Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200900024 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2009-04-28ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #: Name ARB- 2009 -24: Arden Place Review Type Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan Parcel Identification Tax Map 61, Parcel 124 Location Located on the north side of Rio Road, east of Route 29 North, across from the Fashion Square Mall Zoned Residential (R15), Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner Charlottesville Realty Corporation Applicant Coleway Development LLC Magisterial District Rio Proposal To construct a six - building, 187 -unit, multi - family residential development. ARB Meeting Date May 4, 2009 Staff Contact Brent Nelson SITE/PROJECT HISTORY • The ARB has not reviewed any previous proposals for this parcel. • April 6, 2009: ARB 09 -24, Arden Place, Presented as an Other Business item to the ARB with a request from staff for direction concerning the extent of review required. The ARB consensus was as follows: Regarding ARB- 2009 -24, Arden Place it was the consensus of the ARB that: if a 50' minimum undisturbed buffer composed of existing wooded area is provided between the new development and the EC, the review of the proposal may be limited to staff review of colors and materials. February 9, 2009: SDP 09 -9, Rio Road Apartment Complex, application received for a Preliminary Site Development Plan. PROJECT DETAILS /SITE CONTEXT The applicant proposes to construct a multi - family residential development on a parcel adjoining the northeast side of the Rio Road East Entrance Corridor and the southeast rear boundary of the Albemarle Square Shopping Center. This parcel, with its large stand of mature deciduous trees, is one of the last undeveloped tracts in this densely developed commercial/residential Corridor. The proposal includes an access road from Rio Hill Drive to the east, a series of connected parking lots, a stormwater management system, trail system, six 3 -story apartment buildings, and a 1 -story clubhouse. The parcel is bisected by a zoning demarcation line located approximately 900' northeast of Rio Road East, with the land northeast of the line containing the development under review, zoned R -15 for multifamily development. The land southwest of the line is zoned C -1 for commercial development. ARB 5/4/2009 Arden Place, Preliminary - Page 1 EXTENT OF REVIEWNISIBLITY The proposal is located on a parcel that adjoins the Rio Road East Entrance Corridor. The parcel under review, at its closest point, is approximately 750' from the Route 29N Corridor. As a result, review of this proposal is limited to the impacts of the development as viewed from the Rio Road East Corridor, for the full depth of the parcel. The proposed 1 -story clubhouse, at 680' from Rio Road East, is the closest building to the Corridor. Apartment Buildings 1 thru 6 are located 700' to 1500' from the Corridor. Due to the proposed location of the access road, the applicant is applying for a waiver of the 50' non - disturb buffer required on the commercial side of the C- 1/R -15 zoning demarcation line. Site/building sections, provided by the applicant, indicate that views of the clubhouse are expected to be limited to the top of the roof. The sections indicate that Apartment Buildings 1 and 2 are expected to block views of Buildings 3 thru 6. Views of Buildings 1 and 2 are expected to be limited to the top two floors and roof area of these 3 -story buildings. In the current application, a significant stand of mature deciduous trees, located between the Corridor and the development area, are designated as to remain. It should be noted, however, that these trees are located on land that is not controlled by the applicant. Development of the commercial section of this parcel, and the likely removal of these trees, could increase visibility of the Clubhouse and Apartment Buildings 1 and 2. As a result, it should be assumed that the entire roof area of the clubhouse and the entire southwest end (EC) elevation of Apartment Building 1 will be visible. The top half of the southeast front and northwest rear elevations for Apartment Building 1 and the roof area of Apartment Building 2 are expected to be visible as well. Due to the significant distance from the Rio Road East Corridor, review of this proposal is limited to general mass and color of the buildings, the orientation of those buildings to each other and the surrounding development, and the location and extent of proposed tree canopy and canopy that is to be preserved. ANALYSIS based on drawings submitted: Site/building drawings submitted: • Sheet 1: Cover Sheet, date 3/16/09 • Sheet 2: Existing Conditions, date 3/16/09 • Sheet 3: Entrance Corridor Site Plan, date 3/16/09 • Sheet 4: Site Sections from Rio Road, date 3/16/09 • Sheet 5: Site Sections from US 29, date 3/16/09 • Sheet 6: Site Plan, date 3/16/09 • Sheet 7: Landscaping Plan, date 3/16/09 • Sheet 8: Landscaping Notes and Details, date 3/16/09 • Sheet 9: Lighting Plan, date 3/16/09 • Sheet 10: Lighting Details, date 3/16/09 • Sheet 11: Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations, date 3/16/09 • Sheet 12: Arden Place Exterior Building Elevations, date 3/16/09 • Sheet 13: Arden Place Exterior Building Elevations, date 3/16/09 Samples submitted: • Roof Shingles: Tamko Weatherwood • Brick: Dark Terracotta (manufacturer and product ID not provided) • Vinyl Siding: CertainTeed Light Maple • Retaining wall: Redi -Rock (product ID not provided) Building Design ARB 5/4/2009 Arden Place, Preliminary - Page 2 Issue: Rio Hill Drive/Visibility Comments: Sitelbuildings sections from the Corridor down through the Rio Hill Drive right -of -way were not included with this submission. Visibility of the proposal is expected in this location due to the unobstructed views of the project area that currently exist in this right -of -way. Recommendations: Provide a site/building section demonstrating visibility of the proposal as viewed from the Rio Road East Corridor across the Rio Hill Drive right -of -way. Issue: Clubhouse Elevations, Building Footprint, Roof Plan/Coordination Comments: The Clubhouse footprint as shown on Sheet 6 Site Plan is not coordinated with the design of the Clubhouse elevations on Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations. For example, the projecting pediment entry bay in the center of the southeast front elevation is not shown on the building footprint. The lack of roof plans for the clubhouse and apartment buildings makes it difficult to fully comprehend the proposed roof designs. Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations shows a 1 -story northwest rear elevation while the site plan indicates a 2 -story rear elevation. That elevation, however, is not expected to be visible. Recommendations: Revise Sheet 6 Site Plan and /or Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations, as needed, to correct the lack of coordination between the design of the building footprint and the building elevations. Revise Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations and Sheet 12 Arden Place Exterior Building Elevations to include roof plans of the clubhouse and apartment buildings. Issue: Clubhouse/Southeast Front Elevation/Entrance Bay/Proportion Comments: Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations shows a 20' tall entry bay with a gable and pediment. The entry bay has an 18' width that appears disproportionate with its height and the rest of the elevation. This is particularly evident when contrasted with the entry bay and pediment of the northwest rear elevation which has a more proportionate appearance. Recommendations: Revise Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations to show a redesigned entry bay and pediment whose height and width are more proportional with each other and the overall elevation. Issue: Clubhouse Cupola/Materials & Colors Comments: Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations shows a 9' wide, 10' tall cupola centered above the building entrance. The cupola has a design and proportion that is appropriate for the elevation; however, details, including materials, colors, and method of construction were not included on the drawing. Recommendations: Revise Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations by identifying proposed materials, colors, and method of construction for the cupola. Issue: Clubhouse, Apartment Buildings 1 thru 6/Materials & Colors Comments: Proposed building materials /colors for both the clubhouse and apartment buildings include dark terracotta brick, light tan (CertainTeed: Light Maple) vinyl siding, white cementitious trim, precast concrete sills (color Natural), and Tamko Architectural Roof Shingles Weathered Wood. The colors of the proposed materials blend well, complimenting each other and the overall site. Whereas the use of vinyl siding is not encouraged for developments within the Entrance Corridor, its application here is not expected to be discernible due to the significant distance from the Corridor. The architectural roof shingles are a dark olive color that, as the most visible material in the proposal, should blend well with existing and proposed tree canopy. Recommendations: None. ARB 5/4/2009 Arden Place, Preliminary - Page 3 Issue: Apartment Building 1/Blank Appearance Comments: Sheet 3 Entrance Corridor Site Plan indicates the southwest end elevation of Apartment Building 1 is 746' from the Rio Road East Corridor. This is the closest apartment building elevation to the Corridor and, as previously noted, it is expected to be visible for its full height and width. The center bay of this elevation is 46' in width and blank in appearance. The applicant is showing contrasting vertical siding outlined with vertical and horizontal bands of white cementitious trim in the center of the elevation in an attempt to break up the blank appearance. Both the horizontal and vertical siding would be the same light tan (Light Maple) vinyl siding. The contrasting directions of the vertical and horizontal siding are not expected to be discernible from the Corridor due to the significant distance. Also, the white color of the cementitious trim will not contrast significantly with the Light Maple siding. As a result, this elevation, as currently proposed, is expected to have a blank appearance. Adding windows to the southwest end elevation or replacing the vertical siding with the proposed brick would help to relieve the blank appearance. Redesigning this section of the elevation to project inward or outward would further relieve the blank appearance. Recommendations: Revise the southwest end elevation of Apartment Building 1, to relieve its blank appearance, by adding windows or replacing the vertical siding with the proposed brick. Consider redesigning the center section of the elevation to project inward or outward. Issue: HVAC Units /Screening Comments: Sheet 7 Landscape Plan shows ground- mounted HVAC units grouped at each end of the apartment buildings. Burkwood Viburnum shrubs are shown surrounding these units. This species is semi - evergreen and may not provide the full screen that is required. Revising the planting proposal to show a true evergreen species would be more appropriate. Whereas most of these units will have limited, if any, visibility, the HVAC units at the base of the southwest end elevation of Apartment Building lare expected to be visible if not adequately screened. Recommendations: Revise Sheet 7 Landscape Plan to show an evergreen species in place of the semi - evergreen Burkwood Viburnum proposed around the perimeter of the ground- mounted HVAC units at each end of the apartment buildings. Site Design Issue: Site and Building Layout/Site and Grading Design Comments: The Entrance Corridor Guidelines call for an organized pattern of roads to guide the layout of the site. The proposed building, site, and parking layout, as represented on Sheets 6 Site Plan and 7 Landscape Plan, has a chaotic and haphazard appearance. Entrance Corridor Guidelines encourage the use of a grading design that blends with the surrounding topography. Proposed grading is only shown on Sheet 7 Landscape Plan and is difficult to read. As a result, the full impact of the grading proposal cannot be adequately assessed. However, Sheet 6 Site Plan shows a 1000' long retaining wall, with a maximum height of 19', along the eastern side boundary. The 19' height is at the south end of the wall closest to the Corridor (a sample of the grey Redi -Rock wall material was provided with this submission). The need for a retaining wall of this length and height, combined with the haphazard site/building layout suggests that the parcel is over - developed. It has been the ARB' s policy to require that all retaining walls over 6' in height be terraced with planting in between. Recommendations: Revise the site and building layout to provide an organized pattern of roads and buildings that require fewer retaining walls with lower heights. Issue: 50' Non - disturb Buffer/Proposed Roundabout Comments: Access to the site is to be provided by an extension of Mall Side Forest Court located near the southeast end of the development. The applicant is proposing to extend the road into a proposed vehicular ARB 5/4/2009 Arden Place, Preliminary - Page 4 roundabout located at the south end of the development area. Sheet 3 Entrance Corridor Site Plan shows a future extension of this road to the southeast end of the Albemarle Square Shopping Center. As shown on Sheet 3 and Sheet 2 Existing Conditions, this road extension would require extensive grading and the disturbance of the 50' non - disturb buffer required along the commercial side of the C- 1/R -15 zoning demarcation line. The applicant has applied for a waiver of this non - disturb buffer which is to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. A larger disturbance of the buffer will occur with the proposed 100'+ diameter of the roundabout than would occur with the use of a standard 3 -way road intersection. Proposed planting for the 3:1 slopes created by the road and roundabout is not shown. A reforestation of these slopes with native tree species common to that parcel would be appropriate. The dedication of additional non - disturb buffer area could help in compensating for the loss of the existing buffer. A proposed buffer commencing along the north edge of the entry road connecting Arden Place with Albemarle Square, extending to the C- 1/R -15 zoning demarcation line, would be appropriate. Recommendations: Revise all applicable drawings by replacing the proposed roundabout with a standard 3- way road intersection. Revise the landscape proposal to show a reforestation of the slopes created by this road with native tree species common to that parcel. Revise all applicable drawings to show additional dedicated non - disturb buffer. This buffer shall commence at the north side of the entry road connecting Arden Place with Albemarle Square and extend to the C- 1/R -15 zoning demarcation line. Landscape Design Issue: Interior and Perimeter Parking Lot Trees/Mitigating Views of the Development Comments: Entrance Corridor Guidelines state: Trees should align the perimeter of parking areas, located 40' on center. Trees should be planted in the interior of parking areas at the rate of I tree for every 10 parking spaces provided and should be evenly distributed throughout the interior of the parking area. Sheet 7 Landscape Plan shows proposed trees interior to the parking area and along the eastern perimeter, adjacent to the boundary line. Notes on the drawing indicate that 34 interior trees are required and 37 are being provided; however, this count appears to include the large canopy perimeter trees shown along the eastern edge of the parking area. These trees, shown in a 6' wide planting strip between the eastern side boundary and the top of the 1000' long retaining wall, are spaced 70' to 80' on center instead of the required 40' spacing. The retaining wall, with its 19' maximum height, would inhibit the growth of these trees by restricting their root systems. County Engineering has indicated that once full grown, their root systems would likely threaten the structural integrity of the wall. Providing for significant tree canopy along the eastern side boundary is particularly important due to the views of the proposal that are anticipated from the Corridor down the wide Rio Hill Drive right -of -way. Recommendations: Revise the interior parking lot tree count to not include perimeter parking lot trees. Revise the site /parking design to allow for a 10' wide planting strip along the full length of the eastern boundary, free of retaining walls, for perimeter parking lot trees, 40' on center, 21/2" caliper minimum. Issue: Interior Road Trees /Spacing Comments: Entrance Corridor Guidelines state: Trees should be planted parallel to all interior roads. Such trees shall be 2112 " in caliper minimum located at least every 40' on center. Street trees proposed along the edge of the extension of Mall Side Forest Court (between Rio Hill Drive and the parcel boundary) are shown at 50' to 55' on center. Proposed street trees, adjacent to the southeast side of the Clubhouse and the adjacent interior entry road, are spaced 50' to 55' on center. Trees are not shown on the opposite (east) side of that section of road. Recommendations: Revise Sheet 7 Landscaping Plan by showing the street trees, 21/2" caliper, 40' on center, on both sides the entry roads and roads extending from them. ARB 5/4/2009 Arden Place, Preliminary - Page 5 Issue: Proposed Species/Monoculture Comments: Entrance Corridor Guidelines state: 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 the development as seen from the street upon which the Corridor is centered. The Plant Legend on Sheet 7 Landscaping Plan indicates that 59% of the large canopy trees are to be Pin Oaks and 50% of the understory trees are to be Yoshino Cherry trees. This represents an overconcentration of species. The monoculture resulting from such an over -use of any one species can result in a single disease having a major impact on the landscape. Over -use can also result in a monotonous appearance. This proposal would benefit from the addition of 2 large canopy species and 1 understory species; quantities proposed of each should be as near equal as possible. Recommendations: Revise Sheet 7 Landscaping Plan with the addition of 2 large canopy species and 1 understory species with proposed quantities for both categories as near equal as possible. Lighting Issue: Building Lighting Comments: Sheet 9 Lighting Plan shows proposed site lighting but does not include proposed exterior building lighting. The visibility of exterior building lighting is expected to be limited but would need to meet the same full cutoff requirements as site lighting. Recommendations: Revise the lighting proposal to include all exterior building lighting. All such lighting in excess of 3,000 lumens shall meet full cut off requirements. Issue: Cutsheet Catalog Numbers Comments: Sheet 10 Lighting Details contains cutsheets of the proposed site lighting. Catalog numbers, indicating the chosen model and features, could not be found on the cutsheets. Catalog numbers should be included with the cutsheets and coordinated with the catalog numbers in the Luminaire Schedule. Recommendations: Revise Sheet 10 Lighting Details to include the catalog numbers with the cutsheets. These numbers shall be coordinated with the catalog numbers in the Luminaire Schedule. Issue: Coordination with Proposed Landscaping Comments: The location of proposed site lighting is not shown on Sheet 7 Landscaping Plan or Sheet 6 Site Plan making it difficult to determine if any conflicts exist between the site lighting and proposed plantings or existing and proposed utilities. Recommendations: Revise Sheet 7 Landscaping Plan and Sheet 6 Site Plan by including the location of all proposed site lighting. Avoid conflicts with proposed plantings or existing and proposed utilities. Issue: Lighting Note Comments: The following note is required on all lighting plans and was not included in this submission: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle. Recommendations: Revise Sheet 9 Lighting Plan to include the following note: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle. ARB 5/4/2009 Arden Place, Preliminary - Page 6 Signage Issue: Signage Details Comments: Details of proposed signage, including wall and freestanding signs, were not included with this submission. Designs for all signage visible from the Corridor will need to meet ARB Sign Guidelines, with freestanding locations avoiding