Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201700111 Staff Report 2017-11-131 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #/Name ARB-2017-111: Charlottesville Orthopaedic Center Review Type First review of a Final Site Development Plan Parcel Identification 045B1050C00400 Location 22275 Seminole Lane Zoned Highway Commercial (HC)/Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner/Applicant Russell L or Jeanne C Miller, Jr. /BRW Architects (David Timmerman) Magisterial District Rio Proposal To renovate an existing building and site to accommodate medical office space. Context Commercial uses exist to the north, south and west of this parcel along the Rt. 29 Entrance Corridor. The Carrsbrook residential development is located to the east, elevated significantly above the subject parcel. Visibility The development is readily visible from the Rt. 29 Entrance Corridor. ARB Meeting Date November 20, 2017 Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski PROJECT HISTORY A wall sign was approved for Floors Are Us at this site in 2007. 2 ANALYSIS REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION Structure design 1 The goal of the regulation of the design of development within the designated Entrance Corridors is to insure that new development within the corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the area. Therefore, it is the purpose of ARB review and of these Guidelines, that proposed development within the designated Entrance Corridors reflect elements of design characteristic of the significant historical landmarks, buildings, and structures of the Charlottesville and Albemarle area, and to promote orderly and attractive development within these corridors. Applicants should note that replication of historic structures is neither required nor desired. The existing building predates the establishment of the Entrance Corridors and has no particular connection to the historic architecture of the area. The proposed renovation would update the appearance of the building, but would still not reflect historic architecture. The proposed renovation would move the main entrance from the EC-facing elevation to the north side of the building, but the building itself would remain parallel to the EC street. The renovation would increase the height of the ground story windows to meet the existing metal flange – a change that helps unify the building and establish appropriate scale. Overhead doors would be removed from the north and south elevations and windows would be added at the upper level. These changes would reduce the service appearance of the side elevations and reduce blankness in the upper level of the building. A canopy would be added at the main entrance. Composed of steel columns supporting a steel roof, it is a minimal reference to the traditional colonnade. A metal sun shade would be added over the windows at the southwest corner of the building. These features help to Revise the elevation drawings to include a material/color schedule keyed to the elevations. Provide paint samples for the two shades of grey that are proposed. Clarify on the drawings where the charcoal grey metal is proposed to be located. 2 Visitors to the significant historical sites in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area experience these sites as ensembles of buildings, land, and vegetation. In order to accomplish the integration of buildings, land, and vegetation characteristic of these sites, the Guidelines require attention to four primary factors: compatibility with significant historic sites in the area; the character of the Entrance Corridor; site development and layout; and landscaping. 3 New structures and substantial additions to existing structures should respect the traditions of the architecture of historically significant buildings in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area. Photographs of historic buildings in the area, as well as drawings of architectural features, which provide important examples of this tradition are contained in Appendix A. 4 The examples contained in Appendix A should be used as a guide for building design: the standard of compatibility with the area’s historic structures is not intended to impose a rigid design solution for new development. Replication of the design of the important historic sites in the area is neither intended nor desired. The Guideline’s standard of compatibility can be met through building scale, materials, and forms which may be embodied in architecture which is contemporary as well as traditional. The Guidelines allow 3 individuality in design to accommodate varying tastes as well as special functional requirements. establish scale and texture, and they also provide a visual connection to the Acme Stove and Fireplace Center located just to the south. A metal awning is proposed to be added over the secondary door on the north elevation. Wood paneling is proposed as an accent material at the entrances. Primary materials and textures would remain similar; a new stucco coating is proposed (in tan above the metal flange, beige below). The stucco colors for which samples were provided appear appropriate. Two paint colors are proposed for steel elements. Paint samples were not provided for these colors, but a charcoal gray metal sample was provided. The elevations do not include a materials schedule. The proposal does not have the appearance of a trademark design. 5 It is also an important objective of the Guidelines to establish a pattern of compatible architectural characteristics throughout the Entrance Corridor in order to achieve unity and coherence. Building designs should demonstrate sensitivity to other nearby structures within the Entrance Corridor. Where a designated corridor is substantially developed, these Guidelines require striking a careful balance between harmonizing new development with the existing character of the corridor and achieving compatibility with the significant historic sites in the area. 