HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200900018 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2009-04-10ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #: Name
ARB- 2009 -18: Martha Jefferson Hospital — 29 North/Proffit Addition
Review Type
Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan
Parcel Identification
Tax Map 32A, Section 2, Parcel 1A
Location
3263 Proffit Road: located in the northeast corner of the intersection of
Route 29 North and State Route 649 Proffit Road.
Zoned
Highway Commercial (HC), Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner
Martha Jefferson Hospital
Applicant
Martha Jefferson Hospital, Ron Cottrell
Magisterial District
Rivanna
Proposal
To renovate an existing building, construct an addition to the building, and
expand required site improvements including parking.
ARB Meeting Date
April 20, 2009
Staff Contact
Brent Nelson
SITE/PROJECT HISTORY
• A Site Development application has not been submitted to Current Development.
• 4/1/02: ARB 2002 -16: MJH North Mobile MRI Parking Reallotment, Approval with conditions.
• 6/23/97: ARB —F (SDP) Martha Jefferson North, ARB- F(Sign)97 -7: Martha Jefferson North, Approval
with conditions for the freestanding and building signage and revisions to the original site plan.
• ARB 1996 -11: Martha Jefferson North, ARB review of the site development plan for the existing
building and site improvements.
PROJECT DETAILS
The applicant is proposing to construct a 2- story, 100' x 106', addition to the southeast corner of the existing
medical office building. Existing site improvements are to be redeveloped and expanded to accommodate the
porte - cocheres proposed in the southeast and northeast elevations and the additional parking required by the
proposal.
SITE CONTEXTNISIBLITY
The site of the proposed development is located on a parcel in the northeast corner of the intersection of the
Route 29N Entrance Corridor and State Route 640 Proffit Road. The site has frontage on both Route 29N and
Proffit Road, with a site entrance /exit from Proffit Road only. The site is currently developed as a medical
office building with associated site improvements. Views of the site from the Corridor are partially screened by
the bank/drive -thru and associated site improvements located between the intersection of Route 29N/Proffit
Road and the southwest edge of the parcel under review. Proposed site and building improvements are
expected to be highly visible from the 29N Corridor due to the lack of significant mature landscaping along the
ARB 4/20/2009 Martha Jefferson Hospital @ Proffit Rd, Preliminary - Page 1
Route 29N frontage and the site's position down slope of the corridor.
ANALYSIS based on drawings submitted:
Site plan drawings submitted:
• Sheet 1 of 3: Existing Conditions Plan, date March 2, 2009
• Sheet 2 of 3: Layout & Utility Plan, date March 2, 2009
• Sheet 3 of 3: Grading & Drainage Plan, date March 2, 2009
• Sheet LL -1: Landscape Plan, date March 2, 2009
• Sheet LL -2: Landscape Plan (Planting Schedule/Details), date March 2, 2009
Architectural drawings submitted:
• Sheet A.301: Elevations, date March 2, 2009
Samples submitted:
• Brick 1: Glen -Gery Brick Co. Provincetown
• Brick 2: Cherokee Brick & Tile Co. GA Maroon
• EIFS (unidentified for manufacturer & product ID)
Additional information provided:
• Proposal Description/Report: Architectural Review Board Report, Preliminary Submission, date
March 2, 2009
Building Design
Issue: Building Addition/Design, Materials, Colors /Compatibility
Comments: Page 5 Architectural Review Board Report, indicates the proposed addition will use the same
forms, detailing, and materials as the existing building in an effort to make it appear as if both were constructed
at the same time. The rendered elevations included in the report and the line elevations, provided on Sheet
A.301 Elevations, show a proposed building design that closely resembles the existing structure. As viewed
from the Corridor, the proposed addition is expected to provide an appropriate balance to the existing structure
through its use of design, mass, materials and colors, all reflective of the existing structure.
The existing building utilizes 2 bricks, both of which are no longer available. Two bricks, Glen -Gery Brick Co.
