Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200800160 Staff Report 2008-12-23ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #: Name ARB- 2008 -160: Comfort Suites, Hollymead Town Center Review Type Final Review of a Site Development Plan Parcel Identification Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D Location Located approximately 200' west of Route 29 North, south of Timberwood Boulevard Zoned Planned Development Mixed Commercial (PDMC), Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner Hollymead Corner LLC Applicant NBJ Architects, Nitin Kulkarni, AIA Magisterial District Rio Proposal To construct a three -story hotel building. ARB Meeting Date January 5, 2009 Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski SITE/PROJECT HISTORY The ARB conducted a preliminary review of this proposal on October 6, 2008. The action letter from that meeting is included as Attachment A to this report. One of the comments included in that action was an offer to hold a work session to help resolve outstanding Engineering issues related to the pond. Although the ARB does not need to review the hydraulic information for the pond as the County's Engineering division does, the ARB was interested in moving the project forward and the ARB was concerned that revisions required by Engineering could change the appearance of the pond and that the plan would not be reliable if Engineering review was outstanding. Following the October meeting, the ARB chairperson met with County staff to review the outstanding Engineering issues. Since that time, ARB staff has held discussions with the applicant regarding the status of the engineering issues. It was decided that a work session was no longer required. A summary of the engineering issues has been provided by the applicant and is included as Attachment B to this report. CONTEXT /CHANGES TO THE PROPOSAL The hotel is proposed for a site in the Hollymead Town Center, just south of the pond at Timberwood Blvd. and north of Target. The applicant proposes to construct a three -story hotel. Changes to the proposal since the last review include revisions to the building elevations to relieve blankness, changes to the proportions of the columns at the south entrance, revised landscaping, revised wall signs, and a revision to the maintenance access for the lower forebay of the pond. ARB 1/5/2009 Comfort Suites - Page 1 VISIBILITY The proposed hotel will be clearly visible from the Route 29 EC. An undeveloped parcel is situated between the hotel site and the EC. When that parcel develops, visibility will be somewhat reduced. ANALYSIS (based on landscape sheets C1 -C3 dated 10- 22 -08; photometric plan dated 10- 30 -08; luminaire schedule and cut sheets 1 -9, undated; civil drawings 1 -4 revised 11 -3 -08; architectural drawings A 401, 402, 403, 404, 501, 502, 505, 510 dated November 3, 2008; color architectural elevation, undated; Kawneer Fluropon Colonial White sample) Issue: Building Materials /Colors Comments: A color sample has been provided for the window air conditioning units. It is Kawneer Colonial White, to match the windows. This approach - using the same color for the window and the louvers - has been used for the hotel at Peter Jefferson Place, where it creates a visually integrated unit and has an appropriate appearance. A different color would not be an improvement. The white color is expected to have an appropriate appearance for the EC; however, the color has not been identified on the architectural elevations. Recommendations: Revise the architectural elevations to include identification of the color for the window air conditioning units. Issue: Wall Signs Comments: The wall signs have been revised from internally illuminated cabinets to halo lit individual letters with white faces. The halo illumination is expected to provide a more elegant appearance for the building. Consequently, the sign type has a more appropriate appearance for this building and better meets the guidelines. Details on the proposed signs have not been provided on the drawings, as requested. The main purpose in reviewing wall signs with the architectural design of the building is to ensure that appropriate sign area is provided for, and to avoid the need for review of a separate ARB sign application at a later date. The information included in this submittal indicates that appropriate sign area is available. The applicant is still encouraged to provide complete sign information on the drawings to avoid a future ARB sign submittal (and the applicant should note that sign permits will also be required for all proposed signs). Recommendations: The applicant is encouraged to provide complete sign information on the drawings for review at this time to avoid a future ARB sign submittal. Issue: Lighting Comments: A photometric plan has been submitted for review. It includes single and double pole lights in the parking lots and along travelways, fixtures under the entrance canopy on the EC side of the building, and wall lights on all sides of the building. • 15 wall lights are proposed, including 4 on the front EC side of the building, 4 on the north side, and one on the south side that will be visible from the EC. They are proposed to be mounted at 15' high. The exact locations of the fixtures can't be determined from the photometric plan and the fixtures are not included on the architectural elevations. A sidewalk is located adjacent to the EC side of the building, another sidewalk is located close to the north elevation, and an entrance is proposed on the south elevation, so the general wall light locations appear to be sensible. 0 Fixture colors and finishes are not specified in the schedule. Although dark bronze is typically standard and not always required to be identified by the manufacturer for ordering purposes, the color should be identified on the plan simply for clarity and so that the approved color can be easily identified by future reviewers and inspectors. 