Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA197200021 Application 1973-08-10 August 10, 1973 Lloyd T. Smith, Jr. , Esq. P. 0. Box 1585 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, et al v. A&B Development Corporation Dear Lloyd:. This will confirm that Tuesday, October 30, 1973, at 10:00 a.m. is acceptable to have the hearing on the captioned matter. Sincerely yours, George R. St. John County Attorney GRSt.J:k1c CC: Mr. John L. Humphrey Mrs. Ruth M. Miller • Tottuttanktraftli of Virstnta IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SUBPOENA IN CHANCERY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY % John L. Humphrey, Acting Secretary County Office Building Charlottesville, Va. The party upon whom this writ and the attached paper are served is hereby notified that unless within twenty-one (21) days after such service, response is made by filing in the Clerk's Office of this court a pleading in writing, in proper legal form, the allegations and charges may be taken as admitted and the court may enter a decree against such party, without further notice, either by default or after hearing evidence. Appearance in person is not required by this subpoena. Done in the name of the Commonwealth of Virginia, this 6 day of March , 19 73 CLERK. Herbert A. Pickford 230 Court Sq. , P. q' Charlottesville, Va. (OFFICE ADDRESS) Page 789 FEBRUARY 5, 1973 This was a scheduled workshop session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on February 5 , 1973 at 7 : 30 P. M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Present were : Chairman Avery Catlin, Vice -Chairman M. Clifton McClure , Mr. David W. Carr , Mr. Wilbur C. Tinsley, Mr. M. Jack Rinehart , Mr. Louis C. Staley, Dr. James Sams , Mr. William S. Roudabush, and Mrs . Ellen B. Craddock. Also in attendance was Mr. Gerald Fisher, County Supervisor. Mr. Lloyd Wood , Supervisor, arrived later during the meeting. The meeting was called to order and a quorum established. It was noted that item 4 on the agenda "Ednam Village" , would be deferred until next Monday, February 12 , because the applicant could not be present at this time . E___— Item 5 on the agenda which read: "Proposal to appeal ppeal decision of \/ Board of Zoning Appeals regarding Holiday Inn Sign Variance" , was presented by Mr. Humphrey. Mr . Humphrey informed the Commissioners that Holiday Inn which is located at interchange of Rt . 631 and I-64 , had been granted a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow their ; sign to be 47 feet in height as compared to 30 feet required in the ordinance , 400 sq. ft . in area, as compared to 100 sq. ft . in the ordinance . Further, he stated that Holiday Inn desired flashing lights , but the Board of Zoning Appeals restricted this . Dr. Catlin informed the Commissioners that he had this put on the agenda because of the rirajor difference in size that the B. of Z. A. permitted than the Sign Ordinance permitted. Mr. Carr questioned the basis of the variance . Miss White , of the Planning staff, said the only basis they had was that this sign was a a . Page WO -2- national trademark and recognized by most people . Mr. Rinehart asked if the Planning Commission as a group had the right to do anything about the decision of the B. of Z . A. . Mr. Humphrey informed him that they could appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals , but the proper thing to do would be to request the Board of Supervisors to appeal it . Mr. Roudabush , who is also a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals , said he did not know why the variance was granted and that he voted against it since he could see no hardship involved. He further said the owners admitted they had several different other signs they could use . Mr. McClure made a motion that the Board of Supervisors be re • - quested to appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals . The motion was seconded by Dr. Sams . Mr. Carr wondered if the Commission desired to give the Board of Supervisors any reasons for their decision. Mr. McClure was of the opinion that the reasoning should come from the Planning Office. Dr. Catlin instructed Mr. Humphrey to write up the reasons and pre- sent them to the Board. The above motion carried unanimously. 