HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201800153 Staff Report 2019-06-11I:1T . IV 11 DION to.._
Project #/Name
ARB-2018-153: Longhorn Steakhouse
Review Type
Preliminary Site Plan
Parcel Identification
06100000013200 (partial)
Location, Context and Visibility
The parcel abuts the east side of Seminole Trail (Rt. 29 N, northbound lanes) and lies north of Fashion Square Drive and south of Rio Road East (Rt. 631). The
lease area is an out -lot (surface parking) at the north end of Fashion Square Mall, which lies to the east. Brown's Collision Center and the Speedway fuel
station are across Rt. 29, to the west. Its adjacency to Rt. 29 results in its clear visibility from the EC. [Figure 1]
Zoned
Planned Development Shopping Center (PDC)/Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner/Applicant
CV Associates c/o Simon Property Group/Collins Engineering (Scott Collins) or Darden Restaurants for RARE Hospitality International, Inc. (Jack DeGagne)
Magisterial District
Rio
Proposal
To develop a leased out -lot area (2.05 acres) that currently functions as surface parking at the western end of the T-shaped, 12.56-acre parcel with a 5,465-
square-foot restaurant building and associated improvements (including utilities, travel lanes and parking). [Figure 2]
ARB Meeting Date
June 17 2019
Staff Contact
Heather McMahon
PROJECT HISTORY
A pre -application conference was held for this proposal on July 16, 2018, and staff comments regarding Entrance Corridor impacts of the proposal were discussed at the meeting and forwarded to the
applicant. (See Attachment A.) The ARB reviewed an Initial Site Development Plan (ARB-2018-123) for Longhorn Steakhouse on October 15, 2018. The ARB required no changes or conditions prior to
approval of the initial site plan but provided 28 comments to benefit the final site plan submittal. (See Attachment B.) Following comments provided by the Site Review Committee in October 2018, the
applicant significantly revised the proposed site layout and resubmitted a revised initial site plan to the ARB. However, the application (ARB-2018-153) submitted in November 2018 was incomplete
and staff s cursory review of the revised site plan raised concerns of the appearance of the building as well as the proposed pedestrian connection from Route 29/Seminole Trail. The applicant chose to
defer ARB-2018-153 in December 2018. On March 18, 2019, the ARB held a work session with the applicant, at which time the board discussed the revised pedestrian connection and stated it was an
improvement; required a consistent spacing of trees on the Route 29/Seminole Trail frontage; and advised the applicant to continue to revise the building design. (See Attachment C.) The ARB will
review the revised Initial Site Plan (ARB-2018-153) for the first time on June 17, 2019.
BACKGROUND/SITE HISTORY
The Fashion Square Mall was built in 1979, prior to the establishment of the Entrance Corridor Overlay Zoning District in 1990. Previously, the ARB or ARB staff reviewed and approved signs for the
Sears Auto Center and Belk, and a renovation for Red Robin. The ARB also reviewed and approved the Red Lobster restaurant, which fronts on Rio Road.
Figure 1: The project site, as seen froin the southbound lanes of A 29 (looking east). Image courtesy of'Google Street View, June 2018.
�j I - 122A
-124F 61 22
61 Ali
Jf
hi-124G
61�132
k,
6/
M5
11537
O 533
1539
<
15*,'
t i .
1547 '15'
e CY
1534
56 1 .154D
154D J 61-131
Figure 2: map showing TMP 61-132; the leased area (2.07 acres) is highlighted in yellow, at the westernmost extent of the parcel.
3
ANALYSIS
REF
GUIDELINE
RECOMMENDATIONS
CURRENT ISSUE
RECOMMENDATION
10-15-2018 and 3-18-2019
Pur ose
1
The goal of the regulation of the design of development within
Revise the architecture to reference
The original proposed design of this
See recommendations in #34 and #9-
the designated Entrance Corridors is to ensure that new
the building traditions and context of
building [Figures 3 and 4] reflected
15.
development within the corridors reflects the traditional
Albemarle County. Further study the
stylistic traditions wholly evocative of
architecture of the area. Therefore, it is the purpose of ARB
front elevation. Replace the orange
the American Southwest. The arched
review and of these Guidelines, that proposed development
stucco with stone. Resolve the top of
parapet with its crumbling facade was
within the designated Entrance Corridors reflect elements of
the wall and the piers to reference
reminiscent of colonial -era Spanish
design characteristic of the significant historical landmarks,
traditional building. The Longhorn
missions, while the Arts -and -Crafts -
buildings, and structures of the Charlottesville and Albemarle
example shown on page 15 of the
style entry porch, stone piers, and
area, and to promote orderly and attractive development
staff report could serve as a
massive stone chimneys are tropes
within these corridors. Applicants should note that replication
precedent. [10-15-2018; see Figure
commonly found in the California -
of historic structures is neither required nor desired.
11]
born Mission -Revival style. The
current submission [Figures 5 and 6]
2
Visitors to the significant historical sites in the Charlottesville
and Albemarle area experience these sites as ensembles of
Additional revisions to the
shows a boxy, minimalist version of
buildings, land, and vegetation. In order to accomplish the
architectural design are required to
the latter in which the most
integration of buildings, land, and vegetation characteristic of
make the building design consistent
significant revisions are on the
these sites, the Guidelines require attention to four primary
with the previous ARB comments.
facade: the crumbling and arched
factors: compatibility with significant historic sites in the area;
Suggested revisions included, but
parapet has been removed for a flat
the character of the Entrance Corridor; site development and
were not limited to, the following:
roof and parapet flanked by brick
layout; and landscaping.
further simplification of form is
rather than stone piers. While the
required; brick and stucco would be
illustrations suggest the brick used in
acceptable materials; the design needs
the piers, chimneys, and water table is
to move further out of the Southwest
grey, the small sample submitted
and into the Mid -Atlantic. [3-18-
shows it to be a muddy brown. The
2019]
orange stucco has been retained, as
has timber -frame portico, but its
tapered piers and the tapered stone
chimney have been revised to
straight, brick vertical elements which
better reflect traditional building
patterns. The remainder of the
materials palette appears unchanged.
{
L
ro!)t Elevatiori
Figure 3: Color renderings of the elevations of the proposed building as previously submitted in October 2018. Top: facade (west elevation). Bottom: South (side) elevation.
5
Lca'[ Fieva im
Figure 4: Color renderings of the elevations of the proposed building as previously submitted in October 2018. Top: rear (east elevation). Bottom: North (side) elevation.
Front Elevation
t oft Flev"'IPIOn
Figure 5: Color renderings of the elevations of the proposed building (current submission). Top: front (west elevation). Bottom: North (side) elevation.
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
Figure 6: Color renderings of the elevations of the proposed building (current submission). Top: rear (east elevation). Bottom: South (side) elevation.
REF
GUIDELINE
RECOMMENDATIONS
CURRENT ISSUE
RECOMMENDATION
10-15-2018 and 3-18-2019
Comp * ility with significant historic sites:
3
New structures and substantial additions to existing structures
See recommendations above.
While the revised building design has
Consider revising the fagade with a
should respect the traditions of the architecture of historically
come "into the Mid -Atlantic" —
porch element and removing the piers
significant buildings in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area.
primarily by utilizing brick, a local
and chimney.
Photographs of historic buildings in the area, as well as
material — it is not necessarily a
drawings of architectural features, which provide important
successful design. What had been a
See recommendations in #1-2 and #9-
exam les of this tradition are contained in Appendix A.
trope has been watered down to its
fundamental elements that no longer
15.