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 [of the design guidelines]. 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 guidelines. 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 development. 15 Trademark buildings and related features should be modified to meet the requirements of the Guidelines. 16 Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should not be highly tinted or highly reflective. Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should meet the following criteria: Visible light Window glass specs have not been provided. Provide the VLT and VLR of the proposed window glass. Add the 4 transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 40%. Visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%. Specifications on the proposed window glass should be submitted with the application for final review. standard window glass note to the drawings. Accessory structures and equipment 17 Accessory structures and equipment should be integrated into the overall plan of development and shall, to the extent possible, be compatible with the building designs used on the site. The applicant’s written description of the project indicates that mechanical equipment will be located behind the building, but the site plan does not show the location. A dumpster and loading area are proposed at the northeast corner of the site. A dumpster enclosure detail is not included in the plan. Revise the plan to show the location of mechanical equipment. Show that visibility of the equipment will be eliminated. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to both the site and architectural drawings. Revise the plan to include a dumpster enclosure detail. Show that the enclosure is compatible with the building design. 18 The following should be located to eliminate visibility from the Entrance Corridor street. If, after appropriate siting, these features will still have a negative visual impact on the Entrance Corridor street, screening should be provided to eliminate visibility. a. Loading areas, b. Service areas, c. Refuse areas, d. Storage areas, e. Mechanical equipment, f. Above-ground utilities, and g. Chain link fence, barbed wire, razor wire, and similar security fencing devices. 19 Screening devices should be compatible with the design of the buildings and surrounding natural vegetation and may consist of: a. Walls, b. Plantings, and c. Fencing. 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.” 22-31 Lighting No lighting plan was included in the submittal; however, the demolition plan notes the relocation of an existing light pole near the southwest corner of the site. Relocated lights must meet all ordinance requirements. The site plan notes a relocated power pole in the same general location. The landscape plan shows a gap in the row of shrubs in this general location. Revise the plans to clearly indicate all light poles to be demolished, relocated and/or retained. Show all proposed lights. Provide a photometric plan. Show that all new and relocated fixtures meet ordinance requirements. Shift lights and poles to allow for complete rows of shrubs along the parking rows. Clarify and coordinate the notes regarding relocated 5 light poles and relocated power poles. Landscaping 7 The requirements of the Guidelines regarding landscaping are intended to reflect the landscaping characteristic of many of the area’s significant historic sites which is characterized by large shade trees and lawns. Landscaping should promote visual order within the Entrance Corridor and help to integrate buildings into the existing environment of the corridor. An open lawn with shade trees would not be appropriate in this context. The proposed plan would significantly upgrade the on-site planting, which would help integrate the building into the overall corridor. None. 32 Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance Corridor streets should include the following: a. Large shade trees should be planted parallel to the Entrance Corridor Street. Such trees should be at least 3½ inches caliper (measured 6 inches above the ground) and should be of a plant species common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 35 feet on center. b. Flowering ornamental trees of a species common to the area should be interspersed among the trees required by the preceding paragraph. The ornamental trees need not alternate one for one with the large shade trees. They may be planted among the large shade trees in a less regular spacing pattern. c. In situations where appropriate, a three or four board fence or low stone wall, typical of the area, should align the frontage of the Entrance Corridor street. d. An area of sufficient width to accommodate the foregoing plantings and fencing should be reserved parallel to the Entrance Corridor street, and exclusive of road right-of-way and utility easements. The subject parcel fronts the Seminole Lane frontage road. North of the entrance into the site, 4 red maples are proposed at 25’-30’ spacing. South of entrance, 3 red maples are proposed at 30’ and 60’ apart. The maple planting size is smaller than the requirement. Some utilities cross the site. It isn’t entirely clear from the plan whether the utilities and/or their easements conflict with proposed landscaping. Increase the planting size of the maples to 3½” caliper. Show all utilities and their associated easements on the landscape plan. Resolve utility/landscape conflicts without reducing the quantity of landscaping proposed. 