december 2, 2004

DDeevveellooppmmeenntt DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt

Architectural Design Review Board Elements: The following packet includes:

1) ARB Draft Meeting Minutes from the 5/7/2013 Meeting; 2) Staff Report regarding monument sign (item heard at 5/7/013 Meeting) 3) Applicant Submittal of proposed monument sign to be reviewed 5/7/2013 4) ARB Approved Meeting Minutes from the 4/2/2013 Meeting; 5) ARB approved Meeting Summary from the 4/2/2013 Meeting; 6) Staff Report regarding PUD package architectural elements and Sign Package for

the 4/2/2013 Meeting;


ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes

May 7, 2013 –7:00 PM _____________________

I. Call to Order (8:05pm) Members Present: Darron Kusman (Chair), Paige Perkins, John Edwards, Andrew Amor Members Absent: Jeff Westall, Vivian Saffold City Staff Present: Joel Reed Presenters: Ben Vo, Joseph Suh, II. Business A. Planned Unit Development, 5000 Buford Highway, City Farmers Market. Meeting was held to discuss and take action on the monument sign that was not voted on at last month’s ARB meeting due to direction given to applicant to look at alternate materials for the sign and to bring back. Kusman opened the floor for discussion. Discussion ensued about previous actions by the ARB last month and changes that had happened to the plans. Mr. Vo and Suh presented information on the monument sign and materials to be used for the individual tenant signs. There was discussion on the overall massing of the sign and general direction that as presented the sign was too large and needed to be proportionally smaller. Members then reviewed the PUD sign package again since there were modifications to the buildings from last month. Members agreed that Building B, facing west should have building signs located here as well. Perkins made motion to approve the monument sign and additional building sign on Building B (channel letters on raceway) with conditions as follows:

1. Monument sign and modules material to be of quality and material as provided for in the plans and not to exceed a height of 18’

Second by Amor. Unanimous (Kussman, Edwards) III. Approval of Minutes: ARB Preliminary Meeting – April 2, 2013, 7:00pm Motion to approve minutes made by Paige Perkins with correction; Second by John Edwards. Unanimous (Kussman, Amor). IV. Adjournment Kusman made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Edwards seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm. Draft minutes - to be approved at next ARB meeting

Council Wrap-Up Page 1 of 2 Petition No: 2013PUD – 002 Architectural Design Review Board: May 7, 2013

Council Work Session: May 16, 2013 City Council Meeting: May 21, 2013 \\Chamfs1\City_Public\Development Dept\Planning and Zoning\Zoning\Zoning Cases\2013\2013PUD-002.Docx

Petition No.: 2013PUD – 002 Development Department

Site Address: 5000 Buford Highway

Parcel Number: 18-297-02-(012, 062, 063)

Land Lot and District: 297, 18th

Parcel Acreage: 7.67Acres

Applicant: City Farmers Market, LLC (Binh Vo)

Representative: Phillip West, 478.213.2444

Prior Action: On April 2, 2013 the ARB met and were presented with the project for a PUD application along with a master sign package for the site. The ARB approved the site plan along with Buildings A-D with the conditions as outlined in the meeting summary. The sign package as presented was recommended for approval with the exception to the monument sign. The Board asked for redesign of tenant modules that were part of the monument sign (including higher-quality materials) and for applicant to return to board with renderings and product samples. Related Code: Per Section 1312 signage for a planned center or planned unit development (PUD)…must be established by approval of a master signage plan. Master signage plan standards as to type, number, size, height, location, orientation or other design provisions established in addition to or in lieu of the restrictions placed on signs by this article are to be incorporated into the master signage plan. Upon approval, the master signage plan shall supersede any conflicting restrictions and regulations of this article for the property to which it pertains.

Section 1307 allows planned centers to have 1) one principal freestanding sign (under section 1308 one monument sign with a max height of 8’ and max sign area of 64 square feet); 2) one principal building sign for each business on a wall facing a street frontage with a curb cut; and 3) a permanent project entrance sign(in accordance with Section 1309c with a maximum area of 24 square feet and a maximum height of eight feet). Such signs may not be internally illuminated per section 1305E. Monument sign proposed is 15’ wide by 24’ (including 6’ base) tall or 270 square feet or 360 square feet including base. Applicant is asking for their design in lieu of restrictions placed on signs by this article.

