HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201500045 Staff Report 2015-05-11ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #/Name
ARB -2015-45: CVS at Rio/29
Review Type
Initial Site Plan and Special Use Permit for a drive-thru
Parcel Identification
061000000123FO and 061000000123GO
Location
At the northwest corner of the intersection of Rt. 29 and Rio Road
Zoned
Highway Commercial (HC)/Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner/Applicant
29 Rio XRoad LLC/Cooper Planning (Ashley Cooper)
Magisterial District
Rio
Proposal
To construct a CVS pharmacy with a drive-thru and associated site improvements.
Context
The subject parcel is located at one of the county's busiest intersections, surrounded by a mix of commercial
development, some of which predates the establishment of the Entrance Corridors. Jefferson Coin (previously Pizza Hut)
is located to the north. Hardee's is located across Rio Road to the south. The West Rio Center is located to the west.
Albemarle Square Shopping Center is located across Rt. 29 to the east.
Visibility
The subject parcel is located at the corner of two Entrance Corridor streets, so all sides of the building and the site will
be visible from the ECs. Due to topography and the proposed layout of the site, some lower portions of the south and
west elevations of the building will not be readily visible from Rio Road.
ARB Meeting Date
May 18, 2015
Staff Contact
Margaret Maliszewski
PROJECT HISTORY
DATE
APPLICATION/REVIEW TYPE
RESULT
3/2/2015
Work session
See Attachment A for a list of ARB comments made during the work session.
4/6/2015
Work session
See Attachment A for a list of ARB comments made during the work session.
ANALYSIS
Gray highlight = means the guideline can't be reviewed at initial site plan stage, but recommendations can be provided for final
Yellow highlight = means the guideline can only be reviewed for location/configuration at the initial plan stage
Regular text = means the guideline can be reviewed at initial plan stage, can be made a condition of initial plan approval, and can be the basis for denial
REF
GUIDELINE
ISSUE
RECOMMENDATION
Structure design
1
The goal of the regulation of the design of
Informal work sessions were held in March and
None at this time.
development within the designated Entrance
April on the CVS proposal, including the
Corridors is to insure that new development within
architectural design. Architectural designs were
the corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the
included in this initial plan submittal only to
area. Therefore, it is the purpose of ARB review and
illustrate the drive-thru proposal. Guidelines
of these Guidelines, that proposed development
relating to architectural design will be addressed
within the designated Entrance Corridors reflect
when the full architectural design is submitted
Elements of design characteristic of the significant
for a formal review.
historical landmarks, buildings, and structures of the
Charlottesville and Albemarle area, and to promote
orderly and attractive development within these
corridors. Applicants should note that replication of
historic structures is neither required nor desired.
2
Visitors to the significant historical sites in the
Charlottesville and Albemarle area experience these
sites as ensembles of buildings, land, and vegetation.
In order to accomplish the integration of buildings,
land, and vegetation characteristic of these sites, the
Guidelines require attention to four primary factors:
compatibility with significant historic sites in the
area; the character of the Entrance Corridor; site
development and layout; and landscaping.
3
New structures and substantial additions to existing
structures should respect the traditions of the
architecture of historically significant buildings in the
Charlottesville and Albemarle area. Photographs of
historic buildings in the area, as well as drawings of
architectural features, which provide important
examples of this tradition are contained in Appendix
A.
4
The examples contained in Appendix A should be
used as a guide for building design: the standard of
compatibility with the area's historic structures is not
intended to impose a rigid design solution for new
development. Replication of the design of the
important historic sites in the area is neither intended
nor desired. The Guideline's standard of compatibility
can be met through building scale, materials, and
forms which may be embodied in architecture which
is contemporary as well as traditional. The Guidelines
allow individuality in design to accommodate varying
tastes as well as special functional requirements.
9
Building forms and features, including roofs,
windows, doors, materials, colors and textures should
be compatible with the forms and features of the
significant historic buildings in the area, exemplified
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.
13
Any appearance of "blankness" resulting from
building design should be relieved using design detail
or vegetation, or both.
14
Arcades, colonnades, or other architectural
connecting devices should be used to unify groups of
buildings within a development.
15
Trademark buildings and related features should be
modified to meet the requirements of the Guidelines.
