The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200300003 Review Comments 2003-05-06 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: May 6, 2003 STAFF REPORT VA-2003-003 OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Jen-Shih and Lian-Pin Lee TAX MAP/PARCEL: 60A Section 9 Parcels 8 and 8A ZONING: R-6, Residential ACREAGE: Parcel 8 = 7,929 square feet; Parcel 8A = 7,799 square feet LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Georgetown Road and Greentree Park, with access from Greentree Park. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicants request relief from Section 16.3 to decrease the minimum lot size for four new lots. The Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 7,260 square feet (sf) in the R-6 district. The applicants want to divide two existing lots (of 7,929 and 7,799 sf) into four new lots with resulting sizes of: 4,457 sf; 3,372 sf; 3,704 sf and 4,096 sf. Therefore, the variances are for 2,703 sf; 3,888 sf; 3,556 sf, and 3,164 sf respectively. The purpose for this request is to divide two lots, each with one existing duplex, and create four single-family attached dwellings that can then be sold separately. RELEVANT HISTORY: The Lees purchased the property in March 1979 when it was zoned R-3, Residential. Under the prior Zoning Ordinance, that district had no minimum lot size but allowed by right up to 20 units per acre (or 2,178 sf average lot size). In May 1979, they created a subdivision of 12 small lots ranging in size from 3,003 sf up to 8,251 sf with one residue parcel (lot 1), all served by one internal road, Greentree Park. (See Attachment A.) Then in September of 1979, they divided the residue parcel (lot 1) into lots 1A and 1 B as shown on Attachment B. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: (Please note that both a single family attached and a duplex unit are two-family structures. They can in fact, be physically identical. The difference is where the property lines lay. A duplex unit is on one parcel; whereas, a single family attached unit is one "side"of the duplex on one lot and the other "side"of the duplex on the adjacent lot. In other words, with a single family attached unit, there are two lots or one for each dwelling.) The two parcels subject to this variance currently conform to the ordinance requirements for minimum lot size; however, as they are currently improved (with a duplex on each), they exceed the maximum density requirements. The two duplexes were built in 1980 under a prior Zoning Ordinance. Eleven of the twelve lots in the Greentree Park subdivision are nonconforming to the R-6 minimum lot size. The original twelve small lots remain the same as shown on the original subdivision plat (Attachment A) with an average lot size of approximately 4,200 sf. There is one single- VA 2003-003, Greentree Park Duplexes May 6, 2003 Page 2 family attached dwelling on all twelve lots. The two duplexes on lots 1A and 1 B are the only lots that were not yet divided with one dwelling on each lot. The property is currently served by public water and sewer. Environmental and practical concerns about the provision of adequate septic area are not issues in this case as they may be in other variances of minimum lot size. The dwellings and associated driveways, etc. currently exist. No additional development (additional dwellings) would be permitted as a result of this variance. In many cases of nonconforming lots, particularly multiple buildings on small lots, staff is either unwilling or is less willing to support a variance to allow subdivision. Factors that lead to that recommendation are not present in this application. These factors include buildings served by private septic fields, which would be more limited for reserves or repairs, by the division of property. Another factor is when the nonconformity involves a more temporary