What did the rest of your day? I know she 100 pages. Thanks, Kate. >> Nothing but steel. >> Nothing but paper clips. Huh? Look what I got. >> Interesting. >> Yes.
>> All right. Thanks everybody for coming out tonight. Um, quick show of hands. Who's above 18 years old? That means we're all adults, so we can conduct this meeting as adults, and I'm looking forward to that. Thank you. Uh,
welcome to the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Reviews regular meeting. The BAR is appointed by city council to administer the provisions of Charlottesville city code related to architectural design control districts, individually protected properties, and historic conservation districts. Uh at
the beginning of the meeting, the BAR will allow matters from the public not on the agenda. Um followed by action on the consent agenda. Um and then the BA will formally review two certificate of appropriateness applications.
Um, just for the record, the matter on the consent agenda is a front landscape alteration at 422nd Street Northeast. Um, and so if you have any comments on that, then the matters for the public is
going to talk about that. Um, so we realize there's a lot of folks that would like to speak this evening. Uh, we've got signup sheets up front here. um if you could sign up that helps us um go through the list in an orderly fashion. Um
so in order to assure that we can perform our duties for this meeting um we are going to amend the bylaws uh or the meeting agenda as follows. So during matters for the public not on the agenda uh the number of speakers will be limited to five. Each speaker will
identify themsel provide their address and be allowed to speak once for up to two minutes. comments must be limited to the B's perview. Um, and again, that's on things not on the agenda. Um, and then during our new items, uh, three and
four, which are specifically the 210 216 West Market Street and, uh, the 7th Street parcels. Um, we, city staff will introduce each item followed by the applicant's presentation, which should not exceed 10
minutes. Um, following those two reports, uh, I will invite questions and comments from the public. Um, each speaker will identify themselves, provide their address, and be allowed to speak once again for two minutes. Um, comments must be limited to the BAR's
perview, that is regarding only the exterior aspects of a project. Uh, per the BAR's charge from city council and per city code requirements for a major historic review. Uh following any public comments, the B will then offer its questions and comments to the applicant
after which the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond um to each question or comment and a period that may be extended at my discretion. Uh is there a second? >> Second. >> Uh any discussion, further discussion?
>> All right. Um we'll call a vote. All in favor? >> I opposed. Thank you. Um, so we welcome public participation. Everybody in here is a part of this meeting, right? It's not us. Um, it's it's not just our meeting,
it's y'all's meeting, too. So, we want to invite y'all to please participate. Um, but we want to do so in a civil and orderly manner. Um, so in order to ensure that, um, we're going to act like adults. Um, we'd like you guys to please
address the B. Don't address the applicant. Don't address other people in the room. Um, focus your comments towards us. Keep your comments um to our purview, which again is the exterior of the building. Um, public attacks,
abusive language, uh, actions that disrupt or impede the meeting's progress are prohibited. Um, and so, you know, we do have the right and reserve the right to ask folks to leave if they get disruptive, but I don't think we're going to have to do that. So, we're looking forward to the conversation. All
right. Um, first off, we have matters from the public not on the agenda. Do we have anybody who'd like to speak on items not on the agenda? >> Anybody online? If you're online and would like to
speak, um, please raise your hand. >> Nope, you're good. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Our next item is the consent agenda which uh includes the meeting minutes from October 21st. Um as
well as the COA application for 422 Second Street Northeast, a front landscape alteration which was an application that we've seen. Um I'm going to abstain because I was not present at the October 21st meeting.
Move to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. Uh, call a vote. Mr. Bailey, >> yes. >> Mr. Burl, >> I. >> Miss Lewis, >> hi. >> Mr. Timberman, >> hi. >> Uh, Jerry, sorry. >> Mr. Rosenthal,
>> yes. >> Miss Ta, >> yes. >> Great. And I abstain because I wasn't here. Thank you. So that is um if Mike and Aaron are listening at home, uh their COA is approved per the recommended motion in the U staff report. Um and please you
can take your sign down in your front yard. Have a nice Christmas. All right. All right. Uh we have no deferred items. Uh, our first new item is a certificate of appropriateness application for 210
to 216 West Market Street. Um, Mr. Warner, would you like to give us your introduction, please? >> Yeah. Well, um, so, uh, this is, um, so I'm trying to read there from the screen. I know I've wandered the last
couple meetings as we get used to the new things, but this is uh uh 210 216 West Main Street. We had looked at it before it was 214, but various address changes it is. So, we're going to call it 210 216. That's the lot where Brown's Lock and Safe is currently located. Um
this is a request to demolish the building, which you all had approved um I think in 2022 and the COA was extended, but that is will expire in February. And so the um the applicant has requested to have that well it's
come in as a new request. The difference in this uh request is that previously we had uh as a condition of approval required a an approved site plan uh building permit for what was going to go there. Uh which is not unusual. But we
uh the applicant's interested in using this site um following demolition as a uh construction yard, a layown area for the construction of the hotel, plant hotel at 218 um West Market. And um and
with that in that's why the condition in the staff reports now changed to um that requires to get that permit. And part of that permit is that once it's uh not being used for the construction project, the site has to be stabilized and and seated and essentially would become a
grassy null until someone does something with it. Um but an interesting piece of this project um of this parcel that that Mr. Gastinger would been and former chair always used to ask us to tell the story of the site when we could and this
one has a really unique one. Um this uh as you see on the map here in 1877, that's the earliest map we have of Charlottesville. Uh we know there were three uh frame structures here. We actually have photographs of them. Uh two of them on the the Browns Lock and
Safe uh lot. And the Yeah, in fact, they're So the picture probably looks familiar, but imagine you're standing at McGuffy uh looking down the hill. Common Hall there on the left is still there. Um, Valinis would be on the far left
just outside the Browns lock and safe site. You see those two framed structures there and then you see another frame structure to the right which is in the parking lot of of of what was the artful lodger and and then of course the building you see uh the white building there is uh uh that
building on on old Preston that has the stone facing to it. So part of what we required with the uh demolition um of the artager was a phase one archaeological investigation and we're going to be extending that also onto
this site and um we've been doing a lot to to the extent we can trying to research um who lived at this site. the um and it's uh there's a pretty interesting story to be told there and we're hoping to fill in the blanks. But um as early as 1888, that's the earliest
I can find, but uh those dwellings were a series of black families uh lived there all the way up until about uh the late 1920s. Um we suspect as we pull up the threads a little bit that um they likely lived there um earlier. And um uh
so again, it's an interesting story of downtown that um uh hopefully we can bring to the surface and that's why in the recommendation there's the requirement of the phase one archaeology um and then the recommendation that uh that when the hotel and anything that
they build at that site um that that story would be um interpreted and and presented uh in the new buildings and um so it's a it's a it's a nice opportunity to show you know what what's going on underground and
well we're not going to be a full it would just be a phase one so it'll be an investigation it's but if there's an opportunity to do more um maybe Kate and I can work with you the owner to um to to explore things further so and then you all asked me about the stone wall uh
uh that was a recommendation in the COA not a requirement but the recommendation that the um that stone that's there and is prevalent downtown be incorporated to anything new that gets constructed there. But that's that's way down the um the roads. That's sort of a placeholder
for when something comes in. Um I know Kevin is right there. I don't know if you had any comments on that, but I think you were supposed to say you love it and u you got called off deep off the bench to come here tonight. So
>> thank you uh Jeff for that introduction. Um, I don't have too much to add because that was very thorough and I appreciate all the diligence and research. My name is Kevin Schaefer with Design Develop Architects. Um, I think the um the distinguishing element of um tying this
to the building permit of the hotel is a smart one just from a logistical consideration of the adjacent lot, the construction and a tight downtown corridor. Um the site would be used for layown, for um deliveries, for parking
for workers. Um and it would offer a lot of flexibility and keep um sort of construction traffic to a minimum or certainly minimize it. Um so we appreciate staff's recommendations. We're certainly amenable to the three conditions listed. The phase one
archaeological is no problem. um the existing building documentation. We happen to know some people with a 3D point cloud scanner. So um and uh the third um rec condition of tying it to um
the the permit for a temporary construction yard um is exactly what we would aim to use it for. Um the the site would be secured with a opaque fence probably similar to the one that was around the code
building during that construction. Um it would be at a height that's appropriate um secured appropriate um and meeting all of the uh Charlottesville design standards as staff mentioned. Um again appreciate staff's diligence uh in in
their research. Um a little ambiguous on the recommendations. I I've never been through a recommendation on a COA process before and um I'm not sure if that's something that gets tied directly to the uh approval the COA um and what
that entails. Uh the applicant has requested maybe it's just read into the record and then the conditions that are required are part of the COA in lie of of having it a recommendation on an official COA. Um, but otherwise I'm happy to answer any questions that you
may have. Um, and uh, I may have to defer to Jeff because I think he has more more information than I do, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Oh, one thing I did want to do, I'm sorry, is I wanted to read this letter from uh, Mr. Brown. Does
>> It's fine. >> Does the board have the letter? Uh they may, but the owner of Brown's Lock and Safe um expressed support for uh or the former owner or the owner of the property expressed support for uh this request.
>> Mr. Brown um puts it puts it well. Uh my family has been doing business in this city since 1950 and we have owned and operated this location at 210 Market since 1970. We decided to close operations at this location and sell the property to Mr. to Lavine several years ago and the timing of the sale has
finally developed to happen soon. The property has no historical or other significant meaning to my family nor to the community in my opinion. He then goes to say, "I would not recommend the demolition of this building at 210 West Market Street if I felt anything of historic value could be salvaged.
However, this building has been modified and torn apart so many times through the years that as it stands, it retains almost nothing of the original structure and character. Even the roof was torn off and completely replaced back before 2010. Aside from replacing the roof, which is a dire necessity at the time,
my family has seen no good purpose in further renovation over the years. As it we consider this property a severe eyesore, and it has always been the vision of my family and Mr. to Lavine that after purchasing the property, he would demolish the building and allow development of a use that would bring more economic and social vitality to
downtown Charlottesville, as well as a visual relief when coming up the hill from Ridge McIntyre. As I understand his plans, he will also temporar temporarily use the property as a staging area and construction trailer during the construction of the Marriott Hotel next door. We urge the approval of the
extension of the demolition permit and the demolition of this building. All right. Thank you. Uh, do we have any questions or comments from the public >> or online? Nobody online.
>> Oh, good. Any questions or comments from the B? >> Yes, sir. >> Uh, Jeff, I wanted to find out what is phase one archaeological thing mean. So, um, a phase one archaeological investigation,
um, is a Kate will jump in and help me here. It's as much it maybe more so a a history, uh, examination of the site, looking at the documentary, uh, the documentation that's available, what does that tell
us? for example, uh the information I've you been collecting, um they will typically do a um a series of what they call shovel test pits at a certain, you know, 20 foot increment or whatever just
to sort of determine is there something here. Now, a site like this, um the archaeologists know what they may or may not find. Um they may say, well, there's there's no point in any any sort of test pits. They may say, "Hey, we want to
take a look over here." But it's a um it you're not going to see anything even close to what we saw at uh the Swan Tower site. This is a uh it it more than anything kind of produces the the documentary background, the historic
background that then uh informs decisions about if if something will have done further on the site. What we're would be really interesting is that if there were something worth looking at, the applicant's not obligated to do that. All they do is produce the phase one. But it would be
an opportunity for us to then partner with them partner with them and say, "All right, you know, can we take a can we take a closer look? How can we work that out?" But >> is it possible if they did find something that it could delay? No, the data would the data in the phase
one that was recovered would indicate if any other additional survey would be necessary. So, it's data based. It's not just like, oh, hey, let's do this. >> Yeah, we Yeah, they and they would not have to do it. Um, and the only thing that would stop a project on is is if if you found burials
on a site and and that's that's a state law. That's not our law. But no, we can only ask them to do that phase one. Hopefully some information comes forward that maybe invites some further looks, but they're not obligated to, but we will get the story of that site at least
of the people that live there. And I think um to elevate that and and sort of interpret that and that's why to Kevin's point about it's a recommendation from the B. You can't require it. uh we've used uh over the years different words
we've urged, we've encouraged, but um at least stating it in the motion, it becomes part of the record in a way. You don't have to go searching for it. Uh and if you are encouraging them to do it, then then have that as part of your motion. But no, I can't uh when they come in with a building permit, I can
they say, "Yeah, you encourage just thank you, but I'm not doing it." I can't stop the right. So the language is nothing unusual from what we've been doing for for some time >> but we can require record documentation.
Can can we require the level one? >> Mhm. >> Archaeology. Okay. >> And it's already basically the first thing three things are the requires and then there's some recommendations >> if we >> wait change what to wear. Sorry. In in
the staff's recommended approval with conditions, the first three items are what we can require. The last two >> bullet and then the three >> sub bullets. >> Semi bullets. Right. >> Right. Those are conditions and then the last two bullets are recommendations that you are making to the applicant.
>> Yeah. um as the B do what y'all's feelings are on these conditions if you agree with them all or if there's any that you feel are unnecessary or >> I I had a little a question about the um
recommendation to I guess keep the stone wall in the >> No, not yeah just simply encouraging that in whatever when this had been previously discussed the idea was of a new building there >> and so it was encouraging Hey, can you incorporate this this stone that's there
incorporate it into uh the building a little bit had what had come out of you all weren't involved in the the the stone house over on Stadium Road and um although it's an IP but an entrance corridor you didn't see it so it's just uh it was it was in the prior report
>> but it's not a requirement um >> is it even relevant though this being a demo >> that's up to you to decide >> and do we need to address that the prior recommendations in our motion tonight or no? >> Um the total. >> No, I just it's what was there before, so I included that and explained it, but
you um it's not like saying you've got to stack those stones uh those exact stones have to be used. It's just simply that's a a construction element that's typical downtown. it's on this site and it was a uh a thought uh relative to the
future project, but you can remove that entirely and when this comes in, if it ever comes in as something new, encourage them to use stone in it. So, it's a it's a cosmetic uh thing and it's a recommendation only. I I don't feel that strongly about the
stone personally, but if we want to leave it in as recommendation, it is just recommendation. >> Yeah. >> Are we commenting now? >> Yeah, this is our questions and comments. >> Oh, questions. >> Gotcha. Okay. Um, I was actually thinking it would probably be better to remove the stone wall just to right
>> create more of a planting area. So, I don't think we should hold on to that. >> Any other comments or questions? >> I mean, I think given the applicant supports the conditions, I support the conditions. Um the yeah the re the first
recommendation seems kind of irrelevant to me since we don't know what's going to be built there and this is just a demo from it. So I would recommend not recommending it. >> And then the third I think is just kind of a no-brainer. I'm always in support
of understanding the history in which we're the world in which we're dealing with and looking at him. Just to be clear, I'm not The last time we discussed this and certainly tonight, we weren't saying that stone lost to stay there. That's right. Or those stones. We're just saying it's an element that
could be considered. All right. >> Does somebody want Anybody want to make a motion? >> I can do it. And I'm fine making a motion referring to the uh recommendation recommended conditions on page three of the staff report and
omitting one. If you wish, I'll make a motion. >> All right. Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed
demolition of 210-216 West Main Market Street satisfies the B's criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the EDC district and that the B approves. The application is submitted with the following conditions
um prior to preservation. Number one, prior to the preservation, I'm sorry, of the these following conditions. Uh, number one, applicant will secure the necessary permit for the site to be used as a temporary construction yard to support construction of the hotel at 218
West Market Street, including installation of a construction barrier appropriate for downtown. >> Mr. Timberman, let me interrupt you for a minute. So, those three subconditions are there's a requirement in the first bullet that's necessary to state. Okay.
So, yeah, let me start over. >> You could say prior to staff, but I had prior to preservation and design staff. >> Okay. >> Kate and I, we have to approve um demolition permits. >> Okay. >> So, prior to us approving that permit, we they would have to meet those. So, that first line is important. Sorry.
>> Is it possible to gain clarity on the recommendations? What do we do? We I I guess you're about to do that before we read it all. I was going to omit the um this this the first recommendation and include the second recommendation. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Just >> do you know what those are?
>> Yes. Okay. >> So, let me start over. Um um starting at prior to preservation and design staff approval of a demolition permit to raise the existing building at 210 uh 216 West Market Street. Applicant will secure the
necessary permit for the site to be used as a temporary construction yard to support construction of the hotel at 218 West Market Street, including installation of a construction barrier appropriate for downtown per city of Charlottesville standards and design
manual. Applicant will provide for the BA record documentation of the existing building in addition to the photos provided. Rec documentation will include dimensioned floor plans and elevations and in coordination with the required
examination of 218 West Market Street condition of COA for BAR number HST25-000076. Applicant will complete and provide for the BAR record a phase one archaeological investigation of the site.
uh will also include a recommendation that within the new building at 218 West Market Street and any subsequent development of 210-216 West Market Street, the history of this site or these sites, including
recognition of the individuals who lived and worked there is presented interpreted. >> Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Give it to Kate.
>> All right. Um, we'll call for a vote. Mr. Bailey, >> yes. >> Mr. Burl, >> I. >> Miss Lewis, >> I. >> Mr. Timberman, >> yes. >> Mr. Rosenthal, >> yes. >> Miss Tab, >> yes. >> I vote yes. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. See you. >> All right. Our next uh agenda item is uh tax 29 partials 71 73 74 75 76 202 204 208 and 214 7th Street Southwest and
613 Delivan Street 204 and 208 7th Street Southwest are individually protected properties. Um so I know this is what most folks are here to talk about this evening and we are again we're welcoming everybody to to comment on this. Um, for those of y'all who may have arrived late, uh, we passed a
motion at the beginning of the meeting where we're going to combine comments and questions for our speakers, um, at 2 minutes. Um, we've got signup sheets up here too if you guys would like to if anybody needs to come up. Um, and I just
wanted to also summarize just f folks understand the overall process for these large projects and that um, you know, we've we've seen this project come to us a couple times now from preliminary discussions. Uh, this is the first time it's been brought to us for a full COA.
Um, and uh, just make it clear that um, the B is like a group of volunteers. We're not elected officials. Uh, and we're not paid. Uh, so we are here to interpret and um, I don't know if
enforce is the right word, but um, in is that the right word for the city city council's guidelines? >> Implement. Thank you. >> They're city council's design guidelines. Uh, they're not the board of architectural views guidelines, right? Um and so therefore um any application
that comes to us can be appealed to city council and it can be appealed by either side right so just for example let's say we were to approve this any agreved party in from the public could appeal that decision to city council right and
on the converse if we denied this project the applicant could appeal it to city council right um also if we approve it with conditions the applicant could appeal those conditions to city council. Does that make sense? So, just want to kind of make everybody aware that that
that is a step a further step in the process um if it becomes needed for for um anyone. So, uh all right. Um Mr. Werner, would you like to give our staff report, please? >> Kate, do you have the clock?
>> I'm running the clock. >> Okay. >> I don't think staff report has a time. >> 10 minutes in the penalty box. Better let me out. We 10 minutes on staff report. >> Limiting staff report. >> Staff get 10 minutes. >> It's in my It's on my work plan. Work on my brevity. >> Is that on your Is that on your annual
review? >> I get free donuts next year if I if I >> meet it. Um >> Mr. Warner, real quick, did you want to mention the period in which people have to appeal? >> Oh yes. >> Um I will at the end of the meeting review uh the whole appeal process so
that everybody's crystal clear on it. Let's not start out with that. Um um yeah, I know. Uh so, uh quickly, uh this is uh I think the fourth time you all have had a look at this. Uh this is the first time it's
come forward, uh for formal action, uh by the bar. The actions available to you. Um you all can approve it. You can approve it with conditions. You can also deny it. And because it's the first time you see it, you can also defer it. the BA can defer it to the next meeting
which is uh Wednesday >> the 21st of January it's bumped because of the holiday so mark your calendars so um the um but the primary reason and I think a lot of people are misunderstood
the bar's purview in this uh but the only reason you are looking at this is because of the two um late 19th century brick houses at 204 and 208 uh 7th Street. They are designated individually
protected properties by the city and therefore they're afforded the same uh protection by uh the overview of the B that as if they were uh they are their own discrete districts. Um what's unusual about when you're evaluating an
IP um IP being individually protected property is that um you're this isn't like West Main Street where the entire street is in a district and you're looking at the rest of the district here. What you have to evaluate
are those two uh structures and the the rehabilitation that's being proposed on them and the impact of this new development. Um were this project to not include those two buildings at all, there would be no design review. Um if
and you say even furthermore something that happens on the south side of Delivan Street or across Seventh Street or on the properties to the east of this except I think there is an IP there's no design review that that that is by right and they follow the building code. So
you all have um the the circumstances in which you're looking at this is because of the IPPS the um and the design guidelines that apply to IPs are our design guidelines for districts. So that's why there's sometimes it's it
seems um we're talking about a larger place but you you are looking at these two buildings and first and foremost again what is how are these buildings being treated um and the applicant has provided a rather detailed um plan for how the how to rehabilitate them. I
think there will be some questions along the way. There's a couple things I've noted as recommended conditions. Uh uh but we certainly uh uh welcome the opportunity to not see these being raised. Um the context that we looked at
this at the very beginning was uh something similar to what happened at the cork which envelops uh two um I think early 20th century buildings and and and people have argued you know successfully uh uh maintained those as
part of the new design. So uh that's somewhat of the context at which we looked at that. The uh the second piece that you are looking at is is the design of the new building itself. uh because it is encroaching onto these uh properties. Um it's subject to the
design review. There are four sides to every building. Um because and while you're looking at this mainly relative to the IPS, you also from a design perspective, we're looking at all four walls. uh you couldn't or I I would argue it's not the
BAR's job to say well we only care about the front of the building and the other three walls could be you know tar paper or you know vinyl sighting. So you you the the the consistency of the architecture of the entire uh building is is is something that you all are commenting on and and and and have been
but it's um it it's the context of this as you are reviewing in the guidelines as far as what council has established is through the lens of those two buildings. Um the
another thing I I'd mentioned for a large scale project um the we are now reviewing um the site plan a first round of the site plan comments and um that's necessary.
uh we've agreed as staff because we've had some projects that kind of will go on two parallel paths and um there's some site plan questions that don't get answered and you find out well this can't be built or this can't be done. So, we've had that first round of site
plan comments. Um, but they aren't they are to identify primarily is this an unbuildable project and nothing in that letter uh indicated that. For example, if if the comments come back and said the zoning here doesn't allow a
sevenstory building or um there's a a covert running underneath of it, they can't build on top of it. Nothing like that occurred. the comments that were came back. Um the applicant when I asked is there anything in there that will um
that you would have to address that would change the design of this building as it's being presented to the bar. Um they responded that they can resolve these things during the site plan without um I think and all projects have slight tweaks. So I think without let's
say without significantly altering the design um and um if and understanding now that's before you the design that's presented tonight to vote up or down or or or you're to take action on if
however uh long from now when they wrap up the development plan and the site plan that results in this thing having to changes have to be made uh then we'll evaluate that. So that's the risk the developer and the applicant are taking here that um that they can with this
design approval continue forward and um and not have to change it as they get their uh site plan approved. So um the criteria you're looking at uh again primarily the rehabilitation of the two
structures the the the um but also the new development u incorporating the design guidelines for site design and elements and of course the uh design guidelines for new construction and additions. And I know because you all have asked me questions and folks in the
community have asked me questions. Uh we have um a zoning ordinance adopted by city council two years ago now uh that allows much larger buildings much closer to the street and much closer together than
had been contemplated when the design guidelines were developed. Um so there is a um uh let's acknowledge it there's a challenge here that the you know a strict application of design guidelines uh arguably could be you know in
conflict with what zoning but allows but that's where here the process works you all evaluate this per the design guidelines and if you feel like they are and it's not a checklist and I want to make that clear uh someone could not feed our guidelines into a a chat
chatbot and and come up with a design. It doesn't work that way. Not everything applies. There's flexibility built into this. They are guidelines and it there is no you shall not. Second, as you all know, your decision is appealable to council. So, if you all say I love it
and vote for it right now, uh someone can appeal that or if you decide you don't support it and deny it, that can be appealed to council. the um you in that regard in fact in all COAs you all are essentially a recommendation making a recommendation to council 99% of the
time there isn't an appeal so it it it it doesn't get challenged your job is to look at the guidelines if you uh support this uh design and you support the planned rehabilitation of those two buildings um then in fact quoting our
code you should vote to approve the COA and if um you feel that the project does not uh meet the guidelines, it it's not compatible and it conflicts with the guidelines then you per our per the code
could vote to um deny COA. So um I think the uh there are a lot of questions that again have come to me about this project that simply do not fall under your purview. Um I can't it's not that I want
it to be that way or not. It just simply is. Your uh requirements are established by city code. They guidelines are adopted by city council, not you all. That's the discretionary stuff. And then you all are appointed by city council.
So, it's a um um so make clear that you're you cannot decide that you are opposed to the zoning ordinance or you can't um you can't decide that this shouldn't be an apartment building. Um you have to look
at this through the filter of the design guidelines. Um u or I'm advising you to you can certainly say whatever you wish. Um so with that um do you have any questions for me? I don't think so.
>> No. Then uh >> All right. The applicant would like to make their presentation page where I had a question >> for them. This is a big project to have 10 minutes on, but we'll try. We'll do our best. Do your best.
>> Okay. So, good evening. I'm John Matthews with Mitchell Matthews Architects and I'm joined by my colleagues Alan Wong and Jim Duberry. Um, thanks for your feedback on this project over the last six months. It's been very valuable. Um
we uh we feel the design has improved considerably primarily based on the impact uh the input that you have given us over those six months. So thank you for that. Uh we also believe that this project ticks virtually every box
required for its approval. Um, it re it re rehabilitates and protects those historic buildings. And remember, that's really the sole purpose we're here. >> Sorry, our click is not working. Stop the timer.
>> Can I can it takes technology to get better? If you need to just say next slide and I'll advance the slide. >> You said that. >> Okay. Next. Say next slide. >> Okay. Um so you're going to have to say
the next slide. Okay. So um we also >> Okay. Next slide. Okay. Good. So we also believe this project ticks virtually all the boxes necessary for approval. It rehabilitates and protects the IPs and that
specifically is the one reason we're here. It's not the building because if we stayed out of the IPS that building could still be still be built. So I just want to emphasize it's that's the issue as the IPS and I want to try to stay on
that track. Um, it comp it it complies with the comp plan, the zoning ordinance, the affordable housing manual, and contributes millions of dollars to the city's essential public services. This list behind you is just a partial list of all the attributes this
project offers. Um, we would like to quickly run through a recap of this is a very large submission submission. So, we'd like to recap those um re uh illustrating sort of how the projects evolved, reinforcing why we're here, and
try to address what we understand might be some of the lingering concerns by some folks. >> Next slide, please. So we are here for these two requests to seek permission from BAR to demolish the minor non-contributing additions to the
two IPs. Also to allow the construction on the same IPB parcels and we'd like to address right now the the context that this new proposed building would provide that would be appropriate and meaningful
to those two IPs. Next slide. This is simply showing the context around the site which is in red. Um above it's directly adjacent to the train tracks. Beyond that is West Main Street. Below the site um you'll see
it's right on the edge of Fville. Next slide please. The following slides are showing the conditions of the two IP historic houses. Next slide. The exterior shows uh the conditions of
um and and we've we've been finding that they are structurally compromised and that they are in the process of progressive failure. You'll see on the inside next slide the same sort of dilapidated condition um serious damage
which will have to go under uh undergo serious rehabilitation. Next slide. So this graphic shows the current zoning of the property on the ex let me reinforce it's on the extreme edge of five. Some people might think it's
closer to West Main than Fiveill. The previous map showed where it is. It's it often gets lost also that this entire area not just the site is zoned for higher density. The other thing that gets lost and you don't hear very often is that this site this area was
previously zoned for higher density. This is not new. Uh this was all for decades it's been zoned for higher density. Um this is a former industrial site. It's been neglected for decades. Those of you that have had a chance to go by would would I'm sure agree with
that. Um it's important to emphasize or reemphasize that this project is as um Jeff said is not in a design control district nor is the adjoining neighborhood. >> Next slide please. So, we've brought in some additional
boards here um to help uh quickly recap some of the major changes and improvements we've made. These boards will remind you of how this project has evolved over time as well as how your input has affected it. Um
and next The second board illustrates our response to Bar's comment back in August, I believe it was. Um, can the height along Seventh Street be reduced by removing the massing back to the rear of the property and by stepping down the
wings? And yes, we we we accomplished that by pushing the bulk of the center section of the building, which are located directly behind the cottages, back uh a little over a 100 feet from the street. We also removed units at the top and stepped down the ends of each
wing at the street face and adjacent towards the cottage. >> So, I'm not sure who's clicking that, but those images are shouldn't be moving. Sorry. Who's who's in charge of that?
