Board of Architectural Review Meeting   3/16/2021

Good evening, everybody.

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

As of now, we are streaming live on channel 10 and we're continuing to stream on the city's streaming channels.

My name is Robert Watkins.

I'm city staff and I'll be moderating tonight's meeting on the virtual side of things.

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

So first, for everybody who might be watching from home, I'm going to introduce the meeting participants who are online right now.

First, we have Carl Schwartz, the chair of the BAR.

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

Other BAR members include Tim Moore,

Jody LeHendro, Cheri Lewis, Ron Bailey.

Is James on yet?

No, James isn't on yet.

Andy McClure and our newest member, Robert Edwards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's see, for applicants who are currently online already, like members of the public, you're in the meeting as an attendee.

But when your project comes up on the agenda for review, I'll promote you to a panelist and then you'll have mute and unmute capabilities and we can see you with video.

And when I promote you from attendee to panelist, you'll briefly be booted out of the meeting, but then you'll automatically come back in as panelist.

Also for applicants, during the staff and applicant presentations for each project, I'll be sharing my screen to scan through pages of your application that you submitted for visual aid.

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

So please, if you want me to show a specific image or specific page, just give me a verbal command to direct to the page number.

And also like we've done for the past meetings, we'll have short periodic breaks as needed.

And our chair, Carl, will direct us when a break is necessary.

With that, it's time for me to hand things over to our chair, Carl Schwartz.

But throughout the meeting, if you have any questions, please let me know.

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

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

I will then ask for questions from the public, followed by questions from the BAR.

After questions are closed, I'll ask for comments from the public.

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

Speakers shall identify themselves and provide their address.

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

Following the BAR's discussion and prior to taking action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond.

Thank you for participating.

And I guess we

Just for, sorry, I'm losing it.

We'll go on to matters from the public not on the agenda.

Please note that this also includes any item on the consent agenda that you wish to speak about.

So these are 414 East Main Street, 1001 West Main Street, 301 Fifth Street Southwest, and 64 University Avenue.

If you have any comments,

Great.

So we have the consent agenda.

With the consent agenda are the minutes from November 17, as well as those four items I just mentioned.

We do have some revised approvals embedded in those items.

So for 414 East Main Street, the

Revised approval would say, having considered the standards set forth in the city code, including ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the alterations to the rear elevation of 414 East Main Street satisfy the BRS criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the downtown ADC district.

The BAR approves the application as submitted with the condition that any future exterior lighting, if LED, the lamping will be dimmable, have a color temperature not to exceed 3000 K, and a color rendering index not less than 80, preferably not less than 90.

For 301 5th Street SW, the revised motion for approval is

Having considered the standards set forth in the city code, including ADC district guidelines, I move to find that the proposed addition and site work at 301 5th Street SW satisfies the BAR's criteria is compatible with this IPP property and the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following conditions.

Two entrance doors of the West elevation will be wood, and with a design similar to that shown, the insulated glass in the windows will have internal spacer bars aligned with the applied grilles.

Okay.

I should have remembered that and I would never have had to read all that.

I'm sorry.

I just have one question before motion.

Um, the, why the, um,

aside about LED lighting, because I mean, somebody could put a sodium vapor lamp or something like that, which is equally inappropriate.

Just saying, you know, there are plenty of really bad lighting solutions that aren't LED.

That's fine.

In fact, when I put that in there, I was wondering, so we could just simply

Do you have a second?

Thank you.

And with that, I'll go ahead and call a vote.

Mr. Bailey?

Yes.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Ms.

Mr. Gastinger?

Yes.

Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Mr. Moore?

Aye.

Mr. Leandro?

Aye.

Mr. McClure?

Yes.

And Mr. Zehmer?

Aye.

I have the two applicants online, Mike and Ashley McMahon.

And I can bring them into the meeting.

Why don't you bring them in anyways?

But yeah, we can not worry them.

Yes, here is Robert.

Jeff, thanks for help coordinating this meeting.

Sure.

I heard earlier, I think there's a question about the lace bark elms.

I think that's what this is about.

Yeah.

I'm so glad you're asking because literally I'm a tree steward wrapped in thousands of trees and planted thousands of trees here.

And the landscaping at the house was determined by the prior BAR and Mitchell Matthews.

We probably need to stick to some sort of protocol.

No, that's okay.

I've already been through this process, so it's okay.

All right, so quickly, this is a COA request for 301 Fifth Street Southwest.

It's an individually protected property.

It's the Shelton Fuller House.

It is a contributing structure in the Fifeville and Tonsler Neighborhoods Historic District.

which is listed on the National Register.

It was built by John Shelton, the Black Carpenter, possibly a free man who in 1880 resided there with his wife, Rebecca, a seamstress and their daughter, Julia.

So, you know, this is one of the older homes in the city.

And the request is for a COA to construct a rear addition and related site work.

This project had been reviewed by the BAR back in 2010 and the project was delayed and COA expired so that's why it's been brought back.

The questions that were before

that were brought up were addressing the trees on the Dice Street side.

And so there was the recommendation from one of the BAR members to revisit those.

So that's keeping you short and sweet.

Do you guys have anything to add?

Okay.

Just want to make sure.

All right.

I do see a raised hand from Andy Gems.

Andy, I'm going to press allow to talk.

And then after I do that, I think you still have to unmute and then you'll have three minutes to speak.

Okay.

Just curious if there is an updated version of the proposal available for download.

I've only had the one from 2010, 2011.

Yeah, nothing's changed.

So there's two drawings so that we're clear.

And Andy, good point.

There's the drawings that were reviewed by the BAR, and I think that was in 2010.

And then there's another set that has a, I think it's September 2011 date on it.

Those were the construction drawings that we also had that were submitted the following year.

So I used the one from the BAR review in 2010 and also that set that they match.

It's just a more detailed set.

And both of those drawings, Andy, are available on the packet on the city website.

So if you go to the Charlottesville city calendar,

And then you go to this meeting listing.

OK, great.

The screen that I was just showing was from the packet that's available online.

OK, thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other public comments?

Please use the raised hand feature.

And I'm not seeing any other additional raised hands.

We're not at this time.

Great.

Just for the interest, the winters on the front are actually not all the same from 100 years ago.

So some have two panels, some are one.

It's the same thing in my 1880 house.

It's a mishmash.

All right, are there any comments from the public?

Please raise your hand or press star nine.

No, no, I'm sorry.

I'm glad to change the trees, Breck.

I'm not seeing any raised hands, Carl.

All right.

Sorry.

I pulled it.

Just for everyone's education, that Lace Park Elm is on the city's tree list, but only for limited use, and it's for its invasive quality.

I'm glad that you're interested in changing the species.

I think it would be a better contribution to the neighborhood.

And I think if so long as that you use the Charlottesville recommended tree species for the medium or large scale canopy and also consider the way that they're located along the property line in the ways that they could contribute to the street.

You know, currently they're shown in a kind of an arcing into the property.

You know what, two things.

It would seem you probably have expertise in this field.

So if you have a recommendation, I'd love to hear it.

And then on another note, there's discussion on the fence.

There's not going to be a fence there because of the way the grade is with the city sidewalk and the storm sewer.

But originally, my intention was to build that up and plant other road trees there, just like you're talking about.

That's something that I tried to address at the time, but it didn't go anywhere.

Which has nothing to do with this meeting, but anyhow, I know what you're talking about.

That'd be really nice.

Yeah, no, I think that's fine.

I think that that will give you some latitude to select a tree.

I don't know the site well enough to feel confident, and I also try not to give specific recommendations in the meeting.

But I think that the three lists is a great place to start.

I appreciate that.

That's really much appreciated.

To be honest with you, I mean, we don't get into this, but the last process,

I think what put it on hold, I just went on another project because what did it for me was when I was getting micromanagement, like the, what kind of plant, I mean, I'm a horticulturist, what kind of plants I could put and that really kind of burned me.

So thanks for giving me an option.

Sure, sure.

I probably would be best.

Okay.

I will just, um, make a motion then, uh, having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including ADC district guidelines, I moved to find that the post addition and site work at three Oh one, the street Southwest.

satisfies the BAR's criteria and is compatible with this IPP property and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following conditions.

Two entrance doors at the west elevation will be wood with a design similar to that shown.

