Board of Architectural Review Meeting   10/18/2022

Good evening, everyone.

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

The way things will go tonight is that staff, Jeff Werner, will introduce each item, which will be followed by an applicant's presentation, which shouldn't exceed 10 minutes.

We'll then ask for questions from the public, followed by the questions from the board.

After the questions are closed, the chair will ask for comments from the public and then we'll have comments from the board.

For each application, members of the public are allowed three minutes to speak for questions and then also for comments.

If you are speaking from the public, if you could please identify yourselves, your name, and your address.

And we'll just add that comments should be limited to the BAR's purview, that is regarding the exterior aspects of the project.

After we have our discussion and before taking action, we will allow the applicant to have up to three minutes to respond to the comments.

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

Is anyone here this evening to speak to something that's not on the agenda?

And if anyone is following along on Zoom, I will trust that you will make yourself known to those that are monitoring the Zoom meeting.

All right.

The first item on the agenda is, I guess the second item, is to pass the consent agenda, which includes the meeting minutes for the December 21st, 2021 meeting.

Is that really 2021?

I move we pass the consent agenda.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes.

Our first item on deferred item list is the certificate of appropriateness application for 0 3rd Street Northeast.

And Jeff, do you want to make an introduction?

And it says invite or copy.

Just double click.

That's easy enough.

All right, thank you very much.

That's what I need to see.

Share my screen, go into this.

Oh, sorry, minutes.

I just wanted to get to an elevation of the project, but I'm going to just skip that.

So this is a COA request for 0 Third Street.

It's the vacant lot at the intersection of Third Park Plaza and Hedge.

It's within the north

downtown ADC district and for that reason new construction is subject to BAR review.

You all held a preliminary discussion on this at the last meeting in September and the applicant has brought back some additional information, some refinements and some discussion items that came out of that conversation.

I know we have a lot on the agenda tonight, so I won't belabor on this too much.

I know the applicant is here.

I know the owner is here.

I know there are some folks from the neighborhood that are here.

I think I just want to clarify up front that

When I typically review a project for the BAR, I'm reviewing it in the context of the historic district.

And that's what I've done.

And after the conversation last week, last month, I incorporated some information about the adjacent properties that are not within the historic district.

And I stated in the report, and I don't mean it to be flippant or mean-spirited,

The fact remains is that what can happen outside of the district, something that's not designated, it does not fall under BAR purview.

So just to be clear, to compare what's being built with what's adjacent but undesignated, those can easily change, and they don't come to you for review.

So I just want to make sure that by saying we want this to be consistent with

this street.

That street could very easily change and you all would have no purview over that.

So with that, I believe Miss Smith is here and can introduce the project.

And I'm going to start my phone clock at 10 minutes.

Good evening.

My name is Candace Smith.

I'm the architect for a new residence in downtown Charlottesville, and my client Scott Lowry is also present here this evening.

Although most of you previously had a chance to see this on September 20th, I recognize that there

I think there are supposed to be two new board members and I will give a brief introduction followed by a description of the steps that we have taken to mitigate some of the concerns that you had and then ask Jeff to show some of the slides.

So there's the site plan.

The house is proposed on a vacant lot and will have a footprint of around 1,900 square feet, including the pairs of side porches on both the north and the south.

The property has a road along its southern side border that is a legally required easement to the property behind this lot.

This is not viewed as the private driveway for this property.

The property slopes down Third Street from south to north, in this case from left to right, and creates a deep bowl because of the topography.

Using this topography, we'll be referring to the uphill neighbor to the south, or the left, and the downhill neighbor to the north.

Of note, I don't think we pointed this out last time, the downhill neighbor has an existing six foot fence along our property line that extends in front of a majority portion of its wraparound porch, which is located along the side and a portion of the rear of that house.

This existing fence is shown both on this site plan and on the 3D models that you'll see soon.

A privet hedge completes that property line border from that fence, but that hedge is fully rooted on our side of the property line.

We have provided a full conceptual planting plan to show what will replace that privet hedge, as well as plantings for the rest of our new house property.

The house is designed with a tall lower ground floor that more closely meets the third street levels while allowing the first floor to be at grade at the rear of the property.

We've set the first floor finish elevation for our house two and a half feet below this property's natural highest grade to help reduce the overall height of the house.

As such, a retaining wall along the west rear property line on southwest corner has been designed and will be required to allow for this new lower elevation along with a rear terrace.

A detached structure is planned for the rear yard like most of the houses in the neighborhood.

The BAR had asked for more context since the physical survey that we previously had done for our property was limited to within our property boundaries.

To accommodate this request, we have roughly surveyed the adjacent buildings to determine their finished floor heights and cornice heights and correlated that with the city's GIS information.

The finished floors of the houses along Third Street step down at each property as you come down the hill.

Regarding our particular project, the uphill neighbor's finished first floor is just under seven feet above our finished first floor.

And our finished first floor is just over 15 feet above the downhill neighbor's first floor.

The apartment building to the rear of this property has its finished floor at a higher elevation, approximately two feet above our finished first floor.

So naturally, each of the buildings relate to their topography.

Regarding the adjacent property's proximity to this property, the uphill neighbor's house is approximately 30 feet to our property line, and our house edge is another 18 feet from that property line due to the required easement road along that edge.

The downhill neighbor's side porch and house would appear to be just under five feet to their side property line.

We are required to have a minimum of five foot side yard setback to our property line abutting this downhill neighbor, but we have located the majority of the footprint of this house closer to the easement road, expanding the open, unbuilt space to the downhill neighbor from the minimum five foot setback to more than 22 feet to our property line.

and other issues that you had asked about was regarding other heights and stories.

That house being located on the top of the hill is well above the third street level.

creating a three-story house next door.

The BAR, the BAR also requested a 3D view of this project and with some context for the adjacent buildings.

Those are now included in the similar package.

In order to mitigate the height concerns voiced by the BAR at our last meeting, we have created two possible front yard improvements to shorten the appearance of the taller foundation.

Like many properties in this district, we have created a retaining wall at the front of the property against the sidewalk and raised the visual appearance of the ground floor level to rest on a back filled plinth of the front yard along with substantial plannings.

In our packet of a walk down Third Street images that we captured and captioned for the board, you may be most familiar with Queen Charlotte Square with brick walls against the sidewalk and the raised garden before the base of the building begins.

There are many other images, seven or eight of them in this packet, that have similar retaining walls against the sidewalk, although these are all fieldstone walls.

Both of our options provide stairs at the sidewalk to reach this higher front yard.

You'll see these illustrated shortly.

The first option shows a ground floor level entry front door with a raised garden symmetrically balanced around the front door with plantings complementing the symmetrical plinth.

The second option allows for a second staircase from the raised front yard to climb up to the front porch and have the front door at the first floor level.

This option then slopes the plinth down towards the driveway.

We would like the BAR's input on their preference for these two options.

In addition, we have provided different exterior wall finish options for the first and second floor if the BAR believes that may also help mitigate in the overall height appearance in lieu of the all brick facade.

Our client is open to considering options of siding over a brick foundation, stucco over a brick foundation, and perhaps even stucco over stone foundation, although if the ladder is selected, the garden walls would also become stone and or stucco.

Finally, I'd like to show you the slides.

So the first slide is PDF page 70.

You guys okay with it sideways?

The third street's on your left, north is up.

Sorry, north is down.

The conceptual landscape planning plans show these two options.

The first one shows the ground floor entry, so there's a retaining wall along third street, stairs up to a middle garden walk within the front yard, and then entry under this porch, a covered porch, to enter the house closer to ground level.

The next slide, which is page 71, and shows a completion of that planting plan, shows the front door at the first floor porch above, so the same kind of idea of a retaining wall along Third Street, with stairs up to the middle garden, and then continuing those stairs on up to have an upper level front porch and front door.

I would also like to share two slides of the 3D model, so we'll start with PDF page 74.

It might be good to road to it as if you can.

So while he's doing that, I will just talk about this model.

This again, the upper floor, sorry, the upper slide is showing the symmetrical garden retaining wall that allows for the ground floor entry up a few stairs from the sidewalk.

and the lower slide shows the, and we'll come back and use this slide again, the lower slide shows the sloped retaining wall on the right that allows for stairs entering up towards the porch and then continuing on up, again trying to reduce the overall foundation look of the house.

and then finally if you go to slide page 75, the next one, as an alternate to the Albrick facade we've shown on the top we've shown siding with corner boards above the brick foundation and below we've shown stucco with continuing the banding that the stucco masonry would normally have.

And finally, please note that at this time we've opted for a lower brick retaining wall on the north, which is next to the downhill neighbor, with wrought iron fencing above to allow more light to the downhill neighbor, along with climbing roses and vines for that shared wall.

We had met with and discussed that if those, actually with the downhill neighbors, that if those plantings were not enough that we could include a small arbor on that edge with Carolina or yellow jasmine.

Note that the current privet hedge that begins past the six foot fence that is shown in the 3D drawing, the privet fence is about five foot four tall and provides their current screening.

And we can certainly provide, we're planning on Spirea at the front right of that driveway which will get five or seven feet tall.

Note also in this slide, particularly on the bottom, that you can see the house next door is essentially three stories with their shed dormers on the front of the house.

And then one last point, because we think the board's main concern may be the height of this building, as the footprint, width, and setbacks are all within the guidelines, we have developed an option to lower the overall house by two feet, including the finished floor and ground floor by one foot.

and I had emailed you, but I just assumed you were too busy.

So I actually brought a paper copy, which I can share with the board.

If you'd like, I can pass that around.

Thank you.

Let me get that drawing for you.

Is that OK?

That's fine.

Thank you very much.

I think we'll begin with questions from the public and there will be a separate opportunity for comments from the public.

Do we have any questions from the public?

Okay, then we'll open it to, sorry.

Can you come to the microphone?

Thank you.

I'm Sarah Johnson and I'm the owner occupant of 500 Park Plaza.

My question was really the search for information.

I wondered if Ms.

Smith could provide a 3D of the full view of the northern elevation.

We don't have that in the package.

We just have on that last page a partial slice with the rear view.

So that's a request for her.

While I'm up here, I will also ask for the copy of the easement that was referred to in her remarks.

I made two written requests to Jeff for that proof of a private easement for the driveway on the southern boundary.

I reviewed all the record books and find no evidence of it.

So I would like to have that produced.

Thank you.

Yes, the easements themselves are not something that we review.

Right, thank you.

I was going to say, I don't see anyone in the attendees online.

Ms.

Smith, I just wanted to clarify the intention for this meeting.

I know the last meeting was a preliminary discussion.

I presume that we're not being asked to vote on final approval tonight, as there are so many details, windows, doors, some of the architectural detailing that would still be developed in laters.

