Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198800081 Action Letter 1989-01-13 'AI R�ZJ Chi py,�� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 January 13, 1989 Greenbrier Square Ltd. Partnership c/o James B. Murray, Jr. P. O. Box 1465 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-88-81, Tax Map 61W, Parcel 01-A5 Dear Mr. Murray: This letter is to inform you that on January 10, 1989, during the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board heard your application for VA-88-81. 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 five hundred (500) square feet subject to only one sign per tenant not greater than 35 square feet and that the maximum signage be limited to 300 square feet over what is permitted by the ordinance. 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 $19 . 04 . If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Charles W. Burgess, Jr. Zoning Administrator CWBJr/st cc: VA-88-81 Reading File STAFF REPORT - VA-88-81 APPLICANT: Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61W/01-A-50 ZONING: Highway Commercial (HC) LOCATION: Located on the north side of Greenbrier Drive, +/- . 1 mile west of its intersection with Rt. 29 The applicant seeks a variance from section 4. 15. 3 .7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. This section states: "4. 15. 3 .7 Highway Commercial (HC) ; Planned Development-Shopping Center (PD-SC) ; and Planned Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) , 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; (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. " The applicant wishes to increase the total wall signage from (200) square feet to 575 square feet, which requires a variance of 375 square feet. The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a comparable variance for 650 square feet of wall signage in 1986 (VA-86-29) , but did indicate that they would certainly review another application in the future if it were more specific in numbers of tenants (businesses) , and sign numbers and sizes. The 1988 variance is more specific in that it assumes the need for 8 additional signs ranging in size from 25 to 45 square feet. The fact is that this request is only 75 square feet less than the 1986 request of 650 square feet. In viewing the site, the staff is of the opinion that some of the proposed signage will not be visible from the road (Greenbrier Drive) , but only to the adjacent businesses such as Flowers Baking Company and Super Eight Motel. Giving that consideration of signs not being visible from the public road, the staff finds that such a large amount of signage is not warranted for the site in such a case. The staff believes that 18 to 25 square feet per each of the possible 8 tenants is an acceptable level of identification. Staff Report - VA-88-81 Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership Page 2 RECOMMENDATION 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 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 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.