Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA197700075 Application 1977-12-09 $20. Permit Fee Appiication V/i - Sign Erected By: Staff: APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Zoning Department 414 E. Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 County of Albemarle 296-5832 Date of Application ,},// / , 19 '7 7 . OWNER OF PROPERTY OCCUPANT (If other than owner) Name: W. F. Name: -- Address: P. b . Boc. (,7 Address: VA V . Telephone: 1$( 2.5 2 Telephone: Location of Property: kooyds U Tax Map L 3 a ( ) Parcel .4,9- r L S creage z. 18 Existing Zoning B- I District ..SCo-fl-s✓i LLB Existing Use: Variance sought (describe briefly relief sought) : Gnww�� �r v s SI fi- R.►Atvc� Rohn- _SEc-4io1-1. t $ - 3- . c '714 LbErvu4RL& CofiN/y t1 /Nc, Ud/CIANCE1 Scs.N.pc HIb,hWAy - T c k7 r" A LL-owCd o 7 hw tl r 1c i of ,2 0 s •74i. AM u .� 1 . .9 CL d w e c/ d;1 Aic � also ref /�,3-S /.30;,1, 41, I hereby certify that the foregoing information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I am the owner named above. A „/ ,1444a,..., 2-77/7 ' .plicant Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Zoning Administrator has/has not rendered a decision. If so, state substance of decision: Date of Hearing: Final Decision Made: The variance sought was denied/approved with the following conditions: Special Use Permit# BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Sign Permit# BY: Date Building Permit# OF ALBE.14 '<t$114: RECEIVED rwm Office of County Attoriey FREDERICK W. PAYNE 416 PARK STREET GEORGE R, STJOHN JAMES M. BOWLING, IV CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 COUNTY ATTORNEY DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEYS TELEPHONE 296-7138 February 13 , 1978 W. F. Paulett & Son, Inc. P. 0. Box 67 Scottsville, Virginia 24590 Re: Appeal of Variance (Our File #ACPZ 76-308) Gentlemen: Enclosed please find copies of a Petition For Writ of Certiorari , the Order In The Nature Of A Writ Of Certiorari , and a Praecipe to have this case called. While the Paulett Corporation is not formally a party to this litigation, it is obviously interested in it and I wish to give you the opportunity to defend your interest if you be so disposed. Sincerely yours , Frederick W. Payne Deputy County Attorney FWP/tlh Enclosures cc: Mr. J. Benjamin Dick Mr. Max C. Kennedy AT SOUNDING OF DOCKET ON April 3 , 1978 •f REQUEST NUMBER DATE FILED February 13 , 78 .Board of Supervisors r VS. CASE NUMBER 2 A IZ - t Board of Zoning Appeals Case to be set for: JURY Estimated time to hand: TRIAL X Yes 1/2 day X MOTION No OTHER CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that Max C. Kennedy, Sec./Respondenknd , counsel of record waraiwas notified on the 13th day of = February , 1978 , that the above case will `T be called on the 3rd day of April , 1978 _ Signature a Ere eric w. ra e P Date and time set Other: Use correct Short style of case Cases will be called in order in which requests are filed. . t . I T;'.✓.Ti. IN THE CI . _ ':T COURT OF ',L z- COU BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY , 1 Petitioner V. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY , Respondent SERVE : MAX C. KENNEDY P. 0. Box 5025 Charlottesville , Virginia, 22901 , Respondent PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE HONORABLE DAVID F . BERRY, JUDGE OF THE SAID COURT: Comes now the petitioner, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, and represents unto the Court as follows : 1 . That it is the duly constituted and acting governing body of the County of Albemarle , a political subdivision in the Commonwealth of Virginia; 2 . That it is aggrieved by a decision of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals of January 10 , 1978 , wherein the variance number VA-77-75 in the name of W. F. Paulett & Son was approved by the said Board from the terms of Section 18-3-5 (b) ' (2) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit a wall sign 85 square feet larger than that permitted under the said ordinance; 3 . That the decision of the said Board in granting the said variance was erroneous and plainly wrong on the grounds that no evidence was produced before the said Board that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; and on the further ground that no hardship was shown to exist which is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning EORG'c R. ST. �OHN i nssoci ST. I district and in the same vicinity; ATTC.RNEYS AT LAW I £I PARE STREET WHEREFORE, the petitioner respectfully prays that a rIAS_OTTESVILLE. VA. writ of certiorari issue pursuant to Section 15 . 1-497 of the • • it i I �I I that the decision of the Board of Zcn='-- � Code of Virginia (1950) , c Appeals of Albemarle County in granting the said variance be \ reverse and that the application therefor be dismissed. I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF �I ALBEMARLE COUNTY i IBy Counsel \ GEORGE R. ST. JOHN County Attorney v By .c� FREDERICK W. PA NE Deputy County Attorney 416 Park Street Virginia 22901 Charlottesville , ltiI I Ii �I \\ \\ \I h\ . i\\ . \\ I \\ I` I\\I i I \i, GEORGE- R. ST. JDHNI AcSOE5 1 � -C4/:=YS AT LAV` -AECT AI( FART` s 1 S:ILLE. VA. �I I, . i ' VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEI•URLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY , Petitioner V. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY , Respondent ORDER IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Came this day the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County , by counsel , upon its petition for writ of certiorari filed pursuant to Section 15 . 