Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200000029 Review Comments 2000-11-02 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: November 2, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-00-29 OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert & Molly Hardie (owners) / DEG&P, Architects (applicants) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 060E1 / 00-0C-00400 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 3.113 LOCATION: 4 Ivy Lane is on the north side of Ivy Lane, approximately 800 feet west of its intersection with Oak Circle in the Farmington subdivision TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk regulations of the RA district, which requires a 25 foot side yard setback. A variance of 18 feet is requested to allow a nonconforming wing to be removed and rebuilt. The walls of the new wing will be exactly the same distance from the side property line as they are now. However, the structure will be a different architectural style and will contain a new bedroom and bath. RELEVANT HISTORY: None PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: The Hardies purchased this property in June of this year. The brick house was constructed in 1954 and the Oriental style wing added later, possibly the late 60's or early 70's. The topography of the site shows that it was graded to provide a level building pad extending only 30-40 feet beyond the rear and east end of the house. Beyond the pad there is a short 2:1 slope that extends to the more gradually sloping rear yard. The Hardies have worked with Doug Gilpin, architect, to design both an addition that is totally out of the setback as well as redesigning this wing to architecturally match the main portion of the house. This is a unique case where the nonconforming wing is being cosmetically and aesthetically maintained, but the ordinance does not allow it to be structurally changed. Denying the variance will only cause the owner to keep a portion of the structure that may become unsafe. The request is simply to allow structural work to be done to bring it up to our current building codes. Nonconforming regulations were created in an attempt to bring properties and structures into compliance with zoning regulations and to be consistent with sound planning and zoning principles. In this case it may be appropriate to allow the structural aspects of the dwelling to be brought up to the building code as well. The current roof overhang extends beyond the exterior walls another five feet into the setback at the corner. In the redesign, the new roof will not extend out more than two feet, so technically, the structure will become more conforming. Variance Report, VA 00-29 2 November 2, 2000 With regard to the visibility, the adjacent lot is a five-acre lot with a house at least 100 feet away from the Hardies. There is a wide, manicured and landscaped yard between the two dwellings. The Hardies' building pad also includes a "cut" in the former natural slope so that the surface of the adjacent lot is approximately three feet higher than the foundation of the Hardies' wing. 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 because: • The nonconforming regulations allow the roof system and exterior walls to be removed, but not the footings, foundation or any structural members. The reason for variance is to be permitted to replace any of those if they are not constructed to today's building codes or if they are damaged in any manner. • Once the roof and interior and exterior finishes have been removed, we may find that the exterior stud walls are not in conformance with today's building code. • The exterior stud walls may also have to be rebuilt to allow the new windows and roof system. Although reasonable use already exists, a hardship also exists in not permitting the owner to bring this part of the structure into compliance with the current building code or to have to use alternative methods of framing around new windows and roof system. 