Board of Architectural Review Meeting   10/17/2023

The email I sent out the other day.

I think we want to update those and what I would like to have a discussion about is how can we best characterize them?

Is it something we can do?

Is it something a consultant should do?

How are you all reading it and how can we rewrite it such that

When something comes in other than those new zoning ordinance that where you all have the opportunity to address height or spacing or setback or step backs, how we

how we express each of the districts in the guidelines will help us in making those future decisions and also because the guidelines are reviewed and approved by council if someone does

appeal a BAR decision, then it's, you know, can also remind counsel these are the guidelines that you adopted.

So they are not the BAR's guidelines, they're the guidelines that you all implement.

but they are the city's design guidelines.

They're not what you all came up with.

So the instruction I've gotten in, and then it kind of folds into the second question, first part being how do we describe these places

How can we better describe them and how can we?

Another part is to discern what are contributing, what's not, and what's a process for deciding that.

The second piece is where the ordinance comes in and

where I think as I said in the email where something says like, you know, 200% of the prevailing height of, you know, what's average in the neighborhood.

I think we need to go a little further than that and have, not be perfect, but have some

Level of precision for the sub areas and maybe even changing some of the areas and in fact Carl on Raises, I think some of you also did in the comments you sent in but like West Main Street District ends, you know, it should it should come all the way at least to the courthouse and then the downtown So there's some you know, maybe some of the district

Maybe the district boundaries should align with the National Register District, things like that, or if there's any changes, or if the sub-areas need to be changed.

And it's that instructing how we establish guidelines for each neighborhood.

And then the third piece, if we can get to it, because I promise you it's two hours regardless, the REC has been involved in the MALL Committee that was established earlier this year and they're looking to kind of wind down that process and develop some recommendations, but

And talking with Brock, I thought it might be helpful to get some of your thoughts on, you know, and that idea of, yeah, if you were in charge of the mall, what would you worry about?

Or what are the, you know, what, how do you see the mall?

And it's not, we don't have anything

They said no right or wrong, but kind of just get your perspectives that can maybe inform that discussion of that larger group.

So with that, Brecht, do you want to see if anybody has or do you all okay with that as an agenda?

And then if you have any questions, open it up and see if there's anyone that wants to comment.

Just mentioned our guidelines.

Yeah, that's the second item.

You didn't mention it, but that's the second item on your agenda.

Big one.

Probably the one we'll spend the most time on.

Well, the reason I'm talking about the ordinance is that in my, and certainly I won't entertain any of you guys who bring the table, but in my reading of it,

I'm less concerned than I had been.

And there are some amendments that the Planning Commission has, or edits the Planning Commission has suggested that aren't represented in the current document.

But primarily it's recognizing that the BAR has purview within ADC districts and

that heights, setbacks, etc.

can be modified by actions of the BAR, which is why in my internal discussions with my bosses where the design guidelines really become

The updating of the guidelines, it's our opportunity, the BAR's opportunity to clarify some things and I think also to create some predictability that designers can rely on so it's not just, you know, design it and we'll take a look at it.

It's not to prescribe things, but it's at least, you know, for example, with step backs on the Mall.

Maybe there's some general guidelines that would, you know, on the north side, south side, maybe there's some things that at least offer some direction that the BAR would start in, not saying, it will be this.

And that's where Carl's comments to the Planning Commission had been.

Well, let's hold on to that part of the agenda.

We'll get into it.

November is public improvements.

Alright, at least for the cameras I'll say welcome to the monthly meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review.

and if any of you are confused by our alignment today, it's because we do not have any action items and the BAR is meeting today for a work session on several items that we have not had sufficient time to get to during the course of our regular meeting, so that's our agenda tonight.

Do we have any visitors?

Okay, so we have no comment from the public.

All right.

And everybody's okay with Jeff's agenda?

Four participants.

That's probably all us.

Okay.

group think.

Okay, so the first item is the chapter one and I'll leave, I'm not sure how you guys wanted to facilitate this conversation.

I understand from Molly that you've combined comments.

Yes, there was a lot of, there was a few overlaps.

OK.

And have those been, have those come by?

Oh, you just sent them out.

And what was, Jeff, Molly, what was your hope tonight?

The guidelines.

I just don't have whatever, the comments.

OK, so there's a digital version on your emails that just arrived.

Maybe we could put them up on the screen.

Jeff, Molly, what was your aim for going through these?

I just didn't I was going to offer it more as an opportunity if anybody in there reviewing it aside from the comments were there any questions about any further suggestions and just kind of allow that conversation and then I was going to

I would like to get your thoughts on

on a couple of how-tos.

And this really, within the guidelines, just the first 28 pages, the back of the section primarily has got an architectural primer.

So first and foremost, did you all have any comments, anything outside of what you sent, or anything really

Okay.

I mean, four folks.

I think probably this came up a lot that from my point of view, general overall comments is that throughout the images are often problematic and updated photos are important.

Yeah, the sub-area maps are oddly ordered.

To a point that Jeff alluded to, I did have some real questions about the, especially the West Main and the downtown district and also the sub areas.

They didn't seem to necessarily correspond with my perception of Main Street, and maybe others feel similarly.

We often talk about

for defining, redefining, recharacterizing these districts.

And the point being is that, like with the conservation districts, we have those character-defining features, those, you know, likely for the sub-areas, so it would be necessary, but such that when a proposal comes in to you all, we have at that starting point of what's the

What are the characteristics that are going to drive this review?

And we could do that collectively.

You all could work on that on your own.

I could see if it could be fit into a consultant's work.

So that's really what I'm asking is what would be your recommendations of sort of moving forward?

How much of an active role does the BAR

are you all willing to take?

Or how much would you like us to work on it, consult and do it?

And then what are the things that we'd like to see?

I don't know.

I'm just looking to you all to, I only have a limited budget for a consultant, and I was going to use most of that

to just help with formatting, to help with some of the make sure that what we're doing is consistent with the state and national guidelines, but really hoping to get as much traction out of your efforts as we can.

And if we did that, what's the best way to approach that?

Or not at all?

So that's my open question.

Do we want to take a neighborhood each month?

Do we want to, you know,

Thoughts and feelings on that?

Are you announcing a resolution to a large public body tomorrow?

I think we've got everything wrapped up, so unless Council kicks something back to us, I think we're going to send them a recommendation tomorrow.

So that should take care of a lot of work sessions.

Personally, I don't think we want to, I don't want to go the consultant route with this.

I think everything that we want to change in the guidelines and the things that we've been seeing have been problematic and we know that an outside consultant is not going to know that.

I agree with Jeff's approach and what you've said.

I think especially defining the districts, I think we could, I think we know them and we can do that.

I think that's the work that we could best do.

So it'd be great if we want to take a couple chapters, like a month or something.

and I know some of us including me didn't send comments along I would say maybe half of us didn't so maybe that would be a time for the rest of us to catch up you know if we just did a piecemeal and it would also just be like instead of reviewing the whole thing like oh my god you know

Be able to think about it, maybe do a drive-by in that district.

I have to admit, I'm not in all districts all the time.

You know, years pass without me going to Fry Springs, for example, or, you know.

He hasn't had me over recently.

He has never had me over.

I'm kidding.

I just pulled that out of nowhere.

But I think I would love to get on that schedule and do that if time allows.

I did have a really stupid question just because I know there are smarter people that can answer it.

Is that right?

A couple documents and this is one thing.

Pull up that code section that I referenced.

So what's changed?

The Secretary's standards

period are the 10 very broad criteria for approaching preservation, restoration, etc.

There are then the

I don't know even the right, it's the guidelines for rehabilitation in XYZ which are that, you know, couple hundred page document where they offer some recommendations scenario based.

But they all go back to the Secretary's standards.

To illustrate this, one of the questions that came up during the Planning Commission's discussions and the ordinance was, well, whose guidelines prevail?

We are required, being certified local government,

One of the requirements is that we have these guidelines that are based on the Secretary's standards.

Again, it's those, you know, formerly it's those 10 things.

We do refer to the federal documents for guidance, but they don't, you know, they are just like our thing, book, they are guidelines, they are recommendations, they are not prescriptions of what should be done.

So, my comment to the Planning Commission through Carl, thank you, was that

In order to maintain that CLG designation, we didn't want anything in the ordinance that

suggested there were conflicts.

Can we accomplish that by a link?

Those 10 notes you're referencing, those are the

I think so, because there's four bigger umbrellas of categories in the national, in the secretary's standards.

And that was kind of one question I had was like,

Are we shoehorning everything into the rehabilitation standard?

Because it's a broader question of like, is it really more the applicant who says, we're taking this approach towards this project.

And it's kind of came into, we've talked about this with the mural, in terms of are they approaching it as a preservation project, are they approaching it as a rehabilitation project, reconstruction project, restoration project, right?

Those are the four categories.

I think we sort of are though, aren't we?

It does.

But it's like if somebody is doing tax credits, we don't see those projects because they're administratively reviewed.

If somebody does a tax credit project, we don't review it.

But it should be in the guidelines, too.

And I was going to say we need to take all that out, just reference the ordinance.

Everybody wants to read the city ordinance nor find what things are.

True, but to your point, the tax credit thing, and I know this because I'm doing it on a house, that gets reviewed at the state level.

and so I think it's sort of like we don't need to look at it because they're already looking at it and then he's just checking a box.

Yeah, so it's sort of there's different parameters for the different categories, right?

I'm just pulling it up.

The most recent graphic version is labeled the Secretary of Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties with guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring, reconstructing historic buildings.

Right, but what if we're reviewing new construction?

So they're guidelines for new construction in there.

So what I'm going to make note of is that we are clearly referring to the germane appropriate sections of the federal guidelines, that we know how we're using them, how we're referring to them.

So that comment is that

The fact that we're having some difficulty expressing it clearly is a good example.

We should understand and it should be very clear what the CLG requirements are and what our guidelines say and don't say.

What I've taken, for instance, the document printed in 2017, primarily I've seen that as almost a digest of

where the feds have received questions like, well, what about this?

Well, what about that?

So it's a question and answer almost that based on the 10 secretary standards.

So they can be viewed as the same document, yes, but again, just simply guidelines.

The title up here says Secretary of Interior Standards.

Then it talks about city code.

And then further down the page is actually where the Secretary of Interior Standards stopped.

And then really what I was also just pointing out is these particular ten fall under the rehabilitation standard.

and if we want to go by that fine we just I think it just makes sense to say that.

We do have an owl.

He saw the owl.

My point is, well that's the point, right?

If he had said we're following a restoration approach, they could have painted it in full.

Right.

But see, that's my point is that it really, it's sort of who are we to say which tactic you should pursue.

You're the owner.

You come to us and say, this is what I'm doing.

And then we say, OK, well, if you're doing it that way, these are the rules you're supposed to follow.

And we can choose whichever section we want to refer to.

It does make sense, since rehabilitation is this sort of low bar.

Rehabilitation is what fits most of what we see, because it's people in an existing building, for the most part.

Alright, I think we're good on that one.

So can I ask a weird theoretical question?

It's weird that the standards, I never thought about this, fall into the introduction as if they're not like guidelines by themselves, right?

So almost they should be kind of supplemental guidelines and not part of an introduction.

I mean, sure, it's good to know these if you're an applicant, if you've never seen them before and you're dealing with a historic property that you don't get anyway.

Maybe it should just not be called an introduction.

It's not a May one.

Right.

I think that's a complaint that's not a complaint.

Well, there are things that are stuffed in.

I need some help framing all of this in my head because there's a lot happening with a lot of different things and we've got to figure out how to go through this with the entrance corridor folks.

I've got to also at some point we'll have to address conservation districts and because those are so neighborhood focused, you know, I don't

I don't want to overlap those with this but I think it's getting your thoughts on the what abouts and has anybody ever thought of not saying this is what we should do and because what I want to get to is the big question in chapter one

How do we describe those neighborhoods?

What are those features?

What are those things?

What are those sub areas?

and the maps, because the maps become extremely important in that they tell me what is contributing or non-contributing.

and I'll pick up because I wanted to jump back to where Cheri left that part of the conversation off.

So I find the district descriptions really helpful.

I remember on multiple occasions we've referred to them in our comments to applicants and in particular I find that sometimes it's in those descriptions that some

Reference to landscape character is included, which is nowhere else in the guidelines.

But it has been helpful on several projects in being able to refer to those.

So I do think it's important.

And I do agree with Cheri and Carl that we probably can do as good or better a job than consultants that are not here.

I like the idea of divvying it up.

I wanted to test kind of an alternate strategy for divvying it up.

Yes, what if we took a couple of people, took a district and then I feel like if I won, I think it would be kind of fun because you get to know maybe a neighborhood you didn't spend as much time in before.

My only request is that those of us who are not licensed to something be paired with someone who is licensed to something.

Or I have the wrong type of license, I should say.

But license is relevant to this.

I must say I think this document is pretty good in general.

My biggest issue is sort of the organization of it.

I think throwing the districts, their definitions and their descriptions, into the introduction is really weird.

Here are the districts.

The descriptions in here seem to describe exactly as they are and even mention some of the undesirable aspects.

I forget where it was.

Yeah, describing West Main Street, they're talking about one-story structures with surrounding parking areas relating to auto-oriented uses.

I guess that's describing what was happening.

I forget, one of these I had a note in here about, it mentioned the Cobrahead power lights, the Cobrahead lights, and I'm just thinking, do we really want to put that in here?

That is a question.

Do we want to describe, as it is, all the stuff, or do we want to describe just the character defining things?

allow me to stream of consciousness for a second.

Go to one of the slides.

It is funny, most of us are not

evening people, like in the sense of how, you know, I don't call how you, you maintain such calm, clear thoughts.

I just this is, you know, if we have be our meetings at eight in the morning, that would be we'd probably be done in 45 minutes on even we had a lot of stuff on the agenda.

So on the screen, what I asked Molly to do earlier today is say, it's one of these, how far do we want to go?

But let's just use this as an example.

So within the Ridge Street ADC District, and did you check that one?

Or is this the one that has the little slivers?

So I said, well what are we dealing with?

What are the new zoning recommendations?

How prevalent are they?

Which ones should we be paying attention to?

That in some way can help frame this.

And were you able to have an image of the zoning page?

Just pick one and go to it.

and so within, for example, it's awfully tiny I know, but this is what the ordinance looks like for the site, the building.

It has dimensions in it, it has heights, it has spacing, setback.

those measurements and provisions that are most likely in conflict with what's prevailing in a particular place.

So it's one of those world, and I know zoning is ephemeral and changes and, you know, we don't want to get into a block by block analysis, but

The idea was floating is does the map of where we have specific changes recommended, does that, should that help guide us in establishing guidelines for them?

And, you know, for example, and I can't see it, but let's assume, you know, on the right hand side it says, you know, the height.

Well, I can tell you what's the, what is the, what's the district that you're showing?

What's that zoning?

I see where you're going.

I feel like it's getting to the edge of our mandate and what our role is in protecting historic properties.

I feel very comfortable in participating in

helping better articulate what those character defining features are.

And I do feel comfortable, I think we should be aware of areas where the

what these requirements are and how, when we're looking at a neighborhood and saying, what are the characteristics that we're describing it in a context that is translatable to the ordinance requirements.

Say, all right, well, you all are not interpreting and deciding on that, but it's understanding that when Carl's designing a project for West Main Street,

It might be a section of West Main Street where it's uniquely different from the West End and so maybe there's some descriptors that we want in that sub area

that informs the next step in doing a design in that area.

It's not prescribing it, but it's saying, oh, well, here's how the BAR characterized that area and in the context of this language.

And that's at risk of, you know, you're almost doing a parcel by parcel analysis and we don't want to do that.

But I think it's where, I know I've kind of beat East High Street, but that section between Second Street and maybe Third Street, all those buildings are

two, two and a half, three stories.

They're all about 40 feet back from High Street.

They're all spaced about 20 feet.

Now I'm not talking setbacks.

I'm just saying space between the buildings.

There's a rhythm to the buildings on that street.

The ordinance is proposing something that allows five story buildings with zero setback.

So if a designer is coming in and looking at that,

and sees that the BAR has described that area in a certain way that then instructs them.

It doesn't say what they should or shouldn't do, but it does the BAR's guidelines or the city's guidelines express what's important about that area and whether it's an entire block or an entire street, I don't know.

I don't know how fine to go with it, but I think

We need to go beyond saying, and maybe it's not, you know, maybe the description is where we tackle one thing and then it's under the new construction and that's why I included that in the discussion.

Maybe it's under the provisions of new construction that we get into a little more instructive and not say 200% of the average in the neighborhood, whatever that means.

So that's all.

I'm just offering that as a context of

of framing these neighborhood descriptions.

or at least not make recommendations in your guidelines that are going to be, you know, conflict with this.

I'll put Carl on the spot.

So the discussion about step-backs.

So yeah, Preservation Pima wanted to very clearly have a step-back map in the code.

And I convinced the Planning Commission to take that out so that the BAR would have the purview to say what a step-back should be, not say,

What it had was along Market Street, and we dealt with this with the special use permit for the awful lodger site.

It's very prescriptive.

It says at three stories, you have to have a 25 foot step back along Market Street and along the downtown mall.

And on the side streets, it's five feet.

I think there's something else for Water Street.

My intention was that we should decide what that is.

25 feet may not be necessary for everything.

The 25 feet on Market Street was intended to protect Market Street Park.

Well, Market Street Park is one block.

So does it make sense for it to extend?

It extended over past tonight.

So that didn't seem to make any sense.

Similarly, with the downtown mall, we should decide,

where the break should be.

So for the Dewberry, for instance, it's a very natural point where the tower starts.

It's not an arbitrary number like 25 feet.

But one of the thoughts was, do we need to put something in the guidelines that reminds future BARs that the city would like to see some sort of step back to maintain a relative three-story since on the mall.

It doesn't have to be a, you know, we've got

two very historic buildings that go straight up 100 some odd feet downtown.

But we generally, I think, would like to keep everything that feel like it's three stories and then find some way to go taller.

Right.

Exactly.

Because it's, and I think it would be, as I said, internally, there's a great deal of support for this because it does, I mean, it's an opportunity to

to clarify some things where they need clarity, to give instruction and predictability, or at least some predictability to the designers and developers.

And the more we can, I mean, I don't know, I know when I was a builder and you used to go get a permit, you're like, tell me what I need to do.

You want me to build a house upside down, I'll build it, just give me my permit.

So the more predictability we can build into the guidelines without being prescriptive,

I think will be, to our benefit going forward, it will, I think, help these guidelines and the historic districts survive.

And, but I just, it's the, how do we go about it?

Well, I'm not sure maybe of the examples that you have in mind.

But it still feels like having an honest assessment of the character-defining features is our best bet.

We can't anticipate all of the things that are going to come up.

And even if we did, like I'm thinking of some of our projects on West Main, if we were describing some of the historic properties there, that didn't

The result in architecture isn't dramatically subservient to those structures and it still works.

I think one thing that, well, it's already in some of these descriptions.

And then, Jeff, you will give us diagrams every once in a while that show, you know, this is the average spacing between the buildings.

This is the average height.

This is the average setback.

And I think, yeah, if we just make sure that each of these districts includes a description.

Like, if there is a character-defining setback on the street, we should list it.

If there's a character-defining setback, we should list it.

If there's ever a building, yeah, yeah, just what the existing conditions are and then

The new buildings need to somehow respond to that and we decide if the response is appropriate.

Right.

For instance, on Stribling, you know, if we were to write that description and we were trying to, with that project in mind, we probably wouldn't, would, I don't know, the project that we ended up approving might not, you know, has zero, you know, almost zero setback.

does a lot of different things and I still think it's a successful project relative to protecting that historic property.

I don't know.

Well, I'm not sure how quickly or exactly where this is, but what if we take the task of dividing up into teams and dividing up the different

districts with an eye to one evaluating the take our take the current description if There's anything that's incorrect.

I think there's a lot of knowledge in actually in those descriptions So I would be very slow to take things out I would unless that things really radically have changed, but if there's there additional information that we could add That would be useful

I think that's excellent and I think we could review drafts together.

Yeah what I can do is also I mean I think you said the honest assessment and sort of

Let's not try to wrap around the actual of the new ordinance.

I mean, it's coming, you know, we'll but that honest assess what's there, not if it's we're, you know, with a blank slate, it's a lot easier to describe it instead of thinking about it, or we're gonna have to refute things.

So I think that makes a lot of sense.

What I can also do is so I can break out the text.

I can also go into, um,

primarily chapter three and pull forward sort of things that are where there are recommendations specific to a district and so you're sort of seeing that whole package together because you know one construct the other and then I can circulate that and

Let me prepare something and put it out there.

Yep.

Correct.

Correct.

And then by me pulling district specific things that are elsewhere in the guidelines might help in sort of going well why did you know like for example you go through the guidelines it's a lot of stuff about residences in downtown.

you know there's all talks about porches and entrances is that everything the BA reviews is an 1840 house on Park Street so you know it doesn't give you much for other places so maybe by by sort of showing where there seems to be emphasis made shows also where no one's mentioned it right and I think

Yeah, the zoning code, the existing code was written really funny where each district had a different way of describing what's contributing.

And it's all the same, which just references the maps.

But the maps need to be updated because buildings have been torn down, have been built.

I know.

Those are, and I never thought about it.

I have no idea.

The other thing that's not shown, Molly and I were... Well, everything is a contributing structure.

Yeah, but if it's built new, does that then become... The other thing that's in here, Molly and I were trying to find a building.

I like the 50 year rule.

It's a curious question, too, because it's actually coming true.

I am getting a lot of questions about buildings that were approved 20 years ago that are having problems, like what happened down there at William Taylor Plaza, where the stucco is peeling off the building.

And there's not the standard, I think,

What's across the street from, what's on the south side?

Where is that?

The flats.

So there's that upper floor that set back.

It's got stucco material on it.

That's, that's waters gotten in underneath the trims rotting out the windows are trimmer falling off.

And there can we replace these sliding glass doors

You know, with something similar, you know, something that wasn't available, I don't know, 15 years ago or so.

So, like, God, does the bee really want to know whether, you know, these modern sliding glass doors, do they have?

And I guess a difference, maybe I said it wrong, is that I mean, as a

We still review everything that gets modified.

It's just that if someone wants to tear down the flats, we don't have to give it a demo permit.

We don't have to give it a COA for demo.

I think that would be reasonable, and that's what we can.

So that's another opportunity because the contributing structures, what comes to you all for demo review, are established by these maps.

They're not established in the orange.

These maps are referenced in the orange.

but what council adopts on these official maps becomes the rule.

And there are, we're getting there.

Right.

Right.

We're getting there.

It's not.

And we, there are also buildings which are not in the GIS layer, because, like I say, we were trying to find one the other day.

So yeah, so gosh, if they...

Well, this, what Molly's showing is what is in the 2017 or is it 2012 when they adopted it, 2017 when there were some changes.

So what is on the map is what she's highlighting as the contributing structure.

So I don't want to say that's an artificial map, but she simply highlighted what the old paper map says.

And if an addition was added to it, but it goes to Carl's question, is that addition, well, do you get a COA for a new, if you demolish something that's new,

You know, or is that addition now part of the contributing structure?

And here's where it would get interesting is that, like, take the loggia up there at the courthouse, you know, where that interior wall is becoming, or that exterior wall is becoming an interior wall.

And we go, wow, you know, they're building, putting on this glazing.

You know, if they came back and said, you know, oh, yeah, the glazing and loggia, we can just tear it off.

That means we would never review it for, well, we want to restore, you know, we want that

former exterior wall to look like the former exterior wall.

Just the things to think about, but the broader question and you all can give some thought to this.

We have the maps, they're in the guidelines that are online.

I think West Main is the only one where, although didn't we check, there was an update to the West Main map and

There are some copies of the guidelines floating around out there that have the old version.

But this is maybe one of the heaviest lifts that we're going to have to deal with is getting these maps right, getting them updated, and then establishing on them, if you will, things that are not necessarily structures.

For example, up on Second Street, where behind that one house there's that

built into the hill was where they would sit and give classes.

There are, you know, historical fences that aren't, you know, they're not noted.

What classes?

What's that?

The school on 2nd Street.

Well, we're not going to get to that level of detail.

I'll ask him later.

No, not for descriptions.

This is what I'm saying.

When we, the second part of the first item, when we start to talk about these contributing structures and how do we, because these maps are going to be updated and revised, how do we want to characterize what is contributing?

And is it, you know, structure, you know, is it a contributing building?

Is it a contributing feature?

I know that we do

In fact,

Well, it's actually, it's in your, in the charge, in the B.A.R.

I'm saying... Breck is asking, do we have time to go catalog every granite curb?

And you're saying it's our charge to just notice what the contributing structures are.

Well, I'm saying things.

Well, you were talking about other things.

Well, I'm just saying, when we update these,

there are there may be things that if they're removed or demolished that you know if it's not highlighted but you we still want to bring them to you all we have an opportunity to clarify that a bit and it may be for example the guidelines

It's rather unclear, well the ordinance, rather unclear whether you all should be reviewing cutting down trees.

I mean, is that an alteration?

The guidelines are somewhat silent on that.

But as an example of when we start to talk about what are things that can be removed, be taken out, eliminated from the district,

They are contributing features that the BAR wants to be allowed to consider their removal.

And I'm not saying we have to go catalog each granite curb.

Actually, there's something in the guidelines about granite curbs, so I use that broadly.

But it is where if there are features

Fences, landscapes, topography, that should be included in the description or we can certainly include it in the map.

Well, I would just say that our survey is going to be imperfect and cursory.

Right.

By nature and necessity.

It's where that... I'm going to work towards what's unclear and...

What should we talk about?

And so when you all are thinking about these individual neighborhoods, think about things that you would want to call contributing.

And because in the sense of they're identified on the map and you get to review it, not just buildings.

It's just putting that thought in the back of your head.

But yeah, updating these maps is going to take some time.

there's stuff that's changed, there's stuff that's gone, there's stuff that was never shown on here.

Um, Molly and I will take care of all that.

It's um, but it's when it goes to council, we make sure that we talk about the things that you all want to, you know, you all want to review.

There's actually a better opportunity now for us to review trees because I think if you cut down any tree that has a diameter of more than 15 inches, you have to get a permit.

So we should move on and continue the conversation.

You guys will help us maybe set up a sign up genius or something to help kind of like divvy up the things, divvy up the different districts and get a team.

We need to do the intro.

Well, are we continuing?

Can you tell us what the themes are?

I'll take care of it.

We need to go through the comments that I guess Molly has compiled just to see if we're all on the same page.

Can we move into that?

We can have that conversation.

Great.

Well, I think we do.

I mean, this is a time that we have had intended to set aside for, you know, talking through the zoning comments, zoning rewrite.

In my mind, and I chatted with a few people about how to organize this so that we're not ping-ponging all over the place with the comments and hopefully collect them in an organized fashion.

One I thought it would be useful to think about, some of us have collected comments written, some have brought notes, others may not have had a chance but have some general thoughts.

I would offer this, I think it would be useful

There's three types of comments that I think might come up tonight and I think they're all valid, but I think it's useful to maybe just be clear about what type of comment it is.

One type of comment is maybe more clarification or a technical kind of comment.

The second might be a design comment or a personal or professional opinion about the outcome of a certain rule or how it might affect the city.

But it may or may not be directly related to our work at the BAR.

And the third would be those comments that are related to the specific functioning and scope of this board.

Now, as I said, I think all three types of comments are okay to bring up in this conversation.

But let's just maybe, you know, think about where, how they fit.

And the other thing I was going to suggest is, in order to organize our thinking is, maybe start with the folks.

Oh, that's so clear.

So starting with maybe the people that have some written comments because their thoughts have been organized a little bit more, we could start there.

But just allow everybody to have a chance to speak.

and then you know maybe if if there are particular questions we could bring those up but I'd like to kind of keep that keep some order to it so that we can keep good notes and then come back to the at the end if there is a particular response that's needed those responses could include

Sending Carl off with some thoughts.

They could include whether a formal response is necessary, or it could be to endorse some of Preservation Piedmont's recommendations or suggestions that have been made in the past.

or no response.

We may find that no response is necessary, but that's where I think we should come back around to at the end unless anybody has any other suggestions about how to keep this moving.

Anybody want to go or comment?

So a big change that we added of the list of things that we're supposed to consider when we put conditions on a project.

One that was always there that we sometimes forget about is the cost of what we're requesting.

But we added consideration of the comp plan.

So that might have resulted in a different outcome for like the solar panels, for instance.

and the concern over that was again it was a discussion of we're allowing ten stories downtown where does the BAR come in on you know there we should we are allowed to require a lower height we're allowed to reduce massing and there was discussion about how much of the BAR be allowed to reduce massing things like that

there was concern over if someone had an affordable project would going through the whole process of kicking them to council to if we denied them and had council overrule us that could screw up the whole timeline for that project so it does make our job a little more complicated but I think in the end it's it's better so we do now we can't say well we're the BAR we don't consider the comp plan we now do actually consider it or if this gets approved

talked about the step backs.

And yeah, we talked about the fact that, yeah, the BAR has a purview to reduce massing.

So that's kind of the big thing that I know there's, I just got an email from Jeff Levine, who would like to not have that be the case.

So let's, hopefully we can, I think that council, well,

It's not something new.

The BAR and the Entrance Corridor Review Board have had it.

I think there are scenarios where you could say, oh my gosh, the BAR decides, well, a building shouldn't go there at all.

So instead of 10 stories, you say nothing.

That could happen, but again, that's appealable to council.

Now where height or some dimension or some element of the design is established through the special use permit process, then it becomes locked in.

If a special use permit allows a building of X height with step backs at this floor of 15 feet, then that's locked in.

There are special exceptions, but yeah, I don't know.

And I think that what's key is that

It states it in the ordinance so there's no ambiguity about if there's a historic district something's being reviewed The BAR has design review purview.

So that's clear.

It's not somebody going what I didn't know I had to do that

and then it goes back to the prior part of our conversation where the guidelines having very clear and reasonable guidance, that's the other tool in the toolbox.

But I agree with what the Planning Commission did.

I think it doesn't change anything.

We definitely have said before that we can't look at the comp plan.

That was the main thing?

Okay.

Any volunteers to kick us off?

You got answers to all the Cheri's?

It's the only homework I did tonight or today.

Were you refuting them all?

I don't think it's okay to go through them.

I think that we'll get fewer and fewer comments as we go on because there will be repeats.

They were good questions.

Do you want me to just go down her list?

Sure.

Why is the downtown ADC given the acronym DADC and no others are?

We took that out.

You're right, that was stupid.

Are the current descriptions just placeholders as most are duplicative regarding contributing in later structures?

So every district had a description of what the contributing structures are, and they were all different.

Don't try to discount them.

Yeah, it was bad.

I assume that these criteria for additions to an ADC are verbatim to the current Secretary of Interior standards, so you're not checking to verify that.

Does the city have discretion to add more criteria?

We certainly can, and I think some of it, what I did when I initially reviewed

what I took was ADC district ordinance.

Currently took the conservation district ordinance.

Currently where they were, you know the same thing, laid them side by side and where I could.

Merge them I did and where they were distinctly different.

We established that difference.

I didn't tinker with the language too much, but I do.

I did.

Like, for example, the demolition, we have guidelines for demolition.

We have criteria for demolitions.

Now, I think when we get to the guidelines, it should be one thing because they're close, but they're not the same.

But I would agree some,

some clarification could be added to but we could also consider putting that into the guidelines as well sort of a you know you're not you're not writing the ordinance but I mean the ordinance can't address everything and so we want to be clear about something but if if you all would like to change those things I hadn't looked at it

There was a question about the existing structure preservation bonus.

I don't know if you guys understand how this works, but our districts, which are the R, A, B, and C, if you preserve the existing structure, you're allowed to build an additional unit on your property.

And there's a rule that you have to preserve the first 25 feet.

So the BAR, as I understand it, we still have the purview to say that, no, you have to keep the first 50 feet.

