Architectural Review Board Meeting   2/28/2023

Get ready.

Carolyn, could you please call the roll?

Yes, Mr. Hancock?

Here.

Mr. Stoner?

Here.

Mr. Henningsen and Mr. Van Der Werf are absent.

No.

No.

Are there any members of the public that want to make a comment about a project that is not on the agenda for review?

I do not have anyone virtually.

It is ARB-2023-04, Seminole Heights.

Chris, are you ready with your presentation?

Yes, one second.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Thank you, Frank Stoner.

I do not have any questions either.

It hasn't been applied for yet, but if they do ask for it, that's staff's recommendation on it.

OK.

Carolyn, is there anybody from the public that wishes to?

I apologize.

I'm going to ask if the applicant has a presentation to make.

Can they make their presentation, please?

Justin, go ahead and get started.

revised plans until we had a little more detail on the specific users.

I'll start with you, Taro.

Well, I guess if you don't have users defined for these final uses yet, how did you kind of get to some of the assumptions that were shown in the plan, like the number of lanes that each of those uses would get and sort of, could you speak a little bit to that process?

A broker and one of the owners of this project, so you could provide insights if there's a question related to what their plans are that I can't answer, just so everyone's aware.

No.

If, in fact, they satisfy the eight requirements, would there be a need for this to come back to the board?

If you approve, if you recommend approval of the initial site plan today, it would go with the layout that's varied and you wouldn't be able to require changes to building locations after it.

And I guess what I hear you saying, Margaret, is if we approve the preliminary today, we wouldn't have the ability to request that those be moved.

You couldn't require the building locations to change.

Okay.

But the list reads, at least as I understood it, that we could essentially, if we could comply with these, then the initial could be approved.

Again, sort of separate but all related issues.

Frank, do you have any more questions for the applicant?

That's the impression I got.

So you need to come back and deal with the architecture as well as the rest of the site layout.

specific architecture, et cetera, but I was trying to avoid that second meeting for a initial site plan, you know, provided that we're given a list of things we have to comply with, which I feel like the list is fairly concise that we can do it, but up the board here, but that's certainly our perspective.

So would they have the option to go straight to a final on a resubmittal or would they have to resubmit

If the initial plan is approved, their next step is a final.

But if the initial is not approved, he can't submit a final.

Correct.

I see.

Is there ever an opportunity or an option if we do not approve the initial site plan that the revised initial site plan could be reviewed by staff and not come back to the ARB or does it always have to come back?

I suppose your action could direct that to happen.

I guess we'll go ahead and open it up for discussion.

Taro, you want to start?

But I do feel like there's not a, I don't hear a compelling reason why this submission didn't necessarily meet those requirements in the first place, or at least attempt to address them, is kind of my feeling.

Thank you, Taro, Frank.

I don't know how much time that saves, but I do appreciate that time is an issue sometimes.

you know fundamental to our guidelines as like the frontage of the buildings and kind of the site layout you get that stuff right and then you could kind of zero in on a few things as recommendations so I think if it's an option for you know staff level review on a resubmittal you know it sounds like we'd be open to that but I don't want to create more work for staff or if it's if that's

The ARB action can be let somebody else do it.

But that but we need to approve or not approve as part of that recommendation.

That's right.

I have some memory of us getting off easier before where we would just make all these recommendations and not provide an approval or I don't know if I'm misremembering that, but.

And I am just not finding the language that I'm looking for best.

Bear with me for a minute.

I mean, I feel like to me, at least, it seems like it would be better to have something on paper that is relatively close to something that meets the guidelines that we can approve later on.

I agree.

If it's really not consistent with the ordinance, then we would bring it back to you.

Yeah, sounds okay.

Yeah, I think we could still deny it at the final site plan if it really doesn't comply.

Not sure we have the ability to deny it at that point.

Oh, I see.

OK.

When we changed the process from the preliminary and final to the initial, a major part of that goal was to allow the ARB to have early comment on the layout of the site to make sure that that was right and that once that's approved, then the major elements of the site layout won't change.

But we could deny that.

Yeah.

I would still stick with our initial recommendation that the plan come back to you for review, but we can try that alternative route if that's what you all prefer.

Could you put the eight recommendations on the board, just so I can see them?

One through eight has some layout related ones, so there could be some opportunity to pick out some of those, but there are some core ones that are ready to lay out.

What are the time implications of a resubmittal preliminary and full A or B review as opposed to staff review?

Sometimes that changes when there's five Mondays in a month.

And if staff were to do the review, how long would that process?

It could be slightly quicker, but we still look at the scheduled meeting day as the last day for approval or last day for review comments.

Okay.

Do we have any adjustments to these recommendations?

No, no changes to the, I think they all seem reasonable.

Chris, do you have a recommended motion or is it within this?

So moved.

Carolyn, could you please call the vote?

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Thank you.

I know there was some discussion about...

Or if you all want to move forward now, that's fine too.

How does that agenda look?

It's not that long.

Or get to?

If we held a work session today, would they still have the opportunity for review and comment?

Yeah, then let's go ahead and look at it.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you.

And I can keep this short.

There we go.

You seem confused, Frank.

No, I don't have any questions.

So we're just trying to bring everything up to date.

Taro, do you have any questions?

It's hard to point to one and be like, this is an example of what's something great on this corridor, at least with the imagery we've shown.

Although there's actually a question there about what architectural features are important along this stretch of mixed residential development.

So I guess it's just, it's a little bit of a shame to see like a fence and then like no sidewalk alongside of Ferricks Road and be like, this is the character of the corridor necessarily, you know?

But maybe that's what's there, I don't know.

Go back to the narrative for, yeah.

Is that an implicit endorsement of that as an acceptable characteristic on the corridor or

But then I think when you look at it all on one page, it's like, I don't know.

That was the observation.

I guess if the fence wore out and they tore it down and then wanted to put back something similar, would we approve it?

I suppose we could reword the caption and talk more about what an appropriate replacement would be if a situation like that occurred.

Have we included characteristics to avoid or something like that?

You mentioned retaining walls that offer no scale or texture.

Maybe that's what we have here.

I mean, it's kind of a tough call because you understand if you're living on a corridor that has that much traffic, you know, a fence might actually feel pretty good if it's your house.

I was thinking on the other side of it, you know, it's a sidewalk on the other side would be nice.

Maybe we could find images to do a comparison where one is the fence that's right up on the road and one that has some sidewalk and do it more like a comparison.

We could also include more of the single family detached that do not, that have a landscape buffer instead of a fence buffer and use that as an offsetting mechanism.

That's part of the, even though it's not something we'd review, it's part of the character of the corridor.

You could say just like the, we're not going to review a rolling hill landscape, but you still put it in the book.

Right.

Or would a mural even come to the ARB?

Well, it would depend where it would be painted.

Like this mural here.

Excuse me.

If it's on a building that's

But I think did they take it off and not end up proposing it?

So if it's a mural to be painted on a building that has gone through the Airbnb process or is going through the Airbnb process, then that would become part of the review.

but if the structure is pre-existing you're saying it would not come to the ARB?

I think if the painting in it of itself does not require a permit so if it's if it's not part of a previous ARB action then I don't know how I can't think of how it might get to the ARB

I'm wondering, in this case, I assume that retaining wall is in the right-of-way?

That's my guess.

So, does this... Do you not have to approve that?

I would guess so.

We're close to the lawn.

Right.

I guess, do you have a feeling on murals one way or the other or just give us about the process or?

Well, I guess another question related, if it's in the right of way, VDOT, let's say VDOT wanted to build the retaining wall that's shown on the upper left as part of a road plan, would that come to the ARB or not?

Do you have any ability to rule on a state

If the road plan is related to a site plan, then I would say yes.

VDOT can do whatever they want, pretty much.

both of those, well, and I think the site in the upper left-hand corner that predates the establishment of the entrance corridor.

Sorry to digress and just curiosity.

Hopefully they all got recorded.

Sorry about that.

Anything else before we move on?

I guess like a nicer retaining wall would be nicest and then I guess not great retaining wall with a mural is above that and then or below that and then I don't know.

There's not a lot of opportunity for... No.

It kind of makes the case for why we ask applicants to do that.

So they won't have as much real estate on the sheet.

Is that like in terms of the language for that blurb, like it would be like murals enliven the retaining wall, retaining walls in the corridor areas typically, you know, step back at given heights or something like that.

It might be that it is within the six foot height.

On the previous page, it talks maybe the language about that wall that's on the previous page under characteristics to avoid.

I don't know if there's a typical four feet or something.

Or you have to step back?

I don't think we have a specific guideline on that.

So at that point, you'd have to kind of offset

Any other comments?

Could some of the images in fact be from someplace other than the corridor that's being examined if you wanted to, if there are no good examples in that corridor of kind of what you'd like to see?

But I think that's almost to your point, that's almost getting into what we had been thinking of as this as the next step after the agenda is done.

For this one, maybe it's just like, there's some stuff that we could also include in the character of this corridor that maybe speaks to our aspirational values as well.

Yeah.

But that's so the tension is real.

Thank you, Mariah.

Yeah, thank you.

Thanks, Mariah.

Carolyn, could you please call the vote?

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Matsuno?

Aye.

Thank you.

Does any board members have any other items or staff have any other items that you wish to discuss?

No.

I do not.

Yeah, I probably won't attend.

I will not be here March 6.

There might be a quorum issue, I guess.

Next Monday.

That's when our next meeting is, next Monday.

I am planning to attend.

I'll check with the others.

I prefer to squint at the clock on the wall.