Architectural Review Board Meeting   11/6/2023

All right, so it is 1.04.

I'm calling the November 6, 2023 meeting of the Albemarle County Architecture Review Board to order.

Yes, sorry.

I'm not sure why I am...

Okay.

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 audiovisual 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 and told us your turn to speak.

No.

And me either.

All right.

Great.

Thank you.

We don't have any consent agenda items today.

So we'll move to our regular review item.

We have one.

It is ARB 2023 86 Old Ivy Residences.

I do.

Thanks.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mariah Gleason.

I'm a senior planner, urban designer in the planning division of Albemarle County.

Today, I'm going to be presenting staff's review of an initial site plan, ARB 2023-86, old ivy residences against the entrance corridor design guidelines.

The subject property contains five parcels predominantly comprised of undeveloped land consisting of wooded and cleared areas as well as ponds.

A two-story colonial revival residence and associated outbuildings are located near the southeastern edge of the subject property.

East of the site are the Huntington Village townhouse community and the University.

University Village condominiums.

South of the site across Old Ivy Road are large printing, storage, and distribution buildings that support the University of Virginia.

The Route 29-250 bypass and on-ramp are located west of the site.

An additional undeveloped wooded area is located north of the site.

The bottom two images on the right show different views of the property from the entrance corridor.

The middle image is from Route 29-250 looking south.

from around the middle of the property's entrance corridor frontage and the image to the bottom right is a view from the on-ramp facing north as a driver would with the property to the right.

The subject property was rezoned to R-15 residential earlier this year in March 2023.

The map here shows the approved conceptual plan that accompanied the rezoning.

In addition to the concept plan, the Board of Supervisors approved proffers, a step-back waiver, parking reduction, and a request to rezone preserved steep slopes to manage slopes, allowing grading to occur in those areas.

The initial site plan submitted by the applicant is consistent with the approved concept plan.

North here is located approximately plan right.

The development proposes a total of 525 dwelling units on 35.37 acres.

Dwelling units include a mix of multifamily, townhouse, and single-family detached residences.

The entrance to the development will be off of Old Ivy Road.

No direct access to the development will be located along the Route 29-250 Bypass entrance corridor.

Open spaces on the property are generally located in the center of the development, around existing ponds and along the entrance corridor, while proposed improvements in buildings are located along other property edges.

The layout shows four to five-story multifamily buildings located in the southwestern corner of the property.

along Old Ivy Road and the on-ramp to the entrance corridor.

Townhouses are located in about three to four groupings throughout the development, often mixed among single-family detached units.

The plan does not identify the proposed height of each of the different unit types, only that the proposed maximum building height will be 65 feet.

To note, single-family detached units are proposed in multiple locations throughout the site,

Although it's convenient to include them on the site plan, they are not subject to the entrance corridor requirements.

The grading plan that was approved with rezoning is shown here on the left, with the grading plan from the initial site plan shown on the right.

Proposed retaining walls are identified by red lines with heights noted in red.

Arrows accompanying the height measurements on the initial site plan sheet identify which side of the wall is higher.

The grading plan from the rezoning allows grading that would not typically be encouraged along the entrance corridor and as a result facilitates the placement and positioning of buildings that don't fully align with the entrance corridor guidelines.

The initial site plan makes improvements to the conceptual grading plan by showing tie-ins to the existing contours that are more rounded, reducing the number of retaining walls from nine to eight walls, and removing several retaining walls located along the northern portion

of the property's entrance corridor frontage.

However, proposed retaining wall heights in the initial site plan reach a maximum of 10 feet compared to six feet shown in the concept plan.

Overall, the combination of grading and retaining wall heights, lengths, and locations show that the property will be disconnected from the surrounding topography and unsupportive of a continuous landscape.

Also, 10-foot retaining walls, if visible from the corridor, do not align with the entrance corridor design guidelines, which cap the maximum height of retaining walls at six feet.

Based on the distance of the Route 29-250 bypass, many of the retaining walls are unlikely to be visible from the entrance corridor.

As stated in the staff report, architectural designs and a landscaping plan were not submitted with the initial site plan.

The initial site plan shows that the proposed development does not have a relationship with the entrance corridor.

Buildings are oriented with their backs and sides towards the Route 29-250 bypass.

Wooded and vegetated buffers are located along the

entrance corridor frontage.

The green line represents the extent of onsite wooded buffers and terrain that will be preserved along the southern portion of the entrance corridor frontage.

And while not yet located, a note on the plan highlighted here in bright green, which does show up, indicates that a 20-foot vegetated buffer will be located along the northern portion of the subject property's entrance corridor frontage.

Retained wooded areas will be approximately 15 to 280 feet wide, but generally 15 feet in areas abutting proposed apartment buildings, which will reduce the visibility of those buildings.

The design of the vegetated buffer was not provided with this submission.

The proposed buffers along the EC frontage is consistent with the character of the Route 29-250 bypass.

However, more information is needed to understand the extent to which the buffers will limit visibility of the development.

And with that, which pieces of the development will be visible from the corridor given the combination of landscaping, site grading, retaining walls and the building heights proposed.

Other improvements that would benefit from additional clarity include dumpster pad screening as these areas are located along the EC frontage.

and information regarding the mechanical equipment and proposed painting.

Staff recommends approval of the initial site plan and that additional information be submitted so that the ARB can determine visibility and the level of ongoing review.

The recommended points of discussion and conditions are provided here.

That concludes staff's presentation.

The board has the report.

Great, thanks a lot.

Sure.

Thanks, Mariah.

Nice presentation.

Just a clarification on the single family.

Are we reviewing single family attached?

Is that part of our review?

The single family attached is a part of your review.

To the townhouses?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

No, I don't.

Thanks, Mariah.

I guess I just have a follow-up question to Frank's question.

So the single family, if they're on their own lots, are not subject to review.

They could possibly, depending on the number of units on the parcel, but it would be unlikely that an applicant would present it that way.

All right.

Great.

Margaret, just to clarify, if it's a single-family detached home on a larger parcel, it would be subject to our review?

All right.

Thanks a lot.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few slides that are fairly similar to the ones Mariah showed.

I'm Valerie Long.

We're representing the applicant, Graystar Development.

We have a couple of folks here from Graystar.

Leati Cole with Graystar and also Patrick Kill with Dewberry.

And I believe we have some architects standing by by video if needed.

Before I forget, I will clarify that in response to your questions, all of the units will be on a single tax map parcel.

The entire community is proposed to be for rent residential.

So we are in my read was like Margaret's that is they're all on a single parcel.

They are then subject to your review.

Sites don't do too much other than just try and provide some additional context.

I presume you're all fairly familiar with the location, but please feel free to let me know if you need any clarification.

These are some of the same views that you just saw showing, at least during the summer months, what the vegetation levels are like and visibility from various locations along the entrance corridor.

You can see there sort of in the top center right is the ramp adjacent to the property.

This is an illustrative plan we showed during the rezoning process.

I like to show this because it demonstrates how consistent the initial site plan is with this plan.

And this is just another version of that plan.

I'd be happy at any point to come back and go over in more detail all that's here.

This is, again, the approved rezoning concept plan.

There's a lot of information there, but again, consistent with the layout, the lavender color is single-family detached units, some, excuse me, single-family units, some detached and some townhouse, and then the tan is multifamily.

And this is, again, the same image that you saw already of the initial site plan, again, showing all of the different types of units and their location.

Similar image showing sort of the boundaries of the vegetation that will remain the vegetated buffer area is on the right side.

That's shown on the approved zoning plan.

That was an important condition of that rezoning that there be a buffer provided in that area.

And then, of course, there's additional planting that will be required, we know, as part of the site plan.

So that's everything.

I'd be happy to go back to any of these if you have any questions.

We did not have any concerns or comments or requests for revisions on any of the issues in the site plan.

We do think that the retaining walls, as they were shown, will all be very well screened from the entrance corridor.

We're happy to talk about any of those as needed.

All right.

Well, thanks a lot for the presentation.

No, I don't think so.

Thanks.

No, I don't have any questions.

Thanks, Valerie.

I don't have any questions either.

All right.

Do we have anybody on Zoom?

All right, I don't see a crowd forming at the podium.

So ARB will now go into discussion.

Sure.

I think it's a nice site plan.

I think it's an interesting corridor just because of the speed at which people travel this corridor.

Usually, I harp on the buildings fronting the corridor.

In this case, I'm glad to see the larger multifamily buildings on fronting Old Abbey Road.

Contextually, they make more sense there, given the buildings across the street and the buildings in Madison Park.

I think the other thing this site benefits from is having

kind of resource protection areas kind of in the middle of the site.

So a big part of the frontage on the entrance corridor there is made up of existing woods to remain with I think the stream or something with a buffer that's protecting it so I feel good about that and then knowing that there's that 20-foot landscape buffer

It's not great to have single-family backed up to the corridor, but with that buffer and I think the additional existing vegetation to remain and given, assuming it's a single-family residence, it's not scale-wise gonna be overpowering on the corridor.

So I don't really have anything to add.

I think it's a, I agree with staff's comments.

I think it's a pretty thorough review.

I will say, Mariah, I appreciate your graphics and the retaining wall graphic especially.

I think that helps to see that.

And it's really important to know what's the high side.

A lot of times we're guessing on that.

And so, or we have to ask that question.

So thank you for clarifying that.

That's all I had.

All right.

I would echo Frank's thoughts.

My principal concern would have been the size of those retaining walls and whether visible, it sounds like they're probably not.

And they're far enough, the big one anyways, far enough off the entrance corridor that I'm not sure it'd be an issue anyway, given the landscape buffer that is going to be required.

That's part of what we would like to have your direction on just given the, well, as you heard from Mariah's comments that we're requesting additional information to help determine what will be visible.

Thanks.

Yeah, I agree with my colleagues.

I think it's a good site plan and looking forward to the being some of the blanks filled in on the next presentation.

I agree with the staff recommendations.

and appreciated that the wooded buffer between the corridor and the development is going to be preserved.

We would need a motion.

It would be to forward the recommendations

We can pull that up.

It's not on that particular site.

Ready for a vote?

Oh, ready for a vote, yeah.

Sorry.

All right.

There is one work session today, which is on the EC Design Guidelines, John Warner Parkway.

Yes.

Here we are again.

Hello.

As always, thank you for your continued work and review on this effort to identify the common elements and historic aspects along each of the county's entrance corridors.

Today, we have a draft of Route 2500, John W. Warner Parkway for your review.

This corridor is relatively short and homogenous.

The corridor is 1.1 miles in length, extending from the intersection of Raya Road East at the north to the city of Charlottesville-Abramarle County line at the south.

The corridor is generally a curvilinear two-lane road with an adjacent multi-use path on the east side and train tracks on most of the western side.

The frontage on both sides of the entrance corridor is occupied by vegetated buffers and a mix of forest, parkland, groves of trees, and lawns with shade trees.

Some views of the Greenbrier residential neighborhood in the city are found just across the railroad tracks, but these views are limited.

Parcels along the corridor are zoned for residential uses, although most are owned by the City of Charlottesville and contain the Greenway or the Charlottesville High School playing fields.

Between the Parkland Railroad and Creek, the potential for development along most of the parkway is limited, although there could be an opportunity for denser residential development at the northern end of the corridor at the Parkway-Raya Road intersection due to a recent rezoning in 2021.

As usual, we included a list of predominant structural and landscaping elements, as well as a list of features to maintain and avoid.

The precedent images included in the spread generally portray the highly vegetated and strong parkway character of the corridor.

