Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200900025 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2009-05-08ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #: Name ARB- 2009 -25: North Fork Regional Pump Station Project Review Type Preliminary Site Development Plan Parcel Identification Tax Map 32, Parcel 6A Location 4419 Dickerson Road, on the west side of Route 29 North, approximately 935 feet north of Lewis and Clark Drive Zoned Planned Development Industrial Park (PDIP), Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner /Applicant University of Virginia Foundation Magisterial District Rio Proposal To construct a wastewater pump station consisting of underground pumps and piping; above - ground generator, transformer and security fence; and a 600 square foot building to house equipment. ARB Meeting Date May 18, 2009 Staff Contact Eryn Brennan SITE/PROJECT HISTORY The site is situated on the North Fork Research Park's 465 acre tract of land, most of which is located west of Seminole Trail, north of Airport Road, and south of Camelot Drive. The portion of the site related to this application is adjacent to the 29N Entrance Corridor. The North Fork Regional Pump Station project also involves the closing of the existing Camelot Wastewater Treatment Plant and the design of the Camelot Pump Station, which will be submitted as a separate site plan application in the future. In 2000, the ARB reviewed and approved proposed entrance improvements, at the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive and Route 29N, for the North Fork Research Park (ARB 2000 -29). The approval included proposed landscaping, a site /retaining wall and ground- mounted uplighting. The Hollymead Fire Rescue Station (ARB 06 -94) was reviewed by the ARB and approved in February of 2007. In July of 2008, the ARB approved the construction of a stone veneer retaining wall and to install planting at the entrance to Innovation Drive from Airport Road. CONTEXT The site is located west of Route 29 North, approximately 935 feet north of the traffic light at Lewis and Clark Drive. The site is a heavily forested, undeveloped site, characterized by underbrush and evergreen and deciduous shrubs for the first 50 feet adjacent to the EC. Beyond this initial buffer is primarily a deciduous matrix intermixed with stands of evergreens. The site gradually slopes up for the first 100 feet from the EC, at which point the slope grows steeper towards the western edge of the proposed development. PROJECT DETAILS/VISIBILITY The applicant proposes to construct a 20' x 30' structure that will house equipment necessary to operate a wastewater treatment plant. The building stands 15'- 3" high and is set back approximately 90 feet from the edge of pavement. Only the east and north elevation are expected to be visible from the EC. An 8' high ARB 5/18/2009 North Fork Regional Pump Station - Page 1 transparent Omega security fence proposed to circumscribe the site will only partially screen the above ground generator and transformer located south of the proposed building. Underground pumps, piping, and valves, and an above - ground hoist and monorail are proposed west of the building and are not expected to be visible from the EC. ANALYSIS based on: • Site Plan Sheets G -1; C -1 -3; C -6; C -8; C- 16 -19, dated March 2009 • Building Elevation Drawings, dated March 2009 • Lighting cutsheets, submitted March 18, 2009 • Site photos, dated August 18, 2008 and November 4, 2008 • A F -5" x 2' -0" sample board with brick, lintel, roof, and metalwork samples titled, "North Fork Regional Pump Station" Issue: Location of the Entrance Drive Comments: The entrance drive is located perpendicular to the EC and curves slightly to the north upon entering the site, offering a nearly straight view up the road to the development. The layout of the entrance drive runs against the existing topography by cutting straight through the landscape. An alternative solution that would respect the site's topography and maximize on the existing landscape features to help screen the development from the EC would be to relocate the entrance drive farther south and have it curve gently northward up to the site. Recommendations: Relocate the entrance drive to follow the existing contours more and to provide a layout that does not offer direct views into the site. A more suitable location for the entry from Route 29N would be south of the current proposed location. Issue: Mechanical Equipment Comments: The generator and transformer are located south of the proposed building. Although they are located behind the security fence and proposed plantings, they are still expected to be somewhat visible from the EC, as the security fence circumscribing the development is transparent. In a pre - application meeting on January 12, 2009, the applicant was advised to place the generator and transformer behind the building, and use an earth tone color to blend with the environment, in order to meet the EC Guidelines regarding screening of mechanical equipment. Information concerning the height and color of the equipment has not been provided, and the standard note concerning mechanical equipment has not been provided on the site plan. Recommendations: Revise the site plan