HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200400016 Review Comments 2004-10-05 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: October 5, 2004
STAFF REPORT VA 2004-016
OWNER / APPLICANT: Albemarle Carter Mountains Trust / Kappa Sigma Fraternity
(applicant)
TAX MAP / PARCEL: 91 / 16
ZONING: R-1, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor
ACREAGE: 6.14 acres
LOCATION: On Route 20 South, about 1/2 mile south of the intersection
with Mill Creek Drive.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from
Section 13.3 R-1 Area and Bulk Regulations which limit the maximum building height to
35 feet. The applicant requests a building height of 55 feet for the construction of a new
fraternity headquarters, a variance of 20 feet.
The proposed facility will include a museum for fraternity records and artifacts, an
administration area for about 20 staff and a Chapter Room for fraternity ceremonies.
Their intentions have consistently been to construct a 3-story building to best meet their
programmatic and ceremonial needs.
The definition of"building height" is: The vertical distance measured from the level of the
curb or the established curb grade opposite the middle of the front of the structure to the highest
point of the roof if a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; or the mean height level
between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. For buildings set back from the
street line, the height shall be measured from the average elevation of the ground surface along
the front of the building.
In this case, the second sentence is used because the building is set back from the
street line. The front of the building has been determined to be that building side which
faces the street (Route 20). It is the same building face which fronts upon the entry
court, also considered the ceremonial entrance. However, this building face does not
include the primary entrance to the building.
RELEVANT HISTORY: (The applicant has provided a thorough history in page 2 of
their written justification.) This history shows that both the applicant and the County
made an unfortunate, honest and unintentional mistake with the proposed building
height. It began for the County with the initial special permit submittal in December
2003 and was not discovered until September 2004. In the interim, the land was
purchased and final building designs completed.
VA 2004-016 Kappa Sigma f rnity
October 5, 2004
Page 2
• The special permit for the Kappa Sigma use was originally submitted on
December 22, 2003. It was submitted with a site plan and architectural section
which showed the building over 50 ft tall (their attachment A).
• On February 23, 2004, an application was made to the ARB. It included scaled
elevations (their attachment B).
• A work session on the special permit was held with the Planning Commission on
March 16th. Elevations were presented.
• On April 5th the ARB reviewed and approved the conceptual design.
• On April 27th, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special
permit to the Board.
• On May 12th, the Board approved SP 03-91 Kappa Sigma International Memorial
Headquarters.
• Based on this approval and confirmation with staff, the applicants proceeded to
finalize the purchase of the land.
• The final site plan was submitted on May 24tn. The height of the building was
written on the cover page as 54 feet (their attachment C).
• On June 15th, site plan comments were received from County staff.
• On September 1st, the applicant was notified by County staff that the building
height may be a problem. Further discussions were held to clarify and confirm
the building height. Final site plan approval had been expected any day and
construction was slated within the month.
• The applicant applied for a variance on September 7tn
• Final ARB approval was received on September 7tn
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS:
This property is not of an unusual size or shape. The property slopes upward 55 feet
from an elevation of 485 at the Route 20 entrance to an elevation of 540 at the rear of
the property. The slope results in the east side of the lowest floor being at grade. What
could be considered a 2-story building with lower level appears as a 3-story building on
the east side (from Rt. 20).
The entry on the west elevation is the primary entrance where most people will enter the
building on a regular basis. This entrance is nearest the parking area and accesses the
main floor level, where the building's daily occupants are located. The "front" of the
building based on the primary access is the west elevation and that portion of the
building meets the 35 ft height limitation.
The topography can not be attributed as the entire basis for the building height.
However, the topography was a significant issue in special permit work session with the
Planning Commission and led to a redesign resulting in the current location and
VA 2004-016 Kappa Sigma F rnity
October 5, 2004
Page 3
orientation of the building. With the current definition of "building height," the orientation
of the building is essential to the height determination. In other words, if the building
were pivoted such that the shorter building side faced Route 20, it would meet the
maximum building height requirements and would not necessitate a variance. Or, if the
height were able to be measured from the primary building entrance, the maximum
building height would be met.
The orientation of the slope results in a bias against the design of what is essentially a
2-story building with walk-out lower level on one side. In other words, if the topography
were high at the front of the site and sloped down towards the rear of the site, the
current design could meet the 35 ft height maximum. However, because it slopes
upward from the front to the rear of the site, the tallest elevation faces Route 20.
The current definition of"building height"is problematic in several respects. It is
confusing and is reasonably debatable. In addition, it is not consistent with the
definition in the Building Code, resulting in different height determinations for zoning and
building. Staff has previously identified this as a necessary zoning text amendment but
has not completed it.
One of the primary purposes for limitations to building height is based on firefighting
access and apparatus. Fire apparatus could access either the ceremonial entrance
(where the building height reaches 55 feet) or the small parking area on the west side of
the building (where the building height is 35 feet). Fire / Rescue has reviewed the site
plan and has only made the standard comment to verify adequate fire flow.
