HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200300001 Review Comments 2003-04-08 1
A...,OF AA :4f
a./cr ®� M
7RGl i
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
Fax
To: Valerie W. Long From: Ana D. Kilmer
Fax: 980-2265 Pages: 11
Phone: 434-977-2545 Date: April 8,2003
Re: BZA 3/4/03 Minutes CC:
• Comments: Attached is a draft of the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes for the March 4,2003 meeting. The minutes have not
been reviewed/approved by the Board members. The minutes will be mailed to the Board by the end of next week.
If you have any questions, please call me at 296-5832 ext.3277.
Thanks
MINUTES OF --
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
March 4, 200S
LOCATION: Meeting Room 241 , Second Floor
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
A
BOARD MEMBERS:
"j- Fl FT
David Bass
Randy Rinehart, absent
Richard Cogan
Max C. Kennedy, Chairman
George Bailey
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY: Greg Kamptner
STAFF MEMBERS:
Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, absent
Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration, absent
I. Call to Order
II. Establish a Quorum
A quorum was established and the meeting was convened at 2:00 p.m.
III. Matters not on the Agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
IV. Requests for Deferral
None were presented, and the meeting proceeded.
V. Matters Deferred from Previous Meetings
None were presented, and the meeting proceeded.
Board of Zoning Appeal inutes 2 March 4, 2003
VI. Variance Hearing
VA 2003-001 Martha Jefferson Hospital Foundation (owner/applicant)
Mr. Kennedy reviewed the rules for considering a variance, noting that an applicant can
appeal a BZA decision to the Circuit Court within 30 days of a ruling.
Ms. McCulley distributed some digital photographs that were taken of the property, most
taken from Route 250. She explained that the property is on Tax Map 78, Parcel 31-I,
zoned Planned Development/Mixed Commercial, with just over 14 acres. Ms. McCulley
stated that the variance request is for the height of a proposed wall sign for Martha
Jefferson Hospital's outpatient care center on the south side of Route 250 East in Peter
Jefferson Place development.
Ms. McCulley pointed out the entrances into Peter Jefferson Place, noting the location
of the building. She stated that the request is for relief from Zoning Ordinance Section
4.15.13, which stipulates a maximum wall sign height of 30 feet in this district. Ms.
McCulley explained that Martha Jefferson is proposing two wall signs at a height of 41
feet, which would require a variance of 11 feet. She mentioned that the 41 feet is
measured to the top of the highest point of the sign. Ms. McCulley said that the new
outpatient care center is currently under construction, and the signs are proposed for
the north elevation, making them visible from Route 250 and from the internal road,
Peter Jefferson Parkway. Referencing visual aids, she explained that one sign of 98
square feet would consist of individual channel letters stating "Martha Jefferson"; the
other is a 21 square-foot sign featuring the caduceus icon, a medical symbol. Ms.
McCulley noted that in total, the signs do not exceed the maximum sign area.
Ms. McCulley reported that the Architectural Review Board met on March 3rd and
reviewed the proposed signs, which they approved along with no objection for the
proposed wall sign height variance. She explained that the property is "substantially
above the grade of the surrounding roads," 50 feet above Peter Jefferson Parkway, and
75 feet above the grade of Route 250 East. Ms. McCulley noted that the site is set back
from 250 by approximately 1,500 feet. "The property itself is not small or odd-shaped,
but there is some unusual topo." She stated that the design of the building, combined
with the topography and the distance from Route 250 are the basis for a higher wall
sign, as a wall sign at the required maximum height of 30 feet would have limited
visibility, particularly from 250.
