Board of Architectural Review Meeting   6/17/2025

I mean, certainly can if you'd like.

Might help keep us on track.

All right.

Would you ask Carl?

We'll get started.

It's 5.32.

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

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

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

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

and then comments from the BAR.

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.

I would like to start this evening's meeting by welcoming Jenny Lauer.

Thank you very much for joining our happy band.

Jenny is a landscape architect and saw a position we've been in need of for several months, so welcome aboard.

Thank you much for joining us and doing some civic duty.

All right.

First item is matters from the public and not on the agenda or on the consent agenda.

The current consent agenda has an application for 120 West High Street, a partial demolition of a rear porch and storage area.

So any comments from the public?

We're all members from the church.

So it's on the consent agenda, so if there are no, if anyone from the BAR would like to pull it off the consent agenda?

No?

Did you raise your hand?

Me?

Oh.

No, that's good.

All right.

If that's the case, I think we'll move to the consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

All right.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

The motion passes.

The consent agenda passes.

You guys are good to go.

Keep your evening short.

Thank you for coming though.

We really appreciate you all showing up and being prepared.

I have no one in my house.

Freda Meese.

Again, just want to remind everybody, we no longer haze our new members.

Well, actually, we chatted with Jen earlier today.

She made the comment of something about memorizing the guidelines.

And I was like, Carl.

Carl's already gotten to where we're at.

Quickly, chapter three in Greek.

All right, so the first item tonight on your regular agenda, this is 540 Park Street.

You all discussed this last month.

This is a request to replace the windows in a 1900s house.

The request had come in.

with casements to replace the existing and there was a request from the BAR to consider double hung where they are double hung.

And the applicant has done that and I think been very responsive to what you all had asked for.

And I just wanted to point out that where there's that triple, this is on the second page under the discussion.

There's a triple casement window that was on the south elevation.

And in lieu of doing that as a double hung, where each of those is double hung, to keep the new will be casements.

And then the second thing is on the front, which would be the west elevation of the house, that large picture window

We say in the living room, but they're on the left hand side.

The new will replicate the twin double hung above it, which seems more appropriate to what had been there most likely.

So that's those two changes I wanted to point out.

Can I ask a question specifically on that window?

Personally I don't think that it's, I think it's something from inside the house that was, they said would be interesting outside.

I actually just walking up Park Street today I found several other examples, not of it applied on the outside like that.

So just those are the two differences whereas in the staff you know the recommended motion is that submitted I would just ask of you if there is a motion considering including these two and Doug is here with Alex Construction and certainly

if you have any questions or if you want to talk off or anything.

That was the primary issue.

I think we also made them, rather than clad windows, we made them all wood windows.

So we upgraded the window to all wood windows so there was not a clad window.

I was happy to have my client agree to that.

Did we make that request?

I think I made that request.

Thank you.

I'm a little confused.

The last time, it's not controversial as far as I'm concerned, but last time we talked about this thing that they hung the reference to the historic, it's literally hanging on just old hinges.

I thought in the last meeting we weren't going to put that, it's sort of a hooked up imitation.

I don't think we feel like that is historically accurate in that location.

It might be from the house, it might be from a salvage yard.

It looks like other things in the house.

It's something applied to the exterior of the house.

Yeah, we can certainly try.

I mean, no problem.

At least I'm not.

It's going to be two double-hung windows.

Mold.

Right.

My opinion is, I mean, it can stay if they wish it to stay.

It's like shutters.

Yeah, this is really.

I was going to remove it and fix everything, I guess, with real windows and fix the shutters.

Not put that back.

I'm trying to fix the front porch, not when I'm making changes to it.

But it's kind of hooked together with plywood.

And I'm really pleased that from a client who was against doing anything, now he's agreed to do everything, which is really great.

Gotcha.

And you're positive that it never fit the window?

It's literally, it won't even sit flat.

Yeah, I mean having been out there, I'm absolutely confident that that's not from that, it's not an exterior window.

It possibly was a transom inside, but it absolutely was not on there.

And it is hooked on.

It doesn't fit.

It's not the right width.

It is two regular hinges.

I really wasn't looking at it as an issue here.

It was almost to me, if it stayed, it stayed.

If it left, it left.

I wasn't.

Appropriate if it left.

What's that?

I don't know.

We're kind of getting scrambled on the process here.

Am I always questioned first?

So Mr. Croker, did you want to summarize anything else?

It's wood windows.

It's basically, we took your suggestions.

I would rather not be required to put that.

It's kind of a chunky thing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions from the public about this application?

Anything online?

All right.

Now we'll go to questions from the BAR.

I had one quick question.

In the attic windows, not the fan sash, but the rectilinear windows, are the existing ones casement windows?

Because the proposed replacement or casement up there.

They are.

The existing are.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the VAR?

All right.

Any comments from the public?

Okay.

All right, and comments from the BAR.

Some of us are trying to pull up the application on our computers.

Anyone else?

Me too.

I just wanted to add that by way of comments, wanted to thank you, Doug, and the applicant for agreeing to do the double hung windows.

Thank you.

In lieu of the casement, thank you for just really improves it.

Good.

It all worked.

Thanks a lot.

And please thank your client, too.

Sure.

So I want to clarify what Jeff was suggesting.

Right.

But going to the two windows there is in the application?

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed window replacements of 540 Park Street satisfy the BAR's criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the ADC district.

And the BAR approves the application as submitted.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

I'll call a vote.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. Bailey?

Yes.

Mr. Birle?

Aye.

Ms.

Lewis?

Aye.

Mr. Rosenthal?

Aye.

Ms.

Tabony?

Yes.

Ms.

Lauer?

James Zehmer votes aye as well.

Thank you all very much.

Really appreciate it.

Thanks.

See you all.

Thanks.

All right.

Thank you much.

Next application is 218 West Market Street, which is the hotel that we've seen a few times.

Don't see the applicant?

Sorry, we're moving quick tonight.

Jeff, would you like us to really only have this, and then it's on the pre-application conferences.

So do you want us to come back?

They are.

We are.

We're here for public comment on that one.

I think we'd rather you be here when the applicant's here.

Are we going to take it up?

Or are we in abeyance?

I think we should basically – Bump things around.

Right.

Just move it around in the schedule.

the 7th Street property, whichever are there.

Who's present from, is anyone present from 555 17th Street Northwest?

No Fackerman folks?

Okay.

And then the 202, 204, 208 7th Street.

That's you guys.

Shall we move to that one?

So we're going to move to number five on the agenda under deferred items.

Again, BAR number 25-0084, pre-application conference for 202, 204, and 208 7th Street Southwest.

204 and 208 7th Street Southwest are individually protected properties.

and the project is a new multi-story mixed-use building.

Again, this is a pre-application conference, so we won't be really inviting public comment or questions at this time, but we'll have a discussion with the applicant.

Nobody's ready.

We can.

We can.

This is a historic conservation district on the left of the bottom image.

What is Lexington Street?

The upper, the bottom image would be Midwood Cemetery, and on the back is Kelly Avenue.

This is a request to construct a secondary structure, primarily garage, in the back.

facing Kelly Avenue, which is not in the district.

And why I'm showing it to you is that, well, this is other Rhyolanders.

But the guideline, the ordinance allows within a historic conservation district, it used

Well, the old ordinance, but we're going to correct in a new one, was that if secondary structures that weren't, that were

minor construction I could review with the BAR chairs and approve administratively.

The way the current ordinance is written here is that I can do a minor review if it's been reviewed by the BAR and you allow me to.

Also, an application for an accessory building that's, you know,

then I can approve it administratively.

So I just wanted to clear with you all that I was going to do this.

So go back up.

Basically what this is is from Kelly Ave is what you would see is this garage at the bottom left.

The plan is a stucco finish or a hardy plank siding.

The guidelines, if I approve it administratively, I have to rigidly apply the design guidelines, and this is nothing unusual from a secondary structure that we've approved elsewhere.

It's kind of unusual.

Kelly Ave is, on most things in a conservation district, we wouldn't look at what's in the backyard, but because that street is there, we do look at these things.

Sorry.

I hate to be the pain.

It just seems because it is a street that I wouldn't want to call this a, I mean I could see you putting out our consent agenda, but I feel like because it is on a street and it's a primary, I mean it's facing,

We have editions on Kelly Ave.

There are garages in the back.

I just remember that application for the two story ADU got a lot of comment.

I'm looking at this as this is a single story garage and we have quite a few of them.

And I'll back down if no one agrees, but if it could just go on the consent agenda so it's the opportunity for some public comment in case it becomes a thing.

I don't see why we need to bother with that, honestly.

But that would be, yeah, I think, let me get everyone's... I think that's more complicated than it needs to be.

So, go to the elevation.

Really, that's the only thing I'm looking at is go down.

It's also not good.

It's very possible.

It's very possible.

And they'll have to go through.

But I looked at it as it's a

We have garages back there.

This is single story.

It's the materials.

So the entire parcel is in the historic district with the houses.

The front facade of the house faces the historic district, and the back doesn't.

The backyard is within the historic district, and it is visible from a street.

And the ordinance does not discern streets within the district.

Doesn't matter.

I tend to as well.

It's an historic district.

It's the exterior of a building.

I think if it was an alleyway, it would be different than if it's because it's just Kelly Ave is actually a street.

Fair enough.

and just a little for new folks on the committee.

So this is in the Conservation District, so the far lower bar.

And I have treated things that are not primary structures separately from the secondary structure.

Now, how it's going to be used, I don't know.

But if this were a new house, I'd be looking at it differently.

And if this were, as I said, on

over on Locust on one of the alleys.

You would never even be reviewing it.

So, um, but yeah, I don't

That's fine.

I can advise the applicant.

I do want to say, though, that I hope it doesn't set the precedent that all things that used to be administratively approved now have to go on the consent agenda.

But if you think so.

For the sake of public comment.

Well, but this is a separate entity.

They don't have to be one thing like the other.

I would say that as of this moment, this is not on the agenda.

Okay.

If there's a property that's got two fronts, I would think that that would be an acceptable precedent.

Okay.

I respectfully disagree with

Mr. Bailey, only because I don't think this board generally looks for more work.

If it helps, I mean, you did, Mr. Zeller rebuilt a garage single story, almost a shed, and you all did review it.

So it's not unprecedented.

And we also made it clear with applicants that we look at everything

individually.

And I think they were hoping for something, but I think they still have some zoning issues in question.

They have a few steps that they have to go through.

I have a question about the process.

In a conservation district, I've gotten far less.

In fact, I would even, because of what we're supposed to look at,

I don't want to say I shouldn't show the front, but to say, really, you're looking at this back.

The history of the conservation districts was such that they are intentionally meant to be historic district light.

And it was very intentional to have

This is a formal review only for entirely new buildings and the demolition of contributing structures.

Where I've treated it is that if it's a, and it was in the prior ordinance, it wasn't, it isn't worded well in the new ordinance, but it would have been, I would have just consulted with the chairs on this one.

And if they had said, yeah, this is minor.

Now the other part of that is where it's,

I've had them where it so perfectly meets the guideline that's almost a no-brainer, but there may be some questions here.

I understand that.

The intent of the guidelines or the conservation districts is to have as light a touch as possible.

And there's no different paperwork.

there's something there's no fee for most things no fee so but no the paperwork as far I

Typically, it's a homeowner doing something.

So it's an addition.

It's like a sketch.

So I guess a question based on our conversation at the pre-meeting also, for something that would go through administrative review, are the neighboring property owners, well, I guess they're not informed regardless, but is it posted to the city website, which would allow for a public comment?

Right.

So there's a difference, I think, right?

I mean, it's right.

Right.

But I guess you're based on our conversation earlier.

The notices aren't don't go out regardless.

It just getting posted to the city website as that it's on our agenda is the public notice, right?

But then the question comes back, why does it necessarily have to be on the public's radar?

And I don't think it needs to be.

Neighbors?

Is that okay?

I'm sorry.

Is that a question?

I think that's what we'd like to see.

No, I can only do what the code tells me to or not to do.

It's imperfect.

There's a lot of inquiries from people saying, can I do this on my house?

And I will walk them through, help Mr. Bailey with some repairs at his house.

We don't notify, you know, if I had to stop

I try to be, just to be clear about all of these, I try to really be reasonable about what am I looking at and how am I

I often say, how would I treat myself at my house?

So that's where I go.

There's not a one size fits all.

My look is simply I don't have a boilerplate answer for you.

All of these are slightly different, and I do my best to treat them equally.

But if I think something's going to be a problem, I don't try to gloss over it and admit you guys will get it.

Similar to the reason I could have easily, if it helped, put tonight the 540 Park Street could have easily been on consent, given the conversation we had.

But I felt that that had earned some conversation.

But thank you.

So I think our representatives are here from 218 West Market.

It's everybody present.

All right, so we'll get back onto our agenda.

We're still ahead.

Thank you, Ms.

Lewis.

All right, so 218 West Market Street.

We've discussed this in several pre-application conferences, and then also we had its first official certificate of appropriateness application last month.

You're all very familiar with it.

I spoke with Ms.

Lauer earlier today and she

sort of had asked, you know, what expectation of her participation.

I said, well, where she's comfortable, but she's not obligated to, so just so you know, I told her that.

Mr. Zehmer, you had asked me earlier about the note I had sent to the applicant, and I, so I printed that.

I also created some copies if anybody wanted to see what was sent so that you could work from that.

But I think that I've,

Does the BAR have any questions for staff?

OK.

I'll invite the applicant to give us a presentation.

If you all could try to focus on the revisions that were requested.

Yes.

And if we can try and keep this initial presentation to the 10-minute limit.

I think I can go faster than that.

Great.

OK.

So, yes.

So two things we did since the last hearing.

One was

Jeff, he pointed out all the detail that we had to get in.

So we submitted a ton of detail that we could go through, but we feel like we've given that.

And then what we did from an architectural design is we took, I'm going to say, the three to five things that really stood out to address.

We feel we addressed them.

And I believe Nitin's on the phone as well.

We have an extra copy of the email if you need it for any reason.

So I'll let Bob speak to this more.

But what we did was we heard a lot of comment about kind of more uniformity with the patterns.

Bob called it ABAB or something, but I think

you were kind of saying it got a little, it wasn't as symmetrical as you would like.

So we feel we addressed that on both sides of the building.

Bob, do you want to add anything to that?

I'll go through them all and you can circle back when I flubber something like, so that was one on the upper portion.

The next slide.

This is the pattern of the body.

Yeah.

This is related to Kate's comment about column spacing, the ABC.

Next slide.

Same on the other side.

Next slide.

Next slide.

Do a lot of ABAB.

Okay, so here we took a couple of things.

That wall, which I said last time, it bothered me as well.

We were going to sort of punt it a little bit, but we heard everyone's concern, so we added that planting bed in front.

The plan, and Shabal can speak to it from Timmons, is to make those seasonal and plant those.

They are pieces that you buy, so we're confident that we can install them.

and then they're a great way to make that more walkable and shield that wall, which I was personally happy with.

We didn't add the detail of the lighting that Kate spoke of.

We made a note of it that we are because we have some photometric issues we need to work on and we need to kind of get the detail of where those will go.

But it's in our submission and

we would expect that it would be approved with that we would have to do that and if you want us to come back and show the detail we could.

We were just at the point that I didn't want to show you something fake and just done on the fly rather than just make a note that we do have to get to it and we will.

We added, I don't think they're all shown here, but we added trees, we comply, you know,

Carl was strong in that comment about complying with tree and tree canopy.

And again, Shabal can speak to that as to how we comply with the amount.

But we did add some trees.

I don't think it's on this, but it's on the side of the street.

So next slide.

There's a tightened shot of that wall.

You can go to the ad.

