Board of Architectural Review Meeting   9/21/2021

We're still streaming live on the city's streaming channels and Facebook and social channels.

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

My name is Robert Watkins.

I'm city staff and I will be running things virtually tonight.

Before I hand things over to our chair, Carl Schwartz, I'm going to go over a few quick guidelines to make sure that everything runs smoothly this evening.

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

First, we have Carl Schwartz, our chair.

We also have Brett Gastinger, our vice chair.

We're joined by Cheri Lewis, James Zehmer, Tim Moore, and Robert Edwards.

And we're also joined by Jeff Werner, who is city staff and my colleague.

Throughout the meeting, additional people will join the meeting as needed, particularly applicants who have projects to bring before the board.

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

At the beginning of the meeting, we allow time for comment from the public for items not on the agenda.

And then before the BAR deliberates on each individual application, we allow time for comment as well.

If you wish to provide comments, we ask that you register for this meeting online, which you can find on the city calendar.

And then once you enter the Zoom meeting, you can raise your hand using the raise hand feature, or if you're calling in, you can press star nine, and you can speak for the allotted time.

For applicants who are already online or maybe joining,

When your project comes up, I will share my screen and go through pages of your application that you submitted.

And I'll have control of the screen, but you can direct me to whichever page might be necessary at that time.

And during the meeting, we'll have short periodic breaks as needed, and our chair will direct us for when those breaks are necessary.

So finally, I can pass things off to our chair, Carl Schwartz, but if you have any technical issues during the meeting, you can reach out to me.

Thanks, Robert.

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

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

I'll 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 BAER's purview, that is regarding only the exterior aspects of a project, and following our discussion and prior to taking action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond.

Thank you for participating.

So the first item on our agenda is the

Oh, well, matters from the public not on the agenda.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so we have the consent agenda which again includes 301 East Jefferson Street.

So moved.

I think Tim beat me to it.

I just raised my hand.

That doesn't really mean anything, Cheri.

OK, thank you very much.

I will call a vote.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Ms.

Mr. Zehmer?

Yes.

Mr. Gastinger?

Yes.

Mr. Moore?

Yes.

And Mr. Edwards.

Aye.

Thank you.

All right.

Unmute myself.

Find that screen.

Sorry, it's a lot of pages.

So this is a COA request for 209 Second Street Southwest.

This is a circuit 1880 structures known as the Watson House, a two-story brick vernacular house within the downtown ADC district.

You all reviewed this.

some proposed renovations, rehabilitation back in August, 2019.

And this is a request to somewhat modify.

This is not, we're not amending the COAs, the new COA, but it is piggybacking on what had previously been proposed.

And some of that is changing that.

And I've,

put together, and I think, sorry, Robert, did you all get my PowerPoint?

Yes, it's in your staff report, starting at, well, on what's online on 45, 46, 47.

So the, and I'm gonna go back to my list.

So again, the request to rehabilitate, renovate the exterior of the existing house and the existing rear addition.

The modifications, they reflected a change in the use of the space, changing the use from a restaurant to a bed and breakfast, which is a buy-write use.

And the reconfiguration of the floor plan on the interiors is resulting in some of the changes that are being proposed.

First and foremost, as we said earlier, we discussed the front porch renovations, which were approved administratively.

Make a note to talk about the railing and the railing paint if there's any questions.

But on this project, starting with what would be the east elevation of the front,

The only change that's in this COA is there's an existing front door that opens in.

There's a change to swing on that, I believe to an outswing door and from a six panel door to a insulated glass door with applied grill.

The north elevation, and this would be,

facing the downtown mall and Robert Yunga down one.

And so the question on this was they all, because that first floor north room will be used as a bedroom and building code requires a fire rated wall.

So now the window has been removed, but

The options to the BAR, given the fact that a matter of fire code, they have to do something there.

So it's to replace it with a window that is rated or to, as they've done and proposed, is to infill the opening with brick.

I offered up a few options.

It could be accept this as it is, require a revisiting of the window.

I think we typically request that when a window has to be removed that we would hope that it is retained somewhere, put in the attic so that at a later date it can be used in any restoration.

To be honest with you, looking at some of the historic documents, I don't believe this window was original to the building.

Certainly it's been in there a long time, but it's not part of the 1880 structure.

So that's one item to discuss.

Then swinging around to the west, so viewing it from the back, there are two existing windows on that rear addition.

and to be clear, there's a single story edition.

You can see that it doesn't have the board and batten siding.

That brick addition's constructed very soon after the original building, possibly dates to 1890.

So treating that as original, but the two story board and batten edition and the section there, single story edition, not sure when those were done.

But in the second floor, you see they had

two years ago shown existing two double-hung windows and show those being retained.

In fact, and this is in the photograph, they are actually, it looks to be just as if they, when that two-story addition was built, they took one of the windows and put a sash on one side and a sash on the other and put a hinge on it.

So the request is to replace

those two windows, I would say non-original windows with a new casement window as they've shown here.

The other change is that going into the rear of the main house, there will be an entry, there was a door originally proposed and they're altering that step and entrance that goes in.

Scrolling down then to the, will be the south elevation, the side.

Pretty much what you see is at the top is what was existing.

Middle is what you all had reviewed two years ago.

And then at the bottom is what's currently being proposed.

The only changes are that where the section of French doors was to be installed and now going to windows and the installation of fixed skylights and the roof above.

So not much is changing there relative to the original.

and sorry, I'm scrolling on my screen.

I'm trying not to scroll on your screen.

So, as I said, you addressed the age of the building, the windows, the windows on the back of the house, that window on the first floor.

I think that there is a discussion to be had on that, either the fact that it has been changed, it didn't come to the BAR, but

There's a reality to what has to be done there.

While the process wasn't followed, we have what we have here.

And I had asked the applicants to provide some additional information, which they did, about the paint, about the window specs, questions about the

Yeah, it goes down to page 65 where begins the clarifications that Jim talked me through.

And so I think really the only thing that I'm left

You want to just be absolutely certain of is that we know this is an old building and we know it's an old brick building and that while the mortar color is provided, I think to take very seriously the condition of the type of mortar that's used here and that Mason does the right job, that it's a lime mortar and not a Portland cement mortar.

This is definitely one we want to apply that condition.

That's what I've got.

Do you all have any questions?

I know there's a lot there.

I was trying really to show what was approved before, what's proposed now is some slight changes.

Carl?

No, are there any questions from the public?

I think it might be time, actually, for the applicant's presentation.

I'm sorry, yes.

Thank you.

Sure.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

OK.

I would suggest, Jim, if you've got, I think these are relatively clear here that

So, shooting around to the north side with the window that was bricked in,

It's really unclear from the site survey that that north wall is three feet to very close to three feet and you're not allowed to have any openings that close to a lot line according to the building code.

So I'm not sure that a fire rated window would even be possible.

So,

There's that one.

If the board decided that they wanted to do an indent there with the brick, the south side doesn't have an opening on it.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the mortar and the condition that I found the building, that there's some repairs that it needs to get fixed.

And as Tim will tell you, I'm pretty picky about this kind of stuff.

Do you want to go around to the west side?

Where the oven was going to go in the previous submission, there's a steel door that's there.

That thing comes out, and the idea was to go back to a window that was closer in keeping to what was original.

In this case, I was thinking, toothing in the masonry to match it, but again, if the board decided they wanted a recess there, reflecting where the doorframe was, that's fine.

And then the upper windows.

The sort of game for whatever seems appropriate to everyone.

The left one was clearly mismatched from the right one from the get go.

So if we wanted to match that, totally flexible on that.

And then shoot, you want to shoot around to the south side?

Yeah, so originally the submission had the French doors and two side lights.

As I understand it, the doors simply would not fit underneath the roof and they were going to have to

to pry open the roof.

So you can see from the photographs that they omitted those doors at that point.

And then I guess in order to meet egress for the restaurant, inserted the door where the window was around on the west end of the original building.

So then going around to the front, the proposal for swapping out the door is that to me is sort of a that's a kind of a life safety thing that if the if you left the door that's there, you're going to

Headbutt, somebody coming down the stairs and I just don't think it's safe.

And you end up with a train wreck.

So really, when you have transient occupants like this, that the door out swinging is so much safer than an in swing door, especially against a path of egress down the stairs.

And of course, it's got to be glass so you can see when you swing the door up and you don't kill somebody on the other side.

and to the point about the railings, yes, the existing railings are black metal and the ones that are on the concrete steps going up to the building, they'll just simply be repainted.

There's a railing over on the left side of the porch on the south side.

It's clearly not original.

It looks like a kit.

Technically it's not required because there's less than 30 inch drop off the porch to the adjacent surface.

but it still might be appropriate to put a railing back there because again the transient occupant thing and then obviously the railings that go up the new steps onto the porch will put the original railings back there as well so

And I think that pretty much covers what Jeff had pointed out, I guess.

All right.

Yeah.

Thank you, Jim.

Are there any questions from the public?

Please raise your hand and press star nine.

Okay.

Hey, Jim, I've got one quick question.

The railings going up the steps into the porch, I mean, given the height of the porch, those could still actually just be handrails, couldn't they?

Instead of guardrails?

Yeah.

Oh, absolutely.

Yeah.

They might be a little less fussy.

And I think even going up the concrete steps... Really, I need one.

Yeah.

That could also just be handrail.

I was just looking there, so I just wondered.

I'm not commenting right now.

I got a question.

I honestly have no idea.

I just I'm hoping Jeff might know, but I just I just don't know.

And I don't think the owner is on so.

I couldn't tell.

I couldn't determine it.

So that's best I can.

Take a harder look.

So the landscaping and any sort of slight lighting or anything, that's just going to come back as a later application?

We had sort of made a first pass at it.

I've never submitted anything for landscape plans.

I'm not sure how this works.

I'm happy to talk about sort of general thoughts if that makes sense.

I guess at a later date.

Lead times on materials are so awful at this point.

You know, I would suggest, if nothing else, make sure that there's nothing being cut down, being removed.

I don't think there's anything.

I mean, the two dogwoods in the front will stay.

The lower ground cover in the front is all kind of beat to hell, and that's got to get some love.

And the hard surfaces, equally, they're just pea gravel and concrete pavers.

And in this clientele, you've got to up the ante.

but not cutting any trees down in the back and supplementing the wall that was previously approved.

So, yeah.

Just trying to keep it simple at the same time.

Sounds like a good approach.

It didn't seem very controversial.

Great.

Any other questions?

All right.

All right.

Not directly for the applicant, but just for staff, thank you for

doing the elevations, comparing the sort of existing and the 2019 approval and then what's in front of us.

That really helped me a lot, especially because I wasn't on the board in 19.

And even if you were, I don't know how you would possibly remember.

So that was super helpful on this and on the Gildersleeve applications.

Thank you.

Are we in comments mode?

I would concur with everybody's conclusion, code aside, I seriously doubt there was a window originally on that north elevation.

And I mean the house right next to us is virtually identical in terms of a section and it doesn't have any windows on the north or south elevation either.

And given that it's a bed wall, it kind of makes sense it never had a window.

So that's one thing and then the other thing which was inspired by Mr. Zehmer's comment is it does seem to me like the front door ought to have a little more body to it and might not be as exciting as or either that or be truly a modern glass door and save the other one but like a truly modern door as opposed to something with divided lights and maybe much much more modern but the other option would be

Keying off the old door where the upper floor panels are glass and you have a solid bottom panel, something like that.

It just seems just that divided light thing just doesn't feel like it has enough mentality to me.

It just seems a little not front door-ish, but that's just my observation.

So anyway, but I agree that it needs to have glass.

So functionally, I totally get what Jim's doing.

I'm just thinking,

If I can pick up on that, I guess I'll start with a question that I should ask for.

Okay.

So I guess I might encourage y'all to look at the house next door at 213.

to see if those two front doors match and are historic.

And if so, then the likelihood of them being original is higher.

And then perhaps suggest just moving that existing door to the front side of the jamb so it can swing out.

We've already got glass in the top two panels.

Maybe considering putting glass in the middle panels so it's a little more transparent

to work, but that would help preserve the original front door while at the same time achieving your safety goals.

Yeah, the chat just says new.

So that hurts to ask.

I mean, we do, we don't, it's interesting, there's so much focus on windows.

Feel like doors get the, kind of had been forgotten, but I mean, the approach I've taken on this and as with others is that this is a building that we're gonna breathe some life back into.

I can't determine looking at,

kind of over time and the pictures that are available, it's difficult to determine.

And I guess, yeah, you probably go out there and do an analysis on this door and make a determination.

The idea would be that

what's replaced with is appropriate.

And so that would be the key here now is a full light, you know, insulated glass door with grill appropriate, you know, arguably no, you know, it would be a six panel door presumably to what was there.

And so that's where you kind of come down to the, you know,

I mean, there is no right or wrong.

There is no yes or no.

The guidelines is sort of off of that direction.

And if we can, I'll go to that in the staff report and reread it.

But I don't know if this was original.

I can't determine that.

It's hard to say.

I know that what was originally there was not a glass door.

So the option would be, while changing the swing, certainly makes sense from a public safety and access point of view.

You all may very well request that this be a six panel door.

I think for me, it's kind of a case of either

Keep the door and reverse the swing or replace it and just let it be, you know, kind of up to the applicant.

I mean, I agree with you, Tim, but I also feel like the, you know, the divided lights don't really violate our guidelines.

And it's obviously something new.

I sort of feel like the doors are almost like, that's like a simple sort of stamp of ownership, like you replace the door, like you fix your kitchen up, you know?

Unless it was a really spectacular door or clearly had a history, I think it's, to my mind, it's just open season on the door.

My only issue is I just think it should have a little more personality, either be really modern or at least have more

solid and void.

I just feel like just looking at it just feels like the current reads too much just like a patio door.

And I just think it needs a little more personality, but that's, I'm not gonna sink or swim on that.

My microphone's still on.

Yeah.

I'm game for,

Just throwing some personality at it, Tim.

And it's just my biggest hang up is the transparency for life safety.

And if it's a six panel that's got where the panels are glass, which I think is at the second yard that's next to Market Street wine, they have that.

Yeah, I just think it needs to be something a little more personal.

I mean, like even my house has a glass door, you know, it's just a four panel, not that that's something to model it after.

You know, if I could suggest, I think,

So doors are kind of jammed into entrances, porches, and doors.

Obviously, when we don't know, we don't have something clear, it would be to go back to what Secretary Standard said, and no doubt that is to retain original material.

Not knowing if that is original or not.

I mean, I can say on my house, I don't know, one door was completely eaten by termites.

So it's hard to say over the years, my house is the same age as this, what's original or not.

But one of the keys here is to

at the very least, maintain existing openings and sizes.

So we're not talking about taking out that frame and transom, we're talking about inserting a door that will fit.

And I think now that might mean

how like my front door I think is an inch and an eighth, but it's, you know, something might have to change with the stop, but to maintain that existing frame and trim, maintaining the existing transom, and if the size doesn't change, I think of also situations we've had where,

like at the sorority house over on 17th street where there was a lot of concern about safety.

And then it was another issue that I was able to resolve administratively.

But when you come to doors and safety and access, it gets a little bit more difficult than windows.

And so my difference here would be is that the door could be retained,

and have, you know, so that it could be saved.

If whatever is new goes in there, I think it stays in the existing frame and opening and that doesn't change.

I mean, even say here, you know, retain existing hardware, you know, the locks on my front door, that would have made them, you know, 1880 with an old skeleton key.

So I just think there's some room for some flexibility here.

The question being, is a glass door, insulated glass with applied grills, that option?

make a suggestion.

So, and I think that's why we have a BAR.

So, sorry not to be a, you know, how about, are there any, well we've got the door so we can come back to that.

Are there any other issues with the application?

I'm just glad they're fixing the house.

How about someone makes a motion for approval and we will I think one thing is the landscape needs to come back to us when it's been figured out and we could make a recommendation on the door.

Yep okay I'll try

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including city design guidelines for rehabilitation, I move to find the proposed exterior alterations in 209 Second Street Southwest satisfy the BAR's criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties of downtown ADC district.

And I would like to also add that the BAR suggests that the applicant look into alternate solutions for the

Yes, so I believe either it can mimic the existing door

but add more glass or it can be an altogether modern door and just, it needs to read as a door that, as a front door, not as a, you know, basically a door that's for a side entrance or a window wall.

Yeah.

And yeah,

We can figure something out, clearly.

So this is great.

I mean, this is marching order, so.

I'm going to suggest a, and that's the trim and the casing needs to be retained.

Absolutely.

With modifications to allow the door to swing out, of course.

Yep.

Two amendments.

Defined retained as in retained.

No.

Right.

We can't put it in Tim's garage.

Oh, no.

Put it in the neighbor's yard.

How's that, Tim?

Yeah.

Yeah.

He'll take care of it.

Tim, you accept those three amendments?

Yes, I do.

Robert, are you clear?

I am.

OK.

I'll second.

OK, I have Carl seconding.

I will call a vote.

Mr. Moore?

Aye.

Mr. Zehmer?

Aye.

Mr. Edwards.

Thank you.

And Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

The motion passes unanimously.

Take the sign off the phone pole or wherever Robert stuff.

You can, you can go, you can go.

All right, thank you.

All right, all right.

Okay, so this is very similar in the sense of what we,

We just looked at in that you all reviewed this last December.

So there's some modifications.

Hopefully there's still some familiarity with what we look back.

Sorry, tongue tied.

But this is a COA request for 106 Oakhurst Circle.

This is a colonial revival craftsman style house constructed in 1922.

It's a

It's a stucco house that's got, they had come to you previously to do an addition on the rear.

And so like we had done at 209 Second Street, I just tried to, as much, you know, also for myself to go, all right, what changed?

But I assume you all are visual too.

And so

On the left is a photograph of the existing, and on the right, each of these sheets, there should be four of them showing what the VAR reviewed last December, and then what Patrick's back with now.

And then go to

If you will, Robert, just go to the first page.

I guess that's page 88.

I'll walk through that.

So really nothing's changing on this front facade, except possibly the silhouette of the rear addition that's been stepped back.

Go to the next slide, please.

From the rear, I'm sorry, from the side, and this would be the north elevation,

Again, where there was a larger extended addition that was being built with parking below, it's been compressed into smaller units at the rear of the house.

Same finishes, same design, same materiality, just a different shape.

And then Robert, next please.

This is the elevation from the rear of the house.

You can see that, again, that everything's pretty much the same from this vantage point.

It's just compressed into the rear addition of the existing house, our rear elevation of the existing house.

And then there's one more elevation from the south.

Hold that down, Robert.

and just an inverse of what you saw from the north side or not an inverse, just the opposite.

And again, the compressed edition and what two things just, and Patrick, you can address in a second.

One is that previously there's,

They talked about replacing the existing roof of the house which is now asphalt shingles with a standing seam metal and then the same would be applied to the addition.

Patrick has a metal shingle in mind and I'll have him address that.

There's nothing wrong with it, it's just to the extent that you all wanna get some clarification or details on that.

And then as far as, and Robert go to slide 87,

Please, thank you.

So this goes to the question at the beginning.

There's an existing driveway on the north side.

Originally, the idea had been to construct a new driveway and abandon the one, the existing one.

And Patrick can explain the, I guess, reasons for preference for the loop driveway.

It's,

appears to be allowed.

There might be some fine tuning on the math in the sense of what percentage of a front yard can be X, Y, or Z. And that's where, when I was doing the math, it's, you know, like 0.01%, one way or the other from what, you know, when the regs say no more than 25% of a front yard.

So I was going to sort of leave that fine tuning, that math to,

to the city engineer and zoning and Patrick and they can work that out there.

But my goal was for you all in BAR and there is the provision in the city code.

And you don't need to scroll right here that the for off street parking areas in an ADC district,

City traffic engineer may approve a modification in the required driveway entrance width on properties zoned for

multi-family residential commercial industrial, following a recommendation from the board of architectural review for such modification.

So that's where zoning, although I realize this, I don't know what this is zoned for, I know what it's used as, but this is what zoning directed me to have you all, if the BAR was comfortable with this design,

and to include an emotion, a recommendation.

And I emailed that to you all a moment ago, just something I drafted essentially saying BAR recommends that consistent with provisions and city code, et cetera, et cetera.

The city traffic engineer allow flexibility relatives that require driveway entrance width

and of particular concern is to allow the proposed loop driveway and to the extent possible, preserve in place the existing granite curbstones.

So it's a port for the design expressing to the city engineer that if some flexibility can be applied that the BAR supports that and for the following reasons.

It doesn't waive the ordinance.

It doesn't change the ordinance.

It's simply a recommendation the BER can make that you all are allowed to make per the ordinance.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean, I should have just said over.

So that's my staff report.

I'm comfortable with what Patrick's presented.

The only two things would be on the roofing, the clarification on that, and then just that you are comfortable with how I'm viewing the driveway.

Okay, well, great to see everybody again.

Yeah, so all we're doing is going, I guess, reverting back to just single family.

Previously, we were going for a two-family upgrade, so to speak.

So one way to look at this addition is, I know there's a photograph that has the, it's of the rear, which includes the existing, this poorly built, hopefully soon to be removed rear deck.

And the footprint of the addition is almost perfectly coincident.

with that footprint.

So in other words, very small addition.

And to address your any questions around the roofing, excuse me.

Previously, we were looking at two things.

One is, of course, upgrading the existing roof, which is asphalt shingles to stay in keeping with shingles, but upgrade to metal interlocking metal shingles.

and then the rear addition was going to have standing seam.

And we had the advantage of that so-called hyphen that broke the roof forms apart.

So it was easy to do it.

Plus we had a lot more scale on the addition working in our favor.

Now it's really about upgrading and then uniformity in integration.

So the roof obviously being smaller area on the rear addition, tying right into the existing roof, it just seems self-evident to me that it's,

It's the same material, so we're sticking with the upgrade to the interlocking shingle approach.

So that's really it for the roofing.

And then, you know, you laid it out on the site plan.

We're hoping to have fully off-street parking, hence the loop, the in and out.

So that's really the, I guess, the logic behind that site plan change.

That's the only thing that's really changed in that respect.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions from the public?

We have one person watching.

They're not raising their hand.

Yeah.

Hi, Patrick, I just have a question about could you give us an update on the

Strategy with the trees in the back.

I know that that was one of the major site drivers.

Right.

Sorry to interrupt.

Yeah.

So we this strategy is much more friendly, if you will, to the tree.

The three oaks is what you're really referring to that we're in some

of some concern previously.

So we're like I said, the addition is actually occupying the existing footprint of this deck.

and that's it.

So really no net impact.

I guess, yes, we'll be cutting a foundation in, but there's already disturbance there.

We had the arborist who in fact was just here, I think a week ago.

I just showed up at the property now and the one oak that was already essentially dead would have to be removed no matter what, just got taken out.

So that's gone.

And he did give us some advice.

around how we can approach not only the foundation, just keeping it shallow and all that good stuff that I think you all know, but also he'll come in and do some sort of aeration and feeding and nurturing of those trees as necessary.

So we still intend to do everything we can to protect them and the root zones in particular, of course.

So that's one of the reasons behind this is just pulling, you know, to dial it back to ensure that those trees are retained.

So I think the one thing, and this may be blindingly obvious to you, Patrick, but the one thing that's not clear to me is sort of the direction of travel.

Because if I was to look at this judging by the angle of the parking,

I would say that you're considering the primary entrance, the added entrance, but then the concrete grid apron kind of suggests otherwise.

That's one thing.

And then the other thing is that it seems pretty common, and I know this is the way the house was originally arranged, that the primary walk to the front door actually addresses the sidewalk and not the driveway.

In other words, I would see it maybe having a spur over to the driveway,

I guess anticipating, you know, student, you know, renters and they're coming primarily from, you know, sort of, I guess, was that counterclockwise, you know, from the direction of traffic following the same direction of traffic as they come in from classes and perhaps going out.

So I guess that, you know, that a bias to

that's really the north, I guess, northern approach to the property.

But also there's a kind of a landscape agenda there where I want to free up, you know, take the sort of bisecting of the yard away and get more back to, you know, some plant diversity in that front yard space.

And that the existing sidewalk needs to be redone completely anyway.

It's just all busted up and

Yeah, it's just old concrete that's been lifted by those oaks as they've been maturing.

So we want to just take a different approach altogether and not even use concrete.

The grid paver section is really, the idea behind that is with respect to the closest oak to just allow more infiltration versus something that's just less pervious on that side.

That would be the end, right?

Where the concrete is, yeah, that's what I thought.

I mean, that makes sense relative to the other side.

So I guess the, and I'm assuming that you're not tearing up the existing driveway, which is why you wouldn't have the same approach on the other side, right?

Yeah, we're just, essentially it's extending it down

OK, so I guess I'm thinking, and I'd have to go back and look at our guidelines, but I was thinking that generally, it's sort of like when we were talking about the driveways not cutting across the front of the house, that it

I understand what you're talking about in terms of the landscape, but I also don't think a footpath is really that much of a, it wouldn't really split the landscape and you'd be walking through it.

But I think, and Jeff correct me on this, but I would think that the, I know on Park Street, we've generally encouraged people to maintain that connection to the sidewalk, but we'll see what people think on a comment standpoint.

But I get what you're doing, but I'm not sure that

Yeah, there are plans included.

So the front porch is being, I guess what I'm doing is favoring a little very subtle asymmetry to make the front porch actually functional and occupiable as a sitting area, taking entry sort of off center.

So back to that bias to the north reach of the property.

So that's part of what's going on.

It's just bringing foot traffic from that side versus down the center so as to sort of re-imagine how that front porch works versus it being a perfectly symmetrical space that you just sort of pass through.

So the idea is that you have a place to sit in and actually enjoy just being engaged with the circle, as it were, and the landscape being much more active in terms of having pollinator

Friendly Plants, and so on.

And so we're really trying to emphasize that front yard is a place that you don't just pass through, but that you can actually enjoy.

So there is a little more to the agenda that relates directly to the redesign of the front porch, building these seat balls.

I don't know if that's clear in the information that you have, but seat balls and there's enough space.

I know we can't rule on program, but it kind of would help me understand a little bit about what we have to do with dealing with the city for these driveways.

It's a single family home that you're going to have students renting.

Yeah, there's nothing changing.

I guess the last iteration you actually had separate units, correct?

Yeah, it was a two family.

Yeah.

Okay.

Can you tell us a little bit about these interlocking shingles?

Came up with, so I honestly, I'm waiting, what I'm hoping is I've gotten, we've got a con.

You all know that as a well-known contractor who's good at these sorts of projects, and I'm hoping just to, I hate to say it, but sort of figure that one out.

You know, it's a gavel on them.

There are a number of products, like when you go online, what you get are

installer websites, not the website where the product originates.

It's really because it's got to be formed and such.

So I'm really going to rely on whoever the roofer is to sort of work that out.

So it's the same thing for standing seam.

You know, it's a gavel one inch, you know, seams gavel.

So if this helps, I was, you know,

shows how much things have changed since I stopped building.

The interlocking metal shingles, you know, my immediate thought is sort of a 1920 stamped, kind of a decorative, might be egg and dart design.

But there really is an awful lot out there.

You can get a metal shingle that looks absolutely like a slate shingle.

So there's,

The thought I had was that it's, if there's something that you all are not comfortable with on this period of house, maybe that's the way to express it.

I think that it's, you know, it's a 1922 craftsman style house.

It could look, you know, I also think about like the diamond shaped interlocking chamber.

I, my note to myself was to really sort of ask you all, is there something on here that a type of roof that would really just not fly?

And maybe we can work from there.

Standing seam metal would be fine here.

The, I guess the metal that I saw looked like maybe it looked a little more flat, a little more mechanical than the faux slate, but

If I can try to see what I, I think there was some stuff that Patrick and I were sharing.

Maybe I can shoot that out to you all real quick.

That might help.

Yeah, there's no.

So we're just holding, I'm thinking of it more in terms of texture, you know, coloration, the hue and the texture.

And okay, so it's a dark, I mean, what's there now is actually pretty awful.

So anything we do, I think it's going to be an improvement, but I'm going back to sort of a slate.

If it was a, okay, if it was slayed, why the heck did they remove the slate and put all shingles up?

I don't think that happened, but I don't know what else to think.

which shingles certainly are appropriate.

There's clearly plenty of precedent in this district.

So that's the logic is it shingles, it's the right texture, it's a color that is befitting the period of slate, of slate, some slate like hue.

I just sent you all some images that I sent Patrick.

Yeah, so I guess I was going to save this for comments.

But I guess my concern is just that we've had, I think it was the fraternity one to do, I forget which one that was, they want to do a faux slate out of metal.

And it just had some very funny inconditions.

So I guess my only comment would just be, you know,

If we end up approving this tonight, it's something that Jeff is going to have to look at and say, yeah, that meets what they were discussing.

Trust me.

My biggest pet peeves.

Those things, I don't know, it's like the flying nun cat hat on a bridge, I don't know.

But well, okay, so how about this?

What if we were to stick with shingles, the existing materials, but go to the highest end of a fiberglass, not asphalt?

I mean, would that be, I mean, I'm just asking, I don't think we want to do that.

It's just because you're replacing what's there.

I don't think we can deny it.

And I'm not I'm not saying anything bad about the metal.

I just I think it's just some caveats that for Jeff to look out for.

But are there.

Oh, the windows are are we going to find

Will they have spacer bars between the pipelines?

Yes.

Other questions?

OK.

I don't see any raised hands.

OK.

OK.

I find, I mean, I think that the edition seems to be responsible and a good approach, certainly as it gets scaled back and it has less pressure on it.

I think it's more in keeping with the neighborhood and the house.

And so whatever decisions led to that, I think it's in general probably a net plus.

I do have real concerns about the driveway approach and the loop road.

I think initially when we first reviewed it, I think that the

It took a bit to get over even the parking in the backyard, but somehow it was kind of in keeping with the scale of the addition and the overall building.

And yet, even at that time, we requested a consideration of moving the path to the other side so that

so that it minimized the amount of paved surface.

But the loop road, looking at it now, it seems very out of scale with both the house and the neighborhood.

And looking back at the ADC description of this neighborhood, it mentions not like three times, in the three sentences, it describes the neighborhood

All three sentences refer to the mature plantings and lush character of this small pocket neighborhood.

And it just seems like it's not required.

I think that if I would be able to support an approach that still put the parking in the rear, if it were limited to a single drive, the existing drive would be probably preferred.

but it just seems over the top to require a loop drive around the entire house to put parking in the back.

It's just, I think, wholly out of keeping.

The only other comment I'd like to make, and I think because the project had a number of things that we were reviewing in the past, we didn't really absorb the small retaining walls in the off-center entrance to the building.

Given the stately character of the front of this house and its symmetrical facade, it seems a little tortured to pull that.

Yeah, I would second that.

And my only real thing about the path curving off is just seems that the pre-car relationship of a lot of these houses was it went down to the sidewalk, down to the street.

You didn't bring them into the yard.

But I also think it has this very sort of English cottage quietness to it.

the way it currently exists in that existing photo.

And I think, you know, being able to, I don't think that having the pollinator garden split in half by a walkway, it could be truly just a walking path with a lot of green in it.

I don't think that would, I don't think that really bifurcates that space at all.

It just like means you're in it.

And I could also see even introducing, if you wanna create more of an outdoor street area, maybe there's some sitting,

seating area somewhere in the front yard that's in the middle of that garden, but I think it really counters the effectiveness of that hood and the front door and all that to have that retaining wall kind of sliding everything off to the side and interrupting that front facade.

I think the retain, I understand the sentiment, the concept, but I, as far as sitting there, but I just don't think it's

that kind of a space right there.

And I think it does fight the architecture of the house.

And I'm also with Breck.

I'm not really sure I understand the reason for quite so much driveway.

Cheri?

Generally supportive of the application and the

A new edition on the back, especially I guess from the western side.

The volumes are really nicely handled, I thought, with the stair coming down and just kind of was a lot more appealing in its reduced shape.

My big problem is with the addition of the second driveway.

One of our guidelines does for new construction does talk about the impact of gardens, you know, the impact of additions or construction on current gardens and landscaping and we're really

taking a big swath out of this front yard.

The math that Mr. Warner is talking about, there are two that I think probably these driveways may not pass muster on.

One states that the driveways can't occupy any more than 25% of the front yard between the building line and the right-of-way.

And if you look on page 91 of our packet,

and look at that top drawing showing it.

The scale is kind of funky because we're looking at this electronically, but if you look at the very back of the property, you can see where the 25 foot setback line is, which would be the setback from the front.

So if you apply that off of Ochre Circle and you look at whether these two driveways take up

you know, the more than 25%, I would say they, oh, you do have a building setback line on the front.

There you go.

Sorry.

I just, I just saw it, Patrick.

There's so much going on programming in the front.

I didn't see it, but there is a 25 foot just curved, curved line, noting that setback.

And I just, I really think that these exceed 25%.

I understand, like Mr. Warner said, we can encourage zoning to

wave that or give special consideration, but I'm not quite sure why, if the purpose of the reduced addition is to restore this to the R2 zoning, or we were just told single family zoning with renters.

I don't understand why the programming all of a sudden requires a second driveway, which seems to, seems like it would serve a much more intense use and planning for the future, for future use.

This is R2 still only.

and I just don't think these two huge driveways in this very small front yard are consonant with single family.

zoning guideline that we were sent that says the curb cuts are not to exceed 33% of the lot frontage.

And again, you know, I don't have my sliding scale out and can't do that, but I would say that that's going to be pretty close.

And we've already acknowledged that some of the historic

pavers there might be impacted by that.

So I just can't support the circular drive, but I continue to support this application and thank the applicant for, you know, crafting a really nice addition and endeavoring to be sensitive to the beauty of the landscape, especially in this backyard.

If I can jump in.

went back and forth with zoning on this.

And because that was one of the questions that Patrick raised about the area involved and the zoning's interpretation, if they've applied it is there is a setback line, but there, what is the setback to the, from the edge of the right of way to the house?

So, and that's where, when I started scaling and doing the math,

Well, they're never accurate.

Well, this one's only like 10 feet.

So, you know, where I can, you know,

typically just outline a polygon and get a dimension.

I can't remember enough calculus to do it with the scale and all that.

So I kept coming up with like 26% or 25, 24% or whatever.

So as far as that 25% is concerned, it's close.

My slide rule just didn't go that far.

Second thing relative to the width across the front, the curb line's 52 feet.

And I calculated that with the nine foot existing driveway, the new eight foot driveway would result in 32.6%.

So less than that 33.

So these numbers are all following these really,

So that's why I just said I'm not going to, we are looking at the design and you know whether it's eight foot six inches or

seven foot nine inches, is design okay?

I don't think that the design isn't consistent with the neighborhood.

Okay.

And if anybody wants to read the city code, which we're not, Jeff is correct, we're not responsible for enforcing that side of our, but the guidelines are there for a reason.

They're to limit the amount of hardscape and curb cuts in a front yard in a residential zoning district.

And the language of 34972 says it's 25% between the building setback line and the right of way.

And sometimes I like to be on the on the receiving end.

I might have that in play on something going on in my own yard.

So I'm happy for it.

But um, anyway, but I think the purpose I mean that the spirit of it is which Burke is trying to say is that we have a

You know, our gut is that it's not consonant with single family.

And I think in reference to your recommendation, Jeff, even if we found the two driveways to be okay,

I would not want to give zoning the flexibility to say, well, all right, two driveways, but they need to be 18 feet wide.

We'll take two feet off the minimum of 20 feet that we usually require.

I would say that the BAR would set limits.

And so one of the things, and we've dealt with this

with aprons and think in terms of, the reason I'm off, I want to explain this is that if perchance Patrick and they look at this and say, well, you know, we understand we want, we go with one driveway, we want to go with the one on the south.

then that would be a new driveway.

And I would still encourage you all to express to the city engineer, to minimize the width of that apron, to minimize the disruption to the existing stone and curving.

So it's still germane to the conversation, whether you go with two or one in the atmosphere, the new one.

So does that help?

So if we,

If we keep the old driveway and nothing changes, then nothing changes.

But if they add a second driveway or add a new driveway and abandon the original, then I encourage you to make some statement about minimal disturbance relative to the apron.

But yeah, no matter what you all say, there's, I mean, there's setbacks relative to width of a driveway.

And the reason I want to be, you know, clear about this is that when there was a project, probably when I, maybe a month in, and I didn't even realize it occurred, but a comment, a request had been sent to zoning and said, oh, BAR thought this driveway was a good idea.

Well, just because the BAR discussed that it might be an interesting idea that was not part of your motion and it was not part of what the BAR approved.

So I want to, even though it's not, you all can't change zoning, we can still make a recommendation to the city engineer that they can, I mean, they're not gonna break their rules.

And I guess what I'm saying is in cases where we make a, well, there's a difference between making a recommendation.

I think we could also on some site plan say, this is what we're able to approve.

Fair enough.

I mean, just one just quick thing.

I mean, if I were to look at the two driveways, I think my,

Functional preference would be the lower one, just for the simple reason that it comes closer to the house, gives access to the porch, works to the geometry of getting into the garage and all that sort of thing.

And that the one closer to the house on the north side is the one that I've abandoned, which of course, unfortunately is the one that exists.

But just saying in terms of preference, I think the new driveway is better in terms of the site than the old one.

Even though it does actually separate the house from the yard, I still think it functions better, but I just don't know if it, you know, maybe, I mean, I suppose you could change the angle of the cars, go the other way, but I think the, given the use of the house, the having that, you know, adjacency to that corner of the house, I'm assuming works well with your plan on the inside and all that sort of stuff.

So that would kind of be my preference.

My one concern with that would just be that if it's a new driveway, I think we're going to be, there'll be even more pressure to make it a wide driveway.

And the 20 foot minimum makes no sense to me.

It scares me, but it's sitting in our code.

Right.

Can I say something?

Yes, please.

Jeff, you may recall last year with this cane, I brought this up and there was some exchange, some internal exchange with the engineer and he basically said, look, we've taken on a case-by-case basis, yeah, a 20-foot driveway would make no sense here and that's where we have the flexibility to

You know, be very subjective about it.

So that's what I would do.

We would do is run it up the flagpole and hope that logic prevails.

You're right, just especially with respect to that, you know, percentage of eating into the landscape, 20 feet of what, more pavement or whatever.

Plus we have the oak, there's two old oaks.

One oak would have to go for that to work.

Who would want to do that?

And I would agree with what Tim just said.

I was kind of thinking as you were all speaking that that's where I would, I'm pretty sure my client would want to go is to favor the southern, the new entrance, because it is actually safer.

You know, you sort of pass by coming around, that part of the circle is kind of tight.

So coming around and going past the house and then turning in versus the way it works now is it sneaks up on you because we've got the arborvitae row.

It's very dense and comes right up to the street, right up to the sidewalk, rather.

So you barely know the driveway's there.

If you don't know if you're a visitor, you'll go past it.

So this other mattress does in fact make sense, make more sense.

and the, since I have the floor, you know, I get, like they're sort of then saying in two ways, just getting the cat on the front yard.

I mean, I'm not, we're not against the central, you know, sort of retaining the center line entrance.

You know, the, what's there on the plan now is admittedly somewhat of a carryover, you know, the same thinking that we had in place before where originally that was, that was really a pedestrian entrance down to the second unit in the rear.

So I said, well, we're getting rid of that, but still we'll have pedestrian traffic that's going to inevitably go down that side and come in the backside, you know, at times.

So it seemed to make sense.

So it's, there's not, I don't have a lot of, I'm not hung up, I guess, on, on that scheme.

I also think, you know, then you've got quite a bit more front yard at that point.

So, I mean, there's certainly nothing precluding, you know, some seeding area or something within the pollinator garden and expanding it and, you know, really making it a nice place to sit.

I think the two driveways just imply a different scale.

Does anybody have any concerns with anything other than the driveway?

I just have the retaining walls thing, but that's it.

Yeah, that's all.

I think, what would you guys think of, you know, we could approve the house

and with that approval, the landscape stays the same and then to allow him to get a building permit and

then the site plan could come back to us.

Like we can continue discussing, but then the site plan would come back to us as a kind of a new COA.

If that, if Patrick, if you're in a rush to kind of get a building permit going.

We're going to go tomorrow if we can.

I think that would be... I have drawings ready right now.

How do you guys feel about that?

So we approve the house with no change to the landscape and then the landscape can come back to us as a new COA to

That's fine.

And it's not residential, it's not a site plan.

It's, you know, this could be working with engineering on a curb cut.

When you say approve the existing landscape, like we approved in December 2020,

I changed the landscape to abandon the driveway and add driveway on the south side, right?

I'm saying keep what is currently in place on the site.

I mean, I guess I'm not sure that the old site plan still applies.

And that's a good question.

I don't know.

Sorry.

I mean, that plan goes with the house, with the addition on the back.

So without doing...

The full thing all is one.

And you can make that statement and it's, you're right.

Patrick will come in tomorrow.

Yeah.

And I appreciate that.

I mean, Patrick will come in with the prior approval and still a COA for that.

Yeah.

This is part of the, you know, that thing that Lisa Robertson had raised about, you know, don't amend the COA.

It is a new COA.

And so that, you know, we're very precise about it.

But I think there's nothing wrong with you all making a statement of, you know, and what we reviewed previously is this is in replacement of that and make that clear.

I just, I'm sorry, I'm getting hung up on the word site plan, but I know that's the term that she's been drawing.

It's just site plan has that point of,

within what gets submitted to the city and all.

So this is really in reviewing the driveway with zoning and with the city engineer.

I would ask if, as far as what Patrick's gonna do, if you all, if it comes back and it modifies this, go to the drawing again, just that, I mean,

So as it was drawn in December 2020, the parking area in the back was such that it allowed

You misunderstood.

Correct.

Yeah, I'm making two points.

One is, yes, go ahead and clarify that, you know, what was reviewed in 2020, this replaces it.

And then just simply saying that when whatever comes back to you,

Depending upon the driveways, there will also be some changes that have to occur, I assume, in that parking area and not just that at the front yard.

So if you kind of can account for it in terms of, I would say, you've talked about the front walk and clarify that.

The landscaping plan, as far as vegetation,

Nothing really changed as far as the paved surface goes, as far as the driveway goes, you know, some clarification on that.

Yeah, but I think it's also I think we're gonna be treating the landscape plan as a almost like a preliminary discussion.

So we're gonna give Patrick some advice on what we think would be approvable.

And then he's gonna go back and I'm sure there's gonna be changes that he's gonna have to figure some stuff out on his own.

So we can't really

It's not, yeah, you're right.

He'll have to move the parking or rotate the parking.

And yeah, there'll be stuff you'll have to figure out.

Yeah, it doesn't where he has to do a whole lot to the parking, frankly, because he's got a pretty generous apron to begin with.

And he's got the pull in underneath the house.

So I don't think that's such a big deal.

But I do think it needs to be a separate.

It needs to be a separate application.

I'm agreeing with that bifurcation.

So for the sake of, I guess, the preliminary discussion part of this for the landscape, we've got, Tim, you're preferring the driveway on the south.

Yep.

I could say a successful application with either scenario.

I do worry a little bit, thinking a little bit more about student housing, that this quickly could become not a three car parking area, but five or six plus.

And the suggestion is to make the front walkway connect up to the sidewalk somehow?

I mean, those are two really sensitive trees.

I mean, I would be cautious about installing new sidewalk in that area anyway.

OK.

There it is.

Having considered the standards set forth in the city code, including the city's ADC district design guidelines, I move to find the proposed alterations and new construction at 106 Ochre Circle for the house alone and not for the landscape elements, satisfies the BER's criteria, is compatible with this property and other properties in the Ochre Skildersleeve ADC district.

and the BAR approves that portion of the application as well with the following conditions that the the muntins on the windows will have internal spacer bars that the the metal shingles should be reviewed by staff and should resemble shingles

and staff should pay attention to ridges and details at Rakes and Eves.

Is that fair Patrick?

Yes.

And a very, very, very strong recommendation that the walls that have been added at the front stoop are not set asymmetrically.

I'm saying that because it's already been approved, but I think we'd very strongly recommend that you keep some centrality to the walls that you've added at the front porch or don't add them at all.

And the previous application from December 2020, while still valid, is not valid in pieces.

So you cannot go back and add the site elements from that without the house.

Understood.

Okay.

Thank you, Cheri and Carl.

I'm gonna, sorry, make a clarification, please.

So and I'm looking at the site demolition.

And again, forgive me for being redundant.

We're beating a dead horse or pick your metaphor analogy.

So there are

One, two, there's a couple of trees that will be removed.

And I don't know if that, I don't want to hamper the construction process.

So I don't know if those are to be, that's part of keeping things moving.

Patrick, can the removal of those trees be approved or is that again, part of the whole, just if it's not the house you're not voting on?

Fine, thanks.

And is that the 40 foot one in the back, Patrick?

The one that's more southerly, yeah, that was the nearly dead, essentially dead one.

All right.

Did Cheri second it?

Okay.

I'm going to, so the Rex piece about looking forward to the landscape plan, I'm adding that to the motion that I'm recording as well, if that's accepted.

I accept that.

Mr. Moore, I'm calling a vote.

Aye.

Mr. Zehmer.

Aye.

And Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Thank you.

It passes unanimously.

Thank you, Patrick.

All right.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Take care.

Bye.

Bye.

All right.

Next application.

Anybody want to break?

Keep going.

You want to break.

Hey, Robert.

And there's the noisy guy.

And I was like, Oh my God.

Probably interrupting him.

He was probably checking Facebook.

He's looking very studious or something.

Oh, God.

I don't have any social media.

This next house, it's interesting it doesn't mention, I would just say designed by Eugene Bradbury.

Sorry, I missed that completely.

Yes, he was very good with it.

Bradbury.

How did I miss it?

It's in there.

Sorry.

Also, did y'all hear my fire alarm go off?

Did you get a single file and leave the building?

No, but I had to sit here.

So hopefully there's not a fire somewhere in my apartment.

Oh, he's got cool stuff.

He's got cool stuff.

We've got to go to his place.

He lives in a cool house in the basement.

So he doesn't have to stop, drop and roll.

Actually, we were talking about that.

So I'm going to add that to the list.

Great aunt.

Giacomo Puccini, right?

No, no, no, no.

Her name was Jane Stuart Smith.

Her name was Jane Stuart Smith.

Show the poster.

Hold up your camera.

I'll show it off.

I noticed you're in your new digs, Robert.

I have a tray table now.

So instead of having to sit at my desk, I can go sit in a much more comfortable chair than where I used to sit.

And is Jeff right that you're in a basement of a courthouse?

No, no.

I live, it is a basement apartment, but the terrain slopes down, so I actually have full-length windows, but I live in north downtown on Altamont Circle.

Oh, nice.

That is the basement back, probably where they used to shovel the coal, right?

Nah, it's neat.

Altamont Circle is such a neat hidden gem in the city there.

It's so dense back there.

It's really wild.

Especially like the back connection to First Street.

I want to know what went on there.

You probably know that story, Jeff, but it's really interesting.

Which one?

I can't find it.

That's kind of hard to find upon.

But there's not a shortcut.

Like when I walk up hedge to first, there's not a shortcut over.

Right.

Sorry.

Yeah.

No, I didn't mean set.

You're right.

Yeah.

Altamont Street and Circle, right?

Not First Street.

Yeah, you're right.

There's no connection there.

Well, congrats on your new digs, Robert.

It's the same digs.

I'm very lucky to have my apartment.

I like my apartment a lot.

But also, I don't know what Jeff said, but I've been here.

OK, OK.

But we are starting a GoFundMe page for Robert's car.

He sent me a picture last week on the holiday.

He's like, well, I hope your weekend's going well.

I don't have a car anymore.

They're giving him $1,200, right?

I don't know.

Robert used to, you know, we got one minute.

Robert used to buy and sell those kind of cars.

That sounds a little sketchy.

Can we send them to the Mercedes dealership, Robert?

and Robert Watkins, I know Robert Edwards.

Okay.

Let's move on.

Yes.

So we were joined by Leigh Boyes.

Thank you for joining us.

She's going to represent 936 Rugby Road.

I'll get started.

And Leigh, nice to meet you.

Don't even have to leave Southern Albemarle, which is an extra bonus.

This is a COA request for 936 Rugby Road and this is in a historic conservation district.

So this is not an ADC district or an IPP.

This structure was built in 1911.

It is contributing in the Rugby Road Historic Conservation District and is stuck over an actual dwelling designed by Eugene Bradbury.

Request is for an addition onto the sort of the west south side and also in the application is a covered porch at the rear.

Looking at the grade and the back of the house and the rules for conservation district, it's my opinion that the

That rear covered porch is not visible from the street and therefore doesn't fall under the BAR's purview and doesn't require COA.

I can certainly answer any question you have about that, but that's my recommendation.

In the discussions again, and Lee, you've not heard us talk about this, but just to make clear that this is in a historic conservation district and by design, those districts are less rigid than those for an ADC district or an IPP.

The historic conservation district designation are intended to preserve the character defining elements of the neighborhood and assure the new construction is not inappropriate in character while minimally imposing on current residents who may want to upgrade their homes.

So within the existing districts, there are buildings that might qualify for individual designation.

This has not been,

submitted as an IPP.

And so we are, you need to apply the conservation district guidelines only in review of this request.

And the only thing that I found that I would ask you to discuss is that, and this is, Jody Lahondra would be proud of me for,

raising this is that the use of the exterior chimney on the addition, and it is a new architectural element.

There are four chimneys on the house.

They're all our interior.

So that the only thing that, you know, from prior conversations, Jody's not here tonight, but I know that that is something that he's pointed out.

So other than that, staff's recommending approval for this.

Any questions for me?

Lee is, can you make her speak, Robert?

Here we go.

And I'll mute me.

Okay.

Well, I guess we still have one member of the public, so are any questions from the public?

Please raise your hand or press star nine.

Okay, questions from the board?

Comments from the public?

Raise your hand or press star nine.

I was supportive of putting this on the consent agenda, given that it should be an IPP.

It's a significant Eugene Bradbury, but because it's in a historic conservation district and not in an ADC

The only thing that staff asked us to look at is not the only but one of the focus was the new chimney that's exterior instead of the ones that were interior but

The location of it is really not at all prominent to the street side.

And just given the lot, I don't know if anybody else could see it, given the way the house is situated in the lot and the vegetation on both sides of the house.

So it looks like a very thoughtful addition to this house.

First to add, I think it is a really successful addition.

I think the chimney being exterior actually helps because, and also the width of the addition is inset slightly from the adjoining original portion of the building.

And so by having that, sorry, having that step in,

So I think it works well.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the city design guidelines for historic conservation districts, I move to find that the proposed addition at 936 Ruby Road satisfies the BAR's criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in that conservation district and that the BAR approves this application as submitted.

Thank you.

Calling a vote.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. Gastinger?

Aye.

Mr. Moore?

Aye.

Mr. Zehmer?

Aye.

Ms.

And Mr. Edwards?

Thank you very much.

We have a lot of those.

And it's probably, but I can say that right now the only way something's going to be a designated IPP is if the individual property owners oppose it.

I think Kevin wants to go for IPP for his 1957 house, but his wife's really not for that.

But yeah, Lee, if the owners are interested in it being, it's probably eligible for

state and national registered designation, which does not come with any regulations, but it certainly, I know that the district was looked at as a historic district, but I don't think it went as a PIF to DHR.

But if the owners are interested in that state and national registered designation, we certainly can discuss that.

And then the thing that they're talking about is an individually protected property.

would be, for example, my house is an IPP.

I'm not within a historic district.

I'm just, I sit all alone in North downtown up the street from Cheri's house and across from Brecht's house.

But it has an individually protected property then has the same BAR requirements of the more rigid districts.

So national register, state register, one thing, local designation is an IPP is another.

See you all.

All right.

Next up.

Next up.

It's like one of these shows we're going to ask Karen a question and Kevin has to leave the room and then come back in and see if they answered the same way.

We rarely get the couple sitting on the couch together as part of our grilling experience.

All right, this is not a request.

This is a discussion right now, and I'm not even sure to call it exactly a preliminary discussion or a pre-application conversation, because that's usually what's required for anything that's a project in excess of $300,000.

This is a demolition request.

But this is at 745 Park Street.

a 1957 one and a half story brick 1950s Rambler.

It is identified as a contributing structure in the North Downtown ADC District.

It's worth noting though that when this section of the district was established, everything was designated contributing.

The riddles are contemplating

alterations to that house.

It seems that maybe the wisest course is to raise the existing house and start from new.

And so that's the discussion here tonight.

There are other components of the site, I think, that Kevin has raised in what he presented to you all.

So not just focus on the house, but any issues that you all have or any items on the property,

elements of the site that maybe want to be retained, we can have that discussion.

And I treated the staff report as if it were a demolition request.

So if this were to, well, when it comes in, presumably,

I can simply, this is what I will give you, but I really try to take a look at why is this house in the district?

And it's similar to the house around the corner on Northwood that was seen to kind of be added, but didn't quite fit.

What I've learned from going back to the old, from the records, is really just when they established this portion of North Nuttown, it was later expanded, but it really was, if it's within this boundary, then it's contributing.

And the map there that is on the screen, you look at what's on the opposite side of the street.

If it's got, sorry, Robert, I can't, I'm gonna go down the mine because that's too small and my eyeballs aren't working.

So if it's got a black lettering, that's the year built, then it was constructed prior to 745 Park.

If it's obviously the one 1957, it matches that.

And if it's green, it was built later.

But what you can see is on the opposite side of Park Street in an area that was left out of the ADC district, pretty much everything is predates

So it sort of raises the question of, I don't think this structure was included for its contribution to the district.

I think it was just at that, again, at that early point of discussing historic districts, if it's in it, keep it.

There is an abundance of

homes and structures identical to this around town.

So this is not unique.

In fact, you know, I would say it's uniqueness in the report is that it sits within a block of homes that it doesn't fit with.

So, you know,

that I realized that we could make the argument for, no, don't raise this structure, but I don't think those really hold up.

And so that's my recommendation is that the raising be viewed favorably and that you all then have that discussion again about what's on the site that could be incorporated to the new work.

And then anything that you might think needs to be considered

in the future design.

So that's how I approached it.

And I'm going to pass it off to Kevin and his wife and let them have the conversation with you all.

Again, just a preliminary discussion.

There's no action to be taken.

You all can certainly express to the riddles a consensus view on how you think they might move forward.

But again, it's not an approval.

It's not granting anything.

Kevin, did you want to add anything?

Yeah, I'll just be very brief.

I think Jeff summed it up pretty well.

We just want to make improvements to the house.

And we've lived in it about 16 years.

So it's been a solid house for us, but we realized the improvements we want to make would change so much of it.

We just wanted the potential flexibility to basically demolish it to the foundations.

We're not determined to do that yet.

Well, I'll kick off.

Fine by me.

The other thing I think, from my perspective, I think the Stonewall, I think working with the Stonewall would be great.

I don't see those Arbor Vitae as being particularly wonderful.

I know they're big, but they're also pretty out there, pretty messy.

Anyway, they don't do much for me because they don't really work well with the rest of the streetscape.

You know, they're really pretty hostile in their way.

So I'd be fine with you just taking it back to the Stonewall and then figuring out what you want to do after that.

Yeah, those are provided.

They've been nice for screening us, but I agree.

Because I'm going to be the holdout, right?

Don't do it, Carl.

There's an open stair, Kevin.

We're going to come up with something in the dark green stucco.

I think the staff report in your application made a really compelling argument.

And I think you should go ahead and submit an application when you're ready.

But my opinion.

Yeah, I agree as well.

I think that, you know, obviously when you get to the new, the newer structure will be, um, will be trickier, but I don't think, but I think that there's a lot of, um, there's a lot of things going on on Park Street as well.

Um, and I, and I think that, um, it would be great to have good documentation of your, of your home so that you can remind everyone on the BAR at that time.

Yeah, agreed.

Yeah, for sure.

It actually is surprising to me that this is really I thought this sort of this end of Park Street would start seeing

takedowns far sooner than this.

So it's kind of surprising me.

So what kind of comment is that?

Like, why haven't you demolished your house already?

I'm just thinking more about kind of the size of the houses and the property values and all that sort of thing, that it's surprising that there hasn't been more.

I mean, there have been a couple that have been expanded, had a second floor added.

On the other hand,

The houses on the east side, some of them are actually quite huge from the east.

Yeah, that alley in the back.

Yeah, and I'm definitely not knocking this house.

I mean, I think there's hundreds of people in town who live in this house, basically.

It's everywhere.

Now, the real blasphemous statement would be to tell you to wait a couple of years and then you can put a little apartment building there.

That's a different meeting.

Yeah, actually, to Tim's point, I think you guys have a chance to really set some precedent for that end of Park Street, because maybe there will be more modifications to the other side of Park Street, especially.

And Kevin really likes to come back to us over and over and over again.

Oh, yeah.

Well, I congratulate you for Kevin, you didn't talk your wife into buying a falling down 150 year old, I guess mine.

So yeah, hundred and

40-year-old house like mine.

So you did good.

So are there any questions about what might go there?

Yeah, I figure that's at our end to bring you something so that you have something to talk about.

We do have an opening for an architect on the BAR.

Who was insulted there?

Tim's not, he's not bearded.

I won't speak for Carl.

I'm not 40 yet, come on.

Okay, okay.

Isn't that the over the hill point?

No, that moves every decade for the record.

I'll be the parliamentarian here.

Yeah.

No.

I will say, Kevin, pay attention to the schedule for when you decide to apply for demolition, if you decide.

I don't think those applications are valid for as long as a COA.

Sounds good.

I can't recall.

I just know that in January we'll have three new PAR members and they may tell you, you got to keep the thing.

So who knows?

Maybe you want to get that thing into me next week.

Yeah.

I believe, but I believe it's an 18 month COA, just like, like all others.

And, um, and it can be extended by a year, a reasonable request.

So I would get it.

All right.

We're also joined, Jeff, by Ollie from Auto Street Food.

So Ollie, I'm gonna promote you.

So can we do this, Robert?

Will you go to Street View and put it on the screen and go to the building?

And I will also send, I just don't wanna go off,

in a tangent without some context here.

And if I can, so yeah, there you go.

So this is, I think it was built in the 97.

So it's a, you know, not a historic building.

And I'll speak to which,

Openings he wants to address.

But Robert, if you would drive down towards 550 Eastwater Street, I'll go through any stop signs.

This way?

No, to the east.

Oh, sorry.

By the way, has everybody gone and checked out the code building?

That is just

Don't look at that thing there on the left.

It's yellow on the left.

It's the Sun tribal.

One more block.

Yeah.

There you go.

There you go.

And so that the, I talked to Steve von Storch about this so that the, the, um,

So they left the window frames in place.

That had been from the prior renovation.

And then when there was a restaurant in there briefly and they put in those doors.

So it took the glass out of the frame, but then put those up and down doors to the rear.

So at first I thought, all right, well, maybe that's the idea.

But I think that the intent that they have at the other end of the street is for

the roll down door to fit to the extent that it can flush with wall.

Now, I don't think you can get something that fits into the opening like a door, it has to be recessed into the room.

So I'm showing that just to say, there's the idea of doing the roll down, but

possibly leaving the existing frames storefronts, but unglazed is one solution.

