Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300019 Action Letter 1993-06-09 • �OF AL3n. ev!.70 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 June 09, 1993 Jeff Lockwood 116 Blackthorne Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Lake Reynovia Tax Map 90, Parcel 36 Dear Mr. Lockwood: This letter is to inform you that on June 08, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (5:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-93-19, subject to the following condition: 1) At such time that this sign is replaced or substantially modified, it shall conform to the size regulations of the ordinance in effect at the time of replacement or modification. This variance approval allows relief from Section 4.15.12.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to increase the size of a subdivision sign from 32 square feet to 54 square feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, John Grady Deputy Zoning Administrator JG/sp STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: June 8, 1993 STAFF REPORT - VA-93-19 OWNER/APPLICANT: Jayel Industries, Inc. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 90/36 ACREAGE: 6.37 acres ZONING: R-4, Residential LOCATION: On the west side of Route 742 (Avon Street Extended) .7 of a mile north of the Route 20 and Route 742 intersection, known as Lake Reynovia Subdivision. REQUEST: The applicant requests a variance to allow a fifty-four(54) square foot subdivision sign to remain as built. Section 4.15.12.2 of the ordinance establishes the maximum size of subdivision signs to be thirty-two (32) square feet. The applicant seeks relief to increase the size of a subdivision sign from thirty-two(32) square feet to fifty-four(54) square feet, a variance of twenty-two (22) square feet. The existing sign is a sand blasted wood finish, medium blue background, with white copy and supported by rock columns. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION: The applicant's justification includes: 1) The existing sign was erected prior to the adoption of the current sign ordinance. 2) The applicant received incorrect information from his design personnel that a permit was not required for a subdivision sign. 3) The sign project was funded entirely out of pocket and there are insufficient funds at this time to construct another sign. 4) We designed and constructed our sign in size, colors and style to conform with other subdivision signs in the area. HISTORY: The current sign ordinance was adopted September 09, 1992. On June 24, 1992, a zoning inspector informed Reynovia personnel that if the foundation and rock work at the entrance was for a sign location, it would require a permit and approval from the Zoning Department and Architectural Review Board. On May 5, 1993, the applicant made application to the Zoning Department for a sign permit and Architectural Review Board approval. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-19 PAGE 2 HISTORY CONTINUES The Architectural Review Board reviewed the application at its May 17th meeting and recommended the following. The applicant should remove the top section of the sign including the logo, this measures on (1) foot by nine (9) feet. This would reduce the sign by eighteen (18) square feet and require a variance of only four (4) feet. A Certificate of Appropriateness will be granted by the Architectural Review Board if a variance of four (4) feet or twenty-two (22) square feet is approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. RECOMMENDATION: Staff confirms that the existing sign was erected prior to the adoption of the current sign ordinance and the prior sign ordinance would have permitted a sixty (60) square foot subdivision sign. However, had the applicant responded to the inspector's warning to obtain a permit in June of 1992, this application could have been avoided. It is therefore a self-imposed hardship. However, staff does feel that the applicant meets one section of the variance criteria necessary for this request. That the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of such variance. The existing sign does blend in with the other subdivision signs in the vicinity in relation to size and style. Also, the sign has been approved by the Architectural Review Board for its aesthetic quality. Staff does not feel that the applicant has met the remaining two section of the criteria necessary to approve this request. Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause: 1) The strict application of the ordinance would not produce undue hardship. The hardship in this case is self imposed. Had the applicant responded to the inspector's warning to obtain a permit this variance request would have been avoided. Furthermore, replacing or modifying the existing sign would not appear to produce an undue hardship that approaches confiscation. 2) Such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-19 PAGE 3 To date, there have not been any requests in this district or any other district to increase the size of subdivision signs since the adoption of the new sign ordinance in September of 1992. The applicant is correct that other subdivision signs in this area (Mill Creek) currently exceed the thirty-two (32) square feet allowed by the current ordinance. However, the signs at Mill Creek as well as other subdivision signs throughout the County will have to gradually come into conformity when they are replaced or modified. Therefore, the hardship concerning sign size is equally shared in this district and other districts throughout the County. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following condition: 1) At such time that this sign is replaced or substantially modified, it shall conform to the size regulations of the ordinance in effect at the time of replacement or modification.