Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900081 Action Letter 1989-09-21 gyp+ALg�, C� r at vtirtsv- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 September 21, 1989 Farmer, Cox, Huff Associates Partnership P. O. Box 6580 Charlottesville, VA 22906 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-89-81, Tax Map 61W, Parcel 02-05 Dear Sirs: This letter is to inform you that on September 19, 1989, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, your application for VA-89-81 was approved with the condition that the size of the sign be no larger than 23 square feet. This variance approval allows relief from Section 21.7 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow a freestanding sign to be located 6 feet from the right-of-way, a variance of 24 feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, rY\ PojkPre Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/st cc: Inspections Dept. VA-89-81 S-89-70 STAFF PERSON: Amelia M. Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: September 19 , 1989 STAFF REPORT - VA-89-81 OWNER/APPLICANT: Farmer, Cox, Huff Associates Partnership TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61W-2C-5 ZONING: Cl, Commercial ACREAGE: 0. 524 acres LOCATION: At 530 Westfield Road, off the east side of Route 29 North and adjacent to Mint Printing REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 21.7 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "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 requests a reduction of the setback from the right-of-way for a freestanding business sign from 30 feet to 6 feet, a variance of 24 feet. The sign (3 feet x 7 feet x 8 inches) will be constructed of wood, and total 23 square feet. RELEVANT HISTORY: Staff recognizes that each variance is reviewed on its own merits,and is not on its face, precedent-setting. The following history is provided for information: The adjacent property to the west, Mint Printing and Supply re- ceived approval of a sign variance. This was to allow a 16 square foot sign to be located 15 feet from the right-of-way, a variance of 15 feet. A variance was approved on this property previously (VA 75-17) , conditioned to that applicant only. VA 87-47 was approved for the Exxon Station of the northeast corner of Route 29 and Westfield Road. It permitted a free-standing sign to be located 1 foot from the right-of-way and 70 square feet (20 square feet additional) in area. Page 2 Staff Report - VA 89-81 RECOMMENDATION This property is relatively level, and is several feet below the grade of Mint Printing's property. It is located before the curve in Westfield Road. Travellers from Route 29 (to the west) will have a limited visibility of a free-standing sign, due to the existing development of this and the adjacent property and due to parking on-street on Westfield Road. Cars parked in front of Mint Printing partially obstruct the visibility of this property's front yard, due to the grade difference and the non-conforming parking setback. Room for freestanding signage which meets the required setback is limited. There is a small area which is primarily comprised of landscaping in front of the building. At that location, it would be most practical to erect it on this building wall . Free- standing signage on either side of the building would be limited in visibility and effectiveness. Staff is not aware why a free-standing sign is desired and not a wall sign, which could be more visible. We would note, however, that many businesses in this area utilize free-standing signs in the same general vicinity as the one proposed. Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hard- ship. This hardship is primarily due to extraordinary situation of this and the adjacent properties; 2 . The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; 3 . The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance.