Architectural Review Board Meeting   4/5/2021

Good afternoon, everybody.

It being 1 p.m., I'll call to order the April 5, 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 a COVID disaster.

A quorum is present.

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

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

For all speakers, when it's your turn to speak, please first state your name for the record, and for everyone participating, of course, please keep your microphone muted unless you need to speak.

For applicants making presentations, note that the presentation is limited to a total of 15 minutes for each item on the agenda.

That can be divided among your team members and Carolyn will let us know.

No.

No.

None for me.

Thank you.

Moving on to public comment.

OK. Well, thank you, Carolyn.

It's too sunny outside.

There is nothing on the consent agenda today, so we'll move on to regular review items.

We have three items scheduled for review today.

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

The first regular review item is ARB 2020-112 Pet Supplies Plus Comprehensive Sign Plan.

Are you all able to view the correct screen?

Yes.

All right.

The application I'm presenting on is an amendment to conference sign plan for the Pet Supply Plus 1240 Seminole Trail building.

A certificate of appropriateness was issued for this development in 2005.

The approved building design included cabinet-style signs centered above the windows facing Route 29 and suspended from I-beams between the brick piers at the southeast corner of the building.

Certificates of appropriateness have been issued for several signs being an approved design over the years.

Pet Supply Plus submitted a signed application that did not meet the approved design and rather than revise the proposal, the applicant has requested an amendment to the approved conference and sign plan for the building.

Regarding the freestanding sign, a monument sign is existing in the size and scale the tenant panels would not change with this proposal.

The existing sprint tenant panels includes an integrated graphic that is balanced in size and proportion.

The proposed criteria for the confidence sign plan allows for graphics, but there's only a general note.

Staff is recommending revising the criteria to indicate that graphics be fully incorporated into the sign design and balance in size and proportion without overwhelming text.

The proposal for the wall signs allows for channel letters to be attached to the brick walls above the windows into backer panels hung between the brick piers.

Regarding the updated backer panel signs, they're expected to have a less streamlined appearance than the existing signs due to the added depth of the channel letters.

Additionally, the proposal also does not include alignment criteria or indicate that the existing cabinet signs will be removed and the wall areas repaired.

Signs that are aligned with each other and centered within the architectural element in addition to removing existing cabinet signs and repairing the wall area would provide for a coordinated appearance.

The existing conference design plan limits text color for wall signs to white.

The amendment would limit individual colors to one color, but allow for a maximum of three colors, white, unspecified red, and unspecified green in each sign, limiting text colors to a single color, but allowing for multiple graphic colors that's been approved in other multi-tended buildings.

Applying the same criteria here would ensure a coordinated appearance across the building.

The amendment also mentions raceways if used are to match the wall color to which to attach and backer panel colors to be either painted to match the iodine or black.

However, to ensure a consistent appearance, staff is recommending that the criteria specify a single attachment method in a single backer color.

Lastly, the existing sprint cabinet incorporates the integrated graphic that's balanced in size and proportion.

The amended criteria for the wall signs were allowed for channel logos, but there's only a general note referencing sign proportions.

Staff is recommending that the criteria for wall signs be revised and indicate that graphics be fully incorporated into the wall sign and balanced in scale and proportion without overwhelming the sign.

Staff recommends approval of amendment to the conference's time plan with the changes listed in the staff report.

Great, thank you, Chris, for your presentation.

Before we go to questions for staff, Carolyn, I did notice in the chat that someone had a question.

They think that maybe there's an issue with the public meeting link.

Okay.

Sorry to interrupt, but should we wait?

Yeah.

Let's just wait one minute.

I'm not sure.

Nobody has emailed me saying they were having an issue, so I'm not sure what's going on with you, Jeff.

It should be fine now.

I just tried to get in myself, and I could.

Well, thank you very much, Carolyn.

You're very fine.

So we'll resume with questions for staff.

Thanks, Chris.

Just one quick question.

Is the Sprint signed to remain?

Yeah.

The sprint signs remain, I should say, as of this moment.

We don't have any new sign applications for the other existing tenant for the building.

No, Dade, I don't have any questions.

Yeah, I just have a question and I may just not

Well, I don't fully understand it.

And that is where you mentioned, Chris, revising the plan to specify one attachment method for the wall signs to the brick sign areas.

Sure.

Got it.

Thank you.

That helps a lot.

Appreciate it.

That's all.

Thank you, Fred.

Thank you, Chris, for your presentation.

I don't have any further questions.

Hi, I'm Beth Robinson.

I'm with High Tech Signs and I am speaking on behalf of Pet Supplies Plus.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for the applicant?

Seeing none.

We'll go into discussion.

Yeah, I really don't have much to say.

I think it's pretty straightforward.

I think Chris's suggestions are good, and I'm glad the applicant seems willing to make those changes.

Oh, I agree.

I think, yeah, as stated, and I'm glad that the applicant is willing to update the comprehensive sign plan.

Thanks.

No comments.

Looks great, Chris.

Good presentation.

Thank you.

Appreciate very much, Chris, your report and Beth and the applicant.

Thank you very much for accommodating those comments.

I am, yeah.

And I presume based on the discussion and the presentation, no revisions to this are needed.

Do you concur?

Yes.

Sorry, I was pushing my space bar and everything.

I'm sorry, yes, I'm sorry.

Hancock?

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

We'll move on to the next regular review item.

It's ARB 2021-27999 Rio Road.

Are you able to see the slide?

Let me make one more change here so I can see.

Okay.

This is a proposal to construct the first phase of a mixed use development that includes attached and detached residential units and associated site improvements.

And the development also includes a 5,000 square foot office building that's planned for phase two.

The site's located at the intersection of Rio Road and Belvedere Boulevard.

It's across from the Covenant Church and across from the City Church.

The ARB reviewed the initial site plan for this proposal in July of last year.

And the action at that time was to recommend approval of the initial plan.

This is the site plan that is currently under review.

And in this plan, the distribution of the residential units has changed somewhat from the previous plan.

This is a comparison of the two.

You can see the difference in the groupings of the residential units along Belvedere and in this image the bottom right corner.

Also the parking has been extended a little closer to Rio Road.

Let me try to point that out for you.

So that's in this area right here.

This parking is extended a little closer to Rio than it was previously.

There are two different architectural designs for the attached units.

All of the attached units are oriented parallel to Belvedere Boulevard and they're called the Craig units.

That's what you see there in red and the habitat units are in blue.

The Craig units include

A three unit block and a four unit block.

This slide shows the three unit block.

The architectural design is consistent across the three and four unit blocks.

The materials and detailing are such that all of the elevations, those facing Belvedere and those facing the parking lot all look like fully designed fronts.

These are the elevations for the four unit Craig block.

Primary materials for the Craig units are brick and siding, although brick was left out of the materials list that's on the plans.

The proposed brick is called Blue Ridge Regent.

