Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prime Station Mixed Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board tables advisory on 400-unit mixed-use plan over concerns about mass, height and missing hotel visuals
Summary
Developers and architects presented a mixed-use site plan with two four-story multifamily buildings, row houses and a hotel. The Design Review Board declined to issue a favorable advisory opinion on mass, scale and height and elected to table, citing building massing concerns and absence of a hotel rendering.
Developers and their design team presented a mixed-use proposal for the Prime Station Lane site — a hotel plus about 400 dwelling units — and the Design Review Board on Sept. 24 declined to issue a favorable advisory opinion on mass, scale and height and instead tabled the item to allow the applicant to provide additional visuals and information.
James Easton, civil engineer with EP Land Services representing Prime Companies, and Svetlana Stief of Mackenzie Architects outlined the site plan, including two four-story, H-shaped multifamily buildings with internal courtyards, row houses with rear garages, and an L-shaped hotel at the corner nearest Station Lane and Route 29.
Board members repeatedly raised concerns about the proposal's overall mass and height. Several members said the multifamily buildings read as five stories when the roof and additional massing are included and described the effect as 'overwhelming' and 'resort-like.' Members said the row houses appeared appropriately scaled but that the larger multifamily blocks were visually excessive for the context near the Entrada development.
Multiple members said they could not render an opinion on mass and scale without seeing how the hotel would appear from Washington/Route 29; the applicant had provided only a 4-story box placeholder for the hotel in the materials presented.
The site's significant grade change between Washington/Route 29 and the proposed buildings was discussed: applicants explained the finished-floor elevations and garage exposures and noted that from Route 29 the hotel and buildings would likely read as about three to three-and-a-half stories because the site drops off toward the development.
Given the unresolved concerns and missing hotel elevation/renderings, the board voted to table the advisory opinion and asked the applicant to return with perspective views of the hotel and revised massing that consider frontage build-out requirements under the UDO.
The board indicated that, if the applicant provides additional information showing reduced perceived height along the boulevard and a hotel rendering, the board will re-evaluate mass, scale and height at a subsequent meeting.