Applicant Statement:

Applicant states that in order to have tenant signs for the tenants and them to be visible from the road that in order to accommodate the modules for the tenant signs monument sign needs to be this size to be visible.

Council Wrap-Up Page 2 of 2 Petition No: 2013PUD – 002 Architectural Design Review Board: May 7, 2013

Council Work Session: May 16, 2013 City Council Meeting: May 21, 2013 \\Chamfs1\City_Public\Development Dept\Planning and Zoning\Zoning\Zoning Cases\2013\2013PUD-002.Docx

Staff Review: Staff has analyzed applicants request and statement regarding the need for the larger sign to accommodate tenant module signs on the monument sign. Building A has 9 tenants; B – 6 tenants; C – 5 tenants; and D – 3 tenants for a total of 23 tenant spaces on the property. Staff has concern that if even smaller tenant spaces could be created in the future by dividing the existing 23 proposed tenant spaces that already exist. Applicant asserts that individual tenants need a module sign within the monument sign, by this logic we would then need to accommodate now 46 tenant spaces on the monument sign if existing spaces were subdivided. Would we then permit a larger sign? In addition applicant is permitted to have a project entrance sign (at the south entrance) in addition to the monument sign (at the north entrance). Applicant has not requested this sign. Staff feels that the additional individual building signs, that have been supported by staff as well as the identify and branding that the plaza will receive overall from the “City Farmers Market” monument sign and given the intent of Section 1301 B “to promote the aesthetic qualities of the city” and to “protect property values by minimizing the possible adverse effects and visual blight caused by signs; and “balance the rights of individuals to convey their messages through signs and the right of the public to be protected against the unrestricted proliferation of signs” staff does not recommend approval of a larger sign.

Due to the amount of street frontage, site acreage and scale of the overall project staff does feel that a variance to the number of signs could be granted. Due to the street frontage of the property and the fact that the code allows additional curb cuts over 400 feet. Staff would recommend approval of another ground mounted sign at the south entrance in place of a project entrance sign. A monument sign, rather than a project entrance sign at the south entrance, would provide the applicant with 64 square feet rather than 24 feet and allow it to be designed in the same manner as the sign to the north.

Staff Recommends Denial of monument sign as presented.

Option 1 – To approve a second monument sign at the south entrance identical to the sign at the north entrance.

ARB ACTION:

CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

N.T.S.

PAINTED METAL COPING

EIFS FINISH

EIFS FINISH

EIFS FINISH

EIFS FINISH

EIFS FINISH

FAUX STONE VENEER FAUX STONE VENEER

N.T.S.


ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

Meeting Minutes

April 2, 2013 –7:00 PM

_____________________

I. Call to Order (7:05pm) Members Present: Darron Kusman (Chair), Jeff Westall, Vivian Saffold, John Edwards, Andrew Amor

Members Absent: Paige Perkins

City Staff Present: Joel Reed, Niwana Ray

Presenters: Clifford Kong, Ben Vo, Joseph Suh, Suhfen Ng

II. Approval of Minutes: ARB Preliminary Meeting – March 26, 2013, 7:00pm

Motion to approve minutes made by Westall; second by Saffold. Unanimous.

III. Business A. Planned Unit Development, 5000 Buford Highway, City Farmers Market

Members of the Design Team presented plans and renderings for the renovation of the existing Buford Highway Flea Market into the City Farmers Market, an international supermarket. Construction will be completed in 2 phases (Phase I – Buildings A and B; Phase II – Buildings C and D).

Joel Reed, Acting Development Director, presented the City’s Staff Report (attached to minutes).

Kusman opened the floor for discussion, starting with the overall site plan.

After discussion on the site plan, Kusman made motion to approve the site plan with conditions as follows:

1. Treat the rear brick façade of Building C and consider rear access to the building for customers;

2. Enhance pedestrian friendliness throughout the site, primarily visually through use of colored pavers, signage, etc.; and

3. Place a 2’ buffer outside the colonnade/façade of Building A.

Amor seconded the motion. Unanimous vote in favor of motion.


Kusman opened the floor for discussion of the façade, starting with Building D.

