HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100051 Action Letter 1991-12-16 ifikl.RF,t
llllf ��
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
December 16, 1991
Riverbend Limited Partnership
c/o Don Wagner
P. O. Box 5526
Charlottesville, VA 22905-0526
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
Shopping Center Sign
Tax Map 78 , Parcel 17D6
Dear Mr. Wagner:
This letter is to inform you that on December 10, 1991, during the
meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board
approved your request for VA-91-51, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The sign color and size of the copy shall be subject to
Architectural Review.
2 . Provide a landscaping plan for the area around the base of
the sign. This plan shall be approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
This variance approval allows relief from Sections 21. 7 . 1 and
30. 6. 5. 2 (B) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to increase
the height of a non-conforming sign from 26 feet to 27 feet-4
inches and to reduce the front setback for same from 16 feet to 13
feet-6 inches.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
o_ofmr... 741*
John Grady
Deputy Zoning Administrator
JG/sp
Variance VA-91-51
Riverbend Limited Partnership
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY that the variances sought by the applicant in the above-
captioned case, to wit: to reduce the front setback for an
existing sign from 16 feet to 12 feet from the right of way of U.S.
Route 250 and to increase the height of same from 26 feet to 27
feet, 4 inches, BE, AND THEY ARE HEREBY, GRANTED, subject to the
following conditions:
( 1) Design, color and materials of modifications to sign
shall be subject to Architectural Review as provided in
the ordinance.
(2 ) Provide a landscaping plan for the area around the base
of the sign. This plan shall be approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
In support whereof, the Board hereby finds that, by reason of
extraordinary conditions of the property in question, the strict
application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably
restrict the utilization of the property; that the variances hereby
granted will be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of
the ordinance; and, more particularly:
(a) That the strict application of the ordinance would
produce undue hardship.
(b) That such hardship is not shared generally by other
properties in the same zoning district and the same
vicinity.
(c) That the authorization of such variances 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 variances.
STAFF PERSON: John Grady
PUBLIC HEARING: December 10, 1991
STAFF REPORT - VA-91-51
OWNER/APPLICANT: Riverbend Limited Partnership (owner)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78/17D6
ZONING: Planned Development Shopping Center and
Entrance Corridor
ACREAGE: 1. 037 acre
LOCATION: On the south side of Route 250 East
approximately 600 feet east of the Rivanna
River Bridge.
REQUEST:
The applicant requests relief from Sections 21. 7 . 1 and 30 . 6 . 5. 2 (b)
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which state:
"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. " . . .
"30. 6. 5. 2 (b) Freestanding business and projecting business
signs shall be limited to ten (10) feet in height
above grade, " . . .
The applicant requests variances to: (1) Reduce the front setback
for an existing sign from 16 feet to 13 . 6 feet from the
right-of-way of Route 250, and (2) to increase the height of same
from 26 feet to 27 feet 4 inches. The applicant's proposal is to
encompass the existing sign with a brick frame design that matches
the shopping center exterior.
The applicant's justification includes the following:
1) The variance would allow the applicant to approve the
appearance of the existing sign.
2) The proposed height would still fall below the 30 feet allowed
in the underlying district.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
The existing sign was established in 1983 . The recent acquisition
of additional right-of-way along Route 250 by the Virginia
Department of Transportation and the adoption of the Entrance
Corridor Overlay District has placed the existing sign in a
non-conforming status for its height, size and setback. The
applicant's sign did meet the 30 foot setback requirement when
built.
Staff Report - VA-91-51
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
It is staff's opinion that non-conforming signs that are restored
or replaced should conform to the current regulations or at least
be substantially less non-conforming. It has consistently been
staff's goal to bring non-conforming signs into a more conforming
status. Such examples are 1) the replacement of wall signs and
the reduction of size at the Albemarle Square Shopping Center, 2)
the replacement and reduction of size of freestanding signs at Ivy
Commons, 3) the replacement and reduction of size of freestanding
sign at the Christian Aid Mission.
Staff could agree with the applicant that the addition of brick
would help the appearance of the sign, but only if the sign is to
be reduced in height and sign area. While it is true that the
brick facing does not add copy area to the sign it will clearly
make the sign more visible by increasing its width and height.
In fact, it is arguable that this additional area should be
calculated as sign area because it is not structural, but
ornamental. It is also staff's opinion that the applicant does
not meet any of the criteria listed below for approval of
variance.
Staff recommends denial for cause:
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict
application of the ordinance would produce undue 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;
3 . The applicant has not 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.
Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the
following conditions:
1. The sign shall be lowered in height to not exceed eighteen
(18) feet. (This is 50% more conforming. )
2 . The sign shall be revised to present less information. It
shall name the development only.
3 . The sign color and size of the copy shall be subject to
Architectural Review.
Staff Report - VA-91-51
Page 3
4 . All banners shall be removed. This sign shall not be used for
the placement of temporary banners.
5. Provide a landscaping plan for the area around the base of the
sign. This plan shall be approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
c /J6'fi
OIIIIJ`
may
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
November 14 , 1991
Riverbend Limited Partnership
P. 0. Box 5526
Charlottesville, VA 22905-0526
RE: ARB-F(SIGN) -91-41
Certificate of Appropriateness
Dear Mr. Wagner:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board at is meeting on
Monday, November 11, 1991, voted unanimously to deny the
above-noted sign request.
To conform to the Architectural Review Board suggestions the sign
must:
1) Be lowered to 10 feet in height.
2) Present less information.
3) Maintain consistency in color and size of sign copy.
4) Be void of all banners.
5) Receive written approval from the existing landowner to
construct the sign within the proposed area.
The Architectural Review Board would also suggest that:
6) A brick structure would be acceptable if proposed height is
10 feet or less.
7) Vegetation be proposed around the sign.
If you have questions do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely
Mar is ph
Design Planner
MJ/sp
ARB-F(Sign) -92-4.. /erbend Limited Partners.,
Request for Certil..cate of Appropriateness o, tax map 78, parcel
17D6, zoned PD-SC. The applicant proposes to provide a uniform
color and landscaping for the base of the existing Pantops sign.
(See the attached copy of the staff report. )
Don Wagner, of Great Eastern Management, was present to speak for
Riverbend Limited Partnership. He stated that the variance was
approved subject to this Board approving the color and that staff
approve the landscaping. He stated that a gentleman from Roses was
also present.
Mr. Porter moved to accept the proposal for white on red and to
grant the certificate of appropriateness based as the conditions
recommended by staff as follows:
1) The sign color be red background with white lettering.
2) Landscaping around base of the sign to include the plant
materials and location as described in the staff report subject
to staff's approval of the plan.
Mr. Kessler seconded the motion, which was unanimous.
°— DIY
r �
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
November 14, 1991
Riverbend Limited Partnership
P. 0. Box 5526
Charlottesville, VA 22905-0526
RE: ARB-F(SIGN) -91-41
Certificate of Appropriateness
Dear Mr. Wagner:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board at is meeting on
Monday, November 11, 1991, voted unanimously to deny the
above-noted sign request.
To conform to the Architectural Review Board suggestions the sign
must:
1) Be lowered to 10 feet in height.
2) Present less information.
3) Maintain consistency in color and size of sign copy.
4) Be void of all banners.
5) Receive written approval from the existing landowner to
construct the sign within the proposed area.
The Architectural Review Board would also suggest that:
6) A brick structure would be acceptable if proposed height is
10 feet or less.
7) Vegetation be proposed around the sign.
If you have questions do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely
Mar is ph
Design Planner
MJ/sp
l e Of A.i t t C
I Jan Sprinkle
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Monday,August 16, 1999 2:39 PM
To: Jan Sprinkle
Subject: RE:VA 91-51, Pantops
Categories: Legal
I 't kn what I w inking... er it "app ate ief is all co ete r 'n is no aca
The law pertaining to vested rights developed under the common law (court decisions), and then was codified and
changed somewhat by the General Assembly when it amended Virginia Code 15.2-2307 in 1998. There is no
corresponding provision in the Zoning Ordinance. The variance holder needs to provide evidence that it has a vested right
to proceed under the variance.
Greg Kamptner
gkamptne@albemarle.org
Original Mess
Fro J n prinkle
Se . o ay,August 16, 1999 8:47 AM
T . Gre Kampt r
S ct: RE VA 91 1,Pantops
of re hory t v idity f a si pla elate to the v Idity of varian . Ple see ain -or s thi res e a
' e 'o momen "
Original Message
Fro : Greg Kamptner
Se t: Frida August 13, 1999 3:30 PM
To Jan rinkle
S bj ct: RE 91-51,P n ps
I en't e n able o ICcate th of zoning i ance in our o • , ut my recolle n is that the prior site plan
o I an e (p for t the urren one evised ' 19 8)provid that th site plan s valid r only year. We, of
c , follow state I d its 5 year eriod f validi .
