HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200300001 Review Comments 2003-04-25 -6v ALe)
4 y
a ® r^t
��RGIti�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
FAX(434)972-4126 TELEPHONE(434)296-5832 TTD(434) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members, Board of Zoning Appeals
FROM: Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator
DATE: April 25, 2003
RE: Martha Jefferson Hospital Foundation Wall Sign Variance
(VA 2003-001)—Rehearing
As the Board may recall, the applicants requested a variance of 11 feet to allow the proposed
wall signs to be located at a height of 41 feet. A modified variance was approved on March 4,
2003 for a height of 33 feet 4 inches or below the third brick band at the top of the building. The
applicants requested this rehearing based on new information that could not have been
available at the original Board meeting.
In granting the rehearing, the Board requested three things:
1. The applicant should submit new information, such as drawings showing sight lines. These
drawings are not yet complete and will be available for the May 6tt' BZA meeting.
2. The applicant should erect a banner of the same letter size as the proposed sign and at the
height approved by the Board. The applicants intend to have this banner erected by
Monday, April 28th around 3:30 p.m.
3. Zoning staff should provide a written review of the new information. This memorandum will
address the new written justification (found in the revised staff report). Once the banner is
erected and the sight line drawings are available, staff will provide further comment.
Staff has revised the staff report (Attachment A) to reflect the applicant's revised justification.
We continue to recommend denial because only one of the three criteria have been met;
however, we reserve the right to revise this recommendation after reviewing the new information
as listed in #1 and #2 above.
Attachments: A. Staff Report (revised for rehearing)
B. Staff Report (original hearing)
cc: Valerie Long
Martha Jefferson Foundation
Michael Matthews
Ronald Cottrell
Janet Miller
STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley
ATTACHMENT A PUBLIC HEARING: Rehearing May 6, 2003
STAFF REPORT VA-2003-001 REHEARING
* This is a revision of the original report for March 4th
OWNER/APPLICANT: Martha Jefferson Hospital Foundation — Outpatient Care
Center
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78 / 311
ZONING: PDMC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial
ACREAGE: 14.044 acres
LOCATION: The proposed Outpatient Care Center is located off Peter
Jefferson Parkway at the intersection with Peter Jefferson Place, on the south side of
Route 250 East in Peter Jefferson Place development.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from
Section 4.15.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, which limits the height of wall signs to 30 feet
in the PDMC district. (This is the maximum height for wall signs in any zoning district.)
The applicant proposes two wall signs at a height of 41 feet, a variance of 11 feet. At
their meeting on March 4th, the Board approved the wall sign variance for a height of 33
feet, 4 inches. This is a rehearing of that previously approved variance to reconsider a
variance for a height of 41 feet.
The signs are proposed on the new Outpatient Care Center, which is currently under
construction in Peter Jefferson Place. The signs are proposed on the north elevation
and will be visible from Route 250 and from the internal road, Peter Jefferson Parkway.
One sign of individual channel letters states "Martha Jefferson" and the other is a
caduceus icon (the medical symbol with wings, staff and snake). The Martha Jefferson
sign is approximately 98 square feet and the caduceus icon is 21 square feet. These
signs do not exceed the maximum sign area allowed.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
Final approvals for this site plan were given in July, 2002. The plan proposes an 80,000
square foot 3-story building. This parcel was created by a subdivision plat approved in
December, 2001 .
These signs are subject to Architectural Review and have been heard by the A.R.B.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This property is
substantially above the grade of Peter Jefferson Parkway (about 50 feet) and Route 250
East (about 75 feet above). It is also set back 1 ,300 feet from Route 250 East. The
VA 2003-001 Rehearing MJ Hospital Wall Sign
May 6, 2003
Page 2
property is not unusually small or odd-shaped but it includes some difficult topography.
The design of the building, although not technically appropriate grounds for a variance,
combined with the topography and distance from Route 250, are the basis for a higher
wall sign. A wall sign at the required maximum height would have limited visibility from
Route 250. This will be easier to visualize, once the applicants erect the banner. (They
intend to show with the banner and drawings, that the wall signs even at the approved
height of 33 feet, 4 inches, will not be fully visible from Rt. 250.)