1-497 of the Code of Virginia (1950) ; and It appearing to the Court that the writ prayed for should be granted , it is accordingly ORDERED that the Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County transmit to the Clerk of this Court, within ten (10) days of the date hereof , duly certified, a complete record of all proceedings had by it in this matter , i . sometimes known as variance application VA-77-75 , together with a transcript of the hearing of the Board on this matter held on January 10 , 1978 ; and It is further ORDERED a certified copy hereof be served upon Max C. Kennedy , Secretary of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County , P. O. Box 5025 , Charlottesville , Virginia , 22901. i I ENTER: JUDGE I ASK FOR THIS : DATE : GEORGE R. ST. JOHN County Attorney I ; GEORGE R. ST. JOHN i By `5 ASSOCIATES FREDERICK . PAYNE A-T CSNEYS AT LAW 1 Deputy County Attorney <,F PARY. STREET 416 Park Street CHAR-OTTESVILLE. VA. _2901 Charlottesville , Virginia 22901 1 1 1 iY. F. PAULETT WILSOttft,. DANSEY HADEN B. ANDERSt.. ? MARGUERITE P. SPENCER Founder 1914 President Vice Pres. &Treas. Secretory &Office Mgr. Lumber and Plywood Cement, Brick Moldings W. F. PAU LETT & SON, INC. Roofings Windows and Doors Carpenter Tools Storm Windows&Doors Building Materials and Hardware House Hardware Sheetrock Paneling Insulation SCOTTSVILLE, VIRGINIA 24590 Paints and Oils Ceramic Tile Glass Gutters &Screens Phone 286.2521 Culvert Pipe Polyethylene Floor Coverings Floor Sanders February 16, 1978 Mr. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator 414 East Market Street Charlottesville , Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Dick: We are enclosing another copy of the original sketch of our sign and the "Martin Senour Paints" as shown on the left side of the sketch seems to be readable. Mr. Matt Murray will be representing us when this comes up before Judge Berry on April 3rd. He will have the original in his office and you can look at it if you wish. Yours very truly, W. F. PAULETT & SON, INC. By: c,e(, M. P. Spencer, Secretary s REC : 7-n 7 1978 OF A N • �� LeEMq .� ilRG1141 t. Inspections Department Zoning Division 414 EAST MARKET STREET J. BENJAMIN DICK CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901 ANDREW EVANS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR (804) 296-5832 SENIOR INSPECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: The Board of Supervisors c/o Lettie E. Neher, Clerk FROM: J. Beniamin Dick, Zoning Administrator g/ RE: Board's Request of Review of Sign Variances Allowed by The Board of Zoning Appeals in Recent Months (last year reviewed) DATE: January 24, 1978 This report is in response to the Board's request for information on sign variances granted in recent months to applicants by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Zoning.Administrator understands a citizen has requested the Board to consider an appeal of two recent sign area variances which prompted this request for review. The latest sign area variances are the only two in recent months. Therefore, the Zoning Administrator has worked up a review of the last year of sign variances. Since variances are the official action of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Zoning Administrator submits the Board of Zoning Appeals approved minutes of sign variances as condensed from public hearing tapes that were considered in the last year beginning with the latest sign variances back through January 11, 1977. Each variance was accompanied by a staff report which can be made available by the Zoning Administrator if such is deemed necessary by the Board of Super- visors. If the Board of Supervisors needs further assistance or information, please advise. 'vow '4000 SUMMARY OF THE MOST RECENT SIGN VARIANCES VA-77-73 Jim Price Chevrolet (minutes attached) Applicant requested a 129 square foot variance over the 100 aggregate square foot area requirement for two (2) freestanding business signs. Hardship claimed was a need for adequate identification. Action: Board denied the amount of square footage requested and granted a thirty-seven (37) square foot variance for one freestanding sign that would be temporary until the new sign ordinance was approved. An existing sign from the old site would be utilized. Thereupon, Jim Price shall comply with the new Zoning Sign Ordinance by a time specified by the Zoning Administrator. VA-77-75 W. F. Paulette & Son (minutes attached) Applicant requested an 85 foot variance from the scenic highway requirement that wall signs in a B-1 zone be not greater than 35 square feet. Applicant claimed extraordinary circumstances in that he had voluntarily spent $5000 to colonial brick the front of his metallic building and added a canopy, complied with Planning Commission screening and landscaping, all of which he did to further the scenic highway purpose, and had a sign designed to go with his building. He felt 35 square feet did not provide on the road site distance to identify his building for business deliveries. Action: The Board granted the variance based on the totality of the evidence. The motion noted the sign was attractive, fitted the building, and would provide identification to truckers which in turn furthered highway safety. fir✓ Nwe MINUTES OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS January 10, 1978 The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals held a regular meeting on January 10, 1978, in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, County Office Building, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Messrs present were W. P. Heath, William Smith, William Roberson and Max C. Kennedy. As a quorum was established, the meeting convened at 2:00 p.m. VA-77-75. W. F. Paulette & Son Mr. Dick read the Staff Report at this time. (See enclosed report) Mr. Dick: The Planning Staff wanted to add the comment that as much as before that we have backed the variances for Mr. Paulette this one they found hard to back since he has already gotten a frontage variance. They would recommend denial. Mr. Heath: All right, Mr. Anderson., Mr. Anderson: I'm Hayden Anderson and I don't have much more to say than he said right there. We have an 80 foot building 100 feet from the center of the road and