ARB asks Flow Mercedes‑Benz to clarify base materials, glazing and service building finish

The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board on Jan. 21 reviewed a proposal to replace the existing automobile showroom at 1313 Richmond Road with a new Flow Mercedes‑Benz showroom and recommended the applicant return with revisions addressing staff concerns.

The proposal would replace the current building in roughly the same location, retain the building’s street orientation and use the automaker’s trademark showroom vocabulary: a thin roof with deep overhangs, expansive storefront glass, angled and curved ACM (aluminum composite material) panels and rounded corners. Staff identified two areas needing additional detail: the eastern stepped facade where heavy shadowing creates a dark mass and the transition between a painted masonry base and the reflective ACM panels, which staff said may age differently and present maintenance issues. Staff also recommended a more muted finish for the rear service building’s visible west elevation and noted the site must document consistency with a 2008 special‑use permit for outdoor display.

Applicant Kevin Schafer, Charlottesville studio director at Design Develop, told the board the existing rear service building will remain and receive a new exterior face; the customer drop‑off will be located at a service drive on the left (northwest) side of the proposed building, with back‑of‑house service functions in the rear. Schafer said the project team was open to using a darker, coursed masonry base rather than parging or a high‑gloss finish, and that they would tone down the high‑gloss white proposed for the service building to a satin or more recessive gray.

Board members focused their comments on the same issues raised in the staff report: clarifying where ACM meets the base material and how that joint will be detailed and protected, considering masonry for the base to provide texture and durable maintenance performance, and selecting a recessive color for the rear service building so it does not draw attention. One member noted the steep topography and the glass corner will elevate the showroom floor relative to the parking area and that interior illumination may emphasize vehicles at night, a factor the applicant said they would address in subsequent submissions. Landscaping and maintenance of existing entrance‑corridor planting were also discussed.

Motion and outcome: The board moved to provide the applicant with the comments listed in the staff report to be addressed in the next submittal and to return for further ARB review. The motion passed on a roll call (ayes recorded for Mr. Vanderwerf, Mr. Hancock and Mr. Henningsen; one member had recused earlier on this item). The board did not adopt specific material selections at this meeting and directed the applicant to supply additional detail on materials, mechanical screening and site lighting in the next submittal.

Next steps: The applicant will revise the submission to clarify the ACM‑to‑base transition, provide material samples or specifications for the masonry/parging and ACM, identify the finish for the service building, and update screening/landscaping and lighting details for ARB review and staff coordination prior to resubmittal.