Board of Architectural Review Meeting   5/20/2025

Apologies for slight delay.

Hopefully we can, I think I don't hear it now.

Okay, great.

All right, I'll call us to order.

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

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

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

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

For each application, members of the public are each allowed three minutes to ask questions and 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 action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond.

All right.

First are matters from the public not on the agenda or if you want to comment on something on the consent agenda.

The two consent agenda items are meeting minutes from this past April and a COA for 218 West Market Street demolition.

It's a previously approved COA which has expired.

Any comments or matters from the public on those two items or something that's not on our agenda?

Ms.

Just as always clarify that a vote to approve the consent agenda is a vote to approve the recommended motion for approval for the demolition of 218 West Market Street.

Thank you.

and those are the applicant will submit for the record documentation and photographs of the existing building, BAR approval of the COAs for this building for placement and an approved building permit for construction of that replacement.

Ms.

Good evening.

Genevieve Keller, 504 North First Street.

I did not comment or oppose the

Demolition when it was considered the first time.

I think we're starting to have a lot more experience with demolition requests and things happening particularly in this part of town.

As you know, I'm very concerned about this being part of the overall history of Vinegar Hill.

So while I'm not opposing the demolition or new construction on that site, I would ask that you consider, as I asked about the Violet Crown building, to ask for more complete documentation of what is there now, and perhaps ask also for an archaeological consultation, because I think that has had some other uses.

Wayback.

And so it may be that the site hasn't been that disturbed over the years.

It may have been.

I'm not an expert in that area, and I can't comment about it.

But I think it would be worth a consideration, because as a community, we're very interested in the history of that site.

And we might not have another opportunity for 100 years.

Thank you.

Any comments from the VAR?

That's correct.

Okay.

We'll move 218 West Market demolition from the consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

I'm going to abstain because I was not here last month.

But the motion carries.

All right.

Well, it's this one.

It's 218 that's just gotten removed from the consent agenda.

So I think

There's no real presentation on the agenda, and I reminded everybody of the three contingencies of that demolition permit.

I can offer, I don't know, Ms.

Giller, but in

In reviewing, this has already been, the demolition is on consent, it's already been approved twice, but in the staff report there are images from the Sanborn maps, and Ms.

Keller is correct, the parking lot area particularly was open

I mean there was some series of dwellings along that side of the roads where Brown's Lock and Safe is.

There were two and then there was a third.

So where the parking lot is now at this site, yeah in fact you can see there that the where the arrow on the top right that's the northeast corner of this parcel.

So you see there's the dwelling on this and then there's

Dowling says you continue across to where Brown's Lock and Key is.

We even know who lived in those houses.

And you can see there that the site is relatively undisturbed.

And then later when the AMP was built, that was the parking lot for it.

Just to clarify though, the Brown's Lock and Key

The property is not part of the demolition permit.

The Browns Lock and Key property is not any longer.

So that was a separate application and a separate parcel, or I mean a separate approval.

So yeah, I thought they might be related at some point, but they are not.

So yeah, this is singularly about where we call the Artful Lodger site and the old EMP building.

So from that top green arrow,

going west on Market Street.

And Brown's Lock and Key would be to the right-hand side of that top green arrow.

All right, I guess comments from the public.

We already had Ms.

Yeah, we're getting to that.

I used the word consultation because I know we don't have an archaeology component to our ordinance, but it seems that when you're approving something like a demolition, you probably have the purview to add conditions.

We don't know what there is there.

And I think the trick here is a consultation in an archeological survey are kind of two different things.

One implies like actually shovels in the ground and that potentially incurs cost on the applicant that I don't know if we're necessarily allowed to force them to do that.

So I would recommend you simply add to complete a phase one archeological investigation of the site.

and that is that initial analysis.

It may involve test bits, it may not, but it is where the archeologists do some of the due diligence on the historic background and determine if there are any

maybe is or is not the possibility of artifacts.

But, you know, to be clear, archaeology and investigation doesn't always lead to digging a hole.

Sure.

Or at least modern archaeology does.

Very good.

Mr. Rosenthal, do you accept that?

I do.

Very good.

The applicant for this demolition COA, the person is not here, but I feel like the owner is here.

I'm not sure what a phase one archaeological survey is, to be honest with you.

So mainly it's research, I think, in terms of looking at historic maps like this and doing deed research and whatnot to determine

We do not require, we don't have an ordinance that would require, um, you know, Ferguson, you know, if you found Stonehenge under there, we could not require you, uh, under our code.

Uh, so the phase one, uh, provides some additional information, some historic background, uh, in, it does, but it doesn't, the results would not, unless you all stated it in the COA, we could not compel them to continue.

And I, I think it's a,

And we've done a phase one already on the site.

The pavement would have to be GPR.

Okay.

And to be clear, also, you all can, by your motion, add a condition to the COA.

An applicant can if they feel a condition is unfair or unnecessary.

while they get an approval, they can also appeal a condition of approval.

It says applicant will submit for the record documentation and photographs of the existing building

All right.

We'll take a vote.

Mr. Rosenthal?

Aye.

Ms.

Tabony?

Yes.

Mr. Timmerman?

Yes.

Ms.

Lewis?

Aye.

Mr. Birle?

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

Passes.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right.

Alright, we're moving on to new items.

First is 759 Belmont Avenue.

Staff, would you like to give your report, please?

Dan's here.

Dan, aren't you a new dad?

Obviously not.

Sorry.

So this is a COA request for 759 Belmont Avenue.

This is what was known as the Belmont Mansion.

It is an individually protected property.

It was constructed

at least the initial construction around 1837 and there were some additions over time.

The two-story brick building on either end when originally constructed had chimneys in

each parapet on the east and west end.

At some point, and we don't know when, the west chimney was removed and the parapet repaired, the roof repaired, and the request tonight is to do the similar thing on the east chimney and parapet.

Full disclosure, I know the applicants and have discussed this with them prior to their application and that the understanding is that the masonry has, it's also within the house to reconstruct the chimney.

They'd have to take it down further than just below the roof.

to then reconstruct it again.

I have a similar situation in my house so I know the problem.

So when staff looked at this, obviously a strict interpretation of the guidelines would suggest not to remove a character-defining feature.

I'm trying to approach it as we already have.

One side has been removed and replaced.

This side, a similar repair would be done.

We have documentation of the chimney that's there.

The applicant has expressed help.

want to store the bricks on site in case there is a restoration of the building at some point.

So that threshold for me, is this a reversible change?

And yes, it is.

So in that regard,

It's been a lot of communication about this that has been a little confusing, my mother and godmother in this building.

So I'm stepping in as the sun architect.

One thing that's in the staff report that I don't think is actually a true representation of the proposed repair is that the chimney on the left-hand side has a furnace vent.

coming through it that needs to be maintained.

So it can't be repaired to exactly match the other side.

And I've included a diagram of what we're proposing.

We'll demolish it to just above the ridge line of the roof and put a metal cap with a vent coming through it and paint the cap to match right of the rest of the roof.

It even makes it easier to rebuild the chimney

was so desired.

Great, thank you.

Do we have any questions from the public?

Anybody online?

Jeff, when you guys wrote the staff report or the suggested

I guess I'm asking about the coping that you mentioned.

That already exists, so they're not adding new coping.

If you scroll back up to the West Chimney

And I don't know what part of the image it's in.

But it already is, correct?

Right.

So on the other side, where the chimney has already been demolished, that terracotta parapet cap that's on the left of the left image continues over the ridge.

That's right.

On this side, what we're proposing to do is maybe leave two courses of the chimney above the ridge.

OK.

Go down next one.

Keep going.

Keep going.

Well, not without demolishing the interior chimney to the base and rebuilding from the

Did you take a just, I think just maybe disrepair, deferred maintenance we could say, yeah.

Yeah.

Like, I was just wondering if demo has already been?

No.

Well, but it's really open and you've seen the pictures.

I wonder what's living in there.

We have a report from Mason that has looked at it.

Any comments from the public?

All right.

I mean, our guidelines say not to remove chimneys, but I think that considering that it's going to be very obvious that the chimney, you're not, it's obvious there was a chimney and it could be easily put back later.

Yeah, that's it saving grace for me.

I actually don't understand the logic between why, as it's cut now, why you're saying it's structurally sound.

If that foundation is structurally sound at the lower level, why can't they just build on top of it?

Reusing the new bricks with new mortar, I don't quite understand the mason's logic.

So why aren't they doing that?

that issue still exists, right?

I think it's because currently, if it falls, it falls on the house.

It's falling towards the ridge.

But repairing it would not be from the roof up.

It's further down into the house.

I'll make a motion if no one else has any comments.

Having considered the standards set forth in the city code, including city design guidelines for rehabilitations, I move to find the proposed chimney removal and subsequent repairs to the roof and parapet set aside the BAR's criteria and guidelines that are compatible with this IPP and that the BAR approves the application as submitted.

With the following conditions, I'll strike the one about the parapet.

Prior to removal, the east chimney will be photographed and documented, including a dimension sketch, such as the chimney can be reconstructed at a later date.

Documentation will be submitted for the BAR archive.

It's in there.

So we've got that.

Repairs to the remaining masonry will be completed using material, mortar, and methods appropriate for early 19th century masonry.

The standing seam metal roof will be repaired so as to match the existing panelists and joints will be crimped, including the ridge.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Yeah, I second.

Painted to match the roof, okay.

Just wanted to make sure that was in there.

Yeah, that's a good stipulation.

Mr. Rosenthal?

Yes.

Ms.

Tabony?

Yes.

Mr. Timmerman?

Yes.

Ms.

Lewis?

Aye.

Mr. Birle?

Yes.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

For our next one, I forgot to mention earlier, we did, last night council did appoint a landscape architect

to take Mr. Gastinger's seat.

Last name is?

Lauer.

Lauer, sorry.

And I met with her, yeah, it's really a delightful person.

I'm looking forward to having her.

Kate gets a free toaster for bringing the new VAR member in.

So, alright, the next up is

This is a COA request for

This is a request for 540 Park Street.

This is a house built in 1900.

It is in the north downtown ADC district and it is designated contributing to the district by the city.

It was constructed by William T. Vandergrift for the Mafus family.

Originally it had wood siding and was covered with stucco.

The house has come to you several times for various alterations to the rear reconstruction of the pool house.

I think there's the shed at the street on the fair side.

This request is to replace the windows in the building.

The majority of them are double hung.

In the basement they do have casements, but the request is to replace the existing with prominently casement windows that would simulate the two sash of the double hung.

Almost all of the windows are single light.

There's two attic casements that appear to be have multi panes in them.

There's a window on the first floor on the front elevation that has a

and Kate and I aren't quite sure how to characterize it.

An ornamental grill applied to the upper sash.

Then there's three casement windows on the side of the first floor facing Farish that also have

what appears to be an applied grill or a simple grill over the upper panes of the casement.

But that has a different grill pattern.

And then there's the window in the front of the house, the main window on the left-hand side, the north side, that it is a leaded glass sash.

My best guess in talking to the builder, it may have come from inside, it may have been a transom, it may have come from somewhere else, but it's simply attached to the trim, it's hinged onto it, it doesn't serve any function, I think, other than being decorative and clearly not where it was when the house was built, or it wasn't there when the house was built.

So, typically for

Windows, and we've discussed these a lot recently.

I inform the applicant that the burden is on them to demonstrate that the windows are irreparable.

I know there's some wiggle room in there.

Then I typically will say, at the very least, if windows need to be replaced, are there enough

Sash in good repair that units on the front, the primary elevation can retain original material if at all possible.

The request here is to replace all of the sash, and these will be frame inserts so they'll fit tightly within the existing frame so the exterior trim will not be changed.

It would be minimal change to the width, but they will be casements and not the double hung that you see now.

I really didn't know how to advise on this one, but I will turn it over to the applicant and you all can have this discussion.

Well, when you say leaded, I think of like the individual piece of glasses in the, you know, but that to us looks honestly like a piece of plexiglass with a grill attached on both sides.

I sent the photos at the end of the day.

It's just, it's not telling.

You really, I don't know, we probably smudged our noses getting close to staring at it.

But it is not, and that's the difficulty is, was there originally a decorative window there?

Probably.

Is that it?

I don't know.

I did note that the grill varies.

So if we were going to use that window as an example, well then you go around to the casement windows, it's different.

No, that's very strange for sure.

Are the existing windows wood frame, single pane?

I'm sorry.

Are the existing windows wood frame, single pane?

I believe they're going to go with insulated glass, but they would be instead of

A double-hung with one sash over the other.

They would be in line.

They are not.

Yeah, it's clad, and it's a... Where that existing frame is, you take the sash out, you take the stop bead and the parting bead out, so you've got the frame.

These are manufactured to fit very tightly within that.

So there's other products out there that you fit in there and then you've got a two inch gap all the way around.

This fits in there tight so it reasonably approximates the width of the sash as you see it there.

So this is where we've dealt with this a lot, where space is being utilized as a kitchen.

So we've advised people to not change the window opening.

You could put it in a different window, but keep it within the opening.

put in a panel of some type so that it indicates that that had been a larger opening.

Is the applicant here?

Thank you very much.

My name is Doug Croker with ILEX Construction.

I'm here to represent the owner, Patrick Fenn.

who has requested the windows be replaced.

We're doing an extensive restoration of the building.

I think this is purely motivated by we're insulating the entire building.

He would like to have insulated windows.

He's replacing mechanical systems to a very extensive restoration.

Our goal and advice to Patrick is that we don't want to change the exterior appearance in any way.

with the exception of allocating that panel treatment in front of a countertop in the kitchen that would run and create a well behind the countertop, which was the reason for that.

He has requested that we use these manufactured windows.

The existing openings are not.

Not every opening remains square.

They're racked over the years.

So the option of just doing sash replacements was difficult, to say the least.

We did not want to influence the exterior of the building because of the existing stucco.

It's a very textured, heavy, old-fashioned stucco that

We didn't want to get into disturbing.

And he's requesting that the windows be replaced.

I agree, I'm not sure what the treatment on the kind of applied old sash on the front of the building is.

It's literally hinged at the top of the frame.

We have not requested to remove it, but it doesn't seem to make much sense.

And I think the other issue were on the stair landing.

One of the major things we're suggesting on that is that it be replaced, again, to look exactly the same.

But we feel it should be tempered glass.

It should be tempered glass per coat.

So that's because you can kick it as you're going down the steps.

we're willing to make whatever, we're huge believers in the restoration process.

Great, thank you.

All right, questions from the public?

This is just to clarify something that staff said.

You said you thought those leaded windows were plexiglass?

I think that was the word you used.

It's been manipulated over the years.

If you could have seen what we ran into inside, the answer's yes.

Interesting.

It's just really strange.

We've tried to discuss with the owner restoration, etc.

The big problem being we're going to a lot of trouble to insulate the building that's not insulated at all right down the exterior walls.

And these single-paint windows are an issue with replacing mechanical systems, etc.

So we're not touching anything outside.

There's no desire to change the look.

I just want to put an efficient window in.

I'm certainly willing to maintain the kind of weird sashes.

Yeah, I mean it's on a, you literally, it's on a hinge that somebody just said let's put it on.

That window where it sits has been replaced before.

Yeah, this one and

I think it's hinged on the outside.

And it won't even sit flat.

Well, it's a fixed window.

I was going to say, is it operational?

Yeah, the window behind it is a single sash.

It was probably a lot like the window on the second floor.

So my read of it, and we're standing there, it's possible this was a

Twin double hung like above it.

But at some point in time, it became that single sash.

The thing that's there looks almost like a transfer panel that came from somewhere.

And someone said, oh, this is decorative.

Let's put it there.

In fact, I considered even, and maybe you all could consider, if they wanted to remove that, I wouldn't.

It fits, though.

Yes and no.

Let's say it fits it now.

I think it sits on the face frame, on the front.

It won't go into the sash area.

How many windows total are you doing?

That's a good question.

I had a question on

We altered that this afternoon.

We would go back with the

I saw some emails, I didn't get a chance to dig into every one.

I don't know.

It's not my choice.

The owner loves casement windows.

My recommendation to him was to use double horn windows.

He's asked for casement windows.

He's agreed to the pattern, to the thickness of the rail, styles and rails match, but he

The other question I had was about the shutters.

We don't propose we will retain.

Our goal there would be to restore, retain, and repaint.

So we didn't want to remove shutters.

We didn't want to change anything on the outside of the building.

I mean, obviously, the windows aren't changed.

They'd be wood, they'd be operable.

No, no, we would never build any building without operable shutters.

Now I have told people...

Yeah, Doug and I have talked about it a lot.

It's great walking through a house with someone who's worked on houses like this.

But for your question, we don't

My house, someone took the shutters off.

I don't know when.

We can't require someone put them back on.

So we've tended to treat them as I would prefer if they stay on.

But if someone removes them, it happens.

I agree.

Any other questions from the board?

All right, any comments from the public?

Anyone online?

All right, and comments from the board.

I'll go ahead.

Personally, I think that

One, I don't think there's been enough of a survey to prove to us that the windows are in irreparable condition.

So I would advocate for preserving and restoring the windows.

And secondly, and maybe almost more importantly, I feel like casement windows here are very inappropriate.

I think that even in the closed position, you might be able to kind of fake it, if you will, to make them look like the historic windows, but our purview is the exterior of the building, and the minute somebody opens the window, the exterior of the building is anachronistic to what it should look like with a casement window.

I would imagine that I can

talk the owner into.

And I think that if, we'll see how this goes, but from my personal opinion, if that was the case and you come back to us, then we'd also want to see a really good survey showing the conditions of the existing windows to prove that they need replacement.

Other comments?

I'll jump in.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say.

I wouldn't support it.

Also to add, number two of the pertinent design review guidelines, retain original windows whenever possible.

I'll add also that I think just generally windows are probably the most important defining feature in a historic house and we're dealing with a house on one of our best streets.

So I'll counter that.

I would support replacing the windows.

They're double hung.

A double hung window is a functional unit.

It's got a lifespan.

And there's nothing, at least as far as the double hung windows are concerned, nothing special about them that makes them irreplaceable.

I mean there's

They were mass produced at one point.

I get a little hung up about special windows.

So I'll skip whatever the faux leaded ones are for now.

But I think the attic ones, you do need to put the divided lights back in.

So I guess what

To me, it feels like if those are actually leaded windows, maybe they had been there at one point, and these windows that we're looking at currently were replaced sometime in the 20th century.

I mean, obviously, the living room window was replaced at some point, and it still looks old today.

Sort of.

We've done plenty of projects where we just rebuild the windows.

I don't want to represent it.

I mean, it's easy to rebuild.

We do it all the time.

So we stockpile old weights and chains so we can use the old weights.

These are not that special, which is why I'm even

I'm not embarrassed to make the request.

I'm just forgetting again about the leaded windows.

I do think you need to make them double arms.

America guidelines are trying to find where we had that.

Yeah, so maintain the, do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality, blah, blah, blah, blah.

To me, I would assume that switching from a double hung, which has a clear, a pretty easy to see shadow line where the sashes break, to a casement, I feel like that would be inappropriate.

So,

Overall, I would be in support of this application, but with double hungs instead of casements.

I too would support it with the double home as a replacement.

I think the energy efficiency, what you're trying to do to the house is important and getting efficient windows in.

I agree.

I'm not sure how that works.

I'm certainly happy to get back to Jeff.

I'd support the switch of the windows.

It's hard to make people use inefficient windows.

I tried it.

I showed him photographs of probably

But I agree there.

So there's a couple of different feel like we've done this before I mean we put conditions on things all the time, right and

It's a major change to what was presented.

It won't be a change.

I'm happy to submit new shop drawings.

I'm happy to advocate for that.

So a couple options and I want to

Just make sure we have a couple boxes to check and that we don't miss any.

But first and foremost, this is the first time you are seeing it, so as for any project on the first night you're reviewing it, the BAR can defer that to next month.

You guys have, a better way to say it is, when I receive an application on the deadline, I don't have to bring it

that next meeting I actually have until the following meeting.

So you all can defer all of this to June and the applicant wouldn't even have to consent.

You could make that decision.

The applicant can request a deferral, in which case they bring it back when they're ready.

And of course the applicant could ask that you all

take action tonight and then they can respond to that.

I don't think I would advise that.

I think it would be, I think to let Doug have a conversation with the owner is wiser.

I would say if you went with double hungs, it's not necessary that we see shop drawings.

We know what the product is, we're familiar with it, it meets our guidelines and they would be double hung windows.

If the owner were here tonight and said, yeah, I'll make them double hung, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I think that's more the consultation with them.

I think there is, if you do have any questions about these, at least the two unusual windows,

I would just offer, as I said in my email, I don't know what they are.

We can assume they're original, but it could very well, again, I refer to my house where it's a whole lot of parts that came from other places.

just happened to end up there in 1884.

So we can assume, I think, talking to the folks at the site, the safest assumption they had was that the three casements were probably original and looked like they hadn't been tinkered with much.

Very suspect of the stair window and obviously the window on the front porch.

So my recommendation would be for you all to

to kind of quickly, I don't want to send Doug away and come back.

And you all say, well, yeah, we don't like this anyway.

So I think if you have some affirmation of where you stand that he could take that back, then I would urge you guys to defer it.

Well, it really doesn't matter.

But the main thing for me is it's a bit of a challenge

I've got a challenging owner and I don't want to go, I feel like I want to make certain I'm acting in his best interest.

In my opinion, his best interest is for me to give him the advice again with your support that they should be double hung windows.

and get him to agree to that.

But I don't want to go to him and, quote unquote, sell it and then come back.

If there's any way that I know that that then is going to be a good thing, I don't know how.

Sure.

We can't necessarily give you 100% assurance because we have to vote on what's presented to us.

It sounds like there's a general consensus that there would be support for this.

and the window replacement with a double hung system.

I think that's the best we can say right now because we're not voting, right?

Well, why don't I, it seems to me it'd be better if I request a deferral, but I'll be back next month.

I have a question for staff.

I'm sorry.

Are we at any point like reviewing colors of the windows?

And I get on that because I've, I review colors and people change things.

a lot and I say you're fine as long as they stick within something.

If it gets unusual I'll bring it to you.

I'll also bring up the comment I made at the very beginning, which is the very first guideline under the windows section, which is prior to any repair or replacement of windows, a survey of existing window conditions is recommended.

Note number of windows, whether each window is originally replaced, the material type, hardware and finish, the condition of the frame, sash, sill, putty, and paints.

I think to argue for replacement you need to kind of prove to us that they need to be replaced.

We've already got enough people that would approve replacement without that.

I'd like to see it whether the rest of the DAR wants to.

We always ask for that, but then we get a bunch of pictures in the windows and you still can't because paint covers up everything that you can't really tell.

I don't know that we need to change our guideline for that, but I also wonder how helpful that is to see how many windows are in this house.

There's a lot.

Do we want to talk about the special windows before B comes back to us just so there's an idea of what you should do with them?

Because I'm kind of on the fence of how this would work.

It's weird what's currently there.

I think it's going to be even weirder when you put a

aluminum clad window behind one of these things.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That was a safety issue.

So I'm not saying.

That was my only reason for.

That's on the other fronts.

And is the intent, Doug, on that front gable end window on the first floor to replace it as a fixed unit?

Frankly, my request of the owner was that we leave that one.

No, I'm sorry.

Just the gable end, not the pediment.

The first floor.

Again, I think the whole window is weird.

And it's not an easy solution.

It had to have mimicked the upstairs.

I mean, nobody would have done it any other way.

I mean, that would be ideal, I think.

But our goal was not to go change in anything.

Kate, do you know when the historic photo was taken?

The photo from our survey probably dates to 1980.

To address some of the questions that Carl and James you raised.

So where, a similar question to when we talked about what should someone submit for a demolition request.

When I talked to Doug, you know, and he and I had the same conversation you all are having now and, but it was clear that the owner's preference is to replace the windows.

So there's a, to

Sort of from that perspective, it wasn't really to show you that there's a problem with them or that they're in bad shape.

It was simply, I wish to replace these in order to get something that achieves this.

But I agree, Carl.

I think the last time we actually went out

I mean, other than Jody's still in the room, other than that old shack we went and poked ourselves around in.

The last time we relooked at some windows that were falling apart, we went out and, you know, put your finger through the paint.

That's the situation here.

All right, so the applicants requested to defer this.

Second.

I'll get to work.

Thanks so much.

Aye.

Appreciate it.

Let me just be clear.

We want the true divided lights in the attic units and the

Panel on the side is an appropriate solution, it appears, and the preference for double hum in lieu of casements where there are currently double hums.

and to possibly consider, reconsider what's being done on that picture window on the front.

I'm sorry to keep rehashing this, though, because these windows, the dining room, I don't know if it's the dining room, but it has the three casements?

Those didn't show up in our staff report until they showed up in your email today, or at least they were very hard to find in the staff report.

I didn't see them in my staff report.

Are those also, you think that was like a weird arts and crafts project?

The applicant said that they were very, like the windows at least, the frames or the sashes are original in this way.

If you look at the picture on the left, you see that triple window on the first floor

Those are the three casements, correct?

And there are three casements, and each has a sash with an upper section and a larger bottom section, and the top has that grill in it.

That's right.

I mean, I guess if you look at the photo from the 80s, that porch didn't extend over that far.

And I think there was a door.

No, not a door.

There was, I don't know.

There was something off to the, something got reconfigured over there.

So maybe that room is.

Now I recall from the Sanborns that the porch used to continue back to the room that's projecting out here.

Yeah.

The survey.

I mean, that triple, that's been added.

I think it would be good to come back with, we don't need shop drawings for everything, but I'd like to see the detail of what this window looks like because the Marvin Ultimate actually has a really fat meeting rail.

You're giving me good things to do here.

This is good.

Do we even have to say that we're looking for the ones that

are double hung, especially in the front of the house.

I don't care about the rest that much, but that we're looking at one over one.

The applicant came back and said, oh, I want simulated divided lights.

I think the beauty of this house is really the simplicity, like David said, the windows and the clean look, even the picture window that's immovable with that funny transom over the top.

It makes it really stately.

The fact that there's not more fussiness within the windows.

I think basically try and put back what you're, replace what you're taking away.

Thank you very much.

There might be one coming up, right?

Well, I've walked to work, even in my prior job, and would walk by and say hello.

Hello, hello, good morning, morning.

And one day I just decided to talk to Doug, and I'm like, well, this guy talks like I do, and he's a lacrosse guy from Baltimore.

And it's like, oh.

So it's always an enjoyable conversation.

So yeah.

And thank you all for your patience.

I think that was a good result we're going to get on that one.

All right, so this is

In some ways, I've been thinking the main event of the night.

I've certainly been hearing a lot about it.

But a CRA request before you all for the demolition of a structure at 1301 Workland Street.

And I think given the circumstances, if you all appreciate your patience while I go through and cover

what I need to hear.

So the Wurtenbacher house, and we did determine Ben Ford and some of his research for the phase one archeological, which was done at the site a couple years ago, was able to determine from Chancery records that the house was built in 1843.

So there had been some question about when.

So we finally have a solid date on that.

But this is the Wurtenbacher house.

That's not, but leave that there.

It's a two-story three-bay brick house with a rear L. It was constructed by William Ortenbacher, who was the second librarian of the university.

I found out he was hired in February of 1826 by Thomas Jefferson, who, and I,

Mr. Jefferson died in July.

The first librarian didn't make it a year.

Yeah, a long time.

and the house was, you know, built in following sort of a Greek revival, federal style, but it was in the late 1800s, you see the addition of the porch and the ornate cornice, so that, but the original house, you know, is still intact there but those changes reflect what was done in the late 1800s.

The request came in

with I know that we had had a prior COA request to construct a new building on that site.

That project, I don't know the status of that, but it's not relevant here.

The request now is for this demolition.

A lot of folks ask, well, should the BAR do this or that and recommendations?

So I want to be clear that per our code, for the Charlottesville City Code, Chapter 34, Division 5.2.7, etc.,

When you all are reviewing a demolition request and per our code a contributing structure within an ADC district, and this is within the Wortland Street ADC district, the demolition of a contributing structure requires a COA, and whether that's a COA approved by BAR or by Council on Appeal, a COA is required.

and then per code, the review that the BAR has, and I quote, is limited to the following factors.

So as I explained to council when there was an appeal several weeks ago for 144 Chancellor Street in asking why did the BAR do this or why didn't the BAR do that, my response is you all have a finite list

to work from and said it's in our code.

So I will quickly refer to that.

So the first criteria in there is

Again, review is limited to the following factors in determining whether or not to permit the moving, removing, encapsulation, or demolition in whole or in part of contributing structure.

The first question is the architectural, historical, cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure, property, including, without limitation, the first question, the age of the structure.

We know that it was constructed in 1843.

Next question.

Whether it has been designated on the Virginia Landmarks Register or the National Register of Historic Places.

And yes, it is a contributing structure within the Wharton Street Historic District, which is listed on the State and National Register.

And while your purview over this project is determined by a local ordinance, so it's not because of the National Register nomination or designation that you have purview.

However,

in your consideration of the demolition of a structure, I think it is appropriate given that we use the Secretary of the Interior standards when evaluating changes.

So the fact that it is on the state and national register is an important fact to consider.

Additionally, I think it's worth noting that, and I mentioned this earlier, in 1974,

The Charlottesville Landmarks Commission, in response to requests from council, identified the Wertenbacher House as one of the city's historically and architecturally significant structures.

In 1984, the Werten Street Historic District was listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register in the following year.

It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and for both 1301 Wortland is identified as a contributing resource.

And then in 1999, City Council formally established by ordinance the Wortland Street ADC District and 1301 Wortland Street was designated contributing structure.

The next question is whether to what extent the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect, craftsman, event.

As I noted, the house was constructed in 1843 by William Wertenbacher, served as the second librarian of the University of Virginia, serving until 1880, and this was the residence for Mr. Wertenbacher and his family during that time.

The next question is whether the building or structure or any of its features represent an infrequent or first or last remaining example within a city of a particular architectural style or feature.

I wrote within the city, the Wertenbacher house is one of approximately 20 extent buildings constructed prior to 1850.

Maybe one or two, you know, the numbers are a little odd in GIS, but yes, this is one of the few houses that built prior to 1850.

Certainly it's significant due to its association with the early university.

Its association is the oldest structure within the Workman Street Historic District.

and this is what I had mentioned earlier, when the state and national registered districts were established, 25 primary structures dating from 1843 to 1930 were identified as contributing and of these 23 still remain.

So only two of those 25 primary structures have been raised.

So this district is relatively intact.

The next question is whether the building

is of such older distinctive design, texture material that it could not be reproduced or could be reproduced only with great difficulty.

I think

You could argue that, but I would say that it could certainly be reproduced physically, but I think an accurate reproduction would require period materials and construction methods, so it wouldn't just be going to Lowe's and rebuilding it.

Next question is the degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials remain.

Best I can tell, and my number here, the house was constructed in 8143 is inaccurate.

It is 1843.

We know it was remodeled in the late 19th century.

We know it has had a lot of repairs to it.

Some of those are documented by the work that was done in 1983 working with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.

Well, I say the 1980s.

I'm not certain what exact year the work was done, but overall the house remains in its current form very close to what you would have seen and you can see it in the old photographs in the 19th century.

The next question is whether or what extent a contribute structure is linked historically, aesthetically to other buildings within an existing applicable district.

National Register identifies, well, first off, Portland Street is individually unique in its architecture, again, association with the university.

It's additionally significant as part of what is described in the National Register nomination as a cohesive district of 19th century dwellings associated with the university.

And then it's asked if

The overall condition structural integrity of the building has been evaluated by a professional engineer.

The applicant did submit a structural report prepared by Dunbar.

dated April 28, 2025, and the comments in that were that the building was, I don't have the exact word, but it was, they recommended some repairs were necessary.

And whether to what, next question, whether to what extent the applicant proposes means, methods, or plans for moving, removing, demolishing the structure.

Essentially, are they planning to save anything?

And no, my understanding is to raise the building entirely.

and then furthermore per code you are asked to review any applicable provisions to the city's design guidelines.

So those very quickly are very similar to what we just went through per the code.

The additional question of is there a public necessity of the proposed demolition, not that I am aware of.

And then it says the public purpose

or interest in land or buildings to be protected.

And the statement there is that the Wharton Street ADC District was established by city code, adopted by the City of Charlottesville.

So locally, its historic significance has been acknowledged.

This is not the question before you.

is a fact.

And the fact that it's listed in the state and national register certainly attests to that importance.

I said the existing character, the setting of the structure, the surroundings, as I mentioned, of the 25 primary structures listed as contributing, 23 still remain, this being one of them.

and it says in your guidelines to decide whether or to evaluate whether or not relocation of structure will be practical or preferable alternative to demolition.

I'm not qualified to comment on the practicality of moving this structure but you can certainly

The next question is whether or not the proposed demolition would affect adversely or positively other historic buildings in the historic district.

And the response to that is that this is, while unique and one of the oldest buildings there,

A historic district is the sum of its parts.

That's the intent of a historic district.

You can't just keep removing panels from the quilt and hope that the quilt will remain a quilt.

And then the last question is whether or not a professional economic and structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure and whether or not its findings support the proposed demolition.

And as I noted, the April 28, 2025 report from Dunbar concluded the structure overall is considered adequate and recommended a list of repairs be considered.

So that is

My review of what's required of the BAR to consider and in reviewing those, as I stated in the staff report, staff suggests the application then implying that review criteria and the design guidelines that the staff recommends against approving the requested demolition COA to raise the structure of 1301 Worton Street.

Should you all deny the request, I recommend that the motion include specific reasons for the decision.

You don't have to get into precision, but presumably if this is appealed to council, that that advice is communicated to council in your motion.

And should the BER consider approval of the requested COA,

Staff recommends a condition requiring that prior to approval of the demolition permit, similar to what you did with 218 West Market, that the structure would be documented thoroughly with photographs, measured drawings, according to the Historical American Building Standards with the documents submitted for the B.A.

archives.

and then finally per city code chapter 34 section 5.2.7e within 10 business days of the date of this meeting should you all make a decision tonight that action can be appealed to city council and that action can be appealed by

either the applicant or any aggrieved party that disagrees with the BAR's action.

