Architectural Review Board Meeting   4/15/2024

All right.

It's 103 by my watch.

So I'm calling the April 15th, 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 Albemarle County website at the Albemarle County calendar.

The public has real-time audio visual access to this meeting over Zoom and real-time audio access over telephone.

Both is provided in 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.

I do not have any disclosures.

All right.

Great.

Thank you.

We do not have any consent agenda items today.

We do not have any work sessions today, so we will move to our first regular review item, which is ARB-2024-24 Flow Honda Final.

Chris, do you have your presentation?

The application I'm presenting today is the review of the final design submitted for the Flow Honda building.

The site is located along Route 29 near the intersection we hold on Knights Road.

ARB reviewed the preliminary design at the February 5th meeting and provided comments.

To honor you within the site, the Phase 1 building is the larger building with structure parking on the right side of the site, and the smaller building on the left is the Phase 2 building for Subaru.

The changes to the renovation design include retaining the red brick and reducing the trademarked elements used.

These changes help to increase the compatibility of this design with the ones approved for Subaru and Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram.

Regarding the site landscaping, the sentimental confirms landscaping missing from the Honda CDJR portion of the site.

However, landscaping missing for the Subaru portion has not been identified.

Bringing the entire site in conformity would provide for a consistent appearance as viewed from the entrance core.

While signage is reviewed with a separate submission, staff notes that the hanging signs shown for Honda are a different sign type than the existing signs for Subaru and Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, which are wall signs.

Staff recommends the approval application with the changes listed in the staff report.

All right, thanks a lot.

I guess we'll start with Frank Stoner.

We don't.

Dave, do you have any questions?

Thanks for the report.

No questions.

No, I don't have any questions.

I don't have any questions either.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kevin Shaffer.

I am with design develop architects here in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Thank you, Chris, for the staff report and the review of the project.

Chris was kind enough to hop on a call with us to kind of talk through some of the nuances.

And we appreciate the dialogue that we have with staff.

So thank you for the thoroughness.

This is the final, first final submission for ARB for the Honda project.

on the Route 29 corridor, as Chris mentioned, and I just wanted to take a quick minute to kind of recap the process like Chris did as well.

Back in December, we had submitted a proposal that was

Fairly brand heavy and staff was able to help call attention to that.

Maybe a little heavy on the Honda Blue.

We were painting the brick at that time.

And with staff's comments, we were able to go to Honda National Brand and their national architects and talk through some of the requirements and some of the staff comments.

And that allowed us to bring this February 5th

rendering to that preliminary hearing and gain a lot of high quality feedback there so I just I'm really grateful for the process the dialogue that we had where we could get that staff comments and then go back that helped kind of expedite this I think and get to a place of resolution where we were meeting the entrance corridor guidelines much quicker so on February 5th we reviewed the image below and it

seemed like overall the board was favorable with the moves, the big picture moves of raising the curtain wall, starting to break down the horizontality of this existing structure, starting to limit some of the areas of blankness and overall gain more transparency between the entrance corridor and this main showroom.

The proposal that is in front of you today is very similar to what was in that image.

I just wanted to call to your attention a few key differences, actually mainly just one difference, which was the introduction of a white frame around the blue entry element here.

that I think is helpful from a materiality perspective in finding sort of a cohesive matte around this blue frame, if you will, and starting to tie to the white pergola elements a little bit better.

And so that came from the development of the design in a DD phase.

We realized there was a beam there, an existing structural beam, as well as some pretty significant duct work.

And so there was a desire to start to lower the curtain wall a little bit.

And that actually ended up working favorably with Honda's design requirements as well.

And we think it is complimentary.

So previously, just to recap, we were showing

some brick kind of poking through here and here.

And that has been replaced with a white EFS element on this existing brick and then a white metal band, which you can't really see here, but I'll show it in subsequent slides.

Just to kind of recap the revisions, 20 year old building like we had talked about starting to show a little bit of age, maybe in need of a little bit of refreshment, the branding elements a little bit dated at this point.

So taking the opportunity with flows, taking the opportunity to bring this up to brand standards and also create a better user experience.

So here is a better image of that new white ACM metal panel that now the curtain wall doesn't extend all the way up to the bottom side of the blue canopy gives it just a little bit of relief and makes it a little bit easier for us to make that joint at what is called the blue stage entry element.

Beyond that new stage,

We are retaining the existing red brick elsewhere, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment, but this proposal does have the red brick to remain that's in front of you.

I wanted to note that we are calling out to replace all the existing storefront.

It's currently this blue, this kind of dull blue that you see here in these images.

All of that's getting replaced to a black storefront frame, including on the side over here.

And so that's an element that will be rejuvenated as well, 20-year-old storefront.

Still operational but in need of some updating.

Some of the seals have failed so it's not a bad time to do it from a practical perspective either.

And here's a look at the proposed and just calling attention to the new storefront elements.

The existing blue roof is suggested to get painted a gray as you can see here in these images.

And so we are continuing to tone down the elements of the Honda Blue throughout.

But otherwise, the images that we viewed in early February are pretty consistent with what we proposed in front of you here.

The staff's comments, we're certainly happy to accommodate providing a window glass sample for review.

We can revise the lighting plan per staff's comments, adding the note.

I will say for number two, it will be white lights to match the pergola elements in here, and they will be hidden inside those pergola elements, so pretty minimal in terms of its visibility.

The landscape plan, as Chris mentioned, we did go through and did a quick survey.

There are trees missing as well as a pretty significant amount of shrubs.

We talked with Flo about those and they are happy to replace those in order to keep the project moving forward and understand the need of it.

We had gone through the same thing on the Subaru side, and I thought that was actually a part of the previous scope of work.

But if it hasn't been done yet, we'll make sure that it does get done.

I know there were some trees that had been removed along the Hilton Heights side as well.

So bringing the landscape plan up to what was previously approved is on our radar, and we're willing to do.

Just wanted to quickly touch on the cohesive campus approach, which we touched on in February.

And it seems like overall there was some momentum for that, some desire that that could be a successful intervention as we start to look at these new entry elements at Subaru, at CDJR, at Honda now.

Does the brick building still fit with these new entry elements?

And I think there was some momentum or some appreciation for that.

But we did take to heart, Mr. Henningsen, your comments of, well, maybe don't just take a big bucket of paint up there and slap the whole thing with paint.

We are planning on still pursuing this, even though it's not part of this submission.

We just wanted to give it its due diligence.

And truthfully too, there's three different national brands who are kind of all vying for brand colors.

And that's not what this is.

This is neutrality.

It's creating a cohesive thing.

It's not, you know, making

A specific brand stand out more than another.

So we are still contemplating that we are still working through it to make sure that we're presenting what is what is the most appropriate thing from an insurance corridor.

I didn't want you to think that that was completely off the table and I wanted to keep it at the kind of the

Forefront of our discussion to some extent.

If there are additional comments to that approach, we're certainly willing to hear anything as we continue to work through that.

But for right now, and from a practicality perspective, we have a contractor who's currently working on the adjacent CDJR.

And so can we,

Utilize some efficiencies here with the CDJR contractor by, as that scope of work wraps up, we're priming ourselves to move right over to Honda and we don't have to relocate temporary trailers and things like that.

And so we wanted to put in front of the board what seemed to be most favorably viewed at our last preliminary hearing.

So that's what's under review now.

If you have any questions for me on this one, happy to answer them.

All right.

Thanks a lot for the presentation.

Yes.

Thanks as well for the presentation.

Thank you for showing the overall campus view.

Can you clarify, is the Subaru dealership currently still brick at the adjacent corner?

OK. Great.

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

Sounds like there are more.

Thanks.

So the ARB will now go into discussion.

Sure.

Appreciate staff's thorough review.

It was helpful that we saw this at the last meeting.

There don't seem to be any real surprises from what we saw last time.

So I think it's a nice application.

I do appreciate the red brick in this case staying.

All right, thanks, Dade.

All right, yeah, I similarly appreciate the applicants and staff's work on this proposal and think as it's presented, it seems appropriate.

I think in the context of the brick remaining at the Subaru, it's appropriate for it to remain here.

Look forward to the applicant's presentation of a comprehensive campus approach.

All right, thanks a lot.

I totally agree.

Don't really have anything meaningful to add.

The motion is for approval with conditions listed in the staff report.

All right.

Dave, do you have any tweaks?

I don't have any tweaks.

Frank?

No.

And I don't either.

Sure.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

Okay.

All right, thanks a lot.

All right, so we will move on to our next regular review item, which is ARB-2024-25, Glenbrook at Foothills Phase 4 Final Site Plan.

Margaret, do you have your presentation ready?

This is a proposal to construct a mix of 45 attached and detached residential units with associated site improvements on the south side of Three Notched Road, the Route 240 entrance corridor.

This is a short distance from the heart of Crozet.

You reviewed and recommended approval of the initial site plan for this phase of the development back in December of last year, and there were comments and recommendations made at that time.

Those were noted in today's staff report.

This slide shows the current phase that's under review with some earlier phases of the development.

The two blocks that are highlighted in yellow are the focus of the review.

These images show the view of the site as it currently stands.

At the top of the slide are two views looking directly south into the site from the entrance corridor street.

At the bottom are two views along the corridor.

The one on the left is looking west towards Crozet and the one on the right is looking east.

These images show that there's some scrubby vegetation of varying heights on the south side of the street and the railroad tracks are on a berm that decreases in height moving to the west.

These conditions will limit some of the view of the development.

The units south of the highlighted blocks are expected to be screened by the highlighted blocks, and it was discussed during the review of the Phase III development that the blocks to the west are not expected to be visible from the street.

These are the elevations proposed for Lots 140 through 145.

These are the elevations for Lots 116 through 120.

In both the blocks, the design of the front elevations include much more architectural detailing than the side or rear elevations, and it's the rear elevations that face the entrance quarter.

We expect that the upper two stories and the roof of the units will be visible from the street.

On the development side of the railroad is a band of open space.

There's a water line in that open space.

Just south of that is a row of proposed evergreen trees and a row of deciduous trees.

These trees are expected to help filter the view of the elevations of units 140 through 145 from the entrance quarter.

This is the applicant's rendering of those units from the entrance quarter with evergreens in place.

The plan also shows some landscaping outlets 119 and 120.

Phase 3 plan showed more landscaping along Lots 116 and 117 and along the dog park.

The Phase 3 layout in that area isn't entirely coordinated with what's on the Phase 4 plan, so we recommended that the landscaping in this area be added to the Phase 4 plan to show that both plans are coordinated.

Because we do expect the side and rear elevations to be visible, we've recommended that the applicant consider adding detailing to those elevations.

We've also made recommendations regarding a few technical issues, window glass, mechanical equipment, and lighting.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

Good afternoon, Chuck Grapp with Collins Engineering.

All right, I don't have a whole lot more to add based off Margaret's thorough presentation.

I did want to just provide some context to the overall Glenbrook so you can see it's very large scale development.

This is one of the final elements here.

The area highlighted there in yellow is where this phase is in relation to everything else.

I did prepare this just to show some additional clarity as to this phase and kind of get through some of the

Massive utilities and everything that's in this space.

You can kind of see the landscaping as it plays out with that service authority easement in the back.

With this one, I think

Duly noted to Margaret's point, I can certainly try to blend some of that landscaping more with the previous phase.

I didn't have a hand in that one.

So I'll take a look at that and try and blend that more.

But to try to fit in what I could, I believe the easement in the back of the six units is about six feet wide.

So I was trying to get as much height as possible.

It also fit in there.

And then I filtered in those flowering trees in between the sidewalk and the units.

with some larger trees wherever I had the opening for it.

As was noted, there's a pretty good berm along the railroad tracks there.

Just as you go past the brewery, anywhere from, you know, four to six feet tall or so along that corridor gets taller as you continue going towards Crozet.

And then drop this in just to show with an elevation of the back of those primary units with the row of evergreens in there.

and then we have the elevations of each of the architectural units here and Genevieve Verlet with Greenwood Homes is here to answer any questions on that as well.

So we can go through all that if there's any specific questions.

I also have a copy of the site plan but as it was pulled up shows some of the challenges of trying to fit in some stuff on this site plan.

It's just there's a lot of utilities in there.

I will say if I go back to

and we'll go back to this there.

I did try to fit in what I can here to try and block some of these side views.

So a large shade tree, we have some large evergreens here where I had a little more room once I got past the easement that was restricting everything in the back.

So they can try to add more.

It's just there's a lot of drainage easements and utility easements and all types of stuff along the road lines back there.

So somewhat restricted.

All right, thanks a lot.

And I realized after I asked for your presentation that I forgot to ask if anyone had any questions for staff.

So feel free to pepper in questions for staff with your applicant questions if you're so

Move to do so.

Correct.

I did not have questions for staff.

Thank you for the presentation.

If we have questions about the architectural comments, should we wait?

I guess the first one for me is just in terms of staff's suggestion to consider other design elements on the entrance corridor facing elevations.

Have you given any thought to that?

Yes, Chinvieve Ferlak with Greenwood Homes.

So one of the remarks is that you only see pretty much one half of that site elevation, but we could add something to the eave in the top, maybe a fake window or something like that, and more.

As Chuck mentioned, we can add some more greenery on the side of lot 120.

which would be basically the only side you would see of those two highlighted homes on the left side.

For the windows, we do have a note on what type of windows are used.

It didn't come through with the application, but we will send that in.

Mechanical screening is lower than what you see, but we do screen it completely and it will be painted in the color of the parching of the concrete or stone, whatever is used at the bottom of the house.

Thank you.

Not at the moment.

I think they do have the decks and all that to give it more variation.

We used color differences between the houses to make it more attractive.

It's not as much as the front, but I think that is just a difference.

Thank you.

And then one quick question about the landscaping in the back.

Appreciate the addition of the flowering trees.

I can certainly take a peek just to see.

I was just concerned about the getting too large in front of the houses.

We see that all the time, you know, and then you have the large shade tree growing into the house.

So I'd like to preserve and there's an entrance.

That's the lower unit back there.

That's the affordable unit is from that back there, which you can see from

This is an actual door to the unit on the ground level from the back, so I didn't want to make it too difficult to get back there.

Well, thank you.

Appreciate understanding whether it's feasible.

All right.

Thanks.

Yeah, thanks for the presentation.

I had two quick dimensional questions.

Off the top of my head I do not know, but the actual finished grade of the units is actually higher than the railroad track with the way that that side's graded.

You can see that large berm, that hill that's just stored dirt back there for the most part, so that everything's actually unfortunately working against you.

I was hoping that I could kind of hide things behind the berm, but with the way that and the subdivisions built out for the most part, so the grades are set.

There's only so much I can do back there.

Do not know it off the top of my head.

Yeah.

You have, I guess, about the 20 foot water easement, the railroad tracks, and then you have the right of way or so.

Yes, it's at least 50 feet outside.

So this elevation is pretty accurate, where I actually went out there and set the grades of where those trees are sitting in the house.

Correct.

Yeah, you can see the units.

Actually, as the berm comes up, so do the units, unfortunately.

So kind of follows that natural grade.

I don't have any questions.

I just have one question, a dimensional question.

The face of that block of houses that faces the entrance corridor are staggered in plan.

Yeah.

Yes.

So it is like relegated basically.

Okay.

All right.

All right, that was my only question.

I do not have anyone online.

I don't have anyone online.

All right, thanks a lot.

The ARB will now go into discussion.

I think it's a challenging situation because of the fact that the houses are elevated.

I have mixed emotions because it's not, well, we are on the entrance corridor.

It's you're 100 feet away behind a railroad.

So I, well, I think maybe

Some effort on the back, maybe with cables might help.

But for the most part, I think it is what it is.

Over time, we'll get some protection, I guess, with the evergreens.

I think there are adequate number of windows on the back.

I mean, I think in general, and I think changing colors is an effective strategy.

Yeah, I appreciate Frank's remarks.

I think for me, I think considering that it's visible and elevated relative to the entrance corridor, it would be good to find some ways to break it up a little bit more than it already has been.

I agree that the steps are beginning to do that.

Appreciate that it may be feasible to introduce taller canopy trees if they're columnar.

I think that those could go a long way for me towards sort of breaking up the length and the expanse of the roof over time.

You know, if it were possible to include a little bit of relief in the roofscape, either with gables or dormers, I think that would be an improvement and a good gesture towards the frontality of the entrance corridor, even if it's not the front of the units.

But, I don't know.

Those are my thoughts.

Alright, thank you.

Sure.

I really think it's appropriate as is.

I think

It's not a giant run, like row run of homes.

It's kind of we're dealing with small blocks.

And I also feel like the parking breaks that up.

And then on the other side of that, I guess if you're to the west of that, they've canted just given the orientation of the street.

And so you're not faced with just a black back facade along the corridor.

At that point, you see part of the side of a building, part of the back.

And I don't think anything's going to change the fact that it's, there's railroad tracks right there.

I don't, you know, that's kind of the dominant element.

It's an entrance corridor.

So I feel like, you know, I agree with the, if we could do a couple of these things, but I feel like that would be something that would be a staff level review.

I don't know that we need to come back to the board.

I feel like

You know, the site planning is good.

It's not this full run of like 15 attached units that we're faced with along the corridor.

All right, thanks.

Yeah, I think I agree with what Frank just said.

I think, and Frank Stoner too, I think we're looking at a proposal that's

far away from the entrance corridor relatively just because of those tracks and I think the changes in color and the kind of staggering effect gives it some interest over and above just screening it also I think there's a you know adequate number of windows on the back it seems like

We run into this a lot when you have a residential development that's on an entrance corridor.

The front of the building is inward facing and you necessarily have the back of the houses is what faces the entrance corridor.

And I think in this case, the steps they've taken are adequate for giving it some interest from the entrance corridor view.

So I guess if we could take a look at the recommended motion.

No, I think it's good as written.

I think, number one, just have the language consider.

Maybe Dade or Frank want to update that.

I'd be open to some of that.

But again, I think it could be a staff level thing.

I don't think it needs to come back.

Yeah, I think it's, I think I would retain consider as opposed to domain.

All right, thanks.

Sure, understanding I'm in the minority, I would prefer to have an affirmative request.

Instruction to add some detail.

I appreciate my colleagues' observations that this is a back and that it's not unlike other backs, but I do feel like as the Architectural Review Board responsible for the character of buildings visible from the corridors,

I feel it's important for us to start to consider ways that we might expect more character and design in the public realm.

I don't know the comment if it were just to say add detail to the rear would be too onerous for developers.

Think about the extent of development we may see on all the entrance corridors.

I would love it if we could raise our aspirations for what we might ask of applicants.

So I would be in favor of

Changing one to add detail to the rear side elevations to add interest and really blankness.

I agree with Frank.

I think that could be a staff level review.

I agree with others that there's certainly sufficient windows.

I think it's mainly just whether there's sufficient elaboration of profile and detail on the roof to address the entrance corridor.

I would also be in favor of adding an item just to introduce or intersperse to large canopy trees along, I'm not certain which units it is, is it 140 through 145?

That is the longer bank.

I'm okay with asking, especially the applicant was willing to look at some of these items and in their presentation mentioned that.

So I think there's any harm in doing that.

Maybe if we could be a little,

I think we could say details could include dormers or vents or what were other elements that were proposed.

Dormers, gables, or vents.

Yeah.

I think the applicant had proposed to take a vent in the end gable of a unit that might punctuate it with trim and break down the scale of siding.

Depends on it.

Yeah that's a good point.

I also contextually feel like the way the elevations are drawn it's what you would find along a railroad track in this

next to an old industrial complex.

Like it's similar nature across the street.

Like there's contextually, I mean, not to say if we added these few elements that drastically changes the character of these buildings, but.

Yeah.

I don't think, I mean, yeah, certainly dormers or gables might change it a little bit more, but yeah.

And again, I think it's just in the spirit not only of this application, but the many that we see where obviously looking at the internal fronts of these buildings, there's an ability to invest in a frontality and a presentation of the architecture in the building.

That's not as present in the rear of them.

I would be comfortable doing so.

I'm pleased to move to recommend approval of ARB 2024-25 Glenbrook at Foothills phase four final site plan with the conditions listed in the staff report amended as follows.

Number one revised to state add detail to the rear and side elevations of units 116 through 120 and 140 to 45.

To add interest in relief blankness and to add details could include dormers, gables, or events in gables and parentheses.

All right, thank you.

I'll second that.

Mr. Henningsen?

Aye.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

All right, thanks a lot.

All right, so we will move to our third and final regular review item.

which is ARB-2024-29999 Rio.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mariah Gleason and I'll be presenting, as you said, ARB 2024-29-999 Rio, the final site plan.

Okay.

The site is located at 999 Rio Road East at the intersection of Rio Road East and Belvedere Boulevard.

Surrounding the site are K-Tech and City Church to the south, Harvest Church of God to the west, the Belvedere neighborhood to the north, and Dunlora neighborhoods to the east.

The initial site plan was reviewed and approved by the ARB in June 2023 with recommendations

and requirements.

Since the ARB's last approval, the single family residence that was on the site has been removed.

To orient everyone, Briarwood East, the entrance corridor runs along the left-hand side of the image, and Belvedere Boulevard is located along the top of the image.

The plan proposes 38 dwelling units.

Two-story, two-family attached units will be located along Belvedere Boulevard.

Those are Lots 1 through 14, and three-story single-family attached units will be located along the eastern property edge, and those are Lots 15 through 24.

The final site plan shows residential buildings and stormwater facilities located in the same areas as the approved application plan from the properties rezoning and the initial site plan.

Landscape plans, architectural drawings, elevations, and renderings were not included with the initial site plan but have been included in the final site plan.

The analysis of the proposal focused on four aspects that will go through architectural designs and perspective views, landscaping, and the integration of the stormwater facility and lighting.

So starting with the first two, architectural designs and perspectives.

The east and west elevations of lots one through 14 have a sufficient level of architectural detailing such that the elevations do not appear blank or undesigned.

Side elevations of lots 15 through 24, however, are mostly blank with few windows and minimal architecture detailing, but only the south elevation of lot 15 is expected to be visible.

Oh, so sorry.

Oh, you all didn't see it.

I had a Teams pop up, but you all didn't see it.

That's great.

So the south elevation of Lot 15 is expected to be visible from the corridor.

The plan shows landscaping along that elevation.

However, more architectural detailing may be needed to mitigate the appearance of blankness on upper stories.

Many of the perspective views that were provided are from vantage points within developed areas instead of the entrance corridor, I believe to demonstrate the architecture of unique blocks.

Also, the renderings do not reflect the proposed planting scheme.

One of the proposed recommendations is for the perspective views

to show the development from various points along the entrance corridor and how proposed landscaping will mitigate blank walls and be used throughout the overall development to support a coordinated, orderly, and attractive appearance.

Next is landscaping and the integration of the stormwater facility, and this is our biggest topic.

So we'll start with the stormwater facility and then go to landscaping.

So again, the stormwater facility is located per the approved rezoning.

The design of the facility includes a grassy berm partially shielding views from the entrance corridor to the detention pond.

Large shade trees are proposed within the basin of the

Detention Pond, however large trees are not allowed in this location.

Small trees and shrubs may be allowed within the stormwater facility, but at the discretion of county engineering staff.

The regular grading and lack of landscaping of the stormwater facility will ultimately result in a noticeably engineered facility and feature that is visible from the entrance corridor instead of a natural drainage pattern.

This leads us to landscaping.

Overall, the landscaping lacks a coordinated appearance along the corridor.

The proposed street trees

or Yoshino Flowering Cherry are a type planting size and have a spacing that do not meet the guideline requirements.

That said, the smaller tree species is proposed to avoid an RWSA utility easement along the entrance corridor, as well as adhere to VDOT's clears and requirements, both of which prohibit large trees in that area.

In addition to the group of large trees around the detention pond, which we just discussed,

At the western corner of the site, two dense rows of trees and shrubs are shown between lot one and the entrance corridor, providing a landscape buffer around the seated lawn amenity and a row of shrubs is proposed along the parking lot perimeter.

Although the location of the utilities, stormwater features, easements,

and Esmont all present challenges, the variety of uncoordinated planting groups results in a planting plan that does not achieve a unified or integrated appearance from the entrance corridor among itself.

As it relates to the building architecture, the south elevation of Lot 15

is expected to be mostly blank.

As we've said, landscaping is proposed along this elevation.

However, planting heights are only expected to reach between 12 and 17 feet at 10 years maturity, resulting in highly visible upper stories.

The use of taller tree species in this location would be more appropriate.

Due to the limited plantings at the southeast corner of the site, the east elevation of lots 1 through 14 are expected to be visible from the entrance corridor.

Although not reflected in the landscaping plan, renderings generally show shrubs around the buildings.

A similar design on the east elevations of those lots would help soften the appearance of structures and integrate the buildings into the site.

I have the grading plan for reference.

As you can see, there's very regular grading around the stormwater pond.

Lighting is the last topic.

There were some technical errors in the lighting plan and a corrected photometric plan was provided to assistant staff's analysis.

We recommend that the lighting plan sheet be updated with that information.

In addition, we recommend a note stating that the wall-mounted fixtures will be downlight only, that a mounting height for the pole-mounted lights will be specified, and that it shouldn't exceed 20 feet, and the standard lighting note.

You may have noticed that the image to the right, since the staff report was published, we realized that decorative lighting

Proposed on the architectural elevations for the two-story attached units was not included in the lighting plan or our analysis.

As such, we've added a recommendation to reflect the additional information that is needed concerning those features.

There were additional aspects noted in the review, including locating the proposed mechanical equipment and identifying materials that will be used to eliminate their visibility from the entrance corridor, additional color information on architectural drawings and dumpster pad detail, sample window glass tent, and additional labels, notes, and information.

So the full set of recommendations and discussion topics are provided here.

Staff is recommending approval of the final site plan with the following changes pending A or B approval of numbers 2, 10, and 13, all of which concern landscaping and the stormwater feature.

And those are shown here in orange text for ease of reference.

And then the added recommendation

to which I just referred is seen here as recommendation E9 in red text.

I can answer any questions you have.

All right, thanks a lot.

Yeah, thank you, Chris.

Thank you, Mariah, for the thorough presentation and recommendations.

Thanks, Mariah.

One question.

Is the stormwater feature intended to hold water permanently and be an amenity, or is it drained down?

Do you know?

Thanks, Mariah.

Thanks.

That was a comment made by, or it's a public stormwater facility.

Trees and shrubs aren't typically encouraged in those facilities because it inhibits the maintenance sometimes.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

All right.

The mouse is on the larger screen, but not... Oh, I got it.

Hi, my name is Nicole Scrow.

I'm here representing 999 Rio LLC.

Stephanie Paul is also with me with Shimp Engineering.

And as Maria said, so I'll go through this quickly.

This project has been through several iterations.

So it's been through the ARB before.

It was originally approved and a certain iteration was approved in March.

So that went through ARB approval in June, 2023.

So the original rezoning was approved in March, 2020.

And then the ARB reviewed it in June, 2023.

but since that original review we've had to make some changes and the biggest change we made so this was the prior version was because of the cost of site work we had to we had to daylight the stormwater management facility and the only place we could put it was along Rio Road and so that is visible from the entrance corridor so to make this project work

We had to put that stormwater facility in the location where the purple is shown on the screen, which is going to be commercial.

So that's the biggest change.

So you'll see this is the current version and that's that daylighted stormwater facility.

So the biggest challenge with this site, Mariah mentioned it, but there are so many utility easements along the front of the property that where we put landscaping is the only place we can.

So we're kind of limited in where we can place it.

This is our site plan that maybe shows it a little bit better.

You've got RWSA, you've got AACSA, you've got some grading and VDOT, some eminent domain for their expansion of Belvedere Boulevard and Rio Road and the John Warner Parkway.

So anyway, that's why it seems a little bit uncoordinated because the locations we could put landscaping were the only places we could physically do it.

So I've got,

I've got some of the staff recommendations.

I kind of just want to go through them.

A lot of them are just things we've got to update to update the renderings and update some of the standard language and that's fine.

But one thing I did want to point out and a few things I want to point out were number two in the recommended staff recommendations, it says,

I talked about the blank walls from lot 15.

So lot 15 is what I have highlighted on the screen.

So that's the new three story townhouses.

So they look like this.

The next slide shows the units that are across the street so they also have a very similar side elevation and these were approved by ARB and they're actually closer to the entrance corridor so I'm not I just I don't know what guidance there is as far as changing the architectural designs perhaps putting a larger tree would make sense but I'm not sure what else we

really want to do to the architectural designs and I know something very similar was approved previously by the ARB.

So this shows how far away that lot 15 actually is, which is 200 feet from Rio and there will be many trees and shrubs and things in between.

So I'm not sure I understand that staff recommendation.

Okay, so then to get to the stormwater facility, so it's the applicant's opinion that that's not correct, that there can be only, that large trees cannot be in the stormwater facility, that's been done across the county, and this is a river birch, so it should do fine in that facility, it's not feeding any other public, this stormwater facility is just feeding this development, it'll be placed kind of,

the tree was placed a little bit above the berm so like it won't be in the middle of the facility so it shouldn't impact maintenance so I think there needs to be some back and forth with engineering to make sure that's the case but it's the applicant's opinion that that is not correct that you can actually put large trees in the stormwater facility and a river birches perfectly will do well there it is not a wet facility it's a dry one to be clear so

This shows a cross section of the stormwater facility.

You'll see that like the concrete portion of it is at an elevation of 471.

And so the top of the berm will be a few feet above that.

So you're not going to see any of the engineered

or concrete or structural portions of the facility, you'll just see a hill.

It's just going to look like a hill.

So for reference, Riverside has a stormwater facility, the Riverside on Route 20.

They have, and I spoke about this at the public hearing for the rezoning,

They have a stormwater facility that is along the entrance corridor and it actually you see into it from the street so when you're at the street you're looking into the stormwater facility there's large trees in it it's

very close to the entrance corridor.

So in reference, our stormwater facility will look like a hill rather than looking like a ditch.

So you will see lots of it.

It will literally look like a hillside.

And so I don't think it's as objectionable as it seems.

I'm not sure what changes we're expected to make as far as the engineered slope.

That is what it is.

It will look like a hillside.

We'll put trees where we can, and I think that is perfectly sufficient.

There were two other things I wanted to point out.

Staff report number 12 says, consider removing the curb cut at the southwest corner of the property.

That curb cut is not on our property, and it's actually on county-owned properties, so we're legally not able to do that, so I think that should be removed.

and then the staff report number 17 revised the site plan to show connections between pedestrian paths and the residential units.

I'm not sure the pedestrian paths were shown in both the application plan, the prior version of the ARB and the initial site plan, so I'm not sure I understand.

what is supposed to be shown for those for each of the individual units you hop on your sidewalk and you then connect from the internal sidewalk to the multi-use path so that seems

Redundant.

So those four things are the things that I wanted to point out.

The side elevation, the stormwater management facility, the curb cut, and the pedestrian path were the four big things, but I know everything else is just some cleaning up.

And I'm here to answer questions because I know this is

a utility filled and difficult site to make look cohesive.

Well, thanks a lot for that presentation.

Yeah, thank you for your presentation.

I think in terms of the there was a section shown for the shared use path that I think indicate in the distance of the development.

There's landscaping and trees shown in the multi-use path.

I don't know that they're present in the site plan.

There's another exhibit that says that there are easements that prevent planting.

There are cherry trees.

There are smaller cherry trees that are shown along the multi-use path.

We originally proposed larger trees, but VDOT didn't want those in the clear zone.

in case a car comes.

So the larger trees are not allowed in the clear zone according to VDOT.

I see.

And that's because of the clear zone at an intersection?

I'm just asking for... Yeah.

Thank you.

And then the shrubs that are there, I may have gotten confused between staff's presentation and this one.

There are, okay.

And then the last one, I could defer this to comments or questions.

I think in terms of the end elevation, from my own perspective, in terms of blankness, I think that, well, one is in terms of just looking for an orderly appearance.

I think a lot of the windows are slightly differently aligned with one another.

If it were possible to bring all the windows into alignment in the end elevation, I think it would be more orderly.

And then I think it's just a question of scale between the two-story and the three-story one.

As you note, the two-story one was maybe previously approved.

I think as the extent of siting gets greater, the blankness maybe becomes greater.

So if there were a way to add any relief, whether it's through a shed or a balcony or trim or other things that would break down the scale of that

But thank you for your presentation.

Alright, thanks.

Yeah, thanks for your presentation.

I think this is the closest I get to it on my... Yeah, that's as close as I get to it on my slides.

So I don't have...

This just shows your utility.

It looked like there were a few

Plans that show landscaping that is not consistent with what was the site plan that we received for review.

Yeah, so what I had shown previously were, these were just from the rezoning application.

Yeah, it looked like there were, you were showing shrubs between the multi-use path and the stormwater facility.

There weren't shrubs or a two stack of trees between those two in this one.

But to your comment about the river birch, if they are allowed by engineering, that would be fine.

The information that we had was just that it would not be allowed by,

by staff.

So that's where that comment was coming from.

Yeah, we just received the final site plan comments on Friday.

Okay.

Yeah, I guess I just had, you've got maple trees along the

Westside, that block one through 14.

Looks like it's really tight.

I don't know how much distance there is between the sidewalk and the building, but not much.

Just wondering if that's feasible, practical.

That's the shared use path is in the darker gray.

In terms of comments, there were no comments about the proximity from other reviewers.

Those, I think they're the Armstrong Maples, which are the like upright columnar, I think.

Is that right?

Yeah.

My understanding is that we tried to put as large of a tree as we could that was practicable.

You're right.

Yeah.

But you're right.

It is tight.

There's no entrance, it's just windows.

It looks like the front.

If I could clarify that connection between the unit and the parking area.

It looks like there wasn't in this diagram or the site plan an actual connection to the front door.

So I just wanted to see where planting areas might be between the sidewalk along the parking area and what was considered the entrance to the building, assuming that that would be a paved kind of sidewalk area.

Okay, yeah, I mean that's just going to be very small shrubs because you'll see there's another

Yeah.

Okay.

So in other words, there's room to put some shrubbery.

And I wasn't going to put cobblestones.

I think a grass or shrubs will look better.

Yes.

like the rendering versus the landscape plan.

Yes, one of the renderings hasn't been updated since the previous one that was submitted.

So in today's question on the south side of the emergency access connection, is it possible to plan a larger canopy tree there or do you not have enough

Yeah, I know.

I think so.

It was frustrating because that's like the one area where we can do landscaping, but because it's the emergency access easement area, we can't put any trees or any vegetation in it.

But I think there might be some room in between where the easement is and where the lot line is.

I think there's some amount of room for a large tree.

Well, I mean, you are 200 feet off the right road border there.

Yeah.

I think that's all the questions I had.

Thanks.

I don't have any questions.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I don't have any questions either.

All right.

Alexis, I'm going to unmute you.

Please state your name and address.

Yes.

Hi, my name is Lexis Hallie and I live at 2038 Sheppard Ridge Road, which is in Dunlora.

And most of your attention is understandably on the entrance corridor, but I view this property from behind.

I'm one of the three houses that is not on any of the pictures.

and I'd only like to make two comments slash questions.

The first has to do with the landscaping.

From my window, I right now I'm looking at the lot and there are many large trees.

Can you clarify for me if you're wiping out the entire lot and if there'll be, if you're cutting down all the trees and what kind of boundary or aesthetic are you doing landscape wise

on the backside, which is the Shepherd's Ridge Road, Dunlora visibility.

And the second and last comment has to do with lighting.

And it's a major change in this neighborhood to have no garages.

So the lights from, I've lost track of how many cars you're planning to park visibly.

Can you sort of clarify

Thank you.

Can I speak?

Yes.

Sorry.

I actually have a slide because I thought this might come up.

So Alexis, I think I've shown this to you before.

It shows, so she lives kind of the third house.

It's not actually shown over here, but these are the three houses that she refers along Shepherd's Ridge Road.

So it's

The reason why there's been so much focus on the front of the site is that's the entrance corridor, so the ARB is not going to look at the back, but just for your own knowledge, Alexis, there's a lot between the one that we're developing and Shepherd's Ridge that will keep a lot of those larger trees.

I don't have exactly how many will need to be removed, but the newer design helps to keep more of them than we had previously spoken about.

So you'll see here that there's a lot more natural vegetation than in the previous design where there was all parking along that back.

So when we get closer to doing construction I'd like to go out there and we can talk about the specific trees but there's a lot more that will be kept and I don't have a specific number and as far as the lighting and the lighting will all be faced downward and meet the standards that Mariah will and Margaret will check but

All right well thank you.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

So the ARB will now go into discussion.

Sure.

No, I think I'd like to compliment the applicant on the general architectural character of the buildings.

I think they're thoughtfully designed and nicely arranged.

It sounds like we need to get alignment between the proposed landscape plan and

what's being reviewed.

I certainly agree with staff's comments that additional landscaping and more consistent landscaping at the entrance corridor would be very helpful and really important to establishing character there.

I think as Frank observed, a large canopy tree would largely remove any consideration of blankness.

I think certainly there's a great opportunity in that end elevation to improve it slightly by just aligning windows.

fully and adding some relief, which would be welcome.

All right, thanks a lot.

You know, thanks.

I agree with Dave.

I don't really have any additional comments.

It's a tight site, so I understand the challenges of landscaping on a tight site.

I don't have any real concerns over the stormwater facility.

Again, I don't think it's a dry pond and it's not really going to be visible from the corridor anyway.

So I think if you could, yeah, get a shade tree maybe to, and aligning the windows on that elevation would certainly help as well.

Otherwise, I think it's a pretty nice plan given the site.

Yeah, I agree.

I think it's a really nice site plan.

Some of the highlights I think that bringing the pedestrian connection to the multi-use path I think is very strong.

I think a stormwater pond is better than a parking lot right up against the entrance corridor, so

And while we look at maybe the landscaping along this frontage is not as uniform as we would like, it does seem pretty robust.

It does seem like a fair amount of plantings.

And not only that, just given the distance between the buildings and the corridor that's largely green space, I think is a positive and agree.

I think architecturally the buildings are nice.

Appreciate the masonry.

The variation, I think, you know, the large deciduous tree is a good intervention.

I don't know that it needs a full redesign on that elevation.

Yeah, I think it's a nice project.

It's a nice infill site.

It's going to be connected to amenities.

