Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200800089 Staff Report 2008-07-29ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #: Name ARB- 2008 -89: Hydraulic at Georgetown Building Review Type Final Site Development Plan Parcel Identification Tax Map 60F, Parcel 3 Location In the northwest corner of the intersection of Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads. Zoned Commercial (Cl), Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner CKW 2 LLC Applicant Chris Kabbash Magisterial District Jack Jouett Proposal To construct a 12,000 square foot, two -story office building with basement. ARB Meeting Date August 4, 2008 Staff Contact Brent Nelson SITE/PROJECT HISTORY • June 11, 2008: SDP 2008 -64: Professional Office Building at Hydraulic & Georgetown Roads, Preliminary Site Plan, approved. • March 19, 2008: ZMA 2006 -14: Professional Office Building at Hydraulic & Georgetown Roads, Board of Supervisors approval with proffers. • March 5, 2007: ARB ARB- 2007 -08: Hydraulic at Georgetown Building, Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan, Advisory Review for a Rezoning (see Attachment A). CONTEXTNISIBILITY The subject parcel is one acre in size and located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Hydraulic Road (EC) and Georgetown Road. The front (east) half of the site (closest to Hydraulic Road) is relatively flat and open (grass), while the rear (west) half of the site is wooded with steep slopes down to the adjoining parcels to the rear (west). The parcel is adjoined to the north by a developed site containing a one story building with a rear walkout, to the west by a townhouse development (Georgetown Green), and to the southwest by a single family residential parcel. A one story office building is located on the opposite (east) side of Hydraulic Road, while a high density apartment complex (Westgate) is located on the opposite (south) side of Georgetown Road. ANALYSIS based on: Site plan drawings submitted: • Sheet C1 "Cover Sheet" latest revision date 6/8/08 ARB 8/4/2008 Hydraulic at Georgetown, Final - Page -1 • Sheet C2 "Existing Conditions & Preliminary Site Plan" latest revision date 6/8/08 • Sheet C3 "Preliminary Site Plan" latest revision date 6/8/08 • Sheet C4 "Lighting Plan" latest revision date 6/8/08 • Drawing "Hydraulic Road Entrance Corridor" date 6/16/08 Architectural drawings submitted: • Sheet SK 1 "Elevation Section" date 6/16/08 • Sheet SK 2 "Elevation Section" date 6/16/08 • Sheet SK 4 "Elevation Section" date 6/26/08 • Sheet SK 5 "Roof Plan/HVAC" date 6/26/08 • Sheet SK 6 "Building Section /Sign" date 6/26/08 • Sheet "Hydraulic /Georgetown Professional Offices, Tower Studies" date June 16, 2008. • Photo Study "Hydraulic /Georgetown Professional Offices, Precedents: Buildings With Towers Engaged In Roof' date June 16, 2008. • Sheet "Proposal for Two Story Office Building at Hydraulic & Georgetown Roads" date 1/22/07. Materials submitted: • Gutters/Downspouts: Berger Building Products (catalogue). Photographs of the proposed half -round white metal gutter and round white metal downspout. • Mortar: Flamingo Brixment White Oak (photographic representation from catalogue). • Sign Panels: Continental Cast Stone Dark Buff Limestone. • Retaining Wall: Legacy Essence (photographic representation from catalogue). • Retaining Wall: Anchor - Diamond Pro Blue Ridge Range (photographic representation from catalogue). • Retaining Wall: Eagle Bay Blue Ridge Range Textured. Issue: The applicant did not address all the ARB comments from the last review. Comments: • Sheet C -3 Landscape Plan shows a Ginkgo Biloba "Princeton Sentry" tree at the southeast corner of the building. Half of the proposed tree canopy is located within the overhead power easement. Due to the proposed configuration of the site and the location of the easement, there does not appear to be room for a street tree of this height. • A real life sample of the proposed Redi -Rock retaining wall system was not provided. The applicant provided photographic representations from product catalogues. Photographic representations are not reliable for an accurate portrayal of the product's appearance. The proposed mortar color is very similar to the sign panel cast stone as requested in the previous review. • The site plan was not revised to show the 10' parking setback from the right -of -way. The parking schedule was not revised to include the 3 parking spaces that are required for the adjoining parcel to the north. • The site plan was not revised so that the buildings would not violate the 50' side setback along the southeast property line. The applicant has indicated that the Planning Commission reduced that setback to comply with the building location as shown; however, the reduced setback is not shown on the site plan. The applicant has not revised the site plan to show the proposed retaining wall, in the southeast corner of the parcel, farther from the property line in an effort to avoid a disturbance of the 20' non - disturb buffer. Due to the 6' height of the proposed wall, staff believes the wall can be ARB 8/4/2008 Hydraulic at Georgetown, Final - Page -2 constructed in its present location without disturbing the buffer. • Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan does not clearly show the location of the waterline easement adjacent to the Hydraulic Road right -of -way line. • Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan only shows 4 interior parking lot trees. With 48 parking spaces required, 52 spaces proposed, and a requirement of 1 tree per 10 spaces, 5 interior parking lot trees are required. • A lighting photometric plan was provided; however, cutsheets of the proposed fixtures were not included on the drawing. The luminaire schedule does not indicate the finish and color proposed for all fixtures and poles. • The building elevations have not been revised to allow the walls of the tower to rise higher above the cornice of the main building roof line. The applicant was asked to consider reducing the slope of the tower roof. The applicant included a photographic study of various existing towers and has provided a study of various roof treatments for the tower with this submission. However, the applicant's memo, accompanying this submission, stated that the tower design was retained because it was thought to address the various competing restraints while retaining the desired aesthetic look. The roof studies provided demonstrate that the design of the building does not appear to benefit from the walls of the tower rising higher above the cornice of the main roof or the roof slope being reduced. Recommendations: • Revise Sheet C -3 Landscape Plan by showing an alternate species for the Ginkgo Biloba "Princeton Sentry", currently shown at the southeast corner of the building. The mature height of the alternate species shall be a minimum of 5' below that of the existing overhead power line. Revise Sheet C -3 to indicate the existing height of the overhead power line and the mature height of the alternate tree species. • Provide a real life sample of the proposed Redi -Rock retaining wall material. • Revise Sheet C -2 Existing Conditions and Preliminary Site Plan to clearly show the 10' parking setback line from the right -of -way. Revise the parking schedule on Sheet C -1 Cover Sheet to include the 3 parking spaces that are required for the adjoining parcel to the north. • Revise Sheet C -2 Existing Conditions and Preliminary Site Plan to clearly show the location of all building setbacks, clearly labeled for the required distance from the boundary lines. • Revise Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan to clearly show the limits of the water line easement adjacent to the Hydraulic Road right -of -way. • Revise Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan to show a total of five trees, 2.5" caliper minimum, in interior parking lot islands. • Revise Sheet C -4 Lighting Plan to include cutsheets of all proposed light fixtures and poles. Revise the luminaire schedule to indicate the finish and color proposed for fixtures and poles. Issues: Wall Signs /Sign Band/Cast Stone Comments: Comprehensive sign guidelines will need to be established for this multi- tenant building. A sample of the Dark Buff Limestone cast stone, proposed for the sign panel above each of the four building entrances in the east, Hydraulic Road elevation, was provided with this submission. The applicant is proposing 16" individually mounted letters, with faces, trim caps, and returns in black, bronze, or green, mounted directly to the panel, illuminated with wall- mounted down lights. Details of the down lights were not provided. The applicant's sign description sheet incorrectly refers to the sign letters as channel letters. The sign panel above the tower entrance is to be 15' wide and 21 /z' tall, flush with the face of the building. The other 3 panels are to be 6' wide and 21/2' tall, flush with the face of the building. The applicant has indicated that graphics are not anticipated. Proposed materials, colors, and dimensions for the 4 wall signs meet EC general sign guidelines ARB 8/4/2008 Hydraulic at Georgetown, Final - Page -3 and would have an appropriate appearance on this building. The Pantone color number proposed for green letters was not indicated in this submission. A medium to dark shade of green would be appropriate for this building. Proposed colors for graphics should be coordinated with the colors approved for the text. Recommendations: Revise the sign description sheet, dated June 20, 2008, to include