to locate the mechanical equipment west of the proposed building so that it is not visible from Route 29N. Add a note on the site plan identifying the height and color of the mechanical equipment and submit a color sample. An earth tone color to blend with the surrounding environment would be appropriate. Add the following note to the site plan: "Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated." Issue: Site Grading Comments: The grading south of the generator and east of the entrance drive is too steep to blend with the existing topography, as the EC Guidelines require. Recommendations: Revise the grading south of the generator and east of the entrance drive to blend more with the existing topography and to avoid an "engineered" appearance. Issue: Security Fencing Comments: The applicant is proposing to construct an 8' high transparent Omega security fence circumscribing the development. In September 2008, the ARB approved this type of security fencing with the stipulation that ARB 5/18/2009 North Fork Regional Pump Station - Page 2 it must have a top rail. No top rail is proposed for this fence. Recommendations: Revise the 8' high Omega security fence circumscribing the development to have a top rail. Issue: Building Design Comments: The proposed 600 square foot building has a hipped, standing seam metal roof, pilasters topped with soldier courses, a belt course, and jack arches above the doors and windows, with keystones in the latter. The building meets the EC Guidelines regarding structure design in terms of scale, form, and materials. Most often, historic commercial manufacturing or infrastructure works buildings in the region, such as mills, take the general shape of multi -story homes with real windows and gable or hipped roofs, but do not add decorative details such as pilasters or window surrounds on the structure. Architectural details such as window surrounds, string courses, and pilasters are usually reserved for larger, high style homes or buildings in the region. Given the proposed building's purely functional purpose, architectural detailing that is restrained and minimal would be appropriate. Hence, the brick pilasters topped with a soldier course and the faux windows with herringbone brick infill and jack arches with keystones on the east facade are architectural details that do not relate to the surrounding context of buildings for this type of structure. Minimalist detailing on the building, such as a brick soldier course, could serve to relieve the facade of blankness. The color of the door on the east elevation has not been specified. Recommendations: Revise the building design to eliminate the pilasters and faux windows with brick infill. Minimalist detailing, such as a brick soldier course, may be appropriate to relieve blankness. Specify the color of the door on the east elevation and provide a color sample. An earth tone would be appropriate. Issue: Lighting Comments: Lighting cut sheets have been submitted with the application, but no light fixtures have been identified on the site plan and no photometric plan has been submitted. Recommendations: Indicate that no lighting is proposed for the building or site. Or, if lighting is proposed, identify any proposed light fixtures on the site plan and include the cut sheets for the proposed lighting within the set of full size site plan/lighting plan drawings, and submit a photometric plan. Issue: Utility Easements Comments: The eastern utility easement line for the 16" water main proposed south of the development is not shown on the site plan. A utility easement for the 2" water service line proposed south of the 16" water main is also not shown on the site plan. The utility easements do not carry into the area being purchased by the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), which is the area delineated by the line labeled with longitude and latitude coordinates. Understanding the exact location of the utility easements on the site all the way to the paved area of the pump station is necessary to determine the extent of clearing proposed and the extent of visibility from the EC. Recommendations: Revise the site plan to show the eastern utility easement line for the 16" water main and the utility easement for the 2" water line, both of which are proposed south of the development. Show all utility easement lines on the site up to the paved parking area. Issue: Landscape Plan Comments: 1. This development would require the removal of several extant trees on the site. New plantings that blend with the existing landscape would help integrate the development into the site and promote visual order along the EC. The landscape plan shows Cedrus Deodara, Magnolia, White Oak, American Beech, Southern Red Oak, Pignut Hickory, and Holly proposed around the development, but existing species are not identified. Consequently, it cannot be determined if the proposed plantings ARB 5/18/2009 North Fork Regional Pump Station - Page 3 are appropriate in this particular location. 