Board of Architectural Review Meeting   7/19/2022

Thanks.

And I think even just a few minutes of conversation of the history of that place and why it's being evaluated, it's always good to share that with the community.

So are we, I'm sorry, are we pulling 14th Street?

Well, I don't have it as a consent.

Star nine if you'd like to raise your hand if you're listening online.

I see some people trying to get in, so I'm going to go help them get in first.

Trying physically to get in the door.

I'll be back.

Can't get in the meeting room.

They're being let in.

Do we have any speakers from the public on Zoom?

You'll need to unmute yourself.

Thank you.

If you don't mind coming to the podium, speaking into the microphone, and just sharing your name and address.

on Press and Place don't make it any worse.

Turner.

Are there any other speakers online for matters for the public?

Mr. Chair, I'm not seeing any raised hands.

Members of the board, does anyone wish to pull any of the items from the consent agenda or do I hear a motion?

Move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Discussion?

I just, by way of reminder, did the chair.

Okay.

I don't find in total with three of the elevation apertures being changed that they violate our guidelines and that's why I'm supporting this modification.

Then I will call the vote.

When we're in person, traditionally the chair is not out.

All those in favor of supporting the passage of the consent agenda?

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

Abstentions?

All right.

All right, if I work from here?

Yes, and we're also, I'll just share that we're joined by Eric Ampsman from DGP representing this project.

And Eric, contrary to what I had said to you the other evening, you're one of several small heads on the screen, so you don't have to be wondering about this.

This big, moving video presence, I'm happy for that, thank you.

So for those reasons where staff is recommending approval.

Mr. Antman, would you like to add to that with anything?

I'll answer questions if there's any discussion that I need to.

Are there any questions from the public?

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

Questions from the board.

Will this be the first time that metal is on here?

I need to check on that.

Looks like shingles, asphalt shingles to me, but I don't know, my eyes are getting old.

So it may be a change to a non-historic roof.

It looks it looks like asphalt to me.

The historic photo from the early historic condition from the early 20th century is a different condition which is no longer extant.

Now page 116 of our packet has

I had a question, Eric.

Is it structural or can we do away with them?

I think it's speculation one way or the other.

I guess in this circa 1915 photograph, the southern railing returning back to the house looks pretty visible as a simple picket railing, but it just doesn't have those intermediate 4x4 posts that you all have in your detailed sketch.

I think we need an intermediate support that's tied down to a joist below.

I might allow him to speak in case he wishes to add anything.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

But I figured I'd make my presence known in case you have any questions about current conditions or at least the conditions in the late 80s when I was in school there.

Thanks, Mr. Edwardson.

Comments from the public?

I don't see any additional raised hands.

Board comment.

I think doing away with the little wing porches is an improvement.

Any further comment from the board or would someone like to make a motion?

Please point me to the page because I'm just not finding it.

The material is simply pre-painted instead of painted in the field, which lasts longer.

So I don't know, is that something worth considering for up there if you anticipate people being there?

So I think this is actually a more abuse resistant roofing system than flat ceiling.

Sorry, sorry to interrupt.

I look at the standing seams as an inhibition, and if somebody is to step out there and bend it, they're going to be paying for replacements on it when it happens, and they'll be told in no uncertain terms there's a reason that it's set up that way and they're not to go out on the roof.

Thank you, Eric.

Any other comment from the board?

If I can make a motion.

Please.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district guidelines, I move to find that the front porch repair, removal of non-historic porch wings, and window sash replacements at 517 Rugby Road satisfy the BAR's criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road, University Circle, Venable Neighborhood, ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted.

Second.

All those in favor?

Yes.

Abstentions?

Motion passes unanimously.

Let's see here.

OK, next up is 159 Madison Lane.

Thank you.

There you go.

Thank you, Eric.

All right, so the first up is this these three openings Not Jack, are you there?

I don't know any areas We're joined by the applicant here in person Mr. Can if you wish to speak and provide a presentation, you're welcome to come up to the podium and speak into the microphone Yes, go ahead.

You can't tell who's speaking when the we have masks on

And I appreciate your consideration of this.

Thank you.

I'm happy to.

We'll go right to that and see if there are any questions from the public.

I don't see any raised hands.

The board, any questions?

Is that what your experience is?

today's break won't work but I mean we'll get as close as possible and make it look as tasteful as we can and we want to preserve the character of the building and the character of the neighborhood.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Are you proposing to do anything with those?

Thank you.

But is, I guess, is that providing ventilation to the space under the... No, it's all blocked off.

I haven't pulled it apart.

space occupiable under the porch or is it just like a crawl space?

The piers support the columns on the front porch which have got to be pretty massive.

And if we're talking about blocking this up, you might possibly be making things worse from a ventilation standpoint.

We thought we could get it done but you know there's so much structural engineers and so forth that we now have students arriving and so we're just going to postpone the thing and do it next summer.

there's still going to be moisture in them and if there's no way to ventilate them, you say there's air conditioning?

I mean, I haven't seen pictures of them, but this seemed to be a way of mitigating any water or moisture that would get in there.

But I'll be gone.

Yeah, they all say that.

Because that's why the rebar is failing, not only from the water coming through from the top, but also from the condensation from that moist cavity below condensing on the underside of that slab.

and no place to go.

What do you mean by plaster?

In the bottom of the porch, the front porch is concrete and in the basement beneath it, it was plaster put against the wall.

Why would they plaster it?

At least we're assured by the engineers it is.

You were previously thinking that this was a crawl space under the porch.

was a glass window, or if it was a screen, do you happen to recall?

No, understood.

And I'm curious if there's a way to kind of meet in the middle, but... I would just suggest that if it's possible to keep openings between the space under the porch and the rest of the basement to do that, that will help mitigate the buildup of moist air.

It's all open down there.

OK.

It's all clear and There's a lot of air circulation and that space is conditioned that is condition.

I mean, there's some piers that interrupt.

And as a matter of fact, there's a bar down there.

I had one question.

I don't know, since you haven't taken these apart, I don't know if you know the answer, but I was going to ask if we knew how much reveal or how much depth you were going to be able to get between the face of the original brick and the inset panel.

I mean, there's a two-foot wall.

But the brick probably only returns a certain amount anyway, the face brick.

I mean, it wouldn't be a three-inch brick or something.

Comments from the public?

Eric, I'm going to allow you to talk and you'll need to unmute yourself.

There shouldn't be any question that it's basement space.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the public?

I don't see any additional raised hands.

Comments from the board.

Okay.

But that's not what the applicants proposed.

I'm fine with the brick.

I agree with Jody.

and the bond that's currently on the exterior of the property.

Would anyone care to take a stab at a motion?

So I'd like to clarify Cheri are you talking about doing basket weave inside in the vertical surface?

Is that not a good idea?

It's more appropriate for a paving surface than a wall surface.

But nobody's going to walk on it.

I think it's just you never see a basket weave on a vertical surface of a brick wall.

And it kind of implies that then the insets have some historical connection with the paving on the floor.

I would never want to create false historicism, Mr. Leandro.

I knew you would.

No.

So there's a clear, strong shadow line and delineation and you can still, you know, see the recess and know that there was a former opening.

But it'll be a little more forgiving with the inevitable slight difference in color.

No.

Three inches of asking for trouble.

OK.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the city's ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed infill of the three masonry openings at 159 Madison Lane, and are we submitting the other changes too, or is it just these openings?

Just that there's some repairs that we just wanted to kind of talk through.

My motion I'll just say just in other repairs noted by the applicant is compatible with the district and the BAR approves the application is submitted.

Second.

That is correct, yes sir.

And I think we should include the comment about setting the brick back and aligning the coursing and matching the color and mortar as closely as possible.

So I'll accept that as a friendly amendment to my motion, Mr. Gassinger.

Opposed?

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

We'll see you again.

We'll see you soon, right?

OK, that brings us to 550 East Water Street, Suite 101, pole sign application.

I get used to two screens and it's like going to one little dinky one just makes my world complicated.

It definitely is a different skill set.

That's why I was kind of... Do we have dimension?

Did I miss the dimensions in the materials too?

Yeah, I think there's a cut sheet from Gropin.

I wish I had a more complete legal response to you, but that's all I can really offer is that these will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

To ask that if we take action on this but then if there are other poll signs in the future requested for this building that we just alert the building occupants that if that's asked then we will be requesting a sign package concept for the entire building?

And you're not dictating what something may or may not be, you're simply requesting a coherent plan for this address.

And the owner needs to, or the occupants need to, to think about that.

And at that point would a monument sign with multiple signs be more appropriate to combine them?

Could be up to them to come up with a concept.

So to speculate what might go there, I'd rather not.

But I think Jody's got a good point of, does this open the door to 10 more?

Yeah, this is not setting precedent that we're going to have a whole line of a cross-app tooling.

Correct, and I'm comfortable, after my conversation with the zoning administrator, I'm comfortable that that is a valid understanding for the BAR, that this is not approving, this is approving this single request, which I would say I have no problem with.

There's also a note in this section 34 1031 maximum number of signs allowed principal establishment may have no more than two signs per primary street frontage so I was trying to look at the picture.

They already have two.

Is that a different building?

That's the building.

Principal establishment?

There isn't one.

Or principal street furniture.

You have that many businesses.

There are some terms that I you know that was the question of what

And I was comfortable with that explanation and yeah.

No, please go ahead.

Yes, we're still on staff report.

But I think that's just, the sign guy was broken, so I don't know if he was going to get into the whole, what else was going on at the building.

Is anybody else concerned that this is six feet five inches tall?

No, it absolutely does say that, but it's next to a person that's 10 feet tall.

It's 52 inches above grade.

Cheri, I saw that same thing first time, too.

I know.

The blonde can't do math.

33 one hundredths of a foot, which we all use around the house.

Are they looking to do this at the same time?

Right, understand.

I just wonder how many Y2 exterior signs are required within about 10 feet of each other.

some interpretations in it that you know when we get to hopefully the zoning rewrite we'll be able to sneak some some of those fixes in but I think that just the short answer is yeah it's just this one I am though stepping back concerned that you know what what the how do the sign regs that you will things you don't even get the review how do they get applied to this building if it's this condominium space and I don't know so

And then any other signs that come up, we could just say no, there are too many.

And while we're doing that, if anyone wants to take a crack at starting to think about the language of emotion, that would be helpful.

I'm not seeing any raised hands.

Did they ever propose a sign that was similar to the black one that is on the building?

No, I didn't see anything like that, I don't know.

Comment from the public?

If you'd like to provide comment, please raise your hand.

And any other comment from the board?

I guess I feel like it sounds like we've asked the city and they said no this doesn't set a precedent but who's to say ten years from now none of us are on the BAR and it's different folks in City Hall and it does set a precedent.

Well the motions that we make will be in the record for this property.

and you would see that on page six of the staff report, page five and six are how the guidelines address signage.

I think it would probably, at least according to the image that we've provided, I think it probably could do to be a little bit further from the sidewalk.

But does that help?

I thought that what we were proving was the fact of a poll sign should it be allowed or not, and that the design of the sign was under the purview of city staff or some other group of people in the city and that we don't necessarily design the sign for them.

So I fall back on those, but I'm certainly not going to tell you that you can't comment on those this evening.

Any other comment from the board?

Are we comfortable with that or I mean that directly violates our guidelines?

Maybe, I don't know if that happens where they have more than two.

Oh, I agree.

Good question.

support the guidelines.

Is that is that a distinction?

And if you have instructions, then I can speak with the applicant, see if they'll do the changes, and then we bring it back.

Or what would be optimal?

I'm guessing that that's more like 18 inches to 2 feet.

And essentially saying that the vertical would align with the first vertical of the bike rack.

I don't know if that counts as a sign or not, but it is three instances of the business's name in that photo.

So as far as anything else there, zoning has looked at it in that regard.

So they regularly don't do approve more than two?

And they would have approved this poll sign except for that provision that you will have to okay.

Possibly with a further setback of 18 inches as opposed to a foot.

Alignment with the bike rack.

Vertical posts closest to the road.

I tend to agree with Brix on the color, like the wall sign actually matches in some respects the, I don't know if it's a sticker or whatever, on the door, the glass door.

Right.

I don't know what can be.

cars probably.

We need to decline it.

That's it.

I wouldn't think.

you know at least to the applicant is if I can solve these zoning issues you can probably get this sign approved if you do the following so but I you know there's yeah I'd say recommend denial with the comment about preference for the sign location color and citing that the questions relative to the ordinance

I agree, Cheri.

I think we can get to approval on this.

OK.

Yes.

And I didn't mean to cut off discussion by saying I'm ready for a motion, but I think I'd favor moving ahead.

I'm ready to hear your motion.

A condition that it's a sentiment of the BAR that this be the only poll sign that is approved for this building.

Second.

Any discussion?

Any future applications for poll signs for this building need to be submitted with a signage package for the entire parcel.

I'll accept that as a friendly amendment.

Did we lose anybody?

So, you know, there's always, what, two steps forward, one step back, or the other way around.

I'm thinking, in this case, that's one of the reasons that this applicant wants two signs there.

Well, yeah, that too.

Recently a client of this business and I've never ever thought to go into their business I refinance with this lender in January and I never knew where they were located and I there was no reason I just I questioned how much foot traffic they really need or have But I do think I mean and there are different purposes for signs But I but anyway, so it the whole thing is conjured up I think with a lot of us like

But there's some things we need to clarify, and I appreciate your patience on it.

Spend as much time as we did tonight on a full sign.

Yeah, they are.

Zero precedent, please.

But first, we'll get started with Jeff's staff report.

But I continued calling it zero, pressed in place.

And Jeff, if you don't mind me interrupting, I think just having done addressing for the city, I think addresses are assigned once a building is occupied.

I think Lee encouraged her to be on her computer tonight.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Shall I address your discussion and recommendation items?

Sure, you can use your time however you see fit how you'd like to present the project and address any of the points raised by Jeff or the staff.

Just the fact that these storage units that used to occupy all three lots here were stone it kind of Speaks to that somehow And I think I'll stop talking and I'll let you guys talk

First we'll just check and see if there's any comments from the public and there's no one here in person but maybe there is online.

Kendrick I'm going to allow you to talk and then you need to unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes.

Thanks.

Thank you, Miss Kendra.

Any other questions from the public?

I don't see any additional raised hands.

Or what kind of windows are you looking for?

That would actually be the same color as the gutters and downspouts and the roof.

Thank you.

I actually think it might look pretty good.

I'm guessing it will need to be mixed with additional stone.

Correct.

I need to confirm what it is.

in the perspective.

Let me see which perspective.

Which would be shorter than the existing wall.

The new wall would be four feet.

Okay.

But yeah, that perspective on S 1.2 is a bit deceiving because it doesn't show the actual, you know, the grade change to the lot behind.

It's like 10 or 12 feet.

I haven't measured it.

Or would it be raked back or a different detail?

It shouldn't be too difficult to match, if at all.

We're in the question section, correct.

So basically to just take advantage of the jog and the property line.

Correct.

and then the existing retaining wall that's in the adjacent property would be left in situ and is it also the taller 10 foot or whatever it is a foot?

So we're actually going to build up a bit of the grade on the side of the garage and have a new standard retaining wall there.

So I'm not overly opposed to reusing some of the stone, but I do think there might should be a differentiation in the mortar color or some way to make it distinct in that this isn't the footprint of the original retaining wall.

OK.

OK, I'll see if there is any comments from the public.

I don't see any raised hands.

I think it will be very different in color overall and be more attractive.

Yeah, I think I agree with you, actually, like more of a dry stack look or just a little less mortar or darker mortar.

And it'll just differentiate itself in a subtle but important way.

No.

No, I think we want to just do a mortared fieldstone cap, similar to 4S1.0.

Okay.

Any thought of how that arched dormer could have similar care given to its shadow line and overhang as some of the other Eve conditions?

Eve over the dormers.

Yeah, I guess maybe I would see Eve in reading the fascia if there's any gonna be an additional shadow lines or is that a, it almost looks like a single fascia board in the elevations.

Right, so that, I don't know, Jeff, if you have access to that wall sections sheet,

Please just give me a moment.

And so, you know, question mark, is this a recessed panel or is this siding?

I see that has even more details in the elevations that were in our package.

Right, right, right.

But it looks like even with the recessed panel would be would do a little bit of that also.

that it looks, you know, perfect.

Anybody ready to make a motion?

That's all right.

That'd be great.

And should that be removed from this?

I believe that's the case.

University Circle of Edible Neighborhood, ADC District, and the BAR approves the application with the following conditions that the stone be used to make the new walls be differentiated from the older walls that are still standing there.

Hear a second?

Second.

Any further discussion or questions about the wording?

Maybe the wording just clarifies site retaining walls.

Thank you, sir.

So I think the motion passes as at five to one with Leandro.

It's four to one.

the original set of drawings from like 1910 so that's a good way to memorialize something like that if it would be helpful.

