Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200800074 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2008-06-30ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #: Name ARB- 2008 -74: Crozet Station, Phase 1 Review Type Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan Parcel Identification Tax Map 56A2, Section 1, Parcel 29 Location 5730 Three Notch' d Rd.: Located on the north side of Three Notch' d Rd. (Route 240) approximately 700 feet east of Crozet Ave. (Route 810) at the existing IGA shopping center. Zoned Downtown Crozet District (DCD), Entrance Corridor (EC) (formerly Commercial - C 1) Owner Crozet Shopping Center, LLC Applicant Atwood Architects (Ashley Cooper) Magisterial District White Hall Proposal To establish 30 residential units above the IGA shopping center, to construct a parking structure behind the center, and to undertake related site improvements. ARB Meeting Date July 7, 2008 Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski SITE/PROJECT HISTORY The ARB conducted a preliminary review of this proposal on March 3, 2008. See Attachment A for the comments from that meeting. A work session was held on April 2, 2007. The Board of Supervisors approved with conditions the SP for this proposal on November 14, 2007. CONTEXT The site of the proposed project is the Crozet Shopping Center, which is located on the north side of Route 240 in Crozet. The shopping center, which predates EC regulations, is set back from the EC approximately 175', with the area between the building and the street occupied by a parking lot. The building is at a lower level than the street and retaining walls exist on the south, east and west sides of the site. Immediately to the east of the Crozet Shopping Center is the site of the Birchwood Place development, which was reviewed and approved by the ARB. To the west is a series of commercial buildings. Mountain views are currently available beyond the shopping center to the northwest. PROJECT DETAILS /CHANGES The proposal is for Phase 1 of the Crozet Station project. Phase 1 includes residential units to be constructed over the existing commercial space of the Crozet Shopping Center, a pedestrian arcade directly in front of the ARB 7/712008 Crozet Station Phase 1 - Page 1 retail shops, and associated site improvements. Primary changes since the last review include: • The parking structure behind the building is no longer proposed. Surface parking is proposed. • Six Crabapple trees are proposed in planters along the EC. The planters extend down to the parking lot below. • The appearance of the proposed buildings has changed considerably. The eastern part of the building now has a warehouse appearance. The western part of the building is a series of four gabled parts. Building height has been reduced from a maximum of 53' to a maximum of 44'. A larger open area (66' wide) has been created between the eastern and western parts of the building. VISIBILITY The residential structures will be clearly visible from the EC. Cars parked behind the building are expected to be visible from the EC. ANALYSIS (based on plans L1.0 dated 5 -5 -08, Al Elevations dated May 15, 2008; Al and A2 Floor Plans dated May 15, 2008; A2 Sections dated May 15, 2008; A3 Elevation Detail dated May 15, 2008; A4 Elevation from Road dated May 15, 2008; Concept renderings undated; Lighting information: Stresscrete concrete pole information, K729 Aurora Jr. cut sheet, King Luminaire Co WAS K804 elevation, Eurotique Stockholm series luminaire cut sheet, Antique Street lamp posts, miscellaneous wall lamp cut sheet, photometric plan; site plan with revision date of 5 -5 -08, including sheets T1.0, C1.0 -1.3, and L1.0) Issue: Warehouse appearance Comments: • The general character and appearance of the proposed building has changed considerably since the last review. • The applicant identifies the eastern part of the building as having a warehouse appearance. Overall, the appearance does not seem to relate to any specific building in Crozet. Masonry warehouses don't seem to be a prevalent building type in Crozet. This part of the building has heavy brick piers at the ground level. The end piers are wider than the others and they align differently with the upper floors. The upper two stories are faced with "Adobe" (tan) colored block and brick pilasters are provided at the ends of the elevation. There is also a narrow brick band below the cornice and some additional brick detailing dropping down from the cornice level. This distribution of materials provides a brick border for the block, which has an abrupt appearance that does not result in a cohesive design. The block -like form of this part of the building, with a single roof form and no projections or recesses, contributes to a massive appearance. Adding vertical divisions and breaking up the roof form could help relieve the mass. The east elevation of the eastern part of the building doesn't seem to correspond exactly to the plans, particularly regarding the stair and the existing building condition. Drawings larger than the 1/16" scale would be helpful. • The western part of the building is composed of four units that are based largely on the design of the westernmost unit of the previous proposal. The west elevation of the western part of the building has a more continuous appearance than the previous proposal did; the roof forms are no longer broken up on that elevation. The transition from the brick base to the stucco is abrupt. The height of the brick soldier course above the arched openings of the building has not been increased as requested. The louvers in the gable ends of the building have not been shifted down as previously requested. The architectural first floor plan shows more columns at the west end of the south elevation than are shown on the elevation. Recommendations: Revise the design of the eastern part of the building, considering the transitions from brick to block and the alignment of the piers with the upper levels, to achieve a more cohesive appearance. Incorporate vertical divisions along the fagade and