Board of Architectural Review
Board of Architectural Review
Tue, August 18, 2026
Agenda items
Vote records
Discussion summary
Transcript
Meeting summaryAI-generated
Board of Architectural Review — August 18, 2026
This was a regular monthly meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). The agenda included one certificate of appropriateness (COA) action item, two pre-application conferences for major projects, and an extended staff training segment on BAR roles and responsibilities. The meeting ran well past two hours.
Consent Agenda — Meeting Minutes (April 21 & May 19, 2026)
The BAR approved meeting minutes from its April and May sessions as a consent agenda item, after pulling the COA for 116 West Jefferson Street for separate discussion.
Vote: Approved unanimously by voice vote.
Certificate of Appropriateness — 116 West Jefferson Street (Deferred Item)
This application concerns a 1913 brick house in the North Downtown ADC district. The property includes a 1980s rear addition connected to the historic structure. The application addressed egress stair requirements mandated by the city's code official, which necessitated changes to two rear balconies — including replacement of structural columns — and a proposed privacy screen beneath the rear porch to shield a ground-floor residential unit below.
Staff had placed the item on the consent agenda given the extensive prior discussions, but member Mr. Schwartz pulled it to ask a clarifying question. He confirmed that the offset corner post (necessitated by the egress stair width) would appear unusual only at the roofline where it meets the cornice, while aligning normally at the floor below. The board accepted this as a reasonable structural compromise to preserve the original cornice detailing.
Discussion focused on two options for a screening panel below the rear porch: Option 1 (lattice) and Option 2 (solid cedar panels). Several members expressed a preference for Option 1 (lattice) as more traditional and contextually appropriate, though consensus was that Option 2 was not a guideline violation. The applicant indicated preference for Option 2, citing privacy for the unit below. The board agreed that if Option 2 is chosen, the panels must be painted, and the applicant expressed interest in adding decorative wood cutouts to the solid panels, which the board supported — with staff to review final designs. The board also required that original rear porch columns be retained on site for potential future reuse.
Vote: Motion by Mr. Schwartz, seconded. Approved 9–0 (all members present voted yes). Conditions: applicant may choose either Option 1 or Option 2; if Option 2, panels must be painted; decorative cutouts in solid panels are permitted subject to staff review; original rear porch columns must be retained on site.
Pre-Application Conference — 915 East High Street (Multi-Story Mixed-Use Building)
Staff introduced this project, which was previously reviewed in December 2023. The site is a 2.3-acre parking lot on the former Martha Jefferson Hospital campus, facing Lexington Avenue, across from Maplewood Cemetery. The project is within the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District (lower bar than an ADC district) and is being reviewed under the old zoning code.
Architect Dan Bracy presented plans for a five-story, approximately 525-foot-long apartment building with structured parking concealed within the building mass. The building incorporates brick, front porch elements, individual unit entries facing the street, and a landscaped front yard intended to evoke a residential character. A separate two-story commercial building on a newly created corner lot at Lexington and East High is also shown, included to satisfy zoning requirements for the site plan rather than as a confirmed construction commitment.
Key discussion themes:
Building length: The primary unresolved concern from the prior review. Members acknowledged the site is currently a 525-foot parking lot and debated whether the solution is a physical break in the building, stronger differentiation through massing and materiality, or a unified but articulated facade. Several members cautioned against excessive small-scale repetition (referencing the Standard on West Main as a cautionary example), recommending instead larger, bolder massing breaks aligned with the building's step-downs in grade. Members urged the applicant to rely less on color differentiation and more on form, shadow, and depth.
3D visualization: Members repeatedly stressed they cannot adequately evaluate the project without perspective renderings from street level, particularly from Lexington Avenue and East High Street.
High Street elevation: Considered underexamined; members emphasized this is also a significant facade on an active corridor and should be shown in 3D.
Landscaping: Members encouraged a richer planting palette — including larger canopy trees, ornamental understory trees, and shrubs — consistent with the character of adjacent streetscapes and the cemetery across the street. Concern was raised about proposed wildflower plantings as potentially becoming unkempt. The proposed quarry block retaining wall as a bench was questioned; members suggested brick or materials echoing the cemetery wall across the street.
Two-story corner building: Members noted it appears understated for a prominent corner location on East High Street and urged the applicant to either commit to or remove it from the project, as it will require separate COA review.
Taylor Walk: Clarified by the applicant to be entirely off their site; the pedestrian path will remain undisturbed.
Rooftop lighting and amenities: Members flagged potential light spillover into the adjacent neighborhood from rooftop amenities; the applicant confirmed the amenity space is set one story below the roofline.
Staff recommended the applicant return with a formal COA application (rather than another pre-app) and noted that the project has substantial design development remaining before an approvable application is likely. No vote taken (pre-application conference).
Pre-Application Conference — 301 East High Street (Village School Addition)
Member Mr. Timmerman recused himself, disclosing a child who attends Village School.
This project involves the Village School's acquisition of a 1958 Georgian Revival office building at the corner of East High and Third Streets, in the North Downtown ADC District. The school plans to preserve and retain the historic front facade, construct a rear addition providing a large gathering/event space and two classrooms, and convert the surface parking lot into an outdoor courtyard, amphitheater-style classroom, and sports court. The school's head, Eliza O'Connell, explained that the school (80 students, not growing) uses the city extensively and has no large campus; this project would provide a much-needed assembly space and outdoor play area. Architect Kevin Schafer led the design presentation.
Key discussion themes:
Addition design: Members were broadly supportive of the contemporary addition — glass, exposed glulam rafters, brick and fiber cement materials — as appropriately deferential to the historic building while clearly differentiated. Members praised the design's evolution and overall quality.
Sports court fencing and safety: The six-foot maximum fence height under zoning is insufficient at certain points where grade drops, reducing effective fence height below guardrail standards. Members suggested separating the aesthetic fence from a practical ball-containment solution — specifically, a retractable net system on poles inside the fence that can be raised during use and lowered otherwise. A hornbeam hedge was also floated as a natural screening option.
Crosswalk safety: Members raised concerns about vehicle speeds on Third Street and the proximity of the mid-block crosswalk to East High Street. One member suggested a speed hump in addition to decorative street painting, though the board noted that traffic engineering decisions rest with the city (Public Works). The applicant confirmed a pre-application meeting with city staff had been encouraging regarding street art but skeptical about speed humps.
Shade trees and courtyard planting: Members strongly encouraged adding shade trees within the courtyard/play area to provide relief for students. The southern magnolias proposed along the rear property line were questioned for leaf litter on the sports court.
Artificial turf strip: A narrow AstroTurf strip proposed as a threshold between the amphitheater seating and the sports court drew discussion. Members suggested alternative materials — etched concrete, cork, painted pavement, or other non-artificial-grass options — and noted the BAR has been cautious about setting precedent for artificial turf.
Rooftop mechanical screening: Required by code; members agreed the proposed screen is unlikely to be visible from street level but noted the requirement stands. Members also flagged an optimistically thin roof section and suggested the applicant confirm detailing.
Downspout placement: Flagged as potentially encroaching on a very narrow Third Street sidewalk; applicant confirmed the site plan shows the downspout discharging under the sidewalk via a grate.
Specific details requested for COA submission: Corner window plan detail; section through the eaves/parging connection; section through the play area showing grade change and fence relationship; clarification of roof material (not white TPO); exterior lighting plan; and resolution of the ADA-accessible crosswalk alignment.
Staff indicated the project was close to being brought as a formal COA rather than a pre-app. Members were generally enthusiastic and supportive of the project's direction. No vote taken (pre-application conference).
Staff Updates — Minor Historic Reviews and Downtown Mall Café Spaces
Staff presented a list of minor (administrative) historic reviews completed since January 2026. Members noted the volume of staff time involved and requested that a brief monthly update be included in future meeting packets.
Regarding Downtown Mall café spaces, staff reported that only about one-third of café operators are in full compliance with the design guidelines adopted by City Council. Several operators lack required permits and are occupying public right-of-way without payment. Staff clarified that enforcement authority rests above their level — a senior city staff working group is tracking compliance — and that the city's economic development representative has offered to present to the BAR. Members expressed frustration that thoughtfully developed guidelines are not being enforced and that public space is being privatized without accountability. Staff confirmed two café applications are scheduled for next month, with at least one expected to be recommended for denial as non-conforming with guidelines.
Roles and Responsibilities Training (BAR 101)
Staff led approximately 45–50 minutes of required annual training on BAR roles and authority. Key points covered:
The BAR is a certified local government (CLG) body under the National Park Service/Virginia DHR program, which provides access to federal survey and preservation grant funding (approximately $150,000 leveraged over staff tenure).
Annual CLG requirements include one hour of relevant training per member — a requirement the BAR has not fully met in recent years.
The BAR's authority is limited to exterior architectural features of properties within city-designated ADC districts, historic conservation districts, and individually protected properties (IPPs). National Register or Virginia Landmarks Register listing does not confer local BAR jurisdiction.
The BAR must approve applications that meet the applicable design guidelines; it cannot deny based on personal preference, neighborhood sentiment, zoning concerns, or other factors outside its purview.
Review criteria for both ADC districts and conservation districts reference "applicable design guidelines," which for ADC districts are the ADC District Design Guidelines, and for conservation districts are the Historic Conservation District guidelines.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are the federal benchmark; the city's guidelines must be substantially consistent with them.
On denials, staff emphasized the importance of citing specific guideline provisions in motions to withstand potential appeals, and suggested the board call brief recesses to organize motions after long deliberations.
Staff noted that the city attorney's office has not regularly attended BAR meetings in recent years and encouraged members to request their presence for guidance on motion crafting.
The training was not completed in full; staff plans to continue at a future meeting, with a session on urban archaeology also planned.
Key Takeaways
116 West Jefferson Street received COA approval for rear egress stairs and balcony modifications, with conditions requiring painted panels if Option 2 screening is chosen and retention of original porch columns on site.
915 East High Street (Martha Jefferson campus apartment building) is a major project at schematic design stage; the BAR's primary concern remains the ~525-foot building length and urged the applicant to return with a formal COA that includes 3D renderings, a refined High Street elevation, and a stronger massing strategy.
301 East High Street (Village School addition) was broadly praised; the applicant should resolve the sports court fencing/safety solution, reconsider artificial turf, add shade trees, and provide detailed sections before formal COA submission.
Downtown Mall café compliance remains a significant problem, with roughly two-thirds of operators out of compliance; enforcement authority rests with a senior city staff group, not the BAR, though the BAR's design guidelines apply when permits are reviewed.
BAR training reinforced that the board's authority is strictly limited to exterior architectural compatibility under adopted guidelines — personal preferences, neighborhood concerns, and zoning policy are outside the BAR's box, and denial motions in particular must cite specific guideline provisions to be defensible on appeal.
AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.
What happened at this meeting
Certificate of Appropriateness [*Deferred by applicant January 22, 2025]
# Summary
Staff presented a Certificate of Appropriateness for 116 West Jefferson Street, a 1913 brick house with a 1980s rear addition, to address required egress stairs on back balconies while preserving their historic appearance. Mr. Schwartz raised detailed questions about corner post alignment and beam centering, which staff confirmed would require replacing non-plumb posts and adding offset trim at the cornice line to accommodate the egress stair width. The Board unanimously approved the application with conditions allowing the applicant to choose between two design options for screening (with Option 2 requiring painted panels), add carpentry cutouts if desired, and retain original rear porch columns on site for potential future reuse. Staff recommended Option 1 for screening and noted this application resulted from several years of conversations with the applicant. *Note: The applicant deferred this application on January 22, 2025.*
Staff presented a Certificate of Appropriateness for 116 West Jefferson Street, a 1913 brick house with a 1980s rear addition, to address required egress stairs on back balconies while preserving their historic appearance. Mr. Schwartz raised detailed questions about corner post alignment and beam centering, which staff confirmed would require replacing non-plumb posts and adding offset trim at the cornice line to accommodate the egress stair width. The Board unanimously approved the application with conditions allowing the applicant to choose between two design options for screening (with Option 2 requiring painted panels), add carpentry cutouts if desired, and retain original rear porch columns on site for potential future reuse. Staff recommended Option 1 for screening and noted this application resulted from several years of conversations with the applicant. *Note: The applicant deferred this application on January 22, 2025.*
Roles & Responsibilities (per City Code 34-5.1.5) (7:30) 6. Staff Updates
# Summary: Roles & Responsibilities (per City Code 34-5.1.5) - Staff Updates
Staff presented on the Board of Architectural Review's roles and responsibilities under City Code 34-5.1.5, emphasizing that the BAR must operate within established guidelines and stay within its designated authority. Key points included: the BAR reviews Certificates of Appropriateness only for designated historic districts and properties, with authority limited to exterior architectural features visible from public spaces; staff clarified that the BAR must approve applications meeting review standards and cannot deny based on personal preference, zoning, or use concerns. Staff also addressed Charlottesville's Certified Local Government status (established 1994, providing ~$150,000 in grant funding), noting the annual one-hour training requirement for BAR members—a compliance gap acknowledged in eight prior reports—and discussed the current inventory of approximately 76-77 Individual Properties of Preservation and distinctions between National Register, state, and city-designated historic districts, which operate under different regulatory frameworks. Staff emphasized consistency in applying design guidelines (aligned with Secretary of the Interior Standards) and clarity in applicants identifying treatment categories (rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction, or new construction) on COA applications, while noting recent confusion regarding which guidelines apply to different district types requires ordinance clarification. Finally, staff distinguished between minor reviews (routine approvals like repainting) and major reviews (projects requesting exceptions), acknowledging terminology confusion from recent code changes needs further work.
Staff presented on the Board of Architectural Review's roles and responsibilities under City Code 34-5.1.5, emphasizing that the BAR must operate within established guidelines and stay within its designated authority. Key points included: the BAR reviews Certificates of Appropriateness only for designated historic districts and properties, with authority limited to exterior architectural features visible from public spaces; staff clarified that the BAR must approve applications meeting review standards and cannot deny based on personal preference, zoning, or use concerns. Staff also addressed Charlottesville's Certified Local Government status (established 1994, providing ~$150,000 in grant funding), noting the annual one-hour training requirement for BAR members—a compliance gap acknowledged in eight prior reports—and discussed the current inventory of approximately 76-77 Individual Properties of Preservation and distinctions between National Register, state, and city-designated historic districts, which operate under different regulatory frameworks. Staff emphasized consistency in applying design guidelines (aligned with Secretary of the Interior Standards) and clarity in applicants identifying treatment categories (rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction, or new construction) on COA applications, while noting recent confusion regarding which guidelines apply to different district types requires ordinance clarification. Finally, staff distinguished between minor reviews (routine approvals like repainting) and major reviews (projects requesting exceptions), acknowledging terminology confusion from recent code changes needs further work.
Minor Historic Reviews
Staff presented an update on minor historic reviews completed from January through the current date that did not require Board approval, as permitted under City Code requirements for minor reviews. A board member asked how much time staff spends on individual reviews, and staff explained that the time is variable depending on the complexity, as they must review building permits, site plans, and various design elements like fences, dumpsters, and EV chargers. Staff noted they are working toward approving items directly on building permits or site plans rather than requiring separate Certificate of Appropriateness applications. A suggestion was made to include a monthly summary slide or page with the meeting packet so the board can review administrative approvals in advance without requiring extensive discussion at meetings.
DT Mall café spaces
# Downtown Mall Café Spaces Summary
The Board reviewed schematic designs for the Downtown Mall café spaces project, raising concerns that the ground floor commercial presence appears too small and doesn't adequately "read as more than one story at the corner," with suggestions to incorporate two-story commercial space running parallel to East High Street and Lexington Avenue. The Board also discussed design elements for an associated play area, debating alternatives to artificial turf due to durability concerns and environmental impacts, with members suggesting natural alternatives like cork or flexi pave and barrier options including retractable nets and hedges. Beyond the new project design, Staff reported that four outdoor café spaces in Downtown Mall are currently operating without required approvals or permits, and while design guidelines were developed and approved by city council, only about one-third of the cafés currently comply with them. Multiple Board members expressed frustration that restaurants are using public park space without paying fees or obtaining proper permits, noting the inconsistency with requirements applied to other vendors and questioning how private businesses can operate in this cherished historic public space without the same compliance standards. Staff indicated they are in a data collection phase and that a city subcommittee meets quarterly to address compliance issues, with two café applications coming next month, including a staff recommendation for denial of one application for non-compliance.
The Board reviewed schematic designs for the Downtown Mall café spaces project, raising concerns that the ground floor commercial presence appears too small and doesn't adequately "read as more than one story at the corner," with suggestions to incorporate two-story commercial space running parallel to East High Street and Lexington Avenue. The Board also discussed design elements for an associated play area, debating alternatives to artificial turf due to durability concerns and environmental impacts, with members suggesting natural alternatives like cork or flexi pave and barrier options including retractable nets and hedges. Beyond the new project design, Staff reported that four outdoor café spaces in Downtown Mall are currently operating without required approvals or permits, and while design guidelines were developed and approved by city council, only about one-third of the cafés currently comply with them. Multiple Board members expressed frustration that restaurants are using public park space without paying fees or obtaining proper permits, noting the inconsistency with requirements applied to other vendors and questioning how private businesses can operate in this cherished historic public space without the same compliance standards. Staff indicated they are in a data collection phase and that a city subcommittee meets quarterly to address compliance issues, with two café applications coming next month, including a staff recommendation for denial of one application for non-compliance.
Agenda items (5)
Procedural (5)
1ProceduralMeeting minutes: April 21, 2026 [meeting video] & May 19, 2026 [meeting video]
The council will review and approve the official meeting minutes from April 21, 2026 and May 19, 2026.
2ProceduralCertificate of Appropriateness [*Deferred by applicant January 22, 2025]
A request for approval to make changes to a historic property has been postponed and will not be considered at this meeting.
What happened
# SummaryStaff presented a Certificate of Appropriateness for 116 West Jefferson Street, a 1913 brick house with a 1980s rear addition, to address required egress stairs on back balconies while preserving their historic appearance. Mr. Schwartz raised detailed questions about corner post alignment and beam centering, which staff confirmed would require replacing non-plumb posts and adding offset trim at the cornice line to accommodate the egress stair width. The Board unanimously approved the application with conditions allowing the applicant to choose between two design options for screening (with Option 2 requiring painted panels), add carpentry cutouts if desired, and retain original rear porch columns on site for potential future reuse. Staff recommended Option 1 for screening and noted this application resulted from several years of conversations with the applicant. *Note: The applicant deferred this application on January 22, 2025.*
3ProceduralRoles & Responsibilities (per City Code 34-5.1.5) (7:30) 6. Staff Updates
Staff will provide updates on city business and clarify the roles and responsibilities of council members and staff as outlined in city code.
What happened
# Summary: Roles & Responsibilities (per City Code 34-5.1.5) - Staff UpdatesStaff presented on the Board of Architectural Review's roles and responsibilities under City Code 34-5.1.5, emphasizing that the BAR must operate within established guidelines and stay within its designated authority. Key points included: the BAR reviews Certificates of Appropriateness only for designated historic districts and properties, with authority limited to exterior architectural features visible from public spaces; staff clarified that the BAR must approve applications meeting review standards and cannot deny based on personal preference, zoning, or use concerns. Staff also addressed Charlottesville's Certified Local Government status (established 1994, providing ~$150,000 in grant funding), noting the annual one-hour training requirement for BAR members—a compliance gap acknowledged in eight prior reports—and discussed the current inventory of approximately 76-77 Individual Properties of Preservation and distinctions between National Register, state, and city-designated historic districts, which operate under different regulatory frameworks. Staff emphasized consistency in applying design guidelines (aligned with Secretary of the Interior Standards) and clarity in applicants identifying treatment categories (rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction, or new construction) on COA applications, while noting recent confusion regarding which guidelines apply to different district types requires ordinance clarification. Finally, staff distinguished between minor reviews (routine approvals like repainting) and major reviews (projects requesting exceptions), acknowledging terminology confusion from recent code changes needs further work.
4ProceduralMinor Historic Reviews
The council will review and decide on minor changes to historic properties that don't require full review.
What happened
Staff presented an update on minor historic reviews completed from January through the current date that did not require Board approval, as permitted under City Code requirements for minor reviews. A board member asked how much time staff spends on individual reviews, and staff explained that the time is variable depending on the complexity, as they must review building permits, site plans, and various design elements like fences, dumpsters, and EV chargers. Staff noted they are working toward approving items directly on building permits or site plans rather than requiring separate Certificate of Appropriateness applications. A suggestion was made to include a monthly summary slide or page with the meeting packet so the board can review administrative approvals in advance without requiring extensive discussion at meetings.5ProceduralDT Mall café spaces
The council will discuss plans for café spaces at the Downtown Mall.
What happened
# Downtown Mall Café Spaces SummaryThe Board reviewed schematic designs for the Downtown Mall café spaces project, raising concerns that the ground floor commercial presence appears too small and doesn't adequately "read as more than one story at the corner," with suggestions to incorporate two-story commercial space running parallel to East High Street and Lexington Avenue. The Board also discussed design elements for an associated play area, debating alternatives to artificial turf due to durability concerns and environmental impacts, with members suggesting natural alternatives like cork or flexi pave and barrier options including retractable nets and hedges. Beyond the new project design, Staff reported that four outdoor café spaces in Downtown Mall are currently operating without required approvals or permits, and while design guidelines were developed and approved by city council, only about one-third of the cafés currently comply with them. Multiple Board members expressed frustration that restaurants are using public park space without paying fees or obtaining proper permits, noting the inconsistency with requirements applied to other vendors and questioning how private businesses can operate in this cherished historic public space without the same compliance standards. Staff indicated they are in a data collection phase and that a city subcommittee meets quarterly to address compliance issues, with two café applications coming next month, including a staff recommendation for denial of one application for non-compliance.
