Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200700008 Review Comments 2007-09-11STAFF PERSON: William D. Fritz, AICP PUBLIC HEARING: September 11, 2007 VA 2007 — 08 Paula Gladieux Owner/Applicant: Paula Gladieux Tax Map/Parcel Number: 062D1 -03-0G-00500 Zoning: R6, Residential Acreage: 0.06 acres or 2,500 square feet Location: 998 Riverrun Drive in the Riverrun Development Technical Request and Explanation: The applicant requests relief from Section 16.3, Area and Bulk Regulations in the R6, Residential Zoning District. The requested variances are to: 1) allow the existing structure to remain 17 feet from the rear property line instead of 20 feet, a variance of 3 feet and 2) allow a porch addition to be located 14 feet from the rear property line instead of 20 feet, a variance of 6 feet. The rear setback for this zoning district is 20 feet. The ordinance allows certain architectural features, including porches, to extend 4 feet into the setback. The existing dwelling is located nearly on the rear setback line (attachment A). Without a variance, a 7 foot deep porch extending 4 feet into the setback would be permitted. This would allow the porch to be 16 feet from the rear property line. The applicant is proposing to build an 8 foot porch, resulting in a porch 14-15 feet from the property line. During the review of the variance for the porch staff discovered that the existing structure is within the setback. No change in the existing structure is proposed. The first variance request is only to address the pre-existing 3 foot encroachment into the rear setback. Relevant History: The site plan authorizing the construction of this unit was approved on July 17, 1997. The subdivision plat creating this parcel was approved on August 8, 1997. A plat showing the location of utility easements was approved on March 25, 1999. Property Description and Qualifying Conditions: The Zoning Ordinance in Section 34.2 establishes the review criteria for a variance. Staff will provide comment on the criteria for granting a variance. The ordinance states: 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, or where, by reason of exceptional topographic VA -2007-008 September 11, 2007 Page 2 of 5 conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of such piece of property, or of the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto, the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or where the board is satisfied, upon the evidence heard by it, that the granting of such variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation, as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant, provided that all variances shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of this ordinance. The applicant acquired this land in good faith in 2001. This parcel was created after the adoption of the ordinance. The parcel conforms in all respects to the approved site plan and subdivision plat. However, the plan and plat incorrectly show the rear setback. Therefore a portion of the existing structure does not comply with the rear setback contained in the ordinance. The use on adjacent properties is residential and of the same character. The property is developed and therefore has a reasonable use. A porch is a convenience and not a necessary feature of a townhouse. Approval of this variance for the porch would be a special privilege or convenience and would not alleviate any undue hardship. Approval of the variance for the existing structure would alleviate a hardship. The justification for this finding follows. Specifically the ordinance establishes the review criteria to address a variance request. No such variance shall be authorized by the board of zoning appeals unless it finds: (a) that the strict application of this ordinance would produce undue hardship; (b) that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and (c) 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 will analyze each provision of the ordinance and provide comment. The applicant's justification is also included. Staff comments are in italics. Hardship The strict application of this ordinance would produce undue hardship The applicant has stated: At the edge of the concrete slab, the land drops off sharply. I am concerned thal if I take a wrong step, or fall, I will severely injure myself by falling over the berm. I am also allergic to the sun and need a proper enclosure to protect myself. Finally, I am not able to permit my elderly mother to go out in the back for fear that she, too, might fall into the road. Other units in the development do have porches. However, these porches appear to comply with the required setbacks (one has a variance which will be discussed later). While staff is sensitive to the applicant's situation and desires, we find that a porch is a convenience but not a necessary feature to allow use of the property. The townhouse has existed for about 20 years without this porch.. A railing or fence around the existing patio could be installed without the need for a variance. VA -2007-008 September 11, 2007 Page 3 of 5 Staff opinion is that denial of the variance for the porch request would not produce an undue hardship. Staff opinion is that denial of the variance for the existing structure would produce an undue hardship. That hardship being: 1. That the applicant acquired the property in good faith. 