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant did not address this. Staff finds that the hardship is unique in that such a small portion of the house would have to be left in a substandard structural condition. This owner is trying to improve not just the aesthetics, but also the safety of his home. 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. C:IMy Documents\VA-00-29.doc Variance Report, VA 00-29 3 November 2, 2000 Impact on Character of the Area The applicant did not address this. Staff finds that granting the variance and allowing the wing to be structurally reconstructed at the same distance to the property line will not change the character of the district. In this case, the change from the wing that exists to a wing that will more closely match the architectural features of the main part of the house will probably have a positive effect on the character of the area. 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 all three criteria for approval have been met, staff recommends approval with the following condition: The variance is to allow the work described in this report and on Building Permit 2000- 01874AR only. Any future additions must abide by the regulations at that time. C:1My Documents\VA-00-29.doc ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD MEETING ROOM #241, 2:00 P.M. DRAFT AGENDA THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2000 I. Call to Order II. Establish a Quorum III. Deferred Appeal Hearing ■ AP-1999-003 Pantops L.C. (ower), T/A Pegasus Motorcar Company (appellant) Staff Person: Amelia McCulley IV. Variance Hearings A. VA-2000-029 Robert & Molly Hardie (owners)/DEG&P, Architects, (applicants) Staff Person: Jan Sprinkle B. VA-2000-030 Roy & Jane Tolleson, Jr (owners/applicants) Staff Person: John Shepherd C. VA-2000-031 Chapman Grove Baptist Church (owner/applicant) Staff Person: Amelia McCulley V. Old Business VI. New Business ■ Approval of Minutes VII. Adjournment STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: November 2, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-00-29 OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert & Molly Hardie (owners)4/ � 1 (applicants) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 060E1 / 00-0C-00400 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 3.113 LOCATION: 4 Ivy Lane is on the north side of Ivy Lane, approximately 800 feet west of its intersection with Oak Circle in the Farmington subdivision TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant-request, 'relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk regulations of the RA district, which requires a 25 foot side yard setback. A variance of 18 feet is requested to allow a nonconforming wing to be removed and rebuilt. The walls of the new wing will be exactly the same distance from the side property line as they are now. However, the structure will be a different architectural style and will contain a new bedroom and bath. RELEVANT HISTORY: None PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: The Hardies purchased this property in June of this year. The brick house was constructed in 1954 and the Oriental style wing added later, possibly the late 60's or early 70's. The topography of the site shows that it was graded to provide a level building pad extending only 30-40 feet beyond the rear and east end of the house. Beyond the pad there is a short 2:1 slope that extends to the more gradually sloping rear yard. The Hardies have worked with Doug Gilpin, architect, to design both an addition that is totally out of the setback as well as redesigning this wing to architecturally match the main portion of the house. This is a unique case where the nonconforming wing is being cosmetically and aesthetically maintained, but the ordinance does not allow it to be structurally changed. Denying the variance will only cause the owner to keep a portion of the structure that may become unsafe. The request is simply to allow tF