Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant presents revised Stonefield entrance design; board praises tree-preservation, no action taken
Summary
At an Albemarle County ARB work session, applicants showed revised Stonefield entrance renderings that replace a segmented retaining wall with a Ready Rock gravity wall, aim to match nearby masonry, and limit excavation to preserve mature trees. Board members expressed support and asked for planting details; no formal motion was taken at the work session.
At a work session of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, staff and the applicant presented revised designs for an entrance corridor building in the Stonefield development, emphasizing a masonry-colored site wall and measures intended to preserve mature street trees.
The presentation described changes from an earlier proposal that used a gray block wall. Margaret, staff, noted the applicant submitted a revised package showing a site wall colored to relate to adjacent masonry, a railing on top of the wall and vertical planting elements along Swanson Drive. The team said the revised approach uses a Ready Rock gravity wall instead of a segmented wall in order to reduce excavation and disturbance to existing grades.
An applicant representative described the use of 3D point-cloud scans and sectional animations to show the true relationship between the sidewalk and the top of the wall, saying the elevation and the sidewalk are “really pretty close to each other” and that the wall may be less visually prominent than earlier illustrations suggested. The applicant added that the design intent is to "mask or reduce the impact on the entrance corridor" while directing more of the visual emphasis to the front of the building.
Miss Lee of the Baltimore office, responding to prior ARB comments, said the team chose repeated siding panels for some facades rather than extending stone to the rear, arguing that the panels and a green screen would break up the massing without requiring additional stone. “We felt that the repeated siding panels would be able to just break down the facade enough without needing to bring additional stone,” she said.
Board member Dade asked whether plantings would be provided at the base of the wall; the applicant said plantings are proposed and would be used to mask exposed segments. The applicant also confirmed that one existing tree too close to the building footprint would be removed and replanted elsewhere as part of the landscape plan. Other board members praised the low-exposure wall and said that keeping established, mature trees on the site is a public‑benefit priority.
Because the meeting was a work session, board members did not move or vote on the application. Several members asked the applicant to provide additional information on final plant species and expected planting heights in subsequent submittals.
Next steps: the applicant will revise renderings and provide plant-list details for future administrative review or a return hearing; the ARB took no formal action at this work session.
