Architectural Review Board Meeting   2/1/2021

Yes, I am.

Great.

All right.

Well, it being almost one o'clock, we'll call to order the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board meeting of February 1st, 2021.

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

A quorum is present.

Architectural review board members present electronically are myself, Dave Van Der Werf, 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 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.

This online meeting and any associated chats are a public record and are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

For applicants and attendees, we have a number of applicants and project representatives attending today's meeting.

Carolyn Shaffer, our recording secretary, may need to contact you during this meeting.

So please check the chat box and respond as necessary.

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

Everyone who is participating today, please keep your microphone muted unless it's your turn to speak.

Applicants who are making presentations note that presentations are limited to 15 minutes, which can be divided among team members as you choose.

Carolyn will let us know when the 15 minutes are up.

So we'll turn now to disclosures.

Yes, I do.

I received a similar email.

Same thing, just explaining the desire to possibly split the approval between the first phase, which would be two of the stores and the rest of the development.

Thank you.

And I will disclose that I met with a representative of the Rile Hill Development to discuss that application.

Frank Stoner joined me as well in that conversation.

So.

OK, thank you.

We'll turn to the consent agenda.

There's one item on the consent agenda today, ARB 2020-130, River's Edge Initial Site Plan.

Yeah, me too.

Fred, does that sound alright?

Great.

Yeah, I agree with it as well.

It seems like it's not going to be visible.

Nope.

So we have a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Mr. Stoner.

Mr. Missel.

Aye.

Mr. Hensington.

Aye.

Aye.

Great, thank you all.

We'll turn to regular review items.

There are three scheduled for review today.

Chris Taggart and Margaret Maliszewski will be presenting these items today.

The first is ARB 2020-129, Screwby property, Verizon tier three.

I am attempting to share my screen.

Can you?

Can you?

OK, great.

Let me make one more change here.

This is a request for a special use permit for a new monopole style cell tower to be installed on the property.

at Tax Map 54, Parcel 72A, which is located just south of I-64 and just east of Greenwood Station Road.

The proposal is to install a 94-foot tall monopole approximately 38 feet from the I-64 right of way and approximately the same distance from Greenwood Station Road.

The reference tree is identified as a 14-inch diameter pine tree.

In addition to the 94-foot pole, the proposal includes various ground equipment,

a fence around the compound, antennas attached to the pole, and the removal of nine trees.

Grading is also proposed within critical slopes, and that grading requires a special exception.

It appears that some of that grading would fall within the drip line of additional trees that are not marked for removal.

A balloon test was held on January 11th of this year.

The slide is a very rough markup with the orange highlighting

Crosshatching, generally representing the locations from which the balloon was visible.

The balloon was visible along the I-64 entrance corridor.

I have a few photos to show you from the balloon test.

This is a view of the site with the balloon raised.

This is taken from Greenwood Station Road right at the entrance to the property.

So this is not a view from the entrance corridor.

This is another photo not

taken from the entrance corridor, but just to give you an idea of where the site sits in relation to the entrance corridor.

So this is also from Greenwood Station Road.

It's on the portion of the road that is directly over the I-64 entrance corridor, and the balloon would be within that wooded area close to the street.

These are views of the balloon from I-64 westbound.

The balloon was visible for a distance along I-64, but when it was visible, it was always seen within the wooded area.

The applicant has produced some photo simulations.

This is one from I-64 westbound.

You can see again that the monopole would be within that wooded area.

This view also suggests that

Potentially the fence around the compound could have some visibility, but we don't expect a wooden fence to appear out of place in this type of setting.

And this is another photo simulation that the applicant has produced.

This is from I-64 Eastbound.

Again, the monopole is within the wooded area.

We have three recommendations associated with this request.

One is regarding the certificate of appropriateness for the ground equipment and base station, which we're recommending approval of.

Second is regarding visibility of the monopole.

We're recommending that the proposed location will sufficiently minimize the visibility from the I-64 entrance corridor.

The third recommendation is regarding the special exception, and that is a recommendation to revise the plan to eliminate grading from within the drip lines of trees to remain.

That is the end of my presentation.

Thank you, Margaret.

No, no questions.

Thank you, Margaret.

No questions.

Thank you.

I just have to say one thing of all of the projects that we do in the county

I think the way the visibility of these monopoles has been handled has been top notch compared to other counties.

I mean, it really stands out.

Thank you, Fred.

No questions for me.

Thank you.

None for me either.

Thank you, Margaret.

Great.

Good afternoon, board.

I'm Lori Schweller with Williams Mullen.

Margaret's presentation completely covered everything that my presentation would cover.

So I don't think that you need to see my slides.

They are available.

If you'd like to, if you have questions, I'll bring them up to help illustrate my answers.

Thank you very much.

Fred, any questions for the applicant?

No, thank you.

No, no questions.

Chris?

That's the only question I had was regarding staff's comment about the grading and the critical slopes.

It looks like the drive that's existing on the property rises to a height where it might be feasible to come across on a contour without having to cut.

Yes, we have looked at many different options for the access to the site and as you could tell from the tree survey, the trees that are being removed are within the access easement that passes from the existing gravel road up to the 40 by 40 foot lease area and

Verizon determined that that was the best route to take to bring the access from that existing gravel road.

Any other direction would require removing more trees and so

in balancing the various impacts to the natural environment and also, you know, with concern for visibility from Greenwood Station Road, we determined that was the best route and certainly will be

Preserving all the trees within 100 foot radius of the lease area and access road as is required by the zoning ordinance.

That being said, though, we understand that there is concern about the grading affecting trees that are to remain.

Thank you.

Yes, I have one.

Todd Zimmerman, please state your name and address.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Todd Zimmerman, my address 207 Oaks Farm, which means I reside right next to the property which is adjacent to the proposed site.

I'm also the owner along with my wife of Seven Oaks Farm and Septenary Winery, which we operate from that site.

My comments today are one, I am under the impression that as a property adjacent to 250, that actually Seven Oaks Farm would be considered part of the entrance corridor.

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but certainly ought to be a consideration.

And I noticed

None of the photographs of the impact and the balloon site from Seven Oaks Farm were submitted, and it's dramatically different.

