ARB asks Carter Machinery to revise façade, landscaping and lighting for Ryo Road West site

The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) on Sept. 2 asked Carter Machinery to revise its plans for a proposed construction equipment rental and storage facility at 721 Ryo Road West and return with updated elevations and landscaping.

In a staff presentation, planning staff said the proposal adds an ACM-clad tower element, a new storefront entrance under an aluminum canopy, additional windows and site improvements. Staff recommended changes to better coordinate the new roof and window proportions with existing brick, provide additional elevation details and revise lighting and fencing specifications.

The ARB’s review focused on visual coordination and materials. Lindsay Byer, the project architect, said the firm plans to reclad portions of the building with ACM panels, corrugated metal and brick to match a Richmond precedent and described the new storefront as a “sales area” with glass so customers can view small equipment inside. Byer said the canopy and storefront glazing would be full-height glass and that the proposed sidewalk would be five feet wide.

Board members raised specific concerns. An ARB member asked whether the tower element “protrude[s] out from the existing brick” and Byer replied it projects by a wall thickness of about eight inches. Staff and members also said the plan should add one more large shade tree (a staff requirement tied to parking counts) and that the applicant should revise the landscape plan to replace a front parking space with a planting island to create room for the tree. Members said chain-link fencing is not acceptable where the perimeter will be visible from the entrance corridor and asked that the gate and northern fencing be shown as a more visually appropriate material.

Staff noted later-submitted drawings showed east and west elevations and recommended, among other items, that building-mounted lighting be changed to full-cutoff fixtures and that the project’s material schedule be clarified to coordinate existing and proposed materials.

The ARB approved a motion to provide the applicant with the comments listed in the staff report and asked the applicant to address those comments in a revised submittal for return review. The motion was moved and seconded and carried with recorded “aye” votes from ARB members Mitsunu, Hancock and Henningstein.

Next steps: the applicant will submit revised drawings addressing the ARB’s comments — façade coordination, detailed east/west elevations, revised landscape plan showing a planting island and one large shade tree, non–chain-link visible fencing, and full-cutoff exterior lighting — for review at a future ARB meeting.