Architectural Review Board Meeting   3/1/2021

All right, well, it being 1 o'clock, we will call to order the March 1, 2021 meeting of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board.

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

The quorum is present.

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

Fred Missel will be absent today.

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 phone.

Both is 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 is a public record and 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 is our recording secretary and may need to contact you during this meeting.

So please check the chat box and respond as needed.

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

And for everyone participating today, please keep your microphone muted unless you are speaking.

For applicants making presentations, please note that your presentations are limited to a total of 15 minutes, which can be divided among the team members for any application as you see fit.

I will note we have a very full agenda today, and so to the extent everyone can be very succinct in your presentation, it will be appreciated to allow us to fully hear all the applications.

Now we'll turn to disclosures.

Thank you, Frank.

Thank you.

There are no items on the consent agenda.

So we'll turn to regular review items.

We have six on the agenda today.

Chris Taggart and Margaret Maliszewski will be making presentations for these.

The first item is ARB 2021-06 Airport parking lot elevator and stair replacement.

Okay, this is a proposal to remove.

Sorry, hold on just a second.

Gonna make one more adjustment.

This is a proposal to remove the central parking lot elevator and flanking stairs and to construct two elevator pavilions at the Charlottesville-Elmont Airport, which is located at the western end of the Airport Road entrance corridor.

The new elevator pavilions, which are located north and south of the central structure, are located approximately 650 feet and 900 feet from the Airport Road entrance corridor.

Although this distance mitigates impacts to a large degree,

The pavilion structures do have increased mass and height and that will make them visible from some vantage points on the quarter.

In 2016, the plan to replace the steps leading from the parking lot to the terminal was approved.

The steps were replaced in the same location using materials matching those already on site.

In January of 2019, the AirB reviewed an application to replace the existing central elevator and stairs.

That project was approved, but it was not constructed and the project that's being reviewed today is intended to replace that proposal.

The design of the elevator pavilions and canopy additions is consistent in form, material, and color with the existing terminal building.

And with this level of compatibility, the new construction is expected to have an appropriate appearance.

The proposal calls for the addition of masonry walls to infill the patio lookout wall following demolition of that central elevator.

The applicant has confirmed that that new material will match existing, but the plans don't state that.

So we've recommended that the plan be revised to clarify that the matching material will be used.

Project areas are adjacent to an existing parking lot and some landscaping is proposed to be removed.

The landscape plan does not detail the trees or shrubs to be removed, but it does show new trees and shrubs to be planted.

New landscaping in these areas would help integrate the structures into the surroundings.

A landscape schedule was not included in this plan set.

We've made recommendations regarding identification of landscaping to be removed and providing a landscape schedule.

There's also new lighting associated with the new elevator structures.

Light levels reach 26.9 foot candles and maintaining a maximum of 20 foot candles would be consistent with most non-display lots in the entrance quarters.

So we've made that recommendation.

We've also recommended that the applicant consider revising the color temperature of the new fixtures to produce a warmer light, but the color temperature that is proposed is consistent with other light approvals at this site.

Our recommendation is for approval with the conditions listed in the staff report.

Thank you, Margaret.

Attorney members for questions.

No, I don't have any questions.

Thanks, Margaret.

No, but I don't have any.

Chris?

No questions for me.

Great.

Thank you, Margaret.

None for me either.

OK, this is Chris Jager.

Can everyone hear me OK?

OK, I work for Tomlina Bright.

I was hoping to see Melinda Crawford on the sign-in.

I see Jason DeBellier from the airport.

I'm not sure if they're having connection issues.

But just on a brief summary from my part, the previous entry pavilion project did not move forward.

Hi.

We had previously approved or had gone before the ARB to approve an entry pavilion project that was basically a structure that would have included internal escalators, stairwell, two elevators, and some circulation area.

And it was approved.

We went out to bid on it.

As you know, the airport is financially self-sufficient.

and with the exception that some of our grants are funded by the FAA and some are funded by the Virginia Department of Aviation.

We were seeking assistance from the FAA with this project.

When we went out to bid with it, we had anticipated that we probably have a budget of about 3 million.

I think the project came in over 5 million.

We went back to the FAA and we asked that we value engineer and then we look at the project to figure out what was in the best interest of

Cho, and being able to fund it.

So with the help of Talbot & Bright, engineering firm, Chris Shager on board and our staff, we went back and we looked at it.

The primary issue that we need that we wanted to make sure that we had was

Right now, we have one elevator that goes from our terminal building to our long-term parking lot.

And just to put it into perspective, our long-term parking lot has about 760 spaces in it, which is our primary public parking area at the airport.

But we only had one elevator, and if that elevator went down, we had no ADA access to that parking lot.

We were looking at creating a redundant ADA access to that parking lot by installing two elevator systems.

In 2014-15 timeframe, we had put in two sets of stairs in the long-term lot, basically a little bit to the north and the south of the central entry area to the terminal.

We were looking at this project to value engineering.

One of the ways that we wanted to make sure that we provided the best access to our passengers was to put an elevator next to an elevator structure next to each one of those sets of existing stairs, which is slightly again to the north and the south of the center of the terminal.

Thank you.

Is there any other presentation from you?

No questions.

Chris?

No questions for me either, thank you for the presentation.

We'll enter discussion.

I think it's a nice proposal.

I think it's considerably less intrusive than the proposal we already approved.

And I'm not sure I have any good

suggestions for improvement.

I think it's very well done.

I am curious, somewhat unrelated, is there any expectation that over time that parking lot would get an extra deck added to it?

All right.

There are not any plans to put a second level on that existing structure.

Again, that structure, I mean, that parking lot holds the majority of our public parking spots right now.

I think we have about thirteen hundred total parking spots with the different lots around the airport.

There was in our capital budget a parking lot structure, a parking structure, about a four level structure.

Gotcha.

Great.

Thank you, Frank Hancock.

I agree with Frank Stoner.

I think it's a really nice proposal.

I like that it's two kind of flanking the ends, and I think it's

You know, it's nice and airy and light where it could just be a mass of an elevator shaft, but I think you really paid attention to kind of that experience of arrival.

And yeah, I think it's a nice proposal.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, I agree.

I was not part of the approval process for the pre-fall.

But I think this is an improvement over that.

This is very well integrated into the existing fabric of the airport.

Thank you, Chris.

And I agree with my fellow board members.

I think it's a nice improvement over the previously approved proposal.

probably provides extra convenience to the extent the elevators will be closer to folks in more areas of the parking lot.

Our recommendation is for approval with the conditions that were listed in the staff report.

Thank you.

Do any members see any for any revision?

I'll move for approval of certificate of appropriateness for ARB 2021-06, airport parking lot elevator and stair replacement with conditions listed in the staff report.

Yes, Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Henningsen?

Aye.

Aye.

Great, thank you.

All right, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, ARB 2021-07, Starbucks 2231, Seminole Lane.

Chris?

Sorry about that.

Are you all viewing the correct screen now?

The application I'm presenting on today is the review of architecture initial site plan to construct an 1,138 square foot building to accommodate a drive-through Starbucks in addition to associated site improvements.

