Architectural Review Board Meeting   12/7/2020

Yes, I am.

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, it's just a pair before one.

So we'll say it's one and call to order the December 7th, 2020 meeting of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board.

This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with Ordinance 2814 and ordinance to ensure the continuity of government during the COVID-19 disaster.

We have a quorum present.

Architectural Review Board members present electronically are myself, Frank Stoner, Fred Missel, and Frank Hancock.

There are opportunities for public access to this meeting posted on the county's website and calendar.

Public has real-time audiovisual access to this meeting over Zoom and real-time audio access over the phone, notice that's provided in the lawfully posted meeting notice.

This meeting is being recorded and will be made available on the county's website.

This online meeting and any associated chats

are a public record and are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

We have a number of applicants and project representatives attending today.

Carolyn Shaffer, our recording student secretary, may need to contact you during this meeting, so please check the chat box and respond as necessary.

For all speakers, when it's your turn to speak, please first state your name for the record.

And for those participating when you're not speaking, please keep your microphone muted.

For applicants making presentations, no presentation will be limited to a total of 15 minutes, which you can divide them on team members.

Carolyn will let us know when the time is up.

So we'll move on to the disclosures.

No.

No disclosures.

Great.

And it's not on our official agenda, but the next item will be public comment.

We're going to permit that as well at the electronic meetings.

Okay.

Thank you, Carolyn.

We have nothing on the consent agenda or work session, so we'll move to the regular review items.

We have three items scheduled for regular review today.

Chris Taggart and Margaret Maliszewski from the Planning Division of Community Development will be presenting these items today.

The first item is ARB 2020-108 Airport Road Cheats Final Site Plan.

Yes, thanks, Dave.

How about now?

I think that's it.

The application I'm presenting on today is the review of the architecture and final site plan to construct a fuel station that includes a convenient store, fuel pump canopy, and a car wash in addition to associated site improvements.

They have subject properties located on the northwest corner of the Route 29 Airport Road intersection.

The ARB did not recommend approval of the initial site plan during the June 1st ARB meeting, primarily due to the proposed locations of the store building and fuel pump canopy.

A work session was held on July 6 regarding the issues identified with the site plan, where the ARB determined that the general site layout originally proposed was susceptible.

The revised initial site plan was approved by the ARB on September 21st.

The landscape plan has been revised to show additional ornamental trees along the Route 29 airport road frontages along the north end of the car wash travelway in between the stormwater feature visible from Route 29 in the adjacent site.

Around the proposed stormwater features, additional shrubs and ornamentals have been provided to better integrate the features into the site.

Regarding the fuel pump canopy, the roof design has been revised so that the tallest side faces the store building.

On the store side of the canopy, the height is just over 21 feet.

On the Route 29 side, the height is just over 18 feet, six inches taller than the guidelines maximum.

Staff is recommending that the canopy be reduced overall by six inches to meet the 17 foot, six inch maximum requirement.

Regarding the site lighting, the lighting plan has been revised so the fuel pump canopy lighting does not exceed 30 foot candles and the remaining site lighting does not exceed 20 foot candles.

However, a maintenance factor of less than one is used for canopy building and site lighting.

Staff is recommending that the lighting plan be revised to use maintenance factors of at least one and ensure that the maximum foot candle value does not exceed 30 foot candles under the canopy and 20 foot candles everywhere else on site.

Further changes have been made to the architectural design with this submission.

Store elevations visible from Airport Road have been revised to extend its stone veneer from the west elevation around the corner to a portion of the south elevation.

However, the southwest corner still has an uncoordinated appearance because the material is not consistent throughout that building element.

So staff is recommending to continue the stone veneer on all three sides of the bump out and to make the height of the tire bump out consistent to establish a more cohesive appearance when viewing the west and south elevations together.

Regarding the elevations visible from Route 29,

The windows on this elevation north of the entrance have been extended down to the cast stone seal and are now consistent with storefront windows on the south elevation.

However, no changes have been made to the tower.

When viewed from both Route 29 northbound and Airport Road, the bump aisle on the southwest corner of the store is more prominent than the tower.

Revising the tower to be checked out from the elevation and increasing its height relative to the southwest corner would achieve a more traditional appearance and increase the tower's prominence.

Regarding the car wash and associated equipment, details of air pumps and vacuums have been provided, but the locations have not been indicated on the site plan.

The equipment will need to be located to eliminate visibility and screen with landscaping invisible from the entrance quarter.

Regarding the signage, the monument signage has been revised to incorporate the sheet signage with the base and gas pricing, resulting in a more appropriate appearance.

However, the architectural drawings still show cabinet-style signs along the east and south elevations of the store building and along the north, south, and east elevations of the fuel pump canopy.

While signage is reviewed and approved with a separate application, staff interprets the guidelines to mean cabinet-style signs are not approvable for wall signage.

However, if the ARB has an alternate interpretation, it would help the future sign review process if we can have that information today.

Lastly, the design appears to propose four colors, reducing the number of colors proposed in the signs to a maximum of three would be appropriate.

Staff is recommending approval of the final site plans with the revisions detailed in the staff report.

Staff is also recommending that the issue of the design in the southwest corner be reviewed by the ARB during a future work session prior to final approval.

Thank you, Chris.

Thanks, Chris.

No, I don't have any questions at this time.

No, I don't have any either.

Okay, thank you.

A very good report, Chris, none for me either.

Hey, good afternoon, everybody.

It's Lee May, Engineering Permit Manager with Sheets.

It's good to see everybody again.

I will share my screen for a quick presentation.

Hopefully everybody can see my screen with the site plan.

So kind of a few changes here where we did what we could to move the building closer to Airport Road.

As Chris mentioned in his report, we moved it several feet closer.

The reason we were kind of up against a turning radius for the delivery trucks and that made it difficult to bring those parking spaces and drive out further down.

Also mentioned that, of course, I'm going to zoom in a little bit here.

For some of the elements on the site, we have

Our car wash teller is back here, which we'll see later.

The car wash menu board is right next to that.

And an admission on the drawing was the air and vac station as well.

Of course, we have the drive-through elements, we have the order point, and then the order board for the drive-through.

Moving on to the next one.

What do we do now?

I'm going to hit the lighting real quick.

If needed, we could pull in our lighting.

I could dial in our lighting designer, but as Chris just mentioned, the LLF or the light loss factor, what the way it was described or explained to me is because this tends to be more of a focus on prior lighting technology, particularly when a lot of site lights were done with metal halide.

in the case here.

So we have a lot less of light loss due to the light degradation or aging of the luminaire or for dirt degradation as a limiting factor.

So with LED lights, they were explaining that the LATF is really a more accurate LATF

would be the number we really should be looking at because with the modern LED light, that is the number that we use because there's a lot less degradation or loss of lighting because of dirt and the aging of the lamp.

Then also the ballast was historically factored into the LOF and the LATF would eliminate that.

So if necessary, I could have our lighting designer better explain that at a much more technical level, but I just wanted to point that out.

Jumping back to the, and of course, as Chris mentioned, we did reduce all of the foot candles to be less than 30 under the canopy, as well as the balance of the site.

Moving on to the building elevations.

I apologize.

Graphics card seems a little slow with these larger drawing files.

Oh, what we did is, of course, from our previous, I know you guys have seen these elevations multiple times, but from our initial design, our canopy or the tower that we refer to here was

initially 25 feet.

We're up to 31 and a half feet now, so we've raised it quite a bit as well as the pitch on the roof to make it a little more prominent feature.

On the, I'll call it the airport elevation, this lower elevation, we extended the cultured stone around from the rear elevation at the drive-through to give it that more cohesive look wrapping the corner as was pointed out on that perspective view.

and I also saw there was some comments about the tower not being as prominent.

I wanted to make sure it was clear with these and it's a little hard at this scale with the tower view of the vest, the tower in the plan view.

So I did a little blow up here to kind of illustrate this better.

The tower, we took it from being in the same plane as the adjacent wall to extend

pumping it out 18 inches to give more of that three-dimensional depth and make the tower more prominent.

So that would help.

And then, of course, as Chris mentioned, we also dropped the windows down to the wainscote across the front elevation.

And we wrapped, and I'll jump to the next elevation, we wrapped the front elevation around the right side with the stone there as well.

which would be shown in this elevation.

Just pointing out some of the other items, we have two ice machines shown.

We normally have two on that front elevation.

We move one around to the right side.

These are the propane lockers.

Again, this is on the right side that really just faces the drive-through.

Beyond that, it's a slope or a grade up.

And then beyond that is the VDOT stormwater pond.

So these won't be really visible by, mostly just our drive-through vendor customers will see those.

Going back, also want to apologize for jumping back and forth.

I probably should have combined these two drawings onto one, but a couple other things I wanted to point out on that elevation that after looking at the staff report was also on the front elevation, we have some decorative fencing.

I'll let it catch up.

Let's kind of give a division because we don't put a curb in, so we like to give a visual delineation between the sidewalk and the parking spaces.

We have some bollard lights.

This item here in this, I'll call it the left of center, we have a display.

It's for windshield washing, fluid, and it's roughly about three feet high or equal to the height of the Wayne's Cove.

and we did leave one ice machine here.

When I say an ice machine, it's really just a freezer to hold the ice for customers to pick up.

We thought we'd really like you to consider what we could do to keep at least one of them on the front elevation because this is important.

It's actually one of our most popular scan and go items because the convenience to the customer to not have to walk around the side of the building and carry a couple bags of ice out to their car.

We would be open to maybe some other colors to make it a little softer or blend into the view here.

Again, this is behind the canopy, which is behind a lot of landscaping.

So we don't think it's going to be that prominent from the street view.

Oh, and again,

Just to reiterate, normally we would have a roof screen over to hide the rooftop equipment.

We've extended the power pit several feet to avoid the need of a roof screen.

So all the rooftop equipment is screened.

And if you have a closer view, you can see the outline of that equipment on the roof so that it's well screened.

And due to the grades, it'll be even further enhanced by the difference in elevations.

For the canopy, we did lower our canopy down to the 14 foot, six inch maximum clearance under the canopy.

I think it might be something of an interpretation of the guidelines and requirements for the canopy.

Of course, the big change here was making the low side facing the Route 29

Entrance Corridor.

And this was a big change for us.

We pretty much flipped it from what was initially proposed.

Of course, the last time we came back with it being flat.

So this actually takes those lighting on the underside of the canopy and actually tilts it even further away from the corridor.

Zooming in here, we do understand the 14 foot, 6 inches, which we have for clearance to the bottom of the truss.

My take on that, the fascia is limited to 36 inches height, which we're at one foot, 10 inches for our fascia.

It's by design or the nature of the open truss that this elevation from the top of the canopy to the bottom of the truss is going to be just over three and a half feet versus the 36 inches.

So just like to point that out and hopefully we can get some clarification with our discussion to follow.

For the car wash, no significant changes.

We did add the signage in detail.

Most of these are actually mounted on the building would be facing the opposite direction of the corridor as the customer approaches the entrance to the car wash.

And just to reiterate a few earlier review comments, not this time, but this elevation has provided a lot of landscaping to really screen and minimize the impact of the view from Car Wash from Airport Road.

For these site elements, as I pointed those out on the

Drawing, of course, we're limiting the colors here to the black background, two colors, the dark bronze uprights.

The car wash machine, this is just facing the person as they prior to them entering the wash.

It was kind of about vending machines.

We don't really have any things offered through a vending machine on the exterior views.

And then we have our air machine, which we have free air for customers as well as a vacuum.

And I think all the drive-thru elements, of course, have been changed.

We had initially proposed these to be red and with multiple colors on the signs where everything will be dark bronze, so it'll be very discreet.

Really only noticeable primarily it's for the drive-thru customer.

and of course the drive-through details.

I apologize, I wanna go back to one more thing I failed to point out when we were looking at the building.

When you're looking at the southern elevation, which faces Airport Road, just a little more clarification on this view.

I apologize.

This lower elevation, which faces Airport Road, if we zoom in closer,

and this is probably in part by design, the left dark bronze rectangle, that is a service door.

And then it's by design that it's dark bronze, it's not meant to draw attention, it's just for service, particularly if somebody had to come out to a drive-through customer or something.

The other item is right next to that, that is a dark bronze cabinet that conceals our

cooking oil, which we have what's called bulk oil.

And this is used in the cooking for the fryers.

And this is where that oil was stored in a small cabinet here.

So I wanted to point that out.

I think there was some comments and they might not have been real clear looking at the drawings.

And we looked at other locations for that, but because of the location of the fryer and the store, we're limited to the distance that that can be from the

Sores.

So just looking at the floor tonight real quick.

That cabinet is here on the side.

And of course, across the top is the back drive-through elevation.

And the fryers are right here above the work kitchen.

So that is why the distance there.

I went through that very quickly.

So with anybody else on the sheets, team, Jamie, any thoughts?

I've

I think that was good, Lee.

Good update.

I think we do have some comments on the staff recommendations.

I'll ask my fellow board members.

Anybody need additional information on that?

I don't.

Great.

We would be happy to address your question.

Sure.

I don't know, Lee, if you addressed this in your comments, but if you did forgive me, I missed it.

But it's related to one of the staff comments and it's specific to the cabinet style signs.

Yes, to be honest with you, our focus was knowing that there was a separate ARB review and approval of the signs.

We didn't include a lot of details for the signage.

Like for example, we did include a monument sign, which Chris mentioned, which this

would be a cabinet-style sign because these fuel prices are controlled, not actually at the store.

Somebody doesn't go out there and change the numbers every day.

It's done electronically, remotely.

So that, by the mechanics of that display, and that would still be a cabinet time.

We understand that it would have to be at nighttime,

All this red area you see would be opaque and you'd really just see the white letters for the fuel price.

And so for that, now back to the building, we're certainly able to do a, when we say cabinet style, I always think of that to mean it's a cabinet built to hold internal light, the lighting and the wiring for that sign.

We can certainly,

OK, great.

Great, thank you.

And then the only other thing was the view of the west elevation from Airport Road, which I know is one of the concerns of staff.

You know, it dawns on me, I guess, that the car wash is actually probably going to be blocking some of that view.

and I don't know if this is really a question or not, but when you pull up your perspective views from Airport Road looking back, it seems to me that the angle is pretty oblique.

In other words, you're looking in a way that would give you the probably longest exposure of the west elevation.

And I'm just trying to get my head around how much of that elevation is gonna be blocked

by the car wash.

Yeah.

I hate to quote a number, but I'll take a quick peek here.

Okay, so that image just answered two questions for me.

It's actually extending, it's proud of the southern entrance or the southern facade, right?

I'm not doing a good job of mentioning it, but this

This right here, I don't know if you can see that on my drawing, but this area in front of the front southern facade of the car wash is proud of the southern facade of the main building.

OK, thank you.

That's all I needed.

Yeah, if I understood, this view probably describes it best.

And that's the view without the trees.

Okay.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Fred.

Lee, just one question about the stone rack at the drive-through there and how that terminates into the brick.

There's no, I don't think there's any offset.

That's correct.

And then one other question, just to sign orientation again, you guys are going to submit a separate application, but

It looks like the current spine is designed to align maybe with the outside of the window.

It's not centered in the tower itself.

And it's not centered on the window.

We can certainly center that.

We'll correct that detail and make sure it's centered.

Hey Lee, this is Tom.

Can you bring up that floor plan with the fryer grease tank you had up there before?

Yes.

Yeah.

We have a bump out.

Yeah.

I see.

And there's a bump out down at the main vestibule.

You see that?

What's the bump out on the northeast corner there?

We usually go about four more inches out, because that's the reason.

When we have a drive-through store, it adds seven square feet to the base.

And the seven square feet is the thickness of the stone that bumps out from the brick.

I see.

And this one, the square footage, of course, will be larger because we have the bump out of the tower, which is not normal for our other stores.

That's great.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Frank.

Yes.

Thank you, Lee.

One question about the window glass, looking at the east elevation, it's rendered differently at the, I guess the door that's at the northeast corner versus the rest of the windows are kind of rendered almost bronze.

Well, you've got a sharp eye.

I don't notice that that much.

That wasn't the intent.

Oh, I see.

Yeah.

Could be.

To all the glazing, all the windows are the same.

Yes, yes.

And then curious, what other colors does the ice machine come in?

Well, we would have to come up with some other options, but my thought would be maybe like a tan.

Of course we could, but we'd like to consider that we have lots of landscaping, parking,

Dr. Vile, then the canopy, then additional parking right up against the building.