She said that there is a full description of the use within the applicant's justification, and
elaborated on the applicant's points:
Hardship—the applicant notes that the variance is necessary because of the ordinance
is strictly applied and no variance is granted, no building identification sign visible to the
public traveling along Route 250 —the major point of access to the site —would be
permitted on the building.
a. Given the type of necessary health care services being delivered in the facility,
the public must be able to identify the facility from the public thoroughfare. The
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes 3 March 4, 2UU3
signage for this building is essential directional signage; no other viable signage
option exists as described, so it creates an undue hardship if not approved.
b. The unique design of the structure does not offer another location for the
placement of the building identification sign due to unique physical and
architectural constraints. Two brick-enclosed courtyards that conceal the service
side of the building facing Route 250 including the mobile technology dock where
there are mobile units, block the site line to any sign located lower on the
building. {Ms. McCulley demonstrated where the sign would be located if the 30-
foot limit were maintained}.
c. Meetings with County Planning & Zoning staff, particularly ARB, have indicated
that no other location on the public-facing facade of the building would likely be
acceptable for a sign, and the proposed signage location requiring the variance is
a preferred location. Location the sign lower on the building to conform with the
ordinance would result in a sign that conflicts with the carefully-detailed
fenestration patterns and articulation of the brick bands, would not be visible from
the street, and would be in conflict with the architectural standards of such signs
that were suggested for the face of the courtyards themselves.
Description of use: the Martha Jefferson Outpatient Care Center is a 93,000
square foot health care services facility that includes an urgent care center,
ambulatory surgery containing three licensed operating rooms, diagnostic
medical imaging including MRI, CT and X-Ray, a Women's Health Center,
physical therapy, occupational therapy, cardiac rehab, neonatal diagnostic
center, and a small medical office space. The majority of 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.
Ms. McCulley stated that staff is sympathetic to the applicant's request, but suggests
that they are limited by the State Code criteria for a variance. She said that staff
acknowledges that a hospital's emergency services are unique and important services
to the public. "It's the kind of facility that someone not familiar with the area might need
to find quickly." She said that a variety of signs and sign types need to be used to
identify access to the facility. Ms. McCulley said that given the fact that the building is
set back fairly significantly from Route 250 and there are three separate entrances into
Peter Jefferson Place, "it's going to be really important to have good and more than
adequate signage along 250."
She stated that the topography of the site presents a challenge of visibility from the
surrounding roads — Route 250 and Peter Jefferson Parkway. Ms. McCulley said that
staff needs to clarify the basis for the hardship criteria, and the hardship must be based
on peculiar aspects of the property itself and not a proposed building; the design of the
building is not grounds for a hardship.
Ms. McCulley stated that staff agrees that the building design does limit the visibility of a
wall sign at the required height. She noted that there have been subdivisions since the
effective date of the Ordinance to create the lot as it is now; staff recommends the full
Board of Zoning Appea' - "inutes 4 March 4, 2003
use of directional signage along 250, Peter Jefferson,Parkway in order to properly •
identify access to and location of the facility. Ms. McCulley said that it's possible that a
wall sign on the building face may not be the best identification for the facility, and while
staff is sympathetic to the request, they are unable to find grounds for hardship under
the first criterion.
Uniqueness of Hardship—the applicant notes that the hardship is not shared by other
properties in the same PD/MC Zoning District, nor in the same vicinity due to the unique
location of the building pad and the intricate architectural detailing of the public-facing
façade. She said that the outpatient care center is a large building located on the
highest point of Peter Jefferson Place office park property, and as such, great care was
taken in locating the building in its current configuration in respect to the desires of the
ARB, the Peter Jefferson Place Architectural Control Committee, and Monticello. Ms.
McCulley noted that this includes the oblique angle of presentation on Route 250, the
large brick enclosed courtyards, and the long steep slopes. She said that these unique
conditions of building style, building type, and building orientation, topography and site
lines from the public road are not shared elsewhere in the district.
But Ms. McCulley emphasized that staff 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, she said, staff finds that the topography is a
unique challenge, as it is not typical that a building pad is located 50 to 75 feet above
the grade of the access road serving it. She said that while the distance from Route
250 is a challenge to properly identify it, it cannot be the sole grounds for a finding of
uniqueness. Ms. McCulley explained that the property is zoned Planned
Development/Mixed Commercial, and this particular area of development has been
reviewed and approved by the County. As such, she continued, and based on its
location in the development areas, it has been intended for development. She said that
the hospital services use — while not technically considered as grounds for a variance —
cannot be ignored, and is certainly part of the grounds for the applicant's request.
