Name: Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review meeting, Sep 15, 2026
Start: 2026-09-15
End: 2026-09-15
Location: City of Charlottesville

Board of Architectural Review

Tue, September 15, 2026

Agenda PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

Board of Architectural Review — September 15, 2026

This was a regular monthly meeting of the Charlottesville BAR. The session opened with a closed session to clarify the limits of the BAR's purview, and included one application that could not be heard, two substantive votes, and a pre-application conference for a major community project.

Closed Session and Statement on 221 East Main Street

The BAR went into closed session to consult with the city attorney's office regarding the limits of the BAR's purview under several sections of the city code. Upon returning, the chair announced that the Certificate of Appropriateness application for 221 East Main Street could not be considered because the project does not comply with the City of Charlottesville Development Code, Chapter 34, Section 5.2.7B.1. The applicant was directed to contact Brenda Kelly at the Office of Economic Development for next steps.

Consent Agenda

The June 16, 2026 meeting minutes were pulled from the consent agenda due to late editorial edits and will be considered at a future meeting. The remaining consent items — a recommendation for Special Exception Permits for 835, 843, and 847 West Main Street and a demolition COA for 211 Ridge Street — were approved without discussion.

Vote: Moved by Mr. Schwarz, seconded by Mr. Bailey. Passed unanimously.

Certificate of Appropriateness — 835, 843 & 847 West Main Street (LV Collective): Landscape and Site Plan

This application was a follow-up to the BAR's June 2026 approval of the building design for the LV Collective mixed-use development on West Main Street. At that meeting, the board had separated the site and landscape elements from the building COA due to unresolved questions, particularly around the vegetated buffer along the north property line adjacent to the Westhaven public housing community.

What was presented: Landscape architect Suzanne Vincent (presenting remotely) walked the board through an updated site and planting plan, including canopy and understory tree selections, shrub and ground cover palettes, paving materials, site furnishings, lighting, and a bus shelter requested by the Westhaven neighborhood. Key design constraints included a restrictive RWSA (water main) easement along the west and north property lines, critical slopes prohibiting disturbance near existing honey locust trees, and underground utility conflicts limiting tree placement.

Key issues discussed:

Screening along the north boundary (Westhaven side): An email from Emily Dreyfuss of the Legal Aid Justice Center, submitted on behalf of the Charlottesville Low Income Housing Coalition, was read into the record. She expressed concern about the revised shade study showing significant sun-blocking impacts on Westhaven, called the proposed two evergreen trees "very minimal," and asked for additional mature evergreens on the Westhaven-facing side. Staff clarified that the building height and setback were approved in June and were not on the agenda tonight; the board could only act on landscaping. Board members acknowledged the constraints posed by the RWSA easement and critical slopes but encouraged maximum screening within those limits.

Existing trees: Two clusters of honey locust trees along the north boundary are proposed to be retained. The board expressed concern about their long-term survival through construction and discussed adding a condition requiring replacement with large trees if they are lost.

Plant palette updates: The applicant had submitted an updated plant palette between the August submission and the September 14th presentation, swapping one canopy tree species and changing an elm to a less root-aggressive variety. Board member Ms. Trumpeter flagged several potentially invasive species (liriope spicata, Ajuga reptans, and one viburnum). Staff's draft motion addressed this by requiring any substitutions to conform to the city's master tree list or be confirmed as non-invasive in Central Virginia.

Shade study: The board had previously required an expanded solar/shade study. The updated study was submitted. Ms. Tabony requested that future shade studies include facade-level views showing shadows falling across the planned Westhaven residential buildings, not just plan-view solar diagrams, to better inform planting decisions and serve the Westhaven community planning process.

Renderings vs. submitted drawings: Board members noted discrepancies between the rendered images (presented for the first time at the meeting) and the formally submitted package. After discussion, the board agreed to base its approval on the September 14th submittal package without the three-dimensional renderings, which incorporated the updated plant palette.

Site furnishings: Discussion arose about whether bike racks and seat walls shown in precedent images matched the renderings. The applicant clarified that precedent images represent design intent and the renderings are illustrative only. The board expressed a preference for the seat-wall-integrated bench design shown in the precedent images. Approval is based on the submitted package, not the renderings.

Tree uplights: Mr. Schwarz moved to omit tree uplighting as inconsistent with the zoning code and the BAR's design guidelines. The applicant confirmed the uplights were not essential to the lighting plan. The board agreed to omit them.

Pedestrian pole lights: Mr. Schwarz recommended the pole fixtures match the existing West Main Street standard but be specified without glass globes (which have a history of falling out and causing light-pollution issues) and at a warm color temperature of 3,000K or below. This was incorporated into the motion.

Archaeological condition (modification): The June COA had included a condition requiring a Phase I Archaeological Investigation. Staff explained that a formal Phase I (as defined by the Department of Historic Resources) would cost approximately $50,000 — far beyond what was anticipated. Staff proposed rescinding that condition and replacing it with: (1) a historical study of the site funded by the applicant, conducted by the firm Ravana; and (2) an opportunity for the city to conduct limited archaeological fieldwork at city expense if timing permits. The applicant agreed. The site has historical significance as the location of the James Dinsmore house — Dinsmore was a master builder who worked on both Monticello and the University of Virginia.

Memory Walk: The planned community-designed Memory Walk connecting the site to the Westhaven neighborhood is still under development through a community engagement process funded by LV Collective. It was not part of tonight's application and will require a separate COA when designed.

Vote: Moved by Mr. Zehmer, seconded by Mr. Schwarz. Passed 9–0.

Conditions include: screening of mechanical equipment and utility meters per design guidelines; clear glass (minimum 70% VLT) at street-level storefronts; the modified archaeological condition described above; site plan elements (sheets 7–12) omitted from this COA and to be submitted as a separate future COA; an updated shade study (9AM, noon, 3PM, and 6PM) to inform plant selection and provide information to Westhaven planners; dimmable garage lighting at openings with color temperature not exceeding 3,000K and CRI not less than 80; pole lights without glass at 3,000K or below; weather-resistant wood species for any exterior wood furnishings; and a requirement that if the existing north-boundary trees cannot be preserved, large trees consistent with a "moderate transition screen type 2" shall be installed as replacement.

Pre-Application Conference — 207–211 Ridge Street (Salvation Army Redevelopment)

This was an advisory discussion only — no vote was taken. The Salvation Army has been operating at this site since 1912. Its existing buildings (constructed in 1965, 1980, and 1992) are at the end of their useful life. The organization received a Special Use Permit from City Council approximately three years ago authorizing redevelopment, and new funding has now come available, creating urgency to move forward before the SUP lapses in February. The project is being reviewed under the pre-December 2023 zoning code.

Architect Erin Hannigan of Mitchell Matthews presented the design, which is unchanged from the prior preliminary review. The proposed four-story building consolidates all Salvation Army services — a chapel, dining room/soup kitchen, multipurpose room, family apartments, and congregate shelter floors for men and women — into one connected structure with entries off both Ridge Street and Fourth Street. The existing shelter building at 211 Ridge Street will remain operational throughout most of construction, minimizing service disruption.

Board feedback included:

Materials: The board discussed the use of board-and-batten fiber cement on the chapel volume. Some members expressed concern about long-term performance (alignment of battens, mildew) on such a prominent public building. The architect noted she intends to remain involved through construction administration and is confident quality can be maintained. No objection was raised to proceeding with that material choice.

Retaining wall at Ridge Street: Staff had flagged that the concrete retaining wall at the front should be brick. Several board members said they were comfortable with either concrete or brick, with the consensus being to leave the decision to the architect — the board would not hold up approval over this.

Brick color: The architect noted concern about the fire station's distinctly orange brick next to the site. Board members suggested going browner/redder to contrast with rather than match the fire station. The recent courthouse project was cited as a comparable exercise in brick selection.

Large oak tree: The board asked about tree protection plans, noting that the existing arborist letter is nearly four years old. The architect acknowledged that an updated tree protection plan will be required as part of the final site plan. Board members stressed the importance of minimizing disturbance to the critical root zone and suggested structural footings for the adjacent stair wall be designed to avoid root impact.

Fencing: An 8-foot aluminum fence will ring the property on north and south lines for security reasons; a 5-foot fence will enclose the interior playground area.

Landscaping: The SUP requires S3 screening along Fourth Street. The existing trees on the parking lot side will be removed to enable construction, replaced with a mix of new evergreen and canopy trees. The board suggested adding small trees (e.g., redbuds) in the Ridge Street planter area to provide pedestrian shade on an otherwise tree-barren stretch.

Value engineering: Board members acknowledged that massing changes might occur during budget refinement and suggested that the brick stair towers and the front façade of the chapel be treated as the most important elements to preserve architecturally.

Timeline: The applicant hopes to resubmit for the October agenda; a formal COA application is expected November at the latest, with possible final approval in November or January.

Staff Discussion and Adjourn

Staff noted that a brief presentation on local versus state and national historic register districts — relevant to board training requirements — will be added to the October agenda. Bylaws revisions will continue to be reviewed. The meeting adjourned.

Key Takeaways

LV Collective (West Main) site plan approved 9–0 with conditions, including omission of site/landscape elements for a future separate COA, an updated shade study to assist Westhaven planners, and replacement of a costly archaeological Phase I requirement with a historical study and city-funded fieldwork opportunity.

Westhaven community screening concerns were heard but limited by RWSA easements, critical slopes, and the fact that building height/setback were decided in June; the board pushed for maximum tree screening within those constraints and required shade studies to inform Westhaven's own landscaping decisions.

Salvation Army redevelopment (Ridge Street) is moving quickly due to a February SUP expiration deadline; the board gave broadly positive feedback on the design and identified key details to include in a formal November application.

221 East Main Street could not be heard because the application does not conform to the development code; the applicant was referred to the Office of Economic Development.

A recurring theme across both major applications was the performance and longevity of fiber cement and vinyl materials on prominent civic buildings, with several members urging applicants to prioritize quality durable materials where budgets allow.

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 Application

# Meeting Minutes Summary: June 16, 2026

Staff presented a Certificate of Appropriateness application for a multi-story residential and administrative building project, discussing exterior materials including red brick on stair towers, board and batten siding on the chapel, lap siding on upper levels, and wood-look metal panels for cladding—with board members requesting samples and suggesting investigation into alternative systems to address durability concerns with fiber cement on large facades. The applicant confirmed tree protection plans would be included in the final site plan application and provided recommendations from Brightview Tree Care Services, while the Board recommended removing existing trees on Fourth Street and replacing them with native drought-tolerant plantings and shade trees along Ridge Street. Staff also presented detailed site landscaping and design plans for a West Haven project plaza, including raised planters, site furnishings, and lighting using Main Street fixtures, though a board member raised concerns about adequate transformer screening on the west side. Additionally, staff presented updates to a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness application, clarifying that the vegetated buffer at the north boundary would provide visual screening rather than complete concealment, and proposing modified cost-sharing for Phase I archaeological investigation, which Mr. Siemer questioned regarding city expense expectations. The Board deferred approval of the June 16, 2026 meeting minutes from the consent agenda due to late edits and will submit them for approval at a later meeting.

Recommendation for Special Exception Permits

# Recommendation for Special Exception Permits Summary

The Board unanimously approved (8-0) a consent agenda containing special exception permit recommendations for demolition at 835, 843, 847 West Main Street and 211 Ridge Street, with Mr. Schwartz moving for approval and Mr. Bailey seconding the motion. Staff then presented a Special Exception Permit resolution for a Salvation Army redevelopment project in Ridge Street's subarea C, which involves redeveloping an L-shaped site with three existing buildings to expand shelter capacity and community services. The project design maintains the existing 211 congregate shelter building during construction to ensure continuous service, preserves a large oak tree at Ridge Street, and incorporates a main corridor for way-finding alongside chapel, dining, multipurpose, and residential family apartment spaces across multiple floors with potential for future expansion on the green space area.

Certificate of Appropriateness Application

# Certificate of Appropriateness Application Summary

Mr. Werner presented a Certificate of Appropriateness application for landscaping and hardscaping components of the LV Collective project at 835, 843, and 847 West Main Street, which had previously received COA approval for building design in June 2026. Emily Dreyfus of the Legal Aid Justice Center raised concerns about inadequate tree plantings on the West Haven-facing side, particularly noting only two evergreens were proposed despite a revised shade study showing high sun-blocking levels. The board approved the application with several key conditions: tree and plant species must comply with the city's master tree list and be non-invasive; street-level seating and planters must use consistent, weather-resistant materials; pole lights must be warm color temperature (3000K or less) without glass; if north side trees cannot be preserved, large trees per transition screen type 2 must be installed; and a Phase I archaeological study will document the historically significant James Dinsmore site. The applicant confirmed engagement with CRHA for ongoing community outreach and scheduled a community meeting for Thursday night at the Jefferson School Auditorium, with the motion passing as submitted in the September 14th, 2026 packet without three-dimensional renderings.

Part II – scenario review

# Part II – Scenario Review Summary

During the pre-application conference for 207-211 Ridge Street (the Salvation Army site), staff and board members conducted a detailed scenario review of the unchanged design from a three-year-old special use permit approval. Discussion covered site infrastructure including grade elevations (requiring a two-level plaza to accommodate a six-foot frontage change), RWSA utility line depth requirements, property boundaries, and retaining walls. Mr. Schwartz recommended pole light fixtures without glass and warm color temperature to comply with dark sky guidelines and match corner standards, while staff explained that tree canopy compliance is mandatory under site plan requirements, with flexibility for species substitution based on utility constraints. The applicant (Erin Hannigan, Mitchell Matthews Architects) indicated plans to resubmit within two weeks for the October agenda, and staff encouraged the applicant to clarify one previously undocumented design suggestion: board members have recommended the front retaining wall be brick rather than its current material.

Adjourn

The chair called for adjournment of the meeting. Board members voted in favor with ayes, and the meeting was adjourned.

Agenda items (17)

Procedural (17)

1ProceduralCertificate of Appropriateness Application

The board will review an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for proposed changes to a historic property.

What happened

2ProceduralRecommendation for Special Exception Permits

The board will consider and make a recommendation on applications requesting Special Exception Permits.

What happened

3ProceduralCertificate of Appropriateness Application

The board will review an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for proposed changes to a historic property.

What happened

4ProceduralPart II – scenario review

The board will conduct a scenario review as part of the meeting's procedural agenda.

What happened

5ProceduralAdjourn

The meeting will be adjourned.

What happened

The chair called for adjournment of the meeting. Board members voted in favor with ayes, and the meeting was adjourned.

9ProceduralHopefully, with the soon to be Memory Walk area, I think we approved the sidewalk, the driveway, and the pedestrian lighting that shows up on the plan, the ballards and the catenary lights. We assume that it is not there. When it is added later, it comes back to us.

The board discusses and approves sidewalk, driveway, pedestrian lighting, bollards, and catenary lights for a Memory Walk area, with the understanding that additional design elements like a trellis will require separate approval when finalized.

10ProceduralWith the trellis, we don’t have any information on it. We assume it is not there. When it is finally designed, it comes back to us and we see it.

The board agrees to defer approval of a trellis design for the project until the applicant submits detailed design plans for future review.

11ProceduralI want to push for some shade trees in the back. I don’t know what site plan implications you have. I emailed you all the transition screens. Mr. Zehmer – There was a note passed to me that I was waiting until our comments period. In the Development Code, Chapter 34, there are transition screens. In this case, it would not be required by code. However, we can use this as what our intent might be. It was shown on the screen earlier this evening. The potentially transition screen high-two is the tallest and deepest of a transition planting plan, which provides for tall trees and larger shrubs with a 20-foot depth minimum. Mr. Schwarz – I would be Ok with a moderate two. What that gives you is two large trees per 50 feet, one large tree every 25 feet, an evergreen tree every 25 feet, and 5 shrubs. I think spaced out matches a little bit what the site plan was showing. That is my thought. 28 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2026 Mr. Zehmer – We will pass those around so that if people have not had a chance to pull up their email, they can see them. This is a good mechanism for us to give guidance on that landscape area and address the concerns we have heard from the community tonight about screening. Mr. Werner – I want to make a clarification. When I was referring to the landscaping plan and omitting that if necessary. I am not talking about a community designed Memory Walk. I am talking about the trees at that back or the tree or plant selections. It is up to LV Collective if they want to engage and talk about what kind of plants to put at the back. If we can’t decide the spacing of the trees or what type of trees or what screening variation. When I say landscaping plan, I am not talking about hardscape. Mr. Schwarz – There are some parts of it I would like to get ‘baked’ into the approval just in case. If it is built, we need to have something there. Mr. Bailey – Wouldn’t we be able to just require them to come back with a landscaping plan to be required as part of the condition as opposed to specifying any screening or anything like that? Mr. Schwarz – My preference is not to. We can do that if others want to. Ms. Trumpeter – My preference would be for it to come back fully. Landscape is much more than just plants. There are visual connection, spatial character, and circulation. Defining the number of plants within a certain area feels very limiting. Ms. Lewis – I don’t think we got enough information about the Memory Walk, about the bollards, about the easements that goes around to the cell tower. I know it sounds extreme because we have been working on this. There is a lot of support for this application. I would propose that we approve everything except for the Memory Walk, a landscape plan, a hardscape plan, and even details in the plaza. You were basically calling out verbally that were different than what was submitted. I am not criticizing. It is all connected in some way. The Memory Walk apron at the street front at West Main. The materials will continue and be the same as used in the Memory Walk itself. Maybe the pedestrian walk will be contrasting. The easement will also need to be connected. The landscaping in the back and even around the east side. I see it as one continuum of things where I don’t know how we can approve one of those elements tonight. It would be a separate CoA later. That would give the applicant options if the planning of the Memory Walk did not go forward quickly. It needs to take more time for both parties. You could come back and give us some landscape and hardscape. That could be a separate CoA. It is hard for us to approve something and say that we are approving a blank slate or we are approving the bare minimum or what the zoning code currently may require. That is not the best job that we can do. We have some expertise on this board that I think, with more discussion and more time, could refine those elements. Mr. Werner – The development plan does include a landscape plan. I cannot sign off on the development plan if there is not a CoA for the landscape plan. If it was an absolute impasse, that is a means to an end. Ms. Lewis – We don’t choose the development plan. We approve a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Werner – I cannot approve the development plan until there is an approved CoA. Ms. Lewis – There are a lot of conditions on that development plan. Mr. Werner – All those conditions must be met. I am trying to help with your discussion. 29 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2026 Ms. Sanders – We agree with everything that is being said. Ms. Lewis – I would like to know why Mr. Werner personally objects to this why we couldn’t have a separate CoA for the elements that I have named. We have done it before. Mr. Werner – I am not objecting to anything. If you approve the CoA for the building, that is fine. They know that they can move forward with that. That does not allow me to sign off on the development plan, which is a piece of this. I want to be clear about that. Mr. Schwarz – The development plan does not have to be finalized until they go for a building permit? Mr. Werner – A site plan must be finalized. With a development plan, the way the ordinance is written, it is to create a zoning compatibility document. It essentially is a document that says this thing meets the development code. Mr. Schwarz – If we take all the landscaping out of this, all the site planning, all the hardscapes out of this application and it becomes a separate CoA, are we damaging the process? Is it still going to be something? Mr. Werner – You are not damaging my process. It is simply that I could not sign off on the development plan. My signature is necessary to say that this development plan is consistent with the CoA. Mr. Timmerman – Sequentially, it is not going to disrupt the timing of the development of their project. Ms. Sanders – We are switching from the development plan to the site plan anyway. There is no development plan. We will be going for the site plan. We do not need that until the building permit. It allows us enough time. This is a great in-between solution to allow for that community development and to hold LV Collective accountable to get it on the plans before the building permit. Mr. Zehmer – With that in mind, it sounds like if we want to move ahead with kind of motion or vote, we would essentially be excluding the site plan. Mr. Birle – It would include the Memory Walk at that point? Mr. Werner – The Memory Walk does not exist. Mr. Zehmer – We don’t look at the Memory Walk tonight. We will have to approve a site plan. Mr. Birle – That is a doable compromise. Mr. Werner – You used to say that you are approving the height but not the design. These are separate things. There is a reasonable approach here. Mr. Zehmer – We had a lot of questions that we asked. Wd did not necessarily say what we felt about those things. For example, the brick in terms of our palette. Some of you were looking at those. I like the yellowish tone brick. Mr. Birle – I have no issues with the palette in general. I am Ok with there being some flexibility as long as it is within that range. 30 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2026 Ms. Lewis – I did not care for the butter and yellow. I just don’t know where else we see that color in the city of Charlottesville. It reminds me of an old federal institutional building. Mr. Zehmer – I am not hearing objections to the palette. Stylistically, I like where you are going with the building. I like the articulation of some of the brick work, especially the vertical in the field where you have restrooms or bathrooms. That is helpful to help give the façade some texture. There are some hints of art deco detailing happening, which I would encourage. In some of the storefront openings, you had a curved edging at those openings. I thought that was handsome. I appreciate you adding and sprinkling in some of those levels of details like we talked about last time with corbel brick. You picked up on my request a little bit for the cornice up higher by switching to the soldier course. If you could step it out a little bit to give some shadow line, that would be great. Mr. Schwarz – I appreciate the fact that people are going to see the building up close as brick. I hate fiber cement. The hardy plank stuff, even when it is prefinished, we have other buildings around town where it is not. It gets ‘wonky’ over time. Your reveal system will help. I don’t know if it collects dirt and the dirt then mildews or if the material mildews. With The Lark on 10th Street, that siding has mildew all over it. It is less than 10 years old. I am going to back down on that. I appreciate that you are wrapping most of the building with brick, at least for the lower levels. Mr. Birle – There are two elements to that you have working in your favor. If you use the smooth, that holds up a lot better as far as picking up. I have seen that too picking up dust and mildew. The channel system that you are using is a good one. That is where you usually see these things looking cheesy, when the extrusions are not big enough. Mr. Timmerman – It goes back to your point in the previous project. There are different qualities in all these products. The Hardy is a residential product. There are better cement panels that you can choose from. I certainly prefer them. I want to applaud you for being open to the process. You have listened and you have come back and tried to respond to the feedback. I was sorry to hear that there was not more communication between you and the community. When we left the last time, I felt that since both sides were here and heard each other. I felt like it was the start of that. I was looking forward to hearing what would come of that. I was a little disappointed when I heard that nothing had come of it. When we took our break, there was a re-engagement of communication, which was fantastic. It sounds like there is a path forward to that. In a way, that led to this willingness and what seems right from all of us to separate the landscape to give that more of a chance to develop so we don’t have to make decisions about the landscape or recommend a standard and not sensitive solution. That is not what we want to do here. We want this to be as rich as it can be. That is only going to come from communicating to one another. That is not our purview. We are just looking at the building now. I agree with Mr. Schwarz. I don’t like the fiber cement, especially on what should be class A building. This is our Main Street. It is a piece of civic architecture. Everybody is going to see it all the time. It is a big building. For me, the vinyl window is also an issue. I grudgingly approved the previous one. That was a 2-story 1950s building. They needed new windows. In this case, I wish there was a sense of appreciation of quality that would be instilled in these kinds of projects and public facing projects. The priority for me is that you did listen. You did provide a good amount of good material, true brick. You have come up with some interesting detailing that adds to the richness of this experience. I appreciate that. This is a process that we want to work. We want it to work for the betterment of the community. 31 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2026 If we do vote on it, as a condition that I would like to apply, would be the sun studies. Make sure that those are included in the follow-up report. That is an important issue that we should delve into a little bit more. There was some more information that probably could have been looked at in that regard. Ms. Tabony – I agree that deferring the landscape plan is the right move. I don’t feel comfortable with the level of detail for any of the landscape, particularly the front of the building on Main Street. When you come back with those details, it would be helpful to see detailed sections through the stairways, the seats, and the plantings there. The amount of talking that happened and not just reviewing drawings about that was tip off for me that was just not enough information. It is the same with the elements that you are proposing in the back, the trellis, the specific trees, or at least a detailed description of the kind of massing of trees that you are planning on planting there. With the sun studies you have provided, community members have spoken about that already. It is hard to read those, especially because of the slope behind the building. You are just showing that in plan. What would really be helpful is to show façade studies of the massing of the proposed Westhaven buildings. I am not sure how solidified that is. Assuming there are several stories that they plan to have there, it would be nice to see how the shadows from the LV Collective building will pass across those facades. As much as it will help them with whatever planning they are doing. That would be part of the process of engagement. Mr. Zehmer – It potentially could impact planting selection. Ms. Sanders – If it is going to be a formal condition, I would want to make that clear. That could mean a lot of things. Ms. Tabony – I am not suggesting that you change the massing of the building, just landscaping and planting. Mr. Werner – As I wrote it, a shade study is to be provided. You can all decide whether to show at 9 AM, noon, 3 PM, and 6 PM. To assist with plant selection on site and provide information for the Westhaven landscaping plan. Mr. Schwarz – You can leave off March or September. Ms. Tabony – I guess you have already done the Phase I archaeological study. Has that been provided to staff? Ms. Sanders – I am not sure. It may have been before my time. We do intend to provide it as a part of the site plan. Ms. Tabony – I am in support of the architecture of the building. I agree with my colleagues with the comments about materials, vinyl windows, and fiber cement. This is an important building. It is on the corner of a major thoroughfare. We see all the sides of the building. It is an important moment in our city. It should respond to that position appropriately with materials. With the sections that you have provided, it is helpful. I would like to see more detailed sections through the pedestrian walkway on the west side of the building and where the property line is, where the roadway lands in that striped section back there. It is hard to understand that right now. Ms. Trumpeter – I am excited that we have all come to this conclusion about the site plan. I appreciate that you are on board with that. I appreciate your intent. We cannot vote on the intent. I am pleased that has come down to this. I was noting this robust conversation about architecture, brick, and windows. I was sad sitting here wishing I could talk about the planting or the sidewalk. I am excited that you will be looking into and be 32 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2026 able to provide more details on that. I just want to emphasize that more study and collaboration occur between the two spaces. There is a wedge of planting. That is an opportunity to look at accessibility. There is a switchback walk at Westhaven. It would be cool if that walk could continue to create up into the space. I am worried that there is going to be this effort on Westhaven’s part to make it accessible and it is going to come into the site and not be accessible. I want to see some effort to collaborate. It is great that Water Street is on both and that you can do that. I really encourage that collaboration at that interface between those spaces and that transition space. In the spirit of collaboration, there should be some connectivity between things like lighting, furnishings, plantings, paving for both spaces so it feels more connected with Water Street. Doing both, you have a great opportunity and efficiency to be able to do that. I think there is a bus stop on West Main Street in front of the building. It will be great when you are looking at the landscape in front to think about accommodation for people waiting. People will be coming up and considerations for that. I am excited there is going to be Phase I work done. I am curious to see if there are any findings. With the Phase I sections and perspectives, I would like to see a section through that west side on a more detailed scale. I cannot see what the conditions will be between the sidewalk, the street, and the wall. I would like to see more sections. I am concerned about the grass pavers on that west side. That is going to be mostly in the shade. Pavers often do not work. With it in the shade, it will make it even less likely. I want to encourage you to revisit that. The planting is a suggested plant palette. I am not going to comment on the plant palette because it is not the plant palette. Water Street is going to be a great asset to you when it comes to planting. I hope there is a significant budget for the landscape. I worry when I see site plans like this in my own work. It means all the money is going to the building and none of it is going to the landscape. There needs to be more screening and trees on the back. The model views were done from far back. I would like to see a view of the back of the building. The shade studies are important. The intention is to have a clear view of West Main. I want to see what that looks like. This section on West Main is more open. It has more open space than other sections of West Main. I know the intention is to build up more residents there. I want to emphasize the importance of open space. Mr. Zehmer – At that northwest corner, you mentioned the need for vehicular access to the cell tower and potentially emergency vehicles. I am just making sure you have the turning radius for a firetruck. That may impact on the side plan. There are a couple of suggested conditions from staff talking about ground level mechanical equipment and making sure those are screened per the design guidelines. Meters panel boxes, and cable connectors be put in the garage. We would like to see those things in the garage. If not, it needs to be screened per the design guidelines. Any signage would have to go through the approval process for a sign permit. The glass at the street level must be clear with a VLT of not less than 70 percent. Ms. Lewis – With the second bullet on page 3, they have addressed that with the solid brick wall outside the garage on the Westhaven side. There is also a suggestion that anything be dimmable if it is shining towards that area. Ms. Sanders – We are happy to do that. It was more so the second part of the statement that was a little troubling. I would ask if we could work through any resolution with staff if there are any concerns expressed but also with the brick. I don’t know how that works. The dimmable is easy. Ms. Lewis – I meant to talk about any exterior lights on that back portion. Mr. Werner – I would suggest that all the conditions that I have suggested that they become associated with this project. With the lighting, it is a unique set of conditions that we have applied on entrance corridors and on BAR large scale projects. It is directly from what we used for The Verve, 2005 JPA. 33 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2026 Motion – Mr. Zehmer – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed development at 835, 843, and 847 West Main Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in this ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application with the following conditions and omissions:

Board members discuss adding shade trees and transition screening to the back of the property, with staff offering options ranging from minimal to moderate planting requirements per the city's Development Code.

What happened

# Summary

The board discussed adding shade trees to reduce the building's visual mass and improve the pedestrian experience in the rear areas. An applicant representative explained that multiple site constraints—including critical root zones of existing trees, no-disturbance slope areas, an RWSA utility easement, overhead and telecom lines, and underground storm infrastructure—severely limited planting opportunities. The applicant noted they had added some shrubs and elm trees on the west portion of the property where the easement angles away from the line. A board member acknowledged these limitations but requested additional planting in the back walk area to soften edges and bring the exposed space to human scale.

12ProceduralGround level mechanical equipment, utility meter boxes/panels, transformers, etc., will be appropriately screened per the design guidelines (Chapter 2, Section H). Screening will be indicated on the Final Site Plan and approved by BAR staff.

The applicant must screen all ground-level mechanical equipment, utility meters, panels, and transformers according to design guidelines, with screening details shown on the final site plan and approved by BAR staff.

13ProceduralMeters and panel boxes for utility, communications, and cable connections will be located preferably within the garage; if not, then in non-prominent locations on the side elevations only and appropriately screened. Screening will be indicated on the Final Site Plan and approved by BAR staff.

Utility meter boxes, panels, and cable connections must be placed inside the garage if possible; if not, they must be located on non-prominent side elevations only and properly screened per design guidelines.

14ProceduralGlass at street level storefronts (doors, windows, and transoms) must be clear, with a VLT of not less than 70%.

All storefronts at street level must use clear glass with a visible light transmittance (VLT) of at least 70%.

15ProceduralPrior to a Permit allowing disturbance associated with the proposed development, a Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the three (3)-parcel site will be completed and provided to Staff for BAR’s archive and recorded with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.

Before construction begins, the applicant must complete a Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the three-parcel site and provide the results to staff and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.

What happened

A board member asked about the status of the Phase I Archaeological investigation condition from a previous approval. Staff (responding, likely Brittany) clarified that the applicant is requesting to rescind the previous archaeological requirement and instead hire Ravana to conduct a historic study, with the city having the option to perform limited archaeological investigations at its own cost if timing permits. The applicant confirmed agreement with this approach, and staff noted surprise at discovering that Phase I archaeological reports are technically extensive $50,000+ undertakings.

16ProceduralThe following design elements are to be considered as removed from the applicant’s submittal and are omitted from this CoA: site plan; o sample plant pallet; o sample paving pallet; o site furnishings; and o site lighting. o The aforementioned site details [as indicated] on sheets 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the submittal. o

The board removes the site plan, plant palette, paving palette, site furnishings, and site lighting from this approval, deferring detailed design of these elements for separate review.

17ProceduralThe omitted site elements (above) will be reviewed at a later date as a separate CoA request.

The applicant must submit the omitted site elements (landscaping, paving, furnishings, and lighting) as a separate Certificate of Appropriateness request for future board review.

18ProceduralPrior to BAR approval of the omitted site elements (and within the separate CoA request), the applicant will provide a new shade study examining the hours of 9AM, Noon, 3PM, and 6PM. The intent is to advise plant selection for the site, and to provide information to the public and Westhaven Citizen Planners to assist the selection of plantings within the Westhaven community. The hours listed should be added to the dates already submitted within the solar plan [sheet 13 of the submittal].

Before the board approves the deferred site elements, the applicant must provide an updated shade study showing sun patterns at 9 AM, noon, 3 PM, and 6 PM to help guide plant selection and inform neighboring Westhaven's landscaping decisions.

19ProceduralTo prevent bright light and glare emanating from the garage openings, lamping for the garage lighting [immediately inside any opening] will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature not exceeding 3,000K, and have a Color Rendering Index not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. Second by Mr. Schwarz. Motion passes 9-0.

Garage lights must be dimmable with warm color temperatures (3,000K or lower) and good color quality to prevent bright light and glare from spilling into the adjacent Westhaven property.

21ProceduralBylaws revision update: second draft for review & comments.

The board will review and comment on a second draft of proposed changes to the board's bylaws.

What happened

Staff mentioned bylaws revision update would be discussed at the meeting. The speaker indicated they would address the distinction between local districts and national registered districts at the October meeting, requesting the board's attention on this topic. The speaker expressed appreciation for the board's patience and assistance in resolving project-related matters, characterizing the city's involvement as a partnership with ongoing work.

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Go into closed session to discuss BAR purview

aye 1

voice voteaye

Certify closed session

aye 1

voice voteaye

Approve consent agenda (835/843/847 West Main and 211 Ridge Street demolition recommendations)

aye 1

voice voteaye

Approve COA for landscaping at 835, 843, and 847 West Main Street with conditions

aye 7

Baileyaye

Burrellaye

Rosenthalaye

Schwartzaye

Tabanyaye

Timmermanaye

Trumpeteraye

Verbatim transcript available

563 transcript segments indexed

Is it 5:30? It is 5:30. Thank you. All right. Yeah. Welcome to this regular monthly meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review. Staff will introduce each item, followed by the applicant's presentation, which should not exceed 10 minutes.

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 and prior to taking action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond.

All right. So we have some business that we need to discuss. Therefore, I move that the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review, as permitted by Section 2.5 of the BAR's bylaws, go into closed session to discuss with staff the limits of the BAR's purview as it relates to the following sections of the City of Charlottesville Code, 28, Article 6, Sidewalk Cafes, Chapter 34, Section 5.2.6, Minor Historic Review, and Chapter 34, Section 5.2.7, Major Historic Review.

Do I need to read this part now, too? Okay. Do I hear a second? Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. All right. Thank you. The motion carries. Eight to zero. All right. And I think we need to go into closed session in the NDS conference room.

Do I gavel us out? We'll return shortly. Thank you everybody for your patience. Do we take our equipment? I don't think you have to. Now or after this motion? Yes. Do I get one after the motion? Oh, you're good.

Thank you. Back. There we go. Thank you, everybody, for your patience. I move to that to the best of our knowledge, only lawfully exempt public business matters were discussed during the closed session, and only those public business matters that were previously mentioned were heard, discussed, or considered.

Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. So we've got to this statement for this evening. Following the consultation with the city attorney's office, it has come to our attention that the COA application for 221 East Main Street cannot be considered at this time by the VAR because it does not comply with the City of Charlottesville Development Code, Chapter 34, Section 5.2.7B.1.

And we advise the applicant to please contact Brenda Kelly at the Office of Economic Development for next steps. And she's right back here, so if you guys have questions or would like to talk to her, that's the person to talk to.

What was that again? It's not in conformance with the City of Charlottesville Development Code, Chapter 34, Section 5.2.7B.1. You got that? You haven't-- I'm sorry. No, sure. One more time. Sure. Chapter 34, Section 5...

5.2.7B.1. All right. Ms. Kelly is here in the room this evening so that you can put a face to the name. All right. All right, so we will go into our regular meeting. Matters from the public not under item C through E on the agenda.

