Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200008 Application 1992-03-06 • a ALBS, VA--(if --OF) A FILE NUMBER APPLICATION FOR: � ' (check one) Y„ I-i I. l 9`� )SUBLITTED QIANCE }. DATE ❑ S• PECIAL USE PERMIT\. 1 A' ❑ R• EZONING FEE PAID (see reverse) ❑ Z• ONING TEXT AMENDMENT r'IRGII4ZF' ❑ M• OBILE HOME DATE OF PRELIM CONF. ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ ACCESSORY TOURIST LODGING STAFF AT PRELIM. CONF. OWNER (as currently listed in Real Estate) Day Name juo dZd 'f 1 , P ,6 Phone (01A) 2E 41,6`f C1 ,c 46 s/t �44 ,'v Ass,,, s L,—141 P ) Address C/, ,;(7.)1,Cot , f t- ies c i.i ) e"> , c. 13t.7 `7 /.,2,ci��., , UA- l �-zP' APPLICANT (if different f om owner) Day. Name VA- FeN---XR- v -- N Phone (_) - Address p, 0.. a i, ri 3S 8// , ia,-c G/.1- )-3 2 3S- £fig// CONTACT PERSON (if different from above) Day Name -4c I,d Si`,-)V S Phone ( 19)7t-, ?9"�-3 Address P 0. 2r,,4_ /30 -7 die sf-sp 09- 23 83/ LOCATION: 0- Si ` ft/bC' f c S 4` ,,, 4c, TAX MAP/PARCEL NUMBERS (use reverse if needed) 1. 6/ - /a 3 - 3. - - - 2. 4c: L (i C. - L ( - i2 L. - I_ = C.'4_ 4• - - - EXISTING ZONING PROFFERED? Yes _ No _ Acreage if different Q. �, DESIRED ZONING PROFFERED? Yes _ No _ Acreage if different EXISTING USE 61,, - Ac- PROPOSED USE .3a4./)nr, kC- ORDINANCE SECTION(S):DESCRIPTION OF QUEST: --A✓MfArg_ 8ve s' 4.2 147// . . cied41 J "" >961 e ule k. d i/ JUSTIFICATI N FOR REQUEST: eilA)A.)e'` ,t6 Jc,€,k) 4... A , 02 ey „ A.,uf1 h rr r..: 01,44, iA).sr - c.:,,E.r .a,.sd c.,,1 4-.�c�A c-Ar £. .Pd, ., //� «,e6_4_ e,.;Ec,c6 . , .mod`' � M >N,ridt .P jr/,.�C- eE.:; 71i<. :1‘s 'tkdrni IC4 iAi115 , c 941f edZ r, JA di/A;trJ r.ter4 ha.,t • The foregoing information is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. I have read and understand the provisions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance a plicable to this application. p • Signed . . %'71/. �/�1 jPie °�G' Date +.5-- , 19 %Z. �/ er, Contract Purchaser, Agent) ir = Received ByR P Fee $ ��''� Date Paid ;Z/�/� Notes: "?, - ,/(Zeci id`1,I 1) VA-92-08. Rio Associates Ltd Ptrshp (owners) , VA Federal Savings Bank (applicant) . Property on the NE corner of Rt 29 and Rio Rd, known as Albemarle Sq Shopping Ctr, zoned Planned Development Shopping Ctr, in an EC overlay, TM61/P123. Applicant seeks a variance to increase the area of wall signs from 1,461 to 1,953 sqft. The additional 492 sqft will provide wall signage for 9 spaces currently vacant.\qlr\ 0 Board of Zoning Appeals Date: / 7.S Action: ci,/ "M6147-11±1a41‘411 ft' 13 i r, d• 31,,0 h3 1,<d ai;..... Oyu O. i akillteit: - .....,,,., ) II • 11eill1 P " .. .. . \ Air• _ \ . _,----- ---. .% \ k I''''';'I' \'' I. 4 4; Y \,-y• \ 0A S. % Wktfl' iA , - , : \ { % N i L^ • O a„o i ' •�: i aP U Mom• t •�`, d '. Ai 1 . o +,• \VA' .. ,.0..., ... . a 1/4 , i„, w x }1 •d \ 1 A �t • i c� 6 0 .. -... s y o Q C` i a V it ,0000‘ Isi .0311%, i 1 11. I ' ‘ l'i' 13 \ ..<".1 ;141.1116H500000\01,-.5,, CO 17 a • sntN cr --. A gagt \ :( t6 yy A �G. y°Y� �y a g u W 1 I�"' o f 11 0 • .. ct'.\ h \ 10' 4d 'r Vi 0u , \- \‘‘,- \ 1 t.-- kr 1/ . 1 glii4 li SS =`iag1t!tiol dal F:i ii tat - ct,\—c) -.1 q i � �" - .-.P.. It t . a. z%1 x e- a o r: t6 II. R.) 0 „4- i. • 4.. t 11111 To,per-A _ 1 Z 1-4• ' � r, .r1hii. Rawvs,t ,. . ....\ . i r .) ..114. (7, 1 1 / . ••.$i; 4%10, ..• • • . 1 -� 1 . liblitt 0 - V.114 Cenillt cr . • N - �ti Il h' • 0 .• I , w ' N 1' ' ,V C h• ATE SQUARE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA Beginning at an iron on the northern margin of State Route 631 , a corner common with Charlottesville Savings & Loan, thence , leaving State Route 631, a line with Charlottesville Savings & Loan, N29 55 ' 06" E 408. 78 feet to an iron, thence N60 04' 54" W 150. 00 feet to an iron on the eastern margin of U. S. Route 29 & common corner with Charlottesville Savings & Loan, thence with the eastern margin of U. S. Route 29, N29 55 ' 06" E 674. 95 feet, thence N36 00 ' 24" E • 63.04 feet, thence leaving said margin S60 56 ' 21" E 291. 14 feet , . thence N86 31' 49" E 185. 00 feet, thence S38 10' E 235 .00 feet , thence S12 10' E 92. 00 feet, thence S 20 15 ' E236. 87 feet to a point in a stream, thence with said stream S 82 21' 35" W 4. 02 feet , thence S 54 09 ' 45" W 102.23 feet, thence S 26 14' 55" W 71 . 18 feet, thence S 69 54' 48" W 55.39 feet , thence S 44 07 ' 45" W 78. 