The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200400002 Review Comments 2004-03-02 lht.t - Pk. - , . . -,- - ,.,, -2' . Nal A. ) --‘ i 400,r ,,,, ,;,,, ,1, f .1i... 4 • it M.. l ; t ^; a .. 1. • •� • P ` s yam. •( ~ • ` . l�� 1 1 ii x� I P R -.._ ', ...,- • ,.,.. III lb a ,... ... : '- _ 4 II III II III; r . c � , i . A. _ ...- j e . 'Ai I 1 it i, Ilk% . gripe .. I . ' " %1 lip, . lk, , . - ; , ,i elm ■ ¢ t / _ tom- - 1 • y 4111111 . . r • • • • • C )' ', ' . $ i 21 S; / " IT Otto iiiimil - 4 " i • • - y,,�,- „•: 4-, ! i Ill IAA 46 •I''' e ' '1 \ - 1 4 lir . ff - ; y 0 0 I VA 10 4 , 01 an ries ./, i 1 i . P ‘,, i ; '.,s. f1 . li � i , 1a11 iH r 1 O K15.-Nfw J ``O L� ` �eo✓ -i� .w� ..J • _ :R 1111 II. 71 1 / zoo,/- 93 Awg 27 r SCALE: APPROVED BY: DATE • . - -•._..�.a L.�r�..�40h1�I../{_"rL.l.r�..,L... ._ n.:JAV1i.f.J .._.w.Ahw��J�eq.a�f/ L _si ... ..a f _ _. E i 1 I ! t 1 LL i I . ,,/j/ _j_[ 1 , 0 ----x-v;‘, Jv.c,1 i\ 1 t (.vas .. t..) ..,.dp.J .) e Q ctr‘V 0 .‘ .: ,,,, , ., ,, , . ., , �, y ,,. , . ,. ,,..,• , ,\, , ,, ,.,. , J , . ., ,. , ,. : ,!. , , . ..,,, .„,. , .. .., \, ,, ,,, „ 1, , ',.‘ '1.,' I. J r,.?- i_s_2 1 t-I l 1 . 6 _ E1 - ir ------I hil:i.. ._1711.1t....._.....: NN 1-lilt _i_. L 1_ TiI401-(,1 Itliti.P..tt -71— • _f: f. Atik-- 1 'N ' .L. ( 1.-..v. t►.l 11. 111_, ,-_t.l h . . 1 1 1 tA 1tut ( � 1 tt lt,, ► , E ,. _ .i. 4.1 ..1__. • j -4 .77 J % J —" — 1/y'I T- 1_�LLl. l 1 .1. i111111 .11 \\ r I -� a- 1_ f_-Ll-i - 1 I _( Li _1 1 1 1 1. ) 1 T I 1. -� - �I_l�_I_. 1_r Il.._ 1. l� .I I ( 1 I I I._I _11 V ( : ( IttILt 11 1 11 1' l 1 ( (- ► (. (" J l 1 1 1 1 1 1 it t t l 1 , t- 1 „ I t 1 1 1 1 )1... A N B . fA 0 4 .,104 , ,.. . . , / i_ i. S A N NE" / it L 1 = 1:-c cx'St- THIS PLAT AND THAT THE TIT!' "NES MD WALLS OF THE BUILDINGS TOWN HEREON. PRa'ERFr SHOWN 0 . -. v "C.. / �UL✓iq,QZ3f • if o'3c V - /073a' • ?_ci.00' ! /27�D' • -.Ad," ..s'3/a 0/•E ( '..vr ; ' ' /40'. Z- ii - • • a ‘. fiiiI o AATHUH f. EOYYAADS �i ►=I I Q o�{Eu BcgaE' qHE `'4'6 SURYE4O i cn I, ,,. ..._J .. N , . `S Z r 24" E 9 e: •9. /G� Y�-�e . �a�I> z2-&4 k NI :vV A din T. /`763 G4.e Y O. ? 2-0N/ B. .?.37`4?!'E Z.3 Ac. 79.34' Smtles 40. 43 %.9 442..0 26,'a"- , . i ieaw a.., u...ra e' _a-----. 95.Yo Bb' �.So'' is'E •—�_ ' - RT 20 ,c// Yo/c/96 .9U.e l/EY Lstio1-1////G P4ieCC . .3,.,9.5..9//O11/AV O'V urh'E.er a3, coav7 T-x fridP5 SC,9lF.'/".,,p' /9C.5 -A-49/CGE' ca./A/7Y, t//.eG/A//4 ��,3. 5, /966 B. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. • CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - LAND PLANNING CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA O 3,1, TOTAL PAGE.04 ,r.* it 1 I \ \ ,P . 11><I'' __________...__IT---- , , . . i , ,, ... . , 1 1/ ht._ , . , ._... , , . , , , / ,� y -7 . y.• , ` ' 4''`1'� Y 8 , /y� , I SURVEYED THE PROPERTI S THIS PLAT AND THAT THE TITLE LINES MD WALLS OF THE RUILDINGS ARE SHOWN HEREON. MOWN 0 . .., i q ,, ri,,Q. / U!1,/9,Q7if L.s' '30'is/ - /¢7. ' •• • 2a DO' f /27�D' ,ed. a Per ' i 0 I6 'r _ o O ARTHUR F WARDS S ��° J c °'1(,lion V may inn S'i°r� wtl 1� C Qx IN o,.�u B�� YvH� 1N0 SUfigE-4O 0 • /0 N ,�..eo.?=tver - ism .moor i-v ,-H� h/e/. D. DE- .A. :2-27 s z Y• 4 4- 6- e: a zGb Yg 2 �I> z�czE ieaa0 ' • .9 a^ 0 :'q' N :v : T-/`7 6,3 /04/3. 3 6'4, Y O. f` Tb�V/ E3. ,��7a47"E� _ . Z.3 Ac. 79.34,' s.5ta/_5 '6- BO. 4g' t .9 4).E a 2!0'&"\ , • ...,mow a.-i ,c,,.,-- CBj.00• i 7-0c- ,e ,-,-�Sv/LLt3- 95.70' 136. ib /4 "'-ivso 0 /a'c ,tea° R 1- 20 /c2 Ys/C,9C ,57e//4 vE y Ls yo //v /4RcEG 3,./9s 5//91 V Ory urNE 7 63, COVA,7 T,9x /` 4P5 SC, t'//-.G 0 ' /9C./1--/r.9, Z E Ca./A/7Y, l///E G/A//4 DEB. 8, /966 B. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - LAND PLANNING CHAALOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA •/-4c fN-,r--i - L 4, ,-,,,/ ems." yi .d/ .^-. >14 T 17TAL PAGE.04 ;IT • •• ,`-e.'�'� 7' ef , /yam , I SURVEYED THE PROPERTI SHOWN 0 THIS PLAT AND THAT THE TITLE LINES MD WALLS OF THE BUILDINGS ARE SHOWN HEREON. a , 041/74'.. " /1. /.4.foj A Y/� f CDs��9.¢ :5" �� '.-9o-iv - /47� •29.00, is /.27 JO' ,‹� . nfcaa.K/A F....v.,ya? .r. o ,� • LTH Gain .-Ss.3/a e/.� rM , ,— , 11 : ' , � �! o X 1' Q ARTHUR F. WORDS S 0 • M / a. ,on .sa.G' ; Ckd ul rf k0. 19?0 Q 2-1Tue qHF qND SU R J 0 Aver-4 / 131 CI) J , t �► .'.eo c�.Q.7'Y i s' .v4.)7- ic, w. 7 /`7 l0 3 f',9.9'. 3 C4,€Y O. / rb,lJ/ 5. • .�j7`47'E z.3 Ac. 79.36'' lil S.S¢'45 "E BO. 4,- --A t. --/ .. 9 l0,2 0 2!P'E"� • /.maw a.. ti,.rc' c„, .00• j ' ) re) Cf��/lE.Sg,,LLB -a-. 9.3.7O 3b' '/.SO o /0'C -"•--� mod° Rr 20 sr /c7/7' Yk.s/G'FlC- .5'U.iVE-Y 51--/CM//A/ .7/9/PCEG 3,•/ ?5 .5././o1✓/t/ o/v oNE"E/ 103, Co/A/7Y TAX M4/Z5 .6C4(j •/"a 60 ' /9C8E/y"9.eCE CG ' /7r, l//.eG/mil//9 A�5. 3, /9d(9 B. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. • CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - LAND PLANNING CHARLOTTFSVILLE, VIRGINIA -,/f3C1-=‘,45;,-i - L-yip Cnn/ >,4, TOTAL PAGE.G4 :I:* STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: March 2, 2004 STAFF REPORT VA-2004-002 OWNER/APPLICANT: James and Amy Sannes TAX MAP/PARCEL: 63 / 3 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2.3 acres LOCATION: 2737 Lonesome Mountain Road (Rt. 610) in the southeast corner of the intersection with Route 20. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicants request relief from Section 10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations as well as Section 4. 11.2. 1 Accessory Structures, for the renovation of an existing shed. They request a reduction in the front setback from Route 610 from 25 to 19 feet, a variance of 6 feet. In addition, they request a reduction in the rear/ side setback from 6 to 0 feet, a variance of 6 feet. (This request is based on the variances needed to build Plan A.) The applicants request approval of what is labeled as Plan A; however, in the event the Board cannot support that, they request approval of Plan B. Plan A proposes a higher roof to provide for light attic storage and to accommodate standard size garage doors. With Plan A, the building has the external appearance of being 1 1/2 or 2 stories in height. Plan A proposes a shed-style roof that extends beyond the limits of the existing building by about 4 feet. Therefore, the resulting front and rear setbacks with the Plan A proposal are less and the necessary variances are about 4 feet greater with Plan A. In comparison, Plan B proposes raising the roof only high enough to accommodate standard garage doors (which are around 7 feet high). The setback with Plan B is essentially to maintain the existing building setbacks that are about 23 feet from Rt. 610 and 4 feet from the side / rear property line. RELEVANT HISTORY: • The house on the subject property was built sometime around 1918. It was the Stony Point (aka Liberty Hall) School House. • The previous property owners applied for a front setback variance on this property. VA 1990-04 was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on February 13, 1990. This variance allowed an addition of a deck and kitchen with a 25 foot setback from Route 610. At that time, the front setback requirement from Route 610 was 75 feet. In 