Architectural Review Board Meeting   1/2/2024

All right, great.

It's I guess 101.

So I'm calling the January 2nd, 2024 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 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 until it is your turn to speak.

Do any ARB members have anything to disclose?

No.

No.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

All right.

Great.

Thank you.

We do not have any consent agenda items today, so we will move on to our first regular review item, which is ARB 2023-102, Charlottesville Climbing Gym.

Yes, thank you.

This is a proposal to expand the existing building at 2200 Old Ivy Road to accommodate an indoor climbing gym.

The climbing gym use requires a special use permit for an indoor athletic facility.

In early meetings with the applicant about the project, we discussed visibility and we learned that the addition

was planned to have a very contemporary design so we recommended that the applicant get to the ARB early so that you all could take a look at the architecture to identify if there were any potential big issues.

Your recommendations on the proposal will be forwarded for consideration with the special use permit request and any future building permits or site plan amendments that come up will be subject to your review.

The property is located between Old Ivy Road and Ivy Road.

Ivy Road, or Route 250 West, is the entrance corridor in this case, and the tracks of the Buckingham Branch Railroad are located between the entrance corridor and the property.

There's onsite landscaping and vegetation along the tracks, including bamboo, and that eliminates visibility of the existing development from view along the entrance corridor.

That vegetation would remain with the proposal, but the additional 15 feet of building height would make the new construction visible from the entrance corridor above that vegetation.

This is the applicant's drawing showing the vegetation in the foreground and the new addition rising above.

The proposed design features exposed galvanized steel structure, clear story fenestration, and perforated metal mechanical screens.

These features don't have a strong connection to the historic architecture of the area.

However, there are buildings in the area that do serve as precedence for those design elements, and the building is expected to appear compatible with those surroundings.

Our recommendation is that the ARB forward a recommendation of no objection to the special use permit request, and we've also listed a few items that should be addressed with future ARB submittals.

All right, thanks a lot for the presentation.

We'll go through and ask if any questions for staff.

Sure, yeah, thank you for the report, Margaret.

I think you outlined that the existing bamboo screening sort of contributes to likely concealing the difference between the addition and the existing building.

It's hard to tell exactly where the property line is in relation to the existing vegetation.

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

Thanks, Margaret.

This may be a question for the applicant.

I don't know exactly.

All right, thanks.

Taro?

I don't have any questions.

Thank you, Margaret.

All right.

And I don't have any questions either.

Good afternoon.

I'm Robert Nichols.

I'm an architect working in Charlottesville.

The name of my firm is Forum Work Design Office.

I'm here with Mike Kinnick, who's our client for this project.

He is the tenant.

He's not the owner of the building, but he's the tenant, and he's the driver of our work on this.

The staff report seemed, I have nothing to change from that, save for one comment.

Our building section that we submitted to you showed kind of an outdated value for top of deck relative to grade.

That's

more relevant to the zoning, various zoning and site plan reviews, but I just wanted to make that clear.

I think on our page that says, is titled Site Cross Section, we say top of roof deck at 46 and something, and the correct value up there is 30 feet.

In answer to Mr. Stoner's question, that perspective is shot

Not from the roadway across the street, across Ivy Road.

I believe it's a, maybe it's a Sunoco, there's a filling station across there.

And I estimated that we're standing pretty much at about the curb cut there and looking across.

Five feet or?

Yes, I level above that spot elevation.

Great, thank you.

That question about the bamboo is a good one.

It's bamboo, so it's moved.

It's all over the place.

Quite a lot of it's on the railroad side.

At the moment, there's quite a lot of it on our side of it.

The landscape plan that's been developed by the civil engineering teams, working on their own compliance, anticipates needing some vegetation along that boundary.

And so that would come in the form of either their site plan, or I guess a question came up this morning as I was talking through this with the civil engineer.

If when we were to come back to you, if we,

showed all the landscape work that was there to be compliant with your requirements, the entrance quarter requirements.

Would that enable the ARB to sign off on that compliance via our submission to you versus reviewing it as part of the site plan submission?

The question was, to date, the way we've divided work and prepared documentation, the landscape design, which is obviously required to be compliant with the entrance quarter requirements, has been developed by and shown by the civil engineer.

Sure, but as the process continues, we would continue to look at the final site plan submittals and make sure it's consistent with what was shown to the ARB and what might have been approved by the ARB.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Since this is an advisory meeting, one, I would love to get feedback from you all on the question we had given

kind of layering of, you know, say from the center line of the entrance corridor from Ivy Road tracks, the volunteer bamboo, and then our vegetation, our planting, which would be on roughly the south side of the site.

Is there any relief that we might see as a landscape buffer on the north side of the street, the north side of the property against Old Ivy Road

Should we consider that the same criteria, entrance corridor criteria, as we're obviously facing on the south side, or is there any relief from that condition?

Okay, so our requirement is not so much by parcel, but it's by literally that

Well, there are guidelines that would require, say for example, landscaping along your parking row, but

that would be considered just as part of the overall plan and how much visibility there is and how much other landscaping there is, whether or not that would be required.

Okay, thank you.

In terms of the design of the building, it's fairly straightforward as the staff report described.

We're converting really the use of this building to this indoor climbing gym.

and so the function is highly utilitarian in a way.

It's volume is what's needed, daylight is not, we have clear story glazing, we're looking forward to having some indirect daylight but for the most part, they want a wall to work against and so we're, this notion of this kind of what I'm calling this exoskeleton that goes around the top of it is,

It's a proposal to develop what I call in our office kind of a density of ornament.

and some variation in materials and some depth, some shadowing where we don't have fenestration or any particular qualities of the building's function itself to give the building some visual interest and visual disturbance.

And frankly, you know,

We're here because of our participation in the entrance corridor, which is this linear condition going east-west.

But as I move around the site, most of my perception of that site, maybe more so than its participation in this linear condition, is really it's influenced a lot by the presence of the baseball stadium back there.

Most visually, if you're unfamiliar with the area, I would say the baseball stadium almost entirely, secondarily, if you're familiar with the area, it's, you know, one kind of recognizes that that stadium is on the edge of a large athletic, institutional scale, institutionally scaled district.

and so some of our decisions about the articulation of that exterior skeleton was based on some parts of the appearance of the stadium and then also just generally how athletic facilities and buildings that I think of as being kind of

Large balloon activities and somewhat close to industrial in use, how they might articulate themselves and how they are elsewhere.

All right, well, thanks a lot.

We'll see if any board members have any questions.

Yeah, it's fairly early in the design.

That's what we've thought of to date.

What is behind it is two inches of air space and then the same finish as the typical exterior of the building, which we're continuing is what's there now.

And what's there now is a synthetic stucco with paint, which is actually in quite good condition and pretty good looking for that kind of product.

Yeah, my only question is on the screening, the mechanical screening, because it seems like that's sort of the main facade element at the top.

I haven't.

It's a good question.

We've kind of been conservative about its height.

I would like just proportionately relative, I think of that

That system is really being a two-part proportion.

There's the open part with the X and then the band with the partial screening.

And we're looking to probably reduce the height of the top relative to the bottom a little bit.

And we don't have mechanical design in place yet to tell us really in the end what we need to cover.

I think if the equipment that comes would be

would tell us exactly that height or more.

I would probably increase the height of the band between those two conditions rather than get a fatter screen at the top if that's.

The band, you mean the stucco portion behind?

Let me cover myself by being able to point at the section, which is tiny.

So let's say at the very top, there's the screened area and there's equipment behind that.

There's a horizontal structural member separating that from the one below.

And so we would probably increase the height of the opaque, highly articulated structural, the beam, rather than getting an even higher mechanical screen above that.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, I mean, I think for me, from the board perspective, I think it's about the sizing, the visibility of the equipment.

And then I can just imagine that there's this proportion that you want to achieve.

Cool.

I certainly appreciate the care and attention to the rhythm and the character of the structure.

Well, in my response to Mr. Stoner's question, the surface behind, what is really the weather enclosure of the building will be the exact same system that's in place, and then

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

I don't have any questions for the applicant.

So are there any members of the public that would like to comment?

All right, great.

In that case, the ARB will now go into discussion.

I think the only thing that I wanted to note, and I wanted to thank the applicant for the presentation, the only thing I can really speak to at this time is just ensuring the mechanical equipment is screened from the road.

I think otherwise, I think the

you know, the project meets a lot of the criteria and I'm happy to talk about it more with the other members.

All right, thanks.

Yeah, so I think, Margaret, can you just, today we're just providing advice or advisory review and this is fundamentally about a question for the special use permit in terms of the issue that's actually before us.

Well I think certainly the use and the zoning nature are outside of our purview but those seem perfectly suitable for the corridor.

Certainly the volume that's proposed seems suitable and probably improved to have a greater volume of building there.

I think the applicant has developed a proposal that is very well ordered in terms of the addition.

I guess for me it's a little bit of a fundamental question because inherently there's the existing building that's there and there's the addition.

and I appreciate the clarification.

The materiality is the same.

I think that if this were a new building and it were all being done at the same time, I think it would be difficult to look at it as a well-ordered assembly that follows the traditions of building in the county.

and so I guess there is an open question for me whether there's a potential approach to develop a proposal that has the zoning envelope in this use but maybe is more fully integrated with the building and I guess I'm thinking of that mainly for the instance that's existing rather where depending on what happens with the screening and I think I'm especially sensitive to screening with some of the recent applications and how they've turned out

While on the one hand I think looking at the upper story of this with the extensive bamboo screening and not seeing the base of the building kind of avoids the difference between the orders of the two, I am concerned about approving a design that maybe would not otherwise be I think

as fully ordered and resolved between the top and the bottom as I would like to see in the corridor.

So those are my initial thoughts and comments, yeah.

Yeah, I appreciate, one, the applicant's presentation.

I'm sympathetic to your concerns today just about the

sort of disconnect between the addition and the original building.

On the other hand, I think it is, the reality is you're not gonna see the bottom of the base of the building and so it's a dilemma as to, I actually think it's a creative solution for what they're doing.

If it were all visible from the corridor, I think it would be a lot harder decision for me

if in fact the only thing that's visible is what they're adding on.

And that's certainly what appears to be the case.

Then understanding and being sympathetic to your concern, I think it's suitable and I think it's inappropriate.

I think it's an appropriate solution for what you're trying to create, which obviously has some unique characteristics with regard to openings.

And I don't know how this sort of relates to our typical requirements with regard to openings and facade transparency.

All right, thank you.

And I agree, David.

Well, I guess I'll start by saying no addition or renovation is ever how I would exactly do it if I was starting from scratch.

And I think considering the fact that I go by this site on a daily basis, it's

very screened, but I guess we have to consider if there was no screening whatsoever whether or not it would be appropriate.

And I thought the application materials did a good job of demonstrating that it was certainly compatible with nearby development along that corridor, particularly the baseball stadium.

And generally,

I think it might be helpful to see actual material samples.

Yeah, I'm assuming that, I mean,

Usually with the special use permit the design is in a pretty preliminary stage and I would hope that if that's granted and then there's another application with the, you know, once the final site plan comes up there'd be more

More developed, you know, I think more things would be finalized and I think we'd, you know, be in a better position to have that conversation just with, you know, I'd expect more renderings and, you know, samples and but I guess

And appreciate, Chris and Frank, your consideration of my concerns.

So I want to verify what's shown.

Right.

Yeah.

The bamboo is taller than it.