The insulated glass and windows will have an internal spacer bar aligned with the applied grills.

Shutters are wood or composite material, not vinyl or metal.

For any future exterior lighting, the lamping will be dimmable

have a color temperature not to exceed 3000 K and a color rendering index not less than 80, preferably not less than 90.

And that the proposed six lace bark elms be substituted with appropriate species from the Charlottesville tree list in the medium to large canopy category.

And that the

Second.

Thank you very much.

I'll go ahead and call a vote.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. Moore?

Aye.

Mr. Lehendro?

Mr. McClure?

Yes.

Ms.

Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

And Mr. Zehmer?

Aye.

All right.

And I also had Robert Edwards, if you're, I lost everybody.

You don't have, I mean, you can tell Robert why can, you know, you abstain if you wish.

I'm going ahead and promoting Greg Jackson, who represents 420 West Main.

Okay, here we go.

So this is a COA request for 420 West Main.

It is in the downtown ADC district.

And just always have to clarify that the downtown ADC district does extend a bit further down West Main than people realize.

This request is to construct a canopy in the front corner of what had been a service station.

This building was constructed in 1960s.

It was renovated into restaurant use in 2001.

It is a contributing structure within the West Main Street Historic District on the National Register.

And it,

I think the most recent that we saw was in May of 2018.

There were some improvements done in that patio area that you see on the front.

And again, this is a CO request for construction of a metal canopy at the front north elevation.

Actually, Robert, I also have an interesting historic photo, not historic, but an old photo of it that's interesting.

As far as staff's recommendations,

The building currently contributes to set to the West Main Street District, which has a history of automobile related businesses.

The BA should discuss how the facade changes relate to the original historic building.

The building has been modified over the years and it's adapting it from a service station or restaurant.

While the proposed canopy is aesthetically consistent with the current expression of the building's architecture, it is still an addition to the historic facade.

Staff does support the design.

In fact, we support this proposal.

and the intent of the design.

Our recommendation to the applicant and to you all was that some way that this could still remain physically separate, at least have a physical separation from the existing building and then not to say that it's not anchored into it, but that it

have possibly some connection points, but that the surface does not appear to be a continuous part of the historic building.

There was a comment from the BAR about, in the comments I received about the

How the seasonal plastic walls will be anchored.

And additionally, the recommendation that the polycarbonate roof, there should be specification that there's a UV protective coating due to yellowing that can occur on that type of material.

There is no exterior lighting indicated.

However, the BAR can also apply if it chooses the conditions that we've used for lighting.

I'm sorry, it is the catenary lights, but I've been tense in terms of like bright exterior lights.

So again, our recommendation is approval and with our comments about the design.

Any questions for us?

OK.

Hi, everybody.

I guess one thing I'll just comment, there is a noting of lighting, although I know it's not attached in a permanent manner, but there is a consideration for it that the owner wanted

string lights that are dimmable and will certainly can adhere to the criteria that was suggested in 414.

I'm ready for any questions.

One thing I am noting when I'm looking at this is that unfortunately my rendering is not as perhaps as accurate as by color description and probably page 12

Well, thank you, Greg.

Are there any questions from the public?

I'm looking at the attendee list, Carl, and I don't see any raised hands.

Also have a sample of the Polly Ruth, if anybody's... I like that.

And I've held it up to the sun.

It does not allow the sun to come through as glare, which was one of my big concerns, yet it does let light through.

The bronze and clear of this are different in their characteristic and what they do because I was somewhat fighting down a little bit on this, but when I got the sample and was able to test it myself, I was turned around a little bit about it.

Any questions from the board?

I'm curious how, so you are, you're intending on supporting this off of the structure that's in the existing canopy, correct?

So you would be kind of puncturing the metal skin on the side of that canopy?

That's correct.

Have you thought at all how that detail is going to work?

Are you just going to

No, I haven't considered, I'm looking at the structural engineers diagram and that's basically what it is.

So it doesn't address that completely.

I think it is the intent to go through and connect to that W10 that's in there.

So we have to

to penetrate.

So, you know, I can certainly get back to you, but I assume the look would be that we keep that flat appearance of the sea channel and it appears that the WH just penetrates it.

Now how that's done, you know.

I think so.

Mr. Jackson, I have a question.

Yeah, that's like a trick question, I think.

It borrows from the language.

It's inspired by it.

And probably more so in this design, I didn't feel the need to deviate that much.

It sets back from the original canopy.

So the original canopy can come out and still have its presence.

So it does set back, but the columns stay in line and stay slanted together.

So it does, it's trying to do both.

It's trying to both work with what's there and honor it, yet be different.

Set back, have the different coloring, have the different kind of roofing, you know, be fresh in new construction and even the rhythm of the WH across

I just wanted to clarify that that's your intent.

I have a question.

Yes and no.

It's a... I think they're going on plastic walls when the client or when the applicant wishes to have them up.

It's a little bit like the Potbelly sandwich shop.

It's going to put plastic in the brick openings.

under the under the standard.

I think it's, you know, we have a structure in there.

They'd have plastic.

They did put something up?

No, I don't think they did.

Yeah, that was that there was a beam issue that was out there.

Yeah, that's how I'm interpreting it is that this is a structure first.

Second is this component that could be part of it or not.

And then if so, how you all would want to treat it.

I mean, what happens if they glaze it in down the line?

No, no, I know that.

I'm just wondering more about its definition as a space.

I mean, I don't have a, I mean, I'm not saying I have a legal definition of, but it's not a tent, it's a structure.

And that's how I've treated it in the staff report.

We can certainly go back to, if we want, if you had to defer and get a,

I do have a question sort of that Carl, you kind of kicked off.

Greg, am I reading the structural diagram correctly?

The W-8s and the C-4s are not in alignment, correct?

They're off-grid with one another?

Yeah, they're not in alignment.

And in fact, if you go to the architectural plan, page 15,

That's more of the current alignment that we're spacing the W8s closer than they need to be so that they can be the structure for the roof without an added purlins or anything like that.

So that becomes the, you know, so it's a cleaner system, although there are more of the W8s in there.

So it wouldn't necessarily align with it.

You know, in theory,

Yeah.

And similarly you'd need to develop a detail of how it intersects the main portion of the building because I mean there's a lot of metal panels that are probably not super easy to just cut a hole in.

I don't think, I mean maybe it is but you'd also have to flash into there and so I think we get the design intent but it

I'm curious how that ended up, how that would end up being detailed.

As well as, you know, where does the water drain off of this?

So it's a 1% slope from the building out to the front.

Is it page 16?

Yeah, so it's a slope off the front and then the the intent is for

to also be sloped out to the west, to the corner, street corner, so to speak.

Okay.

I have one more question.

Sorry.

Sorry, Carl.

Oh, go ahead.

It's just funny, the, you know, the perspectival warp, or whatever you want to call it, implies that it's actually pitching back toward the building, you know, opposite what Greg just talked about.

And the one advantage I see to that is you can bring your leaders down against the building and not kind of float out in the outer corner.

You know, if your pitch was actually running the other way.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's a possibility.

And that is basically a downspout.

I think at this point, we're trying to not have anything else attached to the building and just have it shoot out, in a sense.

It's raining, and it's just kind of coming out from that point and further away from the building.

No, the plastic.

That's going to be the, you know, it's like, like any design, the user can, you know, toward any type of intention.

But

You know, we would do our best when we design it where it's going to be able to be rolled up and out of sight.

Yeah.

Or, you know, if that is not The case.

Yeah.

So I can't see them taking it back inside.

No, seasonal.

Just for that time, the cold period.

I'm hoping that

You know, these were put in place really actually, you know, probably would have gotten to it.

But when I sent it as a review to some of you guys a while back.

That was a question.

And then we looked at it and I talked to the owner and that's what we proposed.

So it wasn't necessarily part of the original intention to have those You know, had it been I

I might have tried to look at some kind of sliding panel type of system or something, but even something like that begins to give it more of a presence that starts to take away from the building rather than just some open air, an open air canopy and with the clear plastic, it seems to allow it to still be an open air canopy that you can know that it's just a temporary

type of cover, but it hasn't come from the client actually.

So frankly, I can follow up on that.

I assume that they would want to use such since I see them all over, but maybe by next winter, it's not such a concern anymore.

