Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201700125 Staff Report 2017-12-11ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #/Name ARB-2017-125: Birchwood Place UVA Community Credit Union Review Type Amendment to an Approved Certificate of Appropriateness Parcel Identification 056A2010003000 Location North side of Three Notch'd Road (Route 240), east of Crozet Avenue (Route 810) and west of Firehouse Lane Zoned Downtown Crozet District (DCD), Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner/Applicant University of Virginia Community Credit Union/PWCampbell (Carlin Campbell) Magisterial District White Hall Proposal To construct a single -story bank building according to new designs that differ from those previously approved. Context The site has been cleared, graded, and partially developed: an asphalt -paved parking lot holds a landscaped median (that separates the proposed drive -through lanes from parking) in the north and a curbed building pad to the south; medium and small deciduous trees have been planted along the EC frontage but no building has been constructed to date. The site, in downtown Crozet, abuts a mid-20th century shopping center (Great Value Shopping Center) to the west and an early 21st- century office building with relegated parking (U.S. Joiner Building) to the east. To the south lie Route 240 and the Buckingham Branch rail lines, as well as an industrial parcel and a vacant residential parcel formerly owned by C&O Railway Co. Visibility Situated adjacent to Route 240, the west, south, and east elevations of the building will be visible from the EC. ARB Meeting Date December 18, 2017 Staff Contact Heather McMahon PROJECT HISTORY DATE APPLICATION REVIEW TYPE RESULT 4/5/06 ARB-2006-35 Preliminary Site Development Plan Incomplete application; withdrawn 7/17/06 ARB-2006-84 Preliminary Site Development Plan Incomplete application; deferred 9/18/06 ARB-2006-105 Sign — Certificate of Appropriateness Approved a double -face monument sign 9/18/06 ARB-2006-106 Preliminary Site Development Plan Revisions requested 11/20/06 ARB-2006-124 Final Site Development Plan Approved with conditions, for staff review 12/18/17 ARB-2017-125 Amendment to Approved Certificate of Appropriateness First Review Birchwood Place is a proposal to develop a 3.66-acre site in downtown Crozet with a single -story bank (to encompass 3,090 square feet) as well as a three-story office building in two construction phases. The ARB application was first received on March 13, 2006; as the application for review of a Preliminary Site Development Plan was incomplete (architectural elevations of the proposed buildings were not included), the submission was deemed incomplete and withdrawn in early April 2006. On June 5, 2006, a second submission was received that included elevations of the proposed bank [Figure I] but did not include elevations of the proposed office building. As a result of the incomplete submission, the ARB decided to defer the application to a later meeting date and to offer the applicants a work session at the July 17, 2006 meeting. The Preliminary Site Development Plan was reviewed by the ARB at its September 18, 2006 meeting. The Final Site Development Plan was reviewed by the ARB on November 20, 2006. CURRENT PROPOSAL/CHANGES SINCE APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS The applicant is seeking a Major Amendment to an approved Certificate of Appropriateness issued on February 1, 2007. Since 2007, the site has sat undeveloped, and the previous tenants (the Second Bank and Trust) have withdrawn their interest in the location. The University of Virginia Community Credit Union has purchased the property and wishes to construct the bank building intended for the site. The Major Amendment's scope of work entails changes to the architectural design of the approved bank building, including a request for materials changes. To be exact, the applicant is requesting approval of the original design submitted in early 2006, which was revised significantly at the direction of the ARB before it was approved in 2007. The elevations reviewed at the September 18, 2006 ARB meeting are illustrated in Figure 1. That design is a Post-modern interpretation of the Georgian style, with a deeply -hipped (almost pyramidal) roof punctuated by a two-story central tower capped with a broken pediment. The projecting tower holds glazed double doors topped with fixed, multi -light windows that terminate in a fan window. The full -height, elongated fan window is framed with an arched masonry surround. The symmetrical wings flanking the central tower hold single and double segmental -arched windows with brick lintels and sills as well as paneled shutters. Other Neoclassical elements include quoins and a cornice. Staff s 2006 analysis of this design included the following: The tall, center entrance form located in the south (front) elevation is out of proportion and character with the traditional style of the building. The louvered [sic] shutters are inappropriate due to their use with paired windows and windows in groupings of four. The use of highly contrasting, dark brick forms to outline the building is inappropriate for the traditional style that is proposed. Following discussion of the proposal, the board provided comments [Attachment A] and suggestions for the applicant's next submittal, including: Revise the bank building so that it meets the EC guidelines, reflects significant historic architecture in all of its aspects, and relates to the architecture of Crozet. Replace the tall, center entrance form in the front (south) bank elevation with a design more in keeping with the traditional nature of the building. Eliminate the highly contrasting brick forms and louvered [sic] shutters.... Applicant, staff, and board members coordinated on the bank's design through October 2006, and when the applicants submitted the Final Site Development Plan (ARB-2006-124), the design of the bank had been revised significantly to address ARB comments. The materials palette was altered, the brown brick was replaced by one of a reddish hue; the quoins were removed from the central entrance tower and wings; the paneled shutters were eliminated; a water table was added; the cornice was elaborated further; and the segmental arched window in the central entrance tower (which had a sunburst muntin pattern) was rendered as a traditional fanlight. Most notably, the double -height central tower was reduced in scale significantly to create a more pedestrian -scaled entry, thereby shortening the fenestration above the glazed double doors into a twelve -light transom and multi -light fanlight. While the original tower had an AFF of 17'-0" (the apex of the pediment measured approximately 23'-6" from grade), the approved tower was reduced by 5 feet to 12'-1" AFF (or 18'6" from grade to the pediment's apex), which aligned the cornice of the pediment (and AFF) with that of the main block. The ARB unanimously approved the Certificate Appropriateness for Birchwood Place pending staff administrative approval of ten additional conditions [Attachment B]. The tenth condition (and the only condition related to the architectural design of the bank) enjoined the applicant to "Add additional weight in the form of molding at the rake in the pediment at the front door." Revised drawings dated December 11, 2006 were approved by staff on February 1, 2007 [Figure 2]. The current proposal [Figure 3] is a nearly exact replication of the drawings originally submitted in June 2006 for the Preliminary Site Development Plan. It therefore differs from the approved elevations [Figure 2] in several aspects: the central entrance tower is raised, the truss bearing at 17'-0" AFF (the main block's AFF is 12'-1"); the arched window system has been elongated; the traditional fanlight has been de-emphasized; the rake board in the broken pediment removed; the quoins on the central tower and the flanking wings restored; the precast concrete water table removed; and paneled shutters restored. On the rear (north, mislabeled "west") elevation, the ATM has been changed to a through -the -wall model. Lastly, the materials palette has been altered due to the discontinuation of certain products; see the materials table below for details. MATERIALS TABLE Original Submission (6-5-2006) Approved (2-1-2007) Current Request (12-18-2017) Notes Roof Shingles Certainteed New Horizon, Certainteed New Horizon, Timberline -brand GAF * still in circulation, in "Shadow Black" "Shadow Black"* shingles, "Charcoal"** Certainteed's Patriot series * * the applicant has offered an alternative color, "Mission Brown" Exterior Brick — field General Shale, "Buckingham Lawrenceville, #479 Bowerston #130-6, "Sorrel" * still available commercially Tudor" "Gunton"* with Flamingo-Brixment/Clay mortar, "Conner Sand" Exterior Brick — accent General Shale, "Dutch N/A Bowerston #501, "Cordovan" Chocolate" EIFS Dryvit #449, "Buckskin" Dryvit #449, "Buckskin" Dryvit #449, "Buckskin" Precast Masonry N/A Pineapple Grove, "Pure Pineapple Grove, "Pure * to be used on custom logo Pearl" Pearl"* medallion Soffit and Fascia Trim Alcoa aluminum, "Desert Alcoa aluminum, "Desert Alcoa aluminum, "Desert Sand" Sand" Sand" Storefront Trim Alcoa aluminum, "Desert Kawneer, "Sandstone" Alcoa aluminum, "Desert Sand" Sand" Shutters Alcoa vinyl, "Brown" N/A Alcoa vinyl, "Brown 59"* * the applicant has offered an alternative color, "Pebblestone Clay 52" In summary, the applicant is asking the current ARB to reconsider a design rejected by a previous board eleven years ago. While the final approved design [Figure 2] is a successful example of the Classical Revival style and a closer approximation of academical neoclassicism (there are still elements in the design that are "incorrect," such as the use of segmental arches and the transom separating the door lintel from the fanlight), the current proposal [Figure 3] is a pastiche of Georgian Revival -style features within a Post-modern framework (see Analysis below). i�tons C COS P EAST t %ATIO% ..1 . �•/ S&-,M Bank and Trust Proposed Exterior Elevations ��/ srcondtw.� rr rMa�I PWCamubell "F Figure 1: "Proposed Exterior Elevations, " dated May 10, 2006 and submitted to the ARB on June S, 2006. The same elevations were exhibited in the ARB meeting on September 18, 2006 when the Board reviewed the Preliminary Site Development Plan (ARB-2006-106). Please note that the "Proposed East Elevation" should be the South Elevation, and the "Proposed North Elevation" should be the East Elevation. 5 MONIA FINANCIAL %.