However, Ms. McCulley stated, since staff cannot find hardship, they cannot find a
uniqueness of the hardship.
Impact on the Character of the Area—the applicant offers that the authorization of the
variance will not be a detriment to the adjacent properties and the character of the
district will not be changed; each will be enhanced by providing an essential way of
finding for the public that will be seeking health care services. The applicant offers that
the facility is located entirely within an established office park, and 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 applicant offers that the signage is
designed at the minimum size and of minimum text to identify the building, as it is
located at the minimum possible height to be visible to the public and to respect the
architectural integrity of the building. The applicant offers that the proposed signage is
in keeping with the character of the district and the adjacent property.
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes 5 March 4, 2003
•
Ms. McCulley said that staff concurs with the applicant on the third criterion, as the
proposed signage is less than the minimum allowed by the ordinance, the applicant has
invested in appropriate review from other entities in their design of the building and
signage.
However, Ms. McCulley emphasized that since only one of the three criteria for approval
have been met, staff recommends denial. But she said if the Board should find cause
for approval, 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.
Ms. McCulley noted that the ARB approved the signage on March 3, 2003.
Mr. Bass asked if they were only dealing with a variance on the north elevation, not
what is shown in the photograph presented. Ms. McCulley confirmed that it is just the
north elevation that is being considered.
The applicant's representative, Michael Matthews of Matthews Development Company,
addressed the Board. Mr. Matthews referenced a model of the site presented, noting
that the attention to architectural detail is "not common in a lot of health care facilities."
He said that it respects the fact that the facility is viewed by Monticello from above, and
by two-entrance corridors — Route 250 and 1-64 — coming together. Mr. Matthews said
that this building follows the philosophy of design as seen in other Martha Jefferson
facilities. Mr. Matthews distributed aerial photographs of the site.
Mr. Matthews said that he appreciates the work by Zoning staff on the item, but he
stated that he reached a "different conclusion" on two matters relating to hardship.
1. This is an important health care facility that serves the public and includes an
urgent care center that people will need to find, sometimes under urgent
circumstances. It needs to be identifiable as such from Route 250 for
reasons of public health and well being. The building is in a unique location at
the top of the highest point in one of the most highly-regulated design districts
in the county — directly below Monticello's viewshed, and visible from two
primary entrance corridors.
Referencing staff's comment that "the design of the buildings is not grounds for a
hardship, but becomes a self-imposed hardship." He reported that the ARB staff report
states that "the proposed location [of the sign] appears to be appropriate for the
building, reducing the overall height to the required 30-foot limit. To place the sign in a
location that would compete with building elements would not work well with the design
of the building. Mr. Matthews noted that it is important for the signage to align with the
windows and the banding in the articulations of the brick to conform with the ARB
requirements. Mr. Matthews said that the ARB unanimously passed the following
Board of Zoning Appea' ' minutes 6 March 4, 2003
•
statement: "The ARB expresses no objection to the proposed sign height on the north
side of the building."
Mr. Matthews indicated that the proposed illuminated caduceus sign on the west side of
the building would identify it as a health facility. He said that staff had suggested to the
ARB that the sign not be illuminated, but the ARB felt so strongly that it was important
for the general public to be able to identify the health care services in the building, that
they unanimously allowed the sign to be illuminated. One ARB member noted that the
caduceus is a "universally-understood symbol of health care," and out of town visitors
would recognize it. Mr. Matthews said that he believes this single proceeding alone is
sufficient to permit the BZA on both technical and equitable grounds to grant the
variance.
Quoting Ms. McCulley's report, Mr. Matthews noted that the "topography presents a
unique challenge to development, and it is not typical that the building pad is located 50
to 75 feet above the grade of the access road serving it." He highlighted the staff report
comment that "the hospital service uses — while not technically considered grounds for a
variance — cannot be ignored." Mr. Matthews pointed out that the ARB's findings reflect
that. He also said that staff recommends full use of directional signage along Route 250
and Peter Jefferson Parkway in order to properly identify the access to and locations of
this facility. Mr. Matthews pointed out that the new MJH Center does not have frontage
on Route 250, and therefore does not have rights to place a sign along that road.
