HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201800136 Staff Report 2018-11-301
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #/Name ARB-2018-136: North Pointe Northwest Residential Area Final Site Plan
Review Type Final Site Development Plan
Parcel Identification 032000000022K0
Location On the east side of Rt. 29 across from Lewis and Clark Drive
Zoned Planned Development Mixed Commercial (PDMC)/Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner/Applicant Neighborhood Investments NP LLC/Collins Engineering (Scott Collins)
Magisterial District Rivanna
Proposal To construct 184 single family attached residential units with associated site improvements on 39.99 acres.
Context The Northwest Residential Area is situated at the north end of the North Pointe development and is to be accessed by an extension of Lewis & Clark Drive. The entrance
to the University of Virginia Research Park is across Rt. 29 to the west. A mix of residential development lies to the east. A mix of commercial, industrial and residential
development extends north and south along Rt. 29. The North Pointe stormwater facilities previously reviewed by the ARB are located at the north and south ends of this
phase of development.
Visibility The proposed townhouse development will be visible from the Route 29 Entrance Corridor. Topography will allow the upper parts of some townhouses to be visible
above units located at lower elevations. Existing vegetation to remain and, eventually, additional trees planted throughout t he development, will reduce some visibility.
ARB Meeting Date December 3, 2018
Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski
2
PROJECT HISTORY
An application with the same project name was reviewed and approved by the ARB in 2017. Subsequently, the applicant desired a revised layout, so a new initial site plan was submitted and reviewed by
the ARB on April 2, 2018. The application that is the subject of this report is a final site plan following the April 2, 2018 initial plan.
DATE APPLICATION RESULT
4-2-2018 ARB-2018-30 The ARB reviewed an Initial Site Plan showing a revised layout for the Northwest Residential Area development. (See Attachment A for the action letter.)
8-1-2017 ARB-2017-39 Certificate of Appropriateness issued, with conditions, for the Northwest Residential Area development.
2-6-2017 ARB-2016-160 The ARB completed a preliminary review and provided a number of comments on the proposed Northwest Residential Area development.
10-14-2016 SUB-2016-196 Road plans for the Northwest Residential Area submitted for review.
4-18-2011 ARB-2011-27 The ARB completed a preliminary review of the Northwest Residential Area site plan.
4-1-2011 ARB-2011-10 A Certificate of Appropriateness was issued for stormwater management facilities #10 and #11. No final engineering approval was granted for these facilities.
2-14-2007 SP-2006-34 A Special Use Permit for a stream crossing was approved.
12-18-2006 ARB-2006-129 The ARB provided advisory comments on the Special Use Permit application for the stream crossing.
4-19-2004 ARB-2004-26 The ARB completed an advisory review for the North Pointe rezoning.
ANALYSIS
This table outlines the issues and recommendations made during the 4/2/2018 review of the initial site plan, with current analysis and recommendations on the current (final) plan.
REF GUIDELINE 4/2/2018 ISSUE 4/2/2018
RECOMMENDATION
CURRENT ISSUE CURRENT
RECOMMENDATION
Structure design
1 The goal of the regulation of the design of
development within the designated Entrance
Corridors is to insure that new development
within the corridors reflects the traditional
architecture of the area. Therefore, it is the
purpose of ARB review and of these Guidelines,
that proposed development within the designated
Entrance Corridors reflect elements of design
characteristic of the significant historical
landmarks, buildings, and structures of the
Charlottesville and Albemarle area, and to
promote orderly and attractive development
within these corridors. Applicants should note that
replication of historic structures is neither required
nor desired.
Architectural designs were not
submitted with the initial site
plan. However, it is anticipated
that the townhouse designs will
incorporate forms and features
that are typically found in
historic residential architecture,
like pediments and gables,
without making a strong
connection to local historic
resources.
If rear and side elevations of the
townhouses will face the EC,
they will need to include
Submit architectural
designs for review with
the final site plan.
Include sufficient
architectural features and
detailing on all building
elevations facing the EC
to achieve an appropriate
appearance for the EC.