After discussion on Building D, Kusman made a motion to approve the façade plans for Building D with conditions as follows:

1. Move dumpster to rear or behind front façade; and

2. Add cornice to Buford Highway façade.

Amor seconded the motion.

Westall made a motion to amend motion to include condition #3, raise north elevation to screen rooftop equipment from view from right-of-way.

Kusman restated motion to approve the façade plans for Building D with conditions as follows:

1. Move dumpster to rear or behind front façade;

2. Add cornice to Buford Highway façade; and

3. Raise north elevation to screen façade from view from right-of-way.

Edwards seconded the amended motion. Unanimous vote in favor of motion as amended.

Edwards made a motion to approve the sign package as presented with exception to the monument sign, and discuss the monument sign at the end of the building discussions.

Amor seconded the motion. Unanimous vote in favor of motion.

Kusman opened the floor for discussion of Building C.

Kusman made a motion to approve Building C as presented with the following conditions:

1. West elevation to have full-height parapet and add architectural details similar in form to front façade; and

2. Split-wall block foundation to be complementary earth tone color and texture.

Edwards seconded the motion. Unanimous vote in favor of motion.

Kusman made a motion to amend previous motion regarding Building D to add condition #4, Split-wall block foundation to be complementary earth tone color and texture.


Westall seconded the motion. Unanimous vote in favor of amending Building D.

Kusman opened the floor for discussion of Building B.

Kusman made a motion to approve Building B as presented with the following conditions:

1. Modify north façade to add access via landscaping or grading, or potentially ramp or stairs to ensure access to western side of building and maintain ADA compliance;

2. Permit tenant on northeast corner to have signage on north façade in conformance with proposed signage fronting Buford Highway; and


Edwards seconded the motion. Unanimous vote in favor of motion.

Kusman opened the floor for discussion of Building A.

Amor made a motion to approve Building A as presented with the following conditions:

1. Central featured element in façade is changed from 3-bay expression to a 5-bay expression. Bays 4 and 10 to be recessed to create articulation/relief; and

2. Change material color of aluminum-finished freezer panels to harmonious earth tone. Shortening the amount of EIFS used on the north side is also acceptable.

Saffold seconded the motion. Unanimous vote in favor of motion.

Kusman opened the floor for discussion of monument sign.

Kusman made a motion to deny monument sign as proposed, based upon proposed tenant signage.

Saffold seconded the motion. Westall voted “aye”; Edwards, Saffold, Amor and Kusman voted “nay”.

Kusman made a motion to deny monument sign as proposed and asked for redesign of tenant signage (desire for higher-quality) and for applicant to return to board with renderings and samples.

Westall seconded the motion. Unanimous vote in favor of motion.


Saffold stated a general concern that lighting information had not been presented. Discussion was held regarding the light fixtures and coordination efforts with Georgia Power.

Westall made a motion to request additional information on lighting fixtures, pole type and height and photometrics for parking lot lighting.

Saffold seconded the motion. Unanimous vote in favor of motion.

IV. Adjournment Kusman made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Westall seconded the motion.

Meeting adjourned at 11:00 pm.


SUMMARY OF MEETING MINUTES

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING

APRIL 2, 2013 @ 7:00pm

re: CITY FARMERS MARKET, 5000 BUFORD HIGHWAY

Site Plan APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS as follows:

1. Treat the rear brick façade of Building C and consider rear access to the building for customers;

2. Enhance pedestrian friendliness throughout the site, primarily visually through use of colored pavers, signage, etc.; and

3. Place a 2’ buffer outside the colonnade/façade of Building A.

Façade plans for Building D APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS as follows:

1. Move dumpster to rear or behind front façade;

2. Add cornice to Buford Highway façade;

3. Raise north elevation to screen façade from view from right-of-way; and


Façade plans for Building C APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS as follows:

1. West elevation to have full-height parapet and add architectural details similar in form to front façade; and


Façade plans for Building B APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS as follows:

1. Modify north façade to add access via landscaping or grading, or potentially ramp or stairs to ensure access to western side of building and maintain ADA compliance;

2. Permit tenant on northeast corner to have signage on north façade in conformance with proposed signage fronting Buford Highway; and


(continues on following page)


Façade plans for Building A APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS as follows:

1. Central featured element in façade is changed from 3-bay expression to a 5-bay expression. Bays 4 and 10 to be recessed to create articulation/relief; and

2. Change material color of aluminum-finished freezer panels to harmonious earth tone. Shortening the amount of EIFS used on the north side is also acceptable.

