Board of Architectural Review Meeting   2/21/2024

My daughter got a little dinner bell for her birthday.

I should just bring that in.

All right.

Good evening, everybody.

Welcome to this 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.

The chair will then ask for questions from the public, followed by questions from the BAR.

after questions are closed, the chair will ask for comments from the public and then the BAR.

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

Speaker shall identify themselves and provide their address.

We'd like to ask that they please step up to the podium.

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

Following the BAR's discussion and prior to taking action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond.

Our consent agenda, sorry, excuse me, matters from the public, not on the agenda or the consent agenda.

Tonight's consent agenda just contains minutes from this past December and January.

Are there any matters from the public to bring before the BAR?

No hands raised at the moment.

Thank you.

All right, consent agenda.

Did anyone have any items on the consent agenda?

Wanted to discuss?

Move to approve the consent agenda consisting of the December and January B.A.R.

Thank you, Ms.

Lewis.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Consent agenda passes.

No deferred items.

Our first new item is 222 and 224 Court Square.

This is a COA request for addresses 222, 224, Court Square.

This is two adjoining office spaces.

This is an 1830s building in Court Square.

The request is to remove two wood doors and I'll just quickly, that's the door at 224.

and that is the existing door at 222.

All evidence, including photographs, records, documents, indicate these are not the original doors.

They are certainly old, but they are not original to these openings.

What is nice is both doors seem to still have the transoms and trimmed

and Frames that are described in earlier surveys, but the doors are not.

The applicant is requesting to replace them both with a six-panel door or two six-panel doors painted in dark black or green and at first, you know, just sort of trying to determine

Do these doors indicate anything?

Is there anything typical in Courts Square?

I don't think we know that.

I think they're certain these are not original.

I think they could be hung on a wall as art.

Don't know where they came from, but I think the staffing sits fine to replace them and with the six panels.

There's no evidence that the hardware's historic or I don't even know what an 1830 lock looks like.

So I'm very comfortable with recommendation and Dan, if you had anything you want to add, I have your images.

I know in the meeting I was asked somewhat about the applied trim.

The race panel sketch that you showed seemed fine, but I think that was the only thing that was outstanding.

So if you've got any questions, do you have any questions, Dan?

I don't have much at it.

This is actually my office space that I live in.

Do we have any questions from the public?

Do you not see anything?

Any questions from the BAR?

All right.

Any comments from the public?

You're our historian.

Okay.

Jeff, if you could go to the, I guess I'll call it the shop drawing.

So my only comment is, we'd prefer it if you could remove that applaud molding that's on the surface of the door itself.

Sure.

The integral panel molding to the style is fine.

OK.

Yeah, I mean, these are going into being custom built.

But now we can definitely get rid of that applied molding.

But essentially the railing style with the molding integral to the railing style to hold the panel is appropriate.

If I could offer to in whatever you shape as a motion, having dealt a lot with doors in the past and hot-ball openings, whatever the door is sized for, that the lock is centered on lock rail and also centered on the style, I don't know the formal name, block style, so that it's not

Everything centered appropriately.

Like vertically, so... Both.

Right, but what will happen is so centered on the lock rail, be centered there, but then also to center it.

So it doesn't end up with like a doorknob over here or over here.

You try to, whatever you size, it's going to have to be custom.

The rail and styles can be sized and dimensioned so that the locks that would be centered in there.

Just a curiosity question.

My understanding is that the doors themselves are different designs because the current landlord replaced them maybe 20 years ago with doors she had in a barn.

I can answer that actually.

The steps going up to each used to be wood and I don't know if they were

You know, what had been there, and it may have also been a function of, well, I've got doors of these size so that stoop was made to fit a door that someone found in a salvage charge.

I mean, the two doors are also just different because they're not really, it's two different buildings.

I'm glad you specified on lacquered brass.

You show a square-leaf hinge.

Having considered the standards set forth from the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I moved to find at the proposed entrance alterations at 222 and 224 Court Square satisfy the BAR's criteria

and our compatible with this property and the other properties in the ADC district and that the BAR approves the request with the following conditions that the applied panel molding shown in the shop drawings is removed that the

New Lockset is centered on the lock rail and lock style such that it also conforms with ADA code and that the hinges are true square but hinges.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

No opposed?

I thought you were going to come out, someone was going to come out, then I was sticking on, I slipped and almost put my, it was a rainy night, almost put my hand through your window, that was it.

Okay, and then.

So next we have a preliminary discussion, 1609 Gordon Avenue.

Let's quickly introduce this while waiting for Kevin's.

Okay, hang on a second and share this and then here we go.

So this is a

preliminary discussion for proposed new apartment building at 1609 Gordon Avenue so it you all will not take any action tonight but as with other preliminary discussions the goal here is to answer any questions the applicant might have certainly get to any questions that you all might have the idea of being what

is necessary to get towards a successful application, not necessarily saying it.

that guarantees approval, but to get to where you all have the information you need to make a decision.

This is within the Rodby Road, University Circle, Venomable Neighborhood, ADC District.

The existing building was constructed in 1963.

It is non-contributing.

Therefore, it can be raised without BAR approval.

However, anything new constructed on the site does require a COA.

with anything that for preliminary discussions, any project that has a projected construction cost in excess of $350,000 does require a review with the full BAR.

If it's something less than that, we could have had a meeting with a couple of BAR members, but the fact of the cost that kicks it into that mandatory review, same thing with the next project coming up for Park Street.

and I said we've got in the staff report I've taking what the guidelines typically recommend heights, widths, setbacks, stepbacks, etc.

massing scale and you know some of the recommendations based on what are the existing historic buildings nearby.

This is the first project that you

Jeff Grimm unit.

All right, this is the first project you all be looking at with the new ordinance, I guess it adopted.

So there are

there are some conditions in the zoning that relative to step back, step back, heights, et cetera, which that you all have, I think as we've always done the BAR, can make recommendations.

to mitigate the height.

But if you've got questions, we can go through that.

We might have some questions that I have to go back and ask up the ladder.

So if it seems I don't have the answer, my apologies, but we'll figure that out.

And I was asked about, I referenced the zoning being RX3.

The Council was approving the final map.

This was an area that got changed.

It was one of the late changes and it was bumped to RX-5.

I talked to Mr. Schaefer and he's fine continuing with the assumption of the, or not the assumption of, but using the

the parameters of the RX-3 in their design here.

So I know that might be subject to change.

Kevin, you can certainly discuss that, but just to make clear, the property is owned RX-5.

And with that, I just hand it over to you, Mr. Zehmer, and sort of have a conversation.

Good evening, I'm Kevin Davor, I'm the Charlottesville Studio Director for Design and Development.

Thank you, Jeff, for that introduction.

I'll talk about it, but so it's really helpful.

This is a brave new world in terms of the new zoning, and I think we're

There's some BAR guidelines that we'll be navigating with zoning requirements as well.

And so we are looking to be mindful and respectful of both.

And I hope that we can illustrate tonight how we are being mindful of both.

If you go to the next slide.

As Jeff mentioned, the existing structure was built in 1963.

I believe it's a triplex.

Currently, it's student housing.

It is not particularly handsome or significant, but also from a ownership perspective, it is

it's getting to the point in its lifespan where either significant whole scale renovation at significant cost is required or there's an opportunity with the new zoning on the table to sort of put a foot in the ground and make an improvement on the site.