And because next Monday is a holiday, I determine, I think, Wednesday, June 4 is the, would be then the deadline of those 10 days to submit an appeal.

Awful lot there.

I appreciate your patience.

Thank you very much.

All righty, first we will start with, I guess is the applicant here or online?

We'll have questions from the public.

Questions from the BAR?

Genevieve Keller, 504 North First Street.

I'm representing Preservation Piedmont tonight.

Our Preservation Piedmont board actually met on site on May 8th to reacquaint ourselves with Wortland Street and the Worton Baker House and the environs.

And we're very concerned, shocked actually, that anyone would seriously consider removing the Worton Baker House from Wortland Street.

Of this moment, the Wharton Baker House is Charlottesville's most significant endangered historic place.

Its demolition would not only erase a piece of local history, but also disrupt a place tied to our communities and the University of Virginia's historic urban development.

William Wharton Baker was among the early staff and faculty members to establish a neighborhood near but outside the boundaries of the academical village.

Selected by Jefferson as UVA's librarian,

Wortenbaker worked in the nearby Rotunda and served in that capacity as librarian from 1826 to 1891, was at one time Secretary of the University's Board of Visitors, and served the community as sheriff and postmaster.

This is not, as Jeff said, this is not the first time that this house has been threatened.

We have a file of clippings and letters and notes documenting the other times, but still this house has endured.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the City Council made decisions to support this house as part of our very important Portland Street District.

It designated the house locally as an individually protected property and denied developers approval to have it demolished.

Instead of being demolished, the Wurtenbaker House became one of the first local buildings to be approved for federal tax credit rehabilitation, signifying both state and national acknowledgement

of its architectural and historic significance to our community.

And instead of being demolished,

to provide more housing and revenue, apartments were developed behind it.

And in 2023, the BAR again approved new infill construction, this time immediately adjacent and east of the house.

It has not been built.

Apparently, this was not enough concession because they're back again to propose destroying it entirely.

Certainly, instead of destruction, this most important place in our local history warrants another updated federal tax reducing certified rehabilitation.

and I wasn't aware when I wrote this that there was a structural study.

As Jeff said, this is a rare surviving example of Charlottesville's early 19th century domestic brick architecture.

Its two-story porches are unique architectural features and the house spans our collective history as a residence established by one of the university's first students, its longtime librarian.

the enforced workplace of at least three enslaved individuals and later home to generations of students who have lived, studied, partied, and perhaps once played music with Bob Dylan during his residency.

It has witnessed both desegregation and coeducation, been home to Confederates, Vietnam War protesters, musicians, frat boys, and it's seen the university transform from coats and ties to t-shirts, leggings, and running shoes.

The house is our equivalent of what the National Park Service calls witness trees, remaining in existence during both the everyday and significant events of our history for almost 185 years.

The Wordland Street District, although some of it definitely needs improved maintenance, remains remarkably intact and demonstrates how historic buildings can survive to coexist with more intense infill development.

Please vote tonight to deny this application for demolition.

Okay, let's let the in-person go first, please.

There's one person online that's going to comment, but you go ahead, you're here.

I like the improvements you made.

My name is Jody Lehendro.

I live at 1335 Stonegate Court in Crozet.

I am a preservation architect with my office here in Charlottesville.

The staff report, well, thank you so much for the opportunity to comment.

I wish to go on record in opposition to the demolition request for this house.

The staff report and Jeff's introduction did a great job in talking about and indicate documenting the importance of William Wharton Baker.

and his role in creating the University of Virginia.

Also, the report highlights the 1842 house and Wharton Baker's subdivision of property that created today's Victorian-era Wortland Street residential community.

Compared to the shiny new apartment buildings

Dilworth Baker House and Historic Districts are portrayed as shabby worn out artifacts that no longer serve a useful purpose.

In actual fact, Dunbar's recent structural report found the house to be in sound condition with minor repairs due to the current lack of maintenance.

Only a lack of imagination keeps the historic house from being revitalized to serve much needed modern uses.

For over 50 years, since 1974, the city has identified the Wharton Baker House as one of its most historically and architecturally significant structures and has enforced its preservation along with the Wharton Street Historic District for 26 years.

Now, after recent years of developers and the city eroding the historic district with large apartment complexes,

A developer feels confident enough to seek destruction of the Wurton Baker House, the linchpin upon which the district hangs.

In evaluating this request, I urge you, the BAR members, to consider what it would mean to destroy the Wurton Baker House with its memory of our community in the 19th century.

and even more impactful to replace it with a large transient housing complex.

Thank you.

We've got one online caller.

Yes, Mr. Gastinger, yes.

Yep, absolutely.

Old friend alert.

Good to see you guys up there and thank you for having me.

Brett Gastinger, 612 Wine Cellar Circle, Charlottesville, Virginia, and former board member and chair.

I don't have a statement prepared nearly as well as Jenny or Jody, but I wanted to call in today in opposition to the demolition

and knowing this project from multiple applications over the years and learning more about its history and its impact on the Wharton Street landscape made me understand really how critical it is to our civic infrastructure.

I love Jenny's description of this as a witness tree and it is in a way very much that.

I think reasonable application of our

of our guidelines would recommend a swift denial of this application.

Probably the thing that made me really want to call in and register my thoughts on this was that more than almost any other project over the last year, I've gotten more comments from the public to me thinking that I was still on the board in opposition to the removal of this house.

It's not just from me, but I've heard from other multiple public members that have some distress over the potential removal of this structure.

So thank you for listening.

Thank you, Breck.

Appreciate that.

Kevin Blair.

I just want to say that this building, unlike 144 Chancellor Street, is a beautiful example of historic history.

And it's a wonderful structure that should be preserved.

And I just wanted to add that.

Any other comments from the public?

All right.

Yeah, thank you, sorry.

We're going to have staff submit.

We received, I think, eight letters.

three, four, five, six, seven, two from the same person, eight letters, all in opposition to the demolition request.

But for the record, and we're gonna add those letters to the record, but for tonight, I'll read the names of those people who wrote the letters.

Virginia Daugherty, who was a former mayor of Charlottesville, Bill Emery, Christine Sweeter,

Katherine Slaughter, also a former mayor of Charlottesville, Bitsy Waters, a former mayor of Charlottesville, Mary Wiley, and Robert Ewell.

Thank you all for submitting those letters to us in opposition of the demolition of Wortland Street's Wortonmaker House.

I think it's pretty clear in my mind that we can't allow the demolition of this house.

It's extraordinarily significant to the history of the city of Charlottesville.

Been intimately familiar with the rotunda at the university.

Thomas Jefferson called it his temple of knowledge.

And he built that in a time where most universities and colleges in the nation had a chapel as their central building.

And he called it the temple of knowledge because he, of course, championed the separation of church and state.

But he housed the library in his temple.

And that means that this particular house is the house of his first and chief priest, if you will.

So I think that just reinforces the importance of education, the importance of a library, the importance of a librarian.

And in addition to that, this house is historic in its own right, historic in this neighborhood that's built around it.

I can go.

I'm disappointed that the applicant is not here, hasn't bothered to call in.

And frankly, for such an important application, you know, taking down a building this old in the city that I think they bear the burden of addressing our guidelines.

That's what we're driven by.

We're not just people that are randomly making a decision here.

We are only charged with enforcing guidelines and there are specific guidelines that Jeff read out in their entirety that address demolitions and I've actually never seen a demolition where every single criteria is met against demolition.

This is an important historic figure associated with the building who actually built the building and obviously also

I'm not saying he was the builder, but he was the owner when it was built.

And obviously, he also created this entire district, as Mr. Lejandro said.

But just the quality of craftsmanship and the beauty of this building, and it's certainly been encroached upon by a lot of multifamily housing.

And it's too bad that it doesn't have a little bit more space around it.

In my opinion, the applicant has the burden of showing us why it should be demolished and why it doesn't meet the criteria for keeping it, and we are lacking hearing anything from the applicant tonight.

So I'm disappointed in that.

Considering how much, as we've heard, that people have called in, written in, that we've heard from people, not just us,

I'm sure counselors have, other people have.

Three of the letters that we received are from former mayors and those mayors individually are business people.

They are advocates.

They're not preservation people.

They are mayors that advocated for the development of the downtown mall, who advocated for the Omni to come to downtown.

They're economic development inclined mayors.

and they're falling on this in exactly the same position that I think everybody on this dais is that this building should not be demolished.

And so I'm just disappointed.

I also want to note that this building does need maintenance and demolition by neglect is not an avenue for this applicant.

And I would really encourage the city to do its own inspection, make sure this building is stable and cite the owner if there are things that need to be addressed.

You just can't let something like this fall apart.

And that's what they've done, essentially.

Thank you, Ms.

Lewis.

I just want to add, you know, for the purpose of this is probably going to end up going to council.

While many applicants will use the argument that the new zoning ordinance and our comprehensive plan call for more housing and denser development, our comprehensive plan also talks a lot about historic preservation.

So chapter four of the comprehensive plan, the land use chapter, some of the goals that are at the front of the chapter are, you know, systematically inventory and evaluate all historic, cultural, natural resources, landscapes, and open spaces as critical elements that make Charlottesville special.

This building has been inventoried and evaluated.

It has been declared an IPP.

I couldn't determine that.

It's on the National Register.

It's a contributing structure.

It has been declared important.

Communicate about historic resources, so educate current potential property owners of historic resources as well as the community in general about the significance of historic properties.

provide effective protection of Charlottesville's historic resources including through recognition incentives.

So the comprehensive plan is not just about more density, more housing.

Thank you.

and Mr. Schwartz.

So you're correct, it was in 1973, the city established the Landmarks Commission to look at historic properties throughout the city.

At that time, it was only the small district that existed downtown that was established in 1959.

So it took a while for the city to get to where it was establishing local districts.

But I checked that to see if it had been individualized.

I think in addition to that, you know, based on the changing landscape that's happening because of the new comp plan, because of the new zoning, I think it's really important for us as a community to come together and start thinking about where we draw these lines in the sand.

I think this is a great place to start and because it's just a

As you say, Miss Lewis, there's no one point on here that anybody can really dispute.

And the fact that a structural report that tells us that the house is actually in stable condition only reasserts that.

In some ways it's a bit disrespectful in my mind, as is the inability for the applicant to come and state their case.

I'd also like to say that I think there is something special about Charlottesville in that new developments can sit adjacent to old, very unique properties that are very much contributing to the history of this place and the story of this place and the conversation between those two conditions is what I think will keep Charlottesville a unique city and

continue to keep it a destination city and something that we can be proud of and love.

Yeah, likewise.

I'll just chime in.

And I think it was Mr. Alejandro who said, you know, it's really sort of a lack of imagination.

You know, there's clearly, as Ms.

Lewis said, it checks every box.

There's no reason this should be demolished unless there were some structural reasons, and then their submission

of a structural report that says it's adequate structurally.

Also, just to add in the, I guess, the registered nomination or at least the landmark survey, there's a handwritten note when they interviewed Ms.

Alicia W. Flynn, who was the great-granddaughter of the builder, William Wertenbucker, in 1971, and it says, offers have been made to

to buy the property, rumors, apartment building on site.

So we've been fighting this for 54 years, right?

This is not something new.

It's probably not the last time, but quite frankly, not on my watch.

So I think we'd like to

Please.

As a reminder from staff, if you would, Ms.

Let me start.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition

1301, Wirtland Street, does not satisfy the BIR's criterion guidelines and is not compatible with this... That doesn't make sense, but anyway, for the following reasons, sorry.

And I would point to, and I know we're not supposed to do this, but all of Mr. Warner's comments and guidelines that he cited previously

I'll say specifically there is no public necessity to the proposed demolition.

There is no reason that this has to happen.

It's just private greed.

There is a public purpose and interest in the buildings being protected.

And as Ms.

Keller has said, we've been trying to protect them for a very long time, for half a century against threats.

We've not been demonstrated that any relocation or other alternative might be available.

The applicant's not here to address that.

the proposed demolition would adversely affect all other buildings, 23 buildings in particular in this historic district because this is the anchoring in the Wortland ADC district.

There's no reason for demolition that's been stated and that is one of the guidelines for us to consider the applicant's reason.

We don't really have that here because they didn't bother to appear tonight and I don't think their application really tells me what the reason was except for redevelopment I would guess.

and there hasn't been an economic feasibility study for rehabbing or reusing the structure.

We do have a structural report.

Further, the applicant has not demonstrated that they have exhausted all other alternatives before their application to demolish and has not proffered that

if they did demolish that they would document the building thoroughly with measured drawings and everything else.

None of us want this demolished anyway, but there's been no even offer of that.

Right.

So we don't have that yet, but they had offered that.

I would just add that this property is

And the clarification also, Ms.

That's good.

That's what my voice trailed off.

All right.

We'll vote.

Mr. Birle?

For denial.

Ms.

Lewis?

Aye.

Mr. Timmerman?

Yes, for denial.

Ms.

Mr. Rosenthal?

Yes, for denial.

Yes, for denial.

I think there's a significant chance that this may get appealed to City Council, so I would encourage everyone to please come out when that is on the agenda at the City Council meeting to support denying the demolition of this structure.

Thank you, Mr. Zehmer.

I thought you were going to read this additionally from

Mrs. Alicia Flynn, who was the great-granddaughter of Mr. Wertbacher, but given what Ms.

Lewis said, I thought this was an interesting addition.

Turns out Mr. Wertbacher, I don't know if he actually built it, but he did design the house.

And Mrs. Flynn noted that her great-grandfather forgot to include an inside stairway to the kitchen and dining room, which were in the basement.

So the family always had to go outside to get to the dining room at mealtimes.

So there you go.

Architects sometimes get it wrong.

But all right, thank you again.

If not now, at least after this one.

I think now's a good time.

Let's take ten minutes.

Reconvene it.

Okay, it's 7.35, folks.

All right, our next COA application is the Downtown Mall, 4th Street East and 2nd Street West crossings.

Mr. Werner, would you like to go ahead?

to get into the discussion as quickly as we can.

And one of the things I didn't, well, first off, yes, this is a COA request from the city, represented by Rhianna Anthony, the director of Parks and Rec.

The crossings on the mall at West Second Street and East Fifth Street, Mr. Zehmer, you and I were out there this afternoon looking at them.

looking and realizing and for some time have realized they're in rough shape.

The request before you all is to to approve a design to make repairs and I will say that

There's always that, well, where's the BAR's role in public infrastructure, things like that?

The mall is a unique set of circumstances, and the BAR has always been involved since it was established in things that have occurred on the mall, in fact, extensively in the discussions back in 2008 ahead of the re-bricking of the mall.

And even on my work to get the mall listed on the National Register,

I continue to learn a lot through the review of this one.

The records and file cabinets and binders of information we have on the bookshelves that Kate and I continue to learn.

So what is before you

The mall crossings as you see them today obviously were not part of the original 1974 design.

And when they were re-bricked the mall, 2010 when the work was done, this issue was made to add crossings and the design of the bricks and the bands in them were modified.

One thing is we know that we now have these granite pavers in there.

That was part of the original design, but that's not how the mall was built.

Those were constructed in concrete.

And so the 2008, a lot of things, the granite was inserted matching what the original design was.

And even though at these crossings, you now have the simple rectangle, the two rectangles.

So with this repair, the travel lane will be reduced in width and then the banding, the granite banding of the two rectangles will be continued through that travel lane and my understanding is a colored brick

that will replicate that color but it will not be the single pavers like you see on either side of the mall.

I'll also say that I've been involved in discussions with Rion and the engineer and other people from the city and

even a landscape architect that's been working with Parks and Rec on things related to the mall.

So I've been in on a series of discussions that have gotten us to where we are and I

I think I represented the BAR's interest and in fact the key message that was communicated was that obviously the easiest solution would be asphalt road across the mall and it was like no absolutely not it was important that the mall be

continue to be that pedestrian oriented and any crossing and anything to accommodate crossing would be secondary such that the continuation of the banding so that that design is reflected so that there's not a, whether it's brick or whatever, a pedestrian on the mall doesn't come to a sort of an area that doesn't fit.

So the questions before you all.

So the staff is recommending that you all approve this.

There are some things that I've requested of Parks and Rec, but certainly that has to be, if you all agree.

I think Rian has some questions about how to treat the banding.

but for example I had asked the question on either end I know it's tough to get oriented with all the different images but when I say either end I mean the end of the travel lane where they transition back to the street if you go out there today you'll see a soldier course running on each end I had asked if that was going to be continued and but the

The way to think about this is the problem we've had with these crossings, we have all these different sections and they're moving and different thicknesses and sizes so it's to get as

continuous a mechanism, you know, mechanical, the herringbone patterns, get that continuous from one end to the other to really kind of build in some durability to the surface.

So the soldier course will not be replaced at that end.

I'm okay with that.

I did ask

For example, and I hope I communicated this well, at the Second Street crossing where the theater is, for whatever reason, when the work was done, the soldier, of course, with a stretcher that

runs along all the buildings was discontinued or taken out.

I've asked that that be reinstalled.

I think that that's, you know, we have an opportunity to put something back that was removed.