are asking for a 36 foot sign on that building which we do not think is out of proportion. (Note: The sign is 120 square feet) We'd like to identify this building as a building materials building and not a nursery. We are doing a lot of landscaping up there, going to have a lot of trees (holly & azaleas) and we want to identify ourselves. We would like to be able to be in business and make a living. Mr. Kennedy: Are you implying that you are running a nursery out there rather than a hardware store? Mr. Anderson: I'm implying that if we don't have a sign up there identifying Nftw Nome us, that it might be mistaken for a nursery. Mr. Roberson: These are requirements by the Planning Commission, I guess, aren't they? Mr. Dick: Yes Mr. Kennedy: How much money are you talking about? How much did the sign cost you? Mr. Anderson: When we talk about money. . . .money to us is. . . .that sign cost $556.00. That means a lot of money to us. Mr. Heath: What color is the sign going to be? Mr. Anderson: The sign will be white with black letters. We've gone overboard a little bit ourselves on this building, beyond any requirements that was asked for. We've put up a nice building. We've put in a nice entrance. We've put a brick front to it and we're trying to make this an attractive building. Those weren't requirements. We could have just put up a metal building up there that wasn't a nice looking building but I think. . .Mr. Heath, have you seen our building? Mr. Heath: Yes. I think it is going to be an asset to that part of town. Right across the road they have a very poor building in the shopping center. This is much better looking. Mr. Dick: You put a brick front up on it, didn't you? Mr. Anderson: Yes, we did and a canopy. Those things were done for the benefit of the looks of the building. You were referring to the variances that you granted us but they were done for the benefit of anybody passing by seeing the building, whether it was just a building or a nice looking building. Mr. Heath: I can assure you that they are making every effort to make it an attractive building. Mr. Smith: You ought to be able to see this sign directly from the Now *ere front of the building, you won't be able to see it before you get to it or after you go by the building you won't be able to see it. Mr. Anderson: Not very likely. The building is parallel with the road. Mr. Smith: Will you be able to see it from Route 20 as well as Route 6? Mr. Anderson: Not very well, I don't think. That's too hazardous there to be looking at a sign. Mr. Roberson: Do you intend to have a free-standing sign out front anywhere? Mr. Anderson: No, Sir. This is the only sign we anticipate having. Mr. Roberson: What is allowed under the law? Mr. Dick: We give a choice on roof and wall signs, either one or the other but you can have a wall and a free-standing sign. Mr. Roberson: He could put a free-standing sign later, if he desired. Mr. Dick: We'd like to make it one of the conditions that if this sign is approved that he not put up a free-standing sign. I think this would be sufficient, wouldn' t it, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Heath: You wouldn't object to that, would you? Mr. Anderson: NO. We can't afford but one. Mr. Smith: His problem is that it is too close to the scenic highway. That is the only thing that I see. This sign is 35 feet too close to the scenic highway. Mr. Dick: He has a variance on the building. Anything attached to that would be approved. Mr. Anderson: This in an area, business area, you stated. Mr. Dick: Yes, Sir. N4rmir Noe Mr. Anderson: Shopping Center, (inaudible) Paving We're all there in a little cluster in a business area. Mr. Smith: Was that sign anticipated when you built the building? Mr. Anderson: You know that sign, that is something that I thought about. That sign, when they approved that plan. . .we had a sign on that plan. Mr. Dick: Is that right? Mr. Anderson: Yes, Sir. Mr. Dick: Is it the same sign you have up here? Mr. Anderson: It had W. F. Paulette & Son on it. I'll show you where it goes. I might have a copy of that. You see this Inc. right here? Mr. Dick: Yes. Mr. Anderson: Well, it went from here to here with Inc. there. Just a minute. Mr. Kennedy: What approval is he talking about? Mr. Dick: Site Plan approval Mr. Anderson: No, now this wasn't on the site plan approval. This is on when we got our permit. Mr. Dick: Building permit? Mr. Anderson: Yes, Sir. Mr. Smith: He got a variance for the building, the sign was on it though. Mr. Dick: We are talking about an area variance here now. Mr. Kennedy: That is not the same variance. Mr. Dick: He has a building there he can put a sign on, which meets the setback because he has a variance but he has an area question here. The- scenic highway only allows for a 35 square foot sign in a B-1 District. He's got 120 square feet here and is asking for 85 square foot variance. Mr. Roberson: A 35 square foot sign would be lost on that building. s 1101 Mr. Anderson: This sign would be 100 feet from the center of the road and a 35 square foot sign would be out of the question. It is not in proportion. Mr. Smith: Is the building up? Mr. Anderson: Yes, Sir. The sign, as Mr. Dick stated, has been bought not realizing that we were violating a law. Mr. Heath: Do you have anything else you want to say, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson: Except that I certainly would like to be able to put this sign up. Mr. Heath: Does anyone else have anything to say for or against this variance. Mrs. Seldon: We would like to point out the following: There is no competition in building materials in Scottsville or in fact for miles. In fact, there is a hardware store across the street which is not in competition and,in fact,supported the construction of this building material outlet because the two stores are really complimentary. There is no other commercial construction on this side of the road for many miles. There is