-,WtM S(CONP RANIL k MOT - CROM. VA S M-ftU "TER1OR WATER AI. fAC1 PMCK MA.NVFACTVRERc LALMtENaVILLE COLOR QMSTON ORICK MORTAR COLOR ftA1W04G0-WXMENTK3A% SERIES CONNER SA P E05, MA VACTVPER PM" COLOR *"# 111UL KIN ROOF VANCAB MAA *AL-"LO. CLItTA1N TUP NEW HORIZON Si11NCUE COICIR S►1AWM RACk STORLI "T MAKVFACTLMLL kAWVNFU UXM SANMTONI SOI fIT. PASC A T1uM. s.A4TW. t LOL%S*4m LArIS V~)FACTVO" ALCOA COLOR M5ERT MNP PRECAST %WMACTVIM PINEAPPLE atOA COLOIL PME PEARL NOTIL M LOW CL610M MLrALLION %c+owJ 11nk a1 Tqsi - I Proposed Exterior Elevatl Figure 2: "Proposed Exterior Elevations," dated December 11, 2006 and approved by staff February 1, 2007. Please note that the directions of the elevations have been corrected since the previous submission, ARB-2006-106, illustrated in Figure 1. M �ntM�r ii we:6�u CONMIUNfr' WACCU FXTMOe MArf&JAL9CK4kV NQ_ H_ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION »Ln David -vac.,, ws.utn�,e University of Virginia Community G edit Union swre.•r.,m Poa umwvn rwnau rn. + Fuller.. „r xc»uAna...n:.uce riur r„rtw,u..0 u.a r;caciv •a+n t[_ee • ......, a+,•::,,r�>r,�»nvnovuert:,ct Crozet. VA Amended Elevations - EL I . I Archrtectura Review Board November 7, 2017 Scale: 1/8" = I'-0" 1,110_ Campbell Figure 3: "Proposed Exterior Elevations," dated November 7, 2017 for review on December 18, 2017. The same elevations were exhibited in the ARB meeting on September 18, 2006 when the Board reviewed the Preliminary Site Development Plan (ARB-2006-106). Please note that the "Proposed East Elevation" should be the South Elevation, and the "Proposed North Elevation " should be the East Elevation. ANALYSIS REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION GENERAL GUIDELINES Purpose 1 The goal of the regulation of the design of development within the As has been proven repeatedly, a Remove the shutters. designated Entrance Corridors is to insure that new development neoclassical design vocabulary is not Make all four windows within the corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the area. necessary for contemporary development on the south elevation Therefore, it is the purpose of ARB review and of these Guidelines, on the Entrance Corridors to be (fagade) doubled for that proposed development within the designated Entrance considered orderly or attractive. consistent symmetry. Corridors reflect elements of design characteristic of the significant However, if a neoclassical vocabulary is historical landmarks, buildings, and structures of the Charlottesville desired, the approved design is a better Reduce the scale of the and Albemarle area, and to promote orderly and attractive approximation of an academically central entrance tower so development within these corridors. Applicants should note that correct example; in contrast, the that the AFF does not replication of historic structures is neither required nor desired. proposed design is a Post-modern interpretation of the Georgian Revival exceed 12'-1" (and the apex of the pediment 2 Visitors to the significant historical sites in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area experience these sites as ensembles of buildings, style, as evidenced by its five -bay does not exceed 18'-6" land, and vegetation. In order to accomplish the integration of division, symmetry, and use of classical from grade). buildings, land, and vegetation characteristic of these sites, the architectural features (notably, quoins). Guidelines require attention to four primary factors: compatibility However, the bays are unequal in their with significant historic sites in the area; the character of the fenestration, the segmental -arched Entrance Corridor; site development and layout; and landscaping. windows are anachronistic, while the double -height central tower is thoroughly modern in its proportion and scale. The shutters are a residential typological feature that are out -of -place on a commercial building; furthermore, the shutters on the doubled (or four -ganged) windows wouldn't cover those apertures, making their applique completely ersatz. While the approved design reads as a commercial structure, the current proposal reads like a Georgian plantation house as seen in late 20'-century suburbs. The pastiche of neoclassical forms and features make only an indirect reference to the 20t''-century Colonial Revival styles that pervade Virginia. Compatibility with significant historic sites: 3 New structures and substantial additions to existing structures Compatibility with surrounding, Use a brick palette with a should respect the traditions of the architecture of historically contextual architecture can be met in more traditional, redder significant buildings in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area. scale, form, and materials. The scale of hue. Photographs of historic buildings in the area, as well as drawings of the double -height tower overpowers the architectural features, which provide important examples of this main block of the building; in addition, tradition are contained in Appendix A. its height (17'-0" AFF or 23'-6" from apex of the pediment to grade) is 4 The examples contained in Appendix A should be used as a guide for building design: the standard of compatibility with the area's accentuated by an elongated multi -light historic structures is not intended to impose a rigid design solution window system that is awkward. The for new development. Replication of the design of the important choice of a brown hue for the accent historic sites in the area is neither intended nor desired. The bricks has no precedent in this region, as