And when those travel lanes are

reduced those tactile, the bumpy strips on either side, that that soldier and stretcher course that you see will be extended.

So if you're looking here at the corner, well actually, you're looking at the Christian's pizza place, and where this band is going to be shifted in, this soldier and stretcher course then is correspondingly prepared

to come into that so that there's not like a break there.

And I think that was, yeah.

And so a little bit more background than maybe up front, but do you have any questions for me about this before I turn it over to Reon?

Yeah, I'm also curious about colors.

I know they're proposing a dark gray brick and a light gray brick, I guess, to try and mimic the continuation of the patterns.

So I'm just curious if there's a way to see a sample of that or somehow, you know, verify that it's going to come close to the

We understand that, at least I understand the need to switch the materials so that the

I don't know if you have the answer to that.

My response when that was discussed in the meeting, and Ryan said it very well when we talked out on the mall the other day, but I'll paraphrase.

We've already messed with the original design, and so we are, now we really need to get this

We need to fix it.

We're not going back to what's original.

So we have a good example from what's already there and what the BAR approved.

The question I asked was,

it had come up with should we try and replicate the materials across the travel way and the idea is you know as much as we can use the same thing once you start changing thicknesses, sizes so that idea of continuing with brick so I offered that it was the material wouldn't necessarily

Where the African, I'm talking to Reon, the selection hasn't been made on that yet?

Right.

So I asked the question of staff, staff is deferring to the applicant.

I love that.

So thank you all for coming tonight.

Yeah.

Rio Anthony, Director of Parks and Rec.

Thank you so much for allowing us to come before you to put this wonderful plan together with my colleague.

I'm not an engineer, so I refer to my colleague on the right for all the technical

answers.

But again, as Jeff mentioned, this has been in the works for almost a year.

City departments with outside landscape architects was part of our stakeholder meetings.

And we had a series of meetings of really how do we repair the ISO.

It is ISO, both crossings.

And that was our goal was to focus on

How do we repair, but still try to keep what the model is supposed to be, a pedestrian model, but where vehicles crossing.

So how do we make it as safe as possible, but also keeping it as close to a similar design?

But there are things that we had to modify and tweak, and as you can see in the design.

Okay.

Awesome.

All right, then we'll go through our process.

Questions from the public?

All right, questions from the board?

Go ahead, Roger.

So is the travel lane being reduced to 12 feet?

And it's centered now on the street, which I hadn't really focused on, but it looks really bad when I see it now in the existing.

Looking at that image.

No, the photographs of the existing were the rumble strip or the textured strips.

I'd never really noticed that they're not centered on the

So they are narrowed substantially to mimic the actually constrained width.

So right now one of the things you have that contributes to the degradation is they're wide enough for cars to pull off and kind of park and drop off and that turning of the wheels on those larger pavers just creates a nightmare of a condition.

So this really came out of conversations with

numerous city stakeholders, but the width was discussed at length.

I was downtown and I looked at these things

The vehicles are the culprit.

It's really the stopping and starting and the braking but

The crossing itself wasn't set up for success with the material choices and the sizes of the materials that are there, specifically the runnels, the reused brick and the granite pavers themselves.

All three of those have specific challenges in this environment.

And so the vehicle, it's entirely possible for brick pavers to support vehicles just fine.

And so I'm assuming with your new plan you are expecting this to have a

Yeah.

I'm not sure if you all were given the forensic study we did in 2022 that detailed why they failed.

But basically, the lessons learned on why the mechanics that led to the failures and the degradation you mentioned, we've corrected for all of those conditions.

And I noticed in each of them there are two grates that are letting water go down.

Are you planning to add more grates to deal with water?

So my understanding is based on the revised designs, those grates actually do not end up within the travelway anymore, because it's been constricted tighter.

Jerry, if I could, when they were discussing it earlier, the simplest way was like the light bulb went off, but what you've got now is different sized things,

different materials and so they're moving and what they're done, the solution is constraining that and interlocking that system.

So instead of a brick that's this thick and some granite pavers are that thick and everything is sort of, once it has a little bit it's moving.

Proving the point, if you go out there now, the vast majority of the crossings, in many cases, are still just fine.

Where you have a four by eight, two to one brick herringbone paved pattern through the crossings, those spaces are almost entirely just fine.

It's really adjacent to a reused brick soldier course or a reused brick runnel.

or the granite pavers.

All of those three items that fail, those failures ripple through and adjacent to those areas.

Question.

Staff recommended bringing the brick border around the

What is it?

Northwest corner at 2nd Street?

Southwest corner at 2nd Street by the Violet Crown.

That was a good comment.

Yeah, I think that's a great comment.

We're happy to do that.

And the other thing, as Jeff mentioned when we were out there this evening, we noticed at least at the 4th Street crossing that the current bricks inside the travel lane are like a 4x8 brick as opposed to the

four by twelves, which kind of, you know, the signature brick of them all.

They're going to be four by eight.

Yeah, so they'll be a traditional two to one herringbone pattern.

And that's very intentional, like that aspect ratio of a two to one paver is the strongest ratio.

Three to one starts to deviate from that.

A three to one paver system probably

Probably could be fine, but again, we're going for kind of the bulletproof version of the crossing.

And so the two to one, if you look at all published guidance from the Brick Institute of America, they're going to say that a two to one herringbone is going to be your best bet for success.

Thank you.

We had not recommended moving.

But it came up in that.

Yeah, so it came up because we as staff, we also look at the safety of the pedestrian mall and how do we make sure that

at 2 o'clock in the morning on the mall, there is definitely a car driving on the mall.

And how do we prevent that?

So we are still working with the fire department, because there are certain rules that we need to keep open fire lanes.

And how can we make sure it might not be a monitor, but it might be something so that there's no option for a car to take a left turn on second or fourth?

Any other questions?

I feel like I want to add, it might be already apparent, but that flush curb is actually the structural edge restraint to the paving system.

Someone, I mean obviously you've got the problem with driving them all, which, I mean, that's really bad, but just people continuing to try to pull off to the side to let people off.

And at that point, you've kind of extended the granite pavers, and now they're parking on top of those.

If they just kind of pull off to the side over your curb, is that a problem?

I think you're right.

People are probably going to have that habitual, like, I'm waiting for my daughter, who just got out of the movies, and she's not out yet.

Yes, so another great question and the focus is how do we kind of prevent that from happening and one of the solutions as you can see in the design is we are taking the street from this size

I was wondering if the speed humps were also a cause of the degradation.

It would be my impression that the answer is no.

The speed humps themselves don't actually cause any degradation.

It's the vehicles that as they kind of come over them, those are kind of some awkwardly humpy speed humps that is that braking force of the cars coming right over it and if you're coming over and a person's walking and you stop and the next element past the speed hump is a reused brick soldier course which is, soldier course is horrible at resisting any kind of imparted loads and then the reused brick

will never bond to mortar the same way as it does the initial time.

And so you've got a weakened structural system resisting a lot of eccentric loads from the wheels.

So it's not really the speed hump.

Yes.

We're asking them to salvage the existing brick

And it's less the color, the size and texture.

Anything that's set in mortar is an original brick, which is a different size than the current sand set bricks.

Yeah, so that is going to be very important for us as a city.

It is really looking at through our procurement process.

Our procurement process is a simple process where

Are the tactile strips being replaced?

Is there just one kind of tactile strip?

We were going to go with one very similar.

Actually, I think we were going with a brick, the tactile brick, actually.

You can get a 4 by 8 brick tactile.

We're not doing the 12 by.

Thank you for asking that question, David, because the question of pulling off on the side.

Right now, those tactile warning strip pavers break because they're 12 by 12 or square, which is a problematic size.

Whereas if we go back with the four by eight tactile brick, you're actually building in that inherent strength.

They've always seemed to be the most aberrant of all the different new materials brought in.

While this isn't

That's a good question.

I would think it could be demolished.

Well, it's going to have to be phased because the downtown mall is going to have to remain open.

to pedestrians during construction.

So it's going to go in probably 2 thirds and 1 third arrangement.

But I would think it could be done certainly in a couple of weeks.

It's an interesting question, but I think it's actually beyond our purview.

OK.

But thanks, Jerry.

Sure.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

And that's preferable.

You want them to be able to flex a little bit.

Sand-set pavers are actually incredibly resistant because of all the friction of the sand and the paving units.

And they will move a little bit, but it allows them to move in unison together.

So it should be pretty visibly pleasing.

This might be a leading question.

Well, there's drain holes in the existing slab.

Okay.

Yeah, because all the brick on the mall are sand set as well.

I don't know if there's holes drilled in that slab as well, actually.

Oh, so you're not proposing to replace that slab?

No.

Okay.