And item C through E are deferred, new, and preliminary discussions. Any matters from the public not on our agenda tonight? Online? No. Okay. Thank you. For our consent agenda, there were some late comments edits on the meeting minutes from the June meeting, and so we are going to strike that from the consent agenda this evening.

The June meeting minutes will be submitted at a later JAR meeting. That leaves recommendations for special exemption permits for 835, 843, 847 West Main, and 211 Ridge Street demolition on the consent agenda.

Both of those items were thoroughly explained in the staff packet that was sent to the VAR. We talked in the pre-meeting. Nobody expressed interest in pulling those from consent, but I'll ask again, just for the record, does anybody want to pull anything from the consent agenda?

I'd like to move to approve the consent agenda. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Schwartz. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Consent agenda passes.

Thank you. Zero. All right. There are no deferred items this evening, and the first new item, as we just explained, we are not able to consider that this evening. And so we are going to move to certificate of appropriateness application for 835, 843, and 847 West Main Street, and somehow we are three minutes ahead of schedule.

So, Mr. Werner, your staff report, please. You are not supposed to say that out loud. I know I'm not supposed to say we're ahead of schedule. And I don't know when, but I'm hoping you all come up with a cool name for the project because we just never know what it's being called.

LV Collective, the project on West Main, 835, 843, 847. But yes, this is a COA request for the landscaping component. And in landscaping, that's everything that's not in the building or on the building, so the landscaping, hardscaping.

And this is the project, 835, 843, and 847 West Main Street. It's a three-parcel project. You all have reviewed this both in preliminary discussions and formally in June in the approval of a COA for the design of the building.

And while it's not usual for us to approve, to separate things out in a COA, because during the discussions of the building, there were some questions about the landscaping, and it lent itself to us to separate out that landscape and hardscape.

But I just want to be clear, that's not typical. We prefer not to do it, but in this case, it's a means to an end, and it allow some additional time to talk about the landscaping. So, the applicant has provided for you the landscaping plan, which includes the paving materials.

There was one thing I asked of them on, it's not indicated in the notes on the drawing, but there's that path that continues around the rear of the building to allow access to the tower site on the east.

That material will be one of the pavers that they've indicated. And, also with this submittal, in June when you approved the COA, you had requested that they update their solar study to include other times of days, I think some other months.

And the intent in that was to provide a little bit more information to the folks redeveloping West Haven that would help them advise their landscaping plan for that project, and that information has been provided.

And, I'm assuming there's no questions for the night, then we can circulate that to the people working on the West Haven project. As far as the landscaping goes, the primary question that held things up in June was that vegetated buffer at the back of the north boundary separating the project from the adjoining project at West Haven.

The drawings indicate a vegetated screen in there. I'm not versed enough in what the various plants do, but there's a lot going on there. And there's also on the site plan, and it's not clearly indicated on the landscape plan, but in the site plan that's being reviewed, there are two clusters of honey locust at that back line that will be retained.

And one of the difficulties with that strip along that north boundary is that they're just inside the parcel line is a rather wide waterline easement, so they can't cross over into that. And then on the north side, where the parcel line is, it gets into a steep slope.

So this is not the easiest sliver of land to work with, but it's 10 feet on the east side and roughly 20 feet on the western side, and enough space that a vegetated screen could be introduced. And I was contacted by, and I'll share an email from Emily Dreyfuss, that asked me to explain that vegetated buffer.

And I said that the intent is not that it makes the one property not visible from another property. The intent of the screening between parcels is to introduce a visual element, to introduce some plantings that break up that sight line, but the intent isn't to conceal one thing from the other.

And if that were the intent, certainly a tall fence or wall could be constructed there, but I can attest that when we were doing the comp plan review back in 2019, 2020, and also we were doing the historic survey of the Tenth and Page neighborhood, that that was one of the things that the folks in that community very much didn't like, is that the development along West Main had resulted in this visual wall.

So, I'm not speaking for them, but sharing what they said. So I think that the application as presented meets the guidelines with the caveat that they do have a final site plan in the works, and that what is on that site plan and what is approved in the COA, they need to be fairly close to one another.

We don't get into inches or... But the ultimate test will be that the final site plan is consistent with the landscaping and hardscaping plan that's being presented. The second piece of this staff report is to modify a condition that you added in June regarding the phase one archaeological investigation, and I think I said it, outlined it fairly clearly in the staff report.

But in conversations with the applicant, there was a cost associated with the fieldwork of doing the test pits and some of the necessary site work related to the archaeology that exceeded, I think, certainly what I had anticipated, and I offered in good faith that I had anticipated that.

And we had the idea of we could complete a robust historical or evaluation of the site and really understand it, and in working with an archaeological firm, that would tell us what was there and give us some information.

And then allow, I asked the applicant in exchange of doing that site work, would they allow us the opportunity, if everything aligned, to conduct some city-funded work on the site. And so that's what that condition that you see is intended to accommodate.

It's written a little more legalese than you all are used to seeing, so I apologize for that, but we did have a good lengthy discussion about it. It covers the bases. So in the motion, and you don't have to read everything out, but you would refer to omitting the condition from the June 9th COA and including the condition as recommended in the staff report and go from there.

So unpacking that, and I do have an email, Mr. Siemer, from Emily Dreyfuss, that you can read it to the record. But do you all have any questions for me? Before I hand it off to Andre and his team I guess I had a question on the archaeological study, historic study, and then the investigation.

If I'm reading this correctly, the applicant would bear the cost of the historic study, and then the city would bear the cost of any archaeological investigation. Is that correct? If we could make it happen, yes.

Right. And I guess I can ask the applicant when we come to questions if they're in agreement with that, but I assume that's been talked about. Is there an expectation that what they're going to find is going to require the city to come up and spend?

The city does not have an archaeology ordinance, so we have no requirement that someone do an archaeological investigation. However, if one is agreed to, then there are standards that the Department of Historic Resources has established, and that's where we got to, all right, to meet these standards is more than we had anticipated asking of the applicant.

Now, to be clear, if someone is doing work on a project and they encounter human remains or graves, as we had anticipated and they might find at the Swann Tavern site, that becomes state law. Yeah. We have no say.

But let's say while they're excavating there, they find where James Dinsmore is buried, the secret drawings to Monticello, and a chest of gold. Good on them, they found it, but we can't require- We do ...

they do more. Yeah. I do think James would be very interested in the secret plans for Monticello. Yeah. Interesting. I was even asked by the city attorney, "Well, what if they find arrowheads?" Well, they find arrowheads.

It doesn't compel them to do more. And so the result of this is hopefully that we can, in the interim, Kate and I can pull on some of the magic strings we have and try to, if the opportunity presents itself, be prepared to do at least some limited looking at the site.

Cool. Do you all want me to read this email from Ms. Dreyfus, or... All right. "Greetings, BAR members. I'm writing to share concerns from Charlottesville Low Income Housing Coalition, CLIHC, members regarding the recent LV Collective submission to the BAR.

We are concerned about the findings from the revised shade study and the lack of trees proposed for the West Haven-facing side. The more accurate shade study shows extremely high levels of sun blocking.

This was not surprising given the residents' experiences with the standard overshadowing them. Will you limit the setback of the LV Collective plan given the new shade study? The plantings facing West Haven seem to include only two evergreens and a lot of relatively low-lying shrubs.

Evergreens are helpful, but two trees are very minimal. We had previously suggested several mature trees be planted on the side facing West Haven. Current West Haven residents and the residents who will live in the planned apartment buildings, some of whom will be at eye level with the LV Collective building, should be provided with the maximum tree screen possible.

Expecting plantings at West Haven to be helpful is unrealistic because of the steep hill between the LV Collective land and West Haven. Trees planted by CRHA in the future will only help residents on the first and second floors of the proposed public housing apartment buildings.

The looming appearance of LVC's building would best be addressed on their land with the planting of several mature evergreens that can survive in a largely shaded area. Thank you for any assistance you can provide.

Best wishes, Emily." From Emily Dreyfus, senior organizer, Economic Justice Program, Legal Aid Justice Center. And I did respond to Emily and said that the setback height of the building were not on the agenda tonight, that they had been addressed in the COA that was approved in June.

Now, if the applicant had come in and included changing that, you all could respond to that, but the application before you tonight is singularly about that landscaping and hardscaping. So that's not available for you if you wish to- Thank you for clarifying.

That was a question I had. Okay. I think it's now time for our applicant's presentation. Come on up. Thanks, everybody, and thank you, Jeff, for the introduction. Since the last time that we've been up here, we've been able to go through another round of site plan review, so I think you'll see some of this within the plan that we'll present, and you've already heard some of this from Jeff.

A lot of utility conflicts all around the site, namely the RWSA main line that services a good majority of the city runs along our west property line and then wraps around our north property line. So you'll see some conflicts there as we work through comments, met with RWSA, city utilities, and the entire DRT review team, really over the last several weeks.

Beyond that, I wanted to give an update. We have an engagement agreement in place with CRHA, and so we're going to be working on ongoing outreach and continuation, essentially, of the West Haven planner meetings, funded by LV, with Water Street being the local consultant to help organize those meetings and present and gather feedback and integrate those ideas into the project, and we're going to work out exactly how to process those in the future.

You'll see on our plan that we've indicated areas where we want to connect to their plan. It hasn't all been designed yet, so we're showing it on our plan as an intent, and then it'll be realized over the coming months and really however long that engagement process takes with the community.

And then lastly, we are holding a community meeting on Thursday night at the Jefferson School Auditorium. So just wanted to extend that invite to anybody who wants to attend. With that, I'll turn it over to Suzanne, who's our landscape architect.

All right. I think I need to join the Zoom meeting, right? Did you get the link to that? Yep. The guest list. I don't think she's been invited to a panelist. So, yeah. So I need her email so that I can...

It just asked if I wanted to join as a panelist. I said yes. It did? Oh, perfect. Yeah. So that probably means that she should be... Yes. There you go. Okay. So, hello, I'm Suzanne Vincent. I am the landscape architect project manager for this project.

I will walk through what we have so far today. I'm going to do a quick overview of site context, walk through the plan, touch somewhat quickly on the plant palette. It's quite extensive, so I don't want to go through every single plant, unless you guys want to.

And then we have some updated renderings that I think help imagine how the site will look. So this first image that we see is a context plan showing our site in relation to the West Haven neighborhood to the north, the railroad tracks, and then West Main Street.

You're all familiar with this, so I'll move along. Here are the- Points of connection that we would like to make with the West Haven neighborhood plan, as well as Main Street. We understand that there is a historic connection that's been kind of created over time, and we really want to make that a permanent part of our site.

As Andre alluded to, the final design is not something that we're presenting tonight, but we're laying the framework for it, paving the way, as it were. So that's that. Here's a little closer view of our plan.

We see the public plaza in the front, including an entry plaza at the two kind of primary entry points to the building at one and two, stairs at two, although most of the traffic is going to be heading west, so there would be an at-grade access point there.

There's also another entry at the west end of the building, kind of near seven. Seating at both the upper and the lower plazas. The plaza at number three is a little bit higher just because the site steps up a little bit there.

All the bicycle parking is located together near number four, so again, an at-grade access point from the sidewalk, and then plenty of bike parking there. I think there's a total of 22 stalls at the moment.

The existing brick wall that's part of the historic bridge is something we're working around. We understand that needs to remain. And then the community, West Haven, also requested a bus shelter be asked to the bus stop, so we've included that at number six.

You'll see that again a little bit later on. At number seven, we understand that there is the potential for pedestrian conflict with most of the students heading west and the site traffic access point being there as well.

We're suggesting a tabletop crosswalk there to help with that, provide a little traffic calming, and also make a flat access point across the driveway. The vehicular access into the garage ends. You can see the gray kind of curve there.

And then the remaining area to the north is all pedestrian plaza. It's also largely within an emergency and utility access, but day-to-day, that will function as a large open space for the community, culminating in that future connection at number 11, both to the north and then again to the east at the Becks Well Park.

At number 12, we are working to preserve the existing trees to the greatest extent possible, which we think we can keep all of the ones that are in there. They are also within a critical slope area, so we won't be doing any other planting or work in that area.

We would like to augment the existing trees with some additional screening vegetation. We'll get into that later, but it would be evergreen trees, shrubs, and deciduous shrubs as well. And then the walkway wraps the entire site.

You can see the utility point, access point ends at 14, but the sidewalk connection continues all the way around. Here, you can see the utility easements overlaid over the site plan. This is really shaping where we are able to provide new planting, particularly large vegetation, large trees.

So at number one, we have the public access easement. Number two is the RWSA easement. That one is one of the more restrictive ones. We'll get into that again with planting, but they have specific criteria for that.

The public utility easements along Main Street cut into the plantable area a little bit, and then the telecom easement at number five. Not pictured on here, we also have a number of private utilities that we're working around as well.

So our proposed planting palette is we've broken it down kind of by plant type, so we can highlight where each is on the site for ease of understanding. I'm sorry to interrupt. This is not consistent with the package I have.

It's different. I think you all have it. I don't think I have the easement diagram. This is an- I think the easement, sometimes they have updated diagrams. Okay. I think what I'm looking at here doesn't match what I'm looking at either.

On the north side? On the west side. We maybe updated some of the files, right? Yeah. So there's different versions. This is dated August 25th, the package I have. The package it looks like you have is September 14th.

Mm-hmm. Yeah. We've been working on comments since we've been receiving them on our site plan review, so maybe we can talk through some of the changes that were made in the selections and why. Is it also possible for you guys to email us this presentation?

Because it's really hard to see on these screens for like... Yeah. We can share. We can definitely do that. But I mean, email it to us. Why not? Yeah. No. Yeah. So we can look at it when you guys are- You can email it to Kate, and then she can email it to us.

That's probably easier. Yeah. And then Jen, I think it's a good catch. Thank you. I think what we're going to need to do is keep a keen eye on things like that and then possibly make a little list of anything that's different from what got submitted to us, because depending on our motion, whatever motion we make, we'll need to...

Because how the devil say, "As submitted" or something, and so it's like, "Which one?" So, I think we'll find a way to annotate things as needed. I'm just going to send it to you. Okay. Because the one that you have doesn't have the renderings and stuff in it.

I think they'll want to see everything. Okay. And it's not uncommon for applicants to bring things with a few extra slides that usually help bring clarity in renderings and things. But yeah, if there's a change from something that's submitted to us, it's certainly good to catch that and note it and work with the applicant to understand their intention so that we can approve something that's agreed upon or not, right?

Do you want me to send it to you? Sure. Right. These readings. Well, it's 29 megabytes. I don't know if it's going to go through. Okay. So you might just get it when you download. I think it'll get you soon.

It's every... It's going to be the renderings, right? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Gene's got the whole nine. You see the version of this presentation, just without the renderings, that they were wrapping up until recently, all the same renderings as well.

So we'll send them two parts. Okay. Also, I'm hearing an echo from someone's computer. Yeah. It's really distracting. Yeah, I think we need to mute if that's possible. It says I am muted. I think you're...

Yeah. Great, thank you. Is that better? No? Okay. Okay. That should be better. How to get this presentation. Oh, that's pretty cool. Let me take a mute a second. Oh, because it's me. I forget to turn it off.

Oh, here it is. Right, and then... That's what the... If that's what the element trying to remain, that's fairly easy. Just a street view. Uh-huh. Sorry. It's hard to see from there. You'd have to like zoom in.

Oh, it's really hard for me. Yeah. I just... Are they... We'll get to it. We'll get to it. Hope for Sam, if you can open up the city's GIS, the links here won't be- I just looked at it two seconds ago.

I should say . Google Maps. But yeah, the Street Views seems to suggest there's decent size trees there. But the GIS will show you kind of, you can see the property line and where it is. I think there's four it looks like.

I think. I'm going to make my first motion. We're not ready for that. We took a three-minute recess. Oh, sure. We don't need a motion for that. It's only a suggestion. Let's take a five-minute break so that we can get the stuff submitted and whatnot.

Okay. Call again. I tried coming in that door originally and it was locked. Sorry, I've gotten both emails myself. I just want to wrap this up because- So it was just the one- It was just one meeting.

Somebody the other day inadvertently pushed a button and locked all the doors to the hall. I think one of the cleaning ladies knew it was a problem in the building. Which is why we have the door that they placed around the front.

Somebody put the code in to the doors to lock it, I think, at 3:30. And so then I went down to check it at 5:00, they're still on lock. And then sure enough, at 5:30, sure enough, 6:30, it locked and it's like- People trying to get in.

Yeah. No, I know we had to do a- Just do the same ... vote on the cup planner for a second time because of that. Yeah. So everybody back and- With that same- I think some folks are still waiting on receiving it still.

We also have it here, so I think we can continue on. Yeah. Yeah. No. Go ahead. All right. We're going to go ahead and come back in session after our break. The floor is yours again. Thank you. Thanks for sending along.

And yeah, I think maybe as we go through, I can kind of keep notes, but if there's anything that's different from what you submitted, just to kind of point those out as we go along just to keep track.

So for one, I see you've got an eastern red cedar instead of something else in this page. Yeah, there was one canopy tree that was no longer in the palette, so that was removed. Okay. And then we swapped the elm species for one that's a little bit less aggressive with root growth.

And that was just based on some feedback from RWSA that while they don't have say outside of their easement, they would appreciate if we could work with them as much as possible. So those are the three purple circles on the west boundary.

Uh-huh. Other canopy trees are the three red cedar you noted along the north side for some additional screening there outside of the critical root zone of the existing trees. The blue cone arborvitae along the west property line and along one of the transformers on the north side for screening.

And then the willow oak and bald cypress for greenscape trees on the south side. And you can really see the overlap between this land and the previous one with the utility easements that's really driving where we're able to plant these larger trees.

All right. So just so we're all on the same page, the blue cone arborvitae is staying, willow oak is staying. You removed the slender sweet gum That's really it, and added an eastern red cedar. Between August and September.

