Board of Architectural Review   2/19/2020

I think Jeff wants to make sure we're definitely following procedure.

For Chair and Vice Chair?

And certainly introduce Sonja to you all.

I'm sure we have Tim.

This is Sonja.

I mean, by, you know, sort of by procedural, by procedure you all in November were to have selected a new chair, co-chair, but given so many people going off, we bumped it ahead.

And then I had simply offered, well, when we get, because I know we still have a new member to join us, and then we have two that aren't here this evening.

But, you know, I don't want it to just, you know, linger out there.

So it's certainly you all are willing to make a motion to take action tonight.

That's entirely up to you.

Or not.

I guess I'm technically the chair.

You are.

I am.

OK.

I'm in a hurry to do it.

I'd rather have a full house if we can do it.

Anybody object to that concept?

I'm going to miss you.

You passed the gavel.

All right, so I can tell Carl, Carl has all made the well aware, he's really anxious to be the chairman.

I'm just anxious to get going.

Yes, yes, no, no, you're right.

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

After presentations by staff and the applicant, members of the public will be allowed two opportunities to speak.

Speakers shall identify themselves and give their current address.

The chair will first ask for questions from the public, then from the bar.

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

The members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to ask questions and up to three minutes to comment.

Comments should be limited to the BAR's jurisdiction.

That is regarding exterior design of the building and site.

In other words, the BAR has no comments to be made regarding traffic and density and those sorts of things.

Following the BAR's discussion and before the vote, the applicant should be allowed up to three minutes to respond for the purpose of clarification.

Thank you for participating.

Please note the times below are all

approximate and hopefully will reflect the length of the meeting and when people are actually in front of us but that can change depending on how long or short a given presentation is.

So, on the consent agenda we have the minutes from the January 22nd regular meeting.

Actually, see if there are any matters from the book.

What's that?

Matters from the book.

or matters from the public.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Skip that one.

Matters from the public.

Anybody have something they want to bring up that's not on the agenda?

Not much public here tonight, but OK.

All right.

So now we'll get on to the consent agenda and first item being the minutes from the January 22nd regular meeting.

I wasn't there.

So does anybody have any comments?

Actually, do you have a quick comment on the minutes?

Where it's bold on the first page, this meeting was called to order at 5.30.

It says Mr. Ball, the vice chair, was not in attendance.

It must be Mr. Moore.

Yep.

See it?

Yes, yes.

Any second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

I recused myself because I wasn't there.

All right.

So now we go on to next on the consent agenda.

Actually, I guess there are three items.

And new starts with South Street.

So first up is the 425 West Main.

I want to make a motion that we approve the consent agenda.

in its entirety.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

The ayes have it.

Okay, so new agenda.

We've discussed this property a couple times in the last couple months so I'll try to move through it quickly but this is 108-110 West South Street built around 1922-1923.

It is a contributing structure in the downtown ADC district.

It's known as the former Hankins Warehouse.

It's a two story, three bay building, clad in stucco.

And the request actually is related to a tree on the parcel boundary and at the rear of the adjacent property.

to the west.

And so this is a request for a COA to remove two maple trees, one straddling the parcel line between 108-110 West South Street and 200 West South Street, and the other is at the rear.

And in the information that was submitted, it's trees number one and number four are the ones they wish to remove.

Staff in discussion offers that in addition to the applicant submittal, review the photos of the subject trees and the appendix of the staff report.

And Robert took photos and inserted those into the report.

There are two other trees in that are shown and those were approved, those were the ones growing right up against the building and you all approved their removal last August.

Should the BAR decide to approve the request, the board might consider recommending the planting of new trees, something that's an appropriate species off the city's master tree list.

Also available, the BAR might consider separate actions for each tree.

And with that, I know Christy is here.

Do you have any questions for me?

Do you have anything you want to say?

I think it's pretty straightforward.

It's pretty self-explanatory, I would say.

Okay, do we have any questions from the public?

Questions from the bar?

Comments from the public?

I find the application is pretty convincing, probably in totality of the four trees.

The maple to the front is probably the only one that might have been planted intentionally and it's in pretty poor condition.

The silver maple in the back is

At first I wondered if it might be in better condition, but the arborist's report was pretty convincing and certainly Silver Maple.

Somewhat limited value.

I do think that considering the amount and number of trees being removed, I think there should be or could be a recommendation for exploring the possibility of other plantings.

I'm not sure.

We haven't looked at the site plan to see what that possibility might be.

And perhaps maybe that's a form of a question to the applicant.

If space were available, I think that it would be appropriate to recommend additional plans for a canopy tree to be located on site.

I would think up to four, certainly four trees would be appropriate if possible.

I have a question.

Carl, you might know the answer to this, but Kristen might also.

Yeah, and then all the communication.

So I mean, because that just makes that location all by itself pretty problematic for anything even remotely resembling a tree.

Yeah, I mean, I agree with Breck.

I find it unfortunate because it is, I think, the only street tree on the street, that entire stretch, and personally I tend to think that even if a tree's been, you know, butchered like that, it still has an aesthetic value, but I recognize that it is also compromised because it's rotting.

At this point we're willing to explore the approved list

and work with our neighbor to come up with a good solution.

The Tree Commission puts out information about not only recommended canopy trees, but also understory trees for places that have utilities above.

I guess the question is, are we

It sounds like we're going to approve the trees coming down.

I'd be more inclined to say a recommendation.

We haven't really seen anything in the way of any sort of site plan improvements for this site.

It's really all been about the building.

I'm trying to recall, are there any doors or is there a pathway going down the side of it?

Is there actually circulation going down that side of the building so there is a sidewalk?

I mean the trees are in such bad shape, I can certainly see why they would come out, but I can also see that we would request a future plan to come in that would include, we would like to see a site plan that addresses tree cover and planting in that area.

And that's partially going to have to be in concert with

the South Street people, we realize that.

The tree definitely gave some character to that end of the street, even though it's a mess.

And I think having that sense of green there would be a real shame to lose it.

But I totally understand why those trees aren't any good.

So I think we would have a motion that would ask that they return at some future date with a site plan suggesting how they would repopulate that area in terms of trees and vegetation.

I don't think it's a contingency, I think it's a request.

If you have a question, you have to come ask for it formally.

So we understand the contingency.

Yes.

I was thinking we're going to do it as a contingency, but rather a request for a future.

Great.

Yeah.

OK.

So now I can take a stab at this motion.

Yep.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the city design guidelines for site design, I move to find that the proposed tree removals satisfy the BAR's criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted.

with the following recommendation that the applicant work with the adjacent landowner and come back to the BAR at a future date with a site plan and that addresses the loss of vegetation and recommends the replacement of

A little discussion on the motion.

Would it be possible, Jeff,

for that site plan so that it doesn't become a whole other application, it becomes a hindrance to be something that potentially they could submit on the consent agenda as part of this application.

You know, I would do as we've done in the past, because if I need to talk to Brian about the site plan requirements, but that is just simply indicated, and then I would probably bring it to you as sort of for the record, you know, not necessarily consent, but so that you're aware of it.

Yeah, I think this would be your, I mean I don't... Call it a landscape plan?

Let's call it a landscape plan.

You've expressed the okay to remove the tree, which is the request, and you've expressed

would like to see a plan, if required, if you're requesting to see a plan to put trees back.

But I think Brett or Carl is correct that we should refer to as a landscape plan not a site plan.

We're not trying to initiate a site plan review process.

I'm also just trying to avoid having them having another meeting be a hindrance.

I'd rather have it just be really easy to happen.

Anybody care to second the motion?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

OK, next is 109 East Jefferson Street, Christopher and Caitlin Henry, Jeff Dreyfus.

There we go.

Tim Tessier with Bushman Dreyfus.

Jeff couldn't be here tonight.

All right.

Yes, we're talking social hall 109 East Jefferson Street.

We're looking to replace the gate that is existing that you see in the photos.

And the request from the owner was to come up with something that provided just a little bit more privacy.

As you can see in some of the other photos, the service entrance, service gates are the same design as what's on the front.

So something a little more special in keeping with the front entry was desired.

I don't have anything else to add other than what's in the drawings.

Is there another drawing besides this one?

Okay.

So any questions from the public?

No public.

Okay.

It's currently barricaded?

I believe so.

I think there are planters on the steps.

This would turn into an official entry.

And the design appears fairly transparent.

Is that accurate?

Any more questions?

Anybody?

No.

Comments from the non-existent public?

Comments from the board?

Yeah, no, I'm struggling with this a little bit because we do have a guideline that fences in the front yard could be no more than four feet.

Right.

I tried to look at the past history of this site, and it does not appear that the Arbor by day hedge ever came to the VAR, the one that's in the front along Jefferson Street.

I don't believe we have discussed it in our office or with the owners.

Because you guys had done the previous applications, right?

We did.

When this was approved, I know there was discussion of it was good to have the privet hedge there because it would hide the fence.

I'm not sure there was ever any discussion about the Privet Hedge becoming ten feet tall.

It's a fairly hostile sidewalk.

It's kind of unfortunate when you look at pictures from not so long ago and see what it looks like today.

So that's why I think the design is very nice.

it would be improvement to get rid of the planters that are on the steps and be able to actually see the front door for the street.

And I think you'd be able to see through the gate.

But I'm still struggling with the whole idea of having a six foot wall right there, which it's the lowest point of that gate is at six feet.

So I don't know where, I'm curious where the rest of the board is on this.

But this is, yeah, I mean I kind of wish if your client has bought a house downtown

We noticed the comment from the staff about that.

If I could offer, you know, one of the things

When you think about the hedge being lower, this gate opens out into the sidewalk.

So without line of sight, without some awareness that's at the gate.

The collision is easy to imagine.

So we were seeing that if this were lower, then that doesn't become an issue.

You see someone at the gate that's ready to come out, or you see someone on the sidewalk.

So I don't know if that helps.

Yeah.

I'd say it projects at least a foot, maybe 14 inches, 16 inches.

The steps prevent it from swinging in.

So it actually repeats what is there now.

I think the design is elegant and a good addition generally to the site.

I do think it has been designed in scale with the existing hedge at the height that it is now, and I've been asking myself the question about whether

lowering it to a height that would allow the hedge to also be maintained at a more in keeping with the spirit of our guidelines if that would destroy the proportion of it.

And I think it could take a little bit.

It is very tall.

I mean, it seems like you could probably bring it down a foot and still have the sense of the soaring arch.

I mean, the house itself is extremely vertical.

You've got all the stairs.

It just piles right up pretty fast.

So I think having a vertical gate makes a great deal of sense.

Right.

So in terms of its relationship with the house, it makes sense the way it is.

I think it would just help with that street scale a little bit, but I think dropping the gate considerably and leaving that way up there, you kind of lose a lot of the purity of your design, which isn't so great.

So I think, from my perspective, design is appropriate to the house and it's elegant, but I think you could lose some height.

and I hear what you're saying, Carl, as far as the height of the hedges and that kind of thing.

You wrestled with that around Park Street where people were trying.

Well, this is so what's not showing up in the drawings is an arborvitae hedge that was I'm not sure ever got approval that runs right behind this pivot hedge.

So eventually that'll be an even taller wall.

Got it.

Which, yeah,

And I don't know, maybe it got administratively approved.

There's no record of that that I could dig up at this point.

But it does seem like there's a definite desire to wall off this house from the park, which I suppose I understand from a, you know, if you want to sit in your front porch and have privacy, but at the same time it's... By the other hand, that porch is way up there.

So it's kind of a mood.

I think I would just like to see, I think I'm with Breck, I think drop it, drop it a foot perhaps, see how that works, but then really hold the line as far as the height of that hedge is concerned from here on out.

Keep that down at the max of the hinge height, top of that hinge there.

And I think the client, we would just have some discussions about how much does the gate actually provide any privacy.

But granted the steps as you're coming down the steps, you're already above the gate anyhow.

So I think we could work with losing a foot on the height of the whole assembly.

I like the design the way it picks up the fan light at the front door but I know that in the Planning Commission we have guidelines and we work very hard to engage the public who's walking along the sidewalk with whatever's on private land and that's either through stores, open glass storefronts,

We don't allow parking on the main level because of the lack of engagement with the pedestrian.

Just has a similar situation.

We're asking pedestrians to walk by an urban site and walling them off from that site.

It went in a couple years ago.

So it was looking at Google Street View, it went in after all the other site improvements were put in, in like 2012.

So I think the last application that this project saw was 2011.

October of 2012, the hedge is still low, and there's no arborvitae behind that.

Sometime between then and now, it's in.

They don't look very old.

They're maybe four or five feet tall and still kind of skinny.

yeah well it's sort of like it's it's the the hedge is sort of the pre-existing condition I guess is the way the gate went for that right

I think it would be problematic to get that bottom of that down to four feet because then the verticality compromises the verticality of the architecture of it.

Perhaps we ask them to push the hedge down more, but I think the gate, if you come down much more than a foot, I think you're going to have issues with how it responds to scale of the house and all that sort of thing.

I don't think it was ever addressed.

I would guess that the gate was submitted.

There's a fence buried in between the privet and the arborvitae and I think that came up.

and yeah the idea was that the hedge would obscure the fence but the fence is maybe it's up a little higher and I think it's maybe three feet tall on top of maybe 18 inches of hillside or from memory I'm trying to something like that yeah in our section we show the existing metal fence just kind of behind this gate on the uphill side I think that height that's seen there is roughly accurate it's not a very nice-looking fence

Right.

Yeah, on the elevation next to it, I've drawn a line at the top of them.

I don't know if you see the man, the figure there, but that's a six foot line.

So I would say that existing metal fence is right around there.

Well I think you know we're concentrating on the gate and we'll ask you to, we'll request that the hedge be brought down with the gate level and then if there's a fence there that's already in place that kind of makes it problematic to drive much farther than that.

Does anybody care to make a motion?

Oh, actually, let's see.

Sorry.

We went through public comments for a second.

Yes, I think we did all that.

I'll take a stab.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including city design guidelines for site design, I move to find that the proposed gate satisfies the BAR's criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the downtown ADC district and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following modification that the gate structure be reduced in scale by

I think it might be a little more than that.

The midpoint of the ellipse is about two foot two inches, or actually two foot three from the top of that.

I think suggesting that it's five to six feet relative to this structure is probably good.

So relative to the bottom of the structure.

But it'd be springing up above it somewhat.

So before you vote, just for my clarification, we talk about a foot, essentially

taking the curve at the top, the curve at the top, that's all, I mean the gate and the trellis, that's all shifting down one foot all sort of together.

Or whatever that module is probably, which looks like it might be a foot.

That makes sense.

Anybody want to second it?

I think Jody did.

I did.

Oh, you did?

Oh, sorry.

OK.

So in that case, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Sure.

Opposed?

That's close.

Thank you.

I said it once.

Quickly, it's Bushman Drive this night.

So next up is a COA request for 751 Park Street.

And by the way, before I forget, can you guys remember all these?

Tear down the

The advertising sign out on the telephone pole if you can recall.

All right, so 751 Park Street.

It's in the north downtown ADC district.

It was constructed in 1904.

It is a contributing structure within the district.

751 Park is the only frame colonial revival dwelling on Park Street.

It's a two-story, three-way house.

It's oriented east towards Park Street and has a porch that spans the front facade.

The building has an impressive classical cornice and asymmetrical slate roof.

Its primary hip volume is interrupted by several gables, dormers, and extensions.

And the house was built for William J. Keller, a prominent shoe merchant in Charlottesville.

Back in 2009, the BAR did review some demolition, also in June 2010, some demolition requests, replacement of the siding with aluminum siding.

I don't know whether it was replaced or it was placed over the top.

We can address that.

The addition of shutters, railings, some lattice.

The removal of the porch or this side entrance that's in question was approved, but that's the way COA has long expired.

So the request before you is for the removal of a porch and stair at the north elevation, replacing the door on the north porch with a new vinyl clad window, and on the entire house, replacing the siding with fiber cement lap siding.

As I said, the BAR back in 2009 reviewed alterations to the building's exterior, including the removal of the north porch and replacing its window with a door.

The applicant also proposed with this replacing the house's aluminum siding and presumably the original wood siding underneath, if any still remains.

The new siding would be the fiber cement material.

In 2010, when aluminum siding was removed to make way for a new West porch addition, the original siding was uncovered but had considerable deterioration.

And as a result, it was replaced with the same fiber cement cladding that is now proposed for the rest of the house.

Submittal does not indicate whether or not any existing wood siding remains, and that would be underneath the current aluminum siding.

And if it does, whether or not that will be removed or left in place.

The design guidelines recommend the repair of deteriorated wood siding and to replace only when it is beyond repair.

Staff recommends further investigation to the original siding's condition before its wholesale replacement.

While enough old siding for all facades may not be salvageable, consideration should be given to reusing original material on a complete facade if that's possible.

Additionally, should the new siding be installed over existing wood, the BAR should request clarity on how the siding will fit dimensionally with the existing trim elements.

We discussed this earlier in preliminary meeting about how if the original wood is there, it's going to be left.

You know, how does that affect where the new would come into the window trim up top at the cornice, things like that.

Regarding the demolition of the north entry and the stairs, staff did review it relative to the demolition guidelines that are in the design guidelines, and you can certainly review that.

One of the questions is, was this original?

We know from a 1929 Sanborn map that it was there at that time.

The Sanborn maps do not go this far north on Park Street until then, so we really don't have a record.

But we can assume it was at least there in 1929.

Question about whether it's on the National Register and the Virginia Landmarks Register.

751 Park Street is listed as contributing structure to the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District.

We also know it as the North Downtown ADC District.

However, those listings were in 1980 and 1982, and the district survey has not been updated, and it is unknown how their prior alterations or the proposed would impact the current designation.

to ask whether or not the building or structure or any of its features represent an infrequent or first or last remaining example within the city.

We do know that the house is unique, being the only frame colonial revival dwelling on Park Street.

Staff's not been able to determine if it's unique to the city of Charlottesville.

The question of whether or not the structure is

an older distinctive design, texture, material that could not be reproduced or could be only with great difficulty.

Staff notes that the request of demolition is for a component of the house.

While the house is unique, a covered side entrance is not and with proper documentation, this element could easily be replicated later should that be pursued.

It asks the degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, et cetera

Staff writes that while the historical record indicates in a plan view that a covered site entrance at this location existed, staff cannot determine if the materials or the design are original.

Question about is the structure linked historically or aesthetically to other buildings within an existing major design district and truth is this house is relatively unique, if not unique, to Park Street.

The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, unable to determine that.

whether or not and to what extent the applicant proposes moving, removing, demolishing.

Will any of the features remain?

No, the existing side entrance will be moved entirely.

So there's sort of the pros and cons to that.

I think we had some discussion about this.

I think you know to be determined whether or not I said these changes or even the prior changes would it would still have its designation as contributing in the historic district I have to assume it would but the removal of this side entrance as we discussed it probably is an element that was important to this house one option would be to retain the side and I know that the intent is to

create some space on the interior.

The door could be replaced.

The entrance could be retained.

There's a couple options.

I will also say, excuse me, get a little froggy here, but if there are questions, you all can defer this to next month and request some additional information.

Now, that's your product.

Tim Tessier, Bushman-Dreyfus Architects.

Yeah, so we are definitely looking to have that side entrance removed based on the prior application.

Clearly the first goal, I think the siting question is one that we acknowledge may require some more investigation.

I know when the work was done at the

at the now back porch.

The wood that was discovered there was in really poor condition.

Just to confirm, that wood was actually removed and hardy siding was put back in its place.

I think our starting position would be in the owner's interest in terms of getting and opening a can of worms here with the siding.

I think what the idea would be is that the old wood siding, if there is any, is likely in poor shape, that I think we would take that off and go back with new hardy plank.

I think there are challenges with going on top of

Wood Siding with Hardy Plank.

I think the manufacturer asks for a smooth, solid surface as a starting position.

I think furring strips could be used, but then you've pushed the face of the siding beyond a lot of the trim elements that are there.

So I think in the order of priority, we want to look first at the side entrance and make sure that that can be removed.