Provincetown and Cherokee Brick & Tile Co. GA Maroon are proposed as matching substitutes. Actual brick
samples were provided with this submission. A site visit verified that the proposed bricks are a sufficient match
with the existing bricks. Differences in the color and type of the existing and proposed bricks are not expected
to be discernible from the Corridor. A sample of the proposed EIFS was submitted with this application and
appears to be a closer match to the light beige color of the horizontal cast stone band, located midway up the
existing elevation, than to the existing yellow cream color of the EIFS used at the building cornice and
entrance overhangs. The sample is not identified for manufacturer and product ID. The applicant has verbally
indicated that all of the existing EIFS will be replaced with the submitted sample, and it will also be used for
the corresponding building parts in the proposed addition. The proposed color is expected to have a more
appropriate appearance than the existing EIFS color that appears to have yellowed over time. Other types of
detailing, present in the existing building and proposed in the addition, include cast stone medallions, white
aluminum storefront, and a hipped, standing seam roof screen to conceal rooftop equipment, all to match the
existing. Building elevation drawings Sheet A.301 Elevations do not indicate the manufacturer, product ID and
ARB 4/20/2009 Martha Jefferson Hospital @ Proffit Rd, Preliminary - Page 2
color for all materials in the proposed addition. A materials /color schedule should be added to the drawing
clearly indicating the manufacturer, product ID, and color for all existing and proposed materials.
Recommendations: Revise Sheet A.301 Elevations to include a schedule listing all proposed materials and
colors. The schedule should include the manufacturer's name, product ID, and color for all proposed materials.
Revise the building elevations to clearly indicate the location of each material.
Issue: Building Addition/Porte- cochere
Comments: The applicant is proposing a porte - cochere in both the southeast and northeast elevations. Only the
porte - cochere centered in the southeast elevation is expected to be visible from the Corridor. That structure,
with its 36' deep by 38' wide footprint, is approximately 13' tall with a flat roof. Proposed materials and colors
are not indicated on the elevation drawing Sheet A.301 Elevations. Rendered drawings provided on pages
22/23 of the Architectural Review Board Report appear to show a structure with brick columns and an EIFS
fascia.
The size of the flat roof and the width and blocky appearance of the columns give the structure a monolithic
appearance which accentuates its mass, as viewed from the Corridor. An alternate size, roof form, and/or
supports could help resolve this issue.
Recommendations: Revise the design of the southeast porte - cochere to include an alternate size, roof form, and
/or supports. Revise all applicable drawings to clearly indicate the proposed materials and colors.
Issue: Mechanical -HVAC Equipment/Visibility
Comments: Page 5 Architectural Review Board Report indicates that a hipped, standing seam metal roof
screen, matching the one on the existing roof, is proposed for the addition. The report states that all rooftop
equipment will be fully screened and not visible from the Route 29 Corridor. Rooftop equipment on the
existing structure is not visible from the Corridor. Sheet A.301 Elevations does not show the location of the
rooftop equipment. A dashed outline, representing the location and maximum height of the equipment, is
needed on the elevation to verify that views of the equipment, from the Corridor, will be screened. The
drawing should be dimensioned to show the distance from the top of the screen to the top of the equipment. A
note is needed on Sheet A.301 Elevations and Sheet 2 of 3 Layout & Utility Plan stating that all rooftop
equipment will not be visible from the Route 29N Entrance Corridor.
Recommendations: Revise Sheet A.301 Elevations to include a dashed outline delineating the height and
location of the rooftop equipment. Dimension the drawing to show the distance from the top of the equipment
to the top of the screen. Add a note to Sheet A.301 Elevations and Sheet 2 of 3 Layout & Utility Plan stating:
All rooftop equipment shall not be visible from the Route 29N Entrance Corridor.
Site Design
Issue: Bio- filters/Visibility/Design
Comments: Sheet 3 of 3 Grading & Drainage Plan shows 3 proposed bio- filters; 2 are located north of the
existing and proposed buildings, and 1 is adjacent to the southwest boundary. Only the bio - filter adjacent to the
southwest boundary is expected to be visible from the Corridor. This facility, 130' east of the Corridor, is
approximately 110' long with a maximum width of 30'. Except for the 2 Weeping Willow trees shown on
Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan, details of the final planting design for this facility were not provided with this
submission.
Recommendations: Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan to include details of all plant materials proposed for the
bio - filter adjacent to the southwest boundary. A planting design that disguises the utilitarian purpose of this
facility would be appropriate.
ARB 4/20/2009 Martha Jefferson Hospital @ Proffit Rd, Preliminary - Page 3
Issue: Existing Vegetation/Limits of Grading & Clearing/Tree Protection/Erosion Control Plan
Comments: Sheets 1 of 3 Existing Conditions, 2 of 3 Layout & Utility Plan, and 3 of 3 Grading & Drainage
Plan do not show the location, species, and size of existing vegetation. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,
delineating the limits of grading and clearing and the location and method of tree protection, was not included
with this submission. Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan shows the location of existing trees that are to remain;
however, they are not identified for species or size. None of the existing on -site shrubs are shown in this
submission. The landscape plan should be revised to clearly indicate all existing planting that is to remain, and
the planting should be identified for species and size.