0 The standard lighting note regarding spillover and shielding is not included in the plan set. ARB 1/5/2009 Comfort Suites - Page 2 • Cut sheets have been submitted for the fixtures, but they were submitted individually and were not included in the plan set. • The photometric plan does not include a complete calculation grid identifying the distribution of light levels across the site. This information is required to determine if proposed lighting levels are excessive. The footcandle levels are provided under the entrance canopy (although they overlap and are difficult to read). In this location, light levels reach over 52 footcandles. Although a well -lit entrance is desired for comfort and security, 52 footcandles seems excessive. Also, the 18.8 footcandle level at the OB -2 -10 fixture in the front parking lot suggests that the parking area might also be over - illuminated. A complete footcandle grid will help resolve this issue. Recommendations: • Indicate the color /finish for all fixtures in the luminaire schedule. • Add the following note to the plan: "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle." • Include the cut sheets that illustrate the location of the lamps in the light fixtures within the site plan set — not separate from it or stapled to it. • Revise the photometric plan to include a complete calculation grid showing light levels across the parking areas and travelways. Revise the photometric plan so that all light levels under the entrance canopy are legible. Reduce the level of illumination under the entrance canopy to provide for safety and security without over - illumination. Issue: Pond Plan — Maintenance Access Comments: The maintenance access for the lower forebay has been revised on the current landscape plan. It now loops southward and then westward from the eastern end of the forebay into the hotel parking lot. It is identified as a 10' access road, and no longer conflicts with planting. Recommendations: None at this time. Issue: Retaining Walls Comments: A new retaining wall is proposed at the bottom of the southern/eastem forebay. Another wall is proposed to the west of the forebay wall, north of the proposed hotel. The wall is shown at different lengths on Sheet C2 and Sheets 1 -4 of 4. The western end of the existing retaining wall at the pond is shown as being revised to a curved orientation on Sheet C2; sheets 1 -4 of 4 show the curved end revision as already complete. Recommendations: Coordinate all the plans regarding the length of the proposed retaining walls located west of the lower forebay and the existing/proposed condition of the western end of the existing retaining wall. Issue: Perimeter Parking Lot Trees Comments: The previous plan included perimeter parking lot trees on the south side of the site, adjacent to the Target parcel. The current plan has removed those trees in the area that is adjacent to the established planting area along the north side of the Target building. The Target planting strip is heavily planted with trees and shrubs. Planting area is available for the perimeter trees on Parcels 41D5 (the hotel site) and 41D6 (future development site west of the hotel site). Historically, the ARB has required perimeter parking lot trees even when there is adjacent landscape area. However, in this case, the planting area is expected to be difficult to distinguish, as viewed from the EC. Recommendations: None. ARB 1/5/2009 Comfort Suites - Page 3 Issue: Landscape Plan/Plant List Coordination Comments: There are a number of inconsistencies between the landscape plan and the plant list. Some of the plants illustrated on the plan appear in the wrong plant list; plants are listed on the wrong parcel number. Although some plants may be associated with the pond or are located at what appears to be the perimeter of the pond, they are not all on the pond parcel (411)3). Those plants, including some of the ABLR, PEAL and AROG, are located on the hotel parcel. Likewise, BENI and IV are located on parcel 41D4. Some of the plants illustrated on the current plan as "existing" were shown on the September plan as "proposed ". The entire landscape plan and all the plant lists should be double- checked for accuracy. Following is a list of identified inconsistencies. This list may not be complete. o On parcel 411)3: ■ 3 of the 6 AROG are located on the hotel parcel. ■ 11 BENI are in the list but 10 are on the plan. ■ Where are the 3 AC? ■ Where are the 72 IVHG? ■ The 18 PF are on the hotel parcel. ■ Are there 22 or 24 VB? ■ The 31 ABLR are on the hotel parcel. ■ 5 EPGA are in the plant list; 16 are noted on the plan but the plants are grayed out. ■ Are there 10 or 5 ERRA? ■ There is no quantity provided for the JC. ■ 16 of the PEAL are on the hotel parcel and the quantity appears otherwise incorrect. A 12 PEAL label pointing to proposed plants is grayed out. ■ There appear to be 35 IV on 41133. • On parcel 41D4 ■ 4 new BENI are on parcel 41D4. ■ 27 new IV are shown on parcel 41134. • On parcel 41D5 ■ There are no BENI on the hotel parcel. ■ On the plan, some of the azaleas are not labeled. ■ Is the LS identified on the plan? ■ 9 IV, 31 ABLR, 16 PEAL and 3 AROG appear on the plan but not on the list. Recommendations: Coordinate the landscape plan and the plant list regarding quantities, locations and labeling. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. Illumination at building entrance. 2. Perimeter parking lot trees at south side of parking lot near Target 3. Pond planting ARB 1/5/2009 Comfort Suites - Page 4 Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, pending staff administrative review of the following conditions: 1. Revise the architectural elevations to include identification of the color for the window air conditioning units. 