Board of Architectural Review Meeting   11/16/2021

I've gone through all my snacks for the meeting.

What am I going to do?

Just make it a quick meeting.

Good.

I just responded to your email, Breck.

I don't know if you've had a chance to see it, but I agree with you.

It seems to me that going around the circle,

on Google Earth, plantings and grass, although some yards are very shallow, it's still a defining feature.

Just another minute before we start streaming live.

We confirmed that we would, yes.

Hey, Carl.

What's up?

What's up?

I'm sorry, Carl.

I'll do the best to find the page that you're looking for.

I'll go ahead and get started since it's 5.30.

And then hopefully Cheri, other members, and Jeff will join on before the time I finish, just to get things rolling.

Good evening, everybody.

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

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

My name is Robert Watkins.

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

Before I hand things over to Carl Schwartz, our chair, I'll go over a few guidelines and housekeeping tips just to make sure that everything runs smoothly for everybody participating.

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

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

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

Other BAR members include Ron Bailey, Jody Lehendro, James Zehmer, Robert Edwards, and a few other members should be joining as well before the meeting starts rolling.

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

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

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

At the beginning of the meeting, we allow time for comments from the public for items 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 as well.

In order to provide comment, you'll need to be a member of the Zoom call.

So if you're not already, you can go to the city calendar, register for the meeting and then join.

And then you'll have to raise your hand when it comes to the comment section and I will unmute you.

For applicants who are already online, for your presentation, I'll be sharing my own screen, two pages of the application you submitted for visual aid.

And if you need me to go to a specific page, you can just direct me to go there.

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

And with that, I can pass things on to Carl Schwartz, but feel free to ask me any questions if you have any technical issues throughout the meeting.

All right.

Well, welcome to this regular monthly meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review.

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

I 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 BAER's purview, that is regarding only the exterior aspects of a project.

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

Thank you for participating.

So first item is the matters from the public not on the agenda or items that are on the consent agenda.

So if you have something to speak about that is either on the consent agenda or is not one of our regular items after the consent agenda, now would be the time to do so.

The items that are on the consent agenda are 218 West Market Street, 106 Oakhurst Circle, 122 Maywood Lane, 128 Chancellor Street,

I already see some raised hands, but to others, if you'd like to provide comment on any of these items or for items not on the agenda, you can raise your hand using the Raise Hand feature.

I see a raised hand from Robert Alabak.

Robert, I will allow you to talk.

Yes, we can hear you.

So I represent the Kappa Delta House, which is at 120 Chancellor Street, the neighbor to the one that's on the consent agenda, I think it's 124.

And they made some significant revisions to their front yard, which I think actually looked terrific.

From that standpoint, we really only had one comment is that they had benches along the street.

And for you that have traveled along the street, there's parking on the street.

And if the

Sidewalk is quite narrow.

It's only three feet wide.

And if they leave the benches where they are, there really isn't a lot of room, especially if somebody was to sit on the benches and face outward.

So we had three suggestions and they can take where they would like, but one would be to make the benches perpendicular to the street.

So then that wouldn't inhibit it.

or I think if he just moved him back like one foot away or one foot closer to the home, that would probably leave enough space so people were sitting there, dangling their legs and so forth, people would get by.

Thank you very much.

I see another raised hand from Bill Sherman.

Bill, I will allow you to talk.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

I want to thank Robert for those comments.

And I just wanted to note that we do take those concerns seriously.

And one of the things we have done since the last round as part of our revision, which involved increasing the

Trees, plantings, bushes, shrubs in that front area was to reduce the size of those benches so that you wouldn't have groups of people gathering on them.

It's a challenge to pull them back or to run them perpendicular without really, that's not a lot of space through there, but

Happy to explore some more subtle aspects of the design that may encourage people to be sitting facing in.

They were originally intended in a kind of spirit of generosity on the part of the institution in providing seating that in a sense doubles as participating in the street and participating in anyone passing by, but are aware of the concerns about the narrowness of the sidewalk.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Let's see.

So I see another raised hand from Gary Albright.

OK, can you can you hear me now?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, well I'm also commenting on 128 Chancellor Street.

I'm the neighbor behind this development, and I do think the front of the building looks great, and I know they pushed the back of the building inwards a bit, but it would be nice if there was some more green space.

I know they addressed that out front, but the back of the building, even though they pushed it forward, I mean pushed it off our property line, some are now having a stacked wall,

That's it.

I see Bill Sherman has his hand raised again.

I just might add one quick comment.

The spirit of these revisions throughout the design development process of the project and making changes in relation to what had been previously approved had in all the cases been to lessen the impact on neighbors.

And so by

reducing the height of that retaining wall, pulling it away from the property line, creating a planted area between the base of our retaining wall and the existing retaining wall that is on the site and designing it in a way there where we can actually do the entire construction without actually

you know encroaching on the lower edge of the site and allowing ourselves that planting area which I think our plans that are being submitted to the city site plan do show additional shrubs in that area that will grow quite tall, that'll mask the

Or if you're calling in, press star nine.

OK.

Anything else that you guys would like to pull or are we OK with?

There's been some discussion on 128 Chancellor, are we OK leaving that as is?

OK.

All right.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you very much.

I will call a vote.

Mr. Bailey.

Yes.

Mr. Lehendro.

Aye.

Mr. Zehmer.

Aye.

And Ms.

Lewis.

Aye.

Less 106 Oakhurst Circle.

I'll go ahead and get started on this.

I will kind of breeze through so that we can talk with the applicant and move forward with this.

So 106 Oakhurst Circle is a house built in 1922 in the Oakhurst Gildersleeve ADC district.

The BAR previously reviewed projects at this address, most recently in September, 2021, when the BAR approved a COA for alterations to the existing house

and a rear addition.

However, the landscape plan was admitted.

So this submittal is the applicant submitting the necessary landscape plan.

So Patrick Farley submitted the landscape plan in September and it has the plantings mentioned here.

The

Sorry.

The project will retain the existing driveway and use a new driveway for access to and egress from the parking area behind the house.

But this parking will not create a loop around the perimeter of the property.

To allow flexibility in the required placement and width of the new driveway, the city code section 34972 allows for the VAR to make recommendations to the city traffic engineer

and the suggested motion for approval includes that recommendation.

So Patrick, I know that you're online.

I can go ahead and scroll down to your application.

And Patrick, before you start, let me just, the reason this got pulled was there was some concern over the

keeping the existing driveway.

Well, I will just address that.

I guess the concern is that there is a question that it's

Is it necessary?

Is that the question?

I mean, it's gonna, we're gonna retain the, we'd like to, we have the right to actually to retain the existing driveway for parking purposes.

So right now it's, you could squeeze two cars into it, but in the new iteration of this property where we're gonna have four bedrooms less, you know, theoretically at least four tenants,

We're increasing the capacity for the site to hold up to four cars, possibly more if you can squeeze them in to take pressure off the circle, but also anticipating possible future development of the site down the road.

So we're looking to get off street, off, you know, out of the front yard, but retained since we obviously already have it in place that we would improve what's there.

And just to sort of preempt any questions around zoning, we've already had zoning.

Look at this.

The only issues or requirements have to do with setbacks at the side.

property lines, which we need.

And then there's the minimum requirement of 20 feet between the driveway cuts at the curb line.

We have about 26 feet.

Well, thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't see any raised hands.

Okay.

Questions from the board?

Okay.

Comments from the public, please raise your hand or press star nine.

I don't see any raised hands.

I'll go since I pulled this.

Thank you, Patrick, for coming back.

I was just felt like from the conversation that we had had several times we've seen this project that it was, we had been pretty clear that we had had

strongly preferred moving the driveway access to the other side.

And we did not like very much the idea of the drive looping all the way around the back.

So it came at least to me a bit of a surprise that the drive remained kind of further establishing this as a permanent parking space, which is now a pretty informal gravel

Drive.

And I feel like it's not in the keeping with the spirit of our guidelines.

In fact, our Section 2, letter F, site design and elements, includes things like if new parking areas are necessary, construct them so they reinforce the street wall buildings, locate parking lots behind buildings,

and number four, avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites.

I think going from having already a pretty narrow lot, having so much of the yard dedicated to driveway access and parking flies a little bit in the face of that.

I don't know if the rest of the board feels that way, but I feel it sets a kind of a damaging

I'll jump in with my own opinion and in going around the cursed circle.

Generally, a very distinctive character of the district in Oakhurst Circle is the number of plantings and grass and greenery in the front of the building.

And I worry that this sets a precedent for allowing more and more parking

right in the front and taking away from that greenery and that suburban quality of the circle.

I'll also add that, just to

agree with Breck and Jodi and also to add that we spent a lot of time in previous meetings with this applicant discussing the change location of the driveway and configuration of it.

And I'm just disappointed that this would come back pretty inapposite to

how we've supported this application, but then it would come back on a landscaping plan.

I think that while I would have preferred that this existing driveway would have gone away and that

That was what I thought we had discussed.

It is an existing driveway.

It would currently already hold cars on it.

So it's not like we're adding more parking in the front yard.