The site is located at 2231 Seminole Lane.

Since 2003, the ARB has reviewed proposal for alterations to the side of existing office building and landscaping changes to the site.

Staff did have a number of comments on site, but none of them were significant enough for keeping us from recommending approval of the initial plan.

So I'm going to focus on the four points that were listed as the primary points discussion in the staff report.

Regarding the building design, it is contemporary in nature and displays only a basic connection to the historic architecture of the county, notably in the materials and the use of storefront windows between a masonry base and a metal canopy with a sign band above.

However, the brick is proposed in a stacked bond, which is a historic pattern, but is less common and in a medium shade of gray.

As viewed from the entrance corridor, human scale is enhanced by the metal canopy column screen structure and outdoor seating area.

However, the human scale does not transition to the east end of elevation where the architectural detailing is reduced.

Staff is recommending, revised and designed to establish a base for the walls that is evident on the sides of the building to reinforce the historic base middle top wall pattern and potentially decrease the utilitarian appearance.

The south elevation shows a mural east of the bump out.

The design is currently conceptual, but the applicant would like to place mural locations shown.

Without the mural, this portion of the elevation would appear blank due to the lack of architectural detailing.

The north elevation east of the drive-through window also lacks architectural detailing leading to a blank appearance.

Staff is recommending revising the elevations to incorporate architectural detailing to relieve blankness.

Regarding the landscaping for the site, due to an 18-foot access easement in the Route 29 right-of-way, the parcels frontage landscaping set back approximately 70 feet from the Route 29 pavement.

The plan shows three London plain trees with interspersed ornamentals along the western perimeter.

but the spacing exceeds 40 feet near the travelways at the north and south end of the sites or north and south ends and one additional tree is needed to meet the requirements.

Between the parking area and the drive-through travway a row of shrubs is shown providing trees in addition to shrubs shown would help integrate the walkways drive-through travel lane it really features into the site.

Between the northern and

Between the northern perimeter of the site and the drive-through driveway, the row of shrubs continues in the mirror of the exit to the drive-through.

A row of trees is present on the adjacent property, but providing trees along this end of the site would help mitigate the appearance of the drive-through, travelways, stacked cars, and related features independent of all site landscaping.

Along the southern perimeter of the site, shrubs are shown at the base of the retaining walls, but abruptly end at the entrance to the drive-through lane near the dumpster.

Due to the retaining wall and an existing easement running through the planning area along this perimeter of the site, trees may not be possible, but shrubs should be provided to help to offset impacts of the retaining wall and drive-through lane.

Lastly, regarding the shrubs proposed for the site, a single species proposed for the total quantity, which would not support a healthy landscape, and the proposed plan is too large for the planting area along the retaining walls.

Staff is recommending revising the landscape plan to increase plant diversity.

and to either increase the depth of the planting bed along the retaining walls or to revise the trust proposed for this area to one with an upright habit and a mature size suited to the available planting area.

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

Thank you, Chris.

Chris, do you have any questions?

No, I don't have any questions.

Thank you, Frank Hancock.

Frank Hancock, do you have any questions?

Oh, it's hard.

Excuse me.

That's right.

Yeah, Chris, do you have a site drawing that shows the properties on either side?

Just kind of a bigger picture of the site and the adjoining sites and the relationship to the service road 29.

I'm having a hard time picturing exactly what's going on around it.

I don't have a site, but can you view my screen now?

Yes.

So what's to the south?

Can you scroll down a little bit?

Okay, that's the sign company.

So there's a lot, there's a lot.

Correct.

Gotcha.

Okay.

And then to the rear, there's a, there's a pretty significant grade change, as I recall.

Correct.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

So the real estate 3 building goes away in this scenario.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's great.

Thanks.

Chris, my question is just regarding the mural.

Are there other examples of buildings approved with murals by the ARB or what were the precedents for that topic?

I cannot think of an example of a mural that's been approved by the ARB.

That is not visible from the entrance quarter street.

Is there any

It would only be considered a sign if it includes an image of something related to the business that's in the building.

If that mural had a coffee cup on it, coffee bean, then we could call it a sign.

Thank you.

And then, Chris, one other question

Question, and this may be more for the applicant.

The travelway at the south part of the lot is 30 feet wide.

I'm actually not sure.

All right, thank you everyone.

I'm Craig Katarski with Timmons Group representing the applicant.

We're going to break up our presentation into three parts.

I'm first going to introduce Adam Updike with Starbucks.

I'm representing them.

He's going to give a little bit of an intro of the project in whole, turn it back to me and I'll talk a little bit about the site and then I'll turn it over to Ross with Starbucks and he's going to talk a little bit about the building specifically.

Thank you, Craig and Chris, thank you.

What a fantastic intro.

Thank you, board, for your time today.

What we're going to be presenting today is what is known as, for Starbucks, a drive-through only facility.

What this is, is it's going to be very similar to a typical Starbucks drive-through facility that you're accustomed to.

However, there will not be an indoor seating function.

The indoor seating is actually in this application been pushed to the exterior.

So we're going to have a large beautiful covered outdoor patio experience with really focusing on the landscape to deliver that experience for our patrons.

As part of that patio experience, we will have a pickup window.

That pickup window is also for patrons to either pick up their pre-placed mobile order if they feel they need to get out of the car.

We'll likely be offering curbside here as well by the time this is open and then

Primarily, our main channel here is going to be a drive-through, which we will go through in detail on the site plan.

There are two other drive-through only

locations in Virginia at this time.

Right now, we have one on Prince William Parkway in Prince William, Virginia, which is about 75 miles north.

And to the southeast on Virginia Beach Boulevard in Virginia Beach, we also have a drive-through only facility.

Neither one of those have the large covered patio seating experience, so a little bit different of experience with those if you're familiar with either one.

I had to find where the mute button went after I shared my screen, so sorry about that.

Just to go through, as Adam said, this is a drive-through only concept.

So there is some parking, but it is limited, mainly for people to come pick up and go.

As you will see, there is a drive-through that has a queue of 11 vehicles in it.

The idea is that we want to make sure that as vehicles come in that they have ample room to be able to stack.

and not come out off of the site.

Additionally, with regards to staff comments and some of the landscaping, we think generally we can accommodate most of the requests that were there.

Obviously, we also intend to come back with some material selections and updates with regards to the dumpster enclosure and the retaining walls.

The other thing I would note

that was mentioned is in regards to the opening of this entrance.

We'll go back and take a look at that.

There may be the ability for us to reduce that width to some extent.

That may also help us in sort of opening up a little bit more space with regards to landscaping along the frontage, as staff pointed out.

The one item I would mention is that in the area in the front of the building we certainly will go back and see what we can do in regards to some of the landscaping.

We have a couple utilities that are competing that are in that space with regards to some detention systems as well as some sanitary lines that are coming in there that actually are serving off-site.

It's our understanding that we actually have a sanitary line running through here that goes to the high-tech signs

and so we are serving that through the site here.

But generally speaking, we did not have any questions in regards to staff's comments from a site perspective.

