Board of Architectural Review
Board of Architectural Review
Tue, May 19, 2026
Agenda items
Vote records
Discussion summary
Transcript
Meeting summaryAI-generated
Board of Architectural Review — May 19, 2026
This was a regular monthly meeting of the Charlottesville BAR, running well into the evening. The session included three Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) applications, two pre-application conferences on significant development projects, and staff discussion items. The meeting was notably long due to substantial public comment on the West Main Street housing proposal.
Procedural: Meeting Minutes — February 18, 2026
The board voted to approve the February 18, 2026 meeting minutes as part of the consent agenda. Staff noted that members need not have been present at a meeting to vote to approve its minutes.
Vote: Approved unanimously (7–0).
COA Application — 203 Ridge Street (Fire Station Accessibility Improvements)
Staff presented a City of Charlottesville project to improve ADA accessibility at the Ridge Street fire station, a building constructed in 1959 in the ADC district. Proposed work includes new accessible parking spaces, a new sidewalk, site regrading, restriping, a new ADA ramp, and landscaping.
City project manager Scott Hendrix presented the project, describing it as approximately 90% ADA-driven. Public comment raised two notable points: Uriah Lofton asked about local hiring practices (staff explained Virginia procurement law requires the lowest bidder and doesn't allow selecting local contractors); and several members of the public discussed a planned harm reduction vending machine on the building's exterior, which would include Narcan and potentially other supplies. One speaker explained how such machines typically work alongside sharps drop-off containers to improve community safety.
Board member Schwarz suggested that since significant paving is being removed, the city consider adding a planting strip and street trees along the long, exposed Ridge Street frontage, potentially reducing the lengthy curb cut. Hendrix explained the ADA funding is project-specific and adding streetscaping would require a separate public works initiative. The board accepted this and directed the suggestion to public works for future consideration.
Vote: Approved unanimously (7–0), as submitted.
COA Application — 110 Third Street NE (Window Replacement)
Staff presented a window replacement project for a mid-20th century building loosely in the international style, with distinctive steel-framed windows varying across each façade. The existing windows are failing — seals are gone, operators broken, and they provide no thermal efficiency. The applicant, building owner Steve Barber, proposes replacing all second-floor windows with Pella Reserve series aluminum-clad windows with square mullions, matching the existing light pattern.
Staff recommended approval for the side and rear elevations but suggested retaining the front façade windows given their architectural distinctiveness. The board discussed the operability of the new windows (confirmed they will be casements, operable), the window leaf configuration (splitting in the middle rather than fixed tops), and the appropriateness of aluminum-clad windows on historic structures (confirmed acceptable under guidelines; vinyl/plastic is prohibited).
The board was broadly supportive, with members noting that steel windows of this era have a finite lifespan and that the applicant had done a good job finding a replacement that matches the original light pattern without altering the historic opening.
The motion was made with a clarification that the front façade casement window design shown by the applicant at the meeting (not included in the original application package) was part of what was being approved.
Vote: Approved unanimously (7–0).
COA Application — 1615 Keith Valley Road (Garage Replacement, Additions, and Repairs)
Staff presented this application for one of the oldest houses in Charlottesville — a log cabin dating to possibly the 1760s–1790s, later merged with a second cabin and expanded with 1930s additions attributed to architect Marshall Wells, forming a U-shaped structure. The property is an Individually Protected Property (IPP).
The applicant's architect, Kelly Trout of Robertson Renovations, described the scope: demolishing a structurally deficient 1950s/60s garage (no foundation or footing), rebuilding it in approximately the same footprint but taller (raising the ridge about four feet) to accommodate an upstairs bedroom, enclosing the breezeway between the garage and the main house with a mudroom to connect them, replacing a bay window on the rear with a double-hung window to create a below-grade egress bedroom, replacing a skylight with a more appropriate alternative, and replacing a low-pitched rear roof section with EPDM membrane roofing.
A key complication: under the city's new zoning code, enclosing the breezeway creates a single structure exceeding the 60-foot length limit (the total structure end-to-end is 114 feet, and the main house alone exceeds 60 feet). The applicant must pursue a special exception or variance. Staff clarified that BAR approval of the COA is for design review only and does not override zoning requirements.
Neighbor David Heller commented online in support, noting the house has been neglected for years and the garage "is a dump." A member of the public raised a question about foundation work; the applicant confirmed the plan is to excavate, install drain tile, waterproofing, and rebuild compromised foundation walls. Board members expressed appreciation for the preservation effort and agreed the ridge height increase was regrettable but mitigated by the garage's setback from the main structure.
The motion included conditions: windows and doors with insulated glass must have internal spacer bars with simulated divided lights; gutters to be half-round; downspouts to be round. The motion also explicitly noted BAR approval does not authorize any building permit work or supersede zoning code.
Vote: Approved unanimously (7–0).
Pre-Application Conference — 835, 843, 847 West Main Street (LV Collective Multi-Story Housing)
This is the second pre-application discussion of this project, following the August 2025 BAR meeting. The site is a parking area in West Main Street ADC District Sub-Area B, near the rail bridge.
At the outset, the board adopted a motion (one dissent) to limit discussion with the applicant to 30 minutes total and to allow public comment limited to two minutes per speaker, germane to BAR purview.
The revised proposal: LV Collective's lead developer Brittany Sanders and architect Mohamed Milson presented significant changes since August. The building has been reduced from 11 stories to 8 stories (6 on part of the massing), now below 75 feet to the top residential level, using Type III construction (wood over concrete). The project now aligns a pedestrian connection from West Haven through to West Main Street along the west edge of the building — a major change from the previous mid-block connection. Ground-floor uses along West Main are entirely active (café, amenities, leasing). The building includes step-backs at levels 7–8. Materials include brick veneer at the base, fiber cement panels in multiple colors on upper floors.
Public comment was extensive and pointed. Key themes:
Brandon Collins (CRHA staff, speaking personally) said West Haven's roughly 70 participating resident planners had not yet seen this revised plan and had no chance to evaluate it. He urged the BAR to require community co-design of the memory walk before any approval, and noted that even at 8 stories, the building's height remains an adverse impact given West Haven's topographic position.
Earl Hicks (West Haven resident planner) reiterated that residents had not seen the proposal and that the building remains too large. He called for residents to have full control over the memory walk design.
Angela Carr (former West Haven resident) said she had never seen LV Collective at any community meeting and challenged the developer's claim of community engagement.
A speaker identified as Rosia noted the building's shadow impact: The Standard already shadows West Haven, and an 8-story building would worsen this.
Ziona Bryant (speaking as an individual) credited developer Sanders with engagement efforts, including a two-hour meeting with the 10th and Page Neighborhood Association, and asked the BAR to consider what community benefits a denser building might provide.
Wendy Gao criticized the project as replicating the displacement of Vinegar Hill and Gospel Hill, and objected to a memory walk "between two 8-story buildings and a maintenance road."
Frank Bechter asked whether the BAR could consider the cultural character of who uses public space, given the guidelines reference cultural context.
Developer response: Sanders reiterated her goal is to have the community design the memory walk, not LV Collective. She noted the building step-back and plaza were designed specifically to give the memorial space visibility and prominence, including potentially improving the Drury Bridge sign. She acknowledged not all community concerns have been met on height.
Staff clarification (Jeff Richardson): Staff urged the board to keep the memorial walk design separate from the COA review. The landscape design that comes before the BAR must be approvable as-built — i.e., something acceptable even if community embellishment never occurs. The community benefits agreement is outside BAR purview. The board was reminded its role is design review, not mediating community engagement or enforcing commitments.
Board comments (architectural):
Several members commended the height reduction and improved massing, particularly the West Main façade being broken into distinct readable volumes.
Concerns raised: fiber cement panels age poorly and mildew — something more durable preferred, especially on West Haven-facing elevations; vinyl windows strongly discouraged on the entire building; rooftop mechanical screening required by zoning; window frames appear coplanar with cladding — more relief/recess desired; utility/trash doors on the pedestrian promenade façade need more attention; parking lot lighting must be screened.
Board members requested a solar/shadow study to share with the community showing how different heights affect sun access.
Members appreciated the pedestrian connection alignment and integration potential between West Haven, 10th and Page, and West Main.
One board member noted that West Main is designated for buildings of this scale and it would be difficult to deny the project on height grounds given the zoning context.
The board noted it is not requesting a finished memory walk design at COA stage, but the landscape plan submitted must be complete enough to approve as a functional walkway with appropriate materials, lighting, and furniture.
No vote taken — pre-application conference only.
Pre-Application Conference — 526 and 528 Valley Road (New Residential Construction)
This project was also previously discussed in February 2026. The site involves two adjacent parcels on a curving section of Valley Road within a historic conservation district. The existing buildings are a notable brick house at 528 (with an arcaded front porch) and a less distinguished structure at 526. The applicant now proposes two new buildings on the 528 parcel (reduced from three) and one building at the rear of 526.
Staff flagged that Building #1 (closest to the street on the 528 parcel) does not meet design guideline recommendations for setback (proposed ~14 feet vs. recommended 26–40 feet) or spacing from the historic house (proposed ~20 feet vs. recommended 38–55 feet). Footprint and height are within guideline ranges.
The applicant's representative noted the updated site plan shows Building #1 canted rather than parallel to the road, opening slightly toward the historic house, and revised elevations incorporate shutters, gabling, arched entries, and more traditional detailing in response to February feedback.
Board comments:
Members appreciated the improved detailing but said Building #1 still reads as one large building — color and surface articulation alone don't break down the massing. Suggestions included: treating left and right halves as distinct volumes with separate color schemes; using actual dormers rather than applied roof features; exploring a hip roof; considering whether stepping down one portion to two stories would help.
The board asked to see 3D renderings matching the updated site plan before making any decision.
Several members raised whether demolishing the less significant structure at 526 could simplify the project and create a more coherent site plan — the applicant said they would raise this with the developer.
Building #2 (rear of 528 parcel) was seen as more subordinate and less problematic. Building at 526 rear was not a major concern.
If shutters are used, they must be sized to actually cover windows and have operable hardware, even if fixed in place.
Staff and board asked for mechanical/utility location plans and screening details at the COA stage.
Staff indicated the next presentation should be a full COA application, not another pre-app.
No vote taken — pre-application conference only.
Staff Questions and Discussion
Café spaces on the Downtown Mall: Staff flagged a situation where a deck was constructed adjacent to a former restaurant space (described as "Sky Bar" / former Passiflora location) with a COA and building permit but without an active leased café space — contrary to the café space guidelines adopted in 2024. Staff acknowledged this should not have occurred and is investigating how the building permit was issued without a leased space in place. Board members expressed significant frustration. Staff noted they are currently working through compliance reviews of all mall café COAs and that approximately 90% of interactions with operators have been productive. No decision was taken.
Lighting on the Downtown Mall and fountain barrier removal were listed on the agenda but not substantively discussed in the transcript.
Pre-meeting logistics: Staff advised that BAR pre-meeting gatherings can no longer be held in the Neighborhood Development Services conference room — the space is secured and not publicly accessible, which creates a legal issue for a quorum of board members meeting there. Options discussed included starting the formal meeting at 5:30 (no pre-meeting), meeting in the basement conference room if permitted, or continuing the current practice with the understanding that the public must be able to attend. The board agreed to try the pre-meeting again next month and have staff explore the basement conference room option.
Board training: Staff reminded members that annual training hours must be completed before September 30. DHR workshops are available in Blacksburg, Herndon, and Norfolk, or training can be conducted in two half-hour sessions at a BAR meeting. Members were asked to indicate preferences.
Key Takeaways
West Main Street housing project (LV Collective): The applicant reduced the building from 11 to 8 stories and improved massing and pedestrian connectivity, earning cautious praise from the board on design — but West Haven residents expressed strong opposition to the height and frustration at seeing the revised plans for the first time at the BAR meeting. The board is not signaling denial on height grounds, but wants better materials (no vinyl windows, reconsider fiber cement), solar studies, and a complete landscape plan for the pedestrian connection.
1615 Keith Valley Road: The BAR approved rehabilitation of one of Charlottesville's oldest homes, including a replacement garage that will exceed the new zoning code's building length limit — the applicant must separately pursue a zoning special exception.
Valley Road new construction: The board is increasingly supportive of the project direction but wants 3D renderings, better massing breakdown on Building #1, and consideration of whether demolishing the less significant structure at 526 could improve site coherence. Next appearance should be a full COA application.
Downtown Mall café deck: A deck was constructed on Mall public property with a COA and building permit but without a required leased café space — staff is investigating how this occurred and the board expressed significant frustration.
Pre-meeting access: The BAR's informal pre-meeting gatherings are in legal limbo due to building security restrictions; staff is exploring alternatives so the board can continue its collaborative preparation practice.
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
# Certificate of Appropriateness Applications Summary
Staff presented four Certificate of Appropriateness applications for board review. The first involved accessibility improvements to the Ridge Street Fire Station (203 Ridge Street), where project manager Scott Hendrix explained that the 90% ADA project would add accessible parking, sidewalks, seating, and a ramp to address slope and access issues; a board member questioned the placement of a harm reduction vending machine provided by UVA on the front facade, though Mr. Hendrix noted it has support from the city manager's office. The second application involved window replacement at 110 Third Street Northeast, where applicant Steve Barber proposed replacing failing second-floor windows with Pella Reserve series windows while maintaining the existing light layout, though staff recommended considering retention of the prominent front facade windows. The third application for 1615 Keith Valley Road received unanimous approval with conditions including insulated glass with internal spacer bars, half-round gutters, and full-round downspouts. The final application for a large West Haven building project generated community concerns about height, shadowing, water drainage, and timing relative to the community master plan, with board member Carl and others providing feedback on the West Main Street facade, massing, brick detailing, and material selections while suggesting larger trees for buffering.
Staff presented four Certificate of Appropriateness applications for board review. The first involved accessibility improvements to the Ridge Street Fire Station (203 Ridge Street), where project manager Scott Hendrix explained that the 90% ADA project would add accessible parking, sidewalks, seating, and a ramp to address slope and access issues; a board member questioned the placement of a harm reduction vending machine provided by UVA on the front facade, though Mr. Hendrix noted it has support from the city manager's office. The second application involved window replacement at 110 Third Street Northeast, where applicant Steve Barber proposed replacing failing second-floor windows with Pella Reserve series windows while maintaining the existing light layout, though staff recommended considering retention of the prominent front facade windows. The third application for 1615 Keith Valley Road received unanimous approval with conditions including insulated glass with internal spacer bars, half-round gutters, and full-round downspouts. The final application for a large West Haven building project generated community concerns about height, shadowing, water drainage, and timing relative to the community master plan, with board member Carl and others providing feedback on the West Main Street facade, massing, brick detailing, and material selections while suggesting larger trees for buffering.
Café Space design guidelines: Construction of decks, creation of enclosed spaces: no active café and/or not a leased space.
# Café Space Design Guidelines Summary
Staff presented guidelines from Chapter 5, Section E regarding café spaces on the Downtown Mall, which require that all elements including furniture, railings, and planters must be removed from the public right of way when leased café spaces are not in active use. A significant procedural concern emerged regarding a deck constructed at the former Passiflora restaurant site (Sky Bar) where a building permit and Certificate of Appropriateness were issued without verification of an active leased café tenant, representing a process failure that violates the adopted guidelines. A board member expressed confusion about how approval was granted without an active leased space, and staff acknowledged the oversight and committed to investigating the permitting process. Staff noted they are reviewing all existing downtown mall café COAs against the December 2024 design guidelines, with approximately 90% of café operators being cooperative with recommended changes. The board and staff agreed that while guidelines state unused café spaces should be removed, enforcement of zoning violations must be reported to appropriate enforcement bodies, and staff will work with the operator to resolve the issue.
Staff presented guidelines from Chapter 5, Section E regarding café spaces on the Downtown Mall, which require that all elements including furniture, railings, and planters must be removed from the public right of way when leased café spaces are not in active use. A significant procedural concern emerged regarding a deck constructed at the former Passiflora restaurant site (Sky Bar) where a building permit and Certificate of Appropriateness were issued without verification of an active leased café tenant, representing a process failure that violates the adopted guidelines. A board member expressed confusion about how approval was granted without an active leased space, and staff acknowledged the oversight and committed to investigating the permitting process. Staff noted they are reviewing all existing downtown mall café COAs against the December 2024 design guidelines, with approximately 90% of café operators being cooperative with recommended changes. The board and staff agreed that while guidelines state unused café spaces should be removed, enforcement of zoning violations must be reported to appropriate enforcement bodies, and staff will work with the operator to resolve the issue.
Pre-Application Conference
# Pre-Application Conference Summary: Multi-Building Residential Projects
Two pre-application conferences were held to discuss multi-building residential development projects in historic districts. The first addressed a multi-story housing development at 835, 843, 847 West Main Street in the West Main Street ADC District (sub-area B), with staff presenting a framework for discussion on elevations, details, sections, and height-to-massing analysis based on previous BAR comments from August 19, 2025. The second concerned a two-project proposal at 528 and 526 Valley Road, where staff identified Building #1 as the primary concern due to inadequate setbacks (approximately 14 feet versus the recommended 26-40 feet) and insufficient spacing from the historic structure at 528 Valley Road (approximately 20 feet versus the recommended 38-55 feet). The applicant responded that Building #1 is canted back and attempted to balance zoning requirements while opening space toward the existing historic building, and presented revisions incorporating architectural elements from the historic house including arch entries, shutters, and gables. Multiple board members praised the improvements from previous presentations and the addition of traditional architectural details, though Mr. Schwartz, Jerry, and others raised concerns that Building #1 still reads as hotel-like rather than residential due to its flat box shape and minimal fenestration, requesting further facade articulation, functional shutters, 3D renderings, and consideration of reducing the building to two stories to better respect the adjacent historic property.
Two pre-application conferences were held to discuss multi-building residential development projects in historic districts. The first addressed a multi-story housing development at 835, 843, 847 West Main Street in the West Main Street ADC District (sub-area B), with staff presenting a framework for discussion on elevations, details, sections, and height-to-massing analysis based on previous BAR comments from August 19, 2025. The second concerned a two-project proposal at 528 and 526 Valley Road, where staff identified Building #1 as the primary concern due to inadequate setbacks (approximately 14 feet versus the recommended 26-40 feet) and insufficient spacing from the historic structure at 528 Valley Road (approximately 20 feet versus the recommended 38-55 feet). The applicant responded that Building #1 is canted back and attempted to balance zoning requirements while opening space toward the existing historic building, and presented revisions incorporating architectural elements from the historic house including arch entries, shutters, and gables. Multiple board members praised the improvements from previous presentations and the addition of traditional architectural details, though Mr. Schwartz, Jerry, and others raised concerns that Building #1 still reads as hotel-like rather than residential due to its flat box shape and minimal fenestration, requesting further facade articulation, functional shutters, 3D renderings, and consideration of reducing the building to two stories to better respect the adjacent historic property.
Staff questions/discussion
# Summary: Preference for Wood, Metal or Metal-Clad Windows
For the 110 Third Street Northeast project, staff and the applicant discussed specifications for Pella Reserve series aluminum-clad windows with square and fixed mullions, with Ms. Kueper questioning the front facade's double operating window units before clarification was provided on the operable leaf configuration. The board confirmed that aluminum-clad windows are acceptable for historic structures (unlike vinyl or plastic) and that the new windows would not alter the historic fenestration pattern. After discussion of jam details and depth considerations, the board unanimously approved the window replacement application with the condition that movable casement windows for the front facade be included in the approval. Prior to the vote, the board permitted public comment from Brandon Collins, a resident planner representing West Haven residents, who noted that over 90% of community participants had been involved in the planning process.
For the 110 Third Street Northeast project, staff and the applicant discussed specifications for Pella Reserve series aluminum-clad windows with square and fixed mullions, with Ms. Kueper questioning the front facade's double operating window units before clarification was provided on the operable leaf configuration. The board confirmed that aluminum-clad windows are acceptable for historic structures (unlike vinyl or plastic) and that the new windows would not alter the historic fenestration pattern. After discussion of jam details and depth considerations, the board unanimously approved the window replacement application with the condition that movable casement windows for the front facade be included in the approval. Prior to the vote, the board permitted public comment from Brandon Collins, a resident planner representing West Haven residents, who noted that over 90% of community participants had been involved in the planning process.
The scale and massing of building #1 (situated at the street) is more of a challenge [for this review] than buildings #2 and #3 (at rear of parcel).
# Building #1 Scale and Massing Summary
Multiple BAR members, including Mr. Schwartz and Jerry, agreed that Building #1's scale and massing presents a significant challenge, noting that the street-facing structure feels too large and crowded for its location, with a flat, applied façade lacking the shadow lines and architectural depth necessary to read as residential rather than commercial. One board member suggested removing the building entirely to create park space or replace it with a single unified structure that could achieve the same density while better conforming to guidelines. Mr. Sousa clarified that the rear building could reach a maximum height of three stories.
Multiple BAR members, including Mr. Schwartz and Jerry, agreed that Building #1's scale and massing presents a significant challenge, noting that the street-facing structure feels too large and crowded for its location, with a flat, applied façade lacking the shadow lines and architectural depth necessary to read as residential rather than commercial. One board member suggested removing the building entirely to create park space or replace it with a single unified structure that could achieve the same density while better conforming to guidelines. Mr. Sousa clarified that the rear building could reach a maximum height of three stories.
Agenda items (31)
Procedural (31)
1ProceduralMeeting Minutes – November 18, 2025 Motion to Approve – Mr. Schwarz – Second by Ms. Lewis – Motion passes 7-0.
Approval of meeting minutes from November 18, 2025, which passed unanimously by the review board.
2ProceduralCertificate of Appropriateness Application
Review and decision on an application requesting approval for a project that affects the appearance of a historic property or district.
