HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201300157 Staff Report 2013-10-151
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #/Name ARB-2013-157, 158 and 159: Stonefield Town Center Phase 2; Costco Fuel Center Signs; Costco Building Signs
Review Type Final Site Development Plan and Signs
Parcel Identification 061W00300019B0
Location On the west side of Route 29, approximately 1100’ south of Greenbrier Drive, between Sperry Marine/Northrup
Grumman and Seminole Place
Zoned Neighborhood Model District (NMD), Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner/Applicant Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
Magisterial District Jack Jouett
Proposal To construct a part of the northern phase of the Stonefield Town Center, including a Costco big box retail store with an
associated fuel pump canopy, and related parking, lighting and landscaping.
Context The prosed development is located in the northernmost part of the Stonefield development, occupying Block F and part of
Block G. The surrounding area includes a mix of commercial, industrial and residential development.
Visibility Visibility of the Costco building was discussed at the August 5, 2013 ARB meeting. Based on the degree of visibility
anticipated at that time, the ARB provided the following direction:
1. ARB review of the architecture of Building F1 (as presented in the Site Distance and Massing illustrations) shall
be limited to the east and south elevations.
2. ARB review of the architectural elevations of Building F1 (as presented in the Site Distance and Massing
illustrations) shall not include details.
3. Building heights remain a subject for review.
At the September 16, 2013 work session, the ARB had these additional comments related to visibility:
1. The ARB expressed concern about the visibility of the building due to its size and the topography, even though
the distance between the building and the EC is great.
2. The “unblocked” view of the Costco building will be considered if there is no assurance that the buildings
fronting the EC will be constructed at the same time.
The proposed building is set back approximately 875’ from Route 29 and almost 1800’ from Hydraul ic Road. At this
distance, the building is not expected to have an impact on the Hydraulic Road Entrance Corridor.
ARB Meeting Date November 18, 2013 Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski
2
PROJECT HISTORY
DATE APPLICATION/REVIEW TYPE RESULT
November 13, 2013 ZMA-2013-09 The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review the rezoning amendment
(reviewed by the ARB on 8/5/13) that would allow the addition of the
automobile service station use in Block F.
October 23, 2013 Balloon “test” In response to an ARB comment at the 9/16/13 work session, balloons were
flown at the corners of the proposed Costco building to help demonstrate
visibility. Weather conditions were very windy at the time.
September 16, 2013 Work Session Preliminary ARB comments were provided on the design of the Costco
building. (See Attachment B for the action letter.)
August 5, 2013 ARB-2013-86: Stonefield Blocks F
and G Initial Plan
Initial Site Plan, rezoning and variation requests were reviewed by the ARB.
(See Attachment A for the action letter.)
Various Various site plans Site plans were approved for the “town center” portion of the Stonefield
development, the Hyatt hotel, and the Haven residential area.
Various ZMA-2008-03, ZMA-2011-04, ZMA-
2011-07
Rezoning applications were approved to revise proffers, codes, etc.
October 22, 2003 ZMA-2001-07: Albemarle Place Approval of the original rezoning for Albemarle Place (ZMA-2001-07),
including application plan, code of development and proffers.
ANALYSIS
REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION
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 ARB made the following comments at the
9/16/13 work session:
Colors, mass and landscaping are primary
issues.
Landscaping in excess of EC minimums
will be needed to offset the expanse of
parking and the blank walls.
The large blank walls are out of character
for the development. Take architectural cues
from the rest of the development. Break
down the massing more. Reduce the visual
impact.
The entrance looks like an addition to the
Add a phasing line to the
plan.
See landscaping
recommendations.
3
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.
building. Greater integration is required.
The proposed building measures
approximately 330’ x 470’ x 33’ tall. As
such, it is a very large building. Although it
is anticipated that a building of this size
would not exhibit the human scale of
traditional commercial buildings, human
scale is addressed in the building design by
breaking down the elevations into bays of
varying width, color and material, and
interspersing the bays with pilaster-like
elements. Bays range from 32’ wide to 80’
wide and pilasters are 10’ wide. The
addition of green screens in several bays
helps relieves the blankness.
Building colors illustrated at the work
session were primarily white and tan. The
current proposal adds a medium-dark shade
of gray at the larger building bays, and tan
stucco in the lower third of the bays that are
faced white metal panels.
The proposed building is set back
approximately 875’ from the Route 29 EC.
