Board of Architectural Review Meeting   1/20/2021

If you don't mind, I'm going to go ahead and start my introductions.

It's 5.30, and we should now be streaming on all of the city's streaming channels and channel 10.

My name is Robert Watkins.

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

Welcome to the January 2021 Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review virtual meeting.

Before I hand things over to Carl Schwartz, our chair, I'm just going to go over a few guidelines in this introduction.

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

First, we have Carl Schwartz, who is the BAR chair.

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

Other BAR members include Tim Moore,

Jody Lehendro, Cheri Lewis, Ron Bailey, James Zehmer, and Andy McClure.

And we're also joined by Jeff Werner, who is my colleague and city staff.

Throughout the meeting, various applicants and other participants will join the meeting and leave the meeting as necessary.

For members of the public who are on the call right now, who are interested in providing comment at any portion of the meeting,

There are several places in the agenda where you can speak.

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

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

In order to provide comment, we ask that you register for the meeting.

If you haven't already, you can do this through the city calendar on the city website.

And then when we get to the specific comment portion of the agenda, you can raise your hand using the raise hand feature

In the participant list, and I will unmute you, or if you're calling in, you can press star nine, then the timer will begin and you'll have three minutes to speak.

For applicants who are 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 then you'll be able to mute and unmute as necessary and we can see you.

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

Also for applicants, during the staff and applicant presentations for each project, I'll be sharing my own 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 or BAR members, if you'd like me to go to a specific page, please give me a verbal command to direct me to the specific page number.

Also, we might have short periodic breaks as necessary, and our chair, Carl, will direct us to when a break is necessary.

Finally, it's time for me to hand things over to Carl, but please throughout the meeting, feel free to ask me any questions for guidance if you need things.

Robert, you ever consider working for an airline?

I'm about to take off on an airplane.

We'll see.

All right, so welcome everyone to the regular monthly meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architecture 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'll 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.

Please note that the times given our agenda are estimates only.

All right, so right now we have

matters from the public not on the agenda.

And I should note that this also includes any item on the consent agenda, which tonight is the application for three gill-er-sleeve wood.

I was just to add as well that 612 West Main has been pulled from tonight's agenda, so that won't be discussed.

If you would like to provide comment for items that are not on the agenda, please use the raise hand feature or press star nine if you're calling in.

I guess we have BAR Preservation Awards tonight.

So, Carl, what I was saying earlier, if you and Robert talked, it would be nice to just say that these were reviewed last year.

Read through each of them and who will be awarded to, and that will be, that way it's

It's in the record, and we can send those out.

Possibly.

That's right.

That's right.

He's got it all covered.

We're a little busy today.

Yes, please.

Give me a moment as well.

Sure.

Well, maybe we'll move on to the consent agenda.

Sure.

I'll pull it up for you in the meantime.

Thank you.

I'm sorry about that.

Yeah.

I didn't remember seeing a...

Anyways, so next item is the consent agenda.

That includes the BER minutes from September 15, 2020, as well as three gilder sleeve wood.

And I should note that for three gilder sleeve wood, there was an error in the application.

The site plan has been amended.

The deck is on the back of the house as the staff report says.

Second.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll call a vote.

Mr. Bailey?

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. McClure?

Aye.

So yeah, that was an aye.

Mr. Zehmer.

Mr. Lehendra.

Aye.

Mr. Gastinger.

Aye.

And Ms.

Thank you.

That's three or eight ayes.

It's gonna be a long night.

Carl, I'm sorry.

Well, I mean, we can do this next month.

Is that all right?

Jeff?

OK.

Aw.

Or if we flip it in after the next item.

I don't want to make a Robert search through all his emails, and I definitely don't want to search through mine.

Sure.

And I'm going to go ahead and promote Bob and Con because they'll be representing this project.

Actually, you know what?

I haven't been given host privileges yet, so I don't have that privilege.

Joe, if you're online right now, can you please make me a host?

I can.

Sorry, I've got things happening on my screen that I don't need.

All right.

So good evening, everybody.

This is 125 Chancellor Street and just everyone out there listening.

This is the request because there's a demolition portion that is it's large enough that the demolition is treated under a separate certificate of appropriateness, a COA, by the BAR.

So we will first be discussing the demolition request.

which is for the portion at the rear of the house.

BAR will have that, take action on that.

And then followed up by the discussion for the proposed new work on the house.

So, and both will be, will follow the same steps.

But if, I know there may be people that wish to speak tonight, you can choose which one or you can certainly speak at both.

This is, again, a COA request for 125 Chancellor Street.

This is the COA request for the demolition at a rear wing of the house.

The house was constructed in 1898.

It's a Victorian-style building, features several Eastlake and Queen Anne decorative motifs, such as the mock half-timbering in the front gable and brackets beneath the overseiling front eave.

There was, in addition to the rear,

not the rear, in addition to what is there, was constructed around 1952.

There is a garage in the back northwest corner that will be removed as part of this project, but however that's not contributing in the BAR, won't be taking action on that.

So I have, in reviewing it, in my discussion, the construction of the new addition will extend the use of the historic building,

And with that work, we'll facilitate the building being, getting some much needed rehabilitation and repair.

The historic rear wing is likely original, however extension alterations at the very least would be necessary to incorporate it into the proposed rear addition.

And just to be clear, so we're talking about a new addition, that work requires the removal of the 1952 addition and this rear wing that we believe was original.

So, and I said, in lieu of using the existing wing to connect the house and the addition, constructing a wider hyphen will more effectively and efficiently meet the fraternity programmatic needs.

And what they're looking to do is not have an addition that's accessed through just a small hallway, but something that's incorporating the larger house.

The staff supports

the approval of the COA request and recommends the following is condition that as we do with most demolitions that provide for the BA archives documentation of the rear elevation that would be just a sketch of all the sides of it including some photographs and measured draw elevations and floor plans and I can well actually

I did go through the criteria for demolition and offered my answers on each of the questions.

So if you have any about that, we certainly can refer to it.

But with that, I'll send this to the BAR.

And do you have any questions for me?

And I can happily say that I am host now.

So I will promote Khan and Bob.

Good evening, everyone.

And I see everyone again.

I think Bob is running a little late.

He had to go home and feed his kids.

So Robert, we also have Kendra Patricks from mine and grade, our civil engineer that would like to join.

I think it will be important on the second half when we talk about the addition of design.

Thank you, Jeff, for putting us first so I can get out of here and go see the inaugural concert in time.

Anyway,

So I think Jeff worded it very succinctly and very nicely that we are requesting to remove this rear portion.

We did look at it initially to see if we can incorporate.

However, there's a couple limiting factors that could lead us to be able to do that.

One, the second floor of that rear addition extension is 16 inches lower than the rest of the second floor.

It steps down.

So for us to be able to keep that will require a lot of restructuring, removing the floor joists, raising the floor, and then by that time head height will be affected.

And then the other limiting factor is we have to add this parking lot in the back that has to meet city standards.

So with all the drive aisles and parking lots, it really encroaches on how much area we have in the back to add this addition beyond just the setback.

So unfortunately, we're hoping that we can take it down and then, respectively, add an addition on the back that complements the front.

We also feel that since it is on the rear, it's not really seen from the street.

Is that it, Con?

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the public?

OK.

And silly question for my own.

If you go to participants, and I think you can click, it should be to the right of your name.

Yeah.

All right.

I have a question for staff, I guess for Jeff.

I just want to clarify, because this is a partial demolition, that the guideline A6 is really the only one that directly applies to a partial demolition.

which addresses any remaining features.

It's a, that's why, sorry, I'm reading, I'm going up and down the wrong staff report.

So the reference is to question A6.

So, I mean, that's pretty much verbatim.

And I think it's the idea of that when you do have a, and the criteria for demolition now, it doesn't sort of separate out, you know, entire building or part of the building or a little bit of the building.

But the way I looked at it was,

Given the three sides that will remain and the really unique features of this building, would removing this roughly eight by 15 piece on the rear, would we see a significant loss of deterioration of the character?

And I didn't see that we would.

That's how I looked at it.

But no, there's nothing really else.

It does seem that there are actually sort of two levels of demolition here too, because the porch is really more about reconstruction because it's in bad repair.

Yeah, well, I'm not looking at the COA.

I'm not looking at the porch reconstruction as part of the demo COA.

The demolition COA, I'm seemingly looking at the rear

Right.

All right.

Are there any comments from the public?

Again, looking at the list, I don't see any raised hands.

All right.

I'll go back to the porch for a minute, which I know Bob knows I'm obsessed with the porch.

It would seem to me, since they have to take it down to rebuild it, that at the time, a little forensic

This porch was reconstructed and the Sanborn maps support that.

So there was a, you know, there's acknowledgement in the historic survey of that difference in character and style, but it appears to have been done very early in the 20th century.

Tim, I think we're going to talk about that with the next.

OK.

Well, I'm just thinking more about if it's coming down at the same time as the rest of it, I would just request that there's some attention paid to when they start to uncover it, do they find anything?

But that, strictly speaking, is not part of the demolition that we're considering, right?

But it is being demolished.

I mean, I agree with Mr. Moore.

That porch is going to be demolished unless the applicant's telling us they're leaving significant features of it.

This is just a technicality, I think, that we're arguing over is that we can talk about it once we get past this.

The demolition application only concerns the back.

Jeff has put the porch into the next application because it's being rebuilt in kind, so you don't have to approve it as a demolition.

I guess my concern still is that there is a demolition being done to the porch.

So if we go on, it's fine that it's not discussed here.

but there should be two separate votes, one for tradition and one for the demolition of that feature.

I mean, are we all on the same page?

It's not a, because it's being rebuilt in kind and they are trying to tell us that they're going to rebuild it exactly as it is, it's a different animal.

It's like replacing a roof or replacing a window, which we don't,

It is just a different procedure, I think, is how we've handled it in the past.

I don't think, but I do what you're saying.

Is it exactly?

I mean, I wouldn't imagine that it's going to

It's in poor condition, so I hope it's not being replaced with the same materials exactly as it is.

I mean, I don't think that's the intention of the applicant.

And I'm sorry to be difficult here, but I do think there's a demolition.

And our guidelines don't actually say that an exception from a demolition is where something is being replaced.

I agree it's not a window, it's not a simple feature, but rather it's a significant feature that's being demolished.

I don't think it limits our discussion of it at all.

I just think the way that the proposal, the way that the applications have been presented

I'm happy to make a motion on this.

I'll call a vote.

Mr. Moore.

Aye.

Mr. Lehendro.

Aye.

Mr. Zehmer.

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Mr. McClure.

Aye.

Mr. Gastinger.

Aye.

Ms.

Lewis.

Aye.

And Mr. Bailey.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

And just again, be clear on this one.

If the board relative to the porch

The board can deny replacement of the porch, which is, in essence, denying its removal or demolition.

So if there are constraints that you all would like to discuss for the porch, that can be incorporated to a motion or a reason for denial.

So again, this is the second COA for 125 Chandler Street.

This is a COA request for the new addition, renovation, rehabilitation of the existing house, and there is some site work involved.

Again, house was constructed in 1888, it is contributing in the corner.

ADC District, there was a preliminary, the BAR held a preliminary discussion of the proposed work back in November, and the applicants

took that information and has brought forward this formal request.

Again, I will note that the existing garage in the back corner is not contributing and they are removing it.

That's not being addressed in this request or in the COA.

Proposed improvements and materials I've laid out in the site plan are in the staff report.

One correction that there had been a discussion of possibly requiring, and this is not BAR, but the city ADA review, there was discussion of possibly requiring an ADA accessible ramp in the front.

That has been,

addressed, and so it won't be necessary, and the ADA ramp at the side will facilitate those requirements.

As I noted in the staff report, much of the preliminary discussion, and I think it was in November, not December, but most of that discussion focused on the front porch, particularly its origin.

I note that we reviewed the available information and while the current porch is stylistically different from the house it does likely date to the early 20th century and in fact there's from the 1996 DHR reconnaissance level survey the notice that the porch may have been rebuilt originally it was probably stylistically in keeping with the house

and the present colonial revival porch, the one we see now, appears to be the same size as the original, but was probably added in the early 20th century.

There are some notes I've made about what we should be primarily focusing on, the work and repairs that are proposed.

We always welcome that in a building, though I know there's some aluminum siding involved

probably some discussion on that as necessary.

And then I offer some, I think it's five points.

If the COA is approved, STAC recommends consideration of these as conditions.

One that the cement board siding on the addition and any aluminum siding would be smooth, no faux grain.

That there is, and I saw in the photographs, is a tremendous amount of old wires conduit

boxes, phones, cables, et cetera, that those would be removed to the extent that they're no longer being used.

There's a lot of vegetation, excess vegetation at the site.

Don't necessarily want to see it bush hogged, but there are some, I think, some selective cleaning up that could be done.

And there appears to be a metal fence at the front along that low wall that does show up in historic photographs.

So we'd probably like to see that retained.

Again, there's trimming and pruning.

There does seem, I think, probably one or two invasive trees in there.

And then this goes to the similar to what Mr. Moore was talking about.

But when the aluminum siding is removed, it would be nice, at least for the BAR record, to have photographs of what's below.

And this would not be for us to say, hey, we want you to make it look like that.

If that is being removed, it is an opportunity to see, you know, get a snapshot of possibly what that original material looked like and the trim and et cetera.

And then I think the comment was made about adding something about recording existing conditions at the front porch in any sort of selective demolition.

So with that, I'll hand it off back to you all and the applicants ready.

And if you have questions for me otherwise,

Yeah, it's the application.

Sure.

I think there's a few site issues we'd like to discuss with you.

Jeff had mentioned that North Iron, low fence on the front and the low wall.

mentioned that the city was requiring us to put in a new hydrant and the location of it might affect some of the wall.

Kendra, our civil engineer is here and I think she could speak better about it.

Thank you.

So we received comments after our last submission showing the fire hydrant and the removal of a small portion of the wall.

And now they are also requiring that the new water meter be placed behind the sidewalk and that will also need public utility easement around it and the wall can't be within that easement.

So now it's looking like

a span of about 15 feet where the wall will need to be removed or jogged around all of the utilities.

So, you know, before it was just this small area and now it's growing and I'd like to know how we should address that.

If it's worth to maintain the wall

We can make that part of our discussion.

I think that was it.

Luckily, we had them agree that we don't have to put an ADA ramp in the front.

So that was good.

What's the nature of that retaining wall in the front?

Maybe in the city's historical survey, there was one fuzzy photo that showed it.

It appears to be just a low concrete covered wall.

My assumption, I actually saw it go to Google Drive and I went back in time.

Sorry.

Yeah, if you just go down to the elevation, Robert.

So, you know, last time, as Jeff mentioned, we did focus a lot on the orchard.

I'm sure we'll discuss it a lot more tonight.

But you know, our stance is that

You know, we know that the original porch was different and probably better in scale portions to the house.

However, you know, we have no documentation of what it looked like in our stances, you know, with historical structures, you shouldn't make something up.

It's probably better that, you know, you know, with this, what's here now, you know, this is old porch from 1920s and we can recreate that in time.

Although, you know, the poor,

has expressed, you know, that they like the, maybe the original version, which is closer to the house.

We just don't feel that it's right to, you know, fabricate something that we don't know what it looks like.

And then if you go to the south elevation, next elevation, last time there was some comments regarding the addition and its elevation to try and make it a little more playful in Williamsville.

So we did address that.

What we did was,

created double home windows.

So they kind of have the same proportions as the front of the house with the shutters.

And then we also brought the eave line down closer to the front house.

We also separate that rear addition porch away from the house.

So then the scene between the two houses reads more clearly that there is a clear change between old and new.

So those are the major changes that we addressed from the last review.

Great, thank you guys.

All right, are there any questions from the public?

The renders are accurate.

I think it's a little deceptive because the addition is pushed back from the other face.

Yeah, see, that's what I'm talking about.

I have a question about the site.

So the water meter, you said there's gonna be about a 15 foot length of area where the wall has to be moved.

So it would be probably seven to 10 feet because the utilities would have to be a few feet back from the sidewalk and then you need a five foot easement around the utilities.

And then the utilities have to be five feet apart from one another.

Wow.

Wow.

Okay.

I noticed you put in some new trees that don't currently exist and I was really excited about those.

Yeah, usually it's the first thing the fire department gets rid of.

I have a request going back to the porch, front porch.

It is

a later change, but it is still historic within the period of historic features.

It needs to be preserved.

So we, I think last time we presented, we did mention that we have a 3D laser scanner that helps us document

Distant Conditions.

So we have scanned the port, so we have all the details.

So we're going to try to replicate it as closely as possible.

However, off the shelf materials right now may be a little different.

So like acid board, if you know, if we have to replicate it exactly the way it is, or can we purchase new pieces that, you know, as closely resembles what's there as possible.

Most of the railing, we're going to go with wood-painted railings.

However, the columns, just for structural integrity and longevity, we are proposing to do a fiberglass one.

Is that right, Bob?

Let's back up.

Yeah, we went out there with our structural engineer and he deemed that it's just not safe.

It's pulling away from the building.

It's just structurally not sound.