What happened
# Certificate of Appropriateness Applications SummaryStaff presented four Certificate of Appropriateness applications for board review. The first involved accessibility improvements to the Ridge Street Fire Station (203 Ridge Street), where project manager Scott Hendrix explained that the 90% ADA project would add accessible parking, sidewalks, seating, and a ramp to address slope and access issues; a board member questioned the placement of a harm reduction vending machine provided by UVA on the front facade, though Mr. Hendrix noted it has support from the city manager's office. The second application involved window replacement at 110 Third Street Northeast, where applicant Steve Barber proposed replacing failing second-floor windows with Pella Reserve series windows while maintaining the existing light layout, though staff recommended considering retention of the prominent front facade windows. The third application for 1615 Keith Valley Road received unanimous approval with conditions including insulated glass with internal spacer bars, half-round gutters, and full-round downspouts. The final application for a large West Haven building project generated community concerns about height, shadowing, water drainage, and timing relative to the community master plan, with board member Carl and others providing feedback on the West Main Street facade, massing, brick detailing, and material selections while suggesting larger trees for buffering.
3ProceduralCafé Space design guidelines: Construction of decks, creation of enclosed spaces: no active café and/or not a leased space.
Guidelines for how outdoor café spaces can be designed and built, specifically addressing when decks and enclosed areas are allowed without an active café business.
What happened
# Café Space Design Guidelines SummaryStaff presented guidelines from Chapter 5, Section E regarding café spaces on the Downtown Mall, which require that all elements including furniture, railings, and planters must be removed from the public right of way when leased café spaces are not in active use. A significant procedural concern emerged regarding a deck constructed at the former Passiflora restaurant site (Sky Bar) where a building permit and Certificate of Appropriateness were issued without verification of an active leased café tenant, representing a process failure that violates the adopted guidelines. A board member expressed confusion about how approval was granted without an active leased space, and staff acknowledged the oversight and committed to investigating the permitting process. Staff noted they are reviewing all existing downtown mall café COAs against the December 2024 design guidelines, with approximately 90% of café operators being cooperative with recommended changes. The board and staff agreed that while guidelines state unused café spaces should be removed, enforcement of zoning violations must be reported to appropriate enforcement bodies, and staff will work with the operator to resolve the issue.
4ProceduralPre-Application Conference
An informal initial meeting between a property owner or developer and the historic review board to discuss a project before submitting a formal application.
What happened
# Pre-Application Conference Summary: Multi-Building Residential ProjectsTwo pre-application conferences were held to discuss multi-building residential development projects in historic districts. The first addressed a multi-story housing development at 835, 843, 847 West Main Street in the West Main Street ADC District (sub-area B), with staff presenting a framework for discussion on elevations, details, sections, and height-to-massing analysis based on previous BAR comments from August 19, 2025. The second concerned a two-project proposal at 528 and 526 Valley Road, where staff identified Building #1 as the primary concern due to inadequate setbacks (approximately 14 feet versus the recommended 26-40 feet) and insufficient spacing from the historic structure at 528 Valley Road (approximately 20 feet versus the recommended 38-55 feet). The applicant responded that Building #1 is canted back and attempted to balance zoning requirements while opening space toward the existing historic building, and presented revisions incorporating architectural elements from the historic house including arch entries, shutters, and gables. Multiple board members praised the improvements from previous presentations and the addition of traditional architectural details, though Mr. Schwartz, Jerry, and others raised concerns that Building #1 still reads as hotel-like rather than residential due to its flat box shape and minimal fenestration, requesting further facade articulation, functional shutters, 3D renderings, and consideration of reducing the building to two stories to better respect the adjacent historic property.
5ProceduralPre-Application Conference
An informal initial meeting between a property owner or developer and the historic review board to discuss a project before submitting a formal application.
6ProceduralStaff questions/discussion
City staff raise questions and lead discussion about the project being reviewed.
What happened
# Summary: Preference for Wood, Metal or Metal-Clad WindowsFor the 110 Third Street Northeast project, staff and the applicant discussed specifications for Pella Reserve series aluminum-clad windows with square and fixed mullions, with Ms. Kueper questioning the front facade's double operating window units before clarification was provided on the operable leaf configuration. The board confirmed that aluminum-clad windows are acceptable for historic structures (unlike vinyl or plastic) and that the new windows would not alter the historic fenestration pattern. After discussion of jam details and depth considerations, the board unanimously approved the window replacement application with the condition that movable casement windows for the front facade be included in the approval. Prior to the vote, the board permitted public comment from Brandon Collins, a resident planner representing West Haven residents, who noted that over 90% of community participants had been involved in the planning process.
7ProceduralFor the 6 over 6 you may use insulated glass with applied grills, provided there is an internal spacer bar.
Allowable window design option permitting insulated glass with attached grills on 6-over-6 style windows, as long as an internal spacer bar is included.
8ProceduralInsert frames must fit relatively tight into the opening and retain the existing exterior trim or at least have something new that is similar. Second by Mr. Bailey. Motion passes 7-0.
Standard requiring window frames to fit snugly in their openings and either retain existing exterior trim or replace it with similar new trim; this guideline passed unanimously.
10ProceduralThat the damaged granite pavers [where tube frames are removed] will be replaced in-kind [and not simply repaired or patched]. Second by Mr. Birle. Motion passes 7-0. We would encourage a holistic look at recycling containers on The Mall and how they might be located next to the trash containers to efficiently get recycled items collected.
Requirement that damaged granite pavers on the Downtown Mall must be replaced with matching pavers rather than simply repaired, and recommendation to reorganize how recycling and trash containers are positioned for more efficient collection.
12ProceduralThe BAR will review the project under New Construction criteria [and not as an addition to the site]. See ADC Districts Design Guidelines, Ch.3
Decision that a project will be evaluated using the city's standards for new construction rather than standards for additions to existing buildings.
13ProceduralThe BAR compliments and thanks the team for saving and respecting the original house (528 Valley
Recognition from the historic review board praising the project team's work in preserving and respecting the original house at 528 Valley Road.
14ProceduralThe scale and massing of building #1 (situated at the street) is more of a challenge [for this review] than buildings #2 and #3 (at rear of parcel).
The historic review board's observation that the front building's size and proportions pose design challenges, while the rear buildings are less problematic.
What happened
# Building #1 Scale and Massing SummaryMultiple BAR members, including Mr. Schwartz and Jerry, agreed that Building #1's scale and massing presents a significant challenge, noting that the street-facing structure feels too large and crowded for its location, with a flat, applied façade lacking the shadow lines and architectural depth necessary to read as residential rather than commercial. One board member suggested removing the building entirely to create park space or replace it with a single unified structure that could achieve the same density while better conforming to guidelines. Mr. Sousa clarified that the rear building could reach a maximum height of three stories.
15ProceduralPerhaps reduce the size of Building #1 and use dormers to achieve the third floor.
Suggestion to make the street-facing building smaller and use dormer windows to accommodate a third floor instead of raising the roof height.
What happened
BAR members suggested reducing the size of Building #1 and using dormers to achieve the third floor, with Jerry specifically proposing the building be reduced to two stories. While members acknowledged this would involve financial considerations and loss of room square footage, they believed it would help address the crowded feeling and excessive massing that was problematic in the current design.16ProceduralConsider flipping the floorplan around to reduce the façade of building #1 along the street-facing side.
Recommendation to reconsider the building's floor plan layout to reduce the visual prominence of the front building's street-facing side.
17ProceduralSwitch from a horizontal to a vertical emphasis to help break down the façades; embrace the verticality of the buildings.
Advice to emphasize vertical design elements rather than horizontal ones to make the buildings' facades appear less massive.
What happened
Members discussed the need to switch from horizontal to vertical emphasis to help break down the facades. One member specifically requested push-and-pull on the front facade (suggesting variations of a foot or six inches) to create shadow lines and visual relief on what was currently reading as a very flat, applied decorative treatment.18ProceduralFor the roofline, the BAR suggests picking a style- noting that the current design does not feel either contemporary, modern or traditional.
Note that the proposed roof style is unclear in its architectural intent and should be redesigned to feel either contemporary, modern, or traditional.
What happened
Board members debated roofline design, with one member noting Building #1's front-to-back gable appears to fight with the other buildings and the historic structure. The member suggested all buildings should have gabled roofs side-to-side for cohesiveness and recommended eliminating the front-to-back gable. Ms. Lewis suggested exploring different roof slopes and hip roofs with dormers as precedent tools to tie into street context and address scale concerns.19ProceduralGive more consideration to the entrances and windows.
Request for the applicant to pay more attention to the design and placement of building entrances and windows.
What happened
Board members discussed design details including shutters (which would require operable hardware even if anchored in place) and emphasized attention to site elements often overlooked. Staff raised concerns about mechanical boxes, utility boxes, meter boxes, and mailboxes, requesting the applicant designate where mechanical units will be located and how they will be screened, noting poor examples visible at other properties like those along C&O Road.20ProceduralThe BAR questions how close building #2 is to the original house (528 Valley Road).
Question about whether the second building is positioned too close to the existing historic house at 528 Valley Road.
What happened
A BAR member raised concerns about how close Building #2 is positioned to the original house (528 Valley Road), noting this creates a crowding issue. The member expressed concern about the disjointedness of the layout and asked whether the developer had explored demolishing 526 (described as 'the ugly one') to create a more consistent and workable site layout that would better relate to existing houses.21ProceduralThe new structures should complement the (neighboring) historic assets and the district. 6 BAR Meeting Minutes February 18, 2026
Requirement that new buildings must be designed to complement the historic character of nearby properties and the surrounding district.
22ProceduralConsider materiality and other elements of design: the BAR asks the applicant to explore brick, dormer windows, the Cape Cod style and avoid vinyl.
Encouragement to use brick as the primary material, incorporate dormer windows and Cape Cod architectural style, and avoid vinyl siding or other modern synthetic materials.
What happened
The discussion centered on materiality and design elements for the project. The applicant requested flexibility in material choices across different facades of the building, asking the BAR to evaluate the project as a whole rather than applying uniform material standards. Concerns were raised about the feasibility and financial viability of strict material requirements like brick and fiber cement. The board acknowledged the applicant's community engagement efforts and reductions in height and setbacks, with members commending the thoughtful review process and encouraging the applicant to return with a solution acceptable to both the community and the BAR.24ProceduralThe project is within a Historic Conservation district therefore the BAR will have a lighter touch [on review]; focus will primarily be on what can be viewed from the street.
Note that the project is in a Historic Conservation district with less stringent review requirements, with focus primarily on changes visible from the public street.
25ProceduralThe proposed dwelling is sympathetic to the neighboring house and fits into the district well.
The historic review board's assessment that the proposed new house fits well with neighboring properties and the character of the district.
26ProceduralThere is some support [from the BAR] for the carport; it is definitely a better option than a garage.
Support from the historic review board for the proposed carport design as preferable to a traditional enclosed garage.
27ProceduralBreakdown of the carport’s side elevation, either through additional columns, screening, or low wall to give some visual separation for the neighboring property.
Recommendation to visually separate the carport's side from the neighboring property through additional columns, screening, or a low wall.
28ProceduralConsider the carport and driveway materiality- concrete is preferable to asphalt for both the parking surface and driveway and should be continuous to the street.
Preference that the carport and driveway use concrete rather than asphalt, with materials continuing consistently to the street edge.
29ProceduralFor exterior siding brick is preferred. The alternate of Hardie plank is acceptable.
Requirement that the house exterior use brick siding, with fiber cement board (Hardie plank) as an acceptable alternative.
What happened
The BAR discussed materiality preferences for the project, specifically regarding exterior siding and window materials. Staff and board members raised concerns about vinyl windows, questioning whether the vinyl window requirement applied only to the main street facade or the entire building, and whether fiber cement alternatives would be acceptable. An applicant representative requested that the board consider the entire project holistically, including financial viability and community benefits, when evaluating material choices like vinyl windows and fiber cement siding. Board members expressed appreciation for the applicant's efforts to meet with the community and requested they return with solutions that satisfy both community and BAR concerns.30ProceduralExplore breaking down the house as it progresses to the rear of the lot to perhaps mirror the additions of the neighboring house [at 716 Lexington Ave.], including roofline changes which could be cost effective to allow for the use of brick at the front porch [and façade].
Suggestion to design the house so it gradually steps down toward the rear of the lot similar to the neighboring property at 716 Lexington Avenue, including varying rooflines that could reduce costs by allowing brick construction on the front.
31ProceduralThe two walls of the interior carport should match the exterior of the house.
Requirement that the interior walls of the carport match the exterior materials and appearance of the main house.
32ProceduralThe BAR will act on this project at a future meeting. [In lieu of a staff administrative approval which is allowable within HC districts.]
Announcement that the historic review board will make a final decision on this project at a later meeting rather than approving it administratively.
34ProceduralLighting on the Downtown Mall.
Discussion of lighting conditions and design on the Downtown Mall.
What happened
Discussion included clarification about the Memory Walk, a community-driven project separate from the building design review. The chair emphasized that the Memory Walk design itself would not be brought back for BAR review, as it is a community process. However, the applicant must define an area, plan, and building elevation where the Memory Walk will be located when the project returns for review. The BAR clarified that while the landscape and specific memorial content are not under their purview, the architectural elements and landscape design framework must meet guidelines, and the applicant can include placeholder designs that may be revised later through Certificate of Appropriateness if needed.35ProceduralExploring design options – Removing barriers for the Downtown Mall Fountains.
Exploration of design options for removing physical barriers around the Downtown Mall fountains to improve public access and appearance.
Additional votes recorded in minutes
Motion to limit pre-application discussion for West Main and Valley Road
nay 1 · aye 6
Carl Schwarznay
Cheri Lewisaye
David Timmermanaye
James Zehmeraye
Jerry Rosenthalaye
Katherine Tabonyaye
Ron Baileyaye
Approve Consent Agenda (Meeting Minutes – February 18, 2026)
aye 7
Carl Schwarzaye
Cheri Lewisaye
David Timmermanaye
James Zehmeraye
Jerry Rosenthalaye
Katherine Tabonyaye
Ron Baileyaye
Approve Certificate of Appropriateness – 203 Ridge Street (Accessibility Project)
aye 7
Carl Schwarzaye
Cheri Lewisaye
David Timmermanaye
James Zehmeraye
Jerry Rosenthalaye
Katherine Tabonyaye
Ron Baileyaye
Approve Certificate of Appropriateness – 110 3rd Street NE (Window Replacements)
aye 7
Carl Schwarzaye
Cheri Lewisaye
David Timmermanaye
James Zehmeraye
Jerry Rosenthalaye
Katherine Tabonyaye
Ron Baileyaye
Approve Certificate of Appropriateness – 1615 Keith Valley Road (New Addition, Exterior Alterations and Repairs)
aye 7
Carl Schwarzaye
Cheri Lewisaye
David Timmermanaye
James Zehmeraye
Jerry Rosenthalaye
Katherine Tabonyaye
Ron Baileyaye
Verbatim transcript available
727 transcript segments indexed
Mr. Shimer. Sorry. No, it's okay. I would call her Ms. Lewis or Mrs. Lewis. You're Mr. Shimer. I just had a very good question. May I suggest you take a five-minute recess before you start, and can I talk to you and Ms.
Lewis out in the hall? Because I can do that. In the hall? No, I just want to have a conversation on a sidebar with two of you, not the entire PAR, and give me five minutes. All right. At the request of staff, we're going to start the meeting.
Are you okay with that? Yeah. We also have a gavel. You know I always . The vice chair is on the way over here. Okay. And do we know if Mr. Morrell is here? I've not heard. We're not going to gavel because we haven't even started yet.
The walls delay. I was told I can. That was in our recess with only two VAR members. So I'm recessing. We'll see you in the playground. Where are we going? We go over here in the hall. We've been called to the teacher's principal's office.
Not the teacher, the vice principal. You always knew you were- We didn't even start the meeting and we're in trouble already. You knew you were in trouble. Vice principal, oh, God. Flowers. No old flowers.
Actually, the flowers seem to be doing okay. Space behind. And I won the lottery, and I got a space. Great. The BAR present. Sorry. One's right there. The other, I believe, is in the restroom. Is Kate out there?
Yeah. She's in the bathroom. She's in the restroom. Okay. Since we haven't started yet, I'd rather just wait to get everybody here. Matters. Maybe it was Hannah. That's fine. We did last time. Or we just go ahead and just do the meeting the normal way.
Okay. I think that's plenty. Not including public comments. Just maybe just do that. All right. There we go. 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 righty. I'd like to entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I have a motion. We'd like to, I don't know if it's suspend the rules, but to amend the rules in our agenda, just to state that on item E, the pre-application conferences, there are two, one for a preliminary discussion of the three West Main Street parcels, and one for a preliminary discussion of the Valley Road parcels.
That on those, the applicant and our conversation with the applicant will be limited to 30 minutes, and outside of that 30 minutes, we will take public comments. Is there any... I'm not the chair. You can- That's right.
Do I hear a second? I'm sorry. Can you clarify that again? Just say that again. That we're limiting the discussion with the applicant to 30 minutes- Mm-hmm ... and we're allowing for public comment, but it will be outside of that 30 minutes.
Okay. And when are we doing the comments? That we have been discussing that for the last half an hour. Okay. And I'm sorry you missed that. So we're cutting ourselves off at 30 minutes, and then public comment.
With the applicant. Just for tonight, because they can get in touch with us any time, right? You can. You're setting- No, that was a question. Yeah. And after we've cut ourselves off- Just in the int- ...
then the public gets a chance to talk, is that what you're saying? I guess I'm- Then the public can give comments. Okay. I don't know if we need to do that, because right now, our preamble says the applicant's presentation should not exceed 10 minutes.
But then our discussion and questions would constitute the rest, the back and forth that we have with- Oh, okay ... go out to... Yeah. No, they're not limit- Their presentation's 10 minutes- Presentation's 10 minutes, and then- ...
the overall discussion should be 30 minutes ... 20 more minutes interacting with them, questions from us- Correct ... questions from them, comments. And then after that, public comments, or wherever in the agenda we usually do public comments.
And- So I can time keep on this And another query, will both of them one follow the other immediately, or are we going to have public comments after each one? After each one. I think- I don't think there's going to be any about- Does that make sense?
... Valley Road, but- Okay. I know, but Valley Road is the last item on the agenda. So it seems since that would be less problematic, possibly, they would have to stay here a long time to make their presentation, and I'm just wondering if that is a concern.
Would you like to amend her motion to move theirs in front of- I would like to so move, yes ... item three? Okay. Do you accept that? Yes, but I thought that West Main Street is before Valley Road. He's recommending moving Valley Road before- Fair ...
West Main. So that we could deal with that more expeditiously. I don't know for sure that that will happen that way, but I suspect it'll be somewhat less controversial. Well, to add 30 minutes onto how long people in this room would have toWait from during our meeting.
What-- I would also add, just because we're in the discussion on a motion, that anybody can make any public comments at the beginning of our meeting, as the chair just outlined. We typically don't take comments that are relative to our agenda, but we're being relaxed in the rules- I- ...
a little bit ... can I pause a minute? So, the risk there is it's items not on the agenda. For example, the consent agenda, if somebody wants to remove it, they at the beginning of the meeting can comment.
But you all-- the opportunity here is for some 10 people to speak on matters from the public, and those same 10 people to speak later, and let's be candid, this is a pre-application discussion. This is not a hearing about a CLA.
Right. And so let-- And I think, let's also be open and honest in this situation, where we have an applicant coming to you with a project within an AEC district. It's subject to BAR review, and we have the design guidelines.
And Mr. Chair, your statement at the beginning about, we ask people to refer to things that are germane to the BAR's business. Yes. And I think in the sense of this being a work session to sort of talk about some of the architectural details, you can hold people to that.
But I don't know. I think just let's be open about what we want to accomplish here. But if you wish to make the matters from the public include items on the agenda, then anticipate that. But I would say otherwise, you can have matters from the public, and in a prior motion, you had limited that to, just like council does, to the number of speakers- Mm-hmm ...
and emphasized that it's matters that are not on the agenda, and for discussion. The West Main project is on the agenda. That's right. And- Okay ... we currently would allow some discussion. Then disregard what I said.
Yeah, that's what- We did it last August, and that was my precedent- Right ... and that was my thinking, but- So, we trust- ... we haven't had enough time to- No, use the same motion that we used, where you addressed speakers during matters from the public, and you also addressed what we discussed about at least some limitation on the timing of your discussion, and on the amount of comment you're going to take.
And also, about whether or not to flip the items on the agenda, although I think Ms. Lewis has a reasonable point. She does. I withdraw. Okay. I'm a little confused. Can I just say- Okay. Are we allowing-- I'm sorry, now I'm confused, too.
Yeah, so let's make sure we're right. At least two of us. So, in that, in the minutes, and I think actually, do we have? If I have to go print it out, I will, but- I have it ... yeah, it was from last- From last August?
Yes. Yeah, they're right here. And just, you know... I think the amount of time we're going back and forth in this, we should just go through our normal agenda. Agreed. And just allow for public comment as we normally would, and just let's get going.
And just, but- We've already wasted 15 minutes. Mm-hmm. But I-- Well, we didn't, because we didn't start at 5:30. It's 10 minutes. Um. I would suggest you- Do we want to limit the discussion to 30 minutes, though?
I do think so, and I think you also- Yes ... asking people for a single comment. You're not taking three minutes for questions, three minutes for comments. I think you give people a chance to speak. And limit comments to two minutes.
That's right. Yeah. That sounds good. And limit comments to two minutes, and that they're germane to the BAR's consideration of this. Yes. So, I'll withdraw my motion, and I'll make a new one- Okay ...
on the pre-application discussions for West Main and Valley Road. We're going to limit the discussion with the applicant on the application to 30 minutes total. Matters from the public will be heard. They will be limited to each speaker, two minutes each.
Has to be germane to what the BAR can do. If you aren't familiar with what we can do, I think our chair can familiarize you with that. That's my motion. All right. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor?
Aye. Any opposed? I opposed. Okay. All right. The motion passes, one opposed. All right. I don't want to limit us. That was it. That's fine. Go on. That's fine. The consent agenda this evening-- Sorry, excuse me.
Matters from the public not on the agenda or the consent agenda. Does anyone have anything they'd like to speak about that's not on the agenda? All right. In the public? In the public. Yes. Okay. Come up to the podium, please state your name.
Hi there. My name is Frank Bechter. I live in Fyffe Ville, and I just want to thank the Board of Architectural Review, for doing its darndest over the course of a few months, a few months ago, to try to adhere to its guidelines.
