Board of Architectural Review Meeting   1/18/2023

People that are tuning in online will be like, wow.

Yeah.

Have you always played musical chairs here?

You're a mislabel.

I'm not a mislabel.

You're James.

Do you think there are people that want to come here that are out there?

They're like, oh, there's munchies.

They can't stop here.

How generous.

Of course they feed the police chief and not us.

Who hasn't worked a day for the city?

We just say, bitter, bitter, bitter.

Yes.

Thanks, Remy.

He's really, really nice.

I know, I am.

My snark.

No, I think they're selling tickets for the game in Atlanta.

I don't know why.

Oh, no.

I think there are people probably over there that are like, oh, there's food and drink.

Yes, and we are live, by the way, so I just did a bunch of inappropriate stuff.

Remy confirmed with a smile.

Just at the house.

I've been coaching a lot on Saturdays.

I've been doing soccer and basketball.

It's like my whole Saturday is sports games.

You think you guys are going to take it this weekend?

That's fine, that's fine, yeah.

One that came in from Alaska and one that came in from Rhode Island.

Where in Alaska?

So for just, I did send the note out to all the applicants and said there was a likely delay, so I just need to make sure everyone is here and we can.

Thanks, Jerry.

Thank you.

Well, Carl was able to get to it in a way that I was trying.

Oh.

Are we OK to get started?

OK.

I'm sorry.

Okay, great.

Awesome.

That's new.

Curiously, it seems I do.

Because previously, I don't determine council's agenda and never have.

Same thing with planning commission.

So it's more than that with you all.

I've got a little more freedom.

So apparently, well, Jeff, when do you want to bring it?

The one downside is

Yes.

Apparently it was very cold here too, but yeah.

I would have five.

All right, as soon as my meeting is, as soon as it lets me in, I think everyone's here.

Okay, you just give me the word.

Where is she?

Oh, yeah.

All right, so Mr. Gassinger, if you want to kick it off.

I don't have the screen coming up yet for me, but it's the consent agenda.

Thanks, everyone, and happy new year.

And for those of you tuning in remotely, I hope we may hear some background noise.

It's not that we have an incredibly rowdy audience, but there's a meet and greet also scheduled in the same location.

I hope that's not a challenge for those of you listening at home.

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

The way things will go this evening is that staff will introduce each item followed by the applicant's presentation, which should not exceed 10 minutes.

I'll then ask if there are any questions from the public followed by questions from the BAR.

After the questions are closed,

will ask for comments.

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

Please identify yourself if you're speaking and provide your address.

If you are trying to speak from the remote from the zoom room, please raise your hand or press star nine if you're calling in.

Comments should be limited to our purview, that is regarding the exterior aspects of the project and our guidelines.

Following our discussion and before we take action, the applicant will have some time, up to three minutes, to respond.

Tonight, the first item on our agenda is the space open for matters from the public that are not on the agenda or if anyone that would like to speak to the consent agenda.

Do we have any members that would have something to speak to that's not on our agenda?

No?

Then we'll move to the consent agenda.

Tonight, the consent agenda, oh, we do have a speaker.

Thanks.

You should be opened and allowed to unmute it.

And if you could please identify yourself, and you have up to three minutes.

Thank you.

Genevieve Keller.

And I actually would like to speak about the CLG that's late on your agenda, but I wasn't sure if that would have a public comment time.

OK, well, I'm going to join you on another item later tonight, but I wanted to just say to you that the Certified Local Government Program is a federal program that has been around for decades, and that is administered by each state's Historic Preservation Office.

In our case, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources that you probably know by its acronym, DHR.

CLG is a program that has provided integral assistance to our city over the years.

A lot of people don't realize that the intent of the program is to nurture and promote historic preservation values and attitudes in local governments that agree to participate in this program.

And participation gives them an advantage in applying for certain funds that are not available to all jurisdictions and that our city has used very successfully for surveys, nomination, planning, etc.

The program intention is to have trained and knowledgeable BAR members and there is actually an obligation stated in this program for BAR members to appreciate history and to reflect preservation values and attitudes in their decision making.

I thought it might be timely to make that as a reminder because sometimes we go down

some design rabbit holes and forget about preservation and the importance of materiality and historic fabric and historic significance.

And so I just wanted to say to you tonight, I think this is a really important program.

I'm really pleased and proud that our city has participated in it for decades.

And I hope it's a charge that you take seriously.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Keller.

Any other matters from the public?

Okay, we'll move to our consent agenda which tonight only consists of one item.

It's approval of the meeting minutes from February 15th and March 15th, 2022.

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I'm going to abstain.

One abstention.

Thank you very much.

to just quickly respond to Jenny's comments.

And I'm glad she raised that, because a lot of people do ask what the CLG is and what it means.

And I'll get into a little bit more of that later this evening.

But I do appreciate helping to explain to people what it is.

Maybe I just don't have a loud voice.

It's green.

It's the first time anyone's pushed a mic in front of my mouth.

I got to call my brother.

So go to the

So this first one that's coming is for, it's a COA request for 1301 Wortland Street.

This one has been before you several times over the past year with preliminary discussions and a sort of a continuation of development of the plan and design.

So it's something I think you all are familiar with.

This is the Worton Baker House.

It is on Wortland Street.

It is within the city's Wortland Street ADC District.

It is also a contributing structure to the National Register Wortland Street Historic District.

As we discussed earlier, there's some question about its date of construction.

Some site in the early 1800s, some as late as 1830, but no doubt it has been there.

It's a historically significant house in the city.

The request is for a COA to construct a

Department building, including the parking, landscaping, and site improvements adjacent to the Wharton-Baker House.

And I made a note in the staff report, there's not any

not having a discussion here or it's not presented as far as things that would be done to the house.

And in fact, I do also want to emphasize that in the renderings, the railings and some details of the Workmaker House are not what's there.

So I want to make clear that those are just in there to help contextually, but that is not what, you're not approving that anything gets changed on the building.

And also there was a,

The rendering on sheet 18, I think we got it replaced in time, but the windows that are to the left of the front garage entrance aren't shown, but that's been corrected, so make sure you know about that.

As I stated in the staff report, you all have seen this quite a few times and had a lot of discussions about it.

It's evolved, and I think those changes reflect the discussions that you all have had, and I know some that newer to the BAR maybe weren't part of those initial conversations, but I think that

They have been responsive to your requests.

I think, if anything, we would be concerned with the entrance onto Wirtland.

But that feature has been there since the beginning.

And so I think we've all understood that that's part of this design.

And with that, I'll hand it over to Kevin, unless you all have any questions for me, and dive into the conversation.

And do you want me to move through the slides?

I can, whatever.

Oh, this is yours.

I thought it was Mr. Subs.

OK, my mistake.

Yeah, absolutely.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Thank you, Jeff, for that introduction and your thorough staff report.

My name's Kevin Schaefer.

I am the Charlottesville studio director for design develop.

And as Jeff mentioned, the project's been in front of you a few times.

And from our perspective, this really embodies and fulfills the promise of board review.

each time we came back to you we felt like there were improvements and sensitivities given to the context and it became more appropriate from an ADC guideline perspective and for your role in the development of this project we just really wanted to extend gratitude and say thank you.

The feedback you've given both from a conceptual perspective all the way down to a detailed design perspective

has been really valuable to us and to our clients, so thank you.

Given the holistically positive feedback we received at the October hearing, you'll note that this submission is primarily the same.

It has been developed in certain key areas to provide the requested information, but holistically the design remains the same.

There have been a few minor architectural tweaks that I wanted to talk through right now, and if you could go to the next slide.

The first area of revision is the front facade in primarily the introduction of a pedestrian entrance off Wortland Street.

This is the area where we heard the most feedback at the previous hearing.

I think the front facade, particularly the brick portion, was maybe a little bit static, a little bit blank in terms of from an ADCD guideline perspective.

And so this rendering here, which is the corrected rendering from the page that Jeff mentioned in the booklet, shows that new pedestrian entrance bump out.

And if we go to the next slide,

This outlines the pedestrian entrance from Wortland Street.

This tower element helps mark our entrance but it also provides an accessible route from the street so that will enter into an elevator lobby which can take you up to the courtyard elevation as well as our accessible ground level units.

It introduces a change in the facade plane.

and introduces this three-story glazing element which helps mark the pedestrian entrance and then we have a decorative steel canopy overhang.

All of which is in keeping with the ADC guidelines for new construction from street level design perspective which encourages us to limit blank facades as well as provide visual interest to the passing pedestrian.

On the next slide, the other minor adjustment here was just a slight increase in the setback that was required due to the skew of the front facade.

We had to hold the 15 foot minimum from the proudest moment of our brick facade, and that did incur about two and a half feet of additional setback than what was previously shown, and two feet of additional setback at the darker tower corner element.

On the next slide, we'll get into the areas where the project has just been developed further, mainly selecting materialities in our landscape plan and our lighting plan.

We worked closely with Deb Brown at Allied Concrete to help evaluate the existing brick, not only from a

From a conditions perspective, assess the brick on the historic house for us, but also to help us pick a complementary existing brick and mortar, one that would be in keeping with the quality and the materiality of the existing house, as well as the other key contributing structures within the Werland District.

On the next page, you can note that the rest of the materials have been given the same amount of consideration and thoroughness.

