Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200800048 Staff Report Preliminary Site Plan 2008-05-13ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #: Name ARB- 2008 -48: UVA Long Term Acute Care Hospital Review Type Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan; Advisory Review for a Special Use Permit (for stand -alone parking) Parcel Identification Tax Map 59, Parcels 23B, 23B1, 23C1, 23D, and 23F Location 2955 Ivy Road: Located on the north side of Ivy Road (Route 250 West) approximately 1,000 feet west of Ednam Drive. Zoned Commercial (C1), Light Industrial (LI) and Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner University of Virginia Health Services Foundation Applicant BRW Architects (Bruce Wardell) Magisterial District Samuel Miller Proposal To construct a three -story Long Term Acute Care Hospital between the Northridge medical office building and the Kirtley office building, with parking at the existing Sieg maintenance facility, and integrated landscaping from the Kirtley site to the Sieg site. ARB Meeting Date May 19, 2008 Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski SITE/PROJECT HISTORY The ARB reviewed and approved a proposal for an addition to the Kirtley building in 2001 (ARB-01-33). In 2007 a new freestanding sign was approved for Northridge (ARB- 07 -30). The ARB has not reviewed any proposals at the Sieg site. The ARB reviewed the Moser building and signage in 1992 (ARB- 95 -05 -FS and ARB- 92- 05 -S). The Northridge, Sieg and Kirtley buildings predate the establishment of Entrance Corridors in the County. Staff met with the applicant prior to submittal of this ARB application to provide preliminary suggestions on the LTACH proposal. The architecture of the building was revised based on comments made at those meetings. The Moser radiation therapy building is currently under review for a proposed addition, and changes to the landscaping included with that proposal are intended to coordinate with the current LTACH proposal. The Moser amendment is scheduled for ARB review on June 2, 2008. CONTEXT The site of the proposed LTACH facility is located on the north side of Route 250 West, between the Northridge and Kirtley buildings. This stretch of the Route 250 Entrance Corridor is characterized by a mix of development, including small and large office buildings, historic residential and institutional buildings with deep front lawns and stone walls along the road, an automobile dealership with cars on display, and the Charlottesville Oil site with an industrial character. ARB 5/19/2008 LTACH - Page 1 PROJECT DETAILS The applicant proposes to construct a long term acute care hospital between the Northridge and Kirtley buildings. The LTACH is an L- shaped building with one- and three -story wings. The open area of the L is oriented toward the Kirtley building. The hospital would be accessed on its east side from the Northridge parking lot. An ambulance drop -off is proposed on the west side. The building features a brick veneer, towers on the south and east elevations with tall expanses of clear and spandrel glass, walls on the south elevation with recessed brick panels, and a standing seam metal roof over most of the building. Also included in the proposal is an extension of the parking lot at the Sieg maintenance facility to accommodate hospital staff parking. A pedestrian path and landscape improvements, including stone walls, are proposed along Rt. 250, extending from the LTACH and Northridge (parcel 23B) buildings at the west to the Sieg property (parcels 23C1, 23D and 23170) at the east. A special use permit for stand -alone parking will be required for parking on parcel 59- 23C1 on the Sieg property. VISIBILITY The LTACH building will be clearly visible from the Route 250 West Entrance Corridor. The south, east and west elevations will be visible. The parking lot at the Sieg building will be visible (though partly screened by a stone wall), as will the pedestrian path, stone walls and landscaping along Route 250. ANALYSIS (based on architectural submittal booklet with sheets A1.1 -A1.28 dated March 31, 2008; site plan sheets L1.0 -L1.7 dated 3/31/08; architectural elevations sheet A4.1 dated 3/31/08) Issue: LTACH Orientation and Surrounding Context Comments: • The LTACH building is not oriented parallel to the Entrance Corridor. Instead, it is oriented at a slight angle to the EC to conform to the orientation of the existing Kirtley building and site. Although the EC Guidelines call for orientations that are parallel to the EC, alternate orientations have been approved when existing site conditions justify doing so. Orienting the LTACH so that it aligns with the Kirtley building is a method of acknowledging the existing building. • The footprint of the proposed LTACH building sits slightly forward of the Kirtley building and the LTACH building is considerably larger than Kirtley. Both these factors tend to de- emphasize the Kirtley building and further emphasize LTACH. • The LTACH does take advantage of the west -to -east downward slope of the site with three stories on the eastern elevation and two on the west, resulting in less height on the Kirtley (western) side. The Kirtley cornice stands at approximately 21' and the peak of its roof is at 31'6" (based on drawings provided with the 2001 Kirtley proposal). The cornice at the one -story western wing of the LTACH is at 30' 8" and the roof over this wing reaches to just over 38' tall, so the design does step down in an attempt to better address the Kirtley building. As illustrated in the perspective views (Sheets A2.2 and A2.3) the LTACH building forms a backdrop for Kirtley as it is viewed traveling west to east on the EC. • The Volvo, Kirtley, Sieg, and Moser buildings all sit relatively quietly in the