Guideline's standard of compatibility can be met through building the clay here — and therefore the scale, materials, and forms which may be embodied in architecture traditional construction material — is which is contemporary as well as traditional. The Guidelines allow bright red. individuality in design to accommodate varying tastes as well as special functional requirements. Compatibility with the character of the Entrance Corridor 5 It is also an important objective of the Guidelines to establish a See above. See above. pattern of compatible architectural characteristics throughout the Entrance Corridor in order to achieve unity and coherence. Building designs should demonstrate sensitivity to other nearby structures within the Entrance Corridor. Where a designated corridor is substantially developed, these Guidelines require striking a careful balance between harmonizing new development with the existing character of the corridor and achieving compatibility with the significant historic sites in the area. Site development and layout 6 Site development should be sensitive to the existing natural The site has been previously cleared, None. landscape and should contribute to the creation of an organized graded, and partially paved. development plan. This may be accomplished, to the extent practical, by preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the area; planting new trees along streets and pedestrian ways and choosing species that reflect native forest elements; insuring that any grading will blend into the surrounding topography thereby creating a continuous landscape; preserving, to the extent practical, existing significant river and stream valleys which may be located on the site and integrating these features into the design of surrounding development; and limiting the building mass and height to a scale that does not overpower the natural settings of the site, or the Entrance Corridor. SPECIFIC GUIDELINES Compatibility with si ni scant historic sites Structure design 9 Building forms and features, including roofs, windows, doors, The use of quoins on the corners of the Eliminate the quoins. materials, colors and textures should be compatible with the forms building (which are staggered) and on and features of the significant historic buildings in the area, the corners of the central entrance Add a rakeboard to the exemplified by (but not limited to) the buildings described in pavilion are an applique part that does cornice in the broken Appendix A [of the design guidelines]. The standard of not well serve the gestalt. Similarly, the pediment. compatibility can be met through scale, materials, and forms which thinness of the cornice in the broken may be embodied in architecture which is contemporary as well as pediment is incongruous with that on the Eliminate the multi -light traditional. The replication of important historic sites in Albemarle main block. "transom" between the County is not the objective of these guidelines. door lintel and fanlight. 10 Buildings should relate to their site and the surrounding context of buildings. 11 The overall design of buildings should have human scale. Scale The overall height of the building is 12'- Reduce the scale of the should be integral to the building and site design. F AFF, which results in an appropriate scale for a commercial building in this central entrance tower so that the AFF does not 12 Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor should use forms, shapes, scale, and materials to create a cohesive whole. setting. The central tower is 17'-0" AFF, exceed 12'-1" (and the which overpowers the main block of the apex of the pediment building. does not exceed 18'-6" from grade). 13 Any appearance of "blankness" resulting from building design The elevations are fenestrated and none Correct the elevation should be relieved using design detail or vegetation, or both. are blank. names on the architectural drawings to reflect the correct cardinal directions. 14 Arcades, colonnades, or other architectural connecting devices No such device is proposed. None. should be used to unify groups of buildings within a development. 15 Trademark buildings and related features should be modified to The overall appearance of the building is See above meet the requirements of the Guidelines. generic and universal, not localized to recommendations. Albemarle County. 16 Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should not be highly tinted or Note has not been provided on the Provide the standard highly reflective. Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should architectural drawings. window glass note on the meet the following criteria: Visible light transmittance (VLT) shall architectural drawings. not drop below 40% Visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not 10 exceed 30916. Specifications on the proposed window glass should be submitted with the application for final review. Accessory structures and equipment 17 Accessory structures and equipment should be integrated into the The three -lane drive -through teller None. overall plan of development and shall, to the extent possible, be windows were approved by a Special compatible with the building designs used on the site. Use Permit in 2006 and have not been significantly altered in the present proposal. The ATM has been changed to a through -the -wall model, but as it's located on the rear (north) elevation, it is unlikely to be visible from the EC and would not constitute an adverse alteration. 