There is a powder room behind that, what is now a door.

Was that an existing powder room?

It's there now.

Oh, OK.

Yeah, it's there now.

Sorry, my solution.

I just wondered if it was an existing powder room, if it was there.

Yes.

OK.

So a door would not be wanted.

So that would be the first order of business.

And then if that's acceptable, then we could talk about the siting issue if patching that area is OK or anything beyond that.

We do want to speak for the owner.

He's here, so he can speak for himself too.

But we don't want to get into an exploration project where we start.

quantifying good, bad sighting and having to sort of, I think the cost would start to skyrocket for the whole sighting exercise.

Questions from the public?

Questions from the board?

I do have one immediate question.

The other windows on the house are wood-frame or aluminum-clad now?

They are vinyl-clad.

Right.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

So what's there right now?

Tim, do you know?

From a technical perspective, moisture?

I'm not sure.

I've lived in Ohio since 2009.

At that point, we haven't been touched since the presidency.

It also tells you when the windows got replaced.

Yes it does.

I don't know how you did the portion where you did replace the siding.

We would likely put corner boards on.

So the porch you see to the right, which is at the back of the house, I think if you have your staff report it would be

The last photograph, it's the portrait on the right, and actually if you have our set of drawings, you can see a close-up on our page seven, the very last page with our photos.

And so that's a really good representation in the bottom left corner where the photo that says existing sighting.

What is to the right of that pilaster was the replacement.

Siding, the Hardy siding, and what's to the left is the aluminum siding.

And the condition of the wood beneath it, you said it was just all shot?

It was rotted out.

That's a good question.

Are you asking if the original wood siding was of the same dimension?

I mean that could be ascertained with looking at what's underneath.

an identical situation at my house and my house wasn't insulated.

Removing allowed us to do the insulation to, you know, you really can't seal up the house doing it this way.

And, uh, so if that is the case, I would suggest putting that in, in your specs.

I mean, I guess it seems like the cyber cement siding that you installed here was intended to match the aluminum siding.

I think we need to know what the historic siding is.

And I don't see that it would be an incredible hardship to take off a five by five area

do some probes on different sides of the house to find out.

A, what kind of condition it's in, and B, what does it look like?

Do we know that it's all square edge?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, and so we keep talking about it's possible.

It's possible.

The original motivation for doing this is, I figure that it's time to get rid of the

It doesn't really have any reason for being.

I'm not sure it ever really did.

I spent quite a lot of time discussing it with Professor Bluestone, who was my neighbor.

He had a certain notoriety in conservation circles in Charlottesville.

Even without the powder room inside of it?

There's a home room under the stair now.

It didn't really make any sense before because, I mean, the house was set up, the southwest corner was set up for service.

There was a service stairway, there was a service room,

The only reason we could think of that would be an entrance into the house on that side was that the owner didn't fancy walking around the front.

He wouldn't have allowed

staff to go in and out of that little door.

I don't think they've been required to go in through the back.

So, you know, the interior is no longer designed at the start.

It's more open.

And so, and the metal was allowed to be on the right floor.

So, and the media's been one.

So that's why this part of the room there now

So that's the background to wanting to complete that adjustment.

My feeling was that this might be an opportunity to get rid of the horrible aluminum siding and replace it with something that would improve the look of the house.

I don't believe that doing this will make one iota of difference to the livability of the house, or for that matter, to the value of it.

I disagree with the removal of the porch.

I think the porch has a very good reason for being on this service side.

It's the access for off the road, the side road, it's a street elevation.

The porch is ornamented.

They wanted it diseased.

It was the access from the side street.

You're right, but now the house has been

I mean, we throw out our guidelines.

They still matter.

And they still read.

I mean, it helps to understand the house historically, how it developed.

And also have a loo on the ground floor.

I have a question.

It's the porch.

I'm happy to leave the door there.

Well, I'm happy to do whatever you say, obviously.

So I guess you were talking about livability of the house.

Well, it's just surplus to what, at this point.

is there, and does have heat insulation against it.

It would be interesting to know whether, from a framing standpoint, whether the door was there or whether you could tell there used to be a window there.

I don't know.

Because you could be talking about replacing it anyway.

Yeah.

And then that might reveal the fact that it's got a wider weather or something like that, at which point then you'd have to decide whether you really want to take the aluminum off or not.

When you said the insulation, is it spray-in like foam or cellulose or fiberglass?

I think fiberglass.

Fiberglass, OK.

So it does breathe to some extent.

I was just wondering also about the aluminum.

It's possible, yeah, especially when the house was not insulated.

I was going to say, in terms of an exploratory probe, you may also be able to kind of remove that corner piece where the aluminum siding comes to

Right.

Exactly.

And I think what I was speaking to earlier is if it's really to start to quantify how much siting is OK versus not, I think that's the exploration that the owner would prefer not to have to do.

But I think if you're doing any kind of modifications to that, you're going to find out.

That's certainly going to give you a clue what's going on there.

If I could offer too, I mean, removing as, I mean, it doesn't need to be something that's done, you know, ahead of time, but I think that a condition, again, reflecting on work that I've done and certainly at my own house, but the Corner Board is one question, you know, I've seen where in Charlottesville where it's two, I've seen a lot of places it's one.

you would likely have a clue to that as that siding was removed.

I'm curious about the trim condition where the curved face comes into the flat and is there a piece there maybe that mimics the corner?

I don't know, but again, if I could just offer that in any requirements is that maybe there are some unseen conditions but that

when if the Hardy plank is installed that it reflects what is revealed when the aluminum is removed, if that makes sense.

You have two inside corners there and actually the bay window, the bow is kind of inside outside corners.

I stipulate that it matches whatever goes back in.

OK.

So I think we'll go to comments from the public and then comments from the board.

Does that make sense?

Anybody else have any more questions?

Am I able to ask one more question related to what Jeff just said?

Today, yes.

So I guess a little more clarity on that, Jeff, if possible.

When you say the bow meets the flat, I do think there's a trim there for the aluminum.

Well, I'm just offering a recommendation as far as the siding is concerned, absent what's going on in the court.

But as far as the siding is concerned,

Right.

In other words, it's not going to mimic the rest of the trim, the aluminum trim.

It's going to be, it's going to be true to whatever is underneath it.

The question I also have is, I guess I do have one more question.

Are you going to have to take it all the way up that panel, all the way up to the roof?

Right, I think that's the discussion I'm thinking about, which is if the owner decides to not touch any of the aluminum except we get permission to take the porch out, if that's granted, how we deal with this one area.

Well, it kind of gets you into two walls if you take the porch off.

I would say all the way up at that point, because you have that cheek wall and you have that wall.

And actually, does it intersect?

Correct.

It meets the bow where the bow hits the flat wall.

I think there's a trim piece, an aluminum trim piece, where the bow meets the flat, if I can read this.