The scale and massing of the building may
be mitigated, in part, by this distance and by
trees and other buildings located between
the Costco building and the EC. The smaller
retail buildings in Block G of the
development are not proposed with this
phase of development, but a phasing line
does not appear on the plan.
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.
11 The overall design of buildings should have human
scale. Scale should be integral to the building and site
design.
13 Any appearance of “blankness” resulting from
building design should be relieved using design detail
or vegetation, or both.
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.
10 Buildings should relate to their site and the
surrounding context of buildings.
14 Arcades, colonnades, or other architectural
connecting devices should be used to unify groups of
buildings within a development.
4
12 Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor
should use forms, shapes, scale, and materials to
create a cohesive whole.
No major changes have been made to the
Costco entrance design since the work
session. However, the split face block used
at the entrance is now also used for the
pilasters on the south and east elevations.
This increases the coordination of the
Costco building parts. Also, green screens
like those used in the first phase of the
Stonefield development have been added to
several bays of the Costco building, and the
Costco building and gas canopy are related
in color and material.
15 Trademark buildings and related features should be
modified to meet the requirements of the Guidelines.
The proposed building clearly reads as a
Costco store, but the standard design has
been revised for this location.
None.
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.
Loading and dumpster areas are proposed at
the back of the Costco building, out of view
from the Entrance Corridors.
Rooftop mechanical equipment is planned,
and the parapet walls are expected to screen
the equipment from view. The site section
shows the parapets at 8½’ tall.
A screen wall is proposed along the south
side of the site, between the site and Sperry.
The proposed wall design matches that
approved in the first phase of Stonefield
development. A note on the plan indicates
the wall height on this side of Sperry is to
be 25’. (The wall in the first phase is
considerably shorter.) Trees and shrubs are
proposed on the Sperry side of the wall. The
wall begins approximately 280’ west of Rt.
Provide sections and
other pertinent
information to clarify the
appearance of the 25’
screen wall and its
relationship to other site
elements, and to show
how it will be integrated
into the surroundings.
Consider additional
landscaping at the eastern
end of the screen wall to
help integrate the wall
into the landscape.
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.
5
29 and the approved application plan shows
a building to be built a short distance to the
north of the east end of the wall in Block G.
Given the wall height, additional
information clarifying the appearance of the
wall in relation to other site features would
be appropriate to better understand how
well the wall will be integrated into the
surroundings. Additional landscaping at the
eastern end of the wall might be
appropriate.
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.
The large stormwater pond located at the
east end of the site is temporary. Permanent
stormwater features will be underground.
None.
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.”
The note does not appear on the plans. Add the following note to
both the site and
architectural plans:
“Visibility of all
mechanical equipment
from the Entrance
Corridor shall be
eliminated.”
Lighting
22 Light should be contained on the site and not spill
over onto adjacent properties or streets;
The photometric plan does not clearly show
that spillover is not excessive at the west
end of the site where there are adjacent
residential properties. Also, pole lights are
proposed at the east end of the property, but
footcandle readings have not been provided
in this area.
Clarify the photometric
plan to show that
spillover does not exceed
.5 footcandles at the west
end of the site where
there are adjacent
residential properties.
Revise the photometric
plan to include
6
footcandle readings at the
east end of the site. Be
sure to include the
property line along Rt. 29
on the photometric plan
and include readings out
to zero or to the property
line.
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.
It is not clear from the information
submitted whether the Sign-Vue LED
fixture for the building wall signs meets the
county’s definition of full cutoff fixture.
Provide confirmation
from the manufacturer
indicating that the Sign-
Vue LED fixture emits
no light above the
horizontal plane.
24 Light levels exceeding 30 footcandles are not
appropriate for display lots in the Entrance
Corridors. Lower light levels will apply to most
other uses in the Entrance Corridors.
Light levels under the gas canopy exceed 50
footcandles. This level of illumination will
appear brighter than the surroundings, will
increase the noticeability of the canopy, and
therefore will not have an appropriate
appearance for the EC.
Reduce the light levels
under the gas canopy to
not exceed 30
footcandles.
25 Light should have the appearance of white light
with a warm soft glow; however, a consistent
appearance throughout a site or development is
required. Consequently, if existing lamps that emit
non-white light are to remain, new lamps may be
required to match them.
Proposed pole fixtures have metal halide
lamps, which were also used in the first
phase of development. Proposed wall and
gas canopy fixtures have LED lamps, which
are typical for those types of applications.
None.
26 Dark brown, dark bronze, or black are appropriate
colors for free-standing pole mounted light fixtures in
the Entrance Corridors.