divisions of the roof form to mitigate the mass of the ARB 7/712008 Crozet Station Phase 1 - Page 2 building. Ensure that the east elevation of the eastern part of the building matches the plans. Provide a less abrupt transition from the brick base to the stucco upper stories at the western part of the building. Increase the height of the brick soldier course that is located directly above the piers. Revise the location of the louvers in the gable ends of the building; shift them down for a more balanced appearance. Coordinate the columns /piers shown on the elevations with those shown on the plans. Indicate the material of the sign band on the elevations. Provide the elevations at 1/8" scale. Issue: Lighting Comments: Cut sheets have been provided for the proposed light fixtures, but the manufacturers numbers listed on the cut sheets do not match all the catalog numbers in the schedule. Coordination of this information is necessary to complete a review of the lighting plan. Light poles are to be located near two of the planters that are proposed along the EC. How the two site elements will be coordinated is not clear from the plan. The photometric plan was calculated using LLFs of .72 and .81. The LLF must be 1.0 to meet all ordinance requirements. Sheet T1.0 includes a note reading "No proposed lighting will be equipped with a luminaire that emits 3000 or more maximum lumens." Fixtures that emit more than 3000 lumens are proposed, so this note is inaccurate. The number of wall fixtures shown on the lighting plan does not coordinate with the number of fixtures shown on the elevations. The elevations show about twice as many fixtures. The lighting plan was not submitted as a part of the site plan set. Recommendations: Revise the luminaire schedule so that the catalog numbers clearly correspond to the cut sheets and so that it is obvious from the information on the plan which lighting options are being proposed, including but not limited to color /finish and poles. Clarify how the light pole and planter locations will be coordinated. Revise the photometric plan using an LLF of 1.0, ensuring that spillover requirements will be met. Remove the "No proposed lighting will be equipped with a luminaire that emits 3000 or more maximum lumens" note from sheet T1.0. Coordinate the lighting plan with the elevations. Include the lighting plan as part of the site plan set. Issue: Missing information/Inconsistencies Comments: The following information appears to be missing from the submittal: • Some of the wooded area on the parcel north of the site will be removed to accommodate utilities for this proposal. Tree protection fencing is not shown on the plan. • Materials are identified generically on the elevations, but a materials schedule identifying specific manufacturers and colors has not been included. • Floor elevations and roof heights were not included on the site/building sections. • Material/color samples have not been provided for the proposed stucco, cast stone, standing seam metal, and parking lot concrete color. The planter detail does not indicate the material of the planters, although the applicant has indicated that they will be constructed of brick to match the building. The material of the sign band has not been indicated on the elevations. • The applicant has indicated that the balcony railing will match the proposed fence, but this information was not provided on the drawings. • Existing chain link fence is not identified on the demolition plan; there is no note that all chain link fence will be removed. • Most of the shrubs that exist along the EC are not shown on the existing conditions /demolition plan. Recommendations: Consistently show existing /proposed tree lines and show tree protection fencing on the plan. Include a materials schedule on the elevations sheet. Provide floor elevations and roof heights on the site/building sections. Provide material /color samples for the stucco, cast stone, standing seam metal, and parking lot concrete color. Revise the planter detail to indicate that the planters will be constructed of brick to match the building. Provide a balcony railing detail specifying material and color. Indicate the location of all ARB 7/712008 Crozet Station Phase 1 - Page 3 existing chain link fence on the existing conditions plan and indicate that it will all be removed. Show all the existing shrubs along Route 250 and indicate that they will all be removed. Ensure that the site plan is completely coordinated with the elevations, particularly the east elevation. Issue: Landscaping Comments: • Specific locations and quantities have not been provided for shrubs and ground cover. • Liriope is proposed in the planting islands at 24" on center. This spacing is too wide. 12" on center is appropriate. • Shrubs are indicated in the landscaping schedule at 2" planting size. 2' in height is the standard planting size for shrubs. The maple trees in the parking lot are proposed at 2" caliper. The size should be increased from 2" to 21/2" caliper to meet the EC Guidelines. Six planters are proposed along the EC to accommodate street trees. A black metal fence is proposed between the planters. • The planters are spaced from 63' to 73' on center. The standard spacing for EC trees is 35' on center. Because the planters are large, 35' spacing may result in a crowded appearance, but additional planters would come closer to meeting the guidelines. • The planters would extend down to parking lot level. • The plans do not identify the proposed material of the planters, but the applicant has indicated that they are to be brick. • The planters measure 9' x 9' x 4' high. At this size, the planters may appear overscaled for the sidewalk. Reducing the height and adding fencing to meet safety requirements could help limit the scale. • Crabapple trees are proposed in the planters along the EC at a height of 5' -6'. Standard EC trees are large shade trees at 31/2" caliper. The smaller species is acceptable due to the utilities in the vicinity. o Adding low growing shrubs around the Crabapples in the planters