the proposed pantone number for green letters. A medium to dark shade of green would be appropriate. Revise the sheet to correctly identify all the letter types as Individually Mounted Letters, not Channel Letters. Revise the sheet to indicate that graphic colors shall be black, bronze, or green (approved pantone number to be referenced). Revise the building elevations by labeling the Dark Buff Limestone proposed for the sign panel above each of the four building entrances in the east, Hydraulic Road elevation. Provide a cut sheet of the proposed wall- mounted down light. Indicate the proposed finish /color; black or bronze is preferred. All lights exceeding 3,000 lumens must be full cut off style fixtures. Issues: Freestanding Monument Sign Comments: Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan shows a freestanding monument sign, 10' east of the corner tower, in the planting bed of liriope ground cover. Sheet SK6 Building Section/Sign shows the sign as a 6'-4" wide by 3'- 10" tall brick monument and plinth, with a 5'-4" wide x 2'-2" tall inset cast stone sign panel. The brick and cast stone are to match the materials used in the building. The text Georgetown Corner is to be 6" tall channel letters in black, bronze, or green. The applicant has indicated that graphics are not anticipated. The applicant did not indicate whether or not the sign is to be illuminated. Recommendations: Revise the sign description sheet, dated June 20, 2008, to include the proposed pantone number for green letters. A medium to dark shade of green would be appropriate. Revise the sheet to indicate that graphic colors shall be black, bronze, or green (approved pantone number to be referenced). Revise the sign description sheet to indicate if lighting is proposed. If it is, indicate the method of lighting. External, ground mounted lighting would be appropriate. Provide a cutsheet of the proposed fixture clearly indicating the proposed finish and color. All lighting exceeding 3,000 lumens must be in a full cut off style fixture. Issues: Proposed Dumpster Comments: The applicant was asked to revise the site plan to indicate the method of construction, materials and colors for the dumpster enclosure. The applicant has received a waiver of the dumpster requirement and the dumpster has been removed from the site plan. Recommendations: None. Issues: Southeast Site Corner /Site SectionsNisibility Comments: The applicant was asked to provide a section of the south end of the site to illustrate the visibility of the southeast corner of the parking lot. Sheet SK 4 Section Elevation at Southeast Corner of Main Building was provided. This drawing demonstrates that topographic changes, including an 8' drop in elevation between the EC and the parking area, should limit views substantially. Recommendations: None. Issues: Hydraulic Road EC /Site Plan Comments: The applicant was asked to show more of the Hydraulic Road EC on the site plan so that visibility from the EC of the building can be better determined. The applicant responded by providing a 60 scale site plan Hydraulic Road Entrance Corridor demonstrating that the proposed development will be visible starting at a distance approximately 400' north and south of the Hydraulic /Georgetown intersection. Recommendations: None. ARB 8/4/2008 Hydraulic at Georgetown, Final - Page -4 Issues: True Half -Round Window Comments: Comments provided at the previous review indicated that the proposed half -round window, over the main entrance in the tower, should be a true half -round window, with the glass beginning at the radius, with the frame and sill below that radius, so as not to foreshorten the half - circle into an ellipse or flattened circle. The applicant's memo, accompanying this submission, indicates that the window will be a true half -round window. The memo indicates that the elevation shows the tower at an oblique angle, foreshortening the half - round window making it appear as an ellipse or flattened circle. Recommendations: None. Issues: Proposed Tower /Cornice Comments: The applicant was asked to provide details of the proposed cornice line. Sheet SK 2 Tower Eve, Detail 2 shows the proposed cornice for the corner tower. The proposed cornice is a fluted design, l' tall and 1' wide (front to back). Sheet SK 1, Main Building Eve, Detail 2 shows that a cornice is not proposed for the main building. The scale and design of the proposed cornice have an appropriate appearance on the corner tower. Limiting the use of cornice to only the corner tower helps to further set the tower off from the main building. Recommendations: None. Issues: East Elevation/Optional Lift Comments: Sheets C -2 Existing Conditions and Preliminary Site Plan and Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan show a handicap lift