MEMORANDUM MEMO TO: DATE: from Route 1 right-of-way.

HOWARD COUNTY DEPARTMENt OF INSPECTIONS, LICENSES AND PERMITS7125 Rivuwood Drive, Suite D2 • Columbia, Maryland 21046 • 410-3 13- 1823

Robert J. Frances, P.E., Director FAX 410-313.1861TDD 410-3 13 .2323

MEMORANDUM

MEMO TO: Hearing Examiner for Howard County Maryland

TO: Robert Frances, P.E., DirectorDepartment of Inspections, Licenses and Permits

THROUGH: Thomas Huskins, Division ChiefInspections and Enforcement Division

Brenda Saucedo, Supervising Sign Code InspectorInspections and Enforcement Division

FROM: Wayne Killebrew, Sign Code InspectorInspections and Enforcement Division

DATE:

SUBJECT:

May 17, 2022

Sign Variance Petition: BA-22-001SSign Permit Application(s): S21000429 proposed. (S21000427 & S21000426Wall signs are already in place on the new building)Petitioner: BLT Cantina, LLC, 14 Balligomingo Rd., Conshohocken, PA 19428Sign Location: 6281 Washington Blvd Elkddge, MD 21075 (a.k.a Route 1)

Request Description :

The Petitioner is requesting a variance of the Howard County Sign Code to increase themaximum allowable area of all signs permitted on the lot under Howard County Code3.501(c)(1)(a) by 41.97 sq. ft.

The plan also proposes a new ground-mounted freestanding building monument sign which willbe located much closer (20 feet) to the existing right-of-way and will be 11 feet tall. This is one(1) foot taller than the maximum allowable height of 1 0 feet based upon the 20-foot set backfrom Route 1 right-of-way.

g 8 g F. g,El-' „ iJ.?q% +A

HilajlTTMi@TTLwMmmiiB;;TiM IEXFM

Petitioner’s Exhibit D Above - Depicts the obstructed view of the original freestanding sign asviewed from inside a vehicle traveling north on US Route 1 having passed through theintersection of Montgomery road. The sign is obstructed by the adjacent business sign. Thedepicted existing sign was removed at the time of our site evaluation.

giibbEi;ince

bed IRQrl

jshowing the lack of visibility due in part to the[topography of US Rt. I just south of the site

+

}+BbB@_WifIi

Petitioner’s Exhibit I Above - Depicts the motorists view of the entrance into the Taco Bellbusiness drive-through and parking area just before the vehicle enters the intersection ofMontgomery road while approaching from the south on US Route 1. The original freestandingsign, now removed, is partially obstructed by adjacent business signs.

At the time of our site evaluation, the Petitioner is well into the process of a complete “demolishand rebuild” of the previously existing Taco Bell restaurant located at this site. The new building

2

is completed and is occupied, and the two new wall signs are in place. The monument signremains proposed.

In September of 2021, the existing “TACO BELL” building and all signage located at 6281Washington Boulevard in Elkridge was completely razed and removed. A new largercommercial building and drive-though was constructed at the existing location. The Departmentof Inspections, Licenses and Permits issued demolition and construction permits for this work.(#B2 1003417 & #B2 100 1429)

The new building consists of a 2,753 sq. ft. restaurant. The exterior dimensions of the newbuilding are (L) 91.0 ft. x (W) 29.5ft.

The elevation of the subject property varies between 212 +/- at the northwest corner to 199 feet+/- at the northeast corner. The property also slopes toward the northeast to an elevation of 202feet +/-. Because of this sloping topography and in order to provide room for internal circulationand parking, it was necessary to locate a required storm water management facility in the centralregion of the site toward the rear of the parcel. See Exhibit A – Sheet #3, SDP-20-006.

As a result of these topographic conditions and the need to provide adequate storm watermanagement, parking and internal circulation, the narrow portion of the Building is required toface US Route 1 resulting in a building frontage of only 29.5 ft.

