Architectural Review Board Meeting   8/7/2023

Hello everybody, can you hear me?

All right, thank you.

It's by my watch, 1.06 PM.

So I'm calling the August 7, 2023 meeting of the Albemarle County Architecture Review Board to order.

Yes.

Correct.

All right.

Thank you.

Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting.

The public may access and participate in the meeting electronically.

Instructions for doing so are posted on the Albemarle County website at the Albemarle 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 meeting is a public record and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

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

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.

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

If applicants in the meeting room have team members attending virtually who will need to present, please make that known when you come to the podium.

Everyone who is participating virtually, please mute your microphone until it's your turn to speak.

Do any ARB members have anything to disclose?

No, no.

I don't either.

All right, great.

Thank you.

We do not have any consent agenda items today, so we'll move on to our first regular review item.

There are two today.

The first is ARB 2023-37 Airport Auto Initial Site Plan.

Chris, is your presentation ready?

Yes.

Application being reviewed today is initial site plan to construct an auto repair service center in addition to associated site improvements.

Site is located along Route 29 at the intersection with North Side Drive.

ARB has not reviewed any previous proposals for the site.

A special exception was approved by the Board of Supervisors to permit the vehicle prayer shop use shown on the northern portion of the site plan.

But the standalone self-storage area shown on the southern portion is not permitted.

Outdoor storage associated with and at the scale consistent with the vehicle repair use is allowed, subject to supplemental regs in ARB review.

A smaller storage area that fits description is proposed in the southeast corner of the vehicle repair parking area.

Architectural drawings were not submitted with the initial, but the site plan shows the backs of the customer lobby and one of the garage buildings will be oriented towards the entrance quarter.

Typically the backs of the garage buildings are blank utilitarian, so careful attention to forms, materials, and detailing will be required.

Landscaping will also likely be needed in the available planting area between the building and frontage landscaping to soften the appearance of exterior walls.

Regarding the layout of the site, the outdoor storage area associated with the vehicle repair portion development is shown in the location that is along the entrance quarter.

Staff recommends moving a storage area behind building D to be more consistent with the guidelines.

Screening will also be needed to eliminate visibility from North Side Drive.

There are a few landscaping issues noted with the plan submitted that also will need to be resolved.

The frontage trees and some of the interior road trees shown appear to conflict with existing and proposed utilities.

The west perimeter parking lot trees are lack trees due to the stormwater facility being located two coasts of the lot and the required amount of interior parking area trees has not been provided.

Staff recommends approval of the initial plan with a condition

The area label asphalt lied for outdoor storage is not approved and must be removed from the plan.

All right, thanks a lot, Chris.

We'll go through and see if anyone has any questions.

Tara, do you have any questions?

No, but thanks, Chris, for your presentation.

Appreciate it.

No questions.

I just have one clarifying question.

The storage area that's not allowed, that's just not a topic of conversation today.

Like if it was relocated or anything.

The wording zoning him was it needs to be consistent in a scale or associated with inconsistent scale wise with the vehicle repair.

So at that scale shown, it's

Right.

Okay.

Thanks.

That was my only question.

Yes.

It's time for the applicant's presentation.

Good afternoon, I'm Daniel with line and grade civil engineering.

I'm a civil engineer, not an architect.

And actually I had no other additional information to provide other than what Chris shared with you, but I can answer questions if you had any more specific or context oriented questions, but there's no further presentation.

We'll see if any members have questions for the applicant.

I was just wondering if the applicant or I guess Chris could speak to the trees that appear to conflict with utilities.

Is that accurate?

Yeah the kind of the frontage landscaping appears to conflict because there's overhead and underground underground lines and well knowing kind of the spread they appear to be planted too close but we left the kind of door open for explanation and then the interior trees are definitely there in an easement and talking about engineering those particular trees would need to be moved out of the easement those are

trees here would be the interior trees that interior road trees that were being referred to in the staff report.

Thank you.

I don't have any questions for the applicant.

All right, great.

Thank you.

So the ARB will now go into discussion.

Thank you.

Tara?

Yeah, generally in agreement.

So this is an initial site plan.

So the recommendation is for approval.

In the staff report, there was one condition of approval, and that was to remove the larger asphalt lot for outdoor storage.

In the list of comments for the final site plan,

There was number six, move the vehicle storage so that building D provides screening as viewed from the entrance corridor.

To be consistent with the initial plan approval, we're recommending the addition of number two, and it's worded more generally, the location of the vehicle storage area must shift to meet entrance corridor requirements.

And that would just allow changes to the initial plan to

meet whatever requirements you all have with the final site plan.

All right, thanks.

I also generally kind of agreed with the staff recommendations.

I don't have others to add.

All right, thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right, thanks a lot.

Thank you.

All right, our second regular review item today is SP 2023-37, Home Depot outdoor storage display and sales.

This is an advisory review for a special use permit for the Home Depot store.

You'll require that you reviewed and recommend approval of the initial site plan in May.

But as a reminder, the site is located at the north end of the Fashion Square Mall, where the Sears store is located.

The site falls within two entrance corridors.

It's Route 29 to the west and Rio to the north, and the site is visible from both corridors.

Today you're considering the applicant's request for outdoor storage, display, and sales of lawn, garden, and related merchandise.

Although some of the images in this submittal show the main store building, the design of the main building is not under review today.

In September, Home Depot will be back for that review.

One other thing to note, the drawings and the content for today's review of the special use permit

evolved during the review of the project and really evolved up to the last minute.

So it's possible that I have a few details wrong in the staff report and in this presentation.

I apologize for that if that's the case, but I'm sure the applicants will be able to clarify and provide whatever additional details are needed.

This particular SP is required specifically because of the location and the entrance quarter overlay.

And the review is limited to determining whether the outdoor storage, display, and or sales is consistent with the design guidelines.

In other words, will the display result in an appropriate appearance for the entrance corridor?

The areas of display are the garden center itself, which is adjacent to the Rio East corridor, outdoor areas along the front of the garden center and along the main building,

behind the building and extending for a short portion along the existing building.

The areas behind the building are not expected to be visible from the entrance corridor.

A view down onto the garden center is expected from the sidewalk along Rio Road, much as the current view is down onto the Sears building.

The outdoor areas are expected to be visible from Rio across the entrance into the site and from Route 29, though that would be at a distance.

The garden center has an entrance feature on the Route 29 side and fencing that extends from the entrance feature to both sides to enclose the garden center area.

The fence design changes depending on location.

Materials include vertical metal fence, expanded metal mesh, black fabric mesh, and black chain link.

Not every material is used in every application.

And when multiple materials are used, they are sort of sandwiched together.

The chain link is used as part of the composition at the upper part of the fence on the side that parallels Rio Road.

The layered design could sufficiently reduce the noticeability of that chain link.

Because the design uses chain link, because this exact fence design doesn't yet exist anywhere that can be viewed, and because there will be some visibility through the fence into the garden center, we recommended that a mock-up be provided for ARB review.

We recommend that it be provided prior to building permit approval, but you may prefer an earlier deadline.

Another fence-related issue is the height of the fence.

It's 12 feet tall on the Route 29 side of the building and 20 feet tall on the Rio side.

Some garden centers stack products higher than the fence that encloses the space.

This creates a disorganized, disorderly and unattractive appearance, so limiting the height of stored products to the height of the fence would be appropriate.

But the fence heights vary here.

Depending on layout, products stored at a taller 20-foot fence height might be viewed above and beyond the 12-foot fence.

Viewers would probably need to be standing at a distance to see that condition, but a consistent fence height could resolve that problem.

We've recommended a condition of approval that products must not be stored higher than the shortest garden center fence.

The garden center is partially enclosed at the top.

The elevated position on Rio Road above the site will allow the enclosures and the interior areas of the garden center that aren't roofed to be visible from Rio Road.

The enclosures are a combination of retractable black mesh over the central area and white pre-finished metal canopies set at varying heights.

A portion of the garden center is enclosed with vertical translucent fiberglass wall panels.

The fiberglass will appear to glow when lit from the interior at night.

That's an effect that would not be appropriate for the entrance corridor and a change to that material is recommended.

Garden Center is part of the Home Depot big box design.

It's a version of a trademark design.

The garden center and the display have no connection to the historic architecture of the county.

Given the immediate context, that connection may not be as important as some of the other aspects of the design.

This redevelopment, however, is an opportunity to meet the guideline that states that landscaping can provide continuity along the corridor and allow for more flexibility in the building design.

Route 29 does not currently have

Any of the standard entrance quarter frontage planting on this parcel.

Given the extent of the redevelopment and the requested special use, we've recommended that the planting be provided.

There are a few other landscaping issues.

One is screening as proposed along the Rio Road frontage to address the visibility of the storage and display.

The Rio frontage is relatively narrow.

It includes a planting strip with a guardrail at the street edge and some existing mature trees.

There's a sidewalk and then another guardrail before the ground falls away with a steep slope down to the mall parking lot.

For the screening along the Rio frontage, there's a landscape proposal and a buffer alternative.

The buffer alternative consists of a solid wooden fence.

The fence of that design would be out of character in this location, and we've recommended a landscape only solution.

However, there is concern that there's not sufficient planning area to accommodate the landscaping that's proposed, so we've recommended that a detail be provided to show that it can be done.

There are a few lighting issues related to the outdoor display.

There are fixtures mounted at the top of the garden center fence pointing down into the garden center.

Those fixtures are proposed with a color temperature of 4000 K and that exceeds the guidelines.

There are no light fixtures shown illuminating the exterior of the garden center or outside storage areas to ensure that the display areas are not over illuminated.

We've recommended that outdoor illumination be limited to 20 foot kennels, maximum, which is typical in the entrance quarters.

That covers most of the issues that we've identified in the staff report.

Your recommendation on this proposal will be forwarded onto the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

In the staff report, we listed two sets of comments.

The first is recommended additions or changes to the drawings to clarify points of design to confirm that an appropriate appearance will be achieved.

With these requests for outdoor display, typically when changes are needed in the drawings, we recommend that you see the revised drawings prior to taking action.

If you don't feel those issues that are identified in that first list are that significant, you could forego them or leave them for staff review prior to the proposal moving on to the planning commission.

The second list is recommended conditions for the special permit.

They aren't necessarily changes that need to be made to the plans right now, but conditions that would run with the special permit.

In addition to general discussion about the proposal and its visibility, there are a few specific items we recommend you include in your discussion today.

They are the building materials, including the fence designs, the available planting area along Rio Road, and the need for frontage planting along Route 29.

And that is the end of my presentation.

All right.

Thanks a lot, Margaret.

Tara, do you have any questions?

No.

Thank you, Margaret.

Thank you, Margaret, for the thorough report and presentation.

Thank you.

I guess I had one question.

The translucent fiberglass that looked based on some of the images at the

that occurred on some of the roofs also.

It was my understanding that it was just that vertical piece that was the translucent and that the sort of the roof pieces would be opaque, but I'm sure the applicants can help us with that.

There is a representative here.

My name is Corbin Rowe.

I'm the real estate manager for Home Depot Northeast US.

And we've been looking to get a store here in Charlottesville for almost 20 years now.

So long time in the making.

We're happy to be here in front of you and considering the site plan and everything about it.

Look forward.

I think the team we have here can answer all of your questions and go through it and appreciate the opportunity to listen to us.

Thank you.

All right.

I guess we'll go into questions for the applicant.

Dave, do you have any questions?

Oh, presentation.

All right.

No worries.

No problem.

I understand.

I didn't get up here fast enough.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Valerie Long with Williams-Mullen also representing Home Depot.

We appreciate the opportunity to be here.

I do have a few slides I can run through.

Some of them are the same that Margaret had, so I'll really skim through those.

As was noted, this is a proposal for the Home Depot to replace the old Sears store and we do need the special use permit because of the outdoor display areas.

These are, I think, some of the same exact pictures Margaret showed of the existing corridor and visibility from each of them of the vacant former Sears store.

We can come back to these as needed.

