Architectural Review Board Meeting   1/19/2021

Yes.

OK. You got it.

Margaret, thanks for the cheat sheet.

It's very helpful.

All right.

I know we were talking about people having different names.

I realize I'm named Carolyn Shaffer on the screen, which is totally fine with me.

but it might be confusing to others.

No problem.

So it is one o'clock and I am calling to order the January 19th, 2021 meeting of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board.

This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with ordinance number 20A16, an ordinance to ensure the continuity of government during the COVID-19 disaster.

It appears that a quorum is present

Members present electronically are Dade Van Der Werf, Frank Stoner, Fred Missel, Frank Hancock, and Chris Henningsen.

Opportunities for public access to this meeting are posted on the county's website at the county calendar.

The public has real-time audio-visual access to this meeting over Zoom and real-time audio access over the telephone, both as provided in the lawfully posted meeting notice.

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

The county online meeting or this online meeting and any associated chats are public record and are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Today we have a number of applicants and project representatives attending.

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

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

Everyone is participating today.

It's good practice to mute your microphone until you're asked to speak.

Applicants who are making presentations note that your presentation is limited to a total of 15 minutes, which you can divide among your team members.

Carolyn will let us know when the 15 minute clock is up.

Yes, I have a disclosure.

I will need to recuse myself from ARB-2020-128 IV proper.

OK, what I'm going to do is when we start to look, try again.

I am going to move Frank Hancock to attendee until this matter is over.

You can hear it, but you'll just be an attendee kind of watching.

You will be missed, Frank.

All right.

Any other disclosures?

Okay, seeing none, we have two regular review items scheduled for today.

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

Our first regular review item is ARB 2020-18, Ivy Proper.

Chris, do you want to go ahead with your presentation?

Sure.

Thanks, Fred.

Okay.

All right.

The application I'm presenting on is preliminary review of architecture proposals for a 6,500 square foot office building and associated site improvements.

The site is comprised of two vacant proposals on the north side of Route 250, across from the Route 250 and Ivy Depot Road intersection.

There will be recommended approval while conditions of the initial site plan on November 16, 2020.

While the design of the proposed building overall has a contemporary appearance,

The historic architecture of the area is reflected through the use of simple forms, symmetrical distribution of parts, gabled roofs, and entrances topped with canopies.

The proposed materials are either ones that were used historically or ones that resemble those that were.

Although the rear of the building faces the entrance quarter, the changes in form and scale, in addition to the windows and doors along the elevation, engage the frontage and establish an appropriate appearance.

However, there are a few items of potential concern.

The building design features window groupings that have a non-traditional appearance.

The proposed color promotes the mysterious arctic white, which will stand out in immediate surroundings.

and the gables which traditionally have windows or architectural detailing appear somewhat blank without these elements.

Staff is recommending that versions of the perspective renderings without street trees be provided to allow for a clear view of the proposal.

The arctic white building color be revised to a more muted earth tone color.

Notations added to the line drawings to clarify the distribution windows and other materials and considering adding elements in the cable ends of the building.

Staff recommends the changes that were listed in the staff report to be addressed with the final site plan submittal.

Great.

Thank you, Chris.

Frank Stoner, any questions?

Just had a question about the areas between the buildings, those connector pieces.

Did you get any more detail as to what those are structurally?

Is that a flat roof?

Is it just a wall?

I didn't note in the drawings, I believe it's a flat roof with either the Hardy Pound or the Nietzsche panels veneer clad over it.

The applicant probably should be able to better answer that question.

All right, awesome.

No, none for me.

Thank you, Fred.

Great.

None for me either.

Thanks, Chris.

Appreciate it.

OK, with that, we'll turn it over to the applicant.

We do have a presentation.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kevin Shaffer.

I'm with Design Develop.

Evan Phillips is going to be sharing

His screen, so if we could make him the presenter, that'd be helpful.

I was going to give a brief project introduction, kind of talk through our thought process on this, and then kick it over to Evan to address the individual staff comments.

As always, we want to thank county staff for their thorough staff reports, for their guidance through the project.

We always appreciate it, and I appreciate what you guys do for the county.

And thanks to the board.

Welcome, Chris.

This is the first time I've seen you on the board.

So thank you.

Thanks, everybody, for the service.

We appreciate it.

Here we go.

I can just take it.

Didn't realize.

Evan, we can see all of your screen.

Which one?

There you go.

And go ahead and close the screen.

OK, so as county staff has mentioned in their staff report, the parcel is right in the downtown IV corridor area.

It's an important entrance corridor on 250 for visitors traveling west out of Charlottesville and headed towards Crozet.

It's right at the intersection of some pretty important roads for Albemarle County as residents distribute themselves further into the county rural areas.

Owensville Road is within a quarter mile of the parcel as well as Ivy Depot Road comes out right across from the parcel.

Ivy is interesting in that it's the intersection of these important roads and it's also the intersection of the railroad.

So our parcel is immediately adjacent to the railroad and right next to the railroad trestle, which you may be familiar with in this location.

It was important for us to kind of take a look at the context in downtown Ivy as you travel along 250 and allow that to influence the design.

As staff mentioned, these are traditional gable forms which are very standard or typical along this part of Albemarle County and this part of the Entrance Corridor Review Board.

We are taking this gable form and we are distinguishing it from a residential building by doing a more contemporary design and modern detailing and finishes.

as staff has noted through the window distribution and through some of our detailing at the eaves and things like that.

The overall, the material palette is relatively traditional.

We've got the gable, sorry, excuse me, the board and batten material on all of the gable forms.

There's a standing seam metal roof, and there is a Nichiha panel, which resembles a lap siding you might typically see on a residential project,

but elevates that a little bit with kind of a v-groove look to be more commercial and more professional services, professional offices, which is the intended use of this building.

The gable roof form allowed us a lot of flexibility to break down the scale, to break down the mass, and there's three separate building forms that turn 90 degrees as we move our way through the site.

It allowed us to address the front of the building, which as Steph noted, is the entrance corridor, but when we relegate parking to the back, now we have to address both facades.

And it gives us the opportunity to create a front entrance from the parking lot for the end user, while still creating a building that's appropriate and well articulated from the entrance corridor side.

The gable roof form stepping also helps bring down the scale and mass, as I mentioned.

I think this is a C1 zoned parcel, so the height limitation is something like 65 feet.

Obviously, for a parcel, for this parcel, 65 feet is not practical for a number of reasons, but we did note the low nature of the surrounding buildings.

and it became important to emphasize this through a single story building, keeping the scale broken down and keeping the mass relatively low with the single story.

I think that was pretty much the introduction that I wanted to cover.

The groups read as a unified whole.

We've got the groups that break down, the unifying groups that break down three times through the Gable roof form to answer Frank's comments

There is a flat roof behind the Nichiha panel clad connectors.

The design also allows us flexibility from an induced perspective.

We can have an entire tenant take 6,500 square feet, but we could also split the building down the middle because of the symmetrical and have each tenant take 3,000 square feet, or we could even break this into thirds and have a couple of varying

spaces.

So it provides flexibility while also allowing us to respond to the entrance corridor.

This is a preliminary submission for us.

This is the first time seeing it for you guys.

We're really excited to have this project in front of you.

We think it's an important project along the Ivy Road corridor.

We're really excited about the discussion and hearing your comments and gathering feedback so that we can put our best foot forward on that final submission for you.

And with that in mind, I'm going to pass it over to Evan Phillips, who's the project manager with Design Develop, and he's going to go through the specific responses to these staff comments.

Hi, everyone.

Kevin mentioned I'm Evan Phillips.

I'm a project manager with Design Develop.

Thank you, Kevin, for the introduction.

I just want to take it through each of the staff comments that was addressed earlier in the meeting.

These staff comments up on screen are comments to which we are amenable and we intend to incorporate into the next submission.

So I just want to quickly walk through these, kind of give a brief synopsis of our feelings about them.

Comment one, providing samples.

We will most definitely provide samples for all the materials and glass, any glass we pick, any materials, any colors in the next submission, provide specifications on

Opposed window glass.

Most of the glass, just so you guys know, will not be tinted.

We are considering a slight tint on the south side of the building, so facing ivy.

But we make sure that that adheres to the county guidelines and we will provide specifications for that in the next submission.

Comment seven will add the standard window glass.

Note to the architectural drawings, standard mechanical note in the next comment.

And currently we have a landscape architect who is working on a plan and we will have that ready in the next submission as well.

From there, I just want to jump into comments that we kind of created some illustrations to help aid in discussion today.

Staff comment to provide versions of the

Prospective renderings without street trees.

We understand it's a little bit difficult to see the building and our design intention through those street trees.

