HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200300010 Review Comments 2003-09-02 STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd
PUBLIC HEARING: September 2, 2003
STAFF REPORT VA-2003-010
OWNER/APPLICANT: Dana and Judith Burch, Owners/ Palmer Burch or Dana
Burch, Applicants
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 20/15B
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas, FH, Flood Hazard Overlay and AIA,
Airport Protection Overlay
ACREAGE: 0.6 (estimated)
LOCATION: 5600 Advance Mills Road located at the intersection of
Route 641 and Route 743 and on the east side of the
Rivanna River.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests a variance from
Section 10.4 which requires a 75 foot front setback. This variance is necessary to allow
the demolition of the existing nonconforming structure and the reconstruction of a
dwelling 18.5 feet from the right-of-way of Route 743, a variance of 56.5 feet.
RELEVANT HISTORY: On January 7, 2003 the Board of Zoning Appeals approved (by
a vote of 4-1) VA-2002-27, a variance to allow the demolition of the existing
nonconforming structure and the reconstruction of a dwelling on the existing foundation.
This action required that the new building be comparable to that described in the
application and that it be constructed within the existing foundation. The BZA also
allowed a 10 x 25 foot porch on the south side of the building and a 8 x 17 foot deck on
the west side of the building. This is a request for a larger building and additional space
on the second floor.
The original proposal of VA-2002-27 showed a living room, dining area, kitchen, master
bedroom, a sitting room and two bathrooms on the first floor and a gallery, an office, two
bedrooms and a bathroom on the second floor. The first floor contained 2,994 finished
square feet and the second floor contained 2,280 finished square feet for a total of
5,274 square feet. The original plan also included a 8 x 17 & 3 x 14 = 178 square foot
rear deck, a 240 square foot front porch and 10 x 25 = 250 square foot side porch. It
was staff opinion that the request met all three criteria for the granting of a variance.
This is the site of the former Advance Mills Supply. According to a report of the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, the store was established in 1884. The store was
destroyed by fire in 1946 and rebuilt with cinder blocks in 1950. The store use has lost
its nonconforming status because it has not operated within the last two years. The
structure remains a legal nonconforming structure.
1:IDEPTIBCZSI2003 staff reportslVA-2003-10 Burch.doc
2
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS:
The following information was provided in the report for VA-2002-27 and is
relevant for this request.
This parcel is improved with a 3,170 square foot structure and a 288 square foot
storage shed and contains approximately 6/10s of an acre. There is also a concrete
walkway and the remnants of a cellar located to the south of the building. The parcel is
constrained by a 75-foot front setback and a 100-foot buffer from the Rivanna River.
Since the parcel is only 134 feet deep according to a 1948 recorded plat, the stream
buffer and the setback overlap, leaving no portion of the parcel unencumbered by either
the setback or buffer. Further, the FEMA map shows the entire parcel to be located in
the approximated flood plain designated as Zone A. However, a detailed flood plain
study conducted by the Army Corp of Engineers determined that the structure on the
parcel is actually located on a narrow ridge that is above and outside of the flood plain,
but surrounded by the flood plain of the Rivanna.
This parcel is exempt from the building site regulations of 4.2 because it was a lot of
record on the date of the ordinance as provided by Section 4.2.6 (b). Even though the
lot is nonconforming, Section 4.1 .6 and 30.3 of the zoning ordinance and section 17.317
(c) of the Water Protection Ordinance apply to this parcel. Section 4.1 .6 requires that
the Health Department approve area for a primary and reserve drainfield sufficient to
serve a three bedroom dwelling. Likewise, the regulations in section 30.3 prohibit the
issuance of a building permit for a dwelling in the flood plain. Section 17-317 (c)
regulates the stream buffer associated with the Rivanna. There is no alternative location
for a building on this parcel that meets the 75-foot setback, the 100-foot stream buffer
and is not in the flood plain.