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance
criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows. The revised variance
justification dated 4-25-03 has been substituted for the prior justification.
Hardship
Staff comments are written in italics and follow the applicant's comments. The applicant
notes that the variance is necessary:
Section 4.15.13 of the Zoning Ordinance limits the height of wall signs to 30 feet in the
Planned Development-Mixed Commercial district. The strict application of this section
of the Ordinance would produce an undue hardship on the Martha Jefferson Hospital
Foundation because it prevents the hospital from providing the most reasonably safe
and effective signage at the future Outpatient Care Center (the "OCC") under the
circumstances, results in signage that is less safe for its patients and for the public as a
whole, and results in a direct conflict with the public's interest in protecting the County's
designated Entrance Corridors as articulated in the Zoning Ordinance.
By serving as a "wayfinder" for a health care use (including an urgent care facility), the
OCC sign must have a heightened level of effectiveness to adequately serve the public.
This is particularly important for serving the needs of patients traveling to the OCC from
outside the area who will be unfamiliar with the area and the development. The hospital
has requested a sign at a height of 41 feet above ground level. At this height, the
signage would result in a higher level of public safety since it would be visible to passing
motorists slightly sooner than it would be at either 30 feet, the maximum height
permitted by the Ordinance, or at 33 feet, 4 inches, the height permitted by the
previously approved variance. In addition, because it would be located in a more
appropriate location on the building, it will reduce the "anticipation time" of motorists,
which allows the hospital, as a provider of urgent health care, to provide the most safe
signage reasonable under the circumstances, and thus meet its duty to its patients and
the public as a whole.
Additional evidence supporting the creation of the hardship is contained in the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (the "MUTCD") published by the Federal Highway
Administration, which contains requirements and recommendations for safe and
VA 2003-001 Rehearing MJ Hospital Wall Sign
May 6, 2003
Page 3
effective signs. The hospital's sign consultants designed the proposed OCC sign and
its location on the building using the criteria contained in the MUTCD. The MUTCD
provides that the basic requirements for a highway sign are that "it be legible for those
for whom it is intended, and that it be understood in time to permit a proper response.
This means high visibility, lettering or symbols of adequate size, and a short legend for
quick comprehension of a driver approaching a sign at high speed. Simplicity and
uniformity in design, position, and application are important."
At its closest point, the OCC is 1 ,300 feet from Route 250, a designated Entrance
Corridor. The speed limit along this portion of Route 250 is 45 miles per hour, there are
several travel lanes and turn lanes in each direction, and numerous stoplights and
median breaks with vehicles crossing traffic in both directions. In addition, the elevation
of Route 250 varies significantly in the nearby vicinity, for patients approaching the OCC
from the west will crest a steep hill (Pantops Mountain), and then have a relatively short
distance in which to locate the facility and the appropriate turn. The Pantops Mountain
area of the County is a designated development area under the Comprehensive Plan
and is designated for high-density development. The area is already heavily developed
and heavily traveled, which will only increase in the coming years as this development
continues. In addition, the office park where the OCC is located is still developing, and
contains numerous other non-medical uses. One such use is a planned four-story hotel
that will be sited directly along Route 250, between Route 250 and the OCC. The
hotel's location will add to the challenge of ensuring that the OCC sign has a heightened
level of effectiveness, for a motorist will have to look beyond the hotel for the OCC sign,
and the hotel could distract the eye of the motorist searching for the OCC, particularly
given the other factors at work, such as the traffic. Given that the OCC will be located
among this hotel and these other buildings, the hospital has a duty to its patients and
the public as a whole to reasonably maximize the ability of members of the public who
are traveling to the OCC to quickly distinguish it among the other office buildings.
Again, this is particularly important for motorists who are unfamiliar with the area.
