Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200400016 Correspondence 2004-10-05 Bill Edgerton, AIA Memo To: Board of Zoning Appeals From: Bill Edgerton CC: File Date: 10/5/2004 Re: Kappa Sigma My name is Bill Edgerton, and I am an architect and the Jack Jouett representative on the Albemarle County Planning Commission. I am here today to request that the Board of Zoning Appeals consider granting a variance to Kappa Sigma concerning the determination that the "front" of the building exceeds the height allowed by zoning. Certainly, if one adheres to the technical definition of the front of the building (i.e. facade closest to the public road), the proposed Kappa Sigma facility is in violation, but I respectfully request that you consider the variance for two specific reasons. First of all, as you probably know, the applicant met with the Planning Commission on two separate occasions to review this project. The initial meeting (a voluntary work session)was held last March. At the work session, the applicant was urged to adjust the design of the project to respond to the significant topography of the site and the orientation to Route 20. Additionally, the applicant was asked to differentiate the proposed phases of the project, include a pedestrian/bicycle pathway along Route 20, and provide a preliminary water and sewer report. I am happy to report that the applicant responded favorably to all requests and the plan that came before us at the public hearing in May was improved significantly by the applicant's receptiveness to the Commission's suggestions. I must add that rarely do we get such cooperation, and as a result, I am sure that the design of the project was greatly improved. Secondly, one of the 12 principals of the Neighborhood Model mandated by the County's Comprehensive Plan is to utilize "Relegated Parking" when feasible. It is hoped that by shielding the required parking by a structure, we can improve the overall visual impacts of the project. In response to this recommendation, the applicant successfully relegated the majority of the parking on this project. Again,this has improved the project significantly. With most of the parking located "behind"the building as recommended, one could argue that the true front of the building is the facade facing away from Route 20 With this interpretation, I am pretty sure that the building height restrictions can be met. I am hopeful that the Board will consider both of these points when reviewing this request. Speaking personally, I think the project as designed will be an asset to the community, and I see very little value in requiring a re-design to comply with the technical interpretation of building height restriction. Thank you. 1 VA 2004-016 Kappa Sigma Fraternity William D. Rieley Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Board,my name is Will Rieley. I am an Albemarle County resident,and a member of the County Planning Commission. While I am speaking for myself today,I have discussed this BZA waiver request with my colleagues, and they unanimously support my bringing the Planning Commission's past involvement with this project to your attention. Neither I nor my colleagues would presume to suggest how this body should vote on a particular application,but there are a few aspects of our past involvement with this project that we think it may be helpful for you to know. We first saw this proposal in a work-session for the Special Use Permit back in March. While the Commission was supportive of the general use and scale of the project,there were some specific matters relating to the orientation of the main building that we thought should be adjusted. No one at the work session questioned the size or height of the building,though it was clearly and unambiguously illustrated for us. When the applicants returned several weeks later for the public hearing on the SUP, their architects had made every change we had requested, and their plan reflected both the specific adjustments and the spirit of our recommendations. We have had a lot of responsive applicants over the years,but in my seven years on the Commission I do not recall any applicant who more fully responded to the Commission's suggestions in a work- session than did this applicant. There was unanimous support for the design and scale of the building. Once again,no one from the Commission or the public took issue with the height of the building,which was fully illustrated and on public display. Their application was quickly,enthusiastically, and unanimously recommended to the Board for approval. This recommendation was not the result of an oversight about the building's height. We saw the height of the building,we were completely aware of it,and thought that that was what we were approving. Part of the reason that we thought that a building of this scale was appropriate in this setting is that this site is in the Growth Area, and multi-storied buildings in this area are not only considered acceptable, they are considered desirable. Secondly, this site is only a half-mile or so from recently approved buildings which are not only taller,but which are sited on land that is also elevated much higher above the road. This proposal has been through two public hearings and not one single person at either public hearing has,to my knowledge,taken issue with the proposed height of the building. Furthermore,everyone—staff, Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors have agreed that this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and all of them have supported it, as has the Architectural Review Board. I am not bringing this history to your attention because several County departments made mistakes and failed to inform the applicant that the SUP alone would not allow what they had proposed—though this is certainly the case. I am not bringing it to your attention because letting a project get to this point before informing the applicant that they need a waiver is an embarrassment for the County and a nightmare for the applicant—though it certainly is both of those things. I am bringing this to your attention only because I think it is important for you to know as you deliberate this issue, that, from the perspective of the Planning Commission, (that is, the Land Use perspective)the denial of this waiver request would serve no public interest.