>> Um and next board um >> hold there. >> Yeah, this this um >> this um uh board uh the it was bar comment number two. Can you articulate
the building facade to be more sympathetic to the scale of the houses? And in our previous design, we had the brick towers that you uh commented upon. So in this uh in this change, we brought in that base by creating a two-story ban
that helped organize and pull in those existing houses into a more pedestrianfriendly scale streetscape. >> So moving on now to comments from your last meeting uh or our last meeting. Can the building you you asked for the
building massing to be pushed back on the front of the building. We came to subsequent meetings then you asked for the massing to be pushed back on the side of the building. So these are each meeting we were asked to do more. So this is the previous uh >> can you go back? Can somebody slow down?
>> We'll say yeah we'll say yeah >> as we do it. So um this is the elevation as proposed. Um, and you asked, can this massing also along Delivan Street be reduced? And our answer to that, we went back and looked at it, and the answer is
yes, it can be reduced. Next slide, please. This is a a roof plan. Um, and this also illustrates those of you that are interested in details, many of the changes that we've made based on your comments over the over the many months.
The latest comment which we or request or suggestion that we consider is the transition shown in yellow on the screen. That's where we're taking a story off the Divan Street site. We're reducing the mass again. Next, what that looks like. The violet that's
a bit washed out there. The violet is a whole story that's coming off Divan Street. Next, this is that elevation. This is remember Divan Street is a side street. This is a very short deadend narrow street.
There's two houses opposite this. This is the side elevation. Next, um bar comment. What is the impact of this project on the IPS? We think this project protects and honors those IPs. Next,
uh what is the impact on the neighborhood? This is less than a block away. We in the larger package we have images from all around FIL. You can only see the top of this building. This is the corner of Dyson Fifth Street. These are accurate representations. So the
impact we feel is absolutely negligible. Next slide please. This returning to the IPS where we are um assuring that the windows and all the major character defining features will follow the Secretary of Interior's um
standards for rehabilitation, especially those facing the street. Next slide. The bar comment. What's what is the project's impact on the First Baptist Church? Uh this is the side. Um this is
the rear of the church building on the other side of the tracks. The building is on um is facing would would be facing it. Those things that look like windows are actually painted board. So there's no light or views being led into the
sanctuary from those. Next slide. >> And then can you flip uh two more? Um, this is related to bar comment number five. Can you flip the sidewalk and the planting strip along 7th Street and Delin Street? No. Currently, based
on discussions with planning, engineering, and the file marshall, various existing conditions along both streets forced us to locate the planning strip adjacent to the building. Bar comment number six. Can you provide information on the longevity of fibrous
cement? While no product lasts forever, um, fiber cement siding maintained well can last up to 50 years, it does come with a 30-year warranty. Bar comment number seven, can you provide information on the exterior
paint finishes? The proposed paint by Sheron Williams will be on a 7 to 10 year painting schedule. Um bar comment number eight. Why should bar approve vinyl windows? Um we brought a sample of the vinyl
window. These are um high performance customuilt and commercial grade windows. And we can pass that if they want. Um and as this rendering shows, that's this is how the pallet will come together. The windows, the fiber cement, and the
brick base. Um and these are all um in order to create a more defined streetscape included with the landscaping and the pocket park that we creating behind the IPPS. Next slide. Sorry, that was messy. Um, this view is
up Seventh Street and it gives you a vision of how saving these cottages and bringing them into a more defined streetscape with the landscape will and the human scale spaces which are the existing porches will enrich the pedestrian experience as they walk along
Seventh Street. >> Next slide. I just wanted to include a few important photographs just showing how there are real life situations where larger buildings surrounded by lower buildings all together contribute to um
a compatible appealing streetscape. Next slide. We're almost done. So this is um one Yeah, we are almost done. So this is similar u to that previous slide. fivestory building 1115 uh Wland
that was initially criticized as being out of scale oversized and would overwhelm the historic houses on Wartland. And as some of you may realize that never happened. >> Next slide.
>> And then this is of course square, 10 stories but surrounded by much lower buildings in downtown Charlottesville. um appealing to many people as a walkable um appropriate uh appropriate streetscape.
>> Two more points. Yeah. Next. So if we can go back. >> Oh yeah. Can you go back? >> Yeah. So neighborhoods have always evolved and in reality they must evolve to meet contemporary needs. Neighborhoods like five are not static. They evolve. They continually change
over time. Older homes are renovated. additions are built and uses shift. Introducing buildings like the mark is a continuation of this natural evolution, not a disruption of it. And then just uh two more slides back and just I just
wanted to add that there are many regions um areas in this region where there are a diverse um type of building altogether that make a resilient uh neighborhood together. Um, and that's what we're looking to create here. And
that's the end of our presentation. We're happy to take questions from the board. >> All right. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Um, I think we're to start with our questions and comments from the public. Uh, cater Jeff. When y'all want to hand
me that old man? No, >> I know what you mean. >> So, they're working on signup sheets. If anybody would like to speak who hasn't signed up, please feel free to come forward and sign up.
>> Were those separate signup sheets for different projects? Because I just worry that people may >> I don't believe so. ones. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um, we'll let these three folks sign up so
that then everybody can have their attention. I can't find it. Somebody else could find that be great. >> I just I know. >> All right. Um, >> I would suggest I don't know, Kate, are
there people online? >> Oh, yeah. Do we have anybody online that wants to speak? >> Um, here you go. All right, we'll start with uh Jeff Barrett, please. And if you could just come to the
microphone, um state your address and then we'll have about two minutes. So, go ahead. >> Hi, my name is Jeff Barrett. I I live at 805 North Street. Um sorry, I'm a little unprepared for this. First up, >> that's um I would like the the board to
consider the fact not to consider the project's effect on the neighborhood, not just the IPS. Um the FIL is a really unique historical neighborhood. And this this project is not on the edge of Fville. It's actually
in Fville. >> I think that's all I had to say. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you, Jeff. Appreciate that. Um, >> we have James Carr online. >> Sure. What was the name? >> James Carr. C A R R. >> Okay.
>> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. >> Okay, great. We We live in 7151A Walker Square, which is directly across from the two IPs. Um, our concern is twofold. One, the entire sky in front of
where we live will be blocked out by this building and all the trees that are there currently will be blocked out. And as the gentleman before me just mentioned, the whole historic nature of Fville, this is right in Fville, will be changed by this building. The second thing is the traffic. And I realize
that's not within your purview as the bar, but it's something that I haven't seen any consideration of as far as where the traffic is going to go with the train tracks and the congestion we already have there. I think it's uh obvious that I'm concerned about what's
directly in front of us and that's selfish to some extent, but I'm also concerned about the effect this has on the entire community. Charlottesville has a history of not doing right by historically black communities. Walker Square where we live is probably not something that would have been welcomed
in Fville uh if there had been a chance to fight it. I just like to see the bar consider the overall impact and contrary to what was stated earlier. This is right smack in the middle of Fville overshadowing other historic buildings that have been lovingly cared for and
lived in by people that are probably sitting in that room right now. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Carr. Uh, Marina Simon. >> Hi, I'm Marina Simon. I live at 599 Dice Street um which is kind of basically
right across from this building on Delivan Street. Um, and I have a few questions and um a few comments. My first question actually came from listening to the previous um discussion you were having about Brown's lock and
just wondering if this property gets an archaeological review as well. >> Is that true? Do you know? >> Um >> or I guess I only have you can answer my question. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to record any questions that come up and we'll circle back to give you time
>> because I'm sure being such it was part of the train depot, it would probably have a lot um of value in that sense. Um secondly, um I was here at the previous meeting when some of those previous concerns came up and I just wonder how
accurate those representations truly are. Um, the facade of the building, I think a lot of us spoke to the fact that it felt, I think you even said, looked just like the buildings at Stonefield. It didn't have that much of that brick representation. The pictures that they
showed of the Court Square building in Altoont Circle, those are historic brick buildings that don't look like they were ponded together with white press board. Um, so I'm not really sure that just
doing a twostory facade of brick is going to really tie the neighborhood in um, very well. Um, I do appreciate the setbacks that they have allotted to going back on the Delivan side and the seventh street side, but again looking
at their escapes when they show those old buildings, they have like trees and grass in front of them and I walk in front of that every day and the sidewalk basically needs that fence right next to where that porch is. That's a fake. Like that's not what it's going to look like.
And so I hope all of you can please be sure that you're going to know that it seems insincere what you're being what is being portrayed or what they're actually going to do to make that seem like it falls in place.
Um, and then lastly, I think I have the question of where when this building is going on, where are all the building materials and the trucks and all where's the parking? Where's all that going to
be? Because the gentleman is really right like Delivan Street currently is a very tiny street. Um, and I don't even know physically how that can work. Um, and I know that that's the
transportation and might not be purview here, but I just when does that feasibility come into play is my question. When does the actually even if it is feasible, how does that come into play? Um, thank you for your time.
>> Great. Thank you. Anyone else online? >> Online. Uh, Stephanie Lawson. >> Hi. Can y'all hear me? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. This is Stephanie Lawson. I'm a longtime resident of Fville. I've lived here since 2001. Um, and I live at
3297th and a half street Southwest. I was at the last architectural review board meeting and couldn't make it tonight. So, I'm glad you had the Zoom. So, I appreciate that. Um, I would just like to say and state clearly my objections to this development that's going up. it doesn't fit the scale and
the size of the neighborhood. Um, I realize that there's zoning things we have to deal with that that do allow this to happen, but I guess I just ask the board to consider the look of the building and what it's going to do to all the buildings around it. I know from
my uh house, I will be able to see the building. Right now, I can actually see the steeple of the church and that view is going to be blocked. So, um, I just want you guys to take into consideration what this is going to do to the neighborhood. It's going to really destroy one of the entrances to FIFO.
>> Okay, >> that's all I have to say. >> Great. >> Thank you, Miss Lawson. Uh, Angela Carr. >> Hey, how you guys doing today? >> My name is Angela Carr. I am a FAR board member and I am a part of the community.
I grew up in Garrett Square. I grew up here in Charlottesville. Um, I got family that lives probably like in the parking lot over beside these two houses. So, I just I'm kind of curious. I want to come up here and ask a few questions. I'm curious to know why that
street. I'm curious to know why that street. Like, what is so special about the Fville area? What is so special about the black history in the area? What is so special about that spot? Why
I picked that spot? Out of all spaces here in Charlesville, Virginia, out of all areas that really do need that building or that could utilize, you know what I mean, that that that size of a building, why choose that spot? I just kind of feel like every place in
Charlottesville that is predominantly black or that has history with black literally is just being snatched up. And I feel like it's being snatched up because a lot of people that look like me are not showing up to express how we truly feel about it. Um, I've expressed
it a lot on Facebook and I'm trying to get people to really understand, hey, you have a say so. Hey, you have rights. Hey, you have a voice. Just show up. Just show up. And I don't think that they believe that if they show up that you guys are going to listen. So, I just say, you know, I mean, I just ask if you
really, really, really, really, really just take deep consideration of like it really does matter to the black community and we really do care and it clearly it matters to more than just the black community. It it matters to the whole community, the Fightfield community. And I don't even live in the
Fightfield community. I live out 29. So, it just like it brought me here. You know what I mean? It matters to us. And that's all I'm saying. like you come in with a I mean a substantial amount of money you've put into this project and you can you know shine light on what the
building is like looking like and you know its damages and the negative things about the building but are you willing to help that building? Are you willing to put the money into that building? That's like you know what I'm saying? So
if you can shine bad on it, can you shine a little good on it? Because the neighborhood truly asking you to like consider us when you consider luxury. There are so many homeless people in this town. I feed about a hundred of them every weekend living literally
under bridges outside in tents and we talking about spending millions of dollars on this place on a black neighborhood when you got hundreds of people hungry. Even the people that live in homes are hungry. children homeless
and we over here worried about student luxury houses. It's not really making sense to me. You know what I mean? Honestly. So, I just ask that y'all consider, you know what I mean? Like, we could really be, you could I'm just, you know, you could really change a lot here
in Charlottesville with the amount of money that you putting into this building or the amount of thought that you guys have put into this building. Y'all could really put a lot of that money into the homeless people. being that Trump also passed the law that it's illegal for them to be homeless, which makes no sense as well. But
>> right, so I'm gonna say thank you. That was over two minutes and I appreciate your time. >> I appreciate you giving me over the two minutes the same way you gave him. So, thank you. I appreciate it. >> Sure thing. Thank you. >> Um, all right. Anyone else on the line? >> Uh, James Snider.
>> Yes. Uh, thank you. Uh, can you all hear me? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. U, I am uh live at the Oaklan um cottages project over on Fifth Street. I'm also a retired professional planner
and I've been involved with mixed use development for more than 40 years. The the deficiencies in this project are really alarming. there in the review of the comments made by the staff, there was was zero comments by the fire
department. In doing research, we found that in March of 2021, the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority actually became the owner of the railroad. They were never notified, as far as we could tell, by the city of any
of this reszoning. And they have many parcels that they touch, including the West Haven parcels. So I think first of all there's a basic lack of notice that happened that really needs to be addressed. Also because of the size of
the trains that go by uh this area, you can have a 225 car rail uh incident happening in the middle of the night. Imagine with no uh passageway for for emergency vehicles or barrier crash
barrier, a train going off tracks with 400 students sitting in a in a in a in a building right next to the tracks. That can happen within 50 years. There's been no effort to provide emergency access and protection to this building. Uh
there are just many many deficiencies. That sidewalk on Seventh Street is probably a 20% grade. There's not a single person who lives in this building who can get up that even in a wheelchair. There's no ADA access >> on the Oak Grove side because we all got
reszoned to seven stories. We now have no setbacks. So that the building it crowds us really is a taking to our properties which are part of the historic district because of the zoning pattern the city put down. So, there are just a lot of issues here. Did you know
that CSX >> Okay, >> Mr. Snder, I'm going to stop you there. Um, the train is not under our purview. I appreciate your comments. A train could derail there tonight and it would hit whatever other buildings are out there. So, um, thank you. >> My only point there is that
>> that's something you should be considering because I think it's building. >> It's beyond the bar's purview to to consider how a train can be stopped because there's a phrase about not being able to stop a train. All right. Thank you. Um Paul Reer.
>> Good evening. My name is Paul Reer. I've lived at 211 Fifth Street Southwest for over 10 years. I'd like to take as my topic something we looked at earlier this evening. The executive summary given to you by the developers. The executive summary makes 14 points. I
could spend my three minutes now two minutes debating each of these as most are either economic with the truth or disingenuous. However, all 14 are irrelevant to your decision. their arguments are more appropriate for the city council and
perhaps we will get there in due course. Instead, I'd like to focus on the developer's threat in that uh summary. Despite lording the board for its positive contributions, the developer now threatens to abandon the cottages
entirely and proceed by right if you don't play ball. Don't believe it? There is simply no way mommy and daddy are going to walk past two derelict cottages and pay $1,000 a
month for one bed for their precious students. I don't know about you, but I do not like bullies. So if their 14 points are irrelevant and their threat is hollow, I'd rather you focus on your purview as
stated in your guidelines and reminded to us all by by Jeff earlier this evening. Is the proposal compatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the IP that is the subject
of the application? Is the proposal compatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the IP that is subject of the application and whether the material, texture, color, height,
scale, mass, and placement of the proposal are visually and architecturally compatible with the site. The answer to both these questions is an emphatic no. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Reader. Am I online? Okay. Uh, John Mason, please. Uh, good evening. I'm John Mason. I live at 211 Fifth Street Southwest in Charlottesville. Um, want to address a couple of things
that uh that the developer presentation made. Um, this development is not on the edge of Fville. Other people have made that point. It's in Fville. It's not on the edge of Fville. Um, we saw a picture of the Altimont building on Altimont
Circle. Uh, the Alamont building was built after the houses on Altimont Circle. The Altimont building, which I lived in for 17 years, obscures the sunlight of those buildings depend those houses that are around it depending on the time of day. And even though it was
built in the early 1920s, people to this day complain about their lack of sunshine because of the old building. Um, the developers also made the point that Fville has a history of being a place for industrial development and
it's not a protected area. It's not a protected area precisely because it's an historically African-American neighborhood. Precisely because it's an historically African-American neighborhood. Uh previous speaker asked why here? Well, because African-American
neighborhoods are vulnerable. That the history of this city has made African-Ameans subject to housing and economic discrimination that makes us extremely vulnerable. >> Am I already out of time? >> I very close.
>> I really am. I'm going to leave I'm going to leave you with this thought. I think history matters. The history of this city matters. When you think of the history of Charlottesville and and and how Charlottesville is vulnerable to this kind of development, I served on the Blue Ribbon Commission that made um
recommendations to city council about what to do with our Confederate memorials. We learned that history matters. We also learned that symbolism matters and if this building is constructed, it will be a new symbol of white domination in the city of Charlottesville.
>> Um that's it. I'm done. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mason. Um, Frank Vector, I said that right. >> Thank you. My name is Frank Bectar. I live in Fville. um at 304 6 and a half street Southwest very near Dice. Let me
please draw your attention to uh an architectural and historic survey from 1984. It's available online. It was probably read also by the developer uh proposal. It's in its architectural description. It says this workers
cottage and the one next door. This is a worker's cottage historically. >> That's what it is. uh workers cottage. Now, and I emphasize that is in the architectural description in this document at least the applicants know
that to their credit they did mention once in their in their uh proposal which is in your minutes uh from August 19th page 30 uh uh these two buildings are two very small individually protected
IPs. They are workers cottages constructed in the late 19th century. Note again, they are very small in the words of the applicant. I want to quote another page from their bar request number one, page 34 in the
August 19 minutes. um when they were asking to be able to tear down some of the wooden structures that were added after the fact, they they wrote of them, "They don't have any redeeming architectural, historical, or community value.
They would not result in a loss of historic fabric. So, even if the board were to maybe wonder if it does not have purview to speak of community and historic fabric and neighborhood and things like that,
uh the applicant thinks you do. It's mentioning it in its own proposal. Given that we were uh asked to speak only of external I must read on from the minutes from the August 19 m uh meeting which Paul also cited the same sentence
but uh a proposal shall be um denied if it is deemed incompatible with the historic cultural or architectural character of the district we're not a a historically protected district or the protected property and I've just emphasized that those protected
properties are just like the neighborhood hood today. It's a workingass neighborhood. Those are workers cottage. If we talking about honoring workers cottages were built as workers cottages. If we want to honor them, I
say we put affordable housing there, rehabilitate those houses, make them affordable, make them habitable. Last meeting uh two two months ago I said that the certificate of appropriateness might be thought of it seems to be actually a certificate of
appropriation >> that city block a very large area that is ideal for affordable housing I know that's not fully in your purview um uh will be appropriated will be annexed
there's no fill current resident who will have anything to do with it. Um so um I I I recoil at the idea that that we cannot as a governmental structure of various departments do something about that. Um I do object to the notion of
rehabilitation of structures, buildings everywhere else in the proposal and even by staff here we tend to say building structures. Please keep historical uh the historical designation of them as workers cottages in mind. >> Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. >> Um Brock Napierowski. Thank you. Uh thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Brock Napowski. I live at 614 Dice Street at the end of 7th, the bottom of the hill. Um, that
home was refurbished in 2008 by Mike McMahon and his father, who I think many of you probably know on this board because he's brought many projects in FIville before this board specifically for renovation. He also with his father owns some
properties in Fville which are decided they decided not to renovate specifically to keep the cultural and neighborhood feeling present when in in some respect when they founded. Um, so
as we have lived there since 2008, we've seen through Mike McBan's experience and his development strategy interact with the board of architectural review and establish a gentrification strategy in
FIL of slow growth. the fact that this uh was keyed in on the developers by saying that FIL is a place where growth is happening and change is happening I think is true
because it is evidenced by Mike McMahon and his father's work but it is not part of a continuum this particular project it represents a discrete shift from the strategy of development which has occurred over the last 15 years and I
think that if the board uh approves this application today, it would mark a very distinct shift and change from the previous uh strategy which has been unfolding over the last uh 15 years. So I I don't think it would be consistent
with the way that the board of architectural review has treated by Phil up to this point and it would leave me some serious questions um about what the actual philosophy of the board is in preserving FIF that that is a stated
goal of the board. Um, and just lastly, I would say that if the board approves this uh proposal and it goes to the city council, they will have a major fight on their hands from the residents. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Um, Darinda Johnson, did I say that right? >> Good evening. I've been a resident of Fville for 56 years. It's nothing I haven't seen. And I'm I'm
worried and I'm concerned. First, I'm concerned that it's an all-white architectural review board here. And that y'all is I'm sick and tired of all white boards making decisions
on things that are going to impact predominantly black neighborhoods. You don't live there. You don't know nothing about it. You're going by what you read. You going by, you have to live there. That is going to affect that
neighborhood in a major way. It's already been subjected to gentrification. $300,000 home sold and then resold for $700,000. Who did that affect? People that look like me. And we are tired. I know. I'm
tired. I'm very tired. You should not approve this. It would be horrible because it's definitely going to affect the people that look like me. It's wrong. It's terribly wrong. And for them to
come in here with these lies and with this message you talking that is not true. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Stop coming into our neighborhoods taking advantage of people that look like me and bringing in luxury
apartments for rich white people because that's who it's for. Those rich white students at UVA and their rich parents. So be to perfectly honest, who is that going to be beneficial to?
Who will it be beneficial to? It's not going to be beneficial for me because if I had a child going to UVA, they wouldn't be able to afford to live there. So, who is it going to be beneficial for enough? Think about it and think about it hard
and strong and then try to do something to correct appointing more ai diverse architecture review board. We got a council member here. >> Thank you. Uh, Wendy Gal.
Hi, Wendy Ga. I'm a community organizer at FAR. Um, I first just wanted to ask everyone who's here this evening to support FIL and its black history to please stand up. Thank you. I just wanted you all to feel the community presence in this in this
space and everybody who showed out tonight to defend this community and its history. Okay, y'all can sit down. Um, I have a question for the developers that they can answer later. Um, specifically because they said in their presentation that their project won't displace homeowners. Um I'm not sure that that's
true as many have already voiced because of the violent process of dispossession called gentrification which the standard is already perpetuating in tenth and page also thanks to these same developers. The V has been given an impossible task of considering the design plan for these two cottages
without considering anything else. But you cannot divorce architecture or design from history. Buildings exist in space and spaces and places are shaped by the social political context in which they arise and that they exist in. When you're considering these two IPs built by James Hawkins, you can't ignore the
fact that after he built them, he sold them to local workingclass black families. You also can't ignore that those black families and others lived in FIL because FIL was a former slave plantation named after the F family. I just want everyone to sit with that. The land that this building will be built on
was a former plantation that in that enslaved human beings as child slavery. That is the history and the immense violence that this city is grappling with and that you all are reckoning with. Whether council intended you all to or not. But in so far as they have asked you to consider design and
architecture, you cannot consider architecture without considering the history. And the history of these two IPs and this black community and the black families who owned homes and lived in them are shaped by the legacy of slavery and white supremacy. And you all have an obligation to repair historical
injustice and deny this building from being built. Great. Uh, Shanti Levy. Am I reading that right? Sorry. Sorry. I don't know if I'm reading the handwriting. >> I'm Shante Levy. I live at 708 and All
Street. Um, and really appreciate all the comments and and share a lot of the feelings that have been expressed. I want to focus on a few particular things because I it's emphasized a lot how limited your purview is. And I think in particular, I like to speak about scale.
Um I think I think it's 205 7th Street, which is the northern IP. It's 09 acres. Most of our lots in FIL are between or less than an acre or 09 to.14 acres. And so when you see that and how tiny it
looks relative to the massing, it is a a perfect diagram and representation of how disjuncture this this proposal is with the rest of our neighborhood. And I I also just want to say when I see the plan which shows that the place where
the massing isn't the place where they can't be um making money from the actual rental units is the luxury amenity of a pool and spa and terrace area rather than landscape space that we might be able to access as a public. And so instead of, you know, what what is
currently a forest, they're removing 45 large trees, many, many more smaller trees, and proposing to replace them with large trees um that absolutely cannot fit in the space that they're showing them to. So, there's a 10% canopy requirement um that they're
showing that they will meet by um including canopy counts um that are way too large for the space that would actually fit in that in that um area. So, you know, when the only two examples that we have in um central
Charlottesville that uh in include an entire city block that you can't penetrate as a pedestrian are the standard and the flats. And those are not the precedents that we want to continue um as we're developing the city. The the the examples that the um
architects showed in their August presentation about um protected IPs that are surrounded by larger um projects, when you look at those um all of their precedents were at least half the size of the lot that this this project does
and the protected buildings were all about double the size. So the scale um disruption is so much more extreme in this instance and I would say um that uh those have mixed success and the one that I think is probably the most
successful is the Doyle because it does provide that space that anybody can walk through and move through as part of a city fabric. And I think we have an interesting moment here where we have these whole blocks that can be purchased and developed at a single time by a single developer. And it makes the
fabric of our city locked into a particular market moment and a particular time um and and set of economic forces that are per for right now. So that will all decay and we will be left with old luxury student housing in our neighborhood.