The XA and XB fixtures are proposed with
a bronze finish, which was approved for the
first phase of development. The finish of the
other fixtures isn’t clear from the drawings.
Clearly identify in the
lighting tables and/or
notes that bronze is the
proposed finish for all
light fixtures and poles.
27 The height and scale of freestanding, pole-mounted
light fixtures should be compatible with the height
and scale of the buildings and the sites they are
illuminating, and with the use of the site.
The P and P1 fixtures in the Costco parking
lot are proposed at 30’ tall (including a 2’
6” base). The other pole lights are proposed
at 20’ tall, which matches the majority of
Limit all pole lights to a
maximum of 20’ high,
including bases.
7
Typically, the height of freestanding pole-mounted
light fixtures in the Entrance Corridors should not
exceed 20 feet, including the base. Fixtures that
exceed 20 feet in height will typically require
additional screening to achieve an appropriate
appearance from the Entrance Corridor.
pole heights in the first phase of
development. Some taller pole heights were
approved in the first phase of development
based on topography and the perceived
height from the corridor. Factors to consider
in this case include the following: 1) The
closest P fixture to the Rt. 29 EC is
approximately 480’ away. 2) Buildings will
eventually stand between the parking lot
lights and the EC. 3) Trees in the parking
lots can help reduce the impact of the light.
4) The parking lot sits approximately 12’ to
18’ higher than the Rt. 29 EC.
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.
The ARB made the following comment at
the 9/16/13 work session: “Colors, mass and
landscaping are primary issues.”
As indicated in the previous reviews,
utilities and easements exist that limit the
ability to plant along the EC frontage.
However, the applicant does propose a
consistent row of trees and shrubs in the
Dominion Virginia Power easement.
Dominion limits tree planting to certain
small species, which the applicant has
proposed. They are maples with a mature
height of 20’ to 25’. This planting layout is
similar to that approved along Rt. 29 in the
first phase of development.
The trees are spaced closer than the
guidelines requirement (generally 30’
instead of the required 35’ on center),
serviceberries are interspersed, and a
Provide documentation
from Dominion Virginia
Power that there is no
objection to the proposed
planting in the Dominion
easement.
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.
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
8
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.
continuous row of euonymus is provided.
Also, the trees proposed along District
Avenue are proposed at 3½” caliper, which
is larger than the 2½” minimum
requirement for trees along interior roads.
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.
Generally, trees are proposed to meet this
guideline, but two areas require attention: 1)
there appears to be a tree (GT) missing on
the south side of the easternmost arm of
District Avenue in the vicinity of the striped
median. 2) Supplementing the GT trees on
the north side of District Avenue, from the
Rt. 29 entrance westward, with interspersed
ornamental trees and shrubs would improve
the appearance of the entrance, coordinate it
with the frontage planting, soften the
appearance of the retaining wall, and
coordinate with the planting further west.
Add a tree (GT) in the
gap on the south side of
the easternmost arm of
District Avenue in the
vicinity of the striped
median.
Intersperse ornamental
trees and shrubs in the
row of GT trees on the
north side of District
Avenue, westward from
the Rt. 29 entrance into
the site.
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 of a species common to the
area. Such trees should be located at least every 25
The ARB made the following comment at
the Initial Site Plan review: “A double
staggered row of trees along the portion of
the pedestrian corridor between the bus stop
and District Avenue would have a more
appropriate appearance than the single row
None.
9
feet on center. of trees shown in that location.” This
change has been made.
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.
The ARB made the following comments at
the 9/16/13 work session: “There is concern
about the ‘sea of parking’ and its impact on
the EC.” And: “Landscaping in excess of
EC minimums will be needed to offset the
expanse of parking and the blank walls.”
Generally, the layout of the development is
such that most parking areas are bordered
by interior roads, so interior road trees are
also acting as perimeter parking lot trees.
Shrubs are not consistently proposed in the
parking area. A row of euonymous, 30”
high at planting, is provided along the Rt.
29 frontage and another row is provided
east of the easternmost row of parking
proposed in this phase of development. The
greater the distance from the EC, the less
impact shrubs will have on mitigating
impacts.
The cover sheet indicates that 630 parking
spaces are proposed. 65 of the proposed
trees are interior parking lot trees. So, the
guideline has been met, but there is not a
significant excess of interior parking lot
trees proposed to offset the expanse of
parking.