And I don't know if there has been any kind of formal change to those guidelines, but I suggest and hope that if the guidelines are still as they were, or if they have changed, that you would also just try now, in any discussion here, to adhere to your guidelines the best that you can as you see them.
And because... Well, that's just what I hope, because if a matter needs to come before council again, then it will come before council again in terms of what their guidelines are. Mm-hmm. So, that's what I think should happen in any kind of consideration of how the council stands versus what their guidelines are.
I hope that you will stick to your guidelines. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. Appreciate it, FrankAny other matters from the public not on the agenda? All right. Our consent agenda contains two items, meeting minutes from the February 18th, 2026, BAR meeting, as well as COA application for 203 Ridge Street.
I believe there's- Yeah, I'd like to pull 203 Ridge Street for discussion. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Schwartz. We'll move that to, I guess, the first new item. Yeah. Do I hear a motion to approve the meeting minutes from February 18th, 2026?
So moved. Hear a second? Second. Give it to Mr. Bailey. All approve or all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Oh, and also something that came out- Motion carries ... of our Robert Schools meeting today, you do not have to have been present during a meeting- To approve it?
... to approve the minutes. Okay. No, it's just something to remember. So if ever you're voting on minutes and you say, "I wasn't there," you can. You can still read them and just approve it. You can still read them and approve them.
Right. All right, so our first new item is a certificate of appropriateness application for 203 Ridge Street. The owner is the City of Charlottesville. It's an accessibility project with site alterations.
So staff, if you guys could please present this one. Thank you. Kate, you have... You're more familiar with this one than I am. Yes, so there are planned accessibility improvements to the fire station on Ridge Street, Ridge Street ABC District.
The building itself was constructed in 1959. The facade was altered sometime after 1985. But it is our little fire station. Let me see. So here's a picture of the original facade, kind of match those bay dividers nicely.
And then a kind of point of local history is that a replica of the Liberty Bell is at the Ridge Street fire station, and it's still rung every 4th of July. That's from my understanding. So just here's the site plan.
The improvements will include two brand new accessible parking areas, a new sidewalk, site alterations including landscaping and accessible seating, and then just essentially a new ramp that will make overall the site more accessible.
So that's it. Yeah. So demolition of existing concrete sidewalk, minor regrading, repaving, restriping obviously, that ramp into the new sidewalk, and then that new kind of area. So everything you see in this picture will be replaced to better meet our accessibility requirements as a municipal building.
All right. I take it the applicant's not here to make a presentation. Oh, he is. Or you are, that's right. Yes. That's right. Would you like to present this to us, please, Mr. Hendrix? And I can- You're welcome to come up ...
pull up the actual... Thank you, board. I'm Scott Hendrix. I'm the project manager with the City of Charlottesville. This is my project, and I'm happy to talk to you about it. Okay. Hang on one second.
Do you want to give an overview beyond what staff did or just- I did- ... field questions or? It's very much a 90% ADA project. A lot of sloping that needs to be rectified and things like that. It's the main route into the building, so it needs to be improved.
We have added a little bit of landscaping to the plan as well. But really, it is truly an ADA project. Okay. Some curb cuts and replace sidewalks, again, to get the right slopes and balances. Okay. Does anybody have questions for staff?
All right. Do we have any questions from the public, either here or online? Yes. All right, if you could come up, please, to one side or the other, either one. Either side. Oh, okay. Blessings, everybody.
Hello. My name is Uriah Lofton. To answer a quick question, yes, I'm Uriah from the Bible. Okay. And, I want to ask, how does this project, how is it going to help our community? Are you going to use people to employ from the community, or are you going to call people from outside the community like y'all been doing?
Because a lot of our community is not working, and I see a lot of people coming from out of town working, and so we're not fluctuating. We're not surviving. So we need to be more community attentive, us as one people.
That's a great comment. We are bound by the Virginia code for procurement, and it's a pretty complicated thing. We can't hire who we want. We have to hire the low bidder in every job, and we don't know who the low bidder is until bid day.
Right. That's just a state code we have to apply to. Yeah. Mr. Lofton, I appreciate your sentiment and your comment and your question. However, that doesn't really pertain to the Board of Architectural Review's purview, which is really just the exterior elements of a- I mean, that's present community then- ...
design project. But it's part of the community, but- That's not community. Anything that's out community, right? It is, but it doesn't fall within our purview. We're here toBasically assess the project in terms of the visual and physical aspects of the project, not who's executing the project.
Gotcha. But now that you've met Mr. Hendricks- Yeah ... you could follow up with your concerns- Yeah, sure. That's right ... because they're- Sure ... valid. Appreciate your attendance tonight, and thank you.
Any other questions from the public, either here or online pertaining to the BAR's purview? All right. Questions from the board? It's Carl. Comments? Nobody got any comments from the public? Any questions from the BAR real quick?
I had a question- Okay ... about the vending machine. I had to Google this. It's the first time I've seen this. It seems like that's a harm reduction vending machine and drop box. Out of curiosity, I looked at it and I thought maybe a vending machine doesn't belong on the front facade of a building here, but I think it probably serves its purpose better being visible to the public on the front of the building.
So I'm not going to argue with that at all. I'm just curious how it's operated from a safety... I'm not sure what's going to be in it, but there are lots of minors passing by that space every day. So, just curious about that.
Yeah. I can't give you the details on how that's operated. That is a product that is being provided by UVA- Okay ... to the fire stations, and it's the goal of the fire station to get it in with this project.
I'm pretty sure it's an effort that is supported by the city manager's office as well, on getting these kind of things out there for public consumption when needed. Mm-hmm. Are you going to be losing parking spaces with this new configuration?
Yeah. There are about four or five parking spaces there now, and they have a non-compliant aisle way that's about three or four feet wide. So the wider aisle way that you see there between the two parking spaces is code and what it has to be.
So we really can't go down. So yeah, we might lose a parking space, but there are still probably four or five up there in front of that building that aren't ADA, and some additional ones off to the right-hand side as you face the front of the building that's for public.
Any other questions? All right. Any comments from the public, either here or- All right. One minute ... online? It's just I have to... Sorry. Hey, y'all. How y'all doing? I'm Angie McCart. I heard something you said, and minors walk that street, doctors walk that street, elderly walk that street, homeless walk that street, everybody walks that street.
So can we not, as a community or as the BAR, look at minors like they're a problem for a vending machine- Oh ... that's been there for how long, sir? It's not there yet. Okay. So, vending machines are all over the place.
So when you said there are minors that walk the street, it kind of hit me like, "Oh, dang. Hold on." Everyone walks that street. I walk that street almost- Right ... every day. So would it be, you said...
Wait, what did you say? Like protection-wise, or your concern is that it would get robbed or something? No, no, no. It's- What is your concern with minors walking the street? Well, there are things like...
This is my Google search, okay? That I did this afternoon. Yeah. Narcan is in here, which I don't know how it's used personally. I'm curious if it's actually safety for the children. Like kids walking by, going to the Music Resource Center, things like that.
Is there a need for safety or some sort of control on that, or is it- With a vending machine? It's not a candy machine. It's not, yeah. No, I understand what you're saying, but when you say- It's a Narcan.
So it's- I get what you're saying ... I believe birth control. Narcan- Like Narcan, so people overdose, they need to find a place to get- I totally- ... the meds ... 100% understand what you're saying.
But see, that Narcan could save one of those minors' lives as well. Oh, I totally agree. So- It was a question. Okay. It was a question. Yeah. I was just curious about it, like were you trying to pinpoint minors or- No.
I was kind of wondering, so I wanted a little bit more on that. She wanted to make sure that minors weren't going to get hurt by what's in there. Right. Exactly. So Narcan can't hurt you, though, even if it's given to you when you don't need it?
That's great information. I didn't know that, so thank you for that. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I would be All right. Any other comments? Yep. Go ahead. Come up here. Can I stand or mic? Yeah.
So I wanted to speak to the harm reduction vending machine and how it usually works, is usually there are certain supplies that folks can get from harm reduction vending machines no matter who they are.
Narcan, first aid kits, things like that. But if you're someone who has gone to UVA, has gone to the ED, the emergency department, has used recreational drugs in any way, you can get a number to put into any regular...
It looks kind of like any regular vending machine, and you put in your number, but it's your specific number, and then you can get sharps, you can get pipes. I don't know what's going to be in this vending machine.
And I see that there's a drop-off point, and to your question of safety, I was like, "People don't want sharps out." Yeah. So usually, the great part of having a harm reduction vending machine next to a sharps container is folks can come, and they can get rid of their used sharps, and then they can get new sharps.
And so it's making it safer for the community because then there's not sharps where someone- All over. Yeah, all over the place. You're right. Usually it means that folks bring their sharps there, and with it being the fire department, there are not enough sharps boxes around town generally.
Just putting a bug in someone's ear. So having it there so that people can get rid of their old sharps and then get new sharps from the vending machine is usually how it works. But things like first aid kits, and other stuff, everyone can get from the vending machine.
So that's how they work. Okay, thanks. Thank you. All right. Any other comments? This is kind of random, but I'm glad that these ADA upgrades are being made. It's long overdue. I'll date myself, but I was on the Charlottesville Electoral Board in the mid to late '90s, and we had to move this precinct to a good location, to another location, Tonsler, which is a great rec center.
It's a great location, but we were almost forced to move out of this firehouse, which a lot of the community there wanted to keep that precinct at the firehouse because historically it was a precinct that had been used for a long time.
But we had to move it because of ADA issues, because people in wheelchairs couldn't get into the precinct, and people would drop them off and then have to go over the curb. And so I'm actually amazed that the city's gone this long without making these sort of improvements for access, because it's not just firemen that access this.
And now that we've heard what this vending machine will be used for, we hope that more people would actually be accessing this building, at least the exterior of it. Yeah. Thank you. So, yeah. So thank you.
All right. We're into comments by the BAR. Karl, I know you had some. Yeah. So, the reason I pull this is I don't think we can actually force you to do this, but I just want you guys to consider it. You're tearing up an awful lot of pavement to do this, correct?
Yes. So this looks like you're regrading a lot of the paving at the parking spaces. We're only going to be demolishing where those new- Mm-hmm ... parking spaces are with the center. So looking at the site plan, there's a lot of distance between the back of those parking spaces and the curb cut on Ridge Street, and it's a long curb cut.
It extends the full length of the property on Ridge Street, and I'm wondering if that needs to be there. It looks like if I scale the PDF, you could have a 25-foot drive aisle behind those ADA parking spaces and still have about a 10-foot planting strip along Ridge Street.
That wouldn't interfere with the fire trucks but would just cut that curb cut, which is so obscenely long, and increase safety on the sidewalk there. Potentially allow for street trees, which we really don't have any on Ridge Street, especially for such an important corridor coming into town.
So I wanted to throw that out there and get it on the record that if there's any way that the city could toss a little extra money at this project, since you guys are already mobilizing and tearing up pavement- Well- ...
you could just tear up a little bit more. Well, it is an ADA project. Mm-hmm. It is funded with ADA funding from the city. Mm-hmm. Specific funding- Mm-hmm ... from the federal government and from the city to do this kind of work.
I don't know that I can add on an- Trafficing ... portion to this project. I really don't think we can. The distance between where we're working and the road is still a pretty good margin. They're probably 30 or 40 feet- Yeah ...
away from the area you're talking about- Mm-hmm ... where the curb is. I think it would be better perhaps to bring this up with public works and see if it can't be a project with the city engineering team- Mm-hmm ...
who know much more about talking about roads and curbs than I do anyway. So perhaps that might be a better venue- Okay ... to try to get this. Okay. Thanks. All right. But thank you. I need to get that on the record in case it's- Understood ...
it seemed like a missed opportunity, if there's any chance to combine the projects somehow. Yeah. It is a long stretch without any shade for anybody who's walked from basically West Main, what is it? West?
Whatever that direction is, and to anywhere along that corridor. You've got that long stretch of asphalt. There is one magnificent tree going there. Yeah, there is. Oh, yeah. But we've talked about that tree before.
But it's not in front of the fire department. There's no landscaping. Yeah. I don't even see any landscaping in your plan. There is a bit of landscaping. Okay. Yeah. See 5.0. I didn't see... Oh, sorry.
There it is. There we are. Yeah. I missed the page when I looked at this before. Thank you. With that said, I'm happy to make a motion. Go for it. All right. Having considered the standards set forth in the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find the proposed site alterations at 203 Ridge Street satisfies the BAR's criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in this ADC district, and the BAR approves the application as submitted.
Who does that- I second. All righty. I'll call a vote. Discussion. Sorry. Any discussion? All right. Hearing none, I'll call a vote. Mr. Rosenthal? Yes. Ms. Tavenny? Yes. Mr. Timmerman? Yes. Ms. Lewis?
Aye. Mr. Bailey? Yes. Mr. Schwarz? Yes. I vote yes, so the motion passes. Thank you. You guys are great. Thank you guys for humoring me on that. No, it was humor. All right. Thank you, board. Thank you.
Our next item is certificate of appropriateness application for 110 Third Street Northeast. So window replacement project. If staff wants to give us a brief overview, and then the applicant's here to also make a presentation.
Go ahead. I was going to say. I've talked a lot this week, so All right. This is 110 to 114 Third Street. And this site, we believe, was mostly vacant for the later part of the 19th century into the early 20th.
Construction date on this building, not entirely sure. From what I gathered, some time before 1950, so between 1940 and 1950. Do you have- That's right. Yeah. Loosely in the international style. The steel-framed windows that you see are quite different on every facade of this building.
But as the applicant will discuss, there's varying levels of degradation existing. And hold on. I have some pictures. The patterning are different from the upper and the lower. And so essentially, for operability, they are proposing replacements of all second-floor windows.
The Pella Reserve series is what they've selected, with square mullions. And staff recommends approval on the side and rear elevations, but we would maybe recommend that the applicant consider retaining the front facade windows, given that it is on the front of their elevation, and they are unique in this orientation.
Okay, thank you. Mm-hmm. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Yes. Come on up, Steve. Hi, I'm Steve Barber, partner, owner of that building. Can I share a proposed rendering that- Sure ...I had printed out?
It didn't make it into the application, but. Just a second. Thanks. So, if you look at the proposed and the existing, our proposal is to match the window light layout exactly to what's existing, and basically just replace the units with a modern, efficient window system respecting the original masonry opening.
No structural changes to the building whatsoever. Just the existing windows are basically failing, have no thermal efficiency, they leak air. Half of them don't operate. The cranks and the operators have broken and failed, and there's literally no seals.
And we've had three different contractors come out to look at trying to remediate them, and the best proposal that we've gotten is what we're proposing now, is to basically replace the units with a more modern assembly.
But these wouldn't be casement windows anymore. They wouldn't be operable? Oh, they would be, yes. Oh, they would be. Yeah, the operator- Okay. We can't tell from this. They did- It looks like they're stationary.
They would be operable. So on the front facade, they would all be casements with the same light layout as the existing. Okay. Those are just examples, but in the paper rendering, that shows what we would propose.
And is there any manufacturer information or you can provide us? It's the Pella Reserve series. It's an aluminum-clad window with square mullions. It has fixed mullions with an insert in between. Very good.
All right. Any questions from the public on this project, either here or online? Nope? No questions online. Okay. Any questions from the board? Ms. Kueper? I have a question. It looks like the window units on the front facade are double operating.
Each unit is double operating. Yes. That's right. And from your rendering, it does not appear to be double operating, or is- I think that's correct. I think you're right. I think the two- So it'll be a single swinging- I think that's right, yeah ...
unit. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? I guess I have a question. So looking at the historic window, it seems like the top two lights are fixed, and then the bottom four would be the operable leaf.
That's correct, yeah. And then on the new version, is that the same, or would that be- I think in the new one, the entire- The whole thing ... sash pivots out. Can you go to that diagram you had a second ago, Kate?
Mm-hmm. Please. Okay. There you go. Gotcha. Actually, the middle one looks like they do- Yeah, that's a double swinging- They do split in the middle. Yeah. I think they- The tops aren't fixed, but they do split in the middle.
Right. That's right. Okay. All right. Any comments from the public? Or excuse me, any more questions from the BAR? Any comments from the public? Actually, I have a question for staff. Sorry. Okay. Where are we with aluminum-clad windows on facades on historic structures?
What do our guidelines say? I'm sorry. As long as it's not vinyl or plastic. Pardon me? As long as it's not vinyl or a plastic- Aluminum is okay? Yeah. So they- They're currently steel facades. I think aluminum clad is encouraged if it's for new construction.
Okay. But not vinyl. Not vinyl. Or plastic. Correct. Yeah, that's the big- Okay. Thank you for answering. All right. Comments from the BAR? I think the easy part, at least for me, is definitely the three other sides I'm perfectly okay with.
Yeah. Can we get that out of the way? Yep. Okay. I will say, I've lived in a house with windows just like this. Yeah. And we had storm windows with them, and there's no way, they never stopped the wind from coming through.
These really are pretty terrible to live with. Yes. For what that is worth. I think these steel windows kind of have a lifespan. At some point, the water gets into them, they start to rust, they start to malfunction.
I think the applicant's done a nice job at finding a replacement window that mimics the original light pattern, and doesn't alter the historic opening, the fenestration of the building. So I can support this application as submitted.
I'm sorry, I have another question for you, not a comment. The detail you provided, the jam, it looks like you're adding two by material, so you're probably going to be increasing the depth of that jam dimension for the window, but that's...
Correct me if I'm wrong. Slightly, yes. That's on just the edge of the brick. Yeah. Okay. That's right. And is that the condition at the head and the sill also, so we're reducing the kind of visible lights with the two glass, or?
I think slightly, yes. Mm-hmm. I think that's correct. Yeah. Any other comments? I'll make a motion. Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the city's ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed window replacements at 110 Third Street Northeast satisfy the BAR's criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted.
Is there a second? I'll second with the qualification that we want to make sure that the movable casement windows that the applicant provided at this meeting for the front facade are what we're approving.
Because he said that it was left out of our package, so I don't just want to say we're approving what we're given as part of the application impact. Yeah, the only thing that was left out was the color rendering.
Okay. Everything else is- Okay ... correct. Thank you. Great. I'll accept that friendly amendment. Any discussion? I guess I'll second too, then, if I can. I think you- Yeah, I think you seconded. Okay, good.
All right. I'll call a vote. Mr. Rosenthal? Yes. Ms. Tavenny? Yes. Mr. Timmerman? Yes. Ms. Lewis? Aye. Mr. Bailey? Yes. Mr. Schwartz? Yes. And I vote yes. Thank you, Mr. Barber. All right, thank you. Enjoy the creature comforts of the new windows.
Can I please have that document, please? That's the first time. I've never seen that. All right. Thank you. Next item is 1615 Keith Valley Road, for new addition exterior alterations and repairs. This is an interesting property.
It's probably one of the oldest houses in the city of Charlottesville. Yeah. So look forward to hearing more about it. Yeah. It actually is. This is one of those who knew? I know about it. A friend of mine grew up next door to this house, but it is something that a lot of folks don't realize is in town.
But yeah, 1615 Keith Valley Road. You see it here on the right-hand side of the image. That's a log cabin from possibly as early as the 1760s, possibly as 1790s. So somewhere, the various arguments in the historic surveys and notes in the margin, so some uncertainty there, but we know that it was there at least before 1800.
And initially, those were two structures. And in the 1930s they were merged into one long building, and then pavilion structures were added on the back, forming sort of a U-shaped structure with what we think, and I showed in the staff report, we think was a...
Well, here you can see where those doors are on the back, we think was an outdoor patio that was enclosed sometime after the 1930s additions. And then, very uncertain date, but probably in the '50s or '60s, you can see here on the left side of the screen, this garage was added.
It was not built with a foundation or footing, and the applicant wants to expand that. The rest of the house is single story and doesn't lend itself to an addition. So to have room for a family, you need a bedroom that's connected to the house.
So the plan is to remove the 1950s, 1960s garage, reconstruct it in its current footprint, but make it taller so that you can have that bedroom upstairs, and then connect it to the house physically with an enclosed hallway and not an open breezeway, so that it is part of the house.The other things that are being done on the house are all on the back.
There's a lot of water infiltration, and other things. This house is in some rough shape- ... so they're doing a lot of repairs, a lot of moisture mitigation. There's living space in the cellar that to be a bedroom needs an egress window.
So they're removing that bay window, which is on the left-hand side, and installing just a double-hung window into the wall. So removing the bay, and then that allows below grade there will be that window out of the bedroom, and an egress.
And then it's, I believe, a triple sash window in the middle of the wing being replaced with a triple double-hung. And then on the French doors, I'm always intrigued when I see a building that looks like my house held in place with big sticks.
But this is the rear enclosure of that, what we think was the patio, and they're going to be replacing the doors on these. There are some close-up photos, and we share those. It's in pretty bad shape.
Replacing the roof, replacing the Pizza Hut skylight with something a little more appropriate. And ultimately, because of the low pitch on this section of the roof and over on the photo you see to the left-hand side, there's a low pitch section there, going back with a membrane roof.
But currently, it's asphalt shingles everywhere. And so going back, most of these are, you see on the rear, non-issues. They're not necessarily affecting the truly historic part of the house. We do acknowledge the architecture of the 1930s edition.
But the garage is where we've got some glitches. Because of our new code, by enclosing this breezeway, they are creating a single structure, and the length of that structure exceeds what our code allows.
So there's a couple of options. One of them is for the applicant to request a special exception. I'm not sure which they're going to do. And I do recommend approval of the garage. That while it might have some difficulty with the zoning, approval of the COA would certainly assist in that, the request for the special exception.
If for any reason there was any uncomfortable, no one, you weren't comfortable with the garage or questions about the garage, I wanted to make sure we still move forward with some of the weather improvements on the back of the building.
And Kate noted when she drafted the staff report, there's a lot of maintenance and repair being done on this house, and some of it that it very much needs, but those things are not what we would bring to you for review.
So this is a request, again, for a COA to add the garage, to enclose the breezeway, essentially construct a hallway connecting the new garage, and to do these window alterations on the back. And the staff see no problem with them and recommend approval.
I know the applicant's here. Kelly, if you want to add anything to that. Can I- Yes. I have a question for staff. Yeah. If we just approve the COA as submitted, does that in a sense say that we're approving the zoning violation, if you will?