16
Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should not be
highly tinted or highly reflective. Window glass in the
Entrance Corridors should meet the following
criteria: Visible light transmittance (VLT) shall not
drop below 40%. Visible light reflectance (VLR) shall
not exceed 30%. Specifications on the proposed
window glass should be submitted with the
application for final review.
5
It is also an important objective of the Guidelines td
Architectural designs were included in this initial
None at this time.
establish a pattern of compatible architectural
plan submittal only to illustrate the drive-thm
characteristics throughout the Entrance Corridor in
proposal. Guidelines relating to context and
order to achieve unity and coherence. Building
compatibility will be addressed when the full
designs should demonstrate sensitivity to other nearby
architectural design is submitted for a formal
structures within the Entrance Corridor. Where a
review.
designated corridor is substantially developed, these
Guidelines require striking a careful balance between
harmonizing new development with the existing
character of the corridor and achieving compatibility
with the significant historic sites in the area.
10
Buildings should relate to their site and the
surrounding context of buildings.
12
Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor
should use forms, shapes, scale, and materials to
create a cohesive whole.
Accessory structures and equipment
17
Accessory structures and equipment should be
A dumpster is proposed in the northwest corner
Show how the visibility of
integrated into the overall plan of development and
of the site. Oak leaf holly trees and a mix of
rooftop equipment will be
shall, to the extent possible, be compatible with the,
shrubs are proposed around the dumpster
eliminated. Provide site
Pudding designs used on the site.
enclosure. The dumpster is nearly aligned with
the entrance into the site from Rt. 29, with the
sections and details on the
proposed method of
18
The following should be located to eliminate visibility
from the Entrance Corridor street. If, after appropriate
dumpster doors opening out towards Rt. 29.
screening the rooftop
siting, these features will still have a negative visual
Given the other features of the site and
equipment.
impact on the Entrance Corridor street, screening
surroundings, the dumpster location is not
should be provided to eliminate visibility.
expected to have a negative impact on the EC.
a. Loading areas, b. Service areas, c. Refuse areas, d.
Storage areas, e. Mechanical equipment, f. Above-
Oak leaf holly are proposed at the west end of
ground utilities, and g. Chain link fence, barbed wire,
the northern property line and a mix of shrubs is
razor wire, and similar security fencing devices.
proposed east of the hollies. This landscaping
will help mitigate the view of the drive-thru lane
19
Screening devices should be compatible with th4
design of the buildings and surrounding natural
and the dumpster for southbound traffic along
vegetation and may consist of: a. Walls, b. Plantings,
Rt. 29.
and c. Fencing.
The work sessions held in March and April
included discussion about rooftop mechanical
equipment. It was noted that the rooftop
equipment would require screening beyond the
parapet wall of the building, particularly from
Rio Road due to the elevation of Rio above the
building. Details on the proposed method of
screening and site sections will be needed to
confirm the level of visibility of the rooftop
equipment.
20
Surface runoff structures and detention ponds should
There are no stormwater management ponds
None.
be designed to fit into the natural topography to avoid
proposed on site.
the need for screening. When visible from the Entrance
Corridor street, these features must be fully integrated
into the landscape. They should not have the
appearance of engineered features.
44
Natural drainage patterns (or to the extent required,
new drainage patterns) should be incorporated into
the finished site to the extent possible.
21
The following note should be added to the site plan and
The note does not appear on the plan.
Add the standard
the architectural plan: "Visibility of all mechanical
mechanical equipment
equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be
note to the plan.
eliminated."
Lighting
No lighting plan has been submitted at this time.
None at this time.
Landscaping
7
The requirements of the Guidelines regarding
Sufficient width to accommodate required
Provide a copy of the
landscaping are intended to reflect the landscaping
plantings has not been provided. Utilities and
VDOT easement
characteristic of many of the area's significant
easements occupy the space between the Rt. 29
document. With the next
historic sites which is characterized by large shade
right-of-way and the adjacent parking row.
ARB submittal, provide
trees and lawns. Landscaping should promote visual
VDOT, existing sanitary sewer, new water, and
information from VDOT
order within the Entrance Corridor and help to
existing overhead electric lines or easements are
outlining the types and
integrate buildings into the existing environment of
shown. (The VDOT easement runs along both
sizes of landscaping
the corridor.
EC frontages. The applicant has indicated that
the easement document will be provided as soon
allowed in the easement.
