Architectural Review Board Meeting   5/3/2021

Excellent.

Well, it's 1 p.m. and so I will call to order the May 3rd, 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-19 disaster.

A quorum is present.

Members of the review board present electronically are Fred Missel, Chris Henningsen, Frank Stoner, and myself, Dade Van Der Werf.

Frank Hancock will not be attending today.

Opportunities for the public to access 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 is provided in a 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.

All speakers, when it is your turn to speak, please first state your name for the record.

Everyone who is participating today, it's good practice to mute your microphone until it's your turn to speak.

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

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

We'll move to disclosures.

Nothing from me.

Great.

Public comments.

Thank you.

On the consent agenda, we have one item today, ARB-2021-33, Glenbrook at Foothills' initial site plan.

Do any ARB members wish to move this off of the consent agenda for discussion?

All right.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Moving on to regular review items.

There are two regular review items today.

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

The first regular review item is ARB 2021-34 Keswick Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Amendment.

Yes, let me pull it up and share my screen.

Try this again.

I think Margaret, we're seeing the slide preview with the sorter on the left side.

Here it is.

First, let me say that the staff report has a big typo right at the very beginning.

The ARB application number is completely wrong on the staff report.

The number you're seeing in this slide is accurate.

It's ARB 2021-34.

and this is a proposal to make improvements at the existing Keswick Sewage Treatment Plant which is on the north side of I-64 south of Club Drive and east of Hacktown Road.

And proposed improvements include a new above grade open top tank with an electrical building and generator and a new pump house.

The new tank and electrical building are located near the existing containment structures.

This image shows the existing site with the I-64 entrance corridor running along the southwest side of the property and that's the bottom left of this image.

The existing containment structures are here and the proposed tank will be located in the area where trees are shown just north and west of the existing tanks approximately in this area.

There is wooded area on site and in the right of way and it limits visibility of the existing treatment plant structures, particularly in the months when leaves are on the trees.

The view is more open in the winter months and some of the mix of trees that allows for that more open view are visible in this image.

The proposed structures are expected to have a level of visibility that's similar to that of the existing structures.

And the types of structures that are proposed with this application fall into the category of things that are supposed to be screened from the entrance corridor street, and that's equipment, service areas, utilities, that sort of thing.

So role of evergreens is proposed here between the development and the entrance corridor street.

And that includes trees planted at eight feet tall.

It will be 15 American Hollies and 13 Eastern Red Cedar trees.

And this would help fill in the gaps where views are now available into the site.

We would typically ask for a staggered or more informal arrangement of trees for a more natural appearance, but available planting area here is very limited.

The building that's included in the proposal is a very small, simple gabled structure made of precast concrete.

It's proposed with a stamped red brick finish or an exposed aggregate finish, either of which would be appropriate based on the minimal visibility that's expected.

A wall pack style light fixture is proposed for the building on the elevation that faces the entrance corridor.

Cut sheets have not been included in the site plan.

That cut sheet and information on the level of illumination at the ground are needed in the plan so we can make sure that the lighting meets the guidelines.

Overall, we had minimal comments on the proposal and our recommendation is for approval with the comments listed in the staff report.

Thank you very much, Margaret.

I don't, Dave.

Fred, how about you?

Thanks, Dave.

No questions.

No questions for me either.

Thank you, Margaret.

OK, everybody see the PDF on screen?

All right, great.

Thank you, Margaret, for that introduction.

I'll be showing a lot of similar materials, but I'll try and move through this quickly as not to take up too much of your time.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.

Thank you for allowing us to present today.

I'm Bruce Strickland, project manager with Timmons Group.

Also with me are Matt Miller and Jonathan Showalter.

Both are project managers with Timmons Group as well.

We're here on behalf of Keswick Hall and Golf Club to discuss Amendment ARB 2021-34, Keswick Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements.

For reference, you can see the vicinity map here.

Keswick Estate is generally bound by Interstate 64 to the south and west, Louisa Road to the west and north, and Black Cat Road to the east.

Project site is located within the estate along Club Drive adjacent to Interstate 64 right away.

Keswick Hall and Golf Club is located outside of the Albemarle County Service Authority's service area.

So they own and operate central water and wastewater systems that serve the Hall and Golf Club located up here, as well as 124 lots throughout the estate.

Approximately half of those lots are currently developed.

This exhibit shows the wastewater collection system, which includes approximately six miles of sewer lines in green that convey flow to the existing wastewater treatment plant site in the yellow box here.

The majority of the collection system was installed in the late 80s and the early 90s.

As with any aging collection system, Keswick is experiencing increased inflow and infiltration during major rain events leading to high peak flows in the wastewater system.

The owner has selected to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant, implement pump station, and construct a 100,000 gallon equalization tank to act as a buffer during high flow events.

Now here's an overall layout of the project site.

Currently, wastewater flows by gravity to the influent pump station here, and then is pumped to the head of the existing wastewater treatment plant here.

The proposed improvements include replacing the influent pump station, which will then pump to a new 100,000 gallon equalization tank here.

And due to the prevailing topography, the wastewater will need to be pumped from the tank over to the existing treatment plant here.

and then we'll also have the control building to house electrical panels along with an emergency standby generator here.

And this exhibit shows the elevations of the various wastewater treatment plant upgrades and these views are set at different scales so the sizes relative to one another are not necessarily representative.

The top left is the influent pump station replacement.

The bottom is the 100,000 gallon precast concrete tank.

and to the right is the precast concrete control building with a stamped brick finish and then the emergency standby generator adjacent to that.

And these structures are utilitarian and will make use of materials and finishes consistent with the existing wastewater treatment plant structures.

Now this is a 3D rendering with a bird's eye view of the improvements as if we were hovering above Interstate 64 and looking northeast.

And the trees were removed from this rendering just to give an unobscured perspective of the improvements.

Again, the pump station is here.

The new equalization tank is here.

And the control building and generator are located here.

The existing wastewater treatment plant would be off the page here to the right.

This is that same view just with trees added to give a more accurate representation of the landscape.

And speaking of trees, we've also designed a landscape plan as part of this project.

Frank couldn't be here to present his part of the project for obvious reasons.

We are using native evergreen tree species, Eastern Red Cedar and American Holly to provide a continuous vegetative screen along the property line adjacent to the westbound lanes of Interstate 64.

And there's currently a 50 foot wooded buffer in the right of way between the property line and the edge of the interstate.

Our plantings in combination with the existing wooded buffer will screen the wastewater treatment plant expansion from the Interstate 64 viewshed.

And one of our strategies is to plant American Holly within the existing wooded buffer on our property to provide year-round screening of the facility.

And these trees will be field located as close to the property line as possible to fill in gaps and provide additional evergreens within the woods.

We've also provided screening plantings across the facade of the existing facility to better screen it from the Interstate 64 view shed.

All of the proposed evergreen trees are specified to be eight feet height at installation.

So the top of the trees will be above the top of the existing and the proposed tanks.

Here's a view of the project area.

from the westbound lane of Interstate 64.

You can see the existing wastewater treatment plant and the filter building here.

And this photo was taken over a month ago before most of the trees had bloomed.

Now this is the same view, but this time with the new tank shown.

And there's no masking in front of the tank in this photo.

So this is how it would appear if there was no screening between the interstate and the tank.

But just for reference, the tank is about 190 feet from the center line of the westbound lane.

Now this is the same image, but this time with the existing wooden buffer and the proposed screening superimposed in front of the tank.

And the previous photo makes it a little difficult to see the structures and that's by design.

So in this image, we've highlighted the existing facility in green and the proposed expansion in blue to give you an idea of what this should look like upon completion of construction and planning of the vegetative screen.

And we've reviewed the staff report.

We take no exceptions to the recommendations, and we believe we can address the conditions presented.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Let's have time to remember if they have any questions.

Thank you, Dade.

The only question I have, and far be it for me to question anything that Frank had been considering, Bruce, but the trees, the aileks, and the juniperus, I wonder, rather than having them be groups of the same species in tandem, could we alternate to create some more naturalized interest along the edge?

Yeah, it would be a question for Frank, but I don't see why not.

But I'm a civil engineer, not a landscape architect.

But I will run that by Frank.

I'd be happy to discuss that.

And I don't see any issue with that at all.

Great, thank you.

Great, thank you.

Nope, I don't have any questions, Dan.

Thanks for the presentation.

Yeah, I don't really have any questions either.

I was curious about what Fred was asking about, just the placement of the trees.

Thank you, Chris.

Yeah, like you, I appreciated Fred's question and shared that so I appreciate your willingness to run that option by Frank.

That's the only other question I would have is I know that most of the railings and other equipment are just noted as bare aluminum.

And looking at some of the existing photos, like those that you shared,

Those elements pick up a bit more sunlight and come through the trees a bit more.

We don't typically do that on our projects.

That's something we can discuss with the contractor.

Usually any corrosion resistant materials like stainless steel or aluminum is not recommended to paint them, I believe, but

Thank you.

Yeah, I think certainly a paint finish that was recessive, at least from my perspective, would be preferred.

A matte finish might be an acceptable compromise.

Well, I guess I'd like to invite any

Members of the public to comment.

Thank you.

We'll go into discussion.

I think it's a solid proposal.

I think the renderings show the facility when the trees are without leaves.

And

I think even then it's gonna be very difficult to see this right after the trees are planted, as near as I can tell.

What he showed was not five years in, it was kind of right after.

Yeah, to me, the addition of the Evergreen behind existing screening really is pretty much everything.