>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UH, Lakshmi Fjord. Lakshmi Fjord. Sorry. >> Deceivering handwriting. >> Lakshmi Fjord. >> I live at 709 Null Street, which is the
corner of Null and 7 and a half. I'm two blocks from this proposed plan. And yes, uh I will be able to see it. The I have a rise will be able to see this. U it was a very studied photo that was used
that left out actually the closer houses and so forth. So yes, I'm impacted, but I'm far more concerned about the historic issues and the cultural issues and the site appropriateness. And I love what Shanti had to say and very proud of
what Shanti had to say. Um because we have to think not just of this moment. We have to think about going forward and once this is built a a design that actually was for another part of the
city that has many many many uh lanes of traffic. But instead we have single lane traffic on the streets that would be the through cuts to this. So 7 and a half is one of them and the others that come in
and out. We all know that FIF has one lane one-way streets. How is this appropriate? The building itself is far too large and impenetrable. It is not going to be anything but a
silo of people who are in the same age, the same age grouping. It's too tall, it's too wide, it's too dense. And then once those cars, because once they live off campus, they can each have their own
car. Once those cars, which is that 600, they are saying the population could be that where are all those cars going to go? Even though that isn't um part of your purview, the historic district is
the streets. The streets are part of the historic district. They cannot be separated out. And so to put a building that perhaps is appropriate at Stonefield, I don't know. I don't live there, but it is not appropriate to do a
one-sizefits-all design with a few alterations in a historic place with onelane roads that will not be able to support it. And the people living there will have no intention or part of their life to
interact with the rest of the community. they will just go off to school and come back and then maybe bring friends and then we'll have more cars and we'll have more sense of this closed off structure. So my request is
that you and I appreciate so much of what everyone said so now I'm blathering but I would really ask you to deny the COA. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right and Mr. Payne. >> Good to see you all. Michael Payne. Um,
I just wanted to remark on bigger picture elephant in the room, which is that city council made a mistake in allowing 7 to 11 stories of student housing by areas throughout Fville, 10th cage, and Rose Hill. and uh removed
special use permits and full board of architectural review authority to review these projects. I think everyone on the bar tonight recognizes the absurdity of the fact that the concerns that we're hearing from Fithville residents are about can they afford to stay in their
homes? Can they afford rent? Do their children have a future in Fithville? where they'll ch will their children want to have a future in Charlottesville if the only businesses are of, by, and for VA students. And the only meeting in which people can talk about those
concerns is your meeting tonight about two individually protected properties where you're discussing textures and building materials. That's not your fault. That's city council's fault. But that's the core issue. And this is going to h very similar thing is going to happen with the LV Collective project.
And it's true. We don't want special use permits everywhere that stop all change, but there are areas where it's the right thing to do because it's the only way communities can have a voice and could get community benefits agreements to
have the city be more ambitious in what we want to see happen in terms of community development to create businesses that people in the neighborhood actually want to go to that offer community wealth building opportunities. and our zoning doesn't reflect that. And
that's something uh I hope city council can understand the impact of the mistake we made and correct it because regardless of what everyone's intentions are, the way city government is treating Charlottesville's black community and Charlottesville's working-class
community is not right. It's simply not right. And um I'll just end by saying I know at this meeting there's a very specific thing in front of you. I do think as I read the guidelines um there is the authority to deny it. Whatever
decision you make um it will surely be appealed to city council and I do think city council will um look at whatever decision you make. So thank you. All right. Anyone else? All right, thank you very much everybody
for your comments. Um, our meetings are recorded so we get we have these on video so uh we can look at them, city council can look at them, etc. I think all of us took notes. Um, and so now I think it is time for questions and comments from the board of architectural
review. You feel like going first or I'll call on people. >> I just I will offer um >> Mr. Warner, you'd like to comment? Go. Well, no, I don't want to comment, but I want to offer uh so I don't leave this out. Um I did receive several emails.
>> Um and I I'll just quickly I know that you all were they were circulated to you all as well. I just want to um there's a lot in here about traffic and things that are not yours, but I'll just
uh I highlight so that it's in the record um uh the comments uh uh Mr. Aguero uh noted the architecture um uh uh that the uh the scale and the massing of the proposed development are out of
line with the IPs. Um, >> Jeff, could you repeat the name louder? I don't think any >> I'm sorry. >> Many of us heard it. >> Aguero. Um, >> Lindsay Aguero. >> Yeah, I believe that. And, um, uh, I've communicated with them a lot over the
course of this. Uh, they they live just south of Delivan on on Seventh Street. Um, the minimizing Charlottesville's history as represented by the Hawkins cottages and placing them in the shadow of a towering development, not only massive in height, but in depth. Um it
absolutely dwarfs the cottages, the streets, the entire neighborhood. Um uh I want to see development that genuinely respects these cottages and in this neighborhood and you should apply the highest standards to protect Charlottville's historic resources. The
um Tracy Love commented and relative to your purview again uh a sevenstory building with dwarf surrounding homes on Delivan 7th and Fifth Street um uh Fifth Street West. the uh
uh please vote to deny this project uh or at a minimum require substantial reduction in scale and a development approach that prioritizes um historic preservation. Um Joey Conover uh sent a note earlier uh
relative to you all the exterior should be respectful of the surrounding buildings. Um the new building should be relatively in scale with the neighboring area. And uh finally um Elizabeth Misel
um uh on 7 and a half street noted uh as you know the two buildings at 204 and 2087th Street Southwest are IPs. The scope of this project does not complement um relative to size or honor the historic nature of these two
buildings. nor does it complement or honor the culture and history of fight. So those were the I think specific comments that fall under the design purview um clearly and those can go in the record. Um the
and now you all can proceed with your questions, comments. >> Thank you for relaying those letters that got sent in. Appreciate it. All right, who wants to start? I think I think I have an I think I have
an easy one for the developers if you would if anybody wants to respond. >> Oh yeah, actually um >> no that's okay. >> Uh well actually I wanted to um maybe
start with a few of the questions that came from the public that are within our purview. Um, so one, and it's not necessarily for the developer, but maybe for Jeff. Uh, can we require an archaeological review before construction begins?
>> Um, the phase one I certainly can. Uh, the applicant can um, uh, there have been differing opinions on that. Um, but I come down on if an applicant sees as an unacceptable condition, um, >> they can appeal it.
>> Okay. or a comment tonight why they shouldn't be have to. But I I I I would I don't know how they answer the question relative to um I mean we know it was going on in the uh the tower site I call it uh the been the it was like
Charlottesville Ice Company and it was a railroad uh repair yard. It everything there was associated. I wouldn't be surprised if the folks that lived in these brick houses that's where they worked. But um that's not that parcel is not
I I couldn't answer. Um I mean we're talking about the two IPs. >> 202 which is that larger parcel is not one of the IPs. >> So that requirement could only be limited to the >> saying yes or no. I'm saying I don't know. Okay. Fair enough. It was a good
question. Thank you. Um, and then the layown area question I think is a little bit means and methods though it's a decent one. I would assume it would have to be on the property. You know, they wouldn't be able to >> I don't know.
>> Matt, uh, Alfley is still here. Missy, you're still here. But that's all part of the when something does get constructed that >> that's outside of my lane. Yeah, they can address how that's handled. Yeah, but I I would assume it would have to be on the property like or they'd rent a
adjoining property or something. But I don't know, Missy, did you understand the question? >> The question was basically if this moves to if this were approved and moved to construction, where would the layown area be? >> Um, >> or is there a process?
>> Yeah, as part of part of the site plan process, they'll have to provide that and it'll have to be acceptable. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, >> can I ask a follow-up question? Would any part of the streets be used for
that? I I only asked because just downtown here, a block away from here, um, 8th Street, one lane of it was closed for about a year for private construction. And it was it was really actually, you know, we don't we don't
have one lane streets. We have basically maybe two lanes with a parking lane or actually 8th Street is one way at that point, but it was really disruptive to that block downtown, especially as busy as High Street gets. Um, so would would
the city allow the developer to take up any part of the street during construction? I I mean, I think that would definitely impact the neighborhood. I know it's out of our purview, but I'm just curious. If a request was made, it'd be evaluated by the traffic engineer.
>> Okay. >> And thank you. >> So, follow up to that. I guess there's been a lot of questions about traffic and that isn't within our purview, but is there a place where traffic gets reviewed for a project like this? >> Can you say that louder? I'm so sorry. >> Sorry. The question is basically is
there a it's it's not under our perview but is at the city level is there a traffic study or review that does get completed when a large project like this comes through? >> Um there is a review that'll be required and that's uh one of a few of the
comments that are included in the document that you all have seen. >> That's right. Yeah. Thank you very much. So yes is the answer. It gets reviewed by the city. Um all right. Those are the ones I wanted to address. So, go ahead. Thank you.
>> So, not maybe it's just kind of refocusing, but on page three of um the first part of your submission, the executive summary, you said that there are um there are three purposes of this
submission. To get our permission to demolish um the non-contributing additions and back the IPS. Sure. and then to get our permission to allow construction on those same parcels. And I would say, you know, Yeah. And
then wouldn't isn't the third purpose to get our permission to rehabilitate and renovate the IPS as well? I mean, I I'm not >> I mean, I think it's I mean, you've presented materials for that. I just thought it was interesting that you didn't include that as a third purpose
because it really is why we're here. I thought yeah I thought Sher that was included in the original >> allow construction on >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yes. Absolutely. And just to there might have been a misconception on someone's part. We are very much interested in
fully rehabilitating these two houses. They are very important. We're not just going to let them slide. And they are being rehabilitated which means the purpose will is for adaptive um reuse. So it won't be used as single family
houses but it will be used um in an active way. It will be um there will be alterations so that it can be more accessible and it can be used for a contemporary um important use and we don't have that spelled out but there
will be enough changes to allow that to happen. And certainly as we mentioned very quickly they are under progressive failure which means if nothing happens soon things will start to collapse beyond rehabilitation.
And just by way of information for the public who may not have made it through the 221 pages of this application online, um the applicant did submit, I'm guessing about eight or 10 pages of pretty detailed um description of their
plans for rehabilitation with a lot of notations about materials. >> Yeah, I mean we we're very serious about doing it well, not just >> Okay, thank you. I that was a softball, but I figured I would just point it out because it's why we're here. Like I said,
>> Sherry, it would it would be help helpful to emphasize folks too that the word rehabilitation is a that's a precise term used in preservation world. So, it's not preservation, it's not re restoration, it's not recreation, it's a
adapting a building or adapting a structure to a use that it can be. So, I probably misspoke because this isn't pure rehabilitation. You're not rehabilitating it for single family use. It's really a renovation as well. >> I mean, the technical term >> Jeff's point
>> I thought I thought Jeff was correcting me. >> Oh, no, no, no. I wanted to make sure people we were using the term rehabilitation and I >> Well, I thought too strict a term because that's not I mean they're not returning it. >> I'll get to it. >> It's he knows this is the dude. Well, they they've thankfully they did um they
did uh spell it out for us in their application. I just need to get to the slide of there are a lot of slides. So, basically the secretary of the interior's standards for historic preservation um are kind of a upper
echelon guideline to our own. Right. Um there it is. Thanks. And just for educational purposes, I'm a beginning page. >> Come on. Um, >> what page are you on? >> It's on slide 211. This uh
these aren't where? >> Yeah. So, it's preservation, rehabil, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Those are the four categories under the historic preservation act. >> Okay. Um so rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair alterations or additions which makes
possible the efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic architectural and cultural value. Sorry >> they can't hear you. >> Do I need to read that louder? >> You're mumbling more than John.
>> Sorry I was trying to rush through it. >> Not possible. Do y'all want me to read that again? >> Sure. Yeah. >> I just I >> I just wanted people to understand why we were using the term rehabilitation, >> right? Rehabilitation means they're
pumping some life into the building. They're going to stabilize the structure. They're going to fix it, but it doesn't mean that it's going to be a single family home again. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Katie, would you like to go?
>> Uh sure. Um thank you everybody for speaking up. Um I think it means a lot to hear to us for you to speak and let us hear your concerns also for the developers and the architects. Um
I think um one thing that is on our purview is materiality scale massing of a building and I do believe that this is out of out of character. It's not it's not appropriate um this is not an
appropriate architectural response to these IPs. Um and and also the um that's I'm just going to leave it there for now. >> Okay. >> But you can come back to me later. >> That's all right.
>> I guess one thing I've been concerned about and is that this is an opportunity to save these IPS. They've they are in really bad state. um you know, they're the reason we're reviewing this application um is because because of those indivi individually protected
properties. Um we've had large projects like this come before us where individually protected properties have been demolished um against the BAR's recommendation and they weren't in such a bad state, right? They were actually perfectly good homes that people could
live in and then they were allowed to be torn down. So, I do see this one, you know, silver lining, if you will, is that it would save these houses that are culturally significant. Um, and I worry that if something isn't done, they will
they will be lost forever. So, that's that's one good thing about it. But I do tend to agree that the scale and massing is not compatible with the IPs. That was tough. >> Um,
Roger. >> Yeah, I'll try. Um, there's been a lot of talk about purview. Um, so I'm going to stick to what uh are design guidelines. Chapter 3, new additions, exterior
alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials. So, I think you could make an argument that they're actually not destroying. In fact, they're rehabilitating. Um, the new work shall be differentiated
from the old. You know, they've done that. But here's the kicker. Uh, and shall be compatible with the massing size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property
and its environment. So that's where I get hung up. I mean they've made great strides actually the you know compared to the first things that we saw um but
they're small steps and I think um in general this just doesn't um it just really isn't incompat it is not compatible massing size and scale-wise. um reducing just one story is uh not
enough to satisfy that uh paragraph in our design guidelines. >> Okay. Uh I think what we've come up against is those guidelines are in contradiction to zoning and I don't know how we can
resolve that here at all. And I think that's the real problem. Uh if if the city if the citizens of the city do not want that zoning, we are the wrong people to talk to about that. The city council is the people you should talk to
about that. And uh I don't know how we're going to resolve this given these guidelines. I I am uh very well aware of the fact that those buildings are individually protected and nobody is
going to save them at the at the moment. And these gentlemen are are prepared to do something about that. And I want to make sure that we also consider that as part of our consideration when we're thinking about this project. Those buildings will not be preserved
otherwise. They're not going to be workers housing ever again. No. >> So, >> no, that's not true. >> Well, then we'll disagree. >> You can't predict the future. >> They could be
one that if a developer wanted that building, >> I'll go next. >> Okay. Go ahead, Dave. on. >> Um well, I hope you all um maybe get a sense that nobody up here probably wants to be up here right now.
Um and I think there's a I think there's a reason uh for that. Um and I, you know, already um numerous people have everybody every one of my colleagues has touched on that. Um, I'm going to go back and read because as we started to talk, I I started to think about
something that I wrote everybody after our previous um, meeting. I'm just going to read that because I feel like it sums up pretty well how I feel about it as far as um, this, you know, the struggles that that we're feeling um, as part of this board, as volunteers, as um, people
that all are concerned about our city and the, you know, the cultural legacy. I mean, nobody up here is against the cultural legacy or against uh, you know, we all have an interest in the historic um, uh, propriety of, you know, of of Charlottesville and we know it's a
special place and and that's part of the reason why we're here, but um, we're struggling, you know, and um, I think that um, let me just start with by saying that um, I'm going to suggest that um, the struggles that we're feeling right now um, in in of our of
Our response is more due to the fact um that this submission like a few others over the past year is an anomaly. Um as far as uh other submissions that we've seen um prior to the new zoning, we're all aware that we have a problem on our
hands. Our guidelines are in some ways and many ways out of line with the new zoning. Many of the hard decisions we've made in the past year are a direct result of this friction. In this case, I personally am really struggling in determining how this project is
appropriate given its massing is so out of scale with one of the more historic neighborhoods in the city and we don't have many. We don't have a big city. In turn, I found it difficult to provide clear direction on what is appropriate for the guidelines um given the
misalignment that we're that we're seeing. Um, then I went on to say that we can talk all we want about how appropriate a fence is. Um, and personally I enjoy talking about that as as part of this board and and ways that we can
contribute to making um our our city better. But you can't overlook the difference between a fence and the massive impact this project will have on our surroundings. This is a huge project and I think it is precedent setting and so I think we have to assume that these
conversations are not going to be easy. They also are highlighting perhaps some areas of the new zoning that may need another look for Mr. Payne's comment. The public opinion I was hearing that night uh you know in October led me to
believe that the new zoning may need some amendments and for an example in this case perhaps overlays uh for these sensitive historic areas like Fville. I'm a strong proponent of a of adding density to our city. I'm in some ways a
proponent of our new zoning. Uh but I'd also hope that our zoning works in concert with our VR guidelines and the uh historic legacy that we're trying to promote here. And and let me just say that, you know, I don't think it's fair
to vilifi vilify the the developers. They're they're and architect. they actually have done a really great job in coming to us and responding um in spades to our comments. Um I think
um you know it's not fair to like I say vilify them in this case. Um and I think there have been some um rather um strong comments. Um they're simply um doing their job and they're responding to the
zoning that is by right right now. Um and so I want you to think about that and that um you know if you want to address this you have to address this um in appropriate avenues and I think um the last uh um meeting that we had in
October I think a lot of people that attended um were educated um um in in that regard. Um but so I just want to finish by saying that um as part of the um you know um one of
the members of this board um I'm really very deeply um interested in promoting the you know the legacy of the B. I think it's an important public forum. Um, I think it's an important way for
everybody to to um let their voices be heard. Um, but I want to find a way to um cultivate the sort of uh historic fabric and the historic legacy, you know, that um we're here to to maintain.
>> Any thoughts? >> I want to uh thank Councelor Payne for his opening comments about recognizing part of the problems of the zoning and and the purview of the bar. I think
these need to be addressed by city council and I want to thank all the people who have shown up here and I would like this project to go to city council so that you can say what you have said here
and talk to them directly and have this done in the in an appropriate form. We are we are so limited and there's so many things that you have talked about that are beyond our purview
that need to be discussed publicly and it will need to be resolved politically at city council. And again, thank to each of you for taking your time and your thoughts for coming here.
So, I wanted to thank every member of the public who's commented um not just this meeting, but also in October and certainly in August. I think we had a large turnout then, too. And um like I did before, I've taken notes. Um
and really have I mean, this is just to you know, as David said, none of us want to be up here making this decision. It's um and we're not a political body. You know, none of us ran for election. We're not paid to do this. Um and the issues
before us, this is a political decision in some way. Um which is not fair to the applicant because they applied under a zoning ordinance that was duly passed by our city council. Um there were objections to it, but it went through. Um there was a lot of public input
before that. Um, I've said, you know, I've taken responsibility for this being passed, but a lot of other people might want to take responsibility, too. A lot of us just kind of checked out, and it was a train that we couldn't that we couldn't catch. Um, but the applicant has applied as they as they're entitled
to. They have been very responsive to our comments. They do want to take care of these IPs and I think this is not the perfect future for them but a very good future to make sure that those buildings don't continue to fall down. It's obvious that the you know they haven't
been lived in for a a long time. If the owners could find a new owner or had the had the resources to rehabilitate them it would have been done by now um you know with with prices as they are in the city. But that just hasn't happened. So, I do have to thank the developer for
their plan in rehabbing um those two properties. I I we're just in a really bad place. I mean um I'll say this publicly. Three of us reapplied for our positions and
council has not voted whether they're going to reappoint us or not. I wonder publicly whether the vote tonight um whether they whether our vote is hinged either one way or the other on on a reappointment. Um I applied in September
to be reappointed to this position and um two other of my colleagues have as well. We have a fourth vacancy. They don't reappoint the three of us. We've got four vacancy, you know, four vacancies in this on this bar. And in
the meantime, because of the zoning ordinance, we're having to make a decision that's very political that we're not set up to do. This is not our expertise. Um, so nobody, you know, a lot of people are, you know, you you guys have got more comfortable things to
do during the holidays. You know, whether you celebrate Quanza, Hanukkah, or or Christmas, they're all coming up to be sitting in this room at 8:40 at night. So, um, we're all in an uncomfortable position. The words, um,
of Miss Levy really stuck with me that this would be a scale disruption for the neighborhood. And I don't want to say that I want to say our our guidelines do need to be updated and maybe they need to be a little bit more compatible with the zoning ordinance. We can find places
where certainly density and growth can happen and we're comfortable with it. Um, but this is just a radical radical disruption in this neighborhood. And I I don't think even if we had updated the guidelines, and it really is council's
duty to update the guidelines. It's not our job. It's it's the it's their legislative action, their guidelines, their approval. If we had done it before now and we had these great new guidelines, I'm not sure this decision is found any differently than than it
would be tonight. we would still have a neighborhood like it is with a historic fabric that is Spiceville that you know with you know with the same people in this room saying the same thing and I mean that's you know I'm not sure our guidelines are not old and creaky they
need to be updated but the fact is that our city is what the city is this neighborhood is what the city is what the neighborhood is and this just simply doesn't belong in the neighborhood because of its scale and massing and its impact on the neighborhood. And so I
don't think I can support a COA here. I really really thank the applicant. We've been put in this horrible place. It's no one in particular's fault. Like I said, you know, a couple of meetings ago, it's also my fault. You know, we'll all take shoulder some blame. Um but I don't I
can't support this this evening. >> Okay. Um, >> oh, I just wanted to make a small comment. Um, which is piggybacking off of Mr. Mason's comment about the kind of symbolism. Um,
and our guidelines don't talk about symbolism, but architecture is inherently symbolic. Everything we do is symbolic. Um, the massing, the materiality, um, the scale. And I strongly believe that
those those architectural moves in this project are symbolically all wrong. Um um I want to give the applicant a chance to respond to any comments or questions that we have if you'd like to. That's part of our
>> Yeah, I I have further comments. >> Okay, that's fine. I mean maybe at this point and then if there's further comments we can >> Hamilton Reynolds uh Landmark Properties appreciate all your time today everyone's comments tonight. Um
have heard them all. Um I think uh it sounds like most of you have already made up your mind but I do want to uh just reiterate what um Councilman or sorry Mr. Zimmer uh and Mr. Timberman
said regarding the um rehabilitation. I mean, like we said, these houses are crumbling right now. And it's a pretty significant undertaking to rehabilitate
them. And in order to do that, I mean, unless someone has, you know, a couple million dollars they want to spend on this, you need an economic driver behind that. Um, so I know that no one wants to talk about the economics of this, but that's just
kind of what it takes to to rehabilitate something like this. Um, so again, I thank you all for your time. >> All of you understand your position. >> Yeah. And I I'll just add to what Hamilton said. So when he says that that number, it's not just the cost of the
rehabilitation. The land cost is in there. The people aren't giving you those properties free of charge. So the total cost is significant. I agree. I appreciate all the comments. Um they were very helpful. Some of them obviously we disagree with um but and
I'm glad Mr. Payne is here because we do want to sort of touch on being we hit on an economic component that this and somebody mentioned about the afford putting affordable units here. This project is contributing $4 million
to the city and then another million in increased tax revenue. So first year alone, it's going to we're going to have an extra $5 million. So I I don't think we should take that for granted. That's a significant amount of money that goes
to to the city city caucus to spend. Um, I'm not quite sure how to explain this convincingly without images, but many projects, I know Sherry's seen these over the years, there's been this same outcry about projects being too big for
the neighborhood. You may recall the monster garage issue where all of the folks in um in the Lewis Mountain neighborhood came out with signs and they were just complaining about it's going to ruin the neighborhood. All that traffic's going to go through. This is a
1200 vehicle garage that UVA built. Didn't happen. It just was not an issue. And there are probably dozens more examples of that where the neighborhood rightfully so is it absolutely concerned, but they're projecting an
image of a project and the result of a project that more often than not does not happen. It doesn't eventuate. So, there's this um I don't want to use the wrong word here, but this sense that this project is going to just have incredibly detrimental effects on the
city. And we don't believe it will. And when we talk about the neighborhood, we understand. We we just worked on a big project there for the university uh the old Fill mansion. We want it to work for the neighborhood. We're not looking to put a project in Filill on the ed if
someone's looked at a map by the way of Fville. I don't know how you could argue it's not in five. It's it's in the center of five bill. But that's another point. We want it to work. It's it's no good if this project just works for us. We want it to work for five. You're smiling and laughing and we're serious
about it. It doesn't work for us. We work in this neighbor in this city and we have for decades and we don't want to be thought of as putting inappropriate buildings. So I think the the almost hysteria about the negative impacts about this building I think are a little
overblown and and I and there are plenty of examples where that has been the case in the past. So I just want to finish I think on that. I think there are plenty of other um comments that we could challenge but I think what I would like to know if that's possible is a sort of
straw poll. We know a few people have been against it right from the beginning and we understand that. But we would like to know if we were asking you what do we need to do to make it more acceptable. Can you tell us do we is that taking a floor off, taking two
floors off, cutting the building in half? We need some sort of again we've been working on this for a year. We've been you've been helping us and we appreciate that support for the last I don't know six or eight months. So what would we need to do to get your support?
I think it's it's a reasonable question. We need to understand what we need to do if we go back to the drawing board and we're certainly not going to make everybody happy. I know that. But but we're going to continue to try.
>> I think that's a reasonable question. Um it seems to me like just hearing my colleagues speak that they're kind of the biggest hang-up is this the size and scale of the building. I think you've I think you've done a lot positive to break down the massing. Um I like the
the brick kind of uh lower level. Sorry, I'm so sorry. Um I like the brick lower level. I like the materiality of the brick because it obviously complements the two IPs uh and and it's within their scale. Um I think that overall it's
probably the height is the biggest issue. Um, I don't know if there's a magic number of acceptable stories. Um, you know, I don't know if it helps to make it a broken up building instead of one giant building. Um, I think to your
point about it kind of taking up a whole block. Um, that did resonate with me in in comparison to some of the other properties on West Main that sort of put these huge chunks in. And I do think that you raised a good point of concern, Miss um Levy, that uh you know, we could
end up with these just monster blocks that nobody can cut through or walk through or engage with. Um so, you know, as as some you know, you're working for the owner. And so, I think that John, that's a valid question of, you know, if you're still going to try and work with
this, um how can you be successful? Um, you know, I think making making things smaller and affordable to people in the neighborhood as well might be another way to um gain some positivity. Um, but you know, I don't know if cutting the
building in half makes sense or three stories or I don't know, you know, I'll turn to my architect friends also on that front. >> Mr. Schwarz had an email that might be appropriate to read at this point. >> There you go. Thanks. Uh, so yes, our colleague Carl Schwarz
um had a medical procedure today, so he's unable to join us, but he did send us an email. It's not >> I don't know if it got printed on. So >> I've lost the second page. That's the problem. Thanks.
>> Um, you have it. >> Yeah, I do. Um, let me start with the I do not I said Carl says, "I do not believe the reduction in massing will materially affect how big this building feels, but I do believe large trees will."
Um, at the most recent zoning work session between the PC planning commission and staff in November, I was assured that when the required streetcape elements do not fit, staff will allow an adjustment in the bill to zone moving the minimum setback further from the street. We should not allow
developers to tell us that they cannot put the trees where we want them because there is enough room. Um, leave that part out. Uh, let's see. They just they just don't want No, no, that's not the part. Uh, they just don't want to shrink the footprint of their building. Um,
so I mean I think he's implying that shrinking the footprint um increasing setbacks um >> more area for tree planting. Yes. >> Yeah. That's the crucial part of uh decreasing the footprint is that you
could actually have trees >> larger street trees. >> I don't know others on thoughts on John's question if you all want to. At uh the previous meeting, you had said that if we required you to get rid of
one story, it would become economically unfeasible, right? And yet you came back getting rid of a lot of one story. And so it seems difficult for us to say to
go smaller and make it economically feasible for your developer. Yeah, I'm not sure I fully understood all of that, Jerry, but let me explain. So, yes, initially at the first meeting, you asked us to step it back and push it, put the height at the back of the
building. We did that and we're not removing entire floors. We're moving partial areas of the building and moving it around. We are losing you many units, but an entire floor would make it unfeasible. And the thinking was that if
you don't see the massing, it's not an issue. So if we moved it out of sight, it's the the equivalent the perception is that it's not there. So we moved it towards the back of the site. So am I answering your question? So we did lose a lot of units, but we didn't take
entire floors off. Okay? >> Because taking a floor off where you can't see it from the public realm is wasted in our opinion. You know why? No one would see it unless you're in a helicopter. So that was the idea there. Um, do you want us to address the tree
issue? I'm not sure. Sure. >> So, one of the issues, and I'll I'll let our landscape architect speak to that, but we're required by zoning to build. There's a build two zone. We have to build within that zone. So, we'd have to get some sort of an exception to move
out of that zone. I think that's what Carl was was suggesting. We're huge tree lovers and supporters. So, I I agree with Carl 100%. We want to put as many trees in as we possibly can, but they have to be obviously viable. Do you
>> you um you asked us at the last presentation um in October to create more um planting spaces for these trees on on both streets and we did. We uh increased the areas u you know minimum 6t 10t the
trees can be planted and can thrive in these areas. Um, we al you also asked for a document or a diagram that showed these. We did an enlargement that's that's included in your set. Um, I think it's second or third to last page. Um,
so those items were addressed. Uh, species of the plants, the trees, the size. So, um, >> it looks like there's the trees are being planted like 3 and 1/2 ft off of the face of the building. Is that right?