The applicant has stated that the owners originally planned to jack up the existing
structure to create living space in what is now the crawl space. However, on the advice
of builders and architects, they concluded that project would not be feasible because
the roof system is not sound, the floor was soaked with motor oil and the cost estimates
were high.
VDOT has no plans to improve this portion of State Route 743.
The following information pertains to VA-2003-10, the current request.
The revised plan, submitted with this request shows a living room, dining area, kitchen,
master bedroom, a study and two bathrooms on the first floor and a gallery, an office,
two bedrooms and a bathroom on the second floor. The first floor contains 3,061
finished square feet and a rear deck containing 418 square feet. The second floor
I:IDEPTIBCZS12003 staff reportstVA-2003-10 Burch.doc
3
contains 3,011 finished square feet. The proposed building contains a total of 6,072
finished square feet. The existing 240 square foot front porch and the proposed 250
square foot porch on the south side of the building have been eliminated from this plan.
The rear deck projects 3 feet beyond the existing north foundation wall and 5 feet
beyond the existing west foundation wall. This deck includes area that was shown as
the study on the original plan. The ramp for handicapped access shown on the
proposed plan is exempt from this review pursuant to Section 4.9.
This amended request has positive and negative factors. The revised plan is less
conforming than the original in that the building projects 3 feet beyond the existing
footprint and the second floor contains an additional 731 square feet. However, the plan
is more conforming than the original because the removal of the front porch increases
the front setback from 11 feet to 18.5 feet.
It is staff opinion, consistent with 4.1 .6, that a conventional dwelling with 3 three
bedrooms constitutes a reasonable use of a property. While this is a request for a three-
bedroom dwelling, the proposed 6,072 square foot building exceeds reasonable use
and therefore, does not meet the criteria for a finding of hardship.
It is staff opinion that the 3 foot expansion of the area on the first floor beyond the
existing foundation will allow the applicant to maximize the goal of wheelchair
accessibility. The additional area proposed on the second floor above the garage and
feed room are seen as exceeding a reasonable use of this property and a convenience
to the applicant that does not meet the criteria for a finding of hardship.
It is also staff opinion that any negative impact resulting from the expansion of the
building beyond the existing foot print is offset by the benefit of increasing the front
setback from 11 feet to 18.5 feet due to the elimination of the porch.
The gallery and office shown on the plan are for private use only. o -A w il
0-4f-cam tA4-e-rkmw-k
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance
criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: r -
Hardship
The applicant comments that the variance is necessary:
My elderly parents require this for wheelchair access to master bedroom. To move into
the main area would harm existing character of building foundation layout and be cost
prohibitive.
I:I DEP11 BCZS12003 staff reports I VA-2003-10 Burch.doc
4
It is staff opinion that the parcel's limited area, the overlapping setback and stream
buffer and the flood plain on the parcel combine to meet the criteria for a finding of
hardship. As previously stated, without a variance, no structure could be built on this
property. However, staff will recommend a condition that limits the volume of the
structure.
1. The applicant his.provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce unduerdship.
roger\
niqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
We purchased the old store and old mill site of Advance Mills (formerly Fray's Mill) and
we are constrained by river and road. The cantilever is towards neither.
Staff agrees that the hardship e
of 4 -setback, stream buffer and flood plain cover the entire parcel_lt-i havd
structure that is not practical to modify. IS
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:
We have struggled long and hard in our pursuit of retaining/rebuilding the character of
Advance Mills. We will also be working hard to maintain character of village when VDOT
replaces the bridge.
Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis. Staff notes the single-family dwelling is a use
that is permitted by right in the RA district. It is staff opinion that it is reasonable to allow
the new structure to expand three feet beyond the existing foundation if the impact is
offset by the removal of the existing front porch and previously proposed side porch.
3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such
variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the
granting of the variance will not change the character of the district.
I:IDEP7IBCZSI2003 staff reportslVA-2003-10 Burch.doc
5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a modification of the
applicant's request with the following conditions.