Thus, members of the public will be traveling along Route 250 at relatively high speeds,
encountering significant traffic, navigating shifting elevations and multiple lanes of
traffic, and looking for the building that is set far from the road and sited among other tall
buildings. Patients must rely on the OCC signage to help them find the OCC among the
other buildings in the area generally, and within the office park specifically, as quickly
and safely as possible. The sooner a driver can locate a sign, the more time he or she
has to react, which increases one's ability to safely change lanes, locate the entrance to
the office park, and execute the required turn. In addition, because the medical uses at
the OCC include an urgent care center and a surgery center, many of the individuals
attempting to find the OCC will be traveling under stress. Furthermore, since a
significant number of patients visiting the OCC will be senior citizens, who often have
challenges with their vision and may also have slower driving reflexes, the heightened
level of visibility of the sign is necessary to achieve the MUTCD goal of a sign that is
"legible for those for whom it is intended." Thus, the signage does not merely have to
VA 2003-001 Rehearing MJ Hospital Wall Sign
May 6, 2003
Page 4
be particularly effectively for the average motorist seeking the OCC, it must to be
exceptionally visible and effective to be legible for a senior citizen traveling under stress.
The combination of these factors alone constitutes an extraordinary circumstance
affecting this property and which would result in a hardship if the Ordinance were strictly
enforced.
However, there are additional characteristics of the property which also factor into the
creation of the hardship. First, because the property does not front on Route 250, it
does not qualify for a sign along Route 250, so the importance of the building sign in
serving as a "wayfinder" for the health care use is particularly important under the
circumstances. Second, at its closest point, the building is 1 ,300 feet from Route 250, a
great distance away. Third, the property is located in one of the most heavily regulated
areas of the County: along two designated Entrance Corridors (Route 250 and
Interstate 64) and in the viewshed of Monticello. As such, the design of the building on
the property and the aesthetic characteristics are particularly important, and the hospital
must strictly comply with the ARB guidelines and policies.
The combination of all of these conditions of the property results in a extraordinary
situation or condition of the property, such that it is extremely important that the signage
have a heightened level of effectiveness, which requires that it be visible as quickly as
reasonably possible, yet factors make it extremely challenging to make the signage so
effective under the circumstances. In addition, the development of the adjacent
property as a high-density office park further exacerbates the need for effective signage
for the property. The OCC will be a medical facility sited among a group of office
buildings, and it is important that motorists be able to locate the OCC among the
adjacent office buildings as quickly as possible. Thus, for each of these reasons, a
strict application of the Ordinance will create a hardship, because the hospital would not
be able to meet its duty to the public to provide such appropriately visible and effective
signage with the limitations on the height of the sign.
Although the difference between the requested height of the sign and the previously
approved variance may not appear to be significant enough to impact the ability of
motorists to safety locate the facility, when the height difference is considered in light of
the combination of conditions of the property, the result is an extraordinary situation.
The sooner one can locate the sign the better, and when considered in light of the
speeds traveled, and further, given the distance of the property from Route 250, the
variation in the elevation of the roadbed (cresting the top of Pantops Mountain), and the
requirement to navigate the increasingly heavy traffic, multiple travel lanes, and traffic
signals, it is clear that every foot of height in the signage becomes more important. This
is particularly important for individuals who are not familiar with the area, and for elderly
individuals. The hospital has a duty to provide signage to its patients and to the public
as a whole that is as reasonably effective as possible, and unnecessary height
restrictions which prevent the hospital from achieving that goal create a significant
hardship.
VA 2003-001 Rehearing MJ Hospital Wall Sign
May 6, 2003
Page 5
Furthermore, the MUTCD also provides that one of the aspects of a successful
identification signage system is a high "anticipatory value" — improving the ability of a
motorist to anticipate the signs in the surrounding environment. Positioning a sign high
on a building helps increase that anticipation time. To a certain degree, driver
anticipation is improved when signage elements are placed in a typical location at or
near the upper section of the building. In addition, by associating the typical location of
the sign at the upper section of the building, the driver's intuitive awareness is
maximized, which increases anticipation times, and thus improves safety.
As noted above, the MUTCD also provides that "simplicity and uniformity in design,
position, and application are important" to providing safe and effective signage. In
addition to the importance of the height of the sign on the OCC building, the position of
the sign relative to other architectural features of the building is also important for
maximizing the safety impact of the sign to the most reasonable extent possible. At the
proposed height of 41 feet, the sign is aligned with the top row of windows and the brick
banding on the building, and achieves the goal of such uniformity of position. By
contrast, at the approved height of 33 feet, 4 inches, the sign is awkwardly positioned
between the two rows of windows and out of alignment with the brick bands. This
awkward position makes it more difficult to locate, for it creates a level of clutter that is
significant when considered in light of all of the unique characteristics of this property.