I want to focus our time and conversation on those elements that would make the project continue to move in the best way possible.

Is that a correct reading?

Yes, that would be great.

We obviously would defer till we can bring you back those final details, but we have asked in our packet questions of the board regarding wall finishes, if there are things that can help alleviate some of your concerns.

Okay, thank you.

I have a further question for the applicant.

Drew.

The new wall is... Can you speak into the microphone?

I apologize.

So the low brick wall, being called the retaining wall, which I'm not sure what it retains, but that's new, right?

The building used to come straight down to the ground and whatever the natural grade between the sidewalk and the house was not added.

and entered at a higher level than the... I guess I'm talking about the brick wall at the street.

That seems to be new from this middle, from last... The one that's running, sorry, left to right?

The one at the street.

No, it was to reduce the overall appearance of the foundation of the building so that it isn't taller.

It starts at basically garden level, just like at Queen Charlotte.

In fact, we could pull up that slide if we wanted to go back.

It's probably the first slide of the walkthrough.

In fact, I think maybe that would be useful to illustrate what effect that has on the architectural impression.

Where's Robert?

So I don't know if you can make that larger.

That plus sign over there.

There we go.

So this just shows you the top two slides are Queen Charlotte with their raised brick.

And so everybody looks and sees that that building's foundation starts above the sidewalk level, not at the sidewalk level, but from a higher point.

So it reduces the overall height of that building's foundation.

and there's many other houses along.

The same kind of thing happens on some of these other slides if you wanted to go.

I don't want to be boring, but I think 13 and 14.

I guess just one quick question.

The garages are beyond, although that's not relevant.

Okay.

All right, we would open the opportunity now for comments from the public.

And we also did have some correspondence relative to this project.

Please state your name and your address, and you'll have three minutes to speak.

OK, my name is David White.

I reside at 505 Park Plaza, which is the north property to this project.

And a month ago, this is the smallest thing I can think of, but a month ago, that hedge was bifurcated, and now it's 100%.

I'm just wondering.

But that's a hedge that we all would like to get rid of somehow, so that's really a moot point.

I'm not under oath, but I want to let everyone here know that the other people that are sending comments, my neighbors, some of whom I know, most of whom I know, we have not talked together about, I mean, what they have said are their issues, not mine or my wife Roxanne's.

So whatever they've said is not because of my wife or myself trying to induce them to come up with an opinion that isn't their own.

So, and I have to say also that Mr. Lowry and Ms.

Smith invited my wife and I to their offices yesterday to talk about some way to ameliorate the areas where we are not in, where we're in conflict.

And according to the bar, we probably are not in conflict, but we realize that for one reason, this proposed structure is in the historic zone.

We live next door.

We're not in the historic zone, but we live in the same neighborhood.

And the house, we certainly understand that it's a difficult lot, both from its topography and from its size, to come into a house of the size that Mr. Lowry is wanting.

but the mass and the height are really out of line with the rest of their neighbors, not necessarily bar neighbors, but the regular plebeian, you know, run of the mill neighbors such as myself.

And so, you know, that's something you all either wrestle with or don't, but I have to go ahead and state that.

neighborhood compatibility is important.

It's a walkable neighborhood.

The main thing for us is that side porch where we spend a lot of time.

is going to be obstructed by this building, which has been moved to the south in an effort to mitigate that conflict.

But it's a matter of sky and light that's going to be really impacted on our living space, so we're concerned about that.

So again, we've met with Ms.

Smith and Mr. Lowry and we've talked about ways to mitigate the impact of that structure looming over our place.

And we're compatible in terms of doing some plantings and I'm sure that we can work some stuff out, but at any rate, those are the comments for this evening.

So thank you all very much for the work you all do.

My name is Sarah Johnson and I am the owner occupant of 500 Park Plaza, which is directly across from the subject property.

I just want to say that in my two sets of written comments,

and those of my architect Andy Orbin.

We've expressed concerns about exterior openings and the site plan.

We believe them to be out of compliance with the historic district guidelines.

We do not think there have been any changes from the last meeting to this meeting to the concerns that we have detailed in our comments.

That's all I have to say.

I respectfully request that the COA be denied at this point.

Thank you.

Other comments from the public?

No one online.

Okay.

Comments from the board?

While you guys are getting warmed up, I will just make a few comments.

Thank you for providing a conceptual planting plan.

and I think that it's helpful to begin to see how that would be attended to.

There are, and generally, while no, I don't think that there are any single species selections that are objectionable in their own right, I'll just note too,

Two of our guidelines relative to plantings.

One is to encourage the planting and maintenance of large trees on private property near street fronts which contribute to the avenue effect.

And currently in the planting plan there are no large trees that are proposed.

It certainly would be an important contribution to this neighborhood and while I note that on the current street to the north is primarily made up of Cornus Cusa

I've noticed that the city is interplanting with oaks, so the appearance will be changing in the future and larger street trees would benefit both the house and this neighborhood.

the other is point number three under plantings to encouragement to use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area and as I said while there are no single species that are particularly objectionable there are no native plants in the palette currently and that would be a big point of improvement.

All right, I'll just jump in.

I guess just in terms of feedback for the questions that were posed to us, I do think the retaining wall is a successful way to help try and bring down the overall feel of the height, and I think there's precedent along the street that you've shown, so I think that's a good feature.

If I can just throw my opinion out there on the different schemes you've presented,

Personally, I like Scheme D with the upper portion in siding.

I think it breaks up the mass a little bit to have different materials from the foundation level and the upper stories, and I think that will help it not read quite so tall.

I am sympathetic to the neighbor's concern that this is too tall.

I'd like personally to see it more as a two-story, but if the BAR feels like it's within the guidelines, that makes sense.

I don't really have a problem with the driveway coming out onto Third Street.

I think lots of the houses here have driveways that come out onto Third Street.

I think the porch is a little odd and I was trying to figure out why I think the flat roof on the porch bothers me.

I do have more of a traditional sentiment and sensibilities so I'd maybe like to see a little hip roof or something like that.

on the porch.

I like the ground floor entrance.

I think it relates to the street a lot better.

The large steps going up kind of make it feel distant.

Those are my initial thoughts.

I can jump in after those thoughts.

Thank you for providing Scheme E along with B as an iteration from the last meeting.

I agree that bringing a door down to the street level is more successful than seeing the whole stair exposed.

the related images provided that show a similar number of steps I think are slightly different in that they're embedded in the topography and seeing this whole stair exposed above the topography I feel like doesn't quite it stands out in a different way so I think the bringing the door down to to the lower level is more successful.

The

The retaining wall I agree can be successful out at the street line.

I'm not sure about the height of it, that it becomes quite tall towards the driveway entrance, and not sure if you're gaining anything from being set the 18 inches or the two feet above the grade behind.

but that's a smaller detail.

And then I agree with the sentiments echoed earlier that I think the siding above level one might be a nice way to break down the 30 feet tall of brick that I think it's a successful way to lessen the massing.

I'm going to agree with everything that's been said so far.

The retaining wall on the front is helping, the lower entry I believe does help, but it does follow some precedent.

Your site condition is unique on 3rd Street, but it's not unique to the neighborhood.

Where there is a site condition similar to yours, there are these lower stories.

Putting the front door there, or putting a door there, makes it similar to some of the more historic examples in the neighborhood.

and echoing basically everything that's been said so far, including the trees.

I know you have a power line right there, but it's anything more than Cray mortals I think would be appreciated.

Just for the record, I'm against crepe myrtles.

Just hate them.

Again, I agree with most of what's said here.

I like the retaining wall.

The lower doorway works, I think, really well relating to the street.

I think the idea of siding above brick also works really well.

as a way to mitigate the height.

I actually don't have any problem with the height in general.

I think it fits the topography as it is and it makes good use of a really wonky lot.

So I think you've done a great deal of good work on this.

The concerns I had in the initial meeting

are still there.

The general site strategy is unchanged.

And the guideline that really just stands out for me is section 2, letter E, number 6, which is to place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available.

and we just don't, well I do think there's been some creative use of this site.

We just don't have that many houses in this city and in this neighborhood that have the entire first floor consumed by parking and driveway.

That being said, I do think the changes that were made, especially those that are identified in Scheme D with the retaining wall that's been described in the lower entrance, do help the house feel like it addresses the street, which was one of my main concerns.

It feels like it's participating in the neighborhood more than previous, which it seemed to be hovering above the neighborhood.

So those are good improvements.

I would encourage you to look carefully at that retaining wall and try to keep the height down.

I think that unfortunately what you're looking at is either probably about a 30-inch tall wall or a

72-inch tall wall because of the guardrail that would start to be required if the grade gets too tall.

And so I'm not sure if what we're looking at is realistic.

It might end up wanting to get either a little bit shorter or a lot taller.

And I think the shorter would be preferred.

I also have some concerns about the perhaps maybe about the gate to the parking.

It is a, well certainly there are examples of wrought iron gates and they are referenced in our guidelines.

There's very few examples that I can think of of vehicular driveway gates which has certain connotations of privacy and just seem a little bit out of scale with the pedestrian scale wrought iron gates and fences that are referred to in our guidelines.

I could imagine that being perhaps more contemporary or maybe articulated in a different way or that no gates are required, but that's something for you to further discuss with the client.

I'll weigh in since I haven't said anything.

I'm not exactly comfortable with the height.

I do feel like it just feels vertical in a more horizontal working street.

But I do feel as if the revised elevations that you sent around help.

I think in this case with a two and a half to three story house, any foot you can bring down really helps and certainly helps the neighbors too in that southern sunlight coming in to their north façade.

I think that's something that can be done with the program.

I would highly recommend it.

I'll reiterate what everybody else said in that the front door being down below addresses the bigger issues that came up last time about how to maintain

pedestrian engaged street and I appreciate the landscape design as well and would love to see you know a richer version of that especially in how you address what I still feel is a pretty high plinth

I'm curious to see with a reduced height and then potentially, I don't know if there's a way to move the siding down a bit and then with the

you know, realistic vegetation, landscape vegetation that's gonna surround that base.

You know, you could really sort of get to more of a kind of a standard base as opposed to sort of this like one-third, two-third breakdown, which I think would be good for everybody as well.

I don't know about the change of material.

I feel like it's hard for me to make that call, just on these kind of graphics, not knowing what actually the material is.

I think in some of these front elevations, the change of material actually accentuates the height of the brick base.

I think that's a good point.

I know some other board members expressed some support for the siding above.

I felt that the brick would be appropriate as well and could be done elegantly.

I think that maybe that's an option that you can continue to explore.

Seems like there may be able to get support for either version.

This height issue, I just want to give some clear guidance on the height.

I know some have stated some reservations, others seem to be okay.

