Architectural Review Board Meeting   11/15/2021

Thank you very much, Carolyn.

Great.

Well, good afternoon, everyone.

It being 1 p.m., I will call to order the November 15th, 2021 meeting of the Alomarle County Architectural Review Board.

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

A quorum is present.

Architectural Review Board members present electronically are Fred Missel,

Frank Hancock, Frank Stoner, and Dave Van Der Werf.

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

The public has real-time audio visual access to this meeting over Zoom and real-time audio access over telephone.

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

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

For applicants making presentations, note that your presentation is limited to a total of 15 minutes, which you can divide among your team members, and Carolyn will let us know when that time is up.

So we'll move to disclosures.

Yes, I do, Dave.

Thank you, Frank.

Are there any others?

I don't see any others.

Okay, thank you.

All right, moving on to public comment.

Thank you.

We have no items on the consent agenda today.

So we'll move on to regular review items.

We have three regular review items today.

Chris Taggart, Margaret Maliszewski will be presenting these.

The first item is ARB 2021-110, Greenbrier Wawa.

Share my screen.

Are you able to see the PowerPoint slide?

Great.

One more adjustment here.

OK, this application is for a Wawa convenience store and a fuel pump canopy.

And this can be located at the southeast corner of the Route 29 and Greenbrier Drive intersection.

The AirB last reviewed this proposal in May of this year and the stack report for the current application focused on the changes made to the proposal to address the comments that were made at that May meeting.

This is the updated plan that you're seeing in this slide.

The overall layout remains the same as it was previously proposed and I'll run through the primary changes that have been made.

A number of comments in the previous review were about landscaping.

One comment requested a more regular rhythm of large and ornamental trees along Route 29 and Green Brad Drive.

And this revised plan does show more of a row of trees along the streets.

Note that there are no large trees on either of these streets.

The trees, however, are more closely spaced than the guidelines call for, and the smaller trees would do better with that spacing.

The layout of shrubs along the streets has changed.

We were looking for more substantial low-level planting along the frontages, however, to help offset the visual impacts of the development.

It looks like there is space for a more robust shrub planting along the 29 frontage and on the slope near the Greenbrier entrance.

There may also be space for a tree or two in that area as well.

Another comment in the previous review asked for the vent stacks to be moved

or be better screened.

The vent stacks are in the same location in the current plan.

However, dwarf Burford Holly have been added for screening.

Those plants can grow to six feet tall that won't completely screen the vents, but it will help filter the view from the street.

Landscaping has been added on the south side of the site to help screen the loading area and to mitigate the lack of windows on the south elevation of the building.

These have also been added along the perimeter of the parking lots.

There was a request to move the fire hydrant and water meter to less visible locations and or provide landscaping for screening and integration.

The applicant's memo states that the hydrant meter were moved to the south side of the Route 29 entrance into the site.

And that's the solution that we discussed.

It just hasn't shown up on the frame.

Previously, there was a berm proposed at the rear of the site.

Grading has been changed to achieve a less engineered and a more natural appearance there.

Photometric plan has been revised.

It shows illumination at the ground under the canopy to be a maximum of 29 foot-candles.

And outside the canopy, the maximum is 10.4 foot-candles.

However, the plan does not consistently use a light loss factor of 1.0, and that's needed to meet county requirements.

One other lighting issue is the fixture and pole color.

White is proposed for all but the building mounted fixtures.

The vast majority of pole lights and fixtures in the corridors are bronze.

White calls unnecessary attention to the lights, and so we've recommended a change to bronze.

The design of the store building matches what was approved for the Pantops location.

There were no comments or changes requested for the store design, and we have no new comments on the architecture with this demo.

The canopy size has been reduced to match the Pantops size.

That revised size is 96 feet by 81 feet and that's down from 96 by 85.

The canopy design matches that at Pantops as well and we have no additional comments on the canopy design.

So our recommendation is for approval with the conditions listed in the staff report and those are primarily related to equipment, lighting, and landscaping.

Thank you very much, Margaret, and thank you so much for that presentation.

It was very clear.

I'll ask members if they have any questions for you, starting with Frank Hancock.

I don't have any questions.

Thank you, Margaret.

I don't have any questions either.

No, thanks.

It was very helpful.

Thanks, Margaret.

Yeah, thanks, Margaret.

Where do I?

Thank you very much, Margaret.

So I'd like to invite the applicants to make their presentation.

I believe Ryan's on.

And I don't know if others are having some difficulty.

Bear with me.

I think we have Brian.

Yeah, I can't see names with the phone number.

If your phone number starts with 804, you're unmuted.

Can you guys hear us?

Yes.

OK, sorry about that.

Yeah, this is Kimley Horn here.

We've got a table full of people here.

I'll just go ahead and introduce us really quickly.

Ryan Perkins, the lead engineer is here.

My name is Carter Baum.

I got Robbie.

Robbie Rhodes here doing our landscaping.

and Steven McCray, all from Kimley-Horn, and also have Jeb here from Wawa.

Just want to take a minute, thank everybody for coming.

Margaret, thanks for the presentation.

We don't have any pushback on anything that was said.

I think we'll very easily meet all the landscaping and lighting comments that you listed previously.

The one thing we wanted to discuss was the hydrant.

I know you want us to move it to the south side of that entrance on Greenbrier, or sorry, on Route 29.

We are struggling to make that work with some of the existing utilities and easements that are on that side of the entrance.

So maybe we just want to have a conversation with you about adding some additional plannings around that new hydrant to leave it where it is currently shown, just to help screen it a little better.

No, that's it.

Okay, great.

Last members, if they have any questions for you, starting with Fred?

No, no questions.

Pretty straightforward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Fred.

Yeah, no questions for me.

No questions for me either, Dave.

Thank you, Frank.

Frank Hancock?

No questions.

We'll make it unanimous, none for me either.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Well, why don't we go into discussion?

Sure, Dave.

I don't really have any,

Comments to make.

I think the application is consistent with the other stores we've already approved.

I think they've added landscaping as requested on the south side.

They seem amenable to all the suggestions or requirements that Margaret mentioned earlier.

Thank you, Frank.

Thanks, Dave.

Same.

I'm prepared to approve as well.

I guess the one thing that seems like it might be a question is the relocation of that fire hydrant.

And I mean, I think they've got grasses that are currently screening it, which are pretty effective.

We use them a lot and it seems to do a good job of screening as long as they're consistently maintained.

So I guess I would leave that up to conversations with staff, but would be OK with the way it's

I feel like I know the building and canopy pretty intimately.

And the site, I think the site plan is really nice.

The landscape plan is really nice.

It seems to fit really well.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, I don't have any comments either.

Great.

Thank you, Chris.

Yeah, I agree with my colleagues and Fred, I appreciate your suggesting staff review for the screening of the hydrant.

I think that would be appropriate as well.

Are you able to see the Word document?

Yes, okay.

I've adjusted the first comment in the list based on the conversation that we just had.

Now it says add landscaping to provide more complete screening or integration of the fire hydrant and water meter.

Thank you, Margaret.

I think that captures it.

Any other suggestions for anybody?

I'll move that we move for the approval of the certificate of appropriateness for ARB.

I thought I was on mute, sorry.

ARB 2021-110, Greenbrier Wawa with the conditions as listed in the staff report and amended as follows.

Number one, amended to read, add landscaping to provide more complete screening slash irrigation of the fire hydrant and water meter.

I'm sorry.

Oh, sorry.

What did I say?

Irrigation?

Sorry.

All right.

Mr. Stoner.

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the applicant for responding to the comments.

All right, we'll move on to the next item.

The Overlook Hotel, ARB 2021-117.

Chris, will you give your presentation?

Yes.

The application you're viewing today is the initial site plan for a four-story hotel with surface parking surrounding and associated site improvements.