One element I can talk more about is I wanted to highlight the absence of parking lot trees in the existing mall property.

Obviously, the mall was built in, I believe, 1979 and 80 and predates the landscaping requirements.

So it's not very different than what we're proposing here now.

And some Google Street View images, that's looking back towards Route 29,

kind of from that middle dry vial showing the absence of any plantings there now and likewise looking back towards the existing seers other than some trees up against the building and some very small shrubs in the front.

There's really nothing there.

and we're proposing something very different.

These are an excerpt from our plans.

In response to the comment about the trees along the entrance corridor on Route 29, Home Depot would be happy to do that.

The challenge is that there's only a narrow strip of land

that is on the Home Depot side in between the right-of-way line and the parking lot edge.

As part of the next phase of the mall after the store is open, Home Depot is going to be working with other developers to redevelop the entire mall area.

So at some point there will be hopefully buildings located there and there'll be much more room for planning ahead for things like appropriate plantings along the entrance corridor.

So right now we're limited to that small green area, but Hope Depot is willing to plant shrubbery there.

If that would be helpful, they can learn today, can maybe squeeze some trees in there.

We're happy to work with staff on what would be appropriate and what would fit, but we know that VDOT does not typically allow plantings in there right of way.

but also highlighted in green are all the new trees that are proposed for the site as part of the final site plan.

So we think those trees given that there are really none there now will substantially improve the screening of the new store as well as the garden center from route 29.

I'm happy to come back to this slide at any point.

This is an image showing obviously the rendering of the proposed building from the entrance quarter with some of the new trees

in the parking lot that don't exist now, and this doesn't even show all of them.

Concept plan, as Margaret showed, those are the areas in yellow are where the outdoor storage is proposed.

Here is the landscape detail.

In response to staff's comments, we spoke with Kimley Horn, who is the project civil engineering firm and their landscape architect.

We asked them to take another look at this.

They're very confident that the

Holly trees that are proposed for down in this area can be planted there and will survive as well as I think these are 52 English laurels here and I can talk about the height of planting and the heights of those proposed to grow to.

There were some comments about the new white oaks or red oaks in this location.

These trees are at the bottom of the edge of the parking lot down at the bottom of the hill.

Those are not necessarily proposed to be screening for the outdoor storage and display.

Those are just trees that will be required as part of the site plan.

We didn't mean to imply that those would provide screening of the garden center from the entrance corridor.

We just showed them more for information.

By contrast, adding new plantings here and here and here.

The one as you turn into the mall from looking this direction towards the future store, there are some gaps in the trees here and the bushes here and here.

So we're adding plantings everywhere there is a place to do so.

and again the small English laurels along the edge and then the hollies.

This is really where the gap in the trees is in this area and I could pull the pictures back up if needed.

There are some very mature oak trees there already that help with the screening.

They will obviously supplement them with the shrubs and these additionals but down in

This area along the backside, there's gaps in the tall mature oaks just don't extend that far down Rio.

So that's why Kimley Horn is proposing the holly bushes in that location.

We again, as Margaret showed, this is the proposed alternative fence.

We understand at least staff does not recommend that option.

We just wanted to show it as an option, knowing that given the tight constraints and the challenges with the topography on the Rio Road site and the utilities and just the fact that it is a narrow strip.

We've known from the beginning we would not be able to screen the entire garden center or all of all of the outdoor display items but we wanted to demonstrate we were doing absolutely everything we could given the constraints we're dealing with to provide as much screening as possible but if it were the preference of the ARB and ultimately the board of supervisors that visibility of the garden center and display products be completely eliminated

That there is an option for that in this wooden fence or some other material.

We did not expect that that would be the preference, but we wanted to at least show that as an option if preferred.

This is a close-up of the display areas in front of the store, probably self-explanatory.

So Route 29 is beyond here and then Rio on the right.

So typical planting areas with plants on shelves and racks, things, carts in the front, seasonal sale items, propane tanks.

This is the contractor overhang where contractors will pull in to have lumber loaded on.

So there's some other small items, bags of,

Concrete and some rebar stacked here definitely won't be visible from the entrance cord at a distance.

And then this is a tool rental center, which is enclosed by a fence and won't go over the fence material there.

In the back are also areas for temporary staging, whether it's lumber, bags of mulch, pallets of bricks, those sort of things.

And then you can see, sorry, this is probably the most important view of the rendering with the landscaping added.

As you can see, that does help fill in those gaps a little bit, but certainly the store and portions of the garden center fence will still be visible, but I think the views will be mitigated substantially with the combination of the new plantings as well as the proposed materials.

Just wanted to show all the elevations.

We're happy to come back to any of these where you may have questions.

I'm gonna be talking about the fencing.

This is the view from Rio, a certain design of fencing here, and then a slightly shorter fence here, as Margaret noted, with slightly different proposal there.

And then finally, this is the tool rental center that I just mentioned, which might be visible at a distance from Rio because it's up against the old existing Sears building.

Again, this is the fence from the front elevation and from the side, that's that tool rental center in the distance.

One element, and I have some images I'll show you to explain, is this fence will have three layers.

And the one difference between the two is that on this bottom half, there is some security metal mesh fencing.

And I have a close-up image.

It's kind of like very tight weave chain link.

On the top will be chain link.

Both will be coated in the black material.

We'll also have a vertical decorative metal fence along the entire span.

The challenge is I don't have a picture to show you exactly what Home Depot is proposing for this site because they're proposing something they've never actually built anywhere else.

So what we're trying to do is show you various combinations and then ask you to sort of understand how it would look.

So on the far left is a picture of a fence with the vertical metal fencing and the chain link behind.

This is the tight weave security expanding metal mesh, obviously a closeup of it.

This is the front of a store.

You can see again, this sort of for primitive references, the panel we'll talk about in a moment.

This material only is on this front of the store.

I think it does a good job of showing how that material helps to screen and minimize the view into the center itself.

And then finally is some black metal material mesh that would be added to the side of the fencing on the Rio roadside to help further screen the materials.

So then I'll walk through each option.

This is the tool rental center that's just to the right of the front so you'll see this at a distance but it would be visible and again on the bottom is this metal mesh security fencing on the top is the chain link and then the metal mesh behind but also it will have the vertical

metal decorative fencing as well.

So three layers, the metal vertical decorative on the outside, and then the chain link in the middle on the top half, expanded metal mesh in the middle on the bottom half, and then the black fabric mesh material along the entire portion of the fence.

So there's three layers together.

That's the same sequence as well for the large

side along Rio Road.

This is some close-ups of photographs from the Waynesboro store.

that I took to try and provide some local options.

Obviously a very different store.

They don't have an architectural review board.

So obviously those orange panels are not proposed, but I did want to just show sort of, this is what the metal mesh looks like if you're very close to it.

And then this picture was taken essentially from this exact spot, looking in again, showing that it does help to mitigate the views into the garden center, particularly from a distance where it appears darker.

These are photos of the fencing there in Waynesboro.

Very different from, in many ways, from what's proposed here.

Most importantly, this does not have any of the metal, excuse me, the vertical metal decorative, nor does it have the black mesh material on the inside.

But this is what would be in the middle at the store here in Charlottesville.

And you can see sort of the difference.

This is the metal mesh tighter weave on the bottom and then

Standard chain link on the top, both in black.

So again, this would have vertical

decorative metal fence on the outside, this material in the middle, and then the mesh black fabric on the inside.

But I wanted to just show this as an example of how that looks from a distance.

Here's some temporary staging.

There was a question about trees being located next to temporary staging areas.

And so I just took a picture.

It's not always very tall things.

Sometimes it's smaller items like that.

This is taken from inside the store at the garden center in the Waynesboro store.

The material for the roofs over the garden center would be a white metal material with translucent fiberglass inserts as shown here.

So I recognize we did not clarify that on our application materials.

We have the architects from Home Depot here who can talk more about why they propose that alternative.

Obviously, it allows light to come through for the plants and other materials, helps reduce on electricity costs, among other things.

So that is what we're proposing, and we appreciate your feedback on that.

and this is a rendering of the garden center with the proposed materials.

The fencing along the front, this is a 12-foot fence and this segment of the front fence, which is 20, those would have the vertical decorative metal on the outside and the various types of chain link, the smaller security on the bottom,

and the standard chain link on the top.

These segments of fence would not have the black mesh material.

Home Depot wants their customers to be able to see in a little bit as opposed to screening it entirely.

By contrast, over on the Rio roadside would have the black mesh material to help create much more of a screening of that area.

There was a question about whether there were any lights on the building that were to illuminate the display items.

There are not.

There are standard wall pack lighting for safety.

We can call those out on the plans, but they're not intended to illuminate the display items.

This is just some images of another store to help perhaps better demonstrate the relationship of the canopies, the various heights and the materials relative to the garden center entrance.

And again, this is that same material, the metal, small mesh security, expanding metal mesh material that's along the front much as it is at the Waynesboro store, just for an idea of how that works.

Home Depot does have concerns about having a uniform fence height around.

They like the idea of having it vary and have it be shorter here, the 12 feet in the front, and then starting here and going all the way around, it would be 20 feet above.

That allows them to stack those materials and have them not exceed the top of the fence.

But over here on this area where they're not stacking them, obviously there's a roof here, so that would not be an issue, but it would not be as imposing of a height of the building there on that side.

I think it would be challenging for someone to be standing I think probably way over here somewhere back further to be able to see the over this fence and roof to see these materials at the back.

Certainly if you're walking from Route 29 you may see them at a distance.

but we think that all of the various measures together including the new trees will help mitigate that visibility.

And this is somewhat of a similar image that you would see from the Rio Road vantage point in terms of the same, very similar in terms of the roof canopy location and structure.

That one looks a little bit blue on the roof but it would be white.

And again, just a different angle showing that

and some of these images Home Depot shared with me that the roofs look or the canopy covers look brighter that they, I know the part of Stas concern was that they would glow at night.

They're telling me in these images which we had, they were actually intentionally taken at dusk when it would be most visible because they really like to show it that way.

It would not necessarily be the same with the Charlottesville store.

I just wanted to point that out.

I think that's everything there.

I do have a couple of comments on, I can go back as needed, a couple of responses on some of the staff comments if now is the appropriate time or responses.

There's many we're comfortable with, a few we'd like some modifications to.

And I've covered some of them.

The first may be about the comment about this translucent fiberglass material here.

Staff recommends that that be replaced with a different material out of concern that it would appear to be glowing from the entrance corridor.

Happy to have the Home Depot reps and architects address that issue, but we think it will be okay.

The lighting inside will not be uplit towards that panel, obviously be downlit into the store.

The translucent material again helps for, you know, obviously allowing light in onto those materials and into the entire garden center during the day.

reduces electricity.

If it's visible from Route 29, it will be at quite a distance.

It's over 700 feet.

And again, there will be a number of new trees planted in the parking lot that are not there now, as well as at least some shrubs along Route 29, if not some trees as well.

So we would like to leave that material if possible and we would appreciate your feedback on that.

I talked a little bit already about Trees Along 29 for Mr. Stoner's benefit.

I'll go back to that slide, which is right here.

Much of the green

Greengrass Strip that currently exists between the Route 29 northbound lanes and the parking lot.

It's all just grass, no plantings of any kind there.

Much of that area is in the VDOT right-of-way.

And so what we're proposing is at a minimum to put some shrubs here within the space that is between the right-of-way and the edge of the existing parking lot, or if possible, put some trees there.

But the rest of the mall will be redeveloped as part of the next phase of redevelopment.

So we're trying to avoid one.

We had a challenging constraints with the right-of-way location.

but two, trying to avoid having to tear up that parking lot unnecessarily, put something else back, knowing that it would be torn up again in a few years.

So we appreciate your feedback on that issue.

And then I wanted to again point out from Ms. Stoner's benefit, all of these trees in green are new, those do not exist there now.

And I think the images, yes, this is the existing parking lot of the Sears store, obviously looking towards the building,

and that is the opposite direction looking back towards Route 29 showing there's no trees there now, but we're proposing to add quite a few in comparison.

So that was on that issue.

We'd love your feedback on that.

With regard to the two lighting issues, one was about the temperature color, whether it was 4,000 Kelvin or 3,000 Kelvin, they would prefer 4,000.

They tell me that's fairly standard for commercial projects.

If 3,000 is what you're looking for, I think they can make that work.

They may want to talk with you a little bit about that more.

And then with regard to the limit on foot candles, whether it's 20 foot candles or 30, I noted in the guidelines that it does say that up to 30 is appropriate for display lots.

And so we were asking, we would like to maintain 30 foot candles along the front display lot.

Let me go back to that image.

It's fine to have 20 in the other locations, or excuse me, yes, 20.

So we're asking to maintain 30 in the front, just because you have obviously staff members and the public coming and going in the evening.

You have a travelway here, there's curbs, materials in there.

We think it's for safety reasons, is more appropriate to have 30 foot candles there.

It's not intended to be about lighting the display items, but for safety.

By comparison, these areas in the back, 20 is fine because most of the work involving those temporary staging or storage areas take place during the daytime.

And they don't have as much traffic flowing in front.

We talked about the roof material a little bit already.

We'd like to be able to use the same white metal roof with the transparent fiberglass insert panels to allow the light in.

Again, the lighting is not uplit.

It's obviously all downward facing.

So while the roofs would be visible, we think that they can be mitigated with the existing and proposed additional landscaping.

We would welcome your input on that.

and regarding this planting area along Rio Road, Kemley Horn, the project engineers have confirmed.

They are very confident that what they propose will be, there's room for it.

There, these are small shrubs that can,

work in that location and then there's one holly here and then that row continues here this is where the maple trees don't currently exist largely because of the overhead power lines but these hollies can be planted at the height of planting can help mitigate the views of the garden center but they will even though they'll grow to a nice height they won't interfere they won't grow so tall that they will interfere with those utility lines

and then we talked about the fencing, we prefer to not have them be uniform but to keep the 12 foot on the front and 20 feet on the rio side and then finally the suggestion about limiting stocking of products against the fence to the height of the lowest fence

We would ask that that be instead don't have the product be stocked above the top of the fence.

So again, on one side they could be stocked up to 20 feet, which is a height on Rio and no more than 12 on the 29 side.

I think that was everything.

Again, I'd be happy to answer questions or call on our team members as needed.

I should have introduced our team too.

Forgive me.

So you met Corbin Rowe, who's the manager for real estate.

We also have John Karakas, who's with Greenberg Farrow, who is Home Depot's architect, Dan Boyle with MG2, also part of the architecture team, and David Ellington with Kimley-Horn Civil Engineers.

All right, well, thanks a lot.

We'll go into questions for the applicant.

I don't believe I have any questions.

Tara?

I know we kind of touched on it, that I'm still having a little bit of trouble wrapping my head around the, was it laurels?

Sure.

Great.

Good afternoon, David Ellington with Kimley-Horton.

I've spoken with my landscape architects and they've confirmed that right now out there is about a two to one slope and they said that these trees and plantings would be okay to plant there, be fine without any issues.

The

The types of species that they've put there are really, you know, the roots will go in nicely into the soil and kind of help with erosion too.

So that's the reason they selected those plants for that location because of the slope.

Thanks.

All right, thanks.

My apologies for my late arrival, first of all.

Secondly, Valerie, if possible, do you have, can I look real quickly at the perspective renderings or photos off Rio?

There's one.

That's at the entrance, yes.

Showing both the existing and proposed new plantings.

Do not have one further down in that location.

This is what we have from here.

Somewhere in here.

The laurels being proposed are skip laurels?

How tall do they grow?

Oh, what did you say, Skipper?

Yes, Skipper, English Laurel, I wasn't sure how to pronounce that.

And regarding height at planting, the laurels would be three feet at planting, and I'm told they grow up to five feet.

I shouldn't have closed out of this.

These hollies here, along there, and then one at the match line starting there.

Those would be six to eight feet at planting, and I'm told they will grow to 15 feet and grow about one foot per year.

And then if it is helpful to know, I mentioned this earlier,

These oak trees that are shown, this is a new planting bed at the bottom of the hill in front of the parking lot and a few in the parking lot islands.

Those oak trees are not intended to be for screening for the outdoor storage and display component of the project.

Those will be required by the site plan.

So we want to just go ahead and show them.

All right, thanks.

I do not have any questions.

All right, great.

There doesn't seem to be anyone in person with any questions.

So the ARB will now go into discussion.

Sure.

Thank you, Chris.

Well, I appreciate the presentation.

I think just in terms of the translucent panels, sympathetic to the idea of having some daylighting of the space.

And I think, you know, with proper lighting, I agree probably that they can be appropriate.

I think if the applicant were able to provide a lighting simulation, that would be satisfactory from my perspective.

In terms of the trees, I appreciate the parking lot trees.

I think those will be a big improvement where proposed.

I would appreciate further detailed study of locating large trees by the entrance corridor.

I think it may be feasible from looking at a very high level at the plans, but would appreciate that.

I think it would be a big improvement to the corridor.

The laurel, I think the height discussed today sounds okay to me.

I think the concern I actually have is just the diversity of maybe or lack of diversity in planting.

It would be nice to see that proposed greening developed with more than one species.

Let's see, the fencing.

Appreciate the output.

Maybe it's considering doing a mock-up.

I think that's a good recommendation by staff.

I think that the vertical spacing is likely to be a key factor in how effectively it works or doesn't.

But it looks like a good proposal to be developed.

I think

relative to the height of displays and the height of fencing open to the applicant's request to allow different fencing heights.

I think if there were a plan that showed where different display areas would be stacked to different heights that could establish how they were screened effectively, that would satisfy me.

I think those were the main comments I had.

So, thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate some of the detail that was provided around the fencing.

I think that there's sort of this thing that's going on between the fencing and that like if it becomes opaque enough for it to screen the garden center materials, which I think is desirable based on some of the images that you showed, that it also becomes like

More monolithic in terms of the scale of the fencing area and I think from the entrance corridor you're not necessarily going to be able to tell that the textures of the mesh fencing and the chain link are going to read as sort of more interesting and so I think that some of the precedent images you showed have ways that previous Home Depot designs have sort of modulated fencing

in order to provide a little bit of relief from the scale of that.

I think there's like a masonry infill.

I think if you were looking at different ways that the verticals on the fence, like you could introduce larger members to make that possible.

You could vary the color of the various elements of that three-part system.

I think something like that would go a long way towards sort of

All right, thank you.

I would generally agree with Taro's comment with regard to the fencing and the, I guess the transparency or lack thereof

I personally think it's less of an issue.

It's certainly not an issue at all from 29.

To me, it's less of an issue on Rio given the grade differences and given the fact that it is a big box store.

And I think we need to acknowledge that.

I think the issue that

or the other issues related to particularly the translucent panels.

I tend to be more sympathetic with the notion that translucent panels can provide light during the day.

And I think that the downside of that or the possible downside at night is really mitigated by the distance off the corner, quite honestly.

Otherwise, I think from a landscaping perspective, what you're doing in the parking lot is really fantastic.

What's up front is gonna get redeveloped at some point, so to Valerie's point, whatever you put out there may be at risk.

All right, thank you.

I don't really have anything new to add.

I thought all the comments were great and I generally agree with them and particularly the translucent panels.

I kind of share some of my fellow board members' belief that it seems to be more intended to let light in during the day than to be an intentionally kind of glowing element at night.

So I think

If the applicant can kind of provide some reassurance about the lighting level inside, I think particularly as Frank mentioned with the distance to the 29 entrance corridor, I don't think that's going to be a really prominent thing.

Also thought that Dade had a great comment about the screening on the Rio roadside, making that a little bit more

At this point, we could talk about the staff's recommended motion, but I guess it seemed like there's three tracks that we could pursue in terms of that motion.

And it didn't sound like anyone had any really kind of severe concerns about the proposal.

So it seemed like the three options were approval with conditions,

or kind of a resubmission to staff or a resubmission at a subsequent hearing where we would go over everything again.

It seems considering the kind of level of concern that I've heard that that one might be a little bit more extreme than we would need to do.

All right.

I agree too.

Margaret, do you have any concerns about that?

All right, great.

I guess I for one would want to modify the first comment, but I'm

I don't know that it'll really be visible from the images that have already been shown.

The portion of that translucent panel is not especially visible from the 29 corridor, right?

Yeah, I am.

When we say for item two, a mock-up, that was gonna be like a material sample?

Oh, okay, I see.

Prior to the approval of the building, okay.

Sure.

Anybody have a preference?

Alternatives that she suggested they could use, correct?

Sorry, I could not quite hear your question.

I think there were just layers.

There are different parts of the system, like there's the mesh and then there's the chain link and there's the fabric.

No, no, that's fine.

If I may, and I should have mentioned this during my presentation, that how much it was not opposed to doing a mock-up fit would be helpful.

They do tell me it will get fairly expensive and unwieldy because of needing, you know, this segment has to be long enough to, you know, and be about four feet by five feet to bring.

That being said, I could bring more photos or show you more photos from another store.

If you prefer the mock-up, we can certainly pull it together.

I think in some ways, photos are more effective for me.

A mock-up, you just can see a single panel in an open, like there's no context for it necessarily, so.

Okay.

Yeah, I agree.

For that, I guess,

I think if they could provide, so I think if they could, I think it sounds like maybe there's a middle ground between the mock-up and based on the presentation, if you could submit a material sample with the three layers sort of somehow assembled, is that something?

I guess the condition would be if that could be submitted to staff for review.

Unless that's already been done, is that?

If you only want them for review.

I don't know what the term is exactly, but like modulating the rhythm of the fence somehow.

I don't think it needs to be like a,

I'm sorry, could you repeat that again?

Consider, I don't know, modifying or adjusting the dimensions of fence members to create a different rhythm across the

Fenced Area, something like that.

Just so it's not this long.

So it's not like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

The way that's worded, it wouldn't really be a condition of the special use permit.

Yeah, actually, that was one of my questions on process is like, so if that could be, would that be incorporated with later architectural submission?

If you just want them to consider it, it doesn't belong with the special use permit conditions.

So we could add it into the, I don't know how quickly that can be turned around.

May not be quick enough for the September review that's scheduled for the main building.

That's why I said in the presentation, when we have details to work through, it's easier to get that all done before you take action on the special use permit.

How strongly do you feel about that?

I think it's also helpful just to remember where we're looking at it from, right?

I think if you were next to the fence in the parking lot, your comment is definitely that.

I don't think that's what we're charged with evaluating though.

It's really, what does it look like from Rio Road in this case?

IO 129, 29 to me is a kind of a non-issue.

It's just too far back.

Rio, you're gonna have all these plantings

on the hillside at the top of the hill.

Yeah, I do feel like from the perspectives that were shown by staff, that there are some parts of that road where you're just kind of looking out over the whole of the rear of the building.

And from that perspective, I kind of feel like, you know, I appreciate that the screening is going to happen.

but it's not going to eliminate visibility of the building from certain parts of, and you are rather close.

Okay, so as far as what, how to modify this,

I think that's fine.

I'm sorry.

It's part of the building.

and saying or be visible from an entrance corridor.

Does that read as you wanted it?

Thank you.

We're fine with the condition as you wrote it.

I just want to point out, I think even if the material is stacked below the top of the fence from certain angles of Rio, you may still be able to see the material beyond the fence.

That is true.

Right, yeah.

I was thinking of that too.

I do wonder

In the same way that we look at sections looking up at things and whether they're screened, would it be the desire of this board that product stacks be screened from Rio by that fencing?

I guess due to that elevation change from Rio, I mean,

Everything in the fence, or not everything, but a lot of what's in there is certainly going to be visible.

Not just the stacked materials.

Perhaps with consideration of the screening planting provided by the applicant.

I'd be okay with that.

Great.

I think it's good to keep it at 3,000.

And I didn't have an issue with five, the 30 in the front and the 20 on the sides.