Individual images include glimpses of the multi-use path and the incorporation of natural elements such as stone and metal into designed improvements seen along the corridor.

That concludes the information for this corridor.

All right, well, thanks a lot for that presentation.

The vegetative buffers are pretty dense in areas.

I think it would, that question almost needs to look at contour lines as well.

The R-15 residential area is

is one that contains playing fields but it would otherwise be available for denser development.

There are some where the creek is located and you can kind of see where Greenbrier Park on the city side

The creek extends from that green area across the railroad tracks, and so that's kind of where the creek is located.

That creates a depression in the topography, so there could be views to development from there should development further in kind of become more dense, although most of the neighborhoods in that area have already been developed.

So it's kind of a yes and no.

Do you know how wide the VDOT buffer is?

What's at the bottom left?

Is that the Piedmont Animal Garden site?

I think it's a portion.

OK.

There's only a small portion of that park that resides in the county area.

The one that's owned by the city of Charlottesville, it contains mostly athletic playing fields that support the high school.

We can go back to the aerial if that be.

In the R4 areas that are north of that, are they privately owned?

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Yeah.

Right now it contains the Greenway.

Looks good.

Yeah.

It's a nice entrance corridor, a nice way to get into the county and into the city.

Yeah.

And it's kind of a breather within the development area.

Yeah, it's accurately named a parkway.

Was it?

Oh, God, yeah.

Yeah.

Just needs more lanes.

Yeah.

Used to have them.

I'll strike that one.

Wasn't that one one of the reasons?

Yeah, used to be four lanes.

Well, thanks a lot.

So we'll move on to other business.

First thing is approval of the October 2nd, 2023 minutes.

Does anybody want to make a motion?

So moved.

Second.

All right.

There was an issue with the, I had one email saying they couldn't get on to hear the beginning of the meeting.

I don't know if we want to go back over it again to see if there's anybody that wants to speak from the public.

We could go back and...

The Mariah show continues.

The presentation or...

They couldn't see any of it, no.

Yeah, we can go again.

Take two.

If anybody's online that would like to speak on the old Ivy Residence, please raise your hand.

They're just listening and the recording will be up in about 10 minutes.

As soon as the meeting's over, it takes me about 10 minutes.

I think considering that it's already been voted on and approved,

Terribly sorry, don't mean to create a distraction.

My only concern was whether that constituted a valid public hearing.

We had people on from our team who were trying to just watch remotely and the link was broken or something.

And then I tried it myself from my phone and got the same thing.

There's two extra people online right now.

And if they would like to speak on the Old Ivy Residence project, please raise your hand and we'll let you make your comments.

One was you, there was two others, yeah.

And they're not raising their hand.

And the recording will be up.

And like I said, as soon as I get back to my office, it'll be about 10 minutes.

Thanks a lot.

All right.

Quick question regarding the corridors.

Any sense about when you think that work will wrap up?

We've got two corridors left.

In terms of an overall timeline, we were trying to complete a first draft, get through all of the corridors, and then we were, I think we had talked about it a couple times about coming back with maybe a work session to look at how to

How to treat those corner properties that exist on two corridors and in addition to a couple of other things that have been mentioned throughout your continuous review and just treatment of those and then going back with and updating the corridors to the comments that have been made and making sure that things are consistent.

The agenda is not actually a change to the design guidelines.

Any change to design guidelines would need to be approved by the board.

This is sort of your background research for changes to the guidelines.

So it's not required.

But I think when we have the document together, we will present it to the board as a information item.

Would these guidelines supersede the general guidelines?

I think it's a background informational document that is sort of, you know, because it's more recent, it's more up-to-date, it makes sense.

The guidelines allow for some flexibility in determining context.

So I think we can use it as an informational document until we get the guidelines updated.

All right.

Next ARB meeting is scheduled for November 20th, 2023.

I think so too.

And I guess we'll find out from the other two remotely.

So in that case, this meeting is adjourned to the next meeting on November 20th, 2023.

And it is 1.40 PM.