2. That the property was developed in accord with the County approved site plan. 3. That the property was developed in accord with the County approved subdivision plat. 4. That the building was constructed with a building permit and was issued a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. That the existing structure cannot be reasonably altered to meet the required setback. Uniqueness of Hardship Such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity The applicant has stated: Unlike my townhome, my neighbors have flatter land behind their homes. All the units in this block have a slope at the rear of the lot. The slope on the lot under review starts nearly at the existing concrete patio. The slope on all of the other units starts farther from the patio. Attachment C shows the rear of the lot under review and the adjacent property. We recognize that variances are not precedent setting but are unique to the property. For the Board's information staff has researched variances within the River Run development and found four variances: VA 2001-11, was approved, for 1461 Glenside Green. This variance authorized an existing deck to remain and be expanded laterally. The deck in that case extended 6 feet into the setback. VA 2002 -10 (1288 Chatham Ridge to reduce the setback to 16 feet) and VA 2002-11 (1280 Chatham Ridge to reduce the setback to 18 feet) were both denied. VA 2007 — 07 Lindsay Eckford (726 Exton Ct) to reduce the setback to allow a porch to be constructed 8 feet from the property line was denied. The River Run development is a townhouse development. The townhouse under review is located in a block with five units. One of the units in this block and the adjacent block have porches. The units that have porches are end units and the porches are incorporated into the structure. Attachment C Page 2 shows these units. VA -2007-008 September 11, 2007 Page 4 of 5 Other units in the development do have porches which appear to meet the setback requirements; this is due to different lot size, and placement of the unit on the lot. Staff cannot identify any unique features of this property that are not shared by many other units in the River Run development. As for the reduction of the setback for the existing structure staff does find that this is a unique hardship. The unit appears to conform in all respects with the approved plan and plat. Both the plan and plat contain an error. Staff opinion is that this is a unique hardship. Impact on Adjacent Property and District 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. The applicant has stated: I do not feel that the authorization of the variance will be detrimental to my neighborhood. There are many screened porches in River Run and my next door neighbor said he has no objection to it. Included as Attachment D are two letters in support of this application. This includes one letter of approval from the homeowners association for River Run. The topography involved in the area of the porch is the existing patio and is flat. The land starts to slope downward at the end of the patio. A porch on this unit would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property but would be out of character with the other units in this and the adjacent block. As for the reduction of the setback for the existing structure, staff opinion is that approval of the variance would have no adverse impact on the adjacent property. Summary and Staff Recommendation: Of the three criteria for granting a variance, staff finds that this porch variance request does not meet any of the criteria. Staff finds that the variance to allow the existing structure to remain meets all three criteria. A further provision for the granting of a variance is: No variance shall be authorized unless the board of zoning appeals finds that the condition or situation of the property concerned or the intended use of the property is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. As to the porch variance request, staff opinion is that the condition or situation of the property is of so general or recurring nature as to make amendment of the ordinance practicable. Therefore, the Board may not grant a variance for the proposed porch even if it finds that the criteria for granting a variance has been met. VA -2007-008 September 11, 2007 Page 5of5 As to the variance request for the existing structure, staff finds that errors contained on plats and plans are generally rare and infrequent. While the ordinance could be amended to account for these errors it is appropriate to utilize the variance option to correct these errors. Therefore, the Board may grant a variance for the existing structure if it finds that the criteria for granting a variance has been met. Staff offers the following recommendations: 1. Staff recommends denial of the variance to reduce the setback to allow a porch addition to be located 14 feet from the rear property line instead of 20 feet, a variance of 6. 2. Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the existing structure to remain 17 feet from the property line instead of 20 feet, a variance of 3 feet. Attachments Attachment A — Physical survey showing the existing structure and proposed porch. This survey has been modified by staff to show the required setbacks. Attachment B — Plat showing property (Block G, Parcel 5) This plat has been modified by staff to show the required setbacks in addition to the setbacks shown on the approved plat. Attachment C — Photographs of property Attachment D — Letters in support of the this variance application Attachment E — Sketch of proposed porch 11/k04-Ylill55 0 10 20 40 I.S. = Iron Set THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON MARCH 23, 1999 7o l.F. = Iron Found I SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THIS SCALE IN FEET WM = Water Meter PLAT AND THE TITLE LINES AND WALLS OF I~ i o THE BUILDING ARE SHOWN HEREON. • THIS PROPERTY LIES IN ZONE C AND DOES T Attachment A NOT LIE IN AN AREA DESIGNATED AS ZONE A 51 RECORD MERIDIAN r D.B.1 fi39 MERIDIAN VA-2007-008 (100 YEAR FLOOD HAZARD) AS SHOWN ON 0' r co• FEDERAL FLOOD RATE INSURANCE MAPS, __ N EFFECTIVE DATE: DEC. 16, 1980 II ------...,,,N...,....,-:10 / `\ G��, UTILITIES AND EASEMENTS OTHER Building Setbacks / t� Front: 25 �dyto THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST. Ca d,� so�.d 4�ta Rear: 20` y �.F Ar ea i S w.1 n Side: 10' ' m S4.1'251 SC{-ba.c THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FOR: A E k Leslie G. Fendley o � 77.7g. ct v 27.p. o W drafneg• Light 2,601 Ft i.s. R = 45.00' LEGAL REFERENCES: _structure Pole % L = 12.88` D.B.1740 Pg.723 ? • 1 I I.F. D.B.1598 Pg.705 w DORY RAM 3 D.B.845 Pg.164 I 2 • eri T°WNHOUSE E ry 1y •.1C °v° .r- Non �: Frye Wa N M N41.2s'38-W i i' ee,Q. PLAT SHOWING I.F. PHYSICAL SURVEY OF RQber Lot 4 T.M. P. 62D 1 -3-G- 5 t Hauser Ho r D B• 1740 P8•723� loo LOT 5 BLOCK v *t'�'LTH OF Cn G ��� °r� SECTION FOUR r LE PARC v U Robert Coleman, Jr.No. 2007 riq TRUELINE o RIVERRUN 3-�5-99 suI�vEY1NG INC_ 998 RIVERRUN DRIVE l44," SURD0481- LA117 4TH STREET N.E. ND SURVEYORS ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CHARLO T SVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902. MARCH 25, 1999 A JEE \ Attachment B MAGNETIC P...4 MERIDIAN VA-2007-008 0 10 20 40 SCALE IN FEET ' n BLOCK A 00 0 ��., �N' COMMON AREA wo LJ \..4 fo. "Sier \ A 'S) 0:. yr /. 37-+ 0 \ ..--‘ t.to, 73 S / / / ' Qom\ ��`L // / / \\* • ref ft Se 145 oat*. SECTION 5B •�V ^DO .4 �OcO / / \\ 51,o✓r� 0,s b�:lda ble ,cc�, b` !. / // ,s . \ on aeelo✓e ' p!af b�f z /. 6' A 414 A .R.., , \:, „. .00. 9,,b ,,,, , ,. 4, „5,-,- ., .. QQ. // �<�// ,; ' cob, t,,,:tN� //R = 45.00i� / . \ / / / a, - / , / / / �• O / Sid• °, 11 ' c 4/ // s ` �,, \,\ •: 5lco 7• / 577. �6, O / Gj' 9,°' �s� �' �s� ,,� CY y / 6 PLAT SHOWING 4 \ F °' SUBDIVISION OF }��ALTH op y S. `� �`�`� ��P LOTS 1 —5 o f� p.\ ti°c �'S P It;-' ii4 ��x �s\ `�� � o��°� BLOCK G SECTION FOUR KURT IL aOEC ER \ �gIo �. LE PARC4MS R O GLOECKNER ENGINEERING\SURVEYING INC. ,bt° RIVERR UN ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS - LAND PLANNERS apt' ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CHARLOTTES J. , VIRGINIA 22903 11 v 8/.z9/47 .�, JUNE 10, 1997 SHEET 10 OF 20 95-001-00 Q Attachment C (page 1) 4 iS: �r w�_:_ �:� ��. Z�. �g�--�:� _ .�... _ _ - - WPM "a IR 08.08.0007 H • _ == I_ I ��� -� �� _ I>, � � .,: - e �, _ _�` 9v-:`; ; Attachment D (page 1) August 13,2003 To Whom ll. May Conc em: lam writing in support of my neighbor. Paula who is attcmplirig to et a vELjiatr c o fear a screened porch addition to hior hone. Her townhouse is an end unit and mine is next to Burs_ 1 have (IiNCI IS�tit ibis with her and havc. no problern with tti€s coitAructiou- 1-Icr address is 9% River Run Drive and mine is 996 River Run Drive in the liver Run subdivision in Albem,[Tle County. licpe t13at yo u will WE 11 Or aI)pI[ca tiou and approve iii. ds I w wind lac the Unly per�oa affected and I have no problem with it at aIL You may contact me at 295-0756 if you have any questions. Sincerely, William R. Wimbish, Jr 4 Attachment D (page 2) River -Run ,I rciiitactural Reviel*� i?eaponse Date: submitted on P—±, oQ has been The following stipulations -,- YYI f 1 AA D o -- r All work must be completed byr ; *The appmval or denial of this request doeu in no way release you from the responsibilitv of obtaining proper permits, meeting setback requirements or local government approval. Sincerely, RiverRun Architectural Review Committee 0 . 7 . "a-TA _IN() I.e r4 tz ty.le•ES 55.01D 3 , S.. e - -, $ • r- — ."- p. ' •t ' • c IP . es ' PI' 1-1 • A . • i , " _, .:.. , , 2:-. .. . ..7 , e - - 4 ............_...................._ T • _______ „ 1i) _. 1 ...: ci_____,, • : .,_ :v - ,..'ts — ...• .... _—_,.c: . 1 ' ------- - ___ .._. t •'•,--1:-.J I rf..;-• I 1 I 1. 111 , , i t--:-.,--.-,-,-- 1 ' I . ,I r •. ! .. . 1 1 i . i i,A,-,• • i i ..,-3.-... , : • • , , i 1 t I 1 I ....,-.1;_ 1 i • . , , —....1 ...—....--1 1/ ,--..-7::--E -... .... t.'.:..., -,; . i ..-..,-1 1 t.--:-.:1 1 I -..f..-..-,i _ .. . , 11 . . . t : 1• .-::-. I • - .. , .. ., 1 - . . e : • .....• I.-- ..-------- ' -' • 4- . i. • • • , _ 1 --T-- t — Ti — 17—.--P-1—.---,--T---*T-----:. . .•:' -7'..t7.:-t-7cr:7--,;.;.--- t ---r--.1-- --, — t I i T-- : .2/. ----------------... . ' ----' ‘. .z. ...--- • -- - - W 00 C A 8 . c.) N .. mt . ..: <4 > • N../v..t., 1"-qt' ""(4' ca ;t a g 01\� O J (D 'r:Cn — - r OAK, ithnr(a t 1 I '' I 1 j IJ It 1 s cfel� _ _1J c t r.G, I I'&AK • ! i 4 f I I Tie `A' y ' D • _ O u G • -__ --- __ -- 6 p , Z ` , I E.