Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200800106 Review Comments 2008-07-16ALg�,�� �'IRGINZ�` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5823 Fax (434) 972 -4012 MEMORANDUM TO: Rebecca Ragsdale FROM: Margaret Maliszewski DATE: July 16, 2008 RE: ARB- 2008 -106; SP- 2007 -57; ZMA- 2007 -24: Riverside Village I have reviewed the plans submitted for the above - referenced projects (including: Code of Development dated June 30, 2008; Application Plan Sheets Al through A6 revised 6/3/08; and assorted undated color renderings). I have the following comments. Issue: Clarifications Comments: The general development plan in the code of development shows a screening buffer around the public park. The 24 x 36 drawing set does not show this. Recommendation: Revise the plans so that the plan in the Code and the plans in the Application Plan match. Issue: Stormwater Facilities Comments: Stormwater management facilities are located adjacent to the Entrance Corridor. Experience has shown that it is difficult to achieve an appropriate appearance for such facilities located close to the EC. Moving them to locations that are less visible from the EC may allow for faster review /approval. If they remain close to the EC, gentle grading and very careful planting of the stormwater facilities will be required to fully integrate them into the surrounding landscape, to eliminate all "engineered" appearances, and to obtain ARB approval. The applicant should be aware that the treatment of these facilities will be scrutinized by the ARB at the site plan review stage. Recommendation: Consider moving the stormwater facilities away from the EC to reduce visibility. Addresss the appearance and treatment of the stormwater management facilities located along the EC in the Code of Development. Indicate how they will be made to have an appropriate, fully integrated appearance for the EC. Issue: Architecture Comments- The main blocks of the buildings in Block 1 measure 65' x 100' and 65' x 120'. They are shown with flat roofs (that appear to be green roofs) and the Code of Development indicates a maximum height of 45'. The size and height of these buildings may appear out of character for this portion of the EC. As an area of transition to a more rural character, a lower height might be more appropriate. The mass and scale of these buildings may need to be broken up to achieve an appropriate appearance for the EC. The flat roofs may help reduce the overall height (by not adding the height of a pitched roof), but they may serve to further enhance the blocky appearance. Consequently, a pitched roof form might be more appropriate. • Page 11 of the Code of Development indicates that the roof of the mixed -use building in Block 3 "shall have steps to break up the elevation ". This wording should be revised to more clearly describe the intent of the roof form illustrated in the rendering. • The buildings in Block 3, though located at a distance from the EC, may still be visible from the EC (especially south of the site) due to their height and the removal of existing trees. A balloon test may be warranted, at the site plan review stage, to determine visibility. Also, site sections and a 3 -d digital model will facilitate discussion. The 4 -story multifamily building in Block 3 measures 65' x 120'. This building, and its roof, should be broken up to reduce the mass. • No building materials or treatments have been listed for the buildings in Blocks 4 and 5. Was this intentional or an oversight? Recommendation: Building height may be an appropriate discussion topic for the Planning Commission. The Code of Development should address the breaking up of the building and roof forms for all buildings in Blocks 1 and 3. The Code of Development should address the possibility of pitched roofs on the main portions of the buildings in Block 1. Revise the Code to include architectural, materials and treatment information for Blocks 4 and 5. Clarify whether if green roofs are intended for the buildings in Block 1. Issue: Orientation Comments: The Code of Development states that the proposed development is oriented towards the river. The location of the development on the Entrance Corridor requires that it also address Route 20. The EC guidelines state that buildings fronting the EC should be parallel to the street. The current plan includes frontage buildings that are not oriented parallel to Route 20. As an area transitioning from an urban, commercial character to a more suburban /rural character, a less strict application of the guideline may be acceptable to the ARB. For example, shifting just the tower elements of the buildings in Block 1 to parallel the EC may be appropriate. However, the applicant should be aware that orientation is an issue and that shifting of the entire buildings could be required to meet the guidelines. Also, the ARB will require that the visibility of service, loading, refuse, mechanical and other similar areas be eliminated from the EC through the proper placement of these features, not just by treatment (screening). Recommendation: The orientation of frontage buildings may be an appropriate issue for Planning Commission discussion, given the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The Code should address the EC orientation issue. Issue: EC Landscaping Comments: • The inclusion of landscaping on the application plan is informative and appreciated, but it should be clarified that the landscaping is still subject to ARB review. • Page 13 of the Code of Development states that "interior green spaces" will be landscaped according to the Entrance Corridor guidelines. Because the guidelines do not specifically address "interior green spaces" an alternate guideline should be used. Recommendation: Add a note to the application plan indicating that landscaping shown on the application plan is subject to review /approval of the ARB. Revise the Code to eliminate the EC Guidelines reference for interior green spaces (page 13) and replace it with an alternate guideline.