HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100019 Correspondence 1991-06-11 1
The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals held a regular
meeting on Tuesday, June 11, 1991 . Board members present
were Max C. Kennedy, Chairman; Carl Van Fossen; Richard
Cogan, and William Rennolds. George Bailey disqualified
himself due to a conflict of interest and removed himself
from the discussion and the room.
Mr. Kennedy: VA-91-19 , First Virginia Bank.
Mr. Bailey: Mr. Chairman I am going to have to leave due to
a conflict of interest.
Mrs . Patterson: At last month' s BZA meeting this item was
discussed and deferred to allow us to go out and visit the
site, and I don' t think it worthwhile to read through the
whole report again. Do you want me to recap the variances
or do you all feel that you are ready to begin discussion on
it?
Mr. Rennolds: That is not necessary.
Mr. Kennedy: I don' t think that is necessary either. I
have not heard anybody say that it was. I just want to let
the record show that Mr. Bailey has removed himself from the
room and the discussion because he feels like he has a
conflict of interest. We 've had our public hearing and we
have had our site visit, and the matter is before the Board.
I might ask the public if there is anyone here to speak on
First Virginia Bank that did not have an opportunity to
speak. Are you here to speak on this?
Dick Gibson: Yes , sir. I understand that it has been
addressed before, but we would just like to make a few brief
comments . I have here Mr. Joe Coulson who is the sign
expert and he has some information that he would like to
present, and then Chip Hayes is the President of the Bank
and he is just going to say a few words if that is alright.
Mr. Kennedy: O.K. Fair enough.
Mr. Gibson: I guess we' re really going from the quietest
and most comfortable part of the County that you all just
talked about to one of the busiest. I think maybe just to
orient you just for a moment I would like for Mr. Coulson to
show you exactly what it is that we are talking about and
take a couple of photographs which I feel will speed the
process up a little bit. Mr. Coulson would you like to come
forward.
7
sign is, that sign is 36 square feet that is really up about
2 feet higher than it really would be. If you will notice
the color rendering behind you, there is a trim piece at the
top of the sign that extends on up to the 16 feet, 9 inches ,
whatever the height is. So the actually readability, that
red section of the sign, is down lower than that and the
construction foreman raised the sign its full height so we
are really a couple feet higher, a couple of feet than it
should be.
Mr. Kennedy: You mean the sign that you have there now is a
foot and a half higher than what your sign is going to be.
Mr. Coulson: The one that we put up, or the mark up that we
put up to take a look at is a little bit higher than it
really will be. You know the trim piece will not be there.
Mr. Kennedy: There seems to be some concern about the
border and I want to make that point clear. The actual sign
that you are going to install is going to be lower than the
ones out there.
Mr. Chip Hayes: Yes, sir. A foot and a half lower.
Mr. Coulson: But the point that I am concerned about is the
smallness of the sign. Now we' ve asked for this sign that
is a smaller version of a standard sign and we've already
built the sign for the bank. From this distance back you
are not going to be able to read this copy. There are nine
inch letters on that sign, even the 36 square foot sign. So
what I am getting at is that we have also asked for signage
on the rear of the building that is visible over here. It
is more visible from this road than the freestanding sign.
So that is a reason that we would like to have that variance
because we need it. We think that the traveling public that
is looking for this business and trying to find this place
that it actually is not on Route 29 , it is 200 feet back
from it down a hill. So the fact that we have asked for
signage on the rear of the building is our justification to
give these folks time enough to get into this turn lane to
get over here and get to the bank. Just to take these
pictures I was taking my life in my hands just trying to
cross this road. So someone trying to make a left turn
ought to be given as much latitude as they can.
Mr. Kennedy: Show us on that. I think that we are familiar
with it, but just to make certain, show us on that sketch up
there where the wall sign will be.
Mr. Coulson: Back here. I took those pictures about down
here and you can see this better than you can see this. And
this is dropping down and if they park some big trucks here
they won' t even be able to see that as far as that is
dropping on down. That gives us a certain visibility down
in here.