I have no concerns about it either, especially since you'd be passing at a high rate of speed normally.

Thanks, Dade.

I would echo my colleagues' comments.

I did appreciate staff highlighting the question about lighting, because that's the one thing that we might see at night.

But it sounds like it looks like they've been completely addressed.

Great.

Well, thank you.

And likewise, I think the applicant did a great job explaining the proposal and agree it will have minimal impact and the screening from the trees will help a good deal.

I think similar to what we look for with ground equipment and things at cell towers where the board generally requests those to be painted or screened, it might be consistent to ultimately require that same painting of other industrial facilities.

But like my fellow members, I'm persuaded that the

Investment in the Evergreens here maybe makes that less of a concern.

I did add two comments at the end to address the

Thank you, Margaret.

Well anticipated.

Do any members have any other suggested provisions?

Sure, Dave, I'm happy to make the motion.

Just one point of clarification, maybe for the applicant.

By us saying, consider alternating rather than grouping or consider an alternate finish, are we

Great.

So I'll move that we approve ARB 2021-34 certificate of appropriateness Keswick wastewater treatment plan improvements amendment with the conditions listed in the staff report and amended as follows.

Number seven, consider alternating rather than grouping the Holly and red Cedar trees.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Yes.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Thank you.

And thank you very much for a good application.

We'll go on to the

All right, thanks Dave.

Are you all able to view the slideshow?

Yep.

The application I'm presenting on is the review of architecture and final site plan instructed 6,500 square foot office building and associated site improvements.

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

The ARB recommended approval while conditions of the initial site plan on November 16, 2020, and provided comments on Lemary architecture on January 19, 2021.

Regarding the design of the building, while it overall has a contemporary appearance, historic architecture there is reflected through use of a series of simple forms, gable roofs, and entrances topped with canopies.

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

Material samples and perspective renderings without street trees have been provided, and notations have been added to the elevation drawings as requested.

The samples, renderings, and notations allow a clear view of the entrance corner facing elevation.

The samples confirm that the primary color for the building's exterior article will starkly contrast with the colors proposed for the remainder of the building.

The renderings and notations clarify the grouping of the windows and nijiha panels along the entrance corner facing elevation.

These groupings will have a non-traditional appearance.

Additionally, a detail of the eave has been provided to clarify the relationship between the roof edge and the upper wall.

The detail in this area is minimal and does not provide much visual relief or refinement.

Staff was recommending that the window and Michihaw groupings be revised to achieve a more traditional appearance and the detail between the roof edge and the wall be further refined and considered within the context of the roof pitch.

Regarding site lighting, a photometric plan has been provided with this metal.

The plan shows lighting levels exceeding 40-foot candles, while above the guidelines, a maximum of 20-foot candles.

Regarding landscaping, a complete plan schedule has been provided with this metal.

The three-horn beam shown near the southwest corner of the building may eventually conflict with the nearby overhead lines due to the spread once mature.

The size of the planting area on the eastern perimeter of the site has not been increased, but the landscaping had the greatest potential to conflict with the nearby building has been eliminated.

The full extent of the neighboring building's footprint is not shown on the plans, but there appears to be sufficient space for the northern ornamental tree and a large tree to replace the ornamental near the south end of the parking area.

Staff recommends approval of the final site plans

final site plan with the revisions, listening to staff report.

Thank you very much, Chris.

Thanks.

Sorry about that.

Thank you, Fred.

Any questions?

No, thanks, Dave.

Excellent presentations.

Hello, everyone.

I'm Evan Phillips with Design and Develop, a project manager.

With me is Kevin Shaffer, our studio director.

We don't have a formal presentation to put up on the screen, but we're just going to go through some comments.

To jump into it, I wanted to thank the board and staff for your time and comments.

We appreciate the feedback and assistance in improving the project.

We've got a sort of three-part presentation today.

The first, reviewing the things we've changed and revised since our preliminary hearing.

The second will be a review of the overall building concept and our approach and why we believe it is appropriate.

And then the final part of the conversation will be specific responses to staff comments.

We believe the project has improved since the preliminary meeting.

And as we've continued to add information from lighting, landscaping and engineering consultants, a preliminary revision that improved the views from the entrance corridor is the relocation of the dumpster.

as shown on page 29 of the ARV booklet.

The dumpster location has been shifted to the north back corner behind the building.

This change will help to shield the dumpster from the entrance corridor.

Some other changes that came from the first meeting were the revision to a muted retaining wall color and the enclosure color for the dumpster as well to help these elements recede into the site.

Working with both a landscape architect and a site lighting designer, a thoughtful planting plan and vegetation selections have been refined and provided, and lighting improvements and refinements have also been made to help bolster the site's visual appeal.

For your review, these plans are included in the drawings and on sheets 18, 19, 26, and 27 of the booklet.

The advice of the board has helped us to refine and improve the project, and as always, thank you to the board for your guidance.