It's a very light color.

The images on the screen and at the manufacturer's website look a little bit pink or a little bit tan.

The physical sample looks a little bit more white than those images.

They all are a little bit, all are light in color.

The habitat units are different in style from the Craig units in detail, but they have entrances and like the Craig units, they have sufficient detailing on all the faces for an appropriate appearance as viewed from the entrance quarter.

Primary materials for the habitat units is Hardy Plank and it's in the colors that are shown in this slide.

Just note that all of the attached units would have a consistent shingle color and that would be black.

Most of the comments made in the staff report are related to landscaping.

Among the issues we identified are the need to increase the number of large shade trees on the Rio frontage to five and to revise the planning size to three and a half inch caliber.

Also to resolve the conflict between the ornamental tree and the water line along the entire road and to add landscaping at the corner of the site to help create a more integrated appearance.

Trees may be difficult to get in there due to the pipes that are proposed.

And there's also mechanical equipment on the Rio side of Lot 1.

We've recommended that it be moved between Lots 3 and 4 where other equipment is already located to reduce visibility.

But if it remains where it is, even with the fencing that's around it, additional landscaping would be important to have there.

Other landscaping recommendations that we made include showing the landscaping proposed for the northeast and southeast sides of the parcel and adding shrubs in a tree along the Belvedere front of the dog park.

Just note again that the office building is scheduled for a future phase after the colored block that you see there at the lower left of this slide.

So the parking will have greater visibility from the entrance quarter until that building is built.

The office building area will be graded in Phase 1.

That's what we're showing in this image here.

There's no interim landscaping proposed, but as we noted earlier, there are street trees along Ryer Road.

Our recommendation is for approval with the conditions listed in the SAC Report.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought you called on Frank.

I have no questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Margaret.

My question is about the trees along Rio Road, the frontage trees.

Can I pull that up again?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Margaret, the one question I had is concerning the color of the Bordenbatten siding on the habitat units.

I believe the darker colors are at the upper stories.

Yeah, I think it makes sense to me that the board in Baton is the upper siding, and so I guess that color would be there.

Maybe this is a question for the applicant that they can address in my presentation in terms of where the different colors would be applied.

Great, thank you.

Hey, good afternoon, everyone.

Justin Shim, the engineer for the project.

I think Nicole should be on the call.

developer who may want to chime in as well on some of the architectural items.

But we didn't prepare any elaborate presentation because I think it's fairly straightforward, and we did want to go through the list of recommendations for approval.

One, we did want to clarify, Margaret, it's our understanding reading this that you're prepared to, with these conditions, this would be the final approval condition upon

getting these things worked out with you and then we'd have certificate of appropriateness from there and we would not come back to the board.

Understood.

Okay.

So if we could just go through the list, there's a few items that we've some slight alternate proposals to and if we could get an agreement with those then I think we're fine to move forward and Nicole can jump in and talk about the architectural elevations at the end just to clarify that habitat elevation.

So on the list, item number four was about to move the equipment and we really would rather not or almost really cannot do that or

because of the length constraints with installing those units from their actual you know from the HVAC compressor to its air handler that's tricky and we would think that a small fence and then we'd be happy to add some more landscaping in front of that we're contemplating a a row kind of maybe a nozzly or rigid row but sort of

Scattered row of evergreen three, four, five feet high shrubs along that section just to sort of screen that fence and landscape that slope.

I think that's reasonable.

If anyone feels otherwise, let us know.

And then on the note about the shade trees along Riah Road to Frank's question, they are shown the right of way.

VDOT has reviewed this plan and not had any objection to that.

They usually require we have a certain note to limb them up at a height.

I would, so we're happy to provide additional tree, maybe just the caveat that if VDOT should deny the placement of that additional tree, we have a little flexibility in that.

We're happy to provide the five unless they say no way, no how, because of the site distance issue.

We don't think they will, but if we could just leave that flexibility

I hate to have to come back to the board for one tree change if we had to.

The ornamental tree that's a magnolia on the water line is proposed to just move that over kind of in front of those mechanical units on lot one, kind of the corner of lot one there.

So that would help provide additional landscaping and screening for that.

And then we are happy to provide the

landscaping along the dog park area.

The only other one that I think maybe we need some clarification on is number 12 then which is about the screening to the northeast and southeast.

We have shown just kind of a hatch on that and the reason is there's this the proper requires that

We work with the neighbors, this is something Nicole wrote when she was getting this project approved, on sort of a mutually satisfactory scheme.

I don't know how that will be worked out, and I guess the question is if the board is comfortable with going along with what was proffered, or if we need to dive into that in more detail.

I feel like those are all pretty thorough.

Nicole can speak to those better than I can, but I think that would be a

simple way to approach it from us since we're still in negotiations with those neighbors on the exact detail.

So I think if those things sound reasonable, we'd like to move forward with that.

Sure.

So if I can just share my screen, can I do that?

Did that work?

Okay.

So I've got

This is what we submitted, Margaret.

So if you probably remember seeing this, so this is the darker.

And if you go to the other, so the darker Borden-Batten will be on the top and the lighter will be on the bottom.

That's just to clarify that question.

I think Justin covered it, but the,

The heartache I had was about this section that Margaret mentioned.

She highlighted that section and over here.

And I had put in my application plan that I will incorporate input from the neighbors over on this side.

And so I'm sure we're close to getting to a point where we have all the details worked out, but it's just adding another party to that conversation.

It's just a lot of people providing input.

This screen, if you can keep us up just briefly, this shows, so if you look at the intersection of Belvedere and Rile, we proposed another large shade tree there, Nicole, can you point to that one?

The elm tree at the corner there.

This is the fifth...

There's our tree there.

We'll bring in the saucer magnolia moved from where the water line was over adjacent to lot one, help add a little depth of screening to that area where the mechanical equipment is.

The reason we didn't put another tree over here is there's a curb cut over here for an access easement, emergency access easement for the Fowler Ridge.

It's the same that's in the supplementary regulations, but it's going to be above and beyond that.

I don't know if I need to show it, but these are the different options that we're showing.

So essentially those are the options that have been presented to the neighbors as far as what I think, and I think all of those would fit within what's reasonable for landscaping.

So to clarify for everyone, you're looking at it from the Valor Ridge coal sack basically.

and that where it turns the corner in the back as a retaining wall there, that's kind of the back corner backing up into Dunlora.

So there need to be a fence, the trees, screening shrubs and trees or some taller evergreens and trees.

And so that's the proposal.

One of those three, I think is what ends up being done.

Nicole has a very tight timeline with her habitat folks and we're still waiting on the neighbors and we're hoping that we can

You know, leave it as one of these three being sufficient and not have to come back or get further clarification on that.

But we will defer to the board and hope we can work out something here.

Thank you, Justin and Nicole.

Thank you for your presentation.

The package looks good.

