DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING BOARD CHAMBERS – 2 ND FLOOR WAKE FOREST TOWN HALL 301 S. BROOKS STREET THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2019 4:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest B. Public Hearing on Case AR-19-11 Amendment: Consideration of a request filed by Timmons Group for Major Architectural Design Review for the proposed Vue Hotel and Suites, to be located at 11600 Northpark Drive, being Wake County Tax Pin Number 1830-45-8199. 4. DISCUSSION ON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD QJ STANDARDS 5. ADJOURNMENT
B. Public Hearing on Case AR-19-11 Amendment: Consideration of a request filed by Timmons Group for Major Architectural Design Review for the proposed Vue Hotel and Suites, to be located at 11600 Northpark Drive, being Wake County Tax Pin Number 1830-45-8199.
4. DISCUSSION ON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD QJ STANDARDS
5. ADJOURNMENT
Page | 1
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES GROUND FLOOR TRAINING ROOM
WAKE FOREST TOWN HALL THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2019
4:00 P.M.
Board Members Present: Jim Sherrer, Nick Kentopp, Paul Eitel, Amra Hayslett Board Members Absent: Marsha Wyly Board ExOfficio Present: Commissioner Anne Reeve Staff Members Present: Courtney Jenkins, Brendie Vega, Sam Slater Applicant(s): Emily Hinton 1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Paul Eitel at 4:04 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes from January 10, 2019.
Jim Sherrer made a motion to approve the minutes, Amra Hayslett seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (4-0).
3. NEW BUSINESS
A. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
Sam Slater asked the Board members if anyone had any undisclosed ex parte communications with the applicants or conflict of interest they would like to disclose for Case AR-17-01 Amendment. The Board members replied they had no conflict of interest or ex parte communications with the applicants.
B. Public Hearing on Case AR-17-01 Amendment: Consideration of a request filed by CIP Construction for Major Architectural Design Review for proposing an amendment to the previously approved Bee Safe Storage, located at 939 Gateway Commons Circle, being Wake County Tax Pin Number 1840-98-9097.
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes March 14, 2019
Page | 2
Courtney Jenkins was sworn in and asked to submit the staff report and all associated documentation into the record as evidence. Ms. Jenkins stated that Case AR-17-01 Amendment was a request for revised Major Architectural Design Review for a previously approved self-storage facility project consisting of a 3-story, 75,007-SF Industrial building at 939 Gateway Commons Circle in the Gateway Commons Shopping Center. Industrial buildings are subject to the specific standards set forth in Section 5.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Ms. Jenkins presented the staff report and detailed the elements of the amended project as they relate to the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance. The installed brickwork on the Bee Safe building does not match the original approved application by the Design Review Board. The original approval had a light colored brick for the entire first story as the base of the building and a darker colored brick for the second and third stories. The constructed building has installed the darker colored brick for all three stories and installed the lighter colored brick as horizontal bands in between the floors. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project provided the Design Review Board determines that the building design standards and findings of fact are met.
The applicant’s architect, Emily Hinton, Lindsey Architecture, 324 S. Elm Street, Suite 500, Greensboro, NC 27401, was sworn in. Ms. Hinton provided the Board with a background of the project and the requested amendment. She provided pictures of construction to the Board which were submitted as evidence for the record. Paul Eitel asked if the reveal on the current constructed building is the same as what was previously approved. Ms. Hinton answered yes, however, it is not as deep in a few areas. Amra Hayslett inquired what the reasoning is for the change and amendment to the Bee Safe building. Ms. Hinton responded that it is due to a communication error with the constructed building that was caught by Staff and now back before the Design Review Board for approval. Paul Eitel questioned if the original approval was a modified version of Bee Safe’s typical constructed building to meet the Town’s design guidelines. Ms. Hinton answered yes, Bee Safe’s typical model building has 2 bands of brick without any vertical elements such as pilasters. She stated that although the brick work for the approved building changed, the building still consists of the pilasters to provide a vertical element and the door locations are correct per the Design Review Board’s original request. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised elevations and the context of the Gateway Commons Shopping Center.
The public hearing was closed.
C. Action on Case AR-17-01 Amendment: Consideration of a request filed by CIP Construction for Major Architectural Design Review for proposing an amendment to the previously approved Bee Safe Storage, located at 939 Gateway Commons Circle, being Wake County Tax Pin Number 1840-98-9097.
The Board members discussed the findings of fact as they relate to the amendment request. Paul Eitel stated that the constructed Bee Safe building still meets the context of the Gateway
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes March 14, 2019
Page | 3
Center Shopping Center and the proposed amendment does not devalue the other buildings in the center. Jim Sherrer inquired what would happen if the Board did not approve the revision. Sam Slater directed the Board members to focus on the revised application and compare it to the ordinance. Paul Eitel responded that the project still meets the standards and intent of the ordinance. He asked the members that if this project was new, what would the board members have potentially required. Mr. Sherrer replied that he might have requested a more defined, true base. Mr. Hayslett agreed. Nick Kentopp stated that he is looking to the other buildings in the center for context and the findings of fact. Mr. Eitel agreed that the Board needs to use the findings of fact as criteria and based on the application, the project and amendment meets all three findings.
Jim Sherrer made a motion to approve Case AR-17-01 Amendment based on the project meeting the design standards of the ordinance and the findings of fact.
Nick Kentopp seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (4-0). ADJOURNMENT
To: Design Review Board Date: July 11, 2019 Case: Architectural Design Review (Major) Case No: AR-19-11 Vue Hotel and Suites
Prepared By: Courtney Jenkins, Planner II GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: Sucha Hospitality, LLC 183 Wind Chime Court, Suite 203 Raleigh, NC 27615 919-841-9260 [email protected] Architect: Timmons Group Sol Moore 5410 Trinity Road, Suite 102 Raleigh, NC 27607 919-866-4948 [email protected] Requested Action: Review of the Architectural Design Review (Major) application for Vue Hotel and
Suites Tax PIN #: 1830-45-8199 Location: 11600 Northpark Drive Size: 3.24 acres +/- Existing Land Use: Vacant (Proposed Hotel) Existing Zoning: HB, Highway Business Building Type: Lodging, Hotel Building Height: Three stories – 36’5” Building Size: 32,224 SF
BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS Per 15.8.5 (A) of the Wake Forest Unified Development Ordinance, the Major Architectural Design Review Process shall apply to all districts except RA-HC: Non-residential development or expansion 10,000 square feet or greater in gross floor area. The proposed project will construct a 73-unit hotel at 11600 Northpark Drive. The proposed building type is commercial (under 100,000 square feet). Commercial Buildings in Rural and Suburban Districts are subject to the specific standards set forth in Section 5.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Standards for Design Review A. 5.7 Commercial Buildings 5.7.2 Façade Materials A. Materials: Commercial building walls visible from a public street or civic space shall be
primarily brick, stacked stone, stone or stone masonry units, wood clapboard, cementitious fiber board, exposed heavy timber, or architectural concrete masonry units (CMU). Glass curtain walls may be approved subject to Design Review to ensure the styling and details are appropriate for the context. Exterior insulation finishing systems (EIFS) may be used on facades not facing a public street or civic space or as a secondary building material only (less than 25% of the wall area on primary frontage facades. Under no circumstances shall unfinished concrete block be permitted.
Staff Analysis: The proposed hotel building facade is clad in a combination of brick and
cementitious fiber board. The proposed project meets the UDO in regard to materials.
B. Balance of Wall Materials: When 2 or more materials are used on a façade, the heavier
material shall be placed below the lighter material (e.g. siding over brick) to get the sense of support and grounding.