The existing structure is not significant or contributing per the city's service as Jeff mentioned.

On the next slide

So we have these slides are all from your booklet too.

The only thing we'll be presenting that's new is kind of an update to the site plan today.

But this shows the maximum building footprint, which is 5,951 square feet.

We have front setbacks that are required to be between 5 and 15 feet.

And we have zero lot lines on the zero side setbacks, zero rear setbacks as well.

From a building code perspective, it's not particularly beneficial to go all the way to the zero side and rear yard.

We need at least three feet from those property lines so that we can get windows in, so that we can get glazing in.

It's not a zero setback condition that we're going to be proposing.

It's actually more like three and a half feet on the side, three and a half to four feet on the rear.

And so what that does is that ends up bringing our building footprint down to five thousand three hundred and seventy five square feet.

So ten percent

about a 10% reduction from that kind of max building footprint.

You can go to the next slide if you don't mind.

Here's the proposed state plan kind of hot off the presses this afternoon, which shows the side setbacks and the rear setback.

And we do have a five foot alley setback on the side as well, which will require significant screening in the new zoning due to active interiors, I think the language that's used is required.

and so we'll have some significant landscaping on the side of the parcel as well as what's required on the front as well if you could go to the next slide.

from a massing perspective, though, here's just a diagram that shows those new setbacks on the site.

So three and a half feet.

We are pushing up against our front setback.

We're holding that 15-foot line.

We're trying to be sympathetic of the context and keep in mind

ABCD guidelines about relating to the adjacent structures.

So we actually, we can't, from a zoning perspective, go back any further.

I will say, and maybe the next slide would be helpful at this point.

Yeah, here we go.

We do have a pretty significant front yard from our front of the parcel, like the front property line to the street, which starts to make the front yard feel bigger than just the 15 foot maximum that we're allowed.

The district itself has a wide variety of uses.

Even you can just see from this aerial image here, there's many churches, many multifamily sorority and fraternity houses that are a wide variety of scales and a wide variety of styles as well.

On the next page, you can see just some of our immediate adjacent contexts, which includes the Martha Jefferson House directly across the street.

that's the first church of scientists I believe and on the next slide you can see additional district context on Gordon Ave and 16th Street all of which has some fairly significant footprints associated with it and some fairly significant

Building Masses.

When we start to evaluate this from a building massing perspective and how we can start to relate to the ADCD guidelines and we look at our adjacent context it doesn't feel necessarily out of scale.

On the next slide.

This round elevation is a great one.

First, we're holding three stories in height, even though RX-5 does allow up to 72 feet in height, five stories.

This building is 31 feet to the Eve line, 40 feet to the Ridge line.

If we were to pursue affordable housing bonuses, we could have a seven-story, 100-foot tall building.

Obviously,

You start to think about the implications of that on the district and it's not contextual.

It's not aware of its surroundings.

It's going to get very disproportionate.

But that is currently what the site is zoned for.

We are voluntarily holding it to three stories.

It helps from a building code perspective as well as just being contextual and being aware of the guidelines and the massing and associating with the adjacent height.

on the next slide.

We're also giving care to breaking down the width

Staff Report talks about the adjacent structure's widths and recommendations on widths.

And so it is, you know, important to break down this 75-foot parcel into much smaller building portions.

And so we have a gable building form that fronts Gordon Ave.

It's parallel with Gordon Ave.

It's 36 and a half feet wide.

There's a gable form that turns itself in front and faces Gordon and I on the corner of the alley that's 22 feet wide and in between there's an eight foot staircase that accesses like an interior courtyard, interior circulation system.

So we're breaking down the mass of the building into very kind of relatable, digestible portions and taking effort to do so and expressing that circulation element.

On the next slide.

We're being mindful of the guidelines in, if you like, key ways as well, you know, porches and pedestrian level street design, street oriented design.

Face, this Gordon Ave.

We don't have any vehicular entrances off Gordon Ave or on the front of the parcel.

You drive down the alley to access the garage in the rear.

We're utilizing materials that are contextual and commonly found in the district, standing seam metal roof, brick on the base, hardy panel on the body.

We are orienting the facade in the same level of the street, and we have a very orderly and kind of rational rhythm in terms of breaking down this building.

And if you go to the next slide, the overall concept of this building was we have this unique and interesting 75 by 100 foot parcel.

It's kind of rare.

You have this perfectly rectangular parcel that's perfectly square.

and so take the step back and set it in and you have a rectangular brick mass that you can extrude through stories and then we know we need to break down that mass and so we employ these two-storey gable elements with the traditional building form and we break down this brick mass.

We allow the brick to still be a masonry anchor on the bottom and where the

two-story gable elements, and we have this kind of background brick building that is very rational, very rhythmic, very kind of orderly.

On the next slide you can see how we're tucking the garage in the back, but we are also utilizing some

more contemporary glazing elements to accentuate what's happening on the inside.

So where there's living rooms and gathering spaces on the inside, we have the opportunity to break the rule a little bit from the traditional two to one window proportions and make a larger window bay that starts to just break down a larger facade.

and create more of a dynamic element on what could otherwise become a little bit static if it was so rational and orderly and prescriptive.

On the next slide, and I think I'm pushing up against my 10 minutes here, so this will be the last slide.

This just shows from a pedestrian perspective how the mass is appropriately broken down.

It's a traditional building form that has some contemporary elements that create a

and a very engaging presence from the street.

As Jeff mentioned, this is a preliminary discussion, so we're very eager for your feedback and eager for the discussion.

We know we need to come back with a full landscape plan and exterior lighting and in fact some of the site plan stuff that I just had up there, the new site plan showed 88 ramps that we need to work through and things like that.

All right, thank you, sir.

Right before we jump in, I guess I want to make sure, do you have any specific questions for us or specific things you want us to address other than just in general?

I think the party is really strong.

I think that breaking it down into the masses that you have and kind of expressing what you call the circulation or the interior courtyard is a nice move to get these forms to be in scale with the rest of the community.

So I applaud you for that.

I think there's good bones to work with here.

I agree with your massing comment.

I think that, especially from above, you really get the sense of how you, not that you appreciate massing from above, but the different roof forms really, I think, shows the diagram of how you're breaking that big square down into these individual parts.

And I applaud you for kind of being sensitive in that way and being sensitive to setbacks and

and so on.

A strong street.

I had a couple of questions, I guess.

A few comments I guess I have just off the bat as

The breakdown of it, you know, composition, it seems like it's third, a third, a third, you know, from the bass and then the upper portion.

And I almost kind of feel like it's a little top hit to be almost like wondered what it would be like if you pushed it down a little bit and created more of a, you know, you're talking about that bass being an anchor.

and I wonder if the anchor would feel more like an anchor if it was a little bit compressed a bit so that the top portion wasn't elevated?

I don't know.

I guess the way it's rendered right now, the top portion actually looks like it's protruding out beyond the brick.

Is that the intention there?

I don't think that would be necessarily a bad thing.

It could be kind of an interesting detail depending on how you relate the base to the top.

Since this is a preliminary discussion, just something to think about how that base relates more to the top.

and then you know also I don't know how I feel about the windows into the garage in the back you know and I wonder if there's an interesting way since you're evolving into a more contemporary style towards the back if there's a way to screen the brick or there's a way to do you know create something more

You know, a more interesting texture with the brick or maybe even looking at some different color combinations.

I agree with the massing concept that you've proposed.

I think my issue is more with materials.

I know our guidelines say that fire cement panels are appropriate, but

It seems to me they're more appropriate as an accent versus an entire face of a building It looks like you're using a reveal system, which is neat and clean and modern But I have never seen that done nicely Maybe you guys could change that but it is it does make the facade very monolithic and it is It's very stark I think the starkness is

takes away some of the residential character from the neighborhood.

So I don't know if there could be, and the rest of the board may disagree with me on this, because it's going to make it a little less modern, but some additional materiality to it.

I do strongly feel that the five-person panels should not be used as a full field, but instead maybe you accent around your two-story windows or something with them, and then go with a different material.

I know what our guidelines say, but I prefer EFIS to Fibersmith panels, just the way it comes out nicer.

And it looks more in keeping with traditional materials.

It looks more like sacco.

And yeah, I agree on the commercial roof.

I think you actually did provide a material cut, and it did show a commercial ridge cap, which is one of the big no-nos on our guidelines.

So in general, I think you are on the right track with how you're keeping it to three stories.

And the way that you've broken it down, not sold on the exterior stair.

I think I give every applicant who does this a little bit of hard time on that.

You guys did a beautiful job on Virginia Avenue.

But I feel like the materiality on that project was a bit different.

And there was more richness to facade.

and maybe as this develops it will be the same level.

It'll work out the same way but just I guess to be somewhat cautious of that because the building is lacking a front door.

It just has a big kind of slot opening in the middle of it which again kind of is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

and actually looking at all your elevations for some odd reason.

The site of the west elevation, to me, feels like the most successful because it actually feels a little bit smaller.

I don't know if that's just because it's brick as low or because it's a parapet cap or throwing it out there is something that seemed kind of strange to me that I don't know why that seemed almost a little more appropriate.

I did have a question about that.

It looks like you had a garage door opening on the west side.

No.

Can't drive through the site, but we did need like a hammerhead turnaround.

Okay, okay.

Some of the some of the openness from a building code perspective was so this is an enclosed parking garage.

That's not to say like we can't explore or create opportunities to screen that parking garage.

That makes sense.

And in your right, I think our zoning codes issues with active depth are probably going to catch you.

So I think you will be forced to do something anyways.

So yeah, I'm not trying to, I think this is a really great, it's a good start.

I think that the massing makes a lot of sense with the brick volume and then the smaller house-sized feel of the gable volumes.

kind of street scape and looking at the lines.

And I think the way that you're talking about relating to the new zoning code and also taking into concept the existing context, I don't have any issues with kind of where the building sits.

It seems like it might be a little more regular down the street, but it seems like

A lot of these properties do kind of have, they vary in the setback, so I think

I don't have any issues with where the building is situated.

Jumping into the materiality conversation, the only piece that feels odd to me is along the alley elevation.

I understand the brick inside the courtyard as the mass, but then when you see it between the two gables,

Seeing the brick floating there feels odd.

I don't know if you want to bring in a third material.

Maybe you do at that point or switch to just a different color of whatever the fiber cement or the stucco ends up being.

It's a place we kind of debated and struggled with internally and do you introduce the fourth material in one location and it feels like a one-off?

Do you respond to the party which is this brick-massing?

And that's really all I had as far as comments.

I echo everything that everybody said, so I'm not going to repeat, but thank you.

Nice job.

We look forward to seeing how it develops.

No, thank you all for thoughtful comments.

We appreciate it.

It sounds like materiality, addressing materiality to kind of emphasize the residential nature more so, even if that means maybe

and so on.

some screening, just trying to summarize, maybe some different approaches around the garage and whether that extends on that slot on the eastern facade.

Is there any way to lower the garage lab level?

Because it does kind of go up where you enter.

It appears at least, but I remember that was

I was telling everybody that was my first place of residence in Charlottesville.

It goes up.

The alley goes up and then the existing house is kind of up on that bank and at some point they meet, you know, as it's going.

So I don't think the garage actually goes up and it may appear so in our renderings once the site plan develops.

There's some creativity that can be made there for lowering the slab of the garage to sink things.

Carl mentioned the west elevation, but I'm kind of drawn to the north elevation for some reason.

When you say compression at the base,

does the gable form start to come lower, or does the brick form start to come up to like a second story still?

Well, it's just my personal opinion, but I think it's just the proportion of the base to the upper part, having a less of a one third, two thirds,

having the base appear more like a, you know, bringing the, bringing that top two thirds down a bit so it's not the top heavy.

Got you.

Okay.

All right.

Just a comment that is not directly on your preliminary drawings or the proposed.

But I just wanted to thank you because we've got two pages in the submission, which is a preliminary discussion that shows not only did you read the guidelines, which sometimes I'm not sure if some of our applicants actually have even laid eyes on the guidelines, but you take guidelines and you project them

and interpret them and say this is how we're trying to meet the guidelines and that approach is really above and beyond what we usually get and I certainly appreciate it.

I mean, I know it's in some way it's a persuasive piece, you want us to approve this, but it also is just, you know, it's really helpful.

Great.

It's a hard way.

I've mentioned to Kevin several times his submittals, you know, help explain the design.

And like with Portland Street, the progression of the scale and the massing.

So, yeah, the applications are very helpful.

I just wanted to offer one thing.

I was a little scared when you started beating up on the building because Dave had told us earlier that this was his first house or first housing in Charlottesville, so I thought I was going to talk about what a terrible plan.

One thing that Carl had raised years ago, the parking area and screening,

I see from a parking perspective the openings are

Yeah, that's one thing that's come up.

And I absolutely won't pretend to be recasting her.

But I think one of the challenges we have, particularly with the new zoning, is what space is left for trees.

And Carl, you can maybe, when we talk about guidelines later, reflect on the conversation the planning commission might speak about.

You know, how do you put a 60 foot tree in a 10 foot space?

So how that's treated.

But to just looking at the drawing, one of the things that struck me in this neighborhood, there's a lot of low walls.

And this isn't maybe the best image to show it, but

Does that help?

It looks like it's sitting on top of a little knoll.

Just an observation.

OK, so it is just a slope.

It's a bank, and I don't think there's a sidewalk on this side of the street currently that we know is going to be required.

The bank could be sort of pointed out to feel like a more structural element there.

You can probably help it.

I think just a layer of landscaping, obviously when you get to it, I know these are just placeholders right now.

I will say our owner did make the comment to our civil engineer that one area that he doesn't want to shortchange is landscaping.

I think he's a big landscape guy.

All right.

All right.

Alright, well we had a scratch on our line-up, so we've got room for an additional better.

And I appreciate you all allowing me to bring in a backup pitcher here or hitter, runner, whatever.

Just had an opportunity with the 747 project being pulled from the discussion and talking to Kevin yesterday.

Just an opportunity to get him for you all.

This is another preliminary discussion.

Again, because of the scale required by our code to meet with full VR and have a discussion.

745 Park Street.

It was actually a zero park tree, so you get a new, the chaos of changing your address like moving without moving at all and going through all that fun.

But the, this came to you to the BAR, I think a year or two or three ago, proposal to remove or to demolish the existing house that was there.

Hang on, let me get the

and in the interim, Mr. Riddle has, well you can explain why, but in lieu of removing the existing house and reconstructing to go to the parcel behind the existing house

and so on.

at that end of Park Street, only the west side is in the historic district.

Maybe there's ten houses there between the, there's only eight between the bypass and the church ranging from late 1800s to 1920s, 1930s.

On the east side are a lot of single and historic half brick buildings from the 34s and 50s.

And it's also a lot of vegetation.

This is, again, behind.

This is well behind an existing house.

So sort of saying what's necessary for it to be appropriate in the district.

I don't know, I feel like the campus is an opportunity to be a little blank here.

Our guidelines do encourage, in fact, I have a note that I'll emphasize it to myself that the

In the guidelines for new construction under details and decoration, it goes on to describe what to do.

Do you try to mimic historic?

Do you try to do something new?

And the conclusion is drawn that more successful new buildings may take their cues

from clues from historic images and reintroduced and reinterpreted designs of traditional decorative elements or may have a modernist approach in which details of decoration are minimal.

So the guidelines give permission here for a level of creativity and the site and location.

So with that,

I'll make a brief introduction to the proposal.

This is an independent structure, a pretty modest one, about a thousand square feet that we're proposing to build and a lot behind our property at 745 Park Street.

We had applied for a demolition of the house a couple years ago, maybe it has been a couple years ago, but our plans changed and so we're going to keep the house and we want to build now.

This is about 80 feet behind the house.

In fact, one of the things that is prominent in the backyard, you see it in the foreground, is a nice walnut tree.

We might have considered

building this closer to the existing house, but the tree compelled us to have it in this location.

It's rather far from other houses.

Yeah, maybe even the next image, Jeff.

So there you see an aerial and the site is identified.

We have the large Baptist Church there to the southwest.

The house directly to our south, you all have seen before where they removed the aluminum siding.

It's been painted very nice.

And I think you're going to be hearing more about the house to our north in future meetings.

And the next slide, Jeff, if you could go to that.

Actually, one more.

This is a survey kind of repeating some of the info you saw there.

So there's the existing house from the 1950s with 745 over it.

That's what we're keeping for now.

We do plan to improve it at a future phase, but we're holding off for now.

So the proposed house is the one you see at the west.

There's a large walnut tree between the existing house and the proposed

and so we just wanted to put this in front of you, let us know what our plan is here.

It's a house that will be

Rarely visible from public ways.

You have Park Hill that's up at the very north.

It's a dead-end street at the very north of this photograph.

And there's places where you can peek through, but again, the house is rather low.

There's a lot of plantings.

In winter, of course, it's going to be a little more visible through there, but barely so.

If you look up our driveway to the rear, you might get glimpses of it occasionally when there's no vehicles there.

And then between 747 and 745, you might also be able to get some glimpses.

We do have some rather large arbor vitae in the front yard, which I don't know if they're our favorite, but they are very big.

So they do screen the property quite a bit.

I think the rest of the presentation gives you a rundown of the basic material palette we're going for here.

Alster, I'll just be quick.

I think you'd have to do something really egregious for me to have any concerns about this.

So I think what you have looks beautiful and it's just a little, it looks like a little backyard pavilion.

I have absolutely no concerns.

I have a question.

So is this two lots?

It is a separate lot.

We have a number of hoops to negotiate whether we consolidate the lots.

It's possible we could call it non-conforming and still develop it, but I suspect that the bank might have some issues with that.

And if that's the case, does it then not need its own access?

Yeah, that's a good question.

We don't have anything proposed at the moment.

It's possible we'll want to extend the driveway somewhat.

I'm a little reluctant to give up much of the backyard and the space in between the houses to car parking.

But perhaps it would be practical and useful to create something there to screen it somewhat.

We'll also eventually want some sort of

But aside from that, I mean, I agree with Carlos.

This is a really handsome, nice little jewel back there.

Maybe I should ask, at next month's meeting or whenever we bring it back for formal presentation, is there any more information basically within the application that would be helpful to you in making a vote?

Right.

Yes.

Well, there's one extremely long step there that has just some supports underneath it.

I really appreciate the sort of location of this in relationship to the tree.

It looks like a beautiful tree.

It seems like a really suitable way to deal with that long property.

I think it's good land use.

It's appropriate in scale.

Oh, well, and also that the chestnut tree, the Chinese chestnut tree to the southwest, the balls that it sheds, you know, I know.

And walnut can also stain.

Yeah, right.

No, for sure.

Yeah, just I agree with

The other board members, I don't see anything reason to object to this.

I just offer that as friendly advice on materiality and thinking about, you know, light colors are going to stain if it's under a wall or a tree.

But you're showing dark, so.

Right, right.

And I agree with Carl that we'd want to see lighting.

No, I just know this is a, you're on a very high point in North downtown and I don't know if, I don't know if the parking lot is at grade or whether it begins to slope down but obviously by beyond the parking lot then you're, you know,

You're at a pretty nice place.

Yeah, it appears to me with our property that we'd need to be up at maybe a roof over a second story, really, before we could start to have some of the views, which you're right, we are on a bit of a ridge there.

But there actually are also some nice views to the east, especially in wintertime.

I think with this particular structure, our hope is that just the porch that we have facing our existing house is going to be a nice place to hang out and gather.

Kind of a nice array of plantings between our property and the ones out there, too, so it'll feel pretty secluded.

I have no comments at all about the materials, you know, even in your little sub-block of Park Street, you've got just about every exterior material imaginable, and this looks like a wonderful little project.

And it really is the fact that it's not seen from public views or really from any other private properties except for

504 Park Hill, and I'm about to send that to the owners because I'll see them tomorrow, actually.

They're friends among the tailors.

Right.

Just so that they know what you're planning.

But gosh, there's a lot of privacy back there.

Right.

as someone who lives downtown in a modern, designed house, I really appreciate this design.

Okay, great.

All right.

We'll see you in the develop.

Thank you, Kevin.

We used to.

Sure.

I think we're done, right?

I know.

I'd like to move into the, I might take a two minute break, rearrange tables.

I don't, maybe it would have helped that he's sitting close to each other and having a conversation.

All right, for in case anybody's watching on TV or online, we're going to take a five minute break to reorganize the room and prepare for a discussion about our design guideline updates.

We'll be talking about the rugby road, university circle, Vinnable neighborhood, ADC district first, and then if we have time, we may cover one or two others.

Ding.

What I gave you all.

It's four pages, that's the rupee, and it's all four sides, those are the from the notebook thing that you put together.

Then I gave you a single page as the top with the draft.

Roger O'Rourke, Mr. Struppelman, Albemarle Negro District

Chapter of Design Guidelines and also here at the West Michigan Ridge Street District to get to it.

So what I was really proposing to do is, and I can get my Google car lined up, whatever is the best device to kind of, you know, guess, take some time here.

Tyler, you can

to kind of walk through your description and I guess just turn it over to you all to put the goal of, if we can at least get one, I'd love to get two districts talked through tonight, but

Do you have the thing I sent you earlier?

I do, and I forgot to print it.

OK.

But that was Westman, right?

No.

Maybe I left it out because I didn't think we would get to it.

So I'll drive the car.

You tell me where to go.

as the pilot would say to the bomber that the ship is yours.

The existing guidelines for this neighborhood were in decent shape.

I just tried to update them with some more context and some more kind of what's happened since.

I have a list of a few properties that I thought could be added that aren't contributing.

There's a lot of sub areas.

Each kind of have their own character.

I think sub area G, we could talk about whether that is in the correct district or not.

It's kind of the corner.

It's kind of Main Street.

So that one's up for debate.

But yeah, I would be happy to have any kind of comments on

anything.

I guess there is kind of an overall conversation about what the district should be called.

Currently, it's called Rugby Road, University Circle, Venable Neighborhood.

I guess the school is in the process of having the name changed.

I don't think it's become official.

Yes, the venerable name will be changing.

I use a confederate soldier and the schools are deciding to change the name.

There is

There is a Vinnable Neighborhood Association, so I don't know if the name lives on as part of the neighborhood or if we just refer to this as the rugby use circle neighborhood.

Is it actually registered?

I thought it was, Jeff.

I would propose leave any name changes to what Council might suggest because that would come down.

These are the neighborhoods.

There's somewhat artificial names that came out of the planning over the century, you know, of the city.

So it's curious.

Some places don't even, not even sure what the source of the neighborhood development name for it.

But I would just say, for right now, this is what the district is, and that's what we're talking about.

If Council wants to revisit it in the comprehensive plan, it may be in several steps to do that, so I think we can let it go.

One thing that was a large omission in the current guidelines are there's no mention of the school and it's quite a prominent building in the neighborhood so I did add that to sub area D but didn't refer to the name just to avoid any confusion if

So there were nine students and 59 that fought to have the school become integrated.

So they were known as the Venable Nine.

Some of them actually spoke to keep the name Venable, but the city schools wants to move on.

So Trail Blazers is kind of taking that name of people fighting to integrate being the Trail Blazers.

Correct.

Yeah, it's not a crossword puzzle that would fill in the blanks.

And some of them are redundant.

Some of them are unnecessary.

But it's just to provide a framework for discussion to say what about this neighborhood needs to be identified.

And the lesson I go back to, or at least the instruction I go back to, Tim Moore several years ago suggested it for any large-scale project.

We should, before even looking at the design, look at the district, look at the site and say, all right, what's the what's the preservation?

What are the principles that we're going to adhere to on this particular project?

You know, what's important here?

What matters here?

So the idea is that we can sort of generally, you know, we don't have to obviously any project comes in, we're going to take a finer grain look, you know, at

The property and what's nearby, but this is maybe to set the table for that.

And I feel like some of the things that are in the current descriptions are just sort of generic.

They don't really instruct you all as far as, you know, for example, I mentioned the low walls, you know, there are elements that, you know, that might be mentioned so that they, they come to play when we, you know, have a project come in.

That's all.

I think if you went down these lists and sort of thought about, you know, like for example, I know in university, I know over in this area there's a lot of old

Granite Kerpstones, and I often fight to save them when I can.

I'm not sure it's even mentioned in here.

I think it might be something in our general guidelines, but there are a lot of

retaining walls and stone walls in places.

And there's a brick pier, sentences in old subdivisions and things that, you know, we don't, we don't notice or mention.

We don't have to use the same format currently in Chapter 1, but it doesn't hurt to.

What's in this text here?

I simply pulled out of it, out of the guidelines.

And that's actually when you look at it sort of individually.

You know, it does kind of raise some questions about, you know, a mix of monitor to large scale fraternities, sororities, and apartment buildings.

Oh, that's my sorority house, hey.

That's our cottage out back.

Right there.

I'm sorry.

Yours?

Yeah, I didn't live in the cottage.

That's the cottage right there.

I guess I find the sub areas to almost be more important in terms of when we're evaluating a project because University Circle and 14th Street are very different characters and so I think maybe something is figuring out the broad stroke description that

encompasses the entire area and then really just leading folks towards focusing on the sub area.

Do you want to go through like, you know, use circle and then

I also feel like, I don't know if it's Tyler or Jeff.

I guess Tyler, you have a few structures that potentially could be added as contributing, which I think that is something that would be valuable for us to look at as a group.

The last time that was done is 2014, the BAR reviewed West Main ADC District and added five or six structures.

We can also remove some structures.

It certainly can.

The boundaries exist as far as a

The boundaries exist in Chapter 1 of our guidelines.

The ordinance says there are districts, but those boundaries and what's contributing are per those maps in our guidelines.

So recommending a change of those, the ordinance simply refers to the district as represented in the guidelines.

So yes, you can

I recommend that Council change some things.

Yeah, valid.

You would add it wasn't eligible, because I think a lot of it was.

And they could object if they wished to do so.

Would we need to notify

I mean, they are already subject to that review, but I think to let people know that this is being considered, they may say no.

You know, but that's where, again, council gets to make that decision.

I think that there's, you know, the cutoff point when these districts were established, you know, was that 50 years before everything's moved forward, you know, almost 20 years in some of these districts.

So, but at the same time, I think that it's

You know, you also have the opportunity as something comes in for alterations.

So I just wanted to, before I moved real quick, the reason I, one of the reasons I asked that question, and I don't know if you all heard that, since it was, in terms of adding lists,

Structures that are already within the boundary that we may want to list as contributing that are currently non-contruding, especially with the new zoning, that would then move them to a position where they would need to be our approval for demolition.

Right.

And so I think that is something that we need to keep in mind and, you know, if there's something that's worth saving, we should work towards listening and contributing before people start just tearing stuff down so they can build a big apartment.

As we're going, those apartment buildings are really interesting.

They're well preserved.

They're cool.

They're like three to four stories and just kind of unique.

Yeah, if we could go to like the intersection of U Circle and University Way,

Rehab and even some restoration to remove some nice dark elements.

Ooh, look at that.

Look at those windows.

Is that a check to it?

Yeah, I believe this is the check to the department, too.

All right, why don't you turn right?

I did not mention granite curbs in my write-up, so that would be something good to add.

1880 is just to the right.

Not the one on the street corner, but it's the next property in.

It's a little house.

It's from 1959.

It's not contributing, but it fits the neighborhood well.

Where are we going?

Oh, there you go.

57 listed.

Oh, sorry, 57.

So I will say, I know the front porch is new.

I think the doors are new.

I know this house came to us at one point.

I forget all that went into it, but there was an application.

And at the time, it was like 25 or 30 years old.

But, you know, hey, it's round.

I think there are probably some buildings after 1950 that would qualify.

I'm not sure if this one has anything that's really distinctive about it.

I don't know that those are old.

Really?

So the GIS map that Molly started to put together has like a historic district landmark for each of these properties.

So there is one for this house that pictures aren't great, so it's hard to tell.

It looks like the lower, there's a lower stone wall that's original.

There you go.

Just do the Google Time Warp thing.

So yeah, the porch is new.

It just feels like it fits in the neighborhood well.

So there is one that's like two houses down that we should look at that does have an architect associated with it, Milton Grigg.

The gray painted brick?

Oh, not this one.

The blue one is where I live when I first moved to Charlottesville with Dave Timmerman.

All right, that turn right, look to the right.

I'm tempted.

Anna Moynihan, who claimed to be Anastasia, and the whole Anastasia musical and book is about, she lived there.

Anybody interested in the University Cemetery?

No, people know the story.

I mean, is that an HDA historic figure?

Well, I'm just saying, if a reason to designate something is a connection with a historic figure, I would say she, at least her husband, he was really, he wasn't seen as cookie, except when he got older, the fact that he really believed the story, except for, well, he was, you knew him.

It is also my hand.

The center portion wasn't like that when I lived there.

It was just the two extending portions, but it was more like a breezeway between.

I'm not even sure that gable was there.

I think there was a door, but it was more like a breeze.

I think that was added.

I'm not sure.

I don't think it's going to go back that far.

goes to 2008 which does something is going on there but I'm not quite sure what oh there's a giant arrow in the middle of the arrow so it was there that's weird but it looks something's different oh there's the circle it looks like they just did the whole it looks like it's been completely redone that was a front yard when I was there

That probably is on a survey.

I can find the surveys.

I have the survey.

Circle.

So what do you want to see?

Does it have a picture?

I mean, you can't see anything.

I can't see anything.

OK.

It's dated as 1960.

It has an architect listed as Milton Greg.

It was, I think it was white or gray, but that middle part wasn't the same.

The challenge in the university circle is there are, one as you guys have noted, there are quite a few non-contributing structures and then everything else is somewhat eclectic and all over the place.

Some people have come in and renovated, updated some of the older buildings.

What I get most inquiries about

but the non contributing buildings is people want to replace the windows and that's been quite a few of those over here and if it's the 1980s building and so I get that but it's what when you've got something the other thing we get we have a lot of big trees in University Circle and I know as we went around the corner there was

And there's a, but this is where some of these have come down or they start leaning or they're, you know,

People have asked me, you know, if my tree came down in the storm, do I need to go to the BAR?

Now, any tree that is over eight inches in diameter needs to get a permit to come in.

The tree comes to City Hall and applies.

It's complicated.

So it's where, you know, when something comes in here, what are you

Oh, it's under HRC?

It would take probably a lot of digging.

But I guess, you know, I think that this is one where if we were able to do the research and show that this, that 35-university circle like still maintained its architectural integrity based on his original design, then perhaps it would be worth considering as an example of his architecture.

But if it's shown that it's changed a lot over the years, then probably not.

No worries for me if we don't add any of them to the list.

I appreciate it and I think I guess I don't think we're necessarily going to answer yay or nay on every single one of these tonight.

We might have some yay or nay and further research required.

Further research required.

Don't spend more than an hour.

I believe that's 1836 right there.

The two-story brick with the, I think it's stucco above.

Kind of an interesting building.

I think that's an 80s house.

What are we looking at?

The one on the right or the one on the left?

What are we talking about?

Sheri and I are going to see Richard I. Wilson tomorrow night.

Yeah, it looks like that's been really altered.

The upper level is not, not 1959.

Scratch it.

That's what design develops, wants to be.

Okay, normal.

Yeah, actually, based on what you were saying.

I kind of like it.

It's sort of like a little tiggerish.

It's pretty high for something that he added to the list.

I know downtown and north downtown there were some that just the council just said everything that's existing.

The districts have been created in a couple of different ways.

Primarily, they were in the late 70s, early 80s national register surveys and then the nomination and then what got designated

was then adopted by the city as the boundary generally.

For example, the Wartland Street district that's on the National Register has somewhat different boundary.

The city added some contributing structures that are not on the National Register.

Ridge Street, the city added some contributing buildings that are not on the National Register.

West Main Street National Register District goes all the way to Ridge Street, West Main ADC District.

So there's some variation, but the tendency has been in later districts to rely upon whoever completed the survey and their recommendation of what will be contributing or non-contributing for National Register District.

We are way behind in updating some of these district surveys.

When I say district updating, the National Register District Survey, again, they're done 30, 40 years ago.

So one option is to, when you're able to fund those, do those updates, and have the consultant make recommendations on contributing or not contributing.

That said, I think that there are some unique

James out there, and likely owners would be willing to, you know, someone might say, no, I don't want to, but if someone's willing to, it would certainly, I think, you know, if there are Milton Greeks houses out there, or, I don't know, Frank Lloyd Wright houses in Charlottesville or wherever, that, you know, sort of jump to the front of the line in this process, I think they're worth considering.

But I would agree that it's,

I don't know if this is a dumb question but

So like in this case, say the whole university circle was contributing houses, except for maybe this house and the one next door.

So the term contributing relative to a National Register District is that the DHR and the National Park Service prefer a district that is the sum of its parts.

so to something being contributing may or may not mean it's eligible for individual listing but it's that it's called a district so what is creates contributes to that district is considered contributing

In a section 106, National Historic Preservation Act Review, a contributing structure carries the same regulatory weight as a, you know, something that's individually listed.

Now, scrub that off, drop down to city designated historic districts.

We say contributing, non-contributing.

The only thing that means is that you will review demolition of contributing.

You don't review non-contributing.

But in alteration to a non-contributing, you will still review.

And there needs to be some sort of, I don't know, some sort of like guideline or regulation for that situation for the key certain

I like the development that was on Park Street, the one that was recently remodeled, you know, that kind of affordable development that was on the corner.

The neighborhood properties.

It looks good.

You know, I mean, like, that idea of like, protecting the sort of fabric of a neighborhood, or a special neighborhood, or a special street.

Well, you all do have the ability, again, anything that happens on a property within the district is under your purview.

If someone, this house right here, which is non-contributing, if they wanted to alter it, they would still have to come to the BAR.

If they want to knock it down and build something new, then something new would have to go to the BAR.

And that's one of the challenges here we have.

There's a lot of stuff the BAR has approved over the last

you know, 50, 60 years, believe it or not, there's been a BAR since I think the 1950s.

So are those in that they are approved?

Should they become contributing, you know, automatically?

But I think that it's where when something comes into this neighborhood, for example, this, you know, when they said

or the project on Corden Avenue you just looked at.

What is it that

that design needs to emulate, respect, ignore.

That's the challenge we have.

We know this is a university neighborhood.

We know it's past.

What we are not articulating or we need to articulate is when design development comes in for, you know, because this house next door is, you know, a 1980s house or whatever, or actually next one this way.

What is it that you all want to see?

I think that we say wooded lots.

I don't know.

It really does.

I mean, large street trees.

Are large street trees prominent?

I guess we would say yes.

I think it's more, not specific, but more precision.

The easy one is Oakhurst-Gildersley where we say, you know, there's a lot of stuff here from the 20s and a lot of stuff built with rocks and stones.

You know, there's a style there that's pervasive.

So I think that's part of our challenge because these historic neighborhoods do develop over time and do have different styles that still work well together.

One thing, you know, for instance, in this particular neighborhood, you know, something that holds the different buildings together is quality, right?

Like that can be a character-divining feature.

Things that are well-built and well-designed and well-thought-out, whether they are the exact same style or not.

So,

Maybe that's a feature here.

I don't know.

But that is something that I kind of struggle with as we've even talked about this whole exercise of updating these guidelines and trying to, like, lasso what is this district?

Because, you know, all halves just like this, this is where they're all colonial revival.

But isn't it a description?

But isn't the best that we can do perhaps is to provide a fairly good description of what is there so that people will be able to say, all right, this is what the character of the neighborhood currently is and this is what we may be wanting to preserve.

And that's where by

focusing on sub areas.