The board will note high quality aluminum clad wood windows, panelized steel entry doors, and custom steel railings.

Both appropriate selections for this neighborhood, but also one that may be typically above what we may consider for student housing, multifamily residential project.

Next slide.

Continuing with the theme of a higher quality and well thought out design that was directed to us by our client, the landscape and site lighting plans have been developed that will bring new life to this parcel, which has seen some wear through the years.

The landscape, the development of the landscape plan has helped strengthen and will reinforce the connection of the existing Wharton Baker House to Wortland Street through a formal circular gathering lawn that you see here and significant street trees as well as landscape screening of the proposed project.

Next page.

Staff has noted that alterations are not proposed in this submission.

I will also address the staff comment that the railings, steps, and porch that we show on our renderings are just for illustrative purposes.

We're happy with the condition and notes.

We do not intend to do anything with the railings, just giving us some context there.

No alterations are proposed at this time to the House, but that's simply because not enough work has been done yet to understand the work that's required from a structural analysis perspective.

The House is currently occupied.

But the intent from the owner is to make sure that the house is stable, structurally sound, watertight, and ensure its longevity and well-being.

So anything that would happen beyond just a deferred maintenance would come back to the board for review, but the intention is absolutely just to rehabilitate as required to restore it and stabilize it.

on the next page.

And in order to go back one page.

Thank you.

In order to memorialize and reiterate our commitment to the existing structure, we would certainly offer or welcome a condition for approval that states something along the lines of the applicant must consult with a licensed structural engineer to determine a construction plan that depicts the necessary strategies to protect the existing structure.

It was a note from staff's comment that we would certainly be open to as well.

On the next page and regarding the garage lighting, we're amenable to staff suggestion of either implementing a condition of approval to require remediating any glare related issues that could come up or alternatively we are happy to provide a revised fixture that does not exceed a color temperature of 3,000 and has a CRI of less than 80.

We'd request that that be submitted to staff for approval.

We're open to those options as well.

and on the last image, I'll just close by again offering our gratitude to both city staff and to this board for your thoughtful reviewing and comment of this project as it has evolved.

We're really looking forward to a successful project that is both appropriate per the ADC guidelines but also helps provide the resources for ensuring longevity and stability and well-being of the very important historic Wharton Baker House.

Thank you, Mr. Shaver.

We have a email that you all received from Preservation Piedmont.

I think that might be good to read into the record, but maybe do we do that in the comment section?

Okay.

Ms.

Do we have any questions from the public?

Okay, we'll go to questions.

We do have a question from the... No?

Okay.

Well, speak up or raise your hand if we do have a question from the public.

Ms.

Keller, can you hear us?

Ms.

Oh, actually, thank you.

Yep, no worries.

Mr. Zehmer.

Hey, Kevin.

So this is an OK image to talk about it.

I just wanted clarity from the last submission to this one.

I feel like in the last submission there were some horizontal banding in the brickwork, kind of at the top of the brick sections of the building.

Oh, there would still be corners line.

It might just be the shadow or the sun angle on this image.

I think other images do show.

We do have horizontal banding at floor level.

We have soldier course.

We have soldier course above the window headers.

And we have a corbel detail that does have brick projections.

Along those lines, what about in the I was looking at the detail of the front entry tower.

Yes, that's correct.

To kind of emphasize and contextualize that the three story glazing element, which is the only place this appears.

We also did a soldier course band around it as well.

I have a question about the brick.

Was your intention to try to match the brick of the house or to create a bit of contrast in the renderings that the new building looks like it's a little redder, I guess, or slightly darker than the house?

Yeah, the thought process was it's a handmade brick on the existing structure, so matching it perfectly is just not going to be possible.

But we did want to propose a high-quality brick that had the same materiality quality to it.

It's a similar shade.

I think that matching a shade would be pretty challenging as well.

The grout is able to get much closer.

I've got two more questions since I'm on a roll.

The plans for the house, have there been any further plans for it?

Number one, just again, I'm out of my curiosity and then the lighting plan was interesting.

Regarding the existing house, the use has not been discussed at this time just because it's been occupied and I think they are, you know, they really are waiting almost on that structural assessment.

We do 3D point cloud scanning as well and that would be one means of which we would evaluate the house as well as with a structural engineer.

Regarding the site lighting, a lot of it's low bollards and that was intentional that the

The courtyard sits surprisingly high up above the street level, and so to introduce pole lighting or anything like that would be felt uncomfortable.

But to answer your more direct question, which is, is there any subtle way of consideration for lighting the house, I hadn't considered it, we hadn't considered it, thinking more about lighting circulation paths and things like that.

Did you have any more?

I've got a couple.

As staff noted in the report, other projects that have been built in close proximity have requested a preservation plan through construction.

I think we're open to that.

One of the things we suggested with the condition for approval would be

consulting with a structural engineer and developing that construction plan to ensure stability.

It benefits the owner to do that as well.

It's a disaster if anything happens to the house from multiple perspectives, so not just a historian one.

So it's a good idea and one we would likely do anyways is a structural

protection plan and monitoring throughout construction.

Projects we've done with this owner have involved heavy CA work from an architect and a structural engineer.

We anticipate being involved throughout the project and monitoring the existing house throughout the duration.

Considering it's 10 feet from

a structure that's arguably 130 years old or something.

I mean, 10 feet is a really tight squeeze.

I think that's a concern.

It's not just, you know.

My other question is a really easy one.

I wonder why you chose a gumball tree near two walkways and a species that according to someone who knows these trees better than I will drop spiky gumballs which are trip hazards to occupants and which could flow into the street of Wortland also.

I have a personal problem with this tree.

As you can see, I've spent a lot of money to remove them.

They're nice.

A great point.

I think in talking with the landscape architect, Water Street Studio, and working closely with Jesse there, there was a discussion about some diversity.

There's a lot of maples, and then there's jinkos down the side, and things like that.

So obviously, getting some different species involved that were native, but also harmonized with the rest of the planning selection was important.

I direct a question to her more.

I can't speak on why that one was chosen right there.

Is she around?

I'm sorry.

And just to talk process, what would be the vehicle for substituting a tree through BAR?

Is that something we would submit for administrative approval?

Because I think we're open to a suggestion.

In the past what we've done is opened it to species that, one easy way is to open it to species that are on this city's tree list.

Certainly that gives at least some flexibility, but I don't see it as a problem.

I think that we suggest we could make a motion that that species be replaced with a comparably scaled native tree and leave it at that.

And just one other question, and this is from the staff report and suggested by staff.

Yeah, the applicant has given thought to it.

Kind of along with the preservation stuff.

Sure, absolutely.

It's the most important structure in the Worland District.

A phase one seems appropriate for record.

I've got a question.

Kevin, you mentioned the lighting and that you would be open to considering options rather than 5,000 k lights.

The only ones I see that are that are in the parking garage itself and I'd be concerned about sort of spill out.

It seems like your lighting plan, the rendering shows real subtle lighting, which is commendable, but I am a little bit concerned about the spill out from the garage itself.

Yes, I think we would work with our lighting consultant to find a fixture that had a warmer temperature, 3000 K or something, that seemed more appropriate from what I know it has been an issue in the past and one that we want to be aware of.

and we certainly appreciate the comment and are happy to adjust as required.

We agree.

Yeah, right.

I think when we work with a lighting consultant, there's a garage and there's a safety factor that's factored in.

And then the idea that it is a few feet, I think we drop three or four feet from street level down into that garage, certainly goes a long way in shielding.

Any other questions from the board?

All right.

We'll move to comments from the public.

And Ms.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is Genevieve Keller.

I'm representing Preservation Piedmont.

Preservation Piedmont has been engaging on this project since we were first aware of it in the spring of 2022.

And we still find that this proposal that dominates the front side yard of the Wurton Baker House to be disturbing and inappropriate because it is out of scale and inharmonious in its historic context.

The historic house environs had been developed at the same time

as the earlier architectural rehabilitation of the house that occurred decades ago.

And many of us have been shocked at this second intrusion into what remained of the historic Wurtenbaker landscape.

Several weeks ago, we suggested that you explore ways to make this project parking exempt in hopes that the project could be repositioned and that the gaping vehicular entrance crossing a heavily used pedestrian sidewalk could be eliminated.

And we still ask that you explore this option before approving this project.

We do appreciate that some changes in design have had a degree of mitigating effects, but the new construction still intrudes on and pinches the historic house, one of the most significant in our city that is a rare residential survivor of the early 19th century.

We share concerns in the staff report about the need to protect and monitor this and other buildings in the vicinity during the construction phases should approval be granted.

We also support and advocate for archaeological investigations.

We hope that you will, as you did on Preston Place, address the historicity and significance of the historic Wharton Baker House and reiterate an expectation that the residents continue to be respected by continuing to follow Secretary of the Interior's standards for historic preservation and that it be retained in its historic location.

Finally,

We ask that you use this experience to be proactive in trying to ensure that the city's other ADC districts be better protected in the new zoning ordinance in terms of underlying setbacks and other design and spatial requirements so that there is not such a dramatic contrast and contradiction between our design guidelines and the area zoning.

and that in such designated areas, especially those that will be identified for medium density, that the BAR recommend to the consultant staff and steering committee that proposals like this one are not desirable in most of those contexts.

