Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100053 Action Letter 1992-01-16 8 rroV A \IRCI��P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 January 16, 1992 Paul Holdren 1924 Arlington Blvd Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-91-53 ; Shoney's Restaurant Tax Map 45, Parcel 94C Dear Mr. Holdren: This letter is to inform you that on January 14 , 1992 , during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (3 : 1) approved your request for VA-91-53 , subject to the following conditions: 1) The menu board shall be removed from the sign. The sign shall be limited to forty-eight (48) square feet. 2) The height of the sign shall be reduced to ten (10) feet. 3) The site shall be limited to no more than eighty-four (84) square feet of wall signage, consisting of no more than four (4) signs. These may be located on each side of the building. The colors of the proposed wall signs shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board or Design Planner. This variance approval allows relief from Sections 30. 6 . 5. 2 and 21. 7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front setback from 30 to 22 feet and to increase the number of wall signs from three (3) to four (4) . If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sin rely, John Grady Deputy Zoning Administrator JG/sp/s'r cc: Tim Lindstrom Marcia Joseph January 14, 1992 The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday, January 14, 1992 in Meeting Room #7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were Max C. Kennedy, Chairman; Carl Van Fossen, Vice-Chairman; Richard Cogan, and George Bailey. (William Rennolds was absent. ) Staff present were Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator and John Grady, Deputy Zoning Administrator. As a quorum was established, the meeting convened at 3 : 00 p.m. Mr. Kennedy stated that anyone aggrieved by a decision of the board could appeal the decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) days of the decision. The first item before the board was VA-91-53 Paul Holdren, T/A Shoney's Restaurant. Mr. Grady read the staff report as follows: VA-91-53 . Shoney's Restaurant, Paul Holdren, owner. Property located on the northwest corner of Myers Drive and Route 29 north in Rio Hills Shopping Center, Zoned Planned Development Shopping Center, in an EC overlay, Tax Map 45, Parcel 94C. Applicant seeks a variance to reduce the front setback from 30 to 22 feet and to increase the number of wall signs from 3 to 4. (See the attached copy of the staff report. ) Mr. Van Fossen asked if the sign was nonconforming and if a variance had been granted, and Mr. Grady replied that the sign was approved under the old ordinance prior to the entrance corridor's enactment and had not been granted a variance. Paul Holdren, owner of Shoney's Restaurant, was present to speak for the application. He stated that the variance was needed so that the sign would be visible before the traffic light due to the 45 miles per hour speed limit. He pointed out that the sign currently projected over the parking lot and had been damaged three times, and his request was that the sign be switched to project over the planting area. He said, at the Architectural Review Board's meeting, a motion to permit the request was made, but died due to the lack of a second because the board felt that they would be directing the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve the variance and members of the Architectural Review Board did not want to do that. He stated that he was under a hardship and therefore requested that the variance be granted. Mr. Van Fossen asked if the sign was flagged toward the highway if it would impede the car dealership's sign, and Mr. Holdren replied that the dealership's property was lower and more open and he felt the sign would still be visible. Mr. Bailey stated that after attending the Architectural Review Board's meeting he felt they were supportive. He supported the request since a hardship existed because the case was different from others, but he questioned the need for the menu sign. Mr. Cogan stated that he concurred with the staff report in that an unusual hardship did not exist that was not shared by others along that road; the request did not fit any of the three criteria set forth in the ordinance; and that the granting of the request could have an adverse effect on adjacent properties. As there was no public comment, the matter was placed before the board. Mr. Bailey moved to approve the request subject to conditions recommended in the staff report. Mr. Van Fossen seconded the motion. The roll was called. Mr. Bailey - Aye Mr. Van Fossen - Aye Mr. Cogan - No Mr. Kennedy - Aye Mr. Rennolds - Absent The variance was approved (3 : 1) subject to the following conditions: 1) The menu board shall be removed from the sign. The sign shall be limited to forty-eight (48) square feet. 2) The height of the sign shall be reduced to 10 feet. 3) The site shall be limited to no more than eighty-four (84) square feet of wall signage, consisting of no more than four (4) signs. These may be located on each side of the building. The colors of the proposed wall signs shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board or Design Planner. The next application was VA-91-54, BCR Land Trust. DRAFT DRAFT FEBRUARY 11, 1992 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS M SHONEY'S (PAUL HOLDREN) MOTION FOR REHEARING OLD BUSINESS - Request for rehearing by Paul Holdren's for Shoney's. Ms. Patterson stated that Mr. Holdren was present to explain, but based on the Board's by-laws there were one or two circumstances in which a rehearing could be held. She stated that due to a change in circumstance, new information, or perhaps informatino that was not made as clear as it could have been and she believed that was the case here. She stated that Mr. Holdren was requesting the Board to set a new meeting to rehear his variance for signage at Shoney's. Mr. Cogan read 7 .7. 