10 feet , thence S 64 43' W 59. 28 feet, thence S 64 43 ' W 24. 75 feet, thence S 53 31 ' 43" W 80. 26 feet, thence S 35 10 ' 07" W 87 . 35 feet, thence S 5 57 ' 03" W 98. 63 feet, thence S 59 05 ' 33" W 14. 21 feet, thence S 20 18 ' • 05" W 46. 00 feet, thence S 69 36 ' 11" W 46. 48 feet, thence S 9 20 ' 18" E 93.57 feet to a pipe, thence leaving said stream S 46 30 ' W 608.28 feet to an iron on the northern margin of State Route 631 , thence with said margin N 19 31 ' 30" W 627 . 20 feet to the point of beginning, containing in all 22. 79 acres and all being entirel Albemarle County, Virginia. v in SPECIFICATIONS FOR SINGLE-FACED BOX SIGNS I. sign Box A. Cabinet and retainers of.040 aluminum or 22 gauge galvanneal; B. Retainers to be minimum of one inch wide; C. Exterior paint (galvanneal must be acid dipped prior to painting); D. Interior paint - two coats of white enamel; E. Interior reflecto`v s, as required; F. Ei to ' Sin depth; hive G. Sign box to be framed and reinforced with angle iron; H. Rear of sign box drilled to allow interior fastening to building; II. Faces l7 K 1111 s' ' 54O A. h PleAiglaes B/R Plastic: or 3/16 MLA Lexan; B. i . • ass i ; C. Minimum of two coats of paint, but faces that show brush strokes or other irregularities will not be acceptable; • III. Electrical • A. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) approved; B. Jefferson ballast or ballast of equal quality; C. Sylvania, General Electric or Westinghouse high output daylight lamps; D. Electrical wires shall be left opposite canopy junction boxes and shall not be exposed to view; E. Lamping of sign box: 1. If sign of 2 ft. high - 2 horizontal rows of lamps; 2. If sign of 2-1/2 ft. high - 3 horizontal rows of lamps; 3. If sign is 3 ft. high - 3 horizontal rows of lamps; 4. If sign is 4 ft. high- 4 horizontal rows of lamps IV. Fastening to Building A. No exterior brackets shall be used to fasten sign; B. Interior fasteners shall be 3/8 inch or larger bolts depending upon sign size, or approved alternatives; C. Sign to be fastened flat to building fascia without use of exterior brackets or clips. V. Landlord Approval A. All proposed sign faces must be submitted to Dumbarton Properties, Inc., for Landlord's approval prior to construction and installation. Submission should include scale drawings of face design, to fit sign box. B. A copy of the approved County sign permit shall be sent to Dumbarton Properties, Inc., prior to installation. Specifications for Single-Faced Box Signs • Page -2- VI. General Notes A. All materials must be brand new; B. Installation shall be made by pre-arranged appointment only, and only upon a minimum of three (3) days notice to Dumbarton Properties, Inc.; C. Contractor to be responsible for signs improperly built, installed or located; D. Contractor to pay all costs for removal of signs improperly built, installed or located; E. All signs shall conform to local building codes and shall be installed in accordance with same; F. If any discrepancy or question shall arise as to whether a particular sign and/or installation is completely in accordance with these specifications and/or approved drawings, contractor shall immediately cease production or installation and immediately advise Dumbarton Properties, Inc., of said question or discrepancy, whereupon production and/or installation shall cease, pending notification to proceed by an authorized representative of Dumbarton Properties, Inc.; G. Contractor shall hold Dumbarton Properties, Inc., and representatives, and the Landlord it represents, harmless from all costs, damages, claims and actions that may arise from delays or other losses that might result from rejection of any sign and/or installation that does not conform to these specifications or the approved sign drawings; • H. Dumbarton Properties, Inc., reserves the right to have non-conforming signs removed at the sole risk, cost and expense of sign contractor, if said non-conforming sign(s) is not removed within three (3) days after the date on which Dumbarton Properties, Inc., notifies sign contractor that said sign does not conform to either these specifications or the approved sign drawings; I. Sign Contractor shall visit and inspect the job site prior to furnishing prices and prior to building and installing each sign. Contractor shall also review and familiarize himself with the working drawings and specifications for the shopping center,before building and installing the sign. , ALBEMARLE COUNTY 4 1579#42$44 ;2 3 i s Ni-4W;r44°, ,,, 124 INSpe, SEC. 1 .."'".. n:f �//,i�.... � �� . ._ FOUR)1.. . RA n'v ✓„' \ ��"� ,?: eft j SEASONS / / ` \�� '� +� � � i_:('. -.7'... W. ' / � SICTIW . 