would further soften the appearance and would come closer to meeting the EC guidelines. • Perimeter parking lot trees have not been provided at the north end of the eastern property line. • A water line runs close to the trees proposed along the east side of the site. Recommendations: Revise the landscape plan to more specifically show the locations of shrubs and ground cover. Revise the landscape schedule to include the quantities of proposed shrubs and ground cover, and to indicate the planting size of shrubs as 24" minimum. Revise the spacing of EC trees and planters to better meet the 35' spacing requirement. Reduce the height of the planters to reduce the scale. Add low growing shrubs to the planters. Provide perimeter parking lot trees 21/2" caliper minimum, 40' on center, along the eastern side of the parking lot at the northeast corner of the site. Increase the planting size of the maple trees to 21/2" caliper minimum. Indicate if there is an easement associated with the water line that runs along the east site of the site. If there is an easement, show it on the plan and ensure that the trees are located in a planting area that is outside the easement. Issue: Signs Comments: Complete sign details have not been submitted. The third existing freestanding sign is not shown on the site plan. The applicant has indicated that no freestanding sign will be proposed and that the wall signs will be externally illuminated and possibly painted directly on the sign band. External illumination of wall signs is appropriate for this building and site. A 2' -tall sign band is indicated on the elevations. Given that the sign band is identified and external illumination is proposed, details regarding sign colors can be provided at a ARB 7/712008 Crozet Station Phase 1 - Page 4 later date. Recommendations: Revise sheet C 1.0 to include the location of the third freestanding sign and to indicate that it will be removed. An application must be submitted for a comprehensive sign review prior to the installation of the first wall sign. The applicant should plan for a minimum 6 -week review period prior to the approval of the first sign. Issue: Off -site grading Comments: Grading is shown off -site to the north and east. This grading would impact the wooded area to the north and the approved parking plan to the east. Tree protection is not shown. The grading to the east is not coordinated with the approved plan for Birchwood Place. Recommendations: Coordinate the grading on the adjacent parcel to the east with the approved site plan for that site. Provide tree protection fencing for trees to remain. Show the existing and proposed tree lines on the plan. Issue: Mechanical equipment Comments: The applicant has indicated that mechanical equipment will be placed on the roof and won't be visible from the EC. A dumpster and a loading area are shown behind the building and aren't expected to be visible from the EC. Notes should be added to the architectural and site plans to specify that the equipment shall not be visible from the EC. Recommendations: Include the following note on the site and architectural plans: "Mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the EC." SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. The revised building design — the warehouse appearance for the eastern part of the building and the series of gabled units for the western part of the building 2. Proposed materials 3. The planters — design and spacing Staff offers the following comments on the preliminary site plan: 1. Revise the design of the eastern part of the building, considering the transitions from brick to block and the alignment of the piers with the upper levels, to achieve a more cohesive appearance. Incorporate vertical divisions along the fagade and divisions of the roof form to mitigate the mass of the building. Ensure that the east elevation of the eastern part of the building matches the plans. Provide a less abrupt transition from the brick base to the stucco upper stories at the western part of the building. Revise the location of the louvers in the gable ends of the building; shift them down for a more balanced appearance. Increase the height of the brick soldier course that is located directly above the piers. Coordinate the columns /piers shown on the elevations with those shown on the plans. Indicate the material of the sign band on the elevations. Provide the elevations at 1/8" scale. 2. Revise the luminaire schedule so that the catalog numbers clearly correspond to the cut sheets and so that it is obvious from the information on the plan which lighting options are being proposed, including but not limited to color /finish and poles. Clarify how the light pole and planter locations will be coordinated. Revise the photometric plan using an LLF of 1.0, ensuring that spillover requirements will be met. Remove the "No proposed lighting will be equipped with a luminaire that emits 3000 or more maximum lumens" note from sheet T 1.0. Coordinate the lighting plan with the elevations. Include the lighting plan as part of the site plan set. ARB 7/712008 Crozet Station Phase 1 - Page 5 3. Consistently show existing /proposed tree lines and show tree protection fencing on the plan. Include a materials schedule on the elevations sheet. Provide floor elevations and roof heights on the site/building sections. Include a material schedule on the elevation sheet. Provide floor elevations and roof heights on the site/building sections. Provide material/color samples for the stucco, cast stone, standing seam metal, and parking lot concrete color. Revise the planter detail to indicate that the planters will be constructed of brick to match the building. Provide a balcony railing detail specifying material and color. Indicate the location of all existing chain link fence on the existing conditions plan and indicate that it will all be removed. Show all the existing shrubs along Route 250 and indicate that they will all be removed. Ensure that the site plan is completely coordinated with the elevations, particularly the east elevation. 