Loading...
BZA 08-19-97 Meeting Agenda�ee'cc�v� ,, J AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia August 19, 1997 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Minutes of June 17, 1997 3:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2) Appeal Application #006-97 of CFJ Properties (Flying J), which was tabled at the May 20, 1997 meeting, to appeal the determination made by the Director of Planning and Development in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance regarding commercial business signs within the IA (Interstate Area) Overlay District. Applicant has requested withdrawal of this application. 3) Variance Application #007-97 of CFJ Properties (Flying J), which was tabled at the May 20, 1997 meeting, for a 20' sign height variance, and a 198.95 -square -foot sign size variance for a business sign within the Interstate Area Overlay District. The property is located at 1530 Rest Church Road and is zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) District and IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District. The site is identified with Property Identification Number 33-9-1 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Applicant has requested withdrawal of this application. 4) Variance #010-97 of W. D. Huffman for Cedar Creek Primitive Baptist Church for a five foot rear yard variance for construction of an accessory structure. The property is located at 5754 Cedar Creek Grade and is identified with Property Identification Number 72-A-13 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. 5) Variance #011-97 of Federal Sign Company for CFJ Properties (Flying J) for a 26' sign height variance for a business sign within the Interstate Area Overlay District. The property is located at 1530 Rest Church Road and is zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) District and IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District. The site is identified with Property Identification Number 33-9-1 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. 6) Other • C, MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on June 17, 1997. PRESENT: Manuel Sempeles, Jr., Chairman, Stonewall District; James Larrick, Jr.,Vice Chairman, Gainesboro District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; and Harold Nichols, Opequon District; Ralph M. Wakeman, Shawnee District STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Planner I; Carol Cameron, Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Sempeles called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. MINUTES OF MAY 20, 1997 On a motion made by Mr. Nichols and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the minutes for the May 20, 1997 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. PUBLIC HEARING (3:35 p.m.) Variance #008-97 of Mike and Diana Crites for a 110' side yard variance and a 135' rear yard variance for construction of a single-family residence adjoining a working orchard. The property is located on Germany Road, north of the intersection of Rt. 625 and Rt. 629, and is identified with Property Identification Number 73 -A -48A in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION - DENIED DISCUSSION 2 (Mr. Larrick entered at this point.) Mr. Ruddy read the background information on the request. He stated that there were alternative locations for the well and drainfield, and that staff recommended approval of the side yard variance as requested and denial of the rear yard variance as requested. He also referenced three letters of opposition (copies attached) which were duly entered into the record. Chairman Sempeles called for the applicant to come to the podium. Mike Crites, applicant, came forward and introduced himself and his wife, Dianna. He handed out sketches of the property (a total of five pages) which depicted various angles of house placement: (1) 50 feet from the Huffman property; (2) 200 feet from each orchard; (3) 50 feet from the Huffman property, 65 feet from the west orchard and 90 feet from the north orchard; (4) four days of wind flow at 6:30 p.m., and (5) depiction of pine trees to be planted six feet apart as soon as the home is completed along the west and north sides of the property. He also stated that they would be willing to attach to the legal agreement a statement that they, or anyone else who may ever purchase the property, must know that there are variances and that they, or anyone else, could never come back on any orchard grower or sue anyone for drift that may come from the sides of orchards as long as the chemicals are applied according to label and EPA standards. Mr. Rinker asked the applicant to re -read the last statement and questioned the legal aspect of that. He asked if the Crites' had run this by an attorney yet; Mr. Crites replied that they had not. Mr. Rinker asked if this could legally be done. Mr. Ruddy replied that he did not see why not; that many subdivisions have provisions in their deed covenants such as fence requirements, etc. Mr. Larrick said he would not give a legal opinion; however, his gut feeling was that it would be a very difficult thing to enforce. He stated that the actual concern seemed to be not so much the side yards but the rear yard. One