Board of Architectural Review Meeting   10/19/2021

I'll go ahead and get started with some brief introductions and then I can pass things over to Carl.

Good evening, everybody.

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

We are streaming live on the city's streaming channels and we also should now be live on channel 10.

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'll just go over a quick few guidelines.

For anybody who might be watching at home, I will go ahead and introduce meeting participants who are online right now.

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

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

Other BAR members who are online right now include Ron Bailey, Jody Lehendro, James Zehmer, Cheri Lewis, Robert Edwards is here, and Tim Moore and Brett Gastinger.

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

Throughout the meeting, other applicants or other participants will join the meeting as necessary.

For members of the public who are on the call right now who'd like to provide public comment, there are several places in the agenda where you can speak.

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

And then before the BAR deliberates on each individual application, we allow time for public comment regarding that application.

If you wish to provide any comment for the BAR, we ask that you register for the Zoom meeting, which you can do on the city calendar on the city website, and then you can call in or log in using your computer.

For applicants who are currently online already, for your presentation, I will share my screen to pages from your application for both the staff and applicant presentation parts of the presentation.

So you can just direct me to go to whatever page number you'd like and I can do that for you.

And we will have short periodic breaks as needed throughout the meeting.

and our chair, Carl, will direct us for when those are necessary.

With that, it's time for me to pass things over to our chair, but throughout the meeting, please feel free to ask me any questions that you might have.

All right.

Welcome everyone 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 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 only regarding the exterior aspects of a project.

Following the BAR's discussion and priority taking action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond.

Thank you for participating.

So first on our agenda is matters from the public not on the agenda.

So if you have if you're a member of the public and you have something to say that is either not on our agenda or is on the consent agenda, now would be the time to do so.

The consent agenda includes our minutes from April 20th, 2021, 109 to 111 West Water Street and 110 to 114 Old Preston Avenue.

So if you have any comments, please raise your hand or press star nine.

Yes.

I did the official hand raise, but the old hand is always good.

Hi, everyone.

My name's Joey Conover.

I am here speaking about 110 114 Old Preston Avenue, which is on the consent agenda.

I'm the manager of the building, which my parents have owned since 1976.

I think the application speaks for itself pretty much.

Jeff was very helpful in finding some old photographs that I had never seen before.

So that was kind of exciting for me.

And I emailed you all a link to our website with some other historic photos.

I went down to the historical society and looked in their vinegar

Hill folder and found a few.

Hard to get really good resolution on some of them.

And most of them, you can see part of the building, but literally the door in question will have like a bush in front of it or some grass.

Actually, Joey, just to confirm, staff put some

conditions on their recommended approval.

No.

How about the glass VLC?

Yes.

I'm happy to do whatever you guys need for a downtown transparent, you know, transmissance.

Any other comments from the public?

Within the two recommended motions would become the approvals.

And so I, instead of saying, I recommend something in the report, they are included in the motions.

Can we go ahead and second the motion so that we can then have discussion?

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Leondro.

So going back to public comment, Mark Cavett has his hand raised.

Good evening.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay.

I like to see the bar involved in the plumb.

I've seen input from you.

I think input from you is very important.

Most cities feel that old buildings are important to the character of a city.

Even China has saved some of their old traditional neighborhoods.

Last Tuesday, I watched the end of the PC meeting when Rory Strasburg tried to water down the protection of the ADC and HCCD districts.

I hope that you will not allow this to happen by voicing your concern.

Preservation Piedmont has written a letter that I hope you've seen, voicing concern and asking that Barr have a seat at the table.

I will be sending a long to you copy of that letter at the end of this meeting.

If I'm not mistaken, one of the commissioners is also a member of Preservation Piedmont.

Maybe she can share the letter and speak on the matter.

I want to mention a matter that I think the bar should look into.

This past spring, I had a conversation with Roy Strasburg, followed up with an email confirming the points of the conversation.

I live on Altamont Street and spent the last 32 years restoring my house.

He told me that my block was the model of what they hope to achieve with the plumb and had a very high density.

If so, why is this block marked for higher density than the rest of north downtown?

I know the answer, which is actually to be confirmed by my thoughts by a former planning commissioner.

The house backs up to McIntyre.

The houses on this block could be torn down and apartments built with access to McIntyre.

We need to have the bar become involved in this matter in the flume and I hope that the particular matter concerning

Altamont Street will also be looked into.

I did say something to Rory about it, and he basically told me that the time for making any changes to the map has passed, yet I did see changes made to the map after he and I had talked.

It should be that this block should be the same as the rest of North Downtown.

I'm not concerned just for this block, but also for the entire North Downtown area and the preservation of it.

All right, before we move on, anybody else?

Speak now or hold your peace.

OK, so I just want to read those suggested conditions or not read the conditions of approval that Jeff has written that would be part of our should we approve the consent agenda as it is so for

The old Preston Avenue, the glass would be clear, preferably a VLT of not less than 70% with a specification provided to staff that the metal will be powder coated white and that any exterior weather stripping applied to the masonry opening is white, similar to the doors.

Thank you, that makes a lot more sense.

So yeah, those will be included if we approve this as is.

So we have a,

Motion from Breck and then we have a second from Jody.

You guys are still good.

I will call votes in the order that I see you on my screen.

Mr. Bailey.

Aye.

Mr. Lehendro.

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Mr. Moore.

Aye.

Ms.

And Mr. Edwards.

So Ali and Joey you're good to go and you get to

Let me know when you can get ready to install and we can talk about any of those questions.

Ali, if you've got any questions, I think yours is gonna require a building permit.

And then if you would, please, wherever Robert put the sign out in front of your building, if you pull that down, I would very much appreciate that.

Thank you so much.

Yep, good to go.

You're good.

All right, good night, Ali.

All right, thank you all.

I just was gonna say, you know, Robert, I hadn't seen the photographs of that building at 2nd and Water and I just, you know, I've been staring at it going, is this the right thing?

stores.

Each storefront had its own address.

Pretty cool.

So, all right, I'm scrolling down.

All right, so

This is a deferred item.

You all deferred this or applicant requested deferral in August.

This is 605 Preston Place COA request for a three-story apartment building with a low-grade parking.

This has been before you several times, including the preliminary discussion a year ago.

So I know you all are familiar with it.

I think in the staff report I've done my best to, I maybe should have highlighted what's changed, but primarily what you have now is, and in fact there is included in the staff report where I compare the elevations in the sequence that they've been revised, but primarily it's

We now have a facade where there had been that open stairway, interior stairway that's now enclosed within a copper glass wall.

Landscaping is pretty much the same.

I believe there's some small adjustment in the footprint.

But but all in all, this is

relatively the same project you had seen except for the materiality.

And also, you know, there's some changes in the door and window sizes, but not necessarily in the layout.

Go ahead.

I do wish that there was something about the comments made at our last meeting.

I have trouble remembering.

We didn't have those minutes available.

I didn't see what was said a year ago, but I'm more interested in what was said the last time we saw this because it has the most relevance for what we're seeing tonight.

And my question went to some of the comments from neighbors and just the public about the preservation of Windhurst, the historic structure itself.

And I wondered whether staff could possibly address the duty of a property owner to maintain the building and what happens if they don't.

I think it's relevant to this application.

You want me to answer now or?

Yeah, this is if a property within a historic district or an IPP, if it's determined that it's

Detrimental to the character of the district order.

There are provisions that the city can cite the owner as a zoning violation.

That would be

My understanding is the BAR could initiate that and then I would meet with zoning staff to issue a letter making recommendations and

I have not had to deal with that, so I'll be honest with you.

It would take a little bit of research for me to know exactly the steps and what the responses could be.

I do know that this house had been approved for removal, not removed, to be moved down the street.

But yeah, we would have to say, what is it that we are citing them for?

What are the issues?

that are causing it to have a detrimental impact on the historic character of the district and on the site itself.

So if we're prepared to go out there and look at it and go out and evaluate it and put together something, we can certainly do that.

I don't know if tonight I could tell you here are the things that we would cite this property owner for.

Yes.

Good evening, everyone.

We have a slideshow similar to the one you saw in August.

I won't go through the entire show tonight, but I'm willing if you want to look at any particular image and have questions or want to discuss it.

I'm ready to.

What I will do though, and Jody mentioned this, is I will outline the significant changes we've made between this meeting and the last and point out where and when they address comments that members of the board made.

But before I do, one thing I just want to kind of clarify and emphasize to start out because I don't think it's been as clear as it should have been in recent meetings, and I think that's on me that I just didn't explain it well enough, is I want to emphasize the pretty significant efforts that we've been making all along this process to start and maintain a conversation with everybody in the neighborhood.

It's been going on for some time, beginning very soon after that first informal meeting we had with you back over a year ago now in September of 2020.

And as the design has progressed, we've hosted multiple meetings with the neighbors.

October 29th of 2020, January 25th of 2021,

and January 27th of 2021.

We've exchanged in that time numerous emails with neighbors as well as concerned citizens with Preservation Piedmont.

After the last BAR meeting a couple of months ago, we held yet another meeting on August 25th on site on the circle that was attended by neighbors to further discuss the project.

We've made a robust effort to initiate conversation with interested parties and to keep the conversation going.

So I believe we have a pretty comprehensive understanding of the neighbors differences with our proposal.

and where we haven't addressed components of their critique, it's not for a lack of listening.

And I think it mostly boils down to differences in the strategies that we prefer when designing a new building in an older neighborhood.

So I just wanted to open with that.

And now let me go on to outline those changes to the proposal since we last saw you in August.

In the last meeting, we proposed a building with a stucco exterior primarily and several members of the bar didn't support this choice.

And so we've returned in part to an earlier variation that we presented probably four or five months ago now that's clad predominantly in a red brick veneer.

Many of you, Carl, Tim and Cheri, I think in particular expressed reservations about the stair in the previous version open on one side.

Now the stair is enclosed.

But the entry remains prominent with a copper structure replacing the open recess.

Back in August, Jody, you pointed out that several of the proposed walks

and adjacent site walls could endanger the two cedar trees.

And we think you're right.

