Architectural Review Board Meeting   12/20/2021

Welcome.

All right.

Well, good afternoon, everyone.

It being 1.01 p.m., I'll call to order the December 20th, 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.

Architectural review board members present electronically are Fred Missel, Frank Hancock, Chris Henningsen, Frank Stoner, and myself, Dave Van Der Werf.

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

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

Both is provided in the lawfully posted meeting notice.

This meeting is being recorded and will be made available on the county's website.

This online meeting is a public record and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

For all speakers, when it's 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, please note that your presentation is limited to a total of 15 minutes, which you can divide among your team members.

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

We'll move to disclosures.

Yes, Dade, I do.

Thank you.

And I should disclose that I've had a previous conversation with representatives of the Crozet storage applicant.

I have as well.

Okay.

Thank you, Frank.

So it sounds like everyone but Chris has had an opportunity to speak with that applicant.

All right, we'll move to public comment.

Thank you.

We do not have any items on the consent agenda, so we'll move to the 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 item is ARB 2021-127 Crozet Self Storage.

Yes, I am going to attempt to share my screen.

Great, okay.

This is a review of an initial site plan and an architectural design for a self-storage facility with associated site improvements.

It's located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 240 of Crozet Avenue.

The existing site is occupied by a convenience store and a fuel pump canopy, as well as some additional commercial and residential buildings and some wooded and open areas.

The Airbnb completed a review of a conceptual design for this development on September 7th of this year, and three different designs were submitted for consideration at that time.

The proposed building is three stories tall with a 30,000 square foot footprint.

The building as shown on the plan measures 260 feet by 120 feet.

As outlined in the staff report,

The primary concern about the proposal remains the scale of the building, particularly given the character of the surrounding context.

I tried to show that here.

This is a quick illustration, which I've estimated the size of the proposed building on site with the existing structures nearby.

The proposed architectural design does use some treatments to address scale and blankness in some areas.

And these include precast panels with masonry patterns and colors across the first story,

also bays defined by precast with masonry patterns and colors and windows at intervals across the Route 250 elevation and on the Crozet Avenue elevation.

And scoring of the precast panels is also proposed throughout.

These treatments help break up the length of the Route 250 elevation, but they have the appearance of applied decoration rather than architectural forms.

And so they aren't really successful at breaking down the mass of the building.

The chamfered corner is an appropriate way to address the intersection, but the bay window placed there appears uncoordinated with the other building elements and its scale and character appear out of sync with the rest of the building.

The north and south, excuse me, the north and east elevations, both of which will be visible from the corridors, have extensive use of precast panels that are relieved only with scoring.

Parts of the proposed building design are similar to one of the conceptual designs shown at the September meeting.

It's possible that more relief is intended than is actually shown in the current drawing.

Some of the brick in the design shown in September does project a bit from the main wall surface, but it's still a minimal projection and the building still has a massive appearance.

We've recommended changes to the architectural design to resolve the scale issue.

Possible methods for doing this could include reducing the footprint, reducing the building height,

Incorporating substantial breaks in the building form and substantial changes in depth for recesses and projections along the walls.

Most of the other recommendations made in the staff report are related to landscape.

We've recommended the addition of plants to address screening of equipment to meet the required quantity of trees along Brownsville Road and again to help offset the building scale.

Today we're asking you to take an action on the initial site plan.

Our recommendation is to recommend approval of the initial plan.

The list of comments for the next submittal, which you'll want to review and revise as necessary, call for significant architectural changes.

Thank you very much, Margaret.

We'll ask members if they have any questions, starting with Frank Hancock.

Actually, sorry, he is recused.

Yeah, Margaret, I guess you all are recommending approval of the preliminary site plan, even though the scale of the building is in its current form is not acceptable.

Yeah, I went back and forth on that one.

I could really see it both ways.

As it's currently recommended in the staff reports, we look at the footprint as sort of a maximum

building area, but it would, the design would need to change, the architectural design would need to change significantly to deal with the scale issue.

I could see also if the board feels that the, has it shown on the plan, the use and the

Gotcha.

OK, thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dade.

I had the same question that Frank had.

And I think it's answered.

It's still a little bit.

Foggy on that, but we'll come back to it, I'm sure.

That's all I had a question on.

Thank you, Fred.

I just want to clarify is that the footprint and the massing, the scale of the building, that's all by right, is that correct?

Or is they didn't need a SCP or anything?

Thank you, Chris.

Sure.

This is highway commercial.

All right.

