HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201200017 Staff Report 2012-03-19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project#/Name ARB-2012-17: Brown Toyota Renovation - Pantops
Review Type Final Review of a Building Permit
Parcel Identification Tax Map 78, Parcel 14
Location 1357 Richmond Road (Rt. 250 East), across from Town and Country Lane
Zoned Highway Commercial (HC); Entrance Corridor(EC)
Owner/Applicant Virginia's First Family of Fine Cars Inc./Daggett& Grigg (Clark Gathright)
Magisterial District Rivanna
Proposal To renovate the exterior of the existing vehicle showroom using aluminum composite panels and a
translucent glazing system.
Context The site is located on the south side of Route 250 East in the Pantops commercial area. This part of Pantops
is characterized by a number of automobile dealerships, many of which predate the establishment of the
Entrance Corridor.
Visibility The north and west elevation of the Brown Toyota building are readily visible from the Route 250 East
Entrance Corridor. The east elevation is less visible due to topography and landscaping. The rooftop is
visible when traveling westbound.
ARB Meeting Date March 19, 2011
Staff Contact Brent Nelson
1
PROJECT HISTORY
Date Application Result
12/5/2011 ARB-2011-116 The ARB conducted a preliminary review of this proposal and provided the applicant with comments
and suggestions for the next submittal. See the end of this report for the action letter from the December
5 meeting. (The ARB comments are also listed in the Analysis section of this report)
9/6/2011 ARB-2011-86 The ARB conducted a conceptual review of this proposal and provided the applicant with comments and
suggestions for the next submittal.
2002-03 Multiple The expansion of vehicle display at the back of the property was reviewed in 2002 and 2003, and
landscaping changes were reviewed in 2003.
1999-2009 Multiple Signs were reviewed in 1999, 2002,2004, 2006 and 2009.
1994 Multiple In 1994, the ARB reviewed proposals for additions to the service area (east end of building) and
showroom/office (west end of building).
Pre-1990 n/a The original building at this site predates the establishment of Route 250 East as an Entrance Corridor.
CHANGES SINCE THE LAST REVIEW
• The internal illumination of the translucent glazing system for the entrance portal has been deleted.
• In response to ARB comments from the previous review:
o The ACM panels for the reception/service area façade have been revised from Toyota Silver to Cadet Gray.
o The black ACM panel has been deleted from the proposal.
2
•
ANALYSIS
Relevant COMMENT FROM 12/5/11 CHANGES MADE TO OUTSTANDING ISSUES RECOMMENDATION
EC ARB MEETING THE PREVIOUS
Guideline PROPOSAL TO
ADDRESS THE ARB'S
12/5/11 COMMENTS
1,2,3,4, 1. The applicant has responded to None None None
9, 10, 11, the historical context by breaking
12, 15 down the existing horizontal
façade into elements that reflect a
more human and historic scale.
4, 5, 9, 2. Regarding the entrance portal, The elevation drawings As stated in previous staff reports, Revise the entrance portal
15 neither the translucent panels nor continue to show the the glass panels do not reflect design to incorporate traditional
the white ACM may be translucent glass panels on traditional architectural elements. material(s)(e.g.brick)with the
appropriate. Internal illumination the face of the portal and Their sole use for the portal glass panels to provide the
of building materials is not the white ACM on the top emphasizes corporate needed balance between
appropriate. and sides of the portal. identification over local corporate identification and
The applicant's memo architectural traditions.The traditional architecture of the
states the panels shall not remainder of the building does not area. If glass panels are
be internally illuminated. have a sufficiently strong approved, include notation on
traditional character to balance the the drawings indicating the
contemporary design and material glass panels shall not be
of the portal at the size and scale internally illuminated.
proposed. Revising the portal
design to reduce the scale of the
portal and to replace some of the
glass panels with traditional
material(s),could provide the
needed balance.The elevation
drawings do not indicate that the
glass panels shall not be internally
illuminated.
