I know what you're saying. I mean, you certainly can if you'd like. Might help keep us on track. All right. Uh, what' you ask? Thank you everybody. I think that's for future. Um,
we'll get started. It's 5:32. Um, welcome to this regular monthly meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architecture Review. Staff will introduce each item followed by the applicants presentation which should not exceed 10 minutes. The chair will then ask for questions from the public
followed by questions from the BAR. After questions are closed, the chair will ask for comments from the public. Uh, and then comments from the BR. For each application, members of the public are each allowed three minutes to ask questions and three minutes to offer comments. Speakers shall identify themselves and provide their address.
Comments should be limited to the BAR's perview. That is regarding only the exterior aspects of a project. Following the BAR's discussion and prior to taking action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond. Uh I would like to start this evening's meeting by
welcoming Jenny Lowour. Thank you very much for joining our happy band. Uh Jenny is a landscape architect and um a position we've been in need of for several months. So uh welcome aboard. Thank you much for joining us and doing
some civic duty. Um, all right. First item is matters from the public and not on the agenda or on the consent agenda. The current consent agenda has um an application for 120 West High
Street, a partial demolition of a rear porch and storage area. So, any comments from the public? All right. Do you want to discuss? We're We're all members from the church. Do you want a discussion or is it So it's
on the consent agenda. So if there are no if if anyone from the V would like to pull it off the consent agenda. No. Anyone from the public wish to offer opposition to this? Did you raise your hand? Me?
All right. Uh if that's the case, I think we'll move to the consent agenda. Do I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda? I move to approve the consent agenda. Second. All right. All in favor? I I I I All right. The motion
passes. The consent agenda passes. You guys are good to go. Keep keep your evening short. Thank you for coming, though. We really appreciate you all showing up and being prepared. Of course. Have a good evening. Okay. Moving forward. Um, yes. So,
deferred items. Yeah. And I I will note that uh Kate Tab for recruiting the new B member will be receiving a free toaster. Uh and um free to that one in my house. And uh
free doesn't mean it's news. Again, just want to remind everybody we we no longer haze our new members. So um that's frowned on. Um good to say that at a public meeting. Thank you, Mr. Really? Well, actually, we chatted with
Jen earlier today and she made the comment of something about memorizing the uh the guidelines and I was like, Carl Carl's already gotten to her bed very quickly. Chapter 3 in Greek. All right. Um, so the first item uh tonight
on your regular agenda, uh, this is 540 Park Street. Um, you all discussed this last month. This is a request to replace the windows um in a 1900's house. Uh the
um request had come in uh with casements to replace the existing and and there was a um request from the BA to consider double hung where they are double hung and uh the applicant has done that and I think been very responsive to what you
all had asked for and I just want to point out that where um um there's that triple uh this is on the second page under the discussion Um there uh there's a triple casement window uh that was on
the south elevation. Um and in in lie of doing that as a double hung or each of those is double hung uh to to keep the new will be casements. And then the second thing is on the front which would be the west elevation of the house that large picture window
we say in the living room but there on the left hand side uh the new will replicate the twin double hung above it which seems more appropriate to what had been there uh most likely. So that's uh those two changes I wanted to point out.
And um I don't know. I didn't Can I ask a question specifically on that window? I didn't see a reference about what is happening with that for lack of a better word historic transom. So the transom is going to I I think it had been left. It's going to remain in place. Okay. Um
it just wasn't shown in the drawings and it wasn't mentioned in textually that I could find. Maybe somebody else found it. I don't. Yeah. I personally I don't think that it's I think it's something from inside the house that was they said oh would be interesting outside. So I um
I don't know is Doug Doug's here and he can I actually just walking up Park Street today I found several other examples not not of that not of it applied on the outside like that but other types of like code codeated
windows that look a lot like that on more historic buildings. So um so just those are the two differences whereas in the staff you know the recommended motion is as submitted. Um I would just ask if you um if there is a motion that
considering including these two and and Doug is here uh with um Alix Construction and certainly if you have any questions or if you want Doug offer anything but do you all have any questions for me?
Was this the only issue that we had was changing the casements to the double lock? That was the primary issue. We also made them uh rather than clad windows, we made them all wood windows.
Okay. So, we upgraded the window to all wood windows. So, there was not a clad window. I was happy to have my client agree to that. Did we make that request? No, I think I made that request.
Um, thank you. I'm I'm a little confused. The last time we It's not controversial as far as I'm concerned, but last time we talked about this thing that they hung the um, you know, the reference to the historic, it's
literally hanging on just old hinges. So is and we did we I thought when in the last meeting we weren't going to kind of put that it's sort of a hoked up imitation. Is that important to do?
I I don't think we feel like that is historically accurate in that location. It might be from the house. It might be from a salvage yard. You know I don't think it looks like things other things in the house applied but it's something applied to the exterior of the house. I don't think it's in its original location.
Yeah, we can certainly try. I mean, no problem. But I wouldn't want to put it up the way it is now. You know, I don't think we're requiring that to go back. Not to go back. Um, and I guess Mr. Warner's suggestion is that they should put a partition or mullion in between
and have two wait two double hung windows. It's going to it's going to Yeah, there'll be two double hung regardless of that. Right. See, it would match the upstairs window. Right. Correct. Right. Yeah. My my opinion is I mean, I'm trying to get this. It can
stay if they wish it to stay. It's like it's like shutters. Uh they can remove it if they wish to, but not that we require. What's the intent of the applicant? Yeah. Really? I I was going to remove it and fix everything, I
guess, to with real windows, right? and fix the shutters that that need it and um and not put that transom back not put that back. I'm trying to fix the front porch not make any changes to it but
it's kind of oak together with plywood and I'm really pleased that from a client who was against doing anything now he's agreed to do everything so which is really great. So, okay.
So, I would ask that it be approved without that as a requirement, but if he if he allows us to put it back, we'll put it back, you know. And you're positive that it never fit the window? Positive. It's literally
It won't even sit flat. It's literally an old hardware. It won't It won't fit the current window. But I'm saying, did it ever fit that opening? I think that it would never fit it because now you've got a mold. You have two We have the molding around it now. The a more modern molding. But but you also have a mold
down the center that'll that'll protrude. Oh, sure. Yeah. When you mold the two windows together, right? Right. When with the new window. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I'm I mean, having been out there and I'm absolutely confident that that's not
from that it's not an exterior window. It possibly was a transom inside, but it absolutely was not on there. And it is hooked on. It doesn't fit. It doesn't It's not the right width. It's It's It is too regular hinges. Um I really
wasn't looking at it as a an issue here. It was almost to me if it stayed, it stayed. If it left, it left. Uh I wasn't. It was really the the windows appropriate if it left. What's that? I don't know. We're kind of getting scrambled on the process here. So, let's back up just a hand. Mine was a question
for sorry for staff. Yeah. Um for the applicant. So, Mr. Croker, do do you want do you want to summarize anything else? I guess you've told us what you want to do with that particular window and that you want to use wood windows and repair shutters. It's wood windows. It's basically
we took your suggestions. I I agreed. They gave me the leverage to get it right. So, great. I I would rather not be required to put that. It's kind of a junky thing. I know it may look good. Yeah. Okay.
Thank you. Um do we have any questions from the public about this application? Anything online? All right. Now, we'll go to questions from the BA. Um, I had one quick question. In the
attic windows, not the fan sash, but the the rectal linear windows. Are the existing ones casement windows because the proposed replacement or casement up there? The existing are. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the B?
All right. Uh, any comments from the public? Okay. All right. And comments from the B. We're trying to some of us are trying to pull up the application on our computers. I'm ready to approve. Anyone
else? Me, too. I I did just wanted to add by way of comments wanted to thank you, Doug, and the applicant for agreeing to do the double hung windows. Thank you. You know, in lie of the casement. Thank you for really improves
it and it was a good good it all worked. Thanks a lot and please thank your client too. Sure. Thank you. So I want to clarify what Jeff was suggesting. I don't know Carl did you pick up on that that we don't care either way about that trans. Yeah. Okay. It's not in the
application. So right so but the but going to the two windows there is in the application. Yes. Okay. All right. Having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC district design guidelines, I move to I move to find that the proposed
window replacements of 540 Park Street satisfy the BA's criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the ADC district. And the BA approves the application as as submitted. And just to clarify, um we are okay if they wish to remove or retain the transom on that first floor
window. Thank you. and the triple Oh, yes. I'm sorry. South elevation. Yes. The uh triple um windows um that are currently casements on the south elevation will remain casements.
Thank you. Second. All right. Thank you. I'll call a vote. Uh Mr. Schwarz, yes. Mr. Bailey, yes. Mr. Burl, I. Mr. Lewis, hi. Mr. Rosenthal, hi. Miss Tav, yes. Miss
Lowour. Hi. James Zamer votes I as well. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. Really appreciate it. Doug see you all. Thanks. Thanks so much. All right. Thank you much. Uh next application is 218 West Market Street. Uh which is the
hotel that we've seen a few times. Uh don't see the applicant. Sorry we're moving quick tonight. So, Jeff, would you like us to um we really only have this and then it's on to pre-application conferences. So, do you
want us to Well, and then come back online. All right. I I I would suggest I mean um I have a unknown attendee with the phone number but name but otherwise nobody
Um, let's just go to the next one. Yeah, I'm fine with it, Jeff. I'll call I'll call them. Okay. Yeah. See what's I think it'd be important for this applicant to be present for us to have a good discussion on this. So, well, our agenda has it at 6:20, so we're we're
early. We are. I think we moved on ahead. So, we're here for public comment on that one. Okay. That one as well. I don't know if that's relevant. I think I think we'd rather you be here when the applicant's here or to hear what you have to say. Are we going to take it off
or we are we in abance or what did you decide to do? I think we should basically can we right we're going to go if we can move to the pre-application if folks are here for 17th Street [Music] here for that. I think that's fine. Yeah. I just move it around in the
schedule. um or or the Seventh Street property, whichever. Are there who's present from is anyone present from 55517th Street Northwest? Fac um and then the 20220 204 208 7th
Street. That's you guys. Shall we move to that one? Is that Yes. Okay. So, we're going to move to number five on the agenda under deferred items. Um, again, uh, BR B
number 25-84 pre-application conference for 2024 and 208 7th Street Southwest. 204 and 208 7th Street Southwest are individually protected properties. Um, and the project is a new multi-story mixeduse
building. Again, this is a pre-application conference. So, we won't be really inviting public comment or questions at this time, but have a discussion with the applicant. So, uh, if y'all are ready and would like to No,
now he's not ready. Nobody's ready. Sean's missing. Should we go to staff discussions and questions at 8:30 for for 100? Alex, we can we can um if you would jump upside down to uh the 57. Um All right.
Well, I try. This should be a quick one. Um nobody wants to be here. So, sorry. I just No, that actually I looked up this is very helpful. So, um this door here, just for the record, we're going to move to staff questions and discussion on 517
Lexington until we have all our um store conservation district. On the left of the bottom image, left is Lexington uh street, the upper the bottom image would be Neighborhood Cemetery and on the back is is Kelly Avenue. Uh this is a request
to construct a uh secondary structure primarily garage in the back um facing uh uh Kelly Avenue which is not in the district and um why I'm showing to you
is that um well this is other Rylanders and uh but the guideline the ordinance allows within in a historic conservation district. Um it it used well uh the old ordinance but
we're going to correct in a new one was that if secondary structures that weren't uh that were minor uh uh construction I could review with the B chairs and approve administratively. Uh the the way the current ordinance is written here is
that I can um do a minor review if it's been reviewed by the BA and you allow me to uh also an application for a an accessory building. Uh that's you know then um I can approve it
administratively. So, I just wanted to um clear with you all that I was going to do this. Um and so go back up. Basically, what not basically what this is is from Kelly AB is uh uh what you
would see is this garage at the bottom left. Um the plan is a a stucco uh finish or a hardy plank sighting. um the guidelines if I approve it administratively I have to prove the I
have to rigidly apply the design guidelines and this is nothing unusual from a secondary structure that we've approved elsewhere it's it's kind of unusual Kelly aav is on most things in a conservation district we wouldn't look at what's in the backyard uh but because
that street is there uh we we do look at these things so I'm sharing with you all that I plan to review this administratively unless there's any Sorry. Go ahead. I hate to be the pain. It just seems because it is a street
that I I wouldn't want to call this a um I mean I I could see you putting on our consent agenda, but I feel like because it is on a street and it's a primary it's facing it's in other people's front yards basically. it. Um, well, go back to the
You say, "Wait, Kelly is not in because we approved uh we had to go through the process of approving that addition, the twotory garage that's next door." Fair enough. And that's that's why I'm bringing it to you. It's a uh it on we have additions on Kelly. Uh there are
garages in the back. I I I'm looking at it as a garage, a singlestory garage. The I just remember that application for um the little the twotory ADU um got a lot of comment. I I I agree. I don't know if Were you part of that or was that Mary Joy? No, Mary Joy. I was I
remember they added a canopy when I was here, but Okay. So, I'm looking at this as um this is a singlestory garage and we have quite a few of them on Kelly. That's how I'm I guess I'm just wondering and I I I'll back down if no one agrees, but if it could just go on
the consent agenda so as the opportunity for some public comment in case it becomes a a thing. That's fine. That's fine. I can advise. I I don't see why we need to bother with that, honestly. But that would be Yeah, I think let me get everyone's I think that's more complicated than it needs to be.
So, go to the elevation really. That's the only thing I'm looking at is go down. It's next. It's also not I I know I'm always the one that brings up zoning and apparently
doesn't know what I'm talking about, but because that's a street fraud, I don't think that's going to be allowed. It's very possible. It's very possible and they'll have to go through um um you said, but I uh
I looked at it as it's a we have garages back there. This is singlestory. Uh it's the materials In fact, the guidelines specifically even say put garages accessible in the
back. So, um uh that's but I So, the parcels the entire parcel is in historic district, but the h the front facade of the house faces the historic district. The back doesn't. Is that right? The backyard is within the historic district
and it is visible from a street and the ordinance does not uh discern streets within the district. It says within visible from a public street. Is this one in a garage? Doesn't matter.
I mean I think it is but it doesn't matter. Okay. In your regard. I think I agree with Mr. Schwarz. I tend to as well. Just it's in a historic district. It's the exterior of a building, but I think consent agenda is
all it needs to go to. Okay. I think if it's an alleyway, it would be different than if it's because it's just Kelly a is actually a street. That makes the difference in my mind. Fair enough.
And just a little for new folks on the the committee. So this is in the conservation district. So the far lower uh bar and I um have treated things that are not primary structures um separately
from the secondary structure. Now how it's going to be used I don't know but it's it's it's if this were a new house looking at it differently. Um uh but and if this were as I said on over on Locust on one of the alleys, you would never
even be reviewing it. So um but yeah, I don't I don't that's fine. I advise the applicant and is that what I hearing is the consensus? Okay. I I do want to say though that I I hope this doesn't set the president that all things that used to be administratively approved now have
to go on consent agenda. I just want to put that down. I the only thing that's bugging me is just that Kilav is the street. So I want one I walked down and I don't think this would be a problem. But if you think so I I don't I I I don't think it would be well then why are we bothering with it? For the sake
of public comment. Okay. That's Yeah. But but if it had been administratively approved before and we didn't think that the public was being somehow harmed by that process, why is it do you think that there might be harm in this particular case? Because we approved the
neighbor. We had to go through a process of approving the neighboring garage. Um, but that is but this is a separate entity. They don't have to be one thing as like the other but you all have your consensus.
I would say that as of this moment this is not on the agenda. It was on the hard copy agenda that we that we found here but it's still not on this city's website. And I know that that's not given. Well, that's why it's a question for, you know, that's why you brought it up. Yeah. Right.
I mean, I don't think it's that much of an onus to put it on the consent agenda, right? Okay. But are we setting a president that more things like this have to happen like that in the future and then the public needs to know that's what's going to happen? If there's a a
property that's got two fronts, I I would think that that would be an acceptable precedent. Okay. Do I disagree? I respectfully disagree with Mr. Bailey only because I don't think this board
generally looks for to for more work. I I don't think generally we overreach. Uh if it helps. I mean, you did um Mr. Zeller rebuilt a garage um singlestory and almost a shed and we did you all did
review it. So it's not unprecedented. Um I think and we also make it clear with applicants that we look at everything individually. Um and um I don't I think they were hoping for something but I I
you know I think they still have some zoning issues in question. You know they have a few steps that they have to go through. They're not a building permit right now. Yeah. I have not seen a development plan yet. Yeah. So, um I have a question about the process. Is um is there do
they are they required to have different documents for administrative review versus the consent agenda? Um in a conservation district, uh I've gotten far less. Um and in fact I would
even um I mean because of what we're supposed to look at shouldn't even I don't want to say I shouldn't show the front but it to say you really this is you're looking at this um back the history of the conservation districts such that the um
they are intentionally meant to be historic district light and there was a very um it was very intentional to have um formal review only for entirely new
buildings and the demolition of contributing structures. And um where I've treated it is that if it's a and it was in the prior ordinance, it was it isn't worded well in the new
ordinance, but it would have been I would have just consulted with the chairs on this one. And um if they said, "Yeah, this is minor." Now, the other part of that is where it's um if it I mean I've had them where it like
so perfectly meets the the guidelines it's almost a no-brainer. So, but there may be some questions here. Uh I understand that. So, uh but no, the the intent of the guidelines or of the conservation district system is to have as light as a touch as possible. Um and
there's no different paperwork there. there's for something there's no fee for most things no fee um so uh but no the paperwork uh as far I don't typically it's a homeowner doing
something it's you know so it's an addition it's like a sketch I I you'll have to trust my judgment on those I guess so I guess a question based on our conversations at the premeating also for something that would go through administrative review is are the
neighboring property owners. Well, I guess they're not informed regardless, but is it posted to the city website for which would allow public comment? There's no um it's there's not a real requirement for that. No. Right. So, there's the difference I think. Right.
Like if it's administrative though, I mean it's right. It's not unknown but it's u no notices don't go out. Right. But I guess you're based on our conversation earlier, the notices aren't don't go out regardless. It just getting
posted to the city website as that it's on our agenda is the public notice, right? And so to Mr. Schwarz's point, the only way this would be on the public's radar is if it gets on our agenda, even if it's on the cons. Well, if it's on the agenda, then it would be posted, right?
But then the question comes back, why does it necessarily have to be on the public's radar? And I don't think it needs to be neighbors. I I understand neighbors, but there are there are rules with regard to what neighbors are allowed to to say about pe other
people's property. I think because it's an historic district, there's an expectation that they might have a chance to say something. And again, like if it was a backyard, I think that would be different than this is a property that technically has two front yards, right? I would also argue that the precedent has already been set by the
other property on with the ADU in the back. Yeah. So, I think there's general consensus whether albeit not 100% that we'd like this to be on a consent agenda.
Is that okay? I'm sorry. I'm always causing problems. Is that a question? I think it's a that's what we'd like to see. That's what I'm hearing. The general consensus is Jeff looks No, I I I I'm not I can only do what the code tells me to or not to do.
It's imperfect. Um and um if you all on staff say that it's administrative, then that's I guess what has to be done. But you you asked us. Yeah. I mean, there's an awful lot of you I just want to make sure we're clear to there's a lot of inquiries from people
saying, "Can I do this on my house? and I and I, you know, will walk them through help Mr. Bailey with some uh repairs at his house. Uh we don't notify, you know, if I had to stop the processes and, you know, post notices
and send letters and whatever for um so I I try to be just just to be clear about all of these. I try to really be reasonable about um you know what's what am I looking at and how am I uh
I often say how would I treat myself at my house and um and I I think that that's so that's where I go. it it's there's not a one-sizefits-all and um but uh so that's all I'm my look is simply I I I don't I don't have a a a
boilerplate answer for you other than I all of these are slightly different and and I do my best to treat them equally but if I think something's going to be a problem I don't I don't try to you know gloss over it in admin you guys will get
it made similar to the reason I could have easily if it helps put tonight the the 540 Park Street could have easily been on consent given the conversation we had but I felt that that had earned some conversation so I so there
but thank you I will I will get in touch with the applicant about that um we got okay so I think our representatives are here from 218 West market is everybody present all right so we'll get back onto our agenda we're still ahead head. Uh,
thank you all for coming in a few minutes early. Mr. Chair, I'm recusing myself from this consideration. Thank you, Miss Lewis. Um, all right. So, 218 West Market Street. Um, we've discussed this in several pre-application conferences and then
also, uh, we had its first, uh, official, uh, certificate of appropriateness application last month. Uh, Mr. Warner, did you want to introduce anything on this project? I I think um you're very you all are very
familiar with it. Um I I will share I spoke with Miss Lowour earlier today um and she's had asked you know what expectation of her participation. I said well where she's comfortable but she's not obligated to um uh so just so you
know I told her that um the Mr. Mr. Seamer, you had asked me earlier about the note I had sent to the applicant. Um, and I so I printed that. I also created some copies if if anybody wanted to see what was sent. Uh, so that you could work from that. But I think
that um I've um I don't want to spend too much time uh I expressed in the preliminary meeting uh you know I where I think you all the direction you should take on
this and then um but I would ask if you have any questions for me um otherwise I was going to hand it over to uh Mr. Pineo and Mr. Lavine and and let's get going. Okay. Does the B have any questions for staff?
Okay. Um, I'll invite the applicant to give us a presentation. If y'all could try to focus on the revisions that were requested and if we can try and keep this initial initial presentation to the 10-minute limit. Um, I think I can go
faster than that. Great. Okay. Thank you, sir. Um so yes we so two things we did in the last since the last hearing. One was um Jeff kind he pointed out all the detail
that we had to get in. So we did we we submitted a ton of detail um that we could go through but we feel like we we've given that. And then what we did from an architectural design is we took I'm going to say the three to five things that really stood out to address
and we and um we feel we addressed them. So uh Kate, if you want to flip through the beginning sheets, we'll kind of just will show us that and I believe Nit's on the phone as We have an extra copy of the email if you need
it for any reason. Uh, welcome to it. So, I'll let Bob speak to this more about the the but what we did was we heard a lot of comment about kind of more uniformity with the patterns.
Bob called it abab or something, but I think um uh you were kind of saying it got a little it wasn't as symmetrical as as you would like. So we we feel we addressed that on both sides of the building. Um Bob, do
you want to add anything to that or Yeah, you know, I'll go I'll go through them all and you could circle back as when I when I flubber something like um uh so that was that was one on the upper on the upper portion. The next slide,
this is the pattern of the um Bob, you should get you should talk about this. Yeah. Yeah. This is related to Kate's comment about uh column spacing, the ABC. Uh so we went through the floor plan, looked at all of the cases where there was and and created a kind of more
uh you know, regular pattern of ABA just to to show that we've done that. Thanks, Next slide. Same on the other side. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. Do a lot of ABAB.
Um, okay. So, here we took a couple of things. That wall, which I said last time, I it bothered me as well. We were going to sort of punt it a little bit, but we heard everyone's concern. Um, so we added that planting bed in front. Uh
the plan and Siobhal can speak to it from Timonss is to make those seasonal and plant those. Um they are uh pieces that you you buy so we're confident that we can install them. Um and then they're you know a great way to make that more
walkable and shield that wall which I was personally happy with. Um we I don't know we didn't add the detail of the lighting that Kate spoke of. We made a note of it that we are because we have some photoometric issues we need to work on and we need to kind of get the detail
of where those will go. Um but it's in our submission and and we would expect that it would be approved with that we would have to do that and if you want us to come back and show the detail we could. We were just at the point that um I didn't want to show you something fake
and just done on the fly rather than just make a note that we do have to get to it. Um, and we will, um, we added, I don't think they're all shown here, but we added trees. Uh, we comply, um, you know, uh, Carl was strong in that
comment about complying with tree and tree canopy. And again, Siobhal can speak to that as to, um, how we comply the amount, but we did add some trees. I don't think it's on this, but it's on this side of the street. So, next slide.
There's a titan shot of um of that wall. You can go to the end. Um I also Bob, by doing that wall or so, didn't we get some more canopy or what what what did we do as far as the um the
terrace? Did something change with the the the basically the uh we kept the front wall the way it was in planned and recessed the uh the porch area. That's okay. So that porch area now responds really well. Well, the canopy is the same as it
is, but it used to stick out a little bit further than the canopy. Now they're they're basically in line. Okay, that's um next slide. Uh we took another look at this
entrance. Um we uh Bobby, you want to you could talk about the detail. I will talk from develop. I was still really want this entrance to be what I'm going to call the cool, hip, find it entrance. I didn't want it like shockingly bells
and whistles. And um it's it's primarily for guests. Uh I we we really feel strongly that anyone visiting that restaurant is going to come in off of market if they're if they're specifically going there or they'll know they'll be guests of the hotel or they'll know to get there. And those are
the only people um that should be using that. We we just constantly went back to the preference of having the retail uh speak, you know, speak the strongest along that street. Um we did add um I think it's another visual, but we did add a bump out to Shield because we
heard that comment about separating which was a great comment about separating the driveway the you know more uh functional to the um doorway and so I we bunkked that out. Do you want to talk at all about other detail that we did? So basically as you remember that
the solid uh the stair egress tower uh that articulation was kind of more blank. So what we've done is incorporated more into that three-dimensional twostory brick facade. So we bumped that out. We made that that that stair open. We added more light. Um
we recess we added another large window uh into that stairwell. So the idea is to, you know, continue the focus on the retail feeling of and of the street. Um, so that base has now been enlarged. It's been pulled out. Uh, there's more
detail. The canopy is uh is where it is, but now there's a little bit of a recess. So we separated it from the entrance to the to the garage portal. Um, and then we've done other things like taking this idea of the planter and and that's the back of house entrance to
the to the to the garage. So, incorporating some of those elements so that the building reads, you know, has the same elements on both both sides. But again, the main focus for us was uh continuing to uh make the pedestrian
experience as far as retail and connectivity uh that that was our primary focus. Right. Right. We did make it a little more grand by any that window sort of went double and and then a big focus was to that that back of the
house now with that landscaping and be doesn't doesn't become like this one little dark thing to walk by. Um and did we talk I don't know if you noticed it on it might be this prior slide but how the we brought the column
out. Yeah, we brought that column out um to uh separate those two. We I mean we toyed with it. We wanted to make it definitive enough but subtle enough um and also we were just conscious
awareness of sight lines. So that's um you know whether we plant next to it I think that's to be determined but we thought we captured some of the BAR or with B's concern about separating those two elements. Next slide.
Um, this is the landscape. [Music] We addressed Carl's brought up comments about the market side street where we brought in more trees. Now we meet our street requirements. Um, Jeff and I, one
of Mr. and I talked about the goko on the old Preston side where you know there's plenty of presidents on the downtown mall for the goko century. So we feel that's the appropriate tree on that side as well. So we were able to bring in more trees in the old market
street side here and and we confirm that the trees we're using are that was the context right because that was a question last time. Yes. Um, this is some of the detail. We can take questions on that later, but it's just more of the detail of the
landscape. Next slide. Next slide. And then I think we go into a ton of detail information, which we're here to answer any questions. Um, a lot of the we brought the materials. Last time we had a box of the actual material to to
feel. So, a lot of the stuff was um either further detailed um and we also I think uh for Carl's we did change the uh material on the screening on the roof because we knew that was
important. Um I guess you know that's my technical term. So um that's what we have. I mean we are appreciative of everything we've received from the
bar and a lot of time uh we think we have three projects. Um so we're you know hoping for a positive vote today for an approval so we can continue. You got two more seconds. All right.
Great. Thank you Mr. Lavine. I appreciate that. Uh all righty. Uh do we have any questions from the public? have comments. We'll get to that in just a moment. Yes. Um any question? Anybody
online? Sorry. No hands raised. Okay. Uh do we have any questions from the B? I had a question. Is this on? Hello. Um, I had a question about the u the bed width for the trees on the streetscape.
If you happen to know off the top of your head the bed width of the street tree which side planters on the Preston side Preston side um that is going to be I believe about five to seven feet. I think that's still
we're still in design development a little bit those areas obviously. Yeah. And one um welcome by the way. I know you're So so one thing that we went through last time which was is we've got um utilities with a storm water we have
in in that sidewalk. So it's it's making a little tight but we so we had to combine the greenscape along with the sidewalk and respect the utilities underground. So that kind of that makes sense. We're not able to take the trees to the street side because of the storm
water systems utilities and all that. So that's why we chose the ginko for that. Probably closer to the building. They brought some more green and it creates a green wall when you're looking on the mall versus kind of an al style
approach. Uh I had a question. Um one of the one of the comments that sent to y'all was the the location and material for the control joints. Um Bob, did you show those somewhere or could you describe those? They're in the They're on the
page 30 of our presentation. There it is. Uh page 32 of the farm on the on the far right. Join. I guess I was cur I guess I was
looking more for where are they going to be on the facade of the building. If you look at the elevations, all the elevations clearly show where you know it's part of the just the just the on the line drawings. Yeah. On the line.
Yeah. There you go. Okay. So, sort of in that big gray block the on the sort of right hand side there. Go back. Go back a slide. lines. There's lines at the floors. There's line, you
know. Okay. There's a vertical expansion joint at the at the windows. Yep. It's pretty. Okay. Thank you. Um I guess I guess it's a question. Uh you you talked about the GKO. Um any concern
that they're almost too close to the building? I understand like you've got utility conflict, but they sort of mask the windows of the retail space that we're trying you're trying to provide there and it kind of hides it and screens it. So, I just didn't know if you like concerns with that or if there's we're limited in what we can do
in that space. So, we're trying to bring in trees in there and again bring into that space. Yep. My my belief is it might be two retailers, probably one. So with the right signage and it's
it's not going to be this kind of row where there's four or five entrances and so you got to find them all. So we're and there's really only one place. So we select an entrance and if we make that with the right signage um the trees won't have an effect and I don't I don't
again the retails will have to adjust but it's not also something like a window shopping where it's going to have to pop with a mannequin and someone needs to see something. So I it it's we we chose it cuz we like it cuz it's kind of like that downtowny feel of um
you know and it's not part of my friend Stonefield where it's just very it's kind of and and I again going to my I I kind of like a little bit of that hidden feeling like you're you're finding something. So um and I'll add one more thing. We also with the pocket part I
think you're being assoc I think you're going to have a a big you know pop there as well for customers to get down. [Music] Um in the on a follow-up question on
that the you've got the minimum installed size is a 2-in caliper. What's the typical height of a 2-in caliber GKO? Uh great question off the top of my head. Uh it's about um that's a good one. Uh it should be about
10 to 12 ft if you're thinking. Okay. They'll be small to start out, right? Okay. Any other questions? Not trying to rush anybody. This is
important stuff. Did the stucco joint on page 32 have a dimension? I didn't see that. It's a freaking uh it's it's a it's a sto detail, you know. So they I can get you that, but
this is a manufacturer's detail. So um if I had to scale it, it looks like something between 58 3/4 of an inch. But that's the, you know, I don't think we have flexibility on that, but I can get that like
And can you remind us the thickness of the stucco product? It's about an inch and eighth. Inch and an eighth cementicious material. Yeah, it's it's it's effectively a three coat masonry product. Um while it's while it's a still product and I I don't know if you
recall but last time I bought the you know it's a wire lab scratch coat brown coat it's a it's a real masonry stuck with the the last co that's that's why sell
and that would be the the detail I was looking at said it's a the vertical joint detail. Oh, no. That was Sorry, that was the brick I was looking at. Never mind. So, that that detail would be vertical and horizontal. Yeah. Yeah. Uh it's a
different detail. That right there that detail right there is uh specifically for floor uh you know expansion. Um so there's a there's allow allows for flexibility if if system changes. Um.
Mhm. And there'll be a vertical. You don't need to have flashing. Be a joint. Just a joint. Yeah. Okay. And do you have that shown in your pack in your application? I don't. Okay. And Nitton is on the line. Let me see if
I can get him. 31. Page 31 shows the vertical joints. Oh, does it? chose it right next to a window, but there's a Yeah. Right. Okay.
[Music] Uh, another question. Um, the window detailing, I saw that you included that, but I didn't see any dimensions um of the jam depth or sill depth. Is that something you have available?
Let me see if I can get that from you. We did bring the sample the the window profile. I remember the window profile, but I don't think that was there was not brick kind, you know, we're we were I think someone had a comment last time about the depth of the that window
assembly relative to the outside of the brick just to understand the sort of depth of that facade. Page 29 shows uh the brick return at the openings. It's not dimension but there is uh some
relief there. And maybe a more general question would be the windows that are in brick. Are they going to be recessed into the brick so that we see something like the the returns on here or are they going to be more flush with the brick? I mean this
sort of suggests that there is a return. So is that the intent? Yes. [Music] And it looks like the windows in the stucco are flush with the stucco, the
plane of the stucco. Is that correct? Um that I'm going to have to they're close to but I believe there a recess that the windows are set back to a certain degree. These aren't flamed windows. It looks so capacity to set them back is
there. To what degree? I'm going to have to double check if the detail you provided doesn't show a stuckco return at the opening. on the um center image there for the seal. Is it typical
for that the vert I'll call it vertical face of that brick to tilt outward like that. Okay. I'm asking my architect colleagues up here. I mean it's a imitation of our rollock. Okay. Great.
Thank you. Are we still in questions? We're still in questions. I'm just I'm sorry. Just N is on the phone. So N if you have any of those answers, just speak up and if you have the answer and you have the
drawing. I mean, we could put it up or submit it or just just let us know. Could [Music] the applicants talk into the microphone?
Uh, Nitton, I was just saying if you're I'm sorry, he's ready. Oh, okay. Nitton, I was just saying the any of these questions that fall more into your purview, just speak up and throw the answer out there. And if there's some drawing that needs to go with it, if we
have it, we can send it. or I I think I think we have most of drawings regarding the details. The windows uh they are not flushed with the exterior. They are recessed in as you
can see in this particular detail. the the tin brick uh actually uh uh you know they have these sections which will uh imitate uh rolloff bricks and uh wherever there's a recess there are
corners available and uh so so that we can handle all those uh it doesn't look like it is stuck on u on the sides of the windows it looks real uh these are pin windows So after nailing the pins
onto the framing, there will be uh um the stuckco coming out by a few not a whole lot but I would say probably around 2 in and it'll it'll
turn. So uh they're not really flush to the extreme. There are details I believe for the stuckco also u I don't know exactly if have you incorporated that I think I did
share those also uh for the windows zero but if you don't have it we can always share that yeah whatever you gave us business in that package
so it should be in that it it's very similar to this except there are flashings coming out of the window bottom and and uh uh that's uh part of the stuckle system they provide
uh to treat uh the window returns on the side. There you go. From the left hand side you see that sealant jam detail on the left top. So you see at the bottom there is a there is a end damp fashing
which comes out u but there is a return after you put the frame in. I don't think it is a do or die thing, but when I look at that detail, that's not a stuckco return. The um if I'm looking at the detail that you that
we've got up on the screen right now, if anything, I was trying to show the bottom the sill detail. Yes, the seal projects a little bit, but but you know, as I said, I don't think there's a problem with having the
um a difference between openings in masonry wall and openings in the stucco. I think that's not unusual, right? page 29. So, just looking at this section, uh,
you know, the framing would be the if the framing is the same and the window is the same, you've got the the brick, uh, so picture that detail with Stuckco, you'll naturally, you know, you're naturally going to get a a return back. All right. So, it's not going to be like
the detail that the sto right section showed. Yeah. the wind if the framing and the window are the same. Take away the brick and add and replace it with Stuckco that you'd get a return on on the head on on the jams and the head.
Well, the framing is right behind the the thin brick. What you're seeing there is just blocking. I think you're see you're seeing the subse, you know, the wall framing, the sheathing, and all of the subasssemblies. So, replace the brick
with the stucco. stuckles about the same if not even a little bit thicker than the than the brick. So it would it would have that same return. Okay. Therefore, the window would recess. Okay. Yeah. You're just not showing that anywhere,
but Yep. So, is there a difference between the previous slide where it's got the flanged window versus the recessed window? Go up. I mean, I think these slides are just to show the stove system. We're not supposed to No, I'm talking about that.
It was this. Yeah. Yeah. That's a flank window. Yeah. See? So, where are these two details shown? Where? Yeah. Where are we looking? Where are we? I guess that's because this it's almost like there's a double step for
the recessed window and just a single step for the this flange window. Did you guys say that this one does not apply? I'm going to count on you to help us here. Yeah, we're trying to get a sense of
you're showing both a flanged window that's flush with brick and then you're showing a window that has a brick return so that there's a recessed m opening in the masonry and we just want to make sure we know what's being suggested here. There we go. It was a good
question. So on 28 it's it's flush and on 29 there's a inch and a half reveal. I' I'd also point out that if you go to the renderings, it looks like there's actually many more conditions um in the
in the renderings that are not shown um in the details. I see a flush brick condition. I see a deep return. Um I see a stuck window. Um,
some have the sill the kind of tilted sill details, some don't. So, I'm just, um, I think it would be helpful to have a little bit more clarity on all the different, you know, the very I'm sure there's probably three three window conditions that we should probably be
seeing before. Um, so just make absolutely sure I'm hearing what I think I'm hearing. Um, so return a certain depth window are punched if
you will. Windows are punched. There's a depth to them. So it's that and there's various places it's various depths but it's it's being able to discern that as shown these are not flush as shown.
