ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - DRAFT
October 1, 2007
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board met on Monday, October 1, 2007, 1:00 p.m., Auditorium, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Candace M.P. Smith, AIA, Vice-Chairman, Charles T. Lebo, Fred Missel, and Paul Wright, Chairman. (Mr. Missel left at 2:00 p.m.)
Staff members present were Margaret Maliszewski and Brent Nelson.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Wright called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. and established a quorum.
Mr. Wright invited public comment on any items not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
Regular Review Items
ARB-2007-80: Montessori Community School - Final Review of a Site Development Plan (Tax Map 78, Parcel 12A)
Proposal: To construct a new 5,500 square foot classroom building with associated landscape and site work as Phase I of the school’s proposed expansion.
Ms. Maliszewski summarized the staff report.
· This is the proposal for phase 1 of the expansion of the Montessori Community School on Pantops. The ARB has reviewed this project 3 times during the summer. At the last meeting at the end of August the ARB had a discussion about the chain link fence. Since the last review the primary changes to the proposal are regarding the materials and the colors of the building. Those changes were outlined in the staff report. The material boards are displayed.
· The other primary change in the proposal is that the applicant has agreed to comply with the ARB’s determination regarding the chain link fence. The applicants agreed to remove the fence by December 1, 2008.
· Although the materials and the colors have changed, the building form has not. The staff report indicates that is one of the primary issues at this point. The other primary remaining outstanding issue is the landscaping. There are various landscaping issues. One of the primary ones would be the character of the landscaping along Rolkin Road. The design of the new fence is still pending. That is something that would still need to be reviewed. There are still other general coordination issues throughout the site plan.
· Staff has outlined a number of issues in the staff report. The following are the three primary points of discussion:
o Building form,
o Revised building colors and materials, and
o Landscape treatment along the Rolkin Road frontage.
Ms. Smith had a question about the colored site plan, which was different from what the ARB received.
Ms. Maliszewski clarified that staff just added color to the display board.
Ms. Smith indicated that McKee Carson was asked to provide specific locations of meadow mix plantings. She asked if the only thing that was submitted was a photograph and not any as-built sites that have that same kind of meadow mix planting.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that more information was requested on the appearance of the meadow mix and how it would be maintained. In response, the applicant submitted 2 photographs.
Mr. Missel noted that in the report staff said that the frontage treatment had not been addressed in the submittal.
Wendy Fisher, Head of Montessori Community School, introduced Neil Deputy, Design Architect; Hunter McCardle, of McKee Carson; Doug Lowe and Dave Conalee, of Artisan Construction; Marilyn Moddinger, Lead AP Architect of Artisan; Allison Sappington, Thomas Jefferson Water Conservation District; Bill Vincent, Montessori Community School Chair of the Board; David Cathcart, former Board Chair; and Brin Potter, a member of Board of Trustees.
Neil Deputy, architect, representative for the Montessori School, said that this had been a very challenging project.
· It is challenging for all of the right reasons. There are many issues that need to be addressed. Today they are reviewing phase 1 of a 5 phase master plan for the complete redevelopment of the Montessori Community School Pantops Mountain Campus. The master plan has been approved by a special use permit at the County as well as a preliminary site plan review approved at the administrative level for the entire site.
· Over the last several months he had been working with a design team, which includes the ARB, the administration at the school, the Building & Grounds Committee and Board of Directors, etc. As they all know you can’t please everyone all of the time. Nonetheless, he felt that he speaks for the majority of all of the school. There are 3 primary criteria that have emerged from these processes over time. These are as follows:
1. Their project reflects traditional Central Virginia architecture,
2. These buildings and grounds reflect our commitment to sustainability and environmental stewardship, and
3. Their buildings perform in the capacity of teaching tools.
· He was amazed at the disparity of opinion regarding what their building looks like. Many seem to find it as a quaint little school house, but others find it radically modern. Fortunately, the ARB Guidelines do not speak to taste, but to compatibility. It states that the standards of compatibility can be met through building scale, materials and forms that are embodied in architecture that is both contemporary and traditional. He was well aware that there were people that did not like the way that their building looks. But, again the Guidelines do not state what the appropriate taste is, but do state that they allow for design individuality to accommodate varying tastes and special functional requirements. As an architect in the immediate area he believed that their building is certainly in compliance with the Guidelines and compatible with the architecture of the site, the Entrance Corridor and Central Virginia. The proposed architecture is more site specific and more appropriate to what they work on and promulgate at the Montessori School.
