the existing building will be essential to minimize the visual impact and to
complement the existing house.
• Enclosing the porch will renovate and improve an area which is only partially visible
from the road and adjoining properties.
• The addition of a deck will be even less visible from the adjoining property and may
not be visible from the road. However, given the fact that a deck is typically
constructed with pressure-treated lumber and not the same material as the exterior
of a house, it will be more visible that it is an addition to the building.
Provided that the construction is compatible with the existing house, it is staff's opinion
that with respect to the 2nd floor bathroom addition and enclosing the porch:
1. 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.
As long as the bushes remain along the road frontage and the trees along the side
property line, the impact caused by the deck should be minimal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since this variance request meets only one of three
criteria, staff recommends denial for cause.
In the event that the Board should find that the hardship and uniqueness criteria are
met, staff is of the opinion that the request for a deck should be treated separately. The
C.IWINDOWSITEMPIVA99-05 DOC
VA 99-05
John and Leslie Williams
March 2, 1999
5
bathroom can be seen as serving a practical purpose day-to-day. Enclosing the porch
while less necessary than a bathroom adds habitable square footage and is part of a
remodel of that portion of the house. A deck is for occasional use and is not necessary
for daily functions nor is it considered habitable space. Therefore, staff recommends
that the Board consider disapproval of the deck portion of the request.
Staff recommends these conditions:
1 . This approval is for the 2nd floor bathroom addition and enclosing the porch only.
The proposed deck is not approved at this time.
2. Staff approval of exterior finish which is consistent with / compatible with the
existing building.
3. This variance is for the addition proposed in this file only. Any future additions
(not exempted by new ordinance language) will require amendment to this
variance.
C IWINDOWSITEMP\VA99-05 DOC
.1:
', :i
k ' Mifi , o
____1;
_.: _
,\ - ,g t t .,,, •
iwo.,(0,,
/'
_ , \ u..._
\iti ii _____t_ --2=
f / ' 4
t fi t----' `'-ir
_- 1 f3A,7 4
t x-- 11
P u►J uS ED c -I i ri N q ---a___„.-t
LJNLSEO 3UPft1 DLJcl- M r
iuorl I 13,ED ROOM
i c
c:(1.51'qc-c. F NEL..
i —fi ill I 4, ir -q ) r.4 ; t , _ i ..
EtiPio yr .
PO ZCA4 IRr l-
rip i Vl,_ e.--`T.-NoS
;,,...„„:,..._r_._._...__,_„.____,..____t _,;,,,. VA ill.,05
.•
i
V. //7
/•
•
/
5$pt , , it/
/ •
\It •
/ _ . '' . .4'
7—. --ELI. ---- . ... _
.)
,..;.1.4zn. ,,. ,..
s., 4 ,. . . .. _
. , , .
41 m /Cv_p
air- `� .� , -t--
ill. -
1,,iwt - 116
il
I i]
33/IA1p/fp
1 . no 1 0,
�1
•
Alli.:1
12 4-
cil
l •
CURVE DATA
0
• \
p= 08°23'I3"
R = 7/1.55'
', T= 52.17'
L = /04.16'
C = S59.06'35" W
Pipe N 85'24'08" E Pipe /04.06'
found • • found
6 5.8 2'
Well
3'x10' o
c L.P. Tank
L ERO Y A.
Z `l BRUTON
' DB 404 - 334
— — o 4 o DB 404 - 337 plat
0' N T,_„ 'ii
�, DB l83 - 2/4 plot
u '• Work- TMS 43 - 33E
�, •N shop
k p
r
HENRY S.
HOLLAND, III
8 FRA NCES C. 441;
HOLLAND 0.585 6\ \
DB969 - 198 N
Ot ACRE c>\ ', T D„, I Vill
DB 969 - 20/ plat io c"\ \ o
44
DB 478 - 289 plat 0`1, 4°141V.11
- —\ TMS 43 - 28 �` �
o%
UZI( .1114*. 2 S. Frame Old `, �` ,1 1
• ` -/ :
, A,
\\%\
Rdkhc , Rod set O �.4\ Rod • !�
Z ,N i �� set '
\ N et, (111
3.
Rod set
`\ PURCHASERS: John G. 8
, 00000 Leslie H.
Williams
DB54/ - 572 ``'
0 V NOTE. This properly is In HUD Flood Zone C
= (not a flood hazard area)
plot ' :/' Community Panel No. 510006-02/08
TMS 43 - 28A/ .,/
REFERENCES TO CAPTIONED PROPERTY
/ %7 HENRY F. POPE 8
i / ; MARY L. MIKKELSEN
'` D8 615 - 57
is 34: - 46 plot
6116r
-off A A
44144 VA
A PLAT SHOWING A BOUNDARY 8 PHY C _' : •
TAX MAP SECTION 43, PARCEL 33A -
THE POPE AND MIKKELSEN PR P RTY off' of r�
JACK JOUETT DISTRICT, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA G. D. HO AFLOOK 9
DATE: II JANUARY 1999 SCALE: I" = 50' CERTIFICATE NO.
GREGORY D. HOSAFLOOK, P.C. 1339
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR < /-11.5
446 KENTS STORE ROAD 4/VD SUR���O
KENTS STORE, VIRGINIA 23084
JOB NO. A 64 - 99
timuk
a .A,\1444;)
4.144ey
j4k Ni*
M\C °.1°..°..41 14"/k‘t TI 111r/114U.
i414
�h