Architectural Review Board Meeting   2/19/2024

You see anything good?

All right, it is one o'clock and I am calling the February 19th, 2024 meeting of the Albemarle County Architecture Review Board to order.

Yes.

Mr. Stoner?

Here.

Thanks.

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.

I do.

All right.

Thank you.

I don't.

I don't either.

I do.

I hopefully this is an unlikely event, but if we are still in session at two forty five, I'll have to leave.

So if I abruptly get up and run out of the room, you'll know it's two forty five.

All right.

Are there any members of the public

All right, great.

We do not have any consent agenda items today.

We do not have any work sessions today.

So we will move right onto our regular review item.

of which there are two today and the first is SP-2023-21 Flow Hyundai.

Chris, do you have your presentation ready?

Thanks.

Application being reviewed today is an advisory review for a special use permit.

The proposal is to establish outdoor storage display and sales associated with the construction of auto dealership.

The special use permit for outdoor display is particular to entrance quarters.

Motor vehicle sales is a by-right use in the zoning district, but the outdoor display of vehicles in the entrance quarters is special use.

There will be three parts to your actions today.

One is to provide a recommendation on the special use permit.

The other is related to changes to the concept plan.

And the third is comments on the final site plan.

The site is located along Route 29.

and is bounded by Berkmar Drive to the west and two automotive dealerships to the north and south.

The Airbnb reviewed an initial site plan for this development in December of last year and did not recommend approval due to landscaping issues, which also have an impact on outdoor display.

To provide flexibility, the applicant shows storage and display parking together near the entrance corridor.

The spaces are shaded blue and towards the middle and western portions of the site, they are shaded yellow.

The yellow shaded spaces also include vehicles waiting repair.

A special exception has been requested from supplementary regulations that require vehicles waiting repair be located where they're not visible from any public street or residential property.

Landscaping is one of the primary ways the visual impact of outdoor display on the entrance corridor has been mitigated.

Along the entrance corridor, the concept plan shows large trees with ornamental trees and shrubs interspersed.

To accommodate some of the frontage trees, three small bum-bouts have been added along the 15-space park and row.

Tree islands have also been added in the front display lot.

However, little landscaping shown south of the site entrance along Route 29 and the easements associated with the utilities along the frontage are not shown.

Staff recommends the concept plan be revised to show increased landscaping south of the Route 29 site entrance and show the easements along the frontage and that there will be no conflicts.

Along the perimeters of the site, the plan has been revised since the initial to show trees and islands in the planting strips.

However, the tree spacing does not meet the 40 foot on center requirement.

And the island shown in the northern parking row is likely too small to accommodate the two trees shown.

And the planting strips shown southeast and southwest of the showroom building are likely too narrow to accommodate the trees shown there.

Staff recommends the concept plan be revised to provide additional tree islands in northern and southern parking rows at 40 feet on center.

Other methods the ARB established for mitigating impacts outdoor display is by requiring vehicles not be elevated anywhere on site, cars only be parked in striped parking spaces, and cars only be parked in striped parking spaces.

The ARB is also typically required that limits be applied to site lighting, including limits on pole height, lamp type, and maximum levels of illumination.

Regarding these items, staff has recommended standard conditions be applied to the special use permit.

Staff has recommended a few revisions to the concept plan prior to the Planning Commission review that are included in the staff report.

Regarding the special use permit, we recommend no objection with the conditions shown in the staff report.

Recommendations for the final site plan are also provided in the staff report.

All right, thanks a lot for the presentation.

No, I don't.

I guess so the comments were made and then the applicant resubmitted and hadn't addressed some of the comments.

On the initial site plan, there was comments made on the, I guess the chain events, their initial site plan was submitted December of 2023 and comments were made related to landscaping as it related to the outdoor display.

Yeah, I think so.

There was some, it looks like, landscaping added since the last time.

Right.

And then the

Staff report just is noting that it's not as robust as it needs to be and that there are some locations where it's questionable if there's enough growing space for a tree to grow.

Correct.

Okay.

But it's helpful to, I feel like we just saw this recently, didn't we?

Yeah, and it's, okay, just trying to get the order of how the applications and comment responses have gone.

I don't have any other questions.

Thanks.

No questions.

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

Good afternoon everyone.

Could you put your presentation back up actually?

I didn't prepare a presentation.

This is pretty simple.

The slightly confusing thing about this is there's two processes.

So we were here about a month and change ago for the initial site plan.

We in parallel have a special use permit running which also comes through the ARB because it's outdoor storage and display.

Therefore it's a little bit in between.

So since the

We last met.

We resubmitted the initial site plan to address comments, and it was approved by the county, so that step is kind of done.

And then the landscaping you see in this exhibit, this is a good exhibit of it, shows the changes we made since the last meeting.

And what we did was, we talked about, this came up at the last meeting, you may recall, we have one side of our side frontage is basically adjacent to the Malloy Ford.

and we felt like maybe reducing that landscaping a little bit there was reasonable because of where we sat.

And the other side, we have a big water line easement which complicates the landscaping on the north side and that's where our solution, and I know certainly you could lose more spaces and add some islands, but every parking space really is very critical on these sites.

The one over on Pantops, I'm always amazed, there's 400 and some parking spaces there and every one is occupied.

So it really is critical and we felt like again context as that sits and we have the double the two trees in the island there in the middle so as you approach the site from 29 headed south you've got a decent amount of landscaping the parking lot with the landscaping islands we felt like this is a reasonable approach for circumstances

So obviously the board will have to weigh in on that.

But this was our basically response to the comments and discussion we had last time.

And as the special use permit, we don't really have any objection.

The conditions are basically standard for all of them.

It's a funny process in that you could park all your employees' cars or all your customer cars and there's no special use permit required because it happens to be a brand new car special use permit.

Display and I get it comes some other things but in the case of car is a little bit funny because to me the screening requirement should be essentially the same.

It's car as a car and I think we've met that.

The front what we did was we pushed the trees back about five feet.

from the prior submittal, and we add a little bump out so we can push them a little further.

There actually is no power line easement along that front, oddly.

There is a power line.

I did send up, Chris, could you pull up that exhibit I emailed you easily?

Is that easy to do?

Or we can zoom in.

You had a zoom in version of this prior slide.

It would show it too.

Essentially we have that the center of the tree is more than 15 feet from the edge up from the power line.

So we did slide them back.

We think that's going to be adequate spacing.

And then the final site plan will demonstrate there's no easement conflicts for those trees.

I think we addressed the front landscaping sort of per the standard with the moving the trees.

We reduced the size of the travel way in the parking lot a little bit.

And then really, I think our main difference, what the staff recommends, is this landscaping on the sides, the 40 foot space.

And we would prefer to move forward with this particular layout if the board finds it acceptable.

And as far as special use permit, I think the conditions are fine.

I might note, it's a funny condition about having to park your car in a striped space.

in that, not that we have massive areas of asphalt where we park cars randomly here, but in theory, the way that is worded, I think if somebody parked a car, I'd say next to the building there, where there's a sort of asphalt and a loading area, it's probably a zoning violation.

And so I don't know if that's necessarily a thing the county's gonna go out and enforce, but if you interpret it very strictly,

You could park no car in a spot that wasn't striped.

We may have just loading areas or things like that.

I'm not really worried about that from a standpoint of enforcement, but just something to be thinking about next time this comes up or if it ever gets looked at.

But we're okay with additions as proposed by staff.

All right, thanks.

Let's see if there are any questions.

Sure, thanks, Chris.

Thank you, Justin.

Interested in the adjustment of the spaces along 29, I guess making them a little shallower.

On the north side, no, because of water line easement on that side.

You can see that gray dash line there.

We'd have to move the parking lot in

Seven, eight feet or something like that for that to work on that side.

On the other side, potentially, there's not an easement conflict there.

We could, where our landscape strip is tight, we could probably shorten some of those spaces in a similar way just to get a little more tree planting growing area there.

Thank you.

And then you mentioned the overhead lines that the trees by 29 were 15 feet away.

Yeah, I mean, I think in theory, they could claim some kind of prescriptive easement and come along and chop.

They're not going to let a tree grow into the power line, obviously.

Yeah, thank you.

Those are my questions.

Frank, do you have any questions?

Sure.

Thanks, Justin.

Just looking at that southern island out on 29 south end of the site, I guess, are there any conflicts there with utilities or anything keeping you from putting any plantings or any additional plantings in that area?

Yeah, and I appreciate the challenges on the north and south property lines.

I think the solution, this is kind of verging into commentary, but the solution of the islands makes more sense on the south because you're right up against that building edge.

I don't think you're gonna wanna plant much of anything right next to that, but.

What,

Oh, there was some kind of shrubs or maybe actually ornamental grasses.

RWSA has kind of a limited, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has a more restricted easement than the Albemarle County Service authorities.

Okay.

Not trees and not certain shrubs.

All right, thanks.

I don't.

Thank you, Justin.

All right, thanks.

And I don't have any questions either.

Are there any members of the public that want to make a comment?

All right.

So the ARB will now go into discussion.

I appreciate the steps the applicant has taken to begin responding to the comments about increasing landscaping.

Thanks.

Tara?

I'd echo what Dave mentioned.

It sounds like the applicant is open to additional landscaping on that southern area.

I guess the only outstanding issue in my mind is

about the northern and southern boundaries of the site.

Maybe that's something I don't, I guess from my perspective, I'm not sure how much an additional space for a planting island goes either way.

I guess I could see that going

Maybe at any rate having the Northern Island at least feasible from the perspective of a tree actually growing that would be one place to start.

And then the recommended spacing is, or the required spacing is 40 feet on center.

I think currently around 64 between trees.

So it's a question of an additional planting island on the Northern side and approximately two on the Southern.

I'm inclined to agree with the applicant on the southern side, considering the adjacent building and the use on the other side.

Alright, thanks.

Frank?

Yeah, I agree with Dade and Taro.

I don't think there will be any wholesale changes.

I appreciate the applicant's response to the comments.

As far as adding in the front, good to know we can get the frontage trees along 29.

I think those will be the most impactful.

As I kind of, I think, hinted at with my question, I think if there's a place to add additional landscaping, it's that southern island or southeastern at 29 I think would be the place that makes sense to add additional, maybe a tree or some additional landscaping.

All right, thanks.

Yeah, I'm also in agreement.

Just reading the staff report, I thought the staff comments were pretty reasonable.

So if assuming that the applicant is willing to work with them, that's good enough for me.

Our recommendation was for no objection to the proposal with the with the recommended revisions to the concept plan.

I don't know why that keeps

Okay, no objection to the proposal with staff's recommended revisions to the concept plan with the special use permit conditions and with the comments for the final site plan submittal as all listed in the report.

Our screen is flashed.

As soon as I start reading from it, it turns off.

So just for clarity, if we can go through at least the first one point by point, the first numbers one, two and three under the revisions to the concept plan.

Okay, so number one was revise the concept plan to show the easements and show that there are no conflicts.

That seems pretty reasonable.

Two is revise the concept plan to show increased landscaping south of the site entrance along Route 29.

I think that also seemed like a reasonable request.

Revise the concept plan to provide additional tree islands in the northern and southern parking rows at 40 feet on center.

I think that if anything of those three, that would be the one item where we might want to adjust.

I appreciated Taro's observation that I think in the north maybe you're observing Taro it's fundamentally maybe adding one more island so I don't know that it's that big an ask.

At the south it sounded like the applicant was open to studying going to compact spaces and providing the trees.

There is some landscaping at the Malloy site.

If it's possible to include it without affecting the count too adversely

Can we look at the context?

I wanted to refresh on what the northern site.

to the northern side.

Yeah, that's all I wanted to see.

And it looked like maybe in some instances they were proposing islands that were less than a full space in width.

Yeah, I think it's probably species dependent, some other factors.

I don't know if there's a county minimum.

I don't know if it's square footage.

I mean, I'd be okay to strike that item three if the applicant kind of

focused their additional planting effort in that island at the entrance.

I feel like that would have the most impact.

Yes, and it seems to be a fair amount of planting area available there versus putting a tree in an undersized island surrounded by asphalt.

I don't know that you'll have a great result.

Yeah, I tend to agree.

I think due to the unique circumstance that this site is situated between two existing car dealerships, to get that oblique view, you're necessarily looking like across another

car dealership to see this one.

So I think I agree with Frank that the kind of the landscaping directly adjacent to 29 is kind of the most impactful in this case and I kind of think if they're willing to

Treat, Southwest Corner.

To me, that would be more kind of bang for the buck than increases on the sides.

I guess to summarize the degree of like non-conforming with the 40 foot on center tree requirement, it can be kind of, what we're intending is that this, the condition might not get any fewer trees than what's shown, but that trees would be added to the southern island of the, along the entrance corridor.

Yeah, that's my understanding.

Yeah, I think that sounds pretty reasonable to me and that that that Northern Ireland might be modified in order to create a more favorable condition for that whatever tree does get planted there.

That's the understanding.

All right, so I guess

We could strike item three.

Right, and then the special use permit conditions.

These are all standard conditions for this type of use.

None for me, no.

All right.

We'll move to the recommendations for the site plan.

which also seem to be fairly standard conditions.

So I'll just ask if anybody had any tweaks or changes to those.

All right.

Great.

I'll move to recommend

No objection to the proposal with staff's recommended revisions to the concept plan.

All right, thank you.

Anybody feel like seconding that?

I'll second.

All right, thank you.

All right, thanks a lot.

All right, so we'll move on to our

Next item, which is ARB-2023-114, Flo Kia.

This is a preliminary review of the architectural design for a renovation of the Flo Kia building that's located in the Pantops area.

It's on the north side of 250 East.

It's a short distance east of Town and Country Lane.

The front portion of the building would be demolished with this proposal and it would be replaced with a new showroom building.

The rear service portion of the building would be retained and renovated.

As you've read in the staff report, the existing building was constructed as a restaurant.

It was associated with the Town and Country Motor Lodge, which was located just to the west.

Those buildings and a few others in the immediate vicinity on Route 250 were built in the mid-50s in popular roadside architecture styles.

He would like to build the new showroom to conform to its brand design and signature elements of that design include the black band of ACN panels above extensive showroom glazing and a metallic silver frame at the customer entrance into the showroom.

There's also painted e-fists at the side elevations and some standard wall signs.

The black ACM band, the showroom glass, the metallic frame at that customer entrance, and the painted ephus are all found in the proposed design, and these materials and forms are found in nearby buildings as well.

Like many of the other showroom buildings in the area, the proposed design is not a strong reflection of the traditional architecture of the area, but a new building with materials and forms that are compatible with those in the surrounding context could contribute to orderly and attractive development on the corridor.

The black ACM band is expected to be the predominant feature of the building.

The band is composed of a series of panels, but it isn't clear from the illustrations that they will help with the texture or scale, and the result may be a dark band floating above a transparent box.

Revisions to design that would ground the building, establish rhythm across the elevation, and reduce reflectivity would be appropriate.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

So we'll go to questions for staff.

Frank, do you have any questions?

I don't.

Thanks, Margaret.

Taro?

No, thank you.

Dave?

No questions.

Thanks.

And I don't have any questions either.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Kevin Schaefer and I am the Charlottesville Studio Director with Design Develop.

Thank you, Margaret, for the staff report and the comments.

As Margaret mentioned, we are again preliminary architecture review looking to get those initial comments on architecture.

And we will come back with the full site plan development

The landscape development, the lighting, all those sorts of things.

But eager to get your thoughts and comments on this initial architecture.

As staff mentioned, the original structure was built in the 50s and it changed ownership in 2003.

And it was at that time that it became a automotive dealership.

It went through an ARB process at that time and then again in 2016 when the owner requested the removal of the dome due to waterproofing and maintenance concerns as well as request an additional addition on the rear of the site which added four service bays to the existing five service bays and so

The point of that is for over 20 years now it's been a restaurant that's operated as an automotive use and may not reflect the use and may not reflect the changes that have happened along the Route 250 entrance corridor.

The proposal that's in front of you starts to try and address some of those variations between the use and what's existing there currently.

But like all of projects along this entrance corridor, there's some significant grade considerations that it has to address or at least acknowledge.

The free bridge auto sales parking lot

which is on the right side of the screen here is about 14 feet above the Kia entrance and so there's you know from front to back on the site there's about 12 to 14 feet of elevation change as you are headed westbound from 64 into town.

On this side, you can see that that grade change is heavily landscaped, some of which appears to be from a ARB hearing, maybe the 2003 approval.

But it has full, mature landscaping.

It's been allowed to reach full height and fullness.

And so you don't really, a passerby on this Route 250 corridor doesn't really get a full view of this parcel.

until about right at this location when you're driving past the entrance drive.

Eastbound out of town is obviously a little bit more visible as you come up the hill and more of the building is revealed.

The image on the top shows full landscaping as well that's been allowed over the past 20 years to reach full matureness and really does a significant job of screening the existing structure.

The image on the bottom shows what's I think more typical now in

More recent developments is to put the building much closer to the corridor, which does while it relegates parking, it does make for a much more visible building.

The Kia dealership in this location is going to retain the same location on its site and roughly the same footprint.

And so there is about one hundred and twenty five feet from the entrance corridor through to the front facade of the building.

And all of this existing

landscaping along the entrance corridor is to remain.

I mentioned that this entrance corridor has gone through significant growth and change over the past 20 years.

This is an adjacent parcel, what used to be on an adjacent parcel and has since evolved into the Flow, Volkswagen, Mazda, Porsche, and Audi dealerships.

And I referenced this preference

President, frequently, but I think it's another example of successful new intervention that has contributed to this entrance corridor successfully.

The massing has broken down really nicely.

It was not so long ago that it went through this board's review, and I think it's a much better example of

buildings that meet entrance corridor guidelines than what was previously there.

And so with that use in mind, I think it is important to keep our context in consideration.

But it's not just, you know, context and amount of visibility that's important when we're reviewing the entrance corridor guidelines, we do want to focus on the building as well.

Like I mentioned previously, the building remains in the same location on site.

It's roughly the same width.

It's pretty low in terms of its height.

It's pretty sympathetic in terms of a building mass and particularly when compared to some of those adjacent precedents.

And it's 125 feet from the entrance corridor, as I mentioned.

This image I think is indicative of what most viewers or what would be most visible from the entrance corridor and that would be as you are traveling eastbound on the Route 250 corridor.

And I think what's really helpful about this image is because of the grade change, we do have the opportunity to read this as a solid rectangular volume that then has

the storefront glass at the showroom kind of carved out.

And I think that's maybe where this starts to get more successful than say the Hyundai proposal is that this starts to feel much more like a cohesive rectangular volume that then has been eroded at the showroom in a way that kind of highlights the dynamic showroom.

Kia's showroom interiors are quite nice.

Actually, there's a lot of warm wood on the interiors.

and so this is an opportunity for that facade to interact with the entrance corridor in a dynamic way but still feel like a cohesive whole, like it's grounded and rooted in a more holistic structure.

This image from westbound on the entrance corridor shows this new service drive addition

That has two benefits.

The first being that it does help establish a hierarchy.

It helps break down a mass.

It is deferential to the storefront building mass.

It's receded from the front of facade.

But I think more importantly is it shields a lot of the utilitarian aspects of an automotive use.

There are nine service bays in the rear of the parcel.

which are currently visible from the entrance corridor.

And this service drive shields that in a way that is still like a cohesive whole with the rest of the proposed structure.

This is the National Kia Design and I brought this image up for two reasons.

One is to show that we have already lowered the height of the proposal in front of you by a storefront, a horizontal storefront band, which effectively lowers the height of the building by four or five feet.

I think this is helpful because the existing structure is

is low, is really low to begin with, so we're being a little bit

deferential to the existing structure that's on there.

We're a little bit shorter in height, which is helpful from a massing perspective and a scale perspective as you're driving by on the Route 250 corridor.

But I also think it really helps with the proportion of the banding, the metal banding above.

Here on this image too, you also see the strong diagonal on the side and how that starts to read much more like a rectangular volume that's been eroded away.

and then finally I wanted to highlight the pedestrian entry portal which in our renderings may not be as impactful as it is here and it's true this has a vestibule so this is a little bit wider but it really is an element that starts to bring into human scale and reinforce the human scale marking the entry for a pedestrian

on the front facade while also kind of breaking down the glass box in a pretty significant way, maybe more significant than the renderings we're showing.

So I just wanted to bring that to the attention.

I think the main comment from staff would be the black banding at the top and sort of that as a heavy element.