Additional votes recorded in minutes
Approve consent agenda (meeting minutes April and May)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve COA for 116 West Jefferson Street (rear exit stairs)
aye 9
Baileyaye
Burrellaye
Chairaye
Lewisaye
Rosenthalaye
Schwartzaye
Tabanyaye
Timmermanaye
Trumpeteraye
Motion to adjourn
aye 1
voice voteaye
Verbatim transcript available
770 transcript segments indexed
There is none. Oh, sorry. I'm just going to slowly sink all night. Good for you. All right, you all ready? Yeah. Yeah, ready. We're ready. I'm trying to find the original sending in case something's up.
Here it is. All righty. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to this regular monthly meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review. Yes. Staff will introduce each item, followed by the applicant's presentation, which should not exceed 10 minutes.
The chair will then ask for questions from the public, followed by questions from the BAR. After questions are closed, the chair will ask for comments from the public. For each application, members of the public are each allowed three minutes to ask questions and three minutes to offer comments.
Speakers shall identify themselves, and comments should be limited to the BAR's purview, that is, regarding only the exterior aspects of a project. Following the BAR's discussion, prior to taking action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond.
All righty. First item on the agenda, matters from the public not under items C through E on the agenda. Which means if you have comments on the consent agenda, which is the meeting minutes from April 21st or May 19th, or a COA application for 116 West Jefferson Street, that would be included, though I think we may pull that from the consent agenda.
Do we have any matters from the public not on the agenda? Nobody in the room. Kate, anybody online? Hang on one second. Sorry. I had to mute my computer. Ah, okay. No, you're good. All righty. I believe, Mr.
Schwartz, did you want to pull 116 West Jefferson Street from the consent agenda? I do, and not to worry the applicant, just want to ask a quick question. Okay. So we'll pull that out. Therefore, I'll ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda with the meeting minutes from April and May of this year.
So moved. Second. And all in favor? Aye. All right. Consent agenda is approved. So first item on our new business or actually, I guess this would be old business or deferred- Deferred ... not necessarily deferred, but COA for 116 West Jefferson Street.
Staff, like to give us a brief overview? Yeah. I know you're really prepared for a full- So, this is one that... Well, quickly, this is a 1913 brick house in, yeah, we did determine north downtown. It's in that line where we sometimes say something's downtown, but in north downtown.
And to the rear of it is a 1980s separate structure that was built as an addition. This has come to you guys a couple times for various things. One being the restoration, or recreation of the front porch, which hopefully we'll begin to see happen.
Another portion of it was just rehabbing the 1980s house in the back. And the other piece was completing the... There's a connection between the old house and the 1980 addition, and there's a back porch there, but because of the use of this structure, the code official identified that they required egress stairs, which require alterations to the two balconies that are there.
So we've been trying to work through how to accommodate steps being built into the balconies without entirely losing the, I guess you would now say the illusion, at least, of balconies with railings, because the stairs take up most of the space.
And also, because of the structural nature of the egress stairs, the replacement of the post, the large corner post, and the one in the center, and as with many old houses, it's not plumb, level, or square.
So that's why you see the detail. There's a little bit of some offset trim where the column reaches the top at the cornice line there. And so we had a series of conversations and discussions with the applicant about how to accommodate these egress stairs.
And they've come up with a plan that meets, I think, the discussions that we've had. One of the things that is in the staff report is there are two options for screening, and staff's recommending the option number one.
And we had recommended on consent agenda, given the conversations that we've had over the last several years, and so that's where we are. And Mr. Schwartz had a question about the trim condition. So I'm going to turn it over to him and his...
Are they online? They are. Ah. Yeah. I guess just to follow protocol, since we did pull it, I should ask for questions from the public first, I think. However you want to. I doubt there's anybody. Okay, anybody?
Sorry. Just say no. No, we're good. Okay. Sorry. All right. Now, Mr. Schwartz, please go ahead. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Might help to look at sheet eight, which is page 57 of our packet. I just want to confirm, so that corner post that sticks out funny at the roof.
Yes. It'll stick out funny on the west and the south side, like symmetrically around that corner, correct? Yes, that'd be odd now, I'm seeing. Yes. Symmetrical, yes. Okay. But then when it meets the floor below, does it start aligning again- Yes ...
like how the drawing shows? Yes, it has to. Okay. It's the width of the stair- Mm-hmm ... the egress is like- Okay ... it's right there. So the trim and everything on the new construction's all going to look like a- It'll all- ...
it'll look normal. Yes. Okay. That was my question, and then when we get to comments, I have a minor comment on the two options. So I guess a follow-up question on the column. On the detail, sorry, I'm getting to the sheet.
I guess it's sheet 14. It's page 63 on the PDF. So the beam on top of the column is not centered on the column. Up at the top. That's correct. Okay. It's the only way we can get the required egress width for the stairs.
So is that an existing beam? Yes. Ah. Yeah. Yeah, and I don't wanna mess... The cornice work is so pretty, we don't- Yeah. Okay ... we don't wanna mess with that. So it used to line up when it was a smaller column- Right ...
but they had to switch to a 6 by 6 to hold up the... Because of the egress component. Yeah. Yes, and the width of the stairs, that's as close as- Yeah ... it was as close as we could possibly squeeze it to get it to work.
Gotcha. Okay. Well, I guess you're saving the original entablature, so we'll take that. All right. Any other questions? All right. Comments from the public? No one online. All right. Okay. Comments from the VAR?
My quick comment is just that I personally would be okay with both options, but I think the unfinished wood is atypical for this location, so I just want to see it painted. Yes. That, yeah. That's fair.
Okay. Yeah. And I don't know if you guys agree or disagree, but that was my thought. So yeah, do I hear a preference for the- May I comment on option two? On option two ... option two shows an unfinished cedar, and it's just that you- This is option two.
Yeah. I just want to see that painted, if that's the one you guys want to go with. Yeah. Yeah, I didn't put all the little mock-ups in that I sort of worked on afterwards. I agree. I think it should be painted.
It should be white. It should just look... Mm-hmm. Yeah. And I guess the applicant, you indicated you all preferred option two. Is there any particular- Yeah ... reason why or? I think it's just we're a little worried it might feel like a birdcage inside that, underneath that porch, and there's a little unit- ...
that you access right up under there. That's the- Like a mechanical unit? No, like a living, it's a room. It's a little suite. It's got a kitchen and stuff down there. Okay. So is this, sorry, just to be clear, out from under the steps is an exterior space just outside of that?
It's like a patio out, yes. Underneath the porch. Okay, so this would be like a privacy screen. Essentially, yes. Okay. Yes. Just sharing, I was thinking about the porch behind where your building is, and has the heavy lattice on it.
Um- It's actually enclosed. Yeah, because sort of looking at, again- It kind of looks this- The big picture here- Yeah ... with the bottom for that privacy purpose. We don't have lattice on ours. Oh, okay.
Yeah. It's solid. Hmm. But there are a lot of conditions like this in downtown where you've got porches and space underneath. I didn't realize it was an entrance either, but- Yeah ... I actually prefer the lattice.
I can't even- That's good ... give you a good design guideline reason. I'll just be transparent about that. It is more tradition. It is like- Yeah. And that's why I had it. It- And we don't mind it. There's not a strong- And if it is used space, I would believe someone would enjoy the sunlight, too, and the openness.
And the air. Yeah, air. Not oxygen. While we still have it- It's a good thing ... on this planet. There you go. That's right. Thank you. Good thing for now. That's right. Jerry. Well, I mean, we can hear-- I agree with Mr.
Schwartz. If they go with the solid panel, it should be painted. Mm-hmm. Personally, I have a little preference for the lattice. Even a diagonal lattice might work. But do we want to take a straw vote or do we- Mm.
I don't know if both are probably within our guidelines. I have a preference, but I don't think that the solid violates our guidelines. Right. So I don't think it's for us to choose. I have a preference, too, but I agree the solid doesn't, but the lattice looks better.
Yeah. Right. Our recommendation went, there's also... Not Hedge Street. Yeah. Hedge. Just south of the hospice. Yes. Several of those- They've got a lattice on the back ... right. Several of those- Yeah ...
Hedge Street ones, yeah. But again, seeing it in a large picture there, I would recommend... I wouldn't have an opinion as far as a staff opinion of having lattice above. I think that's where I really felt sort of strongest, that lattice on the upper panels, if privacy enclosure made sense at the bottom.
But that was where we were looking at, and I said, kind of what was on the building at your space and that place on Hedge Street, seeing the two examples of- Mm-hmm ... we could fall back on. Mm-hmm. Well, may I ask the applicant, because you presented options to us, are you asking us to choose, and for staff, do we need to choose?
No. Could we say either as long as the panels are painted? Mm. Yeah, we'd be very happy with that. The other thing I had thought about is with the solid is maybe there's in the porch and tablature, sometimes they do the little cutouts and solid pieces and like- Cool ...
a floral kind of thing. Yeah. Hmm. Something like that. So- Some woodwork, sort of. I just didn't have time to put together, like the mock-ups for that. So if we would... I agree, it doesn't wanna be unstained or, and I think it should be painted.
I think you're right. I think it should be painted. So, we're happy for... Honestly, we're happy for either. Either will look, I think will look good. If you give us a little bit of leeway, I would like to try doing something with this, got the cutouts and get a little bit more in-depth on it.
Mm-hmm. But we're honestly fine with- Would staff need to approve that or is the- Um ... Peter approved the motion? I'm thinking of on 1st Street North, there's a gate that has a really interesting, almost like a routed out grapevine and leaves.
I'm fine with that. Again, as long as it's not a dragon or a- ... bright fluorescent green. I think that either dragon would meet the guidelines. We'll keep it tame and we'll paint it white. Oh. I also don't mind...
I actually would love you guys' input on it and when we get to that point, so I'm happy for- As long as it's not an aardvark or something. Yeah. Okay. That's fair. Yeah. More woodworking. Well, a serious way to look at it would be some of the railings on the cafe spaces on the mall.
For instance, the last one I worked with the folks at the Paramount and encouraged them to get creative. So something of that nature, I think that'd be great if there were a way to be expressive about it.
So it'd be nice if you asked, that way I could say- Yeah ... "Oh my God, that's not a dragon. Do it." No. I would be very happy to ask. Okay. Run it by you guys. Yep. I wanted to just make a comment, I think.
I just want to say how great it is to see these renderings from... The evolution since the last time we looked at this project is really phenomenal. Mm-hmm. So thanks for doing that. Oh, yeah. Um- You're welcome.
Very welcome. In terms of my opinion, um- I like the solid. I think it brings the new building's kind of materiality a little bit. It kind of mixes the- Yeah ... in the center there, which I think is nice, and I would like to see the cutouts or something.
I think that'd be fun. As I was thinking about this, I was like, "You know what? I think that's..." Because I've seen it. You can see it on, there's porches in downtown that have it, and that's where I was kind of leaning, and I just- Mm ...
I didn't get a chance to, in this packet, put all that stuff in there. So yeah. But I'm happy to run it by you. Either option is fine with us at this point. The owner wants to, thank God he's got financing.
It sounds to me like we're okay with either option, as long as if you choose option two, it should be painted. Yeah. And then if you want to- The screen ... articulate option two, maybe just submit the final to staff for the record.
Yeah. One thing that staff brought up was the- The mechanical units ... mechanical units along the side yard, which I was kind of trying to figure out exactly. I have that in the- Are they on a street side?
It's between two houses. Mm-hmm. And we are putting the front porch in right now. Right. And we transplanted all of the bushes in the front around and screened the- Oh, okay ... HVAC unit with it. Mm.
And we got it after the crazy drought, and they've taken really well. So it's really already quite well screened now with the existing bushes. Yeah. That's what I just said, yeah. And I don't think we can necessarily- Oh, did you?
Yeah ... require. It came out pretty good, I think. Right? Yeah. Yeah. I don't think we can require as a condition of this COA, though it does, I guess, on the sheet five, you've got some screening. I've got, yeah.
And that's basically what you said you did. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So it's already done. It says submitted. So. And they're nice big mature bushes, so they're already, they actually transplanted quite well.
I was very- Mm-hmm ... pleased with that, so yeah. Yeah, I have take photographs, too, we can add to the record if necessary. I'm ready with a motion. Go ahead. Mr. Chair. Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC District design guidelines, I move to find the proposed treatment for the rear exit stairs at 116 West Jefferson Street satisfies the BAR's criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the district, and that the BAR approves the application, as submitted, with the conditions that the applicant may opt for the option one or option two as presented in the materials and, with the caveat that option two would need to have the panels painted, and the applicant preserves the option to do carpentry cutouts in those solid wood panels, and that we will also, as a condition of approval, require that the original rear porch columns be retained on site for potential reuse and reinstatement as part of the future restoration of the property.
I'll second that. All right. Sorry. There was a question. There was a lot in there, but I think you got it all. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Not well-worded, but- I'm okay ... I might have gotten it. You got it.
Somebody can work on the wording. It was clear. That was good. Yeah. All right. We'll take a vote. Mr. Schwartz? Yes. Mr. Bailey? Yes. Mr. Burrell? Aye. Ms. Lewis? Aye. Mr. Timmerman? Yes. Ms. Tabany?
Yes. Mr. Rosenthal? Yes. Ms. Trumpeter? Yes. And I'll vote yes. Thank you very much for your diligence and bringing this back to us. Thank you. Thank you, guys. All right. We have no new items this evening.
We've got two pre-application conferences. The first one is 915 East High Street. Construction of a multi-story mixed-use building. Yeah. So this is a vacant parcel. Well, not vacant. It's a parking lot currently on the west side of the Martha Jefferson Hospital campus, I've been calling it.
And I know it hasn't been Martha Jefferson Hospital for some time, but my son was born- It's in the Martha Jeff district ... Yeah. It will forever be- Yeah ... where Will came from. But- ... the parcel at this corner, Lexington on the west, High Street on the south, and Locust is a four and a half acre parcel.
But this project involves only the 2.3 acre parcel or portion of that on the west side, sort of opposite Maplewood Cemetery. And this is within the Martha Jeff Conservation District, which, as you know, has a lower level of bar for review than for an ADC district.
However, there are still some criteria in there specific to new large scale buildings. So, you have some leeway on the design that even though this isn't a house or an addition that you typically see in the Martha Jeff neighborhood, the guidelines do offer you some direction to follow.
This came to you back in 2023, December 2023 as a pre-app discussion and, uh When Dan brought this back to us, I had some questions which I shared in the staff report. But I could have brought it forward as a formal application, and we had a discussion, and you could have taken action or not, but I thought it was just more fair to the applicant to, we haven't seen this now in a year and a half, let's take another look at it, get more familiar with it.
And the part that you all had raised, or the Board of Architects Review at that time had raised, fairly consistently, was concern about the overall length of this structure as it faces Lexington Avenue.
The materiality, lot of support for that. The design itself, some of the exterior landscaping features, there weren't really a lot of questions or I would say concerns about that, but it was really that length of the building and breaking it up somehow.
And so I want to have, really as an objective tonight, certainly look at this thing and talk about it almost as if you're having a pre-app again, and some of the folks that hadn't seen it will get reintroduced to it.
But, I really want the goal that Dan walks away knowing what direction he should head with the design, what information is necessary for them to submit a complete application. Because this is a pretty large project, and we have an opportunity tonight to...
Well, I want to get into the weeds if we can and- Mm-hmm ... and not sort of belabor the conversation. Let's take the time to discuss what's acceptable, what's not, what, if anything, needs to be changed or not, and what type of information.
There's a lot of imagery in the application, but I know often you all want to see some details and some typical sections, so there might be some specific things that you want to ask for. Like I said, something of this scale, I don't want to just say give me typical wall sections.
There might be some things that you all want to zero in on and look at. I talked with Mr. Schwartz yesterday about this, and just to cover a few bases in case you all have questions about it. This is being reviewed under the old code.
But the only way that really affects this process is that in the new ordinance that was adopted, it limits the length of building. But being under the old code, there isn't anything in the ordinance that says a building can't be this long.
You all can make a call on that, but the code itself doesn't. The other thing that's a bit unusual about this is that there's that large space in the front yard, I'm calling it, and it's a function of the site plan, a solution, a resolution that was resolved with the planners.
And, so I can't really get into the whys and why nots. But suffice it to say that, that setback was established. It's legitimate. It is part of this, has been reviewed and approved. So, I would hope, as I said, if you could just really work your way through the staff report as a bit of a checklist.
Mm-hmm. The other thing I know, I was asked about the Taylor Walk. Yeah. And, so just to touch on that quickly. So Fairfax Taylor, his house was actually over on 8th Street. Some of you know Anthony and Renata, where they live now on the west side, northwest side of Maplewood Cemetery.
So, Fairfax Taylor didn't live here, but the street that went through all the way to Locust, took on the name Taylor Street. And I'm not sure of the entire history of how it was vacated, but the last action that council took, I think in 19, was it '88 or '98?
Can't remember my notes- Could be ... but it was to vacate that last section of Taylor Street on the west end. And then part of what council requested was that there be a continuous pedestrian path through to Locust Path.
I don't know how that was memorialized. That seems to be some uncertainty of what exactly the result of that decision from council was. But I can say that currently, as best I can determine now, there is a path.
There's a walkway that was established, and then it does continue through between the two-level parking garage at the hospital, and I think it's the Anderson wing. So there is a way to get there if someone wished to walk through, but I'm not aware of, nor are the planners aware of, any legal provision that a path be- There is no easement.
Yeah. So- Just to- ... that's what I can tell you about Taylor Walk. Can I ask a question about that since you're on that topic? Yes. Thanks. Looking at, I guess it's sheet 79 in the PDF, where you've got the dog leg on the green arrow.
My green arrow? Yeah. Yeah. So, no, I think it's the next- It's the site plan I found, yeah, that I- Keep going. Keep going. Keep... There it is. There it is. There we go. So I just want to make sure I understand, and maybe even the aerial might be better.
Yep. A couple questions. Is all of that exterior or is any of that green arrow path where you actually enter a building and come back out or parking- Currently, yeah. There's a walkway between the two buildings at the lower end of the arrow.
Okay. I don't know of any plans to enclose it, but I would also say I saw nothing that memorialized a- A route ... a route. Well, the spirit is there. Yeah. So, but it exists now. This was a site plan that I found that it at least is labeled, but- And I guess my follow-up question is, the new building proposed- Mm-hmm ...
really would... I guess the end of the building would run parallel to the upper portion of that dog leg. That's where the parking lots are to the left of it as I look at it. Yes. That, I think is a drive, an entrance into it.
Mm-hmm. So where you see the little ears on the parking level- Mm-hmm ... the parking lot, those would be the end of the building. Right. So end up- So essentially that alley would stay put. That would stay put, but that's a sidewalk, that's a concrete sidewalk there.
That's the Taylor Walk. Okay. Yeah, you can see it in the plot. Can I interject something here? Yep. Mm-hmm. Sure, chime in. That sidewalk, that we're- The Taylor Walk ... calling the Taylor Walk sidewalk is actually not on our site.
Okay. That's kind of what I thought. So it's been replatted. That plat's already been recorded. Okay. Beautiful. There's a dog leg off the site, behind it, that comes out to Lexington, that that sidewalk is on.
Great. So. Yeah, that's all I wanted to clarify. We're not touching it. Is it almost like we don't have to worry about it because it'll stay put? No. Yeah. That's a great answer. That was great. Awesome.
Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Or sorry, are you done with your stuff? Yeah, sorry. It was really interesting. I asked everyone, "What is this?" And- Yeah ... it's surprising how, yes, something the council approved with- Yeah ...
certain conditions, but it doesn't seem to have been memorialized. Well, it seems like this particular project isn't going to negatively impact it. Mm-mm. And so I think we take it on if there's a next time.
Yeah. Like I said, my final comment is that where I fall on this one is where you all ended up in the last discussion, and that is that this is essentially a 520 some foot long facade. Mm-hmm. I don't think breaking it into two buildings is realistic, but there's the guidelines, say, for new large-scale buildings to look to other buildings nearby, and that's where I refer to what we have there with the Martha Jeff buildings.
They are long, but there are at least breaks between them, or there are courtyards pushed into them. So that to me is the number one thing that I'd like to resolve tonight. And then the second piece is just simply that question of what sort of details, what sort of additional information, and any other questions you might have.
But you all in the last conversation, and I think rightly so. The predominant material is brick. This is a brick building. They're an interpretation of porches. Porches are very important in the Martha Jeff District.
It's set back from the street. Mm-hmm. It checks a lot of boxes. Yep. Just not the one related to that length. So that's all I had, and Dan certainly here to answer your question. But do you... Anything I can add, detract?
No, that's good. I think- All right, thanks ... in terms of just pre-applications in general, just remind everybody there the intent is, like Jeff mentioned, to work out a lot of these details to help the official COA process be expeditious.
So, as long as we really slog through it tonight, I think is a good counsel. So with that, Dan, please give us your presentation, bud. Thanks. First of all, I want to thank Jeff for the intro. I also owe Jeff an apology.
He sent me a- Long summary ... very long, thorough email with lots of questions and things, and it hit me while I was on vacation, and then I completely whiffed on following up on it when I got back. So sorry, Jeff.
But- That's all right ... another piece that I think is important, obviously I presented this almost three years ago now. I can't believe it's been that long, but there hasn't been a lot of activity on our part as architects other than helping to push the site plan approval process forward.
So this building, from an architectural perspective, is very much in schematic design phase. A lot of these drawings are hand sketches or just illustrated sections and things. We have not fully designed the building at this point.
And so a lot of this, especially the length issue, has not been addressed in this presentation, but we are aware of it needing to be addressed. One item that has been addressed is related to fulfilling a zoning requirement, which is the creation of that lot along Lexington Avenue.
And in order to show that as a lot, we have to show that we can build a building on it. So this presentation includes an additional two-story building that's on the corner of Lexington East High on that newly created lot.
Whether or not that building is actually constructed, I don't know. But it is designed and works from a code perspective to satisfy zoning requirements for the project. We actually see that setback as a benefit to the building in that it allows us to create these front yards to activate the street from a pedestrian perspective.
And, we've really been able to push the building back to sort of be parallel or in line with the adjacent houses. And I think that's worked pretty well for us from a design perspective. The building length issue, I'll make one note, as Jeff conveniently pointed out the restriction in the new zoning on building length, but he did not point out the fact that the new zoning would allow us to build, I think maybe 12 stories here.