Bob, by doing that wall, didn't we get some more canopy?

What did we do as far as the terrace?

Basically, we kept the front wall the way it was in plan and recessed the porch area.

So that porch area now responds really well.

The canopy is the same as it is, but it used to stick out a little bit further than the canopy.

Next slide.

We took another look at this entrance.

Bobby, you can talk about the detail.

I will talk from developing.

I still really want this entrance to be what I'm going to call the cool hip find it entrance.

I didn't want it like shockingly bells and whistles.

And it's primarily for guests.

We really feel strongly that anyone visiting that restaurant is going to come in off of market if they're specifically going there.

or they'll be guests of the hotel or they'll know to get there.

And those are the only people that should be using that.

We just constantly went back to the preference of having the retail speak the strongest along that street.

We did add, I think it's another visual, but we did add a bump out to SHIELD because we heard that comment about

which was a great comment about separating the driveway, the more functional to the doorway and so we bumped that out.

Yeah, so basically as you remember that both the solid, the stair egress tower, that articulation was kind of more blank so what we've done is incorporated more into that three-dimensional

We made that stair open.

We added more light.

We added another large window into that stairwell.

So the idea is to continue to focus on the retail.

We've done other things like taking this

The idea of the planter, and that's the back of house entrance to the garage.

So incorporating some of those elements so that the building reads, has the same elements on both sides.

Right, we did make it a little more grand by ending that window, sort of went double, and then a big focus was to that back of the house now with that landscaping doesn't become like this one little dark thing to walk by.

And did we talk, I don't know if you noticed it on this prior slide, but how we brought the column out.

Yeah, we brought that column out.

to separate those two.

I mean, we toyed with it.

We wanted to make it definitive enough, but subtle enough.

And also, we were just conscious awareness of sight lines.

So whether we plant next to it, I think that's to be determined.

But we thought we'd capture some of the BAR, or the BAR's concern about separating those two elements.

Next slide.

We addressed Carl's brought up comments about the Morgan side street.

We're drawing more trees now.

We meet our street requirements.

Jeff and I, Mr. Warner and I talked about the ginkgo on the old Preston side where you know there's plenty of precedence on the downtown mall for the ginkgo sentry so we feel that's the appropriate tree on that side.

as well.

And we confirmed that the trees we're using aren't applied with absolute context, right?

Because that was the question last time.

Yes.

This is some of the detail.

We can take questions on that later, but it's just more of the detail of the landscape.

Next slide.

Next slide.

And then I think we go into a

a ton of detail information which we're here to answer questions.

We brought the materials last time.

We had a box of the actual material to fill.

So a lot of the stuff was either further detailed and we also, I think, for Carl's we did change the material on the screen on the roof because we knew that was important.

I guess it wasn't easy.

That's my technical term.

So that's what we have.

I mean, we are appreciative of everything we've received from the BAR.

And a lot of time, we think we have a great project.

You got two more seconds.

All right, great.

Thank you, Mr. Levine.

I appreciate that.

All righty.

Do we have any questions from the public?

We'll get to that in just a moment.

Yes.

Any questions?

Anybody online?

Okay.

I had a question.

Is this on?

Hello.

I had a question about the bed width for the trees on the streetscape.

On the Preston side.

That is going to be, I believe, about five,

Welcome, by the way.

So we had to combine the greenscape along with the sidewalk and respect the utilities underground.

We're not able to take the trees to the street side because of the stormwater systems and utilities and all that.

So that's why we chose the Dinko for that.

You probably have closer to the building.

It's also more green.

I had a question.

One of the comments that sent to y'all was the location and material for the control joints.

Bob, did you show those somewhere?

Yeah, they're on page 32 of our presentation.

There it is.

So sort of in that big gray block on the sort of right-hand side there.

There's lines at the floors.

There's a vertical expansion joint that the technology does.

Okay.

I guess it's a question.

You talked about the Ginkgo's.

Any concern that they're almost too close to the building?

I understand that you've got a utility conflict, but they sort of mask the windows of the retail space that you're trying to provide there.

And it kind of hides it and screens it.

We're limited in what we can do in that space.

So we're trying to bring in trees in there.

My belief is it might be two retailers, probably one.

So with the right signage, it's not going to be this kind of row where there's four or five entrances.

So you've got to find them all.

And there's really only one place where we select an entrance.

And if we make that with the right signage, the treats won't have an effect.

And I don't know.

Again, the retails will have to adjust, but it's not also something like a window shopping where it's going to have to pop with a mannequin and someone needs to see something.

So it's, we choke because we like it because it's kind of like that downtown-y feel of, you know, and it's not part of my French stone field where it's just very, this is kind of, and I, again, going to my, I kind of like a little bit of that hidden feeling, like you're finding something.

And I'll add one more thing.

We also, with the pocket part, I think you're being associated.

And a follow-up question on that.

You've got the minimum installed size is a 2-inch caliper.

Did the stucco joint on page 32 have a dimension?

Yeah, it's effectively a three coat masonry product.

While it's a still product, and I don't know if you recall, but last time I bought it, you know, it's a wire lab, scratch coat, brown coat.

Gotcha.

And that would be, the detail I was looking at said it's the vertical joint detail.

Oh no, sorry, that was the brick I was looking at.

Never mind.

Yeah.

Just a cocktail.

I think Mitten is on the line.

Another question.

The window detailing, I saw that you included that, but I didn't see any dimensions of the jamb depth or sill depth.

Page 29 shows the brick return at the openings.

And maybe a more general question would be, the windows that are in brick, are they going to be recessed into the brick so that we see something like the returns on here?

I mean, this sort of suggests that there is a return.

And it looks like the windows in the stucco are flush with stucco, the plane of the stucco.

On the center image there for the sill, is it typical for the vertical face of that brick to tilt outward like that?

OK, great.

Thank you.

We're still in questions.

If you have any of those answers, just speak up.

Oh, okay.

And if there's some drawing that needs to go with it, if we have it, we can send it or... I think we have most of the drawings regarding the details.

Windows, they are not flushed with the exterior, they are recessed in, as you can see in this particular detail, the tin brick actually, you know, they have these sections which will imitate roll-out bricks and wherever there's a recess, there are corners available and so that we can handle all those.

It doesn't look like it is stuck on,

on the other sides of the windows.

These are big windows, so after nailing the fins onto the framing, there will be the stucco coming out by a few, not a whole lot, but I would say probably around two inches and a little bit third.

So they're not really flush to the exterior.

There are details, I believe, for the stucco also.

I don't know exactly about, have you incorporated that?

I think I did share those also for the windows zero.

Well, it should be in that package.

It's very similar to this except there are flashings coming out of the window bottom and that's part of the stucco system they provide to treat the window returns on the side.

There you go on the left-hand side.

You see that sealant jam heat on the left top.

Do you see at the bottom there is an end-amp flashing which comes out?

I don't think it is a do-or-die thing, but when I look at that detail, that's not a stuck-over turn.

Yes, the sill projects a little bit.

But as I said, I don't think there's a problem with having a difference between openings in masonry wall and openings in the stucco, I think.

So just looking at this section, if the framing is the same and the window is the same, you've got the brick.

So picture that detail with stucco.

You're naturally going to get a return back.

All right, so it's not going to be like the detail that the stow section showed.

Yeah, the framing and the window are the same.

Well, the framing is right behind the thin brick.

I think you're seeing the wall framing, the sheathing, and all of the sub-assemblies.

So replace the brick with the stucco.

The stucco's about the same, if not even a little bit thicker than the brick.

OK.

Yeah.

So is there a difference between the previous slide where it's got the flanged window versus the recessed window?

Yeah, I think these slides are just to show the stow system.

We're not supposed to.

No, talk about that.

So where are these two details shown?

I'm going to count on you to help us here.

Yeah, we're trying to get a sense of you're showing both a flanged window that's flush with brick, and then you're showing a window that has a brick return so that there's a recessed opening in the masonry.

And we just want to make sure we know what's being suggested here.

That was a good question.

So on 28, it's flush.

I'd also point out that if you go to the renderings, it looks like there's actually many more conditions in the renderings that are not shown in the details.

I see a flush brick condition.

I see a deep return.

I see a stuck window.

Some have the sil, the kind of tilted sil detail.

Some don't.

So just to make absolutely sure I'm hearing what I think I'm hearing.

And if you go to the old Preston site, it looks like there's more.

That's sheet 14, for example.

So there's the very deep return there.

And then if you look above the brick, that looks to be a punched opening above the canopy.

And then there's above the garage, that looks like a different depth.

Kate, do you feel comfortable with the idea that they're there and the idea of detailing this entire building with all of these?

So there's one thing, which is I think the problem is that the level of specificity when we're getting.

So a building can fall apart at the detail level.

We all get that.

But the idea that there are different conditions.

They're shown three dimensionally.

They're shown design in 10.

The certificate of appropriateness is that an appropriate setting for the window.

Now the idea is how that gets done.

That's a lot of work.

My fear is that from an architect's perspective,

speaking architect to architect, sometimes it takes time to really fully flush out these details.

And you get better as you go, assuming that the hand who's doing it understands the requirement.

But it's embedded in the drawings.

The intent is there.

You're right.

Some of the windows are flush.

Some of the windows are recessed.

The whole idea is that that's the design intent, resolution of those details.

is a lot.

We could spend a lot of time and effort.

And it's coming.

My big question is, is this the right time to get into those details?

I'm sure Jeff is saying, how am I going to review these?

We do know that it's set back.

We do know that there's different window conditions.

There needs to be an appropriate detail that's drawn, that's commiserate with the design intent.

But I always feel like there's

within time, and Nitin's a very good detailer, within time, these details will and should be resolved.

At this point, design intent, to your point, is true.

But how far do we go to try to resolve all of these details?

And I would almost argue it's contrary to good building, because you need the time, good building design.

You need time to flush these details out with the manufacturer, all those kind of things.

So that's my advocacy of the design intent is there.

We need time.

The process needs time to evolve so that the details are done correctly.

Yeah.

Yep.

I'll ask you a question.

And I think that's all we're asking for right now.

We're not asking you to detail the windows.

But you've shown two different conditions in brick, one of which I would find objectionable.

But what you've said is that you are going to have returns at the masonry openings, and you are going to make a distinction.

In this iteration in the previous one we have 30 slides of renderings of up close and you know that's the design intent.

I'm trying to follow along on the detail and I didn't know if it was like a gotcha like you put two things there and they were saying like

Well, you gave me two windows, and you shouldn't have given me two windows.

Right.

Yeah.

I think the confusion might be that the details you gave us, you have the flange window in there.

And it sounds like that's not actually, I think it was page 28.

You didn't intend to put that in there, is I think what we're understanding.

Yeah, so I'm going to refer to Nitin.

The flange window would work.

Yeah, I have been informed by the contractor we are working with closely.

He would like to use the flange windows.

So it will be a plant litter.

And you're right, the amount of litter shown in the windowsill detail of the brick is not exactly what it should be.

There will be a little less litter.

There will be some litter because once you put the plant on the framing, there will be some buildup.

of the brick and the moisture drainage system behind it, and that is the extent of return we're going to get.

We're not going to get a whole lot of return where the ROLLOCK is shown completely coming out.

OK, most of the renderings show a pretty deep reveal.

Oh, the front ones are columns coming out.

Are we talking about those?

It looks like there's sort of almost one brick.

For the windows where we do have the deep return, there's a brick border, if you will, around the window, it seems.

To me, I was reading where the flange window might be, the one that's over the Preston Street entrance, where it seems more flush, that one.

Perhaps the workout room may be.

And then there's some that look like on the first floor, I guess first floor on the Preston Avenue side, maybe, are the more flush or flange windows.

But I was reading the others as recessed.

Michael Kochis,

Windows number one are flanged.

I think I can provide some clarity because if you see this rendering right here, see how the column lines are sticking out?

There's a significant depth in that column.

So there's no way that even if you have a flange window, you could nail something to the side of it and create the flange, but you're always going to have a big brick return.

So that's all the column lines on the main floor.

So that takes care of that entire lower floor.

Now go up to the Preston side.

You're still on the Preston side.

You're up on the second floor.

It's the same condition.

Those windows are recessed back.

Now, we might need a nailing flange or something like that to help.

I would say it's the same thing.

We're returning and I think we can almost

Those windows above the entry to the garage, those two columns are actually extending out of the, just like the other half.

So that creates a recess opening there.

And that's why they need recess.

but that's not a typical condition everywhere that's just one exceptional condition where we have that effect but rest of those areas we have vertical columns coming out and then we have windows which are not really recess because the thickness of the brick itself will be outside the base

and of the moisture drainage system, whatever is required, an inch and a brick thickness, probably the whole thing will be on three inches.

It will be recessed by that much.

But beyond that, we are not using the windows which will be recessed inside.

I apologize to follow up, because the audio is a little bit not great.

Well, did you ever provide the type of windows?

Because I'm seeing this and reading it as storefront.

But when you say a flanged window, now owners say it.

Yeah, the last one.

Yeah, these are the Intus windows.

Intus, OK.

So that is a, all right, that's not storefront.

OK.

It reads like storefront in a way, but it's.

OK, thank you.

So let me just direct the under in the guidelines under new construction for doors and windows.

Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings.

So I think that obviously this tent here is a masonry, so those buildings would be punched.

I think from just if it helps from where I am as staff, you know, unless it's indicated, I mean, I'm not

I'm concerned if this is two inches or two and a half or three and a half.

But the intent is that they are either punched or flush.

So that's where I think I'd like some clarification that if applying the guidelines, these should all be punched, have some level of recess.

but it sounds like there are some flush windows.

If it's a masonry, whereas if it were framed, it would have the trim would project out like around where the siding comes in.

And then I want to clarify, I thought I heard the applicant, at least the applicant on the phone, say that they were not planning to use the Roloc detail with the sill.

No, no, no.

We will use the Roloc detail on the sill.

That thin brick system comes with that Roloc detail.

It will not be as deep as it is shown.

That's all I'm saying.

Yeah, I think that's part of our hang up is that perhaps the rendering is showing one thing that you're saying is not the intent.

We're still in the questions section.

I wonder if we should let the public talk.

Yeah, I'm happy to.

I just want to honor our process.

And does anybody have any other?

I've discussed that, the window detail, and maybe we can comment more on it when we get to comments.

But any other questions on other topics from the BAR?

OK.

So now we will invite the public to comment.

I think we have some folks from the public.

My name's Dina Gould.

I have an address in the city on 10th Street and an address in Free Union, 5245 Catterton Road.

So I'm the executive director of Lighthouse, located next to the 218 Hotel build.

And I understand the BAR makes decisions based on design, not safety and noise.

But by approving this design, you are approving a garage door placement

which is right next to Lighthouse's accessibility ramp for the Vinegar Hill Theater and our theater door entrance.

I attended the November meeting when you determined that a redesign of the 218 Hotel was necessary.

On January 13th, I asked Jeff Levine for an update and he said it would take a few days to get back to me and he never did.

Fast forward to May 30th, Mike Stoneking, Lighthouse's architect advisor, reached out to Bob Peno

asking about the proximity of the new build's garage door to our theater, and Bob needed to check on this.

Mike did not hear back from him.

On June 5th, I reached out to Jeff and asked for a meeting the week of June 9th, and I received a reply telling me that the meeting was premature.

However, on Friday the 13th, Jeff suggested meeting tomorrow morning, the morning after asking you for approval.

The garage door placement is not safe every day and throughout the day.

Our students, ages 8 to 12, 21, teachers, staff, and theater attendees exit our theater door and turn right to access the mall.

They will be forced to immediately navigate cars entering and exiting the hotel.

Kristen has some photos for visual reference.

Our accessibility ramp is located beside our theater and right next to the hotel's garage door and is used by individuals in wheelchairs as well as attendees.

The November hotel design showed one garage door located on Old Preston, a side street.

Today's design shows another one located on a dangerous street curve where accidents happen.

At this time, you are not allowed to exit left or right from the Artful Lodge or parking lot on Market Street.

My understanding is that there is a Charlottesville city planning a design goal to not allow large vehicular openings on primary streets.

Furthermore, as this driveway descends the garage,

it will create a fall hazard along our handicapped wheel access path.

Our theater is much more likely to suffer from the sounds, a busy car entrance exit, given the garage door placement.

This might make our theater inoperable, which would result in a major revenue for loss for us, but basically also a loss of a Charlottesville landmark.

Finnegar Hill has been around since 76,

and we recognize the importance to our community and we agree to keep it going.

We hold approximately 100 events annually and last year we gave 47,000 back to our community via discounted rentals and sponsorships that otherwise would not have been, our different folks coming would not have been able to afford.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Gould.

All right.

Are there any other comments from the public?

No?

All right.

I think the applicant can, let's see, how do we do that?

Do we comment?

I think we'll do comments from the BAR.

Any thoughts in particular on the public comment about this garage entrance off of Old, not Old Preston, excuse me, Market Street?

And maybe, Kate, if you could pull up the design showing that part of the facade.

Sorry, I went back to the previous application for more renderings than this.

I have a question for the board.

Where are the guidelines for pedestrian crossings?

OK.

Unfortunately, I think this is a thing where we can push for, we can say whether a garage door is appropriate on a facade or not.

I think as far as our guidelines are concerned,

That's the most appropriate place for a garage.

Now as far as being a good neighbor and whatnot is concerned, I don't know.

I think zoning is going to end up looking at if that garage can be there or not.

I'm pretty sure by zoning it can, except that

They're also going to be looking at that point that's going to be considered a grounds floor and they're going to have to get some exceptions.

I think they're going to have to get some exceptions.

I don't know for sure on windows and whatnot in that ground floor right there because they won't treat the main level as a ground floor by the time you get so far over there because the ground has dropped so much.

So I don't know how zoning is going to take this.

And I guess to speak to zoning, because I know I've brought this up before.

I think we're going to pretend that we're just going to approve based on our guidelines.

And I've asked Jeff Warner, if you guys have to get an exception or something, even if it ends up being administratively approved, if we could at least, someone could tell us.

I don't know if it has to come back to us, but at least so that we are aware of what's going on.

I just like the characterization that Ms.

Gould painted because I've been in communication for years with her and trying to be cooperative and any conversation before going through this whole process is premature.

You should know that operationally that garage door stays closed.

It's all valet.

It's not a residential where people are coming in and out.

Part of our conversation tomorrow was going to be about logistics, was going to be how we can work it out and how that maybe even be a benefit to her operation is permitting additional parking and some other things.

I think this characterization of we're just kind of putting up a driveway and ignoring that is a very mischaracterization of, and Al and I both met with her on separate occasions and even suggested to support her at the White House.

Yeah, I think so.

I think Carl's points are well taken that it's kind of a zoning question.

I don't, you know, from the B.A.A.R.

perspective.

It's the exterior of the building certainly, but I do agree that seems to be the best place for a garage entrance.

I think I would certainly strongly recommend painting a pedestrian crosswalk across that driveway and any sort of other safety features that could be implied there, lighting, things like that.

I don't think it's on our

The function of the building and where parking comes in is up to the designer.

OK.

I'd kick us off if you're OK.

So I guess, again, to respond to the garage door, I mean, it does seem like that is

As far as our guidelines are concerned, you've put it in the lowest location, which I think is preferable.

You have made some changes to the streetscape.

It's small changes, but I think they do make a big difference.

So I appreciate that.

Yeah.

The last couple meetings I've picked this to death and I think you guys have, I think you've responded as well as you can and you've pushed back where you've had to push back.

So in general, I'm feeling more comfortable with this.

Again, if stuff ends up changing, I guess it's going to come back to us.

So if things don't work out in the site plan process or the development plan process, then we'll end up seeing it again.

I will say, so the renderings do show a lot of detail, and I appreciate that detail.

And I just, however you guys figure out how to make it work with the thin brick, just as long as that, I realize that cornices may change profiles, and you may have bell courses in different locations, whatever else, but if that same level of detail comes back, or ends up in the final product, that's what I'd like to see.

Yeah, I think with those caveats and lighting is going to come back to us.

I just want to insert, so everyone out there is clear, this is a prior

I just wanted to offer a comment that might be helpful in your discussion so and I had alluded to this briefly at the end of the last meeting but Ginkgo are

They're no longer on the tree list as a, it's really odd to the camera, you know, there's a delay, but the gingos are, they're not on the tree list as a recommended, but they are not on the list as a prohibited.

And I know there was, so,

The point I raised at the last meeting is that I understand the intent that we don't want invasives, and there's some concern about monocultures, but there are situations where a sentinel ginkgo is the perfect tree, and I think that

this is where I would ask if you are looking at thinking about that then a statement of that specifically would be helpful because when it goes to the site plan and suddenly somebody says well this isn't on the tree list or this is that that's where I say well the BAR has purview to review the landscape design these are and this is the design intent is that

that type of tree there to serve that purpose.

So I just want to not lose that in the mix if that is helpful.

It is about the windows.

I just got the confirmation that we can use the punched windows where the bricks are used to have them recessed.

Well, Jeff, just to follow up on that real fast, if the city comes back and they can somehow magically move all of their sewer lines out of the way, and we can get some real trees, that would be fantastic.

But I don't think the applicants can be able to do that.

I know.

I'm trying to suspend disbelief on some things.

Can we, on the ginkgos, can we require male ginkgos?

Good.

Yeah, I think the applicant's done a good job of being responsive.

And again, small changes, but they've improved it.

I'm sorry we got sort of hung up on the returns of windows, but I think it's an important point because these elevations didn't really start to feel great until we saw some of the recesses, I guess two times ago.

To Carl's comment, there's a lot of detail here and the architectural details aren't really showing the detail that I'm seeing in the renderings.

The renderings look very intentional and the way the windows are treated are a big part of that.

So what does that require?

Again, we can't ask for this building to be detailed at this point.

It's really just a matter of intent.

I think we've characterized it on, I think some entrance corridor stuff at least has been characterized as reasonably consistent with the renderings.

You're Mr. Motion, but something that would direct me to refer to the renderings relative to that depth.

I'd be comfortable with that.

And I think if there's, I think if anything

if it's okay to have those upper story windows flush, say so, but if some level of recess is necessary, say so.

Some general guidance and I would at least hope they would not be proud.

I hope these would not be projecting.

I mean, look at the renderings to my eye.

Most of the punched windows where we have brick are recessed, with the exception of, again, potentially the one right over the Preston Avenue entrance and then some on the Market Street side.

kind of to the left of the front door and maybe the ones that kind of separate the lobby and the little dining area, though even those doing it at the dining, I think they're recessed.

So it seems to me like that maybe the confusion is that the detail shows a flush brick or a flange with the brick, but that doesn't seem like what they're showing in the rendering, that mostly the flush is more with the stucco.

Is that what y'all are reading?

Actually when we zoom in on the renderings there is a little bit of a return on the stucco as well.

I'm just curious if the renderings aren't the best vehicle for analyzing building details and if it would be helpful for the applicant to provide like a elevation markup that indicates each window condition, if there's like three or four conditions.

No, that's kind of what I was alluding to in sort of like a mark of like type 1, type 2, A, B, C. Yeah, exactly, just like a diagram.

Or I think what we've asked for in the past is we've asked for wall sections, but we don't necessarily care about the guts of the wall section.

It's more of just that outer profile of knowing what we're going to get.

And I think, I mean, it's been a while since we've gotten one of those.

But it's also, I don't know, we've had some big buildings in between.