way they [the Board of Zoning appeals] could approve a variance is if a lot is not buildable. The house could be brought closer in even though the rock ledge is there. Discussion followed regarding the wind direction, the slope of the land, and the recommended location of the septic on the perk permit. Mr. Ruddy presented photographs, one from the road right-of-way, the second from the proposed house location, the third of the area between the rock ledge and road right-of- way. 3 Mr. Rinker asked about the stakes which show in the pictures. Mr. Crites replied the tall stakes depicted the relay box for the septic system; the small stakes showed the distances that they would have to stay from the property. He said that a 60'x 90' house sounded big but that counted everything including deck, garage and/or patio. Mr. Rinker asked if there was a more recent septic permit since the one in the application package expired in 1994. Mr. Crites replied that there was and that his wife had the information. Discussion followed on distances required by the Health Department for placement of the well. Mr. Crites asked if you have to stay 200' from the orchard on the east side (across the road). Mr. Ruddy replied that it would be 60' from the road right-of-way. Mr. Crites said that seemed like a double -standard to him; Mr. Ruddy conceded that this was a shortcoming in the Ordinance. Mr. Nichols interjected by saying that someone needs to straighten that out, that it was not right and that it was not this Board's job but it was Mr. Ruddy's job to get on the stick and get the Planning Commission or somebody to straighten that out and make one rule so there's no gray area. Mr. Ruddy responded that there certainly was a shortcoming in the ordinance but that it was not an issue in this particular situation. He said that Mr. Nichols and his son have both been very vocal about that requirement, and indeed they know the process they would have to go through to get that addressed by the Planning Commission. He said staff would encourage them to do so. Mr. Crites asked if the 200' from an orchard rule was more important than being 60' from the road. Mr. Ruddy explained that when the Ordinance was written in 1991, the intention was 200' all around, but since he wasn't around at that time, he could not explain the discrepancy and again stated that it was not an issue in this case. Chairman Sempeles suggested tabling the application until next month to allow more time for discussion. Mr. Larrick reminded him that changing an ordinance could not be done in 30 days, and Mr. Ruddy stated that all the facts they needed to make a decision was before them. Mr. Larrick asked for clarification from the applicant as to whether he believed he needed 200' from the front. Mr. Crites replied that he assumed that was the case. When Mr. Larrick pointed out that staff was recommending that he go 60' from the front, Mr. Crites replied again that he thought this was a double standard. LI Betty Von Snapp, Realtor (representing the Crites), came to the podium to speak in favor of the applicant. She and her husband, Alfred, planted all the Stayman apple trees on the property. She presented the new septic pernut on the property. She said that the reason she and her husband did not even consider placing the house 60' from the front is that both septic permits, the original and the new one just presented, recommended placing the house behind the rock ledge and the septic system. She also cited the view from the west which she conceded had nothing to do with hardship but pointed out that a house built under a hill rather than on the hill is a pitiful excuse. She understands that the intent of the 200' rule is to protect the orchardist, as she has been in that position herself. However, she felt that when the Crites agreed to sign a disclaimer against any rights of grievance against orchard practices, that as an orchardist she would have felt comfortable having that running with the land on a deed that went from one owner to the next. Mrs. Snapp also brought up the point about the rock ledges being a factor, and respectfully requested that the variance be granted as requested. In response to Mr. Larrick's question regarding actual ownership of the property, Mrs. Snapp replied that the property is owned by William S. (Steve) Snapp, Alfred Snapp's cousin. The other two acres are owned by the bankruptcy court, and are currently in orchard. In response to Mr. Rinker's question as to who was maintaining the two acres, Mrs. Snapp replied that it was Mr. Nichols. Mr. Rinker asked for assurance from Mr. Nichols that he would be abstaining from the discussion. Further discussion ensued regarding the property lines to the Huffman property, the orchard on the west being only a few rows of trees, and the residential property owned by the Willums'. Mr. Larrick questioned the possibility of turning the property into a three -acre lot, and Mrs. Snapp replied that Steve (Snapp) was not willing. Mr. Nichols asked what was the agriculture (orchard) land value right now; she replied that it was between $2,000 to $2,500 an acre. Diana Crites came to the podium to speak in favor of the application. She wanted to point out that the orchard on the west side, after they measured the trees, doesn't actually start until 30 feet past the property line. So, from the first tree to the back of the deck of the home, it would be 95 feet, which would be more footage than what they were already approving on the north side. Mr. Nichols pointed out that he did not believe it made any difference where the first row of trees were, that it mattered only where the property line was. Mrs. Crites stated that she believed this to be a unique situation and should be `grand fathered' because this land was subdivided in 1989 before the law was passed in 1991. 