Architectural elevations for Blocks 1, 3 and
10 have been submitted, with Blocks 4, 5,
7, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 24 noted as
“similar”. Most of the townhouse blocks
facing the EC are not listed by number on
the elevation drawings. Elevations are
needed for all the townhouse blocks so the
overall visual impact of the development
can be assessed.
The submitted elevations are similar to
those that were approved with ARB-2017-
39, but some have a reduced level of detail.
They incorporate forms and features that are
typically found in historic residential
Revise the elevation
drawings to include notes
indicating that 1) a
maximum of two adjacent
facades shall be co-
planar, 2) adjacent
townhouses shall not
have the same siding
color, and 3) two
townhouses having full
brick facades shall not be
adjacent.
Add sill courses below
the second story windows
3
2 Visitors to the significant historical sites in the
Charlottesville and Albemarle area experience
these sites as ensembles of buildings, land, and
vegetation. In order to accomplish the integration
of buildings, land, and vegetation characteristic of
these sites, the Guidelines require attention to four
primary factors: compatibility with significant
historic sites in the area; the character of the
Entrance Corridor; site development and layout;
and landscaping.
sufficient architectural features
and detailing to achieve an
appropriate appearance for the
EC.
architecture, like pediments and gables,
without making a strong connection to local
historic resources. Compared to previous
designs, the sill courses below the second
story windows are missing, as are the hoods
over the ground story entrances and some
detailing at window heads.
The entrances on the rear elevations are
sliding glass doors. This emphasizes that the
elevation is the rear of the building. The
addition of decks (or other features typically
found in backyards) to these EC-facing
elevations would further emphasize that
these elevations are the backs of the
townhouses.
The townhouse blocks range from 3 units to
7 units long. To limit the visual impacts of
the mass of the blocks, the conditions of
approval outlined with the 2017 plan should
remain.
Materials and colors are consistent with the
2017 designs and include Hardi-Plank in
khaki brown and darker shades of brown,
blue, green, and gray; shutters in similar
shades; General Shale Buckingham Tudor
brick; light oak stain for doors, and
Timberline charcoal grey architectural grade
shingles for roofs. The colors and materials
are expected to have an appropriate
appearance for the EC.
Side elevations have two windows at the
upper stories and one at the ground level.
There is also a material change above the
first floor and a pediment at the roof with a
on elevations facing Rt.
29.
Provide elevations for all
townhouse blocks.
3 New structures and substantial additions to
existing structures should respect the traditions of
the architecture of historically significant
buildings in the Charlottesville and Albemarle
area. Photographs of historic buildings in the area,
as well as drawings of architectural features,
which provide important examples of this
tradition are contained in Appendix A.
4 The examples contained in Appendix A should be
used as a guide for building design: the standard
of compatibility with the area’s historic structures
is not intended to impose a rigid design solution
for new development. Replication of the design of
the important historic sites in the area is neither
intended nor desired. The Guideline’s standard of
compatibility can be met through building scale,
materials, and forms which may be embodied in
architecture which is contemporary as well as
traditional. The Guidelines allow individuality in
design to accommodate varying tastes as well as
special functional requirements.
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
Architectural designs were not
submitted with the initial site
plan. A full review will be
completed when the designs are
submitted with the final site
plan. In the previous application,
some of the rear elevations had
Provide architectural
elevations for review.
A maximum of two
adjacent facades shall be
co-planar.
4
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.
elements and/or details (such as
patio doors) that marked them
visually as rear elevations. To
help reduce blankness and
massiveness, the previous
approval was granted with the
following conditions (see
Attachment A):
1) A maximum of two
adjacent facades shall be co-
planar.
2) Adjacent townhouses
shall not have the same
siding color.
3) Two townhouses having
full brick facades shall not
be adjacent.
Given the revised layout, these
conditions also seem appropriate
for the current plan.
Adjacent townhouses
shall not have the same
siding color.
Two townhouses having
full brick facades shall
not be adjacent.
vent. This appears to be sufficient detail for
the side elevations.
11 The overall design of buildings should have
human scale. Scale should be integral to the
building and site design.
Within individual townhouse blocks, the
material and color changes, and the stepping
forward and back of the units within each
block help establish human scale. Overall,
the block divisions and landscaping can
help mitigate the scale of the larger
development as viewed from the EC street.
