Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200800046 Staff Report 2008-05-13ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #: Name ARB- 2008 -46: Martha Jefferson Hospital Review Type Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan Parcel Identification Tax Map 78, Parcel 20M Location Located on the south side of State Farm Boulevard approximately 1,500 feet south of Richmond Road (Route 250 East) in the Peter Jefferson Place Development. Zoned Planned Development Mixed Commercial (PD -MC) and Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner MJH Foundation Applicant Matthews Development Company (Mike Matthews) Magisterial District Rivanna Proposal To construct phase 1 of the Martha Jefferson Hospital at Peter Jefferson Place, consisting of 540,000 sf of hospital space and associated site improvements. ARB Meeting Date May 19, 2008 Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski SITE/PROJECT HISTORY • On March 18, 2002 the ARB reviewed the proposed rezoning and special use permit applications for this project and had no objection to the proposal. The action letter from that meeting is included as Attachment A to this report. • On March 19, 2007, the applicant presented a revised site layout to the ARB. It was the consensus of the ARB at that time that there was no objection to the revised site layout. • On September 17, 2007, the ARB held a work session on the proposal because a preliminary site plan had been submitted for County review and an ARB application had not yet been made. At that meeting the ARB provided some preliminary comments on the proposal and indicated that future reviews would not be concerned with finer details of the design. The action letter from that meeting is included as Attachment B to this report. • A final site plan for this project is currently under review by the County. The proposal has not had an official preliminary ARB review, but the applicant was able to meet the requirements of the ARB's final site plan review checklist, so a final site plan was submitted for ARB review. Staff informed the applicant of the ARB's policy of completing preliminary reviews prior to final reviews. Staff also recommended that the applicant not withhold information that was available for review. (The ARB may take any action it finds appropriate regardless of the type of submittal; i.e., the ARB may grant final approval following a preliminary review or may require that a final application return for additional review.) ARB 5/19/2008 MJ Hospital - Page 1 CONTEXT The hospital site is located within the Peter Jefferson Place development. PROJECT DETAILS The applicant proposes to construct a hospital building with associated parking and street connections in the Peter Jefferson Place development. Changes to the proposal since the last review include: • The 5 -level parking deck is not included in the proposal at this time. • The helipad is not included in the proposal at this time. • The previously freestanding Support Services Building has been incorporated into the hospital footprint. • The overall height of the hospital has been reduced approximately 5'. • Rooftop gardens are not proposed with this phase of development, but the building is designed to accommodate them in the future. VISIBILITY The hospital site falls within the I64 Entrance Corridor. As described by the applicant at the September 2007 work session, the hospital will be visible from I64 in the vicinity of Exit 121A due to the raised elevation of the interstate at that point. However, the view will be a distant one with the site approximately 2.25 miles away at that location. Because of the distance of the view, details of the architecture are not expected to impact the EC. Instead, it is anticipated that potential impacts will be limited to the mass and color of the hospital building. ANALYSIS (based on site plan set dated 3/31/08; Exhibit A (application package) dated March 31, 2008; architectural information (Exhibit C) dated March 31, 2008; and sample board (Exhibit D)) Issue: Materials Comments: The following materials are proposed: • Face Brick: Old Virginia Brick, Montpelier Colonial Series with tumbled finish • Stone: Rolling Rock Building Stone, Inc., Martha Jefferson Blend: 1 part quartzite North Country Ashlar, 1 part granite and mica Wissahickson Schist Ashlar, and 1 part Alverson Limestone Ashlar • Roof: Virginia Slate Company, Historic Black Color Stone • Wood Soffits: IPE Wood, Natural Color • Sidin : CertainTeed Weatherboards, "Cedar" lap siding in fiber cement, Color: Seal • Coping and Window Heads: Reynobond Aluminum Composite Material by Alcoa Architectural Products, Color: AAP Pewter -V • Window Sills: Continental Cast Stone Manufacturing, Color No: 114 Slate • Window Mullions: Kawneer, Kawneer Permanodic Anodized Aluminum Champaign No. 18 • Exterior Glazing: Viracon VE2 -2M, green tint • Site Walls: Eagle Bay Site Retaining Walls, Color: Blue Ridge Range The materials and colors have been chosen to coordinate with the existing Outpatient Care Center and other buildings and structures at Peter Jefferson Place. At its last review, the ARB suggested that more than one color of brick should be used for the hospital. Only one brick color is proposed; however, it is anticipated that the combination of brick, stone and siding, in the colors proposed, will provide sufficient diversity across the elevation. The siding is an unusual material choice for a building of this type and size, but viewed from a distance it is expected to have an appropriate appearance. Overall, the materials appear to be compatible with each other and coordinated with the nearby buildings. The window glass has a green tint, but specs have not ARB 5/19/2008 MJ Hospital - Page 2 been provided on the reflectance value; the ARB typically requires that reflectance be held below 7 %. Recommendations: Provide specifications on the proposed window glass confirming a reflectance value below 7%. Issue: Mass Comments: The proposed building is a large one. Although it is located at a considerable distance from vantage points on the 164 EC, it will be a visible structure in the landscape. The building mass is broken up into wings and varying heights. The neutral earth tones of the proposed materials are expected to help the structure coordinate with its surroundings and limit noticeability, and the trees proposed between the building and the EC are expected to further tie the building to the landscape. Recommendations: None. Issue: Lighting Comments: The lighting plan generally appears to be appropriate. However, two items require further clarification. First, the text in the catalog cut sheets on Sheet EL 101 is not legible. Second, the lighting plan on Sheet EL 100 provides the photometric information using contour lines instead of a calculation grid. Without a calculation grid, the overall light levels cannot be determined. Recommendations: Revise the lighting plan Sheet EL 100 to display photometric information using a calculation grid instead of light contour lines. Ensure that overall illumination levels are not excessive. Revise Sheet EL 101 to make the text in the fixture cut sheets legible. Issue: Landscaping Comments: The proposed plan includes a significant number of trees in and around the parking areas, roads and green spaces. However, some items do not meet the EC Guidelines. 1. Trees are not planted at 40' on center (the requirement for interior road trees) along Peter Jefferson Parkway south of the site. The trees that are provided are spaced 50' on center. Trees along this road are expected to help the hospital building blend into the surrounding landscape as viewed from the EC. 2. Trees have not been provided parallel to all pedestrian ways. (The guidelines call for 21/2" caliper trees spaced 25' on center.) Given the quantity of other trees proposed nearby, the distance from the EC to the hospital, and the smaller size of this type of tree, trees along the pedestrian ways south of the building are not expected to have a big impact on the view from the EC. 3. Trees have not been provided along the perimeter of parking areas at 40' on center. The trees that are provided are spaced at approximately 50' -60' on center. However, additional trees are proposed between the parking area and Peter Jefferson Parkway and these compensate for the different spacing. 4. Few trees are proposed along the south and west sides of the building, but these parts of the building do not have a particularly blank appearance. 5. There appear to be conflicts between some utilities and /or easements and proposed landscaping. 6. Some proposed trees are labeled as "not required ", but some of those trees (perimeter parking lot trees and interior road trees) are required by the EC Guidelines. Trees on the re- graded slope in the southern part of the site would act as trees to soften the appearance of the exterior of the proposed building, as viewed from the EC. Recommendations: Revise the plan to resolve all conflicts between utility /easements and proposed landscaping without reducing the quantity of landscaping proposed between the hospital and the EC. Revise the spacing of trees on Peter Jefferson Parkway to 40' on center. Revise the landscape plan to clarify that perimeter parking lot trees, interior road trees, and trees on the southern slope are required. ARB 5/19/2008 MJ Hospital - Page 3 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. Proposed building materials and colors 2. Overall mass and scale of the proposed building in the landscape 3. Proposed landscaping between the hospital and the EC Staff offers the following comments on the proposal: 1. Provide specifications on the proposed window glass confirming a reflectance value below 7%. 