Like that we support the- A violation? Not violation, but we- We ex- Variances. No, no. We're supporting the fact that this project would exceed the length allowable by the new zoning code. So this is somewhat similar to, well, not similar, identical to the fence across the street here.
You're approving it if it meets your guidelines. And I think it does. I thought you wanted us... That there was something- Yeah. I thought you- ... where you wanted us to- You just talked- ... mention that ...
and said the opposite. Sorry to say that. Well, tell me where I said the opposite. You said it would assist in the zoning. I can't hear you. You said it would assist in the approval. If it went for a special exception.
Went for, right. Oh, I see. Okay. If they pursue- It would be non-conforming, right. And so I think that if you were to, let's for BAR reasons, say you don't agree with this garage and wanted to exclude it or remove it- Okay ...
then I would say omit that, not deny it. And I wouldn't deny anything because this is just the first look at it, but it would be to omit something, the garage, or, and Kelly can address this. The option might be to omit the enclosed hallway and that would at least avoid the zoning question for a while, but you kick it down the road.
So there's some permutations here, but I wanted to make sure just that because this is the first time you all at the BAR can defer something, an applicant can request a deferral. If there's any part of this that you're not comfortable with voting on, and then some of the improvements on the back that are necessary you'd like to approve, we approve those, omit the things that aren't, and the applicant can come back with a separate COA request at a later date.
I have another question for staff. Did I understand you saying that they are going to demolish the existing garage? Mm-hmm. All the way down, and they'll put a new one in with footings Pretty much the same spot.
Well- In the same spot ... almost identical spot, and just a little bit deeper into the yard. And we are not required to give a COA for the demolition? Not in this case, no. I think that that's not the historic part of this building, the historic character.
The reason this is an IPP- I thought you said the garage was 1930. It was Marshall Welles. Mm-mm. Okay. Just- Going to mistake- Yeah ... just the two additions- Yes ... towards the back. Yeah. Okay. So that's...
Yeah. Okay. So what- Any other questions for staff? My question was, on the Marshall Welles 1930s, or I thought we said '40s, but anyway, additions kind of around the old structure. We're changing the windows on the back.
What else are we doing? That's it on- Any modification- Yeah ... any further modifications on those structures? Mm-mm. They're repairing some roofs. If you look, and actually, James, you probably have some interesting insight there.
The picture there on the bottom right of the page, is how they've kind of ran the soffit in there. You've got these huge stone fireplaces. So there's some repairs that need to be done and keep water away from the historic building.
But we're not reviewing those, no. And so, yeah, the only alterations to the 1937 additions, and actually, I think that the kitchen even, that breakfast nook area, is a later addition. If you felt like the garage was a problem, and you wanted to remove it and talk about it, you certainly could.
But as I say, I think the remainder of the work, it needs to be done, and they're looking- When you say the- You can go on the- ... breakfast nook, do you mean the bay window- Yes ... from the back? And that's not Marshall Welles 1937?
If you look at, there's- I don't have the materials, so. No, the bay window at the front of the house is not being- That's staying ... touched. Yeah. And the reason is there's a- It's the part that says, "Later- It says, "Later expansion" ...
expansion." I suspected this, and that's based on when there's a floor plan in a 1980s sales brochure, and if you look at the floor below- Mm ... it just suggests to me that that kitchen was added on.
Now, granted, yeah, a long time ago, but I don't believe it was part of the 1937. And the survey refers to the 1937 alterations and then some later, as if almost recent to 1937 changes. This house is almost as complicated as that house on Hartmanns Mill Road that confounded us, so.
And maybe the applicant can answer my question. Yeah. But thank you. I appreciate it. This is that breakfast room in this photo. I'm sorry, say that again. This is the breakfast room, this photo in the middle right here.
This one is? Mm-hmm. Oh. I'm referring to... So if you scroll down, there's a floor plan in that 1980... Keep going, and you'll see. The one in the ad? Okay. Yeah. Go one more, and you'll see where it shows the basement space downstairs.
Okay. Where it says, "Storage and utility." So there's some alignment that's a little bit off. That storage room doesn't align with the breakfast room. So I think that some things were added later. I could be wrong, but that's my best guess.
Let's let Kelly... Yeah. She spent time over there wondering, scratching her head more than I certainly have. All right. I'm Kelly Trout. I'm an architect with Robertson Renovations and New Construction.
We're working with an engineer out of Pennsylvania who's helping us with this project. I don't have a ton to add to the presentation, apart from the fact that we're just trying to preserve what is there.
We have no interest in fundamentally changing what's there. At the same time, we'd like to be able to bring it to modern usability. The spaces are small. The living spaces are very generous for the bedrooms, which there are two bedrooms and two bathrooms currently, which is part of the effort to add the window well in the basement to try to bring a third, and really connecting the garage.
The garage is in terrible condition. It will eventually demolish itself. No foundation, no footing. The existing HVAC and plumbing all runs exposed inside the garage to the upstairs area. So it's very poorly constructed and needs to be replaced.
So our only ask, really, is to replace that existing garage in largely the same footprint, with the exception of a little bit of extension towards the back, which does raise the ridge line just a touch in order to maintain the existing pitch of the roof.
I think it's a total of four feet that it rises. And then to connect the two buildings with a mud room that allows the rooms over the garage to become part of the living space. We are fully aware of the zoning issues, and the fact that we're pretty stuck in this project.
There's really no practical way to build a second story on any of what exists. Structurally not viable, even if we were to somehow convince BAR that putting two stories on the back of that cabin made any kind of sense in respecting the cabin.
There's just nowhere else to expand in this property. It's a very large parcel-And so that the house that exists there isn't well-utilizing this giant parcel, and our client would just like to have a couple extra bedrooms and by that connection.
One change from what is in your drawings is on the front facade, what is currently shown, correct, right there, to the right of the second chimney, the furthest right chimney. Instead of being brick facade there, we're proposing to go back with siding so that it really does feel like an enclosure of that existing breezeway.
Keep all those lines the same. Keep the overhang so that it really delineates the new from the old, which I know is important to the BAR. So we know that we have some zoning hurdles ahead of us, but as far as BAR goes, we'd really appreciate approval of the project in its totality.
All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the public, either here or online? I do have a hand raised. David Heller. On mute, sorry. Hi there. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yes. Okay. Yeah, we're the next-door neighbors.
We live to the south of the Murphys. And I had a question about the length of the fact that the property is exceeding the maximum length if you add that breezeway. Does the maximum length, or does that length limitation take into account the fact that the property is two and a half acres, and it's a very wide property?
If you look at the existing structure, the new structures proposal sounds like it's going to be about the same width as the current one from the street. It does not overwhelm the site. It sits comfortably within the very large site that it's on.
It struck me that there aren't a lot of sites in the city that are this wide, that are residential, and I'm not sure whether that should affect your assessment of what the maximum is. That's a good question.
I don't know, Karl, if you want to get to it. The zoning doesn't differentiate between lot size, so it's just a fixed number in the zoning code. Okay. Which is too bad. It is. And I- But that behooves a waiver.
Kelly knows what... Yeah. She could probably tell us the options better than I could explain them. But yeah, sorry. It's been a lot of conversation. Because it's a hardship. I think to answer the question that Mr.
Heller raised is that, yeah, it is a result of the zoning. You all can't overcome that. But your recommendation, if this is, and as he said, this fits. It's essentially just enclosing a small section of breezeway.
So the masking and scale is not significantly changed, and particularly given the context of this site. So I think that you all would be... You're not violating zoning by making a recommendation because a COA can't supersede that zoning.
All right. Any other questions from the public? No. All right. Any questions from the BAR? I have a question. Where is the low pitched roof that you're going to put a different material on? It's on the very back, the enclosure of what we believe was at once a patio.
It's actually got a really lovely slate floor inside of it. A slate patio? And it seems like that- Yeah ... exterior courtyard was enclosed. That roof up there is failing, the skylight's failing. Just a lot of rot and water.
So that would be the only section where I foresee membrane roofing. And what membrane are you proposing? We propose EPDM, but we're open to whatever is... If there's a- And what is the slope approximate?
I have to say, I don't know off the top of my head. Less than 3/12 is a rubber roof we would put in. Follow-up, what color EPDM? Black. Okay. What is the length, women? How far over are you, just with the- The length limit according to zoning is 60 feet.
I believe the entire structure end to end, if you include the garage now, is 114 feet. The main house alone exceeds 60 feet. Right. So there's really no way to add- Mm-hmm ... to either side of the existing home.
And in fact, the existing home is about 2,700 square feet, so we're also approaching the problem of the 3,000 square foot maximum per building on a site. So, there are several places where we get pinched by the zoning code and then being limited here.
So 114 feet is the answer to the question, and it is exactly what exists now. We do not propose any additional length. The only change would be to infill that small piece between the existing garage and the existing home.And it would remain behind.
That infill is also behind the existing breezeway, which you can't even see the breezeway now, because in that photograph that Kate you just had on page three, up on the right, they've got such a giant holly there that you almost can't...
The massing of the addition would be pretty similar to what the holly is showing us, actually. Usually. But further back, so you wouldn't be able to- But it would be-- Yeah, so it's behind the holly, behind the big breezeway there.
There's just that little section of breezeway that's masked there. How far back is the façade of the garage from the front façade of the house, approximately? The front of the house. 20. Yeah. Jeff, I think I gave you that number at one point.
23- Yeah, here. It is not the 50 feet- You said ... that zoning would like us to have. That's the GIS. That house. Do we have them? It's in the footprint of the original. The exact same footprint, with the exception of six additional feet to the rear.
I'm curious, that little bay on the front of the original house, anybody know where that came from? Is that original? I guess that probably was a front door at some point. There was a discussion. Well, Kate, you'd know better than I do.
Maybe it was two pavilions that connected? Yeah, it was two log cabins that were extended in. Even in our city assessor's file, we can't quite piece it together. Some of the best information is in this old sales brochure.
I was hoping to find where the architect's drawings might be on record somewhere, but I wasn't able to find them. So you think that was like a dog trot, almost? Sort of like an opening between- I just don't- You don't know Sometimes that was the case.
But you might look at UVA Special Collections. They might have Marshall Story's house drawings. Well, yeah. I started, haven't had time to do Faldo again. Well, it's got- Well, the applicant could do that.
Always looking. Yeah, I said- They could, regardless, this isn't- The applicant could. They're not- Yeah ... proposing any change to that, so it's a moot point. It's a curious question, but. Any other?
Where are we? Any questions from the public? Thank you. Well, wait, I have one more question. Any other questions? Yeah, all right. It appears that the height that you're putting on the new garage and is identical then all the way across the- No.
No, it's higher. Oh, it's going to be- It's four feet ... higher. It'll be four feet higher than the existing. Okay. I'll ask a leading question. Does it have to be higher? It does in order to get head height that meets code.
Because it seems like there's an apartment already there, but I guess it doesn't meet code, right? It does not. We'll just leave it there. We moved on to comments. No, that was a question. Okay. I don't think public had questions yet.
They did. They did? Mm-hmm. We had somebody online. Okay. That's right. Sorry. Judge Heller comment. All right. One other question. The chimneys are not operable, are they? I don't believe any of them are currently functional.
Do you know, James? They're not, and that's a good point, because that's one of the main problems with the big gap between the house and the chimney and the way it's framed. All the water sheds off straight down the foundation- ...
causing many issues structurally on the foundation of that house. So trying to kind of fix all that and keep this place whole and still standing, it should have happened a long time ago. Where is that happening?
That's on the rear? That's the front. The front. Oh, the front. You can see it right here. That's the front chimney. It's the- Yeah, that, the- The ivy-covered chimney ... chimney on the right of the- Oh, no, the one beyond it.
Sorry. The second one to the left. Oh, I see. Down below. Right. It's right by the kitchen window. Yeah. That water runs off right under the kitchen, right under the front porch. Yeah, just- And it just- ...
pouring down. It goes between the basement. It's just... Yeah. So this addition, in a way, is alleviating that? Yeah, it is essentially keeping the house from falling down, but that would be one of the kind of alterations that we do is try to remedy that.
Yeah, that- Flash it accordingly- Yeah ... and frame in and just try to- Re-pin those, rebuild those foundation walls where they're bowing and were inadequate when they were built and have not been helped by the water infiltration over the years.
Yeah, it's a flashing detail and where they're directing the water. Again, that's not on our agenda tonight. What is the exterior of the new garage going to be? It'll be Hardie plank siding, similar to what can be seen on some of the gables.
It's outlined all the materials on the- Yeah ... underneath. There is a list. Yeah, the application and the staff report outline the materials and any reference to the siding in lieu of the brick there, that Kelly had talked about.
So that's- Yeah, Hardie plank lap siding in keeping with what's similar, what's there Any other questions from the board? There's a question from the public. Oh, boy. Do you have a question or a comment?
We've been- Question. And comment. All right. Well, just hold on. Still comment Let's do comments from the public. Go ahead, come up. I thought he said he did have a question. He did- Sorry ... but we'll ask questions from the public.
So form it like a comment, it's best to- It's Raya again. So I've been doing this work for 35 plus years. I'm 55 years old. From what I'm hearing, the place is not structurally sound. It's on unsolid ground.
And if it's not perked, then you're going to continue to have the same situation, or even worse. So how are you going to deal with the foundation before you deal with the structure, is what we really need to know.
How are you going to deal with the foundation before you deal with the structure? Mm-hmm. The foundation of the existing home? Huh? Yeah. The plan is to excavate around all of the existing foundation, drain tile, waterproofing, current code for foundation drains, and maintaining what's there, rebuild what needs to be rebuilt in the foundation walls.
Foundation first, right? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. That's a good question, good comment. And Mr. Heller has a comment online. Okay. Mr. Heller? Hey there. We're fully supportive of all of the work that's being proposed here.
The house needs work. They're very nice people, but the house has not had a lot of TLC in the 15 years we've lived here. This sounds great, and the garage is a dump right now. Okay. Bart lives there, but oh my goodness.
So it's great that they're going to replace it and put something in that's not sagging and whatever. So for what it's worth, the neighbors support this activity. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from the public?
All right. Comments from the BAR? I'm ready to make a motion if there are no comments. I just want to say I'm glad that the 1937 additions by Marshall Wells are significant. You can't say they're the most important part of the house, because the log cabin certainly is.
But they're important. There are significant properties in Atmar County where people have fought to maintain Marshall Wells' structures, tooth and nail. I won't go into it. So I don't agree with staff saying that those are not important additions.
They're just as important as the original structure. And thank you for preserving what you can in those additions, because it has perpetuated the use of the house. Yeah. This house wouldn't have been used for the last century as a log cabin, unfortunately, on this street and with current usage.
So it allowed the home to be lived in. I'm supportive of it otherwise. You grew up in it, right? Not on that street. Oh, no. Oh. Not James. Is that James? No. You said James? This is James. Okay. But- Staff didn't say...
I just want to be clear, we did not discount the importance of the wings. I'm just trying to get the chronology of when things occurred. Mm-hmm. So in no way I do disregard the garage. But... We'll listen to the video.
I'm supportive of whatever motion you're going to make, Mr. Schwartz. So my only comment is that, and it's deceiving a little bit because this elevation view doesn't have the depth in it. And so, I do feel like the ridge line of the garage being higher than the roof is regrettable, but I think the fact that it's pushed back from the house helps mitigate that.
Just wanted to say that on the record, but I do support the project. And I'll just add that I have no problem with the zoning issue. I think that you're doing what you need to do. You're maintaining the same footprint.
You're not increasing the size in any way. You're obviously putting a lot of money and resources into the project to save what's a really interesting house, so fully in support of it. Okay. I go. Okay.
Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find the proposed rehabilitations, alterations, and new garage at 1615 Keith Valley Road satisfy the VAR's criteria and are compatible with this individually protected property, and that the VAR approves the application as submitted with the following conditions.
Per the design guidelines, doors and windows with insulated glass and simulated divided lights will have internal spacer bars. New gutters will be half round, and the downspouts will be full round. In addition, the VAR notes that approval of the COA for the new garage is for the design review only, and does not authorize any work requiring a building permit, nor does it supersede the city's code of development, which the proposed work must comply with.
Second. All right. That's on the one that I got. Before you all vote, Carl, are you comfortable? That language makes sense, as far as it- It needs to comply with the code, yeah. Okay, good. Yeah. All right.
Any discussions? Excuse me. Well, I guess we just had a little bit. Any further discussion? All right, I'll call a vote. Mr. Rosenthal? Yes. Ms. Tavenny? Yes. Mr. Timmerman? Yes. Ms. Lewis? Aye. Mr. Bailey?
Yes. Mr. Schwartz? Yes. I vote yesMotion carries. Thank you all very much for- Thank you ... your efforts in preserving- And good luck ... this very old house. That'll be all. Who seconded that? That's a heck of a lot.
All right. That concludes our new items. We are now into the pre-application conferences per the motion that was made. If anyone wasn't here at the beginning of the meeting, we made a motion to limit the discussion with the applicants for both of the preliminary discussion topics to 30 minutes.
We are going to allow public comment. We're not going to do a separate comment and question, just all in one. We're going to limit public comments to two minutes per speaker, and that's just out of respect for everyone's time.
We've got a lot of folks that want to speak. So, our first discussion is- Are we timekeeping? Kate can do that. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. 835, 843, 847 West Main Street multi-story housing development project.
So we'll start with a staff report and then have a presentation from the applicant. Or do we have? Yeah, staff report. Yes. So this came before you all in August of 2025, August 19th, for a pre-application conference, which is required by code, and the proposed lot is here in the West Main Street ADC District.
It's currently mainly a parking area right after you cross the bridge on this section of West Main, which is sub-area B of our district. So you here see two elevations of what was proposed in August and a new design, which is the point of this discussion today, a continued discussion to address the response of the applicant to your previous comments from those modifications.
And again, just to remind everyone that no action is to be taken tonight. This is just a continued discussion. And the applicants are here with their presentation. Great. Applicants, would you like to- Any questions for staff?
Questions for staff? Okay. If the applicant would like to come up and give their presentation, that would be great. And I would just advise council to use the notes under the discussion. Some of it's the boilerplate stuff, but you'll see on middle of chapter three or page three, I've also inserted some specific comments, questions that you all may want to- I can't hear what you're saying ...
All right. And so in the discussion, if you guys can work through, use it as a framework for your questions, and then as I said, there's a section on page three about the additional comments that I've added that I think are more specific than the generic.
That's just my suggestion. As you go through those, use that as a checklist. On page three. And I put them up here just for quick reference. So I can share my copy if it would help. So that's the usual stuff from the type of information you're looking for.
Does it have elevations you want to see? Are there any details you want to see? Are there any sections you want to see? But then I have, like I said, some specific things that I've noted that I had advised the applicant might be likely additional information that you all would request, but there's no need for them to provide that if you all don't think it needs to be provided.
So, I just wanted to point that out, and then we did do a little bit of an analysis about height to massing and spacing, but this is on West Main, so everything's up on the street, and we have an interesting sub-area that has very few- No existing structures ...
old buildings. So, yeah. Now you can go forward. Okay. Hey, welcome. Thank you. Do we need to get promoted to be able to share a screen? No, you should just be able to share from your Zoom window. Please speak in the microphone because we don't hear what you said there.
No, we can't. Well... I think everybody needs to speak into microphones. A member of the public said they couldn't hear you just a little while ago. I'm not sure where that is. Is this the correct one?
Do you have a separate... Is it a separate presentation or is it just- A separate one. So you can do this. Okay. I put something on it. Put it right here so I can see. I'll drop it in here really quick.
You might have touched it. I was about to say, do you all want a five-minute recess? Two minutes? Or less? Two minutes or less. Let's do five minutes. Yeah. We'll reconvene at 7:00. Just bio break if anybody needs the restroom.
I really have to use. I know. It's 7:00. I'll call us back to order, please. I have an invitation. All right. So got the presentation on screen, and we're going to hear from LV Collective. So if you guys would like to go ahead with your presentation, please.
All right. Hi, my name is Brittany Sanders. Sorry, I am losing my voice, so I won't speak long. I just thought it was really important for me to come up here and speak as the lead developer on this project and just set the tone for the presentation.
I was at the last BAR meeting. I was not in a project lead role at the time, but I was here, heard feedback firsthand. I heard the community's feedback firsthand, and I think what you're going to see today is a thoughtful and direct response to both levels of those feedback, specifically around the height, with it coming down from 11 stories to eight and six.
We didn't just step it. We ripped the Band-Aid off to try to be very respectful of the feedback. And then also the walkway was something else that was really important. We now have direct access to West Haven's walkway that's there, and then we're also proposing to carry that across Main Street in the form of a pedestrian, an enlarged, celebrated pedestrian connection.
There are still ongoing conversations with the community. Not everybody's concerns have been met, nor do I think really will be met. But LV is at the table, and I think we've made some productive progress, and we hope to continue that progress by the time we actually come back in a month.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Good evening. My name is Mohamed Milson. I'm an architect with Nals Bolton, here to represent LV Collective. Appreciate your time. I was here last August when we presented this project and got a lot of feedback from the community and feedback from the board.
And I'm excited to run through some of the updates that took place over the last few months. When we met August, there was really three main things that a lot of the conversations centered around. One was the overall height, number of stories, the scale of the building in general.
Two was the connection, the pedestrian connection from West Haven to West Main, and then three was some input and feedback on the overall architectural direction that we've received. These building sections here at the top, I think they tell the story better than any other type of drawing.
The left side there is what we've presented back in August. The right side is what we've done after the reduction of three stories. So we're now a total of eight stories. It's no longer a high-rise building.
In terms of code compliance, we are under 75 feet to the top residential level. We're type three construction, so we are wood on the top five levels, concrete on the bottom three. And the overall building height from average grade to top of roof will need to remain below 85 feet in total.
Section below cuts north, south, proposed development on the left, West Main on the left, and it cuts all the way through future development for West Haven to show the stepping and how the scale has become a lot more natural in terms of the height progression.
I'm going to scroll through a few slides that show the before and after. Left is before, right is after. West Haven latest proposed development is highlighted in green. And you can see the scale difference here between what we presented back in August versus what we are presenting today.
