HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200000012 Review Comments 2000-05-02 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle
PUBLIC HEARING: May 2, 2000
STAFF REPORT VA-2000-12
OWNER/APPLICANT: Leslie Bradford Sullivan
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76H/11
ZONING: R1
ACREAGE: 1 .2±
LOCATION: 18 Orchard Rd., Liberty Hill Subdivision, approximately 0.2
mile from its intersection with Old Farm Rd (from the Bellair
Estate Subdivision)
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from
Section 13.3, Area and Bulk Regulations of the R1 district, which requires a side yard of
15 feet. A variance of 11 feet is requested to allow the enclosure of an open carport
and the addition of a second story over the entire depth of the carport.
RELEVANT HISTORY: VA 70-11
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: Ms. Sullivan
purchased this property with the house and carport in February 1998. The house was
constructed in the mid- to late 1950's. A variance (VA70-11) was approved December
8, 1970 to allow reconstruction of the then "collapsing" carport 5 feet from the side
property line. In that file, there was discussion of extending the roof of the house over
the carport, but no mention of habitable space within that upper area.
What you currently see from the street is an open walkway separating the house from
the carport and a continuous roof line that extends over the entire house, walkway and
carport. In the space above the walk and carport is a bedroom that gives access to an
open deck behind it that you cannot see from the street. The request in this variance is
to enclose the walkway and carport, of which only a portion is in the 15-foot setback.
On the second story, Ms. Sullivan would like to expand the roof to the rear to add area
within the building line as well as enclose the deck that is partially in the setback.
There are no exceptional topographic features on this parcel. It is the existing carport
which was built before Albemarle County adopted zoning that would make a convenient
expansion if not for the setback. Being only 100 feet wide, the parcel is nonconforming
to the 120-foot width of the R1 district. It could therefore be considered "narrow," and if
undeveloped, possibly meet the hardship criteria for granting a variance. However,
with the house and carport, this parcel has reasonable use already established and to
grant a variance would be a convenience for this applicant.
The amendment to the nonconforming section probably would not cover this case. The
text is being rewritten to recommend that existing structures meeting at least a 6-foot
Variance Report, VA Ou-i z 2 May 2, 2000
setback be permitted to expand provided they go no closer to the side or rear property
line than the existing structure. The roof overhang of the carport is currently only 4.06
feet from the property line at the rear. Therefore, this case would still need a variance.
Another issue with this particular variance would be the addition of habitable space on
the second story within the setback. Staff is of the opinion that adding habitable space
within 6 feet of a property line does indeed change the character of a district, at least for
the immediate neighbor. In this case, since the second story habitable space already
exists, the expansion will not change the character of the district, especially since the
adjacent lot is developed with an attached two-car garage on the closest end and it
does appear to meet the 15-foot setback.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance
criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows:
Hardship
The applicant comments that the variance is necessary:
• The owners do not intend or request any expansion beyond the footprint of the
existing building which was legal when built.
• The increase in side yard setbacks after the fact limits the owner's full use and
enjoyment, even within the limits of this legal construction.
Staff cannot identify any hardship as described under the Code of Virginia relating to
granting a variance. As discussed, since reasonable use already exists, there is no
undue hardship.
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
• Any owner in the R1 zone who builds within the current setback requirements can
modify such construction at any time in the future, though expansion of that
structure would be subject to any new setback requirements. This owner's like
rights are reduced to a point that allows no modification within the existing building
except by the granting of a variance.
Staff finds this situation of a carport within 15 feet of the side property line is unique
within the Liberty Hill and the nearby Bellair Estate subdivisions—all zoned R1.
However, since staff finds no undue hardship, there is nothing unique in the setback.
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.
I:IDEP71Building&ZoninglStaff Reports\VA2000-12.doc
Variance Report, VA 0u-i z 3 May 2, 2000
Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
• The proposed construction is entirely within the footprint of existing construction, so
it should not alter the character of the district at all.
