ARB forwards Arbor Oaks townhome site plan with conditions on planting, layout and sidewalk

The Albemarle County Architecture Review Board on Dec. 16 forwarded the Arbor Oaks Townhomes initial site plan to the county site review committee, asking the applicant to document landscape conflicts, consider layout changes to increase planting area along the Hydraulic Road entrance corridor, and explore allowing the existing sidewalk to remain to preserve mature oak trees.

The board’s action followed a staff recommendation not to approve the initial site plan at this time because proposed frontage planting does not meet the entrance corridor guidelines. Staff said the plan locates townhouses close to Hydraulic Road so most elevations would face the corridor, and that an existing overhead line and a proposed ten‑foot electrical easement limit planting area required for large shade trees.

"Staff will not recommend approval of the initial site plan at this time," the staff presentation concluded, noting conflicts with the frontage planting area and recommending the layout be revised to provide clear planting area free of utility and easement conflicts. Keturah Rowell, representing the applicant, said the team will submit architectural elevations and a planting plan to address the issues. "We will submit architectural plans to show the front facades and the sides as they approach so that, it has a good appearance," Rowell said.

Board members pressed the applicant for more documentation of existing trees and planting conflicts and discussed site adjustments to preserve trees while meeting open‑space requirements. Dave Vanderwerff, an ARB member, asked whether the eastward townhouse block could be moved to create space for street trees. "Have you given any consideration to how and whether that could be accommodated?" Vanderwerff asked.

Several members emphasized the importance of treating end units that face the entrance corridor as true front facades if planting cannot meet the guidelines. "It'll be important that those are treated as front facades," Tara, an ARB member, said, noting that end elevations often are neglected on townhouse blocks but will be visible along the corridor. Frank Stoner added that preserving the existing oak canopy would help mitigate the facade and planting limitations: "I would be just interested to see if those trees could be saved because I think they're gonna mitigate some of that."

The applicant described engineering constraints that influence the layout, including a stormwater basin and the need for sight distance on Hydraulic Road. Rowell said planned stormwater piping and pervious pavers help manage runoff but that the overhead utility easement and required sight‑distance clearances limit planting opportunities. She noted VDOT sight‑distance requirements on Hydraulic Road — a factor the applicant said restricts low plantings within the frontage clearance. At one point Rowell said the sidewalk must be moved back with a planting strip and a five‑foot sidewalk, which would further encroach into the site and require removing mature oaks along the frontage unless alternatives are approved.

Board members and the applicant discussed possible layout changes to increase planting area, including swapping narrower or atypical units to the constrained corner (for example, relocating a smaller duplex to the problematic corner so larger planting could be provided elsewhere), and shifting lots where open‑space configuration allows. The applicant said some units will be duplex or stacked configurations to meet open‑space requirements and that design changes could include patios and terraces to take advantage of distant mountain views.

The ARB’s amended recommendation, which the board voted to forward to the site review committee, asked the applicant to: provide a plan that shows all existing trees along the frontage and all features that result in landscape conflicts; consider switching Lot 5 for Lots 12 and 13 or other layout changes to increase planting area along the entrance corridor; and consider allowing the existing sidewalk to remain if that would facilitate preservation of existing frontage trees. The motion to forward the recommendations passed unanimously.

The board noted it will review final site‑plan submittal and architectural elevations at a later date. Staff indicated that county reviewers’ comments for this round were due later that week and that the lead planner would coordinate responses and next steps.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to forward staff recommendations (amended to include tree documentation, layout consideration, and exploring keeping existing sidewalk) to the agent for the site review committee: Mover — Tara (ARB member); Second — Chair (unnamed). Vote: 6‑0 (Ayes: Henningsen; Hancock; Stoner; Mitsuno; Vanderwerff; Chair). Outcome: approved.

Context and next steps

ARB staff did not recommend approval of the initial plan at this time; the board’s recommendations were intended to guide the applicant’s revisions for the final site plan and certificate of appropriateness review. The applicant will supply an exhibit documenting tree locations and conflicts, architectural elevations for end units facing Hydraulic Road, and an updated planting plan for the next review.