HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200200005 Plan - Approved 2002-04-09 4 ii
•
Ll ti\
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
FAX (434) 972-4126 TELEPHONE(434) 296-5832 TTD (434) 972-4012
April 10, 2002
Tom Gale
Roudabush, Gale &Associates, Inc
914 Monticello Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-2002-005 —TMP 046B4-03-00-02100
Dear Mr. Gale:
The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals heard your variance application VA-2002-005, on
April 9, 2002. The Board ruled (4:0)to approve your request subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance is limited to that which is currently proposed; and
2. Reference to this variance must be provided on the subdivision plat.
If you have any questions,please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
' 1--(1/ A Aivt
CtiNALL.
Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C.P
Zoning Administrator
Cc: Craig Builders of Albemarle, Inc
File
STAFF PERSON: Amelia G. McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: April 9, 2002
STAFF REPORT VA-2002-005
OWNER/APPLICANT: Craig Builders of Albemarle, Inc.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 46B4-3-21
ZONING: R10, Residential
ACREAGE: 8,969 sq. ft.
LOCATION: In Forest Ridge subdivision, on the west side of Moubry
Lane, approximately 200 feet from the intersection with
Proffitt Road (Route 649).
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from
Section 17.3 R-10 Area and Bulk Regulations, relating to minimum lot size. The
applicant requests a variance to reduce the minimum lot size from 4,356 square feet
(0.10 acre) to 3,936 square feet, a variance of 420 square feet. This 8,969 square foot
lot is improved with two single-family attached dwellings which are under construction.
They propose to subdivide in order to sell each house separately on its own lot. Due to
the location of the structure and the firewall/common wall between the dwellings,
proposed lot 21A does not have the minimum area to meet the ordinance.
RELEVANT HISTORY: Forest Ridge subdivision plat was signed by the County on
December 5, 1994. Building permits for the two dwellings were issued in September,
2001 (B 2001-1485 SFA and B 2001-1576 SFA). Certificates of occupancy have not
yet been issued.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: Craig Builders has
followed common construction and development practice by beginning construction of
the homes first and subdividing once construction is underway and the common wall is
set. This practice is generally encouraged by the County with this type of development,
in order to avoid multiple plat revisions later, once the common wall is set. In the past,
before the practice was changed and the lots were subdivided first, some subdivisions
such as Minor Hill, were subject to numerous plat revisions to reflect the as-built
locations.
The minimum lot size for a lot with two dwellings in the R10 district is 8,712 square feet
(allowing 4,356 sq ft per dwelling). This lot is only 257 square feet above the minimum
size necessary for two dwellings. This is the smallest lot in this subdivision with most
lots 700 to 1,000 square feet larger. This is a consideration; however, it did not exist at
the time of effectiveness of the ordinance and is the result of the chosen subdivision
design.
VA 2002-005 Craig Builder.,
April 9, 2002
Page 2
Because the lots have been platted and the houses are almost complete, it is not
possible to consider moving the houses on the property. The applicant has considered
and discussed property exchanges with adjoining property (rear and side) in an effort to
resolve this without the necessity of variance. None of these options has proven viable.
The proposed lot in question, lot 21A, is adjacent to existing lot 20B and has tax map
32, parcel 29B (owned by Maple Grove Christian Church) in the rear. Proposed lot 21 B,
the other side of the single-family attached unit, is adjacent on the other side. Shifting
the property lines between proposed lot 21A and any of these three adjacent lots is not
practical in terms of the existing development and the lay of the land. In addition, some
of the options, such as including more area from proposed lot 21B in proposed lot 21A,
results in an odd-shaped lot which is discouraged under the Subdivision Ordinance.
The remedy in terms of relocation of the common wall is not a practical solution. It
would require substantial redesign and reconstruction and involve significant cost.
Without approval of a variance, these two single-family attached dwellings would remain
on one parcel and could not be sold separately.
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:
• Strict application would prevent the applicant from selling two separate single family
attached units which have been constructed in accordance to the building code (fire
wall). All other units in the subdivision have been designed as single family attached
units for sale, as opposed to duplexes for rent.
