The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200400005 Review Comments 2004-04-06 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: April 6, 2004 STAFF REPORT VA-2004-005 OWNER/APPLICANT: Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32-10 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas and Airport Overlay 4- ACREAGE: 553.74 acres LOCATION: West of Dickerson Road, Rt. 606, at its intersection with Airport Road, Rt. 649 TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 4.15.16(d) that limits the structure supporting a sign to 2.5 times the maximum sign size for the district. In the RA district, the maximum sign size is 24 square feet (sf), therefore the maximum sign structure is 60 sf. The applicant proposes a sign of 23 sf with a structure totaling 179 sf. Therefore, the variance is for 119 sf, the difference between the 60 square feet permitted and the 179 square feet desired for the sign structure. The proposed sign itself will meet the zoning regulations and not require a variance. RELEVANT HISTORY: The City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle jointly operated the Airport through the Airport Board from 1955 to 1984 when the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority was established. At that time, the Board deeded the property to the Authority and it undertook the operations. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: In this review for a variance, there is nothing about the physical size, shape, or topography of the property which would qualify the parcel under the variance criteria. The one extraordinary situation that exists and could be considered is the public investment in our regional airport. The use of this property is very important to both the city and the county, and the signage that identifies it may be considered unique. Whether the strict application of the ordinance unreasonably restricts the use or whether a variance is needed to alleviate a hardship approaching confiscation is the question. It is difficult to envision the small area where the sign is proposed due to the Virginia Department of Transportation's pending project of realigning, widening, and improving Airport Road (Rt. 649). The current plan calls for widening Airport Road to four-lanes divided, moving its intersection with Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) approximately 250 feet to the north, and creating a "roundabout" to ease the traffic flow, thus avoiding the current 4-way stop or the possibility of a traffic light. The sign for the Airport needs to be clearly visible from the roundabout to aid drivers in seeing the proper lane for access into the Airport entrance. The sign ordinance states that the purpose for signs is: VA 2004-005, Charlottesville-AIhw,arle Airport Authority 0, April 6, 2004 ' Page 2 t 1. Promote the general health, safety and welfare, including the creation of an attractive and harmonious environment; 2. Protect the public investment in the creation, maintenance, safety and appearance • of its streets, highways and other areas open to the public; 3. Improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by avoiding saturation and confusion in the field of vision that could otherwise result if such signs were not regulated as provided herein; and 4. Protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors as sources of economic development. The maximum size for a freestanding sign in the Rural Areas district is 24 square feet and the maximum height is 10 feet. The ordinance also limits the structure to which the sign is affixed to be only 2.5 times the maximum size of a sign in any district. Therefore, the sign structure may not exceed 60 square feet in the Rural Areas district. The proposed sign is 23 square feet and the height is 10 feet. It is only the proposed structure to which the sign will be affixed which requires a variance. The desired structure is a brick wall with a tree well at one end. (The tree well is not counted towards the sign structure.) If the same 23 sf sign, with a smaller depiction of the cross- member decorative border on top, was placed on posts, no variance would be needed and the visual effect of the sign would be essentially the same. The airport could still erect the brick tree-well and wall/fence if desired. See Attachment A. The sign would be the same height as proposed; the elevation and visibility the same; the lettering would be the same size; and, the aesthetics of the sign would be comparable. Therefore the safety of the traveling public is protected to an equivalent degree with a sign structure which meets the ordinance. Staff can identify no hardship and no public purpose in granting the variance. The applicant has stated that the strict interpretation of the ordinance will prevent them from obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Since no other sign has been presented to the ARB, the applicant does not know whether another sign will be approved or not. The ARB is aware of the Zoning Ordinance sign regulations and cannot refuse to grant a COA for a sign that meets the ordinance requirements if it also meets their guidelines. Staff has also considered the safety of the traveling public. Most of the drivers approaching the airport from either Airport Road or from Dickerson Road will be local area residents, or