7. , � --. kI 21 W /////� 11 a©��illi�. r ../.. " / "fi J/ �I� �r � w,... 4/ kklill 2. f ny / / '/4*4rfr° \ ,\,T .1 ,-, iff/S=T -- 117=W410.0 „ Q is :414dackl* num 62A 7A11- sccn`\` �`\\\`�i'I/lull/��_ `s A SKIM��\ � 15 , ����. �` VA-92-08 VA Federal Savings ` i ��� ���� Tax Map 61, Parcel 123 Bank ., ` . PP pisi i i�7 G�� ° } ./ Vtrs.0,0),, ` hl* \ 6 � ` fit \ /t�i //'h� p7,/A-, , ,_... .,.< __ ,0:,,,ii,.......„,. , ; kNIP-, ti&-- = .- Nkili. 1.nsiffraz-----;-,;,. --A. ,,,, i , ,,,.„.-a(e, _ 4":Aiimil *,:• ,,,4 , 0,40,,,„; . __,„„., ,,cr,* ., \,_4, , .o. - .,,,-,,!... "2.4. _ 1 art ® // . 'V ; .- Tf / r62 k p 7 of CHARL 11 Kro` / / OTTESYi 11 P i - . 7 4 a#. iee::/ aal e. -1 , . 1-1111---w Ws:, / . iiiiiel ,1_ ,/,v• 7 iiimit.... .---_,,-.-. -.,... /7 i tI4 .F'- '11 E , . . . - //_- ,.9 /.4.% , ".---__. .. / r. .:, t . 11. smistior/ . :. .., iviv;t, r .-, • - \I / 4 •?7, ,)7 \ / • % /- .e17 - sat • y .. JACK JOUETT, RIVANNA AND SECTION 61 CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS Virginia Federal Savings Bank 10710 Midlothian Turnpike P.O. Box 35811 Richmond, Virginia 23235-0811 (804)378-1318 GERALD A. SAUNDERS President and Chief Executive Officer March 18, 1992 VIRGINIA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK Mr. John Grady Director of Zoning County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. Grady: Virginia Federal Savings Bank's recent request for a sign permit for our branch being relocated at 1643 Seminole Trail into a former Central Fidelity Bank branch location was denied as originally submitted. The property in question is situated below eye level from both Route 29 and Rio Road. Appropriate signage is essential to both attract new customers and give our existing customers a way to identify our relocated branch. Our decision to relocate to the subject property placed reliance on a representation from the landlord that Virginia Federal would be permitted to place signs on the same areas of this building that had been utilized by Central Fidelity Bank. Denial of the earlier request indicates that representation may not have been valid. We have re—submitted to you on March 6, 1992 a request for a variance from county standards for this site allowing Virginia Federal Savings Bank to place signs smaller in size than those approved for the previous occupant,Central Fidelity Bank. After careful review,we believe the 100 square feet of signage proposed in the request for variance will be sufficient to identify the relocated facility for our customers. We ask that Virginia Federal be granted favorable consideration of the re—submitted variance. Very truly yours, Gerald A. Saunders GAS/jcg AN MNC FINANCIAL COMPANY FYF:�.1^"1 � ::1 7 17i March 5, 1992 kt:ei MAR 20 1992 Mr. John Grady ALBEMARLE COUNTY Director of Zoning ZONING DEPARTMENT County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. Grady: Attached is a letter from Gerald A. Saunders, President of Virginia Federal Savings Bank, seeking approval of a request for a sign variance. The variance is deemed necessary to provide adequate signage for the benefit of Virginia Federal customers in connection with a branch relocation. As members of Virginia Federal's Charlottesville Regional Board and of the Charlottesville community, we would like to request your favorable consideration of this variance. Very truly yours, Charlottesville Regional Board 1,4,--(4*.; A /30_ - — Andrew B. Bolton, Jr. i-1-1).‘'J E. Richard Brownlee, II Thomas A. Dingledine Charles R. Haugh Stephen T. McLean David . Sutton ov Gilbert J. Su 'van dip Dumbarton Properties Incorporated 7113 Staples Mill Road • P.O. Box 9462 • Richmond, Virginia 23228 • (804) 266-4969 Telecopier:(804)266-4977 April 15, 1992 CERTIFIED MAIL #P 709 416 812 Ms. Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator Mr. John Grady, Deputy Zoning Administrator Fl County of Albemarle Department of Zoning gc 'YED 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 APR 20 1992 Re: Albemarle Square Shopping Center OMN COUNTY rWiTMENT Dear Amelia and John: • Thank you for sending me the staff report on the request being brought by Virginia Federal Savings Bank at Albemarle Square Shopping Center for a variance apparently required, to permit them to reinstall several wall signs removed by the previous Tenant, Central Fidelity Bank, as well as the long awaited copy of the proposed sign ordinance. Having questioned the necessity for addressing the issue of the aggregate allowable area of wall signs on all the other buildings and stores at Albemarle Square, when all that was sought was a variance by Virginia Federal as per your request, and having spoken by phone to you and John Grady, and having already registered my disagreement with your calculation for the aggregate allowable wall signage, and having attended last night's planning committee session and heard a more comprehensive discussion of the issues and purposes behind the new proposed ordinance, I feel the shopping center's overall aggregate wall signage should not be part of the Virginia Federal request for its variance at this time, for several reasons which include the following: 1. We have voluntarily gone along with the staffs recommended limits of 1.5 square feet of sign for every lineal foot of store front. This was developed at the time the remodeling of the center was planned and designed. We have no intention of deviating from our agreement to abide by that rule. 2. It was not until my conversation with John Grady in the past few weeks that I finally understood why Virginia Federal needed a variance at all, and that the evidently anachronistic limitation of signage to 200 square feet per parcel was never applied to Albemarle Square Shopping Center when it was built in 1976/77. I do not know why in fifteen years no one said we needed a variance. Over those years, with tenant turnover and so forth, its probably the case that 75 or more signs were applied for and permitted at Albemarle Square without the variance you now seek for all spaces and buildings. SHOPPING CENTERS / COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY Leasing • Management • Marketing • Consulting • Sales �( Member of REAL ESTATE BROKERS031 International Council of Shopping Centers REALTOR® Ms. Amelia M. Patterson April 15, 1992 Page -2- 3. It was not until that conversation with John Grady that I had heard anything about a 200 square foot maximum per store being a condition to be applied as a limitation or restriction in addition to the 1.5 square foot of sign per lineal foot of storefront. I had never agreed to that condition when we worked out the plans for remodeling and changing our sign program. 4 In light of the conversations I heard last night among and between Planning Commissioners, staff members, including yourself, and representatives of various business groups, individuals, etc., I am able to focus more clearly on the larger issues as they may affect the shopping center, several of which are still subject to change. Among those are that 200 square foot limit for wall signs, the size and number of secondary wall signs that may be allowed, free standing sign requirements and restrictions, the number and size of additional signs for corner stores with exposure to more than one road front, the number and size of signs for stores in courtyard situations, like Best and Lloyd's Hallmark, which have two (2) storefront exposures, the removal of signs from buildings when the use is not discontinued (like the former Central Fidelity Building which Virginia Federal is now occupying, but for which a variance is now required even though the use is still permitted?), and so forth. 5. Even if the 200 square foot per store sign area limitation were to be deemed appropriate and fair, that is, to be passed by the Board of Supervisors and adopted as the new sign standard for the county, as I have previously indicated in my earlier letter to John Grady, of April 3, I do not follow and therefore cannot agree to the limitations of 1,953 square feet. To the best of my mathematical ability, I came up with 2,334.25 square feet. Even at that, the several other unresolved issues previously mentioned, as well as some others, which are still not totally clear to me, such as how the area of individual letter type signs, such as the ones now being used in remodeled areas of Albemarle Square is being calculated, are material enough that we have to say we have not had a meeting of the minds; that is, we are not in agreement as to what an appropriate or legal limit would be for all the wall signs at Albemarle Square. I also make reference in my letter to the possibility that Best and/or Safeway might object. 