>> Um, in some cases Street trees are, you know, as close to the sidewalk in between the spaces of the building. So, yes, could be 3 to 4 ft at some point. >> Mhm. >> Where the trees would have to be obviously trees. >> Very small trees. >> Go to their space, but they they do fit
in the area that you requested. I'll take I'll take a crack at answering the question and it might not not might not be that helpful but um you know I think maybe it's um looking at this with a totally different
perspective and oh do we just need to do this or do we just need to do take this level off or do we need to do put this material on? I think it's more fundamental. Uh, I think that like from what I'm getting here is that you guys are like the community and and the
architect and developer are like two ships passing in the night and and you're you're seeing this in completely different ways. You think it's absolutely appropriate. Everybody else in the neighborhood thinks it's not appropriate. And so, um, what I might
encourage you to do is figure out why. Like what what is what are the things that they might think that it's appropriate? I don't know how you do that if there's um you know public forum or you know a neighborhood forum. Um maybe it's just a um a personal
revelation of going in and trying to understand what makes Fightfield so special. Um there are um elements um that you can identify. Um sometimes, you know, it's a it's a collective um um
aura. Whatever that thing is, try to figure out what those try to identify what those core issues and elements and architectural features are um and and try to assimilate that um into the into
the project. I would suggest the developer become familiar with the small cherry plan which was a document that was created with many many Charlottesville residents of that neighborhood.
>> We we have read it multiple times. has an extensive wish list. >> All right, let's address the >> that's Cherry Avenue on the other side. >> And I'm sorry, when I made those comments, I didn't know the history of what you've been through or what you haven't been through. I was just
responding generically to a question of how can we make this better. >> So, if I could just respond, David, to your comment. You may not know this. This may have been the the meeting that you missed, but there were a number of people that got up and said the comments that you're hearing aren't representative of everybody in in five.
That was very clear. So, you're hearing a very vocal there's a lot more people in five than is showing up here. >> No, no, I'm not suggesting that's not Well, don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I'm saying. And I'm just saying there's another opinion out there
that you that I assume you guys are balanced enough to realize that there's other folks that feel differently and you would expect that. But I agree with many of the comments and we agree and we're just trying to do a good job and you probably on the other point you made I think you know that we did have a
community meeting. We met in fight. You may not know that but we we've gone through that. So the things you're recommending we have done. >> Yeah. Um, I think the other the other thing that resonates with me that I think folks do need to understand, Jerry's talked to this a little bit. Uh,
Ron spoke to it, is just the uh the new zoning ordinance. Um, and there was a map shown that was part of the application. Um, that I think it's important for folks to understand that like most of the parcels that are along the south side of the railroad tracks
are zoned RX5. Um, most of those parcels don't happen to have an individually protected property on them. So, if John wanted to scooch his his project a few feet, um,
he could build this thing without coming to us, uh, it would have to go through the regular city channels. But, you know, I think that if there's a community effort to push back against large-scale development like this, you'll need to look at the zoning map and talk to city council and express
that concern because the only reason this is before us tonight is because of those two little buildings. Um, and and that was a decision that was made for the planning commission. Um, John, you animated that that was already zoned that way. I'm not sure the history
there. Um, but it is just something to keep in mind that this sort of strip along that south side of the train track per the zoning ordinance of the city of Charlottesville is intended to have this sort of growth and development. And so I think that's why they're
>> attended every single council meeting to express our opposition. Ever since these projects, the one here and the one on West Main Street came to light has been at every single one of those council meetings and other people from far and
other people from the community have expressed to this zoning to the city council. So, we're doing what you you said. We we understand the awkward position that you seven are in this evening. We sympathize with you.
>> Appreciate that. Um, >> I can I agree with Sherry if I may say so that this is it turns out is a political decision. So I think and I'm going to suggest this that we should go ahead and decide whe to vote on this and
then move it along to city council. >> Yeah. So so just want to thank you Ron um and thanks Jeff for reminding me. Um we've got several choices of what how and what we can vote on. So, we can vote
to defer this to the January 21st BA meeting. Um, at which point we would have to vote on it, right? >> Um, and just to throw some >> Yeah, there won't be. I know.
>> There might only be five members. >> Yeah. Sneak the attackment and sneak it in on you here. Uh the challenge there would be um if >> if you were unable to meet um if for whatever reason you didn't have quorum then uh then it would be count as an
approval. That's right. >> So that's the risk there. Uh doesn't give much time for an applicant to change anything. >> So just to be clear. >> Um so that's one choice. Another choice is the applicant can request a deferral to a later date and that actually gives
them more time. It wouldn't have to be just the next month later if the applicant wanted to do that, >> but um you all would have >> but we need to approve that >> request. Um we can deny the COA. I think if we do that, we need to make sure we're clear in listing the reasons for
the denial. Uh we can approve the COA as submitted. Uh or we can approve the COA as submitted with conditions. So those are sort of the choices before us. Um, let me start with the applicant and see if they would like to request a deferral.
>> So, two things if I may. I would like you, James, you gave the the the points or the items that you thought would be needed to gain your support. I really would be happy if I heard that generally or just concurrence with your thoughts just so I we understand where we're
going and then u once we hear that I can tell you Okay. >> what we would prefer to do. >> Sure. Um, and those were I was kind of off the cuff. You know, I don't know if that's any sort of magic solution. I'll just say that we would certainly need to see what you came back with, >> but I don't know if there's >> just one or two items a
>> if anybody has any other things that they feel like that is a magic wand. Um, >> I mean, >> review the options, but I think maybe a a break, >> just a fivem minute breaks for for the
applicant to talk and for us to talk with staff. >> So, just a maybe a recess. I'm not trying to take over the chair until 9:06. >> You're moving for a break. >> All right, we'll take a >> clock. It's 8:00.
>> Whatever. 8:00. >> Surprise, everyone. It's only 8:00. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, >> we've already sprung it up. >> Let's go to 8:10 if anybody needs to use the restroom. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. So, it's 8:11. I'm going to call this back to order.
>> And then have it go. Um, sorry. >> All right. So, do we >> Thanks everybody for taking a quick break. Um, >> I think this is obviously everyone understands how challenging a project
this is for us. Uh, I'd say the the larger us, right? Like this is a really really challenging thing to struggle through. Um, and I feel like the BAR at its root and core, >> at least in my opinion, is not only to
help guide good architecture in the city, but there is a preservation aspect to the board of architectural review. And so this it's one of the things I've been struggling the most with on this particular project because you know part of our charge is to try and preserve and save these individually protected properties right like they are they are
special for their own right. I think that the tricky part with this particular project is like at what cost, right? Is is that trade-off of, you know, this is a chance to save these buildings, but it requires building a
very large structure behind them that I would argue is not appropriate and not compatible to those individually protected properties. Like that's the crux of it, right? That is like you said a paradox almost, right? So it's really it's that's what's so difficult and I
think um Mr. Werner's guidance to us early on uh was that we um look at the IPS through the lens of of a district and the guidelines surrounding a district and that that ultimately you
know it's not a checklist. We don't have to like check every single little box one way or the other. Um, but that it ultimately does fall into sort of uh it is what it sounds like, right? It's a certificate of appropriateness and like is something appropriate or not? Uh is I
think what it really boils down to, you know? Um so at least for me, if we were I don't know if we're doing a straw pull or not, but like for me, I don't think I can support this this development as appropriate to this particular site because it's because it's too large. The
scale is too big. um the massing of it takes up a whole city block. Um I I you know I I worry that this might mean we end up losing these IPs and that might be the the you know the death nail of
them. But uh just weighing the two sides of it, I think the the scale and size of this thing is too big for me to support it. Um but I welcome what others might think. Um, I I I I don't think we're going to go through a round of
suggestions of what might make it acceptable because that's that's a whole another design review iteration. So, um, but I would like to just circle back to the question I asked before we broke and just does the applicant want to request a deferral? No, I'm seeing no. Okay,
thank you. Uh, so I don't think we want to defer it either. Um, so we are going to vote. Um what do y'all I I feel like the tenor is to vote for denial but >> I'm ready for I have a motion
>> if if everybody's ready for it. >> Yes. >> Um if sorry Miss Lewis as we discussed if you could uh in your motion list list reasons. >> Thank you. >> Um following that I know I was going to
summarize the appeal process. Um >> so there maybe I can do it immediately after. >> Yeah, that's fine. Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to find that the
proposed development at the 200 block of 7th Street Southwest and the corresponding rehabilitations of the brick dwellings at 204 and 207 7th Street Southwest, both designated as IPS, do not satisfy the BAR's criteria
and guidelines for being compatible within the AP districts. and that for the following reasons um we deny the application. I'm going to refer um they're the same criteria, but I'll refer to them. Yeah, I'll refer to them
in our new um zoning code. It's the chapter is 34, which has always been our zoning chapter. It's division 5.2.7 2.7 and um the um paragraph D has the criteria for review for review in our
decisions that we're supposed to follow. Specifically, I would say that um sub paragraph it's sub it's paragraph 1 a and then little one um and little four um are the guiding guidelines that would
augur towards um denying this. And I'll read those right now. Little one is whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site
and the applicable district. And in this case, the district is the two cottages. And um little four is um a denial based on the effect of the proposed change on adjacent buildings or structures within FIF. If anybody else has any additional
basis for that for my motion um in our guidelines or elsewhere that that would help be helpful. Oh, I'll I'll sorry. I'll add little six. Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation, or restoration
could have an adverse impact on the structure or site or adjacent buildings or structures. Any further uh additions to that amendment or excuse me that motion? >> I second the motion.
>> All right. Discussion. Um I find it hard to approve this as written because it's it's a two-part thing. I could certainly support saying that I moved to find the proposed development at the 200 block of
7th Street Southwest as non-compatible, but I would argue that they've their plan to rehabilitate those brick dwellings was well thought out and and done really nicely. So, >> I want to acknowledge that, but I but
also deny the the application. So, I I'm struggling right like like I'm summarized. So, I don't know if there's a way to word it in such that we are denying it due to the development. >> I'll accept a friendly amendment that we'd like to acknowledge the applicant um the applications
um effort to rehabilitate these structures. Is that good good enough or would you think of another way to more eloquently? Um, I just I just feel like that the wording of saying that their the corresponding
rehabilitations of the brick dwellings at 204 and 2087th Street Southwest like both designated IPs, they do satisfy our criteria. >> Yes, they do. >> Um, so I feel like honestly we should just
strike that sentence. And >> so I move to find that the proposed development does not satisfy. So I amend my motion by taking out the words and the corresponding re rehabilitations of the brick dwellings at 204 and 208
7th Street Southwest. >> So >> both designated IPs. >> So I would suggest that the um >> or I can read the whole thing again. >> Well, what you're what you're denying is the proposed development etc etc etc. and then you are denying the application
as submitted which includes proposed rehabilitation of the prick dwelling. So you're you're at least removing that from what you're denying. >> Like our reasoning is the development. >> I mean I I think that um
this is not you're not writing an argument for the Supreme Court. I I think we could we can express our intent uh uh clearly. But I think what you're trying to say is to your statement, Mr. Zamer, is that the the the the denial is of the proposed
development uh at the 200 block of 7th Street um because it's not compatible with the IPS, etc., etc. And uh for the following reasons, the B denies this application, including uh the proposed,
they'd say it proposed rehabilitation of the the two buildings and then for the following reasons. And I think stipulating uh you cited these reasons here which are valid and then maybe simply don't verbatim use the text but modify it to state you're you're talking
about the the construction of the new building. >> Right. >> I mean I think that >> I can modif I can just change my motion if >> Sure. I think so if you don't mind. >> Rosenthal might find it acceptable to second again. Okay. Second time around. >> That's why you have discussion. >> Yeah. Having considered the standards
set forth within the city code, including the ATC district design guidelines, I move to find that the proposed development at the 200 block of 7th Street Southwest um does not satisfy the BA's criteria and guidelines for being compatible with
the two IPS and for the reasons that I stated before, we deny the application. >> And I second. >> All right. Uh I'll call Veroot. Uh, Mr. Bailey.
>> So, if I vote yes, that means I'm denying. >> Correct. >> And if I vote no, I'm not denying. >> Correct. >> No. >> No, you're not denying. Okay. All right. Mr. Burl, now I'm confused. >> Denying. So, yes.
>> All right. Um, Miss Lewis, >> I. >> Um, Mr. Timberman, >> yes. >> Mr. Rosen, >> yes. >> Miss Tevin, >> yes. >> And I'll vote yes. All right. So yes, six to one.