Right.

Yeah.

Number six seems reasonable to me.

I'm in favor of number seven remaining.

I do think there's a question.

I want trees to be added now's the time.

And then I think number eight, we would just be requesting that the

Will the proposed species be, will the plan be revised to include more diverse?

could make that a consider and not a requirement.

Yeah.

The guidelines also normally require, they have percentage requirements and obviously there's a lot of planting around the parking lot.

Yeah, so I think as Margaret has it now, agreement.

Quick question with regard to spacing along 29 and how this compares to

Other site plans on Pronogem 29 that have been approved.

Of trees to be planted.

I guess this kind of goes to Tara's question.

Yeah, I think that makes sense.

Just taking one last look to see if there's anything else that needs to be resolved.

I'm just looking to see if there's any of those that you will want to be addressed with a future architectural review.

So I think nine falls in there.

It seems to me the others on the list, in the top list, are still things that could be addressed with the architectural review.

It's just to iron out some details, but it's my understanding you don't need to see that before the SP moves forward to the Planning Commission.

Pardon me for interrupting.

We're fine with all those number seven.

We just don't think we can comply with that unless they tear up the parking lot that's closest to Route 29.

Corbin Rowe can speak more about the plans for the next phase of redevelopment of the mall when all of that will be subject obviously to entrance corridor review and guidelines.

We can try to fit in all the trees possible in that space between the right of way and the existing parking lot, but they prefer not to tear up that parking lot and then have to redo it again.

So if it's kind of show that you fit as many trees in there as possible or put shrubs and a combination of trees, something like that.

But again, I just don't want to set us up for a condition that we can't comply with without doing a lot of unnecessary work.

Okay.

Margaret, if you wouldn't mind swapping screens.

Sorry to jump in.

I should have elaborated a little bit on this when I introduced myself, but obviously we would

Love to just have the Sears and not the whole mall, but we had to get the mall to get the Sears property to do that.

And we will be addressing full redevelopment of the mall property in due time.

A lot of great opportunities in front of us that we're looking at and trying to pick through the best ones that's gonna benefit Albemarle County the most.

On this drawing here, what probably needs to be elaborated on is,

The current ring road as configured within the mall, this has changed.

This drawing here shows us realigning that to square up.

Where you see the trees on kind of the inside of the curve of the ring road is the main front field for the Home Depot parking lot.

That's what we were anticipating.

99% of our customers staying within.

The other parking field out towards 29,

which is more adjacent to the Red Lobster as you know on 29 there.

That parking area, we look at that as kind of a future outpost to whatever the mall redevelopment plans on being in the future.

So that whole parking field, we're not planning on touching because it is going to be part of that future development.

And when that comes back before you all again, the same trees will be implemented there of whatever parking lot remains.

Building their buildings, which will have its own footprint and screening of its own.

And so I think at that point, that whole parking lot will be torn out completely and we can address a full buffer on 29.

Our only comment today is with leaving the parking the way it is today, because we're not touching that, that's phase two redevelopment.

We have a very narrow strip there.

We don't think we can get the trees in to accommodate, you know, what's called for on 29.

We can put shrubs in and then with the other trees that are showing our parking lot, and hopefully that kind of satisfies what we need with the 700 feet of depth to the store for today.

for the Home Depot.

But upon redevelopment of that out parcel and or the mall, then that whole front 29 landscaping buffer will be done to the code of what's required there on the entrance corridor.

Okay, thank you.

Without I guess my perspective is if we know that's going to be redeveloped, which it sounds like

That parking lot's going to get torn up.

There's going to be opportunity for a much more cohesive, attractive landscape.

Building 700 feet behind it.

I appreciate that perspective.

I think and I hope it gets redeveloped quite soon.

I just think the canopy trees along the entrance corridor are one of the greatest sources of continuity and character.

The change that was just proposed was or an alternative planting acceptable to the ARB.

So that would be another chance.

Yeah, I think that that could be done at a later date.

I think it'll be nice to see a plan, something more concrete for the whole shopping center and everything.

But in the absence of that, I think it's a good point because this property does,

face the entrance corridor.

I mean, it is a portion of the, I'm just looking at the aerial.

There's shade trees all along the other portions of the Fashion Square Mall site.

They're pretty nice.

It's a good part of the landscaping.

If there can be some continuity through this portion of the site, I think that'd be great for the corridor and for the site.

There can be some demonstration of landscape strategy that you all would propose and that we could review and agree to in a way that

That sounds okay with me.

I would still argue that the frontage is not being developed at this time.

In that sense, I feel like it's premature to impose a requirement on this development, which will have its own significant canopy coverage within their parking area that will serve as a buffer.

We'll have the opportunity to get what we want on the frontage.

get it done right as opposed to we're going to fit in what we can right now and maybe or maybe it doesn't work with what we do in the future it just doesn't feel like I mean I understand the motivation for it but it feels like a stopgap measure like we'll take whatever we can get and we don't know like

I don't know.

I think when the frontage gets developed, we can get what we want.

I mean personally I could kind of buy that argument if a future submission for redevelopment of that parcel I guess like we'd want to think about somebody submitted a plan for redevelopment of that parcel and they had the or to me it's a question of like if that doesn't come through are we okay with the redevelopment of the parcel and the

We have a fronted parcel.

We've had other submittals for that front parcel.

I think we had a restaurant at one point that was looking at going there.

I just feel like it's a separate parcel.

It ought to be dealt with as a separate parcel.

It's going to be some sort of

in suburban retail restaurant, I don't know what, but we'll have the opportunity to get it right.

How soon?

Again, if you look at the rendering that they showed, Valerie, I don't know whether it's possible to put that back up, just a perspective from 29 with the amount of planting that they're proposing around the secondary parking area.

Sure.

Yeah.

Sorry, I can't remember which direction it is.

It adds a lot of trees.

Yeah.

Couple things, someone was just pulled up the aerial images from VDOT's website.

Apparently it looks like when the grade separated interchange was installed, there used to be trees along that frontage.

No, not there.

Pardon me, I didn't get to the right one.