I don't have any questions.

I don't have any questions either.

I think the package is pretty complete.

I guess one quick question as it relates to that landscaping and how that final decision gets made.

Oh yeah, so I had written into my application plan that I had to provide three different reasonable options

to the Shepherd's Ridge HOA, and they will hold a duly authorized meeting within 30 days of providing those options and dah, dah, dah, dah, but it's much more of a conversation back and forth.

Yeah.

Awesome.

Thanks, Dave.

No great presentation in package.

I have no questions.

Thank you and thank you for the clarification about the siding.

One follow up question.

I don't know the answer to that.

that habitat will be making that decision.

But I definitely want to coordinate with them.

We're building the units across the courtyard from them.

So we'll definitely be coordinating.

Thank you.

And Margaret, one follow up question for you.

In terms of that planting next to the adjacent property, is that something, if the building were, sorry, the office building were going in, would that be in our purview or are there other

Can you see the landscape?

In Switzerland, yes, yes.

Let's try again.

Yes, yeah.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Thank you.

We'll go into discussion.

Sure.

I think it's a really nice proposal.

And I think it was illustrated well of how the correct buildings will front that multi-use path.

I think that was going to be a question.

I think that's a nice design solution there and will be a nice addition to the corridor.

As I kind of hinted at when I asked Margaret about the Rio tree frontage or plantings along Rio,

Just concern that those were in the right of way and we don't have control over them or that you the app doesn't have control over them.

If that's acceptable, if VDOT accepts those, you know, they're in the right place I think as far as street trees and impact on the corridor.

So I'm encouraged by that, but that's a go.

There will be that kind of gap until the office building is built that you'll be looking kind of uphill

into a parking area.

But overall, I think the development's really nice.

It's really dense.

I think it fits within this corridor, within the kind of adjacent development.

So I think it's an appropriate development.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, I'll echo Frank Hancock's comments.

Overall, I think it's a nice package.

I guess the size of the office building will be limited by the amount of parking that's left once you account for all the residential units.

And I assume that comes back to us for review at some point.

Thank you, Frank.

Thanks, Dave.

Yep, I agree with both Franks.

I think it's a really nice package and I appreciate the presentation and staff review.

Just a couple of notes.

I threw down one relative to screening the equipment on lot one.

I would be supportive of Justin's recommendation to screen that with plant material.

I think that seems appropriate.

I'm assuming that staff reviews it and agrees that that is the appropriate fix.

I also shared Frank Hancock's concerns about the plantings along the frontage.

It immediately looked to me like it might be a site distance issue, but Justin, if VDOT's reviewed it and you feel confident that they're okay with it or have an alternative plan that staff can then review that is also deemed appropriate, then I think that's fine as well.

There was one thing that, no, I won't even bring it up.

It's changed on the revised plan that you showed that looked different.

It changed.

It had to do with those StormTech things up front.

And that's pretty much it.

Thank you.

Well, I agree with my colleagues.

Nice proposal, supported with the staff comments and appreciate Fred you outlining those details as well.

So these are the, can you see the Word document?

Great, okay.

So I think for number four, it sounds like screening that with landscape planting.

and then for number nine, I see you've left open what we would look for if VDOT doesn't allow the fifth tree.

Remind me, is this the, I guess the plan the applicant presented

The revised plan showed this fifth tree kind of on the corner.

Is that correct?

That's acceptable.

Relative to item 11 that you highlighted,

The center tree was placed right over a waterline and I think that tree was shifted in the applicant's revised plan.

Hey, yeah, I was just gonna, sorry to jump in.

I was just gonna ask you about that note that Margaret just deleted, the one about if VDOT doesn't accept it.

But I guess what we're saying is if VDOT doesn't accept, well, I'm confused a little bit.

If VDOT doesn't accept it at that corner because of site distances, do we need to specify an alternative or are we saying that

That additional large shade tree moving in the other direction would suffice.

OK. OK. Got it.

And so for 11, Margaret, do you think that the revised site

OK. Yeah.

Great.

I would just point out, sort of talk, I guess, talking around the issue, but not exactly at it.

So the ARB did approve the initial plan.

This is the first time you've seen the architecture.

Thank you for making that explicit, Margaret.

I agree.

I think the architecture as presented is appropriate.

Great.

I'll move to approve the final site plan for ARB-2021-27999 Rio Road with the conditions listed in the staff report amended as follows.

Revises item number four to read add landscape screening for the equipment west of lot one.

Add to item number nine, the location shown in the revised plan is acceptable.

If VDOT doesn't accept that location, find an alternate location on site.

Thank you, Carolyn.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Sure, Dave.

Are you all able to view the correct screen?

I take those, yes.

Whoever's talked to them is muted.

The application I'm presenting on now is the review of architectural and final site plan to construct a 3,700-square-foot car wash building with related equipment and associated site improvements.

The site is located at the intersection of Werf Crossing and the Route 29 entrance corridor.

The ARB reviewed the initial site plan and preliminary architecture of the car wash during the December 7, 2020 meeting.

Regarding the building design, the masonry colors have been revised to earth tones.

Variation in color has been added to the base and the bands and social coursing.

In variation, the height and depth have been added to the entrance quarter facing elevation, and the height of the tower elements on the elevation facing worth crossing have been reduced.

These revisions help to reduce the regularity along the elevation, emphasize the base middle top wall divisions, and give the entrance quarter facing elevation greater prominence.

We noted in the staff report that the size of the prose brick was larger than the typical traditional brick.

We had some correspondence with the applicant on this, and while the orientation noted in the staff report was incorrect, the height and depth of the reverse, the length of the unit is accurate.

This length is longer than brick.

That is most typically found in the surroundings in historic architecture of the area.

Staff was concerned that the masonry would look more like block than traditional brick, so our recommendation is that the size of the masonry units be revised to one that most more closely approximates traditional brick.

Regarding the landscaping proposed for the site, the landscaping gaps along the entrance corridor frontage and interior roads surrounding the site have been resolved.

Additional shrubs have been provided near the pay stations along the north end of the site, but there's still some gaps along near the north end of the building.

Staff is recommending that applicants consider revising the landscape plan to show additional shrubs in this area to more completely integrate the paved area and pay stations into the site.

Regarding the carwash-related equipment, no detailed drawings have been provided, but the color renderings illustrate auto-sensory and vacuum stations in shades of gray and the pay stations in white.

The gray color will help mitigate the visibility of the equipment, but the white stands out in development.

Staff is recommending that the pay stations be revised to a color that is recessive and the site plan be revised to provide detailed drawings and color specifications for the vacuum, pay station, and auto-sensory equipment.

Staff is recommending approval of the final site plan where the recommendations is listed in the staff report.

Thank you very much, Chris.

Go ahead.

None for me.

Thanks for a good presentation, Chris.

Hey, everyone.

This is Carter Baum.