It looks like just a stand-up.

It's a joint, I guess.

Yeah, that's what it looks like.

So basically it's a trimless joint as it currently exists in a loop.

Right.

So I just don't know how much that unwinds.

Sure.

Okay, so I think we can go to the comments stage, because I think right now the crux of the matter is whether the BAR feels it's appropriate to remove the portion or not.

But before I go to there, anybody in the public?

Jeff, do you want to be in the public today?

No?

Okay.

I guess I have some issues with, from the staff report, some of the pertinent guidelines for rehabilitation.

Namely, do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details.

Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building's overall historic character.

The original size and shape of door openings should be maintained and original door openings should not be filled in.

And I concur with the guidelines and feel like they're applicable here.

This is granted not the main facade of the house, but it's an important facade of the house facing the side street.

It was just the drive entrance side of that street, not only for

for family and staff and service vehicles, but also for guests.

And this is an ornamented porch that was elaborated to

to celebrate someone coming into the house and connected with the stair and hall center structure in the house.

Well, just to be clear, it looks like this does not have support for removing the porch.

So, it sounds like we're going to deny this unless you guys want to, for some reason, request a deferral.

I mean, it sounds like you don't want to do the siding if you're not going to do the porch.

I'm fine with that.

Well, the door's off center because of the stairs, so I think that seems like a legitimate location, but it does kind of imply that the door has been there most of its way.

I mean, if you were to pull it off and find the framing, the opening was centered, then you could reasonably argue that the porch actually wasn't there originally, and that was a later

If I can offer, so the options are, you all have it within your decision to defer this.

There may be some additional questions, there may be some additional information.

You all can defer this by your choice until

Next month, an applicant or the applicant can request a deferral in which case it's theirs to bring back when they choose.

You can take separate actions, citing the demolition.

You can also, just to be clear, if there is a decision for a denial on one of these, just so everyone knows the rules, that is appealable to counsel.

So if the BAR took an action which you felt you wish to appeal, that could be done.

So, if you guys request a deferral, we could leave this open indefinitely.

And if you ever decide you want to do the citing, it's part of the same application.

Meaning you guys would have to defer in that case because if we deferred, you only have a month.

I think that gives us a little time to just talk it through.

I mean, it might be worth at least a little bit of exploration there just because if you have the door,

Establishing whether that door is, if you're absolutely certain that door location, that that door was already always there, the framing was all there.

If it wasn't, if at some point it actually is a later addition, I came in... Yeah, it's on the sandboard map.

No, I know it is.

In that case, it was a stair coming straight.

It looks like in the sandboard map, it actually came straight down the street.

Yeah, all that's available on the Sanborn is

that it's framed because it's yellow.

It's got either a closed circle or an open circle, indicates the roof type.

Right at that location.

Yeah, and so it looks like steps, but it's not.

Zero simply means it's, I believe, open.

And then one just means one story, correct?

If you guys want to appeal this to council, you'd want us to deny it.

If you request it, it's whatever you want to come back.

It's unlimited if you request it.

You have to reapply.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

We're exposing you to all the different opportunities here tonight.

All right, so last action item on the agenda.

This is 409 Ridge Street.

As you all know, 409 Ridge Street had been an 1842 home, the Duncan Spooner Brown House.

But in 1994, a big tree fell on top of it.

What you have today is- The tree wasn't preservation- That's right.

They didn't have a COA for that tree removal, I don't think.

But the current house was constructed in 2004.

It is still within the ADC district and it is still considered a contributing property.

So, but regardless of when it was built, again the BAR

New construction and alteration to an existing structure is still subject to BAR review.

So this is a request for a COA within an ADC district for alterations to the rear or west elevation, including construction of a two-story addition and porch and construction on the side that would be the north elevation of a single-story mudroom entry.

Maybe there's one on Park Street that they can move here.

I don't know.

So staff in reviewing this, it's a little difficult trying to decide what do we apply to this.

This is not a rehabilitation of a historic structure, but it is within the EDC district.

So we're referring to the

to the new construction guidelines.

I'm reading the motion here.

Of all the things that I checked, it's an old motion.

So forgive me when you make the motion.

It is in the Ridge Street ADC district and what we applied were the addition section of the design guidelines, which is in new construction.

So that said, in the context of the existing additions at the rear end side to the 2004 brick house, staff finds proposed work to be consistent with the character of the 2004 house.

In addition, the house roof will be replaced with standing seam metal, which will also be installed onto the new work.

The brick foundation of the house is continued for the additions and the proposed painted siding is consistent with the existing additions and those distinguish them from the brick house.

The application clearly communicates a sense of the project's scale, materiality, and general appearance, which staff finds consistent with the design guidelines.

However, the application lacks several specific details, bless you, including door and window cut sheets, drawings of the new operable shutters,

Detailed drawings of Newport stair and railings, specifically some trim details.

Again, while the building is not historic, it is within a district.

The BAR may request further details to better understand those elements.

You all can review this with the information available.

Again, you also have the prerogative to request a deferral until the March meeting if there's any additional information you'd like to see.

This is, we're looking at Ridge Street, right?

Alright, I'm looking at the suggested motion.

Ignore that.

Ignore it?

Yeah, the last two weeks have been a little bit

Busy with the goings on at Fort Square.

So I apologize for my misstep on this one.

Excuse his excuse.

Yeah, I know.

It's been quite a week and a half.

But yes, the motion would be guidelines for additions and consistent with what's in the Ridge Street ADC district.

OK, questions from the public?

OK, no public.

Yes.

Do we have a presenter?

Do we have a presenter?

Jeff, are you a presenter?

So my name is Jeff Bushman.

Bushman drives architects again tonight.

Great, thank you.

Just kind of to clarify.

On y'all's drawing set, you've got to note that the front steps, new stairs and railing, but that was not in your application description that I could find.

So I just didn't know if y'all were intending on wanting to replace those.

I think that the, and I somewhat realized this yesterday, that

The cover letter and there were 10 application copies, 10 cover letters.

They were all sort of stapled together and the drawings were separate.

So when I pulled those apart, the one I saw there is the scenario.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, in a way, it's an interesting project.

It's partially just maintenance and repair.

The roof is leaking.

The existing deck is falling apart and falling off with a terrible vinyl.

screwed together technology.

So we're fixing some things up, including the front stair.

The other part of it is just to do some plan modifications and make it suitable for a growing family that likes a strong connection to the outdoors, hence the big porch.

And the third, I think, worth mentioning intention is just to take this house, which wasn't that

I mean, the massing is fine.

It's perfectly great on the street.

But we just wanted to make it more attractive, more beautiful, more finely detailed, and bring it up to snuff.

Give it a chance.

So that's a three-legged stool that we're working on.

So the front steps, it's not really new.

It's just a repair.

That's maintenance.

Yeah, the windows, I mean, the existing windows are a nice build requirement.

The existing shutters are the low end of the builder quality and they're just screwed to the wall.

So I'm going to take those off all around the house and make them traditional operating run-in shutters with shutter guidance.

Yeah, so it's very conservative.

In terms of the new windows, we haven't picked the exact make and model and manufacture, but our intention is to go with energy efficient

True Divided Light double-armed and kicking up existing house, but the larger so you can tell the difference from new from all.

OK.

Yes.

Good.

Jeff, in the backyard there's a couple of the renderings in the plan.

There's a second set of site walls and another lower stair.

There's a separate landscape project which isn't drawn here.

It isn't really designed yet, but that second set of walls is

important to us because we're trying to reduce the height of the back stair to the back garden.

So the porch actually steps down one from the primary level of the house.

It makes a lot of sense.

I think that's good to know.

Just that curiosity, what is all the scaffolding that's on the house?

What's going on?

There's a dryer vent that's upstairs.

The bird flew into the vent.

So we had to stop it.

But then we couldn't find anyone around town who wanted to deal with using a dryer vent on the second story.

I just noticed there were vines on one of the pictures.

OK.

I'm just curious.

It was maintenance for the bird.

It's a good reminder to clean your dryer vents regularly.

It's one of the biggest fire hazards.

Does that's what the birds do?

Yes.

In the old days, they used geese for cleaning out flues, chimney flues.

My mental image right now is, I'm very confused.

Who was it that was standing in front of the turkey getting stuffed in there?

That was some political photo.

Wow, that was pretty funny.

Anyway, likewise.

Oh, the one other question I have is the connection of the rear roofline with the existing roofline seems like it's going to be tricky figuring out how to deal with the overhang and what that intersection looks like.

Yeah, our intention there is clear.

Just because of the floor-to-floors, you can see in some of our drawings.

Oh, I see there's a small return.

The overhang on the porch is bigger than the overhang on the house.

I forget the exact dimension.

But we are attempting to line them up as much as we can, if not precisely.

But there's some roof water we have to deal with there, and I think that's actually a fortuitous event.

So we're building a notch, putting a weather head there to catch

the roof water and then putting it into a drainpipe at that notch.

Okay.

Where the valley comes.

Existing roof, yeah, it's the valley and the new roof come together.

I mean the other design detail that isn't super clear which actually makes us happy, the existing house, the first floor is about two feet bigger towards the back than the upper floor.

And if you look at the existing condition photographs, the original designer builder had a kind of addition on the back, which was lumpy and bumpy, a little bit bigger, a little bit by the kitchen, a little bit smaller, to accommodate that additional space in the living room.

We're trying to clean that up.

I mean, in a way, a federal-style house would be.

The corners would go all the way down to the ground.

So in this elevation,

The bottom, you see that little vertical stripe of siding on the back between the porch and the house?

On the lower level, that's actually interior space.

But on the upper level, that's exterior space in order to just clean up the lines and the elevation.

So, comments from the public?

There's no public again.

So to follow up on Brecht's comment in the design guide review guidelines for additions, attachments to existing buildings, the new design should not use the same wall plane, roofline or corners line of the existing.

I think it would be exactly the same.

In fact, if I understand your question correctly, we recently added a few feet to the addition just to improve the proportions of the dining room, which is just a square on the far side.

But our approach to the cornice line has always been consistent.

The profile of the cornice is different.

The size and shape and dimensions of it are different.

So the only thing that really

lines up as just the bottom of the socket.

They don't really touch.

I actually think, I kind of disagree with Steph on this one, that I don't think we should be looking at the additions guidelines.

I think we should just be looking at new construction period, because it's a new house with an addition on it.

But the whole thing as a whole is still, it's not like ratting on anything historic.

True.

Yeah, I don't understand how it's a contributing structure.

When was the district formed?

They may not.

I see.

Yeah, that's possible.

I think that's why.

bear the scrutiny from my point of view.

It's good.

It's good.

If you guys look on page A4.

Which page?

A4.

And this is a little bit of an optical illusion.

And Jeff just

It kind of all makes sense now.

You see that addition of the brick foundation continues for whatever reason.

So that sort of establishes that outside wall.

So I think, you know, to James' question, you know, coming in comes inside where that wall is.

Yes, so I did misunderstand your question.

You were referring to making the width of the porch less.

Right.

Yeah.

It may be just personal, but from the front elevation you kind of have these little ears that are sticking out.

You're right, you made a break.

You're changing the brick mortar, the brick pattern just a little bit.

You can never match brick anyway, so make a reveal there.

to step it back an inch or two as we're doing with the siding, change material.

I think material differentiation clearly makes it an addition.

I mean, just simply the form of the building and all that.

So I don't really have an issue there.

And yeah, if it was really an historic house, I'd like to see more push in terms of how differentiated the addition might be.

I agree and I think it's overall just an elegant approach and well documented and very clear.

I think it actually seems to do more justice to the original house than the current structure does in the way that the original one had the two-story porches and a lot more openness to it, and this seems to almost be more in keeping with that.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion.

I want to just make some amendments if that's all right.

Just that when you do figure out what the windows are, you submit them to staff to confirm that they adhere to our guidelines.

A site plan or a landscape plan should be submitted either as an amendment to this application

Yeah, we should definitely see those.

So do we want to review this site plan?

Well, here's where I mean, if there is, you all should be, can be reviewing landscaping.

You know, I think to some extent in ADC District, I have okayed some things administratively after talking with you all.

So I think there was

There's really no rear yard project yet.

There is a landscape architect yet to be determined to come in and get that done.

So the lower wall is

I mean, I'd be satisfied with the drawings as they are as long as we had that.

I accept those friendly amendments and we're still looking for a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

No opposed?

You're free to roam.

Hey Jeff, one thing I just heard about lighting, there is no code.

There really is no code about lighting, that's one of the problems.

You have building codes, but we don't have really good lighting codes.

I didn't want to go there in the middle of your motion.

The media, you know, decided to leave.

If we learn something new tonight about, you know, use of gooses, or geese, I'm gonna, and not Jody.

I still think Jody's fooling with it.

It's, you know.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you.

No, no, there's a bird, not a word.

Oh, I see.

So quickly, just, I have two questions.

just to offer some direction from some folks who contacted us.

Most of you know this is Don Dougal's house, University Circle.

Don came in to talk to us I think a week ago.

Over the holidays, he received a notice from his insurance or insurer saying, your porches, despite their historic character.

They said that if you don't do something, we're canceling insurance at the end of January.

Don in sort of, I don't know what to do, went to Lowe's and constructed this on a temporary basis so that his insurance would not be canceled.

But you all know that that's certainly not what he wants to have on his porch.

I suggested, well, can you raise the yard?

Would that work?

But he's somewhat

He's now stuck with having to create some type of railing for these two porches.