11 3. The service/reception area The elevation drawings Viewed at certain angles,the Revise the proposal to include a
should have a darker ACM panel. have been revised to show Cadet Gray panel appears as light darker ACM panel for the
an ACM panel in Cadet as,or lighter in color than,the reception/service area to provide
Gray for the façade of the Toyota Silver. It lacks the needed greater contrast with the Toyota
3
service/reception area in contrast with the Toyota Silver Silver.
place of the previously ACM panel.
proposed Toyota Silver
ACM.A sample was
included with this
submission.
2,4,5,15 4. Eliminate the black ACM The black ACM panel has None None
panel from the proposal. been removed from the
proposal.
5. The applicant is advised that The applicant has None None
approved sign permits are submitted a separate sign
required before signs can be application.
installed on the renovated
building.
4, 5,9, 15 6. Submit pictures of the glass The applicant has included The photos demonstrate how the See ARB comment#2,above.
panels installed for review. photos of other Toyota sole use of the translucent glass
dealerships where the material in the entrance portal
glass panels were used. emphasizes corporate
See the end of this report identification over local
for the photos provided. architectural traditions.The high
reflectivity of the glass panels,as
seen in the photos, increases this
visual impact.
9, 11 7. With the exception of the The scale and massing of Incorporating traditional materials See ARB comment#2,above.
portal, the configuration of the the entrance portal has not with the glass panels of the
design generally falls within the been revised. entrance portal could assist in
guidelines of the ARB in terms establishing human scale and
of human scale and massing, as integrating the design with the
reflected in the Pantops corridor. traditional architecture of the area.
9, 11, 12 8. Staff was directed to determine The proposed Toyota Red None None
the appropriateness of the shade appears to match the
of red proposed, if it doesn't existing red on the
match the existing red. building and freestanding
sign and is an appropriate
shade of red due to the
dark,earth tone quality.
9 9. Staff was directed to check the The reflectivity(gloss) Larger samples of the ACM panels Provide larger samples of each
4
reflectivity of the Albemarle value for the installed in each color are needed to of the ACM colors for review;
High School ACM panels. Alpolic Champagne ACM determine if the reflective(gloss) samples 12"x 12",larger if
panels could not be value is appropriate. Samples a possible,are needed.
determined from the minimum of 12"x 12",larger if
information previously possible,are needed.
submitted with that
application.Reflectivity of
Alpolic ACM panels
ranges from 30%-70%
gloss based on
information from the
manufacturer's web site.
The reflectivity of the
Toyota Silver& Toyota
Red is proposed at a 30%
gloss.The reflectivity
value for the darker ACM
panel proposed at the
service/reception area was
not provided.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. The appropriateness of facing the front elevation nearly completely with ACM panels.
2. The scale of the entrance portal and the use of glass panels.
3. The gloss(reflectivity)of the red, silver and gray panels
Staff recommends that the applicant return for a worksession with the ARB to address the following issues:
1. Revise the entrance portal design to incorporate traditional material(s)(e.g. brick)with the glass panels to provide the needed balance between
corporate identification and traditional architecture of the area. If glass panels are approved, include notation on the drawings indicating the glass
panels shall not be internally illuminated.
2. Revise the proposal to include a darker ACM panel for the reception/service area to provide greater contrast with the Toyota Silver.
3. Provide larger samples of each of the ACM colors for review; samples 12"x 12",larger if possible,are needed.
5
TABLE A
This report is based on the following submittal items:
Sheet# Drawing Name Drawing Date/Revision Date
A-1.1 Floor Plan 2-3-12
A-2.1 Elevations 2-3-12
A-2.2 Rendered Elevations 2-3-12
Material Product ID Date Received
ACM Panel Alcoa, Reynobond: Colorweld 500, Cadet Gray(color) 2-6-12
Photos
3 Photos of other Toyota dealership facades 2-7-12
6
Action letter from December 5, 2011 ARB meeting
O��FA
t/MGI1,1�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
December 9, 2011
Daggett&Grigg Arch.
c/o Clark Gathright
100 10th St. Ne536
Charlottesville, Va 22902
RE: ARB-2011-116: Brown Toyota
Tax Map 78, Parcel 14
Dear Mr. Gathright:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on December 5, 2011, completed a preliminary review of the above-noted request to
renovate the exterior of the existing vehicle showroom using aluminum composite panels and a translucent glazing system. The Board offered the
following comments for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal. Please note that the following comments are those that have been identified at this
time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review and changes to the plan.