I would like to invite the applicants to make their presentation at this time.

Thank you.

Really appreciate you allowing us to come before you today and reviewing the materials we've submitted.

This is, as you mentioned, Margaret, the second visit for us.

We did the conceptual review back in September, and then this is our first preliminary pass with elevations.

And just to kind of give you some context, we intend to hear all the feedback today and then

Go back to try to address the feedback as best we can and then come back before you maybe in a work session would be more appropriate to try to refine the design and understanding that you would like to see some more information, especially with the perspective views.

So our intention is to hopefully kind of come to a consensus on generally the

the ideas and such to break up the massing and address the scale comments.

And then the architectural team and our civil engineering team would like to come back and revisit ways we would do that to try to get a handle on those big issues and then work through some of the details.

But really today, just appreciate you, let's have an audience with you.

Appreciate, thank you to the members that allowed me

just reach out beforehand.

And I believe as an attendee at the meeting is our architect, Christopher Vanske, as well as our civil engineer, Clint Shifflett with Timmons.

Okay, well, I'll ask, thank you, Andrew.

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

Did you say Frank or Fred?

I'm sorry.

Fred.

Fred.

Oh, sorry.

Questions.

Wow.

Well, I did, as I said, have a chance to talk with Andrew this morning.

And I appreciated your time, Andrew.

That was very helpful.

We shared a lot of comments that I can share later in discussion.

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

Thank you, Fred.

I guess my only question is the projections that are shown along the facade that appear to be another material or at least another color in the renderings.

How much of a projection do they represent?

So if Chris is on, I believe he could answer that.

I don't know if he's able to enter the meeting.

Give him a second.

Hey, Chris, I can see you, but I think you might be on mute.

Okay.

Yeah.

Sorry for the light in the back.

I think I'm going to have to have a light in front or something to see me better, but my apologies.

It's a couple inches projection, but I think what's going to happen is that we're going to make larger changes or large changes down the road here.

So if we're going to have projections, I'd like them to be more than two or three inches.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

Thank you, Chris.

Yeah, Dade, I don't have any other questions.

I too had the opportunity to meet with Andrew yesterday and had a good conversation.

And he answered most of my questions then.

Thank you, Frank.

And like you and Fred, I had a chance to meet with Andrew and Chris and can share that conversation as we get into discussion, as Fred suggests.

So Carolyn, is there any public comment, any members?

Yes, I have one so far.

All right.

Thank you, Margaret.

My name is Doug Bates, I live on Whitehall Road just north of Crozet, essentially the entrance corridor from the north to Crozet.

There are a couple of them, including Crozet Avenue to the south, coming off 250.

My affiliations are with, I am on the board of the Downtown Crozet Initiative that's been working with Newtown Associates to try to build the plaza in the center of Crozet.

We have been working very hard to try to keep Crozet centralized, interesting, and consistent.

I've also served for the last five years on the CCAC and been part of the Crozet master plan update, which has covered much of the territory that land use categories have faced in Crozet.

And it also included a review of this very corridor where Crozet Avenue exits off of 250.

I can't think of a more important

Corridore, to deal with Crozet.

And I would urge this Architectural Review Board to consider your broader responsibilities to keep the community coherent.

And in that regard, this facility, I don't care what it looks like, I would much rather see, I think

Perfectly reasonable to have it, but why not on the ACME records site?

Why not up around where the other facilities are that relate to storage, whether it's a car wash operation or the other storage facility?

It just strikes me that this would be terribly out of place.

I'm sorry, Margaret, if my time is up, my time is up.

I think I've made my point.

Thank you.

Next I have Brenda Plants.

Brenda, please state your name, address, if you're affiliated with a group organization.

Thank you, Brenda Plants.

I am a local resident for Crozet for about 45 years.

I have been a member of the CCAC.

I am now a member of the Downtown Crozet Initiative as Doug just spoke to.

And I would like to have the Architectural Board of Review just review all of the master plans that we have just completed revising.

And I want to read that it says the guiding principle is to support and strengthen Crozet's history as a vibrant community while ensuring that new and infill development is compatible in scale and design.

And it says to update and minimize inconsistencies between long range vision and by right development scenarios.

I think we're giving too much importance to buy right and not enough to what really needs to go there.

It's a scenic highway.

It's the entrance corridor to Crozet, which we're trying to promote.

So I think the Architectural Board of Review should seriously try to use those guiding principles in choosing this site for a storage facility.

Thank you.

At this time, I do not have, I have one more, hold on.

