HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300011 Application 1993-04-28 STAFF PERSON: John Grady
PUBLIC HEARING: April 28, 1993
STAFF REPORT - VA-93-11
OWNER/APPLICANT: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78/22
ACREAGE: 592 acres
ZONING: Rural Areas
LOCATION: On the north side of Route 53 at the entrance of Monticello.
REQUEST:
The applicant requests relief from Section 4.15.11(a) of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, which states:
"4.15.11(a) Temporary signs not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet, advertising a
special civic or cultural event such as a fair or exposition, play,
concert or meeting sponsored by a governmental, charitable or nonprofit
organization. No more than four (4) such permits shall be issued in one
(1) year. Each shall be valid for a period not to exceed fifteen (15)
days following issuance and shall be removed within seven (7) days of the
termination of the stated use."
The applicant requests variances to a) increase the size of a temporary event sign from thirty-
two (32) square feet to eighty-four (84) square feet and to b) increase the time limit from
fifteen (15) days to three hundred fifteen (315) days. The sign is twelve (12) feet wide and
seven (7) feet tall and is located at the entrance to Monticello. The sign colors consist of a
purple background with yellow copy stating "Thomas Jefferson 250."
The applicant's justification includes:
1) Current signage is inadequate to safely direct visitors in Monticello;
2) The thirty-two (32) square foot limitation does not allow adequate visual emphasis for an
event of this importance to the community, state and nation.
3) No other property in the district has the level of visitation (over 5 million per year), by
travelers that are unfamiliar with the area;
4) No other property in the district is as directly involved in the celebration of Jefferson's
250th birthday. The sign does not serve to advertise Monticello as a business, but only to
celebrate an event of international importance;
STAFF REPORT - VA-93-11
Page 2
5) The sign, though visible from Route 53, is well within the property at seventy-two (72)
feet from the Route 53 right-of-way;
6) The sign was professionally designed and is proportional to its setting. The sign will be
removed at the end of 1993 as the celebration concludes.
HISTORY:
The applicant's signs had been designed and fabricated prior to any contact with or approval
from the County Zoning Department. The Zoning Department chose not to prosecute the
violation when the sign was erected prior to President Clinton's inaugural trip to Monticello
because this was a significant national event and there was insufficient time to apply for a
variance. At that time, the applicant was informed that variances would be required for the
temporary sign at Monticello and the temporary banner at the Bicentennial Center. The
applicant was also informed that the Zoning Department may not be able to support approval
of a variance request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff agrees with the applicant, for part two (2) of the variance criteria. This is as follows:
2) Such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and
the same vicinity.
There are no other properties in the vicinity that have the same level of tourist visitation
that is unfamiliar with the Monticello location. Also the entrance to Monticello is located
at the crown of a hill immediately after a curve in the road. Traffic speed is generally
slow, approximately twenty-five (25) miles an hour, in this area.
Staff is sympathetic to the fact that the applicant has already spent several thousand dollars in
the construction of these signs. Staff agrees with the applicant that the community should
benefit from the increased tourist activity that the birthday celebration brings to the
Charlottesville-Albemarle area. However, it is staff's opinion that the applicant has not met
the remaining criteria to approve this request. Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause:
1) The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would
produce undue hardship.
STAFF REPORT - VA-93-11
Page 3
The applicant does have the alternative to use the proposed sign at another location on the
site. If the sign is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent property a permit or
variance would not be required. Also the loss of the use of this sign at its current
location and the inconvenience and expense of having to relocate the sign does not create
an undue hardship approaching confiscation if this variance is not granted.
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.
Staff is also mindful of precedence for others to request variances. It is staff's concern that
similar requests for additional signage in the Rural Areas from local wineries, farms, and
other historical sites and landmarks could possible be a detriment and change the character of
the Rural Areas.
Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following condition:
1) The sign shall be removed by January 10, 1994.
2) Anchoring of the sign subject to approval by the Albemarle County Inspections
Department.
I 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
4OF A ,.
� � � llflli9
I IRG114
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
FROM: Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning
DATE: March 29, 1993
RE: Variance Comments
The following comments are offered without review of all files or
field inspection:
VA-93-03 Mt. Ararat Lodge: to reduce front setback from 75 to 49
feet and rear setback from 35 to 26 feet. Due to the shape of
the lot, this variance would appear appropriate. RA setback and
yard requirements are intended to maintain a rural character and
to provide fire separation. Prior to 1976, front setback was 30
feet and rear yard was 35 feet in depth.
VA-93-04 Kroger Company: to increase height of a wall sign from
20 to 27 feet. This does not appear to be a request for
increased sign area, but configuration. Dimensions of Kroger
sign at Hydraulic/Route 29 should be investigated. The sign
provisions, adopted in July, 1992, were intended to be reasonable
and to avoid variance. The BZA is entreated to be cautious in
granting variances which would set precedent to undermine the
sign regulations.
VA-93-05 Joseph B. Orlick: to reduce side yard from 25 to 7
feet. Yard requirements, among other things, are intended to
provide fire safety. Recommend that analysis of this request
should be in accord with Section 4. 11. 3 and that appropriate fire
agencies be consulted.