6. Milton Hills Subdivision , Section II , Route 729 . Mr. Humphrey gave a short presentation of this subdivision , which had been deferred from the previous meeting. He showed to the Commission the roads that were requested to be restricted roads . At this time Mr. Roudabush excused himself from the discussion and voting and requested the Chairman to wait until 8 : 00 to take up this matter so Mr. Gary Kirksey could be present to represent his plat . The Chairman did so . Amato: Ladies & Gentlemen, Application VA-72-21 Goldsmith: Mr. Chairman, VA-72-21, A & B Development Corporation. Applicant requests the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance to allow the erection of a Holiday Inn sign greater in size than that allowed in Section 15A-6-1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for a B-1 Business zone. Property which contains 2.55 acres is located in the northeast quadrant of Interstate Route 64 and Route 631 is described as County Tax Map 76, Parcel 55C. Scottsville Magisterial District. Gentlemen, I have a map here. Amato: Give me the Section number again. Goldsmith: Section 15A-6-1. Gentlemen of the Board Amato: Just a second now, Joe. . . .that provides for not to exceed 100 square feet, not greater than 30 feet above ground level, no more than two free-standing signs, and no MOM than three projecting signs. Goldsmith: This is located in this parcel of Interstate 64 East here. This being 5th Street, Oakhill Subdivision, and the City of Charlottesville, of course, in this area. Amato: Has there been any site plan submitted to you for location of this? Goldsmith: I am sorry, I do not have a plat of this property. I have. . . the petitioners request the Zoning Administrator to erect a Holiday Inn sign at entry to Holiday Inn at 64 and 631. The applicant makes this request because this sign is a publicly recognized emblem of Holiday Inn national and does not detract fran surrounding property. Burton Lee: Gentlemen, I am Burton Lee and this is my partner,Aubrey Mason. We are building a second Holiday Inn here in Charlottesville and Mr. Goldsmith advised us that we would not be allowed to erect the standard great sign of the Holiday Inn. The great sign is the large entry sign that is used throughout the world as the national emblem to the traveling public. I. think its probably the most recognized sign in the lodging industry. This is Amato: Where is 64? Lee: Here is a vicinity map over here. This is our site. This is 64 traveling west. We Would be caning off the ramp here. This is 631 and you turn into a service road. Our entry on this service road is here which is right at this point and we will be caning into this property at this point. The sign is located here, that we propose to use. Amato: On this plat, 64 then is up here? Lee: Yes, sir. Amato: Your sign is going to be here? Lee: That's right. Amato: You won't have any sign up there? Page 2 • Lee: We will not have a free-standing sign at this point at all or no signs in this area of 64. Amato: You have to get a permit from the Highway Department for that anyway don't you? Lee: You have to get a permit, but as you probably know, the Federal Highway sign act allows you to erect a sign, on the premise sign, advertising on-site facilities. Amato: Now the grade of this is much lower than up there to 64? Lee: Yes sir, that's correct. Amato: And you have placed the sign have you? Lee: We have not placed it, we've just Amato: I mean,you've designated it. • Lee: Here, at this rectangular box, here. Amato: What is this sign that you wish to apply for size? Lee: It is somewhat over 400 square feet on a surface. It is 43'11" fran the top of the star to the bottom of the porcelain, on the sign. Amato: 43'11" from where? Lee: Flom the very top of the sun burst or the star on the top to the bottom of the porcelain itself, on the sign itself. Now this sign in most cases is surrounded by a planter. The planter, if you are familiar with the one we have here on 29 North, this is exactly the same sign that we have here at the entry of the present Holiday Inn, and here again, we feel that since this is a highway location, that traffic will be going say 70 miles an hour. This is lower, it is due to the topography out here. I believe that we will be able to see a portion of that sign from the highway, fran 64 even, we will certainly be able to see it from 631, as we cane in. Rotx3abush: What is the height from the top of the star to the ground? Lee : That would depend on the height of the planter around it. It is 43 ' 11" if we put a 6 ' planter under it, it would be 49 '11" . Amato: What would it normally be? Lee: In the area of 47 or 48 feet, in that area, would be the normal height. Now this is a six story building. This building will be taller than this sign, on this particular site. "? Amato: What is the size of the sign on the Holiday Inn on 29 North? Lee: It is the same size sign as this one right here. Amato: What is the height of it? Lee : I don 't know the height exactly from the ground. I would guess that is -3- • about a 2 1/2 or 3 ' planter on the one , which would make the sign in the neighborhood of 47 ' . Bain: What the width of it? You said it was practically 44 ' in height. What 's the width of it? Lee: I have to get a diagraphm of it. Bain: You said it 's 400 square feet didn 't you? It is around 10 ' . Lee: Must be 10 ' there abouts . I got a descriptive disgraphm here in this, set of plans , if you would like to see something specific on it. Brown: Are all your signs at your motels this size? Lee: Yes sir, this is the standard size that is used throughout the Holiday Inn system. In certain areas , where you have in town locations, where you don't have the space or you have other considerations , then