Board of Architectural Review Meeting   2/22/2023

Thank you.

Thank you.

No, just sent you that email a while ago about

Is Ron coming?

We don't know.

Unless you're planning on bailing.

The what?

We're waiting for justice, can we?

Oh, so Ron's not here?

Did he say he was going to be here?

I didn't see a reply from him.

Does he know it's Wednesday meeting?

All right, Jeff.

Get Jeff talking about old houses.

That's a loaded question.

I don't have anything.

Okay.

Well, thank you for those of you here, for being patient, and for those of you online.

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

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

I'll then ask for questions from the public.

followed by questions from the BAR.

After questions are closed, we'll then ask for comments from the public and for each application, members of the public are each allowed three minutes to ask questions and three minutes to offer comments.

Speakers, I ask you please to identify yourselves and provide your full address and for everyone here, please remember to speak into your microphones.

That's how those following along online can hear us.

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

And following our discussion and prior to taking action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond.

Before we get started this evening, I just have two brief announcements that I just think are important to the design community here.

For those of you that are unaware, tonight the city of Charlottesville is beginning the three open houses for the first module of the draft zoning code.

The first one is later tonight at 6 p.m.

at Charlottesville High School.

The second is tomorrow night at Beaufort Middle School.

And on Saturday, the final open house will be here at 11 a.m.

at City Space.

They're informal and they give us a chance.

I would encourage everyone here on the board and those of you following along to participate.

Implications for our city and for the kinds of projects that will be coming before this board.

Second, I wanted to share the unfortunate and unexpected news of the passing of Wayne Lawhorn.

Most of us here in the design community know him just as Wayne, and for as long as I can remember, Wayne was the guy who was picking up drawings and delivering prints from TNN printing.

And for those of you that knew him, know that he always had an incredible smile, a generous spirit, and a kind heart.

And he certainly helped us do our work better.

And I don't think he knows the impact that he had on this community.

He will be missed.

And I'll just note a couple of things that

There will be services for him this Sunday at 2 p.m.

at Free Union Church of the Brethren.

And TNN Linwood has mentioned that he does want to have a service for the design community, perhaps sometimes later in April.

So thank you for that time.

The first item on the agenda are matters from the public.

That is for anything that is not on the agenda or that is listed on the consent agenda.

Do we have anyone online or in person that has something they'd like to mention?

Okay, we'll move on.

The next item is the consent agenda.

We have two items, one including meeting minutes from April 19, 2022 and second COA application for 600 Lexington Avenue window installation.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

I'm not sure why I'm not zooming in.

This is a COA request within the

Woolen Mills Conservation District.

That's exactly what it will look like.

And it's an existing house that will be doing a rear addition and also changing the existing windows.

The reason I didn't have this, and I don't know why the graphic looks so poor, but in your staff report, the

The house has on the second floor, the backs, a porch that was enclosed with siding.

The addition then, they were looking to just continue that wall plane with the siding.

And I know we'd like to see an addition, Reid is an addition, so one idea was to turn a corner, but there's some structural

things that there needs to be a beam there so keeping the wall planes the same is important to the interior plan so I had suggested one of or both of a solution would be just simply apply a flat board like a corner there and then continue the siding the new siding or you could even have the corner board and have the siding with them alter the face dimension

It's not a, I'm just curious what you all thought of that.

If you think either or any of those are worthwhile and wanted to give you that opportunity to chime in.

Okay.

Hello.

I think Jeff did a good job explaining.

Just to kind of clarify, the existing, it's like this old vinyl siding that is kind of, we have like brick, brick, and then above it is this very old vinyl siding.

So we would match the material.

to the new build, and we would be using, I know we talked about the material, just like hardy plank, so it would be a very nice updated look.

Okay, excellent, thank you.

Are there any questions from the public?

I'll keep moving.

Questions from the board?

Comments from the public?

I think that's a good distinction for us to make.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including city design guidelines for historic conservation districts, I move to find that the proposed addition, porch, and window replacements at 1516 East Market Street satisfy the BAR's criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation Districts.

All right.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you very much.

And I'm sorry I made you come out tonight, but we are going to keep talking about the Hudsons and the Shepherds and figure that mystery out.

I'll tell your father you did a good job here at his long-standing.

If you're interested, we're still looking for a last member, Mariel.

Okay, thanks.

Just to complete that public announcement, yes, we are a nine, you all are a nine-member board appointed by council and one of the seats that remains vacant is the owner of a business or owner of a property located within the design control district.

So, but I'm going to talk a little bit about that at the end.

Not the actual drawings, but just the first one.

Tom, I still see you're all set.

You're all approved.

Fred, do you have anything you want me to plug in when you start?

I'll call up the submittal if you want.

Fair enough.

Okay, so this is a request for 104 Stadium Road.

It is an individually protected property in the city and an opportunity again to educate.

The city has architectural design control districts, which are sort of the traditional historic districts.

We have historic conservation districts, which are

sort of a less rigid form of design review and we have individually protected properties and there are 77 of them in the city and IPPs are evaluated under the same ordinance and same guidelines as the ADC districts and for full disclosure I live in an IPP so I'm quite familiar with the process.

This is a request

for demolition, a demolition COA for the 1927 structure located at 104 Stadium Road.

It's a stone described as an English Tudor revival style residence.

was designated by city council in 2011, so it's one of the more recently designated properties.

The historic survey you all have seen, it was constructed by a gentleman who was an English professor at the university.

There is a relationship to a gentleman who was the

a Secretary of State during World War II and under Franklin Roosevelt and it was also the United States first delegate to the United Nations and that comes up in the survey although while that's probably the most historically significant individual associated with this house it doesn't

There's no evidence he lived there or things were done there that were historic.

So while that's in there, his connection to it is not strong.

The House is not listed on the National Register, the Virginia Land Marshall Register.

However, it is

designated by the city again as an individually protected property and as such the Board of Architectural Review has purview over its demolition, over its alteration or any new construction on the site.

It's a unique building.

I think there are one of the questions in the guidelines about other structures

are certainly not rare.

There are a couple examples within the Oakhurst Gildersleeve ADC District that are stone.

A couple are of a similar design.

So I think the other part I want to just be clear with the applicant and the folks and the public about is, so this is a request for the demolition of the building and of the

Terrace and Gardens I think associated with the property.

If the demolition of the property or demolition of the structures is approved either by the BAR or through appeal or through

Unintentionally, the IPP designation remains in place.

That is a zoning overlay district that only city can assign to a property or remove from a property.

And we, in fact, have a property in the city that was an IPP.

The structure was raised.

but it remains an IPP.

The property owner never went through the process of removing that designation.

So I just want to be clear about demolition is not an automatic elimination of that overlay.

I know you all have asked me a little bit about the history of this transaction between the adjacent parcel which the city sold to the owner.

can't really speak to it with any authority other than it the fact is this property is an IPP and how and in what manner it's associated with the adjacent parcel that's not an IPP isn't really what's before you here tonight.

So if you've got questions about it I can certainly do some research and come back to you with it but that's not I'm not here to discuss that tonight.

And then the last piece I have is that I think like you all have done with projects on Market Street,

reviewing demolitions and with the anticipation of future development.

And there is a draft condition in the report.

You all can certainly amend it, you know, add to it, make it stronger, however you see fit.

But I think a concern I have is that a historic structure is

raised and for a project that never comes to fruition.

So to in some way require, if you can, that that demolition is not going to just be immediately.

It's going to have a connection to a project that's moving forward on the site.

All right.

There we go.

Sorry.

I do.

More than likely, it was probably part of the Montebello property, which was owned by John Perry, I believe.

He was one of the contractors who actually helped build the university, but it was a plantation site.

That's fine.

I have a question.

You're saying, Jeff, that there was another site, IPP, that was raised.

Is that the only one that's been raised in the history?

To my knowledge, that's the only one.

And that's just below Burnley Moran there, where the food trucks line up.

That was in 2014.

OK, Mr. Wolf, would you like to add anything?

Fred, one second.

Hey, Tom?

Hey, Tom, you're still on, but your project was approved.

So you're all set.

All right.

Thank you.

All right, let me, I'm going to just bring up the images, Fred, just in case we have something you want to refer to.

Good evening and thank you.

My name is Fred Wolf, architect here in Charlottesville.

And our firm is the associate architect working with ESG out of Minneapolis.

And I believe on the calls, Neil Riordan, who is the architect leading the project for them.

Also with me are Dylan Lambert and Mitchell Corte, who are from Subtext.

in the back on the left.

Subtext is the developer out of St.

Louis that is pursuing this project.

And then also with me is Mark McConnell, who is a architectural, historic architectural

Consultant.

And for us, he came and looked at this property and furnished a report.

He's done a lot of work with the Department of Historic Resources, a lot of tax credit projects, and is trained in practices specifically on historic buildings.

So I want to quickly say thank you to everybody for their time and willingness to talk a little bit over the last several weeks as I introduced the project and what our application was going to look like.

and I think that Jeff has done a good job in summarizing what was in the staff report and the application.

The things that I'll quickly just remind us is that when we went through this,

One of the things that struck me was this property was volunteered to the city and that's an unusual event to have somebody volunteer, an owner volunteer property to be designated.

Only two years earlier the district was formed.

There was an exhaustive survey done with the district.

It cataloged many buildings throughout Oakhurst and Gildersleeve including

several on JPA and then some on Maywood and Valley Road.

And there are actually two structures directly across the street from this that are part of that district.

And there was a 39-page report that excludes any mention of this building when it was establishing that.

So I think that that's curious.

They are very specific in their nomination report describing how they set up the district and defined what

what properties they captured and included.

And so that to me is one of those fundamental things that I think is interesting, the fact that this two years later somehow became an asset that rose to the level to be included.

Anyways, so, just going through this here.

I guess in our opinion that this is, you know, it's curious I think that this was admitted the first time and then was included subsequently.

Having been on the BAR and having nominated buildings for IPPs, it seems to me that, you know, an individually protected property is usually something that is reserved for a building or a property that is

in some ways special or rare, exceptional, and different than defining a boundary for a district that captures lots of things, some of which are contributing more or less to the district.

and you know as we look at this and if we went through the criteria I think that our determination was we have a really nice old building but there is no aspect about it that's really particularly unique or exceptional or rare or could not be replaced.

We found no evidence of anything that is exceptional in terms of its

the folks who have been associated with designing or constructing it or anybody who has lived there that had any historic associations.

Jeff rightly mentions one individual who had an association with somebody who lived there at one point, but

That could be said of a lot of places in Charlottesville.

As could the fact that we have many beautiful old homes in Charlottesville that are not individually protected properties, which have valuable architectural qualities.

The other point that I think is critical to look at is that this house is, at this point, kind of an island unto itself.

The structure has been, for all intents and purposes, sort of severed from whatever original context or streetscape, whatever urban fabric it might have been a part of when it was originally constructed.

It sits in a position where it's surrounded by mid-century buildings that are multi-family student housing, not of particular architectural value themselves.

and uniquely, as was pointed out when we were meeting, the back of this house actually faces the front of what will be the site for this future development.

So in the preservation of this,

you would effectively have the back of the house facing the front door or the front facing the front of what potentially could be the development that comes later.

I think that the group sees an opportunity here when you look at the density and growth desired to take this

a series of parcels and hopefully without this as an obstacle or hurdle in the way to be able to develop an urban campus precinct at the point where the city can absorb some growth and density and use that growth and density for student housing to take pressure off of.

and other adjacent neighborhoods where you want to try and preserve and save single-family dwellings like in Oakhurst Circle and Gildersleaf.

I'm going to hand this off to our historic preservation consultant and then at the end of that I think that the owners would like to say a few words as well.

Good evening.

I'm Mark McConnell.

I'm a preservation architect and found myself in a kind of unusual position for a preservation architect being asked to evaluate a building for potential removal.

And when they first called me, I called John Burns, the chief appeals officer for the National Park Service.

He's sort of the last word in preservation for the United States.

And I called him on the eve, literally, the eve of his retirement.

And I asked him for advice.

And I said,

Is there a precedent for this?

Is there criteria?

Is there some way to do it?

And he's very official and he said the National Park Service takes no position with regard to demolition of historic buildings unless they're in the tax credit program in Section 106.

And then he said, and there are no precedents in the National Park Service and Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Office.

what goes on on one historic property has zero bearing on what happens on the next historic property that comes along because they all have to be considered individually and that's how John advised me to consider this building.

And I'm sure you've all read what I wrote in this report.

It's a nice, it's just a really nice English Tudor style cottage.

It has been marooned in its environment.

There's no context for it.

As Fred said, it was, you know, I would use the term, myself and my colleagues have created probably two dozen National Historic Register districts.

And so when I say this building was excluded, I really do mean it was excluded because we have, in times past, reached out well beyond the borders of what is a well-defined district to include buildings we thought were worthy.

and this is, you know, there are nine buildings of the Tudor Revival style in the district across the street.

There are eight stone buildings, you know, in the district across the street.

So it is not a national register district and I think on purpose.

There's nothing particularly unique about it.

The McLeod family

built a house and had a visitor, but there's a pretty stringent standard for association at the National Park Service when considering a historic building.

So if, for example, there's a farm that I did the National Register nomination for in Vermont where President Eisenhower wrote his memoirs and his history of World War II and all this stuff, but he lived there on the farm, he wrote these

books, he received dignitaries, presidents, and so forth.

So it barely qualified, and we just don't have that strong association here.

And so as I looked at the criteria for inclusion in the National Register, which is what would sway me to say, no, this is a really important building, this one did not meet any of the four.

And to your question about what was here before,

It was a vacant lot.

I included the 1920 Sanborn map has the lot empty.

And here are copies.

I included the wrong map in my report.

This is the 1929.

And you can see the house in its residential lot setup.

So it was anticipated to be part of a particular

of a neighborhood of residential pallets.

So if you have any questions about the report that I put together, it's a nice building.

It's not unique.

It wasn't designed by a recognized master.

It has been altered somewhat on the inside.

I know you guys don't consider much the inside, but it is a marooned example of just a nice old house.

So I advise the

the owner that it could be documented and removed without a significant impact to the historic community here in Charlottesville.

And I'd like to give the owners just a couple seconds.

Good evening.

We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you all today.

My name is Dale Lambert, development manager at Subtext.

Our firm develops institutional quality multifamily and student housing, focusing on high quality design.

and urban and pedestrian locations.

We believe that this is a phenomenal location and has the potential to be a prominent part of the entrance corridor while also furthering the goals of the citywide comprehensive plan as well as the new zoning ordinance.

While we haven't started formal design yet, we have spent a considerable amount of time working on visioning and present imagery.

An architect who's on Zoom has a brief slide show he'd be happy to share if you'd like.

And just before I wrap up here, I just wanted to say that we would agree with some of the conditions that Jeff had mentioned in his report if demolition were approved, such as fully documenting the structure prior to demolition and it being contingent on approved permits for a future project.

Our intent is not to tear this down unless that moves forward.

And we're here for any questions.

Okay.

Thank you We'll see where the questions and conversation takes us.

Do we have any questions from the public either here in the in the building or online?

And I'll proceed with questions from the board just let me know Remy if anyone raises their hand Any questions from the board?

So this map's helpful, thank you.

I guess I'm kind of curious, looking at this and then also in the staff report, Jeff included the 1950 Sanborn, which really only shows

A minimal amount of growth, particularly only one house on the other side of I guess what's now Woodrow Street.

So I guess I'm just kind of curious if that neighborhood was ever really built out.

You're absolutely right.

It's really been more marooned by the speed of the traffic, by the predictable improvement of those roads that make it pretty darn hazardous to come out of the back door, which we think is the front of the house right now.

My turn.

Okay, we'll move to comments from the public.

Do we have any comments from the public, either here in person or online?

Some confusion?

Yes.

I find this confusing and I apologize because I did meet with Fred Wolf beforehand and I feel like I was encouraging for this application and now I don't feel quite as encouraged.

If this were part of a historic district, so if it was just a contributing structure in a historic district, I feel like we

it would not be such a easy decision to say, oh, it's not worth anything and just demolish it.

I feel like we would actually, it would have a very low likelihood of being allowed to be demolished if it were just existing again in a part of the district as opposed to being an IPP.

It's almost like we're being asked to decide, is this worthy of being an individually protected property, which as Jeff has said, is not something that we, whether we allow the demolition or not, I guess,

By zoning, it stays as an IPP, which is also a little confusing because I feel like if we allow the demolition, the house comes down, the applicant could make a pretty easy legal argument saying, well, there's nothing there that's protectable, so why is this still a protected property?

Where I'm really stuck,

The history of this seems like a very deliberate decision by council.

It was part of a sale deal, an agreement between the owners and council to purchase an adjacent property.

and it was, it took two meetings with a little bit of haggling to come up with this.

An equal offer was denied, or not denied but was turned down for this one.

It was an offer to put a, well.

to put a little apartment building on that corner lot that is now supposed to be left undeveloped.

So I guess it just feels like to vote for denial would be to be overturning something that was very deliberately done by city council.

Of course, that was the city council from 12 years ago.

Well, I'll add to that because I, you know,

I think in our review criteria for demolition, number three is the public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected.

And what you're saying, Carl, to me says if there's any record of what the public interest in this land or this building is, then that city council decision is pretty

That's kind of where I'm falling.

And just further on that, I don't want to belabor it, and I do thank you for the report about the criteria for the historic designation.

But I will note that there are some slight differences between our guidelines for considering demolition.