1. 1 of the by-laws, "Refiling appeals, no appeal request or question raised under appeal which had been heard and decided may again be filed or be heard within a period of six months from the date the decision is entered into the records of the Board. The date the resolution is signed by the Chairman shall be the date of entry. 7. 1.2, a motion for rehearing may be granted by concurring affirmative vote of three members provided: a) that new evidence can be presented which in the opinion of the board is pertent to the recorded decision and could not have been presented at the original hearing or b)that in the opinion of the board some condition or situation that has changed in such a matter to have bearing on the decision previously recorded. The Board shall set the date for rehearing and shall cause notice of such hearing to be executed in such matter as subscribed. " He stated that Section 7 .7 . 1. 1 did not apply hear because it was not the refiling of an appeal, but 7. 1.2 a) and b) might. He stated that question number one was is there new evidence which could not have been presented at the other hearing, or number 2 is there some condition of situation that has changed in such a matter as to have bearing. He stated that if neither of those have taken place, then the applicant would have to wait six months for a rehearing. Mr. Van Fossen stated that the only way they could reconsider a rehearing was if there was evidence that was not presented at the prior meeting and was available now, or something that has come up that was not available for our consideration then. He stated that there was an appeal process to the Circuit Court. Mr. Holdren stated that if the sign stayed 30 feet off the highway and 10 feet off the ground because of the confusion or the harrass among the board members to get on with business or to do something that was no necessarily tasteful out of the way. He stated that comment was made by Mr. Cogan that do we go ahead then and follow the rest of the staff's recommendations, and in so doing the comment was made yes and the rest of the staff's recommendations created more of a hardship than I presently had that being staff's recommendation that the sign shall be 10 feet off the ground if the variance is granted. He stated that no had a 6 X 8 foot sign 8 feet off the ground in behind the Alamo sign had Rio Hills which rRAFT ....a... was 2500 square feet, and blocked even by a station wagon that would be parked in the stall next to Route 29. He stated that if that did not qualify then the conversation that Mr. Bailey had with the Board was can the reader board be read by passing motorists. He stated that the two promotions which they had had since that one sign was almost 40 percent destroyed they have not been able to use that side of the sign and they were constantly getting questions why they were not promoting the same thing you are promoting at your Emmett Street Shoney's. He stated that they were but could not spell it out as plainly and those were people who were passing by on Route 29 south bound lane. He stated that the discussion Mr. Bailey had was can the reader board be read, and my letter to you was that the bottom portion could not be read by the people in their cars passing south bound on Route 29. He stated that not knowing whether you could or not, and I thought it was a good question, but Amelia's staff that night at another hearing in this very room presented evidence that a 10 inch letter can be read at 45 miles per hour traffic which was what we had on Route 29. He stated that if that was the case, then Mr. Bailey's motion might have been to flag the top of the sign and the bottom of the sign because that was what he came in to request in the first place. He stated that if the public can read a 10 inch letter at 45 miles per hour then the whole sign was a good sign and was information to the public about his business. He stated that currently the sign was 96 square feet and he wanted to turn the sign off of the parking stall onto a planter area which would still make his sign 22 feet off of the right-of-way and if the letter board can be read by evidence that staff presented that night to the Planning Commission where a slide was presented that VDOT stated that those letters could be read. He stated that he believed that if they had known that that afternoon or if you had of known it as I interpreted Mr. Bailey's motion it would not have been made taking the reader board off and flagging the top part of the sign only. He stated that if he had of known it he would have made that part of my argument that afternoon. He stated that the variance reappeal was that the Board hurridly approved a motion which created more of a hardship than he had and secondly if it was available it was not made available that afternoon which he thought brought great bearing on the way the motion was made in the first place. Mr. Cogan asked if he understood that he was not compelled to comply with that former approval of the variance with those conditions since he could leave his sign exactly as it was. He asked if he was saying that this information about the reading of the letter at a certain speed was not properly brought before the Board at the last meeting and that was the new information that you now have that we did not have before. Mr. Holden stated that was correct. Mr. Bailey stated that it was his understanding when he made the motion that the 10 inch lettering could not be read at 45 miles per hour, and he got the impression that was presented