5
really a contentious subject, but the one that was really
the key issue was one of ingress and egress to the site, and
to resolve that issue really in the spirit of compromise
between VDOT, the County Staff, and the bank was by agreeing
to build a third traffic lane on the north side of Proffit.
That is kind of the little bit of yellow shading. We are
building a third lane there; and in return for that the
staff agreed to compromise their position and to allow us an
exit only onto Proffit Road, and that was the issue that
really absorbed much of that time between October of 1989
and May of 1990 . So we had all of the preliminary site plan
approvals and the special use permit for a drive-in facility
on May 16 , 1990 . The final sign off on our site plan by the
five staff departments took place on January the 10th of
1991 . And it is that period between May the 16th of 1990
and January 10th of 1991 where we believe that we incurred a
hardship. And very specifically on October the 13th I am
told that the Entrance Corridor Overlay came into effect and
we were not grandfathered. We became subject to these
rules . Had we applied for our sign permit, had we known
that we would have been subject to these, quite obviously
starting in early 1989 we would have done everything within
our power to apply for the sign and I believe other than the
setback have every reason to believe that everything else
would have been approved because it was by right. But we
were not aware of this. I was not and this was my project
so I take personal responsibility for this . I was not aware
of this and we moved along contacting the staff departments.
I believe we received final approval from the last depart-
ment in December of 1990 , and then as I say in January on
the 10th everyone signed off. It has taken almost two
years, almost 2 and a half years from the date that we
decided to buy the property to actually get where we are
today. So we do believe that we do have a hardship out here
and we also believe that what we are asking for, at least of
course in our eyes, is fair and reasonable. We think that
what we are asking for is not out of character with our
immediate surroundings. Our competitor across the street
has essentially what we are asking for. Our neighbors,
Reliant Trucks, and businesses to the south have in some
cases what we are asking for and in some cases more. And so
we would ask you respectfully to take into consideration the
hardship of time when you consider our request.
Mr. Kennedy: I have a quick question. You are entitled to
two freestanding signs aren' t you.
Mr. Yates : Right.
Mr. Kennedy: One to face Route 29 and one to face Rio Road.
Mr. Yates : Proffit Road.
Mr. Kennedy: Proffit Road. So that you only want one, but
with the variance as to distance.
7
wanted to as a matter of right with the exception of set-
back. And of course the setback here we are not talking
about a structure, we are talking about a sign and there is
a big difference there. So we really find ourselves that we
have a hardship by the virtue of the enactment of this thing
while we were in the administrative process. And we also
have a hardship by virtue of the topography of the site and
the approaches to it, especially as you see from the photo-
graphs if you are coming from the south heading north really
if you put that thing back any further or had it any smaller
you would lose any opportunity to identify this as a bank
until you are right on top of it. So then it becomes sort
of a safety thing. All the bank wants to do is just to let
the customers know and others that are coming to the bank
know in a sufficient amount of time in advance to be able to
make their lane change decisions and get over there and get
into the bank. I don' t think that the bank is asking for a
whole lot, and again the pictures are worth a thousand
words. I
mean if you look at the picture the bank is not trying to be
the biggest sign there and is not trying to be the closest
sign to the road or anything of that sort. I think that the
sign fits in well with the other signs that are out there.
And I submit there is a hardship created both by the topog-
raphy and the enactment of this Entrance Corridor Overlay,
and I submit that staff agrees that there is a hardship and
that in the staff report they do indicate that there is a
hardship. I don' t know quite if you identify this as a
hardship or not, but it is also acknowledged in the staff
report that there is sort of a difficult situation here as
far as dealing with this entrance corridor. It says in the
staff ' s report, "it is also necessary to emphasize the
impracticalities of the current sign regulations within the
entrance corridor. It is not practical to apply the same
regulations to predominantly rural highways which are not
zoned for development and primary and secondary urban routes
which are zoned for development. " So there is an acknowl-
edgement right there that you've got a law that was enacted
after we were in the administrative process which in itself
has problems with it that don' t provide the solutions for
this type of use. I am not sure if that rises to the level
of a hardship, but it certainly puts us in yet another
administrative quagmire. As far as whether this hardship is
shared by others, I submit again that the photograph there
is worth a thousand words. The others don' t have the same
topography. They don' t have the same problem with the
approach especially from the south. The buildings them-
selves are closer to the road and so they have the visibili-
ty and they have the sign that have the ability for others
that are approaching to see who they are and where they are.