It's not contained within the wooded area.

It's completely stark against the blue sky.

I also note from Mirador, it's stark against the blue sky.

So I would encourage the committee to please look at those views, not just Highway 64,

and I would also suggest that the impact on the overall traditional design in the area and the views in the area could be dramatically lessened if alternative sites on this same area, so just hundreds of feet one way or the other can dramatically impact how these properties, these historic properties along the corridor would be

would be impacted by the tower.

I just ask the committee to please consider these things before moving forward.

Thank you for giving me the time.

Yeah, I think we have also Nancy

Nancy, I'm going to let you say your own last name.

Please state your name and address if you represent a group or organization.

Please state that.

Thank you.

It's Nancy Schlichting.

That's a very tough name.

I appreciate your letting me do it.

My name's Nancy Schlichting.

I represent the owner of Mirador.

And I just wanted to echo Todd Zimmerman's comments that

that there are what we believe to be alternative sites that

even owned by the same property owner that would push the tower out of the view of these historic sites, out of the view of Greenwood Station, and frankly, out more of the view of I-64.

And so we believe that those alternatives should have been explored and should still be explored, but we would encourage your committee to please

Look at the photographs that I'm sure you probably have and if not, we're happy to provide them from Seven Oaks and from Mirador and other places along Route 250 and including the Episcopal Church and other places along Greenwood Station Road and Greenwood Road.

Just to see what the impact is going to be.

I understand that I-64 is the focus of the corridor, but we believe that those roads in 250 are also should be considered.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Will.

I did not make them available today because it is not part of the ARB's consideration.

The parcel that's under consideration is adjacent to the I-64 entrance corridor.

It does not fall within the Route 250 entrance corridor overlay.

The views from the other locations are not part of the ARB's consideration.

There are other committees and other boards and individuals who are reviewing for those other impacts.

So they are not going on reviewed.

Thank you, Margaret.

Great.

Well, we can go into discussion.

Thanks, Dave.

I appreciate the comments from adjacent landowners and the public and completely understand.

However, I think given kind of our purview and as Margaret mentioned, we're really looking at this from the I-64 entrance corridor.

To me, this is entirely appropriate.

I really don't have any issues with it.

Even the grading, I've looked at it.

I don't really think that that will have much of an impact on the corridor.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, I kind of agree with Frank.

I had no concerns about the appearance from 64.

I think the adjacent landowners have a different perspective on it and the appearance may actually be a lot different from that perspective, but that's kind of out of our purview.

Thank you, Chris.

Thanks, Dave.

I agree with what Chris and Frank have both just said.

I'm also encouraged by Margaret's comment that the visibility from other locations is being taken up by other folks, because I do think it's important, especially on historic properties in Charlottesville.

Thank you, Fred.

Like my fellow board members, I greatly appreciate the members of the public sharing their concerns and appreciate Margaret's understanding that they may be considered in other agencies or portions of the county that are reviewing it, sensitive to those concerns.

But like my fellow board members, appreciate the narrow scope of our purview to look at this from the entrance corridor.

I'm satisfied, like my colleagues, that it's an appropriate siting and development.

Great, well, why don't we look for a motion then, any motion on this action?

Are you able to see by the word document with the motions?

So there's actually three actions to take today.

So I'll move to, I will move to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the ground equipment and base station.

I don't have the ARB number in front of me, but for this specific, oh there it is, ARB 0201 2021.

I believe the ARB number is 2020-129.

I'll move for the following recommendation to the agent.

I'll move that we forward the following recommendation to the agent.

Thank you again to the applicant and members of the public.

We'll move to the next regular item, ARB 2020-135 Rio Hill renovation.

Yes.

I see your preview screen right now.

OK.

That's right, yep.

Thank you.

All right.

This is a review of the preliminary redevelopment plan for the Riot Hill Shopping Center.

Sites located along Route 29 near the intersection of Woodbrook Drive, shopping center buildings set back approximately 219 feet to as far as 1,113 feet from the entrance border.

The ARB provided comments on the conceptual plan during the October 19, 2020, ARB meeting.

The proposals to renovate the existing Riot Hill Shopping Center, removing portions of the existing canopies and store entries to update the current facade.

On these next few slides, the previous designs at the top of the page and currents at the bottom.

The elevations provided with the preliminary plan include more identification materials and the plans clarified at the stand of the canopy.

While there have been some minor tweaks to the form shown in the conceptual design, the design concept remains largely the same.

While the shopping center is visible from the entrance corridor, its distance from the street does not allow for sustained views of building details.

Therefore, architectural details are not expected to be detectable from the entrance corridor, but forms and colors are.

The major tenant spaces are highlighted with broad entrance elements with increased height, while the height of some of these architectural elements have been lower since the conceptual design.

The scale of the forms remain monumental.

The overall scale of the shop in the center has been broken down to more human proportions by the inclusion of canopies, decorative panels, and green spherings, and alternating materials and forms.

The proposed materials, brick, metal panel, stucco, phenolic, architectural panels, help to add texture and visual breaks along the elevations.

The renderings show a range of neutral colors, but samples will be needed to confirm that they are warm in tone.

The site plan provides some lighting details, pathway and building lighting, and the colors and renderings suggest additional wall-mounted lighting.

However, a lighting plan will be needed for review to ensure that the proposed lighting meets the entrance quarter requirements.

The applicant has requested that the renovations designed for the tenant spaces for TJ Maxx and Sierra be separated out from the overall renovation proposal.

If the design proposed for these tenant spaces received approval prior to the overall shopping center, the overall design will need to coordinate with these tenant spaces.

In terms of process, those require a final submittal for TJ Maxx and Sierra and a separate final submittal for the rest of the shopping center later.

Regarding the comprehensive sign plan, the plan identifies areas on the building where signs can be installed as with the existing comprehensive sign plan.

These areas vary in size, some resembling traditional sign plans while others are simply sizable wall areas.

Limitations on sign locations is typical requirement proposed by many comprehensive sign plans.

This comprehensive sign plan does not propose that limitation with at least one sign shown in a non-central location.

and at least one that obscures architectural details.