I'm with Kimley Horn.

I also got Ryan Perkins from our office here on the call, as well as Craig, who is the under-developer for GreenClean, and Kevin, the architect.

I'll just start off real quickly by saying thanks, Chris.

We were able to address and handle most of the comments you guys provided as far as adding some additional landscaping to the site.

We did see your new comment about adding some additional shrubs on the north side of the property.

You know, where the tunnel is that you discussed in your presentation there.

We have no problem doing that.

So we'll show that revision with the next set of plans.

That's it from a civil side.

I'll kick it over to Kevin.

Okay, sure.

And going through the comments, yes, there was the comment regarding the block.

And the initial comment we received showed it as eight inch tall.

And I talked with Chris and explained to him that the unit we're using is actually four inches tall.

It is 16 inches long, but the height of four inches is, you know, standard brick height.

These blocks are also structural.

So using the 16 inch length is kind of ideal because these have cores that we rely on for reinforcing and then also for insulation.

So that's the block.

I believe all other comments have been addressed at this point.

We've added the standard window glass note.

We indicated that all the HVAC equipment is not to be located on the roof.

It's going to be inside the building.

And then regarding the color of the

the vacuum stations and the pay station.

I think Craig can talk about the color.

I know there was a comment to maybe not use white and change it to a gray that's a little more subtle that kind of not quite as drawing attention to the eye.

So I think he could comment about the color for those.

So I think that addresses all of the comments that we had.

Great.

Anything further?

Yeah, thanks, Dade.

So, Kevin, just so I'm clear, the block size, do we have any renderings?

Yeah, let me see if I can share a screen here.

Does that appear?

Can everybody see that elevation?

Yes, thank you.

OK, that's an accurate depiction of the block.

So like I said, it's in height.

It's the same as brick.

It's a little bit longer, like I said, because this is a structural unit.

Yeah, I was trying to pull that up, but I couldn't get it to it in time.

They do make a unit that is scored in the middle.

My concern about that is if you do that, then the appearance is brick as if it's stacked.

So instead of seeing the staggered joints, you're going to see just vertical lines, if that makes sense to everyone, because of the way it's scored.

I talked with the structural engineer last week about it and

You could stagger the bricks by four inches to get that to work right, but he doesn't like that idea because then you can't fill the core solid for reinforcing.

Got it.

Thank you.

That's really helpful clarification.

I don't believe I have any other questions.

We do.

I'll drop it in the chat right now.

Let me pull it up here.

Thank you, Frank.

Yes, this might be answered with the link.

Just curious, is it a clay material?

I'm sorry, yep, got it.

I don't have any other questions.

Yeah, thank you, Frank.

Yeah, Link doesn't appear to really have any photos.

The sample provided was in the exact dimensions that would end up being the block used.

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

I agree with Chris that traditional brick is usually three courses to eight inches in height, so this is about a third or more higher to two courses per eight inches and 16 inches instead of eight.

I think that it's kind of like a jumbo brick or a long version, but it's certainly a practical material for this kind of use for a car wash.

Thank you.

We'll move to discussion.

Yeah, sorry, Dane.

I'm still looking for a photograph.

which I don't see.

And I tend to agree with you.

I think for this application, I think I'm okay with the product they've suggested.

I would agree with the architect.

I don't think scoring it every four inches.

I mean, getting the blocks that are scored at eight inches is probably unnecessary.

Typically from the entrance corridor, you're not gonna see that much.

So I tend to think it's fine.

It'd be nice to see a photo, but I'm prepared to support it without it.

Frank Hancock.

I agree with Frank Stoner.

Given the building's location kind of set back from the corridor and the grade change and the kind of low profile or linear nature of the building, I think in this case, this larger masonry unit is appropriate.

So I don't have any additional comments.

I think the,

The site plan is nice.

It hasn't really changed since we saw it last time.

So with everything relegated behind the building.

Thanks, Dave.

I share my fellow board members thoughts about the block.

And I would also agree with Kevin, your comment, I would probably go away from the skort sort of approach to trying to make it look like a normal brick size because then you're dealing with mortar joints and all kinds of crazy other stuff.

So I think it's appropriate, especially considering the distance from the corridor.

You know, in terms of the color of the materials that are

being used for the vacuums and those I would support staff in terms of the color being much, you know, sort of rather than white, something more subdued, if that's possible.

I think that would be helpful.

Other than that, I think it's, and sorry, one other thing, and this is really more of a question.

I just don't remember seeing it, although I'm sure it's there.

That's all I have.

Just for clarity there, too, those pay stations will be gray as well.

They won't be white.

Great, thank you.

Great, thank you, Fred.

For the proposal, I appreciate Frank Hancock, you outlining the reasons that mitigate the scale of the brick, the siding, the landscape, and the setback.

So, supportive of the proposal, I think.

Good site design in terms of keeping most of the vacuums and pay stations and other visual clutter back behind the building.

Great.

So the recommendation was for approval with eight conditions.

Number one, I've highlighted.

Sounds like I think everyone thinks that one can be deleted.

Right to you, Margaret.

proposed revisions.

Is anybody prepared to make a motion?

I'll second that.

Shaffer?

Aye.

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, everyone.

Thanks.

That concludes our regular business.

We'll turn now to other business for the day.

The next item is ARB 2020-69 sleep number.

I'm sorry.

I turned ahead.

That's right.

During the March 1st air-beaming, the board reviewed but did not recommend approval of the special use permit to establish an audio-volume shop use in the existing building located at 1720 Seminole Trail.

The board requested that the applicant return for a work session to resolve issues related to the screening of new roof-mounted mechanical equipment and the compatibility of the proposed fencing with the site.

After a cursory review, staff notes the following changes.

Mechanical equipment screens are now proposed to hide existing and new roof-mounted equipment, and a metal picket fence design that uses mesh to provide screening has been proposed in place of the wood fencing.

The action the ARB wants to take today is to make a recommendation on the special use permit.

If the ARB thinks the revised screen design will have an appropriate appearance, then that action can be a recommendation for approval based on the revised screen design.

If the ARB thinks the screening still does not have an appropriate appearance, then that action can be as follows, to recommend that the proposal does not meet the

to be reviewed by the board before moving on to the planning commission to recommend or to recommend that the ARB does not support a proposal if the board thinks it's not possible to provide screening that would have an appropriate appearance or to recommend support with the condition that the ARB require additional changes during site plan review.

Lastly, in the staff report for March 1st, recommendations on the site plan amendment were listed, but based on the revisions to the design of the screen, the ARB may wish to revise comments one through four.

Thank you, Chris.

Is it three separate elements that

They are screening.

I read it.

Okay, I was looking at the color rendered site plan, just seemed to show three different, but we can ask that again.

Thank you.

There is, okay.

I'm sorry.

I'm getting myself turned around.

It's towards the rear of the building.