6. Even if we did agree on the formula with the 200 square foot limit, it would be unfair to Albemarle Square to impose that limit a priori, that is, before the new sign ordinance were to be adopted. It should be clearly understood that any agreement we might reach before the new ordinance is passed, and I emphasize to you and all others involved categorically that we have at this time no such agreement, would be subject to revision to conform to the new sign ordinance once adopted. In other words, if the new sign ordinance turns out to be more favorable, that is, less restrictive to the shopping center than the limits/restrictions to which the County would seek to hold the shopping center, we would think it only fair that the center be permitted to enjoy what may possibly be the less restrictive standards. Ms. Amelia M. Patterson April 15, 1992 Page -3- 7. Based on the way the shopping center's aggregate wall sign allowance seems to be tucked into the Virginia Federal request for a variance, and the way that allowance is calculated, and given my unfamiliarity with the legal implications of the way this matter has been structured and the way it seems to be going, I am on the one hand, in awe of your tremendous command of the process and on the other hand, distressed and apprehensive that the Virginia Federal request for permission to put back up the signs that were previously permitted has gone beyond their simple request. To my knowledge, the shopping center has not requested the signage for the nine vacant shops you mention in the notice that went out to the adjoining property owners and in your staff report, and the shopping center has not agreed to anything other than the idea of 1.5 square feet of wall sign area per lineal foot of store front. Accordingly, I ask that you respond to me promptly as to why the matter of the shopping center's aggregate wall sign area cannot now be severed and altogether removed from Virginia Federal Savings Bank's request for its own wall signs. The shopping center is not in agreement with the limits and restrictions the County apparently intends to impose on its aggregate wall area at this time, and will therefore be forced to disassociate itself from Virginia Federal's request. We would, of course, authorize and stand behind their request for signs on their building only, at the upcoming meeting on April 21. I will be in until noon on Friday, April 17th and would appreciate a call before that time, if possible. If I do not hear from you or we do not reach a written agreement as to the calculations for aggregate wall sign area, and the way the proposed sign ordinance will affect us when it is finally adopted, and so forth, please accept this letter as a withdrawal of the portion of Case VA 92 08, dealing with the shopping center's vacant space and aggregate wall sign area. This would be the withdrawal of I. and II.B., as well as the paragraph that reads, "In addition, the Owner also requests a variance of four hundred ninety-two (492) square feet to increase the existing square footage of wall signage on the site from 1,416 square feet to 1,953 square feet. This will provide wall signs for the nine vacant spaces should they be occupied." The mechanics for accomplishing the modification of the variance request for Va Federal are made more confusing by the fact that the letter that went out to adjoining property owners on March 17 seems to deal only with the wall sign area. That paragraph reads Applicant seeks a variance to increase the area of wall signs from 1,461 square feet to 1,953 square feet. The additional 492 square feet will provide wall signage for 9 spaces currently vacant. Ms. Amelia M. Patterson April 15, 1992 Page -4- That letter does not go into the detail that your staff report goes into. Accordingly, it seems that only provision II. A. of your staff report which reads, "To increase the size of an