The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutARB201300113 Review Comments No Submittal Type Selected 2013-09-30ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #/Name ARB- 2013 -113: Town & Country Shopping Center Amendment Review Type Amendment to an approved building design Parcel Identification 078000000009CO Location On the north side of Route 250 East, approximately 200' east of Town and Country Lane Zoned Highway Commercial (HC), Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner /Applicant Tap Investments LLCBob Pingry Magisterial District Rivanna Proposal To revise the architectural design by: reducing the amount of storefront glass, increasing the height of the parapet, e ualizin the height of the towers. Context The proposed development is located in the Pantops commercial area along the densely developed Route 250E Entrance Corridor. This section of the EC is characterized by a mix of developments including auto dealerships, restaurants, and retail/office space. Visibility The south, east and west elevations of the building will be visible from the Entrance Corridor. ARB Meeting Date October 7, 2013 Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski PROJECT HISTORY DATE APPLICATION /REVIEW TYPE RESULT 3/26/2013 ARB- 2010 -123 Final shopping center site plan first reviewed by the ARB in December, 2010. Final approval issued in March, 2013. 9/10/2010 ARB- 2010 -76 Preliminary review of the shopping center plan by the ARB. DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant has outlined the following three proposed changes: 1. Reduce the amount of storefront glass on the sides of the building to prevent views into unfinished or utilitarian areas. Replace glass with brick. Storefront framing to be applied to brick infill. 2. Increase the height of the parapet wall by 3' to ensure screening of HVAC units. 3. Clarify that the tower heights above finished floor will be equal. ANALYSIS REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION 9 Building forms and features, including The parapet changes result in side elevations with a heavier, less Maintain the approved roofs, windows, doors, materials, colors attenuated appearance, but greater visual impact is expect from the storefront glass in the east and textures should be compatible with the proposed storefront changes. The bays that would be impacted by side of the southeast forms and features of the significant the change from storefront windows to brick infill are the three tower and the west side of historic buildings in the area, exemplified bays closest to the EC on both the east and west sides of the the southwest tower. by (but not limited to) the buildings building. The issue that the change is meant to address (to prevent described in Appendix A [of the design views into unfinished, utilitarian or non - public spaces) has been guidelines]. The standard of compatibility addressed previously in the ECs with varying levels of success. In can be met through scale, materials, and this proposal, the storefront framing material and pattern would be forms which may be embodied in maintained as an overlay on the brick infill. This particular architecture which is contemporary as well treatment method has not previously been proposed in the ECs. as traditional. The replication of important The design would maintain some consistency in the treatment of historic sites in Albemarle County is not ground level bays, and the wall area in question would not be the objective of these guidelines. without detail. However, a significant amount of window glass would be eliminated, and the lack of windows is often interpreted 13 Any appearance of "blankness" resulting from building design should be relieved as blankness. Also, the bays proposed for infill on the east using design detail or vegetation, or both. elevation are some of the bays that were originally proposed to be filled with spandrel glass. The spandrel glass was not approved by 12 Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor should use forms, shapes, scale, the ARB due to its blank appearance. Although it has been argued and materials to create a cohesive whole. that the traditional layout of a strip shopping center requires that some bays of the building elevations be windowless, removing the windows from the side bays of the corner towers will have a negative visual impact. The towers will look awkward and disjointed because the EC bays of the towers will remain glass. This lack of compatibility in form and material will result in an inappropriate appearance for the EC. I.IUUTlu/: W&Oa9OCCI]UIU1NODZINYLOW Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. Replacing storefront glass with brick and metal 2. The infill design — storefront framing over brick 3. The inconsistency of the treatment of the corner tower bays and the resulting visual impact Staff offers the following comments on the proposal: 1. Maintain the approved storefront glass in the east side of the southeast tower and the west side of the southwest tower. TABLE A This report is based on the following submittal items: Sheet # Drawing Name Drawin Date /Revision Date A101 Floor Plan 08/21/13 A102 Elevations 08/21/13; revised/ printed 9/17/13 A103 Line of Sight Sections 08/21/13 tliFi r I rj - T _. WEST ELEVATION 5 ca_E_ va' ro' i — I i TENANVI ATTACHMENT A ARB- approved elevations � E�-- ELEVATON MATERIA!- KEY nnrr�w ._aru nsw�F�!rur�.e � - ,.:,„,x..,,�..,..M.. 5 SOU17a =_LEti(a'I�PN SCALE lib' = t[T 3 FRAziER ASSOCIATES AACHITR1TUFE- COMMUNITY OFSIGN- WAYFINOING r / FID hiTafiC6 �r -- Ms cL �PN�5, GREEN BI%1GC TO F TOH 6.AL: NG -= 0 $ N1rGIJW_ wiur SC FGE 8' HIGEi -0uT �v9 - ens ease Town &G — — 4 HGH r IXTRIJLYD. R� f 4 SCAN_2 TaIL � .4L�3i8' = T4' c+ ELEVATIONS TowN & C4UNTAY LOT C ALSEECMAALE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 2