no sign competition whatsoever in this area to compete with and require a large sign and again we ask you to be careful about initiating such competition in this new area of commercial development in Albemarle County. The building materials store itself is composed of a series of large buildings and a number of Scottsville residents have commented to us that there is no like- lihood that the establishment could possibly be overlooked and the nature of the business will be quite apparent. We also ask you to keep in mind that not only is this a scenic road but it adjoins a community with a remarkable collection of attractive old structures which we should all regard as a special asset of our whole community. As you may remember, there were a great many people who objected to the acceptance of this building as a B-1 operation because of its size and its impact on the area. Just. . I also want 'tome Nome to point out to you. We have been very mild, we feel, about our reactions td variances. We recognized the rights of businesses but we have also recognized the rights of property holders and the image of our community as a whole. • Route 29 North has caused us endless comments in the New York Times, The Richmond Paper, The German Newspaper and just recently appeared in the U. S. News and World Report (an article on strip zoning) . We feel that there are many considerations in our community. There's been a long standing fight against signs starting with Stuart Carwile's attempt to protect I-64 We know that there are many other communities that are doing this sort of thing. There's a sign commission. Mr. Dick and Mr. Tucker appeared before the sign commission just recently and Mr. Tucker brought along this item which I've shown you once but you might want to refresh your minds about it. It is an article from Southern Living. Mr. Tucker indicates that he hopes the County can proceed to act in this sort of manner with its future site plans throughout the County, not just on scenic roads and try to turn this community around. We don't feel that Mr. Paulette is in any danger of being overlooked in his isolated building materials location. We ask you to think about the sign commission, sign competition you are going to set up if you're going to permit a sign of this size when by contrast in Business Districts, in Business and Agricultural Zones the limit is 100 square feet. This is larger than an agricultural district and it's on an adopted scenic road in Albemarle County. (Note: A-1 Zone - A wall sign shall not exceed 100 sq.ft. B-1 Zone (not on scenic highway) - A wall sign shall not exceed 200 sq. ft. ) Mr. Heath: Thank you, Mrs. Seldon. Mr. Dick: Mr. Chairman, there are two other letters which I failed to read. One, which is forthcoming, is from Alice G. and Waldemarg Dahl who have asked that the variance not be approved because this is a scenic highway and they feel this will set a precedent in an area which is zoned business within the Scenic Highway. There is a letter in support of Mr. Anderson's petition. . . W. F. aulette & Company's petition is from the Scottsville Shopping Center, John Flinton, President. We think this relief would be in order and we have no objection. They are adjoining property owners. Mr. Heath: I noticed this place in Florida you've shown us here, it has palm trees, etc. I think Mr. Paulette. . . Mr. Anderson is going to try to landscape. Mr. Roberson: This sign is depicted here on the drawing in scale to the building. Mr. Anderson: Yes, Sir. That's why. . .it will be less conspicuous. A sign this size than something. . . a little small sign, people will wonder what kind of outfit is that and as far as competition, we have plenty of competition. Competition is the telephone. Daily we have that but we have maybe somebody coming in with a trailer from Ohio. They certainly do not know where this place is or some other place, we'd like for them to know where to turn in and not be out on the highway and not cause a hazard. Mr. Roberson: In other words, this sign is approximately as wide as the front door. Mr. Anderson: This is the canopy. It extends out twelve feet. Mr. Roberson: Then it is approximately as wide as the canopy. Mr. Anderson: Yes, Sir. What we thought was nice proportion. Mr. Heath: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Does anyone else have anything to offer. If not, it is now before the Board. Mr. Roberson: Does anyone have any comment. Gentlemen, I am going to make motion that this request for variance be approved for the reason that the sign, as depicted, appears to be in good taste with the appearance of the building. I do know that W. F. Paulette & Company has been required to landscape the front of the building and I assume that that has or is being done. Mr. Anderson: We can't have that done until spring because the nursery that is going to do it won't guarantee it putting it in this kind of weather. Nwe Mr. Roberson: But it is planned to meet the requirements of the site plan. Mr. Anderson: Yes, $1,400 worth. Mr. Roberson: The sign, as depicted, appears to be in good taste with the general appearance of the building and I make a motion to approve the sign. . .the request for variance. Mr. Heath: Do I hear a second. Mr. Kennedy: It appears to me that a sign smaller would do just as- well. We are talking about $565.00 which is advertising over a number of years. I don't think that would amount to much over 10 to 20 years. I see some of these pictures of where they have smaller more tasteful signs, I think somebody that can see the larger signs can see the smaller signs. I can't see why we ought to grant this. Mr. Smith: Mr. Paulette said though, trucks. . .all shipped in by truck from distances away from here. I think it would be an advantage maybe. I can see where those big trucks would be a hazard passing the place and have to turn around and come back to find it. Mr. Kennedy: Well, I don't know if a larger sign would