Recommendations: Revise the Existing Conditions Plan, Layout & Utility Plan and Grading & Drainage Plan
to show the location, species, and size of all existing trees and shrubs. Delineate the plantings that are to remain
and those that are to be removed. Provide an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan delineating the limits of
grading and clearing and the location and method of tree protection. Revise the Landscape Plan by showing
all existing planting that is to remain, identified for species and size.
Issue: Parking Spaces/Required & Provided/By-right Overage
Comments: The parking schedule on Sheet 2 of 3 Layout & Utility Plan indicates that 165 parking spaces are
required by ordinance and 201 spaces are proposed. The 36 spaces, in excess of the requirement, represent a
22% overage in parking. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a 20% overage by -right. Reducing the number of
proposed spaces by 3 to 198 would avoid the need for a variance. Three parking spaces in the western most
parking lot, adjacent to the Rte. 29 Corridor, could be converted to planting islands with large canopy trees.
Recommendations: Revise all applicable drawings by reducing the number of parking spaces by 3 for a total of
198 spaces. Achieve this reduction by converting 3 equidistant parking spaces, currently shown along the
perimeter of the western most parking lot, facing Route 29, to 3 individual planting islands with large canopy
trees.
Landscape Design
Issue: EC Frontage Trees /Spacing
Comments: Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan shows 7 London Plane trees, 31/2" in caliper, along the Route 29N EC
frontage. While the proposed trees are spaced 35' on center, they do not stretch the full width of the EC
frontage. It appears that 8 trees, 35' on center, could be located along the frontage.
Recommendations: Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan to show a total of 8 London Plane trees, 35' on center,
along the Route 29N frontage.
Issue: Perimeter Parking Lot Trees
Comments: Entrance Corridor Guidelines state: Trees should align the perimeter of parking areas, located 40'
on center. Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan shows 3 Crimson King Red Maple trees, 2 1/2" in caliper, along the
perimeter of the parking lot adjacent to the Proffit Road right -of -way. The trees are spaced at intervals of 45
and 50 feet. There appears to be room for 4 trees, 40' on center, along this perimeter of the parking lot.
Trees are not shown along the perimeter of the curvilinear parking proposed in the southwest corner of the site.
Perimeter trees in this section of the parking lot are of particular importance due to the location's close
proximity to the Corridor and its high visibility.
Recommendations: Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan to show a total of 4 Crimson King Red Maple trees, 2
1/2" in caliper, 40' on center, along the perimeter of the parking lot adjacent to the Proffit Road right -of -way.
Revise the drawing to show trees, 40' on center, 2 1/2" in caliper, along the edge of the curvilinear parking
ARB 4/20/2009 Martha Jefferson Hospital @ Proffit Rd, Preliminary - Page 4
proposed in the southwest corner of the site.
Issue: Proposed Planting/Utilities, Grading, Stormwater, Lighting/Conflicts
Comments: Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan does not show the location of existing overhead power lines along the
Route 29 EC frontage, the proposed underground stormwater management system in the parking lot, the
proposed sanitary sewer connection west of the addition, and the proposed underground fire (water) line east of
the addition. All of the proposed grading on Sheet 3 of 3 Grading & Drainage Plan is not reflected on the
Landscape Plan. Site lighting was not shown on any of the drawings in this submission. It appears that the
proposed location of the 8 London Plane frontage trees along the Route 29N Corridor may conflict with the
existing overhead power lines.
Recommendations: Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan to show the following:
• The location of the existing overhead power line /easement along the Route 29N frontage.
• The proposed underground stormwater management system.
• The proposed sanitary sewer connection west of the addition.
• The proposed underground fire (water) line east of the addition.
• The proposed grading as shown on Sheet 3 of 3 Grading & Drainage Plan.
• The location of all proposed site lighting. If site lighting is not proposed, add a note on the drawing to
that effect.
