Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200800057 Staff Report 2008-05-28ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #: Name ARB- 2008 -57: Moser Radiation Therapy Center — 2 °d Vault Addition Review Type Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan Parcel Identification Tax Map 59, Parcel 23C Location 2871 Ivy Road, on the north side of Route 250 West, approximately one- half mile west of the intersection of Route 250 and Farmington Drive Zoned Commercial (C), Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner /Applicant Rectors & Visitors of the University of Virginia Magisterial District Samuel Miller Proposal To install a second concrete vault of approximately 3,400 square feet at the existing Moser outpatient center. ARB Meeting Date June 2, 2008 Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski SITE/PROJECT HISTORY The ARB reviewed the original Moser building and signage in 1992 (ARB- 95 -05 -FS and ARB- 92- 05 -S). CONTEXT The Moser site is located on the north side of Route 250 West, between the Sieg and Charlottesville Oil sites. This stretch of the Route 250 Entrance Corridor is characterized by a mix of development, including office, residential, institutional, commercial and industrial buildings. The Moser building is the eastern end of the LTACH project, which includes pedestrian paths and landscaping from the Moser building at the east to the Kirtley building at the west. PROJECT DETAILS This proposal is for a 3400 square foot addition to the Moser Radiation Therapy Center building to include a concrete vault, control room and support space. Overall, the proposed addition measures approximately 44' wide on the EC side by 86' long and would be faced with brick to match the existing building. On the EC side, the addition would measure 23'6" tall. New rooftop equipment is also proposed. VISIBILITY The existing Moser building is visible from the Entrance Corridor. It is set back approximately 95' from the Route 250 West pavement (at its closest point). The addition would be located approximately 75' from the EC and the south and east elevations would be visible. Proposed tree removal will make the Charlottesville Oil site more visible to eastbound traffic. ARB 6/2/2008 Moser Vault Addition - Page 1 ANALYSIS (based on site plan sheets C1— C7 and L1 dated April 15, 2008; south exterior elevation dated April 15, 2008; and McKee Carson planting plan dated April 15, 2008) Issue: Equipment Comments- • The applicant's project narrative indicates that the existing generator and power feed for the building will be relocated to the east side of the addition. Site Plan sheet C4 shows a proposed emergency generator on the back (north) side of the addition. The existing conditions plan sheet C3 identifies two generators to be relocated. The applicant has clarified that the two existing generators at the side of the building will be replaced by one generator behind the addition. • The narrative also indicates that a new air handler and chiller are proposed for the roof of the addition and they would be located towards the rear of the facility to limit views from the EC. Recommendations: Revise and coordinate all drawings to show ground equipment located behind the addition. Provide details regarding the proposed rooftop equipment. Show how visibility of the rooftop equipment from the EC will be eliminated. Add the following note to the architectural and site plans: "Equipment shall not be visible from the Entrance Corridor." Issue: South and east elevations Comments- • The applicant's project narrative indicates that the exterior design of the addition will match the existing fagade, utilizing red brick in a running bond with a brick reveal and metal accents and copings. The parapet height and massing are intended to match the existing condition. • The elevation suggests that the addition steps down and /or steps back at the east end, but the site plan does not correspond to this. The applicant has confirmed that the elevations are correct, and the plan must be revised. The reduced size of the addition might allow space for additional planting at the south end of the east side of the addition. • The eastern elevation was not submitted for review. It is assumed that it will be faced with brick and will be blank, but an elevation is required for review. • As viewed from the EC, it appears that the entire addition will be blank. The proposed brick reveal will tie the addition to the existing structure, but it will not reduce the blank quality of the design. The blankness of the existing eastern wing is balanced by the form, materials and colors of the other parts of the building that face the EC, and the significant wooded area surrounding the existing building creates a buffer for the blank walls. The extended blank wall area is expected to appear coordinated with the existing building, but the loss of the wooded buffer will result in a greater visual impact from the addition. Incorporating other building elements from the existing western end of the building into the addition could further relieve the blankness, but this would also likely draw more attention to the addition. Careful replanting could relieve some of the blankness. Recommendations: Revise the footprint of the addition on the site