4. Revise the landscape plan to more specifically show the locations of shrubs and ground cover. Revise the landscape schedule to include the quantities of proposed shrubs and ground cover, and to indicate the planting size of shrubs as 24" minimum. Revise the spacing of EC trees and planters to better meet the 35' spacing requirement. Reduce the height of the planters to reduce the scale. Add low growing shrubs to the planters. Provide perimeter parking lot trees 21/2" caliper minimum, 40' on center, along the eastern side of the parking lot at the northeast corner of the site. Increase the planting size of the maple trees to 21/2" caliper minimum. Indicate if there is an easement associated with the water line that runs along the east site of the site. If there is an easement, show it on the plan and ensure that the trees are located in a planting area that is outside the easement. 5. Revise sheet C 1.0 to include the location of the third freestanding sign and to indicate that it will be removed. An application must be submitted for a comprehensive sign review prior to the installation of the first wall sign. The applicant should plan for a minimum 6 -week review period prior to the approval of the first sign. 6. Coordinate the grading on the adjacent parcel to the east with the approved site plan for that site. Provide tree protection fencing for trees to remain. Show the existing and proposed tree lines on the plan. 7. Include the following note on the site and architectural plans: "Mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the EC." ARB 7/712008 Crozet Station Phase 1 - Page 6 Attachment A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 March 17, 2008 Atwood Architects C/O William Atwood 250 West Main Street Suite 100 Charlottesville, Va 22902 RE: ARB2008 -00010 Crozet Station, Phase I Tax Map 56A2, Section 1, Parcel 29 Dear Mr. Atwood: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on March 3, 2008, completed a preliminary review of the above -noted request to establish 30 residential units above the IGA shopping center, to construct a parking structure behind the center, and to undertake related site improvements. 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. Provide a plant list on the plan, with all standard information. 2. Coordinate the ARB submittal and the other plans provided for County review. 3. Provide trees in the parking lot closest to the Entrance Corridor, or at street level, or provide some alternative. 4. Clarify on the plan the location and design of the planter proposed along the EC. 5. Provide additional detail on the plan to indicate the full extent of planting proposed for the planting areas between the building and the parking lot. (It can be seating for a restaurant and does not all have to be planting.) Clarify what it is and that it is not a huge swath of mulch. 6. Revise the plan to indicate that all chain link that is visible from the EC will be removed from the site. Propose an alternate to the chain link that would have an appropriate appearance for the EC. Include a fence detail on the plan. 7. Provide perimeter parking lot trees, 2'/2" caliper minimum, 40' on center throughout the site. 8. Add architectural detailing to relieve the blank appearance of the lower portion of the residential elevations above the arcade. Revise the elevations to provide detailing that associates the signs with the arcade portion of the elevations, not the upper window area. Provide details on the signage proposed for the building. Indicate proposed sign type, location, type of illumination, colors, etc. Revise the arcade openings to improve proportions and the relationship to the upper stories. 9. In general the ARB does not object to the 3 -story buildings, but it is the height of the west building and the dormers on the east end that could be modified to reduce the visual scale of the project. 10. Indicate on the plan the location of all three existing freestanding signs and indicate on the plan that ARB 7/7/2008 Crozet Station Phase 1 - Page 7 all will be removed. Provide for review information on proposed freestanding signs. 11. Provide on the plan complete information on proposed tree /shrub removal and tree protection. 12. Provide on the plan complete information regarding the location of ground equipment, roof equipment, and any other proposed equipment and related elements. Show how existing or proposed architectural elements will screen the equipment from view. 13. Indicate on the plan the proposed color of the concrete in the front parking lot and provide a sample for review. Identify on the plan the impervious and pervious concrete areas. Provide samples for all of the colors. 14. Show the turn lane on the drawings. 15. The ARB requested a full review of the special use permit for phase 1A. 16. Provide at least 3 sections through the EC, the retaining wall, and up to the face of the building. 17. Provide above the elevations (on the same sheet) an outline or plan diagram to clarify the relationship of the different planes of the new structure and to clarify the relationship of the arcade to the fagade(s) behind it. Indicate all changes to existing building facades. 18. Outdoor display that is visible from the Entrance Corridor requires a special use permit and is subject to review. 19. Clarify details for railings on the buildings. 20. Clarify and coordinate on the plans the stairs to the parking garage. 21. Provide a street elevation that includes the proposed building, the bank to the east and the US Joiner building, in scale. Dash in the level of the road. 22. The ARB supported the idea of the applicant providing a CAD drive -by for review. 23. Clarify and further articulate and refine the various architectural elements identified as 1 through 12 by Ms. Smith at the meeting. 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. 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: Crozet Shopping Center LLC P O Box 129 Crozet Va 22932 Summer Frederick, Zoning and Current Development ARB File ARB 7/7/2008 Crozet Station Phase 1 - Page 8