Right. So while we're pushing a limit in one direction, we're not in the other. So, the building length issue is a really critical one from a design perspective for an apartment building of this type, a deck wrap building.
The deck is oversized because it needs to serve the office use and the residential use. And obviously, we're motivated to keep the deck concealed from view, which is one of the drivers of the building length.
And then just standard apartment layouts then drive the depth projected from the garage towards the front of the building. And so, as you push and pull the building greater than, let's say, 5 or 10 feet in either direction, you start to basically eliminate units from the building, which then becomes a development pro forma issue, which I know may not necessarily be of consideration to you guys, but it certainly is to other stakeholders in the project.
From a design perspective, this is I think more or less all the same as what was presented. So, we have a big focus on activating the street-facing facades with individual unit access to the street, to the yards, defining yard areas for those ground floor units, and trying to really establish a sense of place for the residents and for the neighbors.
One benefit of this site is that we're largely across from the cemetery, and there are a few houses across Lexington Avenue. But, I think even many of those now are offices and not residences. So, we're very sensitive to impacting neighbors.
I grew up in this neighborhood. My mom still lives there. She would be here making comments against this if I didn't do that. So, that is something we're really trying to stay sensitive to. Actually, if you could go to that previous slide just to quickly explain this building on the adjoining site.
It's a two-story building, proposed commercial, attached to the main building with a party wall. It is one story at the Lexington on the East High end, and grade goes down fairly steeply actually at the beginning of Lexington off of East High.
And so, it becomes a two-story building as you move north on the site. So we've tried to really bury it into the landscape as much as possible. Let's see, Kate, I'm not sure. Are you in my presentation page?
Can you go to the-- There's a page with a overall site plan. It's a black and white page towards the beginning, maybe the fourth page. Yep. There we go. From a setback perspective, we're over 50 feet from the face of the nearest house to the face of the building, and we're 45 feet from our property line to the beginning of the building on that plan right side of the building.
We've included a large portion between the current access road, I guess Taylor Street, technically, even though I think it's fully private at this point- Yeah ... for screening. So again, just showing that we're trying to stay sensitive to the neighbors.
And the overall development is lower in height than the CFA buildings that are behind it. So, is it worth me talking through our design strategy now, or do you want to start digging into some other stuff?
I think one thing, we want to make sure we answer any questions you have. So if you have specific questions, definitely ask us. But Well, the previous comments from a design perspective in Jeff's notes were very clear to me.
I think what would be most useful for me would be to talk through some strategies and ideas around the length issue. Around the what, sorry? The building length issue. Okay. Yeah. So, our approach, there is push and pull in the façade.
We've tried to break it down with different color brick and building heights as it steps down the site to sort of break the read of the building up into multiple buildings. And there's opportunity to do more of that.
But the sort of tough piece to solve would be if the solution that would satisfy you is a much more significant shift in plane in the façade along that street. I mean, we can jump in. Yeah, please. Personally, I don't really have a huge problem with the overall length.
I think y'all have done a nice job of trying to break up at least, like you said, it's schematic design, so I'll say the different colors- Cool. Yeah ... of brick in different sections. I wonder if it makes sense to maybe respond to the topography and perhaps relating the different width sections to the topography changes.
I'm just sort of throwing ideas out here. Mm-hmm. Something else I thought of, in some of your precedent images of kind of typical residential front yards, of your site plan, we've kind of got essentially a long grass strip with sidewalks going to the doors with some trees planted in there.
And I wonder if you could almost do additional plantings and hardscape to make those feel almost like individual front yards. Mm-hmm. I think that might make it feel more residential and tie into the neighborhood, but I'd definitely defer to our landscape architect on that one, too.
So Jen, please chime in on site stuff. So yeah, for example, see where it steps down, and you've kind of got the red block, like maybe shifting that line one way or the other to- Mm-hmm ... have the materiality adjust with topography.
Maybe that makes sense. But, I think ultimately, right off the bat, it'd be good to hear if anybody has any major objections to just the overall length of, I think 525 feet. Is that what it was? That's just sort of- Twenty-six?
... weighing the... Yeah, I don't have a dimension, but that's- I think to some degree, that's as long as that site is now. Mm-hmm. It's a parking lot. It's a parking lot. Mm-hmm. So, you've got a 525-foot long parking lot there right now.
How important is it to have that be more than one building versus one building if it's broken, the plane shift, and materiality shifts, and things like that? I think it's interesting. I think Jeff's comparison between this and other buildings of that length is something to note.
Mm-hmm. The closest thing, nothing... Well, I'm sure there are longer buildings, but the closest ones that you listed out were a couple of parking garages at 400 feet. So, I think it's something that we want to consider, especially given the adjacency to the neighborhood and- Mm-hmm ...
as you've mentioned, your wish to be sensitive to the neighborhood. Mm-hmm. Yeah, to be clear, this is all sort of echoes of West Main that we've heard for years, and the length of some of the new buildings and even having the city attorney at the time saying, "Well, the BAR could've put a gap in that." So you all have that ability to...
And I would never say to separate buildings. I think because of programmatically what they're trying to do there and with the structured parking behind, I get that. It was simply the idea of, is there at least the illusion of a break, of a gap.
And then, I just wanted to emphasize that I'm not representing my view. I'm expressing as my view, but it's representing what the BAR discussed- Mm-hmm ... at the last meeting. So you all are more... I'm more than happy if you say, "Thanks, Jeff, but landscaping can solve it." And I agree with Dan entirely.
I mean, the height of this, this is not a tall building, and it is following the grade. So there's benefits there. So in your hands, I guess, if you think strongly enough about the length or not, it doesn't hurt me.
I think the other thing we should keep in mind is, their setback is pretty deep. I think that helps a lot getting it off the street. I also think the fact there's a cemetery right across the street- Mm ...
pretty much locks in there's not going to be another building over there- Mm ... to create any sort of canyon effect at this particular site. Mm-hmm. Yeah. And that's... Oh, go ahead. No, you go. I'm sorry.
Oh, okay. I think Jeff's concern, or the previous BAR's concern about the length is a good one, and I guess I'm going to quote you here. On page 22 of your packet, "Sensitivity to urban context and scale, engaging with the scale of the street with change in texture, rhythm, ground floor, breaking down building elevation with change in material and color." So I feel like that statement is a really good step in the direction of the solution to the problem, but I'm seeing your volumes as, if you go to the long elevation, I think taking some of the precedent images you've provided, which are all really evocative images, they seem to be a smaller scale, narrower blocks of color, if you will.
Mm-hmm. And I think the brownstone examples that you show too- Mm-hmm ... are a similar version of that with a little bit more depth and play. Mm-hmm. So I think it's a really interesting yard that you're designing.
Mm-hmm. And I wonder if there are any other spots in the city of an apartment building that has a similar kind of yard condition. It obviously feels very single family home sort of. Mm-hmm. And I'm thinking about the brownstone example again, where parking spots have been taken over by living spaces.
Right. So I think that's really interesting, and I think it could... James' comment about the landscaping, and allowing it to have difference in personality throughout that landscape would be really fun.
But yeah, I think my big takeaway is look at your examples that you're showing, the precedent images, and bring more of that. Break down your volume a little bit more. I think you could achieve a kind of interesting urban effect with what you've got, maybe without the break.
But- Yeah. Okay ... yeah. Okay. Great. Yeah, I would second that. I'm just following your footsteps. On the page that we're looking at, the contemporary precedent image that kept drawing my eye was the one on the left, in the way that it does provide you a contextualization of the adjacent neighborhood.
But it doesn't mean you can't do a building that long. It's not a matter of the size of the building. It's a great spot for infill. Yeah. We're all for that. But that in comparison to the façade you're showing now, it feels more like bigger blocks that are the differentiation is just, there's a sort of an additive feel to it.
Mm-hmm. In this case, there's more of a delineation. And sometimes it's just a subtle reveal, I think, that you can put in, and maybe a reveal that's aligned with the step-down building- Mm-hmm ... right?
So that the... And some of the parts of your façade, you're showing the blocks sort of bridging those step downs. It seems like that seems like a place where you want to make those divisions- Right ...
and create those- Yeah. Mm-hmm ... breaking down scales. And then I'd also just point to the precedent, on 107. I don't know. That's a little bit more of a... Oh, the next page we were just looking at.
Sorry. There we go. There is a little bit more of a, I don't know if that's possible, but there's a little bit more of an enhanced separation- Right ... happening at the entries. But in the great scheme of things, the setback, and as we mentioned in the previous meeting, your main objective to provide a landscape that engages, that sort of parallels the street as it is, but also engages each of the residents is pretty exciting.
I'm looking forward to seeing how that develops. Okay. So looking at the precedents that you've given us, I very much appreciate the materiality that you're showing and the contemporary use of brick. But I think, it has been said, is that some of these images are much smaller buildings.
The image that David had mentioned on page 109 with the little three-story townhouses. Right. That looks fantastic, but if 525 feet of that is going to be insane. You won't realize that it's... All those little breaks are just going to make a big, long building.
So I do think the color blocks that you show on your elevation, the modules there, I actually think that makes a little more sense for how the spacing for breaking down the building, because if you make it too small, it just becomes a repetitive thing.
Mm-hmm. Then it emphasizes the length. It's like the Standard on West Main Street has all those small modules that we thought were a fantastic idea 15 years ago, and it just makes the building that much longer because it's like a train car of little repeated pieces.
But I think we need to see this in 3D from the sidewalk. Okay. Whoever had mentioned the landscaping, you show site walls in your elevation that aren't showing up on the plan, so I don't know how those interact with the sidewalk, and maybe that does make a difference.
But it would be really interesting to see how long does this building feel from the sidewalk in 3D. Mm-hmm. And I think the whole project I need to see 3D views of, because I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the elevations.
Mm-hmm. I don't think the one foot recess is doing it, and although I love the Your concept for detailing these buildings with, again, the modern use of brick and the squares and the gridded openings.
Because it's so pervasive, again, I think it's just going to make the building that much bigger feeling. Mm-hmm. It becomes a texture versus a detail- Mm-hmm ... if that makes any sense. Mm-hmm. So yeah.
I think we need to see it in 3D before... I need to see it in 3D before I can give any real feedback. But I do caution us on the, when we say break up the massing, I'd caution us on too much fine breaking up of massing doesn't seem to- Mm ...
work in a building this big. Yeah, I think too much variation- ... tends to get busy. That was something that we talked about. But, on the other hand, I think when you look at, and when you discuss precedents, the idea is not to copy what's there, but to take hints from obviously what- Mm-hmm ...
how it's successful and how do you apply that to this building. It's a different size and it's a different volume, so it's a whole different ball game. But, that's the fun of it. Yep. I agree with what a lot of people are saying.
Can we go to the full elevation, the long elevation? I get the feeling that it's relying a little bit too much on color to try to- Mm ... create differentiation. Mm-hmm. Because when I look at this in black and white- Mm ...
it's pretty repetitive and pretty uniform. And I think what- Mm-hmm ... Carl was saying is we don't really get a good appreciation of the ins and outs when we see these elevations. But I would rely less on color actually, and more on form and shadow and differentiation in that way.
Mm-hmm. Yeah, an idea popped in my mind while we've been talking of changing the grid strategy and penetration strategy per block as a way to- Mm-hmm. Yeah ... break it down. That would make them look like individual buildings.
Right. Mm-hmm. A little more. I don't know. And the color also doesn't seem to correspond quite with the massing. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Mm-hmm. And it seems more random on a monumental scale. Mm-hmm. Less... Like for instance, that section, I guess second from the left where, it's a pretty big step down of a full story, but it's all the same color.
That might make sense to change it up. Right. So if you- Change up some of the detailing ... go back to the full elevation, so that bottom one. So when we were looking at this as far as how to break it down, my partner and I were actually debating if you follow the breaks with the steps in the roof.
But what you end up with is that center section where the gray is now, you add two more modules to it- Mm ... and then it becomes- Mm-hmm ... even longer feeling. Mm-hmm. So another alternative would be to break that down further in the middle and target- Mm-hmm ...
a module that's maybe two bays wide instead of three or four. Well, again, some of your precedent images, did a really nice job of variations of shadow and light and bigger openings and smaller openings, and I think again, that's what I would try to use rather than just color.
Maybe this is just for my own education, but a lot of some of these precedent images and the design, maybe some of the architects can help me out here. Whatever happened to cornices? Modernity. They're just gone.
Whatever happened to a nice taller building that is just a beautiful skin? Yeah. Why does everything have to be broken down to- Yeah. ... this? Mm-hmm. I can answer that. Yeah. I like classical architecture, so I'd go with that.
Did Corbusier kill the cornices? Yeah. Somebody. Yeah. So we might explore putting some heavier details in there, give it some deep shadows. Yeah. I have a feeling this ship has sailed a long time ago, but that weird 30-foot wide lot you have- Yes.
I thought I remember you guys were doing that to avoid the new zoning code. Why do you have that in there? Because I think it's- It's not to avoid the new zoning code. It's the old zoning code, the adjacencies and transitions include across the street.
Okay. So if we kept that on the site where we're trying to put this building, I think we could only build two stories across the whole site. Because of- Because it's adjacent to a R1 zoning across the street.
Well, now it's adjacent to an NX10 across the street. Well, the problem with- And here's the problem with the new zoning, and I think you- Yeah ... at least have sat in on meetings where I have tried to get this changed 1,000 times, is that the new zoning length restrictions say that you can connect buildings a longer length, but they can't share any systems.
Yeah. So if we were to break that down into, it would be three buildings down the length of Lexington, we would then need six egress stairs and three more elevators and completely inefficient construction.
Well, yeah. They let you put in a courtyard, like a big 30-foot deep recess to do that. Right. And so that recess- Okay ... on this building, because of the size of the garage that we need- Wow ... and the thicknesses, that recess would push all the way to the garage or the corridor.
Yeah. I don't want- So that building is set- Yeah. I don't mean to drag us into that because I- No, that's fine ... I'm really tempted to, but I don't mean to. What I was hoping to get at is- It's great that this building's set back so far once you get near those houses, but it would've been nice if...
The treatment of the corner there sucks. And one way you could've helped adjust the massing and maybe break it down in a more interesting way is to pull it towards the street once you get towards the corner of Lexington and East High.
Mm-hmm. But I think, I'm guessing that's- Well, if you're able to- ... that's changed now because- ... change the zoning code and overrule that- Yeah ... I'd be happy to do that. I would love to- Um ...
address the street a little bit differently than we are now, but... Yeah. Well, okay. Yeah. Yeah. For clarification, the two-story building that's shown, is that a placeholder, hypothetical, or... I mean, it's fair to say if it's just to show- W- ...
something can go there, or? I don't know. Okay. And I don't know that anyone knows. We have not been given a firm answer on that. Okay. So, the base purpose of it is to show that there is a useful and constructable building that can be built on that site.
Okay. If it ends up being required to be built, I don't know. I think Carl's point is a really good one, because I think right now we're seeing the Lexington Avenue as the main facade, but really, it should be High Street, right?
That's right. And I don't even know what that looks like. Yeah. It's in- It's in the elevations ... very- Is it- ... confusing to understand that elevation It is hard to understand. It's- Well, I think that gets to your comment- Yeah ...
sort of seeing in 3D or a perspective view. Yeah, it's- Because it's- It's hard to understand because that elevation is looking at the building at an angle when- Right. And it also is... Well, I don't want to get...
Hold on. Jeff, do you recommend... In your staff report, you have the Martha Jeff architectural character defining features, but then you also kind of have right above that, your staff comments. Is that what you want us to kind of go through checking?
Questions. Mm-hmm. Or I just want to kind of keep us moving along and getting feedback. I got a whole page of feedback if we want to get to that. I have feedback on the what. Okay. Well, I think it makes sense to try and- Read some comments on- Do you want to talk about landscape?
Well, I do. What I'm trying to do is maybe just go down the list, and then comment on each thing in- But Jeff doesn't seem to talk about landscape much in his comments ... fashion. Yeah, I think what I would say is somewhat, like I said in the beginning, is that the setback spacing, we're not looking at- Yeah ...
the houses to the north. I think the fact that it is set back from the street respects that, has the porches, it using brick. So we've sort of checked the box there relative to a connection with the rest of the district.
And then the second piece of the... Then you have the height massing. I think we've, even earlier, had established that the height was fine. In fact, there was some, at the last discussion, about even encouraging to go taller at one end or the other.
So when I was putting the staff together, it was sort of that, how do I talk about the historic district as a whole, of which the Martha Jefferson campus is part. But I'm really looking at those buildings within that complex.
And even though they're not... I think only the Patterson Wing and the old hospital are contributing, and I think even the hospital's an IPP. But those buildings still there, and sort of looking at them as the reference point.
So that's where the staff report sort of splits up a little bit between what's going on in the rest of the residential part of the neighborhood and what's going on at the hospital. And kind of going through, sort of the height, it's within the guidelines.
Mm. The building form, flat roofs are okay. The openings and orientation of windows, I've never quite understood that guideline anyway. Building materials, textures, using brick. Paint, there's no paint involved, no site issues involved.
No garages to be worried about. They're incorporating front porches, which are typical throughout the district. So as far as working my way down through the guidelines, the only one we were sort of stuck on was that length.
And then we got to, as far as the rest of the information that I'd shared with Dan, was where I had some questions for him about clarification of something or, "Hey, do we need a detail to explain it?" You all may say, "Eh, we don't need a detail," or, "I'd prefer a detail of that." So- Okay ...
maybe that's the better checklist that I'd like your thoughts on. Okay. So I mean, I think we've talked a good bit about the overall length of the building. Mm-hmm. And we've heard some strategies for breaking up the massing, and even a suggestion to possibly just actually unify the massing as one long, nice building.
Just an option. I think everybody's okay with the height at five stories. Including all the way at the north side? I mean, I am, but I think that was a question from Jeff To face, which way? Towards Taylor Walk.
I think there's some type of grade- Jeff's staff report suggested stepping down. There was some- The grade steps down, so does the building not step down? The building steps down, too. Yeah. But did I misread one of Jeff's...
No, no. He made that comment. Yeah, there was a comment, and it wasn't a heavy comment- Mm ... from the last BAR meeting, but it was at that- Yeah ... right where the cursor is there, at that corner. And then on the other side.
And where it shows the heights relative to the residential building starting on Lexington. Mm. So it was that- There's a section showing that- Yeah. Sorry ... earlier in the presentation. Yeah. That one.
One, no, the long section. Oh, you went by it. Oh, you're flicking. Okay. It's not me. I thought Kate was. You're flicking. Kate's doing it. I'm just looking. Uh. Which page are you on? What's the... Page 20?
19? Sorry. So that was- There. Go back ... reflecting something that had been said- There we go. That upper elevation- Yeah ... the left side of it. This corner, was there a... That attic. Mm. And did something need to be pushed and shoved there to push back that height?
The guidelines don't necessarily require it, but it, I'm just, again, reflecting something that was said in the meeting a year and a half ago. I think it's far enough away that it's not necessary, but that's me.
Feel all right about it. Yep. Are you maxing out the zoning envelope? Yeah. You are. So you can't go higher? No. That would be bad news. If they redid their site plan, they could go to- And if they switched to the new code.
Right. Right. Yeah. And then there's a whole another thing we couldn't do. We talked about materiality. Right. Like Jeff said, supported brick. I think the front porch idea, again, we talked a lot about the residential feel of the front yards- ...
and the front porch. And Jen, we are going to come back to site touring. That's something I'd want to see details on. Right now, it just looks like there's a sidewalk going to a door. So making it more of a porch to respond to one of the district's character defining features.
And I don't think that necessarily means having to have a roof, but like a gathering space type feel. Which I think, in my mind, it's encouraging people to activate the front yards and have that dialogue with the street, instead of just walking in the door and shutting the door.
Yeah. Let's see. Garages, yes. Sorry. Okay. So we can go to site, if we want to do that first. You can go ahead. Sure. So, just one question I had is about the history of this site. We have a 1920s Sanborn map, but I'm curious if you know anything or if you've done any research on the history of this parcel, given that it's across from Maplewood Cemetery, Tarlton Oak is to the side.
I'd just be curious if there's any... Knowing that you're going to be going down, right? You're going to be digging. So I'd be curious if you were able to do a little more research on the history of these parcels.
I've not researched beyond what Jeff has sent me. Mm-hmm. But... I just, given its context with the cemetery there- I, w- ... I feel like that would be worth a little bit of a dig to look. Not literally.
But- Yeah. The site was pretty deeply excavated for the construction of the current parking lot, and we're not going below that grade. Obviously we'll do foundation work below that grade, but there was quite a bit of utility work that happened on this site prior to this project.
Yeah, the Sanborn starts 1920 and- Right ... but prior to that, we don't have a lot. I do know a lot about Maplewood, and it never overlapped. It was pretty much contained to that spot, and there's no discussion in the early 1800s when they're talking about they need a cemetery.
That's one of the interesting things I will say about Maplewood, is there are graves in there that predate the cemetery because they- Yeah ... moved people from other locations to the site. But the boundary of the cemetery, what you see there historically, had not been anything larger.
Okay. I just think it warrants a little bit- Yeah. Yeah ... of study. And then just looking at the location there, again, given the cemetery, I think. I drive down that street often, and it's really got a nice character to it, even though there's a parking lot along there, and I think that has to do with a lot of diversity of canopy and the cemetery.
But also, even along the street there, there's a nice amount of land given to a variable hedge that's along there. Right along the parking lot, it really creates a nice break from the monotony of the asphalt.
So I think it does look like you're showing a diversity of canopy sizes, and you're Your little rendering for that, but I would encourage you to look at shrubs, trees, ground cover, something that maintains a diverse canopy from two feet up along there that's consistent with what you see across the street, but also with the housing that's further Lexington.
Just going down Lexington and looking at the houses along there and the kind of diversity. So, I think that would create a little more character to that long facade, just to have big trees, real trees.
