Board of Architectural Review Meeting   9/19/2023

Are there two preferred items?

Is he working on the courthouse?

But you don't have to step down or anything.

That's true.

Oh, then you can make comments in favor.

No, that would be jerky.

I'm sorry.

Or get up and disagree with Eric on his presentation.

Do you think there's one?

I mean just tell me where it is here and I'll get it.

Oh, I didn't mean to send you, but my battery is low, too, so I might, depending on.

several neighborhood associations have written.

Well, I'm just talking about the process in general.

But the neighborhood letter, which I'm glad you forwarded, it was weird that it had north downtown residents.

R-E-S-I-D-E-N-C-E association, did you see that?

The NDRA name is misspelled.

both live there.

It's R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T-S, not residence.

Look at it, N-C-E.

So I was like wondering if that.

I didn't either.

I think you said I wasn't even aware that they had reconstituted or voted on anything.

And I get their emails.

They had some meeting I think over the summer or the spring and I certainly didn't.

So did you get, you didn't get an answer to your query to us, did you?

Whether we should engage on that or?

They are, I know Carl is in the planning commission meeting, right?

Isn't there a conflict?

Yeah.

And Jeff, I usually hear from Kevin before the meetings.

Yeah, and I don't think we did like a quorum check because we only had one item, so.

Thank you.

I've been looking for this.

My son left it at Jeff's.

Sorry, no, Kevin's not here.

All of them.

Oh, they all did?

Okay.

We got a quorum though.

So five is quorum, right?

Because I'm going to be recusing.

Quorum is just attendance.

Okay.

Sorry.

Favorite what?

Here we are.

Remi says we are.

Five o'clock.

So, you know, and I'll ask you this, because

We normally did in the past pre-COVID.

I should have made the comment the other day I could have planned it because it should have been three years since I had been in that room over there.

And when I made the comment I said I forgot how much I hate this room.

Really?

You do?

I've grown to like it.

It's like 1970s depressing.

Which room?

This room or council chambers?

And just in case there's any confusion, people ask, right now Planning Commission and Council are over there.

But it's where, to Remy's benefit, I guess,

when we had had meetings before in the olden days.

The preliminary discussions were, the pre-meeting was in the conference room.

The public was welcome to attend, but it wasn't recorded or filmed.

So I didn't, I mean, I'm going to have to get some clear response to that.

And the other part is I had asked this evening, we're going to have,

Sure, sure.

So Missy said keep rolling, so Remy, I'm sorry, I'm trying to get you to be able to go.

But it's something we can talk about and review.

I think there is

I mean, yes, the public's welcome.

They can attend.

I think some expectations with the whole Zoom thing.

I don't know how we, although I don't want people, you never want people to not participate, but it is, it has become the go-to thing.

So last week there was a

was a Thursday night, there was a hearing, and people signed up, but then people kept logging on, so there's no way to really know.

How many people do we have here to speak?

What's that?

How late did they end up going?

About nine.

A rolling crowd, you know, people spoke, came in.

But the question came up for the Historic Resources Committee last week where a couple of people said, well, I'm traveling, can I call in?

No, because we're no longer doing Zoom.

And if it was someone that we said, yes, we'll allow at this time, well, then it becomes

You know, because it's like, can we call and put them on our phone?

Do they have to be live and seen?

What if all the members next month ask to, you know, so we just say, no, we're doing it this way.

So I don't know at what point if the city even will say that you, the public, want to know what's going on at a meeting.

You can watch it or you can participate at the meeting.

Sorry, hope that makes sense.

Were there any questions about

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, and we had had that on consent.

There were some, you all had some questions, Carl certainly did, so we moved it to regular agenda, but, and yeah.

It's, we talked a lot about recusals in the past, but this one is where his firm is engaged, so this is a no-brainer.

He said it was, but they moved it to the firm.

Oh, okay, okay.

The infill of the Loge on the 1939 portion.

Yeah, it's a... I've got my thoughts.

And the IPP designation, to me, I assume it's going to be a rather perfunctory, but it is a

a recommendation you all make to council in the consideration of a rezoning and it it's it's all part of a package for the whole development so I'm just getting that recommendation the box checked on that the developer it's so it's a significant

significant development over there on that whole end of JPA and Stadium Road wrap.

So there are a lot of gears moving on that one.

Yes, you're voting only singularly a recommendation that council either not remove the IPP designation or support removing the IPP designation.

There had always sort of been this, you know, loop of design review, new design, you know, and Council's option was to say, you know, yes, following the BAR's recommendation, however, we will still allow ourselves, Council, to consider removing the IPP at our discretion.

So that's the point that they're at now.

And so with that, it's

your recommendation would be then and something to give some thought about.

I put in there a period of time, I don't know, six months, two months, within the next month provide the documentation.

But I wanted to do that just to simply say

don't link it to prior to demolition because what if they take two years to get this project done and they let that thing just, you know, decline.

So if we say, you know, within X months we want that, sort of while it's still fresh and alive.

That was my recommendation.

I did include it in either, it's referenced in either motion but you would have to read that motion.

But it's very simple and then it will work its way through the planning commission where there's a series of things that have to be approved

There's some vacation of city right-of-way.

No, there's no, no.

Right, but if they don't remove it, then it does.

We asked them to only remove the IPP.

For what?

There's no COA.

Well, I'm sorry, yes.

Oh, 18 months?

Oh, another year?

And I don't... I'm not disagreeing with your... Well, we all have lived here for a while and seen projects, you know?

Yeah.

Every project that Keith Woodard talks about, I feel like, because he's so conservative.

He never gets built.

I mean, it's really a knot that must be untied before they start the design review.

So that's the only point, next step.

Whenever that starts, are they working with the BAR or are they working with the ERB?

I don't know how quickly this thing's going to move forward.

But I think if you all can, again, it is only a recommendation.

Whereas before you were taking a formal yes no vote on something, this is a recommendation to council.

Right, yeah because no Yeah, that's a lot of boxes to check on this one It's got some it's got that property next door where councils sold it with a stipulation not be developed there's a road behind 104 Stadium Road and

There's a lot of little details in this one.

That's why I said I just kept this thing narrowed down to the what is the question for the BAR.

Just out of curiosity, if it stayed in IPP and the design got brought to us

The whole project.

The whole thing.

I have it at Jerry Central.

That's where it kind of gets where

Yeah, I mean Dairy Central, we split it between the backs, went to the entrance corridor, even though it was in the back of Dairy Central, that parcel.

The other time we had it with Tarleton Oaks.

That was, gosh, the first couple of months I was on board.

I'm still not sure exactly how we handled it, but yes, because now if they carved it out and separately developed everything, not touching 104 Stadium Road,

they really bring what of course Stadium Road to you.

I don't see that happening but I said I don't know.

Give it some thought.

I sent the email out late last night, I apologize, it was a little

Craig Jackson had asked me a couple things.

What about the 416-418 West Main and adding some canopies on the west side?

I don't know exactly what the questions were.

He should be or he may be on Zoom.

And then across the street at Tonic, at least across from City Hall, is the old

Mickey Publishing, and they are interested in changing out some of the windows in there.

I had said, when I talked to Greg, it's a 1930s, 40s, 50s, industrial building, those windows really, they are.

But I said, unless you had something that would be

you know, some idea, I said you can certainly ask the PR, I'm not going to say no, but it's another one of those where we do have, it seems like the old metal windows don't, you know, aren't treated as respectfully as, you know, historic wood windows, but it is where, from your experience, you all as designers, where have

Those old metal windows have been cleaned up, reglazed.

Can they be reglazed with insulated glass?

What are the options?

I had a good chat with Mary Joy yesterday and we were just talking about windows and how replacing windows costs $2,500 a window for a decent grade window.

and I've been dealing with some projects on West Main that are asking about windows.

And I'm like, God, why don't you find somebody that can fix this?

And they're like, there's nobody that will fix windows.

Nobody in town.

And it's like, got to be somebody out there who can even just say, I'll give you $1,000 a window.

Do what you can do.

And for some time I've had on my list to

go out to K-Tech and say, all right, can you guys bring someone in here to teach kids how to fix windows?

Because someone could make bank doing it.

So those are the two things that you'll hear from Craig Jackson.

This is where, well, for example on West Main, I've been working with Cliff Fox and I think it's 711 West Main.

It's on the end building as you go towards the bridge.

It's got the stamped metal

they're like columns and really an interesting design.

I learned that that's the, made by the Meskir Foundry, or something, so been learning about them.

But they're 1980 windows that are in there.

They're these kind of clunky metal replacement windows.

And he's like, I want to change them out.

It's like, so that's not historic.

So I'm working with him to say, oh, we have some old photos.

We can get something more appropriate in there.

But it doesn't seem to me,

That's one of those cases where I can't imagine I need to come to you and say, is it okay to take out these non-historic windows?

But yeah, windows and trees are the big ones.

There's also, I think, Brett, I had asked you about a year ago, when you're going on Grady Avenue,

and there's a 1950s apartment just past, maybe it's at, just past 14th Street.

Got two huge cryptomeria in front of them and they're right up against the building.

So, but I'll talk about that one later.

But I have also, this week, someone called me about a dead tree.

Dead.

I once again said I'm not, actually it doesn't look safe, cut it down.

Don't pin that on us, but working with them.

The thing we have now is with the new ordinance site plans are required and some revisions to site plans are required for a whole lot of things, including tree removal.

So that'll at least give us another tool to say, and you must replace it.

Other than that, it's 5.30 if you all wanted to jump in.

Good evening.

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

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

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

After the questions are closed, we'll ask for comments from the public.

For each application, members of the public are allowed three minutes to ask questions and three minutes to offer comments.

Speakers should identify themselves and provide their address.

I'll also note that everybody is encouraged to speak carefully into the microphones as the minutes for tonight's meeting and all of our people following along at home only have access to the audio that's coming through our microphones.

Comments should be limited to the BAR's purview, that is regarding only the exterior aspects of a project.

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

Tonight, the first item on the agenda are matters from the public that are not on the agenda or if someone would like to speak to something that is on the consent agenda.

Tonight, the consent agenda only includes our meeting minutes.

Are there any matters from the public?

Anybody following along online?

If you're on the Zoom and you'd like to speak at this time, please click the raise hand icon.

Ramey's got an excellent radio voice.

Okay, first item on our regular agenda is the consent agenda.

And tonight, as I said, the meeting minutes from August 15th, 2023.

Any discussion?

Second.

Aye.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay.

The next item on our agenda is the first deferred item.

Give me a second, I realize.

I just logged into the Planning Commission meeting.

Molly has the control so she can bring up any images.

This is a COA request for renovations, rehabilitation, and a new addition or a new construction at the Albemarle County Courthouse, which is on the west side of Park Street from the building project that we've been looking at.

And the primary piece of this is construction of a

a hyphen, if you will, at the rear over top of the existing Sallieport and some alterations to that Sallieport.

With that, oh, and it's an addition onto the 1938 office building next to the courthouse, so the historic courthouse building is not being changed.

But with this new work, there will also be on the south

side, the south elevation, there's an entrance into the office building that they'll be enclosing with some window units just to create a lock there for the entrance and some changes there to the courtyard.

with those new construction projects on the series of rehabilitation work, rehab work, repairs, maintenance on the historic courthouse building and on the 1938 building and also on that 1980s hyphen that connects the two.

So it's a lot going on here.

Not necessarily everything is under the BAR's

it's not within the COED but so that the primary things that bringing to you tonight are that the new Sally Porte, the alterations to the

South entrance, and I know that the windows replacements in the 1938 building, which is all part of the rehabilitation project.

So this is a, whereas before with the Levy building that was a city-county project, this is the county.

This is their project here.

Same architect and the adventurous and then Mr. Antman representing DGP locally, so talking to the same people.

Do you all have any questions for me?

Well, I guess briefly we had this on the agenda last month.

There were some questions and we just felt easier to get those answered and bring it to you tonight.

So that's why it got bumped last month.

The floor is yours, yes.

It's a new arrangement, just lean into it.

Hello, I'm Eric Antman from DGP Architects here in Charlottesville, 206 5th Street Northeast.

I have two colleagues on the Zoom call, two.

Also, they're signed up as speakers.

Steve White from Ventress Architects, Andrew Taylor from Roadside Harwell, Landscape Architects.

Do you have them?

So just in case you have questions that are details I can't handle, they're available to handle those also.

As Jeff mentioned, thank you for the email dialogue over the last six weeks or so, fielding a bunch of questions.

Hopefully that will streamline our conversation tonight.

Happy to address anything else.

that you may have for us tonight.

I wanted to thank Jeff for including in the staff report the 1997 paint analysis previously that had been done that the BAR had approved.

So we are planning a full corner-to-corner repainting.

We will use those colors.

That was one of the questions and Jeff provided that information.

So that was very helpful.

Otherwise, just to clarify, there are five building campaigns, each of different historic value, 1803, 1859, 1865, and 1938, 1983.

Is that five?

Right.

The Sallyport, I think, is the same vintage of 1983.

It may be a few years later, but post 1980s.

So each of those periods has different historic value, right?

They're not all the same.

And we're sort of really leaning on the first three building campaigns of what is today

the county circuit court as being sort of the period of significance or the most significant historic period that we're looking for to preserve as much as we can.

So just to address the windows with respect to those building campaigns.

The circuit court, which is the 03-59-65 eras, we are keeping and restoring those double hung windows.

They may have to sash to come out and go to the shop.

But we'll be using interior storm windows, some of which are UL level 3 bullet resistant.

Those are the ones where you have a line of sight from the exterior to basically the courtroom.

in the circuit courtroom, historic circuit courtroom.

Others will just be thermal interior windows.

We did look at using a similar system in the other portions, typically 1938.

The performance of those windows is really not equal to new clad double hung sashes.

Thus, our intent for 38 is the same thing that we're doing on the levee building, which is retaining

Exterior casings and wood subsils in place and restoring and then discarding sashes and putting in new aluminum clad with the same molten patterns for sashes that have insulated glazing.

rather than using interior storms.

Over time, interior storms really, if you go in the 1938 building now, which has interior storm windows from the late 20th century, half of them are missing.

A quarter of them are broken.

A quarter of them don't operate.

They're not nearly as effective.

So our approach overall to restoration, rehabilitation, renovation, those are three different levels of balance between priority of historic fabric

and modern concerns being sustainability, maintenance, upfront cost, right?

So there's no single answer to a restoration, rehabilitation, renovation project.

The answer has to fit sort of a constellation of priorities and that's sort of a case example.

The different treatment of the windows sort of reflects that level of prioritization.

So that's really all I have.

OK.

We'll go first to see if there's anyone online or anyone here from the public that has a question or questions from the board.

I have one to start.

Some of the drawings didn't have a key on them, but there are a variety of different hatches.

And on one of them, the number of the chimneys are hatched.

Sure.

So the restoration, can you go to the next slide?

There should be some elevations that have colored hatch patterns on them that are the restoration drawings for masonry and I think are the ones that you're referring to.

So those are different levels of the masonry work.

So we're repointing in areas where

Mortar has failed.

We are not cutting out any Portland cement mortar that can do just as much damage.

If it's been this long and it hasn't damaged the brick, we're going to leave it alone.

But where mortar has failed, we will cut it out and replace it with lime mortar.

And so that's one hatch pattern that you may have seen.

Another is brick replacement, where particularly the salmons that are usually softer, if they've degraded, they'll be removed, cut out, and matching brick put back in.

There are also areas, particularly down in the lower level of the 1938 building, where you have those area ways, which are at the high street grade level, which are below grade in this view you're seeing now.

Those area ways have had clogged drains for a while in standing water, so you have a combination of rising damp efflorescence and algae, so there's cleaning is another hatch pattern that's shown.

Okay, thank you, that was very helpful.

I guess I have a question about the, let's see, the edition.

So I'm on page 13.

That covers all the windows.

Just curious what the use is of those windows.

I haven't, I think I've been in that.

Let's see if we go, if you go backwards one page.

So I guess I was just curious what the effect of that new corridor is on those currently exterior windows.

And then I guess I had another question about the front elevation where you are infilling the portico with windows and a door.

Yes.

Yeah, it's a weather vestibule, so right now there's no

There are two deficiencies, basically.

That's the current district court.

It's going to be the new entrance to two circuit courts.

So the use is changing.

But the 1938 arcade, Portico, currently there is no queuing space.

So you come in, and the security magnetometer is at the front door.

So if there's a line,

You're in the rain.

So that's really... Actually, that's not correct.

Right, so in the revised plan, where we do not have a weather lock, the magnetometer will not be where it is currently.

Sorry, right, in the new plan.

So in order to accommodate that queuing space in an interior space,

That's the reason for enclosing it.

Plus, just there's no weather lock.

It's currently a wasted space.

Unless it's raining, people are not there.

People are smoking there.

Correct.

It's a smart move.