Like I mentioned,

Kia doesn't utilize a really large overhang like Hyundai does, and I think that was a really fair comment at Hyundai is just the massiveness of the overhang as well as the height of that created deep shadow lines.

That isn't necessarily the case at Kia, but we also have this adjacent precedent, which is very much a, you know, the metal

Faysha floating above a glass box.

And this is successful in my opinion, but it's also a precedent that kind of showcases how this can still be successful in a very contemporary form.

The Porsche actually kind of emphasizes this overhang and the functionality for it by putting entrances under there and even a drive entrance on this side.

So it really becomes a defining kind of element

for Porsche, whereas, you know, in Kia, it's really just a fascia band that feels much more connected to the rectangular volume.

Because of our glazing requirements in the entrance corridor, we know it's going to be clear glazing that's not particularly reflective.

And here is a good image of it.

The interior structure is still very visible.

And so when you start to think about the no overhangs or the limited overhangs, the visible structure, the strong diagonals on the side, it starts to feel much more like a cohesive whole and much more like a singular element rather than kind of a black band that's floating over a glass box.

So with that, when you start to just kind of take all these considerations into mind, we really felt this was appropriate from an entrance corridor design perspective, existing landscaping to remain a very sympathetic massing height.

It's broken down.

It has human scale.

It limits blankness effectively.

and we have altered the brand identity, I think just enough to be contextual and aware of its precedence and we think this can be another successful addition to the Route 250 entrance corridor.

All right, thanks for that presentation.

See if any members have any questions.

Thank you for your presentation.

Not yet.

We wanted to just get board feedback first.

You know, I think

Yeah, no, I appreciate you bringing up the Porsche example because it is striking in terms of having a massive facia that's not connected.

And I was looking at it and sort of wrestling with what makes it different.

I think in some ways it's because it's

even though Porsche and Audi are distinct dealerships because they're sort of connected to one another, it's sort of springing from that mass at the hyphen.

So I think, you know, I think maybe it's because it's black and they're showing the precedent of the Mazda dealership, you know, it's an example of bringing that color down to the ground.

That does root it a little bit.

And I think even in the,

and the Volkswagen, you know, there's sort of a sense of the frame of the facade that the glass is cut out of or at the Audi, I think the curtain wall really, even though it's transparent, sort of reads as a wall, as sort of like one plane and one device, which is not, and this is not to say that any of those need to be emulated, but in terms of thinking about the success of those examples, I think there may be a degree to which

I guess maybe at the Mazda and at the VW the sort of the plane at the Audi, the plane of the wall is expressed and brought down to the ground in a way that's consistent.

This is just sort of subtly different because the, because the facia does

float.

And as you correctly point out, I think it does float quite profoundly at the Porsche dealership.

But I think still it's just somehow subtly routed back through the Audi.

And I think also just uniquely that the geometry of that form sort of as a response to that corner also I think somehow.

That works, I don't know, extemporizing here.

So I think it's a long way to get to, I think I'm somewhat sympathetic to the staff suggestion to think about ways to ground the building.

It's like a panel of some sort?

It does read like a panel.

It's an EFS.

Great.

OK, thank you.

Frank?

Thank you for your presentation.

Just so we're facing the site on the right side, is that the east side?

It's eastbound as in heading out of town.

Heading up the hill.

Yeah, right.

Okay.

We had this debate internally in our offices.

We were working on the presentation.

Is that west or east?

Westbound.

headed into town.

Am I saying that right?

And I don't know if you've gotten into sight yet, but you mentioned, or you showed the street view of that property line with the mature trees.

All of the entrance corridor trees would remain as they are today.

As you can see in this image here, there is a small retaining wall that starts to come up kind of at the face of the building, and that's so that we can accommodate a drive aisle around the service, the new service drive addition.

And so there is likely some amount of

Okay, so those trees on that side property line would likely stay at least a few up by this road.

Yeah, certainly these up here.

and then I don't know if this is a question more of, well maybe it is a question.

Is this one of the most famous sites the ARB reviews because of the topped trees?

Is that the one that's like in everybody's head when we talk about topped trees?

Is it this site?

Okay, so maybe this isn't the one but

I guess that was a question.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Sorry, I forgot a question.