Mm-hmm. You have space to do an oak or to do a hickory or to do something, and then do some smaller street trees. You wrote street trees or canopy trees or something in there. Ornamental street tree, but I would do dogwoods, redbuds up to larger canopy trees, and then also look at shrubs.
I don't really see a precedent for the wildflowers there. I think- Okay ... it's pretty, but that's going to be a- Yeah ... sometimes that is just code for a messy meadow that no one's going to take care of.
So- Yeah ... I would just look more at contextually some of the front yards- Mm-hmm ... there to come up with a palette that's got some interest. And then you talk about a quarry block retaining wall as a bench.
I guess I was just curious where you came up with that detail for that facade along the street. I guess I would look more to the- Yeah. Right. I mean- ... walls that are fronting. In your context, you show those cute little walls- Yeah ...
those little columns, brick, or CMU with a- Right. It was our more modern interpretation of that. Yeah. I think- Yeah ... I would just look at using, again, materials from that- Yeah ... across the street.
It could be nice to mimic the scale of that wall and those columns that are in the cemetery. And then there is that marker for the Taylor Street, and I don't know if that's also not on your site. It's not.
Okay. It's on the north side. Okay. Just- It's not. I just would like to make sure that that's not removed in the process, and if it's not on your site, that's a non-issue, but I just wanted to bring that up.
I think that was most of what I wanted to add. Can we talk about the High Street site or landscape, or hardscape, really more hardscape? I guess, it's the yellow concrete sidewalk along Lexington, and then you're proposing brick along here.
Does it then tie into a further brick sidewalk going up- Yeah. The- ... down High Street or it's- Well, no. This is sort of our interpretation of a site civil plan. So, this is not necessarily the- Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm ... final intention here. Okay. So, we'll develop that further before we are back in front of you. Do you have to capture stormwater here? Are you going to have a cistern or? We have to capture stormwater.
There's a pretty substantial underground retention system that exists on the site. Okay. It's a- That currently exists or- Currently exists, yeah. Hmm. It has a specific name that I'm blanking on right now, but it has a whole landscape integrated into it.
There's- Oh, okay ... trees planted above it. Yeah. I know what you're talking about. Yeah. So, you'll be using something like that. Mm-hmm. What about the... So, I did peek at your site plan, which is- Sure ...
a little bit different from what you guys are showing. Is there any plan for the power lines? I'd have to refer to the site plan to answer that question. Okay. I think it shows them staying, but it shows large trees on East High, which I think are vital to this project being- Yeah ...
successful. But it shows them underneath the power lines. Right. And those are some big power lines on East High Street. That portion, those power lines might be going underground, and there's a utility project happening there now, and there was an easement that was provided- Mm-hmm ...
as part of this redevelopment for that. I can look into that. Okay. I think that would be something important to consider. Yeah. Similarly, on Lexington, there's power lines. I don't know if they're just communications or if they're actual power, but I think they might get in the way of your trees and- Well, admittedly, there's a- Those guys are- ...
misrepresentation of that streetscape in our plan, which is that- Mm-hmm ... there will be a planted strip after the street- Okay ... and then the sidewalk. But I think the power lines are currently- On the- Well, one of them's in the sidewalk.
Right. Is the sidewalk going to stay where it is, or are you guys replacing it? Sidewalk will move off the street. Right now, the sidewalk on that stretch is right on the street, I believe. No, there's a grass strip.
Is there a grass strip? Yeah. Sorry. And I think it's on- The sidewalk will then more or less stay where it is. Okay. Yeah. Well, I guess something else, just consider those power lines that you guys can put the trees there.
Yeah. And at least the one that's in the sidewalk, it'd be fantastic if you could get it out of the sidewalk, because it's a pretty narrow sidewalk and if you're putting this many units up using that space- Yeah Yeah.
It'd be nice if it was actually usable. We've been a little bit of building architect playing landscape- Mm-hmm ... architect on this so far. That will change. Okay. There'll be a landscape architect taking over that role.
In other site stuff, we would want to see any sort of exterior lighting. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Including on the roof. You guys have a big rooftop amenity, and there are some buildings around town that have rooftop amenities, and they put big pole-mounted lights up there.
Oh, right. And because you're so close to the neighborhood, I think you'd want to avoid that. Yeah. Our rooftop amenity is actually something at least one story below- Okay ... the top of the building.
Even on the north side? Yeah. Okay. Well, I guess if you were looking from a long way away from the north side, and there weren't any trees or houses, you might be able to catch a view of it. Just consider- I understand the lighting- Yeah ...
issue. Yep. Because the residents across the street may- Yeah ... not be able to sleep at night. Yeah. Well, it's- I'm kidding ... substantially above the height of their houses. So I don't forget, so I'm putting the burden on you all.
So right now, the new ordinance addresses color temperature and things like that. Because this is the old code, we would want to make sure to remember to have our boiler plate 3,000K condition, things like that.
I know I'm backtracking, but I have a question for Jeff. Is this being reviewed under entrance corridor? No, because we do one or the other. And I honest to God cannot remember how we coin-tossed it to this.
The strictest guidelines apply, right? Strictest guidelines apply, and there could be- Come as you, come as you ... I, there's a, because we've had discussions about which is stricter, but I cannot remember why.
But I think I will tell you all is that in other similar situations, I've encouraged applicants for a large-scale project that it's easier to work with the Board of Architectural Review and to have a conversation about the design, that the Planning Commission and the Entrance Corridor Review Board isn't built for this sort of a discussion.
Except for Carl. They all hate me. So, I- I get the details. So, I know we've given you a long wish list, Mr. Bracy, but definitely elevations on High Street. I feel like when we adopted the entrance corridor guidelines, and I'll date myself because that was two development codes ago, we were really hoping to get High Street activated, and it finally has been.
Mm-hmm. Preston has lagged, but High Street has really taken off- Mm-hmm ... in the last two decades. And I just want to know what this rhythm of what looks to be open space and then jetting corners looks like on an important corridor.
Yeah. That facade is full- Next to it, a historic asset too. Yeah. You know. So I don't want to... We are spending a lot of time looking at the Lexington Avenue facade, but that High Street elevation is- Mm-hmm ...
under your purview as well. Yeah, I think that really just is going to have to be shown in 3D because of the way that- Yeah. Mm-hmm ... facade addresses the street. This elevation drawing is honestly even confusing to me at this point, a few years of life being dug into the project.
But it's also an opportunity. You've got a real potentially cohesive skin, and as it wraps the corner, it's a moment that you can take advantage of instead of just continuing to wrap the skin- Yeah ...
which is what it looks like now. Is your plan to include this small two-story building in the final project? Will we review that next, I guess? His answer last time we asked was, "I'm not sure." Yeah.
No, we had asked- I don't know what that is ... for guidance on that and have not received it. I don't want to misrepresent it by not showing it, but it also would be a separate building permit and a- Uh-huh ...
separate process. So we shouldn't consider it in whatever CFA we look at for the next one. Just knowing that it can be there, unless it's part of the project. I'm asking. It's going to ultimately be a separate site plan review and separate building- Would it be under the new code?
No. Okay. We've already done that. Okay. Yeah. Well, that's good. Well, actually, the new code wouldn't really change that one very much. I think you guys need to figure out what that is, especially since it is the corner, and you either have it or don't have it.
Well, that's not our choice. It's ours. But I- Into this. If we had an option to not show that building there, we would not show that building there. But we're going to have to approve something. Does everybody understand?
No. So is it- I'm not really... I'm kind of confused. Yeah. Why do you need this tiny building there? Right here, this wire frame on the end. Okay. We have to create that site to be able to build a four-story building on the main site because it's adjacent to R1- Right ...
across the street. Okay. So that site then creates the- apartment building feasible- Right ... site that this building is on. In order to create a legal property, you have to show that you can build on that property.
You can't create a remnant lot. And in order to sign off on the site plan as they're showing it- I'm not a code en-- or- Yeah. But is it your client's land? Is your- Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah. And you're not sure if they want to build on it.
I'm just trying to understand. I know that if they had a choice, they would not build on it. Uh-huh. But in order to satisfy zoning requirements to get site plans approved- Right ... we have to show that that is a buildable lot.
It's possible. Yeah. But- But it's possible ... is the intention to build something? Like, they could not build something there, right? The question I'm going to have to- We have been asking for the answer to that question, so.
Oh. The question I have to resolve is, if a site plan approval in a district is a COA necessary, even if it's a throwaway. But for where I've been in looking at how this building fits, I have zero problem with it.
So if it were part of the COA eventually, that's fine with me. And if they don't build it, they don't build it. But I think it's safe for us to assume that the design represents something would go there.
You all would approve the design of it, then I could say there's a COA for it on the site plan. And if they don't build it, they don't build it. But- I guess actually that- What a loss ... that explanation maybe answers at least one part of this question, which is that that building is included on the site plan- Yeah ...
for the whole project, which means that- Right ... you would need to approve the design of that building for COA. So you need to design the building. I need to design the building. Because otherwise- Yeah ...
it potentially would be, we'd be reviewing it as an addition- Right ... to new construction. We'll just knock that out all at once. Yeah. It seems important. Yeah. I think, in general, I think you've got a lot of work to do to get to a COA submission.
You certainly are welcome to submit a COA. I don't know if we'd necessarily be able to approve it in the first go-round. Sure. But again, that's also coming from, like you said, three years ago. Yeah.
I do think there's some details we're going to want to see, especially where if you're going to have these step backs and things like that, how that all reacts. Before I jump too far off, does anybody have any more comments on site?
I have a question for Jeff. Can he come back for another pre-application with us? I'm sorry, I'm laughing. I'm laughing because the irony of the conservation district is they're supposed to be this light touch.
That's right. But this is a pretty big... It's going to be arguably the- I know ... second longest building in the city. Yeah. I think- The largest project that'll be built probably for many decades- Yeah ...
in this conservation district. This is a Gordian knot that I've had to deal with for some time. I have colleagues who say, "You should only take it to the BAR when you have a complete application." All right.
Well, although I also do agree that we just can't have years of preliminary discussions, so to sort of bring it to a close. Mm-hmm. So the question is, when I would prefer that the next time you all see this, that it is a formal application for a COA, and that you could take action or defer it.
But now, if it's a year from now and Dan comes back, yeah, maybe we'll reintroduce it again. But I- I guess my- Are you coming back within three years? I hope so. Yeah. That's my plan. Once again, I- I also don't get to make that decision.
Let me retract that I said I don't know if we'd be able to approve it. That was improper of me. Yeah. I think the fact that, yeah, there's a lot of work to do to get to an approvable COA is a fair statement.
Yeah. Yeah. I'm aware. Yeah. But I'm all for if Dan's got a question. In fact, he's even already invited me to... And I was out last week, so that's where we overlapped. But you all know this, I try to work with the applicants as much as I can.
I'm going to talk a little bit later on this evening about if an applicant has a question, how can we make ourselves most available to them? But it's where I get to sort of be the gatekeeper and say, "Well, the BAR's not going to design this for you." And so, there's no hard and fast rule on it, but- Carl, you'd mentioned you had a good list of comments and especially maybe if you can focus in on specific things you'd like to see him bring back to us.
Yeah. I guess since we are moving on from site, I guess. Unless you got something on site, you're welcome. No, I think we covered that. Just trying to make sure I don't repeat. I'm just going to say for the two-story building, if it ends up being there, it's squashed.
I think it needs to read as a commercial space. It needs to mark that corner, and not look like a tiny little afterthought. And I know it's really schematic at this point, but there's going to be mechanical equipment that's going to need to be screened.
If it is there, I think it's going to end up being taller than what you're showing. And probably needs to be taller. And I don't understand why it's separated from the sidewalk. There might be a grade thing going on there, but it seems very weird to me that it's- Well, one, there's units on the building front of the main building- Mm-hmm ...
that we're trying to not Put them in a 10-foot deep- Right ... canyon. But why is it so far from Lexington? Uh- There's a sidewalk, and then a wall, and then another sidewalk, and then the building. Right.
We're basically creating a light well for the window side of the building, the commercial building. Mm-hmm. And then the grade's coming down. That's right. You're sinking it in. Well, I don't know what the rest of the group thinks, but if it's going to be a commercial building, to me, it needs to read more than one story at the corner, at the East High Street side.
And then along the east high elevation, it looks like you have residential units that are just opening right onto the street, similar as you have on Lexington. And that doesn't feel very appropriate to me for the commercial corridor.
It's hard to tell what you have going on on that floor, but it looks like you're just repeating the same architecture from up above down to the ground floor. And I don't know if that's... To me, it seems like you want to have some sort of commercial presence there, including an architectural representation of that commercial presence, which I think requires a bigger scale than you're showing.
Mm-hmm. And again, if you guys disagree, go ahead. Just it's things that are catching me. Yeah. No, I think it's just all... Help us understand the... Come back with a site plan that just actually matches or is what you're going to turn the new site plan, the existing...
Your planning site plan that NDS is looking at. Mm-hmm. Give us the same amount of detail for what we're going to review. Yeah. And figure out those details with the site walls and all that. And again, just as much 3D as you can give us, I think is very useful.
Mm-hmm. Sorry. Mm-hmm. Yeah. I'll stop. Okay. I have a question about why you're just not aligning to the street on High Street. Uh- The cut out there. Right. A lot of that comes back to just the way apartment buildings lay out and corridors.
So the corridor, you end up with two sides of apartments above the parking deck. And so you have a corridor that's running north-south in this plan view, sort of right through the middle of that volume, and then there's a spur that comes off to create the piece that comes out.
Mm-hmm. And so that diagonal space, if you were to create that, is just not very useful floor area for apartment layouts- Mm-hmm ... in a building like this. I think Carl said- I think the ground floor could certainly- Yeah ...
address the street that way. And we actually had a previous design, it may have actually been in the last three-year ago presentation, where we did have a commercial space that was parallel to the street on the ground floor.
Yeah, even a two-story that ran- Yeah ... like a wafer, that- Yeah ... ran parallel to it. Yep. Which still allows you plenty of units up above, but that would sort of alleviate the kind of strange little cutout that's happening there, that feels like it might turn into a dead space.
And I think Carl's point is right on, in that it doesn't... As a residential area, that doesn't feel appropriate for that corridor. But a combination could really work. Even keeping that cutout above as an upper garden- Mm-hmm ...
would be quite nice. Mm-hmm. Okay. And then you wouldn't have to put your little sliver of a commercial up on the top point. I'm trying to imagine what kind of commercial space would exist there. Would there be a restaurant?
No. Parking? No. It could be office space. It could be a- Okay. So it wouldn't just- Corridor. Okay. The really tricky, annoying thing with this is that we're supposed to look at historic context. But we also are faced with what the comp plan has done to this corridor, which is across the street is NX 8, so eight stories.
Mm-hmm. And then across Lexington is NX 10, so 10 stories. So where those houses are that were part of the William Taylor Plaza. No, not William Taylor. What was it called? The- Tarlton ... Tarlton Oak project.
Those are all zoned for 10 stories. Okay. And then everything down High Street between here and downtown is eight to 10 stories. So that may not ever happen, but this corridor is primed to become something very different in the near future, and it's, to me, very hard and tricky to look at this and try and review it based on the historical context and ignore the future.
So I'm struggling with that. Mm. And I know that I'm going to have to suck it up and just deal with it, but it's... Yeah. Well, there are houses across the street. They're not... Are they all commercial spaces?
They are all commercial at the moment, yeah. Yeah. They're built as houses, but they're commercial. Yeah. Which is sort of- And then we've got a new... Urgent Care is across the street. Yep. Yeah. Okay.
So anyway, that kind of answers the question for me. Mm-hmm. So maybe it could be lawyers' offices. Grocery store. Mm. All right. Any other comments or things? I would just say, I think it would be nice to have some larger scale sections and more of them, because I think that would help us understand, from the street to the landscape to the building, how this is really interacting with both High Street and Lexington.
And Dan, do you have any other, again, like I started out, do you got any other specific questions that we didn't answer or? Is your main delay, is it the site plan? Is that the reason why we haven't seen you in two years?
Yeah. Three years. Three years? Yeah. Site plan and developer priorities and things out of my control. That's okay. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you.
Yep. Does anyone want a break? It's just after 7:00. I could use some water. Take a five-minute break. Sure. Bio break? Sure. All right. Chair, I'm going to recuse myself for the next project to come up.
Okay. Yes. Sounds good. So we'll come back in five to seven minutes. We'll see. Sorry, Kevin, we'll get to you. Sorry, Kevin. Sorry. All right. It's the best we can do, guys. Call us back into session.
These are shared, so... For the record, Mr. Timmerman has recused himself- We're only doing it anyway, so- ... from discussion on this application, because I believe he has a child that attends this school.
And so, this is a pre-application conference for 301 East High Street. And I'm going to be real quick. I felt bad even telling Kevin that I had to bring this as a pre-app discussion, but that's what our ordinance requires, and I didn't want to skip steps that we might need to follow later on other things.
So, this is a building constructed in 1958 for an insurance company, and it is being acquired by the Village School, who will be sort of developing their whole campus there, because keeping the old building and doing alterations to this one, and primarily for where you all stand, is the addition out the rear, and then there's some associated site work related to it.
This is in the North Downtown ADC district. I said this is a pre-application conference. I think that, generally, this is being reviewed as an addition, and it checks all the boxes as far as I could tell.
I think the focus I would have for you all tonight is, if you do have any questions or comments, there's a lot going on, a lot of glass. Are there any detailed questions that you all have, something that you would want to see represented in the application?
But, as I said, I was pretty close to bringing this to you all as a formal COA, but we are here tonight. It is what it is. This is pre-app discussion. So, sorry you had to stay late, but have at it, and the stage is yours.
Thank you, Jeff. My name is Kevin Schafer, and I am local architect with Design Develop. Before we get into the specifics of the building, in the initial discussion, I wanted to bring up Eliza O'Connell, she's the head of the Village School, to tell you just a little bit about the organization.
Good evening, everyone. So Village School has been on East High Street now for 32 years. We occupy 215 East High Street and 409 Third Street. So the opposite of Third Street from where this building is located.
The school was originally located in downtown so that the girls could take part in being in a larger community than just the school community. And as such, we do not have a big campus. We do not have a sprawling campus.
We use the city for everything. We use McGuffey Park. The girls have PE at Lane Field. We use the library, the Ting Pavilion when it's pouring rain. And that's all by design, because I think it's really a great experience for the girls to learn to be members of a bigger community.
The school has not grown in size and will not grow in size. We have 80 students. We're always fully enrolled, sometimes one or two over. We don't intend to increase the enrollment of the school, but we desperately need a little more space.
So we, in our current buildings, lack a space large enough for the school to gather comfortably. We held our parent meeting last night, and it's tough. We can't get everybody in the space. So this project allows us a couple of things.
One, that addition that we're talking about allows us to create a larger space where the community can gather. And probably more importantly, the sport court is something that will just really be transformational for the school.
Again, we love to use the parks. The city and the county have been generous sharing fields, but it would be amazing to have this space where the girls could be outside. That's not just for sports, but for eating and for playing, and these are middle school girls.
And when the owners of this building approached us about buying it, I think they said to us, "We feel like Village School should be the next owner of this building." We agreed, but we had to do a little homework and thought maybe we should look, schools are building campuses everywhere.
Maybe Village School should move out of the city. And we thought long and hard about that. But again, I think part of the mission of the school is related to being downtown, and I do think that 80 girls laughing and running around and creating chaos every now and then downtown brings a lot of families downtown that wouldn't otherwise come.
And we're very proud to be downtown, and we think of ourselves as good community members. So this project for us will really, really be transformational. I think that's a word that gets used too much, but the- The joy on the girls' faces when I unlocked that door the first day and the tenants were gone, it was like they just couldn't imagine how amazing it would be.
So, we'd love to design a project that fits in the neighborhood slightly better than our other neighbor on East side there they just heard from. But hopefully this isn't controversial, but of course, we're open to any feedback.
And we would just love to have a safe and secure place, I think is the other thing, for the girls. So thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Eliza. Appreciate that introduction. As mentioned, this site is located on the corner of Third Street and High Street.
It's at an interesting sort of intersection between when the buildings start to become quite institutional as you head further east. And as you're coming into town from sort of Preston McIntyre side, it's beautiful line, two-story historic homes.
And this site at 301 is the last of those in a row of historic, beautiful houses that all have this very human scale to them, residential scale. And because of this approach as you come towards the campus, and because of the adjacent context on Third Street and Second Street and Altamont, it seemed really important to keep that front house as it was, and allow that sort of charming front entry that it has to remain and focus our attention on the rear.
And as Jeff mentioned, this house was built, or this office building was built in 1958, and was the first project to go through VAR, according to the news clip at least. So that's- ... kind of exciting and interesting.
But even in 1958, the board was recognizing that the scale contributes to the, or this project contributes to the visual appeal and scale of the district. And I think that's a wise lesson to learn. And on the rear, as you can see in these pictures, there's sort of the odd dormer.
Well, maybe it's not odd. It does seem a little out of place on a 1958 recreation of a historic Georgian mansion. And so, that was our cue to sort of pull from the backside as well, or at least reinforce that idea.
We knew we needed to be deferential to the main structure, to the historic facade in the front. And so, a pedestrian perspective here from Third Street shows it's tucked around the corner. It's certainly less height than the main gable form.
It differentiates itself by changing material, obviously changing glazing proportions, but still sort of being in keeping with the rhythm of the glazing as you come down the street. And ultimately, just being deferential to this main structure while differentiating itself.
As you come towards the Village School campus and in a place where the girls gather, there's an interior courtyard that we're standing with our backs to. This would be the view that you'd see. And at this point, the goal is to get transparency, a bright, inviting, natural materials, something with warmth, a place where people want to learn and tell us a little bit about how it stands up.
We're suggesting four-foot glulam rafters that are exposed here at four feet on center, and that sort of becomes this very rich and tactile canopy, as well as the outdoor courtyard and an outdoor classroom, which is your set of stairs and sort of spills out like an amphitheater.