Well, I have a question with regard to the new schemes.

The overall height based on from those 3D models and the earlier elevations has been reduced by two feet by lowering the roof and the second floor conditions and then taking the whole thing down a foot, which I think works on the front.

It means we will have a ramp

up at the back to get down into our terrace and a higher retaining wall at the back between us and the back apartment.

But I think it's doable.

So we've looked more at, you know, the street view is primary.

And I agree with you about envisioning this with plantings.

I just didn't want to give you a 3D sketch up with bushes covering everything that didn't let you see the actual massing and scale.

So next time we could add those, and it would be a much more attractive thing.

I will note in one of your examples, driveway 36 image, my neighbor across the street and up the street slightly does have a gate at their driveway.

It's also helpful to see the context.

And with the 3D it's hard to get the eye of the

in the place that makes sense where you're either forced to look up at something that looks taller than it is or shorter than it is depending on where the eye of the model is.

We do have a drawing that we created.

Of course, we don't have drawn elevations of our neighbors and we're not going to go that far to field measure them, but we do have sides and floor lines that we could provide you that comparison because it does show the fact that, in fact, I have it here.

I don't know if it's worth me holding up.

It shows Head Street, excuse me, Third Street at its pretty much continuous slope but it shows how different the house up on the hill is compared to, you know, it's not down at street level.

It's not only six or so feet above our floor which is a tall first floor but it's up on a hill so it creates quite a different view of it compared to the house that's down the hill from us which

I realize that with its crepe myrtles at the house down the street which does provide a lot of screening for us but it covers up the fact that that's a three-story house because that you know when we tried to take a picture we actually took a picture and you know we have a illustration of it but it's very cleverly concealed by the flanking

trees because that's what happens when you have a garden.

I guess I had a question on a note in the staff report that's related to height.

Jeff, I don't know if you can help me answer this, but you've got it.

It says, existing heights range between two and three stories with an average of two stories.

Prevailing is two stories.

Recommended maximum is four floors.

Correct.

Because the guidelines say height and width should not exceed 200% of prevailing.

So two times the, so I don't know, does prevailing mean average, median, the one that happens the most?

Bottom line is whatever, even if you just take the houses on Park Plaza, the prevailing height is 1.5, and 2 times 1.5 is 3, so the guidelines suggest the house should not exceed 3, and this house is proposed at 3.

So it's a, that's a, as I said earlier, the guidelines are, there's some

Feathery language in, you know, there's not statistical terms used, but if you take, I don't know, my guess is you would take all of Charlottesville and the prevailing height is 1.5 or 2, so, you know, so the 3 to 4 would be the recommended max per the guidelines.

and the width is the same.

I use the average, I prefer median, but I use the average.

information to provide some context.

And as I spoke with some of the neighbors earlier today, they're not absolutes.

It's not a, you know, if you get all right, you must approve.

Let me just follow up on that last question.

And I definitely support David's sentiment of the reduced height is better.

But per Jeff's explanation of the guidelines, if I stick to the guidelines, then I can allow it.

Yeah.

It's not my preference, but it's what the guidelines say.

OK.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you for finding that, Jeff.

I appreciate that.

It's easier than a piece of paper that our Zoom friends can't see.

So that was very kind of you.

So one question about the siding versus brick.

Stucco is also something I think there's other houses along the area and that's also lower maintenance when it's done properly.

Is stucco over brick not as preferred as siding perhaps in terms of breaking down the scale?

Okay.

But it would have to be stucco, right?

Absolutely.

If you're interested in that conversation, stay tuned tonight.

Right, no, we don't want woodpeckers eating up this house.

The second question is the porch roof, we would like for bringing it back for final if we have one or two, if we have more than one version of a front porch, could we get the board to give their approval on that?

and then the third question is on the gates.

Thank you.

So the next step would be to request a deferral.

I would prefer that just so we can get the timing right.

I'll move to accept.

I have a question, just a neighborly question for clarification.

Understood.

I'm just wondering, with that clarification, with that potential,

How much higher roofline does that bring it down to?

The roof comes down two feet, the ground floor comes down a foot, so that means your retaining wall up against your fence and your privet, the privet's not going to be there anymore.

Our privet.

Well put.

All right, thank you.

I will and I'm gonna allow me to close this and then find where it was.

Again, another thing to make a note of at some point in time as we discuss the guidelines of how would you all recommend clarifying things and what's the best context in which to evaluate something.

So this is a COA request for 1301 Wortman Street.

This is known as the Wharton Baker House.

It was constructed sometime in the early 1800s.

This is a request related to a new building, just

the AC District that is a contributing structure, the original house.

You all have discussed this three times.

February, March and September had a series of discussions on this.

This is a formal request at this point and so if a request, if a deferral is going to be done, I would suggest the applicant request it.

We've seen a series of, and I'll let Kevin go through it, but a series of iterations.

One involved moving the house.

Now the house has been left alone.

The height of the structure has changed, and its alignment to the house has sort of evolved.

And so in this latest iteration, you'll see the changes that have occurred there.

Just some comments on the heights and widths and setbacks.

This is a very small ADC district.

There's I think 20 some structures in it that vary from no setback to 70 foot setbacks.

Some the spacing between buildings is some is five feet and others it's 100 feet.

So there's no there is no typical here.

It's also a district that's

It's been transformed a lot since I think it was established as a national register district.

But for whatever reason when the city established it as an ADC district, it included two of these large apartment buildings as contributing structures.

Maybe a similar question to why did a certain vacant lot on Head Street be included in the North Downtown District.

But I don't know why, but that is, they are included as contributing structures.

So it's a

It's a difficult site to kind of evaluate and I offer my evaluation of the guidelines sort of in the same context as before to give you some things to work from, but in no way do I want to suggest that this is suggesting what you must accept as a

as the design parameters.

So with that, I think, is Kevin here?

Yeah.

So Kevin, just a heads up, we've got 10 minutes.

And I know we've we've we've heard a lot about this building.

We appreciate your service here.

My name is Kevin Schafer.

I'm with the Charlottesville branch of Design Develop.

We're pleased to be here again tonight.

We can go to the next slide.

I wanted to first start off by saying thank you to the board for your thoughtful comments we heard last time.

It's impacted the direction we're headed.

We heard from a majority of the board present that Four Stories was simply too imposing next to the Wharton Baker House.

We heard from a number of members that the exterior egress balconies and their associated railings were simply not an appropriate way to circulate through the project.

We heard specific concerns from Mr. Gassinger regarding the materiality, specific concerns from Mr. Schwartz regarding the fenestration organization and contemporary window openings at the corners.

Thank you to Mr. Timmerman for your thoughtful analysis on the composition of the building and the concerns regarding the massing and the form.

and the detailing.

And to Ms.

Lewis, thank you for planning in our minds the consideration to reorient the living room so that it would face towards the historic structure as a way of putting the historic house on display, showcasing that historic structure in the front yard while providing a more engaging courtyard facade.

Next slide.

The project has gone through significant revisions based on these comments.

We're here with a project that more elegantly and clearly responds to the guidelines for new construction.

A summary of these revisions can be found on pages 12 and 13 of the booklet, but I will talk through some of them quickly.

To begin, we've eliminated the fourth floor entirely, keeping the residential levels to three stories above the courtyard elevation.

To complement this overall reduction of massing, we've held a brick cornice line at two stories above grade that coincides with the existing eve line of the Wharton-Baker House in a move that directly relates to the adjacent historic context.

We've internalized the circulation systems completely and the internalization allows for breaks in the massing to allow for residentially scaled building volumes.

The brick massing that you're seeing facing the Wurtenbacher house is 28 feet tall and 27 feet wide, these series of four brick volumes.

And on the street we are presenting a brick mass that is three stories tall and 33 feet wide.

and is presented toward the access of 13th Street.

To holistically in composition break down the building form was a directive from the board to more contextualize the project and relate to its adjacent context in the ADCD.

Echoing the sentiment of the comments that we received from the board, and you can go to the next slide if you don't mind, the design guidelines compel us to employ design techniques that reduce the visual presence of the structure.

This includes varying the facade planes, differentiating materials, stepping back the upper levels, and utilizing irregular massing forms.

Those calls from the ADCD guidelines are all articulated in this massing diagram of our partee.

This is a concept that endeavors to create a site-specific project that is referential to the historic structure, a project that celebrates the Wharton-Baker House while complying with the guidelines for new construction.

Next slide, please.

The guidelines also compel us to construct new commercial buildings with minimal or no setback, or to keep residential setbacks within 20% of the setbacks of a majority of neighborhood dwellings.

At 15 foot a front yard setback, the proposal is consistent with guidelines in reinforcing the traditional street wall found on the western portion of the Wirtland ADCD.

We are reinforcing the traditional street wall that has been established by projects around the Wharton Baker House while celebrating the unique front setback of the historic structure.

Next slide.

Regarding spacing, the guidelines compel us to maintain spacing that is consistent in the area.

This diagram shows typical spacing throughout the ADC on both the eastern and western sides of 12th and a half street.

While historic residences did employ large front yard setbacks in some instances, side yard spacing is generally very tight.

We're providing spacing that is 25 feet from the adjacent structure and providing 10 to 15 feet between the proposed and the historic structure, which is consistent direction provided by the guidelines.

Next slide.

Regarding massing and footprint, the guidelines allow for larger footprints as long as the massing is reduced to relate to the smaller scale forms of residential structures.

The guidelines provide the following direction regarding reducing massing, including varying the surfaces of the building, providing step backs as the structure increases in height, and breaking up the roof line to create smaller compositions, techniques which can be seen employed here.

Next slide.

Regarding width and height, the guidelines tell us to respect the directional expression of the surrounding buildings while reinforcing the human scale.

We're responding to the directional expression of the context by establishing both a front facade that engages the street and the pedestrian, while also composing a facade that faces the historic structure and the existing yard.

The project reinforces the human scale by providing balconies, porches, and open entries.

Landscaping around the project will minimize the visual impact of the height from the street.

As discussed previously, the width and height of the legible masses relate directly to residential scale along the ADC district,

and the guidelines suggest new proposals be within 200% of the traditional width and height and ours are well within that 200%.

On the next slide.

Regarding the scale, the guideline acknowledges that there is a variety of scale in Charlottesville.

The guidelines direct us to reinforce the scale and the character of the surrounding area, whether human or monumental.

Our project acknowledges that this district in particular has a wide range of scales and styles and uses and techniques in dealing with the scale.

where reinforcing this variation by providing a thoughtful and elegantly composed exterior facade that directly references the scale of the adjacent historic context, the adjacent historic structure, but also the rest of the ADCD.

On the next slide.

The guidelines compel us to employ a varied roofline to help break up the mass of the design.

The guidelines also suggest that flat roofs are appropriate for historic residential areas on contemporary design buildings.

The proposed structure utilizes small parapets in lieu of large overhangs to both shield rooftop mechanical units while reducing the visual impact of the roofline.

On the next slide.

The guidelines encourage new construction to orient itself to the same direction as adjacent historic buildings, which is interesting here because the guidelines also go on to say you should orient yourself, that is, to the street.

So both to the street and the historical context offer some unique characteristics for this parcel.

The Wharton Baker House has a

five degree skew and this provides an opportunity to celebrate that skew, to emphasize that skew, to reference the historic orientation for the guidelines.

On the next slide.

but also, per the guidelines, we're going to address the street with a two-story corner tower element on the southeastern corner that serves to engage the pedestrian while breaking down the mass of the front facade.

This mass also resolves the skew of the brick-based building, and here we are addressing the street level design by eliminating flat or blank walls, again, varying the plane of the surface of the building while introducing an irregular massing element that is both functional and well-composed.

Next slide.

Windows and doors are appropriately proportioned and relate to and are compatible with the adjacent historic facades.

Residential scale punched openings are proposed in a more traditional and rational order arrangement than previously shown.

On the next slide, the proposal suggests high quality, low maintenance materials that are in keeping with adjacent established material choices.

The proposed materials are brick and fiber cement panelized siding, such as hardy panel with battens at the seams,

Per the guidelines, these materials and textures for new buildings are compatible and complementary to the neighboring buildings.

And also per the guidelines, we are avoiding intrusive paint colors.

On the next slide.

And actually, can we skip a slide as I run out of time here?

One portion of the project that has not been covered yet in detail is the renovation of the existing historic structure currently occupied by students.

The Wharton-Baker House is in need of maintenance that is expected in a structure that is 200 years old.

The structure has gone through a number of users, owners, occupants in its long and colorful history, but throughout the decades it has not always been treated gently.

At this point, a rehabilitation of the Wharton Baker House is anticipated as part of this proposal, one that would adhere to both the Secretary of Interior standards

and the city's ADCD guidelines for rehabilitation.

The scope of the rehabilitation would vary depending on further analysis, including a structural report that would identify all necessary improvements to stabilize the house and ensure its safety and longevity.

From there, and in the words of the owner, we want to give this house the attention it needs to serve as the attractive focal point of our new projects.

We are designing our building around preservation of the house, and we want it to look the part.

On the next slide, we realize we need to come back to you for the items that Mr. Warner has outlined in a staff report.

Further information including specified materials, site lighting, railing and balcony details, HVAC and utility locations.

But we've heard from the board at each meeting that a project is viable here, that the board would support the development of this existing surface parking lot in some capacity.

And we're here tonight to garner support for the proposal, the massing, the form, the scale, the fenestration, the materials, and address any questions you may have on how this proposal complies with the guidelines.

With that, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Kevin.

We'll start with any, if there happen to be any, questions from the public.

Gene Hyatt, Meadowbrook Heights Road.

I just, I know you asked, were interested in having the height lowered.

Sure.

The previous proposal did have a fourth story over a significant portion of the building.

The fourth story has been eliminated entirely.

On the third story, we are still employing a pretty significant step back.

from the street.

And so what you are reading on the street level is a two-story residential mass and then about a half a grade tuck under parking.

Beyond the rehabilitation in terms of a use?

Yeah.

I think the use is still unknown.

Kevin, is there a gate or any kind of screen proposed for the garage?

Any other questions?

All right, we'll open it up for any comment from the public.

Yes.

Hello, can you hear me?

My name is Lucy Middlefort.

I'm speaking on behalf of the all-volunteer organization Preservation Piedmont with comments about this proposed apartment building.

I live at 805 Rockland Avenue.

The Wharton-Bigger House is the signature historic building of the Wharton Street ABC District.

It is one of a limited number of early 19th century brick houses still surviving in the city.

and it represents the origins of the expansion of the university from the academical village and the creation of university related neighborhoods.

The front and side lawn, which once extended south to University Avenue, is still an essential historic landscape feature that contributes integrity of setting to this historic property.

The proposed new construction still lacks an appropriate and welcoming front to the street.

The proposed gaping garage entrance is not welcoming to pedestrians.

And though I understand this point at the beginning is not under BAR purview, we do believe that thought should be given to exploring and approving innovative planning strategies that would facilitate the elimination of on-site parking requirements from this proposal, which would

diminish the bulk and footprint of any new construction on this site.

This site is currently one of the most walkable in the city with a walk score of 93, meaning that daily needs can be accomplished without a car and students, staff, and faculty who are most likely going to be the occupants of this site, they possess opportunities for university off-site parking that should be encouraged by not requiring on-site parking development in this and other walkable areas.

So I encourage a deferral or a denial based on the fact that zoning may change.

Encouraging car ownership and use in this walkable transit-supported neighborhood negates our city's climate action initiatives and goals.

Contrary to the density of the development, this design incentivizes its residents and visitors to drive cars.

Finally, a general comment about proposals like this to move historic structures in this district.

I understand this is no longer part of this proposal.

Moving a historic structure in an ADC district removes it from its original context and makes it difficult for the general public to understand the evolution of a district.

It also forever compromises the building's authenticity and integrity.

Moving and contributing structure in a historic district is not a best practice Unless it is to avoid damage to the building or loss of it entirely.

I understand we're not talking about that right here In conclusion, we still believe that the proposed massing and parking entry are incompatible With the historic structure and we urge a denial of the proposal at this time.

I'm Jean Hyatt.

Good evening.

I live on Meadowbrook Heights Road.

I mentioned to you last month that I once lived across the street from the Wharton Baker House.

I also mentioned now that I joined with others to initiate the designation of Whirtland Street as an ADC district in 1999.

So of course I have concerns about preserving the integrity of this important historic district that lies only a block or two from the academic village.

I do appreciate the Bar's members' thoughtful comments and questions during the presentation last month.

I do not support a plan to build an apartment building in the front yard of a house in the city's historic districts.

This is especially troubling because of the significance of the architecture and the history of the Baker House as it ties in with the beginnings of the university.

If the board continues looking at

In this proposal I would ask that the size of the building still be reduced, the street set back be pushed back, and that the design includes a prominent doorway at the front of the building.

Right now, the large entrance for the parking garage stands very close to the sidewalk and would be a danger to pedestrians.

Perhaps the parking garage could be omitted since the location is a highly walkable section of Charlottesville.

The applicant has selected a certain street setback used as a comparison.

Those are street setbacks of buildings across the street and to the west of the Wharton-Baker House.

Some are not in the district.

Wortenbaker House is the first house in the district on the west side.

The streetscapes of the houses on the north side of Wortland Street are distinctive from the houses on the south side of the street.

The houses on the north side were built earlier and there's an orderly arrangement of these houses

with large front yards and standard setbacks.

The houses on the south side were built later and feature smaller lots and are closer to the street.

There is a distinction between these two types of historic streetscapes.

Looking at the houses on the north side of Wortland Street that are in the district, I came up with an average street setback of 57 feet, and that did not include the last several houses on the northeast side that are in the district but were not shown in the map on this agenda.

Wortland Street is already providing an enormous amount of housing for this one block, and up until now has been able to preserve its streetscape.

looking at the two different sides.

We should note that UVA has a plan to build a significant number of housing units at the southeast end of the street, just outside the district.

So the street is and will be providing a vast number of new housing units for the city.

Thank you very much, and thanks to everybody for their input.

Anyone else or anybody online?

No.

Okay.

Can I ask a question because I don't know this.

Do we have an ordinance requiring that buildings have parking?

Yes.

So they are required to design a building with parking somehow or other.

Is that what I'm hearing?

I think before we get into specific comments, I'd just like to say that I think I really appreciate the input from the public and from our preservation piedmont.

And I also want to acknowledge that I think that we up here are also charged with preservation of sorts through the application of our guidelines.

but there may be differences of opinion about how that could be applied.

I for one feel like there is a potential for a successful building on this site.

This is a neighborhood that has had many, many errors that have happened over the last hundred years.

In fact,

it makes it really makes our job easier in a way because they unfortunately because the fabric has been so damaged by recent constructions.

That being said I think that that this project has an opportunity to set a different standard for how to address work adjacent to historic homes in an area that has already been compromised.

I'll keep going with that and say, Kevin, I think that when you left last month you were maybe not feeling so great about the input that you had received from the board, but what an improvement this project has made over the past, was it a month, very short time.

I personally feel that this project has turned a corner and has become an elegant response to the site and to this house to the just numerous challenges that are literally confronting it on all sides.

I feel like this is a very, for me, an elegant, rational response that makes a lot of sense and makes the neighborhood better.

And I was just trying to think, I'll have to go back and look, but gosh, if this could move forward, it would probably be the best building on the street in the last hundred years.

It's a low bar, but I do think it actually gives the house a dignity to it.

It resets it in a way that for the next hundred years it still has a presence on the street.

I have a few, some other minor comments that I'll get to later, but I just wanted to applaud the work of

I totally agree.

No pun intended, turning it in the right direction.

But I think that probably my favorite drawing here is the plan.

You know, I think that the plan has a language that works visually, you know, and it does just

What I think what we were looking for which is you know Celebrating the house, you know responding to the house.

I see it as a sort of a framing of the house I'm completely sympathetic to your your concerns but I think

To Brecht's point, what makes our job easier is that the state of the house right now is deplorable.

I drove by this morning and there were red beer cups everywhere.

It was a mess.

Yeah, and then you've got that, you know, whatever you call it off to the right, that just creates this sort of no man's land, you know?

And so I think what this move does is it creates a structured and almost unstructurable landscape in the front that I think is really good.

I think that image

on page 15 sort of speaks volumes where all of a sudden that landscape is engaging.

There's a reason to be there and there's a sort of a landscape that has a logic both to the house and also to the sort of the new backdrop.

that's much better than the current backdrop because it gives a backdrop, it gives a sort of a logic and an order to it.

I think it's wonderful that the owner is dedicated to the preservation of the house.

I'd love to see sort of a higher use for it if there is such a call for that as opposed to going back into residential and beer cans flowing off the front.

I think it would be a way of sort of raising the bar.

for that particular plot of land.

If it became a collegiate housing location, a place where people that are over 30 or close to 30 want to be and not have to be subjected to fraternity life.

offices, yeah.

So I think that's all really good.

I guess if I were to have a critique of it, it would be more about the front and I think

I think this design is right in the way that it emphasizes that side facade and the way that it engages the landscape.

But I do feel like the front is a little left over, maybe a little neglected.

And to me it feels a little bit more like a rear elevation as opposed to what I would encourage

is maybe taking cues from the old house and all the old houses on that street.

And when you look at the depth of the front porch, the wonderful, unique, almost like I think of it as a filigree almost, the different layers of the unique railings and then the bit over the cornices over top.

You don't see that just anywhere and it's a wonderful thing.

And so I just wonder if there's some sort of a modern interpretation that can be had there in the front that's not what you're doing on the side, which is about sort of transparency and the scale.

but it's about a depth and it's maybe a little bit more about some detail.

I don't know if there's a way to sort of create a porch or an indentation in some of those, elongate the windows.

And then also just the kind of wonderful shift that happens in plan I feel gets a little lost in the corner tower.

which I don't see it addressing the street as much as sort of a more livable, richer front that I see in a lot of those houses.

And then the parking garage, it's like if the owner is willing to provide parking, I

You're not going to have livable space down there, so I don't see it as a detriment to the site.

It would be great to see a more strategic way for the cars to enter, but I also realize

That seems to be the only location where they can, but is there a way to cantilever that front story out to sort of create more screening for the opening underneath?

Is there a way to separate the base from the top two stories of the brick?

I agree with it.

I like the design.

The massing is really good.

I really like the fact that the staircases and so forth have been internalized.

It doesn't look like a 1970s motel so much anymore.

In general, I think that you're almost there.

I do agree with the remarks that there might be something to do with the streetscape.

Maybe a porch.

You're the architect.

You make it up.

It looks kind of blank to the street at this point.

Yeah, I agree.

I think it's a very attractive building.

You've definitely come a long way with it.

I'm not sure where I fall on the front.

I think there's a nice quietness to it.

I think what bothers me the most is just that it is so close to the street.

I really just want you to stick a big tree in front of it to be honest.

Let it kind of go away a little bit.

Let the important side is the side that's making that courtyard of the house.

That might just be me with that.

I did have a few comments.

Generally, if you came back to us with the details that Jeff has requested, I think I would be ready to approve it.

I do have some reservations about a couple things.

Again, the front being so close to the street, finding some way to, I think plantings would help.

Materials, the fiber cement is in our guidelines.

It's I think encouraged in our guidelines.

I have to say the use of fiber cement panels with battens, we see it a lot on the apartment buildings that have been popping up recently.

is not successful, but it looks good on your drawings.

I think the problem is it gets constructed badly.

Honestly, if it was a stucco surface, I'd be just as happy, but I won't deny your project for that.

I'm just throwing that out there since you are coming back apparently.

I always harp on applicants for open stairs.

There was a project on University Circle that I voted it down because they had an open stair and they finally closed it.

You know, I think it works a little better because it's not facing the street.

And you do have them really tucked in there.

Normally, I think it's kind of, you know, the idea that an open stair is going to break a building down into pieces.

I don't usually believe that works, but it seems to be working for you.

So I want to be optimistic with that and say, yeah, OK, fine.

Yeah, I think that's some of my big concerns.

You make a really beautiful presentation.

One thing I'm a little

What I'm worried about is some of the details that you show.

Are they actually, like is the brick actually sticking out that far?

Is the fiber cement modeled to, are you overemphasizing to try and get the shadows to look right?

Or is that actually how it would look?

Just kind of be careful that you know what I'm saying?

Okay.

But I think it, you know, it gives us the idea, I guess, so it looks great.

I just, I hope it, when it's built, it's gonna have that same level of articulation.

Thank you for everything that you've done on this long and winding journey.

Removing a floor, an entire floor from less than 12 feet is, I understand, difficult to do on such a project.

it really helps here and certainly getting rid of the exterior balconies and some of that cruise ship, as I'll say it, appurtenances that look like it was dry docked.

To address preservation Piedmont's points, I wish we could return to the 1850s and that there would be six and a quarter acres that could surround and that could, you know,

bless this house but unfortunately stewards of this house have chopped it up by developing behind it and that horrible access which is way too wide it's not it's it didn't have to be that wide but it was constructed that way really kind of you know

really chipped away at her beauty, and it's really too bad.

That doesn't mean that we necessarily have to build this building next door.

I mean, in a perfect world, I'm sorry, I wouldn't have your building next door.

I'd have this beautiful house on six and a quarter acres, but

but I think that this building follows our guidelines as it's presented this evening.

I would echo Mr. Timmerman's comments about and Mr. Schwartz's comments about with the garage entrance on the street level.

It is the street facade if you think about it that way.

We've been so concentrated and we've asked you to concentrate on the relationship with this new building to the Wharton Baker House but it's worth another look at it.

You've come so far on other details that it seems like you could do something to address some of the comments here.

But, I mean, this meets our guidelines and the staff report is pretty clear on going through the analysis of

exactly what the guidelines say and how this meets it and certainly the reduction in the overall massing and footprint and scale vis-a-vis the historic building really helps.

So I think we're charged with preserving the streetscape and protecting this historic house and as it's already had apartment buildings built to the west and to the east, I'm excited that the views of the historic house, the main views down 13th Street and that

is still preserved and I don't feel that the views along Wirtland are going to be hindered by this development.

I think it's an improvement over the existing parking and I was not around.

for the earlier conversations, but I for one am glad that the house is not proposed to be moved and that that view of the house is going to be preserved and agree with the sentiments that have been said earlier of

of how the west elevation has been developed and think that it's become quite successful in the past month.

That dropping the story down, dropping the second level of the brick level to be equal with the historic house I think is really successful.

And the breaking down of the masses along the way.

is also successful and that the front yard gets improved.

And I'd also echo that the south elevation does feel less detailed, that I think the taller windows in the gray portion are

the administration works well and I know there is comments about moving away from the corner glazing but something about the eight equal windows don't feel correct they feel too small along the main streetscape that I know there's a soldier course called out as a header but that I think a little more articulation could make that more successful and

I think that having the driveway there on the front of the building is something that happens in a few other buildings along the street so I don't think it's unusual to have it at this location.

All right.

Having been raised a preservationist and a preservationist, I should fight this tooth and nail, but I also turned to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation, and I kind of was just reading through the section in the updated standards from 2017 for new exterior additions and related new construction, and I think there's some things in here that really

Kevin, I hope you'll draw some inspiration from as you work through your final details.

So I won't read it all, but I do want to read a little bit.

New additions and related new construction that meet the standards can be any architectural style, traditional, contemporary, or a simplified version of the historic building.

However, there must be a balance between differentiation and compatibility to maintain the historic character and the identity of the building being, well not being enlarged, but new additions and related new construction that are either identical to the historic building or in extreme contrast to it are not compatible.

Placing an addition, well let's skip that part.

New construction should be appropriately scaled and located far enough away from the historic building to maintain its character and that of the site and setting.

In urban or other built-up areas, new construction that appears as infill within the existing pattern of development can also preserve the historic character of the building, its site, and setting.

So that, to me, really helps frame this conversation that we're having.

We've talked about, unfortunately, there's been a lot of apartment buildings built on all three sides of this historic house already.

I do think 10 feet away from the historic house is a bit close.

If I may, Cheri, can you clip that on the end of your table?

So like, that's 10 feet.

That's mighty close to the adjacent building.

So I'd encourage y'all to look at potentially trying to maybe

I think I agree with everybody that this has come a long way from when we first saw it.

I think Tyler Simmons on the street facade of the windows.

Maybe you could do something a little different on that street facade.

Something says factory to me, you know.

I think everybody's already spoken to the parking entrance, you know, it'd be lovely if the neighboring landowner would give you a right of way to bring it in the side and come on the other side, on the west side of the building or something, but that's politics.

Anyways, I guess I won't belabor the point, but I think if you may review that portion of the standards that I read, that might kind of help give you some inspiration as you finalize things.

I just wanted to add a few minor details.

One, I just wanted to say out loud that I think one of the reasons for the success is the brick and the materiality of the brick.

and while I like the massing approach, I could imagine a very different response if this ended up changing materials.

So I just encourage you to, I mean I think there's a warmth and a richness to the design and for me, the dark metal and dark trim in conjunction with the brick is a really nice contrast from the existing helm.

So I hope that those continue.

I think that what's also successful is the simple volumes, the simple brick volumes are really legible and I think the

fenestration pattern on the on the west as others have said is really successful and has really nice proportion and resolution and maybe there's some things that might inform the front but I wouldn't want for me personally I wouldn't want the front to get too fussy I feel like it should

Stay within that very simple set of volumes that you've set out.

Maybe there's something that could happen at the base course or the foundation that might help give it a little bit more grounding.

And then the other one's a tiny detail.

It is just that there was, looked like to be some grills in the front yard of the Wharton-Bucker House in one of the renderings, which I would be concerned about as being appropriate to a front yard and not to mention all of the other things that come along with grills.

But the other is one, it's a landscape and site design move and decision.

I understand why you've placed the sidewalk where you have, the one that runs parallel to the building.

But what it's doing is ending up making your planting that is near the building so small that all of the trees that you've tried to place there seem like they're really smashed against the building.

and likewise on the other side of the sidewalk it looks like you're really hoping to get some trees in but you're also not wanting to get in front to obscure the front facade of the house.

So I feel like there's maybe some very slight site design moves or looking at putting that

Sidewalk closer to the building or even adjacent to the building that might give you a better chance for getting significant trees in that aren't like really smashed against the building.

And that's one thing that was helpful to see in the renderings.

I don't think it was successful in the way that the trees were deployed.

And that's it for me.

Yeah, just clarify a few things.

Thank you again, of course, for the direction and the guidance.

We appreciate the comments.

We too are really excited about the direction it's headed.

I couldn't agree more.

Some very thoughtful comments regarding the front facade duly noted.

We'll continue to refine that.

The site landscape and siting and the site design in general, the courtyard is all very much our first and needs the level of rigor.

Now that we feel like there's momentum that's been generated, we'll engage with the landscape architect and really get some of those details and those plantings ironed out.

But point certainly noted about the grills.

I don't think we'd anticipate a grill.

Regarding the parking entrance, there is an option in the zoning code to eliminate up to half of the required parking.

Unfortunately, there is still required parking and it requires city council approval to reduce

up to a half, but the owner has indicated that he is interested in pursuing parking reductions.

He has to pay for underground parking.

It's not ideal either.

I think we all would agree that this is a parcel that would be served just fine without parking.

We wish we could, but at this time with this current zoning, it is a requirement.

separated from one another.

I ran into Kevin on the mall, what, Sunday, and I said, are you getting some sleep with that infant?

And he said, yeah, he's right here.

And he's two and a half.

Just like, oh, man.

But yeah.

I got to get out of the house more.

All right, rolling along.

And I don't know.

Is Mr. Sperdon here?

I did not hear from him.

Sorry, my, oh, there it is.

Oh, there he is.

There he is.

Okay.

All right.

So, sorry I didn't bring you in there, Mr. Chairman.

So this is a request for two addresses, two buildings, but they're on the same parcel.

The requests are essentially identical, so, and again, being on one parcel treated it as a single request.

These are two

to circa 1890 houses on Wortland Street.

They are in the historic district, they are contributing, and their request is to remove the current modern siding, some of it metal, some of it fiberglass, and to rehabilitate the siding and trim to match the original.

The goal is to salvage and reuse as much as possible and where that can't be used to use matching material.

And I mentioned earlier in the pre-meeting, I really built this staff report on what we used the project up on

Park Street, I can't remember the address, where we allowed that sort of to remove the material and then I can go out there and take a look and make some judgments.

But we also have some other projects on Wortland Street that Mr. Sperzen has done, something similar too, so we certainly have his knowledge and experience on a project like this.

But that's why I think I would have otherwise put it on a consent agenda, but I just wanted

make sure in case you all had anything you want to clarify or revise in my recommendations.

So, yeah, so this there's a parcel on Workland Street and we have

houses along the front of Wortland and then apartments behind.

And I've been before the BAR before to get permission to remove the asbestos siding and some wraparound decks at 1025 Wortland, which is one of the houses on this parcel.

And then also at 1107 Wortland did the same thing.

And

So any case, we removed the siding and luckily in both cases we found that the original siding was still in place.

Some of it of course was damaged or rotten and we restored that and we stripped the paint off as best we could and we unwrapped the windows that had been wrapped in metal.

and we restored the gables that had some cedar shingles.

So anyhow, the proposal tonight is to do the same thing for the next two houses down, one of which has asbestos siding and one of which has gray aluminum siding.

So one of those has windows that is wrapped in metal and one of them doesn't.

But any case,

You never know until you tear it all off what the siding underneath looks like.

But any case, and just to say, this is not a trivial exercise, these projects.

To do this pushes about $100,000.

for each building to restore this wood and strip the old paint off as well as you can and fine it and paint it and do all that.

So in any case, that's what I'm looking to do.

We've done two buildings.

You can come look at them.

And I did supply some pictures of the two buildings that were done a couple of years ago.

And you can

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the public?

Either, I don't think we've got anybody here or anybody online?

No, we'll just continue.

I'm just kind of curious as to the intentions behind your client.

Is this just by a preservationist wanting to bring these houses back to some sense of their original splendor?

I mean, I see these houses are all rentals, right?

I mean, these are all rented.

Yeah, I mean, it's a question of what do you do with the siding that's there, that the one that has asbestos siding does have some tiles that are cracked and broken.

And yes, I guess you can go out and find some non-asbestos replacements, but actually

The siding is the type that's got a wavy edge on it.

So, yeah, I mean, we've done two buildings.

We're going to do two more and a couple of them already have the original sidings.

One is brick.

So there's a total of seven historic houses.

Well, yeah, I mean, you know, they you know, you've probably heard the saying of the tin men where the aluminum siding salesman went through in the late 50s and 60s and

and there's a history of this.

So before there was aluminum siding, there were people running around selling asbestos siding and let us just side over your building and you never have to paint it again and we'll cover up all the stuff.

And then in the 50s or 60s came aluminum siding and they ran around and did the same thing.

and then there came vinyl siding after that.

And so, you know, everyone was looking for the miracle solution on how never to paint their wood siding again.

All right.

Any comments from the public?

I'm guessing not.

And if there are any comments from the board.

I mean, luckily, Richard, we've gone through this recently with a couple of other projects.

If I could probably answer the question.

This was Richard's email to me in September.

He says, I cannot live with these historic houses being clad in vinyl and asbestos.

And he also said something about I may be a gluttony of being a glutton for punishment.

I want to do this.

Yeah, so I would say he's expressed very clearly that he wants to do this for the right reasons.

I'd like to make a motion.

OK.

Because I did go look at 1107.

I think I was part of approving that.

I don't know if Brett, were you on the board there?

I don't think so.

He did a beautiful job.

I mean, yeah, he knows what he's doing.

So all right, I'm going to steal Jeff's language that's in here.

Having considered the standards set forth in the city code, including city design guidelines for ADC districts, I move to find that the proposed exterior rehabilitations at 1109 and 1121 Wortland Street satisfy the BAR's criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Wortland Street ADC district.

And the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following additions.

If replacement of portions of the exposed siding and trim is necessary, then it will match the dimensions and scale, including the exposure dimension of the siding and general profile of any trim components.

The owner and the contractor shall consult with the city staff regarding any unsalvageable original materials and selecting appropriate replacement material.

And the applicant is to provide for the BAR record progress photos of the work, including the original material and of the project, including of the original material and of the project upon completion.

Well, I'll just say all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes.

Thank you very much for that application.

All right.

Maybe one more and then a break.

Yes.

Getting there.

All right, here we go.

Getting somewhat adept with all this technology is a little concerning for me.

So this is a request from the First United Methodist Church at 101 East Jefferson Street.

It is in the North Downtown ADC District.

It is contributing.

I'll say before we get started, I've been talking to Bill on this topic for a couple of months now and he sent me a note today and I think I shared it with you all that the congregation is still making some decisions and really kind of wants to know

Before they go out too far on the limb on this, where does the BAR stand?

But this is church constructed in 1923.

It's a slate roof building.

the sanctuary and the rear buildings.

Bill could address this more, but Buckingham Slate, I believe, so probably 150, 180 year life slate on that roof.

So maybe it's halfway through or three quarters of the way through.

And the request is to consider approving the installation of solar power or solar panels

on as much of the roof surfaces as they can to maximize the power output.

So the illustrations that you have are sort of just a what if, they're not necessarily a technical evaluation, but just to sort of introduce what this could look like.

All right, good evening.

I'm Bill Owens.

Oh, no, no, no.

Sorry.

I'm the architect shepherding the project for First United Methodist Church.

I'm also a trustee of the church.

I'm here with the minister of the church, Reverend Alex Joyner, and a trustee of the church, Guy Moffett.

I had also asked the church's roofer and a representative from the Tiger Solar to join us tonight to help address any concerns anyone might have, but they weren't able to make it unfortunately.

So the three of us will do the best we can to answer any questions you have.

The reason we're here tonight is church has received an offer of a sizable donation to add solar panels to the building to reduce the church's electrical demands as part of an ongoing green initiative at the church.

The church's goal is to cover at least 50% of their yearly electrical expenses at the savings of about $10,000 to $15,000 per year through the use of solar.

The photo simulations you have been provided show the number and placement of the solar panels as estimated by Tiger Solar to best achieve this goal.

Before going too far into the nuts and bolts of the design of the system, the church would like to have an understanding of what the city and BAR would approve visually for the placement of panels on the existing roof.

As shown by the photos I submitted, for the most part the roof surfaces of the church are not visible from the surrounding block except for the church's own parking lot and directly in front of their courtyard.

Only those at a distance and elevated would be able to see the solar panels.

At Mr. Werner's request, I also provided information on how the roofer would propose to attach the solar panel rack system through the existing slate roof.

All electrical connections would be made in either the attic or the basement except for a single conduit running out the back of the panel array and down the north face of the steeple to the existing electrical service in the courtyard.

The church is more than happy to provide the city additional details on the design of the system as it is engineered, but they would like to have a sense of to what extent they will be permitted to have panels on the roof surfaces before going to the time and effort to have the system designed.

Great, thank you.

Any questions or comments from the public?

I'm just gonna get those both out of the way.

No one here.

Yes, that is what Tiger Solar is telling us would maximize the solar gain for the project.

It's 220 some odd panels, give or take.

Again, it's not totally defined, but the goal was to reduce the church to as close to net zero as possible.

We're still working through the numbers on kilowatt hours and the math and so forth, and we've got everything from at least 50 percent up to

to 75% or something just kind of depending on where we place them.

So this is the estimate base for solar design where they should be.

This is not an aesthetic consideration other than the initial submittal I gave to Jeff showed them on the portico roof that I immediately had corrected.

So hopefully you got the newer one that has them removed from the portico and put on the back courtyard roof.

I have a question about the mounts, the Q base slate mount that was included in the packet.

How often do those need to be used?

My understanding is that the panels mount on a continual channel, one up and one down for each panel.

So I guess if you want to take the number of panels and do some math, I guess you can figure it out.

But it's quite a few.

It's quite a few.

So we still have to work through the F. Once we have a sense that this is going to go, we'll work through with the roofer as far as what that's involved and the costs and so forth.

Somebody had a good idea last time about potentially locating the panels in the parking lot on the northeast side.

The short answer is no.

Well I mean you've probably seen in some car parks maybe I'm thinking of nothing close by so I don't have anything to refer you to specifically but I've been in car parks before where you know there's a framework basically and then the panels mount overhead you know ten feet up and they're angled in a

Any other questions?

We'll move to comments.

Maybe we should break this into two parts.

I'm guessing that there are two major considerations.

One is the impact on the historic district and the roofline of the structure.

And then the second being the detail and the kind of issues relative to the preservation of the slate.

Let's talk about the first one.

I guess off the bat, just within our guidelines, as Jeff put in the notes, under rehabilitation, section G roof, note eight, place solar collectors and antennae on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings.

So I think we need to determine whether the main roof of the sanctuary is a character defining roof.

You kind of got to get over that hurdle first.

I kind of would argue that it is.

It's the main roof of the building.

Just put it out there.

I think the fact that it's not really visible from anywhere within close proximity.

I mean, there's a character finding a roof, but you'd have to be standing back pretty far to see the roof.

Makes me lean towards thinking that I'd be fine with... I agree with their move not to put them on the portico, but everywhere else.

I personally think that would be acceptable to our guidelines.

They also do not...

in any way change the profile of the roof or obscure any massing of the building because they're so relatively flat to the roof.

Yeah, that slim profile is, I think, what's important to me.

It doesn't seem like it's going to really substantively change the profile against the sky or the roof itself.

I mean, in an ideal world, they might be tiles, and someday they might be tiles.

And then I really wouldn't think there would be an issue with it.

I don't know why my opinion has changed on this but I felt that way last month because I was looking at all the street views and you know you can't really see them but I guess it's just looking at this image of the solar panels on a you know fairly

I think I've changed my mind.

I think I would vote that it is, in keeping with the standards, that I think the minor buildings are one thing, but the major buildings

you know the next time we see this shot are we ready to are we prepared to see the you know the oldest churches in the downtown with that you know with that roof covering and really for me I think it comes down to more I'm concerned about the the material of the roof the you know the damage that it could potentially do to the and I know this is issue number two but I am concerned about you know having a

I walk by the church practically every day as I walk from home to the mall and back and I have never noticed the roof.

I don't think it's character defining in that sense.