Subject property is located on the south side of Route 250 East, approximately 250 feet west of the Hanson Road and Route 250 East intersection.

ARB recommended approval of initial site plan with a condition related to the development issues on the site in 2019, after which a review of the previous rezoning revealed that the application plan needed to be amended to allow the use and resolve the development issues.

Summarize the staff report with a focus largely on the forms and distribution of materials in the building design, the stint of use of retaining walls, and site landscaping.

The brick along the base is a tie to a traditional building material and creates a sensitive human scale, but the overall design does not demonstrate a strong connection to the historic architecture of the area.

Additionally, the placement, detailing, and roof form in the end towers create elements that detract from the forms and design present in the main portion of the building and the height of the form as an element that is monumental in nature.

Also related to the building design is a special exception request to eliminate a 15 foot step back requirement above the third story on the street facing elevation.

With the current building design, incorporating a step back on the entrance quarter elevation will reduce the mass of the tower and could allow for revisions to the building design that achieve a more cohesive appearance.

So we're not recommending approval of the special exception at this time.

Respective renderings have been provided with this initial site plan.

The renderings highlight that retaining walls will be predominant features to be visible from the entrance quarter, notably along the west side of the site where the wall heights are primarily six foot at the north end and 10 feet at the south.

Alternating rows of inkberry hollies and northern bayberries 24 inches at time of planting are shown at the base of the walls along the western side of the site.

The height of time in planting, slow to moderate, drove free of the proposed species, and the bay berries being a semi-evergreen contribute to visual impacts from the walls that may not be fully mitigated by the proposed landscaping.

Along the east side of the site, the wall height appears to be about five feet tall, with trees and shrubs proposed at the top of the retaining wall, and no landscaping shown at the base of the wall.

The landscaping at the top of the wall is an existing landscape easement that provides screening of the adjacent bank drive-through from the entrance quarter.

The existing landscaping within this easement is primarily comprised of evergreen species that provide complete screening of the drive-through from the entrance quarter.

The proposed landscaping would not provide as much screening, so revisions to increase evergreens in that area might be appropriate.

Additionally, medium trees and shrubs at the base of the wall could help to mitigate the visibility of the retaining wall from the entrance corridor.

Regarding landscaping in the parking area, there are several locations where the spacing for perimeter trees exceeds the requirements.

The rear of the site has no perimeter trees and four additional interior trees are required.

So we have made recommendations in the staff report to address these issues.

There are two items that the board will need to make a motion on, a special exception request and a recommendation on the initial site plan.

Regarding the special exception, staff does not recommend approval of eliminating the step back requirement with the current building design.

However, an alternate design that does not include a step back, but it establishes a cohesive overall appearance for the building can be considered.

With initial site plan, staff recommends approval with a condition related to the resolution of the development issues arising from the tree conservation and landscape easements on the site.

The previous mentioned condition, as well as the changes listed in the staff report, are to be addressed with the final site plan's middle.

Thank you very much for your presentation, Chris.

Yeah, I don't have any questions on this one.

I don't have any questions either.

I don't have any questions.

Do you call me, Dave?

Sorry.

I just had a quick question about the landscape and conservation easements.

Yes.

So landscape easing being referred to.

I see it through here.

Thank you.

I missed that.

And then the conservation area, obviously, is all that area above.

Thank you, Fred.

And Chris, can you clarify the comments you made about the retaining wall?

Thank you very much.

Great.

Well, I'd like to invite the applicants to make their presentation.

Good afternoon everyone, this is Justin Shim.

I'm just going to jump in first actually with a quick overview and then let Kevin go to his detailed renderings he's produced.

So just at a high level, you might recall some of you were on the board, this went two years ago or so, he had a submittal, something very similar, less detailed than this.

It was recommended for approval.

We found out later that this very complicated zoning history on this parcel goes back to like a roughly 2000-2008 PBMC approval that established everything.

There was once upon a time a hotel permitted on this property but then at some point the developers swapped that with an office building that was later swapped with the church and what we concluded was the only thing allowed here

Right now it's some sort of I think 5,000 square feet of retail space.

It's kind of what's left from the original zoning.

So let's pause and now we're back to you because we submitted a rezoning application for the PR to amend the PDMC to allow this use.

And that has hit a roadblock essentially around two things.

One is some questions about how this site will lay out, what the retaining walls look like.

Is it to the scale and how they can be landscaped?

So the thought was if we submitted a site plan while normally not required for a rezoning, that would help answer some of those questions.

And the other issue is the easement behind the sun trust.

So that is also kind of an issue with the rezoning in that the ARB required a landscape, additional landscaping on

This parcel, there's an easement for.

It was established when the SunTrust site plan was approved.

And that is what we are seeking to amend.

That's also been kind of a point of contention with the zoning and planning folks, not so much ARB, but as to how does that get resolved and what does that look like?

And so I think we have a fairly simple solution for that.

and I think I'll just start with these couple high level things and then I'm going to let Kevin take over and kind of go over the building.

We may circle back to landscape details.

I think in general we can address all of the landscape related comments, but I want to focus just briefly on this easement.

Kevin, could you zoom in more on the plan there, particularly the behind the sun trust

So that area in pink is the easement area in question.

And if you pan down, Kevin, there's a exhibit we have from the approved site plan.

Yes, that guy there.

And so what that showed was a collection of surface berries and cedars planted in that zone.

And sort of recently we realized that maybe the simplest way to fix this problem is that should the ARB still feel the landscaping

The cedars, the service berries are appropriate.

We would amend our plan to match the sun trust plan.

We would need to remove some of those trees during construction, or I think they would likely die as a result of construction, which is they're on our property.

But then we would, by that sort of profit application plan, be required to plant them back, the same species.

So in this case, our landscaping plan would max the approved site plan for the sun trust.

I think that's the sort of endorsement of that concept I think will be important for the folks at the zoning level who are looking at this to understand how these plans can jive together.

To me, it's a fairly straightforward solution, but I think I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the board on that.

And then, you know, otherwise, I think on the walls and so forth, we can cover those.

I'll let Kevin go through his presentation next, because his renderings illustrate some of that.

We can circle back to those landscaping details, but we would be looking forward to some opinions of the board on that landscape.

That's a specific issue.

with the rezoning.

Kevin, do you want to take over from here?

Thank you, Justin.

Good afternoon to the board.

Thank you, Chris, for your thorough staff report.

The proposal today is in front of you is for Wood Spring Suite Hotel on the Route 250 entrance corridor.

And I'll be discussing kind of the preliminary ARB review portion of this application.

And Justin obviously is available to answer the specific condition questions on the site design and landscaping.

Wood Spring Suite is an extended stay hotel, suite style hotel that brings an affordable long stay option to visitors to Albemarle County.

We're excited to introduce you to this project today and begin to gather feedback from the board on how to ensure the project can continue through the challenging entitlement process that Justin has just described.

It was imperative when we began our conversations with the owner to take precedence from the adjacent context, the immediate adjacent context.

As you can see from the images on your screen, many of the adjacent contexts

Context is brick clad facades of various scales and sizes and traditional hipped roofs of both asphalt shingles and standing seam metal roofs.

This image is an aerial that shows some of the immediate adjacent context that employs many of the traditional building techniques, very traditional kind of window proportions, building forms, building materials,

Brick-clad facades.

The SunTrust employs that.

The Carmax employees hipped roofs and gable roofs, albeit in a bright blue color.

So it was imperative to the owner and to Wood Spring Suites that we start to take note of our immediate adjacent context and take note of what has worked there so that we can be cohesive within this entrance corridor.

Understanding that altering the brand prototype would be a requirement for developing within Albemarle County, our owner in Wood Spring Suite was open to refining their base building based on the requirements of the entrance corridor guidelines.