So we just wanted to provide some renderings for you guys to assist you in discussion or comments you may have on the building itself.

Staff comment three may be the only one we slightly disagree with staff on.

We think that the Arctic white building color is appropriate for Ivy.

You see it a lot in, granted, residential buildings, kind of the white farmhouse aesthetic with the standing seam roof and the board and batten siding.

We do think it is appropriate, but we would love to hear board's comments as well.

Staff comment four, add notations

to the windows.

We've done that here.

We've also included a material key to assist the board and clarify any misunderstandings about which parts of the building are windows, which parts are storefront, the material distribution and all of that.

Staff comment five.

At the gable end of the building, it was commented that the gable might be a little bit simple for, you know, what the building is.

We feel that the board and batten actually provides a lot of interest on the end of the gable and that it is appropriately detailed.

Previously in the submission, we didn't include the seams you can see here.

The hardy panels comes in 10 foot sections, so we'll have to butt joint the ends of the panels together.

You can see a flashing detail we intend to incorporate here, which we think adds a little bit of complexity to the facade.

Another option is that we could consider adding gable end vent or a window to increase the complexity of the facade.

We think it might get a little bit messy, including that with the board and batten.

A lot of the times when you see that, you see that breaking down like a stucco facade or a stucco gable, which is a lot cleaner and kind of adds some interest, but we might see it get a little bit messy up there on ours.

Staff comment eight is mechanical.

Staff just wanted to know where mechanical was located on site.

There will be two units.

We're planning for two units currently on the flat portions of the roof behind a three foot parapet.

So the units being four foot tall, you know, would be mostly screened by the parapet down on the street.

For your information is about five hundred and twenty feet and then slab would be five twenty two parapet five thirty six.

So the top of parapet is about 16 feet up from the corridor, 15 at the lowest kind of up towards the bridge.

So we believe that you won't be able to see the HVAC units from the street.

As you can see in these two images on the right, they're screened.

And I believe that you have to get like 150 feet back to be able to see it.

But something to discuss with the board

Staff comments 9, 13, 14, I've kind of grouped together.

Revise proposed retaining wall color to a muted color.

We're proposing this James River Diamond Pro, as you can see at the bottom.

This rendering is kind of a coalition of all of these precedent images.

You can see the updated James River.

Staff comment 14 is to revise the dumpster enclosure to more closely resemble that retaining wall, play off the retaining wall rather than the building.

to kind of help mask that into the site as well.

So we're suggesting a cobblestone.

And then staff comment 13 was to provide planting at the bottoms of the retaining walls to integrate them into the site.

We had intended to, and this wasn't showing in the previous submission, provide a hanging ivy of sorts that would kind of creep from the top of the wall down.

We believe that this would help integrate into the site.

These are some examples of what that might look like.

and you can see all of these things in the rendering on the top right.

Staff comment 11, provide a lighting plan with the next submittal.

This is the lighting plan we currently have still being tweaked a little bit as site issues arise and such, but we will definitely provide this in the final or next submission and here are some of the fixtures we were thinking.

The doors for the building each would get two downlight sconces.

There would be bollards strategically placed throughout the planting beds around the building to help light the parking.

And then post-top luminaires would be out in the parking itself to help distribute the light more evenly throughout the site.

Here are some renderings of what that might look like.

Once again, it's kind of preliminary and this doesn't perfectly reflect the plan, but

Just to give you a sense of where the lights are and what it might look like.

Thank you, Evan.

I know we're getting close to the end of our 15 minutes here, so I just wanted to briefly touch on preliminary submission.

We never, there's always kind of a dance.

We never know quite how far to go.

We want to get, put our best foot forward in front of you.

So we know we need to come back with the lighting plan and the landscape plan, but wanted to get the building, the proposed building in front of you before we went too far to, you know, make sure we were headed down the right path, gather feedback and gather comments.

Great.

Thank you both.

I'll just say that this was a great presentation.

I thought the way you addressed staff comments was incredibly helpful.

So thank you both for that.

I'll turn it over to ARB members to see if they have any questions for the applicant.

Yes, Fred, Kevin, Evan, thank you.

That was a really nice proposal.

Great question.

The roofs actually filter into the flat area.

And you can see in this section, thank you for bringing this up, Evan.

The flat areas of what we call the mechanical roofs, the flat roofs,

funneled back down towards the parking lot side where they'll go underground into our stormwater retention, which is out in the parking lot.

And so there's some DIs along that sidewalk there.

Gotcha.

Great, thanks.

Thanks, Frank.

Sure.

Thank you, Fred.

Echo, both of your praises for the presentation.

It's nice and clear and seems like very suitable forms and scale and material.

Some subtle questions, I guess, in terms of the gable end.

Yeah, that's correct.

And this is a point of much discussion for us.

As soon as you start to introduce the board in Batten, all of a sudden the question is, where are the horizontal seams?

Could we go up one page, Evan, to the flashing details here?

These are 10-foot panels, is what you're seeing.

So our window header right there is at 10 feet.

And then we go an additional 10 feet to where that is called out as the butt joints of the hardy panel.

And then from there, I think it's an additional six feet, five feet, something like that.

So what we did was we just took our largest available hardy panel, a four by 10 sheet and we stacked it like that.

We were trying to do

That's correct, and I'm not sure if you can see the screen, but on the right side

It's a Z flashing.

It's part of that hardy penal system.

Yeah, they have a good system.

Okay, good.

No, they don't have to.

Okay.

Okay.

So you have continuity at that point.

Okay.

And then I thought is would it be feasible?

The simplicity of the larger central opening in the gables facing the parking lot seems somehow, at least to me a little more appropriate in terms of sort of them sort of agricultural vernacular.

Yeah, a great comment again.

And it's the struggle when we start to relegate parking and we kind of have to consider back of house considerations in terms of professional offices or professional service buildings.

Is there a storefront and then is there a back of house?

But we have to address both as front entrances.

It's something we looked at and something we'd be happy to consider looking at.

It is more of a function consideration.

How are these, you know, what effectively becomes the rear of the building gets used?

Is it for storage or is it an emergency egress or an employee-only egress kind of thing?

OK, well, thank you for that.

And then in terms of the color, I don't disagree that there are some bright white buildings in the county.

Yeah, we tried to drive down, up and down Google Maps for quite a bit.

And we found a lot of residential examples, and we saved those, but then it

It kind of didn't feel as applicable to include them.

I think it's a residential roof form or building form to a certain degree.

And we're blending that to be contextual, but then detailing it with modern and contemporary details like the no overhang and the niche panels and some of our window sizing and placements and things like that.

So there is a direct correlation from a gable form in white cladding.

No, no, I hear that.

Yeah, I think having looked at the corridor recently, a couple weeks ago, I feel like these forms to me relate somewhat more to the agricultural buildings that are along the corridor.

And for the most part, those are often weathered or painted

recessive colors.

So sympathetic to staff's comment and would appreciate some further consideration of alternates to the white.

But those are all my questions.

I'm sorry I veered into comments.

Great.

Thanks, Dave.

No, I don't have any questions per se.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

Let's say that's me.

I guess that leaves me.

Yeah, again, you know, I appreciate the challenge that you're dealing with with the relegated parking, and it's definitely something that we've seen around the county over the years.

So I would just echo Dave's thoughts on that and appreciate your continuing to look at that.

Under the heading of the Gable, this may just be personal preference, so I really hesitate to say it, but maybe the thing that's causing it to look

sort of, I don't know if the word is, I guess blank we'll use, is it's hard to really understand what you're doing with the soffit and the fascia at the roof and how the roof is actually meeting that edge.

And I think on page 12, where you showed those examples, the upper right showed a pretty distinct overhang, whereas it looks like on the side, the bottom,

doesn't show that, but I don't know if that's the front or the side.

Yeah, we have.

And I think, Evan, you may be pulling up that detail precedent.

The goal is to try and create a very simple building form.

Allow that extruded gable form to read very legibly and approach it with a contemporary approach and detailing.

With that in mind, we aren't showing yet, and you're correct, that we aren't showing that trim.

There's going to be some sort of drip edge trim, a metal drip edge trim that hangs down there.

But the goal would be to keep that as minimal as possible.

Allow our standing seam roof to just barely get over our battens, which will also create a shadow line.

We're going to have probably about an inch, inch and a half shadow line where that metal roof extends, kind of what you see on the image on the right here.

And then there will be a flashing end right there.

but I think it's relatively subtle and I think it's helpful to have that building form read so legibly and so cleanly.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful.

In terms of color, you know, we've actually been doing a fair amount of board and batten buildings at Boar's Head and Birdwood over the last few

I don't know if you've seen any of those.

