Board of Architectural Review Meeting   10/20/2020

Yeah, I think that, so Breck, you're almost saying, so we, you know, Jeff and Robert have set up the preliminary review, which is the intermediate step between the preliminary discussion and the final COA.

You're saying just submit the COA application and assume it's going to get deferred a couple of times, which I think, I think that makes sense.

And then we're not changing anything in the ordinance at all.

It's just an understanding with the applicant that

Yeah, and I'm willing to give it like we did with 605.

You guys want to come in and just float this?

Fine.

I can fit this in.

We're going to take 15 minutes and float it.

Jeff, would you put your mic down?

Sorry, sorry.

Sorry, I am.

But I don't want to discourage people, you know, because I always, I do have those questions that people call me and say, what do you think?

What can I do?

You know, I want to still, I don't want to like shut off folks that do have kind of, I just want to know where the BAR thinks.

All right, come on and let's talk about it.

That's what we're here for.

So I'm willing to sort of say, yeah, there's this freebie.

The challenge we have is that, and I don't know how this is going to work, we're just going to have to wait and see, is that let's say we're on that first meeting come in, it's a preliminary discussion.

We've all expect, we know that the end, it's a deferral because we can't take action.

That next meeting, it's now, it's on the table.

And they may have only brought in

I don't know, 50% of what we want.

It's very possible that they could say, I don't like your process.

I think it's BS.

I'm going to challenge you on it.

I want a decision tonight, in which case they're refusing to defer it.

You all can't.

Then your action would have to be a denial.

And they can appeal that denial.

But of course, BAR would say, we had an incomplete application.

So that's one scenario.

My concern, again, we'll have to keep working it out, is someone will say, well, why did staff submit an incomplete application to the BAR?

And I think we've all worked with this understanding that that's OK because we're working.

It's an iterative process.

That's how these things work.

But there's just going to be some pitfalls that we may go, huh.

And so that's part of what we're trying to do in these discussions is really say, all right, we know what could go right, what can go wrong, and how do we try to

Is it possible, because you have put a lot of work into this to kind of explain to whoever would have an issue with an incomplete application coming to the BAR to show that this is what we can do.

We can set up a new system where there's preliminary reviews, or we can keep the same system that we've been doing.

We want to stay legal, but we just want to be able to

Can I just jump in on the question of an incomplete submittal?

Shouldn't that be caught at the staff level?

So I guess it gets back to Brecht's point of this is going to get deferred or you need to ask for a deferral because this is incomplete.

It is.

And you know, maybe that's where the statement is of,

Why we stress that in the motion.

And for the following reasons, we're denying this.

And it's not, oh, because Jeff should have never accepted this.

It's because of this, this, this, and this.

And that's why I will tell you, that's why I do bring things to you all.

Each project's a little bit different.

Sometimes it's a simple answer that someone can provide at the meeting.

I don't want to, I mean, unless someone sketched something on a napkin, by and large, I

bring to you what I think we can validly review.

But that's, I'm going to have to ask legal on that one.

And because if I've established it as a complete application, that doesn't obligate you guys to, to approve it.

Are we, um,

I mean, we know that one preliminary review is required, at least one, right?

And by the ordinance.

And then the remaining steps are not for our benefit.

That's for the design team's benefit to be able to get feedback as they need it in the design process.

So can't we just ask them if they are asking for a preliminary review?

as many as they need, or are you asking for a final action?

I mean, we could ask someone.

We can say, you understand that this is going into this.

But who knows?

The owner might show up at the meeting and sit in the back and say, no, I want you to vote on this.

I'm going to appeal if you don't approve it.

and sorry, noises at my house.

So I think we have to be, I think we have to be as diligent as I can be.

And that's what this process, why we can say, you know, this is, you know, remember this is maybe one or two projects a year that we can say, you know, just do you all understand this process?

Are we on the same page?

Cause this is how we're going to do it.

If you wish to do it differently, then you need to let me know.

because the other way to play it is to say this is not a formal application until you all say we're ready to review it as such.

But when they pay that fee and they do that first meeting, preliminary discussion, then they can legitimately insist that the BAR take action.

We're hoping that they won't.

I think every applicant that we've had has tried to, they want their COA as early as possible.

So even if the application isn't complete, they'll try to squeeze it in and say, you know, can you guys put some conditions on it to give me this completed COA?

So I, you know, I think some

And, you know, in many cases, even if we do the preliminary reviews, we're going to get a COA application at the end that may still not be ready for final for us to give a COA and we may still have to defer it.

So I guess I mean, it seems like the question is, we either do these preliminary reviews, and have set up kind of a slightly different system, or we do it the way that we've been doing it without making a formal motion when the application is not like we don't, we won't say we approve this,

without the lighting and the, you know, the fenestration or something like that.

We'll say, we have to defer this.

You need to bring these things back.

I mean, there were a couple part, one was that you all would say, yeah, we're fine with this provided you bring it back and show it to staff.

No, you're either, you know, approving up or down.

Now you could say, you know, we're approving this provided that you use the detail that we just reviewed, provided that you use London plane tree instead of maple.

Um, those are finest conditions, but to, to condition it on sort of something additional that they need to be bringing back and that we look at, um, we've got to avoid those.

Um, but you used a good phrase that you said preliminary reviews, and I think that's a great thing to call these.

instead of preliminary discussions, a preliminary discussion being really, hey, that's Robert.

But it does keep going through the list.

Cause I think I'm seeing it three-dimensionally in my head.

Just keep talking.

I was, I always liked Carl.

method of, you know, if they are asking for approval on a COA, I always kind of like your, it sounds like you're not going to get approval.

Would you like to request a deferral?

And that way, it's not a deferral that we put on them and requires them to bring it back the next month.

They can decide when to bring it back.

And that would mean that we don't have to change anything.

It's just, again, you and Robert need to somehow explain to whoever has an issue with our procedure why we're doing it this way.

Well, I think whether whether we adopt a new system of these preliminary reviews before

an application with an application fee is submitted, or if we just continue to do what we've been doing, especially with 128 chancellor and 167 chancellor, I think it would be good to have some sort of codified guide to give to applicants because I think there's just confusion on multiple fronts.

You know, kind of this discussion of whether it's a

A COA application that gets deferred or is a preliminary review might inform how number two works.

Because if it's a COA application, you have to notify the public, correct?

Even if they get deferred the next time, you have to notify them again.

Even if it's a preliminary discussion, if it has an application, then it is advertised.

So it's the ones where, like, again, with the Preston Court, where I just said, let's just see what you all think.

That's not advertised because there's really no way to do that.

There's no legal

and presumably it would then come back, it would then have an application which would have that first, you know, that discussion doesn't count as their preliminary discussion.

And, you know, that's the thing that maybe made clear is, you know, you guys, if you want to come in and talk 20 times at BAR, when you make that application, your first, you know, because it's about that preliminary discussion requirement is linked to the application.

So, that's something we make clear.

Did Mitchell Matthews understand that?

I think they just want to know, will this thing even, should we even put pencil to paper?

That's why I said to them, let's just go ask, you know, go get a, get some idea.

So it sounds like no matter what, you're always going to notify the public, unless it's not submitted as an application.

Right.

So we're done.

Right.

And that's that, you know, to tell others, because we talked about this briefly the other night, what we don't want is someone we don't want, for example, a 605, which we know is somewhat controversial.

We don't want to go down, you know.

Yeah, we've talked to them six times and they finally brought in.

Yeah, we've been talking to them.

It's on consent agenda tonight because they did everything we asked.

And the public's like, wait, where did we, you know, so that that's the part we have to take care of.

Robert and I might just have to use some judgment on, you know, depending upon where something is or what it is.

You know, and I think maybe just getting it on the agenda as an item.

It's listed, you know, we're reviewing this.

It may not be posted, but people can see it on the agenda.

You know, I'm willing to do that.

I think it's worthwhile having watched how this process works.

I think it's worthwhile.

And in fact, I told talking to Bushman-Dreyfus folks today, you know, they said, well, we've already met twice.

I said, listen, you need to, I would suggest you get us an application and come back in.

And we, you have five new BAR members.

Even if you just review what we already reviewed, then we're all starting on the same

you know, the same spot again.

So, you know, they may not do it that way, but I think they at least want to come in and say, all right, we're going to just reiterate where we are.

And that way everyone knew feels like, you know, it's like me with 167 Chancellor, I couldn't figure it out because I hadn't been there from the get go.

So, I mean, it's just going to take judgment on our part.

So the, I guess question number three, public comment for preliminary reviews.

Well, I think we just take that similar to, because it's going to be on our agenda, it's going to be an agenda item.

We just do that similar to how we would do a COA application where it's, you know, everybody gets their couple minutes of questions and a couple minutes of comments.

But I think we do need to figure out how to take comments for a preliminary discussion.

My

recommendation would be because we get information so late for that.

And there's going to be a lot of information that's going to come up during our discussion.

Maybe public comment comes after we discuss things.

Seems to me like it ought to then go through another sort of closure, the following meeting, whether it's as part of the consent agenda or anything like that, where

the public's had some time to gestate because they've heard everybody talk.

Right, although remember these are just the preliminary discussions.

So in some cases it could be,

Right.

But I mean, I think that's still something that's a sentiment that I think that the applicant really needs to be made aware of.

And, you know, if it just people don't pay attention to stuff until it's the 11th hour.

So my my presumption would be the pre-discussion for a lot of these people is going to be like, oh, my God, what's going on?

