HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201300159 Review Comments Miscellaneous Submittal 2013-11-11ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #/Name
ARB- 2013 -157, 158 and 159: Stonefield Town Center Phase 2; Costco Fuel Center Signs; Costco Building Signs
Review Type
Final Site Development Plan and Signs
Parcel Identification
061WO0300019BO
On the west side of Route 29, approximately 1100' south of Greenbrier Drive, between Sperry Marine/Northrup
Location
Grumman and Seminole Place
Zoned
Neighborhood Model District (NMD), Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner /Applicant
Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
Magisterial District
Jack Jouett
To construct a part of the northern phase of the Stonefield Town Center, including a Costco big box retail store with an
Proposal
associated fuel pump canopy, and related parking, lighting and landscaping.
Context
The prosed development is located in the northernmost part of the Stonefield development, occupying Block F and part of
Block G. The surrounding area includes a mix of commercial, industrial and residential development.
Visibility of the Costco building was discussed at the August 5, 2013 ARB meeting. Based on the degree of visibility
Visibility
anticipated at that time, the ARB provided the following direction:
1. ARB review of the architecture of Building F1 (as presented in the Site Distance and Massing illustrations) shall
be limited to the east and south elevations.
2. ARB review of the architectural elevations of Building F1 (as presented in the Site Distance and Massing
illustrations) shall not include details.
3. Building heights remain a subject for review.
At the September 16, 2013 work session, the ARB had these additional comments related to visibility:
1. The ARB expressed concern about the visibility of the building due to its size and the topography, even though
the distance between the building and the EC is great.
2. The "unblocked" view of the Costco building will be considered if there is no assurance that the buildings
fronting the EC will be constructed at the same time.
The proposed building is set back approximately 875' from Route 29 and almost 1800' from Hydraulic Road. At this
distance, the building is not expected to have an impact on the Hydraulic Road Entrance Corridor.
ARB Meeting Date
November 18, 2013
Staff Contact
Margaret Maliszewski
PROJECT HISTORY
DATE
APPLICATION /REVIEW TYPE
RESULT
November 13, 2013
ZMA- 2013 -09
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review the rezoning amendment
The ARB made the following comments at the
Add a phasing line to the
(reviewed by the ARB on 8/5/13) that would allow the addition of the
development within the designated Entrance
9/16/13 work session:
automobile service station use in Block F.
October 23, 2013
Balloon "test"
In response to an ARB comment at the 9/16/13 work session, balloons were
flown at the corners of the proposed Costco building to help demonstrate
issues.
See landscaping
visibility. Weather conditions were very windy at the time.
September 16, 2013
Work Session
Preliminary ARB comments were provided on the design of the Costco
of these Guidelines, that proposed development
building. (See Attachment B for the action letter.)
August 5, 2013
ARB- 2013 -86: Stonefield Blocks F
Initial Site Plan, rezoning and variation requests were reviewed by the ARB.
parking and the blank walls.
and G Initial Plan
(See Attachment A for the action letter.)
Various
Various site plans
Site plans were approved for the "town center" portion of the Stonefield
historical landmarks, buildings, and structures of the
development, the Hyatt hotel, and the Haven residential area.
Various
ZMA- 2008 -03, ZMA- 2011 -04, ZMA-
Rezoning applications were approved to revise proffers, codes, etc.
from the rest of the development. Break
2011 -07
October 22, 2003
ZMA- 2001 -07: Albemarle Place
Approval of the original rezoning for Albemarle Place (ZMA- 2001 -07),
corridors. Applicants should note that replication of
including application plan, code of development and proffers.
ANALYSIS
REF
GUIDELINE
ISSUE
RECOMMENDATION
1
The goal of the regulation of the design of
The ARB made the following comments at the
Add a phasing line to the
development within the designated Entrance
9/16/13 work session:
plan.
Corridors is to insure that new development within
Colors, mass and landscaping are primary
the corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the
issues.