Not that the conditions will be the same because you're rearranging that interior space, but I have seen

litigants and parties lined up up and down that hallway, snaking that hallway previously and out the door waiting to get into that.

You know, granted, it's not going to be a general district court.

It'll be circuit court.

I know you're rearranging the courtroom, but there's just no room when you get in there and, you know,

even to get like halfway up the hallway to the elevator for someone who needs to go upstairs who doesn't even want to be part of the functions on that floor is really impossible.

The other exterior improvement is the current ramp addition, which was done as part of the 1983 hyphen, leads to two doors which aren't public.

They go to secure doors, which does provide equal access for someone with a mobility disability.

You have to ask for special permission to get in.

You don't have the same experience.

Oh, the existing steps at the arcade that are there now.

So that'll be, I think they're limestone, those basically monolithic blocks that are the current treads, if you will.

They'll remain in place.

So that floor is actually being raised six inches or so, just enough to provide

So you can see just in that picture where the center arch is, there's another threshold further back at the door.

So the masonry floor level of the arcade is still about six inches below the floor level of the interior.

So the arcade floor level is being raised up so the ramp that occurs on the exterior can get you all the way up to the interior floor level.

Well currently the door is at the threshold like it would be in a hole.

The doors swing essentially over the level change.

Gotcha.

I'm sorry.

I had questions that are following up on the same area.

So Eric, I guess just to clarify, the existing steps that are currently at the face of the Loja aren't shown here.

And then the other question is, looking at this floor plan, it looks like y'all are closing the front door and changing the two side windows into doors.

Correct.

Yep.

So as you go in the west door, which is the one on the left,

is the indoor and you can see the queuing space there which is where we'll have you know the barriers set up so people can line up and then overflow queue space can be in the weather lock and we actually know based on sort of the occupant load and the expected caseloads that that interior queue space does not accommodate everybody that'll always be in line.

and then the outdoor is the east door on the right.

Okay.

I've got comments on that, but I'll wait until the comments section.

But I am a little concerned about the change of administration, so.

Can we discuss the High Street elevation?

Can you go to the Sallieport?

There's a picture that has a bunch of items called out.

Yeah, that one.

Just to clarify, the replacement wall with the garage door is basically in a similar location.

It's actually moving back.

So right now, it's essentially flush with the 1938 construction.

at the northeast corner.

You can see it in the photo there.

The brick is almost like toothed in, so it's a flat wall.

It's actually going to move back around, I think, 18, maybe 16 inches or so, so that the cornice of that one-story addition above the first floor will be received into the 1938 brick.

All right, I think we'll, unless there's any other questions, we'll move to comments.

Any comments from the public here or online?

Go ahead, Mr. Zehmer.

So I'll start with the arcaded loggia.

The preference would be to leave it open, but I understand there's weather concerns.

And I did a little research because I think that the arcaded loggia of Virginia courthouses is kind of a signature of, it's part of what makes Virginia architecture, Virginia architecture.

Of the 95 county courthouses in the Commonwealth, roughly 60 have neoclassical porticos, about 19 have open arcaded loggias, and then 15 or so are I'll just call other.

And I think that

you know our oldest courthouse here has a portico and then this 1938 edition you know consciously had this arcaded loggia I think to kind of harken back to the colonial period courthouses in Virginia.

So personally I feel pretty strongly that

We should not have divided light windows there.

I think if we have to enclose it, I'd encourage us to just do kind of a single pane type glass, recess to the back edge of the brick if at all possible.

Just because that would, from the street and from the exterior, still kind of read as a void.

And then you start infilling it with a muntin window.

And I know you're kind of matching up with that 1983 hyphen that's adjacent to it, but I still feel like it's honorific to the past and the future if we leave that reading as voids.

I would just point out that the Caroline County

Courthouse, they built I guess a new annex also and Did just that so I've got a picture of it if you'd love like to see it and You know, I think it's pretty successful in the in the way it provides weather shelter, but still kind of has that solid void pattern So I would encourage y'all to do that and then

In terms of the change in fenestration from the front door and then changing those two windows to doors, I guess I feel like we'd need to see some details on that because they weren't included in the packet.

I'm not necessarily opposed to it because I understand functionally it's very important for the courthouse to work right and especially for entrance and exit.

But I just don't know if we can approve it without seeing details.

Hanover County Courthouse, King William County Courthouse is probably the earliest version here.

I have a question.

What was the influence for how you created that fenestration?

It was, but this is actually a really good suggestion, and I'll actually say it's already being considered.

Well, in that case, one thing I'd like to see is, I don't know if you have any 3Ds of that.

I'm looking at the rear picture where we have the Sallieport.

I always, I guess, never consciously, but walking down the street, I always appreciated the stark contrast between the two buildings.

And you see that mostly behind that Sallieport, which always was a little bit of a

and I saw her getting in the way of really appreciating those two buildings.

And so I wish we could do something about that or maybe that screen, that was a 1983 version too I think, the porous brick screen.

But I guess I'm a little concerned and I think I need to see it.

It shows on the east elevation.

I think it's the sort of flatness of that wall and being able to appreciate

that building as one entity you know as opposed to and then you've got the connector and then you've got the the old now you've got another mass that's that's being added in there that's sort of creating a little bit bit more ambiguity and that's and that's why I don't know exactly but it'd be interesting I think to see the 3d massing of how those all those things come together because there's already a lot going on there and I guess my concern would be that that's just adding another

Mass that kind of jumbles things up.

And I wonder too, you know, you're just going to close those windows off.

I wonder, I know that obviously this is, there's weather issues and considerations, but I also wonder if there's any possibility of taking that volume and making it less of a volume and more of a, you know, another loge or a,

an open corridor that will allow for those windows to remain or allow some natural daylight to go into those rooms and then you know a less kind of permanent

are more of a porch-like, you know, or a allay sort of structure would allow you to sort of pretty easily discern the old from this new and understand that distinction.

Just a thought, and I think, again, I think that tool of looking at it from 3D would help sort of understand that a bit better.

Can I go back to a question?

These are comments, so I'm not saying anything.

On page 48, which was the drawing, and I'm looking at the weather vestibule.

You've got a handicapped ramp, but you don't have a door.

Is that just an oversight, that you don't have a door drawn?

So you'd still have to come around the front, and there's a singular door together getting the best of you.

Well, it's the same experience as if you walk up the steps, use the same door.

So if I'm in a wheelchair, I go up the ramp and still have to come in.

Not have to, get to.

I do agree with Mr. Antman.

We could, the quantity isn't sufficient though.

So there are more steps in the new construction than are there currently.

Gotcha.

by like half.

Yeah.

I mean, it's sort of a shame.

In theory, it's great.

Oh, we encapsulate they're there in case this gets reversed.

But the likelihood of that is pretty unlikely and we're very far into the future.

So it kind of wonders, maybe I'm going to cap for the cheek wall or something.

I'd like to just back up and say I think that this project is trying to tackle so many things that's really tricky but it seems like this is going to bring a lot of excellent new functionality to this building and with the exterior renovations is going to give this some new life and some applaud the change in the trim color.

I think it's going to be

Generally, I think most people probably won't notice that a whole lot has changed with the exterior appearance.

But I think it's going to work a lot better.

And I think that's a tricky thing to pull off.

I know we don't look at the interior space.

And I just tell you from my past experience and past work,

and the city and the county, I think all the way back to 2010 maybe, that there was this discussion of how do we use this space, how do we, you know, and so there's a lot of programmatic things driving

what's going on in these buildings.

There's a lot of pushing and pulling and moving things.

And it's linked to what's going on behind Levy Building.

And so all of this is sort of that accommodating those changes that are happening or are coming with the court system.

So I agree with you.

It's been a three-dimensional puzzle.

And they've been grappling with it for a long time.

And if I could just tag on to that, the number one issue is safety and security, right?

So you have judges walking through public lobbies, juries mixing with the public, which is just not okay, right?

So that's the reason for that corridor that nobody loves.

It's two corridors because there's public, staff, and judge.

So that's sort of the

I think I left that open-ended.

I realize that was secure.

I think I left that open-ended just with the question of were there other alternates explored, like syncing that connection.

A floor below where you go downstairs and go up.

Factual correction, there are no juries.

Right.

They will be.

But currently in that hallway, there are no jurors because it's a general district court and they don't have juries.

And the judges do come from another way.

They don't.

So that's what I'm talking about.

Sure.

There's like a desk there?

That's correct.

OK.

So it's like, and there are two, I don't know, there are two oval shapes?

Would that be?

That's the magnetometer.

OK.

So that's sort of like where the computer is and door controls and communication center.

I favor this provided that the vestibule is not used as a security area.

When members of the public, litigants,

this is

But on a rainy day, you need a place, you know, families need a place to gather as they all walk in.

You know, litigants and their council and other people, mediators, you know, anybody accompanying anybody into court, guardians ad litem, need a place to meet the people that they're going to

you know, be working with inside.

But usually you don't, first of all, all the current ones are always locked for security reasons, which is good.

You have to go to the clerk's office to get a key to open them up.

I can't just dash in there for five minutes before court with the client.

And the way that the clerk's office is currently set up, it's the other end of the building, so it's not convenient.

They're never open, you know, for good reasons.

You don't want somebody in there.

And it's also just not convenient.

I mean, you really do want a weather-approved space and closing that space works where people can meet up.

And Mr. Zehmer's suggestion, instead of

having fenestration on those voids on the loggia to just have clear glasses even better.

Because then I can see, oh, my client's standing right inside.

He's waiting for me, waving at me or opposite.

Somebody's looking for me, and they see me outside.

Those meet-ups are really, really important.

And especially, we're creating more courtrooms

which is great, which is much needed for Circuit Court.

We have two currently and one is the tiny one that I love upstairs but it's insufficient.

Because you need a place where people gather before they enter the courthouse.

And I've expressed the reasons why you don't want to be in the courthouse doing your business.

Be quiet and walk into the courtroom.

But I'm saying that we're not solving the parking problem downtown.

People are coming from different directions.

Somebody may be in the Market Street garage.

Somebody got a parking place in the neighborhood north downtown.

I have a few other questions, I guess, or comments.

Yes.

So that's a good question.

One of the comments that we reviewed in the last six weeks that came through via email was reuse of removed 1938 windows, which was taken out of this resubmittal.

So based on kind of the philosophy that I explained,

earlier for sash replacements in 1938 windows.

Really doesn't make sense to try to reuse things that are coming out of 1938 construction in modern construction.

We'd by default replace the sashes anyway, and then we'd be moving 1938 frames and sills and putting sashes in them, which doesn't really make sense.

So all new, all clad windows for the new openings, correct?

Yes, I guess that begs the question, what is that edition of the Sally Port going to look like?

Are you going to try to match the brick?

It will match the 1983 brick, which is not historic.

Well, I'll also just reiterate Brecht's comments and just commend you on the project.

It's obviously tricky, a lot of moving parts and a chess game in a lot of ways.

I have a small comment about the Sallieport addition.

It is a very prominent view that people drive by right there on High Street.

And the current gate might not be beautiful, but it does allow airiness and doesn't take away from the prominent building that's right there on High Street.

So including that will still be very prominent.

I was relieved to see that I think the dark bronze finish on the door is much better than it being like a bright silver metal.

Is there any thought about doing anything with the wall around the mechanical equipment, revising it in any way?

Yeah, we're going to leave it alone.

It has to allow airflow.

Open brick pattern was intentional and similar equipment is going back, which is quite large equipment.

Do y'all have, I know you're putting some traditional sconce lights.

Since we're back on questions on the east side, sorry, just clarifications again.

Sure.

I can't tell, sorry, I just can't blow it up.

And I know you're putting them in.

I just wondered if they're on the existing.

OK.

Yeah, it looks like it.

OK, good.

Thank you.

Yes, this is a COA request.

Does.

Well, I guess that's, I'm curious, especially the changes in the entrance administration,

I think I'd like to see details on that, so I don't know how we move forward with that.

the new corridor and the sally port that sort of thing I could get behind approving that but the entrance to the 1938 building I think I'd like to see details on the changing the center door to I guess a window and then changing the windows to doors

We should see details on that.

It sounds like the applicant is amenable to my suggestion of sort of a solid glazed enclosure for the loggia, but we should still see the details on that.

And then the sconce lights, if we're gonna ask for details, go ahead and throw those in the mix.

Jeff, can you still do approvals contingent upon a final administrative review of details?

Yeah, it's not allowed.

More came down to an approval of a COA and this isn't a usual one because given the nature of

the entire facility and how we're working on this.

City and County don't pay a fee for an application, so it's not like, oh, I have to give another, give me another application.

I call it something else.

Two ways to do it.

I think that there's a

If there's something that you all would like to see specifically modified, you can express that and then have it submitted for the BAR record.

I'm not, the lighting fixtures I wasn't too concerned about.

We don't get in that often and I just don't imagine it's going to be, I don't know, something strange.

So I would say if it's a

If it's a detail that you can articulate and want to see staff review, you can say it that way.

If you want to peel something out of this, approve the rest, the other thing comes in as another COA at the next meeting, that's fine.

But how exactly

We're working, let's say, the new ordinance I'm trying to work towards, how you all could instruct me to review things and okay them.

But I think that's the simplest path.

So for example, on the east court site, that COA was approved with a final presentation, which still is pending, of sample panels for brick and color palette.

As long as it's not a, you know, the COA on massing, you know, like we used to do.

I mean, the litmus test for me is, are you approving something that they can get a building permit with?

It seems to me that this would be the cleanest, in this case, to peel it out and request the detail for the portico as a separate COA.

But almost more importantly,

the fact that you're changing the original building's administration.

Like the central door, the main door you come into the building right now, they're proposing a change to a window.

And the two flanking windows, the two flanking windows, they're proposing a change to doors.

That's a major change.

And I think we all recognize that the functionality, the proposed new functionality of the building

Justifies that change, but we need to see the details on that to do our job correctly And therefore yes, also the glass infill like basically I would just say the new entrance To entrance of the of the Loja and into the building needs to be submitted as a new COA and

Sounds like you're close to a motion.

If I could just say that omitting

Yeah, I know, I mix it up too.

You know, it's just one of those, like, inside.

I know, I think that's, y'all got a lot going on.

I think that actually makes a lot of sense, and that works with where we are on the schedule and what the project needs to be doing.

Okay, great.

All right, I'll try it out.

Before you do, may I ask one question?

The comment was made that just simple glass panels might be more suitable.

I know that they'd love to find any way to keep the costs from mounting on these projects.

the example that I would propose.

Is it frameless?

Kind of looks like it.

Again, this is Caroline County Annex.

Yeah, it's frameless.

And I think it's completely reasonable for one county to look to another for inspiration.

And again, it helps replicate the kind of solid void pattern.

and also the way that they held it back to the inside edge of the brick piers, I think is really successful.

Well, thank you for bringing that to the conversation.

After the extra research, I learned something.

You too.

There's a, for what it's worth, similar entrance detailing on the east site portico.

All right.

So having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move the proposed alterations to the Albemarle County Courthouse satisfy the BAR's criteria and are compatible with the North Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following admission.

Do we need to add anything about reverting to the original off-white paint color, or was that part of your submission?

It wasn't.

I accept that as well.

You could just say as previously approved by BAR in 1997.

I accept that.

Friendly amendment.

We have a second.

Any further discussion?

All right, call the vote.

Mr. Whitney?

Aye.

Mr. Zehmer?

Aye.

Lewis?

And Mr. Broles recused.

Mr. Timmerman?

Aye.

Thank you.

Have a good evening.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you, Eric.

Yeah, this is one of those on the back where

You know, sometimes in addition, in that differentiation, is it something you want to hide?

You know, is it a thing you blend, or is it a thing you... I'll tell you, I had some conversations with Robert Washington about this.

Robert's passion is courthouses, and he had some suggestions and ideas, but it is where you say, I don't really want this to jump out.

I really want to, and I think it's always interesting when we do replacement windows, we make, we want them to look

you know like the old ones that shouldn't we be saying now we want a big single light glass or something so always some tension in those things.

yeah that rear thing like how do you how do you do we you know go modern and have it completely different you just kind of make it look like it popped out the side but I will say and I want to thank you all for how the discussion we've just had this this is has been a long-term City County project and pushing and pulling and I think we all acknowledge

keeping the courts downtown is a positive and are the county courts in downtown so appreciate your help on this one.

The next up is a it is not a COA request this is just simply a request that you all be responding to with a recommendation to City Council and it is

The IPP designation for 104 Stadium Road.

If you recall, I'm sure you do, in February a demolition request for the property there known as the Stone House.

The demolition COA was denied by the COA.

I mean denied by the BAR and on appeal City Council approved that COA in June of this year and you all had made some recommendations to Council which they took and considered.

and incorporated into the resolution of approval with one caveat and that was to council retained the ability to, if they so chose, to move the IPP ahead of any development work on that project.

what's now before you there is a development project in the works there's a series of things that need to be approved and reviewed by Planning Commission and ultimately by City Council and one of them is and the applicant has included in that request

proposal to remove the IPP designation for 104 Stadium Road, and that is done through a zoning text amendment, zoning map amendment, and by the ordinance for the BAR, the council is required to request a recommendation from you all.

as mentioned earlier in the meeting if you will if you have and I certainly I've offered one suggestion that you include in either motion you can certainly suggest other options for counsel to consider I think we know the history of this I don't know how to I mean I can't sugarcoat it it's it is in counsel's hands but I think I

in conversations internally and with the applicant.

I can't in good conscience ask you guys to reverse the position you took in February.

I wouldn't suggest that and I hope I don't sound like I'm suggesting that in the staff report.

But I am laying out both options for you if you wish.

The information that's in here, in the staff report, it's essentially the same, just maybe ordered a little differently and the questions are slightly worded differently.

What you all reviewed in February, reviewed the criteria for reviewing a demolition.

This staff report is anchored in the criteria to review for the adding or removal of a property from historic designation.

So again, essentially the same questions, just worded a little bit differently.

So there's no new information in this staff report that

that wasn't there in February.

And I know that the applicant is available if you had any questions.

I don't believe there's a presentation prepared unless you all think it's necessary.

My suggestion was that they be available to answer questions.

And my assumption that you all would move rather quickly on this one.

So with that, do you have any questions for me?

And I think Valerie, is Valerie online?

Are you the?

Jeff, one clarification.

I'm reading the City Council resolution and the piece about thoroughly documenting the existing building is already included in

City Council's resolution.

So is there any reason that we would need to include it in our resolution tonight, our recommendation tonight?

I know we're getting into parsing sentences, but I felt like it was an opportunity to request that documentation now and not have it be contingent on something that might happen to get that done and over with.

I don't know that we have any public, but I'm going to just ask if there is anyone online that would like to comment or have any questions on this agenda item, please raise your hand or make yourself otherwise known.

And then it's not a formal COA proposal, so I think it's open to conversation amongst the board.

I'll reiterate a concern of mine is that we see projects fall through frequently and it does happen in this town and there's a lot of detritus still standing from unfinished projects.

and I just want to make sure that in this process I would like to encourage city council to consider mechanisms to continue to protect this property if for whatever reason the proposed development stops at any point in time prior to demolition.

I would agree with that sentiment.

It seems that the logic of making it an IPP in the first place was related to the structure that was there.

If the structure's gone, I don't see a reason why the IPP would remain.

Yeah, I agree completely.

This gives the House a chance at least

You know, otherwise, even if this development falls through, if the IPP's gone, we've got no protection for this house at all.

You had a question, I suppose.

Let's say this development did fall apart and another one came in.

They would then have to go through the COA process for demolition again, right?

If the IPP remains in place, and just to be clear procedurally, removing or adding the historic designation is a formal process to a map amendment, zoning text amendment, and you all make a recommendation, planning commission does and council considers it, so I'm not

I'm not disagreeing, I think Mr. Gaskiner said it best, consider a mechanism to protect this and maybe the question would be for clarification would be in protection in terms of a mechanism to retain the IPP, you know, should this project, you know, fall through.

But it's my point about saying that the process for a zoning text amendment, zoning map amendment, it's not something that's

the clerk will decide on or that we can check off on it.

It sort of, it has to happen and council makes a decision.

I don't know if they can say, yeah, we're going to make this, but contingent upon what might happen in the next couple of years.

I think something, a legislative decision like that, does that make sense, would have to be made.

Now there can be conditions to that.

But it can't be sort of, yeah, we're going to vote to do this, but we're not going to do it yet.

And so I think I can explore a mechanism.

That request to council makes sense.

I could ask all of those questions.

I think what you were expressing, as I understand, is that it's the same thing we expressed to council at the appeal.

That if this project doesn't go through, this building is lost.

The counter to that is that council

essentially granted, well they didn't essentially, they did grant the right to demolish this.

And so, and with the conditions that are here.

And that's why I'm sort of pushing for the documentation because then we know that gets done.

This doesn't get lost in the weeds.

It's not two years from now and this thing's finally going and we never got the documentation.

At least we've covered that base.

And then you'll just have to, I guess, trust me to go sit down with people and say, how would we characterize it such that this structure, one way or another, or one avenue or another, isn't demolished inadvertently or without the development project getting approval?

And the answer to that may be, we can't.

But I can check on that.

It seems that the conditions that City Council applied are trying to do the mechanism we're describing.

But you see it goes back to that loop we were talking about in the preliminary meeting.

That means then the BAR has purview.

In order to have a design COA prior to demolition or removal of the IPP requires then that the BAR has purview over the design view.

And so this is the

That's an option.

The other option per the resolution is that council makes a decision to remove the IPP.

And so that's what this question is.

But otherwise, the goal from the applicant, the best I understand it, is to get the IPP removed so that the design review goes forward under the entrance corridor.

No.

I mean, I just generally want to agree with Jeff.

Um, we have a very long road ahead.

There's a lot of requests we're making.

There's going to be a lot of, um,

people reviewing this.

And regardless of your recommendation, um, we're happy to work with Jeff city staff, city attorneys to provide some assurances and make everyone comfortable.

And like you mentioned with, um, city council decision, um, that's already, you know, people have been trying to think about that and implement mechanisms to do that.

Um, we're all kind of figuring it out together.

Okay, so there are three main issues that I see.

There's the kind of primary question, which I'll say I think would be against our mandate to support the removal of this IPB, given that we're charged to protect it.

Second being Jeff's, I think,

You know wise recommendation that we go ahead and request the documentation and the third being some acknowledgement of Encouraging City Council to consider what it can to Have Continue to protect the property if if the if the project doesn't move forward as planned Are there any other?

Considerations or elements we need to include in the motion

May I ask a question on that?

I have examples of what we've done.

It's not a film documentary.

Okay, so in the three points I understand, yes the BAR is under, you know, following the review of adding or subtracting from designations and the understanding this has been an IPP

that you all would support it or you all recommend it, remain in IPP.

Second is a clarification of the documentation that it be done sooner not later and maybe you can fill in that blank or make a recommendation.

And then the third piece is

and I don't, if you want to, I can't, did get how you worded it, Mr. Beastinger, but it's a consider mechanism to protect the building and essentially to maintain its IPP status should the project not move forward.

Good, because we're not lawyers.

I don't want to give a legal opinion.

Right, but that's the beauty of it.

Well, except that City Council is not going to accept our denial.

They're going to deny.

but have they really said we don't want the BAR to review anything?

I haven't heard that.

I'm just saying there's a possibility that they may want us to review it.

I mean there is certainly a difference between how we review and how entrance quarter does.

I mean the staff report

is very thorough and the reasons, besides this being an IPP, the reason why this site would need to be reviewed, it's adjacent to Oakhurst Gildersleeve.

It's, you know, even if you didn't retain this particular building, there's a vernacular, there's a language in the architecture

around there, UVA being on several sides aside, what is on JPA, on that corner, near that corner, Maymont, that whatever, Maymont I think is the word, there's fabric there, even with this gone, that I mean there's good reason that I would think the applicant doesn't want this to look like

you know, a suburban mall.

Yeah, the answers corridor guidelines raise all of those things.

It's not necessarily, I think the challenge with the answers corridor is it

not a design panel, although we happen to have some very good architects on the land commission this time.

So the design review still takes everything you said into consideration.

In fact, the scale of this project, it will be interesting where we go with that.

But I think that

I think best to express what you would like council to do, what you would like them, and as I said, I suspect, in my opinion, I don't know, but given the direction of things and given that this

I don't think that that

It does go through design review.

It's a, you know, the entrance corridor design review.

So I think they, to say the better, the BAR would give it the better look.

Yeah, I mean I guess the point is if that house were not there, it would not come before us.

But it ultimately doesn't impede the progress, per se.

I think it's a different scenario.

If they're saying, if something's put in front of them, and they have to make the decision of, this development's going to go through if we can demolish, they're going to say, OK, demolish it.

This is a different scenario.

Valerie, I don't know if you're able to tune in on this.

I wish I could speak to it better.

Thank you for the record.

This is Valerie Long with Williams Mullen.

We're legal counsel to the applicants.

I couldn't quite hear Mr. Timmerman's comments just now.

My mic was off.

Sorry, Valerie.

Thank you.

Can you hear me now?

So I think one discussion we were having was that it's a foregone conclusion that

whether you know if we deny this when it's put in front of City Council that they're just gonna override us but I'm not sure that's necessarily the case like the first time was about demolishing the property and it seemed as if demolishing the property was an obstruction if they couldn't do it then the development couldn't necessarily go through

A couple things, one, I certainly wouldn't want to speak for council any more than anyone else, but you know, if it helps.

At the risk of getting into a lot more detail tonight, and Jeff could perhaps fill in the gaps a little bit here.

First of all, we know that this entire project will go through the entrance corridor review process, as Jeff indicated.

First, my understanding was that the

The reason obviously that that property is before the BAR is because the property itself because of the building was designated as an ITP and the building and the only other reference was to the stone staircase down to Woodward or Woodrow Street.

But that without the property itself that it

For lack of a better phrase, would no longer qualify for protection.

It's not in a historic district, therefore, without the building that led to its being designated for IPP that it no longer is appropriate to be before the BAR, the BAR.

I certainly appreciate the concerns about wanting to have it be a quality design and development at a prominent location and certainly the applicants agree.

We're very comfortable with the entrance corridor review.

They've handled another large project just in the past year, several times successfully.

It's very challenging to have to bring projects through to design review boards with potentially different opinions on things.

I think it would lead to a lot of confusion and it would lead to additional delays.

So we're obviously trying to avoid that if possible, particularly given the number of applications that we're already trying to coordinate together in one place.

The other thing I would add is that we did uncover

substantial additional information about how and why the property was designated for IPP.

We learned about that while we were preparing for the appeal before city council.

And the short explanation is, is that the owner of the property at the time volunteered for the Stone House to be designated as an IPP as part of an offer

to purchase the lot on the corner.

It's the adjacent lot that's vacant now 409 Stadium.

It was literally an offer of, hey, I will agree to put this stone house under IPP protection if you will sell the vacant lot to me instead of the other person who wants to buy it and put a small apartment building on it.

So there's a lot of discussion about how the neighbors and others at the time wanted 409 Stadium to stay vacant and not have an apartment building on it.

and it was somewhat frankly I would say of an afterthought based on our extensive review of the record.

There was pretty much no discussion at the time that that decision was made at council about any historic character or merit of protecting the house itself.

It was a mechanism to ensure that 409 Stadium was left vacant at the time.

Now, certainly when council made that decision and they said, OK, we want the House to be an IPP, then staff appropriately brought that to the BAR.

And there was a staff report.

I know Jeff has referenced it.

It is similarly pretty thin on the merits of how the House qualifies or merits protection as an IPP.

I won't say there was no evidence, but it was thin.

That's why I think when Subtext had their study done recently, it similarly was challenged to find much reason for

for continuing to maintain the property.

The record as a whole is, you know, even the record in front of you, there's, you know, when you look through the criteria about the demolition criteria, it does not satisfy.

There's several that it definitely does not satisfy and there's only a couple that it really arguably satisfies.

So,

May I just respond just to tell Valerie that information was made known to us during our decision.

So thank you.

It was a later discovery.

It was something that was

I think staff even brought that up and we don't want to, of course, revisit our prior vote or a council's vote to demolish or the merits of this property as an IPP, but I just want to say that

That was information that was before the BAR.

Certainly that wasn't my intent at all.

I should clarify that it was the level of detail that we

were able to determine based on further research into the minutes and into the prior staff reports.

There were three public hearings at City Council and at least one meeting at Plating Commission.

And I should have been more clear that we learned much, much more about the details of that.

prior process.

That's fine.

And that it probably is to the extent that that deal, I'll use a shorthand, that deal to make this an IPP was, you know, not as, you know, it was maybe anyway.

And I think in context, it's what came up in the Council's discussions this summer.

Well, I think with the question before us is not a retrial of that particular decision, but given that our basic charge is to apply our guidelines to protect

The properties and districts under our purview that it would be you know in a way impossible for us to Recommend removal of a of an eye of this IPP designation I think that's our role City Council has a has it has a different role and has clearly stated a different

a set of priorities for this property.

And so I wanna suggest that I'll go ahead with a motion and we can continue discussion or fine tuning that with it out on the table.

Having reviewed the criteria under city code section 34274, I move that the BAR recommend that city council deny the request to remove the IPP designation of 104 Stadium Road.

Furthermore, the BAR has two recommendations.

Should council approve the request, the BAR recommends a condition that within six months, or if sooner,

Prior to application for a demolition permit, the property and building will be documented thoroughly through photographs and measured drawings according to the historic American Building Standards, or HABS, with that documentation submitted to staff for the BAR archive.

Further discussion?

Questions?

I guess just technical.

I believe HABS is Historic American Building Survey.

Accepted.

Like within two decades?

Do you set a date?

No, I'm just saying you set the project as planned.

Yeah, it's a little vague.

It's fair enough.

Those are my only thoughts.

I don't know.

Yeah, they're available through the National Park Service website.

Any further discussion?

Got a second?

Should I call a vote?

All right.

Mr. Whitney.

Aye.

Mr. Zehmer.

Aye.

Ms.

Lewis.

Aye.

Mr. Birle.

Aye.

Mr. Timmerman.

Aye.

All right, guys, thank you.

And I'm not sure when things are moving forward.

That's out of my lane.

I'll let you know.

It's an interesting site from a...

I think it touches just about every section of the zoning ordinance with various things.

It's required by the code.

For a normal zoning text amendment, zoning amendment, let's say someone wanted to change it from residential to highway commercial.

Council could ask you.

The ordinance allows them if they choose.

But for this, the changing of the designation, IPP, ADC, HC districts, the ordinance requires that you make a recommendation.

And I realize Robert always called the roll, so I guess we should assign that to Molly or I. My apology for not jumping in there.

That's one of the things I wanted to bring to your attention.

Not often.

following.

So there are a couple ways to get to the finish line.

One is council overturning.

The other is

the landowner can appeal to the courts depending upon what counsel should counsel deny the COA then there's an appeal to the courts and then there's also the avenue of depending upon the value of the property that it is made available for sale and at the end of that period if the property has not been

acquired by someone else, then it kind of becomes an automatic demolition by right.

Yeah.

And I honestly don't know.

of others.

I know a building that got squashed on Ridge Street a while ago.

I don't know if that's when it was an IPP or an historic district.

I actually get that call from people all the time when they're doing assessments or appraisals.

I'm sorry.

I say, well, if a tornado goes through and blows this building up, what would the BAR make me do?

And in both the recent questions to that, I've said,

We're not going to make you restore, reconstruct, recreate that building.

But whatever you build would have to be reviewed by the BAR.

So kind of an interesting question.

So like my house.

My house is an IPP.

It got swooped up in a tornado, and there was nothing left but the bricks on the ground.

My wife would be happy because I'd have to build a new house with higher ceilings.

So I know there's a couple that have been changed, but I think primarily it's been through demolition.

When the IPPs were first designated, it looks like sometime in the 90s, there was a longer list than we have now.

I'm still trying to piece together

what happened to, and I think some of it was because they became ADC districts and were just folded into, but that's where we stand.

But, and I know, is Greg Jackson on?

He is.

So I was just gonna say, one of the things I'm going to, since we have IPPs, you can give a thought to this.

In the ordinance, I have, the ordinance rewrite, I've suggested that the property where the structure was raised

I suggest that be removed from the IPP list.

That's another one I get a lot of questions.

This is that corner below Burnley Moran with the food trucks and people call me all the time if I develop it, do I have to go to the BAR?

Yes.

It's within an entrance corridor, so it would get design review.

I figure just remove it and eliminate that.

There are eight parcels that are within ADC districts, so they have the double.

People always say, oh, you know, like Windhurst.

Oh, they've got both, so it must be more important.

But being on both doesn't change how you all review it.

But I actually met yesterday with Mary Joy, and she had some good points for her.

There's a lot of those that are IPPs.

They're really, truly unique.

And it does that IPP designation sort of.

simply, if nothing else, indicates that level of importance in and of itself.

So I've decided to not suggest that we take those off of the list.

So later on, I'm just going to be talking about the one that has been raised.

So I know Greg's online.

There are two things he wanted to ask you about.

Again, one is that

the Market Street Market, I'm sorry, the Market on West Main, adding some canopies and some deck areas seems relatively simple, but he had some questions and then about the windows across the street from City Hall, across Market Street.

So Greg, I'm going to

hand you the mic if you're on and really this is for you.

What questions do you have for the BAR and what would you like to leave tonight with?

Hi, Jeff and hi, board.

Thanks for hearing me.

Jeff, do you have graphics?

that I sent.

We do.

And Molly can scroll to whichever.

Can you see on the screen now?

Yeah.

Let me see if I can get it bigger.

It kind of went smaller.

There we go.

So you have what you sent.

You just describe it.

Yeah.

So there's two projects that we're exploring right now that would be under BAR's review.

And these images here are of the Meke building across from you guys.

restaurant is and such, the courtyard there.

In that courtyard is a mixture of the steel windows from his previous additions along the way, going back, and then also a fairly recent storefront for mainly the doors.

One fairly recently approved

I don't know if you have all that in front of you, Jeff, the record of that, but on the south facing facade is a lot of storefront with the black finish.

And then there's a lot of steel windows on the west facing facade that are painted white.

And a lot of those windows are having issues as far as just structurally staying together.

Glass, you know, coming out naturally from from the time frame.

But the frames are becoming somewhat problematic.

And, you know, there's a desire for thermal and sound, you know, quality better than what is there.

So what we're exploring is a storefront system that is a thin profile, but then there's Munton's

that profiles of muntins that are designed to match up fairly close to the profile that's there now.

That is a simulated type of application applied to the glass so you can have the functionality of the bigger glass fields.

So that's what the owner is interested in.

And all of this started from me sending you, Jeff, an email just kind of checking in, seeing what you thought.

And we've been bouncing back and forth.

And whether it be in front of a few board members and you suggested just showing up to kind of have a preliminary view of it.

So that's one of the projects.

I don't know if there's

You know, there's more images of that one.

I'm not sure what you have queued up, but there's also the, that's just like one manufacturer's brochure of different profiles, just as, you know, a sample of what is happening on some projects.

There's one actually over near Tractor Supply, past it, the new project there that's called the Hudson.

They have some applied, not as

So hey, Greg, let me just jump in.

So yeah, when I talk to Greg about this, my response was,

You know, the historic nature of that building, you know, these windows are original to it.

It is that they are an element of that.

They're not something that was added later.

And again, this is me telling Greg that for a window project like this, the first step is to

present to the BAR why the windows need replacements versus repair.

And then where that question goes, then what is an appropriate replacement?

And I think as much as I wanted to

if you all disagree with that instruction.

Not suggesting tonight you say yes, no, but it's really if there were, to me, if there's a hurdle to get over here or if there are questions to be answered here that they would need to present or offer to you all.

I've got a question.

Greg, this is Roger.

Well, that's what we are looking at.

I mean don't we already allow simulated divided lights?

You know, and we will put together the graphics and show and make a specific recommendation.

But part of the reason with this as well, there's already a good amount of storefront in that courtyard that's happened over the years and decade.

What's the main motivation behind it?

Yeah, the thermal qualities of energy efficiency, the sound, you know, I believe there's a bit of sound, you know, coming through that type of system.

But the reason for coming about is that there's a lot of disrepair.

And, you know, the folks that we've had come out

I think if I could add one other thing as I mentioned to Greg.

Can I share my screen?

Let me share this and show you all.

So that's the front facing.

And so we're talking about this section down here.

That's facing Market Street.

Here's inside.

There's the old famous B-A-R haunt.

The tin whistle was there.

And then there's another

In those three sides there is some variation to what's been done and I suggested that sort of as a

Maybe where I would argue to stand firm is that front facade, there's some maybe valid reasons for the interior of the courtyard to look at those windows.

I would really, I urge Greg to say, can the front windows be retained?

Can they be re-glazed with insulated glass?

Because that is a critical elevation and not, you know, to me that is that front of the building.

I'm not sure if the owner is listening in can raise his hand or

But my understanding is we're not, and sorry for not clarifying this earlier, but we're not intending to mess with that facade at this point.

Yes, I can't hear very well.

Did I click the right button?

Yes, we can hear you.

I think our proposal is, if you look at the main part of the building with the old wooden windows, I think we have storm windows on all of those windows.

So even in the future, I don't see the need to do anything with those windows.

I would agree with Jeff.

Our proposal is only to make consistency within the courtyard,

And please give me assurances you won't touch the Babar lights.

Yeah, Gabe would kill me.

Thank you.

Any other questions for us, Greg or Alan?

Or any questions on the board?

It sounds like there might be, I think, some sympathy for that approach, is to work on the courtyard.

I guess the only question I have is if that front window, you know, looking at that last picture, had a big truck in front of that corner, but you do see that first bay in conjunction with the front facade.

So that, yeah.

Oh, OK.

My screen's blocked.

Right.

Retain the windows that wrap around the corner, at least.

How would that be, Ali?

I haven't thought about it.

You're looking at the window of the very corner of the courtyard and the main street.

Our main problem has been in the upper story windows.

We've had them repaired, welding done, you know, to kind of keep them together.

And we're on those upper ones where the architect's offices, they're the ones giving us most trouble from, you know, a water penetration point of view.

So we can look at

I mean, there's one issue is the color of the windows, you know, going from white to white to black.

Right.

And and I think what we're stuck somehow when Gabe first got approvals to stick the store funds in, he got approvals to do bronze color or black.

So that's what we're

I'm kind of interested in trying to get consistency in the courtyard now because we're a little bit all over the place.

Yeah, I have to agree that is a good question and a good thought for, you know, both the first story and the second story on that corner.

In looking at the images being shown now, you know, I am noticing that the storefront is in that same space on the inside.

So that raises another little, you know, tug back and forth to the dilemma of how to handle that situation.

Good time is, you know, cocktails.

Oh, really?

It did.

And I'll say, that pavilion, I mean, I walk out of my office every night and walk past that on my own.

And it's so successful.

It really is what an active place it is.

I would have loved it when the tin whistle was still there.

I've been great.

It's a really neat place in the city of Charlottesville.

If we could just stop saying

I think Greg, we understand you're looking at the inner courtyard and I think preparing some images that we can work from.

It's something that you can bring back to the BAR and initiate the discussions.

OK.

Does that work?

All right.

Yeah.

I'm going to close my screen.

Molly's going to go back to the West Main images.

And you can talk through what you're thinking.

I had said to the board earlier, Greg, I didn't see anything that even

raised any questions for me.

It almost seemed like a consent agenda type of thing, but if you had something specific, but I didn't see a problem with it.

Molly, do you have those?

We do.

So is it just like a clear story that you're creating, Greg, just to dive right in?

Well, that's that's a previous B.A.R.

Got it.

OK, thank you.

Yeah, so you can see the framing and all that.

That's that's under construction.

And so that's some context.

I guess we move on through this, you know, just to remind ourselves of what we're talking about.

And it's a little hard to tell if all the construction scaffolding and such, but that's an overall image.

And it is kind of helpful now that I see it, to see the other building, the gas station 420 West Main.

We did that was a VAR proof canopy there.

I'm not sure if many people have been able to see that in person, but that's a metal frame and it has a translucent panel system roofing that allows light through, but, you know, create some shade and protection from the weather.

And that is what we're talking about on the

other side of Main Street Market building at Orzo restaurant, if you can see that.

And I guess the images will come up at some point if you want to move through.

And also, we're going to see first some other decking there that we're talking about coming off of the upstairs.

The addition allows for that upstairs to function.

That used to be the chocolate factory, Gearhart's, I believe.

When I walked through there, it was quite great as a fact chocolate factory, but it was kind of low beams.

And so a lot of this, that addition is just raising the roof, so to speak.

And the intent for these decks that you see in the foreground

are to have outdoor outside space there.

And what would change on the building itself is that door you see, which mimics the other facade.

It's this here on the right, the orange decking and the canopy above.

That's one of the proposals we are thinking about for this project is that they have that outdoor space and what's shown there is you come out and there's a step up to a higher deck and that has the

a covering, a roofing, but the first deck is open air and the driveway continues through under it.

And we may also, we were thinking about incorporating a stair from that area as another egress.

So that's what that is about.

And then the Orzo covering comes up later as well, as you can see it to the left of the screen there.

So the one on the right that we just talked about would be metal frame and tongue and groove wood decking.

And then the roofing of that one on the right would be the translucent, just to keep that language consistent.

It seems to be working well for our projects.

And the Orzo project,

there's a desire for that to be a little softer of wood timber.

And we're showing it sort of dark stained, you know, to try to just kind of keep it a little more in context with perhaps that type of, you know, building.

So I'm not sure if there's you know, there's a lot of slides so you can go through.

So that's that's another image.

And what's below with those purple columns and the wood

railing is something that's already approved and built.

And what we're doing is adding those columns and frame and roofing to that to create a canopy.

There's a real need in these restaurants to have these coverings, these canopies for outdoor dining.

And there is a canopy shown over Albemarle Baking

Company.