We assume these are punch but certainty to what that depth is. That's correct. And if you go to the uh the old Preston site, it looks like there's more. That's what I'm looking at right now. That's sheet 14,
for example. Um so there's the very deep return um there. Um and then if you look above the brick that looks like looks to be a punched opening above the canopy. Um, and then there's above the garage
that looks like a different depth. I'm just saying that I think there's some conditions we're not seeing in detail. Kate, do you feel comfortable with the idea that they're there and the idea of detailing this entire building with all of these? So there's one thing which is
I think the problem is that the level of specificity um when we're getting uh so a building can fall apart at the detail level. We all we all get that but the idea that there are different conditions they're shown three-dimensionally
they're shown design intent the certificate of appropriateness is that an appropriate setting for the window. Now the idea is how how that how that gets uh done. Uh that's a lot of work and a lot of my fear is that um from a
architect's perspective, speaking architect to architect, sometimes it takes time to really fully flush out these details and you get better as you go, assuming that the the hand who's doing it understands that you know that
the requirement, but it's embedded in the drawings. The intent is there that you're right. Some of the windows are are flush. Some of the windows are recessed. The whole idea is that that's the design intent. Resolution of those details. Um is a lot we we could, you
know, we could spend a lot of time and effort. Uh and it's coming. My big question is, is this the right time to get into those details? I'm sure Jeff is saying, how am I going to review these? We do know that it's set back. We do know that there's different window conditions. there needs to be an
appropriate detail that's drawn that's commiserate with the design intent. Um, but I'm I always feel like there's within time and Nton's a very good detailer. Uh, within time these details will and should be resolved. Uh, at this
point design intent to your point is true. Um, but how far do we go to try to resolve all these details? And I would almost argue it's contrary to good building because you need the time, good building design. You need time to flush
these details out with the manufacturer, you know, all those kind of things. Um, so that's my advocacy of the design intent is there. We need time, the the process needs time to evolve so that the
details are done correctly. Um, yeah. Yep. I want to ask you I'll ask him a question. is and I'm putting on this side. I'd rather ask it, but is the intent that they're they're going to be kind of stacked that they're going to have
different or or are they all one way and you just put two things on there by accident? No, the the design intent is that masonry openings are different than than than masonry stuckle openings. And I think that's all we're asking for right now. We're not asking you to
detail windows, but you've shown two different conditions in brick. one of which I would find objectionable and but what you've said is that you are going to have uh returns at the masonry openings and you are going to make a distinction and I mean if that's as much
as I would want out of this right now yeah I think in my mind you have to give them definitiveness of what our intent is. So if our intent is to have those in variation and we went
for final bill and they were all the same, we would not be of that intent. So I just want to make sure that we're because you're right, we can go through every window and detail each different. But I I in this iteration and the previous one, we have 30 slides of
renderings of up close and you know that's the design intent. Okay. Um that that's that is a distinct difference between the upper floors and the and I'm trying to follow along on the det and I I didn't know if it was like a gotcha like you put two things there and they were saying like well you
gave me two windows and you should have given me two windows but you're saying they're different and you just have it we have your detail exactly right. Yep. I I think the confusion might be that the the details you gave us, you have the flange window in there and I I'm it sounds like that's not
actually I think it was page 28 is not actually you didn't intend to put that in there is I think what we're understanding. Well, that's the question. Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm going to refer to Nittton. Uh the flange window would work. Nitton,
you want you want to approach this? Yeah. I I have been informed uh by the contractor we are working with closely uh he would like to use the flank windows. So it will be a flat window and and you're right uh the amount of return
shown in the window sill detail for the brake um is is not exactly what it should be. There there will be a little less return. There will be some return because once you put the flange on the framing, there will be some buildup
of the uh brick and uh the moisture drainage system behind it and that is the extent of return we going to get. We're not going to get a whole lot of return where the roll is shown completely coming out. There will be
roll off but it will not be as much as if you shown the detail. Okay. Most of the renderings show a pretty deep reveal. And I think that's where we're struggling. Oh, the front ones are columns coming out. Are we talking about those? Are we talking
about uh both or not really? There looks like there's sort of a one almost one brick like for the windows where we do have the deep return. There's a brick border if you will around the window. It seems and that perhaps to me I was reading where the
flange window might be the one that's over the Preston Street entrance where it's seems more flush. That one perhaps the workout room may be. And then there's some that looked like on the first floor, I guess first floor on the Preston Avenue side maybe are the more
flush or flange windows, but I was reading the others as more as recessed. So I think it might be beneficial to really call out kind of it could just simply be marking up like road, you know, windows number one are flanged, windows number two are recessed
or something. I think I can provide some clarity because if you see this rendering right here, see how the column lines are sticking out, there's a a significant depth in that column. So there's no way that even if you have a flange window, you could nail something to the side of
it and create the flange, but you're always going to have a big brick return. Correct. So that's all the column lines on the main floor. So that takes care of that entire lower floor. Now go up to the Preston. Go up. You're still on the Preston side. You're up on the second floor. It's the same condition. Those
windows are recessed back. Now, Nittton, we might need a nailing flange or something like that to help secure the window, but you're still going to be recessed back. The columns are going to be expressed. Now, you go to the third floor. You go to the third floor, it's the same thing. Uh that those windows
are recessed. That's a masonry open with a punched opening that's recessed back significantly. So, the windows above the garage door, are those those I would say it's the same thing. We're returning and I think we can almost you know so this
is a question for or a task for Nitton to figure out y um those windows above the uh the entry to the garage uh those two columns are actually
extending out of the uh just like the other columns. So that that creates a recessed opening there and that's why they recess. Uh but that's not a typical condition everywhere. That's just one exceptional condition where we have that
effect. But rest of those areas we have vertical columns coming out. And then we have the windows which are not really recess recess because it the thickness of the brick itself will be outside the frames and of the moisture drainage
system whatever is required that inch and the brick thickness. Probably the whole thing will be around 3 in. It will be recessed by that much. But beyond that we are not using the uh windows which will be recessed inside. But these
will be the planned figures. Okay. I think there's I apologize to follow up because I the audio is a little bit not great. Um well, did you ever provide the the type of windows because I'm seeing this and
reading it as storefront, but when you say a flanged window now? Yeah. The last one. Yeah. These are the Entis windows. Ent. Okay. Okay. So, that is a All right. That's not storefront. Okay. So, it reads like storefront in a
way, but let me um Thank you. That I I couldn't remember if that was um these these are actually pretty high quality composite windows. So, uh let me just direct the under in the guidelines under new construction uh
for doors and windows. Um, traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. So, um, I think that obviously this 10 years a masonry, so those buildings would be punched. I
think from just if it helps from where I am as staff, um, you know, unless it's indicated, I mean, I'm not concerned if this is 2 in or two and a half or three and a half. Uh, but the intent is that they are either punched or flush. Um, so
it that's where I'm I I think I'd like some clarification that if if you if applying the guidelines, these should all be punched. Um, have some level of recess. Um, but it sounds like there are some flush windows. Um, so I'm sorry.
Does do the guidelines include like any material needs to be punched if it's a masonry? Um whereas if it were framed, it would have the the the the trim would, you know, project out, you know, like around where the siding comes in. So for masonry building, yes, we would
assume a a punched opening and and stucco would be considered masonry. Now again, that's just the guideline, but and then I want to clarify. I thought I heard the applicant, at least the applicant on the phone say that they were not planning to use the roll lock
detail with the sill. Did anybody else hear that? Oh, no, no, no. We will use the roll lock detail on the seal. That tin brick system comes with that roll detail. It will not be as deep as it is
shown. That's all I'm saying. Interesting. Yeah, I think that's part of our hangup is that perhaps the rendering is showing one thing that you're saying is not the intent. Um,
we're still in the question section. Wonder if we should let the the public talk. Yeah. No, I'm happy to. I just want to honor our process. And does anybody have any other I think we have discussed that the window detail and maybe we can comment more on it when we get to comments but any other questions
on other topics from the B. Okay, good. Okay. Um, so now we will invite the public to comment. I think we have some folks from the public. Please step up. State your name and your address, please. [Music]
My name's Dina Gold. I have an address in the city on 10th Street and an address in Free Union, 5245 Caterton Road. Um, so I'm the executive director of Lighthouse located next to the 218 hotel
build and I understand the BAR makes decisions based on design, not safety and noise. But by approving this design, you are approving a garage door placement, which is right next to Lighthouse's accessibility ramp to the for the Vinegar Hill Theater and our
theater door entrance. I attended the November meeting when you determined that a redesign of the 218 hotel was necessary. On January 13th, I asked Jeff Lavine for an update and he said it would take a few days to get back to me and he never did. Fast forward to May
30th. Mike Stone King, Lighthouse's architect advisor, reached out to Bob Pino asking about the proximity of the new build's garage door to our theater. And Bob needed to check on this. Mike did not hear back from him. On June 5th, I reached out to Jeff and asked for a
meeting the week of June 9th, and I received a reply telling me that the meeting was premature. However, on Friday, the 13th, Jeff suggested meeting tomorrow morning, the morning after asking you for approval. The garage door placement is not safe every day and
throughout the day. Our students ages 8 to 12 21 teachers, staff, and theater attendees exit our theater door and turn right to access the mall. They will be forced to immediately navigate cars entering and exiting the hotel. Kristen has some photos for visual reference.
Our accessibility ramp is located beside our theater and right next to the hotel's garage door and it's used by individuals in wheelchairs as well as attendees. The November hotel design showed one garage door located on Old Preston, a side street. Today's design
shows another one located on a dangerous street curve where accidents happen. At this time, you are not allowed to exit left or right from the Artful Lodge or parking lot on Market Street. My understanding is that there is a Charlottesville city planning and design goal to not allow large vehicular
openings on primary streets. Furthermore, as this driveway descends to the garage, it will create a fall hazard along our handicap wheel access path. Our theater is much more likely to suffer from the sounds of busy car entrance exit given the garage door
placement. This might make our theater inoperable, which would result in a m major revenue for loss for us, but um basically also a loss of a Charlottesville landmark. Vinegar Hill has been around since 76 and we recognize the importance to our
community and we agreed to keep it going. We hold approximately 100 events annually and last year we gave 47,000 back to our community um via discounted rentals and sponsorships that otherwise would not have been our uh different
folks coming would not have been able to afford. So, thank you for taking a second look at the hotel's garage door location when you make your decision about the design. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Gold. Um
[Applause] All right. Are there any other comments from the public? All right. Um I think the applicant can Let's see. How do we do that? Do we we come? Okay. Uh I think we'll do comments from
the B. Any thoughts in particular on the public comment about this uh garage entrance off of old old not old Preston, excuse me, Market Street. [Applause]
And maybe Kate, if you could pull up the design showing that part of the facade. I'm sorry. Sorry. Market Street side. Okay. Sorry, I went back to the previous application. Okay. There were more
renderings um than this. So, this is from the May 20 packet. [Music] [Music] I have a question for the board. Um, where where are the guidelines for like
pedestrian crossings? Is that in zoning or It is in zoning. Okay. I mean it yeah I think unfortunately I think this is a thing where I mean we we can push for you know we can say whether a garage door is appropriate on a facade
or not. I think as far as our guidelines are concerned um that's the most appropriate place for a garage. Um, now as far as being a good neighbor and whatnot is concerned, um, I
I I don't know. Um, I think zoning is going to end up looking at um, if that garage can be there or not. I mean, I'm pretty sure by zoning it can, except that they're also going to be looking at um, at that point that's going to be
considered a ground floor and um, it's they're going to have to get some exceptions. I think they're going to have to get some exceptions. I don't know for sure on, you know, windows and whatnot in that that ground floor right there because it's already they won't treat the the main level as a
ground floor by the time you get so far over there because the ground is sloped um or dropped off so much. So, um I don't know how zoning is going to take this. [Music] Um, and I guess it to speak to zoning is
that we've, I know I've brought this up before. I think we're going to pretend that we're just going to, you know, approve based on our guidelines. And, um, I've asked Jeff Warner if if you guys have to get an exception or something, even if it ends up being administratively approved, if we could
at least someone could tell us. I don't know if it has to come back to us, but at least so that we, you know, are aware of what's going on. Um because it sounds like you guys still need to go through the whole development process. Um
yeah, I mean I will say public I I I dislike the characterization that uh Miss Gold painted because I've been in communication for years with her and trying to be cooperative. Um and any conversation before going through this whole process is premature. Um the you
should know that operationally that garage door stays closed. It's all valet. It's not a residential where people are coming in and out. Um part of our conversation tomorrow was going to be about logistics was going to be how um we can work that out and how that
maybe even be a benefit to her um to her operation is permitting additional parking and some other things. So, um, I I I think this characterization of we're just kind of putting up a a driveway and ignoring them is a very mischaracterization of of and Al and I
both met with her on separate occasions. Um, and Eden suggested to support her White House. Um, so I uh I took objection to that. Great. Well, should we just kick off comments or? Yeah, I think I think so. I think
Carl's points are well taken that um it's kind of a zoning question. I don't you know from B perspective. Um it's the exterior of the building certainly. Um but I I do agree that seems to be the best place for a garage
entrance. I think um I would certainly strongly recommend uh painting a pedestrian crosswalk uh across that driveway. Um and any sort of other safety features that could be implied there, lighting, um things like that. Um
but I don't think it's on our the function of the building and where parking comes in is up to the designer. Um, so yes, I think we can talk about other if unless anybody else has other
thoughts on that particular topic. [Music] Okay, I can kick us off if Okay. Um, yeah. So, I guess again to respond to the garage door, I mean, it does seem like that is as far as our guidelines are concerned,
you've put it in the most uh the lowest location. um which I think is um preferable. Um I um I you you have made some changes to the street streetscape. They're um it's
small changes, but I think they do make a big difference. Um so I appreciate that. Um I um yeah I I think I um the last couple meetings I've picked this to death and I think you guys have um I think you've
responded as well as you can. Um and you push back where you've you've had to push back. Um so in general um I'm feeling more comfortable with this. Um again you know if stuff ends up changing I guess it's going to come back to us. So, um, you know, if things don't work
out in the site plan, uh, process or the development plan process, then we'll end up seeing it again. Um, I I will say I, so the renderings do show a lot of detail and, um, I appreciate that detail and I just, um,
however you guys figure out how to make it work with the thin brick. um just as long as that I realize that cornises may change profiles and you know you may have you know bell courses in different locations whatever else but if that same level of detail comes back um or ends up
in the final product that's what I'd like to see um yeah uh I I think um you know with those caveats and you know lighting is going to come back to us um I think I'm actually
Okay. Ready to approve this tonight. [Music] I just want to insert uh so just so everyone out there's clear. Yeah, that this is a this a prior uh elevation. There's some
or the audience. Yeah, I know. And um well, maybe we should let's find page 108. Is there pivoting for the applicant? Yeah, sure. We can go to the laundry room. Um, yeah. And then I I just wanted to offer a comment that might be helpful in your uh discussion.
So, and I I alluded to this briefly at the end of the last meeting, but um GKO are they're no longer on the tree list as uh um it's really odd to the camera, you
know, there's a delay. Um but the um the gingos are um they're not on the tree list as a recommended but they are not on the list as a prohibited um and I
know there was uh so the the point I raised at the last meeting is that um I understand the intent that we don't want invasives and uh there's some concern about monoultures uh but Uh there are
situations where Sentinel go is the perfect tree and and I think that um uh this is where um I would ask if if if you are looking that thinking about that then a statement of of that specifically
would be helpful cuz when it goes to the site plan and suddenly somebody says well this isn't on the tree list or this is that um that's where I say well the bar has perview to review the landscape design these are and this is the design
intent is is that um um that type of tree there to serve that purpose. So I I just want to not lose that in the mix if that is helpful. Thank you.
Let me uh can I say something here? Um is it about the go tree? Uh it is about the windows. I just got the confirmation that we can use the punched windows where the bricks are used to have them recessed. I just wanted to let
everybody know that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I think that was going to be our our next topic. Yeah. I mean, um, well, Jeeoff, just to follow up on that real fast, if the city comes back and they can somehow magically move all of their
sewer lines out of the way, um, and we can get some real trees, that would be fantastic, but I don't think the applicants going to be able to do that. So, um, I just don't want to I know I'm trying to suspend disbelief on some things. It It makes me sleep better. U, but I agree. Can we can we on the GKO?
Can we require male male genkos as opposed to female ginkkos? Uh yes, that's is always the case. Thank you. For what it's worth, I'm very pro ginko. [Music]
Yeah, I think the applicant's done uh a good job of being responsive and again small changes, but they've improved it. Um, I'm sorry we got sort of hung up on the uh returns of windows, but I think it's an important point because um this
these elevations didn't really start to uh feel great until we saw some of the recesses uh I guess two times ago. And um it's sort of to uh to uh Carl's comment, there's a lot of detail here and the architectural details aren't
really showing the detail that I'm seeing in the um in the renderings and the renderings look like very intentional and uh the way the windows are treated are um a big part of that. So,
you know, I can I would uh I'm on board with this if we can have it look like these renderings. So, what does that require? Um detail submission, you know. You know, again, we can't ask for this building to
be detailed at this point. Uh it's really just a matter of intent that there's uh um um an agreement that masonry openings will be punched. I would be of the mind that yes, stucco is a masonry product, but uh
I'm okay with that being a more flat uh sort of abstracted surface, which is kind of what the renderings show. Uh, as long as the masonry openings have a deep recess, [Music] the um I think we've characterized it on I
think some entrance corridor stuff at least has been characterized as um um reasonably consistent with the renderings. Um you're you're Mr. a motion, but something that would that would direct me to uh refer to the
renderings uh relative to to that depth. I'd be comfortable with that. Um and I think if there's I think if anything if it's okay to have those upper story windows flush, say so. But if if some
level of recess is necessary, say so. um some general guidance and um I would I would at least hope they would not be proud. I hope these would not be projecting. Yeah, that's another design intent. But yeah,
um I mean looking at the renderings to my eye most of the punch windows in the where we have brick are recessed. Um exception of again potentially the one right over the Preston Avenue
entrance. Uh, and then some on the Market Street side kind of uh to the left of the front door and maybe the ones that kind of separate the lobby and the the little dining area. Uh, though even those at the dining I think they're
recessed. Um, so it seems to me like that maybe the confusion is that the detail shows some situ show shows a a flush brick or a flange with the brick, but that doesn't seem like what they're showing in the rendering that mostly the flush is more with the stucco. Is that
what I'm reading right? Is that what y'all are reading? And actually, when we zoom in on the renderings, there is a little bit of a return on the on the on the stucco as well as maybe I should retract what I was saying. TCO detail is the Stuckco detail, right? I'm just curious
if the renderings aren't the best vehicle for analyzing building details and if it would be helpful for the applicant to provide like a elevation markup that indicates each window condition if there's like three or four conditions. And that doesn't mean that
they need to detail every condition, but just to indicate where those conditions occur and what the depth is of the return. Yeah. No, that's that's kind of what I was alluding to when sort of like a mark of like type one, type two abuse
AB, so maybe well different or I think what we've asked for in the past is um we've asked for wall sections, but we don't necessarily care about the guts of the wall section. It's more of just that outer profile of knowing what we're going to get. Um and I think I mean it's been a while since we've gotten one of
those. Um but it's also well know we've had some big buildings in between. Um, I mean that I don't know if that's something that uh I mean I don't know if that's something that they could just send to
Jeff confirm that yeah this is this looks like what we were talking about. Um I don't know Jeff what are you comfortable with? I I'm comfortable um with a um
so say how I interpret the renderings uh and that and I and I agree this has always been the challenge of where do we have a rendering and then an elevation a section and none of them align but I think that the intent of the the
guidelines is um we have stuckco is a masonry material and the windows should be punched and so um so I would say do do we is there agreement on that and then the extent to which I'm my primary
concern is the upper floor um and I I will express my my my opinion on this but I I I feel like the ephus and stucco whatever the material is whatever the building is in this building or another
building when We have those flush sort of windows on the upper floors. It just has that generic hotel look. I think this so the idea I'm primarily concerned that upper floors those windows are punched. Uh you all can stipulate that
it, you know, maybe be a full brick course or a half brick course or a certain thickness, but it doesn't necessarily matter to me. As long as they um if they come back and show those as flush, I'm going to say we got to go talk to the bar
unless you you know want to stipulate something differently. I fine with that. I mean that's how they're showing in the in the rendering. So yeah, can I just we're not looking for any like wiggle room or anything. We we have an intent of what we're doing in recess. I think
the only thing we might beat is is whether that's 2 in three exactly what window by window. But what I'm hearing from Jet, we if we meet that intent and they're all recessed and we have that series laid out, I think we can work through that. Um, if we're okay with an
approval of it looks like but it but it doesn't have this flush or something because again, we're not we're not trying to move off that. I just think we need time to detail exactly what each window condition is. If that makes sense. I I guess I'm not seeing the like
punched stuckco detail anywhere. That's that's my concern. I agree with you that that should happen and I think that would be make it a better building. Um we agreed too. Uh how about this a 2-in recess on the stucco? Can it match the
brick? I don't know what the dimension of the brick is either. I would love to see dimensioned Uhhuh. some typical just the the the brick detail depth. Um it it'd be great if it matched that. It looked like it was about right. Um but I
still don't know what the dimension is. Yeah. And just to just to clarify, I think it's a pretty simple thing here is that we have really three conditions. We have the stucco. Uh let's say that that's 2 in. Just confirm that. So the window plane is 2 in set back from the
face of the of the plane of the stucco. When it comes to windows that are planer with the brick, we'll do 3 in or a full full brick back. And then if you look at the Preston side, there's I don't know if this if I explained this right, but
there is many many uh there is no flush there's very few flush window details because there's a column line that sticks out and then the window is recessed, you know, one or two feet back from that. So, it's only the window that's above the garage and potentially
some of the windows on the upper floors, but the the way the articulation of the structure is, those windows by by design are recessed back. So, um but there is a kind of a brick element that's more or
less flush with a window. It looks like I'm not going to Yeah, there's like a border to death. There's a border that that's along that vertical edge of the Yeah. after you take the but it appears it appears to be like recessed. Yeah. So I I think the design intent and what
Nitton I think just alluded to was if there was an idea of a flange window now we don't need to do that. So the flange doesn't need a nailer. So therefore the brick can the window the the brick plane goes back perpendicular to the front of the building and the frame sits right
next to it. So just this window right here, you see it next to the door. Uh you know that retail side the brick this one. Yeah, that one right there. Yeah. So now look at the jam. So that's coming flush to this column if you will. Exactly.
