HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200800099 Staff Report 2008-08-11ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #: Name
ARB- 2008 -99: Three Notch'd Center
Review Type
Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan
Parcel Identification
Tax Map 56A3, Parcel 9
Location
5374 Three Notch'd Road: Approximately 0.50 mile from the intersection
of Three Notch'd Road (Rt. 240) with Crozet Avenue (Rt. 810).
Zoned
Planned Development Shopping Center (PDSC), Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner
Notch'd LLC
Applicant
Richard L. Jones, Jr.
Magisterial District
Whitehall
Proposal
To construct commercial and office space in two buildings, with
associated site improvements.
ARB Meeting Date
August 18, 2008
Staff Contact
Margaret Maliszewski
SITE/PROJECT HISTORY
The applicant presented this proposal informally to the ARB on March 5, 2007. Staff provided comments
on the rezoning on May 29, 2007 and August 29, 2007. Attachments A and B outline the staff and ARB
comments. The rezoning (ZMA- 07 -06) was approved in December 2007.
The applicant has requested a variation from the approved rezoning plan to allow the maximum roof
height on the western building to be increased from 35' to 39.5'. The applicant has indicated that the
variation is required to provide a pitched roof on the 3 -story building.
CONTEXT
The site is currently developed with a 11/2 story house used as a restaurant and a 1- and 2 -story block
building housing commercial and office space (video store). Charlottesville Self Storage (approved by the
ARB in 2005) is adjoining to the west. The former Con -Agra complex is across Route 240 to the south.
There is an undeveloped property to the east.
PROJECT DETAILS
The proposal includes two buildings with a combined footprint of approximately 17,000 sf. The buildings
measure 108' (west) and 179' (east) long and range from 40' to 85' deep. They vary in height from 1 to 3
stories. The buildings are broken down into multiple parts with varying roof forms. The buildings are
joined by a second -story bridge.
ARB 8/18/2008 Three Notch'd Center - Page 1
VISIBILITY
The development will be readily visible from the Entrance Corridor.
ANALYSIS (based on color architectural elevation drawing SKI dated June 24, 2008 and site plan sheets
1 — 11 with revision date of 6/6/08)
Issue: Scale and Massing, Design as a Cohesive Whole, Blankness
Comment--
• The applicant has indicated that the building was designed so that the massing would be in keeping
with the surroundings. The adjacent parcel to the west is occupied by a two -story office for the self
storage center. The office has a residential appearance. The parcel to the east is undeveloped.
• The proposed building varies in height from 1 to 3 stories (approximately 39' to the third story
cornice and 48' to the top of the highest roof). The western building is primarily 3 stories tall, but has
a 1 -story section at the front and a 2 -story section on the west side. (The plan has a note that says the
western building is 2 stories tall.) The eastern building is 2 stories tall (although the plan has a note
that says it is 3 stories tall). If the applicant's variation is approved, the western building would reach
a maximum height of 39.5'.
• A variety of roof forms — pyramidal, flat and hipped — is used to help break down the mass of the
building. However, the shed roof on the 1 -story section of the western building appears out of place.
• The proposed buildings are large at 108' x 85' (west) and 179' x 50' (east). For comparison, the US
Joiner building, located further west on the Route 240 Entrance Corridor, measures 144' x 60'.
• The EC guidelines state that architecture should use forms, shapes, scale and materials to create a
cohesive whole. The numerous elements of the design, combined with the distribution of multiple
material colors, do not form a cohesive whole. The combination of elements appears somewhat
random. Although breaking up the mass and scale of the building into smaller parts is desired to
establish human scale, a more simplified design with a recognizable hierarchy would better meet the
guidelines.
• The vertical banding of EIFS may be an attempt to add rhythm to a long fagade with regularly spaced
windows, but the rendering suggests that it will establish an overly busy appearance.
• The color renderings submitted are useful to convey the proposed distribution of materials and colors.
Because this proposed design utilizes numerous building parts, heights and setbacks, clear black and
white line drawings with shade /shadow and perspective views as seen from both directions on the EC
would help to clarify the proposed design. Including the existing storage center office in the drawings
would provide a useful reference.
• The supports for the bridge between the two buildings appear too thin for the weight of the structure
and they aren't coordinated with the scale of the other building elements.
Recommendations: Simplify the architectural design by reducing the number of elements used and by
establishing a stronger hierarchy of elements. Provide perspective views of the proposed building as seen
from both directions on the EC. Provide to -scale black and white line drawings of the building elevations
with shade /shadow for review. Include the storage center office in the perspective and elevation drawings
for reference. Correct the notes on the plan regarding the number of stories in each building. Reconsider
the design of the supports for the bridge.