Next, I have James Fretwell.

Thank you.

I just wanted to echo a bit of Brenda.

I am James Fretwell.

I live at 5716 Brownsville Road.

My family has lived on this road being impacted for going on 60 years now.

Know the community and the area very well.

and Brenda, I appreciate you bringing the size and scale of this to the community and the area that it impacts.

This area has always been very vibrant.

It's always been very successful in having other buildings and businesses in this area.

To my knowledge, no one has ever opposed any sort of

buildings of this type on this area.

But to say that a three story storage facility is suitable for this area is an understatement.

I think that we are all supportive of a business in this area, but more in line with the community and the larger plan for Crozet as a whole.

That's really all I had to say.

I just wanted to echo some of the comments that have already been stated.

Wonderful.

Well, thank you, Carolyn, and thank you to the members of the public for their comments.

I think I can speak on behalf of the board to say we certainly appreciate and share the appreciation that this is a significant intersection on these entrance corridors.

And I think that our charge on the ARB aligns with the desire for coherence in the order of the county.

We are not empowered to

affect zoning or use, that's covered obviously by the planning and other commissions, but appreciate very much the members of the public and their concern.

I think also I will note, I believe that another member of the public shared some comments via email who's not able to attend, and I believe most board members had a chance to receive those.

With that, why don't we go into discussion?

Good afternoon, I too struggle with the scale of this building.

It's a 30,000 square foot footprint.

It's very close to the intersection.

If there was a way to push it back on the site and make it sort of an ancillary use to something more appropriate that

was on the corner, I think I could be supportive, but it's not, it's right on the corner, and I don't think there's any amount of landscaping that's gonna effectively hide it, something this size.

I mean, it's 100 by 300 or 150 by 250, something like that.

I shared those concerns with Andrew and I think those concerns have been echoed by some members of the community, the Crozet community today and I just don't, you know, I've tried to imagine a scenario in which we could make this work because I generally, it's a by-right use, I generally like to find constructive ways to assist and not impede

Development.

I don't know whether a more agricultural theme might feel more appropriate.

I think to Margaret's point, the facade treatments are pretty ineffective in creating any kind of meaningful break up of the scale.

And they're just not convincing as elements

You're never going to drive by this and go, oh, gee, nice office building or nice retail.

You're going to drive by it.

You're going to look at it.

You're going to know it's a storage facility.

And so because of that, I have a very difficult time supporting approval of this preliminary site plan.

And it sounds like the applicants are willing to go back and maybe rework it, but that's

Thank you, Frank.

Thanks, Dave.

Thanks, Frank and everyone else.

I appreciate it.

So a couple of things.

And I don't have a whole lot to add.

I don't want to just listen to myself talk.

But I will say a couple of things.

First of all, I'm in agreement with Frank's comments wholeheartedly.

You know, none of my comments are intended to show disrespect, of course, and I'm hopeful the applicant will appreciate our candor.

But, you know, in my opinion, this project is precisely an example of what the guidelines designed to help us guard against.

And, you know, I think we have to not only take seriously our guidelines, but also ask the applicant to

spend a significant amount of time looking through our guidelines, really understanding them, reflecting on them and addressing them both visually and also narratively the next time we speak and if it's in a work session, which I think is probably smart.

I think that that would be really, really important.

There's a lot of discussion in the guidelines that use the term compatibility.

and I really think that understanding how this is compatible with the entrance corridor, with the adjoining or adjacent uses, with other uses that are even of a larger density and scale that are further, I think, west on the entrance corridor, learning from what others have done to help break down the scale of larger buildings with step backs and setbacks and so on.

All of those things I think just need to be brought to the table at the next review.

and I really appreciated the comments related to the appropriateness of this site, but I also understand that this is by right and that that's not something that we can comment on, but I certainly do, if asked, have strong opinions that this is the wrong scale, it just doesn't tick any of the boxes for me.

And then the last thing I'll mention is I would like to revisit the

Excellent staff report.

Just that one comment about the initial site plan and the approval of the having no comments.

I really think that we can't approve the initial site plan without seeing some of these significant changes in place that we've talked about.

Thank you very much, Fred.

Generally, I'm in agreement with what Frank and Fred just said.

As a buy-write scheme,

don't really, it's not that I don't have a problem with, but don't feel that I can really speak to the scale and the size of the footprint or the use.

But I think having chosen to kind of max out the allowable space

of the building, a lot more would have to be done to articulate the building to kind of lessen that appearance of scale.

