Architectural Review Board Meeting   10/2/2023

It's 101 by my watch.

I'm calling the October 2nd, 2023 meeting of the Albemarle County Architecture Review Board to order.

Yes.

All right, thanks a lot.

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 is your turn to speak.

Do any ARB members have anything to disclose?

No?

No.

I do.

On the second item, I'm working with Quinn Evans Architects on another job in DC.

I don't think that would affect my opinion on this matter, but everyone should know about that.

Are there any members of the public that want to make a comment about a project that is not on the agenda for review?

I guess that's a no.

Neil said no.

Oh, okay, thanks.

We do not have any consent agenda items today.

So there are two regular review items.

The first is ARB-2023-78, Rio Point.

Yes.

This is a preliminary review of a site plan and an architectural design and the proposal is to construct a multifamily development consisting of 328 units with associated site improvements.

The location of the proposal is at the south corner of the intersection of Ryle Road and the John Warner Parkway and you may recall that you have seen this or versions of this proposal a few times in the past.

Most recently, August of last year, you reviewed a final site plan and preliminary architecture.

There was another review scheduled for December of last year, but the applicant deferred that.

And so in the meantime, the layout of the development has changed.

The current plan is on the left in this slide.

And the last plan that you reviewed is on the right hand side.

As you can see, the building footprints have changed and some of the buildings are now much longer than they were previously.

The architectural design has changed as well.

On the left is the elevations of one of the buildings in the current proposal and on the right is the design that you last reviewed.

The site is elevated above both the parkway and Rio Road.

This is a view facing south.

And these are some perspectives from the applicants submittal.

This is a view southbound on the parkway.

This is northbound on the parkway.

That's buildings one and two up on the hill to the right.

This is a view southbound on Rio.

and this is building one in the submittal.

A primary issue that we noted in the staff report is that in the elevations, the center portion of some of those buildings appear to extend for quite a distance without any recesses or projections.

That's the case here for the entrance quarter facing elevation of building one and building two and building three.

The footprints of the plans seem to show regular projections all around, but it doesn't appear that they are carried through in elevations.

There are other buildings that do have projecting bays more regularly, like this one is building four.

Or some of the buildings that are interior to the site aren't expected to have as much visibility from the corridor, like this one, which is building five.

Building 6 and 7 have the same design, and these do incorporate some regularly spaced projecting bays.

It's another view of Building 7.

Building 8, which faces Rio Road, is expected to have less visibility.

It's furthest from the intersection.

Also in the staff report, we noted a few landscape issues.

This is the current landscape plan.

The standard entrance quarter frontage planning is shown along the parkway and you may recall discussions about the buffer in previous reviews.

Trees are shown added to the buffer that's located between the entrance quarter and the buildings.

In previous reviews, it was recommended that changes be made to the design of the trailhead park.

That design has been revised in this submittal.

The park is now more oriented to address the corner at the intersection, and it appears generally more integrated with the overall development.

That's another view of the trailhead park.

There is a significant amount of grading shown to achieve the proposed development.

Retaining walls are proposed throughout the site.

One of those is located between the entrance corridor facing walls of buildings one and two.

That wall is about 10 feet tall.

It's not stepped.

There's no landscaping proposed along it, and materials have not been identified.

We've recommended in the staff report that additional information be provided to clarify the appearance of the wall and to add treatments to reduce visual impacts.

Those are the highlights of the staff report.

All right.

Thanks a lot, Margaret.

We'll go to questions.

No, I don't have any questions.

No questions for me either.

Thanks, Mark.

All right.

And I don't have any questions either.

How do I do it on mine?

I have lost my mouse.

There we go.

Thanks for having us.

My name is Chuck Rapp.

I'm with Timmons Group.

I'm here to speak on the site layout and the landscaping.

We also have representatives from The Architect, Jonathan Beck here, as well as the developer, Joe Murray as well.

So give you a little background on the project, some of the things that have changed, talk to you about that.

So it's a total of 327 units with eight buildings.

And we'll talk about the entrance quarter landscape and then Jonathan can speak to you about the landscape, the architecture and answer any questions you have on that for some discussion.

So overall layout, as you saw, Margaret pointed out that there were some changes to the layout.

We have kept the buffers.