2. Revise Sheet EL 100 to display photometric information using a calculation grid instead of light contour lines. Ensure that overall illumination levels are not excessive. 3. Revise the lighting details Sheet EL 101 to make the text in the fixture cut sheets legible. 4. Revise the site plan to resolve all utility- easement conflicts with proposed landscaping without reducing the quantity of landscaping proposed between the hospital and the EC. 5. Revise the spacing of trees on Peter Jefferson Parkway to 40' on center. 6. Revise the landscape plan to clarify that perimeter parking lot trees, interior road trees, and trees on the southern slope are required. ARB 5/19/2008 MJ Hospital - Page 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 March 20, 2002 Mike Matthews Matthews Development One Boars Head Point Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: ARB- 2002 -06 Martha Jefferson Hospital at Peter Jefferson Place Dear Mr. Matthews: Attachment A Fax (434) 972 -4012 The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on March 18, 2002, completed a preliminary review of the above -noted request to: 1) rezone approximately 107 acres from Commercial Office to Planned Development -Mixed Commercial; 2) allow for a parking structure partly or wholly above grade; and 3) allow for a hospital. The Board unanimously (5:0) voted to forward staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission with the changes to conditions 4 and 6 as modified by the applicant, and the change to condition #5 as modified by Ms. Joseph, as follows. The Architectural Review Board has no objection to the proposed rezoning or special uses, and in recognition of the conceptual character of the proposal and the expected visual impact of the proposed development on the Entrance Corridor, strongly recommends that conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission and /or Board of Supervisors on the current application should not limit the ARB's ability to modify at the site plan review stage the character and /or appearance of the various components of the development, including building orientation, form, size, scale, placement, materials, and details, and other characteristics identified in the Albemarle County Design Guidelines, as necessary for creating a development that is appropriate for the County's Entrance Corridors. • The Board further recommended the following conditions: 1. Natural /neutral colors shall be utilized for all building materials, so that buildings blend with the surrounding landscape — not contrast with it. 2. The use of white materials and colors shall be minimized. ARB 5/19/2008 MJ Hospital - Page 5 3. Buildings shall be designed so that their mass and rooflines are broken down. Varying building levels shall be incorporated to reduce the impact of massive buildings. 4. In addition to standard required landscaping, additional landscaping shall be reasonably interspersed throughout the development to help integrate the development into the surrounding landscape. 5. The applicant shall be mindful of how the building relates to the skyline. 6. The general character of the rolling terrain of the site shall be maintained to the extent reasonable and to the extent such preference is not inconsistent with other conditions of approval. If you have any questions concerning these actions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Design Planner MM /jcf Cc: File Michael Barnes ARB 5/19/2008 MJ Hospital - Page 6 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 October 8, 2007 Martha Jefferson Hospital Foundation C/O Mike Mathews 459 Locust Ave Charlottesville, Va 22902 RE: Martha Jefferson Hospital at Peter Jefferson Place Dear Mike, Attachment B Fax (434) 972 -4012 The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on September 17, 2007, held a work session on Martha Jefferson Hospital at Peter Jefferson Place. The ARB had the following comments: 1. The mortar color should be chosen by preliminary site plan. "Concept" colors will be sufficient. 2. Lighting on the roof is a concern. 3. Location of the helicopter pad should be identified due to the lighting concerns. 4. Any vents /exhaust towers should be painted rather than shiny (like bare stainless steel). 5. Utility elements and mechanical equipment shall not be visible from EC. 6. Massing /Materials should be identified. It was suggested that more than 1 color brick be used. 7. The ARB wants to see a normal submission, but will not be concerned with finer details. Colored 1/32" elevations may be sufficient. 8. Lighting and landscape plans will be required. Include rooftop garden elements. 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 /planning. 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. ARB 5/19/2008 MJ Hospital - Page 7 If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner ARB 5/19/2008 MJ Hospital - Page 8