ARB 8/18/2008 Three Notch'd Center - Page 2
Issue: Materials
Comments:
• Materials are proposed as follows:
• Tanibrown dry stack stone
• Dryvit in 380 Chocolate Mousse and 387A Pancake
• Timberline shingles in Shadow Accent Ultra Burnt Sienna Blend
o Dark brown metal roof
o Dark bronze aluminum frame windows
• Dry stack stone and EIFS in shades of tan and brown are proposed for the walls of the buildings.
Roofs would be covered in either dark brown metal or burnt sienna asphalt shingles. Generally,
shades of brown can be appropriate for the EC. However, a sample was provided only for the stone.
Photocopies of proposed colors were provided for the other materials. Photocopies cannot be relied
upon for accuracy. Actual samples are needed.
• The stone appears at the base of the buildings and forms a water table that extends up to 9' tall
between window bays. A stone water table could be an appropriate element for a building in this
location, but the transition from the taller stone sections to the surrounding material appears abrupt
and the distribution of stone adds to the "busy" character of the facade.
• The two shades of EIFS are distributed across the facades, above the stone, in vertical bands. This
patterning of materials results in an overly "busy" appearance. The extensive use of EIFS this close to
the EC is a concern.
Recommendations: Reduce the amount of EIFS used on the EC and side elevations. Reconsider the
vertical banding of EIFS to reduce the "busy" appearance. For each of the proposed materials, provide
actual samples for review. Add a materials schedule to the elevations sheet.
Issue: Landscape
Comments: The landscape plan is deficient regarding several aspects of the EC Guidelines. A plant list
was not provided, so a complete review could not be accomplished. Flowering ornamental trees are not
provided along the EC. Trees and shrubs are not provided along the perimeters of parking areas. A
drainage easement is proposed along the east end of the EC frontage, along the east side of the site, and
along the north side of the site, limiting the ability to plant trees in these locations. Trees are not provided
along the eastern travelway or along pedestrian ways. Foundation plantings may be appropriate for this
building. The existing tree line is illustrated on the existing conditions plan and grading is proposed off -
site, but no "proposed tree line to remain" is shown. Tree protection fencing is not addressed.
Recommendations: Revise the landscape plan to meet all EC Guidelines. Be sure to include trees along
the perimeter of all parking areas and along the travelway on the east side of the property. Show the
proposed tree line to remain, with coordinated tree protection fencing, on the grading and landscape plans.
Revise the drainage easement to allow for trees along the EC, along the west side of the eastern
travelway, and on the north side of the parking area. Include the following note on the plan: "All site
plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping
of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health
of the plant."
Issue: Lighting plan
Comments: Pole lights are shown on the landscape /lighting plan and cut sheets for shoe box fixtures have
been provided. However, a photometric plan has not been provided.
Recommendations: Provide a photometric plan for review. Be sure to use a maintenance factor of 1.0.
Include all lighting details, including total pole height, colors, etc. Indicate that a flat glass lens will be
used. Coordinate the photometric plan with all other site plan sheets.
ARB 8/18/2008 Three Notch'd Center - Page 3
Issue: Coordination of drawings
Comments: The second door from the east shown on the architectural elevations is not shown in that
location on the site plan. The second story bridge between the east and west buildings isn't identified on
the site plan. The number of parking spaces shown on the plan (141) does not match the number the cover
sheets says is provided (140).
Recommendations: Coordinate the architectural plan with the site plan regarding building entrances and
sidewalks, and all other features. Show the second -story bridge that is proposed between the two
buildings on the site plan. Make the number of parking spaces shown on the plan match the number the
cover sheet says is provided.
Issue: Dumpster and Equipment
Comments: A dumpster is planned to be located approximately at the midpoint of the western property
line. In this location, it will be visible from the EC. The applicant proposes to screen the dumpster with a
wood privacy fence painted to match the building. Since multiple colors are proposed for the building, the
color proposed for the fence isn't entirely clear, and there is a concern that a painted wood fence won't
maintain a satisfactory appearance over the long run. A masonry enclosure, coordinated with the building
materials, would be appropriate. Mechanical equipment hasn't been addressed in the plans.
Recommendations: Revise the dumpster enclosure to a masonry material that is coordinated with the
materials of the building. Show the locations of all ground- and building- mounted equipment on the
plans. Use the architecture of the building to eliminate views of the equipment from the EC. Add the
following note to both the architectural and the site plans: "Mechanical equipment shall not be visible
from the Entrance Corridor."
