Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200400003 Review Comments 2004-04-06 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: April 6, 2004 STAFF REPORT VA-2004-003 OWNER/APPLICANT: John or Janice Linkous (owners) / Flow Companies of Charlottesville (applicant) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78 / 15D ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 1.252 acres LOCATION: 1313 Richmond Road on the south side of Route 250 East. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant is proposing to install an additional (25 square foot) freestanding Audi sign on an existing pole on which a VW sign currently exists. Because the existing signage is nonconforming and this additional sign would not be permitted under the nonconforming sign regulations, variances will also be necessary for the existing freestanding signs. The existing VW sign is 25 square feet in size and 15 feet in height. The other sign, Mazda, is 30 square feet in size and 16 feet in height. Maximum Number Maximum Sign Area Maximum Height of Signs (sq. ft.) (ft.) Allowed by Z.O. 1 32 12 Existing On Site 2 55 sq ft total 1 sign 25 and 1 sign 15 and another 30 sq ft another 16 ft high Proposed (total if 2 80 sq ft total variance is 1 sign 50 and 1 sign 15 and approved) another 30 sq ft another 16 ft high As shown in the preceding table, variances are necessary for number of signs, size and height. The necessary variances (all from Section 4.15.13) are as follows: 1. To allow one (1) additional freestanding sign for a total of two (2) freestanding signs on this property. This is a variance for one (1) sign. 2. To increase the sign height for the two signs from the maximum 12 foot to 15 and 16 feet. This involves two variances: one sign for 3 feet and the other sign for 4 feet in height. 3. To increase the sign area from 32 square feet to 80 square feet. This is a variance of 48 square feet. ZIAtzti VA 2004-003 Flow 2 • April 6, 2004 RELEVANT HISTORY: The first building on this property was built in 1970. There is no history in the zoning files. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This dealership consists of two parcels: parcel 14D and parcel 15D. The subject parcel, parcel 15D, fronts along Route 250 and the other parcel (14D) is behind it. The right-of-way for Route 250 ranges from just past the edge of the sidewalk along Route 250 to about a foot away from the sidewalk. Most of the property is below the grade of Route 250 with the exception of the easternmost and westernmost ends of the road frontage where it is approximately the same grade. The vehicle display area begins just a few feet from the edge of the sidewalk adjacent to the Route 250 travel way. The site is currently improved with two entrances. There appears to be a location for at least one freestanding sign which would meet the height, size and setback requirements and still be visible from Route 250. However, we would need to measure to confirm that setback requirements could in fact be met. In addition, the site is currently served by nonconforming signage in excess of the ordinance requirements. Staff cannot find evidence of an undue hardship relating to the property which would justify the variance requests. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship Staff comments are written in italics and follow the applicant's comments. The applicant notes that the variance is necessary: • Needed to allow Audi branding. Staff cannot find evidence of an undue hardship to justify these several variances necessary for an additional sign. The site currently enjoys an additional freestanding sign, both signs with increased height and additional sign area of 23 square feet. The signs can be redesigned to allow Audi branding without variances. In fact, one monument sign closer to the road listing all manufacturers (VW, Mazda and Audi) would be preferred over the existing signage. The Design Planner with the ARB concurs with this recommendation. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. VIM GU(J JUJ rlVW ,J • April 6, 2004 • Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • Other auto dealers in area allowed to display branding • Staff again notes that the Audi branding could be displayed with sign reconfiguration which does not require variances. Since staff finds no hardship, staff is unable to find that the hardship is unique. 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: • Dealership owns adjacent property on north side. Car dealership on south side. Staff finds the additional signage to have a negative impact on the character of the area. While variances are reviewed individually and are not precedent-setting, staff would be concerned that approval of this variance may spur additional requests. The sign regulations, including those which govern nonconforming signs, work to provide a "level playing field"among competitors. 3. 