HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201300086 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2013-07-30ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #/Name
ARB- 2013 -86: Stonefield Blocks F & G Initial Site Plan, Variations, Rezoning, and Massing Studies
Review Type
Initial Site Plan review, advisory review of requests for variations and a rezoning; conceptual review of massing
Parcel Identification
061WO0300019BO
Location
On the west side of Route 29, approximately 1100' south of Greenbrier Drive, between Sperry Marine/Northrup Grumman
and Seminole Place
Zoned
Neighborhood Model District (NMD), Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner /Applicant
Albemarle Place EAAP LLC/W W Associates (Herbert White)
Magisterial District
Jack Jouett
Proposal
To construct the northern phase of the Stonefield development, including a big box retail store with a fuel pump canopy, and
Eve buildings for retail /other uses.
Context
Blocks F and G occupy the northernmost part of the Stonefield development. The surrounding area includes a mix of
commercial, industrial and residential development.
Visibility
See below.
ARB Meeting Date
August 5, 2013
Staff Contact
Margaret Maliszewski
PROJECT HISTORY
The original rezoning for Albemarle Place (ZMA- 2001 -07), including application plan, code of development and proffers, was approved on
October 22, 2003. Three subsequent rezoning applications (ZMA- 2008 -03, ZMA- 2011 -04, ZMA- 2011 -07) were approved to revise
proffers, codes, etc. Site plans have been approved for the "town center" portion of the Stonefield development (adjacent to Rt. 29 and
Hydraulic Rd.), the Hyatt hotel, and The Haven residential area (west of Sperry/Northrup Grumman). The ARB viewed some conceptual
architectural designs for the northern part of the Albemarle Place development (Blocks F and G) prior to the review of the Stonefield town
center. The layout of the current proposal differs from that of the earlier conceptual review.
PROJECT DETAILS
Three related applications for Stonefield development are under review. Varying levels of ARB input are required for the various
applications. The applications and issues for review include:
1. Initial Site Plan: An Initial Site Plan has been submitted for Blocks F and G — the "power center" in the northern part of the Stonefield
development. Building F 1 is intended to be occupied by Costco. Architectural designs are not required for initial site plan submittals and
none have been submitted for review. However, the applicant has also submitted (separate from the Initial Site Plan) distance and
massing studies for Building F 1 to help identify initial design issues and required level of future ARB review.
Notes on Initial Site Plan review: According to County Code § 18- 32.4.2.2(b), the ARB is required to review and comment on
the Initial Site Plan. The ARB's review at this stage of the site plan process is limited to determining consistency of the plan
with the applicable design guidelines pertaining to: (i) the size, location and configuration of structures; (ii) the location and
configuration of parking areas and the location of landscaped areas; and (iii) identifying existing trees, wooded areas and
natural features that should be preserved. The ARB review is also limited to the information provided in the initial plan
under §18- 32.5.2 -5. As a result of this review, the ARB shall transmit to the agent 1) its requirements to satisfy the design
guidelines, 2) recommendations regarding the plan as it relates to the guidelines, and 3) recommended conditions of plan
approval, including conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit.
2. Variations: A number of variations are proposed to the approved rezoning application plan and code of development. (See "Albemarle
Place Application Plan Exhibit A" for the previously approved plan.) The variations that have a potential impact on the EC are:
a. Proposal to change the size, location and orientation of Buildings F1 and F2 as previously illustrated in the approved application
plan to accommodate Costco in a new Building F1. (The new F1 layout is illustrated in the Initial Site Plan and in the "Power
Center Layout" Variation Exhibit 1.3.)
b. Proposal to delete the cafe and its associated plaza as illustrated in the previously approved plan and substitute an "enhanced
pedestrian corridor ". The pedestrian corridor includes a path/sidewalk that connects the bus stop on Rt. 29 to the Costco
entrance; a sidewalk extending from the District Ave. /Rt. 29 intersection west, then south, then west along District Avenue; and
two expanded areas for benches and planting on the south edge of the Costco parking lot. Also included are sidewalk pole lights
and stamped asphalt crosswalks. (See the "Enhanced Pedestrian Corridor Enlarged Plans and Overall Plan" for illustrations.)
c. Proposal to reconfigure the building and parking layout in Block G and to eliminate Building F4. (The new layout is illustrated in
the Initial Site Plan and in the "Power Center Layout" Variation Exhibit 1.3.)
Notes on the Variation review: The Variation request is being presented to the ARB because some of the variations could
have a visual impact on the Entrance Corridor. The ARB's recommendation on the Variation request will be forwarded to the
lead planner assigned to the project.