And so we started to evaluate the entrance corridor guidelines and the available, you know, branding and prototypes that was available to Wood Spring Suites.

And we utilize compatible building materials in traditional building forms in our proposal.

Brick in a traditional color palette, lap siding in warm neutral colors, hipped and gable roof forms.

And the building utilizes, as Chris mentioned, the traditional base body and roof building form.

So like I mentioned, we selected those warm earth tone cues, primarily brick,

at our base, brick on our tower elements, and then lab siding in a variety of earth tones and neutral colors.

A central gable in the middle helps break down the scale, break down the roof line, and also marks the location of the main entry.

And then there is a human-scale pedestrian portico entry element that comes out from the front facade and helps mark that main entrance.

Adjacent wings on either side of the building feature a traditional hipped roof, as you can see here.

And like I mentioned, the building has a cross axial gable form that helps marks the main entrance.

From a branding perspective, Wood Spring Sweeps is relatively timid in their approach to building as branding.

This view from the entrance corridor highlights how the brand aims to be sensitive to its adjacent context

and also offer flexibility to owners for the wide range of locations that Wood Spring Suites can be found in.

This building is respectful in its form in that it could be a large office building or it could be a multifamily residential project or it could be a variety of hotel brands.

There isn't a definitive brand or building as brand identity here, especially when we compare it to maybe the log entries that you might see on Gander Mountain or the strong blue triangle that you might find on Best Buy.

or even the blue roof of the adjacent CarMax.

One area that we do see a unique architectural feature for Woodspring Suites is the side towers that has the monopitch roof that attempts to break the rules of the traditional building form, noting that this is a commercial application.

This is a hotel.

It provides a logical location for signage.

and it also serves a functional element as an egress stair tower.

And so that is really an important part of the driver of the 15 foot step back that I'll get into a little bit more.

The tower element is in scale with the project.

These side towers here, they utilize a relief panel to limit the area of blankness and create a shadow line.

The elements used serve to

Book in the building while utilizing materials that emphasize a cohesive whole.

And like I mentioned, these are functional elements as well as our egress there.

And so while we appreciate the staff's comments and we're certainly eager to get the board's perspective on this, the impact of a 15 foot step back on one end

of the building, the short end of the building of the fourth floor for a building that's over 100 feet from the entrance corridor seemed relatively minimal and could potentially detract from a cohesive whole.

And furthermore, it should be noted that then this end of the building, particularly for westbound travelers on Route 250 is particularly well screened by the SunTrust site.

Both the existing landscapes that's there and that Justin mentioned, but also just a great change that occurs there to accommodate the drive-through area that you can see right here on the map.

It's really going to be only visible for a very limited time by eastbound travelers on the Route 250 corridor.

Other staff comments included flush PTAC units in our next submission, which we believe is a good suggestion.

And we're happy to incorporate those into the final submission.

We'll also ensure the standard glass note is on the drawings per the staff comments.

And so we look forward to the direction that the board can provide on the building design and on the tower elements.

The tower elements is an area of location where we

could incorporate some enhanced detailing or certainly more glazing design details, perhaps some material change if it allows for that recommendation of the 15 foot step back special exception.

So with that in mind, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

And Justin, certainly available to answer any questions you have on the site design of the project.

No, I think you covered the step back portion.

I think that, you know, in our perspective, the step back is really designed to be about, you know, sort of more pedestrian buildings, more pedestrian oriented.

Right.

That's about a street wall.

And this is a building that's 100 plus feet from the road.

And it's the short side.

So we don't really view that as something that would be a typical application of a street wall as it is something like this.

And also it would

probably makes for a less cohesive building.

Certainly there may be some opportunity for static changes on that face that I'm confident that Kevin can work out something to make that a workable solution.

But that is from our timing.

Why?

That's an important next step, because the next step on this is this initial site plan approval that would go on to the Board of Supervisors who ultimately approved the zoning and approved special exceptions.

That particular issue is one more anxious to

Thank you for your presentation, Kevin and Justin.

Thank you, Dave.

Thanks, Kevin and Justin.

Appreciate it.

I guess this is going to sound like

I hope this doesn't sound, I'm genuinely interested in how you would respond to this question, which is a direct quote from the design guidelines.

Site development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and should contribute to the creation of an organized development plan.

As you read that, and as you realize, I mean, I realize you're trying to shoehorn this into a really challenging site.

How would you respond to that guideline?

Sure, yeah, I can, well, I'll put it in my perspective.

If you look at the elevation, you'll do see that we, to the extent is reasonable, we sink the upper, the corner close to 250 is in the ground, you know, a half story.

And we see the opposite in the building, we have a similar effect.

So we have

Slope, we have worked within the sort of walls and site features to pick up a grade of fall across the building.

Unfortunately, it's not practical to build, let's say, a building with three basements or something along those lines, right, that would make up the grade of the site.

In a world where the construction costs and typologies were not such a challenge, this could be a much different sort of building.

But that really isn't a, it's not built, it's not practical, it's not doable on this site.

So we had to work with the constraints that we had.

We have essentially fit the building right in the center.

There are no doubt retaining walls on both sides.

But we have essentially made it plain of the graded site.

Sloping to match existing grade as best it can.

But yeah, it's shoehorn.

That's right.

I think it's important to note that

The effort has been given to breaking down the scale of those retaining walls to there's a number of steps, lower sized retaining walls, it's going to afford a number of opportunities for landscaping both from a screening perspective and screening the landscape walls, but also just contributing to the site design.

Okay, thank you.

So you guys, I assume, looked at ways to step the parking lots to see if there were ways to make up some grade internally.

We did, yes.

And the challenge again is that they're essentially, we have the parking lot sloped about the maximum amount that could elapse.

So essentially the parking lot slopes.

That's why if you face the building on the left side, the building is below the parking lot.

On the right side, it's above.

And so we have, we've used the plane to that parking lot sort of as much as a code permits, but we don't, we can't really build like a ramp down kind of level or anything like that.

We would lose a significant amount of parking if we had to say stop and drop the parking elevation 10, 15 feet.

Thank you.

And then one last question.

Shoot, just went out of my mind.

Never mind.

Thank you.

I'm done.

Thank you, Fred.

We're happy to come back to you with all that.

Thanks, Dave.

The only question I have really relates to retaining walls and the color as shown on this colored sort of rendering.

Is that a reasonably accurate depiction of what you guys envision the color of those walls being?

Yeah, I can answer that.

It's the Anchor Diamond Pro segmented block has been specified in our preliminary document.

I believe it's the James River hue, and I believe it to be accurate in this rendering.

Sometimes the sunlight from our renderings can make things appear maybe a little bit warmer than they are, but we do

sample the actual material from the website or from brochures or things like that and then apply that to our renderings.

One other question I had relates to the panel on the monument wall that faces 250.

And it looks like on the architectural drawings you guys submitted that

Yeah, that would be the siding material, the same, let me see if I can zoom in here and we can pick up some of those shadow lines.

That'd be the same hearty plank lap siding that can be found on some of the base building, the body behind it.

And that was an attempt to provide a cohesive, you know,

I see.

OK, those are my only two questions.

Thank you, Frank.

Thanks.

Thank you, Chris.

Yes, just one question.

Have you guys looked at or is it possible to add any trees in the spaces between the retaining walls?

Or is it so confined and the wall system?

Well, sure.

We did, that was one of the comments in the staff report, at least in general, and we did introduce this color plan in front of you is not what was submitted.

This is a sort of a proposed revision.

And so you'll see we specify we have space for

some Cryptomeria which would grow I think to be you know as tall or maybe taller than the height from three stacked walls at the base we have opportunities there and I think we switched out the shrub species to get to a mountain laurels of proposal which is evergreen and grows a little larger that was one of the concerns of staff and reasonably so that some of the species do kick

would not grow quickly and therefore would not necessarily kind of screen that.

