Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300012 Action Letter 1993-04-29 4Aii , ®— l'iRGIN\P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 April 29, 1993 Michael Merriam The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation P. O. Box 316 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-93-12; Tax Map 77, Parcel 15B Dear Mr. Merriam: This letter is to inform you that on April 28, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (3:0) approved your request for VA-93-12, subject to the following conditions: 1) The sign shall be removed by January 10, 1994. 2) Anchoring of the sign shall be subject to approval by the Albemarle County Inspections Department. This variance approval allows relief from Section 4.15.11(a) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to increase the size of a temporary event sign from 32 to 266 square feet and to increase the time period of a temporary event sign from 15 to 315 days. If you have any questions, please contact our office. 71rely,/ John Grady Deputy Zoning Administrator JG/sp cc: Albemarle County .,10Y ALL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 April 20, 1993 Michael Merriam The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation P.O. Box 316 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ARB-F(SIGN)-93-07 Sign Variance Request Tax Map 77 Parcel 15B Dear Mr. Merriam: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on April 19, 1993. The board strongly recommended to the Board of Zoning Appeals that they grant the variance request for increase in size and length of duration of display of the banner. Sincerely, Marcia Joseph Design Planner MJ cc: John Grady � ' sf�( A � .. STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: April 28, 1993 STAFF REPORT - VA-93-12 OWNER: County of Albemarle APPLICANT: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation TAX MAP/PARCEL: 77/15B ZONING: R-1, Residential LOCATION: On the west side of Route 20 S approximately two-tenths (.2) of a mile south Interstate 64 and Route 20 intersection. 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 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 two hundred sixty-six (266) square feet, and to b) increase the time limit from fifteen (15) days to three hundred fifteen (315) days. The banner is fourteen (14) feet in height and nineteen (19) feet wide. It will be located on the brick facade below the silhouette of Thomas Jefferson. The sign colors consists of a purple background with yellow, stating "Thomas Jefferson 250. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION: 1) The limitation of thirty-two (32) square feet does not allow adequate visual emphasis for a celebration of this importance to the community, state and nation. 2) The Thomas Jefferson Visitors Center is the only property, other than Monticello, in the vicinity that is involved in this celebration. 3) Many aspects of this celebration, including the signs, are being funded by Monticello and should be considered a service to the whole community. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-12 Page 2 4) The banner, though visible from Route 20, will have little or no visual impact beyond the confines of the Visitors Center parking lot. 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 that the applicant has shown justification on two sections of the variance criteria necessary to approve this request. 2) That such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. The Thomas Jefferson Center is the only property in this vicinity that is directly involved in this celebration. This property although zoned Residential and located in a residential setting, is more commerical in nature. Staff also agrees that the Visitors Center has very limited identification as there are no permanent wall signs located on the building. 3) 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. The banner should not be a detriment to adjacent property as the Visitor Center is surrounded by Piedmont Virginia Community College and the Blue Ridge Hospital. Staff also agrees with the applicant that the banner will have little or no impact beyond the confines of the Visitors Center parking lot. The sign will only be visible to motorists traveling north on Route 20. This may be of some assistance to visitors that have left Monticello and are looking for the Visitors Center. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-12 Page 3 Staff is sympathetic to the fact that the applicant has spent several thousand dollars on the construction of their signs. Staff also agrees with the applicant that the community should benefit from any 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 criterial necessary 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 realizes that it will be difficult for the applicant to find an alternative use or another location on this site for a banner of this size. However, the inconvenience and expense of having to relocate the banner does not create an undue hardship approaching confiscation if this variance is not granted. 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 shall be subject to approval by the Albemarle County Inspections Department. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 1.797 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. �.eA OH 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. VA-93-11 Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation: to increase area of temporary event sign from 32 to 84 square feet and to increase the time period from 15 to 315 days. tom,- MOMA r,i oa X104 t n: 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