Board of Architectural Review Meeting   8/18/2020

So good evening.

Welcome to the August 2020 Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review virtual meeting.

We should now be live on channel 10 and we're continuing to stream on the city's social media channels.

My name is Robert Watkins.

I'm city staff and I'll be moderating tonight's meeting.

This is our third virtual meeting.

That's awesome.

Before I hand things over to Carl Schwartz, our chair, I'm gonna run over a few guidelines and housekeeping tips to make sure that tonight's meeting runs smoothly for everybody participating, whether you're on the board, you're an applicant, or you're a member of the public.

So first, for everybody who might be watching at home, I'll introduce the meeting participants online now.

We have Carl Schwartz, the BAR chair.

We're joined by Brett Gastinger, vice chair.

Other BAR members include Tim Moore, Jody Lehendro, Cheri Lewis, Ron Bailey, James Zehmer, and Andy McClure.

And BAR member Sonia Lengel can't join us this evening.

We're also joined by Jeff Werner, who's city staff.

Throughout the meeting, applicants and other participants will join the meeting as needed.

Just a reminder for all BAR members to keep their cameras on for the duration of the meeting, except for breaks as needed, but you all are good at that.

Whenever you vote on an item as a board, I'll call you each one by one in a roll call vote for the purpose of our minutes.

In the past, some of you have tried using the hand raising feature, and it works sometimes and it doesn't.

So feel free to use it if you'd like.

And otherwise, just keep an eye on the participant list to see if anybody else has raised their hand.

But otherwise, I think you all have figured out a tempo that works well for you.

For members of the public who are on the call right now who'd like to provide comment, there are several places on the agenda where you can speak.

At the beginning of the meeting, we allow time for comments from the public for items not on the agenda.

Then before the BAAR deliberates on each individual application, we allow time for public comment as well.

In order to provide comment, we ask that you register for the meeting if you haven't already, and then you'll become an attendee.

And when we get to the comment portion of the agenda, you can raise your hand using the raise hand feature, which is located in the participant list to the right of your name, and I'll unmute you.

Then our timer will begin and you'll have three minutes to speak.

Also, meeting attendees may end up using the Q&A feature during the call for board members so you don't have to pay attention to discussions and reading through the Q&A, Jeff and I will periodically read through it and bring to your attention anything that's been typed there, so don't worry about reading it.

There's also a chat feature in Zoom.

You can use it.

But again, as a reminder, anything that's typed in the chat or in the Q&A is subject to FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act.

For applicants who are already online, you're currently an attendee, which means you have limited audio and video capabilities.

When your project comes up on the agenda for review, I'll promote you to a panelist.

So you'll have mute and unmute capabilities and we can see you.

When I promote you from attendee to panelist, you'll be booted out of the meeting briefly, and then you'll automatically come in as a panelist.

So just hang tight and you'll come back in the meeting.

Also to applicants, during the staff and applicant presentations for each project, I'll be sharing my screen to scan through pages of your application you submitted to provide visual aid.

While the BAR deliberates, I'm happy to share my screen again to reference specific pages or drawings.

To all applicants or BAR members, if you want me to go to a specific page, please give me a verbal command to direct me to the page number.

Also, like we've done the past two meetings, we can have short periodic breaks as needed and our chair will direct us when we need those.

Finally, it's time for me to hand things over to Carl, our chair, throughout the meeting.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

All right.

Well, welcome to this regular monthly meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architecture Review.

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

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

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

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

Speakers shall identify themselves and provide their address.

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

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

Thank you for participating.

Please note that any times noted below are rough estimates only.

So we'll start with matters from the public not on the agenda.

So if you want to provide public comment, OK.

Yes, I see a raised hand.

Genevieve Keller would like to provide comments, so I'm going to unmute you.

And then your three minutes for comment will begin.

So I'm going to unmute you now.

OK, you should be unmuted now, Ms.

Good afternoon.

Genevieve Keller, 504 First Street North.

I am calling in to speak in support of the nomination for the Burleigh High School.

This is an important initiative for the city and within the context of Virginia and probably our nation in terms of it being one of a finite number of resources that work

designed and built during the quote-unquote separate but equal era of education.

And so it's very, very timely that we do that now.

I've been in communication with the preparer of the nomination that was hired by the city, Mural Kabian, who's a colleague of mine.

and I think it's an excellent nomination.

There were two things that I would like to see added and I would ask that in your letter of support to council you include them or try to address them if there's time to do that before you send it on to council.

One of those would be the inclusion as a contributing element of the Grass Terrace Stadium that formerly serviced the football field.

The football field, of course, has been altered with the addition of the track not too many years ago.

I'm a local person, and so I grew up always passing by and seeing crowds attending football games there.

and using the grass terrace as a stadium.

And I think one of the things that's very telling, it's too bad we don't have it for contrast, but the Lane High School football field had a very developed concrete stadium with formal seating where Burleigh had the grass terrace.

And so that's a real distinction between the white school

and the African American school.

But I also think it just kind of speaks to the spirit of the place.

And I would encourage you to talk to alumni and local people who actually had the experience of using that.

I would very much like to see it listed as a contributing feature because in my professional life, I've come against several instances where features could not be preserved or rehabilitated

because they weren't specifically called out in a nomination.

DHR is very strict about that.

So if this is something we want to keep, it really needs to be specifically called out.

The other thing I'd call to your attention, and I'm not an expert on this, so I think it would be

worthwhile for staff to check with a couple of local people.

I believe that the football team at Burley had an outstanding statewide record that they went for many seasons being unscored against and may have had a winning streak that was at least equal to if not in not surpassing the winning streak that's so famous at the Lane High School.

So I think in terms of trying to address equity and inclusion

and local knowledge, which are certainly initiatives that we see in preservation right now.

Those two things would be very good to add.

So thank you.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Let me see, if you're in the meeting and you'd like to provide public comment, please raise your hand.

And if for some reason I'm not unmuting you, you're welcome to email me at WatkinsRO at Charlottesville.gov, or you can call my phone 434-970-3398.

All right, well, let's move on to the consent agenda.

And it should be noted that anything that passes in the consent agenda will do so with any recommendations from staff or any conditions that are put on the approvals.

So the items on the consent agenda tonight are the June 6th BAR meeting minutes, the 401 Ridge Street, 422 First Street North, and Zero East Water Street, or the coal tower.

I believe we need to pull the coal tower to modify the motion for approval.

Yeah, the only one would be is so that we're being clear.

There are three recommendations that staff recommended in the discussion for the project is 422 North First Street.

I move to accept the remainder of the consent agenda minus item four, which has been pulled.

Zero East Water Street.

Just a question.

Has the applicant for Mr. Warner, has the applicant agreed to the conditions on the first street application?

Right, right.

Yes, maybe a little redundant, but it hasn't changed from what they saw the last time.

Yes, Patrick made those edits earlier, and they'll be saved for the record.

Are there any seconds?

I thought I did second.

Yes, Jody did second.

I'll go ahead and call a vote.

Mr. Leandro.

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Ms.

Lewis.

Aye.

Mr. McClure.

Aye.

That's fine.

Yeah, so as we mentioned, this is not an approval.

This is accepting some information that you all requested with the COA.

Excuse me.

And there's two components.

One is the lighting and the lighting fixtures, which I have no issue with.

I looked at the specs and all that.

The other piece is on the marker, the narrative marker.

And in my opinion, and you all can select otherwise, but just to what is the manner of the

The plaque, what is it, bronze?

Is it metal?

Is it painted?

Is it cast?

And where will it be located on the site?

I think those would be appropriate things for you all to take action on.

So that's why.

And Ms.

Davies, I said they're working on, they weren't able to provide that.

So my recommendation would be simply to accept the lighting per my motion.

And

you know, just eliminate and narrative marker.

And then we can talk with Ashley about getting that information for another meeting.

Good evening, everyone.

Sure, I'll just add that, unfortunately, I just got the mock-ups this afternoon, and I had them do a more traditional bronze plaque and something that's maybe a little more modern or industrial looking.

Okay.

Thank you, Ashley.

I don't see anything.

Okay.

Any questions from the board?

Any comments from the public?

Please raise your hand.

I see nothing.

Okay.

Any comments from the board?

If I take a look at this thing and maybe bring it back towards the end of the meeting and

I can make a motion.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the city design guidelines for site design and elements, I move to find the proposed light fixtures as submitted satisfied OA approved on September 18th, 2018.

I'll call the vote.

Mr. Bailey.

Aye.

Mr. Gastinger.

Aye.

Mr. Leandro.

Aye.

Ms.

Mr. McClure.

Yes.

That's one, okay.

Let me close that, close that, close that.

I had my eyes closed, so I was invisible, but I opened them.

So here I am.

All right.

This is a COA request for

167 Chancellor Street, which is over near the rotunda near Madbull.

This is a project that's been going through the system for a while now.

So as you all probably read it, there are some approvals that have been given.

And this is the last piece.

So just very quickly,

This is a building that was constructed in 1915.

It is a contributing structure within the corner ADC district.

It's a large five bay, two and a half story dwelling.

It shows elements of the colonial revival style.

And it's had some changes to it over time.

And the applicant has been working with the city on a special use permit related to the the occupancy and use of the building and

some setbacks.

Actually, I don't think the fraternity was part of the SUP, but some setback issues.

And their design intent has been to create something more monumental facing Madison Lane.

And in the prior discussions with the BAR, the instruction for the BAR were to preserve what they could of the existing character

of the Chancellor Street elevation and to use the Madison Lane elevation as the opportunity for this monumental change that they're going for.

The, excuse me, you all had previously granted a COA for the general massing, the concept and the composition.

So sort of what you see in the drawings

has been approved.

What has been brought back to you, and this was per that COA, is approval of the details and the materials.

So there are coordinates details.

There are columns and column details.

So those are the elements that we're looking at today and not discussing the shape of this building, if you will.

There's quite a few things on here

I've pointed out, and the applicant's been wonderful, we have been going back and forth with a lot of questions and getting some answers on things.

So again, due to prior meetings to be AR discussion, you already discussed the extent to which the additions and alterations should be differentiated.

And one of the things they realized in this, again, that here's a

should the addition be completely different or anything new added?

And it was determined there really aren't any clean lines to sort of separate that.

And that's again where the BAR said, all right, let's do what we can to preserve Chester Street elevation and focus the transformation on the Madison Lane elevation.

BAR also requested that existing windows be retained to the extent possible.

The applicant appears to have accomplished that.

Staff review with the applicant the matter of new roofing versus sections of the existing.

And so for example, there's a existing slate on obviously on the portion of the existing portion, it's a hundred year old.

It has been poorly maintained as has the standing seam metal roof that you see here in the elevation on that Chancellor Street elevation.

Given the complexity of the new roof plan and the extent to which the existing

You know, removal of the existing slate and replacement with the synthetic seems to make more sense, rather than just trying to leave some of the old where they can.

But again, that's up to you all to have a discussion.

As I mentioned, the existing front porch roof on Chancellor Street is in very, very deteriorated condition.

Excuse me, there are some,

And if you'll recall the conversation last month about the sorority house on 17th Street, there were some unique flashing features.

Particularly, there's what they call that ledge flashing on one of the elevations.

And I'm not sure to what extent it goes around.

But whether or not you want those replicated or continued or if it's OK to simply replace it.

And then for the new construction,

The use of ethos and fiberglass reinforced plastic is discouraged per the guidelines.

But as we've discussed, these materials have changed since the adoption of these guidelines, which was in 2012.

And I was asked by some of you about the columns, the columns do come in one piece, they are structural, so there will not be seams or gaps.

But, you know, it is within your purview to ask questions about

artificial materials and whether or not you would prefer that they be used.

So I will say to all of you that the noodle and the BAR, this is a complex project and it's taken me a lot of time, you know, since I came on to see it three-dimensionally.

So don't feel bad if you're trying to figure out which end we're looking at.

The difficulty is the renderings are so completely different from what's there.

but as slides change, you literally get disoriented.

So it's, but we've gone through a lot and I think Kevin's here to answer any questions tonight and hopefully we can get squared away if you guys need any additional information.

With that, I'm done.

Billers.

Good afternoon, everybody.

OK, great.

Good evening.

My name is Kevin Schaffer.

I'm a studio director with Design Develop, and I'm the applicant representing the owner, Chi Psi Corporation.

As always, thanks to both Jeff and Robert for keeping this process moving during COVID.

It's been great to have these public review processes happen digitally, and it's a testament to their hard work that it's gone so smoothly.

We appreciate the thorough staff report.

and we'll just take some time to address some of the discussion topics in this summary here.

Similar to our Virginia Ave project that we presented in June, the renovation at 167 Chancellor Street has had a lengthy entitlement process prior to this submission.

Jeff has done a fine job recapping the previous iterations and meeting minutes have been made available in his staff reports, so I won't spend too much time on what's happened previously.

Quickly though, I would like to point out that per the Charlottesville special use permit process, a certificate of appropriateness has already been granted to this proposed project for general massing concept and composition.

This COA was first granted in April of 2018 with a six to nothing unanimous approval and has since been renewed in October.

Additionally, we have a 6-0 unanimous approval from the BAR in October that affirmed that the project did not have an adverse impact on the corner ABC district, which allowed us to move forward into our November 12th Planning Commission hearing for our special use permit, which was approved in a 6-0 unanimous approval.

In December, the SUP was unanimously adopted by city council with a 5-0 vote.

And more recently, our preliminary site plan was approved by planning commission on the July hearings consent agenda.

So all told this will be our ninth public hearing or community engagement meeting over three various boards, councils, and commissions.

And the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.

The point being in, uh, with all that in mind, um, the focus of this submission is simply for the final detail and material approval as Jeff's already mentioned.

Overall, the proposal being presented today remains largely unchanged from what was approved in April 2018.

We have eliminated four proposed dormers on the new addition, partly due to budget constraints and partly due to the appearance of competing with the existing historic dormers.

Items that are identified by the city of Charlottesville as defining characteristics of the historic Chancellor Street facade.

Window proportions have improved in this revised submission and an excavated basement that occurred under the proposed side porch has been removed for this final proposal.

One of the main comments we had from our certificate of appropriateness for massing and concept was for street trees to be incorporated into the landscape plan, which can be found on page 15 of the booklet.

In response, we added a total of seven sweet gum trees in an organized LA down each street facade.

Sweetgums are on the Charlottesville master tree list under the preferred species for large canopy trees and a single red maple marks the corner also on the preferred species list for medium canopy trees.

It was mandated by the board and we certainly agree that the new addition needed to distinguish itself from the historic Chancellor Street facade.

In other words, it needed to be legible as a new construction addition.

So we took that to heart in our detailed design approach

And we took every instance to subtly call attention to the differences in construction while harmonizing with our adjacent context.

We're providing a cohesive palette of simple materials found readily in the corner district.

A red brick modular in size with a paper cut finish is the dominant proposed material.

The mortar is a beige that is well suited for this brick.

The proposed modular brick will distinguish itself subtly from the existing brick, both in size and color,

The original brick on the 1915 structure features oversized brick as it was constructed before nominal brick sizes were introduced.

The color of this proposed brick is slightly darker and features slightly more color variation as well, but it complements the historic brick nicely.

Page 27 of the BAR booklet shows a rendering of the two bricks side by side, as does page 35.

The Eves color is a few shades lighter than the mortar color, but in the same family.

All trim columns and railings will be painted a subtle white to match the exterior windows and doors.

All existing historic trim, including Eves, fascia, windows, columns, and railings will be scraped and painted to match the proposed trim.

The windows are a high quality Windsor brand aluminum clad window.

The six over six grill pattern is comprised of seven eighth inch OG grills, and a spacer bar is included in between panes of glass to more accurately portray a traditional divided light window.

A three and a half inch exterior brick mold has been proposed on the windows to further emphasize the subtle differences in construction.

If you take a look at the side by side elevation on page 16 of your booklet,

You can see the existing historic window sits nearly flush with the face of brick.

This is visible on page 26 as well.

But we can go to 16, Robert, if you don't mind.

Thanks.

The existing historic structure is comprised of a three-width load-bearing masonry wall.

And the windows were installed close to the exterior, creating a deeper interior cell.

However, the new brick will be a veneer on wood stud walls, and so we'll have a much deeper shadow line and recess around our windows, about four inches of recess in lieu of one inch of recess at the historic facade.

We're introducing this brick molding to emphasize and acknowledge the difference in construction, while still keeping and keeping of a colonial revival style.

One of the defining historic features of the ground floor windows on Chancellor Street is the curved arch header of Roloc brick.

We discussed internally the possibilities of jack arches or other decorative header treatments for the new proposed first floor windows, but ultimately we've presented a steel lintel that allows the historic arched header windows on Chancellor Street to remain distinguished.

A jack arch or other decorative brick header appeared to muddy the facade, introducing a third header condition on a relatively small scale building.

The steel lintel allows for a simple, clean, symmetrical facade on Madison Lane,

taking cues from a neo-Georgian or colonial revival approach that could otherwise get crowded with nine decorative header treatments above the windows.

We have introduced a precast concrete sill element at all of the new windows, which echo the scale and treatment of the wood sills found on the historic windows, but is still able to differentiate itself through a material change.

Considerations have been given to the depth of the precast sill

and what is being proposed is slightly thinner than the typical precast sill so as not to overwhelm the historic wood sill.

A lot of consideration was given to the roof and several staff comments for discussion revolved around this area.

We evaluated retaining parts of the existing roof.

We evaluated salvaging the roof for reuse.

Ultimately, we proposed an entire reroofing with the Bella Fort composite slate for several reasons.

First, the existing roof is in poor condition as noted in the staff report.

The roof is over 100 years old and the hip, valley, and eave flashings are weathered and rusting.

Maintenance is a challenge as disturbing the shingles leads to breaking or detachment from the roof.

Several areas have gone through patching already.

Secondly, tying the new roof into the existing roof is challenging.

There are really only three relatively small sections of roof that could be retained undisturbed.

So we had concerns about keeping a section of the roof intact during construction and felt a full roof replacement would provide a more appropriate cohesive appearance.

Finally, the composite slate is resistant to fading, rotting, cracking, pests, and aspired retardant.

So the 12 inch by half inch thick tile is lighter than slate, which allows for more of the historic roof structure to remain

without reinforcement while providing a more waterproof and water resistant roof.

Regarding a comment on the subject of reintroducing the metal ridge caps and valleys and eaves flashing, I spoke to the manufacturer earlier this week, and they have directed me that it is possible to use a bent metal flashing at valleys, ridge, or eaves, and the system is designed to work within those.

So it's an idea we're happy to implement if the board feels it's appropriate.

All materials have been selected with durability, longevity, and low maintenance considerations in mind.

While the historic house features painted wood fascia and eave trim, we're proposing 5 quarter smooth hardy trim boards that are rot resistant and will maintain an appropriate appearance for longer.

We've selected aluminum clad windows instead of wood, precast concrete cells in lieu of wood, and factory applied aluminum trim in lieu of wood.

All this is echoed in our column and railing selections as well, where high quality materials have been selected with an emphasis on low maintenance, longevity, and durability.

The portico columns are a major focal feature of the Madison Lane facade.

And so we've deliberated, researched, and ultimately selected an endura stone column that is manufactured by Pacific Columns.

Information on these columns can be found in page 20 of your booklet.

But in essence, the Endurastone column is a one-piece, roto-cast, fiberglass-reinforced polymer column.

FRP is pound for pound stronger than concrete, steel, or aluminum.

It is impervious to rot, decay, and insect damage, and it is fire retardant.

It's a column that's infused with marble dust to improve the texture and feel of the column.