While the proposed building height is a result of the applicant's needs and building
design rather than a result of some characteristic of the property itself, this is an
unfortunate situation. Staff is not able to find sufficient grounds for hardship under the
strict criteria of the State Code. However, there is a hardship for the applicant to which
the County contributed. There are several factors which the Board may wish to
consider:
• As stated in the relevant history, this project has been through 10 months of
review before several staff and three different bodies (ARB, PC and BOS). The
applicant has cooperated with and followed all the County development review
procedures. The applicant has purchased this property and paid for this building
design which meets their needs. Denial of the variance may result in their
abandoning this project. At a minimum, it results in the additional costs and time
for building redesign and / or a rezoning process. At some point, an applicant
(any applicant) should be able to rely on County review and not have surprises
which amount to significant costs, inconvenience and feasibility issues.
VA 2004-016 Kappa Sigma F......:nity
October 5, 2004
Page 4
• This is a somewhat unique case (in terms of the history of repeated staff review
missing an ordinance requirement) for which the staff has not found other
examples.
• Based on several factors including the topographical context of the building and
the building design approval, the proposed building should not have a detrimental
impact on adjacent properties or the character of the area.
• Given the fact that Fire / Rescue has not commented about the building height
and that the shorter building side can also be accessed by fire apparatus, there is
no evidence of a fire safety concern.
• The building height definition is problematic and has been identified as one which
needs to be revised. It is confusing, debatable and often results in a somewhat
arbitrary height calculation. In addition, it differs from the Building Code height
definition. If this building height were measured from the side at which the
primary entrance is located, it would meet the maximum building height.
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:
• It is a hardship that this issue has arisen at this point in the process. The
proposed building height has been disclosed from the initial submittal in
December 2003. Several different staff members, the Planning Commission, the
ARB and the Board of Supervisors have all seen the elevations and proposed
plans. This issue arose 9 months after the initial submittal - after the special
permit approval and ARB approval. Final building designs have been completed.
Fundraising for the project based on the proposed plans has begun.
Construction was slated to begin in October.
• A three-story building best meets the applicants intended purposes. They
purchased this property only after receiving special permit approval and
confirming with staff that no feasibility issues remained. They have spent well
over a million dollars on property acquisition and professional fees.
• A reduction of the building height to 35 feet would effectively limit the building to
a main level with walk-out basement. Neither the desired image nor the program
of the Fraternity would be accommodated with this reduction in floors and height.
• In order to meet schedule requirements, construction must start in early October
2004. Failure to meet this schedule will jeopardize the fraternity's ability to build
on this site, as will requiring the east elevation to be reduced to 35 feet in height.
VA 2004-016 Kappa Sigma F rnity
October 5, 2004
Page 5
While there is a clear hardship to the applicant based on where we are in the
development and purchase process, we are not able to find a hardship approaching
confiscation.
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
• There is a unique and unfortunate series of mutual errors which results in this
hardship.
• We have been forthright in our proposal from the beginning. We would be at a
different place if this had come up early in the review as it should have.
Staff cannot recall a case with this extensive history of mutual mistakes and numerous
reviews and approvals by various bodies of the County. In that respect it is unique. It is
truly unfortunate and is not the way we wish to operate. However, since staff finds no
undue hardship, staff is unable to find that the hardship is unique.
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:
• The property continues to rise behind the building such that the existing hill and
trees will be a visible backdrop for it (attachment D). The building will therefore
not be seen in profile against the sky and so it will appear less dominant and will
be less visible.
• There are many similar estates in Albemarle County (such as Mirador, Redlands,
Estouteville, Morven and others) which exceed 35 feet in height. The intent of
limiting height seems to be to maintain the look of what might be expected in a
rural / residential area. Our museum is not "agricultural" but it is located within a
structure which will have the appearance of a grand estate and will be in keeping
with the surrounding area. The variance would not be a substantial detriment to
adjacent properties.
• This property is in a designated growth area and this project resonates with the
intent for new growth in this area. The Kappa Sigma Headquarters will generate
minimal new traffic and its appearance will be in keeping with the estates which
line Route 20 between Scottsville and Charlottesville advancing this character of
Route 20.
VA 2004-016 Kappa Sigma F -nity
October 5, 2004
Page 6
• Another consideration is that this project is in the County's interest and for the
public good. As part of the special permit conditions, Kappa Sigma has agreed
to extend public water and sewer from a point roughly one half mile north to this
site. The cost of this work will approach half a million dollars. This extension of
the County's utility infrastructure will benefit not only the adjacent land owners but
the County as well.
Route 20 is an Entrance Corridor and this development is subject to architectural
review. According to the Design Planner for the ARB, the building height was not an
issue in the review.
