ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT

Transcription

1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #/Name Review Type Parcel Identification Location Zoned Owner/Applicant Magisterial District Proposal Context Visibility ARB : Stonefield Blocks F & G Initial Site Plan, Variations, Rezoning, and Massing Studies Initial Site Plan review, advisory review of requests for variations and a rezoning; conceptual review of massing 061W B0 On the west side of Route 29, approximately 1100 south of Greenbrier Drive, between Sperry Marine/Northrup Grumman and Seminole Place Neighborhood Model District (NMD), Entrance Corridor (EC) Albemarle Place EAAP LLC/W W Associates (Herbert White) Jack Jouett To construct the northern phase of the Stonefield development, including a big box retail store with a fuel pump canopy, and five buildings for retail/other uses. Blocks F and G occupy the northernmost part of the Stonefield development. The surrounding area includes a mix of commercial, industrial and residential development. See below. ARB Meeting Date August 5, 2013 Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski PROJECT HISTORY The original rezoning for Albemarle Place (ZMA ), including application plan, code of development and proffers, was approved on October 22, Three subsequent rezoning applications (ZMA , ZMA , ZMA ) 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. 1

2 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 F1 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 F1 to help identify initial design issues and required level of future ARB review. Notes on Initial Site Plan review: According to County Code (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 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 café 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 F5 Outparcel on the Code of Development Modification Exhibit. Restaurant and retail uses are proposed options to the fuel facility use in this location. 2

3 Notes on the Rezoning 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 ISSUE RECOMMENDATION Visibility The buildings proposed for Blocks F and G will be visible from the Rt. 29 Entrance Corridor. ARB review of the architecture of Building F1 (with the Building height for Building F1 is approximately 31. Building height for the other buildings is approximately 25. building location presented in 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 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 C1-3 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 F1 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 F1 won t be viewed above the Block G buildings (as viewed from the EC). Direct views of F1 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 F1 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

4 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 F1 into the town center part of the development. 6 Site development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and should contribute to the creation of an organized development plan. This may be accomplished, to the extent practical, by preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the area; planting new trees along streets and pedestrian ways and choosing species that reflect native forest elements; insuring that any grading will blend into the surrounding topography thereby creating a continuous landscape; preserving, to the extent practical, existing significant river and stream valleys which may be located on the site and integrating these features into the design of surrounding development; and limiting the building mass and height to a scale that does not overpower the natural settings of the site, or the Entrance Corridor. 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. 12 Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor should use forms, shapes, scale, and materials to Specific architectural designs have not been submitted for review for any of the Block F or Block G buildings; however, basic massing information has been provided. At 155,000 sf and 31 tall, Building F1 is a large building. Given its size and type, it is anticipated that the building will follow a standard trademark design, that it will not exhibit a strong sense of human scale, and that blank walls will be prominent. With the visibility described above, the impact of the building scale and blankness on the Entrance Corridors would be reduced. At the proposed distance, the building materials and details are not expected to have a big impact on the ECs. Building colors, illumination, and treatment of the mass/form will be important. 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. 4

5 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 from the Entrance Corridor street. If, after appropriate siting, these features will still have a negative visual impact on the Entrance Corridor street, screening should be provided to eliminate visibility. a. Loading areas, b. Service areas, c. Refuse areas, d. Storage areas, e. Mechanical equipment, f. Above-ground utilities, and g. Chain link fence, barbed wire, razor wire, and similar security fencing devices. 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 architectural plan: Visibility of all mechanical 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 that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of Loading and dumpster areas are located behind all buildings, except building G1, where they are located on the south side and a screening wall is proposed. Details on the screening wall have not been provided. The site massing study shows all buildings with flat roofs and parapet walls. It is anticipated that rooftop equipment will be hidden by the parapet walls, as viewed from the ECs. The notes do not appear on the 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. Add the following notes to the site and architectural plans: Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated. and Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be 5