See landscaping
area. Therefore, it is the purpose of ARB review and
Landscaping in excess of EC minimums
recommendations.
of these Guidelines, that proposed development
will be needed to offset the expanse of
within the designated Entrance Corridors reflect
parking and the blank walls.
elements of design characteristic of the significant
The large blank walls are out of character
historical landmarks, buildings, and structures of the
for the development. Take architectural cues
Charlottesville and Albemarle area, and to promote
from the rest of the development. Break
orderly and attractive development within these
down the massing more. Reduce the visual
corridors. Applicants should note that replication of
impact.
historic structures is neither required nor desired.
The entrance looks like an addition to the
3
New structures and substantial additions to existing
building. Greater integration is required.
structures should respect the traditions of the
architecture of historically significant buildings in the
The proposed building measures
Charlottesville and Albemarle area.
approximately 330' x 470' x 33' tall. As
such, it is a very large building. Although it
9
Building forms and features, including roofs,
windows, doors, materials, colors and textures should
is anticipated that a building of this size
be compatible with the forms and features of the
would not exhibit the human scale of
significant historic buildings in the area, exemplified
traditional commercial buildings, human
by (but not limited to) the buildings described in
scale is addressed in the building design by
Appendix A [of the design guidelines]. The standard
breaking down the elevations into bays of
of compatibility can be met through scale, materials,
varying width, color and material, and
and forms which may be embodied in architecture
interspersing the bays with pilaster -like
which is contemporary as well as traditional. The
elements. Bays range from 32' wide to 80'
replication of important historic sites in Albemarle
wide and pilasters are 10' wide. The
County is not the objective of these guidelines.
addition of green screens in several bays
11
The overall design of buildings should have human
helps relieves the blankness.
scale. Scale should be integral to the building and site
design.
Building colors illustrated at the work
13
Any appearance of "blankness" resulting from
building design should be relieved using design detail
session were primarily white and tan. The
or vegetation, or both.
current proposal adds a medium -dark shade
of gray at the larger building bays, and tan
5
It is also an important objective of the Guidelines to
establish a pattern of compatible architectural
stucco in the lower third of the bays that are
characteristics throughout the Entrance Corridor in
faced white metal panels.
order to achieve unity and coherence. Building
designs should demonstrate sensitivity to other nearby
The proposed building is set back
structures within the Entrance Corridor. Where a
approximately 875' from the Route 29 EC.
designated corridor is substantially developed, these
The scale and massing of the building may
Guidelines require striking a careful balance between
be mitigated, in part, by this distance and by
harmonizing new development with the existing
trees and other buildings located between
character of the corridor and achieving compatibility
the Costco building and the EC. The smaller
with the significant historic sites in the area.
retail buildings in Block G of the
development are not proposed with this
10
Buildings should relate to their site and the
surrounding context of buildings.
phase of development, but a phasing line
does not appear on the plan.
14
Arcades, colonnades, or other architectural
connecting devices should be used to unify groups of
buildings within a development.
12
Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor
No major changes have been made to the
should use forms, shapes, scale, and materials to
Costco entrance design since the work
create a cohesive whole.
session. However, the split face block used
at the entrance is now also used for the
pilasters on the south and east elevations.
This increases the coordination of the
Costco building parts. Also, green screens
like those used in the first phase of the
Stonefield development have been added to
several bays of the Costco building, and the
Costco building and gas canopy are related
in color and material.
15
Trademark buildings and related features should be
The proposed building clearly reads as a
None.
modified to meet the requirements of the Guidelines.
Costco store, but the standard design has
been revised for this location.
Accessory structures and equipment
17
Accessory structures and equipment should be
Loading and dumpster areas are proposed at
Provide sections and
integrated into the overall plan of development and
the back of the Costco building, out of view
other pertinent
shall, to the extent possible, be compatible with the
from the Entrance Corridors.
information to clarify the
building designs used on the site.
Rooftop mechanical equipment is planned,
appearance of the 25'
screen wall and its
18
The following should be located to eliminate
visibility from the Entrance Corridor street. If, after
and the parapet walls are expected to screen
relationship to other site
appropriate siting, these features will still have a
the equipment from view. The site section
elements, and to show
negative visual impact on the Entrance Corridor
shows the parapets at 8 %Z' tall.
how it will be integrated
street, screening should be provided to eliminate
into the surroundings.
visibility.