adjacent to the northernmost building entrance in the front (north) elevation. Details, including design, materials, and colors were not included with this submission. Federal law limits the restrictions a locality may place on the design of handicap access; however, elements of the lift design, such as color, could be coordinated to limit adverse impacts on the EC. Recommendations: Provide details, including design, materials, and colors of the optional handicap lift shown adjacent to the northernmost building entrance in the front (north) elevation. Issues: Plaza at Main Entrance/Stamped Concrete Comments: Sheets C -2 Existing Conditions and Preliminary Site Plan and Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan show a stamped concrete surface for the widened sidewalk in front (east) of the main entrance at the corner tower. Details, including color, of this surface treatment were not provided with this submission. Recommendations: Provide a sample of the color proposed for the stamped concrete surface proposed for the widened sidewalk in front (east) of the main entrance at the corner tower. Issues: HVAC Units/Method of Concealment Comments: The applicant was asked to show the proposed location and method of screening for all mechanical equipment. Sheet SK 5 Roof Plan/HVAC shows 4 roof top units located on a flat roof area behind (west of) the corner tower. A building section, showing the rooftop HVAC units in relation to the roofline screening them from view, was not provided. The roof plan also shows 2 HVAC units on sunken platforms at the north and south ends of the building. Sheet SK 4 Elevation/Section shows that the elevation of the sunken platform at the south end of the building is approximately 4' lower than the adjacent EC. A section showing the relationship of the sunken platform at the north end of the building to the adjacent EC was not provided. The proposed elevation of the HVAC sunken platform and the top elevation of the surrounding retaining wall should be provided. Height dimensions on all proposed HVAC units, ground and rooftop, should be provided. Recommendations: Revise Sheet SK 5 Roof Plan/HVAC by labeling the elevation of the HVAC sunken platform and the surrounding top of wall elevation proposed at the north and south ends of the building. Revise ARB 8/4/2008 Hydraulic at Georgetown, Final - Page -5 the drawings by providing the height dimension for the HVAC units. Provide a building section showing the rooftop HVAC units in relation to the roofline that screens them from view. Include height dimensions for the units and the roofline demonstrating their lack of visibility. Issues: Landscape Plan/Conflicts Comments: The planting design shown at the north and south ends of the building on Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan does not correspond with the planting design shown on Sheet SK 5 Roof Plan/HVAC. The sidewalk layout shown at the north end of the building on Sheet C -3 does not correspond with what is shown on Sheet SK 5. The planting design at the north end of the building, as shown on both Sheet C -3 and Sheet SK 5, conflicts with sidewalks, walls and other site improvements shown in that same location. The labeling of the proposed plant materials on Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan is difficult to understand. Recommendations: Revise Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan and Sheet SK 5 Roof Plan/HVAC so the planting design, adjacent to the north and south ends of the building, corresponds on both sheets. Revise the planting design to eliminate conflicts with proposed sidewalks, walls, and other site improvements. Revise Sheet C -3 by clearly labeling all proposed plant materials. Issues: RetainingWalls/Materials Comments: Sheet C -2 Existing Conditions and Preliminary Site Plan shows a Redi -Rock brand retaining wall system adjacent to the northwest and southwest corners of the proposed parking area. The color of the wall and the size of the block were not indicated on the site plan. The applicant has verbally indicated that the color Essence is proposed and the blocks are to be of a large, oversized scale similar to what was used along Water Street, adjacent to the Transit Center, in downtown Charlottesville. The proposed color appears to be appropriate; however, a real life sample is needed to confirm its appearance. The size of this block is out of scale with the size of this development; however, its impact may be adequately mitigated by its limited visibility. The wall along the southwest corner is not expected to be visible from the EC due to its location and topographic changes. Views of the wall along the northwest corner would likely be limited to the section of wall adjacent to the north edge of the parking lot. A site section