I think the right shrub selection, we're talking six-foot walls, you know, a shrub that gets four to five feet tall, I think Evergreen will obscure a lot of that.

And the other thing I think looking at it today, I think we do have an opportunity to do, I think it was really looking after Kevin's

Illustrations there at the corner at the entrance coming off 250.

Yeah, if you look right behind that black car there, there'd be an opportunity to plant some trees, as I know on the right hand side, right in that zone, going down the slope to the walls.

I think actually we could probably plant some evergreen trees right in that zone that would make a difference on that perspective right there.

The slope that goes down, but it could be planted with

Again, some sort of evergreen tree that would get to be 15, 20 feet tall.

We don't necessarily block the view of our building completely, but it would provide some effective screening against those walls.

I think the answer to your question is yes.

And then just one quick question.

Does this design require an offsite easement on this side?

Okay.

I don't have any more questions.

Frank, I appreciate Fred noting one of the guideline requirements, and I guess an additional one, or at least recommendations, an additional one, I'd be interested in your thoughts about

is the one about building orientation and in general buildings fronting the entrance corridor street should be parallel to the street.

Yeah, let me unmute, sorry.

The orientation of the site is obviously very long and perpendicular to the entrance corridor.

And so to meet the parking dimensional requirements from county zoning and then the building requirements, there was development along this skew that would certainly allow for the front entrance to be visible from eastbound travelers.

But there was just some site restraints that were considerate.

The tower element and the signage banding is maybe a nod to addressing the entrance corridor.

Thank you, Kevin.

And Justin, appreciate your remarks about sort of the economics of building.

Separate from the economics, I guess it would be technically feasible to use the building as a retaining wall in some locations to minimize the

It's, you know, it's technically feasible.

There's also an issue with this particular use being a hotel and that we egress windows for all those units, right?

If this were an office building, then, you know, feasibility of using that grade in the building is increased.

We want to say we need to have

a window along the back corridor.

So essentially the retaining walls in the back are acting as the building is set down within that zone as though for a different building type, the building itself could serve as the retaining wall.

We need to get light into the back of the building at this particular use.

So it's not, you know, if you were looking at a cross section of this building, you know, from 250D,

I'm not sure you'll be able to tell necessarily that in the back there are these, you know, retaining walls.

The grade will appear as it comes down from the office of the bank to sort of go into the second or third level of the hotel.

It's simple what we need.

It's almost like a, imagine it being like a light shaft or a very deep egress sort of window like you might have in a basement.

This one's just two stories tall.

because that's the nature of the slope we're dealing with.

Thank you, Justin.

Yeah, and as I recall, the initial proposal for this hotel included parking underneath the building.

We looked at that, but it doesn't necessarily change.

For example, you cannot change the building orientation or rotation if you do that.

It pretty much has to be the same.

It doesn't change the retaining walls significantly.

It would allow more parking and more units, but at the end of the day,

It didn't fundamentally change the issues we have with the site slope.

We would still have a similar number of retaining walls at the front facing the 250 looking to the top of the page.

And we would recently have one less layer of retaining walls at the back.

But we would still have the same condition where the if they had a basement parking garage, we would still need to get

Light into that first floor, those units that didn't effectively does not change the layout much.

Thank you, and thank you for your patience.

One more question.

I know just you mentioned that both this and the adjacent property to the west are

owned by the same landowner.

Well, we have looked at something that's not shown in this picture, but there is grading over on that parcel.

They actually have an approved site, an approved preliminary site plan, I believe it is, for a building on that adjacent parcel.

So we're trying not to amend that condition

But we are effectively that previous plan would have had in this the back corner fill placement and we have placed that fill with this particular project.

So we're getting the two properties closer to grade with this particular design.

So in theory, if you were not to have the the offsite grading, if these were owned by

Different entities.

They'd actually be even taller retaining walls on the side towards the triangle of the parcels, such as the drop across.

I forget how many feet it is, but this is just a substantial vertical change from one side to the other.

So we are taking advantage of that in the sense that we are using that ability to grade that property to get these properties closer to a more coherent level.

Thank you very much.

Well, thank you.

Thanks, Dave.

To me, the main points

Architecturally, like thinking about that tower element as the front of the building, right now the building kind of in this location sited as it is would need two fronts.

I don't think the tower element is successful as it's shown as being a front or a front entrance or any sort of, you know, I think those are some of the things that it's lacking is, you know, that

Legibility of how you interact with the building.

What's your human scale?

I think it's this kind of massive element that seems to be in contrast with the rest of the building.

And then I think the visualizations are really helpful, but the one heading eastbound really just shows the site kind of peeled apart and that the actual front elevation is really visible.

Kind of highlights how visible that will be.

Because if you think of some of the other parcels on Pantops in this area, you kind of get a glimpse of them maybe as you're driving 250.

But this, as it's designed, as the site is laid out, I think would give you some kind of long views.

Longer than maybe you would expect with this really skinny parcel on a hillside.

Just curious, I mean, maybe the I'm guessing the SunTrust landscape easement was a way to screen that drive through.

I don't know if there's a similar approach taken with this parcel as a way to kind of maybe mitigate some of that visibility headed eastbound.

But yeah, those are kind of my initial thoughts, I think.

Maybe there's some things you can do with the site plan.

I think that you're going to move away from this building form, which might not be a possibility.

This long linear form, I think, works well with the use.

But is there a way to trade some of that parking up front, move it to the back, shift the building up a little bit and change the size?

So maybe that would be something worth exploring.

That's really, that's kind of all I have now.

I think architecturally, I struggle with the big front facade of all that siding and windows.

Thank you very much, Frank.

Yeah, I guess my comments kind of echo what Frank was just talking about.

I think there's a

What's intended by this design to be the front of the building, in my opinion, is actually the side of the building, and more attention has to be given.

Those two relatively blank tower elements that at the end kind of work if you're looking at the building from the front, but that's not really the front.

That's not the approach, and that's not really

what you're viewing from the entrance corridor.

So I think those tower units need to be, I mean, as far as the setback, I think right now they're kind of the opposite of what's intended by that setback since they're kind of taller than anything else.

I think for that to be applicable, I think more,

Care has to be taken with those tower elements to kind of integrate them and make that more of a front, just kind of like what Frank said too.

I also have a little bit of a problem with the kind of large expanse of horizontal siding, which

You know, I kind of associate that with a smaller scale, you know, residential type material and I think when you start getting to these large expanses of it, it actually

Counterintuitively makes it seem even bigger.

I know it's intended to add some texture and interest, but I think when you're dealing with a facade that's as large as this one, it's like you kind of have to go with kind of a coarser-grained material just to kind of help break up that expanse.

I don't really have a problem with the shape or siting of the building.

It seems the most logical siting or building shape for that site.

I just think it because because you're coming in on the end of it, it just needs to be more of a you know, the end needs to be a little bit more distinctive and special.

Frank Stoner Yeah, I would echo really what Chris and Frank said.

I think it's a question is, is it an appropriate use for the site?

Because it sounds like these guys have to go to the board.

to get the use approved.

I don't have an issue with the use.

I don't really have an issue without the step back on that front elevation.

But I agree with Chris.

I think that elevation really has to do a lot more than it's doing now.

If it's going to front the street,

I appreciate the idea of kind of creating that monumental wall with kind of a logo and I just, I don't think it works that well.

Again, the comment about the siding I think resonates with me as well.

It's a lot of siding and I agree with Chris.

It tends to exacerbate the scale issue.

The retaining walls are somewhat problematic for me.

I think they've done everything they can to mitigate the impacts.

I think as long as the plant material that's going in there can mature to four or five feet within, you know, maybe four or five years.