3. Rezoning: The rezoning is a proposal to add a fueling facility use in Block F. The fueling facility would be associated with the Costco
store and its location would be the pad labeled "Future Development" on the Initial Site Plan and "175 Outparcel" on the "Code of
Development Modification Exhibit ". Restaurant and retail uses are proposed options to the fuel facility use in this location.
2
Notes on the Rezonink review: The Rezoning request is being presented to the ARB because the added use could have a
visual impact on the Entrance Corridor. The ARB's recommendation on the Rezoning request will be forwarded to the lead
planner assigned to the project.
ANALYSIS
REF
GUIDELINE
I ISSUE
RECOMMENDATION
Vis-
The buildings proposed for Blocks F and G will be visible from the Rt. 29 Entrance
ARB review of the architecture
ibil-
Corridor.
of Building F 1 (with the
ity
Building height for Building F1 is approximately 31'. Building height for the other
building location presented in
buildings is approximately 25'.
the "Site Distance and
Finished floor elevations increase from the east end (Rt. 29) of the site to the west end.
Massing" illustrations) shall be
Buildings G3, G4 and G5 (which front the Rt. 29 EC) are at 467 -469'. G1 and G2 have
limited to the east and south
FFEs of 471' and 474'. The "future development" pad is at 476'. F1 is at 480'.
elevations.
The plan locates Building F1 approximately 875' away from the Rt. 29 EC. This is similar
to the distance from Rt. 29 to Building C 1 -3 in the southern part of the Stonefield
development. It is like viewing the Kohl's building from the Harris Teeter in Hollymead
Town Center. The location is somewhat closer to Rt. 29 than the Kroger at Rio Hills and
somewhat closer than the main building at Westminster Canterbury to Rt. 250 East.
It is anticipated that the existing Seminole Place and Sperry/Northrup Grumman
developments (buildings, trees and topography) will eliminate views of Building F 1 from
vantage points north and south of the site on Rt. 29. (That visibility could change when the
existing sites redevelop.)
Block G buildings, though smaller, shorter, and standing at lower FFEs than Building F1,
will break up the view of F1 as seen from Rt. 29 when traveling along the Block G frontage.
Given the various heights and distances, it is anticipated that F 1 won't be viewed above the
Block G buildings (as viewed from the EC).
Direct views of F 1 will be available from Rt. 29 at the District Avenue intersection;
between Buildings G3 and G4; and south of G1. These are distant views of the building
and, ultimately, mature landscaping will further limit these views.
Given the position of Building F 1 and the surrounding conditions, the north elevation of the
building is not expected to be visible from the EC. Only the east and south elevations are
expected to be visible from the ECs.
Building F1 will have limited visibility, at a distance of approximately 1800', from the
3
Hydraulic Road EC. It is anticipated that a wall sign will be proposed for a location that is
aligned with the stretch of District Avenue that travels south from F 1 into the town center
part of the development.
6
Site development should be sensitive to the existing
Specific architectural designs have not
ARB review of the
natural landscape and should contribute to the
been submitted for review for any of
architectural elevations of
creation of an organized development plan. This may
the Block F or Block G buildings;
Building F 1 (with the building
be accomplished, to the extent practical, by
however, basic massing information
location presented in the "Site
preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the
has been provided. At 155,000 sf and
Distance and Massing"
area; planting new trees along streets and pedestrian
31' tall, Building F1 is a large building.
illustrations) shall not include
ways and choosing species that reflect native forest
Given its size and type, it is anticipated
materials or details.
elements; insuring that any grading will blend into
that the building will follow a standard
the surrounding topography thereby creating a
trademark design, that it will not
continuous landscape; preserving, to the extent
exhibit a strong sense of human scale,
practical, existing significant river and stream valleys
and that blank walls will be prominent.
which may be located on the site and integrating
With the visibility described above, the
these features into the design of surrounding
impact of the building scale and
development; and limiting the building mass and
blankness on the Entrance Corridors
height to a scale that does not overpower the natural
would be reduced. At the proposed
settings of the site, or the Entrance Corridor.
distance, the building materials and
details are not expected to have a big
9
Building forms and features, including roofs,
windows, doors, materials, colors and textures should
impact on the ECs. Building colors,
be compatible with the forms and features of the
illumination, and treatment of the
significant historic buildings in the area, exemplified
mass /form will be important.
by (but not limited to) the buildings described in
Appendix A [of the design guidelines]. The standard
of compatibility can be met through scale, materials,
and forms which may be embodied in architecture
which is contemporary as well as traditional. The
replication of important historic sites in Albemarle
County is not the objective of these guidelines.