In the introduction of our last meeting, in this meeting, Chris covered our concept best, I think.

He said, while the design of the proposed building overall has a contemporary appearance, the historic architecture of the area is reflected through the use of simple forms, symmetrical distribution of parts, cable roofs, and entrances topped with canopies.

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

Regarding staff comments one and two,

As Chris mentioned, the intention of the design was to reflect historical features such as the gable form, the traditional materials, and the strong building symmetry from precedents found throughout Albemarle and along Ivy Road entrance corridor.

However, though we pulled the vernacular materials and building elements, we are distinguishing the project from its agrarian and residential context and noting its use as a professional office building through the use of modern detailing and fenestration grouping.

On this note, we further revised and refined the grouping at the center bay to be more in keeping with the spacing and rhythm found on the adjacent wing base, which is seen on page 30 of the ARV booklet.

The revised window base helps strengthen the cohesive whole of the project and create a more legible whole as well.

From the preliminary meeting, the board asked us to explore, test and further consider

The suggestions provided by staff.

While there was already some consensus on color, Mr. Henningsen mentioned that the Arctic white building color, in my opinion, is appropriate, and it helps to set up a contrast between the main and connecting forms.

It is certainly a traditional color, so I don't have a problem with Arctic white.

And Mr. Stoner, you also noted, I think the contrast is important between the Nichi Ha product and the main forms, and I think the charcoal roof, white siding, and the bark could look really nice.

We wanted to inform that the board we did go back and test color schemes considering a cobblestone color from Hardy and came to the conclusion that the traditional white and its contrast with the other materials is important to the composition and appropriate on the entrance corridor.

We were also asked to provide more clarity on the eave detail and have done so on page 28 with the detail Chris showed earlier.

The two and a half inch dimensional change from the roof and the wall will create a distinct shadow line

and Drip Edge that functions well without interrupting the legibility of the gable form.

Mr. Henningsen, you noted in the preliminary meeting, to me it feels like they're shooting for a pure elemental form and trying to minimize the transition between the roof and the wall as much as possible.

To me it seems like the detail matches the intent and making it bigger would go against what they're trying to achieve.

Our iteration and our refinement in this area echoes Chris's sentiment and the detail we're presenting meets the intentions of the entrance corridor guidelines by helping to preserve a cohesive whole and emphasize a legible building at the human scale.

From our perspective, the appropriateness of the project draws from the juxtaposition of these modern details and the traditional forms

There's a unique tension that we believe leads to a dynamic and cohesive project.

Using this tension as our guiding design principle, we evaluated the request from staff and we're pleased to present the project in front of you.

Thank you, Evan.

I'll circle back to comments one and two momentarily, but I do think Evan has done a great job articulating our process and our evaluation on those items.

Many of the other comments are straightforward, and the applicant understands them, so my portion of this presentation may be a little more dry than Evan's.

We do like to provide specific responses to each staff-suggested revision, so I'll jump right in.

Comments three and four are regarding notes to the architectural drawings.

These notes made it into our ARB booklet, but we will certainly add them to our drawing set for the final submission to staff.

Comments 5 through 10 are regarding our submitted lighting plan.

We'll be circling back with our lighting consultant to further refine that submitted plan per staff's comments.

But staff's comments are clear and we make no objection to them.

Specifically, we'll ensure that the lumen levels for the bollard fixtures are added to the plan.

And if they are above 3,000 lumens, we'll ensure that they are full cut off per county requirements.

We'll revise our specification on the wall fixtures to ensure that they're down lights only.

We'll reduce the lighting output on the bollards.

As Chris mentioned, we've got some hot spots on the site and we'll make sure that all quick candles do not exceed 20 per county requirements.

We'll revise the color temperature on our pole and bollard lights to a 3000 K temperature.

And the final note on our site lighting is we'll have our consultant revise the plan to utilize the light loss factor of 1.0 for all the fixtures for our next submission.

Comments 11 and 12 deal with our landscape plan.

As Chris mentioned, we completely agree with comment 11 regarding the overhead power lines.

We also aim to avoid the intrusive pruning performed by the power companies around these areas

So we're proposing a cultivar called a fastigiate cultivar with the European hornbeam, which is more upright, more pure middle, a little bit more like a cone in its shape and should interfere much less with those overhead power lines.

Rather than just replacing the cultivar of those three throughout the site where we use the hornbeams as our shade trees, we'll just

We'll shift all of those to that vestigiate cultivar.

Regarding comment 12 about the placement of a proposed flowering dogwood with a shade tree, we'd prefer to avoid this revision as the tree in question is actually pretty close to that existing structure, which is on our adjacent property.

There's a

an access easement, shared access easement in place, and we are improving some of the landscape on that, but to get so close to the large shade tree could pose a maintenance issue as that tree matures.