Staff concurs that in this particular case, there is an undue hardship. To some minor
extent, this is the result of a subdivision plat which created a particularly small lot.
However, this lot (parcel 21) does meet minimum lot area requirements. Because there
is no practical remedy in terms of shifting property lines or relocating part or all of the
structure, it would be an undue hardship for this two-family dwelling to be located on
one lot.
1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
VA 2002-005 Craig Builde._
April 9, 2002
Page 3
• This variance/hardship has not been needed/shared by other lots in the Forest
Ridge subdivision or in the adjoining townhouse sections in the Forest Lakes
subdivision.
Staff notes that this is a unique situation. While we encourage development and
construction in the order undertaken here (begin construction first and subdivide
afterwards), it may occasionally result in some errors or problems such as the one
encountered here. However, staff cannot recall this being a common or recurring
problem. In this particular case, there are no reasonable remedies with adjoining
properties to allow the minimum lot size to be met. The difference in this case (420
square feet) is minimal and should not negatively impact the use of the resulting lot.
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.
Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
• Each side of the single family attached units is the same size. The orientation of the
two units varies on each lot to maintain variety and architectural character within the
subdivision. Because the average lot size (4,484.5 square feet) for the two lots is
above the 4,356 square foot minimum lot size and because the overall density of 44
units on 8.37 acres or 5.2 dwelling units per acres in R-10 zoning is unchanged, the
character and quality within the subdivision will not be affected.
Staff does not perceive any detrimental impact on the character of the area by the
reduction in lot size of 420 square feet. This difference will not likely be something that
would be visible or perceived by most. Staff has not received any letters of objection.
As mentioned by the applicant, the overall density of this development is maintained.
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 of the three criteria for approval have been
met, staff recommends approval of this request.
r
VAR 2002-005 it 046B4-03-0 1 so 213i.
,1 a
;. `i •f ` , , r r +,4r 1
.4441(114 ' / ,
•
• 4hw4,44124 7; , i i 'N,. -
i \ter ,, 1 rl'il
``;a ti i + 1 , t ,
•
14 i .\' •* i
:� •
Lk .
;
\ Irb .t ; Au 1,0,,. , 4 . a . -T
r„..e......................../.
ill
‘,. , - _ -. ,i_Ce.:'',(4. •.mir,?,571 t,'t 4,
.-,--. 1`.- tl-ii, .--.:P:'' ''' ./141t ,L . • "
Pi 1111111.66... 1116,- ,
I
Fp'....'ea i
Eltli J , :- ,c '
i >r. 1 y.
4..1 - ,;•!..,: I___ 1111111.1. IIIIHIIMIP. - II # / i•
lig t, •
LaIIIMIPIP46"jl" . .. ., _ -.
' - ,..4410\aillite' 10... - ' -44‘• ' . -.aft.- , l2. 0 •
t L A a
2.011
Nill.
o 7%-
MI ° 9 ____ . . , . .
...:44•,,,,,,,,,,
....
_. .
,......._ ..,..,,,,
..
_�-- 002 2 : 07 :26 PM
o46B4-o3 , 121 oo .,
_ _ fir
1ki
Jw
{ 1 \
1 _
. ,1 ' 1 i, /
7 , t Jfi�l�
_ _ _ _ _ ...... ..t... 4 f� a „� VVV
All i.
' I-----._ . -_:•"72 •• -. 4 i • '‘. s - Aik - Mil 1110 .., ,
i r_
•:._, _ _ •:„...: P.*.4 •.'.., ,, ,
III �ir
_.��.�... r! ' Fl ... _ . : a ,� « •- fir/ MNr► U3.1As
..,_...G.,.
,. .�.. _ r iinuøi f ` � .. _.
•
VAR 2002-0 i :. = ,
„to .
1
:r r , .. �h j I.
r � i b �t�J/ .I�
_ t •. � 4• i ; Sr ZI • > v''4: 4. t yt't 8 " i
..'ALL r'- . • ?M °r' ,
•
ir\
- •, t �• : •ter
— -•-y
•
•
.+ • : _ -♦ _
- - .-.�. .
, .1. _ _'
om". -w ,, • Is.