And these spaces are the ones that are most frequently used.

Yeah, we could certainly do that.

Okay, thank you.

I don't have any more questions.

Yeah, just one more thing on the ice chest.

We do wrap them separately.

Thank you, Frank.

Well, Lee, thank you for the presentation.

I guess my first question really concerns the tower.

Appreciate staff's comments to see whether it can be more of a traditional tower form and also whether it can be more prominent.

I think not only in height.

I know you spoke about height, but also in terms of its position and depth of the facade right now, it's behind the cooking oil, the service door and the takeout bump.

And so I don't think the hierarchy is

Quite working.

And just would it be feasible, for example, you know, leaving the vestibule glazing where it is to bring the corners of the tower out to the south so they were parallel with the south projection or in plane with the south projection of the drive through area and then similarly to expand the eastern wall of the tower out, I guess, almost to the edge of the curb.

So for that, I would look at the site plan.

So effectively, if three of its four corners landed outside and at the south, they landed so that they were parallel to or slightly proud of the drive-through and at the east.

Similarly, I think that, and just speculating out loud, that might allow that form to have a similar width to the takeout bay so that they'd be

similar in elevation that way, but then the tower by being taller would clearly have some hierarchy and prominence that I think right now, because it's set further back, it isn't quite getting.

So Lee, for example, if you expanded that square back to the apparent corner of the- Like there or?

Right, in terms of the roof form of the tower, would that be feasible?

There would be rather large vestibule and of course, well, to eliminate the sidewalk around the front of the building, that would be a concern because we don't really have room to make this sidewalk that much larger with

Effectively take up at least one of the tables.

We'd be down to maybe two smaller tables for a patio.

I think it would be easier to maybe a little more practical to raise the tower height rather than give it such a large footprint.

Yeah, or if, for example, the piers of the tower were to come down, or if the tower expanded slightly more so that the sidewalk could go under it.

I'm not proposing that you make the vestibule larger, just find a way to express the tower form.

And in fact, the vestibule could get smaller.

And I'm sorry to speculate so explicitly about what might solve it, but I know we've been talking about how the tower form could be more prominent in almost all the reviews.

I see what you mean.

And of course,

Tom Columbus is our architect.

Yeah, I'm almost sensing that it might be like kind of under the sidewalk would be open.

Right.

Or how about this?

Well, I appreciate you considering it.

I think it could be worth considering.

I think right now, as staff have noted, sort of the car wash is closest to Airport Road, then the cooking oil, then the

the takeout area, and then the tower.

So I think to the extent this might allow the tower to come at least parallel to the cooking oil, I think it could address those comments.

Let's see.

I think that was really the primary issue I was concerned with.

Are there any of the, and I appreciated your presentation, Lee, so I don't have anything further at this time.

No, there aren't.

I got the sense that they had some specific feedback for us or regarding the staff comments.

Okay.

Certainly.

Sorry.

I thought that was part of the presentation, but please go ahead.

I just want to confirm or maybe get some acknowledgement that the intent of the staff comments number one has been with us since the first meeting.

And it's not like we're trying to not take your feedback.

And we are literally taking the board's feedback from meeting one to meeting two to the workshop to today's meeting.

So when we talk about the tower, we had a lot of positive feedback last time that we

that the tower came from 28 feet now to 31 feet, six inches, that the Mapes canopy, which was outlined there, that was more hidden, was enlarged to get closer to Airport Road.

And so I guess if we're saying it's just not enough with respect to comment one, I just wanna understand

Honestly, we're trying.

And we've added stone to add to the tower feature.

We've pushed the building back to accommodate some, or sorry, we pulled the building closer to airport to have the sense of tower closer to the road.

We also talked about the moving the seating, which from the

29 side to the airport side, which while everyone was a good idea, that made the math harder to accomplish now because that sidewalk got bigger, right?

So it's intuitive that the seating is on airport, the more sensitive the two corridor, the more where the kitchen is, where the outside seating is, where the inside seating is.

And so now like we're up against that another two feet.

And that's really what we're like talking about here with respect to making sure that the carwash is more proud than the

Airport side of the building.

Does that make sense?

And my comments are not meant to suggest that you haven't been responsive.

I think just feeling like it would be helpful to consider still further another way to resolve that staff comment.

I don't know that, at least in my perspective, but that's again, why we're gonna have a discussion with the board.

I don't know that other members feel the same way.

Okay.

I don't know that,

I got you.

Thank you.

I got you.

Yep.

And so I don't know when the appropriate time is to go through these 14.

There are definitely some that we can fully agree with and sign up for.

So one, I think, is what we're talking about.

That's clear.

If the larger board will take into that consideration, that further discussion.

Number two, I think Lee was going to talk about number two.

And this one we have a question on ourselves.

Yeah, so I had a lot of conversation with our glazing supplier.

And we're running into an issue with meeting some of the energy code requirements that he's trying to work through this.

Since this is a, I refer to this as more of a technical item.

It's not going to affect the layout of the site or really

for our configuration of the elevations or their real appearance.

Is there a way that we could maybe make that a condition of an approval so that we can have the technical part worked out between our glass supplier and the staff for that review?

Yes, I think that's the intent of this is if we gave you a certificate of appropriateness with this comment, then you could satisfy this requirement

with staff.

Okay.

And then similarly for the standard window glass note, we will make sure that's prominent on all the drawings.

And then for, we'll identify, make sure these are all these elements on the site are better detailed on all future site plans and, you know, like the vending machines, but air pumps and

Ballards, lights, everything like that.

Then we're back to number five.

We can maybe have a little more discussion on the board's thoughts on the ice machine and being relocated to the right side of the store.

If there's any way we might be able to have a compromise with something that would be palatable for the board for one of the vending ice machines, rather, to remain on the front of the

Well, it sounds like you've outlined the possibility of the color.

Okay.

And of course, number six, we'll certainly make sure that mechanical equipment note, if it's different than the one we showed, we'll make sure we get the most current one on all those drawings and on the site plan as well.

Number seven looks just more like a guidance comment.

We'll certainly make sure we add the tree protection on the grading and sediment erosion control drawings.

And number eight, for the canopy and the six inches, I went through it pretty quick.

Was it clear what the way we were trying, I think we were trying to make the standard guideline fit are probably more unique

Canopy, where it looks like that was intended to be more for the typical flat gas canopy and limit the fascia size to 36 inches.

Last time we discussed the

Rigid, rigid may be the wrong word, but the black and white ordinance says 14.6, fascia is 36 inches, that's what the ordinance says, what the design guidelines say, you add the two together, you get 17.6, where we're adding the truss element, we're adding, quite frankly, a fascia that is two thirds less than the maximum fascia, we're adding the sloped

Canopy, so I'm not sure the 17.6 absolute number is really what we're wanting to be measured up against.

And I think last time, you know, once we said, hey, yeah, maybe the flat, our flat canopy is not what we want to see, you know, yeah, the pitch adds some height to whereas the absolute top of the canopy now is 21 feet, five and sixteenths inches.

And I think nine, you know, perhaps it's just clarifying that we would like to use the LATF, which is more applicable for our type of lights than the LLF.

And otherwise, nine is

which we do have room, there's room up there to move that tree and really clear that pipe.

And then 12 we understand is a part of the template comments.

And then 13, we just like to see something more along the lines of

All cabinet style signs must have opaque backgrounds because I think the design guidelines do allow for cabinet signs and whether they be whether they have opaque backgrounds or whether they be externally illuminated and it seems the first sentence of 13 seems we wouldn't want to go and say yes we understand signs are approved at a different board meeting with different applications and then have to see this absolute first sentence to 13 saying eliminate.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

And I know we're maybe merging a little bit on a work session.

I appreciate you highlighting those concerns.

I guess I have one question that relates to the canopy height and I guess the practical implications for sheets of dropping at six inches.

So you'd be dropping the 14 six, I guess, to 14.

Is that correct?

And is that just a clearance concern?

I think it's how we're trying to make the guidelines adapt to our design.

Whether this is 14.6 or 10.6, this dimension is still going to be more than 36 inches.

And so the actual fascia is just under two feet at one foot, 10 inches.

This truss design, I mean, we can't just simply take that away.

It's actually structurally part of the design.

So this is where I think the, why this guideline doesn't fit this type of design.

