HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100035 Action Letter 1991-10-09 of AL„,,1/
c` �r
J ® JV
�712G1N��
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
October 9 , 1991
Gary Edgecomb
Rt 2 , Box 267
Gordonsville, VA 22942
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
Edgecombe's Imported Auto Sales/Service
Tax Map 77, Parcel 8A
Dear Mr. Edgecomb:
This letter is to inform you that on October 08, 1991, during the
meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board
unanimously approved your request for VA-91-35, subject the
following conditions:
1. Sign area shall be limited to 24 square feet.
2 . Landscaping to shield ground lights shall be approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
3 . Variance 91-35 shall be limited to two (2) ground flood
lights that shall not exceed 150 watts total.
This variance approval allows relief from Sections 30. 6. 5 . 2 (b) and
26 . 10. 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to increase the
area of a freestanding sign from 18 to 24 square feet and to
reduce the front yard setback from 50 feet to one (1) foot for
construction of a business sign.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
John Grady
Deputy Zoning Administrator
JG/sp
STAFF PERSON: John Grady
PUBLIC HEARING: October 8, 1991
STAFF REPORT - VA-91-35
OWNER/APPLICANT: Edgecomb Imported Auto (owner)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 77/8A
ZONING: Highway Commercial
ACREAGE: 1. 7 acre
LOCATION: Property located at the southwest quadrant of
Route 742 , Avon Street Extended and Route 1101.
REQUEST:
The applicant requests relief from Section 21.7. 1 and 30. 6. 5.2 (b)
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes the location of one (1) freestanding sign
to identify the site. Proposed sign is as follows:
One freestanding sign 10 feet in height with 24 square
feet of sign area to be located 1 foot from the right-of-way
of Route 742 . Sign material will be wood. Color will be brown
with routed gold letters. Lighting will be ground flood
lights and screened from Route 742 by shrubs.
The request involves variances of the underlying district and of
the entrance corridor sign regulations as follows:
I. Underlying District - Commercial Districts Generally
(Section 21.7 . 1)
A. Freestanding Signs
1. To reduce the setback adjacent to public streets for
freestanding signs from 30 feet to 1 foot from the
Route 742 right-of-way. A variance of 29 feet.
II. Entrance Corridor Signage (Section 30. 6.5. 2)
A. Freestanding Sign
1. To increase the area of a freestanding sign from 18
square feet to 24 square feet. A variance of 06
square feet.
The applicant's justification includes:
1. The dealership is located on top of a knoll and southbound
traffic will have passed the entrance to the site before
recognizing an identification sign located 50 feet from the
right-of-way.
Staff Report - VA-91-35
Page 2
2 . The site identification for southbound traffic is important
because we estimate that over 80% of our business will come
from the city.
3 . Proper site identification is essential to allow traffic the
time to slow down and make a proper turning decision.
4 . An 18 square foot sign seems somewhat small and will be hard to
see from a distance to allow proper deceleration for a road
with a 45 miles per hour speed limit.
5. The required landscaping further reduces the sign visibility.
6. Such sign position and size would not be inconsistent with
other business signs in the area.
7 . The 24 square foot request is 76 square feet smaller than what
would normally be allowed by the underlying district.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is in agreement with the applicant that the high embankment
on the adjoining site (Astec Corp. ) and being located on top of a
knoll presents visibility hardship based on topography. This
hardship is not shared by other properties along Route 742, as the
road and land south of Mr. Edgecomb's property are straight and
level. It is also apparent that Mr. Edgecomb's request would not
change the character of the district nor be of detriment to
adjacent property. Other signs along Route 742 such as Self
Storage and City Yard, are as large or larger than what is
requested by the applicant. Staff is also in agreement with the
applicant that the proposed location of the sign would offer
prospective clients the earliest form of site identification and
thus a better reaction time to slow down and move into the decel
lane. However, the applicant has not provided evidence that the
strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause.
Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the
following:
1) Sign area shall be limited to 24 square feet.