2. The landscape plan clearly shows the location of the existing tree line north and south of the development, but does not show the location of the proposed tree line following clearing, which is necessary in order to understand the visual impact of the development on the EC. Also, tree protection fencing is not shown on the site plan; therefore, it cannot be determined whether grading will occur within the drip line of the proposed new tree line. 3. Trees are proposed to be planted in the utility easement for an existing force main line east of the proposed development. The applicant has indicated that this force main will be abandoned in place once the new facility is constructed, so the ACSA is allowing trees and shrubs to be planted in this easement. 4. The caliper of the proposed plantings has not been provided. 5. There are a number of utility easements on site, which significantly limit the number and types of plantings allowed. Recommendations: 1. Obtain a report from a certified horticulturist analyzing the existing tree types on the site and revise the plantings proposed on the landscape plan to be compatible with the existing tree species. Provide an existing conditions landscape plan detailing, in particular, extant plantings along the EC. A landscape architect could assist in developing an appropriate planting scheme specific to this area. 2. Revise the landscape plan to show the location of the proposed tree line once the utility easements would be cleared. Show tree protection fencing along the proposed tree line to ensure that no grading will occur within the drip line of the tree canopy on the site. 3. None. 4. Provide a complete landscape schedule for any new plantings on the site. For large shade trees along the EC, a 3 '/2" caliper is required. Minimum shrub size at planting is 24 ", but larger sizes may be required. 5. Provide a plan showing all the utility easements on the site shaded or highlighted to clearly identify the areas that are restricted from planting. For those easements with planting restrictions, clearly outline the restrictions and identify tree and shrub species that are acceptable to the easement holders. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. Location of the entrance drive. 2. Location of mechanical equipment. 3. Building design. 4. Landscaping along the EC. Staff offers the following comments on the preliminary site plan: 1. Relocate the entrance drive to follow the existing contours more and to provide a layout that does not offer direct views into the site. A more suitable location for the entry from Route 29N would be south of the current proposed location. 2. Revise the site plan to locate the mechanical equipment west of the proposed building so that it is not visible from Route 29N. Add a note on the site plan identifying the height and color of the mechanical equipment and submit a color sample. An earth tone color to blend with the surrounding environment would be appropriate. Add the following note to the site plan: "Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated." ARB 5/18/2009 North Fork Regional Pump Station - Page 4 3. Revise the grading south of the generator and east of the entrance drive to blend more with the existing topography and to avoid an "engineered" appearance. 4. Revise the 8' high Omega security fence circumscribing the development to have a top rail. 5. Revise the building design to eliminate the pilasters and faux windows with brick infill. Minimalist detailing, such as a brick soldier course, may be appropriate to relieve blankness. Specify the color of the door on the east elevation and provide a color sample. An earth tone would be appropriate. 6. Indicate that no lighting is proposed for the building or site. Or, if lighting is proposed, identify any proposed light fixtures on the site plan and include the cut sheets for the proposed lighting within the set of full size site plan/lighting plan drawings, and submit a photometric plan. 7. Revise the site plan to show the eastern utility easement line for the 16" water main and the utility easement for the 2" water line, both of which are proposed south of the development. Show all utility easement lines on the site up to the paved parking area. 8. Obtain a report from a certified horticulturist analyzing the existing tree types on the site and revise the plantings proposed on the landscape plan to be compatible with the existing tree species. Provide an existing conditions landscape plan detailing, in particular, extant plantings along the EC. A landscape architect could assist in developing an appropriate planting scheme specific to this area. 9. Revise the landscape plan to show the location of the proposed tree line once the utility easements would be cleared. Show tree protection fencing along the proposed tree line to ensure that no grading will occur within the drip line of the tree canopy on the site. 10. None. 11. Provide a complete landscape schedule for any new plantings on the site. For large shade trees along the EC, a 3 '/2" caliper is required. Minimum shrub size at planting is 24 ", but larger sizes may be required. 12. Provide a plan showing all the utility easements on the site shaded or highlighted to clearly identify the areas that are restricted from planting. For those easements with planting restrictions, clearly outline the restrictions and identify tree and shrub species that are acceptable to the easement holders. ARB 5/18/2009 North Fork Regional Pump Station - Page 5