You got a border if you will. Yeah. Right. So that's that that that would be that flush detail. I we'd have to work on that. And I almost question the idea that that that's brick material anyway. Why not extend it? I think we were working on that when we used that ABA um
because the thickness was a little bit different. So maybe like fill that space with the window. Maybe fill that space with a window. Get rid of that. Yeah. So I would say you know just to just to you know you know where I'm coming from move this along but the idea would be the
design intent is drawn here. Let us work on it. we will meet the design intent. But generally speaking, the windows are recessed in the stuckle by two inches. Uh they're recessed where they can where they're planer when they're you don't
have an abuing column by the width of of a brick. That would be the design intent. So if you go back, can you go up to the front elevation? That happens a lot more at this elevation because there we don't have a column line to that engages in the facade. So those windows
would be recessed to uh you know the design intent would be for a a thickness of a brick which is 3 in. Yeah. 3 to 4 in thickness of a real brick because you're proposing thin brick here. So yeah but they come with a I understand but like just to be clear
because I think what we're hoping to do is word this into a motion. Right. So if we can get there that'll be a good thing. Yeah. Um, so, so I'm hearing on the Stuckco a 2 in recess. Yep. On the planer windows, the depth of a brick,
let's we'll say roughly 3 in. Roughly 3 in. The thickness of the pre-made, they make these corners so they don't make a corner that goes back, you know, it would be the the size of that that corner return. And then you said there's a third situation. Uh then the third one takes
care of itself because it's where those column line where the when the window butts into a large column line. So it's it fills the column bay the window fills the column bay there's no return. Right. So where we've treated this in the past
and um is that I would ask in the motion that the you know you're you know that you're acknowledging that this is a punched um opening and I apologize if that's not the perfect word but um and that uh
you know the intent you know of a the intent is a full brick or approximately two inches at Stuckco openings and that the applicant will provide a um um a detail for the B record and uh similar
what we did over at 600 West Main where there was the Stuckco detail on the uh at the ground level there was so and the point being is that that detail then you accept it into the record or you can
also say no this isn't what we heard but It allows an approval of this design so they can move forward and then if this um uh detail at the window becomes you know two and a quarter or inch and 5/8 uh
we're not stuck saying oh my gosh this isn't 2 inches I got to say no so uh or if when that information is provided and then we accept it for the the bar record there is time for some discussion not enough or that they provide a diagram showing the locations of the typical details match ing the design intent.
Does that sound right? Sounds right. Okay. Uh still in the comments phase. Jerry, you got anything, buddy? Anything else? All right, I'll try a motion. Uh if I And I had one other suggestion on the
motion. Okay. There'll definitely something um for the that decorative gate on the mall side. Um I think it's an interesting design element. It's not I'm not suggesting the B say we it must look like this but if
um if the BA feels like that uh [Music] it's an interesting design I don't know the right word for it. It would be helpful because that's not um the zoning that is something that the zoning would say that's a fence and you can't have it. It would require some sort of
exception. Does anybody have objections to the that fence as designed? Right. No, because we could word it as such that the B has no objection to the fence as designed or shown. Uh yeah, I don't know. I don't think it's just like everything else, you know, you go
looking for it and it's not there, but uh it is the feel sort of like Exactly. Um, anybody does anyone object to what they saw? If
so, you can you're welcome to too quirky. Is that the representation that we have up there or Well, we were shown it in our last meeting. Uh, page 110 of our packet. Yeah, there it is. Yeah. I don't think
this packet has a tight shot cuz it wasn't I can go back to the it's page 12 of the series of renderings that they have. Oh, at the end there is I think there's a they do have a zoom in if you go zoom in. Yeah,
that's the on page right there. There's a closer one on 12. My page numbers are not your page numbers. What do you want to see? They're they're labeled on the like in the black space on the side of the image. Thanks. There we go. There we go. Cool. Yeah,
there we go. Thanks, guys. Yep. Is there a reason it has to be so high? Could it be lowered like potentially to where the break in the pattern is somewhere?
Yeah, there's no reason outside of preferences. Again, this is a development space, so it's not a finished design. Okay. My only preference would be to lower it
a little bit. Um I mean, you all don't have to. um said this this one will take the very likely require some sort of exception but if you all felt this was a design element that's of interest you
can address it but you do not have to [Music] if it wasn't there what they we would be having discuss and then if we wanted to put something up late we would come back to you and say we we'd have to talk about whether the
fence or whatever it is comply with code and bringing you the everything because we didn't even bring you a sample frankly yeah I think I think I think we're that really is about an intent of having a pocket farm
so I guess the question Maybe the current application for today's meeting doesn't show this, right? It shows it very I'm not I I all I know is this that's not allowed zoning. So um whether you all approved
it or not and COA showed it is irrelevant. Um they would not be able to construct and install that. So, um, and if they you want to I'm merely offering that if it was something that was a really an interesting piece of of an
interesting element that it was an opportunity for the B to say we think this is a nice piece. It helps balance whatever. Um, but it's not necessary to do that and it wouldn't assure whether it would get approved by special
exception. So you all can leave it out it and wait for it to come back to you. But I'm just making that Why not leave it out then? All right. Leave it out in in our motion or leave it out in the project. Leave it out in the motion.
It's a separate project later, right? Oh, you certainly could. Okay. Yeah. We want to see that again. Meaning we would I think we're going to see it again no matter what. We will no matter what. Great. Maybe we just don't even mention it. That's kind of where I'm at. that sort of wasn't formally submitted to us
with tonight's application and so we're ruling on tonight's application and that leaves it as an open ended question if it will is that suits the applicant I like this there might be nothing so it might not be right I mean if it's
nothing we have no objection right carry this on and again kind of play with how public it is what that is I mean that's so It's really It's really a rendering of kind of the thought, but it's not I no
problem just taking it out and yeah. And again, I don't I guess my point is I don't think it's technically in for tonight, right? Because you showed it to us last time, but then it's been pulled. Does that make sense? Yeah.
Okay. So, maybe it Yeah, probably. Fair. Okay. Sorry. giving it up. I think um request to have it come back, but then we're kind of approving a
partial COA. Mhm. I which we want to not get into. I think we're over complicating it. I think we are too. Yeah. I don't have really an objection to I think if we just don't mention it because it's it's Leave it alone. Part of our Yeah. If it gets kicked back by the code, then
they'll then they'll have to deal with it and perhaps bring it back to us, but maybe we'll see. So, yeah, we won't I won't mention it in the motion. How about that? Um uh sorry, I'm writing this up as best I
can. Why am I seeing um just so high and clear? I mean, because I took the images they sent and created this PDF and intentionally put on the bottom there June 3, 2025. So, it is part of the what you're looking at. Um,
they are it is shown. So, I just want to be clear. I was simply offering that if you think it's it's an opportunity for you all to opine on it uh that could be part of the consideration if for a special exception or it is uh but otherwise if you wish to say no nothing
on it then I would specifically state that you know you're omitting that because it is in this application. Okay. Sorry. The English language is
complicated, but we're doing all right. So, are you saying the fact that you included it here is it's on the table for this session? Yes. I mean, I I think it's Well, let's go. Yeah. So, think about one way could be you all approve
it, don't say anything about it. The applicant could in a hearing about how wherever the special exceptions waiverss go. Well, the bar liked it. Um so, um now that if that's in fact true, it
would be helpful if you said so. Um but if it's um but the other side of it is your approval of a COA does not mean that they can automatically do it. So um I I
just want to make sure that if this is does require a special exception that the BAR's viewpoint is is is properly presented. But the BA will have an opportunity if a special exception is
granted to review in the future whatever they decide to try to put there. That is correct. So why are trouble now? Because if you all merely an opportunity that if you all felt this was a good element,
it's an opportunity to state that specific you're saying are saying but why do we want to take advantage of that opportunity? You don't have to. I just merely offering it. Yeah, I'm inclined to just not mention it. Me, too. I don't know if others feel
strongly. Mhm. All right. Where's my spiel? Okay. Thanks. Sorry. Um, having considered the standards set forth within the city code, including the ADC design district design
guidelines, I move to find the proposed hotel at 218 West Market Street satisfies the B's criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in this ADC district. And that the DAR approves this application with the following conditions. uh one
that uh we um support the landscape design showing uh GKO trees on Old Preston, noting the uh conflict with uh subgrade street utilities.
um that the applicant shall provide a diagram showing the locations of the typical details for windows matching the design intent and that the BAR's understanding of this is that the stucco return shall be no less than 2 in. the
planer windows shall have a depth of a typical brick which is our understanding is roughly three inches and that the windows uh on the old Preston facade at the street level shall fill the column bays. Does that sound right? Um are
there any other um just that uh we have not approved any exterior lighting so any exterior lighting will need to be need to come back to us. I accept that friendly amendment. Do I hear a second? Second. Can I Sorry.
Sorry. And the in discussion the first statement about the um the landscaping you expressing support for the Sentinel Sentinel Genko. Okay. Yeah. All right. We have had a motion and a second.
Mr. Any any further discussion? Um, I mean, I guess it's a CYA, just that we expect the final result to have a similar level of brick detailing as is shown in the renderings. I'll accept that as well.
All right. Um, Miss Lowour, yes. We're voting. Miss Teav, I. Mr. Rosenthal, yes. Mr. Burl, I. Mr. Mr. Bailey, yes. Mr.
Schwarz, yes. And the chair votes yes. Thank you all for diligently working through the process with us. We appreciate that. Mr. Chair, can you confirm the second? Was that Mr. Bailey or Yes, Mr. Bailey? I believe seconded that. Thank you.
All right. Uh, it is 7:30. Um, we have finished everything except for we got two pre-application conferences. Let's call a 5m minute recess. Uh if anybody wants to use the restroom or whatnot.
Yeah. And James I didn't have anything I didn't have any other questions unless you know about windows on getting ready. if you had anything you wanted to talk about the bylaws for you. Otherwise, One of those. One of those should be for Thank you everybody.
Like we had a footing and we were like this is like we end up like I know with the but then now you're blocking the screen that I can't see. Anyway, we need a bigger screen back there.
Right. We used to get Yeah. Um yeah, big screen back there, but then you're going to you're going to have to move the seating sign, but they got three of them. All right. So, bring us back in very quickly. I'm introduce this and then I I didn't run down the hall and I'm going to, but I'm going to
introduce this one uh very quickly. Uh so this is 5501 17th Street Northwest. It's over by um University Circle, block off of Rugby, I think south of of of Grady. What um what
I just handed out were some additional renderings of of what you've seen. they just help illustrate it a little bit better. It's not something new. Um, this is a pre-application conference. Um, as required. Uh, Mr. Wolf is um, uh, has
been on the B, so he knows the drill maybe better than I. Uh, this is an opportunity for you all to um, uh, introduce the get introduced to the project. Uh, to for the applicant to ask any questions that they have. uh there's
no there are no requirements for pre-application discussion but it is the opportunity I think uh to uh not get into the weeds about the design but it certainly is an opportunity if something is just entirely off base
let's let let an applicant know that um the um other thing that I think is really important in this is the opportunity you have some idea of what they're proposing Are there images, details, sections like
we just discussed on 218? Are there are there things that should be included in an application in a in a a subsequent application that would be particularly helpful? Uh the staff report, I try to offer some generic thoughts on that so that you can use that as a checklist.
And then I will al also say uh uh Mr. Wolf has had asked me uh during the break if if he could share with you some additional images that maybe contemplated an up some additional height here. Um that wasn't in the
package, but again pre-application conference that's we're a little more flexible. I don't have a problem with him sharing that with you when that time comes, but I will leave that to you and um to to to decide. But I I have those
uh drawings here when Mr. Wolf um uh raises that question. So unless So no action will be taken tonight. Um unless you have any questions for me, I'm going to run down and get a little more water
and hand it off to Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Warner. All right. Good evening. Not sure if this is on, but Hi, my name is Fred Wolf. I'm uh My firm Wolf Acriman is working with a client which
is Pipsson Properties. Uh they have this property on uh 17th Street Northwest. It's 555. It is an older home. It's currently it's a uh it's a rental. Uh it's a student rental. Um, and they asked us, they've
inquired about exploring ways to add additional dwelling units on the property. And we were doing this prior to the the uh the updates to the zoning ordinance. And then we we took a pause and then we came back and looked at again with the new ordinance. Um, and
what we are uh interested in doing, I should say. Um, first of all, that the additional information that I brought were the same two renderings that were in the in the other packet. Uh, I asked that we slightly change. If you look at,
for instance, the corner of the little J button, we've that is much more transparent at the bottom right there. Um, so it's very modest changes to the um to the courtyard space and to the underneath of the little pavilion piece
that pushes out. And then I wanted us to provide you with views from the street so you could understand the impact of the building behind the original house. Uh, and the building that we're proposing, while it's an L-shape or maybe it's a J or an L with a little
button hook, um, are two single family attached dwelling units with uh, a garage underneath. And what we've done is we have tried to subvert the the garage which is a private garage to be shared by those units by pushing it
halfway down under grade and lifting grade a little bit so that we don't have um a large wall or elevated courtyard. It brings grade up to basically the first floor of the original house, which
allows the original house to have a nice little bridge connection over to this courtyard landscape garden space. And it keeps the uh elevated edge along the southern property uh at about 42 in above grade, which is
kind of fence height, garden wall uh setup. Um, so on on the south side, what you're seeing below our house is the the one that's highlighted in blue. Uh, that's the property that's the original house. To the south is another home
um, which is uh, I don't know if it's a rental or or um, owner occupied, but and on the north side which faces onto Grady is a fraternity house and adjacent to our property line is um, their parking. And if anybody understands what
fraternity houses and parking looks like, it's um it's not terribly friendly, but it is what we have. So, what we have done in working with the client is we've tried to take the property and push it as much as we can
up against the property line on the north side against the the parking and then push it back to within the limits under the new zoning of the alley that runs between uh between 17th and I guess
Rugby and and TE's into Grady. Um there's an alley there and so we were are within 5 ft of that. Um the ordinance as you all know we are zoned RX5 which the base ordinance allows five stories and 72 ft. Um what we are
proposing are three stories on top of a garage that is considered a basement. It's not considered a story either under the zoning ordinance or under the building code based on its proximity to grade uh and the average grade plane. So
we have three stories above a a garage that is uh a basement. Um and the maximum height uh that we have to the top of the parapit wall which is not necessarily where you would measure height to you would measure to the roof height right
now in this view is at 37 1/2 ft. Um the the ridge of the primary form of the uh original house is at 30 ft uh above above uh grade. So that
is we are slightly higher than that. Um but within I think within scale of the original house and the original house has two stories and then a bunch of space up in its attic space. So, it's it's effectively a three-story house with a basement underneath it. Um, and
so really what we were interested what we are showing you today is kind of a glorified massing diagram with some holes punched in it to illustrate kind of windows. But, uh, we have not really taken a long in-depth study of the the
structure. What I can say at this point is that what we know we're trying to do is preserve uh sunlight and air in a courtyard in a landscape space that gets that gets sunlight from the south and also
mitigates the impact of any massing on the property to the south. So that L-shaped piece is meant to gather as much sunlight as possible and also limit the impact of this addition behind the original structure on its neighboring
structure to the south with the understanding that the property to the north is parking. Um and beyond that the ground floor is meant to be where it can be uh largely
transparent uh where it has kitchens, living rooms and dining spaces. Uh we are obviously on the property line in certain points and there in those cases we are limited what we can do in terms of openings. Uh, I would like to hope that we can have
some openings that would have to have some special fire protected glass, but we are largely limited to, you know, solid openings and and walls that will have a fire rating on those. But this project, even though it kind of looks
like a little building, is really two houses that have a shared party wall between them. Um they have two stories above the main living space that are bedroom levels. Uh and uh you know really what I wanted to hear or what we
were hoping to gather was what the board thought about the strategy the placement on the site, the relationship of this building to its counterpart up front that that faces on to 17th Street. And
um you know after that uh I do think that we'd like to hear your thoughts and we have additional images because we studied it about what you would think if we were to go ahead and explore a a
third story or fourth story rather um uh that gave additional space on top of what we're showing here. And again, I go back to the fact that I think that the the density on this site is unlimited by
by the zoning ordinance. Uh the number of stories allowed are five and 72 ft. We're at 3 and 37 12. So fairly below what is uh allowed. We are within
what's called spitting distance of the ridge of the original house. Um, and so in in going to a fourth story, uh, I still think we would actually be if we if we pursued a different type of roof
and and looked at putting the fourth story into a kind of roof element, we could be within 7 and 1/2 ft of the ridge of the original house in terms of the maximum height of our building with some with some pushing and pulling of
some other floor heights. Um, and you know, it was was having this conversation with somebody else. I forget who, but you know, I what we're really trying to do is make sure that we are respectful of the
original um buildings scale and and that we are uh careful about the impact of this on the neighboring buildings. But we're looking at the buildings behind the alley that face on to to Rugby that are also similar types of projects. And
we look at the projects that are up in fact you can see it right there that are over over the corner that uh the the apartment buildings that are on Grady and I feel like next to this fraternity house that we're within scale of the surrounding adjacent building. So, we're
trying to just get some feedback, understand whether or not we're heading in a direction that feels comfortable so that we can continue to develop and design this. Um, and that is it. I don't really have I don't have a sales pitch
beyond that. Did you say you had an image showing a fourth story? We do. And if you guys are open to taking a look at it, we have a package that um and one of the things I'll say that
we tried to do in doing that was uh in in this in this what we submitted, it was important to do a kind of base and then a two-part top that was, you know, the sleeping levels. In this other instance, what we would do is try to
develop a roof level where we develop some version of a roof that is kind of like putting the bedrooms in an attic space, develop some um dormer conditions, some sloped walls, a different kind of materiality
so that we would have base, middle, top in terms of the way we would approach it. Uh and again I think I think that we could finesse this in such a way that uh that we could stay
within 7 7 and 1/2 ft of the ridge of the main house the main house's roof the the taller roof. Um, all of this is, you know, predicated on we're also trying to maintain a fairly sizable big private
garage for the residents to to use as you would use your own garage, whether or not you want to pack it with bicycles and shovels or cars or scooters or whatever. But we tried to make that something that we could offer and also that would help take pressure off the
surrounding streets. And so we do it via a garage door that accesses off the alley. And by picking the landscape up a little bit and pushing the garage floor down a little bit and doing a little speed ramp down, we can do a a tidy
little job for them to to park and just, you know, have storage and have bikes and all that other stuff and still maintain a really nice space that can serve the new construction as well as the original house. and down the road. I mean, the original house needs its own
renovation, so that's also going to get renovated, but that's not part of what we're doing right now. And I should also mention part of this project involves um on the back of the the the lower part of the uh the house that you can see. Uh
it's still two stories, but there was a small porch and then there's a little roof over a little dugout well that gets you into a basement. We're asking to pull those things off. Those were if um I think we have photos in our package.