conflicts with utilities and landscaping. Off -site signs require a Special Use Permit. Building signage, visible from the Corridor, would need to be coordinated with the architecture and reviewed with the building design. Recommendations: Designs for all freestanding signage visible from the Corridor will need to meet ARB Sign Guidelines, with locations free of conflicts with utilities and landscaping. An ARB sign application for freestanding signage is an additional application that can be submitted separately from the ARB site plan application. For building signage visible from the Corridor, provide revised elevations showing the sign location along with details, including materials, colors and dimensions, of the sign design. Wall and freestanding signs will require a sign permit in addition to ARB approval. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. The proposed building materials and colors. 2. The design of the building /site layout and the parking lot tree plan. 3. The 1000' long retaining wall along the eastern boundary. 4. The existing 50' non - disturb buffer on the commercial (EC) side of the C- 1/R -15 zoning demarcation line. Staff offers the following comments on the preliminary site plan: 1. Provide a site/building section demonstrating visibility of the proposal as viewed from the Rio Road East Corridor across the Rio Hill Drive right -of -way. 2. Revise Sheet 6 Site Plan and/or Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations, as needed, to correct the lack of coordination between the design of the building footprint and the building elevations. Revise Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations and Sheet 12 Arden Place Exterior Building Elevations to include roof plans of the clubhouse and apartment buildings. 3. Revise Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations to show a redesigned entry bay and pediment whose height and width are more proportional with each other and the overall elevation. 4. Revise Sheet 11 Arden Place Clubhouse Exterior Elevations by identifying proposed materials, colors, and method of construction for the cupola. 5. Revise the southwest end elevation of Apartment Building 1, to relieve its blank appearance, by adding windows or replacing the vertical siding with the proposed brick. Consider redesigning the center section of the elevation to project inward or outward. 6. Revise Sheet 7 Landscape Plan to show an evergreen species in place of the semi- evergreen Burkwood Viburnum proposed around the perimeter of the ground- mounted HVAC units at each end of the apartment buildings. 7. Revise the site and building layout to provide an organized pattern of roads and buildings that require fewer retaining walls with lower heights. 8. Revise all applicable drawings by replacing the proposed roundabout with a standard 3 -way road intersection. Revise the landscape proposal to show a reforestation of the slopes created by this road with native tree species common to that parcel. Revise all applicable drawings to show additional dedicated non - disturb buffer. This buffer shall commence at the north side of the entry road connecting Arden Place with Albemarle Square and extend to the C- 1/R -15 zoning demarcation line. ARB 5/4/2009 Arden Place, Preliminary - Page 7 9. Revise the interior parking lot tree count to not include perimeter parking lot trees. Revise the site /parking design to allow for a 10' wide planting strip along the full length of the eastern boundary, free of retaining walls, for perimeter parking lot trees, 40' on center, 2'/2" caliper minimum. 10. Revise Sheet 7 Landscaping Plan by showing the street trees, 2' /z" caliper, 40' on center, on both sides the entry roads and roads extending from them. 11. Revise Sheet 7 Landscaping Plan with the addition of 2 large canopy species and 1 understory species with proposed quantities for both categories as near equal as possible. 12. Revise the lighting proposal to include all exterior building lighting. All such lighting in excess of 3,000 lumens shall meet full cut off requirements. Revise Sheet 10 Lighting Details to include the catalog numbers with the cutsheets. These numbers shall be coordinated with the catalog numbers in the Luminaire Schedule. 13. Revise Sheet 7 Landscaping Plan and Sheet 6 Site Plan by including the location of all proposed site lighting. Avoid conflicts with proposed plantings or existing and proposed utilities. Revise Sheet 9 Lighting Plan to include the following note: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle 14. Designs for all freestanding signage visible from the Corridor will need to meet ARB Sign Guidelines, with locations free of conflicts with utilities and landscaping. An ARB sign application for freestanding signage is an additional application that can be submitted separately from the ARB site plan application. For building signage visible from the Corridor, provide revised elevations showing the sign location along with details, including materials, colors and dimensions, of the sign design. Wall and freestanding signs will require a sign permit in addition to ARB approval. ARB 5/4/2009 Arden Place, Preliminary - Page 8