On the north side, it's about midway of the building.

and they're proposing the same fence for both areas.

Okay, that's all I had.

Thank you, Fred.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Can you all hear me okay?

It's nice to see you all again.

My name is Melissa Hernandez from Cross Architects.

And we are the architects for this Caliber Collision.

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to work with us in this proposal.

This is actually Caliber's second location in Charlottesville area.

We have one greenfield under construction across town.

I think it's Avon Street.

So just to give you an idea about the company, they are the largest collision repair in the world with over twelve hundred locations across the nation and about twenty thousand employees.

So they are kind of the industry standard later in this field.

And we've done a lot of both Greenfield and Brownfield projects across the country for them.

They also have contracts with all major insurance companies and run a first class operation to keep insurance companies and customers happy.

They are very customer service oriented and one of their main goals is to be located closer to their clients for convenience.

Anyway, this location that we are presenting today has a smaller building for them, but they think they can make it work.

So please,

Allow me to share my screen really quick.

Can you see the 3D rendering?

Can you see the 3D rendering?

Okay, here we go.

So as Chris mentioned,

The comments that we are addressing today is the fence material and screening of the rooftop units.

And I think it's not a problem, so we are willing to address those comments.

So you can see from the revised perspective that we changed the material of the six-foot fence from stained wood to a decorative steel picket fence with privacy mesh behind it.

that I think will blend in good with the building and screen all the vehicles.

It will be a completely opaque screen so you won't see any of the wrecked cars back there.

Also the building is located next to a hill because in the south there is another building that is probably elevated about 15 or 20 feet above our parking area.

So basically our building sits in between the hill and

the storage area.

And the way the building is oriented, all the parking spaces are actually situated behind a building.

So the fence parking is kind of hidden and will not really be that visible from along 29.

You can also see that the rooftop units are screened using our panel to match the building.

We will also screen the paint with dots that will be located towards the back of the building, but we're going to

Screen them anyway.

It's not shown in this perspective, but we're locating them along the backside of the building.

Anyway, with your support, we think we can make this work.

Unlike the typical body shops that we see, Caliber likes to make their building look really appealing.

So we will be improving the building and landscaping as much as we need to.

Right now, the building just sits there empty and the building and

doesn't look that great to begin with.

So we are going to improve the way it looks close to a new facility.

And then the next door is the storage, which looks even less great.

So I guess this building will be the best looking building in that area once we're done with it.

So that's all I have to present.

Hopefully we had it the way you want to see it.

I know you guys are, you guys have comment on the screen.

So I mean, on the fence,

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Fred, any questions for the applicant?

Did you say me?

I just have a question.

I'm not sure.

I should have probably asked Chris this question.

But are there street trees required on the plan at all?

And do we have those shown?

I don't see them on the site plans or on any of the renderings.

It was a comment in the initial ARB meeting on March 1st, but landscaping always is not related to the special, unless it's related to screening of equipment related to the use, it wouldn't be related to the special use permit.

I got you.

OK.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I have no other questions for the applicant.

Thank you for your presentation.

That's existing in its, oh, I see.

Okay, I see the small picture on the bottom there.

Gotcha, okay.

Thank you for the revisions and the updated visualizations.

Just looking at this one on the screen, the,

like screen fence on the sloped roof that it kind of appears to slope with the roof, but I just want to verify that it's not.

Okay.

And then my original question for Chris, I think it's, is it three separate elements that you're screening?

Okay.

I don't have any more questions.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, I think my main question just concerns the mesh that's proposed for the fencing.

It's actually the privacy mesh that you would normally see around badminton courts.

Hold on.

So here's the picture from the manufacturer.

So it's basically that, and it's really opaque, so you can't see it, anything behind that.

Thank you.

So how does it typically perform?

How does the material hold up?

No, not really from our experience.

I don't think that we've seen this before.

And you don't necessarily have to

Thank you, Margaret.

And then to Fred's question about street trees, I guess since this is not a site plan,

Amendment, there's not really an opportunity to enforce those requirements.

Or they're not technically requirements in this.

Great, that's all the question I have.

Thank you.

We'll go into discussion.

Sure.

Overall, I don't think I have any issues with it.

Really, I share some of your concerns about the durability of the material and what means of enforcement the county would have later if the fabric itself starts breaking down.

What options does the county have for addressing that?

That's a good point.

I'm sure our enforcement staff would prefer that we not have to get into that.

Otherwise, I'm okay with it.

Sure.

I share

Frank, your concern and Dade's the material of the fence, but it sounds like we'll get another chance to review that.

I feel comfortable recommending approval of the special use permit.

I think the applicant has screened the rooftop mounted equipment as we asked for in our last review.

I think it's provided a nice visualization and a nice package illustrating how that's going to be accomplished.

It's integrated into the building design.

So yeah, that's all I have.

Thank you, Frank.

Fred?

Ditto to what everybody else said.

I am in complete agreement.

I feel like we may have approved a fence like this out at the, there's a towing company out on Avon Street.

I don't know if they ever installed it or not, but I seem to remember that.

Thank you, Fred.

I agree with my colleagues, I think.

And also with the applicant's presentation in the context here in the corridor, the building will be improved at least from its current state.

Thank you.

Great.

Are you able to see the Word document?

Great.

So there's actually two actions that we'd like you to take today.

First is the recommendation for the special use permit.

The wording that we have here

is to make a motion to forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission Board of Supervisors indicating Airbnb approval of the revised proposal because the screening of the rooftop equipment has a coordinated, appropriate appearance.

And that seems like they're actually consistent with the discussion we just had.

So moved, Sir.

Second?

Thank you.

All right.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The second action would be the list of comments for the future site plan submittal.

The ones that I've highlighted in yellow.

This was the list from the original staff report that you looked at last time.

The four items in yellow are ones that may need to change now that some other items on this site have changed.

asked for revisions to the plan to show a dumpster enclosure to match the approved fencing.

I think that's when we had in mind that the fencing would be metal panels.

The goal was to have everything look coordinated.

I'm not sure that you want that fabric combo around the dumpster.

Yeah.

Can it stay as is?

Kind of in our previous motion, we did not approve the fencing.

It is in the back.

The next item was revise the plans to clarify whether the existing roof mounting equipment is to be retained or removed.

That one, third one, revise the plans to relook the top equipment to a location that's not visible from the EC, alternatively show a location that significantly reduces visibility and additional mitigation measures.

So what I would recommend is eliminating this first part and

Okay, and then number four said, revise the plans to show a fence design that relates more closely to the building and the surrounding commercial context.

There is existing chain link on the site, and as those vehicles have to be, the visibility has to be eliminated.

Margaret?

Yes.

Sorry.

I want to share one of the self-locking chain privacy slides that we've used.

I wonder if you can take into consideration this one for the fencing.

Hold on.

Let me share this.

Can you see the screen?

So that's a snap together vision slats.

