Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800005 Correspondence 2019-03-21 Tim Padalino From: Tim Padalino Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 3:50 PM To: 'Kurt Wassenaar Wassenaar' Subject: RE: 1801_a4.00stepback-A4.00.pdf Hello again Kurt, Based on the north and east elevations, and the perspective rendering provided earlier, we are not yet able to clearly determine if the proposed building revisions (as shown on the materials recently provided by email) meet the front stepback requirements. Also, it appears that those two sets of info (the elevations and the rendering) may not be entirely consistent with one another. Specifically, the uncertainty relates to the following: - In reviewing the north elevation, we're unable to determine if the extent(width) of the front stepback extends all the way across the front façade, from one end of the building to the opposite end. - Additionally, we're unable to determine the size (depth) of the front stepback at it's smallest/shallowest points; the east elevation provides a front stepback dimension of 16' 4 7/8" but also appears to show multiple stepback widths. It's not clear that the lesser(most shallow) stepback areas would be at least 15' in depth. The way the Ordinance is written, the portion of floors 1-3 which constitute the front stepback would need to extend the entire width of the front façade. For better or worse, there is no flexibility for staff to interpret the front stepback requirements any other way. So I believe we need more information before being able to give a clear determination on whether the minimum front stepback requirements are met(or not) with this revised proposal. It's hard to determine, based on the perspective used for the rendering; and also based on the elevations which appear to show a front stepback for only'-40% of the width of the front facade (as opposed to the entire width of the front façade). However, if the intent with this revised proposal is to provide a front stepback only across a portion of the front façade, then you might consider resubmitting your ZMA Application Plan inclusive of a Special Exception request to modify the front stepback requirements so as to allow a portion of the front façade of the building to have a six-story elevation with no stepbacks, with the remaining portion of the front facade of the building meeting he front stepback requirements. If I'm misunderstanding what the elevations and rendering are intending to show, then let's have a discussion to clarify. In fact, if you'd prefer to discuss this (in lieu of email exchange), please let me know and we can set up a phone call or even a brief meeting. Thanks in advance - -- Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 1 From:Tim Padalino Sent:Thursday, March 21, 2019 9:38 AM To: 'Kurt Wassenaar Wassenaar' <kurt.wassenaar@gmail.com> Subject: RE: 1801_a4.00stepback-A4.00.pdf Hello Kurt, You're welcome. And thank you for your follow up message and attached conceptual elevations. I will review this document with other CDD staff and follow up with you ASAP. Thanks very much -- - Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From: Kurt Wassenaar Wassenaar<kurt.wassenaar@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 3:40 PM To:Tim Padalino<tpadalino@albemarle.org> Cc: Kurt Wassenaar<kurt.wassenaar@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: 1801_a4.00stepback-A4.00.pdf Dear Tim,thank you very much for your review and comments on our revised concept for the proposed hotel building on Pantops. Michael has articulated the setback dimensions and the other details you requested and is looking for a confirmation that we are on the right track in meeting the requirements so we can resubmit with a reasonable chance at approval. I would be grateful if would take a look and confirm that the set back dimensions etc. meet the requirements of the code. Many thanks and let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Kind regards, Kurt Begin forwarded message: From: <michael@shaminhotels.com> Subject: 1801_a4.00stepback-A4.00.pdf Date: March 19, 2019 at 3:06:05 PM EDT To: <kurt.wassenaar@gmail.com> Cc: "'Neil Amin' <neil@shaminhotels.com> Kurt Here is the elevations for the Hampton showing the stepback. Can you forward to Tim and have him give a definitive answer regarding the stepback?As far as his architectural features, by his own admission we don't need ARB approval, so if we could hold firm on the fact that this is the look of the building that would be helpful. Thanks 2 Tim Padalino From: Tim Padalino Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 1:56 PM To: 'Kurt Wassenaar Wassenaar'; 'Michael Sweeney (michael@shaminhotels.com)' Subject: RE: Shamin Hotel - Pantops Hello Kurt, and hello Mike - -- Thank you for your message, Kurt. And thank you providing the project update, I appreciate that information about the recent change in approach. Regarding the new building concept, and your request for me to address the permissibility and compliance of the proposed front stepback: The revised proposal you've shown (as an attached image of a conceptual rendering) does generally appear to comply with the applicable front stepback requirements specified in Zoning Ordinance Section 4.20.a, to the extent that we can make such a determination based on this one image. It appears that the fourth story and all stories above are stepped back from the third story, which would be consistent with the requirement to locate the front stepback at a height that is a "prescribed number of stories or feet above the ground." (However, a final determination cannot be made without knowing the dimensions (heights) of the stories involved. I do recall your previous calculations that the height at the top of the third story/bottom of the fourth story would be 32' AGL, but I'm not able to positively determine if the same dimensions would be accurate for this new/revised approach.) Additionally, based on this conceptual rendering, it is unclear how deep the front stepback would be —and therefore I cannot make any final determination about compliance with the applicable minimum stepback requirement, which is 15 feet. However, as noted above, I can confirm that this proposed revision seems to generally meet the intent of the front stepback requirements, provided that the location (height) is correct and provided that the size (depth) is correct. We can pretty easily confirm the "correctness" or compliance of those, if/when a dimensioned exhibit were provided with the resubmittal (such as a section showing the proposed building massing, proposed stories/floors, heights and other dimensions, etc.). Please let me know if you have any additional requests for info or clarification regarding the minimum front stepback requirements. And regarding the change in building appearance: It looks like the revised materials might help to address some of the prior review comments from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, regarding their concerns about the visibility of light grey and white materials from Monticello. Additionally, I concur that the proposed new appearance and revised materials specifications would be more visually consistent with other structures in the immediate vicinity (including those in the PJP office park, which you pointed out). Separately, I am not able to determine if the revised appearance would include any architectural detail on the northeast façade (the end of the building facing towards US 250/ Richmond Road), and if so, what type(s) and amount(s) of architectural detail. I am interested in knowing how that façade would generally look, but it is not critical (this application is not subject to Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines or ARB review/approval, as you know). I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if there are other ways I can provide assistance prior to any future resubmittal. Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From: Kurt Wassenaar Wassenaar<kurt.wassenaar@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 11:14 AM To:Tim Padalino<tpadalino@albemarle.org> Cc: Kurt Wassenaar<kurt.wassenaar@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Shamin Hotel - Pantops Dear Tim, We appreciate your efforts to work with us on the Zoning issues with the Hotel. As you know this is a complex process on the Hotel side as well in which program,timing and cost concerns often add quite a bit to the mix to decision making. We explored the addition of a space which would meet the zoning code over the porte cohere and after a lot of thought and analysis my clients have decided to simply do the step back, lose some rooms, reduce the parking and move ahead on this basis. We also went over the massing of the hotel and the "look" of the hotel in terms of some of the non required but overall look of the project. Mike and I were able to do some additional design work on this part and I think the result of that effort is much improved in terms of massing, articulation, material colors and overall look of the project as it might fit better with the surrounding buildings at Peter Jefferson Place and the entrance corridor. Please see the attached preliminary drawing of the current concept and we would welcome your and staff comments on this part along with confirmation that our acceptance of the setback will meet the code. Again, we are grateful for your efforts to help the project through the process