1. The applicant has responded to the historical context by breaking down the existing horizontal façade into elements that reflect a more human and
historic scale.
2. Regarding the entrance portal, neither the translucent panels nor the white ACM may be appropriate. Internal illumination of building materials is not
appropriate.
3. The service/reception area should have a darker ACM panel.
4. Eliminate the black ACM panel from the proposal.
5. The applicant is advised that approved sign permits are required before signs can be installed on the renovated building.
6. Submit pictures of the glass panels installed for review.
7
7. With the exception of the portal, the configuration of the design generally falls within the guidelines of the ARB in terms of human scale and massing,
as reflected in the Pantops corridor.
8. Staff was directed to determine the appropriateness of the shade of red proposed, if it doesn't match the existing red.
9. Staff was directed to check the reflectivity of the Albemarle High School ACM panels.
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 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 also. 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: Virginia's First Family Of Fine Cars Inc C/O Brown Honda
960 Hilton Heights Rd
Charlottesville Va 22901
File
8
III r �
v
1 TOYOTA BROWN'S
7167
1 iV, -
,, '
Photo A
0
TOYOTA PERFORMANCE
IL. . Apt MIMI
Photo B
9
F
}}
71111111-! IL1
LAUREL ,a-tk r&t t�S L • .'
Lemer W.Y.I..
jel.Mef'll:LX:"1".167'7::tHEINIO
•
Photo C
0 ,
drik11:0
11111!
____ voloarA BROWN 'S
,
• .
_
_ • .11110 --
7 16 7
,.....'I
11 -41;!..;*.....1. I g • .
; ; ... ._
I -..h.. ..
• . . I " I '
'Artic !
11 • n ' ( ,. \7,41(
------.- ----
---
I 11E
_
•
-----------
illik s.1/,
—_
4:01.111...........
— _
_ .
- e •--
_ .. """ 10• •••••
4
4.-
ti
.s,
______
rJ
AR-6 it—)1
• 3Ac )
_ I.
•
wirisvirwover...."—
iii .:r pm,VA s r — :. •� tr
�r '� • �� I
I 1 iN I
v ,, • 1, r 1,,.1;i +f`•I , .,, 21, •%!- ►it uoos 13$ lYl Tlt l �-„�
w d iiiiiiii
0 %
. a
,4 �: �IP b10A01
C
•nr1
1 I- -1
, - 1
•
4 41111 V 0
1 I- -i
I 1
TOYOTA ,
, PgRFORMANCE
1111
! ._. ..._
illeilliik N IONL1
1
. i . _ •
' ...
, MI
. '41PRINNMW -- .-
.
.---------------
-----
--------
t
• mr
" o-, r
p
A
o, n q 3Nm nr
N
/l��N
7 A iN< m ~
D A
DN
pm
<A
V.
A N
m
m
< A
m O
m n
O
z
- z
m
0
eA
m — -I
�oAo
rA
N E .—
«
-or
1
t� 11:1Yrin
D ?AA, N=
D�
A
zr 3 A r nor
c vz QiZ A v 'nor
—1 ui
- ii�Il� iIAA� pO _ A
J A mnm PA O Z A
r m. 'n'. m A r J Yc
2,--)1 )›
3
z 3
fi _ F m DD
1 PAN
IS <� I m 70
33A
Er NM
Gl D 3 z D
A
(I ) " 1 AL AN
_ 13 Q IE O m r
— C
A I �+ g � � m
E m 13 IE
P A
r
li
21
rn
1
r
m r
0 Z
m m
A
n r
In
m
A • r m
0, Xm
O Li-
e Dm
3
AA�
9m
0 — i
? 3N
_ `"ri, m r
/I t - -
Uo TIT __.il , r A
D
Az 3
N -b -
Ei> g" m `m BROWN TOYOTA daggett + grigg architects
M = 1357 Richmond Road 100 10TH STREET,NE,SUITE 200
N Charlottesville VA 22911 CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA 22902
r" T 434.971.8848
• o F 434 296.3040
o v FLOOR PLAN
`e www.daggettgrigg.com
r.i m
.+
V/
-1—i ,
• U
a)
0
Sr.