See this dimension, we go from 18 feet, just over a hair over 18 feet to 14, six.

So that's what 33 feet, six and seven sixteenths inches.

So we're talking six feet and seven, six inch,

Yeah, I guess my reading of staff comment was they just wanted to see the total height come down six inches, really less about the facial consideration.

Not meant to reduce it to 14 feet.

They are over columns and bollards, but with trucks and especially delivery trucks and things on site,

these bollards would have to be really we don't want to put truck bollards here they get very big and they're kind of ugly so it's a truck bollard thing that we'd have to put these are nice these are kind of uh they're stainless steel bollards so they very nice clean finished look to them uh which are i believe three or three and a half inches in diameter and the truck bollards usually going to be a big steel pipe at six inches filled with concrete much taller much

Not so much, I would say in normal flow, be going directly between the columns and the trusses.

It's when they make that corner.

When you pull out of the fueling spacing, you turn left or right.

or like I said, again, the trucks wrapping around the site.

And again, a large vehicle or even a fuel truck, delivery truck, any truck coming in, they could run over these bollards and hit that truss.

It's kind of,

I believe it's even a VDOT standard that 14 feet 6 inches is the minimum you should ever have for clearance.

I really am not comfortable speaking about the structural design of them.

We have not used LATF.

I think what would be best at this point in time is to leave a comment as it is.

We're happy to work with the applicant afterwards to see if

No, thank you.

I think that sounds like a reasonable approach, I guess.

And if there are no further questions, why don't we move to discussion?

Sure.

I would say, as I thought about, particularly the tower issue did, and I'll start there, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other.

I probably appreciate kind of your thoughts about how you could increase the size and make the scale feel more appropriate.

One of the problems for me, quite frankly, are the other stone elements, which I think

exacerbate the tower problem.

And I don't think, I appreciate that the applicant wrapped the stone around the drive-through there, but because it doesn't extend over to the edge of that mass or the next corner, it still feels quite awkward in my opinion.

And I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense actually to just eliminate the stone element entirely in the drive-through on both those.

I think the brick's attractive, I think the stone base stays, and it just kind of declutters the building.

perhaps, and then makes the tower feel a little bit more significant because it's really the sole stone element that's kind of drawing attention to that corner of the building.

Just a thought, you're the architect, so I would ultimately defer to your judgment, but I could probably live with the existing tower

with those changes.

I think the stone on the northeast corner works certainly better than the two on the drive-through.

So maybe you keep that as a way to provide some balance.

I could probably, you know, I don't have strong feelings about the canopy height.

I think that's just a, it's kind of a standard we've operated to.

I understand their point with regard to the size of the fascia and the truss not really being part of that assembly or shouldn't be part of that assembly.

Sounds like there is some logic to 14.6 being the minimum clearance

for purposes of delivery trucks, etc., even though I don't know that they're likely to hit the trust, but I mean these guys understand the realities of their operations certainly better than I do, so

Those are kind of my, I don't have a lot of heartburn over the ice machine and the other stuff.

I think if it can be colored, perhaps a little bit more compatibly with the building, that would be great.

But I think the point that was made is a good one.

And that is you're gonna have, you got parking in front of all those spaces.

It's most of the time, you're not even gonna be able to see that stuff.

Thank you, Frank.

Thank you.

I think Frank Stoner makes a nice point about maybe there's a way to do it with a material change.

The other thought I had as we were looking at it is maybe that kitchen bump out

is what's causing the problem.

So I don't know if there's anything you can do floor plan wise.

And then that takes one of the three elements out and maybe gives a little bit more prominence to the tower.

I agree.

I think the canopy is nice as it's designed and I'm not, you know, I don't need this needed to come down six inches.

I think architecture, it looks nice.

It's definitely a concession and,

you know, different from kind of the prototype that I think we saw at the beginning.

So other than that, I think the site plan looks good.

I don't have any issues with the site plan other than the few little comments that I think everybody agrees are pretty minor.

If possible to move some of the display items, the wiper fluid that

Behind the Fence, I think that's an improvement.

I think you do make a great point with the landscaping, that kind of multi-layered canopy, parked cars.

I don't know how visible it will be.

I think the applicant's visualizations are really strong, that once you layer all that landscaping in and kind of looking at the grade of the site, you know, a lot of these things are going to be obscured.

Thank you, Frank, Fred.

Thanks, Dade.

So I'm going to start with the easy stuff and then go to the more challenging stuff.

Easy stuff is in terms of the ice machine along the front side.

I agree with Frank.

I don't think it's really going to be that visible.

I think if there's an easy way to change the color and make it more consistent with what's on the building, whether it's a tan or a bronze, that's fine.

I think that could be helpful.

But I do agree it's probably not going to be

that prominent are visible.

In terms of the, you know, the wrapping of the stone around the backside, the western elevation, it's always just felt a little awkward to me to have just two stone piers that mark the drive-through windows.

But if you think about it, if you look to the, I guess, well, I'm looking at the Faces West Auto Center elevation.

If you look to the left of those two stone piers, really everything is going to be covered visually for the most part by the carwash, everything moving sort of to the north on the western facade.

So I'm not sure, to be honest, how much of a problem that is that those two stone piers are there.

And I may be a man on an island here, but I'm willing to say that I think the tower in elevation from the entrance corridor looking back

is prominent enough.

I feel like it is in the front, it is on the front entrance, it's at the corner, it's a lighter stone material, it has a roof, it has a sign, and it has more glazing.

All of those things, to me, make it feel like a more substantial structure.

I will also defer to Dade.

No pressure here, Dade.

But if it needs to go up a little bit or if it needs to expand a little bit, fine.

Otherwise, to be honest, I feel like it's prominent enough.

And I would feel that I would know where I was going as a wayfinding element.

Agree that the sign should be centered for sure.

In terms of the canopy on the front, if I'm understanding correctly, the guidelines on the fascia that come across, that height

is meant to reduce the flat vertical element that's viewed from the entrance corridor.

So you don't have this really wide band that runs parallel with the entrance corridor that looks kind of like a big rectangle in the air.

What's happening here, if I'm interpreting it correctly, is you're seeing the butt end of the trusses from the entrance corridor.

So really, it's a much narrower fascia.

It's that 1 foot 10 that you were saying, I think, Lee,

is really what you're going to be seeing.

The rest of that elevation, which is made up of the truss, is only at the islands.

So you don't get that feeling of massing that I think was the reason the entrance guidelines, the quarter guidelines were reducing or I would say, you know, standardizing the maximum elevation of that canopy.

Thank you very much, Fred.

Thank you for grouping things from easy to hard.

I think I appreciate that structure.

I think like others, I think the ice machine can be solved with paint.

So I appreciate the knowledge that that's a separate cladding package and can be done in a color that will minimize its visibility.

I appreciate Frank Hancock's suggestion of keeping the display behind the fence as a way to sort of minimize that.

I think feeling a little bit of the heat on the tower.

I do appreciate that the applicant has been working to increase its prominence.

I feel that it still could be better resolved by being expanded and brought in plane forward somewhat.

I think I struggled a bit with the organization of the building and the way that the drive-through service area

sticks into the front of the building.

And so I think if the applicant could consider expanding the tower form, perhaps along the lines that we discussed today, I think that would be a dramatic improvement in the massing of the building.

In association with that, I think I appreciate other members suggesting that there may be a way to accomplish some better unity in the western portion of the south facade without going to stone.

open to that as a consideration.

I think that still some more attention to it to resolve that element would be appreciated, whether it's in stone or in brick.

Let's see.

And I think, Fred, appreciate your logic around the

around the canopy.

I do think that it's appreciated that it's a more slender edge.

Certainly, if in developing the structure of the trusses, there's a way to hold them down six inches, that would be preferable so that we can stick to that guideline, which we've been typically very uniform in pursuing.

But I think that the current design is acceptable.

Thinking about some of the comments.

I think in terms of LATF versus LFF, I appreciate Margaret's suggestion.

So I think I would recommend we leave the comment as it is.

The applicant can follow up with information for staff.

We can reevaluate whether that's the right criteria.

In terms of cabinet signs, I think if the applicant's suggestion that they're permitted is accurate, which I think it may be, then I think the opaque backgrounds would be.

Satisfactory to me.

Nate, if I could make one clarification regarding the cabinet signs.