1991, the Rural Areas district setback regulations were changed to allow a reduced setback of 25 feet from a private road or internal public road. The house and addition complies with the new (current) setback. • At some point (unsure of when), there was a fire that damaged the shed which is the subject of this variance request. • The current property owners purchased the property in June, 2002. VA 2004-002 Sannes 2 March 2, 2004 • On January 21 , 2004, Mr. and Mrs. Sannes applied for a building permit for the proposed construction (#2004-93 NNR). During the zoning review for the building permit, staff discovered the setback issue which necessitates this variance. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: It is possible that the shed's roof can be repaired or replaced under the current nonconforming regulations, provided that the shed structure itself is not extended or structurally altered. The roof repair or replacement could be allowed to correct an unsafe condition in the structure [Section 6.3.B (2)] that results from the fire damage. However, extending the height of the shed to allow for the installation of standard garage doors, would not be permitted under the nonconforming regulations and necessitates a variance because that is an extension of a nonconforming structure. Because we are dealing with alterations to an existing structure and not new construction, some of the typical variance criteria relating to the property are not as relevant. The existing location of the shed with respect to the front and side/rear property lines is the cause for the variances. The property is not of an odd-shape or an unusual size. It is rectangular in shape with two road frontages and therefore, two front yard setbacks. It just exceeds the minimum lot size and is 2.3 acres in area. The existing house and shed are built against the eastern property line, away from Route 20. Staff can understand the applicants' need to adequately utilize and properly improve an existing building. The immediate neighbors' letters indicate that they find the applicants' proposal improves the character of the area. Staff has typically taken the position that expanding existing improvements that have existed and been utilized for many years, is not necessary for reasonable use of the property. We have also taken the position that all possible options should be explored, particularly those options or proposals which eliminate the need for variance or which result in the least amount of variance. One of those options in this case could be construction of a new garage which would meet setbacks. Plan A requires larger variances for the applicants' benefit of additional storage and what could be considered a more attractive design. Staff does not find this to be necessary for reasonable use. Plan B still requires variances, although lesser variances, for the applicants' benefit of being able to increase the building height and to install garage doors, to use the building as a garage for their vehicle. It is staff's opinion that using this building as a garage is not necessary for reasonable use of the property and that it would be possible to construct a new garage on the property (on the other side of the house, closer to Route 20). Therefore, we cannot find an undue hardship. Staff does wish to provide some additional comments which support the applicants' request: VA 2004-002 Sannes 3 March 2, 2004 • Because the shed exists and is in need of improvement, these plans accommodate both the needed improvement and provide garage storage which they do not currently have. • The shed exists in a more practical / convenient place for use as a garage than building a new garage. Because Route 20 is a primary road with a high traffic volume, both these and prior owners have chosen to maintain some buffer area between Route 20 and the uses on this property. 