Case #1 Carl & Cathie Niemann July 6, 2011

Transcription

1 Case #1 Carl & Cathie Niemann DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to a 14 foot rear yard setback (Northwest side) instead of 20 feet as required (Proposed Sunroom Addition) LOCATION: 3232 Gallahad Drive Lot 36, West Neck Village Princess Anne District #7 GPIN: ZONING: PDH-1 YEAR BUILT: 2002 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing to construct a one-story 10 x 29 4 sunroom addition 14-feet from the rear property line, instead of 20-feet as required. The sunroom will be installed on the rear (north east) portion of an existing one-story single-family dwelling and partially over an existing concrete patio. This addition will be constructed with vinyl siding that matches the existing dwelling and it will have exterior access. The existing dwelling complies with the required setbacks and the lot meets all of the dimensional requirements established in the land use zoning regulations for this Planned Unit Development District (PDH-1). Furthermore, this lot is rectangle in shape and there does not appear to be any significant topographic or lot grading differences on this lot such that it will create an hardship. Nor have any unusual or unique characteristics been discovered on this lot. Therefore, staff was not able to identify a hardship with this request. It is the staff s opinion that granting of this variance request would set a precedent as well as reoccur in nature.

2 Case #2 Karren Crosier DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to an 11 foot rear yard setback (West side) instead of 20 feet as required (Proposed Screened Patio Additions) LOCATION: 493 Cranston Lane Lot 79, Groveland Park Lynnhaven District #5 GPIN: ZONING: R-7.5, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1975 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 12 x 20 screened porch addition 11-feet from the rear property line, instead of 20-feet as required. A 12 x 12 concrete patio will also be installed directly to the south of the proposed addition. However, a variance is not required for the patio. The proposed screen porch will have exterior access on both north and south sides of the addition. This lot is triangle in shape and the rear lot line is slightly angled. Presently, the existing dwelling complies all of the required setbacks for this zoning district. Although, the submitted site plan shows an existing wood deck; only a small concrete pad exists at the rear door of the dwelling. The applicant has agreed to relocate the shed shown (northwest corner of the lot) in compliance with the required setbacks should this request be granted. Staff was not able to find a hardship with this request. Though the rear property line is slightly skewed; it is not believed the rear yard setback requirement would not be met even if the rear property line were straight. Furthermore, the shape of this lot is not uncommon or unique for lots that front a cul-de-sac in this community. It is believed the granting of this request would encourage other similar requests.

3 PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY Case #3 Brad Nadelstein DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 45 foot front yard setback instead of 50 feet as required (Proposed Single Family Dwelling) LOCATION: 2104 Windward Shore Drive Lot 10, Bay Island Lynnhaven District #5 GPIN: ZONING: R-20, RPA YEAR BUILT: 1974 for existing home. New construction proposed. AICUZ: Less than 65 db DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The subject site has water frontage on Long Creek and is heavily impacted by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA) Act. The applicant desires to demolish the existing home and construct a new two story brick dwelling with a deck/trellis and swimming pool in the rear. All proposed improvements are above the top of bank. The pool is a 14 by 28 kidney shape and approximately 716 square feet of deck area is proposed. The redevelopment plan was approved by the CBPA Board on February 28, 2011 subject to 20 conditions. An architectural elevation of the new home has been submitted showing a high quality structure. A variance to the required 50 front yard setback is needed to implement the plan and the applicant is seeking approval for a 45 front yard setback. Only a small corner of the proposed home does not meet the required front yard setback. The application indicates that the irregular front yard shape causes the front setback issue. The lot is on a cul-de-sac and the front lot line curves with the shape of the cul-de-sac causing the need for the variance. Although the required setback could be met if the rear deck/pool area was reduced, the CBPA Board felt the request was reasonable, but indicated that the approval granted is the maximum impervious cover the site can support. If approved, the following condition should be required: Development shall substantially adhere to the submitted site plan and elevation.

