Case #1 Jeff & Glenda Craddock February 1, 2012

Transcription

1 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #1 Jeff & Glenda Craddock DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to a 7.9 foot side yard setback (North side) instead of 8 feet as previously approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on August 1, 1990 (Existing Single Family Dwelling) and to a 7.94 foot side yard setback (North side) instead of 10 feet as required (Proposed 1 st and 2 nd Story Addition) LOCATION: 612 S. Atlantic Avenue Beach District #6 GPIN: ZONING: R-10 YEAR BUILT: 1991 AICUZ: noise less than 65dB DNL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: On August 1, 1990 a variances to an 8-foot side (north) yard setback instead of 10- feet as required for a single family dwelling and to allow a 6-foot fence instead of a 4-foot fence as allowed in a required front yard setback was Granted. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposed to construct a two-story addition on the west side of an existing two-story single-family dwelling. A variance to a 7.9-foot north side yard setback instead of 10-feet as required is sought with this proposal. Although, a variance was previously obtained to an 8-foot side yard setback for the existing dwelling, it is presently 7.9-feet from the north side property. Therefore, this request was added for the existing dwelling as a cleanup variance. The proposed addition will align with the existing dwelling, where it is parallel with the north side property line and it will comply with the required front yard setback. This lot meets the required lot area for this zoning district; however, it does not meet the minimum 80-foot lot width. The narrowest of this lot, limits the applicants ability to make improvements to the dwelling in compliance with the required side yard setbacks. No building elevations have been submitted with this request. However, should the proposed design of the room addition complement the existing dwelling architecturally; this request is not expect to create a detriment on the adjoining property owners. If approve, the following conditions are recommended: 1. The proposed first and second floor addition shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan. 2. Building materials and colors compatible with the existing dwelling shall be used to construct the proposed addition.

2 PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY Case #2 Edward Hand DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 5.2 foot side yard setback (East side) instead of 8 feet as required and to a 4.9 foot rear yard setback (North side) instead of 10 feet as required and to 800 square feet in floor area instead of 500 square feet in floor area as allowed (Existing Garage) LOCATION: th Street Lot 18, Ubermeer GPIN: ZONING: R-5R, RMA YEAR BUILT: AICUZ: SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: VARIANCE HISTORY: A previous owner was granted a variance on January 21, 1998 to add a second story addition, stoops and steps onto the existing home. The variance allowed a 5.5 side yard setback on the west side and a 5.9 side yard setback on the east side instead of 8 each as required. A recent survey shows that the existing home has a 6.1 setback on the east side and a 5.6 setback on the west side. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The site contains a nonconforming, one-story detached garage built in 1940 and converted to an apartment. The current owner desires to remodel the structure and add a second story. The apartment will be eliminated and the second floor will be used for storage. Because structural changes are proposed, variances will be needed to retain the existing nonconforming setbacks. This structure has a 5.2 side yard setback instead of 8 on the east side and a 4.9 rear yard setback instead of 10 as required. In addition, the proposed two-story structure will contain 800 square feet, rather than the maximum of 500 square feet for this property. Architectural elevations and floor plans have been submitted showing that the changes will retain the beach character of the site. A mansard roof expansion is proposed. The existing cedar shingles will be retained and new shingles added to match. If approved, the following conditions should be required: 1. Approval is for the expansion of the existing detached garage only and all work shall substantially adhere to the submitted architectural elevations and floor plans. 2. The nonconforming garage apartment shall be eliminated. 3. Prior to approval of a building permit, the applicant shall submit documentation suitable to the Building Official affirming that the existing first floor and foundation can support the proposed second story.