And before Ross gets started, sorry, I didn't introduce myself.

My name is Adam Updike.

I'm the store development manager at Starbucks.

Yes, my name is Ross Downing, store design manager for the Starbucks design team.

And one second here.

I'm having an issue with the share screen.

Okay, is there a 3D view up for everyone?

Okay, so there are a couple points that were made, but to kind of just do a quick overview, when we were looking at the design was to utilize brick and then there are detail moments of wood tones that were the idea behind the conduit to the vernacular.

With that in mind, we wanted to emphasize the tone and texture of the building, but utilizing also lighting fixtures kind of in two different fashions on both the south and the north facades, one being wall sconces, and then the other is up lighting at the mural wall.

Let's see here.

For both of those facades, again, right, creating some drama between both

the environments and experience for the site and for the customers for both day and evening operations.

We're looking really at the mural to be a unique connection that we can do with the city and emphasize the local community to develop that.

Again, what's showing in the elevations currently is a placeholder

But typically that's what we'll want to do is find a way to make that connection between Starbucks, but then also represent the local community as well.

So the detail work that goes with the canopy is unique to this project as well.

The way that it was designed, we were looking at it as a way to create the human scale and comfort of a destination and zone.

So as you're approaching the store, let's call it from the parking lot.

Here we go.

So from the parking lot side here is to kind of differentiate between what's the utilitarian side of the building versus the zone that directs you to your destination and develops with that experience and the warmth that starts to carry between the warm undertones of the wood.

And then it's just that overall lighting experience.

This is the area that gets it the size most against the street front as well.

And so we want to take the opportunity to create that environment that is both engaged, both

in human scale as you're there on site, as well as from the corridor and vehicular traffic as well.

So these are just a few of the views that were updated to show the environment and kind of how the building is not trying to kind of make itself proud of the site, but to show and show that it's becoming kind of one in the site and integrated in through the tones and the materiality.

Thanks Ross.

So in general, you know, we're open for questions and to talk through some of these items.

Certainly we can focus on the four items that Chris mentioned at the end of his presentation, you know, on the Western edge, as well as separating the parking from the drive-through area.

We don't foresee any issues of, you know, working in adding and enhancing some of the landscape there.

And one other call-out that I would add is, as some of you may be aware, we're working at one-on-one Main Street and potentially adding a mural down there.

So we are working with Alan Guthinsky to the Charlottesville mural project.

Our intent would more than likely be the same here to, if there was an appetite for a mural, to

Thank you for your presentation.

Yeah, I guess the mural is kind of such an important

Absolutely.

Ross, I don't want to speak for you here, but I believe the mural presented is just primarily a placeholder to kind of show intent.

That being said, we would kind of harken back to the previous comment, we would want to add some relevancy to the mural, especially given that there is a culture, if you will, of murals in the area.

So we'd want to make sure that we're tying into that.

Thank you, Chris.

No, personally, I think the idea of the mural is kind of intriguing.

So I may,

being the minority, but I kind of like the idea.

Thank you, Chris.

I'm wondering if whoever has that rendered elevation that includes sort of a conceptual representation of the mural, if we could look at that again.

Let me see.

I can pull it up.

Ah, okay.

Got it.

That's great.

Thanks.

I tend to agree with Chris.

I like the idea and concept.

the devil's in the details, I guess, exactly what the subject matter is and how it's rendered.

But I like the idea.

I don't think I have any other questions.

There was one rendered version of the canopy that showed on the drive-through side, it looked like it was white.

said in reference to the underside or to the... No, to the edge of it.

No, no, no, the edge would match the green counts.

Would be green, yeah, that's what I figured.

Great, thank you, Frank.

I don't think I have any additional questions for the applicant.

Thank you.

Why don't we just continue then on that line with discussion.

I don't think so.

I don't have a problem with the architecture.

I mean, yes, it's contemporary.

I think it's proportionally feels good on the site.

I think the scale of the building feels good.

I like the mix of materials.

I like the screen in front.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, I agree.

I like the architecture.

I think it's appropriate.

It does seem more finely detailed on the front than on the

sides as you get closer to the rear.

That's where the mural comes in.

I think that could add a lot of visual interest if it's done right.

But I would just be interested to see what's actually proposed for that.

But otherwise, I did not see any issues.

Yeah, certainly I agree with you and Frank that the architecture seems appropriate.

I think the stacked bond and the trellis are nicely detailed.

I appreciate staff's comments about the potential blankness, although I think for me it's mitigated by how very small this building is, even the blank areas are quite small.

I think like you both, the idea of a mural is intriguing.

I guess I feel a bit cautious and uncertain as to whether we are the right body

would be part of reviewing that or determining it.

I don't know, I'm not familiar with the city program, but I do wonder if the county doesn't have a need or if they don't already have a body that reviews murals if there would need to be one just to the point of content being so important.

Yeah, I would,

Just two comments related to the mural.

If the board is going to consider murals acceptable treatment for blank wool areas, I think we might want to have a discussion at another time focused on that and when and under what circumstances that's going to be OK.

Thank you, Margaret.

Yeah, I guess

Yeah, I think that's a good point.

I mean, the mural is paint, after all.

And, you know, I think the

The architecture should speak for itself without it.

Having said that, I do think it's appropriate without the mural.

I think without a mural being proposed,

might like the canopies or a little bit more detailing to extend a little bit further towards the back.

However, what's presented right now, I think, is appropriate.

Thank you, Chris.

I agree with you, Dade.

I think we should approve it without the mural.

We can discuss circumstances under which I guess a mural could be approved.

And it sounds like there's no body to actually review and approve the mural on the county's behalf.

I tend to agree with you.

I think the blankness of the wall is mitigated by the scale of the building.

It's just not that much area.

The building's so small.

And I think it begs the question about, you know, to Margaret's point about is a mural an appropriate treatment?

And I suspect that depends on how big the wall is.

And that could be difficult to sort of legislate or regulate.

So I think the safest course of action is to approve it as submitted without the mural and then

Thank you, Frank and Chris, for your additional thoughts on this.

Are you able to see the Word document?

Okay, so this was submitted as an initial site plan with preliminary architecture, so this is one of those sort of four-part actions where you're forwarding recommendations to the agent for the site review committee.

The first bullet item here is recommending approval of the initial plan.

No recommendations related to the plan prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Thank you, Margaret.

I think there are a couple items we can delete.

So one, three, four.

Sounded as if there might be an opportunity possibly through adjustment of the travel lane.

OK.

I guess let me ask a question in the absence of any reference to a mural in the approval

Would the applicant need to come to the county to get a mural approved at some point in the future?

This design, another application will come back that is a final site plan and another architectural review.

Presumably that application would get approved and it would have a certificate of appropriateness.

So that approval is the building without a mural.

So would you propose we just include a ton to remove the mural or?

Well, I'm just trying to figure out.

I think whether there's a mural or not falls within your purview.

For context, for our location down on Main Street,

We submitted to ARB in similar comments.

It wasn't purview because it's a function of the building.

So what they recommended we do is just work with 10th and Page, which is the local AJH, I guess.

So we're going to be working through them to find out if we can find something that's mutually agreeable for everybody.

The intent here is basically the same.

I'd say it's a little bit more, makes a little bit more sense on Main Street than maybe here.

It's not a need to have.

So given what we're doing there, and I didn't know what the visibility was of this board to that.

We felt like it could be something that adds uniqueness and kind of puts a Charlottesville stamp on it.

And that's the reason why I had reference.

We would be working.

If we do a mural, we're going to go through the Charlottesville mural project to make sure that the proper folks are involved in it.

But that also being said, if this is something that becomes a big complication, then we'll probably just go without it.

Okay well thank you.

I think we're all intrigued by the concept and certainly within the city there's a good tradition of it and I think it makes sense for us to take a look at how it's managed there and just figure out how that fits with or not our purview.

But I appreciate the flexibility at this moment just to

So is that something that maybe we should work on some concepts through getting an artist and coming back to present that?

I don't know that it's clear that we would be reviewing the content in the future.

What seems like we would have to review it because they'd have to come back in order to get this amendment approved.

If the building is approved without a mural and then we have to add a mural later, it would need

Approval from the ARB.

I can't say at this point in time what the level of that review is.

Do you have a mural or not?

Would you look at the colors?

We're open to approval without it.

I think we can check with zoning and other divisions to see what else we might need to be considering.

Yeah, thank you, Mark, for that perspective.

So I think this makes sense to include the clause you've drafted.

Great.

I'll make a motion.

I'll move that we forward the recommendations outlined in the staff report to the agent for site review committee, amended as follows.

Items 1, 3, and 4 are deleted.

and item 19 which says eliminate the mural from the proposal.

Aye.

Thank you very much.

So our next item is ARB 2021-08, Antops Holiday and Express Minor.

Are you able to see my slide?

Great.

Okay.

This is a proposal to make revisions to an ARB approved hotel design.

The certificate of appropriateness was issued for this hotel on July 26th of 2019 and the hotel is under construction.

The amendment includes four primary items.

One is to move rooftop equipment to the ground level and add vinyl screening fence.

to screen it, two to revise site and building mounted lighting, three to add brand lighting consisting of blue colored lights, and four to eliminate the sun shade from the west elevation.

Let's start with the equipment proposal.

The request is to relocate equipment from the roof to the Route 20 side of the building.

The equipment will be grouped into two locations.

and screened with vinyl fence.

The applicant has indicated that the screen would have to be 10 feet tall to be seen from the Route 20 entrance quarter.

The plans don't indicate equipment height or fence color.

Equipment in the eastern location, which is one of the top of the image in this slide, won't be visible from the street due to topography and wooded area.

and equipment in the western location will have minimal visibility at best.

A fence height that fully screens the equipment and a fence color that blends with the building would help ensure an appropriate appearance.

So we've made recommendations to that fact.

Let's move on to the sun shade.

So the hotel was approved with a sunset, excuse me, sun shade on the west elevation.

And that's visible in the drawing on the right side of the slide.

that would be visible from the entrance quarters.

And you can see that in the image on the left.

That's a photo that was taken just two weeks ago.

The sunshade helped break up the building mass.

It helped establish human scale and helped establish a cohesive overall design because it provided a visual link to the front elevation where there's another candy.

Without it, the elevation appears more blank and less finished and the overall design is less unified.

The applicant has indicated that there are safety issues with the sunshades, so we don't want to require a safety hazard to be built, but it seems that alternate architectural elements that have no safety issues could be added to substitute for the sunshade on the west elevation, and we've made that recommendation.

The next issue is changes to site lighting and wall-mounted downlights.

A photometric plan has been submitted.

It's anticipated that spillover will meet ordinance requirements, but both versions of the plan that were submitted are not fully legible, so we need a legible plan to make sure all requirements are being met.

Wall lights that are aimed downward and have white lamps are proposed to be installed at 28 feet and 45 feet high on the building.

Wall fixtures in the entrance quarters are typically mounted much closer to the ground to focus light on sidewalks for safety and to limit the illumination of the building itself.

We've recommended the proposal be revised to lower the wall fixtures to a pedestrian scale height.

And we saw this recently with all the proposals on Wall Square.

Also note that this lowering lights could increase the light levels at the ground near the building and these would still need to be maintained at or below 24 cameras.

The final issue is another lighting issue.

The applicant would like to add blue-colored lights to the building.

The decorative lighting is meant to illuminate the building itself and to identify the brand of the hotel.

Colored lighting of this type has not been previously approved in the entrance borders, and we've pointed out consistently that, as proposed, this type of light really acts as signage.

These views from the hotel's brand guide and the Holiday Inn Express and Stanton suggest that the blue light

becomes the prominent visual feature of the building at night.

In the entrance quarters, the intended focus is on historically compatible architecture enhanced with appropriate landscaping, not on commercial development branded with color lighting.

The hotel has a prominent location in the Pantops corner development.

Its elevated position makes it visible from a distance on Route 20 north of the site, so the blue lights would be visible along Route 20 at night.

The hotel is also visible from the Route 20-250 intersection.

and there's a clear view of the hotel available from Route 250 along Pantops Corner Way.

Our recommendation is that the blue lights be eliminated from the proposal and any illumination of the building for purposes other than safety and security be eliminated.

If the Airbnb considers that these lights to be appropriate, then additional information will be needed on the land plan.

That's just a summary of our recommendations.

Thank you.

Margaret, it looked to me like in addition to losing a sunshade, we lost some windows on that elevation.

The elevation I think has an error in it.

I'll go back to the photo where you can see that there are windows in place.

This is the actual building under construction.

So I see we've got

Two rows of windows there.

OK.

Thank you, Frank.

Thank you.

Just one question about the sunshade.

Margaret, do you know how far out it projected from the building?

And was it cantilever?

I don't believe it had posts.

And I can try and I can pull the file and see how far it projected out.

OK.

Thank you.

Thank you, Frank.

My question may be for the applicant more related to the sun shade if they describe what the safety concerns are.

Hello, I'm Wilson Enochs, J.W.

Enochs Incorporated, general contractor working on the Holiday Inn Express.

Okay.

I say majority, I'd say 10 out of 15 units or 12 out of 15 units were positioned on a low roof area above the pool

which is the elevation that you see from Route 20.

And those units serve, the convincing units served exclusively first floor areas, some of which were at the extreme far end of the building.

The equipment itself is what's really driving this request

The manufacturer's recommendations were being pretty dramatically exceeded in trying to get the refrigerant lines from the condensing units to the inside air handlers.

The two yard positions were chosen based on the fact that they are adjacent to internal mechanical rooms and none of the lodging rooms would have a view of those mechanical yards.

One is adjacent to the mechanical room that serves the pool area, the second to a mechanical room that is the primary where fire pumps and other equipment are It allows us to get to each of the units within about 75 feet of run In the original approved plan, there were a couple of condensing units that were positioned on the ground

but they are fairly close to the centralized public area and again we're pretty much driven by these refrigeration line run requirements.

So it's our hope that the ARB will look favorably upon this and it's really a matter of trying to make sure the owner systems function properly going forward.

