Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000063 Action Letter 1990-11-13 yur' "\ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 November 14 , 1990 Andrew MacFarlan, MD Earlysville Family Health Center, Inc. Rts 743 and 660 Earlysville, VA 22936 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 31B, Parcel Cl Dear Dr. MacFarlan: This letter is to inform you that on November 13 , 1990, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board approved your request for VA-90-63 , subject to the following conditions: 1. Sign to be completed within 6 months, and 2 . Only ONE sign to be allowed on the highway. This variance approval allows relief from Section 4 . 15 . 3 . 5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow two identification signs, and to incease the area of one identification sign from 2 to 16 square feet, and another from 2 to 9 square feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sinc rely, L7Ac-c141 John Grady Deputy Zoning Administrator JG/sp cc: S-90-19 O r® 1W01- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 August 13 , 1990 D. Andrew Macfarlan, M. D. Earlysville Family Health Center, Inc. Rts. 743 and 660 Earlysville, VA 22936 Re: Signage for Earlysville Forest Parcel C Commercial Dear Dr. Macfarlan, ThanKyou for your letter of July 10th, which evidences careful consideration of staff and Board of Zoning Appeals's comments and concerns. I also appreciate your patience for this matter of importance to the establishments within your building. I had hoped to reach a compromise at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting by requesting a rehearing. In retrospect, it appears most appropriate to do as you have done.. I enclose a variance schedule and application for processing your current proposal. Your proposal is sufficiently revised so as to warrant a new variance request. I have discussed your letter with Mr. Grady, Deputy Zoning Administrator. It is our tentative opinion that we could support your new variance. You have clearly responded to our requests for a lower, smaller sign with generic subtitles. Your interior and wall signage is also mostly consistent with our intended sign ordinance. If you would fill out the basic information on the application and return it with the new fee, we will attach your letter and fill out the details. We will schedule it as it works into the attached schedule. Due to our delay in response to your letter, I will consider expediting it as time and the Code requirements for notification allow. D. Andrew Macfarlan, M.D. August 13 , 1990 Page 2 Let me again thank you for you compromise. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Ame is M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/st cc: File (Tax Map, 31B, Parcel C) Enclosures STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: November 13 , 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-63 OWNER/APPLICANT: Earlysville Family Health Center, Inc. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 31B/C1 ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development ACREAGE: . 865 acres LOCATION: Located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Route 743 and Earlysville Forest Drive. REQUEST: The applicant request relief from Section 4 . 15. 3 . 5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "4 . 15. 3 Permitted Signs 4 . 15. 3 . 5 Residential (R-10 and R-15) ; Planned Residential Development (PRD) ; and Planned Unit Development (PUD) . Identification signs: Provided: not more than 2 square feet in area. The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the area of identification signs from 2 square feet to 16 square; a variance of 14 square feet. Applicant's justification includes: 1. A sign is needed to help patients and clients find the office. 2 . We pay full commercial development rates on the building and feel we should be able to have signage comparable to other professional office centers not zoned PUD. 3 . Regular commercial zoning would allow us significantly more square footage than out proposed sign. 4 . Despite the PUD zoning we have a large 6, 000 square feet commercial building with 3 physicians, a dentist and family counselor. 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: . Page 2 Staff Report - VA-90-63 September 28, 1983, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved VA-83-67 which allowed a 9 square foot identification sign to placed on the property, a size variance of 7 square feet. A variance was also granted under VA-83-67 to reduce the setback requirement from 80 feet to 60 feet. The applicant in this case has received administrative approval from the Director of Planning for the sign to be located 1 foot from the right-of-way line of Route 743 . This eliminates the need for a setback variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals in this case. This determination by the Planning Director per Section 8. 5. 6. 3 of general accord with the application plan, will be noted for the Board of Supervisors by memo. July 10, 1990, the applicant was denied a variance for a 28 square foot sign at the proposed location. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board of Zoning Appeals is aware, Zoning staff is reviewing and rewriting the County sign regulations. The current proposal by the applicant of 16 square feet of identification signage on Route 743 is within the limits of the 32 square feet that is being recommended for the new sign regulations. The proposed sign would be constructed of wood, with white lettering on a green background. The sign composition is compatible with the rural village setting. Under the administrative authority the Planned Unit Developments, the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the sign's location. Therefore, the setback is not at issue here, only the size. The applicant (Dr. MacFarland) has reduced the area of the identification on (2) two occasion to be more in line with proposed county regulations and more in tune with the natural setting of the residential area. As the applicant's current request does meet the requirements of the new regulations should they be approved. Staff recommends approval for cause. 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 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.