landscape; Northridge and the proposed LTACH, less so. Northridge currently stands out among these other existing buildings because its height and mass are so much larger in comparison. The glass tower of Northridge reaches approximately 54' high. The LTACH will be compatible in height to Northridge. The towers of the LTACH will reach to just over 60' tall and the peak of the main roof of the LTACH is proposed at 55'. • The introduction of the stone walls and coordinated planting across the sites is expected to help tie the sites together and provide cohesion along the corridor. Recommendations: None. ARB 5/19/2008 LTACH - Page 2 Issue: LTACH Materials Comments: Proposed materials for the LTACH building include the following: • Brick veneer #1: Old Virginia Brick, Flashed Virginia rose wood mould oversize for primary wall surfaces above first floor • Brick veneer #2: Deep red brick for the base of building and the towers • Brick veneer #3: Dark red/black brick for belt courses at base of building and inset panels on south elevation • Precast concrete for water table, window bay sill and spandrel panel • Prefinished white metal cornice and white aluminum storefront • Spandrel glass panel: Harmony Graylite E -159 • Window glass: Clear • Landscape wall: Weatherface stone The proposed materials and colors appear to harmonize with each and to coordinate with the nearby buildings. Recommendations: None. Issue: LTACH EC elevation Comments: The EC elevation of the LTACH building has a non - traditional appearance. It appears disjointed, with the central tower and its stair tower extension flanked by recessed window bays that separate the end walls from the tower. The various forms do not establish a cohesive whole. Two options were provided for the windows of the tower. The design option that includes precast spandrel panels in the tower is not recommended. Recommendations: Revise the design of the LTACH building to eliminate the non - traditional, disjointed appearance of the EC elevation. Issue: Mechanical equipment Comments: The applicant has indicated that rooftop equipment will be completely screened by the standing seam metal roof. The site plan shows ground equipment located behind the building where it won't be viewed from the road. Notes should be added to the architectural and site plans indicating that mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the EC. Recommendations: Add the following note to the site and architectural drawings: "Mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the EC." Issue: Grading Comments: Proposed grading appears to be incomplete in the vicinity of the retaining walls and biofilter at the north end of the LTACH building. Proposed grading closer to the Entrance Corridor appears to extend very close to several trees to remain. Recommendations: Provide complete proposed grading. Show tree lines to remain. Show tree protection fencing. Ensure that existing trees to remain are drawn at actual size. Revise proposed grading to avoid the drip line of trees to remain. Issue: Sieg parking lot expansion Comment-.- The Sieg parking lot would be expanded with this proposal. A new lot would be created on the east side of the Sieg building and the existing lot in front of the building would be extended closer to the EC. A pedestrian path would be extended along the southern perimeter of the extended parking area and a stone wall would be constructed a few feet from the sidewalk, on the EC side. Trees are proposed between the ARB 5/19/2008 LTACH - Page 3 sidewalk and the wall. • The existing Sieg parking lot is irregularly shaped. The additional paved area between the existing Sieg lot and the EC would accommodate 13 parking spaces and would bring the paved area 20' to 60' closer to the EC. The new lot to the east of the Sieg building would accommodate 19 spaces. • The proposed plan would expand parking on a site that was developed prior to the establishment of Entrance Corridors in the County and which does not currently meet the EC Guidelines. The expanded parking is proposed to accommodate the parking required for the LTACH, and no new parking is proposed at the LTACH site. • The extension of the parking area would reduce the lawn area along the EC. The expansive lawn with trees is one of the character defining elements of this part of the corridor. The remaining lawn would be 30' deep from the wall near the pedestrian path to the property line. Some additional lawn area extends from the property line to the pavement of the EC. • The Sieg property is composed of three parcels. One of these parcels, 59 -23C1, includes parking without a primary use. Consequently, a Special Use Permit for stand -alone parking is required. As proposed, the parking on the stand -alone parcel will not have the appearance of stand -alone parking because it is integrated with the overall parking lot. Consequently, the stand -alone parking is not expected to have a negative impact on the EC, if the lot is appropriately landscaped. Also, parking spaces over and above the number of required spaces would not be recommended for approval. • Although specific species are not identified, the planting proposed between the sidewalk and the wall along the Sieg parking lot is a mix of trees, which would coordinate with the surrounding landscape pattern. These trees are acting as both parking lot perimeter trees and EC trees. Varying planting conditions (trees /shrubs on the inside of the stone walls and trees /shrubs on the outside of the stone walls) exist elsewhere on the corridor. Consequently, the proposed planting arrangement has precedent on the corridor. • Trees are not provided along the western perimeter of the main parking lot and none are provided between the new lot and the east end of the building. The northern end