5 Chairman Sempeles asked Mr. Ruddy for a comment on that statement. Mr. Ruddy replied that it was a legally nonconforming lot and that the two acres could be built upon; that's what it was subdivided for. Mr. Rinker asked if all the property surrounding it was RA (Rural Areas); Mr. Ruddy replied that was correct. There was no one else to speak for or against the variance. Mr. Rinker stated that when the 200' rule was established, it was to protect the rights of the orchardists and the activities it takes to produce fruit. He acknowledged that there were times that friends and neighbors come before the Board and that it would not be easy to make the decision when the time came. Mr. Larrick suggested voting on the variance in two parts like they've done in the past since there are two requests: the side yard and the rear yard. Mr. Rinker asked if the ordinance takes away the value of the property to the point of confiscation. He also disagreed that there were two different issues by stating that 200 feet is 200 feet. Discussion followed about approving or disapproving one or both parts of issue, whether there was a plat for the house, what size the home would be (60' x 90' as stated before), the option of having a detached accessory structure, and the fact that the Crites decided to put a basement in the home in order to reduce the overall house size to accommodate the ordinance. Chairman Sempeles suggested that the Board act on the approval of the side yard variance as requested and vote on that first. Mr. Rinker's motion: `Mr. Chairman, I make a motion for denial of the requests because in our handbook, Powers and Duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals Board, on page 7 under item B, in granting a variance, the Board may not make any decision which is contrary to the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance out in that area is rural agriculture, so that would take precedence over a building lot, in my mind. Also in D, on the same page, the Board may not grant a variance unless strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance prevents a reasonable use of the property. A reasonable use is not necessarily the most profitable use of the property, and the property still has value as agricultural land at two to three thousand dollars an acre.' Chairman Sempeles asked if he was saying that he would deny the variance on both the side and the rear. Mr. Rinker: `Yes, I am saying to deny on both. Also, on page 8 under F, the 6 public interest must be served. A major consideration in deciding on an appeal for a variance is whether granting the adjustment will serve the public good. The more the Board may not grant an adjustment when the action would injure or endanger other property or persons. in consideration, the public interest is important to the review and purpose of zoning, according to Virginia Code 15.1-489, and under that section vested item number eight to provide for the preservation of agriculture and forestal lands and to preserve agriculture in the integrity that it is, being an orchard in that area, granting these variances would hinder that. I move to deny both variances on the grounds listed.' On the motion heretofore stated, and seconded by Mr. Larrick, the Board voted to deny Variance Application #008-97 by the following majority vote: YES (IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR DENIAL): Chairman Sempeles; Mr. Larrick; Mr. Wakeman; Mr. Rinker. ABSTAINED: Mr. Nichols abstained from the vote due to a conflict of interest. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby deny Variance Application #008-97 for a 110' side yard variance and a 135` rear yard variance for construction of a single-family residence adjoining a working orchard. Variance #009-97 of Philip D. McAvoy for a 37.3' side yard variance for an addition to an existing structure. The property is located at 4531 Back Mountain Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 58-1-1C in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION - APPROVED DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy gave the background information on the application, and made a point of clarification that the variance request is 37.3 -yard north side yard variance for the construction of an addition to an existing residence. The 37.3 feet is actually the distance from the proposed residence to the property line, therefore, that would require a 12.7 -foot variance. He stated that staff was recommending denial of the application, as a hardship approaching confiscation does not exist. The addition could be constructed in a manner that would not require a