I'll just add to the confusion and need to do it, but for me, it's just a pretty basic, at a pretty basic level, like, you know, for whatever reason that something has become an IPP, if it is that, then it is that, and there should be some

power behind that.

Right.

I mean, we're not saying we're knocking everything down.

Obviously, there's a precedent, one precedent for having knocked something down in the past.

But for me, it's just it's the precedent of the matter.

It's the you know, what is this?

How does this how does this alter things moving forward, whether it's, you know, the processes through city council of why something came to be or whether it's a historic

When we talk about the precedent, are we talking about Riverview?

I was actually involved in that and the BAR did not vote to demolish it.

Just to make clear, the applicant, I represented them in a legal capacity, appealed to counsel and then they ended up putting it up for sale and they were able to demolish it through the statute.

So this is a significant application for us, you can imagine.

Leading, adding to the quandary is how recently it was made in IPP as a legislative action of basically council which delegates their power to us.

So it is confusing.

And I just wonder, if we deferred and kicked this up to council, couldn't council by action un-PP this, undesignated, which would allow the applicant to do anything they want?

I mean, I kind of, I'm not unafraid to act.

because I think what is troublesome is that council so recently decided, probably when Mr. Wolf was on the BAR, decided that this was an IPP, not his fault.

I mean, he's not acting contradictory to that.

The BAR does not decide what IPPs are.

It's done by legislative action of the highest body in the city.

And I just wonder if, not to...

But couldn't they go to council?

So there are a lot of steps and I said we can certainly, Fred and his team can... If it's Council's desire to see this developer do this kind of project too, both, in this location because we want density and that's where the new zoning ordinance is going, I would almost rather

I think, and Fred, jump in.

Some of that is the sequence of things that have to happen and I mean, almost even in terms of like a large scale project when it's coming to BAR and how many steps forward do you go.

There are a lot of things associated with this project that would go into those next steps for zoning and things like that.

So my understanding is that this clears a hurdle, then allows sort of that comfort moving forward, if you will.

Probably not the right word, but that there will be more involved in what has to go to council than just the removal of the overlay.

Something is not adding up.

And all I can discern is that the right of way was changed.

That's how it became a city parcel.

the 20 and the 25 and 29 that they realigned to ABA.

I don't know.

I can't say that.

Yeah, I think there's quite something angry, but I think his point's well taken.

Oh, no.

Sandborn Maps, you know something was there.

just don't know if it was exactly there and exactly that size, but at least was there.

So, sorry, just wanted to, while some of the, I saw the head scratching going on.

So as far as procedurally, I think the best way to approach it is as you did with other requests is

Evaluate this on its face.

As to its historic nature or historic character, I agree from the National Register criteria that there's a reasonable argument about its eligibility other than its age.

But it was designated an IPP by the city of Charlottesville and for a reason and I don't think there's

many famous people associated with my house and I certainly tell you it was not a craftsman or a great architect.

It was more like something we'd build when we were kids building tree forts but it's an IPP so just to say there's a lot of structures that are designated IPPs for

for reasons that are of importance to the community.

And so I'm not trying to sway you one way or the other, but that's the question before you.

What then City Council does next in this is a series of steps for the applicant to decide.

If you all approve this, those steps are still there for them.

He was mentioned, this is in an entrance corridor also.

If you deny this request, that can be appealed to council, as happened last night with council overturning a denial of a CLA.

As far as deferring, I'm not sure if there are questions it would be

You know, we could further research about this site, this building.

We can certainly do that, but I'd say if you're going to defer it, sort of be very clear on what the objective is in that deferral.

I guess, I don't, I'm not very confused.

It's an individually protected property.

We're charged by city council to protect this property And I think it's pretty clear that we should Vote to deny this application.

I think the applicants made a good case on all the points we've talked about It's a very well put together presentation, which I really appreciate but I think our purview is to protect individually protected properties and then there are processes that can be followed and

to go through the course of actions to get to where they want to be.

And we've done our job, and then they're doing their job.

For the record, I'd just like to read through what the review criteria are and not the city code, which is in our staff report, but there's a link to the criteria for demolition in our guidelines.

I didn't I didn't the public necessity one.

I didn't see that discussed.

I saw the link inserted, Jeff, after the section 34278 criteria, which I think everybody's focusing on, but let me just read them down.

So our criteria for demolition in the guidelines are section 34278, all the ones that are in our staff report that the applicant addressed and then Jeff kind of did a rebuttal or response to.

In addition, number two is the public necessity of the proposed demolition.

I'm not going to debate it.

I'm just going to say whether there is a public necessity, not purpose, but necessity of the demolition.

Three, the public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected.

Four, whether or not a relocation of the structure would be a practical or preferable alternative to demolition.

I haven't heard that discussed either.

whether or not the proposed demolition would adversely or potentially affect other historic buildings or the character of the historic district.

There is none, so I think that's NA, it's not a historic district, it's not IPP.

The reason for demolishing the structure and whether or not alternatives exist.

And the last one is whether or not there has been a professional, economic, or structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure, or whether or not its findings support the proposed demolition.

I don't know if that's your report, whether that would constitute that seventh, but I don't know professional, economic, and structural feasibility study.

I don't think that's quite what your report was, but it probably went halfway there.

So I would just encourage all of us to focus also on these criteria, some of which are

would augur one way and some which augur against, but public necessity of a proposed demolition has always been a big one.

When, in my familiar view for this board, you know, if a badly needed road were needed to go through this front yard, then you could, you know, or a cell tower where there was no service in the city of Charlottesville or for a school or for some public purpose or, but

You're correct in that they're not state or federally listed, so a state or federal action such as a road building or the FCC licensing a tower would not, that would be considered.

If this helps, just so that we're all, I think, clear more for the public record as anything.

Right, and then on page seven starts.

So within the guidelines are the review criteria.

They're almost identical, but I included them both here.

I apologize.

No, no, that's okay.

Just make sure that we're, because I think it answers the question.

For your particularly about the public necessity, staff's response was demolition is not a public necessity.

The building has not been condemned nor deemed unsafe.

As far as the condition of the building, staff did not go in it.

I will say when you staple a sign on a property that says, you know, a building's being evaluated for demolition, I usually get a few phone calls.

So surprised that the kids living in that house didn't call me, but maybe they did.

But as far as the report presented in the applicant submittal, I think that's addressing and thoroughly to the

historic character in so far as evaluating the National Register guidelines.

But as far as a structural report or anything like that, I can't report on that and I have not seen that.

So to those two specific questions that you asked.

and the other thing, and it came up in a question from one of you earlier about the BARs, the way the ordinance is written, if a demolition of a contributing structure, the BAR must approve it in the sense that that's to be allowed to do it requires BAR approval.

There is a condition in there, however, that if it's

If the building inspector deems it unsafe, if people shouldn't be in it or around it, then that elevates it out of your purview.

But we're not dealing with that here, to my knowledge.

So sorry, Ms.

No, I'm so glad you found it in the report.

I didn't find that the applicant addressed those, and in fact,

the whole discussion about other alternatives.

Is it not feasible to move this?

Is it not feasible to incorporate it?

I mean, I think when there are criteria that it's incumbent on the applicant to address all of them, and I think only part of them, the code ones, were addressed but not our guideline ones.

And I still haven't heard any discussion about them here.

We've been on this for a little while.

from from even from us.

I mean, we're at comments now.

Well, my personal reading of our guidelines and of the project is this is a property that we are asked to protect and it's worthy of protection.

I think it is an interesting, you'd be surprised how many people know of this house and because of its distinctive character and its location.

It is an oddball to be sure, but our city would be less if it were gone tomorrow.

I do think that the city is beyond our purview.

They may have other thoughts about the usefulness of this land and how it fits into larger planning goals, but that's not for us to debate.

I think that if we do deny this evening, I do think that we should identify a number of different things about the preservation of this structure, for instance.

But if it is allowed to be demolished by an overturning of a denial, that it should be contended on a future COA approval.

I think it should also include the other conditions that were mentioned in the staff report.

very clear if that's the direction that there are other steps that the city council might want to take if they do not, if they were to overturn say a denial from our board.

But I'm not sure where everybody is sitting on this at the moment and haven't heard yet from Tyler.

To your point about it being contingent on an approval of a COA down the line, if Council approved demolition after a denial from the BAR, wouldn't that be contingent on whether the IPP still exists?

because the rest of... I don't think it matters either way because we've had that issue on other properties within a district and we still put a contingency that a building be approved before it's demolished.

I think it's different because this is just an individual stand-alone property where

I don't know if, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but where I take from it is if council were to approve demolition of this, I don't see why it needs to continue to be a protected property.

I think the house is what makes it special.

I think it's a jewel in the rough.

Okay, maybe I'm construing two different things.

I think we're in agreement that if demolition of the structure happens down the line, that it would not happen until a building permit is approved.