4 Case #4 Bill Gunter DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 13 foot setback for side yards adjacent to a street (Bayberry Street) instead of 30 feet as required (Proposed Inground Swimming Pool) LOCATION: 2700 Ocean Shore Avenue Lot 151, Cape Story Lynnhaven District #5 GPIN: ZONING: R-7.5(SD), RMA/RPA YEAR BUILT: New construction AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: On December 6, 2000, a variance to a 13 foot side corner setback, instead of 30 feet as required when a property line is adjacent to a street (Bayberry Street) was Granted for a three-story single-family dwelling. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to install an inground pool swimming 13-feet from the side property line adjacent to Bayberry Street, instead of 30-feet as required. The proposed swimming pool will align with the proposed dwelling, where it will be parallel with Bayberry Street (unimproved). Though this lot meets the minimum (7,500 square foot) lot area, it is only 60-feet in width rather than 85-feet in width as required for a corner lot in this zoning district. Therefore, this lot is nonconforming in regards to the required lot width for a corner lot. A building permit has been obtained for the single-family dwelling and is currently under construction. As noted above, the proposed swimming pool will align with the dwelling, where it will be parallel with Bayberry Street (unimproved). Bayberry Street is not expected to be improved in the future. The narrowness of this lot presents a hardship not commonly shared by other property owners in the same vicinity and district. This request is not expected to create a detriment to the adjoining property owners or surrounding community. If approved, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The proposed inground swimming pool shall be installed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan. 2. Fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the pool in accordance with the required Building Codes requirements as well as comply with all applicable City Zoning Ordinances as they relate to fencing and landscaping.

5 Case #6 John & Jacqueline Robinson DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to an 11 foot rear yard setback (South side) instead of 20 feet as required (Proposed Sunroom Addition) LOCATION: 4821 Kempsville Greens Pkwy Lot 3, Kempsville Greens Kempsville District #2 GPIN: ZONING: PDH-2, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1987 AICUZ: Noise zone less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants wish to construct a 12 x 12 sunroom and 4 x 3 porch on the rear of an existing townhouse unit. A variance to an 11-foot rear yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required is sought with this proposal. Presently there is an elevated wooden deck and second story balcony attached to the rear of this townhouse unit. The proposed sunroom addition will be constructed in place of the elevated deck and will extend approximately two more feet into the rear yard. The minimum 20-foot rear yard setback in this zoning district has been in place since the townhouse was constructed in No variances to rear yard setback were found. Therefore, staff was unable to determine when the existing rear deck encroachment occurred. As stated by the applicant, there are several sunroom additions installed on some of the adjoining townhouse units that also abut the golf course and encroach onto the required rear yard setback. In 1996 & 1997 several variances were granted for these sunroom additions. It appears several of the other sunroom additions that were installed on units that are set back are placed further from the rear property line and potentially complies with the required rear yard setback. Consequentially, some of the sunroom additions could have been constructed without building permits and may encroach on the rear yard setback as well. Staff recognizes this lot fronts a golf course and several of the other townhouse units have sunroom additions installed; however, staff was not able to identify a hardship with this request. Consequently, staff would not be opposed to granting a variance for the existing decking only, provided however, it is only for the life of the existing deck.

6 Case #7 Jonathan Macy DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to allow 38.25% lot coverage instead of 35% lot coverage as allowed and to 4,697.4 square feet in building floor area instead of 4,343.4 square feet in building floor area as allowed (Proposed 2 nd and 3 rd Story Deck Addition) LOCATION: 3832/3834 Jefferson Blvd Lot 8 Ocean Park Bayside District #4 GPIN: ZONING: R-5R(SD), RMA YEAR BUILT: 2007 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 2 nd and 3 rd story deck on the west side of an existing duplex. The applicant is seeking variances to allow 38.25% (2,373.5 square feet) in lot coverage instead of 35% (2,171.7 square feet) in lot coverage and to allow 4,697.4 square feet in building floor area instead of 4,343.4 square feet in building floor area as allowed. Staff was unable to determine when the building floor area was exceeded. Though this proposal will not increase the building floor area, it will increase the lot coverage. Since this duplex was constructed in 2007, the building floor area allowance in this zoning district has been 200% of the maximum lot coverage. It appears approximately 354 square feet in building floor area was added to this duplex without obtaining the necessary building permits. Presently, the applicant owns both units. The proposed 2 nd and 3 rd floor deck additions will expand the existing 2 nd and 3 rd floor decks located on the rear (east side) of the upper and lower units. This duplex is presently exceeding the allowable lot coverage and building floor area. It is unclear how either of these requirements was exceeded. Staff was not unable to establish a hardship with this request. Each of these units has access to an existing decking that is reasonable in size. Increasing either the floor area or lot coverage is expected to set precedent as well as become reoccurring in nature.