My question for you all, just because I want to make sure we're crystal clear on what's happening.

The scroll, just to the graphic there, currently the runnels were continued across the travel lane.

They will not be extended.

I had a conversation with them and I'm okay with the reason why, the explanation, but I just want to make sure someone doesn't ask me a year from now what happened to the Runnels.

Go to the 1980 graphic, or I'm sorry, the 2008 image that was approved by the BAR.

It is interesting, Kate and I said, you look at photos and you go out there and look and you think you know them all and then you stand there and you're like, oh, there's a detail I hadn't seen.

So this is what the BAR approved for the crossings in 2008 and you can see that the runnels were extended across the travel lane.

You know, I'd always understood the Runnels to sort of replicate the old end of the sidewalk, you know, the gutter sidewalk.

And I wonder, to me it was like, well, why are they running across here anyway?

But I don't know.

One of those, what are they, Mandela effect, it's never real, but I thought there was a reason for it.

So when they weren't extended, I

sort of perceived it as, well, good.

But there is a mechanical reason.

But I don't know whether if you all I just want to make sure that you're okay with that.

That is a great question.

Probably depends on who you ask and how hard it's raining.

So I think Jeff's correct.

The Runnels replicate the original curb lines of Main Street physically.

The runnels were intentionally removed from our repair design because of all the reasons I already mentioned about what makes a brick paving system durable and strong.

And the runnels kind of fly directly in the face of that conventional standards.

If you were to replace them, it's not a matter of will they break, it's when will they break.

And so again, we're going for the bulletproof option to the greatest extent we can so they're not currently in the design.

And there's a feathering effect that happens adjacent to the repaired crossing where the runnels, which currently have a very shallow V-shape, will feather to match existing grade as it comes into the crossing.

In terms of drainage,

Actually if you do walk out there after a good rain you'll notice there is water in the runnels and it's usually sitting directly adjacent to the inlet where it didn't quite make it and there's a nice bird bath.

What's that?

No, the drainage patterns are largely uninterrupted, and like I mentioned, you can see in that image right there,

top left hand side of the crossing.

There's a, looks like a, no I'm sorry, top right, actually this is the wrong crossing.

Yeah, basically now the inlets that are adjacent to the crossings are now going to be just outside the crossing.

Yeah, I think we got these specifications.

We just got the plans.

Yeah, you're absolutely right.

And I think we will correct that when we correct the soldier course that Jeff recommended.

And are those herringbone or are they a soldier?

They will also be herringbone.

OK.

About the soldier courses that, I think Jeff you wanted to have extended a little bit, I'm wondering

I mean, would another option be to, instead of extending them, just have them turn the corner of each building and die where it hits the concrete?

To remove them.

Remove a little bit of them, but just keep them at the perimeters of all the buildings.

Does that make sense without standing up and pointing to it?

You can go to a plan view.

I think this makes more sense.

Go down one more.

Yeah.

So at either end, you got that little tiny piece where it wraps the building, and then it kind of cuts down.

And Jeff, you were saying you want to take it from the dashed line to the tactile strips, right?

Is that what you were?

OK.

And I'm just wondering.

An alternative, would it make sense just to have it wrap the building and remove that little piece that comes down along the concrete?

And I'm only asking that just because, again, I have a feeling that cars are going to kind of move beyond the edge of the curb.

Yes, that little tiny piece.

Yeah.

I don't hate that, if it makes sense.

It does make, I think, the relationship to the building make more sense, and then, because otherwise it's just sort of hanging out there.

I guess the other option being on the picture would suggest it was just a period.

But I think it's an odd condition on this side, where it kind of, Yeah, look at the other end there.

Yeah.

Well, I think that's what we're talking about.

Yeah.

You could make it like this, or carry it all the way to there.

Right.

Tack down papers.

I would say the suggestion is better from my standpoint because you're getting more of the reused mortar set brick out of there.

If you walk out there now, you see a lot of it falling apart anyway.

So you're just mitigating additional risk by getting it, stopping it.

Yes.

I don't get a vote.

Well, let me be candid.

We all have our various relationships and connections to the mall and people who have different expertise on the mall and its design and where it is now.

I happen to know a lot of people who feel very, very strongly about the architecture of the mall.

And so I feel, I hope I'm not out of place here, but I feel obligated to.

One of the things I asked Rian when this process was happening was that

There'd be a landscape architect involved to talk about what's going on in the continuity of the design.

I'm not comfortable removing an element from the mall that

I think in terms of where I wanted it to be added at that corner on Second Street, so we're talking about a detail that is possibly continuous on the mall and disrupting that.

I'm not qualified to offer an opinion one way or the other, but I

Can I ask a question that's a follow-up on that?

I just Google Street View.

That makes sense.

What's the answer?

Yeah.

So I guess I wasn't really sure.

I mean, they re-bricked them all two years after I moved here.

Those were repaired, that stretcher and soldier course that runs the perimeter.

those in fact are the old brick.

And then what's the infill is that four inch by 12 inch brick, but those that are there and in fact existing within the soldier course in the traveling now are that three and a quarter, 11 and five eighths.

So we have them that we can use.

But

Yeah.

Well, I guess I would defer to staff in that I guess we carry it down to what meets the tactile strips.

Are trucks allowed to go?

Some large vehicles do go across, yes.

There's some delivery trucks, some food trucks that go across.

Those are four by eight now.

And they're a 4x8 but they're also a thickened 4x8 so they're not the standard thickness of a brick paper, they're like half inch thicker.

We're not even there yet, we're still in the questions.

Are there any other questions from the board?

We've been really good about phrasing all these as questions.

Genevieve Keller, 504 North First Street.

I want to thank Jeff for his comments about

having a landscape architect involved on the project.

And I understand there have been at least informal consultations, maybe formal.

I don't really know.

But I would like to take that a little bit farther and say that now that the mall is registered,

National Register of Historic Places as a historic landscape.

Anytime the city is undertaking something other than just routine maintenance, there really should be a qualified historic landscape architect on the project.

It should be included in an RFP or there should be somebody on retainer or something like that.

When we were meeting for the downtown mall committee, I said we need a curator for the mall.

And we don't have a curator for the mall yet, so you guys are it.

you're the curators of them all.

And I know Mr. Zehmer, if you were doing this project at the university, you would have a historical landscape architect on this.

And it's hard for me to follow this conversation because there'd be some question or comment about do this here and something else there.

So I don't really, I haven't really followed exactly what happened.

So I'd just like to make a citizen resident request that, that you involve a qualified historic landscape architect, the federal register,

has qualifications for what a historical landscape architect is.

We have a dozen of them here in Charlottesville.

We're kind of the cultural landscape capital of the United States.

Wouldn't be hard to get somebody to come for a few hours and have them involved through the whole thing so that they could be doing periodic inspections of the work that it was being done to standards so that we keep the integrity of them all when we undertake this necessary project.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the public?

Anybody online?

All right.

I'm sorry.

It's OK.

Is it possible for the BAR to request a mock-up more than a sample request?

But I guess there's a lot.

of going on in this sort of small area with lots of different materials coming together.

So one thing, and Rhian, I'll let you.

I know the landscape architect that's been involved.

I don't know if that's formally or informally so.

I didn't.

identify them, but Rhian can certainly speak to that.

I've been waiting for Breck to call in.

I know he feels strongly about the ball, but maybe he's putting the kids to bed.

But as far as the design, so for the purposes of sort of moving forward, it's like the courthouse where we selected the bricklayer.

I think that so conceptually,

We can approve this design.

We realize we may say I want to, and Reati even said that, what color gray is gray, what do we want it to be, but it doesn't change the design.

And we can

We can express that appropriately.

Now, there would probably be a sample panel anyway because someone's going to have to make decisions within City Hall doing some things.

So the first question is, is the design okay and any fixes?

things that you want would have to condition and state that and then as a matter of a condition if it were approved request that you know that we the sample bricks the colors are available for approval so and that would allow them to proceed with construction documents and getting their permits and things like that knowing that we've

picking out the bricks at a later date, unless you had something that would materially change what they're showing here.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, I think in general, this is a nice proposal.

And I think I'm compelled to support it.

The questions I have, I do wonder if the kind of alternating brick color within the drive lane will be

I think there's something nice about the different textures of the different materials on them all.

I understand there's a durability concern and a longevity concern about those materials.

I assume they'll have to cut bricks so they'll be 4x4 bricks along those edges.

That is correct and that's why those dashed lines on the image are actually steel edge restraints in the system to pick up the load because you are interrupting the pattern and therefore decreasing its strength and so you won't see the steel angles they'll be hidden down below anchored to the concrete but

I just wonder if we're already introducing like a structural kind of weak point, then why not have the material, the original material there?