help that much. Mr. Roberson: Well, my motion is based on the fact that the sign appears to be in good taste with the general appearance of the building and a smaller sign 35 sq. ft. total would appear to me to be a. . ..detract from the appearance of the building. Mr. Smith: I second the motion. Mr. Heath: It has been moved and seconded that that variance be granted. All in favor make known by saying Aye, opposed No. Call the roll please. Mr. Kennedy - No Mr. Smith - Aye Mr. Heath - Aye Mr. Roberson - Aye • ti Mr. Heath: Variance granted Mr. Anderson: Thank you. We can install the sign? Mr. Dick: Yes Mr. Roberson: Unless it is appealed to the Circuit Court. Mr. Heath: I don't see anyone over here from Scottsville opposing it. Mr. Dick: You are required to put up a fence too, aren't you. Mr. Anderson: We have that fence up. It has been paved. The weather is holding us up. Mr. Dick: How much additional did the brick cost you? Mr. Anderson: About $5,000. Mr. Anderson: Thank you. 4 N11 OF ALBEAA Nme I di Go �pF AL,e J- . Z7t • NG1N%t• • Inspections Department Zoning Division 414 EAST MARKET STREET J. BENJAMIN DICK CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901 ANDREW EVANS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR (804) 296-5832 SENIOR INSPECTOR February 20, 1978 Matt Murray, Esquire Taylor and Brooks 425 Park Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Murray: The W. F. Paulett Co. , Inc. has duly informed this office that you shall be counsel of record for their intervention in the cause of Albemarle County Board of Supervisors v. Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals concerning a sign area variance granted to them. The records of this matter are available at this office for your review and assistance. The Board of Zoning Appeals, at the last regular meeting, voted not to hire counsel to represent them but rather to let their decision stand on the evidence presented to them and the verbatim transcript. If you wish to see these records at your convenience, this office shall make them available to you upon proper notification. Respectfully, . VarnA;,0...-�. J. Benjamin Dick Zoning Administrator JBD/gr cc: OVA-77-75 - W. F. Paulette & Son, Inc. Nri OF AL9j- ..re Gam; F _elpr • .,w, Inspections Department Zoning Division 414 EAST MARKET STREET J. BENJAMIN DICK CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901 ANDREW EVANS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR (804) 296-5832 SENIOR INSPECTOR February 16, 1978 Albemarle County Circuit Court Judge David F. Berry County Court House Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Judge Berry: Enclosed herewith is the official record of the Board of Zoning Appeals in the matter of Albemarle County Board of Supervisors v. Board of Zoning Appeals concerning a sign area variance granted to the W. F. Paulette & Co. , Inc. of Scottsville, Virginia. Respectfully, Max C. Kennedy ;7113 Secretary • JCK/gr cc: VA-77-75 �N�V OF ALE3j , „As ° leg Inspections Department Zoning Division 414 EAST MARKET STREET J. BENJAMIN DICK CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901 ANDREW EVANS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR (804) 296-5832 SENIOR INSPECTOR February 16, 1978 Albemarle County Circuit Court Judge David F. Berry County Court House Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Judge Berry: Enclosed herewith is the official record of the Board of Zoning Appeals in the matter of Albemarle County Board of Supervisors v. Board of Zoning Appeals concerning a sign area variance granted to the W. F. Paulette & Co. , Inc. of Scottsville, Virginia. Respectfully, Max C. Kennedy Secretary • JCK/gr cc: VA-77-75 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct copy of the minutes pertaining to application VA-77-75, W. F. Paulette & Son, from the January 10, 1978 , Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals regular meeting. x C. Kenn dy, Secre ary lbemarle County Bo d of Zoning Appeals fir, wr MINUTES OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS January 10, 1978 The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals held a regular meeting on January 10, 1978, in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, County Office Building, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Messrs present were W. P. Heath, William Smith, William Roberson and Max C. Kennedy. As a quorum was established, the meeting convened at 2:00 p.m. VA-77-75. W. F. Paulette & Son Mr. Dick read the Staff Report at this time. (See enclosed report) Mr. Dick: The Planning Staff wanted to add the comment that as much as before that we have backed the variances for Mr. Paulette this one they found hard to back since he has already gotten a frontage variance. They would recommend denial. Mr. Heath: All right, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson: I'm Hayden Anderson and I don't have much more to say than he said right there. We have an 80 foot building 100 feet from the center of the road and are asking for a 36 foot sign on that building which we do not think is out of proportion. (Note: The sign is 120 square feet) We'd like to identify this building as a building materials building and not a nursery. We are doing a lot of landscaping up there, going to have a lot of trees (holly & azaleas) and we want to identify ourselves. We would like to be able to be in business and make a living. Mr. Kennedy: Are you implying that you are running a nursery out there rather than a hardware store? Mr. Anderson: I'm implying that if we don't have a sign up there identifying us, that it might be mistaken for a nursery. Mr. Roberson: These are requirements by the Planning Commission, I guess, aren't they? Mr. Dick: Yes Mr. Kennedy: How much money are you talking about? How much did the sign cost you? Mr. Anderson: When we talk about money. . . .money to us is. . . .that sign cost $556.00. That means a lot of money to