The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA198800011 Action Letter 1988-09-16 AF ALB:, oAd O Ffi�llti' III f7P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 September 16, 1988 Mr. Benjamin Boyajian 101 Ednam Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-88-11, Tax Map 60, Parcels 38 & 39 Dear Mr. Boyajian: This letter is to inform you that on September 13, 1988, during the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, that your application for VA-88-11 was approved to allow two freestanding signs with the aggregate square footage of 160 square feet with a setback of 10 feet, and for the wall sign size to be increased to 95 square feet or for several wall signs with no one (1) individual sign to exceed 25 square feet in dimension subject to the following conditions: (1) That the Board of Zoning Appeals approval of May 12, 1987 be withdrawn for VA-87-23 , and (2) That the signs now in existence be removed. Pursuant to Section 35. 0 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the actual cost of any notice required under the code shall be taxed to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section. Please see the attached bill for the amount due of $213 .94. Failure to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the denial of any application. Mr. Benjamin Boyajian September 16, 1988 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Charles W. Burgess, Jr. Zoning Administrator CWBj r/st Enclosure cc: Reading File Inspections Department VA-88-11 ,6FALg� Ja. �rRGIt��P " COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Burgess, Zoning Administrator FROM: John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning & Community DevelopmentJw DATE: June 15 , 1988 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - June 28, 1988 I have reviewed the variance request to be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals on June 28, 1988 and have the following comments: VA-88-11 - It would appear that this variance request is directly contrary to the concept of the Board of Zoning Appeals approval of Mr. Boyajian' s previous request. It is my understanding that the previous request for reduced setback and increased square footage was approved based on an agreement that Mr. Boyajian would consolidate all free standing signs into one sign. It is the position of this Department that approval VA-88-11 would move away from that agreement and would be contrary to the intent of the Scenic Areas - Highway District. There also appears to be no showing whatsoever of a hardship by Mr. Boyajian in this case. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. JTPH/jcw JUN 15 1988 STAFF REPORT - VA-88-11 APPLICANT: Benjamin Boyajian TAX MAP/PARCEL: 60/38 & 39 ZONING: HC (Highway Commercial) ACREAGE: 2 .47 acres LOCATION: South side of Rt. 250 west, approximately 150 yards west of the intersection of Route 250 and Colonnade Drive The applicant seeks a variance from sections 30. 5. 6.2 . 1 and 30.5.7.2 (b and c) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The following sections state: 30.5. 6.2 . 1 No buildings or structures other than necessary accessory appurtenant fences and/or walls, except as hereafter provided in the case of certain signs, shall be constructed within any SA-Highways Overlay District. 30.5.7.2 (b) Free-standing business and projecting business signs shall be limited to ten (10) feet in height above grade, eighteen (18) square feet per single sign face, and to one (1) sign per separate highway frontage. 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. 23 The applicant apped before the Board of Zoning Appeals on May 12, 1987 (VA-87 7) and received approval of a variance request which reduced the setback of a freestanding business sign from one hundred fifty (150) feet to one (1) foot, increased the allowable area of a freestanding business sign from eighteen (18) square feet to one hundred twenty (120) square feet, and to increase the area of wall signs allowed from thirty-five (35) square feet to seventy (70) square feet. The approval of the increase in the area of the freestanding business sign was given with the idea that this would enable the applicant to consolidate the existing, non-conforming freestanding signs into one (1) sign structure. VA-88-11 Benjamin K. Boyajian Page 2 The applicant now requests a variance to increase the number of freestanding business signs allowed per highway frontage from one (1) such sign to two (2) signs, to reduce the setback for the sign from one hundred fifty (150) feet to ten (10) feet, to increase the area of the freestanding business signs from the previously approved one hundred twenty (120) square feet to one hundred sixty (160) square feet and to increase the area of wall signage allowed per highway frontage form the previously approved area of seventy (70) square feet to ninety-five (95) square feet. The applicant is in the process of constructing an additional commercial structure on the property. The anticipated tenant of the new structure desires to have a separate freestanding business sign as well as some wall signage, thereby causing the applicant'scurrent variance request. The staff is of the opinion that the Board of Zoning Appeals has afforded the applicant much consideration in the past in an effort to reduce the numbers of signs currently located on the property. The applicant's current requests are in direct contrast to the intentions of the previous actions of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The wall signage request is significant, but the staff is most interested in and opposed to the placement of an additionaal freestanding sign on the property. RECOMMENDATION The application should be denied for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that a strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce a demonstrable hardship approaching con- fiscation as distinguished 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 provided evidence to demonstrate 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.