Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300026 Action Letter 1993-07-14 • /07 % oA '7 1.r COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060 TDD (804) 972-4012 July 14, 1993 Bob McKee McKee/Carson Queen Charlotte Square 256 E. High Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action UREF Research Park, Inc. Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B1 Dear Mr. McKee: This letter is to inform you that on July 13, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (4:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-93-26, subject to the following conditions: 1) The sign shall be in substantial compliance with the sign permit, S-93-61; and 2) Landscaping shall be in accord with the approved landscape plan. This variance approval allows relief from Section 4.15.12.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to increase the number of freestanding signs at the fontaine University Research Park, from 1 to 2. These entrance signs are to be mounted along the brick entrance walls at Fontaine Ave. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, John Grady Deputy Zoning Administrator JG/sg STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING:July 13 , 1993 STAFF REPORT - VA 93-26 OWNER/APPLICANT: University Real Estate Foundation (UREF) , Inc. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76/17B1 ZONING: CO, Commercial Office ACREAGE: 17 .841 acres LOCATION: On the south side of Fontaine Avenue at the I-64 interchange. REQUEST: The applicant seeks a variance from Section 4. 15. 12 . 5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to increase the number of freestanding signs from 1 to 2 , at the entrance to the Fontaine Research. They are to be mounted within the inset of the retaining walls on either side of the entrance island. The retaining walls were designed and currently exist to handle the grade difference. They were built with the sign inset, based on the understanding the sign was approved. The site drawings showing some sign details were reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. It was assumed that they approved the signs. The wall consists of a sand blasted grey concrete. The sign has been custom-made based on that same understanding. It consists of individual cast bronze "weathered" letters stating "FONTAINE Research Park. " Both signs in aggregate, do not exceed the sign area allowed by our ordinance. The applicant's justification includes: 1. The wall was built and exists with insets for the sign. If one sign can not be erected, the wall will look bad. 2 . The sign was custom-made. If the one sign can not be used, time and money will have been lost in making it. 3 . The signs as proposed are subtle, are of natural materials, and are designed to be effective but unobtrusive markers for the entrance to the park. If this variance is not granted, the entrance will look asymmetrical. Significant expense and time has been expended to improve this entrance and establish an identity for the Research Park. Plantings in the median and behind the walls are being installed which exceed minimum regulations, to create an aesthetically pleasing development. In further efforts towards those ends, the applicant limited the sign copy to simply name the Park. The Forestry Department, ABC Board and others had all wanted identification. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-26 PAGE 2 4. Due to the topography of the site and the roadway, one entrance sign would not be visible from both directions. The road slopes downward away from the site. In addition, it appears it would cause a sight distance problem. RELEVANT HISTORY: There are several rezonings on this property. ZMA 79-43 was approved for South 29 Land Trust to rezone 69 acres from Al, Agricultural to R3 , Residential. ZMA 85-01 was approved for Virginia Land Trust to rezone 25 acres to Planned Development Shopping Center. ZMA 90-21 was approved to rezone 53 acres from PDSC to R10, Residential. ZMA 92-03 was approved to rezone PDSC and R10 to CO, Commercial Office. STAFF COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the applicant's justification. In addition, staff wishes to make the following comments: 1. This application has initiated the discussion of an amendment to our ordinance regulations to allow for such entrance signage. This method of creating a sense of place and of establishing an identity for a development, by naming it on the sign and having a well--ti defined entrance, is one of the foundations of the sign ordinance. For example in this application, to comply with the ordinance, they could have one two-sided sign in the entrance island. Instead, they have blended the necessary artificial and natural elements with the retaining wall and the sign on either side of what will be a five-lane entrance. 2 . As a result of negotiation, both the Fontaine Park and several state agencies will be served by this one entrance. The state agency property is currently served by another entrance which will be closed and otherwise would have been entitled to a separate sign. Therefore, for all of the above-noted reasons, staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. This is based on the good faith investment of time and money for the custom-design and construction of the sign and wall. It is also based on the topographical conditions unique to this property. The road curve and other factors lead to the sign only being partially visible from either direction. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-26 PAGE 3 2. The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. The unique aspects of this application are as follows: • Staff is unaware of any development of this scale in the same vicinity. This entrance serves a substantial development; • Because of the assumed approval by the County, the applicants have had investment-backed expectations. • Due to this site's topography with respect to the road, the one sign if erected in compliance with the ordinance, would not be visible from both directions. 3. The applicant has 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. As proposed, the signage is unobtrusive and yet not so little or so busy that it will confuse or slow drivers. It is proposed to be more compatible, rather than detrimental to adjacent property. It has received the approval from the Design Planner to the Architectural Review Board. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following condition: V 1. The sign shall be in substantial compliance with the sign permit S-93-61; 2. Landscaping shall be in accord with the approved landscape plan.