Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200800138 Staff Report 2008-10-27ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #: Name ARB- 2008 -138: Hydraulic Wash Review Type Preliminary review of an amendment to a Site Development Plan Parcel Identification Tax Map 61K, Section 5, Parcel IA Location At 2405 Hydraulic Road, on the west side of Hydraulic, approximately 110' northwest of the Inglewood Drive intersection Zoned Highway Commercial (HC) and Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner 2405 Hydraulic Road LLC Applicant Hydraulic Wash LLC Magisterial District Jack Jouett Proposal To construct an addition on the south side of the Hydraulic Laundry building. ARB Meeting Date November 3, 2008 Staff Contact Eryn Brennan SITE/PROJECT HISTORY The ARB has never reviewed a case concerning the Hydraulic Wash property. A site plan amendment is currently under review by Current Development. A site plan approved in 1968 shows the building was originally constructed as a 7 -11. CONTEXT/VISIBILITY The subject parcel is .341 acres in size and located west of Hydraulic Road and north of Inglewood Drive. The context of the site is that of a Highway Commercial corridor on Hydraulic Road, north of Route 29, characterized by medium -sized stores, offices, and service facilities. The structure sits on the rear portion of the lot, approximately 100 feet west of the Entrance Corridor. The adjoining parcel to the north contains Hydraulic Road Animal Hospital, and the adjoining parcel to the south contains Virginia Blood Services. Across the EC to the east of the parcel is a densely wooded area constituting a portion of the proposed Albemarle Place development. The subject parcel is highly visible from the EC, as are the proposed fagade, landscape, and parking lot alterations. PROJECT DETAILS The applicant proposes to construct a 980 sq. ft. addition on the south side of the existing laundry building. The new addition will have a flat roof, but use the same materials and exterior paint color in order to match the existing structure. There is also a new sign proposed for the addition, as the addition will be leased to a separate business. The applicant is also proposing to add a cistern on the northwest side of the extant building to collect and recycle stormwater. Finally, the applicant is proposing to re- shingle the roof and reconfigure the front fagade by reducing the existing two double doors into a single -door entry with flanking windows equal in height to the door. ANALYSIS based on: Site plan drawings submitted: • Sheet C1 "Cover Sheet" date 9/08/08. • Sheet C2 "General Notes and Legend" date 9/08/08. ARB 11/3/08 Hydraulic Wash - Page -1 • Sheet C3 "Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan" date 9/08/08. • Sheet C4 "Site and Grading Plan" date 9/08/08. • Sheet C5 "Lighting and Landscape Plan" date 9/08/08. • Sheet C6 "Stormwater Management Plan" date 9/08/08. Architectural drawings submitted: • A1.0 "Building Plan and Elevations" date September 8, 2008. • Sheet 1 "Northeast and Southeast Elevation without landscaping, undated. • Sheet 2 "Northeast and Southeast Elevation with landscaping, undated. Materials submitted: • A white board showing the brick proposed for the addition — Lawrenceville Brick — "Abingdon" #3- 426 to be painted Benjamin Moore "Pure White" #OC -64. • A clear glass sample. • An ATAS metal sample "Ascot White" #10 • An ATAS storefront sample "Classic Bronze" • A GAF roof shingle sample — `Slateline' "English Gray Slate" • Photographs of building and site context. Issues: Site Plans and Visibility of Existing Building Comments: The building footprint as shown in drawings C3 Existing Conditions /Demo Plan, C4 Site and Grading Plan, and the Landscape Plan on C5 Lighting and Landscape Plan is not clearly legible. Recommendations: Revise the plans to show more clearly the outline of the footprint of the existing building on drawings C3 Existing Conditions/Demo Plan, C4 Site and Grading Plan, and the Landscape Plan on C5 Lighting and Landscape Plan. Issues: Location of Addition Comments: The scale, material, and color of the addition are compatible with the existing building. However, it is unclear whether the addition is flush with the porch or the wall of the existing building. Also, the way in which the addition, existing building, and sidewalk align is represented differently on C4 Site and Grading Plan and C5 Lighting and Landscape Plan. For instance, on C4 Site and Grading Plan, the addition is shown projecting 9ft forward from where it meets the existing building. In C5 Lighting and Landscape