I think the point about the cabinet signs is that staff would not typically approve a cabinet sign on a wall.

So not a wall mounted sign.

didn't make it into the comments.

Oh, no, no.

I appreciate you restating that clarification.

There are certainly some out there.

Certain ones are used for graphics in connection with channel letters.

A further distinction maybe we should have made is that we would also not recommend approval of letters

On a panel attached to the wall, the guidelines point out that the channel letter signs are preferred for wall signs because it allows the building to be the primary feature.

You can read the wall through the letters.

Great.

Let me share my screen.

I'll try to pull that up so we can.

You're going to need whoever's sharing their screen right now to stop sharing.

Do you?

Hold on.

I'm not.

Hold on.

Are you able to see it now?

Yep.

Great.

Sure.

And so by all means, Frank and Fred,

Let me know if there's something else you would suggest.

How do you envision that from a structural perspective?

Yeah, I think fundamentally if it were the stone cladding at three corners projected

Dave, I'm usually not one to disagree with you all.

I highly respect your design sense, but I'm wondering if this hedge is a little bit close to the

to us defining the design and whether we should simply, if you all agree, we should simply leave it to an understanding that prominence and hierarchy is the issue and that they need to come back to us with options during a work session that address those two key elements.

The reason I say that is because

If I understood what was shown, increasing the size of the tower so the south face is parallel to the south projection, it may have additional implications on the site plan that we're not aware of.

Thank you, Fred.

I think you said it very well and I agree.

I think that's a very reasonable approach.

So any other revisions to these from the discussion today?

Yeah, there you go.

I would just make the clarification that Margaret highlighted, which is cabinet signs are acceptable as freestanding signs.

The building mount is just under three by just over nine.

Chris, can you tell how large the actual letters are in the

May we ask one question?

We did look at the design guidelines for wall signs and cabinets.

And I think part of our confusion is the fact that by my read of the guidelines, it does certainly emphasize that channel lettering is preferred, but it doesn't say that cabinet signs are not permitted ever.

that there's certainly some design preferences and so forth stated.

Can we look at that elevation again?

I'm going to stop sharing.

I'll see if I can pull it out.

Yep.

I guess part of my question is if we allowed them channel letters, what are the acceptable background options?

Would they mount the channel letters onto a red panel that's not illuminated?

Just mounted to the stone itself.

That is not what we typically approve.

We are bringing this to your attention today because we realize it's what the applicant wants and it's not what we would typically approve.

External illumination is always an option.

It doesn't get past the issue of the preference for the channel letters to be

So that is a potential path forward today.

I think we could revise the comments so that we just know as long as pointed out that the guidelines prefer channel letters and then review this more fully in the

signed submission.

I think this issue may also relate somewhat to the discussion we'll have a little later about the sign for Aldi.

So I don't know that we'll reach a conclusion here, but we can.

There's no disagreement over the cabinet signs for the canopy itself.

It would be the same problem.

Yes, I can see the marker.

Yeah, thank you, Margaret.

I think that's consistent with our guidelines and preferences.

I appreciate you highlighting this issue for us.

I feel like it maybe deserves some discussion just on its own.

Any further comments before

and consider this motion.

Okay, thank you.

I'll move for approval of the certificate of appropriateness for ARB-2020-108 Airport Road Sheets Final Plan with the conditions listed in the staff report amended as follows.

Number one, add the language, address prominence and hierarchy in the tower form.

Item five, let's read the whole thing.

Relocate or revise the color of the ice machine and relocate the store equipment behind the fence.

Strike the end.

Strike item number eight.

Revise item number 13 to read.

The preferred wall sign is channel letters.

Cabinet style signs may be used for freestanding signs.

Can I ask a question before we vote?

I'm a little bit unclear about what we're saying in item 13.

We're saying the preferred sign type is channel letters.

It's not a... That's my understanding, Frank.

Sure.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Aye.

Great.

Well, thank you very much to the applicant and my fellow board members.

I think the proposal is very close and appreciate everybody's full consideration this afternoon.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thanks, all.

Great.

Well, we'll move on to the next item, ARB 2020-106 and 116 ABC Initial Site Plan and Preliminary Architectural Review.

Are you able to see my slides?

Great.

Just want to point out that on the staff report, I had the wrong application numbers.

So the ones that are listed here in the slide are accurate.

I'm trying to make one more adjustment so I can see.

Just a second.

OK, here we go.

All right.

So this is a proposal to establish a mixed use development over multiple parcels land on 5th Street extended at Old Lynchburg Road.

Portion of the development is located directly opposite the county office building on 5th Street, and the rest of the development is on the other side of Old Lynchburg Road between Country Green Road and Mountain Wood Road.

Today's review is focused on the initial site plan for the overall development and the architectural design of the storage building.

The area has not previously reviewed any proposals for this site, but a rezoning was approved for the property in October of this year.

The portion of the development that fronts onto the 5th Street entrance corridor, which is in the lower right hand corner of this slide, includes retail buildings, an office building, hotel, and the storage building.

And the portion of the development that's in the north and west of Old Lynchburg Road, it's the lower left corner of this slide, is composed primarily of three and four story apartment buildings.

In the portion of the development that fronts the entrance corridor, all the proposed buildings would be visible from the street.

The buildings are oriented parallel to the street.

There is some parking that does front on the street, but overall the building locations help break up all that parking area.

The part of the development west of Old Lynchburg Road will have less visibility from the entrance corridor because it's further away and because there's intervening development, but there are views available through the parcels that do front the entrance corridor street, so the upper parts of the apartment buildings are expected to be visible.

The applicant intends to develop the block with the storage building first.

The plan is to clear and grade the entire site at the time the storage block is developed.

The landscaping associated with the storage block would be completed with the construction of the storage building,

but entrance corridor frontage landscaping would not be installed until the blocks fronting 5th Street are developed.

The applicant has provided these images to illustrate the storage building after its construction is complete and before other parts of the development are completed.

The images are from the intersection of 5th Street extended with Old Lynchburg Road at the top and Wahoo Way at the bottom.

Our review of the site plan revealed some inconsistencies with the guidelines in terms of landscaping, but those inconsistencies can be resolved with the final site plan submittal, and we identified no issues to prevent recommendation of approval of the initial site plan.

Our review did identify some potential issues with the architectural design.

Blankness would typically be an issue for this type of building, which doesn't usually incorporate a lot of windows, but blankness isn't really an issue here because there's so much going on in the elevations.

There are storefront elements at the ends of the south elevation.

That's the one facing Echins Quarter Street.

Between the storefronts, there's a brick base along the middle.

There's a couple of vertical CMU panels.

There's EIFS that's scored into panels of varying widths and colors.

And on the side elevations, there's a different brick base.

Again, blankness isn't an issue because there's so much going on in the elevations, but the guidelines call for compatibility and unity and compatibility with historic architecture.

Most of our local historic architecture uses some organizing principle to establish the arrangement of building elements.

So we're recommending here that the elevations be further refined to achieve a greater sense of organization and unity.

A second issue identified with the storage building is that the windows in the storage areas are proposed with a vinyl film covering to block the view into the storage units.

In this image, the windows circling red are the ones that would have the applied vinyl.

The applicant offers as an alternative using

Efes panels in a contrasting color instead of the windows.

Where Efes isn't really an improvement, clear glass without the vinyl film is what's appropriate for the entrance quarter.

So our recommendation is to recommend approval of the initial site plan, and we've listed in the staff report comments on both site and architecture to be interested in the final site plan.

We're happy to try to answer any questions you have.

I'll leave this

I won't unshare for the moment in case there's something that you'd like me to go back to.

Thank you, Margaret.

I'm sorry, Dave.

Did you say me, Fred?

Oh, yes.

Yeah.

Any questions?

Fred and Frank and his two Franks is a little confusing.

I guess my only question is the removal of the film coating on the windows.

Do we know what will be behind it and visible if they remove that?

Got it.

That's it.

That's all.

Thank you, Fred.

I don't have any questions.

Thank you, Margaret.

I don't have any questions either.

Great.

I don't have questions either.

I'm trying to stop sharing.

Can you all hear me?

Hi, I'm Gretchen Elton.

I'm the architect for this project, this portion of the project anyway.

So one thing that I do want to go over really fast is what the other buildings look like is part of this complex because obviously we are presenting this one project at this point, but there are several other buildings that are related.

