| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Planning Commission > 2000 > Staff Reports > APP2000-00740 |  |
OCTOBER 19, 2000
SUBJECT:
Variance Application APP2000-00740
Applicant: Opus East d/b/a Park Plaza II, LLC
6707 Democracy Boulevard
Bethesda, Maryland 20817Property Owner: The Estate of James Campbell
c/o Douglas C. Morris
425 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, California 94104Property Location: 2101 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 20850
Planning Commission Review Date: October 25, 2000
Board of Appeals Public Hearing Date: November 4, 2000
PREVIOUS RELATED ACTION:
Use Permit U-430-88, The Oliver T. Carr Company, a proposal to construct two office buildings, structured and surface parking facilities in the I-3 Zone on the subject property located at 2101 Gaither Road. Approved by the Director of Planning on February 22, 1989.
Use Permit Amendment USA88-430A, Himes Associates, Ltd., a proposal to construct a trash enclosure, a concrete service ramp, and additional parking on the subject site. Approved by the Chief of Planning on August 27, 1992.
Use Permit Amendment USA1998-0430B, Patricia A. Harris, Esq., a request to construct a three level parking garage in lieu of the previously approved two level garage at 2101 Gaither Road. Approved by the Chief of Planning on August 17, 2000.
REQUEST:
The applicant plans to construct
the last of two (2) previously approved office buildings on the subject property
located in the I-3 Zone (ref. Use Permit U-430-88). The subject application
is a zoning variance request from the development standards of Section 25-311
of the City of Rockville Zoning Ordinance. In order to construct the last six
story office building as proposed, the applicant seeks a zoning variance of
12 feet from the maximum height limit of the I-3 Zone, a request to allow the
building height to exceed, 1/3 the horizontal distance the building is setback
from the nearest lot line.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions:
ANALYSIS:
Property Description
The subject property is approximately 11.9 acres (518,364 square feet) in size and is located at the northeast corner of Gaither & Shady Grove Roads. The property is currently developed with a six-story office building comprising 136,794 gross square feet of floor space. The existing office building is located in the western area of the site. Site surface parking is located around the interior perimeter of the site. The existing on-site parking lot contains 592 vehicular parking spaces. The property is located in the industrial park subdivision, known as DANAC Technological Park. The property is bound to the north and south by office related land uses, east by developing residential components of the King Farm comprehensive planned development, and west by an array of commercial and retail uses. The property is well landscaped and contains any array of mature trees and other vegetative materials, all ranging in species and size. Although the subject site's topography and finished grades are relatively flat, its surface elevation in the rear northeast corner of the site is slightly higher than the overall site surface grades, creating a gentle sloping downward towards the site's street frontages and to the southwest corner of the site. Vehicular access to the property is currently provided via duel site entrances onto Gaither Road.
Application Request & Project Proposal
The applicant wishes to construct the last of two office buildings that were approved under previously approved Use Permit U-430-88. Although not subject to this zoning variance request, the applicant also proposes to construct a three level parking garage that will supplement existing site surface parking, which will provide required site parking to accommodate both the existing and proposed office building.
The proposed new office building and planned parking garage represent the last phase of the property's approved site build-out. The new (2nd phase) office building will be approximately 129,461 square feet in size, six (6) stories in height, and identical in its design and construction to that of the existing (phase one) office building. The original use permit approval included a sloped area against the northeast corner of the proposed office building, which allows the building to comply with the height limit and associated building setback requirement of the I-3 zone. If however, the proposed office building is constructed as approved, with the site surface grades or berms located at or near the base of the northeast corner of the building, windows could not be installed nor would they be practical for that ground floor area of the building. The applicant wishes to construct the originally approved building, with windows on the ground floor of that section of the building, and eliminate the surface slope/berm, that would be located around that corner area of the building. If the proposed berm/surface slope is eliminated, the height of the building as measured from the then modified surface grade to the proposed top level of the office building would exceed the height limit of the zone.
The proposed building height at that northeast corner of the building, when measured from the proposed surface grade, would be approximately 66 feet in height. As per Section 25-311 of the Ordinance, in the I-3 Zone, the building must maintain a horizontal distance and/or setback from the property line three (3) times the height of the building, which in the subject case requires a 198 foot setback from the rear lot line. As sited, the proposed office building, which measures 66 feet in height at its northeast (rear) corner, would be setback 186 feet from the rear lot line. In order to maintain a building height of 66 feet at this corner of the building, the applicant requests a building height variance of 12 feet.