The second item, the brand lighting.

As I'm sure you're aware, all of the brands, IHG, Marriott, Hilton, they all have their particulars that they'd like to see on their buildings.

And the blue uplight is a brand feature for a Holiday Inn Express.

Standard Holiday Inn, it's a green uplight, but it is just part of their branding and what they try and make their properties recognizable.

The owner's photos from Stanton, he has a facility there, give you a pretty good feel for what it looks like at the end.

It does not really offer any illumination for egress.

It is, and I guess this is contrary to some of your typical requirements, it does illuminate the building.

The blue lights in our case will be on a facade that has

A thin brick system that is two thicknesses, so we'll get some speckling up the wall on the bricks that project beyond the primary plane.

IHG is very insistent upon this, but they will, of course, we will follow whatever the ARB decides in this matter.

The third piece, an elimination of the sun shades.

International Hotel and Group has taken that out of their standard.

What they've found is in a lot of cases in particular where they can't readily monitor it.

There is no outside post.

They project about eight feet off the face of the building.

They're anchored to structural steel on the inside.

It's an aluminum shade system, kind of like a louver.

and they find people jump up and grab on them and hang from them.

And it is not the intention to eliminate all of them on this building.

They think that they would prefer to keep the sun shade system on the north elevation, which is over a patio.

It's also immediately adjacent to the public area where the breakfast service and the meeting rooms and the seating areas are.

From a management standpoint, they believe they can monitor that area well enough to where if someone starts doing something untoward, they can stop them before they cause any damage.

The other sun shades on the building and the one in particular that Margaret pointed out from on the Route 20 side is outboard of the pool area.

There's not normally an attendant in that area and they would like very much to get rid of that.

There is concern that someone's going to hang from them and literally pull them down.

Thank you.

To the, and Margaret mentioned that she needed a more legible lighting plan.

Thank you.

Yeah, I guess in the area where the mechanical equipment is getting relocated, is there any room to have any kind of landscaping in front of the fence or is the fence coming right up to the sidewalk?

We have probably about two feet remaining from the face of the building.

once that screen yard is developed to the edge of the sidewalk that's on backside face of curb.

Now that is particularly the case on the east end of the building.

Over the west, the sidewalk is on a bit of a skew to the face of the building.

Thanks.

I'd be glad to share with you my shop drawings for that, but I'm not an expert at Zoom meetings.

How might I bring up a file?

OK. You're going to need to open the file first and have it on your desktop.

Open.

That's a standoff.

I have a drawing open I can try and share.

And I guess as Margaret is doing that, what height are the sun shades at currently?

Yeah, the second floor structure, finished floor, is like 12.4 and 5.8.

The typical window header is at eight feet.

The sunshade is positioned above a

A brick course or two, it's about 8-8 above the ground.

Thank you.

Sorry.

At this point in construction, I wish we could, but what was included in the original design was horizontal tube steel that is at the elevation I just described that's in the wall system itself to which the attachment points were designed to go.

Steel frame or wood?

It's a combination.

The first floor, and in any area that has a broad span, such as the public area that you main entry and et cetera, there's a structural steel frame.

There's a structural steel frame over the pool area, which is where it is, you know, that's what you see from Route 20.

And those tubes and columns stop basically at the second floor elevation.

On this particular elevation, is that space occupiable?

Currently, I don't see anything in the furniture plan to go out there.

There's about eight feet from the face of the building to a retaining wall and a series of fencing that's positioned on top of the retaining wall.

There will be a walkway or an eight-foot patio out there.

I see.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Yeah, a couple questions.

I'm following up on the sunshade discussion.

Not yet.

That's certainly a possibility.

One thing I have run into, and this is I'll be working with Margaret on as well.

We originally hoped to put a few little post lamps out there just to keep people from congregating outside that storefront or in the pool.

And we are going we're not really going to be able to position anything of that sort close to the retaining wall.

because of the forces created by wind and such on those poles would transfer to the retaining wall.

I found out about a week and a half ago that a 12 foot post lamp is not going to be, I can't position it within 54 inches of that retaining wall because of the way the fabrics that hold the retaining wall in place, how they're positioned.

Thank you.

And then my second question is about the HVAC unit and the fence.

It looks very much like the condensing unit you see, you have at home.

These aren't large air handling units or condensing units.

I think that all of them are in the three and a half ton or smaller, but they address specific areas of the building and

Thank you.

I don't have any more questions.

Great.

Thank you, Frank.

And I think my questions have been asked, so thank you.

Well, we'll go into discussion.

Yep.

Yep.

That's it.

And it looks like those are operable doors, or are those just windows on the lower level?

So it looks like there are doors there as well.

There's a pair of 3-0 doors, storefront style, with transom above, centralized there onto that patio.

That also provides egress out of the pool area.

and aligns with the corridor beyond in the building.

Okay.

Yeah, I guess I'm struggling with the elimination of the sunshade.

I could imagine other

options that from an architectural standpoint might kind of address the concern, which is over the blankness of that wall.

That's what you would like to see.

Yeah, I don't know how other folks feel.

We'll see how other ARB members feel, but that could address, for me, kind of address the loss from an architectural perspective of the canopy that you proposed.

I don't know

You know, this elevation, at least from the entrance quarter, kind of stands on its own.

So the connection to the front canopy is not as important to me, or the architectural continuity isn't necessarily as important to me, but it may be to others.

I don't have a problem with the fencing of the HVAC units.

I think that five-foot fence is probably more than adequate to address that.

And as for the blue lights, I tend to agree with Margaret.

I think that's a slippery slope.

It is essentially a form of signage.

And in that sense, I'd probably not be supportive.

you know, perhaps could be convinced otherwise.

I agree with Frank Stoner.

You know, on the issue of what we're looking at here, I think this is one of the most prominent faces of the building as far as visibility from a corridor, from an entrance corridor.

So I think that sunshade is important on this side.

I know, I think a lot of our scrutiny and working through the design of this building had to do with this elevation, this side of the building.

So I think that's pretty important.

I too, I think the screening of the HVAC is good.

I think that meets the requirements if you can't see it.

I think thinking about a human scale as far as how tall that fence is.

I heard 10 feet, but then I realized that was the height that you would actually see anything, not necessarily the fence height.

So I appreciate that it's lower than that.

And then the blue light, I agree.

I think any uplighting is a no-go, any blue uplighting especially.

I can be convinced maybe there's something ground level

pointed down that isn't even that visible from 250 that maybe could be some concession there.

But I would need to be convinced of it with some visualization, some sense of how you see that.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, the mechanical screening I don't have a problem with at all.

I think that's just a practical concern that you have to address.

As far as the canopies, I can't believe I'm saying this because I like canopies and every time I draw them, they kind of get value engineered out of the project and I don't like that.

In this case, they seem a little bit additive to me.

And I think that because I'm seeing it build without them, I don't think I would miss them if they weren't there, but I realize I'm probably in the minority in that.

So I don't have a problem with the removal of the kind of canopies on that side.

The blue lights, I think I'm kind of in with everyone else so far, at least.