The result is a less than uniform position on the building, which negatively impacts the
sign's effectiveness for "wayfinding" by decreasing anticipation times and thus safety,
which prevents the hospital from providing the most reasonably effective signage to its
patients and the public as a whole.
In addition to the fact that the strict application of the Ordinance would create a hardship
on the use of the property in limiting the effectiveness of the sign for quickly and safely
allowing the OCC patients to identify the building, the strict application of the Ordinance
also is directly in conflict with the public's interest in protecting the County's designated
Entrance Corridors.
Section 30.6.1 of the Ordinance provides that the purpose and intent of the Entrance
Corridor Overlay District is to "implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the
county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including the
preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose; to
ensure a quality of development compatible with these resources through architectural
control of development...to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists
and other visitors, to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county
from tourism, to support and stimulate complimentary development appropriate to the
prominence afforded properties deemed to be of historic, architectural or cultural
significance, all of the foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the public
health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the county and visitors thereto." As such,
the County has clearly articulated its interest, and that of the public as a whole, in
VA 2003-001 Rehearing MJ Hospital Wall Sign
May 6, 2003
Page 6
protecting the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, by "ensuring a quality of development
compatible with these resources," which would include such historic resources as
Monticello. The hospital worked closely with the Architectural Review Board (the
"ARB") staff throughout the permitting process to ensure that the building design
complies with the ARB's published guidelines and criteria, and thus the County's stated
goal of protecting the Entrance Corridor and nearby historic resources.
Although the ARB did eventually approve the sign at the location established by the
previously approved variance, it did so with great reluctance and regret. The ARB
made clear that the interests of the County, and the public as a whole, would be better
served by the location of the sign at the 41-foot location. As such, by strictly applying
the Ordinance to limit the sign height to 30 feet, or by granting only a limited variance to
permit the location at 33 feet, 4 inches, an undue hardship is created on the property in
that it cannot fully comply with the Zoning Ordinance's goal of ensuring a quality of
development compatible with the area's resources.
For all of these reasons, the strict application of the Ordinance limiting the height of the
sign to 30 feet, and the granting of a limited variance, both create a hardship on the
property, in that the hospital cannot fully meet its duty to its patients and the public by
providing signage that has a heightened level of effectiveness and further because it
creates a direct conflict between the clearly-articulated public interest in protecting the
designated Entrance Corridors.
Staff agrees with much of the applicant's justification for variance but offers some
precautions. As noted previously, by State Code, a hardship must be based on peculiar
aspects of the property. The design of the building is not grounds for a hardship but
becomes a self-imposed hardship. A second precaution relates to the argument about
increasing height to improve visibility. This argument is relevant and on point with the
variance criteria only when the increased height is necessary due to difficult topography
or some other aspect of the property.
Staff reserves further comment on this criterion until we can view the banner at the
approved height and we can review the drawings showing sight lines, to determine the
visibility of the proposed signs. In staff's opinion, unless new information results in a
different finding, we are not able to find grounds for undue hardship.
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
VA 2003-001 Rehearing MJ Hospital Wall Sign
May 6, 2003
Page 7
The hardship created by the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and by the
limited variance previously approved is not shared generally by other properties in the
same zoning district and the same vicinity. The hardship created is a result of the
extraordinary situation and condition of the property that cause it to be vitally important
that its signage be as effective as reasonably possible under the circumstances but also
makes it difficult to provide the appropriately effective signage given the restrictions of
the Zoning Ordinance. As a health care provider (particularly as an urgent care
provider), the hospital has a duty to its patients and the public as a whole to provide
signage for the health care facility that has a heightened level of effectiveness.
However, the combination of factors unique to the property, when coupled with this
public duty, creates an extraordinary situation that is unique to this property and not
shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district. The combination of the
following factors are unique to this property: its location of over 1,300 feet from the
roadway, its location within a larger developing office park with very different uses, the
use of the property for an urgent care facility, the need for visitors to the property to
quickly and safely locate it among other buildings within the office park while traveling at
relatively high speeds, the absence of signage directly on Route 250, and the property's
location along two Entrance Corridors and within the Monticello viewshed, among
others. Other properties in the same zoning district and the vicinity do not share these
characteristics. Therefore, the hardship created by this extraordinary situation is not
shared generally by other properties and can only be remedied by the granting of a
variance from the height restrictions.