A screen wall is proposed along the south
Consider additional
a. Loading areas, b. Service areas, c. Refuse areas, d.
side of the site, between the site and Sperry.
landscaping at the eastern
Storage areas, e. Mechanical equipment, f. Above-
The proposed wall design matches that
end of the screen wall to
ground utilities, and g. Chain link fence, barbed wire,
approved in the first phase of Stonefield
help integrate the wall
razor wire, and similar security fencing devices.
development. A note on the plan indicates
the wall height on this side of Sperry is to
into the landscape.
19
Screening devices should be compatible with the
design of the buildings and surrounding natural
be 25'. (The wall in the first phase is
vegetation and may consist o£ a. Walls, b. Plantings,
considerably shorter.) Trees and shrubs are
and c. Fencing.
proposed on the Sperry side of the wall. The
wall begins approximately 280' west of Rt.
29 and the approved application plan shows
a building to be built a short distance to the
north of the east end of the wall in Block G.
Given the wall height, additional
information clarifying the appearance of the
wall in relation to other site features would
be appropriate to better understand how
well the wall will be integrated into the
surroundings. Additional landscaping at the
eastern end of the wall might be
appropriate.
20
Surface runoff structures and detention ponds should
The large stormwater pond located at the
None.
be designed to fit into the natural topography to
east end of the site is temporary. Permanent
avoid the need for screening. When visible from the
stormwater features will be underground.
Entrance Corridor street, these features must be fully
integrated into the landscape. They should not have
the appearance of engineered features.
21
The following note should be added to the site plan
The note does not appear on the plans.
Add the following note to
and the architectural plan: "Visibility of all
both the site and
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor
architectural plans:
shall be eliminated."
"Visibility of all
mechanical equipment
from the Entrance
Corridor shall be
eliminated."
Lighting
22
Light should be contained on the site and not spill
The photometric plan does not clearly show
Clarify the photometric
over onto adjacent properties or streets;
that spillover is not excessive at the west
plan to show that
end of the site where there are adjacent
spillover does not exceed
residential properties. Also, pole lights are
.5 footcandles at the west
proposed at the east end of the property, but
end of the site where
footcandle readings have not been provided
there are adjacent
in this area.
residential properties.
Revise the photometric
plan to include
footcandle readings at the
east end of the site. Be
sure to include the
property line along Rt. 29
on the photometric plan
and include readings out
to zero or to the property
line.
23
Light should be shielded, recessed or flush-
It is not clear from the information
Provide confirmation
mounted to eliminate glare. All fixtures with lamps
submitted whether the Sign -Vue LED
from the manufacturer
emitting 3000 lumens or more must be full cutoff
fixture for the building wall signs meets the
indicating that the Sign -
fixtures.
county's definition of full cutoff fixture.
Vue LED fixture emits
no light above the
horizontal plane.
24
Light levels exceeding 30 footcandles are not
Light levels under the gas canopy exceed 50
Reduce the light levels
appropriate for display lots in the Entrance
footcandles. This level of illumination will
under the gas canopy to
Corridors. Lower light levels will apply to most
appear brighter than the surroundings, will
not exceed 30
other uses in the Entrance Corridors.
increase the noticeability of the canopy, and
footcandles.
therefore will not have an appropriate
appearance for the EC.
25
Light should have the appearance of white light
Proposed pole fixtures have metal halide
None.
with a warm soft glow; however, a consistent
lamps, which were also used in the first
appearance throughout a site or development is
phase of development. Proposed wall and
required. Consequently, if existing lamps that emit
gas canopy fixtures have LED lamps, which
non -white light are to remain, new lamps may be
are typical for those types of applications.
required to match them.
26
Dark brown, dark bronze, or black are appropriate
The XA and XB fixtures are proposed with
Clearly identify in the
colors for free - standing pole mounted light fixtures in
a bronze finish, which was approved for the
lighting tables and/or
the Entrance Corridors.
first phase of development. The finish of the
notes that bronze is the
other fixtures isn't clear from the drawings.
proposed finish for all
light fixtures and poles.