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: Since none of the three criteria for approval have been met, staff recommends denial of this request. Staff (Zoning and ARB) recommends that instead of what is proposed, the applicant design one new monument sign to display all 3 vehicle manufacturers. The new sign could meet the height and size requirements and could be placed closer to the road. It appears that this new sign could be built without variances. G4411 4"-to it" k(A/5"-/-td Should the Board find cause foapproval, staff recommends the following modification : �-i'r to the proposal: allow the new Audi sign but require further compliance with the zoning fYlpc regulations than are proposed by the applicant. Instead of a new (additional) sign on an W I existing pole, require the sign to be redesigned so as to be more conforming in several Uif respects. That one freestanding sign (on which VW is currently displayed) can be redesigned so as to meet the height regulations (12 feet) and to better meet the area "-7 ,4 regulations (with a maximum of 32 square feet). This would necessitate a new VW sign S �/ and structure. To be more visible at the new height from Route 250, the new sign could VA 2004-003 Flow 4 April 6, 2004 be relocated so as to be closer to the road. In addition, staff recommends a condition which would provide an opportunity to make the other sign more conforming to the requirements when it is altered or replaced. For this modification, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The existing VW sign may be replaced by a new sign which is a maximum 32 square feet in size and 12 feet in height. 2. When the existing Mazda sign structure is altered or replaced, it may not exceed 12 feet in height and 24 square feet in size. gain, staff does not find cause for any sign variance and does not recommend approval of this modified variance. In the event the Board does find cause, staff recommends this modification which amounts to the following lesser variances: • A variance to allow a second freestanding sign or one additional sign; • A variance to allow a total of 56 square feet in sign area, an increase of 24 square feet. STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: April 6, 2004 STAFF REPORT VA-2004-003 OWNER/APPLICANT: John or Janice Linkous (owners) / Flow Companies of Charlottesville (applicant) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78 / 15D ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 1.252 acres LOCATION: 1313 Richmond Road on the south side of Route 250 East. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant is proposing to install an additional (25 square foot) freestanding Audi sign on an existing pole on which a VW sign currently exists. Because the existing signage is nonconforming and this additional sign would not be permitted under the nonconforming sign regulations, variances will also be necessary for the existing freestanding signs. The existing VW sign is 25 square feet in size and 15 feet in height. The other sign, Mazda, is 30 square feet in size and 16 feet in height. Maximum Number Maximum Sign Area Maximum Height of Signs (sq. ft.) (ft.) Allowed by Z.O. 1 32 12 Existing On Site 2 55 sq ft total 1 sign 25 and 1 sign 15 and another 30 sq ft another 16 ft high Proposed(total if 2 80 sq ft total variance is 1 sign 50 and 1 sign 15 and approved) another 30 sq ft another 16 ft high As shown in the preceding table, variances are necessary for number of signs, size and height. The necessary variances (all from Section 4.15.13) are as follows: 1. To allow one (1) additional freestanding sign for a total of two (2) freestanding signs on this property. This is a variance for one (1) sign. 2. To increase the sign height for the two signs from the maximum 12 foot to 15 and 16 feet. This involves two variances: one sign for 3 feet and the other sign for 4 feet in height. 3. To increase the sign area from 32 square feet to 80 square feet. This is a variance of 48 square feet. VA 2004-003 Flow 2 April 6, 2004 RELEVANT HISTORY: The first building on this property was built in 1970. There is no history in the zoning files. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This dealership consists of two parcels: parcel 14D and parcel 15D. The subject parcel, parcel 15D, fronts along Route 250 and the other parcel (14D) is behind it. The right-of-way for Route 250 ranges from just past the edge of the sidewalk along Route 250 to about a foot away from the sidewalk. Most of the property is below the grade of Route 250 with the exception of the easternmost and westernmost ends of the road frontage where it is approximately the same grade. The vehicle display area begins just a few feet from the edge of the sidewalk adjacent to the Route 250 travel way. The site is currently improved with two entrances. There appears to be a location for at least one freestanding sign which would meet the height, size and setback requirements and still be visible from Route 250. However, we would need to measure to confirm that setback requirements could in fact be met. In addition, the site is currently served by nonconforming signage in excess of the ordinance requirements. Staff cannot find evidence of an undue hardship relating to the property which would justify the variance requests. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship Staff comments are written in italics and follow the applicant's comments. The applicant notes that the variance is necessary: • Needed to allow Audi branding. Staff cannot find evidence of an undue hardship to justify these several variances necessary for an additional sign. The site currently enjoys an additional freestanding sign, both signs with increased height and additional sign area of 23 square feet. The signs can be redesigned to allow Audi branding without variances. In fact, one monument sign closer to the road listing all manufacturers (VW, Mazda and Audi) would be preferred over the existing signage. The Design Planner with the ARB concurs with this recommendation. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. VA 2004-003 Flow 3 April 6, 2004 Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • Other auto dealers in area allowed to display branding Staff again notes that the Audi branding could be displayed with sign reconfiguration which does not require variances. Since staff finds no hardship, staff is unable to find that the hardship is unique. 