Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199700015 Review Comments 1997-09-02 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: September 2, 1997 STAFF REPORT VA-97-15 OWNER/APPLICANT: Lowe's Investment Corp. #341 TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04500/093A0 ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial/EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 21.733 acres LOCATION: The northwest quadrant of the intersection of Route 29 North and Woodbrook Drive REQUEST: The applicant is requesting two variances under Section 4.15.12.6. They are as follows: 1. To increase the height of a wall sign from 20 to 28 feet, and, 2. To increase the allowable sign area on one wall from 200 to 284 square feet by reducing the allowable sign area on another wall from 200 to 116 square feet. The first proposed sign is approximately 196 square feet in size (7 feet high and 28 feet long). It will be on the facade over the main entrance near the middle of the front of the building. The bottom of the six- and seven-foot letters will be located 19.5 feet above the ground making the tops of the letters 26.5 feet above ground. The sign "Lowe's" is designed to be white channel letters with internal illumination. The second sign "Indoor Lumber Yard," is proposed to be 88 square feet and will be on a smaller facade on the western end of the front of the building. These signs have already been approved by the Architectural Review Board. The applicant's justification includes the following: Hardship The strict application of this ordinance would produce undue hardship by not permitting Lowe's to properly identify and direct customers to their desired store location. This direction is essential to our customers due to the size of our facility and travel distances between the different sales departments. In particular, our lumber sales area is located on the left side of the building while our garden center sales area is located on the right side of the building. Allowing Lowe's to erect our "Indoor Lumber Yard Sign" will allow our customers entering the parking lot to make a decision on where to park, based on the product they intend to purchase, thus creating a more convenient shopping experience. Staff Report-Variance 97-15 Page 2 Uniqueness of Hardship If Lowe's was considered a strip shopping center and consisted of four (4) retail facilities, the following calculations would be utilized to determine the wall signage: Land Use Code 4.15.12.6 - 1.5 sq. ft. of signage per 1 linear foot of building frontage. • Lowe's 550 linear ft. X 1.5 = 825 sq. ft. = 200 sq. ft. max. since only one business • A strip shopping center having 550 linear ft. of frontage with four (4) different stores of 135 linear feet each would be permitted 200 sq. ft. each (a total of 800 sq. ft.) [135 x 1.5 = 202.5 = 200 max. per store] Examples of an existing strip center can be identified adjacent to our store location. Furthermore, our proposed new Lowe's can be considered similar to a strip shopping center due to two conditions: 1) The size of the proposed Lowe's facility (approximately 164,000 square feet with 550 linear feet of building frontage); and, 2) Our store consists of a number of different departments and carry a wide variety of products. Impact on Character of the Area The authorization of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by granting of this variance because similar conditions occur at adjacent properties. RELEVANT HISTORY: There are a variety of special use permits and rezonings on this property. None are applicable to this variance. STAFF COMMENT: As stated in VA 97-14, staff has prepared a packet of sign ordinance changes to define terminology and to further clarify some sections. One of the proposed changes will be to allow wall signs in the commercial zoning districts to return to the original 30 foot height limit. This packet has been through multiple layers of development department review, but is currently in line behind site plan and subdivision ordinance amendments, the water resource ordinance and the mountain protection ordinance. We are waiting for a date to be set for the proposed changes to be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. If the amendments to the sign ordinance are adopted as proposed by staff, the 30 foot height limit will become regulation. There is no plan, however, to change the maximum wall sign allowed for a case such as Staff Report-Variance 97-15 Page 3 this. This case of a business in a building with a large amount of frontage, requesting more sign area on one face of the building will still necessitate a variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff opinion is that the applicant has not expressed any physical reasons why the height limitation of 20 feet cannot be met. The facade bearing the main sign has sufficient space to locate the sign and meet our regulation. Therefore, although they meet criteria number three, staff recommends denial for cause on the height variance: 1 . The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; The denial of this request would not produce an undue hardship because the applicant does have the ability to establish a wall sign or, the building at a height that meets regulation and which is visible from Woodbrook Drive. 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; The majority of properties and businesses in the area have the same disadvantage (a 20 foot height limitation for wall signs). Therefore, if a different regulation is needed, it should be corrected by amendment to the ordinance rather than by numerous variances being granted. As stated earlier, staff has prepared this amendment to the sign ordinance, but don't know when it will be scheduled for the Board of Supervisors' action. 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. Increasing the height will not effect the adjacent properties nor the character of the district. Regarding the variance for additional square footage of wall signs: The applicant has made several points for our consideration. The applicant has shown that a comparable building shared by multiple users would be allowed much more signage than the additional 84 square feet being requested. Staff is of the opinion that there is a logical basis for that provision. The argument the applicant makes is contrary to the current structure of the sign provisions for all zones and all situations. It is one which contends that the sign ordinance should be revised to allow signage which is not based on provisions for signage for each business, but should grant signage based on the size of the buildings. Imagine that example of a "strip mall" or an office building with multiple businesses: each individual business should be given the opportunity for identification and Staff Report-Variance 97-15 Page 4 they should not have to reconcile with several other businesses, how much of the allotted signage, each business receives. Most people will know that Lowe's sells lumber and the sign will rarely capture "drive-by traffic." The applicant has mentioned that the additional sign area will allow customers to know where to park (if they are buying lumber). There is nothing that would limit them from building the same two signs at a smaller size. You may recall that the main sign has letters proposed at 6 feet in height. Customers should be able to read the smaller signs in the parking lot, where they need to make their turning and parking decisions. It is staffs opinion that this request will not satisfy criteria number 1 and 2 but will meet criteria number 3. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict :application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The allowed sign area should provide the same signs at a smaller scale. At that scale they should be readable and should accomplish the intended purpose. 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. Many large stores or"super stores" could make this same argument. For example, Sam's and Walmart have long frontages. 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. This additional square footage on one very long wall will neither be detrimental to adjacent properties nor change the character of the district. Should the Board find cause to approve this additional wall sign area request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) The total signage allowed on the front face of the Lowe's building shall not exceed 284 square feet and shall be divided between the two signs approximately as requested. Should the interior be reorganized and some other products be located at the end now occupied by the lumber yard, the sign could change wording without additional variance authorization. 2. The total signage allowed on the rear of the building shall not exceed 116 square feet.