That's probably enough.

You might want to look at a darker color.

The color in the rendering, again, just kind of jumps out at you, and that may just be a function of the rendering itself.

Those are kind of my thoughts.

I mean, I think it is a tight site.

I think it's unrealistic to think that you could orient the building another way.

I think the building's probably in the only place it can be and create enough space for parking

I understand Justin's perspective that parking under the building, I'm not sure actually works or helps the situation.

So it's definitely a tough, it's a tough site, but I tend to think there's a better architectural solution.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thanks, Dave.

I tend to agree with

Pretty much everything everyone said.

I'll just kind of start with general thoughts.

One is, you know, under the category of precedent, right?

I mean, we've been doing this for many years as a county and thinking about what's been approved and how it's been approved and how it's been sort of regulated, I guess, over the years is in my mind.

The second thing is the guidelines that we met and how does a site and or building like this relate to guidelines.

So if I were to be asked by somebody, hey, you've got these guidelines.

Here's the site.

Tell me, how do these relate?

As I kind of asked the question before and it was a helpful answer, Kevin and Justin.

The other thing is, you know, what prior approvals that we had and what

What is kind of currently on the boards, you know, I look at the detailing on a wall was that we just looked at relative to the detailing on a building like this that is much more monumental.

And to me, I think, you know, we got to be careful that we don't sort of have one standard in one location and another standard in another.

It's my personal feeling.

And then the last thing that I kind of think through is put it through the filter is really site, right?

Adjacencies.

What's around it?

Where is it?

What's the entrance corridor?

kind of all those things.

So with that, as kind of the foundation of my comments, just a couple of things.

One is, I mean, we've all sort of alluded to it, you know, is the use appropriate for the site?

Is the hotel appropriate for this site?

I'd have to say, sure, it's appropriate.

Is this building size and resulting parking requirements appropriate for this site?

I'd have to say, no, absolutely not.

I have a really hard time getting my head around

that it uses 100% of the site.

Stormwater's underground.

There's minimal landscaping.

And I think it's a real challenge to try to put this size of a building on this site, as we've, I think, all mentioned.

So questions are, is there a way to reduce the amount of suites or rooms in the building to reduce the amount of parking?

Is the building too, if it's too large, are there ways to mitigate the size?

I think on the positive side, in a sense, there are some mitigating factors.

One is that it's not right on the road.

It's sort of stepped back a little bit from the road.

Granted, there's parking in front of it that you're looking across, but the building's not right on the front of the road.

I think that the conservation area, having that green in there is helpful.

And I think that

and perhaps having the building sort of at an oblique angle is also helpful.

And lastly, it is in a pretty heavily developed commercial stretch.

So all of those things, I guess, I don't want to restate the comments about the blank walls, about the tower element, about the step backs, all those things I think we're totally in agreement with, but I do really

You know, the more you put on a site, the more impacts you have negatively to a site.

In my mind, the more you have to mitigate that with landscape or with some other form.

And I just don't see that yet.

That's it for me.

Thank you very much, Fred.

Well, I don't feel like there's anything I can add after all the good comments from my colleagues with which I agree and I appreciate the broad perspective and foundation that Fred described.

would just echo those sentiments.

Sorry, I just had one last comment.

I apologize.

It says in the staff comments regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines, none.

Got it.

Thank you, Fred.

So, I'm sorry, Margaret and Dave, does that mean that we are, does we need to make a motion right on the step back first?

Is that right?

You can separate it out.

Thank you, Fred.

Thank you, Margaret.

So let me just do this for the record and make sure everybody's on the same page.

So the first part of the motion is regarding the special exception request.

Our recommendation for the board is to

not recommend approval of eliminating the step back at this time.

However, an alternate design that could be submitted in the future might change your minds on that.

So that's what that wording is about.

The next item in the action is about requirements to satisfy the design guidelines for the initial plan approval.

The condition of initial plan approval would be to

resolved the development issues about the tree conservation and landscape easement areas.

And that's the work that's underway with the rezoning.

Recommendations on the plan, none.

Everything we're suggesting would be a requirement.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This is the standard condition about maintaining grading outside the drip line of trees and showing all the related information on the site plan.

And then we have the list of items to be submitted with the future, the next site plan submittal.

The first few are related to the architecture.

The first one talks about adjusting the placement height materials and detailing of the tower elements to achieve a more cohesive overall appearance for the building.

I'm not sure if that addresses all of the concerns that you all had in your discussion.

Those are suggestions for alternate wording.

I think we might expand it just to this.

Well, it may be covered elsewhere.

I think there were some good comments about making the northern tower element something that really is more frontal to the

entrance corridor and something that is more fully developed in terms of how it relates to it.

There may be an opportunity with that tower element as well to further conceal the eastern retaining walls.

Let's start with that.

I don't have any edits.

One thing that the staff comments where it talks about it is reference numbers one and two and maybe three through five and nine through 16, all those that deal with the architectural design.

It says architectural designs have not been provided for review at this time.

The guideline can be reviewed when they are submitted.

Are we sending mixed signals?

I know we're saying number one, we need to revise the architectural design.

And yet we're saying we haven't seen an architectural design.

I just want to make it, I don't know, maybe it doesn't matter.

I'm confused about your question.

Well, let's see, I'm looking at the analysis.

Okay.

Sorry, disregard.

I hit the link when I went to the previous one.

I don't have any changes to the list.

I do wonder if we can go back to the landscaping, the conservation area, because I think Justin did make an offer with regard to preservation of the existing tree types and locations next to the drive-through of the SunTrust.

And I don't know that any of us really responded to that.

I added this wording while that discussion was going on at the end for an additional comment.

I think so.

I don't know, maybe I heard one of Frank Hancock's comments too expansively.

I think he indicated as well that to the extent the building shifted forward and created screening for that drive-through that replaced the need for that landscaping, that would be another pathway.

I did mention maybe that was an instrument to use on the other side to mitigate, you know, where we're doing, where they have the offsite grading.

Perhaps there's a landscape easement there that would help mitigate.

But you're right, if we did, if the site plan changed, the building shifted towards the corridor, they might impact that existing easement, landscape easement.

So that would be something to consider.

Thank you, Frank.

I've added a sentence.

I guess I would just weigh in and say, I'm not sure I would favor

pushing the building closer to the road given the scale.

Any other comments or adjustments?

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

Amended as follows.

Regarding the final site plan submittal.

Update item number one to read, revise the architectural design to make the northern tower address the E.C.

Street and possibly further conceal the eastern retaining walls.

Thank you, Frank.

Great.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you to the applicant.

We'll move on to the last regular review item today.

RST Residences, ARB 2021-118.

Share my screen.

Yes.

One more change here so I

This is a proposal to establish a residential development consisting of 254 apartments in four buildings and 78 townhouses in six blocks.

A rezoning and special exception were approved for this property in September of this year.

The site is located on the east side of Route 29.

It's just north of Ashwood Boulevard.

It's currently occupied by a motel and a mobile home community.

This is a review of the initial site plan and a review of the architectural design of the apartment buildings.

Really the challenge with this application is determining how visible the buildings will be at the completion of construction and how visible they will be in the future and to what degree the landscaping guidelines should be applied based on that visibility.

So let's start by looking at some current views from the street.

This is the view from Ashwood Boulevard intersection.

Just to note that the development does not include the parcel that's right at the corner of this intersection.

That parcel is wooded, but the trees are not protected with the proposal.

So future development could open up that beam.

There is an existing cemetery within the development that does have trees in it.

and this is the view from the entrance corridor street at Ridgewood Drive, which comes into the site just south of that cemetery.

And this is the view from the entrance corridor at the entrance to the motel.

It's just a little north of the image that we just looked at.