Mr. Matthews concluded by asking the BZA to grant the variance.
Mr. Bass asked if an urgent care facility is an emergency room. Mr. Matthews replied
that it is a modern "blending of the lines" between urgent care and emergency care,
such as a broken arm. Ms. Susan Parochniak of Martha Jefferson addressed the BZA,
indicating that the new center would be able to stabilize an emergency patient and get
them to a tertiary care center in the event of a heart attack, etc. She mentioned that
they will have the proper equipment to accommodate this type of situation, and they
have agreements already worked out with the rescue squad.
Ms. McCulley asked Mr. Matthews to show the visual aid he presented. He did so,
noting that the sign is 82 feet above the center line of the road. Mr. Matthews said that
the facility has a technology dock that can accommodate tractor-trailers which contain
mobile-type units for PET scans, MRIs, etc. He mentioned that they are faced with
placing the signs on a utilitarian structure — which the ARB is against — or as they have
currently planned.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
BZA members agreed that this is a difficult matter to decide.
Mr. Cogan expressed concern that granting the variance might set a precedent whereby
other applicants would come in and seek similar variances based on the way their
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes 7 March 4, 2003
•
building is built. He said that no one would have trouble locating the hospital, because
of the blue hospital signs placed by VDOT on the highways, entrance roads, etc.
Mr. Bass said he stopped at State Farm Boulevard and Peter Jefferson Parkway
coming from town heading east to consider the site, adding that heading west the signs
are not visible until you pass the entrance. "It's only a help, in my judgement, coming
from town...I think that to me means that some of the argument that it's so critical for
urgent care is a little bit ameliorated." Mr. Bass added that if the MJH sign and
caduceus were moved down to the center panel (between the upper and lower
windows), it would be clearly visible and would require less'of a variance.
MOTION: Mr. Bailey moved for approval of VA 2003-001 without conditions. There
was no second, and the motion failed.
Mr. Cogan referenced the bottom paragraph of the third page of the staff report, which
mentions the VDOT signage, reiterating that it would not be difficult to find the facility.
Mr. Kennedy asked about the lesser variance, and allowed Mr. Matthews to re-address
the Board.
Mr. Matthews explained that the VDOT signage for the blue "H" is a very specific
mandated requirement that this new facility does not meet, as it applies only to a
hospital-based, 24-hour urgent care center. "We don't anticipate operating around the
clock." He said that he does not envision VDOT approving the blue "H"s. Mr. Matthews
said that he met with Margaret Maliszewski and Janet Miller of the ARB to discuss
options for the best placement for the sign, and this is what was decided. He said that
being nestled in the bandings of the brick and relating to the windows as it does would
be architecturally the best solution.
Mr. Bass said that he thinks the sign would work in the space he suggested.
Mr. Kennedy said that the ARB seems to be satisfied with it in the higher position.
Ms. McCulley suggested that the ARB staff who worked on the item explain the
placement to the BZA.
Mr. Cogan commented that the county's Sign Ordinance was revised in 1992, and much
more recently the wall sign height limitation was revised, and increased.
Mr. Kennedy stated that he has problems with the staff comments about the difficult
topography.
Mr. Cogan responded that the building itself is the problem, not the site topography.
Board of Zoning Appea' " "inutes 8 March 4, 2003
Mr. Bass said, "Going west to east, the topography helps you here, it doesn't hurt you."
He acknowledged that it is invisible coming from the east, but they haven't been asked
to address that with this variance request.
Ms. Janet Miller, a Design Planner for the ARB, addressed the BZA.
Mr. Kennedy explained to her the BZA discussion of a lower sign placement.
Ms. Miller said that they had done a sketch of the sign in the lower position, and felt that
moving it up architecturally fit the building better.