I was also wondering, and maybe this is because we recently saw your presentation,

As shown in the renderings, the roof plan is not correct and maybe

Maybe this rendering should have been omitted or at least updated.

The parapet here is actually about three feet tall.

This was a very early model.

And so the intention, it's a great question.

The intention is to screen everything behind a parapet wall.

So the fascia keeps its relative proportions, but that's gonna be screening the mechanical equipment.

Correct.

All right, thanks.

I don't mind Taro asking an extra question, but he kind of like stole my question.

Sorry.

So now I don't have any questions.

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

All right.

Well, in that case, the ARB will go into discussion.

No, I apologize.

All right.

Thanks.

Sure.

I would just say the site and in particular, the frontage landscaping.

I know maybe you want to keep this redevelopment kind of limited, but

If there's anything you can do there, that would be an element that would maybe mitigate that fascia and the thing I think that staff commented on and that we've commented on a little bit.

I think it helps that that building is set back.

Ideally, we do want them forward, but I think having that further back and not as tall will also minimize the impact on the entrance corridor.

I think maybe there's other ways to bring that to ground.

If you're thinking about the west end of that building, I think it's really interesting how the grade just drops off.

I think that makes it feel worse as far as having that kind of top heavy mass.

Maybe there's something in the landscape you could do on that side that balances it a little bit instead of an architectural move to kind of bring that facia element, give it some support.

Let's see what else I wrote.

I think it was very helpful when you illustrated the vestibule entrance.

And that maybe could be an element that was accentuated or further defined that I think could alleviate some of the issues.

Let me see.

I think that's all I wrote down.

But yeah, it might come up if

who are left with existing frontage landscaping and it's those top trees.

I don't know, maybe it just needs to be documented what's out there and what the utility conditions are.

I think for the issue of item two, the grounding and the vertical supports, I wonder if part of it is the sort of early stage of design that the rendering is, because I was looking at the precedent from previous Kia buildings, just that they, I think I noted that the corner mullions were a little bit different, like that as you start to develop

Storefront design.

I think there will emerge a certain level of differentiation between the width of the mullions that maybe the corner condition gets treated a little bit differently.

There is some relationship to the internal structure.

So I had, I think,

You know, that might be an opportunity in terms of establishing some degree of like it's just not like two and a half inch storefront millions all the way down.

But there's a little bit of like a more subtle distinction between what happens in the corner and what happens, you know, three panels in.

So I'm a little bit less concerned about that.

Or I think that it'll come out of some of the structural requirements in the ways that you all work through the design as it goes through the process.

I think in terms of just how the corner gets treated it's a little bit less visible but I think from you know as the design proceeds like I think that to Frank's point about you know what the grade just kind of dropping off that I think when you look at the I guess if you're if we're thinking of the face of the building as being the east side so we decided

South side.

So then the west side, the south and west corner.

You know, I think that there's probably going to be some work that happens where you look at how does the ethos exactly meet the ground?

And then there's the storefront openings as you proceed around the corner.

Currently, they're sort of the same as what's happening on the front, but I think

as you develop the design, a little bit more structure on what's happening there might emerge too.

So I guess just to say, you know, I think that some of the items that would bring this design to reality might emerge out of the design process and the way that they work through it.

All right, thanks.

Yeah, generally I agree with what my co-board members have said.

I feel like the design kind of as presented is generally compatible with the context in the area, I think.

So I'm not as concerned about the grounding, but I do think just kind of as a suggestion that where the

where that band and the storefront under it ends with that diagonal element as one of the more kind of interesting aspects of the designs.

There could be some way to maybe bring those closer to the corridor or play with how that band goes, at least on the side.

That could be a way to kind of establish more of a grounded presence.

But really that's just a hopeful suggestion.

Chris, would it be possible in the spirit of kind of the preliminary architecture review just to kind of summarize that real quick so I can take that back to national brand.

And just a few clarifying points.

I think the topped trees are probably most significant on the Porsche site.

Is that correct?

And less concerning on this site.

Yeah, I think it's the one further down.

All right.

No, that's OK.

I just wanted to clarify that.

And, you know, I think there's I guess I was maybe hanging my hat on, but I was advocating that the mature landscaping was a benefit.