The proposal includes a buffer along the perimeters of the development, including along the entrance corridor street.

The buffer is proposed at 100 feet deep

It includes a mix of trees and the landscape plan shows that the buffers would be densely planted.

The apartment buildings are four and five stories tall.

The off-site trees and the new buffer would reduce visibility of those buildings from the street, but the buildings will be visible at the completion of construction before the new trees have grown.

And when the tree buffer is mature, it's expected that there will be glimpses of the buildings available through the trees, particularly if lighter colors are used for the building materials.

The proposed colors for the buildings range from white to gray and from tan to brown.

The lightest color, which is a white fiber cement, is used throughout the buildings.

It highlights the tops of the fourth stories and it also highlights some of the edges of the building bays that are established across the length of the buildings.

The end elevations of the four-story apartment buildings face the entrance quarter street.

They are not designed as primary elevations.

They are located beyond the 100-foot buffer, but again, they would be visible at the completion of construction and for at least a period of time thereafter.

So we've recommended that changes be made to achieve a more appropriate appearance for an entrance quarter front.

Review of the landscape plan shows that some of the landscape guidelines are not being met.

Items not being met include the number of perimeter parking lot trees, the frontage trees, interior road trees, the size of interior parking lot trees, and trees along building elevations.

It may be in your discussion that you determine that some of those standard requirements might not be met because of the buffers mitigated some of those issues.

The review of the lighting plan had shown that some of the standard guidelines were also not met on that plan, and so we included a number of lighting recommendations in the staff report.

In the staff report, we listed several points to guide your discussion today.

The issues revolved primarily around anticipated visibility, the design of the apartment building elevations that face the entrance corridor, and the various landscaping issues.

Our recommendation is for approval of the initial plan with a number of recommendations for the final site plan.

Thank you very much, Margaret.

No, Dave, I don't think I do.

Margaret, thanks.

That was a nice proposal.

Yeah, thanks for the presentation, Margaret.

No questions.

I just have one question, and maybe it's because I haven't studied these plans enough, but on the landscape plan that we're seeing, it shows a lot of new planting between Seminole Trail at 29 and

The new buildings, the two new buildings, like just a chunk of massive, is it, I thought those were trees that were going to remain.

Is that not right?

Those are all new plantings?

They're all new plantings?

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Fred.

And Margaret, I think I just have two questions really.

I wasn't able to tell from the elevations that were provided

I think the answer is yes.

And then in terms of, you mentioned that some of the landscaping requirements were not met.

Are they met in the area of the Southwest?

I'm going to share my screen and point to a parking lot to make sure that I know which one you're asking about.

Is it this area?

Yes, the first one.

Yes.

Let me jump to the landscape plan.

Thank you, Margaret.

Thank you, everyone.

It's Ryan Yaugher here with Bowler.

I also have my design team with me with Alex Mays from the developer and also Neil and Scott from the architectural team as well.

So we'll be ready and available to answer any questions that might come up.

Definitely thank you again, Margaret, for your presentation as well as your thorough review.

We are in agreement with the comments that were given back as far as feedback and would like to provide a couple of items for clarity sake just to get better direction for coming back for the final site plan application.

The building scaling and massing, like I said, we have the architectural team on board here, but do agree with enhancing the approach there with the buildings facing the entry corridor to create that pedestrian feel and to also to create a better sense of place and home for the community and development there.

No questions there, we're going back to the drawing board a little bit and recrafting our application.

Lighting as well, no concerns from the development team.

We'll go back and look at the standards, make sure that the poles and the foot candles apply, as well as adding the additional verbiage there for the standard notes.

Landscaping is going to be the primary focus of my discussion here today and would like to get feedback from the board.

If I will actually share my screen here,

to aid this conversation.

You can let me know when you can see it.

Okay, so as Margaret mentioned, the main focus of our development here was to provide a reforestation and a screening of the development from the entry corridor along 29 to the buildings that are being proposed.

This was actually a successful operation that we imposed for development adjacent to this development for Brookhill for the 100 foot long buffer

along 29.

And the idea was to continue that 100-foot wide buffer along this development.

So as you can see here, we do have a robust planting schedule up front here.

Dave, I believe you were the one that kind of mentioned those plantings there, as well as existing plantings to remain in front of the cemetery itself.

which is shown in the existing tree line here in the green hatched area.

And also with the plantings within the cemetery will remain as well and that's under our control.

So none of the plantings here will be removed.

We'll be adding in a reforestation along this buffer.

And then as you get to this area here, as Margaret mentioned in the report here, you do have a very robust plantings on this hard corner.

It is not associated with the parcel of our development currently today.

It's in VDOT's control, but it is a very existing vegetative buffer here, along with a good natural berm that I wanted to bring to your attention as well.

So the elevation of this berm here is roughly around a 498, where buildings in the back are somewhere between 15 and 20 feet lower than this berm.

and additional trees that are in full vegetative state as well.

So you have fully grown trees, 15-20 foot berm on the hard corner, and it trickles down into a lower parking perimeter area here, as well as the robust plantings accordingly up front.

So with the addition of the planting spaces, as Margaret mentioned, we are meeting the quantity of required plantings

From an overall tree canopy calculation, we are actually double the requirement currently.

So we're required 10% for this current application.

We actually show a 20% tree canopy.

And a lot of that has to do with the perimeter buffers, not only from the entry corridor, but also from the Ashwood Boulevard and the adjacent residential neighborhoods as well.

So 20% tree canopy.

The concern in the conversation is the additional to go along with the additional tree canopy and the additional plantings to have the increased caliper size in addition to the standard design manual for tree plantings within the county is what I'd like to talk with here today.

We are looking to propose what you see here as far as the robust planting schedule, but we would like to stick to the inch and a half to, I believe it's inch and three quarter caliber size as far as the design manual goes.

And then also would like to discuss the distribution of the trees throughout the site as well.

We definitely, our intention for our initial application was to screen and reforest the entry corridor

However, some of those trees for the direction of this board would like to be redistributed throughout the site.

We could look to see with our design team to try to make that happen.

But that was our original intent.

So with that, that's the main primary focus of our application.

Thank you very much, Ryan.

Great.

I have just one question and I now just have to describe it because I was looking at it on the plan.

But you know where the cemetery is.

And then you mentioned there's that area that's controlled by VDOT to the I guess that's to the south.

Correct.

That corner.

There's some space between the development.

It looked like to me like almost a wedge kind of that's between that VDOT controlled space and your development that's labeled 626 LF West property line, county owned property.

If you scroll down further there, that area kind of right in there?

Correct.

So these are actually existing trees to remain in full vegetative state.

That was one of the hotter items as far as the rezoning effort that went through to maintain the plantings along Ashwood Boulevard as much as possible.

So they're actually existing trees that exist here today.

We do intend to supplement around the areas that we're disturbing to provide the entrance in to the facility.

Yeah, up in there and a little bit towards the upper right.

I'm just thinking in the worst case, if VDOT takes all those trees down, what are we left with?

And it just makes sense maybe that there might be some buffer plantings that could be added in there to help with that future condition if that were to occur.

Thank you.

I guess that was less of a question.

Thank you, Fred.

Yeah, I don't have any questions for that.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I don't have any questions either.

Yes, thanks for your presentation, Ryan.

Great package.

One question, are you guys planting in the right of way along 29?

So two parts.

Yes, we are planning on planting within the right of way and we'll have to get the appropriate permissions from VDOT in order to do so.

Is that?

Since it's such a robust plan, correct.

Okay.

And then one more.

Is the cemetery pretty wooded, pretty thick?

It's a pretty

It is a vegetated area with robust trees.

Okay.

Thank you, Frank.

And I guess in that same area then, Ryan, the zone between, is that the future of Ridgewood Drive then and the cemetery?

Is there any potential for additional planting there?