.1 'r" .��.'�' }r' r f�° ` p
, •._i •• . iY•�' -ram+'.. — :"-•• +
%
S �,'P9.�` `•_ �- *'i•'r''s r �•; ,fir ,.ter. • t - i t ..} •fY:',"y - '
•
r �f i/. _ - {. _ - .� ..• ':ems. .
_• .s— •...�., :�1 ✓f ,N'Y fir.. 'y'
•
R .w . ,7� `#• ' r 1:4 'PY� • t . IA g .r • T V� •, ,rip w
- ;? ;.: •.yam.e.�_ ,. •—•i y7yt. • `. •.. `,. ' - •`. • .,.w —nit—. ,....'• .• �' -r • -7.—
•.. .. ♦ i' ; i 1. .'tYCa il'SfP;'J r v ., __ r _
4( It ?_I
SOUTHERN PHOTO-GREENSBORO N2 307 6
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION alb
a Q'
DESIGNATED AGENT CHAIRMAN O0\aa
0
Nk
DATE DATE 0,pC
VICINITY MAP
THE DIVISION CF THE LAND DESCRIBED HEREON IS WITH N . T . S .
THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE
OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNER,PROPRIETORS AND TRUSTEES.
ANY REFERENCE TO FUTURE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS TO 1. OWNERS AND LEGAL REFERENCES:
BE DEEMED AS TtfORETI CAL ONLY.ALL STATEMENTS AFFIXED CRAIG BUILDERS OF ALBEMARLE, INC. ,
TO THIS PLAT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY D.B. 1444pp.422-423(plot)
KNOWLEDGE. 2iRrE649 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY LIES IN FLOOD INSURANCE RATE
�� MAP ZONE C. (AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING.)
SUBJECT
PROPERTY e_. 3.TAX MAP 46B4 PAR,21
z 4.PROPERTY IS ZONED R-I0.
STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOREST LAKES .��P-
~ 5.PROPERTY LINE ON WHICH PARTY WALL EXISTS HAS
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT VAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME NO SETBACK.
THIS .DAY OF 6.THE DEVELOPER RESERVES A 10' DRAINAGE AND/OR
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES . UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG ALL LOT LINES.
T. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE(FRAME SHED)ALLOWED WITHIN
NOTARY PUBLIC TMP 32-29G REAR SETBACK ACCORDING TO SEC. 4.11.2.1 OF THE
ALBEMARLE CO. ZONING ORDINANCE.
Maple Grove Christian Church NOTE: EACH LOT IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENT FOR 4" HOME
D.B.781 p 200 SPRINKLER LINE TO BE INCLUDED N COMMON ELE-
MENTS AND MAINTAINED BY HOME OWNERS ASS.
SEE D.B.1466 p.362.
I.F. N 33 ° 07'51"E 93.00'0 I.F.
- —0 40.50' I.S. 52.50' 0
N 56°49'I3"W
• 96.61' 6
LOT 208 a
N/F Porto9heae 20' V_ BLDG. LINE co
D.B.I653p, 19 — o
D.B.I444 pp 422-423(pl at)
in ev
w tn o LOT 22
-� D m Craig Builders
1142' ci .B.1444 pp 422-423(Plat)
•
en w ►-:
vi LOT2IA LOT 218 I� x � I
3 0 3936 s.f. 5033 s.f. I
�,ct W —
en
C7 ct-� : O�fn-10
O coZ
O Q
co 0 0n 0)
to
z I O
25' BLDG. LINE N
EDGE IF EXI A� N. SEWER ESMT.
20'Son.Sewer Esmt. �!
D.B.I444 pp 422-423 N
S S S-
40.52' I 52.52' .1�F—
F. • 1611tTo _----9.
I.— 0- S 3 I°30 00 W 93.04' St.Rte.649
M OU BRY LANE (50'1
,
I
NOP06 SUBDIVISION PLAT
OF LOTS 2IA AND 218
FOREST RIDGE SUBDIVISION
HIVANNA DISTRICT
LOTgiA ALBEMARLE COUNTY,VIRGINIA
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOC., INC.
A Professional Corporation
11 CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR — ENGINEER
SCALE: I = 20 DATE: JAN.9,2002 Charlottesville, Virginia