Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000026 Review Comments 1990-04-10 STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: April 10, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-26 OWNER/APPLICANT: Boar's Head Enterprises TAX MAP/PARCEL: 59D2/01-14 ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial ACREAGE: Approximately 1 acre LOCATION: Located on the south side of Route. 250 west, approximately 1 mile west of the intersection of Route 250 west and Route 29 south by-pass. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 30.5.7.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "30.5.7 Sign Regulations, SA - Highways . . . 30.5.7.2 Regulation of number, height, area, and types of signs . . . b) . Freestanding business and projecting business signs shall be limited to ten (10) feet in height above grade, eighteen (18) square feet per single sign face, and to one (1) sign per separate highway frontage." Applicant proposes to increase an existing 40 square foot nonconforming freestand- ing sign to 64 square feet. Applicant's justification includes: 1. Applicant feels that replacing a back-lit plastic sign with a hand carved wooden sign would be in keeping with the spirit of the sign ordinance for scenic highways and improve the appearance of that section of Route 250 west. RECOMMENDATION The sign currently located at the entrance to the Boar's Head is nonconforming. There has been a freestanding sign at this location since the late 1950's. Staff tends to agree with the applicant, that a wooden, hand carved sign would be more in keeping with the aesthetic values of the scenic highway. However, the current sign is approximately 40 square feet in area and staff is of the opinion that the applicant does not need to increase the aggregate area to 64 square feet. Therefore, the application should be denied for cause. STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: April 10, 1990 Page 2 Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 2. The applicant has not provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; 3. The applicant has not provided evidence that the authorization of such var- iance will not be substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance.