Board of Architectural Review Meeting   12/16/2025

Thanks everybody for coming out tonight.

Quick show of hands, who's above 18 years old?

That means we're all adults, so we can conduct this meeting as adults, and I'm looking forward to that.

Thank you.

Welcome to the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review's regular meeting.

The BAR is appointed by City Council to administer the provisions of Charlottesville City Code related to architectural design control districts, individually protected properties, and historic conservation districts.

At the beginning of the meeting, the BAR will allow matters from the public not on the agenda, followed by action on the consent agenda.

And then the BAR will formally review two certificate of appropriateness applications.

Just for the record, the matter on the consent agenda is front landscape alteration at 422 Second Street Northeast.

And so if you have any comments on that, then the matter for the

public is going to talk about that.

So we realize there's a lot of folks that would like to speak this evening.

We've got sign up sheets up front here.

If you could sign up, that helps us go through the list in an orderly fashion.

So in order to assure that we can perform our duties for this meeting, we are going to amend the bylaws or the meeting agenda as follows.

So during matters from the public not on the agenda, the number of speakers will be limited to five.

Each speaker will identify themselves, provide their address, and be allowed to speak once for up to two minutes.

Comments must be limited to the BAR's purview.

And again, that's on things not on the agenda.

And then during our new items, three and four, which are specifically the 210-216 West Market Street and the 7th Street parcels,

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

Following those two reports, I will invite questions and comments from the public.

Each speaker will identify themselves, provide their address, and be allowed to speak once again for two minutes.

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

per the BAR's charge from city council and per city code requirements for a major historic review.

Following any public comments, the BAR will then offer its questions and comments to the applicant.

Afterwards, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond to each question or comment and a period that may be extended at my discretion.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, we'll call a vote.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Thank you.

So we welcome public participation.

Everybody in here is a part of this meeting, right?

It's not us.

It's not just our meeting, it's y'all's meeting too.

So we want to invite y'all to please participate.

But we want to do so in a civil and orderly manner.

So in order to ensure that, we're going to act like adults.

We'd like you guys to please address the BAR, don't address the applicant, don't address

Other people in the room, focus your comments towards us.

Keep your comments to our purview, which again is the exterior of the building.

Public attacks, abusive language, actions that disrupt or impede the meeting's progress are prohibited.

And so we do have the right and reserve the right to ask folks to leave if they get disruptive.

But I don't think we're going to have to do that.

So we're looking forward to the conversation.

All right.

First off, we have matters from the public not on the agenda.

Do we have anybody who would like to speak on items not on the agenda?

If you're online and would like to speak, please raise your hand.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, our next item is the consent agenda, which includes the meeting minutes from October 21st, as well as the COA application for 422 Second Street Northeast, a front landscape alteration, which was an application that we've all seen.

Second.

I'll call the vote.

Mr. Bailey?

Yes.

Ms. Lewis?

Aye.

Mr. Timmerman?

Aye.

Cheri?

Mr. Rosenthal?

Yes.

Great.

If Mike and Aaron are listening at home, their COA is approved per the recommended motion in the staff report.

And you can take your sign down in your front yard.

All right.

All right.

We have no deferred items.

Mr. Warner, would you like to give us your introduction, please?

So I'm trying to read there from the screen.

I know I've wandered the last couple of meetings as we get used to the new things.

But this is 210-216 West Main Street.

We looked at it before.

It was 214, but various address changes.

So we're going to call it 210-216.

That's the lot where Brown's Lock and Safe is currently located.

This is a request to demolish the building, which you all had approved.

I think in 2022, and the COA was extended, but that will expire in February, and so the applicant has requested to have that.

It's come in as a new request.

The difference in this request is that previously we had

as a condition of approval require an approved site plan, a building permit for what was going to go there, which is not unusual.

But the applicant's interested in using this site following demolition as a construction yard, a lay down area for the construction of the plant hotel at 218 West Market.

And with that, that's why the condition in the staff report has now changed to it requires to get that permit.

And part of that permit is that once it's not being used for the construction project, the site has to be stabilized and seated and essentially would become a grassy knoll until someone does something with it.

But an interesting piece of this project, of this parcel that

Mr. Gastinger, who would be our former chair, always used to ask us to tell the story of the site when we could, and this one has a really unique one.

This, as you see on the map here, in 1877, that's the earliest map we have of Charlottesville.

We know there were three framed structures here.

We actually have photographs of them, two of them on the Browns Lock and Safe lot, and yeah, in fact, they're

So the picture probably looks familiar, but imagine you're standing at McGuffey looking down the hill.

Common Hall there on the left is still there.

Fellini's would be on the far left, just outside.

The Brown's Lock and Safe Site, you see those two framed structures there.

And then you see another framed structure to the right, which is in the parking lot of what

was the Artful Lodger.

And then of course the building you see, the white building there is that building on Old Preston that has the stone facing to it.

So part of what we required with the demolition

of the Arch Villager was a phase one archaeological investigation.

And we're going to be extending that also onto this site.

And we've been doing a lot, to the extent we can, trying to research who lived at this site.

And it's a pretty interesting story to be told there.

And we're hoping to fill in the blanks.

But as early as 1888, that's the earliest I can find.

Wellings were a series of black families lived there all the way up into about the late 1920s.

We suspect as we pull up the threads a little bit that they likely lived there earlier.

And so again, it's an interesting story of downtown that hopefully we can bring to the surface.

And that's why in the recommendation, there's the requirement of the phase one archeology.

And then the recommendation that

that when the hotel and anything that they build at that site, that that story would be interpreted and presented in the new buildings.

And so it's a nice opportunity to show

you know what what's going on underground and well we're not going to be a full it would just be a phase one so it'll be an investigation it's but if there's an opportunity to do more maybe Kate and I can work with you the owner to explore things further so and then you all had asked me about the stone wall that was a recommendation in the COA it's not a requirement but the recommendation that the

that stone that's there and is prevalent downtown be incorporated to anything new that gets constructed there.

But that's way down the road.

That's sort of a placeholder for when something comes in.

I know Kevin is right there.

I don't know if you had any comments on that.

But I think you were supposed to say you love it.

Thank you, Jeff, for that introduction.

I don't have too much to add, because that was very thorough.

And I appreciate all the diligence and research.

My name's Kevin Schaefer with Design and Develop Architects.

I think the distinguishing element of tying this to the building permit of the hotel is a smart one, just from a logistical consideration of the adjacent lot and the construction in a tight downtown corridor.

be used for lay down, for deliveries, for parking, for workers.

And it would offer a lot of flexibility and keep sort of construction traffic to a minimum, or certainly minimize it.

So we appreciate staff's recommendations.

We're certainly amenable to the three conditions listed.

The phase one archaeological is no problem.

The existing building documentation

We happen to know some people with a 3D point cloud scanner.

And the third condition of tying it to the permit for a temporary construction yard is exactly what we would aim to use it for.

The site would be secured with a opaque fence, probably similar to the one that was around the code building during that construction.

It would be at a height that's appropriate, secured appropriate, and meeting all of the Charlottesville design standards as staff mentioned.

Again, appreciate staff's diligence in their research.

A little ambiguous on the recommendations, I've never been through a recommendation on a COA process before and I'm not sure if that's something that gets tied directly to the approval, the COA and what that entails.

The applicant has requested, maybe it's just read into the record and then the conditions that are required are part of the COA in lieu of having a recommendation on an official COA.

But otherwise, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

I may have to defer to Jeff because I think he has more information than I do, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Oh, one thing I did want to do, I'm sorry, is I wanted to read this letter from Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown puts it

My family has been doing business in this city since 1950 and we have owned and operated this location at 210 Market since 1970.

We decided to close operations at this location and sell the property to Mr. Levine several years ago and the timing of the sale has finally developed to happen soon.

The property has no historical or other significant meaning to my family nor to the community in my opinion.

He then goes to say, I would not recommend the demolition of this building at 210 West Market Street if I felt anything of historic value could be salvaged.

However, this building has been modified and torn apart so many times through the years that as it stands, it retains almost nothing of the original structure and character.

Even the roof was torn off and completely replaced back before 2010.

Aside from replacing the roof, which is a dire necessity at the time, my family has seen no good purpose in further renovation over the years.

As it, we consider this property a severe eyesore, and it has always been the vision of my family and Mr. Levine that after purchasing the property, he would demolish the building and allow development of a use that would bring more economic and social vitality to downtown Charlottesville, as well as a visual relief when coming up the hill from Ridge McIntyre.

As I understand his plans, he will also temporarily use the property as a staging area and construction trailer during the construction of the Marriott Hotel next door.

All right, thank you.

Do we have any questions or comments from the public?

Any questions or comments from the BAR?

A phase one archaeological investigation is a

Kate will jump in and help me here.

It's maybe more so a history examination of the site looking at the documentation that's available.

What does that tell us?

For example, the information I'm collecting.

They will typically do a

a series of what they call shovel test pits at a certain you know 20-foot increment or whatever just to sort of determine is there something here now a site like this the archaeologists know what they may or may not find they may say well there's there's no point in any any sort of test pits they may say hey we want to take a look over here but it's a

You're not going to see anything even close to what we saw at the Swan Tavern site.

More than anything, it kind of produces the documentary background, the historic background that then informs decisions about if something were done further on the site.

really interesting is that if there were something worth looking at, the applicant's not obligated to do that.

All they do is produce the Phase 1.

But it would be an opportunity for us to then partner with them and say, all right, can we take a closer look?

No, the data in the phase one that was recovered would indicate if any other additional survey would be necessary.

So it's data-based.

Yeah, and they would not have to do it.

And the only thing that would stop a project on it is if you found burials on a site and that's a state law, that's not our law.

But no, we can only ask them to do that phase one.

Hopefully some information comes forward that maybe invites some further looks but they're not obligated to.

But we will get the story of that site, at least of the people that live there.

And I think to elevate that and sort of interpret that

And that's why, to Kevin's point about it's a recommendation from the BAR, you can't require it.

We've used over the years different words, we've urged, we've encouraged, but at least stating it in the motion, it becomes

It's part of the record in a way you don't have to go searching for it.

And if you are encouraging them to do it, then have that as part of your motion.

But no, I can't, when they come in with a building permit, they say, yeah, you encouraged, just thank you, but I'm not doing it.

I can't stop them.

Right.

We can require record documentation.

Can we require the level one?

It's already been done.

Basically the first three things are the requires and then there's the recommendations.

Wait, change what to wear?

The first bullet and then the three.

Sub-bullets.