The majority of the project is actually, or the majority of the site currently, two-thirds of the site is used for surface parking. It's remarkable how much of our downtown we devote to surface parking, and so we think this is a much better use.
The building addition on this survey would take about the first two parking spaces, and then the rest would be devoted to an outdoor play area, including a sports court, that outdoor classroom, like I mentioned, and some areas for planting, screening trees, and a small garden.
So, ultimately, a large portion of this project becomes the courtyard, the sports court, and this rear lot becomes an asset for the school. It's a place to gather that's very close by, an outdoor space.
You can see... Let's see if I have a cursor. This is the interior courtyard space that they have now, and as you can see, it's compressed. It's much less of an open area, more just sort of an outdoor room.
And so this would be the expansion of that as functional play area. And then, the outdoor classroom space and an amphitheater in here. Here you can see we're screening the mechanical roof top units with a aluminum clad screen.
And here's a few other views. There's three southern magnolias that are proposed along the rear of the lot to help screen from the adjacent house. And then the sports court is the prominent feature. I don't know if we had touched on what the sports court would be.
The suggestion that's in the site plan currently is the sports court is a Versa Court tile, and that would go over a slab. They're a little bit softer than just a large swath of asphalt. It promotes drainage, easy to maintain, longevity, just a little bit of a softer feeling than either a concrete slab or an asphalt paving.
And so that ultimately leads to this, which is our site plan that currently has been submitted as a final site plan submission. And on this, I wanted to talk about a couple things that we'd like your feedback on or hopefully support on.
In an effort to make this feel like a campus as much as possible, even though there's a third street through it, and in an effort to be as safe as possible, we are proposing a crosswalk here. This would be a new crosswalk at the existing building that would head over towards the main entry to the rear courtyard.
There's also additional signage, certain no parking signage being proposed, and school zone signage being proposed. But one of the things we had discussed in our city priet meeting was the idea of some street art.
I'm not sure of the BAR's purview on street art. I know we have a street art commission now. But if we could get your support, that would probably go a long ways in garnering our street art commission support as well.
And we think it would be a lovely way to sort of help reinforce the bridge between these two buildings, while also promoting traffic safety, and also bring life to the street. We have the precedent image of the Charlottesville Day School, which I think is a nice addition to that street there.
Maybe we should do more street painting. Focusing back on the building, we needed a second means of egress from the existing office building to use it as an educational use. And so that prompted at least an addition as wide as the stairs, and the stairs are on this corner that you can see in this image here.
And then we also know programmatically, Village School needed a larger open space and additional classrooms. And so that provided this opportunity for a relatively modest in scale rear addition that was filled with ample glazing and sort of this rhythm behind it, that broke us down into a pretty rational grid, but did it in a way of breaking up the facade with a change of materials.
I know the interior is not the purview of the BAR, but I did just want to at least show this is what the end goal is for that sort of large gathering space for parents' nights and graduations or larger events that could happen in this space.
And so, the goal is a lot of light, a lot of visual connection to the outdoor play area, that sort of transparency and visual connectivity to the other school building, and making this feel like a cohesive campus was important.
This is on our north facade, so I'm not sure if the sunlight streaming in on the interior renderings is quite correct. But I think it helps give you a sense of the space that we're trying to achieve and how that's reflected on the outside.
Upstairs, and I didn't put in a rendering on this, but there's two classrooms that both have large bays of windows as well. One of the things that we'd like your guidance or input on that we're coming up against is the zoning requirement of a six-foot maximum fence, and the height of a fence.
And that's challenging because the sidewalk falls away, and our play area wants to stay level and sort of up on a plinth. And so by the time we get to the rear of the lot, our fence actually doesn't even serve as a guardrail height anymore.
We're falling below 42 inches. And I think we have a pretty handsome concept for the fence, this sort of laser-cut, powder-coated aluminum panel that could be representative of sort of the Village School's branding with the flower element on top of a masonry wall, brick masonry that matches some of the existing site walls already in place.
And I don't know what the question is that I'm asking here or what the request is other than if anybody has any creative ideas or- Do you want a taller fence? I would like a taller fence. Okay. I have thoughts on that.
Yes. Okay, great. That's why we ask. And I'm going to flip, sorry, real quick, to just back here. The taller the fence, the less balls that go over. But here, this is a good representation right here is the sidewalk is falling, so is our fence, and that's going to be...
So we're looking for creative solutions to making that feel right, both from the street, but also from a safety perspective. Yeah. How high is the play area relative to the sidewalk at that point? Two and a half feet higher.
Okay. Three inches higher. So it's not much. 30 inches, moving towards three feet. And is the fence also for security? Yes. How do you reconcile where the grade at the end of the property, where the grade, is there another wall against the residential?
There's an existing retaining wall on there. So the parking lot is relatively flat, and there's a retaining wall against the residential side, and the sidewalk starts to peel down Third Street at that point, and the parking lot peels up.
And so we're limited at the sidewalk height of a six-foot height, which is proving to be challenging. Mm-hmm. So that's not really our purview though, right? No. We can't help you there. I agree with you.
It should be. But- Mm-hmm ... what's your recourse? Do we know? Is it a zoning variance? ZCP. SCP? SCP. Yeah. Let's finish the presentation. You got like four more slides, right? So let's- Yeah ... and then we can circle back- Mm-hmm ...
and get into it. I don't have too much to add. I would welcome any comments and feedback on our landscape. Just a question. Sorry, if I missed where the proposed sidewalk would be, I don't see it on the plans.
I must have missed a sheet or something while I was looking through. Let me show you here. So there's an existing sidewalk on third street. I'm sorry, the crosswalk across third. Oh, it's- I apologize ...
it's right here. So this site plan was submitted- Okay ... I think, after our presentation. So this will go to staff at some point as a final site plan submission. But there's a second crosswalk that's a mid-block crosswalk being proposed.
So it would go through that little gate in the back there. Close to it. Right. Okay. It's a little bit proud so that we could get ADA access. Okay. Mm-hmm. We have some proposed site lighting that I'm certainly open to feedback on as well, and would love any comments.
But that's part of our final site plan submission as well. And then just if there were comments on the materials, I'm happy to discuss those as well. But we do have some things in mind currently. So I think that, yeah, that was my presentation.
The goal for tonight for us would just be to identify any questions, any areas you'd like to see either revised, refined, explained in more detail for our next submission as we move towards applying for a COA.
Okay. And answering any questions you've got for us. I don't know if we want... Let's just jump on to the wall, I guess. I don't know. I have a few thoughts. I think you hinted at one of the concerns that came to my mind was actually like basketballs and soccer balls going over the wall and into the street and kids don't chase after the ball, right?
Yeah. Obviously, I think by having a wall or fence there, that's going to limit somebody just immediately sprinting out after something, but it could certainly distract a driver coming down the street and cause an accident or something.
So I think that's a safety factor that would argue to allow for something taller there, if that's helpful. I like the screen and the motif. I think it's handsome. Yeah. I also wonder if not just doing a crosswalk, but maybe considering a speed hump to slow some traffic down, because you're trying to connect these two campuses across an urban street.
And so if you're going to have students crossing it, I think trying to add more safety is a great thing. So I would support trying to figure out a taller wall. I guess to some degree, by saying that though, are you proposing full 10-foot high basketball goals?
Because- To some degree, we're not going to be able to out-fence ourselves. Because that's really tall. Yeah. And I don't think that would be appropriate. But it does beg the question, if it's a middle school, is it just a middle school?
Okay. Would an eight-foot basket suffice? I don't know. That's really programmatically up to you guys, but that might, bringing the goal down and trying to meet in the middle to catch balls. The only other thing I could suggest would be to turn the court 90 degrees.
But then I don't know if that works with the rectangle. But I don't know if there's a variance from a code standpoint on the thing that we would show support. I was going to say, having spent more than half my life- ...
at schools coaching on shared practice fields, this isn't a fence question, it's a net question. And I would suggest the fence be your aesthetic feature, and then posts with nets. Netting that could maybe perhaps be on- Yeah ...
pulleys that gets- Yeah. Exactly ... raised up during recess or whatever and lowered back down. Yeah. At the high school, they're putting stuff over a 12-foot fence at the practice field, so yeah. Right.
Yeah. I think separate the idea and think about some sort of netting feature. That's not a bad suggestion, and I think, again, if it can be where it's lowered when not in use, obviously that's going to take some kind of enforcement on the staff, but that would help keep the historic district nice.
But in general, I think this is a nice addition to the historic building. It's clearly modern and different than the historic building, so it differentiates itself from that. I think it's handsome. I was trying to, on Google Map, go down the street and look back.
The rooftop screen's a little awkward to me, just it's kind of just plunked up there. Are those integrated into the attic of the historic building? Is there like duct work or anything that goes through or is this just- No ...
like an insert up there? It's a building addition. I was going to actually recommend, if you look at what's now O'Neill Hall at UVA, what was the rugby faculty apartments We did sort of dormers there with louvered vents that sort of tied into the roof, because you can see it all the way from Lambuth Field apartments across there.
So you might take a peek at that. I don't know if that makes sense for this project. But again, I also don't know if you can really get far enough back to see this from street level. Right. So maybe just your bird's eye view makes it look a little funny.
Yeah. I believe we're required now to screen- You do have to screen it ... if it's visible or not. And I was trying to think about where this would be visible, because we are up on High Street. The screen is going to make it far less obtrusive than if it were like little individual- Oh, I agree.
Yeah. I agree. If it did need to tie into the building, you could kind of just tie the roof over it and maybe hide it better that way. Also, the pitch of the addition roof seems very flat, so I didn't know.
What is that pitch? It is. Well, it's flat at the eave there, and then it pitches back at a quarter inch per foot into a hip. And then we actually have crickets that catch in the gutters on the side. And what's the material of the roof?
It would be either an EPDM or a TPO roof. Not white TPO. Not white TPO? I don't like white TPO. No one's going to see it. Okay. We would have black, for the record- There are drones these days ... we would have black metal sort of flashing.
And High Street could be 10 stories, so don't say never. Yeah. No one ever- Well, that's what they get for building 10 stories. They have to look down on a white roof. White roofs get dirty. That's true.
We like white just because it doesn't collect heat. Saves energy. Yeah. Mm-hmm. With regard to the screening, just as someone who lives in the neighborhood, walking up Third Street, I would think you would never see any of the stuff walking up that street, any of the utilities or whatever.
Mm-hmm. Can I... I missed it, I'm sorry. Is that mechanical up there? So you're going to be code of development requiring some level of screening. That's why we showed that view- Yeah ... just to let you know that we were planning on doing it.
I don't think it's ever visible. Okay. Yeah. On the existing building, is it slate? And is that going to remain slate roof? I don't know. I would assume so. I think it is. Yeah. I'm not far enough from- Yes.
The front slate would remain- Okay ... and the rear slate would remain above the addition. Okay. Some repairs. It looks like in bad shape on the north side. Yeah. So there should be lots of extra pieces now, right?
Yeah. Mm-hmm. Okay. And we can certainly salvage slate during that demolition and repair. I could see that the addition becomes the primary entrance. But is the front door still operable? I think the front door becomes...
And I've had this conversation recently. The front door remains sort of the guest entrance, and where parents might come, and that's where our admin offices are- Okay ... and Eliza's office is in that front corner.
And then the rear of the building would be for the girls. Sure. And that's where the larger area is, and the classrooms, and access to those classrooms upstairs. Okay, great. Are you not proposing anything for the front?
No new signage or anything on the front? That's a good question. Probably some signage. Yeah, I think they took the children sign that was there. So I think if we put anything there, it would be similar to what was there.
There was a thought about moving the sunflowers sign that's in front of portal nine. But I think we envision something very similar to what was already there, the children sign. The sign that was there, on that building prior?
That was like a- Yeah, it was just on a pole, and it was a- Right. It was a hanging sign. A hanging sign. Uh-huh. Yeah. So the- So if anything, it would be similar to that, or maybe just a low, basic sign.
But Jeff, we don't review the signage, right? Would that go through a sign- Staff ... regulation? It would be reviewed as separate sign permit. And I think down here would be like a hanging sign, somewhat like you see on Park Street.
I don't know. Right. But it would be a separate review. So y'all would work with staff- Yeah ... on the sign. That wouldn't necessarily come to us. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify if you were proposing anything on the front of the building.
No. Okay. The... Sorry. I was curious about trees and sun. Mm-hmm. It is north-facing, but you will have a lot of, I think, that amphitheater, that seating, which looks great and fun, and I would definitely...
I live across from the Covenant School, and they use that a lot in that same way, but they have trees there, and I just wondered if you've thought about putting any trees along that large expanse of concrete to just sort of, one, break up the expanse of concrete, but also provide a little bit of shade for the girls when they're eating their lunch and so forth.
Certainly could. Balancing between limiting flexibility and functionality of a play space, with programming with trees. But certainly understood the suggestion with- With shade being appealing and - Yeah, I was thinking that.
I think that would really help a lot. This looks like... I love pretty much everything about this project, but I think a shade tree or two would be just so beneficial. And it looks like you've got some space without compromising the play field at least.
It's a good suggestion. Yeah. It seems like in that planting bed you could probably do some smaller- And that's when this is going to be to the west ... You have crape myrtles out front. Mm. You could do some other smaller canopy trees that would just provide a little bit of shade there and break that up a little bit.
You said something about the crosswalk not being aligned with the opening about for ADA. Can you clarify? Sure. Let me see if I can get to that site plan. And I apologize it's so small on the screen, but there is a gate that comes out at this location, if you can see my cursor here.
Mm-hmm. And that gate, we then needed to... We couldn't have that ramp happen right there because of the change in elevation- Mm-hmm ... and the curb cut. And so you had to sort of turn, come down, and then hit your curb cut to go over.
But it doesn't look aligned with the opening into that other... Is there a reason why it's not aligned with the opening into the- Over here? Right. There is a door, so we're pinched between a gate and a door.
That triangle right there on the existing building is a door that comes directly out of the Village School, the current building. Mm-hmm. And sort of you step down onto the sidewalk there. And that was making that step down, I think, 12 inches.
Hm. I guess I was just thinking if there's a way, just like if you have a whole classroom of girls going across the street and you get to that one sidewalk and maybe somebody's coming, just be nice to tuck in right away into the yard rather than sort of have to jog and accommodate- Right here ...
pedestrians walking and so forth. So I just was thinking about that alignment a little bit more. Well, certainly, yeah. Ideally it would come right across from that entryway, and so we'll see how we can push that, as site plan comments on traffic come into play as well.
Right. Mm. It looks to me like you have... This is south-facing, the thing. It would be perfect for solar. Have you thought about that? Mm-hmm. Haven't thought too much about solar and... But- Yeah, it's the other side ...
it is an option. This existing roof would actually shade us- North ... significantly. Yeah, it's a north-facing. That's north-facing. It is north-facing. Yeah. And north. So the addition is facing north.
The front is gables. I got you. Yeah. Hm. I w- I have some comments, unless... Well, another quick question. The wood that you have that's matching the glulams, is that intended to gray out naturally?
Is it going to be sealed? Or is it some sort of manufactured product? It would be sealed. And... So the goal is to keep the kind of warm wood tone? Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah. It looks like you've got metal trims on there.
Is that intentional, or is that- Around the windows? Like on the corner, and it looked like there was a vertical joint. I could just be staring too hard at the renderings. It's not important. It's not meant to be a leading question.
I was just curious, like what we're getting. No, it's a good question. I think we will have to resolve if they are desired for the metal trims to go through. I don't know exactly how that would work. Okay.
And it looks like the concrete and the eaves are all the same color. Is the intention to kind of take that coating and put it on the concrete, or are they going to be differentiated, or is there...? The goal would be for the stairs and the plinth and the eaves to read as the same material.
Mm-hmm. Acknowledging that that does come with the challenges of keeping that concrete. And then the part what's probably parging at the sort of the masonry plinth foundation- Mm-hmm ... at the bottom and then transitioning to eaves above may become a challenge.
So, good question, and probably a little bit of research to be done there on how that can be possible. Mm-hmm. But the intent would be that it reads sort of this uniform. Okay. And then you show fiber cement as one of the materials.
Where is that going? At one point we had fiber cement trim board potentially up in our soffit. Okay. Okay. That makes sense. And I was trying to find that view to see. We had debated back and forth between does Doug Fir go on the underside of the soffit, and it started to get quite woody.
It's a little bit- Mm-hmm ... too much. So if we could make that horizontal line read with a dark fiber cement. Oh, I see. Okay. And the lighting you show, you guys are not intending to have any like high intensity wall packs or anything to light the basketball court at night?
No. Okay. It was really just some pretty low profile stair lighting. Okay. Those are my questions. Is the building facade light that you've got on your lighting sheet the one that we see right there? Mm-hmm.
Okay. It looks... It's hard to understand exactly what we're looking at on the lighting sheet. Like it's this funny looking I don't know how to describe it. It looks weird to me. That, the top image there, is that just like a straight-on view?
It's a straight-on view. Okay. Of sort of the backlit- Got you ... egress lighting sconce. Okay. And then different question, are there downspouts, or how's the roof drained? Yeah. Right here. The black line.
Okay. So that it's coming down there, down here. Okay. There's that black vertical. Mm-hmm. Okay. Then on the bottom- No, it happens on either side. Got you. Well, that AI's telling us what we're looking at.
Yeah, I know. That was very nice. Go home. Or partly cloudy sky. It's a heavy two-story. Kate, go ahead. Yeah. Just speaking of downspouts on the other side, the other view you have, I guess that's eave's vertical behind the downspout.
Is that right? That's the corner, the page 17. Yeah. That's sort of Adam's question I had also is like, are these flush boards there? Mm-hmm. Not the detailed corner. Yeah. I think we should... Looks different on each side.
So what we have is, at that point, the brick is where we're coming directly out of the brick facade, and then finishing with the eaves and yes, it's running down that eaves. Okay. And I'm sorry. No, please.
The goal would be to, that the CMU foundation that's parged aligns with the water table brick that's on there, and so it's sort of the natural continuation of that. And you see that sort of becomes somewhat important here at that view.
Mm-hmm. Interesting. Okay. I think the water table continuation looks good. I feel like there's a sort of celebration of the downspouts happening. They're very prominent on the elevations. I'm like, "Oh, is this a Glen Market move?" Like, what's happening with those?
They want to trip over them. But it's also not centered in the eaves, and I'm just like, I want to kind of shift it around a little bit. And then looking at the way the windows are set into the wood, in the horizontal wood, I wonder what that dimension is from the window to the corner of the building.
And is that a four-inch piece of wood? I wonder about the durability of that, I guess. Sure. I love the size of the windows, and I love the wood. Just wondering how does that really resolve? Yeah. That's a great question.
I think what we're looking at it, that typically when we do this, we like to call it the faux corner window detail, where we put a six-by-six post in that corner right there. And then you can finish with drywall on the inside, and then that gives you seven inches or so bite on the exterior.
Uh-huh. But it's a good point. I mean- Uh-huh ... seven inches of the wood. Yeah. Does that read better as maybe the Hardie panel, and we sort of accentuate it as a corner window? Mm-hmm. Something like that.
I think that could work, too. I think that would be nice. Mm-hmm. I also just wanted to clarify, and I think I already know the answer to this, but I was just looking in Google Earth, and there's some really nice dental detailing on the existing wood- Mm-hmm ...
or the existing roof. Just, I'm assuming you're keeping all of that. All that stays. Yeah. Yeah. Astroturf. Question about that. Mm-hmm. Is that functional? It's a maintenance functional consideration.
It's a high traffic area. Mm-hmm. And just gets muddy. Sure. And then all of a sudden, mud tracks everywhere. And in an ideal scenario, it's a lovely pristine lawn that's nice and... Well, I guess my thought is that it's very small.
If you're worried about girls skinning their knees on paving, that's one thing. But if maybe it could just be beautiful paving instead of Astroturf, like stone or something. Maybe it's not the concrete of the stairs, but maybe there is a swath of considered paving there instead of Astroturf.
I just wonder, it seems very narrow and maybe prone to... You all- Questions about that? ... sort of set a precedent for it. It had been a lively debate about Astroturf over the years, and primarily associated with the fraternities.
Mm-hmm. And I think the tipping point was people were like, "That front yard's been mud since I went to UVA," "And at least this is a solution." So there was some unique circumstances, and then there was another where it was a very small installation.
And I would say this sort of fits a little bit of both of those. This is not someone saying, "I want to replace my front yard." Mm-hmm. And it might- It's a new build. Yeah. Six one, half does the other, but yeah, if it's a place that you want to keep grass but it's getting a lot of activity.
Yeah. I don't think- Crabgrass ... grass belongs there. I really don't. I think I want to like Astroturf. Maybe I'd like it if it was pink or something. Not trying to be something it's not. You could get it in any color.
Yeah. The intention of that strip was to just sort of provide this threshold between what- Is like an amphitheater style classroom gathering, and then like, oh, now you're in the play area. Right? Mm-hmm.
Now I'm making that transition, and that's my threshold. Admittedly, it's small, but it seemed important to have some sort of distinction. Could be pavement. I totally agree with you. I think visually it works.
I think it looks interesting. And, I just wonder if maybe there's another solution that you haven't thought about, like etched concrete or something, or paint. It doesn't need to be AstroTurf, really.
A big hopscotch field. Hopscotch. Something playful- Yeah ... maybe. I guess when you say AstroTurf, are you opposed to all artificial grass, or are you thinking about the really true AstroTurf that's almost carpet?
Well, I guess the- Because at the president's house at UVA, we installed an event lawn with some really pretty realistic fake grass. Sure. Artificial grass. When it needs to be grass, and it really needs to be durable, okay.
Right. But if it doesn't need to be grass, I don't think that needs to be grass. And it's just like the environmental impact, it's hot. There's all those things. It's plastic. Mm. This is my opinion here on my soapbox.
That's fair. Sure. Well, there- I mean, to clarify. Sure. Yeah. It's a valid BAR question, and I say that just so that we've considered it, but we approach it carefully. Because like you said, you don't want someone to say, "I just don't want to cut my grass anymore, and I'm going to put..." Yeah.