Mr. Bass said that the lower placement would cut the variance at least in half, which is
more in compliance with the ordinances of Albemarle County, and would help with any
possible precedent-setting.
Ms. Miller stated that it was the consensus of the ARB that the sign worked well in the
higher location, but she acknowledged that there was not a great deal of discussion
about the lower position.
Mr. Bass asked if deferral would be best to convey the message of the lower placement.
Ms. McCulley said that might be helpful, but the applicant would need to agree.
Mr. Matthews suggested that the BZA could consider a variance with language
pertaining below a certain brick band.
Mr. Bass stated that was what he was suggesting, specifying the height as the third
brick band.
Mr. Kennedy commented that he did not have a problem with what the applicant has
suggested, given the recognized topographical challenges. "I think we're talking about
a small amount of difference in the variances."
MOTION: Mr. Bass moved to approve VA 2003-001 with conditions stipulating that the
maximum height would be the third brick band from the top of the building and
conditions would be subject to ARB approval for the sign as proposed.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, commenting that "historically with signs we've had this
problem," citing incidences where chain stores indicate that they can only get one type
of sign. He emphasized that if the building design prevents a sign from conforming,
"that's not a hardship, that's self-imposed." Mr. Cogan acknowledged that there are
topographical features, distance from the highway, and extenuating circumstances
because it is a care facility.
The Board voted 4-0 to approve a modified variance of 3 feet, 4 inches, with the
following conditions:
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes 9 Marcn 4, zuui
•
•
1 . The maximum height would be the third brick band from the top of the building.
2. This variance is approved for the proposed signage only and subject to approval
from the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Cogan commented that the BZA is under substantially different guidelines than the
ARB.
VII. Appeal Hearing
There was none, and the meeting proceeded.
VIII. Review and Approval of Minutes
A. Approval of October 15, 2002 Minutes
B. Approval of November 12, 2002 Minutes
C. Approval of December 3, 2002 Minutes
MOTION: Mr. Bass moved, Mr. Cogan seconded approval of the minutes of October
15, 2002, November 12, 2002, and December 3, 2002. The motion passed
unanimously (4-0).
IX. Old Business
Mr. Cogan said that he remembered that Mr. Pickford (representing Ms. Austin) agreed
to a previous BZA recommendation that the applicant would not have to clean up the
old dump site, but would not be allowed to put any more in it. Mr. Cogan said that the
BZA should not accept nods of heads and inaudible comments because they will not be
picked up on the tape and hence will not become a matter of record.
Mr. Kamptner indicated that the applicant would still have the right to appeal.
X. New Business
2002 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals
Mr. Bass commented that he is aware this is a statutory reporting requirement, but
emphasized that if he were on the Board of Supervisors, he would want more
information about the BZA's actions. He said that he would like to include a breakdown
of what was approved, modified, and denied.
Mr. Kennedy agreed, stating that Board of Supervisors have commented that the BZA
approves "everything that comes before them," and he has attempted to clarify that
many approvals include modification of the original request.
a
Board of Zoning Appea'c ""inutes 10 March 4, 2003
Mr. Bass said that it would be helpful to have categorjes including number of •
applications, those approved, those denied, and those approved in part (with
modifications). "I think it's more intelligent." He stated to Mr. Kamptner that he would
like the same information about appeals, including follow-up from the Circuit Court
cases.
Mr. Cogan suggested that a running total be kept for next year's Annual Report, so that
staff does not have to backtrack for 2002.
MOTION: Mr. Bass moved, Mr. Cogan seconded to approve the 2002 Annual Report
with modifications and recommended that the 2003 Annual Report be expanded to
include additional information on the outcome of the variance and appeals hearings. In
addition to the total number of each type of application (variance and appeal), it will
provide a listing of BZA actions (approved as submitted, approved with modifications or
denied). It will also include any Court action on BZA items.
Ms. McCulley commented that next month's agenda would be light, with just one
variance for the new Covesville store site.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
(Recorded by Ana Kilmer and transcribed by Elisabeth Golden)
Respectfully Submitted,
George Bailey, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals