Central Virginia
  • Albemarle County
  • Architectural Review Board Meeting 6/5/2023
  • Auto-scroll

Architectural Review Board Meeting   6/5/2023

Attachments
  • Final Agenda.pdf
  • Final Action Memo.pdf
  • Final Action Memo Minutes.pdf
  • ARB2023-36 5th Street Landing Self Storage Major Amendment Staff Report.pdf
  • Attach. 1 ARB2023-36 Fifth Street Landing Self Storage Site Plan.pdf
  • Attach. 2 ARB2023-36 Fifth Street Landing Self Storage Architectural Drawings.pdf
  • Attach. 3 ARB2023-36 Fifth Street Landing Self Storage Perspectives.pdf
  • ARB2023-39 Duners porch staff report.pdf
  • Attach. 1 ARB2023-39 Duners Porch proposal.pdf
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:00:22
      All right, we ready to go?
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:00:49
      All right, thanks.
    • 00:00:52
      It's 1.03.
    • 00:00:53
      I'm calling the June 5th, 2023 meeting of the Albemarle County Architecture Review Board to order.
    • 00:01:01
      Can you call the roll, please?
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:01:08
      Mr. Van Der Werf.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:01:10
      Here.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:01:11
      Stoner.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:01:12
      Here.
    • 00:01:13
      Matsuno.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:01:14
      Here.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:01:15
      Hancock.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:01:16
      Here.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:01:16
      Mr. Henningsen.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:01:17
      Here.
    • 00:01:19
      Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting.
    • 00:01:22
      The public may access and participate in the meeting electronically.
    • 00:01:26
      Instructions for doing so are posted on the Albemarle County website at the Albemarle County calendar.
    • 00:01:32
      The public has real-time audio-visual access to this meeting over Zoom and real-time audio access over telephone.
    • 00:01:39
      Both is provided in the lawfully posted meeting notice.
    • 00:01:42
      This meeting is being recorded and will be made available on the county's website.
    • 00:01:47
      This meeting is a public record and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
    • 00:01:52
      All speakers, when it is your turn to speak, please first state your name for the record.
    • 00:01:59
      Applicants who are making presentations, note that your presentation is limited to a total of 15 minutes, which you can divide among your team members.
    • 00:02:08
      Staff will let us know when the 15 minutes are up.
    • 00:02:12
      If applicants in the meeting room have team members attending virtually who will need to present,
    • 00:02:17
      Please make that known when you come to the podium.
    • 00:02:20
      Everyone who is participating virtually, please mute your microphone until it is your turn to speak.
    • 00:02:25
      Do any ARB members have anything to disclose?
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 00:02:32
      No, no, no, no.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:02:36
      I do.
    • 00:02:39
      If we have not concluded by 2 45, I will have to turn the reins over to Frank and head out due to a unusual childcare situation.
    • 00:02:55
      We do not have any consent agenda items today.
    • 00:02:58
      We have two regular review items.
    • 00:03:02
      The first is ARB 2023-36, 5th Street Landing Self-Storage.
    • Khris TaggartSenior Planner
    • 00:03:10
      The application I'm presenting on today is the second review of architecture in site plan to construct a self-storage facility in addition to associated site improvements.
    • 00:03:27
      The overall site is located along Fifth Street with the Prose Building southeast of 601 Fifth Street Landing, a north of I-64.
    • 00:03:37
      At the October 3rd, 2020 ARB meeting, the board provided preliminary comments on both the site plan and revised building design brought to the meeting by the applicant.
    • 00:03:49
      To summarize the staff report, there are minor comments on the architecture and site plan that need to be addressed.
    • 00:03:56
      Building design submitted with the application has a few changes from the one shown at the October 2022 ARB meeting.
    • 00:04:04
      The changes include brick detailing in a different shade from the wall brick has been added to the first, second, and third floors.
    • 00:04:12
      The brick detailing of the central tower form on the east elevation has been revised so it's consistent with the corner towers.
    • 00:04:20
      And the tower element has been added to the west elevation.
    • 00:04:24
      One issue noted in the staff report regarding the building design is the visual impact of the display doors, which will be visible from the entrance corridor through the tower windows.
    • 00:04:32
      Online search showed a green that appears intense in examples of these areas being brightly lit at night.
    • 00:04:39
      Staff confirmed with the county attorney that ARB can specify the appearance of interior features that respect to have visual impact on the corridor.
    • 00:04:47
      Staff recommends revising the green to a shade that is less intense.
    • 00:04:53
      Staff recommends approval of the major amendment with the revisions listed in the staff report.
    • 00:04:57
      I'd be happy to try to answer any questions.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:05:00
      All right, thanks a lot, Chris.
    • 00:05:04
      We'll go through and see if any members have questions for staff.
    • 00:05:09
      Tara, do you have any questions?
    • 00:05:10
      No, I don't.
    • 00:05:12
      Frank Hancock?
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:05:14
      No, I don't.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:05:14
      Thanks, Chris.
    • 00:05:16
      Dade?
    • 00:05:17
      No questions, thank you.
    • 00:05:19
      Frank Stoner?
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:05:20
      No, thanks.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:05:21
      And I don't have any questions here.
    • 00:05:24
      Thanks.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:05:25
      It's time for the applicants presentation.
    • SPEAKER_14
    • 00:05:44
      Thanks, Chris.
    • 00:05:45
      My name is Rachel Moon.
    • 00:05:46
      I'm with Shimp Engineering.
    • 00:05:49
      I believe Barry Bird with Barry Bird Architecture is with us over Zoom.
    • 00:05:53
      And together we're representing Centennial American Properties, who is a contract purchaser of this property.
    • 00:06:01
      So the site is located in between the Fifth Street entrance corridor and the 64 entrance corridor because the building is set a little further back from Fifth Street.
    • 00:06:11
      Most of the impact would likely be on the 64 corridor.
    • 00:06:17
      Just a quick overview of the site plan amendment.
    • 00:06:19
      There's a four-story building to be constructed and the rear portion of the property would be about just over an acre of the four-acre total site.
    • 00:06:31
      Chris already reviewed these changes here but to address comments from the previous meeting about sense of place and concerns about scale there's an increased area of brick on the facade we've detailed out the false windows and the contrasting brick and then the tower element was added on the corner of the building
    • 00:06:53
      We also addressed a few landscaping comments that we had also brought forth to the last meeting that just included switching out some ornamental trees for medium trees and increasing the caliper at the time of planting.
    • 00:07:09
      For the lighting plan, we updated this plan to include building mounted fixtures, specified that there would be a bronze finish to match the existing 5th Street commercial area.
    • 00:07:19
      The lighting would not exceed the 3,000 temperature specification and then the foot candles would not exceed 20.
    • 00:07:29
      That's it.
    • 00:07:33
      If Barry is also on, I'm not sure if he has anything he would like to add,
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:07:38
      That's it for our presentation here.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:07:43
      All right.
    • 00:07:44
      Thanks a lot.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:07:45
      We'll go into questions for the applicant.
    • 00:07:49
      Frank Stoner, do you have any questions?