Not in terribly great condition. I'm not sure they were ever original, but certainly not um not architecturally significant. And that's part of opening up the space for us to make this connection and and build this new project. Um,
so I want to leave you guys time to talk. I'm sure I could keep going. Carl knows. It's not in our purview, but Oh, I'm sorry. Um, but I'm just kind of curious. What would be on the fourth floor? More bedrooms. Yeah.
I was gonna say it's a big family. Well, so it's uh yes, uh there aren't technically parking spaces of private garage. So, it's not a public garage. It's not a it's not a parking garage or
a parking lot per se as you might have with an apartment building. Um, I will say that uh back envelope number of cars that I think that they could fit in there if they wanted to tightly pack
them in and everybody was careful 12. But again, I want to emphasize it's like your own garage attached to your house or in your basement under your house. So the intent is attached single family dwelling. Yes.
In both cases it's two units. Yes. So there's a different um uh strategy for cladding. And I'm just kind of curious uh what you're thinking the exterior materials could be. So, um, so
in in what we submitted, uh, the notion would either be a a vertical wood or synthetic, you know, obviously a certain quality wood siding. Um, and and obviously when it's when it's two stories on top of the ground floor, then
maybe it's a parapit wall, maybe it has a lid. Because we're up against the property line on one side, it prohibits you from having an overhang, which makes having a roof that has an extension not
work so well on that side. Um, or actually we're up against it on two sides. We're up against it on both the north and south. Um, and therefore we pursued a parapit. And on the other scheme where we were looking at maybe an additional floor, it would be more like
a a modified kind of mansard roof approach. And in that case, I think we might explore letting the like a standing city metal come all the way down on one side and sort of envelop
and frame uh a wood clad condition for um for some variety. But you know again that would I think depend on which way we were going and you know I I I don't you guys all know the
ordinance and the codes and so but it's it's some things have changed in the new ordinance is that there's no longer a definition of how many people can be in a single dwelling. um you're still restricted by the
building codes limitation of how many people can go into a room bedroom based on a certain size. Um and so we are actually not trying to do the smallest bedrooms that you could ever do. We're trying to make comfortable
bedrooms that are sizable. But uh as far as I know, I do think that parking restrictions might have been removed. Yep. Go ahead. Does zoning not allow an apartment building here? Like I'm just going to ask some I I I
don't know if it does allow an apartment building, but I haven't done that research. But if if So here's another question, but I don't I think I know the answer to this. To make an apartment building work here, I think it would
involve the demolition of the original house. Huh. Well, that's not good, right? Okay. And in in the previous well in in a different zoning district, you would have limitations on the number of dwelling units per acre, but in this
zoning designation, there are none. And so, we had previously been looking at two units, but they had different restrictions in terms of side and backyard setbacks and so forth that actually left you no room to do something, right? let's say is as
uh gracious with the kind of courtyard glasses you got. All right, I won't ask any more leading questions. Uh sorry, what about a what about a proper mansard roof? Like I feel like that'd be more attractive than having this sort of blank sheer wall AC like around the back
of the building. So again, we can I'm open to looking at all that. This was a very quickly developed image just to illustrate and I would again point out that if we're when we're on a zero lot line which is what we have there
the openings are limited without without putting in extremely expensive glass or you know so but the does that uh apply to the lot line that's abuts the alleyway the alley you have a 5ft setback back in
a 5ft setback, your openings are unlimited. Okay. Or maybe not unlimited, but greatly increased. Okay. Oh, I see. Okay. You've got openings there. Gotcha. Sorry. Yeah. Uh, okay. Last question since I've got the mic. Um, you're
showing some plantings here. Is the idea that you are there new plantings along that sidewalk, I guess, south of the building. Are those new or that proposed those trees.
Um, and then I'm going to say that those that are south of the building are either those are those are not on our property. Not on your property. Okay. And then but you are proposing currently there proposing trees in the courtyard
is the hope. Okay. Yes. and and and I think as part of our site plan also, we imagine developing a kind of sidewalk pedestrian entry along the south side of the original house to get to. So if
you're coming from the sidewalk, you see it here back to the courtyard. Yeah, please. Okay, I'll go. Um I I think this is a cool little project. I like the massing. Um I think it's clever the way you've dealt with the the the
um garage. Um I I would be really interested to see a section um particularly through the the courtyard. Um I not we not include one. I don't think I think there's one that goes from the alleyway to the house. I think is
there Let's see. Open that up. Trust me, they're they're diagrammatic, but I think going the other way. I thought we had one in there, but you probably did. I'm curious about the depth of the medium required for trees to grow in your courtyard. Me, too.
Yeah. Um, that was what I was getting at. But otherwise, I think it's an exciting project that in the parking garage. So, I think so something like that might involve like a raised bed in that case. And and you're absolutely right. Yeah.
Okay. Um I was also wondering about the you said there was a probably a 42 in wall along the south side of that courtyard. I imagine we would want to see some railing details like I guess we'll be
required to have that. Um yeah, I had a similar comment about the railing. Um, I honestly I kind of like the fourstory massing almost better than the
threetory. I mean, I I guess because you have more detail in the Mansard roof, but I don't think the mass the additional story really feels out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Um,
I think it's interesting how you're incorporating this kind of courtyard space um into the design. I'm curious about the connectivity from the back of the historic structure to that bridge um and
how that alignment is happening. Maybe it's visible in the plan. Um, but it would be nice to understand that a little bit better and kind of how people are moving through the space there. Um, and I was wondering if you're considering anything about accessibility
given the all the grading. Um, if that's been something you've been looking at. Um, I would say that is something that we will look at. I think at this early stage we haven't necessarily done that, but I
could see that folding into the way that we come in on the south side of the house. Yeah. Um, one of the things I should point out is that, and it's not, we don't make a big deal of it, but from the garage, we have a little set of stairs that come up. So, without going back up the ramp and out the garage
door, you got a little set of stairs up that drops you right at the corner of the old house. And so, you can hop up onto the platform that connects into the back of the old house or the courtyard space. Um and and that piece I've thought of as a bridge literally kind of
floating and kind of just connects across from the old back door. Yeah. Um to that. So, but yes, we will um we'll look at that definitely. I mean, you know, as single family homes, they don't have
same requirements. Yeah. obviously, but I still think in terms of visibility, visibility, visitability uh and and open access, I think it's important. Yeah, I I also agree. I like the masking
either the the three stories or the four would be fine. Uh I don't think that overwhelms the old house. Uh uh that's my the other thing you you do mention and looking at these little back porches and so forth. I don't think it'd be any
problem having those removed either. So um yeah uh I I think I support the three or four story massing. I mean I voted for the five the you know um RX5 designation. So, I'd be kind of a hypocrite if I then said, "No, you can't
make it that tall." Um, I I think um I I what I'm going to be worried about though is once it gets up to be four stories or even at three stories, um if you can't do windows and you just have this big blank facade, um I realize it's facing a parking lot, but at some point it's going to be sticking up above the
existing buildings. Um if there's any way that you could pull the upper levels 5t off the property line so you get some windows or something. Yeah. Um I know that might be a structural issue in the basement, but I just that would be that would be ideal. Um cuz I think um you
know some of the other projects that we've seen in the neighborhood, we've seen tear downs and we've seen um uh you know, people attaching directly under the back of existing buildings. And I I really appreciate that this one it gives some room to the existing house. Um and it's on the alleyway. It's in the middle
of the block. it doesn't um its impact really isn't that um it doesn't have a big impact on uh any of the surroundings from the public realm at least. Um but it um I think it still wants to have again for the stories that stick up high
enough that you're going to see them a level of detail um and a scale that meets the residential components of the neighborhood. So we struggled with a project on Gordon Avenue. um it was more house-sized, but it um it was very plain
and we kept trying to push them to put some more detail on it. Now, I know you've got a very very contemporary pallet on this and I'm guessing that whatever comes back to us is going to stay very contemporary, so I know that detail and contemporary design don't necessarily mix, but just making sure
there's that human scale, that residential scale, um you know, the number of windows, sizes of things. Um, I, you know, looking at your renderings, the fourstory one appeals to me more, but I'm just looking at the courtyard view, which what appeals to me about it is it's broken down into, you know,
you've got a base, you've got a middle portion, and the mansard roof breaks it down into little pieces. Um, but then when you flip the pages on the other side, it's just a big metal wall that's tall. Yes. I I I'm ready to just admit
and you right tool unit. Yeah. um well to have the discussion. Yeah. So just as you guys are developing this just keep that in mind. Um but yeah, no concerns from me for the the height or the massing at all. Um I think it's a very interesting
concept. Great. Thank you. I don't have any issues with the massing, but I've got to say, uh, I sort of like I may be in the minority here, but I like the simplicity of the threetory version, which is just a simple, um, the a simple material
material palette. It seems like the one with the mansard roof, there's like one or two many things going on to me. Um, and I'm not sure if that simplicity would translate to another story. I guess maybe once you go up to four
stories, you need to uh add a level of uh articulation, but um I've been dying to do a wood roof. Well, there's something very uh elegant about just that um just slab of wood. Yeah. Okay. I
appreciate that. Um, I thought I I thought this was I think this is a very creative and thoughtful kind of solution for how to add some density. You know, probably nothing like we've ever seen that I can think of before. Um, our guidelines
don't really address kind of a new, you know, it's new construction. It's not an addition, but um, I'll kind of just because we're supposed to talk about the guidelines, um, I'll just kind of go through and see um, note where you do meet them.
Um, new addition new, we'll just say it's a new construction should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. You're leaving the historic house intact. New work should be differentiated. Certainly, it is um in
scale, architectural features. Um, it shouldn't be an exact copy and it certainly is not. um use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. I agree with
Carl's comments. Um I I I don't really care, you know, if you're looking at a straw pull. I don't really feel differently about the three or four stories. I would almost say add add the density. Personally, I don't really care for the manered roof and I can't tell
you why. I just it just I really don't like it. And I think I do agree with Mr. Burl who says that the simple um exterior material um instead of the wood plus clad or whatever else you're going
over it um and and then you've got the stucco in the front house is a little bit cleaner. Um let me see. You're not attaching to the existing building. So all that's good. Um I think it's I'm fascinating. It's it's great. You know
I'm Don't be surprised if other owners in this district may copy you is what I think. Well, thank um what are you going to do for HVAC?
Uh I don't know yet. That was with the threetory scheme, the parapit and all those units could live comfortably up on the roof and be screened. Uh how we would do that with the other I am not sure yet. I think that that will be part
of if we start to push and pull and play with the with the form the massing of this how we hide that uh I think will be one of the challenges because when you're building right to or almost to the property lines and then you're
making a courtyard space that you want to enjoy in the middle you your opportunities for hiding that are largely gone. Now, we do have a little bit of space on the alley side, and you would argue that the alley side is potentially an opportunity for that, but
you just gave me a funny look. Service stuff has to go somewhere. But yes, I we will we will pay close attention. I I am I'm a big fan of trying to hide that and not have it become somebody else's problem.
Fun thing about our new zoning code is you don't have a choice. Yeah. Um so and we're we're a little ways away from that consider I mean in the big picture what I was hoping to understand was general support or not
for the the sort of the planning approach and the strategy just the diagram the concept and then looking at the massing and thinking about you know is it is it three stories is it four stories um and with that like a lot of what you're seeing were were first
passes at just punch punching some holes in the envelope just to show window or void versus solid. Um, so with with some sense of uh support, we'll go back and and really start to finesse and
play with this. And you know, I I'm not sure that the entirety of this building will all end up being all at the same story. We might have parts there, three, and parts there, four, so forth. So, I would just echo a lot of what Mr. Burl said. I think the threetory design is
kind of a little more cohesive and thought through. Um, and I similarly I was gonna recommend if you went with the fourstory kind of breaking them up and almost making them feel like two single family dwelling units where you maybe have a break in the roof line or
something like that or um so I think that um regardless I think we'll work through the details with you, but I think I support it in concept and and in general I like the fact that you're keeping it away from the historic house. I guess my only one cautionary note
would be the the little roof over the basement stair to the historic house. Just I guess making sure they've got good water protection to prevent from basement flooding. My expectations we will fill that in and figure out a different way for them to get into their basement. Gotcha. It's a that would be
historic house, so we'll look at that, too. But yes, yes, it's more like a dugout hole down there. I mean, it's it's basically a couple steps that take you down and boom. Right. Y I think we can work something out that hopefully will be um a more a safer and better
just a cautionary note on water. Sure. Right. But I think I'm hearing general general agreement that this is a good massing model and uh good use of some space in a really dense neighborhood that needs more density. So appreciate it. It seemed like the seller space you
could even excavate that underpin the house expand there. Uh uh I just as I said it to you all. I've been went to this house several years ago and when the owner wanted to demolish it. So pleased to see this. Um I would offer uh make sure you know next step really sit
down and have conversation with the planner and zoning and make sure you know what some of those pushing and pulling uh that's necessary. I'll offer that this is um to see an opportunity to uh show that an
historic house can coexist with additional uh housing is important and um you know it may not maximize it but I a successful model uh is is what we need. Uh, you know, I when I saw this, one of the things I thought
about was I don't know if you remember 106 Oaks. I think it was 106 that the they never built it, but had that kind of a contemporary design going out the back of that old u similar aged house. Um but the uh I'm glad thank you for
bringing up the mechanical because that is going to be important to screening and that and the I've approached this I would have looked at this as an addition um even though it's separate um and I know we talk a lot about the height not it's often not being above but it really
the the the guideline is that it doesn't overwhelm and um so if we were looking at this as an addition or even new construction we'd say Well, most of the houses there are two and three stories. So, you know, the guidelines would support, you know, maybe four to six
floors. So, uh it it it the guidelines aren't in your way on this one. Um and I think more it's the zoning uh uh interpretation it is. So, um and that's all I I'd add that, you know, we've obviously we didn't just do this. We've
had preliminary discussions with with planning and uh okay zoning and also building code officials about the interpretations we were making about the ordinance and the code. So, but we
certainly will continue that. So, all right. Did you get all the feedback you had? It was fantastic. Thank you. Thank you very much everybody. Thank you very much. Do you want these back? You could print on the other side. No, I just scribble on my mind. Really sustainable.
All right. Uh, our next pre-application conference is for 202, 204, and 208 7th Street Southwest. Notably, 204 and 208. 7th Street Southwest are individually protected properties. Um, appreciate y'all sticking around. Sorry for the
pump fake earlier. I know you thought we were getting out of here, but um, we uh, we circle back. So, so yeah, so similar set of circumstances uh uh building being constructed behind
historic uh structures. Uh I I can't call this an addition. Um there's a lot of layers to this one. Um I'm not sure how to unpack all of them. Um but the what so upfront so everyone
out there I I by the way I did receive comment uh uh from a neighboring property owner uh some opposition to this project but I make it clear that and then we can I'll share that and you can Mr. chair can read it, but the um this is a
pre-application conference. Uh no decisions are being made here. Um I you again refer to the to the guidance I've offered in the discussion as a checklist of how to um you know some of the questions that you might have or make
sure that you've covered some things. I I do want to point out that I um um you don't have to decide on it, but if it comes up, I I I recommend a a pathway to approaching this. And that would be that um well, let me take a step back. The
two um what we call individually protected properties in the city. This is not within a district. Uh although the two IPs are uh adjacent, uh they are and they are related. There actually was a third house here similar to these that
was uh raised we think sometime in the 80s but each of these is a individually protected property and the parcel that there's they are on is essentially a mini district. Um the reason that you're
uh looking at this with the larger project behind it is because that new building would encroach onto um onto the the parcels that are protected. Um, we know that both were built sometime I
think um the they suggest that 1860 late 1860s and 1880s I I think it was after uh the 1877 uh gray map uh which is pretty detailed. It doesn't show anything there. Uh so you know likely uh
late 1870s at that early end but probably in the 1880s uh built by a gentleman uh James Hawkins who was a a brickmason. Um he lived on Ridge Street. Um and one of the interesting things about these two houses is sort of
typical of a extremely simple worker house, but they're made with brick. Uh which is unusual in the town, but given Mr. Hawkins uh uh background. Uh that explains it. The uh the the two families
that occupied these two houses uh they looked like they acquired the homes very early uh after they were built and their families were there for quite some time. Um and with Mr. Parker's family uh even up into the 70s. So, uh, and an
interesting piece that, um, Miss Richardson and I have been able to unravel a little bit more. Um behind these houses there were reported some cottages that were um rented out in um
it seems post World War II, but uh and there was some assumption that maybe that's what was uh the shed that's currently behind the one house, but that that they don't align and the records that we've been able to access uh show
that the shed was constructed in the 80s. So go ahead. Do you have Yeah. So in 1958 that was the last record in the assessor's file for those cottages and um in the card the assessor value goes
up for a new shed that was constructed between 1989 and 1990. So while it's um the shed is identified in the National Register listing as as contributing I I don't there's no evidence that this and
even the photographs of it. We certainly don't have to decide that now, but I wanted to explain that and why I'm treating I would recommend that we uh treat the removal of that shed as as as merely an alteration to the site and not the demolition of a contributing uh
structure. Um the um thing I I would like and you know uh the applicant sort of explains their side of things but this is unique in that um we've had other projects in historic districts and
I I think the Doyle or the Quirk now but what is the Doyle now is um a good example of of of retaining two historic buildings and um allowing them the space to sort of of uh that they can be read
on their own where other projects sort of envelop. Um and that one example there are others. I think an even more recent example might be the the the courthouse and its relationship to um uh the Redlands Club and of course the Levy
building and that was very intentional that that building would not um overwhelm those. uh so that we have others examples to look to but uh I'm not sure because you know I don't want to get too focused we have to pay
attention to the new building but not lose sight on that the reason we're evaluating this is because of these two uh uh brick IP. So uh there's my 30,000 foot sort of overview. Um,
John, you guys want to offer your views and Well, they're coming up from sitting. Well, they're coming up. Jeff, can you clarify? What's that, John? I'm sorry. I had pins and needles in my legs from sitting so long. Well, you know, these are the most ergonomic chairs in
the city of Charlottesville. Uh, when this building is disassembled, I will want one of these for my living room. So, I I apologize for the upholstering. It's It's pretty bad. Um, can I can I ask a quick clarification question? Um, so if I'm reading this right and I'm
looking at uh SK13 from the applicants of the middle uh that just a portion of the new building would be on the parcels that are the historic or the IPS, right? And that then
therefore means our purview relates to the entire new building to the entire correct. If they were to stop their building at the edge of the parcel boundary, you wouldn't see it. We wouldn't see it. Correct. Just want to make sure everybody's clear on that. Right. Does that make sense?