And we typically use it, the black vinyl chain link fence with it, which is at the very end of the document.

So this one.

Are you asking just about treating the existing chain link that will stay or are you asking about that for new fencing?

For the new fencing.

Thank you.

Margaret, can we go back to your recommendations?

So do we need to include any comment, just encouraging consideration of

Different and more durable screening material as part of the fencing.

That certainly sounds reasonable.

To consider alternative, more durable,

Great.

Great.

Great.

OK.

Wonderful.

OK. Great.

Well, thank you to everyone.

We'll move on to the next item in Other Business.

ARB 2020-69, street vendor.

Yes.

Share my screen.

Are you able to see my slide?

OK.

So today we're talking about the materials again for the proposed sleek number building.

You'll probably recall that the development is proposed for the east side of the Route 29 entrance corridor.

It's just south of Fashion Square Mall and final approval was issued for the project in November of last year.

Original approved materials include the master ball stucco wall panels in a tan color, wood tone, lap siding, and summer wheat, and metal wall panels in a dark blue.

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

At that time, you asked for further adjustments in the blend of materials to retain more of the metal.

On February 1st, a work session was held in which the applicant showed a revised design that maintained the horizontal elements in the dark bronze colored metal, and the vertical elements were the ones that would change from metal to stucco.

The applicant explained that the construction would be a hard coat stucco on a masonry substrate, and it was referred to as a real stucco product in the traditional sense, and the Airbnb approved those revised materials.

The applicant contacted me in mid-March, said that as work continued on working out those final details, they discovered a discrepancy in the footprint, resulting in a loss of about two inches of thickness at the masonry exterior wall construction.

So some thickness needed to be added back in, and their contractor was proposing polystyrene or EFS.

The applicant understood that the ethos is not desirable in the entrance quarter, but has noted that the appearance from the exterior will be the same.

And the applicant has also indicated that the width of the CMEU cannot be adjusted.

So staff wasn't comfortable making this change without bringing it to the ARBs.

So the question for you today is that

Polystyrene or Ethos acceptable in the wall construction.

The applicant is here with us today and I'm sure I can answer your questions.

Thank you, Margaret.

Oh, sorry, Fred.

Sorry, just one quick question.

Margaret, you went through that so well.

I may have missed this.

But just remind me, what was the prior material, prior to the request for EFIS?

It was metal panels.

OK, got it.

Thank you.

Thank you all for taking time to discuss this once again.

So we find ourselves in this situation from time to time.

And we have, we use stucco in a lot of different ways.

And I did present it as a hard coat stucco on a masonry substrate at the last hearing and that's

Which is what's bringing me back today.

We have a variety of dimensional articulations on the building to create the geometry that we're after here.

The entire building is still all masonry up to the parapet in all cases, but we have a number of different thicknesses that we are negotiating on this facade.

And whether we have the siding or the stucco or what was the metal wall panel, we're always working to negotiate those thicknesses.

It is not fair to say at this point that all stucco is on a masonry substrate.

That would be very difficult to achieve based on relationships to steel and other things.

But the question that I have is, I guess,

In all cases, our stucco has a mesh, a base coat, and a finish coat, whether we're applying it to masonry, plywood on furring channels, or in this case, the contractor has suggested that we make up the difference with insulation, which I think is a great idea.

It's a little more expensive, but we still, at the end of the day,

whether it's on masonry or plywood or foam, the finished product from the exterior is still the same.

It's just what's kind of behind the scenes is different.

And I know I just wanted to be real clear and that's why I came back to Margaret and asked the question,

Is that an acceptable substrate?

Is the foam an acceptable, and I say foam, it's a, you know, it's a rigid polystyrene insulation, which is going to add a real nice positive effect to our insulation value, but is that a, and we get in the weeds here about what is an acceptable substrate for

for a material finish, whether it's metal or stucco or siding or whatnot.

But I didn't feel right moving forward knowing that I had sold it at the last hearing as a stucco on masonry.

So that's why I wanted to kind of just have an open conversation.

And I really appreciate it.

We find ourselves in this arena from time to time.

Well, thank you, Mark.

Thank you for the full disclosure and the chance to consider the issue for today.

I don't.

I, you know, I have my drawings open and I can talk through details and whatnot, or we can present details.

You know, we're sort of in the working drawing, into the working drawing phase.

We're in the shop drawings now with steel and

We'll open it up for members with any questions for the applicant.

Sure.

Thanks, Mark.

Maybe it would be helpful just to jog my memory if you pulled up an elevation and just point it out.

Apologize.

I know we've reviewed this multiple times, but just so I know where it is and a lot of it, it's what it looks like more so than

Let me try to share my screen with you guys here.

Yeah.

All right, so.

The dark blue panels is where we have the swap.

That was initially the composite metal panel, which had a thickness to it.

The tan, which you can see in a smaller amount, was original to the design.

The blue is now stucco.

And the siding is on masonry as well, but it's padded out.

It has a furring strip and a sheathing, and then the siding is attached to that.

And that's sort of where we are with the stucco.

We're trying to keep the volume the same as before with the articulation of the metal panel without changing the actual structure of the building, the nuts and bolts.

Frank, what you're gonna see at the end of the day is the same, is exactly the same.

And I think that's what's important to us is that the aesthetics have not changed, but how you get to all these different volumes and masses is sort of a behind the scenes conversation.

Masonry and steel don't like to do a lot of ins and outs.

It's a structural system that likes to stack in a load-bearing configuration.

It does.

I guess

I would say no.

If they were both done at a quality level, then no.

So it's actual joints, it's not just a design?

Or are there both?

You can't see it on this image, but yeah, the

The stucco will have an articulated joint pattern to resemble what we had before.

No, thanks, Mark.

Yeah, I think this is a non-issue.

And I think as an ARB, we should think about, I know there has been aversion to EFS sort of FIPON kind of applications on buildings.

I think in this case though, and I think any wall should be viewed the same way.

I don't think it should be up to the ARB to determine

whether somebody uses hard code stucco or ephus.

If they're applied properly, they both have good longevity.

You can't tell the difference looking at the wall.

Nobody's going to be able to tell whether it's applied on masonry or not.

In that sense, I don't even think we should be reviewing, to be honest with you.

Thank you, Frank.

No.

Thanks, and thanks, Frank Stoner.

I would tend to agree.

The only thing that crossed my mind, you know, when we were starting to talk about what it's on top of, what the substrate is, whether it's masonry or foam, that's not going to change the aesthetic for us.

So in that sense, it's not ARB.

The only thought that crossed my mind, and Frank, you mentioned this, was the longevity of the product.

And if we're, from a precedent standpoint, setting ourselves up to approving a less durable product that I think has always been the issue for EFS being approved in the entrance corridor.

So I would only maybe look to staff for your recommendation in terms of how we word this.

to make sure that if we do have an issue in the future with someone using a less quality or durable approach, that we can point to our rationale and justification that it's durable in this condition.

