HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199700024 Review Comments 1998-02-03 Staff Report: VA 97-24 Date: February 3, 1998
Page 1
STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: February 3,1998
STAFF REPORT VA 97- 24
OWNER/APPLICANT: Hillcrest Land Trust / Woody Parrish
Known as Food Lion at Southside Shopping Center
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 77 / 47
ZONING: PDSC, Planned Development Shopping Center
ACREAGE: 6.717
LOCATION: On the east side of Route 742 (Avon Street) on the north
side of the connector road between Avon Street and Route
20.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section
4.15.12.6 Sign Regulations. A variance of 3 feet is requested to allow a wall sign to be
constructed to a height of 23 feet. The applicant wants this variance to erect a wall sign
for the new Food Lion at Southside Shopping Center.
Staff has not received complete information about the sign type and exact size and
location. The proposed sign is the standard Food Lion sign of white channel letters with
the lion in between the "Food" and "Lion." Staff presumes it will be located at the main
entrance which faces on the internal connector road.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
This property was rezoned to Planned Development Shopping Center (ZMA 95-21).
The Southside Retail Center Site Plan has received preliminary and final review by the
Architectural Review Board.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This parcel has frontage
on both the new connector road and Avon Street. This is the connector road between
Avon Street and Route 20. It lies below the grade of Avon Street (Route 742). The
finished floor of the Food Lion is about 17 feet below the grade of Avon Street and 7 feet
below the grade of the new access road.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT:
A review of the variance criteria is as follows:
4110
O
Staff Report: VA 97-24 Date: February 3, 1998
Page 2
Necessary Finding Number One: Hardship
The applicant comments that the variance is necessary:
• Limiting the height of this sign to 20 feet would place it below the midpoint of the
supporting brick wall. This is visually undesirable as the enclosed elevations show.
Staff cannot support the basis the applicant has stated as meeting the State Code criteria.
However, staff can identify topographical hardship as described under the Code of Virginia
relating to granting a variance. This is a physical condition which to some degree, currently
limits the use of the property. In addition, due to various factors, the sign is located about
300 feet from the right-of-way of the internal road and is visible only at an angle about 400
feet from Avon Street. Some of these limiting factors exist commonly and are
considerations in choosing property.
This criteria is difficult to review under the variance criteria alone. The height maximum
regulations of the sign ordinance have been recognized as needed amendment and a draft
amendment has been written by staff. It is being reviewed by the County Attorney's office
and should go to public hearing as soon as staff reviews the changes. There have been
repeated variances on this section and the applicants should not have to wait further.
Necessary Finding Number Two: Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
The optimum location for this sign is a function of this particular building's massing
and geometry, circumstances which would not apply to buildings on other properties
in the vicinity.
Again, staff notes that the State Code requires findings relative to the property and not how
the property develops, or the building. It is not a unique hardship if the variance is
commonly recurring. However, as stated in the preceding, staff asks that the Board
positively consider the fact that the ordinance is recommended for change.
Necessary Finding Number Three: Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
This sign faces a parcel which is expected to be developed as phase two of the
shopping center. It is over 250 feet from the right of way along both Avon Street
and Mill Creek Drive, and is well below the 30 foot maximum height in the proposed
amendment to this section of the ordinance.
Staff agrees that the sign at the requested height will not change the character of the
S
Staff Report:VA 97-24 Date: February 3, 1998
Page 3
district. There are other signs further south on Avon Street which were installed under the
old ordinance which allowed a 30 foot height. In addition, the fact that the building is below
road grade and is substantially setback will result in a neutral impact from a sign which is
3 feet above the maximum height. Therefore, staff agrees:
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The State Code directs us to amend the ordinance and not grant a variance in the case
of a section which is the subject of recurring variances. This circumstance points to a flaw
in the regulations and not a unique hardship of particular properties. However, the
applicants have continued to be put in the position of requesting variances until the sign
regulations are amended. Staff asks that the Board consider that situation.
Strictly and technically speaking, this variance request does not meet all criteria. Staff is
of the opinion that there should be no negative impact on the character of the area.
However, because it does not meet all three criteria, staff can not recommend approval.
O
f I1
O
O
.i
i