From our perspective, an ornamental dogwood tree on the parking lot interior that serves to bookend the row of winter jasmine shrubs is appropriate here.

and does well to layer or screen the views deeper into our site from the entrance corridor.

So we feel it's an appropriate selection there.

I'll wrap up with one final mention of comments one and two and an emphasis on our overarching concept behind the proposed design, which as both Chris and Evan had mentioned is the contemporary composition of this traditional form.

Compositionally, there's a traditional gable building form

It is non-traditionally arranged on the site to form our building.

We're taking this gable form and we're kind of rotating it 90 degrees three times, which is, you know, a non-traditional arrangement.

So we're taking the opportunity to complement this arrangement in two key ways, through our unique window groupings emphasized by the Nietzsche Hall wall panel and the minimal overhang at our eaves.

These non-traditional window groupings are thoughtfully placed and composed and the minimal eave detail is purposely crafted to emphasize this pure elemental legible gable building form.

After further study and consideration of these details with a larger overhang and a larger rake overhang, the proximity of so many of these gable forms and a traditionally detailed rake and eave began to really crowd one another

and take away from the legibility of this very elemental and pure building form.

So we believe through the evaluation of the composition as a cohesive whole, the project remains sympathetic and harmonious to its adjacent context.

And it's complementary to Albemarle County's historic precedents.

It's in keeping with the entrance quarter guidelines and it has a dynamic way of distinguishing itself from, as Evan mentioned, agrarian and residential precedents.

So with these things in mind, you'd ask to consider further staff comments 1, 2, and 12.

All the other comments are certainly agreeable and will be picked up in our submission back to staff.

So with that, I'll say thank you to the board and to county staff for their thoughtful and thorough review.

Thank you very much, Kevin and Evan.

I have one sort of question unrelated to the architectural, which is just, and I think we may have touched on this last time you guys ran.

What are you doing with the rainwater coming off the roof?

Yeah, so we have a border of river rock around our foundation.

We'll be prepared to collect that.

A large majority of the roof, well about half the roof of the gable forms drains onto those flat areas which would then be collected by that rainwater meter and distributed to underground retention under the parking lot.

Great, thanks.

I don't have any plan, any knowledge of plans on the sidewalk.

I will say we do have a

Pretty significant setback.

And the right of way is 10 feet, but that bar is bar parcel as well.

That's great.

Thanks, Kevin.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, I don't have any questions.

Thanks, Dave.

Thanks, Evan.

And thanks, Kevin.

The only question I had is on page 23 of the elevations or the images that you shared with us.

Yeah, I think you did a nice job catching something.

The gable will be treated the same way throughout.

There'll be a boarding batten trim piece, like a batten trim piece that runs up as kind of our rig detail and give some bite to the standing seam metal roof.

Got it.

Great.

That's what I thought.

I just want to double check.

Great.

Thank you, Fred.

And I guess my question,

I think I recall and perhaps I'm recalling correctly that either a board member or a staff member at the last meeting may have posed a question about the orientation of the gables.

I think to the question of whether the back facade, if you will, that faces the parking lot might be equally or even better suited to the entrance corridor.

We did.

And it's always a complicated thing when we're relegating our parking to our backside and we've got to establish both front entrances on our parking lot side, but also be very respectful and sympathetic of the entrance corridor on the other side.

So we looked at it and we flipped the building and, you know,

The building is relatively symmetrical and so aesthetically it worked okay but functionally it proved to be challenging and so I think the move was to make sure that we were

informing the people who may be visiting this building that this is your front entrance, you come around this side, you park here, this is where you can enter the building.

And we felt like we had done a nice job of still providing the front elevation even on what was the rear of our building that addressed the entrance corridor.

So we did evaluate it.

We looked at it and flipped it.

Thank you.

Let's see.

I don't have other questions.

Thank you.

Why don't we go into discussion?

Sure.

I guess our focus is primarily on these first two comments and well I'm sympathetic to your suggestion Dave that you know maybe the three gables should be on the street side and not the back side of the building I'm also sympathetic to the fact that the front of the building is in fact the back of the building for those who are

who are actually coming to use the services or products that are in the building.

I'm inclined to think that what they've proposed is in fact an effective way of kind of maintaining the historical character

Materials, while at the same time kind of creating something that feels more contemporary.

And I know that's a tight rope to walk.

You know, I could see including some gable vents, maybe as again, some measure of traditional architecture

to include, but I don't have the same issue with the window patterns that I think were referenced in the staff report.

Thank you, Frank.

Thanks, Dade.

Well, so I, I liked the way I was just taking notes on Frank Stoner's comments I like the way he put that balance between, I think you said traditional and contemporary.

take out personal preference at all times.

And so thinking of this as under these categories in terms of appropriateness, one is scale and massing.

And I feel like that checks the box that it's appropriate scale and scale and massing.

