Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP201000001 Review Comments Comprehensive Plan Consistency 2010-03-25ALg�,�� �'rRGIN1�` 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, Principal Planner DATE: March 25, 2010 RE: CCP- 2010 -01: Peter Jefferson Overlook I have reviewed the plans submitted for the above - referenced proposal and I have the following comments. ARB review and approval will be required for the site plans for this proposal. The drive -thru requires a special use permit. Comment from the ARB or ARB staff will be required for the SP. Architectural drawings of the bank and the drive -thru, in addition to a site plan, will be required in order to provide those comments. Regarding the proposed concept plans: 1. The plans are too small to read. Sufficient utility -free planting area must be provided along the Route 250 frontage to meet the EC landscape requirements. 2. The proposal suggests that the bank will have a pedestrian focus. The scale of the drive - thru structure in relation to the scale of the main bank building will be a focus of ARB review. It is recommended that the number of drive -thru lanes be reduced to limit impacts to the site and the EC. 3. Aligning the fronts of the bank and the office building would help coordinate the development as viewed from the EC. 4. In SP -2, the parking at the office building is not sufficiently broken up. The building should be used to break up the parking and to help limit the impact of the parking on the EC. In both layouts, locate more of the parking behind (north of) the proposed buildings. 5. In SP -2, the bank is not oriented parallel to the EC, as required by the EC Guidelines. Staff would not recommend approval of this orientation to the ARB. 6. In both layouts, it is recommended that long tree islands be located between double rows of parking to help limit impacts of the parking on the EC. 7. In the review of a previous proposal for this site, the ARB was concerned about the proximity of stormwater management facilities to the EC and the integration of those facilities into the surrounding landscape.