NEW EXTERIOR CLADDNG-TOYOTA SILVER NEW ENTRANCE PORTAL -
30%GLOSS ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL TRANSLUCENT GLASS PANELS.48.SQUARE DEALER SKNAGE'UCUA
FOR INTENT ONLY ARATEE
REVIEW EIDER SEPAR47E PERMIT O
•
NEW EXTERIOR CLADDING-TOYOTA RED.30%GLOSS ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL 0
1� w O
NEW EXTERIOR CLADDNG-CADET GRAY, CADET GRAY TOYOTA SILVER I- c9
ALUMINH C01'iP051TE PANEL I_„�•�-�d Cn CV O
_ _ L
w > U
zwcn
SERl CF RE ' '�' ��- cic3 —i BROWN -- w a) Lc2 _ o ocm
`,
I IF V lc II I u).... .iii ...i......m. 1111.111 =MOM 6 �,
I 1 I ICI — e o � � N
sUt- tL
NEW BRICK TO HATCH EXISTING BUILDING � �-••,-^•••�-••-••-•-••-•••-••_......\I V - ..r1_•.... ,
BRICK.TTP \ `
CLEAR FINISH A STOREFRONT
UV l%REFLECTANCE GLASS TYP
�
ONorth Elevation
}:,=1:-0"
NEW EXTERIOR CLADDITSU-CADET GRAY
ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL
NEW EXTERIOR CLADDING-TOYOTA RED,
30%GLOSS ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL
II
I, VIIII IIIl � 11
I I i
NEW BRICK SILL
XIS-ING METAL BUILDING=_'LL EXISTING BRICK TO REMAIN
�East Elevation Q
}::_.1:-0:: I-
0
)111
TOP OF PORTAL.30%GLOSS TOYOTA UNITE ALUMMITM O C)
COMPOSITE PANEL 1:4 (V
7:3O N
ERIOR CLADDING-TOYOTA SLYER,
30%GLNEW TOSS UMMJM COMPOSITE PANEL Z CCj
I NEW EXTERIOR CLADDING-TOYOTA RED, _- —-- 0 N (n
30%GLO55 ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL O — Z
II
O
/ p _U
I 1Y p Q
PORT_ _ _ II - - IJJJJEJ HEJJJJIJJJJJIJJJ]J1JJJ11JJIW]]IIIIJJJIIJWI „ m M
Ii -
PROJECT PHASE:
INSIDE<s:E OF PORTAL - H — —
30%GL055 TOTOT.WRITE `
A_U`IINUM COMPOSITE - • ll III
PANE
1106 PROJECT#: 02-03-12
STOREPRONT EXISTM BRICK PLANTER 1
•STEPS TO REMAIN Ei ST IN,M-TAL E.,_:.:NC-.BE`CNC SHEET NUMBER:
3 (�'��West Elevation ) 1 L—11 JY 19!1 _ A-2 . 1
I -I--+
U
(1) •
U
al
0) O
0
N
- — W O
~ N
NEW Ex1EROR CLADDING-1OTOTA SILVER - __ NEW ENTRANCE PORTAL N
/r 30%GLOSS ALUMNA/1COMPOSITE PANEL ` TRANSLUCENT GLASS PANELS,48'SOUARE DEALER SIGNAGE SHOWN O
FOR INTENT ONLY SIGNAGE 1 Q V
REVIEW UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT 1 W pT
NEW DOER.OR CLADDNG-TOYOTA RED, `` Z W
/ CM
30%GLOSS ALU MINtr COMPOSITE PANEL 1 . J
^I--'' W j O
1 W CC N CO 0 m
-NEW EXTERIOR CLADDING-CADET GRAY F- W (h
30%GLOSS AWMNPM COMPOSITE PANEL / TS1 N OM
---- -- --- ---- - - VD F N
TO
'?TA B,L CYO, -a - i 3
s
li UPI IF i
L — ...111- 7.11'.11'""ilir itP.„, , � . _
1
1 IJ 11
NEW ERICK TO HATCH EXISTING EU LDiNG 1 _-_ _... .