Accordingly, the total permitted sign area under the regulations is equal to the Building Frontage(29.58.) x 2 sq. ft. = 59.0 sq. ft.

In addition to the 53.22 sq. ft. monument building sign described above, the Petitioner hasinstalled a modest wall sign package on the building itself. The Petitioners wall sign package inplace consists of two (2) component wall signs that are applied in varying combinations on twoexterior walls of the building (front and right elevations). All of the signs will be LEDilluminated.

As of this writing, the two wall signs have been installed and are in use.

Findings of Fact:

The proposed signs described within the variance petition, would be in violation of the followingsections of the Howard County Sign Code, To Wit:

3.501 (c) (1) (a) & (2) (c) of this subtitle.

(c) Commercial Districts, Commercial Areas, all Areas Within Downtown Columbia, IndustrialDistricts and Industrial Areas.

(1) Size

a. A total sign area of two square feet for each lineal foot of building frontage shall be allowed. Ifthe building has multiple frontages, an additional sign area of one square foot for each additionallineat foot of building frontage shall be allowed. The total area of all signs erected on the lot andbuilding shall be within the allowable square footage. Where there are multiple frontages, no morethan two square feet of sign area for each lineal foot of building frontage shall be allowed to facethat frontage.

3

(2) Location.

c. Free standing sign. Where a building does not cover the full area of the business property,

business signs may be freestanding or ground supported and may be located in the front yard.The height of the sign may not exceed 1 foot for each 2 feet the sign is set back from the right-of-

way and shall not exceed 26 feet from the grade level to the top of the sign. Freestanding signsshall be permitted only where there is a minimum of 40 lined feet of lot frontage. The maximum

allowable area for a freestanding sign shaH be 1 square foot for each 1 foot the sign is set back

from the road right-of-way. The largest single face of a freestanding sign shall be considered forthe purpose of computing allowable area under this section. No part of the sign shall extend

beyond a property line or right-of-way line.

Description of Components Wall Signs

Logo Wall sign (“Swinging Bell”)(H) 3ft. 6 in. x (W) 3 ft. 10.375 in.

Area = 13.5. sq. R.

Linear Wall Sign (“TACO BELL”)(H) la. 2 in. x 8ft. 6.375 in.Area = 9.95 Sq. ft.

Stacked Wall Sign (“TACO BELL”)(H) 2ft. 6.313 in x (W) 48. 3 in.

Area = 10.74 sq. R.

Sign Variance Petition: BA-22-001S Location of Component Wall Signs on Building:Right (1) Logo Wall sign + (1) Stacked Wall sign = 23.48 Sq. ft

TACOBELL

’ # rap

{: 1);Jy

@3:::

'- 93/I?.(?„OFgp.a.I)

Front Facing US Route 1 (1) Logo Wall sign + (1) Stacked Wall sign = 24.27 Sq. R.

The front elevation of the building has a “Logo Wall Sign” and a “Stacked Wall Sign” already

installed. (See sign Variance plan for dimensions and graphics.)

The total area of this signage for the front building elevation is 24.27 sq. ft.

The wall mounted signage on the right elevation of the building consists of a Logo Wall Sign

and a Linear Wall Sign Having a total area of 23.48 sq. ft.

The total area for all wall mounted building signs is 47.75 sq. R.

The total sign area of all proposed signs on the site (including the proposed 53.22 Sq. ft.

Monument building sign) is 100.97 sq. ft.

The Petitioner is requesting a variance to increase the maximum area of all signs permitted onsite to 100.97 sq. R.

This request represents a variance which exceeds the maximum allowable square footage of

signs by 41.97 sq. ft. (100.97 sq. ft. – 59.0 sq. ft.).

5

Variance Requirement Questions :

Are there unique physical conditions or exceptional topographical conditions peculiar tothe property on which the proposed sign is to be located, including the location of existingbuildings and other structures, irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of the lot,irregularity of the road right-of-way, location on a highway that has a dependency onnonlocal use?

