Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000001 Action Letter 1990-02-15 - _ r o*81 jl�iM� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 February 15, 1990 James R. Hahn HC-01 Box 82 Earlysville, VA 22936 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-90-01, Tax Map 32 , Parcel 48 Dear Mr. Hahn: This letter is to inform you that on February 13 , 1990, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board approved your request for VA-90-01 subject to the condition that if the road was widened and required relocation of the sign, that the sign would be relocated at owner's expense. This variance approval allows relief from Section 21.7. 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow a freestanding sign to be located 1 foot off of the future right-of-way, (15 feet off of the existing right-of-way) , a variance of 29 feet (a variance of 15 feet) . Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, WPI elia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/st cc: VA-90-01 Inspections Department PUBLIC HEARING: February 13, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-01 STAFF: Kathy B. Dodson OWNER/APPLICANT: James R. Hahn TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32/48 ZONING: CO, Commercial Office ACREAGE: 1. 540 acres LOCATION: South side of Route 649 (Airport Rd. ) , +/- . 1 mile southeast of its intersection with Rt. 606 (Also known as Airport Office Center) REQUEST: The applicant seeks a variance from Section 21.7. 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow a freestanding business sign to be located 1 foot off of the future right-of- way, (15 feet off of the existing right-of-way) ; a variance of 29 feet (a variance of 15 feet) . This section states: "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. . . . " 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: On May 11, 1989, the site plan (SDP-89-007) was approved for the Airport Office Center. This plan allows the construction of two (2) office buildings, the first of which is currently under construction. All proposed parking and buildings comply with required setbacks from the future right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION: Property adjacent to the west is property owned by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and is currently being used for a parking lot. Across Route 649, the property is zoned LI, Light Industry. Immediately adjacent to the east and to the rear of this parcel is property zoned R-1, residential (Deerwood Subdivision) . The proposed sign will be a 32 square foot (8' x 4' ) free- standing, illuminated pylon. This sign will be less in size than the maximum allowed of 50 square feet. The sign will be brown with white lettering and will serve as a menu type sign representing both office buildings. In staff's opinion the location requested will not impair sight distance. Staff Report - VA-90-01 Page 2 The Comprehensive Plan and the Six Year Secondary Road Plan propose alignment improvements and widening of Airport Road from Route 29 North to the Airport. Future right-of-way will include 14 feet along this property frontage. If the required setback were measured from the existing right-of-way, the sign would be located in the middle of the parking lot. However, if the required setback is measured from the proposed right-of-way, the sign could be easily located on an existing planting island. At this location the sign could be adequately viewed coming from the west. Because of existing vegetation, the 40 mph speed limit and the rise in the property coming from the east, the sign could not be seen until you were directly in front of the building. It is staff's opinion that 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. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce hardship; 2 . The applicant has not provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. Should the Board of Zoning Appeals find just cause to grant the variance, the following condition should be considered: 1. Should Route 649 be widened in the future, the sign must be relocated at the owner's expense.