Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200600002 Review Comments 2006-05-02 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: May 2, 2006 STAFF REPORT VA-2006-002 OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Timothy or Ginger Aylor TAX MAP/PARCEL: 20/119 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 3.196 LOCATION: North side of Lonicera Way at its intersection with Abelia Way in the North Pines subdivision TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, the Area and Bulk regulations of the RA district, to reduce the side setback from 25 feet to 15 feet. The applicants want to add a new two-car garage to their single family dwelling. Therefore, the variance is for 10 feet. RELEVANT HISTORY: The North Pines subdivision was approved by the County in 1979. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: The Aylors purchased the property in June 2000. While this lot has no notable narrowness, shallowness, size or shape, it does have exceptional topographic conditions. The lot slopes severely from the road frontage down to a stream which runs through it from east to west, less than halfway back. The area immediately surrounding the house is the only area flat enough and conveniently located for an accessory structure. The distribution box and septic system take up the area to the west of the house. In the rear, a very steep slope drops off at the edge of the prepared house site only about 25' back from the rear wall of the house. The house is set only fifteen feet behind the minimum front setback so there is insufficient room for the desired addition there. This leaves the east side of the house (where the driveway currently ends) as the best place for an addition. In addition, with the driveway already established there, this is the logical location for a garage. This area is also sloped from the front to the rear of the house, but could be more easily built-up so that the existing door into the kitchen could be accessed from the garage. The Aylors would like a two- story addition which would allow them to have a two-car garage on the ground level and expand their master bath and closet on the upper level. An existing window upstairs would be converted to a door for access at that level. However, since the 26' wide addition would be only 15' from the side property line, a variance would be necessary. VA-2006-002, Aylor Page 2 May 2, 2006 In a "windshield survey" of only a portion of the North Pines subdivision, staff counted 50 homes of which 42 had garages, and of those, only 6 were not attached. Therefore, this is not the only home in the surrounding neighborhood without a garage nor would it be the only with a detached garage. Staff finds no hardship. This is a case where the strict application of the ordinance together with the exceptional topographic conditions of the property, does restrict the use of the property, but only to the extent that the owners cannot have everything they want. The property already enjoys reasonable use with the existing single family dwelling. Further, an attached single car garage and second story addition could be made if it was only up to 16 feet wide, rather than the 26 feet desired. We do recognize that it is more common to build a two car garage. The Aylors could also opt to construct a detached two-car garage that could be only six feet from the side line and at the front setback. It could be slightly forward of but not in front of the existing house. With these options, staff opinion is that granting the variance would constitute a special privilege or convenience by the applicant. 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: • Due to the lay of the land, it would not be feasible to build a detached garage. The driveway leads down the slope of the land to the side of the house where the garage will be built. As stated in this report, there is room to construct the garage six feet from the side and at the 75-foot front setback without negative impact on the existing house. In addition, a single car garage and second story bath/closet expansion could be constructed. Therefore, staff finds no hardship. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • The garage will be built onto the right side of the house. We are unable to construct the garage on the left side as that is the location of the septic tank. VA-2006-002, Aylor Page 3 May 2, 2006 Since staff finds no hardship, there is nothing to be 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 adjoining property would not be affected. The existing structure already has a garage and the owner has no plans for an addition. If the variance is granted, there will be still be 91 feet from the end of [our] garage to the house on the adjoining property. Staff is of the opinion that granting the variance would not negatively 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 has been met, staff cannot recommend approval of this request. Should the Board find cause to approve, staff recommends the following condition: 1. The variance is granted for the 25- by 26-foot two-story addition described in this report only. Any further expansion of the structure must meet the setbacks in effect at the time of application.