Anyway, there's a retaining wall that starts, it doesn't show up in this image, but kind of right about here and very low and then gets higher as you approach the interchange.

And according to the historical aerial images our team at BERT just pulled, they were there, they were just removed regardless.

We certainly appreciate the comments and, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your flexibility, certainly, but we also understand it is a pretty obvious gap in any planting and it doesn't look great.

Home Depot is willing to put in whatever they can put in within that space between the right-of-way and the existing parking lot.

If they can figure out how to comply with number seven exactly, they'll do that.

We're just not certain we can.

We can certainly put shrubs and they can put as many trees that fit the standards as possible and a mixture of the large shade and the ornamentals.

It just may not be what they would do if they had more room to work with.

Kind of like on Rio, we're trying to do everything we can within the constraints that we have.

It may mean that that gets torn out later when the model is redeveloped, but maybe that's better than nothing.

I think so if it's just clear that they don't need to tear up the existing parking lot, kind of between, again, the right-of-way and the existing parking lot.

Thanks.

So you could add alternative planting within boundary of the same parking and right-of-way.

All right, so I'll move for direct approval of the special use permit with the following conditions as outlined in the staff report except strike items one and two.

Modify item three to read products for storage display and or sale must not be stacked higher than the adjacent garden center fence.

Modify item five to state outdoor elimination, including elimination of items for storage, display and sale must not exceed 30 foot candles at the display areas facing Route 29 and 20 foot candles elsewhere.

Modify item seven after 61-132 add or an alternative planting within the existing planting area between the parking lot and the right of way and acceptable to the ARB.

Aye.

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Thanks a lot.

All right, then.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Well, and Margaret and Chris and fellow members, I apologize.

I actually am going to have to depart.

So thank you very much.

Okay, this is some continued work on our entrance corridor guidelines addenda.

Today we're going to be looking at the addenda for Route 631, Ryer Road East.

This particular segment is 1.6 miles long.

In terms of the general characteristics of progression, the eastern end of the Rio East corridor is located at the northern terminus of the John Warner Parkway.

There are some lawns on the properties that are in that area and they create a transition from the wooded character of the parkway to the more dense development along Rio Road.

This includes some residential developments that are oriented away from the corridor and some large institutional developments with deep setbacks and large parking lots and those are typically predating the establishment of that entrance corridor.

West of the bridge over the train tracks, development is located closer to the street and trees and shrubs provide a minimal vegetated buffer there.

The corridor includes several religious properties exhibiting a range of styles.

We identified seven churches along this corridor and we point this out because the buildings tend to have some unique transportation patterns and

some architectural designs that have features that are more visible from the corridors like sort of enhanced entrances and enhanced rooftop roof lines.

Development becomes progressively denser as you continue to move west with a mix of institutional office and commercial buildings in addition to some higher density residential developments.

Approaching Mall Drive, the view opens and a distant view of mountains is available

to the south, sorry.

The western end of Rye Road East near the intersection of Route 29 is dominated by shopping centers and their parking lots.

The zoning in the area, it's a wide variety of zoning designations corresponding to that wide variety of development that we've just described.

R4 residential predominates at the eastern end of the corridor, moving west through some commercial and institutional development.

Residential densities decrease in the older established neighborhoods.

then large commercial and shopping center properties dominate again at the western end.

Approximately half a mile of the western portion of the corridor falls in the Rio 29 form-based code area.

The three distinct character areas are depicted on the map in this case to help users better identify what to expect or what the vision is intended for those areas.

In the precedent images, we highlight historic buildings and forms as well as newer office and commercial developments that try to integrate the street vegetation as well as human scale massing.

And here we do have a more detailed list of predominant structural and landscape features.

Some of these unique aspects along the corridor were continuous sidewalks and some trees and wooded buffers lining the corridor.

But that's just a quick intro.

All right.

Thanks a lot, Mara.

I guess we'll just go right into discussion.

I thought, I guess, Mara, I wanted to watch this later.

She can know that it looks nice.

Thank you.

And thanks for your help as well.

But I guess the only thing I thought was that

We've been talking about it for like an hour and change but the Fashion Square Mall is also part of this corridor so I think including it with some commentary on the list of images seems appropriate.

Even if it's indicating some of the aspects that aren't in accordance with the current entrance corridor guidelines.

but otherwise I think it looks great.

Thanks.

Yeah, I also think it looks great.

The Covenant Church.

Okay.

All right, thanks.

And I guess this card is kind of tough because it doesn't, unlike some of the other carders that have a really kind of strong like flavor, like throughout the carder, this one's kind of like a little bit east meal.

And in that respect, it's,

Kind of hard to put your finger on whether we're making recommendations for this card or just kind of, it seems like this sheet more so than some of the others that we've looked at is just kind of a description without pointing an applicant in one particular direction or another.

And I don't know that there's really anything we can

I think it's accurate.

Yeah, I think that's a really good point.

It's kind of hard to figure out what this corridor might look like in 50 years, but there are a lot of it's underdeveloped urban standards.

So the schoolhouse, for example, well, that's a really nice image.

Well, it also just spans like so many different characteristics of what that development might look like, right?

Like closer to town, you know, maybe something,

you're not going to build exactly that but like it gives a sense of the character of that area but then like when you're talking about the core areas in the Rio 29 planets like that yeah you're right it doesn't tell you that much.

I guess just like maybe this can be a two-page spread because the narrative did also a good job of sort of describing some of the various chunks of the corridor and maybe if just the

I know we've already like broken up a bunch of corridors and stuff.

Is that a priority in this corridor in the future?

All right, so we will move on to

Other business, namely approval of the July 17th minutes.

All right, I'll second, even though I wasn't here.

So I'm happy to second that.

Mr. Stoner.

Aye.

All right, thanks a lot.

The next ARB meeting is, oh well, do any members or staff have any other issues to discuss?

No.

All right.

Board members know they won't be able to attend that?

I think they'll be able to attend.

All right, in that case, this meeting is adjourned to the next meeting on August 21st.

And by my watch, it is 2 57.

And thanks, everyone, for coming.

Great.