This does not support a coordinated appearance throughout the Shatman Center, but this level of coordination may not be necessary due to distance from the street and the limited visibility of portions of the southern wing of the Shatman Center.

Regarding the size of the T.J. Maxx and Sierra signs, they both fall under the maximum square foot allowed by zoning, meet the guideline requirements for clear space, and are similar in size to other existing approved signs in the Shatman Center.

The orange proposed for the Sierra is slightly outside the standard range of recommended colors for the entrance quarter, but the recommended range moves into shades of brown.

Staff is recommending approval of the overall design and conference design plan, as well as the designs and signs for TJ Maxx and Sierra with the conditions listed in the staff report.

Thank you for your presentation, Chris.

And Frank, welcome to the meeting.

Carolyn, if you would, could you please record that Frank joined us for that presentation?

No, I don't think so.

Chris, that was a great presentation.

I think it all made sense that with your notes.

Thank you, Fred.

No, I don't have any questions.

No, no questions.

Thank you.

And none for me either.

Thanks for your presentation, Chris.

Before I start, I'm trying to

get my video up and it's not allowing me to.

Hey, David.

Sorry to interrupt.

This is Josh Kagan from Heart Advisors, the owner on behalf of Connecticut State Retirement Systems.

I just wanted to say a couple of words and then David, if you don't mind, I'll turn it over to you if you don't mind, just to provide some context.

We're super appreciative of the reception that we've gotten.

I'm going to tell you a few things that you probably haven't heard before and that is that

Retail has changed and COVID has accelerated that change and I think as a result there you know retail is ever more binary and there are going to be winners and losers and so we have spent you know countless hours and I personally have made the trip down from Connecticut now three or four times to to ensure that we're doing something here because this is a 30-acre site that comprises almost 290,000 square to retail that to ensure that this site

is relevant for the long term.

And I want you guys to understand what our vision is.

This is not a short term sort of fix.

This is to create and transform the public experience of this real estate.

And as Chris, thank you for that presentation, the critical first steps in this transformation, and it truly is a transformation and we can get into that.

are the leases with Sierra Trading Post and the relocation of TJ Maxx into what was formerly the Dix box and in and of itself probably not leaseable.

So we are extremely, we're just enthused, thrilled actually to be able to backfill that box with best in class retailers and then use that as a stepping stone to the broader redevelopment.

And part of that is,

is this facade that David Timmerman and his team and Valerie Long and her team and colleagues on my side have really spent a ton of time on.

So I just wanted to give you that context.

I hope it's helpful.

And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, but I wanted you to understand from an owner's perspective and our fiduciary duty to our client, a retirement system,

How to create real long-term incremental value and to ensure that this remains very viable for the future.

So again, hope that makes sense.

I'll keep it at that.

And David, I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you, Josh.

And thank you, all board members.

for your comments thus far and for your time today.

And thank you for turning my video on.

I'd like to follow up with what Josh was saying about the feasibility aspect of this as well as the time we've spent together with Josh and Albert and the rest of our team.

After our first meeting in the fall,

not too long after did a pricing exercise on this site and it came in much higher than we expected.

And we ended up using the next two months or so really doing everything we could to VE this thing, this design down to the initial price that our clients were expecting.

A lot of that included keeping much of the existing canopy, much of the existing structure of Rio.

When it all sort of came to fruition and we got another pricing back, we found out that we were pretty close.

And Albert and Josh came down to the site

the week before Christmas, I think it was, before we sort of made our final decisions on this new design.

And they said, you know what?

This doesn't work.

The structure that's there now is dilapidated.

A lot of the lower canopies are starting to fail.

We don't like the feeling that you get when you're in those sort of eight to nine foot high

dark canopies.

And we kind of walked the site the whole day.

And I think at the end of the day, what we decided is that the original design was really kind of the best way forward from an economic standpoint, from a viability standpoint.

I think what I've always wanted with this project

is hitting on a number of the main tenants of the ARB.

And, you know, we talked the first time about how the new design kind of breaks down the scale and village like components.

We also, you know, talked about the human scale of it and how, you know, what we're looking for is a site that brings people, that attracts people, that makes people walk from one end to the site to the other.

You know, there are economic constraints, but this is a facade project and I was pleased, you know, that Hart and our clients and the whole team, they realized an opportunity here and that, and they didn't want to just have to do it.

They felt like they're putting the investment into our community.

They're putting the, they're all into this investment.

and so I felt like some really good, it was a good experience to kind of go through this and vet what possibly could be but then come out the other end and end up with a solution that everybody feels pretty good about.

So

That's kind of what we've been through over the last three months.

As Chris mentioned in his explanation, the design hasn't changed a lot, a lot.

I think one thing I wanted to point out in the illustrations that you showed everybody was I just want to remind everybody that the scope of work of this project basically ends at the

like five below Joanne's section.

And while we have plans to develop the corner, they're not in this immediate plan.

So there's a reason why we've done all this facade work and then stopped at that location.

It's basically due to the fact that that corner at some point in the future will be demoed and it just doesn't make sense to put all that additional money

into that corner when it's gonna be taken down in a year or two.

And then we took really to heart the comments last time about the pedestrian experience in particular, the positive aspects of being able to walk undercover in such a long walkway.

And so we were cognizant

While we were taking out the lower canopies that we were putting in more canopy cover as a new architectural element, we're working on providing a variety of them so that we increase the pedestrian experience through

kind of a variety of scenes or of locations that you walk through as you go from one site to the next or one building to the next.

And we've increased the depth.

So anywhere you are on the site, we feel really comfortable that you're never gonna be kind of caught out in the open.

There's always some place of refuge that you can get to if you need to.

The other thing to point out in this design package is the TJX project.

As Josh really eloquently stated, this is the heart and soul right now, the economic engine of this.

The timing couldn't have been better.

We received approval from them in November, December to keep moving forward.

We were able to work through a lot of these

Design changes with them that aren't their typical design.

And we made it very clear from the get go that, you know, working in Albemarle County, the design has to fit the context.

It has to work with our regional surroundings.