those who have flown into this airport and thus have some idea of the location. VDOT will certainly have signs in the right-of-way directing traffic, just as there are at other traffic circles such as the one in Gordonsville. Although the Airport sign will certainly be helpful, it will not be the only demarcation of the presence of the Airport. Drivers will easily see the large building with a runway and airplanes nearby. At night, there will be lighting at the building, the parking lots and a portion of the runway that will be visible from the intersection. Luv4-uua, c,nanortesvuie-Hioemane Airport Authority t April 6, 2004 Page 3 Staff recognizes that this is a unique use which constitutes a public facility. However, in the absence of zoning regulations which address it and make different provisions for this as compared to a private use, we must apply the ordinance ag91,t06 variance criteria U evenly. Should the Board find that a larger structure is necessar t e Ardlns� N Ace should be amended to make the larger size available to everyone or to make special provisions for certain public facilities. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: (Staff comments are written in italics and follow the applicant's comments.) Hardship The applicant has given five pages of justification of hardship. The following are the principal points: • Without a variance the sign will not be effective enough to maximize the safety of the traveling public; • The airport is a unique use; • The location of the sign adjacent to the roundabout which is in the final VDOT plans for the new Airport Road/Rt. 606 intersection; , • Strict interpretation of the ordinance will not enable the authority to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB. As stated, staff opinion is that a sign and structure that comply with the ordinance can be erected with the same lettering size, the same height and comparable design features as the proposal requiring a variance. Reasonable use of the property exists and reasonable signage can meet the ordinance. Therefore, there is no hardship. J C: 7J "AI 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: /5 • that the Airport is a unique use and thus the hardship is also unique; a,,,s• there are no other properties in the RA or the same vicinity that share this hardship; users are unfamiliar with the airport and its road network; v /4 the roundabout is also unique. Staff notes that this is not a unique situation with respect to the characteristics of this property. We acknowledge that this is a unique situation with respect to the use of the VA 2004-005, Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority April 6, 2004 Page 4 property. However, because we were unable to find an undue hardship, we cannot find the hardship to be unique. 50 aria "1t / nkti ( cJnL eA,.c 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: • There will be no detrimental effect on the adjacent properties; • The ARB found the structure does not overpower the message portion of the sign; • The ARB made a finding that the larger structure is in keeping with the character of the general area and is well coordinated with the airport building and site. The impact on the character of the area will be the same with either the proposed structure or the same size sign put on posts. While the larger structure is attractive, it serves primarily to support the sign. An attractive entrance wall could be built for decorative purposes with a reduced and compliant sign structure. 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 only one of the three criteria for approval has been met, staff recommends denial of this request. However, should the Board find cause to approve the request, staff recommends the following condition: a, `teduci4- This variance is for the sign with the brick structure, sized and designedjas ---elapieteelein this report. Any deviation will require amendment of this valiance. ATTACHMENT A VA-2004-005 13'4 " /,3-S A 5-6 WELCOME TO i ‘)' 3 CHARLOTTESVILLE ALB$MARLE COUNTY VIRGINIA v v g1 54 0...._.. 2' 4' - (46' '0st� ® 1-1 , 66 x I "/"," (96. x o . 30c- a, Posts � '- Sk x q = 3,-, c x2 = `1,S 40 30 3 �C 37 , 8 ? sue' Lt 5 lc , G6 2 1 3 �I, ? z CT �, s `1 6 4L3 g ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD MEETING ROOM #241, 2:00 P.M DRAFT AGENDA TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2004 I. Call to Order II. Establish a Quorum III. Matters Not on the Agenda IV. Requests for Deferral None V. Matters Deferred from Previous Meetings None VI. Variance Hearing VA-2004-003 John or Janice Linkous (owners), Flow Companies of Charlottesville (applicant) Staff: Amelia McCulley VA-2004-004 Judith or Dana Burch (owners), Palmer Burch (applicant) ""6 0:"; r�/ Staff: John Shepherd • Applicantsrequest deferral to May 4, 2004 Meeting 1 Vx � 11 VA-2004-005 Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority (owner/applicant r Staff: Jan Sprinkle , d eZ2 ids; —/stir?, �d �, VII. Special Use Permit Hearing p.e,pt_ r None c.. if 7mci 1` eze !/7� Xe lA^ Gg VIII. Appeal Hearing at, ffi-rosed C ACAU4-; 1.t.t....„ None IX. Review and Approval of Minutes Approval of February 3, 2004 Minutes F Approval of March 2, 2004 Minutes X. Old Business ✓ Xl. New Business Approval of Written Decision for Brian G. Scruby, AP-2004-001 XII. Adjournment