Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201000061 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2010-07-23ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #/Name ARB- 2010 -61: Animal Wellness Center Review Type Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan Parcel Identification Tax Map 56A2 -1, Parcel 7 Location 1100 Crozet Avenue, approximately 500' south of Jarman's Gap Road Zoned Downtown Crozet District (DCD), Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner /Applicant 1100 Crozet Avenue, LLC/Henry Smith Magisterial District Whitehall Proposal To make changes to an existing building with associated site improvements, including installation of a new front and rear entrance porch, three new windows, and a new roof, and repairing and repainting the exterior. The existing gravel driveway will be abandoned and a new driveway will be constructed along the south side of the property. A new gravel parking area will also be installed in front of the building. The applicant is proposing to remove a 95' wooded strip along the EC and re -plant the area with large shade trees interspersed with ornamental trees. Context The parcel is located on the west side of Crozet Avenue, approximately 500' south of Jarman's Gap Road. The site is primarily wooded, and the existing structure is set back approximately 275' from the EC. The parcels to the south are wooded, and the parcels to the north, east, and west consist of large single - family residential lots and businesses. The parcel forms a portion of the southern boundary of the proposed Crozet Historic District, and this property is considered a contributing resource to that district. The typical street frontage for residential properties in this part of the proposed district consists of deep, grassy lawn areas intersperse with large shade and ornamental trees. Visibility The existing building is minimally visible from the EC due to the 20' drop in grade from the EC, the distance of the building from the EC, and the wooded portions of the site along the southern and northern property lines. The proposed site improvements along the EC would be highly visible, and the removal of the approximately 95' deep wooded area along the EC would make the existing building more visible from the EC. ARB Meeting Date August 2, 2010 Staff Contact Eryn Brennan PROJECT HISTORY DATE APPLICATION/REVIEW TYPE RESULT 10/14/2009 SP- 2008 -09 Special Use Permit approved to allow a veterinary clinic on the parcel. During the SP review process, design planning staff commented that new planting would be required along the frontage and that planting would be expected to maintain the residential character of the site and to screen the view of the parking area from the EC. SDP - 2009 -85 Site plan received and under review SUB - 2010 -17 Easement plat under review for a stormwater line ANALYSIS REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION Compatibility with significant historic sites: Structure design 9 Building forms and features, including • The one -story masonry structure was None. roofs, windows, doors, materials, colors and constructed as an apartment building textures should be compatible with the ca. 1950. The property currently retains forms and features of the significant historic a residential character. The proposed buildings in the area, exemplified by (but addition of a front and rear entrance not limited to) the buildings described in porch, the repair and repainting of the Appendix B. The standard of compatibility stucco exterior, and the installation of a can be met through scale, materials, and new roof and three new windows in forms which may be embodied in existing openings are compatible with architecture which is contemporary as well the existing building and are not as traditional. The replication of important expected to have a negative impact on historic sites in Albemarle County is not the the historic district or the EC. objective of these guidelines. Site Grading 38 No grading, trenching, or tunneling should • The existing treeline along the southern • Revise the landscape plan to occur within the drip line of any trees or boundary of the parcel is not shown on show the existing treeline along other existing features designated for Sheet L2; hence, it is unclear whether the southern boundary of the preservation in the final Certificate of the proposed grading would occur parcel. Ensure that grading is Appropriateness. under the dripline of the existing tree not shown under the dripline of canopy. existing tree canopies and that • Grading is shown to extend over the the Red Maples and Bald property line to the south. Cypress proposed in this area are coordinated with the location of the existing trees. • Revise the landscape plan to show that no off -site grading will occur, or submit a grading easement for the property south of the parcel. 39 Areas designated for preservation in the • Tree protection fencing is not shown • Revise the landscape plan to final Certificate of Appropriateness should around the existing trees to remain on show tree protection fencing REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION be clearly delineated and protected on the the plans. around the existing trees to site prior to any grading activity on the site. remain on the plans. This protection should remain in place until completion of the development of the site. Landscaping 27 Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance • The grouping of small clusters of • None. Corridor streets should include the ornamental trees interspersed among • Revise the location of the three following: large shade trees is appropriate in this dogwoods proposed on the a. Large shade trees should be planted location because it is compatible with landscape plan to an area where parallel to the Entrance Corridor Street. the landscape layout of surrounding they would be partially shaded. Such trees should be at least 3' /z inches properties. Or, revise the landscape plan to caliper (measured 6 inches above the • Dogwoods are an understory tree, and show an ornamental species ground) and should be of a plant species the three dogwoods proposed on the more amenable to full sunlight common to the area. Such trees should be landscape plan are shown planted in a in this