Are there more of those? I only He had me. So you guys can look over. You're not super excited. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for All right. Do you guys want to present? Yeah, just briefly. Um, thank you. I think I'm going to start by
welcoming Jennifer to the board. Thank you. If you do as well as Sherry's done over the years and stay as long as Sherry, then you should be uh you'll be welcome. So, welcome to you. Um, I'm John Matthews and my colleague Jim
Dbury with Mitchell Matthews Architects. I think um Jeff did a pretty good job explaining the project. We're here for mainly two reasons, maybe three, but the primary two. We're asking for permission to remove uh a a 1970s shed. There
photographs of it that you have in front of you. U 1970sish 80sish. We we suggest you build in the 80s. So, I'm glad you guys agree with that. Um and we're asking for permission to build behind to the rear of the
existing structures. We're also much like um Fred before us, we're asking for your input on the building itself and whether it's headed in the right direction. Um we'd be grateful for that uh that
information. Uh the bar granted, as Jeff mentioned, permission to do um similar developments. I think there's maybe six of them. We have them listed on sketch
11, 12, 13, and page three of Jess's report. So, there's a whole slew of similar approvals on similar buildings. And we even went ahead and measured those buildings just to show you how close this building is in relation to those other buildings. Jeff, I and I
think correctly, um, Kate mentioned the the Quirk Hotel or now the Doyle. And you can see that's built within about 4.3 ft of the buildings. I think that's 501 West Main. So much much closer than
we're getting. And I think that's successful. Those of you that have eaten in that rear patio of the of the Doyle, I keep wanting to call it the um get a sense of, you know, the the comfort. We're expecting that these buildings
that for um uh the two existing individually protected properties would be renovated to about the same degree or sorry rehabilitated is the correct word um to about the same degree as 501 and 503
West May. Those of you that have maybe eaten in there or been in there, just to give you a sense, those two buildings are seriously dilapidated. You can see on those photos, the owners had told us when we went through it that they have
not been occupied for or 20 204 204 has not been occupied for 23 years. And you can see it's an uninsulated, unprotected, unconditioned building. And even though the this is an important part and I'm sure you've you guys have
come up um it's come up before you in the past is that even though this is an individually protected property, it's really not protected at all. It could just go on the way it is and it eventually fall down. So by approving
this project or similar projects to this you actually ensure that it will be u that retain the existing buildings that they will be repaired, rehabilitated and maintained indefinitely. So you really protect it even though the language in the
ordinance sort of infers that it's protected. Those photos are pretty strong evidence that it's not protected. Um, let me see what else I wanted to say. I I think our package sort of explains the issues pretty well. Um, the size of
those buildings, by the way, just to give you a sense of their scale, they are little postage stamp size buildings. They have a floor area of about 800 square ft. The the footprint about um 1,600 square ft total. Is that correct,
Jim? Um, and the project that's going to be built behind them and to the to the rear and to the side is about 149 plus or minus units, 250 parking spaces that will be built within the building. So, they
won't be visible uh from from any any version of the public realm. And I think um the project ensures that that um the repair and rehabilitation and maintenance will sort of go on
indefinitely and they're going to be incorporated into the function of this building. There'll be some sort of um we think uh amenity. They're so small we have to put bathrooms in them, but there'll be some sort of social space. I
think they're going to be too small and they're going to be very expensive to repair as well. Yeah, they might become study spaces or, you know, something that the tenants would be able to occupy um but they would have to go outside to utilize it. So there's no building
aren't connected to the building. Yeah. So this is really an infill project that that residential component of it which is the vast majority of the project on the back side of these buildings is an infill on a site that's been vacant for
for a long while uh for decades. Uh and we think it's an appropriate use. It's certainly totally in line with the comp plan. it's in line with the zoning ordinance and it will put residential um where people can walk to walk to West Main Street, walk downtown and walk or
ride their bikes to campus. So overall, we think there's a lot going for this project and we wanted to get your feedback and your impressions and just make sure again much like Fred said on the previous project that we're headed in the right direction. Um Jim, did I
miss anything? No, I don't think so. I think, you know, I think the key is that these uh existing houses are actually going to contribute to the project and not become a hindrance. Um, in that we're going to use that space between them as a
courtyard that'll help activate the street, but also give a kind of a life between the buildings and the new building. So, creating a a a pocket courtyard is the intent. Yeah. So I think maybe rather than keep
talking, we could try to answer any questions you may have. What is the proposed use of the historic structures in lie of this development? So as Jim just mentioned, we're not quite they're so small, it's going to be
very hard to use them other than an as an amenity. So whether that will be a study space, they're too small for commercial use. I'm not sure that would be appropriate. they're probably not appropriate to re rehabilitate as
housing. So, I think it'll be some sort of support space for the larger development and some sort of amenity. Maybe a lounge, um maybe just private study space. The stair, as you can see, we may not even be allowed to use the up level. We're
dealing with this on the five film management. The stair is about that wide. Um so accessibility will be an issue. Um there will be a lot of issues with actually using them and meeting code and the rehabilitation of them. And by the
way, the rehabilitation will follow section four of your ordinance precisely or of the design guidelines. I think it's four. Um, so will that be the inclusion of the rehabilitation of those to historic
historic structures be included in the application for this large building behind them? Yes. So, if I understand your question, we expect when we've worked out what we're going to do, we're going to come back to you with those buildings and show you exactly what we're doing and what the use will be.
But yes, they're going to be part of the overall development and will be rehabilitated at the same time. Is that answering your question? Sort of. What I really want to do is tie their rehabilitation to the approval of this larger structure. Um, as opposed to us approving this big building and then
y'all saying, and I'm not questioning that you would, but it's happened before that y'all would say like, "Oh yeah, we're going to fix this up." And then you don't. No. Right. And I think that it's pretty critical that we preserve these historic structures. And I mean the one caveat to that is one of the one
that's further up the hill which is 204. There are some structural issues that have to be evaluated and they have not been evaluated. Um so we want to see that we don't want to be any you know but the intention is exactly what you said. Our intention is to reuse them.
We've advised the the the contract purchaser that there may be some significant cost in repairing them. Um, but that's the intention and if you need to put that as a condition, I think that's fine. This is a pre-application conference, so we're ultimately putting
that as a stipulation yet, but I'll just throw it out there. Um, I also think you should consider naming the new buildings the Hank Henkins building in honor of the man who built those two structures. Is it Hankkins? Hawkins. Hawkins. Excuse me. Hawkins.
Yeah. I don't know about the naming, but we can mention that. The name of the project at the moment is the Mark. Mark Charlottesville. Yeah. Who is Mark? Who is Mark? She's called the Mark. We already have a grand mark. Is this
little Mark? Yeah. Yeah. Um, but I think naming those cottages uh is a possibility. Yeah. Sure. um just to honor the original builder. Yeah. a little a couple of we don't have
to resolve any of the the sequencing of it and I but I uh my thought was to treat each uh as a separate application but not separate from the larger building and that way you all have uh because I think one building may be in
significantly worse shape than another but um but we could determine that sequence later. the but some ground rules here are um per the code uh you all can well one step
back per your typical guidelines you would look at for height you would look at what's the prevailing height and I don't know which we would but let's take uh and this is adjacent to a a national register historic district so there are
some we can legitimately you consider that fabric. Uh but assume we're dealing with uh two and three story buildings. Your guidelines would allow uh four to six stories applying the guidelines.
But as as we know uh it's it's in this higher density and in other places the BA has considered and allowed uh more height than that. So, but the other piece of this comes from the ordinance is that this is uh under this
zoning uh by right a height of five stories and uh or 72 feet max height uh and with a bonus uh seven stories allowed uh a height of 100 ft in this
district. um different from downtown. Uh the city code says the B can only reduce the height uh no more than two floors uh below what is allowed. So I I um I don't
know how that would apply to the bonus uh floors. That hasn't been uh used yet. But um uh the I think the tool that's available to you that's probably preferable is that um you are allowed up
to 25 ft in stepbacks of upper floors. So there may be um portions of the building where some stepbacks a a step back or series of stepbacks um would be in order. Um and so I just want to make
um you aware of those. Um so there is it correct there y'all are proposing seven stories with the bonus. So it's two levels of parking podium parking and five levels of wood frame. So five levels of apartments above that.
And if I could just mention something on that because Jeff mentioned the ordinance and I know Carl was interested in that. Before we put these together or part of the long process we're going before it comes before you. We we spend a lot of time and even in this package you'll see there's a little just a
couple of pages on the zoning. We have a whole bunch that we don't share with you because we know it's not your perview. But we've met multiple times with planning, multiple times with zoning. We've met with fire marshals. So, we really are pretty confident that what we're showing you and what we tell our
client is achievable under the new ordinance. It's not like we come in here and then have to change it. I know Carl was concerned about those sorts of issues. Um, but so the building height is a total of seven levels, two parking and five wood frame construction above
it. And just to address Jeff Jeff's I don't know if it was a suggestion or mention of reducing the height. I think this project would not be feasible if we lost lost a story. These are these are very very tight uh from a financial standpoint and I'm not the person to
talk about it but we do a lot of these. I think it would kill the project would be my sense if we lost a floor. We do articulate and step the floor back. the floor's back and the art you can see the articulation on the front. So there's stepping it back even further. I think
it's some 70 feet back the main front. So I'm not sure. I think the critical issue, sorry Jim, the critical issue is what is the pedestrian feel when you're at street level and that's what we focused on. Um yeah and I think uh you can see in that
on Delivan Street which is the one that's um we we were required to already have a transition. So you can see the the low lower building that's the required transition when you're across the street from an RN2 I guess RNA RNA
RNA2. Yeah. So that is the required transition which is a 20 foot uh minimum step back from the face of whatever building you build. So that's why that that is cut out of that corner. And then
on the very front corner uh is uh you can see where it steps down. That's utilizing the building module to also building down. Um, so you know, we we we're kind of working up towards uh Main
Street. Um, and this building is also roughly the same height as the Blue Moon Diner and the the apartments behind it. Um, yeah, you can see that right at the top as the Blue Moon Diner right across the same height because of the change in topography. Yeah, there's some there's
um the actual building height from the kind of railroad level. Yeah. welcome. Other comments, go ahead. Yeah, I mean I just jump right in the um so I'm when I look at this I mean I realize that we're only reviewing it because of
the overlap on the IP's properties. So I'm going to try and make myself ignore the areas that you know down Delivan Street and on the other sides. Um, but I do feel like um I you know these are although they're
extremely modest, they are very historic buildings in Charlottesville and I'm I'm grateful that you guys are trying to preserve them and um um you're going to uh rehabilitate them. Um I think the difference between these and say the houses in front of the quirk is the
houses in front of the quirk were a bit more substantial and the quirk itself is four stories. Um similarly um you know the Blue Moon Diner um those houses were more substantial. So when you're walking down the street you experience those houses and the building behind them
feels like a backdrop. When I'm looking at your renderings this feels a lot more like those pictures you see where there's a hold out like someone doesn't want to sell their property so they build a big skyscraper around it and it just doesn't it feels very
uncomfortable. Um now I'm not going to say it's impossible to do. I just feel like what you've presented us right now is still extremely uncomfortable in terms of how it relates to the existing buildings. Um the current conditions on um 7th Street
are, you know, it feels very forced. The the trees play a big part and I'm wondering if maybe the portion on the let me get my cardinal directions right. Northwest northwest corner if that I you've got it right at the five foot line. if you took it back to the 15t
line and were able to get some bigger trees in there, that might help with the context a little bit. Um, and then similarly, I know you were talking about, you know, it's the distance between the building, um, the back of the historic buildings and the front of
your building being uh, similar to those other conditions around town. But again, because these are so dimminionative, if there's some way that you can make your building feel more background, and I don't know if that means pull it back a couple more feet and again, insert some
very large growing tree in there. I hate relying on vegetation, but I feel like it actually would go a very long way. Um, but anything to try and make it feel more background and less like it's going to kind of hover over it. Um, I mean, you have these big roof overhangs as
well that it just feels like the building is kind of coming over the the two existing uh houses. Um, you know, the the garage um maybe having that entrance right there might also be contributing to this uncomfortable
feeling, but at the same time, I think the neighbors would probably kill me if I said put it down Delivan. Um, I know there's only a couple houses down there, but that does feel pretty unfair to those those residents. So, I I don't know how you guys resolve this. I think it's doable. Um, I'm not going to tell
you make it shorter. Um, and I know you're, you know, to get to seven stories, you're going to have to contribute to the affordable housing fund or you're going to actually put affordable housing in there. I don't know how that works with student housing. Affordable housing is allowed on student housing. Okay. Did you say it's not allowed? No, it's a
contribution only fee in L. Okay. So, you'll you'll be paying some big bucks because I I know we've revised that fee. So, um long story short, what you've presented it needs some you need to somehow find a way to make it feel more background. And
I'm not sure how that works. John, maybe you can this will help but this so this is a parcel here. Yes. Two purposes. Yeah. So in their zone RX5, there's no design review. I don't want to shoot Jameson in the face,
but so I just want to make sure it's clear that it's sort of a you know, you don't want to I don't want to overthink it, but the potential for someone to do something at that corner and there's no review. So that's there's
Well, that's not doesn't make it any easier to evaluate this, but it's you know, but it's also a much smaller parcel. So to get a sevenstory building on that little corner is I mean I don't want to say it's impossible but it's very very unlikely. Um yeah. Well yeah and it has the step
back requirements that we're dealing with at the very end of that project. So whatever happens there is going to have to step up just like that building. And yeah to address some of that the idea of that courtyard is that's where all the amenity space for the students
are. So, it'll be all well I can't say all of us, but it's going to be a majority glass. So, it'll feel like an indooroutdoor space and will be lit. So, that'll be an inviting to invite back into that will be the part that you can't really see from the street though. I mean, I guess
you can see it through the building. The existing part, but it's the stories up above that I feel like by the time you get up to seven stories, it's they're really imposing and hanging over the the existing buildings. So, I don't know how you can work on that to make that feel a little more backgroundy. Um, and again,
I feel like I I hate to rely on vegetation, but I feel like some very large trees, if you could find a way to fit them between the houses and the building, would go a really long way in kind of making this building feel more background. Yes. So, we're very we're
very tree or prot tree. We have um in our office, one of our guys is on the tree commission. We talk about trees. We've really you don't see a landscape plan yet, but you will. And we certainly Carl, I know you're a big tree lover and
we we are as well. So, we'll show you what we can do. I don't know how we can currently building that's that's going to please everybody because it's a big building. But even if, as one of you suggested, we cut it off at the property
line, um that building would still be there at the property line. Oh, but it' be significantly further back. And then I don't think it' be a No, because the pound on the left hand side is not not on the No, I get that. But at least the portion behind the buildings would be
significantly further back. Yeah. Would be on just in the center portion of it. Um but yeah, we hear what you say and we're going to look we'll look into it. Unfortunately, the next submission date is only a week away, which makes it really sort of
difficult for us to actually do all of this and submit by the 24th, but we'll try. Are you is there a tight timeline you guys are Well, it's just that you have to meet the academic year on these sorts of projects, and this is a big project.
It's probably a 24-month construction phase, a 12-month design phase, so it's three years out anyway. So, um, you know, every month every month is costly. So, I I'm not I appreciate that that schedule thing, but
that's also not that's that's your problem. We can we can look into it. We'll try if as I guess what happened with Fred, you don't mind taking some of our sketches uh a week or two later than the submission that we submit the package and we can get you some of
those. I see there's a little leniency on the folks before us. You can do that. I I'll just so I'm not uh getting something on the deadline does we're not obligated to bring it at the next meeting. Um just so everyone's clear on
that. And I'm also uh that's I'm spending some time uh you know not here. So I I I don't want to I just want to make sure everyone understands it. just I you can certainly get the thing in on
the uh try for that uh 24th. I I it it doesn't guarantee uh it'll be on the agenda. I can certainly try um and uh actually probably preferable to
to late July, but um just just just to be clear on that. Yeah, I know it's our problem, but I just wanted to relay how difficult it would be to meet some of these dead. I think I would be interested. Um Oh, it's not yours. No, it's me. Okay,
sorry. In my head. Um Oh, I would be interested in seeing some alternative like massing studies just to get a sense of like are there places that you can buy some real estate for lack of a better word around those
historic buildings? like could you reduce the scale of your interior courtyard and then pull back the front facade? Um are there other places that you can increase height like in that back corner that you can then reduce height in the front? Um, and then are
there other ways that you could articulate the building facade where those small historic buildings are to be more sympathetic to the scale? Because right now, and I really appreciate that you're preserving those structures and trying to incorporate them into the design, but I agree with Mr. Schwarz
that I don't I don't know that it's working like it doesn't feel like a courtyard to me. and and those structures are starting to feel a little bit more like follys than they are like residential scale historic buildings that have a proper context.