Staff does not concur with all of the factors cited as unique to the property and again
takes the position that the unique aspects of the building itself are not grounds for a
finding of unique hardship. While not consistent with the statutory grounds for a
variance, the unique aspects of the hospital services use cannot be ignored.
With respect to the hardship related to the property, staff finds that the topography
presents a unique challenge to development. It is not typical that the building pad is
located 50 to 75 feet above the grade of the access roads serving it. While the distance
from Route 250 is a challenge to properly identifying the building, it cannot be the sole
grounds for a finding of uniqueness. It is possible that freestanding directional signage
on Rt. 250, even if allowed only by variance, may be more appropriate than wall
signage, for directing visitors and patients to the correct access routes for the hospital.
At this point, since staff finds no hardship, staff is unable to find that the hardship is
unique. However, as noted in the preceding, staff can identify several unique
circumstances relating to the property and staff will be reviewing new information
supporting the hardship criterion.
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.
VA 2003-001 Rehearing MJ Hospital Wall Sign
May 6, 2003
Page 8
Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
The authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property, nor will the character of the district be changed by the granting of the variance.
Rather, by enabling visitors to the OCC to more quickly and safely find the building,
granting the variance to allow the higher sign will benefit adjacent properties by
improving the safety of the area as a whole. In addition, granting the variance at the
requested height will enable the property to fully comply with the ARB regulations and
design guidelines, which further enhances adjacent properties. Furthermore, the
proposed signage is in keeping with the character of the district and the adjacent
property, and is smaller in overall size than is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, nor will the character of the district be changed by the granting of the
variance.
Staff concurs with the applicant. The proposed signage is less than the minimum
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has invested in appropriate input from
other entities (such as ARB) in their design of the building and signage.
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 only one of the three criteria for approval have
been met, at this point, staff recommends denial of this request. As noted, we will be
reviewing the new information once available, and we may revise our recommendation.
Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following
condition:
1. This variance is approved for signage as proposed by the applicant.
ATTACHMENT B
STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: March 4, 2003
STAFF REPORT VA-2003-001
OWNER/APPLICANT: Martha Jefferson Hospital Foundation — Outpatient Care
Center
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78 / 311
ZONING: PDMC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial
ACREAGE: 14.044 acres
LOCATION: The proposed Outpatient Care Center is located off Peter
Jefferson Parkway at the intersection with Peter Jefferson Place, on the south side of
Route 250 East in Peter Jefferson Place development.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from
Section 4.15.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, which limits the height of wall signs to 30 feet
in the PDMC district. (This is the maximum height for wall signs in any zoning district.)
The applicant proposes two wall signs at a height of 41 feet, a variance of 11 feet.
The signs are proposed on the new Outpatient Care Center, which is currently under
construction in Peter Jefferson Place. The signs are proposed on the north elevation
and will be visible from Route 250 and from the internal road, Peter Jefferson Parkway.
One sign of individual channel letters states "Martha Jefferson" and the other is a
caduceus icon (the medical symbol with wings, staff and snake). The Martha Jefferson
sign is approximately 98 square feet and the caduceus icon is 21 square feet. These
signs do not exceed the maximum sign area allowed.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
Final approvals for this site plan were given in July, 2002. The plan proposes an 80,000
square foot 3-story building. This parcel was created by a subdivision plat approved in
December, 2001 .
These sins are subject to Architectural Review and will be heard by the A.R.B. on
March 3r , one day before this Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This property is
substantially above the grade of Peter Jefferson Parkway (about 50 feet) and Route 250
East (about 75 feet above). It is also set back about 1500 feet from Route 250 East.
The property is not unusually small or odd-shaped but it includes some difficult
topography. The design of the building, although not technically appropriate grounds for
a variance, combined with the topography and distance from Route 250, are the basis
for a higher wall sign. A wall sign at the required maximum height would have limited
visibility from Route 250.
VA 2003-001 Martha Jet n Hospital 2
March 4, 2003
A full description of the proposed uses is found at the end of the applicant's submittal for
the hardship criterion. The proposed use of the facility involves various hospital
services.