Staff Analysis: The proposed hotel building uses brick at the base giving the buildings a sense
of support and grounding which meets the requirements of the UDO. C. Material Colors: Façade colors shall be of low reflectance earth tone, muted, subtle, or neutral
colors. Building trim may feature brighter colors as an accent material. The use of high-intensity, metallic, fluorescent, day glow, or neon colors shall be prohibited. Variations in color schemes are encouraged in order to articulate entry ways and public amenities so as to give greater recognition to these features.
Staff Analysis: The colors proposed for the hotel building are low reflectance earth tones and
muted, subtle, neutral colors. The proposed brick veneer will match the adjacent buildings. The cementitious fiber board will be painted brown and warm stone. The applicant is requesting to retain their accent colors of red for the canopy and yellow gold trim for one of the towers. The Design Review Board will need to determine if the proposed accents are acceptable and meet the requirements of the UDO.
5.7.3 Ground Level Detailing A. Minimize Blank Walls: Expanses of blank walls facing streets (excluding rear access drive or
alleys) or public civic spaces may not exceed 20 feet in length. (A “blank wall” is a façade that does not contain transparent windows or doors.)
Staff Analysis: The proposed hotel building has fenestration that eliminates any blank walls
facing streets which meets the requirements of the UDO.
B. Ground Level Glazing: Window glazing and doorways shall be the predominant features in the street-level façade. Exterior burglar bars, fixed “riot shutters” or similar security devices shall not be visible from the public right-of-way. All ground level windows shall provide direct views to the building’s interior extending a minimum of 6 feet behind the window. Staff Analysis: The proposed hotel building contains windows and doorway glazing at the
entrance as the predominant feature which meets the requirements of the UDO. Per the applicant, since the ground floor contains hotel rooms, it cannot provide direct views to the building’s interior like with traditional retail.
C. Transparency Zone: Glazing that is transparent under all lighting conditions shall extend from a base of contrasting material (not exceeding 4 feet in height above the adjacent grade) to at least the height of the door head. However, spandrel or colored glass may be used above the height of the door head. The primary façade must have a minimum of 50% glazing in the transparency zone and the side façade must have a minimum 40% glazing in the transparency zone. Staff Analysis: The proposed hotel building contains transparent glass in the entrance and the
individual hotel suites on the labeled Front Elevation. However, it does not have a minimum of 50% glazing which does not meet the requirements of the UDO. The side façade, labeled East Elevation, facing Capital Boulevard does not contain 40% glazing, which does not meet the requirements of the UDO.
D. Glazing to be Dispersed: Required glazing shall not be aggregated into a single undivided area of glazing treatment. Individual glazing areas shall not span more than 15 linear feet, and must be separated by at least 1 linear foot of contrasting material. Staff Analysis: The glazing is dispersed into individual glazing areas and meets the standards of
the UDO.
E. Canopies/Awnings: A building canopy, awning, or similar weather protection may be provided and should project a minimum of 5 feet from the façade. Staff Analysis: There is a canopy over the entrance which meets the 5’ requirement in the
UDO.
5.7.4 Utilities A. Rooftop Equipment: All rooftop equipment shall be screened from view to the extent practical.
If, due to the topography of the site, a physical screen would not suffice, alternative methods to minimize the negative aesthetics of the otherwise utilitarian equipment (e.g. painting the equipment
to match the building) may be approved by the administrator.
Staff Analysis: All mechanical utilities are located within the building and cannot be seen from
the exterior which meets the requirements of the UDO. 5.7.5 Façade Articulation The following provisions for façade articulation shall apply to any façade visible from a
public street or civic space. For buildings set back more than 200 feet from the street, the standards in this subsection apply only to the primary façade facing the street.