We carried over most of everything from the previous submission, but we do have a new team and a new slightly layout here.

Some of those changes were due to the existing site conditions there.

So previously, the prior plan was showing some additional buildings.

We now have a large central park due to some constructability challenges of the ground there.

We still have, so you have John Warner Parkway up on one side.

You have Ride Road East over here.

Trailhead Park area, and I've got some updated images with that that we've been working through with the Parks and Rec department as well, and some of those images as well for the landscaping that y'all have seen.

We'll just kind of go through.

This is slightly updated here to show that Trailhead Park.

We've now incorporated a custom

Pavilion structure that Jonathan and his team have been working on, slightly enlarged little gathering space for the future sculpture that will go there, and those are continuing discussions as to exactly what that sculpture would be.

Some seating areas, some benches, some additional trees, some landscaping, another view of what that would look like now in kind of a 3D perspective there, showing a crushstone path around it, and it is slightly visible from the corner of the intersection there, so really wanted to kind of make that a feature of the site.

Up there.

So as was discussed earlier, these are just views along the different roadway addressing the entrance corridor landscape, both with and without landscaping to show you that that change and with the new building design dropped in behind it.

Again, going on down north, northbound on Rio Road.

Similar view, so you can kind of see up the hill there.

And this does also show those buffering back there as well, so that multiple layering of landscaping.

Approaching from the future roundabout location, to your right to go downtown or to your left down to East Rio.

Again, you can see a small area for that pocket park up there.

There it is without.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jonathan Beck.

I'm with Rural Joy Chairman Rubio Architects in Atlanta.

I just wanted to cover the architectural portion of the project.

As Chuck said, we have eight garden style apartment buildings.

Several of them are, we have one that's two stories, several that incorporate three and four building splits.

Again, we have the trailhead and the Central Park area.

And then we also have a clubhouse on the site that has a pool space behind it.

Speaking towards the clubhouse, we have a modern clubhouse design that has a flat roof.

It also has standing seam metal roof accents.

And around the facade of the clubhouse, we have painted brick along with fiber cement panel.

And then we have a storefront window system.

Another view of the clubhouse.

Moving to the apartment buildings.

Again, we have eight different garden style units.

We have several perspective views here that show how the balconies step out.

We have standard balconies along with Juliette's.

And the facades of these buildings are board and batten, as well as fiber cement siding.

And then we also have shake siding accents at the top of our stair tower.

These are some of our buildings.

This one's along the exterior portion of the site and then some of our shorter buildings that again are on the interior of our site.

And the logic is just kind of copied from building to building to help them fit on the side appropriately.

And that is all architecturally.

All right, thank you.

We'll go into questions for the applicant.

Let's see, I guess two questions.

Thanks for the presentation.

I think as Margaret indicated in her quick summary, there were projections shown in the site plan that don't seem to be evident in the elevations or rather the renderings.

Are the renderings aligned with what you intend?

I can speak at least to the rendering.

There's been a few building iterations, so I think I would refer back to the actual elevations for the building articulation versus what we're showing on the actual 2D plan view.

Yeah, we're evaluating the scale of the buildings and we'll try to have something, try to work through that for the next submission.

Over here on the ends of the building, you mean?

So in these, this is where we actually have our three bedrooms units.

So that's why they look slightly different.

Because really we have, I can show you on the plan, that'll be a little easier.

We have these three bedroom units that are back to back there.

So we have, sorry, I'm trying to get zoom in.

Yeah, so this is what we have there.

These are where we have the three bedroom units and then we have the balconies on the sides.

Are you referring to the facade on the front?

Yeah, what's behind that facade?

So in these units, we have two bedrooms on either side here with a jack and jill bathroom in the middle.

Thanks.

Sure, so this is accurate in floor plans you're showing right here in the site plan?

That is correct, yes.

Yes, so what you'll see here is where you have, where you see

these with the squares on the pads per se.

Those are where we have the full balconies going up and these other rectangles are where we have the Julietts because we just have the pad outside on the ground level floor.

So in this building specifically, we have the standard balconies on the ends with the Julietts in the middle.

That's helpful.

And just curious, we might have to look back at one of the perspectives.

How visible will the clubhouse be maybe from that intersection from the entrance corridors?