Or like my backyard where my dogs just dug a giant hole in it. I'd love to AstroTurf it, but it's not off the table for you all to discuss, so I think if someone proposed AstroTurf, I would be bringing it to you if that were just the sole thing they were asking for.
Yeah. I will say, I think we made a mistake with the Beta House. Yeah, I agree. It did not... It doesn't hold up well. They promised it would last, and it died like almost- Oh, like stuff. Or not died, but it got destroyed really quick.
Beaten. But I think the middle schoolers would probably treat this better. But I do agree with you that it doesn't seem like it needs to be fake grass, or it doesn't need to be grass, so why not do something else?
We were told the fraternity house quality was, I think, going to be higher than it actually turned out to be. It was pretty spent pretty quickly. Yeah. It doesn't last forever. Yeah. That's right. Well, it didn't last a minute.
You could use... There are a lot of other materials to explore. You might look at a flexi pave or a cork is being used in playgrounds- Be cool. Mm-hmm ... and proposing it on a project. That's another option.
If you're just looking for something that's got, and that's natural material, wouldn't have the off-gassing and the worry about plastics and in a school play yard. So I think you might explore some other options.
I hadn't even noticed that. I think it's great feedback. I just thought the fence issue again. Is it possible to do some sort of installation that would be like a piece of that same detailing that you have for the fence as a sort of panel behind the play area that's sort of taller, instead of just using like a net that would come up and down, but use something that could be in that same material palette, but it's not the fence.
It's like inset, so it avoids the issue with the six foot fence. Yeah. I'm not sure, honestly, how far off a fence you have to be to put another fence. So I pulled that up. It says when a wall or fence is located within three feet of the exterior face of retaining wall, and the retaining wall is two feet in height or greater, the height is measured from the top of the wall or fence to the midpoint.
Basically, it says three feet, but then it also earlier says anything within 20 feet of a sidewalk. So I think our zoning code still has a little bit of a goof in there. But maybe you could pull it back and make it...
So you're allowed six feet in this zone. Mm-hmm. Maybe if you pulled it back three feet, you could go up six, but I still think that doesn't solve your issue with most basketballs. The basketball. A net may be the better thing.
Yeah. Mm-hmm. Retractable net would be favorable from the BAR. Yeah. I don't know if this would work in this situation, but like a hedge, like a hornbeam hedge. You can make those pretty narrow. You might have to shrink your basketball court a little bit, but they- Yeah ...
you can let those get pretty tall and- It'll just take a long time to grow. Yeah. But yeah, that'd be beautiful. I- I'd love... That would be really lovely to have there, but it would take a while. Can we get 20 foot ones from day one?
You can get hedges. How big a planting bed does a hornbeam need in that location, like five feet? No, it can be narrow. Three? Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah. If you clip it and- Mm-hmm ... yeah. There used to be one in front of the Omni.
I don't know if it's still there, but it's a tight... It's on the downtown mall side, kind of separating the walk from the mall to the courtyard at the Omni. It's pretty narrow. I'd say no more than two or three feet.
For what it's worth, I do love the decorative metal panels. Yeah. I think that's a great idea. Yeah. Mm-hmm. And is there a gate, kind of where the- Yeah ... sidewalk steps in and then turns? There is.
Okay. I think- I think we had it in the... I don't have it in this presentation, but I believe we had it in the book. I think I see a- Yeah ... maybe a hint of it, and then I don't know. Yeah, I like that location where it is.
I do too, and I didn't know if you had one also on the, just I guess the sidewalk on the other side of the- For security purposes- I- ... there'd be one here ... I was going to suggest that just to prevent- Yes ...
unauthorized after-hours use- Yes ... of the basketball court. Yeah. There's an existing gate here that would remain. Okay. And then there would be- Great ... a proposed gate here. You're going to need a gate to go get the balls that get thrown into the parking lot.
Speaking as a coach. Oh, I guess, yeah, I hadn't noticed the other- Yeah ... end of the court looks like it does go to an open lot that side. Yeah. It's the courthouse. That, yeah, that parking lot in back of the courthouse.
Yeah. It's the intake. I don't want to get in the weeds either- Oh, God. Great ... of the, just I like that, the celebration of the downspouts, but the downspout coming down on, into the sidewalk, is that encroaching into the...
I can just see somewhere down the road, someone's going to say you can't put the downspout in the city- On their sidewalk ... right of way. The site plan shows it going under the sidewalk, like with one of those grates that discharges to the curb.
But is it encroaching into the- Into the right of way ... the width of the sidewalk? The width of the sidewalk. I think we have something like six or eight inches there. Okay, good. I think. But it- You already have a pole there.
I mean, there's already quite... From I recall walking up 3rd Street, and you, there's a pole there. Yes. You're already dodging. Yeah. As long as it's not in the same location probably as that pole. I'm just learning it's the little things that- It's pretty narrow right there.
On that, um- Yeah. It's very narrow ... on that sidewalk, so that's sheet 139, and maybe this, Kate, to kind of talk to your, like the interface of that downspout and the eaves there. Mm-hmm. The other side of the building, you just have all the wood, and there's no eaves.
Mm-hmm. So you don't kind of have that like three things going. I didn't know if that, if you looked at that on this side or if you just wanted to have... I see how it makes the corner pop. It was really, it was like, let's break down that facade.
Let me... Sorry. Yeah. I know I'm flipping around everywhere. It was a little... First, the plinth felt a little disconnected, especially from, let me get to this. Without the other material, it felt a little standalone, in my opinion, and that facade felt just a little bit flat as just wood.
And so the introduction of the eaves sort of helped tie it around the corner, and then it's asymmetrical on the rear side anyway, so we're sort of like tilting that towards the entry and putting sort of hierarchy on this side, on the 3rd Street side.
But that being said, that gutter can certainly move. We can put it in the center of the eaves if that feels better. I was sort of holding it along, against that joint with the brick, but that probably causes unknown consequences with the roof overhang or something like that.
So- Mm-hmm ... if it helps to get it away. Probably get a spot where leaves trap maybe. Mm-hmm. So it sounds like- Are we still at questions? So there, this is a preliminary- Yeah ... application. It's pretty raw.
Okay. It's questions and comments. Okay. Oh, okay. So, thank you. So on the west side, you are preserving, the sills are pretty prominent on all the windows, and I know the rendering isn't capturing all that, but you're preserving those.
And you're actually changing out the attic window, which is now just a vent, but you're actually making that an active window. You're showing that. No. That, we can clean that up. The- You- ... building was, the existing building was probably not modeled to the level of detail.
So you wouldn't be activating that- No ... that space at the- Mm-mm ... peak. Okay. Just seems like with the back renovation, you're not just so, but... It's very even. And then looks like, and again, this is just the rendering, you're resurfacing the front historic stairs a little bit or doing some work on those, maybe.
Also just the rendering. Okay. Apologies for the confusion. And I wouldn't- But we would not be doing any work on the front- Yeah. So my- ... as we anticipated. We haven't discussed the historic aspects of this, but, just as we said, as it wraps around the back, the dentils would be important.
It's nice that that's preserving just a little bit where those eaves come down. It's odd, but this picture from the newspaper with- Mm ... Bill Reinhart, the, that... And we had this at a condition in another fraternity house, but those railings that actually jut out from the pillars, they look to be original.
They sort of are curved. I mean, they're... So I would say that's also an original feature that should be preserved. It's probably also... I mean, it's nice to have railings on both. But- Mm-hmm ... we had that at the fraternity, anyway, at another fraternity at UVA where it was like, did they really design these rails to dead end into historic column?
And sure enough, they were original like that. So, I had other comments, just to make sure that we preserve as much of the historical elements of the facade and west side as possible. I noticed that there were just vent holes in the, I guess, basement floor.
It looked like those filled in, but it might be the rendering, too. Okay. Yeah, so. And, um The rest of my comments are sort-- I love the new design. It's beautiful. My office is four blocks down on East High Street, right on East High Street, and I live on Second Street, so I know this building.
And this parking lot is the most unused parking lot for decades. And I'm sure having run a business, a school, right across the street, you've been aware of that. But I'm always like, "Wow, we're complaining about parking downtown.
These people could have made a lot of money by renting this lot out." And it's just such an interesting building. I'm not saying it's historically whatever and I'm not fascinated it looks like Gunston Hall, but it's kept its charm, frankly, and it's different from other things downtown.
It really is not the colonial. It's just a different sort of adorable building. So, my concern is probably out of our bailiwick, but the crosswalk. I know that I'm one of these people that comes off High, turns down Third.
I see parents waiting in cars on one or the other side, and I'm trying to get through them to get down the street, and I just would fear that crosswalk. So, and again, beyond my pay grade, but it's got to be more than marking the pavement.
It has to be rumble strips or art, maybe, from High Street until you get to that crosswalk. And similarly, when you come up East High Street, if you drive like me downtown, which a lot of people do, they drive worse, you kind of rev up that hill.
Even on Google Maps, I can't replicate the topo. It rises up as you get to East High Street, all these streets do, from Hedge and whatever is lower down there. So, I can see myself in a hurry forgetting, and I get up there, and I'm on the crosswalk, and there are young women there.
So that's something that has to be resolved. But it seems like a logical place, and you have it far enough off of High Street that it could be very useful, but it just makes me... And I'm not a fast driver either.
I'm just, like most people, trying to get away from East High just seems to always be congested, as you guys know. It's a main place where people go from Pantops, West High Street, cutting through downtown to get to the university because our city's traffic's not well-planned.
So High Street, as we all know, around 5:00 just gets to be so congested. Road rage on a little two-lane street, but it happens. So anyway. I'd like to see street trees next to your fence on Third Street.
In the afternoon, the sun will be west over. As soon as it comes across over your new second-story addition, it's going to hit that back area, and the later it gets in the day, it'll be warm. So, I don't know if street trees or some other kind of shading is available, and that's part of the plan.
Would love to see that if it doesn't interrupt the recreational space. The picture on the bottom left is a little troubling with the overhead lines, not only along the sidewalk but diagonally across the parking lot.
Really? Wow. Oh, I see. Yeah. And the sidewalk itself is two and a half feet wide. Yeah. I think that's the only reason we focused on the gutters is we've all walked down there, and it's incredibly one of the narrowest sidewalks in the city.
And on the fence, I actually couldn't support a six-foot solid fence. I love your rendering that has a brick base, but maybe a transparent, and I don't know what that was. But what about bronze or literally a screen in that space?
I thought that's what they were proposing. Okay. Sorry, I didn't know. I thought somebody had mentioned a raised sort of screen or for fence or net or something- We were talking about a net ... beyond that.
Here's what's proposed. There's actually a metal screen- Okay, perfect ... in between some brick columns. Oh, I didn't see that. Yeah. What we were talking about was just inside this, behind the basketball goal.
I was looking at an older version- Okay. Yeah ... not what you brought in this evening on a thumb drive, so sorry about that. Love it. Good. Awesome. Yeah. What we were suggesting was maybe some sort of net that could be raised up on the inside of this- Okay ...
during recess sessions. I just think it would stay up. I hate to say that, but you know. Agreed, and that's why we would try and- So- ... somehow get it to- So with this sort of design, personally, I wouldn't have an objection to it being six feet or maybe whatever.
I know the topo changes, so it's kind of challenging. You've got to do it in sections or something. But we don't want solid walls, fences or walls in downtown. I think that's the end of my comments. I'm really excited for this use.
I'm really excited for this design. I wish I could go back in time and go to middle school here once you get this project done. Thank you. Any other thoughts? I'm very much in support. I think my only comment is just that I think your roofs are very optimistically thin.
So, I don't know if... You're usually very good about, as CDs progress, you bring stuff back to Jeff, so I know that'll happen. So, yeah, I'm very much in support of what you're showing. I think it's a wonderful design in general and I'm very much in support as well.
Thanks, y'all. All right. I really appreciate all the great feedback, and we have some things to resolve, some trees to add. I love it. Any other questions for us? Is there any specific section or detail or thing you would like to see?
It sounds like I need to maybe give you a plan detail of the gutter downs pipe. Maybe where that corner window- Corner window plan detail would be good in probably, like a section through the canopy Yeah, a section showing the eave and the- Mm-hmm ...
where the parging meets EFIS. That'll keep me honest on my optimistically thin roof. Mm. Mm-hmm. So. I think a section through the play area. I'm still struggling to understand what you're going to do at the end where the trees are, where it drops two and half feet, and you have the wall there.
So, just a section through. Sure, yeah. Through that field. How wide a bed do you have for the magnolias? It's pretty significant. But I think it's eight feet. Yeah. I'm just having some in my backyard.
I think it's six feet. I don't know. You're going to be having lots of magnolia leaves on that court all the time. We might bring back a different tree. That would be good. Yeah. Any tree suggestions?
You got a favorite sports tree? Well, it's going to be in a planter pretty much. Yeah. Right? It is like a full strip- Yeah, just the leaf litter on that nice little court ... Right ... it's going to be a constant maintenance nightmare.
Right. Because it's going to be in a planter, you're going to be limited. You're not going to want a tree that roots really far. Right. You're going to want a canopy that's pretty compact because, I think, the roots are about as wide as the canopy, so.
Yeah. I think the first question on the trees will be what is our tree canopy requirements. But you've got the site plan process going through, and that might cut scissors. We're going to have to add trees somewhere in the front yard.
So let's see where that takes us a little further along, and what'll fit under there in addition to what's required there. Okay. So I'm also just noticing on the site plan it's a proposed aluminum fence.
Is that the materiality of the metal? It was a powder-coated aluminum. Okay. In probably a bronze or like a- Okay ... rust red. And the one other thing we discussed was the AstroTurf. The AstroTurf. Change of material.
Yeah, just options. Great. Awesome. Well, thank you all. Yeah. Thank you, guys. So much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Well done. All righty. Street artists, do you need another letter or a- What would you be willing to get?
A question? I would say let's not talk about street art and street crossings until you know what public works and our letter you do. I'm optimistic based on our pre-app. And I think you were there. I was there, yeah.
Because I don't- They did not like the humps We came for the traffic calming, but- Yeah. They did not like this, but they were all about painting. So- Well ... we'll see. And then the fire department will tell you they don't want humps, and they won't want this and that.
Yeah. So get that squared away. That's a big one. Yeah. So. But at least you get a sign that says speed hump, and some people slow down. Yeah. So. Thanks, y'all. All right. Thank you. All right. It is what it is, right?
Pre-applications, they're what they are. It's good discussion to get us- Yeah ... to a spot where COA is fleshed out. All right. So what's left on your agenda, we've attached some information, updating you on some of the minor reviews, administrative reviews that we've looked at.
You do have another 45 minutes to an hour listening to me, so I don't know what you all want to... Is there something you want to talk about? Oh. Do we want to talk about? No, I was just showing her a picture of the back of Gunston Hall- Oh, sorry ...
for the heck of it. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. No, I'm just trying to- Are there any questions about the mall cafe statuses or- Yeah, to dive right in or- ... the minor reviews? So when you've got the minor review, that's basically the administrative stuff you all have approved over the past year.
Is that right? Or just- Since January ... since January of this year. We provided an update in January. Did y'all send this out with the packet? I did not. Okay. I should say I haven't seen this before.
So I don't know if I- We gave a few- I don't know if I have any comments. Do you want comments from us? If you do, then we- No. We're happy to. No, priority was the training. We were providing this because the code says we have to.
Yeah. And it's nice. I noticed that. I think- Can we email this list? Yeah. And what I was thinking was maybe... Well, it's going to be one of my comments on our I guess on the bylaws where we have our scrubbing of our typical agendas, one of my comments was going to be to include a spot where you guys can give us a little update just like this, but just on monthly, so then it's not as long a list, and you can just say- Yeah ...
"Here's what we approved in the last month." And maybe you have one slide that has a couple pictures. I don't know. Again, not trying to bog things down, but that keeps us informed. Can we get Mr. Zimmerman back?
Oh, yeah. Can we call David? Or- He was watching online, but I'll go- David, you're welcome to come back in if you're not asleep. So from your November work session last year, you actually had that on a staff to-do list, is that you wanted those admin reviews every month.
So point taken. Okay. So we did review that today. There's a lot that we still need to work on as far as your pre-application checklists and those process things, but... Yeah, and I do think actually if you...
Again, like I said, maybe a slide or a page that does get included with the packet you send to us, then that's something we can look at ahead of time, and we don't even have to really- Mm ... talk too much about it unless there's questions at the meeting.
So the minor historic reviews are from January through now- Yeah ... of this year- Yes ... that you guys have done that did not have to- Come to us ... come to us at all? That's right. Okay. And that's based on the code and based on the requirements for a minor review, which per the little nice diagram, it just says it goes to staff.
So... And for my edification, how much time do you end up spending on any one of these reviews? That's why my position exists. That depends. Well, does that help? Yeah. That's fine. I mean, when you- I didn't add the sign applications in there, which- Yeah, the signs aren't in there.
We also have to review the building permits that come in. We have to review the site plans that are associated with these. And in fact, there's a lot of things that we're working towards simply approving on the building permit or approving it on the site plan.
Oh, excuse me. More so at probably in entrance corridors than historic districts, but someone is building a fence or enclosing a dumpster, we're working towards approving those. And actually, you'll see building permit numbers- Yeah ...
on there. Yeah. Here's the- There is not a separate COA application. We are reviewing on the building permit. So for EV chargers, for example. Mm-hmm. So the electrical permits come in. Kate's been checking every...
Because our permit system doesn't tell us, we have to check just about everything. And what is also happening is people are applying for building permits, and they're being accepted, and they're going through, and then we're finding, "Wait, this has a design review element." So, the time is variable.
It's still the lion's share of our time. For example, on take this 915 East High, when all is said and done, just bringing it to you, 20 hours. Just the correspondence and conversation with the applicants, the making signs, the preparing the agendas, the posting things, the assembling a staff report.
Last week, Kate had to disassemble what was being posted online to remove something. So there's a lot, and I haven't been able ever to really calculate the exact amount of time, but it is inverse to what you see here.
It's like in college, every hour of a class is X hours of work and homework at home. But I think it's similarly high for every project that we bring to you. Yeah. Yeah. Customer relations is a big part of what we do, which doesn't show up in a permit.
Yep. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Thanks for doing all this work. Yes. It's something a lot. Well, it's- Yeah ... yeah. It's our job, but it's what we're... Yeah, you're a little bit of grumbling behind the scenes is that it's a, we have to touch things so often, and others we'll touch it once, but then it comes back to us, and then we look at the building permit.
And then once it's built, we have to say that they built it the way they were supposed to build it. And it's a- And so the one thing I do is I sit in at every development team meeting on Wednesday. So that's something that Jeff got to pass off to me, right?
Yeah. Which he didn't have the luxury of doing it when I didn't exist, so... And now with so much of what we do with this new code requires- What was on our agenda? ... a site plan or a development plan.
It requires additional steps that they didn't have to do under the old code. And we're now... You all got the thing that got pulled from the agenda was a special exception for the apartment building on West Main Street, only because of the way the grade changes, the floor gets built into the grade.
Yeah. And our code says, "Oh, no, your floor can't be that... You can't have a six-foot first floor," even though the rest of the building, it's 14 feet tall because of the grade change. And so you all are going to get a special exception request to review, which required a staff report, which essentially was saying, "You all already looked at this and approved the design, so you have obviously no problem with this element," but we had to formally prepare a document Basically reiterating that you all approved a design review.
So- Sorry for the crazy emails ... yeah. Okay. Do these people pay NDS something for your review? Mm-hmm. Believe me, the revenue that Kate and I generate is... And sometimes it's almost not worth trying to explain to somebody Okay How to put in their $100 fee.
The fee schedule is adopted by council- Yeah, it's pretty- ... and that's public information Yeah. Okay. We're not a revenue stream. The building permits and other things are, but it's 100 bucks for- Minor review ...
minor review, 125, and if it's in a conservation district, it's nothing. It's an intangible value. Yes, that's right. We do it just for the love of the game. It's to sort of stop just being blasted with erroneous- Right ...
messages. There's a little bit of, "Oh, I've got to pay something for this." Yeah. And it's some of why we're trying to get towards being able to approve things a little more simply. Mm. We've got to now where these EV chargers, it's like, how do we loop this into the building permit process or the electrical permit process?
All right. So I have- I have a question on the cafes- Yeah ... just for a second. Yep. Yeah. I'd love more context on that. So there are four outdoor cafes that are operating without approvals? Correct.
And what do those, I don't want to name call, but- Yep. I'm not- ... what would those businesses need to be doing? So there's a- And I assume because it's August- Well, let's cl- ... that they've been operating for the better part of- In some cases ...
for years. Yeah. So there's a permit to operate a cafe space in the public right, and there's a fee for that. There's also the design approval, but we're not talking about that at this point. We're talking about people who have not paid the fee but are still operating.
So is it zoning's- I- ... duty to enforce that, and why it's not enforced? For survival- Mm-hmm ... in meetings- Mm ... we put on our blinders because- I mean- ... I don't have an answer. In an ideal- In an ideal world- ...
functioning government ... we would go pick up their stuff and move it. That's where a lot- We're in a data collection phase right now. So this is a phased initiative. This is a data collection point.
These reports- But we've al- ... are going directly to the city manager's office. So we are- But we've always required permits for outdoor cafes. That's not new. So if somebody's been doing that for...
I'm not trying to blame exactly the staff- No, it's- ... I'm just asking- Well, no, this isn't- There's serious non-compliance if people have been years without a cafe. And they're on the public street.
They're on a public- Right. This is not private property. This is- Right. This is space that's being taken away- Yeah ... from the public- Right ... for private use. Right. And they're not- That has chairs that nobody's using and nobody's paying for it, and that could be open space.
Mm-hmm. Frankly. And so Brenda can- Which is what the mall was intended ... and what it was intended to be. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Instead of outdoor cafes. Brenda would be very happy to come and speak to you all, and she actually asked, "Should I come tonight?" And I was just like, "Well, I didn't even know if we were going to put it into your packet tonight." But yes, she has offered to come as the representative from economic development to speak to this concern and this continuous issue.
