Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200100011 Review Comments 2001-07-10 4. REVISED JULY 10, 2001 STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd PUBLIC HEARING: July 10, 2001 STAFF REPORT VA-2001-11 OWNER/APPLICANT: Daniel H. and Alice M. Malcolm TAX MAP/PARCEL: 062 D 1-03-0 F-00500 ZONING: R-6 Residential ACREAGE: 1,777 square feet (0.041 acre) LOCATION: 1461 Glenside Green in River Run off Rio Road TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 16.3 Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a rear yard of 20 feet. Section 4.1.1 reduces the rear setback to 16 feet for covered porches, balconies, chimneys and like features. The definition of rear yard excludes steps. A variance of 3.25 feet is requested to allow the replacement of an 8 foot wide deck with a 10 foot wide deck to be located 12.75 feet from the rear property line. RELEVANT HISTORY: ZMA-79-22 was approved with a proffer limiting the density to six dwellings per acre on August 16, 1979. The subdivision plat creating this lot was approved on March 25, 1999. The deck was included in the original building permit for the dwelling,1998-2100-SFTH. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This request must resolve two issues; (1) the encroachment of the existing deck beyond the rear setback line, and (2) the request to replace the existing deck with a new deck located 12.75 feet from the rear property line. This 1,777 square foot lot was created as part of the Le Parc section of River Run Subdivision. The dwelling is located 22.75 feet from the rear property line. This is 2.75 feet from the rear setback line. Section 4.11.1 allows a deck to extend four project up to 4-feet into a required rear yard. Therefore, a deck 6.75 feet can exist on this property without the need of a variance. Staff finds that the owners now enjoy reasonable use of their property. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that approval of this request to replace the existing deck with a new deck does not meet the criteria for hardship established for the granting of a variance. By the same analysis, it is staffs opinion that approval of the encroachment of the existing deck approximately 1 foot and 4 inches beyond the permitted four foot projection into the rear yard does not meet the criteria for hardship established for the granting of a variance. However, there are additional factors the Board may wish to consider. The existing deck is 8 feet wide and is located 14.75 feet from the rear property line. This is 5.25 feet beyond the rear setback. While the posts supporting the deck appear to be located at the limit of the 4 foot projection allowed by Section 4.11.1, the deck cantilevers approximately 1'-4" beyond the beam. Absent the request to expand the Variance Report, VA 2001-11 2 July 10, 2001 deck, this 1'-4" encroachment requires a variance to comply with the rear setback associated with this lot. Now that this Department has been made aware of this encroachment, it will be necessary to pursue it as a violation. Approval of this variance will provide a remedy. Denial will require removal of a portion of the existing deck. Staff acknowledges that removal of a portion of the existing deck would pose significant inconvenience to the applicant. However, this is not found to rise to the level of undue hardship. The proposed, larger deck requested by the applicant will extend 10 feet from the dwelling. This will be located 12.75 feet 10' 2" from the rear property line. This is an encroachment of 3.25 feet 9' 10" which occasions the need for a variance of 3.25 1-9 feet. 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: We purchased our townhouse (1461 Glenside Green) for the mountain view overlooking Penn Park and the Rivanna River Greenway. We also have the advantage of being part of the last building phase of Le Parc at River Run. There will be no further construction behind our building and that means we do not share the common area off our back yard with other townhouses. Because of the extra privacy and the beautiful mountain view, we paid an additional sum for our townhouse. The outdoor living space is important to us, for personal enjoyment and additional space to enjoy with family and friends. We hope to unify this outdoor living area by connection the rear deck off our first floor living room and the garden at terrace level below. To do this we need to enlarge our present deck and to add an outdoor stairway. The additional two feet of deck we are requesting will give us enough room to add the stairway and lengthen our deck so that we can have a fully unobstructed view of the mountains, golf course and river. Staff is sympathetic to the applicants'desire to construct the larger deck and agrees that it will enhance the value and enjoyment of the property. Nevertheless, it is staff opinion that the dwelling on the property establishes a reasonable use and the expansion of the deck is merely a convenience. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship in regards to either the existing encroachment or to the proposed enlarged deck and stairs. I IDEP71Buildrnq&Zon,nq\StaffReports\VA-2001-11MaIcoImREVISED.docl 11-M kola des Variance Report, VA 2001-11 3 July 10, 2001 4. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: Of the eight townhouses that comprise our end of Glenside Green, four have basements and terrace level garden-living spaces. Our townhouse (1461 Glenside Green) is the fourth with a basement. We are situated next to a large concrete retaining wall with the following four townhouses to the right of us being built on concrete slabs. Our townhouse is grounded slightly lower than the other seven and this diminished height reduces the range of our view. Also, the townhouse to our immediate right has a small utility building that obstructs and limits our view. The aditional two feet of deck depth we are requesting will solve these two view impediments. None of the other three townhouses to our left have such obstructions to their view. We consider the mountain view an essential element in the overall monetary and personal value to our townhouse. Since staff finds no hardship, staff is unable to find that the hardship is unique. However this opinion is tempered somewhat in regard to the existing encroachment. The two posts supporting the deck are located four feet beyond the rear setback line as permitted by 4.11.1. The encroachment occurred after the deck was constructed with a cantilever 1'-4"beyond these posts and beam. Staff assumes that the footing inspection was approved without the realization that the deck was to be cantilevered beyond the location of the posts. Another dwelling in this block has a deck that appears to have been built to these same dimensions. This encroachment was not indicated on the plat that the applicant relied upon for the purchase of this property. Taken together, these factors allow staff to find that the circumstances of the existing encroachment are unique. 2. Regarding the proposed deck, 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. Regarding the existing encroachment, staff has found evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: The two feet we hope to add to our deck will not obstruct the view of our neighbors to the left or right. We believe the deck with outdoor stairway will add value to our townhouse and will not decrease the value of our neighbors' property or hinder their views or enjoyment of their back yards. We submitted our plans to the Architectural l.1DEPT\Build,nq&ZonmglStaff Reports\VA-2001-11MalcolmREVISED docl 1DEPT{Bu+ld+ng&ZoninglStaff RoportslVA 2001 -1-444a4seim-eles Variance Report, VA 2001-11 4 July 10, 2001 Review Board of the River Run Homeowners' Association, which they studied and approved, affirming that what we propose will fit into the overall planning scheme at River Run and cause no hardship to our neighbors. Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis. Staff does not believe that an additional two feet added to the deck will have any significant impact on the applicants'neighbors. Staff identifies no impact from this request on the open space located at the rear of this property. 3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such variance in regards to either the existing encroachment or to the proposed enlarged deck and stairs 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 for approval has been met for the proposed deck, staff cannot recommend approval. Staff identifies three options for the Board: (1) Denial, in which case a portion of the existing deck must be removed. (2) Approval of the existing deck with a rear setback reduced to14 feet. (3) Approval of the proposed deck with a rear setback reduced to 12 feet. Should the Board find cause to approve the request, staff recommends that the approval be limited to the setback required for the existing deck with the following condition. Note that this condition would permit the existing deck to be enlarged toward the side property lines but not toward the rear. This variance allows the reduction of the rear setback to 14 feet to allow the construction of an uncovered deck. Any future additions or replacements will be subject to the setback and yard regulations at the time of application. Should the Board find cause to approve the request to replace the existing deck with a deck as described in this report, staff recommends the following condition: This variance is for the construction of the deck and stairs as described in this file only. Any future additions or replacements will be subject to the setback and yard regulations at the time of application. I IDEP71Buildinq&ZoninglStaff Reports\VA-2001-11MalcolmREVISED doc 44a seina-Etas C pseci S STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd PUBLIC HEARING: July 10, 2001 STAFF REPORT VA-2001-11 OWNER/APPLICANT: Daniel H. and Alice M. Malcolm TAX MAP/PARCEL: 062D1-03-0E-00500 ZONING: R-6 Residential ACREAGE: 1,777 square feet (0.041 acre) LOCATION: 1461 Glenside Green in River Run off Rio Road TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 16.3 Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a rear yard of 20 feet. Section 4.1 .1 reduces the rear setback to 16 feet for covered porches, balconies, chimneys and like features. The definition of rear yard excludes steps. A variance of 3.25 feet is requested to allow the replacement of an 8 foot wide deck with a 10 foot wide deck to be located 12.75 feet from the rear property line. RELEVANT HISTORY: ZMA-79-22 was approved with a proffer limiting the density to six dwellings per acre on August 16, 1979. The subdivision plat creating this lot was approved on March 25, 1999. The deck was included in the original building permit for the dwelling,1998-2100-SFTH. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This request must resolve two issues; (1) the encroachment of the existing deck beyond the rear setback line, and (2) the request to replace the existing deck with a new deck located 12.75 feet from the rear property line. This 1,777 square foot lot was created as part of the Le Parc section of River Run Subdivision. The dwelling is located 22.75 feet from the rear property line. This is 2.75 feet from the rear setback line. Section 4.11.1 allows a deck to extend four project up to 4 feet into a required rear yard. Therefore, a deck 6.75 feet can exist on this property without the need of a variance. Staff finds that the owners now enjoy reasonable use of their property. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that approval of this request to replace the existing deck with a new deck does not meet the criteria for hardship established for the granting of a variance. By the same analysis, it is staff's opinion that approval of the encroachment of the existing deck approximately 1 foot and 4 inches beyond the permitted four foot projection into the rear yard does not meet the criteria for hardship established for the granting of a variance. However, there are additional factors the Board may wish to consider. The existing deck is 8 feet wide and is located 14.75 feet from the rear property line. This is 5.25 feet beyond the rear setback. While the posts supporting the deck appear to be located at the limit of the 4 foot projection allowed by Section 4.11 .1 , the deck cantilevers approximately 1'-4" beyond the beam. Absent the request to expand the Variance Report, VA 2001-1 , 2 July 10, 2001 deck, this 1'-4" encroachment requires a variance to comply with the rear setback associated with this lot. Now that this Department has been made aware of this encroachment, it will be necessary to pursue it as a violation. Approval of this variance will provide a remedy. Denial will require removal of a portion of the existing deck. Staff acknowledges that removal of a portion of the existing deck would pose significant inconvenience to the applicant. However, this is not found to rise to the level of undue hardship. The proposed, larger deck requested by the applicant will extend 10 feet from the dwelling. This will be located 10'-2" from the rear property line. This is an encroachment of 9'- 10" which occasions the need for a variance of 10 feet. 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: We purchased our townhouse (1461 Glenside Green) for the mountain view overlooking Penn Park and the Rivanna River Greenway. We also have the advantage of being part of the last building phase of Le Parc at River Run. There will be no further construction behind our building and that means we do not share the common area off our back yard with other townhouses. Because of the extra privacy and the beautiful mountain view, we paid an additional sum for our townhouse. The outdoor living space is important to us, for personal enjoyment and additional space to enjoy with family and friends. We hope to unify this outdoor living area by connection the rear deck off our first floor living room and the garden at terrace level below. To do this we need to enlarge our present deck and to add an outdoor stairway. The additional two feet of deck we are requesting will give us enough room to add the stairway and lengthen our deck so that we can have a fully unobstructed view of the mountains, golf course and river. Staff is sympathetic to the applicants' desire to construct the larger deck and agrees that it will enhance the value and enjoyment of the property. Nevertheless, it is staff opinion that the dwelling on the property establishes a reasonable use and the expansion of the deck is merely a convenience. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship in regards to either the existing encroachment or to the proposed enlarged deck and stairs. I:IDEPT Building&ZoninglStaff Reports\VA-2001-11Malcolm.doc Variance Report, VA 2001-1 , 3 July 10, 2001 Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: Of the eight townhouses that comprise our end of Glenside Green, four have basements and terrace level garden-living spaces. Our townhouse (1461 Glenside Green) is the fourth with a basement. We are situated next to a large concrete retaining wall with the following four townhouses to the right of us being built on concrete slabs. Our townhouse is grounded slightly lower than the other seven and this diminished height reduces the range of our view. Also, the townhouse to our immediate right has a small utility building that