Well thanks, I agree and I think the architecture that's proposed is appropriate as is and I guess I also don't really take issue with the retention bond in and of itself and so I certainly wouldn't have any comments about the architecture and then it seems like there's still some things about the site that are

a little bit unresolved as to whether the trees can or can't go in the retention area.

I think having a deciduous tree between the edge of the retention pond and that access easement might be a good compromise, but I guess basically I don't really take issue with anything.

So I guess if we could just take a look at the

Chris, I do have to leave at 2.35.

I wanted to put that out there.

I've tried to highlight in yellow the items that the applicant was focusing on in their presentation, and I've added the number two to align windows on the south elevation of unit 15 based on your conversation.

Yeah, and I think, just to jump in, in terms of number 11,

Again, I think, I don't know that we have a clear picture of the landscaping that's proposed.

It may be that it isn't the full facility, but just the landscaping that needs to, at least for me, that needs to be revised.

Right.

I think the shrubs on the street side of the facility was one of the things that staff was looking for.

So do we need to revise 11?

Yeah.

18 been done?

I'm sorry?

Sorry, regarding number 11.

So there is a RWSA easement along the downhill side

along the dam of the pond.

So that's why shrubs are not provided there because nothing is allowed there.

So I just wanna make sure when you say revised landscaping, it doesn't mean that we have to put anything there.

Like obviously, you know, we provided the beds for the trees within the facility, but, and that is allowed.

We just have to communicate with engineering at the county about it, but just, you know, a little bit.

They told us to remove things.

So that's why we remove things.

Yeah, they do have a list.

Yes.

Okay, because to clarify, I'm not, I'm concerned that the black and white plan without plantings next to the shared use path and the EC, that to me doesn't seem satisfactory.

And I'm understanding in number 11 in the presentation, including the slide from the rezoning, that there would be landscaping incorporated in that zone.

No, the proposal does not include shrubs in that location.

And what number 11 is trying to say is that more should be added to that area with coordination from RWSA and engineering.

Yeah, might suggest that we say consider aligning the windows.

I agree.

Just looks like a big mess, though.

So the way this recommendation was originally written was to have three of these items come back to you for review.

Can we go back to the landscape plan for just a minute?

Yes.

I guess one question I have regarding this idea of shrubs along the berm

I assume it's not on top of the berm, it's somewhat in front of the berm or between the berm and the easement.

And are those shrubs intended to hide the top of the berm?

Yeah, so it would look a lot like, you know, the hill that's right in front of the Dunlora townhouses as you turn on, John, if you're coming from the Albemarle County building and where KTEC is right across, there's this like kind of large grassy mountain.

It wouldn't look as large as that, but it would very much, you would see the slope and down.

and it would be open like that.

Does that look right, Nicole?

OK.

Right.

Yes.

And I'm happy if RWS has a list that we can use.

Yeah.

So the section at the left with the upper slashes

So sorry.

This would be a stormwater.

I should have provided it.

Okay.

So.

Oh, wow.

We really got into some rainbow colors here.

Okay.

So stormwater is going to be in blue.

RWSA is going to be low.

No, no, that's the orange zone is captured.

Yes.

Okay.

So you provided a sight line that looks like if you're in a vehicle, like a sedan kind of vehicle, you would not see above the berm, but if you were a pedestrian,

You would see the back slope of the stormwater facility and then I assumed any other raised vehicle could also look down into the detention pond.

While you're looking for that, let me just point out that it's not just about seeing into the middle of the pond and seeing if there's water there or no water there.

The point is that that very regular grading around that feature is going to look like an engineered feature if it's got no landscaping around it or on it.

And so the guidelines say

When visible from the entrance corridor, these features must be fully integrated into the landscape.

So the goal is to get that integrated into the landscape.

Having some landscaping to help do that is typically the way it's been done, the way it was the view that we saw at Riverside that's done very well.

It doesn't jump out at you as a stormwater facility.

If you just see that very regular grading,

Regardless of whether or not it's got grass on it, it's going to look like it.

You're going to know what it is.

And I guess a lot has to do with how the landscaping is designed.

Correct.

Yeah, I agree, Frank.

Perhaps easing that berm to the to the street side so that it's not so obvious.

It could be you could lower the slope.

OK.

I, so because of the RWSA, we're not allowed to grade in the RWSA easement.

So that's why the slope of the stormwater is the way it is.

I could be wrong.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But it sounds like if they have a list of approved, you know, if you pick something from the list and, you know,

Yeah, I think.

There are no further tweaks or anything.

Can you scroll down, Margaret?

And so the 11s coordinate.

Yeah, I'm pleased to move to recommend approval of ARB 2024-29 with the conditions outlined in the staff report amended as follows.

pending ARB approval of items 311 and 14.

Is item two added or rewritten?

Okay, add item two, consider lining windows on the south elevation of unit 15.

Add item E to item number 10, provide light fixture information for decorative lighting proposed on two-story attached units, revise the photometric plan to account for these light fixtures.

Revise item 11 to state coordinate with RWSA to add landscaping at the stormwater management facility if possible to integrate the facility into the finished site and promote a coordinated non-engineered appearance along the EC.

Coordinate with the county engineer regarding trees in the facility.

I'll second.

All right, thanks.

All right, thanks a lot.

So we will move to other business.

First thing is the approval of the March 18th, 2024 minutes, which I will

All right, thanks a lot.

Do any board members or staff have any other items to discuss?

All right, that's good.

So in that case, the next ARB meeting is scheduled for May 6th, 2024.

In that case, this meeting is adjourned until our next meeting, which may or may not be on May 6, 2024.

Right now, it is 2.41 by my watch.