Board of Architectural Review Meeting   1/22/2025

and David.

Good evening.

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 and tonight Mr. Timmerman is serving.

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

After the questions are closed, the chair will ask for comments from the public.

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

Speakers shall identify themselves and provide their address.

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 a formal action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond to any questions or comments.

I wanted to wish you all happy new year.

Mr. Zehmer's not here tonight.

Thank you, Jeff.

I believe the first item on the list tonight is the consent agenda.

Matters of the public.

Matters of the public.

I'm sorry.

Any concerns or matters from the public?

Is anybody online with us?

Anyone in the seats?

You're in the conference.

Thank you.

Then we'll move on to the consent agenda.

Any concerns, issues regarding the consent agenda?

And just to be clear, a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Phil, you're a motion.

Everyone approve?

Yes.

Thank you.

So, the next item is a COA request.

Oh, by the way, I just want to point out, you'll notice that the BAR number at the top is different from what we've used last.

20-some years.

We are now, instead of a number that said year 25, month 01, item 01, we're using the number that, when a project is entered into our application system.

So, if you've noticed that.

So, this is a COA request for a demolition of a contributing structure within the corner ADC district.

144 Chancellors Street is a

The single story frame structure appears to have been built sometime between around 1905, 1906.

It was constructed as a schoolhouse and was known as Howison Schoolhouse and also as the Little Red Schoolhouse.

There was a woman who shows up in the census and other records, a teacher there, Ms.

Howison.

by 1920, the building is identified as vacant on the sandborn maps and then after that into the 1970s we know served, it was owned by several people but was primarily used as a residential unit that was rented

In 1979, the adjacent sorority, and who currently owns it, they acquired the property and it's most recently been used for storage.

There are, for the city's historical survey, the structure was renovated, remodeled in 1977, 1978, and in 86.

We don't know the extent of those alterations.

This

came to you all, and I came to the BAR back in 2013.

There was a similar request for demolition.

That was denied on a 7-0 vote, and as a subsequent appeal to council, and council upheld the BAR's decision.

Kevin Blair is here tonight representing the sorority and I believe that the member of the engineering firm is here to answer any questions.

When we went through this, sorry for the us, but when we reviewed this we apply the criteria for reviews that's in our ordinance and when you check those boxes

The structure is contributing, identified as contributing in the ADC district, the local district, which is why you have purview over its demolition.

It's also contributing within the National Register Historic District, which is separate.

While the building is not

and all of

Early in the university's 20th century, you had a lot of professors in boarding houses going into residential units here.

It appears to have been a school constructed for the children of people associated with the university.

I'm not aware of any other framed single story school houses in the city.

going through the criteria.

The fact that we did visit the site, some of you on BAR, were with us

It's not falling over.

There are certainly some concerns about it.

But it is not, I'm not qualified to say yes or no, but it did not appear to be in imminent danger.

And so with that, your responsibility, the BAR's responsibility is to protect the resource.

And so I could not recommend

approving the request for demolition.

So with that, Kevin is here.

Sure.

Do you think this is an instance of demolition by neglect?

And I wondered, you probably know, I can ask the applicant, has there been a new work done since the 2010?

Structurally, I didn't, I mean I can't answer that.

I know that the roof, I mean

The building is maintained.

It's in rough shape.

as it is

So you don't know whether there's been any work that's been done that was cited in the 2010?

And right before your presentation, I just want to make a quick aside.

For all those in the audience, if your project was on the consent agenda, like for instance, 606 Lions Court, now you've been approved.

that was approved, the rooftop bathroom.

Then 500 Park Street, which was the playground fence at First Press, approved.

And then 321 East Main, which is the installation of a door at that side entrance.

And I'll also just, in saying that, because moving forward, but also on these

There's a lot that Mr. Schwarz has raised about the zoning ordinance and how it applies to certain things.

I've been letting applicants know that an approval doesn't grant them, it doesn't supersede any zoning.

So, for example, that door at, on the 4th Street entrance, 321 East Main.

If there are issues relative, for example, does it require panic hardware or does it have to have a certain swing?

Those are building code issues and they'll be resolved when they come in for a building permit.

Kevin Blair, 4796 Richmond Road, Keswick, my address.

Good evening.

I'm here to represent my clients and owners of the subject building located 144 Chancellor Street.

Since the 1979 purchase of the entire property, including the adjacent former hotel and our main sorority house by Delta Zeta National Housing Corporation, this building has really never served any specific purpose other than occasional storage and a light source for our rear parking lot.

There is a tendency by the interpretation of some that the building makes an esoteric contribution to the area's collective architecture.

We believe, however, this should not be the sole consideration in determining its continued existence.

Admittedly, the building does have some architectural characteristics, which are common for a structure of its age and time, circa 1905.

But due to the following, its accessibility, location amid large housing buildings, limited square footage, rudimentary earthen basement, and antiquated systems, it no longer serves the needs of our sorority, the surrounding student housing population, or the university neighborhood community.

In short, at no fault of its own, it has unfortunately become an abandoned residential structure isolated within a commercial and university-developed district.

The previously projected cost estimate in 2013 to bring the building systems into compliance with current technology efficiency and structural soundness was estimated approximately $625,000.

which would be considerably more factoring today's costs.

These costs far exceed our value of the building in its current form and functionality.

As noted in the present and former structural reports and applications, the building has been deemed unsafe and is currently uninhabitable.

We no longer have an intended use for the structure and are respectfully asking for your understanding and consideration to allow its safe demolition and removal.

We thank you for your time and effort regarding this matter placed before you.

So if I could address your question, nothing to our knowledge except for a roof has been done.

and you've reviewed the Martin Quarles.

I would like to have Mr. Robert Crump Crumpen from Dunbar structural.

I'm no doubt with me that there's degradation.

But

Are you trying to demolish this by neglect is my question.

That report is 15 years old.

And if you're telling me you've done no work on that Boeing, you know, brick foundation wall, if you've done nothing at all in this earthen foundation as you say and other structural issues that you're citing,

That actually works against your application for demolition here.

You can't just let a building fall down and then say, it's fallen down, please approve the demolition of it.

We have a duty, especially with a historic building, to maintain things.

Our use of the structure wouldn't warrant the cost and expense of those repairs to the building.

And the $625,000 amount, you said that was from 2013, the last time you were here.

Can you tell us who came up with that?

I saw it was some architects.

Daglish Gilpin and correct.

But later on, I believe in that was was a cumulative cost for all of the systems to be upgraded in the building.

It has to be taken back to the studs pretty much.

Thank you.

I know what to this does means.

I see, oh, I see the total amount to fully rehabilitate the building would be 620 or excessive 625.

But the structural rehab part is in excessive 350 is what this report said.

That's correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

Great.

Okay.

Any other questions here?

No, thank you.

Okay.

Hello, my name is Robert Crumpin, I live in 13 Fortune Poplar, and I work for Dunbar Structural Engineering.

The 2010 Structural Inspection Report was done also by Dunbar, we used to be called DMWPV, and the bar, the bar documentation was excellent because then that allowed me to dumpster dive through our files and was able to pull up the 2010 photographs and compare them with their 2024 photographs.

So one of the things I was able to determine was the front stoop in that 15 year time frame has dropped about an inch.

And I think that kind of reinforces our previous concerns both in the 2010 report and 2024 report is that that unreinforced masonry wall is bowing out and we also think it's shifting.

It's confirmed, it's also reiterating the southeast masonry pier

in the 2010 report, it has a tight gap between the CMU and Phil that was probably done later.

And then the 2024 report shows about a half inch gap.

So we do believe that the front, the western masonry wall is failing and it's in pretty bad shape.

But we also think the building is probably, as a result of the lateral pushing, it's

It's sinking and then shifting slightly to the east.

So there's definitely some movement going on associated with the building in that 14, 15 year time frame.

So that was interesting for us to kind of be able to do a comparison contrast to say, you know, these issues aren't, you know, from 100 years, these are two data points for us to do a comparison to it.

Thank you.

Any questions from the public?

Any questions online?

Hands raised.

Then we'll open it up to the board.

Mr. Timmerman, I know that Mr. Zehmer had circulated some comments.

Anybody else?

Actually, I have a question for the engineer, I guess.

What's the condition of that?

So for the wood frame part of the structure, there are some localized damage, dry rot.

things of that nature.

So there are some areas, especially at the connections with the masonry piers are a few damaged.

A fair amount of the floor system looks in pretty good shape.

The stud walls, I think probably the sill plates are probably damaged in localized areas.

So it did kind of appear that there probably is some

Localized damage to the wood structure.

Yep.

I have an additional question.

So the biggest challenge is that the wall is failed to an extent that I can't easily reinforce it and insit you.

So in order to do a competent repair, you really almost have to dig out that wall and install a more modern foundation in it like a concrete or a CMU.

It's the front west wall, so it's where the stoop's at and everything.

That's the most damaged.

The northern part of the structure looks a little bit better, but there are some shifts on that, but it definitely looks like the southern part is experiencing the most movement and has the most issues associated with it.

The southern wall being the rear?

Well, the southern side of the building, so it's the southwestern wall.

It's the western wall closer to the south side.

And the pier, one of my photos, that's the eastern, that's the southeastern side.

So those are the two that are showing the most degradation.

Thank you very much.

I have a question.

When was the roof replaced?

and so on.

out for record, so he begins with, I visited this site with Jeff, Kate Richardson, David, and Kate Tabony.

The owners rep kindly showed us all around the building including the crawl basement space.

Second point is I agree there are areas of structural concern, however this property is not beyond repair.

His third point is the recommendation in the structural engineers report to rebuild the brick foundation wall as a good recommendation.

However, it is not the only solution.

If cost is a concern, some simple two-by pressure treated lumber could be used to construct bracing to stabilize this wall and prevent further movement.

His fourth point says the sentiment that the CMU infill needs to be connected to the sill plate is incorrect.

The brick piers are holding up.

The building, the CMU infill is just that.

It's infill.

And although our purview is typically limited to the exterior of the building, I think that when a COA for demolition is submitted, the owner has invited the BR into the building.

Then it is worth noting that the interiors still retain much of their original finishes, including doors, a wainscote, fireplace mantle, window trim, plaster, and wood floors.

This helps argue for preservation of the building.

The original wood siding is still extant underneath the later vinyl, but I believe it's a metal siding.

And finally, he says, I would not be able to support approval of the COA.

The applicant is pursuing demolition by neglect and we cannot support or reward this approach to the maintenance of the contributing buildings in a historic district.

That's James.

Those are all James, Mr. Zehmer's points.

I'll just start.

So Mr. Blair notes that he wants us to focus on, if I can summarize, I'm trying to do my best, from thank you for giving us a written copy of your comments to him.

He basically wants

for the board to look at other factors, including recognizing that it's an older building.

But he'd like for us to look at factors such as the accessibility of the building, its location, and currently amid a lot of larger housing buildings, I'm sure.

not just on Chancellor, but he also is probably referring to across the tracks and nearby limited square footage of the building, the earthen basement and antiquated systems.

The fact that it no longer serves the needs of the owner, who's been the owner since 1979.

And anyway, the surrounding student housing population, I'm not sure that, anyway.

and sites that it's basically an abandoned residential structure in a commercial university, a district that's developed around it, if I can summarize.

And of course he cites the cost, which we don't disagree

and

We didn't get any numbers this time, but the ones cited by the architect firm last time would be that plus inflation and add 12 to 15 years.

But cost is not one of the factors that we consider either.

So I wanted just for the applicant's information.

and for the public's information, because this is what we have to base our decision on.

It's not arbitrary.

We're beholden to look at the guidelines for demolition.

And they're cited in chapter 34.

And I'm only, I'm citing to the old code because we don't have references.

The new one has not been actually codified.

I even looked today in mini code.

You still have to go to a PDF.

So the old references is the zoning section 34.

and it's section 5.2.71b.

Factors we are supposed to consider are the historic architectural cultural significance of any of the structure or property including without limitation

The age or structure of the property, this is 1905, whether it has been designated nationally or statewide.

This building is a contributing structure in the Rugby Road University Corner Historic District.

And it's noted on the National Register listing, the third factor, whether to what extent the building or structure is associated with a historic person, architect, master craftsman,

Stork event, we don't know of any, whether the building or structure or any of the features represents an infrequent or first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature.

Staff notes that the building is

a very unusual building type in that we probably don't have any other one-story school buildings that are existent, you know, wood school buildings that are existent at all in the city anymore.

So it might be the last remaining example of that type of building.

The fifth factor, whether the building or structures of such old or distinctive design, texture, or material that it could not be reproduced or could only be reproduced with great difficulty and

Nobody, I think, thinks that this building could be reproduced because of the antiquated features of it.

You could reproduce it with new materials, and it might look a little bit alike, but it certainly won't turn out to be the same building.

The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials remain, and it's been noted that a lot of them do remain, in fact, because so little has been done

by these owners who have owned it for 45 years.

It is very much like it was when they acquired it and probably was like it was for a good time before then.

Going on, other factors we consider, whether and to what extent contributing the structure is linked historically or aesthetically to other buildings or structures within the district or is one of a group of properties.

It's been noted by staff that this is linked with

the history of the university and just this area being a residential district and a residential place for staff and other people that were associated with the university and might have schooled their children.

Overall condition and structural integrity of the building as indicated by studies prepared by an engineer which we have and thank you Dunbar is the Dunbar

Report of 2010 is attached and of course we have the more recent one.

Whether to what extent the applicant proposes means, methods, or plans for moving, removing, or demolishing

the property that preserves portions, features, or materials that are significant to the property's historic, architectural, or cultural value.

And what the applicant has proposed is to raise it entirely, maintaining none of those elements.

And any other applicable provisions of our design guidelines.

So we're bound by that.

And it's not a lot of those

maybe subjective, a lot of them are easier to answer.

But those are those are how we consider this question.

I wish that this sorority would make use of this building.

would come back to us with a partial demolition and would use some of the space, and I don't know, again, we don't do zoning here except for Carl, but would use some of this space in the remaining parcel, and there's a little bit of space in the back.

It slopes down to add on to this building and bring it new life and certainly bring it a new purpose for the sorority.

I just, I can't approve demolition in whole here.

And I am troubled that this owner has owned the building since 1979 and may have replaced a roof and may have not done anything else in 45 years to a building that really is quite unique in the city of Charlottesville.

Timmerman, if I can just, to add to what Ms.

Lewis was saying, the guidelines, the sign guidelines for demolitions refer to the old code section, which has been superseded by 5.2.7 points, et cetera, et cetera.

So there are, so in the staff report is the criteria for

review and decision related to demolitions from the current ordinance and under that are the guidelines from the ADC District Design Guidelines and that's where that references to the old code.

Thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Werner.

And thanks again, Miss Lewis.

I think it's important to draw a distinction between the idea of an individual's purpose for a building or just a more generic purpose for a building.

and what our intentions are here.

So I hope that helps clarify some of that issue.

I'll just follow, since we're reading some from guidelines, I'll follow your comments because I feel like there's a

with all that good information.

I'd like to augment a certain perspective and I'll start with just reading the introduction to the ADC district design guidelines that Jeff has inserted in our

Document.

And in the introduction, just really quite broadly, it stated that historic buildings are irreplaceable, community assets, and once they are gone, they're gone forever.

With each successive demolition or removal, the integrity of a historic district is further eroded.

Therefore, the demolition or moving of any contributing building in a historic district should be considered carefully.

And I think that's especially significant in this particular case.

My feeling is that when I arrived in the site, I really appreciate the time you spent with us walking us through.

I appreciate the structural report.

I appreciate the words that you said earlier.

and I.

and

I looked up the street and down the street and I realized that it's on a street that has a very consistent fabric.

It hasn't been

in Reach, you know, a historic building being within Reach, but also the continuity of the street.

And when you walk down the street, it's a great experience.

You know, you're not walking on a street like, for instance, Wirtland, where it's pockmarked with new developments that are out of scale and sort of out of

out of range of the sort of historic district that it embodies.

So I would add to Ms.

Lewis's comments that I think an important thing to consider here is its location within the greater context of the street.

I think that's a really important thing to consider and it's an important asset

in our community.

And honestly, these are the kinds of things that we're all in passion to try to protect and at least try to uphold.

Everybody on the board has that mission, whether they agree with this particular situation or not.

And then the last thing that I'll say is that I agree with Mr. Zehmer's recommendations regarding the structural.

in my just humble review.

Well, it's clear that there's a serious structural issue.

I wonder if there isn't a more creative approach.

And just like, for instance, the thought that went through my head when I was in the crawl space is, can you

It's clear that that front retaining wall is failing and it's clear why.

It's a brick wall and it's retaining soils that have been left exposed.

I don't know if there was a tree there at one point in the front yard, but something's changed.

and as you mentioned, you know, there's been a significant tilting of it even in the last 10 years but I was just, I was, I always like to kind of think are there other ways of dealing with this kind of situation and you know, is there, is there for instance a solution for infilling, you know, part of the crawl space, so to sort of encase that foundation mostly

as a way, and I'm just using this as an example of, you know, creative solutions as a way to encase that wall so that, you know, you relieve yourself of the expense of jacking the building up, presumably, is what your, you know, assertion would be and putting a whole new wall in.

So I feel like given the fact that the building is so well intact and given that, you know, the structure

is not beyond repair and I suspect there are creative ways of dealing with it.

I, with Miss Lewis, wouldn't be willing to approve the demolition.

I'll just add that

I agree with what my colleagues are saying.

I do feel for you guys.

Unfortunately, I think you need to go through the process of, I mean, it sounds like we're going to deny this.

I could be speaking with the rest of the board members, but our duty on this board is to not let you demolish it.

Unfortunately, I think you're right there probably is served its use in the neighborhood.

So you take it to council, you appeal it if they deny you guys, you put it on the market for a year, and then if no one buys it, you tear it down.

ideally what would happen is some student group or somebody sees it as a community space or something sees the value in it as a historic school building.

That would be the dream.

So we can hope that happens.

And I think we need to allow that process to actually take place.

Fortunately, with our updated zoning code, there's no minimum lot size.

So you guys can sever your lot and sell this portion if you wanted to.

Yeah.

I think the, unfortunately, probably should have gone through that process back in 2013.

But here we are today.

Yeah, I think the fact that this is a contributing structure, according to VDHR, and what we're hearing from people who have seen it in the report, everything from the sill plate up is in decent shape.

I think the bar for demolition would not be much higher than that.

to make a motion.

Prior to making a motion, I just want to offer that Mr. Blair and I have talked about this quite a bit.

And I was, I think, very candid with him that, exactly as Mr. Schwarz just articulated, that the BAR's responsibility, and I certainly think I expressed that in the staff report, the BAR's responsibility is

is the historic resource.

There is a process of appeal.

has to occur within ten business days of your action by my math, unless there's a holiday in there, that would be February 5th.

The practice has been that an appeal is presented in fighting.

It's not a hold to come and have a discussion later that the appellant has to make the case of

and the grounds for the appeal, including anything where the BAR may have misapplied the standards.

There is a $100 fee for an appeal of the BAR decision.

And it is at the city council, and this came up earlier at the pre-meeting.

I've only had to deal with a handful of appeals, so they're not common.

Very much as Mr. Schwarz said, it is part of the process and I think too often in the appeals that I've dealt with it's been viewed as a rebuke of the BAR or, you know, prove the BAR wrong.

I really encourage everyone out there that the BAR is doing its job and the process allows counsel then to review it.

and in that, the ordinance is clear that council may consider any additional information factors or opinions they deem relevant to the application.

So, whereas you are constrained by the guidelines and what's the criteria in the ordinance, council can consider other things.

They can consider costs.

So again, that's what the process was designed for.

They are the elected officials.

We all work for them essentially.

So I just want to be clear that it's going to counsel the applicant as an opportunity to make their case.

It's not necessarily the BAR's.

and we're not trying to be up on a soapbox or anything, but I, you know, maybe counter to what Mr. Schwarz is saying, there is an option and, you know, I don't know how feasible it is, but in creative thinking, you know, my hope would be is for the sorority to find a purpose.

You know, you say there's no purpose for it, but often with buildings, spaces, structures, you know, it's not so much just

Somebody finds a purpose for it.

One last clarification before you make a motion.

I'm anticipating that it might go to countless, so I want to make sure I'm on the record with some critical things.

We've referred a couple times to a contributing structure.

You all have purview over locally designated historic districts, locally designated properties.

Per our code, anything that is considered a contributing structure, locally designated as a contributing structure, you all have purview over a demolition review.

So for example, even though this is in a district, if it were not contributing to the local district, then you would not review that demolition.

and

of which this property, this school, is a contributing structure to that national registered district.

So that's not what causes you to have the purview over the demolition, but it is part of a consideration.

It's state and national significance.

I'll make a motion having considered the standards set forth within the city code including the EDC district design guidelines and move to find that proposed demolition

The Corning Road, ADC district.

The corner.

Corner, corner district, excuse me.

So the corner district, not downtown or rugby, and for the reasons of the simple reason of the cultural significance of the historic building and the street in which it is located on, the B.R.

Second, I'd also like to add that another factor is it's relatively extant condition.

Pretty much the condition it might have been in for a hundred years, and although there are opinions made differ about

structural things that need to be done with it, repairs that need to be done.

It is an excellent example of this vernacular period.

We'll take a vote.

Ms.

Tabony.

Yes.

Seconded.

I just seconded.

Yeah.

Mr. Schwarz.

We were asked by staff to give reasons upon which council can look at our decision and to explain it instead of just being a mere motion.

So I was adding another factor.

And I think during, we're still in, I mean, if we could stop voting and

Once a motion is made and a second is made, we're supposed to have discussion.

More people here could cite reasons why you would vote in favor or against this motion at this point.

I was kind of trying to start that conversation.

I wasn't intending to amend it.

And I said it's debitably good.

But I think that's a good idea.

Only because we're sitting here thinking that this is going to be appealed and staff has asked us to provide reasons in the report.

He's asked us to give reasons for the basis or decision.

There are people who haven't spoken about this matter yet.

Yeah, I've already spoken.

I think Ms.

Mr. Bailey, anything to add?

OK, so it has a proper protocol.

Sorry, it was not.

And I should have said I didn't need to amend.

I just wanted to articulate, you know, just for the record, another reason.

I mean, I think there are others there.

You know, we haven't we've discussed and staff has discussed the fact that this is a contributing

That's a probative and important part of my decision, and I'll add that to the list, just because we want to get these things out in front of councils.

So you accepted the amendment?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, Carl.

I should never have opened my mouth.

I'm so sorry.

Well, let's start over then.

Ms.

Tabony.

And Mr. Schwarz?

Yes.

Yes.

This was?

I. Mr. Birle.

Yes.

Mr. Rosenthal.

Yes.

And I too.

Let's talk about next steps.

I lost my agenda.

Mr. Richardson, which one is next?

Here it is.

Mr. Wunder, can we just review when public comments happen?

Because there were several times where people were raising their hands online, but it was during a time that was not open for public comment.

Oh, boy.

Okay.

So the next up is a COA request for 745 Park Street

This is for the addition and alterations to an existing structure.

You all reviewed this in a pre-app discussion in December.

The existing house is a brick, a story and a half.

Brambler, I would call, and it is within the north downtown ADC district.

It is considered contributing, and it is also listed on the National Register District.

Caveat that in November 2021, the BAR did approve a request to raise the house.

The period of validity for that has since expired, but I think it is, and this was discussed in December, it's still worthwhile to acknowledge that

The BAR had allowed the existing brick house to be raised.

And that's where we had, in the preliminary discussion, there was some talk of, is this an addition to an existing, to historic structures that say should be treated as new?

What was the best way to sort of approach this?

We have some of the comments here on I don't think anything definitive was determined, but some of the comments are listed on the staff report.

So this is before you now for a decision.

You also have, when an application comes to the BAR, you have essentially two meetings, two consecutive meetings to take a formal action.

You can approve something, deny something, approve with conditions, or you can defer something.

An applicant can also request a deferral.

If they do,

It gets carried over.

They bring it back when they're ready.

If you all defer something, it would come back the next month and then you're obligated to make an up or down photo on it.

The request is to remove the gable of the existing house and the roof in that upper story and to reconstruct a second story addition on top of that.

I was honestly not certain how to approach this one.

It's a bit of a unique application.

And I think that in my view it is essentially a new building and the measure is

We welcome new design.

We welcome innovative design.

There's nothing wrong with, you know, not everything has to be red brick and white trim in Charlottesville, but the bar is essentially that does this, does this fit, does it complement?

Is it appropriate within this historic district?

And I apologize for not being able to offer a recommendation.

I just really

I'll go back to something Tim Moore who'd been on the BAR for a long time.

I guess I should bring this up more often, but he often said that before he even discussed the project, the BAR should decide what's

What's the preservation approach?

What's the objective of the project?

I think it will also come up later when we talk about 300 Ridge Street.

As we look at this site and this request, what is it around it that we want to take into consideration in evaluating this?

And that's where, if you look at it as an addition, an addition by the guidelines says, you know, respect the existing structure, don't overwhelm it, be subordinate to it, be clearly an addition, something like this that's a little bit

Tricky, whereas new construction, the primary goal is design compatibility with the surrounding districts.

So to me, viewing it in that context makes this simpler, but I know Mr. Zehmer had, he had some differing thoughts on that the last time, but I think trying to make this an addition onto that single story brick structure that

They had been allowed to raise.

Sure.

Hi everybody.

Yeah, my wife Karen and I are obviously looking to make changes to our house.

I think as far as we're concerned, we don't really mind how the board decides to interpret this.

Whether it's an addition or it's a new structure, obviously it's depending partly on the existing structure.

But as Jeff mentioned, that structure was approved for demolition

unanimously several years ago, and I think in large part because we realized that history is not remarkable.

It's been a solid little house for sure, but there are hundreds of others like it in town.

It's not distinctive.

There's no special history attached to it.

and so I guess as far as we're concerned, we don't see an issue with adding to the top of it and somehow overwhelming the houses that exist now.

I don't think I have that much more to add.

I mean, you guys saw this last month.

I think all of you reviewed it then.

And the changes that we've made since then, there are virtually no changes.

And I think the documents explain it fairly well.

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

Let Mr. Timmerman know?

Okay, great.

How would you argue that you responded to the comments, I guess, from the last time?

I believe Mr. Gassinger had mentioned the as well, I guess you almost call them a little stump joist that are supporting a long step on the front.

And he noticed that they seemed prominent with just a clear finish on them or something that matches the

the wood siding that we're proposing on part of the lower story.

I did actually send an updated package.

Oh, there we go.

Actually, you see it there in that rendition.

Those little joists now were proposing that they would be painted out a dark blue-gray color like the redden joist behind it.

So it's still a similar construction, but they just aren't as prominent

So that was one comment I responded to.

Just a change in direction.

Any other questions?

Let's open it up to the board.

Comments?

Comments from the public.

Thank you, Mr. Schwarz.

Okay.

Yeah, I want to commend you for keeping the house.

I mean, from a sustainability standpoint, which is, you know, in the comprehensive plan.

So I think that, and also as a contributing structure, I mean, I think, glad that it's remaining.

And I don't think it overpowers it.

I think this is because of the color.

As I think I said last time, I think the design fits very well.

It keeps the street contemporary, but yet it's one of the more interesting streets in our town because of various architectural styles.

Yeah, I mean, it's a small structure.

So as a contemporary addition to Park Street, with the way that you've, you know, the dark metal on the roof and the fact that it is a very small structure, it's not going to stick out.

I mean, it's going to recede pretty well.

So I think that gave you some leeway to do some less traditional moves.

I was supportive last time and I still am.

There are other contemporary homes.

We'll have an application actually in a little while from another one on Park Street.

Other contemporary homes in North downtown.

It is sustainable to retain that first floor and affordable, I'm sure, for the owners and project architect.

I actually, you know, I welcome it to the neighborhood and I commend

the owners and the architects for not engaging in false historicism or classicism and adding elements that would mimic other

I mean, you've got a bunch of Victorians in this row, but other buildings along park and whatever their language architecturally may have been when they were constructed.