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: 1 . Funds are not available for completely tearing down and rebuilding. 2. A site is not available for relocating. 3. The existing structure is not secure. Staff understands how funding can be a restriction; however, that alone is not sufficient grounds for hardship. It appears that there is adequate room for the location of a new garage structure that would meet setbacks and would be located on the other side of the house. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • This hardship is not generally shared. Staff notes that the uniqueness lies primarily in the fact that the existing shed building does not currently meet setbacks. While the fire was unfortunate, it is not the cause for the variance. 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. VA 2004-002 Sannes 4 March 2, 2004 Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • Please see attached statements from adjoining neighbors. The owners of the property across from this, (Mr. and Mrs. Dreyfus), as well as the owner of the property behind this, (Eric Schrank), both support the request. Staff agrees that the applicants'proposal will have a positive impact on the character of the area. The existing shed is not particularly attractive and is considered by some to be an eyesore. 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 has been met, staff recommends denial of this request. Should the Board find cause to approve it, staff recommends approval of Plan B with the following condition: 1 . This variance is hereby approved for Plan B (as noted by staff). • • 1345 Hammocks Gap Road • Charlottesville,VA 22911 • • 434-973-2922 • ESS Development Corp. February 1, 2004 Board of Zoning Appeals Albemarle County Re: Garage Improvements TM 63 Parcel 3 Dear Sir or Madam: I am the owner of the two parcels of land(Lots 4 and 5 Braemont)that adjoin the subject property and I strongly support Mr. Sannes' request that he be allowed to improve the existing garage on his property. The existing garage is visible from the road and is in need of repair. In addition,the design of the existing garage with its' low sloped roof is not very attractive. The proposed new design is a vast improvement over the existing design and I hope that it will be approved. In addition to Lots 4 and 5 Braemont, my own house is located on Lot 3 Braemont which is immediately behind Mr. Sannes' residence. Both my wife and I support the planned improvements. Sincerely, 0_12— Eric S. Schrank President, ESS Development Corp. LEONARD AND RHODA DREYFUS 2740 Lonesome Mountain Road Charlottesville, Va. 2291 1 (434) 973 41 10 redbarn@cstone.net January 30, 2004 Planning Commission Albemarle County County Office Building Charlottesville, Va. 22901 To Whom It May Concern: We live 2740 Lonesome Mountain Road, directly across the road from the James Sannes family. We write to advise you that we support the Sannes' application for variances of the yard line requirements under the Zoning Ordinance. We have seen the drawings of the work proposed to restore and improve their existing garage, and their project meets with our approval and consent. Yours truly, vEg.9',GVOZ, Leonard Dreyfus Xve.a— Rhoda Dreyfus