a small replica of this sign has been erected. It is not used, however, on highway locations because it is just not recognizable at highway traffic speeds . • Amato: What was this about flashing lights? Lee: As I understant it, we cannot flash the lights on the star in certain areas. The star does not flash that we have on 29 North. Innkeeper: Yes, it does. Lee: Does it flash? Am I corrected by the innkeeper? He says it does flash. Well, it can go either way. There ' s no problem and we don't object to not flashing the sign , at all. I don 't know what-- Unknown: Are you set back the proper distance from the road? Lee: Yes sir, we have been granted an entry permit by the highway department, Amato: How far is it permitted close to the road? Goldsmith: What the sign? No closer than 30 feet, that would be permitted under the restrictive ordinance. Amato: That is from the right-of-way? Now which right-of-way is that from? 631 or is that from the wervice road. Joe : Any right-of-way. Regardless of where it 's located. Amato: The reason why I said it looks closer. Lee : This is the right-of-way line here and the scale on this map is an inch to 20 feet so I would say that it is setback within the 30 feet. We are about 68, well are more than that, we are probably a 100 ' or so from the right-of-way to the sign. -4- Amato: An that is standard size of Holyday Inn? Lee : This is the standard size that Holiday Inn uses . Unknown: That 's known as the great sign? Lee: it is known as the great sign. It is used throughout the world. That 's the reason we would like to use it because the motoring public has accepted this sign as the most recognizable emblem to the motoring public. Roudabush: Did you say the sign could or could not be seen from both directions? Lee: It depends the interstate , i think, what time of the year it is. i think with the leaves on the trees you are probably not going to see it going west bound. I believe that we are going to be able to see it going east bound. You can see a portion of it. Roudabush: Does the size really make any difference, if the probability is that you can see it from one direction and you can see a portion of it from the other. Mason: One thing is if I understand it correctly, they are thinking about dual laning 5th Street all the way into town and I believe that Mr. Warner that the speed would probably be 60 miles per hour on 5th. street, based on we have got to slow that man down too. and we are putting in a deceleratior lane at our cost. Roudabush: Everybody is looking for you all anyway. Mason: I hope they are . Lee : Well , If they aren't, we 're in trouble, if they are not looking for us and this is the reason we want this sign. We want to be sure they find us. Amato : Is there anyone here who wants to make a comment on this application? Alright, we will close the public hearing---- Bain: Let me ask this question. You said, your building is going to be how many feet in height? Lee : 6 stories. It ' s going to be about 54 or 55 ' over all. Bain: What will be the approximate height of this one? Lee: It 's going to be about 47 or 48 ' . Bain: You are going to have it about 5 or 6 feet from the ground? Lee: 5 or 6 ' feet off the ground. We have another thing about this particular sign. There is a display panel that's changeable at the bottom of this sign and we advertise that and civic-- _5-- Unknown : Everytime Virginia wins a game. Lee: Thats right, we like to put those things on there and wellike to advertise on site facilities . Amato: Gentlemen, what 's your pleasure? Brown: I move that the variance be granted. Amato : It 's been moved by Mr. Brown Heath: I second it. Amato: An seconded by Mr. Heath. Any discussion? All in favor indicate by saying I. Brown: Amato, Bain, Heath "I" Amato: Opposed? Roudabush: No, I would like to explain that, I know it 's not necessary but, this interchange is just becoming developed out there and this is the first commercial installation in that location and I am just afraid that a precedent would be set that other requests would come in for the same sort of thing and for consicience and for many reasons , planning and so forth, I cannot vote for it. Amato: Let the records show that Mr. Roudabush voted no. The motion is carried, but just a second thight, I think going back a moment that it should be specified, no blinking lights. Do you agree to that amendment? yes. So the amendment is no blinking lights. Bain: Blinking or flashing. Amato: Blinking or flashing. Gentlemen: Thank you. altiffri 4114/ir 5944 414744..e2ZZ //be!"cP ,, 04' .7 Pf*iit 0;1; a/r44,(1,e, /7/ Ur G I VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY and ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION v. ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND AEVIEW BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY and A & B DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION This day came the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County and the Albemarle County Planning Commission, by counsel, upon their joint petition for a writ of certiorari which has been duly filed with the Clerk of this Court; and It appearing to the Court that said petitioners seek a review of a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County rendered January 30, 1973, granting A & B Development Corporation a variance fror the requirements of Section 15A-6-1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which decision petitioners allege was arbitrarily and capriciously rade, and the Court being of the opinion that a writ of certiorari and review should be made, the Court doth hereby award said writ. The Court doth further ORDER that the Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County transmit to the Clerk of this Court, duly certified, a complete record of all the proceedings had before it on this matter being application VA-72-21 of the A & B Development Corporation, together with a transcript of said proceedings. It is further ORDERED that an attested copy of this order together with a copy of said petition be served upon John _ . L. Humphrey, Acting Secretary of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County and upon Burton P. Lee, President of A & B Development Corporation, and that a hearing on the merits of the questions presented by said petition, on the writ of certiorari herein granted, be held on e • A 1973 at ird : o' clock, P.M. ENTER: --5171 DATE: yluet AI Requested: . A be 7 marleCounty Attor 230 Court Square Charlottesville, Virginia a dr/ L944 : 9- 7)1444 lad- (' • VIROINI: IN TH: CIRCUIT OCTRT C? ALBZMIRLF, COUNTY BC;LRD CT COUNTY arrminmac 07 ALBEMARL COUNTY and ALBMARLE COUNTY niL7NING COYNISSICN, l'etitioners v. PIMTIPN FOR wX7 ,0c7 .gail7T0Pa; BOARD 0? ZONING. APPEAL3 07 ALBEKARLE COUNTY c/o John L. Huntlarey, Acting 3ecrotary County Office BUilding CLrlottesvillo, Virgini an A e. B DZVELMENT CORPORii.TION c/o Burton P. Lee, President 514 fountain Trust Bank Building Ronoks, Virgini 24014 TC THZ HONORABLT3 DAVID . DERRY, JUDGE CT SAID COURT: Your p4Aitioners represent unto your Hcnor tht, thy are aggri;wed by a dnicion of the Bourd of Zoning A' als o? Alberle County rndored by it January 30, 173, for the following reasom3: 1. Petitoners are charged with proper pL,nning for Albenarle County and pursuant to tho provisions of Ch,A7ter XI ( ection 15.1-47 et seq.) of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia. 11,1w) adopted a 7,oning ordinance for said County which effective June 28, 1968. 2. Sc,ctic:-J 15A-6-1 of said Zoning Ordinance rroviles that in a B-1 Business Zone, fre Ttanding or proincting business signs sh6d1 not have an aggregate area in exefiss of 100 square feet. 3. A & B Developnent Corporation by its petition flied December 26, 1973 with the Zoning adninistrator for Alberurle County requested a variance anounting to 30C square feet for th location of wh8.t is hnovn as a Holiday Inn Grat ;1.gr ..l: the intersection of Intrstate iouto 64 and 3tate Route 631 in the Scottsville Magisterial District of Alberarle County on a 2. 55 acre parcel of land zoned B-1 and being parcel 55C on Albemarle County Tax Map Sheet 76. Said contemplated sign has an aggregate area of 4co square feet. 4. In making its application for a variance, A & B Development Corporation stated the reason for the variance to be "this sign is the publicly recognized emblem o'' Holiday Inns nationally and does not detract from surrounding properties." 5. Section 12-2-2 of the said Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances fror the tents of said ordinance under certain conditions therein set out. Section 12-2-3 of the said ordinance also provides that no variance shall be authorized unless the Board finds certain conditions to exist as therein set out, in particular undue hardship as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought by the ap-rlicant. 6. The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Arreals in its decision of January 30, 1973 voted 4 to 1 to grant the variance. Petitioners herein, by unanimous resolutions of the Planning Commission of February 5, 1973 and of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, of February 15, 1973, voted to Appeal said decision, being of the opinion that it flagrantly violates the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance and grants the applicant A & B Development Corporation a special privilege or convenience rather than relief from any demonstrable hardship. 7. The action of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County was arbitrary and capricious, totally ignoring the fact that none or the requisites for the granting of a variance existed. WHEREFORE, your petitioners respectfully request that a writ of certiorari be issued and the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County be reversed, 3.nd that the requested variance be denied. BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION By Counsel 1e44-141 A narle Coun y Attorney 230 Court Square Charlottesville, Virginia