I think we've kind of stated that.

Correct.

The point being, yeah, you just don't want to prematurely demolish this and then a project doesn't occur.

But that's one for council and for city attorney to, I think you can phrase it, a very good question for them, but should the IPP be removed?

Does then any BAR action, you know, does it become moot?

I don't know that.

So the best advice I would give you is to state

Is there anyone on the board that is leaning towards approval of the demolition as submitted?

OK, well, that's pretty clear.

Sorry, guys.

Fred, would you like to have a few moments?

I think we can see the tenor of this.

And I appreciate the challenge.

And it's not a clean cut, clear decision.

I did want to, if I could, just speak to, I think, in terms of moving or relocating it, it was looked at, and I just

determined that cost prohibitive to try and move a structure like this, particularly with the materiality of the stone walls and so forth.

And even the notion of trying to disassemble and reconstruct it cost prohibitive.

So I think that that option was looked at but taken away.

And then the other thing with respect to the public necessity, I guess I meant to imply, and maybe should have been more specific, that

the notion of being able to consolidate growth and development density in this one area and take pressure off of adjacent neighborhoods to me is a public necessity that the growth and development of the university and subsequent need to house students and faculty and staff

is critical, and if you can consolidate it by designing a new precinct instead of scattering it and allowing it to sort of leak out and impact multiple neighborhoods, then there's an enormous benefit there.

And that's, I think, somewhat driving the new zoning that's being looked at.

So, you know, in our minds, that would be an aspect of the public necessity and public good of this project.

it does not give you a peek into what happens after this but I think that you could easily imagine if this is housing four tenants and you could somehow gain so four individuals can live in this little space on this parcel if that number could go up if you could gain 60 that would be a big gain in terms of being able to increase density and you've got it right at the threshold between the neighborhood and the university where it can really

Thank you.

I'd just like to say I think that makes really good sense.

I mean, I get that as a public necessity.

I think that's a good point.

What the design is, it's just looking at the square footage and the acreage of what's there right now versus what you could put on that amount, whatever the lot size is.

I do wonder, sorry, one more thing, and this is just me, I do wonder what the, looking at it in an alternative way, you know, the sort of hybrid version, figuring out a clever way of integrating it into the development, what that gives a much denser corner zone.

Then also having that green space, that link to the past, that jewel, or some sort of jewel in the rough, I don't know who came up with that, but having that integrated within it.

how that might in some ways enhance the property.

For pontificating, I think it would be a great coffee shop.

Can I offer a perspective?

I'll try to be fair to both sides here because how you all discussed this, this will not be the last time you have a discussion like this and this is

So this is a map of, and these are IPPs, and this large, very historic one is going on the market soon.

There are quite a few, mine doesn't show up on here because it's just a dot, but there are some IPP parcels that are substantial.

We know from the discussion about Windhurst that it's more than just the four walls of the building.

So I don't want to squelch the conversation, but I want to be

be aware that with whatever happens with the comp plan and the revised rezoning this discussion is going to become more common and I think I didn't wear my preservation hat as boldly as I should have last night and maybe I need to wear it a little tighter today and that is to say that you know this is to be equating historic preservation with well gee what's

What are you building there?

That's a little troubling of a ledge to go out on.

Right, and I think we also need to hold up to the city council and to our community that we are now I think building

some really good examples of dense development in close proximity to historic homes and I think some really good successful examples and we've been better served for those efforts even though they do make projects a little trickier sometimes.

Can I just ask one more question of Jeff?

It's identical to a rezoning, right?

They are required to seek your input, but... To undo an IPP designation... It's just the same thing in reverse.

It would go to... I mean, maybe we would say we support it, maybe we wouldn't.

because we tend to get ignored.

We did last night before city council.

That's part of what's weighing in on this and kind of the direction of, you know, either us voting in favor of or voting against demolitions with a new zone.

I just have to, you know, on my grandstand say with the new zoning ordinance calling for a lot of density,

and Mr. Wolf has served on this board before, what happens with these 77 individually designated historic properties?

If anybody wants to knock them down, we have the density, ADU, historic, whatever.

Name the goal of the new zoning ordinance and our new comprehensive plan and you get a demolition.

Effectively, what does an IPP mean?

What does history mean?

What does preserving a historic fabric mean?

And I think we're hesitating over this because we've got other ones here.

I'm not saying we're holding your matter hostage, but I'm just proposing another way it could happen, that you could send a proposal to rezone this.

You'd go before Planning Commission, go before Council, and then the IPP designations lifted, and you don't have to argue about

any of the criteria for demolition in front of us.

And not that we don't, not that, I mean, you know, or we may vote, I'm not sure where everybody's standing, but if this group, you've heard several people vocalize that they would deny the demolition, then you appeal to council and then you're spending more time.

No, simply a recommendation.

Not a recommendation.

Maybe, but I would say that

None of our powers originate with us.

They're all delegated from council.

I've been in this position a lot and in your position a lot.

and the reason I think that we're here and the reason that you're there is because not all buildings are created equal.

Not all IPPs have the same character or quality or historic importance as another.

And it's your judgment, that's why you're here, I think, to say, well, here's, you know, just take any of these other IPPs, oh my gosh, you know, we don't care what the density is, this is an, you know, Thomas Jefferson slept here, whatever, whereas another building

who they got nominated for an IPP came a different route and maybe is not that important.

I think that that's why you're here.

That's the public trust to you guys is to evaluate each of these criteria on each of these buildings on their own merits.

That's why the National Park Service does not accept precedent because each building has its own set of qualities.

So I just think that if

that you're concerned about, you're going to be running into this again and again, yes, you are, but not all buildings are created equal.

So every person that comes up here and says, oh, this building that was built by the Masons that built Monticello is super-duper important, no, but maybe a building like this one that has less

of the defining characteristics for a National Register nomination, for example, is not as important.

That's sort of your trust, and that's why you're here.

I think not just to say, oh, well, it's in the National Register district, forget it.

I think you have that ability, and I've been here and been there and seen it.

I think Mark's saying the same thing I'm saying is the guidelines give you the criteria and that's all I was saying is just we have the criteria to make that evaluation.

They are essentially the same as saying should it be an IPP or not.

So it's stick with these, stay within these.

And my only caution about bringing in, gee, what's going to happen here is that strays from this list of things that you all have.

And I think so the IPP, whether

A COA for demolition is approved or not.

The IPP fee is still out there.

And yeah, there's merit to what you're saying.

You should just go to the IPP and then this all becomes moot.

But this process is here.

I think they're looking for a decision.

And if you're uncomfortable with the demolition,

then follow your criteria and make a vote on that.

Does anybody want to venture a motion?

Well, maybe first I'll just put it to Fred.

No, I think we'd like to have an action taken on it.

I think that Mark said something important.

I think a big part of this is not necessarily that we believe that individually protected properties should all be at risk.

I think that what we're questioning here is whether this property really

Warrented, or should be, and we weren't there, or some of us maybe were there.

No, I'm pointing to myself.

Warrented, that designation, when you look at it in the big picture of the other things, it might bring it or allow it to rise to that level.

You know, we have not made, and intentionally, we never made the argument that this isn't a sound or stable building.

It's not structurally falling down.

It's really about the quality and character of the architecture and its asset and whether or not it's valuable at that level.

Thank you.

I'll make a motion.

I think the reasons were in the first part, but if we need to be more specific.

I guess the way that you read the motion, it says for the following reasons.

Discussion.

Can you clarify?

So just so we're assuming I'm drafting up a response to an appeal.

And the other night, planning commission took, I think, 40 minutes to come up with the motion.

That was a good one to unravel.

But this is relatively simple.

But the grammar may not be right in this.

But if you want to amend it for the following reasons or for the reasons stated, I think that would be helpful.

We need to have some reasons if this is going to go to council.

The house is almost 100 years old.

It, while not being the only stone house in Charlottesville, is a fairly rare example of a housing type in Charlottesville.

That is part of that time period when it was built.

That's when most of the stone houses were built.

It's an IPP?

It has a unique remnants of a historic landscape.

I would also add our number review criteria for demolition number three is the public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected.

The last record that we have that would speak to that is the designation of the property itself by City Council in 2011.

Just to add on to the landscape, I would say that the historical landscape contributes significantly to the context of JPA.

It influences the landscape and it could significantly influence the landscape or the effect of

Buff are between JPA and the bill lots.

I would like to add several recommendations for city council if they should choose to overturn this denial.

One is that the building should be documented thoroughly through photographs and measured drawings according to the historic American building survey standards.

Information should be retained by City of Charlottesville, Department of Neighborhood Development Services, and Virginia Department of Historic Resources.

And that the COA for demolition of this building be contingent on BAR approval of the building's replacement if it remains in IPP.

So delete the second bullet that was suggested in the staff report?

If they wanted to put a parking lot there, and it's an IPP, we'd still have to approve it.

It may not even come back to us.

I don't think that we can actually do that.

That's my problem.

I know we've been trying to do this with our motions recently, and I still... If something's worthy of demolition, it's worthy of demolition, regardless of what happens next.

That's just, that's my own...

yeah I think that's how we're supposed to be it could be demolished next week that means it could be if we voted if council the motion is to deny demolition right

I'm not troubled by it because I don't think it's asking us to look at what's going to replace the demolition and we're saying of course this is all part of our motion which has been quite long.

I'm okay with it because I think that it shouldn't be demolished until we know that the new structure is going forward.

I mean, we're talking about Vinegar Hill folks.

I mean, let's be real.

You know, we had an entire neighborhood that was demolished under the guise of public purpose and nothing sits there but

a Staples store, I'm sorry, and a few other minor businesses, and that was it.

We should all permanently be ashamed of that.

So I have no problem with that condition.

I'm going to back down, but I do not see the equivalency in that argument.

I'm done discussing.

So just a question of order.

The motion that you made then was seconded, and then are we asking that all of the justifications be included in our motion that we're voting on?

I think so.

Then Council would have to read through those, correct?

Yes.

I think that's important.

We didn't do that the last time, correct?

Which last time?

The one that was overturned last night.

It's not your fault.

I don't know if this question is good now or later, but seeing as we're rather verbose in our discussions and have numerous justifications that were listed.

However, it usually takes close to a year until we see the meeting minutes.

Our actions come out pretty fast.

You give me a good opening to something that I had to make clear.

Also, Ms.

Lewis, that reference to Vinegar Hill brought some, it crystallized it in my head a way I hadn't heard it expressed before.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

An action that is appealable to Council, there are ten following the action by the Board of Architectural Review or the Entrance Court or Review Board.

Anybody has ten calendar days, I'm sorry, ten working days to appeal that decision to Council.

And only after that

10 days has lapsed without an appeal.

Is it an actual COA?

Now in this case, you all aren't, it's not a COA, it's a denial of a COA.

But I would say that, so one of the reasons I try to, we try to get things out the next day, not always the easiest thing to do, but is to make sure

The applicant, even if something is approved, may say, as with JPA, there may have been a condition they didn't particularly like once they kind of thought about it.

They have the right of appeal.

So it's incumbent on Molly and I to get this pulled together.

I can certainly

circulated tomorrow, but what I normally will do in a situation like this, because again, these aren't conditions other than the ones addressing the, being specific to council, is I'll listen, you all have seen, I'll...

add parentheses if necessary or a note of clarification.

And then I can circulate it, but it will really come from watching the video and what you all said.

And if something just doesn't fit, I can, you know, or it didn't pick up, I can ask you all about it.

So I'm comfortable with what you've said if you want to sort of be more precise about the recommendations to council.

That would maybe be the only thing or at least be clear because there was a point, Carl, you asked a question, you know, what of those comments to council do you want me to keep and not keep?

So I guess, yeah, what Brecht said with Tyler's change.

Correct.

And were you okay with the other, since you made the initial motion, you're okay with those additions?

Yeah.

Okay, we'll call the vote.

Mr. Timmerman?

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Ms.

Mr. Whitney.

Aye.

And I vote aye on the denial as well.

Thank you for the conversation and for all the work that went into this.

We should note that, as Mr. Warner said, you have ten days, business days, to appeal to counsel.

So there is an application, a $125 fee.

You don't necessarily have to fill out the application, but a letter, you can send it through me and I'll file it with the clerk.

And the recommendation is that that letter assume that it will stand alone as your request to counsel.

In an appeal, staff

I have 10 minutes to summarize the project to counsel the applicant or the appellant that has 10 minutes to speak.

It's not a trial.

You can have 100 people speak or you can have 1 person speak, but you get 10 minutes.

and then the BAR Chair is allowed a few minutes of summary at the end.

As would have occurred last night there was some questions and discussion but it's not a public hearing and so I would say yes make a decision.

Ten working days probably you know you can do the math on it and but if you intend to appeal let me know and I can I can get that at least be aware that something's coming.

There is no timeline on which council must respond to an appeal.

There's no statutory requirement.

I've been trying to get them through.

We've had, I've only had a couple in my five years, but we've had a couple more in the last couple weeks.

It's City Code 34286.

Thank you all for your patience with that discussion.

All right.

I'm going to clear the deck here on the screen.

This is just a preliminary discussion that the applicant requested.

It's sort of at this point kind of an idea they want to explore and they had shared some images and drawings earlier.

It's probably easier for you to just look on your screen.

I emailed them and I think this is not a

As with any preliminary discussion, the goal is for the applicant to get answers from you all on what they have and at the other side is to, from the BAR's perspective, advise them on what information

you would want to see for a complete application.

So there's no, nothing binding here.

You're not voting on anything.

If you say that looks really great, that doesn't mean you're approving it.

How about it?

Derek Euler with Euler & Company.

I apologize for the preliminary nature of it.

So the plans that you have are the existing building.

We haven't done any overlays.

We actually just recently got those, not in time to do a lot.

But essentially what we're trying to do is gain a little more space on the third floor of the structure.

The easiest view is the section view in the plan to kind of get an idea of what we're looking at doing.

Is there a way to get it up on the large screen?

Yeah, I'm trying to find where I saved it.

Gotcha.

Yeah, it was.

Yeah, I apologize for that.

No, I have it here.

So it has, on the third floor, it has a curved roof section and then a large flat roof that has a walkout right now.

What we're intending is essentially closing in most of the space on that flat roof with most likely just a flat roof above that.

If you could scroll to that page, that's pretty helpful.

So you can see

Our thought was tying in a flat roof just below that curve above where those doors walk out onto it.

and not coming all the way to the knee wall and leaving a porch so we're not affecting the facade from Water Street too much.

And I have actually printed the Google Street view of that showing that if you do leave it back at least eight feet, you really can't see it much from Water Street just because of that large offset on the first floor.

And then, yeah, in the other document, I took some images just to

So that's from the rear parking lot.

The main place you would see it from is that side and that parking lot behind it.

Mostly, we looked at the past approvals and it looked like there was some comments on not encroaching on the street.

We had, from the original approval in 2007, there was

Again, this is all very preliminary.

I think the owners like the idea of some sort of porch structure, although it could be roofed in to tie in possibly, and it may make that facade actually look better.

So essentially right now you can see the first floor, then it steps back and it's the second floor plus that little knee wall.

Exactly, and even if you brought it forward, you're not going to see it much.

Even I don't believe because if you look at where those windows are we would be significantly below that.

Right, right, exactly, and that's what we were kind of trying not to encroach on.

So this wall is what you see in the front.

Exactly.

Not even quite to there, leaving it back 8 to 10 feet.

Up here.

I had no idea that was not back there.

I think what would be helpful for us is the rendering or something, what's that going to look like from the street.

Now you will see it from behind it and beside it, but not from Water Street.

Yeah, we definitely intend to do that.

I think there's so little of the historic structure that's left or even that we're aware is left.

I see it's there, but I never would have guessed that was how that worked.

Right.

It's already, mm-hmm.

And addressing them, whatever that front was.

So it's modifying it in some way.

So is that first floor added?

Yeah.

Okay.

Hey guys, Rick Euler.

So, Jeff provided this as well.

There's some pictures of the original on this.

You guys decided to tear that front edition off?

As of now.

Yeah, no, I'm kind of.

Have that or not?

We could discuss that with donors if there is a desire to try to improve all of that.

I don't know if you agree with that.

And we could echo that with glazing, for sure.

Okay, well, I think that gives us what we need.

Does that give you what you need?

The first question and then I'll go back to the owners and if they know that there's interest in that they may want to explore that further.

Thank you.

Have a good evening.

We're going to cling to that.

This is very good.

Very good.

All right.

Next up is, um, 4 22 2nd Street.

Uh, maybe one of the more historic houses that we've we've we've looked at in a long time.

Um, and the, uh, this is also a and I'll pull all this up.

Let me just stop sharing.

This is also a preliminary discussion.

Um, and, uh, met with Tim and the owners last

It's very similar to, I'll say, what's going on at 747 Park Street, is a 1930s brick addition on the rear of this house that kind of gums up the works, if you will.

in 1996 a single story edition was added around it.

I think one of the interesting things that the owners mentioned to me when we got there is that it's the same thing with 123 Bolingwood where it was that effort to kind of open up that landscape on that house is that there's a really unique

to this, and the intent is kind of to pull the cork off of that and, you know, allow it to be accessible from inside the house.

So there's two questions.

One is the, I think,

the removal of the 1930s brick edition.

I don't see any issue with the frame 1996 edition.

And then obviously what that rear edition would look like.

And I did say to Tim that this is where

you know an opportunity to be modern and contemporary that this is not you know red bricks and white trim required on an edition like this but so I think those are the two things I want to have you guys explore and part of it also is

Our ordinance is written, Carl, I may have asked you years ago about this, about if it exceeds 25 square feet of a wall or a floor, then it's a demolition.

That measurement doesn't make sense.

So does this, in fact,

What's proposed on the rear rise to the level of a demolition request or should this be evaluated as an addition from start to finish?

And I think a similar set of questions I would ask also when 747 part comes up.

So with that, I'm going to hand it off to Ms.

Tessier.

Sure, that'd be great if you've got them.

That thing's foggy to me.

Maybe I need to go home.

And while Jeff's pulling those up, obviously this is a preliminary discussion.

Our intent is not to get too far down the design path.

I do want to mention that we have a landscape architect lined up to join the design effort, so we're not really showing any landscape elements or proposals at this point.

Just to keep that in mind.

Jeff, as you had mentioned, the intent is to open up the home to the backyard, which is full of nice trees.

There's an amphitheater-shaped area in the back, which we believe may have been originally tied to the Charlottesville Female Academy, which was there in the 1840s.

So we really love the yard.

We think it's a great asset to the house, but unfortunately, as you can see, the back of the house is fairly closed up, at least on this corner.

What's interesting is the brick, 1930s edition, has a bathroom on the second floor, and that's it.

That's up there, and it's off the stair landing, so it's compressed the ceilings of the kitchen that's underneath it.

and the 1990s edition more or less runs with that low ceiling at eight feet.

Actually the original house, the ceilings are at nine feet eight so it feels really nice and spacious until you sort of tunnel your way back into the additions.

So what we'd really like to do is remove those additions.

You can also see in this image how the brick 1930s edition ran right next to the windows that are part of the 1840s house so the shutters don't even sit flat against that facade.

So that's essentially what we're doing today.

We do have a suggested footprint that we'd more or less like sign off on that so that we can keep moving forward with the design.

I mean whether or not the final version we submit in the future matches that exact footprint, I can't say, but that would more or less be where we'd like to put it.

And then I'll add one more comment, which is you'll notice the 1950s garage and the proposed plans a little further back proposed site plan.

We would like to it's it has two pairs of double doors facing Third Street.

Otherwise, it's just a brick box on the other three sides.

We are investigating options to open up the sides of that facing both the house or possibly even the front yard as possibly even like a garden pavilion or something of that nature.

Thanks, Tim.

Thanks.

Yeah, there's no programmatic need for a garage.

The owners don't need that to be a garage.

So we'd rather put it to a better hire use instead of putting cars in there.

We really want to enjoy the landscape and the yard.

I had a question.

The inside corner between the 1840s and the 1930s on the

There is a half-level, low ceiling kind of entrance to get you in an unfinished space, basically, under the 1930s.

Sorry, I was reading as like a porch and then I was...

And are you asking about the existing conditions?

Yes, there is a little well down there that you kind of drop into and then go into.

We would scrub that entry to the basement more than likely and make a nicer entry as a part of the additions that we're doing and possibly more than likely as part of the experience of coming out into the landscape.

At the moment the stair you see in the proposed plan is getting you from the garage level up.

It's basically a half story up to the first floor.

Have you looked into how tied in the 1930s edition is?

Pretty easily, yeah.

Tyler picked up on kind of where my concern was going which is to just even though the additions gonna essentially kind of cover up the same amount of wall just respecting the historic fabric of the 1840s house and

making proper repairs, also trying to avoid punching new holes through that wall.

Granted, they would become interior, which is outside our purview, but at least momentarily when you throw the addition off, they're not interior.

I think our intent is that the connector or hyphen between the block that you see and the 1840s would more or less be a glassy sort of connection that's actually stepping back from where you see it today.

Yeah, it seems like the move to inset it a little bit from the current edition, the 1930

Maybe break this up.

I have no concerns, but to answer Jeff's question, I think in the past we did actually look at that as a separate demolition.

I agree.

I think it would be consistent for us to consider it as a demolition.

I mean, to answer your first question, just by nature I'm not a huge fan of demolition on close to 100 year old additions, but I need to learn to pick and choose I suppose.

But to your second question in terms of the massing of the

New proposed addition, I guess I'm, and I understand the ceiling height is a desire.

The roofline of the rear addition kind of being up at the same roofline level of the historic house troubles me a little bit.

Like, it is the back of the house though, so.

And I like the fact that the hyphen steps in under the quarters of the original house.

So that's good.

We want to do something modern for the addition.

Materials that would be compatible with what's there, obviously, and something related to being in Virginia, not something imported from Seattle or something else like that.

We really kind of paused on internal discussions about that until we could just get this far.

But we're excited about doing something that's distinct but compatible with what's there.

I think that's a good response because I was going to say, although this is the back of the house, it does face a street.

So while contemporary I think makes a lot of sense, doing something that isn't completely crazy is probably a good idea.

I'll say, you know, standing in the backyard, you very much get the sense that that brick addition is kind of, the house doesn't want it there.

I mean, it really just, it encroaches on the house, and I don't know what were the words we were saying, like almost need to be relieved of that thing.

It's sort of, it just,

I don't know, kind of gums up the work.

Yeah, the cornice they copied off the original actually runs, I think, almost into the window trim.

Looks like it.

It's just awful.

They needed a bathroom.

Any concerns with the potential insertion of the glazing or windows in the 50s garage?

I think that's really what we need at the moment, and then we'll get into some more detail.

Do you mind if I ask the homeowners?

While you're asking, I'll just say I was able to meet with Tim and the owners on site, so very close to

Several of our homes, and I was just glad to just learn a little bit more about this incredible house and property.

I have one last question.

Yes, it's in need of maintenance and just repairs.

So the intent is to more or less fix what's there, but not to make any major modifications.

So no window replacements?

Jeff set us straight on that right away.

I mean, there's a lot of repair necessary.

There's some spots that are, you know, wood just hasn't.

survived.

The windows do look solid, a lot of old glass.

It's nice to see that.

The shutters are, the more I looked at them, it was, you know, and so kind of having that conversation again about at some point figuring out are we stuck on wood only or are there, you know, products that would

Thank you for having me.

review that but there's no requirement that shutters stay on we would like that they stay or if they remove them keep them but as I said like on my house the shutters were removed sometime years ago I have no idea where they were but we don't make people install shutters but if you're gonna do it do it right and I said I would I think there's a lot to this site when they get to it I really encourage you to go like Brecht said it's I mean it's around the corner my house my son used to hang out with the

the kid who lived here a lot and I never really walked around that yard and it really is amazing the features there.

Anything else we can help you with?

That's it for tonight.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

So

Thank you all.

Wow.

I'm not supposed to start my questions until 745.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

I just got a check from a client who is considering applying for the BAR.

Yes!

See?

I'm floored.

I wouldn't even have thought to... Is it because they've been watching the meeting tonight?

It's okay, it's okay.

We'll figure, yeah.

Business or a commercial property.

Right.

and so, all right, so I'm gonna just sit here and maybe run through some things to get us.

I know, I was like.

Well, after the series of loud booms that rolled through here, I was like, okay, are we the only ones left?

I have to repeat everything I said.

In normal times we annually, you all annually elect a new chair and vice chair or co-chair, I wish to word it.

Where that time is nigh and so I wanted to, I think it's

It's your bylaws, there's no requirement that you elect or re-elect or whatever, but this is the opportunity tonight.

I move.

If this helps.

So going off the board at the expiration at the end of this year, Ron Bailey, Roger who we knew was filling Robert Edwards and we can cycle him back on, Mr. Zehmer, all three can be reappointed.

Mr. Dastinger is out in two years.

Cheri in 2025, David 2025, Tyler 2025, Carl, whenever planning commission decide.

So there was a motion to maintain the status quo.

Do you guys enjoy your job?

Maybe not after last night.

It's just hard.

If we think we've done a good job, then it's hard.

Even if we know what council will do, or we suspect council will do, it's still difficult to spend this much time and be earnest in your consideration.

There is a level of, you know, ear bending that we take advantage of with the two chairs or I take advantage of.

So.

Yes.

Is that?

Unless you don't want to be.

Right.

I think Brett's a great chair.

Do we do this annually, Jeff?

Do I, or am I supposed to?

Fair enough.

I mean, I just want them to understand that if we elect them, it's just for a period of one year as opposed to like four.

I'd be happy to continue.

I enjoy, I do try to bring an even-handedness to it and a calmness to it, even when

gets a little bit testy sometimes.

And for the record, I'd prefer not to.

I don't mind being a vice, but I'm not – I can run a meeting, but I want to participate in meetings too.

And I think you have to do – Brecht has a nice balance of

You know, appearing to be neutral and letting the conversation flow without inserting himself or directing the conversation, letting robust discussion happen.

I don't have that skill to the extent he does.

I'm okay, you know, cheering maybe once or twice a year doesn't hurt too bad.

Unfortunately I might be up for appearing before council on the other appeal that we had.

We can tag-team that one.

Don't get your feelings hurt.

Well, did you vote?

Well, I just want to add one thing before the discussion closes, though.

It is a really important time for this board and for the city, and it really came up to me in talking with Fred about his project before this tonight.

There are several themes that are recurring and I think it's important for us to be articulate to the public, to the press.

Thank you.

So you guys were called to the meeting for

Well because you put both of our names on there as attendees, so Lloyd was like, does Cheri want to speak?

Right, we weren't in the same place but he would have been texting me.

There's a squirrel Cheri, look at the other way.

I think I would go maybe on the next one.

Jeff, do we know when it's happening?

I'm going to mention that in a minute.

I might go in person.

And I think I should go too.

Does that mean from like throttling?

No, I'm kidding.

But I think it's good that they hear, even if they vote to overturn, I think it's good that they hear.

Yeah, definitely.

I mean... There are questions to me, even though there were only a few, really indicated that they had looked at and listened, so I'm pleased with that.

All right, motion on the table.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The status quo passes.

also I wanted to mention, five years now it's been flies.

You can't have this newbie.

The ladies up front do not want to hear it.

It's been a pleasure.

It's been a trial.

Molly's full-time replacement starts in a couple weeks, so she will then be able to transition to sort of fully assisting me.

And it's been, you know, yeah, the last couple weeks have been rough.

The last, these, preparing these appeals are, they're not simple, and it's a lot of time, and preparing staff reports for entrance school or take

you know, probably a good 40, 80 hours.

So it's an extensive amount of work.

And so we had an opportunity for the church to bring those forward at the same time, but I just couldn't get the staff report done.

I'm aiming for March 20th, we will see.

and but I think I've been like you all expressing out of the community this is this is the box within the P the BAR operates and this is the box within which council can operate and they are not at odds they are you know this is not a I'm repeating myself but I said to the council last night an appeal should not be seen as a rebuke of the BAR it's a continuation of a process as designed so

When you said that, I almost, just listening to it, I almost felt like you were saying that the outcome of them overturning us was part of the process and it was going to be inevitable.

So you may want to just tweak those words a little bit.

And it's a very, you're absolutely right.

Yeah, I know, I'm sorry.

And so the other pieces that

said we had a lengthy meeting last week with the planning commission and when they're looking at entrance corridor, they have the entrance corridor review board.

And after that meeting, a comment was made not by anyone on the committee but someone associated with the applicant said, I hear your staff reports are getting really long what's going on.

and then they said I love them and I said well I heard it and I understood that and I know because Breck and I have talked about you all have so much time to read and look at this so I just wanted to tell you that what I'm trying to work towards is that

on page one and page two is what you need to know.

And then the suggested motion is right there.

But really that if you could only read one thing, it's those first two pages.

This was terrific.

I know the picture in the map takes up space and unnecessary

I can probably move the prior actions more to the end.

I'm always torn because I remember the conversation Breck and I had a year ago about the importance of using the staff reports and the presentations to let people know about these sites.

I mean, really, probably, I don't remember which one it was that Robert did.

And you were like, wow, it's so cool to hear about the site.

I feel like sometimes I rush through because I want to, you know, I know everybody wants to keep going.

So, you don't have to answer tonight, but if you have any input on what's a good way to communicate history because that's what we do have an opportunity here to do is say, here's this building, here's its story.

The other piece is that, and I've started doing this last couple years when we have a preliminary discussion, if nothing else it gets my staff report ready.

I try to treat it the same way and I try to just again keep putting in there, helps the applicant.

Personally, I think you and Molly are so busy that if somebody doesn't formally submit something, I don't think they should get the benefit of you working.

That's how I'm kind of approaching it is if I've got time I'll do it but it's not a requirement as you all see.

The only other comment I have not about the staff report itself but just the length of our package and I know we don't print it out anymore but it just still is a lot to go through.

I wish we could

just persuade applicants not to give us, and I know Carl is about to contradict me as soon as this is out of my mouth, but I have to say it.

any views of interior?

We got one this evening.

I mean, I know it was not.

That's one of my broken record things that I tell people.

Don't put it on their little Susie's room, just room one.

Like I mentioned earlier on the last one of the discussion,

And with the children's house, I had asked and we just crossed wires and I didn't get another set.

And I

I thought about deleting the PDF, but then it's me altering the submittal, but yes, and I try to do that.

I try to limit that.

We have a couple applicants who, I mean, the thing that you all looked at the other night, Carl, was 78 pages.

And so it's, sometimes it's- At some point, I'm just thumbing through.

And so- Since you, I'll just feedback.

Something I've found very helpful that you've done for us is when we have an application that

You simplify it to where you're able to kind of say

Westmane, one that we saw over and over and over again with Jeff Dreyfus.

That is the nice part about you doing it is because it's not selective.

And the key thing, and I get internally, my bosses say, you don't need to do that, the applicant needs to do that, and I say, but I need to look at these, and that exercise of me comparing them, you know, instead of just going, here they are, and it's the same thing when I do those

where I'll take the photos of the neighborhood and say, you know, hey, here's how they compare.

That's me viewing that and seeing that and understanding that and not just sort of passing it on.

So I agree.

I wish some applicants could do more.

Sometimes it takes more explaining to them how to do more.

I guess I tend to be more helpful than I should be, but

If there's things that you all don't need, you can always tell me.

I know one of the reasons I include

sections of the design guidelines.

And I take out the introductory paragraph.

I try to only use what are the criteria that you're looking at.

Melanie was always on me to, because I would say, well, you guys can look them up.

She'd say, well, someone that's at home or just looking at a staff report, they need that information.

So it's there if you need it.

We have the links if you need it.

I know that Mary Joy used to go to the extent of she would highlight what she thought were the criteria and I reached a conclusion that there were still things that you all, don't rely on me to tell you what to look at because you'll see stuff too.

Alright, the other thing is... I can't wait a minute, one more.

I still, and I've done this before, but I'll say it in front of everybody.

I still would encourage you to give us a recommendation from staff.

It's not required, but where you feel like you would like us to take action and you feel strongly about it, you're the expert, you are a preservation planner.

Mary Joy did it for every application I ever did.

Absolutely, she never did not.

I cannot remember where she was ever ambivalent.

I mean, there might have been times I just don't recall them.

She always had a recommendation.

And I think any professional also, you know, if we all got together and Mary Joy had this recommendation, everybody else was going the other direction, she's a professional.

You would be fine with it too.

and she was gracious about it.

It never created friction or anything between us, but it often just gave us a start for consideration.

Since you're at your five-year mark, you're now officially in kindergarten.

I will say, I do think that the reports do that, but I think it's a little bit in coded language.

If he's recommending support, that's very clear, and if he has questions, he won't say that, and he'll say, you should look at this and this and this, and he leaves it open.

The reason why I mention that is that

I'll tell people, I'm the navigator, I'm the cruise director, whatever I'm trying, and I do tell everybody, I've been through this, I've gone to the BAR, and so just to be comfortable with it, I do, when I get things that I think are just not gonna fly, I will tell people.

So sometimes that's already occurred, and then we're kind of over that, and then it's like, alright, well I'll let the BAR,

speak.

There are some times I'm not comfortable making a recommendation.

There are some architectural determinations that I just am not, I don't want to say not qualified for, but I think that you all are more qualified collectively.

So yeah, Breck, you're right.

Sometimes I veil things, and I'm like, oh, I hope they saw that.

I think both work.

If we have a, if we disagree with Jeff's recommendation and then it goes to an appeal, I do think that becomes a weaker position for us.

Let's just not talk about appeals anymore.

You know, the Planning Commission had done this at times.

They'll say, well, why do you like this?

Why do you want this?

Why are you making them do that?

And I'm like, I'm not making anybody do anything.

And I think the last one, I took, what, 20 pages of the guidelines and I tried to answer every single one.

I don't know if everybody read it, but I was figuring, I'm going to cover the basis.

I think I need to end... Three hours of meeting, but... Well, I wasn't that long, but I want to...

We're resetting.

We're resetting.

Yes, scouting.

It just seems like it.

Yeah.

I get worried when we're at 10 minutes ahead.

I want that on my back.

So this is a historic artifact.

We got an email about this.

this is over where Robert used to live but it's the trash cans are in the front yard and this is a rental and so the solution the owner decided to just box in the trash cans I

I've got to clear with zoning whether this is a structure and whether it can be constructed in the front yard and it's not a fence.

So there's some, but I

Well, because I had to contact them and said, this is not right.

But I wanted to just share with you, like, this is where we're sort of, you know, we would say, all right, what are the other fences in the neighborhood?

Really aren't any other than I would say, you can't have bare wood.

Well, I think there's a zoning thing on that, so yeah.

I will take care of that.