3 Case #3 Joseph Lopresti PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 26 foot front yard setback (Aragona Boulevard) and to a 22 foot setback for side yards adjacent to a street (Carnation Avenue) instead of 30 feet each as required (Enclosed Carport and Room Addition) LOCATION: 520 Aragona Boulevard Lot 7, Aragona Village Bayside District #4 GPIN: ZONING: R-7.5, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1956 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is seeking variances for two one-story room additions proposed on both the southwest and southeast side of an existing single-family dwelling. Variances to a 26-foot front yard setback from the property line adjacent to Aragona Boulevard and to a 22-foot side corner setback from the property line adjacent to Carnation Avenue are sought with this proposal. As stated by the applicant, the 10 x 12 room addition proposed on the southwest side of the dwelling will be used for an additional bathroom and closet. The 10 x 21 room addition will be constructed in place of an existing carport and is intended to provide the applicant with additional living space. Based on the submitted site plan, it appears an existing shed located along the east property line is presently encroaching on the required setback. In addition, the plan depicts a 36 fence that is also encroaches on the required setback and it is located on the right-of-way along Carnation Ave. Though this existing single-family dwelling is positioned on an angle of this lot, this lot conforms to the minimum lot dimension for this zoning district. When this dwelling was constructed it complied with all of the minimum required setbacks. Based on today s setback requirements, the existing carport encroaches on the required side corner setback. The proposal to convert the existing carport into an enclosed room addition will not increase the existing setback; conversely, the setback will increase by adding the room addition on the southwest side of the dwelling. The granting of the setback variance requested on the southwest side will increase the current front yard setback. Therefore, this request is expected to set an unfavorable precedent and encourage others to submit requests of this nature. However, the variance request sought on the southeast side will not increase the current setback and therefore is not expected to create a detriment. If this request is modified as suggested above, the following conditions are recommended: 1. The proposed addition shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan. 2. Building materials and colors compatible with the existing dwelling shall be used to construct the proposed room addition. 3. The existing storage shed located along the east side property line shall be relocated on the lot in compliance the required setbacks.

4 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #4 Steve & Catherine Dickey DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to a 0 foot side yard setback (North side) instead of 10 feet as required (Existing Pergola) LOCATION: th Street GPIN: ZONING: R-5R YEAR BUILT: 2000 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant would like to retain an existing pergola presently located on the north side property line, instead of 10-feet as required. The pergola is located directly adjacent to the rear unit of an existing three-story duplex. According to the applicant, a licensed contractor installed the pergola in the required setback without obtaining a building permit. The applicant also notes the pergola provides screening for existing air condition units, trash cans and grill. Currently, the existing duplex is 9.92-feet from the north side property line. An inground pool and decking are installed on the northwest (rear) portion of the lot. On October 20, 2011, a zoning inspector issued a 30 day notice of violation for the existing pergola encroaching on the required north side yard setback. The applicant subsequently submitted a variance application on November 3, Staff understands the applicant s desire to retain this decorative yard accessory structure to provide screening and outdoor enhancements. However, staff was unable to identify a hardship with this request. The support poles are presently installed approximately 2-feet from the north side property line and the top/roof of the pergola is positioned over the side property line, where it adjoining the adjacent lot. Though the adjacent property owner to the north has expressed support for this request, it s believed this encroachment could potentially create a detriment in the future. In addition to potentially creating a future detriment, allowing this setback variance as requested is expected to set a negative precedent on the surrounding community.

5 PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY Case #5 Brett Nunn DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 22 foot front yard setback instead of 30 feet as required and to a 9 foot rear yard setback (South side) instead of 20 feet as required (Proposed 2 nd Floor Addition and Deck) LOCATION: 3101 Basin Court Lot 20, Colony Point GPIN: ZONING: R-10(SD), RPA YEAR BUILT: 1964 AICUZ: Less than 65 db DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This waterfront property was developed in 1962 with a one-story dwelling. The current owner desires to add a second story onto the existing footprint. Variances are required since the existing home does not meet current setback requirements. Variances are being requested to allow a 22 front yard setback from Basin Court, a private street, instead of 30 feet as required and to allow a 9 rear yard setback, instead of 20 as required. It should be noted that only the rear deck has a 9 rear yard setback, while the home itself has a 25 rear yard setback at the closest point. The rear yard is adjacent to a canal. This corner lot is narrow and somewhat irregularly shaped. The applicant has submitted architectural elevations showing that the second story addition will have good architectural detail and utilize high quality materials. This waterfront property is heavily impacted by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA) regulations and building on the existing footprint will be considered redevelopment that does not require a variance from the CBPA Board. If approved, the following conditions should be required: 1. The addition shall substantially adhere to the submitted site plan and architectural elevations. 2. Prior to approval of a building permit, the applicant shall submit Documentation suitable to the Building Official affirming that the existing first floor and foundation can support the proposed second story.