I think in a location like this that's prominent, I think the standard would be the same for this self-storage building as we would have to put on a high-end apartment building.

And I think the same,

level of care and interest to the exterior of the building, I think the winning proposal would have to have a similar standard to any other building type that we might look at or might be allowed on that site.

Thank you very much, Chris.

Well, I agree with my fellow board members, and I think Fred and Frank in particular expressed quite

Quite eloquently, my own thoughts.

I appreciate the discussion earlier today just clarifying the question of site plan approval versus architectural approval.

I think Margaret stated very well that some fundamental changes to mass and form are probably necessary in order to address the questions of scale and to the extent that likely means some change in footprint.

I think probably through this discussion today I'm leaning towards feeling uncomfortable approving the site plan until it reflects the sort of changes that can address the other concerns.

But with that, do members have anything further to add to the discussion?

Okay, well,

Thank you.

Why don't we take a look, Margaret, at your recommendations?

Thank you, Margaret.

As always, you've done a great job interpreting in session.

I'm seeing some nods.

Do any members have any further adjustment or questions?

Just a question.

The next bullet regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines.

Yeah, it's it's just the terminology.

It's the you've got to two underlined words.

Occasionally we'll list things there like

If you don't feel really strongly about some things like, hey, you might want to think about having a few shrubs over there or something like that.

I gotcha.

What we normally list there as a requirement would be tree protection fencing.

And actually, Margaret, so if we are

The motion would be to not support the motion would be to forward to the agent for the site review committee.

The wording that we have in red wouldn't need at this point.

You can if you want.

Thank you, Margaret.

Regarding recommendations,

I'm just curious if any other members have suggestions that might be helpful to the applicant just in terms of we talk about architectural treatments.

I've had, again, a difficult time trying to figure out what what actually would work given the given the scale of the building, which, you know, it sounds like may not the actual square footage of the building might not change that much.

And so

You know, I ask myself, gee, if they put brick on the whole outside and put windows and, you know, every 20 feet would, you know, would that work?

And I have struggled with that, but I feel like maybe some recommendations to the applicant might be appropriate if we had any data.

You and Chris, you know, being architects, I don't know if you had any thoughts about

and thematically what direction they might go.

Well, Frank, I appreciate that.

I feel a bit uncomfortable wading into trying to prescribe solutions, but I think to summarize a few of the suggestions I shared with the applicant in our conversation.

One is that in terms of scale, it would be worthwhile to explore whether the building can appear as a predominantly two-story building.

with a roof.

You know, that doesn't mean there couldn't be three story elements, but most of Crozet is two stories and lower.

So to the extent the three story feature of this building is the exception and not the rule, I think that would be more appropriate.

I encourage the applicant to look at the square in Crozet and the way that the basic building fabric there is pretty simple, but also subtle differences in brick coloration and coursing create a bit of diversity.

and Eclecticism in the Palette, also to look at the rural precedents in this area of the corridor.

And I think also to consider the precedent at Cloverlawn.

I think that's a building that demonstrates effective relief and also incorporates some pedestrian scale elements.

Again, not to imitate it, but just as an example that illustrates a maybe more successful interpretation of the corridor.

Yeah, I'd share your general discomfort with kind of giving

prescriptive suggestions, but I do think if not bringing down the height itself of the building, you know, making it look like a two-story building, even if that third story had the appearance of a mansard or a similar strategy like that to kind of bring the height of the building or at least the appearance of the height of the building down,

At the end of the day this is basically a warehouse and I think there are plenty of historic examples of warehouses if not in the county and in Virginia in general that are

Very well articulated and very interesting buildings to look at.

So, you know, I think there's a lot that could be done, you know, to increase the interests of this building.

You know, I think that goes way beyond the precast.

So I don't know if the applicant would be willing to

I'll share some of the things that I also shared with the applicant and some of them are repeats, obviously scale.

We talked about step backs potentially to help with that view of it being a two story building and whether that was a possibility.

We talked about screening and the fact that it's so close to the road and potentially looking at reducing the building scale as Margaret had suggested or shifting it on the site.

We talked about articulation design and detailing and just

If you're a pedestrian, right now the building reads without any kind of transparency at the ground level, thinking about a way that that could potentially occur to help make it feel more inviting to pedestrians.

Visibility from all angles, right?

And also then how you address the corner.

My initial read of this was that that glass sort of storefront piece was on the corner, but it's in fact not, as we now all know.

and what is on the corner is sort of a picture window it looks like.

So that to me doesn't feel hierarchically the right move.

