AGENDA CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting April 17, 2018 – 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers - City Hall BAR Members Present: Justin Sarafin, acting chair; Melanie Miller, chair (late); Carl Schwarz; Breck Gastinger; Mike Ball, Emma Earnst; Stephan Balut BAR Members Absent: Tim Mohr, co-chair and Corey Clayborne Staff Present: Jeff Werner; Camie Mess; Carolyn McCray Call to Order: Chair – Justin Sarafin, acting chair calls meeting to order at 5:30 A. Matters from the public not on the agenda (please limit to 3 minutes) none B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. Minutes March 20, 2018 Regular Meeting Schwarz moved to approve the March 20, 2018 minutes with the change that Ball suggested (Page 17). Earnst seconded. Approved (5-0-1; with Balut abstained). C. Deferred Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 17-11-02 167 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 090126000 Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp, Owner/Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, LLC, Applicant Additions and renovations Report by Kevin Schafer Questions from the Public No questions from the public Questions from the Board Schwarz: Looks like you are replacing the windows, are the existing (on the chancellor side) windows original, existing roof maintain for the existing portion Applicant: Yes Schwarz: Is the intention to maintain/replace the existing portion of the roof? Applicant: It is current two different roofs, it is tin and sad right now so we are hoping this is approved so we can rip it off, and it is not our intent to go back to slat. We could go with asphalt; we are not locked in to any particular materials. Gastinger: Could you describe about how you are approaching the brick and window details relative to the original and the new construction. Applicant: The new construction is going to have different depths of their windows as you look at the replacement of the existing windows and the existing historic structure. The goal of the project as a whole will be to create a legible cohesive building, but understanding that we need to create distinctions between what is new and what is old. The goal is to leave the existing windows in their location, in the new windows with a different depth, might have a different trim package or a different style window. Balut: From a design prospective, why did you choose to keep the facetiae at the same elevation as the existing house and the eave all at the same elevation? Applicant: The Chancellor Street side is a distinct piece so can it carry composition because it is relatively compact or to harmonize with it so you can clearly see what is coming. Ball: Is there a flat area on top of the roof? Applicant: Yes, there is a little flat piece because there could have been a little double tooth, this is just the geometry of it from a visual perspective you will see the line as a ridge. Gastinger: In one of the existing photos there is a chimney shown, is that in the piece that is being removed of the original house? Applicant: The chimney is proposed to be removed. Balut: Regarding the Madison facade, why did you choose to do an asymmetrical façade? Applicant: Because the front and rear doors do not align. Ball: How do you deal with water coming off the porch, are you going to have a gutter wrapped around that? Applicant: It will be a Waterproof roof on that, but haven’t talked about gutters yet. Comments from the Public No comments from the public Comments from the Board Sarafin: As a three-sided project, this has really evolved really well. The concept is a restoration moving around the corner, it is an appropriate condition. Talking about the volume of the condition. The Madison façade is technical asymmetrical, how this is moving on the Madison street side? Schwarz: He is supportive of this. It really shows it is free standing and you move the wall three feet and that is a good move. Bob: The problem is there a distinct massing, lop-sided, we don’t have that massing, standing alone, or you tie it together. Breck: The changes have really improved the project. The new façade on Madison is pretty irregular yet appropriate. Don’t need the dormer on the other side, the two new outdoor patio surfaces, that material either concrete or stone. Balut: A very good job on the presentation. Earnst: I agree with what everyone else has said. Ball: This looks good. Sarafin: Speaks to the fact that the façade has been re-worked. Schwarz: I encourage keeping any of the existing windows that are there. Schwarz moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions, I move to find that the proposed addition that will increase the building’s massing and add an additional porch and portico satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Corner ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application for general massing, concept and composition with details and the SUP recommendation to come back . Sarafin seconded. Approved (6- 0). 