Semi-bullets.

Right, that's right.

Those are conditions and then the last two bullets are recommendations that you are making to the applicant.

No, not yet.

It's just simply encouraging that in whatever, when this had been previously discussed, the idea was of a new building there.

And so it was encouraging, hey, can you incorporate this

This stone that's there incorporated into the building.

A little bit of what had come out of, you all weren't involved in the stone house over on Stadium Road, although it's an IPP, but an entrance corridor, you didn't see it.

So it was in the prior report, but it's not a requirement.

Is it even relevant though, this being a demo?

And do we need to address the prior recommendations in our motion tonight?

No, it's what was there before, so I included that and explained it.

But it's not like saying you've got to stack those stones.

Those exact stones have to be used.

It's just simply that's a construction element that's typical downtown.

It's on this site.

And it was a thought relative to the future project.

But you can remove that entirely.

when this comes in, if it ever comes in as something new, encouraged them to use stone.

I mean I think given the applicant supports the conditions, I support the conditions.

The first recommendation seems kind of irrelevant to me since we don't know what's going to be built there and this is just a demo permit so I would recommend, I'm recommending it.

And then the third I think is just kind of a no-brainer.

All right.

and I'm fine making a motion referring to the recommendation recommended conditions on page three the staff report and omitting one if you wish.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 210-216 West Main Market Street satisfies the BAR's criteria and guidelines and is compatible

with this property and other properties in the ADC district and that the BAR approves the application as submitted.

With the following conditions, prior to preservation, number one, prior to the preservation, I'm sorry, of these following conditions, number one, applicant will secure the necessary permit for the site to be used as a temporary construction yard

There's a requirement in the first bullet that's necessary to state.

You can say prior to staff, but prior to preservation and design staff, Kate and I, we have to approve demolition permits.

So prior to us approving that permit, they would have to meet that.

Sorry.

Is it possible to gain clarity on the recommendations?

I was going to omit the first recommendation and include the second recommendation.

Thank you.

Did you know what those are?

Yes.

So let me start over.

Prior to preservation and design staff approval of a demolition permit to raise the existing building at 210-216 West Market Street, applicant will secure the necessary permit for the site to be used as a temporary construction yard to support construction

of the hotel at 218 West Market Street, including installation of a construction barrier appropriate for downtown per City of Charlottesville standards and design manual.

Applicant will provide for the BAR record documentation of the existing building.

In addition to the photos provided, documentation will include dimensioned floor plans and elevations

And in coordination with the required examination of 218 West Market Street, condition of COA for BAR number HST25-0076, applicant will complete and provide for the BAR record a phase one archaeological investigation of the site.

Any further discussion?

Give it to Kate.

All right.

We'll call for a vote.

Mr. Bailey?

Yes.

Mr. Birle?

Aye.

Ms. Lewis?

Aye.

Mr. Timmerman?

Yes.

Mr. Rosenthal?

Yes.

I vote yes.

All right.

Our next agenda item is

Taksbek, 29, Parcels 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 202, 204, 208, and 214, 7th Street, SW, and 613, Delavan Street, 204, and 208, 7th Street, SW are individually protected properties.

So I know this is what most folks are here to talk about this evening, and again we're welcoming everybody to comment on this.

For those of y'all who may have arrived late, we passed a motion at the beginning of the meeting where we're going to combine comments and questions for our speakers at two minutes.

We've got sign-up sheets up here too, if you guys would like to, if anybody needs to come up.

and I just wanted to also summarize just for folks understand the overall process for these large projects and that you know we've we've seen this project come to us a couple times now from preliminary discussions this is the first time it's been brought to us for a full COA and just make it clear that the BAR is like a group of volunteers

We're not elected officials and we're not paid.

So we are here to interpret and I don't know if it enforces the right word, but

Is that the right word?

For the City Council's guidelines.

They're City Council's design guidelines.

They're not the Board of Architectural Review's guidelines, right?

And so, therefore, any application that comes to us can be appealed to City Council.

And it can be appealed by

Either side, right?

So just for example, let's say we were to approve this, any agreed party from the public could appeal that decision to city council, right?

And on the converse, if we denied this project, the applicant could appeal it to city council, right?

Also, if we approve it with conditions, the applicant could appeal those conditions to city council.

Does that make sense?

So I just want to kind of make everybody aware that that is a step

a further step in the process if it becomes needed for anyone.

I don't think staff report has a timer.

10 minutes in the penalty box.

Are we 10 minutes on staff report?

It's in my work plan, work on my brevity.

Is that on your annual review?

I will at the end of the meeting review the whole appeal process so that everybody is crystal clear on it.

Let's not start out with that.

I know.

So quickly, this is I think the fourth time you all have

This is the first time it's come forward for formal action by the BAR.

The actions available to you, you all can approve it.

You can approve it with conditions.

You can also deny it.

And because it's the first time you see it,

You can also defer it, the BAR can defer it to the next meeting which is Wednesday the 21st of January.

It's bumped because of the holiday, so mark your calendars.

The primary reason, and I think a lot of people misunderstood the BAR's purview in this, but the only reason you are looking at this is because of the two late 19th century brick houses at 204 and 208 7th Street.

They are designated individually protected properties by the city and therefore they're afforded the same protection by the overview of the BAR as if they were

They are their own discrete districts.

What's unusual about when you're evaluating an IPP, IPP being individually protected property, is that your

This isn't like West Main Street where the entire street is in a district and you're looking at the rest of the district.

Here what you have to evaluate are those two structures and the rehabilitation that's being proposed on them and the impact of this new development.

Were this project to not include those two buildings at all, there would be

No design review.

Say even furthermore something that happens on the south side of Delavan Street or across 7th Street or on the properties to the east of this, except I think there is an IPP, there is no design review.

That is by right and they follow the building code.

So you all have the circumstances in which you're looking at this is

because of the IPPs.

And the design guidelines that apply to IPPs are our design guidelines for districts.

So that's why sometimes it seems we're talking about a larger place, but you are looking at these two buildings.

And first and foremost, again, how are these buildings being treated?

And the applicant has provided a rather detailed plan for how to rehabilitate them.

I think there will be some questions along the way.

There's a couple things I've noted as recommended conditions, but we certainly welcome the opportunity to not see these being raised.

The context that we looked at this at the very beginning was

something similar to what happened at the Quirk which envelops two, I think, early 20th century buildings and people have argued, you know, successfully maintained those as part of the new design.

So that's somewhat of the context at which we looked at that.

The second piece that you are looking at is the design of the new building itself.

Because it is encroaching onto these properties, it's subject to the design review.

There are four sides to every building because, and while you're looking at this mainly relative to the IPPs, you also, from a design perspective, we're looking at all four walls.

You couldn't, or I would argue it's not the BAR's job to say, well, we only care about the front of the building.

and the other three walls could be tar paper or vinyl siding.

So the consistency of the architecture of the entire building is something that you all are commenting on and have been.

But it's the context of this as you are reviewing the guidelines as far as what council has established is through the lens of those two buildings.

And another thing I'd mention, for a large-scale project, we are now reviewing the site plan, the first round of the site plan comments and that's necessary.

We've agreed as staff because we've had some projects that kind of will

We've had that first round of site plan comments, but they aren't

they are to identify primarily is this an unbuildable project and nothing in that letter indicated that.

For example, if the comments come back and said the zoning here doesn't allow a seven story building or there's a culvert running underneath of it that you can't build on top of it.

Nothing like that occurred.

The comments that came back, the applicant when I asked is there anything in there that will,

you would have to address that would change the design of this building as it's being presented to the BAR.

They responded that they can resolve these things during the site plan without, I think, and all projects have slight tweaks, so I think without, let's say without significantly altering the design.

And if, an understanding now that's before you, the design that's presented tonight to vote up or down or to take action on, if

however long from now when they wrap up the development plan and the site plan that results in this thing having changes have to be made then we'll evaluate that.

So that's the risk the developer and the applicant are taking here that they can with this design approval continue forward and not have to change it as they get their site plan approved.

The criteria you're looking at, again, primarily the rehabilitation of the two structures, but also the new development incorporating the design guidelines for site design and elements and of course the design guidelines for new construction and additions.

And I know because you all have asked me questions and folks in the community have asked me questions, we have

A zoning ordinance adopted by city council two years ago now that allows much larger buildings much closer to the street and much closer together than had been contemplated when the design guidelines were developed.

So there is a

Let's acknowledge it.

There's a challenge here that the, you know, a strict application of design guidelines arguably could be, you know, in conflict with what zoning allows, but that's where the process works.

You all evaluate this for the design guidelines, and if you feel like, and it's not a checklist, and I want to make that clear, someone could not feed our guidelines into a

a chat bot and come up with a design.

It doesn't work that way.

Not everything applies.

There's flexibility built into this.

They are guidelines.

And there is no you shall not.

Second, as you all know, your decision is appealable to council.

So if you all say I love it and vote for it right now,

someone can appeal that or if you decide you don't support it and deny it, that can be appealed to council.

In that regard, in fact in all COAs, you all are essentially making a recommendation to council.

99% of the time there isn't an appeal, so

It doesn't get challenged.

Your job is to look at the guidelines.

If you support this design and you support the planned rehabilitation of those two buildings, then in fact quoting our code, you should vote to approve the COA.

And if you feel that

The project does not meet the guidelines.

It's not compatible and conflicts with the guidelines.

Then you, per the code, could vote to deny COA.

So I think

There are a lot of questions that, again, have come to me about this project that simply do not fall under your purview.

It's not that I want it to be that way or not.

It just simply is.

Your requirements are established by city code.

The guidelines are adopted by city council, not you all.

That's the discretionary stuff.

And then you all are appointed by city council.

So to make clear that you cannot decide that you are opposed to the zoning ordinance, or you can't decide that this shouldn't be an apartment building.

You have to look at this through the filter of the design guidelines.

Or I'm advising you to.

You can certainly say whatever you wish.

All right.

So good evening, I'm John Matthews with Mitchell Matthews Architects and I'm joined by my colleagues Alan Wong and Jim Duxbury.

Thanks for your feedback on this project over the last six months, it's been very valuable.

We feel a design has improved considerably primarily based on the input that you have given us over those six months.

So thank you for that.

We also believe that this project ticks virtually every box required for its approval.

It rehabilitates and protects those historic buildings.

And remember, that's really the sole purpose we're here.

Sorry, our click is not working.

You said that.

OK. Next slide.

OK.

So you're going to have to say the next slide.

OK.

So we also.

OK, next slide.