So the design you see is not something that you're going to see anywhere else out of a TJX or TJ Maxx or a Sierra project across the country.

and we feel really strongly with the comments that the final needs to kind of jive with the rest of the overall design aesthetic.

So we asked, I think we've talked to almost everybody about the situation that we're dealing with here with the TJX company

and we're asking for conditional approval if we can get it from those two projects located in the old DIC space.

I think an expedited review just helps ensure that our process goes smoothly so far.

It's going well.

We've got a really strict timeline in summer

in order to hand this project over.

And so we're doing everything we can to make sure that this is a smooth process moving forward.

And then finally, there was a number of points about samples.

We've been collecting samples over the last month or so.

Hey, David.

Yes.

Hey, David.

I apologize for just to put a finer point on the timing of this.

We have contractual obligations with regard to Sierra and TJ Maxx for a fall of 21 opening.

So we are peddling pretty hard to accommodate that.

And so I just wanted to give you some some put some dates on it.

And the sooner they open, the better it is for everybody, the better it is for the shopping center.

But we do have contractual obligations with that with that timing.

So that's why we're asking for that expedited review.

Thank you, Josh.

Thank you, Josh.

The only other thing I wanted to say is that we have a number of samples.

I wasn't quite sure how to distribute them in an organized way before the meeting, but I could certainly, if somebody has a question about any of the design materials that are listed on the elevation, I'd be happy to do a show and tell.

We certainly can submit these for review and

And one other thing about our materials is, you'll notice in a few of these sections, we are experimenting with a masonry staining technique.

Because we do have a number of walls that we're, you know, inheriting that there are blank walls essentially or portions of the existing wall.

that we could treat with any of our materials, but they are finished masonry.

And what we found is that the staining technique is a serious option.

And if you're curious about it, we have samples made up on the existing DIX space.

We did a wide range of material colors.

We just wanted to be sure that it was a viable option for us, that it met our architectural standards, and that we also, again, could sort of point to it if anybody's curious about or has any reservation about what it is.

It's actually a technique that's better than painting brick.

It allows for the masonry to, or the concrete in this case, to breathe.

totally changes the nature of the existing center.

So we're excited about that as well.

Thank you very much.

So turn to members.

Thanks, David and team.

Just looking at the materials.

What's the architectural panel?

So that's actually a phenolic panel that's made by a company called Stonewood.

I'll show you here the lighting.

It's not like a thin vinyl sort of thing.

It's a composite that allows you to maintain a number of different textures or actually I should say colors and sort of the appearance of texture.

It is a flat panel.

It's known to be durable.

And in scaling back through our VE exercise,

What we didn't want to give up on was a notion of this having a variety of materiality.

And this is a higher quality element that you'll notice on the elevations we're using as an accent panel.

So it gives us the ability to bring some warmth in.

There are

There are wood grain options that we've selected and a whole wide of a whole wide range of colors that we can we can choose from.

OK, thank you.

And then one other question, the I like the where the columns were that now they've been given over to planters.

Are you doing that everywhere you're taking out a column?

Yeah, that's in the design phase right now.

We definitely have to address it because we've got a whole bunch of footprints of columns that are gonna be exposed.

And if you go out there now, you'll see how in the older renovations, they would just concrete over the footprint, which doesn't look great.

So we see it as an opportunity

We don't have the wide expanse that a place like Stonefield has for the ability to put a grassy strip in.

We only have 12 feet, so we have to be creative with that 12 feet.

The last time we were on site, we were tossing around ideas of

Dave, I don't have any additional questions.

Thank you.

No additional questions.

Just appreciate the applicants putting together the comparison side by side.

That was very helpful.

Great.

Yes, no further questions for me either.

Thank you, we'll go into discussion then.

Sure, it's a lot of architecture to review.

But I think overall as a whole, I think you have to look at this as a whole and not necessarily pick out the parts.

I think it,

I think it's nice.

I think the materials are nice.

I was kind of hitting at, I think the creativity of adding planters where there were columns, I think is really interesting.

One of the things that strikes me when you're in this shopping center is I think it's because maybe there was an overhaul of the parking lot trees recently, but it just feels really barren and it's a big parking lot, but

I don't know if there's an opportunity to maybe look at those planters and add some trees or anything that maybe would give some overhead.

I know that since we're removing some of the canopies, I know we're putting some back, but just in a way to add a different dimension to the vegetation there.

But I think it's nice.

I think it's thoughtfully done.

And I like being able to,

Reimagined the dig space as you see those giant voids, those big empty retail spaces.

So I think having that reoccupied is definitely a positive on the corridor.

That's kind of my rambling for now.

I think it's a nice, very nice package.

I agree with Fred.

I think the

The way they put the elevations together kind of side by side or top to bottom was really helpful in reading the architecture.

Thanks, Frank.

Thanks, Dave.

I'll echo what Frank Hancock just said.

I think it is a really thoughtful redesign.

And I don't have a lot of anxiety over the fact that maybe we don't know exactly what's going on long term with the whole center.

I think the TJ Maxx Sierra package is so much more attractive than what's there now.

I look forward to seeing it completed and it sounds like that'll happen before the end of the year.

So that's all I had.

I think it's a really nice, really well done, David.

Thank you, Frank.

Thanks, Dave.

I will echo my colleagues' comments as well.

I think that

It is a lot of architecture.

I am thankful that it's not right on top of the entrance corridor and that there's a buffer there that helps to reduce some of the need to look at any details or some of that sort of micromanagement piece.

But I also agree that it's really beautifully done and thoughtfully done.

And I think that it adds a nice contemporary flair to sort of a standard shopping center elevation.

And I

That resonates with me as being very appropriate for the corridor and for this time frame.

I had two quick questions and I guess I'll take advantage of maybe a bounce back to staff on this.

The only thing I wasn't clear on in the comments were related to signage and I just want to make sure that I'm understanding.

Are we actually approving the updated comprehensive sign plan today?

OK, and so we're also, because you would ask that we consider I think the orange color, for example, on Sierra.

Is there anything, and I understand that's a brand color, I don't have an issue with it, but I just want to make sure that

Well, I'll stop there.

I think I understand what you're saying now.

So everything that's in here, we are actually approving as part of the comprehensive sign plan update.