1 . Applicant shall provide a measured drawing showing the existing foundation ''''°`"
including the wall between the garage bay and the feed room and the limits of the 1^-
front porch prior to the demolition of the building. (L"it
Wt
2. This approval is for a new dwelling, comparable to that described in the application, U tAZ t*SS
with the following conditions: in.
I"""rr
a) The new dwelling may be constructed on the existing foundation or within the
same location as the existing foundation of the store, restroom, garage and feed
room. In addition, the first floor of the building may expand a maximum of three
feet beyond the northern wall of the existing garage and feed room.
b} ndfloor of the building above the existing garage and feed room must
7v i ip ated from the plan.
c) A new deck and walkway may be constructed at the northwest corner of the
building. The deck shall project no more than three feet beyond the northern
foundation wall and no more than five feet beyond the western foundation wall.
3. This approval-rues the approval of VA-2002-27.
Attachments: A- Burch Residence "Redlined" plans
B- Real Estate Department Sketch of Advance Mills Supply Property
-007YtA,ORe-,111-1 71,pe Ltit7g6j_e_e_ _
— --)ut9,4 GL9G 3
( 191,t}i- d-Jb
- (314_ 34-6 r�
S467-1 s t/J/ -rn-to4fALya-
•
1:IDEPT\BCZSI2003 staff reportslVA-2003-10 Burch.doc
20c2- 2
I STo2Y
(REST coon-)
q 510 5
1 1
57beE I
1 S I(.)2Y wJATT,G I
•
FppD
(34 Sc IYl EI I r — I Room
Sp I 1907
2Z DOC' LcAD ,N(1
13-up C,oNc ,
F -gCGY. IJo, I- - - -
I 1 STO2Y
-Ira me CD►Isf 1 gas ?z C .,3. ,LI S Coon=
1'))ETA L f2oOF Z4 GA2AG� r3A( FEES BOOM
S i�inlC, � 3� I 4 '
IZ _ 117
75 `�0 3Z
I f'
is Po RC 1-1
SZT, 3 R" c)*W _
•
/ 'Alit
t -• U
-=
mow, f1Za ) : fit z 1 4,7 , . ly ipA '' _.I `,fAIIZ z
ilV.
1E1 .1 i — I � 14 o
't
� .N.. N
il ---
0.7
i V
1 gal- L N TG � 1 MaV 7 z W
p<
---p--1 OK. coN vro b N a m H
4 )Z-AtuN(,1 MAu— (p \ovL INP.) I t \ '
I ,'- "KW 42takti7 7-)rT I :v 4 t7'_ ;" , 1 , \
l :► o
-� � yw / vHMmvrt-�P' p k- t1111 . 1111
- a
ii q °
I/111
rawJ
ill ri p l
.w `
. I peg
:1.4 1--• -
t7wFl , AA i
N ..... ...1, u
. �,_ Al_nu .u��.---..L— -- -'--- ' W v
' •1lopor 1, 1 Vl ' O.
r, � N
pw/ �
d 13,
l t,t�► horn FIZD 116}L Oa a
Willn
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PROPOSAL B DD
SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" 0
r— — — — —. _ - _ _<----ue , E�,DL;
I ' -'1--1_ ti.M -1 r l_uill
. .., \ ._. T ' r'a -6W ; 11/1 0
•
1- AO ro6t 1 r w4 V.
00
II
- 1 m 1 i .- -- r
4I.- I , z ., o c.,
,� ` D ►���� invlt\ I��kIJnv ., z w �prz
--� _ W M g
a � mF
"V Nil
I _
Grp
1° nov nd -CPuM )��T. tim L hillo Nit
C
IA
I oa.1i �" ' e I- . " 1 DLIYIL6S1 ' '
go
11TI —�� Ira \\tr
2auto
) 5i
�'ITLyt%>u up VIn11F-4 p''�FIAIJ , 4-- al hniN� � it
u� 1�r�1i `1. I A x a
cc,
— --— — - - -4-. - a d
LOWER FLOOR PLAN
PROPOSAL B D D
SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" 0