Again, we have to consider the cop plan.

So if we tell them they have to keep the first 35 feet and they do, they can still do the bonus.

We may not like the idea of additional structures on the site.

Yes.

That was, I think I either was confused by it or you might have been confused by it.

So they mentioned IPPs maintained their status as an IPP in an HCD.

You don't have to put that in an ACD because the guidelines are the same.

so that's why.

Let me look at it real quick.

Yes.

So I had pointed this out or noted this too.

So if the 25 feet is completely arbitrary, the DAR says no, come on, you know, it's got to be 35 feet to really preserve this building.

Can't they just go to city council afterwards and say, well, it says 25 feet.

And is there, should there be language that specifically says the BAR

And Cheri, some of your questions, I do want to look at a little closer with those lists because I got a little confused as well.

You're 526A1A.

I forget what that was referring to, but we've already been doing that.

That's part of the current ordinance.

And you're sorry.

It's fine.

526A1A.

That's part of the current ordinance, so we've already been doing what that was.

I forget what that was.

We were only supposed to do one submission for COA and not break it up.

So that's what it was.

If we review something and we then say, all right, we've looked at this, and I think this is only for the HCDs, Jeff is allowed to then, like we can give Jeff homework that he can then administratively approve it.

I thought that that was what the

I agree.

I think this is only for HCDs, I think.

And I'd be fine with that.

There's no way to cover everything.

I think it's like someone asked me, they were putting a mailbox.

Do I have to, you know, can you send me a list of mailboxes you all out like, you know, look at your mailbox, you know, look at your letters on your front porch, you know, the address numbers.

We don't, you know, there are certain things.

And I think that what we can get to in the guidelines is some clarity on that, because there's just no way to, you know, list everything, every single thing.

Now, the, as far as the multiple COAs go, on a large scale project, and we had that, pre-COVID had a whole lengthy discussion, we haven't really resolved it.

Code wise, but I would say the current practice that we've been using seems to be working.

I haven't had anybody may realize pushman's right.

Well, we just kind of we have a discussion.

And we'll have as many discussions that we need to until we have a COA.

So there's no formal approval.

Yeah.

And this text was about in a historic conservation district, if we see a project, we're allowed to authorize Jeff to then approve it when it comes back for final approval.

Mm-hmm, and that was always in there.

So that was my another one of our arguments with our friends But it's always been there approved with conditions Yeah, so the the I would just tell you for them for the multiple COAs, you know, I mean we've just We were I don't think we actually do an approval I think it's more of like we'll defer it and say Jeff can I

Personally, I trust Jeff and I trust Mary Joy.

There was a staff person formally in the city on the major projects and I won't mention the person standing here anymore.

On a major project, which is the pavilion, got to go to the applicant later and under ministerial, administrative, you know, detailed stuff, greatly modified what is the pavilion down there.

and City Council was a hell of a lot larger than that little strip that we have.

I think at that level it was pushed down to our decision making body as well.

I mean, and that happens a lot.

My resume is unique, my construction background, so I do understand some things that, you know, maybe just someone who's a pure architectural historian wouldn't see it that way, but now when people

I'll bend, but I'll tell them at what point I'll break.

And if someone says, well, I couldn't get pewter gray, but I can get London gray.

I'm like, run with it.

And I say, well, I really want to move this wall to the other side of the house.

I don't think so.

So I do a pretty good job of that.

But it isn't.

You had the question about the tax credits.

We talked about that.

The next one is a very poorly written sentence, and I know they've looked at it a couple times because they went and added a bunch of commas in there to try and clarify it.

I think enough people looked at it and decided it wasn't conflicting to then you know go and add some commas to it but it yeah it's bad.

That'll be poor Mr. Strohman's problem.

The next one I think you're talking about it was the

I looked at that and I thought it was okay.

The list of what qualifies for minor review in an ADC was

More stuff was under HC review than ADC review, but I think it was because the HC list was excluding a whole bunch of stuff.

It was being more specific, yeah.

Yeah, your comment about the deference to the prior action of the administrator, that makes sense.

I don't know if you sent these to James, right?

Or no?

Did you send them to me?

Uh-oh.

No, they did not add that.

I don't know how you do that.

That's a good question.

We don't have all night, and we're on Channel 10, but I will say this, that this is one where we can, I know what I treat as ordinary maintenance and repair, and we need to express that in the guidelines, because I think it would help a lot of folks.

you know what are and I well there's yeah but it can be better right there can be better direction offered to what maintenance repair I mean maintenance and repair can be replacing your roof so you know it's understanding those those calibration now changing your roof to a different kind of roof because you need a new roof well that's a change that goes VAR so but I think

Yeah, but I think we can better express some of these things in the guidelines.

And it's almost like, you know, using the secretary standards as a, you know, you get the 10 things, but then there's this book of the Yeah, what abouts?

The, I think, no, I think this belongs in the ordinance, if we're going to do it, say, which the if, if we need a definition for ordinary maintenance, that I believe would belong in the ordinance.

because it's defining what actually gets reviewed.

I've always said, in fact I've rejected or owner's agent.

And our code?

Did you show the contract?

It doesn't say.

Since I wrote this, I have a client who a developer wants to submit something on their property, and they're not a contract purchaser.

They haven't the developer.

has not, won't give my client any money, won't give an option, won't even do any kind of letter of intent, nothing.

But they want my client to sign off on a site claim application.

They're trying to get in on just the previous zoning, by the way, because they would have less of an affordable housing component requirement.

But I'm really concerned that this person, this firm in town is going to go and just say, yeah, and they're going to sign on my client's behalf.

If the contract purchasers currently aren't in our zoning ordinance or city code, whatever it is, that's fine, but I think a contract should be required to be produced.

So I did ask that because I'd make applicants to say if you don't, you know, they go, well, they're out of the country.

I said, well, then have them send me an email saying they acknowledge that you're, I just, I want to know.

Yeah, I want to know that.

I mean, you're not just, you know, doing, you're not asking if your neighbor can knock down their house and they don't know about it.

So, but

So my point is that I think the Planning Commission tomorrow is just going to look at some stuff that's been given to us already and consider that and my guess is that we're not going to make any more edits or we have the edits we make we have more important discussions about like the anti displacement zones and things like that so

There's going to be a whole other public hearing with council.

So if we have more comments, we need to compile them.

And this time, it wouldn't go through Planning Commission.

That seems like an issue, really, more for city council, for the legal council than necessarily.

Because that must be the same for building permits and any other action that's requiring city approval.

It's not our role to be policing whether or not.

I guess I just never wanted to be in the position of getting a phone call and having to explain to someone why the BAR made the decision.

I mean the practice right now does have the owner signing.

Jeff said he's been mystical about that.

It's been noted.

It's been flagged.

It's a little bit out of our purview.

But honestly, we have an applicant come before us, and we're spending time, and they don't have a contract.

Yeah, I mean, I didn't check to see that those match the Secretary of Interior standards, but it's an additional reference on top of our own list of things to review.

Anything else that's come to mind that you wanted to... No?

Okay.

Excellent.

Do you have a list?

Tyler, was it just typos or were there a couple of the things you circled?

I think there were lines in the table that were like out of line.

Okay.

It was all type of stuff.

Okay, I'll go through my little list.

Generally, I think I did agree with a lot of the points that Preservation Piedmont has been hitting and got a little bit more clarification tonight about some of the questions related to overall building height.

I wanted to make sure that it is a lurking concern if our

in protecting historic structures is out of step with the zoning.

We are gonna be in an awkward position.

That being said, we've often, we have argued for taller structures at times, and we've also approved structures that are quite tall next to historic properties and done so successfully, so I'm not that concerned about it, but it is,

was on my mind.

I was concerned with the way that it was written in the current draft that it read as if the BAR could set a different maximum height that was larger than what was specified by code, but it sounds like that has been removed per Carl's comment.

I do want I do but to that that point I think as we are assessing the neighborhoods it would be good to be thinking about it's not going to make it into the current draft but it would be interesting as we're focusing on specific neighborhoods if there are any areas that are we are particularly out of step and it's just beyond my capacity I did not pour over the map at a parcel more

personal basis to see where we are, you know, where we are in, you know, most are going to be some of the trickiest areas.

But I'm well, if you if anybody wants to as areas that they related to the map that where there are going to be particular areas of concern.

Are there are some other any that that people are worried about?

I think when we do our, as you said, when we do our neighborhood surveys or whatever, think about, you know, if it's a, you know, High Street, for instance, I think is allowed to go up to five stories, seven if you have the affordable housing bonus.

Okay.

I agree, I'm glad that that reference to the BARs was taken out of the building height conversation because relative to, I believe it was the fourth of the Preservation Piedmont Letter, I think they

There's a paragraph under the BAR's description or whatever that says both council and the BAR can put conditions on a project.

BAR or city council on appeal, that's language in the current regs, may require conditions of approval as are necessary or desirable to ensure that any new construction or addition would be compatible with the scale and character of the EDC district individually, particularly property or conservation district.

and it says, prior to attaching conditions to an approval, due consideration will be given to the cost of compliance with the proposed conditions.

Again, that's from existing and then as well as consideration given to the goals of the comprehensive plan.

Okay, excellent.

That's great.

I heard BLT.

I heard that too, but BLT.

Which we have talked about a lot here, and I don't, you know, in the section on transparency 2.10.12, there's a standard that allows for certain transmittance to qualify for

transparency that's required by zoning.

And on the ground floor, it's more than 60%.

On the upper stories, it says more than 30%, which is quite a bit different than our typical standard of 70, which we have been.

I mean, they had to put a base number in there.

Yeah.

So that may be something we need to be a little bit more clear about in our guidelines then?

I actually think our policy is and not what's in the guidelines but we want to incorporate back in late 2018 or 2019 we had the discussion about, thanks, what does clear glass mean?

Right.

And you know while I understand the 70% and why it came up I think

Gosh, remember that we learned more about glass in that six months than there are more numbers and figures to consider.

But the ultimately what I think we should add to the to our guidelines and it just just like where these are provisions we can, you know, per our guidelines recommend things.

But that guidance that we developed was, you know, the 70% was sort of the starting point.

And what I've told people primarily, that's

Storefronts, things like that.

We don't want a hall of mirrors.

I don't think we've ever asked someone who's building a house to make sure they're using 70 VLT.

No.

Yeah.

So I think we can cover that with the guidelines.

Well, let's definitely flag that, since I think if we were debating between 60 and 70, that would probably not be a non-issue.

But 30% is quite a bit different.

OK.

Got it.

The next one is a bit of a clarification.

The garage provision, it's really related to the build to width.

And I just don't know if I fully, I'm trying to play out and think about what is that incentivizing in certain areas.

Especially as I'm thinking about West Main and large parcels.

And I'm trying to, it seems like

I'm going to miss beta code so much.

Mine doesn't either.

It's got a bunch of stuff that's appeared on top of my screen.

use your bookmarks, y'all.

So it's saying that basically a garage opening, which we deal with these a lot, that that would not count for the building width provision, which there's a percentage for each zone.

So I think that it would discourage actually what we would like to discourage in that it's a penalty essentially for you if you're putting the garage in there.

But I want to make sure I was reading that right.

But then on the other hand, there are a lot of properties, CX-5 along Main Street and some of our larger

or larger corridors and the percentage, the build to percentage is only 75% I believe, 75%.

Where it doesn't count towards your build to with is a de-incentive.

It's supposed to make it more difficult because you're supposed to have a minimum width that you're building to.

I don't know.

We on West Main can always tell people they can't put a garage in the front.

I don't think it counts to your transparency requirements.

There's a whole bunch of things it doesn't count to.

We had a project that the Planning Commission looked at on JPA where I brought up a bunch of questions about garages and whatnot.

If they had waited until after the zoning code was approved, they would not have been able to build the building that we approved for an SUP, because it had a garage on the facing JPA.

So I think all in all, it's supposed to make it more difficult.

I just want to make sure I understood how that was working.

And then the last one, the build to width, this is maybe in my second category of comments, just design thinking for generally.

I'm thinking a lot about Preston, where there's a lot of large lots, and the build to width is high percentage.

It seems like it's going to force only really large projects.

There's gonna be some unintended consequences like that, I think.

But there's also, I think you can create outdoor public amenity space that counts as your build to with.

So I think that's one way around it.

There's special exceptions that are allowed.

I think in some instances it might encourage the developer to cut the parcel in half.

But yes, there's,

There are a few weird lots on West Main too that are quite wide.

Okay, that's fine.

I have two real little things.

Under lighting,

4, 12, 3.

Light sources must be yellow and not white.

3,000 max.

OK.

And then do we want to talk about the bar composition?

Yes.

Because there was talk about having a contractor be one of the, and my thought is maybe it's

either just one licensed architect or one owner of a business or commercial property in the ADC district.

Yeah, I don't know how we, we've brought that up a couple times.

That needs to be a requirement.

Two business owners.

And I was trying to get rid of one of the ones where we have two of.

Certainly could.

I don't know if we need enough.

I was just thinking through that.

I mean, well, one, how many times are we all here?

But second, if it doesn't get up, and this has happened once in my, whatever, seven or eight years, we had an actual tie.

When we've had a contractor on the board, they were always a business owner.

And the trouble is finding a contractor who runs their business out of an ADC district.

So that's where we had Mike Ball, and then we lost him because he moved.

Before him was Whit Graves.

And I don't know if Evergreen, I don't know where they're located anymore.

Correct, or you have to find a landscape architect who is a business owner in an ABC district.

There are no requirements.

I mean, the County Board of Supervisors is six.

And that is, I think it was intentional as sort of require.

I, you know, but the reason is, you get to

Jeff, is that right?

So how did the solar panels break down?

My suggestion is that the historian, were the solar panels a tie?

I think it may have been a tie.

May I propose a... Just like scratch the wound a little bit, you know.

I guess, back to your point, I do think it's really valuable that I wanted to be a part of this.

Yes.

Well, that's how we have it, right?

I mean, that's... Well, there are neither or.

Yeah.

So, is it just for me?

No, I was just wondering if you could, if there's a way to write it so that you could just have ten, it's nine members.

Well, what I was going to suggest, and I, because I think that the, I don't think it should be either or with the landscape architect because they bring in perspective.

No, I would suggest that, that we have one historian,

one contractor, two architects, one of them being a preservation architect.

So there you get that preservation historian.

That's just... It's too hard.

Who does that?

So I mean I do just feel like that a lot of what we deal with is we're going to be dealing with in this city is

a new design, a new coming to the city.

And I think that all of us are, let's be honest, a lot of us are interested in historic preservation, if not all of us.

So there is history in sort of all of our backgrounds strongly.

So I don't know, that would just be.

No, my point being.

I would say make it one historian and one contractor and not an either or with the landscape art.

That would be my recommendation.

But you all can also go with ten.

Right now there's two historians.

Actually, that's a good point.

Is the zoning ordinance what establishes this, or is this somewhere else?

Yeah, this is what distinguishes you guys from the tree commission.

So it would be one contractor or historian.

And the contractor can be a city resident.

They don't have to be.

Everybody must be a city resident.

And it's essential?

Right, but who owns a business or owns commercial, except that a person who resides outside the city.

Homeowner, business owner, business owner, homeowner.

Right.

Who's the second homeowner?

We're televised live here.

You all fully represent the list that's before you.

I vetted it.

A through D don't change.

E becomes one landscape architect.

Strike.

F becomes one historian or person in the background.

Right.

I still have to do the sign review, too.

Well, let me ask you that question.

So in the sign regs, they've removed the comment about neon.

Whereas neon had been not allowed in certain districts.

Well that's the rule, but yeah, that's the problem.

Can't touch it.

So, I don't know, I've gotten back through that, but

You all even a couple years ago looked at something that wanted to do neon here.

I hate to, I'm always picking on the smoke shops but like there's neon all up and down West Main Street and it's great but then you get to higher education and it like glows so bright it's blinding across the street so but it's behind the glass so there's nothing you can do.

So I don't know if, maybe I'd just suck it up and ignore it, but it, that seems like if there was something to regulate that would be the, what's the difference between that and the, you know, get in here at Continental Divide?

Sorry.

Little rant.

We're aware of that.

It bugs me every time I walk by at night.

The vape shops around town

I get a lot of phone calls and people get angry when I say, it's inside the glass.

Or I think the misuse of temporary signage is also a problem.

I would say yes, some of it is a function of, we have two zoning officials, that's it.

There's only so many things you can go stomp out and sometimes when, yeah, we knew something happened a year ago,

You know, difficult to say, hey, you broke the rules.

This actually brings up a big question.

So, I don't.

Or what does the city do?

What's the penalty?

So, since I started, you know, and even when Kami would say, you need to write them a letter, they're in violation.

I said, I am not a zoning official.

I am not.

I mean, Reed and Craig, Reed has a badge.

I don't have a badge.

I am not.

So, for me to send a letter telling someone they are in violation of zoning,

I haven't gone through it, and Reid and Craig have described it, because also the property inspectors cite people and there's a back and forth and they go into the court and file this and that.

I don't know the process.

I'm just wondering if that's something that we want to review.

I mean, it's like the violet crown.

I remember they had their whole thing with the glass was the wrong color.

Failure to abide by the COA is a zoning violation.

I got a call.

People will say, for example, over at Hartmansville Road, that wild house over there with all the different sides.

So there's like a deck on one side.

They're like, you can't afford that with the project.

We're not going to do it.

Do I have to ask the BAR?

I said, no.

You don't have to ask the BAR if you cannot do something.

I said, you're removing that.

So I don't go and say, oh, you violated the COA because you didn't build that deck.

If you build something and didn't paint it or you built the roof and didn't do the way we approved it, that's different.

So a violation of a COA, yes, can be a zoning violation that I would contact the zoning administrator about.

I haven't had, there's been a lot more stuff within entrance corridors that we've had to deal with violations of things, but usually that's a violation.

many things, I'm the last one in line.

So I don't think you have to clarify anything.

I could just say that I don't have the authority to cite someone.

I'll try to remember to ask James tomorrow.

Did you get through all of yours Roger?

So then I'll come back to the question about whether or not any official response is warranted by this board.

After hearing the comments tonight, any thoughts?

I've got to think of several things.

One is probably the most substantial would be a letter to either the Planning Commission or Council or both.

Right.

If there are any kind of technical response to any of the things that need to be written that might be edits, maybe that's something that has been captured tonight.

I've communicated with the preservation people very frequently on this.

Mary Choi and I, a couple weeks ago, spent an afternoon going through all of these.

So, you know, I've certainly let them know.

I think one other thing that they have raised and just in case you've been asked about or wondered about it, but there's a lot of discussion of, not a lot, but one of their comments has been that some of the sensitive neighborhoods should be evaluated for historic conservation.

and I responded, Lyle asked me about it and I said the same thing to Preservation Piedmont is that unless there is significant support within a neighborhood and not just within the neighborhood but also with property owners,

I could not in good faith move forward with a recommendation of designating any neighborhood.

It's a, and yes, we have surveyed a lot of neighborhoods that, I mean, 10th and Page was eligible for the National Register.

Star Hill, there's a district recommended.

Rose Hill neighborhood, a district was recommended.

Fifeville, I'm sure.

Well, Fifeville was recommended, but it's on the National Register, but they did not want to pursue local.

A little high that we surveyed in 2019, there was a core area recommended eligible for National Register district.

I offered

you know, working with the community over there.

If you all want to pursue a conservation district, then it has to, it can't be me.

I'm not going to go out and knock on doors and urge people to do this.

So my, as I suggested, the preservation of Piedmont, if they have areas that, you know, they, given the surveys, certainly a conservation district is warranted.

There's even places where individual designation might be warranted, but

I will I cannot I don't have the time or the resources to be the to go out and urge people to do it but if a neighborhood wishes to do it and fully supports it absolutely take it forward but I haven't heard that we had that Conservation District

the CH Brown Conservation District with just six properties and Planning Commission was almost three years ago said go ahead with it.

They've yet to produce an affirmative consent from those six property owners.

I can't do anything until I know that they're willing, that they understand what it means.

So if that comes up,

because it has been asked that the BAR recommend historic designation.

You all can do that.

You all can in fact in the past have taken the lead in recommending I think the last round of IPPs back in 2008, several IPPs was driven by recommendation of the BAR.

There are individuals working towards it.

And we talk frequently, but it's like I said, well, one of them is already in IPP, but the other five are the

I need to know that those owners understand what it is that this designation means.

And so that's what I've let the applicant know.

And it's sort of almost like any applicant for a rezoning.

So I don't hear any burning desire for this board to make an official statement.

Nobody's spoken to that.

Carl, you mentioned something in a recent email that you felt like some of that message should come from this board and not Preservation Piedmont.

If you guys are generally OK with the way things have been going,

I don't know.

We could make a statement trying to confirm with council that please allow us to do our job where our purview is with the understanding that now that we need to consider the comprehensive plan just so that everybody's on the same page because the Planning Commission had to kind of get their heads around that for a while.

You know, is the BAR going to be able to do what the BAR does?

Just to be clear too, I responded to every point in, I think there were four letters total, and shared those with my boss.

So I guess representing you all, I responded to all of them and a lot of them were, I agree with Pres Piedmont.

then that was discussed and certain things were taken to the Planning Commission.

So that's the way the process worked.

I don't have a direct

to the Planning Commission, but I did review all of their comments and respond to them.

And I think those that were, you know, did ask for some significant things, they were all accounted for in some way.

So I guess I didn't want to think that I just got the letters and did something.

I've been communicating both with them and internally.

What they're getting is we've paid attention, they've added to it, they've contributed to some positive changes, but I can certainly draft something if you want.

I think that's been my hesitation all along is not writing to counsel and with a flamer and saying you're all wrong or we love this,

Yeah, I agree.

We're in a review capacity, so it's awkward and perhaps inappropriate for us to take a stance on the specific policy changes.

I think it's been helpful that they highlighted some of our procedural challenges or anticipating some of the changes, what the changes will bring to us.

OK.

Well, thank you all for bringing your effort to this review and to the meeting today.

I don't know.

I feel like we are losing a little bit of steam.

I am personally flagging a little bit this evening, but I don't know if everybody is feeling we still have the mall on our agenda.

I can introduce and we can kind of where we are maybe if you grant me like maybe five minutes of just sort of an update and what's kind of

So, and I've given a couple of reports along the way, but the way that the ball committee has been functioning is that the city has organized monthly meetings on specific topics related to the mall and they have included things like their first

Several were about the history of the mall and the design Then it went into maintenance issues like trees and fountains to issues like the Restaurant spaces to the side streets Anything lighting was one maybe one that I missed Trying to think of any other that

but basically they've been organized around broad categories for each meeting.

We get probably out of the mall committee is probably made up of what 24 to 28 people of which maybe 15 to 20 show up each month.

So the meetings generally are a presentation by city staff that are most involved in either maintaining or preserving or facilitating those particular areas.

kind of describing the particular condition and then there's been a chance for feedback from the variety of people which include restaurant owners, business owners, designers, civic folks and so they've been, I think they've been helpful to spend a little time

generating some conversation, I would say that my own critique is that this short amount of time and just the function of who ends up attending each meeting means that it is not particularly detailed and not really enough time to really dive in or make specific recommendations.

But I do think that they've been useful in bringing certain things to the city's attention.

What they're currently in now is kind of an end game strategy.

This is my perceptions, Jeff, but you've got a much closer seat.

But I'll give my perception.

You can say otherwise.

Is that they're getting close to wanting to wrap this up and try to get to a point where there actually is some actionable items.

And so they are in the process of drafting a set of recommendations.

Where we are with that is it was listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register earlier this year.

That application is currently being reviewed by National Park Service for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

And within that survey, it identifies the items, the characteristics, the elements that are important.

Not sure

how much in the next step will get into this cultural landscape study that I try and see it more as a maintenance study, maintenance plan for how we're going to treat things going forward.

So that's where that is.

The survey was done, the nomination was done, now we're just waiting.

but yes you're correct the actual items things for council to be aware of I think what I've stressed internally is that I still I go back to

Beth's comment here in this room about, you know, a mason could have, you know, been working, they could have had someone fixing the runnels and working their way back down the mall.

So what brought it about was when I started there was a $50,000 ask for the CIP and for a cultural landscape study, maintenance

plan for the mall.

Then when the money was allocated and I was sort of going, gosh, what am I, I'm not exactly sure what, you know, we got the funds, but it wasn't, there were several opinions on what that plan should look like.

So I was working with Oaks and Parks and Rec towards a larger look at the

Mall, including the trees and things, you know, trying to really pull all these things together.

Then COVID happened.

Then, you know, we went through a lot of different leaders in the city.

Uh, but it's the current leadership.

They came on board one of the questions.

What do I think are some of the important things?

You know, at the top of my list was

Understanding what the mall is and how we're going to maintain it and keep it going forward.

Who's responsible for what?

So that's, I think, and that got the city manager's office's attention.

They're like, yeah, you're right.

Who's in charge?

I think to Brett's point about one of the interesting things about these meetings that we've had is it's a diverse group of folks

that are very involved in the mall and they're hearing the story of the mall or they're hearing how things happened, how things got to where they are.

It's been an interesting learning experience, I think, for everybody.

They understand the mall better, so if nothing else, we've got a group of individuals who can communicate and talk about the mall and how we got here and where we're going.

So yeah, what comes next out of this?

involved in that, but the, Brecht and I talked, what would be interesting to hear from you all is, I don't know, what are the things on the mall, how did I characterize it as, you know, what are the things, if you were in charge of the mall, what are the things that would keep you up at night?

Well, what, what,

Let me just throw this out.

I hadn't really thought about this until the conversation about tonight.

What if we, since we're in the mode of identifying contributing structures, can we identify them all as a contributing structure?

I've always felt so.

I think the cafe spaces definitely need to be revisited.

We've been saying that for some time.

There's things in the cafe spaces that are, people are doing.

They're not addressed in the guidelines, but maybe they're fine.

Well, Maplewood Cemetery is in a district, and I don't think we've ever approved a headstone.

Well, no, I don't mean it to be sarcastic.

I mean, in a sense that there is that uncertainty about

Contributing structure is almost, this came up with the statues, but they were almost always buildings.

But there are other elements within the landscape that have been implied as protected in other parts of it.

I think I could see the benefit to having a chapter in the guidelines about it.

I do think if it's publicly owned, we need to be more of a recommender rather than final arbiter, if I'm using the right words.

What do you mean publicly owned?

Like it's streets, parks.

Streets are publicly owned.

Yeah, so I think that we need to have the role of, the city needs to consult us when they're doing work on public improvements within a district.

They have, but there's always been that debate of

Right, but I guess it's always, it's been a funny thing where there seems to be an argument, and Jeff, I mean, you could correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be an argument among staff of, well, why does the B.A.R.

Here's one way, and I'm sorry to wash city laundry on channel 10, but for example, street lights.

The street lights are a big deal, street trees are a big deal.

Those are primarily, a lot of those are in the public right of way.

So when we talk about the ordinance, you know, a lot of people say, we need to do this and that.

And I'm like, yeah, but this ordinance only covers, you know, that private property line in and the BAR doesn't look at the street lights in every street.

So, you know, I've often said, well, what if the whole what if we had the

the lighting guidance that we provide and applied it to the whole city.

People look at you funny, that would solve so many problems.

But it is that question of when do we, not you all, but when do you all get involved?

I was recently asked, apparently the lights on West Main, when they went to an LED fixture,

The BAR was asked if they should have glass on the, because the type of fixture doesn't have glass on it, but if you go walk down West Main, they have glass on it.

Somebody in that department says that's costing us, you know, X hundred dollars a light to put the glass on it.

I have no idea.

It makes me mad.

They installed on West Main Street, they installed all the lights without the glass.

And the BAR, this was before I was on the board, but my understanding is that they required that the city replace all the heads with glass.

And it wasn't requirement, it was that

It was after the fact though, because they replaced them all.

So I've been asked, will the BAR reverse that?

I was like, I don't, I can't see it.

I don't know exactly how to answer that.

So that's sort of the question of, you know, what, you know, West Main district covers, you know, West Main, but if somebody changes the,

utility poll, do we look at it?

Another example is streetscape projects.

And I often said, like the East High, you know, streetscape, I said, you've had this whole community driven process and people have been involved.

And you're going to bring it to the BAR and ask if they approve it or not.

kind of, you know, or West Main Street scape.

So I don't know if the ordinance is the place to clarify that, but Carl's bringing up a good point.

It's something that needs to be clarified.

Because too often, people go, well, what do you think, Jeff?

I mean, I think we should always get the way in.

Right.

The city would come here.

Well no, to get our recommendation.

To get our recommendation.

It's the same way that almost everything the Planning Commission does is just a recommendation.

I had actually encouraged them when you all made the decision to appeal it to Council and not to say, you know, that darn BAR, but to simply say, BAR following its guidelines made this decision.

You all

get to decide, you know, you can decide if you think this important.

And I and they didn't.

So that was my recommendation.

The idea of putting up the barricades, they said, it was brought to my attention that these are similar to the cafe space railings.

If we follow these, you can review it in administratively as like, you're correct, or you're turning the fountains on.

So I really

I was in a corner a bit, but it's something that I can review, and so that's why you have the barricades up there now, or the railings, and so that one's on me, but I just felt like these things have got to go on, and I've had more comments about how cool the fountains are.

It really has changed.

Yeah, they work.

You can hear them.

I don't love the chemically treated water sign.

What are you drinking it?

I haven't been there.

But I was on the mall the other day.

My kids came in town.

And whenever they come in town, I go to these forced marches all over town.

But we were on the mall, and there were kids playing in the main fountain.

It was kind of like, that's nice.

Haven't seen that.

I disagree with you Carl.

I think that the mall is a significant designed landscape that is where every bit of worthy of protection as many of the actually more worthy of protection than a lot of the structures that we review and I think that's not just a matter of courtesy that's that's actually something that our city has invested in and committed to and we are a very small section of the

representing the city to help maintain that quality of that space.

Did you get your five minutes out?

so the question so it's just a I guess I take that as an update as soon I'm not sure what format or even what will be included in a draft set of recommendations other than I would look to share that with you as soon as I see anything and

continue to have you think about ways that we could better administer effective oversight of changes on the Mall.

It is like a sub-area.

It has like two sentences in it.

It mentions help run like once.

And there is a lot of language on the vendor spaces in the mall.

But that's in a totally different section.

It's not included in our design guidelines.

There's the civic space chapter, which is sort of all over the place.

I think that's another one that could be better organized and broken down.

and when you're talking about what to evaluate for a new public building versus a park, I think there could be some clarification added to that.

But it is a conversation that's occurring internally as well, and I'm very much in the middle of it.

So any thoughts, they're always welcome.

I would appreciate it if you had thoughts, even if it said there were five things in the mall that

would worry about the most, what would they be kind of thing.

Well, it would be, that's a question, the sub area as it's described includes description of the facades and the structures that are adjacent to it.

And the side streets.

So one of the things has been if

Some of the side streets aren't, they read as a street, they don't read as a place.

But if we brick them over, even if you allowed vehicles still use them, but they could be used alternatively on, you know, some days for markets or whatever, would that changing that surface, you know, help transform that space and how it's used and how it's perceived?

Okay, if we did that,

Do we want to replicate them all or is the mall sacrosanct?

Do you want to, you know, would it be something different?

It's those sort of design questions and I think I would argue for the, you know, decisions, you know, the BAR should be consulted and but I think it would have to

It would mean that there are some things established in the guidelines that come from that inventory, that historic survey.

And so that we have criteria to go on.

It's not just the BAR, let's figure out a cool design.

It's know our guidelines instruct the following.

I already have it.

But no, it doesn't include the buildings.

If you look at the face of the buildings, you'll see first bricks out are turned so that the property line actually is often right outside the wall, so that's all the private space.

Well, as far as when we refer to the downtown mall in its context as a, what did you say, the lawn is not a facility?

As a facility, as a place, it is the, in this context, it is what's within the public right of way.

Because what's, you know, B.A.R.

has purview over the buildings and the sides.

All right.