You know, if it's kind of a big blue light, you're making the building blue, whether you're painting it or putting blue light on it, seems like the same thing.

And I think that in combination with the low height that's needed, I mean, it's really no issue, I agree.

In terms of the sun shade, I think I agree with the majority of the members that on this elevation facing Route 20, it's an important element to break up the scale.

to create some human scale at the bottom of that facade.

Especially some who would not support approval of that and appreciate staff's comments as well.

So this, the way we worded this, it's a recommendation for approval with the conditions listed in the staff report.

There's a total of 14 items here.

I've got two of them highlighted in blue.

Number six says to

Let's jump to number 12.

Number 12 says to eliminate the blue lights from the proposal.

Me too.

Thank you.

Margaret, thanks for color coding it for us too.

This item wasn't discussed in much detail.

That's requiring the

I guess we didn't talk about that.

That's my assumption.

I think they're aimed at eliminating the perimeter walls.

They're positioned up rather high so that they have a broader coverage and it reduces the concentration of light at the surface.

I think so, I see.

OK, yeah, I think I had conflated maybe this with the blue lights.

The same with the ones high in the building.

We're part of that.

or I wonder, you know, most pedestrian light poles are usually in the 12 to 15, 16 foot height, could they be brought down?

Yeah, if that's considered sight lighting, does that exceed the heights, you know,

Is that a zoning issue?

It's a good question.

It's definitely functioning as site lighting.

I agree.

That's it.

Frank, to your point, do you want to say 20 feet or lower, Lauren?

or is there another height that would be appropriate?

I think 20 feet or lower is in accordance with our guidelines.

Thank you, Frank.

Great.

I'll move for approval of the certificate of appropriateness for ARB 2021-08 Pantops Holiday Inn Express Minor with conditions listed in the staff report.

amended as follows.

Strike item number six.

Mr. Stoner.

Aye.

Mr. Hancock.

Aye.

Aye.

Great, thank you very much.

Since I know we still have three regular items remaining, if folks could keep on going, we'll keep on.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you to the applicant.

All right, so next item is ARB 2021-09 caliber.

Are you all viewing the slide screen?

We are.

This is an application to establish an auto body shop use in an existing 9,200 square foot building with associated site improvements.

A special use permit is required for auto body shop use in the highway commercial district.

ARB comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

The building was built prior to the establishment of the entrance quarter and does not reflect the historic architecture of the county, and the proposed changes will not alter this condition.

However, the color proposed for the majority of the building, nomadic desert, is one that's compatible with the building's surroundings.

The proposal has new roof-mounted equipment associated with the proposed paint booth that will be visible from the entrance quarter.

The guidelines say that the equipment should not be visible from the entrance quarter street.

The wood fencing appears more

The vision slots may also be acceptable if the color is coordinated with the development.

Staff is recommending that the wood fencing be revised to a material that better relates to the building and surrounding commercial context and that a compatible color be identified for the vision slots.

The landscape plan has not been provided, but site perspectives show planting arrangements that are not typical of frontage landscaping.

The available planting area for the front landscaping is limited by assisting in potential pedestrian improvements, notably a 14-foot shared-use path called out in the Rio 29 plan, but landscaping that better meets the guidelines would be appropriate.

There are currently very little

There's currently very little landscaping on site.

The plan does not meet requirements for perimeter trees or landscaping to offset long building elevations.

There appears to be some planting area on the north and south sides of the site.

So we're recommending that landscaping be added in these areas to help integrate the building and parking into the surrounding area.

Staff does not recommend approval of the application at this time due to the screening issues listed in the staff report.

Thank you, Chris.

Chris?

No questions for me.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation, Chris.

I have no questions either.

Appreciate that.

Great.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm Alyssa Hernandez representing Brett Flory of Cross Architects for the proposed Gallagher Coalition.

As stated, the remodel project will include updating the landscaping along the Seminole Trail.

The perspective that is shown in Chris's presentation are just proposals, so if there's any recommendation from the city, we'll take that.

And then we're going to have to patch and reseal the concrete

and we'll also add asphalt paving at the west side of the property.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great.

We'll see if members have any further questions.

I don't, Dave.

I might have missed in the presentation.

I apologize.

OK. Yeah.

OK.

I don't have any questions.

So the large equipment for the paint booth

All right.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, and so I was a little confused.

I thought I heard that the fencing would match the building material, but will it be wood?

Yes, we'll add stained wood blank fence.

Okay, and I guess staff had made a comment that

While that material is often seen and appropriate in the more rural areas of the county in this area, I think staff observe another material might be more appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have other questions.

Thank you.

We'll go into discussion.

I don't really have a lot to add.

I think the fencing material

should be something more compatible with the environment it's in, but I can't tell you off the top of my head what that should be.

Hopefully, one of you architects can chime in on that.

Otherwise, I don't really have much to add to the conversation.

Thank you, Frank.

I agree, and I agree with staff recommendations.

I think screening the equipment on the rooftop is important, especially with this building height.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, I'm more concerned about the rooftop equipment and how that would be screened and if it would be screened.

The fence, I do think of a different material for the fence would be better than wood, but I'm not as concerned about that because the fencing is kind of halfway back the property, which is pretty

pretty far behind the entrance corridor.

So I don't know that it really would be that visible just cause it's not right kind of up in your face if you're driving or even walking on the entrance corridor.

Thank you, Chris.

I appreciate your perspective on the priority for the rooftop screening and agree that's important to look at and to include.

It's mitigated somewhat by those stacks being far at the western end, but certainly they'll be tall enough that it would make sense to try to find a way to screen them in a way that resolves as well with the building.

And I think you made a good point about the fencing.

I agree with everybody that something besides wood would probably be more appropriate

And it could be that if it were a metal panel similar to the building, that would be a fairly easy way to directly tie the two together.

And I'm glad to hear the applicants say that they can incorporate the entrance corridor landscaping.

I think at the distance it is from the entrance corridor, if it looked, if it initially had an appearance similar to the rest of the building, that might be acceptable.

Yeah, I think if it was a design and color that was compatible with the proposal for the building, that might be better than what, but.

Yeah, thank you.

So we're recommending that you don't recommend approval at this time.

I'm going to actually ask the applicant to come back with those alternate screening proposals so that you're able to determine that they can have an appropriate appearance for the entrance corridor.

This would potentially delay the applicants for the special use permit application getting to the Planning Commission, but it's typically

Thank you, Margaret.

And I appreciate that recommendation.

Do we have a motion?

They would need to come back to work out all the details but

If we go with the initial recommendation here.

If we make this recommendation, then it's ultimately just up to the applicant whether they move forward with the special use permit or they decide to come back.

It's true.

Do we need to revise this language at all?

Yeah, what I have highlighted in gray is what I was referring to as the recommended action.

So this would not be, you're not looking at that.

I'll move to forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

The ARB does not recommend approval of the special use permit as proposed because screening issues have not been resolved.

It is not clear that the visual impacts can be sufficiently mitigated.

The applicant should return for a work session with the ARB to review alternate fence designs that are more coordinated with the building.

