Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rooftop Solar Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB reviews draft rooftop-solar design criteria for entrance corridor; staff to revise
Summary
At a work session the ARB reviewed draft countywide design criteria for rooftop solar installations visible from the entrance corridor, discussed setbacks, mounting and equipment treatment, and asked staff to return with revised language before formal adoption.
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board on Jan. 20 held a work session to consider draft rooftop-solar design criteria intended to create a new countywide certificate of appropriateness category for installations visible from the entrance corridor.
County staff presented two general goals for the draft guidelines: to minimize visibility of rooftop solar from the entrance corridor to the greatest extent possible, and to ensure panels and related equipment do not interfere with architectural elements that contribute to a building’s character. Staff then proposed prescriptive criteria divided for pitched and flat roofs: for pitched roofs, examples include organized panel patterns that avoid stair-stepping, a minimum 12-inch setback from ridges and edges, panels mounted parallel and flush to the roof (no more than 6 inches above the surface), non-tilted installations, consistent panel size and color, and locating conduit and equipment where not visible from the corridor when possible; for flat roofs, staff suggested that arrays entirely below parapet height or arranged in organized patterns would be acceptable and that equipment should be concealed or painted to match building surfaces.
Board members asked whether the guidelines apply only to installations visible from the entrance corridor (staff said yes), debated whether the 12-inch/6-inch dimensional limits are appropriate, and discussed how the rules should treat multiple roof planes, frame extensions that overhang roof edges, and framed parking-canopy arrays. Several members recommended adding language to require an "orderly and coordinated appearance" and flagged the difficulty of applying some subjective criteria as a countywide standard. Board members also noted that most rooftop solar approvals are retrofits or late-stage additions to building designs and that product and mounting technology can change between design and installation, which argues for flexible language and a staff-review path for exceptions.
Staff agreed to incorporate board feedback, clarify applicability (visible-from-entrance-corridor), refine dimensional language where warranted and return a revised draft for future ARB review. No formal vote was taken because this item was a work session.