They have the full indoor dining, you know, and it's not necessarily, you know, it's kind of a thing now.

And when we first started talking about this, to have it for all the outdoor dining, but you know, I'm not sure if it,

It looks like you have space along the street elevation, you know, inside of the structure there to have a pretty significant roll, right?

But I assume that when they're using these is during the cold, the wintertime, they're going to have them up.

And when they're not, now that I'm thinking about it, I lie with you guys, I suspect they're going to just take them down and place them somewhere in storage.

And it is really not going to be an up and down thing daily.

if they even use them.

Again, we put them up as a scenario that if that was gonna happen, that's what it would be.

And frankly, now that we're talking about it, I admit I hadn't talked to the restaurant owner about their intent.

Well, it probably makes sense to design something in whether they use it or not, because whoever, you know, if Little Star ends up selling to somebody else a couple years from now or whenever, not that I want that to happen.

I love Little Star, but if it does, who knows what the next person might want to do.

So it would be, yeah, so I think thinking about it is probably not a bad idea at this point.

I just wanted to offer that thinking about the potbelly pig, one of the issues we had there is that they kind of described it almost like a shower curtain that would just be pushed aside.

And that was a concern that we didn't want that.

It's either visible when it's used or it's not.

And so there's also, and I've been talking with Andy McClure about a project he has in mind and different ways of doing things.

So there are,

I'm not trying to suggest a deferral, but there's maybe just to separate out this.

We might be getting there, Jeff.

Yeah.

To be clear, I mean, so when I was thinking about

I have given some thought to the, I mean there's a tent we had, remember Craig came to us maybe a few months ago with that pavilion across the street from City Hall.

We had something that came in on East Water Street last month, at times referred to as a pergola.

The idea of something with that permanent roof, permanent frame, permanent structure, I don't think of that as a tent.

But I do think that the how the sides are used really needs some thought.

Yeah, we are in sort of a period right now where we're thinking about these enclosures because of circumstances with COVID.

Just going back to old notes and comments about, and maybe something Greg mentioned to me, looking at the old

the Sky Bar, Commonwealth Bar, and the discussion about that.

And it really came down to that, that permanence of those, that enclosure, that screening, it's understandable when it's cold out, but then you say, well, we're gonna have a week of rain, put them up, and then suddenly something is just dangling there for, if it's a rainy day, we'll pull it close.

So I think your question, Carl,

you know, initially is raising some questions in my head that I don't know how to answer them.

I feel like in some ways it would be wise to decouple the, and also to get some to understand what, you know, where the city wants to go with these enclosures and how they want to treat them.

There's my two cents, sorry.

That's great.

Let's move on to comments from the public and then we'll, let's remember what Jeff has just said when we get to our own comments.

Okay.

I don't I don't think I heard everything Jeff said, of course, but I just don't think deferring to the city for something that that we can define ourselves is best personally.

I mean, I guess I'm a little biased, but I I did talk to the owner of the restaurant about this prior to it being presented to us.

And, you know, we did just approve the C&O thing.

And prior to that, there was there were a couple of the things that, you know, it's the pot belly pig, as Jeff calls it, which I think is hilarious.

and then what's the other one, Skybar.

I mean, we have some precedent is what I'm saying.

So I don't know that we can't answer this question one way or another.

Isn't it the potbelly pig?

Sandwich.

It's a stove.

That's what messed me up when I tried to Google it.

This is a really cool building and one really character-defining one for a certain era of Charlottesville and one that, an era that is going to lose, you know, is losing more of its members, I guess, over the next few years.

And one of the really character-defining features is that canopy that shoots out towards the street and its angled supports.

And so I am, while I very much do think a project could succeed here, I'm concerned that this really complicates the legibility of that canopy and through the painting also kind of models the story.

So I would, I'm concerned about the fascia being the same depth and meeting in plane with the existing canopy.

And one thing that's also been lost in the current painting scheme of the entire structure all going to white is the clarity and kind of celebration of that structural component.

Previously, it was a kind of a maroon color and it really stood out from the rest of the structure.

And now in this proposed painting scheme, not only are the kind of angled supports all the same color, including the old ones,

You know, there could be a different way potentially of using color and maybe differentiation of that roof plane that still allows for the clear legibility of that original structure.

So I think with some tweaks, I think it could get there.

But I'm concerned about it at the moment.

And I don't know how to deal with the

The enclosure, that's a really difficult one.

It seems like that open space is really important to its historical character.

Anyone else?

Yeah, I'm supportive of the application for the canopy because I do think that it meets the guidelines.

This building has, you know, our records say the first iteration and closing that entryway box into the bar was 2000.

But I think there were revisions made to it prior to that.

Maybe once that that

maybe ones that weren't approved by the BAR.

But nevertheless, the building has evolved and I think the canopy is respectful of the original building and certainly the new box that was created and enclosed 21 years ago.

I would like to see more detail

on the drop sides, the impermanent sides, materials.

I think I would agree with other members of the BAR that I'm not ready to approve the enclosure aspect of it without a little bit more information.

I also look and I think you've got at least five, six kind of industrial lights that you'll be removing to place this canopy.

And which begs the question, there should be a lighting plan that should be submitted.

It seems like there will need to be some lighting here, I would imagine, even though the canopy allows a bit of light.

I'd like to, I think a canopy can work.

and I would just like to see some distinction between the canopy as you designed it, Mr. Jackson, and what was there before.

It is a contributing building.

It's contributing building to the ADC.

What I can't tell, is it a contributing building to the West Main Street Historic District?

I think it is looking at

looking at the DHR report.

And the secretary standards would tell you with an addition like this to not create a false historicism and imply that the canopy that you're adding, there's no distinction between it and canopy that's there.

So

I would suggest, I mean, even if you dropped it six inches below, the top of it six inches below the canopy that's there, I mean, that would be enough distinction in my mind and then maybe do something a little different to the facia, but I think canopy is possible and I think there's a

and a good reason for it.

From my perspective, I kind of go back to Carl's first question there just with the junction between the old and the new there.

I'm getting a reverb.

Is everybody else getting a reverb?

And that really might be kind of also paralleling what Jody said.

I mean, maybe what there needs to be is some sort of a reveal or resolution of the new canopy where it parallels the old one, like there's a reveal or something there, and they don't, they just, they're separated, don't quite

touch and maybe they are a little bit out of plane, but I just think there's some games you can play with the language of it that would create that sense of this is new.

I think, I mean, the basic form of it and everything I think is nice and complimentary.

I don't have any problem with it.

I just think it needs a little more development at kind of the level of language that says I am different.

And some of that could certainly be done with color, but I also think

I think it's a little problematic for those W8s and everything to kind of pierce through in the other group.

I think that's where you're, where you got to get a little inventive.

And I understand, you know, maybe that one long W10 or whatever it is that's running through everything can only resolve and stays put, but it just seems like

There's some massaging to do to that to make it pull it off.

But I think if they decide to put curtains on it down the line, I just think that would have to come back because you'd have to figure out how they're laid out and all that kind of stuff.

We just need to look at it.

I don't really see this as a problem, per se.

Yeah, and again, I think I sent the first initial sketches to you, and then we moved it around a few other folks when I was just testing it out.

And we only put that curtain in there upon a question, like how would you do it if you're going to do it?

So frankly, I think it could be very much like the pavilion and the Mickey courtyard that's not intending to have them.

You know, if someone did ask that question, I might have put them around that too.

But, you know, we didn't bring it forth, you know, necessarily.

And I could, I would be happy decoupling it.

And if it does, the forces do come about to say they want something that we could bring in and show it.

The problem I think with it right now is it's, you know, the lightness and sort of the smoothness and cleanness of it is pretty much, you know, not true.

You know, it's not going to turn out like that.

So it harms your argument.

I just think it needs to go away, unless

You guys actually want to come back and apply for that specifically.

I'm not hung up on it.

I'm just saying.

Yeah, we know the guidelines, but I don't know.

I think like codes, codes sometimes don't meet the specifics of a project, and they're generic.

And in this case, we felt like at the end of the day, the building is better with the canopy than without, given where the building is now.

It's not the original Sinclair 1960s gas station anymore.

No, I have no problem with the canopy.

Similarly, I'm supportive of

this concept.