structure, such as a mobile home, or a less permanent structure, as one which has fallen into disrepair, on a nonconforming lot. In those cases if we would support a variance, at a minimum we would recommend a condition to limit the variance in the event the mobile home is ever removed or the older structure is not longer structurally sound. This variance request clearly meets both prongs of the State Code criteria as stated below: When a property owner can show that his property was acquired in good faith and where, by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the effective date of this ordinance... Staff is of the opinion that the ordinance effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the use of this property so as to justify a variance. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: (Staff comments are written in italics and follow the applicant's comments.) Hardship The applicant notes that the variance is necessary because: • There is currently a duplex situated on each existing lot. Strict application of the ordinance would produce an undue hardship since the lots cannot be sold separately. VA 2003-003, Greentree Park Duplexes May 6, 2003 Page 3 The 1986 Natrella case indicates that there should be no distinction between renting and buying. This case stood for the finding that prohibiting the conversion of an apartment building to a condominium with no resulting change in land use, is unreasonable. In other words, if there is no change in land use such as additional development, it is simply a change in the form of ownership. If a variance is not granted, either one or both of the dwellings could only be rented. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the strict application of the ordinance would produce an undue hardship. 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • All other lots in the Greentree Subdivision are currently divided as we are requesting for this variance. Staff notes that in the Georgetown Road area this is a unique situation. Most of the homes and apartments in this area were zoned a zoning district to which they conformed, when the 1980 zoning ordinance was adopted. 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: • All other lots in Greentree Subdivision are currently divided as we are requesting of this variance. Staff is of the opinion that the variance requested will not negatively impact the character of the area. The proposed lots average 3,907 sf while the existing lots in the subdivision average 4,200 sf. The subdivision of the property will result in new property lines but no new development. There would be no visual impact and no practical land use impact resulting from the subdivision itself. It could be argued that granting the variance to allow the subdivision and individual ownership may positively impact the character of the area. Owner occupied dwellings are thought to inspire more pride in maintaining and improving property. VA 2003-003, Greentree Park Duplexes May 6, 2003 Page 4 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. I ATTACH 01000000#140. MENT A i n /I7C9/'P �G2//,./ p,'' / �`jP/n9i'�P ,4 2/ 7,/ , fisfi/k-iesio7/5 Pia/h/e' __Ed2i..11414,;,.Z.,9/7 - /y�/Pd /,/ • /r s yrP�s.4 j y/ y ':�/P \ 9rNP///F/�/1i9 P•/rGYJ/,/As•/o%.S�/ I • ,S. / 'ti I l•#/si/ueeP/�v/max/�.rr� � l/' 48i/eP sV i P9s .s / =/875 ecrO/or'7ir� ris�s-a 2 c-Vi ,%„ o c n' A '/77,o/as/ - c,- - . sue, cb - �Pds� O y'�iD��e 6 �7? ri , oc\r\ ^I ‘,T. • \ ‘4'• `, S‘N Y.‘ p �-S�e III„¢ a ` h29 q� ,0, liS hag 9� p92 p �, /09 40 1ZZs f v . j7349 S/ ; ,a b PI 2 9/B5' so 8. ;\ ry �i1J` O ' ' K - 4 � '720' / l!k` js' .Pa e41- /D/fl - ti � � P 3Plo go• .5 :z A� ti y3/ �os!a i / •/8, • N -1/?"v (40/5 'h• 9) Q. 7 • s--i• -�• .4 , • /UDloB' y� �Q V. /?? W �� 2� nn •(, /of 7/,,�c�X VV zo/ a� p, .titi p? 1 (�4- eng , /0/7l � ? p \" /l�/GPr� 1 a 'dl K sF c�/O/,t� i'e ,fib 1 _5: y� < ��\I Z /��) h r* -- -, 44,,-/- ... .._- ha \ � `5-6 �l re 5,_s07lj lr '� i. _ / IS-6 Ca//7/y �9/ba r/.7??... # i'' c/t v.fS, '_51,- -VM4-1-fa/-x-vi* .1 c'o-reewo ;,Pat,-�i�s 1 �. ,�i� �r� �!Q ,a c-5,4,/P a/ 1/j ///off /O //.