Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198800057 Action Letter 1988-09-14 s�Oti ALI ,�fy %;i7j-,;'\?; COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE • Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 September 14, 1988 Mr. Peter S. Welch P. 0. Box 191 Ivy, VA 22945 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action for VA-88-57 Tax Map 45, Parcels 93C, 93A, 94, 94A, & 108 Dear Mr. Welch: This letter is to inform you that on September 13, 1988, during the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, your application for VA-88-57 was ruled on as follows: (1) Granted relief from Section 21.7. 1 for the setback reduction sought for the shopping center identification sign from 30 feet to 15 feet. (2) Denied the request to increase the size of the freestanding signs (note that the two signs together total 100 square feet) , (3) Ruled to withhold action on the wall sign requests, and that it be subject to amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. (4) That the setback reduction sought for the Hechinger free- standing sign be denied as there is adequate area to locate the sign without benefit of a variance. Anyone aggrieved by a decision made by the Board can appeal the decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty days of the decision. I Mr. Peter Welch VA-88-57 Rio Hill Shopping Center September 14, 1988 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact our office. • Sincerely, Charles W. Burgess, Jr. Zoning Administrator CWBJr/st cc: VA-88-57 Inspections Department U® r7 �7�In1lP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 January 19, 1989 First Interstate Charlottesville Ltd. Ptr. c/o Robert T. Smith 2004-A Morton Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action For VA-88-57 Tax Map 45, Parcels 93C, 93A, 94, 94A, & 108 Dear Mr. Smith: This letter is to inform you that on January 17, 1989, during the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board heard your application for VA-88-57 for the wall sign requests. The Board ruled to grant your variance request from Section 4 . 15. 3 . 7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to increase the area of wall signs allowed from the maximum allowable sign area of two hundred (200) square feet to be determined on the basis of one and five-tenths (1. 5) square feet of sign area per linear foot of business frontage for a maximum of 2 ,400 square foot of signage with the following conditions: 1. that the maximum area for any one tenant shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet, and 2. if the new zoning ordinance is enacted pertaining to signs in the PD-SC prior to all signs being erected, that any signs to be erected after the enactment of the new ordinance would comply with the new ordinance. 44, First Interstate Charlottesville Ltd. Ptr. January 19, 1989 Page 2 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 $46. 31. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, a . cv. .41-4/ Charles W. Burgess, Jr. Zoning Administrator CWBJr/st cc: VA-88-57 Reading File Enc. STAFF REPORT - VA-88-57 APPLICANT: First Interstate Charlottesville Ltd. Partnership TAX MAP/PARCEL: 45/93C, 93A, 94A, & 108 ZONING: Planned Development - Shopping Center (PD-SC) LOCATION: West side of Route 29, +/- .2 miles north of its intersection with Route 631 The applicant seeks a variance from Section 4 . 15. 3 . 7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "4 . 15. 3 Permitted Signs 4 . 15. 3 .7 Planned Development - Shopping Center (PD-SC) Business Sign, Wall: Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving, flashing, blinking, color-changing, or exposed, bare or uncovered neon illumination or lighting; (b) the aggregate area of all such signs shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet; . . . . " The applicant's request to increase the aggregate area of wall signage allowed in a Planned Development-Shopping Center was originally before the Board of Zoning Appeals at a public hearing held on September 13 , 1988. The Board of Zoning Appeals decided on that date that no action would be taken on the request as the request was of such a reoccurring nature that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was necessitated. The Zoning and Planning Department staffs are at present formulating proposed changes to the sign section (Section 4 . 15) of the Zoning Ordinance. It will however, be at least six (6) months before the proposed amendments will be before the Board of Supervisors. In the interim period, signage issues, such as the applicant's, must be resolved. The applicant does have a hardship in that the Zoning Ordinance does not provide for adequate signage for the shopping center. The applicant anticipates that businesses will be occupying the shopping center on or before April 1, 1989, thereby negating the possibility that a text amendment can be approved prior to these businesses opening. Staff Report - VA-88-57 First Interstate Charlottesville Ltd. Ptr. Page 2 RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the applicant be granted relief in accordance with the sign requirements which will be recommended in the text amendment for properties zoned Planned Development- Shopping (PD-SC) . These recommendations are: 1) that each tenant be allowed one (1) business wall sign, 2) that the wall sign area for each tenant be determined on the basis of one and five-tenths (1. 