8
Continuity within the Entrance Corridor should be
obtained by planting different types of plant materials
as it is available.) It appears that a very narrow
Shift the new water line to
that share similar characteristics. Such common
(1'- 2') gap, approximately 50' — 60' long, is
provide planting area for
elements allow for more flexibility in the design of
present amidst the easements, although the
trees along the Rt. 29
structures because common landscape features will
overhead electric line is nearby. Clarification of
frontage.
help to harmonize the appearance of development al
VDOT's requirements on the types of
seen from the street upon which the Corridor is
landscaping allowed in this easement would be
Revise the plan to clearly
centered.
helpful. (In some cases, VDOT can approve the
use of small trees less than 4" caliper at
label all utility lines and
the width of each
32
Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance Corridol
streets should include the following:_
maturity.) Better labeling of the utility easements
easement. Indicate on the
a. Large shade trees should be planted parallel to the
and indication of the height of the overhead
plan the height of the
Entrance Corridor Street. Such trees should be at least
electric line would help clarify the planting
overhead electric line.
3'/z inches caliper (measured 6 inches above the
situation. Shifting the new water line might also
ground) and should be of a plant species common td
provide additional space for trees.
Provide landscaping
the area. Such trees should be located at least every
consistent with the EC
35 feet on center.
Given the length of the frontage, 9 EC street
guidelines to the extent
b. Flowering ornamental trees of a species common to
trees are required along Rt. 29 and 6 are required
allowed by the VDOT and
the area should be interspersed among the trees
along Rio Road. Two trees are proposed on Rt.
utility easements.
required by the preceding paragraph. The ornamental
29 and 6 are provided on Rio. One of the Rt. 29
trees need not alternate one for one with the large shade
trees is proposed at 2%" caliper instead of 3%2".
Provide the Rt. 29
trees. They may be planted among the large shade trees
Ornamental trees are interspersed along Rio
frontage trees at 3'/z"
in a less regular spacing pattern.
Road, but not along Rt. 29.
caliper at planting.
c. In situations where appropriate, a three or four
board fence or low stone wall, typical of the area,
The landscape plan has been provided at 1" =
Provide the landscape plan
should align the frontage of the Entrance Corridor
25' which makes it difficult to review and
at a standard scale of 1" _
street.
coordinate with other plans in the set.
20'.
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:
A sufficient quantity of trees is proposed along
Increase the size of the
a. Large trees should be planted parallel to all interior
the west side of the site, running along the
trees along the entrance
roads. Such trees should be at least 2'/2 inches caliper
entrance drive from Rio Road, but the trees are
drive on the west side of
(measured six inches above the ground) and should be
provided at 1'/2" caliper instead of the required
the site to 2'/2" caliper at
of a plant species common to the area. Such trees
2'/2" caliper.
planting.
should be located at least every 40 feet on center.
34
Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways:
Sidewalks are located along Rio Road and Rt.
None.
a. Medium trees should be planted parallel to all
29, so the frontage tree requirement would also
interior pedestrian ways. Such trees should be at least
2'/2 inches caliper (measured six inches above the
ground) and should be of a species common to the
area. Such trees should be located at least every 25
feet on center.
address this guideline.
35
Landscaping of parking areas:
Six trees are required for the 57 proposed
Provide all shrubs at a
a. Large trees should align the perimeter of parking
parking spaces. Six trees are provided at 21/2"
minimum planting height
areas, located 40 feet on center. Trees should be
caliper.
of at least 24".
planted in the interior of parking areas at the rate of
one tree for every 10 parking spaces provided and
Shrubs are proposed along both the Rt. 29 and
Significantly enhance the
should be evenly distributed throughout the interior of
Rio Road frontages. Of the 9 shrub species
shrub planting along the
the parking area.
proposed, only one is provided at the required
Rt. 29 frontage to better
b. Trees required by the preceding paragraph shoulJ
minimum height of 24".
compensate for the lack of
measure 21/2 inches caliper (measured six inches
shade and ornamental
above the ground); should be evenly spaced; and
If the requirements for frontage and perimeter
trees.
should be of a species common to the area. Such trees
trees cannot be met, enhancing the shrub
should be planted in planters or medians sufficiently
planting along the Rt. 29 parking row is
large to maintain the health of the tree and shall be
appropriate. Possible methods for enhancement
protected by curbing.
include, but are not limited to: multiple rows of
c. Shrubs should be provided as necessary to
shrubs, with taller -growing plants located
minimize the parking area's impact on Entrance
towards the parked cars and lower growing
Corridor streets. Shrubs should measure 24 inches in
plants on the street side; increased shrub species;
height.
less regular distribution of shrubs (avoid single
straight rows); planting sizes greater than the
minimum requirement.