to us. He stated that was the reason he put it in his motion, but if Ms. JRAFT Patterson went to the Planning Commission tharaltrasteliel.that it could read at 45 miles per hour he thought that he had made a mistake. He asked the Zoning Administrator if it could be read. Ms. Patterson stated that based on VDOT standards it could, but it still would not change staff's recommendation because they did not feel there was any need for the extra area on the reader board, even if it was readable. She stated that if the Board's concern was that it wouldn't be readable and if we told you it wouldn't be readable, then we did make a mistake. She stated that she did not recall that. Mr. Holdren stated that she did not make the comment, but it was in his letter and if you knew it that afternoon and you were going to present it that night, why wasn't the Board told that afternoon, but it was information that the motion was based on. Mr. Bailey stated that he made the motion on the grounds that it could not be read in the first place so why put it up there. Mr. Van Fossen stated that he did not vote on it under that precept. Mr. Cogan stated that he did not think anybody did, but he was saying that there was evidence that was not presented there and he would like to have it reheard. Mr. Van Fossen stated that the Board could only decide today whether to hold a rehearing. Mr. Bailey stated that due to the fact that he made the motion at the last meeting, he would also at this time make a motion that it was his understanding that it could not be read and that was the reason for the motion at the last meeting. He stated that he misunderstood and if he made a mistake he would like to correct it. Mr. Bailey made the motion to rehear the case. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. The role was called. Mr. Bailey - Aye Mr. Rennolds - Aye Mr. Cogan - Aye Mr. Van Fossen The Board ruled to hold a rehearing. ADDENDUM TO REPORT STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: April 14, 1992 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-53 OWNER: Paul Holdren TAX MAP/PARCEL: 45/94C ZONING: Planned Development Shopping Center ACREAGE: 0.989 acre LOCATION: The northwest corner of Myers Drive and Route 29 North in Rio Hills Shopping Center. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 21.7. 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to rotate an existing freestanding sign so that it will be eight (8) feet closer to the Route 29 North right-of-way. The applicant does not propose any change to color, height or aggregate sign area. The existing sign is ninety-six (96) square feet in area, twenty-six (26) feet in height and red, white and black in color. This request will involve a variance of the underlying district as follows: Underlying District - Commercial Districts Generally (Section 21.7. 1) Freestanding Sign: To reduce the setback adjacent to public streets from 30 to 22 feet. The applicant's justification includes: 1) The large Rio Hill sign blocks the existing sign and therefore the site identification from the south bound lane. 2) The sign overhangs the parking area and has been struck twice by vehicles in the last six (6) months. This variance was originally heard on January 14, 1992 . At that time, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the request, subject to the following conditions: 1) The menu board shall be removed from the sign. The sign shall be limited to forty-eight (48) square feet. 2) The height of the sign shall be reduced to ten (10) feet. Staff Report Addendum VA-91-53 Shoney's Page 2 3) The site shall be limited to no more than eighty-four (84) square feet of wall signage, consisting of no more than four (4) signs. These may be located on each side of the building. The colors of the proposed wall signs shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board or Design Planner. The applicant has based his rehearing on two points as follows: 1) The misunderstanding that the ten (10) inch letters on the menu board were not legible to motorists in the southbound lane of Route 29 and, 2) If the sign is lowered in height to ten (10) feet at a twenty-two (22) foot setback, it will be blocked from view of the southbound traffic by the required trees along the front of the property, in season. Staff's recommendation was not based on the assumption that the ten (10) inch letters on the menu board were not legible from Route 29. We are aware that according to Virginia Department of Transportation standards, ten (10) inch letters when placed thirty (30) feet or less from the roadway are visible to motorists traveling at speeds of 45 miles an hour. It is staff's position that if the applicant wants a reduced setback for his sign, that the sign should be made to be more in compliance with the Entrance Corridor and proposed sign regulations that staff is recommending. It was staff's recommendation at the first hearing and is still staff's recommendation that should the sign be rotated to a twenty-two foot setback the menu board should be removed. Staff's recommendation is not based on legibility, but that more than adequate sign area exists for this business, by virtue of multiple signs, and the freestanding sign size. In fact, some signage proposed (4 wall signs) would be redundant. The second point the applicant has made is that if the sign is lowered to ten (10) feet in height at a twenty-two (22) foot setback, it will not be visible to motorists in the southbound lane of Route 29 due to the trees along the front of the property. Staff has reinspected the site and agrees with the applicant that the trees along the front of the property will block the visibility of the sign if the sign is reduced in height to ten (10) feet. If the sign were rotated