None.
12 Architecture proposed within the Entrance
Corridor should use forms, shapes, scale, and
materials to create a cohesive whole.
There is sufficient repetition of architectural
details, materials and colors to establish a
cohesive appearance for the overall
development.
None.
13 Any appearance of “blankness” resulting from
building design should be relieved using design
detail or vegetation, or both.
Blankness is not a characteristic of the
townhouse design.
None.
14 Arcades, colonnades, or other architectural
connecting devices should be used to unify groups
of buildings within a development.
The townhouse blocks are unified in their
use of consistent architectural details,
materials and colors.
None.
15 Trademark buildings and related features should
be modified to meet the requirements of the
Guidelines.
The townhouses do not have the look of
trademark designs, although the designs
may be constructed in other locations.
None.
16 Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should not
be highly tinted or highly reflective. Window glass
in the Entrance Corridors should meet the
following criteria: Visible light transmittance
(VLT) shall not drop below 40%. Visible light
reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%.
Specifications on the proposed window glass
should be submitted with the application for final
review.
Given the distance from the EC
street and the wooded area
between the street and the
development, the tint and
reflectivity of the window glass
is not expected to have a
significant impact on the EC.
None. Given the distance from the EC street and
the wooded area between the street and the
development, the tint and reflectivity of the
window glass is not expected to have a
significant impact on the EC.
None.
Compatibility with the character of the Entrance
Corridor
5 It is also an important objective of the Guidelines
to establish a pattern of compatible architectural
The existing wooded area to
remain along the EC frontage
See recommendations
above.
The proposed development will be
compatible with other existing residential
See other
recommendations, above
5
characteristics throughout the Entrance Corridor
in order to achieve unity and coherence. Building
designs should demonstrate sensitivity to other
nearby structures within the Entrance Corridor.
Where a designated corridor is substantially
developed, these Guidelines require striking a
careful balance between harmonizing new
development with the existing character of the
corridor and achieving compatibility with the
significant historic sites in the area.
will help buffer the development
as viewed from the EC street.
This effect will be strengthened
over time as street trees
throughout the development
mature. If the townhouse design
is similar to what was previously
proposed, the development will
not appear unlike other existing
residential developments along
the corridor, but without a
strong, positive connection to the
historic architecture of the
county.
developments along the corridor, but
without a strong, positive connection to the
historic architecture of the county.
and below.
10 Buildings should relate to their site and the
surrounding context of buildings.
Accessory structures and equipment
17 Accessory structures and equipment should be
integrated into the overall plan of development
and shall, to the extent possible, be compatible
with the building designs used on the site.
The townhouses along Lewis &
Clark Drive have their backs
oriented towards the EC. It is
anticipated that residential scale
mechanical equipment and trash
containers will be located in the
back yards. These items are
expected to be relatively small,
and visibility will be somewhat
limited by distance and wooded
area, but no screening is shown.
Security fencing at the
stormwater management
facilities is 42” high Ameristar
black fencing, which was
previously approved. It is
expected to have an appropriate
appearance for the EC.
The mechanical equipment note
will be needed on both the site
plan and the architectural plans.
Add to following note the
site plan and the
architectural plan:
“Visibility of all
mechanical equipment
from the Entrance
Corridor shall be
eliminated.”
The plan shows mechanical units along the
side elevations of the townhouse blocks, at
the far end of the blocks as viewed from the
EC.
Low-growing shrubs are proposed along the
far side of Lewis & Clark (as viewed from
the EC). At mature height, these shrubs
would likely be shorter than the mechanical
equipment. Other landscaping and wooded
area to remain between the townhouses and
the street, combined with the distance from
the EC, are expected to mitigate views of the
equipment.
None.
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.
None.
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.
None.
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.”
The equipment note appears on the
architectural elevations sheets and the site
plan.
None.
6
Lighting No lighting is proposed. None at this time. No lighting is proposed. None at this time.
Landscaping Landscaping was not included in
the Initial Plan. Landscaping
requirements associated with
previous SP and ZMA approvals
(see Attachments B and C), in
addition to EC landscaping
guidelines, will need to be met.