of the eastern elevation of the Sieg building is painted a shade of blue that is not coordinated with the building or its surroundings. Trees along the perimeter of the parking lot in this area would help mitigate the additional paved area as well as the appearance of the blue building. • An existing conditions sheet drawn at the same scale as the landscape and layout plans was not included with the ARB submittal, but would be useful for reviewing the proposal and its impacts. • It is not clear how many parking spaces are required for the various parcels, compared to the number required. Recommendations: • Provide on the plan the number of required parking spaces and the number of proposed parking spaces for each parcel. Parking proposed in excess of the number required will likely result in a recommendation for reduced parking area. • Provide 21/2" caliper trees, 40' on center, along the western side of the Sieg parking lot. • Provide 21/2" caliper trees, 40' on center, between the new parking lot and the eastern elevation of the Sieg building. • Provide an existing conditions plan drawn at the same scale as the layout and landscape plans. • Provide a landscape plan that identifies the species of each proposed tree. Issue: Stone walls Comments: Stone walls are provided along the pedestrian path from the LTACH to Sieg. The walls are a combination of freestanding walls, retaining walls, and cheek walls at stairs. The walls would be faced with a ARB 5/19/2008 LTACH - Page 4 fieldstone veneer. This design is consistent with other existing site walls along Route 250 that help define the character of this Entrance Corridor and the use of the walls is, therefore, appropriate. The walls are expected to help tie the corridor together and to minimize the impacts of the parking in the Northridge and Sieg lots, as well as the biofilter at the southeast corner of the Sieg property. The elevation of the site wall at the Sieg property indicates that in some places the walls reach 6' high. Although some existing walls along the corridor probably reach that height, the majority are shorter. The taller height, however, will screen the parking areas better than shorter walls would. An elevation of the site walls at the LTACH and Northridge was not provided, but would be helpful for review. The use of the stone walls stops at LTACH at the west. Incorporating a stone wall element into the Kirtley site might help further tie the Kirtley site to the larger LTACH development. Recommendations: • Provide an elevation of the stone site walls at the LTACH and Northridge sites. Consider incorporating a stone wall element into the Kirtley site to further improve coordination along the corridor. Issue: Landscaping Comments: • The proposal includes new trees to be added to some existing trees that are to remain along the Route 250 frontage. The new trees include 21/2" caliper large deciduous trees and 5'-6' high smaller trees. 31/2" is the required caliper for EC trees, and the standard 35' EC spacing is not provided in all cases. • An existing conditions sheet was not included with the ARB submittal. It appears that some existing trees in the Northridge parking lot are not shown on the plan. Existing conditions are required for comparison to the proposed development. • Shrubs are proposed along the LTACH building, along the south sides of the Northridge and Sieg parking lots, on the west side of the Sieg property, and in the biofilters. The shrubs are proposed at 18 -24" high, but 24" minimum at planting is the ARB standard. Some of the parking lot shrubs are proposed on the north side of the stone wall, which will limit their visibility from the EC. • The species of individual proposed trees is not indicated on the plan. • No trees are provided on the western perimeter of the Sieg parking lot. EC Guidelines call for 21/2" caliper trees spaced 40' on center at the perimeter of parking areas. • The end bays of the EC elevation of the LTACH building have no windows or doors. They do include a tall recessed brick panel. There are no trees proposed next to these parts of the building, but there are trees along the EC in the vicinity. • It appears that trees proposed on the east side of the LTACH building are within a water easement. • Trees are provided in a regular pattern along the LTACH, Northridge and Sieg properties. Trees are placed in more informal patterns at Kirtley and Moser. Recommendations: • Provide a landscape plan that identifies specific species for proposed plants. • Provide EC trees at 31/2" caliper. Ensure that trees are planted at least 35' on center along the EC. • Provide an existing conditions sheet that identifies all existing trees for each site. • Provide all shrubs at 24" height minimum at planting. • Provide trees at 21/2" caliper, 40' on center along the western perimeter of the Sieg parking lot. • Revise the proposal to provide trees along the east side of the LTACH building outside of utilities and easements. Issue: Storm water facility Comments: A biofilter is proposed at the southeast corner of the Sieg property. A stone wall is proposed on the ARB 5/19/2008 LTACH - Page 5 south side of the biofilter to screen it from the EC. A swale with rip rap is proposed on the EC side of the wall. The rip rap may not have a sufficiently finished appearance for this location so close to the EC. With appropriate treatment of this area, the stone wall could be an appropriate solution for screening the biofilter. Recommendations: Provide additional details clarifying how the appearance of the rip rap area between the biofilter wall and the EC will be made appropriate for the EC. Revise the rip rap and other site elements, as necessary, to establish an appropriate appearance. Issue: Lighting Comments: • Fixture cut sheets were not provided