The golf practice facility is board and batten and then some of the more utilitarian buildings like restrooms on the golf course and then next to the tennis are all board and batten.

And we spent a lot of time debating on color and ended up going with a white.

So I don't, I mean, I understand the concern about it being reduced, but

I guess you sort of answered, this is not a question.

I'm just throwing that out there as potentially something you might want to take a look at if it's helpful along the corridor.

And I think that is all I had.

So thank you.

Thank you both again.

And I will open it up to public comment.

OK, great.

Well, any more questions?

Greg, can I ask one question I think's been answered, but I'm not sure I heard it.

It's either a charcoal gray or a dark bronze.

Okay, gotcha.

But the walls themselves, what color are you kind of envisioning?

Yes, that is the Nichiha product.

And I will hold up a sample here.

If we want to talk more in depth about Nichiha,

It is a fiber cement product.

It's 5-8 inch thick.

It's got a v-groove siding on it.

It comes in 18-inch wide panels.

And then so one of the v-grooves becomes a true v-groove lap.

And then there's two more that are just surface applied.

It's a product that's used a lot commercially.

because it's super durable.

It's very low maintenance.

It has a 25-year warranty.

The rigidity of the 5-eighths inch means it doesn't warp or flex or crack or cup and bend, things like that.

So we've had good luck with it.

And this is in the bark, which is a darker version of the Nichiha architectural wall panel.

And here, I'm holding up to the screen.

I'm not sure how helpful it is.

But that's the bark texture.

You can see the 5-8 inch thickness fiber cement board.

That's great.

Thanks, Kevin.

Any more questions, folks?

OK, great.

So no more questions, no more public or no public comment.

I will open it up to discussion.

Kevin, thanks again.

All right.

I guess I have two comments.

One is that the Arctic white collar, in my opinion, is appropriate.

Helps to set up that contrast between the main forms and the connecting forms.

It's certainly of traditional color.

And so I don't have a problem with the Arctic white.

The other comment, which is kind of neither here nor there really is that triple gable statement that you get on the parking lot side

It's a shame that you don't get to see that on the 250 side just because it makes, I think it gives a lot of interest.

It's not a requirement, but just more of a suggestion.

I think you've done a good job of making the, essentially the rear side of the building look good as that's the side that you see from the road.

You know, I think that triple gable is something that I think would enhance the other side of the building too.

Great.

Thanks, Chris.

No, I appreciate Chris's suggestion.

I think that's an interesting one to explore.

I think, as I mentioned, I'm sympathetic to staff's comments about the color.

I agree with Chris and others that there are examples, and I think

can be appropriate.

I just think that something more muted would be still more appropriate to the overall character of the corridor.

Great, thanks, Dave.

I would echo Dave and Chris, and that I think the forms are appropriate.

I too would endorse maybe exploration of the triple gable on the roadside, on the 250 side.

I don't have a problem with the arctic white.

Again, I think the contrast is important between the nijiha product and the main forms.

And I think with a charcoal roof, white siding and that bark color, I think it could look really nice.

You know, as to how the, I really appreciate the precedent image for how that roof kind of, roof soffit meets the board and batten siding.

I really liked it in the example you showed.

Part of the reason I liked it was just the character of the building and the natural wood

kind of meeting that metal roof.

I'm less convinced that it's going to look as good here.

But that's beyond my pay grade to figure out.

So otherwise, I really don't have any anxiety about it.

Great.

Thanks, Frank.

My only comments, and really they echo what everyone else has said, as I mentioned, we did study colors on Gordon Madden, ended up going with Arctic white or a lighter color, so no real issue there.

I wondered if it's because you chose all white cars with the exception of one of them.

It just looks white.

Yeah, Frank, your comment about the soffit and the roof edge, I would echo that comment.

I think maybe when we see the detail there and it reads accurately, it might make more sense.

So I'm not sure I would want to see something.

I'm not able to say it's inappropriate for an entrance corridor.

I just would like to see what it looks like and how it's developed.

And I will be the man on the island who says that the three gables, I get it facing the entrance corridor, but it feels more to me like a standard strip mall when you have three equal gables facing an entrance corridor, whereas when you look at it from the other direction and you see a central gable with two flanking wings, it starts to feel a little bit different.

And so I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but

Again, that's just a personal feeling.

The only thing I did think about on the entrance corridor side is if the central gable is, from a hierarchy standpoint, the most important element.

Is there something different that you might do with the door as opposed to the two flanking doors on the wings so that it actually feels a little bit more hierarchically important?

Beyond that, I had no additional items

Why don't we jump to the staff recommendations and adjust as necessary.

Yes.

So I think number three is the first question.

Sounds like most everyone was okay with that.

I would ask Dade I think your thoughts on that.

We could also say consider

I think if we get the consideration, that would be, I think, helpful just to review an option, I think.

I think continued consideration, I believe, or some other element there.

I would agree.

And as an alternative, I think the landscape plan, I know, is still being developed.

The rendering showed a small arborvitae or something there.

If there were a more ornamental tree or something that could have a canopy that

Is it necessary, does anyone feel it's necessary to add anything about the roofline and where it meets the walls, the fascia?

I continue to have some anxiety and I'm trying to figure out why I have anxiety and part of it I think may be just the roof pitch.

The precedent they showed had a very steep roof pitch to it, which I think helped greatly in the overall composition of the building.

I think the roof pitches here are low enough that it kind of feels

Got it.

Would we want to say something like further refine the detail between wall and roof edge and

I don't know, can consider, I mean, this is all something that they'll probably do anyway, consider it within context of the roof pitch.

We did, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to or allowed to jump in here.

I just, okay, great, thanks.

We did look at, we had originally shown it as a 9-12 pitch.

It's a eight currently.

We had looked at even steeper, a 10 and a 12.

And I think the comment about the Gablin's blankness and the additional height on this started to get just a little bit more maybe noticeable or more concerning as that roof got steeper, that area got taller.

So it was trying to find that balance, that middle ground with the 8-12, which seems to be

That was good.

I'm trying to think, well, you may have mentioned this.

I think maybe, Frank, you had a question about this.

Will there be gutters along the front two wing at all?

No.

OK.

I do.

I mean, at the end of the day, I'm not sure it would, I'm not trying to vote against this because of that concern.

I don't know that it's that significant.

To me, it feels like they're kind of shooting for this just pure elemental form and trying to minimize that transition from roof to gable as much as possible.

So to me, it seems that the detail matches the intent.

And I don't have a problem with it.

Okay.

Well, everyone's okay.

We'll just leave the comment the way it is.

Doesn't really push into further definition.

It's more of a refinement.

Great.

So any other comments and any of the other comments?

From a next steps perspective, do we submit

for final, or do we work session these options, or what is best for the board and the staff?

Dave, do you have any thoughts on that?

Oh, sorry.

Oh, I was just going to suggest that a final submittal that would be adjusted

The comments from the initial site plan review and that addressed this, the architectural issues from today would be the typical next step.

OK. All right.

Yeah.

It's not up to us to design it.

For just to get a few more comments nailed down, did the board have any preference on number five?

We were showing those horizontal brake lines at the gable element versus event.

Okay, and number 14 would be provide landscaping at the base, and we had talked about that top ivy.

It kind of filters down.

I think from a practical standpoint, it's going to be a stronger option just because getting hardy plants to grow in that strip at the base of a retaining wall, especially on this facing south, can be challenging, and we could have

Ivey, sort of hanging over the wall.

Kevin, I think to your question about what's typical, at least in my opinion, this submission was pretty well developed and gave us a lot to really think about and look at.

And it gave you better feedback because of that.

So I think we all appreciate that work and look forward to the final submission.

Margaret, there's no action, right?

This is just preliminary?

Right.

Okay.

All right.

Kevin and Evan, thank you very much.

Okay.

Thank you guys so much.

Thanks guys.

Everybody, I'm going to exercise a little chef's prerogative because I messed up.

So I'm just going to back up for a second and go to public comment.

Carolyn, are there any members of the public that want to make a comment about a project that is not on the agenda for review?

No, sir.

OK, great.

Thank you.

All right, we'll move on to ARB 2020-131, White Gables.

Great.

Okay.

This is a proposal.

Let me make one other one other adjustment so I can see my notes.

Okay, this is a proposal to build three buildings that constitute the eastern half of the White Gables development.

The site is located on the north side of Route 250 West across from Birdwood Golf Course and ARB previously reviewed the original site plan and all of the building designs for this development beginning back in 2002.

The current application is a major site plan amendment to address both site and architectural changes to the three eastern pavilions.

Construction of Pavilion 1, 3, and 5, which is a pavilion on the west side of the site, is complete.