Time has not been kind to this porch.

There have been really ad hoc additions, variations.

The subfloor is rotted.

The joist work is coming apart.

Somebody went underneath there and

you know, tried to jack it up.

The staircases are double staircase where the original design was only a single staircase.

And there's just evidence of, abuse isn't the right word, somebody trying to figure out how to solve the problem and deferred maintenance, water, it is not in great shape at all.

So there's a turning point where

You know, it's just more than anything trying to create a safe environment and give the board what they're looking for and put the pieces back in.

When was the building last occupied?

Robert, would you go to page 61 in the entire packet?

So I'm really astonished that this is supposedly in such a condition that you've got to dismantle and take apart this entire porch in a building that's occupied now and it's being used.

and instead of just carefully starting to peel back the layers, taking off the trim, verifying that there is as significant damage.

I wouldn't say completely gone.

There's enough evidence around the perimeter.

The deck, for example, is open.

There's open areas where rot has formed.

The soffit is dropping.

The overall, because of the point cloud scan, the footings have dropped.

The decking material is not original and in really tough shape.

The columns are rotted in certain areas.

There's just a general perspective of a kind of a back of the napkin.

How would we get this back?

How would we make it safe?

And at the same time, recreate what's already there.

This is subjective, but from our perspective, it's in really, really tough shape.

That said, if that's the approach you'd like us to take, we can be more surgical about it and try that methodology where we're pulling things back and we do it at a more paced perspective.

I just don't know where the tipping point is and how we would get, you know, where we come back to you and say, this is what we found.

It is, I'm sorry to be talking so much, but you know, it's hard to,

take something apart to the level where you can actually see all the issues without getting approval.

You have to even go forward.

So we're stuck in this do procedurally.

Well, I'm looking at the three columns on the right don't seem to be anywhere near the

I would approach this by selectively starting into work, selectively pulling apart the pieces that are severely damaged, taking some of the

the fascia's off, the molding's off, and getting under the floor, looking at the structure under the floor and seeing if, it's a historic feature.

It should be repaired in situ.

And those elements that are severely damaged can be replaced in kind, which means wood.

And the moldings shouldn't be similar.

Okay.

I think, you know, you understand your viewpoint and, you know, like Bob said, unfortunately, it's hard for us to do exploratory work right now when the building's occupied, but that's why we went with this strategy of recreating it.

However,

You know, if the board approves, we can build a route where we will once, you know, the building is unoccupied and start doing some selective demolition and exploratory work, more investigative work will determine what's feasible.

And, you know, with the goal of retaining what's there and replacing what's needed.

and then figure out a new game plan.

Well, and for one thing, don't give in so easy because that's just my opinion.

There's still the rest of the board that has to, that would want to make itself known, but I'd rather hear

the applicants say that tell us that the process is going to respect and preserve those features of the porch that are not damaged and replace those features and sister do whatever, reattach structure to the building to repair it in kind in situ and make it safe.

And if I knew that, then I mean, I wouldn't require you to come back every time you found something that you didn't expect.

It's the process that I'm more concerned about.

Rick, I think you might be right.

I have a question about the, well, you know, the porch.

Since we have such a thorough review process at the city, I'm wondering if you guys are certain that you're not going to be required to put taller railings.

I don't know what the railing is on the upper level, probably, I think you guys have it drawn at three feet, but

And I'm not sure I care that much about the iron railing, but the lower one at 42 inches would look... Less than 30 inches.

Yeah, I think presidential allows 33 feet.

And this is a commercial, I mean, it's in the commercial building code, correct?

Yeah.

It's not a single family or townhouse or something like that, correct?

Right.

Yeah, but I think there was something I could be wrong looking up again, but there was an exemption in there.

We would be under the rehab code and the rehab code, you know, like depending on if the railing is not, it's just, you know, like you, yeah, it's a gray area, but if you take it down, then you should bring that portion of that, of whatever you take down back.

So if you, you know, for example, if the railing, the top railing is rotten, you can't put the back, I believe.

Yeah, I guess, are there any more questions?

I don't see anything.

And right now, what's on there?

Are those wood shutters or aluminum?

That's a good question.

I would assume it's solid because it's not very thick.

But that's a good question.

When we've approved foam materials, it's the hollow extrusions that we tend to shy away from.

The same thing with the vinyl windows.

We're showing, on page 25, we're showing the solid section.

Sorry.

Quick question.

Are there the two gable ends, one of the historic house that I guess will be infilled when the rear original parts demoed and then the gable end, the two gable ends that face over top the hyphen roof, do those have windows onto the hyphen roof?

Right.

You can't really see them in this image, but are there windows that face onto that hyphen roof?

There are not.

Good.

Liability.

Right, I see.

Alright, well are there, we can always ask more questions later, but are there any comments from the public?

I keep looking for Robert.

There he is.

All right.

I have a question, or not so much a question, an observation, I guess.

Given the discussion about the porch, one thing that does seem, and as everybody knows, I'm not very fond of this porch,

And I do think it looks better with just one set of stairs.

Yeah, those historical photos from the survey did show a single run.

Okay.

Yep.

Yeah, clearly the steps in the railings are modern.

Yeah, on site you can also tell that the landing was expanded to accommodate the new run.

And then, I don't know, you know, this may just be an accident of the, you know, however the house is last painted, but it does actually appeal to me that the shutters are picking up the accent color from the gable.

That would be fine with us.

I would like to re-render it just to make sure, because if we're using the new color on the siding, make sure that that didn't stand out, but we'd have to obviously check with our client too.

Tim, the historicism, like that whole siding, the colors, you know, it's all a blending, but that color has been, you know, is not original.

Right, no, I recognize that.

I was thinking more about the one thing that does seem successful is that that detail up at the top being an accent color is being picked up

by the shutter, so you know, it's not a make or break issue, but I'm just saying it does help draw that detail down and tie it into the house.

We can take a look at that.

Yeah, it's hard to tell from those historic photos, but.

because they look more, I don't know, hard to say.

I'll comment on the site.

I guess that's got a whole can of worms that have been opened right there.

I think since this seems like it's necessary, although I'm a little frustrated with the city on this one because I don't understand why they have to move the water meter.

It sounds like it'd be better just to not have the wall or to interrupt the wall as opposed to pulling it back 10 feet or whatever is required to get away from the easement.

I don't know what the rest of the BAR thinks.

So I guess it would just be you'd have to regrade the grass.

Can the meter be in the grass?

OK.

Yeah.

I have a question about the wall as well, if I may.

Do the other houses along that street have a wall as well?

Or is this just something that this particular house has?

Most of them have a wall of some type.

There used to be, I think, more stone walls on the street, and at some point, some of them were rebuilt as concrete, but they were rebuilt so long ago that we've even considered those to be historic.

I think that was the case a couple doors down.

And if I'm not mistaken, this wall may actually be scored to look like block.

I think I poked around under the IV for different applications, but I'm not sure.

Did I miss something that the water meter couldn't undercut the wall and stick the water meter in the yard above the wall?

Because they're read by radio now, right?

They don't actually physically read them anymore.

This is something we were told by Roy Nestor in Utilities.

He says the wall must be removed in that whole area basically.

We tried asking if the water meter could be put in the sidewalk in this case because sometimes they allow that and he said no, not in this case.

I think that's so, I mean, it's not your guys' fault.

It's so frustrating that the city is putting us in that position because this really isn't a wall that should be removed if we're protecting the fabric of this neighborhood.

I don't know when I recognized, do you know if he's, is he new?

The new person?

No, no.

Roy?

No.

Oh, okay.

Interesting.

And the ramp thing is really disturbing because that's obviously not required and I'm surprised you guys had to fight for that.

And is he referring, just out of curiosity, what is he referring to as far as the water meter is concerned?

Is he pointing to a particular regulation?

So the water meter has to be upgraded because of the upgrades to the building.

So that's why...

I was just wondering more about what would generate in the clearance demand and all that sort of thing.

Where's that standard coming from?

That's a good question.

I looked at their standards and design manual and it's not super clear.

They require, it actually says,

the 20-foot easement around utilities like this, but I know in the past on projects they've approved five feet.

I'd have to ask exactly what he's referring to that says, I don't know, that says that the wall couldn't be there.

What we'd be willing to do if it helped is to try to mock up something that

I don't know if you guys can support that.

We're all in the same boat.

We're all trying to do the right thing and make sure that the right amount of review is put on this.

Right.

Right.

I would suggest that

I mean, I feel like the board could support you in terms of noting that this is the wall is historic.

It's part of the historic features of the site and the building.

And that building does allow waivers for certified historic buildings.

So ask if a waiver couldn't be obtained in recognition of the historic wall.

And it's important to know it's a feature of the neighborhood.

Yeah, this has been, you know, I don't want to wash my laundry in front of anyone here on Channel 10 with our wide viewership.

But I will say, you know, there's some

For instance, the ADA, we do not have currently an ADA coordinator.

So there was a lot of default to conservative interpretation as far as my understanding.

The thing about the wall, I thought it had something more to do with a fire hydrant location.

And I just found the letter here from Roy Nestor.

It says, please show the new water meter behind the sidewalk in the front yard.

The city will need

The new PUE for this as well.

I don't know what a PUE is.

Due to the high curb present in this location, the meter needs to be moved back into the grass area so it can be constructed properly.

We can discuss this further via email or phone if needed.

So I guess the question would be between the engineers, you know, Kendra, did you all

I always thought that this was necessary, that little job was necessary for the fire hydrant and there were some provisions in the special use permit about fire safety.

But if they can put it in a slab at grade behind the wall, that would be something worth me having further conversations.

Roy's not

She's not unreasonable, or at least I dealt with them a lot.

I don't understand it.

I mean, they just make the pipe a little bit taller.

What's the big deal?

for putting the meter in.

The meter wrenches are plenty long.

That wall's what, 16 inches tall, 18 inches tall?

I think the thing in the standards and design manual that we've thought over for so long was just the fact that they don't want to have any private construction over top of any sort of public utility.

That fits with what I've heard.

But if you take that at Dave's value all across the town, they're going to destroy a lot of things.

Well, this was part of what was argued when the standards and design manual got approved.

Right.

In fact, trying to think of a way to detach from this issue specifically, I think that one thing, if I can recommend, be if there does, in fact, have to be

a jog per se in the wall that you could say, fine, just reconstruct something that's similar.

Or if the city say, we understand this and we'd like approve everything,

The applicant could say we're going to take this out of this request and treat it later like I thought we might be doing with the front ADA ramp.

There's an awful lot going on at this site.

I know we want to resolve this, but I'm not sure we can resolve it tonight.

But I would like to find a way for it to move forward.

And part of

The BAR's review here is to get the COA that allows the site plan to move forward.

So there's some choreography here that isn't perfect.

But the COA for the remainder of the project and this matter to come back as a later separate request, while it

might not let the site plan be finalized, it does allow the designers to move forward in developing the construction drawings for the rest of the project.

So if that helps, that's how I would like to see it broke up.

And then I can reach out for some clarification, because we've got a lot of different people have been talking, we've had people talking about ADA, we've had people, we had the engineer, we had the designers, I know Kendra's been on

You know, it's a lot of different folks are feeding information into this.

Let me let me and I myself thought this was about a firefighter.

So let me let me pursue this further.

And if you all are willing, move forward with with some type of comment.

And then, Bob, if you all on your end, it would come from saying, you know, we would

That makes perfect sense to us.

And we'll fight the good fight.

You know, we're going to run into somebody sometimes as you can't do that or whether this is our standard.

But I think we can help more with Kendra and maybe we can

illustrate things and there's nothing like a good diagram or alternatives.

Hey, how about this?

How about that?

Maybe they're just saying no because whatever, that's what the standard says.

I like your idea, Jody, about trying to say that this is a historic wall and this is a historic neighborhood and we're getting feedback from another portion of the review process that says this is not a good idea.

All right.

Unless that's a bad idea.

I don't think we can give you a definitive because it's not up to, it's not us saying, Oh yeah, we'll do, we'll do whatever.

So I'd rather move forward and get some kind of blessing on where we are so that we can move that part forward.

It's in the conditions.

I have that in there as the things I've recommended.

Thank you.

The rest of the house.

Yes.

I just wanted to talk about the guidelines for rehabilitation, in particular for

restoration or rehab of existing features on the property.

There are several that pertain to this application and particularly the proposal to replace existing shutters and with PVC and also to rebuild the columns in the front, which I guess we're all assuming are wood.

with fiberglass columns.

From the rehabilitation guidelines, section B, guideline five, restore as many elements as possible, particularly materials and decorative details, and that word is restore.

11, and this is under B again, B11, avoid materials where they never existed.

Paragraph 20 there and several other paragraphs that address shutters in particular.

Shutters should be wood and should be mounted on hinges.

And there is some language after that would allow for wood composite, but I don't see any PVC or other materials called out in the guidelines.

I'm playing Melanie tonight.

Thank you.

There is also under that porch guideline number four, replace an entire porch only if too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing and designed to match the original as closely as possible.

I guess our vice strategy could be that we will be repairing it in situ.

of those features of the porch that are historic.

Yes.

I also want to commend the architects for making the changes to the addition on the back.

It looks much better now.

I was about to thank the applicants for that, too.

Thank you.

Yeah, I support the project.

I think especially with a changed attitude towards repair and restoration on the front porch, fighting the good fight on the site wall in the front with the more detail in the landscape plan.

And I think the architectural additions are elegant and appropriate and in concordance with our guidelines.

Is that a motion?

So we're approving PVC shutters and fiberglass columns.

I just want to make clear that everybody else supports this but me.

The applicant say they're now saying they'll repair and, you know, in situ

We can investigate wood shutters.

And can we depend upon the porch being repaired in kind for materials and features, appearance?

Details.

Okay, thank you.

I'm sure you understand this and we're not trying to make light of it.

Our assessment was maybe it was too light

in relationship to the preservationist ideas, but it smelled like a duck, it walked like a duck.

It was in tough, it's in tough, tough, tough shape.

And it wasn't us trying to say that, you know, like, just wipe it out and that's an easy decision.

It was just so bad, it's so sagging.

The scan shows

So we're cumulatively thinking about all the safety issues, all the things that we think we're going to find, but that's different than we have found.

So I think we're recommitted to say, let's go double check our assumptions and then we'll come back and

we will have a much more acute understanding of what the problems are, and we'll present those problems and ask for a way forward.

And if the columns are completely rotted, what would you like us to do?

And I think that's fair.

You know, the way it's presented now, we're replacing it without really knowing that it requires to be completely replaced.

So that's tough for us as the board to approve.

We need to see evidence that indeed it's too far gone to be repaired.

And we, at least as a

One board member, I would say I was really impressed with the 3D heat scan that you showed us and that you put up a little while ago.

I have no doubt that that front corner is sinking and there are other conditions that you know make it tenuous.

But that doesn't mean all of the architectural details there are tenuous.

I think structurally you're right, it's not in great shape and it may not be safe for the students that are coming back and starting class in about a week that are occupying the building now.

That would be your client's decision.

but I'm just trying to distinguish between you know a condition that you definitely have identified that we don't doubt is there and what could be preserved of a really you know in 1920s a 100 year old porch and yeah so that's it I did want to commend I noticed that the sunburst brackets are being preserved I think from the drawings I can tell

And if those are in bad shape, I would hope that they can be rehabbed or replicated or whatever.

They seem to be in OK shape from pictures that we've seen, but you would know better being on the property.

But all of those lovely details that make this building so unique, I just I know that

Anyway, and the porch is now one.

We've determined that it is historic and we need to preserve it.

So anyway, I just can't support the PVC shutters or fiberglass columns, but otherwise I would support the approach that you've adopted to see what can be repaired.

I don't feel like I want the applicant to have to come back.

I don't know how to navigate this, so I'll ask Jeff where we can go with that, whether

We can move forward for them or... I mean, the way I've kind of been interpreting the, you know, BAR kind of tweaking a scope is if the applicant acknowledges it and, you know, says, hey, I would like, you know, to remove this.

That way it's not a, you know,

on the condition that this come back, that it's a, you know, they're acknowledging this element has been revised or removed.

I mean, that happens all the time.

And then that revision is incorporated into the motion.

I saw a couple hands pop up.

Yeah, just on the porch.

I think from looking at the pictures, it seems to me that there's a downspout missing adjacent to that corner column, which likely has a lot to do with its condition and probably the settling.

I'm assuming y'all are going to address stormwater management in the restoration.

Well, just as a matter of process, I wonder if we could approve the application with, but not approve the removal of the historic site wall.

And if they can come up with a scenario that works with the city that does that, they've got the approval they need.

Apologize, I want to nitpick on one little thing.

And I'm sorry to share, I disagree with you on the shutters.

I think, so looking at the guideline, it says in general they should be wood.

The existing shutters are metal.

and then it says in some circumstances appropriately dimensioned painted composite materials doesn't say composite wood it just says composite materials so that's where I was asking if these were solid sections or hollow which I think what we've been trying to avoid is the cheap vinyl things that you buy at Lowe's but if it's a you know PVC a solid section of

PVC trim we allow quite frequently.

And I think that's what I'm reading this as.

And my concern with a fraternity house is that if they put up wood in five years, they're going to be rotten and unpainted and starting to sag again.

And it does need to be painted, which being a dark color from, I know you guys have them modeled as white, but Tim had talked about doing that dark accent color.

Right, I mean fiberglass might be better than PVC actually.

I mean, I empathize with Cheri's point of view, however, I'd like to say.

Again, avoid materials where they never existed.

I mean,

I would say with regard to Mr. Schwartz's comment about this being a fraternity house, it's not the undergraduates that maintain a fraternity house.

Every fraternity house at UVA and probably anywhere in the nation pretty much is not owned by the undergraduate members, but it's owned by a house corporation or it's

even in a lot of cases, they're owned by the universities or colleges where they're located on.

So I don't think there's an exemption in our guidelines to say, oh, this is a frat house, we'll let them do more durable materials than the private house next door that can afford to maintain that.

No disagreement with you.

I served on a task force of the Board of Visitors in 1986 to get the tax partnerships going to rehab fraternities.

I'm well aware of them.

I'll date myself right there.

Been looking at all these houses for a very long time.

I was on the BAR when we made this a district.

So I

I've reviewed the entire survey for every property in this district probably many times over.

But I don't think that's a pass.

I just don't think our guidelines allow us to select who can maintain something and who can't.

If it's low income housing, but they're in a historic house, we may feel bad imposing more expensive materials that are more costly to maintain.

No, and I think the disagreement is I'm disagreeing with your reading of the guidelines on that.

I think it is allowed.

It's permitted in certain circumstances.

But I don't mean to drag this out, because we're taking a lot of time.

And they are paintable.

I would point out that composite slate is allowed in our guidelines.

Well, the best example is a, and I cannot remember the address, but it is over there on fraternities, was the Chippendale railing that was installed

This was prior to me, more than three years ago, but I remember the gentleman that did the work shared with me the photographs and in fact, but it was a composite material that they used for that.

And actually, Carl, from the minutes, it was something you would recommend it.

I was trying to find the specific language of how that was differentiated and I couldn't dig it up, but it is a

There is a composite material.

This is solid.

And then I think there's the extruded vinyl type of thing.

Like you would get at a hardware store.

So there's definitely a distinct difference in how the materials are constructed and what they're called.

I just don't have it at the tip of my tongue right now, but the BAR has allowed that.

I mean, I guess I would say that at a very minimum, it really needs to be a paintable surface.

That's not, you know, that's something that's designed for paint.

It isn't color impregnated.

And, you know, so you get that the imperfection of a hand painted surface that in terms of your perception, anyway, that gets it a long way toward being a wood shutter in terms of what you see.

But

You know, these are wood windows also.

I'm honestly, if you guys want to put a requirement that they're wood, that's fine.

I just want to toss that out there.

I don't think that was a full motion.

I thought somebody just said they liked it.

I mean, it wasn't a motion.

I would strongly recommend that the motion refer to the first consider the conditions that I had inserted

And then I do agree with Mr. Gaston or suggestion about addressing the water meter.

So we've got the issue about, we've got the change relative to the front porch.

We've got the shutters.

And we've got the site wall.

I'm actually sorry to confuse things again with that site wall.

Their drawing shows it jogging around a fire hydrant.

I think that's going to be a given no matter what.

I could be wrong on that, but I'm willing to concede that we just allow, we're going to approve the drawing as submitted, but not what they've described at the water meter.

Does that make sense to everyone?

Yeah, it's just not a 10 foot clearance and all that other.

I'll tell you what, if you if you if you approve that wall as it is, we are going to fight the good fight.

We're going to show you.

We're going to do due diligence.

We're going to show different versions of it.

We're going to try to send it up the flagpole and see what happens.

I know other projects where, you know, so anyway, we will do our best and it's a design problem.

So working with the city, working with Kendra, working with, we're gonna make it the best that we can within the limitations.

So we would like as much freedom as possible to do it and as much relief as possible.

So if you grant that, take it under an advisement that we would at least try to make it better or try to make it fit in.

But we're gonna stir that pot all at once when we

trying to get the water meter in and the hydrant and the wall.

And the more latitude you can give us, the better it is.

I think I can make a motion.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including city design guidelines,

Wait, is this the right one?

City guidelines for rehabilitation and additions.

I move to find that the proposed alterations repairs in construction at 125 Chancellor Street satisfies the BAR's criteria as compatible with this property and other properties in the corner ADC district and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following recommendations.

Cement forward siding on the addition and aluminum siding will be smooth with no faux grain.

Remove from exterior walls unnecessary wires, conduits, and related boxes.

Clearing of vegetation from the front sidewalk wall and metal fencing.

Trimming and pruning of remaining vegetation and removing invasive plants.

When the aluminum siding is removed, provide the BAR for the record photographs of each elevation.

In addition, the BAR supports the project's approach of repair and restoration of the porch.

In addition, the board recognizes that some elements of the porch will be reinstated given the documentation that has been prepared.

Shutters on the project should be wood and not PVC.

And that the site wall is approved as drawn.

I can second that.

May I add a quick amendment?

Can I ask one dumb question?

Is the siding, presumably, when the aluminum siding comes off, the old wood siding is being refurbished?

No.

Yeah, it's in pretty, pretty rough shape.

Okay.

That's what I thought.

I just wasn't, the notes weren't totally clear.

I mean, it says, it says it on the edition, but doesn't say, it says, remove, replace aluminum siding, but it doesn't specifically say it's getting the Hardy board, which I didn't notice that.

So hold on a second.

I know we have a motion.

No, it takes it all removed.

Okay, so I was interpreting replace as replacing it with, so it's replacing it with something else.

That's okay.

So it's replacing it with the cement shingles or cement siding.

Joe, do you still second that?

Thank you.

I'll call a vote now.

Mr. Lehendra.

Aye.

Mr. Zehmer.

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Mr. Moore.

Aye.

Ms.

And Mr. Gastinger.

Aye.

That's approved.

That motion is approved with a vote of eight to zero.

It was a yay.

Yeah, that's deep.

This is why I like yes and no.

All right, thanks, guys.

Thank you for your time.

And please take the sign down.

I keep forgetting to recommend that.

One down.

All right.

Carl, do you mind if we take just a three minute break really quickly?

That's fine.

Thanks.

And I've gone ahead and promoted Megan Taylor, who's the next applicant.

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

No, not really.

We've already had one horse impersonation tonight.

Yeah, that's right.

What was that, Mr. Ed?

Well, you ever done it where you put on the top of a dog's nose?

A glob of peanut butter right there.

Hey, my dogs all love me.

Yeah.

My dog will lick the peanut butter and then it's like,

Then he just starts licking every arm and leg as if there's peanut butter on it.

I guess because he's licking it, he's getting on with his tongue and then it's just an ongoing process.

It really doesn't entertain him for hours.

I have to give him that for an old goofy dog that I can't believe is hanging in there.

Welcome to the fun.

Do we have, we're still missing a few here.

We're in our MC, aren't we?

Oh, there he is.

I just saw that.

This was, yeah.

Did you see my, so you saw the email.

I just saw the email.

I laughed when I saw that.

Yeah.

I mean, it was really talking to Megan about it.

It was so excited.

And she's like, well, what are you guys going to do?

It's like nothing.

You know, we're not doing anything, you know, no balloons or and you know, baby steps.

But yes, she's very excited.

And maybe, maybe Carl, you could at least sneak this one in.

It's like best actress.

We'll be getting an award for a rehabilitation of a historic structure.

as awarded to owners Kristin Jensen and Dan Krasnogor.

Okay, great.

A certificate suitable for framing will be

will be circulated once I can get back into the city hall and print a few things.

Oh, that means your cats can tear them up.

Don't say that word.

Speaking of trees, well, my son and daughter gave me a smoker for Father's Day and my next door neighbor has this huge pecan tree and big limbs are always falling off of it.

But I tell you, if you smoke meat with pecan, oh my God, I'm like ready to...

Brecht's probably going to come out and go, what's going on?

There's another limb missing from that tree.

So which side of you is this, Jeff?

But yeah.

I mean, it's fantastic.

It really, what a difference.

And now the house smells like it's

Instead of the dog licking its head, Sandy and I are like just walking around sniffing them.

We have an application for 801 Park Street.

This isn't 801.

Yep.

We have before you with the award winning 801 Park Street.

This is a COA request for a landscape and hardscape plan.

This is the Pavilion Tennyson House.

It was constructed in 1893.

My date is wrong on the report, but 1893 it is in the North Downtown ADC District and it is contributing.

It was originally more elaborately detailed than it is now.

It's a Queen Anne style house with a steeply pitched roof, tall chimneys, large dormer windows, and cresting at the ridges.

has been described as one of the most elaborately decorated homes on Park Street.

As you know, it's been to the BAR twice for some renovations, particularly in February 2017, the BAR approved a series of exterior renovations, which that work again was recognized by the BAR with the 2020 preservation and design award for the rehabilitation of historic structure.

The application before you this evening is to a COA request for a conceptual master plan for plantings, patios, walkways, and pools, and a parking area on the side street.

And just one quick clarification, we had, we originally talked about not having any trees removed, but there is a, there's a small apple tree at the front sidewalk.

They do

Hope to remove that and it would be replaced with two service berry trees, one on each side of that walk.

The BAR should discuss the applicant's request for the option work at the front walk, just so that we know that that's something that they've specifically asked about.

The intent is to correct the riser heights at the steps and it

also in that provides an opportunity to better align it with the front of the house.

The fact that it's concrete, I can certainly assume it's not original to the house.

Certainly it's old, but not original.

The plan as has been submitted is to some extent, conceptual.

There are some detailed information in there.

But the applicant then has provided some the additional the addendum sheets which some one of them here in front of you to establish the types of materials that are going to be used.

The point here being that this is a large-scale project and this isn't going to be tackled all at once.

So to sort of establish some parameters that they can move forward with it and if they have to maybe adjust something we've given

you know, a range of things that can be used.

And so, and staff is recommending approval of the COA.

And I've stated here five conditions that I think cover the basis for allowing them to move forward with what's conceptual and also calling out there's the porch deck and there's, or I'm sorry, there's a wood deck in the rear and there is a proposed shed

Separating those out and they are excluded from this and would require separate COAs at a later date.

So the only thing I would add is just if it helps, and Megan pointed out to me and felt bad I missed it, but the patio or this proposed pool area is actually depressed down into the grade.

And that's what's allowing, I think, really

Happy that it is, that instead of having a pool with a big wall around it or a fence, it's allowing sort of a continuous appearance of being open from Park Street back.

And so the pool would be built at a later, that's probably a much later phase.

And also, if it happens, when it happens, the goal is to incorporate some self-closing cover, which

with that does not require the large fences that we see in other situations.

So I think it's an excellent solution.

And so just to make that clear that it is depressed into the landscape and not elevated above it.

I think it's pretty clear if you have any questions for me.

Otherwise, Carl, you can introduce Ms.

All right.

Well, yeah, Ms.

Hey, yes, if you wouldn't mind, Robert, if you would go to the existing condition survey.

Which might be, yeah, second, one more, yeah, right there.

I'll briefly just go over the existing conditions and then briefly go over the property goals.

As you can see, so this survey was done back in the fall and we just had

you know, obviously the built conditions surveyed, the mature trees surveyed, and the grade between the main house and the rear studio, detached studio, and then also the grade where the proposed pool might be located in the future.

There really aren't any discernible landscape features other than

the two front walkways, or the one front walkway connecting the front porch to the sidewalk on Park Street, and then the sidewalk way connecting the front porch to Park Hill Street.

If you wouldn't mind, Robert, going to the first page, just showing the overall master plan.

So I just will briefly describe the overall goals for the property when

the owners had reached out to me.

They wanted to just do an overall master plan before starting with any smaller planting projects.

And the overall goals for the property are to revitalize the overall landscape, revitalize the existing circulation, and to create new circulation, and to create private outdoor spaces.

Regarding the first goal, revitalizing the overall landscape

The intent is to maintain the open park-like aesthetic along the Park Street frontage and to create more private intimate garden spaces starting from the front plane of the house and then moving back to the rear of the property and the rear of the house.

The second goal for revitalizing the existing circulation and creating new circulation, both of the existing walkways

have entry steps as Jeff had mentioned that where the risers are uneven and they can be hazardous to navigate especially the steps on the sidewalk way which is used actually more often than the front walkway.

Both walkways are also narrow and we're proposing to have them be widened and then the front walkway

is cracking and settling in several places and there's grass and weeds growing into the joints.

New circulation is needed from the off-street parking area on Hill Street to the rear entrance of the main house and to the entrance to the studio.

The rear entrance to the house is used on a more regular basis and the entrance to the studio would be used for visiting family and guests.

The final goal of the property

is to create private outdoor spaces.

Again, as you saw on the existing condition survey, there are no programmed or delineated outdoor spaces.

Low retaining walls are needed to create these spaces due to the sloping grade.

And with the use of plantings and walls to create and define the private spaces, the homeowners will then have the ability to utilize

the extents of their property as desired.

As Jeff had stated that this is obviously a conceptual plan, but the first phase would be the front yard plantings, the English garden, the front walkway and Park Hill walkway improvements.

All right, well, first, let's see, are there any questions from the public?

Please use the raise your hand feature or press star 9.

I don't see any raised hands, Carl.

I've got a question.

Hi, Megan.

Just thinking about trees in the front yard, existing trees, are there other additional trees that didn't show up on the survey on the north side of the lot in the front yard?

There are some smaller trees.

I believe there's a willow oak and a couple of other trees that were saved.

I believe there was some clearing done when the renovation work happened on the house.

Yeah.

And the area that was cleared

on the northeastern side of the property, there were some trees that were saved.

And I believe a couple of trees are not on this survey.

Excellent, thank you.

Yeah, they seem to show up in the street view.

to just reiterate that apple tree is just to the north of the front walkway.

And that tree seems to be dying.

Well, note that the street view that's on the side street on Park Hill is actually a 2012 image.

Because I remember when I was looking, I was thrown by the difference.

So the Park Street view is somewhat

All right, well, are there any comments from the public?

Great.

In general, I think the strategy makes a lot of sense.

Really, the only thing I would like to see are some more street trees.

And that whole part of Park Street is kind of, from there and on, going up the other side to the north, it's really the least treed part of the street.

It's pretty hot on a summer day.

And I think the house has certainly got the scale to handle some big trees down near the front.

and I think it would enhance a park-like setting, frankly.

I think the sunken pool and all that makes a great deal of sense.

Thank you.

No, I'm thinking more just large shade trees because I think the understory trees would start to, I mean, I think

You know, the expanse and the openness is nice.

I just think having some large scale trees, which I realize will take some time, but I just think that particularly where some of the smaller houses were built in the 70s, 60s and 70s, you know, they really annihilated most of the bigger trees that I presume were there once.

And I think trying to fill those teeth back in would be nice because a good chunk of Park Street, you know, very well

Yeah, that aerial photo from the 30s is pretty telling.

Yeah.

There really were now quite a few larger trees on the property.

I do think I was going to have a similar comment, but I do think a few of those might be already underway with the smaller trees that don't show up on the survey.

But otherwise, the newer proposed trees are almost all

Smaller understory.

One thing to note, I know there are overhead utility lines on that side of the street.

That being said, we could propose planting

Yeah, I think that would be fine.

And I think we could leave some difference to finding a location for those.

I think the design is really elegant and appropriate.

I don't think, and for the most part, especially for the early phases, I think we have more than enough

information to give some approvals.

I do want to speak a little bit about the concrete wall and stair.

Clearly the stair has some safety issues with the way that it's been constructed, but I think if you listen to the last discussion, I think there's about concrete walls and them as character defining in our neighborhoods.

I'd probably recommend or prefer keeping the location of the stair and path where it is.

I personally don't have an issue with adjusting and reconstructing the width or in allowing for the newer material.

But I'm curious what the others on the board say.

But the rest of the plan seems,

especially if we're not including walls or future fencing or the deck or pool.

I think this is an excellent direction.

Just a quick aside.

It's kind of funny.

The survey implies that the walkway is heading dead into the porch, but

On that walkway, I went up and down Park Street and there's one other stair that's similar.

Concrete wall and stair with kind of flared curve opening and narrow sidewalk.

And it's all the way down just south of Lyons Court.

So it's pretty far away.

and yeah, so I was trying to figure out if this is actually a character defining feature along Park Street.

Walls are a character defining feature.

We've got stone walls, we've got brick walls.

It seems so odd that this, it's such a tiny little stair and that it is crooked and not really lined up with the front porch.

It just feels like

I wish I knew the history of it.

And I have a little bit of concrete wall fatigue.

I apologize to the rest of the BAR.

So I'm kind of ready to just say this is definitely, it makes no sense with the house.

It doesn't, it seems like it was maybe public works, you know, a century ago decided that this needed to be put in for some street upgrade project.

and I'd be willing to say, fix it, make it right, make it look like it belongs with the house.

I mean, the wall itself is, it's hardly a wall.

It's maybe nine or 10 inches tall.

Not speaking for the homeowners, but if I think there were changes, it would maybe be the entire length of that.

Well, I'm not saying that unless that's what they want.

I'm just saying if you guys wanna rip up the front steps, that'd be okay.

The next house down.

is that 1860s house that the Gellies are doing all that work on.

It even has the curved walls turning in.

And then you go down, there's two more going up towards Farish.

Boy, they're in such bad shape.

The other thing I had mentioned to Megan is,

trying to determine exactly where that wall falls before they start tinkering with it.

But some of these are even within the city right away or about it.

But it goes back to, you know, we've said a long time, a large discussion of these walls and how to retain them and what to retain and where, just like curbstones.

But if, I don't know, Megan, does that help you with where they were as far as,

I know that the concern was to try and fix the risers.

I think the risers on the sidewalk way are actually even more important to the homeowners because that gets used more frequently, especially with guests.

And that the riser height difference on those steps is actually greater than the riser height difference on the front walkway steps.

So it would not be critical to them if those

Concrete risers remain the same at the front.

The concrete wall would remain the same.

And the only thing that would change on the front walkway would be the width and the paving material.

Just reason I'm asking is if a motion's made because that was sort of woman had an either or

an alternative question from the applicant to make sure that we state clearly in the motion which the BAR is first.

Interestingly, the park street sidewalk is actually centered right on the front door of the house across the street.

makes you wonder if they were good friends.

That's nice, Tim.

Quick comment, though, on the suggestion to add some street trees.

You mentioned the power lines.

And it looks like it's all communication lines that run along that sidewalk.

I could be wrong.

In the past, we had this idea that you can grow street trees over those.

That may be a false assumption, but I know we've definitely assumed that before.

Yes, I would second that because they're nowhere near as aggressive where it's calm lines.

I would like to not characterize them as street trees, but characterize the recommendation as for canopy trees.

Because I think there's something to be said for the composition of different views for the house.

And generally, it's getting larger canopy trees in there rather than, and there's not a consistent street tree along that section of park.

Right, right, right.

It's not like an enfilade.

Yes, I agree.

The tree commission has recommendations for appropriate canopy trees in the city.

I did want to note on, I stuck this in the chat, but the just recommendation was that all the trees

be on the master tree list.

And I don't think we need to exclude the fruit trees from that because they'll never find fruit trees on the city's master list.

I think your application is just recommendation that we just need to be careful.

Well, I was curious about that recommendation.

Yeah, the idea I think was to let them finish the design in phases and later on.

Yeah, I think that'd be fine.

Or, you know, or if they prefer something different, you know, but at least they had, you know, a parameter work within.

And I could call on the fruit trees.

I didn't realize they are not on the list.

Now, I'll say from a traffic calming design perspective as well, you know, open in areas and

enclosed areas and that traveling from one to the other helps with that engagement with the road, so to speak.

So there are benefits to having areas that are when you come out from under that tree canopy.

So it's just as a thought.

Just to be clear though, what we're considering is phase one and it's the sidewalks, right?

That's really what we're being asked to think about today or the whole plan.

Okay.

My personal opinion is that I certainly see the need for

the need, I understand the desire of the owners to have private spaces.

And I really think the design is very skillfully done to provide that.

And it looks like a very attractive, it's thoughtful and I'm entirely for the conceptual design has put forward.

Yes, option one of widening it, both the steps, realigning and widening.

But it looks like if someone were to make a motion, it would probably pass.

I think I'm seeing that correctly.

OK.

Would anybody like to make a motion?

Or is there more discussion?

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC design guidelines, I move that the proposed landscape and hardscape plan for 801 Park Street satisfies the B.A.R.

's criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the north downtown ADC district.

And the B.A.R.

approves this with the following conditions that canopy trees be considered

slightly perhaps slightly step back from the street.

I'm trying to capture what Breck has identified here.

I'll entertain a friendly motion after I'm done with my motion or a friendly amendment that new trees and plantings will conform to the city's master tree list and master shrub list with the exception of flowering trees.

Shown on the design plan.

Paving materials and walls will conform to the precedent images provided by the applicant.

Proposed walls will not exceed the height of four feet above grade at any point on the outside face as viewed from Park Street and from Park Hill.

As work progresses, the applicant understands that staff that they will they will work with staff to assure that it's consistent with this certificate of appropriateness with the understanding that there may be revisions that may require our review again and that this certificate of appropriateness excludes any proposed shed and wood deck which will require later review in a separate appropriateness certificate and that we would

Quick amendment.

You said exclude the flowering trees.

I also, would you be opposed to accepting either of those options?

Let them choose?

I'll call a vote then.

Mr. Bailey?

Yes.

Mr. Gastinger?

Yes.

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz.

Yes.

Mr. Zehmer.

Yes.

Mr. LeHendro.

Aye.

Mr. McClure.

Yes.

And Mr. Moore.

So that was a vote of eight to zero this time.

Yes.

Megan, if you would, congratulations.

And if you would have

Sure.

Well, thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

By the way, we have social distancing very well.

Look at your background.

Oh.

I was talking to James.

I noticed James' background.

I think I am.

You announced the, yeah, you,

Hey, by the way, just you all may have noticed that the motions are a little bit revised.

I took out the specific where we typically refer to a specific section of the design guidelines.

I simply referred to the design guidelines and per a suggestion that Carl had, I

inserted an address so that, you know, sort of like when you read a note, a motion, you know what it's addressed, you know, what it is and where it is.

So if anyone's wondering why things got a little bit different.

Next up, and Mr. Wardell is here.

Diane is here.

Good.

We've got Diane, before I forget, we were going to look at the cemeteries.

Remember, I think I spoke with you.

We're all set to do it.

Because of COVID, we tabled that research project, but we're hoping to pick it up again in this next grant cycle.

So I will be talking.

We didn't forget about it.

That's what happened.

Okay, I guess I'll start for the group.

As I said, I'm Diane Hillman.

I'm president of Congregation Beth Israel, speaking tonight about the entry door security upgrade.

Just a little background, the events of July and August of 2017 were felt throughout our community, but in particular,

at Congregation Beth Israel, both the KKK and the Unite the Right rallies.

We were located, of course, right between the Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee statues, and we were literally in the middle of the fight among the opposing forces.

So we experienced these events in a very unique and troubling way, one that I never expected to see in my lifetime, the rise of open, aggressive antisemitism.

We realized that life in our community has changed and that CBI needed to protect itself as never before.

The events here and later in Pittsburgh reinforced our belief that we needed to be proactive and to provide both physical and process improvements.

In the last couple of weeks, we've understood that the great growth of racism and antisemitism and intolerance in general have grown even more than we ever expected.

So this project is a timely one.

It follows on the project that you'll approve two years ago, and that has been implemented at CBI, the addition of a fence and other security upgrades in our courtyard.

In an effort to provide adequate security, we have been supported with assessments by the Department of Homeland Security and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management.

And we've received funding from FEMA for the current project that we are contemplating.

OK, well, I can't see anyone, but in any case, I'll just keep going then.

So the current conditions and the proposed solutions, Bruce Wardell Architects, as you see Bruce is here, and Kareem Habab have both been working on this project with us.

The current conditions are that our sanctuary doors at the top of the steps on Jefferson Street are over 100 years old in all likelihood.

They currently open inwards, which potentially impedes exit in an emergency.

And they are a weak point.

They're very difficult to secure against unauthorized entry.

And they're also very leaky, whether it be cold or hot air that comes streaming in those very old doors.

We plan to replace the doors with recessed outward opening doors.

that will be similar in the design of the building in the early 1900s.

They will be framed with metal door jam and soffit, and we will extend the landing and railings to enhance safety.

both the courtyard entry doors and the Jefferson, the third street door.

Both doors have resulted the thermal instability.

There's a lot of sunshine in the courtyard door and a lot of damp and cold on the Jefferson street door.

And they're warped so that they do not close and secure properly.

So we are going to be replacing those doors

with doors that are, and Kareem can go into the detail on these doors, but they will close properly behind people as they enter the building.

In addition, we'll be providing enhanced security glass in and around the doors so that people from the inside can see what's happened, whether anybody is coming and who is coming.

Finally, we will be adding electronic surveillance.

Right now, as I said, we can't visualize visitors to the sanctuary.

And if you're serving as usher and you want to let in only people you want to let in, it's very difficult.

You can't see who's at the door.

and we'll be adding audio visual screen at those doors and then additional enhancements so that the office can see who is coming to each of the other two doors and decide whether to let them in.

That is really the sum total of the project.

We hope that the Board of Architectural Review will consider these improvements with an eye to both security and architectural improvement.

We've worked hard in partnership with BRW Architects to develop an attractive, historically appropriate, and secure plan to continue to protect Congregation Beth Israel and its entire community of worshipers, students, and visitors.

Thanks.

Yeah, I can quickly go through.

I don't know if you want to share our booklet or Jeff if you wanted to go through the staff report.

Yeah, we did kind of skip Jeff's.

Just going to say I spoke briefly at the pre-meeting and let everyone know that the only question that we had left was the resolution of that railing at the top, which your addendum covered.

So that sort of strips out the language that I had offered in a way to sort of condition it or have further discussion on.

I'm okay with it and I let the BAR know that.

Okay, we'll quickly go through these slides.

Thank you, Diane, for the introduction.

As you can see here, these are some just existing photos in the beginning of the booklet.

This shows the sanctuary doors as they are now.

I want to reiterate that these doors that are on there are not historic.

We don't know exactly when they were installed, but it was like the 60s or 70s.

around that time.

Diane might know more about that than I do.

And those are the doors that we want to replace.

And I guess we can go to the next page.

This is an estimate of where we're adding a new step to this landing.

And you can see at the edge of that tape measure is where the new step is going to go.

And it's going to extend all the way back into where the doors are and slightly into that vestibule.

And there are, I think, some more

clear drawings later on in the booklet.

That's the interior.

When you go into those sanctuary doors, that's what you see on the inside.

And these two are the other two doors that we're talking about, the third street entry and we're calling the Jefferson Street doors or the lobby entry.

And this is a historic photo of what we believe could be the original historic doors at the sanctuary, which are not what is there now.

But you can see the design of them that we'll reference later on.

So for the, I guess starting with the third street door, Diane mentioned the grant to upgrade the security and update the doors.

If you look on the left hand side, that's our sketch

what the new door would look like.

It'll have those glass panels at the top to increase visibility.

So when you're leaving the space, you can see who's on the other side of the doors and the design itself takes its cue from those, the original photograph, the black and white photograph that you saw with the paneling.

For the Jefferson Street entry,

They're a little kind of different animal, I guess, on this side of the building.

It's part of the newer addition that was built by BRW Architects.

And the design for those doors references the kind of like gothic arch shape.

If you go a couple of pictures, I think it's like page five, maybe.

I don't know what page it is on here, slightly up more.

Yeah, that one.

On the right-hand side, you can see that arch and those windows.

So we're referencing that design element into the new design of those doors and adding all those glass paneling so you can see through the doors as well as you're exiting the building.

And last but not least, the sanctuary doors themselves.

This is the existing plan on the left-hand side.

You can see that it is, I guess the way it is now is that the landing itself is inadequate the way it is right now, where the doors open inwards and you have a bunch of little steps, right, as you open the doors.

I think there are some original pictures in the beginning of the booklet that show that condition.

Our proposal is to, for egress reasons, have those doors open outwards.

And in order to do that, we have to recess the doors in

at a step and create that landing depth so that we can have those doors open outwards and have people safely exit that building.

I would say there was a recent, somewhat recent addition inside the sanctuary space that has, there's another ink restore from inside there that opens outwards for emergency exit, but this door is still used for occasions and stuff like that, that it would be beneficial from a security standpoint that they open outwards.

The design of those doors is a direct kind of recall back to that historic photograph with the paneling.

The railings, I think Jeff mentioned, at first we were thinking of how to modify the historic railings, but we decided it would be better to leave those alone.

And since we're pouring a new concrete landing at the top there and cleaning up all those little

steps that exist there and making this flush new landing, we can mount and install new railings at that landing to satisfy the height requirement since we're adding new stuff and raising that level.

And I guess the materiality of the doors, you can see this is, I guess, our precedent palette and the next picture you can see some

It's kind of schematic renders of what that recess could look like.

Since we're pushing the doors back, that created this, saw it as an opportunity with these larger jams to reference back, if you think of like the materials used in the ecclesiastical doors in big cities, it's these bronze, this bronze material.

In this case, we were thinking of that as the material to go on as the panels and the soffit of this recess, while the doors themselves would be mahogany wood,

did not, I guess, counteract that.

And that's the gist of it.

All right, well, thank you.

First, are there any questions from the public?

I do see a raised hand from attendees named Kent and Schlissel.

So I will now allow them to talk.

And I think they have three minutes.

My name is Kent Schlissel.

I'm the chairman of the congregation, Beth Israel Safety and Security Committee.

Since 2017,

We have had four different safety and security inspections of our building and emergency procedures.

Two of these inspections have resulted in written reports and two were recommendations passed to us verbally.

The written reports were done by Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and by the Secure Communication Network, SCM.

The SCM is a North American Jewish Federation organization that has been authorized by DHS

and Thema to conduct security assessments.

The verbal reports were done by Charlottesville Police Department in 2019 and by SCM last month to review a proposed plan on the doors.

I've also talked to the FBI and the state police about the doors.

All these reports were concerned about the physical security and safety of CBI building as occupants.

We have done several things inside the building and outside the building.

The most noticeable was the Cordell renovation, and we thank the bar for approving this renovation.

Now we will continue to improve our safety and security of CBI.

All the inspectors noted the doors, especially the doors leading to the main sanctuary, as a problematic issue for safety and security.

FEMA agrees with the analysis concerning the doors to the building,

and we were successful at obtaining grant money as Diane Hillman has stated previously.

The other doors after many years also need to be replaced to improve both our safety and security procedures.

As you can see from our requests, I believe this will not only enhance the beauty of the building, but improve both safety and security of the building.

I urge you to approve this plan.

Okay.

We have some drawings that were done, I think, when there was an addition prior to the addition that we did in the 1992 to 94.

There were drawings that were about 10 years prior to that.

And we have those drawings, but I'm not aware of original drawings or any kind of habs drawings of the building.

Gotcha.

Where I was going with that was just, I appreciate y'all's intent to replicate the original front doors and looking to see if there's any way to match some of the molding profiles and details for those doors.

So I have a question for Karim or Bruce.

Let's go to that photograph of the top stair, if we can.

If we look at the entire stairway, it is a patchwork of different materials going up.

Let's take a look at the one from the bottom of the stairs.

So the stairs up to the bottom landing are one kind of concrete.

The stairs from the bottom of the landing up to the top of the landing are another kind of concrete.

And then the sill into the door itself

is a kind of stone, I think.

Yeah, it probably is limestone.

And what has to happen is that that has to come out to the edge out here for the landing.

Well, it would, I mean, it appears to be

part of the original fabric of the building, unless you know otherwise.

Yeah.

I think there might be a way to detail an extension of this and perhaps even in limestone.

We're thinking that once we get beyond this sill, here's one of the issues that we have to deal with, if we can just puzzle through this a little bit, is that once we remove this sill and we recess the doors inside by the three feet for each panel, we now have a surface that we have to treat that is an exterior surface.

And so what we end up with is we end up with this kind of band of stone here and then a surface inside and a surface outside that are something else.

You're breaking up, Bruce.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

I think if everybody else besides Bruce would mute themselves, that might help.

Oops.

Can you hear me now?

Okay, yes.

I don't know where I dropped out, but when we when we recess the doors, we end up with an exterior surface that we have to have where those feet are.

We have this band of original limestone and then we have the extended

of landing that we have to have for the area outside.

We met with the code official and looked at these clearances.

So what that creates is this kind of three-part piece of this landing, which I guess we kind of assumed that we wanted that to be homogeneous.

As you raise the issue of the kind of original piece of this,

There might be a solution where we can keep this, although I'm not sure that the height of it is going to be exactly right as you kind of make a consistent surface across the entire

Yeah, and I understand the complications because I'm sure this existing limestone has some slope to it.

It may even have some wear in the center of it that makes it

not a straight line across the top of the nosing.

But I think hopefully you understand my point too that this is original fabric and if there's some way that this is a challenge that you take and just ponder and give it some thought and see if there's a way maybe a new

A piece of slate that covered the whole thing, I don't know.

Just give it some thought.

If there is a way to encase it... That would be better than getting rid of it.

Understood.

Yeah, I think point taken.

And I think we'll know more when we pull the threshold up and know what's in the framing.

It might be possible that we could sort of layer this thing from front, middle, and back and make them all work together.

I had another question on this image and I've been, sorry, I've been the one drawing.

I'll admit it.

It was about the same issue, but it was about just noticing that this portion of the concrete is going to be exposed to the side and just making sure that it's going to be held back from this, from the edge of the stair and that we also have enough clearance kind of between that pedestal and the new riser.

Yeah, it will be held back and it will probably put pigment in the concrete.

to sort of match it a little more closely with the old concrete.

You can see even here that this top landing, the existing top landing is different than the top stair there.

But the orange line is about where the new slab would be.