Sign package approved with exception to Monument sign. Monument sign as presented was DENIED. Board asked for redesign of tenant signage (including higher-quality materials) and for applicant to return to board with renderings and product samples.

Council Wrap-Up Page 1 of 7 Petition No: 2013PUD – 002 Architectural Design Review Board: April 2, 2013

Council Work Session: April 11, 2013 City Council Meeting: April 16, 2013 \\Chamfs1\City_Public\Development Dept\Planning and Zoning\Zoning\Zoning Cases\2013\2013PUD-002.Docx

Petition No.: 2013PUD – 002 Development Department

Site Address: 5000 Buford Highway

Parcel Number: 18-297-02-(012, 062, 063)

Land Lot and District: 297, 18th

Parcel Acreage: 7.67Acres

Applicant: City Farmers Market, LLC (Binh Vo)

Representative: Phillip West, 478.213.2444

Current Use: Flea Market

Surrounding Land Uses: North – Commercial South – Commercial East – Commercial West – Residential

Site Description: There is an existing one story 69,000 commercial building on the site

that is used as a Flea Market. There is also a 1 story brick building of approximately 5,500 square feet that sits near Buford Highway. There is an expansive parking lot between Buford Highway and the existing Flea Market building. The site is scarified of vegetation and almost 100% impervious except for a drainage area behind the large building.

Project Description: Applicant is requesting to renovate the existing flea market building into

a grocery supermarket as well as adding approximately 15,000 square feet of retail space to the front of the building brining it closer to the street and adding a completely new façade to the building. The existing parking will be updated to add associated landscape islands , parking lot lighting and ADA parking spaces. Phase 2: will see the construction of Building “B” a 16,150 square foot commercial retail center. Phase 3 will then add two additions buildings, “C” and “D” each consisting of 7,000 square feet of retail space.



Current Zoning: Corridor Commercial (CC): This zoning district is intended primarily for mixed-use development and related uses at a medium density. This district provides a location for residences, retail, goods and services and offices to satisfy the common and frequent needs of the city's businesses and residents with design standards and design parameters to encourage a pedestrian-friendly traditional urban form, oriented to pedestrians, which will limit the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.

District Standards:

*Buford Highway is classified as “Clairmont, Peachtree Blvd., Buford Hwy.” Future Development Map: The site is located within International Village (IV) character area. The

intent of this character area is to create an appealing community for visitors while maintaining the integrity of the community. The concept of the International Village is that it would serve as home, workplace, learning center, cultural activity center, tourist center, shopping and recreation center for individuals and businesses of various cultures in Chamblee and throughout Atlanta.

Comp Plan Vision…The vision of the International Village is two-fold:

• To fortify and sustain the area as a living and working community for all people. • To strengthen the local economy by enhancing the appeal of the area to non-residents who desire

to experience an authentic international community. Realizing the visual image of the Village will require development oriented to the pedestrian rather than the automobile, and development of an environment that unifies the area and connects one project to another. Redevelopment along the major corridors, including New Peachtree Road, Chamblee Dunwoody Road and Chamblee Tucker Road, will focus on establishing inviting enhanced pathways that reinforce the international theme. Structured “gateways,” which may consist of kiosks, plantings and signage will welcome visitors to the area and help to round out the international representation within the Village.

CC Zoning District minimums prescribed Total FAR (max) 1.0 Side Yard None/8’ Building Coverage (max) 80% Rear Yard 20’ Max Building Height 60’ Front 20’ Lot Size (minimum) N/A Building Façade Elevation 24’ Lot Width N/A Landscape Zone 10’ Parking 4/1,000 sf GLA Sidewalk Zone 10’



The architecture shall enhance and strengthen the character of the neighborhood, not by copying the design of neighborhood buildings, but by understanding the most important aspects of the neighborhood, its overall character and interpreting those aspects.