And so they're going to need a month to kind of martial air forces.

And if nothing else,

Well, I mean, I think one, there should be public comment, but I wonder sometimes public brings something really important to light that we weren't aware of or didn't show up in the staff report.

That's another part that we're, I think, gonna have to crack down on is, you know, we've, not for everything, but there's been a tendency when I know someone has a question, you know, it's like, tonight would have been a perfect, well, except for this work session beforehand, tonight would have been a great, as a regular meeting, I'd say, hey, I only have a couple items,

Great night to come and talk to the BAR.

Can you get me something that I can circulate to them?

We've had in the past where you all didn't see something until that night.

But Robert and I have been discussing, no, we really want that to be maybe not necessarily the same day as the deadline.

But we want to see it that week so that we can prepare.

You guys have seen we started to do these sort of small scale staff reports.

Just to kind of, because the thing that's most important with this process is, you know, a lot of times we've had people make the presentation and B.A.R.

goes, yeah, that's interesting.

You know, good luck.

Come back soon.

We really need to turn these into, you know, get into, look, we want to see this or don't have that.

You know, there has to be a conversation.

Otherwise, it's pointless to have the meeting.

So that's what I'm just doing these staff reports kind of say, hey, here are the kind of things staff would suggest you have a conversation about.

And that material is essential for keeping for the future.

And also, if we expect to have any kind of,

Pertinent public discussion or presentation by the public that's worthwhile, they need to see it too.

Yeah, I totally agree.

What we've had it is, and I don't want to beat up on Wes's second, but

You know, they come in that night with a 30 page glossy booklet and say, throw recycled what we gave you.

Here's something new.

And that just had to end.

And so we do send a note out to people and saying, we received your application.

You know, you've got I don't remember how much time to get if you got something new, or we asked for something, you know, we want to get that, but

A week prior to the meeting is not the time to... Now, you may bring in a photograph of the site.

You may come in with something that helps illustrate an idea, but we don't want changes presented at the meeting.

So we're pretty good about that.

I did that with 128 Chancellor.

I just said, I'm sorry, this is not on time.

I'm not gonna... It may be complete, but I'm not recommending action.

So it sounds like there will be application materials posted for preliminary discussion.

So then, yeah, I agree with Breck that we should comment, the public should comment before us.

Think about guys, two years ago, you know, I'd go over to Tim's on Saturday afternoon, throw the thing on his front porch.

We're trying to get that stuff posted for you all as soon as we can.

And as soon as it's posted, then it's publicly accessible.

So, you know, now one of the dangers you see is when we post something 12 days ahead and

and we get an update or an addendum and then there becomes some confusion about which is which.

But I think we've worked through those by and large, but yeah, it's there.

You know that neighborhood, what's it called?

that news on its neighborhood watch.

It's a app.

It seems to be neighborhood driven.

Next door, yeah.

I mean, you know, well, Robert, because we felt strongly about

You can only go so far and even by mistake forget to get people informed.

But what's the best way to do that?

And I think the solution is that you get your freebie, but then we need from you an application.

As long as I can resolve with legal the fact that, OK, once that application comes, then we have

We have obligations, statutory deadlines that we have to be cognizant of.

And if someone says, I don't want to play, if you don't like it, deny it, then those are the circumstances.

I mean, we learn from it.

But then that allows that, now I've got the public, because I'm notifying them every time.

And even if they know coming back next month, look, we're going to come back and talk about this.

I know it's going to be another deferral.

I still have to advertise it as a COA review by the BAR.

Yeah, so I still have a concern

I think I raised last time, I'm just going to read through some of the summary bullet points at the end.

One, the BAR will now only grant one COA for each project.

This single COA, you took it away from me.

The single COA shall be understood as representing satisfactory review of all elements required to apply for a building permit.

The next bullet point.

It is also understood that some elements may be reviewed later under a separate COA request.

These matters will be resolved during preliminary review process.

I just feel like those are in conflict with each other.

I just worry it takes us right back to where we are.

Well, my pushback with legal.

All right, so the gate, the gate that

is, well, you won't be reviewing it.

They pulled it.

But the gate tonight for 230 West Main, the code building.

In days of old, that would have just simply been another COA assigned to that old BAR number.

I told Fred, no, it's a new request.

But if the code buildings come back a couple of times and change things, they tweak their brick.

I think there was some alteration of steps.

That is a COA.

You are approving a request related to that project.

Now, you can't say, nope, you already got your COA.

We won't review any changes.

That's absurd.

So I think once we get to that golden ticket COA, getting to that point, the process makes a lot of sense.

It's going that next direction when someone says, I want to change something.

You know, I think we need to be reasonable.

And the only thing I can call is a COA.

Right.

But do we say to them, this is now a separate new request?

I don't I think that sounds like a mess.

I know.

Isn't it the same?

I mean, if you get a if you get a

Thank you.

Thank you.

So that's a little bit of that.

This is where, you know, I don't want to disparage it, but it's sort of that layman's understanding of this process.

You know, they sort of think, oh, well, you finished that the architecture builder goes and builds.

No.

And we want people to come back to us.

We want to be aware of changes.

We don't want to make it so arduous.

And that may be the way to do it is to say that this is a finding that, you know, just like the Planning Commission does with the comp plan, that we find this to be consistent with the comp plan.

You all can simply, you know, it's a finding that this is consistent with the COA.

Now, there's no application for it.

It's like when we do something for the BAR record.

So we're not in violation of the code.

And I mean, they could always go back and do what was previously approved.

But to address what I said about some of these things that can be worked out in this preliminary process, Breck, you brought up a good point the other night about how the quirk, the landscaping,

can become very much a part of the overall design.

So on a project like that, we would say, look, we really want to see all this together.

Whereas there might be something that the way it's presented, you say, look, we know that some of the signage comes later.

There might be some landscape.

We may be able to say, you can bring that back and we'll

I just thought of signage and landscaping and sometimes those things that come in at the end.

Yes, you guys said legal helped you all develop this document.

It's okay.

I'm sorry.

It's understood that some elements may be reviewed later under a separate COA request.

So maybe you want to say major additions or changes to the project may require a new COA.

Is that what you're trying to get at?

Or because it also sounds like you're trying to get at, you know, if it's a small modification, it's not a separate COA.

It's we're just going to review it in compliance with the current compliance.

Right.

Well, so the in compliance, like, for example, the changing of the brickhead code building.

Previously, we had said, oh, that's an amendment to the COA.

No, there's no amendment it is or it isn't.

So I think you hit on it.

We say this is consistent with, we find this to be consistent with the COA.

Or no, we don't find this consistent with the COA.

But it kind of gets into that same problem of what's the legal standing of rejecting that?

Can someone appeal the rejection of

And guys, I'm not saying this thing is perfect.

This is sort of what we're making work within our system.

And we're probably going to find holes that lead to things that have to change with the code.

So I'm not going to argue my way out of a hole if it's really a hole.

I think that one's a hole.

But that's those amendments.

The other part is, are there components of the project that could be evaluated at a later date?

For example, a building that's going to have a large mural on the side.

I don't know.

You know, maybe you're like, we're not talking about the mural yet, but they're building that wall so they can put a mural on it.

Right, but you don't even have to list that.

I mean, that's just a new COA for a new project.

Right.

And so that's where we could say even, right, so you don't have your landscaping ready?

Fine.

Yeah, the landscaping though needs to be ready because that's part of the site plan.

I think so.

The site plan is required for building permit.

But I think I would just strike that whole sentence, that bullet point.

In the comments that I gave to the staff, I had struck through the whole thing and actually I asked, it seems counter to what the whole new process is.

there shall only be one COA for each project.

And whether when they come back, whether it's called an amendment or whether we're just finding that it's consistent or whatever the wording is.

But yeah, thank you for deleting that.

I completely agree with James and conversations got on for a while.

It really was very misleading.

The way to think of it too is a COA that allows me

It shouldn't say it is understand that they may be reviewed under a separate COA.

It would never be a separate COA.

But look at the bullet point just above it, Jeff.

This is the document we were sent today and that we've been reviewing for the last hour.

And that's where it could be struck.

It should be, I think.

I think I'm not the only one.

But there's the two pieces of that, not saying we don't strike, it's the, you know, what do we do for changes?

And what do we call that?

Have you asked City Attorney about that?

I think it's an amendment.

I just think, like, for instance,

You may approve a site plan.

And I know this happens a lot, or somebody in zoning does.

And then they come back and they change something because the material is not available or circumstances change or something, or they've run into an engineering problem.

That's an amendment to the site plan.

Right.

But what do I call it?

We'll come back.

So it's nomenclature as to what you call it, it's semantics, but it will happen.

I was, you know, and maybe I'm using the wrong language in there.

It's where there's something that might be, and again, Quirk is the one that

comes to mind because it was separate parcels.

And that landscape area on the east side seemed to just sit and sit and sit, but they were going with the building and all that.

And it came in separately.

And when we put this together, the intent of this line is simply to say, if there's something that's a later phase, a later... It's...

It's not part of this design phase in which we can get you to a building permit, then let's identify it now so that we understand that that, like the landscaping at Quirk, is a separate COA that you're going to have to bring back later.

Now, you also can say to them, no, we want to see the landscaping now, or we're not approving it.

That was my intent when I said it.

I think your mural example was a better example because the quirk is a separate parcel, so it is a separate COA automatically.

It's a separate project.

We were able to approve the entire Quark project without that and they may never build it and that doesn't change the fact that the Quark project has its approval.

So your mural example I think is a good one and we need to be able to approve a project without a mural and it needs to be able to stand on its own without a mural.

If they want to come back and add one later, that's just a new COA, it's a brand new project, it just happens to be slapped on to an existing project.

I think it's just up to us to identify those things.

Say a building has a roof terrace that they're not going to build out right now, but we feel like we can improve the project.

And we need to be okay with the project without that roof terrace being completed, you know, if they decide never to do it.

Yeah.

It sort of solves itself maybe in that, you know, if they don't bring it up during the discussion and they come back and say, well, that's new, that's a new, that's not a consistent with the COA.

This is a new submittal.

So, yeah, I agree.

This can be struck.

And then it forces us though, where the yellow highlighted is to really figure out what we're saying there.

Can I ask a question, a point?

Just as we've been talking, I kept getting confused which came first and which came second in terms of preliminary discussion and preliminary reviews.

Could we possibly

maybe change the name of preliminary reviews to like intermediate reviews, just to kind of avoid that confusion in the future.

There is actually a legal word in our code and it's not even preliminary discussion.

Let me find that.

I think it's a word that's sort of crept into our

Language, and we can't get it out, but maybe that's what we have to do.

I'm not talking about the first one.

I know, I know.

Yeah.

That makes sense to me.

And it does get confusing something.

Reapplication conflicts.

Okay.

Well, I think that's a good point because, sorry, there's somewhere in there that said the, as this document called preliminary review, which would be the second step, isn't even required.

Right.

It's just recommended.

Well, here's the thing.

So I agree with Sonia that maybe getting a little bit more differentiation between those two terms would be helpful.

So for the code, prior submission of an application for a COA,

a property owner, et cetera, et cetera, may request a conference with the full BAR.

And they call this a pre-application conference.

So there's the may, so they can ask without an application.

Then it says a pre-application conference is required.

And this is where we get into these conditions, the primary one being a project that estimated cost is in excess of $350,000.

In the code, that's a pre-application.

That means they haven't submitted anything.

But we all, the BAR can still, remember you have that 60-day clock, so you can treat that first meeting, that's your discretion.

You don't have to take action, you can defer it on your own.

So I need to clarify these actions.

So there's going to be a

a freebie, as we called it, because it's required.

So, you've got the free chance to come in and say, should I even bother with this project?

followed by if it's bigger than what you say $300,000, it's a required preliminary discussion.

And as Sonia said, the next step should be an intermediate review or something like that, which I think makes total sense because it is confusing to have.

So pre-application conferences, the language in the code.

and then intermediate review.

And then a, what's the final one?

Just the COA application.

COA application.

And I know in the past, you know, at least when I first started, they would do it where if an applicant had something, you know, they could go and have their app.

We would remember have you guys come in.

I think we did it once or twice and in twos and talk to an applicant.

I think that what we're doing is shifting that to know you come to the BAAR meeting.

You know, the pre-application conference is not, you know, they didn't come in and talk to me whenever they want.

But if they want to talk to the BAAR,

We've had work sessions before where an applicant comes in and we meet on a separate night to discuss a project.

You're right.

And I'm, to be honest, I wouldn't discourage the meetings with two of us if an applicant really wants that.

It just, you know, there may not be a lot of us that want to do that.

That's what we've in the past treated as this pre-application conference was that

informal meeting outside of a BAR meeting.

I'm not saying they can't do it, but my preference is to call.

If this is your pre-application conference and it's required before the full BAR, then it should be during the BAR meeting.

You can go talk and meet, but we're, you know, and you're right, Carl, there are circumstances like with West 2nd when we set up that revolving door thing.

You know, we can adapt as we go.

but at least sort of the standard language in that it's right.

Yeah, and I guess the, well, we can still have a preliminary, right, right.

So it's 5 16.

The meeting will be on channel 10 at 5 30.

And I think it would be personally great to maybe take a five or even 10 minute break before that if you all agree.

So it'd be good to go ahead and try to wrap up this conversation pretty quickly.

I've taken pretty good notes from tonight's discussion and I'll try to call them together.

But that being said, I still am a little confused over the direction that you've decided to take.

So I just might ask for some clarification.

When I revise this document, are you still looking for this three-pronged, this three-stage preliminary discussion, preliminary review, and then the COA application process?

And this would be a change from what we're doing now, what we've done with 167 and 128.

because if that's the case, especially when we were talking about public notification in the letters, it seems like a lot of that conversation was hinging on we would be reviewing CLA applications that would be submitted.

I'd just like to take a stab at this.

I completely agree with Sonja that two processes that start with the word preliminary is just going to be so confusing.

So I would propose that the first level, non-binding, no vote, informal, is called a preliminary discussion, which I think is what we currently are talking about.

And then the level above that, I would ask that that be called what we have in our code, which Jeff has said is pre-application conference.

And that's required by the code on major applications, but that would be where we

may formally defer it.

We may try to get consensus or have more concrete discussion, not just to give them, I mean, really to give them guidance so that the next thing they do is submittal.

I think so.

And they can, because it allows you to, I mean, for example, I've told the folks at Bushman-Dreyfus,

Go ahead and submit something.

Let's start this process.

And so it doesn't hurt you.

You have to pay the fee sooner or later, as long as we all understand what the steps are.

It's been what's in this draft document.

So Cheri, I was with you right up until that last second.

That's a good question.

It seems like we could.

Yeah, you could have separate pre-application conferences for massing and then design different elements.

I think the other question we talked about today is just sort of the use of our resources and our time.

I think I like the way you framed the first two pieces and I wonder if it ends up being four steps but I wonder because a separate argument that I have been making with Jeff and Robert was that I think it's good to get the application in and formalized sooner because

I think the staff needs to provide the BAR with research and a report to actually adequately review and comment on these projects.

And I think they should be paying for that.

So what if we do what you described in the first pre-application conference, the one that satisfies the code is called such.

If additional levels of review are required,

And in that case, we're just going to, we're deferring or the applicants requesting a deferral each time.

So we're not actually changing anything.

I think we're just clarifying what we've been doing.

Correct.

And it's where it's, it's where, and this is very helpful because it's, I mean, I'm sort of doing like a matrix charge here, but the, the, the,

The actions available to the BAR, you know, a preliminary discussion, pre-application conference.

You guys can sit there, you know, stare blankly if you wish.

The applicant, he had, you know, can ask questions.

But there's no, you know, there's exchange of ideas, but nothing's happening.

Then there's this application is received.

What we need to make clear to applicants is that, I mean, unless you're like this thing's, you know, you're ready to go.

The iterative process begins with the understanding that first meeting, the BAR, it can take action if it wished.

It can also defer but an applicant request deferral.

However, that second meeting, the BAR is obligated to act unless the applicant requests deferral.

And so this is the cell that we've got to make to the applicants is you're coming in here,

you know this is your second meeting if you're not ready to request approval because if you push then the response will be a denial so you know you're coming in knowing that you're going to get a deferral and you know so we all know the rules and that I think I think we can make that work and and we can't charge anybody for anything but the the the the

The carrot at the end of the stick is really, well, if you want the BAR to really offer you these positive things or really good advice moving forward, then you need to get to the application phase where we're having the conversations.

We're gonna help you in the first two, but if you wanna get serious with the give and take with the BAR, then you gotta write a check.

Yeah.

But I mean, once it becomes a, so all these intermediate reviews after the pre-application conference or whatever it's called, they pay for that, right?

So then it's, yeah.

So it's basically, it's the system we have now we've kind of gotten full circle around to what we currently have or following the current ordinance.

It actually is.

And they're just not gonna hear the word COA.

And they'll have to know, and we need to be just upfront with them about, what is it you're coming in here tonight for?

Don't come in and say, hey, can you give me masking and scale?

If you're coming in and I talk about masking and scale, let's present on that.

If you wanna talk about your details, let's present on that.

But it's not going to be an a la carte menu anymore.

And like I said, I see it in my head.

Yes, I am.

So I'm trying to, and of course, we'll have the recording of this.

It's all right here.

But it is your right.

We've got five minutes.

And just because we're going to be starting a meeting, let's take a quick break.

All right.

Hey everybody, let's start coming back.

We're gonna go live on the city's channel 10, starting now.

As you're all joining the meeting again, I'll go ahead and give my introductions.

Good evening, welcome to the October 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 streaming channels.

My name is Robert Watkins.

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

Before I hand things over to Carl Schwartz, our chair, I'm going to go over a few guidelines and housekeeping tips to make sure that tonight's virtual meeting runs smoothly for everybody participating.

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

First, we have Carl Schwartz, BAR chair.

We're also joined by Brett Gastinger, vice chair.

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

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

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

When the board votes on an item, I'll call you through a roll call vote for the purpose of our minutes.

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

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

And then before the BAR deliberates on each individual application, we allow time for public comment.

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

And then when we get to the comment portion of our agenda, you can raise your hand using the raise hand feature and I'll unmute you.

If you're calling in,

You can press star nine on your phone and that will raise your hand.

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

So for members of the board who use chat or the Q&A feature, just a reminder that you're welcome to use these features, but if you do so, it is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

For applicants who are currently already online, you're currently in the meeting as 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 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 temporarily, but then you'll automatically comment back in as panelist.

So just hang tight when that happens.

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 that you submitted for visual aid.

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

To applicants and board members, if you'd like me to go to a specific page, please give me a verbal command to direct me to that page number.

And as needed, we can take short periodic breaks during the meeting and our chair will direct us when a break is necessary.

And you're muted.

All right.

Yeah, you think I figured this out at some point.

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

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

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 prior to taking action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond.

Thank you for participating.

Times noted below are rough estimates only.

Carl, if I may interject, I just want to bring notice to anybody who's watching or joining the meeting.

Item seven on the agenda, which is the code building gate at Water Street, they won't be discussing this tonight.

Thank you, Robert.

I forgot about that.

Right now we've got public comments.

So these are matters in public, not on the agenda, or if you have any comments on our consent agenda, which tonight includes 128 Chancellor Street.

If you have any comments, please use the raise hand function.

Yes, star nine on the phone if you're calling in.

And I'm looking at the attendee list now.

All right.

Okay, I will call a vote.

Mr. Moore.

Aye.

Ms.

Mr. Lehendra?

Aye.

Ms.

Mr. Zehmer?

Mr. Schwartz?

Aye.

Oh, and Mr. Gastinger?

Aye.

All right, so the consent agenda passes along with 128 Chancellor Street.

Okay, I've got it.

Sorry for all the yelling, there was a

Bird flying around my house, you know?

Figures.

So that was me.

I'm just like, it's like, here bird, here bird.

I don't know where it is, but all the windows, the doors are open.

So let's hope it goes out and not more come in.

All right, good evening, all.

COA request for 1619 University Ave.

We reviewed this at the last meeting and it was deferred.

The structure was built in 1959.

It is in the corner ADC district and it is a contributing structure.

The request is for the replacement of the exterior lighting.

And we had a good discussion last month,

requested information from the applicant, including some renderings at night and some additional information on the fixtures.

Staff has reviewed that and we do, you know, they've confirmed that the order, the color temperature of the lamping will not exceed 3000K.

You all had requested maybe consider some additional, well, there was some discussion about some vegetation trimming or a tree being removed, and then that was removed from the site plan.

So,

I just added Ryan McGrath and Josh Wagoner who represent the project.

I'm not sure

if there are other people in the queue that I'd forgotten about who are associated with this project.

Yeah, so this is a Bank of America site.

The idea is to bring up the lighting levels at all these sites for security reasons and safety reasons within a 50 foot radius of ATMs entrances and so forth.

Last time we spoke, I believe there's issues or concerns about the lighting levels and

Josh with GMR, I believe, sent some renderings to you guys, which you had requested, and I believe we sent some additional cut sheets.

Yeah, hey, this is Josh Wagner here at GMR.

Yeah, we were asked for additional renderings for what the site would look like, following up to different sides of the site.

We were also asked to confirm

We can, in fact, get it to 3K.

This site was approved non-compliant due to some city ordinances that we just couldn't meet while meeting compliance.

But with that being said, we want to be able to light as much as we can for security reasons, strictly for people being able to use the ATM at night.

So that's our general purpose, as well as upgrading the site lighting.

We have mixed-matching lighting on site right now, ranging from 57K down to 3K.

So this will unify that as well, make everything look cohesive and aesthetically pleasing.

So that's our main goal, what we're trying to achieve now.

All right.

If you have public, oh yeah, I do have a hand raised.

Well, I own a property sort of next door, but I'm also an astronomer, and I was wondering if the lights have downward facing reflectors to keep the light from illuminating the sky as much as possible.

That's something that astronomers, I'm not on this meeting for this, but since this came up, I'm going to point that out.

I'd be sure to have it.

So yeah, all of our fixtures are full cut off fixtures, meaning all of the light is directed 90 degrees down.

We have no uplight on the site whatsoever.

And I don't see anything.

Okay.

So, Josh, I was just curious.

Gary Albright is actually the landlord of mine on one of the buildings that's adjacent to this property.

And the new pole that you're putting in

I don't know what I would describe as the back left.

I'm looking at the plus and minus.

I'm guessing that's like a lumen scale or something.

And directly in front of the light, it has a plus 3, plus 3.1, plus 3.5.

But behind it, it's plus 0.2, plus 0.1, things like that.

For a layman such as myself, how does that translate into lighting glaring in somebody's eye?

Yeah, so that's a great question.

They are not pluses.

They're just a point, really, is where the calculation's being pointed at.

But I totally get where you're coming from.

Yeah, so those are calculations at grade.

So that would be if you took the light reader, you put it on the ground, and it was facing up.

That would be what your foot candles would be.

So right in that area, I'm trying to figure out which pole exactly you're referring to.

I think it says pole 12.

That's the lowest one there.

Yeah.

So that is a type five fixture, but it is facing, I'm sorry, that's the area edge.

It's a type four fixture with backlight control.

So the UAX1, which would be on the bottom left hand corner, okay.

It's facing away from the parking garage.

I would have a backlight shield facing the property line, so no light throw would be going past it.

Well, I say no.

It'd be 0.2.

The difference between 0.1 and 0.5, you can't tell with the human eye.

So there would be essentially no light trespass past your property line on the back from that area.

So that fixture in itself

has a shield on the back of the fixture.

I'm sorry, these are on the diodes.

They don't have big clunky fixture backlight shields anymore.

They're on the LED pods in the fixture now.

Cool.

Any other questions before I go on to public comments?

Let's see, anyone.

Please raise your hand if you have a comment.

I'm still just a little concerned about the lighting levels around the ATMs and in the flare.

I'm just thinking, I mean, there are three wall packs right around that ATM and the rendering doesn't really show us what that's anticipated.

Just going backwards a little bit, Jeff, we have asked for dimming controls on all of this, correct?

Where is Jeff?

That's something we've requested and the fixtures are available with dimmers.

It's not part of the, as I understand, part of the light or the lamp itself.

I think it's a separate controller.

So I would

Mostly just because I mean, without something to give us a reference for what's really going on nearby, like I know, you know, they're showing what their lighting is doing relative to the property line, which is kind of a

a weird concept anyway, but that's an old, somewhat misguided approach anyway, which has nothing to do with what they're proposing, just more our ordinance.

But I guess my question is, I'm a little concerned about the ATM being a real hotspot.

And if that's something that can be adjusted in the field somewhat, because I know the LEDs, you wouldn't be

swapping out bulbs, the LED package for some time because they've got such a long lifespan.

But it seemed to me like the foyer and any place where there's a real concentration that we'd want to have some capability of dealing with potential for glare.

I'd be happy to address those comments.

So I believe you had three comments, if I remember correctly.

I'll start with the hotspot one, the ATMs.

So every state in the United States requires ATMs to have 10 foot candles within five foot radius of an ATM.

That's minimal, right?

This has been approved non-compliant, but we still want to be as close to that as possible as we can.

Again, strictly for being able to have people to have visibility around the ATM while they're utilizing it at night.

So that's our main reason for that.

And if I'm referencing LU4 on my sheet, I don't know what it is on the engineering drawings, but it would be the full site caps with all the little plus sides.

The highest I have in front of an ATM is 15, and it's directly in front of the ATM, and then it dies off about 10 foot later before the property line to 0.0.

So your hotspot is strictly maintained to the site.

Greg, I guess I just wonder about, you know, if it, for instance, well, the USB one, that's a wall pack, yes?

Yes, USA two and USB one are both wall packs.

UBO-1 is a canopy mounted fixture, so that will be mounted to the canopy facing straight down.

Your fixture facing straight down.

So you wouldn't actually notice it.

Yeah, right.

So to be able to get a rendering of that, it would be really misconstrued and you'd probably have a big tree in front of it to be able to get up in there.

It's probably possible and I could definitely try to get that to you, but you have a huge archway that it's upset about three foot.

So that's the reason for not having a great rendering of those.

I quite understand, but that portion there, um,

That's just the way, just the way the foot candles lay out.

It's just, we run real world scenarios.

Everything you see is built up.

The stairs are built up.

The handrails are built up.

The archways are built up.

And the canopy, as you can see in the renderings, it could be anything.

It could be on the other side of a step.

Why you have a two foot.

which is why everything you're seeing here is real.

So I mean, I could see, I mean, I understand about the ATMs.

I could see maybe though, like with that foyer, I mean, you could have a pretty low light rail level in there and still be able to perceive it, work with the lighting level, whatever's actually on the sidewalk.

I mean, that's what makes it a little hard to understand too, is it just doesn't really deal with ambient light

That was another comment I wanted to touch on for a moment.

build in other people's fixtures is because we don't want to rely on them for our security.

Okay, if somebody were to get robbed at 4am and the street lights decided to go off at 3.30, right, but we built them into our design saying, yes, this person will be safe here given this fixture is on.

but for whatever reason the city fixture is out, I have no control over that.

But yet we gave a design saying it would be packed, right?

So I think we've, you know, Tim, I think your memo that you sent to all of us kind of, you know, we don't really have the tools to

to review this the way that we want to.

And I think the applicant has given us everything that we've asked for.

You keep mentioning dimming.

It would be great if you guys could put dimming on these.

I'm not sure if we have any power to enforce that.

But suppose you get it all installed and you discover that, no, it really doesn't have to be so bright.

I know they're all LEDs, but you could potentially have some energy savings.

Yeah, I think we talked about this the first time we spoke about having dimming on everything outside of the compliance area.

I think we spoke on that for a moment.

The problem is most of these fixtures affect our compliance area.

So if we dim it and it doesn't catch somebody walking into the compliance area, then we're still under our lumen output that we want to be at.

It's a slippery slope.

Yes, ma'am.

That's not only a Bank of America.

That's a financial institution requirement.

So five foot from each exposure after hours deposit, whether it be lobby, ATM, five foot radius around that ATM needs to be a maintained 10 foot candle minimum, right?

at three foot above grade.

Lots of different foots here.

I completely understand how it can be misconstrued.

50 foot around each exposure needs to be at two foot candles, three foot above grade.

And then if you are able to walk up, I'm doing my walk up motion with my fingers, but if you're able to walk up to an ATM and you're able to park and walk to that ATM, that parking spot also needs to be two foot candles.

Okay.

That is a regulatory IES standard for all financial institutions in a regulated state, which Virginia is.

Thank you.

So I will also say that although we're giving you a lot of trouble with this, the lighting that exists is awful.

And I recognize that this is going to be a vast improvement.

We are nervous.

But I think we're also not experts enough to know how best to regulate this.

I would just add that I've appreciated your candor and your willingness to sort of work through this with us.

I'm certainly not picking on you at all.

We do this all across the United States.

We keep in mind we look up the ordinance first.

But we have an obligation to the bank to meet the state statute before the ordinance.

And then if it just happens that we can't meet it, and then we go through this process.

And I wanted to thank the applicant just for taking into consideration all of our

And there was a long list of requests and incorporating them into the submittal for this meeting.

Do I have a different packet?

So I did amend the packet recently just to make sure that the lighting plan for 128 Chancellor Street was in.

All right.

Okay, Mr. Gastinger.

Hi.

Mr. Lehendro.

Aye.

Mr. McClure.

Aye.

Mr. Moore.

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz.

Aye.

Ms.

And Ms.

Lengel.

Aye.

Well done.

Oh, and just to Melissa Colombo, she's the applicant.

And everyone on?

Ready to go?

You tell me when.

We should be good.

All right.

We should be.

Always.

Well.

Always.

This is a COA request for demolition of an existing structure.

This project is located 204 Hartmans Mill Road.

It is a individually protected property within the city.

The background on this, there's a

This is a property with a house on it.

There had previously been a stable and chicken coop that had been surveyed there.

They disappeared.

But the house was constructed sometime in, we think, 1873 with ongoing additions through 1920.

At issue is the cottage and is a request for the demolition of the cottage.

Evidence suggests that the northwest corner of the cottage was constructed 1900, 1910 with additional

Editions through the 1920s with the east side and the rear shed component added later.

And then with there's a rear bathroom area would have been, we think the final phase.

This property is the house known as George T. Nemo house.

Again, the house, at least one corner of it was booked in 1870s, we believe 1873, multiple editions over time.

We know that there were three periods of construction from old surveys in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1915 to 1920.

And these periods of construction, and the same thing with the shed, actually correspond with a growing household.

Mr. Nemo's son and wife moved in and proceeded to have, I think, like 10 children.

And it's interesting to see the house reflect that growth.

We discussed this at the September meeting, and my recommendation was in lieu of an engineer's evaluation that I felt like staff and members of the BAR could go and take a look at it and make a good judgment.

And so on the 22nd of September, four members of the BAR in two groups, and I was there, visited the site and inspected the cottage.

also found an old family cemetery.

So it was quite an interesting evening.

I think the owners were wondering how long we were going to stay.

The applicant has submitted photographs.

We've had folks visit the site and my recommendation is after examining the structure, the opinion is that the cottage is in a significantly deteriorated condition.

And while there might be individual components, for example, some windows, et cetera, or maybe some materials, bricks, floorboards, maybe some of those are salvageable for reuse elsewhere, but rehabilitation of the cottage, whether in that place or relocated, would require significant, if not entire demolition, with the reconstruction incorporating only a limited amount of salvageable original material.

Staff recommends approval of the demolition COA and with a condition that the applicant provide for the BA archive, a scaled sketch drawings, the structure, rough floor plan, rough roof plan, and the four elevations.

And we already have a copious inventory of detailed photographs of the site.

So really just the sketch would be, we would need to document this.

And I have

summarized in here as normal for a demolition request.

The questions are in there, but by and large, I've already sort of summarized them in the discussion.

So if you've got any questions, I can certainly answer them.

And I know Melissa is here to answer any questions.

Just a point of clarity, it's also a demolition of a tree, correct?

No.

No, yes, there is a tree that we need to come down.

It's, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

There's like an ash tree that is right next to the existing house, and it is leaning towards the cottage.

Yeah, no worries.

I think it's, so if you keep scrolling, it's, I think it's a good, maybe not, maybe there's not a photo there.

It's actually raised up their exterior heat pump up by like a foot in the last couple of years.

They had an arborist come out.

There it is.

It's at the bottom of the screen.

They had an arborist come out to try to save it.

And it's just been, you know, it's going to come down one way or another.

Well, Ms.

I mean, other than the documentation that was submitted, you know, I think it was also, I recall putting it in there that

The property owners I talked to, one of the big problems with that cottage is that they had a major septic backup into it, which I think was just the slippery slope, if you will, of the deterioration of the interior of it.

There's a ridiculous amount of mold.

even if it were to be restored to its fullest, it'd be like similar like going out to Monticello where there's like areas like there's buildings in which you can't even occupy, like very, very low ceilings.

So it's not even in the best of shape, but it's literally inoccupiable.

If you have public comment, please use the raise hand feature.

OK.

Questions from the BAR?

All right.

Again, please raise your hand.

All right.

Have we formally asked the applicant to just sort of photograph and do any recording or whatever before the demolition occurs?

That's sort of a commonplace thing.

Maybe the applicants already agreed to that.

And I'll share with Melissa some of what we've done, requested on other projects.

If you recall the, what was it, 845 locus, they had already provided some sketches from before.

But I think, you know, a good example is what, there was the garage over on Lexington.

So it's, the photographs are good, but they, the sketch drawing just provides that context of, you know, what it is we're looking at in the photos.

And,

So not looking for some sort of a measured architectural drawing, but just a sketch that would be sufficient to provide reference for the photographs.

I don't have an issue with that at all.

and I would ask even a bigger favor as the building is coming down, maybe taking some photographs in our inspection of the cabin, we found that above the ceiling, there is a painted door or the roof framing is painted as if it was a finished area originally.

or previously.

Absolutely.

We can definitely take care of that.

I'm not sure, again, I can't recall if I noted it in there, but if there's any materials like some of the wood siding, anything that can be reclaimed, the goal is to reclaim that because after this, the whole point of this cottage coming down is to be able to put an addition for a modern family that's growing that would like to add an addition on it.

Jody, you're tall enough.

He put his head through the ceiling.

James and I found something to stand on.

We took out a couple of light fixtures so we could look up above.

The only other comment I'd have is I definitely agree with staff that it's kind of beyond repair.

And then sort of unrelated to the cottage or the tree, but it does relate to the staff report and our site visit, I would just encourage the owners to try and clear out around the cemetery that was found just a little bit just to

I believe they have, I think they knew that the cemetery was there, but maybe not exactly where it was, but I believe that they have maybe contact information of some sort for like distant relatives, something of that sort.

I'll make a motion.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code including ADC guidelines for demolition, I move to find that the proposed demolition satisfies the BAR's criteria and is compatible with this individually protected property and that the BAR approves the request as submitted with the following condition that the property be documented prior to demolition and during

during demolition, including sketches or other documentation that can be made.

Okay.

Mr. Gastinger.

Aye.

Mr. Leandro.

Aye.

Mr. McClure.

Aye.

Mr. Moore.

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz, aye.

Mr. Zehmer, aye.

Ms.

Lewis, aye.

And Ms.

Lengel, aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

All right, Melissa.

Good to meet you.

We'll talk soon.

Thank you, Melissa.

And let's see.

You all had a discussion about this last month, and I know Patrick had had some communication issues.

But this is, using our old word, a preliminary discussion.

I guess we would call this a pre-application conference.

And really, it's just working towards

Continuing on that discussion we had, I think Patrick's got some questions.

And my goal would be that we focus on what in the application, what additional information, any details, et cetera, that this could come back in November or at least come back the next time as a final application for action.

And so I won't

Bill Labor or anything that's on, but I would suggest, you know, use the staff report to sort of to as a cue to some questions and things that we may want to get questions answered from Patrick and vice versa.

OK, first thing, well,

I don't know what it's for.

Oh, OK.

That was the material that I included in the packet.

I can share my screen.

That would be great.

Let me know if you have that capability.

Otherwise, I can work with you to.

So.

So, well, greetings.

Good evening.

Thank you for your time.

And I guess for first things first, I mean, I really do want to apologize for the technological snafu.

Last month I learned the hard way what happens when you're on satellite service and you have crossed the threshold of your allowable data, which is to say it's like being put on a time machine and going back to the early 90s and you're on, you know, the modem.

So I basically hit a point where I had literally no service, so I had to back out.

So I'm glad to be back.

Looking forward to having some input.

I'm assuming that you all have had a chance I mean actually you would not have seen this so you're seeing what I'm I've got on the screen for the first time You've only had the benefit of the the previous Is that correct?

That sounds great.

Yeah, that sounds correct Okay, so well at least I can say I had the benefit of

I guess the minutes, the recording of the commentary that took place in absentia for me.

So I did actually take a good bit of that to heart and took some additional time to incorporate some of those comments.

Even though it's unofficial, I basically, I think I needed a little bit of a nudge on some of the issues that we've been kind of struggling with

So I guess since y'all are all seeing this for the first time, I thought maybe I was going to just give you kind of a nutshell and you hadn't seen the narrative, which is pretty, pretty loaded.

Your eyes probably would have glazed over anyway.

So I can just give you kind of a basic update relative to what you saw last time.

And so we're going to back up a little bit.

You don't need to.

So here's I guess y'all maybe see a copy of this.

after this.

So I've kind of laid everything out there.

What I'll do is obviously not get into so much depth in terms of the verbiage, but I don't know if anybody really knows the property.

I'm not going to walk through every one of these, but I kind of laid this out just to give you a sense of the existing character, existing lay of the land.

We're dealing with a very tight site, very challenging one in that it is a pie-shaped

a lot, of course.

And so when it's very limited from front and then it opens up to the back and we're kind of taking an unorthodox approach to redevelopment in the form of a duplex.

So in other words, it's a front and it's a rear unit.

And the big challenge, of course, is accessing the second unit, which would be the addition, of course.

So what you're seeing, of course, is the front

Besides these, I assume you can see my pointer, so the real, I guess, initial challenge, I know it was commented upon, which was, you know, why not access the site from this?

This is actually the north.

I'll get to the site plan in just a second, so it'd be easier to be oriented.

But you're seeing what would be, what would seem to be, and what I looked at initially as the obvious way to enter and create new access to the site, which will be down that north boundary.

But the lot line actually is,

about right there is inside the arborvitae.

And so it's a very, and it basically follows the, or establishes, or access would squeeze within the 10 foot setback.

So it really is a, it would be a kind of shoehorn job.

And I'll say, because I don't have any graphics depicting that option of going in on the north,

that I ruled it out pretty quickly.

I looked at it, and then I realized how many challenges.

On one hand, it would not be absolutely impossible, but nearly so, because it's not just squeezing through here.

It's once you get down, let's see, need to back out a little bit.

Once you get down into, let me go to the site plan actually.

I may have to refer back to those images.

So we're talking about the challenges in getting down through here.

Let me back up real quick.

Where I really started, which was just listening, if you will, to the site, telling me the only place any kind of building

And that really stems from our primary concern other than the agenda of clearly we're trying to expand occupancy or double the occupancy of the site.

We are deeply concerned with the impact, not just the literal site and ecological impacts, particularly relative to these three large white oaks and of course the other trees, but architecturally, but then beyond that,

on the adjacent properties, mainly the occurs then.

You know, there's a residence over here, there's more buffer, less concern, and I'll kind of get to that in just a minute.

Between the impacts that would come naturally from construction and beyond that, I've quickly ruled out going down this side, there are a number of great, you know, trees and shrubs, most of which are native, couple of, there's a

on 20 to 24 inch persimmon a couple of other persimmons in here they're not shown so you've got some nice vegetative buffer here you've got a large loblolly pine right there and so coming into this on the north side would necessitate removal of all of that and then some retaining wall right up on the property line to just make the vehicular access

I'm sure that would be feasible because it would obviously necessitate encroachment during construction on the Oakhurst property and I can't assume that that would be allowable.

And then beyond that, once you're developed and assuming it would be approved and would develop and folks would be living there, then the Oakhurst Cafe, which is, the seating is right there as you all probably know,

would be subject constantly to the comments and donates of the residents to the rear unit.

So we did, you know, look, let's skip ahead real quick, to different options.

I know that, you know, going back to this, which is our preferred option, and it's certainly unorthodox, it's what we're calling the crosscut entry scheme,

I did take to heart, you know, there was some commentary about the original layout, which was pretty ambitious and I think the word crazy or outrageous was applied and I would agree that it was going a little far in terms of the amount of site coverage.

So we did dial it back and I wanted to show, you know, a couple of other options with this first one here.

would be, I would say it's the path of least resistance where you, you know, tap into, if you will, what's already in place, which is two parking spaces, of course, improve that condition, but peel off of it and get around to the south, on the south-southern boundary, and then provide the two additional spaces.

So this would be the scheme that would meet the minimum requirement for total parking spaces.

And then, of course, the one that I think every, whoops, sorry,

Everyone really wants to see is just a new curb cut.

And you come in, you know, down the south boundary line, and you have a total of, you know, four spaces to meet the requirement, but you then peel back that curb cut so that you're not you don't have a net loss to the park and around the circle.

And you gain a little bit of extra, you know, landscape space there.

So you know there they are so what we're trying to do is back to the point earlier around impact when I talk about the neighborhoods I really mean as well the circle, the parking, the pressures that are already you know there pretty substantially so we're thinking with this game that if we can hold on to

You know, being realistic here, hold on to two spaces, develop this in a way that is minimally impactful, but we provide the four spaces.

So we have a total of six being realistic, you know, you're going to have six residents within this duplex.

Also thinking about how, you know, each resident is zone one permit.

that everybody would actually have a permit, their guests would be allowed to have a permit.

So we're really thinking in terms of the bigger picture around leaving parking pressure.

Now part and parcel to this scheme is the other, one of the other requests I guess that we're making which is to be allowed an alteration to this side porch.

So back to the images.

You know, it's in not so great shape.

Go back to this one.

And I did.

I just want to chime in.

I emailed that out there.

My apologies.

Yeah, we're a little bit sorry we missed that.

Getting that new one posted.

That was my bad.

But I did email what you all are seeing now.

to all of you.

So if that helps to open it on your screens, I mean, certainly following this, but you have a set that you can refer to if that helps.

No problem.

Appreciate it.

Thank you for doing that, Jeff.

So sorry to be skipping back and forth.

I mean, hopefully it's not too erratic.

I just wasn't expecting to have to go through everything.

That's okay.

You know, there's enough information here, I think, to chew on.

This, I think, is hopefully helpful to get.

If you haven't been to the site, which you probably haven't been, you can sort of follow this guide map for different vantage points.

You know, one of the other, speaking of the site, so I'll go back to this, the other issues that we're bringing in, they aren't necessarily subject to approval, but they're just good to know.

is that we are looking to not just overhaul this wonderful home in every way, but, you know, changing its architecture, of course.

But with the site at large, particularly back in the lower reaches of the site are pretty, pretty bad shape.

It's overtaken by a number of invasive plants and it's just sort of been unkept.

So we're looking to just rejuvenate that whole ecosystem and reimagine the landscape without going to the extreme.

So, coming back to the scheme,

So the porch is, I guess, the biggest move, obviously, aside from putting an addition on.

We are looking to basically just take it off and reimagine, rebuild as a shallow sitting porch that then facilitates, obviously, this access, which along with that, we're going to have to have a sort of cheek wall.

So not a major retaining wall, but there's enough of a drop in gray that we need to re-grade it in a way that just requires that edge, which would then, of course, as required, be three feet off the property line, or the driveway would be three feet.

The wall would help hold it in place.

One of the other, I didn't mention that I should have, there's a dogwood here.

So one of the

issues that gave me some hesitation on this southern route was in fact just concern of, you know, impact on the dogwood.

It's, you know, perhaps a six, seven, eight inch tree, so it's a good size dogwood.

And it would definitely be hard to avoid the impact.

And speaking of trees and impact, I want to be clear about, you know, these three oaks here, back to this plant.

You know, they really are the defining trees, you know, at least in the sense of the rear experience because, of course, these two similarly sized trees are really what define it from the road.

This one here, it's close and we're going into this recognizing that we can do everything possible

in terms of the design, the structure.

I mean, these trees, between the setback line and the trees, they really dictate the addition, the dimensions, or at least the width of the addition.

And we're going as far as to, you know, I'm actually gonna share the design model, which I think will be more helpful.

The renderings are helpful, but I think the model may help just as I walk you through the architecture a little bit.

But as we're looking at the plane, you can see,

that there's no way to avoid hitting the root zone of this tree.

We're going to do everything we can to minimize that and to recognize that we may not be able to in the final analysis save this tree, but we certainly can protect and save those two.

There's one that I'm referring to is to be removed here.

That's not just because we need that space for parking.

Here's an image of the base of the tree that I took very recently.

So there's, it's hard to really tell from that one photograph, there's pretty significant decay.

And it's an old hoop, and it's leaning, and so it would need to be taken out.

I mean, in my opinion, at least someone had an arborist actually give an opinion on it, but

I, you know, it's got to come out no matter what.

So just to be clear, we are taking a tree and potentially, you know, it's just hard to know that this one might not make it.

But other than that, this one little holly that's right sort of in the driveway,

proposed driveway space, we would remove that.

So we're, you know, I think we're being pretty light handed when it comes to existing trees and then coming back.

And I haven't worked through a real actual landscape plan just yet.

This is not all paper to present.

But you're seeing just the indication that, as I said earlier, rejuvenation and restoration of works that I've used, the intent being that we're

more than atoning for the loss of many trees that we have to take or that are going to come out by necessity.

So let me skip forward.

Actually, the plans don't really matter much for this discussion, but I will point out that relative to what I'll show you in the model that

Another impact issue is just how the new affects by its connection to the existing.

And we're really keeping it to a minimum and restricting to just sort of plugging it on where there was apparently, I'm gonna go back, this image here is the deck that I feel certain is not original.

And similarly, this looks like an infill panel that was done sometime later, I don't have

It just looks like it was, you know, there was something original, a large opening that was altered and filled in and this is clearly a modern, you know, sliding glass door.

So the addition is really, you know, plugging in to that spade and that opening.

And then there's a very intentional sort of indentation

that kind of classic move of the height creates the kind of hyphen between a modern and existing dwelling.

So I can refer to renderings look cooler, but a model is maybe a little more effective just to kind of walk you through real quick.

This is just the raw, obviously no vegetation, but a little bit of entourage, but just sort of the raw feel.

So you see, you know, the basic of the site.

I guess I can just sort of work my way around without belaboring anything too much.

You see, you know, the color palette is very straightforward.

The material palette is obviously a light color, popcorn texture stucco.

The trim is this really actually wonderful, I call it blue-black, because I'm actually having identified colors yet.

Depends on.

where the sun is, what time of day it is.

But it's definitely this really neat color that we're certainly going to hold on to and just sort of carry through.

And similarly, you know, there's strong, you know, datum here that wraps, you know, and kind of defines the scale of the house all the way around.

And so we're not going to, my intention is not to replicate or

be too heavy-handed in acknowledging it, but just subtly, you know, because it is actually right about at the floor lines.

It's kind of easy where you can sort of tie the datum through.

And of course, you know, the stucco system will have joints.

So I'm right now just showing a really strong horizontal that is the first step, I guess, in tying the two together at that level.

Of course, as the details develop, there'll be more lines.

But like the stucco I'm seeing as with the architecture in general, the addition as I refer to in the narrative as sort of the DNA or that analogy I think a lot of architects like to use is the parent and the offspring.

Of course, in this case, the offspring has grown up and become about the same size as the parent.

But there's a clear distinction, architecturally, as I noted in the plan view, where there's the connector, it's the stairs.

So it's, again, very kind of a common maneuver.

But I'm looking at the stucco distinguishing it subtly from this, you know, rough surface to, you know, very smooth, more of a contemporary approach to stucco.

And at this point, we are thinking it's, you know, a stow high performance wall system.

and then three code system.

And then, you know, windows would be, you know, aluminum clad would follow the patterns without replication, but they're, you know, scaled and organized very similarly.

So again, not facsimile, but, you know, the scale of the massing and the character and the things like, say, rafter tails, the existing, you know, has just very straightforward rafter tail

exposure detailing and then we're looking at potentially maybe doubling them up, you know, adding a little more articulation to the expressed roof structure.

Similarly, the roofing system could be differentiated.

The house, as the notes that you'll read say, you know, it's an existing or it's an asphalt roof that isn't, it's not the original roof and it's in need of

being replaced.

So we're looking at sort of holding to the original character that, you know, I assume it would have been a slate, but it's hard to believe that they took slate off from the asphalt.

But it hadn't been a shingle, I would think.

So we're looking to use a metal shingle, and then on the addition, go back to, obviously, a standing seam.

Some, you know, architectural character points, you know, starting back at the porch.

So, you know, picking up on the datums, the scale, the detailing, these columns don't occur.

There aren't any columns in the house.

So we're sort of taking some license.

and just drawing from arts and crafts precedent, you know, straightforward tapered square columns that in fact are obviously following suit in terms of the color of the trim systems.

These brackets, which are really wonderful, these muscular brackets that are holding up quite a lot of load extended way out.

There's smaller ones that were in one of the images here holding up the

So the bracket motif figures into the new construction in certain ways.

I'm sorry, I'm on the model.

There's a view options tab where you can or if you see a share screen button you can click it again and then you can specifically go to the window.

Man, I do not mind being interrupted when I appear to be going off into La La Land.

I'm sorry about that.

So yeah, I have been talking about this.

You've been looking at the renderings.

I'm sorry, I kind of went off on a lot of stuff.

But everything I talked about is in the renderings.

You just probably didn't know what the heck I was pointing at.

All right, so you all can see the model now?

All right.

I don't want to have to necessarily repeat everything.

I guess you kind of got enough to see what I was getting ready to talk about was just some subtleties, just back to the point around sort of the DNA and tying the new and the old together visually.

So you've got we're proposing what I don't think was originally

So you guys may recall one of those

I actually think two images show this port, this wall, and you can see the remnant, you know, where the stucco had been repaired, you know, where an old porch was plugged on, so we're, you know, plugging on a new one.

But, you know, we're actually trying to hold to that, I guess.

This is clearly a modern, you know, it's a new porch.

What's beyond new would be this.

But it takes its cues as well from this clearly, you know, original shed roof form.

And then this new shed roof form sort of takes its cues.

So you have kind of a system, if you will, or another sort of motif of shed, low slope shed roofs.

This one then becomes, you know, the wall that drops down to grade.

And then just coming around, actually, I'm gonna go back

because I touched on this point relative to the tree protection.

So I noted the structural approach being driven by trying to minimize impact on that root zone.

So we're actually pulling the structure in, tucking it under, cantilevering out just to further reduce the width of the footprint.

So the effective footprint is really here, but we've got this understory sort of porch and entrance to the second unit.

there and you know the foundation system would be a point loaded versus a spread footing you know obviously designed to the minimum amount of structure required to do the job and as we come around to this side which is over at the Oakhurst you see again some of the you know kind of funky stuff relative to windows on this facade

than it is you see from the front.

And to the point earlier about, you know, the sort of hyphen we're at in indenting purposefully here, and then incorporating that dark color in this recess to really emphasize that break between the existing and the proposed.

And then we have this, you know, obviously a flat, quote unquote flat,

I always feel like I'm forgetting something.

I'm sure I am.

I guess I can just stop there and

you know, a welcome questions, feedback, rights, whatever.

Do you want to go back to the, which screen do we want to stay on?

Actually, could I just make a quick observation?

You can open another program without having, you're just sharing your screen.

So if you wanted to open the PDF instead, you can go there.

It's a preliminary discussion.

Should I offer it now?

Not offer it at all.

Whichever you prefer.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

This is I think conversational how we do this.

I'm tempted to break it into pieces or we can start with questions if people want to ask questions.

But I think there's a lot of parts to this that might make some sense to break it into pieces starting with the site and then maybe house and then the addition.

Anybody disagree?

All right, well, let's start looking at the site.

And it looks like you gave us some different options for the driveway and you've explained your reasoning behind those.

I have a question with the use of the grid pavers.

Are those the type that let grass grow through?

Is that what you're thinking?

Yeah, I guess I mean, I think the more operative word there is pervious.

Yeah, grid, I am referring to the type that you know that could either have, usually grass, you know, doesn't do well because of the, you know, frequency of traffic.

So, you know, you have stone dust or pebbles or what have you.

At this stage, I am thinking whatever it is, it is, you know, primarily a pervious treatment.

It's not asphalt.

And it's not gravel, it's not asphalt.

Sure, and thank you for taking us through that, Patrick.

I thought the background is helpful for understanding the reading of the site.

That being said, I still feel strongly that there's not a sufficient reason to have the park, the driveway going through the front yard in this location, or almost any location in Charlottesville.

And it seems, you know, if it is feasible, and it sounds like it is,

to maintain the drive on one side or the other.

I think that would be more in keeping in with the neighborhood and I've just been driving around in street view looking at the other conditions in Oakhurst and surrounding neighborhoods.

I think that would be the most consistent and given the kind of amount of space

Given to the car in that front lot, I would also be in favor of abandoning the previous parking and moving that to the southern edge.

Just seems to make so much more sense and treat the house with the respect that it requires.

The other questions generally are about, regarding the site, I think that your approach to preserving

trees and having some facility with differentiating the truly contributing trees to the ones that are not is helpful.

And so I think certainly you're right that the oaks seem to be the things that should be foremost in the site decisions and

Secondarily, some of those other native trees that persimmon sounds pretty interesting and cool.

I do wonder if that dogwood in the lower corner, if that is significant enough to drive a wiggle in the dry.

It seems like something that we might be able to

replace relatively soon in scale and in size, or maybe a tree on the opposite side of the yard with a space that's freed up from parking.

I think adding the approach that you've taken that is not just in number of trees, but thinking about the site from an ecological point of view is really good.

And I'm glad to see you taking some attention to the stormwater impacts of this additional paving.

I just want to add in real quickly that if you do move the curb cut, it looks like our zoning code allows the BAR to make a recommendation to the traffic engineer that the

You just read my mind.

I just want to express support for Brecht's comments and and also just supporting not taking the driveway across the front yard.

So if there's a way we can help by reducing the size of the curb cut requirement and encourage that

And is it a deal killer for anyone about the, so there's the one tree that he's talking about needs to come down and then it looks like there's the cluster of three.

One of those may be expendable.

Is that a deal killer for anyone?

I mean, for me, the most problematic thing is keeping the existing parking and cutting across the front of the house.

And I don't think that Dogwood is worthy of, I mean, not to say there are a dime a dozen, you know, it's the big shade trees that take forever.

Well, my question was referring to, I think there are two shade trees that this plan- Where the parking goes?

Yes, the one closest I think might

not survive.

I mean, I don't know.

Yeah, it seems like it might be a push, but I also don't think any kind of addition off the back of that building is pretty much going to jeopardize that tree.

So I think, you know, if they can save it, great.

I mean, I think just putting it up on billet or columns or whatever certainly

Yeah can I can I speak for a second on that?

Yeah I in my narrative I actually you probably haven't had a chance to really look at it but I did make a reference to how we're planning to approach

protection.

So we'd obviously, you know, do what anybody would do as you cordon off, you know, mark the route zones at least within a reasonable limit or circumference.

And then we would, believe it or not, I'm thinking, and I have done my share of contracting over the years.

So I've been in this position, you know, I would even go as far as to say, if you do not, if you violate, if anybody violates that line, you know, that I'm talking four foot construction fence.

that if there's any violation, there are liquidated damages that kick in.

So I am thinking in those terms around tree protection.

What I was really speaking to earlier was that, to Tim's point, yeah, construction impacts are still going to be there no matter what you do.

And you just don't know.

I mean, those trees are, by my estimation, just using the rules of thumb, they could be as old as the house.

these doggone close to it.

They're probably put in right after the house was completed.

So it's a good treat.

They're mature trees.

And they're used to not having anything going on around them.

So our plan is to do everything possible within reason to save all three.

I just wanted to be clear.

I guess one thing I would just note about the coming down on the piers.

I mean, in some ways that could help.

On the other hand, you've got a retaining wall there.

So it's kind of any benefits from the structure coming down on the pier is kind of nullified by the footing that would be the retaining wall would require.

I guess one question I would have is if that tree is a priority, maybe the parking being kind of tucked in on the very end of the building is

is driving some of the heights that your elevations could actually come up and reduce some of your site work.

Yeah, well, I'm actually working with the grades right there and then working up to tie into the existing basement elevation.

And on that good point on the retaining wall, I'm thinking, you know, we're gonna have to figure out how to detail that as a sort of a grade beam.

you know, peer to peer grade being, you know, floating, if you will, kind of wall or it may not be what I think it is at this moment.

Exactly.

One more comment I would have on the landscape plan is if, well, it sounds like

We're going to ask you to move the driveway.

And when you do that, I noticed you have screen plantings in the front yard, it would be, in my opinion, preferable not to screen the front of the house from the street.

So those can be kept lower.

But without screening?

Yeah.

So that would be, I mean, obviously you haven't developed a full landscape plan for that option, but if you do, I would, I would avoid the screening plants that you have on the previous option.

Yeah.

Yeah, to be clear, you know, when I use the term screen, I'm not mean, I don't mean, you know, an impactful vertical sense, just more of a buffer at the edge, you know, a property buffer.

No, that makes perfect sense.

Yeah, definitely don't don't mean that.

No, not not even in this case.

That's the other word screen is it can be loaded.

Yeah, I get it.

All right, well, if there's no more

Comments on the landscape, if we move to the existing house and modifications to that, it looks like you're modifying the concrete porch, you're adding a little roof overhang and a new porch on the south side, and then I guess connecting to the existing house on the northwest side.

Is that a good summary?

You might have explained this while you were explaining the house to us on the flat while you were rotating the model, but what's the little funky eyebrow there?

That's existing.

Believe it or not.

Yeah, it's on.

Penny must have used to run across or something and picked up the pen.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, there you go.

So there's your little sort of part of a pentive, yeah.

So the thing that's really actually making it a Lone Ranger is actually that Shedd edition.

Right.

Right.

Come on around.

Right.

Depends.

Right.

Yeah.

No, I think Tim's referring to the book.

It's one in the back.

Oh, oh, oh.

Yeah.

So.

This?

Yes.

But existing from when?

It looks like it was done to the same standard as the rest of the house.

The only reason I bring it up is the back of the house and I have less concern about the sort of the datedness of some things like that if it's really horrible, but that's just my personal opinion.

You know, it doesn't affect the timeline relative to the street.

It is kind of funky, but that's, you know, that seems more like a designer's choice to my mind.

I think you'd need to, I think you'd need to really do some more research to prove that it isn't an original thump out to be confident enough to take that off.

I'd like to say to the applicants that I'm in favor of restoring the southern porch and adding the second story on and restoring the door that was there.

Like others, I'd like for the driveway to be located to the north, but if you need to shallow up, I don't think a whole lot is lost.

and you certainly are doing improvements to it.

Thank you, Cheri.

I completely agree.

Wait, you said driveway to the north or the south?

I'm sorry.

I think others would prefer to be moved to the north.

Sorry.

We've been talking about the cut, the driveway entrance going to the south and abandoning the north.

Because the north really isn't feasible.

But in any case, you're making, I'm getting reverb,

You're reducing the width from the house of the porch.

And I think that's compatible with the guidelines.

Right.

Good.

I think I have issues with that little porch roof on the structure.

I guess you're trying to tie it to the new

edition or are you trying to match whatever is kind of existing on the original?

Yeah, the detailing, I'm sorry to interrupt your question, the detailing as you see is sort of in process being a schematic model, but it's picking up on the bracket, quite literally, the existing, the precedent that's in place, bracket detailing and rafters exposed.

This in particular, even though it possibly could have been a later edition, there's compatibility in terms of the slope itself.

you know, the rafters exposed, the rate trim.

I mean, it's really this.

I'm approaching it as though it was there, even though it wasn't clearly, but it makes good practical sense.

I mean, this is the southern exposure of the house.

So just from the standpoint of providing a little bit of shade, short of, you know, shading the whole wall, but being a door, I tend, I have a,

a desire, I guess, or almost a rule where whenever I can put a little protection over an operable, over a door opening, I wanna protect it as much as I can from the weather.

So this is maybe a two and a half foot, two foot, something along those lines, projection that just provides further protection of that opening from shade and rain.

Sonia, did that answer your question or is this

No, that answers my question.

OK.

So I'm just curious, and I don't know if staff knows the answer.

Just building on any historic survey or anything, because I think if, you know, two things, the roof, you know, I think it'd be good to try to research what the original roof may have been.

You said you wanted to go back to metal shingles.

I didn't know if there's historic photos or any sort of survey that might lead us to that answer.

I would love to know.

and also for that side porch if there's any historic photos or documentation on what those columns may have looked like or the railing or anything like that.

Oh, you're talking about what's here.

Oh, you mean in the remnant image.

Right.

Yes, you're right.

I haven't measured it, but I bet that it's below 36 inches.

I'm hopeful.

I actually think it's kind of, because he's not building it back to the original depth and it's not, I mean, assuming

Maybe if there is a record of it that can be found, then, yeah, replicating it.

I see a sense in that.

Well, I wonder, maybe the columns...

I just sent you all from the Sanborn maps, the pre, you know, the city's pre 1960, or at least up until 1965.

So you can see what the, what the footprint was.

Really not a whole lot helpful on the roof I'm looking at here.

I think it was a, it's got the solid dot, which

These things change, but it would just tell me whether it was composite, like an asphalt or non-flammable, which would be slate or metal.

So it's hard to determine.

But from the footprint that I just showed you all, it would, well, you can take a look at that.

You guys know what you're looking at.

And I think the only thing we had on this

The survey was in that Oakhurst historic, yeah, from what I have here, I think it's the, at least in 1965, or it was a composition roof.

So means either asphalt or something like that.

Well, we have 1929 maps, which were revised up until at least 1965.

Right.

You're right.

Yeah, and on the south side, looks like a single story open.

that's when you see the dots.

That's what that reflects.

Now, what this is, this is city 1929 base map in which they would come in every couple of years and cut and paste changes.

It does appear that this has been added.

So, but I, you know, when it was added, I don't know.

So I'll, I just want to add that.

Let me, I just want to throw one thing before you all get, you wrap up.

The rendering is fantastic.

We've got good images.

What do you all need to see?

You're seeing great visuals.

What do you all need to see relative to a BAR application that may or may not be here?

So with that, I'll... Yeah, I think we're, well, we still kind of have to get to the new edition portion of the house.

But I just had a question with, so

on this porch just to make sure that we've wrapped up the, you know, what's done here.

Cause you know, James, you talked about the, you know, trying to replicate it.

And then you mentioned the columns.

Do we need to, is it okay that the columns look like original columns?

Is that a concern for anyone?

I mean, personally, I think it's,

Yeah, I mean, I think my intent is they don't, you know, as Mr. Farley pointed out, there's no other columns on the house.

So it's more in line with what he's doing with that little rooflet over the door.

You know, take clues from the historic house and

And as well, you know, the arts and crafts movement in general.

I mean, that's really where I looked at precedent.

You know, there's the beauty and I guess the curse maybe is that there really aren't any rules within arts and crafts, right?

Unlike classicism, you know,

So I'm thinking these are columns that sort of follow the sort of general precedent, but nothing specific.

But you can find these columns, obviously, anywhere.

You can find them in catalogs.

My desire is to keep it simple, but not try to reinvent the wheel.

I'd like to speak to the railings.

Simple kit of parts, off the shelf, flat stock, steel.

You know, thinking, of course, the colors obviously there for a reason that this is low maintenance and it is an arts and it's a modern, if you will, interpretation of arts and crafts.

Subtleties, like, you know, sort of the open corner, non-posted corner kind of picks up, you know, on this notion here where you have structure that is at least partly cantilevered, open corner.

So, you know, there's sort of some motif detailing already in the works.

But, you know, it's the proportioning, the rhythm, you know, it's sort of drawing from what's already in place.

I don't know if there was a center column, but there is a center bearing wall in the house.

So I'm just sort of drawing from the structural character, if you will, from inside to outside.

Well, it sounds like nobody is jumping on any issues with the existing house.

I think we need to figure out what the, there's a desire to find what the existing roof material was.

On the new addition,

Welcome, Ben.

I'm concerned that the new addition will be visible from the street view.

Some of the model, the way you're turning it, seems like you might be able to see the peak of the new.

I mean, obviously, it depends on your position.

I mean, if you look back at the renderings, I guess, are more intended.