The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200600008 Review Comments 2006-08-31 -lpF AL� a'�e®'un County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Members, Board of Zoning Appeals From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: August 31, 2006 Subject: VA 2006-008 Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority (owner) / Piedmont Landmark Aviation (applicant) This variance was deferred from the July 11`h BZA meeting in order to allow additional information to be prepared. This memorandum will address that information. 1. Fill in any missing information on the chart about signaqe (See attachment). 2. Provide the aggregate size (square footage) of all wall signaqe (on all buildings) for Landmark Aviation. Based on the new information from the applicant, the aggregate area of proposed signs exceeds the aggregate area of existing signs. 3. The question was raised of whether this signaqe provides identifying or directional information or whether it is advertising. Part of this includes the question of why each sign states the same thing and does not differentiate by building or area (such as building numbers or the like). a. Is this signaqe directional? If so, why do all signs state the same thing? b. Is it possible to make the sign smaller by shortening the copy to achieve the intended purposes? Please address this. The applicant responded: The signage is directional in nature. It is designating an area of the airport as a unique destination for private charters. Landmark Aviation does not have any competition at the airport, so advertising is not the signage's function. The signs do not need to stipulate the number of the different hangers because people on the ground handle that aspect of the direction. The signs are simply meant to guide the pilots towards the correct vicinity. The size of the signs is negotiable, but the magnitude of the hangers weighs on the decision. The signage is proposed with a size that reads well with the buildings. Staff understands the desire to size the signs with respect to the bulk and massing of the buildings on which they are located. Aesthetically, this may be more of an issue if you are designing a street façade rather than an airport runway façade. If the pilots are assisted on the ground to a specific building, it does not seem that such large signs are necessary. Staff can understand the need for placement of signs at this height. However, it does seem that some identification for private charters to Landmark Aviation can be accomplished with a smaller sign. VA 2006-008 August 31, 2006 Page 2 4. What is the length of building frontage for each of the four buildings with proposed new signage? From south to north, the frontages of the buildings are 150', 160', 220' and 90'. These measurements were taken on the runway side of all of the buildings. It has been mentioned that the airport is somewhat industrial in nature rather than agricultural (RA) as it is zoned. It is staff's recollection that this building frontage information was requested to determine how much wall signage would be permitted if this property were zoned industrial. Wall signage in industrial districts is permitted up to a 30 foot maximum height. The sign area is calculated based on 1.5 sf for each linear frontage, not to exceed 200 sf of wall signage per establishment. Landmark Aviation is considered one establishment with multiple buildings. If this property was zoned industrial, it would be permitted up to 200 sf of wall signage at 30 ft height. 5. Which of these signs are visible from off this property and from where? Will they be legible or the message be readable? The applicant responded "The only sign that is in question as far as visibility from public ROWs is the sign on the rear of the maintenance building. It can be seen as one pulls into the airport entrance from the roundabout. This sign is also the only sign that relates to incoming traffic where to go if Landmark Aviation is one's destination." 6. How does this request compare to the Martha Jefferson outpatient surgery wall sign variance? The Martha Jefferson outpatient wall sign variance approved a height increase from 30 to 41 feet for two signs to be visible from Route 250 East. Those signs met the maximum sign area requirements. In that case, it was not solely an issue of the size or design of the building on which the signs would be located; it was an issue of the distance from Route 250 and the grade difference—which limited the visibility of signs at the maximum height. Therefore in staff's opinion, that case does not have direct bearing on the present variance request. Conclusion None of the proposed signs are significantly increased in height from the existing signs. (In fact, there is only a 1 foot height increase overall.) Given the size (height, mass, etc.) of the existing hangers, staff does not object to the sign height variances. We find that the nature of the use produces an extraordinary situation. Staff can support the characterization of this use as industrial. It does not need to be zoned industrially because it is permitted by right as a public use. Again, given the extraordinary situation, staff can support additional sign area up to the 200 sf allowed for an industrial use. Because there are multiple buildings for one establishment, the applicant may contend that there is the need for additional signage. However, staff is not convinced that all the signage requested is the minimum necessary to serve the purpose. The Board will note that the applicant did not respond to the question of whether the purpose could be achieved by shortening the copy and therefore decreasing the sign size. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the wall sign height variances. Staff recommends approval of a wall sign variance for up to 200 sf of aggregate wall sign area. VA 2006-008 August 31, 2006 Page 3 SIGN & PERMIT# SIZE (SQ FT) 1 HEIGHT (FT) LOGO/COPY SIGN #1 a) Existing 16 . 36 Symbol of bird in flight B2006-1144S b) Proposed 75 (Increase of 59 sq ft) 36 (Same height, 16 ft Symbol & Landmark Aviation On large (Northern) (3 x 25 ft) variance) hangar above doors facing runway SIGN #2 a) Existing 100 36 Symbol & Piedmont Hawthorne B2006-1148S b) Proposed 75 Decrease of 25 sq ft) 36 (Same height, 16 ft Symbol & Landmark Aviation On middle hangar (3 x 25 ft) variance) above doors facing runway SIGN #3 a) Existing 96 35 Symbol & Piedmont Hawthorne B2006-1150S (their b) Proposed 75 (21 sf smaller) 36 (1 ft increased height, 16 Symbol & Landmark Aviation sign #5) (3 x 25 ft) ft variance) On maintenance hangar facing Rt. 606 SIGN #4 a) Existing 24 10 Symbol & Piedmont Hawthorne B2006-1148S b) Proposed 17 (7 sf smaller) 10 (Same height, no Symbol & Landmark Aviation (their sign #6) (8 x 2.17 ft) variance needed) Located over the door on the side of middle hangar/office building SIGN #5 a) Existing 0 (no sign) N/A N/A B2006-1151 S b) Proposed 75 (75 sf increase) 35 Symbol & Landmark Aviation (their sign #11) (3 x 25 ft) On south hangar above door facing runway TOTAL Existing: 236 by our calculations, 316 sf by applicant's Proposed: 397 sf VA 2006-008 August 31, 2006 Page 3 SIGN BY SIZE (SQ FT) HEIGHT (FT) LOGO/COPY BUILDING# FROM NORTH- SOUTH #1 a) Existing 96 35 Symbol & Piedmont Back of maintenance b) Proposed 75 (21 sf smaller) 3...Q (1 ft increased height, Hawthorne hangar(facing Rt. (3 x 25 ft) 16 ft variance) Symbol & Landmark Aviation 606)-slat.'$5 #2 N/A — no Main building— lobby variance area needed #3 SIQYJ.#1 a) Existing 100 36 Symbol & Piedmont Middle hangar above b) Proposed 75 Decrease of 25 sq 36(Same height, 16 ft Hawthorne doors facing runway (3 x 25 ft) ft) variance) Symbol & Landmark Aviation #4 a) Existing 0 (no sign) N/A N/A (new) South hangar b) Proposed 75 (75 sf increase) 35 Symbol & Landmark Aviation above doors facing (3 x 25 ft) runway 510j.j11 TOTAL Existing: 196 in 2 signs Proposed: 225 sf in 3 signs 3 siO/s/5 = act 1 COb *Ho o {;XCUL Uc- V lie f ,w- / e..yceed cZ f 90.1\ )\[\94/1 W\ N/43 k -�;�'_ SIZE (SQ FT) HEIGHT (FT) LOGO/COPY ► SIGN-#4.- 4i a) Existing 16 36 Symbol of bird in flight '' B2006-11 , , - • b) Proposed ncrease of 59 sq ft) 36 (Same height, 16 ft Symbol iii On I. •e (Northern) x 25 ft) 16; \ nN variance) •:ngar above doors . '•• runway S�6id-#2-- 3 a) Existing 100 36 Symbol & Piedmont Hawthorne B2006-1148S b) Proposed 75 Decrease of 25 sq ft) 36 (Same height, 16 ft Symbol & Landmark Aviation On middle hangar (3 x 25 ft) - variance) above doors facing runway EACN##3— B/, W a) Existing 96 35 Symbol & Piedmont Hawthorne B2006-1150S b) Proposed 75 (21 sf smaller) 36 (1 ft increased height, 16 Symbol & Landmark Aviation -sigrr#5? (3 x 25 ft) ft variance) On maintenance hangar • ' . 4 a) Existing 24 10 Symbol & Piedmont Hawthorne B2006- 48S b) Proposed 17 (7 sf smaller) 10 (Same height, no Symbol & Landmark Aviation (8 x 2.17 ft) variance needed) Located r the do on the de of middle ar/office building _S#GP4-#5. a) Existing 0 (no sign) N/A N/A B2006-1151 S I '!i 7 b) Proposed 75 (75 sf increase) 35 Symbol & Landmark Aviation '4 (3 x 25 ft) On south hang.r a•ove door facing runway -_____ TOTAL Existing: 236 by our 4 calculations, 316 sf b applicant's rf,2'S Proposed: 597-a N 1 /1 --.. (9-.-N 1 1 tonevit loy O "- b4 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: July 11 , 2006 STAFF REPORT VA-2006-008 OWNER/APPLICANT: Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority (owner) Piedmont Landmark Aviation (applicant) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32 / 10 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas and Airport Overlay District ACREAGE: 555.992 acres LOCATION: This portion of the Airport property is the private hangar area. It is located on the west side of Route 606 just south of the intersection with Route 649 (Airport Road). TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 4.15.8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance relating to wall signage. Signs for Piedmont Hawthorne are being replaced with the new name, Landmark Aviation. Several of the proposed replacements are sign refacings which are permitted without need for variances for nonconforming signs. These five signs are not refacings and are subject to variance approval. In total, they propose to replace five (5) apparent nonconforming wall signs with new signs. This is a variance request to increase the wall sign aggregate area from forty (40) to four-hundred (400) square