27
The height and scale of freestanding, pole- mounted
The P and P1 fixtures in the Costco parking
Limit all pole lights to a
light fixtures should be compatible with the height
lot are proposed at 30' tall (including a 2'
maximum of 20' high,
and scale of the buildings and the sites they are
6" base). The other pole lights are proposed
including bases.
illuminating, and with the use of the site.
at 20' tall, which matches the majority of
Typically, the height of freestanding pole- mounted
pole heights in the first phase of
light fixtures in the Entrance Corridors should not
development. Some taller pole heights were
exceed 20 feet, including the base. Fixtures that
approved in the first phase of development
exceed 20 feet in height will typically require
based on topography and the perceived
additional screening to achieve an appropriate
height from the corridor. Factors to consider
appearance from the Entrance Corridor.
in this case include the following: 1) The
closest P fixture to the Rt. 29 EC is
approximately 480' away. 2) Buildings will
eventually stand between the parking lot
lights and the EC. 3) Trees in the parking
lots can help reduce the impact of the light.
4) The parking lot sits approximately 12' to
18' higher than the Rt. 29 EC.
Landscaping
7
The requirements of the Guidelines regarding
The ARB made the following comment at
Provide documentation
landscaping are intended to reflect the landscaping
the 9/16/13 work session: "Colors, mass and
from Dominion Virginia
characteristic of many of the area's significant
landscaping are primary issues."
Power that there is no
historic sites which is characterized by large shade
objection to the proposed
trees and lawns. Landscaping should promote visual
As indicated in the previous reviews,
planting in the Dominion
order within the Entrance Corridor and help to
utilities and easements exist that limit the
easement.
integrate buildings into the existing environment of
ability to plant along the EC frontage.
the corridor.
However, the applicant does propose a
consistent row of trees and shrubs in the
8
Continuity within the Entrance Corridor should be
obtained by planting different types of plant materials
Dominion Virginia Power easement.
that share similar characteristics. Such common
Dominion limits tree planting to certain
elements allow for more flexibility in the design of
small species, which the applicant has
structures because common landscape features will
proposed. They are maples with a mature
help to harmonize the appearance of development as
height of 20' to 25'. This planting layout is
seen from the street upon which the Corridor is
similar to that approved along Rt. 29 in the
centered.
first phase of development.
32
Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance Corridor
streets should include the following:
a. Large shade trees should be planted parallel to the
The trees are spaced closer than the
Entrance Corridor Street. Such trees should be at least
guidelines requirement (generally 30'
3'/2 inches caliper (measured 6 inches above the
instead of the required 35' on center),
ground) and should be of a plant species common to
serviceberries are interspersed, and a
the area. Such trees should be located at least every
continuous row of euonymus is provided.
35 feet on center.
Also, the trees proposed along District
b. Flowering ornamental trees of a species common
Avenue are proposed at 31/2" caliper, which
to the area should be interspersed among the trees
is larger than the 2%2" minimum
required by the preceding paragraph. The ornamental
requirement for trees along interior roads.
trees need not alternate one for one with the large
shade trees. They may be planted among the large
shade trees in a less regular spacing pattern.
c. In situations where appropriate, a three or four
board fence or low stone wall, typical of the area,
should align the frontage of the Entrance Corridor
street.
d. An area of sufficient width to accommodate the
foregoing plantings and fencing should be reserved
parallel to the Entrance Corridor street, and exclusive
of road right-of-way and utility easements.
33
Landscaping along interior roads:
Generally, trees are proposed to meet this
Add a tree (GT) in the
a. Large trees should be planted parallel to all interior
guideline, but two areas require attention: 1)
gap on the south side of
roads. Such trees should be at least 2%2 inches caliper
there appears to be a tree (GT) missing on
the easternmost arm of
(measured six inches above the ground) and should be
the south side of the easternmost arm of
District Avenue in the
of a plant species common to the area. Such trees
District Avenue in the vicinity of the striped
vicinity of the striped
should be located at least every 40 feet on center.
median. 2) Supplementing the GT trees on
median.
the north side of District Avenue, from the
Rt. 29 entrance westward, with interspersed
Intersperse ornamental
ornamental trees and shrubs would improve
trees and shrubs in the
the appearance of the entrance, coordinate it
row of GT trees on the
with the frontage planting, soften the
north side of District
appearance of the retaining wall, and
Avenue, westward from
coordinate with the planting further west.
the Rt. 29 entrance into
the site.