Revise the location and /or type of street trees along the Route 29N Corridor to avoid conflicts with overhead
utilities. Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan to include the following note: 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: Parking AreaNisibility /Shrubs
Species/Monoculture
Comments: Entrance Corridor Guidelines state: Shrubs should be provided as necessary to minimize the
parking area's impact on the Entrance Corridor streets. Shrubs should measure 24" in height. The Guidelines
also state: Continuity within the Entrance Corridor should be obtained by planting different types of plant
materials that share similar characteristics. Such common elements allow for more flexibility in the design of
structures because common landscape features will help to harmonize the appearance of the development as
seen from the street upon which the Corridor is centered
• Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan shows 131 Compacta (Japanese) Holly shrubs along the perimeter of the
existing /proposed parking lot west of the existing /proposed buildings. Spaced 3' on center, these shrubs
will slowly grow into a 4' high hedge along the perimeter of the parking area.
• The Compacta Holly is the only shrub species in the entire landscape proposal. The monoculture resulting
from such an over -use of any one species can result in a single disease having a major impact on the
landscape. Over -use can also result in a monotonous appearance.
• The parking spaces adjacent to these hollies are 6 to 10' lower than sections of the adjacent Route 29
Corridor. As a result, their 4' mature height is expected to have a limited impact on mitigating views of the
parked cars. The linear layout of the hollies serves to reinforce the angular relationship of the site and
building layout to the Route 29N Corridor in front. Entrance Corridor Guidelines suggest that the building
and site layout should parallel the adjacent Corridor. While the pre- existing layout of this development
limits the ability to meet this guideline, planting design, including species and layout, can help to mitigate
the impacts of the non - parallel orientation.
• Revising the landscape proposal by replacing the linear layout of Compacta Hollies with a wider planting
area, whose outer (EC) edge more closely parallels the Corridor, could help this proposal to blend more
with adjacent developments. Landscaping within this widened planting area should include a mix of shrub
ARB 4/20/2009 Martha Jefferson Hospital @ Proffit Rd, Preliminary - Page 5
types and heights (4 species minimum), arranged in a less structured, natural layout.
Recommendations: Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan by replacing the linear planting of Compacta Hollies,
shown along the perimeter of the existing /proposed parking lot west of the existing /proposed buildings, with a
wider planting area whose outer (EC) edge parallels the Route 29N Corridor. Provide plant material within this
planting area that includes a mix of shrub types and heights (4 species minimum), arranged in a less structured,
natural layout.
Issue: Plantings to Integrate Buildings with Site
Comments: Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan does not show any proposed foundation planting along the northwest
and southeast sides of the proposed addition. Foundation plantings are needed in these visible areas to integrate
the structure with the site. These plantings should include a mix of shrub species with varying heights. The
landscape area formed by the south elevation of the existing structure, the west elevation of the proposed
addition, and the adjacent curvilinear parking needs additional planting. The planting design in this highly
visible area should act as a visual transition between the existing and proposed structures.
Recommendations: Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan by showing a mix of shrub species, with varying
heights, around the foundation of the proposed addition. Revise the planting proposal in the area formed by the
south elevation of the existing structure, the west elevation of the proposed addition, and the adjacent
curvilinear parking with a proposal that includes more planting, with a mix of plant types and species that will
serve, as viewed from the Corridor, as a visual transition between the existing and proposed buildings.
Signage
Issue: Freestanding and Building Signage/Details
Comments: Sheet A.301 Elevations shows proposed wall sign locations in the following areas:
• In the south elevation:
• At the west end of the existing and proposed structures, directly beneath the cornice.
• Centered on the roof of the proposed porte - cochere and to the right of the door beneath.
• In the west elevation:
• Centered on the canopy of the existing building.
• Directly beneath the cornice in the southwest corner of the proposed structure, text:
EMERGENCY. This sign appears to crowd the sign area with no border above and below the
letters. Entrance Corridor Sign Guidelines suggest that a ratio of 1/3 text to 2/3 wall area or
1/4 text to 3/4 wall area is a good working proportioning system for placing a sign on a
building.
Existing, visible freestanding signs along the Rt. 29N and Proffit Road frontages consist of a brick pedestal
matching the building with a beige colored monument and dark blue lettering. Existing, visible building
signage consists of individually mounted letters in a medium blue color. Sheet 2 of 3 Layout & Utility Plan
shows a freestanding sign at the site entrance off of State Route 649 Proffit Road and another one adjacent to
the handicap parking southwest of the proposed structure. Details, including materials, colors, and method of
lighting, if any, were not included with this submission. Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan does not show any
plantings around the freestanding signs. Proposed landscaping around the freestanding signs should serve to
incorporate the sign into the overall planting plan for the development.