This is one where I'm going all right maybe back Carl goes yeah I remember back in 2016 we had something like this so this is I'm just really kind of throwing a line here and seeing you if you pull on it but that's okay I will bring it back.

There's like one.

We're the cans at that moment, if they're not always out at the streets.

getting there.

So this is just a quick update.

David and Tyler, I know this is the Levy Opera House.

This is the 1980s edition.

This is Redlands Club, formerly been the site of the Swan Tavern.

Over here is

This is an 1890s house and there was a twin house right here we know.

When they came in for the demolition request for the 1980s edition, the BAR requested archaeological investigation.

We didn't think it was going to happen and it's kind of, and I know because I've talked to several of you about it and thought I would just give you an update.

It really is, it's pretty, alright let's see if I go to the next page, it's pretty amazing.

So just let me flick through this.

So this is an 1823 insurance policy for Swan Tavern.

And so this is Jefferson Street.

Park Street here.

And these aren't to scale, but used at least spatially proximate to what we had and was there.

So there's the tavern, a structure to the back, then further was a kitchen, and further back was a stable or a barn.

I just

kind of took this and laid it, again, this isn't, not to scale, but just to kind of reference you to where things might be.

So, again, you know, the addition, Levy Addition, Redlands Club.

And so, you all have seen

This is, you know, the first couple nights.

This is between Redlands Club, Levy Opera House here, and in the middle here was where that mysterious half circle was, and the determination, it was 20th century, so it wasn't as odd as we thought.

I'm not sure exactly, but it wasn't old.

But the excitement on the site is pretty wild.

It literally looks like rocks that you and I stacked in our backyard.

So this is Redlands Club.

It was built in 1832.

Swan Tavern located that site and actually faced Jefferson Street.

It burned down in 1828.

And if you recall, there was a little

one of the little rooms behind Redlands Club would be located roughly there and Carl you had asked me the other night like what kind of things are they seeing where all those flags are a lot of post holes so you can see kind of there's a pen there to give you a sense of scale so a lot of places where posts were in the ground and I asked Nick, Bon Harper the archaeologist working with Ben

I said, how can those holes be so square?

I've never dug a square hole.

And he said it's the very, that's the very bottom of the hole where the the post is kind of set down in.

And that's why it has that very regular shape.

Very little archaeology 101 for you.

So there's a lot of

things like this there that you see with the flags on it and that's what they've been mapping and then they're going to you know try to determine where they are.

This is where, so this is that you know there's Redlands Club and remember I said there was that one building behind it and so they found this brick floor and

and that's that thing right there.

I can't read it.

It is Swan Tavern, yes.

But this is the kind of, and it may not be clear, but you can see, so this is where those bricks were, and you can see the discoloration.

This is what the archaeologists are looking for.

There's something different there, and while this is a large space,

If this were five feet long and 30 inches wide, you would immediately think grave.

But that's where when we talk about when you scrape back the soil, you can see a grave shaft.

This is not.

This is just the base of that brick floor.

But it's that variation where they're trying to get down to that undisturbed soil and say, all right, what do we see?

And I still haven't gotten to really good stuff yet.

That's why I was throwing rocks at your window the other day to try to get you to come out.

So this is

Let me get oriented.

So this is looking north, like across High Street, and then this is looking south across Jefferson Street.

So what you see here is, you know, that thing right there is that thing right there.

So this is looking, this is the foundation of the 1890s house.

exactly where we thought it would be.

In fact, when they were doing the work, I was like, I didn't think we needed to dig there.

But there's something else in this photo that you guys are always so sharp and eagle-eyed.

I wonder if you see it in this photo.

So, let me get my mouse to work.

Yeah, so right there.

Yeah, point to it, James, and go up.

It's at an angle.

It's canted.

They don't know how much further

this goes, but it is, there's a lot of material in here.

It's late 1790s.

So it's, this is kind of been a game changer in the sense that now there's, you know, a need

I've never known this battery to be occupied by anyone other than the unique building in Swantown.

So this was really a big deal.

It's very interesting to see.

I think to keep the budget definitely

It was knocked down when they built the addition and so I just you know let me see if I have it yeah so what I did was again going back to that

structure.

It says stables.

So this says not less than 30 feet.

So that was sort of a in 1828.

That was your, you know, I think it's it's more than 30 is more than right.

So it's not closer.

It's more than 30 feet apart, which was there.

Right.

So just it is interesting.

Did you find this?

No, Ben found all this stuff.

The foundation is really, you know, it's meaningless, it's not, I mean we knew it was air.

Document it first and then demo it is what they're doing?

and it's about it try to determine what I mean there's a lot there's a story to tell if there's a lot of fill in there and so stay tuned and then but I I will say that Virginia Clay sticks to you Molly and I tracked it all over City Hall it's amazing the and then of course the the last picture is that just

It's where it probably is given the record.

I've been laughing that it's my luck and it's probably over here underneath the parking lot at Redlands Club.

now knowing that the Swan Tavern went all the way, you know, almost, you know, it was and Ben and Nick were saying that this was probably the public road.

This may have been three notched road and the tavern facing the street.

And now the report says that Jewett was buried behind Swan Tavern, which

would have been here except we know that in the 1950s the family that lived here

talked about the grave reportedly being in the backyard.

Now that may have been anecdotal.

They may have simply said, oh yeah, it's behind Swan Tavern and therefore it's there.

They're demoing the curve and the median, right?

This is all...

yes all of that's being you know gone and redone it's all part of the plan I can't remember what the but it's yeah it's possible and then remember there's also the report of a well that somebody was thrown down so now I wasn't Jewett it was another guy and apparently Jewett was away when the guy was thrown in the well

A murder, it was a murder.

He wasn't a very good swimmer.

So that's where we are.

I mean, they're... No, no, it's okay.

It's really... No, I scrubbed it.

I'm just building adventure and intention and all that.

So, you know, this is where they cleared and it doesn't show, but all those orange flags were like where posts were, different things were.

They've mapped those and they're trying to see do they align with anything, do they suggest anything.

So, and, but it...

you know I say it's great walk by take a look just don't walk in that mud because you won't it doesn't come off and and so I just want to share that I think it's it's pretty cool stuff I'm glad you all this is

Ben was really psyched this morning.

He goes, this is an extraordinary find.

This is really, you know, he said, of this age, in this location, right here, he said, this is extraordinary.

This clay you see is undisturbed and so they go down to the last razor, scrape everything off and then

where something's different, where it's fill, you dig a grave and throw dirt back in it, you're going to get that discoloration.

And so that's, yeah, it's pretty cool stuff.

It was part of the reason why I asked the question and still might be worth picking at, but we did not recommend to city council that an archeological survey happen on the site of the

Yeah.

I know it was asked at Wirtland.

This is a rather extensive evaluation.

Typically, it's more of a shovel test pits and thing.

This is rather thorough.

But we don't have, I know Mary Joy had added that to my list, like get an archaeological, we are enabled by state legislation to require archaeological investigations, but we don't have an ordinance that requires it.

Oh, we're doing a zoning update.

So, pretty cool stuff.

Any questions about this?

Okay.

And then I know that the mall committee is meeting next week.

March 2nd is the first meeting.

And thank you all for your time.

Thank you for your patience.

I'm going to turn this off.

Thank you all.

We get a lot of emails, some of which... Thank you.

Did all those get answered?

Like an email about, does my house fit in the historic conservation district?

Like the email about the melting pot sign.

One, I would say,

get a separate email, gmail, you know, say I'm on the BAR at gmail so that those things go there.

I know, it's like, right, it's like there aren't any anyway, what do you mean?

and then they created these general question things.

But it goes, I mean city council gets things and they come to me and say, hey Jeff, this guy wants to know how much for a sign permit.

We think it could be done better and in a way that says if you have questions about this, this is contact

You know, it will be an email that comes to just Molly and I. If we, the concern is that if someone sends something to the BAR, they want to know that it went to the BAR, even if it doesn't need to go to the BAR.

And that's something we're trying to figure out, but I would say

If you need to see it, if you need to respond to it, I will let you know.

If you want to respond to it, you can.

To the extent that you could tell the applicant, he's clearly going to appeal this.

Bill told me he knew that they were going to deny it.

Yeah, he said that to me on the phone and I told a reporter that.

but I said, hey Bill, you know, if this is going to city council, the church has already appealed, why don't you tell these people, I mean, they can harangue us, that's fine, we're here, we'll take it, but it would be so much more productive if they would email council at Charlottesville.org and tell their counselors because those people are going to make the decision and then all of a sudden we got no more emails.

Did you notice that?

Right.

It didn't help that the Daily Progress article was exactly like one sentence long.

B.A.R.

denies solar panels on church.

Yeah, but the Haas Spencer wrote a longer one that was pretty balanced.

Okay, we did pretty good tonight.

Let's not spoil it.

I move that we adjourn.

All in favor, leave the building.