2003-02-11 Revised Building Elevations'~ ,
i
~ "'~~''
~,<
~~~.
°~~°$ EST A55®~IA~'~® C®~i5tlILTANTS, ~N~.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN _ 55416
Teiephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Albertville Planning Commission
Linda Goeb, City Administrator
FROM: Cynthia Putz-Yang /Alan Brixius
DATE: February 11, 2003
RE: Albertville -Outlets at Albertville Phase 3 -Revised Building Elevations
FILE N0: 163.06 - 02.28
The Collaborative, Inc., on behalf of Chelsea Property Group, the new property owner of
Outlets at Albertville Phase 3, has req~ jested approval of revised site and building plans.
The plans include replacing tower elements with smaller raised parapet elements at
several entrances, eliminating the curving concrete accent feature in the plaza paving,
replacing seatwalls with curbing, and replacing decorative concrete block with an EIFS
material at the bases of columns. The letter from the applicant indicates that the
proposed changes are primarily driven by leasing issues relating to tenant locations and
lines of sight. The letter states that some of the revisions are .due to economic
concerns.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A -Letter from Applicant dated February 5, 2003
Exhibit B -Approved Plaza Layout Plan
Exhibit C -Proposed Plaza Layout Plan
Exhibit D -Roof Plans, Approved and Proposed
Exhibit E -Building D, East Elevation, Approved and Proposed
Exhibit F -Building G, North Elevation, Approved and Proposed
Exhibit G -Building G, East Elevation, Approved and Proposed
Exhibit H -Building G, South Elevation, Approved and Proposed
Exhibit I -Approved Landscape Plan
~~ ^ `
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Proposed Building Changes -Towers and Parapets. The roof plan in Exhibit D
shows the elimination of four tower elements located on the northeast corner of Building
D, the north side of Building G, and the northeast corner of Building G. The towers are
replaced with smaller raised parapet elements. These changes may be acceptable in
that they allow better lines of sight within the development and create more open space
within the plaza for pedestrian circulation.
The proposed changes to the south side of Building G are not clear. The proposed
building elevation in Exhibit H shows a tower feature on the west end of the south side
and shows a raised parapet feature near the middle of the south side. The proposed
site plan, however, appears to show no change at the west end of the south side, rather
than a tower feature. We view favorably revising the entry elements on the south side
of Building G as shown on the elevation in Exhibit H. This tower relocation is desirable
because the tower draws attention away from the utility area and provides more uniform
spacing of the tower elements along the south side of the development.
The towers and other entry features that extend out into the plaza provide a nice
transition between interior and exterior spaces and provide some protection from the
weather. They also add architectural interest to the facades. Elements on the building
elevations are not labeled; however, it appears that all public entrances to the building
ws~uld,- ~t a minimum, have a fabric awning to provide sore ~~rotectdon from tl~e
elements and architectural interest.
The applicant also proposes to revise plans for column bases to use EIFS material,
consistent with the rest of the material palate, rather than decorative concrete block.
This is a minor change that the Planning Commission and City Council will need to
evaluate, along with other proposed changes, to determine whether the City continues
to be comfortable with the proposed overall architecture of the project.
Proposed Plaza Changes. The proposed site plan in Exhibit C shows that raised
concrete planters/seatwalls would be replaced with 6" concrete curb in four locations.
This change would reduce seating area in the plaza. The number of benches in the
plaza is not proposed to change. Besides providing seating, the raised
planters/seatwalls also have the advantage of raising plantings closer to eye level for
increased visual interest. We do not have a favorable opinion of this proposed change
because it has a potential negative impact on both the function and aesthetics of the
plaza.
The revised site plan includes elimination of the curving concrete accent feature in the
paving of the plaza. This will not affect the function of the area, and the revised plaza
design appears to continue to have sufficient variety. If the curving concrete feature is
eliminated, the landscape plan should also be revised to eliminate the curving theme
and relate instead to the remaining shapes.
~1
RECOMMENDATION
If the Planning Commission and City Council are comfortable with the overall level of
design and architectural style of the proposed plans, we recommend approval of the.
revised site and building plans subject to the following conditions:
1. The site plan should be revised to show a tower entry feature near the west end of
the south side of Building G that is consistent with the design of the other tower
features in the project.
2. All public entrances to the buildings must have protection from the weather from
either an entry feature roof or an awning.
3. The site plan must include raised concrete planters/seatwalls consistent with the
original plan.
pc: Mike Couri
Pete Carlson