The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199900002 Review Comments 1999-02-02 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: February 2, 1999 STAFF REPORT VA 99-02 OWNER/APPLICANT: Rio Associates Limited Partnership/Innerspace, representing ACAC, Atlantic Coast Athletic Club TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61/123 ZONING: PD-SC, Planned Development-Shopping Center and EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 22.822 LOCATION: Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Rts. 29 (Seminole Trail) and 631 (Rio Road) in the Albemarle Square Shopping Center—area previously occupied by Best Products TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 4.15.12.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which states, "maximum height 20 feet [and] below top of fascia or mansard." Variances of 4 and 5 feet are requested to allow two new signs to be established above the new dryvit reveals at 24 and 25 feet above grade. The portion of the building leased by Atlantic Coast Athletic Club (ACAC) is the north end of the longest building in Albemarle Square, from the courtyard to the end. The proposed signs will be placed on the wall facing and directly in line with the entrance travelway from Rt. 29. Looking from the travelway, the sign to the left will be "ACAC" and the one to the right will be "Martha Jefferson Health and Wellness Services." Each will have its logo to the left of the text. The signs will be channel letters mounted to a box, per shopping center specifications. Letter faces will be translucent white acrylic face panels, constructed so that they will read as blue in the day and white at night. (Similar to Sears at Fashion Square Mall.) These specifications are currently under review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). RELEVANT HISTORY: There have been multiple site plans, variances and violations on this parcel. The only one relevant to this request is SDP 97-061 which amended the Albemarle Square plan to reflect ACAC's modifications for the former BEST building. This plan was signed by the County on September 15, 1997. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This parcel is the same size and shape it has been since before our current zoning ordinance. There is nothing extraordinary in its size, shape or topography that would qualify as hardship for variance. The whole parcel slopes down from the Rio Road end to the northern end where the ACAC building is located. Because the building is one long terraced structure, Circuit City's sign at the Rio Road end, and the Northside Library's sign in the VA 99-02 Staff Report Page 2 February 2, 1999 middle of the building, appear somewhat higher than the two signs proposed under this variance. The Circuit City sign did receive a variance to go up to 30 feet above grade. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship The applicant comments: • There is no true hardship created by the lay of the land that justifies this request. However, the drop in grade between the location of the ACAC facility and other facilities along Rt. 29 causes the signage installed even at a 25-foot height to be well below the plane of the signage for other facilities which sit at a higher grade. Staff cannot identify any hardship as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. However, it is difficult to review this request under the state criteria alone. There have been repeated variances on this section indicating the need for change. The draft sign ordinance that is currently being considered will increase the maximum height in Section 4.15.12.6 to 30 feet. Staff sympathizes with the applicants and believes they should not have to wait any longer. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • The design improvements to the western façade which were requested and approved by the ARB creates tall fascias with dryvit reveals. This taller fascia design is not shared with the other shopping center tenants. (Fascias are 5' taller than original design of building.) Installing the sign at the maximum approved height of 20' causes the raceway holding the channel letters to dissect the dryvit design of the fascia. This results in a less cohesive, less aesthetically pleasing design. The natural signage location intended in this design approved by the ARB is at 24' and 25' above grade. Staff agrees with the applicant that the signs would be better aesthetically at the requested heights, but cannot identify this as unique. Again staff notes that the State Code requires findings relative to the property as a whole, and not how the property develops, or the building itself. It is not a unique hardship if the variance is commonly recurring. However, as stated in the preceding, staff asks that the Board consider the fact that the ordinance is recommended for change. C:IWINDOWSITEMPI VA99-02,doc VA 99-02 Staff Report Page 3 February 2, 1999 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. Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • Installing the signage in such a way that coordinates with the architecture of the façade and the overall look of the shopping center better addresses the character of the district than abiding by the strict application of the ordinance. Staff agrees that allowing the four and five foot height variance will not change the character of the district. Several signs in the nearby commercial area were established at the 30-foot height either by variance or under a prior ordinance which allowed a 30- foot maximum. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The State Code directs us to amend the ordinance rather than grant a variance in the case of a section which is the subject of recurring variances. These recurring variances point to a flaw in the regulations and not a unique hardship relative to one property. However, applicants have continued to be put in the position of requesting variances until the sign regulations are amended. Staff asks the Board to consider that we have been working on this situation for a long time and although we are now close to scheduling public hearings, at best, it will still be several months before the new ordinance is adopted. Staff is of the opinion that there should be no negative impact on the character of the area if the variance is approved. However, strictly and technically speaking, this variance request does not meet all three criteria, and therefore, staff cannot recommend approval. C.\WINDOWS\TEMPI VA99-02.doc ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD MEETING ROOM #241, 2:00 P.M. DRAFT AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Establish a Quorum III. Variance Public Hearings VA-98-32 Charles Dunnivan, et al Estate Staff Person: Amelia McCulley VA-99-01 Carlton and Nancy Luck Staff Person Amelia McCulley VA-99-02 Rio Associates Limited Partnership (owner) Interspace (applicant) Staff Person Jan Sprinkle VA-99-03 Donald E. Seal (owner) Virginia Oil Company (applicant) Staff Person Jan Sprinkle IV. Old Business V. New Business VA-98-30 Phillip & Katharine Buchanan Applicant Request for Rehearing VI. Adjournment C:\r\zonmg\bzal\agenda for Feb 2 meetmg.doc