7 Case #8 James Wright DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 22 foot rear yard setback (West side) instead of 30 feet as required (Proposed Screened Porch Addition) LOCATION: 2513 Alleghany Loop Lot 4, Courthouse Estates Princess Anne District #7 GPIN: ZONING: PDH-1 YEAR BUILT: 1995 AICUZ: noise zone 65-70dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 16 x 16 one story screen room addition 22 feet from the (rear) property line adjacent to West Neck Parkway, instead of 30 feet as required when adjacent to a street. An existing ground level wood deck is presently installed on the rear of the dwelling and will remain in place with this proposal. The proposed screened room addition will be added on the north side of the rear on the dwelling. The exterior walls of the addition will be constructed with screening and vinyl siding that will match the exterior of the existing dwelling. Mature vegetation is presently installed along the rear property line adjacent to West Neck Parkway. *The submitted site plan depicts a fence that appears to encroach onto the West Neck Parkway right-of-way. Staff is unsure if the fence was installed by the homeowner or by others. Staff was unable to establish a hardship with this request. Staff understands the applicant s desire to add a screened room addition; consequently there are no unique or unusually characteristics that exist on this lot that support this request. Additionally, should this request be granted as proposed, it is expected to be reoccurring in nature.

8 Case #9 Matthew & Kimberly Silver DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to a 6 foot rear yard setback (West side) instead of 20 feet as required (Proposed Covered Porch and Pergola) LOCATION: 3160 Coopers Arch Lot 2, Eagles Nest Princess Anne District #7 GPIN: ZONING: R-15(OP) YEAR BUILT: 2007 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing to construct a x 16.5 covered porch and x 8 pergola above an existing concrete patio at a 6-foot rear yard setback, instead of 20 feet as required. The proposed additions will abut the rear property line adjacent to a variable width right-of-way situated along West Neck Road. This right-of-way was dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach during the creation of the Eagles Neck subdivision in Staff understands this setback is being sought adjacent to a 129± foot variable width right-of-way dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach. However, this request is not in keeping with the intent of the open space concept, in which this community was developed under. This dedicated open space strip along West Neck Road as well as along Indian River Road is intended to be utilized for public purposes including open space, landscaping buffers, drainage utilities, trails and roadways. Should the minimum setback be breached where the property abuts this open space strip, it is expected to interfere with any future improvements that are potentially made within this open space area. Additionally, should this request be granted as proposed, it is expected to encourage other homeowners to also seeking setback relieve where their property abuts the open space strip.

9 Case #10 Casey Medved DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 23 foot setback for side yards adjacent to a street (Bold Ruler Drive) instead of 30 feet as required (Proposed 6 Foot Fence) LOCATION: 1559 Sword Dancer Drive Lot 5, Ocean Lakes Princess Anne District #7 GPIN: ZONING: PDH-2/R-5D, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1986 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant would like retain a recently installed 6-foot privacy fence 23-feet from the property line adjacent to Bold Ruler Drive, instead of 30-feet as required. The fence was installed on the south side and rear yard (east side) of an existing townhouse end unit on the corner of Sword Dancer Drive and Bold Ruler Drive. This community is comprised of mixed housing units and the setback requirements vary throughout this Planned Unit Development (PDH-2). Many of the minimum side corner setbacks in the development are 25-feet or less. Consequently, the minimum setback requirements for townhouse and apartment units are required to comply with the (A- 12) Apartment District minimum (30-foot) setback requirements. The majority of the townhouse lots are ±30-feet in width; staff is presently reviewing the minimum side corner setback for townhouse lots in the apartment zoning districts. It has been the experience of staff, the minimum side corner setback in apartment zoning districts are stringent and unreasonable. It has been found in many situations, due to the narrowness of many corner townhouse lots complying with the minimum side corner setback is virtually unachievable. Staff will be recommending the side corner setback requirement be reduced to offer a more reasonable setback. At this time, staff believes a minimum 20-foot would be more appropriate setback. This fence is presently set back 23-feet from the property line adjacent to Bold Ruler Drive. When considering the size and width of this lot, staff believes this setback is reasonable. If approved, the following conditions are recommended: 1. This variance shall only apply for the life of this fence. 2. Category I landscaping shall be installed along the fence, where it is parallel with Bold Ruler Drive.

