HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198800001 Action Letter 1988-02-09 A �
Ji'c '
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
February 9, 1988
Anthony S. Everett
2851 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-88-1, Tax Map 59, Parcel 80B
Dear Mr. Everett:
This letter is to inform you that on February 9 , 1988 , during
the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals, your application for VA-88-1 was denied.
Anyone aggrieved by a decision made by the Board can appeal
the decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within
thirty (30) days of the decision.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
04 /4 W. ,.,w.,/
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWB,Jr/st
cc: VA-88-1
V-87-49
011VOFAI
J
friftww-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
February 3, 1988
Dear Applicant:
For your convenience and to allow you to organize your
thoughts prior to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on
February 9, 1988, please find attached the staff report
for your case.
Sincerely,�
C.�f tea at t""fa /
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWB,JR/st
STAFF REPORT - VA-88-1
APPLICANT: Charlottesville Oil Co. , Inc.
c/o Anthony Everett
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 59/80B
ZONING: HC (Highway Commercial)
ACREAGE: 1. 310 acres
LOCATION: On the east side of Rt. 250 west, approximately
1. 2 miles from city limits
The applicant is requesting relief from Section 30. 5. 7 . 2 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Section 30. 5. 7 . 2 states:
"30. 5.7 . 2 (c) Business wall signs shall be limited to twenty (20)
feet in height above grade, thirty-five (35) square
feet per single sign face, and to one (1) sign per
separate highway frontage.
The operator of Woodfin Auto Parts business is asking the Board of
Zoning Appeals to allow the "already" existing sign(s) to remain
at the Rt. 250 location.
Mr. Everett is requesting the Board to allow his business to have
a total of three (3) wall signs, a variance of two (2) wall signs;
a sign face to be 64 . 5 square feet, a variance of 29 . 5 square
feet; and to have a total of 121. 5 square feet of wall signage, a
variance of 85. 5 square feet.
The previous occupants of the site were never in full compliance
of all county regulations, but only one (1) had a sign which was
approximately 18" X 168" or 21 square feet. That particular sign
was a replacement of a Cavalier Tire (business sign) .
I must inform the Board that Mr. Everett was informed of the sign
regulations and restrictions of the scenic highway prior to the
signs being erected or painted.
Staff Report - VA-88-1
Charlottesville Oil Company
Page 2
The staff finds that the site affords good visual access from
motorists traveling west on Route 250, and average or an
acceptable level of visibility for the east bound traveler. It is
the staff's opinion that the existing signage as presented to the
Board "dominates" the wall fascade of the building portion where
the Woodfin business is located probably due to the fact that the
background color is white and the lettering covers a very large
portion of the wall surface area.
The sign as presented (existing) is in conflict with the intent of
the SA-Highways intent. The configuration, design, material, and
color should be in keeping with the historic and environmental
setting. Such sign should not visually dominate the structure to
which it is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the application should be denied for
cause.
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that a strict
application of the ordinance would produce a clearly
demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation as dis-
guished from a special privilege or convenience.
2 . The applicant has not demonstrated that the perceived
hardship is unique to his property in contradistinction
to other properties in the same zoning district and
general vicinity.
3) The applicant has not demonstrated that the authorization
of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to the
adjacent properties or that the character of the district
will not be altered.