us. Mr. Heath: What color is the sign going to be? Mr. Anderson: The sign will be white with black letters. We've gone overboard a little bit ourselves on this building, beyond any requirements that was asked for. We've put up a nice building. We've put in a nice entrance. We've put a brick front to it and we're trying to make this an attractive building. Those weren't requirements. We could have just put up a metal building up there that wasn't a nice looking building but I think. . .Mr. Heath, have you seen our building? Mr. Heath: Yes. I think it is going to be an asset to that part of town. Right across the road they have a very poor building in the shopping center. This is much better looking. Mr. Dick: You put a brick front up on it, didn't you? Mr. Anderson: Yes, we did and a canopy. Those things were done for the benefit of the looks of the building. You were referring to the variances that you granted us but they were done for the benefit of anybody passing by seeing the building, whether it was just a building or a nice looking building. Mr. Heath: I can assure you that they are making every effort to make it an attractive building. Mr. Smith: You ought to be able to see this sign directly from the Nifty. %we front of the building, you won't be able to see it before you get to it or after you go by the building you won't be able to see it. Mr. Anderson: Not very likely. The building is parallel with the road. Mr. Smith: Will you be able to see it from Route 20 as well as Route 6? Mr. Anderson: Not very well, I don't think. That's too hazardous there to be looking at a sign. Mr. Roberson: Do you intend to have a free-standing sign out front anywhere? Mr. Anderson: No, Sir. This is the only sign we anticipate having. . - Mr. Roberson: What is allowed under the law? Mr. Dick: We give a choice on roof and wall signs, either one or the other but you can have a wall and a free-standing sign. Mr. Roberson: He could put a free-standing sign later, if he desired. Mr. Dick: We'd like to make it one of the conditions that if this sign is approved that he not put up a free-standing sign. I think this would be sufficient, wouldn' t it, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Heath: You wouldn't object to that,would you? Mr. Anderson: NO. We can't afford but one. Mr. Smith: His problem is that it is too close to the scenic highway. That is the only thing that I see. This sign is 85 feet too close to the scenic highway. Mr. Dick: He has a variance on the building. Anything attached to that would be approved. Mr. Anderson: This in an area, business area, you stated. Mr. Dick: Yes, Sir. Mr. Anderson: Shopping Center, (inaudible) Paving We're all there in a little cluster in a business area. Mr. Smith: Was that sign anticipated when you built the building? Mr. Anderson: You know that sign, that is something that I thought about. That sign, when they approved that plan. . .we had a sign on that plan. Mr. Dick: Is that right? Mr. Anderson: Yes, Sir. Mr. Dick: Is it the same sign you have up here? Mr. Anderson: It had W. F. Paulette & Son on it. I'll show you where it goes. I might have a copy of that. You see this Inc. right here? Mr. Dick: Yes. Mr. Anderson: Well, it went from here to here with Inc. there. Just a minute. Mr. Kennedy: What approval is he talking about? Mr. Dick: Site Plan approval Mr. Anderson: No, now this wasn't on the site plan approval. This is • on when we got our permit. Mr. Dick: Building permit? Mr. Anderson: Yes, Sir. Mr. Smith: He got a variance for the building, the sign was on it though. Mr. Dick: We are talking about an area variance here now. Mr. Kennedy: That is not the same variance. Mr. Dick: He has a building there he can put a sign on, which meets the setback because he has a variance but he has an area question here. The- scenic highway only allows for a 35 square foot sign in a B-1 District. He's got 120 square feet here and is asking for 85 square foot variance. Mr. Roberson: A 35 square foot sign would be lost on that building. .*Nmare Noe Mr. Anderson: This sign would be 100 feet from the center of the road and a 35 square foot sign would be out of the question. It is not in proportion. Mr. Smith: Is the building up? Mr. Anderson: Yes, Sir. The sign, as Mr. Dick stated, has been bought not realizing that we were violating a law. Mr. Heath: Do you have anything else you want to say, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson: Except that I certainly would like to be able to put this sign up. Mr. Heath: Does anyone else have anything to say for or against this variance. Mrs. Seldon: We would like to point out the following: There is no competition in building materials in Scottsville or in fact for miles. In fact, there is a hardware store across the street which is not in competition and,in fact, supported the construction of this building material outlet because the two stores are really complimentary. There is no other commercial construction on this side of the road for many miles. There is no sign competition whatsoever in this area to compete with and require a large sign and again we ask you to be careful about initiating such competition in this new area of commercial development in Albemarle County. The building materials store itself is composed of a series of large buildings and a number of Scottsville residents have commented to us that there is no like- lihood that the establishment could possibly be overlooked and the nature of the business will be quite apparent. We also ask you to keep in mind that not only is this a scenic road but it adjoins a community with a remarkable collection of attractive old structures which we should all regard as a special asset of our whole community. As you may remember, there were a great many people who objected to the acceptance of this building as a B-1 operation because of its size and its impact on the area. Just. . I also want • s•mwe .r.r to point out to you. We have