Answer- Yes, there are unique physical conditions and exceptional topographical conditionspeculiar to the subject property that are causing practical difficulty and hardship in complyingstrictly with the provisions of the Sign Code. Those conditions include:

1.) Traveling southbound on US Route 1, there are a small number of existing street treesand a moderate number of freestanding business signs located along the east side right-of- way and on the adjoining and adjacent properties to the north and south of the subjectproperty. Traveling northbound, roadside trees do not interfere with visibility to theproperty.

These existing street trees and business signs obscured the visibility of the Petitioner’sprior freestanding sign to passing motorists. The subject property has a frontage on USRoute 1. This roadway extends from Florida to Maine. As such, it carries some number ofnon-local traffic. Therefore, it is important that a business along US Route I haveadequate signage and visibility to guide non-local users of the highway.

2.) The applicant’s site is particularly disadvantaged in terms of its ability to achievereasonable visibility to passing motorists. The reason for this relates in part to thetopography on US Route 1 just to the south of the site. In particular, there is a crest of ahill at the intersection of US Route 1 and Montgomery Road, approximately 341 feet tothe South.

See Exhibit I. Vehicles approaching from the south are not able to see the applicant’sprivate site entrance until they have cleared the crest. By this time, most motorists aretraveling down the 4% grade at 45 MPH. The first indication of the restaurant becomesvisible to traveling motorist is approximately 132.3 feet before the entrance to the site.

See Exhibit E. This is obviously too short of a distance for most motorists to react, slowdown and turn into the private entrance. By the time they have seen the restaurant it islikely too late to safely enter the business entrance and parking area.

Are there obstructions, such as excessive grade, building interference, structures orlandscaping on abutting property or properties which seriously interfere with the visibilityof a proposed sign?

Yes, the subject property is located on the east side of US Route 1. The posted speed limit along

US Route 1 in the vicinity of the private entrance to the site is 45 MPH. The northbound lanes of

US Route 1 have an appreciable downward grade of approximately 4% approaching the site.

Because of the fairly high rate of traffic speed, the topography, and lane configuration of the

6

roadway, northbound vehicles intending to make a right turn into the site must enter the far-right

hand turn lane well before turning right into the private entrance to the site.

Are there any historical, architectural or aesthetic characteristics which shall beconsidered?

No, from an aesthetic perspective the proposed monument building sign and the proposed

building wall mounted signs are compatible and in keeping with other freestanding and wallmounted signs in the vicinity. As such the proposed signs will not appear to be out of place in

their environment. Additionally, the proposed monument sign meets the guideline established in

the Route 1 Design Manual. See the attached memo from Nicholas Haines of Zoning datedMarch 31, 2022 marked exhibit Z

If the variance is granted, will it adversely affect the appropriate use or development ofadjacent properties, or result in a dangerous traffic condition?

No, if granted, the variance request will not adversely affect the appropriate use or development

of adjacent properties, nor will it result is a dangerous traffic condition. The proposed signs will

be compatible with other existing commercial uses in the vicinity and will not appear to be out ofplace within the commercial corridor.

Is the requested Variance the minimum necessary to afford relief, and can it be grantedwithout substantial impairment of the intent, purpose and integrity of the code?

Yes, the requested variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief to the applicant. In order toafford relief, it is necessary to locate the proposed monument building sign in a location where it

can be readily viewed by non-local motorists traveling at a fairly high rate of speed. It is also

reasonable to allow an increase in the area dimension of the monument building sign. Due to the

speed of travel and the distances involved it is necessary that signs utilized have reasonably sizedtext to be read at reasonable distances.

Were the practical difficulties or hardships created by the Applicant?

No, the practical difficulties have not been created by the Applicant. The practical difficulties area result of the unique topographic conditions of the site and the adjoining roadway as well as the

presence of street trees and the location of other business place signs.

The hearing date for this case is scheduled for July 7, 2022 at 5:30 p.m..