I would be in favor of proceeding with the solar and...

Letting the church go the route of installing it.

I would encourage it if it was visible as something that's the church moving in a forward thinking direction and letting it be visible.

Okay, let's chat about the second part, the potential risk to the slate.

And as a bit of a background, the city just recently explored replacing the slate on the Key Recreation Center, and we went through

Really enlightening discussion about the care and repair necessary and the state of slate supply currently in the market.

So this was a recent recent conversation that we've had amongst the PAR.

I guess y'all know about the Buckingham slate has dried up pretty well in the quarry.

It's really difficult to get these days so I think that the message is be cautious because it seems to me like this is an installation method that would potentially do a lot of damage to the roof not just for cutting the slate with the grinder and popping that one slate you need to for each of these mounting points but

The fact that the installers are going to be walking all over your slate roof, the potential to break slate is very high.

I just say that as a cautionary note in having worked on lots of slate roofs as a project manager.

So I think there's a lot of caution that would go behind this.

I think it'd probably behoove y'all to do some research, see if there's other slate roofs that this company has worked on and can show you where they've successfully installed the solar panels and go see those projects so that you can rest assured that they can do a good job and talk to their clients as well as your contractor

to make sure the client was happy with the job and don't have leaks.

Probably.

I talk too much.

But it might be worth exploring, right?

If you can find something else that might be acceptable and is

less expensive and still get your energy goals.

Could I ask you a question, James?

So that's the question.

That's a good question.

I'm not over the fact that it's a character-defining roof.

For me, it would depend on the design of it.

I think you can design something in a reasonable way.

The parking lot, as it sits right now, is pretty empty, from what I recall.

We would have to elevate as such to get around the trees, I believe, though.

Ten feet off the ground is not going to do it.

We've got another building and it's a six-foot rock wall, you know, to increase elevation for the next town.

And then it's a big house with logs.

I could get it through approval down there.

I think you know I would have if this had come in this were an asphalt roof I'd have probably had this one consent agenda and I think you know Brett or all of you kind of asked the right question it's what what's our what is our charge and me you know I told Bill today I probably speaking more of my years in construction than necessarily from the guidelines on this one but I really

and I don't know, is it even appropriate for the BAR to be asking that question?

I do think we'd agree that the slate roof is a character-defining feature of this church and we wouldn't want, if the proposal was to

to take the slate off and sell it to the city for a key recreation center and put asphalt shingles.

Unfortunately for the city, I don't think we'd approve that.

So we do have a role in trying to steer towards the protection of that roof and the protection of that

that detail and that materiality we just I think as citizens we want to make sure that you do that look at this detail very carefully because it obviously may send save the congregation money in the long term but we don't want it to be a risky move that could

could cause other headaches down the road as well.

I wish the system maybe allowed for fewer penetrations because it just seems like a very labor-intensive and detailed installation on a delicate surface.

I would also just note that, as someone who sits on a church board myself, that if that risk is seen as too high, I would encourage you to think creatively about the strength of having a congregation.

And maybe there are things that you could do at the congregation scale of many, many residences throughout the city that could have as much or a bigger impact overall.

Just a detailed thing, too.

I'm looking at the parking lot now from the street view, and there's a pretty clear view of the west side of the main roof.

So, something to look at.

One question that I would have from the installer is,

If the technology changes and you want to take these off and put a different panel on, what's the process of putting the slate back?

It looks like you're replacing more than just one slate.

It looks like you might be replacing... Well, I'd like to know how many slates would have to... If you took one of these mounts off, how many slates are damaged, destroyed, removed, or would have to be to put a new slate?

back in that spot.

Does that make sense?

To be honest, I was completely thrilled with the system, with the penetrations that were involved, but I couldn't get as much participation from the roofer as I wanted ahead of time, let's just say.

to resolve this I would pursue myself rather see something that was removable that replaced the slate and the slate could be salvaged in theory and then put back rather than damaging a slate by doing it.

That's something we haven't resolved.

Just to add

We're here because we have a specific obligation to a donor who is wanting to give a very large chunk of money for this specifically, yes or no, to see that out.

And so we're trying to respond back to them as far as, you know,

as the first step here is that it will work out the details as you all think is warranted to make you all uncomfortable with what we do.

And I certainly understand.

I think a lot of this could have been addressed by the solar company and the roofer if I could have gotten it.

And that maybe we could have worked out, hashed out something and saved us a second visit or something.

We have every concern.

I'm not going to do something that we feel and we can't prove is going to be done properly.

And we intend to keep the roof.

We have no reason to think it's going anywhere else.

The fact is, the engineering, the research, all this stuff is going to be done.

We don't want to do it and then come here and say we can't put solar panels on the roof.

I'm sorry.

The fact of life is everybody's busy.

construction, if you're related to it, I think you understand that it is slammed.

And it still is in Charlottesville.

So time available to do stuff like this, you know, we've got to find the right, once we get a go, I think we can roll.

Well, I'm sure you guys are even more worried about that than we are.

We have enough of them.

We understand we're making arrangements that we're not going to put the panels straight through without any way to walk between them.

We've got to get to them.

Well, here's what I felt like I heard from everyone tonight and see if you guys disagree.

I felt like generally there was consensus, not unanimity, but consensus that the panels could be placed on this roof without adverse effect to the historic district or to the building because of its low profile, some reservations noted.

And I think that what I heard is that we have concerns about the slate, but that there is some openness if we had a little more information and you guys feel like this is going to protect

the roof, then that was something that we would be prepared to support.

And it may be that there is a different system or it may be that there's someone who has direct experience with that installation.

Can I throw a caveat in there?

So it sounds like we've got four of us tonight that seem to be supporting this idea, two that don't.

Oh, yes, that's right, we have a, okay.

But they probably won't, well, yeah, who knows when they'll be here.

Who knows?

I'm not sure exactly, I understand the concern with the installation, but I'm not sure I'm clear on where we are with yes or no on risk going further with the

because if you're saying you add two more board members and we get a no, then what I do when I leave here is substantially different than what it is.

So shouldn't we go through that as a motion then?

Yeah, I mean, if they're not here, they're not here.

You mean in terms of in principle?

Well, there is a suggested motion having considered the standards set forth.

I guess the question is if everyone is, I don't know if there's the same amount of comfort with the detail just yet.

I guess what I'd be looking to avoid is that we have to come back and then we have a different

to us outside of the meeting by email, specifically maybe reaching out to the members that are not here.

This is another interesting question of what requires a building permit for roofing and I haven't gotten I know there's an electrical permit involved but I don't know about a roofing permit so and that's they would not be checking

They would just be saying, yeah, you gave us a check so you have a permit to go up on your roof kind of thing.

So it would not be necessarily an evaluation of the methodology.

Sorry, I don't mean to insert myself in the conversation.

I'm thinking back what the gentleman said when we talked about the key rec center.

And I was a little surprised when he said that we would only have about 30% salvageable material.

I was floored by that number.

So there's part of me that having worked with Bill and talked with Bill about this, that this understanding that the congregation isn't going there, they are going to evaluate that and they're not going to

put someone up on that roof if it damages the roof.

I don't know if you can say that in a motion, but that's the sense I get.

But that they can't move forward with that detailed evaluation without

at least an affirmative or a negative.

And the choice would be to make a motion and make a vote.

If it's a negative vote, they can appeal that to council or take it as it is.

If it's a positive vote, then they can move forward with the COA and if you all have any ideas of provisions or conditions that are

don't require a subjective decision on my part.

So you're not comfortable doing sort of a 50-50 or something?

I understand your concerns.

They're warranted, and I'd like to address them on the installation.

But I would like to get out of here with enough confidence that we can do what we're... We can spend money to do that.

Sure, sure.

And we'll be able to resolve it.

I hope I don't get in trouble for throwing this out here.

I mean, one proposal that the solar company had was to completely remove the roofing underneath

Another option the BAR has is that you do have 60 days to act on this, so you all could move to defer to the November meeting, in which case they would have to come back and present this.

So you do have that ability.

It forces the issue, but it's available.

I have to mention it.

What's that?

I don't.

From an application per our ordinance, when it comes in, you all have so it essentially allows two meetings to take an action.

I guess I want to ask if you feel that you could support this project with a little more confidence in the installation method.

I would support it with the condition that we would avoid the planes that you could see from the ground.

So that, I don't know, I guess that probably, looking at the roof, that probably knocks out the east sides.

Are the sanctions working?

Yeah.

and I just for me it's just you know it's the same thing with the gym I just feel like we're here to sort of maintain the character you know the unique character of the downtown and that's that's sort of our main job and

and the same thing with the gym.

I feel like that's something that I appreciate every time I go over the bridge.

I see that roof and that's just one of the many little details that I respond to as being part of the things that I appreciate about the downtown.

So that's where I'm coming from with it.

So if there's a scenario where

you know, three quarters of the panels would work.

I am supportive as is.

No, I'm saying if we received some assurances on that.

I would vote on it.

So I read about four votes in favor of the project with a little more assurance on the detail and installation, two with some reservations, and then the outstanding votes I can't speak to.

We can't split.

Well, he's not going to say no.

They're going to have a different dynamic on the board.

What's your timeline?

Well, I don't think there's any hurry other than, again, what he's referring to as a wasted effort in that intervening time.

You know, we're hoping to come out of here, even if we take his position, okay, we get 75% of what we wanted, or whatever it is, if we come out with some kind of agreed opinion from you all, what we can do is go back to the donor and say that this is, do you still interest, do you want to do something else, or whatever.

I come back to him with, you know, okay, they said yes or no or half or yet, you know.

I understand the concerns again with, I wish we had split it now in hindsight, because that's, I think, would be the most practical solution here.

Yes, you can do it.

Go forward.

We like to, we just don't like drilling holes in the slate.

I get it.

I'll come back with something.

I wish I could get the roofer here.

This could be an encouragement to other folks in the congregation and to folks in the city to consider solar energy as a way of saying to do what the city has said it wants to do, which is to interlude environmental care.

I think it matches the congregation's values and also the city's values.

You know, I wonder, I'm sure you're going to be getting more and more requests for solar panels.

Well, I guess I'd put it back to the applicants.

We could put the motion forward.

I don't think it would pass this evening.

If we deny it, it could be appealed directly to City Council.

Well, yes, no, I think generally when I

A new application comes in, yeah, it's that third Tuesday.

If it's something that is sub, I would just need to know by next Tuesday, do they want it, you know, do they have things on it?

Well, they would have to have it in.

But by the time I would write, get into the staff reports, it would probably be the end of the following week.

That's us.

I guess, I think we're getting towards would be a deferral on our part to clarify the installation method.

So that means we got to spend the money, you got to design the solar, you got to get it, you got to do it.

No, no, no, no, no.