been very mild, we feel, about our reactions to variances. We recognized the rights of businesses but we have also recognized the rights of property holders and the image of our community as a whole. Route 29 North has caused us endless comments in the New York Times, The Richmond Paper, The German Newspaper and just recently appeared in the U. S. News and World Report (an article on strip zoning) . We feel that there are many considerations in our community. There's been a long standing fight against signs starting with Stuart Carwile's attempt to protect I-64. We know that there are many other communities that are doing this sort of thing. There's a sign commission. Mr. Dick and Mr. Tucker appeared before the sign commission just recently and Mr. Tucker brought along this item which I've shown you once but you might want to refresh your minds about it. It is an article from Southern Living. Mr. Tucker indicates that he hopes the County can proceed to act in this sort of manner with its future site plans throughout the County, not just on scenic roads and try to turn this community around. We don't feel that Mr. Paulette is in any danger of being overlooked in his isolated building materials location. We ask you to think about the sign commission, sign competition you are going to set up if you're going to permit a sign of this size when by contrast in Business Districts, in Business and Agricultural Zones the limit is 100 square feet. This is g larger than an agricultural district and it's on an adopted scenic road in g Albemarle County. (Note: A-1 Zone - A wall sign shall not exceed 100 sq.ft. ! B-1 Zone (not on scenic highway) - A wall sign shall not exceed 200 sq. ft.) Mr. Heath: Thank you, Mrs. Seldon. Mr. Dick: Mr. Chairman, there are two other letters which I failed to read. One, which is forthcoming, is from Alice G. and Waldemarg Dahl who have asked that the variance not be approved because this is a scenic highway and they feel this will set a precedent in an area which is zoned business within the Scenic Highway. There is a letter in support of Mr. Anderson's petition. . . W. F. %400,,alette & Company's petition isom the Scottsville Shopping Center, John Flinton, President. We think this relief would be in order and we have no objection. They are adjoining property owners. Mr. Heath: I noticed this place in Florida you've shown us here, it has palm trees, etc. I think Mr. Paulette. . . Mr. Anderson is going to try to landscape. Mr. Roberson: This sign is depicted here on the drawing in scale to the building. Mr. Anderson: Yes, Sir. That's why. . .it will be less conspicuous. A sign this size than something. . . a little small sign, people will wonder what kind of outfit is that; and as far as competition, we have plenty of competition. Competition is the telephone. Daily we have that but we have maybe somebody coming in with a trailer from Ohio. They certainly do not know where this place is or some other place, we'd like for them to know where to turn in and not be out on the highway and not cause a hazard. Mr. Roberson: In other words, this sign is approximately as wide as the front door. Mr. Anderson: This is the canopy. It extends out twelve feet. Mr. Roberson: Then it is approximately as wide as the canopy. Mr. Anderson: Yes, Sir. What we thought was nice proportion. Mr. Heath: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Does anyone else have anything to offer. If not, it is now before the Board. Mr. Roberson: Does anyone have any comment. Gentlemen, I am going to make motion that this request for variance be approved for the reason that the sign, as depicted, appears to be in good taste with the appearance of the building. I do know that W. F. Paulette & Company has been required to landscape the front of the building and I assume that that has or is being done. Mr. Anderson: We can't have that done until spring because the nursery that is going to do it won't guarantee it putting it in this kind of weather. Mr. Roberson: But it is planned to meet the requirements of the • site plan. Mr. Anderson: Yes, $1,400 worth. Mr. Roberson: The sign, as depicted, appears to be in good taste with the general appearance of the building and I make a motion to approve the sign. . .the request for variance. Mr. Heath: Do I hear a second. Mr. Kennedy: It appears to me that a sign smaller would do just as well. We are talking about $565.00 which if amortized over a number of years would be his loss. I don't think that would amount to much over 10 to 20 years. I see some of these pictures of Boca Raton, Florida where they have smaller, more tasteful signs. I think somebody that can see the larger signs can see the smaller signs. I can't see why we ought to grant this. Mr. Smith: Mr. Paulette said though, trucks. . . .all shipped in by truck from distances away from here. I think it would be an advantage maybe. I can see where those big trucks would be a hazard passing the place and have to turn around and come back to find it. Mr. Kennedy: Well, I don't know if a larger sign would help that much. Mr. Roberson: Well, my motion is based on the fact that the sign appears to be in good taste with the general appearance of the building and a smaller sign, 35 sq. ft. total, would appear to me to be. . . .to detract from the appearance of the building. Mr. Smith: I second the motion. Mr. Heath: It has been moved and seconded that the variance be granted. All in favor make known by saying Aye, opposed No. Call the roll please. Mr. Kennedy - No Mr. Smith - Aye Mr. Heath - Aye Mr. Roberson - Aye Nov •.r' Mr. Heath: Variance granted Mr. Anderson: Thank you. We can install the sign? Mr. Dick: Yes Mr. Roberson: Unless it is appealed to the Circuit Court. Mr. Heath: I don't see anyone over here from Scottsville opposing it. Mr. Dick: You are required to put up a fence too, aren't you. Mr. Anderson: We have that fence up. It has been paved. The weather is holding us up. Mr. Dick: How much additional did the brick cost you? Mr. Anderson: About $5,000. Mr. Anderson: Thank you. BY: ���1".