Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adaptive Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
K9 Resorts proposes dog‑boarding at Liberty Market; ARB raises noise, screening and material questions
Summary
K9 Resorts presented a proposal to adaptively reuse two Liberty Market buildings for a 120–153‑dog boarding facility. The board heard VDHR’s conditional signoff but pressed the applicant on HVAC placement, equipment noise, sight lines and wall materials before a formal submission.
K9 Resorts representatives and their design team introduced a concept to convert two existing Liberty Market buildings into a canine boarding facility during the Architectural Review Board’s Jan. 8 workshop.
Will Ramsey, representing K9 Resorts, said the operator is seeking to lease Buildings P4 and P6 and is pursuing historic‑rehabilitation tax credits. “For this particular site, max capacity is about 153 dogs,” he said, noting the company typically reaches high occupancy only during holidays. The firm proposes climate‑controlled indoor kennels, divided outdoor play yards for small and large dogs, and an outdoor recreation area visible from the public arcade.
Mike Pilko, the project architect, described systems intended to limit health risks and odor: “We will have 12 air changes per hour going through all of these. We have a UV filtration system that we put in.” That approach, the team said, uses 100% outside air and a series of ground‑mounted HVAC units with ductwork routed to existing window openings to avoid cutting new wall penetrations.
Board members welcomed reuse of vacant industrial buildings but pressed the applicant on operational impacts and design details. “How loud are those [HVAC] going to be?…That sounds like it could be deafening in there depending on how close you are to those units,” said one board member, noting the courtyard sight lines and the public arcade where neighbors and visitors would pass.
Applicants said the units proposed are conventional commercial outdoor units and that renderings used conservative (oversized) units for review; they indicated final mechanical selections will be narrowed during design development. The team also said the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) gave a conditional approval and requested that the dog‑yard walls be materially distinct from the historic brick facades (brick inside, durable lap siding or metal on the courtyard side) and that any interventions be reversible.
Other board questions focused on sight lines, the height and materiality of courtyard walls (designers propose a 5‑foot solid masonry wall with 3 feet of transparent mesh above), pedestrian fencing, screening of HVAC equipment, lighting details, and long‑term maintenance of the proposed metal siding. Several board members recommended pushing the HVAC and screening wall alignment to tighten the layout and reduce visual and acoustic impacts.
The presentation was taken as a workshop concept; the ARB did not vote. Applicants were told to return with refined elevations, mechanical specs (including decibel estimates), construction details for the low walls and canopies, lighting specifications, and documentation of VDHR conditions before a formal application for approval.