· As regards to sustainability and environmental stewardship, obviously the selection they have made in materials and the look of the building is impacted by their commitment to sustainability and environmental stewardship. These things are critical to them not only because they are in part of their educational process, but because they are critical to their ongoing certification as an Audubon Sanctuary and to their certification under the new LEED for Schools Program under which they are currently registered.
· Third, building as a teaching tool, which they are borrowing from Mr. Jefferson here in looking at his campus. Mr. Jefferson took examples from everywhere not only with respect to building types and forms, but with respect to the landscape. He believed that buildings should be educational instruments. They are committed to that in a number of ways not only in the materials they have selected, but how they are put together, not only in the diversity of Virginia Piedmont landscape, but the natural habitats that they will foster as educational tools. There are more details about all of these 3 in the brief provided. In a nutshell that is what they are committed to and that is in large part why their building looks the way it does.
· Working with the ARB they have made numerous concessions with respect to their preliminary submittal.
1. They have eliminated the site perimeter concrete wall and replaced it with a berm even though they will lose some playground area.
2. They propose to remove the chain link fence. They apologize for having erected it without the proper approvals. Everything that is visible from the Entrance Corridor will in fact be removed per their recommendations once construction is complete.
3. They have modified a number of things within the landscape plan regarding additional shade trees, larger calipers at the time of planting, etc.
4. They have revised the colonnade design. They have made broader posts and painted them white to further reflect the on-site administration building and traditional architecture of the County.
5. They have revised the concrete base as originally proposed in raw concrete to parging in a dark gray slate color material. A small sample has been provided. It will give it a greater conformance with the Entrance Corridor and the coloration of the existing on site administration building.
6. They have changed the siding from a natural wood to a painted post-consumer content hardi-panel treating it with a 25-year baked-on enamel stain in a brick red color. This solves the problem of the longevity of the finish and maintenance, as well as providing a more consistent coloration along the Entrance Corridor and greater compatibility with the on-site administration building.
7. They have revised the wood trim from 3.5” to 5.5” width to give it greater compatibility with the existing on-site administration building.
8. They have revised the color of the fascias on the roof itself to a slate cement panel to give it greater compatibility and conformance with the on- site administration building.
9. They have also examined a series of roof forms as proposed. They are committed to their single sloped roof for the following reasons and to approach them with respect to their stated goals and criteria.
· This form is a traditional Virginia form as it relates to rural, agrarian and much residential architecture and it is more appropriate to this particular building on this site because to do this would involve a larger roof and would tend to block the view of the administration building from the Entrance Corridor even more. This form also allows a transition in scale from the exterior, public domain and from the large mountain views and vistas through to the more intimately scaled more private areas of the internal area inside of the campus.
· With respect to sustainability and environmental stewardship this is the most efficient roof form they can come up with. To do this would require additional labor, materials, venting and fire protection. This route by its very nature is practical, efficient and affordable. It requires the least amount of construction labor and materials. It vents naturally along its under side.
· With respect to building as a teaching tool, by doing this they make the entire roof area visible from the students from the inside of the campus. This is critical to their rain water management system, but not to say that one could not harvest rain water with a form like this. But, this makes it more visible. Whereas the recommended form requires more gutters, downspouts, routing, more maintenance, etc. This has no valleys or ridges. It makes their entire rain water system available for view from the roof itself to the single gutter down the downspouts into the rain barrels around to the cistern and back out through the irrigation system, the toilets, the site maintenance, etc.
· Finally, the broad overhangs of the roof provide the proper solar shading for this latitude, increases the rain water harvesting area and it provides horizontal latitude to the building so that it is tucked into the landscape lower and leaner and not simply perched on a hill.
· In closing, he noted that he believed that they have been sensitive and receptive to the ARB’s comments as well as to their larger audiences. They have been diligent in incorporating those changes into their building design. He humbly requested that the ARB support an approval of their proposal today.
Mr. Missel noted the things that he felt were really excellent about the design. One is the sustainability approach to things. The second one is what has been done to meet some, if not most, of their suggestions. The staff report was very helpful in outlining the information. He was not convinced that sustainability can’t be done with a more traditional design. He was also not convinced that our Design Guidelines say someone has to do traditional design. As pointed out in one of Mr. Deputy’s letters it is traditional/contemporary, but it does say that the standard of compatibility can be met through building, scale and materials that may be done by architecture which is contemporary as well as traditional. What that does not address is context. He asked Mr. Deputy to briefly describe what is contextual about this building form as it relates to its immediate site.