and appreciate your and staffs comments on the current plan. With Kind Regard, Kurt 2 r , 4110 •t • ', fi 3 Kurt Wassenaar,Architect 200 West 12th Street Waynesboro, VA 22980 (540)941-3567 office (434) 242-4619 Direct Cell M © ASSENAAR U © INKLER ARCHITECTS PLANNER S 4 Tim Padalino From: Tim Padalino Sent: Friday, March 08, 2019 2:36 PM To: 'Kurt Wassenaar Wassenaar' Cc: 'Kurt Wassenaar; 'Michael Sweeney(michael@shaminhotels.com)' Subject: RE: Pantops Hotel Hello Kurt, I am writing to provide some informational guidance regarding the concept sketch you provided earlier this week. After reviewing the attached sketch with other CDD staff, I can confirm that this conceptual approach (adding finished floors above the porte cochere) would satisfy the minimum front stepback requirements, provided that the number of stories/ height of the revised porte cochere complies with the specified required front stepback height (at the first story that begins above 40 feet in height, or the first story above the third story, whichever is lower). And if this conceptual approach was pursued such that the number of floors/ height did not clearly meet the specified required front stepback height, then a modification could be requested as part of the ZMA application (pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.2.b and 4.20.a, footnote#6). I hope this informational guidance is helpful and useful. Please feel free to contact me for discussion, clarification, etc. Thanks - - - Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From:Tim Padalino Sent:Tuesday, March 05, 2019 9:35 AM To: 'Kurt Wassenaar Wassenaar'<kurt.wassenaar@gmail.com> Cc: Kurt Wassenaar<kurt@wpluswdesign.com>; Michael Sweeney(michael@shaminhotels.com) <michael@shaminhotels.com> Subject: RE: Pantops Hotel You're certainly welcome, and thank you for following up so quickly with this conceptual sketch. Your timing is good in that it allows for me to discuss this approach with a few other people in CDD over the next few days. I will plan to follow up with clear guidance on whether this approach would meet the front stepback requirements or not, so that Mike can factor that information into his possible next steps. I will follow up at the end of the day Thursday or sometime Friday. Thanks again - - - Tim Padalino, AICP 1 Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From: Kurt Wassenaar Wassenaar<kurt.wassenaar@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 4:17 PM To:Tim Padalino<tpadalino@albemarle.org> Cc: Kurt Wassenaar<kurt.wassenaar@gmail.com>; Kurt Wassenaar<kurt@wpluswdesign.com>; Michael Sweeney (michael@shaminhotels.com)<michael@shaminhotels.com> Subject: Re: Pantops Hotel Dear Tim, thank you for our meeting this morning and your positive approach to resolving the items in your staff comments in a thoughtful and creative manner. It was a pleasure to meet you in person and I appreciate your taking the time for our meeting and discussion. I have attached a very quick sketch which illustrates one concept/approach of how the building porte cochere could be modified to increase its visual mass as well as meet the intention of the zoning step back and its impact on the the remaining parts of the building. I have communicated with Mike about this exploration and he is looking into how this might fit the hotel program and specific design issues that the hotel developer will have to make in order for this be a workable scheme but I think it is a good start to a solution. I will be anxious to learn if this design direction helps to resolve the step back issue from the staff perspective. Please let us know at your earliest convenience if this is a workable approach. With Kind regards, Kurt This is in landscape format. 2 -V;AMA\'0Aat ItittikU; (AACtA Mv`DAL, e41)vv3S4 ‘2(j41-1 \)/44 ( SAVS ,) .c\ink C464 Vi\k/611V Si tar LL 4ir-4404-41- iv,ovkibt\ 'M)\- ,t‘,.e. s\4w4k •( ‘,.\:Iilistf,14 A. 6, UOIrtA A," it-G C-D(ttAA' - ?Pe,SC,Alntil 6A)\10: ' -IPf ( ( V ) J "Ifirree,a‘rtf o I —. . (vyt ‘404/) C.kr, ••••--- , ..! _.— .pkt:ZP --- "---\ as A-. 14 x 1 im ......,........ , 1 II _ - wvIrs.eoiLct...r‘p.,40 - 4.) ftAtt1.5v,roll Ilrerje v_...z, - ---- I- ---- ............................. . . ....0,.......11,, F ' I ivi f :" it Mk ..,:i — _ . — .... - mL.,. •• ••ar--C.....,... I 1 1 rers"Li-‘ iL1-174LA-- 411 4 ly - ii C-tivAxe wsivc)cwv P 1.L wo T.i.........-....... ........ _•-.•••••, 70-c-le i .. 1 , ,,,.., J ,_ ...„ , ....,,,,,,,,,,.. ,,,,,,,,,,, ,_to k IOW , • I. 4".''' '1!"—' V" 4 V.L' . With , , ,-4,-:, .,.., i , ,ir,, „ , , . , , , ,,,...........„ . .4. 