Include with the final site
plan a landscape plan that
addresses the requirement
for the 40’ landscape
buffer along the EC
frontage of the
development.
Provide landscaping at
the entrance to the
development to establish
an appropriate
appearance for the EC.
A 40’ landscape buffer is required along the
Rt. 29 frontage. The previously approved
plan showed the buffer and indicated the
existing wooded area that would remain in
the buffer. Sheet 9 of the current landscape
plan includes notes identifying the 40’
landscape buffer in the vicinity of the
entrance to the development, but the full Rt.
29 frontage is not shown on the plan.
Although the alignment of the extension of
Lewis & Clark Drive has changed, the
landscaping proposed at the entrance from
Rt. 29 is generally consistent with the
previous approval and is expected to have
an appropriate appearance.
Two trees are located over sewer laterals.
One is north of unit 47; the other is north of
unit 109.
Some of the quantities in the plant schedule
appear to be inaccurate, including the abelia
and the linden tree (TCG), which is also
illustrated with two different symbols.
Revise the landscape plan
to address the
requirement for the 40’
landscape buffer along
the EC frontage of the
development and show
how the buffer is
coordinated with existing
wooded area to remain
and proposed frontage
improvements.
Resolve the tree and
sewer lateral conflicts
near units 47 and 109.
Coordinate the quantities
of linden and abelia
drawn on the plan with
the quantities listed in the
plant schedule. Use a
single symbol for the
TCG plant.
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.
8 Continuity within the Entrance Corridor should be
obtained by planting different types of plant
materials that share similar characteristics. Such
common elements allow for more flexibility in the
design of structures because common landscape
features will help to harmonize the appearance of
development as seen from the street upon which
the Corridor is centered.
32 Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance
Corridor streets should include the following:
a. Large shade trees should be planted parallel to
the Entrance Corridor Street. Such trees should be
at least 3½ inches caliper (measured 6 inches
above the ground) and should be of a plant species
common to the area. Such trees should be located
at least every 35 feet on center.
b. Flowering ornamental trees of a species common
to the area should be interspersed among the trees
required by the preceding paragraph. The
ornamental trees need not alternate one for one with
the large shade trees. They may be planted among
the large shade trees in a less regular spacing
pattern.
c. In situations where appropriate, a three or four
board fence or low stone wall, typical of the area,
should align the frontage of the Entrance Corridor
street.
d. An area of sufficient width to accommodate the
Flood plain, open space and
wooded area extend along the
EC frontage of this development.
A 40’ landscape buffer is
required along the frontage. The
previous application included a
plan showing the buffer and
indicating that existing wooded
area would remain in the buffer;
no new planting was proposed.
At a minimum, this site plan
should include the same
information.
The landscape plan approved
with the previous application
showed a considerable amount
of planting at the entrance to the
development from Rt. 29. The
landscape plan for this
7
foregoing plantings and fencing should be
reserved parallel to the Entrance Corridor street,
and exclusive of road right-of-way and utility
easements.
application should show planting
of equivalent quantity and
character.
33 Landscaping along interior roads:
a. Large trees should be planted parallel to all
interior roads. Such trees should be at least 2½
inches caliper (measured six inches above the
ground) and should be of a plant species common
to the area. Such trees should be located at least
every 40 feet on center.
A note on the cover sheet states
that street trees will be planted
every 40’ along roadways. Some
drainage pipes, water and sewer
lines may need to be shifted to
allow for consistent tree spacing.
Arrange utilities to allow
for street trees
consistently spaced 40’
on center along interior
roads.
Special Use Permit conditions require large
shade trees on the north and south sides of
Lewis & Clark Drive, 2½” at planting, 40’
on center for a distance of 400’. Large trees
are provided at the specified size, but only 8
are provided, rather than the 10 required, on
both sides of the road.
Special Use Permit conditions require a
mixed planting of large, medium, and small
deciduous trees ranging from 1½” to 2½”
caliper and evergreen trees ranging from 4’
to 6’ in height in the median. The 4’-6’
evergreens are not provided. A landscape
maintenance agreement is required for this
planting.