5) square feet of sign area per linear foot of business frontage, and 3) that the maximum sign area for any one tenant shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet. STAFF REPORT - VA-88-57 Owner: First Interstate Charlottesville Ltd. Partnership Tax Map/Parcels: 45/93C, 93A, 94, 94A & 108 Zoning: Planned Development-Shopping Center (PD-SC) Location: West side of Route 29 +/- .2 miles north of its intersection with Route 631 The applicant seeks a variance from Sections 4 . 15. 3 .7 and 21.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which state: "4 . 15. 3 Permitted Signs 4 . 15. 3 .7 Planned Development-Shopping Center (PD-SC) Business Signs, Free-standing or Projecting: Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving, flashing, blinking, color changing or exposed, bare or uncovered neon illumination or lighting; (b) the aggregate area of such signs shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet; (c) no portion of such sign shall be greater than thirty (30) feet from ground level or the eave line of the roof of the main building located on the premises upon which such sign is erected, whichever is greater; (d) no more than two (2) free-standing signs on any one (1) lot or premises; . . . Business Sign, Wall: Provided (a) if illuminated, no moving, flashing, blinking, color-changing, or exposed, bare or uncovered neon illumination or lighting; (b) the aggregate area of all such signs shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet; . . . . 21. 0 Commercial Districts - Generally 21.7 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS 21.7. 1 Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any structure except signs advertising sale or rental of the property shall be erected closer than thirty (30) feet to any public street right-of- way The applicant seeks a variance to increase the sign area for freestanding business signs from the maximum allowable area of one hundred (100) square feet to four hundred twenty-eight (428) square feet, to increase the sign area for wall signs from the maximum allowable area of two hundred (200) square feet to two thousand five hundred twenty-six (2526) square feet and to reduce the setback for the freestanding signs from the minimum requirement of thirty (30) feet to fifteen (15) feet. The applicant proposes to erect two (2) freestanding business signs having an aggregate area of four hundred twenty eight (428) square feet. One of the signs would serve as the shopping center STAFF REPORT - VA-88-57 Page 2 identification sign. This sign would have a sign area of one hundred twenty eight (128) square feet, eighty (80) square feet of which would give the names of the four "anchor" tenants (Phar-Mor, T.J. Maxx, Zayres and Hechingers) . The second freestanding sign would have sign area of three hundred (300) square feet and would identify only Hechingers. The Hechinger sign would be located approximately three hundred (300) feet south of the shopping center sign. In addition the applicant has requested a reduction of the setback for both freestanding signs from the required thirty (30) feet to fifteen (15) feet. The setback request for the shopping center sign is warranted due to its proximity to the stormwater detention area. The Hechinger sign can be located on the property without benefit of a setback variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals has granted variances to other businesses in the general vicinity which allowed an increase in sign area and a reduction in the required setback. The applicant also seeks an increase in the aggregate area of wall signs allowed from the maximum area of two hundred (200) square feet to two thousand five hundred twenty-six (2526) square feet. The applicant in his request has allocated the requested wall signage as follows: Total Tenant Number of Signs Square Footage Hechingers 3 520 Phar-Mor 1 300 T.J. Maxx 1 150 Zayres 1 440 31 smaller 36 square foot/each 1116 tenants 2526 In viewing the applicant's request, it does not appear that the allocation of wall signage has been given in a systematic manner except in the case of the thirty-one (31) smaller tenants. The staff is well aware that the Zoning Ordinance does not provide for adequate wall signage for property zoned PD-SC, however, the applicant's request is viewed as being excessive. In that the adequacy of the signs permitted in a PD-SC District is in STAFF REPORT - VA-88-57 Page 3 question, the Board of Zoning Appeals may be unable to entertain the applicant's request. The Zoning Ordinance states in Section 34 .2 that: "34. 0 Board of Zoning Appeals 34.2 Powers and Duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals No variance shall be authorized unless the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the condition or situation of the property concerned or the intended use of the property is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. " Recommendation: The staff offers the following recommendations: 1) that the applicant's request to increase the amount of sign area allowed for freestanding business signs be denied. The applicant has not demonstrated that hardship exists which would justify the requested increase. 2) that the setback reduction sought for the shopping center identification sign be granted due to that the stormwater detention area severly limits the area available for location of a freestanding sign. 3) that the setback reduction sought for the Hechinger free- standing be denied as there is adequate area to locate the sign without benefit of a variance. 4) that the Board of Zoning Appeals withhold action on the wall sign request in that the wall signage allowed for the PD-SC District in general should be amended, as the applicant's difficulty is not germane to this location only.