4 i t L. , i ;t/ . r: i i 'si i en Mb let. ii4ir1 , ` _- ; -1— •.trs C ct °A-,e ci.i. ,/ Tim Padalino From: Kurt Wassenaar Wassenaar <kurt.wassenaar@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 4:17 PM To: Tim Padalino Cc: Kurt Wassenaar; Kurt Wassenaar; Michael Sweeney (michael@shaminhotels.com) Subject: Re: Pantops Hotel Attachments: Pantops Hotel Quick and Dirty Concept sketch.pdf Dear Tim, thank you for our meeting this morning and your positive approach to resolving the items in your staff comments in a thoughtful and creative manner. It was a pleasure to meet you in person and I appreciate your taking the time for our meeting and discussion. I have attached a very quick sketch which illustrates one concept/approach of how the building porte cochere could be modified to increase its visual mass as well as meet the intention of the zoning step back and its impact on the the remaining parts of the building. I have communicated with Mike about this exploration and he is looking into how this might fit the hotel program and specific design issues that the hotel developer will have to make in order for this be a workable scheme but I think it is a good start to a solution. I will be anxious to learn if this design direction helps to resolve the step back issue from the staff perspective. Please let us know at your earliest convenience if this is a workable approach. With Kind regards, Kurt This is in landscape format. 1 Tim Padalino From: Tim Padalino Sent: Thursday,January 10, 2019 4:55 PM To: 'Long,Valerie' Subject: RE: Pantops Hotel Stepback Exhibit (ZMA 2018-5) Hello again Valerie, I just want to follow up and confirm that, after an interesting and detailed review of this issue this afternoon, the Department's position is that the hotel building, as proposed and as shown on the marked up exhibit, does not meet the applicable front stepback regs (relative to the definition of"stepback" or relative to the requirements in Zoning Ordinance Section 4.20.a). Even though the façade of floors 3-6 (or possibly floors 2-6) of the proposed building are approximately 55' behind the front edge of the porte cochere, this building does not have a front stepback as defined and required by County Code because floor 4 has no front stepback relative to floor 3. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. Thanks very much - - - Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From:Tim Padalino Sent:Thursday,January 10, 2019 1:48 PM To: 'Long,Valerie' <vlong@williamsmullen.com> Subject: RE: Pantops Hotel Stepback Exhibit (ZMA 2018-5) Hi again Valerie, I'm taking these issues to a County staff meeting later this afternoon, and would like to hold off on providing any additional feedback until sometime after that. If any answers to your follow up questions are made, I will update you. Thanks - - - Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From: Long, Valerie<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Sent:Thursday,January 10, 2019 11:17 AM To:Tim Padalino<tpadalino@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Pantops Hotel Stepback Exhibit (ZMA 2018-5) Thanks Tim, one quick follow up question: i Is the main problem that we're relying on the porte cochere as part of the building to satisfy the stepback requirement? Or that it you think the "main" part of the building should be further stepped back starting at the 3rd floor? When you say "at the prescribed height" do you mean that no matter what else is going on with the building, it has to have a 15 foot stepback starting at the lower of 4th floor or 40 feet? Thanks again, Valerie Valerie Long Williams Mullen 434-951-5709 From:Tim Padalino<tpadalino@albemarle.org> Sent:Thursday,January 10, 2019 10:29 AM To: Long,Valerie <vlong@williamsmullen.com> Subject: RE: Pantops Hotel Stepback Exhibit (ZMA 2018-5) Hello Valerie, Thank you for your voicemail on this subject, and thank you for providing this detailed message (as well as the marked up exhibit). Although I appreciate your explanation of your position, I believe we are still at a point of disagreement. For example, the definition of stepback states that the stepback "...occurs at a prescribed number of stories or feet above the ground"— not at an optional number of stories or feet above the ground. And the proposed building does not include any front stepback at the "prescribed" height, nor anywhere else (in the opinion of County staff). At this point, I think the following options exist for you and the applicants: • Request a PC public hearing with the materials provided (and with the position that the porte cochere satisfies / exceeds the front stepback requirement), without a staff recommendation for approval; • Revise the application materials and resubmit the ZMA application plan/proposal that complies with the applicable stepback regulations; • Revise the application materials and resubmit the ZMA application