I fully support this.

And I regard it just for comment purposes.

I regard it as new construction, really.

I mean, I don't think there are very many elements.

You're actually retaining except for the exterior wall.

You're changing some apertures.

It's almost like you're retaining a foundation and building up on it.

I'd like to just respond.

I think Mr. Gastinger last time also made a mention about the starkness and the color.

And I would agree with him.

To me, it's a little, I find it calls attention to itself a bit.

And it's a little nod in keeping with the rest of the surroundings.

It's not a matter of style.

I think that

A contemporary building can work on Park Street but I'd like to encourage some more relationship, I guess, some more dialogue with the surroundings there because I find it to be a little bit of a one-off and it sounds like I'm in the minority here and I didn't speak up last time

But I think that's where a lot of the fun and the plague can happen with contemporary architecture.

There's layers of that and levels to that.

Yeah, I guess some of it depends on, you know, someone's proclivities, like on Ferris Street, I think at Ford's house and the bowl of colors there.

I kind of love them.

I like that variation.

And then our neighbors to the south, you know, they put a pretty striking color on that 1880s house.

And I know it's not everybody loves it.

I think it's great.

So in that spirit,

I support the modern insertion into the Park Street landscape.

I think it's great.

Right now, the elevations to me look a little bit cartoonish, and the adjacency of the black to white.

I wonder if the detail of that, you know, the existing brick to the metal siding, the new metal siding, I don't know how far you've developed that, but I think there could be, I mean, I think there's something nice about this sort of simplicity and it's just the line right now, but is there going to be more flashing and other, is that line going to be expanded to be a bit of a thicker datum than what's shown in your images right now?

That's my one comment.

I like the blue.

I think the blue is great on your steel and the front porch and just wondering if you could bring a little bit more of that playfulness into the fence or the the fence I feel I feel like is a little bit unresolved for me at the moment and and also the south facade feels very stark and I know you're seeing that south facade coming up Park Street that's the main view

Yeah, that could be a challenge with the driveway right next to it.

Did I hear you?

All right, I'll do it.

All right.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I moved to find the addition of 745 Park Street satisfies the BAR's criteria and is compatible with the property and other properties in the North downtown ADC district.

Yeah, just one suggestion and just sort of be consistent with when we're altering what is a historic structure is that photographs and documentation be provided for the BAR record of the existing.

with the condition that the existing conditions are documented.

Great.

We need a second.

Well, this is an amendment.

This is a should that be an amendment.

Do we want to add any leeway for them to investigate?

a different paint color.

It sounds like the applicant is kind of set on the white, but do we want to allow the leeway that they change their minds?

Similarly for the, as Kate had mentioned about the fence, do we want to allow the leeway for any color changes on that?

I take the credit and criticism for the blue next door when those folks did all the work on it.

Remember, it was covered in aluminum and they didn't know what they were going to find.

I said, well, let's look.

And then they called and said, we're thinking white on white.

And I almost cried on the phone.

I said, that house does not want to be white.

And Robert and I, we had some informal discussions with you all, but we approved that.

as I call an email approval.

It warranted boldness and we didn't require anything formal with that.

It's been very successful.

I really am one of my successes that I look to.

So in that regard, if Kevin came back and said, yeah, I want to paint this fluorescent orange or something, I would consult with you all if it were.

So I'm very comfortable treating painting of buildings, even repainting of buildings.

with an email okay, and if it crosses the line, and I usually do consult with you all if it comes close, and then a decision is made.

So I don't think it would be necessary unless you all feel like there is a, this is a design component that you want retained.

But otherwise I would not worry about it.

Okay, we'll take a vote on Ms.

Mr. Schwarz.

Yes.

Mr. Bailey.

Yes.

Ms.

Lewis.

Aye.

Mr. Birle.

Yes.

And Mr. Rosenbaum.

Yes.

And I too vote yes.

Congratulations.

All right, Katherine, see you.

Next.

This is a COA request for 116 West Jefferson Street.

This is a contributing structure within the downtown North Downtown ADC District.

I apologize earlier, sometimes we miss the emotions when we're cutting and pasting.

So this is when North downtown ADC district, this is about the rear porches on the back of the 1913 structure.

There is a to the back

The South of this, there's a 1980s structure that was obviously added on.

was focused on the... I'm sorry to interrupt you.

I'm sorry, Kyle.

Can we go back to my screen?

We might use this later.

Thank you, though.

But most recently, the primary discussion was the reconstruction of the front porch.

And a lot of thought went into that.

And I still hope that occurs.

But what

and I know we discussed some of this recently.

What's before you now is at the rear this stacked porches on the back.

Originally there were

It wasn't a whole lot going to happen to them.

I think they were going to re-deck them some work on them.

To the best we can determine the turn post may be contemporary or original to the house, the ceiling of the second porch, the ceiling boards

look like they've been there a while.

The railing has been replaced.

The floor deck has been replaced.

The ceiling of the lower porches has been replaced.

And Josh even said that the inside them was pressure-treated framing.

So they've been altered.

What transpired

Last summer, I was working with Zarchitec particularly on another project.

There was correspondence that had that address, that East High Street address in the questions and then verbal conversations with our code official asked me, Jeff, what about XYZ?

I said, everything's fine on that one.

I'm good with it.

Well, in the subject line, as Ron was talking about, it's a cautionary tale.

So, while I thought I'm responding to, there's no, I'm good with it, you're fine, you're fine.

The conversation on the other end was about this building and the back porch.

And what had occurred is during the review of the building permit.

I know I'm paraphrasing a bit, but it was identified that the use required an emergency egress.

And as Chuck Miller, who's the code official, I spent a lot of time talking with him about this, about why they got to where they got.

there was really no other place to locate it so realizing that they had moved forward and some communication on my end and also because this was a code required change when we went out there in November and I think some of the photographs you'll see reflect this the stairs they had constructed the stairs but yet they're still trying to

make them work with the porches.

And it was, I had offered that let's do one or the other.

This is either a house with two porches on the back, or this is a stair, an emergency egress stair that's appropriate to this period.

So that's where some of the trim details and some of the decisions, it kind of went outside of the

easy and makes sense.

So for example, and if you go back to the photo, so you can see here the bottom of that upper porch.

That decking won't be there, can't be there with the railing, I mean with the stairs coming down and then with the necessary head height.

So you lose a deck on that balcony

So then the question was, well, why have railing up there if it's not a balcony?

So that's when we spent some time head scratching and brought it to you all.

And understandably, you all asked them to clarify how they were going to trim out.

I think there seemed to be agreement that to

at least retained the railings, the image of them being porches, even if the decking was gone.

But there were some trim details that really needed to be understood.

So that's some of what's here.

The second piece that came up recently, Mr. Zehmer was asking about the posts.

And again, because I've discussed this one for a couple years, my recollection was that

Everything had been replaced.

The post may be old, but they weren't necessarily original.

I'm probably wrong in that in hindsight.

But what we've got now is that in order to accommodate the structure of the stairs, the posts are insufficient.

And so that's why you see on the drawing the square columns supporting the porch.

One option would be, as far as the term post, I don't know how, because Mr. Zehmer, I talked about this, Mr. Timmer, I talked about, can the term post accommodate the weight, the load?

I don't know, I'm not an engineer.

If not, are the square posts acceptable, or an option also is that,

where I had suggested they do matching posts on the engaged columns against the brick wall.

Maybe the half turn posts get reinstalled there and those are retained.

So there's a couple of options here.

I do not believe there's an option to reevaluate where the egress stairs go.

I think that was

in my discussions with Mr. Miller pretty thoroughly evaluated.

And so that's sort of a little bit of the background.

What you have in front of you tonight, there are three options for what to do, and if you could have that elevation of what to do under the stairs.

Yeah, and that was one of my, no the stairs.

Sorry, and so underneath the,

First Floor Stairs, where they come down.

There.

So there had been

if you can envision where the lattice is below that bottom railing, another set of, another railing.

And that just seemed to be too much.

So I had suggested maybe some lattice to simplify that.

That's, I think they've looked at a couple other options I would say.

I don't prefer the others.

So that's something for you all to look at.

And I noticed that the brick pierce

are being proposed as being replaced, and whether that's structurally necessary or not, the applicant can answer that.

I prefer to retain those bright peers.

And finally, just the photograph that was in the staff report, it's not related to the application, but on the east side of the house,

are a series of mechanical units.

They're not properly screened, and I think the opportunity for us to require that they are with however you treat this.

So, sorry, there's a lot there.

When was the hyphen between the two buildings added?

It's definitely not historic.

They built the structure in the back, the faces of Second Street.

I don't remember it being there.

As I recall though, the idea was that we're going to remove the hyphen at one point when they were going to re-install or recreate the front porch.

and that has changed, right?

There's a lot of pieces and parts to this and I did not go back and reconstructed entirely.

And is this the same owner that we're dealing with that we dealt with on the previous application with the porch and this?

I'm sure.

Good evening.

Josh Battenham with House Crafts.

Back before you all to look at this stair.

So like I said last time we sort of, we got pulled into this after a lot of history had gone down.

So we've been trying to sort of figure out how to get through this.

So anyway, so what we did there, the building official does not

and the structural engineer.

Do not think for the brick columns, we can adequately attach the posts and tie them down.

I mean, maybe there's way we could do some steel that goes down to the floor.

If you guys really want to keep the brick, we're open to that.

What these wood posts did allow us to do is, I guess, Kate, are you on your screen?

I don't have, OK.

You could just go to the next sheet really quick.

There's this landing that has to be there.

And so what I did was add posts in there to help kind of ground this thing and take it from this structure that's just really tall and up in the air there.

The lattice that we have proposed here would not be a typical kind of, I kind of feel like it's cheesy lattice.

This is actually like would be inch and a quarter by inch and a quarter fur painted.

and with sort of a larger aperture in it so that you can, because underneath there, there's a little residential unit and so that little porch underneath would be a little patio for that unit.

So we want it to be nice down there.

You know, I think this, by my view, this really helps sort of anchor that, it helps

You know, take away from it's just the stair there.

We like the railing going across the top to sort of kind of an ode to the old porch and the roof structure is beautiful.

So we, you know, I like, you know, definitely want to keep that roof structure that's historic.

That part is definitely historic.

and then we've got proposed in there lighting.

All the trim would be white.

We've got along the rims of the porch, we've got one by four and then one by 12 that would all be painted composite deck boards there.

I think it actually looks, I think it looks good.

That's up to you all to decide, obviously.

And then it has a nice, I've included the decking, if you go to the, I think the next sheet, cables, no mind.

There, one back.

So it's this kind of, it's a nice sort of, almost looks like teak decking.

They had already purchased this railing, which is a typical for rail, so that's what we're proposing to use.

Up top, you know, we'd like to put these little brass half moon post lights and some step lighting that you see there and then up on that top deck we'd like to use these little lit deck caps to go around that top little roof deck area.

Kate, if you could go to the other one with the options.

We're going to have to submit a full landscape plan.

That's why we hadn't addressed the screening on the HVAC on the other side.

and we're working with engineering to figure out exactly how the entries tie into the sidewalk.

That was, I guess just stay here for a second.

We can just kind of go over this.

So the six by sixes are from the structural engineer.

maybe she would give us a letter or something that said we could use the posts down below would be very difficult up top it wouldn't be as difficult and we have retained all of the existing posts so that might be an option would be to put those existing posts up along that top port structure

So this is a, you know, it's a fairly typical column detail with bed molding and a plinth at the top or a little capital piece up there at the top.

We did have to shift it a bit from the original porch rack to allow the code required 36 inches on the stairs so there is about an inch and a half offset from that original porch

Rack there, and then the rest of the details you can see on this.

So, Kate, I guess if you could go to, let's see, I think that's about it.

We can go to the other couple sheets.

Kyle, can we have that presentation now?

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

I guess you get email?

Yeah.

Anyways, I included a couple of words.

We intend on putting some arbor vitae

in between where the posts go around the base, and then there's going to be more extensive.

There you go.

So this option, we looked at putting maybe some painted white shakes underneath that stair landing down to the original porch elevation on the first floor, because maybe that would help it.

But I'm kind of, you know, the lattice actually works pretty well.

Anyways, the other one is less remarkable.

You can go just to the last sheet of this, I guess, or can I?

Okay, I can do this, yeah.

That was just clappered.

I don't love that one.

So this is just showing some of the landscaping there.

I have a question for Jeff, maybe.

Yeah, so that's, again, we're all sort of...

You know, some of that's on me.

We were talking about one thing and another thing, and no, they didn't, I mean, that answer, no, but it's, I think that that miscommunication is on me and not on the applicant.

I actually don't think that you should fall in that sword.

I mean, this is an owner that came before us, and I'm not blaming the current, you know, representative, but this is an owner that came before us, and we had a significant discussion about altering this building, including, I think, two meetings about the front porch and about this particular purpose, which is still perspective.

I just, I find it hard to believe that they thought that they needed permission to put a front porch on, but not to take a back porch off.

And I mean, two stories, almost three stories worth of structure that

Somebody might say it's somewhat historic if it isn't original to the building.

I have a really hard time with the fact that this demolition, and I really don't believe it is staff's fault at all.

This is a historic building.

It's in an ADC district.

The applicant had come before us before.

They were obviously aware of the constraints of this being in a historic district and what they needed to do to alter this building.

Well, okay, can I respond?

So we finally had gotten the building permit.

So we came in and we thought, and there had already been, like, they'd taken the rails off and the decking, the posts were still there.

And so we thought that the exit stair, we did think the exit stair had been approved when we got to actually finally obtain the building permit, because all the conversation was before the building permit was obtained.

And that's when Chuck asked Jeff, I mean, I'm not trying to

I understand your concerns.

This was a confusing project because it went on so long.

There were so many different iterations.

The building permit took nine months.

I came in after they hadn't been able to get the building permit for about six months.

We finally obtained the building permit.

When we got the building permit, we thought everybody was happy.

That's why Chuck released it.

He thought we were there, but we obviously weren't there.

That's where we're at.

We do have all the original posts.

That's the only part that was

That was my question.

Truly original.

We do have those.

And they're in pretty good shape.

They are.

She has not.

Like I said, the part that would be very difficult to use them on is the landing.

That's where it would be very

Hart to use them.

I do think we could use them on the top portion.

And I don't think that that's just roof load.

That's not so that like she's having to design because it's a R1 now like boarding house is kind of the where it falls under the code.

It's she's having to design the deck and the stairs and everything to 100 pounds per square foot.

And so that's when she starts.

That's when she went to the six by sixes.

Yeah.

But we do have all the posts.

I do think we could use them up on the top portion.

Can you point when you refer to the, you think, you think it's going to be hard to use in the base?

So these posts, these right here would be very, or it's really this, these two here.

These, it's mainly like this, this, and that, and this might be difficult.

Yeah.

These, I'm sure.

Right.

And then also aesthetically, I mean, the landing is going to hit the post right at the belly of the curve there.

Personally, I think that ship has sailed for whatever reason.

I think to use the turn posts at the top is just going to look a little bit fake at this point.

I think it's a shame when I look at this 1980s photograph, it was a really handsome back porch and I think it was all original based on what I'm seeing.

The 1980s photo, the assumption would be original, but what was there when they came in and started?

The deck itself had definitely, at some point, the framing, because it was pressure treated, so it wasn't original.

I just had another question about your, let's see, section on sheet seven.

Maybe you can just point out.

Yeah, that section cut is this little line here.

It's cut through right there.

I wasn't sure because I couldn't.

There isn't really deck in there because you can open it up for the stairs.

That's correct.

But then I wasn't sure it was down.

You were referring to it when it was down below.

A little kerf that you made into the facial board.

That's for head height and I really, I mean, it's to get down in this basement where even to do something here, I think I'm still going to have to pull this stair out from the building and like demo the concrete, there's a couple concrete stairs there.

This is, it was to get head height, I tried going up, I really hated that.

That line needs to stay there where the porch

The original porch was.

It looks very strange if you do anything else.

And so that's a head that I'm trying to allow to get.

I can just get to head height there and not have to like demolish the entire patio that's already got drainage and everything.

I have a question.

It could be.

I'm also like, I'm, you know, that was based on the owner, the owner didn't want, he was worried there might be too much lattice, it might feel like a bird cage inside, because he wants it to be nice under there.

I'm not sure that it's,

I think that the lattice I'm talking about, like I said, I want to do like a fit, like an inch and a quarter by inch and a quarter fur with like a three and a half inch hole there so that it's not just this slap together lattice, like you just put under a porch so that it feels nicer and it's nicer to be behind and in front of it and that kind of thing.

So yeah, so if you have any opinions on that, I mean,

I would love, you know, happy to hear them or get suggestions.

If we need to come back, we can come back.

Yeah, I tried it just because this was tough.

It was, it was, it's kind of tough, but I think I do too.

I think it's, and I think that doing a kind of a full lattice will give it more presence.

Let's see, are there any comments from the public?

Then we'll just open it up to comments from the board.

I also agree that the post ship has sailed.

To put them on top, we just look fake at this point.

I think aesthetically it would be a melange mismatch that just simply wouldn't work.

My biggest issue right now is it just feels very like too much.

I just want to see simplicity and I think part of the issue for me is just like all the

You know, you've got two squares, and you've got the rectangle, and then this thing with the bite out of it, and then another, and it just, I almost, I just want to see some simplicity, like, you know, even if you were to take that out, and make this just an opening that, you know, this bothers me, because it's just another thing.

There's a lot of, there's too much going on, yeah, and for what it was, it's just, it's

I think I could.

Well, we're not looking for, you know, sorry.

I agree with you, David.

I think there's too many parts and pieces still from the last time we saw this.

And I also agree that the ship has sailed, like the original porch is gone.

But what is still there is the beautiful roof in the cornice, and if there's a way we can

Let's just make this a modern box.

It's a modern thing that we know that it's, you know, I feel like the detailing now is trying to recall a historical period, and it just doesn't seem honest to me.

So let's depart from that.

Jeff, this is on my screen.

I'm going to shut it up there because I think that it's sort of following David when you're saying, and Kate, is this necessary?

and that's when, remember, Forest, like they were jamming and railing in there, but if you imagine, is that deck even necessary given these changes, which then resolves some of that head height issue?

And I guess I'm speaking as much from my construction experiences as from sitting here.

This is one of those details that you guys know that you get that call every other day from the carpenters going, all right, what do we do now?

So I'm just bringing up some thoughts because this may be something that we have to look at.

So that's why I think that if you're letting this just be a stare, and we acknowledge up here you are retaining that, we're retaining that really.

and other horizontal members there.

To sort of add to that point, if you're going to have a deck there, why wouldn't the column in the middle section come all the way down to it?

Right.

So it would be the same height at least as the original column was.

And I agree completely with Kate that I think the more contemporary this is handled, the better in a lot of ways.

I would be remiss in not reading our dear colleagues' comments, so I'm going to do that right now.

That's okay, everybody.

This is from Mr. Zehmer, and he feels like the biggest issue is that they've torn down what may have been an original porch fabric based on the historic photos.

Certainly the railings were replaced, recently removed.

Pickett's originals had balusters.

and

that if they have not yet disposed of them, then they should reinstall the turn columns as these are certainly character defining features of this back porch.

If these don't work for the new structure, that is not our problem.

The structural engineers should figure out a solution to preserve the columns and achieve their egress stair goals.

I agree that they require railing.

The landing hit the turned column at mid-height.

to be an awkward juxtaposition.

However, they could install another simple post and board of the historic column to achieve this structurally.

Alternatively, a new code-compliant egress stair could have been considered on the side of the building, or as the bear would have to approve this.

It may not have been as egregious as running a useful two-story porch.

The columns cannot be reinstalled.

We should ask that they be put

into storage on site, attic or basement or even strapped to the underside of the lower porch.

This will give future owners the opportunity to restore them if the building returns to a private residence one day.

I'm just going to say I was actually ready to okay this tonight.

It sounds like we're not going to, but in case there is enough.

I guess maybe not.

I would be willing to make that motion if there's enough agreement.

I am curious, and I'm probably going to get scolded for asking you this, but if this porch were finished tomorrow, when could you get your CO?

Are you waiting for this?

It was, when I did it, I guess without some horizontal there, they start to feel really like long legs going up.

That's why I kept the horizontal.

And I hear you on the squatness of that column at the landing, and we could just not put a base there, come down and put the base back where

Because you're just wrapping the existing, you're wrapping the wood that you've already constructed at this point, right?

So the column could appear to come all the way down.

It absolutely could.

So there's this, I mean, obviously we could do anything here that you guys want us to do, but it's

Because I tried it without, they look really long going up to that landing.

It's super tall, it kind of needs something.

And that's where, when I put these other columns to help ground that landing there, because it has that one column.

And so, they were originally just a post coming down here to support this landing to a beam here, and the other columnist was here.

But this feels super awkward without something under it.

And that's where I kind of came up with this rhythm to help ground it and

I just carried it around.

I'm going to really mess things up.

What's in the hyphen?

Is that a passageway?

Is it livable space?

So it is kind of a passageway.

Well, it has a laundry room and like storage and which you need in a property like this.

Along the lines of Ms.

Tabony's comments and Mr. Birle's, I

I mean, I'd love to see the back contemporary maybe just enclosed in glass.

And that's why I asked whether that also could be opened up or somehow enclosed.

It's the sad thing is you would lose

Yeah.

Well, no, just it would be enclosed.

This would become an addition.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Instead of this confusing series of porches.

I see what you're saying.

And I mean, you still got the problem of how the stairs come down, but

All of the framework could be simplified, you know, which is whether it's interior space or exterior, just as others have said, there's a lot going on and I, you know, we know functionally those stairs have to get down and only we've got headspace requirements and you've got that knife and sitting there which you've got to work around.

I still say from last time, I think I said this, this is not an uncommon thing to have a stare at a porch.

I mean, it happens a lot.

It does, yeah.

My memory of them is that they're not complicated or maybe they are and we just don't notice and I kind of feel like once this is complete and painted, there's gonna be a lot of sins on this that we're not gonna see anymore.

We're just gonna

We're not going to notice the columns are out of whack by two inches.

You guys have worked so hard to, what you did to the 1980s building to make it look so historicist.

It's very well done.

I don't know if that would just feel even more out of place.

I would say the applicant does want to do the front porch, Jeff, and I think he's working on getting funding to do that.

So he wants to do that.

I think he wants to kind of keep more of that historic familial versus making this a really modern statement.

I also think that if we adjust, I really like your comment, Mr. Birle, on the

Collin, that squat column, I think that's right.

I think there's some, I think I can, I think I can simplify this and once it's white and we put some arbor vitae in front of it that are, and finish out landscape, you know, we're gonna submit a whole landscaping plan for this area once I figure out with engineering what they're gonna allow me to do as far as walks coming and meeting the street.

And I mean, one of the things we would like to do is potentially put like a little wrought iron fence there because there's, we have had trouble with

and the homeless people coming in and invading the house.

We want it to feel, we just want to make sure it doesn't feel too open to the street.

And I really think by the time you put the landscaping down there

and

So it's like you've engaged in a lot of the comments that we've made and it sounds like you're on a path where you can make revisions that you're going to feel good with and hopefully we'll feel good with next time.

I wouldn't think I'd necessarily approve it this round.

I agree.

I'm actually very happy to have you all's comments.

I very much appreciate them.

It's a tough design problem.

I'm grateful for the input, but I do think, and what next time I'll do a little bit more, I'll go ahead and get the landscape architect involved.

Because that's going to help a lot.

Once you landscape the bottom of this thing and you paint it white,

I like if we were to really take it modern like maybe we can make it work but everything else in the house he wants it to be this kind of feel like a historic boutique house that you have these really nice beautiful luxury rooms in and that's that's the feel he wants he I've got a lot of lighting on there he wants it at night I think it's gonna look I think it's gonna look really pretty with

Deck lighting and the small accent lighting and that kind of stuff.

You may even consider slats other than the lattice.

The part that I have the most problem with still, and the owner, we're still not like, we really like this, is that lattice.

It's like, what do we do between the columns?

I do think it needs

The reason I bring that up is just, I don't think we've suggested any one particular material, but just to take home the more general concepts of geometry, you know, purpose, what's the intent, not.

He shouldn't have to feel tied to necessarily historic norms or a portion of the historic norms.

Yeah, absolutely.

So we're, I'm happy to go back and do, you know,

to get you guys some more options.

Honestly, we kind of still want to do more options, so I'll probably be coming back to you anyways.

And I know I'm going to come back for the landscaping.

Oh, we all thank you for your willingness to work with us and your very open and heartfelt communication with us.

Yeah, you're welcome.

I believe so.

Well, just a quick question for the rest of us, just to make sure.

So, you've mentioned on the drawings, you know, removing that structurally, the brickpeers, are we good with that?

That is something that you guys should, yeah.

Let me just make sure that when he comes back, does he need to keep the brickpeer or can we let it go?

I'm in the camp with saying it's, you know, I think I'm okay with it going away.

Yeah.

This is existing concrete right here and this would be the intervention right here on the corner right there The brick columns come down right now, it kind of makes a little corner here and then it's abutted with, they put like a concrete well

to create that little porch down there.

I see, so the side elevation we're seeing when we see the partial self elevation.

It's just at this, at this level right here.

We're seeing that in front of the brick pier.

Yeah, right.

I'm going to bring up something though that has been, for previous BARs, been a point of contention, and I'm not sure how we feel about this.

Well, so that's where I still got to get with engineering and see where

Lee-Way

Path that goes right up to this current sidewalk coming in.

That's where I've got to get with engineering and I want to do a full landscape plan to bring it to you all.

Well, I'm going to see how far I can get.

I want to do enough that you all feel happy with this so I can build it because it might take a little while with engineering and

They come back and they want to do a minor site plan, a minor development plan on this and so I'm not sure.

We're not taking them out.

I'm not taking anything out.

Like I said, we came into this.

It had already been partially done.

We thought we were good.

We're not taking anything out.

We've just halted on this part.

Before we do anything, I know what you're talking about.

It's like a quarter round.

I think the only reason I noticed that is because you actually have a little

Yeah, you can see that.

Google Street View is not being friendly right now.

And I told Josh because it's an accessibility issue.

David.

to determine what is required and then could discuss it with you all.

If you're going to be doing landscape, I noticed that staff has put in a possible amendment to an approval which

Yeah, that's the intent.

I mean, we've also, we're going to put the front porch on so we want to, we got to do landscaping around there.

So there's going to be a whole, like, there's going to be a whole, there's going to need to be a whole landscaping plan.

And the owner, he likes his properties to look really nice.

So that's why, like, the landscaping, I think, is what is going to, it's just, I think it's really going to help

Isn't that something I need to bring to you?

Or is that right?

Isn't that landscape right?

Yeah.

Or is it?

This is one I've, I will say yes.

Bring it to me.

I planted bushes in my yard and you didn't ask myself.

And my house is, I think that it's a, there are

There are variations of a theme here.

So it's actually going to be like a little boutique hotel and there's about, there's 12 rooms.

Some of them are like, are sort of longer stay suites like this side here.

These two units here are more like a, kind of a mini, like an apartment, essentially, like a bigger apartment.

So I believe we have two options.

We could defer this.

We can defer this, but then what that means is that you have a limited time to get back to us, which basically boils down to resubmitting next week.

If I could defer, that would be great.

I think I'm going to need at least a month.

I think that's a good recommendation.

Get this, yeah.

A week.

We're just, like I said, we're still not happy with it.

All in favor.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our judge will talk.

Thanks.

Awesome.

Nothing like a group project, right?

West Water Street?

Just before you start, I think I need to recuse myself from this because I'm working for one of the, I'm so contracted to work with for the architect of, who's doing another project for grit.

I think I've been offered or asked a question a lot and I think at any point in time someone's simply uncomfortable participating.

It's fair to use yourself if you wish.

Alright, so this is 201 West Water Street.

A lot of people recall it as the clock shop.

I think it's been a couple things since it was the clock shop.

This is a contributing structure within the downtown ADC district.

It's at the southeast corner of 200 West Main, which we'll be discussing later on.

There's not a lot of information.