The materials, the board and batten is pretty consistent with what you see around Albemarle County.

The color is,

I can't argue with white.

There's a lot of buildings that are often secondary, but also primary buildings that are white in the area.

The place that I get tripped up a little bit, which is probably

A challenge for me in terms of that idea of personal preference is just the detailing.

And I don't know, I don't feel like what is, I think what's been shown has been intentionally thought through and it's clean and simple and not overdone.

So I would tend to be supportive, I think, of the way it is currently rendered.

But I also would like to hear what the other members of the board have to say about that specific area.

Thank you, Fred.

I guess to me, the kind of the three issues that we've been talking about, the window pattern, the Arctic light color, and the kind of minimalist detailing, to me is all consistent with itself in terms of the aesthetic that they're trying to put forward.

And I think

As Frank said, you know, while there's a nod to traditional forms and massing, it's a contemporary building.

And, you know, I think it marries those two aesthetics well.

And generally, I think it's appropriate.

So to me, the

Those three elements, the color, the detailing, and the window pattern is kind of what makes it contemporary, in my opinion, and not just a kind of a reproduction of a traditional building form in the county.

So I support all three of those elements.

Thank you, Chris.

And thank you, Fred and Frank, for your comments.

Fred, I appreciate you breaking out the different categories.

And so like you, I think in terms of form and scale and massing, it definitely checks the box.

I agree with the applicant in their observation that there are some very simple forms that are quite elemental in the county.

I think

For me, those are most often associated with some of the agrarian and utilitarian buildings.

And I feel like from the most recent survey of this corridor that very often those are more recessive in their color.

So I agree that certainly white is a totally appropriate color and a very common one in the county.

I feel like it's a bit of a blend to bring the white color together with a form that is more, at least to my eye, agrarian and utilitarian.

I feel like from the survey of this corridor recently that buildings that are somewhat more muted in color and therefore less contrasting with the landscape are perhaps more contextual, but I appreciate what the applicant is doing here.

And I think similarly in terms of the detailing, I think it's, I think as Chris says, part of the same intent and concept.

I guess I do feel like

It would be appreciated maybe if the applicant could in the future share with us those studies of considering the other gable orientation.

I do feel like to the extent that the guidelines are focused on creating order and continuity in the public realm that the massing to my eye that's facing the parking lot right now maybe is more appropriate for the public corridor than what is currently proposed.

but I guess also implicit in all of our discussion is that I think as with staff, certainly the site plan seems to be well organized and well structured.

I appreciate the applicant confirming or planning to confirm the lighting requirements will be met and working to get the trees to work with the utilities.

So, all in all, I think a very sensitive and thoughtful proposal

Can you see the Word documents?

Great.

And so it seemed, I don't know that I heard any members express concern about the windows in the Nichiha groupings or the

Wall and Roof Edge.

Is that correct?

I did not.

Great.

Nor do I. OK, great.

I guess, Dade, do your

Point is, is it worth not putting a requirement, but maybe a suggestion that they consider the three gables on the outboard side or simply repeat?

I mean, I guess you could have gables on both sides in theory.

I don't think it would be a requirement, but I don't think it's a bad idea just to reinforce that.

Consider repeating the,

three Gable form on the public facade facing the entrance corridor.

That works

All right, for me, anybody prefer to see the word differently?

I'll move for approval of ARB-2021-35, IV proper final site plan,

All right.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Great.

have no work sessions scheduled for today.

In other business, there is one other business item, a discussion of the entrance corridor guidelines work that has been completed and some next steps.

Are you able to see my slide?

Great.

So just a real brief overview.

It was in 2019 we started looking at historic precedents on the entrance corridors.

Some of that work continued into 2020.

And this year, ARB members started studying the corridors, focusing on the western part of the county.

We looked at Route 250 West, Route 240, Route 151, Fontaine Avenue, the interstate, and the bypass.

And as we've been working, we've noted on a few occasions that the end product of this work might be an appendix or an addendum to the guidelines.

Recently started calling it sort of a one-pager and this document would address the varying contexts of the different quarters and the features that make up the different quarters and would provide information to help applicants, staff, and ARB members to interpret the guidelines as they relate to new development today.

So based on our discussions as a group and on discussions that Dave and I have had last week and keeping this sort of one-pager addendum concept in mind, I've put together this draft outline of what might be included in this one-pager.

We're thinking of documents really for each quarter because we probably need one for each unique segment of each quarter.

But for each one, we'd need to identify the extent of the overall corridor and the extent of the segment that's being discussed.

And we want to do this graphically, so we need a map.

It would also be nice to include a very brief background statement for the corridor or the segment.

Then we need to identify

Two primary categories of information.

One would be the significant historic sites on the corridor and then the character of the corridor or the siting that's being discussed.

For the significant sites, historic buildings, we'd want a photo or an image showing the resource in its setting as it's viewed from the entrance corridor street.