11
The overall design of buildings should have human
scale. Scale should be integral to the building and site
design.
12
Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor
should use forms, shapes, scale, and materials to
create a cohesive whole.
13
Any appearance of "blankness" resulting from
building design should be relieved using design detail
or vegetation, or both.
15
Trademark buildings and related features should be
modified to meet the requirements of the Guidelines.
18
The following should be located to eliminate visibility
Loading and dumpster areas are located
Details on screening wall
from the Entrance Corridor street. If, after appropriate
behind all buildings, except building
design will be required with
siting, these features will still have a negative visual
G1, where they are located on the south
the final site plan submittal.
impact on the Entrance Corridor street, screening
side and a screening wall is proposed.
Screening walls should be
should be provided to eliminate visibility.
Details on the screening wall have not
compatible with the
a. Loading areas,
been provided.
appearance of building designs
b. Service areas,
determined appropriate for the
c. Refuse areas,
The site massing study shows all
ECs.
d. Storage areas,
buildings with flat roofs and parapet
e. Mechanical equipment,
walls. It is anticipated that rooftop
Include in the architectural
f. Above - ground utilities, and
equipment will be hidden by the
drawings sufficient
g. Chain link fence, barbed wire, razor wire, and
parapet walls, as viewed from the ECs.
information to show that
similar security fencing devices.
mechanical equipment will not
be visible from the ECs.
19
Screening devices should be compatible with the
design of the buildings and surrounding natural
vegetation and may consist of-
a. Walls,
b. Plantings, and
c. Fencing.
21
The following note should be added to the site plan and
The notes do not appear on the plan.
Add the following notes to the
the architectural plan: "Visibility of all mechanical
site and architectural plans:
equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be
"Visibility of all mechanical
eliminated."
equipment from the Entrance
Corridor shall be eliminated."
29
The following note should be included on the lighting
plan: "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp
and "Each outdoor luminaire
that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full
equipped with a lamp that
cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to
emits 3,000 or more initial
reflect light away from adjoining residential districts
lumens shall be a full cutoff
and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of
luminaire and shall be
lighting from luminaires onto public roads and
arranged or shielded to reflect
property in residential or rural areas zoning districts
light away from adjoining
shall not exceed one half footcandle."
residential districts and away
from adjacent roads. The
spillover of lighting from
luminaires onto public roads
and property in residential or
rural areas zoning districts
shall not exceed one half
footcandle."
7
The requirements of the Guidelines regarding
The Initial Site Plan shows utilities and
The quantity of trees required
landscaping are intended to reflect the landscaping
easements along the Rt. 29 frontage, on
along the EC frontage may be
characteristic of many of the area's significant
the southern side of Blocks F and G,
greater than the EC Guidelines
historic sites which is characterized by large shade
and internal to the site. The limits of
minimum to compensate for
trees and lawns. Landscaping should promote visual
some of the easements are difficult to
the tree size limits imposed by
order within the Entrance Corridor and help to
identify on the plan. The "Easement
the utility easements.
integrate buildings into the existing environment of
and Planting Overlay Plan" confirms
the corridor.
that there is no utility -free planting area
along the EC frontage. However, a
Ensure that sufficient planting
area is available for trees along
32
Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance Corridor
streets should include the following:
consistent row of trees and shrubs is
interior roads.
d. An area of sufficient width to accommodate the
shown along the EC in the Dominion
foregoing plantings and fencing should be reserved
Virginia Power easement. In this
Ensure that all utilities and
parallel to the Entrance Corridor street, and exclusive
location, tree species will have to be
easements (type, location, and
of road right -of -way and utility easements.
limited to those approved by Dominion
Virginia Power, which are all small or
width) are clearly identified on
the site plan.
33
Landscaping along interior roads:
a. Large trees should be planted parallel to all interior
medium trees.
roads.
The layout of the development is such
35
Landscaping of parking areas:
a. Large trees should align the perimeter of parking
that most parking areas are bordered by
areas. Trees should be planted in the interior of
interior roads, except at the southeast
parking areas at the rate of one tree for every 10
corner of the site. There appears to be
parking spaces provided and should be evenly
sufficient planting area in that location.
distributed throughout the interior of the parking
There also appears to be sufficient
area.
space available for required interior
c. Shrubs should be provided as necessary to
parking lot trees.
minimize the parking area's impact on Entrance
Corridor streets.