That is not shared by the others . As far as whether it is a
substantial detriment to the adjacent property. This is
commercial property and the picture there again is worth a
thousand words. I mean it fits right in and it doesn' t
create any negative impact whatsoever. So I would submit
9
Mr. Cogan: Thirty feet, whatever is required by the ordi-
nance. Which is thirty feet.
Mr. Rennolds : There is no varying.
Mr. Kennedy: The closest that they could get would be
thirty feet.
Mr. Cogan: I would not recommend a granting of any variance
from Proffit Road other than the normal setback which was
thirty feet. That doesn' t stand anything to gain. The
maximum height, I think that 10 feet is sufficient. It will
be seen. If it is a 36 square foot sign, it would be seen
at 10 feet. 1 see no hardship whatsoever involving the
extra wall sign and I just can' t apply that justifiably to
any of the criteria, so I don' t see any need to grant a
variance for an extra wall sign. But I would grant the
variance for the ATM sign because I think that this is
defined by the applicant that you need to know what to do
when you get there, and I don' t think that it is a big issue
anyway.
Mr. Rennolds: I would like to ask him again. Why the wall
sign?
Mr. Cogan: Well I don' t know why, but I am not concerned
about that because I don' t see any hardship there.
Mr. Kennedy: The evidence was that the extra wall sign was
so that it could be seen by the traffic coming from the
north to the south because you couldn' t see the freestanding
sign.
Mr. Cogan: Well you are going to see it now.
Mr. Rennolds: Well he can see the freestanding sign if he
moves it back thirty feet he will.
Mr. Cogan: If he moves it within 10 feet of the
right-of-way.
Mr. Kennedy: But that is why they said that they wanted it.
Mr. Cogan: Well if you move it within 10 feet of U.S. 29
rightof-way you will definitely see it.
Mr. Rennolds: Yes, especially thirty feet off of Proffit
Road you will see it even better I would think.
Mr. Cogan: Well anyway, that' s my analysis of the whole
thing.
Mr. Kennedy: Any other discussion?
11
Mr. Cogan: If that is fine with you then that is fine. As
long as it complies with the ordinance I have no objections ,
and I do concur with the addition of the ATM sign.
Mr. Kennedy: Well we won' t address the wall sign if it is
not a request for a variance.
Ms. Patterson: It is our opinion that the ATM sign is a
sign making the third wall sign. Now this Board may not
agree.
Mr. Rennolds: That is the ATM sign, right.
Mr. Kennedy: That was confusing to me a little bit.
Mr. Cogan: It was confusing to me, too, but I go along with
the addition of the ATM sign. I would recommend it.
Ms. Patterson: It is a necessity sign more than anything
else.
Mr. Rennolds: That is the one that is under cover. O.K.
Mr. Cogan: Yes.
Mr. Kennedy: Any other discussion? Well somebody frame a
motion then.
Mr. Rennolds: How about putting all of that, you've got the
notes.
Mr. Cogan: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we grant the
variances for VA-91-19 , that we permit a freestanding sign
to contain 36 square feet per side, that we permit the
freestanding sign to be placed at 10 feet from the highway
right-of-way of Route 29 , and that we also permit the ATM
sign, and that all other requests for variances be denied.
Mr. Rennolds : And thirty feet back from the Proffit Road,
that is not variance.
Mr. Cogan: I am just about to say. I am not going to.
Mr. Kennedy: They can put it anywhere they want to back
there.
Mr. Cogan: And any other requests for variance other than
those that I 've addressed I would deny. But I would concur
with those three.
Mr. Kennedy: Any second.
Mr. Van Fossen: I would second the motion. I did not have
the benefit of going when you all made the trip there. I
went out on my own. And they are entitled to the two wall