Yes. So if I can quickly address a couple of those things, we probably are at by the time we get to this probably 200 sketch 200 you only see SK19 because we go through a gazillion options to try to get the maximum efficiency efficiency
not units maximum efficiency out of the site. You can't go more building code doesn't allow you to go more than five stories with wood frame construction. So, if we did do what you're suggesting and popped up the back, we'd have to change the entire construction type to light gauge
framing, metal framing. It would be considerably more expensive. That would also probably render the project maybe unfeasible. We can certainly look um but as you start carving away at this building and you start losing the
efficiency of the site, then it becomes really problematic. And this is the very thing the comp plan and the ordinance asked for. It's zoned for this. It's zoned for this type of building. I know that's not your purview, but that's the reality and that's what people um are
looking for is that that spend this amount of money on land this close in to West Main. Um just the reality of it. Um but we're going to certainly try to do what you suggest. Certainly, we're going to look at what Carl suggests as well. Yeah, I'd agree. I mean, you've got a on
this SK13, you've got a diagram and it's really just showing 12' 2 in to the from the facade of your new building to the back of one and 13t 7 in to the other. So, I think it's hard to call that a courtyard. Um,
so I think to to uh Jenny's point, but what we were doing on those diagrams is comparing them to I understand what you've previously I understand that, but I think um what I'm hearing is these buildings maybe want a little more room.
Yeah. Okay. And and there's a scale issue here too. some of the uh successful precedents that you point out yourself. Uh there's a real context that there's a there's a dialogue between the existing and the u the new that I just don't see here. I see two miniature
buildings in a canyon. Um and you know, it reminds me of this uh children's story, the the little house. The little house. Um, and um, I just feel like it's it's mostly the U shape surrounding the two little
buildings being the same height as everything else. I mean, if those pieces could somehow be u reduced. Yeah, I think it would go a long way. So, just so I understand what you're saying, the the two wings that are projecting out, you think they could
step down a little bit? if they could I I mean I understand the feasibility issues that my first thought was exactly the same as as Miss Lowers that you know why don't we trade it off trade it off uh go higher elsewhere uh you know if our purview is uh to res
to keep these two little buildings there's got to be some kind of context where they make sense perhaps that northwest corner that Carl was talking about almost it would reduce greatly but bring it down to the size and scale of those buildings perhaps that's in an an entrance to the building or something
and then yeah, make up for it on another corner or something. I don't know. You're getting the feedback. You're Yeah. No, I am. I appreciate the feedback. It's better we hear it now than we bring it to you in four weeks and it's you have to redesign it. So,
no, I'm grateful. One I wanted to really quickly really quickly talk to your first request on the historic buildings themselves and the removals that you were looking to do. Um, I think for the most part I'm okay with I personally
would be okay with the removals you're suggesting or requesting. I think we would want we would require that you do some at a minimum photographic documentation of the historic structures even though some of these are pretty clearly later additions. Um, I don't think I would really require much for
the shed. Um, the similar to the shed that's attached. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Anything that's attached to the historic structure certainly uh the little awning the again similar to the last applica or pre pre-application conference the awning over what may have been a
basement entrance is hard to tell because it's got a plywood over it. I think it would look hard at that. There's a chance that may be original and so would certainly maybe even require like a measured drawing for that awning if we went ahead with approving the removal there. Um just so just so
just so just so just so just so just so just so just so just so just so just so you know we want to document what's there but I don't really have any strong objections to the removals. I don't know if others do but just wanted to just respond to that request. Yeah. Thank you. So that's the
removal request you just correct. You're you're you kind of listed B request one and two. So that would be my response to number one. But if any I think there's a consensus. Okay. Um so I just want to note that one. Now back to number two. I think we've heard a lot about the
massing and scale. Um, did anybody else have any other uh comments on that? Please feel free to jump in. Um, I I wanted to comment I agree with the board in general that this feels too big uh surrounding
dimminionive buildings. Um, and it would be great to see more space. Um, I have some questions uh about the grading, how you intend to uh enter the building, the main entrance, and how two things, how that works uh just on
the site in general, but also how that because that there's a sign significant grade change from the front of the building to the back of the building. How do you It looks like from your renderings that the that courtyard is lifted. It is enough like 10 feet
probably something 8 to 10 feet. How does how do you deal with the preservation of those buildings in that situation? Yeah. So the our our current thought is that we would have a uh a wall that would hold off of that. Um and
then we would create kind of an infill plaza around it. So you'd still be able to access it from below for maintenance. Um, but it's in the existing buildings that they're all basements. And so what we've done is sort of just right from the sidewalk level between the two is
this kind of a straight entry right to the building. So it is kind of a flat that's the only place we can make it meet that steep seventh street grade um and then come into the building. So the idea is that that courtyard is lifted up
and then it'll have a step right behind the 208 which is the one furthest down. There'll be a drop down so retaining edge there. So there'll be kind of a split level right behind 208. So you won't see it really from the street. Um
and then to the north of 204, which is um we'll have to have steps down to that courtyard because the the the street is very steep. Yeah. You can see on sketch 20 how steep that street is. But just to be clear, we're not going to touch the
existing buildings. Nothing will be supported on them. Nothing will touch them. There will be a gap between them. So this project should it go away in 50 years or 100 years those those existing buildings will remain intact untouched. Okay. Other than the rehabilitation
we're not we could revert to their current condition without any any removal of any structure. Mhm. So we have given that some thought we're just not showing it. Sure. Yeah. Um the other question is um so use is not in our
purview but um I think it's important to think about these little structures as something I don't know I think thinking critically about what those are used for and how they integrate with the neighborhood how do they how do they nod
to the neighborhood a little bit right how do they respond to the neighborhood how is it possible right on the sidewalk they're boarded and haven't been occupied. So, how do they res they would respond exactly the way they've responded for the last hundred years? From an architectural
perspective or a use perspective or a program perspective, how are they how are how can you think about those as a um an asset to be celebrated and how can they make this building better rather than right now they're sort of they feel
like they're being ignored a little bit. um and just sort of sort of um uh what's the word? Leftover somehow. Yeah. So, they're not being ignored. Uh we've given a lot of thought to them. We think of them more as guardouses as you enter,
little pavilions as you enter the to the front door that would be activated by the residents of the building. So, I'm not quite sure how we conveyed the impression that they're ignored because that's the last thing we were thinking of. So, if you have a suggestion, I'd like to hear it. Yeah. because the size
is really that's we keep on thinking you know it would be better to actually attach to the buildings or you know but then you're you know interrupting the historic home um but there's literally they're 15 by 15 rooms sure yeah yeah they're
really functionally obsolete buildings that we're trying to preserve but everybody wants tiny houses now I mean I I would just I would I would differ with you people I mean people are you There shows about tiny houses and there
and with the cost of affordable housing, there may be somebody who wants to live in one of these. As I said, Sherry, the stair is this wide. It wouldn't meet current code. And I don't It doesn't have to be though. It doesn't have to be though. No, but there's a liability issue as well. We would need to make if
we can use them, we will as a whole. It sounds like you don't intend to. I don't think it's You propose that somebody should study there and nothing else. Well, no. use it as part of you needs on these types of projects. Study space is highly sought after. Many of the student housing projects that have been built
don't have sufficient area to to congregate and to study. Yeah, somebody could live there. Somebody lived there. The ground floor of the flats is pretty much empty. Thank goodness. Something one commercial. Look, if it would went there went in
there finally after rolled a beard, you know, the space had been empty for years. work as a residence, we'd certainly or as a unit, we certainly do that. It's not everything's on the table. Um, but we just thought at the moment, that's why I was asking, we thought I agree with Miss Tavony. I
think that it's an important element and they need to be celebrated. And um, people like front porches on streets in the city, John. We hang out on our front porches. People engage in their front porches and and a lot of people don't even mind that they're right on the street and we're keeping the porches.
And that's possible. Why not? Yeah. You might have students hanging out there and studying and socializing. Yeah. In front of this group study room. That's currently our vision for it as an amenity to the to tenants. Now, if you
were to turn it into a rental unit, you know, if you had your student out there remote from the main security building, so that becomes an issue, you know, or does it become a separate rental, you know, that's not a governed by the owner
of the building? I think it's wonderful personally that you're considering them as a common space that can be shared by the community. I mean, that's just my that's just my reaction like and I I appreciate that what you're proposing is essentially that they are part of an
entrance threshold. I am curious though about like what the pedestrian experiences along that sidewalk that indicates like these small residential buildings are an entrance into a large hotel because it's such an uncommon
condition. Um, so I feel like there would need to be some kind of like visual cue or something in the pavement or something drawing you in. Um, but I am curious too about like if you are thinking about rearticulating the building massing if you could like
extend the use of that what you're calling like a um courtyard and think of it almost more as like a porch like an extension of those structures functioning as a porch onto the street but you also have like a porch to the hotel and it's all this
kind of like shared space and that way it feels like there's some intentionality behind like connecting those the program of those small buildings to the program of the hotel. I don't know if that makes sense. I love that suggestion. I think it makes me
think of the the the Doyle actually. I went up there recently and just to look at the details and they do a lot to really engage the building from using the porch in the back as an entry onto a eating space, you know, with umbrellas and painting the brick of the back of
the building to match the brick, you know. So, it really feels like an architectural room in the city um public space. I mean, I guess that's the way we were thinking of it is no, it's not going to be a big courtyard. That's why I called it a pocket for court courtyard is that really when you're in the
building it'll feel like it's part of the outdoor space and you know and the the scale of trees were meant to be more to allow light in there. You know if we have a big tree in there all a sudden it's going to make it a darker hole. So the idea was keep the scale of trees in
that courtyard small because it's a tighter environment. But also the idea is to have seating uh umbrellas uh you know benches. So that is an active space that's sort of between and behind the building but you do enter between the guard houses the
gate house. Um and then unfortunately the porches are 4 foot difference from one the other and we're kind of picking the in between so we can still connect to them but there are going to be steps involved. Yeah. Another way to think of
those little buildings is like the dependencies of Birdwood Pavilion that UVA is renovating at the moment. They have four little out buildings about obviously their main building is not as big as this, but they they work them out as similar to the way Jim just described
and I think that works. We were in the process of trying to work out exactly how to utilize those to the fullest. So, we're open to hearing suggestions and yeah, nothing has sort of been set in stone.
I'm wondering if the the premise of making those the entrance um if if I'm completely sold on that because when you just mentioned the outbuildings of Birdwood, those are dependencies. They're secondary. They're
they're um not the gateway and it feels like these little dimminitive things can't really stand up to to the towers that are that are next to them. Um I'm wondering if there were like sort of a more neutral backdrop on most of these
and the entrance were somewhere else. Um yeah, there is an entrance up at the corner right at the railroad crossing which is more of a you know the students will flow out of that on a regular basis. the the entry into the courtyard is sort of the leasing. You go to
leasing through there. You go to the lounge, uh the clubhouse, um the kind of group space that would then utilize that outdoor space when the weather's nice. So, it is more of an
extension of the building behind that than it is really meant to be like the public. You know, most people are going to go either in the garage if they're driving or if they're riding their bike, they're going to go into the garage and park their bikes in the garage. But if a
student's leaving to go to class, they might go out the upper level because we're dealing with that step. I I'll say it. Um, I just feel I feel like everybody's comments are that this these buildings will be in 10 years
after you build this empty and just kind of forgotten. They may I mean they may be forced to be maintained but the city's really cottages you told me that the the two Yeah. two historic buildings and I and I so thinking about that and and our guidelines are to preserve them
as they are but thinking about that I don't want and none of us want them to be left behind sort of as this is you know this whole space is being reimagined with this new city around them sort of and I I do I think I would make an exception to the general
guidelines that I would put you know I would would maybe maybe combine them in the back with a joint. I mean, I know it would have to be a terrace um um deck of some sort or um or and poke holes. I would even advocate painting the brick.
I know that's wrong. I know Jeff was probably rolling his eyes, but but but just doing something creatively so that these survive and they really do have some meaningful purpose and use. I mean, you know, the the obvious thing I'm thinking of is coffee shop in one of them or maybe in both of them. um you
know that would draw people in a commercial presence would certainly be awesome. Um but but more than that I would I I would just I I would like them to be I don't know to have like if they are going to be the entrance as we said or the gates or whatever what goes on
there what makes it interesting what what signals the past and what what makes them part of this functional city behind them and I don't know if I really have an answer but no I I think what we need to do is but I mean I would almost say connect them you know I I thought of
more little houses in front honestly when saw this I thought build others don't necessarily mimic them but you know stu students may want to live I mean if you if you can't put them upstairs two people could live in 800 ft I mean I
know you have bathrooms and kitchen and washing mach it's not going to fit it's not going to fit um but I think what we should do next time around is show you some renderings of that area so you can we can all better understand it and incorporate some of the things that have
been suggested if I could I just jump on a little bit help you flesh out what I know what think what you're thinking I don't know what I'm thinking and that is that um I do my my my son's paying $5,000 a month for a 12 by 15 apartment
in Chelsea. So it's like, you know, I don't know. I don't know if that'll go here. I do think of the cracker boxes at the on on East Range and you know that they are a place that students want to stay, but in lie of of having two buildings that sort of you pass between
are I think what you're kind of getting is is the entrance possibly through does the do you and do you incorporate that? Oh, okay. I my is there a way to like experience the building as you enter the
larger building and not walk between the two of them? Um I don't Do you combine them with with glass? I mean I don't you know I mean I would really be in favor of altering these buildings so that they look like
the past but they contribute to the future. And I I really wouldn't say that very often. I mean, I know that you you've stated the guidelines, which is if your building goes away, these are still around for another hundred years or so, but I'm just afraid of them being left behind. We could still do what you we could still look at what you're
suggesting where it's totally removable and doesn't actually appears to touch the buildings, but maybe doesn't. We could look at that. I love that idea, Sherry. Um, and I think, um, wouldn't be glass be really cool, actually. Yeah. I mean, even thinking of
about these as like two little extra special pen houses on the ground, you know, like I think students would love to rent that space. Yeah. Yeah. Let me I I don't want to beat this to death, but by the time we these are really tiny. By the time you put bathrooms in there that
need to be accessible, a kitchen and all of the the basic things students want, not like the the the range where they just have bears and they urinate in the sinks. Um, you know, most students are going to the women don't, by the way,
usually until they get really desperate. It's not what I thought late at night. I mean, I guess, well, maybe maybe part of the thought here is that you do, oh my god, we've gone sideways. You could do a thoughtful addition off the rear of these that in that incorporates your
plumbing, right? Like kitchens and bathrooms. That's pretty common that in fact probably some of these addition earlier editions are just for that reason if I'm not you know they could stretch they could share a kitchen and and bathroom facilities potentially or or if you had a glass connector between
them and then additions on the back that have have the bathrooms and kitchens then you can maintain the historic core. I think they'd be the most popular units in your building. Could be. I you know I think when we initially looked at it we thought about touching the buildings and connecting them and then we were more of
the you know are you guys going to object to us touching and connecting these this I think as long as you're not creating a false sense of history and you're using contemporary materials I think what we're talking about is not you know not false it's just some modifications that it's that
rehabilitation as opposed to restoration but just so I'm clear are you more concerned concerned or is the consensus more concerned with having an active what we'll call a courtyard of the street or how those buildings are used because if we start doing what I think
I'm hearing we're going to cut down on that open space and that open space between the backs of the buildings and the building that's a glass wall opening onto the the amenity area within the building so there's activity looking out onto that and I just don't want to
destroy that um to add a bathroom on the back of those buildings. I mean, I think that would all incorporate into a rethinking that facade. Maybe we need to go back to the drawing board. And well, I think some renderings of even just
what we are showing would help understand at least how we envision it that from inside the building, we're trying to grab onto that space as amenity, outdoor amenity space, and activate the street. academic street by allowing people to move in and out and
around these buildings. Yeah, I think a rendering showing looking from your new building to the back of the historic buildings would help be helpful. We can do that. Um, you know, I think ultimately the goal is how to engage those buildings to successfully preserve them long term for
the future. Whether that's re-engaging them with additions of some sort or if you can find a clever way to preserve them just as they are, but just not letting them go stale. Yeah. No, I get it. We don't I don't we don't want that either. Um, so if I could I know it's
getting late. Could I just recap? So, you you're generally comfortable I don't want to put words in your mouth, but just what I'm thinking. You're generally comfortable with the removal of those after it's documented. Um, and you're
generally okay with building across the back of these protected properties, but there needs to be work on the massing on the front courtyard, the use of those smaller buildings. Am I off the mark there? Because we don't want to do all this work and come back and spend tens of thousands of dollars and come back
and say, "Well, no, we're still not happy with you building across the back of the units, the back of the touching the back of the property." So, we need if if possible some direction on that. And what I'm hearing is you are okay with it, but we just need to work on the massing of the building. I think I think
we be okay with it as long as it's within our guidance. Want to carefully look at the guidelines for additions to historic properties. Yeah. And then I think it's about the massing of just the new building. Yeah. along that Seventh Street facade and how it engages those
historic buildings that it's even if you do touch them and kind of add to re-engage them, it's it's still too big and looming over them. And what we heard on the massing was I'm just going to pass over those existing cottages for the month because I think we're clear on
that. Potentially manipulating the the massing of the two projection projecting elements was of concern. Did I read that correctly? Yeah, I mean the one one is pulled back behind the house, so there is kind of an opening corner garage. I
think the northwest corner northwest, right? It almost feels like the space that you're creating doesn't really respond to the houses that that are there. And um you know, like that very large brick, I'll call it brick, I don't know what it
is, element, the tower that's right behind it. That feels off to me. And um I think your concept of creating a courtyard where these two elements are in would be helped if that were a more cohesive
space and especially that corner where that big vertical brick is is sort of pulled off a little bit. Okay. We can we can certainly look at that. Yeah, that thing. Yeah. like it's not the space that is being made does
not really respond to the buildings that are there. In fact, I like this. You know, the architecture is fine. Uh but it would be fine without those two buildings there and it would be to me very, you know, it doesn't feel like you've done a whole lot to sort of
respond to those two buildings with the with the actual architectural design. And I know that's probably not true, right? It's not it's not sort of what I'm see that's what I'm seeing, right? We don't see the previous iterations and the work that you've done to get here.
You probably wouldn't want to, but yeah. I mean, the other is we're looking at an aerial and I think that service in that apartment building right across the street, so nobody will ever be far enough away to see. SK20 is pretty good
though at street level. Yeah. Where's Yeah, that shows the slope. Yeah. And it's light on landscaping. It's really the massing, but it helps. And those towers, those brick towers, and just so you know, the brick is to match the
color and texture of the existing houses, and the what appears to be white is to match the siding on the existing houses. So, we tried to relate. Obviously the scale is so much so different uh that we just tried to relate using similar materials of sort
of similar pallet. I think if you look at SK 20 or 21 even 20 were inside the building across the way. So you're it's you know it's a very tight street, very steep street. Mhm.