So, and they are intended to be designed so that they resemble each other.

And that's how we sort of worked out the elevations for the storage building.

So I just want to go backwards, I think.

So, no, don't want that.

Let's just do this.

So if we can, you can all see my screen, correct?

OK.

So our building is here, and we will have two smaller retail buildings that will partially block our building from the view, at least directly on Fifth Street.

We do have a pretty sizable office building that would go here, and then a future hotel as well.

and I will go backwards so here's our view from internal on the site looking at our building and if we go across the street we have an office building that also has some glass corners so that's where that glass corner inspiration came from it relates directly across to the nearest building those glass corners would face each other

And as you can also see, we are using light colors of brick and ephus and even CMU, which is also reflected in that office facade that would be, again, kind of diagonal.

This is the corner that would face, I believe, directly across Fifth Street to, I believe, your county offices.

So, and if we go a little bit further down, we have the retail facades.

This is also, I believe, the Fifth Street facade that you can see we have a light colored

something and a darker colored something else probably CMU maybe brick not sure we haven't obviously gotten that far but this is our facility here in the back and as you can see we will have a significant amount plantings along 5th street here

and those retail buildings do kind of block that view a little bit.

So if we go back to this facade and our facility specifically, one major comment was the vinyl film that's applied to the glass.

Now we do understand that that is not typical and that that's not preferred.

However, this is a storage facility where folks are maybe not careful with the way that they're loading their storage units.

What's behind here would be either a metal or a plywood panel that would prevent somebody from shoving a piece of furniture through that glass and out the window.

So that's why our alternative is to provide solid wall construction with just an EIFS panel that would still break up the overall facade but would also protect the contents of the building.

from any damage from customers.

The other comment that I do recall here is that I believe it's related to the corner that is

Intentionally asymmetrical, we designed sort of using a more modern approach to glass and facade design.

And that's why this corner is a bit more glassy and a bit more modern in its appearance.

Again, this is the corner that is diagonal.

from the new office building that would also have that large glass corner in it.

This facade, most of this is storage above.

So we would have solid storage units.

And I can go quick to the floor plan.

Above that, we do have that solid storage construction.

So again, we would want something behind that glass to protect from anyone.

potentially damaging the glass and the facade.

So that's really how we got to this point.

Here, the client really likes the more modern design of the open glass corner.

And so where we can provide that, where it would be all vision glass at this corner, we tried to maximize that.

And then where we can't have vision glass, we tried to minimize it as best we could.

The materials that we've shown on the board, I realize we don't have physical samples because we aren't in person today, but we did put at least images on here of what we were thinking of, you know, black and white brick.

So black brick, white brick.

Two shades of CMU.

We have a lighter at the corners and then a darker in the back.

Again, this is to protect the facade, not only just to break up the facade aesthetically, but also to protect it from vehicle travel and from damage from people moving large boxes and items and things.

a comment related to the mechanical units.

And I will say that we are working on this drawings now to further develop and make sure that we get all of the rooftop units back far enough.

My understanding is that these are residential sized condensing units that are typically about three feet in height, which is why our lowest

Parapet here in the center is three feet in height.

We are again working on the roof plan to locate those units and we will verify that they will be screened accordingly by a parapet wall in all locations.

I think that's the majority of at least the comments that were provided to us from staff.

Thank you.

No, thank you for your presentation.

It's very helpful to get the context

Fred?

Only question, I agree, thank you, it's very helpful for the context.

When you look at those buildings, I couldn't tell on the site plan whether they had finished floor elevation estimates.

But generally speaking, how do they sit relative to each other?

It looked like initially from the site plan that this building was lower.

It is lower, so it's a little bit of a challenge, but I will give it a try.

So this is the path, as it were, through the site.

This, I believe, is Fifth Street.

So Fifth Street is higher.

The site falls away.

And so we're left with this three story corner on our storage facility.

Yeah, I think that's helpful.

I think one of the things that will be helpful to support your application is to have a couple of simple

sections that illustrate how this is relative to the entrance corridor.

As my sense is, it's two or three stories lower than Fifth Street.

So I think that will be helpful.

Other than that, no questions.

Thank you, Fred.

Likewise, thank you for the presentation.

Just out of curiosity, unrelated to the architectural review board, there seems to be a magic way to fit these structures in the building code.

2B, okay.

Okay, thank you very much.

I guess in terms of the windows and appreciate the practical consideration of folks storing things behind them, rather than the vinyl, would it be possible to put

Do you mean right behind the glass or this wall?

I don't know how well we can see this.

Yeah, either right or some distance.

Sure, yeah.

This corner is a five foot corridor.

And this is showing a storage unit that backs up right to the glass where we did apply vinyl film to the inside.

We can pull the partition back a bit.

Okay.

That's possible.

Let's see.

I think in terms of the corner elements, appreciate how you're relating to the other buildings around the area.

I guess it's rare that we have brick sort of unsupported by brick as is the case with the parapet here.

And it looked like some of the other glass corners are really just pure glass elements of the corner.

Would you consider any alternate approaches either making, it seems like this corner is sort of midway between sort of the left hand corner in this view and the images you showed us in the office buildings.

Well, either that or more different.

We aren't, well, I'll say it's a smooth face.

I see.

Thank you.

I think those are all the questions for me.

Thank you.

I will go into discussion and I'll turn first to Fred.

Got it.

Thank you.

I was just scrambling to pull up the staff report.

So this is an initial site development plan and a first review.

So I'm not sure how detailed to get with my comments.

The one thing that I will say is that, first of all, I think the proportions and the blankness are well

taken care of.

I think that it will be interesting to see what we actually can see from the entrance corridor.

My guess is, as I said, with the height and the distance, it may be mitigated a bit.

My fellow ARB members may vote me off the board by saying this, but

I'm wondering, you know, we're talking about windows for the sake of windows and to break up blankness, but they're not really windows and not a huge fan of windows that aren't windows.

So I almost wonder if, like we've done on other buildings, if you were to envision those windows going away in the middle of those two CMU piers,

and then consider potentially, I mean you can look at what the composition looks like but then potentially another narrower band or pier that's in the middle to help break up and you know you have sort of a systematic thing.

You may be able to get away without the windows because of the distance.

You as the representative developer may not want that.

You may want Windows, in which case I think it's going to be a challenge to work with this vinyl and the transparency piece.

But those are my sort of off the top of my head comments.

Thank you, Fred.

Thank you.

I agree.

I mean, I think if thinking about the windows, I really like the display areas image on your sheet, the example image.

You know, if we have windows, they should be clear and there should be a hallway or something behind them.

I don't know that I would be in favor of the display, you know, leaving a little bit and having a partition.

So I think that would be something to consider.

And then I think Fred makes a great point.

Then it's, you know, maybe it's another architectural element or a material change that helps mitigate that.

If you had to, instead of just relying on the ethos kind of blocks.

We're looking at the elevation without landscaping.

I think it's helpful to see the other ones you have in the packet that show the line of trees,

to think about it again, kind of that varied, yes, what you'll see from the road.

But clearing this whole site and building this building, it's gonna be pretty visible there.

I don't know if there, you can only review what's in front of us, know there's a collection of buildings proposed or designed,

Don't know when they come online.

But yeah, I mean, architecturally, I think it seems pretty evolved in just a few minor things.

I think you made a great point about BRIC being supported by BRIC at that main entrance.

So that would be something I think to focus on.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, I'll start with the windows.

And it's a little bit unclear to me how many of the windows are fake and how many are real as I look at these perspective renderings here.

And maybe the applicant can clarify that.

But I tend to agree with Frank and Fred.

I'm not sure that windows that aren't really windows make a lot of sense, although I think if it is the preferred solution, I think your suggestion, Dave, of pushing the wall back and painting it something other than white would help make the windows feel more legitimate.

I'd be curious to see what the elevation would look like, that particular side elevation would look like if you took the windows out.

I think the IFA colors need more contrast and maybe they have them and it just doesn't show well on the graphic that we looked at.

But if there was a little more contrast there that might

between the light and the dark Ephos or the two different colors that might help.

And then maybe you do what they did at the AMC Theater, maybe a Regal Theater and go with large green screen kind of at certain intervals along that elevation.

I think, again, given its position, relative position on the corridor, it's probably less of an issue, certainly, than it would be for any of the front buildings.