This is already in eighth. And then the view from 10th page. And these are a couple of high-level views looking along West Main from the east and west. Bottom is proposed. The next thing we talked about is the connection.
And you can see in the current development here, this is zoomed out, obviously, with the overall context. You can see that what we presented back in August had the connection running right to the middle of our block, coming around the building on the east side, coming all the way down against the parking edge, and then back along the sidewalk due to some grade challenges, and then to West Main about mid-block.
And what we're showing now is a sweet connection. We've worked with the community. We've worked with West Haven. It was a lot of discussions, and we've now aligned the pedestrian connection or pedestrian promenade from West Haven all the way to West Main, and it aligns along the west end of the building.
That secondary line there is still a pedestrian connection that exists. And it also takes you to West Main right by the bridge intersection on the southeast corner of our development. I'm going to scroll through a couple of slides, just very high level.
These are some landscape and hardscape studies. Starts to talk about the precedent imagery that we're looking at in terms of the screening along the west edge, the type of material used at the walkway, the planters, the furniture, a lot of the pavement as we work through the portion of the pedestrian connection that will need to connect vehicular access into the parking deck versus what is there only for service and maintenance and for the cell tower and potentially the transformers if there's ever service required.
The connection here is a 22-feet wide vehicular connection, eight-feet wide pedestrian connection, and then three feet of landscape buffer and a screen. Once we get past the entrance to the parking, you can see through the pavement pattern here, it really starts to celebrate the pedestrian connection.Furniture along the plaza.
We've got a plaza proposal along West Main here. And you can see the type of furniture, the type of lighting that's proposed, and then just overall the character and imagery. I understand that Water Street will be brought in to continue the ongoing discussion, and continue the collaboration with the neighbors.
Quickly looking at the building plans. This is kind of the ground level frontage along West Main, entirely active use. We've got this cafe area in green, and then amenities and leasing on the right. Parking behind it.
This is the mezzanine level, some additional amenities on the first level above ground, and then we start to pick up residential. This is the perspective view, kind of at the middle of West Main, where the signage is kind of our front door.
The left side of this image is proceeding associated with the cafe. And you can see just a lot of attention to that public realm and the detailing at the street level, whether it be the materiality, the brick material, the coursing, the stepping with a corbelling kind of at that band above the building base, the amount of transparency and glazing, and then just the use of landscape and pavement patterns to really activate the streets.
There you go. This is the typical residential level. And above level six, we have a step back. So level seven and eight on the right side there, you see there's a big step back there. And that's what we've seen in the section in the beginning.
It's a double loaded corridor going at levels three to six. And then level seven and eight, we have a step back. Level eight, we also pick up an amenity and a terrace at the bottom right corner of the plan.
This is the front elevation along West Main. We've heard encouragement to use more masonry along the frontage and along the edges as we turn the corner. And so we've got a mix of masonry, fiber cement with different colors, and then obviously at the base glazing and some accent metals.
This is a zoom-in. It shows the detailing, it shows the articulation. It shows the focus on the public realm elements that is really key and important to this development. A couple of quick renderings before I wrap it up.
This is a view looking over the bridge, looking at the overall development. So we know that this development is right by the rail. There's going to be a lot of open views on West Main headed towards our building.
And so we've kind of rearranged and reconfigured the overall massing, simplified it some, brought more masonry to that side here. And of course, with the scale reduction, just overall, the proportions improved considerably.
I know when we met last time, there was the feedback related to how tall and how heavy and bland that corner felt when we intended to really celebrate it. And so you kind of see the progress from last meeting to now.
Here's a little bit of a close-up. Again, kind of at that bridge intersection. And then here's what we had before. And then this is the west-facing facade. This is facing the standard. Basically, that's the pedestrian promenade elevation.
And this is the perspective view, kind of looking at where that pedestrian connection ties to West Main. That crossing here is kind of shown pushed a little bit more west. We would like to work with the city and the community to be able to get that to line up with the pedestrian axis.
And then that's what we've shown on the last round. This is the north elevation. This is the east elevation, facing the rail. And then just a couple of the enlarged views should we need to reference those in terms of the overall context.
Materials, as I mentioned, brick veneer, that beige color, and then three colors of fiber cement panel. Thank you very much for the time. We're happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Nice job keeping it in 10 minutes.
I really appreciate that. I think we all do. Thanks. Kuda, that's a pat on the back, man. Good job. Great. So I'm going to try to figure out if we want to allow for public comment and then come back to our discussion with the applicant.
How do you all feel? Maybe go for it. Allow public comment now- Yeah, I think it'd be- ... and then conclude our interaction, that last 20 minutes- Yeah ... with the applicant. So I think that makes sense because that way we can hear what the public has to say, and then- Yeah ...
perhaps we can form some of those into our own questions, and it'll inform our questions and comments. So I'm going to invite the public up. Just a reminder, please state your name, keep your comments succinct.
Please keep your comments to the BAR purview. That is the exterior of the building. And I think that's about it. Two minutes. Two minutes. Thank you. I had a third thought, but it'll come back to me. It's good.
All right. So who would like to come speak about the project? Here we go. Hey, everybody. My name's Brandon Collins. Always one to talk, so I'll try to be brief. I've lived in Charlottesville my whole life.
My children have lived here their whole lives. And I've had the serious honor and privilege to work with residents of West Haven on the planning for their future redevelopment. And it's been, from our end, I think, meaningful, not without challengesAnd not without a whole lot of hard work.
Some of those residents are here today. I do work for CRHA, but these are my own observations in dealing with our resident planners. So the first thing I think to point out is that at least our resident planners, and I think most of the community in general, this is really a first look at a new revision to their plan.
The ones we've been going off of are the ones in August. I know there's been some conversations about what LV may or may not be willing to do and tweak, but our planners, at least our resident planners at West Haven, which there are about 30 steady participants and probably in overall about 70, with over 90% of the community participating in our process.
They haven't had a chance to evaluate this at all. We've got tons of work to do, and our assumption all along has been that when LV is ready to maybe make some commitments, that they would sit down with the community and with our residents and evaluate any proposed changes.
That said, I can see that they've tried to work with some of what they've heard. I think it's really important for the BAR to understand that at eight stories, the height and scale and mass of this building is still an adverse impact on the neighborhood.
Part of that's because they're set down on a hill, and it was done on purpose to separate the community. So that's something we have to work with. So no matter what happens, no matter the proposed changes, at eight stories, even just on West Main, there's going to be opposition to this.
Right? And so, one of the things is that to mitigate that, is to work with LV on a community benefits agreement. That's not your concern. You're concerned about design. So what are the things that might make sense?
So this was based on an older drawing, but- Sorry, we're going to- I don't know if you can see it ... limit it to two minutes. I'm so sorry. If you want to hand it out. All right. I'm going to give you this.
It's a very crude drawing. Basically cutting these corners to allow for visibility. Thank you. Deeper step backs on the south, east, and west sides of the buildings, with a little set in. I think they're sort of looking at that anyways.
Have you shared this with the applicant? Not yet. I'm sure somebody- Craig G. ... will at some point, but- Okay ... if I were you, and yes, we want to work with Water Street Studio. Residents' core demand is being able to design that memory walk out to West Main Street, and it's awesome that we can work with Water Street Studio to do that.
We haven't sat down and done that work, and if I were the BAR, I would want to see that design before even considering any kind of approval. And certainly, the residents need to be able to present that to you all, and have you take a look.
So, that's all I got. Great. Thank you, Brandon. Appreciate that. All right. Anyone else? Sure. Go ahead. My name's Earl Hicks. I'm also a West Haven planner, also West Haven resident. I still don't like the building.
We haven't seen proposals or change before the agreement was posted. Design changes needed to be made, but without a significant reduction in height, there will still be a negative impact on our neighborhood.
So other steps needed to be taken. Work with residents for our approval of design changes. Residents to have full control over the planning of the memory wall to West Haven, to West Main Street. And what I wanted to say is that as I stand here as a resident, as a resident planner, I still propose the building is still too big even at eight.
I seen the additions, but still, when you come into somebody's neighborhood, you need to sit at the table with them and let them know and be a partner with them. Not come through the back door and figure, okay, here we are.
This is what we're going to do, and we should go along with it. It don't work in my book like that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Mary? Want to do this? I'm in. Hey, y'all again. All right. I'm Angela, Angela Carr.
I'm a resident of Charlottesville, Virginia. I used to be a resident of West Haven. That was the very first core neighborhood that I had lived in when I first moved to Charlottesville, Virginia. But, I just feel like it is...
I just have a comment. But I feel like it is kind of inconsiderate, like you said, Mr. Earl, to come into a neighborhood and take full control and not have any consideration for the people that lives in the neighborhood or how they would feel or how that would affect their lives, their day-to-day lives, or how the building would affect how they normally get to Main Street to get to the stores or how everything's so just in arm's reach.
And now, you're proposing a big, huge building. It's just like, what are you going to do for the neighborhood that you're proposing the building to be in front of? Also-I feel like... But this is my very first time seeing you guys, and it was a really-- I've never had any communication with you guys.
I've never seen you guys at any meeting. I've never seen you guys at any table, ever. I've never seen them. And so this was a surprise when they stood up today, and I was like, "Oh, this is LV Collective." It was really a surprise.
So when you say you've worked with the community, my mom told me not to call anyone a liar, but that is a fib, because you have not worked with the community. If you've worked with community, we would have seen you walking through West Haven.
You're not on the cameras. And so I know for sure that they're not working with the community. So again, I would urge the BAR to dismiss the application until they come back with more information from the community themselves that this is going to actually affect.
And also with the memorial wall. It's like how can you make a choice with the wall that you-- Do you know the history behind it? So it's like how can you just take full control of something? It's not fair.
It's not right. That's like someone coming into your home and walking right past you and your wife and not speaking, but taking their shoes off and getting comfortable. You address the people that live there.
That's how you do it respectfully. And that's how you gain respect, and that's how you gain the community's trust. And you also gain the community's trust by having a listening ear- Yeah ... when someone's talking.
But that's just my opinion. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Carr. Appreciate it. Hey. Hey there. Uriah. 35 years, like I said, 17 years building here in Charlottesville. Restoring the Jefferson building, working with the YMCA, working with Faulkner, working with pretty much every company out here.
Also Rainbow Restoration, Fishersville, and here in Charlottesville for UVA. Highly experienced in every part of a house from the ground up. And the thing that I want to bring to the table is this. I see a lot of bars around here.
What I don't see is that many shelters. I don't see a place where these people can go to get off our corners so that these people can enjoy their walks, walk their dogs, and the children. We need to apply ourselves to something other than bars.
I think we got enough bars and cafes going on around here. Most of the poorer people can't even afford to go in half of them. So we're not communicating with each other. Other than me coming in and pulling a shift and serving you guys.
I don't get to even talk to you guys unless I'm outside giving snowballs to the kids for free or something like that. So I do a lot of my work myself. I do try to collect donations. I do have three projects that I'm working on.
One for the senior citizens to get them to and from their buildings, instead of them having to walk to the bus lines. One for the children, the poor children, to get to the outings and set places where they can't experience the experiences of the other kids.
And I got a store bus, a low economy bus that I'm going to have with care packages for the low economy areas. I hear y'all talking a lot about the places that's already established and making money and doing things, but I don't really hear y'all talking a whole lot about the places that are not established and that still need help.
Mm. I'm out here every day. I work with the public. I use my own money. I buy chips and stuff and flip them for an extra quarter so that I can do my projects. It don't take much for me to pray to my Lord and put a quarter together to make another quarter.
When I try to ask for donations, a lot of the time, my family is not all my family, because all of them don't apply to me the same. But I still have to work my way through it. I still have to take the rejections.
I still have to forgive them and love them at the end of the day and wake up the next morning and serve them again. And I have no problem with doing that. I need you guys to be attentive to us as well.
Okay. Thank you. Have a good night. Appreciate it, Uriah. Thank you. All right. Good evening, everyone. Good evening. How you all doing? All right. One of the things I do want to point out is that when we first came and heard about the project, the height was always a issue.
The height is still an issue. They went from 11 to eight, but if you're looking at the remnants back there, it is still equal, maybe a little bit higher than the standard. And the standard is still a negative effect for us in West Haven in the 10th and Page neighborhood.
But however, Ms. Brittany has reached out to far, and we have had a couple of meetings. Some meetings, some questions weren't asked, and then there has been some conversation lately about what a community benefit could look like.
And we talked about a lot of things, about the preserving the community, preserving the neighborhood, services to the neighborhood. But the one thing that they could not commit to is lowering the height to six-five.
Okay. And what they're basically saying is that six-five wouldn't make them any money. And so basically, what we are asking and what we are saying, and today the presentation, Ms. Brittany, the presentation that he showed today, I wish we'd had that also to be able to talk about.
So Brandon is correct, we haven't seen this. What you all saw tonight is the first time we're seeing itHowever, the height is still too much for us. Brittany said the other day in a conversation, she said, "Well, if we walk away, whoever owns that lot is going to go and find somebody else." The difference is that if they walk away, the person who owned that land now knows you have to do this better.
You have to stay with the community. You have to get with the community, and so we can build something that all the community, 10th and Page, plus the developer, is satisfied with, and then you won't have us pushing back.
We're coming here with a collective voice. So no to the eight stories. Six, five, and please make sure we get a copy of what you presented here today, for we did not have that. Thank you. All right. Any other comments from the- Not yet.
If somebody has a chance- I'd like to know how many people will be employed by this building. How many employers will be employed in this building? You're right. I'm sorry, that's outside- To bring more work ...
that's outside our purview. This board is really focused on the architectural impact of the building. Oh, okay, got it. Yep. Thank you. I did want to clarify really quick, our last speaker, when you said six, five, are you saying you prefer six stories on the West Haven side?
So they're presenting, I think- Eight stories To six ... they're presenting eight, seven or eight, six. We're saying six on the front, five in the back. Okay. That's true. Thank you. Just wanted to clarify.
Some of our residents, the compromise is most of our residents, thank you for reminding me, residents. Not what they said at first, but I went to a compromised- That's true ... answer. It's five, four, but we knew that they weren't going to do five, four, so I said, "Okay, six, five." Okay.
So that's what I've been taking into the room. But the residents actually wanted five in the front and four in the back. Got you. Thank you. All right, and would you like to speak, Frank? Hi, yes. My name is Frank vector.
I live in Fifeville. There's a point that is raised at these meetings that pertains to what's already been discussed in this presentation, about that your purview concerns the external appearance. And I know there are guidelines that often reference the cultural, and historical, and architectural character of the building.
So cultural, I've always wondered how those two statements, only the appearance on the external side and cultural character, et cetera, how the board views the linkage or non-linkage of those. I would think they're linked.
The applicant here did present, and is emphasizing, the public area, and that presumably involves the people who would use that public area. So I would want you to be able, under your guidelines, under your considerations, to consider who's there, the people using the public walkway, the memory walk, as part of the external appearance, so that you don't have any feelings that you can't consider the kinds of people who are there, because obviously they'll be the residents, but perhaps the applicant is trying to make room for the residents of West Haven, too, and I think that would be a very good thing.
And so, that's a point of technical concern that I hope you can resolve in that way. Thank you, Frank. All right. Sure. Hi, my name is Wendy Gao. I'm a community member here to support the residents of West Haven and 10th and Page.
As people have already said, this building is currently sitting at eight stories right now, and that's the reduction. We can't have historical amnesia. Eight stories is the size of The Standard, I'm pretty sure, and The Standard was already a giant stain on Charlottesville's continued inability to grapple with its history of violence, white supremacy, and dispossession of Black people.
If we cannot even remember the mistake that was The Standard, how can we even attempt to begin grappling with more violence? With Vinegar Hill, with enslavement. LV Collective is up here talking about a memory walk for Vinegar Hill and urban renewal, when they are enacting the same violence that Vinegar Hill and Gospel Hill enacted.
Residents have said over and over that they want their memory walk to be celebrated and in the open and to be remembered. They want the public to actively be grappling and sitting with this history. They don't want it in an alley.
Ha. LV Collective's current proposal puts the West Haven memory walk between two eight-story buildings and a road for maintenance and service vehicles. I can tell you that remembrance of Vinegar Hill will not be found in any meaningful way amid the rumble of maintenance service vehicles, students buying $11 lattes from a café that no resident can afford, or between two buildings that cement Charlottesville's legacy of white supremacyLast thing, I think that this discussion about community engagement, the thing about community engagement is the community gets to dictate what counts as that.
So LV Collective doesn't get to come up here and say that they are sitting at the table or that they are talking to residents when people here have said that this is the first time that the residents have seen this plan.
That shouldn't be the case. The residents need to get the plan before you all, and the fact that that's not the case means that these people don't understand what community engagement looks like. And if they're just talking to a select group of people, then that also means that there's likely tokenization and not actual, real engagement with the residents of West Haven, the people who'll be most affected by this building.
Thank you, Amy. Say that, Amy. Let's go. Let's go. All right. Thank you all for your comments. Appreciate that. It's 7:30. I think we got to about 7:15, so we still have 15 minutes left to discuss with the applicant based on the motion Ms.
Lewis made at the beginning of the meeting. Are you done? You know that gives all of us less than two minutes, right? Or about two minutes. You voted against the motion. I did. I believe I can respond for a few minutes.
Sure. Is there no more room for any more comments? Is that- I thought we were having him limited. Okay. I understand because she's never been here before. Okay. If you want to speak- She can go ahead ...
sure. Two minutes. Probably want to check if anyone's online as well. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Good point. Is anybody on there? Hello. Ziona Bryant, speaking as an individual, not as an elected. So I do have concerns about the...
I share the concerns that the residents have about the height, but I do want to say that just because we're talking about community engagement, Brittany, she has been trying to engage with the 10th and Page Neighborhood Association.
And so a conversation that we had yesterday that lasted about two hours, had a lot of things discussed during that conversation. And I think one of the main things that the neighborhood, just to be transparent, is having to sit with and think through is if the height does not decrease, what are the actual benefits to the neighborhood as far as that density goes?
And so I think though this is technically beyond your purview, it is important to think about how if city council, for example, is pursuing this agenda of wanting higher density and wanting taller buildings with the idea of creating more affordable housing, which they believe in trickle-down economics, people have differing opinions about that.
But in this context, we have to think about what will those benefits be to the community. And I think it is a hard job to be able to have this conversation in the way that you are expected to without thinking about all of those things.
If it is taller, how much added affordability will be included in that building? And again, though that's outside of your scope, I do think that that should be a question that is presented in this space and maybe discussed a little bit when you talk with the applicant.
Because I can say confidently that though everyone does not agree on the height, Brittany has been trying to bring some sort of benefits to the 10th and Page neighborhood, and it does expand just beyond West Haven.
There's Rose Hill Neighborhood Association that was at the table. There's 10th and Page Neighborhood Association. There's a lot of homeowners in that space, too, who will have their taxes increased and things of that nature because of this building.
So I just hope that we can have a more comprehensive conversation and give LV more time to actually work out some of those benefits that they can provide along with this project. Thank you. Thank you.
All right. Wow. Before you speak, do we have anybody online? No. Anybody else from the public here that would like to speak? Sorry, Ms. Bryant. I apologize, Ms. Bryant. Didn't mean to cut you off ahead of time.
Okay, Brittany. It's going to be hard to follow that, especially with my voice. I don't want to get into the specifics of the community benefits agreement because I respect the community, and I want to have those conversations offline.
So I only want to talk through the one thing that does relate to your purview, and that's the memorial walk. I've really struggled with that and not the concept. When Jeff reached out and said, "Hey, you need to have materials on this," I said, "Do you understand what that does to my ability to communicate to the community that they should design this?" So I'm kind of caught between two processes.
But just to go on the record, my goal is to have the community design that. The reason I set the building back is to create a public plaza so that it isn't just between two buildings. The reason that I gave up more density than I could afford to give and allow that connection to go around both sides of the building is to give the history what it deserves, which is visibility.
And do I know what that history is? I know what I've read. I haven't lived it, and I need the people that have lived it to design it. That's all I want to say. Can I-- Yeah, I want to clarify, too, when I spoke with Brittany, and I'll tip my hat to the work- Yeah ...
I'll tip my hat to the work that Brittany's put into reaching out to me and asking me questions about this. And one of the things that I advised was this memorial walk appears to be a design intent that will be developed in time, over time, with the folks in West Haven.
And I asked the question of, is this part of should they want to come forward and- This summer for a design review of this building, the architecture of the building and of course, this space to the side.
Are they bringing a finished design for that public space or... And my suggestion was then whatever it is that you've set it aside, you have to finish it. It is a paved access point. I think they have some permeable paving.
They might have some furniture in there. But as far as putting memorialization there, and to whatever extent that the community recommends, the timing of a review of that seems to be if they're going to go through a process, you all can't review a design until it's completed later.
So trying to separate those two. But it also falls where I think when a community's had input on the design of a public space or a park, should that come to the BAR for... You don't want to have a space that's been created with community input and then, it's like Belmont Bridge.
It's a community came up with design. Does BAR say we don't like that design? So I'm trying to separate the memorial walk out of this a little bit because it allows the neighborhood the freedom to work with the applicant, the applicant the freedom to sort of treat that space as a blank canvas at this point, to the extent that you have something that you can review and allow the project go forward.
Because if we're suspending everything until the memorial walk design is done, I don't know how we get there from here. So that's I... And then also with the community benefits agreement, that's something that they've been working with through the city manager's office and enforcement.
And I admire the work they're putting into that, but I'm trying to keep that again, somewhat separate from... It's outside of your purview as the BAR. All admirable things we want to see it happen, but I'm trying to contain what comes to you as an application later this summer into something that you can act on, and to take anything that might be aspirational and separate that out.
So I wasn't saying just ignore that space or don't talk about the materials there. I was saying if there's things that are going to go in there later, then that later will be addressed later. Does that- And I completely agree with that- Okay, good ...
I didn't signify anything different. The goal of today and the reason that I was supportive of not having a vote is because just as much as the community's feedback is important, your feedback is also important.
It's not one or the other. I kind of have to have feedback from everybody so that I can figure out where to go from here. So that's what today hopefully is, is to get feedback from everyone, and I recognize that feedback is going to continue from the community.