I mean, I don't know if that's,

I don't know if that's something that they could just send to Jeff to confirm that this looks like what we were talking about.

I'm comfortable with a...

So I'd say how I interpret the renderings and I agree.

This has always been the challenge of where we have a rendering and an elevation and a section and none of them align.

But I think that the intent of the guidelines is we have stucco as a masonry material and the windows should be punched.

And so I would say is there agreement on that and then

The extent to which my primary concern is the upper floor and I will express my opinion on this, but I feel like

The Eephus and Stucco, whatever the material is, whatever the building is, this building or another building, when we have those flush sort of windows on the upper floors, it just has that generic hotel look.

I think this, so the idea, I'm primarily concerned that upper floors, those windows are punched

That's how they're showing in the rendering so

Yeah, can I just, we're not looking for any like wiggle room or anything.

We have an intent of what we're doing in recess.

I think the only thing we might need is whether that's two inches, exactly what window by window.

But what I'm hearing from Jeff, if we beat that intent and they're all recessed and we have that series laid out, I think we can work through that.

We agreed too.

How about this?

Can it match the brick?

I don't know what the dimension of the brick is either.

I would love to see dimensioned.

Some typical, just the brick detail depth.

It would be great if it matched that.

It looked like it was about right.

Yeah.

And just to clarify, I think it's a pretty simple thing here is that we have really three conditions.

We have the stucco.

Let's say that that's two inches.

Just confirm that so the window plane is two inches set back from the face of the plane as the stucco.

When it comes to windows that are planar with the brick, we'll do three inches or a full brick back.

And then if you look at the Preston side, there's, I don't know if this,

If I explain this right, but there is many, many, there is no flush.

There's very few flush window details because there's a column line that sticks out.

And then the window is recessed one or two feet back from that.

So it's only the window that's above the garage and potentially some of the windows on the upper floors.

So therefore, the brick plane goes back perpendicular to the front of the building, and the frame sits right next to it.

So just this window right here, you see it next to the door.

You know that retail side?

So the brick, this one?

Yeah, that one right there.

So that's coming flush to this column, if you will?

So that would be that flush detail.

We'd have to work on that.

And I almost question the idea that that's brick material anyway.

Why not extend it?

Maybe fill that space with the window and get rid of that.

So I would say, just to move this along, but the idea would be the design intent is drawn here.

Let us work on it.

We will meet the design intent.

But generally speaking,

The windows are recessed in the stucco by two inches.

They're recessed where they can, where they're planar, when you don't have an abutting column by the width of a brick.

That would be the design intent.

So if you go back, can you go up to the front elevation?

That happens a lot more at this elevation, because we don't have a column line that engages in the facade.

I understand, but just to be clear.

Because I think what we're hoping to do is word this into a motion.

Right.

So if we can get there.

That'll be a good thing.

So I'm hearing on the stucco, a two-inch recess.

Roughly three inches.

The thickness of the pre-made, they make these corners so they don't make a corner that goes back.

It would be the size of that corner return.

And then you said there's a third.

So it fills the column bay.

The window fills the column bay.

So where we've treated this in the past is that I would ask in the motion that the, you know, your

that you're acknowledging that this is a punched opening and I apologize if that's not the perfect word and that the intent is a full brick or approximately two inches at the stuck opening and that the applicant will provide a

a detail for the BAR record and similar what we did over at 600 West Main where there was this stucco detail at the ground level.

So the point being is that that detail then you accept it into the record or you can also say no this isn't what we heard but it allows the approval of this design so they can move forward and then if this

detail at the window becomes two and a quarter or an inch and five eighths.

We're not stuck saying, oh my gosh, this isn't two inches.

I've got to say no.

I'm going to offer that they provide a diagram showing the locations of the typical details matching the design intent.

Does that sound right?

Sounds right.

You're still in the comments face, Jerry.

Anything else?

All right.

And I have one other suggestion on the motion.

They'll definitely need something for that decorative gate on the mall side.

I think it's an interesting design element.

I'm not suggesting the BAR say it must look like this, but if the BAR feels like that,

It's an interesting design.

I don't know the right word for it.

It would be held because that's not the zoning.

That is something that the zoning would say, that's a fence and you can't have it.

Does anybody have objections to that fence as designed?

Right, right.

Just like everything else, you go looking for it and it's not there.

If so, you're welcome to.

Well, we were shown it in our last meeting.

Page 110 of our packet.

Right there.

What do you want to see?

Is there a reason it has to be so high?

Could it be lowered?

Somewhere?

Yeah, there's no reason outside.

You all don't have to.

All I know is this, that's not allowed.

So whether you all approved it or not and COA showed it is irrelevant.

They would not be able to construct and install that.

And if you want to

I'm merely offering that if it was something that was a really an interesting piece of an interesting element that it was an opportunity for the BAR to say we think this is a nice piece, it helps balance whatever.

But it's not necessary to do that and it wouldn't assure whether it would get approved by special exception.

So you all can leave it out and wait for it to come back to you.

Leave it out in the motion.

You surely could.

I think we're going to see it again no matter what.

That's kind of where I'm at.

It sort of wasn't formally submitted to us with tonight's application and so we're ruling on tonight's application and that leaves it as an open-ended question if it will.

Does that suit the applicant?

If it's nothing, we have no objection.

again I don't I guess my point is I don't think it's technically in for tonight right because you showed it to us last time but then it's been pulled does that make sense yeah okay so maybe yeah probably fair okay

But then we're kind of proving a part of COA, which we want to not get into.

I think we are, too.

I don't want to really be an objection.

If it gets kicked back by the code, then they'll have to deal with it and perhaps bring it back to us.

But maybe we'll see.

So yeah, I won't mention it in the motion about that.

Why am I seeing just so high and clear?

I mean, because I took the images they sent and created this PDF and intentionally put on the bottom there June 3, 2025.

So it is part of what you're looking at.

It is shown.

So I just want to be clear.

I was simply offering that if you think it's an opportunity for you all to opine on it,

that could be part of the consideration for a special exception or it is, but otherwise if you wish to say no, nothing on it, then I would specifically state that, you know, you're omitting that.

Because it is in this application.

It could be, you all approve it.

Don't say anything about it.

The applicant could, in a hearing about wherever the special exception waivers go, well, the BAR liked it.

So, now that, if that's in fact true, it would be helpful if you said so.

But if it's...

The other side of it is your approval of a COA does not mean that they can automatically do it.

But the BAR will have an opportunity if a special exception is granted to review

in the future, whatever they decide to try to put there.

That is correct.

I understand what you're saying.

You don't have to.

I'm inclined to just not mention it.

Me too.

I don't know if others feel strongly.

All right.

Where's my spiel?

Okay, thanks.

Sorry.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find the proposed hotel at 218 West Market Street satisfies the BAR's criteria and is compatible

with this property and other properties in this ADC district.

And that the FAIR approves this application with the following conditions.

One, that we support the

Landscape design showing ginkgo trees on Old Preston noting the conflict with subgrade street utilities that the applicant shall provide a diagram showing the locations of the typical details

for windows matching the design intent and that the BAR's understanding of this is that the stucco return shall be no less than two inches, the planer windows shall have a depth of a typical brick, which is our understanding is roughly three inches, and that the windows on the old Preston facade at the street level shall fill the column base.

Sound right?

I accept that friendly amendment.

Second.

Sentinel Ginkgo.

We have had a motion and a second.

We'll accept that as well.

All right.

Ms.

Lauer.

Yes.

Ms.

Mr. Birle.

Aye.

Mr. Bailey.

Yes.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

The chair votes yes.

Thank you all for diligently working through the process with us.

Mr. Chair, can you confirm the second?

It is 7.30.

We have finished everything except for we've got two pre-application conferences.

James, I didn't have any other questions about when to sign on and get ready.

Thank you.

Everybody.

I know with the.

But then now you're blocking the screen that I can't see anyway.

Yeah, big screen back there, but then you're going to have to move the seating sign, but they've got three of them.

Very quickly, I'm going to introduce this, and then I didn't run down the hall, and I'm going to, but I'm going to introduce this one very quickly.

So this is 550 17th Street NW, it's over by

University Circle, block off of Rudby, I think south of Grady.

What I just handed out were some additional renderings of what you've seen.

They just help illustrate it a little bit better.

It's not something new.

This is a pre-application conference as required.

Mr. Wolfe is

has been on the BAR, so he knows the drill maybe better than I. This is an opportunity for you all to get introduced to the project, for the applicant to ask any questions that they have.

There are no requirements for pre-application discussion, but it is the opportunity, I think, to not get into the weeds about the design,

But it certainly is an opportunity if something is just entirely off base.

Let's let an applicant know that.

The other thing that I think is really important in this is the opportunity.

You have some idea of what they're proposing.

Are there images, details, sections like we just discussed on 218?

Are there things that should be included in an application, in a subsequent application that would be particularly helpful?

The staff report, I try to offer some generic thoughts on that so that you can use that as a checklist and then I will also say

Mr. Wolfe had asked me during the break if he could share with you some additional images that maybe contemplated some additional hype here.

That wasn't in the package, but again, pre-application conference.

We're a little more flexible.

I don't have a problem with him sharing that with you when that time comes, but I will leave that to you to decide, but I have those drawings here when Mr. Wolfe

raises that question.

So no action will be taken tonight unless you have any questions for me.

I'm going to run down and get a little more water and hand it off to Mr. Wall.

Thank you, Mr. Werner.

Good evening.

Not sure if this is on.

Hi, my name is Fred Wolf.

My firm, Wolf Ackermann, is working with a client, which is Pipsen Properties.

They have this property on 17th Street Northwest.

It's 555.

It is an older home.

It's currently a student rental.

and they asked us, they've inquired about exploring ways to add additional dwelling units on the property and we were doing this prior to the updates to the zoning ordinance and then we took a pause and then we came back and looked at it again with the new ordinance.

And what we are interested in doing, I should say, first of all, the additional information that I brought

were the same two renderings that were in the other packet.

I asked that we slightly change, if you look at, for instance, the corner of the little J button, that is much more transparent at the bottom right there.

So it's very modest changes to the courtyard space and to the underneath of the little pavilion piece that pushes out.

And then I wanted us to provide you with views from the street so you could understand the impact of the building behind the original house.

And the building that we're proposing, while it's an L shape or maybe it's a J or an L with the little button hook, are two single-family attached dwelling units with a garage underneath.

And what we've done is we have tried to subvert the garage, which is a private garage to be shared by those units,

by pushing it halfway down under grade and lifting grade a little bit so that we don't have a large wall or elevated courtyard.

It brings grade up to basically the first floor of the original house, which allows the original house to have a nice little bridge connection over to this courtyard landscape garden space.

And it keeps the elevated edge along the southern property

at about 42 inches above grade, which is kind of fence height, garden wall setup.

So on the south side, what you're seeing below, our house is the one that's highlighted in blue.

That's the property, that's the original house.

To the south is another home, which is, I don't know if it's a rental or owner occupied, but, and on the north side, which faces onto Grady, is a fraternity house.

and adjacent to our property line is their parking.

And if anybody understands what fraternity houses and parking looks like, it's not terribly friendly, but it is what we have.

So what we have done in working with the client is we've tried to take the property and push it as much as we can up against the property line on the north side against the parking

and then push it back to within the limits under the new zoning of the alley that runs between 17th and I guess Rugby and T's into Grady.

There's an alley there and so we are within five feet of that.

The ordinance, as you all know, we are zoned RX-5, which

The base ordinance allows five stories and 72 feet.

What we are proposing are three stories on top of a garage that is considered a basement.

It's not considered a story either under the zoning ordinance or under the building code based on its proximity to grade and the average grade plane.

So we have three stories above a garage that is a basement.

And the maximum height

that we have to the top of the parapet wall, which is not necessarily where you would measure height to.

You would measure it to the roof height.

Right now in this view is at 37 and a half feet.

The ridge of the primary form of the original house is at 30 feet above

above grade.

So that is, we are slightly higher than that.

But within, I think, within scale of the original house.

And the original house has two stories and then a bunch of space up in its attic space.

So it's effectively a three-story house with a basement underneath it.

And so really what we were interested in, what we are showing you today is

Kind of a glorified massing diagram with some holes punched in it to illustrate kind of windows.

But we have not really taken a long, in-depth study of the structure.

What I can say at this point is that what we know we're trying to do is preserve sunlight and air in a court area, in a landscape space, that gets sunlight from the south

and also mitigates the impact of any massing on the property to the south.

So that L-shaped piece is meant to gather as much sunlight as possible and also limit the impact of this addition behind the original structure on its neighboring structure to the south with the understanding that the property to the north is parking.

And beyond that,

The ground floor is meant to be where it can be, largely transparent, where it has kitchens, living rooms, and dining spaces.

We are obviously on the property line in certain points, and in those cases, we are limiting what we can do in terms of openings.

I would like to hope that we can have some openings that would have to have some special fire-protected glass.

We are largely limited to solid openings and walls that will have a fire rating on those.

But this project, even though it kind of looks like a little building, is really two houses

that have a shared party wall between them.

They have two stories above the main living space that are bedroom levels.

And really what I wanted to hear or what we were hoping to gather was what the board thought about the strategy, the placement on the site, the relationship of this building to its counterpart up front that faces onto 17th Street.

After that, I do think that we'd like to hear your thoughts, and we have additional images because we studied it, about what you would think if we were to go ahead and explore a fourth story.

that gave additional space on top of what we're showing here.

And again, I go back to the fact that I think that the density on this site is unlimited by the zoning ordinance.

The number of stories allowed are 5 and 72 feet.

We're at 3 and 37 and a half.

So fairly below what is allowed, we are within what's called spitting distance of the ridge of the original house.

And so in going to a fourth story, I still think we would actually be

If we pursued a different type of roof and looked at putting the fourth story into a kind of roof element, we could be within seven and a half feet of the ridge of the original house in terms of the maximum height of our building with some pushing and pulling of some other floor heights.

And I was having this conversation with somebody else.

I forget who.

What we're really trying to do is make sure that we are respectful of the original building's scale and that we are careful about the impact of this on the neighboring buildings.

But we're looking at the buildings behind the alley that face on to Redbeat that are also similar types of projects and we look at the projects that are up, in fact you can see it right there, that are over

over the corner of the power plant buildings that are on Grady.

And I feel like next to this fraternity house that we're within scale of the surrounding adjacent building.

So we're trying to just get some feedback, understand whether or not we're heading in a direction that feels comfortable so that we can continue to develop and design this.

And that is it.

We do.

And if you guys are open to taking a look at it, we have a package.

And one of the things that I'll say that we tried to do in doing that was in this, what we submitted, it was important to do a kind of base and then a two-part top that was the sleeping levels.

In this other instance, what we would do is try to develop a roof level where we develop some version of a roof that is kind of like putting the bedrooms in an attic space, develop some dormer conditions, some sloped walls, a different kind of materiality so that we would have base, middle, top in terms of the way we would approach it.

And again, I think

I think that we could finesse this in such a way that we could stay within seven, seven and a half feet of the ridge of the main house, the main house's roof, the taller roof.

All of this is, you know, predicated on, we're also trying to maintain a fairly sizable, big, private garage for the residents to use as you would use your own garage whether or not you want to pack it with bicycles and shovels or

cars or scooters or whatever but we tried to make that something that we could offer and also that would help take pressure off the surrounding streets and so we do it via a garage door that accesses off the alley and by picking the landscape up a little bit and pushing the garage floor down a little bit and doing a little speed ramp down we can do a tidy little job for them to

to park and just have storage and have bikes and all that other stuff and still maintain a really nice space that conserves the new construction as well as the original house.

Down the road, I mean the original house needs its own renovation so that's also going to get renovated but that's not part of what we're doing right now.

I should also mention part of this project involves on the back of the

The lower part of the house that you can see, it's still two stories, but there was a small porch, and then there's a little roof over a little dugout well that gets you into a basement.

We're asking you to pull those things off, those were, I think we have photos in our package.

Not in terribly great condition, I'm not sure they were ever original, but certainly not architecturally significant.

And that's part of opening up the space for us to make this connection and build this new project.

So, I want to leave you guys time to talk.

It's not a purview, but I'm sorry.

I'm just kind of curious, what would be on the fourth floor, more bedrooms?

Yes.

There aren't technically parking spaces, a private garage.

So it's not a public garage.

It's not a parking garage or a parking lot, per se, as you might have with an apartment building.

I will say that a back-end envelope

Number of cars that I think that they could fit in there if they wanted to tightly pack them in and everybody was careful, 12.

So the intent is attach single family dwelling?

So in what we submitted, the notion would either be a vertical wood or a synthetic

obviously of a certain quality wood siding.

And obviously when it's two stories on top of the ground floor, then maybe it's a parapet wall, maybe it has a lid.

Because we're up against the property line on one side, it prohibits you from having an overhang, which makes having a roof that has an extension

not work so well on that side.

Or actually we're up against it on two sides.

We're up against it on both the north and the south.

And therefore we pursued a parapet.

And on the other scheme where we were looking at maybe an additional floor, it would be more like a modified kind of matzard roof approach.

And in that case, I think we might explore

letting the standing seam metal come all the way down on one side and sort of envelop and frame a wood-clad condition for some variety.

But again, that would, I think, depend on which way we were going.

And I don't know if you guys all know the ordinance and the codes.

Some things have changed in the new ordinance is that there's no longer a definition of how many people can be in a single dwelling.

You're still restricted by the building codes, limitation of how many people can go into a bedroom based on a certain size.

And so we are actually not trying to do the smallest bedrooms that you could ever do.

We're trying to make comfortable bedrooms that are sizable.

I don't know if it does allow an apartment building, but I haven't done that research.

So here's another question.

But I think I know the answer to this.

Right.

In a different zoning district, you would have limitations on the number of dwelling units per acre, but in this zoning designation,

There are none.

And so we had previously been looking at two units, but they had different restrictions in terms of side and backyard setbacks and so forth that actually left you no room to do something, let's say, as gracious with the kind of courtyard landscape.

I won't ask any more leading questions.

Sorry.

What about a proper mansard roof?

I feel like that'd be more attractive than having this sort of blank shear wall

So again, I'm open to looking at all that.

This was a very quickly developed image, just to illustrate.

And I would again point out, when we're on a zero lot line, which is what we have there,

The alley, you have a five-foot setback.

In a five-foot setback, your openings are unlimited.

OK.

OK, you've got openings there.

Gotcha.

Sorry.

Okay, last question since I've got the mic.

You're showing some plantings here.

Is the idea that you, are there new plantings along that sidewalk, I guess, south of the building?

Not on your property, okay.

Yes, and I think as part of our site plan also, we imagine developing a kind of sidewalk pedestrian entry along the south side of the original house.

Okay, I'll go.

I think this is a cool little project.

I like the massing.

I think it's clever the way you've dealt with the garage.

I'd be really interested to see a section, particularly through the courtyard.

Is there?

Let's see.

Do you want to open that up?

You probably did.

I'm curious about the depth of the medium required for our trees to grow in your courtyard.

Me too.

That was what I was getting at.

But otherwise, I think it's an exciting project.

So something like that might involve a raised bed in that case.

And you're absolutely right.

I was also wondering about the, you said there was probably a 42 inch wall along the south side of that courtyard.

I imagine we would want to see some railing details.

I guess we'll be required to have that.

I had a similar comment about the railing.

I honestly, I kind of like the four story massing almost better than the three story.

I mean, I guess because you have more detail in the mansard roof, but I don't think the additional story really feels out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood.

I think it's interesting how you're incorporating this kind of courtyard space into the design.

I'm curious about the connectivity from the back of the historic structure to that bridge and how that alignment is happening.

Maybe it's visible in the plan.

But it would be nice to understand that a little bit better and kind of how people are moving through the space there.

I would say that is something that we will look at.

I think at this early stage, we haven't necessarily done that, but I could see that falling into the way that we come in on the south side of the house.

One of the things I should point out is that

And it's not, we don't make a big deal of it, but from the garage we have a little set of stairs that come up.

So without going back up the ramping, not the garage door, you get a little set of stairs up that drops you right at the corner of the old house.

And so you can pop up onto the platform that connects into the back of the old house or the courtyard space.

and that piece I've thought of as a bridge, literally kind of floating and kind of just connects across from the old back door to that.

But yes, we will look at that, definitely.

I also agree, I like the massing, either the three stories or the four would be fine.

I don't think that it overwhelms the old house.

Yeah, I think I support the three or four-story massing.

I mean, I voted for the RX-5 designation, so I'd be kind of a hypocrite if I didn't say, no, you can't make it that tall.

What I'm going to be worried about, though, is once it gets up to be four stories, or even at three stories, if you can't do windows and you just have this big blank facade, I realize it's facing a parking lot, but at some point it's going to be sticking up above the existing buildings.

If there's any way that you could pull the upper levels five feet off the property lines, you could get some windows or something.

I know that might be a structural issue in the basement, but that would be ideal.

You know, some of the other projects that we've seen in the neighborhood, we've seen teardowns, and we've seen people attaching directly onto the back of existing buildings, and I really appreciate that this one, it gives some room to the existing house, and it's on the alleyway, it's in the middle of the block, it doesn't, its impact really isn't that, it doesn't have a big impact on

any of the surroundings from the public realm at least.

But I think it still wants to have, again for the stories that stick up high enough that you're going to see them, a level of detail and a scale that meets the residential components of the neighborhood.

So we struggled with a project on Gordon Avenue.

It was more house-sized, but it

It was very plain, and we kept trying to push them to put some more detail on it.

Now, I know you've got a very, very contemporary palette on this, and I'm guessing that whatever comes back to us is going to stay very contemporary.

So I know that detail and contemporary design don't necessarily mix, but just making sure there's that human scale, that residential scale, the number of windows, sizes of things.

Looking at your renderings, the four story one appeals to me more, but I'm just looking at the courtyard view.

which what appeals to me about it is it's broken down into, you know, you've got a base, you've got a middle portion and the mansard roof breaks it down into little pieces.

I'm ready to just admit we focused on the courtyard.

Totally get it.

Yeah.

So just as you guys are developing this, just keep that in mind.

But yeah, no concerns from me for the height or the massing at all.

Great.

I don't have any issues with the massing, but I've got to say, I sort of like, I may be in the minority here, but I like the simplicity of the three-story version, which is just a simple material palette.

It seems like the one with the mansard roof, there's like one or two many things going on to me.

And I'm not sure if that simplicity would translate to another story, I guess.

Well, there's something very elegant about just that slab of wood.

Yeah.

I thought this was, I think this is a very creative and thoughtful kind of solution for how to add some density, you know, probably nothing like we've ever seen that I can think of before.

Our guidelines don't really address kind of a new, you know, it's new construction, it's not an addition, but I'll kind of, just because we're supposed to talk about the guidelines, I'll just kind of go through and see, note where you do meet them.

We'll just say it's a new construction.

It should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.

You're leaving the historic house intact.

New work should be differentiated, certainly it is, in scale, architectural features.

It shouldn't be an exact copy.

and it certainly does not use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing that are compatible with historic buildings.

In the district, I agree with Carl's comments.

I don't really care if you're looking at a straw poll.

I don't really feel differently about the three or four stories.

I would almost say add the density.

Personally, I don't really care for the mansard roof and I can't tell you why.

I just, it just, I really don't like it and I think I do agree with Mr. Birle who says that the simple exterior material instead of wood plus clad or whatever else you're going over it and then you've got the stucco in the front house is a little bit cleaner.