Loading...
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