    • 00:07:52
      Thanks.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:07:53
      No, I don't have any questions.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:07:55
      Dade?
    • 00:07:57
      No questions.
    • 00:07:57
      Thank you for incorporating the previous comments.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:08:01
      Tara?
    • 00:08:02
      Thanks for the presentation.
    • 00:08:03
      I don't have any questions.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:08:05
      Frank?
    • 00:08:06
      Thank you for your presentation.
    • 00:08:07
      One question, how wide is the, I guess it's a buffer, the existing vegetation to remain?
    • SPEAKER_14
    • 00:08:14
      Outside the wall area?
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:08:17
      Yes.
    • SPEAKER_14
    • 00:08:19
      Bring up my presentation again.
    • 00:08:21
      Are you able to switch over?
    • 00:08:25
      We have a section that should show, I believe it, I want to say it's around 50 feet.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:08:31
      Okay.
    • 00:08:32
      And then,
    • 00:08:34
      That wall average about five feet, four to five feet.
    • SPEAKER_14
    • 00:08:38
      I believe it's a pretty tall wall.
    • 00:08:40
      So from the interstate, it drops down quite a bit.
    • 00:08:45
      And then the grade is brought back up with the wall.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:08:49
      Yes, that's section B there.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:08:51
      And that's the old building, right?
    • 00:08:56
      Yes.
    • 00:08:57
      Okay.
    • 00:09:00
      That's helpful.
    • 00:09:01
      Thank you.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:09:03
      All right, I don't have any questions.
    • 00:09:06
      So the ARB will now go into discussion.
    • SPEAKER_14
    • 00:09:10
      Thank you.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:09:13
      Or actually, I'm sorry.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:09:14
      Are there any members of the public that would like to make a comment?
    • SPEAKER_00
    • 00:09:25
      Good afternoon, Neil Williams with the Free Enterprise Forum.
    • 00:09:28
      Mine is mainly content, a comment on process.
    • 00:09:31
      We have no position on this project or any other.
    • 00:09:35
      Staff's report included online research regarding interior colors that may or may not be visible to the exterior
    • 00:09:44
      on the entrance corridor, and they checked with the county attorney saying they could speak of such things.
    • 00:09:49
      If such things aren't included in an application, can the ARB speak to such things?
    • 00:09:54
      And that's just an open question.
    • 00:09:55
      Thank you.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:09:58
      Thank you.
    • 00:10:04
      All right.
    • 00:10:04
      Any other comments from the public?
    • 00:10:08
      One second.
    • 00:10:08
      We are having technical difficulties.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:10:25
      Sorry, I'm just working through some technical difficulties.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:10:46
      We thought the architect would be joining remotely, but we don't see him.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:11:10
      Oh my gosh, there's no one wishing to speak on this topic.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:11:14
      All right, thanks a lot.
    • 00:11:16
      The ARB now will go into discussion.
    • 00:11:20
      Dave, do you have any comments?
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:11:23
      No, I think I appreciate the applicant incorporating our previous comments and support the application as it's presented.
    • 00:11:33
      I think to the question from the public, I would be interested in staff's perspective.
    • 00:11:38
      It seems to me that it's normal practice on the staff's part to do research in particular to understand whether an application may be a trademark design.
    • 00:11:47
      And so it seems reasonable that staff would
    • 00:11:49
      discover normal appearances of the buildings.
    • 00:11:53
      I think it's within our purview of elements that are visible to the corridor to comment on their appropriateness and their order.
    • 00:12:01
      So it seems to me that it's appropriate for staff to bring this and I think in some ways may be helpful to the applicant just in terms of anticipating the rest of the application.
    • 00:12:11
      So I would be interested in another's perspective.
    • 00:12:16
      Thanks, David.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:12:17
      Tara?
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:12:19
      Thank you to the applicant for making the changes.
    • 00:12:23
      I was wondering if anyone on the team could speak to the proposed colors that Chris had raised in the staff report.
    • 00:12:33
      Seeing as it's now under discussion, I was just curious if there is a proposed or planned color for that.
    • SPEAKER_14
    • 00:12:44
      Yes, so I was hoping that Barry could speak to that.
    • 00:12:47
      That's something we'll raise with the developer to make sure that there's flexibility in choosing a more toned down color since it is a bit of an intense green.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:12:59
      Well, I think I agree with Dave that I think it's reasonable to raise for staff to be raising elements that may be visible from the corridor in our typical parts of a given design.
    • 00:13:10
      And I don't have a particular
    • 00:13:13
      I think as far as the color itself goes, I think it would be great for the applicant to work with staff to identify a color that coordinates with the eventual sign choice and beyond that, I have no other comments.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:13:27
      Thank you.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:13:31
      Thanks, Tara.
    • 00:13:34
      Frank Hancock.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:13:35
      Oh, out of order there.
    • 00:13:39
      Thank you to the applicant.
    • 00:13:40
      I don't know that I have an issue with an interior color and kind of think that might be a slippery slope if we start reviewing what's behind the windows.
    • 00:13:51
      I mean, I don't disagree that it will be visible, but that doesn't really affect my reading of this application.
    • 00:14:02
      I think it's a nice application.
    • 00:14:04
      I appreciate the modification since the last time it was here.
    • 00:14:08
      I think it
    • 00:14:09
      It's very attractive building.
    • 00:14:12
      And I appreciate the perspective view from 64, as I think that will probably likely have the most impact.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:14:23
      But that's all I have.
    • 00:14:25
      Thank you.
    • 00:14:26
      Thanks, Frank.
    • 00:14:27
      Frank.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:14:29
      Yeah, thanks.
    • 00:14:30
      I think I would agree with Frank and again would be curious to get Margaret or Chris's perspective on this interior color issue.
    • 00:14:41
      It does feel like a slippery slope to me.
    • 00:14:43
      There's so many factors to consider.
    • 00:14:45
      Time of day, the type of window would affect the actual color that might be visible from the corridor.
    • 00:14:57
      As it relates to the plan itself, I think the changes that were made are significant improvements and I would intend to vote in favor of the revised application.
    • 00:15:10
      Thank you.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:15:11
      Alright, thanks Frank.
    • 00:15:12
      I guess first my comment is in agreement with everyone else.
    • 00:15:17
      I thought they did a good job of
    • 00:15:20
      addressing the comments we had last time, and I'm also in support of the application.
    • 00:15:27
      And regarding the the interiors, I think particularly since we're kind of locked in with clear glass, it seems very much like a slippery slope starting to regulate what may or may not be visible through that clear glass, although
    • 00:15:51
      In this case, or at least in the case of storage buildings I've seen, it seems like the interior doors are a design element that are intended to be seen from the outside.
    • 00:16:04
      But I still think just in general terms, it's something that I'm not 100% comfortable with, like regulating what interior finishes, I guess.
    • 00:16:17
      So that would just be,
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:16:20
      My only comment.
    • 00:16:22
      So if there are no more comments or discussion, we could go over the recommended motion.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:17:10
      So the recommendation was for approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
    • 00:17:16
      When the staff report was written, the condition regarding the color started out with the word consider, so consider revising the green color.
    • 00:17:28
      I'm not sure if that's where you want to keep that information you've got.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:17:37
      I guess the consider would satisfy me as far as, you know, should consider it.
    • 00:17:47
      But do any board members have any tweaks or additions they would like to make?
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:17:56
      I'm satisfied with the considered language for that term.
    • 00:17:59
      Appreciate other members' sensitivity to the sort of slippery slope of regulating interior appearance, maybe as a separate item out of this discussion.
    • 00:18:07
      It might be worth considering the illumination levels for those interior things because I think there are a number of trademark designs developing where it's really the interior illumination that then becomes a very visible appearance, as a side note.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:18:32
      All right, well, if there are no tweaks or anything, is there anyone who would like to make a motion?
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:18:41
      I'll move that we approve the application for ARB 2023-36, the streets, landings, health storage, without amendments.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:18:58
      Great, thank you.
    • 00:18:59
      Would anybody like to second that?
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:19:03
      I'll second.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:19:04
      All right, thank you.
    • 00:19:08
      I could put it to a vote.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:19:14
      Mr. Van Der Werf?
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:19:15
      Aye.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:19:17
      Mr. Stoner?
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:19:18
      Aye.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:19:19
      Mr. Matsuno?
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:19:20
      Aye.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:19:21
      Mr. Hancock?
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:19:22
      Aye.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:19:23
      Mr. Henningsen?
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:19:24
      Aye.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:19:27
      Thanks a lot.
    • 00:19:29
      Our next regular review item is ARB 2023-39, Dunners Porch.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:19:59
      This is a review of a building permit for an addition to Duner's Restaurant.
    • 00:20:05
      The site is located at 4372 Ivy Road, and a tent is currently located in the place the addition would be constructed.
    • 00:20:13
      A site plan does not exist for this site, so many of the guidelines, most of those related to site layout and landscaping, don't apply in this case.
    • 00:20:22
      The focus of the analysis then was on the architectural design.
    • 00:20:26
      The proposed addition is compatible with the main building in its form and its roof shape.
    • 00:20:32
      Primary proposed materials are hardy siding and iron gray.
    • 00:20:36
      and Asphalt Roof Shingles.
    • 00:20:38
      The drawings submitted with the application did not indicate the shingle color, but the architect has indicated that they are to match the existing color.
    • 00:20:46
      These materials are expected to have an appropriate appearance.
    • 00:20:49
      In the analysis, we noted that the location of the front wall and the height of the roof of the addition were also not entirely clear from the original drawings that were submitted.
    • 00:20:59
      and the architect has clarified also that the height of the eave on the addition will equal the height of the restaurant eave and that the addition roof will be lower than the restaurant roof.
    • 00:21:12
      Also, the front wall of the addition will be located approximately one foot forward of the main building.
    • 00:21:18
      An addition in line with the main building or setback from it would be more traditional but in this case the overhang of the addition would be behind the restaurant overhang so that should help the porch appear to be recessed.
    • 00:21:31
      The architect has also indicated that a recessed light fixture will be installed above the entrance to the addition and illumination at the ground from that fixture meets the guidelines requirements.
    • 00:21:44
      All that additional information provided by the architect, our recommendation is for approval with the conditions listed in the staff report with one minor addition.
    • 00:21:53
      The conditions listed in the report were related to clarifying the roof and the eave height, adding the information about the soffit light, adding the standard mechanical equipment note, and I failed to include in the staff report that there should be a note about the matching shingle color, so that's what's added there.
    • 00:22:11
      I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:22:14
      All right, thanks a lot, Margaret.
    • 00:22:16
      Frank Hancock, do you have any questions for staff?
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:22:19
      Thanks, Margaret.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:22:19
      I don't have any questions.
    • 00:22:21
      Taro?
    • 00:22:22
      Nope, no questions.
    • 00:22:23
      Thank you, Margaret.
    • 00:22:25
      Frank?
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:22:26
      No, thanks.
    • 00:22:26
      Dave?
    • 00:22:28
      No, thank you.
    • 00:22:29
      No questions.
    • 00:22:31
      And I don't have any questions either.
    • 00:22:33
      Thank you.
    • 00:22:36
      So if the applicant has a presentation, now is the time for
    • SPEAKER_07
    • 00:22:47
      I think staff did a wonderful job saying everything that we were hoping to tell you today.
    • 00:22:54
      So really no presentation.
    • 00:22:56
      I think it's fairly straightforward.
    • 00:22:58
      We're just trying to make something a lot better looking, go in place of something that should probably go well.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:23:06
      Thank you.
    • 00:23:07
      All right.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:23:07
      Thanks a lot.
    • 00:23:11
      We'll see if members have any questions for the applicant.
    • 00:23:15
      Dave, do you have any questions?
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:23:16
      I don't have any questions.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:23:18
      Frank Stoner?
    • 00:23:19
      No, thanks.
    • 00:23:21
      Tara?
    • 00:23:22
      Nope, no questions.
    • 00:23:23
      Frank Hancock?
    • 00:23:24
      No questions, thank you.
    • 00:23:26
      And I don't have any questions either.
    • 00:23:28
      Are there any members of the public who would like to make a comment?
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:23:33
      There are no members of the public wanting to comment.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:23:36
      All right, thank you.
    • 00:23:38
      ARB will now go into discussion.
    • 00:23:40
      So we'll start with Frank Stoner.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:23:45
      Thanks.
    • 00:23:45
      No, I don't have any comments.
    • 00:23:47
      I think it's very compatible.
    • 00:23:49
      I guess one maybe question I had is it looks like the window frames are all black now.
    • 00:23:56
      My recollection is that the existing frames are white or off-white, but I have not been to dinner in a little while.
    • 00:24:07
      I assume they'll be the same, whatever their color is, but otherwise it looked very appropriate.
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 00:24:15
      And I don't have any other comments.
    • 00:24:21
      Oh, they are dark, sorry.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:24:27
      All right, thanks.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:24:31
      Tara, do you have any comments?
    • 00:24:33
      No, I think it's definitely compatible with the entrance corridor.
    • 00:24:37
      I think it's great that the business owner is ready to formalize and improve the outdoor space.
    • 00:24:47
      I think it looks great and wish them the best of luck.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:24:51
      All right.
    • 00:24:52
      Thanks, Dade.
    • 00:24:54
      No comments, but I agree with my colleagues.
    • 00:24:58
      Thank you, Frank.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:24:59
      No, I don't have any comments.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:25:02
      Thanks.
    • 00:25:03
      I don't have any comments other than it seems like an appropriate and big improvement over the temp.
    • 00:25:10
      That's fair now.
    • 00:25:11
      So best of luck.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:25:16
      So if we have a recommended notion,
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:25:22
      So the recommendation is for approval with the conditions listed in the staff report and amended with the addition of the shingles on the addition.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:25:35
      All right, great.
    • 00:25:36
      Do any members have any additional tweaks or changes?
    • 00:25:44
      If not, if anyone would like to make a motion.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:25:49
      I'd like to make a motion to approve the proposal with the conditions listed in the staff report.
    • 00:25:54
      I'll second.
    • 00:25:56
      All right.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:25:58
      Thanks a lot.
    • 00:25:59
      We could put it to a vote.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:26:03
      Mr. Hancock?
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:26:04
      Aye.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:26:06
      Mr. Stoner?
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:26:07
      Aye.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:26:08
      Mr. Matsuno?
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:26:09
      Aye.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:26:10
      Mr. Van Der Werf?
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:26:11
      Aye.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:26:12
      Mr. Henningsen?
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:26:13
      Aye.
    • 00:26:15
      All right.
    • 00:26:16
      Thanks a lot.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:26:19
      Hi, there are no work sessions today.
    • 00:26:21
      We'll move into other business, starting with the approval of the May 15th, 2023 minutes.
    • 00:26:34
      Would anyone like to move to adopt the May 15th, 2023 minutes?
    • 00:26:40
      So moved.
    • 00:26:42
      Thanks.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:26:42
      I'll second.
    • 00:26:45
      All right.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:26:46
      I'm sorry, who was the second?
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:26:55
      Mr. Matsuno?
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:26:57
      Aye.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:26:59
      Mr. Stoner?
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:27:00
      Aye.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:27:01
      Mr. Van Der Werf?
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:27:02
      Aye.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:27:03
      Mr. Henningsen?
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:27:04
      Aye.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 00:27:05
      Mr. Hancock?
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:27:06
      Aye.
    • 00:27:08
      All right, thanks a lot.
    • 00:27:11
      So other items, and I know there's one other item from staff, but before we get into that, does anyone else have any other items?
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:27:24
      I do not.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:27:25
      So I guess we will move on to the comp plan item.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:27:39
      Yes, so I'm going to be leading this discussion.
    • 00:27:46
      Just.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:27:54
      So, as you know, the County is working to update the Comprehensive Plan, which is a forward-looking document that will lay out the vision for development and growth in the County over the next 20 years.
    • 00:28:05
      And the contents of the document will inform policies, programs, development, staff, work, and funding.
    • 00:28:11
      We previously came to you in late March to review the goals and objectives from the last Comprehensive Plan, which was done in 2015.
    • 00:28:19
      In that meeting, there was agreement that the goals and objectives from the 2015 plan were still relevant.
    • 00:28:28
      While we will carry that feedback forward, we thought that maybe looking back isn't the best starting point.
    • 00:28:34
      It's too easy to slip into copy edit mode versus ideation.
    • 00:28:40
      So the comp plan process is one of the times where input can be as creative and imaginative as we want it to be.
    • 00:28:49
      It can speak to what will help people thrive, help people today thrive tomorrow.
    • 00:28:58
      And the things that we see in 2023 may be different than what people were looking at when they were imagining the 2015 comp plan.
    • 00:29:06
      So we thought that we would start with a series of questions and kind of see what comes to the forefront naturally in the world that we live in today.
    • 00:29:15
      So again, we shared a couple of questions to consider.
    • 00:29:20
      Today's meeting will be in the format of a facilitated discussion.
    • 00:29:23
      So I'm going to exit out of the presentation mode and just copy responses onto the slide itself.
    • 00:29:30
      And then we'll go through each of the questions and turn and hopefully they'll build upon one another.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:29:41
      So the first question that we had is what contributes to the identity of Albemarle County?
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:29:48
      And this can be, this was kind of inward looking, like when you think of Albemarle County, what do you think of is when people come to visit, what do you wanna go see?
    • 00:30:01
      What assets do we have to really bolster, protect, augment in some way?
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 00:30:16
      We're free to just blurt out.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:30:17
      Oh yes, facilitated discussion.
    • 00:30:20
      Yes, there's no turns.
    • 00:30:23
      I will just record as we talk.
    • 00:30:27
      And we can start with the low-hanging fruit.
    • 00:30:29
      So if you just want to start kind of putting things on the board, like darts on a wall, we can and we can go back in and refine.
    • 00:30:38
      So don't be worried about initial gammas.
    • 00:30:40
      You have all the time that you need, except for when you have to leave.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:30:44
      We just had people visiting from out of town and I think one of the things that contributes a lot to the character of Albemarle County is the sort of agricultural and rural sort of roots of the county.
    • 00:31:02
      So one of the things that I think is really important about the ARB's work is allowing those elements to remain.
    • 00:31:09
      I think they're significant drivers of tourism and other industries in the area and that's part of the
    • 00:31:22
      I don't know, the stuff that you, like I was telling them they should go drive down Plank Road because it's really beautiful to drive up to, you know, like Rutgersville.
    • 00:31:31
      And there's just like views and experiences that you don't get other places.
    • 00:31:38
      And that's one of the important parts of the board.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:31:42
      When you say agricultural and rural routes, do you mean like open landscapes or do you mean farms and farm buildings?
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:31:50
      Yeah, kind of all of the above, open landscapes, mountain views, rural and agricultural buildings, good stuff.
    • 00:32:04
      But there's also sort of the identity of it as the county in which Charlottesville and the university are encompassed.
    • 00:32:12
      You know, I think equally important is just that we recognize that there's
    • 00:32:19
      Community that is growing and that the board's work should also help to facilitate that in keeping with its character.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:32:39
      I guess I would add the number and importance and character of the historical sites that we have in the county as well.
    • 00:33:11
      I would say that kind of contributes to question number two as well, just because if you were to differentiate Albemarle County from some other counties, even surrounding Albemarle, I think you have some major history here that we're lucky to have and doesn't necessarily exist in most places, not only in the state, but nationally.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:33:40
      If you were to give examples for a few, what would they be?
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:33:44
      I'd say Monticello, Ashlawn, the UVA campus.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:34:07
      I would add to question one, similar to how Taro talked about it, I think about the natural resources.
    • 00:34:15
      But I also think it's obvious that there's like our values of accounting of protecting the natural resources, I think comes through.
    • 00:34:25
      So that would contribute.
    • 00:34:29
      And then
    • 00:34:32
      This is, I would think how our county is run.
    • 00:34:36
      I think we have great parks and I think we have great like transportation planning.
    • 00:34:43
      So this is me just bolstering the county and the great work that the county does.
    • 00:34:48
      But I think they're unique in a lot of ways.
    • 00:34:52
      I think those two elements just came to mind.
    • 00:34:56
      Everything else the county is doing is great as well.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:34:59
      Right, right, of course.
    • 00:35:01
      Yes.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:35:03
      I assume you'd include VDOT in there.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:35:05
      VDOT, yes, yes.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:35:09
      To delve into transportation, is there a particular kind of transportation?
    • 00:35:12
      Are you talking about how to get to the parks?
    • 00:35:15
      Are you talking about mountain biking trails within the parks?
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:35:21
      Well, transportation came to mind.
    • 00:35:22
      I was thinking about like Hillsdale and Berkmar.
    • 00:35:26
      Hillsdale in particular, I felt like it was a pretty innovative transportation project.
    • 00:35:30
      I mean, it cut right through a shopping center.
    • 00:35:32
      I thought that was pretty unique and needed to kind of relieve pressure on 29.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:35:47
      I think maybe I didn't capture your statement as well.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:35:49
      The preservation protection natural resources in comparison to other places or it's just more prominent, it's more visible.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:36:01
      I think it's obvious that there's that kind of value there that like we put value on that and our policies, our land use kind of reflects that.
    • 00:36:12
      You could also talk about the amount of acreage under conservation easement, those sorts of things.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:36:18
      But I think it's protecting what makes us unique or one of our greatest assets.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:36:37
      I agree because like I think what I would call natural resources are also like in a certain sense cultural resources as well just you know pattern of development has even though I'm generally pro-development I think a lot of our rural roads have retained a really beautiful and undeveloped appearance probably because of
    • 00:37:07
      County zoning regulations that have kind of kept development away from our rural areas.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:37:25
      Is pleasing the right word?
    • 00:37:27
      You used another word.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:37:28
      I don't even remember what, but pleasing, you know, pleasing sounds good.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:37:37
      I didn't want to put words in your mouth that you didn't.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:37:41
      I have a hard time putting words in my own mouth.
    • 00:37:48
      I'm never offended.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:37:55
      Knowing that you look at a lot of architecture and entrance corridors and these roads that are traveled quite a bit by a number of people, what is the kind of the tie between them all?
    • 00:38:12
      What do you really enjoy about those roads?
    • 00:38:15
      What signals Albemarle County or what could signal Albemarle County?
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:38:22
      I think the level of landscaping on our major corridors is somewhat unique.
    • 00:38:25
      29 is not that much different than many other commercial corridors just in terms of the uses.
    • 00:38:35
      But I think there is an attention to landscaping that you don't see in a lot of other places and also attention to the architecture on those.
    • 00:38:47
      Some of the work that we do I think is reflected
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 00:38:54
      The current appearance of those, and I think people do notice it.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:38:59
      I think there's a certain sophistication to Albemarle County, maybe that's not the right word, but in terms of what draws people here, I think people generally consider Albemarle to have a great educational system, good healthcare, sort of all the things that you,
    • 00:39:20
      are most important to people thinking about relocating.
    • 00:39:24
      Albemarle tends to rank, I think, pretty high.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:39:30
      You all are going to see just how bad I am at spelling.
    • 00:39:34
      I'm so sorry.
    • 00:39:35
      I tried phonetic and it didn't work.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:39:39
      That was a dictionary.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:39:40
      I'm so sorry.
    • 00:39:41
      Thank you.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:39:43
      I did not do well in spelling in grade school.
    • 00:39:46
      I will just say that was not what I was good at.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:39:58
      Yeah, and I guess to talk up like our sort of the university's architecture and landscape architecture programs, like it seems like there are a lot of great examples of buildings that have a regional character but are also built in modern styles.
    • 00:40:15
      I think that Frank does a good job of highlighting those when we're looking through our corridor studies.
    • 00:40:19
      I think a lot of other board members and staff
    • 00:40:21
      as well.
    • 00:40:22
      And I think it's a good case that a county with a strong historical identity doesn't necessarily have to be building new buildings directly in historical styles and that there's a lot you can do with reference and with context that can continue to establish that character.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:40:46
      That makes us unique.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:40:57
      Yeah, I agree with what my colleagues have suggested.
    • 00:40:59
      I think many folks have touched on it, but it's sort of just maybe the prominence of landscape over building, whether it's topography, planting, other things.
    • 00:41:10
      I mean, there's certainly exceptions to it, but I think that the historic sites and the new buildings and other things, I think that they're, I guess, within the county, as others have observed, is a great attention to how things fit within it rather than overwhelming.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:41:32
      Okay, why don't we move to number two, and if the other things come up for question one, we can go back.
    • 00:41:37
      We can also go back at the end, as things might come to mind later on.
    • 00:41:44
      So I think we've answered, we've had many answers to this, the historical sites, attention to landscaping, just to carry a couple forward.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:42:03
      I think to add to Frank's noting the good work of the county, I think the existing comp plan and zoning plan, you know, focusing development around narrow areas and, you know, and the aim with the aim of preserving the rural area has been effective in many ways.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:42:23
      Probably a contributor to the character that we are all observing.
    • 00:42:44
      Sorry.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:42:48
      That would be an alarm.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:42:51
      Was that Chris's alarm?
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:42:55
      It was 2 45.
    • 00:42:57
      Okay.
    • 00:42:58
      Okay.
    • 00:42:59
      Sorry.
    • 00:43:01
      Well, I think, you know, what if we really got in?
    • 00:43:07
      Yeah.
    • 00:43:07
      Yeah.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:43:08
      Okay.
    • 00:43:09
      We're not finished yet.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:43:11
      We're only at two.
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 00:43:31
      I think the cultural resources are a competitive advantage or make Albemarle somewhat unique for its size.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:43:52
      And there are a lot on that list.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:43:54
      I mean, Monticello and UVA have kind of a prominence that's very visible and they have a lot of land and a lot of people that interact with them.
    • 00:44:07
      But I think there are also cultural references or resources.
    • 00:44:12
      that are kind of being built.
    • 00:44:14
      I mean, we have, what were those schools that we just had?
    • 00:44:23
      Not Rosalind, but... Rose and Wall schools.
    • Khris TaggartSenior Planner
    • 00:44:28
      Yes, the Rose and Wall schools.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:44:31
      That there aren't many left in Virginia, but we have like three that are still in Albemarle County.
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 00:44:49
      This is not going to be popular, but I'll say it anyway.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:44:54
      I think sometimes, particularly now, Monticello and UVA are definitely important resources.
    • 00:45:04
      Sometimes I think we go too far, though, in trying to capture and promote that sense.
    • 00:45:12
      And I think the town really
    • 00:45:16
      in the last 10 years has begun to develop an image that sort of transcends the historical foundations.
    • 00:45:29
      which I think is a great thing for Albemarle to celebrate.
    • 00:45:32
      It's not just a place to come like go see where Thomas Jefferson lived or walk the UVA campus.
    • 00:45:38
      Like you can go to the Paramount, you can go to Live Art.
    • 00:45:42
      Like there's so many cultural resources that are available that aren't historically focused.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:46:07
      Yeah and there are cultural resources that are like also like productive like we have the vineyards and the Monticello wine area there are many rural breweries and like farms and other people that are producing products that are part of a cultural tradition and are like a big
    • 00:46:28
      draw for people coming into the county, the county specifically, not just like connected to the, that I think is like a really good benefit to the county's identity.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:46:50
      I think there's a district for vineyards.
    • 00:46:53
      It's like Monticello wine district or.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:46:55
      It is.
    • 00:46:56
      There's like a bit of cultural area or something.
    • 00:46:59
      ABA, American Digital Cultural Area.
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 00:47:03
      ABA.
    • 00:47:07
      But it's a Monticello wine trail or is it, what's, yeah, okay.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:47:18
      Education, educational resources in Almore County are exceptional compared to other counties of its size.