So that's great.

And then the other thing I'll mention is just echoing something that Frank Hancock said about the parking and the landscape and the parking.

And I know we've dealt with this over the years.

We dealt with this, I think, in Albemarle Square at 1.2, way back when Fresh, that

was it called, not Fresh Fields, Fresh Life, Fresh Market came in.

And I think there's, correct me if I'm wrong here, but you guys aren't really doing anything to the landscape.

So there aren't any requirements that we can put on that.

Am I correct in assuming that?

Okay.

And then the second thing is, I also realized that really my sense of exactly what Frank is saying is probably more

when I'm occupying the parking lot than when I'm actually on the entrance corridor.

So I feel a little bit better about that in terms of oversight.

So those are my only rambling comments.

Yeah, I'm generally in agreement with what's been said.

I think you have effectively kind of broken up that very long, kind of boring,

stated facade that's there now.

And I kind of see it as a big improvement.

I agree that the TJ Maxx and Sierra portion, I think if that was just done immediately, I think that would just in and of itself be an improvement with the rest following at some later point.

Thank you, Chris.

And like you all echo my colleagues' comments, I think David compliments to you and the team for developing a great way to freshen the overall center and bring some more diversity and subtlety and scale across it.

So I think

As my colleagues have said, it should be an immediate improvement to the facade that's there today.

In the longer term development, excited to see what may happen with the landscape.

I think certainly, as Frank and Fred have observed, I think the canopy could be increased, and I think that would be a benefit in future stages.

But all in all, I think it's a good step forward.

I am.

I think you could do it in a single motion, just understanding that there are three parts, one being approving with conditions, the design for TJ Maxx and Sierra, second approving the overall

designed for the rest of the shopping center, again, with conditions.

Thank you.

So do any members have any comments on the recommendations or any suggested revisions or additions?

No?

Do we have a second?

The next regular review item is ARB 2020-132 ABC Plot 5 Final Site Plan.

This is a proposal to construct a storage building as part of a larger mixed use development that will occupy multiple parcels of land on Fifth Street extended at Old Lynchburg Road.

The storage building location is marked by a star in the image on the right.

Today, we reviewed the initial site plan for the overall development and completed a preliminary review of the architectural design for the storage building on December 7th of last year.

Airby's action was to recommend approval of the initial site plan for the overall development and to provide 12 comments for the next submittal.

And those comments were related primarily to the architectural design, mechanical equipment, landscaping, retaining walls, and site sections.

These are the elevations that were reviewed in December.

Continued refinement of the building design was requested at that time, as was eliminating the film coating from the windows.

The proposal to use the film coding on the windows has been eliminated.

That's possible now because the interior layout has been revised to provide the corridor behind the windows.

These are the current elevations, and this is a comparison of the south elevations with the elevation from December at the top of the slide and the revised elevation below.

The design has been refined by revising the entrance surrounds at the building corners.

Brick surrounds have been provided at the west end where there was none previously, and the surrounds have been shifted to provide class on both sides.

Those changes have been made on the side elevation of the corner elements as well, so the appearance is now more consistent throughout the entire building.

To address the issue regarding visibility of rooftop equipment, an equipment screen is proposed to be added to the roof.

The applicants indicated that the rooftop units will be 66 inches tall, which will make them rise above the parapet.

The equipment screen is proposed at 70 inches tall, so the equipment would be hidden, but added screens have not been the preferred method for screening equipment in the entrance corridors.

A combination of appropriate location and building design have been typical.

In this case, the material of the screen matches the primary building material, and the screen is relatively small in comparison to the overall building.

Although the color and material are appropriate, the location and length of the screen don't have a clear relationship to any of the building elements.

We've recommended an adjustment to the location and or length of the screen to correspond more completely with the wall design.

This is the site plan that was reviewed in December.

This is the current site plan.

There aren't really any big changes in the layout since the previous review.

You may recall that only the trees associated with the Block 5 are proposed with the Block 5 construction, although the larger site would be graded at the time of Block 5 construction.

Trees are provided along the travelway east of the building.

Excuse me.

Trees are provided along the travelway along the storage building, but not along the travelway east of the building.

Pipes are proposed along the eastern part of the travelway in locations that prohibit a continuous row of trees.

In the staff report, we recommended that trees be provided the full length of the travelway.

If planting those trees along the eastern half of the travelway should wait until those blocks are developed, an alternative would be to revise the pipe placement so that those trees could be planted later in a consistent pattern.

In the December review, a request was made for site sections

Those sections had been provided and they showed that the street sits a few feet above the finished floor elevation.

Submitted again were these perspective images updated to reflect the modified building design.

Images are from the intersection of the Fifth Street entrance corridor with Old Lynchburg Road at the top and Wahoo Way at the bottom.

These views have also been updated to reflect the modified building design.

Building materials and colors have not been revised, except that the window film is no longer proposed as indicated earlier.

And our recommendation is for approval of the Block 5 plan with the recommendations listed in the stack report.

That is the end of my presentation, but I'll just note that today, shortly before our meeting began, we did receive some additional information from the applicant regarding the rooftop equipment screen and the trees at the travelway.

Thank you very much, Margaret.

Any questions?

No, thanks.

No questions.

Thank you, Margaret.

No questions for me either.

Hi, it's Gretchen Elton.

I'm the architect for the project.

I'll just touch really fast on what we had sent to Margaret right before the meeting today.

And that was just a revised elevation.

Because we don't want to have more penetrations to the roof, it would be preferred to just raise the parapets on the south facade.

and wrap those corners on the east and west facades also.

So we have gone ahead and made those changes.

We do not believe that you will be able to see the rooftop units from Fifth Street, from that south elevation.

Nor will you be able to see them even in perspective.

If I go back to the perspective here, those units sit about in the middle of the building.

And if we raise this parapet wall, you're really not gonna see it either from the intersection at Old Lynchburg Road or from Wahoo Way.

So we have, I think, internally elected to

make those revisions.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Justin Schampier, if I could chime in quickly on the landscaping just to clarify that.

So we would not want to show those trees on this final site plan because then they would be required prior to CO, the building.