The photo in this slide is a view of Pavilion 5, which is located at the south end of the western side of the site.

This view shows the frontage along the entrance quarter street.

It shows that there are some trees that limit the view of the buildings in the development.

However, views are available into the site, particularly in the winter.

And the south elevation of Pavilion 6 is expected to have some visibility from the street and probably similar to that of Pavilion 5, which is the one that's visible at the left side of this image.

Proposed site changes include a slight shift in the orientation of the pavilions to be more regularly aligned.

Previously, the pavilions orientations shifted to address the curving internal road.

And although that seems appropriate when viewing from locations interior to the site, it probably isn't really that obvious from the entrance corridor street.

Another change is the removal of the curved site wall that was originally proposed south of Pavilion 6.

The curved wall at Pavilion 5 was constructed, but the current plans no longer show the wall at Pavilion 6, and we've recommended that the wall be retained.

That wall was one of the elements of the original design that established a balanced development around the historic manor house.

This view shows the manor house at the center and the south elevations at Pavilions 5 and 6 more or less mirroring each other on either side of the house.

The symmetrical or mirrored elevations were also part of that balanced design.

This slide compares the previously approved design for the south elevation of Pavilion VI with the current proposal.

You can see that they're very different, where the materials are generally consistent, and because there isn't expected to be a clear view of the three buildings together, perfect symmetry may not be necessary.

But because we expect some visibility of Pavilion VI, we've recommended additional detailing for the south elevation, particularly at the eastern end of the elevation, for more consistency with Pavilion V.

Our comments have focused on the south elevation of Pavilion 6 because we believe that's what will ultimately be visible from the entrance corridor street.

But the sequence of construction is Pavilion 2 first, then 4, and then 6.

We think that the visibility of Pavilions 2 and 4 will be extremely limited even before Pavilion 6 is built.

So we've made no recommendations for them, but visibility of all the pavilions should be a point of your discussion today.

So there are three issues that are the primary areas of concern for this proposal.

It's the diminishing of the balanced design around the manor house, the removal of the curb site wall, and the significantly changed design at the south elevation of Pavilion 6.

Our comments in the staff report also include some lighting issues and other technical items that are easily resolved, mostly with notes on the line.

That's the end of my presentation.

Great.

Thanks, Margaret.

Very helpful.

I'll start with Chris.

OK, great.

Margaret, can you go back to that view from 250, looking up at, yeah.

I don't see the site wall in front of the pavilion on the left.

That's a good question.

It's my impression that there would be some visibility of it.

That's right.

That's great, thanks.

Thanks, Frank.

Thank you, Fred.

And thank you, Margaret.

I apologize.

I can still see everyone on screen, but I lost the visuals of Margaret's screen.

But Margaret, can you remind me of the landscape, the mature landscape that's there, the large magnolia and the hedge around the old mansion?

OK, thank you.

Great, thanks, Dave.

Thank you.

Thanks, Margaret.

All right, great.

I don't have any questions either.

They were answered.

Thank you.

OK, we will ask the public.

Oh, OK. Well, that makes it easy.

Yep.

All right.

So is there an app?

So there's no applicant presentation, I assume, then?

Or no, I don't?

Scott Collins.

Oh, got it.

OK.

Sorry, I can't see everybody's names.

Great, thank you Fred, thank you everybody, and thank you Margaret for that great staff report.

Yeah, as Margaret kind of indicated, this project was first approved in 2002, it was approved in 2006, it had a series of other approvals with some site plan amendments up until about 2009, up until the

The economic downturn, it was a very successful project with the first three buildings until the condo market just completely went away in 2009.

And it's taken a while to come back.

But this product is now found a lot in the city.

And there's not a whole lot of this type of product in the county.

So we see that this is going to be very successful again.

There's a new developer who's partnering with Robinson Development to take over the project and continue the project out and that's what we're presenting today.

As Margaret kind of indicated, it's not a whole lot different from what some of the earlier approved plans.

I think, you know, from a site plan

standpoint, other than sort of reorientating the buildings to kind of give that linear feel, that's really about the only change on the site aspect.

We, other than some, a little bit of stormwater change that we felt would be a little bit better, that's on the back of the site and kind of rerouting some of the utilities, making all that work.

I think the biggest change, as Margaret kind of indicated in the staff report, was, you know, some of the architectural elements of the building and certainly

You know, we did try to kind of keep with the characteristic and the overall design of what's been originally approved and what the units look like across the street, but also try to sort of incorporate, you know, what's today's market and today's buyers also looking for.

Certainly a lot of things have changed in the world over the last 10 years.

And I think that's what they really looked at doing is still keeping the elements of the buildings

1, 3, and 5, but updating it to what some of the more desirable market trends have been over the past 8 or 10 years and the architects are on this call as well and they can certainly jump in after I'm done and talk a little bit more about the architectural elements of the site, of the

of the proposal.

From a site standpoint, I don't really have any huge issues with what Margaret talked about in her presentation.

You know, as far as the curved retaining walls, it was a three-foot sort of curvilinear wall.

I didn't really think you could probably see it from 250.

I didn't quite, looking back at it in 10 years,

out from when that, or 15 years out when that wall was first probably proposed.

I just didn't see a lot of benefit from it, but if that's something that the board really would like to see incorporated, we don't have a problem with it.

We can incorporate that back into the design element if that's desired.

We don't have a problem with that.

I don't think I have any other issues with

Hi, this is Clark Gathwright.

Can you all hear me?

I don't know that I have much to say other than we're really trying to keep it in keeping with the existing buildings and maintain a timeless feel.

I guess one thing initially here we're just looking at Pavilion II to start in the near future and Pavilion VI

with some of the considerations about matching Pavilion 5.

Certainly we can take that on in time.

But yes, we're just trying to maintain the flavor that's there for the most part.

And really what's changed is the interior, and we've adjusted the exterior to match that, the layouts internally.

Anyway, that's all I have to say.

OK, thanks, Clark.

Thank you, Scott.

Any other comments from the applicant?

All right, we will go into questions.

So this is getting to the staff comment regarding pavilion sticks and adding more

detail to that south facade.

Pavilion 5 has those extensive porches, which add a lot of interest to that.

And I noticed on the site plan, the south kind of facade of Pavilion 6 is a lot closer to the setback than the Pavilion 5, which is billed as that.

What's preventing you from

Well, I think that came from other, you know, the internal layout more than trying to match Pavilion 5.

And it'll be interesting to see how much of Pavilion 6 we will be able to see with the mature trees there.

Pavilion 5, you have the entranceway going up there and you get a good straight shot at the end of that building.

Just looking at the Margaret's pictures, it may be that the porch front of the building may be all that's visible through all the mature trees along the front there.

Thanks, Chris.

I don't have any questions.

All right.

Thanks, Frank Stoner.

I don't have any questions either, Fred.

Thank you, Fred.

Chris, I appreciate raising the question about the porches.

I guess in lieu of those, are there any other alternatives you've considered to address staff's comment about

Thank you.

Great, thanks, Dave.

My only question is probably for Scott.

It was purely ornamental.

It's not necessary for great change.

It's pretty, I think we have it graded out right now at about a eight to one slope coming down from there down to the connector road to the east that's already been installed as well.

So it's just purely ornamental.

Okay, got it.

And I'm trying to quickly scroll through my images that you all provided.

OK.

Yeah, the ones on the west sit up about six or eight feet higher, so that's why we were comfortable with proposing this, these buildings at one story higher so that most way they'd be the same height, or thereabouts.

Got it, okay, that's great, thank you.

All right, those were my only questions.

And I'm gonna share an image if that's okay with you.

Yeah.

Go back to this street view.

Are you able to see the street view?

Yes.

So just given monitors and street view the way it is, but the wall in front of that existing pavilion is right here.

Got it.

So it's there.

It's visible.

OK, thank you.

All right.

Well, I'll open it up for discussion.

Thanks, Fred.

I think it's a nice proposal.

I think the building is far enough away from the corridor.

I think it's compatible with the existing architectural detailing and style and character, and I don't know

You know, it's worth kind of fussing over some of the more, you know, how do you articulate some things on the building?

I don't know how visible it will be.

I like the height and, you know, this location on the corridor as you start to come into the city.

And it's further mitigated because it's, you know, a couple hundred feet back from the corridor.

So I think that's entirely appropriate.

You know, I love the language of the stone out in front, and that's all staying.

I think it's got a really kind of layered landscape approach that helps it, you know, that really softens it from the corridor.

Great.

Frank Stoner?

Thanks, Fred.

I would echo what Frank Hancock just said.

I think there's a lot of mature landscaping on the site that's going to remain, which will block the view of this building from many perspectives.