I do like the um just in terms of the new builds, I like the the projecting eve or cornice, if you will, on those towers, and I encourage looking at that for some of your other massing. And just to answer that, I think K
brought it up earlier, that's only, you know, the we work out the proportion of the overhang based on the the height of the building. It's not we just guess at it, but that's only about a 4 foot8 overhang. So it's really proportional to the size of the building. It's not
looming over the street or you know if somebody heard you literally I think as others have said the the architecture of the building doesn't bother me. It's just its relationship is um you have you've given yourselves a a pretty big problem. It's a a difficult puzzle not
problem puzzle to solve. you have two houses that as you said the scale of these houses is so small and to find some way to make it they they do feel like they're in the way like they've it's like oh crud we have to leave these here and we're going to build around them and that's kind of
how it feels and that's I think that's what everybody well I think that's true that's absolutely true and accurate we have we in the end we don't want to build around them and now trying to work out the most appropriate way to build around them is a challenge like an example what if your front entrance. You
said leasing or whatever, but when you look through what if what if it had a a porch that was the same degree, you know, what if there was a little bit of relationship between them? Um, and I'm not saying to, you know, you can't mimic this these tiny buildings in your large. No, I think a porch is a good idea and
that was mentioned just at the same slope. I mean, you know, just so you would see. Yeah. Yeah. Like the the awning, as one would say, over the front would have the same slope as the And it's very gentle. the two historic buildings. So you'd actually see a
third, you know, of those forms. Um we can look at that, but we were not trying to mimic too much the existing building. But yeah, I think yeah, like SK20, um that one really shows sort of the doors and the entry doors in the background. And the idea is that that
pathway will be treeine. There'll be small trees, frankly. um and that there'll be benches along that so that hopefully there'll be this active life as people are waiting for a car or waiting for a friend. So, you know, yes,
these buildings are unfortunately not also architecturally significant other than they're historic IPs, you know. Um Well, they're brick. I mean, that's what's significant about them. Yeah. And they're and and that brick walls this
thick and they're very charming. Yeah. low carrying brick walls. So, it's very those are very unique, but architecturally they aren't like the Doyle where you have, you know, a grand porch on front and back. So, it's hard to build a lot off of them architecturally. Great. And that's why
we were trying to create this space between as the way they interacted. There's something very modern about the little buildings, too. like very just pure, you know, which is so I I find them incredibly charming. And I just
wondering if maybe the facade behind them could benefit. I just looking at the there's a diagram with a blue line of the um the plan uh over the site plan. I look page of the SK7 SK17.
Just wondering if straightening out that facade directly behind the the buildings might actually help a lot. Just giving a bit of a cleaner backdrop to the buildings, a more kind of modern um articulation of those facades behind it
might be helpful. Oh, you're talking about where it's sort of krenulated. Yes. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Right now, this is we've already gotten rid of those. Oh, you have? Okay. Yeah. It's just that this package went out before we made that decision. Okay, great. But even just pushing it back,
and I think this is what Kate's talking about, um that is my point, sort of responds to the buildings and the the space of the buildings, the existing. Yeah. On that same sketch though, sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you, but zoning requires us to build to the
street where we can. So what you're suggesting we have the and it happens all the time where we're trying to meet um satisfy your requests and also satisfy zonings but that on that sketch 17 you see that yellow line or that
shaded yellow that's sort of the build two zone that we're required to meet. So but I think we can manipulate that. We can ask for some um some relief. Mhm. But I think you're also, sorry, I think you're also suggesting I just want to
make sure I'm understanding it correctly, that you're not talking about building taking that whole thing back, but maybe stepping it back as it goes up potentially or or making it a little more simple and less articulated the way it is now. It's very you're talking
about right behind you. Yes. Sorry, I was in the middle. Lots of things going on. I just think sometimes it's helpful when we're talking about this line or that line to actually just point at it and make sure we're all on the same page. I think I
got confused. I I haven't what Roger's saying. I'm not sure if this match what John, right? John Jim, excuse me. I'm a James. Sorry. Um but just to so Roger, you can point at what you're talking about.
I'm sorry guys. I was actually looking for the notes for zoning on this. I'm sorry. It's 17 two slides before this. And I think Kate, that's what you're talking about, too. There's this is a very busy facade
here. If that were simplified and perhaps just straightened, um, he would give the, uh, pointer. Yeah. And, and it and it really shows, it's not just a plan thing. It shows in in the elevations, too. Uh, that
vertical brick element and the glass. There's just a lot going on there that, uh, is a busy backdrop to these two little. Are you suggesting to pull this back to here? Well, I don't think you That's what I was thinking. you know, so initially I would love to we're already
having we're have having to ask to be relieved from the from that the 15T. So also it sounds a bit I'm get I'm getting confused because initially you were talking about the top portion stepping that back that would the simpler we make this building the more massive it
appears. If we don't articulate it vertically and horizontally it's going to look like a box. So if we start straightening these lines out, even if we could, I think the result could be really problematic. Yeah. Yeah. So, but I hear what you're saying. I I thought
you were referring to in right behind 204 and see where the Right. Yeah. That's all been simplified to give us more space behind that house. Um so we have pulled and these steps as you
probably realize are really form follows function. These are units that lay out and this is the and zoning overlaid and building code overlaid and that's where that configuration comes from to get efficiency on the site. It's not some
wacky even though it might look a bit wacky. Um, there's pretty strong reasons for most of that, but I think we hear what you're saying and we're happy to go back and and study it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Sure.
Um, just I know this is moving beyond massing, but because you've given it to us, just a little talk on materials. Um the fibers that you're showing on here with the board and batten and everything. Um it always looks great in renderings. No board. Not board and
batten, but the you know the you've got slats or not side not slats, the you know applied trim on top of the flat panels. Yeah. It always it looks great in renderings and it has like a a nice kind of semi-residential feel to it. Um and I just the you know the standard and
the flats on West Main the construction was terrible. Yeah. And I don't know, it always makes me very worried when I keep seeing it pop up because it's the easiest thing for people to put on their buildings and you end up getting seven stories of this and it's all wonky and it doesn't age well. It's dirty. Um, it
just looks like garbage on standard and it I'm worried about that. Yeah. Well, and we aren't using that on any major facade elements. It's only below windows in between the windows and it's what we did out at Stonefield Delian where we're trying to pull the
window the dark black windows down through and we thought it was pretty successful there because we're keeping it to small panels. It's when you get the large panels like in the flats. Yeah. And it's, you know, just a trim around the 4x8 sheet. I agree. Just
throwing that out there. I mean, you've got on these corner portions as well. Um, and it it just every one of those little joints ends up being they never line up and it flashing running through them. And the backstory to that, Carl, is we've been asked to look at repairing
the flats. And what ends up happening often that siding is the last thing that goes on. And what we mentioned earlier about the school year starting and it start and usually on a lot of these student housing projects, the siding and the finish gets thrown on at the very end and they're racing through it and
the flats is a good example of it just a terrible application. The paint's fading. It's horrible. I agree with you. We try to avoid that. And actually our rendering sort of does a disservice. This is will all be like flashlighting.
Okay. Yeah, those photos you sent me a few years ago in fact and I it it on the roof where it's and it looks like the really the flashing the drip edge is just it it it it's not functioning. Uh
so yeah, it is in that's a mess up there. Yeah. And also that brick thin brick is a big concern as well that just popping off. Uh so I'd say be cautious about thin brick. Don't tell us that now popping off. Well, I I didn't want to
being that you brought those sorts of things up, I thought I'd mention it. We were looking at 1,00 West Main, the L. And that's that's it's coming off. That was Well, you didn't notice it. You're an eagle eye, Carl. I thought you It's funny. I noticed it's been repaired, but
yes, it was falling down into the pool. And it's the same product. We had a comments from the public section during that application. Uh thank you gentlemen very much. Hope you guys got some good feedback from us.
Thank you. So um just just two quick things. one, you know, this I had mentioned there was uh we did receive a note uh yes from someone who you know uh concerned they are neighboring property uh and um they are acknowledging you
know they're in that and I'm I don't know Jen Kate how familiar you are Jerry even that where some of the historically black neighborhoods in the city the zoning was such that um uh they're they are don't
have they have the zoning that's across the street where it's across you you do five stories it's significantly different and so uh the the the the comment I got was just someone you know asking you all to keep that in mind uh
and um I will certainly respond to them and say that you know when something's uh presented they can comment I I don't know if there's much uh other than what our guidelines allow us to do and what we've discussed about that but I just wanted to share that and I suspect we'll
hear um other things in this neighborhood. And I had just one um question if you could help me. Um I'm seeing a lot of the comment was made earlier about the vertical siding. Um I
think it was on um Fred's project and um I I see this in entrance corridor things and uh I interpret that as I mean I think of traditional when we talk about traditional materials you think of
horizontal sighting. So, I'm just curious from the architects how you see this uh uh does that does vertical sighting replicate something? Is it the new contemporary look? How can I how can I remedy it in
my head as a a design element? Vertical sighting can be traditional. I think right Matt, we do have our guidelines do say at least in the design control districts all wood that's on a building has to be painted or stained solid. Um and then we end up making
these exceptions for you know someone wants to have natural cedar or something. And I mean my concern with that is just it does eventually sometimes it grays out beautifully and sometimes it just mild and blackens and usually in Virginia it does the latter.
I'm just thinking more in terms of um when we're talking about traditional materials and traditional designs. It seems like that vertical siding is I mean I know you see in board and batten but I'm just I'm not sure how to resolve
this. I just was wondering if you all had opinions like oh yeah it's the new wave. It's the new look. It's contemporary architecture. Deal with it. Um, I don't see anybody to I think it's I mean because are people doing if
someone's doing a historicist building then that would be different but if they're doing a contemporary building it's a traditional material used in a slightly less common way. All right.
I know Ron loves it. I do expecting you to All right. I mean, would you rather they did ephus? That's not fair. All right, that's helpful. That's good. Thank you.
All right. Motion to adjurnn. We had two things on our agenda after the staff questions. Yeah. I said the windows we weren't going to touch for if you had anything but I didn't have that
time. Yeah. What? Two last two meetings. You didn't get to that that you reminded us that this is the first time I've seen a subcommittee for by review. The subcommittee was for process improvement and then Oh, that's bylaws. I feel like you did a pretty decent job of doing it.
Yeah, we did. I thought so. Waiting for somebody to you are the people. Well, yeah. I I I have Kate and I literally have donated work for the city. I mean, I think we would need to bring
back up your I thought it was going to city attorney or I haven't gotten that far yet. It's on the list. I I I'm sorry. I thought it was something James you had mentioned. I just I just was curious where it is. I had mentioned the subcommittee
process improvement, right? Seems like such a shame though. ruled into No, I think so. Basically, the bylaws allow the chair to appoint subcommittees. That was this that was the only connection to the bylaws and then we had suggested a subcommittee on process improvement.
Want to look up what bylaws show you how much Jeff checked my work. It's we um Kate and I can't keep up with what we have to keep up with. So um uh we
haven't gotten to everything, but I need to. I will give you I will share with you that in our work plan as we presented to council last night and to the planning commission last week. Uh part of the NDS work plan is to um
find a consultant to help Kate and I uh get the guidelines updated. Um, I still don't want to yield everything to a consultant, but um, uh, the the the the
direction I've been given is you got to get this done. So, uh, so so is there a RFP that's going out andor can we see that? Sure. When we get to it. Yeah. I mean, that's my direction. I just can't
get I don't know how to quite um I'm tired and I but what what if you had what if the city were able to say you could turn it over to like Frasier consultants who did the guidelines last time and just and just have them sort of
consult and and maybe get give a scope of work or maybe like you know advise you Jeff and us what they think does need to be focused on. I don't know, just kind of like take a first bite at it, not do the full not
like do the RFP for the full thing, but well that maybe just maybe an I guess what I'm trying to say an analysis of what would be ahead with the larger thing whether they get it or not. I think that the large so we I'm going to have to prepare a scope of work and and
and and uh for someone to take a look at the big picture and it a lot of it is going to involve um it's going to be a public outreach component. Uh I think a significant amount of it is to look at these um potential conflicts with the current zoning. Um that's a big deal.
That's a big part of it. That's a big part of it. Right. So let me ask a question. Um and forgive me for not knowing. Is our process part of the guidelines? Is the application process a part of the guidelines or not? There are
a big question. So there are some things that um yes and no. Um they are in the guidelines but I'll give you there. I'll give you how a quick answer. Fair. I should look at them a little.
No, no, no. What I'm trying to explain is But where I was going with that is that we could potentially engage the consultant to also help with Yes. the process, but we we have some internal things that need to be resolved. The the the who goes first on on the
zoning questions. Kate and I also believe that there's a lot that we could quantify as far as windows or the questions that she and I get all the time. and we're like, do I have to take
this to the BAR? We can really clarify, did this go to the BAR? Can we can we look at how can we treat this instead of just a a specific reading of the ordinance? So, yeah, but I I'd like to resolve some of those
with you all procedurally. Yeah, it might get worked into the ordinance, but I think there's some stuff for our sanity we have to tackle. Uh, one thing I'd like to tackle with you all directly, uh, we have, uh, we're looking at our sign rags and where the new sign
rags, there might be some missteps with the the guidelines. I think we can resolve those probably internally uh, and not have to pay a consultant to do it. So uh but it it it's I have to write a scope of work and
then um I want to involve you all in that so that we don't um you know I don't want to miss something uh I don't want to see the forest for the trees or miss the trees for the forest but um and uh but one of the things that you we've
talked about in the past for example what is it that you all want to see when someone brings a pre-application uh uh we decide that I don't need a consultant to determine that. So that's why it's not a it's not a simple answer.
All right. I think I have a quick question which goes back to something that we dealt with before which was the tree study for down on the mall that we were looking for city council to
appropriate money to doing that. Where does that stand right now? I don't know. Um I was told that's moving forward. Yeah. I don't know where that stood in. So the the um NDS plan talked about um
uh some master planning for the mole, I guess. Um that Yeah, that but it was a I I asked to clarify cuz they said that that's a couple years out and it could be a longer process and they don't know what it's going to take. So I said, is that going to preclude the tree replacements um that were recommended?
And um uh they said no. it um that that can proceed without that happening. So, I think it actually is in the works. I think there actually is some money to start that there. I believe there is um uh parks and wreck is managing that. So, it's not under neighborhood development.
Um I don't know where it stands as far as um there's a lot that has to happen to move things around. I mean, it's literally all right. Well, before we move this, we might have before we worry about this tree, we might have to move this pipeline. We have to shift to
something else. So, um I'm not currently involved in that. I don't want to say there's nothing happening, but I I'm I'm just not currently involved and I don't know where the the funding situation with that is. [Music] I think um to address some of the
particular things that you're looking for guidance on, I think some working sessions may be beneficial. I know it's would be another night that we'd have to get together. I think often times these things come up at the very end of our BA meetings. We're all pretty tired. It's
like coming on 9:45. I think though the last working session we had I feel like it was kind of we're a shotgun approach whereas is like a lot of stuff thrown at us scattered and I feel like by having maybe
um more frequent but shorter and really well- definfined agendas for those working sessions where it's like this is the one topic we're going to cover. we're going to take an hour, maybe an hour and a half to do it and then we're done for the night and get out, right? Like I think that's the way to achieve
small steps and kind of that's how you eat the elephant, right? One step at a time. And I think that we've been there's so much that we're hoping to try and do and we just can't do it because you're also still trying to do your full job, right? And and we respect that, but and we all have time of our own in our
personal lives and our jobs, but I think we want to help. I think it's trying to find the time to do it, but doing it in small increments. Well, one of the things Kate and I are dealing with is this new system, the portal, you know, it doesn't we Kate checks every building
permit that comes into the city to make sure are we supposed to look at this or not. And we find things um we find things all the time. There's a sign proposed that I didn't get review I wasn't a reviewer on, but they want to put the water street uh where actually
we just talked about that. I just had the old uh Urban Outfitters building, right? Like a new sign and I'm just like, "Oh, the hardware store building." That's it. Sorry, the words last me building. Yeah, this is like signs, you
know. Kate comes in and says, "Did you know that?" She goes, "Yeah, we have to review this by next Tuesday." Oh, yeah. I thought Yeah, I was just going to say, "And for these meetings, since there is some money, is there any opportunity to hire a moderator?" we could to keep us on
track. It's just it's again it's a sort of god if I could get there I'd love it. Um I can't get there. I think having a series with a timeline that you guys adopt would really help us also for planning and I know Jeff has to take this back then to you know our director
and deputy director. So it's really helpful if I think it would help us. I think yeah agree we can meet all these dates. Um, and I also think that we get hung up a little bit on the y'all's internal
we like to crumble departmental, not necessarily politics, but like the routing of who does what when. And it's sort of like it seems like that's a spaghetti mess and maybe we don't need to bother with that, right? Like if the question is about windows, like let's
just talk about windows, not talk about who sees the windows first. That's just an example. James Freeze moderated for us. What's that? He doesn't have time. He's standing down there during our meeting. Yeah, I just saw him. Who? Oh, he was right. James.
James Reese. Oh, then he must be um suggesting or Cameron. I mean, I talked to James about a lot. Someone who's a little bit removed but also familiar up process. They're not going to feel like they have to weigh in, but they also wouldn't be just like hiring a consultant who doesn't know what the B
does or Well, that's that's what I don't want. I I had a an actually had an applicant was very unhappy, well not very but unhappy with Kate and I because they were hoping to be on the agenda tonight for a pre-application discussion and I just said you don't want to be the
last of a late night. I I I could squeeze this on but I advise against it and it is Do you have deadlines? Yeah. Yeah. So it's um do they not make a deadline? Well, that's again where you there's like what is the
what is the expectation copies? There isn't it doesn't have a deadline. I think it's another student. It should it should be it should be the same. It still needs to match the deadline, but I guess it's hard to say if it's a complete submitt or not, right? Because it's just
a pre-application conference. So yeah. So make your life easy. Forget it. That's just a misunderstanding. Um and um but that's also my workflow begins with our online portal. That's where my workflow begins. So you
don't have anything there. Nothing easy now. I mean, yeah. So it's hard. It's hard for them to say, "Oh, sure. We'll take this." We want to. We obviously want to, but it's a hard middle ground. Could we do
one of these planning meetings around um December and then re recess to a certain house. Um, you know, that would be like a reward. Everybody would show up for the meeting. Start a little sooner than
December. I do need to work on there was a reward at the end. Well, I think there could still be a reward. I mean, I what I will say what I'm seeing a lot of and this is the project that is going to come to you is a another student housing project on West Main. you know, it's uh you know, so
that the it's I don't think that was the intent of the zoning ordinance, but uh that's what we're getting and um but um 11 stories where the students students are really going to live. All right. So, thank you.
I I Well, honestly, I guess if it keeps on I mean, if they're building on West Main, they're not invading all the houses for the BA barbecue. Do you want me to send another beauty bowl out for July and attempt to try and get it too soon
more folks for the barbecue for July? I'm looking for another doodle. Sure. Yeah. Just to see if we because it seems like we kind of have like about six folks that can do it on any particular night and that I'd love it if we could get a little closer to quorum. Yeah. It's screaming for like maybe an entire
weekend event who comes out alive. Um, all right. I'll send another poll out. All right. Now, motion to adjourn. Second. So, move. Thank you everybody. Thank you very much. Now, which door are we supposed to leave out? Yes. There are exiting
instructions.