36
Landscaping of buildings and other structures:
No landscaping is proposed at the building. A
None at this time.
a. Trees or other vegetation should be planted along
determination regarding the need for such
the front of long buildings as necessary to soften the
planting, and the type and quantity required,
appearance of exterior walls. The spacing, size, and
would be made in conjunction with the review of
type of such trees or vegetation should be determined
the architectural design. That review will occur
by the length, height, and blankness of such walls.
with a future submittal. However, it should be
b. Shrubs should be used to integrate the site,
noted that no space has been reserved for such
buildings, and other structures; dumpsters, accessory
planting along the building, should the planting
buildings and structures; "drive thru" windows;
be needed.
service areas; and signs. Shrubs should measure at
least 24 inches in height.
Oak leaf holly trees and a mix of shrubs are
proposed at the dumpster. Oak leaf hollies are
proposed at the west end of the northern property
line and a mix of shrubs is proposed east of the
hollies. These appear to be sufficient to integrate
the dumpster and drive-thru.
37
Plant species:
The plant species appear on the various lists.
None.
a. Plant species required should be as approved by the
Staff based upon but not limited to the Generic
Landscape Plan Recommended Species List and
Native Plants or Virginia Landscapes (Appendix D).
38
Plant health:
The note does not appear on the plan.
Add the standard plant
The following note should be added to the landscape
health note to the plan.
plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
A total of 355 shrubs are proposed.
allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height;
Approximately 33% of these are abelia. To help
Adjust the quantities
the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees
ensure the health of the plants, no single species
and/or species of plants so
shall be pruned minimally and only to support the
should exceed 25% of the total proposed.
that the number of
overall health of the plant."
proposed plants for any
one species does not
exceed 25% of the total
proposed for that plant
type.
Development pattern and site grading
6
Site development should be sensitive to the existing
The subject parcels were developed prior to the
Based on the location and
natural landscape and should contribute to the
establishment of the Entrance Corridors. No
minimal design of the
creation of an organized development plan. This may
natural landscape or open space remains and
drive-thru, staff
be accomplished, to the extent practical, by
none of the existing landscaping will remain.
recommends no objection
preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the
to the request for the
area; planting new trees along streets and pedestrian
The layout of the site appears generally
special use permit.
ways and choosing species that reflect native forest
organized. The building is oriented parallel to the
elements; insuring that any grading will blend into the
Rt. 29 EC. The building's corner entrance is
Revise the plan to make
surrounding topography thereby creating a continuous
oriented towards the intersection. Sidewalks will
the retaining wall a
landscape; preserving, to the extent practical, existing
remain on Rio Rd. and Rt. 29.
sculptural element in the
significant river and stream valleys which may be
landscape, closely
located on the site and integrating these features into
Grading around the building will be similar to
coordinated with the
the design of surrounding development; and limiting
the existing topography. The southeast corner of
planting.
the building mass and height to a scale that does not
the site will have a different appearance in the
overpower the natural settings of the site, or the
new development. A consistent slope is proposed
Indicate on the site plan
Entrance Corridor.
down from 510' at the Rio/29 intersection to
the material and color
The relationship of buildings and other structures to
the Entrance Corridor street and to other development
within the corridor should be as follows:
a. An organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike
paths, and pedestrian walks should guide the layout of
the site.
b. In general, buildings fronting the Entrance Corridor
street should be parallel to the street. Building
groupings should be arranged to parallel the Entrance
Corridor street.
c. Provisions should be made for connections to
adjacent pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems.
d. Open spaces should be tied into surrounding areas
to provide continuity within the Entrance Corridor.
e. If significant natural features exist on the site
(including creek valleys, steep slopes, significant
trees or rock outcroppings), to the extent practical,
then such natural features should be reflected in the
site layout. If the provisions of Section 32.5.6.n of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance apply, then
improvements required by that section should be
located so as to maximize the use of existing features
in screening such improvements from Entrance
Corridor streets.
f The placement of structures on the site should
respect existing views and vistas on and around the
site.