Please stay a second.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Henningsen?

Aye.

Aye.

We did have a list of comments for the future site plan.

If we could wait if the applicant thought they were going to come back and do what was just recommended because some of these would likely go away if those issues were resolved.

We'll hold those for the next time.

Well, if I might go into a short recess and it can be at three o'clock.

Good to see everybody again.

Yes, I am.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Great.

Let me just start by saying that the staff report, the application number on the staff report was not correct.

Airbnb 2021-12, as it's shown in the slide, is the correct application number.

and this is a proposal to renovate the Hardee's Restaurant site that's located at the southwest corner of Route 29 and Ryle Road to accommodate an automobile dealership and the site is clearly visible from both the entrance quarters.

You probably recall seeing this proposal not too long ago as an advisory review for a special use permit for outdoor sales storage and display and that was in September of last year.

The Board of Supervisors reviewed and approved the special use permit with conditions addressing the ARB's concerns on January 6th of this year.

The existing restaurant building was constructed prior to the establishment of the entrance quarters.

It does not reflect the traditional architecture of the area, but orderly and attractive development will be promoted with this proposal with the addition of planting area and landscaping and with updated lighting.

This is the proposed site plan.

Site changes include the removal of the drive-through structure on the south side of the building and the refrigeration unit on the back of the building and the addition of parking spaces in both of those areas.

There are currently no trees along either the Route 29 or Rio Road entrance quarters.

The planting area along the quarters would be expanded.

Trees and shrubs would be added.

The sizes and locations don't meet the guidelines exactly, but the proposal is significantly improving a nonconforming existing condition, so we believe it's appropriate in this case.

Trees and shrubs are also shown along the south side of the building, and there appears to be a conflict between a cherry tree and the coal light in this area.

So one of our recommendations is to resolve that tree light pole confident.

Lighting improvements are proposed with the application.

Existing nonconforming pole lights would be moved and new lights would be installed.

The photometric plan has been submitted.

In some locations, foot count readings do not extend to the property line and some suggest that spillover may exceed requirements.

So we've recommended revisions to the photometric plan to address those issues.

The proposal also includes the removal of 40 linear feet of the existing concrete retaining wall and handrail along Rile Road.

The plan indicates that eight linear feet will then be rebuilt to tie into the new crates associated with the new planting area.

No information on construction type material or appearance of the rebuilt wall was included on the plan, and the demolition of the wall was not noted on the demolition sheet.

So we've recommended that details be added to the plan to show that the new end of the retaining wall will have an appropriate and coordinated appearance.

Thank you very much, Margaret.

The only changes to the building would be in the area where the drive structure is being removed.

And there's a note on the plan that says that that wall area would just be repaired to appear consistent with the surrounding wall area.

OK, was there a staff comment of needing more description?

Just the treatment of the building in areas where it will be removed.

Thank you I don't have any either so is there a representative from the applicant?

Thank you very much.

My name is Scott Collins.

I'm a representative applicant on this.

And like you said, you guys have seen this once before.

I think

We incorporated a lot of the suggestions and sort of comments that you had on the initial review of this when it went through the Special Use Permit, so we tried to incorporate that with this final design.

And reading the staff report, I don't have any problems or issues with any of the last remaining conditions of approval.

We're fine with that.

We can certainly incorporate that into the final

plans for submission for certificate appropriateness.

So I'm good with everything.

The wall itself, which would be the same material, just to let you know, just kind of be reworked for the eight feet to tie it in.

But other than that, everything else is pretty straightforward.

Scott, any questions for the applicant, Chris?

Scott, will that wall just match?

It's like that rusticated treatment on it.

Is that a VDOT detail?

It would, yes.

OK.

Great.

Yeah, I think it's pretty straightforward.

I probably said this the last time we reviewed it, but I appreciate the site plan, how it pulls back and gives us that area for landscaping, especially given the use of the building

To still have that multi-layered landscaping, I really appreciate that.

I think it will be a nice addition to the corridor.

Appreciate an adaptive reuse of the building.

Maybe it's not the ultimate final condition at this corner.

Thank you, Frank.

I would agree with everything that Frank Hancock just said.

Yeah, it's a big improvement over what's there now.

And certainly a part of town that could use a little bit more green.

Thank you.

I think it remains a great improvement.

I look forward to seeing it go forward.

Great.

I can, yeah.

Does anybody have any suggested revisions?

I don't.

Nor do I.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

All right.

Mr. Henningsen.

Hi.

Hi.

We'll move on to the next item, ARB 2021-10, Hollymead Extra Storage, Extra Space Storage.

The application I'm presenting on now is the review of architecture and initial site plan to construct a self-sourced facility in dissonance to associated site improvements.

The site is located along Werf Crossing, west of the Werf Crossing-Reesing Street intersection, approximately 365 feet east of the Route 29 entrance corridor, and 477 feet north of Tim Boyd Boulevard.

The ARB has reviewed no previous proposals for this site.

While staff did have a number of comments on the site, none were significant enough to keep us from recommending approval of the initial plan, so I'm going to focus on the two points that were listed as primitive points of discussion in the staff report.

Regarding the design of the building, it displays a minimal connection to the historic architecture of the county, notably in the use of tower-like elements, storefront windows topped with metal canopies, and the variation of materials with heavier ones at the base and lighter ones above.

However, much of the brick is proposed at the base of the building, which, due to the development adjacent to the entrance quarter, would have limited visibility.

The ephus in the upper parts of the building will have greater visibility and is less reflective of historic architecture.

Revising the mix of wall materials to increase the visibility of the brick would be appropriate.

An alternate base material could help as well as reinforce the historic base middle top wall pattern.

As viewed from the entrance quarter, human scale is enhanced by the storefront windows with the metal canopies above and cast stone bands at varying heights that run near the base of the elevations.

Variation material would typically provide another aspect of human scale, but at the height proposed, approximately 16 feet, the height proposed, the brick is along the elevations, the scale is monumental in nature.

Revising the height of the variation of walled materials could help to better establish a sense of human scale.

While the tower elements help to connect to historic architecture and provide entrance along the elevation, the lack of tower elements at the east end of the building results in visual imbalance.

Tower elements at the northeast and southeast corners of the building would help to balance the design.

Above the brick along the north, south, and west elevation, window-sized ethos panels are shown in a color that is darker than the wall color.

Just above the panels, ethos is scored in a regular pattern.

These elements attempt to relieve blankness and add interest, but they do not offer sufficient relief given the length of these elevations, 235 feet for the north and south and about 158 feet for the west.

Staff is recommending prospective renderings illustrating the view from both directions of the entrance corridor

with and without landscaping to help clarify the impact of the windowless walls.

Lastly, while sign issues were reviewed and approved with a separate submission, the green color shown for the ward extra space on the building appears very intense and may not be appropriate for an entrance quarter.

Color samples will be needed for review with the sign applications submitted.

Staff recommends the changes listed in the staff report to be addressed with the final.

Staff recommends the approval of the initial site plan with the recommendation listed in the staff report to be addressed with the final site plans.

Thank you very much, Chris.

