Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199700015 Review Comments 1997-09-30 REHEARING FROM SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: September 30, 1997 STAFF REPORT VA 97-15 OWNER/APPLICANT: Lowe's Investment Corp. #341 TAX MAP/PARCEL: 45/93A ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 21 .733 acres LOCATION: The northwest quadrant of the intersection of Route 29 North and Woodbrook Drive This application involves two sign variances for a wall sign: one requested an increase in the sign height and the other an increase in the sign area. At the meeting on September 2, 1997, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved these variances subject to two conditions. Since that date, staff has recognized that information relevant to the review of the sign size was not provided. In addition, staff did not provide the complete procedural review required in accordance with State Code as necessary prior to examining the request under the three variance criteria. Therefore, staff requests that the Board reconsider VA 97-15 with respect to the wall sign size. In accordance with article 7.1.2 of the Board of Zoning Appeals' by-laws, a motion for rehearing may be granted by concurring affirmative vote of three members provided: a) That new evidence can be presented which, in the opinion of the Board, is pertinent to the recorded decision ... or b) that, in the opinion of the Board, some condition or situation has changed in such a manner as to have bearing on the decision previously recorded. The staff report for a rehearing follows, in the event the Board votes affirmatively to do so. The first area of discussion surrounds the procedural issue and the second area reflects information which was not presented at the meeting and is pertinent to the decision. Page 2 VA 97-15 Lowe's Rehearing September 30, 1997 I. NECESSARY PROCEDURAL REVIEW Section 15.1-495.2 provides the basis for Board review of variances. It states in part, To AUTHORIZE . .. IN SPECIFIC CASES SUCH VARIANCE .. . AS WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHEN, OWING TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP; PROVIDED THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE SHALL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE, AS FOLLOWS: WHEN A PROPERTY OWNER CAN SHOW THAT HIS PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED IN GOOD FAITH AND WHERE BY REASON OF THE EXCEPTIONAL NARROWNESS, SHALLOWNESS, SIZE OR SHAPE OF A SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE, OR WHERE BY REASON OF EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION OR CONDITION OF SUCH PIECE OF PROPERTY, OR OF THE CONDITION, SITUATION, OR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT THERETO, THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE UTILIZATION OF THE PROPERTY OR WHERE THE BOARD IS SATISFIED, UPON THE EVIDENCE HEARD BY IT, THAT THE GRANTING OF SUCH VARIANCE WILL ALLEVIATE A CLEARLY DEMONSTRABLE HARDSHIP APPROACHING CONFISCATION, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OR CONVENIENCE SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT, PROVIDED THAT ALL VARIANCES SHALL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE INTENDED SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE. This language calls for three elements of review: that there is an extraordinary situation or condition of the property: that imposing the ordinance requirements would result in hardship approaching confiscation; and that the variance is in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the ordinance. 1. Situation of the Property When this property was acquired, the applicant could not in good faith, have expected this signage approval. There has been no change to the ordinance after the purchase by Lowe's, so as to decrease the sign size available to them. Furthermore, the application does not substantiate an extraordinary situation in terms of topography, narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of the property. Instead, the argument is Page 3 VA 97-15 Lowe's Rehearing September 30, 1997 based on the size of the building. That is not a qualifying consideration. It is a result of the applicant's design and thus is a self-imposed hardship. 2. Hardship Approaching Confiscation The applicant has not stated that without the additional sign area the business will not be properly identified, thereby confiscating their use. There is no limit to the number of signs, only to the maximum sign area. The applicant has not argued that there is a hardship because signs at a smaller size will not be visible and will not be able to accomplish their needs. Instead, their argument is based on convenience. Staff is not arguing that there is no need for signage to direct customers to the area to park. This can be done by internal freestanding directional signs as it is done in other large buildings, including the Lowe's in Staunton. If the extensive building frontage is a hardship for signage, then at least 12 other businesses are subject to the same hardship with frontages ranging from 187 feet to 720 feet. If this is a hardship, the fault is in the ordinance and it is not unique to Lowe's. However, there have not been recurring variances. 3. The Spirit and Purpose of the Ordinance The current sign ordinance reflects smaller sign sizes, lower signs, etc. in an effort to minimize visual clutter. The wall sign regulations were written so as to provide signage for each establishment. The maximum allowable sign area in any district, including heavy industrial, is 200 square feet. This has not been subject to recurring variances and is not proposed to change with the zoning text amendment that is pending. Lowe's variance reflects a contention that the sign area should be based on building size. This premise is contrary to the sign ordinance. II. INFORMATION TO BE CONSIDERED The Architectural Review Board's review was limited to the sign design and did not include any aspect of the sign size. It is difficult to ascertain from the record, if the sign size and the necessity for a variance were presented for their review. The fact that Lowe's is not proposing more sign area in total than is permitted without a variance, is not directly relevant. While this is an offer that the Board may accept as valuable as a condition, it does not, in and of itself, prove a hardship or a Page 4 VA 97-15 Lowe's Rehearing September 30, 1997 unique situation, etc. Denial of the variance does not prohibit the use of the sign messages desired: the Lowe's sign and the Indoor Lumber Yard sign can be redesigned such that they are smaller and do not exceed 200 sq ft in area together. The applicant can not substantiate a position that a smaller size would not be visible. Another option is that interior directional signs can direct people to where to park and where to load, etc. These are decisions that can be made with internal circulation and do not require signage prior to getting onsite. The applicant's own justification calls the use of the "Indoor Lumber Yard" sign something which allows a more convenient shopping experience. The justification which includes a comparison of signage available for Lowe's as one establishment versus a strip mall with multiple businesses, was not fully explored by staff. Again, the applicant's argument is against the ordinance and how it is structured to allocate signage, not as a particular hardship to Lowe's. Consider this: if the sign area was purely based on linear frontage and not by allowing each establishment identification, it could operate as "first come, first served" with no signage available to some tenants. It would place tenants in an adversarial position and would not necessarily be based on the tenant's frontage. While each variance is reviewed on its own merits, it would be difficult to differentiate Lowe's request from numerous others in the future for large buildings.