The building will be located about 152 feet from the Route 20 right-of-way and 70 ft from
the closest side property line. The building is actually 182 feet from the edge of
pavement for Route 20 and it is about 20 feet above the grade of Route 20. The
frontage of the property will be a landscape buffer. As the applicant has noted, the hill
and trees behind the building present a backdrop to the building. Therefore, the
building will only be partially visible at an angle, a distance back from Route 20 with a
topographic and landscape backdrop. Given the speed traveled along this stretch of
Route 20, the partial visibility will only be for a brief time. Given all these factors, it is
staff's opinion that the variance will not be detrimental to the character of the area.
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 has
been met, staff recommends denial of this request. Should the Board find cause to
approve it, staff recommends the following condition:
This variance is approved for the current building only (as approved with SP 03-91
Kappa Sigma). Building expansion must comply with the maximum height regulations
or shall require amendment of this variance.
r
it
. .,_, , iiik_,‘ t. _ .....:. 4.4......40.....,...:.714: .
..-'-"'4..... .-' -: -. -'111 7 . '''''' ' : ,.
/ t^ .
.^A, „,gyp• _r �'
•
,�. y4 . ..
yr, ..u. _-. ,
•.r v ■
___„.....„,.. 4
.__
. ..
. , ,
' r lyM .: "_ ` az ..,<. _•' S' l fir,... s
......m.,-, - ..
......_
______
e Dom. s..._ ,
•
,,
.: , ,
r
1e
r ''
, , i
.. .
r
C,,,, .. . ,
'. '�� �,
4), ,, . • r A, f
l ,ac' D Ryott t ., 4 0 ..,.... „„,„ K r f ..
ZT
I� D
t '
, .., , ..,„..„,, .
= t
y
.. ...... . i;
`a r^a
•'�'_` � �� Syr �ti-, ., . , , I 'pi, y
, ,.
. . ,
_
4 .....
. , .
, 0 c.,...t - .. . i.
'' - ' .r Apr r�"_ w 1 Ti- . i
R
J
. ^'xv
•
Tom°- J . _ J :e
,, / 4 4 *I '
-V �' —'el
so
., All joill 0' 1
. 110114411P ' . f.k. Aill
. I Itik A
.0. "PI
or•411111*".:, lilt R.. .
,,,�,`^ tit: t ` •
•
I .F
,,• *€., ;
v
lop X
till
t • . r # "
,� A. I
1
Alt
• .J tr.5 , • rY He• ` . P '♦ �:.. r 14! ,..0,
�t
4 i
1 ti it
r
M• t ._ •.� �.r - .yeti _l 'Y ,f.
-4 % . *r • 444
r ,f 10 it
%• Al 1 4 4:. *4 )1 I b >
f.
-.. tl. , 4 ' i ; .4
.1.41110
ivil
iri,f.., .;,• • • 4„.0 .0 - IP : , .
, ›.-.., . .
,„. . 4 r r 7+
mow+ i. c .ti .r _ " .r • / ,
•
Ai.. 4. 111111/1t
t. • . IL %it .4 IX m 4
114 1101P
J•IrFti ,. 4 . ,
„go.
' II r i
-Nlit., '
y 1 '��,n� " •
•
,,
ilv riot-4 0166.,.ette:„.#14gr, ....4... 0? ...
'IC .rj""".".
' ' ' '-' ‘", . .7.4.41tr,i4::.1:4tirklit AI' ,40:it't, c 1.k 1 ,,„ .: „,, , Irt'e 104 !„_,,,:t'
•
• '' + '• • ... 14144:„.. • -
„, .4, .d .0.40i0" ., it.. ,, ,..t ••• ' ' .4' \.• )111'
- • V ' .... it ' '41 • ''t .00/10"
liiii., fr..7 i .•` r i/ it / ' ♦ •` ,f
10 AO.
,..• •A•."'"
b 1- r A > Ems!_
lir �. I'I: 4 %Z. ' may , •44-' Q .... •
It
I
Y i ' •ice d. yf -
J
litt
� it
Ili
44iiiiiiik , iir „...,..
. •Iiiif ` 111.....\i, )11:1"
It
Jte1:1,trb.0*4
+ `
,4p"io,ii4' '/
,S„,,r. 4
i y.),,'.*,,,•
A,V:4a:1
•t yltii,,.*,Ot\tjAs
'.*Y/a.Y
,• y , !
;'0i N
11.*.14 e•
its . , .
4it%4#'p 4,4 4„4''',
t.
•. . e ,
Fes* :, ,►l
v L a
s y-i ♦ •
.
PSI+ + 1 4
ma •c- \ t 4 .. s iNI
. .
. , ,, \
I ,
'�. _ 7j. io
,, 4
^, ' ‘t.
A
Al
ilk ..,,,,,k14) 4*
4
. A , ,4's
TM 91 16e , A . 3
LL
Nir
Aerial photography copyright 2002 Feet
Commonwealth of Virginina 0 62.5 125 250 375 500
Created Oct 2004 L—