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:
• If the ordinance were strictly applied, no building identification sign visible to the
public traveling along Route 250, the major point of access to the site, would be
permitted on this building. The hardships include:
a) Given the type of necessary healthcare services being delivered in the facility as
described below, the public must be able to identify the facility from the public
thoroughfare. The signage for this building is essential directional signage. No
other viable signage option exists as described herein, thus creating an undue
hardship if not approved;
b) The unique design of the structure does not offer another location for the
placement of a building identification sign due to unique physical and
architectural constraints. Two brick-enclosed courtyards that conceals the
service side of the building facing Route 250, including the mobile technology
dock where tractor-trailer sized mobile units such as lithotripsy or MRI services
will be located, block the sight line to any sign located lower on the building. This
hardship is a function of both the height of the enclosed brick courtyard, over 35'
above the lowest grades, and the manner in which the site slopes steeply away
from the building;
c) Meetings with County planning and zoning staff, particularly the architectural
review staff, have indicated that no other location on the public-facing façade of
the building would likely be acceptable for a sign, and that the proposed signage
location requiring this variance may be the preferred location. Locating the sign
lower on the building to conform with the ordinance would result in a sign that 1)
conflicts with the carefully detailed fenestration patterns and articulation of the
brick bands, 2) would not be visible from the street, and 3) would be in conflict
with the architectural standards if such sign were suggested for the face of the
courtyards themselves.
The Martha Jefferson Outpatient Care Center is a 93,000 square foot healthcare
services facility that includes an urgent care center, an ambulatory surgery center
VA 2003-0Q 1 Martha Jefferson H al 3
March 4, 2003
containing three licensed operating rooms, diagnostic medical imaging including MRI,
CT, and X-ray, a woman's health center, physical therapy/ occupational therapy,
cardiac rehabilitation, a neonatal diagnostic center and a small medical office space.
The majority of the space in the building is licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia as
hospital services. It is vital that patients seeking these services be able to identify the
facility.
Staff is sympathetic to the applicant's request but we are limited by the State Code
criteria for a variance. A hospital's emergency services are unique and important
services to the public. It is the kind of facility that someone not familiar with the area
may need to find quickly. A variety of signs and sign types need to be used to identify
the facility and the routes towards it. Given the fact that this building is set back fairly
significantly from Route 250 and that there are 3 entrances into Peter Jefferson Place,
adequate signage along the major access route, Route 250 is essential. The
topography of this site presents a challenge for visibility from the surrounding roads,
Route 250 and Peter Jefferson Parkway.
However, staff needs to clarify the basis for the hardship criterion. The hardship must
be based on peculiar aspects of the property. The design of the building is not grounds
for a hardship but becomes a self-imposed hardship. (Staff agrees that the building
design limits the visibility of a wall sign at the required height although it does not seem
to completely obstruct it.) In addition, the relevant hardship discussion relates to the
property on the effective date of this ordinance, as stated in this excerpt from the Zoning
Ordinance:
When a property owner can show that his property was acquired in good faith and
where, by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of a
specific piece of property at the time of the effective date of this ordinance, or where, by
reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition
of such piece of property, or of the use or development of property immediately adjacent
thereto, 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.
Staff recommends the full use of directional signage along Route 250 and Peter
Jefferson Parkway in order to properly identify the access to and location of this facility.
Given the location of this building with respect to Route 250 and the design of the
building, it is possible that a wall sign on this building face may not be the best
identification of the facility. While staff is sympathetic to this request, we are not able to
find grounds for hardship.
VA 2003-091 Martha Je> >n Hospital 4
March 4, 2003
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
• The hardship is not shared by other properties in the same PDMC zoning district,
nor in the same vicinity, due to the unique location of this building pad and the
intricate architectural detailing of the public-facing façade. The Outpatient Care
Center is a large building located on the highest point of the Peter Jefferson Place
office park property and as such, great care was taken in locating the building in its
current configuration to respect the desires of the ARB, the Peter Jefferson Place
Architectural Control Committee and Monticello. This includes the oblique angle of
presentation to Route 250, the large, brick-enclosed courtyards and the long, steep
slopes. These unique conditions of building style, building type, building orientation,
topography and sight lines from the public road are not shared elsewhere in the
district and are not expected to occur elsewhere in the district.