6 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 landscaping are intended to reflect the landscaping characteristic of many of the area s significant historic sites which is characterized by large shade trees and lawns. Landscaping should promote visual order within the Entrance Corridor and help to integrate buildings into the existing environment of the corridor. 32 Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance Corridor streets should include the following: 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. Large trees should be planted parallel to all interior roads. 35 Landscaping of parking areas: a. Large trees should align the perimeter of parking areas. Trees should be planted in the interior of parking areas at the rate of one tree for every 10 parking spaces provided and should be evenly distributed throughout the interior of the parking area. c. Shrubs should be provided as necessary to The Initial Site Plan shows utilities and easements along the Rt. 29 frontage, on the southern side of Blocks F and G, and internal to the site. The limits of some of the easements are difficult to identify on the plan. The Easement and Planting Overlay Plan confirms that there is no utility-free planting area along the EC frontage. However, a consistent row of trees and shrubs is shown along the EC in the Dominion Virginia Power easement. In this location, tree species will have to be limited to those approved by Dominion Virginia Power, which are all small or medium trees. The layout of the development is such that most parking areas are bordered by interior roads, except at the southeast corner of the site. There appears to be sufficient planting area in that location. There also appears to be sufficient space available for required interior parking lot trees. arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining 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. 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 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. 6

7 minimize the parking area s impact on Entrance Corridor streets. 34 Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways: a. Medium trees should be planted parallel to all interior pedestrian ways. 36 Landscaping of buildings and other structures: a. Trees or other vegetation should be planted along the front of long buildings as necessary to soften the appearance of exterior walls. The spacing, size, and type of such trees or vegetation should be determined by the length, height, and blankness of such walls. b. Shrubs should be used to integrate the site, buildings, and other structures; dumpsters, accessory buildings and structures; drive thru windows; service areas; and signs. Shrubs should measure at least 24 inches in height. 38 Plant health: The following note should be added to the landscape 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 The Enhanced Pedestrian Corridor Overall Plan shows a double staggered row of trees along the portion of the path between the Costco entrance and the segment of District Avenue that divides Blocks F and G. The other segments of the path are shown with trees on one side of the path. Tree spacing is not consistent throughout. 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. The F1 elevation that faces the Rt. 29 EC is almost 360 long. Detailed architectural elevations have not been provided but, given the type of building proposed, there are likely to be significant areas of blank wall on the EC-facing elevation. Trees planted along the building could help relieve such blankness. No such planting area is provided, but the distance from the EC, trees in the parking lot, and the Block G buildings will help mitigate the impact of the blankness. The note does not appear on the plan. 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. None. Add the following note to the plan: All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; 7

8 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 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. The Buildings in Blocks F and G are arranged parallel to the EC street. However, the entrance to F1 is located at the southeast corner of the building. Block G buildings range from 90 to 300 away from Rt. 29. The layout illustrated in the Initial Site Plan is an improvement over the previously approved application plan. The current layout breaks up the parking lots better, as viewed from the EC, and presents more buildings along the EC frontage. the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant. None. 45b Fuel pump canopies shall be the smallest size possible to offer protection from the elements. Canopies shall not exceed the sizes identified in Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies as outlined in Appendix B. The location and layout of the enhanced pedestrian corridor appear organized and the corridor provides connections to adjacent sidewalks both on- and off-site. The F1 canopy measures approximately 30 wide x 110 long and covers four paired gas pumps. The pump island layout is not specifically addressed in the EC Guidelines, but the layout is more or less in line with the size limitations outlined there. The canopy would be located approximately 470 from the Rt. 29 EC. The short end of the canopy is 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 8

9 shown oriented towards the EC. This 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 fueling facility and the EC. 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. c j The size of the canopy fascia and canopy support 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. Fuel pump canopy applicants should refer to ARB Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies. (Appendix B) Details on the appearance of the fueling station have not been provided for review. Although specific details on the design of the fuel pump canopy have not yet been submitted, the site section suggests that the overall height of the canopy structure exceeds the standards set forth in the guidelines (a maximum 36 high fascia with the bottom of the fascia no more than 14 6 above ground). The fuel pump canopy shall meet all EC Design Guidelines, including those for height. Signs A freestanding sign is identified on the Note that a sign application is 9

10 initial plan. The location of the sign cannot be approved with a site plan. Sign locations are approved with sign applications. required for approval of freestanding sign locations. 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 (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

11 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 F1: 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

12 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 (Issued 7/26/13) 1.3 Power Center Layout Rezoning C-1 Code of Development Modification Exhibit C-2 Fueling Facility Exhibit 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) (Issued 7/26/13) 12