This area in here?

Yes.

Potentially, we meet the buffer criteria here.

We'll have to go back and look at this area here in particular.

Just in the event that

Thank you.

Yes, thank you for the question.

We actually have elevators in other buildings as well.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Thank you.

Thanks, Dade.

I think it's a nice site plan.

I appreciate the extensive landscaping.

Definitely has some similarities to Rock Hill.

And I appreciate you kind of carrying that through thinking about that buffer and how the buildings are set back.

One question I just think of just looking at the architectural

or the visualizations, the third sheet in the architectural package, they're looking, is one of those, I guess the bottom one, is that looking through or the cemeteries and just saying, here's what the building looks like, but without trees or am I not reading that correctly?

Am I good to answer at this point?

Okay, that is in general the area of the cemetery.

Those cemetery trees cannot be touched.

Gotcha.

That's helpful.

Just wanted to make sure.

But I think those are great visualizations, kind of give you a sense of how far back things are and what that vegetation will do to minimize.

I'm curious to hear what my fellow board members think of deviating from the size request.

I know we're pretty strict on that along the EC frontage.

But as far as when you're thinking about reforestation or you're thinking about trees way beyond, maybe there is a way to allow some smaller caliber trees.

Overall, I think it's a great site plan.

I think we've seen architecture in this style and some of these themes on this corridor, so I don't think it's a great departure there.

Thank you, Frank.

I agree with Frank as far as the site plan.

I love that hundred foot

Buffer, and as far as the renderings, I found myself wishing that there were a few more of them included in the package, particularly the approach where there's those two flanking buildings that you're driving through.

I think a shot of that approach actually would have helped alleviate the concern that was outlined in the staff report about

That facade I think having those two buildings kind of flanking the entrance would have started to create kind of a dialogue between the two buildings that might have

you know, made the whole more than the sum of the parts.

But so I'm looking forward to seeing the next kind of generation where you're focusing on that approach.

Personally, as far as the tree caliper question, I think if it's internal and if it's not part of the actual frontage itself,

I wouldn't be opposed to a little bit of flexibility as far as that.

Thank you, Chris.

Thanks, Dave.

Thanks, Ryan.

I would echo pretty much everything that Chris and Frank have said.

I do think it's a nice site plan.

I like the buffer.

I guess as I looked at the landscaping and the rest of the site, it felt really sparse in a number of areas.

And so personally, I'd probably rather see you take some of the trees out of the buffer and do a little more along the streets and between the townhouses.

I think that entry sequence is really nice as you're coming down the

That first entrance corridor where you've got the trees in the island and then you get to the second and it doesn't feel like there's anything there.

It doesn't look like there's anything.

So I think if it's possible to move some of those, that would be great.

I don't have a strong opinion with regard to the caliper issue.

Although, again, for street trees, I think one and a half inches is a little bit light.

But in areas that are sort of in the reforested buffer,

Well, I know it's technically kind of a requirement in that frontage zone.

I think given the volume planting you have in there, perhaps maybe that's an area where we could find some compromise.

I didn't have any real issues with the architecture, especially given its proximity to the corridor.

I don't see that being as much of an issue.

I think the renderings pretty clearly demonstrated that it's not that visible, much like Brookhill.

So I don't really have any suggestions as it relates to that.

That's it for me.

Thank you, Frank.

Thanks, Dade.

Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything everyone else has said.

Just highlight a few things.

One is in terms of the size of the plant material, the caliper, I really liked the way Chris stated it, which was maybe there's a way that with staff you can look at ways to kind of prioritize certain areas that have the most visual benefit.

and think about making those slightly larger.

I really also agree with Frank Stoner said, which is, you know, once you get in, you go through this lovely buffer and then you get to the space where you live and it feels pretty barren.

And just thinking about maybe ways to compromise with the words, the word, I think he used Frank to try to bring some life and landscape to that interior space.

although that's kind of outside of our purview I guess in a sense because we're just thinking about visual impacts from the corridor.

Agree with the comments on architecture too and the setback and the illustrations were very helpful.

And then my last comment that I made when I was supposed to be asking questions was potentially adding some plant material in that area where you have, I think it's a tot lot back in there to help.

Again, maybe that's a way to bring some internal

softness to the site, but also a way to back up if in the future VDOT in their infinite wisdom decides to take out all that landscape.

That's it.

Great.

Thank you very much, Fred.

Well, I think I'll largely echo my colleagues' comments.

I think as Fred highlighted, I think it would be helpful maybe to add a little bit of planting in that little wedge that he identified and

I think some consideration along Ridgeview Drive too, just so that when that road goes in, there's clearly an intentional approach to the landscape there would be good.

I think like my colleagues, I'm open to, in the context of such an intensive planting plan, looking at how to prioritize that, but would like in our discussion and looking at the comments to be careful how we craft that to be sure of the precedent that it might set.

And then I think the architecture is successful in introducing a variety of rhythms and scales.

And I think in terms of staff's comments about the elevations facing the entrance corridor, one quick thought is I think in some ways, maybe the scale is broken down.

Well, not too much, but it might be helpful to take the device of the sort of white frame that creates sort of larger volumes in the facade and bring some of that larger scale to organize the west ends of the facade.

But any other suggestions the designers have will be welcome, but that does seem like an effective device.

And then I think with the additional planting around the tot lot and the others, regardless of what happens on

The corner, I think I'll be satisfied with the landscape should be mitigated.

So thank you very much to the applicant for a good presentation.

Are you able to see the word document?

So you're taking an action on the initial plan, our recommendations for approval with no conditions specific to the initial plan.

I did list two recommendations here.

In the long list of recommendations we had for the final, two of those were put in there as to consider.

And that's consider a more muted color, substitute for the white fiber cement, and consider adding trees along Travel Way B and Private Road C.

Conditions prior to grading permits, the standard one about maintaining grading outside the lines of trees to remain.

And then the long list of items to see with the final site plan.

And I just added one based on your conversation.

Add plants in the wedge located east of the VDOT parcel.

Thank you, Margaret.

Do members have any other provisions to propose?

I'll move to forward the recommendation as outlined in the staff report to the agent.

The site review committee amended as follows.

I think we just have that one addition.

I'll second the motion.

Just one thing for clarity on item number five, before we vote, I'm just wondering, it says revise the west elevations of building three and four to have the appearance of primary elevations.

What I thought I heard, and maybe I wasn't sure, I heard that the applicant was willing to take a look at that.

but I also heard from some of us that the distance and the buffer perhaps mitigate some of the concern with that.

So only question is, should we add a, consider revising the west elevations of building three?

I know that's a little bit of semantics, but.

So we've actually got two similar comments in there.

Number one talked about buildings, the west elevations of buildings three and four as well.

Five addresses scale, one does not.

And just for

be clear and for the record.

We've eliminated number five.

We've changed number one to say consider revising the west elevations.

Frank, you made the motion.

And Ted, you seconded.

Thanks.

Wonderful, thank you everyone.

Well, that concludes the regular business.

We'll move on to other business.

Chris, will you make your presentation?

Sure, David.

So, just to give you a quick refresher on this application, on September 7th, the ARB approved this application with conditions related to the site plan, after which two separate documents were submitted to staff, a revised site plan that resolved the site issues, and a request for revisions to the approved building design.

The one change to the approved building sign that staff is requesting the board's feedback on is the reintroduction of the blue fascia at the top of the sales area of the building.

In the June 7th review, in the applicable action letter, it was noted that the blue fascia emphasized the trademark design and changing the color helped reduce the trademark impact.

On September 7th, the board agreed that the revision of the fascia to silver helped reduce the trademark impact.

Staff believes the re-induction of the blue patient increases the trademark impact of the building renovation design and is not appropriate and we're requesting the board's input on this change.