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: • Dealership owns adjacent property on north side. Car dealership on south side. Staff finds the additional signage to have a negative impact on the character of the area. While variances are reviewed individually and are not precedent-setting, staff would be concerned that approval of this variance may spur additional requests. The sign regulations, including those which govern nonconforming signs, work to provide a "level playing field"among competitors. 3. 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: Since none of the three criteria for approval have been met, staff recommends denial of this request. Staff (Zoning and ARB) recommends that instead of what is proposed, the applicant design one new monument sign to display all 3 vehicle manufacturers. The new sign could meet the height and size requirements and could be placed closer to the road. It appears that this new sign could be built without variances. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following modification to the proposal: allow the new Audi sign but require further compliance with the zoning regulations than are proposed by the applicant. Instead of a new (additional) sign on an existing pole, require the sign to be redesigned so as to be more conforming in several respects. That one freestanding sign (on which VW is currently displayed) can be redesigned so as to meet the height regulations (12 feet) and to better meet the area regulations (with a maximum of 32 square feet). This would necessitate a new VW sign and structure. To be more visible at the new height from Route 250, the new sign could VA 2004-003 Flow 4 April 6, 2004 be relocated so as to be closer to the road. In addition, staff recommends a condition which would provide an opportunity to make the other sign more conforming to the requirements when it is altered or replaced. For this modification, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The existing VW sign may be replaced by a new sign which is a maximum 32 square feet in size and 12 feet in height. 2. When the existing Mazda sign structure is altered or replaced, it may not exceed 12 feet in height and 24 square feet in size. *Again, staff does not find cause for any sign variance and does not recommend approval of this modified variance. In the event the Board does find cause, staff recommends this modification which amounts to the following lesser variances: • A variance to allow a second freestanding sign or one additional sign; • A variance to allow a total of 56 square feet in sign area, an increase of 24 square feet. n I 14. 14 73 72 11 10 9 6 5 4 2 1 x tS) SHEERAN 0 ARCHITECTS d- A 226 East High Street CharlottesviRe, Virginia '1 979 1830 x ' 5681 Consultant � u out x B 0 Co 0 d- Professional Seal x m CY) 0 `r C Signature —� Owner Flow Automotive x to Companies T T 1425 Plaza Drive Winston-Salem, NC 27103 x to N T The undersigned, authorized by the owner, has reviewed and approved this drawing In accordance with the agreement between the Owner & the Architect: E ature FIOW Automotive 1313 Richmond Road Pantops Mountain Charlottesville, Va. iction: Albemarle County, terial District: Rivanna ap: 48 1 Number: 14D & 15D Book: j: HC/EC ig Code Use Group: Mixed } A Construction: 2C iatic Sprinkler System: Yes See plan ium Height: 65'-0" )ant Load: 50 Live Load: 100 PSF _ive Load: 20 PSF Id Snow Load (Pg): 25PSF Wind Speed: 70MPH Load Importance Factor (1) Exposure: Exposure B ing Offil Approval Qf rn„ j Permit I Vicinity Map DINT U.S. 250 is I` Off-.;- _ Riverbend Dr. SIT[ 7 " = 2000' Drawing History Date Description Mark 11/05/03 Prelimina Site Stud PLS CAD File Name: Flow.SiteStudy. 11.5.03 ants and verify field condition$ and shelf carefully can heasurements and conditions and other inform ahon k� rector with the Contract Documents before commend :ontractor shall carefully study and compare the Cont. :with aach othor and with information furnished by tht shell at nce report to the Architect errors, inconsisle ,ad.. erad. If the to performs any construc wing it involves a recognized error, inconsistency or the Contract Documents without sud+ I otico to tha 3e Contractor shall assume appropriate renricibility mance and shall bear an appropriate amount of the cosL hf the Contract Documents Is to Include all Items nece ,or execution and compleIon of the Work by the The Contract Documents are ccmplementery, ¢nd w one shall ba as bindng as if regw red by all; parformr tractor shrill be required only to the extent consistent, A Documents and reasrnably inferable from them as to produce the intended results. In case ofconAicting ts, the more stringent and/or costly requirement shal cot change to Contract Sum orTime. m of the Spedfications into dvidonsI es' dons and art exert of Drawings shall not control the Contractor In Work oniong Subcontractors or In esrebllshing the e: be performed by any trade. shown on this sheet does not authorize changes to A or Time unless stated In a separate letter or Chan rmalion shown Is subject to Iho requirements of the scrum ents. Contractor Is responsible for dimensions,, nfirned and correlated at the site, fabrication process of constnrcfion, quanttea. the coordination of his wo 3r trades and Subcontrectors, and the satisfactory .e of his work. rred rights, in addition to the copyright on thi: rized reproduction or use of this drawing is pr nt for limited reproduction or use by others sl f by signature of Sheeran Architects' personr hr limited reproduction or use restricted to ant below. I 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 - 8 ? 6 rJ 4 3 2 1