That was one that was included.

A majority of it is screened just due to grading, but there may be

Small amounts of it visible, so I'm trying to find that for you.

Thank you.

And then just one question on the site plan.

Will the Trailhead Park connect to the

As it is now.

Let me go to those that enlarge me and kind of see a little better, most recent.

So.

I designed it in a way that you could eventually have that future connection those have been some discussions but some talk with county staff they really want to emphasize the multi-use path along the main road out here especially with the roundabout and so if this were ever to connect if the county wanted to do that that'd be more of a primitive trail I think to really encourage majority of traffic to come out use the sidewalk and connect onto the main route that will be connected constructed as part of that roundabout so

As of now it's not, but I wanted to design it in a way that it could be something in the future if need be.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

And then maybe this was a question for staff.

Just curious, the previous iteration, there was no building, I guess, on the page left, top corner, and now there's a building there.

That's right.

I remember that now.

I don't have any additional questions.

I have a question about the renderings versus the elevations, which I know the elevations are probably more current, but the elevations seem to show three distinct layers, the board and batten on top, and then what appear to be two

Well, could you describe what those two bottom layers are?

Yes.

So we have two layers of horizontal siding and we have the darker color on the first level.

And then for levels two and three, we have a lighter color before you had the board and batten at the top.

And that's the same for all the buildings.

All right.

Thanks.

And I guess it's just just a question.

I was just curious about the

Language of the clubhouse seems very distinctively different than the language of the apartment buildings themselves.

Like the style for the clubhouse seems a lot more, I guess, contemporary and the apartments are more traditional.

And I was just, I don't necessarily have an issue with that.

We tried to tie parallels as far as having similar color palettes and stuff, but it was just to kind of contrast the very traditional feel of the buildings.

And we've done some revision over time.

At one point, we did have the pitched roof on it.

And over time, we've come up with the flat roof instead.

All right.

Thank you.

All right, are there any members of the public that would like to make a comment?

All right, if that's a no, then the ARB will go into discussion.

Sure, thank you.

I think,

A pretty thorough review from staff and maybe I should ask the applicant if they have any concerns or questions about staff comments.

I don't know that I have anything to add above that.

I think understanding the articulation of the buildings I think is important and knowing that the perspectives might not be completely accurate is helpful.

I think what you were getting at with the

Three levels of siding.

They create pretty strong horizontal lines at the buildings that I think a lot of times we see those interrupted with elements.

But I do also feel like it's a pretty healthy landscape buffer that will obscure it.

So I don't know that it will be viewed in totality, like we're looking at the rendering on the page.

And I do appreciate hearing about the trailhead design that it's set up for future connection.

It just, to me, it seemed like it really wanted to be connected kind of straight to, or down the hill to John Muir Parkway.

But maybe that'll happen in the future.

And I like, I've probably said this when we reviewed this originally, I like that there's a park at that corner.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you, Chris.

Well, I guess like Frank, I think I appreciate the staff report and its thoroughness.

And I think it highlighted a lot of issues that I think are also concerns for me.

So I guess I would just add a little emphasis.

I do think that in particular, the buildings along the John Warner Parkway, the two are

are overly large and long in their scale and I think that I'd like to request the applicant investigate strategies to further break down their mass and scale.

I think the length of the ridge and the hip was mentioned in the staff report and I think that's contributing.

I think Frank you mentioned the horizontality and the consistency of datum so I think

I appreciate very much the thought and care that's gone in at sort of like the level of the window and the balcony and those elements and I think those are thoughtfully done.

I think just some more thought about the overall building mass and articulation at the scale of the roof and the plane of the wall would benefit breaking that down.

The buildings as they are shown, especially I think building 8 on Rio,

is much shorter, has more articulation, and that feels like a composition that is much more appropriate than the ones that are currently proposed on the John Warder Parkway.

And then just as a secondary one, I know that cool colors are certainly in fashion.

We've seen a number of applications with them, and that really fundamentally is up to the applicant.

I do think that in our natural setting with the landscape buffers that

Other colors possibly with warmer tones can blend more successfully into the landscape that we try to encourage in the project.

So again, though, a thoughtful presentation, really appreciate all the visualizations and just wanted to add that perspective to emphasize some of the comments in the staff report.

Thank you.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

Sure.

Thanks for the presentation and the very thorough package.

I appreciate seeing all those views and perspectives.

I guess the I just wanted to take a stab at what

Dade was mentioning and maybe steal a comment of his from the previous plan that was before us, speaking specifically to the scale of the buildings on the John Warner Parkway.

The reason I was asking about those those units on the corner is because I feel like that's the area right now that doesn't have the same level of texture or detail that happens on the mid span of the building.

that it sort of I think the ARB term is like appearance of blankness on that facade and currently what it is is just like it's sort of continuing the what's going on on the center kind of de-emphasizing the bedrooms and the bathrooms and just kind of treating it like it feels like the elevation wants it to recede but it's also like the part that's most projected out it like has this conflict that's going on with those strips of

that are marking I think the entrance to the stair towers.

But I think if you looked at that end piece as the opportunity to do something different than what's going on in the middle, it would help a lot to reduce the sense of scale of that building because then you'd have like something on the corner that's the most visible part of the building that has the most visibility over the trees.

and that that could be treated as its own element that's kind of on the scale of a single unit.

And then you have like the B portion, which is kind of the background that's in the middle of that building.

And then you could do something else on that corner as well, which I think would help to A, relieve the blankness that's on that facade at the current moment.

But B, like, you know, you could do a different material treatment.

There's different ways that you could address it.

But then it would sort of give a sense that there's more than just one long span of building across that main road that people are driving by every day.

All right.

Thanks a lot, Tara.

I guess I agree with what's been said in terms of the staff report, which I thought was very thorough.

And I didn't really have any comments over and above what was mentioned in the report.

Just more as a suggestion, I think the kind of horizontal layers that are established on the apartment buildings, I think

serve to kind of accentuate the length of those buildings in a way I know it's intended to kind of visually bring down the height of the buildings but in this case I think it's like making

What are pretty long buildings appear to be even longer and I'm wondering if you could consider mixing up some of the materials in a rather than just horizontal bands that could be a way of and I hope breaking up that long facade in some of these cases without having to do projections.

and so that's really, it's more just a consideration than a comment.

All right, I guess I'll just roll through and see if anybody has comments.

Tara, do you have any changes?

No.

And I don't have any changes either.

Is this for preliminary architecture site plan or the site plans?

I believe so.

At the time that we had submitted that site plan, we didn't have that level of detail yet.

All right, can I get a second?

I'll second.

All right, thanks a lot.

All right, so we will move to our second regular review item, which is ZMA 2023-08, Albemarle High School Center 2.

This is a proposal to rezone about 10 acres of the Lambs Lane campus from rural area to R10 residential.

And this would allow for the construction of a new high school center with reduced setbacks and greater flexibility in building height.

The project area is a portion of the larger school campus and the campus is adjacent to Hydraulic Road, which is the entrance quarter in this case.

The building site is currently occupied by a parking lot and a group of trees.

The concept plan shows the building located at the 35-foot setback line, and that brings the building much closer to the street than anything that's currently existing on the campus.

Because of the proximity to the street, because there's an architectural conceptual design, we're bringing this rezoning to you for your advisory comments.

Your comments and recommendations will be forwarded on to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, so they'll have that information as they consider the proposal.

We have reviewed the conceptual plans against the entrance quarter design guidelines to try to determine if there were any potential areas of concern or any parts of the proposal that might have difficulty meeting the guidelines.

We found that the building design uses some traditional design principles, a mix of modern and traditional materials, an orientation that appropriately addresses the entrance quarter street and the site entrance, and building forms that help mitigate the scale.

The topography also helps mitigate the scale, but it may allow for rooftop mechanical equipment to be visible from the street.

The designers have indicated that that equipment would likely be screened with some type of penthouse screening or walls, which might be 10 feet tall, but the units would probably be smaller than typical units would be since they plan to use a geothermal system and future solar panels are planned for the roof as well.

So the details of that screening can be resolved during the site plan review, but in the staff report we've encouraged the applicant to design the screening to appear as an integrated architectural element.

The design also includes a significant amount of glass, and the designers report that meeting the glass standards shouldn't be a problem for most of the spaces.