variance. Two other conditions exist: vacation of the property line as noted on the plat; and second, the removal of the mobile home from the property within one year. Phillip McAvoy, applicant, came to the podium to speak in favor of the variance request. He stated that he realized his case did not fit into the hardship rules but that fd it would be a personal hardship if he had to remove the existing foundation. He said that the house (the original structure) was built in good faith, and it was not until he went to get the new survey done that he was told the original survey was incorrect. He also said that he has already had the crawl space constructed, not knowing that he was in violation of the law. In addition, the foundation that exists already has all the plumbing, electric, etc. He said there is no other house for 1,000 feet. Mr. Ruddy presented pictures to the Board that he had taken on a visit to the site. Chairman Sempeles asked Mr. McAvoy if he started construction before he got a building permit; he replied that he did not but that he does have a current, valid permit now and the footers have been inspected. Discussion followed regarding when the latest construction began, whether he has had problems in the past with the Planning Department regarding surveys, etc., the placement of the house, who owns the land behind the property (Harold Baker, Jr.); the possibility of purchasing the property behind his so the lot would not be nonconforming or doing a boundary line adjustment for 50 feet. Other matters discussed were in regard to old methods of surveying compared to newer, more advanced methods (making a difference in property line definitions). Mr. Rinker offered the possibility of tabling the application for 90 days to give Mr. McAvoy the opportunity to contact Harold Baker, Jr. and attempt to get the boundary line adjustment. Mr. McAvoy replied that he already tried that so he wouldn't have to go through the variance process. He stated that a 90 -day waiting period would be a financial hardship. Chairman Sempeles reminded the Board that the property is 1,000 feet away from any other construction. Discussion followed on the 13 acres next door to the property, the probabilities for development and the expense of building in northern Frederick County, and the placement of the septic tank. Mr. Larrick stated that they were talking about 12 feet out in the middle of nowhere, and a man who in good faith attempted to do what he was supposed to do, and suggested the request be granted considering that there was a hardship present. No one else was present to speak for or against the variance. On a motion made by Mr. Larrick to approve the application under the condition that the mobile home be removed and that one property line be vacated, and based on the fact that Mr. McAvoy acted in good faith by building within what he believed to be true and correct boundary lines, and seconded by Mr. Rinker, Variance Application #009-97 8 was unanimously approved. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve Variance Application #009-97 for a 12.7' side yard variance for an addition to an existing structure. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully submitted, Manuel G. Sempeles, Chairman Carol I. Cameron, Secretary • 0 FL YING J INC. 50 WEST 990 SOUTH P.O. BOX 678 BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH 84302-0678 PHONE (801) 734-6400 FAX (801) 734-6556 July 21, 1997 County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development Attn: Mike Ruddy 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601-5000 Dear Mr. Ruddy, Please accept this letter as our request to withdraw from consideration our previous appeal numbers 00697 and 00797. We will not be requesting these variances. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Marty Phipps Purchasing Mngr. - Flying J, Inc. BZA REVIEW DATE: 8/19/97 VARIANCE #010-97 W. D. HUFFMAN (Cedar Creek Primitive Baptist Church) LOCATION: The property is located at 5754 Cedar Creek Grade in Marlboro. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 72-A-13 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: .Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Church ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Agricultural and residential VARIANCE: 5' rear yard variance for accessory structure REASON FOR VARIANCE: Rock ledge is in the way; applicant wants shelter built 5' away from rock ledge STAFF COtiiMENTS: Within the RA (Rural Areas) zoning district, the rear yard setback for an accessory structure is 15 feet. The applicant is proposing to construct the picnic shelter 10 feet away from the rear property line. This would require a five-foot variance as requested. Upon visiting the site, it would appear that the picnic shelter could be constructed to the rear of the building, or closer to the church, and be in compliance with the setback requirements. Furthermore, the size of the shelter could be reduced to accommodate the setback requirement. In this case, strict application of the zoning ordinance does not reasonably restrict the use of the property. The Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-495(2)(a) states that no variance shall be authorized by the board unless it finds that strict application of the ordinance would produce an undue hardship approaching confiscation. Staff believes that granting this variance would be inappropriate as a hardship approaching confiscation does not exist. The structure could be constructed in a manner that would not require a variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 8-19-97 BZA MEETING: Denial He: O:�AGEN DAS\BZA\CONI NI ENTS\H UFFNI AN. ©ZA VARIANCE #010-97 PIN: 72-A-13 W.D. Huffman Paye 1 09 s APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA 1. The applicant is the owner 2. APPLICANT: other �. (Check one) OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME : V D.4! -n NAME : C' C' /0! i 'm v c� /� W. D. Huffman ADDRESS 370 Buffalo Marsh Road j���1DDREgS ; : r.