Having said that, I think it might be helpful to see a perspective from the road where the building is actually visible.

just to get a better sense of what it'll actually look like.

I don't have any problem with the architecture.

Much like Frank, I'm not sure, we're spending a lot of effort trying to revise the detailing of the rear portion of that pavilion on the east side.

I think the materials are compatible, and so I'm just not sure you're gonna notice it, quite frankly.

Great, thank you.

Sure, thank you, Fred.

I think, like my colleagues, I think the proposal is largely compatible with what's there and it is going to be less visible due to the current mature landscaping.

I'm sure there will come a day when that landscaping subsides and it has to be re-established.

And in that instance, would be interested in some further consideration to address Daph's comment about the

South elevation facing the EC more than the east one.

Thank you.

Thanks, Dave.

Yeah, I'm pretty much in agreement with what everyone else has said.

I think it's appropriate as is.

And I think the existing landscape provides enough screening that aside from seeing just the mass of the building kind of

Great, thanks.

I echo everybody else's comments.

I thought, Frank, your comment about perspective, just to kind of give us a sense of the way it might appear from the entrance corridor would be helpful, especially considering that it's a different height and to Scott's comments about how that's mitigated by the slope of the land.

I don't

Not sure if anybody mentioned anything about the wall.

I do like the walls that are there.

They're beautiful.

You know, if it's not needed for site reasons like a retaining wall, I guess I would probably say, does the application stand on its own without the wall and start there?

And my sense is it would because of all of the mitigating factors everyone else just mentioned, like the landscaping and the distance from the corridor.

If this were up closer, I think I maybe have a different thought, but it's probably, or if it was absolutely necessary for site reasons.

Other than that, the only other thing I'll mention is, I know Clark mentioned in his presentation that they're going to start with block two and they could come back

when they're ready to do Block 6.

Just to clarify, we're reviewing this, or Pavilion 6, we're reviewing this as a whole, right?

We're not just, so this, so they're really, yeah.

When we approve it, we're approving Pavilion 6.

Okay.

Great.

Any other comments before we look at the staff review?

All right, let's go to staff recommendations.

Great.

Two through six are mostly just notes and technical notes.

I'm OK if we strike that.

And number eight is about just showing that chief protection fencing and that's a standard.

We often see it.

You have two options.

You can either just provide preliminary comments or given the

extensive review that this project has had over the years and the limited comments you have today.

And if you choose, you can bring it back to us, right?

I do think it might be worth adding.

Another comment to Fred's point in mind that it'd be nice to see a perspective from 250.

I would agree.

In that case, you'll want to see that back again.

or do you want to see that in a work session?

All right.

Does everyone agree that we can move forward with a motion, or is there any concern with that?

That's for a motion.

OK, awesome.

I will move to approval of certificate of appropriateness for ARB 2020-131 White Gables with conditions listed in the staff report

Amended as follows.

We are striking, can you scroll back up just so I can see all the, okay.

Okay, Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, we will move on now to our work session, I believe.

And this is the work session on Rio 29 form-based code.

Rachel Falkenstein, welcome.

Lea Brumfeld, welcome.

Everyone else, welcome.

People are popping on.

Thanks for joining us today.

Yes, thank you everyone for having us today.

I'm Rachel Falkenstein, Planning Manager.

I'm joined by my colleagues, Michaela Acardi and Leah Bromfield.

And actually Leah is going to kick us off today with a little project background.

She'll go over our agenda, but our main topic will be after a few minutes of staff presentation where we'll get your feedback on the architecture section of the code.

Let's see if this will work.

There we go.

All right.

Great.

So thanks, everyone, for letting us present this to you today.

So as we stated, my name is Leah Brumfield.

We are going to be presenting

a background of the project, the development scenarios, which I'll describe a little bit later, and then go into discussion and review with input from the Architectural Review Board.

And finally, what's gonna happen next and our plan for implementation and adoption for this.

So throughout the process of designing the form-based code, which I'm sure we're all a little bit familiar with right now for the Route 29 small area plan vision of creating a walkable dense area in the Route 29 area, we have had a lot of input.

We've had a lot of collaboration.

We've worked across departments, across different groups of people.

We contracted with the form-based code institute to do a peer review of the draft

that staff has prepared.

And through them, we also contracted with Dover Coal to create design scenarios to demonstrate the feasibility of the project that we're working on.

Throughout, we also engaged with the Rive29 steering committee, which is made up of property members, sorry, sorry, property owners, business owners, developers, other local parties with vested interest in the Rive29 area.

And we have brought specific questions to the board and the Planning Commission work sessions.

And we'll be bringing the actual drafts to them for a public hearing in the next quarter for the first quarter of 2021.

We did meet with the ARB, which you may remember.

2019 and 2020 for input.

Specifically, we were looking for input on the form-based code standards that support the code replacing ARB review for entrance corridor properties within the Rio 29 form-based code district.

So we've discussed architectural standards that we've incorporated, transparency, facade articulation, building materials, and lighting materials.

So the goal for today is to share the completed, mostly completed current draft of the form-based code.

We have incorporated a lot of feedback in that.

And so we'll be describing some of the specific feedback we've received and the changes there.

And we want to get the ARB's feedback on the design standards and particularly the materials standards.

Those did not receive as much attention in previous discussions.

And so we feel that's really one of the big points that we want to discuss with the ARB and get your feedback on to make sure that the draft meets the standards that are going to bring about the development that we want.

So these design standards developed by Deborah Cole were part of our contracted consultant services.

And we wanted to demonstrate that the code could achieve the goals we envisioned.

and that the code was feasible for developers and property owners.

The scenarios aren't proposals.

They're not really design requests.

They're just imagination proposals, something to see what could be here to help envision something different than what is.

So three scenarios were developed for the three character areas in the form-based code area.

The first is the core.

The core character area is, I believe, located all entirely within the entrance corridor, so these are going to be the densest, most urban character areas.

The first scenario is at the location of Rio and 29, where there's currently a Hardee's.

It's all mostly single-family retail parking lots right now, and this development scenario would be one of the faces of the area.

It incorporates some of the existing structures, demonstrating we can have that and still achieve the looks that we're looking for, but it does largely have taller, more dense new developments, and in particular, it relegates parking to the rear, creating more welcoming facades.

So we are also looking at the civic space that you can see in this shot of the development scenario and buildings over four stories tall, a variety of facades, a variety of uses.

The second scenario we're looking at is in the flex.

Again, a good deal of the flex would be in entrance corridor, particularly this section, the 29th Place Shopping Center.

I'm particularly interested in the phased infill of large parking lots and the redevelopment of areas that could have structured parking and also reduced parking requirements.

This adds residential and office above retail.

This also incorporates a parking garage, which is the white building in the middle to the right directly off of 29.

It does have a central civic space.

It has pedestrian streets providing safe walking areas between buildings.

And overall, it's just a much more integrated, interesting space.

We also have a mix of architectural styles here.

And again, there's very little parking visible, just a little bit of street parking to give you a teaser.

And most of the parking is relegated to the rear.

The final scenario, which is on Berkmar Drive, is modeled on a Greensfield site that is owned by the county.

It's between the fire station and rescue station and a mixed medical office building.

This scenario demonstrates the potential for housing, for just general housing that fits within the form-based code

and it fits within the area fairly seamlessly.

This was designed as affordable housing or mixed income housing.

And again, it just adds to the landscape.

It fits very easily within there and it does not detract from the area's architectural styles or the views, despite it being a fairly dense residential development.

So hopefully as we look into these, we're sparking imagination, looking at scenarios, and trying to figure out how they would fit in and meet our goals.

Thanks, Leah.

So before we get into the architecture section, I was just going to do a quick overview of all the other sections of the code.

And I'm going to go really quickly, but happy to come back if there's anything you'd like to hear more detail about.

So I'm just going to share kind of what changes we've made to the draft code since we met with you all last and since you last had an opportunity to review it.

Some overarching changes would just be the level of detail that's in there.

There's quite a bit more detail and getting down into the nitty gritty of things that we need to do to have this be a complete ordinance.

One other big change is we've incorporated graphics to help the users to understand some of the regulations and the requirements of the code.

Next section, Leah.

So now I'm going to go through just in order of the content that appears in the draft.

And the first section is the administration.

And if you recall, we're structuring this as an optional overlay.

So the current zoning will stay in the area, but property owners who wish to develop or redevelop their property have the option to choose to develop under the form-based code.

If they choose to develop, they can do so under form-based code by right, so they don't have to go through a rezoning process to develop under the form-based code, and we think there are a lot of benefits of doing so, and this slide kind of summarizes some of those.

Next slide.

And so the administration section kind of talks about how to use the code.