18 The following should be located to eliminate visibility from the No site plan has been submitted with this Clarify whether there are Entrance Corridor street. If, after appropriate siting, these features will application; consequently, staff presumes any proposed changes to still have a negative visual impact on the Entrance Corridor street, the applicant will adhere to the approved the approved site screening should be provided to eliminate visibility. a. Loading areas, site development plan. development plan. If so, b. Service areas, c. Refuse areas, d. Storage areas, e. Mechanical submit a revised site plan equipment, f. Above -ground utilities, and g. Chain link fence, for review. barbed wire, razor wire, and similar security fencing devices. 19 Screening devices should be compatible with the design of the buildings and surrounding natural vegetation and may consist of: a. Walls, b. Plantings, and c. Fencing. 20 Surface runoff structures and detention ponds should be designed to fit into the natural topography to avoid the need for screening. When visible from the Entrance Corridor street, these features must be fully integrated into the landscape. They should not have the appearance of engineered features. 21 The following note should be added to the site plan and the architectural plan: "Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated." Lighting No lighting plan was submitted. Submit a lighting plan for final review that includes any proposed wall - mounted lights. Landscaping No landscaping plan was submitted. Clarify whether there are any proposed changes to the approved landscape 11 pIan. If so, submit a revised landscape plan for final review. Site Development and layout Development pattern 39 The relationship of buildings and other structures to the Entrance The site development was approved in None. Corridor street and to other development within the corridor should 2006; since then, the site has been be as follows: cleared, graded, and partially paved for a. An organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike paths, and travelways and parking. Landscaping in pedestrian walks should guide the layout of the site. the median in the north part of the site b. In general, buildings fronting the Entrance Corridor street should and along the EC frontage has been be parallel to the street. Building groupings should be arranged to implemented. The site plan shows an parallel the Entrance Corridor street. organized pattern of service drives with c. Provisions should be made for connections to adjacent pedestrian parking relegated behind the building, and vehicular circulation systems. which fronts (and is parallel to) the EC. d. Open spaces should be tied into surrounding areas to provide continuity within the Entrance Corridor. e. If significant natural features exist on the site (including creek valleys, steep slopes, significant trees or rock outcroppings), to the extent practical, then such natural features should be reflected in the site layout. If the provisions of Section 32.5.6.n of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance apply, then improvements required by that section should be located so as to maximize the use of existing features in screening such improvements from Entrance Corridor streets. f. The placement of structures on the site should respect existing views and vistas on and around the site. Site Grading 40 Site grading should maintain the basic relationship of the site to The site has been previously cleared, None. surrounding conditions by limiting the use of retaining walls and by graded, and partially paved. shaping the terrain through the use of smooth, rounded land forms that blend with the existing terrain. Steep cut or fill sections are generally unacceptable. Proposed contours on the grading plan shall be rounded with a ten foot minimum radius where they meet the adjacent condition. Final grading should achieve a natural, rather than engineered, appearance. Retaining walls 6 feet in height and taller, when necessary, shall be terraced and planted to blend with the landscape. 12 41 No grading, trenching, or tunneling should occur within the drip line of any trees or other existing features designated for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness. Adequate tree protection fencing should be shown on, and coordinated throughout, the grading, landscaping and erosion and sediment control plans. 42 Areas designated for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness should be clearly delineated and protected on the site prior to any grading activity on the site. This protection should remain in place until completion of the development of the site. 43 Preservation areas should be protected from storage or movement of heavy equipment within this area. 44 Natural drainage patterns (or to the extent required, new drainage patterns) should be incorporated into the finished site to the extent possible. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. The spirit of guideline # 1, especially as it relates to the mandate that "new development within the corridors reflect[] the traditional architecture of the area" while not "replicat[ing] ... historic structures." 