Each column will be delivered in one piece.

It will be field sanded prior to installation,

and then it will be painted with a primer and painted to match the rest of the proposed trim.

The product has galleries online of two-story applications, commercial applications, country clubs, fraternity houses, institutional uses and we believe it's a sharp looking product.

It's not an off-the-shelf product that you get at the local hardware store and install on a single family residence.

It's an elevated selection that we feel is worth the investment to get the look, feel, and durability that is required.

Smaller versions of this same column have been selected for the side porch as well to maintain consistency.

Similarly, the porch railing is a very durable component system that features integrated bracket attachments to the proposed columns, aluminum inserts in all top and bottom rails for stability, and is compliant with the IBC for spans of up to 10 feet in length.

The exterior material is a weather-resistant cellular PVC in a smooth finish that has a 25-year warranty with virtually no maintenance required after installation.

To conclude, we've appreciated the bar's direction throughout the process beginning in November 2017.

This guidance has pushed the project to retain the defining characteristics of the house facing Chancellor Street while encouraging all expansion to occur along Madison Lane

and towards the intersection of the two roads.

Inherently, this concept is echoed in our details, which focuses on separating and distinguishing the new construction techniques and assemblies from that of the historic house.

The proposal has the challenge of addressing the context on two streets, while still being a recognizable new construction addition.

With subtle differences in the treatment of our details, we believe we've made the distinction legible

but have continued to respect and respond to our adjacent context on both sides.

I'd like to thank city staff and the board again, and I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have regarding our detailed design or continue to discuss the specifics in any way that may be beneficial.

All right.

Are there any questions from the public?

Please raise your hand if you have any.

I don't see any.

I have one.

Looking through the drawings, I'm seeing that you're replacing the door on the Chancellor Street side and the side lights in the transom.

That door's in pretty rough shape.

The glass has been replaced in it.

The wood is pretty beat up and has seen better days.

There was a desire to get a consistent look in the new doors, both on the Madison Lane side and the Chancellor Street side.

So that was the approach.

Just following up, so you aren't retaining the side lights on that?

It looks, I'm looking at,

Sheet 27, and it looks like you're retaining the side lights, although there's light from the other side that's projected into the structure, so I can't tell.

But I guess what, if you could just go through the, thank you, Robert, what is being designed there.

It's in a shadow in this elevation, so it looks like you've got side lights there, but you're changing out the door.

to have lights within the door instead of the solid wood door.

The side lights would be replaced with new side lights.

It's the same door that's happening on the Madison Lane side as well.

but the transom's going away.

That's correct.

So there's on some of your sheets, like a 2.0, that door's called out as existing, but it's not the existing door.

I think that's maybe where we're getting some of the confusion as well.

But I know I picked up on this as well that, you know, the rendering show it is a door with glass in it and

I wasn't sure if this was a typo or what.

It sounds like it was an error in the drawings.

So you've got a door schedule on sheet A5.0 in the big drawings.

So this is door type D2 that you're going to put in there?

I believe so, yeah.

Let me get to that.

The pinnacle.

So while we're still in the questions portion, I guess, of the discussion, my only other question was,

The existing building on the Chancellor Street side, the photographs show a pretty large, what I'm guessing is a kitchen exhaust vent.

And the new design, of course, maybe relocates the kitchen.

I guess I'm just curious if it's going to be a commercial kitchen or if it's the intent, is it just going to be a sort of the residents would use it themselves and therefore it doesn't require a commercial exhaust

There's not a large cooking facility.

There is a residential scale kitchen there.

Okay, no, that sounds good.

Thanks.

I mean, I assume it has

I have one question, Kevin.

And this may just be a rendering issue.

But the old house has wood sub-sills on the windows.

And I'm not catching them in at least the elevations.

The wood cells will be retained.

They'll be scraped and painted.

They're pretty thin.

I think they're only maybe an inch and a half or two inches right now.

So that might be why they're hard to discern on the drawings.

They're definitely going to be retained.

The existing windows are to be retained along this Chancellor Street facade.

And I think going back to that front door, if the desire was to retain the historic front door, that would certainly be something that we would comply with and understand why.

you know, this being the historic facade side of things.

Because I was just going to say, when I look at the street elevations, I mean, the projection for those wood stills is relatively substantial.

So they do definitely show up.

Can you confirm, I think you may have said this, of the new trim and the columns and everything, are the columns going to be painted?

Are the railings going to be painted?

The columns will absolutely be painted.

They come unfinished.

It's the FRP with the marble dust.

They'll get field sanded before installation.

They'll get a

Primer, and then two coats of paint.

The railing will get painted to match that trim as well.

OK, great.

Sometimes I've seen the molding that you have up on the roof of the addition.

I've seen that come.

where the contractor says, oh, it doesn't have to be painted because it's pre-finished, but you see every nail hole, you see all the sealant joints, everything else.

The precast sills, do you guys have a color picked out for those?

Yeah, that color will match the mortar with the... Okay, so it's kind of a beige color?

I have a question.

I'm going to ask it to Carl and Jeff first, just as a matter of protocol, since I was not on the BAR when the massing was approved,

Ask your question.

Yeah.

And again, I don't want to send this down a rabbit hole.

So if the answer is no, we're past that, I'm happy to let that be the answer.

But I would like to sort of ask if consideration was given to making that portico deeper.

It seems rather shallow.

There's a new fraternity house, I guess, that was built right across the street from this location that has a very shallow portico and it just proportionally doesn't work right, in my opinion.

And I would venture a guess that potentially street setbacks might define the front edge of the portico.

And if that's the case, then perhaps consideration could be to actually have the front wall step back just a little bit, just in that center section.

to kind of give it a little more, I don't know what's the right word I'm looking for.

I guess that's obviously, but a stagger the facade a little bit might make it more interesting.

So that's my question slash thought.

I think that gets

I agree.

Yeah, I mean, we can definitely weigh in just that we were pushing up and the board members who have seen this before know the front setback challenges that we were up against.

We did get an SUP for relief with our setback variances.

And I think actually in our booklet, we have a diagram that shows

Just how extreme some of those setbacks are.

Yeah.

So that was really the consideration was we were asking a significant amount of reprieve anyways.

And, you know, from my perspective, it's a significant front porch.

So

It just seems tough to continue to encroach on that front setback.

I think we're at eight feet in our front setback right now, and it was approved with our SUP, but it's supposed to be something like 25 feet.

Yeah.

And that's what I was suggesting potentially, basically making it a portico in Antis, where it actually stepped into the building facade itself.

Just food for thought.

Again, I'm not going to

This is, well, it's going to come up in comments for me, so this may be somewhat of a leading question, but the trim profiles that you're showing on the new portion,

Which is more accurate, the section or the elevations and the 3D renderings?

I'm assuming the section is more accurate until what you're intending to build.

But I just want to confirm that.

Which part that you're talking about?

Mostly at the portico, your trim profiles are different.

It looks like you've simplified and deleted some pieces that were showing up in the renderings.

So if the section is what we're working from, I can bring this up again in comments.

But don't think there's that much variation.

There's not, but it's enough that it's important.

Are there any other questions?

I've got a question.

Kevin, if I recall, in some earlier renderings, there had been a water table or other delineation of the base of the building, especially the new section, which is

Seems like there's not any differentiation now.

Yeah, the case was just that the structural foundation wall aligns with our structural framing wall.

And so the brick veneer was running, which allowed for kind of the simple colonial revival.

I don't necessarily want to get too much into neo-Georgian,

Actually, I forgot to ask this.

The rendering show, I think, what are existing air handlers on the Chancellor Street side?

Are they remaining there?

Or is that what I'm seeing?

Is that what those are for one?

The existing air handlers are on the Madison lane side and they are moving to the Chancellor Street.

They didn't show up on any of the site plans or landscaping plans.

Are we out of questions?

Let's see if, does anybody in the public have any comments?

Okay.

I have one question, comment, but sort of a leading one.

Okay.

And then, I guess my other question is perhaps not a question, but a comment question for the board is,

In terms of differentiating this edition from the existing house, an existing house is very simply rendered, right?

I mean, it's got very simple curved jack arches and, you know, just a running bond, no expression of corners, anything like that.

Whereas the Madison Avenue side seems to be, you know, playing to this sort of, maybe not, you know, Georgian, but colonial language, but it strikes me that

Part of that differentiation is we would see more expression of the brick construction rather than being, it just strikes me as reading more commercial than it looks colonial to me.

And then the other thing is that the front door, ironically compared to the, I have a problem with the change up of the back door, but Kevin already goes up at the front door.

I don't think is really grand enough.

The way it's not even picking up the window line, I would expect that the porch construction and trim would actually pick up the heads of those windows and that all would be kind of an integrated hole.

So it just makes it seem a little stuck on the porch.

And I think, to my mind, there needs to be more

a greater intensity of detailed development on that part of the building because it is more public.

It's grander.

They're playing that sort of somewhat historicist game to begin with.

So I think my inclination would be to up the ante.

It's not a modern version of a Georgian or colonial building.

It's kind of the twist in between.

Yeah, I can tack on to that a little bit with my trim comments.

I think if you're going to do something classical, you need to go all the way with it.

If you simplify, if you try and modernize, it's going to look like a cartoon and it's going to look dated the minutes built.

I think your renderings, at least as far as the trim is concerned, we're doing a better job of showing a richness of detail.

than your sections show.

I think the cove profile that you've picked that you want to use everywhere is unfortunately inappropriate to this design.

And so I just, I would ask you to kind of reconsider, look at what you've rendered, the 3D views, and try and take that back into the sections.

Maybe look at some of the, I think you're calling out four over four trim everywhere.

What's detailed in the sections, although labeled as that, looks thinner than that.

So just make sure, again, what you're calling out is, and I know these drawings say 95% complete, so maybe there's some more development that needs to happen there, but what we're approving is what we see.

So just make sure you actually, you're certain of what is on those drawings.

One other example is the pediment.

I think you've got a... Oh, I've got to flip to this drawing.

Sorry.

Your set of drawings is so long.

It's hard to find anything.

Thank you for the completeness of this.

I mean, it's good to see all the information.

It's just hard to find stuff.

Yes, thank you.

Or yeah, page 151 of our PDF.

So if you look at the pediment, for example, you'll see that you have an OG profile on the elevation directly below the pediment, and you've kind of flipped that around on the detail section.

And again, that's, you know, little details like that go a long way in making this look

look right or versus just looking a little bit awkward and never really you know if the viewer is going to look at it and not really understand why it doesn't look right but it it just doesn't look right.

It looks like you've deleted out the the trim and the freeze board on the elevation because what you show in your renderings is a rather a much larger piece than kind of the the little it looks like a one by one little rectangle that you've tacked on on the detail so again I'm

I'm rambling at this point, but it's, I think you really need to go back and look at the details on this.

And it kind of has something to do with a little bit with what Tim was saying with the grandness of the door.

So Carl, to sort of,

to add on to that, sort of there's a misunderstanding of the language of this Georgian architecture.

When you look at the end columns, the fascia above that line of the fascia, the vertical line of the fascia, should align with the emphasis of the column.

That's the shaft itself, so that the Tuscan capital

protrudes beyond the edge of the facial.

That's language.

It should turn the corner just like it does in the section.

Take the word out of my mouth.

The other thing I would just say is like, if I was going to go for, you know, if I was trying to do sort of this like strip down modern, almost a modernist sense of classicism, I'd be looking at,

like early Saarinen, illegal Saarinen that, you know, like Cranbrook or something like that, where it's, you know, very attenuated columns and that sort of thing.

But I'm not, this really feels to me like it is trying to be more Georgian and more sort of traditional detailing.

And so, as Carl pointed out, that pattern is definitely confused.

But I also just think that,

You know, what I said earlier, I think it needs a more robust expression of what it wants to be.

Because right now, it seems sort of timid, if I like a better word, I guess.

I would recommend pulling out Isaac Ware's American Vignola as a pattern book from the early 20th century.

I agree.

I actually did a quick look on Street View on Google and, you know, in terms of the window treatments, like every other house along Madison Lane,

aside from the Greek revival Stucco does have like a keystone or a jack arch or something to kind of give a little bit higher level of detail at the windows.

It just seems like, you know, it needs to,

I have just a couple of other comments that haven't been mentioned yet.

But to me, it's related to the trim question.

The upper floor windows do feel very jammed up against the pediment.

They don't allow the trim profile to go around the top of the window.

The second part, I was just going to note on relative to the porch on the end of the building, I think the in the rendering, the lattice work is right out at the corners of the piers.

It seems like there needs to be a little bit better, a little bit more relief there.

If they were just pushed back even a little bit to allow the pier to be present, it would also show that the columns don't really

align well with the piers and it seems like they might need to move just inboard ever so slightly to really feel like they're related.

I think the renderings at the, or actually the elevation at the end of the building shows that well.

And that kind of translates all the way up through to the second story, Ballisters.

And just getting those alignments I think would help that feel like it was considered as much as the rest of the building.

From a landscape point of view, I think the trees and the tree selections are good.

And thank you for making that

consideration.

The only, it's not a, it may be just suggestion is that the one tree that is in the yard of the Chancellor's Street side.

So on the Chancellor's Street side, there's three, three sweet gum that are adjacent to the street, almost as a street trees.

And then there's one that's back up in the yard.

And in that one tree might,

Be well to do a different species.

Got a couple more.

On the south side of the portico, it looks like that is overlooking a basement entrance.

So my guess is we're going to need a railing along that south side of the portico.

So we'd want to see what that looks like if it wants to be just black and metal and go away, or do we want to make it more formal where, you know, we have balance across on either end of the portico.

Obviously the north end of the portico doesn't have, doesn't look like it has more than 30 inch drops so that wouldn't be required there, but that's going to need to be resolved.

Okay, yeah, that sounds good.

That's something we can definitely work with and do.

Does the board have a preference on that railing?

That is a good point.

Is there a preference?

Do we make it go away?

I think you want it to go away on the ground level.

Black iron picket?

Yeah.

If you filled that up with a bunch of white painted pickets, I think it would

I want to talk about the roof a little bit, unless anyone else.

I looked up the tiles that you proposed, the, I think, Belaforte type.

And all the pictures I saw on the manufacturer's website, the incondition where you have a gable

It was a very odd condition where it looked like they either had to fold the shingles down over the gable or they had to have a large metal piece right there to hide the end condition.

I would recommend you guys at least confirm what that end condition needs to look like and if there are other synthetic slates out there that

you know, will end at a gable end just like a normal slate would.

And I would recommend finding one that does.

I could be wrong about the ones you've picked, but it just, that was all that I could find on the internet from that type.

And yeah, I do think it would be good to, well, I mean, I think the board, we should probably discuss how much of the existing

metal trim on the roof should be retained throughout the rest of the project.

There's a lot of it.

I mean, it seems like a significant part of the character of the original house, but it does sort of militate.

Having gutters extending out past it does make it seem a little strange.

I agree with that.

Yeah.

Are we all content with the windows?

I see nodding heads.

So it sounds like the only concern is there's the door that was chosen for the pediment side, the Madison Lane side.

Who said they wanted that?

Tim, that was you.

Yeah, I think it's sort of, it seems to me like it's kind of weak, like it ought to be a much bolder, grander door and it kind of looks like a back door.

And the fact that it's actually shorter than the window heads is even worse, I think.

And you know, the thing is with the porch, judging by the section, you actually have quite a bit ahead above the window.

Sort of to Brecht's point, you know, you're only reading that in a dead on elevation when you're in the porch.

are coming underneath all those windows actually have quite broad heads on them.

So I think you could get a lot of expression there with that door, but that door just seems, doesn't have enough presence to my mind.

With it being that high, is that something you go to, like a transom above that door?

Is that more appropriate?

And we start to echo the language that's happening on Chancellor.

It looks like you have a pretty high door on the second floor.

but that one, the main door isn't, right?

Well, the ceiling height is higher there.

Yeah, I mean, a transom would certainly be one way to do it.

I just think the building's so regular, I'd rather see the door the same height as the windows and, you know,

It should just be a folder, a door that says front door and right now it looks like a back door to me.

Especially given the scale of the rest of the windows on that floor.

So I mean, obviously it'd be a more expensive door, but I think you're kind of, you're setting up that game to begin with.

I don't think, I think the door will read as too short relative to the windows.

I see.

And the transom doesn't get that proportion for you then?

I don't think so because then the door is too short.

You know, it looks like it's out of a grand door.

Well, that would address Brecht's comment about the windows appearing to be

Can we talk about that a little bit more in depth?

The existing historic windows, their header is right at the bottom of that trim piece.

And so basically, we were aligning the header of our window with that.

Seemed appropriate from my perspective.

Well, they do.

I mean, they have very minimal trim, but the trim wraps all the way around.

And it appears from your sections that the side trim piece doesn't go around the window, doesn't wrap all the way around the head.

Yes.

How do we have a problem with that, having a wide header that captures the legs?

I think what Brett is saying, so on sheets 19, the windows have the wide casing,

I see what you're saying.

Yeah.

Right so yeah the intention there was that the three and a half inch brick mold does not go above that trim line but I mean we you know the windows can shift down to give it a little bit of breathing room and incorporate that three and a half inch brick mold.

Yeah there's you know we're trying to align door heights and header heights and

You just have to be careful with how we align that door trim as well.

Well, you've got that brick mold casing goes around the door.

It does, you're right.

Yeah, I agree.

I mean, I think the

I get what you're saying about the historic windows that they go right up to that freeze or band board line.

But those being basically single light over single light windows, they're clearly different.

You know, they just they stand alone as part of that early building.

And I don't think anybody's going to confuse these two windows.

So I don't think it would hurt to scooch them down.

I guess I apologize.

It does look like on sheet A 2.0 and 2.1, y'all do show a railing on the first floor of the portico.

But it's more similar to like the balcony railings and whatnot.

Yeah.

I think revising it to make it disappear is appropriate.

Kevin, is the only exterior lighting the lanterns?

No.

Okay.

I'm not advocating, I'm just curious.

No, I think we have some great feedback here.

I think we have good direction.

I think a lot of the comments make sense.

We're happy to revisit the Chancellor Street door, the roof flashings, bring in some decorative brick elements, whether that's a water table, jack arches, things like that.

I mean, as you're putting these things on, I mean, you guys are, you're designers, use your judgment.

If it's too much, it's too much.

But yeah, I think it's, let's see what happens, see what it looks like.

I don't know that there's a motion to make because you already basically have massing

I'll call the vote.

Aye.

Mr. Gastinger.

Aye.

Mr. Bailey.

I assume that's aye.

Aye.

Sorry.

Yeah, no, it's fine.

Thank you.

Ms.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Mr. Zehmer.

Aye.

Yes.

Thank you.

Carl, would you like to go ahead to the next application?

How's the rest of the board feeling?

I'd just ask, I know Jody's got a bolt at seven.

All right, so our next thing is Locus, and hopefully that's going to be, well, no, it may not be that quick.

All right, let's just, we'll go through Locus and then we'll take a break after that.

Is that all right with everyone?

Sounds good.

Sounds good.

All right, let me find it.

Yes, Ashley is here.

I'm not sure if she wanted me to add Alan Taylor to the call, too.

Yeah, this was all set to go last month, and then we pulled it, talking to the applicant just to allow some additional discussion on their end.

So in my brain, we've already talked about this, but I know we haven't.

So just let me get back to the right screen.

All I see is you, Robert.

I'm on the right thing.

All right, so this is a COA request for demolition.

It's within a historic conservation district.

So I want to stress that this is not an ADC district.

