Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200031 Action Letter 1992-10-14 of A!-( ��RC1N�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 October 14, 1992 Birckhead Signs and Graphics Company 201 A. Carlton Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-92-31 and VA-92-32 T.J. 's and Katie's Tax Map 61M, Parcel 12-1C Dear Mr. Birckhead: This letter is to inform you that on October 13 , 1992, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved (4 : 0) your requests for VA-92-31 and VA-92-32 as submitted, subject to the following condition: 1) Placement of signs to be in horizontal alignment with the other signs on the building. The variance approvals allow relief from Section 4 . 15. 12 . 6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to increase the height of a wall sign from 20 to 35 feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, JeL John Grady Deputy Zoning Administrator JG/sp/;-r cc: Charlottesville Shoppers World Limited Partnership Richard Hewitt "STAFF REPORT - VA-92-31 OWNER: Charlottesville Shoppers World Ltd. Ptrshp APPLICANT: Richard B. Hewitt (owner of T.J. 's) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61M/12-1C ZONING: Planned Development Shopping Center ACREAGE: 12 .558 acres LOCATION: Property located .2 mile south of the Route 29- Berkmar Drive intersection on the west side of Route 29, in Shoppers World Shopping Center. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 4 . 15. 12 .6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: Wall signs: Maximum height 20 feet. The applicant is requesting a 15 foot variance to increase the height of a wall sign from 20 feet to 35 feet. The proposed sign is plastic, 25 square feet in sign area with a white background, blue trim and red copy. (Note: "VA-92-32 The proposed sign is plastic, 40 square feet in sign area with a white background, blue trim and red copy. ") The applicant's justification includes the following: 1) A 20 foot height limitation renders the existing facade useless as the bottom of the facade is already 21 feet 9 inches above the road surface. 2) Locating new signage on the wall under the facade reduces visibility. 3) By not allowing wall signs on the facade of this building frontage, it changes the uniformity of the way wall signs are displayed throughout the shopping center. HISTORY: The existing signage at Shoppers World Shopping Center was established prior to the adoption of the current sign regulations. Signs in this shopping center that do not conform to the current regulations are now considered to be non-conforming. The Zoning Ordinance states the following concerning non-conforming signs. "Each time an existing non-conforming sign is replaced, remodeled or consolidated, the maximum sign area, height or setback shall be reduced by 25 percent until such sign is brought into conformity with these regulations. " The prior regulations concerning wall signs limited the height to 30 feet. 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees with the applicant on two points: 1) To place the sign on the wall under the facade does limit visibility and; 2) Lowering the sign below the facade does change the uniform character of wall signs displayed throughout the rest of the shopping center. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that approval of this request will not be of substantial detriment nor change the character of the district. However, the applicant does have another alternative. The proposed sign may be located between the existing brick columns. This alternative will conform to the current 20 foot height regulations. It will also establish a standard location that may be used by the remaining non-conforming signs on this facade when they are replaced or altered. The Design Planner for the Architectural Review Board has approved the proposed sign for size, style, color and content but does not support the height variance request. It is also the opinion of the Design Planner that the applicant can use the wall below the facade or the area between the brick columns. It is staff's opinion that this request does not meet the remaining criteria listed below and therefore we recommend denial for cause. 1) A strict application of this ordinance would not produce undue hardship. 2) Such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. " Mr. Grady stated that the Architectural Review Board's Design Planner, Marcia Joseph, had already approved the color, style and content of the signs. Bud Treakle, Attorney for Lucille's, Inc. was present to speak for the application. Ed Birckhead, representative of Birckhead Sign Company, and Richard Hewitt, applicant, were present. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Board. Mr. Cogan stated that this was an unique situation with a definite hardship, but wanted some uniformity with the existing signage. Motion for approval of both VA-92-31 and 32 as submitted with the condition that the placement of the signs be in horizontal 5 STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: October 13 , 1992 STAFF REPORT - VA-92-31 OWNER: Charlottesville Shoppers World Ltd. Ptrshp APPLICANT: Richard B. Hewitt (owner of T.J. 's) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61M/12-1C ZONING: Planned Development Shopping Center ACREAGE: 12 . 558 acres LOCATION: Property located .2 mile south of the Route 29- Berkmar Drive intersection on the west side of Route 29, in Shoppers World Shopping Center. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 4 . 15. 12 . 6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: Wall signs: Maximum height 20 feet. The applicant is requesting a 15 foot variance to increase the height of a wall sign from 20 feet to 35 feet. The proposed sign is plastic, 25 square feet in sign area with a white background, blue trim and red copy. The applicant's justification includes the following: 1) A 20 foot height limitation renders the existing facade useless as the bottom of the facade is already 21 feet 9 inches above the road surface. 2) Locating new signage on the wall under the facade reduces visibility. 3) By not allowing wall signs on the facade of this building frontage, it changes the uniformity of the way wall signs are displayed throughout the shopping center. HISTORY: The existing signage at Shoppers World Shopping Center was established prior to the adoption of the current sign regulations. Signs in this shopping center that do not conform to the current regulations are now considered to be non-conforming. The Zoning Ordinance states the following concerning non-conforming signs. "Each time an existing non-conforming sign is replaced, remodeled or consolidated, the maximum sign area, height or setback shall be reduced by 25 percent until such sign is brought into conformity with these regulations. " The prior regulations concerning wall signs limited the height to 30 feet. STAFF REPORT - VA-92-31 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees with the applicant on two points: 1) To place the sign on the wall under the facade does limit visibility and; 2) Lowering the sign below the facade does change the uniform character of wall signs displayed throughout the rest of the shopping center. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that approval of this request will not be of substantial detriment nor change the character of the district. However, the applicant does have another alternative. The proposed sign may be located between the existing brick columns. This alternative will conform to the current 20 foot height regulations. It will also establish a standard location that may be used by the remaining non-conforming signs on this facade when they are replaced or altered. The Design Planner for the Architectural Review Board has approved the proposed sign for size, style, color and content but does not support the height variance request. It is also the opinion of the Design Planner that the applicant can use the wall below the facade or the area between the brick columns. It is staff's opinion that this request does not meet the remaining criteria listed below and therefore we recommend denial for cause. 1) A strict application of this ordinance would not produce undue hardship. 2) Such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity.