Architectural Review Board Meeting   12/21/2020

Great.

Well, moving to the consent agenda, the applicant that was on the consent agenda has requested a deferral.

So is there a motion to accept that deferral?

So moved.

Mr. Henningsen.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Carolyn.

So actually what I'd like to do today is just get confirmation from you if possible that you're okay with maintaining the same schedule next year as we've had this year that would be meeting the first and third Mondays of the month

beginning at one o'clock unless the Monday is a holiday and then the meeting moves to the following Tuesday.

If that's acceptable with everyone, I'm seeing lots of nods, great.

Excuse me, thank you, Margaret.

So I don't know if everybody else got this email, but the email I got had this 1230 time every today and every month.

So a Zoom invite went out.

And so there was a Zoom invite for 1230 and a Zoom invite for one.

And I tried to reach out to Carolyn because I didn't know whether maybe we were meeting earlier today or but it also has that same invite time on all the future meetings.

I will update that.

Sorry, I tried to give myself a buffer and Zoom only allows me 30 minute increments.

I can't do it in 15 minute increments.

So that's why it said 1230.

OK, great.

Thank you.

Thanks for catching that, Frank.

Okay, well turning to the EC guidelines and picking up on the discussion we started last week about the proposed review schedule and methodology.

Chris, just as background for you, we've talked about dividing up really among the board members.

We've all signed up for various corridors to take a look and really just identify additional buildings and landscapes that we think contribute to the character of those areas for a number of years.

There's been some thought about starting to develop specific guidelines that recognize the different character of the different corridors.

And so I think initially what we've talked about is just this being more of a study phase for the board members to get a better understanding of the elements of these corridors and then from that discussion to start to formulate guidelines.

We haven't yet articulated what the plan would be

to translate the study into the guidelines to Mr. Williamson's point earlier in his comments.

And so we welcome thoughts that others may have.

I would welcome others' thoughts and discussion about when and how to involve the public.

Obviously, it's critical.

We've talked about this as a study phase.

Just thinking out loud, I would imagine it may be good to complete some portion of the study before moving to promulgate specific guidelines.

And it seems like it would be in that promulgation period that we'd want to find a way to incorporate

Yeah.

It was up a minute ago.

There it is.

Yes.

So we would have that in July.

potentially through July.

So any initial thoughts from other board members?

I will throw out an idea and I hope this isn't already existing and I just have missed it.

But, you know, thinking about the incredibly important public involvement process and also how to communicate what we're doing to the public in appropriate ways and at the right time.

I feel like it would be helpful to have an overarching sort of schedule or an outline of work that not only captures this preliminary work, but fits this preliminary work into a larger kind of strategic plan on how we're gonna get things done and when we're gonna get them done.

And what is our overarching mission or goal

and then one of the steps it takes to get there and then I think when we fully understand that and again I hope this doesn't exist and I've just missed it but when we do fully understand that we can figure out the dates to actually include the public some of those may be required or you know just in terms of communication some of them probably more of them are the ones that we think

fit with specific milestones that fit into the overall outline.

Yeah, just something that will help us plan, right?

Because then we'll also be able to know

Margaret, you'll be able to know if we have a full Monday coming up and you've got 10 agenda items, we're not going to get a whole lot done on the corridor piece.

But if we have a day like today, you know, we're not ready for it yet.

Yes, I think that makes good sense, Fred.

I guess just in terms of how to sort out which corridors to prioritize and a reasonable timeframe for each, it does seem like it would be a lengthy effort to address each of them.

So I guess I would invite folks, if you have thoughts, perhaps email me or call me with suggestions and I'll try and synthesize the thoughts into a potential draft schedule that we could use to expand this.

Does that sound acceptable?

Individually, sure.

If it's going to be email, it would be, I think, helpful if you just copy me on it as well.

Could we talk at a conceptual level to your earlier point about how we get from this sort of study phase, we've identified significant contributing elements to a quarter, how we get from there to quarter guidelines?

Yeah, that was a question.

OK. Yeah.

Well, I mean, it could take probably a couple of different formats.

I think the difficulty right now in being able to answer that is that it's something that would normally fall to staff in large part to get that done.

And there is not staff time available at this point in time.

So I think it's important that if we're going to do this work that we have a product at the end of it that makes everybody's life easier.

And so if it's something that we need to take on as board members, then I think it is really important just to, I mean, it might even be helpful for us just to pick one and just kind of walk through the process a little bit

I mean, there are some quarters that are gonna be pretty easy in my view, but I'm much less clear about how we get from, gee, there are two significant architectural features along this corridor.

And what does that mean just in terms of how we approach quarter guidelines for that?

Just, I feel like we've had the conversation at some point during this study period that we've talked about not necessarily revising the guidelines, but more thinking about it as an addendum or something that is, you know, a part or kind of maybe some sort of manual that helps us and helps the applicant with corridor specific review.

Yeah, Frank, I think that comes out of the idea that I was trying to move forward with identifying the significant features that we'd be referring to when we look at those guidelines that talk about

compatibility with the historic architecture of the area.

You mentioned

If you could scroll up just a little bit so I can see the whole list.

I mean, in some ways, 64 feels like it could be really easy or just because I think it would be less relevant contextually.

I don't think it's generally the focus of

Would it be acceptable to you, Frank, and to others if we plan to complete the study of all the corridors and then targeted a summer start to try to focus on translating that to

Well, I'm just wondering whether it would make sense to pick one and to Margaret's point, kind of just work all the way through it and see where it takes us and how much work, what we end up with, like as a way of informing kind of how the rest of the process might be handled kind of most efficiently or effectively.

It's kind of understanding how much time and what the document, what that supplement, if that's what it is to Frank Hancock's point, what that supplement looks like.

It sounds like we're going to have to generate most of that because it sounds like staff doesn't, you know, is not going to have the time.

Right.

I think my thought had been that with the study format that we've started to lay out that it might, I think through the study, ideally we'll identify some character defining elements and some characteristics that are kind of unifying or unique to each corridor.

And so I was kind of anticipating that there'd be a degree of data gathering just sort of through this study, looking at the things that are contributing.

And then after that, maybe just trying to distill from it

the characteristics.

And then from Matt trying to define the supplement a little bit more in terms of what characteristics folks should try to enhance or relate to specific to each corridor.

I feel like there might be value in looking, to the extent we can complete the study of all of them, I think there may be some overlap

I'll throw just a couple thoughts.

I think since we have kind of figured out a way to divide and conquer, and I'm not downplaying the need to figure out how we use all of this information, but

You know, I would be supportive of at least gathering the data using the second tab on your spreadsheet here and giving that a shot for the ones that we're each responsible for.

Yeah.

And then in parallel, I think, you know, I would be I think maybe Margaret, you and Chris and others can be thinking about let's say the document is simply a series of photographs with some characteristic design elements and

You know, let's say it's that.

How would you then use that?

Would that become attached to an applicant's staff report?

So if we got a, you know, if somebody was building a Wild Wings on 250 Pantops, we would get the staff report and then we would have an attachment which would be the reference document that we've used that would be applicable to that particular development on that corridor.

and maybe there's a section of the staff report that says, based on this reference tool, we're highlighting these specific areas for your consideration.

Right.

I think that's a good suggestion, Fred, and there may be a way to

Start a parallel step to the extent each of us is sort of doing a study phase, we could then begin trying to do a proposal phase after that.

I could try to indicate that on this schedule in some way that we could also start to understand when and how we would need to invite public comment and participation.

Chris also, you know, we distributed this and carved up the

Yeah, I'm happy to take on any of these if anyone is, you know, has more, you know, on their hands than they would like to have.

I'm certainly open to taking a few of these on.

I wonder, and I'm coming into this a little bit late in the discussion, has there been any discussion about establishing criteria for what would constitute a contributing or a structure that would be,

I guess influential.

Is there anything specific just so we would have some kind of a apples to apples comparison between these corridors?

If I was looking at one corridor and thought that any structure built before the year 1940 was notable and someone else

had a completely different frame of reference for that.

We might get a different result.

Just two different individuals even on the same corridor might identify a different set of contributing buildings.

Right.

No, I think that's a great question, Chris.

And I don't know that we've really articulated particular criteria.

I maybe had thought that

You're quite right.

There will be a fair degree of subjectivity.

I would imagine, to me, it makes sense that for each corridor, we should definitely note all the properties that are landmarked or otherwise recognized by the National Trust.

But I think that it's an opportunity for us as well to highlight structures from any era that we think successfully reflect the character of that corridor, the character that

We would try to define through that observation.

Yeah, Chris, I think it's a great point.

So maybe the second tab is starting to get to what you're suggesting.

But I think, yeah.

So we've talked a fair amount about this.

The way I was approaching it, and I got a head start a few months ago when we first started talking about this,

because I was taking this one route frequently.

I started thinking of it as sort of the top down, right?

A little more general.

What is the general feel of the corridor?

And then the next step is what transitions are there?

Does it go from commercial to residential to what's the general feel and makeup of the corridor by use and also by landscape character?

And then the third tier was more about the specific examples.

And some of those might be open space, right?

There also are specific structures that might have some architectural character that are noteworthy.

So that's the way I approached it.

And what that did for me was it helped me avoid my favorites.

So I wasn't just going, oh, I really like that one building on this.

So I'm going to focus on that and call out all its good characteristics.

Right, okay.

Great, yeah, and thank you, Fred, for highlighting it, and I guess the columns L through W or so are taking some of the guidelines that are in our overall guidelines, and the thought is that you could check those that the property seems to fulfill

or not.

We talked a little bit when we last met about the possibility of grading these on a scale, whether the example really fulfills that objective or partially does, but that's certainly a much finer grain than we necessarily need to get to on anything we nominate.

And then the notable characteristics is just available to start describing why we think it deserves consideration

from that can probably begin to distill some other characteristics.

Well, I was just gonna bring us back to that one comment

where we were talking about kind of what this is and what it isn't.

Yeah, my only comment was I'm assuming the sort of 500 foot boundary is what we would utilize in identifying significant contributing structures, things beyond that 500 foot

I think something that you think is perceivable from the corridor and shapes the perception of its character when one is in it, maybe is what I would suggest.

Certainly, it makes sense, but if they don't, then... Yeah, I would add that the current guidelines just reference traditional architecture of the area.

They don't, it doesn't say within 500 feet of the street.

And that 500 feet, just as a reminder, parcels that are within the entrance quarter overlay or the parcels that were adjacent to the street,

At the time, the street was designated an entrance quarter for the full depth of that parcel.

One thing that comes to mind is the Sentara Hospital.

I remember years ago, we were talking about that.

And you don't really see it from 64.

If you're right next to it, you see it when you're going eastbound back by Fifth Street.

So it's far in the distance, but it's a viewshed issue.

And it did determine, I think, the level of detail we used when we reviewed it.

But it also is way more than 500 feet.

So I think to Dave's point, I agree.

It's whatever is visually influencing the corridor.

Yeah, I think so.

I don't know how you determine when something is, I mean, I'll take Westminster Canterbury as an example, which is highly visible from 64, but it's nowhere near the corridor, but I would say it shapes my perception as I move through the corridor.

I would note it.

I think I would say cast your net broadly on the corridor.

And whatever you see, put it down.

There may be another level of refinement where we may all look at this and go, that's just not worth really considering.

And it may be taken off the list.

But I think at this point, I would say cast your net broadly.

And if you see it, throw it on there.

You maybe wouldn't comment on roof material

or secondary materials or get into that kind of detail.

Gotcha.

One thing I was thinking about, too, I really thought someone made the comment, which is really helpful.

I think it was Frank Hancock about what this is and what it isn't.

And I think that's this whole effort.

And I think that's important to make clear to the public, to Neil, people like that, right?

that this is not a comprehensive rewrite of the design guidelines, if I'm hearing it correctly.

This is a reference tool.

And the reason that we're doing it is to acknowledge unique differences and characteristics of each of the corridors.

So, you know, it puts it into brackets.

It says, here's what it is.

So yeah, public involvement's important, but really what we're doing is we are creating an assessment or, you know, there's not a lot of subjectivity in this.

That's very well said, Fred.

Thank you.

I think Frank Stoner got more than his fair share of the corridor, so maybe he would want to share with you, Chris.

Sure, yeah.

I'd be happy to.

I think I've got six or seven of them in here.

Great.

Well, thank you, everybody.

A helpful discussion, I think, to clarify what our plans will be.

So moving on to the next meeting.

Oh, Dave.

I realized that I left something out of your cheat sheet.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Second?

I'll second.

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Yep, thank you, Karen.

Okay, our next meeting is scheduled virtually on January 4th.

Will everybody be present?

Anybody who'll be absent?

Great, all right, a full house.

Okay, and as Margaret noted, we will elect officers and set the meeting schedule and adopt the bylaws.

So I'm glad everybody will be able to be there.

There being no further business, we will adjourn now until our next meeting Monday, January 4th.

Thank you, everyone.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Happy holidays.

Thank you.

Take care.