obstructs and limits our view. The aditional two feet of deck depth we are requesting will solve these two view impediments. None of the other three townhouses to our left have such obstructions to their view. We consider the mountain view an essential element in the overall monetary and personal value to our townhouse. Since staff finds no hardship, staff is unable to find that the hardship is unique. However this opinion is tempered somewhat in regard to the existing encroachment. The two posts supporting the deck are located four feet beyond the rear setback line as permitted by 4.11.1. The encroachment occurred after the deck was constructed with a cantilever 1'-4"beyond these posts and beam. Staff assumes that the footing inspection was approved without the realization that the deck was to be cantilevered beyond the location of the posts. Another dwelling in this block has a deck that appears to have been built to these same dimensions. This encroachment was not indicated on the plat that the applicant relied upon for the purchase of this property. Taken together, these factors allow staff to find that the circumstances of the existing encroachment are unique. 2. Regarding the proposed deck, 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. Regarding the existing encroachment, staff has found evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: The two feet we hope to add to our deck will not obstruct the view of our neighbors to the left or right. We believe the deck with outdoor stairway will add value to our townhouse and will not decrease the value of our neighbors' property or hinder their views or enjoyment of their back yards. We submitted our plans to the Architectural 1:IDEPT\Building&ZoninglStaff Reports\VA-2001-11 Malcolm.doc Variance Report, VA 2001-1 , 4 July 10, 2001 Review Board of the River Run Homeowners' Association, which they studied and approved, affirming that what we propose will fit into the overall planning scheme at River Run and cause no hardship to our neighbors. Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis. Staff does not believe that an additional two feet added to the deck will have any significant impact on the applicants'neighbors. Staff identifies no impact from this request on the open space located at the rear of this property. 3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such variance in regards to either the existing encroachment or to the proposed enlarged deck and stairs 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 for approval has been met for the proposed deck, staff cannot recommend approval. Staff identifies three options for the Board: (1) Denial, in which case a portion of the existing deck must be removed. (2) Approval of the existing deck with a rear setback reduced to14 feet. (3) Approval of the proposed deck with a rear setback reduced to 12 feet. Should the Board find cause to approve the request, staff recommends that the approval be limited to the setback required for the existing deck with the following condition. Note that this condition would permit the existing deck to be enlarged toward the side property lines but not toward the rear. This variance allows the reduction of the rear setback to 14 feet to allow the construction of an uncovered deck. Any future additions or replacements will be subject to the setback and yard regulations at the time of application. Should the Board find cause to approve the request to replace the existing deck with a deck as described in this report, staff recommends the following condition: This variance is for the construction of the deck and stairs as described in this file only. Any future additions or replacements will be subject to the setback and yard regulations at the time of application. 1:IDEPT18uilding&Zoning\Staff Reports\VA-2001-11 Malcolm.doc ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD MEETING ROOM #241, 1:00 P.M. DRAFT AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2001 I Call to Order II Establish a Quorum III Deferred Appeal Hearings A. AP-2000-005 Peter R. Hanchak (owner/appellant) Staff Person: Amelia McCulley B. AP-2001-002 Thomas & Theresa Harris (owners/appellants) Staff Person: Amelia McCulley IV Variance Hearing • VA-2001-011 Daniel and Alice Malcolm (owners/applicants) Staff Person: John Shepherd V Appeal Hearing • AP-2001-003 Howell L. Bowen, etal (owners) / Edward Pelton T/A Clay Hill Forge (appellant) Staff Person: Amelia McCulley VI Old Business VII New Business A. Approval of Minutes: B. Approval of Resolutions of Action 1. VA-2001-007 David & Susan Dallas 2. VA-2000-033 Thomas & Theresa Harris VIII Adjournment ALBEMARLE COUNTY IA 1 COMMON AREA 0 C 5 0 4 z z D O O 5 4 GLEN SII)E Cq " FFN A e w F 8 7 5 3 2 I G 5 \ q. '_a' e 1 2 4 i 6 .•5"''` COMMON •.:• $.:.. .;py° O AREA Lo t, 3.•.;. RCN. i; K Sr'°04 COMMON f:'••�•, w - AREA ••LE ..PARC AVENUE• ir W. _ o RIVER RUN OSECT/ON 5B OB 1103 Pg 144 A SEE INDIVIDUAL PLATS FOR LOTS2- GREENE55 '•''•• w SSECTION 3 DB. 1246 Pg. 365 z OSECTION 4 w �p D.B.1639 Pg 088 apP o 4' 4T cy �,. ••y.. - 4) Mq a s2o , RIVANNA DISTRICT SECTION 62DI SCALE IN FEET 100 0 100 200 Soo 400