4
The examples contained in Appendix A should be used as a
guide for building design: the standard of compatibility with
sustain any whimsey and appear non -
the area's historic structures is not intended to impose a rigid
sequitur. The chimney on the fagade,
design solution for new development. Replication of the
for instance, serves to vertically bisect
design of the important historic sites in the area is neither
the wall plane, but this doesn't
intended nor desired. The Guideline's standard of
provide as much relief as the porch
compatibility can be met through building scale, materials,
feature utilized at other Longhorn
and forms which may be embodied in architecture which is
Steakhouse locations [Figure 7]. In
contemporary as well as traditional. The Guidelines allow
the example below, the porch adds
individuality in design to accommodate varying tastes as well
depth to the plane. The piers have
as special functional requirements.
been removed, and the entrance
corner stands apart from a color rather
than material change. Rather than
switching one material out and
removing the taper on vertical
elements, more can be done to
achieve a design that is not only a
better fit for the traditional
architectural language of this region
but which successfully stands alone.
Figure 7. A Longhorn Steakhouse building in which the porch adds depth to the favade.
COMP tibility with the character of the Entrance Corridor
5
It is also an important objective of the Guidelines to establish
See recommendations above.
This is a suburban structure designed
See recommendations above.
a pattern of compatible architectural characteristics throughout
to evoke, loosely, the American
the Entrance Corridor in order to achieve unity and coherence.
Southwest. The Texas Roadhouse and
Building designs should demonstrate sensitivity to other
Taco Bell chain restaurants located
nearby structures within the Entrance Corridor. Where a
north of Rio Road on Rt. 29 exhibit
designated corridor is substantially developed, these
some similar non -local influences.
Guidelines require striking a careful balance between
[Figures 8 and 9] Therefore, the
harmonizing new development with the existing character of
proposed design is compatible with
the corridor and achieving compatibility with the significant
some existing development, but it is
historic sites in the area.
not reflective of the form, materiality,
or st le of most nearby structures.
MI
u -Hui imm
*Wi
�w►emu
FRONT ELEVAIIO I CWEM
Figure 8: Color renderings of the approved West elevation of the Texas Roadhouse restaurant building (ARB-2016-9)
Figure 9: Color rendering of the approved West elevation of the Taco Bell restaurant building (ARB-2010-134)
IWfirN: a-0
Wrm
11
REF GUIDELINE RECOMMENDATIONS CURRENT ISSUE RECOMMENDATION
10-15-2018 and 3-18-2019
SPECIFIC GUIDELINES
Compatibility with significant historic sites
Structure design
9 Building forms and features, including roofs, windows, doors,
materials, colors and textures should be compatible with the
forms and features of the significant historic buildings in the
area, exemplified by (but not limited to) the buildings
described in Appendix A. The standard of compatibility can
be met through scale, materials, and forms which may be
embodied in architecture which is contemporary as well as
traditional. The replication of important historic sites in
Albemarle County is not the objective of these Eidelines.
10 Buildings should relate to their site and the surrounding
context of buildings.
11 The overall design of buildings should have human scale.
Scale should be integral to the building and site design.
12 Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor should use
forms, shapes, scale, and materials to create a cohesive whole.
13 Any appearance of "blankness" resulting from building design
should be relieved using design detail or vegetation, or both.
14 Arcades, colonnades, or other architectural connecting devices
should be used to unify groups of buildings within a
15 Trademark buildings and related features should be modified
to meet the requirements of the Guidelines.
Revise the architecture to reference
the building traditions and context of
Albemarle County. Further study the
front elevation. Replace the orange
stucco with stone. Resolve the top of
the wall and the piers to reference
traditional building. The Longhorn
example shown on page 15 of the
staff report could serve as a
precedent. [10-15-2018; see Figure
11]
Additional revisions to the
architectural design are required to
make the building design consistent
with the previous ARB comments.
Suggested revisions included, but
were not limited to, the following:
further simplification of form is
required; brick and stucco would be
acceptable materials; the design needs
to move further out of the Southwest
and into the Mid -Atlantic. [3-18-
2019]
The single -story building rises 27'-0"
from grade to the top of the stone
piers on the fagade. The scale of the
building is larger than traditional and
historic one-story buildings of the
area. It is representative of
contemporary suburban architecture,
examples of which can be found on
this EC.
The design incorporates a panoply of
materials and colors, resulting in a
busy appearance. The Exterior Finish
Legend on the architectural elevations
(A5.1 and A5.2) list three colors of
paint (one of which — P 16 — cannot be
located in the Key Notes on A5.1 and
A5.2); a stain for the glu-lam truss at
the portico and rough -sawn beams; an
image of what appears to be stone
veneer that no longer applies and
should be deleted; two colors of
HardiePlank lap siding (the one
colored P 16 cannot be located on the
drawings); two colors of brick (one of
which, BRl, cannot be located); three
roofing materials, including
architectural -grade composite
shingles and corrugated Corten steel
(the third is greyed out, as if it will
not be used — in which case it should
be deleted entirely); three colors of
EIFS; and a stucco that cannot be
See recommendation in #3.
Revise the Exterior Finish Legend on
the architectural elevations (A5.1 and
A5.2) to reflect only those materials
and colors that are proposed for this
project. Omit any superfluous notes.
Revise the architectural design to
show a stronger reference to local
building traditions and to further
simplify and coordinate building
forms.
located on the architectural
elevations. The Exterior Finish
Legend must be revised to reflect only
those materials and colors that are
proposed in this project; all
superfluous notes should be omitted.
In the previous review, staff noted
that the proportion of (EIFS) wall to
window is unequal, while the scale of
the chimney and piers on the fagade
was overly large; the condition results
from the need for tall parapets to
obscure the rooftop mechanical
equipment from view. The
recommendation was to provide
larger fenestration while reducing the
width of the vertical elements
(chimney and piers). While the latter
have lost their tapered bases, they still
appear over -scaled, while the
fenestration has not been improved.
The resulting appearance is bulky,
and a porch element such as seen at
other Longhorn Steakhouse locations
could ameliorate the window -to -wall
proportions while adding depth.
Despite a few superficial changes on
the fagade, the other elevations
remain largely unchanged since the
last review. Each elevation is
differentiated by projections,
especially the fagade, which has an
entry porch, and the north (side)
elevation, which has a ramada with a
corrugated Corten roof — a material
whose appropriateness for the EC is
uestionable. The variety of elements
13
and material differentiation on each
elevation results in an overly -
complicated appearance, and there is
an inconsistency between the
elements on the front and side
elevations. The least differentiated
elevations are the south (side) and the
rear (east). The latter will not be
visible from the EC.
This is fundamentally trademark
architecture, transforming a building
into signage. While concessions have
been made, the revised design does
not allude to Virginia's built
traditions or materiality and can be
seen in other cities; it has not been
adjusted to reflect the individuality of
the Albemarle market.
16
Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should not be highly
Provide the standard window glass
The standard window glass note has
Submit manufacturer's specifications
tinted or highly reflective. Window glass in the Entrance
note on revised architectural
been provided on the architectural
for the storefront window system.
Corridors should meet the following criteria: Visible light
elevations.
elevations (A5.1 and A5.2). The Key
transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 4001o. Visible light
Notes on A5.1 and A5.2 state (notes
reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%. Specifications on the
#29-30) that the more information on
proposed window glass should be submitted with the
the aluminum storefront system and
application for final review.
metal door(s) are provided on A4.2,
which was not submitted for review.
Site develo went and layout
6
Site development should be sensitive to the existing natural
See site grading and landscaping
The site, just south of the Wells Fargo
Provide renderings of the proposed
landscape and should contribute to the creation of an
comments below.