And I think I, I apologize, I may have been the question, the person who asked that question about the plastic on the walls.

I don't want to name names.

I do think, you know, it would be important for you to make sure the client doesn't want those because I think it's better to design them in then, you know, at some point someone's going to tack up some plastic and that would, you know,

It'll happen without coming to the BAR, and then that'll be a whole issue in itself.

But that's up to you.

That's between you and the client.

I think what Jody and some of the others have been saying about trying to have a little more distinction between the existing canopy and the new, I think those are definitely very valid and good points.

I'm kind of struggling with it.

as to whether I would have approved as is or not, but I think it would be much, much better with more distinction.

I would actually, the thing that holds me up the most and would make me want to defer this is I think it's not quite developed yet.

Obviously, you figured out the structure, but I want to know

You know how this actually joins the metal panels.

It looks really nice neat and clean, but I just, I want to know how you you're going to figure that out, how you're going to flash into the building.

You know how you're going to make the at some point the, you know, you're going to have to figure out how the water

stays, or it doesn't penetrate between, you know, the existing canopy and the new canopy.

So there's some details there that I think need to be worked out because I think they could actually be very noticeable visually.

Also, you know, if you're going to drop a downspout, I think we need to see it, need to know where it goes because, again, that's, you know, it's going to change the visual aspect of this project.

So conceptually,

And Greg to your point about

Well, it's not the Sinclair station.

No, it's not.

But the bones of the Sinclair station are still here.

And one of the nice things about the design that was done to convert it to a restaurant is the fact that it kept those bones.

And those bones are still obvious.

And they're so obvious that building

was just recently determined to be a contributing member to the historic district, not because of the restaurant changes, but because they didn't destroy the original Sinclair gas station.

Bones, I keep saying, but that station is still there.

Just so to make sure, is there anybody here who would be ready to approve this tonight as is or with conditions?

Andy, Ron, Cheri.

OK.

Can I just say, Carl, just one point I want to point out is that nobody's really said anything wrong as far as I'm concerned.

But it already does have plastic sides today, right now.

And it has for every winter that I know of, back when it was, I forget what it was called.

And there's a bunch of restaurants that have that as well.

So it's kind of like

I don't think they want plastic sides when they don't have to have plastic sides.

I don't think anybody wants plastic sides when they don't have to have plastic sides.

Well, I think, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, I think what's in front of Little Star right now is an exception due to the pandemic.

I know Maya and

The Mariscos, I believe, have just always had their tents and somehow have managed to do that.

I think because of the pandemic.

But there's at least four, you know, there's at least four in that stretch.

And believe me, I have no problem if they want to put plastic walls up on this to enclose it in the winter.

I just want to know what that looks like.

And if Greg wants to take it out of the project, that's fine with me personally.

But yeah, your point is well taken.

Yes.

I think it's a vast improvement over the umbrellas or the tech.

I mean, big, big time.

So it keeps the character of the architecture and all that.

I don't know.

I guess really it's sort of like seeing window types in a more typical project.

We just need more detail.

It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the design at all.

I don't have a problem with the canopy.

It's just that it is front and center, so it would be good to have a better sense.

Yeah, just kind of echoing a lot of the sentiments you've already heard.

You know, the canopies have been a traditional gas station feature even back to like the 1920s and such.

You know, you think of like the Fry Spring Station with the terracotta roof and whatnot.

So I think that as a design feature is something that should be celebrated.

And in terms of the kind of the plastic walls, I wonder if one way to make them a little more successful wouldn't be to pull them back from the front edge of the new proposed canopy.

Right now,

The rendering shows them just kind of dropping straight down off the front.

It's just a big box.

And I think that if you pull them back a foot or so, it would give that reveal and give that definition to that canopy.

So it sounds like there's not enough for approval tonight, but it sounds like you have support for the project.

So you've got a couple of people asking you to differentiate the canopy a little bit, either drop it or find some other means of differentiation.

If the client decides they want the side panels, I think you've heard some comments on how that might work.

If they don't, great.

Personally, if you want my vote, I need to see a little more detailed development in how this meets the existing building, just to make sure that there's no surprises when it's finished.

And if you don't want to show me the innards and the guts of what happens when you get a section through there, that's fine.

Just, and this is really more procedural question.

Well, yeah, you can imagine.

So that and a month in good weather does make a difference.

We have an economy to open back up.

And I'm not saying that's a reason, a sole reason to support that.

Yeah, we were already trying to talk about ways to fast track it, if it was approved.

And the canopy is certainly something that I don't think necessarily has to be there.

You know, and we can certainly come back with that.

I don't think it could be lowered.

I can look at that, but just in looking how the structure connects, I think it needs to be at the same level.

It is already set back.

The color is different a little bit, maybe not enough.

I had talked to the owner about where it connects with the side existing canopy and against the building to maybe hold back visually with the C-channel set back a few inches or so with a darker

You know, as a, you know, it's a very small way to kind of separate it similar to that addition we saw earlier, dice in a way, you know, they did a whole, you know, a whole bigger part, but as a visual separation between the two elements.

The owner wasn't

interested in that.

He's kind of liking it and wants it that way.

So it would be back to the drawing board for him.

And I agree about the details.

It's all sort of a challenge to how much work ahead we do to present to see how it's going to fly versus, because you can go in, you can spend a lot of time on details and run up the bill.

So it's always a tricky thing about that.

So I'm not sure really what I'm contributing to this decision point.

I wonder if one one strategy might be to taper that

that piece that cantilevers towards the street so that you have a smaller member on the, so that the canopies end up having a different thickness, which could be further differentiated by the color of somewhat.

Yeah, the outer band could definitely be a smaller, a narrower,

That's a good idea.

I hate to say this, I feel fairly strongly that I think we need to at least defer this a month to let you kind of verify all these things and make sure that you can, that it all works out that way.

and also it just because you know when I asked you the question about how what happens when stuff you know the beams meet the existing construction and you said oh I haven't really thought about that much yet I at least want to see something that says that you thought about it I'm sorry I don't mean to be snarky about that but it I think that's um that eliminates surprises so you know it doesn't have to be a CD level section but I think we just need to see that you have

You have thought about it, and again with the water.

I'm a little confused.

I think at one point you mentioned, did I hear you say that you just let it spill off the edge?

To go into the plant of energy tree that's planted there on the corner or into

I mean, that could make a nice hole in the ground.

Again, it's just another thing that it would be important to think about.

And if you're going to do that, then on the plan, we just need to see a pile of rocks or something, just to show that it's not just splashing off the sidewalk or digging a hole in the ground.

It does.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, we would have, we would have the connection as clean as we could do it and it certainly would take care of any water.

And Cheri made a really good point.

I mean, you could light the whole thing with string lights, but I think you're gonna, you might find that that's just not sufficient.

And, um,

You know, it would be good to get those approved sooner than after the fact and have them just show up.

It would be nice if the lighting, and Tim would echo this, were nicely designed as part of it.

I just wouldn't want, it's such a simple canopy, I wouldn't want the lights to really be an afterthought.

You know, it could be a really nice thing.

And they could be very tucked away.

So we could impose a deferral on you or you could request one, which gives you more freedom of time to come back.

No, I guess I'll request the deferral so we can have the

My understanding, if you guys defer, it has to be back next month.

Yes.

And I guess just to make sure, did anybody want to attempt a very, you know, a motion that gets all the conditions embedded in there?

No, I would like to see something.

I don't know.

I mean, I'm perfectly willing to, you know, if there was a procedure for getting something in a week and we could vote and look at it and then vote online, that'd be fine with me too, but I would want to see something.

But I think that it has been tried before or we can't do it or something like that.

All right.

Brecht seconded.

Thank you.

I'll go ahead and call the vote.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. Lehendro?

Aye.

Mr. McClure?

Aye.

Ms.

Lewis?

I'm sorry, Sherry.

Mr. Gastinger?

Aye.

And Mr. Zehmer?

Aye.

Thank you.

The vote is unanimous.

Thank you, Greg.

Sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry I made light of it.

It's, you know, if you get in the rhythm, so anyway.

So, am I still on?

Here it is.

All right, so we'll dive in.

This is a COA request for 128 Transfer Street.

This is structures within the corner ADC district that is contributing.

This was constructed in 1926.

It's a rectangular form, three-bay framed shingle dwelling or swelling.

Check our spelling on that.

With craftsmen and colonial revival stylistic elements, it was constructed as a dwelling.

It was occupied until the 1960s when it transitioned to other uses.

And since the 1980s, it has served as the Center for Christian Studies at the University of Virginia.

This is somewhat of a continuation of a project you all reviewed last year for the rear edition.

And this

there was some alterations to the front elevations and those were pulled out with the decision to treat those separately and that's what's here before you now.

So this is a request for alteration to the front entrance and to the terrace and I guess characterize it as a hardscaping project on that entrance terrace.

We,

Okay.

Then Robert, if you could pull up the first page.

I'm just making an echo here, which makes it a little tough.

But first the page with the existing conditions there that wanted to

Take a look.

This project, as Jeff mentioned, is a hardscape project that is looking at the front entry, which is currently asphalt parking areas across the portion of the front and some plantings, a couple of bushes and some ground cover in front of the house.

The desire of the Christian Studies Center is to make this usable in a way that would be more minimal to a range of uses.

and so if Robert if you could go forward to the I think it's the last page is the smaller plan actually let's back up to the renderings just for a moment and then I'll then I'll walk you through so this is a view from the from the south corner looking at the removal of the asphalt replacing that with brick on sand in a herringbone pattern there are is a

A series of benches along the edge of the sidewalk that are both intended as a kind of a gift and an invitation to the city as creating an edge that actually does demarcate the boundary between the center and the sidewalk.

but they are open to seating actually on both sides.

There's also a small planter bed visible there.

Let's jump to the plan and I'll just walk us quickly from right to left or from south to north as we move up Chancellor Street.

There is currently on the property something of an enclosure for garbage and trash cans and a parking space on that south end.

The parking space would now be bricked, but that means it also could serve at times as not a parking space.

The garbage can area would be enclosed in fencing that matches existing fencing on the property and painting that matches the paint color of the house.

There's a kind of a boardwalk that runs back along the edge of the house there that's actually the fire egress from the fire stair of the new addition behind.

In front of the existing house, there are no changes to the building structure itself, just the landscape in front.

It'd be an area for a terrace where they may have some wooden furniture and some seating around an existing Japanese maple.

The benches that you saw that create an edge to the street and maintaining the current entrance to the front porch and the front door.

To the left, we've showed this with the parking that is possible here, but the goal and the intention is that it would not be used as parking all the time now.

It would be possible for them to put up a tent in conformance with all the tent regulations in that space, or to simply have it as an open terrace for, it could serve as a social space for the center.

There is on the northern property boundary there is a fence along that edge which also masks a dropping off of the property of the grade along that side and also screens a bit of the neighboring

wooden fire stair that comes off that building.

And that again would be the board fencing to match the current board fencing on the property itself.

There is a large historic tree, which we have been working with tree consultants to protect, which will actually may alter the lines slightly where you see the arc around that tree.

That arc is going to get a bit larger, which may mean the parking may be a bit more limited than we're showing here.

There may be one space left if they were going to be using that for parking.

But the primary use here is, and the goal is to actually put that tree in a better and healthier condition rather than running under the asphalt in the way that it is right now.

But I want to make it clear that the

The cars are shown there simply for illustrative purposes.

These are not formal parking spaces.

This is primarily a hardscape landscape for social uses.

All right, well, thank you.

Are there any questions from the public?

Great.

Yes, yes.

Gary Albright.

Okay, well, I represent we're the back door neighbors to the center.

We've been back there since they bought the building in 1976.

And we have concerns with the whole development of the property that have never been

I know the towering nature of the rear aspect of it that we expressed concern about and then the drainage issue and the loss of green space all conspire to make this quarter-inch plot into a quarter-acre lot into a

10,000 square foot building just seems way out of proportion.

When they put an addition on the back in 96, you know, we were fine with that.

It still left a lot of green space in the back.

But I expressed concerns about their drainage, which drains onto our parking lot and the facade which towers over our buildings.

And none of that was ever addressed.

OK, so thank you, Mr. Albright.

And I'm going to promote or not promote, allow Robert Olibog to speak.

Can you hear me now OK?

Yes, we can hear you.

So we represent 134 Chancellor Street, which is the name, 36 Chancellor Street, which is just up the street.

And the only thing in the front that I would suggest is that if you've walked there very often, the sidewalk is very, very small.

And by putting that seating so close to the street, if people are to actually sit, I'll say, facing the street, it would be pretty hard for people to pass.

So it would probably be interesting if it was actually pushed back a little bit off the street to give room for people to pass.

I'm thinking people wheelchairs and things like that.

Thank you very much.

Any other raised hands for public comment?

Robert.

Yeah, you guys are welcome to respond to either of those.

You're not obligated to.

Well, since Dr. Albright's, this is Tom, I'll go ahead if I can briefly.

So we are aware of Dr. Albright's concerns that came up during the site plan review.

And we were actually in the midst of addressing those with the city presently, particularly around the stormwater.

and we were waiting for city comments on our stormwater plan and then the intention is once we get that squared away from the city and go to meet with Dr. Albright to review what's been approved and what our strategy is that we're trying to do so in a manner that respects his

issues that he raised last fall, but it just hasn't come back to the city yet.

And then regarding the massing, in fact, we've actually moved the building back from the property line about 10 feet from when he last saw that in the fall.

It just didn't feel with some addition of the, from the bump outs in the back, which

I don't know.

I think if it's moved back 10 feet,

I think just to clarify that that point just for a moment that the actual footprint on the ground where it meets the ground stays where it was we had some projecting bays on the back and we've actually just

pulled them back.

They don't project quite as far.

So it's really just, as you recall, the elements on the back.

There are three larger elements that are three elements in relation to the core structure.

And we've reduced their presence in the back slightly by pulling them back.

It was partly for code issues.

It was partly for

cost and massing issues and it was partly to address the concern about how imposing this was going to be.

So there were a number of factors leading into that.

I think they were all completely within the spirit and I think somebody looking at the two sets of drawings would have a hard time seeing that we did something differently, but that you would feel it as actually an improvement looking at it from below.

But we'd be happy to show them to you and let us know if they need any.

any further review beyond that.

With respect to the front issue, which we have before us today, that's actually the point about the sidewalk and the proximity of the sidewalk.

We'd like to maintain that edge along the sidewalk edge

But we could entertain modification of the actual bench design, for instance, that might prevent people from sitting on that side facing the street if that felt to be a concern.

I understand completely the width of sidewalk issue, but we are happy to work with neighbors to make things work as well as possible for everyone.

All right.

Thank you, guys.

You know, there are not power poles.

And Tim, in anticipation of a question that you may be asking is we are not adding any new lighting in the front.

There is enough actual light coming from street lighting that already exists on the property, I mean, or on the street adjacent to it.

So,

And I don't know, maybe this is an optical illusion, but from street view and from some of the photos you submitted, it really looks like the site slopes down from the street towards the house, or towards the building.

Is that accurate?

The primary slope is actually running from parallel to the street rather than back.

The adjustment that we're making slightly is where the brick meets the house.

an area that will be actually a slightly recessed gravel area immediately adjacent to the house that we're not running the brick right up into the shingles and because there's some utility inlets there that are existing the gas service comes in there and so we're going to be holding the brick back a bit from the house and using that to pitch the water in a way that

Okay, the intention is there's a beneath the brick in the sand bed, there's a drainage system.

So it's a porous surface.

Yeah.

So there's not gonna be any need for a step or something from the sidewalk to the brick.

Is it flush from the sidewalk?

And you'll notice these can see it somewhat in the existing photographs.

That sidewalk's in pretty bad shape, mostly because of what the roots have been doing of the tree in the corner.

And so that will all be cleaned up as part of this process.

I think we did get, unfortunately, Joe Rice kept getting the questions from the public for us, so sorry Joe, but I think one question that came up, I know this doesn't, it's not our purview, but

I think the public was curious.

Someone asked about the time frame for construction.

I think it was a sorority down the street was just curious about how it was going to affect the school year or whatever.

Obviously, I imagine this is going to be a long term.

Going to take a while to build, but.

So this is Tom.

So the timeframe, so we're working with Alexander Nicholson.