The proposed hotel is 380 feet from Capital Boulevard and 371 feet from the edge of
Northpark Drive, please see Façade Distance Exhibit. A. Vertical Elements: All architectural elevations of principal buildings (over 20 feet in height)
visible from a public street or civic space shall have a clearly discernible base, body, and cap. The base shall occupy the lowest portion of the elevation, shall have a height of at least 3 feet, and be constructed of a masonry material. The component described as the body shall constitute a minimum of 50% of the total building height. The cap shall occupy the highest portion of the elevation excluding the roof, and shall have a dimension that does not exceed the height of the base. The cap shall consist of a cornice, parapet, awning, canopy, eave or other architectural treatment that visually performs in the same manner. The base and cap shall be clearly distinguishable from the body through changes in color, material, pattern, profile, or texture.
Staff Analysis: The proposed hotel building does not illustrate a distinct base, body, and cap
meeting the requirements of the UDO. The applicant has stated the requirement does not apply due to their distance from the street.
B. Expression of Entries: Each entry way shall have 1 or more clearly defined, highly visible
customer entrances facing the street. The entrance shall feature 1 or more of the following: canopies or porticos, arcades, arches, wing walls, and/or planters.
Staff Analysis: The proposed hotel building illustrates a canopy that projects from the façade
therefore meeting the standard. The entrance is clearly defined which meets the UDO.
C. Articulation: The frontage of buildings shall be divided into architecturally distinct sections or
bays with each section taller than it is wide, unless otherwise noted. Sections or bays shall be visually established by architectural features such as columns, ribs, pilasters or piers, changes in plane, or an equivalent element that otherwise visually subdivides the wall through at least 50% of its height. The following provisions apply:
Façade Width/Use Size Maximum Bay/Section Width
Minimum Depth of Articulation Rooflines
b. 60’-120’ 30’ with each section taller than it is wide
At least 1 change in wall plane is required with a minimum depth of 2’. No single wall plan may extend more than 80% of the length of the
At least 1 change every 60’.
façade. The width of required dividing elements shall be between 1/8 and 1/10 the average height of the adjacent bays. The depth of the required dividing elements shall be at least 1/3 their width.
Staff Analysis: The proposed hotel building does not meet the articulation requirements of the
UDO. The applicant has stated the requirements do not apply due to their distance from the street.
FINDINGS OF FACT In order to approve an Architectural Design Review (Major) application, the required findings of fact contained in Section 15.8.5(H) of the Wake Forest Unified Development Ordinance are required to be met.
Finding 1: The plan is consistent with the adopted plans and policies of the Town and
complies with all applicable requirements of this ordinance. Proposed Staff Analysis: The Design Review Board will need to determine if the
proposed plan is consistent with the Unified Development Ordinance Chapter 5.7 Commercial Building Design Standards, specifically in regard to 5.7.3 Ground Level Detailing – Transparency Zone and 5.7.5 Façade Articulation requirements.
Finding 2: The proposed plan conforms to the character of the neighborhood,
considering the location, type and height of buildings or structures and the type and extent of landscaping on the site.
Proposed Staff Analysis: The Design Review Board will need to determine if the design
of the proposed building meets the requirements for location, type and height and the site will be landscaped appropriately to the requirements of the UDO.