Applicable Section of the Zoning Ordinance & Staff Assessment
Section 25-1 of the ordinance defines a variance as "a modification only of the density, bulk, or area requirements, where owing to conditions unique to the property and not the result of any action taken by the applicant a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in practical difficulty."
After review and analysis of the application request and accompanying development proposal, staff offers the following assessment:
1. The variance as requested would not be contrary to the public interest. The preliminary design and site placement of the existing and proposed office buildings were approved under Use Permit U-430-88, subject to specific conditions (See Attachment "A"). The first phase, the existing office building and surface parking facilities were constructed in the late1980s and early1990s. The applicant now proposes to construct the last and final phase of the site development as approved of the noted use permit. In preparing to move forward with the planned construction, the applicant discovered that the proposed 66 foot height, of the building's rear northeast corner does not maintain the minimum horizontal separation/setback from the rear lot line as required in the I-3 zone, i.e., does not maintain the required 198 feet separation. Buildings that exceed 35 feet in height in the I-3 must be setback a minimum of 1/3 the horizontal distance, between the building and front, side, and/or rear property lines (ref. Section 25-311 of the Ordinance).
To maintain a 66 foot building height at the rear northeast corner of office structure and be setback 186 feet from the rear yard lot line, the applicant seeks a height variance of 12 feet. If the office is constructed and sited as proposed, staff does not believe that the variance as requested would be contrary to the public interest. The variance as requested, would not result in a greater encroachment of the proposed building into the rear yard area of the site, nor would it exceed the height of the phase one office building now located on the property.
The variance as requested would insure that the overall site is developed, at the scale envisioned under the project's use permit approved in the 1989. If the building height variance is granted as requested, the physical attributes of the office building constructed under such a variance would not cause the following: a) greater volumes of stormwater run-off, b) an increase in the number of trees and other vegetation removed from the site to accommodate the site development, c) an increase in floor space, above the project's originally approved density, and d) larger volumes of vehicular traffic generated from the site.
2. The variance is requested owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of any actions taken by the applicant. Unlike the northwest corner of the site, the rear northeast corner lot line of the subject property is a series of angles (See Exhibit "1"). The proposed phase two office building is proximate to the site's oddly configured northeast rear property lot line. It is due to this odd shape in the property's rear northeast lot line, which requires the applicant to seek the requested zoning variance. Based on this physical characteristic, it is reasonable to argue that were this portion of the site area more uniform and/or rectangular in shape, the requested variance may not be needed. Also, since the subject property is already improved, partially built-out, the applicant is physically constrained in moving and/or shifting the proposed phase two office building, so that it complies with the I-3 setbacks as it pertains to the proposed height of the building.
3. A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty for the applicant. If the height variance is not granted the building would have to be redesigned to conform with the afore noted height restriction of the I-3 zone. The developer wishes to construct and locate the building as designed. As noted in the request, the applicant could maintain the site surface grades at the rear northeast corner of the building so that the building height complies with the setback from the rear lot line. However, the applicant would like to incorporate windows on the ground level of the building, to provide and allow sunlight into the office spaces located in that area of the building. If the variance is not granted as requested, the applicant would be forced to maintain the surface grades at the rear northeast corner of the building, which would not allow for the option of incorporating windows on that level and area of the proposed office building. The applicant seeks approval of the building height variance as requested, in order to maintain the buildings six story design, its approved conceptual site placement as approved under U-430-88, and to allow for the incorporation of windows on the ground floor level of the northeast corner of the building.
Based on all of the afore noted factors, staff finds adequate justification to recommend Variance Application APP2000-00740 be approved subject to the conditions referenced on page two of this staff report.
COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION PROCESS
Notification cards were sent to 220 property owners within the subject site area, informing them of the application request and pending Planning Commission meeting and Board of Appeals public hearing, where the request will be publicly heard and considered. A list of addresses is contained in the project's application file for public review and inspection.
List of attachments:
Attachment "A" - U-430-88 Approval Letter
Attachment "B" - Zoning Determination Letter
Exhibit "1" - Proposed Site Development Plan
Exhibit "2 thru 6" - Building Elevation Drawings
Note: Shown on the following page is an architectural rending of the proposed phase two office building.