Yeah, no, I don't have any questions.

No questions.

Thank you for your presentation, Chris.

None for me either.

Yes, sir.

This is Brody Glen with Centennial American Properties.

How are you?

Good.

I guess first of all, thanks so much for your time.

I know I was actually chairman of the City of Greenville Planning Commission for a long time.

Understand the time that you put in, and it's sometimes a thankless job, but one that's important to the city and the county.

So thank you for your time, for looking at our proposal.

I'll give you the kind of overview of what we're doing.

We have Barry Bird on here, who's our architect, who can talk about more details.

And we've actually been able to update some elevations based on Stass' comments that Barry can go through with y'all.

But what we're doing, we're going to have multiple projects that we're working on in Albemarle County.

And we're doing these all over the country.

What we did was we're creating a multi-story cell storage facility.

We knew that we wanted to be in retail-type locations.

To do that, we knew from a jurisdictional standpoint that we would need to take the gates off the building, all exterior access directly to units off the building,

But we also wanted to find a way to solve the problem of having customers be able to come and load and unload secure without having to worry about any kind of safety issues.

So we created a 30 foot drive aisle that actually goes through the building.

And so the customers will be able to come up to the building either with a punch code or on their telephone, open a glass garage door and then pull their car in.

But that's the concept.

There is no, it's multi-story, there's no direct access, there's no outside storage, there's no gates.

It's made to look and feel like a retail building.

Sure.

Can I share screen, please?

All right.

Can you hear me okay?

And see the see the screen?

Okay, this is what we had proposed originally, received some good comments from staff.

We appreciate those.

So we received those toward the end of last week.

And so we worked over the weekend to come up with some concepts

One of the things that was addressed was the need for more brick and we agree with that.

So this is a quick elevation where we've brought the brick up and we're trying to articulate more on a human scale at the lower level.

Some indentions in the brick also at the second floor and then the third floor.

This is our revised black and white showing the brick indentions.

We've also added another canopy over here.

There is no door but to try to enforce or enrich human scale.

And then the north elevation, this is the north elevation.

Same detailing, I think that side

Maybe we had to ignore it a little bit, but it probably has a better view than what we thought from the corridor.

So what we have done is add the detailing to all sides.

The brick is two stories on all sides.

And then finally, this is our revised rendering with the brick.

These elements at the top,

Even though these aren't windows, we're trying to mimic windows a little bit in a scale that would be appropriate.

Those are about four foot by six feet, so they scale very similar to what one might expect a window to be.

We've also eliminated the green from the extra space.

I know you're not approving signage here, but

We agreed and we've gone with a white and then a dark gray on that.

And so those are our response or a reflection of the comments.

Great.

Well, thank you for the updates and the extra hours over the weekend.

No, sir.

We've got our civil engineer and our planner on the Zoom call as well.

Great.

Thank you.

No, I don't.

No, I don't have any questions either.

Okay, thanks for the presentation.

Yeah, thank you for the presentation and the update.

Just one quick question.

Great, I guess my main question, I appreciate the effort to further articulate the wall and the brick work

Okay, thank you.

And then let's see, I guess I'm reminded of our recent review of another storage facility where

Part of the comments concern sort of the corner elements and how they were either more different or more alike.

And I think this is somewhat similar.

The corners are fairly similar.

We're open to either.

We felt like this corner obviously is the entrance and we felt like that should be the strongest element

and by making the windows a little more traditional, a little stronger in appearance, we felt like that, you know, one of the things in design is to always try to make the entrance prominent so that the eye goes right there and that was our intent.

I don't, I think we can make a case for either one if

Well, thank you.

I don't know that I have one, but I'm just interested to know more about the thinking behind it.

Great, I don't think I have any further questions.

Sure.

I can get back to, oh, there we go.

Can you guys hear me?

Yeah.

I think the changes they made are addressed.

I think most of the staff comments and certainly address my concerns about the original design.

I don't really have a strong preference as it relates to these upper windows and the comment made about kind of making these corners more similar.

I think I'd probably defer to the applicant in that I think either is probably acceptable in my view anyway.

Thank you, Frank.

Thank you.

And thank you to the applicant.

I think this is a really nice proposal.

And I think you made a really nice presentation and really appreciate the updates.

I think, you know,

The only one thing is it's a shame it's kind of far away from the corridor.

I don't know that you get to appreciate some of the detailing as you move up and down the corridor.

But I think it's really nice as what we're looking at on the screen now, this updated rendering.

I like the brick coming up.

I like the windows.

I don't know if the relief comes through in this rendering, I think.

But as you described it, I think that will be really nice.

No, I don't have any other comments.

I think it's an appropriate, you know, immaterials and building elements and how it's broken down in the scale, you know, for a self storage building.

I think it's really nice.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, thank you.

And I appreciate the changes made also, which I think particularly given the distance from the corridor and the fact that there are some buildings between this building and the corridor itself, bringing the brick up on most of the building up a floor makes it more visible from the corridor.

And I think the other measures that you've made to kind of articulate those facilities

are pretty effective.

So I also worry that the detailing in the brick may not read from a distance, but I think up close, you know, it's going to be apparent and pretty nice.

I think it's overall appropriate and looks good.

Thank you, Chris.

Like my fellow board members, I appreciate the updates.

I think they do a great deal to address the staff comments, which I share those concerns.

I think it's acceptable to me as presented, certainly if there's room to increase the depth of the reveal or maybe explore subtle contrast in brick color between the filled openings and the wall, that might accentuate the effectiveness of those

those measures even without as much relief.

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

So this is another application that came in as an initial site plan with the preliminary architectural design.

So we have that four-part initial plan recommendation.

with a recommendation for approval of the initial plan without conditions, and then the list of comments for the next submittal.

The first three, the ones that I've highlighted in green here, are the ones that were related to the architectural design that the applicants addressed today with revised elevations.

I've added a number 10.

We can obviously alter this

Any questions or suggestions from the board members?

I agree.

I think item 10 seems to be a good way to deal with the resolution of items 1 through 3.

Great.

It helps just to track the changes as they're made through the process.

So I'll move to forward the recommendations outlined in the staff report to the agent for the site review committee amended as follows.

Thank you, Chris.

Aye.

Great, thank you, and thank you to the applicant.

If you recall, the ARB recommended approval of the final site plan for the site during the December 7, 2020 ARB meeting, pending staff approval of several conditions, including revisions to the design of the store building to establish more coordinated material transitions, less of a utilitarian appearance on the airport road elevation, and an entrance tower with a prominent form.

Revisions were to be reviewed by the ARB in a work session prior to final approval.

To orient you on the slide, the architectural design from Disney number seven is on the left, and the design for being reviewed today is on the right.

Staff has completed a cursory review of a revised metal and notes the following changes related to the condition one.

The tower element maximum height has been increased by one foot from 31 feet six inches to 32 feet six inches.

The entrances along the elevations of this element have been centered and the stone veneer has been added to the corner.

The proposed signs on the east and south have been shifted to center with an element and the interest is below.

And the canopy along the bump out visible from Airport Road has been revised to awning.