demonstrating its visibility would be helpful. Sheet SK 5 Roof Plan/HVAC shows a retaining wall adjacent to the south and north ends of the buildings. The wall at the south end is to have a metal railing on top. The applicant has verbally indicated that these walls are to be an Anchor - Diamond Pro system with the Blue Ridge Range color. This was not indicated on the site plan. Both of these walls are not expected to be visible from the EC. As mentioned earlier in this report, only a photo representation of the Redi -Rock retaining wall system was provided with this submission. Recommendations: Revise Sheet C -2 Existing Conditions and Preliminary Site Plan to indicate the brand color of the Redi -Rock retaining wall system proposed adjacent to the northwest and southwest corners of the parking area, and the color and type of retaining wall system proposed adjacent to the north and south ends of the building. Provide a real life sample of the Redi -Rock color Essence. Revise the Redi -Rock detail on Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan to show the dimensions of the proposed block. Provide a site section demonstrating the visibility of the Redi -Rock retaining wall adjacent to the north edge of the parking area. Issues: Drafting Errors and Omissions Comments: Sheet SK 5 Roof Plan/HVAC shows, in plan view, a retaining wall, sunken platform with HVAC units, and a raised platform for emergency exit adjacent to the south and north ends of the building. These site/building features are not shown on the Preliminary Site Plan and Landscape Plan sheets. Details, including color, of the raised platform and wall railing were not included with this submission. Black would be an appropriate color. Recommendations: Revise Sheet C -2 Existing Conditions and Preliminary Site Plan and Sheet C -3 ARB 8/4/2008 Hydraulic at Georgetown, Final - Page -6 Preliminary Landscape Plan to show the retaining wall, sunken platform with HVAC units, and the raised platform for emergency exit adjacent to the south and north ends of the building. Provide a detail, including color, of the raised platform and wall railing. Black would be an appropriate color. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. The design of the corner tower and its relationship with the main building. 2. The design of the proposed wall and freestanding signs. 3. The proposed method of concealment for the HVAC units. Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions: 1. Revise Sheet C -3 Landscape Plan by showing an alternate species for the Ginkgo Biloba "Princeton Sentry ", currently shown at the southeast corner of the building. The mature height of the alternate species shall be a minimum of 5' below that of the existing overhead power line. Revise Sheet C -3 to indicate the existing height of the overhead power line and the mature height of the alternate tree species. 2. Provide a real life sample of the proposed Redi -Rock retaining wall material. 3. Revise Sheet C -2 Existing Conditions and Preliminary Site Plan to clearly show the 10' parking setback line from the right -of -way. Revise the parking schedule on Sheet C -1 Cover Sheet to include the 3 parking spaces that are required for the adjoining parcel to the north. 4. Revise Sheet C -2 Existing Conditions and Preliminary Site Plan to clearly show the location of all building setbacks, clearly labeled for the required distance from the boundary lines. 5. Revise Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan to clearly show the limits of the water line easement adjacent to the Hydraulic Road right -of -way. 6. Revise Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan to show a total of five trees, 2.5" caliper minimum, in interior parking lot islands. 7. Revise Sheet C -4 Lighting Plan to include cutsheets of all proposed light fixtures and poles. Revise the luminaire schedule to indicate the finish and color proposed for fixtures and poles. 8. Concerning the wall signs, revise the sign description sheet, dated June 20, 2008, to include the proposed pantone number for green letters. A medium to dark shade of green would be appropriate. Revise the sheet to correctly identify all the letter types as Individually Mounted Letters, not Channel Letters. Revise the sheet to indicate that graphic colors shall be black, bronze, or green (approved pantone number to be referenced). Revise the building elevations by labeling the Dark Buff Limestone proposed for the sign panel above each of the four building entrances in the east, Hydraulic Road elevation. Provide a cut sheet of the proposed wall- mounted down light. Indicate the proposed finish/color; black or bronze is preferred. All lights exceeding 3,000 lumens must be full cut off style fixtures. 