I know their position on the height, and I encourage them to continue to speak on it. Let's have a healthy dialogue in this. I think that's very possible moving forward. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Great.
Sharon. Uh-huh. I just want to speak on... Sorry, my name's Carmelita Wood, and I'm a Fairfield resident. I wanted to speak on the Seneca Hill monument or walk or whatever it is, because out there, that history, most of those people are dead and gone.
Their children, half of them don't live in Charlottesville, and they don't know what Seneca Hill was like. They don't know the history of Seneca Hill. You're going to put a walk there for people that don't know the history, then I think you need to put a room space inside that building so that people can come and sit and talk about the history or learn the history.
Put a classroom there. Put books there that have that history of Seneca Hill. And what you've heard, go out and talk to the people and find out what it is that they would like to see in that building.
Nobody's going to walk up and down a memory walk and you're just walking through. Stop and look around. Go have a seat and talk to people about that history. That's all. Thank you. All right. Anyone else?
Okay. Good afternoon, I mean evening. Rosia. My thing is I can't understand if they've been studying this from the numbers that I've seen since the late part of '20s, but before now. So it's been some years that they have been studying this.
And when you look at the height that we've already been put down, what would make you want to have a building that high? Over top of the people, even though I understand that they might not know the true history, but when you're coming to a place and you're willing to build, you're always supposed to know these things in place before you get to where you're at.
And the disrespectfulness of how the presentations and the communications and whatever LV has brought to us as residents at West Haven has been very disrespectful. They going to tell us we basically had the audacity to basically say, "Y'all are lucky we're even giving y'all the plans." And then you waited till we had the master plan in.
So for you to wait till the master plan come in, then all of a sudden you're opposing this big building. So it feels like we're down in the bottom, but we have this high-extremity overtop, overshadowing.
And it makes it dark, and the shadowing. The Standard is already shadowing West Haven. So we really don't have too much sunlight. So that plays a big part. Then we're already down, like I say, we're deep down.
So imagine all that water, even though they're fixing it, but it's a lot of water drain. There's a lot of stuff that is down in that bottom that people really haven't saw. That we're just now as a community, after being built in 1950, we're just now getting into redevelopment.
But I felt it harmful for them to just bring this plan after our master plan goes in. So I just hope you all have a good thought on when you all make your decisions. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anybody else?
We good? All right. Thank you. Now, if the applicant wants to come back up, and we can talk about the architecture of the building and its impacts. Maybe Ms. Richardson can put the talking points back up.
That'd be helpful. Would you like the full list from the staff report or just the slide with the materials and the returns? The slide would- I suppose- ... be helpful. Yeah. I think, obviously, there's a lot of feelings around this project.
I know that a lot of you all were in the room with me a few weeks ago at the city council meeting. We were discussing another large project. I think the tenor of the city council from that meeting is supportive of growth and adding more buildings in the city.
And so I think that ultimately something's going to get built here. I think the goal is to try and all work together to try and find something that the city can be proud of and the various communities within the city can be proud of.
So, just prefacing that. And I think that if we can try and stick to our guidelines and review this based on what we see in front of us as best we can is the best we can do. So I think we just rattle down the list.
I'll start really quickly by just saying that I appreciate the reduction in height that you all have done. I think some of the brick details y'all have done on the corbelling at the top of the base of the building is handsome.
I would like to see something similar at the top of the building, like a cornice feature. Maybe not on every single portion of the building, but the corner that's closest to the bridge and the train tracks seems like it could have a cornice there that would give that some prominence.
So that's just my thoughts on some brick details. But I'll open it up to the BAR to jump in. Go ahead, Carl. Sure. All right. I guess since we've got to be quick and because there's going to be more discussion between you guys and the neighborhood, hopefully, and this is a preliminary discussion, I'm going to focus on some of the things I think are working on this.
I think the West Main Street facade is much more successful than you had before. The massing of it, the way you've broken it down into kind of three or three and a half large chunks versus some of the other projects have been a repetitive system of breaking down, and it ends up being just a big, long building.
I think your massing breaks it down nicely into recognizable pieces, I guess, that it seems to work out better. The brick base is great. The material palette, fiber cement I still always am leery of. I worry about it doesn't age well.
It mildews. I don't know if you guys are using the James Hardie stuff or if you're going to find some other type of fiber cement with a better finish on it. Something that might last a little longer and age a little bit better would be much preferable.
Especially since it seems like everything facing West Haven is going to be this fiber cement material. In terms of other massing, I do appreciate the fact that on the back, it's not a flat wall. There's insets.
It's broken down quite a bit, and then it steps back. So moves like that are helping. You have trees back there on the site plan that appear to just be small shrubs and little tiny trees, according to the label.
I don't know what type of utilities you have back there, but if there's a way to get some larger trees, I think that will help with any sort of provide some additional buffer between your building and the neighborhood.
Your renderings show a lot of depth in the... Well, you mentioned you call it a faux brick veneer. So I'm assuming it's thin brick. There's a lot of depth going on. Are we actually going to get that depth, or is this just kind of pretty pictures that we're looking at?
So it would be great if you guys could provide that. If what you end up with looks like the renderings, I think that'd be very successful. Obviously, you need to screen the parking lot lights. I think you're aware of that.
I really appreciate the alignment. I don't know. It looks like West Haven's plan changed their alignment of their walkway. However that coordination is happening, I do appreciate how that works out. It seems like it could potentially become a very good link between West Haven, West Main, and 10th and Page, tying all three together.
I'm not sure how West Haven feels about having 10th and Page using that walkway to get to West Main Street, but it does feel like it integrates it more. We love it. You like it? It seems to be working very well in plan.
No vinyl windows, or convince us that they're good, but I think it's going to be a really steep road, and rooftop screening is required by zoning. So I saw your note on your roof planYou do need to provide something, so come up with something.
That's it. Thank you, Carl. I tried to be quick. You were great. Ron, you got any thoughts, feelings? Partially, I think it's a much-improved design as well. Much of what Carl has said, I would agree with.
I appreciate the fact they reduced the height and that they're trying to respond to the community concerns about that. To the extent that we're supposed to consider it whether it fits in its context, the fact of the matter is it's on West Main Street, and West Main Street already is designated for buildings of this size or larger, and I think that it fits the context, and that we should take that definitely into consideration.
There are not any particular concerns with regard to... I believe at one point we were supposed to maintain Charlottesville's automotive heritage, because there used to be a lot of garages along that street.
I think that this will actually fit in that context. And in agreement with the city council's ruling, I actually think that ultimately more housing leads to lower prices for other people's housing. If you restrict the amount of housing, then there's nothing to do but go up or move to Greene County, and that's not what we want people to do.
We want people to stay here in town. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the building. Great. Thank you, Ron. Sherry? I have no further thoughts other than what's been expressed so far. Okay. David? Come up to the mic.
Oh, yeah. Thanks. So, I want to just second what everybody's said so far. I think the design's been improved significantly, just from a massing standpoint, from the different perspectives that you showed.
I think much more attention has been paid to how to activate the street, and so certainly encouraged that just after our one meeting that those comments have been heard and responded to in some way, shape, or form.
I'm really interested in the memory walk, and I think it's a big opportunity. Obviously, there's been a lot of communication about it tonight. If we had the opportunity to ask questions, I'd be interested in hearing what the process of community engagement is moving forward.
Because from what you've communicated and what you've expressed, that's a serious interest, which everybody, I think, should be encouraged by. And I think that there was an improvement from the previous plans, the straight connection out to the main street.
I know I probably share some of the concerns, however, with a number of the people's comments in that, is this going to feel too much like a canyon? Where is the memory in this walk? And I think that could come with a very substantial conversation that your group is suggesting, and I think that's a very positive place to be here in the beginning.
A lot of us haven't seen any of these plans, but this is a preliminary meeting. So, I hope that the fact that we're having a preliminary meeting and everybody can hear what's going on will be a good springboard for future conversations and ability to make this better.
The other things I want to say is that I tend to agree with Carl on the materiality, no vinyl windows. This is a big building, and I also agree with the cement board. I always think of cement board as being kind of appropriate for two, three, maybe four-story buildings, but this is a big building.
And if you look at the history of our civic architecture, when you get to a big building, let's be proud of it and try to use substantial materials that aren't going to age in 20 years. And then as far as the height goes, I tend to agree with Ron in that Main Street is...
If there's a place to build density, that's an obvious place to do it. And we may differ as we move back certain blocks, but that's a very obvious corridor, and the comparison to the scale of what's been going there is similar.
So it's hard for us as a group that's comparing scales of building, basically given to us by the city zoning, to say that this is out of scale. On the other hand, we've also heard concerns of darkness and what the height creates.
And probably the biggest thing is the lack of sun in the surrounding neighborhood. So I would like to really see some intensive sun studies and solar studies, not only on how these different heights and masses are affecting what's happening behind it, but how it is also affecting the potential location and the size of the walk and the access for the residents.
Thank you, everyone. Sun study was on the top of my list, too. I think sharing that with the residentsWould be really beneficial to help people understand how shadows will move across the site. I think I've also agree that I commend you that you've brought down the height of the building significantly, and the design is better.
So I think that is great to see. Just looking at your plan, I'm noting you've given yourself a really big challenge in that there is vehicular movement around four sides of your building and pedestrian movement around four sides of your building.
And I wonder if- Vehicles ... I wonder if you had the ability, and I don't know the details and particulars of your site plan. But if you were to shift the... I guess, well, let me get-- Sorry. Start over.
This comes down to the memory walk, and the kind of doubling of pedestrians and vehicular movement, and that space feels a little bit inappropriate or difficult. Is it possible to shift vehicular to the east side of the building?
So, great question. Yeah. And one of the reasons why the memory walk was on the other side, to begin with- Uh-huh ... there's a lot of topo. There's about six feet of grade change as you go towards the bridge, and city staff won't allow another curb cut right there at the bridge.
Mm. So you can't enter vehicles on that side. Okay. So part of the reasons why we really struggled coming back here, why it took so long, is because I knew, one, I didn't want to present that to the community.
Mm-hmm. But once theirs had to move over, if you want it aligned, there's nowhere else for cars to get into the building. Sure. So it's kind of an impossible design challenge. I'm with you. I'm with the community.
I don't want cars right there, and your city staff can tell you, we already had a call with them to try to figure out the logistics- Mm-hmm ... of how to make this work the minute we saw West Haven's plan with it relocated over there.
Uh-huh. It's a design challenge, and vehicles only enter on that one side. They don't- I see ... traverse all the way around. The driveway is for a- Sure ... access for the cell tower. That has to remain there, so it's not on a daily basis.
I see. Okay. I understand that design challenge. That's difficult for sure. I wonder if, maybe just to consider, is there a way to expand the memory walk to the front of the building as well? Like- That's what the plaza is meant to be.
Okay. So I intentionally, right or wrong, did not put any markers or anything in those renderings because if you do, not the right marker. If you don't- Sure ... it suggests that it's not public space.
But on the record, my intent is the whole reason for setting that back is to give prominence to the walkway, so that you can also increase the prominence of the Drury Bridge sign- Mm-hmm ... that's there as well, because right now it's just a small plaque.
Mm. So my intent is working with the community so that we can get that to an appropriate scale within the plaza that we're giving. I see. I think that would be great to see a sort of expanded memory walk that's not just about an access, but something that wraps and extends- Yes ...
and connects the bridge. I think that's- That's the goal ... a great intention. I just don't want to say what it looks like, and that's not evading. That's trying to be open to your feedback- Sure ...
and the community's feedback, and what it needs to look like. I see. Maybe when we see it next time, there could be a diagram showing the extent of that sort of future designed- Yeah ... community designed space.
I think we can make meaningful progress. The community has been very open. Mm-hmm. So I will get them the drawings, and we can have a little bit of a working session to at least identify areas and concepts for the time we come back.
Mm-hmm. And I think there are also, just to speak to the community about the eight-story building chasm or something. I think a space like that could be very dramatic and interesting and beautiful if it's designed well.
So I'm open to and excited to see what you all come back with. And there's actually, I don't think we've really talked about it, but there's a really interesting space that's created between the Standard R building and the two West Haven buildings that's meant to be a gathering space.
Mm-hmm. It's really open. It's right outside of my understanding of the community center, I could be wrong, or the women's health center. But the idea is dedicating that space as a stopping point, not just the end- Mm-hmm ...
but as a stopping point and a moment of visual interest from that widened sidewalk connection across Main as well. I think Mohammed mentioned that was slightly off to the right. That's because there's already a curb cut there to get to Standard.
Mm-hmm. My goal is to widen that about 50 feet- Mm-hmm ... so that even as cars are coming in, you still have a striped pedestrian lane, hopefully signalized, hopefully raised. We've got to work through fire with that.
But that's the next step after this, assuming that everybody's on board with those concepts. Let's go figure out if we can make them reality. Mm-hmm. Okay. I will say, I'm a little concerned about the sort of trash door, utility door, garage door.
That facade is a little concerning. Yeah. Okay. We'll need to work on that. Into just a little bit of nitty-gritty stuff. I'm sorry I'm taking so long, folks. That's okay. The window details look a little flat.
If you could recess the windows up a few inches, I think we've required on other projects. Right now, it appears that the windows and the fiber cement are sort of coplanarWe'd generally like to see that sort of a little bit more relief there.
I think that's something we can look at. But one clarifying question, just as I think about everything together. Yeah. I've heard the depth conversation. I agree with that. I've heard the vinyl window.
Mm-hmm. I've heard the Hardie. All of these are things that are absolutely contributing to the viability of the project. So I would just ask if we could consider everything when we come back. Of course, everybody give comments now.
You're welcome to. If we could consider everything as a whole, like specifically on the vinyl windows, is that just on the main street facade? Is that on West Haven's facade, or is that absolutely a deal breaker to go around the whole building?
Same thing on the fiber cement. I would just ask that we try to think about the entire project inclusive of what I'm hoping you'll hear in terms of community benefits agreement in June, in terms of financial viability of the project.
Mm-hmm. Does that make sense? I can't guarantee that. I understand. And that's all I've got. Thanks. Dave? I'm lucky I get to go last. I'm not an architect. I appreciate your taking the effort to meet with the community and work that way.
I appreciate the reduction in the height and the setbacks. I think that's all great. I really commend my other board members for their thoughtful and appropriate comments, and I would like to second it and hope that you can come back and work with your community and come back with something that the community and you are happy with, and that we can work as a bar to get you a successful project.
Thank you. All right. Thank you guys for your time and your presentation. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, everybody, for coming out tonight. Thank you all so much for actively participating in this project review or preliminary discussion.
Excuse me. Mr. Chair, hang on. Bob and Brittany, I just want to make sure, because these questions come back to me. Okay. So I want to be really clear. The Memory Walk is a community project that they'll be working on.
You wish to see where they are establishing an area that will be for that, but I told them not to plan to bring back a design. Is that understood? Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure we're clear on that.
So Water Street Studio couldn't prepare it? Well, it's a community-driven design, and they haven't... Well, no, I understand that. Yeah. What is the timeline? Yeah. I don't know. Oh, okay. I don't know.
I think it's all a function of- So you're saying that they wouldn't bring it back for next one? Well, there's no way- We don't know. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. They're not going to have a project. I just want to make sure this thing's...
When it comes back, and if they turn something around and want us to review something in June, and you all aren't asking them for the design of the Memorial Walk. Because I'm advising them too, that that is a process of which they're going to go through with the community.
Yeah. So, ultimately, the challenge is- It's not coming back as a design that we're going to see ... how can we separate the Memory Walk out from the building? I want to make sure I understand that before they leave tonight.
I think they could define an area and plan and an elevation on the building where that will take place, and it will come back to us, though, won't it? This is where- This is an exterior ... when you talk about things that you go and engage with the community and say, "We're going to design...
Let's take a park. Let's take Court Square Park." Someday it'll happen, but there will be a robust community input of the design of that park. It would be strange to... Oh, the BAR would say, "No, we don't like what the community's come up with the design of that park." Good point.
That's why I'm trying to, the benefit of the community and the benefit of the applicant, manage some expectations here. That the design that will come to you... For example, they're talking with the city manager's office about somehow shifting the crossing in West Main and doing some things there.
That's not in our purview, and I said, "Leave that out," because I don't want you all, June and July, when you're looking at a design, to be asked to referee- No ... their relationship with the neighborhood on a promised design for a memorial space.
That's what I'm trying to tease apart here. And I know you all had said only so many minutes on this tonight, but because of what I have to do with this next, I want to really clearly understand you all.
I heard appreciation for the height. I did not hear a request to lower the building further. No. Exactly. Okay. And I just wanted to make sure I'm clear on that. And materiality, I agree, and I shared that with them about concerns about vinyl windows, but improve it.
And Carl, some of the wall section questions you've raised- The solar study ... the solar study, sun and shade study, and that's actually something I think we should request to see more often. Yes. All right.
Good. I guess I have a question about that. Yeah, please. Well, my last question with the applicants seemed to suggest that the entire landscape was fair game for the memory walk. So- I don't know ...
more or less, like the front side and back of the building. It's possible. And- So are we not reviewing landscape at that point? Landscaping, they can't come in and just say... It can't be white on the map and say, "Something will happen here in the future." Oh, okay.
It must be a complete building. Mm-hmm. So if it's a walkway with some plantings along it, and it's a driveway that meets our guidelines for a paved surface, then that may well be appropriate. And then it's on them to then fill in that space with additional things for the memory walk.
But- Like the content of the memory walk isn't under our purview, per se. I'm trying to keep it- Signs or markers. I'm trying to at least- But it's an exterior element. We have signs and markers and things.
Oh, no. Wayfinding, but... Well, wayfinding is under- Nothing would stop them from having a placeholder design- That's right ... that they then revise- Right ... by COA if they have to, right? That's right.
They could- They'll have to clearly mark on the drawing so the public doesn't get upset that this is a placeholder to be reviewed. But we do need to approve something in case- You need to approve something ...
that review never happens, we want to make sure something goes in that's okay for a couple of years. It's compatible. I would much rather it be a, "This thing's got paved surface." Yeah. "It's got some bushes, it's got some site lighting, it's got a bench or two," and we don't talk about a memorial walk because you all are then, if you say, "Oh, it's a placeholder," a COA has approved it.
So- Mm-hmm ... you can't say, "Well, this design's going to come back and change." No, if they come in with a conceptual design and you approve it as the COA, then they by every right can construct that.
So I'd rather this memory walk, whatever's presented, be the minimum that it needs to be to complete the drawing, to complete our review of it, and then embellishment of it at a later date. We can figure out how we treat it later- ...
but it would allow them to continue to move forward with their project. I thought that's what Carl just said. No, Carl just- I think that's what I was- Yeah, I think he actually said exactly what you're describing.
He used the word placeholder, which you did not, but the concept, I think, was very similar in your comments. Right. If it's a placeholder that says, "This design is a placeholder," then that design...
Well, it needs to be something that if they never finish the communication with the neighborhood and it gets built, it needs to be okay. I don't want to end up with like- That's what I mean. That's exactly.
Yes. So I don't want to end up with a grass lot that we have next to the Doyle right now. Because I'm just very concerned, and I know, again, you guys want to go home, but- We have another- ... we have another applicant.
But these are the situations that we have to deal with, and then I have to figure out how to come back and communicate with you all. So we're doing that tonight. That's fine. We can go right- I'm not- And I- Are you expecting them to come back with another pre-application?
I want to make... No. And I want to make sure- When they come back, it will be- Right ... for a COA. Right. I suspect so. That's my expectation. That's right. And we'll see how they... But I want to make sure that you all, the Board of Architectural Review, are not putting yourselves in a position where this community is counting on you to create this memorial walk, to enforce this memorial walk, and you heard reference tonight to this community benefits agreement.
I know about it, but it's not under my purview or yours. We understand that. I know you didn't. We understand the community, whatever benefits agreement is not, has nothing to do with this application.
Thank you. That's all I wanted to make clear on that. We are bright enough to know that. And- I- I mean, really. I know you are I mean, Jeff, we are. We know what our part- I just want to make sure everyone- I think everybody on this board knows what their purview is ...
everyone understands it. Everyone understands, because we just went with a large-scale project where there was a lot of neighborhood input. It went to city council on appeal, and you all, staying in the BA, I'm trying to keep you all, and maybe I'm being- We are staying in our lane.
I'm trying to remind you all that when- I mean, I think the- But I do think we have heard it. We- Well, the easy answer is for them to bring us- Yeah ... a design that meets our guidelines- Right ... that we can approve.
Correct. Thank you. They want to amend it with- Yeah, I agree ... whatever the memory walk looks like later- Even if that process has not ended ... and if the design changes- Yeah ... they got to bring it back to us.
Yeah. I agree. With both syntheses. But what I heard tonight was, "I want to hear what the process is for your memory walk. I want to hear you out." I don't care about their process. We didn't say that.
You're not Jeff. We didn't say that, Jeff. Would you like me to read the notes? Yes, you said that. That's not on us. I'll read the notes. You mean we said that? David said it. Sorry. Okay, so it was said.
Can I- That doesn't mean all of us agree. He's interested in it, and that's fine. All I said- But it doesn't impact our decision-making ... I don't know if I said that. I guess you'll have to go back.
But my intention- You did say something like that ... my intention was, I'm just interested in seeing what comes back to us. This is a pre-application meeting. There's no decisions being made. No. The applicant made the statement that their intention is to go work with the community.
So I'm looking forward to seeing what the design is. That's all I said. If they came back and said that they definitely wanted vinyl windows, and it's a COA, and we say no, are we going to deny the whole application?
No, so that can be a condition of our- We'll worry about that when that happens. That could be a condition of our COA, is that- Okay ... we're approving it without the vinyl windows. Okay. We can alter that.
Yeah. It's the content of their application, and I want to make sure it's like we're... That was the goal, and I think 99% there. It's just the thing about the memory walk has me a little... I just want to make sure that we're-And I think the conversation, I feel better about it.
We'll see what happens when an application comes back. But I think you all, just my recommendation is that let's be really careful that we separate these things that are going to be going on with the community that the applicant is going to do, and then what you all will be looking at as far as the design that's reviewable for a COA.
