HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201100079 Review Comments Miscellaneous Submittal 2011-06-06Date: 06 -6 -2011
Time: 1:00 PM
Meeting Room: Room #241
Members:
Staff:
61A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
ARB ACTION MEMO - EXCERPT
Charles T. Lebo: Present
Fred Missel, Chair: Present
Paul M. Wright: Present (He arrived at 1:04 p.m.)
Bill Daggett, Vice Chair: Absent
Bruce Wardell: Present
Margaret Maliszewski: Present
Eryn Brennan: Absent
Sharon Taylor: Present
WORK SESSION
Stonefield (Albemarle Place): The Shops at Stonefield — Town Center Buildings
The ARB held a work session on The Shops at Stonefield, discussing the town center buildings and the
Regal Cinema design. In summary, ARB members provided the following comments:
1. The cinema design really can't be compared to the Rotunda or Monticello. The cinema design has no
obvious connection to Albemarle's historic architecture.
2. Important issues are:
a. materials /quality of materials,
b. relief of the wall planes,
c. interest in the walls and materials,
d. scale and the breaking up of the building mass.
3. The earlier sketches showed some features that weren't carried through in the current drawings but
should be reintroduced:
a. the trellis had a stronger presence,
b. the tower at the west end added vertical interest,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 1
June 6, 2011
FINAL ACTION MEMO
c. there was more significant depth/relief between building parts,
d. there was a greater break -up of the sections of the building,
e. there was more visual interest in the materials,
f. there was more significant contrast between colors, which helped break up the mass.
4. The design uses too much stucco. This massive use of stucco is unprecedented.
5. The design is too light - colored.
6. The trellis element could help make the design more palatable along the street edge. The "meatier"
trellis elements previously shown were more successful than the "airier" elements in the current
submittal.
7. A depth of 1'4" for the recessed panels at the west end of the south elevation is not an appropriate
proportion for that size panel.
8. The depth of the recesses wasn't evident in the plan.
9. The east fagade also has significant scale issues.
10. The building doesn't "meet the ground"
11. There is concern that the screed lines won't read sufficiently to break up the stucco surface.
12. There is concern about the roof screen and mechanical equipment.
13. There is concern about the precedent- setting aspect of this review /approval.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 2
June 6, 2011
FINAL ACTION MEMO