Mr. Deputy asked that he reword the sentence.
Mr. Missel asked what is contextual about this new building form that he has designed and how does it relate to its site and the existing building on this specific site.
Mr. Deputy replied that the context may not be so much physical and formal as it is philosophical. Again, as it relates to stewardship and environmentalism, as he explained, it has the least amount of complications to go along with it. Also, as a means by which to express the visibility of the rain water management system it seems to be the right choice. It is not visible from the Entrance Corridor and it hides itself. It has less impact on the existing administration building. It is responding to an existing context by lowering its profile as opposed to responding to a context by perhaps blocking a significant historical feature.
Mr. Missel asked if he mentioned that it would not be visible from the Entrance Corridor.
Mr. Deputy replied no, that he was saying that the existing administration building is only currently partially visible and that the raising of the gabled roof would necessarily be taller and would block more of the view of the administration building. So in that sense it is preserving context in that respect.
Ms. Smith said that she would like to clarify her understanding of what he said. He indicated that if they take a shed roof and turn it into a gable that it will block more of the view. Actually contrary to that it will be half the roof height. In perspective there will be much longer views before reaching the peak of the roof. So it actually blocks much less of a view into the site. So she was very confused why he thought that a gable as described would take up less view than a shed when clearly they would be cutting the slope in half.
Mr. Deputy said that if the interior ceiling heights were the same she would be correct. But, they have a minimum height for their HVAC system of 12’ on that side. It is the way all of their systems on the interior are exposed to create areas for the lighting, duct work, fire sprinkler, etc. by having a higher section in one area. He was saying that this, as opposed to that, is lower by comparison because of the interior conditions.
Ms. Smith questioned a statement that he put into his comment that indicated that the single sloped roof provides an expansion of the interior classroom space towards the long views. If they had a shed roof with high windows they would be expanding the views towards the long view. But, in this case none of the windows are taller than any certain height the same as they are on the short side of the roof slope. She did not understand why someone is hearing or thinking that he was indeed expanding the interior classroom space towards the long views when there is actually no greater view. It could be a flat roof, a gabled roof or the opposite pitched roof. Any number of things would provide exactly the same lack of expansion.
Mr. Deputy said that it was mentioning expansion of space not necessarily as it related to window height. Again, this form provides, as one moves through the space from left to right, greater expansion as one moves towards the primary glazing system. The scale diminishes towards the rear.
Ms. Smith said that the master plan had a central lawn with buildings flanking the administration building. Their roofs were single sloped roofs with two sets of buildings with opposite directional slopes.
Mr. Deputy replied that was correct.
Ms. Smith noted that he could receive the same cost efficiencies, even though all the ARB cares about is aesthetics. They would have the same cost if the roof was one sloped direction in the opposite direction.
Mr. Deputy replied that was correct.
Ms. Smith said that they would see that roof, rather than the underside of the soffit, from the Entrance Corridor.
Mr. Deputy replied yes, but that would be to ignore all of the other reasons for having the roof slope this way with respect to scale, movement through the building and making the roof visible to students from the interior of the campus. That is the goal. The large 2 story sides need to have the pitch to them so that from the center of the campus everything folds into a smaller scale on the interior of the lawn there.
Mr. Wright asked Mr. Deputy if he had any objections to staff’s 15 recommendations on page 6. They are certainly talking about number 1. He asked if there were any sort of complications or if he wanted to talk to any of the other 15 recommendations.
Mr. Deputy said that he was prepared to respond to any of the concerns that they would wish, but he purposely restricted his comments to the 3 primary discussion topics on the list. He was more prepared and had adequate consultants available to speak in detail to any of the concerns.
Mr. Wright noted that some of the concerns addressed revising plans.
Mr. Deputy reviewed the sample materials: the siding, the parging at the concrete base in a slate gray, the panel for the roof soffit, the soffit below the overhang, the galvanized metal roof 16” on center, the window systems in aluminum to match the galvanized system, the trim around the windows also in a cement board in white and an exterior site perimeter fence with 1’ X 6’ natural pine with 100 percent natural vegetable oil sealant in 6 board horizontal panels with 1¾” gap between them so they can’t be climbed, which would meet the Planning Commission standard. He explained that natural wood components would be incorporated into the design.
Mr. Wright invited public comment.
David Cathcart, former Board member of Montessori School and Vice-President of the Cathcart Properties, said that he was intimately involved with the construction of Carriage Hill Apartments on Pantops. Therefore, he was familiar with the development of Pantops and very committed to the proper growth of the area. He spoke briefly to the history of the school and its commitment to the Pantops area. This has been a long process working through this request. He asked for support of the request noting that he had a great working relationship with Neil Deputy.
Bill Vincent, Chair of the Board of Montessori Community School and Chair of the Building and Grounds Committee, said that they were pleased to have a number of well qualified individuals on their Building and Grounds Committee. They have Shannon Farris, lead architect for the UVA South Lawn Expansion Project; Charlie Carter, a local builder and LEED Certified; John Henry Jordan, in the building trades; Bill Binzinger, a local landscaper; John Megs, owner of Nature Neutral Building Supply Company; David Cathcart, in property management and numerous teachers and staff members at the school. They have all provided insight into what is the best design for a classroom that allows the students to interact with their environment. They had several goals when they started this project. One of these was sustainability, which has been integral to the school from the very beginning. They are an Audubon Certified site. They are also recognized by the National Wildlife Federation as a Wildlife Sanctuary. That is really key to their school when they talk about the landscaping. In their minds they feel that they can’t have enough trees. They want to create environments that are appropriate and beautiful. They want a site that is pleasing to the eye and not overrun fields. He noted that the plants on Rolkin Road currently are not doing so well. They are committed to having this be a teaching tool for the students. They want to integrate natural products into the classroom and use the building as a teaching aid. Regarding the question about whether the single slope roof was appropriate to the site, he pointed out that this was once a farm. There are other single sloped roofs in the area. It is a very common style. They are modeling the campus to UVA’s lawn done by Mr. Jefferson. He asked for support of the request.
Hunter McCardle, of McKee Carson, asked to expand on the concept of the landscape. The whole concept here is to provide a teaching environment through the specification of species that are native to the Piedmont of Virginia to attract wildlife species. They want to draw the children into this landscape to understand their place. They plan to use some of the species already on site. They plan to use a drip irrigation system from roof runoff.
Wendy Fisher, Head of Montessori Community School, expanded on the Montessori Community School’s type of education and how they interact with other members of the community in a positive manner. She asked for positive consideration of their request because they care about the quality of life in Charlottesville.
Brin Potter, a member of the Board of Trustees of Montessori Community School and a parent of a student, spoke in support of the request. The idea of making sustainability a traditional is something that needs to be done.
Charlie Armstrong, Development Manager of Southern Development, said that they are developing the property behind the school. They like having the school as a neighbor and support their proposal, particularly the landscaping along Rolkin Road.
Mr. Wright pointed out that the ARB’s review was limited to what was visible from the Entrance Corridor. Many of the issues brought up today were great, such as LEED Certification and sustainability. But, the ARB’s mission is very limited and has nothing to do with those issues.
Mr. Missel agreed with Mr. Wright. He felt that it is difficult to separate form and function. The line that he was trying to cross was where that is and what does that look like in relationship to this project. There is no question in his mind that the mission, the goals of their education process was commendable and fantastic. The fact that they are going for sustainable design is something that he was personally dedicating more and more of his time to in the development world at the UVA Foundation and will continue to pursue that. He was completely on track with that. He did not think maintenance and materials is an issue. He felt that they would be committed to high standards of maintenance. He felt that the materials were fine. He actually liked the way the materials fit together. He liked the fact that there was a hint to the natural as well to the more structured and man made. He was convinced that sustainability can be accommodated with another form. So he was not buying that argument. He was also not convinced that they can dictate a gable on a roof instead of a shed. He did not think that was their purview. He felt that their purview is to make sure that the buildings relate to their site and the surrounding context. He was not convinced that it was the case that someone driving down 250 would look at this and say that he saw a shed like that on a farm last week. He was convinced that they would look at it and say that is an interesting building. But, they are not going to link that to historical context. He struggles with the statement that “Buildings should relate to their site and the surrounding context of the buildings.” It is a really general broad statement and very hard one to nail down. The word “buildings” does not mean form or materials, but it means both. In his mind if there is enough material use that is in keeping with the context of the site, then he was going to be convinced that they were meeting that statement and that requirement in their Design Guidelines. The guidelines do not say that the buildings should match the site and their surrounding context. It says that it should relate to the site and the surrounding context. He felt that these buildings do relate to their site and to the surrounding context of the buildings. The landscaping needs to be thought out a little bit more clearly, particularly as it relates to its relationship to 250 and along that edge. The landscape plan does not look like it is in its final form by any stretch. That needs to be developed. The applicant needs to take the time and think about how to develop the landscape in front of and in between the building and the thicket. The lighting needs to be addressed if there is other site lighting. He was fine with the materials and the colors.