34
Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways:
The "Enhanced Pedestrian Corridor
A double staggered row of
a. Medium trees should be planted parallel to all
Overall Plan" shows a double staggered
trees along the portion of the
interior pedestrian ways.
row of trees along the portion of the
pedestrian corridor between
path between the Costco entrance and
the bus stop and District
the segment of District Avenue that
Avenue would have a more
divides Blocks F and G. The other
appropriate appearance than
segments of the path are shown with
the single row of trees
trees on one side of the path. Tree
currently shown in that
spacing is not consistent throughout.
location.
The pedestrian corridor would be more
of an enhancement if it was lined with
trees on both sides throughout. In some
locations, utilities and associated
easements appear to limit planting
along the pedestrian path.
36
Landscaping of buildings and other structures:
The F elevation that faces the Rt. 29
None.
a. Trees or other vegetation should be planted along
EC is almost 360' long. Detailed
the front of long buildings as necessary to soften the
architectural elevations have not been
appearance of exterior walls. The spacing, size, and
provided but, given the type of building
type of such trees or vegetation should be determined
proposed, there are likely to be
by the length, height, and blankness of such walls.
significant areas of blank wall on the
b. Shrubs should be used to integrate the site,
EC- facing elevation. Trees planted
buildings, and other structures; dumpsters, accessory
along the building could help relieve
buildings and structures; "drive thru" windows;
such blankness. No such planting area
service areas; and signs. Shrubs should measure at
is provided, but the distance from the
least 24 inches in height.
EC, trees in the parking lot, and the
Block G buildings will help mitigate
the impact of the blankness.
38
Plant health:
The note does not appear on the plan.
Add the following note to the
The following note should be added to the landscape
plan: "All site plantings of
plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature
allowed to reach, and be
height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and
maintained at, mature height;
trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support
the overall health of the plant."
the topping of trees is
prohibited. Shrubs and trees
shall be pruned minimally and
only to support the overall
health of the plant."
39
The relationship of buildings and other structures to
The Buildings in Blocks F and G are
None.
the Entrance Corridor street and to other development
arranged parallel to the EC street.
within the corridor should be as follows:
However, the entrance to F1 is located
a. An organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike
at the southeast corner of the building.
paths, and pedestrian walks should guide the layout
of the site.
Block G buildings range from 90' to
b. In general, buildings fronting the Entrance
300' away from Rt. 29. The layout
Corridor street should be parallel to the street.
illustrated in the Initial Site Plan is an
Building groupings should be arranged to parallel the
improvement over the previously
Entrance Corridor street.
approved application plan. The current
c. Provisions should be made for connections to
layout breaks up the parking lots better,
adjacent pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems.
as viewed from the EC, and presents
more buildings along the EC frontage.
The location and layout of the
"enhanced pedestrian corridor" appear
organized and the corridor provides
connections to adjacent sidewalks both
on- and off -site.
45b
Fuel pump canopies shall be the smallest size
The F1 canopy measures
There is no objection to the
possible to offer protection from the elements.
approximately 30' wide x 110' long
addition of the fueling facility
Canopies shall not exceed the sizes identified in
and covers four paired gas pumps. The
use with the Block G layout
Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies as outlined in
pump island layout is not specifically
illustrated in the Initial Site
Appendix B.
addressed in the EC Guidelines, but the
Plan. The addition of the
layout is more or less in line with the
fueling facility use is not
size limitations outlined there.
recommended with the Block
G layout illustrated in the
The canopy would be located
"Code of Development
approximately 470' from the Rt. 29
Modification Exhibit ", which
EC. The short end of the canopy is
shows no buildings between
shown oriented towards the EC. This
the fueling facility and the EC.
orientation is expected to have less
impact on the EC than the other
direction. The "Fueling Facility
Exhibit" also shows trees and shrubs
planted on the east side of the fueling
area. This planting will further reduce
impacts.
The layout of buildings in Block G as
illustrated in the Initial Site Plan
significantly helps mitigate impacts of
the fuel pump canopy on the EC. The
Block G buildings limit direct views of
the canopy. On the other hand, the
Block G layout illustrated on the "Code
of Development Modification Exhibit"
does nothing to minimize the impact of
the canopy on the EC. There is a direct
view from the EC to the canopy in that
plan.
