Architectural Review Board Meeting   5/20/2024

All right, it's one o'clock, so I'm calling the May 20th, 2024 meeting of the Albemarle County Architecture Review Board to order.

All right, well, thank you.

Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting.

The public may access and participate in the meeting electronically.

Instructions for doing so are posted on the Albemarle County website at the Albemarle County calendar.

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

Both is provided in the lawfully posted meeting notice.

This meeting is being recorded and will be made available on the county's website.

This meeting is a public record and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

All speakers, when it is your turn to speak, please first state your name for the record.

Applicants who are making presentations note that your presentation is limited to a total of 15 minutes, which you can divide among your team members.

Staff will let us know when the 15 minutes are up.

If applicants in the meeting room have team members attending virtually who will need to present, please make that known when you come to the podium.

Everyone who is participating virtually, please mute your microphone until it is your turn to speak.

No.

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

No.

All right.

No, thank you.

We do not have any consent agenda items today.

And we do not have any work sessions today.

So we just have one regular review item, which is ARB 2024-35 Dunlora Park Phase 2.

Yes.

The application you're reviewing today is a proposal to construct nine townhouses containing 11 units with associated site improvements.

This application is an amendment to replace the three single-family detached units approved for this location in 2023.

It's located approximately 293 feet from the intersection of John Warder Parkway and Rio Rodes.

The portion of Rio Rodes that runs southeast of the site is not entrance quarter.

The visibility of the proposed townhouses from the entrance quarters is expected to be limited by distance, the topography of the intervening parcels, and the orientation of the townhouses towards the non-EC portion of Rio Road East.

The gable roof forms and building materials provide a minimal connection to the local historic architecture and are reflective of the ARB-approved designs used for the townhouses northeast of the site.

The north elevation of Lots 32 and 36 are oriented towards the EC, but only Lot 32 is expected to have visibility.

This elevation has few windows and architectural details to relieve the blankness.

However, the berm between the site, as well as proposed site landscaping, is suspected to mitigate its blankness.

Regarding the landscaping of the site, there are existing trees along Briar Roadies.

The landscape plan shows evergreen and ornamental trees interspersed among these trees along the interior pedestrian way west of lots 32 to 40.

Due to the location of the interior sidewalk, the existing trees contribute to both street and pedestrian way landscaping, and the existing proposed trees help to satisfy the landscape requirements.

No interior road trees are shown along Lindley Lane, but due to distance, the intervening berm in proposed townhouses and perimeter site landscaping, the lack of trees is not expected to have an impact on the entrance quarters.

Staff offers the following points for discussion.

and staff recommends approval of the major amendment with the revisions listed in the staff report.

All right.

Thanks a lot for the presentation, Chris.

No questions.

Taro?

No, thank you, Chris.

I don't have any questions.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have any questions either.

All right, good afternoon.

I'm Chuck Rapp with Collins Engineering and I have Genevieve Ferlak here with Greenwood Homes as well.

Got a couple of slides, built a little model of the site so you could see it.

All right, these are just some photos it took about, I don't know, maybe two months ago or so at that corner.

It shows the existing sidewalk that was recently completed by the county and those existing shade trees.

A couple of these shots here so you can see the larger shade trees that they planted off the back of the sidewalk there.

I can see the phase that's under construction now and then where these homes will go.

There's a good bit of topography drop off there, some utilities, all types of good stuff that we're kind of working around, but I think we're able to fit

Some nice stuff in there.

This is just an aerial view.

You can see those large shade trees and then the smaller flowering trees and evergreens worked in.

Then we gave you some different views along the road corridor here.

This is coming from John Warner Parkway going along Riot Road.

So again, try to create a good bit of visual interest, a lot of different textures, heights, to kind of provide some visibility of the units, but break them up as well.

Just kind of going along that road there, heading out.

Like so.

And then here's the landscape plan again for reference.

So you can see I've got everything from some red buds to some

I have some Little Gem Magnolias, some Sweet Bay Magnolias, we have some American Hollies up here to help screen the parking lot, some larger shade trees and shrubs there, Shirley tried to kind of screen the more utilitarian type stuff, the parking, the drive-outs, things like that, and then just kind of enhance that street scape that is already existing with the existing large shade trees planted out there.

Then we have elevations of all the different buildings, if this will load, there we go.

I don't know why that one didn't load, but they're there.

Shows the back of the units, the sizes that Chris had already kind of gone through, front elevations as well.

And then some of the specifics about the building materials that you see there.

With that, here's the other row as well.

These are the two over one units.

So there's an affordable unit on the lower level of each of these on the backside on the ends.

Then you have individuals again of those of all different building materials.

All right.

Thanks for your presentation.

Frank Stoner, do you have any questions?

I do not.

Sure.

Yeah, just one question.

I appreciate staff's observation that there's some distance from the EC in terms of the blankness observed on the Gable end of 32.

Hi, I'm Shevia Ferlike, Greenwood Homes.

Lot 32 on the other side of it, there are already three townhomes that are built, lot 29 to 31.

So that will kind of obscure that visibility too.

So when you go back, back to the floor plan, up in here,

We already have an ARB approval for those three units.

These are exactly the same and then here these two units are the two over one so it's an ADU unit here and here the bottom is the lower floor is a one is a

One floor, two bedroom, and then the upper floor is two floors with two bedrooms.

I'm sorry.

I think there's some confusion.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes.

I'm sorry.

Yes.

So it mimics this exactly.

It's the same architecture.

I apologize.

Yes.

Great.

Well, the previous approval of a different site understood.

Are there any strategies that could be employed on this?

Considering the floor plan and how it's laid out, that would be hard to do.

And given that we did the same for the other units, we would like to keep it the same way.

The front and we've really paid attention to the front here as well because it is so visible, but the side plan, the floor plans kind of dictate what the windows need to be like.

What we can do and

what we have done before is for a side elevation for example divide that upper level up and do deciding in a different direction or a shake or something like that that would be a possibility if that works for you so we could do that we could

have that detail there and then have the siding vertical on this side so to give it a little bit more interest.

I see, okay.

All right, thanks, Frank Hancock.

I don't have any questions.

We're in the question period.

Thank you for your presentation.

Tara?

No, no questions.

And I don't have any questions either.

All right.

Good afternoon.

Neil Williamson with the Free Enterprise Forum.

We do not have any specific position on this project.

However, we do always take a good hard look at what you're looking at to bring forth the ideas.

Nine townhomes you're examining.

This I think is their second appearance before the ARB.

Each one of these appearances costs money.

It's helpful, perhaps, to develop standards that we could just have staff administer.

That notwithstanding, the question from Mr. Van Der Werf is a very valid one, but I ask whether that particular view

is visible from the entrance corridor.

It looks as though it's on the different drive and it's not visible.

It's kind of a unique position where you are as you can't see, you know, this board can't see things that aren't on the entrance corridor.

And I think the majority of that view may or may not be within your purview, but I just brought that forward for information.

All right.

Thank you for your comment.

So the ARB will now go into discussion.

I got Chris.

Whose view do you want?

Chris's or Chris's?

Okay, we got it now.

Oh, from the entrance court.

I think I think it was Chris's.

Approximately.

OK, thanks.

Well, in general, I appreciate the applicant putting forth this project for the board.

I think I'll sort of leave it up to other board members to make their own assessment of what we're seeing in these images, but from my perspective,

I think that provided that facade, I think in the previous project that was approved, we had looked at screening strategies where there are additional plantings on that facade for a similar townhome.

So I'd be amenable for a landscape solution to be used in this position as well.

But aside from that, you know, it's part of an, even though it differs from the original site plan, I believe that this is,

All right thanks.

Yeah I agree with Taro.

I don't have any additional comments.

I think it's entirely appropriate

I think it's good that we're adding density here.

All right.

Thank you.

Sure.

Yeah, no, I appreciate the applicants and Mr. Williamson's comments.

I think it's helpful to me to see this view and to see that I think that end gable is visible.

I think in this case the distance and the landscaping that's proposed mitigated.

I do think for this application and others so often we see very blank ends of townhouses with you know sort of resultant elevations from the interior and I think in terms of our this board's charge to

You know, see that development is harmonious and orderly and in keeping with historic precedents.

I think if we look at historic precedents of houses, the gable ends are often developed with some frontality, some frontality to the entrance core from an urban perspective for that elevation would be appropriate.

And so I would hope that

For this applicant, and they do very nice development in the county, I think it could be taken a step further and further enhance the character of our county with greater care and attention to the cable end elevations of the developments.

