HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201000123 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2010-11-18ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #/Name
ARB- 2010 -123: Town & Country Shopping Center
Review Type
Work Session
Parcel Identification
Tax Map 78, Parcel 9C
Location
On the north side of Route 250 East, approximately 175' east of Town and Country Lane
Zoned
Highway Commercial (HC), Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner /Applicant
Tap Investments LLC /Balzer and Assoc., Inc. (Bill Moore)
Magisterial District
Rivanna
Proposal
To construct an 80' x 160' multi -tenant retail building and parking lot with 69 spaces. Site access provided by easements to
the north and west from Town and Country Lane. A retaining wall, approximately 220' long with a maximum height of
8.0', is proposed along the front elevation.
Context
The proposed development is located in the Pantops commercial area along the densely developed Route 250E EC. This
section of the EC is characterized by a mix of developments including auto dealerships, restaurants, and retail/office space.
Visibility
The proposed building and site development is expected to be highly visible from the EC due to its close proximity to the
Corridor. The roof area of the one - story, 22' tall building is expected to be visible while descending, westbound, from the
Rolkin Road intersection.
ARB Meeting Date
December 6, 2010
Staff Contact
Eryn Brennan
Project History
DATE
APPLICATION/REVIEW TYPE
RESULT
10/25/10
ARB2010 -123, Final Review of a
The applicant submitted an application for final review on 10/25 for the 12/ 6 ARB meeting.
Site Development Plan
Several of the revisions requested by the ARB at the September 7 meeting were not addressed in
the resubmittal and the application was deemed incomplete (Attachment A). However, based on
the substantive design revisions requested by the ARB at the preliminary review, staff
recommended that the 12/6 meeting be used as a work session to approach resolution of the larger
design issues, which are comments 1, 2, and 10 in the 9/7 action letter.
7/26/10
ARB2010 -76, Preliminary Review
The ARB reviewed a preliminary site development plan for this application on 9/7/10. Comments
of a Site Development Plan
were provided to the applicant for the benefit of their next submission (Attachment B). The two
architect members of the ARB were absent from the meeting. It was suggested after the meeting
that the applicant might want to discuss the design with the architects, and they did so.
7/27/10
SDP2010 -59, Preliminary Site Plan
Under review
ANALYSIS
REF
ARB COMMENT
ISSUES
RECOMMENDATION
1
Revise the size and shape of the cornice
The roofs of the corner towers have been
Revise the south elevation of the
above each of the four corner towers so it
revised to pyramidal forms and the soffits have
southeast corner tower to relieve the
has a more coordinated and proportionate
been given a more traditional shape. These
blankness of the wall and to present a
appearance with the structure below and
changes provide a more appropriate appearance
more coordinated appearance
the architecture of the entire building.
for the building.
regarding the ratio of solid and void
Provide a roof plan. Revise the proposal to
space.
show green metal panels in the sign band
The second story windows on the southeast
area of the EC fagade as shown in the
corner tower appear out of scale on the
Coordinate the perspective drawings
rendering provided with the original
elevation drawings. In addition, approximately
and elevation drawings.
submission. With your next submission,
300 square feet of blank wall space is shown
provide samples of proposed building
between the top of the awning and the sill of
materials /colors.
the second story windows due to the small
scale of the windows.
The east elevation of the southeast corner tower
as shown in the elevation drawing is not
coordinated with the perspective rendering.
The elevation includes a strip of green metal
panels in the cornice of the building, but the
panels are not used as sign bands. The sign
bands below the metal panels remain stucco.
2
Revise the rear, southwest elevation (facing
The stucco areas of the September 7 elevation
Revise the EC elevation to reduce the
the EC) to reduce the appearance of
have been revised to glass. Windows have been
appearance of blankness through the
blankness with the addition of windows
added in the bays that previously only had
use of windows and doors that use
and glass entry doors. Replace the stucco
solid doors. The applicant's memo indicates
vision glass. Pass - throughs from the
material proposed below the arched roof
that tenants will be allowed to choose between
parking lot side to the EC side of the
with glass.
vision glass and dark gray spandrel glass for
building are recommended so that the
the windows and doors. The second -story glass
south elevation may truly function as
under the arched roof is proposed as spandrel
the building's primary entrance
glass.
elevation.
A mix of spandrel and vision glass will appear
uncoordinated and would not be appropriate
REF
ARB COMMENT
ISSUES
RECOMMENDATION
for the EC. Spandrel glass for all of the
possible locations on the south elevation would
be too extensive, particularly so close to the
road, and it would not be appropriate for the
EC.
The building elevation facing the EC should
have the appearance of a building front. The
spandrel glass would not achieve that
appearance. Building pass - throughs could be
provided from the parking lot to the EC side of
the building, allowing the south elevation to be
used as the primary entrance elevation.
10
Highlight the connection of the sidewalk
The applicant has indicated that, following
For clarity in the next review, the ARB
from the EC along the west fagade.
discussions with ARB members, the sidewalk
should confirm that the sidewalk is
configuration in the current set of drawings is
appropriate as currently shown, or
the one being proposed. It represents no change
should further clarify the changes
from the previous design. There is no
required.
pedestrian access along the west elevation.
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. Revise the south elevation of the southeast corner tower to relieve the blankness of the wall and to present a more coordinated appearance
regarding the ratio of solid and void space.
2. Coordinate the perspective drawings and elevation drawings.
3. Revise the EC elevation to reduce the appearance of blankness through the use of windows and doors that use vision glass. Pass - throughs from
the parking lot side to the EC side of the building are recommended so that the south elevation may truly function as the building's primary
entrance elevation.
4. For clarity in the next review, the ARB should confirm that the sidewalk is appropriate as currently shown, or should further clarify the changes
required.
3
ATTACHMENT C
For the purpose of addressing only the issues to be discussed at the work session, only three of the drawings submitted were used for this analysis.
Sheet #
Drawing Name
Drawing Date/Revision Date
Building Elevations
10/25/10
Color Rendering View of Southwest Corner Along Route 250 Looking East
Received 10 -25 -10
Color Rendering View of Southwest Corner Along Route 250 Looking West
I Received 10 -25 -10
C5
Grading Plan
1 10/25/2010