6 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #6 Michael Sullivan DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 20 foot setback for side yards adjacent to a street (Turnberry Court) instead of 30 feet as required (Proposed Inground Swimming Pool) LOCATION: 949 Commodore Drive Lot 31, Great Neck Meadows GPIN: ZONING: R-10, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1983 AICUZ: noise zone greater 75dB DNL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: On May 5, 1984 a variance to allow a 6- foot fence at 4-foot setback instead 30-feet as required when a property line is adjacent to (Turnberry Court) a street. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to install an inground swimming pool 20-foot from the property line adjacent to Turnberry Court, instead of 30-feet as required. The pool will be installed in the rear yard directly adjacent to a ground level deck. A storage shed is presently located in the southwest corner of the lot, however, based on the submitted site plan; it is in compliance with the required setbacks. The existing one-story single-family dwelling is presently 20-feet from the property line adjacent to Turnberry Court, instead of 30-feet as required. However, when this dwelling was originally constructed it was in compliance with all of the required setbacks. Today the dwelling is nonconforming in regards to required 30-foot side corner setback. Though the curvature of property line adjacent to Turnberry Cour limits the applicant s ability to install an inground pool as depicted on the submitted plan, it appears an alterative configuration of the proposed pool would lessen the setback variance requested. Therefore, it is suggested the applicant entertain other alterative pool configurations to lessen or comply with the required setback.

7 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #7 David Sitone DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 1.5 foot setback for side yards adjacent to a street (Indian Lakes Boulevard) instead of 10 feet as required and to waive the Category I Landscaping where required (Proposed 7 foot Privacy Fence) LOCATION: 1201 Etworth Lane Lot 21, Indian Lakes Kempsville District #2 GPIN: ZONING: PDH-1, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1977 AICUZ: noise less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant would like to install a 7-foot wood privacy fence 1.5-foot from the property line adjacent to Indian Lakes Boulevard, instead of 10-feet as required. According to the applicant, the fence will replace a mature hedgerow that once was installed along the property line adjacent to Indian Lakes Boulevard and was removed by the city. The proposed fence will be installed along the entire property line, where the lot is parallel with Indian Lakes Boulevard. The side of this lot fronts Indian Lakes Boulevard and the front of the dwelling fronts Etworth Lane. Presently, the existing one-story single-family dwelling is 10-feet from the property line adjacent to Indian Lakes Boulevard. This property is located in a (PDH-1) Planned Unit Development community, which has reduced setback requirements normally found for subdivisions located in a standard zoning district. Allowing the proposed 7-foot privacy within 1.5-feet of the property line adjacent to a street is not consistent or in keeping with the intent of the special requirements established for this PDH-1 community. A standard zoning district would require a much greater setback when adjacent to a street. Staff recommends installing the fence at a 10-feet setback along the property line adjacent to Indian Lakes Boulevard. The fence could be installed beginning at the rear northwest corner of the dwelling and terminate at the rear property line. In this case, no setback variance(s) would be required and the fence would enclose a portion of the rear yard achieving the desired privacy the applicant is seeking.

8 PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY Case #8 Marcus Gravely DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 5.5 foot side yard setback (East side) instead of 8 feet as required (Proposed Addition and Renovation) LOCATION: st Street Lot 10, Cape Henry GPIN: ZONING: R-5R YEAR BUILT: 1945 AICUZ: Less than 65 db DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The existing two-story home has a 14.2 by 36, one-story, rear section. The applicant reports that this portion of the home has serious termite/water damage. He desires to renovate this section of the home and add a second story. Because of the damage, a new two-story addition will be built on the existing foundation. Although the existing dwelling is grandfathered for the 5.5 side yard setback on the east side, the new structural changes require a variance to allow a 5.5 side yard setback, rather than 8 as required. The main portion of the home also has a 5.5 side yard setback. The applicant concludes that the variance is justified because the foundation cannot be easily moved and because the addition will align with the main residential structure. The applicant has concluded that he cannot shift the addition to meet the 8 setback because it would cause a 2.5 jog inside the home, cause issues with the roof planes, and interfere with existing windows and exterior doors. Architectural elevations of the proposed addition have been submitted showing that the addition will complement the existing home. If approved, the following conditions should be required: 1. The addition shall substantially adhere to the submitted site plan and architectural elevations. 2. Prior to approval of a building permit, the applicant shall submit Documentation suitable to the Building Official that the existing foundation can support the proposed second story.

