Board of Architectural Review Meeting   12/21/2021

Thank you.

Is that right?

Yes, that's right.

You'll have up to three minutes for any items not on the agenda.

Mr. Chair, I see three attendees in the queue and none of them are raising their hands.

Do I hear a motion?

I move that the consent agenda be approved.

Mr. Gastinger?

I have a relationship to the project on the consent agenda.

And Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

The vote is, well, with one abstaining, unanimous.

And the next item is the certificate of appropriateness for 517 Rugby Road.

He looks like he's on site, ready to point to things for us.

And I don't know if I'm supposed to stop for questions, but maybe I should before I keep rolling, Robert, do we want to see if there anything about that or should I just keep presenting?

We'll have a chance for public and great questions for the conversation.

Then the next slide I believe has all of that.

And Eric, I didn't might say we've, we have had the chance to review these so I just maybe keep your comments to anything that you felt we needed special attention.

Thank you.

Please either raise your hand or hit star nine if you're calling in.

But can you try talking at my own?

I just wanted to let you all know I'm from the Alumni Corporation board from the fraternity there and just want to let you know it's here.

Yeah.

Are those going to be removed?

That's correct.

And there's one on the north side there at the driveway.

Let me look at the elevations.

That's a small like coal hopper window.

Um, I'm honestly not sure why that's being shown as to be removed.

Right.

Yeah.

So and I guess the diagram says those are all non-historic.

Correct.

And is that just the sash that's not historic or the opening itself?

Okay.

Are there other questions from the board?

We've got a couple of questions.

Sorry, I looked for that for, okay, that's embarrassing.

Long plan.

Is the intention to let those get the full height?

We don't want those up over the floor level and we've got about 28 inches of vertical there.

It's not getting 13 feet.

I'm sure I'll find them later.

I was curious, Eric, I saw the, and you referenced the new retaining wall on Ruby, but I didn't see a material or height or what, I don't see much information about that in the documentation.

The intent is to have it look like a field stone retaining wall.

And that would be a stone cap as well?

Exactly.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Or are you?

Sorry about that.

I guess it'll match what is existing, which is basically just the underside of the windowsill.

Yeah, the existing non-historic roof framing will stay where it is and be repaired in place if necessary.

Cheri?

So Eric, you're saying that all the windows in the

back of the house, north, I guess, side of the house are not original.

So they're they're being just prepared in place.

But they're going away on the on the backside because of the addition.

So they're correct on the west side.

I'm just curious.

I think they're slightly different sized because we have looked zoomed in on the siding spacing and we know where the bottom and the top boards are and you count off 41 courses in the existing photograph and then you do the same on the historic photograph and the windows don't line up so I think they have moved subtly from the historic condition but again not changing them so

Is that thought to be original on the back, and is there a transom that's been painted over it, or what is that detail?

On the back being- Facing the parking area, I guess facing what?

Right, so the door that's elevated that is on the second story if you're looking in the back of the structure.

OK, so the main floor level with, oh right, with the transom on the porch.

Yeah.

Since we were planning on that being within the new construction, we haven't surveyed that door closely.

OK, thank you.

Still muted.

Is that just for, you know, because there's a security situation or is that something, those things are going to be on all the time?

Tried to keep them down low so it would be just lighting the walking areas below them.

You know, are those entablatures the exact same or it looks like the, I guess the tinea, like the top of the architrave before it goes to the frieze might be slightly different.

OK.

But all the other elements line up?

The bed mold would and the crown mold would.

That answers my question.

of the historic, so it can be sort of coped in without chopping up that base or having an awkward connection.

Any comments from the public?

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

Comments from the board?

I mean, at the very minimum, it seems to me they ought to be hooded because they're just sort of glare bombs with power lamps without any kind of shroud on them.

Yeah, we can certainly do that.

So in terms of because the house is a little bit below the street too, right.

Correct.

You know, if you have them on that lower level, well, these on the front side, which I don't think you do.

The existing are up high at the roof level on the entry side.

It's like two and one, or one and a half?

Are we talking about the porch?

If you're looking head on, you know,

It's shown the way it exists, but I can't tell you exactly the slope.

So I'm just wondering if to make, particularly since you can be up above the house and the photographs you take don't, you know, make it appear like you don't see the roof, but what about putting a flatter pitch on the two wings so that you really do get some sense of the prominence of the center section rather than having the same slope?

We have a 4-12 slope on there right now, and that painted standing seam metal roof can accommodate down to a 2-12.

I didn't really read more than it's kind of a flat section, and then I think it has a little more identity, and the centrality of the original porch remains.

That's a good suggestion.

And that's my two cents.

And we can certainly accommodate that.

I understand.

I just think that looks a little clumsy.

I think that might actually also be a good idea and more distinction that's clearly differentiated, not as sort of a bad match.

Is this a concern of anyone else's?

But that would create enough of a distinction from how the corner is turned with the old house with the round columns versus three square columns.

Good point.

But with more slender members, I think we would revisit putting that column back there as well, which sort of then brackets that both of those side bays instead of just letting it kind of hang off, hang off the end.

That would really get the distinction between how one turns a corner and how the other turns a corner.

Yeah, I like all those suggestions.

I don't have really too much concern about that, but I do feel this is quite a big change to this historic structure.

And noting that Tim and I are both going to be gone.

Other comments from the board?

If we were to revise the porch dramatically, I think we'd probably want to see it again.

Hey James, can you repeat that?

Yeah, sorry.

She was louder than you were.

Does that answer your question, Carl?

Well, that's more your decision.

Are there any, so let's set that aside and see if there's any other questions related to the rear addition or any other comments related to the rear addition or the site plan.

But I don't know if that's something that we can request on this or not.

Or is it just me?

It's not a particularly robust shrub necessarily.

The low decks just don't do it for me, ever.

Or are we ready to make a motion on those elements?

So I don't think it's outside of the possibilities of what you all can establish as a condition, but certainly you in the past have added it as a recommendation.

I don't know what a button bush is.

Yeah, that seems to make sense.

It's been a long time, but when Chris Long was doing his house on Park Street, I know we held him up for at least three meetings because of a hedge that he wanted in the front and finally got him down to a boxwood that was short, which he then proceeded to plant something behind it that was about 10 feet tall and is still there.

It's all good.

So yes, we do have a shrub list, but we don't call them shrubberies because we know Brecht doesn't like that word.

Shrouds on security lighting, the retaining wall of rugby to be fieldstone or fieldstone clad wall and the recommendation of the site of the hedge at the street to be maintained at four feet or lower.

Just a thought.

So in any reference to as presented in emotion, we kind of cover that.

Mr. Chair, I'm ready with the motion and I'm happy to accept any friendly amendments on some of these conditions.

Thank you.

Just please, before you do that, would it be better for the applicant to remove consideration of the porch from this application to be presented in a new application at a later date so it doesn't have to be declined in this motion?

It's not a denial.

Thank you.

Anybody want to join in?

The applicant will submit a substitute fixture for the yard security lights.

I'll accept that.

Shrouds and motion detectors.

We're trying to be consistent about that.

Those are in the guideline requirements already.

Yeah.

Jeff has also recommended that we say that the cementitious siding trim and materials will be smooth with no faux wood grain.

And that the porch bark is omitted, correct?

Does somebody want to address just however that was going to be worded?

and that they be maintained, that they are required to be maintained at a height of four feet or less.

Not to exceed a height of four feet.

And I'd like to say, even though it's in the staff piece, because it wasn't in the submitted materials, that the retaining wall would be to be fieldstone or a fieldstone clad wall.

I'm done with my motion, yeah.

OK, just making sure that's what's there.

Second, second, second.

Mr. Edwards.

Aye.

The motion passes unanimously.

Miles apart from one another.

Have a good evening, all.

That might help set it apart from the wings just as you're hashing things out.

Thanks, James.

All right.

So Whitney may have it, but I'll hand it off to you, Mr. Kastner.

Thank you.

And so yes, we'll hand it over to Jeff or Whitney to make their presentation.

Oh, there's Jeff.

All right.

Don't know if that's an opportunity.

Do you need me to zoom in somewhere, Jeff?

Some of the details, probably more than anything else, showing thin brick where we intend to use it and also calling out some of the details of the brick surrounds the protrusions around some of the windows.

Jeff, I'll keep scrolling through the details unless you want me to stop on anything.

Anne, I don't know if Anne, are you on the line?

Anne, I'm going to allow you to talk and you should unmute yourself.

Let Anne give an overview of the landscape hardscape plan.

And again, just playing off the greens and the textures there.

More examples of that.

Oh, yeah, sorry.

So thank you all.

Do we have any questions from the public?

Mr. Chair, I'm looking at the list and I don't see any raised hands.

Questions from the board?

I will, oh, go ahead, Cheri, go.

I mean, I see.

Jeff, if you'd like, you can attempt to share your screen.

There was a, let's see, something's taking a few minutes.

And I saw.

So it is.

That's probably the best example we have, Cheri.

It shows this gradation and I'm just wondering where along that spectrum, and I understand that bronze is a organic material that changes- Yeah, but I guess the question is where on that spectrum from lighter to darker might

So as we look at that.

So it would be more of a golden.

Yes, yes.

image that you could tell us all to point to and just look on our own screens that way?

And I think Whitney's probably checking that out right now and will send us.

I mean it's a lighter tones than the building next door but you know right now the only color I relief I'm seeing right now truly is the bronze whatever color that is in the planting am I correct about that?

But as I've said, that is not entirely within the owner's control because of maintenance issues.

I'm getting disciplined in my old age.

Is that still operative?

Yes, that is still the plan.

Is that being then filled with mortar on the backside?

I'm not quite certain about that.

Does that mean then the headjoint is going to be wider there or is the brick going to be cut so that the headjoint is consistently the same width?

Okay, thank you.

Other questions from the board?

The number of street trees, how are four decided upon?

I don't know if that's what you're thinking about.

But could, I mean, is that the minimum could more be added?

So we also kind of worked back and forth with that number as well.

Is that not the case?

The layout is in part, you know, to work with the architecture for sure.

So a tree could not be added in that gap between the two pairs?

trying to kind of just create the continuity down and really address obviously that space in the middle and leave it open as really a nice sort of gap between the two buildings, between the building with the two pieces.

Okay, page 30 of the presentation.

And so, yeah, this, this layout worked well with the building you know, and met all the requirements.

Right.

That's something that people are thinking about more now, too, as we look at the whole evolution of the building.

Just my opinion.

One thing your lighting plan doesn't really address is actually how the sidewalk gets lit, right?

Well, there will be street lights.

And do you have any idea what the distribution of those is likely to be or not really?

Ann, do we, are those, I forget if they've, I think, in fact, they're probably located on a civil plan that we have

I was just wondering how they relate to your tree locations and that sort of thing.

But I do know that we're sort of actively trying to figure out who gets to sort of make that call or how that's going to work.

Okay, she's saying that we we can propose the location of the lights.

So yeah, so obviously, we would look to make that work out with the trees as well, for sure.

And will they receive more than this looks like about four foot by four foot tree pit that they're shown in plan?

So I will really be pushing to make that detail a good one.

Any other questions?

Do you guys know where the power poles are going?

They're not in our purview.

So I guess, do you guys have a drawing that shows where they currently exist?

I can pull that up.

I realize it's kind of crowded.

I see the line that says OHP, but I don't see polls.

Yeah.

Unless I'm missing something.

I think there's one right there.

Okay.

I mean, that's a black street light in the middle and two polls on either end with the OHPs going to either side.

Is that safe to assume?

Yes.

Kind of round about there.

And that's why I rely on Whitney to chime in here if there's anything we're not getting at that we're spending too much time on.

Is that going to be pruned back severely to allow power lines to be played around with?

OK.

So I appreciate what you're getting at, Carl, because I do like the trees there as well.

OK, thank you.

Okay, any comments from the public?

Okay, any comments from the board?

I believe I saw this correctly, that the light that you're putting on the railing to shine down on the terrace will not continue across the gap.

It would only be on that portion of the upper balcony that is solid.

So thank you.

But it seems to me that that's pretty critical, at least sort of during the active hours of the street.

Just so that I'm clear on what you're suggesting, Tim, that is that there be some sort of requirement for lighting that the retailers light their store from within at night, even when they're closed.

But I'm just concerned about, I think the front entrance needs to be bolder and a vertical sense of the word.

That's my two cents.

Yeah, that would be the main one.

I think if they did, that they will come very close to creating that continuous canopy even at the spacing that they're shown.

I'm just reacting to what the renderings show and so I defer to you.

What real capacity would we have together with the architecture team when reviewing those samples and what's appropriate within the way our ordinance is written and the way we can review items after a certificate of appropriateness has been given?

That's the way, that's how I would appreciate being able to proceed if that's even possible.

So I just think we need to bake in some flexibility on that level.

And I would, I hope that what you're imagining happens happens.

It would be much better to test it before it goes in the ground and get that angle right.

Other comments from the board?

Did you mention the mortar color?

For the portion that comes forward, we really want that to be very quiet, and so we're not looking for contrasting mortar, and we'll be raking that same color mortar in the hyphens.

That was my takeaway from the material sample palette slide guide.

I mean, I don't know whether that's going to have any kind of multivalent

That wasn't the intention at this point, a relatively flat, very, very simple surface there in contrast to the brick, because this is sitting within the textured brick wall.