    • 00:47:25
      I mean, look at how many,
    • 00:47:27
      educational options you have in Albemarle, and you look at other comparable counties, it's unprecedented.
    • 00:47:36
      What do we have, 15 private schools, something like that now?
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:47:40
      Such a good public school system to be able to live in a rural area and have an exceptional public school system.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:47:52
      Yeah, I'd say the same thing about the healthcare system in this area.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:48:12
      I don't want to cheapen it by putting it together on one line item.
    • 00:48:22
      If you were to promote Albemarle County to people coming in, what would you say it has going for it?
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:48:36
      Your elevator pitch if you were a real estate agent.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:48:47
      I think we've kind of said it, like for a community this size to have the resources that it has, educational, healthcare, natural, historical, like you can list off, you know, seven or eight right off the top of your head, food, wine, like, you know, it's kind of like there, you could go to a lot larger cities and not get the cultural resources or the,
    • 00:49:17
      all the resources that we have here.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:49:19
      And maybe not be able to get the natural resources as readily or as extensively, because so often sort of the cultural and other offerings are associated with more urban.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:49:33
      Yeah.
    • 00:49:34
      Oh, go ahead.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:49:35
      I was just going to say it's kind of like the larger city level of amenities, but set in a real beautiful rural context.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:49:47
      I think to the kind of urban to rural transition is really quick.
    • 00:49:52
      You don't have to move through all this suburbs that have surrounded.
    • 00:49:57
      I mean, there's suburbs exist or that style of development.
    • 00:50:00
      But if you lived in the development or development area or urban ring, you can very quickly be in a rural area.
    • 00:50:12
      And then just thinking about, I think this is right, the physiographic region where the
    • 00:50:17
      edge of the Piedmont or where the Piedmont meets the Blue Ridge Mountains.
    • 00:50:21
      And it's kind of nice to be at that edge.
    • 00:50:25
      We're like out on the frontier.
    • 00:50:27
      If you were to go over to the mountain, you can access all kinds of outdoor activities.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:50:33
      I guess you could access that within the county too, but thinking about all of the mountains,
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:50:44
      I've actually been shocked driving down 29 and you're on this very just dense corridor of highway commercial and then you take any turn and you're just, what happened?
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:51:00
      Where did the lights go?
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:51:08
      I think location in the state is an asset, location and the fact that we have an airport.
    • 00:51:16
      So it's easy to get here, relatively easy to get here.
    • 00:51:20
      It's easy to get to DC, it's easy to get to Richmond, to the coast, like we're kind of... That's a great point.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:51:31
      I guess in addition to some of the sort of cultural resources that like a lot of people who are interested in like outdoor activities and stuff like it's not just that the landscape is beautiful and it's there but also that there's been investment and development of the opportunities to take advantage of them like trails have been built, places for people to stay like just that infrastructure exists for people to take advantage of and experience the landscape that we have.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:51:57
      And that's one of the reasons I said parks, just thinking about the access that the county parks provide.
    • 00:52:02
      I mean, like going to the swimming lakes or, you know, some of the hikes are pretty incredible.
    • 00:52:10
      We do have our share of private farms, estates that aren't necessarily accessible, but I feel like there's lots of access points in the county.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:52:29
      Want to hear the drawbacks?
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:52:31
      If you want, you could do drawbacks as a way to make them better.
    • 00:52:39
      We could do that.
    • 00:52:42
      Do you want to do that?
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 00:52:45
      I think it actually has some value to understand what your weaknesses are.
    • 00:52:49
      Think about a comprehensive plan.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:52:56
      Cost.
    • 00:52:57
      Yeah, I mean, there's limited development opportunity, limited housing supply, limited.
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 00:53:01
      Yeah, become a major issue.
    • 00:53:09
      Public transportation, Cismont.
    • 00:53:25
      Oh.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:53:27
      The character philosophy.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:53:36
      You're doing a great job.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:53:43
      There's kind of like, I think
    • 00:53:45
      In parts of the county, a big disparity maybe between sort of the richest residents of the county and the poorest residents, that you can have a pretty big gap within rural areas between the richest and the poorest.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:54:00
      Yeah, right.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:54:23
      They can't ignore history.
    • 00:54:25
      I mean, I think we do, for whatever reason, good or bad, it has a reputation as being a somewhat racist, like much of the South, but Charlottesville, unfortunately, is.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:54:42
      It's part of the reputation outside of the UVA.
    • 00:54:45
      Outside the, yeah.
    • 00:54:46
      Outside of UVA.
    • 00:54:47
      Yeah, yeah.
    • 00:54:47
      Is that it's- Is that we have, like, Fox 12 to-
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:54:55
      List of things people know Charlottesville for.
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 00:54:57
      Yeah, tiki torches.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:54:59
      Yeah, right.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:55:06
      Would you say the county ends in Charlottesville or the county?
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:55:10
      I think the county by virtue of being, yeah, but also among people who know Albemarle County.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:55:21
      I'll just leave it as not specific.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:55:28
      I just mean like we were talking earlier about you know positive light right like Charlottesville and Albemarle County are developing a reputation beyond the university right but also like beyond the university one of the things that people know about Charlottesville are like you know the attacks that happened yeah yeah make sure you weren't saying that inside you today it's all okay
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:56:17
      I'm ready when you are.
    • 00:56:17
      I'm just kind of.
    • 00:56:29
      Should we move on to question three, maybe?
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:56:32
      So this is switching back to the positives of the county landscaping.
    • 00:56:40
      Proximity to the outdoors, the investment in the outdoors, natural resources.
    • 00:56:44
      How should these unique aspects be treated?
    • 00:56:47
      And actually what I'll do is I'll copy these over so we can get them.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:56:53
      Okay.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:57:11
      I think it would be great if the policies could support sort of the continued conservation and preservation of the natural resources and find ways to promote development that's consistent with that.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:57:28
      Can you repeat that?
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:57:32
      Support continued
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:57:38
      Preservation and conservation of natural resources and rural character while identifying means of consistent development opportunity.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:58:01
      Perhaps by continuing to focus that in designated areas.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 00:58:09
      If I missed something, let me know.
    • 00:58:25
      I can also go back and listen to the recording.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:58:28
      That looks great.
    • 00:58:29
      Thank you.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:58:32
      I think there should be a more robust process for preserving historic resources.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 00:58:40
      Downey.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 00:58:48
      When I say more robust process, I mean like a process.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 00:58:56
      You mean a process for logging them, a process for making sure they see tomorrow?
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 00:59:03
      I guess.
    • 00:59:06
      Both, I mean without it being onerous obviously, but right now there is no, for what you would consider to be a historic structure in the city, for example, like there would be no process for placing at the county level for preservation or at least anybody
    • 00:59:37
      even an approval process, which on one hand I appreciate that, but I think in terms of like a county-wide cultural and historic resources perspective, it seems like that would be a worthwhile process to have.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:00:07
      I think for me maybe one of the things that I appreciate because we have somebody in our office who's on the city's ARP.
    • 01:00:16
      I think unfortunately one of the things I do appreciate actually is that it's not exactly the same part of our purview in the same way as for the city for the significance of.