Yeah.

You're lower.

Because the section, right, it kind of cuts off before you'd get to the side across the street, but we have this like, I couldn't get it, oh, there we go.

Yeah, it's a little hard to calculate, and then also,

You know, the rendering software gives you choices of optics.

See, it looks like my eye level is,

Maybe a third of the way up the new work, if I were to guess, which is tough at this size.

Would you mind scrolling to that section again?

I don't know.

That's the engine curve.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I guess, I mean, this elevation that we're looking at in this site section, that's actually, you know, if you were just looking at it straight on from the corridor itself, that's kind of oblique.

So the recommended motion is for no objection to the request for the special use permit and to provide the applicant with comments listed in the staff report amended as follows to be addressed with the next submittal.

The text in red is what I've just added quickly based on your conversation here, adding to number two, provide building elevations with equipment locations and heights and show how visibility will be eliminated.

Number seven, material samples will be needed to determine if galvanized steel is appropriate.

Eight, confirm the level of landscape screening that exists on site.

And nine, provide a site section that includes the full width of the entrance quarter street.

I think so, Margaret.

My only question maybe about number eight would be whether, well I guess it's the next submittal basically, a site plan or

Probably.

Probably.

I think in terms of my concerns about visibility, I would like to see in the ultimate site plan part of the approved plan screening equivalent to what's in present currently.

And this might just be triggering a memory to the other board members.

Was there a situation about a year ago where we were looking at a project where there's a perforated mechanical screening that didn't fully screen the mechanical equipment?

I can't remember if it was an issue of the height of that screening or if it was the permeability of the screen, the perforated nature of the screening being like too open to actually screen the equipment.

You know, there's a desire for air movement for a number of reasons, but often it louvered so that there's no vision at all.

I think I'm hearing you saying that's what you want.

I don't know if that's something I want.

I'm just trying to remember that there's an issue that we had with some- Right.

Would be, right.

A fair amount of effort, and yet the issue isn't addressed with too loose a perforation.

Well, I guess I'll review the guidelines, but I'm guessing that our criteria is zero visibility through there.

You don't want to see a ghosted outline of the mechanical equipment.

and we would handle that just to be clear with with a with a louver or a backdrop situation we wouldn't change from a perforated to a just a an opaque panel okay yeah okay and I guess Tara's remark reminded me there was one instance I was at 5th Street extended where there's a height issue and I think there may be a similar height issue coming westbound on Ivy

Is it safe to assume the scope of that would be the entrance corridor itself, which I don't think I know the length of it.

So it is a bracketed condition.

It's a bracket, yeah, no, you don't, yeah.

All right, thanks.

Second.

All right.

All right.

So we'll move on to our second regular review item, which is ARB 2023-104 Maplewood Final.

Yes.

The application I'm presenting today is to review architecture and final site plan to construct 70 multifamily units and six buildings with associated site improvements.

The site is located on the southwest corner of Prophet Road and Worth Crossing.

ARB recommended approval of the initial site plan in August of last year.

No architectural drawings or lighting and landscape plans were submitted with the initial.

The overall building design is contemporary but uses gable roof forms and materials that are reflective of those used historically in the county.

Regarding the site plan, six-foot landscape buffers on the west and south sides and 12-foot landscape buffers on the north and east sides of the site were approved with rezoning.

The approved application plan also called for a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs in the buffers.

However, the buffer is less than six feet near the middle of the site.

and the landscape plan shows only deciduous trees in the buffers.

Additionally, the proposed landscaping could conflict with a retaining wall that was added since the previous review and nearby trees on the Walgreens parcel.

Staff recommends revising the plan to show a consistent six foot with landscape buffer along the western property line, showing a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and landscape buffers.

and adjusting the location of trees along the resident property line as needed to avoid conflicts with existing trees on the adjacent parcel.

Staff recommends approval of the final site plans with conditions listed in the staff report.

All right, and thanks a lot, Chris.

Thank you, Chris, for your report.

I just wanted to confirm, grading is dropping away from 29 here, so the site gets progressively lower.

Airport Road is, but Proffit is.

Okay, is not.

Frank?

Well, thanks, Chris.

I don't have any questions.

Thank you, Chris.

No questions.

Yeah, and I don't have any questions either.

Good afternoon.

Chuck Rapp, Collins Engineering.

Some informed presentation.

Everything seemed pretty straightforward.

I will say I've been working with our civil engineering team to

Adjust that wall on that western property line as Chris mentioned to hopefully create a little more space so that I can feather in some evergreen trees or large shrubs in between those large deciduous trees there.

I've met with county staff to talk about

I would assume on Worth Crossing and on Proffit we don't actually want evergreen trees throughout that landscape strip.

I believe it was just an erroneous note that was on the application plan.

Probably want street trees, medium, large shade trees there.

So that's what we had agreed to there.

But I think we can definitely find a way to incorporate some evergreens along that western property line.

All right, well, let's see if any board members have questions.

No, I don't.

Taro?

The only question is kind of a general one.

Is there a view we could pull up that gives us a little bit more of the context?

I'm having a little bit of trouble with the question of the screening, just orienting to where the entrance corridor is.

A view from 29.

Yeah, as you mentioned, it slopes down about six feet or so from the back of that Walgreens.

I guess just one, and I may be misremembering.

I don't remember if there was a remark in the staff report about the Gable End elevation that's

visible on the unit that faces Proffit.

But I guess that was the only question I had was, even if that wasn't a comment, I guess, in terms of the elevation of the main building that fronts Proffit and the gable to the north end of that that's going to be visible from 29, do you have any thoughts about that elevation in any ways to further evolve it?

So I guess one question I had was the only, on this elevation, at least from my perspective, I think it's probably the most prominent in the development.

What would you like to see?

Yes, yes.

I think we can work with that.

All right.

Thank you.

Yeah, I don't have any questions for the applicant.

So are there any members of the public who have questions or comments?

All right, great.

In that case, the IRB will go into discussion.

Yeah, I think Dave points to a good point about the elevation g that's indicated.

It'd be helpful to go back to the perspectives of the surrounding existing

Yeah, okay.

The existing landscaping on the Walgreens part, and then there's probably some kind of

It's just that one little window of opening right at the corner.

I guess to me, I mean given that it's containing, there's equipment in that shed structure,

You know, given that there's some space between that corner and the street and the screening that's already being provided, I can imagine it'd be appropriate to screen that area, just ensure that that area is screened.

On the elevation, it reads kind of like an entryway or something, but it just goes to mechanical equipment, right?

Chris, can you go back to the site plan?

Below, like where you'd be on the road?

Okay.

I think so, yeah.

And I guess that gets to one of the comments.

In this drawing, it looks like the curb line for the entrance to Walgreens is actually right next to the trees that they're showing on their site plan.

The curb line starts slightly here.

As I mentioned in the staff report, the approved landscaping on Walgreens parcels is right along the western property line.

I guess my thought is that one corner of the site where that elevation that we're talking about occurs is kind of where they have the most room for more screening if they wanted to do like a second row of trees or do something more with the screening.

That might not, I guess I'm just

Yeah, right.

Well, regardless of that, right, like the date suggestion about

articulating some sort of, because if you're gonna be able to see any part of it, you might not see the shed, but you'll see the upper stories.

Yeah, I think that's a reasonable request.

All looks good to me.

All right, well, there are no additional tweaks or anything.

I'll second.

All right, thank you.

Mr. Henningsen?

All right.

Thanks a lot.

All right.

We do not have any work sessions today, so we'll move on to other business.

First item is approval of the December 18th, 2023 minutes.

Anybody want to make a motion to adopt?

I'll move to adopt those.

All right, thanks.