2. The applicant is encouraged to provide complete sign information on the drawings for review at this time to avoid a future ARB sign submittal. 3. Indicate the color /finish for all fixtures in the luminaire schedule. 4. Add the following note to the plan: "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle." 5. Include the cut sheets that illustrate the location of the lamps in the light fixtures within the site plan set — not separate from it or stapled to it. 6. Revise the photometric plan to include a complete calculation grid showing light levels across the parking areas and travelways. Revise the photometric plan so that all light levels under the entrance canopy are legible. Reduce the level of illumination under the entrance canopy to provide for safety and security without over - illumination. 7. Coordinate all the plans regarding the length of the proposed retaining walls located west of the lower forebay and the existing /proposed condition of the western end of the existing retaining wall. 8. Coordinate the landscape plan and the plant list regarding quantities, locations and labeling. ARB 1/5/2009 Comfort Suites - Page 5 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 October 9, 2008 NBJ Architects c/o Nitin Kulkarni 11537 -B Nuckols Road Glen Allen, Va. 23059 RE: ARB2008 -00116 Comfort Suites, Hollymeade Town Center Tax Map 32, Parcel 41 D Dear Ms. Kulkarni, The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on October 6, 2008, completed a preliminary review of the above -noted request to construct a three story hotel building. 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. Revise the north and south elevations of the proposed hotel building and the planting plan to relieve blankness using a combination of planting and additional architectural detail. Revised drawings submitted are an improvement. Entry tower can benefit from a reduction in height. 2. Revise the elevations to indicate the color /material of the air conditioning units below the guest room windows and provide a color sample. Ensure that the color limits noticeability. Revise the elevations to provide columns with traditional proportions at the south entrance. For example, 2 brick piers may be more appropriate. 3. Revise the landscape plan to include: a plant schedule, five additional interior parking lot trees, plants in the planting beds along the building, perimeter trees along the curved 10 -space parking row east of the hotel, and shrubs to integrate the site. 4. Revise the long row of Abelia along the sidewalk above the pond to a mix of compatible species. Add trees and /or continue the shrub planting into the southeast corner of the pond site. Clarify how the maintenance access will work with a tree between it and the forebay, or revise the plan to show access that is coordinated with the landscaping. 5. Add this note to the landscape 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. 6. Regarding the field stone at the end of the pipe at forebay B, the ARB wanted the fieldstone added to retain a minimum of 18 -24" of soil above the pipe. Make this clear on the plan. A note on the profile detail or forebay section would work. ARB 1/5/2009 Comfort Suites - Page 6 7. Revise the proposed wall sign type to a sign type that coordinates better with the character of the hotel. Reduce the sign size so that it does not appear over - scaled for the building. Provide all sign details for review, including color samples. (Refer to the ARB sign checklist.) 8. A work session shall be held to resolve engineering /administrative review issues for the pond. 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 and an ARB approval signature panel. 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: Neil Bhatt 11537 -B Nuckols Road Glen Allen, Va. 23059 Hollymead Area C Owners Association Inc 195 Riverbend Dr Charlottesville Va 22911 File ARB 1/5/2009 Comfort Suites - Page 7 Attachment B December 23, 2008 RE: Hotel and Pond ARB Approval, Hollymead Town Center Members of the ARB, This letter is to summarize the status of the County Engineering review for the pond at Hollymead Town Center. All elements contained in the red line review provided by County Engineering to the owners of Block One have been addressed. In that red line, the County requested that they be provided revised calculations on the pond's "as- built" water capacity. The County's current records deal with projections on the pond capacity submitted before the pond's construction when it was first proposed as part of the Target development. The revised calculations reveal that the pond capacity meets ALL requirements to serve its watershed. While the applicant's engineering study was expected to be finished in November there was a delay in securing an engineer with the proper hydrology certification. We expect this issue to be resolved soon and the submittals stamped with the appropriate seal. The applicant's engineers that have familiarity with the hydrology analysis have indicated no alterations to the pond's volume capacity will be necessary. County Engineering needs this technical data so they can possess and retain the appropriate documentation for the "as built" pond. County Engineering's review of the pond capacity calculations in no way affects, or is related to, the hotel, retaining walls, forebay B or landscaping located on the south side of the pond or Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block One. Consequently, the ARB should feel confident that the appearance of the pond as illustrated on the proposed plan is accurate and reliable. Furthermore, there is no need to delay ARB approval of the hotel project based on technical pond engineering issues. Thank you. ARB 1/5/2009 Comfort Suites - Page 8