We'd also want to include the construction date and a very brief statement on significance.

And then to define the character of the corridor, we'd want to identify a number of things.

One, key elements that contribute to the attractive development and unified appearance of the corridor.

We'd want to identify predominant landscape characteristics, and that would include things like the characteristic vegetation along the corridor, a pair of patterns of

Organized layout, elements of visual order are common elements along the street and examples of integrated buildings and the environment.

And then we'd also want to discuss the architectural characteristics of the quarter.

that are referenced in the guidelines.

And for this, we'd want images of local historic buildings.

And I think possibly it could also be a combination of historic and exemplary new construction and the characteristic scale, form, materials, and colors of those buildings.

And that would also be helpful to include information on for examples of pre-entrance quarter development should be avoided, things that might exist out there but aren't appropriate.

to be repeated.

So this is just a mock-up of a possible one-pager.

It's not meant to be an actual format to be used.

It's just meant to show that the concept is to present the information graphically and just to

Be clear that the photos I've used here are just things that I've get my hands on quickly and just plop them in there and the text that's here doesn't necessarily isn't necessarily associated with them either.

Just to give an example of what might be possible.

but so the point here is that you know try to convey as much as possible in images include text but minimal text text that's clear and accurate and to the point and the intent would be to have a consistent format for all the one pages for all the quarters that we'd be addressing as I was thinking through it we may need to pull out the information on historic precedents maybe there would be a separate one pager for the

So the more iconic historic precedents, precedents that apply everywhere, obviously we'll have to work through how much information can be conveyed in a single format, but multiple formats are possible and they could all look completely different.

So these are just examples.

So again, we're not trying to settle on the format or the appearance of the actual document today, but if you've got ideas, I'm certainly happy to hear them.

But we would like to make some progress on maybe the makeup of the content that would be included in these addendments.

So to that end, I've got some questions for you.

Does that outline cover the information that we want to include?

If not, what's missing?

What should be deleted?

How will we continue to bring this information together?

Will the ARB members continue to contribute from here on?

Should we, as we move forward, should we start with one quarter or should we start on all the western quarters, continuing to pull this information together?

And then do we want to talk timeframe?

So that is what I've got for you.

I can pull up

The outline again, if you'd like.

Thank you so much, Margaret.

Really, really great presentation.

I guess we can just circle around and folks just invite Margaret to bring up whatever information you may want to reference.

Sure.

Thanks.

So a few things come to mind.

One is I'd love to see that presentation, Margaret, so I could just spend a little more time looking through the categories.

Because off the top of my head, I can't remember all of them.

But I think if I had just a few minutes to look at it, it'd be great.

Generally speaking, I thought it looked really comprehensive.

I think it would be worth, and I don't know if you mentioned this or not, but I think in advance of these one-pagers, it would be helpful for the applicant to understand how they should use these one-pagers, right?

Like, are we saying

They have to design their buildings or their landscapes exactly like the rest of the corridor.

What if somebody comes into a corridor and wants to do something cool and contemporary, and it ticks all the boxes, but it doesn't really look like something from the 1900s?

Just all those kinds of things, I think it'd be helpful to somehow put into words a way of using those documents to inform

the design.

And then I think the last question or one of the last questions you had is, should we continue to do this?

I looked way back in December, on December 7th, when you had put together an outline of all the different areas, the West, East, South, and North.

And it seemed to me that

It would be helpful to do a little bit more of a comprehensive look at these.

If that's what your question was, I'd like to take another look at that list and just see.

But I mean, generally speaking, I think they look like they were thoughtfully done.

Thank you, Fred.

Yeah.

Echo a number of Fred's comments.

I think it is important for applicants to understand how we intend them to use it.

And to that point, I don't know whether, you know, if we identify that the character of a particular corridor or a section of a particular corridor would

lend itself towards certain uses and not toward other uses.

That starts to feel like zoning.

But I think there are, I can remember, you know, the application we had on Avon Street, for example, for the Collision Center, I would look at Avon Street as much differently than I would look at 250 West.

And for that reason, if we're, you know,

I don't know how you can contextualize this in a way that doesn't abandon the rules, but also acknowledges that if you want to build a collision center on Avon Street, where you have primarily industrial uses, we're probably not going to enforce the standards to the same degree that we might if it were 250 West.

And that's just my personal opinion.

So I'd be curious to see how others feel about that as well.

Otherwise, it feels like it might end up being more than one page.

There's a lot of information that I think is valuable that you've identified.

And to me, if it's two pages, I think that's fine.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, I guess my thought is how this would be useful to an applicant is that it would at least provide a frame of reference for each entrance card or section of entrance card or that

would give an applicant at least something that they could point to that either I'm following the precedent or I'm breaking with the precedent for this specific reason, but at least it gives a kind of a baseline for what

what each segment, what that character is, whether it's architectural or just in terms of the development of it.