Site grading should maintain the basic relationship of
the site to surrounding conditions by limiting the use of
retaining walls and by shaping the terrain through the
use of smooth, rounded land forms that blend with the
existing terrain. Steep cut or fill sections are generally
unacceptable. Proposed contours on the grading plan
shall be rounded with a ten foot minimum radius where
they meet the adjacent condition. Final grading should
achieve a natural, rather than engineered, appearance.
Retaining walls 6 feet in height and taller, when
497' at the parking area, over 70' of grassed area
that includes utilities and landscaping.
A drive-thru window is proposed on the
northwest, angled corner of the building.
Portions of the architectural elevations have been
submitted to describe the appearance of the
drive-thru. They show a simple canopy
supported by two wall brackets over a simple
two-part window. Given the location on the
angled corner of the building, the drive-thru is
not expected to have a negative impact on either
EC. From southbound 29, the north end of the
canopy may be seen, but it is not expected to be
noticed, and vehicles in the drive-thru lane will
be visible. Given the topography of the site, the
drive-thru is not expected to be visible from Rio
Road.
Two terraced retaining walls are proposed along
the west and south sides of the site. The lower
wall is almost 300' long. The upper wall is
approximately 175' long. The walls do not
exceed 6' in height. Shrubs are proposed
between the walls, along the eastern half of the
Rio side of the upper wall, and along the eastern
end of the parking lot side of the lower wall.
Trees are proposed along the western half of the
upper wall. Information on the material and color
proposed for the walls was not included in this
submittal.
Specific comments from the work sessions
regarding the retaining walls included the
following:
The retaining wall has to be handled as a
in terms of
proposed for the retaining
walls. Provide a
manufacturer's cut sheet
and color sample. Provide
specific information
showing that the proposed
wall type and material
allow for the planting that
is shown.
10
necessary, shall be terraced and planted to blend with
materials or forms, maybe it is a more
the landscape.
sculptural element. If the site is so limited,
all the other design elements must be "pulled
up". (March 2, 2015)
The Rio Road landscaping is an
improvement, but it should be associated
with something. Make the retaining wall a
sculptural element related to the landscaping.
(April 6, 2015)
The retaining wall design hasn't changed since
the April 6 work session. Although shrubs follow
the lines of the walls, the walls still don't appear
to be a sculptural element tied to the greater
landscape of the site. Changes made since the
work session include the addition of ground
cover at the east end of the upper wall and in the
space between the lower wall and the southern
parking row.
41
No grading, trenching, or tunneling should occur within
There are no existing trees to remain.
None.
the drip line of any trees or other existing features
designated for preservation in the final Certificate of
Appropriateness. Adequate tree protection fencing
should be shown on, and coordinated throughout, the
grading, landscaping and erosion and sediment control
plans.
42
Areas designated for preservation in the final
Certificate of Appropriateness should be clearly
delineated and protected on the site prior to any
grading activity on the site. This protection should
remain in place until completion of the development
of the site.
43
Preservation areas should be protected from storage
or movement of heavy equipment within this area.
10
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. Drive-thru: location, visibility, general character
2. Landscaping along Rt. 29; VDOT and utility easements
3. Retaining walls: integration with the landscape of the site
4. Dumpster location and screening
5. Potential need for landscaping adjacent to the building
Regarding the Initial Site Plan:
Staff recommends that the ARB 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):
1. Provide a copy of the VDOT easement document. With the next ARB submittal, provide information from VDOT outlining the
types and sizes of landscaping allowed in the easement.
2. Shift the new water line to provide planting area for trees along the Rt. 29 frontage.
3. Revise the plan to clearly label all utility lines and the width of each easement. Indicate on the plan the height of the overhead
electric line.
4. Provide landscaping consistent with the EC guidelines to the extent allowed by the VDOT and utility easements.
5. Provide the Rt. 29 frontage trees at 3!/2" caliper at planting.
6. Increase the size of the trees along the entrance drive on the west side of the site to 21/2" caliper at planting.
7. Provide all shrubs at a minimum planting height of at least 24".
8. Significantly enhance the shrub planting along the Rt. 29 frontage to better compensate for the lack of shade and ornamental
trees.
9. Revise the plan to make the retaining wall a sculptural element in the landscape, closely coordinated with the planting.
10. Indicate on the site plan the material and color proposed for the retaining walls. Provide a manufacturer's cut sheet and color
sample. Provide specific information showing that the proposed wall type and material allow for the planting that is shown.
Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
None.