Issue: Signs
Comments: A monument sign is identified on the site plan, but no information on the sign design has
been submitted for review. The review of the monument sign design can follow site plan review, but the
applicant should understand that:
• Planting will be required at the base of the sign and it must be coordinated and integrated with the
other planting on site.
• The exact sign location won't be approved until the sign permit application is made.
Also, there is no obvious location available for wall signs on the building. The location of wall signs
should be carefully considered with the architectural design of the building to avoid future problems. A
proposal outlining design criteria for wall signs should be included with the next submittal.
Recommendations: Indicate wall sign locations on the elevation drawings. Provide for review an outline
of proposed wall sign criteria, including but not limited to: sign type, illumination type, materials, colors,
etc.
ARB 8/18/2008 Three Notch'd Center - Page 4
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. Building and roof forms, mass, hierarchy of building elements
2. Extent of EIFS proposed
3. Planting /utility conflicts
Staff offers the following comments on the preliminary site plan:
1. Simplify the architectural design by reducing the number of building elements used and by
establishing a stronger hierarchy of elements.
2. Reduce the amount of EIFS used on the EC and side elevations. Reconsider the vertical banding of
EIFS to reduce the "busy" appearance.
3. For each of the proposed materials, provide actual samples for review. Add a materials schedule to
the elevations sheet.
4. Provide perspective views of the proposed building as seen from both directions on the EC. Provide
to -scale black and white line drawings of the building elevations with shade /shadow for review.
Include the storage center office in the perspective and elevation drawings for reference.
5. Correct the notes on the plan regarding the number of stories in each building.
6. Reconsider the design of the supports for the bridge.
7. Revise the landscape plan to meet all EC Guidelines. Be sure to include trees along the perimeter of
all parking areas and along the travelway on the east side of the property. Revise the drainage
easement to allow for trees along the EC, along the west side of the eastern travelway, and on the
north side of the parking area. Include the following note on the plan: "All site plantings of trees and
shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is
prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the
plant."
8. Show the proposed tree line to remain, with coordinated tree protection fencing, on the grading and
landscape plans.
9. Provide a photometric plan for review. Be sure to use a maintenance factor of 1.0. Include all lighting
details, including total pole height, colors, etc. Indicate that a flat glass lens will be used. Coordinate
the photometric plan with all other site plan sheets.
10. Coordinate the architectural plan with the site plan regarding building entrances and sidewalks, and
all other features.
11. Show the second -story bridge that is proposed between the two buildings on the site plan.
12. Make the number of parking spaces shown on the plan match the number the cover sheet says is
provided.
13. Revise the dumpster enclosure to a masonry material that is coordinated with the materials of the
building. Show the locations of all ground- and building- mounted equipment on the plans. Use the
architecture of the building to eliminate views of the equipment from the EC. Add the following note
to both the architectural and the site plans: "Mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the
Entrance Corridor."
14. Indicate wall sign locations on the elevation drawings. Provide for review an outline of proposed wall
sign criteria, including but not limited to: sign type, illumination type, materials, colors, etc.
ARB 8/18/2008 Three Notch'd Center - Page 5
Attachment A
of ALB
�'IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rebecca Ragsdale
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: ZMA- 2007 -06: Three Notch'd Center
DATE: May 29, 2007
The applicant presented this proposal informally to the ARB on March 5, 2007. I've summarized the ARB's
comments below.
1. Materials: "Rural area materials" were recommended, for example, a stone water table with siding above.
A big stucco building isn't recommended.
2. Surrounding context: Picking up on the language of the nearby industrial buildings was recommended.
3. Scale: It was recommended that the building use a porch to break down the scale so that it doesn't read as
two stories and coordinates well with the surroundings.
4. Form: Use of an interesting roofline — not just a box — was recommended.
5. Parking area trees: Planting islands are needed in the parking areas, particularly where direct views are
available from the EC into the parking area.
6. Pedestrian spaces: Engaging the landscape with a caf6 and/or terraces was recommended. Creating a
gathering space was recommended.
I have the following additional comments on the applicant's written proposal.
7. While some elements of the Corner Store on Route 29 South might be appropriately incorporated into the
design of the buildings at Three Notch'd Center, the scale of the Corner Store may not translate well to the
Route 240 site. Appropriate scale was an issue identified by the ARB.
8. The application plan does not show EC trees at the proper spacing. It does not show perimeter trees on the
east and west sides of the site. These are typically required at the site plan review stage. The joint access at
the east end of the site may require special landscape treatment. Additional planting will likely be required
elsewhere on site, as well.
9. On Sheet 3, the grading shown in black does not tie into the grading shown in gray, even though both
appear to be existing grading. Render existing grading consistently. Show grading that ties together.