Bank, is already developed as asphalt
pedestrian connection in the
organized development plan. This may be accomplished, to
surface parking for the Fashion
northwest corner of the site as seen
the extent practical, by preserving the trees and rolling terrain
The revised location of the pedestrian
Square Mall, so minimal clearing and
from the EC.
typical of the area; planting new trees along streets and
connection was an improvement. [3-
grading are required. Few trees and
pedestrian ways and choosing species that reflect native forest
18-2019]
several low-lying shrubs line the
elements; insuring that any grading will blend into the
entrance drive to the mall, which the
surrounding topography thereby creating a continuous
applicant proposes to retain, but the
landscape; preserving, to the extent practical, existing
EC frontage is currently devoid of
significant river and stream valleys which may be located on
vegetation.
14
the site and integrating these features into the design of
As this site falls within the Rio29
surrounding development; and limiting the building mass and
SAP, the Site Review Committee had
height to a scale that does not overpower the natural settings
asked for a pedestrian connection
of the site, or the Entrance Corridor.
from Route 29/Seminole Trail in
October 2018. The site plan reviewed
by the ARB in October 2018 had the
building positioned in the southern
half of the 2-acre development area,
but the application submitted the
following month showed the building
moved to the northern half and a
pedestrian connection in the far
northwest corner of the proposed
development area. That submission
included a series of ramps and stairs
to navigate the steepness of the grade
which is currently buttressed by a
retaining wall. [Figure 10] The ARB
provided comments during the work
session in regard to this pedestrian
connection, stating that the revised
location was an improvement; this
submission shows the pedestrian
connection in the northwest comer of
the site, with a note that the existing
retaining wall "to be modified as
necessary." No elevations of the
proposed pedestrian connection or
renderings showing that connection
have been supplied with this
submission, so there is still a question
as to how the bike- and pedestrian -
friendly sidewalk will navigate the
slope in that location (the proposed
grading plan on C2.4 suggests
extensive earth contouring in this
location). The grade at the entrance to
the sidewalk, through the broken
15
retaining wall, appears gentle, yet a
rendering would provide a better
understanding of this area's proposed
appearance from the EC.
Figure 10: Existing retaining wall and railing at the northwest corner of the site. Image courtesy of Google Street View, June 2018.
REF
GUIDELINE
RECOMMENDATIONS
CURRENT ISSUE
RECOMMENDATION
10-15-2018 and 3-18-2019
Site Development and layout
Develo ment pattern
39.
The relationship of buildings and other structures to the
None.
The site shows an organized pattern
None.
Entrance Corridor street and to other development within the
of service lanes/travelways and
corridor should be as follows:
provides sidewalks around the
a. An organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike paths, and
building. The building is oriented to
pedestrian walks should guide the layout of the site.
and parallel with the EC.
b. In general, buildings fronting the Entrance Corridor street
should be parallel to the street. Building groupings should be
Provisions have been made for
arranged to parallel the Entrance Corridor street.
connections to adjacent vehicular
c. Provisions should be made for connections to adjacent
circulation systems, but not for
pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems. d. Open spaces
pedestrian systems within the Fashion
should be tied into surrounding areas to provide continuity
Square Mall site, a suburban and
within the Entrance Corridor.
vehicular -dominant setting. A
e. If significant natural features exist on the site(including
sidewalk parallels Rt. 29, and this
16
creek valleys, steep slopes, significant trees or rock
revised site plan shows a connection
outcroppings), to the extent practical, then such natural
from this sidewalk to the proposed
features should be reflected in the site layout. If the provisions
Longhorn Steakhouse site in the
of Section 32.5.6.n of the Albemarle County Zoning
northwest corner of the property. But
Ordinance apply, then improvements required by that section
that circulation system stops short of
should be located so as to maximize the use of existing
offering a pedestrian connection to
features in screening such improvements from Entrance
the rest of the mall.
Corridor streets.
f. The placement of structures on the site should respect
No significant natural features exist
existing views and vistas on and around the site.
on the site and there are no existing
views or vistas to retain.
Site Gradin
40
Site grading should maintain the basic relationship of the site to
None.
The site has been previously cleared,
See recommendation in #6.
surrounding conditions by limiting the use of retaining walls and
graded, and surfaced with asphalt for
by shaping the terrain through the use of smooth, rounded land
surface parking. This project proposes
forms that blend with the existing terrain. Steep cut or fill
to further grade the existing site
sections are generally unacceptable. Proposed contours on the
which inclines gradually from 478' at
grading plan shall be rounded with a ten -foot minimum radius
the south end to 501' at the north end.
where they meet the adjacent condition. Final grading should
The grading is unobtrusive across the
achieve a natural, rather than engineered, appearance. Retaining
majority of the site — no steep cut or
walls 6 feet in height and taller, when necessary, shall be
fill sections are proposed, neither are
terraced and planted to blend with the landscape.
any retaining walls. However, a
retaining wall exists in the northern
portion of the western property line
(see Figure 10), and this revised site
plan proposed to bisect that wall for a
pedestrian connection into the parcel
and to create steep banks to the south
and north of the new east -west
sidewalk. No renderings of this site
work have been offered to see how
this will look from the EC.
41
No grading, trenching, or tunneling should occur within the drip
Rectify the grading lines that intersect
Tree protection fencing has been
Revise the demolition/tree
line of any trees or other existing features designated for
with existing trees and show the
shown on various sheets of the site
conservation plan, grading plan, and
preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness.
proposed tree protection fencing on
plan: on C2.2, the tree protection
landscape plan to show tree protection
Adequate tree protection fencing should be shown on, and
the grading plan (C2.4).
fencing is shown within the limits of
fencing outside of areas to be
coordinated throughout, the grading, landscaping and erosion
disturbance, the line for which comes
disturbed and graded.
and sediment control plans.
within 3' from the center of an
17
42
Areas designated for preservation in the final Certificate of
existing tree marked for preservation.
Appropriateness should be clearly delineated and protected on
On the landscape plan (L1.1), the tree
the site prior to any grading activity on the site. This
protection fencing is shown north of
protection should remain in place until completion of the
the proposed guard rail, to which the
development of the site.
proposed grading shown on C2.4
extends. The purpose of the tree
43
Preservation areas should be protected from storage or
movement of heavy equipment within this area.
protection fencing is to stop grading
activities near existing trees to be
44
Natural drainage patterns (or to the extent required, new
drainage patterns) should be incorporated into the finished site
preserved; if the tree protection
to the extent possible.
fencing is shown in areas of grading
or disturbance, it becomes moot.
Acces ory structures and equipment
17
Accessory structures and equipment should be integrated into
Include a detail of the guide rail in the
No accessory structures are proposed
Include a detail of the guide rail in the
the overall plan of development and shall, to the extent
site plan. Provide a design that has an
for this site. The dumpsters are
site plan. Provide a design that has an
possible, be compatible with the building designs used on the
appropriate appearance for the
located in an enclosed area (29' x 16')
appropriate appearance for the
site.
Entrance Corridor and that is
compatible with the existing railing
on the center of the rear elevation and
a proposed transformer is at the rear
Entrance Corridor and that is
compatible with the existing railing
18
The following should be located to eliminate visibility from the
Entrance Corridor street. If, after appropriate siting, these
on the site. Provide color/material
of the building, on the northeast
on the site. Provide color/material
features will still have a negative visual impact on the Entrance
samples.
corner; neither will be visible from
samples.
Corridor street, screening should be provided to eliminate
the EC. Details of the masonry
visibility.