VA-93-06 Monticello Oil Company: to reduce setback from Route
631 from 30 to 8 feet for a proposed canopy; to reduce setback
from Route 631 to Route 650 form 30 to 2 and 5 feet respectively
for a proposed containment dike and recently constructed 4,000
gallon replacement kerosene tank; to reduce setback from Route
650 from 30 to 10 feet for a loading dock to remain as
constructed. New construction was done with no building permits
or other County approvals, but was at the direction of some state
Amelia McCulley
March 29 , 1993
Page 2
agency. This agency should be contacted as to the particulars of
this case. Appropriate fire agencies should be consulted as to
safety issues of volatile fluids in such close proximity to a
heavily traveled public road. If recommended by such agencies,
kerosene tank should be relocated for safety purposes or possibly
protected by collision structure.
VA-93-07 Keswick Corporation: to reduce front setback from 25
feet on internal private road as follows: building #1 to 21
feet; building #2 to 5 feet; building #3 to 10 feet. (- J, , s --,
VA-93-08 New Green Mountain Church: to reduce setback required
for structures 68 feet in height from 68 to 40 feet (front) and
63 feet (side) . Presumably, this is a variance from the
requirements of Section 4. 10 . 3 , which places this decision in the
hands of the Planning Commission. I have expressed concern in
the past and reiterate here, that when the zoning ordinance
specifies the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board,
Public Recreation Facilities Authority, Board of Supervisors, or
various other governmental agencies/staff with authority to
decide an issue, it is inappropriate for such provision the be
subject of variance. I do not believe under the language of the
Code, the BZA is authorized to grant variance from procedural or
administrative matters.
VA-93-09 Mark Deaton: to reduce front setback from Route 626
from 75 go 40 feet for installation of gas pumps of gas pumps.
As I understand, this variance is for reinstallation of gas pumps
farther back from the public road and outside of the James River
floodplain. During development of the 1980 zoning map, staff had
recommended that existing Country stores be afforded C-1
Commercial zoning. If that had been the case, thus variance
would be unnecessary.
VA-93-10 Dennis and Jane Sigloh: to create a lot with no backup
septic field. As cited in VA-93-08, the zoning ordinance
(Section 4. 2 . 5) places this decision in the hands of the Planning
Commission, and I do not believe is appropriate to variance by
the BZA. I have viewed this property and reviewed Mr. E. 0.
Gooch' s letter. Should the BZA choose to grant variance it is
strongly recommend that easement be provided on the parent tract
for a replacement drainfield. Reasons for this recommendation
are as follows:
Amelia McCulley
March 29 , 1993
Page 3
1) This property is situated in a reservoir watershed
which heightens health concerns should the existing
field malfunction.
2) Once the property is in divided ownerships, discontinue
of use of the older home ( in the event of septic system
failure) would be more difficult in terms of reasonable
use of the land. In an undivided state, the owner
would continue to enjoy residential use of the new
dwelling.
3 ) Providing such easement would not be a hardship or
otherwise excessive condition. To the contrary it
could be viewed as "insurance" to the Sigloh daughter
should she wish to sell the property or should her
parents sell their property.
4) Providing such easement would allow the division and
would (to an extent) satisfy the intent of Section 4. 1
and 4. 2. No construction would be necessary until
failure of the existing drainfield.
of temporary event sign from 32 to 84 square feet and to increase
the time period from 15 to 315 days.
VA-93-12 Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation: to increase the
size of a temporary event sign from 32 to 266 square feet and to
increase time period from 15 to 315 days.
1) VA-93-12 has not been signed by the property owner;
2) VA-93-12 includes request that the authorized time
period be 21 times the length of time specified by the
ordinance. Under such circumstances, it may be more
appropriate to treat that sign as an "off-site
advertising sign" which can only be authorized by
issuance of a special use permit;
3) The sign under VA-93-11 is about three times the sign
area allowed in the RA zone. The sign in VA-93-12 is
about 2 1/2 times the size of the largest sign allowed
in commercial zoned;
Amelia McCulley
March 29 , 1993
Page 4
4) To grant the requested variance to sign area could be
deemed as acknowledgement that the maximum area
permitted by the newly adopted sign provisions is
inadequate. If temporary display is employed to
justify this factor, then why not allow all temporary
signs to be 266 square feet as opposed to 32 square
feet. That is to say, if a hardship exists due to
setback from the roadway as to the ability of a
traveler to receive the message, then such hardship
would presumably exist for any other signs similarly
situated ( i.e. - compare location from public roads to
VA-93-04) .
VA-93-13 University Commons Condominiums: to reduce setback from
Route 656 from ten feet to zero feet. The new sign provisions
were intended to provide more reasonable setback provisions to
reduce the number of variance requests. The question her is
simple: Is the proposed sign readable at the required setback?
If not, then setback should be reduced only to the extent
necessary for the sign to be readable. Virginia Department of
Transportation should verify that no additional right-of-way will
be necessary along Georgetown Road for future improvements. A
zero foot setback for any structure should always be conditioned
upon verification by the applicant' s surveyor ( including stamp)
that the structure has been located accordingly. Zero foot
setbacks simply invite neighbor disputes in the future and should
only be granted under the most extreme circumstances. It would
be very difficult for a property owner to demonstrate that a one
or two foot setback (i.e - some margin of error) would constitute
a hardship.
RSK/mem/blb