Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA201200008 Staff Report 2012-12-11STAFF PERSON: Stewart Wright PUBLIC HEARING: December 4, 2012 STAFF REPORT VA 2012-08 OWNER/APPLICANT: FF Charlottesville North (Owner) / Mark Dowdy (Applicant) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061 Z00300011 CO ZONING: Planned Unit Development, Entrance Corridor Overlay and Airport Impact overlay ACREAGE: 2.62 acres LOCATION: 577 Branchlands Blvd. near the southeast corner of the intersection of Route 29 and Branchlands Blvd TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 18-4.15.11 (regulations applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts) to allow a wall sign to be located above the "cornice line" of a building as defined in Section 18-4.15.2, not to exceed 40'. RELEVANT HISTORY: The hotel on this property was approved by SP 96-19. There have been a number of variances approved in the Branchlands PUD. Variance 98-2 is the only variance applicable to this parcel. It was approved on March 10, 1998 to allow the increase in height of the freestanding sign identifying the Fairfield Inn from 12 feet to 25 feet. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: The Virginia Code criteria per Section 15.2-2309 is as follows: 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 the ordinance, or where by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of the piece of property, or of the condition, situation, or development of property immediately adjacent thereto, the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or where the board is satisfied, upon the evidence heard by it, that the granting of the variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship, 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 the ordinance. The only road frontage for this property is on Route 29 (Seminole Trail). The building and parking lot for the Fairfield Inn are significantly lower (about 28 feet lower) than along the road frontage. The building is well below the grade of Route 29. The existing wall signage on this building is only visible from Branchlands Blvd. The proposed sign is roughly 58 square feet in sign area and would be located on the north facing elevation of the building facing Route 29.The property is not of unusual size or shape; however, exceptional topography does exist on the west and south side of the property. Staff is therefore able to find grounds for a hardship, although it does not appear to be an undue hardship. This property is located near the intersection of Route 29 and Branchlands Blvd, a signalized intersection. Vehicles waiting for the signal on Route 29 heading southbound into Charlottesville are able to see the 25 foot tall freestanding sign for the Fairfield Inn. Vehicles heading northbound on Route 29 coming away from Charlottesville have very limited visibility of this same sign until they are within 100 feet of the sign. The speed limit on this section of Route 29 is 45 miles per hour. Therefore, the existing freestanding sign has limited visibility despite a variance granting a height increase to 25 feet. In addition, this sign has been refaced three times according to County records and is generally in keeping with the other signs in the area in terms of size and location. This information is provided to explain that the existing freestanding signage has limited effectiveness despite the height increase and redesigns over time. 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: • Because enforcing the cornice line height restriction would not allow for a suitable location for a wall sign on the building that would be visible from Route 29. Staff agrees that a wall sign on this building would be difficult to see from Route 29 if it was placed in an area below the cornice line, but this is not a qualifying condition under the Code for an undue hardship. The applicant has not provided information showing that the existing wall signage is inadequate. This hotel was constructed in 1998 and has had numerous sign permits approved by right and by variance. Staff finds 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 cornice line height restriction would not allow for a suitable location for a wall sign on the building that would be visible from Route 29. The proposed gable location is very common for hotel signage. It is staff's opinion that based on the topography of this site and the grade difference between Route 29 and the Fairfield Inn, that a unique hardship does exist and is not generally shared by other businesses that are immediately adjacent to Route 29. Staff finds even though the hardship is not undue, it is somewhat unique. 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 notes: • The proposed gable location is very common for hotel signage. Staff finds that wall signage identifying commercial establishments is common and customary on the Route 29 corridor. Allowing this sign to be located in an area that would be visible from Route 29 would not be a detriment to surrounding properties and would fit in with the commercial character of this area. 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 staff is unable to find that all three criteria have been met we are unable to recommend approval of this variance request. Should the Board find sufficient cause to approve it, staff recommends the following conditions - 1 . onditions: 1. This approval shall only be for this specific location on the building and shall not be deemed as an approval for future signs to be located above the cornice line on this building. 2. The proposed sign shall meet all other requirements of Chapter 18, Section 4.15 in the Zoning Ordinance and must also receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from County ARB staff before the building permit for this sign can be issued.