Okay.

We'll look forward to seeing the landscape.

Yes, me too.

I think, Jeff, that means we're over to you for the IPP designation.

And we can hear from them if they'd like after Jeff offers his staff report.

And I don't know if the folks at Stony Point have any more to offer to that or if you have any questions for them, but that's the summary I wanted to offer.

We're willing to just take on any questions that you may have.

I would just never tell a lacrosse guy that he hit it out of the park.

Fair enough, fair enough.

Any other questions or other comments from the board?

screen for the choir and the organ and then a separate area for the chancel and the altar and Ereidos but unfortunately when the the last church that had the property they left they took those elements with them back when was that when did they leave there was after Trinity vacated it was another yeah it was 2018 I'm sorry

2018 was when the last congregation left and took the remaining pieces.

So again, I commend the Stony Point for taking this step.

Any other comment?

When was the last time the city designated a property as a new IPP?

It's again, more of those things that the BAR has an opportunity to be involved in more often if we think something could be.

Thank you.

But I appreciate you guys and I thank you for your efforts on this.

Absolutely yeah the big thing I think for us is just really to be able to get this this building back to where the community can utilize it because since we've done the renovation we really haven't been able to do much at all with the with the property and that's kind of a shame it it's a beautiful beautiful place to be and that's I know the 10th and Page Neighborhood Association's really looking forward to their first meeting inside the building.

So you have to make a motion.

Having reviewed the criteria for designation of individually protected properties per city code section 34-274, I move the BAR recommend that city council approve the request to designate 415 slash 415B 10th Street Northwest parcel 4-46 and individually protected properties.

you made it any further discussion well done I just wanted to say that thank you

what was done and what was done inside and I thought wasn't it apparent what was done that property looked beautiful because the owner had taken good care of it outside you know now obviously it's subject to our guidelines but I've been intrigued by this property for 30 years and I really really am excited that will that it'll be around for now it's been in the city 80 years it'll be around for another you know 180 hopefully so thank you.

Of course we need to vote on that to make sure of that.

I was in the discussion section.

Thank you all.

Alright, so I can quickly go through

But I want you to just recognize it was a really, really interesting staff report.

But other than that, I couldn't find any other wood churches in Charlottesville.

And it burned down with the rotunda.

Are you talking about the St.

Paul's?

Star Hill.

Oh, you're talking about Barrett?

No, no, no.

His office was in DC, but he did a lot of things in Virginia.

It's just bringing them to the surface.

But this is just, like Jeff said, just the tip of the iceberg.

Fill in the blanks here.

Not only that, but your leadership in how to bring it, take it forward and get all those hoops jumped.

He deserves to have a lot of nice things said about him.

I didn't think I'd get a response for a day or so, but yeah.

I feel uncomfortable leaving my house now, so I'm not sure I want to come back to work.

Just now having my experience with Omicron, I'm not sure about this return to normal.

But what they're putting back, would it be?

Or at least mention it?

I could generally work with people on this, but this is one I just wasn't sure what I would, what we would prefer.

Why do you say you don't recommend asphalt?

Well, I like this dark black or gray because it's very slate-like.

Bright, shingles to replicate at least the appearance of what was there, or what he was there.

I mean, like James said, it's in the spirit of it, where they have the same color, the same texture, and the jingles of some sort of a weatherboard, which has changed, even if it's painted, it matches the roof, it changes the texture.

That's helpful.

That's my opinion.

There's a hearty plank slate or shingle that was the same color as the asphalt shingles for the roof so it kind of blended that might work.

I mean, weirdly, the one thing about the asphalt shingle is that it's probably thin enough material that it still kind of displays that slight curvature in the display.

It looks like there's actually butts.

Yeah, I think they cut that corner.

Do we think that was like a metal cap on that or do we think that was actually like a slate hip cap or ridge cap?

Is this the front part or the back?

Boy, they went to Washington.

They almost could have been a single piece.

Huh.

And all that's still there.

The iron straps, maybe?

I thought that meant it was a terracotta.

I mean, I could be wrong.

Those are the metal straps that hold it on.

Yeah, you're right.

That's a pity that it looks like the dormers had casement windows originally.

Yeah.

Motion to adjourn?

Yes, second.

Second.

All in favor?

Thank you, everyone.

How are y'all?