33 Landscaping along interior roads: a. Large trees should be planted parallel to all interior roads. Such trees should be at least 2½ inches caliper (measured six inches above the ground) and should be of a plant species common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 40 feet on center. There are no interior roads on site. None. 34 Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways: a. Medium trees should be planted parallel to all interior pedestrian ways. Such trees should be at least 2½ inches caliper (measured six inches above the ground) and should be Sidewalks are proposed along the north and south elevations. Planting beds with shrubs are provided in these areas. None. 6 of a species common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 25 feet on center. 35 Landscaping of parking areas: a. Large trees should align the perimeter of parking areas, located 40 feet on center. Trees should be planted in the interior of parking areas at the rate of one tree for every 10 parking spaces provided and should be evenly distributed throughout the interior of the parking area. b. Trees required by the preceding paragraph should measure 2½ inches caliper (measured six inches above the ground); should be evenly spaced; and should be of a species common to the area. Such trees should be planted in planters or medians sufficiently large to maintain the health of the tree and shall be protected by curbing. c. Shrubs should be provided as necessary to minimize the parking area’s impact on Entrance Corridor streets. Shrubs should measure 24 inches in height. 6 Kousa Dogwood trees are proposed along the south parking perimeter at 15’ on center. These trees can grow 15’ to 30’ wide, so a wider spacing might be appropriate. 3 English Oak trees are proposed at 45’ on center along the northern parking perimeter. 42 parking spaces are proposed. This requires 4 trees at the interior of the parking lot. 6 Kousa Dogwoods are proposed at the interior. The planting sizes proposed for all of the above trees are smaller than the 2½” requirement. Shrubs are proposed along most of the frontage; there is a gap along the 5- space row south of the entrance. No shrubs are proposed along the north and south parking rows. Shrub planting sizes aren’t listed in the schedule. Revise the spacing of the Kousa Dogwoods to 20’ apart. Add shrubs along the north and south parking rows. Revise the plant schedule to show shrub planting size as 24” high. 36 Landscaping of buildings and other structures: a. Trees or other vegetation should be planted along the front of long buildings as necessary to soften the appearance of exterior walls. The spacing, size, and type of such trees or vegetation should be determined by the length, height, and blankness of such walls. b. Shrubs should be used to integrate the site, buildings, and other structures; dumpsters, accessory buildings and structures; “drive thru” windows; service areas; and signs. 3 Kousa Dogwoods are proposed along EC-facing elevation. None. 7 Shrubs should measure at least 24 inches in height. 37 Plant species: a. Plant species required should be as approved by the Staff based upon but not limited to the Generic Landscape Plan Recommended Species List and Native Plants for Virginia Landscapes (Appendix D). The plants are included on the various lists. None. 8 Continuity within the Entrance Corridor should be obtained by planting different types of plant materials that share similar characteristics. Such common elements allow for more flexibility in the design of structures because common landscape features will help to harmonize the appearance of development as seen from the street upon which the Corridor is centered. The note does not appear on the plan. There are 25 trees proposed in only 3 species and 249 shrubs proposed in only 3 species. Increasing the number of tree and shrub species could help support a healthier landscape. Add the plant health note to the landscape plan. Limit the number of proposed plants for any one species to a maximum of 25% of the total proposed for that plant type. 38 Plant health: The following note should be added to the landscape plan: “All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant.” Development pattern 39 The relationship of buildings and other structures to the Entrance Corridor street and to other development within the corridor should be as follows: a. An organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike paths, and pedestrian walks should guide the layout of the site. b. In general, buildings fronting the Entrance Corridor street should be parallel to the street. Building groupings should be arranged to parallel the Entrance Corridor street. c. Provisions should be made for connections to adjacent pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems. d. Open spaces should be tied into surrounding areas to provide continuity within the Entrance Corridor. e. If significant natural features exist on the site (including creek valleys, steep slopes, significant trees or rock outcroppings), to the extent practical, then such natural features should be reflected in the site layout. If the provisions of Section 32.5.6.n of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance apply, then improvements required by that section should be located so as to maximize the use of existing This site is already developed with a building and paved parking and travelways. The paved areas would be improved with a better-defined entrance from the street and better defined parking rows. The building is oriented parallel to the Entrance Corridor, but the renovation would move the entrance from the EC- facing elevation to the north side of the building. There are no adjacent pedestrian circulation systems or open spaces. The east end of the parcel is a steep wooded slope that would not be disturbed. None. 8 features in screening such improvements from Entrance Corridor streets. f. The placement of structures on the site should respect existing views and vistas on and around the site. No important views would be impacted with this proposal, but