• Closing in the carport will serve to hide the usual garage clutter which is now open
to view from the street and from the adjacent property.
Staff agrees that the enclosure of the existing carport and expansion of the second
story will not change the character of the district.
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 RECOMMENDATION: Since only one of the three criteria has been met, staff
recommends denial. However, if the Board finds cause to approve this request, staff
recommends the following condition:
This variance is for the expansion described in this file only. Any further
expansion will require amendment to this variance.
LIDEPT\Building&ZoninglStaff Reports\VA2000-12.doc
I
t
/) f /
t
•
a •A I l .;•
t A- . •
•
i /
j°I
It 4 •
le, „.. . . ,
;�, I � '
. , . iiiii ' ,‘,.
1° 4f 11,Y . i K
•
1 ..;!, , . , % • •• 4. ,.. , : 4' '4.1.,,,:el!P° 'Pt fa ,
~ t - ••s 'T' t
a ; "' . . •
Mali
1
t ,'i!...4!illt . •. yr
APP,--qt IN : ,t4i4 , .). -..,
i., .° -r. ''../.,.„a• Aft.,...• , ly .
'i', 4tP1-.. ,. 4 ,, : . . , . , • . •‘ , V. Tr., 00 1 . :f. k
A ► ; ti k' .
�. ;�' � c ti
am• •+. • fr.'# , -44i --Y. t -ille* • 4?..e.;* . • - , 'I" • •• • - 71: • . . 't.
:. fit,
1.3
-•i' I 4•: '114.. IL '•••4‘f"..%_IY.- .,6•:', '‘‘. Sifi_‘t•:-
k. ..„Asit . ., •
11111:.'914, , 1111/4-11111ra likirizr-‘ votit7 :V ,
iw . A. t .?. 4
. .
• 1. 111111•yr kit*
•
4 .44.;:: 441.„., 2 . "..cisif. -it. •-
i ww • ' '. •tom /pi •1, • I =�4
0 1 .•. 2 ;• r I' ••, dl IA; tit _ t
EXHIBITS
PRESENTED TO
- b
i AlO
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, ; (;
14
VA
dw
— -- --- -- — --- — -----
--— i 4.89' '—'4.O%
I I _
STUDY TERRACE W
o
01 <
I 0
2
I o _
W
r - I WOOD DECK
W
1
m
` EXISTING CARPORT
S
K �
O
Oo O
a ATTIC BEDROOM
D
:o z
O I m I I
KITCHEN 1 I 'n
I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
t
1
15'-0 BLDG SETBACK -
PARTIAL MAIN FLOOR PLAN I PARTIAL SEC ND FLOOR PLAN
� 2
SCALE I/4" - I'-O" SCALE : 1/'4" - 1'-0
"
LIMITS OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
I
— ROOF LINE OF BUILDING BEYOND
AIc
EXISTING WOOD DECK 1 RAILING
PROPOSED INFILL
EXISTING BRICK COLUMNS
\�
-=
PROPOSED AREAS OF INFILL
WITH NON BEARING WOOD WALLS
/ \ EXISTING CARPORT
/ \
\
EXISTING TERRACE BEYOND
APPROX. EXISTING GRADE
I
f_______________ t_______—_______
I
I
I I
15'-0' SIDEYARD SETBACK
I
1
I
—_
PROPERTY LINE
EXHIBITS
— ----- — 1�
�
-- --_ _
_ __ _— ---------
-- ---
,
PRESENTED TO 7
nn5 a-a.av>
(STREET) ELEVATION
EAST ELEVAT
ON
(SOUTH
3-SCALE
COUNTY OF ALEL.NAALE
I/4" - I'-O"
SCALE 1/,4" = I'-O"
design
415 dta t at
chalotteevle, vo 22902
(804) 296-9943
e)
7v
z
z
J 1 8
z
LI O
U
zW
UC
W
J 1
DATE: 4/5/00
REVISIONS:
SCALE: AS NOTED
PROJECT 0001
EXISTING
CONDIT'ONS