That makes sense, but I could not outline for you

I don't know enough about the product to be able to say that.

Thank you, Fred.

Yeah, I think as I've reflected on this further, and I know we've had other discussions that really, the backup construction is not really our purview, it's really the outer appearance.

I appreciate, Fred, you highlighting the question of durability, and I guess I gather with five pond and some other things every now and then animals do nest in it or disintegrated a bit.

But, and I know one of my concerns about stucco sometimes has been just,

you know, scale and I appreciate that Mark has kept the articulation of joints to sort of break that down.

So I think in this case, it is acceptable.

I know when the discussions around materials for the small area plan at Rio in 29, I think there was some consensus about, you know, if we were to set up a prescriptive way for folks to comply that there would be a focus on sort of longevity and durability

I don't know how we determine that.

So I think probably for me there are two concerns about EFIS.

One is both scale, which I think this application addresses with the jointing, and then durability.

Because certainly we don't want to have a lot of large expanses of foam stucco buildings throughout the county.

So I appreciate everybody getting this application.

for your time and attention today.

Great.

And I guess, as I said, I think, do folks have other items they'd like to discuss or points to make?

I appreciate everybody's brightness.

The wording I have for you is pretty simple.

It sounds like you're ready to

make a motion to approve the proposal as presented.

I would probably defer to the fact that this is just stream of consciousness.

So it's sort of restating, I guess, in a sense, Dave, what you mentioned, which was the presented alternative is in keeping with the original design.

Scale is appropriate.

and there are no, I don't know, there are no concerns relative to durability and longevity or just longevity.

No, that seems good, I don't know.

Oh, maybe just insert after and the applicant has advised that there are no concerns.

That seems to address it.

I think that's good.

Just a quick question.

So that answers the question in the sense of traditional framing, plywood,

mesh base coat, finish coat.

That's not a question.

And again, we're kind of inside of the building, nuts and bolts, but I just want to make sure that moving forward, not just on this project, that we can, you know, consider other options as long as the durability is equivalent.

All right, we'll all have to do it.

Yes, yeah.

Can I just ask a question, Mark, just to clarify, were you saying on this building, if you run into issues in the future, and you need to change materials that it's not, maybe I'm reading too much into this set, you don't need to communicate that to the ARB?

Was that as long as it's aesthetically the same?

No, no, no, I was this this building has, I think we've resolved all of the issues.

What I was asking is,

In terms of stucco, if there is a masonry substrate, plywood substrate, foam substrate, in this case, it's all on masonry.

I didn't mean to mix up moving forward with other projects, but if

On this particular project, if we have a framing that goes above the parapet that has metal channels, plywood, and lath, base coat, finish coat, that's more traditional.

I'm assuming that's not a conversation.

I think so.

Yeah, so for the purposes of

But the substrate is not.

To answer your question, we would definitely not apply this to the next project coming down the pipe.

Yeah, I think we're good.

Yes, yeah, thank you.

Mr. Hancock.

Hi.

Thank you, Carolyn.

Thank you, Mark.

Thank you.

Well, I think we have just two more items to go, so folks should finally keep on rolling.

Sure.

Hopefully I can share my screen here.

Awesome.

So I can make this pretty quick.

I apologize, I wasn't exactly sure where to start.

That may have been my oversight.

So I kind of started this effort at the intersection of 5th Street and 64.

Let me get my box out of here real quick.

Oh, brother, sorry.

There we go.

It's coming.

All right.

That's small.

I think it's loading, maybe.

It's not your slide.

It's not the slideshow.

What is it?

Yeah, interesting, because I don't know.

It's a slideshow on my end, but it's not apparently not on your end.

This is the speaker preview showing now.

Yeah, my computer appears to have locked up.

Let's try one more time.

Let's stick here.

Yeah, you guys can see that.

OK, OK.

So I looked at the corridor starting at 5th Street on the far right of your screen and ending essentially at the county line.

It's about a 20 mile stretch, most of which is rural.

And I kind of broke it into sections.

First section being from essentially the 5th Street intersection to the 29 intersection.

And that is a predominantly urban section.

That interchange at Fifth Street is shown here.

And as you can see, there are kind of two large scale commercial developments that are visible here.

There are actually more when you are on site.

This Google image here predates the construction of the most recent apartment complex.

and also predates the completion of Fifth Street Station.

So there are a few things I wanted to point out here.

One, obviously, you can see the back of Fifth Street Station, the two photos on the left.

The photo in the middle is actually heading westbound, and that is a cell tower that is right next to that large colonial office building, which I think is now for sale.

As you then move west, well, sorry, before we move west, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to at least

Note that the Albemarle County Jail, sort of prominently positioned as a welcome center on 64, probably one of the more dominant architectural features of the corridor, slightly east of where we're starting, but I thought I'd share it anyway.

As you head west, this is the 29 bypass 64 interchange here.

So you can see several commercial developments, but everything's pretty well isolated.

So when you're at this interchange, you actually can't see any of the surrounding development.

And that pattern persists as you head west.

Here we're looking at the 29-64 interchange on the far right and on the far left is the Ivey intersection.

Charlesville Reservoir is kind of in between and there's not much else.

There is a cell tower on the way up the hill.

It's largely wooded otherwise.

There are a couple just to the east of, or sorry, just to the west of that Fifth Street interchange.

There are a couple of new developments I wanted to note.

This project is on the south side of 64 west of 5th Street and almost immediately adjacent to it there is a more recent apartment complex that was built that is very prominent from the 64 corridor.

I just turn around and head west so the character changes pretty dramatically and this is a view heading due west of the ivy intersection which is sort of at the bottom of this hill and pretty much all the development from here on out until you get to Crozet is sort of rural and residential in character

This is the Ivy Interchange itself.

You can see there are a few residential developments that have been built around it.

The rock shown here is sometimes visible when there are no leaves on the trees.

I caught sort of brief glimpses of it when I was driving the corridor.

But when the leaves come out, I don't think any of it's visible.

This last section is from Ivy to the Crozet intersection here at 635.

Sorry, it's not the last, second to last.

And that corner between there is, again, largely wooded on either side.

There are occasional sort of pastoral views, but otherwise there's pretty much no development.

Oops, sorry.

Here's the

64 interchange with 250 at Crozet.

This you can see we actually do have some commercial development of the Yancey lumber mill, which is on the southeast side of that intersection.

I'm not quite sure what this development on the left side is, but it's not visible.

Yancey is not visible either from 64.

The rest of the development around this is, again, very rural in character and residential As you head west from Crozet to Afton Mountain, again, similar pattern of development, there is

One notable exception, which is the VDOT Memorial Overlook, which is on the south side of 64 as you kind of head up Afton Mountain.

And then when you get to the Afton Interchange, which is a little beyond the scope of what we're technically responsible for, but it's close enough, I figured I'd include it.