Details on the appearance of the fueling
station have not been provided for
review.
c
The size of the canopy fascia and canopy support
Although specific details on the design
The fuel pump canopy shall
columns shall be in proportion to the overall size of
of the fuel pump canopy have not yet
meet all EC Design
the canopy structure. The fascia shall not exceed 36"
been submitted, the site section
Guidelines, including those for
in total height, including any accent bands.
suggests that the overall height of the
canopy structure exceeds the standards
height.
j
Fuel pump canopy applicants should refer to ARB
Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies. (Appendix B)
set forth in the guidelines (a maximum
36" high fascia with the bottom of the
fascia no more than 14'6" above
ground).
Signs
A freestanding sign is identified on the
Note that a sign application is
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. Building F1: size, scale, location, impact on the EC; anticipated level of future ARB review
2. Are trees required along the blank walls of Building F1?
3. Revised arrangement of Block G buildings
4. Impact of fueling station on the EC; block layout and fueling station location
5. Planting area along the EC frontage; tree sizes
6. Enhanced pedestrian corridor
Staff offers the following comments on the Initial Site Plan:
Staff recommends that the ARB forward the following recommendations to the agent:
— 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.
• The quantity of trees required along the EC frontage may be greater than the EC Guidelines minimum to compensate
for the tree size limits imposed by the existing utility easements.
• Ensure that sufficient planting area is available for trees along interior roads.
• Ensure that all utilities and easements (type, location, and width) are clearly identified on the site plan.
• 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.
• Include in the architectural drawings sufficient information to show that mechanical equipment will not be visible
from the ECs.
■ Note that a sign application is required for approval of freestanding sign locations.
Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
None.
10
initial plan. The location of the sign
required for approval of
cannot be approved with a site plan.
freestanding sign locations.
Sign locations are approved with sign
applications.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. Building F1: size, scale, location, impact on the EC; anticipated level of future ARB review
2. Are trees required along the blank walls of Building F1?
3. Revised arrangement of Block G buildings
4. Impact of fueling station on the EC; block layout and fueling station location
5. Planting area along the EC frontage; tree sizes
6. Enhanced pedestrian corridor
Staff offers the following comments on the Initial Site Plan:
Staff recommends that the ARB forward the following recommendations to the agent:
— 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.
• The quantity of trees required along the EC frontage may be greater than the EC Guidelines minimum to compensate
for the tree size limits imposed by the existing utility easements.
• Ensure that sufficient planting area is available for trees along interior roads.
• Ensure that all utilities and easements (type, location, and width) are clearly identified on the site plan.
• 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.
• Include in the architectural drawings sufficient information to show that mechanical equipment will not be visible
from the ECs.
■ Note that a sign application is required for approval of freestanding sign locations.
Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
None.
10
Staff offers the following comments on the Variation requests:
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 currently shown in that location.
Staff offers the following comments on the Rezoning request:
1. There is no objection to the addition of the fueling facility use with the Block G layout illustrated in the Initial Site Plan. The
addition of the fueling facility use is not recommended with the Block G layout illustrated in the "Code of Development
Modification Exhibit ", which shows no buildings between the fueling facility and the EC.
2. The fuel pump canopy shall meet all EC Design Guidelines, including those for height.
Staff offers the following recommendations (based on the site distance and massing studies) for the future review of the architectural design
of Building F 1:
1. ARB review of the architecture of Building F1 (with the building location 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 (with the building location presented in the "Site Distance and Massing"
illustrations) shall not include materials or details.
11
TABLE A
This report is based on the following submittal items:
Sheet #
Drawing Name
Drawing Date /Revision Date
Initial Site Plan
C -1
Cover Sheet
6/24/13
C -2
Proffers
6/24/13
C -3
General Notes, Abbreviations, Legend
6/24/13
C -4
General Notes
6/24/13
C -5
Key Plan
6/24/13
C -6
Existing Conditions
6/24/13
C -7
Overall Site Plan
6/24/13
C -8
Site Plan
6/24/13
C -9
Site Plan
6/24/13
C -10
Site Plan
6/24/13
C -11
Road Sections & Details
6/24/13
C -12
Civic & Green Space
6/24/13
C -13
Drainage Area Map
6/24/13
Variation
-
Enhanced Pedestrian Corridor Enlarged Plans and Overall Plan
7 -22 -13 (Issued 7/26/13)
1.3
Power Center Layout
5 -29 -13
Rezoning
C -1
Code of Development Modification Exhibit
6 -19 -13
C -2
Fueling Facility Exhibit
6 -13 -13
Other
-
Phase 2 Easement Overlay Plan, Easement and Planting Overlay Plan, and Planting Plan
Issued 7/26/13
-
Site Distance and Massing Exhibit (12 pages)
8 -5 -2013 (Issued 7/26/13)
12