Greg Kamptner
gkamptne@albemarle.org
Original Message
From: Jan Sprinkle
Sent: Friday,August 13, 1999 1:38 PM
To: Greg Kamptner
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Subject: RE:VA 91-51,Pantops
The owner of the sign wants more info on where in the ordinance our decision comes from. I told him that
there is no particular place, but rather: if he requested a building permit for the sign expansion,we would
check to see that it meets today's ordinance. If it doesn't,we would look for a variance from today's
ordinance. Since his variance is from sections of the ordinance that have been amended or repealed, it would
not apply. The only way we could apply the old variance would be if he could prove he has a vested right. (I
did give him that state code section.) However, since the variance was granted 8 years ago, he will probably
have a hard time proving that.
Is this information accurate? Is there any other section of our ordinance or the Code that i should point him
to? I told him you were on vacation and it would be a week or two before I could verify my info.
Original Message
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Monday,August 02, 1999 4:04 PM
To: Jan Sprinkle;Amelia McCulley
1
Subject: RE:VA -51,Pantops
Under the facts presented, it does not appear that variance is still valid.
Under Virginia Code 15.2-2307, the owner must establish the following three elements in order to claim a
vested right to act under the variance: (1)the owner obtained a significant governmental act that remains
in effect allowing development of a specific project; (2)the owner relied in good faith on the significant
governmental act; and (3)the owner incurred extensive obligations or substantial expenses in diligent
pursuit of the specific project in reliance on the significant governmental act.
A variance is a now identified as a significant governmental act under Virginia Code 15.2-2307. However,
by never doing the sign addition, it does not appear that the owner either relied in good faith on the
variance or incurred extensive obligations or substantial expenses in reliance on the variance. To make a
more conclusive determination,we need more information about the obligations or expenses incurred.
That information may be moot because it does not appear that the owner will be able to demonstrate that
it diligently pursued the variance.
Please let me know if you need us to look at this further.
Greg Kamptner
gkamptne@albemarle.org
Original Message
From: Jan Sprinkle
Sent: Tuesday,July 27, 1999 5:08 PM
To: Greg Kamptner
Subject: VA 91-51, Pantops
This has been buried on my desk for at least a week, so I hope you can get to it along with a couple of
others I sent last week. We have a variance that was approved in 1991 from two sections of the
ordinance that were amended in 1992 -sign setback and sign height. The applicant never did the
addition to the sign that was approved by the variance. He now wants to do it. Can he? Or since it
was never done and the ordinance changed in the meantime, can we say the variance is invalid? If
you want specifics, I can get the VA file to you.
2
414
{1LN
U p7
RGI;I�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
TTD(434)972-4012
FAX(434)972-4126 TELEPHONE(434) 296-5832
February 26, 2002
Steve Hopkins
Great Eastern Management
P. O. Box 5526
Charlottesville, VA 22905
Re: Official Determination — Current Validity
of Sign Variance
(VA 91-51- Riverbend Limited Pa
rtnershiDear Mr. Hopkins:
the above-referenced
you are proposing toe move
This is in response to your request r Aselter undepstand,gwy
sign variance may no longer be valid.
er prior ordinance provisions
existing sign 10 feet closer to Route 250 and encasee it in brick. It is my opinion
the ex 9 roved un
that because this sign variance was approved
the
variance
which have
since been amended and the sign was not erected,
under thisn variance
is no longer valid unless his more fully in rights
the Proceeding.
approval. I will explain t
VA 91-51 was approved on December 10, 1991,
to increase the height of a
non from 26 to 27 feet 4 inches and to reduce the e front
rsnbje setback or
the samerming sign to13 for the sion
the d from 16 relate feet 6 i Review and a landscaping planaltered in
conditions which to Architecturalsign remains and has not been
accordance
I rdance with it, this and approval nonconforming
nce theplans under the 1 51ance. Your at this time.
current proposal
is t o ma under VA
is to make the alterations as approved8, 1992 and
sign ordinance amendment was approved on July
A comprehensive approved on May 19, 2001 . These sign ordinance sign
further amendments were es to regulations relating to sign height, 9
amendments includes changes tononconforming onforming signs. Of these regulations, the
size, sign setback and I onlywith setback requirements.
existing and proposed sign comply
Letter to Steve Hopkins
Official Determination — Current Validity of Sign Variance
(VA 91-51- Riverbend Limited Partnership)
February 26, 2002
In order for the variance of prior ordinance regulations to remain valid, it must be
found that the owner has established vested rights under Virginia Code 15.2-2307.