(hollow concrete block) walled trash
a. Loading areas,
enclosure with board -on -board gates
b. Service areas,
(two) are provided on Construction
c. Refuse areas,
Details sheet C6.3.
d. Storage areas,
e. Mechanical equipment,
The vehicular circulation plans (C8.1
f. Above -ground utilities, and
and C8.2) suggest that loading and
g. Chain link fence, barbed wire, razor wire, and similar
refuse removal will occur at the rear
security fencing devices.
of the building. Mechanical
equipment is rooftop -mounted, and
19
Screening devices should be compatible with the design of the
buildings and surrounding natural vegetation and may consist
visibility will be eliminated by the
of:
height of the parapet, as illustrated on
a. Walls,
the architectural elevation drawings.
b. Plantings, and
Proposed water, sanitary, and electric
c. Fencing.
are all underground and feed into the
building on the rear (east) elevation,
away from the EC.
18
20 Surface runoff structures and detention ponds should be
designed to fit into the natural topography to avoid the need for
screening. When visible from the Entrance Corridor street, these
features must be fully integrated into the landscape. They should
not have the appearance of engineered features.
21 The following note should be added to the site plan and the
architectural plan: "Visibility of all mechanical equipment
from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
General Guidelines
22 Light should be contained on the site and not spill over onto
adjacent properties or streets;
23 Light should be shielded, recessed or flush -mounted to
eliminate glare. All fixtures with lamps emitting 3000 lumens
or more must be full cutoff fixtures.
None.
Provide the standard mechanical
equipment note within the General
Notes (Sheet C2.1) of the site plan set
and on the Roof Plan W.1).
Reduce all footcandles on the western
property line to 0.5 (one-half) fc
maximum.
Revise the lighting plan to include all
proposed exterior lighting, including
wall -mounted and ground -mounted
In this revised submission, all of the
parking is concentrated to the south
and east (rear) of the building. A
guide rail is proposed along the
southeast portion of the EC frontage
and along the southern boundary of
the 2-acre parcel. The standard metal,
VDOT-design guard rail does not
have an appropriate appearance on the
EC. No detail of the proposed guard
rail has been provided in this site plan
set. Currently, a railing exists above
the retaining wall located in the
northwest corner of the site. The
railing is brown and has thin rails that
promote transparency. [See Figure
10] New guide rail that is compatible
with the existing railing would be
No stormwater management facility
(such as a wet or dry retention pond)
will be constructed, although existing
underground drop -inlet stormwater
sewer infrastructure will be expanded
The note has been provided on the
architectural elevations (A5.1 and
A5.2) but not on the site plan set.
The footcandle values on the western
and southern property lines, which
abut public rights -of -way, are less
than 0.5 fc.
The lighting plan includes four
variations (total quantity: 9) of Cree
OSQ Series freestanding lights; 3
Cree Edge Series freestanding lights;
None.
Provide the standard mechanical note
on the General Notes (Sheet C2.1) of
the site plan set.
None.
Provide manufacturer's cut sheets for
all proposed lighting models.
Provide the total lumens for all
19
Provide the initial lumens for all
proposed light fixtures in the
luminaire schedule on the lighting
plan (C4.1).
20 ground -mounted Kichler lights;
and 1 Lightolier fluorescent
downlight. The proposed Cree OSQ
pole light fixture is a full cut-off
fixture, but no manufacturer's cut
sheets have been provided for any of
the other proposed models.
Manufacturer's cut sheets — like that
supplied for the Cree OSQ model —
must be provided in the site plan set
for all proposed lighting.
The Lighting luminaire schedule has
discrepancies, errors, and omissions
that must be rectified. Firstly, total
lumens emitted by the fixture must be
provided in the Lighting luminaire
schedule for all proposed fixtures
with LED lamps. For non -LED
lamps, lamp type and wattage are
required. Secondly, the number of
`AP-5ME' is listed as 1 in the
schedule, yet 3 are shown on the plan.
Lastly, the one provided
manufacturer's cut sheet on the
Lighting Plan Details (C4.2) and the
Lighting luminaire schedule on the
Lighting Plan (C4.1) do not include
the full catalog description, and so
information is incomplete (for
instance, the finish colors are not
selected). The catalogue description
should follow the ordering
information on the cut sheet and
provide Product; Optic, Lumen
Package; CCT; Voltage; and Color
Options selections at the very least.
For example, the light model which is
proposed light fixtures with LED
lamps, and lamp type and wattage for
all non -LED lamps in the luminaire
schedule on the lighting plan (C4.1).
Rectify discrepancies, errors, and
omissions in the luminaire schedule.
Provide the complete catalog number
for proposed fixtures, including but
not limited to the finish color.
currently called `AP-3ME-40K' in the
luminaire schedule should have a
catalog number: OSQ-HO-3ME-40L-
40K-UL-BK.
24
Light levels exceeding 30 footcandles are not appropriate for
Revise the photometric plan and the
The Light Loss Factor (LLF) has been
None.
display lots in the Entrance Corridors. Lower light levels will
luminaire schedule on the lighting
revised to equal 1.0 in this lighting
apply to most other uses in the Entrance Corridors.
plan (C4.1) to reflect an LLF equal to
plan, and the maximum footcandle
1.0.
value on the site is 12.6, well below
the standard maximum in the EC.
25
Light should have the appearance of white light with a warm
Consider a lower color temperature
Three of the seven light models listed
See recommendations in #23.
soft glow; however, a consistent appearance throughout a site
for the proposed site lighting.
in the luminaire schedule have "40K'
or development is required. Consequently, if existing lamps
Provide consistent color temperatures
listed in their labels, suggesting a
that emit non -white light are to remain, new lamps may be
for site and building lights.
consistent and lower color
required to match them.
temperature than the previous
submission, in which the color
temperatures were 57K. However,
four of the seven models are missing
this information that should be
supplied in the luminaire schedule
and on manufacturer cut sheets that
must be provided for all light models.
26
Dark brown, dark bronze, or black are appropriate colors for
Specify the color(s) for all proposed
The one provided manufacturer's cut
Specify the color(s) for all proposed
free-standing pole mounted light fixtures in the Entrance
exterior light fixtures in the
sheet does not show a selected finish
exterior light fixtures in the
Corridors.
manufacturer's specifications or in
color, nor does the luminaire schedule
manufacturer's cut sheets or in the
the luminaire schedule. Coordinate
provide information on finish color
luminaire schedule.
the color of proposed pole lights with
for any of the proposed fixtures.
existing pole lights nearby.
Manufacturer's cut sheets for the
proposed wall and landscape lights
have not been included with this
submission. Street lights on Rt. 29 are
black; existing parking lot lights are
silver. Most pole lights on
commercial sites in the ECs are
a roved with a bronze finish.
27
The height and scale of freestanding, pole -mounted light
Revise the light pole diagram to
The luminaire schedule on C4.1 states
None.
fixtures should be compatible with the height and scale of the
reduce the height of the proposed pole
that the proposed height of the pole
buildings and the sites they are illuminating, and with the use
lights to 20 feet, including the base.
lights is 20 feet. The area light detail
of the site. Typically, the height of freestanding pole -mounted
provided on C4.2 states, in note #2,
21
light fixtures in the Entrance Corridors should not exceed 20
"Proposed pole in combination with
feet, including the base. Fixtures that exceed 20 feet in height
concrete pedestal to equal mounting
will typically require additional screening to achieve an
height `A'," and `Mounting Height
appropriate appearance from the Entrance Corridor.
Above Grade `A" has been given 20',
stipulating that the 20' is a maximum
28
In determining the appropriateness of lighting fixtures for the
Entrance Corridors, the individual context of the site will be
height above grade including the
taken into consideration on a case by case basis.
base. This is an appropriate height.
29
The following note should be included on the lighting plan:
Provide the standard lighting note on
The note has been only partially
Provide the full and complete
"Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits
the lighting plan (C4.1) of the site
included on C4.1; the last clause of
standard lighting note on the lighting
3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire
plan set.
the first sentence and the second
plan (C4.1) of the site plan set.
and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from
sentence have been omitted.
adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads.