Is there something we... But- There's nothing- Is there something we can do- Yeah, this doesn't feel like it's in our purview ... for it to be given to us? It's not really our purview. Yeah. So why are we- This is like the bill collectors.
City manager's office needs to take some action on that. Well, I'm just willing to provide context- Well, we have worked on it ... for you and explain- We have worked to develop the- ... the nuances- Oh, I appreciate it.
Yeah ... and the disagreements- We- ... and all of that. Yeah. We worked to develop the design guidelines, if you will, for the cafe spaces. Yes. And we expect those to be enforced. We have not. I don't know if it's by you or not.
That's just- It's not. We've been instructed- I know ... not to. Yeah. Okay. Well, then- That's why we're in data collection right now. Fair enough. Yeah. The- To me, I don't care whether they pay their bill or not.
Yeah. The private citizen me does, the BAR member does not. Mm-hmm. BAR member says you should have dark colored metal furniture- Well, BAR landscape architect, too ... and et cetera. Well, the landscape architect who- We went through a- ...
Lauren Alperin says there should be more ... We have already like- We've beaten that horse ... passed a resolution- I'm just saying your opinion, and my opinion- No, it's not an opinion ... are different about- Before you joined the BAR, we passed a resolution saying these are the design guidelines for the cafe spaces.
And council- And council approved them ... accepted them. We have not yet enforced them. But there is a city, I don't want to say task force, but it is a subcommittee of high-level employees who are directing this initiative towards making progress on these compliance issues.
Right. So there are things being done. Yeah. It is not apparent right now at this moment, but it is happening at the- It's zoning- Thank you ... that is supposed to enforce it. Again, there is an independent group of high-level employees who are tasked with solving that problem right now, and it's happening way above my pay grade.
They're- Yeah. They're meeting quarterly to work through these issues- I know ... with business owners, and so. Zoning applies to zoned parcels. Yeah. Yeah. Public, yeah. So there are some idiosyncrasies to this situation.
Believe me, it's frustrating. It's frustrating particularly given how much work and effort was put into Updated the cafe guidelines, and people have sort of... When we were first looking at what we had to enforce, it was a couple of folks who were probably going to be upset.
But now it seems like a lot of others have followed suit and said, "Well, I can put potted plants all along the outside of my barrier. I can do whatever I want." You have an application coming to you next month.
Two cafe applications next month. And one we adamantly told the applicant, "This is not per the guidelines. We will recommend denial of it." That's going to be an interesting evening. Sorry, I've become so frustrated with the mall.
I will say I'm enthused with the crossings. I'm so glad of what we got. We have the fountains. That's a huge win. Beth Meyer was so excited when I saw her a couple weeks ago. Great job. Well done. Yeah.
We have more benches coming onto the mall. Not a lot, more. I think it would be great if Ms. Kelly would come and provide a brief, or at least in an email of the- Yeah. I guess- She's volunteered it, so...
I don't know what you all, other than expressing concern, but there's not... We can inform you, but I can't give you direction on how to- Yeah. And Jen, I did not mean to be s- That's all right ... dismissive.
I just emailed you the city council approved cafe guidelines, so you've got those to take a look at. Right. My point was just that, I think it's not just about an aesthetic judgment, but it's a public space.
Mm-hmm. And I do think the VAR should have some, and it might not be of interest to you as a VAR member- No ... which is what I heard you say, but I just want to express as a VAR member, I was interested- I think he said as a private citizen, he doesn't care, but as a VAR member, he does.
Not care- I thought he said he doesn't care as a VAR member, so that's why I just wanted to- Oh ... as a- I'm talking about collecting the money. Okay. Yeah. That side of it. So I just want- That side of it, I don't think falls into our purview as VAR members.
Not at all. The private citizen me is like, "Yeah, pay your bills." That's what I was saying. But the design review- The design review falls under our purview. Yeah, okay. But based on this chart here, only a third of the cafes are in full compliance.
Right. That is correct. That's a- Yeah ... pretty pitiful. I think we knew it was going to take a while as well, though. Nobody's going to turn on a dime. But there were previous guidelines. And there have been previous.
They were just maybe not enforced or... The pandemic, we're told- That's part of it, too ... made those spaces be used year-round, plastic, all kinds of things were done that didn't comply with earlier guidelines.
Trying to rein that in. And once that went away, a lot of restaurants didn't come back, and commerce was slow, and businesses were hurting, and- Online. Right ... there was a sentiment coming down hard on them.
Yeah. So, there's a context for this, but it is disappointing because, like you said, I don't care about the money or the actual permitting or the process, but that's the opportunity that we get to review what they want to put out there.
Mm-hmm. And that's disappointing, as Jeff has said, because we planned and we thought hard and developed these guidelines that we thought were thoughtful, not too onerous, business-friendly, but- Well, we had to- I mean- ...
but would preserve what the mall was supposed to be under Halpern and as he designed it. And while this was all happening, then we had the Downtown Mall Tree Management Plan done by Wolf Josie, and a promise that the city would begin to move in that direction, not maybe follow all of its plan.
And then we've just celebrated the anniversary of the Downtown Mall. So it's just disappointing, like Jenna said, that if I pulled... Let's just say I pulled a food truck into one of Market Street Park and just started selling something.
I would be a private sector person making money in a public space, and that's not right. Right. I would know that I would probably need to get permission somewhere to do that on a lot of front, on different fronts, and it's disappointing to me that a business just can't go...
I think our city is business-friendly. I think the city does want for the mall to thrive. And I don't think that it's a burden on these businesses to apply to get to use part of our public park. That's what the Downtown Mall is.
Mm-hmm. It's our old Main Street. It's a park. It's a public space. It's a cherished public space. Now it's a historic public space. It's an enjoyable public space, and I think it's a privilege to be there and to do business there and to make money there.
So it's just, I think we're just disappointed about that part of it, I think all of us. It's not much different to me than the farmer's market where a farmer has to- Yeah ... pay for a parking spot on the- That's right ...
and how are these restaurants getting away with not complying? It seems problematic. There's just so much public space on the Downtown Mall now, so it just seems like if they're not going to pay, then let's allow the public to use the space that they're currently occupying now.
Mm-hmm. Where was Lucky's Cheesesteak? If you see Lucky Blue's, it's at the end by Whiskey. Where? Whiskey Jar. Oh, okay. Just next door to- I never knew about that one ... Frank's side and it used to be Lucky Blue's So are we doing this half an hour thing now?
Oh. I'm hoping it'd be more, but this is- I'll hold this ... this is- Okay. So we can officially start the clock. Just to preface this, you all are required- Think outside the box. Yeah, that's the theme.
Okay. You all are required, and I will get into it here, explain it, but you all are required in our annual report to the state to complete an hour of training relevant to being on the Board of Architectural Review.
And in my tenure, I think the eight annual reports that I've done, I've never been able to turn in a complete, that the BAR has completed its training. So, it's a bit professionally embarrassing for me.
And so, the option that we've come down to is that we are going to... I was hoping tonight would be a full hour and knock it out, but I don't think that's possible. But we can do a half hour tonight. Our agenda said a half an hour.
I don't mean to be ornery, but- That's all right ... it said 7:00 to 7:30, so. I understand, but you still have to do the hour, and so- I'm not objecting to anything that you're saying ... and my hope was to do 30, 40 minutes, and then we have 20 minutes for, I know there'll be discussion and questions.
But what I'm putting together, putting forth here is that I also think that we've not ever taken and gone through roles and responsibilities of the BAR. So, I'm not going to cover all of this tonight.
I'm going to cover as much as I can, and when 30 minutes is up, we'll see where we are. And we were hoping to, at the next meeting, although that agenda might be a little complicated, but we were hoping to have a session to talk about urban archeology, and have Ben Ford share with it, because there are some things that Kate and I are working on internally as we begin to discuss opportunities with archeology.
So very quickly, yeah, so BAR 101, the box theme is we've been just joking about how the hardest thing for you all to do is to stay in your lane, to stay in your box, to stay in your purview, and that's one of the things I want to try to communicate a little bit tonight.
But just very quickly, and you have a copy of it there. It's helpful to know that the background of historic preservation timeline. This is very brief. It leaves out a lot of things, the historic district's ordinances.
I'm not sure if 1956 or 1959, we adopted the first architectural design control district. That's that area of downtown that included the building we just looked at. And that was later expanded. And early on, there was not a BAR in the way that you all are constituted.
That didn't occur, I think, until, where is it up there? I said, yeah, 1991. And so you see, and we're kind of building towards what we have now is our eight ADC districts, our three historic conservation districts, and our 70 some individually protected properties.
And so you all are a certified local government. This is a program through the National Park Service. It's administered by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, and there are requirements for that for us to be a CLG.
And one of them is the establishment of historic districts of a zoning ordinance- Someone left the door ... go, and the adoption of guidelines that are consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties, the appointment of a BAR.
You all fulfill that. And then there are criteria for, as you know, we have different seats on the BAR. That's one of the pieces of the CLG, the Certified Local Government, and I think it was 1994. What we get in return for being a certified local government is, I have access to grant funds, which, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but Mary Joy certainly before me, and I following up, have accomplished probably close to $150,000 worth of survey work, surveying historic districts, getting things on the National Register, of which I've been able to leverage quite a lot of state, well, it's passed through funds from the state, federal funds.
So that's that. By being a certified local government, that gives me that access to that grant funding. And then it said, this is one from the annual reports that we prepare, and they go from September to October.
But one of the provisions in there is that a CLG requirement is that you attend at least one training program relevant to the BAR each year. And we've established, and the state is fine with it, that that is one hour of relevant training.
And so I know you all know this. We have established our code. These were the code sections that Kate circulated. There are three sections, 2.93, or two, 2.93, and 2.94, which cover the architectural design control districts, the IPPs, and the historic conservation districts.
So those are established in the ordinance, and that's some of what Kate circulated. Jeff? Yes, ma'am. Just a question. How many IPPs are we at right now? I always say 76 because I know we've added, but I think now with the house on West Street, we're at 77.
But some of them are in districts- Because we lost the property, the stone property where The Verve went. Yes. And then we lost- See, that's when I tried- The one that I helped demolish. Sorry ... And then there's some on the list that we- Riverside ...
Yeah. So some that were still on the list that were like, "Why is this on there?" Council was supposed to remove them. They- Still a lot of properties. It's about 76. And- Yeah, it's still a lot. Sir.
And I also found that previously when a historic district was established and the IPPs were automatically removed, for some reason that wasn't done on some of them. But it's around 76. And again, so everyone knows, this is important to share, and I've had to explain this even to council many times, say, yes, we have historic districts on the National Register, on the Virginia Landmarks Register, for instance, Fry Spring, North Belmont, and Fifeville-Tonnsler, but they're not city-designated historic districts.
And in fact, some of the historic districts we have are the same as the National Register districts, but the boundaries aren't the same. That was going to be my question. They are not synonymous. One is not required.
The only thing that we require is if we're going to establish a district that there's been a survey, we've completed a survey. Is that because the- Yeah, why is that? Why is what? Why is it that you have some districts that are recognized nationally as historic districts- Well- ...
locally they're not? I know the answer to that. Right. Yeah. The city didn't adopt them. Well, why not? They may- They don't want to be- They don't want to be ... part of, they don't want to be- Yeah.
They don't want to come ask ... they don't want the guidelines to be imposed on them. That's right. Is it the community saying no to it? North Belmont, when it was surveyed- Yes ... this is the year before I started, they did the survey.
The neighborhood did not want to be locally designated, but they were willing to pursue being on the National Register. I did Fifeville. Well, I was here for Rose Hill, Little High neighborhood, 10th and Page neighborhood.
All three of those were eligible for the National Register and local designation, but the neighborhoods- How does that work? Just maybe having not been through the process of it, is there a hearing, and then people from the neighborhood come?
So you hold that. Okay. But to establish a city-designated district, we like to have the survey, but my house is not on the National Register or the state register, but it's locally designated as an IPP.
In fact, a lot of our IPPs are not. And so it is one, the city designation does not require state or national designation, but there's no- Just vice versa ... the state or national designation doesn't come with any regulation.
And it does- It's honorific. But you would get it because you could get state tax credits. You could. I like that as a... They are not the easiest thing to acquire. So I know it's heresy in the preservation world, but I think there are benefits being on the state and national register.
There is an opportunity for rehabilitation tax credits. I would be hesitant to use that as a selling point. It is not the easiest process, and the funds are very limited. I've done it, it's difficult.
Yeah. Our ADC districts are listed here- That's even harder ... on the front page. I put the year when they're... Yes. But that's- There's eight of those. Right. Eight ADCs and- Three conservation districts and- And historical, HCs.
Mm-hmm. Three of those? Mm-hmm. Okay. Martha Jeff, Willa Mills, and Rugby Road. And I think say for Fifeville or Fry Spring or North Belmont, you'd need overwhelming community support to become a local.
You would need overwhelming support even to nominate it for the National Register. And that's what they were able to get in, and it's my understanding, for example, Fifeville-Tonnsler, North Belmont, they were enthusiastic- Well, setting aside- ...
as long as you don't pursue- Setting aside National Register, our purview's local. It would have to be- Almost 95% or something like that. Yeah. Given the experience, the last one- To answer your question ...
in Willa Mills- Why they're not ... it's not like some- I'd say 99%. Yeah. Right. But to answer his question, City Council can't just designate it without- It's rezoning ... the approval of the neighborhood.
It's rezoning. I'm surprised the ones we have had that much support. Well, it was for the National Register district, so that's like a majority. I think in the past they were probably more imposed than they are today.
The ADC ones that we do have. Right. Maybe- I think it's the last one- Look at the other map ... was Willa Mills, and they had to table that for a year because of opposition. Has it gotten harder to get the designation?
So- Was it- I think there was an iron-willed person. So- If you look at the timeline. Yeah. We did have a conservation district proposed in the C.H. Brown Conservation District in 10th and Page, that north of Grady Avenue, six buildings.
But what I needed was a letter from each of those landowners saying, "I am willing to become listed and fall under the BAR's purview." And those letters were not produced, so I could not take it to City Council.
And when was the conservation district created, and why the difference? So they were created in 2010. Primarily, this was driven by the Martha Jefferson neighborhood, when they knew the hospital was leaving, and they saw some of the encroachment of businesses into the houses, particularly there near Maplewood.
And also, the big apartment building was constructed there in Little High. But there was not a willingness to pursue an ADC district, so some folks came up with the idea of a sort of historic district light.
Mm-hmm. And then all three of those conservation districts were neighborhood driven. And just since we're talking about it, what is the difference in our kind of ruling of those two? I think we'll get to that.
We'll get to that. That's- Community service criteria, review criteria. Yep. So, yep. So again, the theme is we're in our box. So our box are the city-designated districts and properties. Next slide showed, I said I showed, that should actually be we don't even have a box there.
Right. But it's important to make that distinction so that people know one does not lead to the other, one does not require the other. All right. Next- But I still look at every single thing happening in North Belmont because I'm on the permits.
Yeah. Yeah. So if I get sick in May, send me to Ireland. Well, and you drive into Fry Spring, and there's a sign that says, "Fry Spring Historic District." Yep. It's a prestigious- We get- I'm engaged to.
Right. Kate and I field a lot of calls from people who say, "Well, I'm in a historic district. I have to..." No. And then I have to explain to them, I've tried to work towards a standard email to explain just...
Sorry, I'm being short. It says that- No, we're automating like at the wazoo. It is like- We are trying to- ... oh my god. All right, I have to explain it again. Yep. I've had to explain it to people in City Hall multiple times.
So it is a message that somehow I'm not communicating very well. All right, so the big thing for you guys that we do need to address is what is your purview? And some tough love here, I'll say. Tonight, there were some questions about things that just don't fall under your purview.
It's great to be interested, it's great to ask, but if you were dealing with not someone who Kate and I work with almost monthly, you were dealing with an out-of-town architecture firm on a really big project.
You all are asking questions sometimes that fall outside of your purview. But your authority established by code is... So you're different from the Tree Commission or the Historic Resources Committee.
You are an appointed body with a level of authority, and established by code, and you have the authority to approve the certificates of appropriateness, approve or deny. And you see there, and also appeals regarding to certificates appropriateness for a minor historic review.
That's a new thing. We used to call them administrative reviews. They're now officially called minor reviews. The thing I do want to make clear is that Kate and I would never deny if someone brought in something for a minor review, a COA for a cafe space, a sign permit, or something that was a minor review for something else.
If we're not comfortable approving it, we're bringing it to you. We're elevating it to a major historic review. So, I cannot imagine where we would formally deny. The applicant has a choice- Yeah. To approve or not.
Yeah. And that's the kind of- Yeah. And if they say, "I don't want to," then say, "Then don't write me a check, because we're not going to approve this." Mm-hmm. I do think under Authority 515C1, General, if you've not read through items A and through all of those, there's some interesting things in there that you all should be doing or could be doing.
Could be doing. We hate this code because- It's all related to COAs ... yeah, because we have to say 5.1.2.7.C-1-C-C. It's not simple like the Owens. But- But disseminate information within the city on historic preservation issues and concerns.
Yeah. Yeah. So you have also, and I didn't include it because, again, trying to get to your box, that when you're sitting up here and reviewing a project, and for the COA for a major historic review, which means it comes to you, your job is approve the application unless you find it does not meet the specific standards set forth within the section, and that'll be on the next slide.
And what that's saying is that you have specific review criteria, you have specific guidelines. If a project doesn't meet those guidelines, you can deny it. If it does, then you have to approve it. You have to approve it.
It can't be that you don't like it. Right. Or, "I think that the zoning is bad here," or, "No, this shouldn't be a slaughterhouse." Nope, all you care about is whether or not that slaughterhouse looks right.
And- But what about- Go ahead ... number two? So which number two? That the proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural- So- ... or architectural character. And that is based on, and that's when we're going to get to the next slide and I'll show you.
So there is always some judgment that's inherent. There's no doubt about that. Now, the other reason I have this particular piece here is that you all, in your purview, you can require conditions, as it says, conditions of approval.
And you have that right, but- We'll talk in a bit about what the constraints are on those conditions. And also, this was added to the code from the last one. It says here, "Prior to attaching conditions to an approval, due consideration will be given to the cost and compliance with the proposed condition." I interpret that to also...
That gives you some flexibility on the application itself. And the question would be something like, we're going to make this person who can't afford it put a standing seam metal roof on their house. You all could consider the cost and et cetera.
But the thing would be this is, you guys have to somewhat be blind to that at times, too, because you're following the guidelines. There are remedies available if... The point being is, if you say, "I don't want to make somebody do this because it's going to cost them money," then we have to be consistent, and that's the most important thing.
And I don't disagree with that fairness part, but it's where we have to anchor it in the guidelines and then be consistent in that application of the guidelines. All right. So next slide. These are not the review criteria for demolitions, but just for brevity.
So in our code, it establishes the things that you all are supposed to look at. And it says there, exterior architectural features. What's interesting is one of the things, we don't talk about landscapes.
It's not clear what the landscape means, and that's something I would like to... Brett Gaster and I had a lot of conversation about this before, saying, "All right. When we have a site that has a historic landscape," and there are some places where, like the natural amphitheater behind the old girls school on Second Street, where that landscape element is a critical piece of this, but it's where your role is- Right ...
it says- Well, there's us. There's guidance- Point V, five ... for cultural landscapes- Yes ... that's now part of the Secretary Standards. Right. So this should be updated to include standards for cultural landscapes, which is not just historic landscapes, but vernacular landscapes, ethnographic landscapes- Yeah, and so it's- ...
designed landscapes ... but it forces us into, my point is that sometimes we have to interpret, like, well, if somebody wants to cut down a tree because it's dead. But in the old days, I've seen where people had to come to the BAR and say, "I want to cut down my dead tree." So we have some room for discussion on how to interpret landscaping in this.
But the larger thing I'm saying is that first and foremost, it's limited to exterior architectural features, what you can see. So that's where the new construction or the alteration. And a piece in our code is that correlation of our design guidelines to the Secretary Standards.
And I know we say it a lot, but folks aren't necessarily aware of what they are. So the Secretary Standards, the Secretary of the Interior, their standards for the treatment of historic properties- Well, that's different, because rehabilitation is just one of the four major categories.
Right. Exactly. And it's even worded differently in our guidelines. Okay. But the Secretary Standards, and there's the section on rehabilitation, which is actually very- There's 10 things ... it's very helpful.
And so if we hit a log jam on something, there's guidance in there that we can look to. And then the other thing that I highlighted here is any applicable provisions of the design guidelines. So this is your starting point.
But I usually go right to the design guidelines because our design guidelines reflect these. It's not one or the other. You can go right to the guidelines very comfortably, and our guidelines reflect the Secretary Standards.
But I was asked by, in our last appeal, there was the question of, "Well, which guidelines does the BAR apply?" And I said, "Well, it's very clear. We have ADC District design guidelines." It says applicable provisions of the guidelines underneath.
Well, I didn't put it in there, but under ADC Districts. But the question was raised that the BAR, some have said, "Oh, the BAR should only use this, the guidelines, because we don't say which guidelines to use." I would debate that.
We have the ADC District guidelines. We have the Secretary Standards. So when we're talking to somebody about, for example, the roof or the materiality or a trim detail on that addition that we were talking about tonight, some of that's delving into architectural preference, and I don't have a problem with it.
I think that's part of the game. But someone could look at our ordinance and say, "It doesn't matter what-" What kind of tree they put down there, they need to put a tree, or it doesn't matter what kind of roofing membrane they used.
What do the guidelines tell us? And I'm saying it because I think the BAR, we have to become aware of the box that we're in, and when we're having conversations, go back to the guidelines, check the guidelines, make sure that we're staying consistent with the guidelines, because that's where the complaints will fall and say, "You guys, well, it was someone's opinion that this project didn't meet the guideline," but they didn't demonstrate where it does or doesn't meet the guideline.
The guidelines are our safety net. Right. So next slide. So similarly for the historic conservation districts, you also have review criteria to follow. This is an example of where when the ordinance was rewritten, the lowest rung on the ladder was us, and we had to make sure, or I guess I was making sure that we didn't lose things from the old ordinance.
