Board of Architectural Review Meeting   8/17/2021

Okay, good evening everybody.

My name is Robert Watkins.

I'm city staff and I'll be moderating tonight's meeting.

Welcome to the August 2021 Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review virtual meeting.

We should now be live on channel 10 and we're continuing to stream on the city's streaming channels.

Before I hand things over to Carl Schwartz, the chair of the BAR, I'll go over a few guidelines and housekeeping tips to make sure that everything runs smoothly.

So for everybody who might be watching at home right now, I will introduce the meeting participants who are currently online.

First, we have Carl Schwartz, the chair of the BAR.

We're also joined by Brett Gastinger, vice chair.

Other BAR members include Tim Moore, Robert Edwards, James Zehmer, Cheri Lewis, and Jody Leandro.

We're also joined by Jeff Warner, who is city staff as well.

Throughout the meeting, applicants and other participants will join the meeting as needed.

For members of the public who are watching right now, there are several places in the agenda where you can speak if you wish to provide public comment.

At the beginning of the meeting, we allow time for comments from the public for items that are not on the agenda or for items that are on the consent agenda.

Then, before the BAR deliberates on each individual application, we allow time for public comment.

In order to provide comment, we ask that you register for the meeting, which can be found on the city calendar on the city website.

and then you'll become an attendee and when we get to the comment portion of the agenda, you can raise your hand using the raise hand feature and I will unmute you so you can speak.

For applicants, during the staff and applicant presentations for each project, I will share my screen to scan through pages of your application that you submitted for visual aid.

If you want me to go to a specific page, please let me know what page to go to and I'll do it.

and also we will have short periodic breaks as needed and our chair will direct us for when those breaks are necessary.

Welcome to this regular monthly meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architecture Review.

Staff will introduce each item, followed by the applicant's presentation, which should not exceed 10 minutes.

I will then ask for questions from the public, followed by questions from the BAR.

After questions are closed, I'll ask for comments from the public.

For each application, members of the public are each allowed three minutes to ask questions and three minutes to offer comments.

Speakers shall identify themselves and provide their address.

Comments should be limited to the BAR's purview, that is regarding only the exterior aspects of a project.

Following our discussion and prior to taking action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond.

Thank you for participating.

So first, are there any, does anybody have any matters from the public that are not on the agenda?

Mr. Cher, there are eight people in the queue.

Two have their hands raised.

I saw Genevieve Keller raise her hand first.

Miss Keller, I'm going to click Allow You to Talk.

And then I think you need to unmute yourself.

Please remember, this is items that are not on our agenda.

Good afternoon.

I'm Genevieve Keller.

And I'm here to speak for Preservation Piedmont later tonight, but in prepping for that, it reminded me about how concerned I am at the minor role that I believe the BAR has been asked to play in the COP plan process.

And please forgive me if I'm mistaken.

And by the way, in this portion, I'm speaking as myself and for myself only.

In the public online forums I've attended, I've heard the team say in response to questioning from the public that the BAR will be involved in the zoning phase.

And I'm concerned that that may be too late because although our districts are overlay zoning, what you do and what you know is so much more than that.

The BAR is probably more involved in the kinds of projects that the COP plan envisions than any other group in the city.

and as a preservation professional, a former BAR member, a former planning commissioner, just a veteran preservation and planning official I am, I'm concerned that the plan is not being informed by our community's deep understanding of its historic resources.

and how they enter into new development and redevelopment scenarios and how they interact with all of the chapters of the comp plan.

We're not alone in this in our city and you are probably one of the most qualified BARs in the state.

We need you to lead.

I ask you to advocate for yourselves and the work that you do.

I love what Jody was saying earlier.

Listen to him.

He's been through this and he knows whereof he speaks.

As a CLG, a certified local government, Charlottesville has committed to preservation and to you being our preservation advocates.

Read those CLG guidelines sometime.

They are awesome in the true and classic sense of that word.

We desperately need better guidance on this kind of denser, taller infill.

and contextual design in historic residential areas because we anticipate that any new zoning ordinance will be encouraging taller and denser development, at least in some areas, perhaps diminished lot sizes and more buildings on a single site with a definite likelihood of increased emphasis on detached auxiliary dwelling units or ADUs.

So what does a quadruplex conversion look like?

How do we avoid teardowns and still create more housing units and diverse property types?

We can do this.

We can do this in Charlottesville, but we need to plan it and we need your informed expert voices on how to do it.

And I'm so glad that you're talking about guidelines.

but they'll need to be a different kind of non-boiler plate guideline.

It's your time to be proactive and not reactive.

Please stand up for historic resources playing the vital role that they can and must to keep our city affordable and livable and interesting and yes, equitable.

We need to understand all of our history and all of our neighborhoods.

We need to retool local preservation to ensure that when this happens, that historic resources are not lost, that we're not a tear down city,

and that new infill will be harmonious.

Thanks, Judy.

Thank you, Miss Keller.

So we have one other raised hand, Lisa Kendrick.

Okay, mine was just a quick question about, I was noticing over at 64 University Way, that's a historical building.

and I see that there's going to be some rezoning.

I also see that there's a request for a special use permit and I just have concern about what's happening on that property and if the bar is already involved in some way on that 64 University Way property.

Carl, you all reviewed it in March and made a recommendation on the special use permit request and

It was allow an alteration to the setback which allowed the existing building to become conforming.

So, you all recommended that Council approve that SUP, the Special Use Permit.

or you recommended that it will not adversely impact the district.

And the reason for that is that there are no physical changes to the building.

They're altering some of the interior, I think, to increase some density.

So again, what happens inside of a building is not under the BAR's purview.

And the fact that they are working with the Department of Historic Resources for rehabilitation tax credits on the

Most, if not all, of the exterior work, that then becomes, as far as the design review is available to them administratively.

So you all looked at the special use permit request.

Again, there were no physical alterations to the building.

And because of DHR's involvement in what they'll be doing there, it's an administrator who do.

So they're actually, I've been talking to their consultant

Golly, for a couple of years put in a lot of work on the research of that structure so that it would be eligible for the tax credit.

So the truth is, is it'll hopefully look sharp when it's done.

I don't, can't speak to what's going on inside, but the exterior is going to be real, but abilitated and some not original things will be removed and repaired.

but it's not coming back to the BAR.

Thank you for your question, Lisa.

I had forgotten about that one.

I call a vote.

Yes.

Mr. Zehmer.

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Mr. Moore.

Aye.

Mr. Gastinger.

Aye.

Mr. Edwards.

Aye.

Ms.

Lewis.

and Mr. Lehendro.

Aye.

Thank you.

Right.

Just so that everyone understands, we often try to order the agenda kind of

kind of to wade out into the pond, so to speak, but this was deferred from May.

And while it's been modified and revised and essentially new to you all, because it's a deferred item, it goes first on the agenda by our rules and procedure.

There's a lot here.

I know there's been a lot of discussion about it.

I want to go through quickly and then allow questions because I know there's going to be discussion about this.

So this is a COA request for the construction of the department building, which includes the parking

primarily below grade landscaping and various site improvements.

This is on a parcel that has on it the 1857 home or house known as Wynnhurst or the house that had been part of that much larger property.

It is still standing on the east side of the site.

Wynnhurst was part of a 100 acre farm that was subdivided and became the Preston Heights section of the city.

The apartment building has the designs been modified previously there were sections of brick and stucco now it is all stucco the general I think the physical dimensions of it and shape have not changed there are some modifications to the windows and door arrangements

The lighting has not changed and the color palette is a sort of a grays and green shades with their ceilings of white oak and there's a black locust boards for the flooring on the balconies.

Plantings I've reviewed, you can see there, if it's not on the tree list, I looked it up as it's still a native species or something that is acceptable in the area and everything, no issues with the plantings.

Key things like the wall and the lower landscaping,

Everything is consistent with our guidelines.

So just to address sort of the designation of this property, and this comes up a lot, the house is an individually protected property in IPP.

It was designated prior to the vennable

Ruby Road, University Circle, ADC District.

So while it is a contributing structure to the ADC District and also an IPP, it doesn't double the value.

It is designated by the city and it is before you

because of being an IPP or a structure within an ADC district, they are reviewed by our more stringent guidelines.

So, second, there's, I know this property is on the Virginia Landmarks Register, it's on the National Register of Historic Places, but that's critical, that's important.

However, it is, again, what brings the BAR into play is that local designation.

That's where you all have purview and why we refer to the guidelines.

relative to any alterations.

This project was discussed in a preliminary discussion back September a year ago.

And there were, that's in the staff report, some of the recommendations and comments that you all had.

Then it came back to the BAR in

Yeah, it came back to the BAR in May, and that's where it was deferred.

And it was not, it was supposed to be on the agenda.

Last month, I had a family situation to address, and I erred in getting the information to Robert about a letter.

So we had to bump it to August.

That's why it is coming to you tonight.

And I think

The applicant has been responsive in the questions that I've asked.

They provided information when I requested it.

And if I'm not aware, staff is given the circumstances, we're not going to make a recommendation up or down on it.

But we would recommend that if approval is considered, there are

Some recommendations, typical recommendations relative to our lighting, the lamping.

And the reason I added that is that while the light fixtures refer to the types of lamping, it's always good to just be very specific about, you know, we know that that's available with the lights that have been spec'd, make it clear that they will comply with the lamping.

There's always, when there's a project of this scale, an opportunity to underground electrical services and other utilities.

So that's a condition that can be considered.

And there is certainly, there are some historic walls and curving there that we would like to see

documented and preserved so that as the project moves forward, those things are protected.

And if they're damaged in any way, then they can be repaired as needed.

One of the things that we don't yet have for this project is a site plan.

So, and I know, understand working with the applicant, with the designers, that this is evaluating the possibility

this type of development.

But ultimately, a site plan would be required.

And just to be clear, everyone across the board, the BAR can approve this with the COA and it grants approval for that design for a period of 18 months.

But if a site plan comes in and

Let's say, for example, there's utilities that cause something to move or something to change.

There's the possibility that this would have to come back to the BAR for reevaluation.

So everybody knows that.

In fact, it's also important for folks to know that the BAR's approval on something is not particularly on a commercial property as an apartment complex would be.

You all aren't granting a building permit.

They still, so that's another piece of the, we were talking earlier about things that we do that people don't realize all the moving parts.

So when the BAR reviews this, there are still, again, I said the site plan, let's assume nothing changes, that site plan review, I would be involved in that.

And then there's also the building permit review to make sure that what's submitted to be constructed is consistent with what the BAR approved.

So the BR's approvals is obviously,

necessary, but it is not the final decision on a project like this.

And then finally, we do have in our comprehensive plan a recommendation to evaluate archaeological resources when opportunities present themselves.

This is similar to the courts.

It's not something that we can acquire, but it is something that

we would like to encourage.

The fact that this is a, and it's included in the staff report, at least as long as we can tell, the house was on this site and there was nothing else there and nothing else ever occupied this western side of the site.

So a phase one archeological survey would be appropriate here.

It would be helpful to,

in interpreting and understanding that site.

I don't think there's no hidden buildings underneath there.

We have no evidence of burials or anything like that.

It's another tool to provide information that helps interpret the site and certainly the city's history.

So that's something that we would like to encourage, at least that staff's recommendation.

With that, do you all have any questions about the staff report or the submittal or how it's been presented in the staff report?

Yes, I would.

And Robert, I guess I can

Thanks.

Good evening everyone on the BAR and thanks to Jeff for providing that thorough summary of the project.

I'll just add a few things, beginning with what you're looking at now, the zoning summary sheet.

We just want to emphasize that this is a buy-write building proposal in an R3 zoning.

The majority of properties on Preston Place are zoned to allow multifamily housing.

75% in fact of the parcels are classified R3 as they have been since at least the 1970s.

Boarding house and apartment use has a long history in this neighborhood.

In fact, Windhurst itself since 1930 has been used as either a boarding house or an apartment building.

There's four buildings that serve as Greek housing and they have for a long time.

And then of course, there are the Preston Court Apartments.

When you add all of these together, you have about 30% of the properties who have boundaries on Preston Place that have served as non-single family housing.

If we can go to the next one, Robert.

Here's a survey for reference if it's necessary.

The one thing that's, and I think we discussed this last time, the one thing that's mistaken on the survey is what's called an oak tree there up near the northwest corner is in fact an ash tree.

And we do have in our appendix later an arborist evaluation of that tree.

If you go to the next one, Robert.

And then through these, you just see the existing conditions from the west, the southwest and the southeast.

This is our description, just laying it out pretty simply what we plan to do.

Now, if we go to the site plan, what we're proposing is a three-story residential building.

It's on the west half of the property at 605 Preston Place.

The proposed building is adjacent, or would be, to two historic structures.

You have the Windhurst House, built about 1857, that's to its east, and it shares the parcel with that house.

And then the Preston Court Apartments, built in 1929, are to the south.

The property is located in the Rugby Road University Circle Venable neighborhood.

And within the guidelines for this neighborhood, it states that this residential area was carved out of two large farms to house the university's growing number of students and faculty during the boom years between 1890 and 1930.

In the site plan, you see obviously the location of the proposed building.

You can see where we expect to locate mechanical units, which would be behind parapet walls and out of view from the street.

You see the plantings identified.

And then what I want to run down quickly here are the things that have changed since we first presented this formally to you two months ago.

Most of the site walls now.

In particular, the large walls that are around the entry drive are stone instead of brick.

Exterior walls on the building itself that were previously a red brick, they're now stucco and a light earthen green.

The width of the entry drive has been reduced from 24 feet to 20 feet.

and that's pending a favorable ruling from the zoning administrator.

We just need to make sure that 20 feet's okay when you don't have parking on either side of an entry drive.

And next to that drive, we're proposing now a tulip poplar tree that we expect to grow very big and large and would help to shade that corner or that edge of the drive and that part of the lawn.

On the walls around the entry drive, we are proposing climbing plants now along the north edge as well as the east.

We've added muttons to the balcony doors and only some of the shallow balconies we had previously been retained.

Along the north and the south walls, most of the balconies have been eliminated.

where we have in-swing doors that lack balconies.

We now have simply protective metal railings.

They're mounted directly to the exterior wall.

We have in this presentation four new elevation drawings that are expanded to include more of the surrounding context.

We have two new perspective views included, and we also have photographs and an assessment of the terrace that's at the west side of Windhurst.

And now if we go to the next slide, these are the plantings we propose.

What you see in the lower right, those are blue stone paths that currently lead to the entry points at the Preston Court Apartments.

This is the same kind of stone that we'll propose to use along the patio, the narrow patio south of our building, as well as to potentially replace the stone that's at the Windhurst Terrace.

If we go to the next one,

The parking is located primarily under the building.

It's accessed by a paved drive at the northwest corner.

Getting under the building will require a rather tall retaining wall, but it does put most of the cars out of sight.

And we plan to encourage climbing plants to enliven and soften this wall.

We think this is a better alternative to a parking level located at grade.

Down in this parking area, we'd also have a large trash totter stored so they'd be out of sight most of the week.

Now if we go to the next plan, this gives you some basic overall dimensions.

Two dimensions that I also want to bring up.

The distance from the south wall of our proposed building

and the Preston Court Apartments is about 22 feet, over 22 feet.

The distance between our proposed building's north wall and the neighbor to the north at 625 Preston Place is over 29 feet.

Now, if you go to the next one.

Here's one of those expanded elevations so that you can see more of the context.

You see especially the Preston Court Apartments there to the right.

The building height, if you go to the next slide, will be approximately 32 feet above grade.

The parapets in several locations will reach 36 feet, six inches.

At the southwest corner of Windhurst, if you go to the next slide,

The soffit there is about 27 feet above grade, but we have a grade difference at that location and what is typically the grade at our proposed building of about four feet.

And so this ends up putting the kind of extended overhangs we have on the lower portions of the roof of our building.

It aligns them more or less with the eaves of Windhurst.

The Windhurst Ridge does stand higher than the proposed building.

and at roughly 38 feet above grade, the cornice of the Preston Court apartment building is also taller than our building.

The parapets will conceal mechanical equipment while also contributing to varied massing, allowing the perceived top of the building to step down where there are no parapets.

We can go to the next slide.

And in these cases, you can see we just zoom in on the elevation so you can get a better look at the building itself after first seeing the larger context.

The flat roof, it may be unusual in this neighborhood, but the Preston Court Apartments set a clear precedent.

And there are numerous other notable examples of flat roofed residential buildings abiding alongside traditional pitched roof houses within design control districts.

among them the five story apartment building on Altamont Circle, several three and four story apartment buildings on University Circle and University Way, as well as apartments at 505 16th Street Northwest and houses at 431st North Street and 517 2nd Street Northeast.

We can go to the next one.

And the next one.

We can continue on.

Okay.

The overall design approach is minimal.

By and large, we have not attempted to directly emulate traditional detailing found on neighboring buildings.

Instead, we've tapped into essential characteristics of relevant nearby structures, such as durable building materials,

generous use of windows and doors, heavily planted sites, abundant paths and clear points of entry to drive the architectural appearance of our proposal.

Entries made legible by the tall recess and the exterior stair.

The recess in turn improves the building's massing dividing its west face into two distinct volumes.

Human scale is achieved through the main stair, the many exterior doors and the shallow balconies and the narrow patios accessed by some of these doors.

Further variation in massing is achieved by the strategic location of parapets.

Exterior materials and colors are straightforward.

They alternate in a manner that further avoids monotony in the facades.

And the materials are largely traditional and durable.

We expect the proposed building to age well.

And if we go to the next one, Robert.

I want to stop right here just to talk a little bit more about the Preston Court Apartments and why we think they're relevant context.

I mean obviously they're right next door to the proposal.

But then when you consider the west facade of the Preston Court Apartments, first they're about a hundred feet wide and no other individual building on the circle has a greater facade.

If you combine it with the east facade around the circle,

Then you have 200 feet of elevation facing on Preston Place.

The west facade, furthermore, doesn't leave the impression of a side or an end elevation.

It's not subordinate to the Grady facade.

Instead, it's as though the Grady facade were simply turned 90 degrees to face Preston Place.

It's otherwise unchanged.

Nothing in the building height detailing

Materials, entrances, porticos, or fenestration differs here between the west, south, and east facades.

They're almost completely alike.

This enhances the impression of prominence that the building holds on Preston Place, not just on Grady.

It's located on the inside of the circle.

And we think the relationship between the proposed building and the buildings on the inside of the circle is more significant and more legible than is the relationship between the proposed building and the houses on the outside of the circle.

On the inside of the circle structures are consistently much closer to the street and closer to one another as well.

The taller, more prominent structures on Preston Place, Windhurst and Preston Court Apartments are located on the inside of the circle as is our proposal.

Finally, the Preston Court Apartments are named for Thomas and Anna Preston who are early owners of Windhurst.

The circle is also named for them.

After their deaths, the daughters sold the land to Preston Court Incorporated, who built the historic apartment building.

So the relationship between the Preston Court apartments is actually longer and older than the relationship between the apartment building and Grady Avenue.

The very name of the apartment building associates it directly with Preston Place, not with Grady.

It has older, stronger historic ties to Preston Place than the single family homes on the circle, which it predates.

It's an individually designated property on the National Register,

and it's an exemplary early 20th century example of a garden style apartment.

For these reasons, we think it would be strange to ignore or downplay the role of the Preston Court Apartments as an important context for new projects on Preston Place.

If you go to the next slide, this slide helps you to see coming from the other direction, which you would only do on foot, not by vehicle,

It shows more clearly, I think, than we showed in our previous presentation how the one volume that's to the north is stepping back about 10 feet further in from the street than the volume to the south is.

Go to the next one.

And here's a look at the building directly into the recess where we have the entry stair.

On the street facing facade, the building is divided into two volumes.

And we think this recess de-emphasizes the overall width of the building.

It breaks up the massing, it improves perceived proportions.

The material change here, the light colored wood that's at the back and the ceiling of the recess further distinguishes the volumes and enhances architectural variation.

And such an exposed stair is not unprecedented in the neighborhood.

The oldest house on the circle, 611 Preston Place,

has an unusual exterior stair on its front porch, one that disappears as it ascends into the deep eaves of the roof overhang.

It's possibly a vestige of an earlier period when the house was divided in half and served two separate tenants.

At the Preston Court Apartments, four tall covered exterior metal stairs that accessed all stories once existed in the courtyard.

You can see the outline of these stair towers in the 1964 Sanborn map that Jeff included in his summary.

and while they don't survive, they did serve the building for multiple decades and they're visible in older photographs.

We like the exposed stair as a plain signifier of utility and access.

There's no ambiguity here about where to enter the building.

It also provides a potential opportunity for tenant comfort.

It's one more place in addition to the shallow balconies where upper level tenants can step directly outside where they can quickly assess temperature and be in the open air while also under cover of rain and snow.

We can go to the next slide, Robert.

The next few slides are just giving you a rundown of the materials for your reference.

And this slide here in the section, this just, I think, calls out the somewhat minor change to the balconies.

You can see identified in the plan where we have eliminated balconies that we had before.

and it's basically or typically it's around what we expect to be the larger common or living spaces where we've retained the balconies.

We can go to the next one.

Here you see what we have in mind for the tall wall on the north and the east of the entry drive.

And the next slide.

The next few are about lighting.

There we go.

And then into our appendix, I'll just talk a little bit longer.

Here's the arborist evaluation that the ash tree, it might be in trouble sooner than later, and we expect it not to live very long.

And it would be the largest tree that would be eliminated with the construction of this building.

You go to the next one.

Here's some photos of that terrace that's next to Windhurst.

It is an old terrace, but we don't see any indication that it dates to the 19th century.

It's not original to the house.

You can see on this lower photograph how there's CMU, there's brick underneath it, as well as underneath the steps that lead into the house.

You also have CMU supporting the stone there.

There's a lot of grout that's located in between the stonework.

It's quite doubtful it was there originally.

None of the historic register reports make reference to it.

We did find one photo of the house probably dating from the 1960s where you can see the terrace there, but it's hard for us to tell how much earlier it was built.

But at any rate, our proposal is not to eliminate the terrace.

We plan to keep it at its current elevation, its current width.

The depth will be reduced by about 24 inches from roughly 14 feet to 12 feet.

and we expect we will replace the stone that's there with the blue stone that we discussed earlier.

We can go to the next one now.

And then as we look at photographs of the houses, we wanna talk just a little bit more about what our design strategy was.

It was to support a concept of juxtaposition, which we think better represents the neighborhood as it's taken shape than what a strategy of emulation or deference.

This is not a pressed in place of homogenous dwellings that explicitly share architectural character.

The circle boasts a surprising variety.

While several of the houses, chiefly the fraternities, speak the staid language of neoclassicism, elsewhere the buildings tend to be eccentric, even one of a kind.

630 pressed in place has unusual shingle siding with a quirky narrow elevated front porch almost as wide as the house.

At 626 Preston Place, a generous second story balcony cantilevers out for most of the front facade.

Few other houses in Charlottesville have such a balcony.

611 Preston Place has rare surviving cladding with heavy thick or unusually wide battens over wood planks.

This house in particular is altogether unique and it's one of the oldest in the city.

On the inside of the circle, the architecture is really all over the map.

The dwellings share little in common.

And in fact, it's their unlikely juxtaposition rather than their conformity that informs their relationships.

The little island is rife with informal proximities.

You take 619 and 615 Preston Place at the top.

Not only are they conjoined at odd angles, they present to the street with different faces, one to the north and one to the east.

Additions to 611 Preston Place have brought it within 15 feet

of 625 Preston Place, its neighbor to the west.

The fronts of each of the buildings on the inner circle are within 25 feet of the right-of-way.

They're much closer than their counterparts on the outer ring, which typically have front yards at least 50 feet deep.

It's our position that the inner circle has its own special characteristics, its own environment.

It can be taken as a kind of sub-precinct within the Preston Place neighborhood.

And it's to this inner circle that our proposal belongs.

Now, if we go forward to the last sheets, we have some images of other buildings in town.

While the Preston Court apartments are an obvious precedent for our proposal, we find some other structures in design control districts that bear on today's discussion.

If we go to the last slide,

Robert.

This shows 39 University Circle.

This is another beautiful building, something like Preston Court.

It's in a neighborhood, again, where freestanding houses predominate.

And while its scale and use may be slightly outside the norm, it's doubtful that its presence has had a negative impact on the street.

Quite the opposite.

It's a strong addition with its own historic pedigree.

However, I don't think we should limit our discussion of good neighborhood architecture just to apartments that are rich with Jeffersonian detailing.

The Park Lane Apartments and the Altamont Circle Apartments we think are useful examples of another kind, perhaps even more relevant to the building that we're proposing.

If we go to the slide above before this one, at the corner of Park Street and Park Lane, we have a pair of three-story apartment buildings in parallel to one.

These take no obvious cues from the early 20th century and late 19th century houses on the block.

Material choices may be largely consistent with the neighbors, but that's where the similarities end.

Little else is sympathetic.

In their size, form, orientation, and fenestration, these buildings deviate from anything close by.

The garden apartment arrangement is introverted.

The building facades on Park Street read as end or side elevations.

The true building faces,

and entries into the apartments, they turn inward.

They face each other across a narrow court.

The architecture makes few explicit gestures to acknowledge the primary street.

And yet, even with these trade-offs, some of which are the subject of criticism of our proposal on Preston Place, we think the park lane apartments have in time contributed more that's positive than negative to the neighborhood.

It may not be anybody's favorite building on Park Street, but that's okay.

It's distinctive in its way.

It's actually kind of cool.

I assume most city residents were happy to see these buildings renovated rather than demolished.

They would be a loss.

Now, if we go to the last slide one more time, I'll talk finally about the Altamont Circle apartment building, which was built in 1929.

It represents a departure from its neighborhood fabric that's arguably even more abrupt

than that of the Park Lane Apartments.

At five stories, it's much taller than surrounding houses.

The site is significantly hemmed in for such a large structure.

While it sports a big cornice and prominent entries with pilasters and pediments, otherwise the detailing is minimal, making little reference to exterior touches on nearby houses.

The windows are simple and plain.

The brickwork is unadorned.

compared to the Preston Court Apartments, as well as the apartments at 39 University Circle, its architecture is significantly stripped down.

All of these characteristics should sound familiar.

They're all characteristics, building height, flat roof, minimal non-referential detailing, and a confined site.

These are the same characteristics that were the subject of objections coming from the neighbors in our last meeting, and the objections you'll probably hear again tonight.

Yet when we consider Altamont Circle, hasn't the construction of the apartment building been a net benefit to the neighborhood?

The building has given many people a dwelling with walkable access to Charlottesville's downtown, yet without any obvious detriment to the value and character of the historic houses that surround it.

Contrast this with an alternative of a grassy lawn or just a single large house here.

I mean, there might be some atmospheric upsides in the eyes of a few neighbors, but on the whole, the circle would lose something without this apartment building.

Ultimately, at Preston Place, we see circumstances not unlike Altamont Circle.

Both are great little enclaves hiding in plain sight.

Both are remarkably accommodating and adaptable.

In time, buildings of different scales, uses, and looks have been absorbed without endangering the whole.

We don't agree that new construction on either of these streets is only conceivable as something petite, diffident, or withdrawn.

This hasn't been the case in the past, and it need not be now.

Each neighborhood has survived big multifamily buildings, and more than that, their current fabric has been informed, made more distinctive and interesting for the inclusion of these buildings.

Indeed, these buildings have truly contributed.

We're optimistic that our proposal, if constructed, might enjoy the same outcome.

Thanks, Kevin.

Please raise your hand or press star nine.

And remember, this is questions.

So, Mr. Chair, I see two raised hands.

First, I see Paul Wright.

Mr. Wright, I'm going to allow you to talk.

Hi, this is Paul Wright, 612 Preston Place.

I hope that you take some time and find out exactly the material stucco, what they mean by that, because I've seen in the past the actual materials being used to change to something like EIFS or stucco-like material, and that definition should be defined tonight and not have it be determined later.

Thank you, Mr. Wright.

Next, we have Larry Good.

Actually, it's two questions and I'm assuming I can comment on the design at a later point.

So I'm asking my question now.

I noticed that in the renderings, there was some accountability for a tree along the driveway.

of the apartment building, but no accountability for the deer door cedars.

On some of the renderings, the cedars are there.

On other renderings, they're not there.

These are monumental trees, tremendously contributing to the historic character of the landscape.

And I think the manner in which

and the care with which the acknowledgement of these trees is handled is going to be very important.

And I do not see that accounted for in the drawings.

And I think my concern is that the walls, the paving, all of the

retaining walls around them, cutting into the roots.

It's already been a construction site for four years with a lot of trenches being dug and the walls along the street being removed, all kinds of alterations to the topography.

I just don't see the applicant

really addressing the preservation of those trees.

Also, regarding the site plan or the lack thereof is a tremendous concern if you look at the amount of paving, structural walls, and the way in which the site is being fully built

fully occupied to the point of not only abutting the terrace, the west terrace of the historic house, but also blocking the very large and tall windows.

I noticed there were no photographs of that facade with the tall windows.

And those are original to the house.

They're formal,

and facing windows and that house is going to be blocked by this massive construction effort which seems to occupy the entire site.

I think there is no site plan and I think that this is going to adversely impact the surrounding properties.

Where is the site plan?

That's a question.

Thank you, Mrs. Turner.

To clarify, there is a plan of the site.

It's not an official site plan as filed with the city, but it is in the packet.

So hopefully you were able to download that.

If you were looking at the renderings, you should be able to see the plan.

Well, to clarify, the reason in the elevations that we don't show those cedar trees is they would just obscure the building so much.

And we were afraid that leaving the men might have people asking questions about, you know, what's back there?

What are we hiding?

We just wanted it to be, the building elevations to be reasonably clear.

We wanted to show in the elevations places where new plantings, we expect them to be.

But as far as the Cedars go, you'll see I think in all of the perspective illustrations that they are included.

And in our description we mention them by name that their preservation and their protection is

is definitely in the plan for this project.

We don't want to lose those trees.

The building is far enough away from them that it should not be in the drip line of the trees.

There has been some work done to one of the narrow walks that's closest to those trees not that long ago, and the trees seem to have survived fine.

you know, seem to be in good health and even with construction that's been going on, not that far away.

There's one more raised hand from Lisa Kendrick.

I think she has a question.

So Ms.

Hi.

I have a question about the ash.

A couple of times now you've mentioned that an arborist saw it and said it was sort of at the end of his life.

Could you be a little more specific?

Cause we also have an ash tree.

The derecho a few years ago twisted the top out.

It's come back beautifully.

We've had it treated for ash borer and it's doing really well.

So I'm just wondering if there's a desire to treat it and preserve it as much as possible or if, or kind of what the arborist, how have they determined that

It's at the coming toward the end of its life and what life period are we talking?

I mean, I'm coming to the end of my life too.

Well,

I am not an arborist and we don't have the arborist present with us on the meeting, but you can refer to the letter evaluation that we have in our presentation.

And Kevin, I think from Mr. Wright and Mr. Turner, there were a couple more questions embedded in there.

One was about the stucco.

Stucco or synthetic stucco.

It's just something that we haven't had a chance to evaluate in consultation with contractors.

I understand that

that a synthetic stock or an EAFS can actually be a good material on a building, but it does require really conscientious application.

And

We think that it might be a possibility, but we are leaning toward a traditional stucco, but it will be some question of the practicality of the cost.

We expect that they will look very much the same, that we'd have access to the same colors, the same textures.

I think it's really just a question with the synthetic stuccos with how durable they are over time.

And I think that's a matter that has more to do with how well they're applied.

And I think there was some question about the west wall and the windows of Winters.

Are you guys touching that at all?

No, no, we're not.

I think that's the questions that I remember from the two of them.

Are there any more questions from the public?

It looks like Mr. Crozier.

His hand is now down.

I have a question.

Maybe Robert, if you could go to PDF page 82, the SK353.

Great, thanks.

Kevin, I see y'all got a railing along the east side of the high retaining wall.

Yeah, that's a good question.

We're showing plantings there now.

Okay, and then a question that's sort of related.

If you scroll up a little bit, Robert, the sheets, 73 and 74.

And this may just be a design study all we're doing.

This, to me, looks like you have a staircase going down.

Or is that just a shadow line?

And then here it disappears.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

OK.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question or two, sorry.

I was just wondering where you have the 20 feet of width, Kevin, in that driveway.

Is there any reason, I mean, basically what's driving the 20 feet?

City code for the width of the apron.

Well, we thought that first when I look at the zoning ordinance, it appears that technically 24 feet might be required because I believe that's what they require for two-way traffic when there's not parking on either side.

At least the last time you looked at it, that's what I recall.

But we

I think feel the same way many of you do, that if we can reduce that width and people can still reasonably get by one another, we'd prefer to.

So I guess my question is, given that there's a fair amount of asphalt there and you're not parking

You're only parking at that one end, right?

So is there any reason you couldn't consider basically a one-way, basically a lay-by so that basically people have to take turns coming in and out so you have a much narrow entrance?

Right.

And you have plenty of space.

That way you could basically have an island or a peninsula that could even carry a tree there.

Yeah, that's a good point.

There's not that much parking here.

I mean, it would be a study in manners.

Right.

Yeah, I think we'd be glad to consider that.

Manipulate the scale of it on the street.

Because 20 feet, I mean, I appreciate it coming down from 20 to 24, but 20 is still a significant chunk.

Yeah.

on the scale.

And then the other question I had was going to kind of a monolithic, somewhat monolithic color scheme.

I just wondered what took you guys down that path?

Because before I think you had, didn't you have brick color?

We did have red brick and then

I was thinking about something Mr. Zehmer had brought up in the last meeting about the brick, especially along the tall retaining walls, maybe being a bit much.

And I agreed with him and began to consider a stone not unlike a stone you see elsewhere in the neighborhood.

And then when we applied that to those walls, then it

The brick and the stone, they weren't quite working to our eyes.

And then going to stucco, kind of consolidating to a single material for much of the building, but still varying it by color, just looked better to us.

in a way seems to soften and maybe quiet the building just a bit versus what it had been with the brick.

We also didn't want to make too explicit a connection with the Preston Court Apartments.

You know, the brick there is very nice and there's obviously brick elsewhere in the neighborhood, but

I mean, is there really a strategy used elsewhere that is pretty effective?

I'm kind of on the fence about it, not so much on the Winhurst side, but I'm not so sure about it on the other street side.

But that's a comment, so we'll wait to wade into that one.

Yeah, yeah, we don't have examples.

We were trying to find in that because we have a, we're a little confined down there and with the cars parked up close to that edge, we were trying to think of how we could accommodate plantings without putting them right down where tires might hit them.

And this seemed like a potentially way to protect the plants and

and kind of recess them somewhat inside the wall.

I think what I'm showing there would allow for enough material to plant these, but it could benefit from some more scrutiny to ensure that.

Hi.

Robert, could you go to page 64?

So Mr. Riddle, it looks like something like stone walls, low stone walls are being indicated along the pathways beneath the Deodora Cedar.

Well, there are some low stone walls that are there, yeah, to the east of the cedars, yes.

Okay, so they're already there.

No, they are not there.

Okay.

I worry about the stone walls.

They're going to require concrete footings and the damage that they will naturally do to those diodorus.

So anyway, I just wanted to ask the question right now.

There is a wall there on that side of the walk that goes, the east-west walk that goes to the entry of the building.

Okay.

Now, that is a good point and if constructing these walks and these walls were to endanger the trees, we suspected that they would, I think we would re-evaluate and we would find another way to provide entry.

Well, walks are

I mean, there are easier ways of creating walks that do not damage root systems, but walls with concrete footings.

Not so.

So anyway, I just wanted to clarify that.

Well, while we're on this point at the risk of inserting a comment, I would just also include in that concern potential undergrounding of utilities, while it might be

I have a detailed question.

I'd asked last time about the balconies and the

You have boards on top and boards on the soffits below them with water draining through.

And your response was that it was a placeholder design and you didn't want water to drain through.

Well, no, we're not really showing a detail there, Carl.

And I think in Jeff's

report, he does kind of retain reference to that.

We discussed earlier, but no, we're not planning for those balconies to, for the floorboards to drain through like they would in an outside deck.

And so, on these shallow balconies that you see, you know, identified as B, at least the small ones there in the middle, they would just be sloped to drain out at the front edge.

OK, off the top.

Yeah, Sherry.

Following up on Jody's question about those walls and the walkways, they're attractive.

but I'm really wondering what their function is.

There's not that much grade change there, right?

Kevin, I'm just like, I mean, I'm not, I like the element, but considering that you're gonna be chopping around the root of these two trees, I'm sort of thinking along with Jody on this.

Right.

The north-south walk is one that rises gently and would accommodate tenants in wheelchairs.

Now, it is true the grade there, though, is gentle enough that I think the inclusion of a wall along that walk is probably unnecessary.

And so we would definitely consider eliminating that to help avoid any trouble with the cedar trees.

With the walk that goes in the east-west direction, right up to the entry, there is more of a great change there.

There are steps leading up.

And so it might be a little more challenging to go without walls.

But we also might consider, you know, in particular for narrowing the drive somewhat.

I mean, I know there's the opportunity that Tim mentioned to have a tree planted right up at the very northwest above the drive.

It's possible, perhaps, the drive could be narrowed more, though, from its kind of current southern edge.

And maybe that way, then, we could have a walk that would approach the site, but farther from those cedar trees.

Thank you.

I have two other questions.

Robert, on page 57, I think, of our packet, if I'm on the very last one, this is the survey.

And the survey is dated less than a month ago.

It's dated July 23.

So it's supposed to be current.

I'm looking at the stone patio on the historic structure.

And note that there are steps to the west of it.

Yes.

Those still exist, obviously, as of three weeks ago.

But you're saying that you are reducing the width of the patio by two feet from 14 to 12.

So the steps are going.

So I don't see an application or any mention of demolishing those steps.

What are they made of?

What do they look like?

Really curious now because I didn't notice them when I was on site.

I think they're covered up by shrubs there.

What they may have led to.

Could you just give us a little bit of information about them?

Right.

That would be what steps are for.

So I think if we, I think we have to consciously think, are we demolishing this?

My only other question.

Sorry, can I jump in on that?

Sorry, Carrie.

Excuse me.

If you look, I'm wondering the date of July 23rd, I think it's just the date of this PDF slide.

Well, all surveyors are required to note that the date that they go on site and do a physical survey.

Right.

And I don't see a surveyor's actual people on here.

Yeah, and they are still there.

I saw them a few days ago.

My last question is sort of brought about by some of the comments of the neighbors about the condition of Windhurst.

And I was on site with the applicant a couple of months ago, and they look like they're pretty diligently pursuing some things, but they said that the pandemic had made certain materials difficult.

I just wondered if you could speak to the ongoing work

on the historic structure and what the status of that is and what remains to be done.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Unfortunately, we haven't

done any work on Windhurst itself.

Just to clarify for members of the public and the board, the historic structure and the parcel under consideration are the same ownership, correct?

Someone else, was someone else going to jump in?

OK.

Are there any comments from the public?

Mr. Chair, I'm starting to see raised hands.

First, I'll go to Christine Colly.

Ms.

Colly, I will allow you to talk.

This is Christine Collie speaking.

My husband and I live at 611, immediately to the north of Windhurst.

So we're neighbors of the parcel in question.

I noted at several points the presentation remarked on retaining a prominent viewer role, keeping prominent Windhurst as the historic building on the property.

And yet,

the views that we see, and I recognize that the drawings are there to show as thoroughly as possible the design of the proposed building.

But the way things have worked out from the South, in order to look at Windhurst at all, one would have to stand in a relatively narrow passageway on that walkway and look up at it.

From the fraternity side of the, in other words, the outgoing part of the circle, there are now shrubs, I don't know whether they're going to be included in a final site plan or not, that show, that obscure the view of the side of the building.

The north side of the parcel backs up against our house, number 611,

and the house that's been discussed at several points, number 625.

So there's no view for the public walking or driving by of the historic house from the North.

The new building almost completely obscures Windhurst from the West.

And the spaces that comment which has just been made about the terrace

when you picture what the views would be in order to see those windows on the west side of the historic building, or really any view of the historic building, you've got to stand in a terrace reduced to, what was it, 20 feet?

12 feet.

And look up at a rather tall building.

Yes, Windhurst remains, the roof at least, remains a little bit higher than the proposed added building.

But the angle from which you view walking on the walkways around the circle or driving around the circle means that you're not even going to see the roof because there's another mass in front of it obscuring the view.

I did understand, perhaps I'm wrong here,

that one purpose of a historic neighborhood was to keep the views of historic buildings, perhaps particularly the two oldest buildings in the area or the three, available to the public so that they contribute to the character of the neighborhood.

I think that's why they're called contributing buildings.

But that is a concern that the views of Windhurst become

from very tight spaces, many of which are not available to the general public walking by.

And there is really not much left.

I apologize, I'm gonna have to cut you off.

OK, thank you very much.

I'm sorry about that.

Usually, Joe Rice.

I've got my watch.

I mean, I'm watching one, and just the public can't see how much time they've got left when they're talking.

Yeah.

I'll make do.

That's all right.

I'm not watching this whole thing.

You know, it's okay.

Thank you, Miss Collie, for your comment.

Next up with their hand raised is Lisa Kendrick again.

Hi, thank you.

One of the things I wanted to say is that Preston Court apartment building was built in 1928.

and there are multiple homes on Preston Place that were built well before 1928, including the Collie's that you just spoke to, my house, the house next door to me, the Turner's house, let's see, the Matheson's house, the Wright's house were built in 1939, the Marshall's house was the Stevens house in 1929.

So, I mean, it's not like the Preston Court apartment building was built first and everybody else around it.

The fraternities were built about the same time, even 1928 also was the Sigma Chi house.

And one of the things I want to say is that clearly during that time period, because they were built as fraternity houses then, is that multi-residential living, many people in one building, can be done

We see that with the fraternities.

We have seen that with the beautiful addition that has been done.

It's fairly invisible.

You get to see these lovely buildings that all contribute to this neighborhood.

They were some of the foundations of this neighborhood.

and it's just surprising to me that we cannot come up with something that really a building, a design that contributes to the whole community.

It is clearly a nod to Preston Court Apartments and the mass of Preston Court Apartments does face

Grady Avenue, which is a much larger street, Preston Place is a one-way, very narrow street.

And it just seems that after all this time, all these really talented people could come up with a design that really does support, enhance, and contribute to this historical neighborhood that's going to be left

after we're all gone.

And to look back and go, wow, they really did a good job of protecting this neighborhood.

Rather than, you know, like when you drive down West Main, you kind of go, oh my gosh, you look over at Wirtland and you go, how in the world did that get passed?

and so let's not do that to Preston Place.

You really could say the exterior of that building that is designed, that's proposed, that you are looking at does not go with this neighborhood.

It does not contribute to this neighborhood.

Ask yourself the questions that does it contribute to the neighborhood?

Is it consistent with the other buildings in the neighborhood?

And what's its effect overall on Preston Place?

It is not a contributing

design.

And the other thing that I've heard recently is think of the aesthetics.

Is it acceptable or not?

And I've heard you all in other meetings be very detailed.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

No, thank you.

Thank you.

And actually, for the rest of the public, I'm going to raise my hand.

We've got about 30 seconds left, just so you have some cue.

The three minutes goes by really fast, I know.

Thank you, Ms.

Kendrick.

So next up, we have Larry Good and Elizabeth Turner again.

Okay, we each have something to say.

I wanted to comment that I think Christine Colly is pointing to an important flaw in the proposed design, which is the sheer mass of the building.

It should be smaller.

It is far too large.

It encroaches on the stairs and the patio on the west side of the historical building.

And I think it is just too large.

This is not a neighborhood of three-story buildings.

And I think this is something that needs to be remediated in the design.

I think the beauty of the diversity of our neighborhood, and we welcome a multifamily or a multi-unit building, the objection is not there.

The objection is to the fact that they are attempting to put a commercial design, something that looks more like a motel, in its commercial metal and severe

features.

And then the other thing is its obsequiousness to Preston Court Apartments.

Preston Court Apartments towers over our little street, the little dip in the

The road, the students that inevitably open their doors, blast their music, stand on every balcony every chance they get.

You can hear everything that goes on.

So the noise pollution of those balconies is only going to be replicated by the balconies that are retained on the front of those two massive buildings

that are being inserted into the hill and abutting Windhurst.

It replicates the backside of Preston Court apartments as well.

If you want to look at what's similar, look at the backside of Preston Court apartments and look at the walls of those massive walls that we're expected to see continue down our street and the noise

continue down our street.

If we get the worst of all worlds with that, it does not add up historically.

There's no harmony and it's not appropriate.

And you folks are tasked with finding out what is appropriate.

We depend on you and you are an experienced board.

There's more talent there.

Thank you, Ms.

Turner and Mr. Good.

Next up, we have Jenny Keller again.

Ms.

Thank you.

Chair, Carl, staff, Mr. Riddle, colleagues, Genevieve Keller representing Preservation Piedmont, including five former BAR members who reviewed this application at the request of neighbors.

We urge you to recommend modifying the proposal to achieve a more harmonious fit.

Individually protected Windhurst should be a major concern, but is noticeably neglected.

This project needs more reference to and repair for this immediate historic neighbor.

You would be justified actually in denying this project because the new construction just does not fit into its immediate context.

But in the spirit of our time and our place,

It is more reasonable to modify this proposal so that three centuries of architecture could coexist better on this site.

Windhurst needs more breathing room, as we just saw, to be compatible with distances between buildings in the neighborhood also.

Activating Windhurst by providing a stronger visual connection across the whole site, perhaps with new pathways, would help blend new with old.

Preston Court, however, is a strong architectural statement that can take a lot and still hold its own.

We commend a restrained facade approach of the new construction.

The elements line up.

There's a balance of solid and void, which all help.

Shutters are a nice feature, but still there is the feeling of a generic building that will not match anything on its street in form or color.

The intent should be a contemporary background building rather than one designed to stand out.

Sometimes a darker building recedes, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

The infill needs to respond to the existing buildings.

For greater compatibility, try considering lighter colors that work better with those buildings.

A move away from the dark grayish green.

Using a lighter color for shutters and doors would help.

The dark color is a current fashion color, so staying with the existing palette is more timeless.

Please listen to neighbors for guidance about the open stair and balconies.

The visibility of the stairs and architectural dominant feature in the central entry in such a void departs from most traditional local architecture, certainly an ambiguous void occupied by a stairway.

It's not Park Lane.

The prominent central threshold being an overhang all the way up in the third floor is not that effective visually.

Perhaps designers could turn to a landscape solution for more sense of entrance to compensate for the central entry as a void.

There's a significant massing issue in the big cutout driveway to the basement that will probably turn out to be a huge gaping hole diving into the ground.

It's difficult to understand the retaining walls for the garage drive and up to the entry.

We're not clear if they're like the perspective rendering of the 3D lighting diagram.

There's a lot going on with the grade, the retaining walls, the steps to the building.

We urge you to dig deeper into these drawings for inconsistencies.

Site elements and landscape quality are important and may be one of the best things about this project.

Retaining canopy trees, real fieldstone, and the bluestone caps as proposed should be required conditions.

We're pleased that canopy-creating trees are being proposed but are concerned that vegetation is being squeezed or affected by construction and will be lost.

When the ash tree goes, as most agree it will, the lot will feel very different, so please think about that.

You can approve a successful blending of old and new if you pay attention to these details, require more information and visuals, and ensure compliant implementation without cutting quality details.

This is a wonderfully rare opportunity for a juxtaposition of buildings from three centuries.

Succinctly, the best thing about this project is that it can be tweaked and made better and it can be accomplished without losing historic buildings.

That is still a plus.

Thank you, Jenny.

Thank you, Ms.

Keller.

Next, we have Jean Hyatt.

Ms.

Hey, I unmuted.

OK.

So I'm Jean Hyatt, and I live at 1719 Meadowbrook Heights Road

formerly for 39 years on Rugby Avenue.

And actually I'm a long ago BAR member, and I was involved in the designation of the street as part of the Rugby Road University Circle Venable Neighborhood ABC District.

So I'm especially concerned about what's going on.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

So I can see that the architect has done a good job of checking up a lot of the items on the ADC district design criteria.

However, there are a lot of points that are not being considered.

And I actually urge you not to award this certificate of appropriateness today and that more work is done on this before that happens.

Keep in mind that City of Charlottesville seeks to assure the new structures are in harmony with their settings and environments in historic districts.

That's actually written up in your design guidelines.

And now I'm looking at chapter three of the design guidelines.

Let's see.

Oh, no, actually, this is part of your staff report, spacing.

The new building actually does not adhere to what's recommended.

And what's recommended is that it

The new building should be 30 feet to 46 feet from existing buildings and it's only 22 feet from two adjacent buildings according to the map.

I think that's probably been changed a little bit, but that's what I saw earlier.

Lighting.

Please require that the building adheres to dark sky guidelines.

This actually is not in your design guidelines yet, but should be.

There should be no spillover light into the neighborhood.

Another point is parking.

Parking, according to the guidelines, should not be next to historic buildings.

And then

In historic buildings, you've got about 30 seconds left on the side.

Boy, I have so much more to say.

I'll skip a couple things.

The entranceway should be a key feature, and this is not the case.

You can hardly notice where the entranceway is.

And there should be in foundations and historic districts that you should distinguish the foundation from the actual structure.

And according to also according to the guidelines, there should be more void than

More wall than voids and that's not the case.

The windows kind of take over the building.

I'm wondering about the height seems like the height of the two different sections are not the same height, but I'm not sure that according to the

the drawings, it looks like they're not the same height.

And then I would like that you require that the Windhurst be rehabilitated and maintained as part of a future certificate.

And I hope that a certificate is not given this evening until more issues are dealt with.

Thank you, Ms.

Hyatt.

Finally, the last raised hand I see is Paul Wright.

Hi, this is Paul Wright.

I live at 612 Preston Place.

And as the board's aware, you're all entrusted to follow the code that asserts within the city's historic districts, new structures, landscape and other related elements will be in harmony with their setting and environments.

What this latest submission seems to be doing is taking an unremarkable building that contains little design legacy from its surroundings, removing costly brickwork from a previous submittal, and painting it green, then surrounding it with extensive plandings.

This is the practical effect of attempting architectural camouflage more than a serious attempt at coordinating harmonious design and historical district.

Within your deliberations today, I hope you might focus on the use of stucco,

Efes isn't as durable, application isn't the problem, and it is unfair to equate the two.

If they won't stucco, make them build stucco.

Also, please consider the merit of taking a light-colored stucco all the way to the ground without requiring some sort of water table.

It's not good design given the clay splashing that will certainly occur.

In the western elevation, this view has been covered by planting, but the orange splash of clay will certainly cover the base of the lighter green stucco unless a water table is added to echo the rock walls being considered as part of the landscaping.

For some in the community who have defended this building as part of the missing middle of housing, let me disabuse you of that notion.

This building will most likely be among the highest square footage student rental housing ever built.

I know this because the pressing court apartments next door are currently getting $4,500 a month for a three bedroom apartment.

Perhaps some of the revenues could be used for better design or to pay for real stucco.

In the submittal pack, park lane apartments are used as a precedent, but that's a brick structure and was renovated and not a new construction.

All the other precedents were all brick and have defined entablature and lack stucco.

I can only guess that Altamont Circle apartment, which shares little design elements with the submittal, was included to remind the board of how bad exterior apartment design can be.

as you look at these precedents and actually make this building supply the very design details that are glaringly absent from this submittal.

It's my hope that the board will defend architectural integrity of the historic contributing structures and demand more than the submittal provides today.

I've watched this board attention to detail and lengthy discussion that has accompanied nearly every other structure that has been built in the last few years in this neighborhood.

And I ask you apply that same vigor to this submittal.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Wright.

All right.

I'll go first and I have found a value in having a public hearing and listening to the public and whereas when we looked at this previously, I was

more receptive to the design.

But I have to say something said tonight has made me reconsider.

And that is that previously I had looked at this new building as being a partner with Preston Place.

But rethinking that

and knowing that its context is more to the circle and to the residences around the circle and its proximity to the next door neighbor, the house next door, I'm really believing that it is an inappropriate design, that the design needs to have a more of a gesture towards the neighborhood.

and that makes it a very difficult, challenging design because it also is right next to Preston Place.

But, you know, I think that the architects are talented enough to be able to accept that challenge.

But I have

I cannot support this in its current design because I see it now through the neighbors' eyes as being more related to the circle neighborhood than its relationship to Preston Place.

And I also feel like there needs to be more space between the historic building next door and this new construction.

So, went out on the limb.

All right, I will jump in.

I'll go.

Dan, thank you both to the architects and to the community members for attending today.

It's helpful to have all of the comments incorporated.

There are some things about this project that I think have been successful and continue to be successful, some things that I'm definitely concerned about.

I'll begin with a few notes of the things that I am positive about.

I'm satisfied with some of the research regarding the Bluestone Terrace that is a later addition and that there might be a reasonable

reconstitution of that terrace in a future project.

I think also the planting palette is generally a really good one made chiefly of native species that will do well, but I have one comment that'll come up later.

There has been some discussion about the entranceway, and I've been thinking about it, and it's been discussed as a negative by some,

On the other hand, I think one thing that it does that's very positive and I hope the neighbors will understand this in that by having that gap between the two volumes, and it's even been described as two volumes by a number of people tonight, it does break down the apparent scale or has the potential to of the structure and giving it a little bit more verticality.

as it relates to the street and it relates more to the scale residential units.

If it were, as some had suggested, more solid or more of a destination, then all of a sudden that facade gets awfully large and much more broad than it is.

I actually think that the massing is

is okay.

I think that some of the additional drawings that the architects have produced show that it does make some transition from the scale, press, and place down to some of the resonances and is a reasonable solution from just a pure massing standpoint.

And I think the language is also okay.

And I know that there's been a lot of commentary about appropriateness and how we decide what that means

I just wanted to read something from our guidelines on new construction that I think make a point of making a place for contemporary architecture in historic districts.

The guidelines are flexible enough to both respect the historic past and to embrace the future.

The intent of the guidelines is not to be overly specific or to dictate certain designs to owners and designers.

The intent is also to not encourage copying or mimicking particular historic styles.

These guidelines are intended to provide a general design framework for new construction.

Designers can take cues from traditional architecture of the area and have the freedom to design appropriate new architecture for Charlottesville's historic districts.

So I think that both for me, the scale and the language is okay.

and could work here.

I will get now to some of my real big concerns about the project and why I don't know that I could approve this as presented tonight.

The change in material from the brick to the stucco I think is a massive problem.

I think it changes the materiality, it cheapens the appearance of the structure and I think makes it

doesn't have the elegance of the earlier scheme.

I think the combination of the brick, even if it were a different color brick, would be a much more elegant solution.

And I think it does tend to bring up other visual references when it goes into that material.

Secondly, a few other kind of more minor

Well, a few other things.

The vine boxes, I just don't think that there's any way that that would work as a way of sustaining the vines in that condition.

Yes, you might get enough depth of soil, but the problem in my mind is also that that soil volume is exposed, it's likely to freeze.

I think that'd be a very difficult condition for vines to thrive.

So I'd encourage a different approach.

I'm really concerned about the diodoras.

They are important to the neighborhood, and those site walls and potential utility trenching could be an issue.

I like the suggestion of the shagbark hickory in the planting plan, but that can be very difficult to establish species.

And normally, you can't get them very large in the trade because they're difficult to transplant.

I think there probably could be, we haven't spoken a lot about it, I think because of other issues, but given some of the concerns raised by Preservation Piedmont, I think some subtle changes could make more of the connection from the Windhurst entrance to the alleyway through the block that could give it a little bit more prominence and make more reference to that being the historic entrance to the house rather than feeling like backside entry.

And lastly, I am concerned about the condition of Windhurst and it does not appear to have been a property that's been maintained well over the years.

It appears to have some real significant issues and although the architects are not involved in that renovation project, I think it's worth asking about and

Finding out how we can be better convinced of the upkeep of that historic home as a part of this project that is so closely related.

I guess my analysis is mostly to check down the new construction guidelines in chapter three of our ADC guidelines and just to as objectively as possible weigh this application in light of those that apply or would be most important for us to review and to find, you know, hold this application to.

So I'm not so well organized

as Breck is, just say the positives first and the negative last.

So this is just my balancing analysis, which is sort of just going down the guidelines.

Similar to Breck, I don't have a problem with the massing.

I do applaud the applicant in creating these two structures that break that up.

And I think that goes a long way, that thoughtfulness goes a long way to

to help the volume that will be on this small, small part of the parcel, but also the density that will be there.

I don't have a problem with the flat roof.

I'm convinced that there are other flat roofs obviously right next door, but also in other AGC districts and certainly for a new construction

That's not the most offensive thing.

And I applaud the applicant for pointing out some other examples of flat roofs.

One of our guidelines says if you do have a garage or parking entrance to sort of diminish the look of it and certainly the applicants have tried to do that by reducing the width down to 20 feet if the city will allow that and also by the stone wall and landscaping and other compensation.

I do think that the relegated

Parking underneath is a really nice way to handle that and it's not inexpensive.

And that has been done in response to comments that we had that there shouldn't be a parking lot right next to Windhurst, the historic structure so I applaud the applicant for responding to that and modifying the plan accordingly.

I do agree with comments that have been made about the switch and exterior material to stucco.

We also, because of this format, we don't get to look at samples, but we will also weren't sent really any information about whether this is going to be EFS, which is expressly discouraged by our guidelines.

or whether it would be authentic stucco.

And I know we've gotten into hilarious discussions before concerning my lack of knowledge about different types of stucco, but we won't go there again.

But we didn't even get specs or cut sheets or anything like that.

So I share some comments about that.

And I also think that the retreat from BRIC is a negative on this application.

Our guidelines state that entrances should be significant in a historic district.

that the entrances, there should be a raised surround and maybe they should, the entrances should not be flush with the exterior walls and this certainly doesn't meet that.

So again, I know that we made some comments last time around about how to deal with this entrance, but I just don't think that, I think that something could be done and I'm not, I think I even ended up saying this at the last meeting, I can't design it, I don't know what it is, but I feel like there should be something

at this entrance if we continue to go with these two sort of demi structures.

There really is no emphasis on the foundation or the cornice and maybe going to a brick material would offer an opportunity for that, but our guidelines do say that foundations and cornices should be evident in our buildings.

I

do support the use of these Juliet balconies.

I would say for members of the neighboring properties that I think you can only stand on them.

I don't think you could even sit out there.

And one of our ADC guidelines is that there should be semi-public or, you know, porches that address

the exterior and I think these these meet that I understand there's always concern about noise and disruption especially with what's now a parking lot being turned into a residential building but I think that's more of a zoning matter and it's out of our purview those impacts are.

I think that's it my only last

A comment is just to say that I think that the steps may be coming from the historic structure could serve as an opportunity.

If they do need to be demolished, they need to be called out.

Perhaps that's a connectivity opportunity because they might line up with the center stairwell of the new building.

Not an architect can't do it, but would be curious what can be done there.

All righty.

So I think Jody is echoing some of what I brought up back in May that I felt like this site was a little more related back to the neighborhood.

But I do want to start by saying I thank Kevin for putting together a really good presentation.

I mean, he obviously put a lot of effort into addressing a lot of our concerns.

And I think some of the community's concern, whether folks agree or disagree, I think it should be recognized he put a lot of effort into it.

and I also think Genevieve has given us a good charge that we actually have a really good opportunity to make this something that fits in well and I hope we can get there.

I don't think I can approve what's presented tonight but I wrote some notes down and I'll stop some things off and see what ideas might stick.

I do think

The addition of the window muntins to the balcony doors gives it a little more residential feel and breaks down the scale.

I think the idea, if the stucco is what we stay with, exploring some lighter color, lighter tone stuccos may be appropriate.

I think one of the members of the public who called in and suggested possibly doing the stone down low as sort of a splash block is a good idea.

One thing I started thinking about, and I don't know if Robert you can, are we allowed to pull the PDF back up?

Slide 67 is the west elevation.

In terms of massing, you know, also I think that last speaker mentioned that a two-story building might be more appropriate.

And I wonder if one of the ways we work ourselves through this is to really think of these as two buildings.

you know the south wing that's closer to Preston Court Apartments and then the north wing that's a little more engaged with the neighborhood and I wonder if the south wing remains three stories and then the north wing could be shortened to two stories so that it sort of steps down the hill it also looks like that would reveal a lot more of the west elevation of Winters proper if you can see it kind of ghosting behind the applicants building here

and even in the two different wings aesthetically treating them differently.

You know, maybe we have some bricks detailing on one stucco on the other.

Really trying to get creative with making them look different.

I think that would also lend towards the more smaller scale residential feel of the neighborhood.

Let's see.

That maybe is,

is really what I was getting at.

You know, I think the use of natural materials, I appreciate their response to my comment on the brick retaining wall by going to stone there.

I think that's pretty successful.

I do support efforts to save the deodorant, you know, air spading, potentially cantilevered their concrete wall footing so it goes back under the sidewalks, away from the trees might be a way to be successful there.

So I guess my main point is, I wonder if there's a way of thinking of these as sort of two

Two separate buildings within one site.

All right, I will go ahead.

I apologize because I think I'm going to be contradicting some people.

I'm still really hung up on the open stair, extremely hung up on the open stair.

and I think that actually is, that is going to be a deal breaker for me.

I don't think that this is actually going to read as two buildings, regardless of that open stair or not.

I think you're getting more out of the step back in the facade.

And I, you know, looking at precedents around the city and then also, you know, where I

I mentioned to you a long time ago, you know, I feel like a building like this, a three story walk up is perfectly acceptable and perfectly can fit in very well, very comfortably and be a beneficial can benefit a district like this.

A lot of that comes from my experience living in St.

Louis, where, you know, I remember seeing three story walk ups jammed right next to big, you know, expensive houses.

and nobody batted an eye.

It wasn't a problem.

And the scale works out just fine.

We see that on the University Circle.

And some of those buildings are, even the smaller apartment buildings on University Circle are bigger in footprint than the houses next to them.

So I'm not sure if

Dividing this into two buildings doesn't seem to do anything for me.

And as one long facade, it's still the same width as the house just to the north.

But one of the things that I did find in trying to look at precedents is I did not find a lot of open stairs.

And what I did

they gave the impression that I expressed last time, which is kind of a feeling of cheapness, which I know is not what you're going for, but it definitely reads as an apartment building.

And I think it makes it less compatible with this this neighborhood, especially this specific neighborhood.

I know we approved a building with an open, a very large wide open stair in the middle of it down on Virginia Avenue.

But that is that's a that's a different context.

Anyways.

That's my ramble on the stair.

I do support the massing.

I think that this is definitely something that can be done.

And I think we're going to see a lot of this throughout the city.

If the land use map ends up becoming a reality, I don't think that's a problem.

But it is, yeah, I think it,

That in itself makes this building unfortunately incompatible with this specific neighborhood.

I know you're trying to create a modern building with pared down detail, but the most successful examples I've seen of these apartment buildings inserted as infill in single-family neighborhoods

have more residential detail.

And I think that this, you know, providing an entryway and then masking that stair could provide an opportunity for some of that detail.

Can I say something before we move on?

So I won't keep us because we've been at this for like two hours and obviously everyone is very strong on both sides as far as applicants and the residents but you know everything, pretty much everything's been said here really but I want to strongly advocate that the applicant listens or heeds our advice but also listens to

the residents, those voices matter.

And obviously we're not gonna go on this in your favor tonight, but I think this building is awesome, but it's not having a cohesive conversation with the architectural landscape that it needs to.

And so, like I said,

Listen to us, but also listen to these people, these folks who showed up tonight because they live here.

And that's really boring.

I'll say something.

I guess two things, or more than two things, obviously.

One, I'm kind of inclined to agree with Carl in as much as I think the

Drawings are kind of deceptive about that hall.

Also acoustically, it'll be just a boom box of a space.

And I think, I appreciate the intent to separate the two volumes.

I think that's fundamentally successful, but I also think that that would also be, I don't think that would be compromised by glazing that in and also playing with where the plane of the entrance is relative to the building.

I find the material changes to be not beneficial.

I think the modularity of the brick and sort of the scale it brought to it made it less monolithic, made it talk more to the existing structures.

Combining that with the stone base, I don't see any problem with brick and stone as a combination.

That's pretty common in old buildings, certainly, and even in modern ones.

But I think

You know, I think the elevation on the west is fundamentally successful, and I also think the elevation between Preston Place and the new building is successful.

I think the one on page, let's see, let me get the right one, page, there's an elevation view, oh, let's see, view page 77,

Robert, it's a perspective.

That is a bit grim, especially, again, kind of comparing it to the house right next to it.

Obviously, plantings would help, but I think that's really, at this point, the least successful elevation from my perspective.

And then, unfortunately, I think one of the things that broke it up successfully before were the Juliet balconies that were along there.

you know, where it broke the scale down.

And then the other item that I think is a little problematic is how close it is to the old house.

I mean, that terrace, if we go back to the plan view, which is on page 65, or better yet, go to the one that's even got the, actually do I mean, where's the one that's actually got the footprint of the,

rooms in it because you can kind of see it better that way.

Oh, that's in the earlier packet, okay.

Because I was just going back and forth between those two packets.

So if we go to, it just seems to me that it's about, you know, 10 feet too narrow in there.

It's just a little bit too close to the house and if you have

They're farther apart.

You'd be able to get a planter or something in there.

I realize that probably whacks one row of bedrooms out all the way up.

But that does feel, that terrace is kind of a non-starter with the building so close together.

But I think nonetheless, I still think generally, I think the scale of the building is correct.

I think the front end,

The two facades, the one facing the west, the one facing a present place.

If you look at the perspective view, I think that's all pretty successful, although I have a problem with the materials palette.

I think the one facing the driveway is, as I said, pretty grim.

I think there needs to be some way of breaking that up, whether it's with

Rick or something where it's not just all one material.

And I don't think dropping the left as you're looking from the west elevation, dropping the left facade does the trick.

I think it's more about getting more modulation on that side and then also doing perhaps a peninsula to get some trees and things in there on that driving area.

But I think that elevation is most problematic to me right now.

But I do think the distance of that from the old houses, the house to the left of it, if you're looking at the west elevation, that is successful.

And that is partially caused as a result of that drive through there.

But I think it needs some street trees or some approach to narrowing its apparent size down.

So I think we've provided a lot of disparate information or feedback, unfortunately.

How many people here could make a motion tonight to approve with some conditions?

I'm not seeing anyone.

So Kevin, I think what you're getting, and you guys correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is something that we all want to approve, but we're all struggling for different reasons with it.

So I'm not sure what advice to give you.

What would you like to do?

I appreciate the comments.

Really thoughtful, very helpful.

I also, by the way, appreciate the comments from the neighbors who, you know, we have made efforts to meet with on site and keep the conversation going.

I just wanted to emphasize that I know that

In their minds, we have not been as responsive as they would prefer to their concerns, but we've been making every effort to listen to them.

I've expressed to them that they can email us and call us anytime if they want to make suggestions or offer observations.

With your comments, again, thank you everybody on the BAR.

really kind of laid out, I think, rather specifically and usefully the issues you have.

With you, Jody, I was wondering, you were a little more general in your observations about this building and your mind being inappropriate.

Kevin, I

I just see it as a interesting and very difficult, challenging design project in mediating or transitioning from the Preston Place building to the neighborhood behind it.

And I see Ural's building as

as having more to do with the neighborhood behind it.

Beyond that I don't want to get into

I did make a mistake in not including the guideline that I was leaning upon for my comments.

And it's the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation, standard number one, which includes, the new work shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

So I'm not seeing that it's compatible with the features and the other elements of the residential part of the neighborhood.

I see.

Right.

When we're assessing

the appropriateness and you're referencing the Secretary's standards for rehabilitation.

And then we look to some of the guidelines that the BAR offers that I believe Brett quoted from earlier.

That's true.

That's true.

And even in the secretary standards, it tells us to differentiate between the historic and the new.

So it's why we have architects.

Sorry.

And well,

Kevin, I feel for you.

I really do.

This is a very difficult problem.

So like when you look at the expanded elevation west, I mean, we look at that elevation, and I understand a lot of people on the BAR have differences with the move to Stucco, with the open stairway, but I guess to my eye, I don't see something that's egregiously out of step.

The Preston Court Apartments, I think,

For some people looking at this neighborhood, there's a tendency to keep holding them apart.

And I understand they are somewhat exceptional.

At the same time, though, they're inevitably kind of always in your view.

When you turn onto the circle, they are there, and they extend deep into it.

And so I guess one of the things we saw that's relative to that building, it appears that the scale and the touches we have in our own building are not

a big departure from that and even serve to some extent as a transition.

And even if you look at the house to the north 625, it's a house that's rather big and it's absorbed some additions over the years.

Well, and just looking at that again, Robert, could you pull it up again?

So

The new design has more to do with Preston Place than it does with the residential community.

And just look at the roof lines.

And I know that Preston Place has a flat roof, and this does too, but not the rest of this community does.

So, I mean, I thought James made a

an important comment or a potentially valuable comment in talking about a step down from the south to the north portion of the building, those two elements.

And something that

I don't know.

I'm not going to go beyond there because I don't want to design it for you.

But I see a huge difference between Preston Place and that residence on the left.

I see.

Thank you for offering that.

Second.

Jody.

I will call a vote for the motion.

Am I allowed to toss out another just crazy idea before we go?

You're pushing it.

Maybe take a cue from Windhurst, turn the thing 90 degrees and make the alley between Preston Court Apartments and Windhurst a true pedestrian alley where both of those two buildings front on that alley.

The one thing I just wanted to say, one thing kind of following up on what Jody was saying is, and a little bit with James was saying, I'm not sure about

stepping it.

But one thing might be actually to do some sort of a counter punch, some sort of a horizontal element at the second floor line or third floor line that, in essence, picks up the horizontal game going on over with that portico on press in place.

But it does also bring it down.

That one horizontal line actually lines up with the eve of the house immediately next to it.

I'm not sure whether maybe instead of accentuating the vertical, maybe it's a question of picking up the horizontals you already have and playing with those a little bit harder.

Yeah, I see.

Yeah, I appreciate those comments and James too.

All right, Robert.

So I received a yes vote from Mr. Zehmer.

I'll continue.

Mr. Lehendro.

Yes.

Mr. Gastinger.

Aye.

Mr. Moore.

Aye.

Ms.

Lewis.

Aye.

Mr. Edwards.

Aye.

And Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Thank you, Kevin.

Keep talking to the neighbors.

All right.

Thank you, everyone.

I apologize, guys.

I need a five minute break.

Sure.

I am doing all right.

Are your cats behaving tonight?

Mostly.

That's good.

I think they've gotten out of the kitten stage.

Yeah.

I was a little more worried about the dog that hadn't been out for

I forgot to let her out before our meeting.

Yeah, sorry.

If you look at slide 75, the kind of perspective that shows the front of Windhurst, it kind of

And give a little more prominence back to

Not in the rendering.

Yeah, and they do show steps up in this view.

It came to mind, I was driving around in Charlottesville looking at many of these different scaled buildings.

while we're talking in Google.

It's stuck, it's kind of an, it's an EIFS building, but it's similar in proportion and is separated by

Yeah, that one.

Is everyone back?

Cheri, are you back?

Cheri's back.

All right, you want to go?

Ready to go?

So next up, this is within a historic conservation district.

Jody had asked earlier about

Make sure I clarify it, I will.

So this is a COA request to construct a first floor addition, actually two additions, one on the north side and one on the south side of this house.

And I know this is a great example of

My family wants to age in place, so they're doing the adaptations to the house now, and I've talked to Mr. Zeller about it.

The proposal, I know it's late, so I'm not gonna read through all of this, but I did wanna touch on, let me find my notes, sorry, everything's too big.

So just to clarify again, within a conservation district, historic conservation district, very different from an ADC, different from an IPP, and the district designation was established intentionally to have a lighter hand and be less rigid than the ADC and IPP guidelines.

and the intent was to preserve character defining elements in the neighborhood to ensure the new construction is and to assure new construction is inappropriate to that character while minimally imposing on current residents who may want to upgrade their homes.

One of the things that's important in an HC district versus others is the primary facade is the key things that are to the rear of the house, if they're not visible from the street, you all don't even review.

So I offered

My general comments, we recommend approval.

And I listed some elements here that I wanted clarified, and I believe they have addressed those.

So you all can go through that list.

And then, Mr. LeHondra asked about the guidelines.

Pretty much, I think I left, like that is the entire,

Pretty much the guideline for the Historic Conservation District.

So I don't know, Jody, if there was a particular piece that you were... The thing is, a lot of these are written for these conservation districts, really written in terms of new construction.

That was particularly with Martha Jefferson, where this came to be, with the Martha Jefferson Hospital moving.

A lot of concern that

Buildings get knocked down and sort of changed.

So the impetus for creating this conservation district was to make sure that what came in to have some way to tap the brakes on demolitions and then certainly be able to review new things that came in.

So that's why you see the guidelines really geared towards something new.

And then as far as

the architectural character defining features and those are what you would look to for are they being preserved, are they being addressed here within the conservation district and to that extent, the only thing that I

raised with the architect, and I point out to you all is that we do have the roof, I'm sorry, the window alignments, single window over a single window and then a single window over the door.

That is consistent there.

I only saw a couple of addresses where that has been altered.

So, you know, just looking at that primary facade, that would be something you all should take

maybe have a discussion about.

Otherwise, I think everything else is

It lays lightly on that front facade.

It is not at all inconsistent with some of the things that you've approved.

And I think Kevin's laid that out in their submittal as well, showing what's been looked at.

So like I said, my recommendation or staff recommendation was for the approval of COA.

And then it has, of course, going through these five bullet items and making sure that they're satisfactorily addressed.

So, Kevin, you have a pretty complete application.

Yeah, if you don't mind, I will take just a few moments to address the comments or notes for discussion that Jeff has raised.

My name is Kevin Shafer.

I'm with Design Develop, and I'm representing the owners at 603 Lexington Ave, Mr. Rick and Mrs. Ginny Zeller, who are also joining us on this call.

As always, I want to begin by thanking Jeff and Robert for their guidance and also the comments, the staff report, and the notes that Jeff just made.

I appreciate those thoughts.

I'd like to just take a few minutes to touch briefly on the goals of the project and our strategy for remaining in keeping with the architectural considerations of the Conservation District.

Per the criteria for approval set forth in section 34-341, which is the criteria for approval for applications within a historic conservation district.

Rick and Jenny approach design develop with the idea of creating a main level master suite for their home to be able to accommodate aging in place and extend their lives in the home that they've grown to love.

Rick and Jenny have been in the house for over a decade now.

They've both been very considerate

Owners of the home, preserving and protecting key historic elements whenever possible, and making few modifications to the house in general, as well as being stewards of the neighborhood.

Rick serves on the Mark Jefferson Neighborhood Association Board, and both he and Jenny are passionate about this place.

I think it's a relevant conversation tonight with the BAR and some of the BAR muscles that you can flex regarding the proposed zoning, but

Rick has been very active in understanding that zoning and gathering community feedback.

You can go to the next slide.

As we all know, historic homes are not particularly conducive to accessibility considerations.

Tight stairways, narrow halls, and smaller than today's size bathrooms are found in this house, like so many others built in this time period.

So in short, they'd like to enjoy this house for the foreseeable future.

And they believe that creating a main level master suite and main level living will go a long way to achieve this goal.

Built on a relatively tight lot on Lexington Ave, especially in the side to side dimension, 603 Lexington Ave was originally constructed in 1890.

And we began by evaluating opportunities to house this mass or house this new program in a separate mass, distinguishing a new mass and separating the master suite from the historic structure, both stylistically and from a massing perspective.

However, you can go to the next slide.

This proved to be particularly challenging as the side yards cannot accommodate any addition and the rear yard features a very beautiful, very modern screened in porch and a kitchen addition and renovation and a beautiful rear yard landscape terrace that was designed and constructed by the previous owners.

Rick and Jenny, we talked through, we walked the site, we talked through opportunities there and it was determined to be desired to keep that screen porch.

It's vital to how they live and it should remain in place and we agreed with that assessment.

So if you go to the next page.

Mr. Zeller pointed to a underutilized side portion of the wraparound porch as a place to potentially house a new bathroom

for the conversion of this existing front parlor into a master suite.

Just over 60 wide, this porch is not particularly functional, not particularly practical.

It was rarely used and it faces the immediate adjacent neighbor pretty closely to the left.

So in closing, this side porch looked like a great opportunity to provide this new bathroom, a new closet, and then also a new sitting area off the existing living room, which occurs more in the middle of the house.

Next slide.

With this location in mind, we began to study the idea of enclosing this porch and how it would relate to the massing of the existing house, and we first

explored a stucco version of this that would match the rest of the existing structure.

But because it was under the existing side porch roof, the massing was very challenging to read.

It read like an add-on.

It looked out of place as we tried to mimic the existing conditions.

And so in response, we've chosen to express this enclosure of the side porch as honestly as we could.

to make that revision legible as the building changes throughout time and throughout its use.

Next slide.

So we're using lab siding materials that have a historic precedent to continue to distinguish between the old and the new.

Existing porch columns will remain in place and will be engaged into this new structure.

Existing brick piers will be restored to align with the existing column locations.

And then the proposed window placement maintains the rhythm and harmony of the existing windows on the upper floor.

We'll talk a little bit more about the windows and talk about Jeff's point in just a little bit.

On the next slide, we'll talk also about the addition on the north side.

We've taken cues from this existing modern addition that happens on this side.

And we've begun to extend that mass forward towards Lexington.

On the next slide, you'll see an opportunity for us to create a accessible main level laundry room and reconfigure what is currently a very tight, very inaccessible powder room into a more functional and usable half bath.

To provide clarity to staff's questions about this location, the exterior material here is a charcoal painted stucco facade that we will continue to employ on the addition.

Roof trim details, the foundation trim, foundation treatment, and window trim will all continue to emulate the existing addition.

Next slide.

Despite moving forwards towards Lexington Avenue by about 13 feet, the addition will remain largely not visible on this north side due to extensive landscaping, a very tight side yard, and also this existing mechanical equipment.

All this is proposed with the standards for new construction and additions in mind.

The form, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed construction is visually and architecturally compatible with the site and with the Martha Jefferson Conservation District.

The overall proportion and size and placement of entrances and windows is in harmony with existing conditions.

Next slide.

The impact of the proposed change on the central form and integrity of the existing building has been considered and mitigated.

through the clarity of and legibility of the addition of an enclosed side porch.

And finally, the proposed changes have no negative impact on the conservation district neighborhood.

Next slide.

To respond to staff discussion topics, and we'll begin with the conversion of the front single window into a double window,

You can see from this existing side elevation here there is a precedent that's set forth within the house to have a double window that is directly below an existing single window.

And so what we're going to do and on the next slide kind of diagram out is take that historic window that's from the side porch

and relocated thoughtfully to the front location, still directly under that single window on the second floor to create much more natural light into this new bedroom for Mr. Zeller.

Mr. Zeller has actually just had eye surgery today.

I'm not sure if you can see him, but he's in the eye patch.

And one of the things as we think about accessibility and aging in place is the requirement for natural light within a master bedroom.

Sometimes that is overlooked in these historic houses.

So that is the goal there and the thought behind why that may be appropriate.

And if you go to the next slide, we can see

how that's been thoughtfully done aligned with the window above and still is in keeping with the house as a whole.

On the next slide, regarding staff second comment, the composite panels that we're showing here are to be a smooth, hearty panel.

And then we are applying PVC trim that is an inch and a half

We also have a PVC extruded sill.

It is serving as a visual continuation of that existing railing line and it serves to cap the smooth hardy panel there.

We're picking these materials based on longevity, durability, maintenance, and believe that they are in keeping with the historic

On the next slide, we will see some information regarding the new windows.

We've been working very closely with Larry Topping at Gaston Wyatt, who's the window supplier there, to specify and provide windows that will most closely match the profiles of the existing windows.

Larry's been out to the site a few times and has visited the house to

Take a look at the existing historic windows and see what can be done that's compatible and in keeping with a proposed new window.

So this is the Marvin Ultimate Double Hung G2 window.

It's an aluminum clad wood with proposed simulated divided light with a spacer bar.

The existing house features simple flat trim around the windows that we would continue to emulate on the proposed new windows.

and proposed trim on the additions would be PVC, as I've mentioned, for longevity and durability.

The next slide.

So ultimately, the idea of the proposed additions in front of you today is to provide an appropriate and thoughtful resolution to the idea that buildings change over time with the people who inhabit them.

And accommodating owners who value this historic significance of their homes

will ultimately lead to these conservation districts remaining beautiful and noteworthy places within Charlottesville.

And we're proud to have worked with such owners like Rick and Jenny.

Thank you, Kevin.

Are there any questions from the public?

Questions from the board?

Nope.

Okay.

Great.

Yeah.

Yeah, one comment.

I guess I think it's clear you all want to move the double window to the front.

There's a little bit of discrepancy in your application and exactly which windows are new, which ones are getting relocated.

That support moving the double window to the front, I think you've argued there's a precedent for it.

But I'd also maybe encourage you, you've got another single window on that south elevation that's existing.

I think it's a great suggestion and we'd be amenable to it.

While we're making suggestions, Robert, could you, I failed to note the number, the south elevation of the proposed, I wonder why, well, let's start with the, yeah, go to the existing,

and then go one below.

I wonder why you don't put the wall for the addition on the backside of the columns and keep the railing in place and also the brackets for the columns.

It seems like those are important features to keep.

If you're keeping the columns, why not keep the brackets too?

I know you lose three inches, but

and I braise this because it's something that I've actually done on the state AIA building in Richmond before they moved where we had a Greek Revival back porch and we infilled it and we kept the porch railings but we kept them in such a way they were

held together as units.

And so you could lift them out when you needed to paint them or paint the siding beneath them or behind them.

So there is a way of doing it.

And I would think it'd pick up, it'd continue the appearance of the existing historic porch.

These are flat on the backside.

I think the comments that have been made are nice ones.

I think in general, the project is it's an elegant solution to a really funky house and in a good neighborhood.

I also note there's precedence not only in the two neighborhood

Editions that the applicant pointed out, but even last year we considered this in an AGC district in North Downtown on First Street, if you guys remember.

And they did a very similar kind of build out addition under the existing porch.

I'm running with a motion if Mr. Chair will allow me.

While you're looking for that Cheri, Kevin, the thing and why this occurs to me is because the panels kind of bother me in that they're very much a colonial type of appearance and it'd be nice to keep the Italianate Victorian appearance of the house consistent around the wraparound porch.

And I'll add that to my motion and we can have discussion afterwards about that.

So, having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the historic conservation district guidelines, I'm going to find that the proposed first floor additions

on the north and south side at 603 Lexington Avenue satisfies the BIR's criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District.

And I think, James, you had recommended using an existing window for the front.

And using an existing window from the south side to the front.

Is there going to be any discussion?

So Kevin, you're clear that those were

Yeah, that's correct.

You don't need to, if you don't want.

You're welcome to.

It's OK.

I won't be too.

He's in retirement now.

I guess I will be offended.

But that's OK.

The reason that we did go ahead and take it out to the beam line is the porch itself is only only six feet.

And so already we are going to two by four walls there and using foam insulation because we didn't have a very wide bathroom anyways.

And as we started to consider turning radiuses for wheelchairs or grab bars in a shower,

Yes, we might be able to do it in a five and a half foot wide bathroom, but it got exponentially more challenging.

And so the move was to take that the exterior wall out to that existing beam, which then took the railing with it.

I understand.

Sometimes historic houses are worth making some small compromises for.

So with a second from Mr. Gastinger, I'll go ahead and call a vote, if that's okay.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Mr. Zehmer.

Aye.

Ms.

Mr. LeHendro.

Aye.

Mr. Gastinger.

Aye.

Mr. Edwards.

Aye.

And Mr. Moore.

Aye.

Thank you.

The vote is unanimous.

Thank you all very much.

Appreciate it.

All right.

Thanks, Kevin.

Jody, I appreciate that the

that compliments are worthwhile in historic house.

I probably could write an encyclopedia on the compromises I had to make here.

Yeah, that's not level, it's not straight, it's not square, it's not plumb.

All right, we're going with something.

I don't know if anyone has noticed on Monticello, there's a balustrade that it's a die cut flat wood up on top of the, at the top of the house where it meets the dome.

I mean, you could, you could still, you could still do something almost like a relief, right?

You know, in the plane of the siding and still basically, cause I agree, I totally agree with you about the paneling.

The paneling just looks like,

Yes, exactly.

I think we'd be willing to consider those.

I was still here.

You can come back with that.

Damn, I didn't notice.

That way, at least, I still get my turning radius in the bathroom.

But no, points well taken and noted, and thank you for the feedback.

Great.

All right, so let's move quickly into, excuse me.

This is a COA request for 735 Northwood Avenue.

It's in the North downtown ADC district.

This project came to you all in March.

There was a dormer addition on the rear of the house and they had contemplated using

a photovoltaic shingles.

And there were some questions about that.

So the project was approved and the photovoltaics were omitted from the request.

And so they've now come back with, excuse me,

with a submittal to the house, and this is the elevation you see here, this is the existing and it doesn't show the door on the back, but it is a three tabbed asphalt shingle roof that they are, the first request is to remove that and to install a standing seam metal roof.

and then on top of that will then be installed the photovoltaic panels which will, it's a south facing house and so these will be on the south side.

We, you know, just looking at some of the things that have been reviewed and approved by the BAR in the past, you know, one of the first questions I had was, you know,

Is there a standing seam metal appropriate on that colonial revival break home?

And we found several examples around town and on Park Street.

We also, there's no historic survey that identifies the original roof material.

So I mean, while asphalt shingles were available when this was constructed, we can't know if it was originally asphalt or not.

There is a note on the 1962 Sanborn maps that we have

and it was interesting, the house is listed, it has some notes on it that I had not seen previously on and there's the, it's listed as having a tile construction with brick facade and so that's that terracotta tile that you see sometimes, almost looks like what's left of old garages when they're knocked over and so this is not a frame construction, it's terracotta tile and then it's faced with the brick and the,

So I said, we can only assume that this had started as an asphalt roof, but we don't know.

And said it's not inappropriate to have standing seam, I don't want a roof or a building of this style.

We've also, the BAR has approved in the past that the changing of the roof type, so that's not unusual.

Next, relative to the photovoltaic panels, I found that we, the BAR, since the adoption of the current guidelines from 2012, you all have looked at nine COA requests related to photovoltaic panels, six of these in the last three years, and I'm not counting the shingles that were here earlier this year.

Six of those requests were either IPPs or within an ABC district.

and all except one installed rooftop panels.

So it's not something new for you all to approve this, you've done that.

There were two projects that were installing panels on standing seam metal roofs, one at 1102 Carlton Ave and one at 420 Park Street.

The design guidelines,

do not specifically recommend against solar panels on historic roofs, but instead they recommend they be placed on non-character defining roofs or roofs of a non-historic adjacent building or an addition.

And then the next provision says, it argues, recommends against adding new elements that would be visible on the primary elevations of the building.

That would suggest a sort of a knock against this off the bat, but I think this is something the city has embraced and the BAR is looking for opportunities to allow

redesign and sustainable design to occur.

And so looking at this, given the orientation of this house, there's really only one place to put these shingles and that's on the front on the south facing side.

So following kind of the guidelines, one option would be to construct a frame in the front yard.

Another option would be to construct an addition on the front.

And both of those obviously would alter things

putting it way differently than as I see it, the temporary installation of photovoltaic panels on this roof.

So in that regard, this is the ideal given the other two alternatives.

And again, what we say, one of the things we don't want to damage or interfere with the historic materials, these panels are designed to attach to the historic roof and be removable.

essentially I would say they do not permanently interfere with the new roof or historic roof.

So that's kind of where I came down on this.

And I think it's helpful to lay that out because a site may have options that are more preferable for the installation of photopropaics.

So to make clear that we want to encourage these

and, but we don't want to just say, yeah, go and do it.

And so kind of working down the steps and the decision-making, it allows me to recommend that he would approve this versus building a frame, which we've seen people come in and construct frames or do something on the side.

So hopefully that makes sense.

I did talk to,

folks, the applicants in the about

the equipment boxes, how they're going to run the cables down.

And they could probably discuss that.

And I think I included that in some additional material, but that we can simply ask condition that any associated equipment, the boxes, the cables, et cetera, will be located to the side or rear of the house and properly screened.

And I think they're going to address that by kind of carrying things out the back.

So it won't be, at least won't be visible from the street.

Hope that was helpful.

I have a question for Jeff.

Yes.

Are you sure it was 420 Park Street?

There's like a couple, there are addresses that I hit that,

Right, he still owns it, I believe.

And the southern side of that would be the side next to, on the opposite of Maple, next to 419, which is Duncan Milder Carter, it's another law firm.

There really isn't a southern exposure on that roof.

Was that what they approved?

I don't think they've ever installed it, did they?

No, they didn't.

I'm just curious because that's... It's predominantly on the side and there's a bunch of dormers up there.

I mean, I can look it up.

because Park isn't a southern exposure.

It could go down.

It's not.

Right there.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, so it's a southwest exposure.

Correct.

Yeah, so it would have been just one of those.

Okay.

I don't think they ever installed it.

Yeah, I went and looked because we have approved some of these and yeah, it's like I want to go see them.

Although they've gone up in enough buildings, you really, you almost tend to not even notice them anymore.

I don't want to say they're ubiquitous, but you're not surprised to see them.

And I think what's key is that

I always get worried when someone comes in and they've got a, you know, a hundred year old roof and they want to put solar panels on.

It's like, well, you know, if you've got problems with that roof, then you got to, you know, so make sure your roof's good first.

I've got a question for Jeff.

There may not be an answer, but I would just note that I think it is a little bit odd that 735 is included in the North Downtown ADC District.

I find it a little bit odd.

When you look at the diagram of the properties that are within that boundary, it's the only one that faces a side street, the exception of Lyons View, which is included for other reasons.

And it seems like it's mainly

because it's protecting the primary, the larger residences of 627 and 705 Park Street.

Unless, that's my reading of it.

What I want, my question is, unless there is other important information that we should know about this house, there are other houses of that same era on Northwood that are not included.

Yeah, I guess we'll have to talk to Fred someday about that stone house around the corner.

I don't know, Robert and I have talked about this a lot.

That was one of the first questions he had when this came through earlier.

He's like, why is this?

Are you sure this is a mistake?

It's not on any, I can't, there's no survey of it.

It's possible the individuals that live there said, hey, do you want to be part of the district?

I don't know.

But you also raise a good question.

This goes to what Jenny was saying earlier about the comp plan.

And I can address that once we finish with this and sort of explain where we are trying to look forward on some of these things.

But I just, I simply don't know.

That's fine.

Yeah.

I would just suggest that when we make our decision tonight, we might want to make some comment or maybe not feel like what we decide here would necessarily apply to every other house.

District.

That's what concerns me most is this from a precedent standpoint.

You know, that's really the issue.

Oh yeah, sure.

Sorry.

Mr. Mullen, you've been so patient tonight.

Do you have a, I'm sorry you've been, I guess you've watched this entire meeting.

I have about 3% battery left on my iPad.

and I've been trying to get it to charge all night.

It's probably going to go up soon as I start talking.

Yeah, I did.

Yeah, so I guess one issue that's been pointed out is that the solar panels are facing the street, but it's also a side street and the property to the north,

The property on Park Street on the rear and right side of the house is an individually protected property.

So I think those elevations to the rear of the house are where you would actually not want to put the solar panels as far as just pointing them at the historic site.

And

Well, real quickly, are there any questions from the public?

Please raise your hand and press star nine.

See anyone?

No, no.

Okay, so questions for Mr. Mullen?

Just to clarify, you are I guess the cables and whatnot for this.

I think I saw in your email, they're either running down the back or behind a gutter.

The idea is that we'd bring the conduit from the solar panels on the front through the attic to the rear of the building and either drop it through a conduit inside the building envelope to the basement and then out to where the batteries will be in an existing outside storage area or we would take it out at the soffit

Mr. Mullen, I'm sorry, James.

It's about six inches when you add the standing seam and then the clip and then the rail and then the solar panel sits on top of all of that and the thickness of the solar panel ends up being somewhere in between

Thank you.

I had a quick question.

I was looking at the roofing, I think it's the inglert.

roofing, and you're proposing 21 inch pans.

And then I looked at the specs on the solar panels and it looks like they're about 40 inches wide.

Yeah, that's a good thought.

Yeah, it looks like his phone died.

I'll shoot him a quick email asking if he wants to continue to deliberate or if he wants to push it to next month.

I'll ask him, yeah.

In the meantime, do we want to do staff questions, Jeff, while we're waiting on him to potentially rejoin?