plan/proposal inclusive of an explicit request for a front stepback modification for the subject properties, and inclusive of supporting rationale/justification; or • Apply for a letter of determination regarding the interpretation and administration of front stepback regulations to the proposed building. And although I remain committed to providing you and the applicants with the professional service and assistance necessary for the productive review of your application, I don't think it makes sense for you and I to set up a meeting to further discuss whether the porte cochere meets the front stepback requirements—especially since we've recently discussed this at length and in detail in the County Office Building, and also since CDD's position has been stated and explained in the most recent review comment letter, and (most importantly) because I am not personally in position to establish a new County position on the interpretation and administration of the stepback regulations. 2 a However, if you want to meet to talk about the details of any of the other potential options listed above, or to otherwise discuss the project in any capacity, we can do that. If so, reserving a pre-app meeting time slot is the best way to (relatively) quickly convene County staff from all relevant Divisions of CDD to provide you with interdivisional assistance and guidance on these issues. I hope this makes sense and is not misinterpreted as being unreasonable. In fact, I think the review process for this project has included some really strong examples of both the applicants and the County working together to find some compromises. I remain available to assist further in the ways alluded to above. Thanks --- Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From: Long,Valerie<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Sent:Wednesday,January 09, 2019 5:33 PM To:Tim Padalino<tpadalino@albemarle.org> Subject: Pantops Hotel Stepback Exhibit (ZMA 2018-5) Tim, This is a follow up to my voicemail on this issue. I've attached a marked up version of one of the exhibits we submitted with our most-recent resubmission package for the Pantops Hotel (ZMA 2018-5). Your December 4th comment letter says that we cannot use the porte cochere to satisfy the front stepback requirement per the definition of Stepback in the zoning ordinance, or the technical requirements in Section 4.20(a). I've carefully reviewed both, as well as the definitions of building and story, and am still unclear why the building design does not satisfy the front stepback requirement. In fact, we think that it far exceeds the minimum requirements of Section 4.20(a). As best I can figure out, you are interpreting the stepback requirement to require a the 4th floor and above to be stepped back 15 feet, even if it is already stepped back. But that would require an interpretation that one could not start the stepback at a lower height or lower floor than the minimum set out in the ordinance, which would not make sense. That is what this building does: it actually STARTS the stepback with the 3rd floor (sooner/lower than required). And it steps the building back far more than the minimum of 15 feet— it steps it back more than 55 feet, as shown on the attached exhibit. I do not believe the ordinance prohibits a building from being "extra-compliant," in this way; the ordinance establishes a minimum requirement, but does not prohibit going beyond those minimum requirements. Nor do I think that the text requires a "double-stepback" that would involve a second stepback starting with the 4th floor. Also, the porte cochere is a part of the building, as per the definitions below. Can we set a time to discuss this? 3 I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue more thoroughly so we can move the project forward to the Planning Commission. Thank you, Valerie Building: Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls. Stepback:A building setback of a specified distance that occurs at a prescribed number of stories or feet above the ground. Section 4.20(a)front stepback: For each story that begins above 40 feet in height or for each story above the third story, whichever is less, the minimum stepback shall be 15 feet Story: That portion of a building, having more than one-half(1/2) of its height above grade, included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it. If there be no floor above it, the space between the floor and the ceiling next above it. (Amended 6-11-08) Valerie Wagner Long I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St.Suite 400 I Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5709 I C 434-242-6792 I F 434.817.0977 I vlong(a williamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. 4