Thank you very much, Chris.

Yeah, all due respect, Chris, I just pulled up the

Elevation of, for example, Umansky Toyota over on Pantops, and it has a red line that runs across the entire area right above the openings that ties back to the brand of Toyota.

I don't know.

I tend to, I mean, I definitely see your point, Chris.

We're going to hear from the applicant.

Mike, just curious as to why it's coming back.

Yes, I think that would be appropriate.

We'll have a chance to ask them.

OK.

Thanks, Chris.

No, no questions.

Okay, Chris?

Yeah, no questions for me.

Thank you.

And no, I appreciate Chris bringing it forward.

I recall the discussion similarly, and so I did want the board to have a chance to consider this together since, as I recall in the discussion, as Chris presented, it was an issue in reducing the trademark quality of the design.

With that, I'd like to invite the applicant if they wish to make any presentation.

I'm not sure why Kevin isn't unmuting himself.

Kevin, if you can hear us, maybe you need to go out and come back in, possibly?

Yeah.

So we do have, I think, one other item of other business.

Yeah, I'm fine to discuss it without having that answer.

OK.

Thank you.

Yeah, I guess I'd say a subtle detail that I don't know if they hadn't been asked to remove it and they did, and then it came back, it would have been as much cause for concern.

I do see that by some of the other moves they're making like dropping the parapet height on the garage side, it would seem that they're trying to accentuate that center section.

And I think that blue band does help reinforce that.

To me, the blue color is

on that type of an element is subtly branded, but it's not like painting the whole building blue branded.

So I would be comfortable allowing them to keep it.

But I'm glad you flagged it for discussion because it seemed like,

the kind of thing that in another context you would want to avoid that.

Thank you very much, Chris.

Yeah, I agree with Fred and Chris.

I think they made some nice improvements to the building by lowering that left side a little bit.

I think the reality, as Fred kind of noted, is it is trademark architecture.

We can pretend it's not, but the reality is it is.

And all car dealerships these days kind of have trademark architecture.

And so it doesn't offend me.

Thank you, Frank.

Yes, I'm not officially commented.

I agree with my colleagues.

I think it's small enough.

The impact is not.

I know it was one of the things that came up in discussion and then showed up in the revised plan so it, you know,

Well, thank you, Frank.

Thank you again to Chris for,

at my request bringing the issue before the board.

I think as Chris said, there is an element of sort of procedural question to it.

And I think having heard from many of you that removing the coping was an improvement and made the building less branded.

I did want to return to this and be sure that we didn't reverse it without at least the majority, which it seems there clearly is.

I think it would probably be good to do that.

Anybody?

Wonderfully concise input, thank you.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Thank you, everyone.

Now, I know Frank has to recuse himself from Stonefield.

I don't know if

We want to approve the minutes out of order, but we can also just let them go.

All right.

Have a good afternoon, Frank.

All right.

I'll offer my fellow members another preview and thank them for the indulgence of their time.

This is a very subtle change in an application of color, one I thought might be substantive to some.

OK, just a little background quickly.

A certificate of appropriateness was issued for the Stonefield D1 apartment building in August of 2020.

The applicant has submitted a request to make some revisions to the approved plans.

Most of those revisions are for changes to the colors of the materials.

I directed the applicant to submit the request as a staff level review by giving the size and the location of the building right on the entrance corridor.

I did ask for direction on this and we decided that the full board should have input on these color changes.

So I'm going to try and walk you through the changes.

The applicant is present and can answer questions.

And when I'm done, we'll

to correct whatever mistakes I make in trying to summarize this for you.

The original approval of the building included a variety of party siding types.

One was the reveal panel system, and that was approved in gray slate color on the long elevations facing both the Inglewood Drive and District Avenue.

And the current proposal would change that color to farmhouse white.

The farmerhouse white color would also replace the curated cream color that's used for the lap siding on several bays on those long elevations.

The hardy panel siding with trim was also proposed for the building.

It was approved in iron gray, and it was used at these corner bays.

And the color is proposed to change to almost black, which is a little bit darker.

The color is also used at other windows on those elevations and at the tops of the corner bays.

It's been added also as a panel below windows in those lighter colored bays on the elevations.

The change from the curated green color to farmhouse white is also proposed for the elevation that faces hydraulic roads beyond the courtyard.

Another proposed change is seen on the long elevation spacing courtyard, and that's a line of balconies on those elevations would be removed.

In these images on the hydraulic elevations that are right up against the street, you can also see again the change from the iron gray to almost black at the corner days.

This video illustrates the change from gray slate to farmhouse white on the Inglewood side, as well as the change from curated cream to farmhouse white on the courtyard.

The cornice at the top of the brick bays that face hydraulic, it's intended to match the cast stone that will be used on the Bond Street elevation.

Bond Street elevation is not visible from the entrance corner and that cast stone color hasn't been chosen yet, but the

The color would fall within the range of Benjamin Moore colors called White Dove, which is on the left sample there and White House Landing on the right.

This is a quick overview of the color changes.

We'd like to know if you have concerns about any of those colors or if they're appropriate and okay to go ahead and be approved at this point.

I'll try to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you very much, Margaret, for summarizing that so clearly.

So Frank Stoner, any questions for Margaret?

Sorry, Margaret, I'm still a little bit confused on the cornice combination potential there.

Are you talking about this?

Can you see my slide?

Yes.

Yes, I guess so.

If you look at the color chart to the left,

You've got white dove at the top there.

There's white dove and then there's the yellow cream.

Yeah, that right there.

So these two colors are given to, that trim piece, the color would fall within the range here.

It would be somewhere between this white and this lighthouse landing color.

Oh, I see.

Okay, gotcha.

Thank you, Frank.

I don't have any questions.

No questions.

No questions for Margaret either.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Shaffer.

and the members of the board for reviewing this.

As Margaret mentioned very accurately, this is primarily about color changes.

We continue to work on this project after the initial certificate of appropriateness approval and the clients asked if we could develop a more contemporary

appearance for the building while continuing to relate to the adjacent existing buildings.

And so we feel that this palette, lightening the color and also introducing vertical

Strips between the stacked windows starts to also resonate with the shops at Stonefield Beyond.

So it's really tying into the sort of the greater neighborhood and retail area.

We thought that as we came up with this idea

this vertical striping between the windows, the stacked windows that we were creating a more fine articulation as you see across the district Avenue elevation.

Thank you, Alan.

Do members have any questions?

No, I don't have any questions.

Thank you.

No, thanks.

Great.

Thank you for the background, Alan.

I guess the question I had, the primary change that

I was interested in is the one from gray to white for the large item on the eastern facade.

At least to my eye, that served to break up a bit more the length of that facade and tie that elevation a bit more to some of the gray that appears in the, I guess it's the south face along hydraulic.

It's a subtlety.

I think obviously the building is still appropriate.

Sure, I appreciate that.

I think that as we, thank you very much, that's great.

As we came up with that vertical sort of black banding at the windows, we thought that we were creating actually more articulation than the originally approved color scheme and with that,

this rhythm that would be sufficient to break up the mass, create some more rhythm there without going to a solid gray block there.

The solid gray block is not an actual, there's no entry into the building, so we thought that focusing

Well, thank you.

Great.

Now.

Is there a second?

Yes.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Thank you very much, everyone.

Well, just one more item to go.

Approval of the minutes for October 18th, 2021.

Is there a motion

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Thank you, everyone.

Well, before we adjourn any

Other items from any members?

No?

Great.

The next meeting is Monday, December 6, 2021 at 1 p.m.

It will be a virtual meeting again.

Is there anybody who will not be present?

All right.

Well, thank you all again.

I hope everybody enjoys a wonderful Thanksgiving next week and look forward to seeing you all in December.

Thank you.

You too.

Take care.