- /,'r 57.07 '" 4SUo" /Zo' 2j/8' 1'� /f/P /o //7,s/rli r; .. �3 / qo-�• �1�// 5 2�v �7" 5QD0" 2�9�/' /)1P ////5 --/-L �i,� 1 c� ph/ S`lolUrr/9 , /979 ,6* pevi,SPQ' as_ y' ///ry/,/d A;deirdry 72 /977 0 20 0 goo �/ce %�1�/� sc / , .' /P / . /7 , /��o's-z//ye /Dib' /r O -6/gPsv///P y ' O q Ii/ /r'/d w 8/ V/ ty s? Iry "-11_4 e4z/..) p �� b 0-0(NI ler — / Svc M _ cl cry? � _ 40-0- -r-) L 2 ATTACHMENT B COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COUNT Y OF ALBEMAI'LE CERTIFICATION PLAN N ING COMMISSION BOA RD OF SUPERVISORS THIS IS A CORRECT B ACCURATE PLA T \a A, CERTIFICATE NO 1 1 7 0 OWNER S APPROVAL THIS SUBDIVISION IS MADE WITH THE CONSENT OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS AND/OR TRUSTEES ALL ROADS AND STREETS IF NOT PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED ARE HEREBY TENDERED FOR DEDICATION TO PUBLI C USE -/, j O ct u -cam, CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF V I R GI N I A, T O- WIT S1. RI• 6 56 THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS RT / DAY i AC�.KyOWLE DOED BE F RE ME THIS QD b �-�-CP G/ `0 l ',2--Y- G•or p•l o la 1. .� i. TTF � 9 7 ,7/1i/I"./ ,��E h R d _ 1 b Q P , }� j+' Ca -�,I �tST��-yam AS O W NER MY O M N I S S I O N Z. 11 _ 0 D� ^ 3 E CR Et R KJ EXPIRES "/'7�g3 Q o � y 1 l'-8‘cI 72 Y22rlc/, E �,/� Motor r ci! v l i c NOTES IRON PINS TO BE SET AT ALL CORNERS NO FURTHER SUBO/V/S/ON SHALL BE MADE ON THIS PROPERTY UNLESS APPROVED BY THE AL BEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING --------------.:0 ' COMMIES/ON \ PROPERTY IS TAX MAP SHEET A PARCEL T \\C///I/ 09 - OB JACK JOUETT MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT L O l 2 L LOUTSESHALL THAVE BACCESSON GREEN TREE PARK ONLY k tk Q LOT 2 R Q. j1 • E N j1o4P 61 .. kJ / 1 5 T 6 T 4` 0 h IQ ab • /Ea�••,•n1a P4 0 pcc•�� t3 k 3 4a� 25 L. 1 BIB 1 r n p o _ \ k. N. LOT / A - ° LOT / e - > s / I� 7 9 2 9 S F a 7 7 9 9 E F cn N O h O a ,° _ IVt Lewis Fr,me/ Co Inc. LJ Ua 1 2 30 But/ding S•/Dotl m LOTS IA 8 /B SHALL HAVE y L i n• ACCESS OFF OF GREENTREE N� . 1r PARK ON 25'ACCESS EASEMENT • "f• ,•- 0, op1,p1"W ♦ 9 49 ' BB 63 N 4 45 00 5 45° 3 7' 59 " w G E O R G E T O W N ROAD (46 . R/ W I P L A T SHOWING L 0 T I A & L 0 T I B GREENTREE SUBDIVISION A LB E M A RLE COUNTV , VIR G I N I A J u I y 2 4 , 19 7 9 0 4 0 8 0 12 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 40 Graphic Scale In Feet B . AUBREY HUFFMAN a ASSOCIATES , L T D . CIVIL ENGINEERING , LAND SURVEYING . and LAND PLANNING C H A R L O T T E S V ILL E , VIRGINIA ALBEMARLE COUNT" 11 VA-2003-003 Jen-Shi&Lian-Pin Lee T (owners/applicants) TMP 060A0-09-00-00800 4- $A . 10 / AL IS /4' /I4 O0 ��.: a,Df o �l � o 4411 II 2 I ila3 .ou1J2 ,J 'O .["MINT."/ o .a00 aa 23 =; r .� yA n Ighxlippric, 43—.0....nir,,,,,,, iip "/,// 30 / ,..... L ) 4., Mil 4irapo G) , / 19 IBA. „el," pi ( �/ r �� l AA I zs � 20 �,� v b AW4116#4tb��2g �� 1) A itTii*' I64 \ /25s,42 SECTION C 7°� , -...4*'/�i0.2� �� i„p0� ® ff. /TPA ACREAES B GREERE \11 l 10P ',,a' ` EE V. O HESSIAN HILLS SECTION 5 D.8.400Pg.277 \ MINA' 232OAr oz D.B.405Pq 103 Lift UHESSIAN HILLS SECTION 6 DB.417 Pq.159HESSIAN HILLS SECTION 7 06 622,Fg.565-5684 ` pe�� 11 HESSIAN HILLS—SEC 1 ��`,� UNIVERSITY COMMONS OB 7 73,Fg,338-347 , �j CJ C.8.316,Pq.254 Bldg 101 12 units ,,P:44411634,44 � HESSIAN HILLS-SEC.2 Bldg 103 6 units 0 KNOLLWOOD J 1 D B.327,Pg.317 Bldg 117 8 units (MEADOW CREEK) lik OMB HILLS-SEC. 3 3 units DB 1889 Pg 441 D.8 272,Pg.8 SE[ItE"ISED PLOT D.8 370,Pg.145-D.B.379 Pg.365 1;Q KNOLLWOOD Ds'sshs's n HESSIAN HILLS-SEC.4 �' ADDITION 0' D.8.378, Pg.107 JACK JOUETT DISTRICT °° °°` '°° SECTION 60-A O