D structural work to be done to bring it up to our current building codes. Nonconforming regulations were created in an attempt to bring properties and structures into compliance with zoning regulations and to be consistent with sound planning and zoning principles. In this case it may be appropriate to allow the structural aspects of the dwelling to be brought up to the building code as well. The current roof overhang extends beyond the exterior walls another five feet into the setback at the corner. In the redesign, the new roof will not extend out more than two feet, so technically, the structure will become more conforming. Variance Report, VA 00-29 2 November 2, 2000 With regard to the visibility, the adjacent lot is a five-acre lot with a house at least 100 feet away from the Hardies. There is a wide, manicured and landscaped yard between the two dwellings. The Hardies' building pad also includes a "cut" in the former natural slope so that the surface of the adjacent lot is approximately three feet higher than the foundation of the Hardies' wing. 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 because: • The nonconforming regulations allow the roof system and exterior walls to be removed, but not the footings, foundation or any structural members. The reason for variance is to be permitted to replace any of those if they are not constructed to today's building codes or if they are damaged in any manner. • Once the roof and interior and exterior finishes have been removed, we may find that the exterior stud walls are not in conformance with today's building code. • The exterior stud walls may also have to be rebuilt to allow the new windows and roof system. Although reasonable use already exists, a hardship also exists in not permitting the owner to bring this part of the structure into compliance with the current building code or to have to use alternative methods of framing around new windows and roof system. 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant did not address this. Staff finds that the hardship is unique in that such a small portion of the house would have to be left in a substandard structural condition. This owner is trying to improve not just the aesthetics, but also the safety of his home. 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. 1:IDEPTIBuilding&ZoninglStaff Reports\VA2000-29.doc Variance Report, VA 00-29 3 November 2, 2000 Impact on Character of the Area The applicant did not address this. Staff finds that granting the variance and allowing the wing to be structurally reconstructed at the same distance to the property line will not change the character of the district. In this case, the change from the wing that exists to a wing that will more closely match the architectural features of the main part of the house will probably have a positive effect on the character of the area. 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 all three criteria for approval have been met, staff recommends approval with the following condition: The variance is to allow the work described in this report and on Building Permit 2000- 01874AR only. Any future additions must abide by the regulations at that time. 1:IDEPT\Building&Zoning\Staff Reports\VA2000-29.doc r- -7,..,- i V,)-. I 1 • • 1)• \ \ / • 1 (2'_6•) \` / O V,./ 0 6:17 ID [ 0 ) �� (s'—o") 0 ti/ cI HALL 3 W r / s-s• 124 I • Y (2—8•�/ 'a7I li W .. ALIGN • \ n MI • MINIM .— \ \ I in r 1 s. 5'-0" 6'-5' 6'-Y i ' f� ei 1�Y to i �� 5'-0" C 3 1/Y 3 1/2"/ ~ZU x 13 1/2" 2 1/2 / I. 5 1/2• 7n ao 1? 111 / :i in }.01 1 \ r-a / O (NUJEQ _ EO. YUI�cVI � , 8 �1g (5, / `C/ n 4. „/ v �/ Q<v � 1 • N Q/O 4 , O / • / BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 4 . 120 ryl/J/ 121 + / co /NEW ROOF 1t(1= " 'uND�t"Tre:N4 / EXG FNDN A /1/2^ 4: 15-5• I 15'-5" i 1 In 3'11" 1, I 4'-B" 4 8" I 8._0* N 2 - 1 2 AIJGH O.A.WI1H MASTER BEDROOM -- - - ¢ / / 31'-11/2"(VII) I / // / / // EXHIBITS PRESE TED TO 11/fr TMP 60E(21 1 DENT 4L1 P/PF SARMINGTON COUNTRY CLUB Fpat! /Vd3 o 8'D5•/ PF d B 668 P 600, 603-604 PLAT COUNTY O ALBEo8 .w 7q 06' - _ FROM D S8 0101 ,E IRON FOUNDTO N 1. 