We're adding a drive to the backyard, which is more pavement.

I stared at this for quite a while, looked at it on Google Earth or Google Street View.

Personally, I'd be willing to approve it because, again,

They're not adding parking, which is what we had a problem with on Park Street.

They're just, they're making an existing spot, not gravel.

I think they're making it, the plan is to put, like, crushed Buckingham Slate there.

It's not gravel, but it's not asphalt either.

I think it's good.

I think Carl's got a point.

It isn't existing.

Drive and parking area.

So it's tough to.

I kind of agree, Carl, I'd like to see it go away, but at the same time, it's tough to argue it's something that's already there.

I do think, you know, we I had a chance to kind of look back at the video because we haven't seen the actual minutes from the September meeting.

And, you know, it looks like you did address one of the concerns in terms of the sidewalk.

going straight out to the street and the little bench walls flanking the front door, not being asymmetrical.

So just appreciate that.

We did respond to our comments on that front.

You know, you all saw the emails kind of right before the meeting.

I wonder if I could ask Patrick a question.

When we talked about moving the driveway in the past, it was largely in the context of a through passage.

We did, yeah.

I mean, it's a it's a pretty tight squeeze through there.

And then there's the topography at the rear that makes it pretty difficult to not impossible, but pretty difficult.

So this is a way to, you know, take the path of least resistance.

Obviously, we've got to make small operations, but we were going to do that anyway with that south porch.

So it is a better plan, I guess, from a traffic flow standpoint.

And while I have the floor, I'm going to say I

could possibly have misunderstood you all in the previous meeting, and I haven't looked back at the minutes or the video, but I do not recall agreeing to delete that existing condition.

I do recall very clearly, and I did it right away, getting rid of the loop and reconfiguring the site accordingly, but I don't have any recollection of agreeing to

I do want to ask though, what do you- It could very well be my misunderstanding too, because I just assumed that when we talked about putting in a new driveway, that the old one would go away.

Yeah, I can appreciate that.

The issue really was, again, as I recall, it was the loop.

It was the drive through the circuit.

That was too much site involvement, site impact relative to the little addition and four bedroom home.

I accepted that because it actually did make sense.

I wasn't entirely surprised.

But I will ask in the context of the new land use plan having been adopted where this is a medium intensity district or will be.

Does anybody have any opinion about that?

Just this keeping

I feel like that's a Pandora's box type question where, you know, I hesitate to ask.

We can approve.

Well, I don't know what the future BAER will approve when, you know, a large development wants to show up in a historic district.

but we still, until we change our guidelines, those are our guidelines.

But all that said, I think we definitely owe you a vote to see if there may be enough support for this.

Yes, I have a quick question.

If you were going to be doing a loop, that means that driveway would have been useful for getting behind the building anyway.

I'm not saying we are, I'm just saying that's a potential future idea that we've discussed.

It would be very difficult to do that coming as an in versus an out.

And if it fails, then we'll discuss something else.

But now that I say that, I need to find our suggested emotion.

OK, good.

The extra text isn't there.

Having considered the standards set forth in the city code including city's ADC district design guidelines and move to find the proposed landscaping plan for 106 Oakhurst Circle satisfies the BAR's criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst Gildersleeve ADC district and that the BAR approves the application as submitted.

Additionally, the BAR recommends the city traffic engineer allow flexibility relative to the required driveway entrance with a particular concern to extent possible

Yeah, is there a second?

No, motion fails.

Yes, we're actually doing that in that new entrance, grid pavers.

We could simply repeat the grid, you know, the open cell grid pavers.

Yes.

Patrick, when you say grid pavers, these are the concrete with little holes in them?

It would be impossible to ask for a sample to be passed around, but I just wondered if the applicant could produce a photo or maybe send that to Robert so we could see what we're talking about, if this is a viable

So Patrick wasn't talking about the plastic ones.

Yeah.

Is that what you were thinking, Patrick?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, it was not exactly that image, but it's that product.

Well, it's not ideal, but I could support that.

I still feel, I mean, I think we're talking about one parking space here, because if the circle were actually the additional street parking, there'd be a car that would be able to park on the street in that location.

I feel it's against our guidelines, so I'm going to vote against it.

Otherwise, I think the planning plan is really great.

I love the pallets.

Appreciate that.

I forgot to Brett's point to note that, you know, we're sort of atoning, you know, creating a new driveway cut, we're trading, you know, we're losing one, but we still have one on site, one off street, space off site.

So Jody said he'd be willing to accept this compromise.

Anyone else?

James?

All right, that's not enough yet.

Anything that would make a fourth person happy?

For me, it's the cars parked in the front of the yard.

This is not a driveway that would be approved in Charlottesville today, nor by this board, if it were new.

You're muted, Carl.

I don't know, I'm just laughing.

You're doing a good job.

It sounds like so the rest of you do not want to see the existing parking space remain, the existing driveway remain.

Is that the correct understanding?

Jerry, Robert, Ron?

So I guess the question that James just asked to the applicant, it wasn't really answered.

I think you've got a majority that would vote for this landscape plan if that vestigial parking space were removed in the front.

And I guess the question is whether you would agree to delete that.

I think we can do that here and otherwise approve your plan.

So you would not have to resubmit.

Sorry, I'm not a very good chair.

You got it.

I'm sorry to interrupt.

Yes, fine.

We are literally, we've got a building permit about to be issued at any moment.

We can't delay this another month.

It's been going on already too long.

So, I mean, we've already lost a month here.

So, yes, we'll delete it.

I don't know what we're going to do with that deletion, but we'll figure something out.

I guess the assumption is just after all the 80 years of compaction, it will become, you have to aerate it and make it lawn or something or extend the planning plan.

But I assume that doesn't have to be resubmitted.

I would think so.

We're deleting a driveway, but we don't have to resubmit for

But I honestly don't know.

I think you know that there are some maybe a range of options that could be expressed and if they ultimately deviates from that then then it could be examined then.

I think a.

and presumably some sort of continuity to landscaping.

Sorry, I understand.

We'll figure it out and it'll be good, but I just want to make sure that we are clear on the process here that I don't have to resubmit.

I'm just going to say I would just tell us that you're going to sod it or turn it to grass.

Well, I don't think it needs to come in front of us.

When we've approved things in the past with conditions, we've sometimes requested that whatever the final plan is is submitted for the record.

I was going to suggest that, and that was the second half of my question.

And I guess I would just want to add, if we're removing that parking space, that we also remove the curb cuts and repair the sidewalk back to a normal sidewalk.

I mean, wouldn't you be removing some granite at the new driveway location so that could possibly be reused?

Yes, possibly.

And I mean, you just call it a pollinator garden.

I would imagine that that could just be extended, what is it, 10 feet or eight feet, whatever the width of that.

What's there now in front of the existing driveway is actually a curious piece.

It's a striated concrete.

It appears that the city, whenever it did the new contemporary curb and gutter sidewalk, ran up to it and stopped.

So then what you're also asking is that granted curbing gotta be infill, you know, extended.

That would be my preference.

I don't know if the rest of you will agree.

That was part of actually it was part of staff's proposed motion was preservation of the existing granite curbstones.

So I'm happy to throw a motion out there and be open to friendly amendments to move us along.

Please do.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the city's ADC district guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscaping plan for 106 Oakhurst Circle satisfies the BAR's criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst Gildersleeve ADC district.

and the BIR approves the application as submitted with the modification that the existing parking spot be removed and that that area be landscaped consistent with the landscaping plan, the adjoining front yard area, that the granite curbstones that will be removed to create the new wraparound drive

be reused to close this driveway entrance.

And staff's motion also said the BAR recommends the city traffic manager allow flexibility relative to the required driveway width.

I think that's just a recommendation, but one that I know would maybe be picked up by the traffic engineer.

Second.

I have no further response.

Thank you.

I will call a vote.

Mr. Lehendro?

Aye.

Mr. Edwards?

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

And Ms.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much, Mr. Farley.

Are we ready to move on to 123 Wallingwood?

Yes, please.

Scrolling, scrolling, scrolling, scrolling.

Sorry, my computer is not cooperating, but I'm getting there.

Sure.

Ms.

Beschonstein, I will promote you to panelists.

All right, so this is a COA request for 123 Ballingwood Road.

It is an individually protected property.

It was constructed in 1884.

It's known as the Disney Keith House.

It's a vernacular farmhouse.

It was actually the Disney family lived there.

and from the late 1800s into the early 20th century and sold it to the Keats.

Actually sold it to a couple of families and then the Keats came and owned it for some time.

And Miss Ellie Wood Keith operated a writing academy in the backyard.

And I noted that the barn and outbuilding, the stables that were immediately to the west of the house were no longer existing.

and then there's an existing garage to the south of the house.

It was constructed, I believe, in the 80s.

This is a request that had come to the BAR back in 2010 and had been deferred.

I would say it's been at the BAR, but obviously not to this one.

It's a request to first COF for the modification of the west elevation at the rear addition and that would involve removing a small roof existing over a side entry door and then replacing that door and the two adjacent windows with a three panel sliding door.

And I know that the landscape plan is included in this and Jeff and I discussed that and it's really shown for

you know concept and I think it's also an opportunity if there were any questions about that or as far as when that would come back formally or anything that you all would want to see in that or any questions you might have.

In the, I did a

pretty thorough look at this thing and trying to figure out, well, you know, do we know when?

You can see it to the side of the house.

It almost looks like a telescope that got pulled out to the rear as things grew.

And those of you that went over and looked at that house at Hertman's Mill Road some time ago, I think this has similar circumstances, whereas the family grew, they added.

With that,

We do know that these are additions to the rear, I think, you know, probably constructed in the early 1900s when the Disney's occupied the house.

Recommendation, I find my recommendation.

Yeah, so staff suggests your alterations to your buildings should be allowed in the sense that changing this facade I think can be done within the design guidelines.

And so the question really is,

for you all from our point of view is what they're proposing consistent with the guidelines.

So I don't think that this elevation sacrosanct, and I think alteration should be allowed with the consideration, but just is this the one that you all would approve?

So I'll leave it at that.

And I know Jeff, actually, Jeff,

Jeff Elias.

We've been having a lot of fun with all the Jeffs involved with this one.

All right, thanks, Jeff Warner.

I'm speaking on behalf of Jeff and Juliana Elias.

Good evening, everybody.

Yes, we deferred 10 years ago on this, so we're back.

And I will, before I forget, requested to hurl now only because no vote is anticipated and no vote is wanted at this point.

We have a ways to go.

This presentation is, we include a concept plan done by Anna Beschonstein, and I'll let Anna speak to that a little bit in just a second.

What we're here for tonight is for preliminary comments.

What you'll see,

both in the site plan and on the proposed elevation change are our ideas as a protected property though you all have purview over all of the property and so before we go far at all with any of this we wanted to solicit your input, your thoughts, the viability of what we're thinking and what the owner

is contemplating.

So with that, I'll let Anna give a bit of an overview of the site plan.

The portion of the building that we're talking about is circled or blocked there in red.

It's actually quite small.

It's out of sight from from Bolingwood Road and certainly not in view from Alderman to the west.

and is a small component and I'm happy to speak to that once Anna runs us through the concept plan for the landscape.

Sure, hi everyone, this is Anna.

Okay, as Jeff mentioned, we're in the fairly preliminary stages of figuring out what to do at this property.

but we don't plan to do anything besides possibly some foundation planting to the front or the bowling wood side of the house.

We'll keep the existing driveway as you enter across the north side of the house, possibly add a stone or brick pathway to the front door.

Right now there are just a few loose stones and no clear path forward to the main door.

Reconfigure the existing parking, just give it a bit more shape.

And then what they'd really like to do in the back is create more usable space.

In the rear yard of the house, there are some drainage issues off the kitchen, which is more or less where Jeff has the red rectangle and proposed change.

That's a low point where they've got water draining up against boards of the house.

and then the backyard is filled with a lot of stone dust and gravel, or they think it is.

I actually, as a side note, as a small child took writing lessons in this writing arena, so I remember it.

And there was this little loop that went right against the house and more or less around where that pool is.

So that's all they think stone dust.

At the moment, there's an asphalt driveway, the asphalt driveway continues around back

through that pool area and connects to the garage that was added after the riding ring was pulled out.

So we're suggesting that we reduce the paving that's bisecting the house from its rear yard, contain the parking to the side there, and then give them an upper lawn, which is essentially just a landscaped lawn as it is today on the upper side.

and then a retaining wall that will help us deal with some of the grading issues and give them more usable space in a pool in the back.

Let's see what else.

We're also looking at a pool fence that would be probably a decorative wood fence in conjunction with the wall.

And the wall might be brick or stone.

We haven't gotten that far.

And

similarly with the pool terrace and hardscape connecting the various areas.

And then lastly, a pergola in front of the existing garage.

Maybe I'll, if okay, I'll move on to the facade elevation, facade proposal briefly.

So Jeff has already pointed out for you all in his diagrams, the area that we're talking about, what's behind this door and two windows.

The window on the left is directly into the kitchen.

The door straddles the kitchen and

The window on the right is the breakfast area, so that door is a little bit between the two.

And the space really has, I'll say, a limited connection with this terrace, which is the place that the family spends most of their time outdoors.

And so the proposal here is to

put in a larger door system that would connect the indoors much better with the outdoors.

That porch is an interesting one because there doesn't seem to be any indication of when it was built.

It was after the photos that Jeff shared with us and his chronology, best as we can tell, of how the house got expanded.

So in looking at how to open this up to the terrace, in talking with the Elias's, the thought here with the sketch, I believe, probably the next page,

Well, more of the historic photos, which I think you've seen most of.

I will say also that Jeff and Juliana just completed a complete overhaul of the porch, the wraparound porch, which was really exquisitely done.

It was just a merely repair and any replacement was in like kind.

So they really do care about caring for the property.

If we go on, you can see here the existing elevation and below it is just a sketch concept.

And we're really here tonight to talk with you all about this.

Some 10 years ago, we were here and we were looking at providing access to the yard from the two windows on the ground floor to the left in the original farmhouse.

And it was clear that

There was real concern about taking the most historic part of the house and modifying it in a way that would have opened that elevation out to the yard any more than it already is.

And so in talking further with them over the years, the idea that we could connect the kitchen and the breakfast room out to this terrace grew and grew on them.

So this is a diagram, I would say, though it does express an intent of doing something distinctly different from the historic fabric of the house so that there's no confusion.

The guidelines for the Secretary of the Interior are no false historicism.

And the

In thinking about the door system that might go here, we could certainly put in some divided lights, but that seems a little bit hokey and phony to us.

And so our thought here is to be distinctly modern in this one intervention.

in the most inconspicuous part of the entire property, but also from an interior perspective make a huge difference.

And in understanding and looking at the

design guidelines for the architectural control districts.

It's noted that rehabilitation is recognized as the act of bringing an old building into use by adding modern amenities, meeting current building code and providing a use that's viable.

So we feel this as being a modern amenity and modern in its style.

I wanted to show some examples on the next page of other projects that have done similar types of work, taking old fabric and contrasting the new with it.

One of my favorites is the middle top with the

the way that the modern piece is nicely related in color to other elements of the building.

It's also done pretty well with the project on the left.

Bottom middle is the idea that we have here of opening up an otherwise very enclosed space to the landscape beyond.

and I think that that is, I don't have, other than these precedent images for us to talk from, we did not want to take this so far that we were backing ourselves into a corner and would rather hear you all's thoughts about this concept of something that's bold and distinctly different.

And so I think with that, that may have been the last image.

We do have the original survey

A current survey of the property that might explain what Ana was expressing that currently the driveway comes

through the entire property to access the garage.

And so removing that seems as though it's a nice step to putting the house back into a fully landscaped setting as opposed to surrounding it with asphalt to the north, to the west and Bolingwood Road on the east.

Well, I guess we should do, are there any questions from the public?

Okay.

Hi.

I guess this question is for primarily for Ana.

It's good to see you.

A lot of the architectural description doesn't really refer much to landscape elements other than the more recent writing rank in an earlier apple orchard.

So the rear, not really.

In the front, there's a couple beautiful oaks.

Just really nice character on Bolingwood, but the back has been, you know, it's back in the 70s, 80s, there were these falling down shed row barns, you know, overgrowth, privet.

And then since then, you know, there's been a few attempts at planting some.

I think Jeff Elias and Juliana planted a maple for each one of the children that they'd like to keep.

But no, there's nothing significant.

Okay.

Other question I have is for Jeff.

It looks to me it's pretty clear that the doorway and the left window are not even in the original locations and the windows look more contemporary.

Yes, I believe that the two windows are probably, I'm going to guess, 80s.

All right, are there any comments from the public?

Okay, comments from the board.

I'll start since no one else is.

Jeff, this is for the door opening.

I mean, obviously, the back of this building has been modified significantly since the middle of the 20th century.

So it's

There's nothing historic there that you'd be changing.

You know, if you wanted to put an addition back there, I think we'd probably allow something like that.

So cutting a big opening and putting a modern door in there, I can't see a problem with that at all.

And I have no concerns with the landscape plan.

I mean, yeah, it looks like you're on the right track as far as I'm concerned.

I'll jump in and say that considering where it is and it's not a prominent elevation from the road, it's not an intervention in the most historic part of the house or impacting a character-defining feature of the house, the historic house,

And this wing was never a distinctive architectural element.

It was always very utilitarian, and it's been fiddled with.

I'm fine with the intervention, and I love the boldness.

Yeah, I support the project.

I think it looks great and it really is.

Elegant approach and the landscape plan seems well on its way.

I support it as well.

My only concern was to sort of see if there's two additions, I guess, but I think the fact the roof line steps down helps

helps that still read.

Like others, I'm supportive as well.

I'm just curious about how that opening will look.

We do have guidelines about new openings.

It seemed just a suggestion that there might, it might be a sliding glass.

Some of the just examples you've given of existing properties where this has been utilized to show sort of plate glass with no

I apologize, I should have included it.

If Robert, you're in a Googling mood, could you Google Skye sliding doors, I believe.

Cheri, they make a frameless sliding door, basically plate glass, and they are beautiful.

And I think that that's ultimately, yeah,

I guess it is sky frame.

There you go.

Very minimal and really exquisite and that would be our goal.

Questions for us?

How brick disappeared.

Yeah, no, no, no worries.

I said in our, as we approach the landscape and develop or start to develop this a bit further, shall I assume that you all might prefer a slightly more modern approach to the rear as well, or because there's not really any, or there wasn't really any historic landscape going on in the rear, are we open to look at brick or

We don't have a lot of guidelines that would box you in, I think, for a landscape like this, unless there was more knowledge about any of the particular character defining features that would have been part of that landscape.

The palette is encouraged to be native and, of course, non-invasive.

But I think

I think that you have the ability to design that in keeping with the approach that you guys are having with the house.

So I think both a contemporary approach or something more maybe historic related.

I think you'd be, I guess maybe one concern is inventing some kind of history for this house

No.

And just cleaning it up will make a huge difference, really.

Yeah.

I don't have any questions.

We got the feedback that I think we were hoping for, and we appreciate.

Again, I appreciate the board allowing us to come here and run these ideas by you before we dive in head first.

And so I'm excited by the reception and I think our clients will be too.

Yeah, I'll second it.

Thank you.

I'll go ahead and call a vote.

Mr. Lehendro.

Aye.

Ms.

Mr. Edwards.

Aye.

And Mr. Gastinger.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for bringing it to us.

Thanks for your time and the input.

We appreciate it.

Thank you all.

Yeah, don't leave.

Don't let him leave the building.

So if we're ready to, are we ready to power through for 946 Brady?

Okay, so this is COA request for 946 Grady Avenue.

This is the Dairy Central project, formerly the Monticello Dairy Building.

This is an individually protected property.

It was constructed between 1937 and expanded over the years into 1964.

As you all know, you previously reviewed a lot with this.

This is the phase one project, the front historic structure over the last several years.

And this request is to install over the

14 windows on the exterior facade to install gas-powered infrared heaters.

And they would be mounted on the masonry above the selected window openings.

And there are 11 on the north facade, which is facing Grady Avenue, and three on the west facade, which faces 10th Street.

As the staff report lays out, I had difficulty with this one.

It's not something staff can recommend support for.

This is permanently altering a facade that you all in fact had awarded the contractor and developer for the work that they did on this building as a preservation project.

We've seen all over the city and particularly downtown mall that the use of the portable heaters that can be removed.

These are

These are to be used only seasonally and certainly only when it's cold.

And so the other major of the year, they're simply a mechanical device installed on the exterior of the building.

The individual heaters are mounted with two anchor brackets.

They'll be anchored into the masonry.

And then for to power each unit, there's a gas line, a gas conduit line has to come out through the wall and also the wall is penetrated for the conduit for the electrical supply.

As I noted in the staff report, I mentioned this to you all at the October meeting and just wanted to see what your thoughts were and just sort of summarizing it was that the question was asked about why wall-mounted heaters in lieu of the portable heaters and Joshua can certainly address it, but that portable heaters would be inconvenient and difficult to deal with.

However, should you all, you all, the BAR, consider approval to request.

We do recommend some conditions of approval.

Excuse me.

One, that the heaters will be installed above the brick arches, and I believe that's shown, but that is, they don't interfere with, in any way, the arches above the windows and openings.

That the wall penetrations for the mounting brackets and conduits will be within mortar joints

to the extent possible.

We deal with this with signage.

In fact, I recently had a question about, very central about the signage.

You know, so we, you can make a hole in the mortar, but preparing a hole in the brick itself, it begins to, it causes deterioration of the brick if it's not sealed up over time.

And so we just really

I know I'm saying it, encouraging it, it's difficult to enforce, but I'm stressing that any penetration of the wall for the anchors be done into the mortar.

Similarly with the gas and electrical supply, and that would be the conduits, junction boxes, et cetera.

I wanna make sure we cover all the bases.

A lot of times you'll see an electrical junction box get cut into the wall and then, you know, so if a conduit's gonna come through, you know,

or if there's going to be an electrical junction box, we need to know, we need to know where they're going to go.

And that the building permit application will indicate the specific locations of each heater and where the wall penetrations are to be and that the

for the supply conduits and connections that they are done individually at the location of each heater and not come through the wall and run down the exterior facade.

So that was a little difficult to word.

I hope it makes sense or my intent is clear there.

And then final condition of if and when the heaters are.

are no longer used, in the sense that they're not in operation anymore, that they will be removed, and the masonry walls were repaired in accordance with the ADC design guidelines.

And so, as I said, this is not something I can find a way to recommend support for, but if you do, I hopefully make clear my recommendations.

Sure, yeah, this is definitely a utilitarian request.

It's something that our vendors have requested and I understand it's not the most popular from a historic preservation context.

The temporary gas heaters can be expensive and difficult for the staff to set out and take down and lock up every evening.

And that's the genesis of this request.

So I think Jeff has pretty accurately described where they go and what we're requesting.

We did try to pick colors that sort of tied into the theme of the dairy and planters and stuff that we have outside.

So I mean, other than that, I, I, unless it's there's questions, I think it's pretty clear what we're asking for.

Thank you, Mr. Bratton.

All right.

Well, are there any questions from the public?

Please raise your hand or press star nine.

All right.

Questions from the board.

So these, they're mounted, it looks like they're, oh, maybe a foot or 18 inches off the wall.

Is that, they're kind of on little arms that stick out, is that correct?

Yeah, they've got little arms, yeah.

Yeah, I'm just confirming that they're, you know, some of the picture made it.

That's difficult to say exactly based on wind and that kind of thing.

I mean, it would reach out probably around 10 feet out into the space.

But still they'll be part of the patio that would not be heated as well.

You'd have to have portable heaters.

All right, well, are there any comments from the public?

I don't see any comments.

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I do see a raised hand from the public.

Lisa Kendrick, I see that your hand is raised.

It shouldn't be terribly noisy.

I mean, it's like any gas heater.

So I mean, you might hear like a little bit of that whoosh.

Okay.

Thank you, Ms.

Kendrick.

Thanks.

This has been such a fun project to work on over the years.

I think we all feel really

Glad for the care that was taken to restore and preserve this building.

It's an interesting one.

It's been a very, I think it seems to be a very successful change in addition to the city that I think learning about this building and even its early design recognition as an early industrial building and its site design

led us to appreciate that front long facade, the regular openings, and it has shined in the way that it has been restored.

So I think it really is hard to see how this proposal doesn't jeopardize that restoration, and I can't support it.

I think looking further to our guidelines and to the Secretary of Interior standards, there are several points about not adding mechanical system to that radically changed damage or destroy the character defining features or installing systems or ducts that cause damage to historic building materials or character defining features.

It's very clear that that long facade is one of the primary ones.

So unfortunately, I can't support this.

Yeah, thank you.

I just want to add that we do, so Brooke mentioned things from the Secretary of Interior standards.

We actually do have guidelines and are wonderfully organized set of guidelines in a really weird spot under site design.

There's Utilities and Other Cider Pervences and it talks about not

You know, there's nothing about exterior heaters, but you know, screen utilities and other site elements with fences, walls, and plantings.

Encourage the installation of utility services underground.

Antenna and communication dishes should be placed in inconspicuous rooftop locations, not in the front yard.

Screen all rooftop mechanical equipment with a wall.

You know, plan location of overhead wires, utility poles, meters, electrical panels, antenna, trash containers, and exterior mechanical units where they're least likely to detract from the character of the site.

I get it.

You have a job to do.

And I agree with what's been said.

I don't know that we need to pile on, Josh, but I can't support it.

It's a permanent intervention.

It's incompatible.

And it's also just quite

Obvious, it jumps out, especially not being at every window, only a few and scattered.

And then to think it's being asked because it's a little inconvenient for the staff to deal with portable here is I think the historic building and preserving it is worth a little bit of inconvenience.

or I will do it.

Thank you, Jody.

Okay.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I moved to find that the proposed exterior heaters do not satisfy the BAR's criteria and are not compatible with this individually protected property.

And for the following reasons, the BAR denies the requests as submitted.

And those following reasons are

I will call a vote.

Yes.

Ms.

Lewis.

Yes.

Mr. Zehmer.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thanks, Josh.

Sorry about that.

That's okay.

Thank you all for your time.

I'm glad Ron asked that.

I remember long ago when I started my other previous career, I was asked the next couple of meetings, I asked, well, how did they vote?

And I said, well, they voted to approve it.

And it was like, well, did they vote to approve or did they vote to deny the approval?

I learned very quickly that the wording on the motion matters.

Well, thank you all.

I appreciate it.

All right, Josh.

It's gorgeous over there and I just keep hearing great things about it.

My wife,

took me out to dinner and I took her out to dinner the other night for our anniversary.

We went there, so it's very pleasant.

I miss McGrady's and the double cheesesteaks, but it's a nice place over there.

Thanks.

All right.

Okay.

I see that we have Caitlin Schaefer online for 111 to 115 West Main.

So we have before us is a COA request for 115 or 111, 115 West Main.

It's also known as 113 West Main.

that is in the downtown ADC district.

The project is a storefront alteration.

This structure was, it's known as the Feustenberger Building.

Brecht, your chairman might have some corrections for me on how the pronunciation, but was constructed sometime 1913, 1914.

It is a contributing structure in the downtown ADC district.

The four-play, four-bay duplex store with apartments above

The facade, this would be the storefront facade, was altered in the early 1990s.

And this is a request to rehabilitate the facade and that would be

the entire facade, including the replacement of the storefront.

And what that involves is the, and Caitlin and I had some good conversation understanding what was the details of this.

So the windows above, and this is two, you can see it, the two

storefronts, and then there's an entry in the middle.

So this is that entire length.

So you've got the run of four double windows and then another run of four double windows.

So those are windows will remain.

What the work's being done there is there are stone, I believe stone, pretty sure stone, sills and headers that were wrapped with metal and wood.

The hope is that the stone is still in good shape to uncover those and repaint those, bring those back.

If not, then I think that the idea is to put something back, like what is there now, covering them.

And on the lower, at the storefronts, remove what is a later alteration.

Now the glass itself will remain, but it will be that awning that you see across the front there, replacing with something that's framed in cedar and standing seam copper roof.

It looks like a lot's going on, but it's a lot going on in terms of removing something that was, alterations were done probably in the last 20, 30 years.

So we fully support this.

And I did, I said, I asked about the, you could see my clarification that Caitlin offered, what was being done with the windows and they're staying.

And so, you know, we recommend approval.

Caitlin, I know you've joined us.

Great.

Good evening.

As you probably walked by this building, you've noticed the canopy and a few pieces are in need of some restoration and a little bit of a facelift.

So we began by looking at

with some historic storefronts and the historic images that were included in our proposal and have decided to take the approach of stripping back as much as possible, exposing the original building and then taking different pieces throughout the historic images and applying them in a new way today.

We're hoping to keep it pretty simple so that the few more decorative items that are on this building stand out.

As Jeff mentioned, the windows cells and headers were covered at some point, and we're not sure why.

We're hoping that what's underneath is in good condition and we can expose it.

If we do some demolition and realize that they're just not able to be exposed, we'll probably keep what's there, which is a metal surround, and paint it the matching simply white color.

We have introduced a traditional cornice that runs the whole length of the storefront.

Currently there's two kind of blocks on either side and the middle door just isn't addressed.

So we're hoping that having the piece come all the way across it makes it a little bit more cohesive.

We're keeping the wood storefront that's there.

It's in good condition and I think it's a pretty nice polite statement to the storefront.

So we're just going to stain it a bit of a darker color.

It's got some red to it right now, and so I'm hoping by taking that red out of the stain and making it darker, it'll contrast a little bit more to the brick.

The existing canopy is probably in the worst condition, so we're going to strip that back.

and keep the beams that are there.

Those beams do span from the exterior to the interior space.

So we're going to keep them, but they feel oversized to me.

So by introducing more of an overhang with the roof and a true fascia, we're hoping that those beams read a little bit less tall.

And then lastly, we're going to do a standing seam copper roof.

We're hoping that it

pops off the white surround that we have.

And the tile on the different entrances, that red tile's in pretty bad shape as well.

And we're hoping to do a thin set brick floor so that the brick on the wall kind of extends into that store space.

Are there any questions from the public?

Questions from the board.

I have a question.

Sorry, I'm trying to get to the right drawing.

So you said you're keeping the wood storefront, but the the trim that goes around it and for the new cornice will be painted.

And I think somewhere I read in the notes that that was going to be wood.

Is that what is there a reason that I mean wood's fine, but is there a reason you guys aren't using something more permanent like fiber cement or is that even and maybe I'm crazy and bringing that up just seems like it's

Yeah, no, I agree.

So it's, I think we would like to use a more composite material.

I sent, let's see, you know, like a five-pond material I think would probably be best and last longer.

So that would be the hope.

It's just,

Are there any comments from the public?

Okay.

Comments from the board.

I find this perfectly approvable.

I think you guys have done a nice job.

Just start there.

A delayed question for Caitlin, sorry.

But you got me thinking, Carl.

Yeah, that is correct.

And, but yet you don't have, you don't have the details of what that cornice looked like actually up close, like the moldings.

And that's where, what Carl's question got me thinking is,

I specified a couple different moldings on that section.

So those are the moldings that we would like to use.

Well, and I expect that you don't probably, if it's just based upon the photographs I've seen, there's nothing close enough to really know exactly what was there.

Okay, I almost wish that we, I worry about trying to replicate something that we don't have enough information about,

And again, this is that false historicism that we've pushed against.

I almost would rather see something that was obviously a little different and thus not give the, not try to fool someone to think that to say that this is the historic condition.

Jody, if it's of any help, look at the, I think it's page 186 of our packet.

I don't think that what they're proposing looks at all like what was originally there.

Okay.

And I'm not sure if that helps or hurts.

No, it helps.

Okay.

I mean, I had the same, that was my only concern too.

You know, this has got kind of just a simple, almost a crystal crown molding that runs across.

And you got to imagine that the actual opening does kind of go right up to that bottom line structurally, right?

So she's kind of got panels, little framed out panels that drop below that.

I thought I saw a transom window behind the funny window over top of the door, but it wouldn't show, it wouldn't be there, this little pedimented entry.

Earlier version.

Unless that's just boxed out, but yeah, I think there's no way to know what this looked like, because those earlier images are too far away, so.

Actually, what you're proposing looks very clean and elegant as well.

It doesn't look historic in the way that Jody was concerned about.

Good.

It certainly is nothing like the 1974 photograph that we have of those storefronts in the middle entrance.

Likewise.

I don't have any beef.

Who's got the motion?

Just to add on to my comment about using something synthetic, being OK, just make sure that whatever you do use.

I can make a motion.

All right.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed facade rehabilitation and storefront alterations for 111 through 115 West Main Street satisfies the BAR's criteria that's compatible with this property and other properties in the downtown ADC district and if the BAR approves the application as submitted.

Thank you.

I'll go ahead and call a vote.

Mr. Lehendra?

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Ms.

Mr. Edwards?

Aye.

And Mr. Zehmer?

Aye.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nice job.

All right.

We got one more item.

Keep moving.

I know that Jeff is still online.

Yeah, so, and I'll just deviate slightly from what's in the staff summary.

But this is a discussion, kind of a project update that the applicant requested for the project that is being called 612 West Main.

It is in the West Main Street ADC District.

It is,

The existing garage service station that's there is not contributing, and part of the demolition of that, or part of the project is demolition of that, and it's not subject to BAR review.

There was a special use permit approved by city council some time ago.

I see I have a date wrong in there, but the,

The last time this came to you all, remember this was one of the first, it was the first project where we've tried out the large-scale project review in the absence of the ability to do the incremental COAs.

We established where applicants would have to be an understanding of

you know, the iterative process and that things would have to come as a formal request, but the discussion could be had with the BAR offering input with an understanding that at the end the applicant would be requesting a deferral.

That's not the case tonight.

And I just really want to be clear about that, that that's what we had done.

I think the last time we looked at this was in February.

This is,

Jeff didn't bring this forward as one of a scenario like that.

So I don't want to dissuade conversation or discussion, but I'm treating this as the applicant has asked to just sort of bring everybody up to speed where they are and where they see things heading and really would,

My recommendation would be that it's not become a conversation where you all are making recommendations or offering consensus perspective.

We did, Robert and I, you know, knowing this is a project that

large scale project people are aware of.

We did circulate notice letters as usual, and we did post a sign so people are aware of it.

But we also made clear that it was an update.

So I hope my expression of what this is makes sense.

So the staff report is really there just to offer you guys some background on where the last time we had the conversation.

No action is going to be taken.

And

Also the understanding that come January, we will have a somewhat very new Board of Architectural Review.

But again, if you've got questions that you're really itching and you're curious about, absolutely go ahead and ask.

But as far as getting into a discussion of, are they heading in the right direction?

What do you think of this or that?

I don't think that that's appropriate for how we've presented this to the community.

All right.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Not sorry.

So, I mean, if it's just an update, I mean, Jeff could have emailed this to us.

So why, I'm confused that, why did you present it to the community that it's only

This was a concern back in the days when we all had human interaction.

We talked about how

I'm simply making a request.

I'm making suggestions so that we're clear on that.

But the point being is that we were concerned as Robert raised this two years ago that you

by the other process where we knew there was going to be a deferral request at the end and it was treated as formal design review.

And the thought was, well gosh, remember we said, can we just do a series of preliminary discussions and then get to where they submit for the final

uh COA uh that sort of the concern there was well then that you get down to where you're advertised for that COA you've already made a lot of decisions and a lot of of input has been given so we didn't want to at any time have the community think that they were not involved in the process so um so that's why making clear that this is this is uh different from those others yet at the same time

You know, people may, because they're aware of this and they want to follow it, if they want to comment on it, we wanted to give them, still give them the opportunity.

Is that?

I guess it just seems like what a waste of time for the applicant.

Isn't this I mean, this is going live.

The community, if they want to know about it, could be here to talk about it now.

Right.

So they were just like any other project that

You know, for a typical preliminary discussion for a pre-application conference, we don't send out notification letters.

But once something becomes live, once it becomes a formal request, when it comes to you all for action,

We put a sign up on, there's probably a hundred of them still up all over town, we post a sign that says on this date there's this meeting, talk about this, and we send a letter per code, I think this one what Robert had like 12 addresses we had to send it to, so it's not a letter to everyone in the city, it's to the folks that we are

by ordinance required to notify.

So we just, out of just an abundance of caution, just wanted to not let anybody think that we were, there was a review occurring and they weren't notified of it.

But I'm letting you now, you know, verbally, you know, the distinction between what this is as an update and how we would normally treat something that comes with BAR.

And I'm sorry, it makes perfectly crystal clear sense in my head.

Okay, thank you.

Robert, if you would also allow Anne Prey, our landscape architect, in.

Sure.

I'll dive right in.

So it's been six months since we updated you all on the project and a lot has happened.

We've signed on with Barton Mallow Construction.

We've gotten a lot of good pricing feedback.

I don't think any of the changes that we'll talk about or the development actually that we'll talk about tonight were greatly affected by that, but it took us offline for a few months.

while we made that change and were clear about where we stood from a budget and schedule standpoint.

I will say, I'll preface this by saying we have been coming to the BAR with the updates in order to get, I guess I'll call it incremental guidance and input with the expectation that by the time we ask for approval,

there won't be any surprises on anyone's part.

So I'm not sure I followed exactly what you were saying, Jeff.

I would encourage the board to speak as freely as you are comfortable about what we'll show you tonight because frankly, we will hopefully come to you next month to ask for approval.

And one of the things I would appreciate hearing

At the end of this discussion is what else will we need to show to be able to get approval.

We hope to start construction in February.

So December approval will ensure that we can do that with an early release package.

Now there will still be lots of details yet to iron out, but

The overall design will be set and we'll be ready to go and so hopefully we will be able to get whatever conditional approval we need, understanding that we may need to come back with color samples and even window samples if that's the case.

But that is our goal here.

I don't think there are going to be any big surprises here.

I'll run through the update and then there were comments at the last meeting and we'll try to address some of those in what we present here.

So based on that, again, this is just a bit of repeating the history of how we got to the design that we're at and that is

trying to break the mass of the building up into components.

That green bar is really the size of the Albemarle Hotel across the street.

So you can see that we're relating in size and scale to what's already here.

If we keep going,

This is a plan that you all have not seen before.

And certainly it's not necessarily something that you have purview over but we thought it would be helpful to explain a little bit about what's happening on the interior of the building and internally.

with 600 West Main Street, the building to the east that we recently completed.

You can see here that the lobby, the residential lobby for the new project is curvilinear and will have a relationship and open out onto the courtyard of 600 West Main Street.

That's not necessarily

An important issue here, but what is interesting and important is the curvilinearity of the lobby itself.

And you will see on the exterior elevation now, this is something that's different.

We alluded to it in our last meeting, but hadn't really developed it completely, but that the curvilinear form makes its way out to that area that's labeled as the plaza.

And it exposes itself only on that part of the elevation.

We'll also explain a little bit that that curvilinearity is part of the plaza plan.

But previously we had some rounded planters that seemed a bit alien to the building.

And so those now that the rectilinear planters that you see along the sidewalk have replaced those because the rectilinearity relates much more to the public part of the building than the curvilinear part.

If we want to keep going,

some of the precedents that we'd looked at before, talking about really trying to get some delineation on the building, a bit of relief to the facade, the way some of the historic buildings in downtown, it wasn't a great deal of relief, change in plane, but we're trying to emulate that directly across the street with the Albemarle Hotel in some of the, even the larger planes of the building.

We'll keep going.

We've also talked a lot about the brick and the texture of the brick, the color of the brick, and we are narrowing it down.

You can see on the top right an image of a preliminary brick mock-up that we've done.

This is not final.

We are testing right now.

using one type of brick, one color brick, we've always said that that was our intention, with a textured surface to delineate those planes that move back from the main facades of the building.

We'll see that in the 3D development.

But these are all examples of ways that we can achieve a difference in texture.

And even squinting your eyes, it's a difference in tone so that certain planes recede from others.

This has been a constant and continued point of discussion with you all.

So we make sure that we get that right so that we read the difference in planes forward and backward by the differentiation and the texture of the brick.

It's that sort of subtlety using the same material but in a different way that we're going for here.

I will say that we know we need an approvable brick mock-up to show you all and send you out to Allied Brickyard to take a look at.

And we hope to have that in the next two to three weeks.

We have been working on it, you can see here.

We've actually been working with a variety of bricks and a variety of mortar colors.

We're not exactly there yet, but as soon as we are, we'll let you know where it is to be able to go and take a look at it.

But again, this is just representative, the other images of what we're trying to achieve here.

The elevations have not changed much at all from what you had seen before.

The residential entry lobby, you'll see that curve better in three dimensions than shows up in this small drawing here.

But again, just as a reminder, we are stepping the scale of the building down as we go from 600 West Main to the taller block of this building.

and then stepping down so that the first three floors come forward in those two different masses and that also relates to the Holsinger Building down the street to the right and then the churches beyond.

Just a more close-up detailed view of the elevation.

I think it'll be much more beneficial for us to see it in 3D.

the rear elevation, which is just further development of what we'd done before.

Materially, the BAR had said at our last meeting that to do this in EIFS would be acceptable.

We are moving forward with that.

You can see that the brick that will be on the north elevation and the east and west elevations is wrapping here and creating bookends, I'll call it, for the EIFS on the south facade.

The differentiation you see, you'll see it in the three-dimensional views.

There is a bit of relief around each of the windows in the material itself so that it's just not one straightforward mass of ethos.

The side elevations, really mostly hallways.

These are the ends of hallways and in a couple of instances, a bedroom or two.

Okay, great.

Hi guys, thanks Jeff.

So yeah, so just a few things to point out here with some shifts and changes of the plan as some of the thinking has evolved.

As Jeff mentioned, we have changed the planters out front to be more orthogonal and relate more to the building facade itself as well as the streetscape.

We have actually also removed one of the planters, the one on the far corner of the building there is actually just going to be at grade level, so that we're really just using the planters around the stair and kind of housing the stair.

We do still show one with a bench as part of the earlier design.

One thing to also note in this area is that we've changed the paving material as well, just trying to develop a stronger relationship with the sidewalk to be more of just a straightforward sort of concrete surface as opposed to the really small pavers we had been showing in the earlier plan.

And we have talked as a team really what the finish and coloring of that would be.

And while I don't think it would be exactly the city spec, I do think it would be somewhat similar.

We're still discussing kind of final finish and tone there.

You can see, as Jeff was talking about too, sort of the entry into the courtyard there.

We're working with keeping those curvilinear shapes there in that garden area.

And now just two simple stone benches as opposed to any of the other kind of earlier features we had thought were in there.

We're just really looking to simplify this and keep it very clean.

Using the pavers here to really denote the threshold from truly that more public space into the more private space.

Thinking about playing with patterning here a little bit just to kind of start to create some movement with the pavers as they kind of work in that diagonal to pull you towards the front door and play off of the introduced shape at the lobby entry there.

With the four street trees, we are really looking to make those as large kind of canopy trees as we can get.

Right now we're looking at a cultivar of elms, you know, obviously from the city approved list.

We haven't made a final decision there, but definitely looking to get those to be of good size to introduce those to the street.

We still have our bike rack in the same location that we've shown it before and I think actually this garden piece you know with the extension of it behind there and sort of wrapping around the mural will help I think really connect that property from 608 over to 612 as well as being able to sort of expand that garden space and get as much planting in there as we want.

I think really those are the major changes, just some of the shaping and formality of the pieces and then some of the surface changes that I wanted to point out.

I think the next page should be the elevation.

So even though the planter shapes have changed, really still trying to keep as much planted area as was shown before when they were more curvilinear.

So they'd be rather large and still likely custom made to try and get that size.

but a little bit more straightforward with just the rectangular forms and then if you look to the left there you can see the main entry and most of that planting really being in grade at that point as again most of the sidewalk is flush and didn't necessarily need a planter to kind of help mediate the grade there so looking to just kind of connect that more into the garden space as well.

I think that's probably a good overview at this point.

No, I think one topic of conversation has been the planter boxes, and we continue to show them.

We are still trying to figure out how those get incorporated into the project, owner maintained, unit maintained.

There are some issues with that, but it's certainly something that we continue to discuss.

I think that perhaps some of the landscape will also show itself in some of the 3D views.

Maybe we'll just keep going for the moment and Anne stays on and we can get her input as questions come up.

So one of the requests was that we show more views down the street than head-on views.

because of the concern that this will read as one long continuous building.

And I think that you can see here how it steps up the darker set relief of the inset between the two larger panels of the building, the larger facades that come forward, the three story facades.

