Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199800018 Review Comments 1998-08-04 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: August 4, 1998 STAFF REPORT VA 98-18 OWNER/APPLICANT: Frances Gravitt (owner); Greg and Helen Hudson (applicants) T/A Cismont Market TAX MAP/PARCEL: 65 / 12C ZONING: RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: about 6.3 acres LOCATION: On the west side of the intersection of Routes 22 and 231 at Cismont TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicants propose to erect a canopy over the fuel pumps with signage on it. They are requesting two variances: the first variance is for the location of the canopy and the second is for the amount of wall signage on the canopy. They are requesting a variance of Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations in order to decrease the front setback. A variance of 74 feet is requested to allow the canopy to be constructed 1 foot from the front property line at Routes 22 and 231 , instead of the 75 foot setback required. In addition to the building setback variance, they are seeking a variance for proposed wall signage. They are proposing a variance of Section 4.15.12.1 in order to increase the wall signage from 20 square feet to 35 square feet, a variance of 15 square feet. After the variance was originally filed and advertised, through the review process with the Architectural Review Board, the applicants have agreed to decrease the amount of wall signage and therefore decrease the amount of variance needed for their proposal. They had originally planned to place the word "Texaco" on the canopy and to utilize an illuminated red stripe and red band around the perimeter. In response to concerns from the ARB, they are deleting the word "Texaco" and they are not illuminating the red band. (*An interpretation of sign regulation relating to canopies is as follows. It bands of color are unlit, they are not counted towards or regulated as signs. If they are illuminated, the stripe(s) is regulated as a sign. Signage on a canopy by definition is wall signage. Wall signage is only permitted on those faces where the canopy has road frontage.) Staff and the applicant will need to resolve the fact that they are proposing 3 Texaco stars and there are only 2 frontages, therefore only 2 faces of the canopy may display signs. The Rural Areas district permits a maximum of 20 square feet of wall signage. For gasoline sales, it allows a freestanding sign of 36 square feet. Page 2 • VA-98-18 Cismont Market The existing signage onsite consists of these: WALL: "Cismont Market" above the door = 8.96 square feet (to remain) FREESTANDING: "Exxon" with pricing (to be removed) There are one or two other freestanding signs advertising pepsi and/or the lottery. (to be removed) The proposed signage consists of these: WALL: 3 logo signs of the "T" Texaco star. They total 26.1 square feet. FREESTANDING: A monument sign advertising "Texaco" and giving the pricing. It will total 32.9 square feet. The freestanding signage will comply with the ordinance maximum. The wall signage (8.96 + 26.1 = 34.97 square feet) is about 15 square feet above the ordinance maximum. RELEVANT HISTORY: The Cismont Market building was built prior to zoning in Albemarle. It has served several uses over the years. • ZMA 80-25 Reilly requested rezoning from Al to B1 and was denied by the Board of Supervisors. • VA 80-53 Reilly was requested to decrease the front setback. The files are incomplete and the full request, report and action are not available. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: (Some of this description is provided by a neighboring owner, Marcia Joseph, who is interested in having the historical, rural and agricultural context of this site considered in this request.) This property is within the Southwest Mountains Historic District, a state designation. This district is on the National Register of Historic places and is one of the largest, measuring approximately 30,000 acres. It is located on Route 22/231 , a Virginia Scenic By-Way. Grace Episcopal Church, a Virginia Historic Landmark, is located about '/2 mile east of this Page 3 VA-98-18 Cismont Market site. It is surrounded by an Agricultural Forestal district and at least 500 acres that are under conservation easement. The site is designated within the County Open Space Plan. This improvement project is planned to be concurrent with the replacement of underground storage tanks (required by December, 1998) and a switch to a new fuel vendor. The tank replacement is beyond the applicants' control and serves the public health and safety. The construction of a canopy is not a mandated improvement; however, most if not all businesses involving fuel sales are choosing to do so. As the Board is aware, staff has typically recommended denial of canopy requests. The Board in prior requests has considered a canopy to be more than a convenience, it is treated as a business necessity. (Please note that the maximum lighting spillover from the canopy or any source onsite can not be varied. Therefore with the minimal setback proposed, it is imperative that the applicant pursue lighting which could meet the ordinance, prior to further commitments on the canopy.) The site has enjoyed this use for many years. The location of the existing development limits the location of an improvement such as this canopy. There is very little distance between the front of the store and the front property line. In fact, the right-of-way runs through the front planting island. Without significantly regrading the site and extending the use off of the state road and further into the property, there appears to be no option as to the proper area for the canopy except for what is proposed. Based on staff's measurements, there appears to be a few additional feet to move the canopy inward and away from the road. This would not eliminate the need for a variance but would increase the setback, decreasing the variance. In other words, it appears that the distance between the store and the pumps/canopy can be decreased. This will allow horse trailers and other oversized vehicles to use the outside pump and will provide more space for people who are customers to the store and inevitably park near the fuel service. We are not designers and do not purport to know as much about the country store or fuel service business as the applicants do. Therefore, this is a recommendation. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria is as follows: Page 4 VA 98-18 Cismont Market Necessary Finding Number One: Hardship The applicant comments that the variance is necessary: • Without approval of this variance we will not be able to offer the agricultural, residential and traveling public the protection of a canopy from weather conditions. • Without this approval, Texaco will not provide Cismont Market and Deli the canopy and upgrades they are proposing that will make our business compliant with the regulations for new tanks installed by December, 1998. Replacement of the tanks and pumps is mandated and must happen. We have heard many times that fuel vendors are not providing various upgrades without canopies. The location of the existing development gives cause for a variance for any canopy construction. However, staff has not supported canopy requests as necessary for reasonable use of property. With regards to the sign variance, staff has not found an undue hardship which justifies additional wall signage to identify the business. The allowable wall signage on structures which are close to the road, coupled with an adequate freestanding sign, will properly give notice to travelers. It will be a known destination to most customers and will need wall signage only for capture traffic from tourists. Therefore, staff concludes: The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Necessary Finding Number Two: Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • If we do not get approval we may not reach compliance by December, 1998 which will mean we would pay fines of $2,000 a day if we pump gasoline after that date. • Our competitor convenience store at Shadwell (6 miles away) has a canopy and has been approved for a variance for its location. It is staff's opinion that this not a unique situation. The State mandate has put many country stores in the position of making upgrades, including adding canopies. Because Page 5 VA-98-18 Cismont Market most are located so close to the front property line, most have required variances. The Board has recognized that this is a recurring situation and has requested that staff initiate a zoning text amendment. Staff can not identify anything unique which gives rise to the need for a wall signage variance. This situation is not a unique hardship. Hence, staff concludes: 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. Necessary Finding Number Three: Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • The variance will not change the character of the district or cause any detriment to adjacent property. • The canopy will only enhance the appearance of the store and provide a safe and more convenient access to our gas pumps. The historical, rural and agricultural aspect of the area establishes a context or character relevant to this criterion. Staff is of the opinion that some canopy designs, could have a detrimental impact on the character of the area. If a canopy request is approved, in staff's opinion it should be limited to a canopy of design, materials and color which are deemed compatible with the existing store and the character of the area. A standard black or white plastic fascia in front of the store would not appear congruent. The applicant has stated that they are limited by Texaco's requirements for canopy and sign colors and materials. Staff has seen areas in which large brand corporations with standardized logos and designs, have made changes to be architecturally compatible. This includes McDonald's in Taos, New Mexico and Raleigh, North Carolina. If the Board is of the same mind as staff, we recommend a condition which specifies additional authority to the ARB so they will not be bound by company standards for material in the fascia, etc. Signage is intended to be minimal in order to serve the purpose of identifying a business (in this case), while not creating clutter which can impact traffic safety and the visual character of the area. Additional signage is not necessary and would be detrimental to the character of the area. Page 6 VA-98-18 Cismont Market The applicant has not 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: Again, staff has consistently not supported variance setback requests for canopies; however, the Board of Zoning Appeals has supported them. We will be studying the issue in the near future and may propose a zoning text amendment to provide for them. As we approach the deadline for underground tank replacement, these requests may decrease significantly. Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1 . Staff approval of the canopy location such that it is no closer to the property line but is as far as possible so as to provide adequate and safe parking and circulation. 2. ARB approval of the canopy materials, colors and design such that it will be compatible with the context of this area and the existing building. 3. Compliance with the maximum lighting spillover of foot-candle. 4. This variance is for the structure requested only. Any addition will require amendment to this variance. With regards to the sign variance request, staff cannot find that any of the three criteria are met. Therefore, staff recommends denial. Should the Board approve the wall signage, staff recommends the following condition: 1 . Wall signage shall be limited to signage on two faces of the canopy. 2. All existing freestanding signs shall be removed prior to completion of the proposed freestanding sign. 3. Approval of this variance shall be limited to a total of 27 square feet of wall signage.