10 PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY Case #11 John Probst DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to an 8 foot setback for side yards adjacent to a street (Cypress Avenue) instead of 10 feet as required (Proposed Single Family Dwelling) LOCATION: th Street Lot C1 Beach District #6 GPIN: ZONING: R-5D(OB), RPA YEAR BUILT: Existing home built in Proposed new construction. AICUZ: 70 m- 75 db DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant recently resubdivided this site, zoned R-5D Residential Duplex District, into two lots, each measuring 140 by 47.5 and containing 6,650 square feet each. Rather than building a duplex on each lot, it is the desire of the applicant to use an option available only in the Old Beach Overlay District. In this overlay district, a lot containing at least 5,000 square feet with a width of at least 40 may be developed with a single-family detached home and a second ancillary single-family detached home on the same lot. Submitted plans show that the two lots will be developed into four dwellings. The two lots are impacted by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA) Act and the CBPA Board approved this request with 17 conditions on February 28, The applicant has also shown the proposal to the Old Beach Advisory Board and they are in general support of the project. The Old Beach Advisory Group requests that the architectural plans be revised to show carriage style garage doors and unenclosed porches with a minimum depth of 5 from the exterior wall of the main structure to the exterior edge of the porch foundation. At this time, the applicant is asking the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to allow an 8 side yard setback from unimproved Cypress Avenue, rather than 10 as required for dwellings in the Old Beach Overlay District that meet the Old Beach Design Guidelines. The applicant feels that the variance is justified because the Cypress Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the site will not be improved since over half the width is wetland marsh grass. With the resubdivision, the applicant has widened the width of the lot requiring a variance from 25 to 47.5, improving the building footprint. If approved, the following condition should be required: The development shall substantially adhere to the submitted site plan and the architectural elevations with changes recommended by the Old Beach Advisory Group.

11 Case #12 Sudhaker Lavingia & Elaine Biech DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 0 foot side yard setback (East side) instead of 5 feet as required (Existing Landing and Stairs) LOCATION: 5052 Ocean View Avenue Lot 18, Chesapeake Park Bayside District #4 GPIN: & ZONING: R-7.5(SD), RPA YEAR BUILT: AICUZ: SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Application Deferred

12 PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY Case #13 Christea Owens DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a foot setback for side yards adjacent to a street (Ackiss Avenue) instead of 30 feet as required (Proposed Single Family Dwelling) LOCATION: 141 Ackiss Avenue Lot C, Seatack Beach District #6 GPIN: ZONING: R-7.5 YEAR BUILT: Proposed new construction AICUZ: Accident Potential Zone 2 and Noise Zone Greater than 75 db DNL Staff and the applicant request that this application be withdrawn. The only portion of the proposed home that does not meet the required 30 setback from a street is a covered, unenclosed porch. Covered unenclosed porches are permitted to have a 20 setback in this residential district and a variance is not required.

13 PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY Case #14 Jody Elliott & Benson Fraser DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to a 2.5 foot front yard setback instead of 5 feet as required (Proposed 4 foot solid vinyl fence) LOCATION: rd Street Lot 1-B-1, North End Lynnhaven District #5 GPIN: ZONING: R-5R YEAR BUILT: 1989 AICUZ: Noise Zone Less Than 65 db LDN HISTORY: On April 6, 2011, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) denied a variance request by this property owner to install a new retaining wall and fence with a 1 setback from the Shore Drive right-of-way rather than 5 as required. The applicant felt that the BZA needed clearer information on the request. The setback was increased to a 2.5 setback from Shore Drive, more than a 25% decrease in the original application; therefore, the applicant did not have to wait for one year in order to reapply. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The subject property is a duplex condominium site with an irregularly shaped property line along Shore Drive. The applicants desire to remove the existing 6 privacy fence that has an 18 setback from Shore Drive on the eastern side and an 11 setback on the west end. A variance is being requested that would allow for a new retaining wall to be installed with a 4 solid white vinyl fence above it. The new retaining wall/fence would have a 9 setback on the east end and a 2.5 setback on the western end, rather than 5 as required. The total length of the proposed fence is 58 and approximately 32 linear feet will not meet the required 5 setback. The lot slopes upward from Shore Drive to the dwelling. The official height of the fence is measured inside the fence from the top of the fence to the finished grade; therefore, the fence will appear taller than 4 from Shore Drive. The applicant has submitted examples of building materials showing that any of the 4 fence will be white vinyl. The masonry retaining wall will have a maximum height of 30 but visible height will vary depending on the topography. Any exposed wall will be covered in a stone veneer appliqué and the applicant will bring a picture of the proposed stone finish to the public meeting. The applicants indicate that the main purpose of this request is to allow the fence to run parallel to Shore Drive and the public sidewalk. They have concluded that if the entire fence meets the required 5 setback that it will run at an angle to Shore Drive and the sidewalk. Fill will be deposited inside the fence to even out the rear lot. A