34
Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways:
The ARB made the following comment at
None.
a. Medium trees should be planted parallel to all
the Initial Site Plan review: "A double
interior pedestrian ways. Such trees should be at least
staggered row of trees along the portion of
21/2 inches caliper (measured six inches above the
the pedestrian corridor between the bus stop
ground) and should be of a species common to the
and District Avenue would have a more
area. Such trees should be located at least every 25
appropriate appearance than the single row
feet on center.
of trees shown in that location." This
change has been made.
35
Landscaping of parking areas:
The ARB made the following comments at
Consider additional trees
a. Large trees should align the perimeter of parking
the 9/16/13 work session: "There is concern
in the parking lots
areas, located 40 feet on center. Trees should be
about the `sea of parking' and its impact on
located between the
planted in the interior of parking areas at the rate of
the EC." And: "Landscaping in excess of
Costco store and District
one tree for every 10 parking spaces provided and
EC minimums will be needed to offset the
Avenue to offset building
should be evenly distributed throughout the interior of
expanse of parking and the blank walls."
and parking impacts.
the parking area.
b. Trees required by the preceding paragraph should
Generally, the layout of the development is
Revise the plans to
measure 2'h inches caliper (measured six inches
such that most parking areas are bordered
resolve all conflicts
above the ground); should be evenly spaced; and
by interior roads, so interior road trees are
among trees, light poles,
should be of a species common to the area. Such trees
also acting as perimeter parking lot trees.
pipes, etc.
should be planted in planters or medians sufficiently
Shrubs are not consistently proposed in the
large to maintain the health of the tree and shall be
parking area. A row of euonymous, 30"
protected by curbing.
c. Shrubs should be provided as necessary to
high at planting, is provided along the Rt.
minimize the parking area's impact on Entrance
29 frontage and another row is provided
Corridor streets. Shrubs should measure 24 inches in
east of the easternmost row of parking
height.
proposed in this phase of development. The
greater the distance from the EC, the less
impact shrubs will have on mitigating
impacts.
The cover sheet indicates that 630 parking
spaces are proposed. 65 of the proposed
trees are interior parking lot trees. So, the
guideline has been met, but there is not a
significant excess of interior parking lot
trees proposed to offset the expanse of
parking.
There are some minor errors throughout the
plans that should be corrected: trees shown
in parking lots without tree islands, light
poles shown on hydrants, trees shown on
10
pipes, etc.
36
Landscaping of buildings and other structures:
The elevations show that green screens have
Add the green screen
a. Trees or other vegetation should be planted along
been added to 5 bays on the south elevation
locations to the landscape
the front of long buildings as necessary to soften the
and 4 bays on the east elevation of the
plan.
appearance of exterior walls. The spacing, size, and
Costco building to help relieve blankness.
type of such trees or vegetation should be determined
Green screens are consistent with the
Coordinate the landscape
by the length, height, and blankness of such walls.
treatments used in the first phase of
plan and elevation
b. Shrubs should be used to integrate the site,
development. The green screen locations
drawings regarding
buildings, and other structures; dumpsters, accessory
should be added to the landscape plan for
shrubs.
buildings and structures; "drive thru" windows;
coordination.
service areas; and signs. Shrubs should measure at
least 24 inches in height.
Shrubs are shown in the south elevation
drawing, but there are no corresponding
shrubs on the landscape plan.