This kind of scenario threatens the spatial integrity and significant cultural landscape features

of places like Rugby Avenue, Rugby Road, Park Street, Ridge Street, just to name a few of our iconic streets.

We need a better proactive approach and mitigations so that harm to historic district landscapes does not occur as we pursue an increase in housing units in our city.

We should look for ways to ensure that we are not a city of tight squeezes, as Cheri Lewis so aptly put it.

We can grow smart, and I think you can play a big role in that

because you're the group in the city that's already conversant with design review and how infill could be done better.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms.

Keller.

All right.

Go ahead, Mr. Schwartz.

All right, I have just a couple of comments.

I mean, your design does keep getting better, so I think you've done a really good job.

Thank you.

One comment is our guidelines do call for large tree trees.

And I'm just going to pick on the yellow wood as opposed to the sweetcombs.

My understanding is that's a medium-sized tree.

And there's not really any other good location for another large tree.

And it just seems like that would be an important thing for us to require.

I understand that that may be a desire to put a native different species there.

I would like to see a large canopy tree there.

I don't know if the rest of the board will agree or not, but that's one of my concerns.

The condensing units

I'm guessing I'm going to throw this at the BAR.

I feel like we need to update our guidelines so that condensing units are always shielded, whether you can see them from the street or from the level of the roof.

And I know we've been lax on that.

So by precedent, we probably should allow this, but it does bother me because it's

you're going to see them at some point.

And it seems simple enough just to put a little fence around them that's the same color as the upper level of the building.

For the lights,

It would be nice to get the color temperature down, but I like the idea that you've offered of some sort of deal with the shielding after they're installed, because I do worry that, well, one, I think I agree that because the garage is low, it may not be a problem.

And then you can keep your safety and security as it needs to be.

But if it is a problem, I think it's just a matter of shielding that front light, the light that's closest to the garage door.

And I just want to comment because I know there's another applicant in the room that I've picked on for this, but the open stairs, I think it is acceptable in this context.

It's very specific to the context and the fact that they are facing to the side and not facing the street is helpful.

Those are my comments.

Excuse me, we've called from outside.

People at home are not able to hear us, so if you can, we can turn up the volume a little, Remy, or talk into the mics.

While you guys are thinking of your comments, I will just pick up on the issue of the landscape selections and landscape plan.

I do agree that we could, certainly the neighborhood would be benefited by a greater stature tree.

And I also think that there's probably some slight modifications that would improve the reading of the Wharton-Biker house to the street.

I'm concerned about the location of the service berries that ring the lawn as essentially we'll end up screening the house from the road.

and in particular that current location of the yellow wood that is shown in the renderings really obscures that primary relationship to 13th Street and to the road.

I think the plant selection is great.

I just think it needs to be deployed in a little bit different manner and maybe using the larger trees.

either to the left and or the right to better frame that front facade of the Wharton-Baker house so that it is visible and appreciated from from Wortland Street.

and I agree with the comments about the sweet gum.

I want to say that I appreciate this process.

It's been kind of amazing to watch this design over time.

I think this particular design is quite spot on.

And given the concerns about the historic context and so forth, right now there's just an ugly parking lot there.

I think this would be an improvement over that.

You're not going to get that lawn back, so I think that this building actually fits very sensitively into the landscape.

I particularly like the fact that there's now an entrance on Wordland Street.

I'll pick up where you left off.

I want to commend you on the really wonderful progress you've made.

I think the changes today, especially in the front, are a big improvement.

over what we had before.

I especially appreciate the pedestrian access and the way that activates the street in a way that we weren't seeing before.

Before we had the gaping hole, as somebody said earlier, the parking garage, now that's diminished in the front, has increased in some dynamism and some interest.

I think that's

I think appropriate for where it is on the street.

I also appreciate the thoroughness of the package.

The lighting fixtures are spelled out.

There's not a lot left to the imagination which helps us quite a deal.

I agree with everyone so far that this has been a very good progress and process.

We really appreciate your listening to us and responding in very solid ways.

A few other details I want to bring up.

One is the BRIC that I was questioning you about earlier.

I appreciate the BRIC study.

I appreciate the

sort of thought behind that.

How do you take this new building and relate it in some shape or form to the historic context?

I'm actually relieved here that you're not going for an exact replica.

I don't think that's really quite the way to do it, nor, like you were saying, is it really feasible.

I think a little contrast is good, but I think that having an intention behind it makes all the difference.

I really appreciate that and I also appreciate the structure of the landscape.

I think that there's a wonderful response to organizing

and almost unorganizable wedge that happens there.

So I think when you look at it and plan, what the landscape is doing is that it's refocusing an orientation on the historic structure, which is what we want.

We want to enhance the wonderful house as much as we can.

And so I think it's very successful in that way.

and then I just I think it's really important the public comment about you know creating precedent which I totally you know agree with and I think most of us do agree that you know it's very important that we protect these structures in the best way possible and you know if we open the floodgate in one place why isn't it going to happen in others I think this is a very contextual project I think you know like

You mentioned prior that what are we looking at here really?

We're looking at a pretty poor context as it is.

The parking lot is not desirable, the orientation of the

Billings that were put up in the 70s had no consideration whatsoever for the house.

And so I think this is a good example of how a new architecture can help alleviate a problem from the past.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I'll just say I agree with them.

So you don't have to listen to the same thing.

A lot of the comments previously made, I think I'm generally supportive with a number of conditions that hopefully the applicant finds acceptable.

Maybe some other ones that they may not, unfortunately.

But I think this has gone in a really good direction.

And thanks for what you've done with this since the first time we saw it quite some time ago.

My only comment now that we've seen a more in-depth landscaping plan is the sidewalk that bifurcates sort of the front yard as it were, front triangle barely.

Seems like the landscaping plan is trimming

the walkways now and I wonder if along on the new building along with the shrubs and low landscaping that are flush with that building on the western side, thank you, whether on the other side of that sidewalk you might be able to have a low hedge as well and I think that would, not that we want to veil this building but I think it might help to mitigate

the masks of this building when you're standing in the street and you look at this building and you look at the historic structure.

And it might be kind of a nice way of creating some areas in there that might provide seating or lounging or whatever.

So just a thought on that.

I think there are some that are created, but they're sort of in a more circular pattern in both of those areas rather than defining that sidewalk on the western side of it.

My own thought was I looked up the brick selection on the old Carolina website.

It was Windsor, I guess, was the blend y'all were looking at.

And they didn't have it on their website.

And that concerned me.

So I called them up.

And they said they didn't know when they'd have it, maybe by the end of the next summer or something, or this summer.

So you might just check in with your brick rep.

And you might have to alter your selection, I guess.

You're probably a ways out before you're putting brick on and hopefully supply chain catches up but um You know, I think that what you've talked about is is right trying to find something complementary to the historic structure And that's important so work with the brick reps You know, I do I do You know feel like it's a big building.

It's close to the historic house, but I also kind of I

I agree with Ron and David that in this particular context, the damage has already been done.

We've got really ugly apartment buildings all around here and so hopefully by having a nicer apartment building next door, we'll help things out.

But I think Ms.

And I agree with my colleagues.

I mean, this is a very nice project.

Any other comments?

Well, I hear a lot of support for this project and just a number of things that we may want to add to our potential motion.

I was making a list.

I've heard elements related to archaeological studies, the protection of the existing structure, the color temperature and shielding of the lights in the garage.

several elements related to landscape including framing of the Wharton Baker house and making sure that it's visible from Wirtland, canopies tree selections, the sweet gum selection, consideration of planting along the walk, and then the screening of rooftop condensing units.

I'll second the Chair's motion.

Somebody can call us out of order, but I think you nailed it, Mr. Chair.

Move to approve with the conditions that Mr. Gaskin here just mentioned.

I think we need to give each of those a little language.

Let's go down the line.

Archaeology.

I need help on the language for each of these points.

So essentially, and I would characterize this, consult with an engineer to develop a preservation and protection plan for the Wharton Baker House and submit it to the VAR record.

So I can help with that.

One, as you know, we've dealt with the glare bomb on the folks at West Main working with finding a solution.

So the second thing is I have not found any LED lights that don't have a 3000K.

So I mean, unless there's some significant safety issues, I believe there are lights with that lamping available.

So my first suggestion would be to get the 3,000 out.

However, the wording would be, you know, lighting will be dimmable, have a color temperature not to exceed 3,000 K, have a color rendering index not less than 80, preferably not less than 90, and should there be

concerns expressed related to glare that the owner will work with NDS to find a reasonable solution.

That's a condition we've used in other places.

Patrick, you catching all this?

We'll listen tomorrow.

Yes.

So we're talking about the yellow wood in that case.

I think there's space both on the left, actually if the, I mean I'm concerned about the service barriers.

No, not all the way over there, but if there's five

There's five trees in the front.

That location will have no relation to the street at that point.

Yeah.

So when you come down 13th Street, you'll just go like there'll be a tree right there.

Yeah.

I think actually even if you move the tree you know 10 10 or 12 feet to the east it would also be help quite a bit if you put it closer to closer to the wall.

I guess that location seems to me like you're

It seems like it is off to the side.

And if it was a canopy tree, eventually it would actually get tall enough that you'd look under the branches to the house.

So you're thinking next to the stair.

Or, I mean, where it is or even closer to the street.

We are, yes.

My proposed condition was just to swap it out.