It goes through the optional overlay district and essentially the way it would work is that a property owner who opted in would have to opt in for the whole property.

and they would have to opt into all the regulations within the code so they couldn't pick and choose and they couldn't just apply it to like one corner of the property it would apply to the whole parcel and the next slide goes into that a little bit more so if we have one of these large shopping centers there are several in the area and they opt into the form-based code they can phase their redevelopment but they would have to show us a plan of how they would phase it so they couldn't just

choose to do one thing in the corner without thinking about how it would impact the whole site and how the whole site would develop.

So they would need to come in with a plan showing us that phase if they wanted to apply the larger parcel, but only start with one small area.

And the next slide will go into the regulating plan.

You've probably seen this before.

We have three areas identified in the form-based code.

There's the core shown in red, the flex shown in white, and the blue is the edge.

And there are different regulations for each of the three areas.

The red core area is the highest intensity and then it tapers off as you get to the outer edges.

The next section of the code talks about uses, and I won't go into a lot of detail about this, but just to share that it's a different approach that we've done before.

Our existing zoning ordinance goes into great detail and lists dozens and dozens of uses for each district.

We've tried to be more succinct and have categories of uses, and most things are allowed because this is a form-based code.

The form is more important than the uses, but we do want to make sure

The impacts are still mitigated for some uses that might have noise or traffic impacts, for instance.

The next section of the code goes into our street standards.

As you recall, we have different street types identified in the small area plan.

And this section talks about what facilities and elements are required on each type of street and also has certain amenities that are required along the street, such as seating, benches, lighting, trees.

And there are graphics to go along with each of these.

One of them is shown here on this slide.

and then the next slide shows a street section and the dimensions required for each of the elements.

The streets will still be public elements dedicated to VDOT, elements that are not accepted by VDOT, which could be possible here if we have some wider sidewalk or things like the street benches and lighting.

Those will still be required to be public, publicly accessed and the maintenance will need to be worked out in cooperation with the county and the owner.

Next section is building standards.

Again, this talks about what the building should look like, where it should be located on the site, kind of the massing and building location, setbacks, heights, things like that.

I won't go into great detail, but if you have questions, we'd be happy to come back.

The next section is parking.

Again, this is a little bit different approach for us.

We have greatly reduced our

Parking requirements in terms of numbers, the maximums are much lower than what you see in the code right now.

We have one space per 1000 gross square feet is the minimum requirement and then the maximum 150% of that.

We're really trying to encourage a shared parking approach so people can share with their neighbors and have, instead of each site having their own individual parking, it can be more of a shared approach.

The next section of the code will be your architecture, but we're saving that for the end and Michaela's going to talk about that.

So we'll skip over that and go to civic spaces.

Each site is required to have a certain percentage of their land dedicated to what we're calling civic spaces.

And this is we're using the word civic because we're requiring these spaces to be open to the public.

A lot of times in our private residential subdivisions, they'll have open space requirements and they'll be held by the private subdivision.

but in this case we are asking for these spaces to be dedicated to the public and there are standards about what these spaces should include within them.

Next section of the code used to be incentives last time you saw it but we've updated the incentive section and decided to take that out and incorporate some of the elements within other areas of the code and then the only incentive that remains is a

So there are two elements of affordable housing.

One is your required affordable housing, and that matches our affordable housing policy that's going through the review process right now with the Board and Planning Commission reviews happening recently.

And then there's an additional incentive or height bonus if you go above and beyond these minimum required percentages, you can receive a height bonus.

So that was a rapid fire session of everything that's in the code except for architecture.

Thank you, Rachel.

And as we need to during the discussion portion, we can refer back to any of the portions of the code and pull up the user guide that's needed.

Since we really wanted to focus on the architectural design standards with you all, we provided this slide here with some background from the

draft form-based code framework, which was really an outline that we shared with the board in December of 2019.

And we had, before that went to the board, we engaged with the architectural review board to ask about the process piece for the form-based code.

And we heard support for basically not providing for an A or B review.

for the parcels in the Rio 29 area and incorporating the entrance corridor guidelines within the code by having standards for transparency, materials, facade articulation, lighting, parking structures, and equipment and service areas.

So on the next slide, we shared the revised draft with the consultant team and a range of stakeholders over the past year.

And we've heard and got some great ideas about standards for regulating facade articulation and transparency.

Lots of form-based codes do this work.

So we had lots of great references to work off of which are reflected in the current draft.

We also have a few different codes for really detailed design standards that

are closer to historic districts and areas that have a consistent architectural style, but our future references for our team should we decide to go into greater detail in future iterations of the code.

And as Leah mentioned at the beginning of our work session, we've worked with the ARB through virtual work sessions like this, as well as earlier in 2020, we had some feedback forms that we tried as a method to get some feedback in a different way.

So on the next slide, this is one of a couple of slides detailing the current code, which in the user guide that Margaret sent you all last week, this is basically going through pages 42 through 45 of the user guide.

And you'll see that the first significant standard that's in this section is transparency.

And there are percentages of ground story and upper story transparency that

We worked with you all on, we got some great feedback from consultants and this area refers to the amount of glass within the frames of windows and doors as a percentage of the building facade.

And it's probably a helpful reference to know that in the most dense, walkable, urban area is the core and the ground story transparency there is 60% and the upper story transparency is 40%.

And it steps down from that for each of the

different character areas, and we've also introduced transparency requirements for buildings with frontage along Route 29 to make sure that there's still ample windows and doors, but we acknowledge that people will probably be walking more actively on the interiors of the spaces, so the transparency requirements there are 30% and 25% respective to the ground and upper space.

The other thing that the code does on this slide shown is the facade articulation.

And I know we've worked with this group at pretty significant length to talk about how we should determine a maximum facade segment length.

So basically trying to figure out how long a facade should go without a visual or physical break in the plane.

And we've

The current code has this based on height and we have a diagram shown and basically as a function of height that maximum facade segment length changes.

You can go to the next slide, Leah.

This slide is really just outlining how the entrance corridor guidelines are incorporated into the draft code.

There are minimum planting requirements that differ by street type.

There are also lighting requirements that align with the entrance corridor guidelines, as well as mechanical service and loading requirements screening for those areas.

And then there is a draft

permitted and prohibited building materials list that we would definitely like this group's feedback on that list.

So on the next slide, I think is our first question.

And we can certainly answer any clarifying questions before this, but I think our overarching question for Architectural Review Board is whether the entrance quarter guidelines are sufficiently incorporated into this code.

and if you have any other comments or recommendations.

Our second question is about the building materials list.

Great.

Well, great presentation, and this is really

Excellent work.

I'll say as an aside, I was having a conversation with a prior city councilor a couple days ago and they were complimenting primarily the three of you on the work that you've done on this subject, so congratulations on this.

It's really, really well done.

I will go ahead, I guess, and go around the room and ask for comments.

Why don't I start with

Frank Hancock, or how do we wanna do this?

Whatever is best for this group, it's fine to go through individually.

Yeah, let's do that.

This group's a little crazy.

I think you've done a good job of incorporating the guidelines.

It's a very thorough document.

I had a few things for the second question, but I don't really have any comments on the first question.

Thanks, Frank.

Yeah, I don't have any comments on the first question.

And admittedly, I'm coming into this discussion late.

This may be off topic, but the transparency requirements seem a little bit restrictive, particularly the 60% in the core zone.

And I get where that's coming from, but

That 60% seems like it is pointing you towards retail and making it much harder to do some other functions where you might not want all that transparency.

Whatever you all would prefer.

I think we've definitely spent a great deal of time on these transparency numbers and feel comfortable with the recommendation given the feedback we got from the consultant team.

But I certainly understand the concern there about anything that might be restrictive.

Our team's approach so far has been to put the design standard requirements into the code and be less restrictive on use so that these spaces could transition in their use over time while having consistent ground floor appearance.

Thank you.

Thanks, Fred.

It's a lot to absorb.

A question as it relates to that transparency issue in the core.

Are we allowing residential uses on the ground floor?

And I guess that speaks to Chris's question or concern about that transparency.

Is it, are we

What does the form-based code say about that?

And because I notice a number of the buildings that are shown certainly in the edge in the flex area actually appear to be residential, not commercial, or perhaps some mix of office and residential, but not retail.

Multifamily and single-family attached are permitted in the core on the ground stories and the upper stories.

And would the 60% transparency apply to those buildings as well?

Yes, it would as it's written.

Okay.

Yeah, I could see that being problematic.

Great.

Thanks, Frank.

No, I guess I have questions of just the entrance quarter guidelines and the way in which those are integrated into this document.

I'm a little fuzzy on just because I can't remember all the entrance quarter guidelines.