We don't have a historical survey of it, but I was able to discern somewhat some of the background of this.

I thought it was a Sears and Roebuck gas station.

I know Sears used to fix cars.

I didn't know they had gas stations and not an AS station as I have in the staff report I see.

and 1957 it became Wilkerson's Shelter Station and then 1958, 1960 it was a paint and wallpaper shop and then at some point more contemporary became the clock repair shop.

So what is before you all here?

Grid coffee will be occupying this space at some point and

are looking to install new signage.

We talked about this briefly at the pre-meeting, so forgive me for being redundant, but the design guidelines for ADC districts make a recommendation about signage and that should only have two permanent signs for a business.

And that could be any type of sign.

And I read I say permanent is

Lots of places you're allowed to have temporary signs, you can have a sandwich board sign, things like that.

So the two permanent signs.

And in reading the guidelines, that's really intended for those traditional commercial facades that we see on the Mall at West Main.

And this building certainly is not one of those.

It is on a corner.

It doesn't have the facade of the street.

It's got the wall set back.

And I had mentioned also that previously the ordinance had not where you have signs inside of a glass window.

The requirement was you didn't obscure more than 50% of the glass, and we never really looked at them that often.

But now with the new ordinance, the sign rigs specifically address window signs, so now we're previously looking at saying there's three new signs, the two with the signs make it five.

So we have the two window signs, we have the wall sign on the back there between the two entrances.

There is a projecting sign that will be on the second street wall and then the fifth sign is a round

We're referring to a canopy sign because it's suspended from the canopy.

By code, the zoning folks have looked at this and they are.

It meets the zoning ordinance as far as number of signs.

It does not meet our guidelines.

So whereas I would typically end

I review signs on your behalf.

I look at the guidelines.

If they match them, it gets my signature.

If someone wishes to do something outside of that, then I bring it to you.

And as you know, you guys don't see a lot of signs, so usually people are staying within the ordinance.

But my recommendation here is that

I think there are unique circumstances.

Again, corner site, non-traditional building, the way it's set, back from the street, the wall.

The letters on the wall sign are larger than our recommendation.

We recommend 12 inches, 13.

But I think that the wall sign itself is one of the things that's really nice.

It fits that space well.

The window signs are subdued.

The colors are fine.

Typically, we're thinking about painted window signs.

The guidelines, you talk about it, but like on the front of a window, these are vertical, so a little bit different from our guidelines.

The projecting sign that's hanging on the second street side, I think, is fine.

and

to not have so much signage that it becomes visual clutter.

And we've used that turn a lot recently with the cafe space discussion.

So that's where I kind of came down on.

I think that the do-it-it signs are fine, the wall signs fine, the projecting sign is fine.

I think that hanging sign is

I don't want to say unnecessary, that's not the right word, but I don't think it's appropriate.

Kyle, if you can hear me, I'm apparently on Zoom.

We're having a volume issue.

They can't hear anything.

So it's something in the settings.

I teased you a message, too.

Yeah, hi.

Thank you for considering our signed package.

I'm Dan FitzHenry.

I'm one of the owners of Great Coffee.

We're very excited to occupy this beautiful space on Water Street.

We're just moving from around the corner where our current space is.

and I think if you've been to any one of our shops, we pride ourselves on our design and our look and feel.

We have kind of a mid-century modern aesthetic to our branding and what we're going for here is

There are a lot of points of visibility to this building because the unique way it's shaped.

So we're not trying to be visibly cluttered, but we are trying to give some access points to our, to let people know that we are occupying this space, whether they're coming either way on Water Street or either way on Second Street there.

And I do

Agree with staff about the canopy sign because it is, unfortunately, we would place it right behind the downtown mall sign that's already standing there at the corner.

Any questions from the board?

Did you just say you agree with staff about the canopy sign?

Yeah.

I'm sorry.

That was a question.

No, no.

I can see making that argument.

We would love that visibility coming up Water Street before you crest that hill where you would be able to see the two window signs.

So obviously, we would love the package that's submitted to be approved.

I think that's where the point I'm making in the staff report is that science is just a really contentious issue on them all at some places and for some businesses and so I just want to

It's difficult to say, and primarily because of the, where window signs have now become

So that's sort of, we've turned a page and we're not exactly sure how things are going to play out.

In fact, Sony had even said, well, why don't you take out one of the windows sides?

I said, I like the windows side.

I have no problem with those.

I really like the design of them, but it's a, so

I guess the correct answer would be you all look at everything individually.

If this were on the mall and between two other buildings and this were only a 30 foot storefront and someone said I want five signs on there, that would be a different set of circumstances and I think that you could defend yourselves.

So to support it, I would say that you've got your intersection to streets, of course.

I think the other complicating factor is that, believe it or not, water comes to a crest right there at Second Street.

And you're below it even when you're down at Waterhouse.

And you're below it even when you're at the terraces, like a block down.

So it's an interesting, so you really don't know.

You know, it's a little blind in some ways until you get to the top, and then you have to figure out what pedestrians are going across, who wants to go down the mall crossing, who's gonna... I always find it a challenging intersection, because I use that crossing a lot, but I think all of them are warranted, and frankly on the window signs, if they weren't permitted, you could hang a mobile there, you know, an inch off the glass inside,

and do the same thing.

I'm sure, functionally, there would be a way of doing it.

You know, not that we want that to happen with the zoning officials, but I think all of them address different ways that one would approach this business.

And I thought that the canopy, for lack of a better word, sign was a good idea if I were walking up water

or driving up there.

I'm not sure.

You wouldn't see the recessed wall sign.

You wouldn't necessarily see the, you know, certainly not the sign down second.

So I think all of them serve different purposes.

And I think your package, probably whoever designed it, you know, was thinking about that.

I mean, I'm really interested.

Our ordinance should take into account how much street frontage you have.

And if you think about, you know, the width and then the depth of that parcel, it's worth two or three storefronts, you know, contemporary,

Are you planning on having sheeting

If we do, it would be very limited along the left side there.

What are you going to put in there?

I just had one question.

What is the height of the underside of the canopy?

I believe it is 12 feet.

I'm writing the motion.

Yeah, let's see if there are any other comments.

I would just, I would like to add

in relation to the idea of precedent that I almost consider this like a four sign proposal.

I think that the two glass signs are kind of almost like a column.

So I would look at it as a four sign proposal and you're looking at a building with not really two faces but four faces.

You know, you've got this really unique situation.

So I think it's totally in keeping with the guidelines even if you consider

If you have two faces, you have two signs per face.

One other question I have for us.

Any additional follow up?

Ms.

Mr. Bailey.

Yes.

This is Luis.

Aye.

Mr. Birle.

Yes.

Mr. Rosenthal.

Yes.

My two vote yes.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think signage will be one of the other things we look at with the guidelines.

I'm already getting asked a bunch of questions in Barracks Road Shopping Center and their comp signage plan, but I mean, I really come down on, you know, is it below that height we want?

Is it illuminated if it is?

Then, you know, how?

Because you can do it right and you can do it wrong.

And I think really then that sort of that design and

That's an excellent design.

So it's where, you know, there's, and it's within the total square footage, the max allowed.

There are some folks out there that are just like more and more and bigger and bigger.

Interesting conversation a couple years ago with the folks that manage Barris Road Shopping Center and they just said, most people know where they're going because they dial into their phone and they follow it and they said, but still,

Tenants One Science, so not going to go away just yet.

Okay, this next up is a, so thank you for taking care of the action items, the next up is a

A continuation of the prior discussions we've been having about 200 West Main Street.

Mr. Levine has addressed some of the things that were raised in November and December.

I think some information with the shade study.

I don't want to labor the presentation, but I do want to just be clear that

I spoke with Mr. Levine today.

He was in for a pre-developmental discussion about what's necessary to get the development plan reviewed.

The first step in order for this to be considered as a formal application has to be the demolition COA.

We can't consider a new building formally until there's an agreement on that the old may or may not be removed.

So that's really the next step that I see.

There might be other questions associated with that.

I will address those.

But I think the goal for tonight is see what's been

See how much Levine has responded to the questions and comments that you all had.

I think it'd be really important that

He's able to walk away tonight with some direction on, I think we've talked a lot about shade and heights and step backs, but I think that what you all are looking at is what is that impact on the mall?

And the one that you talked about is that experience of the facade, which the building height has been lowered there on the mall.

So that begins to address that.

And then I am not qualified to determine whether

six hours of shade or six and a half hours of shade or no hours of shade are, you know, advisable.

So I can't, can't advise on that, but I think that there are, I think you all have been expressing a, there's an experience on the mall that, that

You all want to retain that's associated with the sunshine.

And I think that more clearly we can express that and then the design can respond to it.

It's like the last piece of the puzzle here, at least relative to the height passing and scale.

And with that, turning it over to Jeff and his team.

I have a question.

Yes, ma'am.

We can certainly ask them, but the tree, you all, so the BAR is one of the four key bodies of the city government, city council being obviously the big one, the planning commission,

and the Board of

Steve Gaines, the city's forester knows about when projects come in, so they are able to comment, but they don't have an official capacity.

They certainly can make comments, make recommendations internally.

I can reach out to them and ask what they think.

We have been in touch with Paul Josie.

I know Jeff has talked to Paul Josie who authored the, as you know, the Mall Tree study.

So we're getting a lot of input, but it still kind of falls to you all about on the design decisions.

and Kyle Loretty for the earloom development presentation.

I'm going to pass it off to Joel my architect but again to put this into perspective and Jeff mentioned it

Could you use the word design twice and I don't think we want to talk design because really my goal is the February hearing I'll be submitting next week a formal application for a demo COA with all of the things laid out as Member Lewis pointed out

to make that formal request.

My other goal is to make some application for, I'm not sure what it is, but to say that the conditions that the BAR can impose per 5.2.7C of the code are the conditions that are in this massing plan with that height and that step back.

Because as I've said, without that,

and

We want some elevations, we want some more views from closer in, show us more shading, so we've come with a whole pile.

The step-backs, I think, are the same, the same, but we made them at specific heights, so you could see that, 25 feet at 40.

Joel, go into that, and another 15 at 150.

What I'm working on with Jeff and staff and Kelly and Brown is what is it that the BAR can grant that says these are the conditions and I can go on my way and do 47 other things.

And I will say for the tree that we actually brought up trees this morning at the PRE-AT meeting.

We're very aware that the morning sunlight is important for tree life.

We're also very aware that most of those trees are coming down in the next five to seven years as part of the management plan.

We're also aware that the fire department's going to want to know the location of those trees for fire access.

So we're very aware of the replanting of those trees and how they work with the building.

Again, that's part of landscape.

That's six months down the road.

I'm just trying to understand what the envelope is.

Thanks, Jeff.

Okay.

Nice to be here in person with you all.

Thanks for continuing the discussion with us.

Can I click forward with this?

Okay.

Okay.

Just a site plan, everyone knows where the site is, but just some additional information on dimensions that are relevant to the conditions of the site, particularly so we can back that up real quick.

Updated massing news here, we've kind of, not much has changed here, as Jeff alluded to earlier, there has been a, we did lower that additional, or that first step back off the mall.

to a more reasonable height on the third level.

I'll get into that in the upcoming slides.

Other than that, the step back dimensions themselves in terms of depths off of the property line have not changed.

And then also just a little bit clearer graphics to describe the intent here.

Albeit we are in a very early stage, as Jeff mentioned previously.

Yes, the green is indicating occupiable terraces.

So a lot of that will be mechanical on the upper roof.

We're showing a penthouse up there right now with some overrun locations for the elevator, etc.

There will be some mechanical as well.

The lower step-backs, however, will be mostly occupied.

Okay.

This is a mall elevation that kind of zooms way out to give you kind of a more contextual idea of the height and scale of this building as it sits in the current condition of the mall.

Relative to, on the right hand part of the screen, you can see

The Coat Building, as well as the Omni Hotel, and just the kind of general scale of that area of the mall, the Western End.

This is an elevation take-in through Second Street.

I should clarify Southwest Second Street.

This is an elevation showing the height of our step backs.

The first step back off the mall is currently at 44 feet.

It's three stories.

We have a quite large ground floor story for the retail heights that are needed and also just access as well.

Then another step back of 15 feet at 160 feet of height and then ultimately the top of the building at 184 feet.

But we did hear that that first step back should be at a level that's contextual with the buildings around it.

But yeah, that's a battery died?

Can I bother you too?

Does the laser still work?

Okay, that's good.

It's a screen-sharing show.

I think that was okay.

I think it's just not responding.

So getting into some kind of pedestrian views, these are the views that, there's a series of views here that I think you all were getting to last time that we're not present in the previous presentation.

Point well taken that the views we were showing previously were kind of, you know, kind of helicopter views, I guess, so to speak, to show the scope of the project.

These are more to show experientially what the scale of this building will feel like on the model.

Still a long way to go here in articulation design, of course, but we're focused on kind of height, massing and scale.

This is a, if you can actually go back previously, what I call perfect

So as you can see to Jeff's comment moments ago, we're scaling that for step back, kind of giving a character with scale of the buildings on the mall currently so that there's a visual cue there of this, you know, responding to that contextually.

Next slide, please.

This is further down the mall, looking back at the building.

We're by the Wells Fargo building here, which is currently about 80 feet of height, with no step backs, just to get a sense of what that feels like in comparison to what we're proposing further down the mall.

Important to know that we are on the south side of the mall versus the north, but just to understand the scale of a sheer facade going up eight stories.

What that feels like here.

Next slide.

Again, we're back on 2nd Street, now we're looking south to understand what the approach for Marcus Street looks like, approaching to the mall.

You can see an indication of where the trees are situated and what this feels like in terms of scale.

Next slide, please.

And then getting uptight to the building here on the corner, just getting a sense of what

The scale of the street feels like on 2nd Street.

It compares into the mall and the presence of the building facade to the human scale here, the three-story expression.

Next slide, please.

And then situating North facade where we would likely locate retail.

This is looking back down the mall, the whole retail corridor experience and getting a sense of the scale close to this side as well.

Next slide, please.

That's a McCarrick talking about code.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's part of it actually.

If you turn it a little bit.

The total?

I don't want to speculate.

I'll start here.

The highest.

The highest.

I don't know, but I mean, you guys have a, have it in, give it to you.

It's over 100 feet, but not by much.

Yeah, that extended view, the street section had a kind of a good relationship between the two.

I want to say it's probably about 100 feet.

Yeah.

Yeah, it was close to the Newberry.

Yeah.

Oh, it worked.

Okay.

Clickers back.

Okay, so now we're south of Water Street here, looking to the north.

As you can see, the previous project that was just reviewed is right there in front of us on the corner.

Great coffee.

So this is just a good sense of what this feels like with the access off of Water Street and then in scale with the surrounding context here as well.

Next slide, please.

And then going much further to the east, looking back towards the west, sort of a long view approach to get a sense of what it feels like contextually with the surrounding massings, the coal building in the distance there, and some of the taller buildings after them all.

This is what we showed last time, so this is sort of a jumping off point for a more in-depth solar analysis that we've done.

Again, the conclusion remains the same as last time here, but I wanted to point out that we did define an area of focus within this whole study, because this was a large scope of area that we, there's a lot of data here.

So we wanted to focus it on requests from last time toward between specifically the vernal or spring equinox and the summer solstice, because that's the kind of high impact area that we're looking at.

And then also reducing the scope of the mall to a more localized part that's more easily digestible and understood to be the highest impact area of our proposed building.

So in this refined solar analysis, we've included a sun path diagram kind of over the top of a more refined sun hours study to help illustrate the sun positions throughout specific increments of the day.

Texas is a little small to read there, but those are specific hours of the day.

There is one line.

Okay, so there's two kind of sun paths shown on this sun path diagram.

That is the summer solstice, much higher in the sky.

And then this one below on each of these diagrams is the vernal equinox position of the sun throughout the day.

As you can see here, we've done a comparison of the existing to the left and the proposed on the right.

The area of focus here on the mall that we've defined here is shown on each of the diagrams.

And we've done a direct comparison for sun hours, total sun hours.

This is in that total four month period or three month period.

And this is direct sun hours for the proposed.

The difference between these is about 5%.

So just for example, sun hours here, total sun hours,

1089 compared to 1034.

It's not a whole lot of difference throughout the day.

And the reason for that, and this is why we've included the sun path diagram here, is you can see that we get total morning light all the way down the mall up into about one o'clock, one p.m.

These diagrams, if you look at the numbers closely, do include daylight savings time, so there is an hour difference on a particular time of the year.

just for 90 years.

And this is just kind of a more refined or more in-depth breakdown of the actual data.

You can see on the left here, we've actually included the positions altitude and azimuth of the sun in each of these hours of the day that we've broken down.

So this is more for reference if there's a deeper discussion on any of this.

But largely, we were happy to find that there's a fairly minimal impact on sun hours during this increment between the

Springy, Gwinoff's, and Summer Solstice.

So we're happy that we can just retain full light exposure for the trees.

And again, this is somewhere in depth breakdown of the proposed.

And just to recap from last time, we did talk about this a little bit, the mall experience during sunset in particular, and getting this kind of quality down the mall in summer months.

We did a comparison, we showed this last time, June 21st on the Solstice, that there would be a very minimal blockage of direct sunlight during the summer because the sun is so high in the sky, it's kind of shining over the building for the most part except for this time of day.

on the Mall, because the sun is so low in the sky this time of year.

So even the two-story and three-story buildings kind of block direct sunlight during this time of day.

So this is a diagram showing that location.

Thank you.

I just wanted to have one.

We can talk a lot about the trees, but for us, it was also

I think it's a large fear that you put a big building up and you shade the whole mall.

So regardless of trees, we're sensitive.

We don't want to just cause a shadow over the whole mall walking down.

As you can see, that's not what a building of this height does, particularly with those step backs.

So it's not just tree preservation.

I have a question.

Excuse me.

Solar Analysis with the Direct Sun Hours.

I think that's really helpful to see.

I'm having a hard time understanding the quantity of hours.

If you go back to the plan view, where it compares to the direct sun hours on the existing is 1,089 versus 1,034 on the other.

Is that the total hours or total hours?

between the equinox and the solstice, which works out to about 12 hours a day.

Yeah, so the bright yellow is full radiation intensity, and then the blue, obviously, would be zero.

Thanks.

Is it on the slides?

and the actual hours of those.

We've talked about how it's not the morning hours, but is it like the 50 hour difference, what time of day?

Basically what have we shown to show that it's the morning hours that are preserved for photosynthesis?

We could break this information down any way that's needed to clarify any concerns.

It's tough to show this information incrementally because then you end up with like a thousand images.

And how do you break that down?

So we did it in a kind of holistic way.

Like, okay, what's the total impact?

Let's compare the two to demonstrate that there's a fairly minimal impact direct sunlight in general from this proposed massing.