Well, I think the service barriers are also going to screen the house significantly as well.

Well, I don't think we're going to design the project here.

Could I offer, just so there's something that's workable, you know, and knowing the folks at Water Street, as most of us do, they're probably quite capable of taking instruction and working with it, so I think there's direction to, relative to the service barriers, I don't know exactly how to address the yellow wood, but the objective is, as you stated, and that

The line here is at what point are we redesigning and what point are we guiding.

Otherwise these sound like... I think we can do it.

I think we can...

You mentioned revising the location.

It's a pretty compact lot.

It's pretty heavily planted.

Okay, I just wanted to clarify that wasn't like keep the same amount and look for other places?

Maybe I'm being submitted.

I think it's going to, I mean the plant palette is a good one.

That seems like clear direction that I think we can work with.

And remove all of this we come.

Okay.

Does everyone agree with that?

Yes.

That was my thought is that at least it's the same color as that, if not.

Yeah, I have those reservations as well.

That the dark color might actually be more noticeable than, at least in this rendering, on the white EPDM roof, seeing a white unit.

All right.

It's very unclear.

But they tend to be, every time that we end up doing this, we get a study where the architect will show us that they're not visible from the street.

and then they're visible from a little further down the street.

So it's just kind of a... Not a Virginia.

They're not visible.

You are right.

You guys are right about that one.

There is no more street for that one to walk back on.

So the language says, if roof-mounted mechanical equipment is used, it should be screened from public view on all sides.

The screening material and design should be consistent with the design, textures, materials, and colors of the building.

The screening should not appear as an afterthought or addition to the building.

Do we need to add anything?

So are we ready?

Before we do that, my phone is dead and I just would love for the owner, since it's his dollars, to either give a thumbs up or just make sure that he's okay with these conditions as well.

I believe he's on.

He's on?

Hello everyone, this is Beau Carrington.

Mr. Chair and members of the board, thank you for all your work on this project.

Kevin, thanks for checking in.

Mr. Chair, having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district guidelines, I move to find the proposed new building at and related alterations to 1301 Wortland Street, satisfy the BAR's criteria, and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Wortland Street ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application with the following conditions, which I will accept as a friendly amendment to my motion.

Okay, so we'd ask that the project follow and implement a phase one archaeological assessment of the site.

Including a preservation plan.

We'd ask that the lighting in the garage be adapted per the language

Werner, related to the color temperature, making them dimmable and having a method for evaluation after implementation.

Related to the landscape, we would like to ask that the final locations of planting in the plan be adapted to better frame and ensure visibility of the Wurtenbacher House from Wortland Street.

which may include the removal or moving of the service berries.

Ask that the landscape species selection incorporate larger scale canopy tree where possible as close to Wortland Street as possible.

and we'd ask that the sweet gum variety be replaced with a seedless variety, an approved tree from the city tree list or an appropriate native tree of similar scale.

All in favor?

Or actually we'll go down the line.

Yes.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Aye.

Ms.

Aye.

Mr. Timmerman?

Aye.

Mr. Bailey?

Yes.

Motion passes.

And if I could just ask so I can clarify the second was.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Schwartz.

and I'll say I'm glad you pointed out the Virginia Avenue project because that was one where they talked about how you're going to situate the rooftop units and I'll say, Kevin, I've heard good things about that project so it's turned out pretty good, so a good example, thank you.

And with that, any questions from you?

Please take the sign down.

Please pull the sign off the phone pole.

I get phone calls from people who signed from like years ago upset they missed a meeting.

Okay, thank you all.

I also want to there are large properties throughout the city that you know have historic property on them and I think you know Molly and I need to sit down with my boss and really evaluate those and sort of you know understand what because I know there are things coming and so it is something we have to start to think about.

There are things coming, and I'd also say that we are really building a track record also of some examples of how to do this well.

It takes some patience on behalf of the applicants and the board and the public, but I feel good about the progress we've made under a number of these recently, so thank you.

Speaking if not easy, this next project is a COA request for First United Methodist Church on, sorry am I, I don't know.

I don't have kids to yell at anymore.

I don't know what's wrong, but this is First United Methodist Church.

It's a colonial revival brick church with a monumental portico tower and a steeple, and it was constructed in 1923.

It is in the north downtown ADC district.

It is a contributing structure.

This, we had an informal discussion back in September and another discussion in October

with Mr. Owens and members of the congregation and the request is to accommodate a solar panel project at the church.

The initial discussions were primarily

not problematic with the panels per se but the fact that this is an existing slate roof and slate not being a material that accepts a lot of activity on it.

So the current proposal is to remove the sections either and Bill you can probably clarify to the extent your

proposed to remove the slate, but to remove the slate where the panels would be, installed asphalt shingles that would then be beneath and concealed beneath the solar panels.

So as far as I see it, the difficulty here has been if this had been an asphalt roof from the get-go, it probably wouldn't be a difficult decision, but this is

More about removing a slate roof than it is in some ways about the solar panels.

So I offered a lot of suggestions in the staff report.

I know from talking with some of you that this is a difficult one and I don't

I apologize that I don't really have a recommendation one way or the other.

I think that I do offer that and I hope my

I hope my logic was sound in that we are in a different place than we were when these guidelines were adopted as a community, as a city, as a world.

And I think there's an acknowledgement of steps that should be taken.

That said, this is a rather expensive proposition to remove a very, you know, roof that may be there another 80 hundred years.

to install these panels.

But that's not our call to make a judgment of how they expend the funds on this or not.

But I think there are ways to look at this that offer support if you're willing.

The fact that this is a reversible.

In fact, earlier this evening I was asked by someone in the city staff

Where did I draw the line on things?

And I said, well, think reversibility is important.

This is a 1920s building.

It's not early 1800s.

This is a 1920s building that is offering to do something important.

And I offered, and I hope it wasn't seen as flippant in the staff report, some questions that sort of I kept coming to my mind.

Most of them appear to have an obvious answer, but that's not the point.

Sometimes asking them, it just, it helped me with a little bit of the context.

And I also found interesting that in our guidelines, and I know it's in the staff report, but, you know, the word solar is only mentioned once.

And in fact, that's in a sentence where discourages solar panels on historic roofs.

There's no mention of photovoltaic or alternative or renewable energy.

So our guidelines are

Certainly behind the curve.

But again, that said, our guidelines are relatively clear and would probably in a strict read of this suggest a denial of that.

That is the way the process is set up in that if the BAR denies something, an applicant can appeal to counsel at which counsel can consider other circumstances that are otherwise outside of the BAR's purview.

So it's a part of the process.

It's not a punishment per se.

So just put that out there.

Sorry for

the lengthy explanation, but hopefully that will help.

Do you have any questions for me?

Thanks.

Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Thank you.

I'm Bill Owens representing the church.

I don't have a lot to add beyond my presentation and the staff report.

And actually, Jeff did a better job than I did at representing the sustainability opportunities of the project.

I'd just like to reiterate that it's important to the church to demonstrate good stewardship of the environment and show that support by supporting sustainable energy.

they've been doing a lot of green initiatives at the church and as a result of that someone has offered a fairly large donation to consider adding solar panels as well to the church if they were to do so they'd like to maximize the advantage of that and the coverage of it to reduce their carbon footprint and their electrical bill as much as possible as savings are close to 50% or $11,000 is proposed

Last time we were here a major part of our discussion was about the installation of the panels themselves on a hundred-year-old slate tile roof and we've tried to address that by proposing to remove the shingles underneath the tiles, underneath the panel arrays and replace them with a waterproofing membrane.

Right now it doesn't even have a

a paper or anything underneath the tile shingles and asphalt shingles which will give it a more typical installation and reduce any concerns there.

And the panels would cover any kind of roofing and change there.

Anything remaining would be visible as slight shingles and the new roofing would not be seen.

The removed shingles would be salvaged and saved.

They could be returned and used for repairs or replaced if the panels were removed in the future.

Again, the roofing, the new roofing we don't think would be seen.

We don't think the panels themselves would be seen except at a distance.

We don't think the panels, since they follow, are only about six inches off the roof surface and follow the roof line or don't change the characteristic of the historic roof or are detrimental to the character of a historic structure.

I am here with the roofer from Martin Roofing and a representative from Tiger Solar if you have any questions that we didn't, couldn't address last time.

And we hope you'll consider it favorable.

Great.

Thank you.

We'll open first for any questions from the public.

Any questions from the public here in the room?

We'll go ahead and go to questions from the board.

If anyone is online and has a question, just please raise your hand.

I have a question.

This might be for your roofer.

Can you reassure me as to

You know, what the breakage might be for removing the slates and then putting them back if that ever happened.

Okay.

All right.

So just the warranties are 25 years and they're expected to last anywhere from 35 to 50 years.

They become technologically obsolete long before they ever stop working.

So there's no moving parts.

So really we don't see that happening yet.

And I don't know that the solar industry necessarily has a good solution for what to do with old panels.

There are striving to recycle materials from the panels.

I know just recently UVA came up with a method to vaporize the silver in the panel beyond that.

How sustainable is that when you're talking about replacing materials in 25 or 30 years?

That is an excellent question.

Question about the brackets.

Yeah, so everything is warrantied for 25 years as far as most of the equipment is concerned.

The brackets are a piece of aluminum with a stainless steel bolt thrown with EPDM seals and an aluminum bracket on that.

It's a leg in a track and the panels can be removed and upgraded.

Maybe that was what her question is, but once they've lived their life, whether it's functionally or technologically, they could just be replaced.

issue with the materials of them and the recycling and so forth is something for the entire industry, not just for our project.

So don't hold us accountable to that.

It's Buckingham slate.

It's a large slate.

It's not bad.

I have a question about the change and getting rid of the slate and putting the new membrane on.

I guess it would be both.

Obviously, much of our conversation was regarding the installation on the slate, so their attempt was to simplify that.

We were not able to find something that really addressed the slate themselves very easily, so we simplified the geometry of the panel arrays that no longer have steps in them anymore, so they could just be a rectangular roof replacement.

It seems to be very common and very easy to install these on an asphalt shingle roof.

it's in the presentation but are very basic parts that allow that to happen and with the addition of a waterproofing membrane and asphalt shingles the slate's going to be a much worse condition than the roof underneath it plus it's protected by the panels themselves from direct rain so there shouldn't be any issue with any kind of concern with leakage long term that way and it just makes it a much typical

installation and you just never see it.

What would we do on the sides if they were curved?

And that curve would be about the height of the bracket, I would imagine.

Yeah, it doesn't have to be three inches.

also the track overhangs the feet by up to two feet so we would try to place it so that the roofing the new roofing stops well beyond

That's great.

That was going to be my question.

And up and down.

So the panels are about six feet, and then there's an overhang on top.

So it's probably about four feet-ish between rails.

There's two rails that support one panel, a row of panels.

And then the spacing is engineering kind of.

So all that goes through third party.

Oh, wow.

OK.

How do you do shingles?

The architecture shingles are limited to lifetime, which they consider fully limited to years.

Oh, okay.

We have to find an engineer it's real one by six decking whether that's adequate enough to support the legs in of itself or whether we have to actually hit

The instructions typically say hit the rafters.

It would be easier if we didn't have to do that.

Now we have a really nice decking, which is unusual too.

Yeah, I guess where I was going with that was the concern that perhaps that your asphalt roof, even protected and whatnot, still doesn't outlast the slate around it, and so you'd have to come back and

The argument would be it would outlast the panels above it.

So how many square feet or square yards of slate are you removing?

Have you done the math on that?

I had, and it slips to me right now.

It's three and 18 feet.

Very ballpark.

Yeah.

This is kind of more abstract but I'm just you know we're talking to two or three of you here but this is a congregational decision I'm just curious about I mean are people sort of like oh this is a good idea let's do it are they you know very excited about it is it a is it something that's kind of been

talked about.

Is it a buzz in the congregation?

I'm the pastor Alex Joy.

Yeah, I'd say that there is a great encouragement and excitement.

During the pandemic, we had a

Creation and Justice Group formed that was very interested in green initiatives at the church.

When this offer of a significant portion of the donation came through, I think that was very encouraging to folks.

And I think one of the struggles of every downtime church is having to be a historic structure and also lead the way into something new.

And to also include this also coincides with the Inflation Reduction Act which now opens up funding to nonprofits that it didn't before that allows this to be funded in a large part

in a way that wasn't available before.

OK.

Ms.

Keller has her.

OK.

Ms.

Yes, hello again Genevieve Keller.

I'm not going to weigh in on this.

I haven't had an opportunity to study it and I certainly understand the desire of the congregation to engage in environmental stewardship and I'm just not going to comment on that.

But earlier in the meeting there was a comment about the BAR and solar and I

was able to find a reference back to your minutes, BAR minutes of July 18, 2017, when the Planning Commission had referred solar text amendments to the BAR for consideration.

It doesn't offer a great deal of guidance, but it does make a couple of suggestions about ABC and conservation districts.

I just wanted to make that reference to you that the BAR was consulted when the city was revising its ordinance in terms of solar arrays and solar panels, so you were part of that process.

We don't have a lot of institutional memory right now in the city in terms of public officials and staff, so you might find it

Interesting as a point of departure and how to address changes in the future.

So that's July 18, 2017, item E in your minutes.

Thank you, Ms.

Keller.

That's an important reference.

And I also note that while our specific guidelines do not deal with this in detail, we do reference the Secretary of Interior guidelines, and they do provide a number of additional recommendations and guidances.

So thank you, Jeff and staff, for including that in our packet.

I think that's always important for us to keep close at hand.

I'll begin with comments.

When I first heard that you guys were coming back and the strategy you were employing, actually when I first heard it, it sounded like the proposal was to remove all of the slate and I'm very glad to hear that that's not the case.

I feel like this is a pretty creative way of actually addressing the problem of dealing with the slate.

And from my perspective, from the way that it's been presented and keeping the new roof under the perimeter of the solar panels, I really don't see how this has any impact on the historic district.

and unless I had a concern about the photovoltaics themselves, I feel this is a supportable direction.

I agree and actually the roof is barely visible from, it was not visible as I was walking up and down and around the street earlier today.

The lower roofs you will see from a distance.

but I think given that comprehensive plan talks about promoting green practices, our own VAR guidelines say don't discourage green building, don't discourage sustainable design.

I so badly want to see solar panels on this project.

I can't stand behind it.

I really struggle with the, not with the visibility of solar panels.

I mean I think that actually this would be a fantastic example of putting solar panels in an ADC district.

I don't think that they would be noticeable at all.

My struggle is with taking a historic material that has embodied energy in it.

that has a good long lifetime left in it potentially.

Removing that, potentially destroying a good portion of it.

Replacing it with something with a petroleum product that has its own embodied energy that won't last as long.

Covering it with solar panels that again, there's energy that goes into making those solar panels.

You're saying that 30 years they're obsolete

And it didn't sound like there's a good way to recycle or replace them.

Hopefully in 30 years they figure that out.

But it just seems like there's, I'm wondering at what point these solar panels actually start

being green, there's going to be a good long time that you're just throwing away energy, throwing away carbon to put them up there.

So I know that's not our purview, but our purview is the historic slate.

And telling me that 25% of those slates are going to be broken in the process, that's why I can't support it, unfortunately.

I really want to.

I mean, this hurts.

I have a follow up to that, if I may.

Just from the interior standards, there's an excerpt under planning that talks, I'll just read it verbatim.

forming an integrated sustainability team when working on a large project that includes a preservation professional to ensure that the character and integrity of the historic building is maintained during any upgrade.

I feel like that gives a clue to maybe what you're talking about if there's a way to

evaluate the sort of pros and cons.

I mean, maybe you've already done that.

But I'm with Carl in that I hate seeing what is the most sustainable material

a building material that you can imagine.

Just something you pull out of the earth that can go right back into the earth.

I mean, we make so much junk these days.

Not to say that solar panels are junk.

It's a wonderful technology and it's doing a lot of good in the way that it's forming alternates to what we've been using before.

There is a beauty and a sustainability to just doing something very simple.

But I guess to Carl's point, where is that balance is always the question in these things.

embrace the new technology because it's new and it appears to be the right thing.

I would just be interested in knowing if there's a professional assessment out there that really can weigh these issues of the pros and cons of these two materials.

That being said, I'm heartened by the comments that you've made about the excitement that the congregation has to this.

And I think we all have sort of an ethical

need to conserve and be sustainable in the world.

And so I'm not going to stop, I'm not going to step in the way of a congregation that has occupied a building for hundreds of years and wants to put a solid step forward in changing things for the better.

So we're asked to approve this.

as a certificate of appropriateness and say that it meets our ADC guidelines.

And that's the limited purview of this board to weigh sustainability efforts and how sustainable the current historic roof is versus what the renewal energy system that you want to put on there.

That's not in our purview.

And really even meeting the comprehensive plan goals, zoning ordinance encouragement,

Future land use map goals, that's not part of our purview either, unfortunately.

Our purview's really very narrow here.

And as you heard staff say, our guidelines have not been updated.

We're a busy board.

The city doesn't really have the money in the context of the last couple of years, and we've all lived through it, trying to get a new

City Manager, City Attorney, City Police Chief, anybody in place that's more of an interim.

Way down the list would be engaging a professional preservationist consulting group who could rewrite our guidelines.

So we're sitting here with guidelines where we can personally apologize for them, but we're bound by them.

and our guidelines say two things, one that we cannot install mechanical or service equipment that would damage or obscure, which this would do both, a character-defining feature of this property and I do think that this roof is visible from public rights of way and this slate roof is historic and it is a character-defining part of your beautiful, beautiful church.

and including many of the buildings, not just the sanctuary, obviously building, but all of them.

Our other guideline says that you just don't remove slate.

It's, you know, slate is Virginia.

It's historic.

It was made nearby.

It's so durable.

It's prickly.

It's hard to deal with.

You can't install solar panels on it pretty much.

You could try.

But our guidelines are very clear.

They cannot be more clear that you can't remove slate.

When we look to the other additional standards we can look to for a little bit of guidance are the Secretary of the Interior standards, which

have begun to address solar installations.

And I just want to read those for our reflection and also so that the applicant hears them because we're bound by this too.

And we don't all love this outcome.

I don't love how I need to vote on this.

But I really just don't think that I have the leeway personally if I'm bound to uphold these guidelines

and ignoring this.

So the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Solar Technology, the first bullet point says, considering on-site solar technology only after implementing all appropriate treatments to improve energy efficiency of the building.

which would often have a greater life cycle cost benefit than just the on-site installation of new renewable energy.

Analyzing whether solar technology can be used successfully and will benefit a historic building without compromising its character or the character of the site or the surrounding district.

Install a solar device in a compatible location on the site or on a non-historic building.

or Addition where it would have minimal impact on the historic building or the site, I would add the district.

Installing a solar device in a historic building only after all other locations have been investigated and determined infeasible.

Finally, installing a low profile solar device on the historic building so that it is not visible or only minimally visible from the public right away.

For example, on a flat roof, and the standards actually do have flat roof,

or set back to take advantage of a parapet or other roof feature and to screen panels or on a secondary slope of a roof out of view from the public right away.

So as much as I commend your congregation for wanting to do this, my vote has to be no only because of the guidelines that I'm supposed to uphold here, not because any of us disagree with a church going more green or sustainability goals or anything that the church is trying to achieve here.

It's not a fun thing for us to do, to say no to something that clearly is so well intentioned.

I guess I don't want to kind of align with Carl and Cheri.

I think it's a really creative solution that you all came up with, but I agree it's a character-defining roof, especially over the sanctuary.

I think in our previous meeting we did talk about looking at the addition roofs, and I could see myself supporting solar panels on those roofs, so I don't know.

Then the question becomes, do we need to

you know tear the slate off those roofs to make them asphalt and then solar panel and with that past muster that probably would need another submission or you know revised submission to have that conversation it's just a thought because that that kind of would

Per our guidelines, they say place solar collectors and antennae on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings.

So, you know, I could see a path that way, you know, looking at the addition buildings.

It's up to you, Ron.

I'm extremely conflicted right now.

I want to go forward with this project in a certain way, but I think Cheri makes a very good point with regard to the standards that we're supposed to uphold.

I'd just like to, I mean I think everybody on the board for engaging in a debate about a tricky project and we don't have, well we have, I think we're pulled in different directions.

I will say I do think that our guidelines never anticipated this kind of

this kind of application.

One thing for me, the removal of the slate from what we've been given and what I understand is that it's actually going to be preserved and to be used and could assist in the long-term preservation of the rest of the roof.

I think that that preservation of the slate that remains in the storage is an important component of this proposal.

and it's been alluded to, I think it would be worth making even more clear that the slate roof, if the solar panels were ever to be removed, that it would be replaced with a slate roof to match, presumably with the pieces that were held in storage.

Just coming at it from the renderings and the approach, I feel like there's two questions before us.

One is, are the solar panels, as presented, detrimental to the historic district?

That's one threshold question.

And if they are not, then the second question is really, is the removal of the panels going to create any kind of lasting damage to the structure?

And if there's not, I just don't see how there's no visible indication of a roofing change from what's being proposed.

I don't see how it's detrimental to the historic district, which is our purview.

and then reading from the guidelines, our guidelines, nothing in these guidelines should be construed to discourage green building or sustainable design.

If such a design is found to conflict with a specific guideline, which is what Cheri's point is, the BAR shall work with the applicant to devise a creative solution that meets the applicant's goal for sustainability.

I can say in response to your first question, if it was a metal roof, if it was an asphalt roof, I would instantly vote approval.

I'd be fine.

With a 25% breakage rate and the fact that who knows what's going to happen to those slates as they're in storage for the next 20 years,

I don't believe that they'd go back up.

That's unfortunate to not trust the church, but I don't believe in the slates.

At some point, whoever's in charge is going to be a new person.

Those slates are going to end up being garden markers all throughout everybody's gardens in the city or something.

That's me being really cynical.

The removal of that slate is, I believe that we would be condemning that roof to not be slate in the future.

I concur with Mr. Schwartz.

I don't, it wouldn't say anything about the church, it's just human nature.

I don't think this, 4,000 square feet of slate does not go back on that roof once it's removed.

It just doesn't.

I respect the chair for his analysis, but I don't think that our analysis is the new installation detrimental to our historic district.

The question before us is does this application comply and can we approve it under our current guidelines?

That's our purview.

Our purview is not about detriment or harm or future harm of

Our guidelines say you don't remove roof and you don't obscure and harm slate.

I'm ready with a motion.

I would say, first off, I did do some research, and no disrespect to the applicant, but 25%, you know, I mean, that's optimistic.

I mean, I believe when we were reviewing... You think the breakage is higher?

Oh, much, yeah.

And when we discussed the roof on the Key Rec Center, their roofing consultant... They said 50, right?

That's a lot.

Not meaning to suggest one way or the other, just to simply offer some facts from my research and as I said in the staff report,

It's a difficult decision.

I would say this, that if the question for the applicant would be

Mr. Kaskiner certainly can straw poll and see how it looks, whether there's a deferral or a possible denial with an appeal.

A deferral would allow a little bit of additional continued research discussion if that were practicable.

The other perspective to offer is that, I mean I'm looking at the photo and see a slate roof a block west of this and that

the possibility of, in decisions like this, and I used to think sort of in land use terms of a special use permit and say approving something, make sure there's a very small box so that there's certain, you know, that that is

Well I guess one question from, I mean from what I've heard tonight it doesn't sound like, for those of you that are not in support of the proposal, it doesn't sound like additional information is really going to help in that.

So I think it's helpful to go ahead and put a motion on the table.

I don't think my impression is with regard to the comments on the slate that we can change the project as it is in order to accommodate the concerns that the negative votes are going to have.

The church, I don't think, is interested in putting just a handful of panels on the roof, and maybe we would come back for that if we want to do some hot water or something in regard to that, but that's not what we're here for today.

I will add, and I don't think, if I can get on my editorial soapbox for just two seconds, and not to expect us to change your opinions, but unless you have plans to change the guidelines very soon, you're going to get more and more of these requests that you're going to have to address.

The congregation's coming from a very good spot here to try to do this, and the rest of the world is going to as well.

and it's not going to be a slight issue pretty soon.

We have to change the way we handle energy.

We have to develop it.

And it's not really about the slate coming pretty soon.

So you guys are going to have to be prepared to address this stuff.

I'm in full support of addressing the slate roof and preserving it.

I've done a lot of work on this church over 20 years.

I wholeheartedly agree.

But there's a conflict coming now between some of this stuff and preserving

our planet when you get down to it.

And there's going to have to be a resolution to that.

And when it comes down to it, we're going to need the energy, not slate.

And I don't expect you to resolve that right today.

And if your guidelines don't adjust that soon, you're going to have to figure out how to do it because it's coming.

and we're going to have to adapt to these things very quickly.

So I appreciate your time.

I think at this point we don't want a deferral.

If there's what looks like a three to four against, we'll consider what our options are after that.

So I appreciate it.

Yeah, I'm not sure which way it's going to go.

Maybe he's perfect.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district guidelines, I move to find that the proposed slate roof replacement and rooftop solar panels at 101 East Jefferson Street do not satisfy the BAR's criteria and are not compatible with this property and the other properties of the north downtown ADC district.

Do we hear a second?

Don't make me second.

OK, so the motion, we'll call the vote, but the vote is on the motion, not on the proposal.

So the proposal is for denial.

So if you support denial, you will vote yes.

If you do not support denial, you vote no.

Lewis?

And I vote no.

So the motion passes four to three.

Just I think the important part, Bill, we can, I'm in tomorrow, I'm not in on Friday, but you have ten work days in which to file an appeal.

and it's really to express in there, it's laid out in the ordinance to express what, where, disagreement with the BAR and any other circumstances that you want a city council to consider.

It is like an application of the BAR, you don't need another application.

form, but it is a fee and the letter.

But again, we have 10 calendar days.

So if we touch base next week, one of my, um, thank you.

Um, does not count weekends, business days.

Um, and um, and then we can, we can talk about that.

I don't set the agenda for city council.

I don't know when that would be heard if you all choose to appeal, but we can have, we can have that conversation next week.

And we talked about the last time, and we maybe need to discuss this outside of a meeting, but in my interpretation, all you have to do is say we appeal this, you don't have to write out, like,

All of the reasons that you're going to present to City Council.

I think it's like a notice of appeal.

You just say, we appeal.

I mean, if you want to give reasons, that's fine.

But you don't have to have a perfect document filed that you, you know, and that's it.

I've dealt with two denials and got differing instructions.

You know my window's the second one and just bang on it if you, and we can talk about it, but.

It's actually, if you wanna write down the, it's section, it's chapter 34 of our city code and it's section 285 and 286.

So that's 34-285-286.

And it really is two pretty short sections that are easy reading.

Let's have a three to five minute bio break.

And thank you, do thank everyone, that is a tricky one.

We have funding to update the guidelines, but we have to wait for the rezoning rewrite.

meeting ever, we got out early because of the basketball game.

I mean it was like five minute applications.

All right, everyone.

Let's reel it in.

Let's get after it.

We're doing good.

Next item on our agenda is the first new item.

There's this thing right here.

I'll move quickly.

I think we had sort of a brief introduction to this earlier.

This is a request for phased demolition of the structures at the Salvation Army's facility on Ridge Street.

Up front, the Salvation Army will be repurposing, well redeveloping buildings, they'll be dropping one, constructing and moving operations into that and sort of leapfrogging through the project and that will come at a later date to you, the new buildings, as will, I believe will be a request for a special use permit for some

some setback issues.

So all of that is down the road.

When I met with the applicants a couple weeks ago, it was my recommendation that they get at least the demolition question on the table and see where that goes.

The structures you have there in the front underneath the 207, that's the original part of the building which dates to 1965.

The structure to the rear was built in the 1980s and then to the north early 1990s.

As I mentioned, this would have likely been on a consent agenda, except for the discussion about the tree, and I think the applicant is prepared to discuss that this evening.

This is in the Ridge Street ADC district.

It was identified as contributing by the city.

In my understanding, it was primarily to

If there started to have demolitions in these main roads, there was a way to tap the brakes and say, what are we knocking down the buildings for, so we didn't have empty lots everywhere.

The Ridge Street Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places does not include this section of Ridge Street, so these structures are not contributing to the state or national register.

although I still addressed the demolition review per the guidelines in the staff report.

As I mentioned, I think staff recommends this.

We know there's a concern about the tree.

Not sure how you

or if even possible to require that a tree be preserved.

However, I think we all realize that steps can be taken due to due diligence relative to tree protection during demolition, construction, et cetera.

And I think it sounds like there was some language discussed and certainly you can discuss with Aaron about that.

I would suggest, given the hour, unless you all have any concerns about the demolition, if you want to jump right to the tree.

But that's your call.

And Ms.

Sure, so hopefully all of you received the letter from our certified tree arborist about the tree in question at the street.

Let me back up, my name is Erin Hannigan from Mitchell Matthews Architects.

Thank you, Jeff, introduction.

I haven't heard any concerns about the demolition of the buildings, but I can answer questions about that as well if necessary.

The concern we have is that when we had our pre-application meeting with the city, the city engineers were present, and they told us that they will be sticklers about the guidelines that require a foot and a half of protection per inch of tree

and so the 56 inch tree would produce an 84 foot protection radius which would basically wipe out the entire front half of the site which is illustrated in our packet.

So we're asking that whatever we would like to save the tree.

Our development plans intend to save the tree which is also in the packet.

We would just like language if

to be tailored to using our arborist recommendations as opposed to the city guidelines so that when we go through the site planning process with city engineers, we can point to that and refute the 84 foot radius required that would limit the ability to redevelop the site and certainly inhibit the goals of the Salvation Army to maintain the shelter in an operable condition through redevelopment.

All right.

Do we have any questions from the public regarding this project?

Certainly not in the room.

And if, Grammy, if there are any online, just let me know.

No.

OK, comments from the public?

Just clarity on the 84 foot.

That's in perpetuity or just during construction?

Like basically you're not there?

Gotcha.

And maybe this is just a point of clarification, Jeff, for just, we don't have authority to impose any restrictions on other city agencies enforcing their own policies and guidelines.

So to that point, that's why we asked for permission to for clarity.

That's why we asked for permission to demolish everything on the site so that the city engineers can't then come back and say, no, BAR told you you had to save this tree.

Here's the 84 foot radius.

OK.

And impose that on us.

So.

Technically there's no basement under the chapel, which is the piece that is next to the tree.

There's a basement on the northern half.

It's obviously not coming through the basement walls.

So he did think it probably ran under the sidewalk and he suggested that the sidewalk be demolished by hand so as not to disturb the roots and that potentially site walls are only taken down just below grade so that they're concealed and not actually demolished, therefore they wouldn't harm the roots.

It's the technicality of the city requirements and so we're asking for permission technically to demolish everything on the site so that the city engineer cannot mandate the 84 foot tree protection radius however it is our intent when we redevelop the site that the tree will be saved our future redevelopment plans are

So let me just clarify that again the proposal is to remove the tree.

Yes, I suppose it is because if you deny removal of the tree, it kicks to the engineering department's requirement.

Wait, I have a question.

Why do you need a special use permit?

So there is going to be various modifications to the zoning ordinance, parking reduction, setback reduction.

It's for the use that gets us to needing a special use permit to begin with.

OK, take a couple steps back.

One special use permit, my understanding is something that will come to you, I'm not sure the specifics of it, but I know that you all review special use permit requests and make a recommendation to council as you've done with a couple other projects.

It would seem to me that the

I don't know how to untie that knot relative to what the city engineer would require and my apologies for not having an answer for that.

Very personally I would say this is a very old tree.

It is stressed.

I'd be amazed

if even an incredible Herculean effort.

So that's one thing that keeps weighing against me here.

But I'm not an expert in trees squished between a sidewalk and a building.

I guess you all could identify that tree protection within the constraints of

you know, such that wall, you know, Breck, as you mentioned, the foundation stuff, if there's a space that you would say the tree protection can incur within this space and not, you know, 80 feet into the building of the street, but you honestly got me.

I don't know how to advise you.

We can make a recommendation to a pre-meeting but we do have to approve the building that comes next and if the tree happens to disappear, not that we would do that but

Never mind, bad joke.

Because by putting a condition on it, it means that we have to stay 80 feet away from.

I don't know how we do that if we think that this tree is important to the district.

I haven't heard any concern about the demolition of the buildings, but this is one of the last really impressive

trees in this section of Ridge Street.

And it would be hard to say that it's important enough that we just allowed its removal.

I do think that in the past we've done a couple of things.

We have made recommendations to zoning in the past to make considerations for things such as curb cuts or other

elements that would improve the character of the street in certain conditions.

I think we could do the same here.

Well, you did say, I mean, you're coming back with an SUP.

Yes.

I mean, couldn't we work some conditions into, the Planning Commission could work some conditions into the SUP that negate what this engineer has said, I assume.

I'm hoping.

because I know when you mention this to the Planning Commission, well, I guess I can't speak for the rest of them, but it's a pretty crazy sounding scenario that's coming from the... Both the BAR and Planning Commission only made recommendations to Council, and so is Council's decision on how, what conditions to accept or not.

We know there's no guarantee.

Exactly, and so the second part of that would be if that motion

would conflict, you think, with what the engineers would say, then bump this to February and I'll sit down with Jack and find out, make sure we don't have any conflict.

I think

Again, I feel bad I didn't clarify this, but I would rather get it right, and if it takes until February, let's get it right.

The other thing I was going to note is that on other projects in the vicinity of downtown, especially, we have added a contingency requirement.

The approval of the demolition of the buildings is contingent on an approved building plan so that we don't lose buildings without something that's going in its place.

I mean, if they were to saw this tree down the way we have treated those things, it would be an alteration of the site and would require BAR review.

I mean, if it were removed, if it died as a result of the demolition, that would not be cutting it down, but I don't know.

Well, I think reading the room and tell me if I'm wrong, I don't find that there's probably going to be a lot of support for the proposal as submitted that would include the demolition of the tree.

I think that we probably could come up with a motion that would approve the demolition of the buildings.

and as part of that a requirement that we develop a tree protection plan that follows the recommendations of your arborist and a recommendation to the city engineer to work with the applicant too.

Just as a matter of fact, the drip line goes into the public right away.

The applicant has no control over that.

I mean, let's be real, you know.

I mean, that's the unfortunate part.

If the city's got to do road work.

Don't you think 84 feet goes across four lanes right there, or three lanes, whatever it is?

I'll try a motion.

Having considered standards set forth within the city code including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 207-211 Ridge Street satisfies the BAR's criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the downtown ADC district.

and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following exception.

BAR does not find that the removal of the black oak in the front of the property compatible with the guidelines and asks that the project develop a tree protection strategy based on the arborist recommendations of

January 16th.

Dated letter.

That was submitted to the BAR.

I'd like to make a friendly amendment that the owner take all measures to preserve that tree, not just reasonable.

They may be unreasonable.

I hate to say that, you know.

And frankly, if reasonable is the city engineer, then you don't really want reasonable.

Okay.

That's right.

I seconded it, that's all.

Okay, that's right.

I don't second that anymore.

I think the tree protection plan should employ the measures that are described in that letter, which I think were appropriate.

Do you want to ruin this, John?

and that was part of our initial conversation.

I'll still second that.

I specifically don't agree that we can direct

a city personnel to reduce something that by law he's supposed to do, but I think we can strongly suggest that he looks at more creative ways to preserve that than just adhering to a drip line calculation that doesn't seem reasonable and that, like I said, the applicant doesn't have control over a lot of that drip line, frankly.

Okay.

I guess.

Let us say we approve this, but we have this tree protection plan.

The engineer decides the tree protection plan implies an 84-foot radius.

Which means they can't demolish the building.

They will provide a tree protection plan.

I understand, but he says, no, I don't like that.

I'm going to go with the 84-foot.

That's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking what would happen if the engineer decided to be a hard ass and say, no, I'm going to stick with the 84 foot.

and or be whatever you build there can intrude on the 84th floor.

Right.

I mean.

I politely suggest we defer it to you all can and allow me to

so that Aaron and I aren't two months from now going, uh, what happened?

The thing is I can't answer that question and I think that given the uh's and uh's right now,

You all have the ability to, well you can take a vote, you've made a motion, but you also are allowed to defer, certainly the applicant can, but I think this is an important site, this is an important facility for the city of Charlottesville.

I will share with you all later a very special story about this site.

So this is part of, you know, I feel strongly about.

Well, to that end, I feel good about our discussion, the application of our guidelines and the direction that's given and

I think we should vote on it.

If I can make a suggestion it would be maybe we proceed with the vote and if it doesn't if when you talk to the city engineer following this conversation and the city engineer is still adamant that the 84 foot would

Can I ask a pointed question?

Yes, that's why this application specifically asked for to demolish the tree because he said if BAR says you have to save this tree, that means you must follow this guideline.

It's an impossibility, basically.

Right, which we have just given some language that allows that to move forward.

Let's vote.

So I'm going to call the vote unless anybody objects.

OK.

Mr. Birle.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. Zehmer?

Aye.

Ms.

Lewis?

Aye.

Mr. Timmerman?

Aye.

Aye.

And I also vote aye.

So the motion passes.

My misunderstanding is what the engineers say, oh, you can't knock this down as part of protecting that.

I agree with you, I feel like I'm like ugh.

So again, my apologies for the confusion on the prior, appreciate your patience.

This is, I'll get to image and just introduce Jeff and he can do a better job.

This is the,

I know some of you are familiar with the house, 747 Park Street.

It's the Johnson Naylor House.

It was built in 1904.

It is in the north downtown ADC district.

It is contributing.

I was visited the site twice and it's an amazing structure.

It looks like somebody moved in in 1904 and never did anything else to it.

It's remarkably pristine for a house in 1904.

And so the applicant that's here, and I don't want to say applicant, the owner's here tonight has some plans

for renovating the house.

There are some several things and I think I've tried to kind of summarize those here that are maintenance and repair.

You know the cornice, the roof certainly needs to be replaced although removing the the built-in cutter would require BAR approval.

Masonry needs some pointing up it's in actually very good condition that doesn't require BAR approval.

The front porch I think they're going to set aside for now.

That's going to be quite a project in and of itself.

And probably the questions that, I mean unless you all have others, the primary questions are about the planned additions to the rear, actually the planned alterations to the rear.

and I think, finally, the discussion about the windows.

So, you know, Jeff, if you want to, and I can put up whatever picks you want, you can walk through it.

I can go back and forth, however you see fit.

And I just want to make sure, you know, this is leading to, hopefully, you know, be an application that comes in and really

make sure that we say if there are questions that you all have, things that maybe should be shown or how they should be shown, we can get that clarified.

If there's any misgivings about the rear edition, you're not asked to vote support, or you know, not tonight, but to offer some direction the applicant can take with them in preparing their application.

Good evening.

Yeah, thanks for your time this evening.

After the last few cases, I would imagine you all are ready to get out of here, so I'm going to try to make this as efficient as possible.

Appreciate your time, and I do want to make a point of just saying thanks to Jeff for all his time the last few months.

He came out and walked around the house.

and has spent a lot of time sort of emailing and meeting with me, so thank you.

As just very brief context, so my wife and I just actually recently purchased the property a few months back and knew we were

Thank you for having me.

anticipated, but that's what brings us here.

So I think as Jeff maybe mentions in the staff report, but also you can see from some of the photos and maybe Jeff if you just wanna.

Yeah, just the next two maybe.

So you'll see, so this is kind of.

kind of a good example.

The house is in a significant state of disrepair.

I think Jeff's assessment of, hey, it was built in 1904 and really hasn't been maintained, touched since then, I think that's spot on.

Not just the house, but the property is indicative of

of deferred maintenance and just neglect.

There are brush piles lining the perimeter of the property.

There are large trees, stumps from large trees that have fallen over large stumps and just left to rot in place.

and there were other trees that were literally sort of hanging on the power lines out in front of the house.

So that's indicative of sort of the state of the house as a whole.

Unfortunately, it is in pretty bad shape and so we were hoping to tackle it in phases that has proven sort of meeting with contractors that has sort of proven challenging.

most notably sort of you know work that we might have preferred to do on the back and the rear of the house in a few years sort of for one reason or another contractors are sort of telling us well that's going to be difficult you really sort of need to do this all at once in order to tie it together make it watertight so on and so forth so the porch we are we are not trying to not trying to do anything to the porch you know the intent is to basically just sort of prop it up that's the front porch

Yes, the front wrap-around porch, maintain it, stop it from deteriorating.

It's currently, portions of it are falling actually off of the house, so we want to do some structural stuff there, but that's about restoration and just enough to keep it from further deteriorating.

The front of the house in general and really the sides of the house, we are not proposing to do work beyond restoring the cornice, the details around the trim.

No other work really, and the intent is to maintain the look, the feel, the detail, and restore the house in all its glory.

over time as we're able to.

So where we would like to do some work, and I think this is perhaps where it sort of falls in the category of rehabilitation, bringing the house up to sort of a more contemporary use, we have very much focused on the rear.

aside from the items that Jeff mentioned.

So replacing the roof.

The roof is leaking.

It's got holes in it around the perimeter, in the valleys, up around the ridge.

That needs to be replaced.

The gutters, the built-in gutters are a big part of that problem.

I've had a few contractors specifically tell me they will not, they've declined to bid on replacing built-in gutters.

They will do

Half Round Gutters, install those and that's what we're looking to do but contractors have basically told us.

We won't do it because it's a bad idea.

So we're not even going to give you a price for it.

So that's the roof piece.

Repair and restore the cornice and trim, which is what Jeff already referenced.

Repointing the brick, rebuilding the interior ridge chimneys, which show from the front of the house, shoring up the porch.

And then when we get to the back of the house, there are three.

I don't know that you'd call them

Editions.

One of them is actually this on the left hand side.

It's an entrance to the to the cellar that is in particularly bad shape.

It is clearly not original to the house.

Yes, it's hard to tell from the photos, but that one, if you pushed on it hard enough, it might

actually fall over.

The other is an addition that was jammed in.

It's a bathroom that comes off of the kitchen.

And again, so it's right behind the white, yes.

It was not well integrated into the house.

It's a different color brick.

It's a different size brick.

And it's right up against the window casing.

as in sort of like cuts off part of the window casing.

Similar to the, on the other side of the rear, again, the photo on the right, that is the, it's a cinder block laundry room.

There was a porch there at one time.

Nothing is left of that open porch that was there.

It is now a cinder block room that is in,

not very good condition and it's also you can actually you can really see something from the photo here it's also sort of pushed right up against the the casing of that window so so again sort of poorly integrated our hope is to our proposal is to remove those sort of what I'll call substandard

Yep, substandard sort of additions that were not original to the house and in their place put a modest two-story addition.

Oh, here we go, yes.

And there are a few renderings in here.

So the elevations show.

Let me scroll the renderings for you there.

So we are hoping to put a...

and actually what you're seeing is that the lower picture is basically what is the existing rear of the house.

The upper picture shows the addition.

The addition is basically tucked in.

It would square off the back of the house, so it would replace where that cinder block addition is.

It will use that footprint

and it expands the footprint by roughly 5%.

So it's only a foot, the addition itself is only about a 5% increase in the size of the existing footprint.

We worked very hard with our architect to try to minimize the size of that addition and do it in a way that is sort of compatible with

the existing structure but also the houses in the surrounding area.

We did not want to do something ultra-modern.

We did not want to do something with crazy colors.

We have seen that.

There are examples of that on Park Street.

We're not trying to do that.

We are trying to do something that is in the style of but does not mimic

the historic structure.

Now we have also added on in the back as a means of tying in the backyard.

We've added on the porch that was sort of partially done to open up the house of the backyard and create a safe space for our kids, two young boys to play, but also done to step down, step back.

from the two-story edition but also the two-story existing structure that's there.

So we have tried very hard to meet what we understand to be the intent of the guidelines.

It may not be checking every box, but this is where we've ended up after a good bit of back and forth with Jeff and also our architect.

I think that addresses the bulk of what we are looking to do.

I also wanted to come and have a discussion with you all about windows.

The windows in the house are in pretty bad shape and we've costed out a few different scenarios.

Yeah, can you pull up the picture of the back of the house again?

So this is that white porch that you saw before.

And so here's where they change that roof line because they're

Correct, in addition to the new ports that would be on that side.

Correct, and the proposal, sort of the intent of, to speak directly to the roof line.

Really what we're doing there is we looked at, we tried a number of countless different layouts trying to make the most efficient use of the interior space and really the best way that we found to reduce the size of the addition, sort of the new incremental footprint was to

make that space on the second floor there, you know, just sort of a few feet if you pop that cornice up and the hip roof, you know, you extend.

So it is just that very rear portion.

That enables us to keep the addition

This would be gone and this line here would be lifted up in line

So you would be then seeing the windows here.

The chimney would be gone.

So this roof line would continue out.

And in the conversations with Jeff, then you have this addition that you could squish in underneath the corners or bring it up in line.

And then there was still, we talked about, how would you infill that space?

and I think that an argument could be made to extend it up, you know, brick and then there would be, you know, this would be brick but bead as an addition with a different type of coarsen or something like that but it really makes sense to get it up to that ridge line or up to that cornice line just so that the carbon would go nuts trying to cut little tiny corners.

So that was just a suggestion I had.

I think the key question is, yes, this

I've got a question.

Could the second?

meet the lower cornice line rather than extending the existing cornice.

If we look at a literal read of the Department of Interior standard, this is not what they want for you to stretch things within the same plane, within the same material.

Yeah, and that was a discussion that we had had and I guess, so just, I'll make sort of two comments and then I'll sort of address the question.