Certainly, relegated parking was one.

I think it's nice the way they managed to achieve some of those relegated parking objectives even for the buildings that are on 29 kind of having dual frontage.

But it does illuminate, I think, the need for structured parking fairly early in the process if they're actually going to achieve those goals.

And I guess I

To the point about if you opt into the form-based code, you have to opt in for the entire parcel.

I could see that creating a significant burden for the development community early on because they're not going to build all those buildings at once.

You know, can they transition?

Is there a period during which they could transition to structured parking and still allow

surface parking in areas that might not technically meet the current corridor guidelines.

Sure.

That would be the kind of thing that would be addressed in the phased plan.

So we do have the phased plan permitted.

so that exactly the kind of situation that you're describing where they want to redevelop one building, but the rest of the structures are working fine.

They may not be great, but they don't want to redevelop them right now as long as the plan incorporates the streets and the future phases into those plans.

So where is the civic space going to be?

How much of it is going to be dedicated?

Gotcha.

Okay.

That's great.

All right.

Thanks, Frank.

Anything else?

Okay.

Sure.

Thank you, Fred.

Michaela Rachel and Leah, my compliments as well to you for all the work and how far you've advanced this.

I think in terms of the entrance corridor guidelines, it looks like there are sections that address explicitly planting and lighting and mechanical screening.

And I think that is very good to cover it.

Some very minute comments on that.

I noticed the color temperature is listed as two thousand to three thousand for

Street and Site Lighting, which is very warm.

I don't know whether that's intentional and whether there might be leeway on that.

The foot-candle level of five is a little high, at least relative to some campus environments, where I think two-foot candles often are recommended, but interested in understanding the origin of the requirement.

And I think the mechanical screening, the way that the guidelines typically just say that the mechanical

Mechanical equipment shall not be visible.

I think the simplicity of that statement may be worth using.

I think as everything and all those conditions are enumerated in some ways, those things that aren't enumerated may be implied to be allowed.

So just a brief couple thoughts there.

I think on the facade articulation, I think the section as it's written right now is

Getting close to successful at what I would say is really a facade massing approach.

I don't know if that section yet addresses articulation in terms of windows and doors and bays and elements and rhythms or any kind of requirements for how the composition of those might support the overall guideline of human scale and building tradition.

So I guess I would just ask how that section might be expanded for that.

And I think in terms of the means of facade articulation, it looks like changes in color are permitted without change in plane.

And it's not clear how much buildings have to be relieved from planes of the wall.

So I think it might bear considering a little bit more how much relief in the plane of the wall

is required to successfully articulate the mask.

Great.

Thank you, Dave.

I think I got everybody.

I just had one kind of general overarching question, and I apologize.

It kind of came in, I think, back to the ARB as this was

being introduced, so some of this I may have either missed or forgotten, so forgive me if I have.

So under the category of sort of architecture and design being an art as opposed to a science in some cases, you know, a lot of what we've got here in the design standards is very much a science, right?

There's a percentage calculation window, there's

There's your height calculation based on the width of your building.

There are all these things that you could actually design a building utilizing and still have a building that's just not appropriate, right?

And so maybe this is some of what Dave was getting to, but how do you handle, if these are not gonna fall under ARV review, how do you handle that kind of analog, sort of more aesthetic

as opposed to the digital calculated building design.

And some of this gets back to something Leah said at the beginning of the presentation, which was, here are some images that I'm showing you, and they have a variety of different styles.

And in some cases, we might find that, this is the last thing I'll say, that we might find that there's a grouping of styles that are compatible in a certain area.

And then another one comes in from left field that just doesn't match, just doesn't fit.

I can attempt to answer this and it probably might not be the answer you want to hear, but if it meets the code, we'll have to approve it.

So if we have seven different architectural styles but their facade articulation meets what's in the code, we'll have to approve it.

One thing I'll share is that we've, as we've gotten into the drafting of the code, we've

identified how we're very much in our infancy of this work in terms of design guidance, regulations around things like Dade brought up lighting and additional screening comments.

Those are things that we need to continue to evolve and work on countywide, not just in the form-based code.

So we have a kind of a running list of future work and we've worked with the Board and Planning Commission to kind of prioritize what topics we should start with.

So this is kind of a first step, adopting this code to just get these basic parameters in place and hopefully it can continue to evolve.

I think one conversation that we've had

throughout this process is what is the architectural style of Rio 29?

And we haven't yet identified that.

So we would look to you all to help us do that.

And as we get further along in that work, we can update the code to reflect that.

I understand you're looking at specific entrance corridors now.

If you end up doing Rio in 29 and have some more guidance for us,

We can come back and update the code.

But for right now, it's kind of bare bones.

It's got these form requirements that are kind of basic.

It's got these material requirements.

Thanks, Rachel.

That makes sense.

That's what I kind of assumed.

I guess what I would say is if there's a way

to retain an element of review that allows for that aesthetic consideration.

It would be helpful.

And I don't know how that works.

And maybe some of your consultants, the folks that have helped you with this might have some insight into that.

Maybe it's worth asking.

But I do think, you know, like we have work sessions, right, where an applicant comes in and we just give them advice almost.

You know, is there an opportunity for an applicant who's coming into the form-based code area to approach the ARB for advice?

Or I don't know.

I'm thinking out loud.

Michaela, I'm not answering your question.

Oh, no, I appreciate you raising the question of subjectivity.

I guess in the in the discussions

Last time I think the goal of the county is to find a way to take us out of the equation of this and make it a more streamlined approach.

But I think you raise a good point.

I think my questions about, for example, facade articulation relate to, I think that to remove that subjective aesthetic judgment maybe requires going a bit further in prescription.

of what language is, styles, approaches, and things are appropriate so that we don't have to review it.

It unfortunately maybe means a narrower palette of what is acceptable, but I do worry that at least as the, I mean it's good to hear that this is going to be matured for a while because I think right now it doesn't get far enough in terms of describing

Thanks.

Well, thanks for all those comments.

You've certainly identified where some of the challenging aspects of this plan are with

Without a consistent architectural style for the area, it can be challenging to write really specific standards.

So we'll take all this into consideration, see what we can do for this first phase of the form-based code.

The second question that we have for you today is about building materials.

Since this was really just shared briefly in a form feedback form earlier this year,

And we realize it can have some implications for developers and property owners.

So we want to make sure we are appropriately including building materials.

I can share my screen on that page just for everyone to look at.

I'll do my best to make it as big as possible while also like seeing the whole page.

So just directly as needed.

but the page that we're looking at in the user guide is page 45.

All right, I'll go and read what I can remember as reverse order from our last round.

Thank you, Fred.

And thank you again, Michaela.

I thought this captured a lot of discussions from last year pretty accurately, as I recall.

I think I recall that we discussed maybe I'm not sure how much some of these requirements veer into describing sort of backup construction of the materials in the assembly.

So, you know, cavity construction for masonry.

Certainly that is a better, longer lasting way to build the wall.

But I don't know if

Um, we necessarily want to prescribe that.

And I can imagine scenarios where allowing folks to do thin brick or, um, engineered stone and directly applied to concrete or other structure might allow us in the end to have better material character.

Um, then if, you know, the choice that the folks are facing is between doing a Hardy board site and we're doing masonry cavity wall construction.

You know, I just worry a little bit that if we prescribe too much how they do the material facing, it might lead folks to less costly solutions that are less diverse.

But I think that was the main comment I recall.

If I think of others, I'll ask to bring them up.

Thanks, Dave.

I guess the only material that seems to be prohibited that I guess is worth some conversation is split face block.

Only because I think it can be and has been used successfully in combination with other materials.

and so and can be very attractive.

So I guess I'd love for us to revisit that.

That was something I marked up as well or noted that maybe that should move to the limited.

amounts or special circumstances column.

Great.

Sorry to take over.

All good.

Frank Hancock, anything else?

Or Frank Stoner?

I had a couple of little just word choice questions.

Up at the top, should it be genuine stone or is that natural stone or does it matter?

Similar to the brick, should we call it clay brick or natural instead of genuine?

I was just confused by the word genuine.

Under concrete, I wasn't sure what fine concrete block meant and that might just be, I just don't know.

I'm sorry to jump back in.

I'm looking back up at stone and realize that a concrete based stone is prohibited, which I assume means any kind of a simulated stone facade is prohibited.

Is that, am I reading that right?

Sorry, I had trouble unmuting.

So this list was put together just taking examples from other communities that had similar

regulations.

And so we can guess at what they were, what they're getting at.

And so I think that's probably, I think what you said is probably accurate.

Yeah, I think if you prohibit that, you're going to get a lot of pushback just because real stone has gotten prohibitively expensive.

