Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200000023 Review Comments 2000-08-01 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: August 1, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-00-023 OWNER/APPLICANTS: Virginia Land Trust (owner) / Mark Tulenko T/A Atlantic Sports & Rehabilitation (applicant) TAX/MAP/PARCEL: 61Z / 3 / 10 ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development, designated for commercial use ACREAGE: 1 .873 acres LOCATION: East side of Hillsdale Drive across from the intersection with Branchlands Blvd. The building is known as the Branchlands Professional Center. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests a variance from Section 4.15.12.4 Signs Permitted by Zoning District. This is a request to increase the size for a wall sign from 32 square feet to 48 square feet, a variance of 16 square feet. The applicant would like to relocate their existing wall sign from their prior site to this new business location. The sign is an internally illuminated box sign, 3 feet high by 16 feet long. The sign background is blue and states "Atlantic Sports & Rehabilitation" and includes their logo. They are currently open and are utilizing a temporary sign. RELEVANT HISTORY: Several parcels within the Branchlands Planned Unit Development have received sign variances to increase the allowable sign size. They are continuing work to finish out space within this building. This business occupies the first floor. It was developed under a site plan named The Branchlands Professional Center, approved March, 1999. Atlantic Sports & Rehabilitation was previously located at Seminole Square in Charlottesville. When this space was completed, they relocated. They are hoping to utilize their existing wall sign. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: 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 ... or where, by reason or exceptional topographic conditions or ... condition of such VA 00-23 Atlantic Sports&Rehab 2 August 1,2000 Board of Zoning Appeals Amelia McCulley piece of property, or of the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto, the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property ... provided that all variances shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of this ordinance. Staff is not aware of an unusual or exceptional aspect to this property which gives rise to the need for a variance. This is another situation in which we have had recurring variances and have recognized the need to change the regulations. The draft sign ordinance addresses this situation by increasing the maximum wall sign size to 100 square feet, based on a calculation of 1 square foot per 1 linear foot of establishment structure frontage. The applicant's sign would not only meet the draft sign ordinance but would be less than 1/2 the size allowed. The draft sign ordinance has been discussed by the Architectural Review Board and will come to a roundtable public discussion later this summer. The zoning text will then be scheduled for public hearings beginning this fall. STAFF ANALYSIS: This situation is similar to what we have experienced for nonconformities and for tower variances, which are now addressed by approved zoning text amendments. In the interim, the public and staff must continue to work under the existing regulations. Staff has not received negative feedback relating to proposed sign provisions for PUD wall signs. Therefore, if these sign provisions are adopted as proposed, this variance will be temporary or will become moot. However, staff must continue to review variance requests under the criteria as setforth in the State Code. 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 that the variance is necessary: • This sign is for a commercial building located behind Toys R Us and it would create a hardship because it could make it difficult for our customers to locate the new location. • The other businesses in the area all have larger signs to increase their visibility to their customers. It would make it more difficult for our customers to locate our new facility with a new and smaller sign. • The existing sign has been used for almost five years. • Other businesses in the vicinity of the building all have signs that are proportional to the front of the store and are large enough for customers to locate their building. Staff opinion is that this hardship is shared generally by all to whom this regulation applies. The hardship is created by the regulation itself and is not unique to this I IDEPT\Building&Zoning\Staff Reports1VA2000-23.doc VA 00-23 Atlantic Sports&Rehab 3 August 1,2000 Board of Zoning Appeals Amelia McCulley property. The fact that the applicants currently have a sign and would have to purchase an entirely new one unless the variance is granted, is somewhat unique. However, this fact alone does not constitute an undue hardship. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant comments that the variance in necessary: • The other businesses in the vicinity of our building all have signs that exceed the current sign ordinance guidelines. These other businesses were subject to the same hardship in regards to customer recognition. According to the county office these businesses were all granted a variance. Therefore, there is no shared hardship because they all have approval for larger signs. Staff finds that the hardship is shared generally by all properties zoned Planned Unit Development. Several in this area have previously received variances. (See #1 in the preceding). 2. Evidence has not been provided 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: • It is our understanding that the current ordinance is being modified in order to accommodate commercial businesses in the area. If the new ordinance passes we would probably be allotted 100 square feet of signage. We are asking for permission to hang a sign that is only 48 square feet. • Other businesses in the vicinity have variances and signs that exceed 48 square feet. Our sign would not be brighter nor larger than any other sign in the vicinity nor would it be located in the "29 corridor" to cause an additional distraction to drivers on 29. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal would not negatively impact the character of the area. I:IDEPT\Building&ZoninglStaff Reports\VA2000-23.doc VA 00-23 Atlantic Sports&Rehab 4 August 1,2000 Board of Zoning Appeals Amelia McCulley 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: Since the application satisfies only one of the three criteria, staff recommends denial. Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff is not aware of any appropriate conditions. It is likely that the new sign ordinance will permit a larger sign than the applicants now propose. If that is the case, they will be entitled to utilize the then-existing regulations as they make changes to the sign. I:IDEP71Building&ZoninglStaff Reports\VA2000-23.doc