That's all. I'm not trying to make your lives difficult. I was trying to avoid a little bit of what we went through, where we had four meetings on- Mm ... a project on 7th Street, and ultimately, I ended up denying that.
So if this is the second meeting we've had on that, we had the opportunity tonight to say, if you all wished, "Sorry, this thing's just not going to fly." I think you could hear that. I think there's two different scenarios.
Yeah. The project we just had reviewed and overturned by city council was directly impacting small individually protected properties. I think Mr. Bailey put it right in saying that West Main is designated for buildings this size, and this building fits within the context of the West Main historic district.
So I haven't heard anything tonight to suggest that anybody has intentions on denying this application when it comes before us due to the size of the building. I've heard a lot of people say they appreciated the- Good ...
applicant reducing the size of the building from what we saw last August. I'll echo that again. Thank you, guys. I think you did a nice job in reducing the size of the building. I think that they need to bring something to us.
I'm just going to call it the walkway- ... between West Main- That's fine with me ... and West Haven needs to be compatible and acceptable to our guidelines, and that's it. If it gets further developed as a memory walk, then- Thank you ...
it may need to come back to us. But we'll see when that happens. I think something needs to come to us that we can approve. Thank you. Right? Yeah. It's up to them. I think we need to review it as a walkway.
Oh, yes. People are walking through this- Yes ... and it should be well-lit, and the materials need to be appropriate, and it needs to accommodate people and vehicles. It's tricky. That's right. Exactly.
That's what it's doing. Yes. That's what it needs to do. That's right. What they bring back needs to be something that we could approve. That if that's all they build, that we would- That's correct. Yes.
That's correct. That was my point. Thank you. Okay. Frank, I'm sorry we're done with comments, but when this comes back for the COA, you'll have a chance to speak at that time. I just wanted to... The point was the space allotted for the walkway.
That's- That was brought up by you. Yeah. It'll come back. All right. Any more last thoughts? I think we're good. I'd like to move along. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Appreciate it. I know this took a lot of time for people to pull together, so thank you all.
Thank you. Does anyone need a break? No. No, I'm sorry. Okay. Then we'll move on to our next agenda item, which is preliminary discussion for 528 and 526 Valley Road. All right, I'll fly through this real quick to get you teed up on this.
You looked at it back in February. It was a conversation about 528, which is the brick house here at the, I call it the lower end, where Valley Road curves. Mm-hmm. And there, we looked at three buildings that were proposed on that lot.
This change now incorporates, and you all only commented on those. Those three buildings are now two. It's still the building in front of and to the west of the historic house, and to the rear of it. And what we're also now looking at as part of just this discussion piece is a proposed building at the rear of Valley Road.
Now, oddly enough, that's still considered contributing, although it was- ... I think somewhat has been- Sorry. Hold on, guys ... worked on a bit at 526. And we're bringing this to you as just for one conversation, but my intent, and it doesn't necessarily affect where you are going, but I just want to be clear, it's two projects.
It's two separate parcels. If, for example, you all decided you love what's behind 526 at a later date, but 528 just doesn't pass muster, well, you can deny that COA and approve a COA for 526. So by separating them out at a later date, keeps things a little simpler for us.
And you are welcome to look at this as a development. You are welcome to look at these individually. And where staff is falling on with this one is that so there were three buildings on 528, there's now two.
The third building is the one behind 526. So one, two, and three. Okay. Let's see. They're not proposing this as one project? At this point in time, you're just looking at this as does it fit on this historic district?
Yeah. You may review it like Ridge Street, where we had those two townhouses right next to each other. They were on one parcel. We looked at them as one project. They'll probably, when it comes back to you, be two separate parcels.It keeps things simple.
But for your comments today, do these buildings as proposed, are they appropriate in this historic district? And where our evaluation relative to the guidelines is, the building behind 526, it's behind the building.
It's somewhat subordinate to an unusual building. The building number two, which is to the rear of the brick building at 528, architecturally, I don't love it. But spatially, mass-wise, location, it's subordinate, if you will, to the building at 528.
It really comes down to what's going on with building number one, which you all spent a lot of time talking about at the last meeting. Spatially, it crowds out 528. It doesn't fit there. I'm not saying a building can't go there.
But it just does not follow what the recommendations are as far as the location of that building relative to setting it back further so that you have some continuity in that spacing from the street. And so, that's the primary issue we have with that.
There's certainly some details and things that you all can... As you said, you guys, you know your job. You know the guidelines. But that's where staff stands, is I think that the positioning of building number one really needs a lot of attention.
And then, otherwise, it's a similar conversation to any other pre-app. You certainly could give your feelings about the space, the design, the building. You offered some comments earlier, but if there are any details or any information about materiality, you can certainly request that.
You're not necessarily making a decision tonight, but I think we can offer some feedback, again, that provides the applicant how to get to a complete application. And with that, do you have anything for me?
It's your concern with the building number one? My concern is that that does not meet the design guidelines relative to the spacing and the setback. The guidelines are recommendations. You all can certainly...
They're flexible, but for me, making a recommendation based on the guidelines, that building is just out of character with 528. And in my opinion, 528 is probably one of the more interesting buildings on that stretch of Valley Road.
So, I feel like it does, per the guidelines, encroach on that historic structure, and it's out of character with the spacing on the street. Okay. Cool. Those are opinions of staff. Are you trying- No ...
to persuade us with your opinion? I'm not understanding- No. Well, I- ... where we are- Well, I'll read from your guidelines. "Setbacks. Within 20% of the setback of a majority of the neighborhood dwellings, the median front setback," this is on that section of Valley Road, "is approximately 33 feet, ranging between 14 feet and 64 feet.
The recommended setback for a new building would be between 26 feet and 40 feet. The building number one setback on 528 is approximately 14 feet." That's not my opinion. That's from the guidelines. "Spacing.
Recommended," from the guidelines, "within 20% of the average spacing between houses on the block." So, looking at these buildings on the block, the median spacing between buildings is 46 feet, ranging from 13 feet to 100 feet.
Building number one is approximately 20 feet from 528 Valley Road. The range should be between 38 and 55 based on the BAR's guidelines. So, it is a little bit too close based on the guidelines, not my opinion.
"Massing and footprint relate to the majority of the surrounding historic dwellings. The average footprint," that's the first floor area, "is approximately 926 feet." That's the average for buildings in that section of Valley Road.
They range between 558 square feet, this is all in the staff report, 558 square feet to 1,562 square feet. The dwelling at 528, the existing dwelling, is 1,132 square feet. Building number one and building number two are both approximately 1,500 square feet.
So footprint, it is in the range that's recommended within our design guidelines. May I ask what is included and what is considered the block for your analysis? So, if you look on page four of the staff report, I indicate- I don't have it in front of me ...
the properties that I evaluated. Primarily, I think it's 10 or 12 houses that are that loop in Valley Road that loops up back towards the hospital. So, those seem to be- So, sort of the whole length of- Correct ...
Valley, that part of Valley. That's not necessarily the sub-area, but it seemed to be most relevant to the evaluation. And then as far as height and width, the guidelines say, "Keep the height and width within a maximum of 200% or two times the prevailing height and, again, prevailing width of buildings." So, the prevailing height in this section I looked at is one and a half stories.
So, two times one and a half is three. The buildings are all proposed at three stories, so it's within that recommendation in the guidelines. The average width of buildings is approximately 36 feet. They range between 28 feet and 68 feet.
So, per the guidelines, 200% of that average of 36, the maximum width of a building should be 72 feet.Building one is 60 feet wide, building two is 80 feet wide. So, they are a little bit larger, but certainly building number one is within that range of the recommended maximum width per the design guidelines.
And then the characteristics in the building there, the styles, I'm sorry, mostly the majority of them are Cape Cod or Colonial Revival cottage style. Nine of them are brick. That's a wide majority of the building.
That's the materiality of these. So, that's where the design guidelines fall. And yes, in staff's opinion, the proposal for building number one is not consistent with the design guidelines. All right.
Thank you. So the applicant, do you all want to give a presentation? Thank you all for your patience tonight. Hey, everyone. It's been a long night. So I'll keep this brief. We did not have the finalized site plan before we were doing these renderings, so I do want to clarify on building one.
It is not parallel to the road, it's canted back. So we did try and break down the massing from the initial application and create that repetitive arched entry that's sort of respecting, but not trying to repeat what's going on with the existing building on 526.
But that building that's looked at here, I think Julia has the updated plan. So this is really hard to see, but the parallel line is here, the road is going here. So it does step back a little bit, opening up to where the existing building is.
Could you show that again? Also- Yeah, do you mind just passing that around? Absolutely. Yeah. Thanks. Also, to speak a little bit about the setback on that road, there are a couple of houses, at least two if not three, that are set substantially back, and that's because they're across a bridge from a stream to get to the parcel.
So, in my opinion, they don't relate as strongly to what's going on here because they are set so far back across that stream, across a bridge. So we are trying to set within the zoning guidelines to keep that building set close to the street, but open it up towards that existing.
Take a picture of this. And did you want to speak to the other buildings at all, or? Yeah. We did revise our aesthetic goals here. Our team looked at some of the architectural elements along the street, again, trying to do an arch entry that pays homage to the existing house without replicating it.
Adding some shutters, some gables, really relating a little bit more to some of those elements that we saw. And we pulled a color from a couple of other houses up the street, that I think I included in the package.
All right. Well, is that all you have for, like, a presentation? Yeah. That's fine. I don't have a formal presentation- We'll get into it in a minute ... it's just a preliminary application. So- So just trying to- Yep.
That's fine. I guess just to respect our process, is there any public comment or question? Really? We've got one online. Brittany? What? You're a member of the public. Okay. So I think we can just go ahead and jump in then.
I agree. I do think some of the architectural detailing that you've picked up on and- Is this slide still floating around? Sorry, what? It's coming. The site plan. Oh, got it. Sorry. So it'll be helpful for us to see that in your renderings- Mm-hmm ...
how you've pushed this back against the- Absolutely ... back line. Mm-hmm. Which is something we talked about- Mm-hmm ... at the last- Yeah ... meeting. It'll be interesting to see what that impact is.
I wish the taller side could be on the plan left, but I don't know if you've got the room for it. Yeah, we really did play around a lot with the footprint there and really shoehorning- Yeah ... things in.
But the site plan you're showing here, I think if I recall my comments in particular, was to try and align it with that back parcel line. Yes. Mm-hmm. And I do like the addition of shutters and some more traditional building elements.
I like it. I think it fits with the neighborhood. It's a big improvement from what you showed us last time with sort of why is there a window straddling floors and things like that. So I appreciate that.
What am I looking at on this one? Yeah. I do think that that particular, I guess 528 Valley Road is a little architectural gem, especially with that arcaded front. 526, I think the damage has already been done on that property, so not much to do there.
But I think Jeff's identified that the main focus is building one and how it impacts 528. So seeing the new rendering with the adjusted site plan is going to be really helpful.But open it up to everybody for comments and questions.
It's different. Sorry, I may have missed it. Why is the site plan different than this rendering? We just were behind. Okay. Sorry. Okay. So apologies on that- I didn't know if there had been- But yeah ...
a change, if this had been done and then you reversed it or... Here's where we were. Thank you. It would be that way. Yeah. Yeah. So here's- I'll just say in general, you responded to a lot of our comments from the last time you were here, which I really appreciate, especially with regard to building one.
I hear what staff has said. Maybe other members have a comment. It sounds like staff would want us to completely disapprove that building, and I didn't think that was the sentiment expressed by the majority of us last time.
In fact, I don't remember anybody saying that they wanted the building to go away. But hearing staff's analysis, that is important to us. I don't find that it encroaches on the historic building. If the positioning is like the site plan, that's what we were encouraging you to do.
And the historic... Is it 528? Sorry. Late. 526. That's 528. Thank you, 528. It's not got much setback from the street itself. And I know that's not the yardstick by which we look, but it no longer looks like it's sitting in its front yard, which it did the last time you were here.
Agreed. So thank you for that. I have no objection to 526, and the detailing of the larger building of 528 is much improved over what we saw. Okay. So thank you. Thank you. And remind me, are these three-story buildings?
They are. If something to maybe just look at and as you're preparing for your COA, just kind of curious. On building one, obviously adjusted on the site plan. Any thought to stepping down just the column that's right next to 528?
Maybe taking that down a floor? I don't know. Just trying to reduce the overshadowing of the existing building. Might be worth a look. Okay. I'm not saying I'd fall on my sword per se, but just go through the exercise.
Can I make a comment? Please. So I appreciate what you're showing on the site plan. I do want to see it in 3D because I'm not sure- Oh, yeah ... I buy it yet. Oh, yeah. Mm-hmm. So the exterior decoration, for lack of a better word, it's better.
It still reads, and I'm thinking more of building one, because that is probably I think the most important to us because it's up on the street. To me, it still reads as one large building, and I don't know if there's a way to make it look more like two large duplexes that are put together.
Because the way that the colors are broken down, it's not breaking down the massing. You've got multiple colors on there. You have multiple window types and you're messing around with the... It's kind of a fake roof on the front.
It doesn't do anything to break the massing down at all and make it look like less of one large building. So I don't know if there's a way to... I think the roof line, playing with that might help a little more, as opposed to just what you've got there really is just a fake little piece that doesn't mean anything.
But if it did actually hip back or something, maybe that would help a little bit. There's kind of a large amount of blank area, which I know is common on a residential house, but it feels especially large on this.
So I don't know if maybe it's just because it's such a big building with little windows that it... Something about the scale of it is not reading residential, it's reading kind of like a hotel that wants to look residential.
And I don't mean that... I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you have a very flat box, and even though there's an L shape to it, all of these are, they're very flat and you've just kind of played around with the facade a little bit.
And I don't know if there's some way to add some more depth somehow. I know that's money, but I don't know. Some way to break them down so they don't look like single buildings with different colors on them, but more like maybe the left side is all blue and the right side is all beige, or I don't know.
There's some way to make it so it looks more like it's two buildings that are put together or three. I don't know. It does need some extra detail, so I understand the wanting to put the shutters on there.
But if you're going to use shutters, just make sure they are sized so that they would, if they were to shut, they'd cover the windows, and not get the hollow plastic ones from Lowe's. Okay. Not that you would, but just that I don't know what's coming up next.
So yeah, that's my ramble through that. I'd love to see similar principles as I've talked about applied to building two and three as well. But definitely building one is the one that I think I'm most worried about.
And yeah, as James said, if you canMaybe you can cut down the massing a little bit on part of it, so it's two stories and three stories or something. Maybe that would help. I don't know. I know that would cut some rooms, but- I basically, I understand the problem with building one or the possible problem with building one.
But in general, I want to say that the design is a vast improvement over the one we saw in February, which was frankly a mess. But, depending on how, again, this might look, I think it actually would fit in the neighborhood given the way it is.
So, I just want to commend you for making the effort to do this. I look forward to seeing the project, and are you all responding to the more architecturally adept folks on the panel? Mm-hmm. Cool. Additional feedback?
Jerry, jump in. Yeah. To me, it looks still a little crowded, and I don't know if you can take building one, and maybe if it was just two stories, I think that would do it. But that, of course, takes a lot of financial consideration in there.
Mm-hmm. And I, too, would like to see that thing in a 3D rendering- Absolutely ... to have a better feel of how it could do. And if you can do something to make it feel less crowded, a little less mass there.
Okay. I'd agree with you, Jerry. I think that's a little crowded feeling. I also agree with Mr. Schwartz and his comments about the decorative application or the decorative roof on the front. And it looks good in elevation, I'd say, but once we get into 3D, it feels very applied and agree that if there's room to push and pull on the front facade a little bit, a foot here, a foot there, six inches, something to give us a little shadow line, I think that would help a lot.
And agree, I agree. I think we'll have to see the site plan and the renderings matching. And then the comments about the materiality. What were we looking at? The windows? Can you remind me what the windows are again?
So, they're a fiberglass double-hung window. Fiberglass. I think we've approved fiberglass windows before, but- Yeah. Mm-hmm. That's all I have tonight. Thanks. Okay. Sorry, I didn't see it the last time, so I don't really have much to compare it to, but I agree with Jerry's comment, and the, I guess, crowding feels like a real issue to me.
Just as not only the front one on the street that everybody's referring to, but even the back one, the way that corner, you can really see it on the site plan, the way it cuts into the... And so close to the old house.
Mm-hmm. And so, crowding and then I think disjointedness is another thing. If there's something, and I know a lot of this has to do with just the forms of the parcels and everything, but there's just, I want some kind of consistency with the way the existing houses are laid out and the way these are laid out.
Some relationship. And I think somebody had mentioned a massing on the front house. Maybe a massing that gets a little bit more in line with the existing house would help along with seeing the new orientation of it.
And then I don't know if... Well, I'm not trying to suggest anything, but just using that as an example. If you were to find a massing relationship, then how does that relate to the house or the structure behind that?
Mm-hmm. Finding some kind of relationship there. Maybe finding a relationship with the way that the house is laid out. Yeah. I think the massing is difficult trying to preserve the two existing houses, instead of the developer razing those and doing what zoning has allowed back there.
So I think that's what creates a lot of this disjointedness, is trying to keep the existing houses and still get the density allowed by zoning. Can I ask a question about that? Sure. Have you all explored demoing 528?
We talked about this last time. Did we? 526. Do you mean 526? 526. The ugly one. Yeah. Sorry. I don't know that those- I asked that last time ... financial calculations have been run by the developer, but I will pose the question Because I don't know if- Are you guys using them for bonus density?
Not on that. Not on 526. Okay. Or not on either one? Yeah, not on either one. I made that suggestion at the last meeting, if you remember, towards the end of our comments It's not a bad one to consider- Mm-hmm ...
to sort of create a more consistent layout. Especially, if you were to pick one of those, the one obviously- ... is a little bit of an odd duck. Yeah. Mm-hmm. And maybe you do a new L-shaped building at 526, if you demolish the front one.
Mm-hmm. You can turn- And then- To a whole new question ... in lieu of that, could you get rid of building number one entirely? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. And that could become park space or something. You've got a deeper lot, too.
I'm sure you've considered these things, but... Yeah, I would prefer, it seems like looking at it from the guise of the guidelines, I think I could almost imagine a sort of a single... If you cleared the slate there, and in other words, remove that one house- Mm-hmm ...
then that gives you maybe some room to work with to create something, a singular unit that is more appropriate in a way in its variations, than the spattering of the three houses together. Mm-hmm. And you accomplish the same density and what you're trying, the kind of numbers you're trying to bring to it.
Okay. What's the max height that you could go in the back building? What's the max height on the- Like, what could you go? Oh. I think a three stories. Oh, it's at, okay. I think, yeah. Just one thing, because I was just curious, but thank you, Mr.
Sousa. It would make sense to do that. Mm-hmm. Couple thoughts on what you all said just while you're, and I know- Mm-hmm ... maybe more, but one, if they did shutters, we would want them to be operable even though they would not be operable, they would have to have operable hardware.
Mm. They couldn't be bolted to the side, which raises the wonderful question of which way would we turn the... So- The- ... we'll get to that. But yes, if you did shutters, we would want them to have operable hardware, even if they were still anchored in place.
I would offer that- Let's see. I think we- ... on the other side of the railroad from here on Braethan Avenue, there were these really cool three and four story brick apartments that look like that, and UVA knocked them all down.
But if somebody came in and proposed something like that, we'd be... There's a picture that Kate and I hung up on the wall outside of our office saying, "Oh, look, this is the missing middle. Here's what it is." So, we have the models out there, wish we could look at them today.
Then I want to make sure that you all, with a project like this, we're also dealing with meter boxes, the mechanical boxes, utility boxes, even with the box theme, mailboxes. So there are site elements here that we often miss.
Where are the mechanical units going to be, and how will they be screened? And so, I don't want to lose sight of that. And I'm saying you have to show it here, but that's one of the things, particularly some projects when you walk down past C&O Road, there's all those apartments.
Now, it's not under our purview, but you see there's literally right in front of the entrance are utility meters and transformer boxes- Yeah ... and mechanical units right there. So, I think that needs to be some attention paid to that, and where those things are located.
Yeah, we'd love to have it. Once you get your final design- Yeah ... a designation of those, where they're going to reside. Because it does make a difference. And do you need a fire hydrant? No, we're using the existing hydrant across the street.
Okay. What's going on? I have one other comment. I'll just throw this out. And I'm not a design professional, so the architects on the board, but if Ms. Richardson could go to that, yeah, the aerial. So, it seems like building number one, the gabling, and I don't know whether you did that, I'll call it a front to back gable, to mimic the actual gabled windows on the historic house, or just to divide up the volumes.
But it feels like that gable is fighting the other buildings. I want for all of the buildings to have a gabled roof side to side. And maybe I have a fondness for the old garden-style apartment complexes.
But there is a comfort, and there would be a cohesiveness in having all of the roof styles the same. Now, of course, nobody's going to look at the vantage point that we have. But I would say, if you end up having to retain building one and figuring out how it can be there, I wouldn't be, and I know this is opposed to what we said before, but I wouldn't be troubled if you had one continuous end-to-end gable, and got rid of the front to back gable.
I feel like it's fighting with the historic structure, and it does make it appear more prominent, proud of that, peering over the historic structure. Whereas an open gable on that side may not seem to be fighting with it.
But I just really want... It just looks like some garden-style apartments and both of the existing buildings have the same type of gabled roof. The other two ones in the back that you've designed, even though they have peaks, I would call them, still have that style.
Anyway, well, actually, the new one on 526 does not, so-withdraw that anyway. This is what building one used to look like. Yes. It was like a shed. Yeah. Yeah. So, I don't know. There could be a comfort in the continuity.
I wouldn't want for all the buildings to look exactly alike or mimic each other, or the new ones faux historicism to reflect the old ones. But it may just calm the conflict down by using a somewhat unified type of roof- Okay ...
going in the same direction on the buildings. Yeah. That's just my observation. I could be wrong. That's a good point, and maybe even also look at just different roof slopes to sort of tie into some of the precedents on the street.
Those are very shallow. Maybe that's another tool you could use. There's a point that you all raised in the last discussion about this, was to use, as Ms. Lewis is saying, the hip roof, but with dormers to sort of rep- To create...