Site Grading
40
Site grading should maintain the basic relationship of
Retaining walls are proposed. The wall on
None.
the site to surrounding conditions by limiting the use
the north side of the site has been reduced in
of retaining walls and by shaping the terrain through
length as compared to the initial plan; it
the use of smooth, rounded land forms that blend
begins approximately 400' further away
with the existing terrain. Steep cut or fill sections are
from the EC than in the initial plan.
generally unacceptable. Proposed contours on the
Maximum retaining wall heights appear to
grading plan shall be rounded with a ten foot
be 17' at the northwest corner of the site
minimum radius where they meet the adjacent
and 20' at the southwest corner. The
condition. Final grading should achieve a natural,
retaining walls themselves are not expected
rather than engineered, appearance. Retaining walls 6
to have a visual impact on the EC, but the
feet in height and taller, when necessary, shall be
walls do allow the development to be
terraced and planted to blend with the landscape.
constructed as proposed.
45
Fuel Pump Canopies
The ground elevation at the fuel canopy is
476'. The elevation at the entrance to the
site from Rt. 29 is approximately 460'.
b
Fuel pump canopies shall be the smallest size possible
The proposed dispenser configuration is not
Consider reducing the
to offer protection from the elements. Canopies shall
specifically addressed in the EC standards.
length of the canopy by
not exceed the sizes identified in Standards for Fuel
The proposed canopy is 120' long x 25' 6"
16'.
Pump Canopies as outlined in Appendix B.
wide x 17' 6" tall. The proposed width is
narrower than the standards call for; the
10
11
proposed length is longer by 16'. The height
meets the standards.
C
The size of the canopy fascia and canopy support
The fascia is proposed at 36" high.
None.
columns shall be in proportion to the overall size of
the canopy structure. The fascia shall not exceed 36"
in total height, including any accent bands.
d
Canopy fascias shall not be illuminated.
The canopy face is not proposed to be
None.
illuminated.
e
Lighting of fuel pump canopies shall be of the lowest
Light levels under the gas canopy exceed 50
Reduce the light levels
level that will provide safe dispensing of fuel. All
footcandles. This level of illumination will
under the gas canopy to
canopy lighting shall be flush - mounted and shielded,
increase the noticeability of the canopy and
not exceed 30
downward directed, and shall not emit light above the
will appear brighter than the surroundings.
footcandles.
horizontal plane. All canopy lighting shall meet the .5
foot - candle spillover requirement in compliance with
zoning ordinance regulations.
f
Canopy related elements, including fuel dispensers,
The proposed material for the canopy
None.
support columns, spandrels, planters, etc. shall be
support columns matches a material
compatible with the character of the building and site
proposed for the Costco building. The
and shall not be used for advertising.
canopy fascia is proposed in a light- medium
shade of gray.
h
Canopy fascias shall be limited to the use of one
principal color, with ARB review.
Although the overall development plan
i
Colors, materials, forms, and detailing may be used to
coordinate canopies with a site, its building(s), and
shows buildings to be constructed between
structures.
the canopy and the Rt. 29 Entrance
Corridor, those buildings are not proposed
to be constructed with this phase of
development. The fuel canopy will have
greater visibility from the EC until those
buildings are constructed. Trees proposed
along District Avenue east of the canopy
and trees proposed along the pedestrian
corridor and Entrance Corridor frontage
may help integrate the canopy into the
surroundings, as viewed from the EC.
SIGNS
Signs are proposed for the Costco building and the fuel canopy. The signs consist of individual red
Provide confirmation
11
"Costco" letters above individual blue "Wholesale" or "Gasoline" letters. There are three blue
stripes to the left of the "Wholesale" and "Gasoline" letters. On the Costco building, one sign is
proposed above the main store entrance, and one is proposed at the north end of the east elevation.
The latter sign is aligned with the entrance into the site from Rt. 29. On the Costco building, a
"Tire Center" sign in individual red letters is also proposed above the bay doors of the tire center
on the east (EC) elevation. On the fuel canopy, signs are proposed to be centered in the east, west
and south faces. Each of the signs would be externally illuminated with LED fixtures.
It isn't entirely clear from the information submitted whether the Sign -Vue LED fixture for the
building wall signs is full cutoff according to the County's definition. Confirmation from the
manufacturer is needed.
The fixture proposed for the canopy signs appears to crowd the sign. A photo of an installed
example would help clarify the appearance.
The signs do not appear overscaled for the building or canopy, but only the sizes of the overall
signs have been provided. Identifying the heights of the "Costco ", "Wholesale" and
"Gasoline" letters on the drawings would be useful.
review of the
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
has not yet been completed.