location. Relocating the located at least every 35 feet on center. full -sun area of the property. dogwoods near the proposed b. Flowering ornamental trees of a species • To help ensure that the proposed trees London Planes and adding an common to the area should be interspersed and shrubs grow to their intended size additional small cluster of trees among the trees required by the preceding and appearance, the standard planting where the dogwoods are paragraph. note should be added to Sheet L2. currently shown would also be c. In situations where appropriate, a three or • The Plant Schedule on Sheet L2 does appropriate. four board fence or low stone wall, typical not include information regarding the • Add the following notes to the of the area, should align the frontage of the number of proposed plants and their landscape plan: "All site Entrance Corridor street. size at planting. plantings of trees and shrubs d. An area of sufficient width to shall be allowed to reach and be accommodate the foregoing plantings and maintained at mature height; fencing should be reserved parallel to the the topping of trees is Entrance Corridor street, and exclusive of prohibited. Shrubs and trees road right -of -way and utility easements. shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant." • Revise the Plant Schedule on Sheet L2 to show the number of proposed plants and their size at planting. REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION 28 Landscaping along interior roads: • A new driveway is proposed along the None. a. Trees should be planted parallel to all southern portion of the property, but interior roads. Such trees should be at least lining it with a row of trees as outlined 21 /z inches caliper (measured six inches in the guidelines would present a more above the ground) and should be of a plant urban landscape appearance and would species common to the area. Such trees not be appropriate given the rural, should be located at least every 40 feet on natural character of the site. center. 30 Landscaping of parking areas: • A new parking area is proposed None. a. Trees should align the perimeter of approximately 185' from the EC, with a parking areas, located 40 feet on center. row of American Boxwood shown Trees should be planted in the interior of lining the eastern perimeter. Given the parking areas at the rate of one tree for parking area's distance from the EC and every 10 parking spaces provided and the numerous trees both existing and should be evenly distributed throughout the proposed between the parking area and interior of the parking area. the EC, additional trees around the b. Trees required by the preceding parking area are not required to paragraph should measure 21/2 inches caliper establish an appropriate appearance for (measured six inches above the ground); the EC. should be evenly spaced; and should be of a species common to the area. Such trees should be planted in planters or medians sufficiently large to maintain the health of the tree and shall be protected by curbing. c. Shrubs should be provided as necessary to minimize the parking area's impact on Entrance Corridor streets. Shrubs should measure 24 inches in height. 31 Landscaping of buildings and other • The applicant has indicated that some • Revise the existing conditions structures: of the existing shrubs along the front of plan and proposed landscape a. Trees or other vegetation should be the building are to be removed while plan to identify the shrubs along planted along the front of long buildings as others are to remain, but no shrubs are the front of the building necessary to soften the appearance of shown in this area on Sheet L1 Existing proposed both to remain and to exterior walls. The spacing, size, and type of Conditions. Given the building's be removed. such trees or vegetation should be distance from the road, additional plants REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION determined by the length, height, and along the building are not required to blankness of such walls. establish an appropriate appearance for b. Shrubs should be used to integrate the the EC. site, buildings, and other structures; dumpsters, accessory buildings and structures; "drive thru" windows; service areas; and signs. Shrubs should measure at least 24 inches in height. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. The proposed grading and landscaping along the southern portion of the parcel. 2. The proposed layout of the plant species along the EC. Staff offers the following comments on the Preliminary Site Plan: 1. Revise the landscape plan to show the existing treeline along the southern boundary of the parcel. Ensure that grading is not shown under the dripline of existing tree canopies and that the Red Maples and Bald Cypress proposed in this area are coordinated with the 2. Revise the landscape plan to show that no off -site grading will occur, or submit a grading easement for the property south of the parcel. 3. Revise the landscape plan to show tree protection fencing around the existing trees to remain on the plans. 4. Revise the location of the three dogwoods proposed on the landscape plan to an area where they would be partially shaded. Or, revise the landscape plan to show an ornamental species more amenable to full sunlight in this location. Relocating the dogwoods near the proposed London Planes and adding an additional small cluster of trees where the dogwoods are currently shown would also be appropriate. 5. Add the following notes to the landscape plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach and be maintained at mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant." 6. Revise the Plant Schedule on Sheet L2 to show the number of proposed plants and their size at planting. 7. Revise the existing conditions plan and proposed landscape plan to identify the shrubs along the front of the building proposed both to remain and to be removed. 31 APPENDIX A This report is based on the following submittal items: Sheet # Drawing Name Drawing Date/Revision Date L1 Landscape Existing Conditions 6/20/2010 L2 Proposed Landscape Plan 6/20/2010 L3 Untitled 6/21/2010 1 of 1 Preliminary Site Plan 6/16/2010 1 of 2 Preliminary Site Plan 6/16/2010 2 of 2 Erosion Control Narrative 6/16/2010 Images of Site Submitted by Applicant 6/22/2010