Yeah. Yeah. And she has, so I'm contradicting- But like- ... one of your comments, for sure. But actual dormers and- Dormers on, yeah. Mm-hmm. Instead of just a roof feature. I don't know. Because that lowers the bottom line of the roof, and sort of speaks to the scale that we're also talking about.
It does. How many parking spaces did you end up with there? None are required. Oh. None are required? There are no parking requirements. Yeah. So you could design it so they could park in the front yard just like their neighbors do now?
Yeah, currently they all do. That is definitely... That's not. It has to be in the back. Yeah. Oh, it's saying none are required. None are required. Yeah, I know we did explore dropping the roof, if possible, but these are townhouse units.
They're not garden-style apartments. Right. So it really restricted, and these are about as minimal size townhouses as we can get. So, it really impacted the top floor. Actually, now that you mention the parking, that's another thing that just has been sticking out to me, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
The fact that that's sort of the center of everything, it's just a big parking lot in the middle. And also just, I don't know- That's a tough spot ... I feel like there's a better way to disperse the parking to kind of make it more integrated with the rest of the buildings in the context.
It's a challenge, but- Yeah, we all had worked on a couple of different parking layouts at the beginning, and- The parking is where it is because that's where the bulk of the utility pipes are, and so it's kind of not buildable area.
Ah. So we couldn't really shift any of the units into that parking area. Yeah. And there are a lot of utilities on this site. Mm-hmm. So it's one of the other large constraints that we're dealing with.
Yeah, like I said, they really shoehorned these things in. But yeah, noted. And it does look kind of funny, so if we can think about maybe if there's something to kind of soften the matter some more. We can look at it more.
One thing I wanted to note before we go is just, again, it's a very challenging problem because you're keeping two very different-looking buildings and then adding a third type. So you have this sort of by definition of your problem, you sort of have this mishmash of architectural styles.
Yeah. So I don't know if we talked about demoing one of the buildings, if that could help with the just cohesiveness of the project. I think that it's worth studying, at least. Yeah, I will pose the question.
I will say this is developer driven, so I'm not sure that financially that's a great way forward, but I will ask the question. Mm-hmm. The idea is that both of those houses would be rented out, right?
They are, yes. They're currently rented out by students, and so- Right ... yeah. And Jeff, question for you, is this going to come back to us as another preliminary discussion? I think that depends, because there's a little bit of evolution occurring on your end as well.
The fact that you've looked at it twice, and this is something for a work session one day, but we wanted to be careful with having continuous preliminary discussions on a large-scale project- Yeah ...
like an eight-story building on West Main. But I think something like this, in the interest of us and neighborhood development keeping things moving forward, I would really encourage them to take what they've had.
If they've got some questions, they can float them to me, and I can ask you, but I would prefer the next time you see this, unless something drastically changes. But I just worry we get into that, are we working towards a decision, or are we just working towards redesigning?
So, that's something I would talk with the chairs about. But no, I would prefer that the next time you see this as an application. Okay. Do you have any further questions for us? Not right now, but I will definitely reach out to Jeff if I have any, or if our developer comes up with any Thank you so much.
Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. We've got a couple staff questions and discussion. I don't think any of these will take too long, so... Yeah, Kate had some things- We can move. Sorry. You got something to discuss?
We laughed. It always makes perfect sense in rehearsal, but- Y'all rehearse? Then you... So, go ahead. They were- Yeah. So, there is a question... Actually, Jeff, do the first one, because this is your...
Do 1A. Sorry. It's all right. The rest are mine. Bacon. I'll talk really fast. I have to find 1A. Well, I'll give it a stab since you're... Okay. So, in Section 5, or I'm sorry, Chapter 5, Section E, were guidelines about café spaces for unleashed café spaces or when leased but not in use for prolonged periods.
All elements, including but not limited to furniture, railings, planters, should be removed from the public right of way. So, this is a bit of a heads-up. We- So is that, sorry, just to clarify, that's how it's written now?
Yes. Okay. And we're not asking for any decisions, just a little bit of a heads-up that there's some, for example, and James, you and I talked about the deck that was built out there. They got a building permit to build it, but they did not have a leased café space.
So, that's something internally where we have to say, "Well, wait. You got a COA, but by the code that governs café spaces, you have to have a leased space." And it was like, "Well, look, no, it's not the café space, it's the deck for it." And now we only have two of those that have that situation, but we're going to be framing some questions as they come up about, all right, when the BAR has said, because they'll say, "Well, all right, let's say that that café goes away.
Does the BAR want that deck removed?" We're going to have that conversation. But the other one that's coming up is that there are businesses on the mall that have inquired about using those leased spaces for almost a private type of use.
"Oh, I own this building. We have people in it. They would like to use that space." My response then, "Well, per the code, it has to be a leased café space, and then what goes in that space is evaluated based on our design guidelines for cafés." But it does raise an interesting question of, well, if somebody has condominiums and they create a café, and then that space becomes used more as a public space associated with that residence or that business.
So, Kate and I just see some things coming that are going to be questions that will... So we've just kind of had to just put it on your radar. Or if you hear someone asking about, "Oh, yeah, the condominium wants a use of this," the public space type of thing.
There's pros and cons to that, but give it some thought. So, that was 1A. That was, like I said, just an FYI. And then, oh, yeah, your work. Yes. B. So, I am part of the NDS team, along with a zoning counterpart who's working with economic development, Brenda Kelly, the downtown mall strategy manager, on working through the existing COAs for all the cafés on the mall.
There's no decision yet on or when we might actually start speaking with operators on their compatibility with the current guidelines as they were adopted in December of 2024. Gosh, 2025? Whatever. 2024.
24. And so I just wanted to let you know that we are working with everyone. And about 90% so far have been very pleasant, and it's been working well. And so we have actually adopted new cafés where operators have left and new operators are in.
So, we're meeting with those people first. And so far, everything's good. Everyone's been amenable to the changes and recommendations. So, just wanted to provide that feedback for you. But it is working with economic development, so just know that NDS is not the primary lead.
We're coordinating with other divisions and departments across the city on that. Do you all want to discuss pre-meeting discussions now? Can I go back to 1A? Mm-hmm. Just, I have a question. So, on the construction that was done next to the old Passiflora restaurant, what's the status of that?
Are they making them dissemble it? Or- I call it Sky Bar. That's the same- Sky Bar Yeah. Whatever. No, it was Passiflora was the last restaurant there. Okay. It was called Passiflora. That's one of those tasks within our system where things go through and who's checking what.
And it's just a COA, and they had one there. They did it. A COA had been approved for the prior deck. The question is, well, if it's not a leased café space, then how did it kind of get through the steps of a building permit without- Did it get through a building permit?
Yes. Because it was built on public property. Well, that's part- So, how do you- Believe me, utilities let us know that ... get issued- Yeah, you're getting us started. Well, I'm sorry, did they not check who owned the downtown mall?
I mean, I'm a little-Trouble This was before Jeff. This was Mary Joy time. No, this is just recent. This is a new deck? Yeah, two months ago. Yeah, a replacement deck. So- Yeah Oh, replacing what was there, though, because they had a deck for quite a while.
And then they took it up. But somebody started building, and I don't- I know a cafe was there ... there is no restaurant leased- Right. There's no one leasing it ... in that space And so it would be- Interesting ...
it would just be like me building a hut in the middle of the mall. Exactly. So that's one of the things- And somebody issued a building permit for that? Yes. So there's some check. I don't remember reviewing it, but- What's that?
We didn't ... I don't remember. We didn't review that? You didn't. We didn't, no. That's the whole thing. Don't remember. Because they had a COA. We walked down at the mall and looked at it. Yeah, I remember that.
And they- And they should only have had something- And they had girders around it ... if they had a cafe space. They didn't. Well, I'm not talking about the previous thing. I'm talking about what they did more recently.
Right. I- God, man. So they have a COA? They- They got a building permit ... have a building permit. Right. They have a COA. They- I even talked to you guys about it ... have the COA. What? They have a COA?
They do. They had had a COA for that. True. I talked to you guys about it. We can go back and revisit this as much as you want. I can't change the answer for you. Okay. They've constructed that on the mall.
Yes. I don't know how they constructed on the mall. I mean, the previous one had- I don't know. They received a building permit, and Kate and I had determined how that happened. We will, and it's something that at some point we want to have a conversation with you about.
But why are you getting mad at us? I am mad. I just have to ask this of public meeting. I'm very mad. Well, I don't know- I can't answer your question other than to tell you they have a COA, and they constructed it.
We would like to, at some point, have a conversation with you about things on the mall. If you want to quiz me on why they built it or how they built it, I'm trying to explain that to you. But a COA has to be issued by you or us.
How did- A COA, things on the mall- Was it- ... cafe spaces are reviewed administratively. And I had talked to you guys about them replacing that thing. We talked about it. There had been one there, and I talked about that cafes are reviewed administratively, so we treated it as such.
Now, the fact that it was constructed without a leased cafe space is a very good question, and we are going to find out why. I don't have an answer for you. Okay. Right now, I do not. Sorry, I thought after the last month's meeting or the meeting, we went down and looked at it for the first time, and I thought you were learning for the first time that it was constructed.
I knew it was being constructed. So that's why I'm really confused. I didn't know it was not a leased space. I did not know. Got it. But there's no check in this, and this is part of the process that we're working on.
But what I'm saying is there's, for example, in our guidelines, we say if a cafe space is not being used, it's guidelines. There are ways around it, but one of the principles that we adopted was if things are not being used, then those things are being removed.
And we're going to have to make a consideration of do we recommend that if something like that is not in use as a leased space, that that has to be removed. I said I'm just bringing it to your attention tonight.
I'm not offering you a decision, and I frankly wish I had scratched this from the agenda. So I don't have anything on it. I'm sorry. I'm still really confused. I'm sure you are, and I apologize. And we are not going to put anything- Are you saying the COA was issued a while ago, and that's to the- They have a COA ...
and that still stands. They applied for a building permit. Got it. The building permit was issued, and it was constructed. I learned that there's no leased cafe space there. I don't review those. Right.
I don't check the leases. No, I'm not blaming you. I'm just trying to understand it- I'm just trying- ... because like- Right ... it's kind of outrageous that it happened at all. Very much. Wow. But I can't fix it tonight, and I don't have an answer for you.
I'm not asking you to fix it tonight. I ask because we- Yeah ... learned about it. Some of us walked down and looked at it, and I thought, surely by now the city's going to make whoever did that... Like the place on the corner that we discovered, that- Eliwood ...
weird elevated sidewalk on Eliwood that somebody just constructed overnight. Anyway. Yeah. Okay. Exactly. And those are zoning violations. Sorry. And what we can do is report them, and we do not enforce.
Right. So that's- I get it ... very much where we are on that. Okay. We're trying to figure out how it happened. It shouldn't have. Wow. Just like the plaque that showed up on the wall outside of the beer place that's never been finished.
Got you. So yeah, as we progress, as we wade into the pond of the mall, Kate will have more information as we carefully and slowly interact with the cafe operator. But otherwise, it's going well. So yeah.
Okay. So on the pre-meeting situation, we have been advised, no, we've been directed that we cannot meet in the Neighborhood Development conference room. We have to meet in a public place. But we're not required to meet at all.
We're not required to meet at all, but it was an opportunity for us to feed you. Hey, guys. Sorry. We're not allowed to have food and drinks in here, even though we do this. But members of the public had pizza tonight.
I know. And so we are exploring as the planning- And they're not sitting through a five-hour meeting without water. Yeah, and the planning commission has done is, or at least last week, used the downstairs- No, we were here.
I asked if we could use downstairs, and they hadn't figured that out yet. Okay. So I said, "No pizza this week. We'll have a meeting. I apologize. I'm going to try and figure it out, but I've been directed the BAR cannot have...
If we're going to have a pre-meeting, well, we cannot meet more than two of us in a room unless the public can come and sit in the meeting." So- I think we just start at 5:30 ... which is reasonable. Right.
So we'll start at 5:30. I agree. What that means, though, is now we really need to be, if you've got questions, if we've got something that we can solveGet them to me or get them to the chair, because what I'd like to do is at least have the chairs show up and we can choreograph some things.
Didn't we allow public in when we set any of the dates? It's because it's locked. Yeah. The door is locked. It's just physically- It's secured We've had a couple times where the buzzer has not been picked up by staff members, and that is not anyone's fault.
I get it. So we can't leave it propped. That makes sense. It's just a difficult space to access, yes. I see. Okay. So them's the cards we've been dealt. Hopefully, we'll have something. So, I think something that would...
You can't fix, and it's okay. But something that would help in terms of your second point of helping organize questions or comments would be if the email reply all would work. But it doesn't. And so we can't communicate as a group ahead of the meeting, putting out there, "Hey guys, this is something I see an issue with.
Does anybody agree or disagree?" But is that also wading into having the meeting on email? It's a little bit wading into that, but you can get around the email thing by actually typing in everyone's email address.
I know, it's pain in the... Can I make a suggestion? Against 30 groups. There can also be a collaborative spreadsheet, in which is shared that people can access, and that is a way to drop in questions and comments without doing it via email.
And that is how other boards and commissions also do shared work. Great idea. Interesting. So where would we find this collaborative spreadsheet? I'm happy to make one for you all. Is it Google Docs or what is it?
It can be whatever one you want. It could be SharePoint. It could be Google Docs. Slack? I don't remember. I don't use Slack. Okay. Just a suggestion. Why don't we immediately start abandon the listserv, or whatever one calls it, and just use our emails.
We all have- Oh, just like- Right ... somebody needs to type out our emails. Right. Well, I just have it as a spreadsheet. I drag and copy and paste it- Right ... when I want to send you guys something, I don't feel like dealing with the BAR thing, because- But isn't there something to be said about the BAR email address is like a public email address?
But they would still monitor that. Well, we need the- It is FOIA-able. I love that word, but it's FOIA-able. But it's where for some reason when you hit reply all it won't work. It's a Google thing. And sometimes I find- With Gmail ...
Carl's stuff in spam. That's right. Oh, yeah. Now the risk is you guys copy, you don't have to copy us. If it keeps it simple, you copy those nine email addresses and paste it. Yeah. That's what we do.
But your spam may still block it. Staff has to be copied on all communication. Yeah, you should. And- Yeah, and you guys too ... but now there's 11 people on there. But then this private email becomes FOIA-able.
So I don't know enough about how to fix that. But it is already because it's part of the listserv. Yeah, if we're discussing BAR stuff, we can put all of our own emails in there, but we should also include the BAR email just to make sure that it goes into the city system.
Hmm. And then Jeff gets copied, and Kate gets copied, and I'm guessing there are a number of other staff members that are on there that we don't know about. No. It varies. Not anymore? No. Honestly, the preservation email is probably the...
Mm-hmm. I just want to be really careful here because as soon as there is a listserv and anybody has a Gmail account, it will more than likely not send. Get back. It will ping back. So that is a listserv issue with Gmails.
That is weird. So is- Yes. The problem is the listserv compatibility with Gmail. Gmail. Yeah. So when I use my Gmail and I send something new to the BAR, not a reply all, it's a brand new email, it usually goes through.
It might go to spam, but it goes through. It's the reply all when it- Right ... breaks down. But then that's how you don't maintain a conversation strain. Or that's where you have to just carbon copy everyone.
I don't know. I think I'll just see you all at 5:30 next month. I think we just do away with the pre-meetings. But we're saying that we would do away if we have a more robust system of asking questions in advance, instead of saying we'll come at 5:00 and then ask our questions.
We wouldn't want to do away with the pre-meeting. Isn't there some public space that's easily accessible that we could find just to- City space. Yeah, city space would work. I know. City space. But city space was also, there's a block of wood in the door, and so I don't know if that's truly secure and/or unlocked.
So we have the communication staff. You guys are one of the city council- This isn't plenty secure, the door's open ... communication, BCA, BAR. You're in the big four. But we can't eat in here. And we have communication staff that's set up to broadcast you live on Channel 10 from this room.
There's no meeting in here. Is there no reason to just have our official BAR meeting start at 6:00, or excuse me, 5:30? What time does it start? It starts at 5:30. 5:30. We just meet here at 5:30, have a pre-meeting, and then start the official meeting at 6:00.
I don't know. That's rearranging the deck chairs. How many chairs? That's true. To be honest with you, you guys don't get paid, and we arranged to start feeding you again. Kate's been feeding you. Wait a minute.
We don't get paid? And- Wait a minute, but you did feed me tonight. Just the mail. I had two pockets of cheddar Goldfish. I've been crooked in your seat. I never eat junk food. This is altering. There is no stipend.
Oh. So we compensate with pizza. We've got Goldfish tonight, man. I never eat junk food. Well, Sherry will tell you, the BAR used to eat in Carl, too. It's like a buffet sometimes. It was nice When I first came here, like my God- I think we just had sandwiches ...
there was staff which stayed late. Oh, no. We never had that- There was lasagna. There was all sorts of fun stuff ... in the old building. Why? COVID. Salad bar. So- COVID happened, it dropped from the city budget.
They never put it back So is the only problem the food here? Is that what it is? I think- Because it worked fine- I think the problem is that- ... here except for the food ... someone determined that that door needs to be secured to protect staffers.
I'm not saying right or wrong. Yeah. But securing where people work, and we know staffers work late hours, and we're right on Market Street. And we did have a guy camped in the hall once. Right, and they did lock the door to Market Street because people were just coming in.
Yeah. Which seems like it should happen if it's a public building, but people didn't like that. I remember when you walked in and Lisa was sitting right there, but anyway. Well, if you go down the hallway, that office isn't there anymore.
Right. But it's now so secure that it's not a public space where we could meet, and that's the problem, is we don't even have a work table conference room, like in this end of City Hall where things are open.
That's the shame of it is. And even council chambers, which does have a conference room, is on the other side of a secure door. Yeah. It's like this place is like a fortress. Yeah, we only- So in its simplest terms, to me, it's like, I'm bummed because feeding you was part of compensating.
And I don't know. I wouldn't care. I'd sit up here and chomp on pizza if... I don't think we're on live yet. We need to answer that question, but is it as simple as we got to feed you guys and it helped you out?
I don't mind saying yes, because that's what I-- Yeah. And if you sat in here and Patrick guarded the pizza bar of the two pizzas and the bottled water, and we sat here for 30 minutes- What does council do?
They get to pay his job ... if we're comfortable with that- What does planning commission do now? That's fine. We don't eat. If they want to watch us eat, they can watch us eat. Yeah. So that's what I'd like to push for, but- Do they not want us eating in their room?
Sign says. Yeah. It does? Can I make a recommendation? Pie fights, things like that. We do one more month in here, or we assume that we're going to be in here, but maybe in the meantime, you guys check and see if maybe the basement would be open for us.
So- For the meeting or for the pre? For the pre-meeting. So we'll plan to- Do like- We'll have a pre-meeting again, and either we'll luck out and we'll have pizza in the basement, or we'll be up here and we'll be hungry, but we'll find out in a month.
Basement is where the housing, the HACC meets, that conference room? It's a big conference room. The BCA meets in there. Okay. Is that open? Does it have a- You mean there's a level below y'all? Yeah.
But I think we need to get permission from- Housing ... a higher-up if that's okay. What else? I know- Would y'all mind sending a link to the DHR workshops? If there's a way to sign up for the ones in Blacksburg, Herndon, or Norfolk.
Did we decide we're doing the same thing next month, same time? Yes. Yeah. So 5:00 here. 5:30. Our staff- No. Our staff will report to us. No, we haven't decided. Okay, we haven't decided. So what are we deciding?
5:30 here, no pre-meeting. Is that the decision? We're going down this rabbit hole. I think we're just trying to hear- I just want to know. Yeah. No, I do too. I don't see any agenda items. I think the pre-meeting is useful.
Yeah. Let's give it one more month and see if it works, and maybe next month- And if we could go to the basement ... we can be in the basement. All right. So pre-meeting next month. Yeah. Kate has had a great way of presenting it up the ladder, and that is that you all, as a group, come together pretty well.
That's your communion time. Yeah. Your fellowship time. Whereas others just, boom, show up here and it's game time. I think there's something valuable in that interaction, and even if it's sitting up there, but that 20, 30 minutes of interaction prior to the opening gavel, Kate and I both agree, that's really valuable to you all as a working group.
And you are a collaborative group, different than other appointed bodies. So I want to work to figure out a way to do it, but I guess I would say yes. To your question, assume we're here at 5:30, but I'm hoping I can- Not 5:00, 5:30.
And I'm hoping I can send you a message that says, "Hey, everybody, good news." And then on- It'll be on 5:00 downstairs maybe ... yeah, something like that. Right. Or we're eating in here and damn the torpedoes.
As far as the training sessions go, the thing is that in order for your year of training, you have to accomplish it before the end of September. So there's only one in there that fits, and it may not be what you want to do.
It's also an all-day thing. I will say this, they're really interesting. I've been to several of them. Because you are also in these meetings with other BARs, you have access to DHR staff, which you guys rarely meet.
It's a good day, and I think, what was the one we were talking about? Was it Roanoke, or where were the- Blacksburg. Herndon or... But we can also do the one where we watch the video. Well, and the other part is that I think what I would like to do is just say, "We're going to have an hour, or we're going to have two half hours when we knock it out." And like I said, we went to this thing today on Robert's Rules.
Very interesting. We have the city and a city attorney can come in and do something. But I'm just saying, if you are interested in doing them outside of your hour requirement, they are very interesting and you learn a lot and you meet folks.
But I think we were looking at the Herndon one, even though that's after- I mean, no. No. But we can talk about it. So when are the two half hours available? You can pick a BAR meeting, and we'll send- Yeah, we just want to make sure it happens before September 30th, so I'm not running around- Well, we can do outside- ...
in February ... training. You can, but then I have to chase you down every year. You never chase me down. I know. You asked me once. You as a general term. But- I'm the one who's supposed to have continuing ed.
He chases me down every year. All right. I'm terrible. There being no further business- Just send out a reminder of what you want to do ... before the BAR- You have to make a motion. You have to make a motion ...
at this time, I move that we adjourn. Is that the first motion that Jerry's ever made? I think so. No, I've made some too. Yeah, you've made motions. All right, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Jeff, can you resend that link to those videos?