And those trees are very important.

and so we've relocated the north-south walk to be several feet farther away from the nearest cedar.

We've eliminated a low site wall that was previously shown along the west edge of that walk and now that walk is simply one that's poured at grade.

So there won't be the kind of more significant disturbance there would have been with foundations for a low wall.

There was also at that time an east-west walk that previously extended from the building's entrance straight down to Preston Place.

We've eliminated that walk altogether.

We realized that the presence of the trees there near Preston Place, they're so close that

Introducing a new city sidewalk on that side of Preston Place wouldn't be practical anyway.

And so that walk that we had previously shown going out to the street, it would have basically kind of just terminated where the paving is, the asphalt is.

And so we thought, better than that, why not just eliminate the walk?

We already have an existing sidewalk.

that runs along the north side of the Preston Court Apartments.

So that can be used and that allows for a pedestrian connection to the proposed building with a lot less disturbance to the site than would have been necessary previously.

In the last meeting, James brought up the potential to reorient the building

with the entry facing south instead of facing the street.

And at that time it was pretty late in the meeting, so we weren't able to respond to that comment, but we have in fact studied a lot of variations

on this proposal, and among them we had considered the implications of a reoriented project, similar to what James imagined, where the new apartment building would have apparent, if not actual, frontage adjacent to the Preston Court Apartments, much like Windhurst has now.

but accompanying this idea, we felt it was vital to pull the south wall of the proposed building so it would align or nearly so with Windhurst.

If we didn't do this, the perception of a new frontage shared with Windhurst would be lost and the west building elevation along Preston Place would also become harder to proportion without that recessed entry that we currently have created by the stair.

However,

This alignment with Windhurst would severely reduce the overall size of the building.

And so to compensate, we considered, well, what would be the outcome if we added an entire story to the project, as our zoning height limit would allow?

But we quickly realized not only would this introduce probably fresh new objections about building height, but we would then have to introduce a second egress stair, and that would effectively nullify any fourth story gains.

And so programmatically, this solution just didn't come together.

In the previous meeting, several members observed that more space between the proposed building and Windhurst would benefit the project.

And so we've moved the east wall of the apartment building two feet farther away from Windhurst.

And so that leaves a terrace that's more than 15% deeper than it was in the last design.

In August, Brett noted that it was unlikely that elevated recessed planting boxes that we proposed in the driveway wall would actually support plantings through the winter.

So we took that advice that they probably wouldn't work and we've eliminated them.

Instead, we now propose that pipe vine that would be planted along the top of the north driveway wall could be allowed and encouraged to just grow down and hangover.

and with it being a stone wall anyway, a field stone wall anyway, we feel like it has the potential to be a fairly handsome wall, even if it's rather tall.

And so the planting developing over time would only enhance it.

But in the meanwhile, when the plantings are immature, it'll still be a nice feature.

Breck was also concerned about shagbark hickories that we had proposed that they may not thrive in this setting.

So instead of the hickories, we now propose thornless honey locust, and they occupy a row south of the proposed new building.

And I think that summarizes the major changes that we've made.

Thanks, Kevin.

Well, first, are there any questions from the public?

Mr. Chair, I see one raised hand so far from Elizabeth Turner.

Ms.

All right, thank you very much.

I'm Beth Turner.

I live at 630 Preston Place directly across from the Windhurst House and across from the side yard and terrace of Windhurst.

I have

some questions about the drawings that have been submitted.

And I wanted to ask, where is the view from the north side of the proposed apartment building?

That is the view from the house that is next door to the apartment building

I don't see it.

I see a blank black kind of, you know, we don't we don't see the proximity of the house next door.

I see a lot of drawings that relate to the Preston apartments.

but I do not see, and I see some drawings that relate to Windhurst but even that is not really quite clear from the east side.

So I'm, but my main question has to do with the drawing from the north side.

And do they account for this apartment building next to a house?

Is that not clear?

That's my first question.

My second question, do you want me to just go through all my questions?

First question has to do with the drawing and the view from the north side.

The second question has to do with the proposed grading between the Preston Court Apartments and the new proposed building.

and the house to the, what was the house would be to the north of the apartment building.

So I'm interested in the grading in relation to those properties and also runoff.

Have they accounted for runoff and how are they mitigating that kind of landscaping and grading?

I'm very concerned about that in relation to the preservation of the trees.

I realize that one of the walls has been removed, but I want to know

how they're digging and what they're doing with the runoff and where it's going.

Let's see, anything else regarding questions?

Thank you, Ms.

I can say a few things to answer the questions.

I believe Ms.

Turner was asking about a perspective view that would look from down Preston Place, from a vantage north of the project.

And we don't have a perspective view in this package looking that direction, but we do have elevations.

We have two elevations, one that's fairly expansive and that does include Windhurst,

And so we thought that that would be sufficient along with the multiple perspectives that we show, including one that does look from the east side with with Windhurst in the foreground and the proposed building in the background.

To emphasize, it is in the staff report that this project will require a site plan review and

I could just read right from that.

No site plan has been submitted for the proposed new work.

During the site plan review process, it is not uncommon to see changes that alter the initial design.

In considering an approval of the requested COA, the BAR should be clear that any subsequent revisions or modifications to what has been submitted for that COA

So meaning that if the site plan alters what was approved for this, if there is an approval, that they would have to resubmit possibly a new BAR review.

So does that make, so the drainage questions, those issues, tree protection, those are typically handled with the site plan.

Mr. Chair, we have several other hands raised for questions.

I will go through the list in the order that I see.

First, I see very good.

Mr. Goode, I will allow you to talk.

I have a question about the preservation.

Yeah, if you could turn your... Can you turn it off?

Okay, thank you.

My wife and I are sitting in the kitchen.

What I was wondering is, has there been any consideration or what is the status of Windhurst relative to this building?

Because on the maps, they are shown as being a single parcel.

But the developers have from the start insisted that the Windhurst is separate and then there is this development that they're putting up.

We really don't know what the condition of Windhurst is.

We have heard that this roof is leaking badly.

and we've actually been wondering whether the building is being let go.

Just, you might say, let it collapse and be done with it.

But the question I actually have is, isn't the historic building part of the parcel that's being developed and shouldn't it be a major consideration in any

design that is being proposed.

As it is, it looks to me like it is being overwhelmed by a proposed new building.

Thank you, Mr. Good.

I'll wait for other questions.

Okay, thank you.

So next, with their hand raised, I see Paul Wright.

Mr. Wright, I will allow you to talk.

Okay, thanks.

My name is Paul Wright.

I live on Preston Place.

and I'm asking questions for my wife.

At current, there is a massive amount of trash that sits in open cans on the tree protection line between the two properties and I'd like to know

how trash will be addressed by the building.

Also, is there any place on this design for the parking of scooters and bicycles which now currently are strewn all over the lawn of the next door apartment?

Thank you, Mr. Wright.

Next, I see Mark have it again with questions.

I just have a quick question.

I'm trying to tabulate the number of units that have been approved or near getting approved for the future land use plans and know what we actually have that will be in inventory.

How many units will this project bring online?

That's the only thing I need to find out is just how many new units would we be seeing with this.

Thank you.

Finally, I see Lisa Kendrick with her hand raised.

Ms.

Hi.

I think Beth was talking about 625 present place and that just is adjoining property to this proposed new building and I wondered too is just how over, and I would enjoy seeing a picture of that, a drawing of that.

just how overwhelming or what it's going to look like.

If you're in that building and you're looking toward the new possible building, just how close it is and what that's going to look like, I think is what Beth was wondering about.

And I am just down the street from that 622 Preston Place.

And just the massiveness of the building is interesting to me as well.

The other question I have is that when Kevin was talking about predominantly brick, does that mean that just the front or just the sides he's proposing will be brick?

First of all, let me just say, I'm not for this at all.

I like the grassy hill.

But when you said predominantly brick, I wasn't clear on exactly what that means.

So that was my question.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Just to be clear, 625 is, if you're looking at the street map of

The apartments on Grady are to the south.

Windhurst is 605, it's on the parcel on the east side, so that'd be to the right.

This is going to the west side of that, the left of the parcel, and 625 is directly above that.

Well, that's just, so if we have not heard from Preservation Piedmont or Jean Hyatt, then,

I have them pulled up.

I'm ready to read them if we need to.

Kevin, if you'd like to respond, you can.

Yeah.

Miss Hyatt, I see that your hand is raised.

I think we're waiting until we get, we're not here to do the questions.

We're here for later.

Jeff Warner.

Thank you.

I just make it sure you're there.

Okay.

Yeah, as far as the condition of Windhurst goes, we have not been involved in any evaluation of the existing structure as a part of our task here.

And I guess what we're bringing to the BAR is a presentation of a new building.

And is it appropriate?

So I'm not in a position to really go into Windhurst and its condition.

Regarding trash for this particular project, we have set aside an area within the parking level where the trash totors would be kept through the week except on trash days.

Now, again, regarding trash storage for the Preston Court Apartments, that's one that's sort of out of our purview here.

Regarding bike storage, we haven't identified areas for bike or scooter storage at the moment, but that is something that we may potentially find space for.

Someone asked how many units.

We don't have that finalized yet, but it's our obligation to just make sure that we stay within the density limit that the city zoning allows for, which we will.

I was asked about the exterior.

I think the elevations make it fairly clear that there's a lot of brick on the exterior, so it is predominantly brick.

There is copper cladding on the new entry enclosure, but otherwise it's a largely brick building.

And then I think somebody wanted to know about how far this building is from the house north of it, 625 Preston Place and the distance is a little over 29 feet away.

Robert, are you able to pull the packet back up?

Yeah, yeah, that's a good point.

Thank you for that.

Kevin, I wondered if you could explain a little bit more about some of the brick patterning that is visible in some of the perspectives.

And then I noticed that there are two brick samples that are also shared as part of the details.

Yeah, I think to add some variation, a bit of character to the building, we thought some somewhat expressive brickwork could be useful.

And so, in particular on the west facade, we're showing bricks laid with slightly proud projecting headers in the sort of vertical line of a number of the windows.

And then up at the parapet wall, we're showing a kind of brick screen.

I think sometimes people call it like a pierced brick work where there are deliberate voids.

And while ventilation is not something that's going to be necessary up there,

We thought it might be a helpful way to just to sort of kind of break up the wall a little bit there and again just add some visual variation to allow a little bit of seeing through but still the walls would be sufficiently solid that the mechanical equipment could still be by and large concealed.

The two bricks, we're proposing a mix of those two brick types by Meridian.

We can provide samples in the future, if necessary, should the project be approved.

Okay, so if I could confirm what I'm hearing is that those who will be mixed will be an even mix.

Right, right.

Yeah, I mean, we've attempted to be as accurate as possible with the illustrations.

You know, we're not intending, at the moment anyway, that there would be one brick set aside, say, for the headers, another for the rest.

So I have a question, Kevin.

In the previous version, we talked a little bit about the reducing at least the throat of the driveways that came to the street.

Yeah, we are proposing that it could be as narrow as 18 feet if the city's OK with that.

And we were thinking that that would not be

an extremely wide drive here.

And it was, I think a clearance that the owner's comfortable with.

But, you know, I suppose that's still, that there's still a potential option there if it was necessary to bring it down further.

Right.

Thanks.

And that was my specific question.

You guys are all quiet.

So we'll open up for questions from the public.

Please raise your hand or press star 9.

So I'm starting to see raised hands.

I'll go ahead and start to call on people.

First, I see Christine Collie.

Miss Collie, you'll need to unmute yourself once I allow you to talk.

Yes.

Thank you.

My comments concern the city architectural guidelines for control districts, pages eight and nine in the main.

The idea that new infill and residential areas should relate in footprint and massing majority of surrounding historic dwellings.

The guidelines suggest that sympathetic materials is one tool that designers can use to reduce the visual impact of the mass of new buildings.

The new material choices for this submission are more in tune with the surrounding buildings and earlier designs.

But the sympathetic materials are not used to address the fact that the mass and spacing created on the lot are very different from that of the surrounding properties.

The historic district in general is open, airy, and green.

Trees, gardens, lawns create an open green setting for the buildings.

In this submission,

Built forms, building, driveways, walkways, parking surfaces, and other hardscape fill most of the lot.

Green and open spaces are minimal.

The spacing of the proposed building in relation to Windhurst is tight.

I'm grateful for that two feet, but it's still rather tight and jarring rather than open and visually inviting.

The effect of the new building is to obscure Windhurst

rather than to relate to it in the open, respectful way that other buildings in the historic district relate to their neighbors.

The building of Preston Court Apartments long ago certainly did Windhurst no favors.

That's done.

It does not follow that crowding a contributing historical structure is desirable or should be permissible.

The design crowds Windhurst to the extent that views of the older house from the street are fleeting.

The architectural guidelines seem to clarify and give examples of how new buildings can relate to and respect the character of a historic district.

Doing that entails a great deal more than choosing surface materials from a list of those visible in the district.

Next, I see Lisa Kendrick with her hand raised.

Ms.

Hi, thank you.

For me, it's the same building that we keep seeing over and over with a few tweaks to it.

And I appreciate the tweaks, but it's still the same building.

And Kevin, I do appreciate that the openness that you all have had with asking for input

It works both ways.

We have offered up, we have given multiple, multiple ideas and suggestions.

So yes, I appreciate your hearing us and asking for it.

So it's also mutual and that we are willing to give you input and feedback.

And so when I look at this building, I see that it does not contribute to Windhurst.

And in fact, we just heard that Windhurst is not even being considered in this project.

And this whole site is a historical site.

It has not been subdivided.

And so it seems to me that this new building should certainly be, the Windhurst should be considered

and the development of this new building.

It does not contribute to the historical neighborhood and it is too large in mass in scale.

We have seen that this architectural firm can do beautiful work that is cohesive and supportive of this community in the fraternity that they just

did the renovation on and they did the addition to.

It's beautiful, it's respectful of this community.

And this building that you're proposing on the Windhurst Historical Site does not reflect the talent that you guys really have to make this historical site even more beautiful and outstanding.

So I'm confused by that because it's just a matter of the company that you're working with to say, look, you know, I want to enhance this community.

I care about the effect that my building is going to have on this community and I want to support the historical nature of it.

that the city of Charlottesville has already designated as being significant.

And so I would like to see the new building and I have sent multiple pictures

of ideas.

Kevin, you asked for them.

I gave them ideas to you.

And so I just want that recognized is that there has been feedback.

It's the same building over and over again.

It's a loss of green space.

And this green space is a part of the historical site.

So I see I'm running out of time.

There's a lot more to be said.

It's the same building.

just tweaked and it doesn't fit with the historical nature of this whole community.

So I wish I had another six minutes to talk.

Thank you, Ms.

Kendrick.

Next up, we have Genevieve Keller.

Ms.

Thank you.

Hello all.

Tonight I'm speaking as a committee member for Preservation Piedmont, but I'm going to divert for a moment and say that I think Mr. Kavett may have been a little mixed up when he spoke about the details of our comp plan letter to Council and the Planning Commission.

So I'm going to ask that a copy of that letter be sent to you directly so that you have the actual letter.

Preservation Piedmont has reviewed the Preston Place submission at the request of some of its neighbors and our comments are consolidated from reviews by several members of our board and board of advisors including an architect landscape architect, two architectural historians and three members with previous design review experience.

You have our letter but I will read it into the record for tonight.

We certainly appreciate the adoption of the brick exterior that helps the new infill building to recede

and embraces a more familiar material palette and fits better with the adjacent historic buildings.

The open brick lattice of the parapets is a bit fussy, and if not necessary for airflow around the mechanicals, could possibly be eliminated.

I think the architect just spoke to there not being necessary for ventilation, but I'm not entirely certain of that.

Handwood molded brick, like the brick on the adjacent Preston core department, would enhance the project further by adding more material quality attention to the brick font, softer edges,

and the regularity, but the subtle detail of this proposed brick is appreciated.

The brick color and metal cladding color are not quite a red clay brick in Charleston green, but they're close enough to read as part of the entire composition of the three building ensemble and they are not out of place.

We also paid attention to fenestration and shutters.

Please ensure that the shutters are required as a condition of approval so that they're not eliminated in a later cost cutting phase.

The fenestration as shown is appropriate and also should be retained as a condition in future submissions.

The new drawings show a connection between the two sections of the building as well as a defined entryway.

And we find that both are significant improvements to the building's design.

Enlarging the door and the portico would enhance the project as well.

There is still a great difference of 14 feet from top to driveway at the bottom.

The planter at the base and the planting shown in the landscape plan help reduce that visual impact.

There's still guardrails around the retaining walls on the drive down that we hope the planters will conceal, also to mitigate the height of the retaining walls.

The stone base and the low retaining walls seem appropriate.

Well, we do have the letter and the remaining paragraph was about Windhurst.

And so I'll just I'll finish it for her.

So we're so concerned that Windhurst's unique historic resource in Charlottesville's urban fabric remains neglected, although pulling back the master Windhurst helps to provide some degree of a reasonable lot line separation so that can retain its own identity because the revised infill submission still crowds and intrudes into Windhurst's immediate environs

An appropriate way to mitigate that effect in the historic setting would be to undertake concurrent extra repairs, restoration and rehabilitation to enhance and strengthen Windhurst's contribution to this property.

As the city contemplates, adding more buildings and structures to existing lot configurations is important and that existing buildings continue to be valued and well maintained as new buildings are added.

So and they asked that the BER request to report back on how this important resource of Windhurst is to be kept in good repair.

I do know that the property owner is in attendance.

If he would like to speak or would like to report back to us, that is up to him.

Can you hear me now?

Okay, thank you so much.

I just wanted to add that we are not asking that you cite the owner for this.

We have not investigated the building and so that was certainly not our intention.

That is certainly your prerogative as a board, but please do not construe this as a request from us that you cite them.

I'm sorry about that.

We're good now?

Okay.

All right.

No problem.

Lack of information about Windhurst's condition is reminiscent of plausible deniability and its historical preservation is in peril and I would hope the board would address that as it is a connected structure on the same place.

Also, trash from Preston Court, it will be on this property and it is forbidden by this board, approve a design that does not permit others building trash on it because there is no way to address that.

Now to the building itself.

The lack of horizontal lines make the massing read currently as a slab and are in need of soldier courses and other different bricking details that would make the building fit more into the historical context and its neighbors.

also the screening at the top wall adds to the massing invoking a sense of 70s architecture which as anyone here would know UVA and the surrounding areas have strived to eliminate with quite severe consequences almost none of it exists and has little relation to the overall neighborhood

The architect, as many have said, has done fantastic projects.

And I'm just aghast at why I can look across the street on University Circle or currently going up on Rugby Road and defy anyone to say that these were designed by the same people.

Those buildings are historical.

Those buildings have modern details.

Those buildings fit within a historical design context.

And yet here, the only people who will help us is you.

If you don't insist on it, if you don't say that this building in this historical context needs something more, then this is what we will get.

Because this is the third or fourth time we've looked at it.

There is no better detailing.

There is no more historical context.

Only the bar can help us.

And I hope tonight that you do that.

Thank you, Mr. Wright.

Next up, I see a hand raised from Larry Good.

Thank you again.

I wanted to respond to the architect's comments about the frequency of meetings with the neighbors.

I've been to most of those meetings, not all, but most.

And what I found, and I think Lisa Kendrick and Christine Cauley would agree,

everybody else who's been at them is that the architects simply ignored our comments from the start.

Another thing that I think is very important is that the architects insisted from the start that this has nothing to do with Windhurst, whereas it has everything to do with Windhurst.

And second, that what they insisted from the start was that it is a by right design.

and every time this was brought up, one neighbor or another said, but what about the historical district?

What about the adjacent historical building?

Oh, that's not our concern.

We're doing this by right.

And I think it's very important that the board really consider this question because the Winters is shown as being part of this parcel and the

What is being proposed clearly overshadows the historical building, blots it out completely from certain angles, dwarfs it in a number of respects from the point of view of sight lines.

I think that this is something that needs to be considered.

I think it's very much out of

scale.

So I certainly agree with my neighbors in their comments about the process and about what is being proposed.

Thank you very much.

I want to raise my hand.

Is it my turn?

Okay, I would like to speak to the footprint of this building, which remains largely unaltered.

I believe that the desire to maximize profit and to ignore the historic structure is a fatal flaw in this design.

And I really think that we need to consider

scale.

And remember, you're a part of your guidelines.

And it was brought up last time by Jean Hyatt referring to chapter three of the guidelines, which has to do with a structure not overwhelming.

the surrounding properties.

And the reason why I brought up 235 press and plate, which is an adjacent, is virtually ignored in this latest submission.

and that gigantic hole that comprises the driveway into the parking garage is a wall that abuts that property.

I mean, it is a precipice.

And I just think that we need to consider scale.

We need to respect Winhurst, which is a derelict property.

The roof is rusting through.

I have it on good authority from the developer's son himself that the building is leaking.

Now, the fastest way for a building to go down is to let the roof go.

And I just think it's a crime.

And I would encourage you

to be vigilant about considering the whole parcel, understanding the proposed development as part of an adjacency to a historic structure in a historic neighborhood.

We're counting on you folks to respect the historic district and enforce the guidelines that are already on the books.

You know, Ms.

Hyatt was on earlier.

Her hand is raised now.

Ms.

I was waiting for everyone else.

So I'm Jean Hyatt, Meadowbrook Heights Road, and I agree with a lot of what people were saying.

I spoke at your August meeting on the same subject and I thank you for unanimously declining to approve the August submission for the design of this building.

That action did provide the time for the architect to go back to the drawing board

Consider some recommendations and create a building design that was somewhat more thoughtfully respects this property and the historic Preston Court Apartments, although not completely.

Certainly out of concern for the homeowners living nearby and the significance of this historic property.

The best scenario would be to leave this piece of land open as part of the Windhurst landscape.

However, because of regulations in our current zoning law, the property owner has a right to construct a building.

It's important to work towards the most satisfactory design for this proposed structure.

I was pleased to see that Mr. Riddle's new design includes a connection between the two sections of the building, as well as the defined entryway.

That is a significant improvement to the building design.

However, I strongly recommend that the new doorway and portico be enlarged.

The entrance door appears to be the same size as a nearby ground window, and that small size is counter to the doorway being a significant focal point of the entranceway.

I appreciate the drawings incorporating windows with divided lights as that design reflects the windows in the nearby historic buildings.

I trust that these mullions are functional and could that be clarified.

Divided lights add important detail and a greater sense of scale and articulation to the project.

I hope that the divided lights and also the shutters will be retained through any new revisions and requests that that be a condition.

The removal of the balconies would be a plus for the neighborhood as people hanging out on balconies would likely impact the nearby neighbors' peaceful enjoyment of their homes.

Please consider a change in the design to show more of a distinction in the brickwork between the main facade and the foundation and the main facade in the cornice.

In the Preston Court Apartments, there's an artful distinction in the brickwork and materials between these sections of the buildings.

Please include a requirement that the developer adhere to dark skies guidelines with shielded light fixtures in order to avoid light trespassing or spillover light onto farther away areas.

Lastly, I'm very concerned about the current state of neglect and the

condition of the historic Windhurst Manor House, a Charlottesville individually protected property.

I see in the drawings that the Manor House looks beautifully maintained with a well cared for lawn, exclamation point.

My request is that the rehabilitation and continued careful maintenance of Windhurst to be a condition on the issuing of a certificate of appropriateness.

Thank you very much, Messiah.

I see another raised hand from Richard Crozier.

Just a few brief comments.

I'd like to say that I support very much what Christine Colly had said.

I think she said it very articulately and more than I could.

I think the problem is very simple.

The proposed building is just too big and that's it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Schwartz, I just want to interject something before the discussion begins to help clarify some things, I think, for everyone so that we have an understanding of what the BARs

has available to it, what it doesn't, and what I think the folks that have spoken so that everybody understands what can be done and not done.

So just, I'm sorry, I'm cutting and pasting so that I have it to read, but the first is that

per the ordinance for the ADC districts and then IPPs.

In considering a particular application, the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this provision.

And that would be within the design guidelines and provision of the design guidelines established by for which we have.

Or

The proposal is incompatible with historic, cultural, or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application.

So those are the

The reasons for denial or approval and in any statement of denial, then it's the, we urge, well, you are pretty much required to establish why a denial is stated, but to add another piece to that so that it, again, everyone is on the same page.

So I'm trying to not read all the legal leaves, but following approval of an application by the B.A.R.

So this would be an approval.

Any aggrieved person may note an appeal of the BAR decision to city council by filing a written notice of appeal within 10 working days of the date of the decision.

So if you all were to approve this, anyone who wishes to could appeal that decision to city council.

However, there is a fee for that.

It is part of the BAR application and there's a form to fill out and if anybody

once I can share it.

So, and then at the end of that 10 days, then there's no opportunity for appeal.

Should the BAR deny an application, the applicant may have the same opportunity, 10 days, to file an appeal and with a fee and an application form.

So, both on any BAR decision, approval or denial, there's an opportunity for appeal to city council

and so that everyone is clear that there's no deadline for when something goes to council.

So we get it on the agenda when we can, but if the BAR denies something and the city council upholds that denial, then the applicant or the property owner can appeal that decision to the courts.

That opportunity doesn't exist for, so if let's say you all approved this, it was appealed to council and council upheld the approval.

That is, I mean, I guess anybody can do anything.

I'm not an attorney, but according to our ordinances,

That appeal to the courts is available to the applicant and lander.

So I just make sure everyone knows that you all are a you make decisions and you but you are not a legislative body.

your decisions are appealable to council and that's available to both sides of this argument.

What you decide if someone disagrees with it is not final, but there's 10 days in which to take that action.

So, and I'm citing from the city code section 34-286 city council appeals,

Section 34-285 approval or denial of applications by the BAR and relative to the BAR's conditions for approving an application from Section 34-284, a BAR review and hearing.

So again, I'm not an attorney.

I try to paraphrase as best I can, but those are the options that are available so that everyone knows going forward.

with the VA's decision one way or the other, those are the options available to us.

So thank you.

And actually I'm going to have you interrupt one more time.

Can you explain briefly the site plan process for, I believe with some site plans, there's an opportunity for public input.

Is that the case with this or does this count as their public meeting?

I know that there is public comment during a site plan, but there's less discretion involved.

It's more of a, have you met the stormwater standards?

Do you have the proper grading and do your fire and egress issues?

So there's a

There's more of a checklist involved if you've met that checklist then.

So now people can raise issues.

I know, certainly at any time, anybody can make comments to the city staff about things, but there's less discretion in my understanding of how that is proceeded.

I would look at a site plan from the design review,

Mine would be to look at what did you all review, what's been submitted on a site plan, and do they align?

And if they don't, is it of a significant enough issue that it should be brought back to the DAR?

So does that help?

And just to make sure, I mean, some people, it may give some people an opportunity to

understand better like the grading question, you know, correct, correct.

They could ask the site plan reviewers how that's going or the same thing with the trash or the scooters and bikes.

For that, correct.

And now I would say, and I know, you know, it's been asked in, I know some entrance corridor projects would have apartments that we've dealt with.

You can ask where the trash cans will be stored during the week.

You know, they'll be rolled out to the sidewalk, but

They certainly can be just like we require or request the screening of mechanical equipment.

It could be a condition that when it's not trash day, those are stored in that underground space or inside those doors or whatever you all would like to say, behind shrubs, I'm sorry, behind plantings.

Thank you, Jeff.

Sounds good.

I've got some comments, but I have a question that was kind of prompted by one of the public comments.

And it's probably an easy answer for you all and most of my ignorance.

In terms of like the setbacks for the buildings, does that just apply to what's above grade?

I'm sorry, James, was that you, your voice?

Yes.

Can y'all hear me?

So I can't, yeah, that would be addressed during the site plan.

That's a zoning question.

I know you recall the,

This was zero rugby, but it was the empty lot.

And there's an underground parking garage that's actually, so I think a determination was made on how to treat that.

I mean, I believe it was driveway has to be three feet off the property line.

Right.

The retaining wall, I'm not sure where that qualifies in that.

outside of the three-foot line.

I think that's the guiding principle there.

I guess since nobody wants to start, I'll start.

Two things.

I know there seems to be a lot of distress in the neighborhood about scale, but that's the one thing I'm really not reading here.

I mean, I think if I look at this in the city map, obviously, you know, Preston Plaza itself, or Preston Place rather, not Preston Plaza,

is a large building and so is Windhurst.

So if you, I see it actually as being a mediating presence between Preston Place and the smaller buildings and Windhurst footprints are very similar.

Granted, the massing is different, but I also think that it does a pretty good job of starting to break the scale down.

One thing that I think is kind of,

Curious or of interest to me, even though it countermands the setback strategy that has been demonstrated, is that by swinging the, you know, making the primary entrance off the side street for lack of a better term, the pedestrian side street between Preston Place and the new structure, I think the entrance relationship is curiously backwards.

If you flip the building,

The way the notch works, Kevin, it actually seems like that's the more appropriate way to approach the building.

I'm sorry, Tim.

I just want to make sure.

The building has a notch right now, so if I was to look at it and plan right now, I would say it's

Its primary approach is either head on or from the north, the way it sort of captures the walkway.

So if you were to basically mirror it and make it flip the other way, the entry sequence makes more sense to me than facing Preston Place.

Does that make sense?

No, the way you use your stagger actually works better once you start having your entrance come from the Preston Place, if you were to actually just flip the footprint.

And I realized this

This has some other issues in terms of the setback and all that.

But all I'm just saying is that the primary, can I draw on this, Robert?

I can, right?

So you can try.

Essentially, if you were to mirror it, that makes the wider sidewalk should be facing down.

It's just more an observation.

I'm not really sure how it works programmatically or with maybe more to the point with the setback, right?

So I get that.

Do you not see the way it's currently stepping as being somewhat in keeping with the buildings south and north of it?

Yes, I do.

That's what I'm just saying.

It's more an observation because I see it's picking up the line of the street.

And that's why the setback works like that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So it's more an observation.

I don't have a solution for it.

That's just kind of just pointing that out.

The other thing going to the elevations, I think that having the centerpiece collected together in a closed fashion I think is more successful.

But I'd be inclined to say that I'd rather see the bulk of that the same color as the windows and then maybe the copper highlights accentuate the canopy and maybe the front door or something to that effect where

It's more recessive.

It just reads a little funny to me relative to the other metal on the building, whereas I can see the copper being not as much of it.

And I also agree with what Jenny's and the Piedmont Preservation Alliance was saying about the screen brick.

That seems a little, I get it, but it seems a little gratuitous.

I also do like the idea of using the hand molded brick.

I think that really

softens things at a street level considerably.

But again, I don't really have an issue with the massing.

I really don't.

I don't think the scale of it is, I don't have an issue with the scale of it.

That's my 10 cents at the moment.

Oh, and the only other thing is,

18 feet's better, but I'd be, I'd much rather see something like 12 feet at the entrance.

Basically a peninsula or something like that that would pinch the actual entrance itself.

So if cars are coming in, somebody's got to lay by while one goes by and come out.

I mean, it's not a high traffic area.

I just think that

That would be a more appropriate move from a scale standpoint and help create a little more separation from the house to the north.

And I do think that two feet, oddly enough, makes the difference also between the two buildings.

And last but not least, I totally endorse that whatever we do, there needs to be a commitment from

the developer about properly maintaining and really taking care of the house next door.

Yeah, I just wanted to thank Steph for the three elevations and different perspectives reflecting the three submittals from the applicant.

That was really helpful and I know it's

Extra work considering the agenda that we have.

Okay, I'll go next.

I've got a few kind of smaller things.

One is that related to the planting plan, French tree, I think is a fantastic plant.

I am concerned about its proposed location on flanking either side of the Windhurst entry.

That's a tree that can get 12 to 20 feet tall and would substantially, if it thrives, would substantially obscure that facade.

I like the way that it's depicted in the elevations.

and I think something more in the six to eight foot range would be more appropriate for allowing the reading of that house.

Fantastic plan, I just worry that it's going to potentially bury Wind Terrace a little bit.

The second is related to a recommendation from staff in one of the motions related to the undergrounding of power and I fully support the undergrounding of power

I will just say that given the locations of the power poles and especially in proximity to the large Theodore Cedars, that the routing of the underground, any undergrounding should be coordinated with tree protection.

I don't want to have an accident there.

And I also agree with the public comment about some of the architectural detailing

Shutters were mentioned.

For that matter, I think this project has a nice combination of materials and detail.

And that's something I think that we all expect would need to continue to carry forward and is part of our approval or vote on this project.

I'm also sympathetic with the condition of Windhurst

and given that this is a part of the project property, I'm supportive of whatever means we may have at our disposal to ensure that the integrity of the thermal and waterproofing barrier for that structure is intact.

I do see them as combined projects, even if Kevin's firm is not

has not been hired for that part of that renovation.

Lastly, I'll just say that I think that this project has come some distance.

I think it began with an appropriate approach to mitigating the scale between some difficult and nuanced circumstances.

I think in the end, this is a project that is actually properly scaled.

I think that what they've proposed breaks up the mass in a way that is appropriate to a residential neighborhood.

I think it will actually give more consistency to that street elevation and the materiality

I think is one that is appropriate.

There are projects that should be perhaps a little bit more forward in their aesthetic.

This one I think is smart to actually be quiet and recede.

And I especially appreciate the views looking at Windhurst with the project in the background, for instance, on SK382.

I feel that the darkness of the brick and the texture of the brick actually sets Windhurst out in a really nice and elegant way.

So I think kudos to the architects on that.

Lastly, I thought the brick detailing on the parapet actually did break down a little bit of the mass

was a useful detail.

I thought it was an interesting addition.

So the historic context for

This new building, the most immediate historic context is Preston Place.

I don't know how we can ignore that.

And given that, I mean, Preston Place and its connection to the residential neighborhood is awkward, always has been.

and unfortunately it made an orphan out of Windhurst.

So it was poorly

conceived in terms of its location in the neighborhood to begin with is something that we're having to live with now.

And in addition on this site, as I said, to me, the most direct historic context is Preston Place.

And so I have no problem with the design.

I like the fact it's a little more modern.

It's not trying to replicate.

Preston Place.

It's changing, it's detailing, it's being a little quieter.

I like the setbacks as the building goes from south to north.

I think that's appropriate and it reduces the apparent scale and massing of the building as you're going down that side street.

And I like the detailing, I like the copper, I like the

screen, brick screen in the parapet.

I don't have any issues with any of that.

The only thing that I would ask for is that as much separation between the property to the north and this property, and if we can get enough separation to get in some larger plantings, I'd love to see that.

But otherwise, I can support what I'm looking at.

I didn't know how to put it down, maybe, but I'm happy to give.

Like others, I don't have an issue with the massing.

I do appreciate that the applicant pulled the building two feet off of Windhurst to give some space and respect there.

I think the fenestration with the, I assume we're going to ask for two divided lights, reflects the residential scale of apertures elsewhere on the street.

And the buildings also meet our guidelines and there are also buildings and similar outdoor spaces up and down Preston Place.

The removal of the center sidewalk to reduce the disturbance to the front yard and especially the Diodorus Cypress.

This is a good move.

There was really no sense in a sidewalk that would only lead to a one-way street anyway, so this improves pedestrian circulation by leading it south and joining it to the hardscape of Preston Place Apartments.

I think the change to the brick and materiality and making it two-tones will make this facade rich and it will complement other properties on the street.

The primary one, as Jody said, being pressed in place apartments, but also other properties.

I realize there's a variety of exterior materials, but certainly the change to brick is one that is a change that's familiar.

It's a familiar material on the street.

The only other, generally, I'm very pleased that the buildings, which were looking like separate buildings with, as I said, Motel 7, or perhaps our chair did, Motel 7 stairway in the middle, have been joined with the copper cladding, and I do think that

the entryway that's been created satisfies our guidelines.

Lastly, I want to say with regard to Windhurst that I think it should be a condition of our motion that the owner be required to maintain Windhurst.

And that if there is any indication and a complaint

that the city will follow up within 30 days of receiving such a complaint from any neighboring owner or member of the public about the condition of this property.

I understand it's outside of a certificate appropriateness application, but I agree with the neighbors, particularly Ms.

Kendrick, who note that this does impact a very, very historic structure and we can't

Let it be just by dereliction destroyed.

That's it.

And I meant to say, to thank the public for the observations about Windhurst.

I would ask that the BAR consider asking staff to initiate whatever legal inspections are allowed to make sure that Windhurst is not being demolished by neglect.

If I could just jump in to say one thing very quickly, that during the meeting, the owner has assured us that there's a misunderstanding about the condition of the roof, that it's definitely not leaking, for what it's worth.

And he does he does truly intend to continue or to restore the house and to preserve it.

So that is the intent.

James?

I think most of us have said everything I was thinking.

I just want to second some of the things Cheri said.

Staff's report with the three images comparing the submittals was very helpful.

Thanks again on that.

I think the divided lights is one of the, that was one of the biggest improvements that I think was made from the first and middle to the second, but it was retained in the third.

And I think also it was supported by maybe Ms.

Hyatt in her letter.

So I think it'd be nice to try and make a condition to ensure that that's retained along with the shutters.

Cause I think that really does add to the residential appearance.

I think it's safe to say that if it's in the application, we approve it.

We want it to be there.

And if it comes out, we want to hear about that and see this again if anything does change.

Kevin, I appreciate all the changes you've made.

You've done everything that I've asked for from the last meetings.

I mean, your detailing is subtle, it's clean, it's still contemporary, but it also has a residential scale to it, a residential feel to it, and I think it helps this project tie itself back into the neighborhood much better.

There's been a lot of suggestions tonight.

I don't know how we're going to break those down.

While I agree with some of them, I would be willing to approve this, you know, as is with, I think, some of the conditions that Jeff had put in the staff report.

So I could start right there.

And then I guess we need to figure out, you know, from everyone else, what is that approvable or which of these conditions do we need to put on it?

I think with the House, personally, I think we

I don't know how we can attach that to our motion, but I do think if there is concern for the house, we just need to make sure that staff gets on that and confirms whether, you know, what the condition is and whether it is something that, whether it's a zoning violation or not.

Actually, I do have two quick things on the lighting front.

I know they go pretty

It says lumen per lamp, 2,600.

OK.

Are they along the wall?

you can see a garage view of those on the wall.

Right, so that's a pretty powerful, I mean, let's see, what's a, a hundred watt bulbs around what, a thousand lumens, I believe.

Is that right?

800 to a thousand, something along that line.

I don't know that we plan for them to be dimmable.

They are intended to be motion activated.

But we're glad to consider as a condition of approval some reevaluation of those lights or that we might

seek an alternative if the particular fixtures called out here don't quite fit into the guidelines.

No, I'm just a little nervous about their lumen output and also just simply you're in what is actually a pretty dark neighborhood with a lot of trees and all that sort of thing.

So actually the effective

you know, amount of light you actually need to see in there can be pretty low and be very effective.

So just, I just would worry about light pollution.

I know somebody mentioned dark sky.

We don't have a particularly good handle on lighting codes still at this point, but I, you know, for instance, I know that your office went through maybe not so much your office, but certainly the owners of the standard went through some pain and suffering on the West Main lighting.

And I kind of like to avoid that.

And I think one way to do that is if you have a dimming package on these, you can fine tune it even to the season, you know?

Right.

So that I would like, I would prefer to see that you have some controllable

Not so much the fixtures.

It did look like it.

That's, I mean, what I could read.

And, you know, its bug rating looks like it's pretty good, and you have it mounted low, so that all is good.

But I just think you also don't want that to read as a light well.

That is one of Jeff's recommendations is that all lamping is dimmable and that the color temperature not to exceed 3000K and the coloring rendering to be less than 80, preferably 90.

Okay.

Lighty is reviewed also as part of the site plan, so they have to do a photometric.

The photometric thing though isn't the best gauge of this either, unfortunately, you know.

Yes, could we are looking at the staff recommendations.

Yes, we can.

That would be one of the yes.

So that is that would be a like you had with Oakhurst.

a month ago, two months ago, a recommendation that the city traffic engineer consider allowing flexibility.

So that can be the motion there.

I guess our concern is that if it's unlikely that city engineering will be okay with it, can it be a condition or are you

I code, the BAR can make a recommendation that then you all are able to use in your working with them.

And it's in the code as to be applied in historic districts where there are constraints like this, or we want to keep things in the driveways.

not as large, also to try to protect the curb being stoned that we have.

So there's reasons for the BAR to make the recommendation, but that's all they can make.

There may still be an issue that the traffic engineer can't make the change more.

One more question, Carl.

How does everybody feel about the brick as selected?

I mean,

Preservation Piedmont was suggesting a hand-formed brick and I like that idea, but I didn't hear anybody else second it.

So maybe that's, we stick with what they've got.

So some of the other conditions that were talked about tonight were the fringe trees in front of Windhurst, to modify Jeff's undergrounding of power to make sure that it's done so with tree protection.

Talk about pinching the driveway further.

There's also a recommendation about archaeology.

It can't be a requirement, but it does fall within that.

Something that you have recommended for sites of this nature or that they are in the past has.

So it might be a recommendation.

I thought I remember seeing that.

So the other thing that Jeff had recommended was the existing stone walls and curbs when the public right away provide

Protectos, provide documentation prior to construction and if damaged, repair or reconstruct to match prior to final inspection.

That sounds good, but several of us mentioned some concern about with the condition of Windhurst.

I would support a condition

that would say that the city cannot issue the certificate of appropriateness until a building inspector has inspected Windhurst.

I think that's, I think that's the best we can do.

Jeff?

I'm not going to touch it.

I am not a lawyer.

I mean, I think if.

Go ahead.

Relative to maintenance issues, I know that there's provision in the code that allows us to cite property owners that the zoning administrator and I can have a conversation about.

I honestly cannot advise you on how to incorporate that into a motion.

I just simply can't.

If we were to put that in the motion and the city had a problem with it, would they just strip it from there?

And the rest of the motion would stand.

If it's any help here, the owner has informed us that presently his plans for Windhurst are being reviewed by the Department of Historic Resources.

And so I don't know if any of the kind of information or evaluations that come from that could be useful in the motion you're making.

So in circumstances like that, and I'm not aware of it, but

As you all know, I administratively review projects that have rehabilitation tax credits associated with them.

Now, the tax credits are not always applicable to all work.

So if a piece of the work is there something else, then we bring that to the BAR.

But there's been

a couple of those that we've looked at.

So, but I'm not aware of anything and I would be, what happens there is then BAR staff, I'm sorry, DHR staff, there's an agreement with the owner on what is done and how it's done and what's associated with it.

But again, it may not be everything, so I would have to see that.

But I just can't comment on that.

There's a way to get past this.

How many people would require Cheri's motion amendment to be part of an approval for them to vote approval?

We've got Cheri, Breck, Tim.

That's three.

I just, I mean, would we say the same thing by making a motion saying that we direct staff to do what's legally possible to be sure that when Hearst is not being demolished by neglect,

Because there are ordinances against demolishment by neglect, demolition by neglect.

So what's the, I would just ask staff to find out what is the mechanism for making sure it's not happening and follow it and get it or get it done.

In my view,

And the thing is about the review with the Department of Historic Resources, I'm sure that's a review that's happening as a result of it being a contributing member or a historic resource and what will happen

to it if development, whatever the owner is proposing, there is no condition, the survey being done as a result of that.

I agree with Jody, and I just want to comment, fellow members, that if we're considering imposing a requirement of a phase one archaeological survey,

on land that hasn't been inhabited for 100 years.

I do not know why we can't send our own city officials out to just look at a building.

I mean, this is a city cost.

This is what they're supposed to do.

I find it a lot less burdensome and a lot less troublesome legally as far as imposing something that's out of our purview or is

burdensome on the applicant than I do an archaeological survey.

In this instance, I'd like to still see the survey.

Yeah, and I just add to that, Cheri, that I think that

The project has been presented in its documentation.

The site plan wraps Windhurst.

The perspectives include images of Windhurst intact.

We're ostensibly voting for an approval of this building as a complimentary structure to an intact Windhurst.

All right.

How many people feel that the comment on the fringe tree is a necessity?

And Breck, how would you award an amendment to that?

I'm not sure if you'd be glad to take that recommendation.

I mean, it seems clear that's what the intention was from the perspectives.

Do you guys want me to try to put this together or does someone want to someone else want to try?

You demand.

Oh, fun.

All right.

OK.

Fun, fun, fun.

Jeff, I can't even find the motion in here.

I found your recommendations.

There we go.

Having considered the standards set forth in the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find the proposed new construction at 605 Preston Place satisfies the BARS criteria

and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rodeby Road, University Circle, Venable, Neighborhood, ADC District and that the BAR approves the application with the following modifications and recommendations.

We require that all the lamping is dimmable and color temperature not to exceed 3000 K and the color rendering index is not less than 80, preferably not less than 90.

We recommend undergrounding the new electrical service, and if that is done, it needs to be done with tree protection.

We require that during construction, you protect the existing stone walls and curbs within the public right away, provide documentation prior to construction, and if damaged, your repair of reconstruct to match prior to final inspection.

We make a recommendation to the city traffic engineer that the proposed driveway be 12 feet wide or as narrow as possible.

We recommend that the fringe trees planted in front of Windhurst be something smaller as chosen from the city tree list.

We recommend that all archaeological resources are protected with mitigation measures should they be disturbed in a phase one archaeological level survey is performed on the site.

and we require that city staff will follow up on the concerns about Windhurst and inspect it to see if there are any zoning violations concerning the in regards to the historic district.

So did everyone, I had a difference between recommendations and requirements in there.

I'll second.

OK.

Second.

I'll call a vote in the order that I see you on my screen.

Mr. Moore?

Thank you.

Mr. Lehendro?

Aye.

And Ms.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

Thanks.

Oh, sorry.

Go ahead.

I was just going to say, I need a five minute break.

We good with that?

Perfect.

So I saw Cheri.

James, you there?

There's James, okay.

Jeff's still hiding behind a post-it note.

You know, reading about what music fund my kids have had today in their professional lives.

Trying to... Let's give Cheri a... Wish I were there.

Maybe one more minute.

Oh, there she is.

So we're joined by the architects who are representing this project.

and just while I'm pulling this, thanks guys.

I do try to share those visuals of how things have changed because it's sometimes the only way I can see what's happened.

But I appreciate that they're helpful to you all as well.

Robert, forgive me.

All right, we are on 45, 14th Street Northwest.

This is a COA request for a phases two and three, which would be the renovations and then a later rear addition, actually a rear addition and a larger rear addition at phase three for this project.

In talking with the applicant, you know, I said that they could request them at once.

We all have to understand what the conditions would be.

validity, period validity, things like that.

And also phase one, if you recall, was you all reviewed some repairs to the front porch and other things in April.

Also, that's when we had a preliminary discussion about phases two and three.

But this is a 1924 square colonial revival.

It is a contributing structure in the Rugby Road University Circle, Venable, ADC district.

The COA request is phases two and three, and it's again of a three-phase project.

The applicant has requested the two phases be evaluated, considered as a single COA request.

Phase two includes removal of the existing rear stairs construction of a two-story addition.

Phase three includes a two-story addition onto the rear of the phase two addition.

Also just want to note that phase one did include planting of new street trees and some minor site work, and that was approved.

And there is a garage.

I don't know if it's still there or not, but its removal, the garage is not contributing, so would not require design review.

Yeah, those are the, so just showing that in phase one,

the three new trees there along the street.

And then there's in the current phase two, they're showing those two trees still there at the rear, but ultimately in phase three, they're gone.

So just the understanding that approving phase two and three were you two.

And in fact, I'm not, I'm strongly recommended this be discussed tonight and deferred.

And I think I've expressed that why in the staff report, but just pointing out that if,

there's two separate sets of drawings but being asked to approve both you really have to look at the sort of the end result as you know in phase three is what would be ultimately approved.

Again the first phase is the removal of

Sorry, the second phase is the removal of, there's a two-story porch and stair at the rear of the house.

This would be removed in a, I believe it's single-story, no, I'm sorry, that hyphen addition would be added.

Phase three would then build on to that to the rear and would be, I believe it's in brick.

And so there's a hardy plank,

for that hyphen, and then the larger phase three edition would be in BRIC.

Excuse me.

When we look at editions, there are a checklist of things that we look for, and there's also

Information in a submittal that the BAR is typically requested.

Measure drawings, elevations, showing wall details.

A wall section is always helpful.

The type of roofing and gutters and downspouts, foundations, some of these are addressed, but some of those are not.

There's some information in the drawings and renderings, but there's some lighting

I think that it would be helpful to have a discussion of what's in this, what additional information is needed, and also this process, this project, and I had a lengthy discussion on Friday,

with my boss about a site plan for this.

And I believe the architects have contacted the planner about getting that process started, if not already.

But just like with 605,

Preston place, this will require a site plan and a site plan amendment.

And there's an awful lot that has to be resolved in the site plan review driveway at the rear that access where utilities are, where things can go, where that building can be placed in this parcel.

So it's one of the reasons that I think that

The applicant should continue and get that site plan review further along to make some determination about where things will actually be and not have to come back later and resubmit for another review by the BAR.

And I make the note here that there's, regarding deferral, you all, this is a

This is the first time you're seeing it, you all can defer it.

The applicant may say they want a decision but you have the opportunity this time to defer it however that would mean the applicant has to return at the next meeting, well would have to return in November.

16th BAR meeting with a submittal.

It would mean that that submittal deadline, I think it's next Tuesday.

But that is an option for you all.

The preference would be that the applicant request a deferral.

And that allows, there's no time for that.

They bring it back when they're ready to resubmit.

And I laid it out here, there are,

Just to be clear on the 18 month period of validity, you all can extend that.

You did that actually with a demolition that you extended by a year.

And believe it or not, that's that lapsed last month.

Do you have any other questions for me regarding the period of validity for COAs?

Thank you, board members.

I appreciate the opportunity to go through this again with you.

And let me start by saying that this is an update on the phase one that you approved back in April.

We have been able to successfully find a company to restore the windows.

So those are just being completed right now.

So there were no new windows added.

to the building, the existing windows were restored.

We were able to save the ceiling wood, which is a beadboard trim, so that's being saved and restored as well.

The decks, there was some question about the deck material for the front porch, and that is being replaced with wood.

There's some structural damage, rot and so forth underneath that that needed to be repaired, but we're replacing that with wood.

There was a suggestion and a requirement of the condition that we replace the railings with the railings that were done down the road on a similar project to this and we're following those guidelines as you had asked us to.

I don't believe there are any items that we had on the prior conditions that have not been addressed by us consistent with your recommendations and goals so I think we've got everything done and I

I just recently got done with the contractor part of this.

It's a little bit hard to find people to do stuff these days, but I will send a confirming memorandum to Jeff on that just so we wrap that one up correctly.

I wanted to mention that we did have a survey of the site done and my partner Greg talked to Jeff, but we have a survey.

We are completely within the survey boundaries in our zoning envelope for all of the building parts.

So I don't know that there are any issues in which the building is outside of anything that it would not change from a zoning envelope piece.

So I think that everything that,

that you're seeing is within your purview and not a zoning related issue relative to the building envelope.

I apologize for some of the complexity of this.

To go back to the, maybe we can, Robert if you could go back to the rear elevation of the existing building, I'll just mention quickly the

Existing little backyard, that thing is probably pretty close to collapse.

And we did look at trying to work with it, but it's really gone.

And so we're planning on taking it off and using it as a link piece, trying to do something that's somewhat consistent with it, but linking it back.

I don't know that there are any outstanding issues on the existing phase one piece.

So let's move on to phase two.

And I'm sorry, Robert, if you could go through.

Yeah.

So the thing that we wanted to do

I won't get into all of the details, but there's some code-related issues to the existing house that needed to be addressed.

They conform under the existing building code, but they're really not up to code standards that the owner is comfortable with.

So one of the goals, the design goals of the second phase, which is what you're seeing in this area, I don't know if I have control over it, the white area, that's the phase two edition, and it's a two-story edition.

does include a rear fire exit and a rear fire stair, which is conforming to the current code.

So that was a safety issue that we wanted to address, as well as providing a living space for the two four bedroom units that are on the two floors of the existing building.

So what you're seeing is there's a front porch,

on the existing phase two building.

And let's go down to the next page.

This is the second floor.

It's just essentially a duplicate, a common bathroom and a living room and so forth.

I will mention relative to Jeff's comments we have finished the construction drawings for these projects so we're happy to provide the full working drawings and so forth there's nothing magical or special about the construction of these things they're wood frame, brick and so forth but we we have those drawings and I'm happy to submit those as part of our you know amend part of an amended application or additional supplemental information to what we have in front of you and let's keep going

This is the proposed phase two side elevation from Gordon Avenue.

And we were just trying to work with the typology of the building that's there.

You may recall that the BAR, you had requested that we shift the eave line on the rear section to distinguish it from the original house, that we shift the colors on that to more properly contrast the existing trim and roof so forth with the other, of an existing house with the new addition

And let's go to the next piece.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

This is the rear of the phase two edition.

It's just really simple.

It faces the alley.

There are parking spaces in front of it.

We did not show all of the plantings in front of this on these renderings, but there are plantings that go along the base of that.

And we'll keep going.

So this is the inside elevation that essentially is about, well, the back part of it is actually against a parking lot of the house adjacent to it, but it's not visible from the street.

And again, just trying to follow the basic geometry and typology of the existing house.

And let's move on to the next one here.

This is a street view.

Again, it's a corner lot.

We're just trying to fit it in with the existing houses and buildings that are around it.

And let's keep going real quickly and I'll come back to some of these things.

This is the view from the alleyway drive in, in the phase two configuration.

And we have parking along the back.

You can see in the rendering, we're proposing a standard curb paving.

The alley is gravel now, but we'll go ahead and pave that.

that back parking area.

And I'm not sure if it shows that we do have bike racks, which offset one of the parking, or two of the parking requirements on the zoning.

And we'll show those on our site plan when we, when we finish that.

Let's keep going real quickly.

This is just a side elevation, essentially from the, like if you were standing at the entrance to the alley, looking at the back of the house.

And you'll see two entrance doors, the one,

On the left is a door into the main floor of the ground floor unit of the existing house.

And the one to the right is the door to the stairway that goes up to the upper floor addition section.

And let's keep going.

And this is the back of the, the back of the phase two addition.

And this is the oblique corner from the adjacent house looking back at that backyard.

There's quite a bit of yard there.

I think it's about 30 some feet in the back of the building in the parking edge.

And these are the specifications for the windows.

I will point

exact same window type and so forth that we did on the project that we did down the road that we had referenced together that we did for Lane Bonner.

And so these are consistent with a similar addition that we did, I guess, three or four years, three years ago, probably up the street toward 17th Street.

And it's just really straightforward roofing, hardy plank siding.

We've picked the trim colors to match your recommendations on the contrast that you had asked us to provide.

and these are the windows.

I don't know why this is showing this.

This is showing a muntin window, but these are just straight one over one double hunk.

So ignore the little inset muntins.

That's an error in our drawing, but we'll fix that.

Let's keep going.

I think I'm not sure.

Okay, so that's phase two.

And Carl, do you want me to do these together or just keep going and then we'll come back and talk about them?

Or you want to do them in parts?

I don't care.

Either way.

You know, I think I would continue on.

OK, so the current plan of the owner is to go ahead and build the second phase of the project right now.

We're working quickly to try to get the first phase done for the January occupancy.

And I think we'll we have a shot at making it.

We would proceed right on to the phase two work.

And I am aware of the

validity period of the BAR approval.

If the board saw to extend this for us in order to save your workload down the road because you liked what we had done or we had agreed on what we had done, I would certainly be happy to have any extensions you were prepared to offer on this.

Although I think there's probably a high probability that we'll build it within the

the envelope of the current approval code.

So this is the view from Gordon Avenue looking at the addition.

And we adjusted the buildings to fit the recommendations that you all had given us in April relative to the offset between the buildings and the way that the portraits and the other pieces work.

The door that you see there is the door to the ground floor of the rear addition section.

The stairway that you saw in the phase two addition is split and serves both the upper floor apartments.

So there's no other entrance door.

It's a common entrance at that point.

And let's keep going here.

This is the existing building.

Keep going.

So the new edition, we can go on, that's all right, Robert, we're just going to the plane.

The new edition essentially wraps the existing phase two edition.

So it's completely encapsulated by the phase three work and it's on two floors or two separate apartments.

And that's fine.

This is the Gordon Avenue elevation showing the, I will mention that the,

The end of the porch is cut off by the new addition.

It effectively joins that stairway that you saw in the earlier part.

So it's overlapping.

It's effectively wrapping the end of the phase two addition and encompassing that stair piece.

So this is the elevation at that side.

And yeah.

And this is the rear elevation.

We tried to do a little bit more long-term harmonious design on this just because it's going to be, it's brick, it's against the alley.

It will be the permanent solution to the design down the road.

And it's got parking within about four feet of the back of the building.

and keep going.

This is the elevation from the adjacent house.

I don't think this will ever be seen, but it's the connector piece on the other side.

And this is the same oblique view from the alleyway looking across the house.

This is the view from up the street a little bit, looking at the alleyway, the parking and the way that that sort of sits together.

and a close up of the rear entrance and so forth.

And I'll just mention, I'm not sure if we all remember what the discussion was that we had back in April, but we took careful notes and tried to do everything that you had advised us to do.

We agreed with the consensus opinion of the board.

And as far as I know, we've been consistent with implementing the recommendations of the board at that time.

So I hope that we're coming to you with what you had asked us to do as completely as we can make it within the normal range of what we needed to do to build a building.

And let's keep going.

And again, this is the rear elevation a little bit better.

You can see some of the plantings and so forth that we're anticipating there.

There are some nice trees across the back of that.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, there's some nice trees across the back.

We're saving those.

Jeff mentioned that there were trees that were removing.

Most of those are not survivable trees anyway.

They're old, they're damaged.

And if they had been

something that we thought was worthy of saving or working around.

We probably would have tried to do that, but they're just not, they're not viable trees.

They're small caliper and they've been badly banged up by cars and kids and everything else and are not really salvageable.

And this is the material palette, basically the same thing.

We picked a contrasting brick color

Again, at the recommendations of the board and the colors and so forth are the same palette as we had on the link component.

And we'll see.

I think that's most of it.

I'll mention a little bit about, Jeff had mentioned the site plan.

As you probably know, the city utilities are a bit of a mystery in places.

And right now our contractor is out excavating down to try to find all of those, which is why we haven't submitted the site plan yet.

And as soon as we are successful in identifying the size and location of all of the utility pieces, we'll be in business with submitting the site plan to you.

And I'm happy to answer any questions that you have on this.

Thank you for your time and energy and helping us to do a good job of this.

I'm anxious for us to do something that will help that corner a little bit.

Thanks, Kurt.

Well, let's start with, are there any questions from the public?

Please raise your hand or press star nine.

No, Mr. Chair, I'm looking at the list and I don't see any raised hands.

I'll go ahead and start with a really simple one, I think.

The windows show some kind of heavy jams and nothing at the head.

I think that was my question because you explained why you did the

The different color.

And I thought it was a good idea.

So we also modified the Eve line to drop it a little bit so that the roof lines don't conflict with, they don't pretend that they're emulating the existing house fascia boards and so forth.

Those are just flat balconies with a railing that the doors open in and they're not protruding beyond the edge of the piece.

We're within a foot of the zoning envelope rear setback, so we really don't have anywhere to go there.

I guess I'm just wondering, is it wood that's painted?

Is it a little metal thing?

Essentially what it looks like with a square bar seal, feeling anodized.

And I can provide additional detail on that.

We'll give you a detail on that.

That's fine.

You described a difference in the brick color, and I sense a difference in some of the renderings, but we have an example of what you're suggesting.

We've dealt with this with the National Park Service guidelines on not trying to emulate or duplicate the color of the existing brick.

And the general rule, as you all know, as design professionals is that we want to shift the color enough that it looks different when you see it in various light conditions.

So that's the goal.

and I think we did that.

If there's a question about that, we can certainly refine the design intent of the selections that we did.

I'm pretty sure that the samples that we provided you, in fact, do do that relative to the existing the brick color.

We just got a new color thing that's going to give us a better ability to match the brick colors without having a problem with that.

It's been hard to

get those exactly right because of the lighting and the variation in the existing brick that's aged in the existing house.

And to my eye, it looks like maybe a little bit more brown and lighter, or how would you describe the difference?

Yeah, the palette at the back of the house that we were working with was to try to go to more of a lighter color.

Just because of the mass of the building, it reduces the visual mass of it a little bit on that alley corner, if it's lighter.

I guess one other question I have is that there are a number of, primarily I'm thinking of the phase three, but there is a number of plantings that are suggested in the renderings.

You will, and that's going to be part of our site plan submission.

If there are no others, we can always ask more questions later.

Are there any comments from the public?

All right.

Well, I will start if no one else is jumping in.

Kurt, I wish I remembered the April meeting better.

We actually got the minutes from that meeting to review for our consent agenda and it still didn't seem to help me a whole lot.

I think you've, you know, I think my one concern is just the change in color just seems a little funny to me because I don't think that there's

It's obviously going to be new construction.

You know, even the brick, it will be obvious that it's new brick, the windows will be new.

So you're just continuing the roof line.

And I know our guidelines are kind of picky about, you know, breaking the roof line and all that, but it's, I mean, you are, you're recessing the roof line, so it's not like it's totally continuous anyways.

So I guess that's just my, the color kind of

We were following your suggestions, but I thought it was not a bad suggestion.

Now, whether we got the colors right or the contrast right or not, I'm open to suggestions from my colleagues or professionals in this area as well.

So it's pretty open-ended.

I mean, the National Parks Service guidelines want there to be a differentiation.

Well, that's obviously a very minor comment and the color is easy to change.

Yeah, I mean, it's, we, I think we already, we talked about this in April.

I don't remember if anyone had any severe concerns about the size of the thing.

So I'm not going to talk about that.

It's you know, yeah, just leave it at, I think the color was a,

I'm happy to do that.

We'll be happy to talk to Jeff and staff about that.

Or if you want to have a review, we can certainly do that and look at some options.

Relative to the brick color, I kind of agree, but I also feel like it's really impossible to evaluate the brick with the perspectives.

They're fine perspectives for what they do, but relative to color, they're washed out.

And so it's just really hard to tell.

We know from the existing photos that that's a really rich red brick.

So just seeing the two photos of either a brick panel against the existing, I could be swayed either way.

I think that the project is very straightforward and appropriate for the context.

Let me suggest this, Fred, if you're open to this.

We have this new colorimeter technology that we can actually

do a better map of the exact color frequencies and so forth, hue and so forth of the existing brick.

And although we're sort of limited in terms of what's available in the marketplace, we could come back to you with a review sample boards of what the actual color is.

We may actually be able to get some of the brick as we do the demolition of that little chunk in the back and present that to you.

Yeah, we can do that somewhere.

We can figure it out.

Yeah, that's the only way it would make sense.

I frankly, I don't think I think it's impossible to match the existing bricks.

So to my mind, you just come as close as you can and it'll be distinct enough to

I'm hoping to consider the park guidelines, you know, typically lead us in the direction of doing something that's contrasting so you don't mistake the old with the new.

This is such a small little building and such an intimate scale, if you wanted us to match it, we can certainly do that.

I guarantee you the mortar joints will be different and the mortar colors will be different.

There's so much that's going to be different even if you try to match it exactly.

I agree.

We've never succeeded in matching these things on historical restorations very well and in general

Yeah.

And I don't think that was our intention.

So we'll, we'll clarify that for you.

Maya, so we're being asked for COA approval for phase three at this point, but I'm worried about approving something that we know that the windows are shown to be wrong and some other details are wrong on the packet that we've received.

So Jeff has suggested that we defer this because it does need a little more information.

It needs a landscape plan.

It needs some lighting.

Yeah, I'm comfortable with that.

Correct.

Um, but we should, you know, have a good faith conversation so that when Kurt brings it back, he knows exactly what, what he needs to do to get us to approve or to approve it.

I guess I'm just want to be considerate of his schedule and that if he's just coming back next month and still trying to get days to complete by January, that may be tough.

Okay.

Just if I could just toss in there again, I don't want to gum up the works, I really don't.

There's some details, there's a porch columns details, there's just some minor things that maybe just to know what we're getting and what it is would be helpful.

It's just putting that out there as a way to cover my bases and

But I think that would be wise to split these up.

And I think that would help them in the just the conflict.

Obviously, there's an investment going on in this expansion.

I don't mean to be trite, but to save $125 on making this one application probably is the best idea.

I think that it would be fine for you all to evaluate it and make it clear you're approving only phase two, but I still think there might be some clarification points that you want to address.

There's nothing looking to me like it's going to be a problem.

Not the project itself.

That's fine.

So,

You know, it's always the struggle from a design review of, you know, renderings are really helpful and they're, you know, but at the same time, we've also learned that renderings can be, they illustrate, but they're not construction drawings.

And I've had things come in where it's like, oh, well, it looks like the picture, but that's not what it was.

So I just, you know, I look at this and I see a,

Sorry, I'm scrolling up.

I see a porch detail.

I see, so it has a porch ceiling, it has a porch columns, has porch flooring.

What are they?

Is there, you know, it's not tracks, you know, it's not, you know, it's, and so I don't, I mean, typically I, you know, we've done, we've done a little awnings on the backs of buildings on West Main and asked for,

section through how that's being attached to the building.

So I mean, I'm not trying to beat up on Kurt or anything.

I just want to, you know, it comes back to us and then it's, you know, like, gee, is that what we approve?

I would be more than happy if you wanted to make approval of the construction drawings approval for phase two.

We're happy to do that.

We're close enough to be able to do that.

It would be helpful to us not to defer it to November just because of our construction schedule, if that's possible, but I respect the wisdom of the board.

So that's fair enough.

and I have to tell you, I would truly have been against having all of these as one continuous document, but Joey Lejandro, you got that one right.

I'm starting to not mind this at all.

So we have a porch that's a prominent feature here.

There's an interesting corner board there.

There's a water table.

I just wanna make sure that we've gone to great,

length in discussing column details.

So is there something going on here that that needs to be expressed and articulated that when it comes in, I'm not catching how for.

Well, let us let us provide you with the construction drawings of what it is, and we'll do that as part of a conditional approval if you're willing to do that.

Jeff, let me stop you for a second.

I'm sorry.

So Kurt, I think if we can't, we can't have Jeff administratively approve anything unless it's been fully described to us.

So like we can, we can say, all right, Jeff, you can confirm that what we've discussed in the meeting has been, has been achieved and has been met.

So if we're going to approve this phase two, we're going to have to kind of pick out some of these details in this meeting right now.

And everyone's going to have to feel comfortable with

You verbally telling us, yes, that's what that is.

That's what that is.

So for example, the porch columns appear to be round Tuscan columns.

Is that what we're seeing?

Are they wood?

Are they PDC?

They're wood square columns because they're a secondary column from the front porch.

OK, so wood square columns.

Yes, it's in the ceiling of the porch itself.

It's not surface.

It's not

and the ceiling of that would be beadboard.

It's a concrete sub-piece that sits there and the front of that edge will sit up on it.

We will match the windows from what we did in the other project that you've already approved, but we've got all those details.

And the corner board, for instance, looks super wide.

Is that how it's going to go?

What's the porch floor?

The porch floor is wood.

So the corner boards would be about six inches or so, is that what you're saying?

That's correct.

If it helps, we have an entablature on the front porch.

We have porch ceiling.

We're going to follow that.

But please again, as Kurt, you pointed out, this is to be distinguished from the historic part of the building.

So we're not looking to exactly reproduce the front porch.

This is a secondary porch anyway.

So simplified details that give the character

Right.

So we have the lighting, we have the porch construction.

I think we've got a better understanding of

The trim boards, it'll be a concrete foundation that'll be exposed underneath the siding and underneath the porch.

Cornish detail at the top and at the porch.

Clean the frieze to the window heads.

I'm trying to remember that.

You go to the picture of the old house.

Yes, that's correct.

Obviously, in phase two, there's no brick.

So that would not be the issue for now.

The phase two, you just, you'd have a wide freeze board above the top of the windows.

Is that the intent?

That's correct.

Okay.

What I'm trying to do is get you to verbally describe any of these questions.

That's the only way we're going to be able to approve this tonight, because what's going to happen is Jeff will have to... I think we're on the right track here, so let me know what else you want.

No, we're just teasing out things.

So can you describe the, I mean, it looks like a typical standard eve.

What type of soffits going up there?

Is it?

Okay.

And the gutters are not, the existing house is a Philadelphia gutter that we're repairing, keeping.

Tim, let's forget about phase three for the moment, if that's okay.

Well, no, but I did, but does sort of speak then I guess the windows in phase two, then they're fully bound by a flat casing that makes up the difference of that jack arch, right?

That's correct.

Yeah, and I can see this either way.

I thought this was more appropriate because it's really a secondary part of the typology of the building.

And it's more modern.

I was just wondering about taking the freeze board down to land on the casing legs altogether for the new part.

and not have that, you know, basically have a distinction there between how the window heads are handled.

So if we voted on this tonight, it would be without a full landscape plan.

I think we understand what trees are going and staying for phase two.

Are we comfortable with that?