So the private street we're building may or may not get built all the way out to the road or to Wahoo Way prior to

Opening of the store.

We're still working through the phasing on that.

So I think it's not a problem to, you know, adjust the utilities, sort of note that for future phases, we would need to make sure a continuous line of trees be planted.

That's not a problem, but we would not want that to be required with the approval for block

5 because it may very well be those don't come in and that sidewalk or the street itself is not built until the office building is constructed and you want that landscaping to go in at the same time otherwise it would get destroyed during the construction process for those phases so it's not a problem to accommodate those trees in the future but they may not in fact be

on the site plan now, probably would not be the site plan now if we'd want that just addressed, clarified before the approval's done.

That's the only thing on our side for landscaping.

Okay, thank you, Justin.

Anything further?

Yeah, I just, Justin, just to follow up on that, I'm not quite sure I'm following you.

The extension of it, it goes to the transit plaza and depending on the timing of various other phases, it may continue to Wahoo Way or it may not.

So we've shown it conceptually.

If you look at the site plan kind of as an extension, this mass grading around it,

But it's not required to be constructed from the zoning.

And so we don't want to have it tied down.

I got you.

I got you.

That helps to clarify.

Thank you.

That was my only question.

Thank you, Fred.

And just to clarify, so the extension of the road itself is not going to be built at this point.

Right.

It'll be shown as kind of a phase one, phase two with the connection to the transit plaza being the required connection.

The other part we may build, but not necessarily in line with the completion of the building.

Right that makes sense to me.

Thank you, Chris.

Thanks, Dave.

Well, it depends.

We go back and forth with the county engineering folks about this.

We've gotten the approval for that sort of situation depending on the depth of the pipe, right?

If the storm sewer pipe is 12 feet in the ground, a tree planted in a six-foot landscape strip is not going to bother that pipe.

So that's where it's a little bit to be determined.

I think we're fine with some kind of condition that requires those trees to continue.

It's already a county zoning issue.

We've had to either make the pipes deeper or move the pipes to comply with the county ordinance anyway.

Gotcha.

Thanks.

That's all I got, Dave.

Thank you, Frank.

I don't have any questions.

Thank you.

I guess the only question I have is concerning the black brick.

I guess in the renderings, the base that's proposed at least to my eye looks like a dark gray or a deep charcoal.

The brick at the base is stark black.

There's also a darker charcoal in the back that is CMU.

So this black brick is black.

It's called charcoal.

And I believe it has a slurry face on it.

There is a darker gray CMU in the back that we've elected for that base.

Thank you.

And in terms of the CMU that's proposed for the tall piers, is it, remind me of what type of CMU is it?

It's what they call a rustic face CMU.

It's a sandblasted or a shot blasted finish, but it doesn't, so it has a little bit of a texture, but it's not like a split face.

I see, thank you.

We do have, there's not a whole lot of depth in the facade.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Yes.

Yes, they are.

Okay, thank you.

No further questions from me.

Thank you.

Well, we'll go into discussion.

Thanks, Dade.

Thanks, Justin.

I don't have any real issues.

I think they've done a nice job addressing the comments we made in the last review.

I think it's an attractive project overall, especially given the use.

And certainly, the clarifications you got, just in terms of the relief on the architectural

on that wall that faces Fifth Street, I think were a relief to me as well or welcome news.

I thought I read your lips, Dave.

I agree with Frank Stoner.

I think it's a nice package.

I appreciate to the applicant adjusting the floor plan to make those windows kind of accurately reflect or show the storage units beyond.

I think that's a nice I think that'll be an improvement.

I think the site plan looks good.

Yeah, I don't really have anything else to add.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, I agree.

I think it's particularly for a storage building.

It's really well articulated.

I like the idea of raising the parapet to screen the mechanical equipment a lot.

I think that kind of takes the issue of screening kind of off the table a little bit.

And yeah, I think it's appropriate.

Thanks, Chris.

Thanks, Dade.

I agree with 100% of everything all of my colleagues have said and do not have anything else to add.

Great.

Thank you.

I agree with my colleagues as well.

I think I appreciate the development since our last meeting.

I think the parapet, as Chris noted, is a great way to screen the mechanical equipment.

I appreciate that adjustment.

I appreciate, as Frank Hancock said, the adjustment in the plan.

Yeah, a nice development for storage building.

It's not a deal breaker for me.

I feel like if the brick were not a stark black, but a dark gray, that it would maybe be a little bit more appropriate.

But all in all, a nice job.

Yes, we can, Margaret.

So the recommendation in the staff report was for approval with the four conditions.

Based on the conversation that's just taken place, I've adjusted number one.

This is the one regarding the trees on that travelway.

The real issue there was not that the

The trees had to be planted at this time, but that didn't be able to provide the trees later on in a consistent row.

So I changed number one to say adjust utilities to allow for large trees, two and a half inch caliber at planning along both sides of the full length of the travelway.

and the comment number three was about the rooftop equipment screen.

It sounds like everybody is fine with the eliminating that and increasing the height of the parapet.

Dave or Margaret, quick question is,

Yeah.

Margaret, I just have a question.

What you said sounded great.

Probably not.

Eliminate the visibility of rooftop equipment.

Great.

Thank you.

I'll move the approval of the certificate of appropriateness for ARB 2020-132 Albemarle Business Campus Block 5 with the conditions listed in the staff report amended as follows.

Number one, adjust utilities to allow for large trees, two and a half inch caliper at planting along both sides of the full length of the travelway located south of the Block B building.

Comment two, as

Is there a second?

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Henningsen?

Hi.

Great, thank you very much.

Thank you, Justin and Gretchen.

All right, our next item is a work session, ARB 2020-69 sleep number.

Are you able to see my slide?

Great, okay.

The Sleep Number Development, oh sorry hold on just a second, okay.

The Sleep Number Development is proposed for the east side of Route 29 as just south of Fashion Square Mall and it received final approval on November 30th of last year.

Approved materials included a master wall stucco wall panel in a tan color, wood tone lapsiding in summer weeks, and metal wall panels in a very dark blue color.

On January 4th of this year, you considered the applicant's proposal to replace the metal panel with additional master wall stucco in the same shade of blue.