    • 01:00:27
      I highly appreciate it too.
    • 01:00:32
      Like I think it's important to preserve historic resources
    • 01:00:37
      I think it's also important to think about the sort of significance of them in a way.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:00:43
      Well, yeah, you're right.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 01:00:44
      I think it gets taken too far in a lot of cases where there is a process like buying them out and the fact that there is nothing now further in the
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:01:02
      And some municipalities, they will have like a historic preservation board or office that has that sole focus.
    • 01:01:07
      And then depending on the agency, their advisory to other boards that will take their opinion.
    • 01:01:14
      That I think is a useful example, just because then you don't have people trying to wear two hats in the same committee.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:01:23
      I think one of the keys to achieving both of these, preservation of natural resources as well as historic resources is
    • 01:01:32
      to improve densification of our urban areas.
    • 01:01:36
      It takes development pressure off.
    • 01:01:38
      Two, we're not very walkable, bikeable.
    • 01:01:42
      It's not a particularly friendly place to live in.
    • 01:01:47
      Cars are expensive.
    • 01:01:51
      I think the initiatives the county's taking, for example, the Crozet to Charlottesville bike-ped path, those can be real game changers.
    • 01:02:01
      City investing in other forms of parking in the development areas could be a real game changer.
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 01:02:11
      Public transit that actually works.
    • 01:02:13
      People can.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 01:02:18
      I think those are all key to achieving that.
    • 01:02:20
      Call of Preserving the Rural Character.
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 01:02:28
      Traffic is becoming a problem.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 01:02:31
      Yeah.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 01:02:34
      And it might go on the weakness.
    • 01:02:36
      Well, I think it's already there.
    • 01:02:37
      I guess public transit has done it maybe.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 01:02:40
      Transportation is terrible.
    • 01:02:41
      Right, yeah.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:02:46
      I think that's an example where like the development focus in Crozet is successful also developed Crozet, but it also has created traffic issues getting wide from that.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:02:57
      So connectivity, yeah.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:03:00
      I'll add this, this is just a theory, but I think that like acceptance of development in Albemarle County is a plan as opposed to kind of obstructionism because if
    • 01:03:16
      Development is happening in surrounding counties.
    • 01:03:20
      And if people want to move to this area and can't afford a home in this county, they are likely to buy a home in the surrounding county, which is only going to increase traffic problems.
    • 01:03:35
      If we can encourage development in the county, kind of a win win.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:03:43
      Portable development.
    • 01:03:44
      I mean, the problem
    • 01:03:45
      Yeah, it's happening now.
    • 01:03:47
      You look at what's going on in Waynesboro, residentially, all a function of the fact that Albemarle is no longer affordable.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:04:13
      And I guess speaking to Frank's point about the county itself working together towards some of these shared goals that I think one of the things that this board that would be a good step forward towards the next comprehensive plan would be always working to align the sort of focus of
    • 01:04:37
      our studies and our understanding of what the context is to the comprehensive plan and to the areas that are designated for growth and taking that into account when we're making our I guess we would be looking at looking at the design guidelines at some point or
    • 01:04:56
      It's like making sure that the work of this board is coordinated with the other boards and coordinated with the comprehensive plan, I think would be a good way of both preserving and allowing for the development that needs to happen.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:05:50
      To say it in a summary, was it understanding the context of the area to better act on ARB or ARB applications, or is it kind of overlapping an alignment of other initiatives and taking that into context when acting on?
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:06:13
      Yeah, I think it's like understanding where
    • 01:06:17
      making sure that the efforts of the board are harmonizing with the efforts of the county as a whole and the other initiatives throughout different departments.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 01:06:30
      Well said.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:07:12
      All right, we'll move on to number four, which is very similar to number three, are current treatments sufficient or do they need to be augmented?
    • 01:07:20
      So with the entrance corridors, we've been doing the survey of the entrance corridors and discussing it in a way that items identified by that contextual, what is based in just defining what is the context, what is compatibility that that might
    • 01:07:42
      actually lend itself to identifying changes to the entrance corridor design guidelines themselves and not just an addenda document.
    • 01:07:53
      So something like that where it's, we are doing something now, but what does the next step kind of look like?
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:08:04
      Well, these may be narrow and welcome broader thoughts, but I think it would be great if the entrance corridor guidelines could be applicable to any development, regardless of zoning, including R1.
    • 01:08:19
      to be sure that we can really uphold them.
    • 01:08:24
      I think the thought of getting scenic highway status for some roads and roads that may not qualify as arterials but still be significant to the character may be another measure to consider.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 01:08:36
      And then
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:08:45
      I think in terms of some thought and consideration of establishing landscape buffers on corridors, I think could be helpful in some areas along some corridors where we see them eroding.
    • 01:09:06
      If it was looked at holistically, you know, Frank to your and other other points in a way that still preserve development capacity.
    • 01:09:14
      So it's it's a tough balance for a balance and what's there and what's what's great with and what is creating all the interest in the county and being here and developing that still again.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 01:09:25
      An opportunity for it.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 01:09:29
      That's great, I think when we were evaluating
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:09:33
      Route 250 West, there was definitely this propensity of large landscape buffers that contributed to these estates almost and then it opened up into these beautiful fields and agricultural areas and it really felt like you were in
    • 01:09:52
      I don't know, just a different space and time, but then you go the other direction and some parts of 250 East look very different.
    • 01:09:59
      They're closed in and so that might be an example of where on one road you could have two very different conditions and it would still be appropriate.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 01:10:07
      I think we tend to struggle a lot in this
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:10:24
      I think as the county grows that may become more and more difficult to determine what's appropriate because the range of
    • 01:10:39
      of things on the ground is growing.
    • 01:10:43
      And so, you know, red brick used to be a big, big deal.
    • 01:10:47
      I can remember the Toys R Us was built on 29 and it was like, oh my God, it has to have red brick and white car.
    • 01:10:54
      You know, it was like that was considered appropriate.
    • 01:10:58
      Now, I think it's almost a disservice to our county to hem ourselves in.
    • 01:11:08
      with regard to architecture to Taro's point, like there are lots of interpretive ways to be compatible that still allow the freedom of expression and context and timestamp effectively that ends up
    • 01:11:35
      being on every piece of architecture that is all unique, right?
    • 01:11:41
      But part of that's what creates interest is that timestamp.
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 01:11:51
      I don't know.
    • 01:11:52
      Not that it's very concrete, but.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:11:55
      Right, no, and it goes as well with sort of the overall context and the landscape.
    • 01:11:58
      And I think like to the extent that the architecture
    • 01:12:01
      is sitting in the landscape instead of overwhelming it, it leaves a lot more room for that invention and interpretation.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 01:12:14
      That architecture is sitting in the landscape?
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:12:17
      How did you say it?