Other than the sort of the pallet construction that you see there, what I told him I would ask you all, my suggestion was something within the columns, a creed, I said it could be

even be contemporary, could be even invisible, you know, maybe wired, you know, the cable that we see a lot of or just simply some quarter inch metal rod as long as it meets code provisions.

But I said I would ask you all if you had any thoughts and

and maybe, as he works on, some drawings to submit to you all, if you have any opinions.

How would Koch deal with this, given that it's a grandfather situation?

Koch is irrelevant.

Well, there is no railing there.

I'm just trying to think.

For instance, if you were to go to a historic precedent and, say, put a Chinese fence or something like that somewhere, would you see it on the lawn right on a pavilion, which does not meet Koch?

Correct.

We talked to, this is a requirement of an insurer.

No, I understand.

So, it would be new and he would have to construct something that's... So it's got to meet the height, width and height off the floor.

So, I mean, I think he wants to do something as minimal as possible.

And he said this is what he kind of came up with in the sense of I've got to do something.

I mean, I read the letter.

It was somewhat harming the language that was used.

But he at least kept his insurance.

So I just wanted to make sure that is there

historic character of it.

And he has the original drawings.

They asked, and it didn't fly.

You know, and I urge Don to sort of explore some other options, maybe, you know, explain, you know, find another insurer.

I think something simple, black and metal, would probably be really easy to go for.

Keep it simple.

Next headache or question.

That address doesn't seem to be right.

It's right across from all.

It's not evident.

I apologize.

It has been.

You know, Robert's been in there with me.

Plus, he and I both.

Do we need to make a plaque for you two?

We took a four day weekend, so.

Oz and Clemson Friday, and we just.

Now we understand.

Can you believe it, you know, my son is, it's his, he only has two more games down there at home games.

I'm like, man, alright, there we go.

And there are three images with it?

That's all right.

This works.

Ignore that.

This is University Circle.

It's correct on your agendas, which you should have printed out.

The word's coming out of my mouth.

Listen to what I say, not what I do.

So I got a call actually about an hour before the meeting and some folks are going to be putting a noodle shop into this

I don't even know what you would call it.

It's a crickery.

Yeah.

So what is this extension?

What was it we looked at last time?

It's not a courtyard.

It's an anti-courtyard.

It projects from the building.

But what you've got there are two

Awnings, they're cable supported or more of a rod supported awnings.

One over the service window and then the other around the side which is full length but a lot shorter.

The question was can they wrap this with an L-shaped awning?

And I sort of did my best to just sort of illustrate that on the right.

Looking at the images, both of these awnings are in bad shape.

I could see that repairing them and replacing them could be necessary one way or the other.

I did ask if the one that's on the side, that would be the east elevation.

The headroom there is low, so that one idea is to elevate that.

I asked if maybe they'd consider just simply two separate

Onings, and maybe the one on the east side elevated, but at least extend the one on the front.

So I said I would float that before you all, see if you had any thoughts on it.

And I think just sort of in the vein of

trying to continue to squeeze life out of a historic structure that maybe doesn't have a whole lot of options for it.

There's some merit in the request.

Given what you can see in the photograph with the rod that supports that awning, I would say that there's definitely some historic character there to be maintained.

It's so friggin' charming.

The one awning in the front, the one on this narrow facade strikes me as being nowhere near the quality level.

It looks pretty haphazard relative to the long one.

They both have that same rod suspension on one end.

The one looks like it's just made out of sheet.

It doesn't have any structure.

Well, I was saying the photographs, they both look very rough.

I would say they are both old, but Jefferson Theater is not, I think it's 1920s structure.

So old may not mean original, but there is character to that construction.

So one question would be,

The idea of an L-shape, of a wrap around the corner, yes or no, let me ask you that.

So how high is it right now?

Really?

You know, there's nothing.

I mean, there's a door there.

I don't know.

Having wandered inside that building with Mike Ball, it's almost like a building that every five years, some appendage grew out of it somewhere.

God only knows.

I mean, I can look into the record.

I mean, those are questions to answer.

I mean, for me, if we had some confidence that these have a particular special function or use that's connected to the building, not original, I could see a contemporary

Awning being installed in this building really easily.

I think that there is something really nice about it being kindled off the volume and not having a set of columns that starts to create a new facade allows you to see the volume of that older structure.

Is there a second floor in that box?

I bet the side one is seven and the one that's in front would be eight.

The window is, there's no way that window head is six feet, is there?

I don't think that's right.

That looks like nine feet to me where that short one is.

Yeah, maybe you do step down from the sidewalk.

Well, the bottom one's pretty short.

It really kind of depends on what the grades are.

It just seems hard to believe that's only six feet.

But what Jody just said I think really makes, my inclination is to think that the one on the right is really the one that's been around and the other one's kind of an afterthought, but I could be wrong.

Yes, that's not seven feet.

That might be.

Right there, that cracking across, that might be seven feet.

Yeah, I would say it's, I mean, at least in the street view photograph, relatively primitive, simple construction and it looks rough.

So, all right, so I want to find out, you know, what was it, you know, was this both of them?

What's their nature?

What's their condition?

Head height?

as far as wrapping the corner.

That would be my preference, but I don't know how.

I'd have to look at the guidelines and see how this ends up.

If both of those roofs are built in the last 20 years,

All right.

I mean, some homework prior, I don't, I mean, I didn't get the sense there's urgency.

This was just the owner of the business going in there, not the building owner.

So presumably there's some, you know, there was an offer to do something, but.

Anything else?

No, I didn't attend place.

No, I wrote a synopsis for Mike, but I don't know if he kicked it out for us.

Lighting is sort of getting something about groundswell right now.

Sean Tubbs, I think you all know, is trying to sort of get some interest going from the

Piedmont Environmental Council's point of view.

So he's starting to talk to a lot of people.

And there are a couple of people in the county now, in county government, that are interested in revisiting the dark sky ordinances, which are pretty old at this point.

But Phil A. Hannah, who is a professor emeritus, and Ricky Barnett, who is

still is a current astronomy professor, both very much behind that.

Mark Schuyler is working with him as well, and Andrew Monshine.

Andrew and I are sort of representatives from PLACE that are trying to help spearhead the lighting thing, but we're trying to

The county seems to be more receptive to the idea right now actually than the city, but at the same time the city has all sorts of crosswalk and lighting issues and things like that that just are not being dealt with in our life safety issues, particularly the crosswalks.

The blinding lights I have a problem with.

I think basically blinding somebody just before they get to a pedestrian walk.

Yeah, you know there's a pedestrian, but good luck seeing them at this point.

That technology seems to be pretty wrong-headed to me.

In addition to that, Mark Schuyler has been hired by the Downtown Business Association to start looking at decorative lighting strategies and lighting

He's trying to expand the brief a little bit, but basically they want to, because they're not satisfied with the city's progress in that department, they're trying to come up with a more sophisticated way to deal with lighting on the mall.