7

Report Prepared by

Report Reviewed by

Report Reviewed by:

Report Approved by

}kAVAroCOUNrv D£PAXTw€N'r or PLANNlb£ ANU ya\'lwWGutlhHDrtn 8 aB(HtClly.MB7bld2t$B B dIM}DH

„ , WIaPtMy C+uKObfde tAX 4 IN}}348

BA-2:++1& T&co W, £lkrid# {\U V&In:e)

Otogodn\ t:Xsl lila CbIDivtan ofFtiMe !knkt Iad ZhIMtB AdminbBHat

lbnodb: A,aN+ (WhOiameNd &eDivinn of tHU 1>cwtqmtld

Frba Nk I<+It Harbor\ l=Hvttkn of lay l>aelowa8 fw

lb&: >1#CtI 31 . M:lb+ D8hn oJ L+rw1 th+aIIBI be twb+d the wrakk>tuI we FHkkn nd $11en rho lolkrBBq&Idea oarwH IIb ++Iht #ate odud£ddwia8 tIre wtdividxl edI&e &nlafnirt! pIn In&B

will nUB taU vi+ tb m:uinmttttR nf lh How$1d thIne Sip Code Itvl}BqBnI)efnrtmtnt c#lal90etluK U€ue+ aId hImas Big Pwitu the FB>jurId tJ+nluiar aldttdfy Iba at cab is t+b+ aa.IIe tt4ttdad Ap +virrn ed p©lwrg naerte& dp moa &caWnnegbbt isla in+6 Rue tlWIN&BId

B

b.Anaalrnd iWC rIp k betJB Bed IImesIga at &KnngIB pole nwaug gBPD©4t& n8ertdt an btW itnd Btlb 8 fm$6©8mt117 anwIld %Ag an+n.The Nye+l &wBadn£ gin b pta?ed c&a#t +o the wpwtF tIM to w€naa& alind e& 8pprBrtnceWrab Ir #d eokn of ae &+rtqFax#aaa utIll Be a+les €klmltrkh&&:ref ofttR rPuabratr bWdia&The Ben AmId te bta3db tit or €r+caldi7 Itt thvwwt go $+nJd te Idea n

dH visaif baD bHUb ed pa+&ins hIm & Hen WIde nuKeh iI I

EXHIBIT Z

F : F A ( r 4111&

n\

ieglein

HOWARD COUNTY DEPARTM£NT OF PLANNWG AND ZONWG3430 Court House Drive • Ellicott City, Maryland 21043 • 41(}31&23X)

Voice/Relay

Amy Gowan, Director FAX 410-313-3467

May 17, 2022

Mr. William Erskine, Esquire:RE: BLT Cantina, LLC

BA-22-0015 (821000429)

Please be advised that the above-referenced case for a sign variance has ken scheduled forhearing before the Hearing Examiner of Howard County on July 7, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. The hearingwill be held as a Wet)ex Event, an internet web-based hearing. To participate, you must register at thefollowing internet link: https://cc.howardcountymd.gov/Zoning-Land-Use/Hearing-Examiner. To ensureproper public notice, it will be necessary to obtain from this division the legal advertisement forpublication of this case in two local newspapers thirty (30) days prior to the scheduled hearing andposter which is to be erected on the property. The Howard County Times, The Howard Sun and TheWashington Post are considered newspapers of general circulation in Howard County. Please submityour advertisement directly to the newspapers by May 27, 2022. Certification of advertising from thenewspapers must be submitted to the Department of Planning and Zoning prior to the hearing. Pleasecall this Division at (410) 313-2350 prior to picking up the legal ads and posters to make sure they areready

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this Division, (410)313-2350, at your convenience.

Division of Public Service and ZoningAdministration

CC: Brenda Saucedo, Sign AdministratorT:\pubsew\docSignvarLtr,doc

Howard County Govemment, Calvin Ban County Executive www.howardcountymd.gov