I could see since you only have three locations you're lighting like that, you maybe have some sort of DMX controller or something in there so you really can fine tune the color as well.

Yep.

Tim, what are we going to do, the board's going to do without our lighting guru?

I noticed that last night.

So that's where my advice.

as a modification to the approval.

Would that be a formal vote subsequent in the next month then on the, once we look at the material or how would that work?

If we felt it was not what we were presented.

It's just Jeff is going to have all of us, all of you guys take a look at it.

And so if you're approving it based on that and contingent upon, and if we need to come back with something else and it's not what you expected, then we would have to come back and request a change.

Is it fair to say that it's also just the texture that everyone is concerned with, or is it the material itself you want to be confirmed?

And then the process by which if something in that wall is different or changes, then it would have to come back as a... I don't think it has to be that tricky.

And the other one for me is that the texture of the textured panel is sufficient to create the distinction between the hyphens and the masses in the way that the project has been presented.

Yeah, we're just trying to confirm that what is in front of us now matches what the physical versions are.

I just want to make sure that when you go out there and we look at it, and if there is any, um, question on that, then the, the default to Jeff and his team is that they must do the following so that there's no, I mean, you know, at the same time, in fairness to them, it has to be, I don't know if egregious is the right word, but like,

And then we say, wait a minute, this isn't what we saw.

And, you know, I think basically there's some professional courtesy here that we believe what he's attempting to do will work, but he has to, he just has to confirm it.

Right.

Anybody want to take a stab?

I think Carl does.

Tim, sorry.

Do you want to include that as a part of the sample discussion?

I think that's going to be hard for us to review.

OK, that makes sense.

Brett, do you want to add that amendment?

No, I think they'll need to study that on their own.

So to see in there is something about backlighting the first four windows.

Yeah, that we recommend that you consider backlighting the retail windows to provide additional lighting at night.

Seconded, Jesus Christ.

I retract, I retract my second.

It's the Carl and Tim show for the rest of the night.

So now in the building, if something goes wrong, you can blame the two VAR members.

That staff had suggested that we specify when we say as submitted that we say per the drawings that were submitted on December 17th.

Because drawings dated December 17th.

I'm sorry, dated September 17th, yeah.

And included in the BAR packet.

As opposed to the ones that were earlier for this meeting submission.

Tim, do you accept that amendment?

on December 17th.

If for some reason I have to move something because something's going to be underground or something's happening, that's okay, but it's just the species and the number?

So yeah, we got to figure out how to... I mean, shoot, I just dig a hole.

Well, there are changes to sometimes that are required to be made, but that doesn't mean that the certificate of appropriateness is invalid.

Yeah, just because he sort of used some of that verbiage and so I just wasn't sure exactly how far that would extend.

I did use that verbiage and I may need to utilize that verbiage, but the concern is that it needs to come back to the BAR for us to, can we amend the COA, call it that, or what's the... Well, what you're saying is, and the risk is that

But that's what I'm worried about is I know and I delete the tree.

Is there a way that it comes back to us for, maybe it's not a complete COA, but I mean it is, we need to amend the COA.

The correct answer is I don't know, but I was trying to get at what you were saying, whether it was a sort of a decision to move something, but if it's something that the city says must move and then Jeff and Ann say, well, God, now we've got to go back to the VAR.

You're saying if they get removed.

and maybe that does.

sort of small trees going in but sometimes it's just availability of tree species or really finding good healthy ones and you know the Valley Forge I think should be pretty consistent at this point but you know there's sometimes issues where you do have to change but then even then I'd have to go back through the city too so really we try and pick these things and avoid having to go back and do amendments on anything so it's really more about the location and the flexibility within being able to work it around if I need to.

Or is it a medium one on the tree list?

Yeah.

I just don't know.

I believe it the way that it was given.

But this is exactly, Carl, what you were talking about at the beginning of the meeting.

Why is this still happening?

I'll stop there.

I'm fine with that.

Thank you.

And what you're saying

And there are some reasonable things which you all know we have addressed in the line of construction.

It's not just for the record.

We voted on the code gate change.

request.

Move on.

Okay.

Lewis?

Hi.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Mr. Edwards.

Yes.

Mr. Gastinger.

Hi.

The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

This was Jeff.

Thanks so much.

And we'll see you.

What do you guys think?

5?

OK.

Hm.

Hey, Robert.

Are you looking forward to the holidays this week?

Oh yeah, I'm going.

So it's not that much of a holiday yet.

We'll be around.

So I'll be back.