The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads
and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall
not exceed one half footcandle."
30-
Guidelines for the Use of Decorative Landscape Lighting
Limit lighting to that which is needed
The lighting plan shows 20 ground-
Ensure that all proposed wall-
31
for safety/security.
mounted Kichler lights surrounding
mounted architectural lights are
the building on three sides; this is in
accounted for in the lighting plan
Provide full cut-off lights for any
addition to a downlight shown on the
(C4.1).
lamp emitting 3,000 initial lumens or
lighting plan (that is presumably a
more.
soffit light in the portico ceiling) and
Limit lighting to that which is needed
three freestanding lights to the west
for safety/security.
Eliminate lighting that illuminates the
and north of the building. This is in
outline of any structure. Include cut
excess of what is typically approved
Provide full cut-off lights for any
sheets for all fixtures in the site plan.
for building up -lighting in the ECs.
lamp emitting 3,000 initial lumens or
Moreover, the architectural elevations
more.
(A5.1 and A5.2) show two "recess RI
light fixture in beam" (34) on the
Eliminate lighting that illuminates the
portico piers and one "exterior light
outline of any structure. Indicate the
fixture `Z2' for illuminating stone
locations of all light fixtures on the
tower" (40) on the portico roof that
lighting plan (C4.2). Revise the
are not coordinated with the site plan
photometrics to account for all
and incorporated into the photometric
proposed lighting. Include cut sheets
calculations. The abundant ground-
for all fixtures in the site plan.
and wall -mounted lighting proposed
will serve to overly -light the building
as a form of advertisement. Previous
comments were to limit the lighting to
22
that which is needed for safety and
security, which has not been done.
Furthermore, the Key Notes on the
architectural elevations (A5.1 and
A5.2) state, in number 24, and show
on the illustrations that there will be
"LED Cove Lighting (Red at EIFS
walls, white at Hardi & stone walls)"
running along the cornice of the
building, such as that illustrated in the
example of a similar building in
Figure 11, below. Lighting that
illuminates the outline of a structure,
window, etc. is not allowed as per
County ordinance. The architectural
elevations and Key Notes must be
revised to eliminate this decorative
brandingfeature.
I
Figure 11, left. Existing Longhorn Steakhouse building showingplethora of wall -mounted, ground -mounted, cove,
and sign lighting. Note in particular the red cove lighting below the cornice. Image courtesy of Google, accessed
October 8, 2018.
23
REF
GUIDELINE
RECOMMENDATIONS
CURRENT ISSUE
RECOMMENDATION
10-15-2018 and 3-18-2019
Lands ca in
7
The requirements of the Guidelines regarding landscaping are
The consistent spacing of street trees
This suburban shopping center, the
Provide additional landscaping area to
intended to reflect the landscaping characteristic of many of
along the Rt. 29 frontage is required.
Fashion Square Mall, was developed
ensure that proposed street trees along
the area's significant historic sites which is characterized by
[3-18-2019]
prior to the establishment of the ECs
the EC frontage will not conflict with
large shade trees and lawns. Landscaping should promote
in 1990. Landscaping in this
easements.
visual order within the Entrance Corridor and help to integrate
Provide additional large shade trees
particular parking area is non -
buildings into the existing environment of the corridor.
along the entire length of the EC
frontage, spaced 35' on center. Ensure
existent; therefore, any additional
landscaping will be to the public
Ensure that there are no potential
conflicts between the proposed
8
Continuity within the Entrance Corridor should be obtained by
planting different types of plant materials that share similar
that all trees planted on the EC are a
benefit. Parcels to the south are lined
placement of freestanding light
characteristics. Such common elements allow for more
minimum of 3.5-inch caliper at
with large -canopy, deciduous trees,
fixtures and proposed canopy trees,
flexibility in the design of structures because common
planting, and specify this in the plant
and they set the standard of continuity
particularly the placement of the
landscape features will help to harmonize the appearance of
schedule on the landscape plan
to which this application should
proposed light in the center of the
development as seen from the street upon which the Corridor
(L1.1). Intersperse ornamental trees
aspire.
parking area which overlaps with the
is centered.
among the shade trees on the EC.
This revised plan shows a line of 7
canopy of a Kentucky coffee tree
proposed in a parking island.
32
Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance Corridor streets
should include the following:
Vary the shrubbery species along the
large shade trees (two species,
a. Large shade trees should be planted parallel to the Entrance
EC frontage for a more naturalistic
October Glory red maples and
See recommendation in #17-19.
Corridor Street. Such trees should be at least 3% inches caliper
appearance.
Sourgums) that are consistently
(measured 6 inches above the ground) and should be of a plant
spaced 35' on center and are regularly
species common to the area. Such trees should be located at
Ensure that there are no potential
interspersed with ornamentals
least every 35 feet on center.
conflicts between the proposed
(crapemyrtles, pink dogwoods, and
b. Flowering ornamental trees of a species common to the area
placement of freestanding light
one sweetbay magnolia). The line
should be interspersed among the trees required by the preceding
fixtures and proposed canopy trees.
extends almost the full length of the
paragraph. The ornamental trees need not alternate one for one
Rt. 29 frontage. The large shade trees
with the large shade trees. They may be planted among the large
See recommendation in #17-19.
are listed as 3.5" caliper in the
shade trees in a less regular spacing pattern.
landscape schedule provided on Lt. 1.
c. In situations where appropriate, a three or four board fence
No shrubbery is proposed for the EC
or low stone wall, typical of the area, should align the frontage
frontage.
of the Entrance Corridor street. d. An area of sufficient width
to accommodate the foregoing plantings and fencing should be
However, the trees are all planted on
reserved parallel to the Entrance Corridor street, and exclusive
a slope (see Figure 1) that can hardly
of road right-of-way and utility easements.
retain grass for apparent issues with
run-off and which is covered with
easements, including a VDOT
temporary construction easement, a
utility easement owned b
24
Centurylink, and a permanent
retaining wall and traffic sign
easement. The applicant cannot,
therefore, ensure the longevity of
these trees and will have to attain
agreements with the easement holders
to plant trees in these areas. That does
not preclude the easement holders
from cutting down the trees in the
future, however. The only means by
which the applicant can ensure that
trees planted along the EC frontage
will remain is to devote a landscape
strip outside of all easements, which
will require a revision to the site
design.
There are 12 freestanding pole lights
scattered throughout the site. No
proposed tree locations appear to
conflict with the proposed pole light
locations, although one of the two
AP-3ME-40K models, in the very
center of the parking, is illustrated 10
feet from the center of a Kentucky
coffee tree, which can mature to a
height of 60-80' and a mature spread
of 40-55' — which means there may
be a canopy conflict with the pole
light in the distant future.
No walls or fencing are proposed for
the EC, yet a guide rail is. See #17-19
for additional information.
33
Landscaping along interior roads:
Ensure that the placement of proposed
2 Kentucky coffee trees, 1 October
Ensure that the placement of proposed
a. Large trees should be planted parallel to all interior roads.
trees will not conflict with the
Glory red maple, and 1 Autumn
trees will not conflict with the
Such trees should be at least 2'/z inches caliper (measured six
canopies of existing trees on the site.
Purple ash as well as two ornamentals
canopies of existing trees on the site.
inches above theground) and should be of a plant species
(a crape le and a sweetba
25
common to the area. Such trees should be located at least
magnolia) are proposed for the
every 40 feet on center.
southern boundary of the site; these
are listed as 2.5-3" caliper in the
landscape schedule and are spaced
35-40' on center. The radii of their
canopies are drawn as 12', although
the large shade trees, such as the
Kentucky coffee tree, can have a
mature spread of 40-55'. Drawn on
the page, the canopies of the proposed
trees conflict with the 6 existing trees
that adorn the Fashion Square Mall
entrance drive immediately south of
the lease area. No shrubs are proposed
on the southern property line.