with the lighting plan. • Sherwin Williams "Rockwood Shutter Green" is the color proposed for all light fixtures. Bronze is the typical color approved in the ECs. A color sample is required to determine if the green color is appropriate. • Spillover does not appear to be an issue, but the footcandle values are not carried out to zero, and the property lines aren't clearly marked on the lighting plan. • The photometric plan is spread over two sheets and the sheets have separate luminaire schedules. Some of the fixtures included on the L1.7 plan are included in the L1.6 schedule. A break line would help avoid confusion. • Footcandle levels were not provided for the OA and OB fixtures at the biofilter proposed at the southeast corner of the Sieg site. • OB and OD fixtures in the vicinity of the Sieg building are proposed at 20' high. That height appears to exceed the height of the Sieg building. • The following note is missing from the plans: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle. Recommendations: • Provide manufacturer's cut sheets for each proposed lighting fixture. Include the cut sheets on a sheet of the site plan set. • Provide for review as sample of the Sherwin Williams "Rockwood Shutter Green" color that is proposed for all the light fixtures. • Revise the photometric plan to provide footcandle values out to zero or the property line. Clearly indicate the property lines on the photometric plans. • Provide a break line /match line on the photometric plans. • Provide footcandle levels for the OA and OB fixtures at the biofilter proposed at the southeast corner of the Sieg site. • Reduce the overall height of OB and OD fixtures in the Sieg parking lot to be less than the height of the Sieg building. • Include the following note on the site plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle. ARB 5/19/2008 LTACH - Page 6 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. The mass, scale and orientation of the LTACH building in relation to the existing buildings on the EC 2. The EC elevation of the LTACH building 3. The expansion of the Sieg parking lot: size, landscaping 4. The proposed stone site walls: height, location, relationship to landscaping 5. The proposed landscaping across the parcels 6. The treatment of the Sieg biofilter Regarding the Special Use Permit for Stand Alone Parking, staff recommends that the ARB forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: The ARB has no objection to the request for stand -alone parking with the following conditions: 1. The parking lot shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of the ARB. 2. The number of parking spaces shall be limited to the number required for the use. Regarding the preliminary site plan and building design, staff offers the following comments: 1. Revise the design of the LTACH building to eliminate the non - traditional, disjointed appearance of the EC elevation. 2. Add the following note to the site and architectural drawings: "Mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the EC." 3. Provide complete proposed grading. Show tree lines to remain. Show tree protection fencing. Ensure that existing trees to remain are drawn at actual size. Revise proposed grading to avoid the drip line of trees to remain. 4. Provide on the plan the number of required parking spaces and the number of proposed parking spaces for each parcel. Parking proposed in excess of the number required will likely result in a recommendation for reduced parking area. 5. Provide 21/2" caliper trees, 40' on center, along the western side of the Sieg parking lot. 6. Provide 21/2" caliper trees, 40' on center, between the new parking lot and the eastern elevation of the Sieg building. 7. Provide an existing conditions plan drawn at the same scale as the layout and landscape plans. 8. Provide a landscape plan that identifies the species of each proposed tree. 9. Provide an elevation of the stone site walls at the LTACH and Northridge sites. 10. Consider incorporating a stone wall element into the Kirtley site to further improve coordination along the corridor. 11. Provide a landscape plan that identifies specific species for proposed plants. 12. Provide EC trees at 31/2" caliper. Ensure that trees are planted at least 35' on center along the EC. 13. Provide an existing conditions sheet that identifies all existing trees for each site. 14. Provide all shrubs at 24" height minimum at planting. 15. Provide trees at 21/2" caliper, 40' on center along the western perimeter of the Sieg parking lot. 16. Revise the proposal to provide trees along the east side of the LTACH building outside of utilities and easements. 17. Provide additional details clarifying how the appearance of the rip rap area between the biofilter wall and the EC will be made appropriate for the EC. Revise the rip rap and other site elements, as necessary, to establish an appropriate appearance. 18. Provide manufacturer's cut sheets for each proposed lighting fixture. Include the cut sheets on a sheet of the site plan set. ARB 5/19/2008 LTACH - Page 7 19. Provide for review a sample of the Sherwin Williams "Rockwood Shutter Green" color that is proposed for all the light fixtures. 20. Revise the photometric plan to provide footcandle values out to zero or the property line. Clearly indicate the property lines on the photometric plans. 21. Provide a break line /match line on the photometric plans. 22. Provide footcandle levels for the OA and OB fixtures at the biofilter proposed at the southeast corner of the Sieg site. 23. Reduce the overall height of OB and OD fixtures in the Sieg parking lot to be less than the height of the Sieg building. 24. Include the following note on the site plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle. ARB 5/19/2008 LTACH - Page 8