I would agree as well.

Great.

Yeah, I agree with what Dave said about the applied stone without cavity wall construction.

I think generally the restriction should be based on what you see and feel from the outside, regardless of how the construction is actually put together.

Also, Frank's comment about split face.

If done well, it looks great.

Particularly, you know, as an accent material.

The unfinished or untreated wood would rule out cedar shakes, which is not really, you don't see it very often, but it is a natural material that you, you know, you see it more often in New England, obviously, but you do see it here, particularly on roofs.

So I don't know if it's worth, you know, making a separate category for that or not.

You know, I think unfinished wood siding is probably not a good idea, but cedar is intended to be put up unfinished.

Great, thanks, Chris.

I have just one general question and a couple of specific things.

Was any consideration given to distance from the entrance corridor?

So, for example, like, you know, we've I think we've used

for lack of a better term fake brick when it's distant from the entrance corridor.

No, there's not currently in the code.

Okay.

All right.

Got it.

So just a couple of things in addition to what my colleagues have said under, and this is maybe a dumb question, but under concrete,

Gypsum reinforced fiber concrete for trim.

Is that the same as hardy plank?

Is that a different material?

And I agree with the split block.

For me, I don't know, I've actually seen glass block.

that's been used in a way that makes sense architecturally and is aesthetically appropriate.

Do you mind repeating what the last material was that you all just

Vinyl sliding.

No, I'm kidding.

Can I just run through this and make sure that I've got the comments down.

Under the stone category, it currently lists stone veneer with cavity wall construction and applied stone without.

It sounds like the recommendation would be to revise that to stone veneer as a permitted material.

Is that accurate?

OK. And then artificial stone with a concrete base would be shifted to permitted materials.

OK.

Under concrete, yeah, for stone and brick where it says genuine, that can certainly be changed to natural.

Under concrete, the fine concrete block, I don't know what fine particularly means there.

Yeah, I think in terms of specifications, there's decorative concrete masonry units, I think is the section that covers ones that have finer aggregates.

There's also ground face concrete masonry units that usually have a finer finish.

There's something called calcium silicate, which is known by Aeroscraft, which can be acceptable, but it's also subject to a lot of staining, but that's another better looking masonry material.

Yeah, decorative concrete masonry units, including what?

Yeah.

Split face block would move from prohibited mirror materials to allowed in limited amounts, particularly as an accent material.

Gypsum reinforced fiber concrete could come out of the concrete category

at the fiber cement siding in the synthetics category below.

Glass block would move to allowed unlimited quantities.

Under wood, the unfinished entry would be limited to siding.

Quick question, I guess, do we want to permit

That might be one that would be limited.

For example, maybe following the above the first floor or something like that.

Yeah, that is becoming more and more common and painted, especially from the ground.

Can I ask a quick question?

Do these materials also cover landscape materials?

This was intended just to cover building materials.

We have landscape standards

I'm just thinking about retaining wall materials.

You know, green screen materials like what we used out at Stonefield that are kind of really more, you know, landscape as opposed to building.

I know we talk a lot about retaining wall styles and types and dimensions and colors and so on.

That might be something to add.

And I would just ask ourselves, is there anything else that's site related?

Maybe not, but just thinking about site furnishings, things like that.

So we don't really get into site furnishings.

Can I ask a question about metal sheets with expressed seams?

I don't know.

Yeah.

I can't think of the name of the building, but it's the theater in town near the Water Street.

Where would like a corrugated Galvalume fit in this list of materials?

Is that aluminum siding and would it be prohibited if it was

Is that something that should be

broken out of that group?

I wouldn't put it in the prohibited category.

I mean, I think it's limited.

Maybe limited, yeah.

I think it might be worth at least calling it out as maybe under the metal curtain wall system.

Yeah, that's over in the allowed in limited amounts date, I think.

And that actually was something I was going to mention.

Just a nit, but you could read that you should use reflective materials only in small areas, which I think what I think that's what it's intended to say.

But maybe rewording that to say like use of reflective materials should be limited to small areas.

Good point.

Corrugated metal siding?

I don't know.

The problem is you get into the whole industrial category of siding profiles that we probably don't want.

Good question.

Oh, go ahead, Margaret.

That is a good question.

I think right now the limited circumstances are at least generally detailed in the column, except for this split right now.

So it's a good question.

We might need to be careful with with EIFS because a lot of EIFS stucco is used in traditional stucco applications it's a it's indistinguishable from regular stucco it just happens to be a

a different composition.

Just the finish coat.

I don't mean the system, certainly the foam backing and all that.

I think maybe to some extent it starts to get more into the realm of the backup assembly rather than the visible material.

Yeah, so synthetic stucco with polymers is, I guess that's the question, is that acceptable or does soft stucco need to be cementitious?

Yeah, my thought is in terms of just the surface, it's indistinguishable from stucco.

I think

A lot of times what people don't like about EIFS is that kind of like built up foam trim that you get with EIFS.

Doesn't it depend on the texture and if it's

I don't know what the right words are, but the ARB approved a building with a that was in a brick pattern because it was over a thousand feet away.

And you couldn't tell that up close.

I think that's a different condition.

I think what Chris is referring to is just

Right.

Yeah, I'd be inclined to take it out because I don't know, I think it's a slippery slope and I could see somebody getting rejected even though there's nothing about the application that's any different from an appearance standpoint.

I don't know if somebody wants to put ephus on the first floor in a flat wall kind of condition.

There's certainly some risk that it's not as durable.

Somebody might punch a hole in the finish, but that's not really an ARB issue in my mind.

That's a durability question.

I think some of what we

And maybe I'm wrong here, but I understand what you're saying, Frank.

Some of what we are thinking about is long term aesthetic and maintenance of a standard of quality.

Yeah, I think those issues are some of the points that that we were thinking about when we were first putting this list together.

And when this becomes foreign based code for the Rio 29 area, it's not it's not

Entrance Quarter Guidelines.

It's form-based code for the Rio 29 area.

To Margaret's question, I wonder if, Margaret, were you suggesting we take out the foam-based products category?

and leave the scored stucco imitation brick slash stone category in.

Maybe if you just say foam based price, including EIFS trim,

You kind of, I think, address that.

I mean, I would argue that their EFS when properly installed is very durable and there are a number of applications around town that are 25, 30 years old, still look great.

Again, I don't think you could tell.

You couldn't drive by an EFS building and necessarily know it was EFS.

Yeah.

Do you think, Frank, that's covered by allowing it in limited amounts or special circumstances?

Does that cover trim?

That's allowed in those situations.

Or you're saying not trim.

Yeah, I'm certainly trim.

I think limited to areas that are, you know, high enough that you can't tell or that, you know.

I'm just trying to make sure that the finish itself doesn't become a problem.

So the issue sounds to me like it's phone-based, right?

Is that what I'm hearing?

So the foam-based nature of it is only an issue for trim.

That would be my contention.

That's two.

So we're allowing foam-based stucco on the ground floor at street level is what we're saying if we agreed to just put the word trim in there, right?

Yeah.

Have we done that in the past?

Have we allowed that in areas that were close to the entrance quarter?

I just don't remember.

I mean, if we're allowing stucco, and the appearance is indistinguishable, the only issue is the foam-based nature of the backboard

and whether that is an architectural issue, a durability issue.

Certainly, if you hit the wall with your hand or something, you know it's not a, you know, a cementatious, true stucco.

I just don't know how far we should go as an ARB

for a lot of it.

I think I would agree with the discussion that to the extent we are allowing cementitious stucco, we could allow elastomeric stucco to the same extent.

In the...

In the list right now, we have foam-based products, including ephus, styrofoam, and other face-sealed foam products only allowed on non-principal faces or for architectural detail above the first floor.

Regular stucco is more than the primary building material to answer your question, right?

I think, I mean, that's what it appears.

Item three is stucco and there's no limitation on it.

I don't know what to tell you.

I mean, this has also come into play for signs.

We've had signs materials.

And the weed eaters around the signs just destroy that foam-backed material at the bottom.

And the sign after a year of summer in lawn care looks awful.

So I think that's why we've always had brick or stone at the ground plane.

Right.

I agree with Dade.

Well, maybe under stucco, what if you just added cementatious or elastomeric finish?

So if you add elastomeric to the stucco entry, does that not

I don't know enough about the material, sorry, to really give a good comment.

Yes.

Well, yes.

A last numeric refers to a polymer modified stucco.

So it's like a latex paint.

Yeah, the color is integrated into the stucco finish.

So yeah, the EFIS, it's elastomeric.

Well, it's exterior insulation and finish system, nothing about elastomeric actually in that acronym.

Great.