It's kind of part of, you know, exploring all of this and kind of pulling it all together.

You know, I don't know if Alan wants to chime in or if there's questions.

I showed that in two different versions, so to speak.

One actually has a grass roof on it.

There's just different things that we're just kind of looking at and we're, you know, we'll develop it and present it.

officially, but just, you know, the email to Jeff was like, you know, what do you think?

You know, just getting a little little feel for things.

But definitely the Orzo covering we want, we want to pursue and the deck, the outdoor deck and such for the upper floor.

I think a lot of this is tenant-generated.

You build something for one restaurant tenant, and then the other restaurant tenants want something similar.

So that was why the Orzo covering came about because of what was done at the former Little Star.

Jerry, the bakery company, doesn't need an outdoor area, so you say to yourself,

How do you make sense of it architecturally without doing something he really doesn't want?

Right.

And so I think we're still struggling with that a bit from an architectural point of view.

And that's why I think Greg did what he did, because Jerry doesn't need the outdoor area, probably doesn't want it.

But how do you how do you create do the other outdoor areas and make them look somewhat consistent with

whatever you do over at the baking company.

So that one we're looking probably for feedback on.

I could just try to get more height underneath it because the building's changed there.

One is covered, one's not.

So it's trying to distinguish those areas that we could probably make them uniform.

I mean, one level and just cover the back.

That may make it actually, you know, from an operator point of view, they may prefer that not to have steps.

Depending on who the tenant is, the one tenant we're talking to wants the outdoor area.

Well, I think Greg, the covering at the gas station is just so successful.

I think that that design really came off really well and enhanced that building and brings life to the street.

It does so many things really well.

and I think part of the reason why it works is that it was, is its lightness and the steel structure is distinguished from the historic building and I think that the, in my initial reading of this, I think that the lighter steel pieces could very well have the same effect

here and being largely visually quiet and reasonable appendages to an otherwise masonry building.

Let me address that.

I would have chosen metal, but the tenant wanted a strong view about wood.

I would say, you know, you are very clear that you don't want metal.

I just have to, I told

the tenant already that I don't know how you're going to react to wood when we've used so much metal elsewhere.

So I've kind of given them a warning.

I guess with all respect to your tenants, tenants change.

And so I think we need to keep in mind that as this project develops, we need to let the building kind of dictate what it wants and what it needs.

This is James Zehmer by the way.

And I kind of wonder if it doesn't make more sense just to carry that canopy all the way across the front facade of the building, it would make it look like a market.

And, you know, as tenants change over the years, their desires may be different.

I think I have to ask Greg, what does that do to the parking?

Well, when when he suggested it, what I envisioned right away was the canopy that said Albemarle Bacon County Company, the one that's shown with the that's in this image would continue all the way across at that that depth.

And then it would push out there at Orza is the way I imagine seeing it happen.

so that it kind of is a canopy for the sidewalk area.

You know, and the one at Albemarle Baking Company is for, you know, the doorway to you come out with your fresh cake.

You know, you got time to regroup before you get into your car or something.

And certainly the canopy all the way across.

I mean, the markings on the building somewhat lend to it.

You know, it's got that horizontal, strong horizontal band there in a sense.

And when we looked at old

historic surveys, there used to be, we can find those and present them there.

From my memory, Alan, you might remember better, but they were canopies all in front of this building.

You know, there's a car dealership and I think they

they, you know, maybe they parked the show cars out there, but there were canopies out in front of this building.

So I'm warm to that idea.

There is one little, you know, canopy type original with the building that's a semicircle that I think, you know, would fall just under there would be probably fine if we do it delicately enough, you know, and we

I guess, I don't know.

It seems like there's support for canopies here.

We're just gonna have to work through the details.

Just keep it real simple and across the line.

Maybe that same roof line extends further at the Orzo Terrace.

Yeah, I mean, there is outdoor seating at Albemarle Banking Company.

You know, I know the way Allen is thinking about like, you know, justifying it and other, you know, legends and just the building and aesthetics.

But I, you know, there's certainly plantings there already.

But I can see that too, because, you know, there that could be a nice little outdoor seating on the other side.

Yeah, I recognize the argument that tenants aren't there forever.

Although we tend to, I'm more afraid about landlords not being there forever, frankly.

You know, I think I'm on 30 years with Hamiltons.

And also, you know, when I do these kind of improvements, I usually want them to sign a longer lease.

I guess my concern is the way it's been presented so far, it's very hodgepodge and just looks like it's sort of slapped together without much consistency.

So that's what I'd look for.

If you can introduce some wood without it being quite so heavy timbered looking, which I think is a clash that I see.

It could be the underside of a roof that exposes some warmer wood or timbers that aren't quite 8x8s.

Although if they liked what you did at the gas station, I would just demonstrate to them that part of why that's successful is it lets so much light in on that north facade because the metal allows all those members to be really small.

All right, well, it seems like there's some good enthusiasm for a direction there.

No, I think that's good.

I can imagine how it can be modeled out and looked at, and certainly we have to consult with structural

What I'm thinking at this point is, is there a connection, how to connect it with the decks on the side?

It looks like it could be the same line.

So I think that even if they don't touch, there would be a same horizontal datum there that would help it all relate.

So I'm good.

I think that's great input.

Yeah, it's such a beautiful building.

All right, very quickly, let me wind down the last couple of things.

I'm not feeling well.

I know you guys have been late.

We did receive state funds.

Give me one sec, Jeff.

Yeah, we did we did get the state grant towards the GPR analysis at McKee block did not get the funds for the evaluation of the artifacts at Swan Tavern, but I'll continuing to try and figure something out for that the

Other announcement, and I say this to you all and everyone out there watching on channel 10.

We are short, we have several vacancies on the Historic Resources Committee.

So if anyone is interested in applying, we meet every second Friday between 11 and 1 in City Hall.

and you can go online or email me but go to the applications online for boards and look up Historic Resources Committee and there's a vacant, there are several vacancies so anyone interested encourage you and if you all know anyone or if you all would like to do more for the city.

Did you put up an image of the Grady Avenue trees?

I mentioned it at the beginning that these trees in front of this apartment building, the trees are fine.

They're huge.

But what would be necessary in a request from an applicant?

I've suggested they provide an engineer's report.

That's primary concern is that the trees are so close to the foundation.

I just didn't know if there was something you all would want to see or expressed or an expert opinion on, but are you looking at it on?

So Grady Avenue.

Yep, right there.

Where was this in our pack?

I'm sorry.

It's not at all.

I'm just asking it.

So there's two questions.

One, up the street is one where it was dead.

And I said, this is what I'll let you do.

But it's these two trees.

And I just was like, well, what would

What would the BAR want to see, know, hear?

That's what they've expressed.

Do they have pictures?

I don't not, but I can get them.

I can only imagine, look at this.

They're pretty awesome.

They're beautiful.

Yeah.

I think Molly actually said that.

Molly's favorite.

Our preservationist.

Yeah.

The only thing about that building is that apartment on the upper floor, this side, when I was in grad school, we had dinner with a professor and our daughter flipped out because we all got pudding in a nice bowl and they gave Katie her pudding in like an old

Plastic cup.

Plastic cup.

Yeah, it was one of her worst meltdowns ever, so that's a memorable place.

That's right.

That apartment only.

Historic event happened there.

That's what I wanted to know, is that structural engineer's report.

And your arborist report.

Absolutely an arborist report.

So, all right, and that'll be coming to you.

That's helpful, thanks.

Again, it's just to confirm that what I'm asking isn't overstepping and fits.

Yeah, and I rode by there the other day.

I said, that tree is dead.

It's leaning.

Remove it.

What are you planning in its place?

Need to get a site plan amendment approved.

A little troubling.

And I know there's some other, what tree, Breck, is it, is another blight coming?

You don't even want to know.

Yeah.

I mean there's some, I don't know which tree, but it's just, it's like the thing with the emerald ash is once they're dead they are very brittle and prone and falling over so I don't recall what that one was but

That's the other one I'm talking about, but I'm handling that one.

All right, next question.

On the ordinance, and that's the revisions, I know you all received, or Brecht did, you may have also seen a letter from Preservation Piedmont, a series of letters.

I just want to... I only saw one.

And most of what, so there's...

But you began by saying there have been a series of letters.

I've seen one.

Well, that's helpful to know.

Fair enough.

I didn't mean it like that.

I just meant, yeah, there's a lot of letters flying.

I think Molly and I have figured out, at least we have,

stomped down some of the people sending you general questions, although you're still getting a few of them.

So I never know how many or how far things get circulated, so that's fine.