and left at its current height of twenty-six (26) feet it would be visible above the trees on the property. It should be noted that as these trees mature the sign may at some time still be blocked from view to the southbound traffic. Staff Report Addendum VA-91-53 Shoney's Page 3 To best correct the problem of visibility for the freestanding sign, it would appear that the applicant would need to apply for another variance for a reduced setback, one that would place the sign in front of the existing trees. If the applicant choose this alternative, staff would support the request for reduced setback if the sign would conform to the height and sign area that is being recommended in the proposed regulations. The applicant has not offered compromise, to improve this proposal. Because the applicant is now requesting almost one hundred (100) square feet of freestanding signage, staff would like to reduce the number and area of wall signs. There are currently two (2) wall signs (twelve (12) square feet on rear wall and six (6) square feet on canopy) at this site. The applicant also has an approved sign permit for two (2) additional thirty (30) square foot signs for each end of the restaurant. At this time staff does not know if these signs have been constructed. If the signs have been constructed it would pose a hardship on the applicant not to be able to use them. However, four (4) wall signs do not meet the current or proposed regulations. Therefore, staff would like to modify item number three (3) to further restrict wall signs at this location. As there are still alternatives to this situation, staff recommends denial for cause. Should the Board find cause to approve an amended request, staff recommends that other signage (wall) be restricted. 1) The menu board shall be removed from the sign. The sign shall be limited to forty-eight (48) square feet. 2) The height of the sign shall be reduced to twelve (12) feet. 3) The site shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) square feet of wall signage, consisting of no more than two (2) signs. The colors of the proposed wall signs shall be approved by the Design Planner. STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: January 14 , 1992 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-53 OWNER/APPLICANT: Paul Holdren (owner) - Shoney's Restaurant TAX MAP/PARCEL: 45/94C ZONING: Planned Development Shopping Center, and Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 0.989 LOCATION: The northwest corner of Myers Drive and Route 29 North in Rio Hills Shopping Center. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 21. 7. 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to rotate an existing freestanding sign so that it will be eight (8) feet closer to the Route 29 North right-of-way. The applicant does not propose any change to color, height or aggregate sign area. The existing sign is ninety-six (96) square feet in area, twenty-six (26) feet in height and and red, white and black in color. This request will involve a variance of the underlying district as follows: Underlying District - Commercial Districts Generally (Section 21. 7 . 1) Freestanding Sign: To reduce the setback adjacent to public streets from 30 to 22 feet. The applicant's justification includes: 1. The large Rio Hill sign blocks the existing sign and site identification from the north bound lane. 2 . The sign overhangs the parking area and has been struck twice by vehicles in the last six (6) months. 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: Rio Hill Shopping Center received a variance (VA-88-57) for wall signage on the site. This allowed wall signs to be computed by multiplying one (1) linear foot of frontage by 1. 5 square feet of area not to exceed 200 square feet per tenant. This variance did not limit the number of wall signs or their location. However, other like variances limited wall signage to one (1) per tenant. The current request for wall signs would bring the total area to eighty-four (84) square feet. This would be within the limitations of VA-88-57 . STAFF REPORT - VA-91-53 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION An onsite inspection indicates that the existing freestanding sign is visible from the north and south bound lanes of Route 29 for a distance of 500 feet. Staff agrees with the applicant that rotating the existing freestanding sign would eliminate future damage caused by trucks using this parking area. However, the same results could be accomplished if the applicant would remove the 48 square foot menu board section of the sign, or installed bollards or the like. This would still leave the applicant with a 48 square foot identification sign on the pole. Staff is currently recommending amendment to the sign regulations to reduce the 30 foot setback along all roads within the County. Staff is also recommending that the sign area and height also be reduced in accordance with setback. The existing sign, which is non-conforming, would become more non-conforming as proposed. The applicant does not intend to make it more conforming or reduce the aggregate area or the height of the sign. Therefore, staff cannot support a variance at this time. 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 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: 1. The menu board shall be removed from the sign. The sign shall be limited to forty-eight (48) square feet. 2 . The height of the sign shall be reduced to 10 feet. 3 . The site shall be limited to no more than eighty-four (84) square feet of wall signage, consisting of no more than four (4) signs. These may be located on each side of the building. The colors of the proposed wall signs shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board or Design Planner.