The AirBees action on January 4th

was to make three comments.

One, to consider further adjustments in the blend of materials to retain more metal or to incorporate another more refined material in the design elements and possible elements.

Number two, to provide stucco details.

Three, to provide accurate color renderings.

The applicant has submitted revised drawings.

They show that the horizontal elements have been revised to metal, and the vertical elements would retain the change from metal to stucco.

I do have a series of revised perspectives here.

I'll just run through these quickly so that you can see them, and I believe the applicant will be able to address them in more detail.

Thank you, Margaret.

Great.

And there we have the presentation from the applicant.

If everyone can join the presentation, I think Sam might be on.

Let me invite Carolyn Marquezner.

Good afternoon.

Thank you guys for taking another look at this.

So we went back and in agreement, looked at all the horizontal, the thin striped horizontal pieces and have now articulated and skinned those with the dark bronze metal.

And so the stucco is on

the larger surfaces but do not carry through, do not intersect any of the horizontal bands anymore.

So I think it provides a much cleaner termination to all of the sort of thin horizontal surfaces.

One thing I did wanna show you guys, if I might share my screen and I'm learning how to do this.

We have,

Is this coming up on your end?

Let's see here.

Yes.

All right.

Let me zoom in a little bit.

So this is not an ephus or a thumb or a fake.

This is actually a traditional hard code stucco

on a masonry substrate.

So we're in all cases where there is stucco, we're going directly over CMU.

So we've got a very substantial backer.

And in terms of longevity of this material, we're basically adding, you know, a concrete cement material onto a masonry substrate.

So we're

We're expecting a very long term finish out of this product as an old school base coat, scratch coat, finish coat with a mesh on top of masonry.

So I just wanted to clarify that it is a real stucco product in the traditional sense.

And this is a,

pretty heavy duty building, it's all masonry.

And so we're, I think, I think Fred and Frank, maybe there were a couple of questions last time about a comparative material.

And so the emphasis is, yeah, we're swapping metal for stucco, but we may be introducing a longer term product in the interior.

So I've got some, let me stop the share for a minute.

I've got material samples that I can drop off.

This is the this siding, the tan stucco, the bronze metal.

And I know it's so hard to see with the lighting, but that's a sample of the blue.

It's a midnight blue.

It's a very, very handsome blue.

And I'm happy to drop these off at the county office.

I don't know what the new

processes for reviewing materials.

So I'll stop with that.

Thank you, Mark.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thanks, Margaret.

Thanks, Mark.

I think it looks fantastic.

I think it's very appropriate and I really appreciate the changes that you all have done on it.

Thanks, Fred.

Thanks, Dave.

Thanks, Mark.

I would say the same.

I think it's a great improvement.

I think longevity, certainly on those horizontal pieces, will be much better with the metal treatment than the stucco.

And I think visually it's a big improvement.

So thanks.

Thank you, Frank.

I agree.

Nice to see the real stucco.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, yeah, I'm glad to see that as well.

I see.

OK, great.

All right, well, thank you.

Yeah, likewise, appreciate the further refinement.

Okay, thank you.

Well, we'll go into discussion now.

I think in lieu of going around, just if anybody has anything further to add in discussion, please raise your hand.

Thank you.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

I would agree, Margaret.

Do we have such a motion?

I'll move for approval of certificate of appropriateness.

Thank you, Fred.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

OK, great.

Thank you.

Welcome back, Chris.

All right, we have two other business items scheduled for today.

I think we'll begin with Frank Stoner's look at the Route 151 corridor.

Thanks, Danny.

Well, you'd be happy to know that I got off easy.

So maybe you're not happy to know.

I didn't realize how short this corridor is until I actually drove it.

So I'm going to share my screen.

Hopefully this works.

Yeah, we can see your full desktop.

Unfortunately, now everything's gone black.

Yep, there we go.

Yep.

So it turns out this corridor is only 1.6 miles long.

and runs from 250 to the county line with Nelson.

Much like 250 in the Greenwood area, it's primarily a rural corridor.

It has mountain views.

It has a lot of the characteristics that we looked at kind of in that Greenwood section of

Route 250.

This shows you a little more detail, kind of the countryside that it runs through and the patterns of land development along the corridor, which are again primarily agricultural or rural residential development.

This is actually the intersection of 151 and 250 looking north.

And you can see there is actually a residential structure up behind the lights there.

But in addition, this sort of four board fencing, which again was prevalent along the 250 corridor is also prevalent along the 151 corridor.

A lot of this kind of landscape in the Albemarle County section, there's really very little in the way of commercial development along the corridor.

This is the intersection with Goodloe, again more four board fence.

And then you can see there are a couple newer houses here that were built along the eastern side of 151 that are more sort of suburban residential in character and then an older farmhouse down in the lower left.

and it's really not until you get to pretty close to the Nelson County line that you see some commercial development and the Vista opens up and you really get to see the Blue Ridge Mountains in the background.

On the right side this is what you see this is again kind of very close to the county line and

is a kind of agricultural use but has retail as a kind of attraction.

It's a rural attraction much like the brewery

Blue Mountain, which is actually in Nelson County.

So this is just over the border, but I thought it was appropriate to take a picture of it.

And it's the last kind of structure that's in Alomar County right before you go over the line is this church.

And that's literally it in the way of commercial buildings along that corridor.

So

Again, it's very similar, I thought, to the 250 corridor through Greenwood, largely agricultural and residential fencing, and portions of the road in Nelson reflect similar characteristics, but there is more commercial development.

I think that's largely due to their

zoning regulations relative to Albemarles.

I think they're a little more permissive.

So that's kind of quick and easy.

Any thoughts, questions?

I have a couple thoughts.

First of all, thanks, Frank.

Yeah.

One is the intersect, well, just a general comment.

I think that potentially this even short stretch of road over the next, say, what, 10 years maybe, could see a fair amount of development if this whole commercial sort of vineyard brewery distillery continues.

So I think it's really helpful to have this

Documented and especially that picture of the Blue Ridge Mountains that are so stunning in the background, you know, how do we keep that in mind and craft ways to support whatever development is out there with an eye towards the horizon line, I think is important.