They're our construction manager with design phase services.

So they're estimating a 16 month construction period.

And at this point in time, we're targeting a December 1st start, December 1st, 2021.

So that's a March 23 completion date.

and we've actually met with the sorority down the street just the other day and did speak to them a little bit about this time frame and impact of the project.

We have reached out to them and St.

It actually looks like Joe has just sent us a message to follow up on that.

All right, so you guys talk about the time frame and then, will they agree to repair any damage to the entry in the parking lot or entrance to the parking lot caused by construction equipment?

I assume that's Tracy Daniels who's asking that question.

I know this project's caused some angst and some folks, and I've gotten a lot of questions about it, but there is the continued process that Tom and Bill refer to, and those do, to make sure you all know, anything that comes out of the site plan review, the changes, I'm in that loop.

So if something changes, you'll know about it.

It won't be something that we miss.

And as I understand, some folks are they asked about the driveway and construction traffic and things like that and who's going to fix what.

And I mean, I will.

Joey Winter had been the planner on this project.

Joey now lives in Reno.

So I think Missy Creasy is handling this one, but I'm trying to get some information from her that I can share with people.

But just to be clear, you do the B.A.R.

its role is not to... I know this isn't our first... I just want to make... Well, I'm just sharing out there with the folks that we're... I've been looking at the map.

I'm curious how they're going to get the construction in and out of there.

I've built on difficult sites, so it's always interesting to see how we can solve it.

But that...

you know, that our role is in at that point.

But if I say, I do see a change on this property or something that changes because of the construction activity, a permanent alteration, we'll review it.

I've got a question, perhaps for Bill.

You talked a little bit about how the protection of the Ginkgo's roots was going to happen.

The current design holds that diameter around the Japanese maple.

I think it's at about 54 inches diameter of opening.

And so it's actually a very good question we are working with.

Bartlett Tree Services who have been caring for these trees for a longer period now.

And they felt like our plans were going to be fine with respect, particularly respect to the Japanese maple and recommending that we actually expand the diameter with respect to the ginkgo.

Well, if you guys have any more questions, we can come back to them.

But are there any comments from the public?

I just want to say I support the application and I like the benches the way they are.

I'll say a few things.

Last time this was presented, I had a number of concerns just about the precedent that this could set for the street and the amount of paving that's installed in the front yard, which is, if anything, I think the planted area got smaller and less consequential

Really, this is going to be basically potted plants at the street front.

And I think that even though this is a tiny, tiny site, it is a bit jarring that the entire lot would be paved.

I would prefer if the benches could even move inboard and that band be a low hedge or

continue to break up the continuation of the brick and paved surface of the sidewalk.

I think that would be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and joint properties.

And the other is, I think that my other concern is probably not, is still within our guidelines, but the color of the brick pavers and the brown shingle

together with this extent.

It's very brown.

It gets pretty intense, and I think that shows up even in the renderings.

I think that while that brick color might be found appropriate by the board, I might recommend you look at a little bit more contrast.

It might just feel very samey.

Yeah, I'm kind of inclined to agree with Breck on the amount of hardscape, but I think it's also, I'm struggling to understand the scale of the site because when you're there or when you look at photographs of it, it feels so much smaller than it looks on your plan.

And I'm just struggling to understand how that

what I'm missing.

And maybe it's just you're gonna limb up the Japanese maple and suddenly it'll make more sense.

But um, yeah, I don't know.

I am struggling with this.

Unless anybody else has any more comments, maybe we just need to see is, you know, is everybody else other than Breck ready to approve or

I would just say I agree with Breck philosophically.

I'd love to see more green in front of it, but also knowing Canterbury House, which is just next door, and the fact that they have a

a lawn area or an earthen area and they can't keep plants there because the people are stepping all over it.

And I mean, it just ends up being denuded from the activity that goes on.

So I as much as I agree with Breck, I'd love to see green too.

I will Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 128 Chancellor Street satisfy the BAR's criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the corner ADC district and the BAR approves the application as submitted.

And I'll alter my motion if anybody has any friendly amendments.

Actually, I'll make one.

I'll ask that some consideration be made with regard to Mr. Gaskinger's comments about the brick.

Yeah, I don't know how kind of monochrome the chimney itself is, but it looks like it's a little bit varied.

Anyway, I'll withdraw my own amendment to my motion and let others entertain others.

I could see an amendment being a recommendation, not a requirement, to look at the brick color for more contrast.

Okay.

Thank you, Carl.

I'll go ahead and call a vote.

Mr. Moore?

Aye.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. McClure?

Thank you.

Ms.

Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

And Mr. Zehmer?

Aye.

Thank you.

The vote is 8 to 1, with Mr. Gastinger opposed.

Oh, Andy is sitting too, or?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I'm sorry about that, Andy.

All right.

Thank you, guys.

I do have one question.

I guess we should let Jeff.

Jeff will look at the permit drawings, and we can.

Yeah, he always.

I don't want to speak for Jeff.

Jeff, you speak.

Okay.

Does anybody want to break?

Sure.

So it is 7 17 right now on my computer.

So let's come back in five minutes.

So 7 22 ish.

Thanks, Robert.

Oh, this is where the fun begins, Carl.

Oh, they're being a little more chill tonight.

I'm keeping my camera off for a bit so you won't have to watch me eat my pasta, my belated dinner.

Dinner here was leftover barbecue.

I also had leftover barbecue from the New Place vision.

It's, you know, where the Staples Store is.

It's down where the Subway is.

It's right in, besides Shabeen.

Wow, okay.

What's your barbecue break?

Yeah.

Oh my gosh.

What are you, vinegar, mustard?

No, no, no, no.

Actually, my grandpa used to say, he would serve his barbecue without sauce.

We'll have to get together and talk sometime.

Yes, I did hear that, yes.

I could probably put you all on the list.

Unfortunately, it got canceled due to COVID last year, but we've had it for 10 years and probably 200 people show up and make t-shirts and have a tag truck and trophy with a gold pig on it.

Cody Spinn.

Oh, I can attest.

It's a wonderful affair.

Abacus would love it.

Breck and I, we're banking on post-COVID that we'll finally have an exciting Halloween on Wine Street again.

I did want to say I did bring this.

Oh, you can't see it.

Yes.

It isn't showing up for some other it is.

I'm ready.

Ready, ready.

So, Robert, when Jeff decides to mess with you because you're new, you prepare.

Jeff, could you introduce 506 Park Street, please?

Thank you, sir.

So this is a COA request for 506 Park Street.

This is within the North Downtown ADC District and the

First Presbyterian Church is designed in the colonial revival style and it's based on James Gibbs's 1722 St.

Martin in the Fields in London.

It was constructed in 1954.

The Fellowship Hall on 8th Street was constructed in 1986.

Last summer, you all reviewed a somewhat extensive book

changes going on at the, primarily on that east side with the addition of a new gathering hall and exterior terrace.

And there were some other changes going on towards the front of the church, I guess would be to the south of the sanctuary.

And, excuse me, this,

Where we used to have a revision to a COA, this is a new request.

And this is to, I'll use the word modify, but it's to modify what was approved last summer.

And this is in that northeast corner where that

that addition was planned, that's being eliminated there.

In fact, you can see in this drawing here, there's the arcade will be enclosed instead, the handicap access ramp will be built and an elevator tower constructed at the rear of sanctuary.

And so it's,

I was gonna say a relatively simple project.

It's just making sure that everyone understands what's still in and what's not in relative to the prior work.

So I think there are some questions about trees we're gonna have to get into, but

I don't, as far as what's been proposed, there's nothing here that staff felt was problematic.

There's some clarifications we've received from the applicant that I think you all should discuss.

For example, in the elevator tower,

at the back of the sanctuary, you can see there's the, I don't know if it's a stone sill or a painted sill, but there's a, to, yeah, that image there, to add sills to those insets.

And what is, you know, by the way, Jody and Carl and Tim, what's the proper architectural term for those insets or those recessed panels?

I was calling, well, we can get to that.

Blind windows.

Okay, thank you.

And so there's that situation.

Then there was a, yeah, I think those two, the lighting and the clarification on the, not the light, I'm sorry, the sills and the clarification on the landscaping.

were the two things that staff wanted you all to make sure we're clear on.