�� CLt Middletown, VA 22645 �' l ' I TELEPHONE: _ % �' TELEPHONE: 22 1 5 " r� 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): 2 L � _ :S 4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of feet and consists of acres. (please be exact) T=--- 5. The property is owned by �n�� �C�t ��h' Pr. r 7;Iu as evidenced by deed from recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. on page of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Attach a copy of the deed. tic Je_e,4 F,_,_,zi, . c', i ,, i- Page 2 of 5 G. Magisterial District: P �C V G?c^E P,- 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 7:2- nA 8. The existing zoning of the property is: R 9. The existing use of the property is: _ G H C.l fzc. E-{ 10. Adjoining Property: II�E ZONING North 2t. 'RA EastQ 12 A South S� PE N„C c. __ West A C 2 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for an attached two car garage.") � }2EA R 5 !Z 7 y,9 -JZ 1") V p- 2 ► H-ry C c� 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of: exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of property, or exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of property, or the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto iA,'1) r I- � - / %'r /.. Vr c t -T 4' r Fc 13. Additional comments, if any pp.3a3 14. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the variance is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be iio`ufd by mail -'this application: NAME H i 25cN a X1247 $TP4 iv c.� Y M Address ST MT. F6 2 M SS67 CED -,w Cts=Ecc rL-� Property ID# 2- — 4 - 4DEw 1 N"s5r-' 2 V-14( 'ZZ (.a Z NAME o2NDo2F--E] 19c.rgc"2riv1C'V(6Address S-"77 cEc0:2rrz C.CZG6rc AZ:7,4 <<.., C_ -15 , J z 6 aZ Property 1D# 1-7 NAME_W H !TL OC V r r� ► (,� Address C_G p.q 2 C 2 C- E Property ID# -72 — A — 1-7 .A (,V (''-' C_ t -t ESrGZ 2 VA ZZ 6 C NAME Address Property ID# - 1 1 C NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# 4 i 'iSPECTd;_q�s DELETIONS FROM HE NOT SHOWN C!"I , PLAN'S POUST 31E'_Z9,R2rTED WHEN DETECTED 11i\'G I11 I.M8J.PLECTED, sounders buildng construction, Inc. CO3) 667-1363 P.O. BOX 651 • WtNCHESM, VIRGINIA 226" LA' rw v .n 'mus-, te kn't C', the'cb i . ;11 na" plans may suit the re '. 1 re; S-::tladuied 'iSPECTd;_q�s DELETIONS FROM HE NOT SHOWN C!"I , PLAN'S POUST 31E'_Z9,R2rTED WHEN DETECTED 11i\'G I11 I.M8J.PLECTED, Pap s o[ s AGREEMENT VARIANCE # I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectflAy make application, and petition the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to grant a variance to the terms of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as described herein. I agree to comply with any conditions for the variance required by -the BZA. I authorize the members of the BZA and Frederick County officials to go upon the property for site inspection purposes. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the BZA public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road or right-of-way until the hearing. I hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT� �/� . x, DATE % , 25 7 SIGNATURE OF OWNER �. �,�,� DATE % — 2 - (if (if other than applicant) 7- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF -OFFICE USE ONLY- - DATE - APPROVAL SIGNED: DENIAL DATE: ACTION. BZA CHAIRMAN BZA REVIEW DATE: 8/19/97 VARIANCE #011-97 FEDERA. T SIGN CO. (For Flying J Travel Plaza) LOCATION: The property is located at 1630 Rest Church Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 33-9-1 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) District and IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District; Land use - Travel Plaza (Under development) ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Agricultural, interstate highway, and vacant VARIANCE: 26' sign height variance = to a height of 736' above sea level REASON FOR VARIANCE: Height increase is sought to allow sign to be seen by southbound traffic. Existing trees block visibility of the sign at 710' above sea level. See attached letter. STAFF CONTMENTS: This Variance application is different from application #007-97 submitted, and subsequently withdrawn by Flying J, in that the applicant is requesting an increased height variance from this previous application and they are no longer seeking a square footage variance. As you are aware, the property being developed is located at the exit 323 interchange area. The maximum business sign height at this exit is 710 feet above mean sea level. The