Mr. Lebo said that he understood the Montessori School concept. He has been in the real estate development field in this area for about 30 years. He liked the colors and materials that they have changed and brought forward today. He had problems with the “compatibility” of the buildings. When he looks at other buildings in the Pantops area that have been developed and their own administration building, this proposed building does not fit in because of its shape and design. So with that, if he had to vote for it right now, he could not support the request.
Mr. Missel left the meeting at 2:00 p.m. due to a family emergency.
Ms. Smith agreed with Mr. Lebo. There are several points she would like to make.
· Neil Deputy has worked with a lot of people and has tried to describe this project to a wide variety of listeners, but she did not think that he has necessarily served their needs well. Somehow it has become as though it was a fact that unless this building has this form it is not sustainable. Sustainability has nothing to do with style whatsoever. Sustainability can be accommodated in a different form. Why that marriage of those words has been made is very questionable. There are all sorts of ways to make a building sustainability. To imply that any concerns that the ARB has about changing the building form are going to change its sustainable is just not a good thing to adopt. They have looked at the original site plan and master plan to get an overall view to see where this project is going. They have given comments to the overall master planning of using the central administration building as the head of the lawn. All of these ideas of sustainability can be accommodated in any kind of building form. So it is not that they have wanted to go against or don’t support any of those things.
· The ARB’s concern is what it is actually going to physically look like day by day on the Entrance Corridor. There are two main focused comments. She was in complete support of the staff’s comments starting with the fact that the project is incomplete. It may be difficult to believe with all of the times spent on services and discussions in meetings that they could possibly have a submittal that is incomplete. But, it is incomplete. They don’t have a complete site plan. They have building elevations that don’t describe the central balcony roof outdoor classroom that currently is shown in perspective as having 2 little posts supporting it. It used to be a green roof and now it is shown with just wood railings. It is not identified as to what it is. It is going to be very prominent on the peak of that hill and visible from Route 250, an Entrance Corridor. The perspectives have been somewhat deceiving in terms of what they will actually experience driving along the Entrance Corridor. That is the ARB’s only area of jurisdiction. They don’t have authority of what it looks like from Rolkin Road or from other places. Definitely what they will see from the Entrance Corridor is what they are interested in.
· Regarding the landscaping, she could never support this Meadow Mix concept as currently shown unless they see examples of this kind of mix successfully used on this kind of slope. The ARB was concerned what it would look like year round. The perspective shows it in the spring only. They need to know the percentages of the grasses, what the grasses are and how it would be installed and maintained due to the slope. She questioned why the corner needs to be reforested and landscaped with Meadow Mix on the Entrance Corridor because it was contrary to anything that she could envision happening there. The slope of the site is going to make it difficult. The Meadow Mix just does not seem to be the right direction to go to protect the Entrance Corridor. Regarding the building, the colors have changed but the design hasn’t change. There has been no effort to explore alternatives. She did not support the building form proposed because of the high visibility of the site from the Entrance Corridor on the peak of the hill with a projecting roof elevating above the hillside. An alternative roof form should have been explored earlier in the process and the project would have moved forward more quickly.
Mr. Wright said that this project was referred to the lawn at the University. He looks at the lawn as a whole and how it fits together. He did not see how the proposed building fits into the building behind it. Fortunately or unfortunately, they were sitting in one of the most prominent sites in the Entrance Corridor coming into Albemarle County that exists. He did not think that this building in its current form, even with all of the good things it has, fits on the site. He struggled with it, but just did not see the connection on this site and could not support the request. If the vote does not turn out he suggested that a very significant part of their discussions is to change this building in its design terms of its externals. It just does not seem to fit.
Motion: Mr. Lebo moved for denial of ARB-2007-80, Montessori Community School, based on the design that has been proposed.
Second: Ms. Smith seconded the motion adding further to include items 1 through 15 as corrections that need to be done with several provisions as noted. She asked that 3 things be added: On #8 add provide planting technique. The maintenance schedule will be part of the site plan. Also, add a point showing existing successful examples. Also, the wall lighting needs to be identified on the building. Since they will be seeing the underside of those colonnades there needs to be a better exploration of the ground lighting, lighting on the soffit and any lighting that will be visible from the Entrance Corridor.
Amended Motion: Mr. Lebo amended the motion to included items 1 through 15 as corrections to be done, with the modifications identified by Ms. Smith.