feet. Four (4) of the five (5) signs also need sign height variances. This is a request to increase the wall sign height from twenty (20) to thirty-five (35) feet for one sign and from twenty (20) to thirty-six (36) feet for three (3) signs. The Airport property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. It is therefore subject to the most restrictive signage regulations. Section 4.15.8 restricts the wall signage height to 20 feet and the aggregate sign area to 40 square feet. (Please note that some of this information was not provided by the applicant and staff has made their best attempt at compiling it accurately.) Please also note that the signs for this variance are numbered consecutively and vary from the numbers on the attachments / exhibits which were submitted with all the proposed signs. The chart which follows notes not only the location and dimensions of the proposed signs, but also notes the existing signage which is being replaced where that information is known by staff. We have also attempted to reflect the change proposed by the new signage as compared to the existing signage. VA 2006-008 Airport Wall Signs 5�V (w1444-Ott:14U0 July 11, 2006 Page 2 f i Atom-1 , PjA pt-tet- SIGN & PERMIT# SIZE (SQ ' HEIG HT (FT) LOGO/COPY SIGN #1 ) a) Existing 16 36 Symbol of bird in flight B2006-1144S b) Proposed 75 (Increase of 59 sq ft) 36 (Same height, 16 ft Symbol & Landmark Aviation On large (Northern) (3 x 25 ft) -4- V( variance) hangar above doors facing runway SIGN #2 a) Existing 100 36 Symbol & Piedmont Hawthorne B2006-1148S b) Proposed 75 Decrease of 25 sq ft) 36 (Same height, 16 ft Symbol & Landmark Aviation On middle hangar (3 x 25 ft) Z5 variance) above doors facing runway SIGN #3 a) Existing ? 75 , ? 36 Z� Symbol & Piedmont Hawthorne B2006-11505 (their b) Proposed 75 (Same size) 36 (Same height, 16 ft Symbol & Landmark Aviation sign #5) (3 x 25 ft) variance) On maintenance �� hangar facing Rt. 606 SIGN #4 a) Existing ? q4 10 Symbol & Piedmont Hawthorne B2006-11485 b) Proposed 17 (Roughly same size, 10 (Same height, no Symbol & Landmark Aviation (their sign #6) (8 x 2.17 ft) not su e) variance needed) Located over the door on the side of middle hangar/office building SIGN #5 a) Existing ?j B2006-1151 S b) Proposed 75 ( Do not ow about 35 (Do not know about Symbol & Landmark Aviation (their sign #11) (3 x 25 ft) existing sign) existing sign) On south hangar above door facing runway TOTAL Unable to determine the Unable to determine the overall change due to overall change due to missing information missing information a1P --1 VA 2006-008 Airport Wall Signs July 11, 2006 Page 3 RELEVANT HISTORY: The records are not clear as to when the existing signs were erected. It is most likely that they were erected prior to the current sign regulations and are legally nonconforming to them. It is also possible that some of these signs were not regulated in the past because they are somewhat internal to the Airport operations. When we first received this variance request, we visited the site to determine if these signs are visible off the property on which they are located. These signs are visible and are therefore regulated. If they were not, they would not be regulated. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: These signs serve the private charter component of general aviation at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Private charter is used mainly for business or recreational travel. While this property is zoned Rural Areas, the airport facility is industrial in nature. If this property was zoned industrial (in accord with the nature of the use), some variance approval would still be necessary for the proposed signs. In the industrial district, wall signage is permitted at a height of 30 feet (as compared to 20 feet in the Rural Areas district) and with an aggregate size of 200 square feet (40 square feet in RA). The nature of the use and the fact that the signs are located and sized so as to be visible from the cockpit of an airplane at a distance, makes this a unique circumstance or an extraordinary situation. The language in the Zoning Ordinance relating to qualifying conditions for a variance follows (in part): 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 at the time of the effective date of this ordinance, or where, by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of such 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 or where the board is satisfied, upon the evidence heard by it, that the granting of such variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation, as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant, provided that all variances shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of this ordinance. VA 2006-008 Airport Wall Signs July 11, 2006 Page 4 The Manager for the Private Charter operations explained to staff that pilots are processing dozens of commands and visual identifications when approaching an airport facility. They must make a turning decision to enter the private charter area on the 04-7 runway from a distance (perhaps as far away as 1500 feet). There are several buildings , 0 in that area (five) which may further complicate it for the pilot. The proposed heights for the signs