applicant is requesting a 26' variance from this height requirement which would place the height of this sign at 736 feet above mean sea level. Based upon information contained within the site plan for this project, the sign is located at a point where the base of the sign would be 669' above sea level. Based upon the 710' limit, this location would allow a sign with a maximum height above grade of 41'. With the requested 26' variance, the maximum height above grade for the sign would be 67'. Federal Signs (Flying J) - Variance #011-97 Page 2 August 11, 1997 The applicant recently flagged the sign at the proposed location to determine its visibility to traffic on Interstate 81. Photographs from this flagging were taken by the applicant. These photographs have been forwarded to staff and will be available to the Board at their meeting. Staff was also present at this flagging. The applicant has stated that the height of the sign at the flagging, and in the pictures, is sixty-seven (67) feet in height. If this is correct, then the Board will clearly see how a sign erected at the approved variance height will look to traffic traveling in a southbound direction on I-81 and to traffic on Route 669. Visibility to traffic traveling northbound on I-81 is not an issue. However, a sign erected at the proposed height would result in increased visibility to this traffic. Staff would concur with the applicant in that visibility of the sign to traffic traveling in a southbound direction is compromised by the natural topography of the land to the north of the site and by the existing trees located in the VDOT right-of-way (even at the height requested). This natural topography, in addition to the curvature of I-81, shield the Flying J site from the view of the traveling public until a point approximately one- half mile north of the site where you cross over the state line into Virginia. From this point, the existing trees shield the proposed location of the sign. The Board may wish to compare an existing sign when considering this variance request. Also located at the exit 323 intersection is an Exxon sign. This sign is 60' in height. When considering its height relative to mean sea level, the sign is 706 feet above mean sea level which is 4' below the established ceiling of 710'. This sign is located on the eastern side of I-81 and is, therefore, visible earlier than a sign located west of I-81. The visibility of this sign is not compromised by natural features. The Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-495(2) states that no variance shall be authorized by the board unless it finds that a) strict application of the ordinance would produce an undue hardship; b) that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity, and; c) 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 is of the opinion that a variance at the height requested would alleviate a hardship created by existing topographical conditions to the north of the property. Furthermore, the hardship created by the topographical conditions is not shared generally by other properties in the vicinity. This variance request may be appropriate. O:WGENDAS\BZA\COMMENTS\FED SIGN.DZA VARIANCE #010-97 PIN: 33-9-1 Federal Sign Co. -1 page 1 of 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK; VIRGINIA 1. MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INR - PLEASE PRINT The applicant is the owner X other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: 3. 4. 5. OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: NAME: Flying J Travel Plaza ADDRESS 301; 1,1p _ r Ea c t e ADDRESS: 1530 Rest Church Rd. TELEPHONE: (817)640-7511 TELEPHONE: not yet listed The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): Ili tri ni a _Rout- 660 a1 sn knnwn at Rest -(;butch Road wl th d SDeClf1 C aririrace of 1�tfl RASt rhlirrh Rnad The property has a road frontage of 787.37 feet and -a depth Of 1588.45 feet and consists of 25.0027 acres. (please be ' exact) -� The property is owned by CFJ Properties as evidenced by deed from recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 867 on page 670-674 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Attach a copy of the deed. page 2 of 5 6. Magisterial District: Stonewall �y = :-- 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 33-9-1 8. The existingzoning of g the property is : N Q a 9. The existing use of the g property p y is: ���lG 19ti5ti��v 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North Agri r 1i l tura RA East Tni-arctata Nwv South Undeveloped �- B3 West Aariculture RA 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for an attached two car garage.") An increase of 26' height to a height of 736' above sea level 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of: exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of property, or exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of property, or the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto Height increase is sought to allow sign to be seen by southbound traffic. Existing trees block visibility of the sign at 710' above sea level. 13. Additional comments, if any Page 3 of 5 14. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the variance is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (Please list completes digit Property identification number) NAME Interstate Orchards operty ID,#—z A - ess mox ziog w ncnester VA 22604 erty ID.0-33-A-90 ass P.O. Box 2368 Winchester,VA 22604 Property ID# J3-9-4 ainbow - - ainbow Group Address 720 S. Braddock St. Winchester,Va 22 C Property ID# Property ID# J�wdress ddress Property ID# I •aaaress Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# dress operty ID# ". dress operty ID# Page 5 of S AGREEMENT VARIANCE I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application, and petition the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to grant a variance to the terms of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as described herein. I agree to comply with any conditions for the variance required by the BZA. I authorize the members of the BZA and Frederick County officials to go upon the property for site inspection purposes. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the BZA public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road or right-of-way until the hearing. I hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. -r SIGNATURE OF APPLIC ��� - DAT �' SIGNATIIRE OF OWNER 4&DATE (if other than applica t) -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF - DATE - II APPROVAL QDENIAL SIGNED: DATE: ACTION: BZA CHAIRMAN FL YING J INC. 50 WEST 990 SOUTH P.O. BOX 678 BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH 84302-0678 PHONE (801) 734-6400 FAX (801) 734-6556 July 31, 1997 Via Federal Express Mr. Mike Ruddy Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Flying J Travel Plaza at Winchester, Virginia Signage "Addendum 1 to Question 12" Dear Mr. Ruddy: Please find enclosed herewith the following pictures for the proposed signage at the Flying J Travel Plaza in Winchester, Virginia. As noted on the pictures, the sign location in the northeast corner of the property was recently flagged for visibility. A sign face of roughly 500 square feet was used for flagging and viewing the proposed sign height. After raising the sign face to approximately 41 feet in overall height, it was determined that the sign was not visible to south bound traffic on Interstate Highwav 81. The reason that this height was not sufficient was do to a group of trees between the south bound lanes of Interstate 81 and the exit ramp. These trees block the view of the sign at this height until you reach an unsafe distance to make the decision to the exit the highway. This is obviously a hazard to the safety of the passing traffic. Depending on the angle of the approach. a portion of the trees in the orchard north of the Flying J's site also hides the view of the sign face. The sign face was then raised to a maximum height of 67 feet above grade. After viewing the siLm face from both north and south bound lanes of traffic, it was determined that this height would be sufficient to allow the identification portion of the si,-Yn and possibly a portion of the `gas price si�on to be visible. The lower height was simply not visible to south bound traffic. The sign requested is smaller than the 500 square foot face used in the fla`ging. The top identification portion of the sign to be used signs is only 293.28 square feet. The lower sign showing the gas pricing is only 205.63 square feet. Thus, making a total square footage of 498.91 square feet. This square footage fits within the 500 square feet maximum allowance. The fact that there are now two portions to reach this square Letter - Mike Ruddy July 31, 1997 Page 2 footage means that they are a lot smaller in both horizontal and vertical dimensions than the face used in the flagging thus making visibility even more difficult. For these reasons, Flying J feels that a true hardship is caused by not having the sign at least 67 square feet in height. If you should have any questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to contact at me at the letterhead address. With best regards, FLYING J INC. Marry P ' ps, C.P. Purchasing Manager Enclosures MP:kw ruddy I .mp FLYING J TRAVEL PLAZA SIGN PROGRAM PANAFLEX FLEXIBLE FACE FOR M^JOR IDENTIFICATION SECTION OLLUM. WITH INTERNAL HORIZONTAL ILLUMINATION.) WHITE BKGO. WITH BLACK COPY AND COLOR GRAPHICS WHITE FABRIC FACE MATERIAL YELLOW VT M SUNFLOWER ORANGE-VT55D4 ORANGE REQ VT4757 RED VINYL SHEET METAL FABRICATED FILLER AND RETAINER TO HAVE SATIN BLACK FINISH SKYLINE PRODUCTS PRICE DISPLAY SYSTEM W! 80' CHARACTERS d REMOTE CONTROLLED PRICE MODULES PAINT SUPPORTS SATIN BLACK ------------------- ENGINEERING NOTE FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS SHOWN 1 ARE TYPICAL AND MAY REQUIRE ENGINEERING FOR TH SOIL CONDITIONS AND CODE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE SPECIFIC GEOGRAPIC AREA IN WHICH SIGN SHALL INSTALL f.. _ .. _.. _ _. _............. _... _............ _.... _. SIGN TYPE B DOUBLE -FACE, INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED HIGH RISE SIGN WITH GAS SIGN (W MUNI 274, (MAIN I.D.)IV4' F�J IV 81-9. Flying J Travel Plaza CTR_ Location: WINCHESTER, VA. Ar .:. FEDERAL SIGN 1. 'USE 3000 PS CONCRETE IN UNDISTURBED SOIL e ; F�J IV 81-9. Flying J Travel Plaza CTR_ Location: WINCHESTER, VA. Ar .:. FEDERAL SIGN 1.