9 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #9 John Stein DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 3.6 foot rear yard setback (North side) instead of 10 feet as required (Proposed/Existing Detached Garage) LOCATION: th Street Lot 222, The Hollies GPIN: ZONING: R-7.5, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1940 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to modify an existing nonconforming 1-1/2 story detached garage apartment by replacing the roof as well as demolishing a 9.8 x 20.5 portion of the south side of the structure. The remaining rear portion of the detached garage is presently 3.6-feet from the rear (north) property line, instead of 10-feet as required. The applicant intends to reduce the nonconformity by removing the apartment; however, replacing the roof within the rear yard setback requires a variance. The existing principle (dwelling) structure will be demolished and replaced with a new 2-1/2 story single family dwelling. Based on the proposed site plan, the new dwelling will comply with all applicable setbacks. As previously mentioned, the applicant plans to remove the apartment from this detached garage and utilize the garage for storage only. With demolishing a portion of the existing garage, the overall size and footprint will be reduced to comply with the allowable floor area for accessory structures. The roof of the garage will be replaced however, the setback will not increase will this proposal. The setback variance is sought from the property line adjacent to a narrow 15-foot public right-of-way. After reviewing aerial maps, it appears there are other accessory structures, though smaller in size, on neighboring lots that are also in close proximity to the property line adjacent to the 15-foot right-ofway. Staff acknowledges this proposal will reduce a number of nonconformities associated with this structure. However, when considering the degree of the overall improvements planned for this site, staff believes there is opportunity to bring the entire site into conformity. If approved as submitted, the following conditions are recommended: 1. The existing 9.8 x 20.5 south portion of the detached (garage) structure and HVAC unit located on the rear of the structure shall be removed. Additionally, the existing apartment shall be removed and the structure shall be used for storage only. The aforementioned requirements shall be completed prior to receiving a final building inspection. 2. Building materials and colors used to renovate the existing detached (garage) structure shall be compatible with the proposed single-family dwelling. 3. If not submitted to the BZA, building elevations acceptable to the Zoning Administrator or her designee must be submitted to the Zoning Office, prior to

10 receiving a building permit. Case #10 Robert Moore PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to 1.8 foot side yard setback (Northwest side) instead of 5 feet as required and to a 7.3 foot rear yard setback (Southwest side) instead of 10 feet as required (Proposed Garage) LOCATION: 3061 Belle Haven Drive Lot 16A, Belle Haven GPIN: ZONING: R-7.5, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1954 AICUZ: noise zone 60-70dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant would like to demolish the existing 20 x 20 detached garage and rebuilt a new 20 x 20 garage in the same footprint as the existing garage to be demolished. The applicant is seeking variances to a 1.8-foot setback from the north side property line instead of 5-feet as required and to a 7.3-foot setback from the rear property line, instead of 10-feet as required. According to city s records, the detached existing garage was built in It is presently in severe disrepair and encroaches on both the side and rear yard setbacks. Staff understands the applicant s desire to build a detached garage in the same footprint as the previous garage, particularly in efforts of utilize an existing driveway. However, the previous garage was built prior to the adoption of the City Zoning Ordinance and now is nonconforming in regards to the rear and side yard setbacks. Per the City Zoning Ordinance, nonconforming structures are intended to exist for the duration of their useful life. It is believed allowing a garage to be rebuild in the required setbacks will not be in keeping with the intent or spirit of the City Zoning Ordinance. The existing lot meets minimum dimensional and lot area requirements for this zoning district. Staff was unable to identify any unusual or unique characteristics that exist on this lot that support a hardship as it relates to this request. Staff suggests the applicant consider reducing and/or locating the proposed detached in compliance with the required setbacks.