Finding 3: The application will not be detrimental to the use or the development of the
adjacent properties or other neighborhood uses. Proposed Staff Analysis: The proposed project is an approved use in this area and will
not be detrimental to the use of the adjacent properties and neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board will need to determine if the proposed project meets the Unified Development Ordinance Design Standards based on the required findings of fact. Attachments:
- Aerial Map - Major Architectural Design Review Application - Color Elevations of Proposed Structures - Architectural Plans
FOX
VALLEY
ST
CAP
ITAL B
LVD
FOR
EST
PINES
DR
NO
RTH
PAR
K D
R
BEEST ON E LN
FIELD TO
WN
E LN
CAP
ITA
L B
LVD
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
6/24/2019
Please note that this map is intended for illustrative purposes only. For specific inquiries regarding zoning boundaries, contact the Wake Forest Department of Community Development at 919-435-9510. .0 500 1,000
Wake Forest, NC 27587-2932TEL (919) 435-9510 | FAX (919) 435-9539
Project Overview
Project Title: Vue Hotel & Suites (Major AR) Jurisdiction: Town of Wake Forest (Wake County)Application Type: 2.40) Architectural Design Review - Major State: NCWorkflow: Major Architectural Design Review County: Wake
Current Zoning: HB, Highway Business Currently a Conditional District?: NoCurrently a Conditional Use?: No Current Zoning Overlay: NA, Not Applicable to this Project
General Project Information
Building Height: 36.42 Number of Stories: 3Building Materials/Colors: Wood Frame/ Brick Veneer & FiberCement Panels Exterior
Building Type: Commercial (under 100,000 square feet)
Project Type: New Construction Description of Work: Construction of a 73-Unit Hotel buildingand associated infrastructure.
Factors Relevant to Major Architectural Design Review
The proposed plan is consistent with the adoptedplans/policies of the Town and complies with all applicablerequirements of this ordinance.:
1. Our brick colors match the brick used on the two brickoffice buildings and the newly constructed “CubeSmart” self-storage building plus our primary panelcolors and window frames are, essentially, the sameas “Cube Smart”. I don’t know how much more wecan do to blend with the neighborhood.
A. This, also, embodies the use of the heavier brickbase going below lighter fiber cement panels on upperfloors, as called for in your standards.
B. As requested in a previous review:
The proposed plan conforms to the character of theneighborhood, considering the location, type and height ofbuildings or structures and the type and extent oflandscaping on the site.: Our three story hotel, at only 36'5", will be the least imposing of all the buildings in thisproject, but with our landscaping architect's work, distancefrom the other structures plus the character of our facility,we should blend nicely and, yet, add a little flair to thedevelopment. Being surrounded on three sides bywetlands and flood plains makes a, very nice setting for ourfacility and an improvement over, this, previouslyundesirable section of this development.
Created with idtPlans Review 6/20/19 Vue Hotel Page 1 of 3
? We made our pattern of the cementitious panelsmore prominent, in our colored elevation.? Removed the yellow trim on our center and westbump outs.? Changed our banding between second and thirdfloors plus made the reveal below the parapet moredistinct.? Added the requested window on left side elevation,to complete the “Façade Articulation” requirement,that faces Capital Blvd, our only road frontage(some400’ away)? Showed the 10’X 30’lobby entrance canopy on theNorth elevation.? Since this is, obviously, is not a “pedestrianfriendly” situation, by reason of being a hotel at theend of a 371’, 30’ private drive and 380’ from CapitalBlvd, our only public frontage, which is far greaterthan the “within 200’”range, the “Façade Articulation”only applies to the Capital Blvd elevation.? As shown in the accompanying Google Ariel view,we are surrounded on three sides by woods, 100 yrflood plains and wetlands, we are not in a position toattract “pedestrian activity.? We do not promote any business, other than ourhotel guests and have no retail items or products soldto the general public.? Could not, under any circumstances, “providedirect views to the interior extending a minimum of 6feet behind the window”, as called for in yourordinance, especially, related to our guestrooms.? I don’t know how a hotel could, possibly, conformto the “transparency” standards, that were designedto govern an entirely different type of business, in anentirely different environment and location. ? Providing an artist perspective to articulate theview from, Capital Blvd, our only street frontage.
The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the use ordevelopment of the adjacent properties or otherneighborhood uses.: As outlined above, we are convertingthis undesirable land into an attractive feature for the entiredevelopment. Almost all commercial and mixed usedevelopments are desirous of having a hospitality facility asa complement to their project to accommodate visitors andattract additional patrons.
Project Contacts
Project Contact - ApplicantSol Moore
Project Contact - OwnerJerry Thomas
Created with idtPlans Review 6/20/19 Vue Hotel Page 2 of 3