plan to match the architectural elevations. Provide plants in the area where the south end of the addition is set back from the north end. Submit the east elevation of the addition for review. (See below for planting recommendations.) ARB 6/2/2008 Moser Vault Addition - Page 2 Issue: Landscaping Comments: • Currently, the east side of the Moser building is heavily wooded, with the trees screening much of the blank walls of the building from view and buffering the site from the neighboring property. All of the trees east of the building (a total of 41) would be removed to accommodate the addition. • The plans show a conduit along the east side of the addition for the relocation of the existing underground electric and telephone lines that currently lie within the footprint of the addition. The applicant has indicated that this conduit precludes the ability to plant between the Moser and Charlottesville Oil sites. This will allow for clear visibility of the addition. The loss of trees, and the inability to replant, will result in less buffering and less coordination in this part of the EC. • Four trees are proposed along the EC frontage. They are London Planetrees at 21/2" caliper, spaced approximately 35' on center. The EC Guidelines call for 31/2" caliper trees along the EC. • Another London Planetree is proposed at the southwest corner of the addition. A Red Maple tree is proposed at the southeast corner of the addition. It is proposed over the 6" conduits that are proposed along the east side of the building. Additional trees in the vicinity of the biofilter and the addition would be appropriate to compensate for the trees that will be lost to the addition. • A mix of shrubs is proposed in the biofilter. (See below.) • The planting plan was submitted separate from the site plan. The planting plan, including the plant schedule, must be submitted as part of the site plan set. Recommendations: If trees can't be planted on the east side of the addition, explore the possibility of planting shrubs in this area. Revise the EC trees to 31/2" caliper at planting. Move the proposed red maple tree so that it does not conflict with the conduit. Provide the planting plan, with the plant schedule, as part of the site plan set. Issue: Biofilter Comments: A biofilter is proposed between the addition and the EC, approximately 60' from the road. A mix of 86 plants is proposed around the biofilter. The plants are proposed at 18 -24" high, but 24" is the minimum planting height for shrubs along the EC. The mix includes Red Chokeberry (deciduous, 3 -5' tall), Buttonbush (deciduous, 5 -12' tall), Evergreen Wood Fern (2 -3' tall), Cinnamon Fern and Royal Fern (deciduous 2 -5' tall), Winterberry and Jim Dandy (deciduous, 3 -5' tall). The shrubs proposed for the biofilter are also proposed elsewhere in the LTACH project, but only one of the proposed plants — a fern — is evergreen, so the appearance of the biofilter in the winter months is a concern. Recommendations: Revise the biofilter planting to include a majority of evergreen plants, 24" high at planting. Issue: Pole lights Comments: The plan shows a light pole at the northeast corner of the site to be relocated. The proposed location is not clear from the plan. The light must meet all ordinance requirements to be relocated, and a lighting plan is required to confirm that ordinance requirements and guidelines will be met. Recommendations: Identify the proposed location for the relocated lamp on the plan. Submit a photometric plan, cut sheets for the new fixtures and fixtures to be relocated, and luminaire schedule identifying all lighting options. Include the cut sheets on one of the lighting plan sheets. ARB 6/2/2008 Moser Vault Addition - Page 3 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. Blankness of the addition 2. Removal of trees, limited replanting 3. Appearance of the bioiilter Staff offers the following comments on the preliminary site plan: 1. Revise and coordinate all drawings to show ground equipment located behind the addition. 2. Provide details regarding the proposed rooftop equipment. Show how visibility of the rooftop equipment from the EC will be eliminated. 3. Add the following note to the architectural and site plans: "Equipment shall not be visible from the Entrance Corridor." 4. Revise the footprint of the addition on the site plan to match the architectural elevations. 5. Provide plants in the area where the south end of the addition is set back from the north end. 6. Submit the east elevation of the addition for review. 7. If trees can't be planted on the east side of the addition, explore the possibility of planting shrubs in this area. 8. Revise the EC trees to 3'/2" caliper at planting. 9. Move the proposed red maple tree so that it does not conflict with the conduit. 10. Provide the planting plan, with the plant schedule, as part of the site plan set. 11. Revise the bioiilter planting to include a majority of evergreen plants, 24" high at planting. 12. Identify the proposed location for the relocated lamp on the plan. Submit a photometric plan, cut sheets for the new fixtures and fixtures to be relocated, and luminaire schedule identifying all lighting options. Include the cut sheets on one of the lighting plan sheets. ARB 6/2/2008 Moser Vault Addition - Page 4