I agree with your suggestion regarding the brick, brick supporting brick.

And I'm not sure whether it starts to look more like the one on the other end or whether, as you say, you do something completely different.

Thank you, Frank.

Well, I appreciate everybody's comments.

I agree.

It'll be helpful, I think, for the applicant to share sections and other things that help illustrate the visibility of this from the entrance corridor.

In some ways, as Frank pointed out, we have to look at what's in front of us.

And I think if we were looking at the entire complex as an ensemble, the materials, the prominence, the relief of this building might not be as significant as they are in contemplating its first arrival on site.

I think that I agree with Fred and Frank and Frank that I think there are other strategies for dealing with the blankness and the scale in that besides the windows.

So if windows do go forward, I would prefer to see them with a recess of some kind so that they really seem to have some depth.

But I do think the applicant could explore penalizing the Walmart

adding green screens or sunscreens or things that create light and shadow, I think, just so long as there is adequate relief and relief much more pronounced than just a joint in the IFAS.

But let's see, all in all, I think a good beginning of the proposal.

Let's see, I think with that, are we looking for any,

Yes, we need a motion on the initial site plan.

I can share the list of comments if you'd like to try and do that.

So this is the standard format for the initial site plan.

The first bullet just as a recommendation for approval of the initial plan without conditions.

The second bullet is a recommendation to consider installing the entrance corridor frontage trees with the first block.

that's constructed.

No conditions are being recommended prior to issuance of a grading permit.

And then one through 11 were the site and architectural comments to be addressed in future submittals.

So I think there's some of these here you probably want to, it sounds like you want to amend.

Can I ask a question, Margaret?

Sure.

I'll just throw a couple things out if I could.

On number one, maybe it's continue to refine the storage building design to provide greater organization

and Unity among various building houses, just so that I think we acknowledge that this is a preliminary and they're still working.

No worries.

Just thinking, I'm thinking out loud here, so probably don't type yet.

Just thinking, eliminate the film coding from the windows.

Or, Dave, you probably have better language for this.

Provide some sort of a recess to allow for the transparency to read through or something like that.

And then I don't know, Fred, do you want to include anything like, alternatively, consider different strategies for breaking up the scale and avoiding blindness in the facade?

Perfect.

Great.

Yeah, I think it would certainly be very helpful.

I think that's a very good point, Fred.

And to the point of

I'd be comfortable with that too if folks prefer if we just say provide.

Great.

I'll move that we forward the recommendations outlined in the staff report to the agent for the site review committee amended as follows regarding the final site plan submittal revise comment number one to state continue to refine the storage building design to provide greater organization and unity among the various building elements

Modify number three, the state eliminate the film coding from the windows or provide an internal recess to allow window transparency.

Alternatively, consider other strategies to break up scale and blankness.

Mr. Stoner.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Move on to ARB item 2021-17, Green Clean Initial Plan and Preliminary Architectural Review.

Thank you, Chris.

Are you viewing the correct screen now?

Looks good.

So the application I'm presenting on now is the review of the architecture and the initial site plan to construct a 3,700 square foot car wash building related equipment and associated site improvements.

This site is located 3920 Worth Crossing at the intersection Worth Crossing Route 29.

ARB reviewed the site plan for the existing bank and a number of signed applications for this property since 1999.

Staff did have a number of comments on the site, but none of them were significant enough to keep us from recommending an improvement in initial site plan.

So I'm going to focus on the two points that were listed as the primary points of discussion in the staff report and the equipment related to the car wash.

There's equipment proposed outside the building, but due to its location, most of the equipment is not expected to have an impact on the entrance quarter.

Regarding the landscaping proposed for the site, there are a few minor issues.

Notably, the landscaping gaps along the entrance corridor frontage in the northern perimeter of the site, and the amount of large trees proposed along the interior roads surrounding the site.

Additionally, there are no utilities or easements shown along Route 29, but electrical service for the site has not been indicated on the plans.

Staff is recommending revising the landscape plan to show large state trees extending along the full frontage of Route 29,

two additional large trees, one parallel to Werth crossing, one parallel to Fortune Park Road, two and a half inch caliper at planting to satisfy the interior planting requirements, one large tree and additional shrubs in the planting gap along the northern perimeter of the site, and showing the location and electrical service on the plans.

Proposed building has minimal ties to historic architecture of the area, notably the material and detailing of the proposed building.

However, the white brick, while similar to existing bank building, it is not present in other nearby buildings along the corridor.

Regarding the west elevation visible from Route 29, the length is divided into bays through the use of windows topped by awnings and downspouts between the windows.

However, the regularity of the design combined with the lack of the entrance or other hierarchical feature, minimum detailing, and available views into the backs of the false tower elements on the parking lot elevation emphasizes the appearance of the entrance quarter facing side of the building as a rear elevation.

So we recommend that the west elevation be revised and we offer some suggestions, including adding architectural details such as height variation,

Greater variation in material changes and using a more muted earth tone brick to reduce the back of the building appearance and integrate the building into the surrounding area.

Staff is recommending approval of initial site plans with the recommendations listed in the staff report to be addressed with the final site plan.

Thank you, Chris.

Frank Hancock.

No questions.

No questions.

Thanks, Chris.

None for me either.

Thank you, Chris, for your report.

Sure.

Thank you, Chris, for that presentation.

That was really well done.

This is Craig Dan Bremen with Green Clean Auto Wash. Just a little bit about our company.

We're currently developing about 10 sites throughout the state of Virginia.

We have two coming in Richmond.

And then the majority of those sites are actually down in the Hampton Roads area where our company is located.

I'm actually an Albemarle County resident.

I live here in Crozet.

I've been here for about 10 years.

So very excited about the opportunity to be in Albemarle County, especially along one of the entrance corridors.

So I think we've tried our best to really find a site that was by right zoning.

And then also we could work our architectural elements to meet the entrance corridor requirements.

So our team on the line today, Ryan, our engineer, and Kevin, who's our architect.

We had a chance to review the comments last week from the staff report.

I think we've already made some progress in making sure that we're heading in the right directions with the interest corridor.

Go ahead, Ryan.

Gotcha.

Hi, everyone.

This is Ryan Perkins with Kimley Horn.

So kind of just real quick, obviously, this is fairly straightforward.

So the site is an existing bank building.

It's got no accesses directly off Route 29.

There's an access on both of the side streets.

We're proposing to maintain both of those.

So circulation will generally feel the same.

The orientation of the building for the new tunnel is generally in the same orientation or location as the existing bank building.

The existing bank building has circulation on all four sides.

We're proposing that we won't have circulation on the Route 29 side of the building.

So what you're gonna end up with is a lot more green areas for potential landscaping if we need to go that route.

So we're actually pulling the imperviousness back from Route 29 by about 45 feet to the building space that we're proposing.

And on the opposite side, on the Fortune Park roadside,

You'll get an additional 25 feet of green space before a parking lot begins.

So that's not very typical in most of the projects I'm dealing with is where we're going by about half an acre or so less in progress.

So a fair amount of room for flexibility to address your landscaping concerns.

Most of the comments were in regards to landscaping and architecture.

I'll let Kevin speak to architecture.

But in terms of landscaping, we're generally not opposed to any of the comments that were made.

We do request clarification on a few when the time comes.

Along Route 29, basically there was a lot of existing vegetation out there, a lot of mature trees, and that's around the whole site in general.

And we're not proposing to take any of that down.

If you see our limits of disturbance that's on

It's on most of our sheets, but specifically on our landscaping sheet.

We're not touching any of the existing trees.

We're trying to keep everything that's out there.

It's all mature.

It's all in good shape.

So what we're trying to do with our landscaping is just supplement it.

So we're adding a few trees along the frontages where needed to meet code.

We're adding specifically on Werth Crossing.

We were proposing one additional tree because we were assuming that four were required.

And I believe that's what's stated in the code, but we were still recommended to add another tree.

So I guess I would want clarification on that.

And if you look at what's out there, the canopy of the existing trees on Werth Crossing and what we're proposing, we're just not sure we can add an additional tree.

And that's the same thing on Fortune Park Road.

We believe we're providing the minimum requirement for street trees on that frontage as well.

but I think the comment was to add an additional street tree.

Again, we're not totally opposed to it but there's just not a whole lot of room once the canopy's, you know, once it grows up.