This is 854 Locusts within the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District.

And this is, and I don't want to say it's been confusing, but this is actually two structures

that are being proposed for demolition.

One is a, we think sometime around the age of the house, between then and 1920, small guest cottage immediately out the back of the house.

And then adjacent to it was a garage.

It was constructed in 1954.

They sort of kind of merged together.

And those are the two structures that the applicant is requesting the demolition for.

Let me go through this.

So when we have, and I can go through this to the extent you'd like me to, or we can simply enter into the conversation.

when there is a demolition.

And it's the same review criteria, more or less, that's this with an ADC district asking about the age of the structure.

And so where my research suggests that it was here at least in 1910, we have evidence from the US Census of two servants residing at this address.

a cottage or a guest house behind it.

Given the times, there was a presumption that it would have been occupied by the servants.

In 1920, there are servants there.

And in 1930, there's a servant there.

As far as whether or not it's been listed on the National Register or the Virginia Landmarks Register, so this is where, with the Martha Jefferson Historic District, we have two designations.

We have the state and federal designation, which is which is honorary.

There's no we the B.A.R., the city has no regulatory oversight because of that designation.

However, this is also a local historic conservation district.

So as far as the question of whether or not it is listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register, the answer is yes.

These are this is part of the National Register District and this guest house component

is a contributing structure within that district.

Also, as far as the local designation for the local district, it was determined to be a contributing structure.

To what extent the building is associated with a historic person, none.

Whether the building is a structure and its features represent infrequent or the first or last remaining example in the city, I don't believe that's applicable.

the degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features of materials remain.

I would say that without a physical examination, that's difficult to determine.

However, what the evidence from a, and I think it was a 2011 demolition request and actually an alteration to this gas cottage.

So there've been some rather substantial

alterations to the guest cottage.

So as far as it's, I'm sure there are components and elements of it that are original, but it has been altered.

And then it asks whether and to what extent a contributing structure is linked historically, aesthetically to other building structures within the conservation district and whether the proposed demolition would affect adversely or positively the character and continuity of the district.

This is where it gets difficult.

We know that the folks in

Martha Jeff neighborhood were adamant about these smaller buildings, particularly the garages at the end of driveways and the things that a lot of them you see on the alleys and the back streets, those outbuildings.

But this one is not seen from the street.

And now while that's not because it's contributing, the fact that it's not visible doesn't particularly play into this.

The fact that it has been altered, the fact that it is not viewed or visible from the street, I do think that that's something to take into consideration.

There are, I think, you know, you saw my staff report here, I think something like 44 outbuildings and additions and they are all shapes and sizes.

So there really is no one size fits all relative to how this would fit into the

You know, whether or not this is, we're removing it or keeping it.

You know, personally, you know, I'd like to retain any historic structure that can be done.

But I think that a, let me say it again, the alterations to this mitigate the impact of possibly approving the demolition.

They asked about the overall condition structural integrity of the building structures indicated by study prepared by a qualified professional engineer.

The applicants provided photographs and a brief narrative.

And since last month, I think we've talked about providing some additional information in the 2011 submission, actually some good drawings.

So the building's actually been documented.

But we don't have a, I don't think they've questioned its physical integrity.

It is a function of how they would like to use the space behind the house.

Whether and what extent the applicant proposes to preserve portions, features, materials are significant to this property.

Again, the guest house and the garage will be removed in their entirety.

And then the final question is any application provisions

of the city's conservation district guidelines.

And for example, from the historic conservation district guidelines for demolitions, there is a question about the public necessity of the proposed demolition and the public purpose or interest in buildings to be protected.

Obviously, there is a public interest in preservation, and there is no public purpose arguing for this demolition.

It is not a matter of public necessity.

So in answering that question, that's what we have there.

So our recommendation is that if the demolition is approved, that we do complete the documentation of it, looking at what was provided in 2011, maybe getting some updated photographs and anything else additional that you all would

would like to see.

And the normal type of documentation that we do in working with Preservation Piedmont.

So I don't want to give an up or down recommendation on this, but I think that the information we provided help you make your decision.

So you said that when this district was formed, residents made a point of picking these outbuildings.

Is that documented anywhere?

And that's been sort of anecdotal.

And what I had heard from a former member of the BAR and also some folks who have

come in and ask for demolitions in the last two years expressed to me that, yes, I know this is what the community wanted.

So that may be apocryphal, and I can acknowledge that.

But I do know there was a discussion that what was recommended as contributing for the Virginia Landmarks Register and for the National Register, which it has,

that those same structures be listed as contributing for the Historic Conservation District.

So that's what elevates it.

It kind of goes beyond where the community saying what they would have preferred to have happened.

The fact remains is that it is listed as contributing.

I have a question as well, Jeff.

One of what I'm saying is, are the people living in the district?

They have the opportunity to, and they all received letters, their neighbors.

So in a moment, they'll have the opportunity to, if there are any.

I just have more of a philosophical question, Jeff.

Are there any of these older houses from the early 1900s that are IPP protected on locusts, or are they all

Yeah, I was kind of like, yeah, I was a little surprised.

But I don't, I've got the list here.

If you give me a second, I can look it up.

I don't believe that there are any.

So again, if it helps, there are the questions.

There's a sequence that's in that staff report.

So those are the facts as they're presented.

Yeah, I'm just looking stuff up and go on with your conversation.

May I ask Jeff a question then before we move on to the public comment?

Yeah, it's been- Really, I mean, I think this was altered in the last decade beyond, I mean,

I'm sort of shocked at what I'm looking at.

And I think I haven't looked at the minutes.

I'm just looking at the application and thank you to Robert and Jeff for giving this to us.

But maybe there was a lot of discussion about the demolitions of other buildings on the site, but this was really altered greatly by the previous owners.

I'm just kind of shocked.

and I don't see that the application, I know it's a conservation district, but it looks like their application didn't really address much except for adding a dormer of what they were going to do with this structure.

I agree with you and it's,

I reflected on a conversation that BAR had a couple months ago about an entrance on the side of a house on Park Street and the character of that entrance and what it had served as.

It's always enlightening to listen to how the design professionals and the BAR approach these things.

I think there's a story to this cottage

That's really interesting.

I don't know if that's still represented in what exists.

It'd be neat to pick it up and move it and rotate it, but I don't know if, you know, it's like, what do they say?

Yeah, Washington's axe.

Well, it was told to me as Abraham Lincoln's hatchet, because I have that one, yeah.

My dad replaced the head and my grandfather replaced the handle.

But so what has been the mitigating factor in this to me is to take a really good hard look at those changes and to really say, you know, if this were within a historic conservation district to be retained, it's what is being retained.

What is it?

What would be that?

What would be that argument for it?

And, you know, it might be heretical on my part, but I

I had some difficulty.

The story is interesting.

Hold on.

The small window that's shown in the photograph of existing conditions

That really tells me that it was living quarters.

That's the size of a small window that you would insert.

I mean, storage buildings didn't have windows, but you inserted windows in spaces where people lived in that small window.

Absolutely.

I'm getting shivers, actually.

It's really a shame, and I would like to know from the current owners and the current applicants, to what extent any of this exists.

Does the owner have any idea what's behind the walls?

My heartburn with this application is

I agree with staff that it's been altered beyond anything that would look like it contributes to anything or would tell a story anymore.

And I don't know, but yet I feel like once the new, I guess it's a Harding plank is pulled back, I'm afraid we're gonna see this again and that we will prove a demolition without really

knowing a little bit more.

I don't know, Ms.

Ashley, how about, since, I mean, we've kind of sidestepped you, do you have a presentation you want to give and then- Sorry.

Certainly.

Well, hello again, everyone.

I'm Ashley Davies.

I'm at 1000 Locust Avenue, but I'm here tonight with the homeowners of 854 Locust Avenue.

That's Alan and Bryant Taylor.

We want to thank you for the opportunity to present our request for a certificate of appropriateness

to demolish an accessory structure in the rear yard of the property located within the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation Overlay District.

As you know, the stated purpose of this district is to identify and preserve buildings with special historical and architectural significance or with a collective character and quality which serves as important visible reminders of the heritage of the city.

In our review of the criteria necessary for the BAR to consider this request, we believe the accessory structure as it exists today does not contribute to the collective character of the district, nor is it an important visible reminder of the heritage of Charlottesville.

The primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue on the other hand is a highly visible part of the character of the neighborhood representing a specific timeframe and type of architecture.

The historic survey documentation for the property describes the Victorian architecture of the 1903 home in great detail.

The Taylor family as the newest owners of the property are active stewards of the historic resource and important feature of the Martha Jefferson neighborhood.

Over the years, there have been a variety of accessory structures in the rear yard of the property that have been constructed, expanded, adapted, and demolished to suit the needs of the homeowners over time.

This adaptation is inherent to secondary structures and allows for some flexibility while protecting the form and character of the main house and primary historic resource.

The street structure under consideration this evening is located directly behind the main house and currently serves as a guest house and storage space.

The structure is over 170 feet from the public road and sidewalk in the private backyard area of the property where any visibility of the structure is limited by distance, mature landscape, and the home itself.

The structure is one of three accessory structures that have been documented with the property.

All were marked as contributing to the district, two of which were demolished following approval by the BAR in 2011.

The 2011 BAR approval also included extensive changes to the guesthouse.

The Charlottesville City Assessor lists the guest house as being constructed in 1954.

While Sanborn maps show a structure has been in this general location since prior to that time, the size and shape of the structure has been altered on numerous occasions.

The structure has been enlarged over time to double its original size.

Some additions have been demolished and the interior was completely demolished for modernization in 2012.

That modernization also included removal of the chimney, new windows, new siding, a different type of roof, a new roof dormer, and porch columns.

Thus, no traces of any historic element of the structure remain other than the general location on the property, which is private and out of public view.

We want to thank you again for your consideration of our request this evening.

If granted, the Taylors would return to you in the near future with plans for a garage and guest house that would be located at the end of the existing driveway.

And that's where the original garage structure was that was previously demolished.

And that would serve as an actual functioning

Garage, unlike the one that's there now.

So we look forward to working with you to ensure that any new construction is harmonious with the main house and the surrounding Martha Jefferson neighborhood.

And Cheri, your question about whether we've done, I guess, whether we've inherited the architectural plans that were from the previous modernization.

I haven't seen anything beyond the BAR.

application, and I don't know about the availability of those, but from what I could see that, you know, basically everything was gutted and redone at that point.

Well, I think we can see, are there any questions from the public?

Please raise your hand if you have one.

I don't see anything.

OK.

I have a question.

The garage structure, it looks like from the old photographs, there's some charming cinder block that's been painted there.

I think that cinder block was removed.

It was demolished with the previous.

Yeah, you've got the 19, well the house was built in 1903, so call it the 1903 guest cottage cottage, and then in the 50s there was the Cinderblock

structure added to the east side of it.

And then at some point, that structure got a, and it may have been in the 2011 work, got an opening punched in it, and it became a garage.

So that seems to be the life of that.

And honestly, the other buildings that were there, I mean, they look, what was the one we looked at a couple of months ago over in Lexington was, you know,

I don't know what it was.

It looked like a pole shed in the middle of nowhere.

So there were four structures.

Which is all slammed right up to the back of the old house.

I mean, the architectural reasons for

wanting to move or demolish just seemed pretty obvious.

I mean, they've got a huge yard and this thing's like right smack in the middle of it.

I mean, the desire to, the reasoning behind it makes sense to me in that regard.

And I think that little, for lack of a better word, carbuncle that Ron was referring to is where the gateway is now on one end of that shed, right?

This is one of the funny projects where, you know, they didn't need BAR approval to add onto it.

And it's really only coming to us because of the demolition.

That's right.

That's right.

Yeah.

And I, looking at the demo plan of the 2011, which we don't, probably most of that was 1954.

I just think there's just not much.

remaining.

And while I appreciate the story, I like the story.

I don't know.

Are there any more questions from anyone?

Just want to make sure before it sounds like everyone wants to get in the comments.

Sorry.

Any comments from the public?

Please raise your hand if you have one.

Well, I think it had an intriguing history, but I think it's been pretty much wiped out and also the fact that we're in a historic district

It's not visible from the street, so it doesn't threaten the timeline.

And it does certainly compromise their access to the backyard as it currently exists.

Architecturally, I don't see any really strong reason to keep it.

And then historically, I don't think there's much left.

I mean, the damage was done.

And they are the ones that did the damage.

And when the damage was done, it was well before this was even would have even come under our purview.

I think we're effectively governing anything on that.

I think it's a done deal really in terms of what that building was.

It's gone, really.

I'm with Cheri.

I think it's really too bad to lose the story of it.

I think, you know, record it.

I would agree with Tim.

I do note that the application for demolition supported demolition of the cinder block addition in front of the structure and said this would restore the facade, which includes a little tiny window partially visible from the street of the guest house.

I mean, is it, it is partially visible from the street.

Not much.

I agree.

I also would say that this was part of the application for individual designation, both state and nationally.

the structure has some history.

And if there were no support for that at the time of the application, I'm not saying now, but if it were not important, it wouldn't have been included.

But my heartburn about this is just, and it has really nothing to do with the current owners who have just bought this property in the last few months, who didn't participate in altering this.

But my heartbreak is,

just developing a policy where a structure, and I understand this is a conservation district, so it's different than an outrun ADC, but we're sort of promoting owners to alter things and then that gives us an excuse to demolish them because there's nothing left of their architectural features.

and I know this is a small and minor example, but I would just, that's my heartburn over it.

The more common thread there, Cheri, is demolition by neglect.

Right, or derelict.

That's the one we really run into the most.

It's a, you know, a good analogy is, you know, you always hear them say if Jefferson were to return and go to Monticello, we wouldn't recognize it.

because never at any one point were all of those things there that are there now.

And I would say this thing's been so, the door, front door isn't where it was.

The front porch, there didn't used to be a porch.

The roof has been altered.

The windows have been altered.

The interior is certainly gone.

It's a footprint with maybe some old studs.

I think if the city is really serious about wanting to keep these outbuildings, a historic conservation district is not the means to do it successfully.

it's for me when I review things in an HCD it really is all about the streets and you know the impact on the district as a whole versus each individual property and because this is so hard to see from the street I think it's you know well they have already that one reason makes it easy for me to say that this is this

meets the criteria for demolition.

The other reason, and I guess they've already kind of shown it, is you can add on to it and then there's not much left of it.

But if they wanted to add an addition off the back of the house that totally subsumed this, they could.

And then whatever's in that addition, they could tear down.

And it doesn't, we have no control over it.

And the fact that that's really the more interesting thing about Locust Avenue is that there are a lot of houses there that I would have said qualify as IPP properties district aside and they're not.

The Wachovia building at Barracks Road is an IPP.

I'm just saying.

I'm ready to make a motion if the chair would allow.

Having considered the standards set forward within the city code, including the city design guidelines for demolitions and the historic conservation districts, I move to find that the proposed demolition satisfies the BAR's criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson HCD and that the BAR approves the application as submitted

The conditions that were suggested by staff were just to document the structures, including photographs and drawings.

I think that's been done sort of as part of this application process.

So I can't imagine what more the applicant could do.

That's fine.

I'll call a vote.

I did.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Gastinger.

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Ms.

Lewis.

Aye.

Mr. Zehmer.

No.

Mr. McClure.

Aye.

Thank you.

If there's a sign, Ashley, out front of Alan's house, tell him you can pull it down off the telephone pole.

Keep people from worrying so much.

I will say my house is an IPP and I think the city did that because it was falling over and maybe they thought it could stop it from falling over.

So it does mention the guy looked for that.

I didn't see it either.

Oh, you know what?

I couldn't find it either.

And I was surprised because staff had remembered that.

Yeah.

I went through and counted them and even did like Google Street View if everybody ever wants to see.

I just want to know exactly what's going on over there.

But now there is a, there's an extensive, it's in the file as a book.

a couple hundred pages, which is the formal nomination.

But, you know, I will again say that my understanding of the garage and outbuildings really came from people over there telling me that that was a concern.

I wonder if there's a way to put that, get that added to the neighborhood, the list of, like it wouldn't, doesn't every neighborhood have a list of defining features and get that added in there?

if that actually was meant to be part of it.

It's almost 730.

Would you guys like to take a quick break?

Sure.

The timer for what, five minutes?

Is that good?

Yes.

Oh, no problem.

While we're still in the break, I'm going to promote Bill Adams, Bill Sherman, and Tom because their application is coming up next.

So this is Tom.

Andy has a, I'm not sure if Andy's back yet.

Oh, there I'm sorry.

Jeff.

I really, well, didn't really have, the staff report was more to sort of just introduce it to you all.

I'm not going to get into a lengthy description of the project.

I'm going to let Tom and Bill do that.

I do want to explain, I guess, and Bill and Tom and Bill, if you could just stay with us for a little bit while we clarify some things for the new BAR members on how preliminary discussions have somewhat changed over the past year.

But again, it's a preliminary discussion.

There's no BAR action.

required none is taken.

And however, the point of this is not just to have the architects present this and we all go, that's nice.

We really, this has to be an interactive discussion.

The goal here is to work this towards an application that then can be reviewed.

So, you know, towards a complete application.

So if we have questions or if the architect has questions,

That's the whole point of this conversation.

So I want to make sure that we take that seriously and understand that.

In the past, the BAR has expressed support for certain things, but not for other things.

Now that's when we can go to the next steps here when it comes back as a formal application.

But we would like to encourage you all

One of the things we've understood from applicants when we talked about this change in this process is that they get some comfort in moving forward, that they're on the right path.

So while you all on the BAR cannot take a formal motion, you are welcome to, you know, and Carl is the chair,

You know, take a straw poll on a particular element or component or a particular question that, you know, while it's not a legally binding action by the BAR, you know, you are expressing support for something that maybe, you know, allows the applicant to check that off.

And also, just I put in a staff report, and I hope you all would use it, this is,

This one falls within the, unlike 167 Chancellor, which I think used every page of the book, this one is, I would characterize as an addition.

So it's new construction.

It's an addition.

And there is a good checklist to work from, you know, for the applicant as well to say, all right, have we covered all of these things?

Have we asked all these questions?

What Robert and I will do when we're done with this preliminary discussion, then in just the staff questions, we're going to get into a little more of a conversation about next steps on projects like these, which are of such a scale that maybe there are things that we want to review and approve incrementally.

But we'll explain all that later.

So tonight, just a preliminary discussion, ask lots of questions all the way around.

Trying to get this to where they can submit something that moves towards formal action by you on the BAR.

So hope that makes sense.

All right, this is Tom.

I do the short straw, so I go first.

So Train Architects has partnered with Bill Sherman to execute this project for the Center for Christian Study.

With me today is Bill Wilder, the director of the center, and Bill Sherman, of course.

Bill is the lead designer, and Train will be kind of producing and coordinating the production of the documents.

You would think with as much time as I spend on Zoom, I would have known that by now.

Good evening, everybody.

Great to be with you.

And thanks so much for your time, especially Zoom time.

I think that counts double or triple.

Appreciate your consideration of the Study Center site plan.

After so many years of thinking and dreaming about this, it's great to be getting to this point.

Let me give you a little context.

The Study Center was founded in 1976, 50 years after the original historic building was built.

It's a university-based ministry for community and students.

There's always been some sort of educational component together with community building and open house feel.

We're now the oldest and most established of a number of study centers, including Summit, Duke, and Carolina, which typically combine faith, learning, and hospitality.

In normal times, and these are not normal times, the building is open 24-7 for students.

It's a kind of home away from home for them.

We welcome their families and them to large move-in day lunches.

That won't be happening this year.

We need hundreds of students, provide a place to study during exams,

That won't be quite happening in the same way either, and have a safe and comfortable place for students to study and be with their friends.

So that's what we've been doing.

Obviously for an organization focused on students, the location is to die for.

We're just across the street from the university.

They can walk across the street or in many cases just pass us on the way to classes.

So we're really in an ideal location.

In the late 1990s, about 20 years after this ministry began, we had an addition that doubled the square footage of the original historic building.

And since that time, students have continued to fill the building.

I feel like we're bursting at the seams.

And so now another 20-odd years on, we would like to have a further expansion of our capacity to be a place of hospitality and learning and care for these students and others on Chancellor Street.

This is Bill Sherman, the design architect for the project and been working now for a number of years actually on developing this approach to the project.

As the study center has grown and has become what may have been at one point been a mission that could fit within a single house, it is now a substantial institution with several hundred student members.

And so this project represents the building out of the property to accommodate that larger institutional mission while ideally, particularly as we develop the design, it maintains the kind of residential feel rather than moving to a very large institutional feel.

I'd actually like to use your checklist for new construction additions as a kind of guide to how I'd like to walk you through the way we've been approaching the design.

The scale in terms of the function and size, we are maintaining the

trying to maintain the scale while we accommodate the size requirements that are needed for the project that is located to the rear of the site, building out what is now just a small parking area at the back of the property.

And it is a

And so the, and moving on to the next location, which I think is the important part is that this addition would not be visible much at all from Chancellor Street.

It would be visible and perhaps we can jump to the, I think the Google, I think it's page three of the presentation, if we could move back to that, that shows the existing conditions and the site overlaid on

An aerial photograph that shows that it will, in a sense, front on the parking lot at the end of Ellie Wood Avenue.

but would be not visible from Chancellor Street.

You might note that across the railroad tracks from that is also actually much larger scale construction of the residential housing immediately across the tracks that are just outside the scope of that aerial photograph.

If we move on to the next slide, you get a sense of the existing house, the original existing house that was then extended somewhat in character by Bruce Wardell's edition in 1996 that has a number of elements that we are preserving.

This stair tower, which is a very beloved meeting place for the students and a kind of a lighthouse and a lantern for them.

that will be preserved so that down that side slot of between the buildings that will still be the visible space.

And the only other real alteration that we're making to the front part of the building is in the joint between the two additions.

And that is just actually if we go to the next image.

this plan you'll see at the south side in what we call the hyphen between the two existing parts of the building just a thickening of that up to actually accommodate handicapped accessible bathrooms and increase that capacity.

But we'll be replacing that with an appearance that actually you'd be very hard pressed to know that anything happened be matching the original paneling that was done in the 1996 edition.

The larger addition to the back will include two major rooms, a major meeting room and a new library, as well as some meeting rooms on the north side and a stair and elevator on the south side.

And so

I think we can scroll quite quickly through the plans so that we can, you can get a sense, maybe pause on, and you can see that we've really broken the building.

You can just see it in the roof plan here, or we can jump back one page to the top floor plan.

There's a major space in the middle on each floor, the meeting room to the north and the steering elevator to the south.

There is another small change that we're making to a portion of the building that bumps out on the south side enlarging what's now

a set of meeting rooms on the south side of the Wardell edition of the 1996 edition and putting in kitchen and meeting rooms on that side.

So in terms of the, what we're attempting to do in terms of the size and the scale, and we can move on back to those axonometric views if you'd like right there.

We're breaking down the massing so that we are expressing that program in terms of three elements and then connecting those three major elements with a kind of interstitial material that conceals the volume or the mass of the building.

We are looking to continue the materials very much from front to back so that the curved element on the north, the center element and the south tower would each be clad in shingles painted to match and working with a window that would be an aluminum-clad wood window.

that maintains, in a way, the character and the color of the windows that work through that kind of reveal or volume that makes a clear distinction between the new and the old.

works in some way like the panelized system of the 1996 edition in creating another joint, but is doing it with a hearty panel system with revealed openings within it.

So we are making it very clear in terms of point three, we're making a clear differentiation between the new and the old, but pulling through issues of the scale, the materiality to maintain the character as it comes through.

And so that kind of gets us into the items four, five, and six on your checklist in the way that we are attaching that there's a clear delineation of the old and new, but in terms of the continuity, it works through from one side to the other.

I will mention that the building sits on a plinth that is at the level of the parking area.

Right now that is a kind of weedy area where there's the parking and then a slope.

We would be building a retaining wall which will allow us to take care of all drainage issues, parking issues under the building, the drainage that's behind it.

and have that application into the city with respect to the site plan.

I think I'll stop there and be happy to answer any questions.

All three of us would be available to answer questions about this.

If there are people that want to offer comments, certainly helpful now to hear them.

This is Tom and just to clarify, so the site plan which is we're working with all the engineering is in the city so it is under review.

The idea is that we are looking for a construction start in June of 2021.

That's kind of the goal.

So that is kind of what we're working for.

We're kind of in DD phase or heading into DD phase now.

So we're waiting for your comments on that as we proceed.

On the off chance there is any public, if anybody in the public has any comments or questions for the applicants, please raise your hand.

Nope.

Well, board?

I will, why not?

I think it's very coherent.

I think it's respectful of the scale.

I think they hit the points pretty well.

I think it's subtly different, you know, enough so that you see a clearer timeline looking down the side of the elevations.

And also, given its siting, you know, it just doesn't really

Rock anybody's boat no matter what because of the way it tails off the back of the building.

So I think it's a very nice presentation and it's nice to see Bill Adams once in a while but he's got green off and everything else.

Well, I'll jump in.

I think it's very interesting.

It's definitely very different from the previous edition, which is different from the historic house.

But I think that's perfectly appropriate on the site.

And as a new construction, there's no reason that shouldn't be contemporary.

I think it's interesting how you're using the same shingles to carry consistency through the whole project.

and you know it'll be I think the fiber cement panels will also work out.

I'm glad you've chosen the reveal system and when you as you detail this of course we'd like to probably know more about what system you've chosen but it definitely seems to be much more successful than the panel system with or using battens with the panels to be very successful in any projects we've had around town recently.

Let's see, I had a couple of questions.

I think one concern that I will have, although I know your site backs up to a parking lot, and as you said, it's a weedy condition, and it's not really that nice as it is, but I would like to know

or see a little further development on what that retaining wall ends up being.

I'd like to know how tall it's going to be, if it is extremely tall, if you find some ways that you can mitigate it.

Are you is that retaining wall sitting right at the edge of the property?

It is within a foot of the rock wall.

Yeah, I'll let others chime in.

My comment was about that same wall, so I'll jump in here.

I think that I don't know enough about the history of the tail end of Elwood, but that is a contributing structure.

I believe they are the Willys Hair Salon.

and well I think for you know generally everything this is a really elegant solution and there's there's really quite a lot of flexibility in what you do here you're so far removed from the historic structure and everything is kept consistent with previous editions but the scale of that concrete wall or just you know how it

if one's looking at that Willys from Ellie Wood, that wall will start to be quite visible, especially if some of those more recent additions are ever removed in the future.

And I don't know, maybe there is something to be learned about the history of that end of that street.

But generally, I think it's really great.

I think it's the kind of proposal we'd like to see.

The VAR.

Breck, while we're on the landscape, I might just mention one thing that we will be looking at probably for the next round of submission.

And it relates to what Bill Wilder was talking about in terms of some of the limitations they're facing on indoor gathering space is enhancing some of the spaces around the building toward the front.

And there are the courtyards to the south and north, but looking at

particularly the landscape at Chancellor Street.

So we'll be studying that right now.

So quiet.

Well, I guess maybe what people are thinking, are there questions that you guys have from us?

I think any things that you see as potentially giving you pause or that you will be paying very close attention to as we move forward would be helpful to know about now.

It's a very different kind of discussion than some that you've had in other cases, given the nature of the project and society.

Well, you know, it's funny, I'm just looking at the Google map, just to look at the streetscape.

And of course, right now you have a green wall of, I don't know if it's kudzu, but it's something pretty impressively tall.

You know, right now it's all kind of a throwaway zone at the moment, but you know, whether it'll stay that way certainly remains to be seen.

You know, and again, given what you're affecting right now, it probably doesn't really make a whole lot of concern.

But I think down the line, I assume that something will go up in that lot and won't always remain a parking lot.

So one thing that I would like, we're trying to sort of wrap our heads around in terms of just lighting the schemes.

In particular, I'm thinking about, you have a lit parking garage in there, I think

thinking about controls and dimmability and motion detectors and things like that so they can run at a low level 90% of the time.

And I think just getting more intelligent about lighting.

I know, Bill, you've been on some of those discussions with us where it would be really great to get the city to start moving forward on a lighting zoning plan.

And things like parking lots are a really big component of just massive light pollution.

Yeah, no, I think we're on the same page on lighting approaches here.

And we'll definitely be very sensitive about that in terms of both the sufficient lighting in the gathering spaces so that they're safe and they're comfortable for the students, but very low level ground lighting rather than overhead lighting and likewise in the parking structure.

It's really just one level of parking underneath there.

That's a really good point.

And I think that will be a point that we'll particularly look at in relation to the railing that will be at the top of the retaining wall will be a good way to actually directly address that.

Just out of curiosity, sort of following up on Carl's question and Brett's questions about the retaining wall, what is the perceived function of the triangular space going off the back of the building?

So there's quite a large basin built into that wall in that corner where we're managing all the stormwater, we're bringing it all in to that location and then holding it and then dispersing it.

out kind of in the same location that's coming out now, but a little bit slower rate.

I do have a question for the board on behalf of Jordan Bronk, who's the owner operator of Crozet Beach at the Buddhist Biker Bar right behind this study center.

So I met with him and he actually asked about the lighting.

He said he would like to have more lighting on that back wall for the parking lot.

The thing is to distribute it properly.

I don't think you'd be wanting to do it from your building.

You really need to be doing it.

so that it's really down light or low light or whatever.

But if you're casting it from your building, you're just going for glare.

So that's really more the person who owns the parking lot's got to address that problem.

I mean, the other thing I could see, and I don't think this is an issue for your kind of lighting levels, but for instance, have you ever driven by the new Y on 250 at a foggy night?

When that thing is lit up, I mean, it's ridiculous how much light it throws out.

And I don't think your library would do that, but this is something to be aware of when you have a lot of glass, but I don't think that applies to your project.

I mean, you're not, it's not an auditorium and you're not lighting at a hundred foot candles or whatever the hell they have inside of it.

I think it works well on the site and I think the scale is appropriate.

Yeah, so I can chime in a little from a historian's perspective.

I think it's pretty well hidden from the street view, which is impressive considering its size.

And my only other, and again, I'm not, I'm an historian, so I'm not an architect, but

I'm just curious, you've really articulated the administration on the sort of turret corner and the central bay, and then the stair tower at the south end is sort of, eh.

I appreciate that comment and I think there will be some more detailed study going on on that and particularly in creating moments with it from the inside looking out where you might be very specific that's actually where the windows are falling now is very closely calibrated to moments where one could pause on the stair

and get the longer view from the inside out.

And I also really, I kind of like the idea of, you know,

bringing the shingles all the way back.

That does give it some continuity and ties things together.

There was one question Bill Adams asked me, or maybe Tom, you asked me about possibly removing some vegetation in the front in the interim.

I wanted to make sure I didn't forget to bring that up.

And then when you guys have touched on a little bit, I think the only thing I really sort of noticed is that whether there's any landscaping issues.

I don't know, Breck, if there's anything you saw that might need to be expanded on or already been covered.

And there's not much in the front.

And I mean, in some cases, you know, we'd be concerned about losing the number of trees that have been that this would cause.

On the other hand, most of those trees are pretty challenged or swallowed up by the vines.

They're really kind of

invasive.

It doesn't look like any of those were probably planted on purpose.

No, but that being said, I don't know what the there's so little footprint remaining on the site.

Yeah, well, we could talk about that a little bit.

I mean, the notion initially when I talked with Bill Myler the other day was so the students are potentially coming back in September.

They're trying to find some more outdoor gathering space, and they just kind of asked a question offhand.

Could you guys be thinking about maybe what if we took the liriope up in some of these shrubs, and can we put a terrace in there that we could use for seeding?

And my thought initially was I wonder if this is a BAR issue,

I kind of got in touch with Jeff to kind of ask him about that.

Subsequently, you know, it seems like we would probably want to integrate that into the kind of overall design element.

It's not something we would be thinking about executing in the next eight weeks as some sort of a quick solution.

I do have a question regarding the front area.

Those two parking areas, flanking the building,

Those appear to be on the property.

Are they intended to stay?

Yes, they are.

The challenge there is obviously parking on the corner and there's a large amount of staff in the building

But I might say that in taking a look across the front there and what we did discuss is it is an opportunity for us to look at how those parking spaces might be integrated into a plan for that landscape so that there may be times when people don't park there and it becomes an expanded area for gathering.

But when parking is needed for staff parking certain hours of the day, they would be able to park there.

So it may not look like so much like a designated parking but terrace you could park on.

It seems that even in the short term that those are pretty deep stalls.

Yep.

I mean, just for wild, wild question, I could, you know, one thing that,

We're hoping to get people to consider down the downtown area.

And we did actually ask one project that we thought was asking for an unreasonable amount of parking to consider stacking technology, you know, to get, to basically use depth in the, in the lower parking area, you know, where you get two stories out of it, something like that.

I mean, that probably doesn't fit with your financial model, but just again, thinking about ways to get cars off the street in part because

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, we're taking a longer view.

We're hoping that there'll be less parking required in the future.

One thing that would be

I was going to say, I think you guys have, Jeff will help you out with kind of our list of details and items that we like to see when we see a full COA.

I think because you're going for a contemporary design, some wall sections would definitely be useful.

Obviously, we've got the lighting that we've talked about.

Well, I guess Jeff will go through that.

But yeah, unless you guys have any more areas that you want us to look at, or if anyone else on the board has any more comments.

I mean, I think it sounds like there's a lot of support for this.

Oh, yeah.

Why don't we do that, just to be sure?

So this isn't a formal vote, but just to recognize the massing, the concept, is everybody on the board generally would be in favor of approving it?

I would be, yes.

I don't see any no's.

Thank you.

And so while we have the train architects folks on the phone.

Jeff, what are you doing?

Jeff, what are you hiding behind?

I'm trying to do some research while we're, sorry.

I haven't been in my office in 150 days and it's like I'm on a treasure hunt.

Just while we have Tom on the phone particularly.

So I sent out a note to you all earlier today about 418 East Jefferson and the five additional windows that they would like to add.

And this is on that the Fifth Street side on the more contemporary edition at the rear of the historic building.

And it's something I could

I can put on the consent agenda.

I think it does require the formal OK, and I can put it on the consent agenda for September.

But I wasn't going to ask you all for approval of that.

This has nothing to do with Chancellor Street.

OK, so this is balls in my whatever, bailiwick.

basically for reasons of COVID they want to be able to have operable windows where the existing windows are not operable so they the Renaissance School wanted more replacement windows on that east side that's what this that's what this is about

and they fall within a segment of the facade that it's entirely logical to replace them and it's the same details we showed for other windows in that area.

So we were asking if that could happen and if we could go ahead and order them.

and I'm happy to do whatever follow up needs to occur in order to have it run through the BAR.

So as Jeff said, I think this doesn't need to be a vote, but or it could be on the consent agenda.

Maybe it's easier.

OK.

I think it'll be fine.

That's my intent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we'll talk next week.

And I can update Jody on that, too, just to bring him the loop.

All right.

So the next thing, I have the Belmont Bridge update.

I don't know.

to say bye to Bill and all those guys.

Thank you for coming.

Well, thank you all very much.

Yeah.

Yep.

Thank you.

Jeanette is online.

There's Jeanette.

She's here.

Mine on?

Yeah.

So, Carl, if I

I'm going to quickly introduce this to you all and hand it off to Jeanette.

All right.

So this is a sort of similar situation with the coal tower.

This is not a revisiting of anything or approval.

This is back, I think, August or September of last year.

The BAR did approve the COA for

the long awaited Belmont Bridge with some conditions of that COA.

And that is that is what Jeanette has brought to you the seeing and I apologize earlier for I don't know how those sheets didn't end up on the website, but hopefully everybody found what they you know, the information they needed.

So there were

four conditions of the CAR or COA.

And one was about the striations on those concrete panels, which is the elevations that you were talking about.

And they do, in fact, wrap the abutment as you requested.

Some comments about the lighting, which has all been addressed.

This is relative to the normal color rendering, things like that.

The discussion of this ill-fated knuckle, which Jeanette, we can talk with you about.

But one of the things that you all had requested was to provide some sort of advisory review of the special provisions for the concrete panels.

And so if anything in all of this that I think Jeanette was looking for specific input on was

was on that document and what, if anything, you all would like them to add or subtract or massage.

So those are the four things.

And I think also within the update, Tim, you had asked earlier, and Jeanette and I have been talking about this, acquisition of some of these long lead items like the light fixtures,

some of these things after you've specced them two years ago and then they suddenly don't make them anymore.

So there are some things that we're going to have to be rather nimble on with you all and say, well, it's just not something we can get or what will work in this condition and come as close to the BAR criteria.

And the situation we have is within that pedestrian tunnel, the lights, they simply aren't available.

I can't remember the color temperature.

So we got as low as we could get.

And that's one of the things that's an update in there.

And I think what else?

Oh, that was the bollards are in a straight line and not in a semicircle.

But this information, like I said, it's for you all to give you an update.

It's for you to ask questions on.

It is not for us to take a step back and say, well, let's revisit Belmont Bridge.

So with that, I would

I would like y'all to just start with this provision about the special provisions for the concrete panels and start from there.

If you've got anything, if you don't, that's okay.

Okay.

Yeah, I was gonna say to the new BAR members, so Jeanette works in here with me when we used to be in here.

And Jeanette handles for the city these construction of large things like roads and bridges.

Yeah, so I think Jeff covered most of it.

The other changes was a little bit of the lighting on Water Street.

So the Parks Department has replaced the existing lighting with what is considered the residential lighting in the city standards and design manual.

So we're going to take that lighting and extend it further down Water Street to the west under the bridge.

on both sides of Water Street for a total of nine fixtures.

And then we're going to transition on the, what is that?

The southern side, no, northern side of Water Street with the transit station lights.

Those two are no longer available.

So we are using the existing replacement light fixtures that facilities department is using.

So we're adding one light there.

and then also with the mezzanine lighting.

We had previously proposed using the SPI echo effect EEG.

We are now switching that out with the trig exterior wall elegant.

That allows us to reduce the amount of light fixtures.

But again, the color rendering and the temperature are meeting your requirements.

So I think that's largely it.

A little bit of the landscaping has changed.

We've added more shade trees and took away a little bit of the understory trees and the shrubs, but it's just a reduction.

It's not changing the palette at all.

We're just moving things around a bit.

Yeah, I was just looking at the, you know,

the older fixtures, the imitation colonial fixtures, whatever you want to call them.

And I'm still on page sheet 8.2c.

Okay.

And I'm just looking here and it's saying 4000K.

Okay, I can look into if we can change the color temperature of that.

Right, which is pretty blue is my, anyway.

That's one of the reasons these clotheslines are so glaring is because they're covered.

But we don't.

No, no, no, no, I'm not.

I'm not.

I'm just I'm just was curious why they're using 4000.

I suspect that's what everything is.

That is what it is.

I don't know would simply changing the bulb.

No, it's the lamp.