HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200900019 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2009-11-10ALg�,��
�'IRGINZ�`
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
November 9, 2009
Mark Keller
Terra Concepts, PC
224 Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB- 2009- 19:Oakleigh
Dear Mark:
I have reviewed your recent submittal for the above - referenced project (Sheets 10 and 11 with revision date of
October 8, 2009). The revisions included in these drawings address the remaining outstanding conditions of ARB
approval. You may consider this letter your Certificate of Appropriateness.
This approval is predicated on the fact that the design and materials, as proposed and exhibited for review, will be
used. The acceptance of approval implies that the applicant has agreed to execute the design as indicated on the
site plan, attachments, materials, samples, and other submittal items presented. Any changes in the approved
design or materials will require an amendment to the application and must be reviewed and approved by the
Architectural Review Board.
Please note that this application is approved with the condition that mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the
Entrance Corridor.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: ARB File
�'IRGINLP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
972 -4126
September 2, 2009
Marilyn Swinford
Insignia Development Services, Inc.
690 Berkmar Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901 -1464
RE: ARB- 2009- 19:Oakleigh
Dear Ms. Swinford:
Fax (434)
I have reviewed your recent submittal for the above - referenced project. The submittal included a
site plan (sheets 1 -11) with revision date 7/13/09, Cline architectural drawings (pages 1 -12) dated
3/2/09; TEC architectural drawings (sheets Al -8) dated 3/2/09; and a notebook with a cover letter
from Insignia dated August 25, 2009, copies of information previously submitted, and a copy of
an August 3, 2009 letter from Mark Keller. The March 2 letter references an April 17 set of
drawings. It is my understanding that the April 17 drawings were brought to the April 20 ARB
meeting. The April 17 drawings were not part of the recent submittal and a copy was not
previously retained for our files. It appears that old, out -of -date drawings were submitted for the
current review. Nevertheless, I have reviewed your submittal and I have a number of comments,
which I have listed below. The comments reference our ARB action letter dated April 24, 2009.
1. Comment #2 said, "Submit window color /material sample for review." A color brochure
was submitted, not an actual sample. Please submit an actual sample.
2. Comment #3 said, "Revise the elevation drawings for Buildings C and D to show that the
windows will be a dark color and specify the color in the finish schedule." The elevation
drawings were not revised and the finish schedule was not updated to reflect the proposed
green color for the windows. These revisions are still required.
Comment #4 said, "Add a note to the elevation drawings identifying what the detailing
below the second floor windows in the projecting bays is intended to represent." Your
memo indicated that the detailing is meant to represent a brick herringbone pattern, but a
note indicating this was not added to the elevation drawings. Please add the note to the
drawings.
4. Comment #6 dealt with fixtures A, B and C, which have been replaced with fixtures H
and I. I have spoken with Karina Gomez at ELA Lighting to confirm that these fixtures
meet ordinance requirements by emitting no light above the horizontal plane. Karina has
indicated that the DS5934 fixture will meet our ordinance requirements. That catalog
number is different than the catalog number listed in your luminaire schedule. Please
coordinate with Karina to choose the fixture that will meet the ordinance definition of full
cutoff fixture, as follows, and revise all plans accordingly: "The term full cutoff luminaire
means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the
fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the
horizontal plane." Karina's email address is kgomez@ela-lighting.co and her phone
number is 626 - 965 -0821.
5. Related to the lighting proposal, the photometric plan indicates 1.3 footcandles near the
property line in the vicinity of fixture I -7 (in front of Building B). I cannot confirm from
the information provided that spillover into the right -of -way does not exceed .5
footcandles in this area. Please revise the photometric plan to include additional
footcandle readings to show that spillover does not exceed .5 footcandles.
Comment #7 asked for clarification on wall details. Notes on sheets 4 and 5 appear to
conflict regarding the wall in the vicinity of the dumpster located west of Building A, and
no enclosure is identified for the dumpster. Also, there is no dumpster enclosure detail in
the plan set. Please revise the plans to coordinate the wall notes, to include a dumpster
enclosure detail, and to indicate that the dumpster located west of Building A will have
an enclosure. (It is assumed that all dumpster enclosures will be faced with brick.)
7. Many plants included on the landscape plan are labeled as "not required by the County ".
A number of these plants would be visible from the EC, are required by the EC
Guidelines, and were anticipated to be a part of the development by the ARB. The "not
required by the County" symbol should be removed from the following plants:
• The plants at the east corner of Building B
• The plants along the northern part of the property line shared with the Garden
Spot, west of Buildings A and C
• The plants east of Buildings E and F
Please provide:
1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated
ARB revision dates on each drawing and an ARB approval signature panel.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. 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.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with
your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staff s review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a
Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: ARB File
Mark Keller, Terra Concepts, 224 Court Square, Charlottesville VA 22902
George Ray, george @smartspaceonline.com
Jerry Dixon, TEC, Inc., 2496 Old Ivy Road, Charlottesville VA 22903
John Felton, Cline Design Assoc., 25 N. Harrington Street, Raleigh, NC 27603
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution.
County staff has indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions.
If you need to submit additional information please explain on this form for the benefit of the
intake staff. All plans must be collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be
accepted for submittal.
TO:
PROJECT NAME: ARB- 2009 -19: Oakleigh
DATE:
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions ( ) indicates submittal
Code
County Project
Number
# Copies
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E &S)
# Copies
Distribute To:
Mitigation Plan (MP)
2
Margaret Maliszewski
Waiver Request (WR)
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
Road Plan (RP)
Private Road Request, with private /public comparison
(PRR)
Private Road Request — Development Area (PRR -DA)
Preliminary Site Plan (PSP)
Final Site Plan (or amendment) (FSP)
Final Plat (FP)
Preliminary Plat (PP)
Easement Plat (EP)
Boundary Adjustment Plat (BAP)
Rezoning Plan (REZ)
Special Use Permit Concept Plan (SP -CP)
Reduced Concept Plan (R -CP)
Proffers (P)
Bond Estimate Request (BER)
Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D -GWMP)
Final Groundwater Management Plan (F -GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report (GWAR)
Architectural Review Board (ARB)
ARB 2009 -19
Other: Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
ARB
2
Margaret Maliszewski
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
April 24, 2009
Mark Keller
c/o Terra Concepts PC
224 Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB2009 -00019 Oakleigh
Tax Map 45, Parcel 26A
Dear Mr. Keller:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday,
April 20, 2009. The Board, by a vote of 4:0, approved the request, pending staff administrative approval of the
following conditions:
1. Submit an actual color and material sample for the lintels on the second floor of the Buildings C and
D.
2. Revise the design and material of the porch railings on Buildings C and D to coordinate with the
overall design of the building. The architectural rail with vertical balusters is the recommended option.
The rails should match the window color. Submit window color /material sample for review.
3. Revise the elevation drawings for Buildings C and D to show that the windows will be a dark color,
and specify the color in the finish schedule. Submit a color sample for the windows.
4. Identify and assign a label to the unlabeled, color perspective of Building C or D submitted with the
application. Add a note to the elevation drawings identifying what the detailing below the second floor
windows in the projecting bays is intended to represent.
5. Revise the 5 new Leyland Cypress to a plant that is lower in scale, better integrated and coordinated
with the other planting on the site and with the overall corridor.
6. Revise proposed lighting fixtures A, B, and C to meet the County's definition of full cutoff, reduce the
light level to less than 3,000 lumens, or obtain a lighting waiver from the Planning Commission.
7. Key the wall and stair details on Sheet 9 Site Details to the plan. Ensure that there are details for all
freestanding, retaining, and screening walls, as well as the brick patio, and ensure that all details are
keyed to the plans.
8. Provide in the site plan an elevation drawing of a section of the privacy fence south of the parking lots
behind Buildings A and B.
Please provide:
1. One full set of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision
dates on each drawing and an ARB approval signature panel.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. 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.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to
ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be issued.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Eryn Brennan
Senior Planner
Cc: TEC INC - Jerry Dixon
2496 Old Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Oakleigh Albemarle LLC - George Ray
690 Berkmar Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Cline Design Associates PA - Jerry Martinson
125 N Harrington Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Francis McCall, Zoning and Current Development
File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff
has indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit
additional information please explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans must be
collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted for submittal.
TO: Eryn Brennan DATE:
PROJECT NAME: ARB2009 -00019 Oakleigh
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions () indicates submittal Cade
County Project Number
# Copies
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E &S)
# Copies
Distribute To:
Mitigation Plan (MP)
1
Eryn Brennan
Waiver Request (WR)
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
Road Plan (RP)
Private Road Request, with private /public comparison (PRR)
Private Road Request — Development Area (PRR -DA)
Preliminary Site Plan (PSP)
Final Site Plan (or amendment) (FSP)
Final Plat (FP)
Preliminary Plat (PP)
Easement Plat (EP)
Boundary Adjustment Plat (BAP)
Rezoning Plan (REZ)
Special Use Permit Concept Plan (SP -CP)
Reduced Concept Plan (R -CP)
Proffers (P)
Bond Estimate Request (BER)
Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D -GWMP)
Final Groundwater Management Plan (F -GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report (GWAR)
Architectural Review Board (ARB)
ARB2009 -0019
Other: Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
ARB
1
Eryn Brennan
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #: Name
ARB- 2009 -19: Oakleigh
Review Type
Final Review of a Site Development Plan
Parcel Identification
Tax Map 45, Parcel 26A
Location
Located on the south side of Rio Road West adjacent to Berkmar Crossing
(Rt. 659).
Zoned
Neighborhood Model District (NMD) and Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner
Oakleigh Albemarle, LLC
Applicant
Terra Concepts, Mark Keller
Magisterial District
Rio
Proposal
To develop an 8.82 acre parcel with a mixed use development comprised
of two commercial buildings, multiple single - family homes, townhomes,
condominiums and associated site improvements.
ARB Meeting Date
April 20, 2009
Staff Contact
Eryn Brennan
SITE/PROJECT HISTORY
The ARB conducted a preliminary review of this proposal on February 2, 2009. The action letter from that
meeting is included as Attachment A to this report. The Board offered a series of comments for the benefit of
the applicant's next submittal. The applicant submitted an application addressing some, though not all, of the
ARB's preliminary review comments. After an initial review, staff asked the applicant to make additional
changes to address all of the ARB's previous comments and resubmit the application. This report is an analysis
of that revised submittal.
CONTEXT /CHANGES TO THE PROPOSAL
The site is located on Rio Road West, across from Woodburn Road. The applicant proposes to construct a large
mixed -use development, including residential units and mixed residential and retail units. The project includes
parking lots, landscaped green space, road construction, stormwater quality facilities, and stormwater filter
units. Buildings A and B (Sheets A -1 through A -8) front the EC; Buildings C and D (Pages 1 through 12) are
behind Buildings A and B. Changes to the proposal since the last review include revisions to the widow's walk
and porch railings on Buildings C and D, revisions to the elevations of Buildings A and B, and landscape
changes along the east edge of the development.
VISIBILITY
Buildings A and B fronting the EC will be clearly visible from the EC. Angled views into the site will provide
visibility of Buildings C and D. Landscaping in front of Buildings A and B will also be clearly visible from the
ARB 4/20/2009 Oakleigh Final - Page 1
EC, as will landscaping along the east and west parcel boundaries all the way back to Buildings C and D.
ANALYSIS based on:
• Site Plan Sheets 1 -3; 6 -7; 10 -11, dated March 2, 2009
• Site Plan Sheets 4 -5; 8 -9, dated March 30, 2009
• Architectural Drawings titled, " Oakleigh: Buildings C, D, and F: Final ARB Submittal, 12 pages,
dated March 2, 2009
• Color perspective renderings of Buildings C and D, unlabeled, submitted 3/30/09
• Architectural Drawings for Buildings A and B, Sheets A -1 — A -7, dated March 2, 2009
• Material sample board with Cement Board samples labeled " Oakleigh"
• A photocopy of the lintel material for Buildings C and D, dated March 30, 2009
Issue: Material Samples
Comments:
1. Page 1 and 2 of the architectural drawings for Buildings C and D are not coordinated with the rest of
the drawings submitted for these buildings. On these pages, the cornice element behind the third floor
upper windows in the projecting bays is still visible, and the muntin configurations do not match the
muntins in pages 3 -12. When initially reviewed, it was thought that these drawings, labeled "Front
Elevation" faced the EC. However, upon further comparison with the site plan, it is the "Rear
Elevation" drawings that face the EC. Although a rear elevation facing the EC is generally not
appropriate, the rear facades for Buildings C and D have been articulated in almost exactly the same
manner as the front facades, with the exception of the lack of a main entrance. Instead, the rear
elevations show windows, a door, and screening wall at the ground level, which will not be readily
visible from the EC given that the buildings are located behind Buildings A and B.
2. A photocopy of the material sample to be used in the lintels on the second floor of Buildings C and D
was provided; however, a color and material sample, as requested by the ARB, was not provided.
Recommendations:
1. None.
2. Submit an actual color and material sample for the lintels on the second floor of the Buildings C and
D.
Issue: Elevations of Buildings C and D
Comment-,-
The porch railings for Buildings C and D have changed from the preliminary proposal, which showed
an architectural rail with panels on the second floor and a guardrail with cable rail on the third floor.
The revised elevations show aluminum railing with a clear finish and vertical pickets for all the
porches on Buildings C and D. The clear finished aluminum railings are not coordinated with the
overall design of the building and lend an institutional, industrial appearance to an otherwise
residential building.
2. The finish schedule on page 4 states that the vinyl clad windows will be white, whereas the elevation
drawings show the vinyl clad windows as a dark color. This may be due to the scale of the drawings,
as the unlabeled color perspective drawing rendered at a larger scale shows the windows as white.
However, the dark color shown in the labeled elevation drawings is more coordinated with the overall
design of the building, especially when contrasted with the "bone" color lintels and white window
frames, and is therefore the more appropriate option. A color sample of the window has not yet been
provided.
3. An unlabeled color perspective of Building C or D has been submitted with the application. The
ARB 4/20/2009 Oakleigh Final - Page 2
drawing suggests that the detailing located below the second floor windows in the projecting bays is
patterned brickwork, though it is difficult to discern.
4. The widow's walks on Buildings C and D have been revised to two chimneys on each building
intended to conceal roof venting pipes. The chimneys are appropriate on residential buildings;
however, details concerning the chimney materials have not been provided. The architectural drawings
show the material as Hardiplank siding and trim board. Hardiplank is not a traditional material for
chimneys in Albemarle County, and using it for this architectural feature emphasizes the fact that the
chimneys aren't real. Chimneys are generally made of brick in the surrounding historic area, and brick
also would be compatible with the overall design of the building.
Recommendations:
1. Revise the design and material of the porch railings on Buildings C and D to coordinate with the
overall design of the building. The architectural rail with panels and guardrail with cable rail proposed
in the preliminary application is the recommended option. If the preliminary design is used, a material
and color sample for the architectural panels on the second floor porches will need to be submitted.
2. Revise the elevation drawings for Buildings C and D to show that the windows will be a dark color,
and specify the color in the finish schedule. Submit a color sample for the windows.
3. Identify and assign a label to the unlabeled, color perspective of Building C or D submitted with the
application. Add a note to the elevation drawings identifying what the detailing below the second floor
windows in the projecting bays is intended to represent.
4. Revise the architectural drawings for Buildings C and D to show the chimneys constructed with brick.
Issue: Landscape Plan
Comments: The applicant was asked to revise the landscape plan to the east to show increased plantings and an
integrated, coordinated planting scheme. The applicant added five Leyland Cypress trees to the row of trees
along the east parcel boundary and added sixteen inkberry bushes at the northeast corner of the site. Although
the landscaping has been increased, the conspicuous row of screening trees does not represent a planting that is
integrated with the site or corridor. There is a steep slope along the east boundary of the parcel; however,
revising this area to a mixed planting of trees and shrubs would better integrate the development into the
corridor.
Recommendations: Revise the re- planted row of Leyland Cypress to a planting scheme that is integrated and
coordinated with the other planting on the site and with the overall corridor.
Issue: Pemco Light Fixtures
Comments: Proposed lighting fixtures B, C, and D exceed 3,000 lumens and do not meet the County's
definition of full cutoff light fixtures. The applicant has noted that the lighting fixtures meet dark sky ordinance
requirements; however, the fixtures are not full cutoff. A waiver from the Planning Commission is required to
use these light fixtures in the development.
Recommendations: Revise proposed lighting fixtures A, B, and C to meet the County's definition of full cutoff,
reduce the light level to less than 3,000 lumens, or obtain a lighting waiver from the Planning Commission.
Issue: Brick Wall and Privacy Fence Details
Comments:
1. A brick patio surrounded by a brick wall is now proposed in front of Building A. Two brick wall
details are shown on Sheet 9 of the site plan. They show a section of a brick wing wall and stairs, and
a section of a freestanding brick wall with a cap. The details are not numbered or labeled, or keyed to
the plan.
2. The applicant was asked to provide a detailed drawing of the privacy fence south of the parking lots
ARB 4/20/2009 Oakleigh Final - Page 3
behind Buildings A and B. Although several images and a description have been included in the site
plan, no elevation drawing has been included in the site plan.
Recommendations:
1. Key the wall and stair details on Sheet 9 Site Details to the plan. Ensure that there are details for all
freestanding, retaining, and screening walls, as well as the brick patio, and ensure that all details are
keyed to the plans.
2. Provide in the site plan an elevation drawing of a section of the privacy fence south of the parking lots
behind Buildings A and B.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. Porch railings on Buildings C and D.
2. The chimney material on Buildings C and D.
3. Landscaping along the eastern parcel boundary.
Staff offers the following comments on the final site plan:
1. Submit an actual color and material sample for the lintels on the second floor of the Buildings C and
D.
2. Revise the design and material of the porch railings on Buildings C and D to coordinate with the
overall design of the building. The architectural rail with panels and guardrail with cable rail proposed
in the preliminary application is the recommended option. If the preliminary design is used, a material
and color sample for the architectural panels on the second floor porches will need to be submitted.
3. Revise the elevation drawings for Buildings C and D to show that the windows will be a dark color,
and specify the color in the finish schedule. Submit a color sample for the windows.
4. Identify and assign a label to the unlabeled, color perspective of Building C or D submitted with the
application. Add a note to the elevation drawings identifying what the detailing below the second floor
windows in the projecting bays is intended to represent.
5. Revise the architectural drawings for Buildings C and D to show the chimneys constructed with brick.
6. Revise the re- planted row of Leyland Cypress to a planting scheme that is integrated and
coordinated with the other planting on the site and with the overall corridor.
7. Revise proposed lighting fixtures A, B, and C to meet the County's definition of full cutoff, reduce
the light level to less than 3,000 lumens, or obtain a lighting waiver from the Planning
Commission.
8. Key the wall and stair details on Sheet 9 Site Details to the plan. Ensure that there are details for all
freestanding, retaining, and screening walls, as well as the brick patio, and ensure that all details are
keyed to the plans.
9. Provide in the site plan an elevation drawing of a section of the privacy fence south of the parking lots
behind Buildings A and B.
ARB 4/20/2009 Oakleigh Final - Page 4