Design guidelines and land use controls should be analyzed in terms of current demographics and usability. Part of the allure of the International Village is the “organized chaos” and authentic ethnic feel of the area. Most immigrants residing in the area are foreign nationals and are used to mixes of uses.

Primary Land Uses Groceries, shops, services. Community focal points and quasi—public meeting and gathering places. Food courts, cafes and other entertainment areas that do not negatively impact residential uses. Design Standards

1. Multi-lingual signs should be included to enhance the international feel of the area. 2. Gateways and streetscapes should include an international theme and may include kiosks,

planting 3. and signage. 4. Developments are encouraged to use of flags, balconies, cobblestones, decorative brick and

mansard roofs. 5. Traditional materials should be used for both rehabilitation and new construction. The objective

is to encourage a generous use of color in building facades, especially at ground floor level. The following materials should be used in this character area: Standard clay brick in a range of solid colors. Dimension building stone masonry. Terracotta and tile decorative elements. Cast iron and pressed-metal decorative elements. Wood elements for features such as recessed balconies, bay windows and storefronts. Specially treated concrete finish.

6. A wide range of colors are appropriate for the International Village and are meant to reflect the ethnic origins of the area, including reds, oranges and gold as traditional colors.

7. Underground utilities are required. 8. The exposed sides and rear of buildings should be treated in similar materials to the principal

street façade, although less attention can be paid to applied decorative elements. 9. New development should be primarily 5,000 to 10,000 square foot leasable spaces to retain the

community feel of its retail and service establishments. 10. Buildings should be designed and sited to front lot lines. 11. Building mass should be vertically articulated to further reinforce the character of the

neighborhood. Long unbroken horizontal walls should be avoided. 12. Ground floor retail, restaurant and community use spaces should have greater height than the

upper floors and should have facades made mostly of clear glass to enhance the sense of activity and safety on the street.



13. The primary pedestrian entrance shall access all sidewalk level uses and business establishments with street frontage.

14. Access to service bays and parking spaces shall be located away from the main entrances and should be designated to have minimum visual impact on the streetscape.

15. The design shall emphasize human scale in all aspects of the architecture from the largest to the smallest building element.

STAFF REVIEW

Design review criteria.

Each application subject to design review shall be transmitted to the city planner and reviewed. The city planner and board shall review all applications, based upon, but not limited to, the following policies and standards:

a. Design shall be in harmony with the general character of the neighborhood and surrounding area, considering factors such as mass, placement, height, changing land use patterns, and consistency of exterior architectural treatment, especially in areas of historic and special design interest.

Context: The site is currently zoned Commercial Corridor (CC). Surrounding zonings to the North, East and South are CC zoning as well. Zoning to the West of the property is Village Residential (VR). Existing land uses in the area are comprised of the following: To the west are multifamily residential units. To the north properties are developed with a commercial retail and office building along with a multifamily residential apartment building. To the east the land is developed with medical and dental office building as well as vacant undeveloped land. To the Southwest are multifamily apartments and to the southeast are single use commercial buildings.

The multifamily residential units are garden style apartment buildings built in the 1960 and 1970’s. The single use commercial buildings in the area are primarily single story and have no unified or distinct architectural style or form. There is an office building across Buford Highway that is two stories and appears to have been built in the 1970’s. The mixed retail/office building to the northwest is two stories, has a mansard style metal roofs and external balconies and staircases to access the second floor. The primary building materials on the commercial and mixed commercial/office buildings are: brick, stone and stucco. Just down Buford Highway, visible from the site is a 6 story office building that is part of the CDC campus. New and old architecture style dominates the 6 story office building which mixing green glass fenestration with light colored stone finished pillars and lentils.