All right, so on to other items.

I guess, does anybody have any other items they would like to discuss?

I know Margaret and I

At our last meeting, you all asked to come back around to the wireless service facilities recommendations.

I did put some comments together for you.

I've got them on the screen now.

I do realize we're still down one member today, so I don't know if you all want to

There's a typo in number two.

So this seems about in line with what my last recollection of the conversation was two weeks ago, or four weeks ago.

Thank you, Margaret.

I think this matches my recollection of the key points that we had discussed.

I do struggle with parts of sentence for paragraph one, item one, whatever we're calling it.

And I think it's around this issue of fewer towers could be interpreted as a positive thing, not a negative thing.

So I'm wondering if we could, I'm okay with two and three.

Do you mean like fewer larger towers might be an improvement over many?

Yeah, right.

I think if the number of towers were reduced and the towers that were increased in height were ones that were more suitable, right, that would be better, but I don't know that there's, I can imagine contingencies where it could work out all right, but I don't know that there's anything in the proposed regulations that mandates that, you know, we're as likely to have more towers get bigger

Well, I guess it's just the saying that the proposed changes will result in a negative visual impact is really unknown at this point.

It could, yeah, and then

I think to me it makes sense just because I think that's the key thread of legislation that sort of empowers the board at all.

So I guess to the extent the towers are

At a minimum, I would change will to could on the last sentence there.

These changes could increase the visual impacts.

You know, these changes without the possibility of board consideration may result in, I don't know, greater visual, I guess I'm trying to say that we want to be able to, to the goal of doing orderly and attractive development, some,

We could just leave it at these changes could increase visual impacts from the corridor.

How do we feel on number three, the balloon tests and photo simulations?

Yeah, I think, as I recall the discussion in part, it was, I think, recognizing

out of the Presidio that visualizations are not always 100% reliable.

And so a balloon test is necessary as sort of an empirical establishment of the height relative to the canopy.

But then also recognizing that a balloon as a single point is not really illustrative of the sorts of arrays that may be proposed which could be far greater in size.

And so a combination of a balloon test to establish the actual

Okay, I just want to make sure that those were the tools that we wanted to have every submission to gauge the impact.

and all of these are going to be forwarded on.

There's no distinction between one and two and three.

Right.

Yeah, I mean, I'll be unanimous.

Well, it could be unanimous.

It may not be unanimous either way.

He was here at the last meeting.

I'm just looking over the summary of the comments from the last meeting.

And even with the changes that you've just made, I think it's all still consistent.

I think so.

I think two is necessary.

Can you scoot up, Mr. Stoner?

I was responding to Dade.

I'm OK with what is the revised language we have.

All right, well, does anybody feel comfortable enough to make a motion today?

I'd be happy to make the motion today unless folks would prefer to wait.

So with regard to Frank, Hancock is not with us today.

So I'll move to forward the following recommendations on the proposed PWSF ordinance changes.

Do I need to read them into the

Rekordor.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Aye.

Thank you.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

Second item was our annual meeting where we elect chair, vice chair and propose any changes to the rules of procedure.

I thought that one would be good to postpone until our next meeting and that way.

Anyone who was interested in the chair or vice chair position would have an opportunity to make that known.

I'm happy to continue serving, but also there'd be no tears shed if someone else wanted to do it.

And also probably would be better assuming everyone can make the next meeting.

It'd be good to

Bristol, I'll be there for that.

If anybody is interested, I don't know how that works, if they would contact you, Margaret, or me, or how that works.

I'll add that to the agenda for next time.

I think you have at your places a copy of the current rules of procedure and the schedule for this year.

All right, great.

Any other items?

All right.

Well, in that case, the next ARB meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 16, 2024.

Are there any board members who will not be able to make the next meeting?

I'll be here.

All right.

So it sounds like at least four of us will be here.

and in that case this meeting is adjourned until the next meeting on January 16th, 2024.