HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA201000003 Legacy Document 2010-08-26 (5)STAFF PERSON: Ron Higgins
PUBLIC HEARING: May 4, 2010
STAFF REPORT VA -2010-003 Hollymead Town Center Sign Height Variance
OWNER / APPLICANT: Route 29 LLC (owner& applicant)
TAX MAP / PARCEL: 32 / 42A
ZONING: PD -MC, Planned Development -Mixed Commercial,
Entrance Corridor
ACREAGE: 15.363 Acres
LOCATION: 1535 Town Center Drive on the southwest corner of
Route 29 & Town Center Drive.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION:
The applicant requests relief from Section 4.15.13 of the Sign Regulations for the
Planned Development -Mixed Commercial District. The applicant proposes to
erect a freestanding shopping center sign at a height of 16 feet which would
result in a variance of 4 feet.
The applicant states in their justification:
"Landscaping and elevation reduces visibility. Maximum sign height
restricts constructing an allowable multi -tenant shopping center sign.
This is multi -parcel shopping which is unlike other shopping centers.
This is a unique shopping center layout.
Adjacent parcels are part of shopping center & will benefit from proposed
sign."
RELEVANT HISTORY:
On September 11, 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 2005-015
Hollymead Town Center rezoning to PD -MC and SP2005-027. This rezoned the
property from RA, Rural Areas to Planned Development -Mixed Commercial
District and approved a special use permit for the bank drive-through use.
On December 28, 2008 the county approved the final site plan for the Hollymead
Town Center Kohl's store development on multiple parcels.
Given that this property is within an Entrance Corridor Overlay District, approval
of this sign is subject to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness from the
Architectural Review Board.
VA -2010-003 2 May 4, 2010
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS:
By the applicant's own justification, the qualifying condition for the granting of this
variance is the construction of an "allowable multi -tenant shopping center sign."
By this they are referring to a preliminary design comment by the staff that
suggested that the sign proportion might be improved if the sign were allowed to
be taller.
The State Code has provided for variances from the zoning regulations for
properties which have a hardship resulting from particular constraints. The Land
Use Handbook states: "A variance is a reasonable deviation from those provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance regulating the size or area of a lot or parcel of land, or the size,
area, bulk or location of a building or structure."
One of the powers and duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals (granted in Section
34.2 of the zoning ordinance) allows that a variance may be authorized as
follows:
"... in specific cases such variance from the terms of this ordinance as will not
be contrary to the public interest, when owing to special conditions a literal
enforcement of the provision will result in unnecessary hardship; provided that
the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, as
follows: When a property owner can show that his property was acquired in good
faith and where, by reason of... exceptional topographic conditions. or other
extraordinary situation ... 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. "
While the applicant may potentially have a valid argument, his remedy is
legislative and not through approval of a variance. This proposal does not meet
the three criteria for variance approval.
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 to better achieve the appropriate
design of an "allowable multi -tenant shopping center sign." They also point out
that this shopping center is unique due to its multi -parcel configuration.
VA -2010-003 3 May 4, 2010
While staff supports the need for a more appropriate design proportion for such
signs, we are unable to make positive findings of undue hardship under the State
Code criteria in this particular case.
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict
application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniaueness of Hardshi
Because staff is unable to find an undue hardship, we cannot find a uniqueness
of hardship.
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
Because this is a designated Entrance Corridor, input from the ARB regarding
this criterion would be relevant. At this time, the ARB has not yet granted any
final approval to the proposed sign design. However, in preliminary
discussions about proposed sign ordinance amendments, they did suggest
that taller signs would allow for a better design and a more appropriate
proportion.
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 all of the three criteria for approval have not been met, staff must
recommend denial of this variance request. Should the Board find cause to
approve it, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. This sign is subject to ARB approval.
2. Only one such sign shall be permitted for this portion of the Hollymead
Town Center shopping center.
Attachments: A - Exhibit showing proposed sign location
B- Exhibit showing proposed sign design/layout