Response: There is no distinct identifiable character of the surrounding area or neighborhood. Reviewing for mass, placement, height, changing land use patterns, and consistency of exterior



architectural treatment, especially in areas of historic and special design interest staff determines that although Building “A” is larger than any other retail buildings in the immediate area it is single story building with a tower in the middle to provide visual interest that is 55’ which is in keeping with the surrounding area. Massing of the structure is broken up through elevation changes across the 350’ front of the building. However, there is a distance of approximately 125’ before the elevation changes in the center of the building. Section 909 of the City Code requires that “building walls exceeding 100 continuous linear feet shall utilize offsets, such as projections, recesses, and changes in floor level, to add architectural interest and variety, and to relieve the negative visual effect of a simple long wall. Another elevation, offset, or projection both on the left and right side of the tower shall be added. Staff recommends an offset. The proposed building materials are EIFS (stucco type material); glass (fenestration); Stone; and Brick. Staff recommends adding additional quality materials such as brick or stone to the front of Building “A” and to all four sides of Buildings “B”, “C”, and “D”.

b. Design components shall be planned such that they are physically and aesthetically related and

coordinated with other elements of the project and surrounding environment to ensure visual continuity of design.

Response: Design components throughout the project are physically and aesthetically related and coordinated and provide visual continuity of design. However, the “back of Building “C” faces the interior of the parking lot and the front of Building “A”. Additional design should be given to this rear elevation given it is a focal point on the site. Recommendations include: giving it the appearance of a second front to the building or perhaps adding a mural to the top part of the building.

c. Design shall protect scenic views, particularly those of open space, and utilize natural features of the

site. Response: N/A – The site is completely scarified and almost 100% impervious concrete, asphalt and covered by structures. There is a drainage pond behind Building “A” on the site that the applicant has incorporated into their design.

d. Design shall protect adjacent properties from negative visual and functional impacts.

Response: Visually Building “A” can be seen from adjacent residential zoning and uses to the west in the west corner. However the existing conditions of the road easement as well as the building situated along the property line make it difficult to add a vegetative screen to this area. There does



appear some space adjacent to the building and behind where some additional landscaping elements could be added to buffer the view. Loading and unloading take place to the rear of Building “A” or to the west which is adjacent to residential zoning and uses however, the majority of the area is buffered by existing vegetation around the drainage pond.

e. Design shall respect the historical character of the immediate area as integral parts of community

life in the city and shall protect and preserve structures and spaces which provide a significant link within these areas.

Response: Based on a site visit and observations of the site and surrounding site there is a significant amount of pedestrian activity of individuals access the site from the north/northwest through the site out towards Buford Highway. There are several residential areas that are to the west of the site and it appears that these residents access the site by foot. Additional consideration should be given to pedestrian circulation of the site.

f. All exterior forms, attached to buildings or not, shall be in conformity with, and secondary to, the

building. Response: N/A . The only potential “exterior form” is a freezer attached to Building “A” which is

shown as a Aluminum finish. No façade of any metal building visible from any public street shall have the appearance of a metal building. Require that it be treated with the EIFS finish.

Pending Questions/Concerns:

What material type and lighting is proposed for Soffit under sidewalk of Building “A”?

What type of metal roof is proposed?

What type of lighting fixture are proposed as indicated on the buildings?

What is the trim cap material on Building “A”?

What is the rail material?

Is maintenance of fabric awnings going to be a concern? Is metal or aluminum appropriate throughout?

Staff Recommends Approval with the following Conditions:

a) Treatment to be applied to the rear of Building “B” giving it the appearance of a second front to the building and/or adding a mural to the top part of the building; and

b) Treatment to be applied to Freezer on Building “A”; and



c) Adding two offsets one on both the left and right side of the tower of Building “A”; and

d) Remove Clock and replace with art/design; and

e) Adding Additional Brick or Stone to Building “A” Front; Building “B” and “C” all four sides; and f) Adding additional plantings to the West side of Building “A” along the building; and

g) Adding a parapet to Building “D” front elevation as well as additional fenestration and doors; and

h) A master signage plan must be approved by the mayor and council prior to the issuance of any building permits.

i) Building shall be built in general keeping with the overall look, feel, quality of materials and color palette as presented. Any minor modifications can be approved administratively by the City manager who shall have sole authority to approve minor changes to approved planned unit developments. A minor change in the approved planned unit development means a slight alteration to a planned unit development or change in layout that does not result in the visible intrusion of any building, structure, driveway, walkway, parking lot, plaza, wall or similar built element into any open space, yard, landscaped buffer, undeveloped space, or any similar space, when any such space is shown on the final "conditional" plan as being next to and visible from a property line or street. Any changes outside of this will require re-review and approval by the ARB and/or City Council.

ARB ACTION:

CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

december 2, 2004

Documents