individual business sign from 35 square feet to 72 square feet, an increase of 37 square feet;" should be retained in the variance request. You and your staff have spent an enormous amount of time and effort to research and present a fair proposed sign ordinance. It is an incredibly complex and challenging undertaking for which you should be commended. The willingness shown by you and John Grady to discuss all aspects of the impact of the proposed changes on the various property owners and businesses affected is truly exemplary, except for the mystery as to who actually made the request for variance for the shopping center's wall signs. Mr. Currier of Holiday Signs was authorized only to apply for the variance for Va Federal. He was not authorized to bind the shopping center as to the future wall sign area. For my part, I am grateful to you for the communication you have maintained and the efforts you have shown to educate not only Beverly Webb and me but all interested in improving the quality of the County's sign program. Despite the respectful posture we show for each other, I hope you will understand that we cannot go along at this point with all that you would like for us to go along with, for all the reasons cited above. Please understand that we appreciate the County's desire to clear itself of internal ordinance administration technicalities from earlier eras and we want to cooperate with you in cleaning up whatever gave you concern, even though until this situation, none of those techcnicalities got in the way of having signs approved and installed in a timely fashion at Albemarle Square. But now, for the first time in 15 years, we are feeling that the old technicalites are being replaced with new ones that are less clear to us the more we learn about them. That in and of itself, is reason enough to separate the aggregate wall sign area issue from the very specific and uncomplicated request of Virginia Federal at this time. We hope you will agree. We also hope you will not let the unusually high confusion factor over the many issues beyond the 1.5 square feet per lineal foot rule, with which we were comfortable, keep you from remaining positive in your recommendation that Virginia Federal be allowed to go ahead with its portion of the request, so they can get their sign up as planned. Since there is still much to resolve on the wall sign issue, I hope you would agree that it makes lots more sense to address the wall sign issue independently of the request of Virginia Federal for a variance, if that variance is indeed necessary at this time for them to proceed with the re-installation of the wall signs that were permitted previously. Ms. Amelia M. Patterson April 15, 1992 Page -5- We also submit that it would be only fair for the County to continue to permit installation of wall signs consistent with its past practices and practicality and common sense, for our vacant spaces, until such time as the new ordinance is adopted, especially if we agree to limit the wall sign area of new signs to 1.5 square feet per lineal foot of store front as we have been doing in good faith. As you know, we are supportive of the 1.5 square foot per lineal foot of store front parameter, and wish to come to a fuller understanding of the way it would be implemented, along with other parameters, before we perhaps lock ourselves into a set of parameters we do not fully understand at this time. We have given you a good example to hold up to others in the business community and believe our program was in keeping with what we thought was the spirit and letter of what you were going to propose for the new ordinance. Thank you for your understanding and continued cooperation. After hearing the discussion of the issues last night, and finally getting a copy of the proposed ordinance to review, I think we are a ways yet from understanding the proposed ordinance, but I remain confident that we will ultimately get the wall sign question resolved when you have more time to work through the issues and are not so pressed with the complications and burdens of dealing with the sign ordinance for the entire business community at one time. Sincerely, /14- James N. Plotkin, President Dumbarton Properties, Inc., Agent Rio Associates Limited Partnership JNP/sdn cc: S.W. Heischman G:\asgfiles\patterso.1