We have no problem with this one and recommend approval otherwise.

So any questions for me?

I'm happy to go.

Oh, I'm sorry, Bruce.

Yeah, I'll give you a little bit of background on this just to set the stage.

You know, this is certainly a function of the sequence that these things happen in, in which early in the project,

We bring something that we need approval for to get other things going and

It's a combination of understanding the ultimate costs of that addition combined with what is a unique opportunity for the church.

The addition was actually phase two and three of a four and five phase plan.

The later phases were in fact renovation of the interior of the building.

the combination of finding that the costs of the addition were higher than we had expected, along with a relatively unique opportunity to be able to renovate a building when it's not being used, particularly for a church that's always an issue that you have to wrestle with.

How do you keep the thing going while you're doing major work inside?

And so,

Within the last two or three months, the church decided to take the opportunity to do the interior renovation.

of the church, a comprehensive interior renovation of the church, and then make this addition actually the phase five of the addition.

So this is really an effort to put in place obviously the interior renovation, but then also allow for the future construction of the addition as we had envisioned it initially.

The major thing that that means architecturally is that that arcade that is currently open gets enclosed as a sort of entry from the parking lot.

And it also, they did not want to put off the accessibility of the entire building.

So it is one of these kind of odd situations in which we have to place an elevator that is waiting for the building to surround it and

There isn't really that gracious of a way to do that and so the way that we've done it in this case is we have taken up the language that existed on the building already in which these blind windows existed actually right in the place where the elevator is and then enclosed the

the arcade with and then to leave the existing colony and leaving the existing colony does a number of things.

It certainly preserves the access to the building there.

It creates a very logical and identifiable entry

we will add the accessibility to that company and it also separates from the street what will ultimately become an area that inevitably children will be playing in and so there's a kind of architectural

barrier between what will be a play yard and the street itself.

The landscaping in that area is obviously relatively minimal, simply because it is a placeholder for a future edition.

I think one of the things that we discussed just very recently was the removal of a number of trees and the identification of trees along the roadway, the driveway that goes from the upper parking lot to the lower parking lot.

So the part of the site plan that will be done that is currently under review from the city is the originally planned connection from the upper parking lot to the lower parking lot.

and you can see that in, I think there's another drawing in the submission that shows that.

And that street, that drive from the upper parking lot to the lower parking lot will include the trees that were originally identified for the ultimate site plan.

So there are some initial pieces of that site plan

Yeah, so you can see the road from the upper parking lot.

I don't know whether I can.

Well, if you will touch that, let's see if you will touch that drive that goes from the upper parking lot, you've got your place right right there.

The trees from the original site plan, and I think

Jeff may have the diagram of where those trees are in the original site plan.

They will be planted during this phase of the work.

There are no changes to the interior courtyard.

There are no changes that we will continue.

We will build the front terrace that is on Park Street and there are no changes to that.

I'm trying to think what else we ought to clue you into.

I think that is about it.

I think that is all.

I think this is... On the handrails, my sense was it was going to be what matched the ADA entrance that was... Oh, and Karim, could you get closer to your microphone?

There you go.

Yes, that's correct.

And I included that in an updated version of the packet.

It should be the last few pages of the application.

Did I miss that?

Aha, okay.

So the public has it?

I'm sorry, Kareem.

I'm going to turn my volume up a bit.

I don't know why.

I need to get really close, I think.

There was a question on, I think, the maple tree that Jeff and Robert had asked us about.

And that does not need to be removed for the new grading.

Could we confirm which one that is, just so in plan?

All right, so if you look at the, on the right-hand side, the three, or the four London plane tree, above the second one, there's a, you can see a tree there.

Now, it, with the, I mean, London plane trees, essentially Sycamore,

There's probably the 30 something inch maple.

I don't know whether, I don't know how London Plain Tree manages an understory tree or whatever, but that was all I asked to say.

Is that stain or rollers or was it something we had reviewed last summer?

I couldn't recall, but I just want to make sure that that didn't,

Yes.

Bruce, I don't know if you want to talk to that.

I have some information from Parcival.

I think that tree was mislabeled on the drawing that we have an image of it.

It looks closer to 12 inch, not a 30, I think was labeled as a 24 inch.

And also for clarification, I keep saying 8th Street and this is actually 7th Street down that side.

So I'm going to drive the little Google man down there now and

I think you're right.

All right, I'm like, I got so many things open, I can't figure out which one is.

Yeah, I believe so.

This one, okay.

Right.

All right, yeah, and those were all destined, they were okayed for removal.

Essentially, what you're seeing with the trees with this is identical to what we saw last summer.

There are obviously some plants, lower plantings.

that probably due to some budget constraint.

But as far as trees go, what we're seeing is the same thing that we saw last summer.

And I'm glad you pointed out that that is definitely not a 30 some inch maple back there.

Thank you, Kareem.

I think so.

Yeah, I think we already went into questions, but are there any questions from the public?

All right, thank you.

I have some questions about the carbuncle.

You need a new article term.

No.

I know the elevator is painful, Bruce.

Yes, that's right.

So I mean, I guess, I don't know.

I mean, for instance, is there any harm in taking it up to pick up at least the window band?

I don't know.

We had a series of discussions about where that thing would stop.

Did you want to take it all the way up to the rake of the building?

Unfortunately, the technical clearances that we need won't let us take it down to the belt course.

The height of the thing is kind of right in the middle.

I mean, would it make it any better just to take it at least to the top of the windows so it's mimicking the other windows and just put a flat roof on it and call it a day?

We probably could do that, yeah.

I don't know.

It just seems like it's actually drawing more attention to itself than, I mean, and I feel very sorry for you.

I'm not trying to make life difficult.

Yeah, I mean, this is not a design issue that we're going to fall on our sword for.

Because actually there isn't a white band over the jack arches.

There actually isn't any, the model's a little off, right?

Because there's really nothing happening up there in the main gable.

See, I'm pulling it up on my, I'm seeing your faces.

There's a, it looks like a,

Right.

You know, I think it I think you could make a make a strong argument for bringing it up to the to the trend that's just above the the the third story windows.

I don't even know if I bothered putting any

anything much more exotic than what you already have down in that middle band and move that middle band up and yeah call it a day.

Yep.

Yeah, right.

And I do think I do think it makes sense to put the.

the little cast stone sill.

When the addition is done, the east side of this wall will still be exposed inside.

The north side may be exposed.

So that sill would be a part of the addition when that's done.

Yeah, I'm not trying to design anything.

Yeah, there were so few options of what to do with an eight by eight by three story tall brick tower.

I totally empathize.

Yeah.

As we seem to be moving right on into comments.

There was a question coming into designing versus building for him.

Are there any comments from the public?

Okay, carry on.

I just want to confirm that the change

The layout of the door entry to the arcade has been moved back one bay so that we can delete the fenestration that was in that arch facing 7th Street.

Yeah, great idea.

Mr. Chair, I should have acknowledged up front.

I'm a member of this church, but I'm not in this process.

I don't have a personal interest defined by Virginia law in the outcome of this vote.

So I believe I can participate.

I have a question, comment.

I have a few questions about just how the site plan will work.

I don't have any concern with the architecture whatsoever, but just knowing how kids get dropped off here for school and wondering also how people might move from the lower parking lot up to any portion of the building.

It seems like the ADA ramp is a kind of a really tortured way to enter that pavilion.

And I just wonder,

What how are you guys were thinking about that or if the stairs still need to be removed?

I think in the in the in the most recent version, both stairs are will still be there.

Both walk to the pavilion will be there.

Okay.

And we thought that the that starting the

starting the ramp at that point, as opposed to kind of down the sidewalk and that kind of thing made sense.

And it's kind of like the most, it's the most efficient path.

So it's, it really is more of a pragmatic piece there.

It's not going to have any real architecture to it.

It's, it's, it really is kind of as,

a path up there.

Kareem, what did you say?

It's an 8% slope.

And Brett, the entrance to the preschool is further down on 7th Street.

It's been moved as of about a year and a half ago or so.

Right.

That road will be graded exactly the way it was proposed last summer.

And there will be, in the site plan, there will be bollards that will control the ability to go between those during the week.

and they can cut off access between the two levels or open access between the two levels as fits the function that they're doing.

And so the grading for that roadway is just what it was.