Add 2 large shade trees,
2½” caliper at planting,
on both sides of Lewis &
Clark Drive, (for a total
of 4 trees) within 400’ of
the Rt. 29 intersection.
Add 4’-6’ evergreen trees
in the mixed median
planting.
Provide a landscape
maintenance agreement
for the median plants.
34 Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways:
a. Medium trees should be planted parallel to all
interior pedestrian ways. Such trees should be at
least 2½ inches caliper (measured six inches
above the ground) and should be of a species
common to the area. Such trees should be located
at least every 25 feet on center.
Sidewalks are provided along
most of the interior roads where
trees are required at 40’ on
center.
None at this time. Sidewalks are provided along many of the
interior roads where trees are required at 40’
on center.
35 Landscaping of parking areas:
a. Large trees should align the perimeter of
parking areas, located 40 feet on center. 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.
b. Trees required by the preceding paragraph
should measure 2½ inches caliper (measured six
inches above the ground); should be evenly
spaced; and should be of a species common to the
The proposal includes two
groups of five parking spaces
where this guideline would
apply. One is at the northeast
corner of the development; the
other is at the southeast corner.
None at this time. There are 3 parking lots proposed (as well
as on-street parking). The lots contain 4, 10
and 14 parking spaces in single rows. There
are no interior trees in these rows, but
perimeter trees are provided. The 4-space
lot and a pair of parking spaces have been
added near the entrance to the development,
northeast of Block 1. Eastern red cedars are
proposed nearby.
None.
8
area. Such trees should be planted in planters or
medians sufficiently large to maintain the health
of the tree and shall be protected by curbing.
c. Shrubs should be provided as necessary to
minimize the parking area’s impact on Entrance
Corridor streets. Shrubs should measure 24 inches
in height.
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.
Architectural designs have not
yet been submitted for review.
None at this time. Rear elevations of the townhouses face the
EC. Layers of landscaping are proposed to
help mitigate the appearance of the rear
elevations. These include street trees along
both sides of Lewis & Clark Drive, and a
mix of deciduous and evergreen trees
between the drive and open space/wooded
area to remain. The mix includes oaks and
elms, Virginia pine, Sweetbay magnolia,
and Eastern red cedar. Many of the groups
of Virginia pine and Sweetbay magnolia
have been placed without considering the
location of the retaining wall (see sheet 10).
A row of shrubs is proposed along the
townhouse side of Lewis & Clark Drive.
The shrubs are a mix of St. John’s wort and
Dwarf Hydrangea. Both are proposed at 24”
high at planting, but the St. John’s wort
typically only grows to 1.5’ tall and the
hydrangea to 2’-3’ tall. The plants are
located on the townhouse lots. They should
be located outside the individual lots, in
areas maintained by the homeowner’s
association.
A row of shrubs (Otto Luyken cherry laurel)
is proposed behind townhouse blocks 4 and
5, but the plants are located on the
individual townhouse lots. They should be
located outside the individual lots, in areas
Shift the locations of the
groups of Virginia pine
and Sweetbay magnolia
to coordinate with the
retaining wall location.
Shift landscaping from
individual lots to areas
under the control of the
homeowners’ association.
Revise the species of
shrubs proposed along
Lewis & Clark Drive to
ones that can easily be
acquired at 24” planting
height.
9
maintained by the homeowner’s association.
37 Plant species: a. Plant species required should be
as approved by the Staff based upon but not
limited to the Generic Landscape Plan
Recommended Species List and Native Plants for
Virginia Landscapes (Appendix D).
This guideline will be reviewed
when the landscape plan is
submitted with the final site
plan.
None at this time. The proposed plants appear on the various
lists.
None.
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 trees shall be pruned
minimally and only to support the overall health
of the plant.”
The note will be needed on the
landscape plan.
Add the standard plant
health note to the plan.
The note appears on sheet 10A. None.
Site Development and layout
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.
The revised site layout places the
new extension of Lewis & Clark
Drive (the main road into the
development) a bit further
west/southwest (closer to the
EC) than the previous plan, and
all of the residential units are
now located on the far side of
the road as viewed from the EC.