There are a few interior spaces that they say might benefit from glass with a white frit pattern to reduce glare, but they don't expect this to be a big change in appearance from the exterior or a big variation from the standards.

So again these details can be resolved during site plan review but if you have comments now on that issue it would be good to inform the work going forward.

Redevelopment of the site provides an opportunity to establish frontage landscaping that meets the design guidelines.

Frontage landscaping, as you know, is a critical element in establishing continuity along the corridor.

The rezoning submittal does not include the detailed information on landscaping, however the project designers have indicated that they don't see a problem with complying with the landscaping guidelines.

They anticipate that the hydraulic road frontage will be landscaped and landscaping will align with the views of the front of the school and the distant mountains.

So we've identified no issues that appear to be unresolvable in terms of meeting the guidelines.

We have identified a few topics to focus on as the design continues to be refined.

And based on the information provided, we anticipate that a building with the proposed setback and height can be designed with an appropriate appearance for the entrance corridor.

Our recommendation is that the area be forwarded a recommendation of no objection to the proposal and to provide the four comments on the issues to be addressed with future submittals.

All right.

Thanks a lot, Margaret.

Go through.

Thank you.

Tara?

Could you go back from a process perspective?

Could you spell out for me how the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors differs from the typical process?

Sure, this is a rezoning application.

We don't usually bring these to you.

We usually provide staff comments on those, but because of the proximity to the entrance corridor and the size and just the visibility of the building, we thought it would be best to get your comments to forward on.

The lead planner who is reviewing the rezoning will

We'll coordinate your comments with her.

That review will then move on to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission will have a recommendation on the proposal and that will move on to the Board of Supervisors.

Okay, thanks so much.

That's really helpful.

All right.

Thanks, Frank.

I don't have any questions.

All right.

And thank you, but I don't have any questions.

Good afternoon, I'm Charles Tilley.

I don't have a presentation other than the things that you've seen already because we're really asking for the rezoning part of this.

The reason we have images at this point anyway is because we were working on this project about two years ago with the school system and then COVID happened and we stopped.

So we got about halfway through the schematics and we pulled off.

And so it was on a different site and other kinds of things like that.

Now that the project has restarted again, we are back and the school board selected a different site.

And so we're in the beginning of schematics trying to go through and make sure we're okay with where the building is sited and that kind of thing.

All right, great, thanks.

Go and see if there are any questions for the applicant.

Sure, just a quick question.

The perspective showed what appeared to be like a plaza.

So if you're looking at the building on hydraulic, it would be on the left side.

If you know that site, there's a cluster of trees at the left entrance, I'll call it south entrance onto campus.

and that plaza would be kind of fronting that with because we were looking to locate the building right in that parking lot so the setback is 70 feet and we're asking for 35 feet so that plaza would be sort of I guess on the south end of the building against the tree area.

I don't think I'm the expert on that, but I think it had to do with the height because 40 feet is probably the maximum we're going to have.

It's not going to be much bigger than that range.

So that's what we were asking for.

35 is the limit right now.

What will be the final plans at some point down the road.

It reflects a two-story building and a two-story building, I mean a single-story building with two-story building heights.

So to compress the, you know, compact the plan and to fit in that area, we're going to have a two-story building.

And so we want to reflect that.

And also there's a distinct grading difference there between hydraulic in that parking lot and even Albemarle High School.

So there's, we really want to think about the section there as we're designing it.

So designing it to fit this site.

So that's the process that we're going through right now.

All right, I do not have any questions.

We'll see if there are any members of the public that want to make a comment.

All right, well, in that case, the ARB will now go into discussion.

No, thanks for the presentation.

Well, I mean, I do have comments, but thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

I don't have any particular significant issues with the sort of renderings as presented.

I think

In terms of the scale and the building form as you've shown it, it's very possible to make something that fits within the context.

As demonstrated, it seems like the landscaping can be addressed as well.

All right, thanks.

I appreciate the presentation and the design and understanding that it's still sort of conceptual but I have no concerns about the proposed rezoning and I think a little more containment and definition on the corridor could be a positive element there.

having gone through drop-off there a lot.

I think it's great that the entry, I think the low setting of the existing high school and the view to the distant Blue Ridge is actually one of the best moments in arriving at that campus.

So I think that'll still be possible in the future based on what's proposed here.