3' IS SQ 70 28, ___________x_____________ x t% 6. 10'1 '.6- ) _i X — x 868a a S . ) .\\__________________7, 43FCHAINLINK k IS ) . FENCE (7YP ) '‘, Ir- X k QO rn\ O ' O Go \ - < X X O \ LOT 4 / 3.113 ACRES LOT 5 X TMP 60E(1)-C-4 k A VINCENT SHEA I TMP 60E(1)-C-5 D B 305 P 502 CHARLES B BERRY W B 68 P 200 D B 1693 P 421 D B 305 P 501 (PLAT) D B 244 P.169 IPLATI D B. 231 P 122 W E3 87 P 56 D B 243 P 468 PLAT X D B. 223 P 146 X -4 OEll _FRAME SHED CVO o to cn C') .4 O o Z O X x 0) \-X---t 1 STORY BRICK --X AND FRAME DWELLING I 4 SLATE BRICK X / BRICK PATIO PATIO 8 WALL LOT 3 WALK t X , %, t; , X TMP 60EI1) C 3 1 TiHOMAS F & A‘° SHERIDAN W NICHOLSON i52 365 p D B 1674 P 421 84 49 'a D B 925 P 684 (PLAT) CONC ., / WALK /' ,A , SLAT 21 1 e - 48 �� ogg'43 \ F- 572 47' GRAVEL WALK 211'RON IF DRIVE To , , PP 07) ' —_—` t. / LEGEND. IF : IRON FOUND ~� OtiF d IS : IROPN SE T E FOUND PLAT SHOWING A Oti. 2,) / OHE : OVERHEAD ELEC1 RIC PHYSICAL SURVEY OF Or° S) oHTv : ovREHEAD TELEPHONE LOT 4 BLOCK C 1 VI- 4ys9 PP = POWER POLE 2 14 WM : WATER METER FARMINGTON 4 'l� ..9 wM ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA '�ti F PF +��� SCALE: 1" = 50' JUNE 12, 2000 N it 1 j{) 07,,+�,, SURVEY PREPARED FOR NN\\ \\ � L� / �,�ROBERT D & MOLLY GOODWIN HARDIE / 0 \ C.,—o 1- y f' r' . v THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON IHIS PROPERTY LIES IN AN AREA C;\.\ � THOMAS El. LINCOLN JUNE 9. 2000. I DESIGNATED AS ZONE C IAREA OF CERT. NO. 1328 SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN MINIMAL Ft OODINGI AS SHOWN ON ON THIS PLAT AND THE TI ILE MAPS BY IRE FEDERAL EMERGENCY (7) / ( 1100 LINES AND WALLS OF THE MANAGEMI Nr AGENCY BUILDING ARE SHOWN HEREON DATED DECEMBER 16 1980 1 4 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PHYSICAL ��(���4.4, SURVEY, TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. IS CORRECT AND COMPLIES WITH THE MINIMUM PROCEDURES THOMAS -I3. LINCOLN LAND SURVEYOR INC. AND STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE VIRGINIA 671 13 �'IZKMAR CIRCLE STATE BOARD OF ARCHITECTS, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS AND CERTIFIED CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 1MODEL NET2 C ADATA9\ 100006100PITO 100-0061-00 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD MEETING ROOM #241, 2:00 P.M. FINAL AGENDA THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2000 I. Call to Order II. Establish a Quorum III. Deferred Appeal Hearing ■ AP-1999-003 Pantops L.C. (ower), T/A Pegasus Motorcar Company (appellant) Staff Person: Amelia McCulley IV. Variance Hearings A. VA-2000-029 Robert & Molly Hardie (owners)/DEG&P, Architects, (applicants) Staff Person: Jan Sprinkle B. VA-2000-030 Roy & Jane Tolleson, Jr (owners/applicants) / /VA Staff Person: John Shepherd Zrt,- J y �,�",�"'vtis l' 'rj r�e-,�c C. VA-2000-031 Chman Grove Baptist Church (owner/applicant) Op Staff Person: Amelia McCulley V. Old Business 4-P4 dA / a c 64 ,� VI. New Business -J7--4 .1"4",a e ■ Approval of Minutes — Oct 3, 2000 VII. Adjournment �-t wud A�EMAR cqIJN7)- 24 / 9 26 /6 /4 2C - VEPCO P/W' J / 2 • 5 � \ O \ 4 > 15 6 5 �<�j O, 2 / I O B ` 3 13— s / K O K /I 1p 14 � � Qi� lO SEE SEE ' 60E2-K5 60E2-K7 _ SEE 60E2-KII f/ 2VA 00,w30 H 3 LD 34m} m//�) O Z 'IE-IIE�II 1 �/ 6 I 2A 1 ms \� 6 2 I 6/ +! l 2 O I � \j\\ N 1OA 11 4 5 6 T B 1 � 4 4 1 14 12/ II IO B 8 O3 w \ E — _��� 10 n —� ' ❑—�� / �� _ O 3 6 P 4 5 p / _ � 5 VAOO,,294 E O 2 \ E 4 68 O I' ONIG p 25 - �- II 12 16 le © 24 p p 23 \O IT B \ O 2 22 to \ If"� i""sFMEO TO 21 11 1q � \�// IB zG a 12 B ® EXHIBITS 3 0 /) 141 6 � PRESENr6O TO IB- ? COON—ALBENA,L, �AEE N FEET — SCALE IN SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT LEGEND: �; SECTION, 60E(1) SAMUEL'MILLER f'.DISTRIC -yF�I TEE BOXES a GREENS ARE SHOWN FGN FARMINGTON INSERT TEE BOXES a GREENS ARE SHOWN FOR FORMINC;T(1N IN^FRT �_Y. I SECTION 60E(2'