And then the idea of there's not, I looked, you know, there's some design going on at the windows above if there's, but there's no, you know, they're relatively simple storefront here that,

think about when you would have a roll down door, you would be introducing the horizontal bar.

I mean, you could use, they're expensive, but I mean, you know, the, the brand leader style door, which is, which is kind of like an aircraft hangar door, it would have a center, it would, it would have a center half, you know, there'd be a mole,

So let me pass it off to Ali.

I was just gonna say, I think Ms.

Let's look at that site and Ali point out where you're talking about.

And again, reason I'm kind of giving this visual is that if there's one window,

Should it be done in others?

Is it okay to do it in one?

Hi, good evening, guys.

Thanks for listening.

So I've sent my project over the email.

I'm more than happy to send it again.

I'll talk within our building owner's architecture as well.

So if you can apply this project,

Even though, as you guys were mentioning, the building is not 100% considered as a historic building because it was built in 1997.

I still don't want to damage any kind of look, you know, we want to work with the same measurements.

So when I called this company called Apple Door, I brought this guy, you know, who's going to install the windows for me, I said, I want to make sure that all the measurements are the same.

Also, I want to keep the same color code too.

You know, I don't want to look, make it look like weird.

So, you know, I want to respect the environments, but you know, in, especially in the restaurant industry, they have a big staff shortage.

If I place an order right now, and I mean, by approving, it will take them at least five or six months.

Unfortunately, it's just in the industry after COVID, this is what's been happening.

The reason I strongly request these cases because I'm a new restaurant who opened a year ago and one of the biggest requests from me is the clients, hey, do you have any periods hitting?

And I want to offer them just from our side, people don't know what is going on exactly.

And since my concept is street, I want people to feel there's a street view without harming or damaging any kind of changing much construction with the

So let's see, these are the current windows and I think these are similar.

to what is being proposed.

Here's one and then here's another.

Yes.

Specifically, the red one on the corner.

I like this one.

This one?

Correct.

OK.

Because again.

Oh, I think we might have just lost.

Yeah.

I've realized this is the biggest thing.

You know, we want to make sure that people are aware it's a restaurant.

And I'm just, you know, with the COVID, it's not much helpful.

People just passing by and they're like, Oh, I didn't realize there was even a restaurant here, even though the sign is just, but with that, you know, the windows just being adjustable.

I think it's going to look great.

Yeah.

That seems like an appropriate approach to me.

My concern was answered by the street view, which was that the windows on the other side or east side of the Water Street doorway are already different from the windows of this restaurant.

And so therefore you don't have a symmetry issue.

On the second floor, on the upper floors, they are the same across, but on that first foot are different.

The only thing, just judging by the drawing, would be I think I would reduce the number of panels, if they can do that, because the separation is so fat at four inches.

What do you have right now, four?

I'm just remembering this.

I just did right now, Tim.

Yep.

OK.

I don't see it yet.

But anyway, right now, is it four panels?

Is that right?

Correct.

Yeah.

So I mean, my gut would be that you'd want to knock it down to three if they'll do that.

OK.

I can request it from the company.

Instead of putting four panels,

Yeah, because that way your glass will be a good bit bigger per pane.

Yeah.

Let's see.

Or how high above the window opening is it, do you know?

I'm just saying that there's a, there's a given height that you have to meet between the top of the window and the ceiling just for the curb to work.

Got it.

Let me just put it in my notes.

Yeah.

I just wonder, they may say that you need to have the smaller panels.

Got it.

When I called this guy and did the install, he was like, he really agreed with everything.

They're like, do not worry.

We will make sure that you're following everything rule because I made it very clear, you know, this is something in the downtown Charlottesville.

I don't want to place an order and then just face with that.

So let me just, let's, let's make sure we address that.

So there's, you know, this question, Ali wants to,

They would like to move forward with an order, get something in process, but the fact remains that this is not an approval by the BAR.

So, you know, I think another question, Ali, that you should make sure you talk to Francis and the city and zoning and make sure that this can be done.

Or I think actually that had initiated your, did you hear back from them?

Was everything good on,

When you talk to Craig and those folks, make sure that the BAR can at this point sort of give you an affirmative that

they would respond to this favorably, but we then still gotta get that formal application and get it before the BAR in October.

But the other piece would be that whatever the building code officials say, you have to follow that and also make sure that you get those checked off as well.

And then from the BAR side, almost treating this like a,

When we have a large project COA, you all are offering an informal affirmative here, so I would recommend that you get as much detail clarified.

For example, if a window

We know how a garage door works.

Will the existing storefront be removed completely?

Things like that.

And what would be the trim piece?

Also, are you gonna need a guard rail for when the door is all the way open?

If you do, and the guard rail is on the outside of the,

roll up door, which I think it will be.

Yeah.

OK.

Tomorrow, yeah, I will be in touch with the Apple door who is going to install it for me.

I will be getting all the details step by step.

Also, you know, how is it going to look from outside?

Just like kind of like graphic design on the like.

I want to give you a photo of like actually this is what actually looks like from inside and outside with the measurements.

So

I think it will be more clear with those three panels.

So what's key is sort of just to trust that T dot that I, you know, Ali, you and I get squared away, get me an application and get it in.

We'll work through the details as we head into the BAR meeting, but to get that application in, I guess, you know, our next, I think, yeah, so next Tuesday would be the deadline.

So you and I can talk about that.

And then internally, I can talk to Craig and Frances about any questions that we're not anticipating.

We make sure that we account for those.

And I know some of you on VAR ask me about the accordion windows and things.

The fact is that there's the... Jeff, they make ones that open inwards.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

But yeah, anything that opens into the sidewalk would probably be... The reason I brought that up for Jeff, and I just...

I don't know what your ceiling height is inside there.

And I don't know how big these windows are.

But my concern for you is that when you get this installed, it may look fine on the outside.

When the door opens, it may be a really low ceiling.

It's going to end up occupying a large portion of your ceiling.

Just to think about that, is that going to work for you?

Today I had a meeting with my landlord, you know, our ceilings, the ceiling has a tile there, like adjustable, you can just open them and if you want to get more space, you can actually insert more.

And I was like, will that be okay?

Like, he's like, he doesn't find any issues.

I said, like, the only thing is that I just seem to be in the same pitch with this city and everything will be fine.

He said, like, if any other sport is needed, he's going to be on my side of, you know, that the project gets done.

So,

I do appreciate you telling me because tomorrow when I talk with this company and making sure how is it going to look and I want them to show me a graphic design of okay this is what's going to look like exactly and then you know I can submit that photos for you guys so we can be all on the same page.

All right, I'll pull those.

Yes, Ali.

And then later, if there is any additional information, you have until the Friday before the meeting to submit it.

So you can continue to maybe send any additional information.

We'll work with you on that.

First Tuesday of the month, we have to mail our letters.

So we have to just be able to mail it out and say, hey, this thing's coming to the VAR.

That's why that's the most important step.

And then this is something we want to make happen.

So we'll work with you to get the details, but it's to get in that application so that we can send out the letters.

And just so I'm clear, you're talking about the two openings on the second street,

I'm going to send a note to the folks internally and say, does this need a railing?

I think the most healthy answer for that would be myself.

talking to this company and getting all the details and then sending you a project submitted, not only the scale and the measurements, but also how is it going to actually look on the window?

Just like you were like the screen, like my windows out there, I want to show you something very similar with the next project.

So, okay, this is what it's going to look like from the ceiling, from the inside, interior, outside.

Oh, for sure.

Yeah, that's cool.

Yeah, perfect.

I appreciate you telling me again.

Honestly, this is my first year in the restaurant industry.

I mean, I've been managing, you know, being a manager and then being owner is really much more different.

I appreciate you guys.

I just say it's my slogan.

It's healthy, affordable, and delicious.

Just don't say BAR approved, because I don't think we're allowed to.

We can't sell our likenesses yet.

Oh, no, no.

I do respect you guys.

You guys are always welcome.

That's all I can say.

All right.

So, Ali, you feel good with this?

Everybody else?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

You know where to find Robert and I. Thank you.

All right, BAR.

I'm going to wrap up some things real quick.

Jody, the planning commission is again discussing the conference plan.

I've been pushed and pulled a lot of directions trying to answer questions about that discussion, although they haven't sent me anything during the meeting.

So, you know, hopefully, we'll have Jody back soon.

So I had, I don't have any questions about projects.

This has been great.

You all, speaking with Allie, and Allie, you don't have to listen to us banter, although you, a business owner within.

Okay.

No kidding.

But so I don't have any questions.

We addressed this one.

A couple things just to put in the back of your heads.