So some of these should essentially match what's for the ADC districts. It's a similar level of evaluation. It's just in a conservation district, we don't look at what's going on in the backyard. We don't look at what we don't see.
But for the things that we see, we should have similar criteria. But again, ultimately it refers to the design guidelines that we have for conservation districts, and which are the ADC district guidelines, about 150 pages, the conservation district guidelines about three or four if you include the map.
And- But if they're both applicable provisions to the city's design guidelines, that's my question is- Well, the applicable- ... they're very similar. Well- I don't know how to evaluate them set differently.
So if you see there it says D2 historic conservation district, the applicable design guidelines are the guidelines that were adopted for historic conservation districts. So if someone were to say, "I don't know which guidelines you're supposed to use," you're not reading the code.
And the same thing on the other page for the other one, and I just for space left it out. It's ADC districts and IPPs. That's why we use the ADC district guidelines when reviewing IPPs. That came up also in the Seventh Street appeal that, "Oh, well, why are you using design guidelines for ADC districts?" They say, "Because the code says so." Well, where does it say it?
So one of the things I think Kate and I have talked about is we want to say, instead of any applicable provision, say the provisions of the historic conservation district design guidelines. Next slide.
So I already talked about the Secretary's, the interior standards, but also again, from the CLG requirements, your design guidelines shall be substantially consistent with the Secretary's standards. So there's that connection again- So I think- ...
a requirement ... and maybe it's just the slide title, but I want to make it clear, the treatment of historic properties, rehabilitation's a subset of that. I understand. Okay. I know it's probably the one that most often, yeah, we deal with.
But each of those four has sort of its own- Their own little world. Right. When you're talking about restoration- Guidelines ... or reconstruction, it's just simpler to... And also- No one cares about our- It's like just trying to...
Yeah, trying to work on my brevity in my notes, but when you think of the Secretary's standards, there are Secretary's standards for the treatment of historic properties. Okay. And within that, what we refer to are the rehabilitation.
But there might be circumstances where we're dealing with a... We dealt with a reconstruction of a porch. So- Yeah. And I remember there was one where I feel like we even asked, "Which one are you all applying under?" Right.
And I almost wish that was something they filled out on the COA, was like, "This is the umbrella we're-" I think that's a great- "... we're designing our project under," because then that guides us to...
Because it's really up to the applicant to say- Yeah ... "These are the guidelines we're following, and therefore you need to judge us by these guidelines." And by and large, it is rehabilitation. By and large, I agree.
And by and large, the guidelines for new construction and additions, they're actually pretty clean. It's the rehabilitation chapter that has some wishy-washiness even in our stuff. But that's again, everything's linked back to because we are a CLG, we have requirements, and one of those is this core that our guidelines correspond to the Secretary's standards.
Next slide. So this is something that often gets lost in translation, and it's very, very important. You all stay in your box, and that box was established by city council. James has been here and David when we've had appeals or addressed council on things, and there's this sort of, "Well, why is the BAR, why are you doing this?
Why are you doing that?" And the response, I've many times said, "These are your guidelines. You appointed the BAR. You adopted this ordinance that establishes the BAR in these historic districts." And I don't mean that to be grumpy about it.
It's to remind council that we work for you. And as we did when we revised the design guidelines for the cafe spaces, we had to go to council Twice, I think, and explain them. And- Don't you remember in 1959- ...
when you created the BAR? No, and I had to say many times, "Well, if you don't agree with it, don't approve it. We can only do what you approve." So, that's one of the roles that you all have. Now, it says up there, we have to, every five years, undertake a comprehensive review.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and I- Think about it ... believe me, there's a lot I wish we could get to. But your obligation is to make recommendations to council on those things. But ultimately, the guidelines are what they have adopted.
They're not what you all have decided. I literally said to council, "The BAR is not a group of my friends that I gathered together because the room was empty and we've decided to tell people what to do." I said, "You are a creature of council.
You are a function of our zoning ordinance." And we do have a role in the comp plan. Yeah. Again, not something I put in there, but we have comp plan coming up. You have recommendations. You have power, not power, but you have a role.
When you make recommendations on special use permits, that's per code. Now, that's not a formal agreement, but it's a recommendation that you all, as an expert body, are making to city council. So next thing is, and I'm going to get to this slide, and we'll save the rest.
Yeah, because it'll be 35 minutes. That's right. Save the- Yeah. So we have the minor reviews, the major reviews. The minor reviews are what we used to call admin approvals. And the thing is that I have, and Mary Joy did, a lot of times people call, "Hey, can I do X?" We'd say, "Yeah, do it." And we would call those admin approvals, except our code formally referred to them as an administrative review.
I don't love the minor, major, and this also goes to some of the language in our code where the ordinance talks about rehabilitation, restoration, renovation, and it doesn't fit with what secretary's standards, how they define those.
That's another thing to work on. So you all are involved in the major historic review. That's your box that you work within. When did that terminology change? Which box? Oh, you mean the terminology. The- When they adopted the new code ...
admin and the- Admin versus... Yeah. With the new code. Yeah. That was just in the last year. But the pieces of it that, just to make you all aware of it is, yes. Two years now. Yeah. A lot of stuff I approve.
When people call me and say, "I want to repaint my windows." "And?" "Yeah, they're white. I'm painting them white." Do it. Thank you for asking. Or they might say, "I'm painting my house. It's currently tan.
I'm going to paint it gray." "All right, let me look it up. Gray is fine. I will send you an email." Because that's a lot of time they want it. "I want to be able to tell my neighbors I asked." We do those because we can, in 30 seconds, solve something instead of taking an hour and trying to explain to someone how to fill out a form, an application, do XYZ.
So we- Yeah ... choose expediency on some things. Maintenance. And then there are a lot of responses to inquiries. I'm working with Joey Conover on something now that's maintenance and repair. She's asking for some advice on some things.
It's a maintenance and repair issue, which you all don't review, we don't review, but we're helping people. We're answering questions, and I said we're trying to also get to is some things that we can approve with site plans and building permits.
A minor view for a sign permit. A sign permit is a zoning signs off on that. We check the box, and that serves as the COA. So what we're arguing is that why can't something similar for an EV charger. Why did it have to be a COA and another piece of paper?
So wait, just a clarifying question. Yes, you may. On an earlier slide, under the major historic review, it actually said that signs were under major- Only if they're part of a- ... if they bring it to you.
No, I said they were- Part of a larger project ... minor review, but if someone, for example, Grit, a couple of years ago. There. Yeah. It says- Including signs ... including signs. But- As part of an application under consideration.
So if they are asking for more than the code allows them, then yes, it's a major and it comes to you, and you've done that recently. Grit, coffee, Insomnia Cookies, those were major reviews because they were asking for signs which they were not by right allowed to have.
So I guess a question then would be, so if- It's not by zoning right, but by the guidelines right. You have to read... I'm not trying to get more work for us. No. I'm just kidding. But it's helpful because it's where reading the code in sequence, it's sort of where things fall out.
Okay. And so if it's a, "This is under the major review," so if you're look- So tonight, to Jen's question about the village school- Mm-hmm ... that seems like, I guess that's a major review coming to us.
No, not for the signage. Now, if the signage is- Look at your division 411, right? So that's zoning. That's the sign regs- Division 411. Where am I seeing that? ... that dictate that. Yeah. So if in the sign regs it says in an ABC district they can only have 25 square foot of signage, but they are requesting more, that becomes a major review to come to you all, who have the authority to grant them that addition.
So a project can be a major review But only if their signage goes above and beyond, does it become part of that? Mm-hmm. Yeah. It depends. Yes. Y'all will let us know. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, and that's why signage, that's another thing that we- That was a good question ...
we don't love. Yeah. Um- It's really the zoning that determines can they have a monument sign and a wall sign. Right. And, uh, that's the zoning stuff. But- Now, right, now if a sign were- Sorry ... an element, architectural element, that- Like a vintage neon sign that needed restoration ...
yeah, it's something, right, can't be removed from the building itself, then you would see it. But no, most... And that's why I ask most applicants to take signage off- I think it was Yes ... of the renderings.
Yeah. Or we say it's for context only. So just curious- For example, the sign in the church that used to be the music center, where they do- Right. Yeah. That's a good example. The point- Well, it was not the sign.
It was the window that they wanted to put in. Well, that was because they were altering an architectural- Right. So there's 35 minutes. I'm gonna stop because the next... But you see, the next pieces are to kind of get into some of the, when we're having a review and having a discussion, where keeping you in your box, um- So which question, if I may ask one more question?
You may. Now you can get to questions. You just knocked out 30 minutes of your required- You started this by saying some questions that were out of our box, and which ones would you advise are out of the box?
So it's where, um- Like the crosswalks, Jeff? Is that what you were thinking of? A crosswalk was a little bit of like, it's an interesting question, but we don't have guidelines for painting the street.
We don't have guidelines for speed bumps. Or where a crosswalk should be. And the other way to think about it is in terms of, it's one thing when we're offering an applicant spots. And I thought it was helpful to say to Kevin, "Well, where's your downspout going?" And now the guidelines may not be...
But that's where some judgment comes in. You may not be able to say, there's probably not something in there that specifically tells you how to treat a downspout. But there are things in there where we say, "That's not necessarily architecturally compatible." So we could defend that.
But let's say we said, "I don't like magnolias. I went to prom with a girl named Magnolia, and she dumped me, and I hate the word magnolia." It can't be a reason for us to not allow magnolias. Well, we can't.
I mean, the AstroTurf- Right. Yeah ... the stripe, any of that is outside of the design guidelines. So- To some extent. And the way to flip it is to say- All of it has to do with character- Materially ...
and defining the- I understand. So here's the context. I'm just... You don't think so, but according to the design guidelines- Well, think about it in terms of if you were- I don't think so either. It's a hard scape feature.
That's what- If you were denying it. That's what I'm getting at. So it's one thing when we having a... It's easy to have a conversation, what about this, what about that? But flip it and think, if we were denying this project, like if they said, "No, the design on the grill, the metal..." The thing I looked at on that was like, that's just gonna get beat to hell by balls.
It should be something. But is it my job to say, "Well, that metal grill should be more sturdy." Or, "I don't like the design." Let's take that metal grill. Right. Under what guideline would we say, "I don't like that design.
Could your design be more floral?" So that's where I'm saying, I've had projects where we said, like you asked tonight about a cornice. Is a cornice required? In some interpretation of the guidelines it's not.
But the guidelines also instruct us to- Retain Yeah, contemporary design ... current pictures of original- Well, but if a new building- On this building. But if a new building- But if they had proposed a chain link fence, I would say that there's good grounds to say that's not in keeping- Correct ...
with the character of the neighborhood. And in fact, our guidelines specifically address that. But when we get to where, let's say, you say, "Well, your cornice should have dentils, because I think that I like them." That's where we have to be kind of cautious in...
My job has to be to, you all shouldn't be designing a project. And I think where we got into, we did when we were talking about the project on 7th Street, it was very difficult to disengage from what the neighbors wanted and what they were saying.
It was not. Collectively. But our guidelines, that was a very small box that we were, I think all of us felt an obligation in the community in some way to get out of the box a little bit. But there were times during those discussions when we should have said, "You know what, thank you very much, but I'm in my box, and I can't go outside." I should be doing better with that.
Well, all of us should. It's hard. Look, this is a small community. And that's why- Jeff wouldn't ask us for our opinion. Yeah, that's what I'm trying- That's why I said it was beyond my pay grade, because I know it's not.
Ironically, that project, I felt like we communicated to the audience, and even to City Hall- Yeah ... what our box is. I think we were pretty clear. I think we were very clear about that one. About the 7th and A Street project.
We did not do a good job in that motion. No. We could've been more specific. Rec- I knew what you all meant, but what was the comment? There was a comment- I don't mean the motion, I mean the discussion that we had.
Right. The discussion, right. And the message that we sent back to the city hall. I think it was a- Right ... pretty good illustration of, "Hey, this is what we're doing here- We were staying in our bounds ...
and this is the reason why we're here." But it wasn't reflected in the motion as clearly. Yeah. And that comment was made today by the city attorney. Think of the next person who's going to read this, not you.
And- Well, the city attorney should come to our meetings. Oh, God. I actually, that's one thing I would- Because the previous city attorneys did, every single meeting. I think, I worry when we- Lisa Robertson was at this meeting, and I hope this- She never attended ...
I hope that some city attorney hears, if they criticize the motion we're making- No, no, they're not. They're not. No, no ... and that we're not staying in legal guidelines, they should show up to our meeting and instruct us- That's not what's happening ...
as previous city attorneys and deputies have. Yeah. Thank you. I, yeah. Show up. They never attended when I was here. But I- And you can stay until 9:25 or 2:00. Well- You can stay with us ... I, and- And instruct us so all our motions are very pretty ...
yeah. And I think that we would... It does bring up the point that the motions are done kind of by the seat of our pants. I think it's tough. I think that it is a difficult thing to do, especially after a very long discussion.
Yeah. One that's deliberative, one that has a lot of public comment period, all that stuff we went through. I think that I am curious if we are able or allowed to call a recess- We are ... to huddle up to craft a good motion, and then re...
What is it, re-adjourn? Is that the right word? Or even just take a break and just say- Well, that's a... But we also, the tricky part with that is that we're not allowed- We can't go anywhere ... to recess to another room- Yeah ...
and et cetera. Right. But we could call a recess and huddle up here and- That's right ... shuffle our mics over this way. But any applicant needs to be able to hear that discussion. The applicant will hear the motion.
Well- So, yeah. And that's where we're... That's- But if we're doing business, we can't do business during a- Yeah ... during an adjournment or recess. I guess my thing is we're just trying to craft the- That's why you need- ...
verbiage- That's why you need a legal counsel to come forward- Come for the motion ... and say, and give you that advice in a public setting. Yeah. Because we can't huddle up in a public meeting. I wish- That's what Open Meeting Act is about.
I suspect if we had- Sorry ... for every motion, had to refer to- It's okay. It just is a difficult thing to do ... an attorney. The fact that a COA is not a vested right, that's one thing that's helpful.
And, but I think what we could do is, yes, when we have a motion's being made and there's er, ums, and mm, how about the... And it would be, "Okay, take five minutes. I'm going to write down what you've said so that we have a clean thing to work from." And that would be my bet.
And that was one of the slides, was is that we need to give ourselves some pauses. It's like coaching. It's like you want to yell at the ref, but maybe I just need to go take a walk behind the bench. And we need to give ourselves a little bit of time to do that.
To say, "Okay. Make sure, Jeff, do you understand everything I just said?" And I know we say we'll go listen to it, and Kate, now, you will be listening something, it'll be literally, you listen, "All right.
Play it again. Play it again. I have no idea what he said." No offense, but I do get tired of looking at y'all's faces. You get tired. Sometimes. You get tired. It's been a long time I've seen the- Well, and that's why I've tried lately to tr- kind of guide or give an outline to our discussions where we say, like, "All right.
Let's talk about site right now so we can try and gather all the comments about a topic at one time period instead of jumping all around," because that makes it so much harder to come back to something and capture it in a motion.
Mm-hmm. Okay. So that's 45 minutes of training. Right. You guys can... It's sweet, a lot of it. This was... I, and we can... I encourage you guys to... Sherry and I, she'll call me if she's got a question about something, and David will call me.
Carl and I talk all the time. If you guys have questions, ping us. If you wanna go sit down and walk through this, but this accomplished a lot of what I wanted to accomplish. It introduced some questions, and I know we have some discussions.
You guys are doing great. I- I think we're doing really well, and I don't think our job is to shield the city from being- Risk management. Right. It's not part of our job. And if it, and if really they're, the city is so afraid of us doing the wrong thing legally or exposing them to some sort of legal risk or disappointment or whatever, get their city attorney's a***s down here again.
Yeah. And suggest to us, which is your job, how we can craft a motion that protects the city. But other than that, we're an unpaid volunteer board that do not specialize in crafting beautiful motions that protect the city from any chance that they'll be sued by any applicant.
It, so- Yeah, it was more the denials ... I think we do a really good job. Yeah. I think our motions are thorough. They do what we need to do. I think we pick on a, with James's encouragement and chairmanship, we pick up on a lot of conditions and details.
I know Carl is very good when he crafts motions in doing that. I think that we do very well, and I don't really enjoy the beating around, about the head at 9:30 at night about what we are not accomplishing.
No, I never- I think we're a really good volunteer board. Yeah. I'm really proud of the work that we've done. And not, believe me, there's no... The, these were... The comments from the city attorney was a meeting today about- Then he should show up at our meetings ...
dealing... The meeting today was about dealing with employee law. So it had nothing to do with BAR, but it was an interesting comment when he said, "Think about the next person to read it." The things where we've had difficulty- Not my job ...
have been in the denials where we've then have to explain And so I think it's where, if going to deny something... Kate and I had gotten really good at... Some of the questions people have said is, "All right.
Well, the BAR recommended this. What does it mean?" Oh, yeah. Well, we will pull that out. Not the recommendation anymore. Yeah, we'll pull that out. We make a note, "Hey, the BAR suggested this," but it is not part of the motion.
Mm-hmm. So we know to pull that out. But no motion can completely embody- It can't be ... why- That's right ... a public board made a decision. But on denials, we need to take a- I think also the reality is that the language in the guidelines is subjective, right?
Like architecturally- Yes, very much so ... compatible and harmony. That's- That's our job- And I think that's- ... as people is to sort of weigh in on that. But that's not- But if you said- It's a judgment call ...
you don't believe it's architecturally compatible, it would then be, "And finish that sentence." Here's why. Right. "We didn't-" Right. I think we do. "That's what we didn't really do well." And sometimes we're getting better at it.
Yeah. And that's on me. And that's on me also to say, "Guys, we're not-" But I'm not sure that needs to be in a motion. I think that's part of our discussion. If it's a denial, I think it should be in a motion.
Yeah. It's- Okay. And I think it's more important in a denial than an approval. Yes. Right. Exactly. Yeah. Because the denial is where they're- Yeah ... probably or potentially going to appeal it, and then they're going to pick apart our motion.
Right. And so that's where you need to be... As I said earlier, the guidelines are our safety net. And so that's where if you can reference back to say, "Here's why we don't think it's compatible according to..." And you have done it on several occasions where you're rattling off the 34 dot blah, blah, blah.
That is where it is helpful, and it's tedious and that's where it'd be great if we could huddle up, whether we actually huddle up or just call a recess and then talk amongst ourselves. I think that's what we have to do.
And- And we have to cover to do that ... have a moment to actually flip back through our guidelines and say, "These are the ones we're relating to." But the city council doesn't have to make their decision based on- This is another- ...
our- Interact with the public. Yes, they do. They should. They should. According to the state code- Right ... what you review is what they review, because they're their guidelines. Now, they can, because they're a legislative body, can do whatever.
They can consider other things. But this was a big discussion from the 7th Street. Well, we've had several appeals lately. But the question to me was, what does it mean that we can consider other things?
And it came down to that's a prerogative. As the elected body, this is the way of saying, I can't tell you what you can and can't do. But the best advice I had was, the state code refers to that review criteria.
So for a defensible position, you all should use it, and council can use it. But yeah, that was a really interesting discussion of what other criteria. And where is that? Where is it? I had written. It's in the- Nothing's happened.
Nothing- You mean in the s- Where is it written? In Virginia? Yeah. Where is it written- I'm about to look it up ... that they can factor other things in? Because- It's in our code. Okay. It's in the code.
It's in our code. It's in your actually appeal discussion. But if you read the neighboring legislation- Where's the appeals section? ... it says it can be- Under appeal procedure ... approved, appealed to the governing body who shall apply the same review criteria.
Wow. I find it interesting that if we're the only body, like in that 7 1/2 Street- Where? ... that listens to public comment. Yeah. And that's how it was described to me. Mm-hmm. How can we not respect the public comment?
I feel like- Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm ... if they said it was- Because my vote was influenced by public comment. I think- I think we should note that. They- I 100% agree. I understand. Yeah. But where if had gone...
Hypothetically, if it had gone to a court decision, let's say they'd taken this to the court. The BAR didn't do its job, and a judge says, "Well, I watched the video and the transcripts, and the BAR clearly was simply sympathetic to these people who didn't want this building next to them.
The BAR didn't have the purview to make that decision. The BAR had to have the purview to make a decision based on its guidelines, which would allow it to do X, Y, Z." So that's where... However, when I was speaking internally here, I said, "But the BAR's decision, if you go through the record, you go through the tape, you all rounded yourselves absolutely to the guidelines.
You referred to what the community said. You acknowledged what they said. You sympathized what they said. But your decision was singularly, you would go... You even emphasized, several of you, at times go, 'However, going back to the guidelines.'" My take on it is that as we reminded the public before they commented numerous times to stay within our purview, and then I as a BAR member, when I'm listening to the public, have to put on that BAR hat and say, "If this person's saying that they feel the building is too big or the massing's too large or whatever, things that are within our purview, I'm going to take that in consideration.
If this person says that they didn't talk to me enough and they're not hiring the right people, I'll give them their three minutes, but it's just going out the- Right ... going out my ear." Yeah. I'm not going to take that into my judgment or consideration.
I will say that I feel like after that meeting, the big meeting, that most everybody left with a better understanding of what we do. Mm-hmm. And that was a good thing. But if you all had made a motion to deny because you think The zoning is inappropriate here, or the neighbors are going to be upset about traffic.
If you'd gone down that path, I would've had to stop you and say, "Now we're in trouble." And really, the remarkable thing was, taken in its whole, and you look at the comments that you all made, you stayed in your box better than I think any of us realized.
And so kudos to you all on that, and that's what we have to continue to work towards. All right, so now you just had 50 minutes of training. But we want to talk about archaeology- ... and I don't know to what-- Jen, you've probably dealt with- I'd love you to talk about archaeology.
Yeah. We don't have an ordinance. We have had some applicants willing to entertain it. So we're going to talk about it a little bit, but then- Not tonight. All right, guys. At a future meeting. I'm thirsty.