11 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #11 Michael & Jean Sleeman DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to a foot front yard setback (West Stratford Road) instead of 20 feet as required (Proposed/Existing Stairs) LOCATION: 3924 W. Stratford Road Lot 7, Ocean Park Bayside District #4 GPIN: ZONING: R-5R, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1980 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants would like to complete a front deck/steps located feet from the (front) property line adjacent to W. Stratford Road, instead of 20-feet as required. The steps and decking (platform area) will be uncovered and it extends 11-feet from an existing (4.5 x 7.4 ) covered front porch. Approximately 9-feet of the recently installed steps and decking are over 16-inches above the finished grade and therefore encroach on the required front yard setback. Building permits for a (rear) deck and hot tub were issued on May 5, 2011 and on November 3, 2011 a permit was issued for a driveway. No building permits were found for the recently front steps and decking. A stop work order was issued by a building inspector for performing work without a building permit on November 29, As mentioned above this home has an existing covered porch. With the exception of the recently constructed steps and decking, this home complies with all of the required setbacks for this zoning district. This request is not in keeping with the intent and spirit of the City Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to recently amended porch ordinance. Allowing the steps and decking to remain in place, will contradict City Council intentions regarding the setback relief given for porches installed on existing dwellings. Additionally, this variance request is expected to set a negative precedent, particularly in the surrounding community.

12 PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY Case #12 Princess Anne Veterinary Hospital DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to 150 square feet in identification signage instead of 16 square feet in identification signage as allowed (Proposed Free Standing Identification Sign) LOCATION: 2492 Holland Road Princess Anne District #7 GPIN: ZONING: AG-1 YEAR BUILT: 1976 AICUZ: Less than 65 db DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This veterinary hospital is zoned AG- Agricultural District where the zoning regulations allow a maximum 16 square foot, freestanding identification sign. The applicant currently has a 10-foot tall, narrow freestanding sign with two faces. The main portion of the sign is 4 by 6 or 24 square feet with three name plaques below totally approximately 4.5 square feet for a total of 28.5 square feet per face. There is no record of any sign variances being approved. At this time, the applicant would like to replace the existing sign with a 12 tall monument sign containing two 75 square foot faces. An elevation of the proposed sign has been submitted. The applicant feels that a larger sign is needed because the veterinary hospital sits back off the road approximately 170 feet and customers have a difficult time finding the establishment. The sign would be located to meet the required 7 setback from Holland Road. It should be noted that this site has approximately 107 feet of road frontage and if zoned commercial, the maximum freestanding sign allowed would be 32 square feet per face. Holland Road is primarily a residential street and staff is concerned about the size of the proposed sign. The following condition is recommended: One freestanding, monument style sign is allowed with a maximum height of 8- feet and two sign faces with a maximum of 32 square feet each.

13 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #13 Virginia Electric & Power Co DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 26 foot side corner setback instead of 35 feet as required when adjacent to (Cape Henry Drive) a street (Proposed 8 foot fence LOCATION: W Great Neck Rd & Cape Henry Dr GPIN: ZONING: B-2, RPA YEAR BUILT: AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to install an 8-foot chained link fence 26-feet from the property line adjacent to Cape Henry Drive, instead of 35-feet as required. A fence presently encloses the existing Long Creek substation and serves as a security and safety barrier. The proposed 8-foot fence will have 7-feet of fencing with a 1-foot foot barbed wired band of the top of the fence. The existing 125 linear feet of fencing presently installed along the property line adjacent to Cape Henry Drive is currently located in the required 35-foot setback. Staff was unable to determine the nonconforming status of this fence or when this encroachment occurred. A 21-foot linear portion of the new fencing will also encroach on the required 35-foot setback, however, the remaining portion of the fencing and gate will comply with required setback from the property line adjacent to W. Great Neck Road. The expansion of the substation fence enclosure is needed to provide additional area and clearance necessary to upgrade an existing transformer and the associated equipment. The applicant notes the expansion is planned on the north side of the enclosure rather than the west side to preserve and large live oak tree presently located directly west of the fence enclosure. This setback variance is sought from a property line adjacent to Cape Henry Drive. Over a 55-foot unimproved portion of the Cape Henry Drive right-of-way separates the substation from the adjacent street. This unimproved right-of way is not expected to be improved in the near future. Currently, this unimproved portion on the right-of-way is heavily vegetated and provides a natural buffer. Therefore, this request is not expected to create a detriment to any of the adjoining property owners or surrounding community. If approved, the following condition is recommended: 1. The proposed 8-foot chained link fence shall be installed in substantial adherence to the site plan.

14 Case #A-1 Douglas Price Requests an appeal of the Zoning Administrator s designee s letter dated November 9, 2011 pertaining to firearm sales in a residential district.