34
Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways:
Provide an additional 12 shade trees
This site plan proposes 131 parking
Ensure that the proposed locations of
a. Medium trees should be planted parallel to all interior
to the interior of the parking area.
spaces, which necessitates 13 trees in
trees do not conflict with the
pedestrian ways. Such trees should be at least 2'/z inches
the interior of the parking area in
proposed and extant locations of
caliper (measured six inches above the ground) and should be
Add large shade trees at 2!/2" caliper,
addition to the perimeter landscaping;
utility lines.
of a species common to the area. Such trees should be located
40' on center, along the north
14 interior shade trees have been
at least every 25 feet on center.
perimeter of the parking lot.
provided in this revised site plan. At
least four of the large shade trees
35
Landscaping of parking areas:
a. Large trees should align the perimeter of parking areas,
proposed for the parking area and
located 40 feet on center. Trees should be planted in the
travelway (two Kentucky coffee trees
interior of parking areas at the rate of one tree for every 10
and two Autumn Purple ashes) are
parking spaces provided and should be evenly distributed
sited atop or too near proposed
throughout the interior of the parking area.
underground utilities running easterly
b. Trees required by the preceding paragraph should measure
from the rear of the building,
2'/z inches caliper (measured six inches above the ground);
including the sanitary sewer, water,
should be evenly spaced; and should be of a species common
and gas lines. The centers of large
to the area. Such trees should be planted in planters or
shade trees should be a minimum of
medians sufficiently large to maintain the health of the tree
7-8' from the center of an
and shall be protected by curbing.
underground utility line.
c. Shrubs should be provided as necessary to minimize the
parking area's impact on Entrance Corridor streets. Shrubs
Perimeter trees are proposed along the
should measure 24 inches in height.
south side of the parking lot, and EC
trees double as perimeter trees on the
west side of the parking lot. The
26
northern property boundary has been
lined with six shade trees spaced 40'
on center and interspersed with four
ornamentals; the calipers of the shade
trees (October Glory red maples and
Sourgums) are listed as 3.5" in the
landscape schedule on L1.1. As the
building has been pushed to the
northwestern corner of the site, these
trees on the northern property line no
longer shade parking spaces, but they
do shade the proposed pedestrian
connection (sidewalk). Groundcover
and ornamental grasses are proposed
for the parking lot islands in lieu of
shrubbe
36
Landscaping of buildings and other structures:
None.
Significant planting is proposed for
None.
a. Trees or other vegetation should be planted along the front
the foundations of the building,
of long buildings as necessary to soften the appearance of
including two evergreen tree species
exterior walls. The spacing, size, and type of such trees or
and a variety of evergreen and
vegetation should be determined by the length, height, and
deciduous shrubs. Many of the
blankness of such walls.
foundation plantings are oriented
b. Shrubs should be used to integrate the site, buildings, and
around the refuse and loading area in
other structures; dumpsters, accessory buildings and
the rear of the building, which will
structures; "drive thru" windows; service areas; and signs.
not be visible from the EC. The scope
Shrubs should measure at least 24 inches in height.
and plant material are appropriate to
sites in the EC.
37
Plant species:
Substitute the Douglas fir with an
The Douglas fir have been replaced
None.
a. Plant species required should be as approved by the Staff
evergreen tree that is in a County-
with abies concolor (or white fir),
based upon but not limited to the Generic Landscape Plan
approved plant list.
which is included in the County -
Recommended Species List and Native Plants for Virginia
approved plants list. The Japanese
Landscapes (Appendix D).
Consider substituting a native
holly has also been replaced, and
evergreen shrub for the exotic
overall, out of 19 total proposed tree
Japanese holly.
and shrub species, only four are
exotic and 11 are locally native to the
Reduce the number of Sour gums
Virginia Piedmont region.
(NS), Japanese Holly (ICC), and
Arrowhead Viburnum (VD) to 25%
The total quantity of trees is 55, while
27
of the total for their typologies (i.e.,
tree or shrub) by introducing
additional species.
For a more naturalistic appearance,
vary the shrub species more, and vary
the planting pattern by interspersing
tree and shrub species rather than
planting them in single -species
concentrations.
the total quantity of shrubs proposed
across this site is 191. None of the
individual species proposed exceeds,
in number, one -quarter of these totals.
The trees and shrubs have been mixed
together to achieve a more naturalistic
appearance, especially on the EC
frontage.
38
Plant health: The following note should be added to the
Provide the standard plant health note
The note has been provided on the
None.
landscape plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
on all landscape plans submitted for
landscape plan (L1.1.).
allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the
review.
topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be
pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the
plant."
SIGNS
Note that a separate sign application
Proposed wall signs are shown on the
Note that a separate sign application
submittal is required, but not before
architectural elevations (A5.1 and
submittal is required, but not before
final site plan approval.
A5.2) of this submission. Note that
final site plan approval.
the location of these signs is for
information only and that a separate
sign application will be required. The
"Longhorn Steakhouse" wall signs
are consistent with the recommended
wall sign type, but they exceed the
allowable square footage. Graphics of
a steer's head are proposed for two
locations. While no lighting is
currently shown on the elevations,
other Longhorn Steakhouse locations
(see Figure 11) have used halo
lighting on the graphics; this is
expected to have an appropriate
appearance. The graphics do not
appear in combination with the
channel letters but are isolated,
comprising secondary signage. While
no ro osed monument signs have
28
been shown on the site plan, there is
an existing Fashion Square Mall
freestanding sign at the southwest
corner of the site. A complete sign
review will be completed with the
si a lication submittal.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
• The suitability of the landscape plan, especially the placement of the street trees in easements.
• The trademark quality of the proposed architectural design.
• Proposed site and building lighting.
Staff recommends that the ARB forward the following recommendations to the Agent for the Site Review Committee:
• Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4c(2), (3) and (5) and recommended conditions of initial plan approval:
1. None. Note that a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval.
• Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines: None.
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit: None.
• Regarding the final site plan submittal:
1. Consider revising the fagade with a porch element and removing the piers and chimney.
2. Revise the Exterior Finish Legend on the architectural elevations (A5.1 and A5.2) to reflect only those materials and colors that are proposed for this project. Omit any superfluous notes.
3. Revise the architectural design to show a stronger reference to local building traditions and to further simplify and coordinate building forms.
4. Submit manufacturer's specifications for the storefront window system.
5. Provide renderings of the proposed pedestrian connection in the northwest corner of the site as seen from the EC.
6. Revise the demolition/tree conservation plan, grading plan, and landscape plan to show tree protection fencing outside of areas to be disturbed and graded.
7. Include a detail of the guide rail in the site plan. Provide a design that has an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor and that is compatible with the existing railing on the site. Provide
color/material samples.
8. Provide the standard mechanical note on the General Notes (Sheet C2.1) of the site plan set: Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.
9. Provide manufacturer's cut sheets for all proposed lighting models. Provide the total lumens for all proposed light fixtures with LED lamps, and lamp type and wattage for all non -LED lamps in
the luminaire schedule on the lighting plan (C4.1).
10. Rectify discrepancies, errors, and omissions in the luminaire schedule. Provide the complete catalog number for proposed fixtures, including but not limited to the finish color. .
11. Specify the color(s) for all proposed exterior light fixtures in the manufacturer's cut sheets or in the luminaire schedule. Provide the full and complete standard lighting note on the lighting plan
(C4.1) of the site plan set: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light
29
away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts
shall not exceed one half footcandle.