>> The motion was approved. The motion to deny was approved. Um >> I learned that long ago when I misunderstood. >> They had passed the motion, but the motion was not. So we're we're clear on that. All right. So what um just a
little bit of quick followup here so everyone knows uh the ground rules. Um, according to our ordinance, uh, an application being denied, um, uh, that can be appealed to city council that has
to be done in writing, uh, within 10 business days of this decision. So, tomorrow starts day one. I'm not sure how we count Christmas Eve and Christmas. So, let's we will verify that, but um, >> roughly, I think it's 10 business days, right?
>> It is 10 business days. >> Yeah, it's business days, right? So, um, so it's either the 31st or the 2nd. So, but I will inform the applicant about that. Um, uh, an appeal to council requires a, um, uh, a written letter of
appeal. It's not just saying I want to appeal this. Uh, and there is a fee, $125 fee, uh, comes with that. Um, an appeal is is that's presented to council is what the applicant or what the appellant, oddly enough, our ordinance
then refers to them as the applicant, but the appellant presents their uh appeal and then we process that for city council. U there is no shot clock on when that occurs. Uh we've had I mean
I500 or so bar actions since I've been involved with you all and I've had six appeals. Um, typically the BA council has taken 3 to four months, but um, that's up to them. I do I don't control their agenda. Um, the
it is not a hearing. Uh, at those meetings, um, I have prepared a response for council responding to the applicant's statement. So, what they present me is what goes to council, not reserving a a time to go and make their case. they certain they have time to
speak but what they uh submit in writing becomes their argument essentially. Um and the uh at those hearings or at those meetings, I present to city council. Then the applicant has 10 minutes, say
whatever they wish. Um uh followed by the B chair is typically there to answer some any questions. Um it's followed by whatever discussion city council wants to have and then they take their action. Following the action of city council, um
the appellant can, let's say that the city council denies the COA. Um the the B the COA applicant here could then appeal to the circuit court. Um so they have an additional step as far as and
some of the folks in the audience asked me earlier what they would do during an appeal. Uh again, it's not a public hearing. You can make statements uh to council. you can communicate to them. I think that the time to say something is in the matters from the public at the beginning of their meetings, but during
the actual appeal review by city council that it's not it's not a hearing. They don't open the floor. Um and um second thing I did want to >> Sorry, did I just want to reiterate that? Did everyone hear that? >> Yeah, we can't. >> All right. So, just just reviewing the
appeal process. Um, if this were to be appealed to city council and the public wanted to speak on that particular uh appeal, this project, unlike our meeting, you do talk about it during matters from the public at the city
council meeting that they won't invite the public to speak on that particular topic when it comes up on the agenda, if that makes sense. Okay. Sorry. Thanks, Jeeoff. >> Yeah. Um, I also wanted to say there's some comments about the BAR composition.
Um, uh, we have we do have a vacancy for landscape architect. Um, a lot of folks don't know these are all city residents. Uh, two of them are architects. Uh, two historians. We have two owners of commercial businesses or commercial property in a historic district. We have
the owner of a home in a historic district. Um, and we have a member of the planning commission. So, uh, who happens to be an architect, which is very helpful. Um, the, uh, that opening will be posted soon, if not already. Um,
we encourage people to be involved. I've, I've not been involved with the B for eight years now, and I don't think in those last eight years, we've had 20 people speak at meetings, and this year we've we've already had two meetings with, you know, close to 20. So, this is
good. light. Thank you very much for for for speaking and please come back and get involved. The um the other thing that I think would be helpful to understand is that um uh Fightville yes is on the National Register and actually I was just talking to John about this
where we're not sure the exact boundary of where Fville ended because Fville >> in the old days right it then continued east to Ridge Street but the what that neighborhood was called is I've heard different things Castle Hill uh some so
um but the the neighborhood was deemed eligible for the National Register. I this was when Mary Joy uh managed it. Um but they did not seek local designation. Um it's certainly something you all as a
neighborhood could discuss. I would have to say for city council to consider designating another historic district in the city would have to be absolutely overwhelming support from the neighborhood. But it it is an option. Um
or if there are buildings or sites there, we have a a house over on West Street and the owner contacted us a couple months ago. This is his grandmother's house. Uh he wants to have it designated in IP. So it there are you
know you can seek designation for out properties in your neighborhood or for your neighborhood and I'm certainly would be glad to talk to you about it, but it would takes a lot of heavy lifting within the neighborhood. uh that would have to be on on you all to pursue that and consider that. >> If I can interrupt for a second just to
suggest that maybe Fel um might also be interested alternatively in a historic conservation district which is like an ADC district light. um we would only see demolitions of contributing properties
and our review otherwise as light, but there are neighborhoods in the city that have chosen to go that route and that may be um more appealing. The process of being designated, I think Jeff would tell you, is no less cumbersome to be honest. There still has to be a historic
survey done, but the survey is really interesting. >> They've done it. It's been done. >> I still Oh, it has been done. Do they Does it have to be updated though? I mean for they go to council they go to council if you went in and said 99.9% of the folks want this I think council
would listen uh but yes it would be a high bar to get over but it is an option that's there and I think in the last couple of meetings and I've heard a lot from the folks and by Phil as it's currently called um it it's it's worth considering.
>> Okay. I'd like to follow up too on our chairman's comments about going to the board uh to city council. I would urge you to talk to city councilors before the meeting. >> Each of you get there. This will be a
thing. Get to them one oneonone or groups of you go to every city council person and explain your feelings. It's because you're going to be limited about what you can do in the meeting if there's an appeal.
>> Mhm. Yeah. And I believe they all have public email addresses, right? Um that you can find on the city website. Uh so that's another avenue to to write to them and then it also that it becomes part of the public record. So um thank
you Mr. Warner for the summary on the appeal process. Um I think uh we will see what happens next. >> And before you adjourn, I have a question for you all. You all are welcome to stay and watch us. >> So our next item
>> under other business, >> if there's any other business, >> the architect, you want to I want to get her spin on this. >> Oh man, >> no. >> You're dutifully patient. We appreciate. Uh so this is um >> doesn't even have an address. It's It's
the Cabell Avenue porch column. >> 627 >> 627. Sorry, I didn't see that on the screen. >> So you I don't know, maybe a year ago. Yeah, you look >> August 2024. >> Yeah. So the >> Yeah, that so on the back is an addition that you approved. Um but the comment
was made about the uh the front porch is falling apart. Um and what I love about it is a father of a kid that's renting there called the city. I I can't imagine my parents ever doing anything like that, but the father of a student renting there
has been upset about it. I like I can't I my fraternity house probably look worse than that. But anyway, so what we have you all put in as a condition of the COA for the work in the back required them to repair the front porch. Um >> the picture on the left is what I took
last summer. >> Did that in August this summer? Sorry. That's a fairly recent picture August this year. So we have before we have in the process right now a building permit request to fix it. Um the building
permit drawing shows reusing those those plane columns the Tuscan columns there. Um we know there used to be the Corinthian columns there and it actually almost looks like the same columns as somebody changed out the capitals,
doesn't it? >> Yeah, maybe so. >> Which brings into question their proportions, but go ahead. >> So, what I'm Yeah. So, what I'm prepared to do is sign off on the building permit and say that that way it just keeps and
go work sign it tomorrow, but um and I was ready to say keep going, but if the B wants the Corinthian columns um you have to install them. >> Do they have them? >> No idea. I really don't. >> What they submitted in their commercial
building permit for the reestablishment That company makes a Corinthian column to Chadzsworth. >> Yeah, they do. >> Yeah. So, it doesn't match what's there and that would be >> it's not going to match. >> Yeah. So, that's where I sort of got stuck and said, "All right, they got columns." >> There's lots of different Corinthian
columns. >> That's fine. But we know that the two engaged uh pilasters on the uh >> that are still there. >> Although uh Kate, look at that. They're not in the drawings. And I I mean we need to go by and do a site. I think >> one of those other pictures show the
other picture from the front showed it still there on the pyaster >> it was there in August that one there but look on the far side is it there in that other image >> on the back one? Yeah. >> Yeah. So I will just if I may use the rotunda as an example. Uh when we were
uh replaced the Corinthian column capitals on the rotunda, we actually left the Mckmian white era pilaster capitals because they were engaged to the building and the thermal mass of the building helped protect them from the disagregation that the other more
exposed capitals had suffered from. So there's a precedent in town where you've got two different eras of Corinthian column capitals on a very important building just >> just for the sake of it. This is getting in the weeds, but the uh the shafts are Corinthian column. Yes. Thickness.
>> It's not the weeds. That's what that's the order. >> Like it looks a little funny to have a a >> It absolutely does. I also think I also think the inabure is proportioned to the Corinthian. >> Why are these so much more narrow on the left? >> Is it just me? They look like totally different.
>> Maybe it's just there's some 2x4s holding. >> They are skinny. >> The 2x4s. No, I mean I'm looking at the I mean I see the 2x4s, but the pilaster >> he's just the >> looks nice and wide and >> he's right. I think the columns are a little skinny, but
>> but on the right. >> Yeah. So on the right we have to assume I mean that was there when it was surveyed. I don't know. Uh it it so that's what it's but I looked at the cost of a a Corinthian capital versus a plane capital. It's like you know so I
know why they're going with that. Well, they're also using what they have there. So there's the one side that says, you know, don't try to >> gota pay for prestige. >> Can we drop back a hot second and remind us of our purview here? This is in the rugby road historic. >> So your purview is that you approved a
COA for an addition on the back of this house >> and said they needed >> and as a condition of that COA, you require that they repair this porch. >> You should have. Do you have the purview to say now you're not preparing it right or
>> how many columns are we talking about? >> Four. >> Unless that back engaged column isn't I I can't go to that next picture or >> I never know what's I didn't want to like walk right into the
>> but they're they're suggesting removing those Corinthian capitals at the pyaster and replace >> no they're they're going to leave they're not even going to touch it. But what I'm on this photo here on the far left, >> look all the way in the back. Is that a Corinthian capital on that gauge?
>> Hard to tell. >> Don't know. It looks like actually it's probably a wood block that's replaced the Corinthian capital that's been lost. >> How much this house deteriorated in 20 years. >> Yeah, >> that uh other photograph looks like from 2005. >> Yeah. I also feel like the interior and
table should >> like how did they do that? So often times, who knows what these are made out of? Like a lot of times they were actually like a terracotta cast piece that would be two two pieces that sandwich around like a wooden shaft in the middle that actually did the work. >> Okay.
>> Of supporting the roof, right? So it's just purely ornamental. >> Um because they look cool >> or they get water damaged and fall apart. Yeah. >> You think these are the originals? What year's the house?
>> 30s, 40s. >> 1920. >> Yeah. 20. >> I just probably >> I don't know. I mean, >> can I say as a member? I don't care. >> Well, it's okay. >> I don't have a preference. I don't think
Tuscan ones are fine. Like, it just >> Well, you're Corinthian is kind of wrong. >> It's not true. If it's what was on the house, then it's correct. The perspective on this would be that the columns have been replaced. When we don't know, >> have they
>> the capitals have been replaced. >> All right. All right. All right. And and what we have is we have documentation of what it was there. So for them to use those columns and stabilize this porch, um I mean at any point in time somebody would to restore this, they could go back and and recreate it. So it's not
irreversible. Um, but I it it's fine with me to say you can do it, but you have to use a Corinthian capital. >> Can you go back to the drawing? It looks like they actually changed the shaft diameter. >> Yeah. I don't I'm assuming they're using those columns. >> They're planning on I can't read the
note. >> They're replacing the column. >> They're replacing the whole column. >> Okay. So, that that actually looks better. >> It does look better. >> Mhm. Um, >> if it's actually if it's a I'm I'm >> it's probably going to be an all composite
>> column and capital all my yards. >> It is. There's going to be a 4x4 wooden 4x6 wooden post in the middle. >> So, >> so they're replacing the columns. >> Yeah. >> Well, then why not go with the testing, >> right? At that point, why not? >> Sure. Okay.
>> We'll put anybody in favor of Ionic or Doric. Let's talk about the >> Yeah. Fancy or not fancy? Um, >> it's like the fanciest and the dork is the least fancy but still weird.
>> So, to me, I I think it's it's more important that they're moving forward and stabilizing this. This thing's in rough shape. Um, and I'm glad that's being done. Uh, if somebody wanted to come back and restore this someday, we have the documentation that they could restore it. Um,
>> are they redoing the roof on here, too? >> They might be. I don't know. I I wouldn't be surp I'm surprised they're not yanking, holding off. >> Roof is definitely >> I can't see the needs the the notes rather, but >> vote, right? It's not a vote. >> No, it's just
>> getting guidance. And that's that's that's >> I I I was with you. I It's 50/50. Uh, but I figured I would get, you know, because James, you are the man. be more important to have it just well done. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, you're good. >> I'm fine.
>> You're good as >> a drawing. I like it. >> One door. >> Oh, Jesus. >> So, did I So, I'm going to wrap up with wrap up >> have a triple
>> wrap up study. wrap up with a um a local history trivia question and because I want James I and I think I've already asked this one before but um >> in front of the fire station >> on Ridge Street. >> We talked about this.
>> We did >> the point church. >> Yeah, the bell. >> The bell. >> Has everyone gone by and seen it? The >> I drove by it. >> The bell. Saw it. >> I've seen it. >> So what was it? When was it? In the 50s. >> 50s. Like 51. Like the government, the
feds made they cast 50ome replicas of the Liberty Bell complete with the painted on crack um and gave them to the states. The states of Virginia didn't know what to do with it, so they gave it to Montichello.
>> Montichello didn't want it, so they gave it to the city. >> There you go. And now people are asking me, "What can the city do with it?" And I like all the >> All right. >> We need to talk about >> Are there any other >> other items?
>> Why don't we uh we'll go down and get your coat so I can let you all out, but no other items. Um have a happy and safe holiday. I think we should all go over and bang on Carl's window. Make sure he's doing all right. Um >> I thought he said he was going to be anesthetized.
>> We're journeying to somewhere. That's that's >> I want to thank Sher offering