They're saying you don't change anything, they just want to feel more comfortable with the installation method.

Even if the board dynamic changes and we're rejected outright, regardless of how we're sticky gluing it on the roof, we haven't wasted any time other than what's involved with figuring out the solution.

For those concerned about the board dynamic, I will not be here at the next meeting.

I think you're the one guy we'd want to ask.

You could defer to whatever you wish.

A roofer on vacation right now.

I think that's really the key, and not for the installer, but really if you're hearing from a roofer what they think.

I'd love if they said, oh yeah, here's what we would do, we would do it all the time and it works.

That would be fantastic.

But I don't think the panel installer will say, yeah, we'll figure it out.

Oh, it would be, yes.

No, that's if we had the assurance of... So my concern is that you're essentially asking permission to drill probably several hundred six-inch holes into an existing slate roof with a very limited supply.

You're going to have an incredible amount of breakage on that roof and there's not a clear path

towards getting a lot of replacement tiles.

So what I am concerned about is that you get halfway into the project and then end up becoming a roof replacement of a different material and it really changes the nature and we've kind of all stuck making a decision that we didn't.

If we had the referrer that says yes, we've done it.

So I guess then we want to defer and we can provide additional detail on the

You're going to a climate change meeting, so you're going to come back emboldened, I think, with solar panels.

No, you don't approve, then you defer.

No.

because there's one thing to get, you know, we know we've got good slate installers in town, but I think there's an additional, you know, security in this and that.

You get these people that have worked with solar companies.

Yes, the one that I provide is a proprietary system from a California company that provides the whole shoot and match for it.

After that there's all kinds of custom things you could do.

So I would think from what I've searched for, I think the

We probably would provide something that's custom.

I'm assuming that there would come an agreement that the roofer says he can do, and I don't want to speak for him, but he could fabricate

I think actually most experiences in Europe.

And that was Tyler on the second.

No.

Zehmer?

No.

Whitney?

Yes.

Schwartz?

No.

Bailey?

Yes.

And I vote no.

Yes.

I move to accept the applicant's request for deferral.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye

All right.

Thank you.

This is going to jump right in.

Oh, my God.

Scrolling, scrolling, scrolling.

Whitney, are you here?

There you are.

Okay.

You got in.

Alright, next item on the agenda is 612 West Main Street.

This is a COA request to modify the building facade.

This is a building design.

The COA was approved.

back in December of last year.

And this is in the West Main Street ADC District.

It's a new building, so not a contributing structure.

There was a Cinderblock Automotive Service building there, but that was not contributing, or actually still is there.

It will be raised as part of this project but that's not subject to BAR review.

So the request is to modify the materiality of the facades and actually I think all the elevations and we discuss this

briefly in the September meeting.

And now it comes to you as a formal request.

And a lot of questions about stucco versus brick or what type of stucco, what type of material would be suitable.

And I think that's why Whitney's here to work us through that.

And is Jeff hoping to be on?

OK, I see.

How do I let him in?

Invite?

All right.

Can you hear me?

OK.

If I get rid of this, he'll be a big head.

There he is.

There he is.

Did you want to share the screen, Jeff?

Yeah, I can do that.

I have the same presentation and we'll share the screen with it.

Can you all see that?

It's probably best for me to turn off my video only because it's probably slowing my connection down here.

So you all know what I look like.

You don't need to see that anymore.

A little bit more volume, please.

Sure.

Oh.

Oh.

I'm competing with the Flaming Lips, is that right?

You are.

Yeah.

OK.

All right.

Is this better?

OK, we did speak about this last month.

I really don't want to belabor the point.

But for construction cost reasons, with prices rising rapidly, even in the last six months, we've been forced to reconsider the facade of the building, which was approved.

The north, east, and west facades were approved as brick.

and a portion of the south facade was approved as brick, but the majority of it being ephis.

So very quickly to run through the previous design, which you all have seen, I will say that the main concern that we had heard previously on the facade design from the BAR was the differentiation of the components of the north facade especially, meaning that this piece

and this piece of the facade coming forward or being differentiated from the pieces about 18 inches behind here and here and those are going to be differentiated with a very heavily textured brick pattern as was this area here.

So

What we are proposing now is and the other sides that had previously been approved here is where the adjacent building 600 West Main Street is.

So that covering up what is shown is CMU there.

as we continue around the building.

This facade was essentially already approved as IFAS with brick wrapping the edges.

I'm sorry, I'm right here and on the opposite side as well.

This being the facade of the alley.

So as we've moved forward,

As I mentioned, we are proposing a stucco and EFS building.

We had discussed this last month that EFS, in terms of the guidelines, is discouraged.

Our understanding of that is largely because of its susceptibility to damage.

In terms of stucco being used elsewhere in the city and on West Main Street, there are a number of examples of it.

Happy to go through these, but interesting, immediately across the street is the loggia of the old Albemarle hotel.

but we also all know the pink building, the building right next to it and a number of other buildings on West Main Street, including Maya.

So the precedent does exist.

Some of the precedents we were looking at in terms of abstracting the facade and trying to give a sense of depth to the facade so that it is not simply a simple surface treatment.

So the proposal is to use two different types of texture here.

Let me go back very briefly.

What I want to do is address the issue of durability and the, sorry, I think I skipped ahead too quickly.

I'm looking for the facade.

I'll get to that in a moment.

Here we go.

The plan in this instance is that this entire first level would be made of true three coat stucco.

And in terms of its durability, it's proven out everywhere.

Everything above that would be more standard ephos, which is over styrofoam, but also we would be using a heavy duty mesh to especially on the rear facade where we have balconies and even on the fourth floor.

that mesh is there to protect the surface.

I will say that we have used EIFS successfully on the rear of 600 West Main Street.

There's a little bit of it on all of the facades, but the rear facade of it is entirely EIFS.

And that has a number of residential units and balconies.

And this same owner developer has not experienced any issues with it with a similar type of construction.

In terms of the differentiation of the elements of the facade, we are proposing that these pieces here would be done in a very heavily textured stucco.

And Whitney's there with examples of it to show you.

We can talk about that in a moment.

And we did have conversations last month about potentially covering these, we call them the hyphens, the setbacks.

We talked about those potentially being covered with green wall

plant material of some sort.

And we heard what the BAR said and actually agree that the consensus was even if that is successful on the north side of a facade, it would be three years at best before that plant material might actually have any substance.

So we shouldn't rely on that as the way to go if we're really looking for differentiation.

So we've taken that conversation and are proposing that these be done in heavily textured stucco.

of the same color as the rest of the building, which you'll see the samples that Whitney has.

It is the same color.

Interestingly enough, it looks very, very different.

And we've got a color, also a separate color sample that we would like to propose.

As we go further, let's see here.

We will see in the 3D elevations, we have metal panels over these windows here.

And also we are now proposing as part of the facade to add metal canopies here as part of the composition.

And so I don't need to belabor any of this.

Here we see that the proposed alternate facades

rear facade.

One of the issues always with Efes and Stucco of any sort is the control joints, and we've tried to deal with those judiciously, again, in abstracting the facades, not dealing with them as just a simple grid line.

The alley facade facing the side of the Holstinger building

and then probably more telling than anything, some of the side views of the building where you begin to understand and see where we're proposing metal panels and the metal awnings.

We don't yet have a proposal for signage.

That is something we would come to you with separately.

And as much as this actually looks to be, this portion of the building appears to be a different color from this portion of the building.

Unfortunately, our rendering program took the same color and made it look a little bit different.

More as we go.

The metal color that we're proposing is the same as had been proposed previously, as well as the color of the windows and doors.

And a bit of a close up here, the entrance to the residential component.

and a close up of a portion of the building.

The trees are part of the project.

They will be included.

Um, they are in the public right of way, but they are a condition of the site plan approval.

The rear facade.

and that is, that's it.

I'm happy to have further conversation, but I know we've talked about this and we're already running late.

I guess, Whitney, if you are there, are you, I'm not seeing.

I'm here.

Can you hear me?

Where do you want me to put it?

These are the two textures.

Is that the color as well?

Well, no.

This is the color.

But this is a really rough texture.

This would be on the high fins and on the entry wall.

That's the big entry facade off the plaza.

Warm off-white, yeah.

That's a good description.

It's a little warmer than these, a little bit darker.

Are those the same color?

These are the same color as each other.

Yeah, so we're just basically showing that they do look pretty different in color, even though they're the same.

And we always wanted it to be

You know, a distinction, but not so much the building, the buzzword for the building that designed the whole time was quiet.

Does that have all the layers in it?

This is just a sample on styrofoam.

I thought we had, as part of the submission, included some of the EIFS, here we go, EIFS details.

Thank you, Jeff.

I think we all have questions.

I'm just going to double check and see if there's any question or comment from the public.

It would be online if there are.

Just let us know if there is.

Can we go get into questions?

I'm sure there's several.

I'll start with one.

I'm just not familiar with how would the building be?

What's the process for cleaning these materials?

My understanding is power washing is the way you do it.

And it may be a slightly less strong pressure.

So I got a question.

These are the EFIS samples, right?

They aren't necessarily built the way the wall would be.

There's the meshes.

I get that.

I guess confirming that at the first floor level where it's actual stucco, the textures are essentially the same as this.

Yes.

Yes, that is correct.

We do have a control joint at, let me get back to that facade, where we would make the change.

And here we go.

If I just blow this up.

The control joint is right here.

And that is where we would make the change from one to the other.

Jeff, when you do this, when you do the stucco level, are you still having rigid insulation with a solid sheathing outboard of it?

Is it, I'm just curious, are you still trying to get some continuous insulation in there?

You're just putting a hard surface on the outside of the insulation, or is that not even going to be there?

Whitney, can you remind me, I know that we're doing the continuous insulation up above.

It's just, I think on both floors it's fairly similar in terms of the layers until you get to the outside.

It's sheathing on top of the studs, whether they're metal on the first floor and wood on the upper floors.

Sheathing on top of that and then the rigid insulation over top.

So the whole building will now have continuous insulation on the outside.

Even though we're not required to for the wood floors, it will now.

And just on the ground floor, you've got, I guess, sheathing outboard of the rigid insulation.

I guess it's not really our purview.

I'm just curious.

Well, here we go.

This is the detail on the upper floor with the continuous.

So what we are looking for, Carl, is to make that surface continuous below.

The insulation continues down.

It's just that the surface of it is built up in a different way.

So the stucco surface is thicker, and it's over top of a more rigid

The panel above most of the windows, is it a coil stock or is it an actual light?

So it would be a painted metal panel, but it would be solid.

It's like a composite panel, so it would be one piece.

It's not thin, so it wouldn't oil pan.

It would just be one solid.

It would appear to be one solid piece.