Staff again takes the position that the unique aspects of the building itself are not
grounds for a finding of uniqueness of hardship. With respect to the hardship related to
the property, staff finds that the topography presents a unique challenge to
development. It is not typical that the building pad is located 50 to 75 feet above the
grade of the access roads serving it. While the distance from Route 250 is a challenge
to properly identifying the building, it can not be the sole grounds for a finding of
uniqueness. This property, zoned Planned Development Mixed Commercial, and this
particular area of development have been reviewed and approved by the County. As
such and based on its location within the Development Areas, it has been intended for
development. Finally, the hospital services use, while not technically considered as
grounds for a variance, can not be ignored.
Since staff finds no hardship, staff is unable to find that the hardship is unique.
However, as noted in the preceding, staff can identify several unique circumstances
relating to the property and the proposed development.
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
The applicant offers:
VA 2003-001 Martha Jefferson f 'tal 5
March 4, 2003
• The authorization of this variance will not be a detriment to the adjacent properties
and the character of the district will not be changed. Indeed, each will be enhanced
by providing essential wayfinding to the public that will be seeking healthcare
services. The facility is located entirely within an established office park. The
aesthetic qualities of the signage are strictly regulated by the Albemarle ARB to
preserve the integrity of the district and of adjoining districts. The signage is
designed at the minimum size and of minimum text to identify the building. It is
located at the minimum possible height to be visible to the public and to respect the
architectural integrity of the building. The proposed signage is in keeping with the
character of the district and the adjacent property.
Staff concurs with the applicant. The proposed signage is less than the minimum
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has invested in appropriate input from
other entities (such as ARB) in their design of the building and signage.
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 only one of the three criteria for approval have
been met, staff recommends denial of this request. Should the Board find cause to
approve it, staff recommends the following condition:
1 . This variance is approved for signage as proposed by the applicant and subject to
approval from the Architectural Review Board.
V tt c7`-4-'--/— `,,/',ii/t -- �1 ; ?4-.
z
- ---t i" ........ ii -----. • - ‘
`�
'yAigNitik . /---'1
I 4 )— /‘ rti%*17, 11''' % It
t, . \ t i
rigk , Ilik , .
lo ` \ 1
6. ,5D 4 / j�1 1ARS
,,,a , 'I‘‘ ...,, A SECTION T8A J
pA f, / , )7421511P-115#11: / N\ \\\
,„ c 4F41:yfrAct" '2.
e-.,,. 1 ,.__. ss- / \
PciAii r 4:11,40 N.
At,t, ., __‘\ .., ,I. A
0 4, AgitA #. 14,N1,,NN4 ' -'2 ' 7(\ __,- ..=—=---"::::A
77 i% :ii 0
'1 .(•,a ''- 'k....,:°""i a %AO „..1 -4.-- -7---;-.11 ( r
Viler\
i *I t\\141k.: A#
6, 4,P 111111 °N -=. .7\ j
20 *VA \\ `� 20C \\ ��� SI
, / ti s
111
:it -,-.P .t,
..... k
(2 .......,...1
�-�_. , 0
v
/ for / � >f1' - `` I ��
tom is 1 20M ; gilt �`® �� 1
3,0
...otT. 21e � �K "J IS/ MI
-
1 lb
`�KL NARNA lR�1 32A • 33C t� ' '‘, /
( - r--
nunoott coro:s
unITS I,sl 224 �1 R 1pIG
r � _r O,,gN� ' rv.39jµa '
.Lt 33 V i 1` � Uu
.000111111111.110 \ 7�� T Ri 250 ..,,t
6
1' 330
I
1
MONTICELIA \\it...
_22111111111114
\ \�--YK
S0 aR
'V .*4° 41111°,,..„......______. L 9Mt
_V1, ri
•
Z.
i Y MI L
f2t. [C ION J/ )
A,
' // r''
ii/:, 4., r.ne. r /41/ w „..\26y _<
044
25. rs,
27.1
92
SCALE IA MT SCOTTSVILLE AND SECTION 78
— ° — '°" — — RIVANNA DISTRICTS