There are three elements in a finding of vested rights. In this case, there is no
clear evidence of reliance in good faith on the variance or of incurring extensive
obligations or substantial expenses in reliance on the variance. In addition, there
is no clear evidence of diligent pursuit in reliance on the variance.
Your options include: submitting information to staff for a finding of vested rights to
VA 91-51; submit a new variance request under the current ordinance; or alter the
sign in accordance with current ordinance regulations.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty
days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section
15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this
determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by
filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning of Zoning Appeals a
notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application
must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this
determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Ofiatitt, 51,41/14, (ttliz(
Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C.P.
Zoning Administrator
AGM/st
J { :i"1. 4)-
,._.. N ._VMl ` 1
Jan Sprinkle
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 2:39 PM
To: Jan Sprinkle
Subject: RE:VA 91-51, Pantops
Categories: Legal
I don't know what I was thinking... consider it an "appellate brief is finally completed and my brain is now on vacation"
moment.
The law pertaining to vested rights developed under the common law (court decisions), and then was codified and
changed somewhat by the General Assembly when it amended Virginia Code 15.2-2307 in 1998. There is no
corresponding provision in the Zoning Ordinance. The variance holder needs to provide evidence that it has a vested right
to proceed under the variance.
Greg Kamptner
gkamptne@albemarle.org
Original Message
From: Jan Sprinkle
Sent: Monday,August 16, 1999 8:47 AM
To: Greg Kamptner
Subject: RE:VA 91-51,Pantops
I'm not sure how the validity of a site plan relates to the validity of a variance. Please explain --or was this response a
"senoir moment"?
Original Message
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Friday,August 13, 1999 3:30 PM
To: Jan Sprinkle
Subject: RE:VA 91-51, Pantops
I haven't been able to locate the old zoning ordinance in our office, but my recollection is that the prior site plan
ordinance (prior to the current one revised in 1998) provided that the site plan was valid for only one year. We, of
course, followed state law and its 5-year period of validity.
Greg Kamptner
gkamptne@albemarle.org
Original Message
From: Jan Sprinkle
Sent: Friday,August 13, 1999 1:38 PM
To: Greg Kamptner
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Subject: RE:VA 91-51,Pantops
The owner of the sign wants more info on where in the ordinance our decision comes from. I told him that
there is no particular place, but rather: if he requested a building permit for the sign expansion,we would
check to see that it meets today's ordinance. If it doesn't,we would look for a variance from today's
ordinance. Since his variance is from sections of the ordinance that have been amended or repealed, it would
ly the old
ce would
e
he could prove he has a
not g The that state code section.)pHowe err, sin cen the variance bf vested
only way we could right. (I
was granted 8 years ago, he will probably
did give hlm
have a hard time proving that.
Is this information accurate? Is there any other section of our ordinance or the Code that i should point him
to? I told him you were on vacation and it would be a week or two before I could verify my info.
Original Message
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Monday,August 02, 1999 4:04 PM
To: Jan Sprinkle;Amelia McCulley
1
Subject: RE:VA 91-51, Pantops
Under the facts presented, it does not appear that variance is still valid.
Under Virginia Code 15.2-2307, the owner must establish the following three elements in order to claim a
vested right to act under the variance: (1)the owner obtained a significant governmental act that remains
in effect allowing development of a specific project; (2)the owner relied in good faith on the significant
governmental act; and (3)the owner incurred extensive obligations or substantial expenses in diligent
pursuit of the specific project in reliance on the significant governmental act.
A variance is a now identified as a significant governmental act under Virginia Code 15.2-2307. However,
by never doing the sign addition, it does not appear that the owner either relied in good faith on the
variance or incurred extensive obligations or substantial expenses in reliance on the variance. To make a
more conclusive determination,we need more information about the obligations or expenses incurred.
That information may be moot because it does not appear that the owner will be able to demonstrate that
it diligently pursued the variance.
Please let me know if you need us to look at this further.
Greg Kamptner
gkamptne@albemarle.org
Original Message
From: Jan Sprinkle
Sent: Tuesday,July 27, 1999 5:08 PM
To: Greg Kamptner
Subject: VA 91-51, Pantops
This has been buried on my desk for at least a week, so I hope you can get to it along with a couple of
others I sent last week. We have a variance that was approved in 1991 from two sections of the
ordinance that were amended in 1992 -sign setback and sign height. The applicant never did the
addition to the sign that was approved by the variance. He now wants to do it. Can he? Or since it
was never done and the ordinance changed in the meantime, can we say the variance is invalid? If
you want specifics, I can get the VA file to you.
2