You'll see as we move a little bit further that the differentiation between those I think is pretty

pronounced, I think there was concern that it wasn't enough and that the facade would read as one long continuous facade.

If we go to the next image, I think you can start to see that this clearly begins to break up into two different pieces.

I don't really need to belabor a lot of this.

I think we'll see more images of the texture

The computer model doesn't render textures as well as we'd like them to.

We've done as well as we can at the moment, again, knowing that the real test is going to be in the sample panels that we have made for you all.

Now here you can begin to see the curvilinear form of the entry to the residential component of the project.

I think some of the things we'd like to point out here are that the

The openings here have a surround on them that comes forward by a couple of inches.

So the retail on the ground floor and the windows directly above those all have the brick surround that is providing some relief on the facade itself.

And then the panels around the doors and windows are set back from that.

You can see that.

The area directly over the residential air entry on the left is differentiated a little bit in that we don't have the brick surrounds there.

We do have brick sills, but we don't have brick surrounds.

That's a detail as we get closer you might be able to see.

The material for the entry to the residential lobby is likely going to be plaster, a smooth plaster, modeled finish perhaps, and very quiet signage with the address on it, not even as pronounced as it reads here.

Material-wise, for the other elements, we are thinking a bronze color of some sort,

We need to get specific, I know, but a bronze color for both the surrounds of the storefront and the windows on the building.

We keep going.

Now we start to get a little bit more close up.

You can begin to see the entry there for the residential and how the two surfaces

The more textured brick there on the residential component and smoother brick on the piece that comes forward.

We're also exploring using a longer brick on the piece that comes forward, not just

the same regular 8-inch module.

That's something that we're trying to sort through right now as well.

So there may be more differentiation simply because of the size of the brick.

But you can begin to see the surrounds on the windows of the piece that come forward and that we've eliminated them on that piece directly above the residential component.

We keep going.

Thanks, Robert.

Just a different view, but this does show the relationship to the original, one of the contributing structures at 600 West Main and the mural that's there.

And start to see the planters.

And I think if we keep going...

You can begin to see some of the textural difference here with what we call the hyphen, that interstitial piece and the pieces that come forward.

The other move that we made that we had discussed at the last meeting that I think was favorably reviewed was where the people are standing on the upper balcony there on the hyphen.

We lowered that component as well so that those

The two pieces that come forward are taller as well.

And another view a little bit closer up the building.

The rear facade.

Again, just a subtle color, the ephus between brick pieces at either end, probably some gold or the bronze colored panels between terraces on that second floor and balconies up above.

We're going to use a very simple railing system, probably just vertical pickets.

Keep it clean, keep it quiet.

And probably the last image there, just a little bit more of a close-up, you can begin to see the reveal around the windows within the EIFS, again, so that we get a little bit of texture on this wall, and it's not just the back of the building.

I think that's the last image, and Anne and I are happy to

answer questions.

As I said, we'd love your feedback.

Since I've only got two meetings left, I'm just going to go rogue and we're going to have a discussion.

I'm sorry, Jeff.

Well, if you get in trouble, you can blame it all on me.

I feel like we, you know, if Jeff Dreyfuss wants to bring this to us for approval next month, it would be really important for us to give him some feedback.

So starting with that, are there any questions from the public?

I see a raised hand.

I see a couple of raised hands.

I'll start with Jake Lassen.

Just a quick question.

We'll have questions from the board, and then there'll be comments from the public.

So if you have a comment about this one, yes, there will be another time for that.

Yeah, I understand.

I'll wait for the next round.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions from the public?

I don't see any.

Go ahead.

Can you give us an update on how

You're approaching the street trees and that's not part of the project.

Is that correct?

Yes, they are a requirement by the city.

And as we mentioned at the last meeting,

If we were to try to place them where the master plan for West Main Street shows them, they'd be out in the public right of way.

So we can't do that.

And I guess on top of that, there's the

In the renderings, I see the tree that's, I don't know if it's on the 600 property line or if it's on this project's property.

It's kind of on the corner right there.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that that is correct.

Is that one you saw in the model views?

I think it might be that Zalkova that's there existing.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

So there's currently six Zalkova, I guess maybe five and a half that are on this site.

I don't know if that, that one must straddle the property line.

So you're going to be taking out five trees, leaving one existing one and putting in four new ones.

Okay.

Just want to make that.

That's all right.

All right.

Comments from the public.

Again, I see a raised hand from Mr. Lassen.

Thank you.

So I live in 600 West Main and I just moved into the building and saw the posting.

Thanks Jeff.

I just wanted to raise concern for my project, this project, living in this building for only a few weeks.

There's quite a bit of small issues and large issues and I feel like this might not be the right venue for some of them, but

I mean, I joke with my friends, if any more corners were cut, I'd be living in a circle like rooms you're already starting to droop.

The building's only two years old.

Floors aren't level.

Windows can't open because of many reasons.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lassen.

I see another one from Jeffrey Erkelins.

Hi, this is actually Joey Conover, Jeff's wife.

I co-opted his iPad mid-meeting, so I apologize.

We live at 310 6th Street Southwest, which is a couple blocks behind this building in Fifeville, and frequently walk up 5th Street to West Main, and I just wanted to put a plug in about the backside of the building and make sure it's just not forgotten.

No building will be ever built up against it because of the railroad track, and so

I just want to make sure that I didn't quite understand what Jeff was saying about the EIFS or what, if that was the name, I'm not familiar with that word, just what the material was on the backside.

I don't have a particular opinion about it.

I just don't want it to be blank and forgotten.

My other comment was just also related to the public area on the front sidewalk, which I'm not sure is relevant to the project exactly, but

The planters would look very nice, but I see one of them has a bench on it and I would just encourage more public seating to be included in the project if there's any way that that could be encouraged.

I'm glad to see that there's that little foyer, public, I'm going to call it a public area.

It looks like it's accessible.

before the apartment entrance when the other building was built.

I was excited about the courtyard that was built and then a private fence was put up.

And I think anything that can just make it feel a little more of a public space is appreciated.

And also I just wanted to say I appreciated the front facade, all the recessing that you have around the windows, I think does a really nice job of breaking up the facade.

I think that's a nice design.

Can I just answer regarding the material, EIFS, exterior insulation and finish system.

OK.

I guess to respond to the first comment, I mean, our purview is just the exterior of the building.

And of course, I think we want it to be long lasting and durable.

And I'm sure Jeff Dreyfus does too.

So I'll just let that sink in with him.

I think he heard that loud and clear.

So, board, yeah, I guess let's give Jeff some feedback.

Is he on the right track?

What would he need to bring to have a complete packet for approval?

Did I see you raise your hand?

Yeah, I'll just make a couple of comments.

I still think that this building, one of the biggest things is getting this brick right.

And I know that you guys know that too.

I'm looking at the images again.

I think I do like the approach with using the texture.

I think that could be really fun.

And it is a way to break it up.

I still think there could be more color differentiation between in the hyphens than if it's intended to be the same brick, which it looks like it is.

But I think the main thing that I'm concerned about is looking at the image of the preliminary brick mock-up on page four is that the brick that's selected there is really uniform, extremely uniform and cold.

And I feel like it looks pretty institutional, maybe a concrete brick.

And I'm just very concerned about what this times the entire facade starts to look like.

It's going to be very bright, very plain,

And it doesn't have the same kind of modeling and life that the other examples that you share.

So even the model, even the digital model, it shows a lot of subtle modeling and color variation within the brick, which I'm afraid we're not going to get based on that mock up.

I would certainly encourage investigating, if that's the brick, a mixture of some subtle tonal variation.

If I could jump in, Breck, we felt the same way about the brick.

Great.

That was easy.

If no one else is jumping in, I made a little list of things that I'd like to see.

You've got a lot of thin brick, and I think we've talked about this a little bit.

I'd like to see an installation detail or at least an installation cut sheet, something from the product of the manufacturer for how you, because it looks like you're using that for field brick on the upper levels, as well as using it for the recesses and the windows.

Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

You may have two different installation methods and I guess our guidelines

I'm saying this like I remember exactly, but I thought there was something in there about not using thin brick.

And the idea behind that, although not written in the guidelines, my understanding was the glue-on brick has a tendency to fall off.

I think if you're going to use that around the window surrounds, maybe that's the way it happens, almost like it's adhered tile.

But I think we'd want to see something more for where it's used as a field brick, at least that I would.

On your drawings, you said it's EFIS, you labeled it Stucco, just label it EFIS so that it's on there.

I'd love to see some plan details for the recesses and things, or section details, just something to

Just give us a dimension.

The renderings look fantastic.

And I'm sure your computer model was accurate, but it just would be nice to have some sort of, this is actually what it's going to be.

It's going to be recessed two inches or four inches, or it looks like actually quite a bit in some of your renderings.

You probably don't have an answer yet, but if you've got a plan for the power lines, I'd love to see that in the drawings.

If they're going to be there, they're going to be there.

We did talk about this.

I think we have to go on the assumption that they will ultimately be there.

They will be relocated during construction, as we did at 600 West Main.