And if it's not and it needs to be more robust, then that's something we can discuss and consider, particularly if there's

Maybe a give and take like you suggested.

But one of the things that we did talk about internally was the expression of the structure.

So I think it's a good suggestion.

And if that would help alleviate, I think we do see that in key standards, like national brand standards, too.

It's a choice, right, to make it to either put it inside our curtain wall and let the curtain wall be flat or express it.

So that that is certainly an optional explorer.

and then I think to summarize everyone's comment and thank you for letting me kind of jump back up here.

Where that diagonal terminates, where that fascia terminates is the area to study.

Does that sound about right?

This is a smaller comment but I note on number eight wall signs require separate applications.

Would that also apply to, because I noticed that there's a monument sign on the, I assume that there

Yeah, and I don't really have any changes either.

I think item two is kind of really the one to study, but I think it's written in a way that's pretty open-ended.

I'll move to

approve the list of changes outlined in the staff report to be reviewed at a future meeting.

Any seconds?

I'll put a second.

All right.

Thanks.

All right.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

All right, so we will move to other business.

First item is approval of the February 5th, 2024 minutes.

Does anybody wanna make a motion?

I'll move to approve the minutes.

All right, thank you.

Second?

Second.

Thanks.

Thank you.

All right.

I do have one.

That's really a question related to the cell tower discussion, which I don't think we've all been here.

We had three or four of us here.

to discuss it several times.

I understand it is going to the Planning Commission on the 27th.

That's right, yeah.

Thank you.

And I can state that they are an attachment for the Planning Commission.

A motion to forward our review.

Hold on one second.

There was a motion.

On January 2nd, 2024, the Elmar County Architectural Review Board made the following recommendations on a draft wireless ordinance.

Mr. Van Der Werf moved and Mr. Henningsen seconded.

Mr. Hancock was absent and I can send this.

There's three items listed there.

Well, the motion is out.

The comments are out.

So in advance of the meeting, I don't know if there is anything we could

I don't know what the hearing itself will be.

I wasn't clear as to whether the comments reflected a consensus or a formal vote.

We made a motion to forward the comments, but the comments reflect the board's official position.

I think I remember the discussion.

We had sort of modified and cut out some of the elements that I didn't feel like we had a board consensus on.

So I think we had a general sense of agreement that those were the elements that we were interested in.

I don't know if it amounts to an official board position, but I think we at least, I remember having a pretty good sense that we were setting something on that we all had

Right.

And at least my memory or my impression was that we were asked to provide a position on the matter.

Might have been in my initiative.

I think it was my.

It was requested.

We discussed the ordinance.

Yeah, I just don't know whether the motion, again, reflect, if the takeaway from the Planning Commission is that there was unanimous consensus or support for those comments, I would probably not agree with that perspective, or that was certainly not the intent of my comments or my vote at the time, which is why I guess I,

And that's fine.

I don't think that would be clear from from this action.

Now if you send the comments in writing to me then they're going to be part of the packet that goes before the Board of Supervisors.

Gotcha.

So anything that comes to me between now and the meeting will be given to staff and shared with the Planning Commission

I understand.

If you don't want to come to the meeting, you can join on Zoom and you can have three minutes.

Yeah.

And earlier today, the agenda hadn't been published.

Is there anything on the agenda from 4 to 10 besides this?

Well, we're having a work session first.

OK, yes.

and that's for the AC44 rural areas, something else, transportation and if that's gonna run long, probably what they'll do is there are two items, I'm assuming that they're gonna only let that go an hour and a half but if it goes into the Planning Commission, what they have been doing is they take the two public hearing items and hear them first at the six o'clock part of the meeting and then they take the AC44

All right.

Thanks.

Do we know are we going to have a quorum for the next meeting?

It will be

A longer meeting than we've been having.

I think there were three items for the fifth and maybe one or two for the 18th.

All right.

Nice.

Which brings me to my next announcement.

We do not have a quorum for the March 4th meeting.

The next ARB meeting is scheduled for March 18th, 2024.

I'll just run down each board member and they can say whether or not they think they can attend.

Dave?

Yes.

Taro?

Yes.

Frank?

Yes.

And I think so too.

In that case,

This meeting is adjourned until the next meeting on March 18th, 2024.

And by my watch, it is 2.12 PM.