2. The merits of the approved design versus the current proposal, which was rejected by a prior A". Staff offers two recommendations: 1. Move forward with the design approved in February 2007. 2. Revise the current design as follows: 1. Remove the shutters. Make all four windows on the south elevation (fagade) doubled for consistent symmetry. 2. Reduce the scale of the central entrance tower so that the AFF does not exceed 12'-1" (and the apex of the pediment does not exceed 18'-6" from grade. 3. Use a brick palette with a more traditional, redder hue. 4. Eliminate the quoins. 5. Add a rakeboard to the cornice in the broken pediment. 6. Eliminate the multi -light "transom" between the door lintel and fanlight. 7. Correct the elevation names on the architectural drawings to reflect the correct cardinal directions.. 13 8. Provide the standard window glass note on the architectural drawings: Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should meet the following criteria: Visible light transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 40%. Visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%. Specifications on the proposed window glass should be submitted with the application for final review. 9. Clarify whether there are any proposed changes to the approved site development plan. If so, submit a revised site plan for review. 10. Submit a lighting plan for final review that includes any proposed wall -mounted lights. 11. Clarify whether there are any proposed changes to the approved landscape plan. If so, submit a revised landscape plan for final review. TABLE A This report is based on the following submittal items: Sheet # rawing Name Drawing Date/Revision Date ELI.1 Amended Elevations (East and North) 11/7/17 ELL2 Amended Elevations (West and South) 11/7/17 14 ATTACHMENT A Al COUNTY OF ALBE11ARLE Department of Coin munity Development 4DI 11cIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296 5832 Fax (434) 9724012 September 27, 2006 Weather Hill Development LLC 703 East Jefferson St Charlotten lle, VA 22902 RE: AR13-2006-105 and -106: Birchwood Place Preliminary Re�-inv of a Site Development Plan-, advisory review for a Special Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness for a Sign (Tax Nlap 56A2, Section 1, Parcel 30) To Whom It May. Concern: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Sward, at its meeting on September 19, 2006, completed a preliminary review of the above -noted request- The Board took the following actions - Regarding the Special Use Permit the Sward by a vote of 3 :0, forwarded the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: The ARB has no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit, with the following conditions: 1- Provide a raw of evergreen shrubs along the eastern boundary line, from the southeast comer of the property behind the sign for a distance of 120' along the eastern property line, to farm a hedge that will screen views of the drive-thru use- Planting freight shall be 30"- Mature height shall be a minimum ofV_ 2- Provide 3 'A inch caliper large shade trees, 35 feet on center, parallel to the EC street- Remove the water easement from the planting strip along the EC or guarantee that street trees will remain- If utilities conflict with the EC trees, increase the depth of the planting area to avoid conflicts. Regardingthe Preliminary Site Plan, the Board made the following comments and suggestions for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal - Provide elevations that are correctly identified and coded for all proposed materials and colors - Rev ise the bank building so that it meets the EC guidelines, reflects significant historic architecture in all of its aspects, and relates to the architecture of Crozet_ Replace the tall, center entrance farm in the front (south) bank elevation with a design more in keeping with the traditional nature of the building - Eliminate the highly contrasting brick forms and louvered shutters- The piers of the drive through canopy shall be brick on all faces and should be made wider on the north elevation. The front 15 ARE 2006-105 & -106 Birchwood Place Page 2 September 27, 2W6 entrance could be a hipped form maintaining the cornice line of the existing building. 3- Provide proposed building material samples and colors for the bank and office building- 4- Provide a drawing of the left side west} elevation of the office building at the rear of the site- s- Provide details conceming the proposed materials, colors, and method of construction for all proposed dumpster screens- Demonstrate that the roof units proposed for the office building %%ill not be visible from the EC- Indicate the method of screening proposed for the ITVAC units adjacent to the bank building- Include proposed materials, colors, and method of construction- 6. the landscape plan to show the final planting design for the joint storm water facility- The design should help the facility to look more natural in its environment. 7- Revise the site plan to show proposed retaining wall materials and heights for the full letxgth of the wall- Provide details on the appearance of the guardrails. 