A sidewalk is provided along
Lewis & Clark Drive, but no
connections are provided from
that sidewalk to individual
residential units, suggesting that
the backs of the units face the
EC. Flood plain, open space and
wooded area occupy the area
between the extended Lewis &
Clark Drive and the EC. The
residential blocks are group of 5
and 6 units along the full length
of the Drive starting
approximately 150’ from the EC.
Show how the side and
rear townhouse elevations
will have an appropriate
appearance for the EC.
Twelve townhouse blocks are located along
the far side of Lewis & Clark Drive, as
viewed from the EC. (Rear elevations face
the drive.) Steps are now shown at ten of
these blocks connecting the sidewalk to the
townhouses. Blocks 30 and 31 have no
connection to the sidewalk. Landscaping
has been increased between the sidewalk
and these two blocks.
See #1 for information regarding the side
and rear elevations.
See #1.
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
10
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.
d. Open spaces should be tied into surrounding
areas to provide continuity within the Entrance
Corridor.
e. If significant natural features exist on the site
(including creek valleys, steep slopes, significant
trees or rock outcroppings), to the extent practical,
then such natural features should be reflected in
the site layout. If the provisions of Section
32.5.2.n of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance apply, then improvements required by
that section should be located so as to maximize
the use of existing features in screening such
improvements from Entrance Corridor streets.
f. The placement of structures on the site should
respect existing views and vistas on and around
the site.
Blocks at the interior of the
development are set more or less
perpendicular to the blocks along
Lewis & Clark Drive.
No buildings directly front the
EC street and the proposed
buildings are not oriented
parallel to the street.
Distant views are not currently
available across this property
due to the wooded character of
the site. However, because a
significant amount of wooded
area will be removed to
accommodate the development,
the view along the corridor will
change considerably.
Site Grading
40 Site grading should maintain the basic relationship
of the site to surrounding conditions by limiting the
use of retaining walls and by shaping the terrain
through the use of smooth, rounded land forms that
blend with the existing terrain. Steep cut or fill
sections are generally unacceptable. Proposed
contours on the grading plan shall be rounded with
a ten foot minimum radius where they meet the
adjacent condition. Final grading should achieve a
natural, rather than engineered, appearance.
Retaining walls 6 feet in height and taller, when
necessary, shall be terraced and planted to blend
with the landscape.
Significant grading will be
needed to construct this
development. The flood plain
and some of the wooded area
adjacent to the EC will remain
and maintain the current
relationship to the street. The
design of the stormwater facility
located at the north end of the
development does not appear to
have changed since the previous
review. Three tiered 6’-tall
retaining walls are still proposed
None at this time. The applicant’s cover letter states that the
project was redesigned to reduce the amount
of land disturbance and earth moving
operations across the site, stepping the
buildings up across the terrain and reducing
redundant utilities. Still, significant grading
and extensive retaining walls are proposed
to accomplish the development.
Planting is proposed at stormwater
management facility “B”, at the north end of
the development. The grading plan shows
geo-grid behind the retaining wall system,
Confirm with Anchor
block, and provide
documentation, that 3’ is
sufficient spacing
between large trees and
the retaining wall where
geo-grid is used.
Otherwise, increase
planting area to
accommodate the trees.
Revise the plan to show
landscaping at the
11
20 Surface runoff structures and detention ponds
should be designed to fit into the natural
topography to avoid the need for screening. When
visible from the Entrance Corridor street, these
features must be fully integrated into the landscape.
They should not have the appearance of engineered
features.
there. The facility at the south
end is now shown with a single
retaining wall with a maximum
height of 2’. This is considerably
less retaining wall than was in
the previous design. Notes
indicate that the proposed wall
material is Anchor Diamond Pro
Segmented block in tan for both
facilities. This is the same block
as was approved for the previous
application. Landscaping
consistent with the previous plan
will still be required.
with large trees spaced 3’-5’ from the wall.
Some wall systems recommend a greater
distance (10’) where geo-grid is present.