So certainly I think this application is perfectly suitable.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, I agree with my colleagues on both counts.

Actually, I don't think the visibility is enough to warrant requiring additional landscaping in this case.

That's how I concur with Dade's suggestion that as builders and developers we give thought to those end elevations.

This is actually a highly visible location once you get off on Raya Road coming out of Dunlora or driving down Raya Road it will be very visible.

All right, thank you.

I guess I just have one question.

I'll start to say I agree with my colleagues and feel that this proposal is appropriate, but I'm wondering that island between Dunlora Drive and Rio, is that private property or is that publicly?

Both parcels are owned by the city.

Okay, I was just wondering,

What, if anything, would ever be happening with that?

Because it's kind of a large area that could eventually have something that would further obscure this development.

I can answer that if you want.

Yeah.

OK, lovely.

All right, I'll give everyone just a minute to reread it and then just run through and see if anybody has any tweaks.

Yeah, I'm satisfied with it based on the discussion where it is.

It sounded like the applicant was open to considering changing the siding direction, adding a little bit of detail to the texture.

And certainly if they're willing and interested in considering and possibly implementing that, I think it could be an improvement.

I just wanted to clarify on item six, basically the perspectives had shown shrubs on that elevation that we were discussing, but that the plan doesn't show it.

That's kind of the issue.

Would you mind just going to the landscape plan again?

Because the berm had been mentioned too.

I kind of wanted to clarify that point before we move forward.

Because I guess to Frank's point, I just want to see what landscaping is actually being proposed.

Sorry to make you switch devices a bunch.

Those three circles together are American Hollies, and then you have a Sweep Day Magnolia.

There's that one a little bit closer at the top of the stairs right there.

So there's four evergreen species that'll get 10 to 15 feet tall, maybe 20 feet at maturity.

But I'm happy to add shrubs along the side of the building.

They're going to go there any month.

They're going to go there anyway, you said?

OK.

OK, thanks.

Thanks, Frank.

I don't.

Can we go back to the motion?

for suggestion motion.

My apologies.

Since it's not as viewable from that corridor, we would like to leave it if we possibly can, especially since they are ADU units already.

It sounds like you guys do have foundation planting along that edge.

Yeah.

I'm good at adding consider, I think.

All right, thanks, Frank.

I'm good.

Yeah, and I don't have any adjustments.

Alright, thanks.

I'll second that.

Alright, thanks a lot.

So we are now on to other business.

First of which is approval of the May 6, 2024 minutes.

I'll move for approval.

Alright, I'll second that one too.

You did?

You did.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Thanks a lot.

All right.

I'll add just one observation.

I shared with Margaret, VDOT is studying the Ivy Road corridor currently.

And we recently were looking at the old Ivy Road development of the Gray Star townhouses, sorry, townhouses apartments attached to large development.

and I know they did a visibility study.

The key thing that stood out to me is that some of the things that are being contemplated in the VDOT plans might change rights of way and might affect the screening that we thought was adequate for the development.

So I don't know that there's anything for us to do relative to that application, but it just emphasizes for me, again, I think in our discussions about the comprehensive plan, we noted sort of the landscaped and rural character of the county and the continuity of planting on corridors as key elements.

So it raises for me the question of whether some further measure, either for this board or probably more likely in zoning or other planning, is necessary if that kind of character and continuity is to be preserved, anticipating that other rights-of-way

may inevitably be growing and buffers that seemed adequate may be shrinking.

Yeah, I think that's a good point.

I'll just add, I think that's a good point.

I think in

When we review anything, I think when we look at current right-of-way, just might as well look at that as not being there because there's no control over that.

But I don't think there's a way to look at an application and think what right-of-way, additional right-of-way is going to be taken.

They could take this portion of the site in the future which then would you know I mean I don't I don't think it there's no way it would well I agree we can't stop yeah I can't get into conjecture about where there will be expansions I don't know if that would lead us to though I think your point's a good one you know do we

If buffer requirements aren't there, do we need to effectively still be looking for a buffer on the sites of the developments that we look at?

And if so, what needs to happen to our guidelines or other things so that we actually have a basis

yeah to do that or if it's a building just pretend like one day you could see it so we need to evaluate the whole thing but it could be visible if 50 feet of right away gets taken and it's all wooded yeah I think just so often in our discussions we talk about landscape or distance being the mitigating factor for the visibility and that just as in this conversation leads us to accept maybe a you know mediocre architectural character

So it's just for me, I think, an issue of concern and interest.

