HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800013 Action Letter 2018-12-06COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 6, 2018
Justin Shimp
c/o Shimp Engineering
912 E. High St
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE: ZMA-2018-13: Rio Road West
Dear Mr, Shimp,
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on December 3, 2018 held a work session on
ZMA-2018-13: Rio Road West. The ARB had the following comments on the questions that were asked:
Q1. Does the Illustrative Rendering (last page of the document) showing the view from Rio Road
suggest that the building will have an appropriate appearance for the Entrance Corridor?
A Yes.
Q 1 a. If so, which elements are key to establishing this appearance?
Ala. The way the volumes are broken down with hyphens and lateral divisions; the way the
cornice is broken up; the hierarchy between the center and lateral pieces; the way the scale is
broken down as the building moves away from the street; the division into a base, middle and
top; the layering, using projecting canopies, insets, and articulation of the masses. The
rendering shows a building with good proportions.
Q 1 b. If not, what revisions would be needed to achieve an appropriate appearance?
Alb. The gable has a civic relationship that is not in keeping with commercial or residential
uses. (The material change is OK.)
Q 1 c. Are any parts of the illustrated design problematic in terms of EC guidelines?
A 1 c. How will the screening of mechanical units be handled? The planting illustrated in the
rendering is not sufficient for the EC. Give careful thought to the uses — are they compatible?
This is an important development because the design will set the tone for the area.
Q2. Are the requirements for building height, setbacks, stepbacks, build -to line and square footage (see
sheet 7) appropriate for the EC? If not, what changes are recommended?
A2. More height than 2 stories is needed. Maybe require a minimum height (in feet) in combination
with a 2-story minimum. Maybe a minimum 30' height? Appropriate sidewalk width?
Q3. What would constitute an appropriate "active facade" on the Rio Road EC? What constitutes
adequate "first floor transparency"?
A3, An active facade is different if there is residential at the first floor. If the first floor is commercial,
the transparency increases. It would be good to look at examples/precedents to answer this. There is
concern about the viability of residential at the first -floor front. 35-40% transparency is typical for
residential; 75% for commercial. Are there examples of successful conversions from residential to
commercial? Active means people going in and out. One main entrance on the street may not be
sufficient for an active facade. The corners and middle may be a way to activate. A gathering place on
the roof would help activate the building.
Q4. Are there any issues anticipated with the Block 2 building?
A4. The south elevation was not provided for review.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
4,
Margaret Maliszewski
Chief of Planning/Resource Management
cc: Greenscape Development Partners
3450 N. Triumph Blvd Suite 102
Lehi UT 84043
Auto LLC
1389 Richmond Rd
Charlottesville VA 22901
File