Regarding recommended conditions of initial plan approval:
A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval.
1. Show how the visibility of rooftop equipment will be eliminated. Provide site sections and details on the proposed method of
screening the rooftop equipment.
11
2. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to the plan: "Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor
shall be eliminated."
3. Provide a copy of the VDOT easement document. With the next ARB submittal, provide information from VDOT outlining the
types and sizes of landscaping allowed in the easement.
4. Shift the new water line to provide planting area for trees along the Rt. 29 frontage.
5. Revise the plan to clearly label all utility lines and the width of each easement. Indicate on the plan the height of the overhead
electric line.
6. Provide landscaping consistent with the EC guidelines to the extent allowed by the VDOT and utility easements.
7. Provide the Rt. 29 frontage trees at 3V2" caliper at planting.
8. Provide the landscape plan at a standard scale of 1" = 20'.
9. Increase the size of the trees along the entrance drive on the west side of the site to 21/2" caliper at planting.
10. Provide all shrubs at a minimum planting height of at least 24".
11. Significantly enhance the shrub planting along the Rt. 29 frontage to better compensate for the lack of shade and ornamental
trees.
12. Add the standard plant health note to the plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained
at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall
health of the plant."
13. Adjust the quantities of plants and/or species so that the number of proposed plants for any one species does not exceed 25% of
the total proposed for that plant type.
14. Revise the plan to make the retaining wall a sculptural element in the landscape, closely coordinated with the planting.
15. Indicate on the site plan the material and color proposed for the retaining walls. Provide a manufacturer's cut sheet and color
sample. Provide specific information showing that the proposed wall type and material allow for the planting that is shown.
Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
None.
Regarding the Special Use Permit:
Staff recommends that the ARB forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission:
The ARB has no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit for a drive-thru window.
12
TABLE A This report is based on the following submittal items:
Sheet #
Drawing Name
Drawing Date
Sheet #
Drawing Name
Drawing Date
CA -100
Cover Sheet
4/3/2015
CS -501
Construction Details
4/3/2015
CA -101
General Notes
4/3/2015
CG -101
Grading and Phase 2 E&S Plan
4/3/2015
CV -101
Existing Conditions
4/3/2015
CG -201
Stormwater Profiles
4/3/2015
CV -102
Interim Existing Conditions
4/3/2015
CG -301
Stormwater Management
4/3/2015
CE -101
Phase 1 E&S Control and Demo Plan
4/3/2015
CU -101
Utility Plan (b/w & color 11x17)
4/3/2015
CE -501
Erosion and Sediment Control Details
4/3/2015
CU -201
Utility Profiles
4/3/2015
CS -101
Site Plan
4/3/2015
CU -501
Utility Details
4/3/2015
CS -301
CVS Specs
4/3/2015
CP -101
Site Landscape Plan
4/3/2015
CS -302
CVS Specs
4/3/2015
CP -501
Landscape Notes and Details
4/3/2015
-
Color perspective showing CVS as
viewed southbound on Rt. 29
-
-
Partial elevations showing drive-
thru window and canopy
-
13
r110KTIN:1uID.1r:1
ARB comments from March 2, 2015 CVS at Rio/29 work session
1. What is the relationship between the travelway and the parking? From curb to building measures approximately 65'.
2. What is the square footage of buildings to be demolished in comparison to the proposed building?
3. Theoretically, a smaller building would allow for a landscape buffer along the row of parking.
4. From Rio, we'll be looking at a building 13' below grade and looking at the roof. The cornice will be at knee height. That's an issue. That will be an
amazing presentation on Rio Road.
5. There is concern about the visibility of rooftop equipment, particularly from the Rio Road corridor. Sections from both directions are needed to
clarify visibility.
6. On what basis do we say a building is appropriate from an EC when it is sitting in a 13' hole, with no landscape buffer (as viewed from Rt. 29) and
there is parking right on the ECs.
7. It would help to have a view traveling east on Rio Road to see what the building looks like, traveling towards 29 with the building on the left. It
would be helpful to see how it looks in the landscape.
8. I think we need to consider whether or not this building at this size with this required parking could ever be considered appropriate for this corner.
We need to cross that threshold first. We may need those sections to determine that.
9. The existing building feels like a building on the ground. The proposed building tucked back into the retaining wall, with the wall obscuring the
building, will have a different feel.