Landscaping previously shown at the
stormwater facility located at the south end
of the project area has been removed from
the plan. Landscaping is needed to integrate
the facility into the surroundings.
stormwater facility
located at the south end
of the project area
consistent with the
previous approval.
44 Natural drainage patterns (or to the extent
required, new drainage patterns) should be
incorporated into the finished site to the extent
possible.
41 No grading, trenching, or tunneling should occur
within the drip line of any trees or other existing
features designated for preservation in the final
Certificate of Appropriateness. Adequate tree
protection fencing should be shown on, and
coordinated throughout, the grading, landscaping
and erosion and sediment control plans.
Existing wooded area to remain
and tree protection fencing will
need to be shown clearly
throughout the site plan.
Revise the plan to clearly
show existing wooded
area to remain and tree
protection fencing
throughout the site plan.
Limits of disturbance, tree protection, and
protected wooded area are shown on the
plan.
None.
42 Areas designated for preservation in the final
Certificate of Appropriateness should be clearly
delineated and protected on the site prior to any
grading activity on the site. This protection should
remain in place until completion of the
development of the site.
43 Preservation areas should be protected from
storage or movement of heavy equipment within
this area.
12
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. The revised site layout
2. The architectural design of the townhouses; the rear elevations facing the EC
3. Proposed landscaping; quantity, character, location
Staff recommends approval with the following revisions:
1. Revise the elevation drawings to include notes indicating that 1) a maximum of two adjacent facades shall be co -planar, 2) adjacent townhouses shall not have the same siding color, and 3) two
townhouses having full brick facades shall not be adjacent.
2. Add sill courses below the second story windows on elevations facing Rt. 29.
3. Provide elevations for all townhouse blocks.
4. Revise the landscape plan to address the requirement for the 40’ landscape buffer along the EC frontage of the development and show how the buffer is coordinated with existing wooded area to
remain and proposed frontage improvements.
5. Resolve the tree and sewer lateral conflicts near units 47 and 109.
6. Coordinate the quantities of linden and abelia drawn on the plan with the quantities listed in the plant schedule. Use a single symbol for the TCG plant.
7. Add 2 large shade trees, 2½” caliper at planting, on both sides of Lewis & Clark Drive, (for a total of 4 trees) within 400’ of the Rt. 29 intersection.
8. Add 4’-6’ evergreen trees in the mixed median planting.
9. Provide a landscape maintenance agreement for the median plants.
10. Shift the locations of the groups of Virginia pine and Sweetbay magnolia to coordinate with the retaining wall location.
11. Shift landscaping from individual lots to areas under the control of the homeowners’ association.
12. Revise the species of shrubs proposed along Lewis & Clark Drive to ones that can easily be acquired at 24” planting height.
13. Confirm with Anchor block, and provide documentation, that 3’ is sufficient spacing between large trees and the retaining wall where geo-grid is used. Otherwise, increase planting area to
accommodate the trees.
14. Revise the plan to show landscaping at the stormwater facility located at the south end of the project area consistent with the previous approval.
13
TABLE A
This report is based on the following submittal items:
Sheet # Drawing Name Drawing Date
1 Cover 10/22/2018
2 Existing Conditions 10/22/2018
3 Layout Plan 10/22/2018
4 Layout Plan 10/22/2018
5 Utility Plan 10/22/2018
6 Utility Plan 10/22/2018
7 Grading & Drainage Plan 10/22/2018
8 Grading & Drainage Plan 10/22/2018
9 Landscaping Plan 10/22/2018
10 Landscaping Plan 10/22/2018
11 Landscaping Notes & Details 10/22/2018
12 Site Section Map 10/22/2018
13 Site Sections 10/22/2018
3 Land Use Plan & Map Key 7/12/2017
1 of 1 Layout Exhibit 10/16/2018
A1 Exterior Elevations – 20’ wide slab w/ front garage 3/3/2017
A2 Exterior Elevations – 20’ wide walk-out basement 3/3/2017
A4 Exterior Elevations - 20’ wide slab (garage optional) 3/3/2017
- Rt. 29 Improvements Typical Street Section -
14
ATTACHMENT A
15
ATTACHMENT B
16
ATTACHMENT C