Any other comments?

I think this probably is ready for a motion.

I would recommend with that motion that the elevator be a recommendation that Bruce look into finding a, that he investigate changing the height, that we don't design it for him.

Just one last quick thing.

On the last page of the packet, there's a window sample that the note does say it's not the final sample or anything like that, but it doesn't match the Munton profile.

If you zoom in on it, the historic window has sort of a three-step mountain profile.

Well, to confirm, are you

because it looks like the window notes say that you're going to use a putty style mutton.

You know, you're catching me a little off guard here in that I'm not sure where we are with Pella right now.

Karim, do you know where we are with with Pella and the profile of the muttons?

Not really, no, we have to work out the new... Yeah, I think we've, you know, it's been a little bit of a... It's been a while that the... We were working with Pella Windows to get a profile that more closely matched the existing profile on the building.

And I'll have to admit, I don't know what their current response is.

I'm...

So I think we approved this before.

I believe this page was in the last submittal.

This is not new information.

Right.

Yeah, well, actually, the windows would match that what we were what we were actually trying to match is the is the configuration of the details from the front are the front windows that face Park Street.

Okay.

Yeah, that wouldn't mind, that wouldn't mind Tijin.

Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 506 Park Street satisfy the VAR's criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the north downtown ADC district

and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with this recommendation that the apparent height or the height as shown of the elevator be reconsidered and that the white banding around the elevator be reconsidered and changes made if the designer agrees that or

decides to do so.

I'll second that.

OK, so with the motion seconded, I'll go ahead and call the vote.

Mr. Bailey?

Yes.

Mr. Schwartz?

Yes.

Mr. Zehmer?

Yes.

Aye Mr. Leandro Aye Mr. Gastinger Aye Mr. Moore Aye Mr. McClure Aye Mr. Edwards Yes And Ms.

Lewis Aye Thank you very much.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you, Bruce.

One moment, I need to figure out who to add to this.

This is a COA request for replace four windows in an apartment at 500 Court Square.

This is the building is in the north downtown ADC district that is contributing.

It was a colonial revival, nine-story brick building.

This was originally the Monticello Hotel designed by architect Stan Holt Johnson of Lynchburg, constructed in 1924 and 1926.

It's also a contributing structure in the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District, listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places.

We've had some, BAR has reviewed some other things at this site, most recently some security gates.

Had to go back to 2011, the last BAR review related to windows, well, windows within an apartment.

and back in July 2011, BIR approved the replacement of non-existing wood windows and a sixth floor unit facing Market Street, approved with aluminum clad window sash kits and applied a mutton that matched.

And, excuse me, from reading Mary Joy's staff report, it was clear that

There have been replacements over the years that have not gone to the BAR.

And the comment at that time was that when this was approved, the city recommended to the, I'm not sure how the,

Ownership works over there, the Homeowners Group, basically to come up with a plan for when windows are replaced, what is it that we want?

Possibly, this is an example, possibly July 2011 is an example.

That's one side of it, but the other, of course, is with the replacement of windows.

And I will say I'm getting a lot of questions

in the last couple of months about window replacements.

And I've been repeatedly pushing to point to people that repairing windows is a lot less expensive than replacing them.

And that kind of fits the bill here.

What I am looking at is some water infiltration

probably more having issues with the sill and the window frame than with the sash.

And possibly something could be fixed with some repairs to the sill and better caulking and maybe storm windows on the exterior.

This is the south side.

We all know that's the heavy weather side of any building in Charlottesville, particularly if it's up in the air like this one is.

So that was all, you know, my recommendation

wasn't necessarily yes or no to replacements, but that, you know, from a cost standpoint, I don't know if it's necessarily the right solution and simply replacing the windows may not fix the problem that they're having with water infiltration.

That said, if the BAR does approve this, I think, you know,

It's an opportunity to sort of express a standard that we, you know, not approving requests that come in for 500 core square, but certainly expressing maybe what would be expected in an application and what is acceptable as a replacement, at least the criteria for that.

Among that, certainly we have conditions with use where with insulated glass and applied grills

The grilles are the same dimensions, the same light configurations, the same alignments with the spacer bar within the insulated glass.

Yeah, it's a bit of a, the circumstances are I know that they own, it's the owner of the apartment makes the request.

I don't know if he owns the windows or how condominiums work or is this the building itself?

Legally, the association is responsible for

Okay.

And so I guess I'll leave it in your hands, however you all would like to proceed.

Why does Cheri have a floating O on her screen?

So this is an important issue that we don't want individual condo owners to come in and start replacing windows differently from one to the other.

It needs thought

I think a case needs to be made that there's something wrong with the windows holistically before we start agreeing to a standard for replacing them.

I have represented this condominium association in the past and

I can speak with assurance that the windows are considered part of the common elements.

And that responsibility for that is shared with all of the unit owners within the building and their residential and commercial.

And I don't know how it split up.

I couldn't, but that Mr. Brooks is the man, he's the president of real property.

I was just going to add that it's very similar to the condo that my wife and I own up in D.C.

Yeah, and the application came from

Doug Brooks.

And wasn't there, Cheri, wasn't there someone a couple of years ago?

No, I think he's community managed this for a very long time.

At least his company has.

Yeah.

I actually just tried to text him and just said it would be helpful if he could get on.

He thought a member of the condominium board was going to attend.

We've got another item on the agenda.

So it looks like David Mullen, who I think is representing 735 Northwood, is already on the call.

Not sorry, I'm trying to... You're fighting it, yeah.

Now my computer's yelling back at me, thanks.

No, it's not a problem.

And the applicant, just to let you know, the apartment owner and the property manager both signed the application, so it came in, you know, building owner is aware of this, but yeah, it would help to know

Who's who?

All right, we're now jumping ahead to 735 Northwood Avenue.

This is a COA request for the addition of a rear dormer.

And probably more critically is a request to install photovoltaic shingles in replacement of the existing asphalt.

And

This house was built in 1931.

It is in the North downtown ADC district.

It is considered contributing.

Sorry, I'm reading my version of this and it's

Thank you, Robert, for cleaning some gibberish up.

Said this is a COA request for construction rear dormer, replacement of the existing asphalt shingles with photovoltaic shingles, and replacement of the gutters and downspouts.

And they want to, I think it's a sort of a standard seamless gutters.

They want to go with copper cutters and downspouts.

And so we'll,

I think everything's fine with the reradition and certainly with copper.

I put this on the regular agenda.

I'm so intrigued by the roof shingles and felt that you probably deserve the discussion we're going to have about it.

And as I mentioned at the beginning earlier before we started that we don't have a sample.

We'd...

I know the applicants trying to get a hold of one and figure out how to take a look at it.

And I guess they can better also address what their schedule is as far as moving forward.

Does the more important to get the okay and move forward with the dormer.

maybe separate out the shingles.

I don't know, but I put that on the table.

Yeah, so the shingles, we're kind of waiting to hear back from Tesla on whether we could get a sample of the photovoltaic shingles

and I think they were sort of more concerned about whether we would get approval on the dormer and whether they could move forward with coming up with a design and giving us a design for the Tesla panels that we would then approve.

And they would like to do that after the approval by the bar of the basic plan of the dormer.

So I think we'd get more engagement with them after we've got a sort of go ahead on the basic plan for the dormer.

OK, well, thank you.

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

Please raise your hand and press star 9.

Do we have any public?

No, not really, no.

OK, questions from the BAR?

Seems pretty straightforward.

Just in case, are there any comments from the public?

Please raise your hand or press star nine.

Okay.

I'm not sure of the interior configuration, but on the rear dormer, I feel like the two side windows should be a little bit closer to the center window.

kind of palladium window standpoint portions.

The next slide that has it dead on.

As to the roof shingles, I think this is kind of an ideal

situation where the roof shingles themselves will be able to conform pretty closely as I understand that system to the roof shape.

So in this instance, I think this would be a great example, I think, of a solar installation that pretty carefully preserves the roof shape and appearance.

I do have a question with regard to why they're reluctant to not move forward before the dormer is approved.

Is it a project that they, how is that working?

Are they leasing the shingles to you?

From what I understand is that they typically want to start the process with an approved permit.

Ron, I think it's the design work that they'd have to put in engineering the circuitry, probably.