Loading...
BZA 06-21-11 Meeting MinutesMEETING 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 21, 2011. PRESENT Jay Givens, Vice Chairman, Back Creek District; Gary Oates, Stonewall District; Eric Lowman, Red Bud District; Bruce Carpenter, Gainesboro District; and Robert W. Wells, Member -At- Large. ABSENT: Kevin Scott, Chairman, Shawnee District; and R. K. Shirley, III, Opequon District. STAFF PRESENT Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; and Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Givens at 3:25 p.m. and he determined there is a quorum. On a motion made by Mr. Wells and seconded by Mr. Carpenter, the minutes for the May 17, 2011 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. Vice Chairman Givens inquired if there are any applications pending for July, other than the two that were tabled from May. Mr. Cheran responded there are no new applications at this time; the cut -off date is Friday, June 24, 2011. PUBLIC HEARING Variance Request #03 -11 of Orange Partners at Kernstown Commons, for a four and one half foot variance of the ten foot setback for an interstate sign as it relates to Chapter 165 Zoning, Part 704 IA Interstate Area Overlay District, Section 165 - 704.05(D)(1) District Regulations; Setback Requirements. The subject property is located on the southwestern quadrant interchange for Route 37 and Route 11 in Kernstown, and is identified with Property Identification Number 75 -5 -10 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION — VARINANCE APPROVED Mr. Cheran presented the staff report. Frederick County adopted the Interstate Area Overlay District (IA) in 1995. The IA District qualifies uses to be allowed on the sign, height of the sign, number of signs and sign setbacks within the district. The IA District setbacks are ten feet from property lines. The applicant is requesting a four and one half foot variance of the required ten foot setback due to utility easement lines and the future expansion of Interstate 81. If granted, the variance Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1570 June 21, 2011 will result in a five and one half foot setback from the property line. Mr. Cheran stated that the sign itself has met the qualifications of and been approved by Frederick County and VDOT. Mr. Cheran further stated that the sign manufacturer met with him and VDOT. Because this is the interstate overlay and this request concerns VDOT's right -of -way, Mr. Cheran felt that VDOT should be represented in the meeting. VDOT, by email, stated that as Frederick County's regulations are more stringent than VDOT, they will defer the waiver question to the County. VDOT further stated that they have provided information so that "the applicant's engineer has been made aware of the planned excavation for the construction of the future 1 -81 Exit 310 ramps and C -D lanes, and should design the sign footer accordingly. The incursion into the zoning buffer will be at the applicant's risk and liability should any problems arise from the future excavation on the Interstate right -of- way." In conclusion, Mr. Cheran stated that this request from current setbacks of the IA District may be justified to accommodate the future expansion of Interstate 81 and due to the existing utility easements in the vicinity which restricts movement of the sign. This variance request appears to meet the intent of The Code of Virginia 15.2309 (2). The application shows the request is for a five foot setback and Mr. Lowman asked Mr. Cheran if it is five feet or four and one half feet. Mr. Cheran responded they're requesting a four and one half foot variance resulting in a five and one half foot setback. Mr. David Lellock, who is representing the applicant, stated that where the sign is proposed to be located, Orange Partners has dedicated about 20 feet of property and that the previous sign easement extended the original VDOT right -of -way line, which is actually the fence line. Mr. Lellock said it is unique that they have donated the property to VDOT but a new limited access fence has not been constructed yet. Mr. Scott Marsh of Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors stated that he and Mr. Lellock work together. Mr. Marsh said the additional right -of -way is a voluntary right -of -way area and that it was the right thing to do. A sign can be in the wrong place and cause people to go the wrong way or it can be in the correct place and help guide people to where they want to be. Further, this sign meets Frederick County's and VDOT's requirements. A larger sign has a large concrete "dead man" and that's the restrictive element of where a sign is positioned. Mr. Marsh feels the sign is proposed for the right place and he requests approval of this variance. Mr. Carpenter asked if they had looked into a monopole -type sign instead of a two post type sign as shown in their sign design. Mr. Bob Runyan of Eddie Edwards' Signs responded that what works out the best for all parties involved is to do a sign of this style, where the structural integrity of two poles is shared. With two poles, you don't have to have as much structure built into the huge cabinet, which is 23 feet wide and 22 feet tall, for all the properties' signs /logos. It would be very difficult to take a box that big and put it 80 feet in the air with just one support. Two supports makes for a safer, better built system. Mr. Oates asked if a monopole -type sign would work if it was 50 or 60 feet tall instead of 80 feet. Mr. Runyan stated the same issues are involved. The same square footage amount would be subject to up to maybe 90 mph winds. Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1571 June 21, 2011 Mr. Oates stated that one of VDOT's comments was that if the variance is granted, it will be at the applicant's risk and liability should any problems arise from the future exaction on the Interstate right -of -way. Mr. Lellock stated that the bottom of the sign foundation is going to be below their ditch line in this area. Mr. Lellock's understanding is that basically signs are now designed so that it would not be a fall hazard. So excavation near this is going to be minimal and it doesn't appear there will be any undercut of this sign. Mr. Oates stated it sounds to him like if the sign needs to be removed, it will be at the applicant's cost, not VDOT's. Mr. Oates asked if the applicant has any problem with the condition of the variance. Mr. Lellock said they're fine with that, provided they don't take more right -of -way. Vice Chairman Givens stated that it seems the setback question came up earlier this month, based on the date on the plat. Part of the applicant's reasoning of requesting a variance is because the applicant has a manufactured sign. Why has the sign already been manufactured? Mr. Marsh responded that originally the easement created for the sign was intended to go all the way to the existing right -of- way into the voluntary area. There was an implication that was the original intent and the reservation of all this was to allow for that. Mr. Marsh explained the design of the sign is very standard and tailored to the site. They're here for the variance; the sign hasn't been built and the foundation hasn't been poured because they want to get this resolved with the variance. Vice Chairman Givens referred to a letter from Lellock Consulting to the BZA where it states will require additional revisions to portions of the sign that have already been manufactured ". Mr. Lellock stated the only part of the sign that's been manufactured is the columns and the columns have been ordered because there was a mistake made between the purchasing person and the vendor for the pipes. Mr. Cheran stated the applicant was within the County's required setback requirement and the permit was issued. The applicant's representatives discovered this issue, came to the County for guidance and then applied for the variance. This accounts for what may appear to be a discrepancy in the time line. Mr. Wells asked Mr. Cheran if there was any other place on the property where the sign could be located and achieve the same signage effect without granting this variance. Mr. Cheran responded no. Vice Chairman Givens asked if anyone present wished to speak either in favor of or against this variance request. There was no response and Vice Chairman Givens closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Discussion Vice Chairman Givens suggested that any motion that is made, particularly to approve, that we include the fact that the applicant is responsible. The BZA and the County will have responsibility for approving a variance only - not the design of the sign or any future design of 1 -81. Vice Chairman Givens looked at the site and he understands that storm drain structures and the water lines would have to be relocated if the sign was moved back. Vice Chairman Givens questions if that's a hardship to relocate those utilities even though there is cost involved. Why wouldn't it work if Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1572 June 21, 2011 Vice Chairman Givens looked at the site and he understands that storm drain structures and the water lines would have to be relocated if the sign was moved back. Vice Chairman Givens questions if that's a hardship to relocate those utilities even though there is cost involved. Why wouldn't it work if the sign was moved a little further south? Mr. Lellock said if they try to move it past the structures that are existing, they'll have to go back through the process of moving the sign easement. That involves going back through the covenants with Kernstown Commons, which at times is cumbersome with some of the national tenants they have in the development. Another aspect is there is a certain distance that this sign has to be located to existing parking spaces. Mr. Lellock believes right now they meet that criteria, but if they move further south, they'll be required to add additional paved surfaces and parking areas to meet that requirement. Mr. Cheran stated this is a requirement of the Department of Transportation; they're very particular about signs on the interstates and byways. Vice Chairman Givens stated that would create an unusual hardship for the applicant. Mr. Lellock continued that the sign can only reach a certain height. The way it's designed now, they are just at that height. The further they move south, the shorter the sign legs have to be, so poles that have been manufactured are going to be too long. Mr. Wells made a motion to approve Variance Request #03 -11 of Orange Partners at Kernstown Commons with the understanding that after construction of the sign that Frederick County and the Board of Zoning Appeals be held at bay, and that any obstacle pertaining to the sign or placement of the sign be held between the applicant and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Mr. 1 Carpenter seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Other There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jay Givens, Vice Chairman Bev Dellinger, Secretary Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1573 June 21, 2011