But we don't really have any control over Dominion Power at this point, and they'll have to be put back where they are.

Showing that existing tree on the landscape plan, I think there was a little bit of, some plans should know and some didn't, so just it's there and it's staying.

The steps in the front, you come all the way up to the property line where you've got the two steps up and you're probably gonna need some handrails at some point.

I don't think they're allowed to extend over the sidewalk, the public sidewalk, so just kind of, maybe I'm raising an issue that doesn't,

Makes sense, but if that sounds right, maybe just take a look at it and make sure you're not, yeah.

And if whatever railings you intend to use, let's see those on the drawings as well.

That's my, yeah, I guess the other thing is with those trees, you said they're required, so the city requires them.

I'm going to suggest that the board put some warding in the motion that really locks them in there so I guess just be prepared for that because I know at this point I don't fully trust the city with the site plan process I mean with 600 West Main and then with the code building we've had some

site plans that get changed at the very, very last minute.

And it would be, yeah, so just be prepared for that.

That's my list.

I think the projects, I think you're moving in a great direction.

I'm very, very happy with what I'm seeing and think it's compatibility with West Main with the guidelines.

I'm actually really trying to use a elm cultivar instead of using a Zelkova, like actually using a Valley Forge or what's the other one, the Princeton, it's not Princeton.

Yeah, maybe it's Princeton, yeah.

But no, I would, I really want it to be in keeping with a true canopy.

size tree that can work on the street still.

And I'd like it to have that vase shape because I think it would really open up well against the way the building is too.

I love that direction.

Yeah, I mean, the fact that we, I think it's actually, I know four doesn't sound like a lot, but I actually think it's great opportunity to get four trees along Main Street.

So like a good size, I think would be awesome.

So I'm looking forward to it.

So I'm with you, Carl.

That was just confirming numbers.

That was all that I... Totally.

No, I get it.

What you're going to do is you're going to prepare a very good hole for these trees so that they thrive for many, many years to come.

Yes.

Jeff's going to take care of that, right?

Yeah.

Just a request, I'd like to see detail on the railings for the front and south facades.

Okay, sure.

I'm curious what the materials will look like.

There is a lot of railing.

Yes, we hope to have an approved final site plan in early January.

We're moving ahead under that assumption, and it's been a very slow process with the city.

Very slow.

But that is the plan.

We will start footings and foundations digging as soon as we can after that.

So as I said, you know, we will not be, we won't have completed final

everything, construction documents down to the nth until probably sometime in early April.

So we've still got, we've got the opportunity to make adjustments if we need to, things like colors and all of those sorts of things as we move forward.

I'm just wondering when you bring this in for final approval from us, do you think you might have some concept where the fire hydrants and

We can show you all of that.

It is on the plans.

It's just a matter of

Inching its way through the city process right now.

Okay, that would be great.

Thank you for all your hard work.

So no motion is needed because this wasn't this was just a discussion.

At the moment, I'm good.

We need some good brick panels.

That's what we need.

That's clear.

I guess it just occurred to me, since Tim isn't here, however you plan to light this, that would be good to know.

And we may not have a final lighting plan for

All right.

Talk to Jeff Warner about that.

Okay.

Well, I don't want to have anybody sit here any longer than they have to.

We've received

The feedback and we thank you, appreciate it.

We will look forward to coming back and getting approval and getting this underway sooner than later.

Thank you all for your time.

Appreciate it.

All right.

I wasn't aware that I didn't, sorry, difficult to explaining that.

I didn't expect it to be that, my apologies.

But I guess, this is where there's a lot on the agenda and it's coming at you all fast.

And I just have to,

I understand, but then we have to then treat it as, at least our opinion, is to treat it then like we have with the other ones.

It comes in and it's a deferral at the end, just so that it's all consistent.

We're, I don't want to say we're making our own, our new rules, but we are, we're establishing, you know, how we're going to do things going forward.

And I just want to just make sure when I have

Lee Harry, we just had a very public discussion.

That's fine.

And I also I guess apologies to Jody because I know there were questions he had and I guess I got it wrong.

But so quickly, I don't want to believe I really don't.

I can't find the agenda.

Are we ready to nominate the next chair and vice chair of the BAR?

I nominate Brick as chair and Cheri, you said you'd be okay being vice chair.

I'd be okay doing it.

I have no aspirations for chair, just so that's quite clear.

So, Brett, don't ever be absent.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr. Lehendra?

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Ms.

Last chance for somebody to write in as vice chair.

Yeah, I was going to say Tim had to be the chair a couple of times.

Well, I have I have confidence.

Yes, yes, Jerry.

Thank you, Mr. Gastinger.

Aye.

That's right.

Now, I believe, I mean, this may be the first year that I've done it correctly, but I believe that Brecht assumes power at the next meeting and allowing, you know, any

I don't have your bylaws memorized.

So, but I think there's, it's not a statutory requirement.

Well, thank you for that.

Next on the discussion agenda were the Preservation Awards.

I hope that the information that I sent out is sufficient to have a discussion about this.

A few months ago, there were a couple of nomination or recommended nominations.

I don't remember them off the top of my head.

So there's what I remembered that I actually went to my emails and searched the word, wow.

And it was 743 Park Street where they removed the siding and found the, you know, original Victorian trim and siding and whatnot.

I don't know where they are in that renovation now.

I think that one.

Okay.

I nominated what's called the 10th and Grady Church, it's been known by a couple of things and I got some, and I'm not, I'm just trying to say this objectively I got some negative feedback on that nomination.

Some of it focused around that we don't know exactly what was done to it.

You know what materials were used, whether it was a, you know, it looks really great to me but who knows.

And I think the other part of it was a sensitivity, if I could, and Carl can

Of course, talk about his objections more than I can summarize them, but a sensitivity to some uncertainty in the neighborhood about its future use and whether the neighborhood was done as it was done by the developers of Dairy Central, which I wasn't aware of.

And it's been part of that property for a while, which I also wasn't aware of.

But I've always been fascinated by that beautiful little church and then drove by and

It looks stunning what they've done to it.

I think the materials look very well done.

But if it's too political, then I'll withdraw it.

It's kind of a special little piece of history, I think, in the city.

It's a really unusual structure.

that's kind of held up that corner, you know, for a long time.

And it's got a lot of things that it has to do with there.

The background I provided was just Jeff had said he didn't know what the use was.

And I just explained that it's the city has actually said that it cannot be used for anything other than a church right now.

So it is it was going to have some community use.

And that has

That does not permit it.

So they did get one really good event out of it.

And beyond that, it's now just sitting vacant.

But the exterior of it, they didn't change the siding.

It's just been painted.

So it's been cleaned up.

There's no, I don't think there's anything artificial that's been done to it.

The windows are still the same windows.

I also belatedly was thinking about the impact of a building that's not, again, in an IPP, not in a historic district.

It's actually sort of legally not in the city, or maybe somebody can correct me.

But it was also completed last year, and I realize we gave out awards last year and didn't mention it.

But the Memorial to Enslaved Workers just continues to be one of the most significant things, I think, that's been done locally.

and it's wrapped up more recognition late last year and during this year outside of our area.

You know, I know recognize, I mean, it really is right across the street from the corner district.

So it does contribute to that district, even though it doesn't sit in it.

I just think, you know, if that were located downtown, you know, it's just a signal, I shouldn't say that.

It's just a significant thing that happened in the last year.

And I think because of the pandemic, I just wasn't thinking

about recognizing at the time.

I don't think there's any timetable on this.

For instance, I think the, you know, we're looking at the quirk and I think that may have even opened in 2020.

So I, you know, our rules for nomination and recognition are loose and maybe that

I don't know if anybody else feels the same as I do.

And it doesn't really fit into any of the great categories.

I think it's kind of a miscellaneous monuments category or something like that.

I agree with you.

Go ahead, Robert.

I was going to say I agree too.

And that location is significant to the Underground Railroad.

I support that and maybe one tact to take is that, you know, even beyond the kind of the physical structure itself, it's bringing education and recognition to the built environment that was in Charlottesville.

I would just mention that

Just a technicality, it's the memorial to enslaved laborers, not workers, just for the record.

And I think also, as you pointed out, it's seen from the corner historic district, and one of the most striking features, if you're fortunate enough to see it, is the way the exterior wall is carved.

In the right light, on the right day, you can see the eyes of Isabella Gibbons, who is an enslaved laborer at UVA, an important Charlottesville community member,

And I think that it also, the development of that memorial took a long time and actually really engaged the Charlottesville community to help in the decision making process.

In my ancient history of awards, I don't think there was ever a requirement that it be individually protected in a district, anything like that.

And I would strain to remember the things that we recognized at the time when I was last on the BAR.

I think it'd be good if the award mentioned that it was recognizing history, that it's a marker for history.

Brecht was saying more so than just the actual physical artifact of the monument, but just the fact that it is a monument there, recognizing the history of the enslaved laborers at UVA.

Personally, I guess it was a community

A lot of community input went into that monument.

I got a little disappointed now it turned out, but that shouldn't, I still think it's definitely worth nominating.

Could just be the parking lot lights that they put all over around it.