Thank you, Fred.

And I think, Margaret, for me at least, your comments about scale and relief and form and revision of the architectural design captured I think this period of those

Great.

Sure.

I'm happy to move to forward the recommendations outlined in the ARB 2021-127.

Crozet self-storage staff report to the agent for the site review committee amended as follows regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per 18-30.6.4C.2.3.5 and recommended conditions of additional site plan approval.

I guess I could have just said that bullet as it stands.

Is there a second?

Second.

Yes.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Well, thank you and thank you to the applicant, I think as Fred suggested, we'll be happy to have a work session and hope you can return and consider some of the discussions today.

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

2021-134 Caliber Collision.

Yes David, hold on one second.

The application you're reviewing today is a proposal to renovate an existing building to establish auto body shop use with associated site improvements.

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

On March 1st, the ARB did not recommend approval of the SB due to visibility of mechanical equipment related to the auto body shop use.

A work session was held on April 5th, where the Board reviewed and forwarded a recommendation or approval of the use to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors based on the revised drawings.

The SB was reviewed by the Planning Commission earlier this month, where they forwarded a recommendation approval with revisions to staff conditions to the Board of Supervisors.

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

The color proposed for the majority of the building, Nomadic Desert, is one that's compatible with the building's surroundings, and the mechanical equipment screens reviewed during the work session match the

However, there are a few locations where the building's colors appear to be incorrectly noted on the drawings.

A six-foot tall ornamental fence with screen fabric and vision slats added to the existing chain link fence are proposed to meet the ordinance requirement that vehicles waiting repair not be visible from the public street.

The ornamental fencing is expected to be appropriate within the commercial context of this entrance corridor.

The renderings appear to show metal fencing that is either black or bronze in color and black for the screening fabric, but no colors have been identified in the site plan.

Also, the site plan detail notes tan and black for the division slides.

Staff is recommending revising the site plan fencing details to note

Rick.

A landscape plan has been provided with this middle.

The plan shows planting arrangements that are not typical of frontage landscaping.

The available planting area is limited by existing and potential pedestrian improvements and an existing overhead line, but there appears to be space for one to two large trees with an upright habitat and arrangement of ornamentals and shrubs.

The site does not meet requirements for perimeter trees or landscaping and offset

that large trees that meet the perimeter planting requirements and with the upright habit where overhead lines are located nearby be added in these areas to help integrate the building and parking into the surrounding area.

Staff recommends approval of the applications with the conditions listed in the staff report.

Thank you very much, Chris.

No, I don't.

Chris, thanks for the report.

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

Yes, thanks, Chris.

Just curious, when the 14 foot wide shared use path showed up, is that new for this submission?

It's in the, it's an ordinance, it's new to this mission, the ordinance from the small area plan.

Thank you.

No questions.

None for me either.

Thank you again, Chris.

I would like to invite the applicant to make their presentation.

Good afternoon.

My name is Brett Flory and we are the architects on this.

We're also the architect on the other one across town that's getting ready to open.

It's been under construction for quite a while.

So we're renovating this existing building and we've been working on this one for quite a while.

I think that we've kind of got it close to kind of what it needs to be to get it approved by everybody.

We were approved by Planning Commission a couple of weeks ago.

And like Chris said, they recommended approval with conditions.

One of the conditions was that we reduce the size of the shared abuse path.

The Route 29 plan requires that that shared use path be 14 feet wide.

And there was quite a bit of discussion on that at that meeting by the board members about this kind of west side of the highway not really being the most appropriate location for that due to the kind of adjacency to the highway with the speed limit, I think it's 45 right through there.

And I think they were thinking really that would work best on the other side of the highway.

But, and also with, you know, we just put it in trying to meet the intent of the small area plan, you know, because we don't, even though it's kind of seems kind of silly to put a 14 foot wide path in there.

because there's already a path there right now that's I think like six or eight feet wide.

But we're willing to do it if that's what it takes to meet the requirements.

But at the Planning Commission, they did request us to reduce that down to eight feet, eight feet wide, and then to make more room for landscaping.

So our landscape plan is gonna change a lot.

I'm waiting on kind of the formal I guess letter from Mariah, the planner, and we're going to redo our landscape plan and we're going to add a lot more big trees out there that they requested.

So all your comments about the landscaping will be, I think, met and then some probably.

And we don't have a problem with that.

I think also another thought was, one of the commission or board members, you know, another requirement of the Route 29 plan is that the building needs to be three stories.