9. Concerning the freestanding sign, revise the sign description sheet, dated June 20, 2008, to include the proposed pantone number for green letters. A medium to dark shade of green would be appropriate. Revise the sheet to indicate that graphic colors shall be black, bronze, or green (approved pantone number to be referenced). Revise the sign description sheet to indicate if lighting is proposed. If it is, indicate the method of lighting. External, ground mounted lighting would be appropriate. Provide a cutsheet of the proposed fixture clearly indicating the proposed finish and color. All lighting exceeding 3,000 lumens must be in a full cut off style fixture. 10. Provide details, including design, materials, and colors of the optional handicap lift shown adjacent to the ARB 8/4/2008 Hydraulic at Georgetown, Final - Page -7 northernmost building entrance in the front (north) elevation. 11. Provide a sample of the color proposed for the stamped concrete surface proposed for the widened sidewalk in front (east) of the main entrance at the corner tower. 12. Revise Sheet SK 5 Roof Plan/HVAC by labeling the elevation of the HVAC sunken platform and the surrounding top of wall elevation proposed at the north and south ends of the building. Revise the drawings by providing the height dimension for the HVAC units. Provide a building section showing the rooftop HVAC units in relation to the roofline that screens them from view. Include height dimensions for the units and the roofline demonstrating their lack of visibility. 13. Revise Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan and Sheet SK 5 Roof Plan/HVAC so the planting design, adjacent to the north and south ends of the building, corresponds on both sheets. Revise the planting design to eliminate conflicts with proposed sidewalks, walls, and other site improvements. Revise Sheet C- 3 by clearly labeling all proposed plant materials. 14. Revise Sheet C -2 Existing Conditions and Preliminary Site Plan to indicate the brand color of the Redi- Rock retaining wall system proposed adjacent to the northwest and southwest corners of the parking area, and the color and type of retaining wall system proposed adjacent to the north and south ends of the building. Provide a real life sample of the Redi -Rock color Essence. Revise the Redi -Rock detail on Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan to show the dimensions of the proposed block. Provide a site section demonstrating the visibility of the Redi -Rock retaining wall adjacent to the north edge of the parking area. 15. Revise Sheet C -2 Existing Conditions and Preliminary Site Plan and Sheet C -3 Preliminary Landscape Plan to show the retaining wall, sunken platform with HVAC units, and the raised platform for emergency exit adjacent to the south and north ends of the building. Provide a detail, including color, of the raised platform and wall railing. Black would be an appropriate color. ARB 8/4/2008 Hydraulic at Georgetown, Final - Page -8 �� OF ALg �'IRGINZ�` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012 March 26, 2007 Chris Kabbash PO Box 496 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ARB- 2007 -08: Hydraulic Georgetown Office Building (2 Story Professional Building: Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan, Advisory Review for a Rezoning (Tax Map 60F, Parcel 03) Dear Mr. Kabbash: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on March 5, 2007, completed a preliminary review of the above -noted request. The Board took the following actions. Regarding the Request for the Rezoning, the Board by a vote of 4:0, forwarded the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: The ARB has no objection based on the preliminary site plan "Georgetown/Hydraulic Professional Offices" dated January 19, 2007 and the building elevation "Two Story Office Building at Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads" dated January 22, 2007 if the building and parking setbacks as illustrated and all RWSA requirements can be met without reducing the quantity or otherwise changing the general character of the proposed planting. Re arding the Preliminary Site Plan, the Board made the following comments and suggestions for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal. Provide, in writing, all authorization from RWSA regarding proposed building, tree and shrub locations as they relate to the existing 12" water line. Move the Ginkgo Biloba "Princeton Sentry", at the southeast corner of the Georgetown Building, out of the power easement, or provide documentation that it is permitted and will be allowed to reach mature height, with topping of the tree prohibited and only minimal pruning permitted to support its overall health. 