the appearance of the overall development is expected to improve. Site Grading 40 Site grading should maintain the basic relationship of the site to surrounding conditions by limiting the use of retaining walls and by shaping the terrain through the use of smooth, rounded land forms that blend with the existing terrain. Steep cut or fill sections are generally unacceptable. Proposed contours on the grading plan shall be rounded with a ten foot minimum radius where they meet the adjacent condition. Final grading should achieve a natural, rather than engineered, appearance. Retaining walls 6 feet in height and taller, when necessary, shall be terraced and planted to blend with the landscape. The site has already been developed. Little grading is proposed. A 3’-tall timber retaining wall is proposed near the southeast corner of the building. It is not expected to have a visual impact on the EC. None. 41 No grading, trenching, or tunneling should occur within the drip line of any trees or other existing features designated for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness. Adequate tree protection fencing should be shown on, and coordinated throughout, the grading, landscaping and erosion and sediment control plans. Existing trees on site would be removed with this proposal. Some mature trees exist on the adjacent property to the north. Tree protection fencing is shown around them. A stormwater facility is located on the property to the south, adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. Some new shrubs are shown off- site in this area. Clarify the reason for the off-site shrubs. Provide evidence of an off-site planting easement. 42 Areas designated for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness should be clearly delineated and protected on the site prior to any grading activity on the site. This protection should remain in place until completion of the development of the site. 43 Preservation areas should be protected from storage or movement of heavy equipment within this area. 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. No new ponds or structures are proposed. None. 44 Natural drainage patterns (or to the extent required, new drainage patterns) should be incorporated into the finished site to the extent possible. 9 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. Appropriateness of the general character and appearance of the renovated elevations 2. Relocation of the building entrance to the side elevation 3. Appropriateness of proposed landscaping Staff recommends approval with the condition that the following changes be made: 1. Revise the elevation drawings to include a material/color schedule keyed to the elevations. 2. Provide paint samples for the two shades of grey that are proposed. 3. Clarify on the drawings where the charcoal grey metal is proposed to be located. 4. Provide the VLT and VLR of the proposed window glass. Add the standard window glass note to the architectural drawings: Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should meet the following criteria: Visible light transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 40%. Visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%. Specifications on the proposed window glass should be submitted with the application for final review. 5. Revise the plan to show the location of mechanical equipment. Show that visibility of the equipment will be eliminated. 6. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to both the site and architectural drawings: Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated. 7. Revise the plan to include a dumpster enclosure detail. Show that the enclosure is compatible with the building design. 8. Revise the plans to clearly indicate all light poles to be demolished, relocated and/or retained. Show all proposed li ghts. Provide a photometric plan. Show that all new and relocated fixtures meet ordinance requirements. Shift lights and poles to allow for complete rows of shrubs along the parking rows. Clarify and coordinate the notes regarding relocated light poles and relocated power poles. 9. Increase the planting size of the maples to 3½” caliper. 10. Show all utilities and their associated easements on the landscape plan. Resolve utility/landscape conflicts without reducing the quantity of landscaping proposed. 11. Revise the spacing of the Kousa Dogwoods to 20’ apart. 12. Add shrubs along the north and south parking rows. 13. Revise the plant schedule to show shrub planting size as 24” high. 14. Add the plant health note to the landscape plan: All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant. 15. Limit the number of proposed plants for any one species to a maximum of 25% of the total proposed for that plant type. 16. Clarify the reason for the off-site shrubs. Provide evidence of an off-site planting easement. 10 TABLE A This report is based on the following submittal items: Sheet # Drawing Name Drawing Date A1.0 Site Plan 10/9/2017 A1.1 First Floor Plan 10/9/2017 A1.2 Second Floor Plan 10/9/2017 A2.1 Exterior Elevations 10/9/2017 A2.2 Exterior Elevations 10/9/2017 A3.1 Building Sections 10/9/2017 A10.0 3D View Looking NE 10/9/2017 A10.1 3D View Looking SE 10/9/2017 C0.0 Title Sheet 10/9/2017 C0.1 General Notes 10/9/2017 C1.0 Demolition and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 10/9/2017 C1.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Details 10/9/2017 C2.0 Proposed Site Plan 10/9/2017 C2.1 Specific Details 10/9/2017 C2.2 Typical Details 10/9/2017 C2.3 Typical Details 10/9/2017 C3.0 Landscape Plan 10/9/2017 C3.1 Landscape Details 10/9/2017 C4.0 Paving, Grading and Drainage Plan 10/9/2017 CX.0 Survey 4/16/2002 Color perspective view 10/9/2017 Site photos (5) Material samples: Metal: charcoal gray; Dryvit: #111 prairie clay, sand pebble fine; Tuscan glaze; #800 Metropolitan over #310 Freestyle.