And so they're actually willing to pay for it.

So I think there is some critical mass beginning to happen.

I mean, there's a kind of half-assed lighting study that the city did about three years ago that didn't really go anywhere.

You know, intentions might have been good, but I don't think that

The right people weren't asked, the right questions weren't asked, so on and so forth.

So I'm hoping that we'll start to get some critical mass and make something happen.

It doesn't help that I haven't been around much, so my ability to kind of bulldog things is a little limited at the moment.

And then the same thing goes for the 3D plan.

I mean, UVA sort of produced their thing.

We had it.

And then the one GIS guy, if I remember his name, tried to go at it.

But he really didn't have the skill set for taking the model the next step.

And so it never really got funded.

And staff certainly has enough to do.

I mean, it's something that would really require hiring at least a consultant or a specific staff member.

to carry the ball a ways and really incorporate that.

But that's something we've been asking for for a while now is the ability to start really seeing the city three dimensionally and seeing it three dimensionally zoning relative to the comprehensive plan and all that.

I think that's the only way the public's gonna start to understand the implications of our zoning codes.

Just to bring you all up to speed on, as you know, the plaque that was inside the wall was removed.

which created, there was quite a bit going on, quite a bit happening and it happened to be on a day that Brian Wheeler was not here and so it was just the emails and phone calls were coming.

It was interesting.

And then a, I think the next, it happened on a Thursday, then walking in to work on Monday, I think it was.

Somebody decided, well,

someone had installed their own version of a plaque which created again another stir.

The city removed it.

Last week the Historic Resources Committee had a lengthy discussion about

the markers which you've been hearing about and we're beginning to bring that to a close.

They'd also like to at least have some sort of plaque in that location or near that location, but the idea being that it would be elevated.

made it up out of the ground.

And so I did just a couple sketch ideas of something that wouldn't be flat, up and out.

We would have to determine what would be the ADA requirements for that.

But something that would, on a temporary interim basis, at least still memorialize that location.

And as you all know, there were locations throughout Court Square where

the buying and selling of enslaved people.

You know the one with the tubular bell statue outside of Atlanta, Birmingham?

That was just recently completed.

And I think they have a tubular bell for each town.

Well, so what's going on with, so this is the plaque, and so its location, and I'll share that with you all.

I mean, so it may be something VAR wants to speak on.

I know last night council discussed it, but that's the current discussion.

Public Works was supposed to have bricked in the opening, so hopefully to discourage the continued

that we're seeing there.

As far as a permanent, more substantive, appropriate memorial to the enslaved population, that goes back to the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendation of something that's done through the design process and an RFP.

So that and the statues, what's happened with the statues, push that over here for this time.

It would just be that in the interim,

I said that you explained to the committee that the width is what, imagine what's necessary for someone with a guide dog or with a cane so that they can

Someone visually impaired can notice that that is there.

So there's a width that we would have to, you know, have.

They agreed to a metal frame.

So that would be because of...

and where would it go and how would it be anchored needs to be worked out.

But the idea is to make it as minimal as possible because it's intended as a temporary placement of the plaque.

What is coming forward would be the markers, the replacements of those black markers.

And what we're working towards now is installing them on a light post.

And Fred Wolf had done a design of a bracket that could be mounted on them.

really to get them off the buildings.

There's still three remaining and so really get it into the public right away not up on the side of somebody's building not making any more holes in historic brick.

So but we'll be bringing those to you I think probably within the next three months as we continue on that.

So that's just a little bit of a

you know update on what's been going on in Court Square.

It's an unfortunate situation but it also it's generated a lot of discussion a lot of people asking and so you know in that to be able to offer people information and I think again the narrative of we know that a slave auction block a stone piece of stone

there are reports of one existing there at just south of number nothing.

I also know of one in front of the hotel, which is just across the street.

We also know of these auctions occurring all around Court Square.

Some on benches, some even reported on tree stops.

So we want to be careful to say this is the spot where these things occurred when it occurred throughout.

Yet there is something important about this site.

It does sort of

It identifies a specific physical location.

So it happened here, very important, but yes, everywhere.

So that's the narrative we're hoping to communicate.

And if you all have any questions, if folks ask you what's going on, you can certainly direct them to me or Robert.

But that's just a quick update.

Thank you for being patient.

Well, at the risk of extending the meeting, at the last meeting we had a preservation happenings update, and I just thought it would be a nice practice to continue.

So feel free to share any events or ongoing things that are happening related to preservation in the area.

I'd just like to remind you that on March 6th is the Preserving African American Historic Places Conference, hosted by DHR and Preservation Virginia.

I think Fred, Jody,

Ron and I will be going from the BAR.

And then also there are three CLG training sessions for BAR members hosted by DHR on March 23rd, March 24th, and May the 15th.

I'm going to the May 15th one in Williamsburg.

Actually the museum, the sculpture I was trying to remember is called the National Memorial for Peace and Justice, which is regarding lynching.

It's sort of these steel, corten steel weights on cables.

It's quite powerful.

It was from the location out near Farmington.

The only other thing I was just going to say is if anybody wants to, if you want to be on the sort of the email chain for the lighting stuff, just send me a request.

I guess my fantasy is that ultimately we'll end up with a lighting zoning code very similar to Edinburgh's, which is done by residential and commercial.

Is this something that you guys would um, so we've got a firm that is rewriting our zoning code Within the next two years.

That would be is that something that you guys I think that's I mean, it's all part of the whole comp plan.

They're not rewriting the zoning code I don't think but I think it's gonna be like up.

Well, they don't know what they're doing yet I think that was the outcome of that meeting is it's I

Where's my favorite bridge these days?

Where?

Well, I mean, I know where it's supposed to go.

They're pulling together the bid documents, which do illustrate that.

Connection?

No, the striations.

Oh, I see.

The question will come in, and I talked to Jerry about this.

when the contractor, when the contract's awarded, then however they propose, whatever technique they use to construct those panels, that's when we would step in again to sort of, you know, they would be actual shop drawings.

Right now they're still, even though they're on the drawings and they're to a certain level of detail shown,

Yeah.

So that's how I kind of, because when I looked at the drawings, I saw the striations.

I saw I did everything we asked it to do.

But knowing that that's where they'll be bidding to, a contractor will bid to,

a project that will produce that appearance, then we would get involved with that, the shot drawing review, make sure, is it enough of these or is it doing the right things in the right places.

I just remember seeing a couple of solutions go by, and we commented, but I never... It didn't seem to be... I can ask me that tomorrow.

Right now, I mean, the lighting, you all addressed that with what's going over the bridge and what is coming up from Water Street, but I haven't had any discussion with Jed about incorporating what's going on on the mall or anything like that.

I'm just saying we still have lots of different things going all over the place.

So are we ready to end this game?