BRICK TYP 1 CLEAR FINISH ALLYMPI STOREFRONT - _- - -
UV 1%REFLECTANCE GLA55,TYP
North Elevation
TOP C.PORTA. 30%GLOSS TO 0TA UNITE ALIIMNY
E8 EXTCOMPOSITE PANEL
PEW EMERIOR CLADDING- SILVER
30%G055 ALUMINUM OMPO53%PANEL i_____"7----7',/i/PEW ExTER'CR CLADDING-TOYOTA RED
30%GLOSS ALMNAM COIIPOsTTE PANEL
0 O
4S✓E.SIDE OF F-'ORT-._ ' r
Z
4Z%C_CEro Y TO` .J-E j
4.JMML ^r- C=-_ I
N
STOREFRONT \— PLANTER
BRICK _ANTER
Z �10 > LU
STEPS 70 REIIAM ::"���=' - .,_E-'�� g a) LLI
Q
LLJ
West Elevation w
Od'= 0
i� N- m Z
CD cn
U LLI
PROJECT PHASE:
PROJECT#: DATE:
1106 02-03-12
SHEET I NUMBER:BER:
A-22eaRQ 12" 1"7 314)z
( i
'6 I
4 to%
)fr
•
•
•
•
yoe A1,, t COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
'�r Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
r�r ate, 434-296-5832
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
TENTATIVE Agenda for Monday, March 19,2012
ALBEMARLE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1:00 PM - Room 241
NOTE: Plans and other items submitted for the regular review items listed below are available for viewing at the
County Office Building. If you are interested in viewing these documents,please contact the Department of
Community Development using the information listed in the letterhead.
1) Call to Order
2) Establish a Quorum
3) Disclosures
4) Public Comment
5) Regular Review Items
a) ARB-2012-10: Three Notch'd Center
Contact Person:Jo Higgins
b) ARB-2012-16: Homewood Suites Final
Contact Person:Neil Bhatt
c) ARB-2012-17: Brown Toyota Pantops
Contact Person: Clark Gathright
6) Work Session
a) ARB-2012-11: Shopper's World Renovation
Contact Person:Mark Hendrickson,Pedro Sales
7) Other Business
a) Approval of Minutes:
b) Next ARB Meeting: April 2,2012
8) Adjournment
NOTES REGARDING PUBLIC MEETINGS
1. Each applicant is allowed to make a single presentation not exceeding 15 minutes in length.The applicant may divide the 15-minute allotment
among various presenters,but the total presentation time will not exceed 15 minutes
2. Each member of the general public who wishes to speak on a matter shall be allowed one appearance not to exceed 3 minutes.
3. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Architectural Review Board may demand a review of the application by the Board of Supervisors.
Such demand shall be made by filing a request therefor in writing with the clerk of the Board of Supervisors within ten calendar days of the date
of such decision.For additional information see section 30.6.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
NOTES REGARDING ARB ACTIONS
1. Certificates of Appropriateness are valid for the same period that the corresponding site plan is valid If there is no site plan required for the
proposed work,the Certificate of Appropriateness is valid for 3 years Applicants requesting an extension of the period of validity must do so in
writing.The letter must be received by the Director of Planning prior to the expiration date.