„.1LP. 1l #— Glenna Ratcliffe OF ALB vN�� �Mq CP *.t of ALe �i -9 Q ^►y.t Latc BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .-. ��RGIN� LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR. GERALD E. FISHER LETTIE E. NEHER J. T. HENLEY, JR. OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CLERK F. ANTHONY IACHETTA COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING LINDA W. LEAKE C. TIMOTHY LINDSTROM CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 DEPUTY CLERK W. S. (BILL) ROUDABUSH MEMO TO: George St . John, County Attorney Ben Dick, Zoning Administrator FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk DATE: January 13 , 1978 At the Board meeting held on January 11 , 1978, Mrs. Martha Seldon requested that the Board appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in granting variances to Henry J. and Patricia M. Price (VA-77-73) and W. F. Paulette & Son (VA-77-75) . Before the Board will consider taking such action, you are requested to compile a list of sign variances granted during recent months in order to determine if the Board of Zoning Appeals has complied with Virginia Code Section 15.V195 in granting these variances. In the event that the Board does decide to appeal these decisions to the Circuit Court, this information must be in their hands by February 1 before the 30 days allowed for this appeal has lapsed. len/ Nome STAFF REPORT VA-77-75. W. F. Paulette & Son Tax Map: 130 A(1) Parcel: 64 & 65 (part of) Zoning: B-1 Acreage: 2.186 EXISTING ACTIVITY A shopping center is located east of this property and an automobile dealership to the south. All activity adjoins scenic highway route 6. Freestanding signs identify these existing businesses and are within the 100 square foot requirement that existed prior to the adoption of scenic highway provisions. VARIANCE REQUESTED Applicant requests relief from section 18-3-5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance - Scenic Highway, to allow a variance of 85 feet to have a wall sign of 120 square feet. Applicant was unaware of the sign provisions of the scenic highway and has already had the sign made up. Applicant claims hardship of needed identification due to the location distance from route 6. Applicant notes in the B-1 zone a 200 square foot wall sign is allowed and this sign is 120 square feet. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT Section 18-3-5 (B)2 of the scenic highway allows for business signs of 1 square foot for each two feet of linear frontage of the main structure not to exceed 35 square feet and the sign may not exceed 20 feet or project above the eave of the roof of the main structure. This provision is uniform for all commerical and industrial districts within- the scenic highway. STAFF COMMENT Applicant obtained a setback variance (VA-77-45) of 75 feet in 1976. This reduces somewhat the 150 foot sight identification problem advocated by the applicant. A financial expenditure alone would not justify a variance. Applicant must show a demonstrable hardship to allow this variance and staff presently sees none which has been presented. If the Board should choose to grant the variance, staff recommends two conditions. Applicant should also be advised, however, that he needs to comply with section 18-3-4 (sign review and approval) . a) If the present sign should be altered or changed within 18 months, it shall conform with the scenic highway provisions. b) The variance be designated as "temporary" for two years and thereafter the sign shall conform to the scenic highway ordinance. : f 4 /4/L/4 i- Gt/6t.v - ..Z- 'b /A 0 Af gee •i`y �4H • / /9 7 // 1.94/ (4.7 h'Y:�7�inl� . ,. I* i a.....c:...f°"'""*::j1"'"""1 i imsow-Hig ill I 1 0I ri 1 t -----....) ., ...., , (:::::.) ..,... 1 =.: . ,, , _ . 1 mi0_r_Tht:::::4 _ , _ 1. _____)i __ '1 " --.� A. y t, ,,.. fie. - t t ,. . I i_.....„.....,, ,. • 1 I 1 ., .., _ �S-` 4 1 k ..... i • k.. . . . 11 -`� : A. y '��.r"-;?:j a d k �¢F tJ Y 5i.yam..' ., ■ 0 . i j ' e 1 1 „i ''t R �,,a.. f u `3,. 1. x"i.. .. ., Y. .1.w„V ,*- , "4°•h .. �.$".... ' -.'A ..--t,.. v`I...-e V -i eZ= :,pi,i,,,y d- i It i •. .. , ,, ,,, ,, , ‘....,"‘iik A.. I.,....., 1,,,....,4 Ll'i'......,"...."''...„'6„,„'..',...... ..,1t,1..• ' a r s .+^ 1 _,..w. ..,v*•^. i - to p t t T 9« 1 . , e .-sa "R}k"'••u•..4s—., s•t. ,...,xer.�..•ar...--.:h.,.w..w•y ya, n.,�r 1 ,i - I '''s,`• •• - - ;4.‘ ''',",";''' :: ',•1-' i i' '-'; ' t. .'Th- :,I.• ' * ' %.4. , , ,‘';, ' -,.--, .' ':3 '4-1'' ::,,t .--' • -. t-: . ; ,j, tt: r 1 7- - - f.. t-.., , -4�.. 4 • I y` . ' C • .- .- 4.'jitil'''''.: ' i." ----''.. -- t r"n I i' hi ‘. .-' ' i. .4 1-111‘ it/ -''''') • -V,ic t,,'I*, i It/ ...,i to 1 .J 1pij{ 1� r' tJ -_ t .i : i 111 \ r fl + //' .1 • • ! t 1* ._u1 k..114r t : 1;,/ -c. E r r. t t' • . ,* s• � �14 a 4 a r Iu 0t t 1¢ 0 • t x r -- a � f 41 t' •y' v 'i t f F ' t V t jt,: t ` 's t j y t yf 1 f e / • 1., W. F. PAULETTE MARGUERITE P. SPENCER Founder 1914 Secretary&Office Mgr. LUMBER AND PLYWOOD WILSON L. DANSEY HADEN B. ANDERSON CEMENT, BRICK MOLDINGS President Vice Pres. &Treas. ROOFINGS WINDOWS AND DOORS CARPENTER TOOLS SHOES RWIIKDOWSANDDOORS W. F. PAULETT & SON, INC. PANELING NC. HARDWARE INSULATION BUILDING MATERIALS AND HARDWARE PAINTS AND OILS CERAMIC TILE GLASS GUTTERS&SCREENS CULVERT PIPE POLYETHYLENE FLOOR COVERINGS FLOOR SANDERS PHONE ( 804 ) 286 - 252I Scottsville, Va. 24590, 1 97 Name Address fL- Lei4lt-e- dif--,--a-t-i / C.)\\ ' ' i Cee/1-1-J e_4%,—i - 0—eL-A-1 /2".-0—./—,l_i (---\-6.—C( 1.4.:4..,'—uov? . 1 IN X ��iyr t-a/ LI .e ,� t -57 , ri . n .WV dO t� `-e40 • _ • - L> IV 9 Z_I-e21-4 Xi -`- , ZEE-BES CO. CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA.22906 Mitt 6** IA/ /c4 e malt O5cc..4.4.t A4)Aamr.7. eamittaafirpt- .•• _e+ �•• a 30441� b4444•wss . 61144%ied t Vim:w cs . .'JNI'NOS 9 Lainva i M F. N P>- FLFU I C