are primarily resulting from the size, height and design of the existing buildings on which they will be located. There is not sufficient space for a wall sign on these buildings at the maximum 20 foot sign height. Staff asked the applicant to provide further justification as to the sizes requested. We were wondering for example, whether there is an industry standard about the minimum size of copy to be legible from this distance. We also wondered if a logo or something short of the full name "Landmark Aviation" would be possible to use. These questions were asked to better understand if the size proposed for wall signage was necessary or whether it could achieve the same purposes at a slightly smaller size. These questions have not been answered at the time of writing this report. Therefore, staff is not able to fully support the sizes and heights which are requested. There was a prior variance (VA 2004-005) for the Airport's freestanding sign on Route 606. While that sign identifying the airport serves a different purpose than these proposed sign, staff will share some excerpts from that report here. This is an extraordinary situation based on the public investment in our regional airport. The use of the 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. 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: • Variance to the overall height restriction at the airport — replacing old signs with new signs that adhere to square footage requirements. VA 2006-008 Airport Wall Signs July 11, 2006 Page 5 (Please note that while the applicant asserts that the new signs comply with the maximum sign sizes allowed, staff does not concur and finds that a sign area variance is necessary for the proposed signs. The sign regulations permit a total of forty (40) aggregate square feet per establishment or per lot. These signs will exceed that maximum area.) Staff finds that this is an extraordinary situation which warrants some variation of the Ordinance sign regulations. However, without further information to justify the sizes requested, we are not able to support them. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • Ordinance does not allow signage to be placed on the building above the hangar doors. Visibility is a requirement for pilots. Staff finds that this is a unique or extraordinary situation. This use is unique. These signs provide identifying information for pilots in planes. Our sign regulations are oriented towards signs which are visible to pedestrians and motorists. The fact that the buildings exist, further limits the location or height of replacement wall signage. /-toWF 2( C 6-APT E)( I Eh I 0 2. The applicant has 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: • Airport is zoned rural, but by function is commercial. Other rural owners in the same vicinity do not have this signage requirement. Staff was not able to obtain all information requested regarding existing signs; therefore, we are not able to compare proposed to existing signs in terms of the impact on the character of the area. We will note that most of the signs are oriented internally to the site rather than towards adjoining properties or roadways. Visibility of these signs from adjoining properties or roadways is limited. VA 2006-008 Airport Wall Signs July 11, 2006 Page 6 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: Based on the information available to us at this time, we are not able to make positive findings under all three (3) criteria. Since we do not have further information to justify the sizes requested, staff is not able to support the proposed sign sizes. We are able to support the signs at the proposed height. Should the Board find cause to approve these five (5) sign variances, staff recommends the approval be limited to the signs currently requested. Any increase in sign sizes or heights will necessitate an amendment to this variance. 04 , , iwzOrIA 4 4 1/17/lAV 44'°If 4rP:v)4\ ei , ?korre )4-4.-rdp,p1 • pa nriew 2-Qt rim)/ P.2 dc?-/-r r<M1 f , if if +,rn) • -177704 ' it/ ) 7 1 • ffl)irrh 1:)1V � Ivrn.k P. 1 Jun 16 2006 09:28am No response. D.0.7 Check condition of remote fax. 99746818 Page 1 of 1 Amelia McCulley From: Amelia,McCulley Post'm°Fax Note 7671 Date I r J — y To IMil�l . 4. Sent: Thursday,June 15,2006 4 38 PMcoroupt , � To: 'cnewton@htsva corn' one*I Phone*r �'`J Subject:Airport sign variances Fax , � , Apt Chuck, -- I'm the Zoning person handling these sign variances and I have several questions and requests. I've teed to piece together some of the variance proposal from working with Sherri on the building permits Because I don't have it written out from you and I want to be accurate,so as to prevent the need to later variance amendments, I'm running it by you • Can you please list the heights of the existing signs being replaced • What is the size of the existing sign#11 • Is there a guideline or some other basis for the size signs which are requested? • Can you please provide an explanation of why so many signs saying the same thing are necessary to achieve the purpose? • Can you please provide a sketch plan or site plan showing the location of the signs subject to vanances? Anything else you can think of to make this more understandable to the BZA. 6/16/2006