Architectural Review Board Meeting   1/18/2022

We'll call to order the January 18, 2022 meeting of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board.

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

Quorum is present.

Architectural Review Board members present electronically are Frank Hancock, Chris Henningsen, Frank Stoner, and myself, Dade Van Der Werf.

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

The public has real-time audio visual access to this meeting over Zoom and real-time audio access over telephone, both as provided in a lawfully posted meeting notice.

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

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

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

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

For applicants making presentations, please note that your presentation is limited to a total of 15 minutes, which you can invite among your team members as you see fit, and Carolyn will let us know when the 15 minutes are up.

I don't either.

OK, nothing for me either.

So this is our first meeting of the year and our annual meeting.

So for the first item is to elect the chair for the year.

So

I'll ask for a nomination and would be happy to put forward myself, Chris Henningsen's name for chair of the board.

Yes.

I'm sorry, Mr. Van Der Werf.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Happy New Year.

I don't even know what I'm doing today.

I'm sorry.

Great.

All right, well, thank you and thanks for your service, Dave.

I'll second that.

So are there any other nominations?

All right.

So next order of business is the draft schedule of the ARB for 2022.

The draft schedule has the ARB meeting on the first and third Monday of each month.

Does anyone want to propose an alternative schedule?

So

Is there a second?

Second.

No.

Mr. Van Der Werf.

Aye.

All right, great.

So we can move on to the consent agenda.

There is one consent agenda item today.

It is ARB 2021-137, Stonefield C2-1.

Would any members like to bring that off of the consent agenda for discussion?

That's a no.

I'll second.

Thank you.

So there are no regular review items today.

So we'll move to the work session, which I will be recusing myself from.

Thanks, Chris.

Thanks.

He just needs to turn his camera off and meet himself so he's not watching.

There you go.

Perfect.

Yes.

Just give a quick refresher.

On May 18th, 2021, the ARB approved the final site plan pending staff approval of several conditions.

Condition one related to the building design required review by the board during a work session.

Advocates submitted revised designs to address this condition.

A submittal that addresses the remaining conditions have not been submitted at this time.

In staff's cursory review of the revised middle, we noted the following.

The architectural design, the building, and the addition remains largely unchanged.

The blue, yellow, and red color stripes have been removed from elevations, which significantly reduces the trademark appearance of the development.

And the paint color has been revised from a light gray to a dark gray.

The paint color of the addition has been revised from a light gray to a dark gray.

The paint color for the existing building remains light gray.

The board's action on this item should be to confirm that the revised design maintains a connection to the historic architecture of the area and does not use trademark colors as a major design element.

Thanks, Chris.

Now I'll ask board members, starting with Frank Stoner.

Chris, the only question I have when I look at that rendered

Picture, I don't know if we can bring that back up.

Not that one.

Not that one?

My image isn't changing.

So not that one.

So in this one, it appears that the back portion of the two-story is a lighter gray than the front.

Yeah, I see that as well.

Thanks, Frank.

Thank you, Frank.

Chris, thank you for your presentation.

And I don't have any questions either, Chris.

Thank you for your presentation.

I do not.

Is it okay?

Hold on.

I have promoted him.

Mark, you're ready.

You have 15 minutes for your presentation.

It's Mark Kessner.

Happy new year to everyone.

There's no presentation other than what Chris has already done here.

We're here to answer questions, but I think we have addressed the concerns that came out of the last meeting with the color scheme and the branding.

We've taken all branding off the building.

and have simplified the color scheme.

So the back portion is a darker gray.

The rendering, Frank, that you were questioning, the color in the rendering is due to a material change from CMU to metal.

And it's just how that is coming off in the rendering.

But the light gray is to respect the existing building and be close to the original color, which was white at one point.

and the darker gray is just to compliment the light gray.

And we've reduced the signage to a very small, polite sign, which we understand will go through a different review, but we've coordinated the dumpster screening, fence screening and vending machine color.

Thanks, Mark.

I don't.

Mark, I think the plan looks great.

Huge improvement, for sure.

Thanks for taking the time to do it.

Thanks, Frank.

Thank you, Frank.

Similarly, no questions.

And I don't have any questions either.

Thank you, Mark.

Yes, I have one person, Scott and Diane Ram.

Please state your name and address if you're filling in with the group or organization.

Thanks for us.

Okay.

So that was someone speaking in favor of the applications.

Thank you.

Yeah, I don't have much to add, Frank.

I think the color change is a big improvement and certainly getting rid of that color band makes a huge difference as well.

I think it looks good.

I'm prepared to approve it.

Likewise, like Frank, I'm prepared to approve it.

And I think, you know, the site plan which we previously approved in the incorporation of landscape is going to be a significant improvement for the corridor.

Thanks, Dade.

I think we're all in agreement.

I think it looks good.

I appreciate the applicant making the changes and coming back to us today.

Do we want to go ahead and review staff's recommended motion in action?

My suggestion for your motion, if you're sounds like you're all happy with what you've seen today, make a motion for approval of the revised architectural design as illustrated presented today.

and that would eliminate condition number one from the May 18th action letter.

So moved.

Seconded.

Yes.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye Mr. Hancock Aye Mr. Van Der Werf Aye All right, thank you.

We're now on to other business.

So next up is approval of the December 20th, 2021 minutes.

So moved.

All right.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Hancock?

Great.

So our next meeting will be Monday, February 7th at one o'clock.

The next meeting will be a virtual meeting.

And does everyone expect to be able to attend?

Yes.

Hey Margaret, can I ask a quick question in terms of the timetable for replacing FRED?

That's a good question.

The clerk's office is aware that the position is open.

I believe we checked last week and the website already has that opening listed.

So in the meantime, if if an applicant comes forward and two of us, for example, have to recuse ourselves, then what happens?

Yeah, I think that's a special situation and we can double check with the county attorney's office.

But if we start out with a quorum and

And we lose the quorum just because of a conflict of interest.

OK. All right, great.

Well, if nobody has anything else.

We can adjourn the meeting next Monday, February 7th.

Yeah.

Thanks, Chris.

Nice work.

Oh, my pleasure.

Yes, thank you, Dave.

Well, thank you.