The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200100022 Review Comments 2001-12-04 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: December 4, 2001 STAFF REPORT VA-2001-022 OWNER/APPLICANT: Steven & Marcia McAlpine TAX MAP/PARCEL: 59 / 4D ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2.459 acres LOCATION: 1590 Old Ballard Road off the south side of Rt. 677 (Old Ballard Road) between West Woods and West Leigh subdivisions. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations, to reduce the side setback from 25 to 15 feet, a variance of 10 feet. This is to allow an attachment to be built between the existing detached garage and the existing house. The applicants plan to build an enclosed walkway between the garage and house. It would be 10 feet long and 6 to 8 feet wide. This walkway would be designed to also allow access to the backyard. As the Board is aware, a detached garage can enjoy the lesser setback of 6 feet to side and rear property lines that is afforded to accessory structures. Once a detached garage or other accessory structure is attached to the house, it must meet the primary setbacks (25 foot side and 35 foot rear, in the RA zoning district). RELEVANT HISTORY: There is no history in the Zoning files on this property. There are five building permits since 1995, for various additions ranging from decks to a family room to the garage. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This property is improved with a 2 story frame and brick home, a detached 2-car garage and a shed. The property is rectangular in shape and is about 160 feet wide. The lot is not small, odd-shaped or steep, but is similar to those in the immediate area. The applicants purchased the property in 1991 and built the detached garage in 2000. The garage was located in the practical position at the end of the driveway and beside the house. If they asked at the time they constructed the garage, the applicants would VA 2001-022 McAlpine 2 Staff Report December 4, 2001 have been informed about the setback requirements for a detached versus an attached garage. The zoning regulations which impact the setback requirements have not changed since the applicants purchased the property, therefore, they went into this situation "with their eyes open" and did not have a reasonable expectation at the time of purchase to build an attached walkway as they now propose. There are two options that could have eliminated the need for variance and would allow compliance with the zoning setback regulations. At the time of the garage construction, they could have built it smaller (1-car garage instead of 2-car) and could have attached it to the house with a walkway. It is also possible that they could have attached the 2- car garage directly to the house without a walkway and could have met the side setback of 25 feet. At this point with the 2-car garage built, they could build a walkway or other attachment which is attached on one side and not the other (i.e. attached to either the garage or the house, but not both). If the walkway is not attached on both sides, they would not have to meet primary setbacks nor obtain a variance. Some people opt to do this when there is not sufficient room to meet the primary setback. An overhanging roof on the end of the walkway which is not attached, could provide protection from inclement weather. Because there are other options which do not necessitate a variance and this is not an undue hardship, staff cannot support this variance request. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship Staff comments are written in italics and follow the applicant's comments. The applicant notes that the variance is necessary: • For purpose of personal safety and protection from inclement weather. Many houses exist without garages or with detached garages and carports which do not provide shelter between the house and the car. Therefore, it is not necessary to have an enclosed walkway in order to have reasonable use of the property. In addition, because there are other options available for a walkway, staff cannot find evidence of an undue hardship. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. yA 2001-022 McAlpine 3 Staff Report December 4, 2001 Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant did not provide comment on this criterion. As noted in the preceding, this is a relatively common situation. Because this is somewhat recurring, it may warrant an amendment to the zoning ordinance to address the setback differential between primary and accessory structures. Or it may be useful to consider a zoning text amendment to decrease the primary setback in certain situations. Since staff finds no hardship, staff is unable to find that the hardship is unique. 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. Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • The proposed walkway will be blocked visually from the adjacent property by the existing garage. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed walkway connection will not detrimentally impact 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 only one of the three criteria for approval have been met, staff recommends denial of this request. Should the Board find cause to approve it, staff recommends the following condition: This variance approval is limited to the 8 foot by 10 foot enclosed walkway requested. Any additional expansion of the attachment between the house and garage shall require amendment of this variance. I THIS CERTIFIES THAT ON c brll' /4'/.V/I SURVEYED THE PROPF,I T DOWN !IEREO' ) THE TITLE LINES AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE AS SIk XI THIS PLAT. VA. CERT. N° 1458 • This 5ur-vey /vos,areas/rd !or S/even d'Jorccio / A!c4/pit ' /-h/.sgo/Lei-0/dc'5 /V/ /ie io o fi.U.o. /00 year /Ya%'p/oin. .0 Na /f/e rear/ fvos /urn/5hed. NA \ �3 A : 26°25' R = 238.04 \. ' - i m-, ••• L = 109.75' S1°33'00°E iF 9.6 9' .... . . . 'I . 07- e RT4. \ . , , 6 LOT I �,_� �! T s I- T TELE. ': 71 PEO.••' it '; ' WI ' b 4 h' k� •. t.\ ELL /t n.lr/�( \ •eR!OK A� �,r I.AI I ♦ -)WALK `� L vr/ �'::-...._ lCurren/ Owoer•.�(�A9C 11.;d 44 9 / fro/henne 5: /flufiro LOT 6 I 'STONE ne dJ7 R,7 /as .� A• �;._�..��- QB.453 R. .135 P/of FENCE LINE o 'a; 1 T. NI 4 p 1)i)na I o ,= —133 LOT 3A 3Ci - Li p o cr o >rw _ 4 i I-Ai I 3 Bo rn N \X — 0 0) 38• .4 a 1 FENCE LINE to 32.0 (C� vi 2 STORY FRAME 8 BRICK a CHIMNEY -�- 20.7 W LOT 7 'LP `�� 20.2 ts �, FLOOD ZONE `�� ' '29.5 = NOT IN H.U. C G �o !00 YR FLODO PLAN + Eli STONE TERRACE I I 0) 0 .f to ) Ot N ' • HOUSE DETAIL N ° :o N N SCALE : I " = 30' V•, N CO PrppDed f. P F.57.5!"w _ 62.28 •. _ IwiL ` Kviti LOT 2 PLAT SHOWING PHYSICAL SURVEY OF . LOT 3 B 41tiAt.Ttf of L; O R T H W O O D S �� HES�� G. 1 HUG 2 U Certificate No. ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1458 SCALE : III = I00' MAY 13 ) 1985 ' (.5urvey godo%d donuory 4/99/ G. V. KIRK H U G H E S , C. L. S. `4A,a SUR`tc'k' ' LAND SURVEYOR a PLANNER KESWICK , VIRGIN IA I 1 15 2(NO.9/-0,3) //A . ....." , EXHIBITS 2ES ;TOB ; ENT ►, COUI-crf OF ALBS .MARLE I . THIS CERTIFIES THAT ON c b/7l' /4'69/1 SURVEYED THE PROPEI '1' HOWN IIEREO' ') THE Tr.TLE LINES AND IMPROVEMENT'S ARE AS Silk .)N THIS PLAT. VA. CERT. N° 1458 Th/s sure-y fvos,oreao/d rc S/e/-677 c,Gforcio el A-1°i/pi4' Th/s,prop'f/y(Ices 4'/ /ie ii7 o ff.U.D. /00 year 1/cw'picin. ,Vo i//e rear/ 'vas /urmiheo. N,,, R - 238.04' EXHIBITS °> ••• L = 109.75' /�- S 1°33'oo"E ,•F : PRESENTED TO 6 2A on s.s s' .... . . ...co • , STD l LI Ltio L VA -Z661- ZZ m RTC' Sc N LOT I w i • s 0 6?T COUNTY OF A_BEMARLE I 9 S6' tot s Ric ti t.1 se, 50 • Jch TELE. .•f,� 0 i I PED••' ��\ "I V• 711I M6 F ,, 1 P t Z J ELL !R� .� r(s( . 't t I.F. I K'ALk M /�Q/� ill ; �:= I Currey/ Owflec•. Rl�✓G d Clg_ ;� 44.9 / �oQ/h�ep�i�e S. /Wary ■ SHED JJ 40 63/ 717 /05 LOT 6 M1- _ BRICK':__.- RRACE /�q ,/� n / ,0 WALK•• n `�CJa3 /� ,3L55 !�/o/ Cl) .4 to Q to - FENCE LINE 3 I- I / ?( /I I �\ P/1 LC Z o °f ° LOT 3A C I _ Li D o " 'L �,- 3 3B — I.F • z VI ° (7) c0 M y �� w°'� �A69,�res to co io 0) _ J — LN.t 0)° 1 a ~ `) , 1:0 32.0 M FENCE LINE Zat o • w h 2 STORY FRAME a BRICK 7- CHIMNEY I.F. `t a - w LOT 7 •iF "� 20.7 ``, ` 20.2 F Np000 ZONE (` (� ' •29.5 = 10 1N HUD `' b al 111 0 YA.FLO0D PLAIN 3 1 STONE TERRACE o - 1--a to Cr) 0 0) - to to O 0) V• 0 CV N N 'o HOUSE DETAIL 2 N IV SCALE : I " = 30i V• CV • I.F. • N 46°57'S1"w I.P F. 162.280 • 1 I LOT 2 I PLAT SHOWING PHYSICAL SURVEY OF ' LOT 3 B %�vALTtf of 0 . Il• NORTHWOODS " G, I NUGHES�2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY) VIRGINIA v Certificate No. SCALE : I11 = I00' MAY 13 , 1985 1458 • Garvey Updo%d �/onuory/B /99/ G. V. " KIRK " HUGHES, C. L. S. e4*0 SURVtc•Ac) LAND SURVEYOR a PLANNER KESWICK , VIRGINIA _ 1 11 5 2 OVO.9/-0,3)