Yes. I think I got that right. Okay. Thanks. Can I have the bigger again? Okay. And then deciduous shrubs, you can see those are a little more widely distributed on the site. We're not as restricted with planting area for deciduous or evergreen shrubs other than where we are within the RWSA easement, and that's predominantly along the south half of that pedestrian connection and the northeast corner of the site.

Here's the evergreen shrub palette. Quite a bit of diversity. Actually, I don't know, the sumac doesn't belong on this slide. That's deciduous. But otherwise, we have boxwood, inkberry, Norway spruce, couple of yews, and then a viburnum.

It's not evergreen either. So- Those are-- So the larger shrubs are on the north side, again, to provide some screening, some foundation planting at the building. That was also a request from West Haven that we provide taller planting along the building.

So you mentioned the sumac should not be on this page. I think otherwise it looks the same as the last one. Should the sumac be on a different sheet? It should be on the previous. It should be listed as a deciduous shrub.

Okay. That's the only difference. It's still here. Okay. Just want to make sure we're on it. But it was not on the deciduous shrubs though in the previous submittal. Just wanted to say, got it. Thanks.

And then here are the two RWSA easement areas. And within the easement, they have a pretty restrictive list of what can be planted. So we're working within that list, but still providing as much diversity as possible.

This is the full list of what we're proposing in those areas. And this would be the two areas highlighted in orange. So those will be only perennial and grass plantings, no shrubs or trees. And then the rest of the ground cover perennial planting are mixes based on site condition.

So here we have the shade mix, which is again, quite diverse. More heavy on grasses, sedges, ferns, a few hostas, and then a few flowering perennials as well. But, because of the shade, not as many flowering perennials.

A slope stabilizing mix that can be seeded if we need to over the critical slope area, just to fill in any bare areas or under where we're planting the new trees outside of the critical slope area. Those plants could then be allowed to naturalize into the slopes if there is that opportunity.

I'm not going to run through this whole list. This is a long one. But more perennials here. And then the sun mix, which you can see for the areas highlighted in yellow, mostly along the south and then the east corner.

The paving palette is basically broken down into concrete for the emergency access areas, using a more decorative pattern for the pedestrian plaza where we don't anticipate as much vehicular traffic and want more of an open space for the public and for residents to use.

And then decorative pavers for that north area at H and I, where again, occasional vehicles will pass through, but mostly pedestrian use. And then the same color paver on the south end in the public plaza.

Here we have images of the raised planters and seat walls. I don't think we have a fence that we need to use anymore. But the seat walls will be integrated into the retaining walls in the front, so they'll look similar to these options, maybe with a back, maybe not, but like a wood top on top of a concrete bench for comfort.

And then you can see some images of what the walls will look like in that next row of images. Additional site furnishings include bicycle racks at A, movable picnic tables and chairs throughout the plaza areas, and then that bus shelter, that was a request from the neighborhood at location C.

Site lighting. Here we are proposing using the same lights that are along Main Street, along the pedestrian connection to really reinforce that is a public connection, and have that design connection there, just to tie that all together and make it not feel like a separate private space.

Outside of that, most of the building exterior will be lit with building-mounted wall downlights. Some surface mounted step lights at that front plaza. Tree uplights, most likely just for the trees within our property, but if possible, we could light all of the trees along Main Street.

And then bollard lights along the north side to provide some additional light. And then here we have a couple of renderings of the project. So this view is the southwest corner of the site. You can see the driveway access and then the plaza off to the right.

There's a door kind of right behind that column that didn't show up in this view, but you can get into the cafe space there. I think that's the cafe space. Yeah. Here's that same view facing a little bit more east.

So you're looking down along the front of the building along Main Street. Here, this is if you had just come up from the West Haven neighborhood, you would see this... I guess this is about halfway up that space, but this is facing towards Main Street, facing south.

So you can see the planting along the right and then the driveway connection into the building on the left. This is closer to the West Haven connection, looking east along the backside of the building.

So the transformer screening is there and then the new plantings along your left. Coming around the building to the east walkway facing south. You can see the paving narrows there where the end of the utility access is, but the pedestrian connection continues on.

Back to the front of the building. This is the upper plaza. Some of the bike parking in this view, tables and chairs, and then one of those bench seats. And then the stair connection down to the lower plaza, which is here.

Again, the bench seating, the same theme continuing throughout, and then the tables and chairs. And then this was a request at the last bar meeting to see some sections through this front space. So the top section is running east-west kind of through the plaza.

So you can see how it steps kind of with the grade and with the building. And then B and C are north-south, so kind of a shortcut through what you would see if you're walking through that space. And that's it.

We'll open it up for questions, discussion. All righty. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions from the public? And if you're online and have questions, please raise your hand via Zoom. I see no raised hands.

And then questions from the BAR. I just want to real quick clarify, you mentioned you did not... On sheet 14 of your PDF, you did show a fence but then said you didn't think you need it anymore, but it looked like it was just at the transformer locations.

Yeah, we might actually. We have one of them we're able to screen with the arborvitae, but the other one, I don't think there's enough planting space. So you're right. We would need a fence. So would the idea be that at the location where they've got the arborvitae, you don't need a fence?

Oh. Would the arborvitae be in front of it? It's a code requirement. For? Screening. So a lot of this should previously been something you look at at the BAR. Obviously, it's a requirement code with regards to the screening mechanical units, rooftop units, lighting.

So I guess then that leads to a different question. Do we have transformers at both of those little- Yes ... bump ins? And if they're required to be screened, it looks like maybe one of them is not screened.

Yeah, I was saying it would have to be like a- Screened. But a fence doesn't count as a screen. The trimmer is... Well, looking it up, it should really have fences. Would there not need to be a fence on the west side?

You don't show it in your scape palette, and then you're not showing the rendering, but- No ... doesn't it drop onto the adjacent property? There is. Kind of. And it's owned by the neighbor. So the retaining wall was built by the adjacent building, and then the fence above it is also built by them.

So that's their property, the fence. Yeah. So there's a fence there. It exists. It's just not part of our proposal. Okay. So it's not shown in your perspective, but we should imagine that it is. You're going to imagine that it's there.

It would be there, yeah. Yeah. And I'm sorry. That is from a street. So yeah. So at the back there, yes, you all could require some type of screening, or just a fence. Okay. Other than that, my only question, it did look like there was a lot more on your planning palette.

That's a good question. That's right. I was looking for that page. On the planning palette, it looked like there was a lot more. Is everything on the city approved list and/or non-invasive? We are working from the city's approved plant list, yeah.

Thank you. Those are my questions. Go ahead. Yeah, the only thing we found was the liriope flagged. But everything else that had previously been in there, we ran through and it wasn't on the tree list.

Checked if it was invasive and good. A couple of questions. Can we go to the utility easement page? Trying to make sure I understand exactly what's happening. Let me see. What page is that? I think it's seven- It's five ...

no, C5. C6, I think. Page five of the PDF. Yeah. Okay, so on the north side of the property, the RWSA easement, it's basically butting up against the northeast corner. Is that what I'm seeing? The north- It's almost like a driveway shape.

It's a- Yes ... a wide stretch that goes north and then goes east. So where you've got the little number four, for the maintenance easement, there's a planting bed just south of that against the north side of the building.

How wide is that planting bed? Or better question, is it wide enough that you could stick an actual tree in there? I know it's up against a building, but... Yeah, there's also a little bit of a building overhang there.

Oh, yeah. So if you did a tree, it would have to be pretty skinny. So okay. But we might have. Do you have kind of a guess as to- We might have- ... just to track the overhang out of it? Yeah, we could probably have five feet maybe of width to work with, maybe six.

Okay. There's underground. That's where the detention is on-site. So underground storm- Oh ... detention is what that box is, and then as it leaves the site in that funky shape, it connects to a structure offsite.

Okay. Because right now, the way it just sheet flows onto West Haven, and now it's an engineered system, but it does need the space in the plan. So we kind of stuck it towards the low point. Mm-hmm. All right.

Well, I guess, my question is with that dash line in your building and the building overhang, is there any room for something a little bigger that might grow away from the building and over the... I guess it's an ideal.

Me being optimistic and idealistic about it, but just wondering if that's a possibility. I think what we tried to do was the hedges, like an evergreen hedge or shrub. Is that right, what we did there?

Just because then you have ample space between building footings. Mm-hmm. Because there's a lot going on. There's building footings. There's the structure of the storm, and so probably like net area is maybe like your gross area is five feet back where you work around all these things, plus it's right against the building.

Okay. I think it becomes very difficult. Okay. The area where you're keeping the honey locust, how many are there that you think you're keeping? I think we're looking only at the canopy area. I think there's quite a few.

I don't think there's five individual trees. You sure they're honey locust? I don't... The site plan indicates there are two. Oh. Okay, so there's quite a few right there. It's kind of a cluster. Yeah.

Two clusters. All right. It would've been nice to get that site plan, but I'm not going to bother with that now. Okay. So there's a lot of them there. Other question is, Tiffin Page and the West Haven area have a really bad invasive plant problem right now, mostly coming off the railroad.

A lot of porcelain berry, and the birds carry it across the neighborhood, and I'm sure you've dealt with that. You have a lot of listings like meadow planting and kind of... Is that going to be maintainable with the invasives that might be coming in?

It will require aggressive maintenance the first several years until establishment. Okay. I'm not sure what the long-term maintenance plan is, but I think we can include maintenance until establishment.

Okay. Because it is always kind of sad when we get these plans with really great meadow-type landscapes, and they seem to last a couple of years, and then they get mowed over, and they're gone. Yeah. And it seems to happen a lot.

But okay, I just want to make sure that was considered. I think that was my questions. I think that was all. Oh, yeah, our guidelines call for opaque finished wood. You guys seem to have a desire for some clear finished wood products.

I don't know how we want to handle that, or is that something that's strongly important to your aesthetic? About the site furnishings- Yes ... finishes? We can be open to a different finish if that's preferred.

Okay. Because I wasn't sure if that was something you guys really wanted that maybe we could discuss, or if that's- Is this the bench they're talking? Yeah, the wood finish for the benches. I would love to hear your thoughts on it.

Okay. All right. Well, I guess we'll bring that up during discussion then. And I also wanted to go back. Brittany did remind me that in discussions, the West Haven community gave us a few examples of bush-type screening to working along a building.

And so I think that was what we used to help inform what type of planting to use for screening there. Mm-hmm. So I think we got an email photo of some type of evergreen bush that we're trying to kind of imitate with a few species selections that have diversity along right under where it says number four.

Okay. So just kind of respond to some feedback there as well. No, I recognize that. I recognize that you guys have probably filled in as much as you can for tall trees, but just those would have the biggest impact for the neighborhood as far as kind of reducing the mass and the feeling of a big wall of your building.

Because even if they're sparsely planted, at least it's something that kind of sticks up and creates a layered effect between your building and the rest of the neighborhood. I recognize you guys have kind of pushed as far as you can.

Mm-hmm. Just related to that, I guess, are you not proposing larger trees because you're trying to keep the existing trees there, or is there an easement? We're trying to stay out of the critical root zone of the existing trees as much as possible.

There's no easement in that area, but a lot of it is a critical slope area, and we are not allowed to do any disturbance at all. Like, no planting in that area. That was our first thought, was to push the larger planting closer to the property line, but...

And we have some space to work with. There's some kind of depth where the... There's two properties, right? One's deeper than the other. So over on the west portion, we're able to add a series of shrubs and a few different species in that location.

But the RWSA line pushes against the property line on that right side, so there's really no ability for us. We tried asking very nicely to RWSA. They don't-- The problem is that line services a lot of the city, and they have some very real concerns about access, and the age of that infrastructure.

And so, for example, if there was a failure, they need to be able to get in there very quickly and maintain it. So we're doing all kinds of things like truck turns and staging ideas. And the best opportunity for trees, we try to put them where the property line on the west is not parallel with the line.

The line kind of is off by a couple of degrees. Mm-hmm. So then we're able to get just outside of the easement, and they were very nice to work with us there to add a few trees in that area. Is that where the elms are?

Yeah. I may have misheard something, but you were saying certain parts obviously to the adjacent neighbor, the standard were in their property. There was a... It looks like I'm looking at an existing photo and there's a sidewalk that goes down, and then there's a fence.

Did you say the fence belongs to them? The retaining wall, and then the fence, that's theirs. And then everything after it- Ah ... all the asphalt up to it. So I think the confusing thing about what I'm looking at is that while theirs goes down, the current property almost goes up.

Mm-hmm. Okay. So the way I'm understanding your plan is that you start at street level and you go down, too. Correct. So essentially what both properties are doing is setting their finish floor elevation at the lower point, and the lower point is away from the bridge, further west.

So when they set their lower point, it was at that elevation, our lowest point, which then causes a step up, right? And it starts with a retaining wall where our property starts. And then what we have to do is kind of mitigate the six-foot of climb along our frontage with two levels of plaza.

The lower of which has the main front doors where the vast majority of the pedestrian circulation will go every day. And then there's another tier that kind of connects up to the bridge and the memorial brick element.

Yeah. I'm wondering more about when you go back- North ... yeah, when you go north- Yeah ... into the site. Is your access to the neighborhood, is that more or less in line with the adjacent sidewalk that goes down?

It's all raised. All raised. Yeah. It's all a few feet higher than the other one. We've tried going back and forth. It's hard to talk through. So he's looking at, like, a Google Map image. Okay. And looking at your utility easement, I think it's sort of faded, but it looks like actually that's maybe just a down ramp.

Maybe a handicap entrance into the standard or something. Yeah. I'm sorry, I missed that. Sorry. So he's looking at... He's calling it a sidewalk, but it's basically just to the west of the retaining wall and fence.

Yeah. And it slopes down. Don't look at y'all's map. I think what I'm reading right is that it's actually, I'm guessing, an ADA ramp that goes down and into the standard. So it only goes 50 feet or something.

Yeah. Like, it doesn't carry on through. So it looks like that fence is more... I mean- I think it's because that way is a retaining wall. Yeah. But it looks like a fence- True ... is more or less straight.

And then your walk... Doesn't the walk go down? Isn't it a grade that goes, because it goes straight across and then go down to the rear of the building. I was almost interpreting that sidewalk next to your- The drive ...

the side access, the drive, and then the sidewalk next to the building is going downhill. I think over the course of our entire front, like from West Main to our rear property line, there isn't much grade change.

Mm-hmm. Where the grade change happens is kind of after where the critical slope starts. So currently, there's a little bit of a rise, but you all- Yeah ... are planning to suppress that. Well, we need to provide 48 inches of cover over the RWSA line because that line is only, like, a couple of feet below the asphalt.

And so with the redevelopment, we're kind of patching over it to make sure that it's safer, it's up to standard for RWSA. 42 inches more? Well, 48 inches, I believe, is what they asked for on top of the line.

So what happens then? Does that cover the fence, the adjacent fence? No, it's 48 inches from the top of the line underground. Oh, okay. So it's about- What is it currently? It fluctuates. It's, like, a matter of inches to add that coverage.

Okay. I'm just curious what the adjacent elements, what's going to happen there? What your development doing, how does that affect those? I mean, are you going to have to excavate, and then you see a retaining wall there.

So- Is the fence going to kind of remain the same? I wasn't picturing this kind of with the fence included. So if all the improvements that we're proposing, like planting strip, would be kind of retaining wall, fence is existing- Mm-hmm ...

then you get planting strip- Mm-hmm ... and walkway. Mm-hmm. So I think either way, you have to have kind of a guardrail for the drop off. We looked into the idea of trying to add the depth there. But the overall width, like, hey, there's already a few feet established.

It's just RWSA line floating in the middle of space and being able to work it out with the actual units on the ground. And so if you raise that, then you compromise the units. Mm-hmm. So it's going to essentially be two different walkways to two different properties.

Mm-hmm. Separated by a fence. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Why is that fence there? It's unsafe. There's a drop-off. I think, again, like on the other side. Got you. Like, you can see these units. Oh. See that window?

Yeah. Much lower it is on the other side. Okay. So it's, like, a six-foot fence. Well- Currently ... it might be shorter. I think it's- Maybe it's four foot six ... four to six. Either way, the fence is off this property.

Right. It's not part of the answers. But I think our site plan is designed to align with the future improvements at West Haven. It's a great question. Is the sidewalk on the other part of the property, like, does that integrate into the plans at all?

Does it need to? With the width that we're providing here, I'd probably not. I don't know who would choose to walk on that side when we have this wide area with a planting strip, pedestrian light poles that mimic Green Street.

Mm-hmm Were you talking about on the completely other side of the building? No, I'm sorry. Just on the other- On the west side ... other side of the fence. But we don't see- Does that one- There's no sections.

Just sh- I think regardless- Yeah It's, I'm saying it's not- It's not under our- Okay ... review tonight. But I think it is a visual thing to consider, that we're not seeing on the renderings. Yeah. Can I just interrupt?

Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead and say your thing. Our walkway aligns directly with what's happening with West Haven. So right now when you look at Google Maps, there's a worn pathway. It is not a sidewalk. There is a worn pathway from people taking a route that doesn't necessarily exist.

So there's nothing to connect into other than an unsafe space that is just a hill rolling down to a new development. So I would ask the question of what is it that we are trying to connect into when our walkway leads directly into the stairs of West Haven.

Why are we going over to The Standard? I think we're just trying to understand the context. Yeah. And because it's not entirely shown. Can we go to an aerial please? Can you just pull up Google Earth?

I don't want to belabor the fence. No, I was just curious what does it look like? Yeah. Because there's no fence from the... I think it'll look like every fence. Yeah. But I did, yeah. And for what it's worth, we would like to replace the fence.

It is not on our property line. We are going to make efforts outside of this to work with the owner of Standard, if we can, but it's not our decision, to get a more aesthetically cohesive fence in there.

But again, that is not our property outside of this discussion. So is it possible to zoom in on the back to see how far that fence goes? So by the time you get to the back there, you're at the same grade with us.

So the slope stops, that's why the fence stops. So everything starts to get to the same grade at that point. That's why we've tried to create this plaza-like experience in the back. That's where we have that kind of pergola back there.

That's to be designed as a part of the West Haven planners process. But right where that fence ends, it ends because you can see the retaining wall ends and everything's together at the same grade. And then it starts to slope down dramatically towards West Haven.

And that, right there where the van is, is where it's flat, and then it slopes down to West Haven. So it all meets back there at that corner point. Does that make a little more sense? Mm-hmm. Okay, perfect.

Thank you. Another question. How wide is your sidewalk next to the vehicular lane? Okay, it's a narrow point there. Yes. The sidewalk or the planting bed? The sidewalk is- The sidewalk ... is six feet.

And then it obviously widens out into like 30 feet. Planting strip is another three feet, or two. It's just over four feet until up here it gets a little wider. Are we still have questions? We are. I have a question.

The fixtures and the light fixtures and furniture and those things are shown as... I'm not sure if they are representative or specifications, because I don't see any specification really language except for the Dominion Acorn fixture.

So my question is, are they specifications or representative images? They are both. The pedestrian pole light is a specification. We definitely want to match the exact fixture, and that is the exact fixture.

The other, the wall down light, the sep light, the up light, and the bollard are precedent imagery. We want something that looks like that, but it might not be exactly that fixture. Mm-hmm. You show them.

It shows the blue dot like it's wall lighting, but it seems to be, if you go to this... Yeah. There's two little circles, blue circles next to each other- That's on- ... and then it spaces, and then there's two more in front of the building.

Those are on either side of the columns. Okay. They're on the columns. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And then a quick question on the pedestrian pole lights. I know you're not adding them along Main Street, but are there existing streetlights along this stretch of Main Street?

Yeah. Okay. They already exist there. I don't know how long they've been up there, but then the idea is to include the same type of spec up. No, I like the idea that it went... Okay, you can see the shadows, I think.

But I think it's a good... Well, that's not a question. They are. Great. Any other questions from the BAR? Nope. All right. Do any comments from the public? Anybody online? No. Okay. We sort of already read...

I guess I should have saved this, but we did read Emily Dreyfuss's comments and her email already into the record. Any comments online? Nobody online. Okay. Any comments from the BAR, or does Jeff have something you want to address?

No, it's actually a- Because it wasn't in our packet. That's why. Yeah, some of the things we talk about the city standards, I know there's a bus stop there, and whatever that enclosure would be, would be the city standard.

I think that there's some revisions to that. But it's not- I think we go with whatever the city standard is- Yeah ... when they start putting it in. Yes, Mr. Schwartz. Thank you. Some quick comments. First, the light poles.

I appreciate you trying to match what we have on West Main Street. What we have currently sucks, and I think may be changing- Yeah ... because they're getting to the end of their lifespan. I would recommend that if you use that fixture, you get the ones without glass because the glass likes to fall out- Yeah ...

and squirrels and whatever get in there, and do a warm color temperature, which I think matches what's on the corner now. Is that to your understanding? I've given up. Honestly, at one point in time, several years ago, the lights that went on Belmont Bridge were supposed to become our new standards.

Yeah. And I think I would fight to the death to not have that happen. Oh. I hate those things. I like the light poles. I like these with the beer can on top. And I think the one you're talking about is on the French Ring Road- Yeah, down- ...

sort of the train tracks now ... right. I think the corner also has, they've switched to a warmer color temperature, and anything not on West Main doesn't have glass. Right. It's just the BAR, many BARs ago, got upset because West Main, they installed all the fixtures without glass, and the BAR pitched a fit, and then they put the glass in, and it actually made the lights non-dark sky compliant and it was a stupid thing.

I like the glass. So my recommendation is for these pole lights, get the ones without glass and get a warmer color temperature to meet our guidelines. And I think it also means something code to do a warmer color temperature.

The other thing I would suggest is, I don't know if we put some language in our motion that if the existing trees you guys are trying to preserve, if they die, that you replace them with large shade trees.

I know that's in the steep slope zone, so you guys don't even want to touch it, but there's been some incidents where we've had some other areas in town where areas that weren't supposed to be touched got- By spring, yeah.

Anyways, I'd like to put something in our motion, which is for us to replace those with some big trees if you can. Yeah, we do have a tree preservation plan- Yeah ... in our site plan. So there are two things on that.

Mm-hmm. I know from the site plan meeting we had a couple of weeks ago, that because of what will fit and what will survive in these spaces between utilities, they might have to change a maple to an oak or something.

Mm-hmm. So I've left flexibility in that. I'm going to sneeze, that's why I'm pausing. But the thing is the site plan requires certain... Oh no. That's the worst one that just come out. Site to site. I have it from somewhere.

Some other multiverse, I did just sneeze. But the canopy requirements are- By the way ... complicated here because of having to try to retain trees. We have the street trees, so it would be that if we enforce the site plan and a tree dies and they don't maintain the canopy, the site plan would compel them- Okay ...

to plant something. But I think you can certainly offer that, for example, if something at the back required a large street tree type thing, is the space might not allow that. That's- Well, the area where the honey locust are, I think there is room there.

I just want to make sure that that spot, when this thing is constructed, it's got big trees there. So whether they're existing or for some reason they die under construction, put back some large trees in that spot.

That's what I'd like to stick in the motion if we can. If, if- Yeah, I support 100%. Are the large existing trees on y'all's property, though? They are. Yeah. Okay. All right. And some of those trees, I'm concerned, have thorns and have pods, so I just want to...

They're existing, but they might not be the best trees for the purpose of connecting community. So just bring that up. I know we can. I know we're- Yeah ... we're stuck. In that sense, I just want to say that those are not necessarily good quality trees.

There is one dead tree there that I saw, and there are a lot of invasives as well. And you all can explain it better, the space in this particular, on that western side- Mm-hmm ... it's like they can't do much.

Absolutely. So the effort is to, to what extent can we retain what's there? Then we're at least not touching that. But I agree with your point is that, well, if the result of retain those helps the tree canopy plan, then all efforts should be made to protect those and the drip line, and things like that.

I don't know how to... I mean, it's a similar situation we have with Salvation Army where we can say, "We really don't want this tree to die," but- It might ... it may. And then to say, "All right, if it dies, something should go in its place." What can go there that works?

And I don't know the answer to that question other than I think that's where we had, last meeting, referred to the type of screen that was specified in the code so that at least we had some guidance to go with.

I think the city has a list of large trees. Just, if it fits that category, then great. And if the site plan process says that can't be done, then I guess we end up having another discussion at that point.

That is the rolling of the dice that the applicant is making here. And as they progress towards the final site plan, now my preference is that we're sort of narrowing down the variables that are left.

And if we're left with, we have to resolve something at that back parcel line, then so be it. But I'm confident with the rest of the site plan. I don't think anything needs to be resolved. I'm just going to put some CYA in there.

Yeah. And I take it the CYA would be you could refer to the screen criteria in the code. Not saying you're requiring it by code, but as at least a definition of something. I mean, I don't know with what else is planted there, if you could then go in and the locusts don't make it, can you go in and establish an overstory tree and an understory type of environment?

I just don't know enough to advise. Okay. Or if we, maybe Jack does, but I don't know if we all do. The other thing I'd like to add, if you guys are in agreement, is I'd like them to omit the uplights in the trees because that doesn't meet our zoning code, and it doesn't really meet our guidelines.

The what? The uplight. The uplights. They look great. They really are pretty, but they- They are ... kind of blatant disregard of our zoning code. They're permitted if they're below a certain lumen level, and that- Yeah ...

make sure then we have to make sure- I'd still like to just have them omitted. Unless you guys need them for your light coverage, that would be my preference. Do you need them for the flag coverage? No, they don't contribute to our coverage.

So that was my question. And I guess we do need to address the wood furniture. I think I'm okay with that if we're okay with it turning gray. So the guidelines are, we've looked at this before. There's places that we refer to wood, but it's actually not pervasive throughout the guidelines relative to sites.

I know in the mall we have constraints. I know fencing, we have constraints. The key, I guess, would be is it can't be bare wood, but it can be stained. We've traditionally preferred opaque stains or a dark paint.

Yeah. But that's more been practice and less... It's sort of been site by site. So I think that if it's something is in a situation like this where the whole street's essentially new, the guidelines don't preclude, heck, if they want to do teak, as long as the teak, they maintain it.

And so like you said, if they use bare wood, then maintain it. If you were to permit it to patina, to a gray, the guidelines aren't opposed to that. I guess I wouldn't want to see that happen just as a matter of nobody's touched the thing.

So, it's like the Verf where, if you recall, there were a lot of wood elements in there that weren't quite defined what they were doing with it. But, so if you all have a preference for something that's painted or stained, you certainly can say it.

But the guidelines don't preclude- Okay ... the furniture. What is y'all's design intent on the furniture? For that type of thing, we typically use a tropical hardwood just for the longevity and ease of maintenance.

They can be oiled so they don't turn gray, but they also look okay when they turn gray. The oiling- Yeah ... requires maintenance. Yeah. I guess, do we need that level of specificity in this? It's the middle- If we're okay with tropical hardwood that turns gray, I think we just let it go.

I think that's fine. Okay. Just want to make sure. I don't have any objections. Requires maintenance. They do look like they've been oiled or stained in the pictures shown. Right. Look like they have something.

Oh. Right. Yeah, just leave it at tropical hardwood. Okay. I should have asked this earlier, but it just dawned on me now. I keep looking at that I hope you don't mind me asking a question during comments.

It's okay. But I keep looking at that perspective. It's one of the last ones. It's page... This one? Page 21, is it? Okay. No, I- Just scroll up ... down there. And the walk looks really baked, in the middle.

I'm just wondering why you didn't do any trees there. Was there something that they're going to do for that? So the reason is, there are overhead lines and telecom lines- Yeah ... that we have no room for on the west end, so we do have to put them in a duct bank here.

So with that, we don't have room. We have that competing with a storm line as well that connects to the underground retention in the back corner. So just the underground improvements are prohibiting us from locating trees in this areas as well.

Even higher shrubs, or it just feels very low and- Mm ... exposed. And I guess, from our BAR perspective, I would like to see some sort of planting to soften that edge and bring things a little bit more into human scale.

It just feels like a hot, parked place to walk up. And I forgot whose point it was that some of this low-lying vegetation. And I can see the front, the main street planters being manicured and somebody paying attention to those.

But I can also just as easily see this strip being totally neglected and turning into poison berry or whatever the local weed is that comes in quickly enough. It just feels like an area that can very well be easily neglected, if you don't think about it ahead of time and choose the right kind of size plant, and sturdy plant that will be able to live there.

Looking at the utility plan, the telecom easement only really comes not even quite halfway from north to south before it looks like it turns east. So- Yeah, I think it's more critical slopes in this corner.

And we're not seeing the line of existing vegetation along the railway here. So I think this image is a little misleading because that doesn't include trees that are going to cast shade. Mm-hmm. It's just not- If you look at the city's GIS, you can see that just over the parcel line where the cellphone tower is and the railroad property is, well, yeah, there we go.

Absolutely, trees. Yeah. So this is all off of our property. Yeah. That will remain. Yeah. So I think it's not going to look as parched as that image would suggest. It's actually well-shaded. Yeah. Okay.

And to add on to the telecom- Mm-hmm ... what you're seeing there is an easement. So that grants access to the cell tower- Right ... for all the telecom companies to get service vehicles into that gate into that corner.

Mm-hmm. What's not shown, because it's not an easement, is just the underground duct bank that runs the whole span. Okay, yeah, that's not shown. So really, our gas line, our water lines, there's a lot of lines running through this.

Electrical lines all run all the way back to those transformers. Mm-hmm. None of that is shown on this exhibit. This is just easements. Okay. Well, I don't know why I'm dwelling on adjacent property so much today.

But since I am, I just will make the comment that I think it would be... I appreciated the comment that you're reaching out to the neighbor. I think that the fence looks shoddy. I think it's going to detract from some of the improvements you're trying to make on the drive.

So I think it would be a worthwhile effort to try to replace it, if you can. I think it's going to feel like an aftereffect, and that was the reason why I was asking questions earlier. It seemed like, I know it's there because it's there, and you're not in control of it, but it's going to be a big part of the experience of walking down that sidewalk.

I think I do really appreciate the interest in making the connections. I like that you led with that first slide with the red arrows, and so that's my biggest concern and interest is those edges and how they connect mostly to the West Haven community and those places where people are coming in.

So I think I just want to-- I don't know if we have much ability to impact those trees there, but it would be nice in the process of working with West Haven to look at that planting between West Haven and where just as a whole, if there's ways to have a palette that's similar.

I do see a lot of invasives. It'd be really great to clear out the invasives. Mm-hmm. Take down the hazard trees, confirm. I love black locust. I think that's what they probably are. But there's thorns, and so I just want to have that feel really nice for people.

So I think that's just my interest is making those edges really nice. The species list, I think, seems like you guys know a lot of plants. It's great. Definitely concerned about-- We have such bad invasives.

I think you all are Chicago-based? Yeah. It's very different. It was crazy here. There were a few that I tagged, like Liriope spicata. I think that you might want to look at Ajuga reptans 'Bronze Beauty' and then the Alianum hibernum again.

But yeah, I think I appreciate the effort to make those connections and what you are showing as far as public space. I had a couple of comments following up on my question earlier about whether things were specifications or representative, and I just wanted to point out that there are some discrepancies between what you're showing in the renderings, which are new, and what you're showing in your precedent images.

And I'm hoping for maybe some clarity on what the intent is, and also just to point out to the BAR, do we typically approve precedent images, or do we look for more detail? For example, the bike racks you're showing in your precedent images are very sexy.

But in your renderings, they're very normal. What's the intent? They're sort of rectangular versus a kind of twisted ribbon. The other thing I'm noticing is your precedent images show a kind of planar condition between the wall, becomes bench.

The bench sits on the wall at the height of the wall. And in your renderings, you have a kind of sinuous wall, but then you have a kind of block of concrete supporting the bench, and it kind of breaks up that sort of planar quality, which is really nice about the precedent images.

Same thing with the furniture. I think I'm just looking for clarity from you and want to just express a little hesitation on approving something that isn't quite really feeling nailed down yet. The renderings are always limited by what furniture is available to model.

Sure. So the images are always more accurate. The renderings are just to help convey intent and help you visualize the space, but they're not necessarily specific. That's especially true for plant material, but it applies to furnishings, too.

We try to get close, but- Mm-hmm ... you can't always find the exact right thing to drop into your model, so yeah. Sure. I think The walls are the thing that really jumped out at me, because it does seem like a bit of a departure and I would recommend that you would go more toward the images you're showing in the precedent images rather than the renderings.

Yeah, I think we can make that work. Whether that's raising the height of your walls or lowering the benches. I'm not sure. I guess just for everybody to understand what you're talking about. For the seat wall, it looks to me like the precedent images are on slide 14, item A.

Is that correct? That's correct, yeah. Yeah. And then- So there's a series of three pages with precedent images with lights and- Well, let's do the benches first. Mm-hmm. So the benches, raised planter/benches, and then I guess, Kate, can you explain the difference between the two- Sure ...

between that and then say what we're seeing in slide 22 and 23? Yes. I guess what I'm reading, well, in the third image on the top on C-15, there's a wall condition with a bench on top of the wall, at the sort of top of wall elevation.

Mm-hmm. And then in the first image A, there's a little circle A. Mm-hmm. It's a similar condition where it's sort of suggesting a continuation of wall and bench. It's like similar language. Everything in the images is what we're going for.

Yeah. The renderings we were trying to put together for this presentation just to get a little more context and just visuals just to help- Mm-hmm ... get a scale of things and just get the feel of everything.

Okay. But definitely the precedent images will be based on design output, and it's coordinated with our final site plan right now. So that all the specifications on the lighting plan and the details of these will be in our documents, but that will be based off of these images.

Okay. Great. I would suggest then it's-- Because you're right, the site elements, some of these things not clearly covered in our guidelines even, but if there are preferences to something that's been shown and it's a similar condition you used at 218 West Market Street, where you were very clear that the brickwork, and Kate and I have been communicating back and forth, we haven't solved that, but we want to see details in the construction drawings that reflected the profile of the brickwork that was shown in the rendering.

So if there's something that's a preference or there's something that you don't want to see, the best instruction might be to say, "When we do get the construction drawings, we're looking for wood furniture on concrete, similar to the renderings." Mm-hmm.

Because otherwise, and this is one of the challenges of a large-scale project, that there are little details that as you progress through the review, and then we get to a point where like, "Gosh, what exactly is that thing?" You certainly could ask for some, I mean, not saying delay the approval, but establish what you like and maybe that the prior to construction we'll see a detail that staff can review for the BAR archive.

Mm-hmm. So that sort of, obviously, whatever they're going to build there is going to be a long way down the road within the project, so. Mm-hmm. But I think the approval of the concepts, what we'll be looking for tonight, and if we have to provide some clarification just so we all have an understanding, then there's nothing wrong with that.

And also, in my experience, these are always the goodies at the end of the project, but that's also the first thing that gets sacrificed. So everything's subject to change on some of the decorative elements, but I think you could craft language that instructs them to provide some information, and if we have a question about it, we can certainly have a further discussion.

Does that sound... You're the master of motion making. Can we request, I think we've requested last time, sections through the west. Mm-hmm. I'm surprised there's not a section through the pedestrian walk, like the sidewalk.

We had to ask the width of the sidewalk. It wasn't written down anywhere. So can we request sections through there? And this is, again, the give and take. Not wash our laundry in front of the applicants, but it is where through this process of trying to anticipate every corner and connection that we might want to see detailed better, and we always see things as we progress.

So, I guess on the one side, I could say, "You're the Board of Architectural Review. You have every right to, within your purview and your guidelines, request additional information- Mm-hmm ... and withhold approval until you have that." The other side of that coin is, is what you are seeing tonight in the direction you want to go, and if there's some clarification, can we address it in the condition?

But I would not advise we now take even further pieces and separate it out for later approval. Yeah, and I think also ultimately the question to us is, does it meet our design guidelines? Is it compatible with the district?

Yeah. Getting into really nuanced details is a little bit outside our purview, I think. Yes, I agree. If it helps, Kate, and I kept saying, "It's a parking lot." I would say- Right ... "Does this look better?" It's a parking lot right now, so yeah.

Mm-hmm. But hopefully I've offered some guidance there, just that I think, yes, these details do matter. I'm not trying to say they don't. Mm-hmm. But it's to offer an off-ramp that we can keep going forward.

And by you expressing, "Our understanding is, in what's been communicated, this is what we'll see." And if then, so for example, on 218 West Market, if they had refused to provide the information we asked for about the brick details, I said, "I'm not signing off on this building permit." So I still have that power.

Mm-hmm. And then it just becomes a function of trust. I think we can maybe... It sounds like the applicant's saying we are in agreement that the precedent image is what the intent is and what we like better than say what the renderings are showing.

Right. And I think even the renderings, the color of the building in the renderings is just stark white, and I feel like it was a much richer color in the previous renderings we had seen in the earlier- We are not rendering the building- Right ...

just so you know. Yeah. Right. So it's a different discipline. Yeah. Mm-hmm. So, I think to y'all's point, the rendering is sort of, you're working with the kit of parts that the rendering program is giving you.

Yeah. We also did submit two different packages, one with and without the renderings, so if it helps in terms of what is committed to, you have the one without renderings, so we can have one- Just to say we accept the one without renderings .

It might make it a little bit easier. Yeah. Right. You could go so far as to screen capture this and introduce it. That's a good suggestion, honestly. It takes some of the ambiguity out of it, because we often say like- Yeah.

Let's do that ... "The package as submitted with the following conditions." Which is the previous one? The first one you looked at. Yeah. The only thing, I think the difference between this... Yes, it's the first one you sent us, doesn't have the renderings.

It's just- There are some changes though. Correct. Yeah. For the planting palette, and that's what I think they would like approval on. Yeah. That is the- There's a lot of stuff in the planting palette, the new one that I haven't...

I did look at the other plant palette and those were my recommendations were based on that, so I haven't had a chance. So it'd just be good to note that I haven't looked at the plant palette, the newer plant palette yet.

Yeah. So, but I think the same goes, just look at Virginia, what's invasive in Virginia. Right. I mean, that's enough. You can find that easily. Yeah. And I think that's why I asked the question about whatever the city approved tree list and the- Non-invasive ...

invasive. In Jeff's suggested motion, that's bullet point number one. I think it is, yeah. There you go. So- Do we want to act on the uplights of the trees? Let's go for- Can I, one more. Hmm? So sorry.

Just the driveway, is it as thin and skinny as it can be? I think it's 22 feet. Yeah. Okay. It's two-way traffic, right? It's two-way traffic, so yes. Okay. Sorry. That's the question. Right back to the uplighting, it sounded like there was maybe some discrepancy on whether it's allowable by code or not.

Well, if it's not full cut off, it's allowed if it's under a certain lumen level. I'm torn because I do think at times that some sort of accent lighting is great, but blasting a spotlight into the sky isn't.

And so I think you could clarify some parameters of, unless you wish that anything that goes up should- I think unless there's a really good reason for an uplight, I think we should just not allow it.

I think that they can be aesthetically pleasing. They are pretty. So, and well, things should be pretty sometimes- ... not just because they're code. And I honestly, I agree with you. I think that if they are not spotlights to the stars, I don't think there's necessarily...

In fact, I think it would enhance the experience of people walking around the streets at night. So do we even have to stipulate a lumen level if it's already taken care of in the code? You just can't go further than...

I mean, you could say because you do have purview, you also have the site guidelines do speak to lighting and glare and brightness. So you have the wiggle room for that. And then, of course, always if an applicant says, "I think the BIR was off," you know, "was wrong," they can appeal that.

But, so I think it's well within your rights within an entire landscape like this to say, if there are accent lights that are down lights or accent lights uplighting, we hopefully have solved a lot with the 3000K- Mm-hmm ...

addressing the brightness and glare. You could possibly go further than that. I'm not qualified to set parameters for lighting, but you all are, or the presumption is you are. So if you have something that you'd like to stipulate, I would have no problem with you clarifying it.

May I ask? Yeah. Does the applicant have any idea how uplights could look like? Yeah. So we actually had a comment on this in the site plan, and so I can't rattle off at the exact code section, but in our response, we'll show that there's a color temperature level, and then how we're meeting the code.

I forget. Maybe it was Gary who asked. You're good. I think you're good. I think it's just stay within the code. Yeah. Right. And then one piece for full disclosure before you make a motion. Yeah. So when you refer to these renderings, if they came in and there's, say, a bench that has 10 boards and not five, or the back is a three-board back and not two- No ...

I'm not stopping them. They're trying. Again, I think we're going to- It's the intent ... I think the applicant's suggestion that we focus our motion on the package that was submitted without the renderings helps avoid a little bit of that, and that we- I'm sorry, I meant the...

Yeah, the precedent ... I think the inherent definition of precedent doesn't necessarily mean that's exactly what it is going to be. It's just the precedent. Thank you. The archaeology, we can talk about that.

And I don't know if this is a question for you or Brittany or who, but- Me. The archaeology. So in previous approval, we had approved it with a condition for a phase one archaeological investigation. Essentially what this is asking for is to rescind that approval and ask you all to hire Ravana, which it sounds like you all have gotten a proposal from them, to do a historic study, and then also allow the city the opportunity at their own cost to do limited archaeological investigations if the timing works out.

Yes. Just to summarize it. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. So I will take full responsibility. I did not know there was a technical term for an archaeological phase one, and I did not know that was a $50,000 super extensive report.

Okay. Right? I will go on record and say that. No. My understanding of what we agreed to was more of like an environmental phase one- Uh-huh ... which is what we're asking to actually do. So I think a lot of us kind of misunderstood what the true definition of an archaeological phase one is.

Well, we're not talking about an environmental review though. We're not talking CHR guidance on that to you, actually. No, I agree. We're not talking about that. There's just a difference in environmental and what that gives you in terms of just a description of the history of the site and then a recommendation for a phase two.

Mm-hmm. So it's more so the level of detail that I was imagining, not saying that we're asking for an environmental. Right. So yes, I agree. And I don't know, we haven't received Ravana's proposal, but I also know Ravana really well, so I trust that their proposal is pretty good and encompassing, and it's going to give the city what they'd like to have in terms of the history.

I mean, this site's important to the history of Charlottesville. It's the James Dinsmore site. He was a master builder. He helped build Monticello, he helped build UVA. He's a pretty important person in terms of crest in the city.

So I think it's a good thing that we should apply to the COA. And I hope the city can scratch together a little bit and that they can work with you all's timeline to try and do an investigation that perhaps the historic study might lead to.

And obviously we've got some utility stuff that's already been placed in this property, but you never know what you're going to find and, because there are even, I think some excellent photos of the house that was there, so they probably have a decent idea about where it was.

Yeah. And so I just want to make sure you all didn't object to this before we include it in the motion. No, we worked hard to ensure that it was actually what I think everybody wanted in the first place.

So thank you. Sure. You all okay with that? Motion passed. I think so. So, what I'm hearing, so based on our discussions and Jeff's draft approval motion, they've got the trees, the tree and planting palette pretty well covered.

I think I've got- You got something? I think I've got the bullets that we can talk about. Okay. Do you want me give it a try? Or- Sure. Okay. If I miss something, I don't have any support on the uplights, I would say, so I shouldn't bother.

I think yeah, you shouldn't bother. Correct. And if I could add, as Carl says it, we can make some notes and give us a few seconds to make sure we understand. Yes. Yeah. Before you jump second and vote.

So- Are you jumping in on the streetlamps? Because I like the glass on the streetlamps. I am going to mention the streetlamps. You guys can just have no glass. I'm surprised someone hasn't been hit in the head yet because I find the glass on the sidewalk all the time.

Perhaps we should just... It sounds like the city is already working towards a replacement and/or a new standard. I don't think the city's going to get there. They've been working towards a replacement since the Belmont Bridge started construction, and it hasn't come to fruition.

And I know that the public works is not happy with the cost of that piece of glass is- I'm not going to object because this is technically- If we're not talking about specifics of all the lights- Sure ...

it's hard to make a statement about the glass in one fixture. I agree with that. I also think that because these aren't really on the public way per se, they're going back into this site, I'm not going to put up a fight about it.

And if you go to all the side streets on West Main Street, like Roosevelt Brown and any of the other ones that have these fixtures, they don't have glass. They get it. And I think the corners have been updated to not have glass and also be a warmer color temperature.

But anyways, if you guys don't like something, we'll take it out. Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the city's ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the landscaping plan for the proposed development at 835, 843, and 847 West Main Street satisfies the BAR criteria, is compatible with this property and the properties in this ADC district, and the BAR approves the application with the following conditions.

If the tree and/or plant species vary from those noted in the submittal, the trees selected should be consistent with the city's master tree list, or if not on the tree list, selected species must not be identified as invasive in Central Virginia.

Seating tables and planters in the street-level open space at West Main will be of a consistent design, and any wood elements will be of a weather-resistant species and suitable for exterior use. So that was a change right there.

We're going to rescind the condition of COA BAR number 250095 related to a phase one archeological investigation. Vote on item number four and then approve motion and apply the following. Next. We will have a historic study and a limited archeological investigation as written in the staff report.

The pole lights will be without glass and will be a warm color temperature of 3000K or less. If the trees on the north side of the site cannot be preserved, please make sure that at a minimum, large trees per the moderate transition screen type 2 will be installed.

Did I miss anything we were talking about? I would add a friendly amendment that we reference the packet dated September 14th, 2026, as submitted this evening, without renderings. Three-dimensional renderings.

Without three-dimensional renderings. Thank you. I'll accept that amendment. And my understanding from that is that the planter and sheet wall, the intent is- Based on the precedent images. Based on the precedent.

And that we want this packet because that reflects the updated plant list and plant palette. But you already referenced that, so scratch that. Second. Is staff clear on? I'm very clear on what you said.

I didn't write it down, but it was all really clear, so I can take it from the... Okay. There weren't um's, uh's, and what about's, so I can take it from the video. Unless you're carbo, and then I just make it up.

No. Yeah. Maybe you could not work here. So we've got a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Okay, a call to vote. Ms. Trumpeter? We're voting. Okay. Approve? Aye. Yes, aye. There you go.

Sorry. I don't usually start. That's okay. Mr. Rosenthal? Yes. I usually start, so I just say what they do. I usually start down there, but he made the motion. Ms. Tabany? Yes. Mr. Timmerman? Yes. Mr.

Burrell? Aye. Mr. Bailey? Yes. Mr. Schwartz? Yes. I vote yes. Thank you, guys, for your patience and for working with us through this one. And good luck. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. All right. It's 8:00.

Does anybody need a bio break? Yes. Okay. Sorry for saying that. All right. We're going to take a- How do you hold this? ... five to 10-minute bio break. Five-minute bio break. See you back in five. Thanks, y'all.

Thank you. I don't think you're Additional information. Rebecca- And it been suddenly a six-story building is 10 stories, and the instead of brick, it's fiber cement siding. I would say, "Wait, that's not what we've been looking at.

That's very different." If I felt like what they were presenting and some of the fluid nature of the landscaping discussion had gone way too far afield, I would've said something. But it's a judgment call.

And also, we have, if someone out there thinks something's really contentious, possibly to be appealed, I weigh that also. But I felt like the landscaping was enough of a... It warranted discussion, and it warranted your input.

We were going to get some things changed anyway. That's where I stand. But you all are more than welcome, moving forward on any project, if you feel like this is not what we looked at before, I haven't seen this, you have every right to object and every right to tell me that- Can I?

... you don't want to review it. Can I make a request? Yes. Unless it's something that we, like you send out the packet and we have a question, and they make a rendering or something to answer that question, but if it's something like what they just did tonight with that whole presentation, can you guys set a deadline for that sort of stuff so that we can get it emailed to us in a timely- I didn't actually realize what they were- Okay ...

what all that whole thing was. It was a lot of technical talk, but I thought there was something that just didn't show up. Mm-hmm. But again, that's the part of the... You all, as being design professionals and understanding this process, I try to let that iterative process- Yeah ...

continue. And I don't want to say... I want to keep things moving forward. And so that's where my starting point is. And I think the three weeks is ideal. There's stuff happens between when they submit their application and when our meeting happens, but if there's a way, just because it's hard to see on the screens.

Yeah, it is. And it didn't to me seem like it was... It might've been like whether it was this type of tree or that type of tree, but it was a tree. And- I think our landscape architect takes offense to that.

I should. I want you to, for the record, can I- I spent a lot of time reviewing the package. Yeah. So, that feels like a waste of my time if there's a new package- Exactly ... they're providing this. Then, yeah, you guys are- So if there's things that we approved tonight that I didn't see, then it feels like it's on us, so it could be a deadline.

Yeah, that- But it's also, yeah, I'm more than happy to, if you don't want to see it or if you're seeing something you're not comfortable with, don't hesitate to say so. I think if they said, sorry. If they said in the beginning, "The package that we're showing you tonight, we've added this, this, and this." That's kind of what I was trying to get at.

Yeah. And then it got, the first two slides was like, okay, it's just one thing changed, but then there was this huge list. Yeah. And I couldn't keep up. Yeah. And I think you're right, that maybe, even if they had a page on there that said like- Removed and added.

It was a very clear list that could have been helpful. And it's not just for plantings, it could have been for lighting or whatever, on a different project. I think we established a deadline of no later than before- Technically, there is.

We don't technically- Is it the project manual, Jen, that you have? But again, I'm saying, if you guys... I don't tell you what to do, and if you feel like you haven't seen something before- Yeah ... but if you don't say that, then I'm assuming, okay, you're okay with it.

Yeah. And I'm going back to instruction from prior VARs that have said, in fact, and I'll quote my favorite VAR member, Brett Kassinger. Number one, he said he didn't ever want to hear the word shrubbery used again in a VAR meeting.

But he would always say, "You trust us. We trust us to do our job." So I'm not putting that pressure on you. I'm saying, I'm kind of, all right, well, they're okay with this, and I'm okay with it, then one plus one equals two.

And so, but it-- moving forward, if you don't like what you're looking at, speak up, because I'm going to- And one thing that I didn't bring up and that we had discussed before was Memory Walk. Mm-hmm.

And I'm assuming that they are still working with West Haven on developing that. That's laid out in the staff report that I tried to address it, that it's pulled away, that they are doing that and they're doing their thing, and it's not part of what was presented.

The other piece I will offer is, when I see a landscaping plan and it's showing me what the ground cover's going to be or what the flowers are going to be in the spring, I really don't pay attention to that.

I'm saying, are they of street trees that are required? Are they using plantings that are on our list? And are they creating, really, for that project, the screening that was asked for? Now, whether they use butternut squash or Queen Anne's lace, I didn't look further on those pages.

But I certainly can. So when they said, "We've changed some of our low plants and our flowers," fine. I don't take it to that level. All right. Next up, I know Erin, this has been very exciting for her.

What Erin doesn't know is that we had anticipated a much more lively evening than we even had. So she's actually, I'd say, a good hour ahead of schedule, and she doesn't know. I was reminded not to say that anymore.

Yeah. I think, I want to keep us on track. I think that some of what we were talking about, maybe we can circle back to if we have time, because I've got thoughts on... I think Carl's suggestion was a good one, and I've got some ideas on that.

But out of respect for Erin, I think we need to move to our pre-application conference for 211 Ridge Street. 207-211 Ridge Street. And this is the Salvation Army, the site that's just south of the fire station.

Obviously, as brothers, we renewed the COA on the demolition. What this had come before you all three years ago for a special use permit for some things. As far as you were concerned, it was a reduction of the width of the front of the building and, which allowed that tree, that large tree, some hope of remaining, and then some setbacks at the rear portion of the parcel.

Those weren't controversial in any way, and they were incorporated into the special use permit, approved by city council. The design that's coming before you tonight is unchanged from what you saw three years ago, and I felt like it would be helpful to at least reintroduce you all to it.

But where I alluded to this in the staff report, but I want to say it out loud, is that this project is... Some funding has come available for it. Things are moving somewhat quickly, and Erin doesn't need to get into the programming of all that.

But there's a great level of interest in staying on a timeline with this thing, and one of them is to have design approval such that the special use permit doesn't lapse in February. So we're-- I want to, and I'm saying that not to say you guys have to approve something.

In fact, you're not approving anything tonight. But I think I mostly want to come out of this even, of the discussion this evening is sort of where we just were with the West Main project. If there's a question about a detail, if there's something that you want to see, if there's a through section that you want to know about, let's try to identify as many of those as we can.

And I think that talking with Erin, it's not possible to probably turn something around for October, but it would be ideally they're coming back in in November with a formal application. And there might be some modifications to design, but the concept as you see it is that design.

That's intact. And thinking that, okay, if we, as much information, as much questions as the things that you want to ask, we try to cover the bases tonight, and anticipating some sort of formal application coming your way in November and December to finalize, maybe January final.

So yes, we want to fast track this thing to the extent that we reasonably can, and that starts tonight with a good thorough discussion about what information you guys would want to see. So with that, Erin, show your- I think it's also important to note that currently, and I think if we can get it to an approved state, it's being reviewed under city code prior to the December 2023 adoption of the updated code of development.

Correct. I will, while she's setting up, there was one design element that some of you have mentioned to me and has brought to my attention is there's a retaining wall in the front of the property. I've had several folks say, "That thing should be brick." So that was the one thing that is not in my staff report from last time.

Make sure I get that covered. And Erin, this is also as much for you as it is for us, so please ask us questions- Yeah ... so you can come back with something that we're ready to approve and move ahead with.

So for those of you that I haven't met before, my name is Erin Hannigan. I'm with Mitchell Matthews Architects and Planners here in Charlottesville. Thank you for approving the demolition COA earlier this evening on the consent agenda.

What you're going to see tonight is the exact application that was submitted. There are no new images and no changes to the application that was provided earlier. And we do hope to resubmit in two weeks since there is a two-week turnaround to the next submission date, with the hope that we can be on the October agenda and give ourselves a little bit more time.