Well, a lot of buildings along there aren't three stories and this building, you know, would be hard to achieve that without just spending money just to spend money.

So they agreed that if we address the kind of the front of the building with heavy landscaping, a lot of trees, that would satisfy them at least.

So as far as us not meeting the architectural requirement for that three story, actually it's more of a,

zoning mass requirement.

So we're fine with that.

We accept all their conditions.

Those are the two main conditions I just wanted to mention.

And the fencing, you know, we're gonna make the changes to meet your fencing requirements.

The slats we were proposing for the existing chain link feeds would be black.

That's what we typically do and it matches our kind of accent colors, black on the building and also the ornamental fencing with the black fabric.

So all that would kind of match together.

I think we had talked about maybe doing a wood fence kind of back there somewhere, but I don't know if that's something that y'all want or not, but we're open to doing whatever we need to do to get the fence approved.

and Calibers.

Looking forward to being here.

We've been working on this one for probably a year, close to a year now.

And we actually got the VDOT to approve a variance for the driveway spacing.

So we've spent a lot of time and money on this, getting this one done.

And hopefully it'll be a good asset to your community.

I believe it will be taken, kind of turning this old building into something that's

as new as it can be and vibrant and good for the community.

Thank you, Brett.

No questions.

No questions for me either, Dave.

Thank you.

Yeah, I don't have any questions.

I don't have any questions.

None for me either.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We'll go into discussion.

Yeah, I think what stuck out to me was the big shared use path where we typically see the landscaping, the frontage landscaping.

That's good to hear that that's getting reduced and to hear the applicants willing to add that landscaping and maybe even some additional planting.

So I think that'll be kind of more in line with what we expect to see along the corridor.

And other than that, I don't really have any concerns.

I think the wood fence is pretty far back into the site, if I read things correctly.

Thank you.

Yeah, I don't really have any concerns about this one that weren't mentioned in the staff report.

I agree with Frank.

I think any square footage that is taken out of that shared use path is probably better put into landscaping.

Thank you, Chris.

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

I'm comfortable with the recommendations of the Planning Commission as it relates to the landscaping additions.

And I don't have a strong feeling about the fence, much like Frank.

Thanks, Dave.

I agree with all my colleagues on every one of those issues.

Nothing in addition to add other than to say I'm appreciative that we're reusing an existing building.

Yes, thank you.

I appreciate my fellow board members' comments and don't have anything to add.

Thank you for the application.

It's good to see a building reused, as Fred says.

Yes.

Great.

I think that sounds good.

Do any members have anything else to add?

I'll move for approval of certificate of appropriateness for ARB 2021-134 caliber collision major amendment pending staff approval of the conditions listed on staff report amended as follows.

We just added on item 12.

ARB supports the planning commission's recommendation to reduce the width of the path

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Thank you.

Well, with that, we'll move on to other business.

The first item is approval of minutes of our meeting of December 6th, 2021.

Thank you all.

Well, our next meeting is scheduled for January 3rd, 2022.

It will be a virtual meeting.

It is also, I believe, our annual meeting where we'll appoint officers and set the meeting schedule.

Will everybody be able to attend?

Excellent.

Right now it looks like there are no regular review items for the second meeting in January.

Well, if board members have time to go now and then to work on the quarters that we've chosen to work on, we could get back to that.

We do not have the template ready yet for that information to be dropped into.

I'm hoping that the staff person that we have in mind to do that will be able to start on that work in January, but it won't be ready at that meeting.

And then one question I did want to raise, the risk of upsetting the apple cart.

I know our meetings have for a long time been held on Monday afternoons at one.

There's a chance I will have a recurring conflict next year for something that may be required to attend for our office practice.

Are there any other times that would be suitable

that would work as well as the afternoon for other members.

I'm okay.

I don't have any daytime.

The only daytime meeting I have is ARB.

Or both Monday?

It happens to be both, but it's not, I may find a way to resolve it on the other side.

For this, I can't do the fourth.

I already have two meetings back to back that day.

And if you guys run over, that would run into an issue.

Could we move it to Tuesdays?

Yeah, that would be fine.

Because I mean, this meeting has lasted long, but never lasted as long until six o'clock.

Let's think about that as an option.

Yes, yeah, don't mean to create any chaos for others.

So also, if you want to write separately to Margaret,

Let her know what or wouldn't work for you.

I'll check in with her.

Tuesdays work for me.

I'll just say it now.

Thank you, Frank.

All right.

Great.

Well, thank you very much to everyone.