There are some minor errors throughout the
plans that should be corrected: trees shown
in parking lots without tree islands, light
poles shown on hydrants, trees shown on
Consider additional trees
in the parking lots
located between the
Costco store and District
Avenue to offset building
and parking impacts.
Revise the plans to
resolve all conflicts
among trees, light poles,
pipes, etc.
10
pipes, etc.
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. Shrubs should measure at
least 24 inches in height.
The elevations show that green screens have
been added to 5 bays on the south elevation
and 4 bays on the east elevation of the
Costco building to help relieve blankness.
Green screens are consistent with the
treatments used in the first phase of
development. The green screen locations
should be added to the landscape plan for
coordination.
Shrubs are shown in the south elevation
drawing, but there are no corresponding
shrubs on the landscape plan.
Add the green screen
locations to the landscape
plan.
Coordinate the landscape
plan and elevation
drawings regarding
shrubs.
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.
Retaining walls are proposed. The wall on
the north side of the site has been reduced in
length as compared to the initial plan; it
begins approximately 400’ further away
from the EC than in the initial plan.
Maximum retaining wall heights appear to
be 17’ at the northwest corner of the site
and 20’ at the southwest corner. The
retaining walls themselves are not expected
to have a visual impact on the EC, but the
walls do allow the development to be
constructed as proposed.
None.
45 Fuel Pump Canopies The ground elevation at the fuel canopy is
476’. The elevation at the entrance to the
site from Rt. 29 is approximately 460’.
b Fuel pump canopies shall be the smallest size possible
to offer protection from the elements. Canopies shall
not exceed the sizes identified in Standards for Fuel
Pump Canopies as outlined in Appendix B.
The proposed dispenser configuration is not
specifically addressed in the EC standards.
The proposed canopy is 120’ long x 25’ 6”
wide x 17’ 6” tall. The proposed width is
narrower than the standards call for; the
Consider reducing the
length of the canopy by
16’.
11
proposed length is longer by 16’. The height
meets the standards.
c The size of the canopy fascia and canopy support
columns shall be in proportion to the overall size of
the canopy structure. The fascia shall not exceed 36"
in total height, including any accent bands.
The fascia is proposed at 36” high. None.
d Canopy fascias shall not be illuminated. The canopy face is not proposed to be
illuminated.
None.
e Lighting of fuel pump canopies shall be of the lowest
level that will provide safe dispensing of fuel. All
canopy lighting shall be flush-mounted and shielded,
downward directed, and shall not emit light above the
horizontal plane. All canopy lighting shall meet the .5
foot-candle spillover requirement in compliance with
zoning ordinance regulations.
Light levels under the gas canopy exceed 50
footcandles. This level of illumination will
increase the noticeability of the canopy and
will appear brighter than the surroundings.
Reduce the light levels
under the gas canopy to
not exceed 30
footcandles.
f Canopy related elements, including fuel dispensers,
support columns, spandrels, planters, etc. shall be
compatible with the character of the building and site
and shall not be used for advertising.
The proposed material for the canopy
support columns matches a material
proposed for the Costco building. The
canopy fascia is proposed in a light-medium
shade of gray.
Although the overall development plan
shows buildings to be constructed between
the canopy and the Rt. 29 Entrance
Corridor, those buildings are not proposed
to be constructed with this phase of
development. The fuel canopy will have
greater visibility from the EC until those
buildings are constructed. Trees proposed
along District Avenue east of the canopy
and trees proposed along the pedestrian
corridor and Entrance Corridor frontage
may help integrate the canopy into the
surroundings, as viewed from the EC.
None.
h Canopy fascias shall be limited to the use of one
principal color, with ARB review.
i Colors, materials, forms, and detailing may be used to
coordinate canopies with a site, its building(s), and
structures.
SIGNS
Signs are proposed for the Costco building and the fuel canopy. The signs consist of individual red Provide confirmation
12
“Costco” letters above individual blue “Wholesale” or “Gasoline” letters. There are three blue
stripes to the left of the “Wholesale” and “Gasoline” letters. On the Costco building, one sign is
proposed above the main store entrance, and one is proposed at the north end of the east elevation.
The latter sign is aligned with the entrance into the site from Rt. 29. On the Costco building, a
“Tire Center” sign in individual red letters is also proposed above the bay doors of the tire center
on the east (EC) elevation. On the fuel canopy, signs are proposed to be centered in the east, west
and south faces. Each of the signs would be externally illuminated with LED fixtures.