You have some commercial development on 250 kind of at the interchange with Blue Ridge Parkway.

You've got the abandoned motel up there and a couple other smaller commercial buildings that are

Generally not in good condition.

And this is that view from 64 as you're crossing over to 50.

You can see the motel at the top of the hill there and a couple other commercial buildings.

That's about as much of a view as you get from 64.

All right.

And that's kind of it.

Along that section, as I thought about what my conclusions were, I would say, in general, the character of the corridor is certainly rural, bordered mostly by woods, with some mountain views and some pastoral views to the west.

Most of the commercial development, really most of all the development along the corridor is pretty effectively screened.

And I know that's generally been a priority for us in evaluating anything along that corridor.

Buildings in the urban area are generally oriented away from the corridor.

There are a couple in the case of these two multifamily projects that got built on the south side.

They do in fact sort of front, not directly, but they do front the corridor in that they're kind of forward facing or have a significant architectural presence on the corridor.

And then one last note, there are a number of cell towers along this corridor.

If you're looking for them, you can generally find them.

There are at least three or four that are pretty clearly visible.

But I didn't, you know, I don't find them to be offensive.

I know that's a big issue as we look at

cell tower applications in this area as well as others.

So that might be worthy of some discussion, but it's, you know, I don't know, maybe I just get used to them, but I didn't really find any of them to be particularly offensive.

Thank you very much, Frank, for your presentation.

Well, first of all, that was great, Frank.

Thanks.

I also liked your format.

I thought it was really nicely done.

It dawns on me that we always talk about entrance corridors, and we think about people entering Albemarle County, entering the city of Charlottesville, and that's why we do what we do.

But it strikes me, I wonder what the percentage of people passing through on 64 that benefit from the work that Margaret and staff do to preserve the entrance to this area.

It's kind of a double bonus.

They also get the benefit.

It's more about both.

It's funny you mentioned that there are a couple of cell towers that are clearly visible.

I can only think of one, Frank, but I'm sure you're right.

I probably just got used to seeing the other ones.

But the one that you pointed out by Fifth Street that's pretty egregious is the one that I always think about and hope that someday some strong wind will knock it over and they won't be able to rebuild it.

There's another one on the north side of 64 as you're heading down the mountain toward the 29 bypass 64 interchange there.

Before you come off the mountain, there's one on the left there.

Next time you go out that way, and it's plainly visible.

But I don't know, it just, you know,

I think you're right.

The one on Fifth Street is pretty egregious, as you can tell from the photo.

Yeah, I was about to say, I mean, if you disguise that as a pine tree, I think it might just draw more attention.

and Frank Hancock.

Yes.

Thanks, Frank.

That was a great presentation.

And in thinking about this and just thinking about it, you know, how an applicant can use it or can think about it, you made some great points for this corridor in particular.

It's pretty unique.

So thinking about the speed at which you kind of move through this corridor and maybe that

you know, changes how we review certain things.

And to one of your points, which I think was really interesting is there's only a few buildings that actually front, I mean, logically thinking, but maybe this is a corridor where we encourage buildings not to front the entrance corridor and, you know, think about it differently.

I think which in previous reviews that's been done.

That kind of stuck out to me.

I think similar to the kind of Western corridors that we've reviewed so far, emphasizing the natural resources, kind of the viewshed protection.

And so thinking about an application through those lenses of kind of that borrowed view of the landscape, especially in this corridor with the speed at which you move through.

I think if we're taking these presentations and turning them into this addendum that's useful for an applicant, there's definitely some takeaways here that you could put in and say, maybe a focus on not fronting the corridor and a concentration and effort on your backside of what's presenting to the corridor, I think would be, I could just see how this could be written to be really helpful for the applicant.

you know, is this specific character of this corridor.

So that's a lot of rambling, but thank you, Frank.

Well, between 64 and development adjacent to 64, we do have a buffer requirement.

As I'm looking at this photo that's on screen in the lower right-hand corner, it looks like the buffer gets pretty thin.

Yeah, there is what you might call a buffer

present along much of that corridor, but I'm thinking that's mostly trees in the right-of-way.

And there's no...

Thank you.

Good question, Frank, and very nice presentation.

Thank you for taking a look at this.

Yeah, I am struck the way you highlighted sort of the character between the 29 interchange and

Dave Vaughan, and that area certainly has changed a good deal just in the last five years with that development.

And I think it used to be largely a pretty continuous heavily wooded corridor that felt consistent with most of the gateway from the border of the county.

And I was struck by just this weekend that now it's pretty consistent as sort of a thin veil of landscape or comparatively thin veil of landscape

to the more significant developments that are there.

So I appreciate your question about minimum buffer and I don't know whether other members or staff would be interested in considering whether there's a way to increase the buffer or be sure that the buffer on the more rural parts of 64 remains, you know, to Frank Hancock's point about view sheds and natural resources.

Are there additional measures that are necessary to be sure that those areas

to retain the character that they have today.

Would folks support any measures to try and encourage that?

I think even at the Ivy interchange, I know, speaking of sort of borrowed views, as Frank was saying, the kind of cresting that ridge near the reservoir and down to the interchange, the mountains and the forest used to sort of roll off into the distance and now you can increasingly see roofs

I was just sort of doubting the landscape as it develops.

I think these images of the apartment complexes and the one of 5th Street Station, I think these are great examples of how when you have these wooded sites and then you have some of that wooded area in the right-of-way, how difficult it can be to really visualize

what 20 feet of wooded area that really is going to meet, or 30 feet, whatever it is.

Right, yeah.

That's a great point, Margaret.

Yeah, and even there, I'm shocked, as that develops, there's more visibility than I thought there would initially.

Exactly.

Obviously 100 feet, it's a lot of land, and to impact with that kind of buffer,

You know, as we, this is great.

I guess this probably concludes looking at sort of the Western portions.

And so I don't know if we have it on a schedule next week to start talking a little bit about anything, any recommendations we may try to put into an appendix.

I have the spreadsheet.

I don't know that we've updated, but I think we had agreed we would sort of pause before moving to another

Okay, so let's see, where are we?

We're here today.

That's rescheduled for next week, according to the latest.

I failed.

So then maybe with a look at the 29-250 bypass then,

Yeah, and that is what we had.

OK, great.

OK, that sounds great.

Thank you, Margaret, for keeping track.

And thank you, Frank and everybody, for taking the time to look at the corridors this way.

Great.

Anything else before we move on to our last order of business?

All right, next and last order is approval of the minutes for March 15th, 2021.

Is there a motion to adopt them?

So moved.

I second.

I'll second.

Yes, okay.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Thank you all.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 9th.

Again, a virtual meeting.

Yes, thank you.

All right.

Well, thank you very much, everyone, for your participation today.

I hope you have a wonderful week.

Thanks, everyone.