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. Building massing and scale, blankness of walls
2. Integration of the building entrance with the overall building
from the manufacturer
indicating that the Sign -
Vue LED fixture emits
no light above the
horizontal plane.
Provide a photograph of
an installed example of
the fuel canopy sign and
light fixture for review.
Identify the heights of the
Costco, Wholesale and
Gasoline letters on the
sign drawings.
3. Appropriateness of building colors
4. Is the amount of proposed landscaping sufficient to offset the impacts of the building design and the expanse of parking?
5. The Sperry screen wall — design, size
6. Fuel pump canopy design and illumination levels
7. Light pole height in the Costco parking lot
8. Rt. 29 frontage planting
12
Staff offers the following comments on the proposal:
1. Add a phasing line to the plan.
2. Provide site sections and other pertinent information to clarify the appearance of the 25' screen wall and its relationship to other site
elements, and to show how it will be integrated into the surroundings. Consider additional landscaping at the eastern end of the
screen wall to help integrate the wall into the landscape.
3. Add this note to the site and architectural plans: "Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be
eliminated."
4. Clarify the photometric plan to show that spillover does not exceed .5 footcandles at the west end of the site where there are adjacent
residential properties. Revise the photometric plan to include footcandle readings at the east end of the site. Be sure to include the
property line along Rt. 29 on the photometric plan and include readings out to zero or to the property line.
5. Provide confirmation from the manufacturer indicating that the Sign -Vue LED fixture emits no light above the horizontal plane.
6. Clearly identify in the lighting tables or notes that bronze is the proposed finish for all fixtures and poles.
7. Limit all pole lights to a maximum of 20' high, including bases.
8. Provide documentation from Dominion Virginia Power that there is no objection to the proposed planting in the Dominion easement.
9. Add a tree (GT) in the gap on the south side of the easternmost arm of District Avenue in the vicinity of the striped median.
10. Intersperse ornamental trees and shrubs in the row of GT trees on the north side of District Avenue, westward from the Rt. 29
entrance into the site.
11. Consider additional trees in the parking lots located between the Costco store and District Avenue to offset building and parking
impacts.
12. Revise the plans to resolve all conflicts among trees, light poles, pipes, etc.
13. Add the green screen locations to the landscape plan.
14. Coordinate the landscape plan and elevation drawings regarding shrubs.
15. Consider reducing the length of the fuel canopy by 16'.
16. Reduce the light levels under the gas canopy to not exceed 30 footcandles.
17. Provide confirmation from the manufacturer indicating that the Sign -Vue LED fixture emits no light above the horizontal plane.
18. Provide a photograph of an installed example of the fuel canopy sign and light fixture for review.
19. Identify the heights of the Costco, Wholesale and Gasoline letters on the sign drawings.
13
TABLE A This report is based on the following submittal items:
Sheet #
Drawing Name
Drawing Date
Sheet #
Drawing Name
Drawing Date
SP -0
Cover Sheet
10/9/13
A -3B
Building Elevation Renderings
10/9/13
SP -1
Enlarged Site Plan
10/9/13
A -4
Architectural Floor Plan
10/9/13
SP -2
Enlarged Site Plan
10/9/13
A -5
Architectural Elevation —Fuel
Center
10/9/13
SP -3
Enlarged Site Plan
10/9/13
Elevations - 1/8" scale color
building elevations with 1/4"
scale sign drawings
10/7/13
ST -1
Enlarged Topography Plan
10/9/13
Signage drawings — for Costco
building with external wall light
details
-
ST -2
Enlarged Topography Plan
10/9/13
Signage drawings — for fuel
pump canopy
-
ST -3
Enlarged Topography Plan
10/9/13
Color /materials sample board
LA -0
Overall Landscape Plan, Schedule
10/9/13
LA -1
Enlarged Landscape Plan
10/9/13
LA -2
Enlarged Landscape Plan
10/9/13
LA -3
Enlarged Landscape Plan
10/9/13
LT -0
Overall Lighting Plan, Schedule
10/9/13
LT -1
Enlarged Lighting Plan
10/9/13
LT -2
Enlarged Lighting Plan
10/9/13
LT -3
Enlarged Lighting Plan
10/9/13
W -1
Wall Details
10/9/13
W -2
Wall Details
10/9/13
A -1
Architectural Elevations - Building
10/9/13
A -2A
Site Section - Hydraulic Road
10/9/13
A -2B
Site Section — Route 29
10/9/13
A -3A
Building Elevation Renderings
10/9/13
14
Attachment A
Lrf2C;l1�ZA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
August 9, 2013
Herbert F. White III
WW Associates
3040 Avemore Square Place A
Charlottesville, Va. 22911
RE: ARB- 2013 -86: Stonefield Blocks F and G
TMP 061W00300019B0
Dear Mr. White:
At its meeting on Monday, August 5, 2013 the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board took the following actions:
Regarding the Intial Site Development Plan
The ARB voted 3:1 to forward the following recommendations to the agent for the Site Review Committee:
- Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18- 30.6.4(2), (3) and (5):
None.
Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
None.
Regarding recommended conditions of initial site plan approval:
o A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. The applicant is advised that:
■ The standard lighting, landscaping and mechanical equipment notes are required on the site and architectural plans.
15
• The quantity of trees required along the EC frontage may be greater than the guidelines minimum to compensate for
the tree size limits imposed by the existing utility easements.
• Details on screening wall design will be required with the final site plan submittal. Screening walls should be
compatible with the appearance of building designs determined appropriate for the ECs.
Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
None.
Regardinq the Variation Request
The ARB voted 4:0 to forward the following recommendation:
A double staggered row of trees along the portion of the pedestrian corridor between the bus stop and District Avenue would have a
more appropriate appearance than the single row of trees shown in that location.
Regarding the Rezoning
The ARB voted 4:0 to forward the following recommendations:
There is no objection to the addition of the fueling facility use if the canopy is added to the layout as illustrated in the Initial Site
Plan. The addition of the fueling facility use is not recommended with the layout illustrated in the Code of Development Modification
Exhibit, which shows no buildings between the fueling facility and the EC.
The fuel pump canopy shall meet all EC Design Guidelines, including those for height.
Regarding the Conceptual Site and Massinq Studies
The Board made the following comments and suggestions for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal:
4. ARB review of the architecture of Building F1 (as presented in the Site Distance and Massing illustrations) shall be limited to the
east and south elevations.
5. ARB review of the architectural elevations of Building F1 (as presented in the Site Distance and Massing illustrations) shall not
include details.
6. Building heights remain a subject for review.
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 /ARB.
Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing. 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.
16
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
P O Box 528
Columbia Sc 29202
Chris Haine, Planning and Development Manager
Edens
7200 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 400
Bethesda, MD 20814
File
17
Attachment B
�10� .aLe
� If2Gl�It�'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
September 20, 2013
Herbert F. White III
WW Associates
3040 Avemore Square Place A
Charlottesville, Va. 22911
RE: Costco at Stonefield
TMP 061W00300019B0
Dear Mr. White:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on September 16, 2013, held a work session on Costco at Stonefield. The ARB had the
following comments:
1. The ARB expressed concern about the visibility of the building due to its size and the topography, even though the distance between the building
and the EC is great.
2. The "unblocked" view of the Costco building will be considered if there is no assurance that the buildings fronting the EC will be constructed at
the same time.
3. There is concern about the "sea of parking" and its impact on the EC.
4. Landscaping in excess of EC minimums will be needed to offset the expanse of parking and the blank walls.
5. The entrance looks like an addition to the building. Greater integration is required.
6. The large blank walls are out of character for the development. Take architectural cues from the rest of the development. Break down the
massing more. Reduce the visual impact.
7. Colors, mass and landscaping are primary issues.
8. Views should be presented with and without planting and other buildings.
18
9. Be accurate with grades and building heights.
10. To better understand the visibility of the building, it would be helpful to fly balloons at the building corners, at proposed building height.
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 /ARB.
Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above, and those from previous reviews, are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on each
drawing. 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: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
P O Box 528
Columbia Sc 29202
File
19