I think that's a great idea.

You do start to get to where you're able to identify a little bit more within this sub area.

It's almost like you'd want to, like, pick two or three really good examples in each subgroup and not necessarily name them, but sort of describe them, sort of like what Ron said.

It's kind of the same thing on Ridge Street.

I had to break it down into subgroups because it's just not, I think it's just a factor, but this hasn't been such a small town for so long.

It's not a consistent neighborhood feel like, you know, like the fan district in Richmond or, you know, any bigger cities going to have a denser kind of neighborhood intact.

So we've got a lot of disparate parts and smaller neighborhoods and take a couple of those blocks out and then the neighborhood loses its feel.

I agree with Ron that the more descriptive we can be

So we're getting into the point of describing in great detail each of these subregions and everything that's in them, which anybody who's designing one of these subregions needs to go out and take pictures of all the adjacent properties, needs to do their homework and understand what is existing in the neighborhood when we review these projects.

We need to do the same.

So I'm almost wondering,

Do we instead just focus on these are the things that are important?

that, you know, when you're doing a building in this project, these are the components of the neighborhood that, you know, are contributing and that are important to relate to.

It's like, it's the comments on, like, we've got descriptions of neighborhoods that describe overhead power lines and expansive parking lots.

And in one sense, yes, it's good to describe that, but it's obvious instead should be

I think the thing brought up just a few minutes ago, the grant curves.

That's a great example.

And that's something that's useful that you didn't have included.

Most of that's like public right away.

Yeah, I mean I know several neighborhoods that have stone walls that are almost continuous through the whole neighborhood.

Jefferson Park Circle, I live on that.

It's like one of the defining features of that.

A new building could consider that, should consider that.

And that makes impact because like, like, whenever it was, whoever it was, building or designing this so tutor thing, right, like they bring in front of the B.A.R.

And I could see, I bet,

When I get an entrance score board project, because they don't, those guidelines are so different from the ADC district.

I tend to fall back on exactly what, you know, Carl, you know, you all were saying here about the quality, material, quality design.

If it's, you know, that permanence of materials, I mean, I've really gotten aware, I know we should have a discussion about stucco and EFIS because I look at some of the things on West Main where the stucco is just looks like, it looks terrible.

and, you know, maybe there is a, you know, there are materials that we say you must have, you must have, you must do this.

What I would do on something like this here is my first and foremost is to say I look at this landscape street, the streetscape and this spacing and so

Now, that's somewhat, you know, inferred by, oh, our guidelines say, look at that.

But, you know, we don't, you know, maybe that needs to be expressed a little bit better.

It's like, this is so eclectic here, good design.

I mean, if Kevin Riddle's project came in on an empty lot here, why not, right?

If it had, if it respected the streetscape and respected the spacing.

I just wanted to get things like this where you're trying to, you know, not sure what it is, but maybe the question is, what is it that we are looking for people to respect?

is an applicant able to express that.

Why did you design that?

What is that design?

Do we turn it around and say the characteristics are evident?

The applicant has their responsibility to say, how does this fit into that neighborhood?

How does it meet the character of that neighborhood?

I think it's really hard because you can approach it by saying, here are these historic examples.

And that's one path that you can go, but then you're right.

We have the leeway right in our guidelines that a modern house could be on the street.

And then it becomes, yeah, there's good modern and modern that we would probably all agree is pretty bad.

And I think what Tyler has given us does that.

But you say narrow lots and shallow setbacks have many buildings close to the road with few street plantings.

I might just eliminate few street plantings, but it does highlight the fact that we've got a varied setback.

So in the 14th Street area, there are setbacks that are close to the street.

In other parts, they're set further back.

And that is important to know.

But I think you did a really good job of updating each of these sub areas to be more accurate to what they are today.

I think it'd be just interesting, I don't know if you have the time, but just take a section and you read it and then you'll walk through and see if you have anything else to hand.

That's kind of what I want to do, just for fun, to bike around some day with my daughter.

That's something we can do on our round.

No, I did not.

Not to this level.

I was determined to give everyone bullet points.

But yeah, maybe that is the way to take this, is that we go back to our assigned neighborhoods and we do what Tyler did and then we

I mean, we probably, we should, I mean, as members of this board, we probably should be very familiar with these districts anyways.

I kind of still like the idea of partnerships.

But we started down that at some point.

That was my fault.

Yeah, it was your fault.

It was my fault.

I think it could work.

I wonder if it makes it any faster, though, to do it as a group.

The option is, and forgive me, I know some of you have heard me say this, but the option is a consultant to come and tackle some of these.

I have these eight districts and recall that

The IPP guidelines, but you know, fall, we apply the ADC district guidelines.

That's about, the ADC district guidelines, about a hundred and twenty-five hundred and fifty pages, and I think a lot of it, if I had time, I could go through and make some changes.

Several years ago, and most of you don't know, but Carl was on the BAR when we got pretty far along with, I think, at least three chapters.

We have some changes that we could adapt and modify in a certain hour.

I think my wife suggested to me the day, can you just feed it into an AI thing and say, you know, here's the National Register, or you know, the Secretary of Standards, et cetera, help better summarize this.

I mean, there's some truth to that, because there are some things that could just be cleaned up.

But then we have the Historic Conservation District Guidelines, and those are somewhat

have some neighborhood by neighborhood characteristics.

However, we don't have to look at those yet.

They have dates to be reviewed that are different from this.

And then I also need to update the entrance corridor design guidelines.

And so my goal was to get as much done

that we could because I felt like we could put we could put that local touch on it whereas the consultants are gonna give us you know but I'm gonna take your all lead here I really you know it's the pressure I am being asked to get this done and the reason being is you know council's very aware of

I think it's all due to what Tyler did, but that shouldn't take too long.

Well, they're so bad that I know the neighbor.

They were two sentences, so it didn't add anything.

It does.

It does.

So let's get them correct.

And then let's get to the actual, the fun part, not only the fun part, but the part that we actually do deal with in all our meetings, so that when we cite a guideline, we actually believe in what the guideline says.

It could be more my problem than anyone else's, but.

Yeah, from the last section.

Just need to do it.

And then just combine it and sort of

I mean, every professional I talk to is like, they can't think straight.

Ron did it first.

So have we reviewed, Tyler?

I'd say yeah.

What do y'all think about the parking garage and the little zigzaggy curtain wall or commercial building on 14th Street there?

Does that fit into the West Main Street?

It's the same issue I had with the east end of Market Street.

Yes, this mess in here.

Well, the two big apartment buildings are their own thing, but I'm talking about just the parking garage building and then the parking garage, the one behind like Boylan Heights.

Yeah, the Boylan Heights building is part of West Main Street, Historic District.

A.D.C.

But there's two that are part of the Rugby Road, U-Circle, Venable District, Subarea G. Yeah, the Zigzaggy Commercial Building and the Parking Garage.

Martens was in there.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, it's not contributing.

But where does the district end?

Right here.

And then Workland begins and then West Main.

Are we talking about adjusting the national?

It's like just this weird... I think it's basically... We can leave them... We don't deserve to be in anything.

I know.

I like the idea of having a true, like, you know when you get into the 14th through district, right?

And you don't know that that's that first stretch that we're looking at.

Those buildings are more closely related to the last couple that are on this main.

But should it be the corner?

I don't know if that's a graduate.

I agree.

Put the corner down.

Why is it down?

Right.

All the way down to JPA.

You just said it, right?

Yeah.

13th Street.

13th Street is the boundary.

It's all right.

Where do you bring the line back?

To me, it's also topography, right?

Like, West Main is flat.

I guess I'm thinking when we're describing

The Buildings, though.

Right.

Yeah.

People on the border, on the west.

We need pointers.

What's a pointer?

We need pointers.

So, between there's a line going down the center of Whartland Street and just go due to us with that?

Whartland comes to there.

The corner comes to here.

Yes.

And this is the boundary.

And it's really those

I think, kind of, part of the definition is that the corner is largely, like, commercial residential area and restaurants and stuff.

Yeah.

And there's, like, the big... It's an effort to get some boil in in the corner.

There's kind of a slip shop feel, and same as the zigzag building.

Martin's?

They brought it back for a second, but now it's the catering kitchen for roots.

And it's unfortunate all those engineering students that threw all that money at reviving it.

Little John's is coming back, though.

See what this did.

I think you should.

Before you answer, let me ask this.

So the last time, the last revisions to the design guidelines

were in 2014 when you updated West Main and also made some changes to tents and things on the mall.

So you can piecemeal it.

I think it would be wisest to at least try to tidy up chapter one.

And then we look through the others.

I think just because things are just

There's a lot happening while we've got council's attention.

Let's try to be as complete as we can.

And you remember, my goal, I think, had been, by the end of the summer, we were able to have a draft ready.

Maybe it's to say, by the end of the summer, we have chapter one.

Ray, and possibly some specific recommendations that are foreseeable.

We don't have to rewrite these whole things.

We just have to review and update them.

It could be just doing grammatical checks.

But I think the key is to get one, chapter one cleaned up.

to go through and say, what are the conflicts that we see coming?

And let's have some scenarios thought through.

And then the rest of them, that's where I was really thinking, I just get someone to edit it really good and cover the basis.

And if we gave ourselves

six months calendar to do those.

I mean, it's like, yeah.

But it does come down to, yeah, can we commit to, you know, every meeting after, you know, and we can, you know, should wrap up your next 10 minutes and just say every meeting, we're taking an hour and do this.

I don't foresee a lot of things coming next month.

It's, I don't know why I think continue to be slow, but

I know, I know, but I need to, I'm having a meeting Friday, you know, my, I mean, look, in City Hall we're all still trying to figure out what this ordinance is going to do, so everybody gets it, but there are

You know, I do have some funds to spend.

I don't have a tremendous amount, but I have some funds to spend.

I just need to, I want to spend them wisely.

And so I just said, and I think, you know, to go to look at each of these like we did with Gordon Avenue today and say, all right, if something came in, what would I say is important?

What would I see?

You know, and

and then, I forget.

By the way, the wall is on the National Register now as individual listed.

And I think that's acknowledged.

It was planned as a three-dimensional space.

For example, the bricks have been replaced, but that's

Thank you all for your time.

Anything going on?

Any exciting

I did.

I did say you'd be happy to come talk to all of us and give us all a presentation.

So I just have a question.

So did we finish reviewing rugby research?

We were just kind of fizzled, and here's this great work of art that Tyler's done.

You guys are going to kill me.

The night is still fairly young for one of our meetings.

We could do that.

I didn't drive through the district either.

No, just sort of know them in our head.

That's what I was thinking.

It's more of a process.

Or we can just take the easy way and just go, oh, Tyler's work is great, you know, and then pass that.

For me, it would be more

Sometimes you can't see through the trees on the open maps.

1605 is a glass block right next to the one we looked at today Fred Wolf, I think said that was his first project in town Really?

I mean, right now, no, but if we make it contributing, that's what you're saying.

I guess what my point is and why I want to knock a bunch of contributing buildings off of North downtown or not North, off of the Market Street District was I cannot see myself denying a demolition for one of those buildings.

So like the first three that we looked at here

They're nice.

I did a quick Google search.

Yes.

Sorry, I should have known that.

That should stay.

But that was 1980's house.

I personally can't say that we

I think it's significant.

Yeah, exactly.

Is that the house?

Yes.

It's pre-1950, Carl.

No, I know that.

Is it the only non-contributing on Preston Circle?

Because I'm curious if it... Yes, it's the only structure...

Really?

632 is the one in the back of... This one?

So, the problem is just... Sorry, it's still right there, yeah.

Molly was unable to finish.

That's my sorority house.

And it's not that old.

I mean, it's not one more thing on my list that these are listed as contributing.

So but the one next to it is not the one 635, I think, to the no to the whatever west or oh, in the back.

Oh, 626.

Is there any room in all these descriptions to point out significant, like, great things?

Like, the Preston Court is such a great building, you know?

Yeah.

It's on the National Register, but there's been an IPP.

Now, there's plaques all around that site.

It links to 630.

Interesting.

Here's why, Tyler, some of those, the addresses in the survey are old addresses.

That's one of the big, another one of the big headaches Molly was tackling.

A lot of the addresses get changed.

Well, it seems that there is still a 624, but the landmark survey for both the lots on 624 and 626 linked to a 624 survey.

comments over the years when the BAR actually would investigate adding buildings and sometimes the notes says owner not interested, something like that.

So sometimes there are more circumstances why something was locked down.

But I think to the question of unique buildings and unique smaller spaces, that's where a sub area can be broken down for.

Tonight with Park Street to sort of talk about the length of Park Street as informing what Kevin Riddle's new building should look like.

Yeah.

It's weird.

That's why I'm just curious if there was some reason.

I was looking at the ownership.

Are the houses on either side of it?

You showed me a shed in someone's backyard.

It was an airplane face.

So the notable house on the Preston Place Loop is the Winnhurst.

It was the original farmhouse that the whole neighborhood got subdivided from.

Which one is that?

It's from 1857.

It's not in great shape.

It has.

And then this is the cookhouse.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It was the cookhouse.

It's associated with the Windhurst Plantation or Windhurst property.

So I found that this whole neighborhood was the rugby farm or rugby plantation in Windhurst.

I could show you.

Well, there's another weird one that 805 Cabell that faces the wrong way that I was wondering about.

One of them is a crazy fraternity house that is originally from 1902.

That's a default date.

Because some of these areas weren't annexed.

It's a funky house.

It has been.

In fact, the contributing structure of peace.

I'm trying to pull up this.

That corner.

No, he had it.

South of Gordon.

Nobody's good.

Turn around.

You were there.

That one, that one, that one.

But it's listed as 1902.

I believe it.

It's always been really old.

Sorry.

Sorry then.

That's why I felt thinking it was... It was old in 1902.

It was old when it was built.

But it is real stucco, not feces.

Maybe it was in the city property records.

No, that's the glass block one.

It's cool.

Is that like a little bit of an answered roof there too?

Yeah, some of these additions might have been really old.

Yeah, it is not.

I know.

I'm a little annoyed.

So there it is in 1920.

Is that the back of it?

It won't let us go around the back.

No, this is just the other corner.

So that's... I can show you from the air.

I don't know.

I think it's been buttered up a little bit.

There you go.

It's definitely been added onto that puppy's had more work than Kim Kardashian.

I think I agree with Dave.

Yes.

These down here?