10. Landscaping is rendered as "proposed" on the subject parcel and the adjacent parcel, although the adjacent
parcel is not included in this application. Render landscaping proposed for the subject parcel differently
than other landscaping.
ARB 8/18/2008 Three Notch'd Center - Page 6
Attachment B
pF ALB
�'IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Rebecca Ragsdale
FROM:
Margaret Maliszewski
RE:
ZMA- 2007 -06: Three Notch'd Center
DATE:
August 29, 2007
I have reviewed the plan with revision date of 8/15/07.1 have added updated comments following my
previous comments from May. Updated comments are in italics, and updated recommendations are
provided at the end of the memo. Please note that this submittal consisted of Sheet I of 3 and Sheet 3 of
3; there was no Sheet 2.
1. Materials: "Rural area materials" were recommended, for example, a stone water table with
siding above. A big stucco building isn't recommended.
2. Surrounding context: Picking up on the language of the nearby industrial buildings was
recommended.
a. The applicant is waiting to address this at site plan review.
3. Scale: It was recommended that the building use a porch to break down the scale so that it doesn't
read as two stories and coordinates well with the surroundings.
b. Some revisions have been made to the building footprints to help eliminate the "boxy"
appearance. Additional architectural treatments may be required by the ARB.
4. Form: Use of an interesting roofline —not just a box —was recommended.
c. The applicant is waiting to address this at site plan review.
Parking area trees: Planting islands are needed in the parking areas, particularly where direct
views are available from the EC into the parking area.
d. No change has been made to the plan, although the applicant has indicated that
landscaping will be increased from the EC perspective and in parking islands. A row of
parking spaces at the east end of the property has been removed; however, standard
landscaping is not shown along the eastern shared driveway.
6. Pedestrian spaces: Engaging the landscape with a caf6 and/or terraces was recommended.
Creating a gathering space was recommended.
ARB 8/18/2008 Three Notch'd Center - Page 7
e. The sidewalks have been revised and a plaza is suggested between the two buildings.
Additional landscaping may be required by the ARB.
7. While some elements of the Corner Store on Route 29 South might be appropriately incorporated
into the design of the buildings at Three Notch'd Center, the scale of the Corner Store may not
translate well to the Route 240 site. Appropriate scale was an issue identified by the ARB.
f. The applicant is waiting to address this at site plan review.
8. The application plan does not show EC trees at the proper spacing. It does not show perimeter
trees on the east and west sides of the site. These are typically required at the site plan review
stage. The joint access at the east end of the site may require special landscape treatment.
Additional planting will likely be required elsewhere on site, as well.
g. This comment has not been addressed. The planting strip between the sidewalk and the
road scales at less than 5'. This is not sufficient planting area. The area between the
sidewalks that run parallel to the EC will be required for EC planting; consequently, this
area must remain clear of utilities and easements. Some parking has been removed from
the east end of the site and the shared driveway has been revised. No planting is shown
along the shared driveway. The ARB Guidelines have not been met in this regard. There
is a floating "Evergreen screening trees for EC Corridor" note.
9. On Sheet 3, the grading shown in black does not tie into the grading shown in gray, even though
both appear to be existing grading. Render existing grading consistently. Show grading that ties
together.
h. Existing grading has been revised and coordinated, but no proposed grading is
shown. Grading required to accommodate the proposed development could result
in unanticipated visual impacts. Such impacts could require revisions to the
layout of the development.
10. Landscaping is rendered as "proposed" on the subject parcel and the adjacent parcel, although the
adjacent parcel is not included in this application. Render landscaping proposed for the subject
parcel differently than other landscaping.
i. The applicant has indicated that the adjacent parcel is shown for coordination purposes
and all site features shown there are existing. Showing the adjacent site elements for
coordination purposes is desirable. Nevertheless, distinguishing between existing and
proposed features makes for a more legible plan.
Based on the revised submittal, I recommend the following:
1. Submit Sheet 2 of 3 for review.
2. Submit proposed conceptual grading for review.
3. Clarify the "Evergreen screening trees for EC Corridor" note or delete it from the plan.
4. Revise the plan to indicate that landscaping will be provided along the east side of the shared
driveway, to the satisfaction of the ARB, with a landscape easement provided by the adjacent
owner.
5. Add the following note to the plan: "Landscaping shown on this conceptual plan does not meet
ARB Guidelines and will be redesigned at preliminary and final site plan review to meet the
Guidelines, as required by the ARB, with additional planting area provided, as necessary, to
accommodate ARB requirements."
ARB 8/18/2008 Three Notch'd Center - Page 8