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:12:18
      Yeah, I was just trying to, I think that the emphasis on landscape elements for continuity and context for architectural development creates a,
    • 01:12:30
      Context again, that allows maybe more flexibility, Frank, to your point in interpreting traditions and materials.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:12:48
      I don't know if this needs to be like augmented or changed exactly, but I do think it's important to note that I think the split between sort of
    • 01:12:59
      Projects that go through a county-wide staff level process and those that appear before the board is like I think to be very helpful in figuring out ways where I don't know if it's like augmenting exactly but like refining the scope of sort of what kinds of projects and what kinds of
    • 01:13:20
      Proposals can go through like a faster staff level review without the uncertainty of the board getting involved is like helpful, especially in areas that where development is happening and should be happening.
    • 01:13:38
      Sort of setting the board's purview at like these edge cases and the things that can't be determined quickly and easily by a set of standards like
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 01:13:48
      I think that's very helpful and good that the board does.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:13:55
      I think it will be interesting to see how the RIO 29 small area plan develops in the guideline there.
    • 01:14:01
      Hopefully there'll be some test cases in compliance.
    • 01:14:03
      That might be some way to then build a form-based code as a
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:14:13
      I was thinking about that earlier.
    • 01:14:14
      Have we received any applications or not necessarily we, but the county for the form-based code?
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:14:21
      Yes, we have two that are in the final site plan process.
    • 01:14:23
      And then we have about three that are kind of potential.
    • 01:14:29
      And there's one that's really just exploration.
    • 01:14:32
      So it seems to be as developers seem to be wanting to have a taste for it.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:14:43
      That's in the Rio 29?
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:14:45
      Yes.
    • 01:14:46
      So it's focused on the Rio and 29 intersection.
    • 01:14:52
      And then it goes out just as it's kind of this circle, but then it hems in at the neighborhood.
    • 01:14:58
      So Woodbrook, and then there's a neighborhood south that I forget the name.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:15:05
      Just out of curiosity, would there be a way for board members just to view the applications and see how that's being interpreted and applied?
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:15:15
      Sure, we're also figuring that out.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:15:18
      Not that we would comment or participate in your respect towards establishment, but it would be of interest to you.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 01:15:27
      Yeah, totally.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:15:54
      We haven't really touched on the different natural resource like land protection programs.
    • 01:16:01
      Are there any thoughts that the board may have on those programs?
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:16:11
      They're valuable, except where they interrupt what would otherwise be considered a sensible growth pattern.
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 01:16:22
      I think when they create a scenario in which you end up having a leapfrog over the conservation area to get to a natural development area that we should be thoughtful about.
    • 01:16:41
      We incentivize easements.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 01:16:52
      I'm sorry, I missed that.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:16:53
      To incentivize easements or not to?
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:16:55
      To be thoughtful about where we incentivize easements so that we don't create a problem in the future when at some point the growth area in the county is going to have to grow.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 01:17:12
      If height doesn't grow.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 01:17:14
      Right.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:17:21
      And maybe it's worth including here, just as Chris has pointed out on the previous question, creating or adding some process and policy for identifying and conserving or otherwise protecting historic resources.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:18:09
      Okay, and our last question.
    • 01:18:12
      How would you summarize the goal of this work?
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:18:17
      This work meaning the comprehensive plan?
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:18:20
      No, actually, if you were to summarize what are the assets of the county, how do we protect them kind of in that realm?
    • 01:18:29
      How would you summarize that statement?
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 01:18:48
      That's a hard one.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 01:18:50
      It is.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:18:52
      When I was thinking of this question, I found myself wanting to draft out many things with many descriptors.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 01:19:01
      It's essentially asking a goal statement without actually asking.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 01:19:10
      Keep Albemarle unique.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:19:15
      Don't
    • 01:19:17
      ruin it.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:19:22
      You're just one step away from keep Portland weird.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:19:24
      I think at the best, right, like the work of the board at the work of this sort of it's like, it's not intended to be an onerous thing.
    • 01:19:41
      It helps property owners and developers
    • 01:19:44
      be assured that the character that brings people to the county that allows it to further develop its natural resources and its cultural resources is gonna remain consistent with the way it has been.
    • SPEAKER_10
    • 01:19:59
      That the character of the county that seems to attract people to it can be preserved.
    • 01:20:14
      as this shared resource.
    • Taro MatsunoMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:21:15
      And maybe that it encourages development teams and design teams to do things that they wouldn't necessarily do, that it sort of elevates the quality of design in the county without killing the project.
    • 01:21:37
      Like I think that there are things that, I think like when you look at the changes that we saw earlier on today, I was like, oh yeah, I think the board managed to help improve that project in a way that needs to be moving forward.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:22:00
      It is interesting how successful that
    • 01:22:03
      The phrase is with regard, and I think Portland and Asheville, somebody owns that, but I'm not sure.
    • 01:22:13
      But it implies a level of acceptance and creativity that I think is a natural attractor.
    • 01:22:23
      And Albemarle has some of that.
    • 01:22:26
      We're just a little more stuck up about it.
    • 01:22:31
      I don't know how you communicate that in a way that...
    • 01:22:37
      But it's compelling, right?
    • SPEAKER_09
    • 01:22:38
      And it's like, I want to go check that place out.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 01:23:20
      Tara, I really like that number three, to preserve the character of the county in a way that attracts people to it.
    • 01:23:31
      That attracts people to it.
    • Frank HancockVice Chair, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:23:36
      That attracts weird people to it?
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:23:39
      I mean, if you find yourself falling into the category.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:23:44
      They're stuck up, maybe we don't want more people.
    • Dade Van Der WerfMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:23:47
      There have been several meetings about that.
    • Frank StonerMember, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:23:55
      Nimby's welcome.
    • Mariah GleasonUrban Designer
    • 01:24:01
      Well, this is our last question.
    • 01:24:02
      Thank you all for going through this exercise with us.
    • 01:24:06
      I think there was a lot of healthy brainstorming and discussion.
    • 01:24:10
      And if you find something that you wish you would have said later as an afterthought, please feel free to share it.
    • 01:24:19
      I think this is kind of
    • 01:24:21
      our map of just where do we go naturally and thinking about the county and wanting to preserve it and move it forward into something that's really spectacular at the end of the day.
    • 01:24:34
      So any ideas are welcome.
    • 01:24:40
      But that's the end of this.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 01:24:44
      Thanks.
    • 01:24:45
      Nice work.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:24:51
      All right, so on to our next meeting, which is scheduled for Tuesday, June 20th.
    • 01:25:01
      Monday is Juneteenth.
    • 01:25:04
      So are there any board members who do not think they'll be able to make it on that Tuesday?
    • 01:25:10
      I don't believe I'll be present.
    • SPEAKER_08
    • 01:25:12
      Me either.
    • 01:25:15
      All right, I am planning on being available.
    • 01:25:21
      Sounds like we'll have room.
    • Margaret MaliszewskiPlanning Manager
    • 01:25:24
      Great.
    • 01:25:24
      Thank you.
    • Chris HenningsenChair, Architectural Review Board
    • 01:25:27
      All right.
    • 01:25:28
      In that case, this meeting is adjourned until the next meeting on Tuesday, June 20th, 2023.
    • 01:25:34
      Thank you.
    • 01:25:37
      Thank you all.
    • SPEAKER_11
    • 01:25:38
      Thank you.