Also, I don't know what this is sort of related, but the intersection shot that you showed me reminded me, aren't they doing a circle out there?

Isn't that the longer term vision?

I don't know.

Anyone know?

I think that's the case.

I may be making it up, but I think that's right.

They're going to try to eliminate lights just as a matter of consideration, I guess.

But that was it.

Just kind of add on what Fred said, you know, I think we're thinking a lot about the architectural resources of the county and, you know, especially with these western corridors or some of these more rural corridors, just the natural resources and, you know, whatever comes out of this, whatever document, you know, I think some of the guidance could be

How does whatever architectural or development proposal, you know, protect or enhance or somehow, you know, is sensitive to these natural resources?

Just thinking about this, the mountain views and that kind of agrarian landscape, but very similar to Dade and Chris's presentations of their corridors as well, just kind of out west here.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, thank you.

That's a great presentation.

And I think I kind of agree.

It's, you know, there's really not much you could do that would compare to that mountain view.

So I think it's, you know,

kind of important to make sure that anything that goes in there is kind of harmonious with that natural landscape.

Did you have an opportunity, Frank, or does anybody else know what the zoning situation is on that stretch of 151?

I'm just wondering if it's,

I think it's all zoned rural, if I'm not mistaken.

It is interesting that there's been as much of this kind of large lot residential development, which shouldn't be a surprise, I guess.

but it kind of makes me think the likelihood of more intense agricultural based either breweries or vineyards may indeed be a possibility but it's also a possibility that this gets built out with more of this kind of large lot suburban residential which is kind of unfortunate.

Given the character of the corridor,

That's a good question.

Margaret, do you know the answer to that?

I'm sorry, was someone else going to...

It's not a separate zoning...

Category depends on how it's being done.

It could be a special permit for special events, or if it's strictly agriculture, I don't even think it does need to require that.

There's much fewer requirements there.

I'm trying to pull up, and it's moving very slowly, trying to pull up what the zoning is out there.

It's rural area.

I'm looking at it, I think.

Yeah.

I think it does require a special use permit if you're going to have any sort of event space.

And I think if it's a brewery or a vineyard, I think it doesn't have a certain amount of what you serve have to be grown on site now.

And I'm sorry, I don't deal with that directly, but we can get the basics of that information for you.

And we don't review these residential applications if I'm remembering right.

regardless of how ugly it is.

That's my understanding at present, Frank.

But yeah, that's one of the things I've taken away from looking at these corridors too is it's sort of the main development pattern and sort of eroding her character is residential.

So I don't know whether members would be interested in considering making any recommendations about either preserving buffers or complying with corridor planting guidelines if folks remove the buffer to try and

What about a subdivision, Margaret?

Correct.

It's only attached residential units that would require a site plan that would be reviewed by the ARB.

I should have mentioned the entrance quarter arterial issue is going to the Board of Supervisors this week on Wednesday.

And so some of what you're discussing is

And do those scenic or historic route designations allow review for

Well, we don't have those other types of regulations in place, so I don't know what they would be, but if we were to find a way to establish scenic

Right.

Yeah, it seems like we're noticing areas, whether it's view sheds or other things that contribute to the character that are probably outside of the original

purview and intention of the board and whether that's something that could ideally find its way into zoning or planning or perhaps an expanded purview here.

I don't know if you have thoughts, Margaret, not necessarily today, but as you reflect on this work, what vehicles might be most available to address the concerns about viewsheds and continuity at residential development.

I did have a question about whether it's appropriate to use architectural elements that aren't in the county.

So in this case, Blue Mountain is actually in Nelson.

And I think Valley Road is also in Nelson.

But it's close.

I mean, the line goes

Yeah, I think this structure is actually in Nelson as well.

I think if you think about the entrance quarters as being streets that move to and through historic areas, then it makes sense to

You know one thing that's of interest to me anyway is I was looking at the historic properties map of the county and I'm in that county GIS map spiral you know where my brain just gets sucked into all these different maps

But this is within, it looks like this entire corridor for the most part is within the Greenwood Afton Rural Historic District.

And I don't know whether that has any impact or not on how we review projects that come in under the ARB.

Well, I mean the fact that it's within the rural historic district is just confirmation that that scenic character is important, that rural character is important.

The designation itself has no requirements associated with it.

Got it.

Yeah.

Well, you can cluster.

Yeah.

But, um, obviously the cheapest thing to do is put them all right on the road.

Right.

Road infrastructure costs.

It's also kind of the most disruptive in terms of its impact impact on the corridor.

But I don't think there's any solution to that.

I think one of the items that we pointed out when we reviewed the entrance corridor arterial issue with you a couple weeks ago is there were a few streets that had the scenic highway designation and that was removed when the entrance corridors were put in place.

I don't think so.

We may actually have more ability to control it that way.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, certainly I'd be interested in exploring

More with you all, whether we could reintroduce that or at least recommend reintroducing that as a category to try and help protect what I think we're all observing as a great character and continuity in many spots in the county.

Great.

Any other thoughts or discussion about Frank's good study of 151?

So in terms of next steps and directions on the guidelines, so we've been focusing on the western portion.

I think the initial schedule, Fred called for taking a look at Fontaine and the bypass next.

I guess that's still a bit west if we want to keep it under that rubric.

Sure thing.

Yeah, happy to do it.

Yes, yeah.

And then process-wise, the initial schedule then moved on to another quadrant.

Yeah, definitely.

Okay.

So I'm sorry, just to be clear.

So I'm looking at the, I'm not looking at the Monticello Avenue and Scottsville Road piece, right?

I'm just looking at the bypass.

Okay.

Got it.

And cool.

All right.

Well, thank you very much, everybody.

Good discussion.

Our remaining other business item is approval of the minutes for January 19th.

So moved.

Second.

Mr. Missel.

Aye.

Aye.

Great.

Thank you, Carolyn.

Great.

So our next meeting is scheduled for February 15, 2021.

It will be a virtual meeting again.

But everyone else is, so good.

Well, we'll miss you, Frank.

Have a good day away.

Thank you, everyone.