Plan, the addition is shown projecting 3ft forward from the existing building in the landscape plan, while in the lighting plan the addition is shown flush with the porch of the existing building and a new sidewalk area in front. Recommendations: Revise the plans on C4 Site and Grading Plan and C5 Lighting and Landscape Plan to show how the addition will align with the existing building and sidewalk, and be consistent on all the plans. Issues: Landscaping Comments: • The landscape plan on C5 shows 12 cherry laurels on the plan and plant list, yet the plan states that there are 14. • No shrubs or plantings are proposed to be planted in front of the building. Planting a mixture of shrubs, trees, and other landscaping elements is recommended in the guidelines to integrate the building and site. Recommendations: Correct the number of cherrylaurels proposed along the north lot line from 14 to 12, as shown on the plan and stated in the plant list. Incorporate shrubs and other planting elements into the landscaping around the trees in front of the proposed and existing building. ARB 11/3/08 Hydraulic Wash - Page -2 Issues: Roof Rainwater Recycling System Comments: No screening is proposed around the 8' diameter x 9' high black polyethylene roof rainwater collection cistern proposed on the north side of the building. The proposed cistern will sit approximately 120' from the EC, and the site conditions, including the narrow space and adjacent slope, will limit visibility. However, it is expected that the cistern still will be somewhat visible from the EC, in which case it will require screening as stated in the EC guidelines. Recommendations: Revise the drawings to show how the cistern and any other elements of the roof rainwater collection system proposed on the north side of the building will be screened. Plantings are preferred, but other screening devices compatible with the design of the building are acceptable. Issues: Lighting/Utilities Comments: The landscape plan on C5 shows a proposed light fixture on the north side of the parking lot that may conflict with a gas line. No utility easements are shown on the landscape plan on Sheet A1.0. Recommendations: Show utility easements on the landscape plan on Sheet A1.0. If the proposed light fixture is located within the utility easement, provide documentation from the gas company that there is no objection to placing the light fixture in the proposed location. Alternatively, shift the pole out of the easement. Issues: Wall Signs Comments: • The front elevation on the proposed addition shows a new wall sign. No information concerning the lettering, color, and manner of illumination is provided. • The sign on the existing structure is an internally -lit cabinet sign. It is a legally nonconforming sign and does not meet current EC guidelines. • Contrary to the description of the proposal in the application, the front elevation on Sheet A1.0 shows that the new wall sign does not align with the sign on the existing laundry building. However, the new wall sign on the addition shown in Sheet A1.0 does align with the lower fascia of the cornice on the existing building. In the architectural drawing showing the northeast elevation, the new wall sign does not align with either the existing sign or the cornice line of the existing building. Recommendations: Revise the architectural drawings to show the proposed location of the new wall sign and its relationship to the existing structure and signage. Provide complete details on the proposed wall sign and reference the sign checklist for requirements. Provide color and material samples. A non - illuminated or exterior -lit panel sign is preferred. Although the existing wall sign is legally nonconforming, the applicant is encouraged to reface or replace it to meet current guidelines. Issues: Freestanding Pole Sign Comments: There is an existing internally -lit cabinet sign on a pole (with added plywood panels) in the northeast corner of the site. It is a legally nonconforming sign that does not meet current EC guidelines. The submitted site plans show that the existing freestanding pole sign is to be moved to a different location in a landscaped area near the entrance to the site. The applicant has stated that, in fact, the pole sign is not to be moved. If left in its current location, the pole sign would reduce the number of parking spaces by one. However, as 17 parking spaces are provided and only 16 are required, the parking area would still meet the necessary requirements. The loss of the parking space provides an opportunity to expand the planting area in this corner of the site. Recommendations: Although the freestanding sign is legally nonconforming, the applicant is encouraged to reface the cabinet sign with appropriate panels that meet the current EC guidelines and eliminate the plywood panels, or replace the freestanding pole sign with an externally -lit freestanding monument sign. The applicant is also encouraged to expand the planting area in this corner of the site. Revise the landscape plan on C5 Lighting and Landscape Plan to show that the existing freestanding sign will not be moved, and change the description of the sign from "Monument Sign" to "Pole Sign" on the plan. ARB 11/3/08 Hydraulic Wash - Page -3 Issues: Proposed Color/Materials -Blue Trim Comments: Sheet A 1.0 Building Plan and Elevations states that the existing blue painted fascia and columns will be painted white. However, the elevation does not specify whether the blue trim in the gable and cupola will also be painted white. Revising all the blue trim to white would provide a more coordinated appearance. Recommendations: Revise Sheet A 1.0 Building Plan and Elevations to indicate that the blue trim in the gable and cupola will be painted white. Issues: Blank Wall Comments: The architectural drawing showing the Southeast Elevation from Hydraulic Road shows approximately 16 -18 feet of blank wall along the facade of the proposed addition closest to and most visible from the EC. The EC Guidelines indicate that blank walls should be relieved by architectural details, vegetation, or both. An elevation that includes window openings, supplemented with planting would be appropriate in this location. Recommendations: Revise the southeast elevation to include window openings supplemented with appropriate plantings. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. Location of addition. 2. The proposed landscaping. 3. The roof rainwater recycling system. Staff recommends the following comments on the preliminary site plan: 1. Revise the plans to show more clearly the outline of the footprint of the existing building on drawings C3 Existing Conditions/Demo Plan, C4 Site and Grading Plan, and the Landscape Plan on C5 Lighting and Landscape Plan. 2. Revise the plans on C4 Site and Grading Plan and C5 Lighting and Landscape Plan to show how the addition will align with the existing building and sidewalk, and be consistent on all the plans. 3. Correct the number of cherry laurels proposed along the north lot line from 14 to 12, as shown on the plan and stated in the plant list. Incorporate shrubs and other planting elements into the landscaping around the trees in front of the proposed and existing building. 4. Revise the drawings to show how the cistern and any other elements of the roof rainwater collection system proposed on the north side of the building will be screened. Plantings are preferred, but other screening devices compatible with the design of the building are acceptable. 5. Show utility easements on the landscape plan on Sheet A1.0. If the proposed light fixture is located within the utility easement, provide documentation from the gas company that there is no objection to placing the light fixture in the proposed location. Alternatively, shift the pole out of the easement. 6. Revise the architectural drawings to show the proposed location of the new wall sign and its relationship to the existing structure and signage. Provide complete details on the proposed wall sign and reference the sign checklist for requirements. Provide color and material samples. A non - illuminated or exterior -lit panel sign is preferred. 7. Although the existing wall sign is legally nonconforming, the applicant is encouraged to reface or replace it to meet current guidelines. Although the freestanding sign is legally nonconforming, the applicant is encouraged to reface the cabinet sign with appropriate panels that meet the current EC guidelines and eliminate the plywood panels, or replace the freestanding pole sign with an externally - lit freestanding monument sign. The applicant is also encouraged to expand the planting area in this corner of the site. Revise the landscape plan on C5 Lighting and Landscape Plan to show that the existing freestanding sign will not be moved, and change the description of the sign from "Monument ARB 11/3/08 Hydraulic Wash - Page -4 Sign" to "Pole Sign" on the plan. Revise 8. Sheet A1.0 Building Plan and Elevations to indicate that the blue trim in the gable and cupola will be painted white. 9. Revise the southeast elevation to include window openings supplemented with appropriate plantings. ARB 11/3/08 Hydraulic Wash - Page -5