2) Landscaping to shield ground lights shall be approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
3 . Variance 91-35 shall be limited to 2 ground flood lights that
shall not exceed J,6'61 watt each.
/ J1
Oy:"J A
L' 4i
4 L
171tGIN�,.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator
FROM: Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning
DATE: September 24, 1991
RE: Variances - BZA Agenda of October 8 , 1991
BZA Agenda of October 10, 1991
These comments are offered without field review or
discussion with the various applicants. NOTE: All five
petitions for October 8, 1991 are along EC roadways.
1. VA-91-35 Edgecomb Imported Auto; VA-91-37 Paul R.
Opiela - Both petitions seek variances to reduce
setback and increase size for signs along EC roadways.
If a sign cannot be seen at the setback, then a
variance is in order. However, to allow a sign to be
closer and bigger would seem to grant special
competitive advantage not enjoyed by those who comply
with regulations. To the contrary, it would seem
appropriate where setback is reduced that sign area
should be reduced.
Granting of such variances can also be deleterious to
the Board of Supervisor' s intent to maintain some
dignity of design along Entrance Corridors. Variances
of this nature abrogate ARB review at least to an
extent. /lu'1'
2 . VA-91-41 River Heights Associates - Variance to reduce
number of required parking spaces from 174 spaces to
138 spaces. Parking regulations can be complied with
by reducing building area and therefore no hardship
exists. Section 4 . 12 . 1 PURPOSE of the parking
regulations states in part that "development proposals
Amelia Patterson
Page 2
September 24, 1991
which seek to maximize building area or otherwise
intensify development to the extent that these minimum
regulations are not satisfied shall be deemed to be
contrary to the purpose of this ordinance. " Initial
Site Review comments included 21 items from Planning to
be address including:
It appears the plan attempts to maximize the
development of this site compromising good site design
as the plan necessitates variances, parking waivers,
grading waivers, grading easements, and the utilization
of a 480 foot retaining wall to allow the construction
of a parking lot with circulation conflicts and a
deficient landscape plan. It is recommended that the
building be scaled back to allow a reduction of parking
spaces providing more area for landscaping and improved
traffic circulation (particularly where the loading
spaces conflict with the travelway at the northern end
of the site. °
The applicant' s justification states in part that "the
retail center' s multiple uses would surely be used
similar to a shopping center and this interpretation
would be more consistent with previous determinations
of parking requirements for buildings of similar
design" (underlining added) . This request has been
filed as a variance as opposed to an appeal for an
interpretation. In 1988 , the Board of Supervisors
amended the shopping center parking standard to clarify
that is available only to land zoned PD-SC:
Shopping Center (Planned Development - Shopping Center
District Only) : Five and one half (5 1/2) spaces per
each one thousand (1, 000) square feet of gross leasable
floor area. (Amended 7-20-88) .
In the review of the Rio Hills Shopping Center rezoning
staff stated that:
Benefits to the applicant in seeking PD-SC zoning
include:
o A more favorable floor area-to-parking standard; and
o A broader range of commercial uses
Benefits to the general public derive from the
opportunity to address the proposed development in
broader terms than are realized under conventional
zoning and site plan reviews.
Amelia Patterson
Page 3
September 24, 1991
Therefore, through this variance request the applicant
seeks a benefit of PD-SC zoning, but does not offer any
benefits to the general public as could be occasioned
through the planned development rezoning process. In
summary, the request appears to be:
-not based on any discernible hardship but solely to
allow overdevelopment of the site as defined in
Section 4 . 12 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance and evidenced
by the Site Review comments;
-inappropriate since the property is not zoned PD-SC
and the Board of Supervisors intent is that this
parking standard be made available solely to PD-SC
properties as evidenced by the language of the
ordinance;
-contrary to the intent of the Board of Supervisors
that some public benefit be realized (thorough the
PD-SC process) in order to avail a development of the
parking standard. No public benefit has been
identified or perceived.
RSK/jcw