12. Ensure that all proposed wall -mounted architectural lights are accounted for in the lighting plan (C4.1).
13. Limit lighting to that which is needed for safety/security.
14. Provide full cut-off lights for any lamp emitting 3,000 initial lumens or more.
15. Eliminate lighting that illuminates the outline of any structure. Indicate the locations of all light fixtures on the lighting plan (C4.2). Revise the photometrics to account for all proposed lighting.
Include cut sheets for all fixtures in the site plan.
16. Provide additional landscaping area to ensure that proposed street trees along the EC frontage will not conflict with easements.
17. Ensure that there are no potential conflicts between the proposed placement of freestanding light fixtures and proposed canopy trees, particularly the placement of the proposed light in the center
of the parking area which overlaps with the canopy of a Kentucky coffee tree proposed in a parking island.
18. Ensure that the placement of proposed trees will not conflict with the canopies of existing trees on the site.
19. Ensure that the proposed locations of trees do not conflict with the proposed and extant locations of utility lines.
20. Note that a separate sign application submittal is required, but not before final site plan approval.
TABLE A
This report is based on the following submittal items:
Sheet 4
Drawing Name
Drawing Date
C1.1
Cover Sheet
4/24/19
C2.1
General Notes
4/24/19
C2.2
Demolition Plan/Tree Conservation Plan
4/24/19
C2.3
Site Plan
4/24/19
C2.4
Grading Plan
4/24/19
C2.5
Draina e & Utility Plan A
4/24/19
C2.6
Drainage & Utility Plan B
4/24/19
C3.1
Utility Profiles Storm
4/24/19
C3.2
Utility Profiles (Sanitary)
4/24/19
C3.3
Utility Profiles (Sanitary)
4/24/19
C4.1
Lighting Plan
4/24/19
C4.2
Lighting Plan Details
4/24/19
C6.1
Construction Details
4/24/19
C6.2
Construction Details
4/24/19
C6.3
I Construction Details
4/24/19
30
C6.4
Construction Details
4/24/19
C6.5
Construction Details
4/24/19
C7.1
Soil Boring Los
4/24/19
C8.1
Vehicle Circulation Plan WB-67
4/24/19
C8.2
Vehicle Circulation Plan (Refuse)
4/24/19
L1.1
Landscape Plan
4/24/19
L1.2
Landscape Plan Notes & Details
4/24/19
A5.1
Exterior Elevations
4/24/19
A5.2
Exterior Elevations
4/24/19
n.p.
I Lon horn Steakhouse — Albemarle County (Option 6 color renderings 2 pages)]
5/3/19
31
r:MW rtaveld r OQ110
EXCERPT FROM 7-16-2018 PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES
Potential Entrance Corridor design issues were identified as follows:
1. The EC guidelines indicate that new development should reflect the historic architecture of the area. Currently, the architectural design reflects a "western" aesthetic, and has no connection to local
historic architecture. The size, shape and detailing of the chimney and columns seem particularly out of place.
2. There is an unusual proportion of EIFS wall to window. The wall appears too tall for the window height. The wall height may be a result of parapet height needed to hide rooftop equipment. Rooftop
equipment must not be visible from the EC, but the window/wall proportions should also appear correct.
3. The architectural elements at/near the main entrance have a busy, overly complicated appearance. The "deteriorated" stone/stucco feature contributes to this.
4. The siding/window bays on the side elevations appear uncoordinated with the front entrance design.
5. Illumination of the building is typically limited by the ARB. Show proposed wall lights. Include them in the photometric plan. Uplights, if approved, must emit less than 3000 lumens. Note the
lumens on the lighting plan.
6. What is the material of the shutters? Do they look like real shutters? Please provide photos of a recent installation.
7. An ACSA easement is illustrated along a portion of the Rt. 29 frontage. ACSA typically does not allow trees in their easements. Consequently, planting area will need to be increased to
accommodate the required trees.
8. EC landscape requirements are more strict than the site plan requirements in some cases. Be sure to check both.
9. The aerial image notes dense vegetation affecting visibility, but the majority of the vegetation has been removed. Visibility from Rt. 29 is expected to be open and clear, even with the presence of the
berm. If the applicant believes otherwise, site sections should be submitted to illustrate the level of visibility.
10. Flags on top of the columns look awkward.
11. We can get preliminary input from the ARB on the signs, but a separate sign application will be needed for review/approval.
12. Include the standard LED note on the sign drawings: The level of illumination provided by the LED lights will not exceed the illumination produced by a single stroke of 30 milliamp (ma) neon.
13. Red 2283 is not an approvable sign color. 2793 is acceptable.
14. The color of sign raceways must match the color of the wall to which the raceway is attached. Include a note to this effect on the sign drawings.
15. We will ask the ARB for input on the illumination of the steer logo.
16. In the freestanding signs, the letters look overscaled relative to the cabinet. A base material that matches one of the building materials is appropriate. However, the freestanding sign designs are a bit
bland.
17. Will the building be visible from Rio Road?
18. Shelly asked for a preliminary Zoning review of the sign package. Some of the sign drawings that were sent were incomplete, so Shelly agreed to resend the drawings.
32
r:11 w rtQVI►3 r ofoil :
a
,< e
r
COUNTY OF ALUEi'IIX14LE
Department trf CtirniFlnnitp Ikvelaptment
401 NIc mire Road, iSorth Wing
Uharlottesvtlle, Virginia 22902-4596
i'Ixone (434) ZW5832 1:4i6 (434) 9724126
(DoAcr t9, 2018
We hele Wright
L DRA. Inc.
102 Trout Lily l)ivc
Covinet;m, VA 24426
RF: ARP-2018-123: J,einghurn:SlCakhotise initial Site flan and Prcllminarr Archiieclu"l Review
Dca- Ms. Wright,
At its meeting on Mo^day, October 15, 2013 the Albemarle County Architecu;ra;l Ruvicw Board, by a vote of
5:0 va,ieil tia finrwarirl the fpllnwaag reC4mmeri[1aCl,iati aan [iic ahnve-autcd In itrel Site Develapnhent Plan to the
agent for [he Site Review Committee:
+ Regarding reauiremenls to satisf4 the deaign pidelinrs as per § JS-30-6.4e(2). (3) and (5) ,and
recomincnded conditions of ini:izi plan pppioval;
Norm -Note [hat a Corti Ream of Appraapr-uI:1165s is retl'uired pr:ur to lima! site plant approval.
• Reprding 4iaJlrir t o ii an the plea as it reia[cs to the g,uidciinca: None.
s I{cgarding conditions to he salisii�d prior to issuance of a gra:ling pernit; Nrine•
• Regarding the final site plan submittal:
Rek ise the architecture toroference the building traditions and context ofAlbeinarle County. Feather
study the front elevation. Replace the orange ;rnceo with stone. Resolve the tup ofthe wall and the
viers to reference irltditioraJ building. The Lursgiorn examp'e shown on pap 15 of the staff7epon
cntald serve, as a prccMert.
2. Provide the standard window glass note. on revised architectural elevations: Nslrrie iighrtransaraitiarnc
(K7) .shall nay damp 6010W -kilo/ :f-isible lightreRpe.aanre YL.R) .T)i alf not exceed 30%-
3. Inc llade a de^ai[ of the guide trail in the 33te plan. Provide a design that has an appropriate appearance
for the Entrance C rrridor and that k compa[ihlt Mth the exis°ing railing on the s l.-e, provide
color,rimerial samples-
4. Provide the standard mechanical ctttlipmcnt nine within [hc tien,,741 Fda;*=eti (Sheet C2-1) of the site
ph. set and Lin the Rnuf Plan CA3.1): l i,ihility af,11 mecliuuicd of uipinyera fr pi The Entraftee
C'arrklar stiz11 he elimirrc god.