There's a fair amount of comments about can you see or questions about can you see the pay stations from Route 29.

The pay stations, if you're looking at the plan view, it's plan east or plan right.

There's gonna be two pay stations as you enter off of Fortune Park Road

If you're heading north on Route 29, the building is going to pretty much block all visibility of the pay stations.

If you're driving on 29 and past the building, there might be a very small window for a split second where you could see the pay stations.

So we did have a bump out island against the building with a street tree proposed.

We understand there's some comments to put them on the northern side of the properties to add some additional trees, maybe an evergreen or

or Hedge Rowe to further screen it from that view, which we can, we have the room for it.

But I think if you would look at an aerial overlay or Google aerial even, you can see that our neighbor, the First Citizens Bank, they have a full line of mature trees along their entire southern boundary, which will be our northern boundary.

And obviously we're not touching any of that.

So we think there's plenty of vegetation out there to block the pay stations from view from the entrance corridor for sure.

There's some additional comments about adding dumpster screening and dumpster details so of course we can do that as well.

So that's kind of it for the site.

Okay, I'm going to try to share my screen here.

Okay, so did that work?

Can people see a drawing?

Is it coming up?

Here we go.

Okay, so first, can everybody hear me?

I can hear you.

I'm not seeing.

Oh, here it comes.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, so what I have on the screen is two elevations.

The first one is what was originally submitted

and then Craig and Ryan and I went over comments last week.

We came up with the elevation that's on the top and this just kind of shows things we did to address the comments.

So the most obvious thing is we added some relief to the building.

Obviously the first one is very flat.

So we pulled some elements forward, raised some parapet heights and kind of gave it

You know, a little more visual interest, making it look more like the front of a building.

You know, the other side of the building has a lot of detailing, but that's the side that the customers interact with.

So we did some massing.

Bringing up the parapet height kind of hides one of the backsides of the other parapets.

There were comments on that.

The backside of the tall parapet that you can still see, we decided to continue the soldier course around that just to make it look more finished.

So we added the relief.

We're also talking about changing the color.

We proposed white, and we can do something that's two-tone, more like natural earth-tone masonry colors.

And so we're kind of representing that here.

We don't have a color drawing, but you can see the lower half is kind of shaded, representing a darker brick color.

And then there's brick bands across the top that will also be in that color.

and then the majority of the masonry will be a lighter tone.

Very similar to the, I believe it's a target building across the street.

So I think that addresses, that's kind of a visual picture of what we're trying to do to address the comments from the review board.

Thank you, Kevin.

Thank you for the presentation.

I don't think I have any questions.

Just the parapet on the customer side, that's what has the logo.

mechanical equipment or anything or is it just... No, another one of the comments was mechanical equipment.

Fortunately, on this building, all the mechanical equipment is located inside the building.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Frank Stoner.

You may be muted, Frank.

Frank, I believe you're muted.

Frank, do you have any questions?

Sorry about that.

Yeah, I just finished asking my question and I couldn't figure out why nobody was responding.

Maybe in the original presentation there will be one.

I do.

I can share my screen.

One second.

If you could stop sharing your screen real quickly.

Yeah.

Do you all know whether the signage as shown there is approvable in Albemarle County?

It likely is not.

Frank, are you talking about the signage interior of the site?

It should have been in the comment that

Yeah, thanks for your presentation.

Just a couple of quick clarifications, I guess.

Looking at the elevations,

Kevin that you put up there you know they're pure elevations right so I'm wondering at some point we'll want to see kind of an oblique angle right of what each of those elements on the front look like at an angle and you know so it doesn't look just like sort of a western facade you know for one of those western movies that's kind of propped up and then I had the same question Frank had Frank Stoner had which was relative to the height of that

signage portion, and if you find that the sign has to be reduced due to ordinance requirements, I would encourage you to look at lowering that element so it doesn't feel like it's out of place as viewed from the entrance corridor.

Okay.

Thank you, Fred.

I appreciate, I think, you and Frank have asked the questions I had.

I share the concerns you just voiced.

Fred, that the height and the parapet look resolved in terms of sort of the overall mass and form of the building and not just a facade.

And I think to the extent you may find you need more height for the sign, certainly if you look at ways to integrate the eastern facade with the western in an overall building form that works, that may be a way to do that and still achieve some height.

Let's see, in terms of, and I think the initial proposal was for white and gray.

It looked like concrete units.

You're still proposing concrete for the facade, is that right?

Yeah, it'll be a different color.

It is concrete block.

It is like the rough face with some texture to it.

It does look like a brick.

How big are the bricks?

No, that's a good question, Frank.

They're 4 by 8 by 16 long.

OK. Well, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant as we go into discussion?

Thanks, Dade.

I don't really have anything to add beyond what we just all discussed.

Yeah, Dade, I don't have anything to add either.

Thank you.

Sure.

I think the site plan is really nice.

I think taking advantage of that existing landscaping

And that's a huge benefit that this site has.

And so often we see proposals like this in the 29 corridor where they're jamming parking or jamming things, you know, that maybe we don't want to see right up against the entrance corridor.

So I think that's really nice to have that green space, be able to plant the requirements.

You know, and looking at it, I almost think the, I guess it's the east elevation,

maybe presents more like an appropriate facade for the entrance corridor.

And I almost, I like kind of the rhythm and the simplicity of the original proposal versus what you kind of flashed up in the presentation.

I just felt like it was more honest and just cleaner.

I don't have a preference on color.

It's a pretty light colored building that's there now.

There's definitely precedent for white painted brick.

I'm okay with that.

So I think it's a nice proposal.

I think there's a few tweaks.

I think we all hit on the parapet and that seems unresolved from the corridor, just three-sided like that.

I think that needs some attention.

And then what's the front door?

How does this read from the entrance corridor?

Thank you, Frank.

I appreciate your highlighting all the positive attributes of the site plan.

I think it is a good proposal.

That way it's great to see less impervious area in the overall watershed and

and the opportunity for really full landscaping.

And I think the vacuum started out in the right place on this one, so happy to see that.

I'll just comment too, car washes are really hot right now.

Okay, so can you see the list of comments?

Okay, so this is similar to the last application that we just reviewed.

This is the standard format for recommendations on initial site plan.

The first bullet, just like the last one, is stating that the ARB is recommending approval of the initial plan without conditions.

There are no just recommendations as it relates to the guidelines.

Standard condition related to grading permit is provide conservation checklist in the site plan and then the list of both site and architectural comments to be addressed with the next submittal.

So I don't know if you want to make changes to number two.

Yeah, I think it still works for me.

I don't know that we could add some note about resolving the parapets at the corners so that they

resolved the building massing effectively, but I think the applicants had a chance to hear that.

Okay.

I would agree with that.

That's good.

Indeed.

We do.

Right.

I can say, at least personally, I think they're probably both appropriate to the corridor.

I think looking out of the context of that development, I think could be eliminating.

I don't know that.

I think staff noted that the existing white building is the only one there.

You want to change anything in number three?

It's a concrete block.

Yeah.

So in terms of how it weathers and wears, and also with moisture in the wash weather, that's a reasonable concern.

Yeah, I think that's a good point.

I think, Frank, as you highlight that, I do think since it's, I think if it's a concrete unit, something in a more natural

Can I clarify what you guys are talking about?

Right, I guess I was probably thinking that there is a tradition of, you know, white painted brick

Yeah, when I look at the elevations and the renderings, I guess they're really more the renderings.

They are, it's a jumbo scale.

Right, but it's like soldier courses and standard.

Yeah.

I mean, my sense is,

Right.

Yeah.

And if that's the case, we really need to see it accurately rendered so we can understand what the header courses actually look like.

Right.

And those different elements on the building.

And so I think that's a good point.

Yeah.

And this may be a case where samples would be helpful if they could be available to stop by and see at the county building.

So what I've got is, consider revising the proposed material to a more traditional brick form and or a natural earth tone color.

Accurately reflect the proposed material in the drawings and renderings, provide material samples for review.

Does that capture what you're

I believe so.

You've got the material samples in number one.

It's already there.

Yep.

Yeah, I think so.

and all these are just sort of the boilerplate.

I will move to, for the recommendations outlined in the staff report, the agent for site review committee amended as follows.

Number two,

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you very much.

Let's see.

Well, we do have a few items of other business.