OK, good.

So we also believe this project ticks virtually all the boxes necessary for approval.

It rehabilitates and protects the IPPs.

And that specifically is the one reason we're here.

It's not the building, because if we stayed out of the IPPs, that building could still be built.

So I just want to emphasize that's the issue is the IPPs and I want to try to stay on that track.

It complies with the comp plan, the zoning ordinance, the affordable housing manual.

and contributes millions of dollars to the city's essential public services.

This list behind you is just a partial list of all the attributes this project offers.

We would like to quickly run through a recap of, this is a very large submission, so we'd like to recap those.

Next slide, please.

So we are here for these two requests to seek permission from BAR to demolish the minor non-contributing additions to the two IPPs, also to allow the construction on the same IPP parcels.

And we'd like to address right now the context that this new proposed building would provide that would be appropriate and meaningful to those two IPPs.

Next slide.

This is simply showing the context around the site, which is in red.

Above, it's directly adjacent to the train tracks.

Beyond that is West Main Street.

Below the site, you'll see it's right on the edge of Fifeville.

Next slide, please.

The following slides are showing the conditions of the two IPP historic houses.

Next slide.

The exterior shows the conditions of, and we've been finding that they are structurally compromised and that they are in the process of progressive failure.

You'll see on the inside, next slide, the same sort of dilapidated condition, serious damage which will have to undergo serious rehabilitation.

So this graphic shows the current zoning of the property on the, let me reinforce, it's on the extreme edge of Fifeville.

Some people might think it's closer to West Main than Fifeville.

The previous map showed where it is.

It often gets lost also that this entire area, not just the site, is zoned for higher density.

The other thing that gets lost, and you don't hear very often, is that this site, this area was previously zoned for higher density.

This is not new.

This was all, for decades, it's been zoned for higher density.

This is a former industrial site.

It's been neglected for decades.

Those of you that have had a chance to go buy would, I'm sure, agree with that.

So we've brought in some additional boards here to help quickly recap some of the major changes and improvements we've made.

These boards will remind you of how this project has evolved over time as well as how your input has affected it.

This second board illustrates our response to Barr's comment back in August, I believe it was.

Can the height along 7th Street be reduced by removing the massing back to the rear of the property and by stepping down the wings?

And yes, we accomplished that by pushing the bulk of the center section of the building, which are located directly behind the cottages, back a little over 100 feet from the street.

We also removed units at the top

So I'm not sure who's clicking that, but those images shouldn't be moving.

Sorry.

And next board.

This.

This was board comment number two.

Can you articulate the building facade to be more sympathetic to the scale of the houses?

And in our previous design, we had the brick towers that you commented upon.

So moving on now to comments from your last meeting,

or our last meeting, can the building, you asked for the building massing to be pushed back on the front of the building, we came to subsequent meetings, then you asked for the massing to be pushed back on the side of the building.

So these are each meeting, we were asked to do more.

So this is the previous, can you go back?

Yeah, can somebody slow down?

Two more.

We'll say, yeah, we'll say slide.

Right there, that's good, yeah.

As we do it.

This is the elevation as proposed and you asked can this massing also on the Alavance Street be reduced and our answer to that we went back and looked at it and the answer is yes it can be reduced.

Next slide please.

This is a roof plan, and this also illustrates, those of you that are interested in details, many of the changes that were made based on your comments over the many months.

The latest comment or request or suggestion that we consider is the transition, shown in yellow on the screen.

That's where we're taking a story off the Delavan Street site.

We're reducing the mass again next.

What that looks like, the violet that's a bit washed out there.

The violet is a whole story that's coming off Delavan Street.

Next.

This is that elevation.

Remember that Delavan Street is a side street.

This is a very short, dead-end, narrow street.

There's two houses opposite this.

This is the side elevation.

Next.

Bar comment, what is the impact of this project on the IPPs?

We think this project protects and honors those IPPs.

Next.

What is the impact on the neighborhood?

This is less than a block away.

In the larger package, we have images from all around Fifeville.

You can only see the top of this building.

This is the corner of Dyson 5th Street.

These are accurate representations.

Next slide, please.

This is returning to the IPPs where we are assuring that the windows and all the major character defining features will follow the Secretary of Interior's standards for rehabilitation, especially those facing the street.

Next slide.

with the bar comment.

What is the project's impact on the First Baptist Church?

This is the side.

This is the rear of the church building.

On the other side of the tracks, the building would be facing it.

Those things that look like windows are actually painted boards.

So there is no light or views being led into the sanctuary from those.

Next slide.

This is related to bar comment number five.

Can you flip the sidewalk and the planting strip along 7th Street and Delvin Street?

No.

Currently, based on discussions with planning, engineering, and the file marshal, various existing conditions along both streets forced us to locate the planning strip adjacent to the building

Bar comment number six, can you provide information on the longevity of fibrous cement?

While no product lasts forever, fibrous cement siding maintained well can last up to 50 years.

It does come with a 30 year warranty.

Bar comment number seven, can you provide information on the exterior paint finishes?

The proposed paint by Sherwin-Williams will be on a seven to 10 year painting schedule.

Bar comment number eight, why should bar approve vinyl windows?

We brought a sample of the vinyl window.

These are high performance, custom built, and commercial grade windows.

And as this rendering shows, this is how the palette will come together, the windows, the fiber cement, and the brick base.

Next slide.

Next slide.

We're almost done.

So this is similarly to that previous slide, a five-story building, 1115 Wortland, that was initially criticized as being out of scale, oversized, and would overwhelm the historic houses on Wortland.

Two more points here next.

Can you go back?

So neighborhoods have always evolved.

And in reality, they must evolve to meet contemporary needs.

Neighborhoods like Fifeville are not static.

They evolve.

They continually change over time.

Older homes are renovated, additions are built, and uses shift.

And then just two more slides back.

And I just wanted to add that there are many areas in this region where there are

a diverse type of building altogether that make a resilient neighborhood together.

And that's what we're looking to create here.

And that's the end of our presentation.

All right.

Thank you, guys.

Appreciate it.

I think we're going to start with our questions and comments from the public.

All right.

Oh, yeah.

Do we have anybody online that wants to speak?

All right.

We'll start with Jeff Barrett.

please.

And if you could just come to the microphone, state your address, and then we'll have about two minutes.

Hi, my name is Jeff Barrett.

I live at 805 North Street.

Sorry, I'm a little unprepared for this first up.

I would like the board to consider

The project's effect on the neighborhood, not just the IPPs.

The Fideville is a really unique historical neighborhood.

And this project is not on the edge of Fideville.

It is actually in Fideville.

Thanks.

Great.

Thank you, Jeff.

Sure.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

We live in 715 1A Walker Square, which is directly across from the two likely piece.

Our concern is two-fold.

One, the entire sky in front of where we live will be blocked out by this building and all the trees that are there currently will be blocked out.

And as the gentleman before me just mentioned, the whole historic nature of Fifeville, this is right in Fifeville, will be changed by this building.

The second thing is the traffic, and I realize that's not within your purview as the bar, but it's something that I haven't seen any consideration of as far as where the traffic is going to go.

with the train tracks and the congestion we already have there.

I think it's obvious that I'm concerned about what's directly in front of us, and that's selfish to some extent, but I'm also concerned about the effect this has on the entire community.

Charlottesville has a history of not doing right by historically black communities.

Walker Square, where we live, is probably not something that would have been welcomed in Fifeville if there had been a chance to fight it.

I'd just like to see the bar consider the overall impact and contrary to what was stated earlier, this is right smack in the middle of Fifeville, overshadowing other historic buildings that have been lovingly cared for and lived in by people that are probably sitting in that room right now.

Thank you, Mr. Carr.

Hi, I'm Marlena Simon.

I live at 599 Dice Street, which is

It's kind of basically right across from this building on Delavan Street.

I have a few questions and a few comments.

My first question actually came from listening to the previous discussion you were having about Brown's Lock and just wondering if this property gets an archaeological review as well.

Is that true?

Do you know?

Because I'm sure being such it was part of the train depot, it would probably have a lot of value in that sense.

Secondly, I was here at the previous meeting when some of those previous concerns came up.

And I just wonder how accurate those representations truly are.

The facade of the building, I think a lot of us spoke to the fact that it felt, I think you even said, looked just like the buildings at Stonefield.

It didn't have that much of that brick representation.

The pictures that they showed of the Court Square building and Altamont Circle, those are historic brick buildings that don't look like they were come together with white press board.

So I'm not really sure that just doing a two-story facade

I do appreciate the setbacks that they have allotted to going back on the Delavan side and the 7th Street side.

But again, looking at their escapes when they show those old buildings.

They have like trees and grass in front of them.

And I walk in front of that every day, and the sidewalk basically meets that fence right next to where that porch is.

That's a fake.

Like, that's not what it's going to look like.

And so I hope all of you can please be sure that you're going to know that it seems insincere what is being portrayed and what they're actually going to do to make that seem like it falls in place.

And then lastly, I think I have the question of where, when this building is going on, where are all the building materials and the trucks and all

Where's the parking?

Where's all that going to be?

Because the gentleman is really right, like Delavan Street currently is a very tiny street.

And I don't even know physically how that can work.

And I know that that's the transportation and might not be purview here.

but I just understand when does that feasibility come into play is my question.

When does it actually, even if it is feasible, how does that come into play?

Great, thank you.

Yeah, this is Stephanie Lawson.

I'm a longtime resident of Fifeville.

I've lived here since 2001, and I live at 329 7th and a half street southwest.

I was at the last architectural review board meeting and couldn't make it tonight, so I'm glad you had the Zoom, so I appreciate that.

I would just like to say and state clearly my objections to this development that's going up.

It doesn't fit the scale and the size of the neighborhood.

I realize that there are zoning things we have to deal with that do allow this to happen but I guess I just ask the board to consider the look of the building and what it's going to do to all the buildings around it.

I know from my house I will be able to see the building.

Right now I can actually see the steeple of the church and that view is going to be blocked.

So I just want you guys to take into consideration what this is going to do to the neighborhood.

It's going to really destroy one of the entrances to FIFO.

Thank you, Ms. Lawson.

Hey, how are you guys doing today?

My name is Angela Carr.

I am a FAR board member and I am a part of the community.

I grew up in Garrett Square.

I grew up here in Charlottesville.

I got family that lives probably like in the parking lot over beside these two houses.

So I just I'm kind of curious.

I want to come up here and ask a few questions.

I'm curious to know why that street?

I'm curious to know why that street?

Like what is so special?

about the Fifeville area.

What is so special about the black history in the area?

What is so special about that spot?

Why I picked that spot?

Out of all spaces here in Charlottesville, Virginia, out of all areas that really do need that building or that could utilize, you know what I mean, that size of a building, why choose that spot?

I just kind of feel like every place in Charlottesville that is predominantly black or that has history with black literally is just being snatched up.

And I feel like it's being snatched up because a lot of people that look like me are not showing up to express how we truly feel about it.

I've expressed it a lot on Facebook and I'm trying to get people to really understand, hey,

You have a say so.

Hey, you have rights.

Hey, you have a voice.

Just show up.

Just show up.

And I don't think that they believe that if they show up that you guys are going to listen.

So I just say, you know, I mean, I just ask if you really, really, really, really, really just take deep consideration.

of like it really does matter to the black community and we really do care and it clearly it matters to more than just the black community it matters to the whole community the Fyfeville community and I don't even live in the Fyfeville community I live out 29 so it just like it brought me here you know what I mean it matters to us and that's all I'm saying like you come in

with a substantial amount of money you've put into this project and you can shine light on what the building is looking like and its damages and the negative things about the building, but are you willing to help that building?

Are you willing to put the money into that building?

That's like, you know what I'm saying?

So if you can shine bad on it, can you shine a little good on it?

Because the neighborhood is truly asking you to consider us when you consider luxury.

There are so many homeless people in this town.

I feed about 100 of them every weekend, living literally under bridges.

Outside in tents and we talking about spending millions of dollars on this place on a black neighborhood when you got hundreds of people hungry.

Even the people that live in homes are hungry.

Children homeless and we over here worried about student luxury houses.

It's not really making sense to me.

You know what I mean?

Honestly.

So I just ask that y'all consider, you know what I mean?

Like we could really be, you could, I'm just, you know, you could really change a lot here in Charlottesville with the amount of money that you putting into this building or the amount of thought that you guys have put into this building.

Y'all could really put a lot of that money into the homeless people being that Trump also passed the law that it's illegal for them to be homeless.

I'm going to say thank you.

I appreciate you giving me over the two minutes the same way you gave him, so thank you.

Sure thing.

Thank you.

All right.

Yes.

Thank you.

Can you all hear me?

Yes, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I live at the Oak Lawn Cottages Project over on Fifth Street.

I'm also a retired professional planner, and I've been involved with mixed-use development for more than 40 years.

The deficiencies in this project are really alarming.

In the review of the comments made by the staff, there were zero comments by the fire department.

In doing research, we found that in March of 2021, the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority actually became the owner of the railroad.

They were never notified, as far as we can tell, by the city of any of this rezoning.

And they have many parcels that they touch, including the West Haven parcels.

So I think, first of all, there's a basic lack of notice that happened that really needs to be addressed.

Also, because of the size of the trains that go by this area, you can have a 225 car rail incident happening in the middle of the night.

Imagine with no passageway for emergency vehicles or crash barrier, a train going off the tracks with 400 students sitting in a

in a building right next to the tracks.

That can happen within 50 years.

There's been no effort to provide emergency access and protection to this building.

There are just many, many deficiencies.

That sidewalk on 7th Street is probably a 20% grade.

There's not a single person who lives in this building who can get up that even in a wheelchair.

There's no ADA access.

On the Oak Grove side, because we all got rezoned to seven stories, we now have no setbacks.

so that the building that crowds us really is a taking to our properties which are part of the historic district because of the zoning pattern the city put down.

So there are just a lot of issues here.

Mr. Snider, I'm going to stop you there.

The train is not under our purview.

I appreciate your comments.

A train could derail there tonight, and it would hit whatever other buildings are out there.

So thank you for coming in.

It's beyond the BAR's purview to consider how a train can be stopped because there's a phrase about not being able to stop a train.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Paul Reeder.

I've lived at 211 5th Street SW for over 10 years.

I'd like to take as my topic something we looked at earlier this evening, the executive summary given to you by the developers.

The executive summary makes 14 points.

I could spend my three minutes, now two minutes, debating each of these, as most are either economic with the truth or disingenuous.

However, all 14 are irrelevant to your decision.

Their arguments are more appropriate for the city council, and perhaps we will get there in due course.

Instead, I'd like to focus on the developer's threat in that summary.

Despite lauding the board for its positive contributions, the developer now threatens to abandon the cottages entirely and proceed by right if you don't play ball.

Don't believe it.

There is simply no way mommy and daddy are going to walk past two derelict cottages and pay $1,000 a month for one bed for their precious students.

I don't

Compatible with the historic cultural or architectural character of the IPP that is the subject of the application.

Is the proposal compatible with the historic cultural or architectural character of the IPP that is subject of the application?

And whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass,

and placement of the proposal are visually and architecturally compatible with the site.

The answer to both these questions is an emphatic no.

Thank you, Mr.

Reader.

Good evening.

I'm John Mason.

I live at 211 Fifth Street Southwest in Charlottesville.

I want to address a couple of things that the developer's presentation made.

This development is not on the edge of Fifeville.

Other people have made that point.

It's in Fifeville.

It's not on the edge of Fifeville.

We saw a picture of the Altamont building on Altamont Circle.

The Altamont building was built after the houses on Altamont Circle.

The Altamont building, which I lived in for 17 years, obscures the sunlight of those houses that are around it, depending on the time of day.

And even though it was built in the early 1920s,

People to this day complain about their lack of sunshine because of the Albemarle building.

The developers also made the point that Fifeville has a history of being a place for industrial development, and it's not a protected area.

It's not a protected area precisely because it's an historically African-American neighborhood.

Precisely because it's an historically African-American neighborhood.

A previous speaker asked, why here?

Well, because African-American neighborhoods are vulnerable, that the history of this city

has made African Americans subject to housing and economic discrimination.

That makes us extremely vulnerable.

Am I already out of time?

I'm going to leave you with this thought.

I think history matters.

The history of the city matters when you think of the history of Charlottesville and how Charlottesville is vulnerable to this kind of development.

I served on the Blue Ribbon Commission that made recommendations to city council about what to do with our Confederate memorials.

We learned that history matters.

We also learned that symbolism matters.

And if this building is constructed, it will be a new symbol of white domination in the city of Charlottesville.

That's it.

I'm done.

Thank you, Mr. Mason.

Frank.

Bector.

Thank you.

My name is Frank Bector.

I live in Fifeville.

I'm at 304 6 and 1-2 Street, Southwest, very near Dice.

Let me please draw your attention to an architectural and historic survey from 1984.

It's available online.

It was probably read also by the developer proposal.

In its architectural description, it says, this worker's cottage and the one next door, this is a worker's cottage, historically.

That's what it is, a worker's cottage.

And I emphasize, that is in the architectural description.

in this document at least.

The applicants know that to their credit.

They did mention once in their proposal, which is in your minutes from August 19th, page 30.

These two buildings are two very small individually protected IPPs.

They are workers cottages constructed in the late 19th century.

Note again, they are very small in the words of the applicant.

I want to quote another page from their bar request number one, page 34 in the August 19 minutes.

When they were asking to be able to tear down some of the wooden structures that were added after the fact, they wrote of them, they don't have any redeeming architectural, historical, or community value.

They would not result in a loss of historic fabric

So even if the board were to maybe wonder if it does not have purview to speak of community and historic fabric and neighborhood and things like that, the applicant thinks you do.

It's mentioning it in its own proposal.

Given that we were asked to speak only of external, I must read on from the minutes from the August 19 meeting, which Paul also cited the same sentence, but a proposal shall be denied if it is deemed incompatible with the historic, cultural, or architectural character of the district, perhaps we're not a historically protected district, or the protected property.

And I've just emphasized that those protected properties are just like

The neighborhood today, it's a working class neighborhood.

Those are worker's cottages.

We're talking about honoring worker's cottages.

We're built as worker's cottages.

We want to honor them.

I say we put affordable housing there, rehabilitate those houses, make them affordable, make them habitable.

Last meeting two months ago, I said that the certificate of appropriateness might be thought of, it seems to be actually a certificate of appropriation.

That city block, a very large area that is ideal for affordable housing, I know that's not fully in your purview, will be appropriated, will be annexed.

There's no FIFIL current resident who will have anything to do with it.

So I recoil at the idea that we cannot as a governmental structure of various departments do something about that.

I do object to the notion of rehabilitation of structures, buildings, everywhere else in the proposal and even by staff here we tend to say building structures.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Brock Napierkowski.

I live at 614 Dice Street at the end of 7th at the bottom of the hill.

That home was refurbished in 2008 by Mike McMahon and his father, who I think many of you probably know on this board because he's brought many projects in Fifeville before this board, specifically for renovation.

He also, with his father, owns some properties in Fifeville which they decided not to renovate, specifically to keep the cultural and neighborhood feeling

present in some respect when they found it.

So as we have lived there since 2008, we've seen, through Mike McMahan's experience and his development strategy, interact with the Board of Architectural Review and establish a gentrification strategy in Pfeiffer's slow growth.

The fact that this was keyed in on the developers by saying that Fightful is a place where growth is happening and change is happening, I think is true because it is evidenced by Mike McMahon and his father's work.

But it is not part of a continuum, this particular project.

It represents a discrete shift from the strategy of development, which has occurred over the last 15 years.

And I think that if the board approves this application today, it would mark a very distinct shift and change from the previous strategy, which has been unfolding over the last 15 years.

So I don't think it would be consistent with the way that the Board of Architectural Review has treated FIFIL up to this point.

And it would leave me some serious questions about what the actual philosophy of the board is in preserving FIFIL, if that is a stated goal of the board.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I've been a resident of Fifeville for 56 years.

It's nothing I haven't seen and I'm worried and I'm concerned.

First, I'm concerned that it's an all-white architectural review board here and that I'm sick and tired of all-white boards making decisions on things that are going to impact predominantly black neighborhoods.

You don't live there.

You don't know nothing about it.

You go on by what you read.

You go on by.

You have to live there.

That is going to affect that neighborhood in a major way.

It's already been subjected to gentrification.

$300,000 home sold and then resold for $700,000.

Who did that affect?

People that look like me.

And we are tired.

I know I'm tired.

I'm very tired.

You should not approve this.

It would be horrible because it's definitely going to affect the people that look like me.

It's wrong.

It's terribly wrong.

And for them to come in here with these lies and with this message you're talking that is not true.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Stop coming into our neighborhoods taking advantage of people that look like me and bringing in luxury apartments for rich white people because that's who it's for.

Those rich white students at UVA and their rich parents.

So be perfectly honest, who is that going to be beneficial to?

Who will it be beneficial to?

It's not going to be beneficial for me because if I had a child going to UVA, they wouldn't be able to afford to live there.

So who is it going to be beneficial for?

Enough.

Think about it and think about it hard and strong.

And then try to do something to correct a pointy, more diverse architecture review board.

Thank you.

Hi, Wendy Gao.

I'm a community organizer at F.C.A.R.

I first just wanted to ask everyone who is here this evening to support Fifeville and its black history to please stand up.

Thank you.

I just wanted you all to feel the community presence in this space and everybody who showed out tonight to defend this community and its history.

Okay, y'all can sit down.

I have a question for the developers that they can answer later.

Specifically, because they said in their presentation that their project won't displace homeowners,

I'm not sure that that's true, as many have already voiced because of the violent process of dispossession called gentrification, which the standard is already perpetuating in 10th and Page, also thanks to these same developers.

The VAR has been given an impossible task of considering the design plan for these two cottages without considering anything else, but you cannot divorce architecture or design from history

Buildings exist in space and spaces and places are shaped by the social political context in which they arise and that they exist in.

When you're considering these two IPPs built by James Hawkins, you can't ignore the fact that after he built them, he sold them to local working class black families.

You also can't ignore that those black families and others lived in Fifeville because Fifeville was a former slave plantation named after the Fife family.

I just want everyone to sit with that.

The land that this building will be built on was a former plantation that enslaved human beings as child slavery.

That is the history and the immense violence that this city is grappling with and that you all are reckoning with, whether council intended you all to or not, but insofar as they have asked you to consider design and architecture, you cannot consider architecture without considering the history.

I'm Shanti Levy.

I live at 708 North Street.

I really appreciate all the comments and share a lot of the feelings that have been expressed.

I want to focus on a few particular things because it's emphasized a lot how limited your purview is.

And I think in particular, I'd like to speak about scale.

I think it's 205 7th Street, which is the northern IPP.

point zero nine acres.

Most of our lots in Fifill are between or less than an eight or point zero nine to point one four acres.

And so when you see that and how tiny it looks relative to the massing, it is a perfect diagram and representation of how disjuncture this this proposal is with the rest of our neighborhood.

And I also just want to say when I see the plan, which shows that the place where the massing isn't the place where they can't

be making money from the actual rental units is the luxury amenity of a pool and spa and terrace area rather than landscape space that we might be able to access as a public.

And so instead of what is currently a forest, they're removing 45 large trees, many, many more smaller trees, and proposing to replace them with large trees that absolutely cannot fit in the space that they're shelving them to.

So there's a 10% canopy requirement that they're showing that they will meet by including canopy counts that are way too large for the space that would actually fit in that area.

So the only two examples that we have in central Charlottesville that include an entire city block that you can't penetrate as a pedestrian are the standard and the flats.

And those are not the precedents that we want to continue as we're developing the city.

The examples that the architects showed in their August presentation about

protected IPPs that are surrounded by larger projects.

When you look at those, all of their precedents were at least half the size of the lot that this project does.

And the protected buildings were all about double the size.

So the scale disruption is so much more extreme in this instance.

And I would say that those have mixed success.

And the one that I think is probably the most successful is the Doyle.

because it does provide that space that anybody can walk through and move through as part of a city fabric.

And I think we have an interesting moment here where we have these whole blocks that can be purchased and developed at a single time by a single developer and it makes the fabric of our city

locked into a particular market moment and a particular time and set of economic forces that are for right now.

Thank you.

Laxmi Fjord?

Laxmi Fjord?

Lakshmi Fjord.

I live at 709 Nall Street, which is the corner of Nall and 7 and a half.

I'm two blocks from this proposed plan.

And yes, I will be able to see it.

I have a rise.

You'll be able to see this.

It was a very studied photo that was used that left out

actually the closer houses and so forth.

So yes, I'm impacted but I'm far more concerned about the historic issues and the cultural issues and the site appropriateness and I love what Shanti had to say and very proud of what Shanti had to say because we have to think not just of this moment, we have to think about going forward

and once this is built, a design that actually was for another part of the city that has many, many, many lanes of traffic, but instead we have single lane traffic on the streets that would be the through cuts to this.

So seven and a half is one of them and the others that come in and out.

We all know that FIFO has one lane

One Way Streets.

How is this appropriate?

The building itself is far too large and impenetrable.

It is not going to be anything but a silo of people who are in the same age, the same age grouping.

It's too tall.

It's too wide.

It's too dense.

And then once those cars, because once they live off campus, they can each have their own car,

Once those cars, which is that 600 they're saying the population could be, where are all those cars going to go?

Even though that isn't part of your purview, the historic district is the streets.

The streets are part of the historic district.

They cannot be separated out.

And so to put a building that perhaps is appropriate at Stonefield, I don't know.

I don't live there.

But it is not appropriate to do a one size fits all design with a few alterations in a historic place with one lane roads that will not be able to support it and

the people living there will have no intention or part of their life to interact with the rest of the community.

They will just go off to school and come back and then maybe bring friends and then we'll have more cars and we'll have more sense of this closed off structure.

So my request is that, and I appreciate so much of what everyone said, so now I'm blabbering.

But I would really ask you to deny the COA.

Thank you.

Good to see you all, Michael Payne.

I just wanted to remark on bigger picture elephant in the room, which is that City Council made a mistake in allowing 7 to 11 stories of student housing by right in areas throughout Fifeville, Temple Beach, and Roseville.

and removed special use permits and full Board of Architectural Review authority to review these projects.

I think everyone on the BAR tonight recognizes the absurdity of the fact that the concerns that we're hearing from Fifeville residents are about, can they afford to stay in their homes?

Can they afford rent?

Do their children have a future in Fifeville?

Will their children want to have a future in Charlottesville if the only businesses are of, by, and for EVA students?

And the only meeting in which people can talk about those concerns is your meeting tonight about two individually protected properties where you're discussing textures and building materials.

That's not your fault.

That's city council's fault.

But that's the core issue.

And this is going to happen, a very similar thing is going to happen with the LV Collective project and it's true, we don't want special use permits everywhere that stop all change but there are areas where it's the right thing to do because it's the only way

communities can have a voice and could get community benefits agreements to have the city be more ambitious in what we want to see happen in terms of community development to create businesses that people in the neighborhood actually want to go to that offer community wealth building opportunities.

our zoning doesn't reflect that and that's something I hope city council can understand the impact of the mistake we made and correct it because regardless of what everyone's intentions are the way city government is treating Charlottesville's black community and Charlottesville's working-class community is not right it's simply not right and I'll just end by saying I know at this meeting there's a very specific thing in front of you

I do think as I read the guidelines, um, there is the authority to deny it.

Whatever decision you make, um, it will surely be appealed to City Council, and I do think City Council will, um, look at whatever decision you make.

All right.

Anyone else?

All right.

Thank you very much, everybody, for your comments.

Our meetings are recorded so we have these on video so we can look at them, City Council can look at them, etc.

I think all of us took notes.

And so now I think it's time for questions and comments from the Board of Architecture Review.

I feel like going first, or I'll call on people.

Well, no, I don't want to comment, but I want to offer so I don't leave this out.

I did receive several emails, and I'll just quickly, I know that you all were circulated to you all as well.

I just want to

There's a lot in here about traffic and things that are not yours, but I'll just highlight so that it's in the record the comments.

Mr. Aguayo noted the architecture that the

The scale and massing of the proposed development are out of line with the IPPs.

Jeff, could you repeat the name louder?

I don't think any of us heard it.

I've communicated with them a lot over the course of this.

They live just south of Delavan on 7th Street.

Minimizing Charlottesville's history as represented by the Hawkins cottages and placing them in the shadow of a towering development, not only massive in height but in depth, it absolutely dwarfs the cottages, the streets, the entire neighborhood.

I want to see development that genuinely respects these cottages in this neighborhood.

You should apply the highest standards to protect Charlottesville's historic resources.

Tracy Love commented, and relative to your purview again, a seven-story building with dwarfs surrounding homes on Delavan 7th and 5th Street, 5th Street West.

Please vote to deny this project or at a minimum require substantial reduction in scale and a development approach that prioritizes historic preservation.

Joey Conover said a note earlier.

relative to you all.

The exterior should be respectful of the surrounding buildings.

The new building should be relatively in scale with the neighboring area.

And finally, Elizabeth Meisel on 7 1 1 2 Street noted

As you know, the two buildings at 204 and 208 7th Street Southwest are IPPs.

The scope of this project does not complement relative to size or honor the historic nature of these two buildings, nor does it complement or honor the culture and history of Feithel.

So those were the, I think, specific comments that were in support of the design purview.

Certainly, those can go in the record.

Thank you for relaying those letters that got sent in.

I appreciate it.

All right.

Oh, yeah.

Actually, no, that's OK.

Well actually I wanted to maybe start with a few of the questions that came from the public that are within our purview.

Phase one, certainly you can.

The applicant can.

There have been differing opinions on that, but I come down on if an applicant sees that as an unacceptable condition, they can appeal it.

or comment tonight why they shouldn't be asked to.

But I would, I don't know how to answer the question relative to, I mean, we know what's going on at the tower site, I call it.

It was like Charlottesville Ice Company and it was a railroad repair yard.

Everything there was associated.

I wouldn't be surprised if the folks that lived in these brick houses, that's where they were.

But that's not, that parcel's not

I couldn't answer.

I mean, we're talking about the two IPPs.

I'm not saying yes or no.

Fair enough.

It was a good question.

Thank you.

The lay-down area question, I think, is a little bit means and methods, though it's a decent one.

I would assume it would have to be on the property.

I don't know.

Matt, Alfie is still here.

Missy is still here.

But that's all part of the when something does get constructed, that's outside of my lane.

But I would assume it would have to be on the property.

Or they'd rent an adjoining property or something.

Missy, did you understand the question?

The question was basically if this were approved and moved to construction, where would the lay down area be?

Okay.

Can I ask a follow-up question?

Would any part of the streets be used for that?

I only ask because just downtown here, a block away from here, 8th Street, one lane of it was closed for about a year for private construction.

And it was really actually, you know, we don't have one lane streets.

We have basically maybe two lanes with a parking lane or

Actually, 8th Street is one way at that point.

But it was really disruptive to that block downtown, especially as busy as High Street gets.

So would the city allow the developer to take up any part of the street during construction?

I mean, I think that would definitely impact the neighborhood.

And so follow up to that, I guess there's been a lot of questions about traffic and that isn't within our purview, but is there a place where traffic gets reviewed for a project like this?

Can you say that louder?

I'm so sorry.

Sorry.

That's right, yeah.

Thank you very much.

So, yes is the answer.

It gets reviewed by the city.

Those are the ones I wanted to address, so go ahead.

So, maybe it's just kind of refocusing, but on page three of the first part of your submission, the executive summary,

You said that there are three purposes of this submission.

To get our permission to demolish the non-contributing additions and back of the IPPs.

Sure.

And then to get our permission to allot construction on those same parcels.

And I would say, you know, yeah.

And then isn't the third purpose to get our permission to rehabilitate and renovate the IPPs as well?

I mean, I'm not, I mean, I think it's, I mean, you've presented materials for that.

I just thought it was interesting that you didn't include that as a third purpose, because it really is why we're here.

Well, I thought, yeah, I thought, Cheri, that was included in the original.

Allow construction on?

Yeah.

Okay.

And just to, there might have been a misconception on someone's part.

We are very much interested in

Thank you for having me.

in an active way.

There will be alterations so that it can be more accessible and it can be used for a contemporary important use.

We don't have that spelled out, but there will be enough changes to allow that to happen.

OK, thank you.

That was a softball, but I figured I would just point it out.

So I probably misspoke because this isn't pure rehabilitation.

You're not rehabilitating it for single family use.

It's really a renovation as well.

Oh, no, no, no.

I wanted to make sure people.

He knows.

Not me.

Thankfully, they did.

They did spell it out for us in their application.

I just need to get to the slide.

There are a lot of slides.

So basically, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation are kind of an upper echelon guideline to our own, right?

There it is.

Thanks.

And just for educational purposes.

That's a beginning page.

Come on.

What page are you on?

It's on slide 211.

So it's preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction.

Those are the four categories under the Historic Preservation Act.

So, rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair, alterations, or additions, which makes possible the efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic architectural and cultural value.

Sorry.

You're mumbling more than Jeff.

Sorry, I was trying to rush through it.

Yeah.

I just wanted people to understand why we were using the term rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation means they're pumping some life into the building.

They're going to stabilize the structure.

They're going to fix it.

But it doesn't mean that it's going to be a single family home again.

OK.

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you, everybody, for speaking up.

I think it means a lot here to us for you to speak and let us hear your concerns, also for the developers and the architects.

I think one thing that is on our purview is materiality, scale, massing of a building.

believe that this is out of character.

This is not an appropriate architectural response to these IPPs.

And also, I'm just going to leave it there for now.

That's all right.

I guess one thing I've been concerned about is that this is an opportunity to save these IPPs.

They are in really a bad state.

They're the reason we're reviewing this application is because of those individually protected properties.

We've had large projects like this come before us where individually protected properties have been demolished against the BAR's recommendation.

And they weren't in such a bad state, right?

They were actually perfectly good homes that people could live in, and then they were allowed to be torn down.

So I do see this one, you know, silver lining, if you will, is that it would save these houses that are culturally significant.

And I worry that if something isn't done, they will be lost forever.

So that's one good thing about it.

But I do tend to agree that the scale and massing is not compatible with the IPPs.

And then Roger.

Yeah, I'll try it.

There's been a lot of talk about purview.

So I'm going to stick to what our design guidelines

Chapter 3, new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials.

So I think you could make an argument that they're actually not destroying.

In fact, they're rehabilitating.

The new work shall be differentiated from the old.

They've done that.

But here's the kicker.

and shall be compatible with the massing size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

So that's where I get hung up.

I mean, they've made great strides, actually, compared to the first things that we saw.

But they're small steps, and I think

In general, this just really isn't compatible.

It is not compatible, massing size and scale-wise.

I think what we've come up against is those guidelines are in contradiction to zoning.

And I don't know how we can resolve that here at all.

And I think that's the real problem.

If the citizens of the city do not want that zoning, we are the wrong people to talk to about that.

The city council is the people you should talk to about that.

and I don't know how we're going to resolve this given these guidelines.

I'm very well aware of the fact that those buildings are individually protected and nobody is going to save them.

at the moment and these gentlemen are prepared to do something about that and I want to make sure that we also consider that as part of our consideration when we're thinking about this project.

Those buildings will not be preserved otherwise.

Well I hope you all maybe get a sense that nobody up here probably wants to be up here right now.

and I think there's a reason for that and already numerous people, everybody, every one of my colleagues has touched on that.

I'm going to go back and read because as we started to talk I started to think about something that I wrote everybody

after our previous meeting.

I'm just going to read that because I feel like it sums up pretty well how I feel about it as far as the struggles that we're feeling as part of this board, as volunteers, as people that all are concerned about our city and the cultural legacy.

I mean, nobody up here is against the cultural legacy.

We all have an interest in the historic,

proprietary of Charlottesville and we know it's a special place and that's part of the reason why we're here.

But we're struggling, you know, and I think that, let me just start by saying that I'm going to suggest that the struggles that we're feeling right now of our response is more due to the fact that this submission, like a few others over the past year, is an anomaly.

As far as other submissions that we've seen prior to the new zoning.

We're all aware that we have a problem on our hands.

Our guidelines are in some ways and many ways out of line with the new zoning.

Many of the hard decisions we've made in the past year are a direct result of this friction.

In this case, I personally am really struggling in determining how this project is appropriate, given its massing is so out of scale with one of the more historic neighborhoods in the city.

And we don't have many.

We don't have a big city.

In turn, I found it difficult to provide clear direction on what is appropriate for the guidelines, given the misalignment that we're seeing.

Then I went on to say that we can talk all we want about how appropriate a fence is.

And personally, I enjoy talking about that as part of this board and ways that we can contribute to making our city better.

But you can't overlook the difference between a fence and the massive impact this project will have on our surroundings.

This is a huge project and I think it is precedent setting.

And so I think we have to assume that these conversations are not going to be easy.

They also are highlighting perhaps some areas of the new zoning that may need another look for Mr. Payne's comment.

The public opinion I was hearing that night in October led me to believe that the new zoning may need some amendments and for an example in this case perhaps overlays for these sensitive historic areas like Fifeville.

I'm a strong proponent of adding density to our city.

I'm in some ways a proponent of our new zoning, but I'd also hope that our zoning works in concert with our VAR guidelines and the historic legacy that we're trying to promote here.

And let me just say that

You know, I don't think it's fair to vilify the developers and architect.

They actually have done a really great job in coming to us and responding in spades to our comments.

I think, you know, it's not fair to, like I say, vilify them in this case.

And I think there have been some rather strong comments.

They're simply doing their job and they're responding to the zoning that is by right right now.

And so I want you to think about that and that, you know, if you want to address this, you have to address this in appropriate avenues.

And I think the last meeting that we had in October, I think a lot of people that attended were educated in that regard.

I just want to finish by saying that as part of the, you know, one of the members of this board, I'm really very deeply interested in promoting the

You know, the legacy of the BAR, I think it's an important public forum.

I think it's an important way for everybody to let their voices be heard.

I want to thank Councillor Payne for his opening comments about recognizing part of the problems of the zoning and the purview of the bar.

I think these need to be addressed by City Council and I want to thank all the people who have shown up here and I would like

this project to go to city council so that you can say what you have said here and talk to them directly and have this done in an appropriate form.

We are so limited

and there's so many things that you've talked about that are beyond our purview that need to be discussed publicly and it will need to be resolved politically at city council.

So I wanted to thank every member of the public who's commented, um, not just this meeting, but also in October and certainly in August, I think we had a large turnout then too.

And, um, like I did before, I've taken notes, um, and really have, I mean, this is just to, you know, as David said, none of us want to be up here making this decision.

It's, um, and we're not a political body, you know, none of us ran for,

We're not paid to do this.

And the issues before us, this is a political decision in some way, which is not fair to the applicant because they applied under a zoning ordinance that was duly passed by our city council.

There were objections to it, but it went through.

There was a lot of public input before that.

I've said, you know, I've taken responsibility for

this being passed but a lot of other people might want to take responsibility too.

A lot of us just kind of checked out and it was a train that we couldn't catch.

But the applicant is applied as they're entitled to.

They have been very responsive to our comments.

They do want to take care of these IPPs and I think this is not the perfect future for them but a very good future.

to make sure that those buildings don't continue to fall down.

It's obvious that they haven't been lived in for a long time.

If the owners could find a new owner or had the resources to rehabilitate them, it would have been done by now with prices as they are in the city.

But that just hasn't happened.

And so I do have to thank the developer for their plan in rehabbing those two properties.

We're just in a really bad place.

I mean, I'll say this publicly, three of us reapplied for our positions and council has not voted whether they're going to reappoint us or not.

I wonder publicly whether the vote tonight, whether our vote is hinged either one way or the other on

a reappointment.

I applied in September to be reappointed to this position, and two other of my colleagues have as well.

We have a fourth vacancy.

They don't reappoint the three of us.

We've got four vacancies on this BAR.

And in the meantime, because of the zoning ordinance, we're having to make a decision that's very political, that we're not set up to do.

This is not our expertise.

So nobody, you know, a lot of people are, you know, you guys have got more comfortable things to do during the holidays.

You know, whether you celebrate Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, or Christmas, they're all coming up to be sitting in this room at 8.40 at night.

So we're all in an uncomfortable position.

The words of Ms. Levy really stuck with me, that this would be a scale disruption for the neighborhood.

And

I don't want to say that, I want to say our guidelines do need to be updated and maybe they need to be a little bit more compatible with the zoning ordinance.

We can find places where certainly density and growth can happen and we're comfortable with it.

But this is just a radical, radical disruption in this neighborhood and I don't think even if we had

updated the guidelines and it really is council's duty to update the guidelines.

It's not our job.

It's their legislative action, their guidelines, their approval.

If we had done it before now and we had these great new guidelines, I'm not sure this decision is found any differently than it would be tonight.

We would still have a neighborhood like it is with a historic fabric that is Spiceville that, you know, with the same people in this room saying the same thing.

and I mean that's you know I'm not sure our guidelines are not old and creaky they need to be updated but the fact is that our city is what the city is this neighborhood is what the city is what the neighborhood is and this just simply doesn't belong in the neighborhood because of its scale and massing and its impact on the neighborhood and so I don't think I can support a COA here I really really thank the applicant we've been put in this

horrible place.

It's no one in particular's fault.

Like I said a couple of meetings ago, it's also my fault.

We all shoulder some blame.

I just wanted to make a small comment, which is piggybacking off of Mr. Mason's comment about the kind of symbolism.

And our guidelines don't talk about symbolism, but architecture is inherently symbolic.

Everything we do is symbolic.

The massing, the materiality, the scale.

I want to give the applicant a chance to respond to any comments or questions that we have if you'd like to.

Maybe at this point, and then if there's further comments we can... Hey guys, Hamilton Reynolds, Landmark Properties.

Appreciate all your time today, everyone's comments tonight.

have heard them all.

I think it sounds like most of you have already made up your mind, but I do want to just reiterate what Councilman, or sorry, Mr. Zehmer and Mr. Timmerman said regarding the rehabilitation.

I mean, like we said, these houses are

crumbling right now.

And it's a pretty significant undertaking to rehabilitate them.

And in order to do that, I mean, unless someone has a couple million dollars they want to spend on this, you need an economic driver behind that.

So I know that no one wants to talk about the economics of this, but that's just kind of what it takes to rehabilitate something like this.

So again, I thank you all for your time.

And I'll just add to what Hamilton said.

So when he says that number, it's not just the cost of the rehabilitation.

The land cost is in there.

The people aren't giving you those properties free of charge.

So the total cost is significant.

I agree.

I appreciate all the comments.

They were very helpful.

Some of them obviously we disagree with.

And I'm glad.

Paine is here because we do want to sort of touch on the thing we hit on an economic component that this and somebody mentioned about the affordable putting affordable units here this project is contributing four million dollars to the city and then another million in increased tax revenue so first year alone it's going to

I don't think we should take that for granted.

That's a significant amount of money that goes to the city, the city coppers to spend.

I'm not quite sure how to explain this convincingly without images, but many projects, I know Cheri's seen these over the years, there's been this same outcry about projects being too big for the neighborhood

You may recall the monster garage issue where all of the folks in the Lewis Mountain neighborhood came out with signs and they were just complaining about it's going to ruin the neighborhood, all that traffic's going to go through.

This is a 1200 vehicle garage that UVA built.

Didn't happen.

It just was not an issue.

And there are probably dozens more examples of that where the neighborhood, rightfully so, is absolutely concerned

but they're projecting an image of a project and the result of a project that more often than not does not happen.

It doesn't eventuate.

So there's this, I don't want to use the wrong word here, but this sense that this project is going to just have incredibly detrimental effects on the city.

And we don't believe it will.

And when we talk about the neighborhood, we understand Fifeville.

We just worked on a big project there for the university, the old Fifeville mansion.

We wanted to work further in that neighborhood.

We're not looking to put a project in five fiddle on the head.

If somebody's looked at a map, by the way, of five fiddle, I don't know how you could argue it's not in five fiddle.

It's in the center of five fiddle, but that's another point.

We wanted to work.

It's no good if this project just works for us.

We wanted to work with five fiddle.

You're smiling and laughing and we're serious about it.

It doesn't work for us.

We work in this city and we have the decades and we don't want to be thought of as putting inappropriate buildings.

So I think the almost hysteria about the negative impacts about this building I think are a little overblown and there are plenty of examples where that has been the case in the past.

So I just want to

I think there are plenty of other comments that we could challenge but I think what I would like to know if that's possible is a sort of straw poll.

We know a few people have been against it right from the beginning and we understand that but we would like to know

If we were asking you what do we need to do to make it more acceptable, can you tell us?

Is that taking a floor off, taking two floors off, cutting the building in half?

We need some sort of, again we've been working on this for a year, you've been helping us and we appreciate that support for the last, I don't know, six or eight months.

So what would we need to do to get your support?

I think it's a reasonable question.

We need to understand what we need to do if we go back to the drawing board.

I think that's a reasonable question.

It seems to me like just hearing my colleagues speak that they're kind of the biggest thing up is this the size and scale of the building.

I think you've done a lot positive to break down the massing.

I like the brick kind of

Lower level.

Sorry, I'm so sorry.

I like the brick lower level.

I like the materiality of the brick because it obviously complements the two IPPs, and it's within their scale.

I think that overall, it's probably the height is the biggest issue.

I don't know if there's a magic number of acceptable stories.

I don't know if it helps to make it a broken up building instead of one giant building.

I think to your point about it kind of taking up a whole block that did resonate with me in comparison to some of the other properties on West Main that sort of put these huge chunks in and I do think that you raise a good point of concern Miss Levy that

you know we could end up with these just monster blocks that nobody can cut through or walk through or engage with so you know as some you know you're working for the owner and so I think that John that's a valid question of you know if you're still going to try and work with this how can you be successful

I think making things smaller and affordable to the people in the neighborhood as well might be another way to gain some positivity.

But I don't know if cutting the building in half makes sense, or three stories, or I don't know.

There you go.

Thanks.

So yes, our colleague Carl Schwartz had a medical procedure today, so he's unable to join us.

But he did send us an email.

It's not.

I don't know if it got printed on.

Carl says, I do not believe the reduction in massing will materially affect how big this building feels.

I do believe large trees will.

At the most recent zoning work session between the PC Planning Commission and staff in November, I was assured that when the required street

Escape Elements do not fit.

Staff will allow an adjustment in the build-to zone, moving the minimum setback further from the street.

We should not allow developers to tell us that they cannot put the trees where we want them because there is enough room.

Leave that part out.

Let's see.

They just don't want to shrink the footprint of their building.

So I think he's implying that there

Larger street trees.

I don't know.

If you all want to.

Meeting, you had said that if we required you to get rid of one story, it would become economically unfeasible.

And yet you came back getting rid of a lot of one story.

Yeah, I'm not sure I fully understood all of that, Jerry, but let me explain.

So yes, initially at the first meeting, you asked us to step it back and put the height at the back of the building.

We did that.

And we're not removing entire floors.

We're moving partial areas of the building and moving it around.

We are losing many units.

But an entire floor would make it unfeasible.

The thinking was that if you don't see the massing, it's not an issue.

So if we moved it out of sight, it's the equivalent.

The perception is that it's not there.

So we moved it towards the back of the side.

So am I answering your question?

So we did lose a lot of units, but we didn't take entire floors off.

Because taking a floor off where you can't see it from the public realm is wasted, in our opinion.

No one would see it unless you're in a helicopter.

So that was the idea there.

Do you want us to address the tree issue?

I'm not sure.

So one of the issues, and I'll let our landscape architect speak to that.

We're required by zoning to build.

There's a build to zone.

We have to build within that zone.

So we'd have to get some sort of an exception to move out of that zone.

I think that's what Carl was suggesting.

We're huge tree lovers and supporters.

So I agree with Carl 100%.

We want to put as many trees in as we possibly can.

You asked us in the last presentation in October to create more planting spaces for these trees on both streets and we did.

We increased the areas, you know, minimum 6 foot, 10 foot,

The trees can be planted and can thrive in these areas.

You also asked for a document or a diagram that showed these.

We did an enlargement.

That's included in your set.

I think it's the second or third of the last page.

It looks like the trees are being planted like 3 and 1 half feet off of the face of the building.

In some cases, the trees are close to the sidewalk in between the spaces of the building.

I'll take a crack at answering the question, and it might not

It might not be that helpful, but I think maybe it's looking at this with a totally different perspective.

Do we just need to do this, or do we just need to take this level off, or do we need to put this material on?

I think it's more fundamental.

I think that from what I'm getting here is that

You guys are like, the community and the architect and developer are like two ships passing in the night and you're seeing this in completely different ways.

You think it's absolutely appropriate.

Everybody else in the neighborhood thinks it's not appropriate.

And so what I might encourage you to do is figure out why, like what are the things that they might think that it's appropriate.

I don't know how you do that if there's a public forum or a neighborhood forum.

Maybe it's just a personal revelation of going in and trying to understand what makes Feifei so special.

And I'm sorry.

When I made those comments, I didn't know the history of what you've been through or what you haven't been through.

So if I could just respond, David, to your comment.

You may not know this.

This may have been the meeting that you missed.

But there were a number of people that got up and said the comments that you're hearing aren't representative of everybody.

In fact, that was very clear.

So you're hearing a very vocal, I

There's a lot more people in FIFIL than are showing up here.

I'm not suggesting, don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm just saying there's another opinion out there that I assume you guys are balanced enough to realize that there's other folks that feel differently.

And you would expect that.

But I agree with many of the comments, and we agree, and we're just trying to do a good job.

And you probably, on the other point you made, I think you know that we did have a community meeting.

We met in Fytheville.

You may not know that, but we've gone through that.

I think the other thing that resonates with me that I think folks do need to understand, Jerry's talked to this a little bit, Ron spoke to it, is just the new zoning ordinance and there was a map shown that was part of the application and I think it's important for folks to understand that like

Most of the parcels that are along the south side of the railroad tracks are zoned RX-5.

Most of those parcels don't happen to have an individually protected property on them.

So if John wanted to scooch his project a few feet, he could build this thing without coming to us.

It would have to go through the regular city channels.

I think that if there's a community effort to push back against large scale development like this, you'll need to look at the zoning map and talk to city council and express that concern because the only reason this is before us tonight is because of those two little buildings.

And that was the decision that was made for the planning commission.

John, you intimated that that was already zoned that way.

I'm not sure the history there.

Ever since these projects, the one here and the one on West Main Street came to life, it has been at every single one of those council meetings, and other people from FARC and other people from the community have expressed part of the mission to this zoning, to the city council.

So we're doing what you said.

We understand the awkward position that you seven are in this evening.

Appreciate that.

I agree with Cheri, if I may say so, that this is, it turns out, is a political decision.

So just want to thank you, Ron, and thanks, Jeff, for reminding me.

We've got several choices of how and what we can vote on.

The challenge here would be if you were unable to meet for whatever you need to have a quorum, then it would count as an approval.

So that's the risk there.

One choice.

Another choice is the applicant can request a deferral to a later date, and that actually gives them more time.

It wouldn't have to be just the next month later if the applicant wanted to do that.

But we need to approve that request.

We can deny the COA.

I think if we do that, we need to make sure we're clear in listing the reasons for the denial.

We can approve the COA as submitted, or we can approve the COA as submitted with conditions.

So those are sort of the choices before us.

So two things, if I may.

I would like, James, you gave the points or the items that you thought would be needed to gain your support.

I really would be happy if I heard that generally, or just concurrence with your thoughts, just so we understand where we're going.

Sure.

I was kind of off the cuff.

I don't know if that's any sort of magic solution.

I'll just say that.

We would certainly need to see what you came back with.

Just one or two items each.

Just a five-minute break for the applicant to talk and for us to talk with staff.

So just to maybe recess.

You're moving for a break?

All right, so it's 8 11.

I'm going to call us back to order.

Thanks, everybody, for taking a quick break.

I think this is, obviously everyone understands how challenging a project this is for us.

I'd say the larger us, right?

This is a really, really challenging thing to struggle through.

And I feel like the BAR at its root and core, at least in my opinion, is not only to help guide good architecture in the city, but there is a preservation aspect to the Board of Architectural Review.

And so it's one of the things I've been struggling the most with on this particular project because part of our charge is to try and preserve and save these individually protected properties, right?

They are special for their own right.

I think that the tricky part with this particular project is at what cost, right?

is that trade-off of this is a chance to save these buildings, but it requires building a very large structure behind them that I would argue is not appropriate and not compatible to those individually protected properties.

That's the crux of it, right?

Like you said, a paradox almost, right?

So it's really, that's what's so difficult.

And I think Mr. Werner's guidance to us early on was that we look at the IPPs through the lens of a district and the guidelines surrounding a district and that ultimately

You know, it's not a checklist.

We don't have to, like, check every single little box one way or the other.

But that it ultimately does fall into, sort of, it is what it sounds like, right?

It's a certificate of appropriateness and, like, is something appropriate or not is, I think, what it really boils down to, you know?

So, at least for me, if we were, I don't know if we're doing a straw poll or not, but, like, for me, I don't think I can support this.

This development is appropriate to this particular site because it's too large, the scale is too big, the massing of it takes up a whole city block.

I worry that this might mean we end up losing these IPPs, and that might be the death knell of them.

Just weighing the two sides of it, I think the scale and size of this thing is too big for me to support it.

But I welcome what others might think.

I don't think we're going to go through a round of suggestions of what might make it acceptable because that's a whole other design review iteration.

But I would like to just circle back to the question I asked before we broke.

Does the applicant want to request a deferral?

No?

I'm seeing no.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I don't think we want to defer it either.

So we are going to vote.

I'm ready for it.

I have a motion.

Thank you.

Following that, I know I was going to summarize the appeal process so that everybody knows it.

I can do it immediately after.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed development at the 200 block of 7th Street Southwest and the corresponding rehabilitations of the brick dwellings at 204 and 207, 7th Street Southwest, both designated as IPPs, do not satisfy the BAR's criteria and guidelines for being compatible within the IPP districts and that for the following reasons,

We deny the application.

I'm going to refer, they're the same criteria, but I'll refer to them in our new zoning code.

The chapter is 34, which has always been our zoning chapter.

It's Division 5.2.7.

Paragraph D has the criteria for review in our decisions that we're supposed to follow.

Specifically, I would say that it's paragraph 1A and then little 1 and little 4 are the guiding guidelines that would augur towards denying this.

And I'll read those right now.

Little 1 is whether the material, texture, color,

Height, scale, mass, and placement of the proposed addition, modification, or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable district.

In this case, the district is the two cottages.

And little four is a denial based on the effect of the proposed change on adjacent buildings or structures within FIFIL.

If anybody else has any additional basis for my motion,

in our guidelines or elsewhere that would be helpful.

Oh, sorry, I'll add little six.

Any further additions to that amendment, or excuse me, that motion?

I second the motion.

Discussion.

I find it hard to approve this as written because it's a two-part thing.

I could certainly support saying that I moved to find the proposed development at the 200 block of 7th Street Southwest as noncompatible, but I would argue that they've

their plan to rehabilitate those brick dwellings was well thought out and done really nicely.

So I want to acknowledge that, but also deny the application.

So I'm struggling, right, like I've summarized.

I just feel like that the wording of saying that they're the corresponding rehabilitations of the brick dwellings at 204 and 208 7th Street Southwest, like both designated IPPs, they do satisfy our criteria.

So I move to find that the proposed development does not satisfy.

So I amend my motion by taking out the words and the corresponding rehabilitations of the brick dwellings at 204 and 208, 7th Street, Southwest.

both designated IPPs.

Well, what you're denying is the proposed development, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And then you are denying the application as submitted, which includes proposed rehabilitation of the print dwelling.

This is not, you're not writing an argument for the Supreme Court.

I think we can express our intent clearly, but I think what you're trying to say is to your statement, Mr. Zehmer, is that the denial is of the proposed development on the 200 block of 7th Street.

because it's not compatible with the IPs, et cetera, et cetera.

And for the following reasons, the PAIR denies this application, including the proposed

Mr. Rosenthal might find it acceptable to second again.

Yeah.

Having considered standards set forth within the city code, including the ATC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed development at the 200 block of 7th Street Southwest does not satisfy the BAR's criteria and guidelines for being compatible with the two IPPs and for the reasons that I stated before, we deny the application.

All right, I'll call for a vote.

No, you're not denied.

Okay.

All right, Mr. Birle.

All right, Ms. Lewis.

Aye.

Mr. Timmerman.

Yes.

Mr. Rosenthal.

Yes.

I'll vote yes.

All right.

The motion was approved.

The motion to deny was approved.

I learned that long ago when I misunderstood.

They had passed the motion, but the motion was not.

So we're clear on that.

All right.

Just a little bit of quick follow-up here so everyone knows the ground rules.

According to our ordinance, an application being denied that can be appealed to city council that has to be done in writing within 10 business days of this decision.

So tomorrow starts day one.

I'm not sure how we count Christmas Eve and Christmas, so let's

It is 10 business days, for sure.

Yeah, it's business days, right.

So it's either the 31st or the 2nd.

But I will inform the applicant about that.

An appeal to counsel requires a written letter of appeal.

It's not just saying, I want to appeal this.

And there's a fee, a $125 fee comes with that.

is that's presented to council is what the applicant or what the appellant.

Oddly enough, our ordinance then refers to them as the applicant, but the appellant presents their appeal and then we process that for city council.

There is no shot clock on when that occurs.

We've had

I mean, 1,500 or so BAR actions since I've been involved with you all and I've had six appeals.

Typically, the council has taken three to four months, but that's up to them.

I don't control their agenda.

It is not a hearing at those meetings.

I have prepared a response for counsel responding to the applicant's statement.

So what they present me is what goes to counsel, not reserving a time to go and make their case.

They have time to speak, but what they submit in writing becomes their argument essentially.

At those hearings, or at those meetings, I present to City Council, then the applicant has ten minutes, say whatever they wish, followed by the B.A.R.

chairs, typically there to answer any questions, followed by whatever discussion City Council wants to have, and then they take their action.

Following the action of City Council,

The appellant can, let's say that the city council denies the COA.

The COA applicant here could not appeal to the circuit court.

So they have an additional step.

As far as some of the folks in the audience asked me earlier what they would do during an appeal, again, it's not a public hearing.

You can make statements to counsel.

You can communicate to them.

that the time to say something is in the matters from the public at the beginning of their meetings.

But during the actual appeal review by City Council, it's not a hearing.

They don't open the floor.

I just want to reiterate that.

Did everyone hear that?

All right.

So just reviewing the appeal process.

I also wanted to say there's some comments about the BAR composition.

We do have a vacancy for landscape architect.

A lot of folks don't know that these are all city residents.

Two of them are architects.

Two are historians.

We have two owners of commercial property in a historic district.

We have the owner.

of a home in a historic district, and we have a member of the Planning Commission who happens to be an architect, which is very helpful.

That opening will be posted soon, if not already.

We encourage people to be involved.

I've not been involved with the BAR for eight years now,

I don't think in those last eight years we've had 20 people speak at meetings and this year we've already had two meetings with close to 20.

So this is good.

Thank you very much for speaking and please come back and get involved.

The other thing that I think would be helpful to understand is that FIFIL, yes, is on the National Register.

I was just talking to John about this.

We're not sure the exact boundary of where FIFIL ended.

because Fifeville, in the old days, right, it then continued east to Ridge Street, but what that neighborhood was called is, I've heard different things, Castle Hill, some, and so, but the neighborhood was deemed eligible for the National Register, this was when Mary Joy managed it, but

They did not seek local designation.

It's certainly something you all as a neighborhood could discuss.

I would have to say for city council to consider

Designating another historic district in the city would have to be absolutely overwhelming support from the neighborhood, but it is an option.

Or if there are buildings or sites there.

We have a house over on West Street and the owner contacted us a couple months ago.

This is his grandmother's house.

He wants to have it designated an IPP.

So you can seek designation for properties in your neighborhood or for your neighborhood.

And I certainly would be glad to talk to you about it.

But it takes a lot of heavy lifting within the neighborhood.

If I can interrupt for a second, just to suggest that maybe Fifel might also be interested.

Alternatively, in a historic conservation district, which is like an ADC district light, we would only see demolitions of contributing properties and our review otherwise is light, but there are neighborhoods in the city that have chosen to go that route and that may be more appealing.

The process of being designated, I think Jeff would tell you, is no less cumbersome, to be honest.

There still has to be a historic survey done.

But the survey's really interesting.

They've done it.

It's been done.

Oh, it has been done.

Yeah.

I mean, to go to council, if you went in and said 99.9% of the folks want this, I think council would listen.

But yes, it would be a high bar to get over.

But it is an option that's there.

I'd like to follow up, too, on Chairman's comments about going to the board to city council.

I would urge you to talk to city councilors before the meeting.

Each of you get there.

This will be a thing.

Get to them one-on-one or groups of you.

Go to every city council person and explain your feelings.

Yeah, I believe they all have public email addresses, right, that you can find on the city website.

So that's another avenue to write to them and then it also becomes part of the public record.

Thank you, Mr. Warner, for the summary on the appeal process.

I think we will see what happens next.

And before you adjourn, I have a question for you all.

You all are welcome to stay and watch us.

Well, the architecture.

I want to get her spin on this.

Oh, man.

You're dutifully patient.

We appreciate that.

So this is, I don't even have an address.

So in the back is an addition that you approved, but the comment was made about the front porch is falling apart.

And what I love about it is a father of a kid that's renting there called the city.

I can't imagine my parents ever doing anything like that.

The father of a student renting there has been upset about it.

My fraternity house probably looked worse than that.

The pointer on the left is what I took last summer.

I took that in August.

Actually, no, this summer.

So we have in the process right now a building permit request to fix it.

The building permit drawing shows reusing those plain columns, the Tuscan columns there.

We know there used to be the Corinthian columns there.