And we hadn't realized that center two was proposed for that campus.

So excited to find out through this application too.

All right.

Thanks, Frank.

Thank you.

I really like this project.

I think anytime you have a big parking lot on the entrance corridor and now it's going to have a building on it, I think is a positive thing.

This is just outside of the no objection to the rezoning, but I think it could even be taller, but I think two stories is nice.

I think it's going to be a nice addition to the neighborhood where we have the building that just was finished up on Georgetown and Hydraulic, the brick building that's pushed towards the corridor.

So I really appreciate it.

I think it's nice site planning and then knowing that you're gonna have the outdoor public space on the corridor.

I think that the building kind of the images we see of a lot of glass, it's gonna be very visible kind of bringing learning to the forefront and definitely activate this corridor.

So I really appreciate the design.

All right, thanks.

You kind of stole my thunder by mentioning that building at Georgetown and Hydraulics.

I really like that building.

By pointing that out, I was going to look really observant.

But I totally agree.

And as far as the zoning,

If the existing zoning is a rural area, I can't think of a less rural kind of site than that.

So no concerns about rezoning it.

And if

If the building that comes is anything like what we were shown today, seems like it would be a really, really great project.

So I have no objections either.

Yes, I can.

Okay.

All right, I'll just go through and ask.

No proposed changes.

No, well I guess I wanted to, Margaret you had recommended that we discuss, that these elements were for discussion when these comments are forwarded on.

The four numbered items are just related to the ARB review and the future submittals that you'll review.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure that you didn't want us to speak to those for the purposes of the planning commissioner, whoever to have these spoken to.

Well, let me just clarify.

I don't think they're particular issues, but let the record show that I don't think that they are.

All right.

Thanks, Frank.

Do you have any?

No edits for me.

All right.

Thanks.

I'll be happy to move to recommend no objection to the rezoning proposal.

All right, I'll second that.

Aye, thank you.

Right.

And in that case, we'll move on to our work session.

We have one work session today, which is on the EC Design Guidelines, Route 29 South.

I do.

I thank you all again for your continued work to identify the common elements and historic structures along each of our corridors.

Today we have a draft of Route 29 South, Monacan Trail Road for your review.

This corridor is one of our largest, or I'm sorry, longest, and fairly homogenous throughout.

It's punctuated by a few instances or episodes, if you will, of more visible groupings of development.

The experience along the corridor is largely characterized by a rhythmic shifting between foreground wooded frontages

mid-ground median trees, and wooded mountain views.

Wooded views are accentuated by occasional clearings with individual single-family residences of modest scale and traditional form, long-standing

Institutional and commercial structures or the railroad that runs along the eastern side of the corridor.

The episodes of development along the otherwise rural corridor are centered in Covesville towards the south and North Garden about midway through the corridor.

Zoning along the corridor is, as you would expect, mostly rural, with commercial and village residential centered around North Garden, and then a mix of low-density residential, commercial, and planned development skirting the city of Charlottesville around the I-64 interchange.

Although most of the development is not visible, and that's due to the area topography changes in the roadway elevation and mature trees and wooded areas.

The predominance of the rural area zoning eliminates much of this corridor from the entrance corridor design review, in which case design review is focused primarily on those commercial and industrial zoned properties to align them with the current

entrance corridor design guidelines standards as properties are renovated and redeveloped.

So as usually, we included a list of predominant structures and landscape elements, as well as a list of features to maintain or avoid.

For the precedent images, we broke the images up into categories similar to what we did on the 250 West segment Reinhardt Row.

We have two precedent image sheets for this corridor.

On this sheet, we have examples of the layers of trees and wooded areas typically seen along the corridor.

Next are examples of small scale commercial buildings constructed prior to the entrance corridor design guidelines.

And they have shallower setbacks as a result of road widening.

The last set of images on this sheet are clearings with modest scale buildings and dense wooded backdrops.

And then this is our last precedent image sheet.

The top series of images identifies historic and prominent structures in the two episodic areas of the corner corridor I mentioned earlier, Covesville and North Garden.

And lastly, the bottom images showcase the apple and peach businesses that exist along the corridor.

These fruit related industries have been important to the economic development in the area historically and currently.

That's the end of this corridor.