I guess my concern is, and

And it's, you know, there's just by the nature of it, there's a lot of subjectivity.

But I feel like maybe we could establish some kind of criteria that for each entrance corridor, like,

the criteria is consistent in terms of like what structures are contributing structures to the character and why are they contributing and just to make sure that something hasn't been missed too.

Thinking back to the presentation on root,

240 that I did.

I might have completely missed something that was a very important and contributing structure that I just didn't notice or didn't include in my presentation.

And how could we prevent that kind of thing from happening across the board?

Just trying to get some kind of

Great, thank you, Chris.

Great points all.

So yeah, I think like Fred having some sort of preface that describes, I think as Chris said, how it really is useful in establishing an existing precedent, but not an existing mold necessarily or a stricture.

In discussion with Margaret, I found it beneficial to look back through the,

through the guidelines and some of the early points in that document about their purpose and motivation and a lot of the texts that Margaret shared I think has some tie to things that are within that enabling document.

And I was drawn to the emphasis that the guidelines place on sort of how visitors experience these sites as ensembles of landscape and building

I think this document's a great way to describe sort of the subtlety of how those work together and the differing characters that result.

Grateful for everyone's time and investment looking at the corridors.

It sounds like there's continued willingness to help take this further.

I guess in terms of process to Margaret's question, would it make sense maybe just to, while we're trying to formulate what the

I think that makes sense.

This is kind of fresh in our minds.

It'd be nice to go ahead and get the format figured out and the content figured out and create a document we think we all could adopt before we forget what was important.

I could share the presentation.

I've made some additions to the outline of topics, the content outline, and I can share that with everyone and maybe if everyone wants to spend a few more minutes on their own time looking at that and just being sure we've got everything together, like Fred was saying, take a few minutes to look at it.

Right.

Yeah, absolutely.

Your comment about the industrial building on Avon Street, I think that issue will be resolved with this, outlining the individual characteristics of the different segments and the different corridors.

I think that will just take care of itself.

And that's what I think we need.

If we can get the architectural characteristics

A portion of this that we've got a mix of the historic precedents and some good examples of more recent construction that show the scale and form and the other details that are consistent with what the guidelines is calling for.

I think that's going to go a really long way to helping us

One thing I'll add too, I liked what I think it was both Chris and Frank said, and Frank you specifically made me think of this when you mentioned how the board members might view each different location.

And so, you know, to your point, there's staff, there's applicant, and then there's board, right?

And I think one cool thing about having this is it gives some of the applicants also insight to how the board members are thinking.

And so it might maybe take a little bit, not that, you know, the quality of the design or the,

that the design should become at all inappropriate on some of the, like, for example, industrial areas on Avon Street.

We still have those key areas, but maybe there is something that can give a little bit, right?

That's different than what it would look like on 250.

Well, great.

And I know, Margaret, you have hopes that there may be a staff member coming on board sometime

Yeah, so I don't know if individual board members want to stick with their quarters they've already been working on and try to come up with that and then bring it back to the group again to look at it in more detail or

Yeah, good question.

I don't know what other members may think.

I mean, on the one hand, we could approach it as we have the surveys where the members that have surveyed the corridor maybe would come back with a draft summary for the outline for discussion for folks to respond to.

That might be more expedient than discussing everyone at length without something to react to.

If I'm understanding the question right, maybe this is off.

But it sounds like if there's a person coming on board who can help with formatting of the two-pager, that perhaps that same person could provide us with a format that we could then fill out that would make it easier on them, translating information from our work to that two-pager.

I know that might delay things a little bit, but I'm just wondering if it might help with efficiencies.

Yeah, sometimes it's the chicken or the egg, not sure which way to go.

Wait until we have the floor mat so we can then decide what to put in it, or now could come up

List the four historic resources in this particular segment that should be and get the photos.

I think if we just focus on the content now and try to get that right and then the format will be whatever it is.

And I'm happy to take the quarters I've done and try to plug those in best I can to the outline you've created, Margaret.

I don't know how all those feel, but we can do with that.

Right.

Yeah.

Right.

Well, great.

Well, Margaret and everyone, thank you so much for your work and investment in this.

Create a good resource for staff and applicants and the board itself.

So, Margaret, you'll send out the outline.

Okay, great.

I know I have some of the presentations.

Did presentations get sent out to everybody for every quarter section?

I think I might be missing a few.

I will go through and see what I've got.

Thank you.

Well, good.

If folks are ready to move on to the other business item, let's see, we have minutes to approve from the meeting of April 19th.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Seconded.

Thank you.

Great, thank you very much.

So our next meeting is scheduled for May 17th, 2021.

Well, if there's nothing further, I'll call us adjourned.

Thank you very much, everyone, for your time today.

Thanks, everybody.

Thanks, Margaret.