14 landscape plan for the site is being prepared by Winesette Nursery and the applicants indicate that the site will be very well landscaped. They are willing to install low level landscaping on the exterior of the wall/fence in order to maximize visibility while also beautifying the site. Some fill/mulch will be installed in front of the fence for a landscape bed. Traffic Engineering is concerned that the fence may cause visibility problems when residents from this condominium exit their driveway. If approved, the following conditions should be required: 1. The fence shall be constructed in substantial accordance with the submitted site plan and building materials shown at the public hearing. 2. Low level landscaping shall be installed on the exterior of the proposed fence/wall to soften the appearance. Landscape material with a potential height over 3 tall shall not be used where it could impede visibility when exiting the property.

15 Case #D-1 Timothy Hankins DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 26 foot front yard setback instead of 30 feet as required and to a 0 side yard setback (North side) instead of 10 feet as required (Existing Single Family Dwelling and Proposed Roof Top Deck) LOCATION: 849 S. Atlantic Avenue Lot 14, Croatan Beach District #6 GPIN: ZONING: R-10 YEAR BUILT: 1972 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL CITY COUNCIL BACKGROUND: On January 23, 2007 a 15-foot alley that directly abuts the rear (west) property line was approved for closure and abandonment. As a result, this lot was extended 7.5-feet westward. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: On September 1, 1976 a variance to a 4-foot rear yard setback instead of 10-feet as required was Granted for an inground swimming pool. On October 5, 1988 a variance to allow two detached single-family dwellings on a lot instead of one single-family dwelling as allowed (existing dwelling encroaches 1.5-feet onto lot 3) was Granted as conditioned. * variance granted subject to (see file for conditions) On June 6, 2001 a variance to an 8-foot rear yard setback (west side) instead 20- feet as required was Denied for a proposed screen porch On June 1, 2011 this request was Deferred in order to re-advertise this variance request to include the existing dwelling and front decking. Staff was unable to substantiate these encroachments were ever legally nonconforming SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA AND CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH BACKGROUND: The October 5, 1988 BZA decision to grant a variance to allow two single family dwellings on one lot was appealed to Circuit Court of the City Virginia Beach by the Zoning Administrator. The BZA decision was upheld. The Circuit Court decision was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia by the Zoning Administrator. Once again, the BZA decision was upheld

16 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant would like to construct a second floor 12 x 12 roof top deck and a 12 x 12 covered patio over the second-story (northeast) portion of an existing three-story single-family dwelling. Variances are sought to allow a 0-foot side yard setback, instead of 10-feet and to a 26-foot front yard setback instead of 30-foot as required. The existing dwelling actually encroaches 0.8-inches across the north side property line. However, the proposed roof top deck and covered patio will be setback approximately 18-inches from the north side property line. It s the applicant s intentions to install the roof top deck and covered patio over a twostory portion of the dwelling to provide a view of the Atlantic Ocean to the north. According to the court documents included with the previous court appeals, it appears a smaller two famed structure was expanded in The addition was constructed slightly onto the adjacent lot (Lot 15). This dwelling was constructed on one zoning lot (2 lots under the same ownership). It was also noted the property owner at that time, intended to utilize this dwelling as a summer home for his grandchildren. The property owner subsequently filed and was granted a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow two dwellings on Lot 15. This allowed the property owner to sell Lot 14 independently of Lot 15 without re-subdividing the properties. This property (Lot 14) was later sold; however, the setback encroachments were never addressed. Though several unexplained encroachment exists, the proposed roof top deck will be constructed within the existing footprint of the dwelling. Therefore, the setbacks will not increase with this proposal. *Staff has received verbal opposition to this request. If approved, the following conditions are recommended: 1. The proposed second floor 12 x 12 covered patio and 12 x 12 roof top deck shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevations. 2. The roof height of the proposed covered patio shall not exceed the height of point of the point of the roof of the existing dwelling. 3. The proposed covered patio shall not ever be enclosed without further consideration from the Board of Zoning Appeals.