It isn’t entirely clear from the information submitted whether the Sign-Vue LED fixture for the
building wall signs is full cutoff according to the County’s definition. Confirmation from the
manufacturer is needed.
The fixture proposed for the canopy signs appears to crowd the sign. A photo of an installed
example would help clarify the appearance.
The signs do not appear overscaled for the building or canopy, but only the sizes of the overall
signs have been provided. Identifying the heights of the “Costco”, “Wholesale” and
“Gasoline” letters on the drawings would be useful.
Zoning review of the proposed signs has not yet been completed.
from the manufacturer
indicating that the Sign-
Vue LED fixture emits
no light above the
horizontal plane.
Provide a photograph of
an installed example of
the fuel canopy sign and
light fixture for review.
Identify the heights of the
Costco, Wholesale and
Gasoline letters on the
sign drawings.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. Building massing and scale, blankness of walls
2. Integration of the building entrance with the overall building
3. Appropriateness of building colors
4. Is the amount of proposed landscaping sufficient to offset the impacts of the building design and the expanse of parking?
5. The Sperry screen wall – design, size
6. Fuel pump canopy design and illumination levels
7. Light pole height in the Costco parking lot
8. Rt. 29 frontage planting
13
Staff offers the following comments on the proposal:
1. Add a phasing line to the plan.
2. Provide site sections and other pertinent information to clarify the appearance of the 25’ screen wall and its relationship to other site
elements, and to show how it will be integrated into the surroundings. Consider additional landscaping at the eastern end of the
screen wall to help integrate the wall into the landscape.
3. Add this note to the site and architectural plans: “Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be
eliminated.”
4. Clarify the photometric plan to show that spillover does not exceed .5 footcandles at the west end of the site where there are adjacent
residential properties. Revise the photometric plan to include footcandle readings at the east end of the site. Be sure to include the
property line along Rt. 29 on the photometric plan and include readings out to zero or to the property line.
5. Provide confirmation from the manufacturer indicating that the Sign-Vue LED fixture emits no light above the horizontal plane.
6. Clearly identify in the lighting tables or notes that bronze is the proposed finish for all fixtures and poles.
7. Limit all pole lights to a maximum of 20’ high, including bases.
8. Provide documentation from Dominion Virginia Power that there is no objection to the proposed planting in the Dominion easement.
9. Add a tree (GT) in the gap on the south side of the easternmost arm of District Avenue in the vicinity of the striped median.
10. Intersperse ornamental trees and shrubs in the row of GT trees on the north side of District Avenue, westward from the Rt. 29
entrance into the site.
11. Consider additional trees in the parking lots located between the Costco store and District Avenue to offset building and parking
impacts.
12. Revise the plans to resolve all conflicts among trees, light poles, pipes, etc.
13. Add the green screen locations to the landscape plan.
14. Coordinate the landscape plan and elevation drawings regarding shrubs.
15. Consider reducing the length of the fuel canopy by 16’.
16. Reduce the light levels under the gas canopy to not exceed 30 footcandles.
17. Provide confirmation from the manufacturer indicating that the Sign-Vue LED fixture emits no light above the horizontal plane.
18. Provide a photograph of an installed example of the fuel canopy sign and light fixture for review.
19. Identify the heights of the Costco, Wholesale and Gasoline letters on the sign drawings.
14
TABLE A This report is based on the following submittal items:
Sheet # Drawing Name Drawing Date Sheet # Drawing Name Drawing Date
SP-0 Cover Sheet 10/9/13 A-3B Building Elevation Renderings 10/9/13
SP-1 Enlarged Site Plan 10/9/13 A-4 Architectural Floor Plan 10/9/13
SP-2 Enlarged Site Plan 10/9/13 A-5 Architectural Elevation –Fuel
Center
10/9/13
SP-3 Enlarged Site Plan 10/9/13 Elevations - 1/8” scale color
building elevations with ¼”
scale sign drawings
10/7/13
ST-1 Enlarged Topography Plan 10/9/13 Signage drawings – for Costco
building with external wall light
details
-
ST-2 Enlarged Topography Plan 10/9/13 Signage drawings – for fuel
pump canopy
-
ST-3 Enlarged Topography Plan 10/9/13 Color/materials sample board
LA-0 Overall Landscape Plan, Schedule 10/9/13
LA-1 Enlarged Landscape Plan 10/9/13
LA-2 Enlarged Landscape Plan 10/9/13
LA-3 Enlarged Landscape Plan 10/9/13
LT-0 Overall Lighting Plan, Schedule 10/9/13
LT-1 Enlarged Lighting Plan 10/9/13
LT-2 Enlarged Lighting Plan 10/9/13
LT-3 Enlarged Lighting Plan 10/9/13
W-1 Wall Details 10/9/13
W-2 Wall Details 10/9/13
A-1 Architectural Elevations - Building 10/9/13
A-2A Site Section - Hydraulic Road 10/9/13
A-2B Site Section – Route 29 10/9/13
A-3A Building Elevation Renderings 10/9/13
15
Attachment A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 9, 2013
Herbert F. White III
WW Associates
3040 Avemore Square Place A
Charlottesville, Va. 22911
RE: ARB-2013-86: Stonefield Blocks F and G
TMP 061W00300019B0
Dear Mr. White:
At its meeting on Monday, August 5, 2013 the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board took the following actions:
Regarding the Intial Site Development Plan
The ARB voted 3:1 to forward the following recommendations to the agent for the Site Review Committee:
Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4(2), (3) and (5):
None.
Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
None.
Regarding recommended conditions of initial site plan approval:
o A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. The applicant is advised that:
The standard lighting, landscaping and mechanical equipment notes are required on the site and architectural plans.
16
The quantity of trees required along the EC frontage may be greater than the guidelines minimum to compensate for
the tree size limits imposed by the existing utility easements.
Details on screening wall design will be required with the final site plan submittal. Screening walls should be
compatible with the appearance of building designs determined appropriate for the ECs.
Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
None.
Regarding the Variation Request
The ARB voted 4:0 to forward the following recommendation:
A double staggered row of trees along the portion of the pedestrian corridor between the bus stop and District Avenue would have a
more appropriate appearance than the single row of trees shown in that location.
Regarding the Rezoning
The ARB voted 4:0 to forward the following recommendations:
There is no objection to the addition of the fueling facility use if the canopy is added to the layout as illustrated in the Initial Site
Plan. The addition of the fueling facility use is not recommended with the layout illustrated in the Code of Development Modification
Exhibit, which shows no buildings between the fueling facility and the EC.
The fuel pump canopy shall meet all EC Design Guidelines, including those for height.
Regarding the Conceptual Site and Massing Studies
The Board made the following comments and suggestions for the benefit of the applicant’s next submittal:
4. ARB review of the architecture of Building F1 (as presented in the Site Distance and Massing illustrations) shall be limited to the
east and south elevations.
5. ARB review of the architectural elevations of Building F1 (as presented in the Site Distance and Massing illustrations) shall not
include details.
6. Building heights remain a subject for review.
You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms, checklists and schedules are
available on-line at www.albemarle.org/ARB.
Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on each d rawing. Please
provide a memo including detailed responses indicating how each comment has been addressed. If changes other than those requested
have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with “cloudin g” or by other means will
facilitate review and approval.
17
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
P O Box 528
Columbia Sc 29202
Chris Haine, Planning and Development Manager
Edens
7200 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 400
Bethesda, MD 20814
File
18
Attachment B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
September 20, 2013
Herbert F. White III
WW Associates
3040 Avemore Square Place A
Charlottesville, Va. 22911
RE: Costco at Stonefield
TMP 061W00300019B0
Dear Mr. White:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on September 16, 2013, held a work session on Costco at Stonefield. The ARB had the
following comments:
1. The ARB expressed concern about the visibility of the building due to its size and the topography, even though the dist ance between the building
and the EC is great.
2. The “unblocked” view of the Costco building will be considered if there is no assurance that the buildings fronting the EC wi ll be constructed at
the same time.
3. There is concern about the “sea of parking” and its impact on the EC.
4. Landscaping in excess of EC minimums will be needed to offset the expanse of parking and the blank walls.
5. The entrance looks like an addition to the building. Greater integration is required.
6. The large blank walls are out of character for the development. Take architectural cues from the rest of the development. Break down the
massing more. Reduce the visual impact.
7. Colors, mass and landscaping are primary issues.
8. Views should be presented with and without planting and other buildings.
19
9. Be accurate with grades and building heights.
10. To better understand the visibility of the building, it would be helpful to fly balloons at the building corners, at proposed building height.
You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on -
line at www.albemarle.org/ARB.
Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above, and those from previous reviews, are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on each
drawing. Please provide a memo including detailed responses indicating how each comment has been addressed. If changes other than those requested
have been made, identify those changes in the memo als o. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with “clouding” or by other means will facilitate review
and approval.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
P O Box 528
Columbia Sc 29202
File