8- Revise the landscape plan to indicate exactly which plant species is proposed for each proposed location- Coordinate species with the U-5- Joiner trees- Make sure that proposed shrubs used to screen views of parking areas are predominately evergreen in type- Provide a row of evergreen shrubs along the eastern boundary line from the southeast comer of the property behind the sign fear a distance of 120' along the eastern property line, to harm a hedge that ix-M to screen views of the drive -thin use - Provide 3 1/2 inch caliper shade trees, 35 feet on center, parallel to the EC street- Add shrubs in the island at the entrance into the shopping center site. Add trees in pairs across the travel way along the west side of the site as indicated on the plan that was marked up at the meeting- 9- Provide a lighting photometric plan, and cutsheets- Include a luminaire schedule of all proposed exterior Bighting on the photometric plan- Indicate in the schedule all lighting options chosen, and the colors proposed for the fixtures and poles - 10. Regarding signs, colors for the lower panel shall be limited to maroon (PMS 209), gold nugget (PIT 450), or black- 11. Regarding external illumination of the sign, choose an alternate light fixture that emits less than 3,000 lumens- Rev.ise the finish to bronze. You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience- Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on-line at u-ww-albemarle-org/planning- Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required- Please include a memo outlining how each comment has been addressed. It clianges other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also - If you have any questions concerning any of the above- please feel free to call me- Sincerely - Brent W. Nelson Landscape Planner Planninii Division BV7 W'aer c: File David E- Pennock Us ATTACHMENT B 'Al ej COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 4013vic1ntire Road, Room 227 CharlotteWfflf, Virginia 222902-4596 Phone (434) 296 —1;832 Fax (4341972-4012 December 4, 2006 Weather Hill Development LLC 703 East Jefferson St Charlottesville VA 22902 RE: ARB-206-124: Birchwood Place- Final Review of a Site Development Plan (Tax Map 056A2, Section 01, Parcel 30) To Whom It May. Concern: The Albemarle County Architectural Review. Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday, November 20, 2006_ The Board unanimously approved the certificate of appropriateness for ARB-2006-124, Birchwood Place, pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions= 1 _ Revise the landscape plan to clearly denote the location of each proposed species. ') Provide elevations that are fully coded for all proposed materials and colors- 3- Provide a sample of the morta- --olor `'iat is proposed for the bank building. Indicate if the mortar color shown in the office bu::ditia br.zk sample is to be used or provide a sample ofthe one that is proposed_ Provide product IDs for all samples_ 4- Rev. ise the color of the dumpster enclosure to a medium dark earth tone color- Add a note to the site plan indicating the pantone color chosen and."or provide a sample_ For the bank building, provide information detailing the height of all proposed HYAC equipment in relation to the height of the proposed brick %mll enclosure- 5- Provide the paint or dye pantone color (andicT sample) that is proposed for the retaining wall. The color shall be a dark earthtome_ 6_ Provide a 4' long segment of wall as a terminus to the long retaining wall and to receive;''hide the end of the ward rail_ The tall wall segment is assumed to be the same formed concrete as wall below. 7- Re-.-ise tY e landscape plan to identify the species of US Joiner trees and shrub and coordinate the Birch;,.--ood piaritrngs with the US Joiner plantings. Provide additional Densa Itikberr-;• Hallies along the side of the parking space closest to the EC. Provide shrubbery ai the islands adjacent to the s center entrance_ 17 ARB 20[16w124 Bxchwced Place Page 2 of December4, 2006 The two front pole fixtures shall be reduced in height to 15 % if passible- If the height reduction would require an additional fixture, the two 20' high fixtures shall be maintained- Re�dse proposed light pale/ tree locations north and west of the bank- and west of the office building to avoid conflicts between them- Revise the lighting schedule to indicate the proposed color chosen for all light EKWres and light poles (dark bronze recommended)- Provide an alternate light source for the monument sign that either falls under the 3-000 initial lumen threshold, or is contained within a full cutoff stele fixture- 9- Add anote to both the landscape and lighting plans stating the following: 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- 10- Add additional weight in the form of molding at the rake in the pediment at the front door. Please provide: 1- Two full sets ofrev ised drawings addressing each of these conditions- Include updated ARl3 revision dates on each drawing- 2- A memo including detailed responses indicating haw 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 draining with "clouding„ or by other means will facilitate re�,iew and approval- 3- The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form- This form must be returned kAth your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution - When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you hay.e any questions- please do not hesitate to contact me - Sincerely: Brent W. Nelson Landscape Planner Planniniz Division B ' N/aer Cc: Weather Hill Development (Office Building) and P�4F�ell (Sank Bldg) 109 Zeta Drive, Pittsburg, PA 152.38 David E_ Pennock File 18