S. Reduce all %otcamiles on the western property line to 0.5 (one -Mali) fe maximum.
4, Revise the lighting plan and phntenre':ries to include all pmposed exsenar lighting, including; wall-
tvouaned and ground -mounted lighting.
7. Provide Lhu initial Lumens forall proposed light fixtures in [lie luntireaire schedule onthe Ilghtingplan
(C41.),
B_ Revise the photometric plt: and the luntiiwlre schedule on the I'ig)hti g plan (CCI ) to rertect.a LLF
cgaal to [.0.
9- Consider a lower color teanpetature for the projxrstld Sate lighting, Provide consistent colter
temperatures for site and building lights.
10, SpedFy the earlor(s) fbr 01 proposed exteflur light fix'ua cs in the manufacturer .i spceir` catiotls or in
the 7 u nunas-e sc hed Lila. C:atorrhriate the color of proposed pole H3 hts vie]Ih axistinfr pole lights nea€bv.
l ] - ReviW the light pale diagiairi to reduce tine height ofthe prttposcd pole lights to 29 fieet, including the
ba_ t.
12. Provide the standard lighting note On the lighting plan (L.4 I ) of 'JiL 3ke plait set: &rawh nut4nnr
iummaire equfpped with as rimy dwr :enrats 3.&00 or rnur e e usai lvm.erer .basal= & a Ji R e-Vto y
iwara i noire txrrd shall he arrangPj• nr ghWded to rr-f cCi iig.hl agwft f }T[atrr aafllUlYrrrrry residential di,crricrr
cared away ,+marry at(iWenl r•paaaas. The sj,,'1.1u >er of lighting frorn iurrrer:arras vino public rixta#s urml
F.rY vvn ✓ eta residential fir rural areas raonfug dise7icts shall not e'x'eeed UraB-half rtrratcarutle.
13. Limit lighting; tv that which is needed for safely'rsevuriry.
94 Provide fitil cutaET lights for any tamp emitting 3,000 initial lumens or more.
15 hlirninatclighiingthat iIiumirtatesthe ouiineoCauyAruct=.]ncIadecuisheemfor all fixtures inthe
site p2an-
J 6. Providc additional large shade trees alonp. the eahlire length of lire FE' frrintage, epwced IV on center,
Erasure, that all trees 73aarted on the EC" are a mininiu m of 3.5-hich. caliper at planting, and specify this
in the plant schedule on the landscape plan (LI.I j. lmrrSpe:,w ornamental no a[uortgft shade tmes
an the Ec.
17, Eris= that there are no potential conf6cu between the prop used placement (if freestanding light
fi turts and propersc.4 canopy trcv5.
18. tnsvwr that the placernentofproposed trees will riot eonflict with iho csnnpicsnf existing trees on the
sire.
19. 4'ary the shrubben, spee[es for a more naturalistic. appearance.
2D. Provide an addidomal 12 shade trees to the interior of the parking area.
: 1 • Add large, shade trees at 2LA" caliper, 40' on cunter, along a;c rnrth perimeter caf the panting lot..
_2. Suhviiuu: the 0,nu ,3as fir wlthancvwgresntree tha[ is in a Courity-apprerrved plant list.
23. Consider suhstiluLing x native evetgreen,Arun for the exotic ,Iapancsc holly.
24, Roduvo the numther of Sour gwus (NSy, Japanese Ilolly (iC'C:), and Arrrswhaad Viburnum [VD) to
25 . of the 4-olal fur thtEr typsrlogics (i.c., tree or khrub) by introducing additional species.
25, For a more naturalistic appearance, vary rile shrub speuies mart, arul vary the p laming paRum by
is terspers.ng tree and shrub spcdr,; rather than plartting them in single species corcentravions.
2h, Provide the standard plant =health note on all !a_ndseape plans subrnitt&d for review:. M.riteplantkg-v
of trees aurdshr-ular ,shad Fm allowed ro r.ach, and he ma ktafnLed 41, moriArB Bright; site: kipj!!Fi'nh' of
erresisprohlbiled Shrribs'urnlraeesslivLrl€;car.redminimoiljtrmlart;tar�saricarttlieuvera}iJiawa7tAa
q fhe Prams.
27. Messily the grading lines Jiat ittteesact with existing uses and shuw site pnapnscd Lice protection
fencing on tee grad ingplan (t:C2.4).
28- Note thee. a sep,>ate sign application submitta3 is required, boat not heft m finef site plan approval.
Yost may submit year application thr cuniinued ARa review at vour earliest cunveniencz. eAppIicativn farms,
checkbsss and sclrd'uies are ovaiiable ondinc at v.ww_al1hcrtailv.arrg'.4M Ecase lx cenairi that year ARB
,iubm:ltal addresses the above -noted issues.
IFyou have any questions concerning any of t]te above, please feel free to Contact mr-
S iihceteiy
Margaret N+Ldis'rcw.sa i
C;hict'of i3lanning•`9tesaune M.anagctnurht
CC. CV Assahciatcs, PO Box 7019, Lndianapo3is, IN 46207-7019
File
33
r:11wrtOV, I►3rof BID,
try
COUNTY OF A1.1#1' MAR1.F.
17epmtmcnt of Community IAevelopffient
401 Mclntlre Rund, Nurlh Wing
Charlottmville,'4rirytnia 22402d4596
Phone 1434) 296r5932 FLx p334) 972-4120
March 25, 2019
5cwtt Collins
Cotlirts Gnginceeing
200 Barrett Strut
Suite K
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RJE: ARB-20I K-15-3: Longhorn. Steakhouse - [n tial Site Elan (TM?arce[ 061011W] 3200)
hear Mr. Collins,
laic Alhcmark County ArvhluxwYal Rcvicw Board, ul its meeting cm. March 19. 2019, held a work sws.5ion
on the revised design of the Longhorn. Steakhouse propvsa [, focusing on the pedestrian conncetioo, the
landscaping, and tht architectural desipA. After disrsuagiM, it was the wnsensus oi'tlse ARB that:
[. the revised location of the pedestran connection was an rmprnvementr
2. The ctmsiOeril spacing of &[reel Lees atrmB the RL 29 :iontugge is required, and
I. Additional m%v sions to the architectural design are rcgnired to make the hLilding design conximcnt
wath the prcvaous Altl3 comments. Suggested revisions included, bus were not [united to, the
rollowing,: furilier s-anrpli[icatitm oflonn is "uired, brick and: gtut;LO waauld be acoeptable
materials. tlic dcsign need-; to mnvc fiuthcr out ofthc Srn:tbwu[ and inui the Mid-Atian6c.
Y au mfly submit yo;jr application 1-or wawir uml A RR mvitw al your 4aTnk!s?. conveei enu:. App I;cari nTi I LJ=N,
checklists and schedules are available on-line at www.alhemarle_onx AKE1.
kcvised, drawings addressing the comnicn:s i 3tcd above, urd those from prcvious revicw5, arc mluired.
Include updared AR13 revision dates on each drawing. Please provide a rneauo including, detailed responses
tnuicalicg hcm- each comment, has been addrtnmLd. IR' changes uttaer than ]Store rcuuuat %1 have bct:n made,
idnilify those eltayges in the mcmo also. HiO ighting the changes in the drawing with `c[oudiing"' or by Other
means will facilitate review and approve],
If yuu have any yue3[icmi urnerrnin} any m" Ilan absvcr please feel fide to contacl Me,
S i tacereiy:
NC.`tth4r �4CMFthnn
Senior Planner
34