2. The cast stone Dark Buff Limestone sample is acceptable. Provide a mortar color that is similar to it. 3. Revise the site plan to show the proposed height and material of the retaining walls. Provide a sample of the retaining wall material for review. Revise the site plan to show the proposed location and method of screening for all mechanical equipment; details, including method of construction and ARB 8/4/2008 Hydraulic at Georgetown, Attachment A - Page -9 ARB -07 -08 Hydraulic Georgetown Office Building Page 10 of 11 March 26, 2007 proposed color, for the dumpster enclosure (masonry enclosure preferred); and proposed building and parking setbacks. Revise the site plan layout so that the parking space next to the site entrance does not violate the 10' parking setback. Revise the parking schedule to include the three parking spaces that are required for the adjoining parcel to the north. 4. Revise the site layout so that buildings do not violate the existing 50' side setback along the southeast property line, and the retaining wall can be constructed without disturbing the 20' non - disturb buffer adjacent to the same property line. Consider relocating the two proposed parking spaces at the south end of the parking lot so that the proposed retaining wall behind the Georgetown Building can be moved farther from the non - disturb buffer. 5. Revise the site and landscape plans to clearly show the location of all existing and proposed utilities with the boundary of their respective easements clearly drafted and labeled. Revise the grading plan to keep all proposed grading and site improvements (including retaining walls), a minimum of five feet from all buffers and outside of all utility easements. Revise the site and landscape plans to show the location of all existing and proposed tree lines. Revise the Existing Conditions sheet so that all existing conditions that are to be removed are so labeled. 6. Provide a landscape schedule on the landscape plan with all proposed planting sizes clearly noted. Revise the landscape plan to show existing trees to remain, five trees, 2.5" caliper, in interior parking lot islands, and trees 2.5" in caliper, 40' on center, along the perimeter of the parking lot. Provide a lighting photometric plan showing the location of all proposed site, building and decorative lighting. Provide a luminaire schedule of all proposed exterior lighting. Indicate in the schedule all lighting options chosen, and the colors proposed for the fixtures and poles. All proposed lighting exceeding the 3,000 lumens threshold must be a full cutoff design. Lighting values can not exceed 1/z foot candle at a public right -of -way line or at a property line adjoining a residential or rural area district. 8. Revise the tower elevations to allow the walls of the tower to rise higher above the cornice of the main building roof line. Consider reducing the roof slope of the tower. The Hunter Green Benjamin Moore 204110 is currently approved for the tower roof. Charcoal gray would also be an appropriate color. Onyz black is acceptable for the shingles of the main roof. 9. Revise the drawings to specify exactly which cast stone product is proposed for the sign panels and provide a sample. Provide all ARB signage checklist items with the next submission. 10. Relocate the dumpster so that it is not visible from the EC. 11. Provide sections of the south end of the site to illustrate the visibility of the southeast corner of the parking lot. 12. Show more of the Hydraulic Road EC on the site plan so that visibility from the EC of the building can be better determined. 13. Indicate that female gender Ginkgo trees will not be used. 14. If a half -round window is used over the main entrance, it should be a true half -round window [with the glass beginning at the radius, with the frame and sill below that radius, so as not to foreshorten the half- circle into an ellipse or flattened circle]. 15. Provide details of the proposed cornice line. Note: The ARB was split on the color of the downspouts. Mr. Wright preferred bronze. Ms. Smith and Mr. ARB 8/4/2008 Hydraulic at Georgetown, Final - Page -10 ARB -07 -08 Hydraulic Georgetown Office Building Page 11 of 11 March 26, 2007 Lebo preferred white. The applicant needs to submit a sample for review. You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on -line at www.albemarle.org/planning. Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing. Please provide a memo including detailed responses indicating how each comment has been addressed. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Brent W. Nelson Landscape Planner Planning Division B WN /aer Cc: CKW 2 LLC 1300 West Little Neck Rd, Virginia Beach VA 23452 Limehouse Architects (Gate Pratt) 946 Grady Ave, Suite 27, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Claudette Grant File ARB 8/4/2008 Hydraulic at Georgetown, Final - Page -11