10. The architecture will have to "do something" on Rio Road — maybe a taller piece that gives some sense of the building being there. Maybe the roof
has to do something.
11. At the very least, reduced landscaping puts additional emphasis on the (Rt. 29) architectural elevation. In the other direction it puts a lot of emphasis
on the landscape because you do have space on the Rio side.
12. Is there a version with a taller corner turret?
13. This is a very difficult site arrangement.
14. Evaluating buildings along this project, and the way buildings present themselves to the corridor, is going to be very different than anywhere else
along the corridors.
15. A 3D model would help determine what is an appropriate building next to the interchange.
16. There may be an advantage at looking at this as a more urban setting with the landscape taking a more urban approach than elsewhere.
17. We have addressed urban setting somewhat at Stonefield. For me, that is where I would need to get to on this. If I was just looking at this on its own
merit, I couldn't support because it is an example of overdevelopment; it is not an appropriate building for the site. It doesn't do anything we
typically do. The only way to support would be to acknowledge that the building is fully visible from Rt. 29, so whatever the design is, it is with the
acknowledgement that you have no screen, so it needs to be a pretty appropriate building from Rt. 29, as in blank walls need to be addressed,
finishes, detailing, windows, pedestrian access, scale, all the things we typically look at get more emphasized because it is so visible as is.
18. On the other side, a retaining wall is not site sensitive but it is all you've got to make this work. If we accept the "urban condition" we can be flexible
but acknowledge that landscaping is possible on that side. However, landscaping isn't the be all and end all, and we would need to see site sections to
get a sense of what the view is from both directions on Rio, the roof, equipment on the roof, and it can't look like a fake mansard. All of those things
need to be taken into consideration.
14
19. What about windows on the 29 side? This won't be an out-of-the-box CVS design. This has got to be a design that responds to it being a frontage
building in an urban setting, with no foreground.
20. The development may not fit the landscape guidelines, but it still has to meet the Entrance Corridor appearance standard. So it must compensate with
other elements to meet the standard.
21. The retaining wall has to be handled as a compelling landscape feature, in terms of materials or forms, maybe it is a more sculptural element. If the
site is so limited, all the other design elements must be "pulled up".
22. The retaining wall will be visible from Route 29. So it will have to be attractive.
23. If you took an approach that said we've got this really rare kind of setting for the building, we're cutting this site out, making this flat area, within
that area we're going to make a nice environment. Whether it is the way the wall is built, the caps and maybe some brick in the wall, even the way
the curbs and sidewalks are done, and the rhythm and texture and the detail that are on the building, you could make a nice environment out of that
setting without street trees. But it is the foreground for the building. You might see that as an opportunity, but it isn't going to be just your regular old
CVS in the middle of an asphalt parking lot. It is going to have to have some other kind of approach that compensates and balances out and says this
is not up at Forest Lakes or Stonefield.
24. I don't think the relationship of the building to the road and retaining wall is going to be similar to the existing. It will be much more severe.
25. Coming down Rio Road, how will you know the CVS is there? You might downplay the building and work the retaining wall into a site wall with a
"CVS" sign.
26. Whatever is done on that corner needs to look like it is part of the building.
27. It would help in the evaluation of this building to see images of what the intended streetscape is, to know what the context is going to be.
28. You could accomplish scale and texture through pilasters and cornices and facade elements. I'm not sure it has to be windows. Something will need
to be done to break down the scale and blankness.
29. We've allowed green screens on some buildings, Fresh Market which is set back and Stonefield when perpendicular. It is hard to say without seeing
what the building looks like if green screens are appropriate. The design needs human scale, not shopping mall scale, not parking car scale, integral
to the building design. Shapes, scale and materials need to create a cohesive whole. Blankness must be relieved. Trademark designs must be
modified to meet the guidelines.
30. The pediments need some work. They are sliced off and flat and are backgrounds for signs, not architecture.
ARB comments from April 6, 2015 CVS at Rio/29 work session on the revised conceptual design
1. The Rio Road landscaping is an improvement, but it should be associated with something. Make the retaining wall a sculptural element related to the
landscaping.
2. Provide a view(s) of the building as seen headed south.
3. The revised design breaks down the scale more effectively.
4. The landscaping is an improvement.
5. The awnings appear to be higher than pedestrian scale.
6. It appears that the rooftop equipment will need a screen in addition to landscaping to eliminate visibility from Rio Road.
15