Depending upon what you ask for in tonight's meeting, we'll see how that goes. So we've already been working on that and rounding up all of the cut sheets and other elements that you will need in that package.

So the Salvation Army is located at 207 and 211 Ridge Street. Oops. Here's a vicinity map. Again, as you said, it's right below, located here. And what was formerly Nolan Plumbing, which is now Wynn Supply, is its other neighbor to the south.

We are operating under the old zoning ordinance. It is the West Main East district, and some of those requirements were modified by the special use permit that again was approved now three years ago. And we've basically taken that three-year break because of a fundraising period that is now coming to a close.

So we're back at it This is the SUP resolution. I'm not going to cover that. We're in subarea C of the Ridge Street ABC district. Again, a close-up of the site. It is a little bit of a dogleg site, L-shaped, with more frontage width on Fourth Street Southwest than Ridge Street.

Here is the existing condition survey. The Salvation Army has been in Charlottesville since 1912. Hopefully, you all know what the Salvation Army does at this point. They were the only year-round shelter up until two weeks ago.

And their primary purpose in redeveloping the site is to increase capacity and increase community services. That includes case management and other services that they provide to the community, provide better connection to the street, more visibility of the program, better way-finding on the site, more efficiency in the buildings that they have, make them not only more efficient and energy efficient, easier to maintain, but also more efficient for staffing them, which is a big operation cost moving forward.

Right now, there are three buildings on the site. This large block that is on Ridge Street is actually two buildings. The original building was the chapel, has a gymnasium behind it, and it has an administrative wing that reaches north in an L shape in here.

That was built in 1965. Then there was an addition put onto it, which is this piece over here, and that addition was made in 1992. The building at the back, I learned today, was actually built in two phases, originally in 1980 for the men's wing, which is the eastern half of this building, and then the women's wing with the basement underneath it is on the western half.

The footprint is particularly so that the existing shelter at the rear, which is where the majority of the congregate shelter area, the beds are located, can remain on site through the majority of the construction timeline, so that their services are not interrupted during redevelopment.

And that's 211? Correct, 211 is going to remain for as long as possible. There are some family units that are also in 207, in that '92 addition in this area, that would be displaced, but they will find alternate locations.

So here's the aerial. You can see the overbuild of the roof onto the original 1965 structure. That's this one. The parking lot coming off of Fourth Street, and then there is a small grassy area in the dogleg behind the fire station that is a semi playground, just open area for the most part.

And of course, we have the large oak tree here at Ridge Street. Here are some aerial images to show those conditions. The property line, obviously red dashed line. Moving around the site. From above Fourth Street, looking at the congregate shelter that will remain during construction is this 211 building.

And then some street-level images of the existing conditions. The buildings, they're out of useful life. They are in really poor condition at this point and only getting worse by the day it seems. Context photos.

So again, as I think just staff report points out, this half of Ridge Street, with the fire station, the Salvation Army, and the wind supply structure is very different than the rest of Ridge Street. The context on Fourth Street is also very different than the context on Ridge Street.

The buildings in the lower right-hand corner that are labeled four, five, and six are small residential scaled structures. They're pictured in the middle of this page. And maybe something to point out, this is a mixed-use building that is falling in the institutional category, given its mixed-use purposes in the community.

While it has a residential component to it, it also, I would say, has an institutional character to it because of its mix of chapel space, soup kitchen, community room, and then the residential portions.

So you're currently looking at an overall site plan with a roof plan superimposed. The white portion that's L-shaped here is the upper level roof on the four-story portion, whereas the gray rooftops here are all down at one story.

You can see the tree here out at the street. The dashed line that is over top of the parking lot, that is the existing emergency shelter building to remain. So the whole point of this design is to, again, allow that to remain and put the parking lot as the last phase in that location.

This massing and footprint also allows future expansion on the site, so the large green space that will hopefully be a playground in the near term could eventually hold another freestanding building in the long term, depending upon the needs or an addition to the building.

We do know that the Salvation Army grows and changes over the years as evidenced not only by this site, but of course, all the other Salvation sites that you can look at across the country. This is the first floor plan.

So again, as a quasi-institutional entity in the city, it has these different programs. Three large ones here on the first floor, the chapel poking out front, the dining room or soup kitchen connected to the kitchen here, which needs service access at its rear, and the multipurpose room that stretches out back.

The main party is to have one main corridor that reaches between these two fronts. So entry off of Ridge Street, entry off of the parking lot with a connection to Fourth Street, that being the main thoroughfare through the core of the building, that can be easy for way-finding for all of the people who would be coming to this building for the very first time, and also allow staff to really clearly monitor what's happening in the building.

As we move up a floor, the chapel is a little bit taller, so you can see here it's shown open to below. It's not quite a full second story. There's a mixture on the upper floor. So this floor has three family apartments.

They're each two-bedroom apartments, and the other half of the floor plate is administrative for the core, which is the church entity portion of the program. Then as we move up a floor, the two apartments remain.

There's some individual bunk rooms, and then this portion is all sleeping alcoves around the perimeter with the main core in the center. The fourth floor is pretty much the same. Men and women are split on floors.

The roof plan with mechanical equipment enclosed by an equipment screen. One stairwell goes all the way to the roof. Elevations. We are trying to provide you with cuts for all the elements, color selections for all the elements in that list in our next package.

You can tell in this image that there is fencing on either side of the building. So one of the issues currently on the site is it's a cut-through, which is really Distracting and creates conflict sometimes to the community that's on site.

So one of the goals is to restrict that access, the cut-through access. So the whole property will be fenced. We're actually adding a driveway gate as well. And the playground is then internally fenced within that, meets up at certain points.

This is the rear elevation, so the multipurpose room is on the left. This rear entry off the parking lot is here. These are the side elevations. And then the renderings, the view from the intersection of Monticello and Ridge with the tree and the proposed condition.

This is the concrete wall that Jeff is calling out is going to be brick. So we made it concrete, and I'd like to talk to our civil and landscape architects later this week. Part of the reason is there's a sight wall along this edge that you can just see the top of here that follows these stairs up and the sidewalk up to the front door that we currently have modeled as concrete to intersect with the existing brick wall.

And I think we were picking up on that by making this concrete. Fully open to it going to brick. You can tell us. Of course, you can see the material palette. We have a red brick on the stair towers, as well as the base of the chapel, board and batten Hardie or Cemestiss board and batten product on the chapel base and trimming out the storefront along the front.

On the upper levels, it's a lap siding. Board and batten on this vertical piece that's at the end of the corridor as you enter the stairwell. And then the rear, sorry, I'll get to it in a second. So here's the other view crossing the bridge.

Looking at it, you're looking at the chapel volume again with the butterfly roof. Please note that the signage we know is not acceptable under your guidelines, but the Salvation Army specifically requested renderings for the signage for fundraising purposes.

So eventually we'll work through that with what the compromise will be. Here's the rear condition. The dumpster enclosure is omitted, which is over here in this vicinity, in front of this white car on the right-hand side.

And on the rear of the building, there's a charcoal color brick that wraps a lot of the surfaces that are one story in the rear. And the fencing is also missing from the image, and our plant palette wasn't really established yet, so these don't necessarily show the eventual plants.

I believe our SUP is also requiring an S3 screening buffer along the Fourth Street. So eventually that will show up in all of our images here in the next packet. And then this is an aerial view of the building.

So I think what I'd love to hear from you is your opinions on all the various categories in your guidelines, whether there's any that stand out to you that we need to work on. That's the list, I guess, on page two of the staff report.

If there's anything on that list that you specifically think we need to focus on or reconsider as we prepare the package. Or any specific cross-sections, building sections, site sections to describe things.

I do have, I think, two sections already prepared, one from Ridge Street into the chapel, and one from Ridge Street past the tree into the dining room, to describe those two conditions. One thing to add to your consideration is that we have a preliminary site plan that's been reviewed, which has established the footprint of the building.

And so I'm not saying it's off the table, but to start to talk about moving walls would then likely result in having to resubmit that site plan, which then intrudes on that deadline. So we're trying to, unless there's really a strong reason and the guidelines say so, really like to respect the footprint that's been presented and previously been approved.

Otherwise, like I said, that would require a resubmittal of the site plan and trying... That's a process that we'd like to avoid. Is that- Yeah, I think we're through maybe our third round of comments for the preliminary site plan, around there.

Can you talk about the tree? Can I talk about the tree? Sure. Mm-hmm. I just read through the meeting minutes from the last time, and there was a discussion about having an arborist evaluate the tree's health and identify a tree protection plan.

So is that going to be part of your- My understanding is that it needs to be part of the final site plan application. Mm-hmm. I actually brought with me copies of the Brightview Tree Care Services letter that we submitted during the...

I can give if any of you want this. That has some of the recommendations- Yeah ... in it about excavations near the roots. Of course, we're providing more area around the tree than there currently is.

And I think you probably saw all those measurements and things in the demolition package. So we haven't furthered the tree protection plan as a plan at this point. But we know that that's in the scope of things that we need to work out.

I guess my only comment on that would be this letter is now almost four years old, and I don't know if that warrants- An updated ... an updated look at the tree. I do want to recognize that the social use permit from the city, I just want to read the wording, is item eight per section 34-157B.

If the large oak tree at Ridge Street dies, then another canopy will be planted in its place. I'm not saying that should imply that we don't want you to save the tree because we want to try and make every effort to save the tree.

But it is at least a slight reassurance that if due to whatever we lose the tree, that there's kind of an assurance that something large will be planted back there. I guess it certainly would take time to become a large canopy tree, but- We have the room to do it.

Right. Which is really the genius of the strategy is that something will be there. Yes. Is the wall that's remaining, is that planter that's holding the tree, are you replacing that retaining wall- Yeah ...

or you're just using- Currently, I believe our strategy is not to touch the wall that is on the sidewalk, on the Ridge Street sidewalk. There is a set of steps. Let me go back to the aerials. Whoops. There, you can see it.

So this set of steps that comes up to the existing front door of the chapel space, that is the exact location of the sidewall of the future set of steps, so that we're not going any further south into that area for the tree.

And then, of course, trying to leave, I believe this brick wall here, as well as this wall on this side is actually our neighbor's wall. Mm-hmm. So- But the intent is that that stays as well, so that the grade at the top of the- Right ...

tree is remaining- As is. Yeah ... as is, and that's what's setting our finished floor elevation for the first floor as well. I think that's a good strategy to disturb that area as little as possible.

Yeah. I think it'd be helpful to maybe see the structural details for that stair, the wall of the stair, the one you just described, right? That's to the... What is that? North of the tree. To understand the footer impact for that wall.

Maybe they should consider a cantilever footer that goes the opposite direction away from the tree, possibly. Yeah. We might not be able to come up with the right detail until demolition happens, and I think that's the part of the tree care plan that we probably establish, is because you don't know if there are roots, how close the roots are, what the depth of the roots are.

Right. And they can make that call on the field. I mean, you can span over roots. There's all kinds of things you can do to mitigate the impact on tree roots. So we can certainly do the detail. It just might be a guess at this point.

No, I agree. I guess I was encouraging a detail that pushes that footer away from the tree, if that makes sense. Is it a 1960s building that doesn't have a basement? No, it does not. Just slab on grade?

Yeah. Sorry. I know you all want to save the tree, and we discussed that at length. I really want to focus some of this discussion- Yeah, that's right ... on the building. Thank you. So I've got... I'll start.

Go ahead. I think this was a successful proposal from what we saw three years ago, and I still think it's great, just getting everything again. I've changed my mind a bit. As you questioned the use of the concrete up front, I understand the logic behind it, but I'm not sure you really appreciate that logic when you're walking down the street, especially when you're coming from the north, south.

But a more important thing that actually was a question, in the rendering, it looks like there's a brick water course or some sort of a brick detail down at the base of the chapel. I don't really see it in the elevation.

Is there some brick detail in there? Yes, I believe. So, it's probably about- Yeah, I don't see it in that drawing. And I think it's worth having- Yep ... because without that, especially when I see the scale of a person carrying a bag next to what looks like a 14-foot wall or a 12-foot wall, it would be nice to have a little bit of detail there honestly.

Where are you saying that's not in the elevation? The front elevation doesn't have... I don't see it in the front elevation. I think it might be because it's- It's at the floor level ... yeah. It's down almost even with the planter- Yeah ...

and so we might not be able to see it in the front elevation, but I'm pretty sure we did have- It looks like it's higher than that in the rendering. It does, doesn't it? I will check on that. But that, of course, to me is an important detail.

I was wondering if you could- I see ... talk a little bit more to the kind of fencing plan. I know 4th Street pretty well, and I think the facade like that, it feels very unwelcoming, I think, and maybe that's intentional currently, as in its current condition.

Your renderings are a big improvement, but I think you mentioned that you were going to do a fence back there. Is that- Yeah. So let me start at the front. So again, Rage is on the right-hand side. A fence with a gate here, because we need to egress out.

Okay. We'll start at this point, back at the stair tower. And then it's at this point on the other stair tower, and then from those two locations on the north and south sides of the building, a fence will follow the property line to ring the property line, except for at the 4th Street side.

I think the plan is it sets back closer to maybe somewhere between the min and max setback lines are diagrammed here. Mm-hmm. The fence line cuts through there, so that the driveway gate is at that narrowest point of the parking lot.

Nice. The fence for that perimeter fence is proposed at eight feet tall- Mm-hmm ... and that's purposely to keep people from climbing over top of it. Mm-hmm. And then the fence that comes off this corner and contains the playground area- ...

that one would be five feet tall. Okay. And both of them are currently being proposed as sort of a simple aluminum three-rail black square profile fencing. Okay. And then you've got a vehicular gate as well?

Vehicular gate. So the current idea is that it is a, what's the term? That it would split in the middle and rolls- Roll out. Yeah ... to both sides. And then I think it's going to be manual because of cost reasons.

And it would be opened in the morning and then closed, I think, when the last guests get there, and they close down for the night. Mm-hmm. With obviously everyone inside the structures at that point. Mm-hmm.

Then it would be closed and locked overnight. There is a pedestrian gate that would also happen at this sidewalk at 4th Street, so there would be another access point right there. Mm-hmm. Okay. Are your supplies that are going to the kitchen going to come in through the parking lot?

Correct. So part of, again, the organization of the program on the site is that deliveries will have to come down 4th Street, come into the parking lot, pull up to the eastern end of the parking lot so that they can load supplies into the kitchen through this entry door on the south face.

Right here. So there's no loading dock? There's no loading dock. They would tailgate lift, that would drop it and then come up this accessible ramp here onto the sidewalk. And is that similar operationally to what's happening currently?

Now? Yeah. There's no current loading dock. Yeah. But that's where the deliveries come. The deliveries currently come all on 4th Street, correct. And the parking lot is- Into the parking lot. The parking lot is just north by the...

It's literally just above it. Got you. It's basically the same size. Mm-hmm. We didn't increase or decrease the number of spaces on site. Mm-hmm. Okay. And the dumpster is going to be all the way out next to 4th Street?

So we put it out there so that the trash truck access and turnaround doesn't take up as much space, but it would have a dumpster enclosure around it. We're currently thinking it's some sort of metal enclosure.

I think the disadvantage is that people will have to go much further to carry the trash to get in. Correct. I may have missed this, but is the future playground within the fence area or? The future playground would be in this- Yes ...

in this area up here. But- Can you see my cursor? In a sense though, it goes on the property line. Yes. Correct. I see a fence line going sort of- This fence line ... east, west, and then south before you, and then- And then the rest of the fence would be up through here.

Just to clarify, I think, did you mention you're going to have a smaller, another fence inside that, that's just around the playground? Not following the property line. So there's just one fence at the property line.

Yeah. And then at the point where it's perpendicular to that property line, like here at the sidewalk. Can you- Yep. Yeah. That way. So at that point, this fence from here up to this corner, that would be a lower fence at five feet.

Are all your mechanicals on the roof? Currently, they are on the roof. There is some on this lower roof here, which we currently have a Louver equipment screen around it. And then the upper roof contains the other main mechanical units.

That might change in the future as we get further into design, but that's currently what's planned and proposed. So nothing in- Nothing at grade- Okay ... except for the electrical transformer, which is actually going to be somewhere in this zone over here.

We're currently sort of working through that. Are the-- The fence height, is that a standard Salvation Army detail? I'm just wondering- Yes ... if there's any-- Would there be any willingness to accept a lower fence height?

I think they probably want a minimum of six, but they really wanted eight. Is that all the way along or just at the Fourth Street side? It would be on the north and south property lines, again, until they reach these stair towers.

Yeah. And then nothing, obviously, on the Ridge Street side. Okay. Mm-hmm. Handicap access into the building? Of course. So from Ridge Street, this northeastern corner, you would come onto the property at that corner and then up a ramp here, which meets up at the top of that little short set of steps.

And then this is all accessible up to the front doors at the red arrow. Whoa, sorry. Go back. And then, of course, from the parking lot, these accessible spaces, handicap access onto the sidewalk, and then into that door, again, so that the main thoroughfare through the building is reachable from both streets.

So I feel like, and I understand it's how floor plan is dictating it, but it feels like the front door is not the front door. Like you come in on axis and then turn to the right. And when you're looking at the east elevation, you're kind of coming up, there is a door right in front of you, but I take it it's an exit door from the dining room.

And I just wonder if there's a way to honor the front door as the main entrance to the building. Again, I'm not trying to mess with the floor plan because that's outside our purview, but I don't know if there's a way to- It would be really difficult to turn it with the program- Yeah ...

without enclosing part of that porch. No, I get that. I don't know. It's just a comment. I actually like the way it's all laid out. It looks very functional. Yeah. And I mean, a huge, obviously, improvement almost there- Oh, yeah ...

on the project. I think that I liked it before and I like it now. I think it's that way, the way you've tried to create as much space as you can for the tree, and I appreciate the sort of forward-facing higher purpose of the chapel right on Main Street, right on the street.

I guess my comment, the one-- I guess the question I have is it looks like there's a third or fourth material just from a, when we're talking about the design standpoint, like a metal-- It's a metal panel with a wood...

I don't remember, did you show us any materiality before when we went through this, or? Just wondering what that- When you saw it, I think it was a little fuzzier- Yeah ... as a rendering. So, this has been in here for a while, but it might not have been in our last meeting materials for you.

Mm-hmm. But currently, we're looking at a couple of different manufacturers. It's wood-look metal panel- Mm-hmm ... that would come in sort of board width, so we can specify four, six, eight, I think, inches wide.

Mm-hmm. And then the same manufacturer makes soffit material. One of the choices makes these column covers, so it would all match. That was my question, is it all the same kind of thing or- Yeah ... is it different?

Yeah. Yeah. The point was for it to all be the same sort of thing. Then there's also another metal panel that's under the windows at the moment, in this vicinity. So I would be interested to see the samples of the materials.

Yep. I have them. Yep. Are the windows tinted at all? We are proposing spandrel panel in select spaces. So the zoning ordinance requires a fifteen-foot floor to floor in this, under, again, the old zoning ordinance, fifteen-foot floor to floor for the first floor only.

So these panels from this point right here, this pair, wrapping this section and around the dining room here, and you can't see it behind these trees, but just right back through there, those are being proposed as spandrel panels.

And I can bring a sample of that next time as well. That's the only place we're proposing that. That is to give the illusion, of course, of taller windows, more windows. I'd prefer it stay spandrel as opposed to go to a panelized board and batten condition.

Because I think it would make it feel heavier and less inviting and open without the glazing. But all the other glass is clear glass. Low-e. Just while we're looking at this perspective, it looks like lawn around the tree at the base.

And I've just read your letter, and it just says that it is advisable to minimize any lawn around the tree and recommend the area of the existing landscape bed be used for a native landscape bed to eliminate the need for installing irrigation through the tree root system.

Mm-hmm. So I would just recommend that your landscape architect just modify that surrendering, and then look at something that doesn't require that's drought-tolerant, doesn't require irrigation. I think the renderings were done before the tree letter might have been done, but, and I don't know that we had the landscape architect on board at that point, so be happy to modify it.

Talking about landscape on the Fourth Street side. Mm-hmm. It seems like there are some existing trees, but that you're adding some trees to that existing lawn. Is that correct? Yes, and this is definitely not the image to look at, but let me go back.

So these are all currently proposed as new trees- Oh ... in the parking lot, and yeah, I think all of those are new. So when I look- And it's a mixture of, based on the landscape drawings at the moment, it's a mixture of evergreens and small canopy trees and large canopy trees for an S3 screening.

So all the existing trees would come out? Yes, I believe so. And part of that issue is the constructibility on the site when we're trying to maintain the existing shelter. Mm-hmm. The existing-- There are other large trees on the site, but they would severely impede the ability to actually build this building given all the other constraints that- Mm-hmm ...

they need to work around. The only sidewalk is along Ridge? There is... Wait. On Fourth Street, I think we're being asked through the site plan process to build some sidewalk on Fourth Street along our property line.

A couple of little minor things on the Ridge Street side, and you guys tell me if I-- anything doesn't sound right. But So we have the concrete wall that we want it to be brick. It looks like there's some shrubs on top of that.

I'm not sure how it'd look aesthetically, but if there's any way to put maybe some small trees in that planter so that you could shade the sidewalk, just because this whole stretch of Ridge Street is very devoid of any sort of street trees or anything.

I know we're not getting any actual trees in there, but if there's something, I don't know, like a redbud or I think people hate crape myrtles, but something on that scale. Okay. Just to kind of shade the sidewalk.

Okay. And the other thing is, I'm a little concerned about... So I recognize that you guys have got a tight budget. It's a nonprofit, all that. I'm a little concerned about the amount of board and batten fiber cement being used on such a prominent portion of the building.

And I don't know if the budget allows, if there could be any investigation into maybe a reveal system instead. I'm worried about the fact that they usually, when I've seen this constructed, the battens don't line up, and stuff starts getting a little bit wonky when you have such a large expanse of it trying to match up with the windows and everything else.

But you guys can do it great, and I'm not going to push too hard on this because I know you guys are doing it on a set budget. But if, I don't know, you have any investigation into, again, maybe a reveal system or I'm going to say the dirty word, EIFS.

But yeah. And it's something that I'm concerned about what it's going to look like when it's completed. I know it looks nice and neat in the drawing, but then once it's done, the Standard's a good example of kind of, there's some parts on that facade where it looked like it was going to look great, but then it just, the boards and batten parts don't line up, and they start sticking out funny, and things aren't plumb, and yeah.

So just a concern. I would prefer to stay with board and batten, primarily budget reasons. But I think my level of CA nitpickiness- Okay ... might solve that. Okay. So you guys are staying with this project after?

I believe so. We don't have a contract all through CA at this point. Okay. But I think that's more of a issue of not having permission to move forward until the fundraising piece was done. Could you repeat?

I missed that last part about the pickiness. Sorry. My Construction Administration level of pickiness- Okay. ... is maybe a little higher than your average person. I've worked with Erin. So it's... No, it's all good.

Okay. Back to the windows. Are any of the windows operable? Yes. Well, actually, let me take that back. We've looked at it both ways. I think currently these drawings might show them as fixed, but as we're in discussions with mechanical engineers, we're considering modifying the upper story windows that are not storefront, to having operable components to minimize the outdoor air requirements for the mechanical system.

So it's still a little bit to be determined. But if they were, they would be these... So I think the way we looked at it is they would be these smaller, narrower pieces on these upper story windows, if that becomes the case.

And I guess if it flips from fixed to operable, I can come back to Jeff with this- It's fine ... in the future. Yeah, I don't know. As long as it looks the same. I think I'm always curious how natural ventilation could be worked into design versus the way it seems we're so much sustainability these days.

It's almost like the environment being treated internally, everything becoming air conditioners and... But sorry, that's just my thought on that. But if those windows there went from fixed to casement, I'm- Yeah, that's the- I'll tell you, keep going.

Okay. Yeah, the concern is with the high volume of unique users, and the turnover of the users, humidity concerns with the sort of inconsistency of do they get closed, does someone have to go around and close them all on a humid day, could be a little much operationally for staff, matched with the savings that you could gain for the mechanical systems.

It's still sort of in discussion. In general, I'm excited about this project. I think it would be a great addition to Ridge Street. I like how the towers, the stair towers sort of echo the fire tower.

That's super fun, and I think the butterfly roof is nice. I guess I would request more information about the fences at your next, some renderings and that Fourth Street, some views on Fourth Street. Are there any other materials that you feel you need to see samples of besides the metal panel?

Is the siding on the upper floors the hardie plank or? Yeah. Currently thinking of a beige, if you're familiar. I guess we could have that with- That with the other- Okay ... just to see the whole palette.

Sure. And the brick if you have anything on that. And I- Oh, go ahead. I was going to ask if the windows are vinyl or something else? So we're currently looking at Intus windows, which you've approved in the past on other recent projects.

They are a reinforced uPVC, so unplasticized PVC product. So a step up from your vinyl window, more similar to a composite window. I'll bring a sample of that as well. Will you be providing a material palette for the landscape, for paving and so forth as well?

So far, I think the paving might all be concrete. And I presume we would pick the city batch color that's used prolifically around Charlottesville. I don't think we have any other paving proposed at the moment besides that.

A planting palette, I think the plants have been selected, and we'll have precedent images of all those, similar to the last applicant's package. Okay. Just coming back to this brick retaining wall, the concrete wall that we think should be brick.

Yep. I can make it brick. Well, I'm curious, is there a way to keep the wall that's there? And the reason I ask is I think you're going to have a hard time matching the brick of the wall that's in front of the oak.

That's why we switched it. Yeah, the morning butt. Well, but, and I guess that's why I asked the question, looking at sort of what the plans are, is there a real need to remove that wall? I think there's a bunch of utilities that are connecting right at that point- To the street ...

from the street into the site, which is part of the concern. Let me go to the existing. Yeah. It's also, I think we would be chopping off an end of it. We'd need to extend it this direction because our stair is this wide.

And it looks taller, but it also kind of just looks like it's a planter bed to hide, I guess, the ADA ramp. Yeah, the ADA ramp falls behind it. Not that I would be... I think it'd be outvoted, but I actually like the concrete wall.

I think it contrasts nicely. Yeah. I'm okay with the concrete wall too. Yeah. I'm all right too. I don't know why we have to do brick everywhere in downtown. I feel like the brick wall with the tree sort of marks this moment in time.

It represents the historic character. I don't know when that wall was built. And I kind of like- Probably '65. Yeah. And I feel like everything else is going away that sort of represents that era, so that rehabilitation standards, you want something that's very different, that shows.

So I just worry we're going to try to match the brick- Well, you could- ... and it's not going to match and- But you could match the brick of the new building. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Yeah. But I kind of like the distinction.

I think at this point is that the concrete is harsh. I think it could be done really badly, and I do worry. I think concrete always looks really nice in a rendering, and then it looks like crap if you have a bad contractor.

So I do worry that it would look like crap. Well, we have a CA here. Yeah. Well- Not the contractor Given that and the level of concrete finish that I think we'd both be after, I'd probably also feel safer going to brick.

Yeah. I can go either way, but I'm not totally opposed to doing a concrete wall if it could be a nice concrete wall. I think we'll leave it to you guys to explore it. It sounds like it's not going to hang up the project.

I think you're hearing some either/ors on the board, so y'all do your job and architect it up. Any, kind of going back to our big picture stuff, anybody have any objections to size, scale? We can't really change the footprint, as Jeff mentioned, but just massing.

This is based on the parameters of the ADC district. It's a little bit larger than what would necessarily be recommended, but I think that the context, as Karen described and Jeff described, this particular little strip of Ridge Street is more industrial, if you will, with the fire station and the wind supply and whatnot, so I think it's fine.

I just want to make sure we are giving the feedback that they need and we want. If it makes you feel any better, the width of the chapel is approximately the width of one of those single-family homes on the other side of the street.

So in terms of its massing at sort of a story and a half, it's going to be more at scale with the buildings across the street. And I also feel on the other side, the Fourth Street side, that the way it's pictured is good with the neighborhood.

It's significantly set back. I don't think we heard any concerns about the building condition on Fourth Street. If anything, it was traffic coming on Fourth Street, which is already a similar amount with the same quantity of parking spaces.

I think the massing and scale is very appropriate. Just the reasons you mentioned, and then also just the way that the entry and the front is human scale. I like how transparent it is to engage with the life that's passing by.

And I think you made a good point about further back, the relationship to the fire station, and yeah, I think it checks a lot of boxes in that regard. I think that in some of the discussions that we had, not with Aaron, but I was talking to Jim and John, is that we know value engineering is going to kick in at some point, and it seems that you all somewhat addressed it, that front, that first floor of the chapel, sort of...

I don't want to say sacrosanct, but that's an important element in that if what's going on behind it, it dropped to two stories above the roof instead of three, or maybe something got pushed back a little bit.

That there's, and I'm trying to express it in that maybe it's offering some direction to them, that this front is really important. The materiality, the design, conceptually of what's going on with those upper stories is important, but that if there's variation, it's probably going to occur there.

And so is that something we should... Not saying, "Hey, go ahead and you can do whatever you want," but if there's really an important piece, if there are really important elements there that you would really like prefer not to get- I think the strength of the stair towers being brick is important in my mind.

That ties it to the front of the building. It- Yep ... ties it to the firehouse. Yeah. I'd like it all the same. There's strong anchors. Even if you're lopping that floor off, there are still strong anchors.

You want to call the value engineer before we wrap it up. No, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to do that. I'm sorry. I'm sharing a conversation somewhat that I've already had, and that is- And it comes back to is the floor lower?

Are we going to then free up- No, I think what you just said has really helped me. Yeah, there are... And that's all I'm trying to get at. I'm not trying to say build in flexibility right now, but there are elements that might change a little bit in the massing and scale, but are there architectural pieces that you would want to see come through no matter what?

And like what James just said about the- I think the question would be the materiality of the walls and windows. If there was a huge shift that looks nothing like this, then it might take you two iterations instead of one.

But we won't know until we see it. Right. I think our goal would be to maintain this image in terms of the aesthetic and the form of the scheme as we move forward, and still work within the general concept that you see here.

Yep. It does bring up, what you just mentioned brings up a good point. The color of the fire station brick is particularly orange. Mm-hmm. I haven't selected the brick yet for this project, but I'm currently concerned with what direction to take that color of brick, given the adjacent color palette.

I don't think- And I don't want to go too orange. You don't want that. No. I would go browner and redder. Okay. And just make that contrast. The most recent experience that I would refer to is- Sensible ...

the new courthouse and trying to... Originally, it was sort of that idea of somewhat blending with the Lee opera house, and then I recall all of us looked at the brick sample and went, "Oh my god, not that." It was this pink, fleshy color that they had originally come up with.

It's a little more than that. Yeah, a little bit. And what we did on that project was everything, you approved the design and said, "We'll come back and pick the brick. We can look at the brick later." So I would allow some flexibility there.

I guess the question for Aaron, are you all planning to select the brick before you come back to us? I hope so. The person I need to help with that, Deb Brown, is on vacation, gets back tomorrow. So- You got the right person ...

I hope we have it by the submission deadline, but if we have to do this in two meetings, then that can be the second one. Do you have any other questions for us? We're currently anticipating we come back for a separate signage package at a later date.

So in terms of when you look at any of that, and we're including the crosses on the front of the chapel as being sort of signage. Probably not, but I would review that with... So the sign regs prevail first and foremost.

But if something is outside of the guidelines, we might Bring it to the BAR to discuss, but we very rarely, if ever, have brought signage to the BAR. Now, if it required an alternative signage plan, which I very much discourage, then it would have to be reviewed by the BAR and go to the council.

But the first filter is what's allowed by code. And code, you can't put something above 20 feet or above the second-floor windowsill. Right. These are not-- I recognize those are not- I don't want to get into how we treat religious symbols.

Okay. That brings me to lighting. We have very limited- We're going to have some up lights. On that tree. We currently have very limited lighting on the site. We have some can fixtures that would be under these deeper porches.

We have-- and also this canopy that's over the kitchen door back here on the south-side elevation. We have some wall sconces above the egress doors, and we have pole-mounted parking lot lights. I think there's two proposed in the parking lot, one approximately here, and one approximately here on the south side, sort of pushing the light towards the north side.

And because this is under the old code, you all will have to, or can, condition the color temperature of the lighting, et cetera. And the other thing that the new code addresses rooftop mechanical screening, the old code doesn't.

So it would be something you'd want to make sure to pay attention to. They've got a pretty substantial screen up there. They do already on the rendering, yeah. Is calling it louvered equipment screen sufficient enough for your review and the color, or do you need more detail on that?

I mean, in metal louvers? Is that a safe assumption? Yes. I think that's okay. Yeah. Okay. And honestly, for the lighting, I think if you were to follow the guidance in the new code, then you're probably safe.

Yeah. Okay. Sorry, let me briefly look at that list. The piece that I'm always guessing on is what typical wall sections and what unique conditions might you want to see. So, for example, usually 218 West Market Street, where there was some discussion about the window reveals.

So I would say, "Give me a typical wall section going down, showing the windows and doors and the returns that are there." I would say, "Show me what's going on with those columns and the overhang, and also the overhang above on the building." And then where, for example, the brick, we talked about where there's a water table or some sort of detail.

A section just showing any features in that brick. Otherwise, most of it would be-- you could discern from those. I guess the spandrel, you'd like some clarification on the spandrel. What exactly is going on there?

But those are metal storefronts, so that's pretty typical. And then, again, I would ask, show me what's going on. We've got windows in brick. We've got windows in board and batten. We've got windows in the horizontal siding, and we've got the storefront-type windows.

So three types of windows that we want to know what the reveal is, where the return is. So that would be the questions I would ask from Erin. Anything- I think that brings up a really good point, though, and what we'll discuss now is, Erin, is it safe to assume this is going to be pretty flat façade as far as the window depth?

I don't know. So I have a little rendering of one of these windows here. We created a projecting frame around that overall composition to create extra depth. And then, of course, the window is still set in the lap siding, but that's to give it the perception of more depth.

I think the detailing for windows in brick and windows in board and batten are going to be pretty standard to what you've seen in any other condition in terms of the depth of that window. Same for storefront.

So the only unique one of trying to give it more relief is this one. I'll simply just go to, what are the columns going to be made of? So these are proposed to have a metal column cover that wraps the columns underneath it, which hopefully can be a steel pipe column that's painted black or something similar.

I forget what the structural drawings were showing at this point, and we switched recently. So, that's the concept that's shown here. So it's revealed at the bottom by about a foot. Right. The wood look column is lifted from the base.

All right. I think I've got a list. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Appreciate it. Yeah. Thanks. Okay. All right. Okay, great. Okay, thank you very much. Oh, actually I did have a question.

So today before I left, I saw Boston to get- Hey, it's been a long night, I know. I'm happy to, at the October meeting, slip in 10 minutes about the local and state and national registers, historic districts, and call it a day if you all are- Yeah.

Does that cover us for our- We could have had another application. What's that? That we could have had another application tonight. So Jeff, are we good with our continuing- I mean- Or do you want us to submit something?

I can cover the bases on it. I feel like we've had very good discussions that have contributed to what I would call training over the course of the year. So I'm okay verifying that. I would still welcome anything that you guys have done associated with your architectural requirements, et cetera.

That would be helpful to add. But I'm more than happy to, at the October meeting- And can I- ... like I said, go over that distinction of local districts and national registered districts, but I'd like to at least have your attention for it.

And I'm not-- it's just unfair to ask tonight. I do appreciate your patience earlier. I appreciate your help in resolving that, and it resolved itself a lot simpler than I had envisioned. I'll let you know what happens with next steps.

So with that, unless you have any questions for me, I know we talked about bylaws. We'll get to that. And I do appreciate the-- I said I feel like the city is a partner on this project that Erin's working on in some ways.

And so I don't want to obligate you all to anything. I never do that. But I do look at it as a bit of a partnership, and so I appreciate that you all sat this evening. With that, I don't have any... I do have a new boss in a week from soon, but that's all.