I included a zoning map just so you could see where the zoning lies.

There's one

Very light blue parcel between Cozeville and North Garden.

That's a singular parcel that's zoned light industry.

In the North Garden, you kind of see this light yellow.

And if you look very closely, a light pink, that's the commercial area.

And then we go through a long segment again.

And there's a tiny parcel with

Industrial zoning again, and then we see more development along the outskirts of Charlottesville City.

So that's the zoning.

All right.

Well, thanks a lot for that presentation.

So we'll just go and maybe

Maybe we'll just do questions and comments.

I don't.

It looks really good.

Just curious, the map here, the topography is very visible.

I think it looks really nice.

On the west side, we have more topography than the east side.

I like that.

No, I drove this corridor yesterday.

Yeah.

This is just a thought that popped in my head.

OK, just curious.

That zoning map you showed was pretty powerful.

No, nice work.

Thanks, Tara Same as Frank, I think it's great.

The history is really helpful.

I thought the, I didn't know exactly about the apple and peach orchards and identifying the sort of concrete, like ribbed concrete structure on the left side.

If you're going southbound, I didn't know what that was.

So thanks for finding that out.

And yeah, I thought that the selections were really nice.

And those two in the top left, like the historic church and the schoolhouse, I think are just pretty nice buildings.

Cool.

Beautiful.

So thanks.

One circling back, was the Plank Road, the Crossroads store reviewed by the ARB?

That always stood out to me as like having a lot of the principles that we have in our guidelines.

Yeah, Mariah, thank you.

As always, I think it looks great.

I appreciate as well the way you sort of gathered things both geographically and by building type or use.

Yeah, so I think it's very useful.

I think, as with many of our corridor studies, I think this one reminded me of just

how important the rural character is in terms of how we arrive at places of historic significance and also how little control we currently have over preserving that.

So I'm excited about the comprehensive plan and that's underway.

Thanks, and yeah, I agree.

This, more than like any other corridor I can think of, it's like as soon as you pass the 64 interchange, it's like, wham, you're just in the country, and it stays that way pretty much for the whole length of the corridor.

I'm glad there wasn't an attempt to break this corridor up into segments because it is kind of remarkably homogenous along its length so I thought that made for a really concise

description on the first page, and I think all the landmarks that are shown are pretty well represented.

It seems like this whole corridor, there's so few

man-made instances among the kind of natural beauty.

It's pretty much like a collection of one-off instances.

So it's like hard to, I don't think you can really say that there's a particular character as far as the built

That's helpful to know because we struggled with how to treat those episodes because on 250 West we made Ivy Corner a segment.

But on this one, it was just so homogenous before and after.

It's kind of like you could, unless you're targeting those places, they just kind of meld into the surroundings.

Well, actually the crossroads end.

So it's on the other side of the, so it's on the, if you're heading in the south direction, it's on the south facing road.

Okay.

Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

This is a great summation.

Every time I was thinking of something in the corridor, it came up in the next slide.

I'd be remiss if I didn't say that when we look at the Apple production facility, I don't see this board approving that doc, that particular facility, just because it really works well though, and it's a critical part

of Rural Enterprise.

That being said, I look at the Albemarle cider works and I look at those trees up on the hill and that big building and it sings to me.

It's beautiful and it's fabulous and it's never been through ARB review.

Most of these images that are precedent haven't been through ARB review.

I tend to agree the Crossroads store expresses a lot of the components that this board tends to look for and it occurred naturally.

This is all occurring because of the care of the folks that put it in there.

And I do hope that whatever you choose to do in this area, we don't do so at the risk of rural enterprise or the property rights of those owners.

But thank you for this.

It's very, very good.

All right.

All right, so we will move on to other business.

First item is approval of the September 5th, 2023 minutes.

All right, if we could put it to a vote.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

All right.

Actually, I'm sorry.

I missed who made the motion for the minutes.

It's the mover and shaker of the day.

All right, if there are no other items, then the next ARB meeting is scheduled for October 16th, 2023.

I'll just ask which board members think they can attend.

Dave?

I plan to.

Tara?

Yes.

And I also think I'll be here, so it sounds like we should have a quorum.

This meeting is now adjourned to the next meeting on October 16, 2023.

It's 2.03 by my watch.