We're all spending time on this board, hopefully improving the character of the county.

And so torn a bit between how do we give light review to the architecture, anticipating that there's adequate screening and buffer and landscape mitigating it, when in fact, that is often, as the county evolves, not going to persist.

I think I know the answer to this question, but I'll ask it because I don't actually know.

So yeah, I guess that kind of gets to the point of, you know, they can do whatever they want.

Yeah, that's a good question.

I mean, but there is some interaction with planning staff, like when the grade separated interchange at Rio near the small area plan.

I mean, I feel like that was reviewed or coordinated.

between the county and VDOT.

I think in a particular review at a moment in time, it differs winter visibility versus summer visibility.

I feel like we could tend to think of the landscape in between the entrance corridor and the proposed development as being static, but depending on who owns the land and what plans there are for it, that could change pretty significantly.

That's probably something to consider when we're weighing the relative mitigation of distance and existing landscape when we're reviewing projects, because there are times when we've been burned before by

assuming that something won't be visible and then finding that it would be actually pretty significantly.

I have two questions.

The guidelines addenda?

Yeah.

We have been through all of the corridors.

Right now we are in the process of updating and coordinating the maps.

We had some changes along the way from the beginning so that's all getting

coordinated.

We're also making some changes to some of the segments.

When you all reviewed those, there are a few quarters that you wanted the segments to be changed up.

We're working on that.

And the third thing, introductory material, we're working on that.

Awesome.

Second question related to what Tara just mentioned.

We had this issue with renderings that were not accurate reflections of what was actually there.

And it came about as a result of the retaining walls on the project on Pantops.

What did we decide in terms of how we hold

I think where that landed was that type of drawing is not something that was typically considered a final approved plan.

So it really is a visualization.

It wasn't considered part of the final approved packet.

So

I suppose we should be looking at it more carefully on each case-by-case basis and like we've always said in the past it really seems like every development is a little more visible than you thought it was going to be.

Still waiting for the one that's less visible than we anticipated.

So I think maybe we just

Until we're absolutely certain that those perspectives and renderings are 100% accurate, we need to be coming from that point of view and maybe moving towards like what you were just saying about the buildings, you know, approving architecture that you're satisfied to be able to see.

I've always said that the

The guidelines are about making architecture that has an appropriate appearance and then supplementing that with landscaping.

We're not really, the goal isn't just to, is not to hide the buildings.

Yeah, that's a good reminder too.

Like the plans, the drawings, the site plan, the building elevations,

But there is recourse.

I think it's a zoning violation.

Yeah, I mean.

I don't know, like we joke about the ARB police.

I don't know if there's that many looking for these things, but they do pop up where or when a property changes hands.

Does it impact as well the approval or action on other permits?

I think it can.

I'm not sure that that's always been consistent through time.

The only other thing I wanted to bring up is, Margaret, I noticed that there's a meeting on the 30th, I think, about the form-based code, like sort of a listening session.

I was interested in that.

It seems like

Tangential to what the board is working on.

Sure.

We have started a project to

make revisions to the form-based code.

The first couple of site plans have gone through that review process.

And as was expected when that code was first adopted, you know, start using it and you realize you left out a few things or you confused a few things or things could be made more clear.

So that's really what this is about.

We've got some consultants helping us with this.

And one of the first big steps in it is

What we're calling a listening session, we've invited the property owners within the Rio 29 small area plan area and some of the larger property owners and developers to come.

It really is

Just what do you think about the code?

What do you want to tell us?

If you've thought about using it and decided not to, why not?

Just trying to gather information so we can make the best updates to the code that we can.

So it's primarily for property owners and developers in the area, but of course it's a

Public Meeting.

So everyone's, and it will be in this room.

If anything comes up that's relevant to the board, that'd be kind of interesting to find out.

All right.

Well, thanks a lot, everybody.

The next ARB meeting is scheduled for June 3rd, 2024.

I'll just run down and see about attendance.

I plan to attend.

Tara?

Yes, I plan to attend.

Frank?

Yes.

And I'm planning on attending.

So in that case, it is 1.40.

So this meeting is adjourned until our next meeting on June 3, 2024.

Thanks a lot.

Thank you.