Recommendations: For all proposed signage, provide a complete sign package addressing all of the criteria
outlined in the ARB Sign Review Checklist. Reduce the size of the EMERGENCY sign, proposed directly
beneath the cornice in the southwest corner of the proposed structure, so as not to crowd the sign area. Revise
Sheet LL -I Landscape Plan to include a landscape proposal for the area around the freestanding signs. This
proposal should serve to incorporate the sign into the overall planting plan for the development.
ARB 4/20/2009 Martha Jefferson Hospital @ Proffit Rd, Preliminary - Page 6
Lighting
Issue: Site and Building Lighting
Comments: Site, building and decorative lighting locations and details were not included with this submission.
Existing site lighting consists of bronze colored pole lights that appear to be full cutoff style fixtures. Entrance
Corridor Guidelines state:
• Light should be contained on the site and not spill over onto adjacent properties or streets.
• Light should be shielded, recessed, or flush- mounted to eliminate glare.
• The light should achieve an incandescent effect.
• Dark brown, dark bronze, or black are appropriate colors for free- standing pole mounted light
fixtures.
• The height and scale of freestanding pole- mounted light fixtures should be compatible with the height
and scale of the buildings and the site they are illuminating, and with the use of the site. Fixtures
should not exceed 15' in height. Fixtures that exceed 15' in height will require additional screening.
• In determining the appropriateness of lighting fixtures, the individual context of the site will be
considered.
Recommendations: Provide a lighting photometric plan showing the location of all proposed site, building and
decorative lighting. Include a luminaire schedule of all proposed exterior lighting on the photometric plan,
clearly indicating all lighting options chosen, including but not limited to heights and colors proposed for all
fixtures and poles. All fixtures emitting 3,000 or more lumens shall be full cutoff style fixtures. If site lighting
is not proposed, revise Sheet 2 of 3 Layout & Utility Plan to include a note to that effect.
Issue: Drafting Errors and Omissions
Comments: This application contains the following drafting errors and omissions:
• In the Plant Schedule on Sheet LL -2 Landscape Plan, the proposed Nellie Stevens Hollies are
mislabeled as NS. Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan has them correctly labeled as NH.
Sheet A.301 Elevations:
• The graphic scale shown does not appear to correspond with the drawings. The applicant has verbally
indicated that the correct scale is 1" = 8'.
• The building elevations are incorrectly identified as to their location. The West Elevation is
misidentified as the East Exterior Elevation, and the South Elevation is misidentified as the North
Exterior Elevation.
• The elevation drawing East Exterior Elevation is mislabeled for existing and new construction.
• Both elevation drawings contain notes referring to "refurbishing existing EIFS ". To refurbish means to
brighten or freshen up; however, the applicant has verbally indicated that the intention is to completely
replace all of the EIFS on the existing building with the EIFS product provided in this submission.
Recommendations:
• Revise the Plant Schedule on Sheet LL -2 Landscape Plan to correctly identify the plant label for the
Nellie Stevens Holly as NH.
• Revise Sheet A.301 Elevations by:
• Correctly identifying the drawing scale as 1" = 8'.
• Correctly identifying elevation East Exterior Elevation as the West Elevation and elevation
North Exterior Elevation as the South Elevation.
• Correctly identifying existing and new construction.
• Revising all annotation referring to refurbishing existing EIFS to correctly reflect the
ARB 4/20/2009 Martha Jefferson Hospital @ Proffit Rd, Preliminary - Page 7
applicant's intention of replacing it with the EMS sample included in this submission.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. Proposed building materials and colors.
2. The design of the proposed porte - cochere in the southeast elevation.
3. Existing and proposed landscaping between the existing building and the Corridor.
Staff offers the following comments on the preliminary site plan:
1. Revise Sheet A.301 Elevations to include a schedule listing all proposed materials and colors. The
schedule should include the manufacturer's name, product ID, and color for all proposed materials. Revise
the building elevations to clearly indicate the location of each material. Revise the design of the southeast
porte - cochere to include an alternate size, roof form, and /or supports. Revise all applicable drawings to
clearly indicate the proposed materials and colors.
2. Revise Sheet A.301 Elevations to include a dashed outline delineating the height and location of the
rooftop equipment. Dimension the drawing to show the distance from the top of the equipment to the top
of the screen. Add a note to Sheet A.301 Elevations and Sheet 2 of 3 Layout & Utility Plan stating: All
rooftop equipment shall not be visible from the Route 29N Entrance Corridor.
3. Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan to include details of all plant materials proposed for the bio- filter
adjacent to the southwest boundary. A planting design that disguises the utilitarian purpose of this facility
would be appropriate.
4. Revise the Existing Conditions Plan, Layout & Utility Plan and Grading & Drainage Plan to show the
location, species, and size of all existing trees and shrubs. Delineate the plantings that are to remain and
those that are to be removed. Provide an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan delineating the limits of
grading and clearing and the location and method of tree protection. Revise the Landscape Plan by
showing all existing planting that is to remain, identified for species and size.
5. Revise all applicable drawings by reducing the number of parking spaces by 3 for a total of 198 spaces.
Achieve this reduction by converting 3 equidistant parking spaces, currently shown along the perimeter of
the western most parking lot, facing Route 29, to 3 individual planting islands with large canopy trees.
6. Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan to show a total of 8 London Plane trees, 35' on center, along the
Route 29N frontage.
7. Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan to show a total of 4 Crimson King Red Maple trees, 21/2" in caliper,
40' on center, along the perimeter of the parking lot adjacent to the Proffit Road right -of -way. Revise the
drawing to show trees, 40' on center, 21/2" in caliper, along the edge of the curvilinear parking proposed in
the southwest corner of the site.
8. Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan to show the following:
• The location of the existing overhead power line /easement along the Route 29N frontage.
• The proposed underground stormwater management system.
• The proposed sanitary sewer connection west of the addition.
• The proposed underground fire (water) line east of the addition.
• The proposed grading as shown on Sheet 3 of 3 Grading & Drainage Plan.
• The location of all proposed site lighting. If site lighting is not proposed, add a note on the drawing to
that effect.
9. Revise the location and/or type of street trees along the Route 29N Corridor to avoid conflicts with
overhead utilities. Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan to include the following note: All site plantings of
trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is
ARB 4/20/2009 Martha Jefferson Hospital @ Proffit Rd, Preliminary - Page 8
prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant.
10. Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan by replacing the linear planting of Compacta Hollies, shown along the
perimeter of the existing /proposed parking lot west of the existing /proposed buildings, with a wider
planting area whose outer (EC) edge parallels the Route 29N Corridor. Provide plant material within this
planting area that includes a mix of shrub types and heights (4 species minimum), arranged in a less
structured, natural layout.
11. Revise Sheet LL -1 Landscape Plan by showing a mix of shrub species, with varying heights, around the
foundation of the proposed addition. Revise the planting proposal in the area formed by the south elevation
of the existing structure, the west elevation of the proposed addition, and the adjacent curvilinear parking
with a proposal that includes more planting, with a mix of plant types and species that will serve, as
viewed from the Corridor, as a visual transition between the existing and proposed buildings.
12. For all proposed signage, provide a complete sign package addressing all of the criteria outlined in the
ARB Sign Review Checklist. Reduce the size of the EMERGENCY sign, proposed directly beneath the
cornice in the southwest corner of the proposed structure, so as not to crowd the sign area. Revise Sheet
LL -1 Landscape Plan to include a landscape proposal for the area around the freestanding signs. This
proposal should serve to incorporate the sign into the overall planting plan for the development.
13. Provide a lighting photometric plan showing the location of all proposed site, building and decorative
lighting. Include a luminaire schedule of all proposed exterior lighting on the photometric plan, clearly
indicating all lighting options chosen, including but not limited to heights and colors proposed for all
fixtures and poles. All fixtures emitting 3,000 or more lumens shall be full cutoff style fixtures. If site
lighting is not proposed, revise Sheet 2 of 3 Layout & Utility Plan to include a note to that effect.
14. Revise the Plant Schedule on Sheet LL -2 Landscape Plan to correctly identify the plant label for the Nellie
Stevens Holly as NH.
15. Revise Sheet A.301 Elevations by:
• Correctly identifying the drawing scale as 1" = 8'.
• Correctly identifying elevation East Exterior Elevation as the West Elevation and elevation
North Exterior Elevation as the South Elevation.
• Correctly identifying existing and new construction.
• Revising all annotation referring to refurbishing existing EIFS to correctly reflect the
applicant's intention of replacing it with the EIFS sample included in this submission.
ARB 4/20/2009 Martha Jefferson Hospital @ Proffit Rd, Preliminary - Page 9