Amended Second: Ms. Smith.
Vote: The motion carried by a vote of 3:0. (Mr. Missel was absent.)
The ARB voted unanimously (3-0) to deny the application as proposed. The ARB also provided the applicant with the following comments and suggestions for recommended revisions to the proposal:
1. Revise the form of the classroom building to be compatible with the forms and features of the significant historic buildings of the County and, particularly, the on-site Administration Building.
2. Specify a parge color on the drawings. Revise the proposal to better coordinate the colors of the “Envirosafe” elements with the revised brick red color scheme.
3. Provide the landscape plan as part of the official site plan, not a hand-drawn document.
4. Revise the landscape plan to a design that will achieve a character suited to the surrounding urban area.
5. Show on the plan the easement associated with the overhead electric line along the Route 250 side of the property. Indicate the height of the electric line.
6. Revise the plans to include existing conditions and demolition for Phase 1. Include a conservation checklist on the plan. Show tree protection on the landscape plan, grading plan, and E&S plan.
7. Delete the poorly performing forsythia and juniper from the Rolkin Road planting and replace with plants that will perform better at this site under the existing conditions.
8. If meadow mix is retained in the landscape design, specify the percentage of each plant type in the meadow mix. Indicate the proposed planting technique. Provide a maintenance schedule (fertilizer, watering, feeding, weeding, mowing/topping, etc.) to show how the meadow mix will continually have an appropriate appearance. Include this information on the site plan. Provide examples of existing successful meadow mix plantings on hillsides.
9. Provide large shade trees along the EC frontage outside the electric easement. Spacing may differ from the standard 35’ on center EC spacing, but size and quantity guidelines should be met.
10. Clarify the location of the bioswale on the grading and landscape plans. Include and identify the boardwalks and paths on the site plan. Coordinate the biofilter in the northeast corner of the playground with all other site elements and all plans.
11. Provide on the site plan and for review the details of the design for the new fence.
12. Add a note to the site plan indicating that the existing chain link fence will be removed by December 1, 2008.
13. Delete note 6 under Phase 1 Stage 2 on Sheet SP1 regarding painting the chain link fence.
14. Correct note 5 under Phase 1 Stage 2 on Sheet SP1 regarding the perimeter wall.
15. Make the grading legible on the landscape plan. Coordinate grading and tree removal. Eliminate grading within the drip line of trees to remain.
16. Submit complete information on all proposed site and building lighting for review. If no external building lights are proposed, indicate this in writing.
The ARB took a 5 minute break at 2:18 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 2:22 p.m.
Liberty Hall, 250W, Proposed material change
Ian Bosserman and Andrew Krochak, of Weather Hill Homes, presented the new material samples. They requested to replace painted hardiplank with vinyl siding in similar colors.
In consensus, the ARB approved the revision to the Certificate of Appropriateness for Liberty Hall. The revision is to approve vinyl siding for all elevations except for the south side of the townhouse building closest to the Entrance Corridor and the four (4) side elevations, which all need to remain hardiplank. The colors as shown are approved as wheat and pearl.
Mr. Wright asked staff to explain about a tie vote since there were only four (4) ARB members at this time.
Staff reported that if there was a tie vote of 2:2 on a motion for denial, it does not mean that the project is approved. She read, “The failure of the motion to disapprove does not mean the matter is approved since a certificate of appropriateness can be approved by the ARB only by a majority vote. When a motion to disapprove fails, the Chairperson should ask for another motion and the motion shall be to approve.” Staff asked the County Attorney’s Office for clarification asking, “So if the motion to approve fails, then the matter is denied?” The answer is “yes.”
Appeal of ARB Decisions
Staff pointed out that the applicant for Montessori Community School has ten (10) days to appeal the ARB decision to the Board of Supervisors.
Ballard Field Site Visit
An email was received from Justin Beights inviting staff and the ARB to make a site visit some time in the next couple of weeks. The product proposed for Blocks 11 and 12 is identical to a product that was built in Ballard Field. Mr. Beights felt that a 30 minute visit might be beneficial. That would allow them to stand on the Village Center site and get a better feel for what would be visible from Route 250 once they are out of the ground.
The ARB asked staff to forward the email to all ARB members and let the applicant know that only 2 members can visit the site at once. Individual members will contact the applicant if they want to schedule a visit; otherwise, they will visit on their own.
Next Meeting: October 15, 2007
The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. to the next meeting on Monday, October 15, 2007 in the Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building at 1:00 p.m.
to next attachment
Return to exec summary