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 17-08-01 218 West Main Street Tax Parcel 280009100 Brands Hatch, LLC, Owner/Fred Wolf/Wolf Ackerman Design LLC, Applicant Rear and side demolition in association with Tech Center project Questions from the Public No questions from the public Questions from the Board No questions from the board. Comments from the Public No comments from the public Comments from the Board Sarafin: We appreciate the separate application for the demolition, a reasonable solution, preservation detail on that elevation, introducing new windows on the interior wall. Gastinger: In support of the proposal, it is official of the proposal, helps the volume will be quite legible. Schwarz moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Demolition, I move to find that the proposed demolition satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with these properties and other properties in the Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted for the preservation of the front façade (masonry, cornice, and lentils), if there are any changes to the demolition plan these should come back to staff to be circulated via e-mail to the BAR. In addition, the BAR requests that the building be documented according to standards set by staff. Earnst seconded. Approved (6-0). D. New Items in a Historic Conservation District 4. Certificate of Appropriateness (Historic Conservation District) BAR 18-04-06 516 Lexington Avenue Tax Parcel 530224000 Tom Musselman/VATN, LLC, Owner/Kathy Am Peralta, Applicant Addition of back deck Questions from the Public No questions from the public Questions from the Board No question from the board. Comments from the Public No comments from the public Comments from the Board Schwarz: no concern with it. Balut moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Historic Conservation District Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions, I move to find that the proposed porch satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Gastinger seconded. Approved (6-0). 5. Certificate of Appropriateness (Historic Conservation District) BAR 18-04-07 525 Grove Avenue Tax Parcel 540013000 Clement Tingley and Deborah Larence, Owner/Clement Tingley, Applicant Shed replacement Clement Tingley is exploring some issues to see what he can do. Certainly would appreciate some feedback. Question from the Public No questions from the public Questions from the Board No question from the board. Comments from the Public No comments from the public Comments by the Board Schwarz: It seems appropriate in that location and it would be nice to see this come back with another elevation drawing from the garage door and seeing the elevation with the summer kitchen to see how the two compare. In general, he is supportive of this in concept. Schwarz moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Historic Conservation District Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions, I move to find that the proposed design-in-concept for this shed satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines, and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation district, and that the BAR approves the design in concept. The BAR requests the applicant submit a new elevation in comparison to the “Winter Kitchen,” with scaled drawings of the two open elevations to be submitted to staff and circulated via e-mail to the BAR. This approval neither supersedes nor vacates the Zoning Department’s findings, which must be satisfactorily resolved prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Balut seconded. Approved (5-0). Ball recused himself 6. Certificate of Appropriateness (Historic Conservation District) BAR 18-04-02 809 Rugby Road Tax Parcel 050011000 Andrew and Dixie Mills, Owner/Tim Tessier, Applicant Renovation and screened porch Questions from the Public No questions from the public Questions from the Board No question from the board. Comments from the Public No comments from the public Comments from the Board Schwarz: Asked for drawings for any of the changes you propose? Applicant: No. Schwarz: He is fully on board for this, but would like to see a drawing for the two parking and that affects the property. He is less concerned of the double door. Sarafin: Perfectly reasonable upgrades. Gastinger: Is supportive of the project. Earnst moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Historic Conservation District Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions, I move to find that the proposed renovation and addition of the screened in porch and patio satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road Historic Conservation district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with these changes • two parking spaces off of Winston Road • shed structure at west side of garage to have double doors • replacement windows to be aluminum clad Also, the BAR supported the use of composite-wood shutters and that no re-submittal was necessary if the front porch was not enlarged. However, the BAR would like updated drawings to be circulated via email, for the archives. Balut seconded. Approved (6-0). E. New Items 7. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 18-04-03 300 East Main Street Tax Parcel 280040000 East Main Investments, LLC, Owner/Bart McIntosh, Applicant Window replacement Questions from the Public No questions from the public Question from the Board No question from the board. Comments from the Public No comments from the public Comments from the Board Gastinger: Will the cage and covers remain in place? Werner: They are not quite sure how to remove them. Was that a window or that has plywood on it and a piece of metal on it? Profile can be rehabilitative. Ball: Sounds like the reason for replacement of the windows was water intrusion. Werner: He saw weathering of the wood, even down at the sill there might be where the brick mold goes down. He told them to cut it out, insert a new sill, flash it properly, cut the deterioration off, and reuse it. Schwarz: You cannot flash into the wall system, they can’t get the sill off. Miller: For the record, building merit more attention, high bar to be replaced instead of keeping the current windows. The BAR discussed whether the windows should be rehabilitated or replaced. If replacements are considered, determine if the replacement windows are compatible with the ADC Guidelines. Note: Applicant’s submittal includes Marvin details for both 1/1 and 2/2 window replacements. Staff determined that all of the existing units are/were 1/1. At least one window was, in the past, modified for an exhaust fan, giving it the appearance of having been a 2/2, which it was not Balut moved to defer the application. Schwarz seconded. Approved (6-0). BAR noted the following for any re-submittal: • Provide a flashing detail at sill and head • Provide an inventory/survey of the current condition of each window (explain need for replacement) • BAR prefers rehabilitation of the existing windows • Recommend addressing all the windows of this type, at this specific location-- not just five (Note: There are seven street level openings, but only 6 with windows.) • Existing steel window bars [painted green] to remain 8. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 18-02-05 421 West Main Street Tax Parcel 320178000 Quirk Charlottesville, LLC, Owner/Jennifer D. Mullen, Esq., Applicant Proposed landscape and hardscape area Questions from the Public No questions from the public Question from the Board No questions from the board. Comments from the Public No comments from the public Comments from the Board No comments from the board. Gastinger moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements, I move to find that the proposed landscape and hardscape satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with these properties and other properties in the Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the concept of the application as submitted. Balut seconded. Approved (6-0). 9. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 18-04-04 1824 University Circle Tax Parcel 060097000 Jake Rubin, Owner and Applicant Restoration of historical building with landscaping updates including site walls, patio, and pergola Questions from the Public No questions from the public Questions from the Board Ball: Do you have a plan for the run off towards the back of the property? Applicant: Just massing shingle. Comments from the Public No comments from the public Comments from the Board Schwarz: Mentioned the lighting, greater detailed on that. Ball: Said it looks good, very useful. Gastinger: Pergola does seem so in the historic photo a little confusing what the age of the pergola, of the original given it’s in the rear of the property, no major issue with it. Balut: Where are you are putting the storm windows? Applicant: On the fixed windows on the second floor on the front façade, others are casement windows, over the whole thing Schwarz: Aluminum or to match the sash. Balut: Will any windows be replaced? Applicant: One window is replaced because it is missing. There is a board up there, specification on that windows to match as well as you can. Restore shutters, bringing them back into alignment and some will be replaced. Balut: It is a great project and it looks nice, agree with Gastinger, recommend plant more trees. Looks nice. Balut moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation and Site Design and Elements, I move to find that the proposed changes satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road- University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following provisos to be submitted to staff via e-mail and circulated to the BAR for administrative approval: • cut sheets for the architectural shingles • cut sheets for the storm windows • cut sheets for lighting fixtures • any changes to the site plan should come back to the BAR Sarafin seconded. Approved (6-0). 10. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 18-04-05 515 Rugby Road Tax Parcel 050047000 Chi, Building Association- Zeta Beta Tau, Owner/BRW Architects, Applicant Additions and renovations Questions from the Public No questions from the public. Questions from the Board No question from the board. Comments from the Public No comments from the public. Comments from the Board No comments from the board. Balut moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed renovations and maintenance satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted specifying the light fixtures have a color temperature of 3500 K or less. Sarafin seconded. Approved (6-0). Miller arrived at the meeting part of the way through the discussion on 900 West Main Street. 11. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 18-04-01 900 West Main Street Tax Parcel 100078000 Midtown, LLC, Owner/Carrie Fazzolari obo AT&T, Applicant Exterior alterations to add an AT&T antenna Questions from the Public No questions from the public Questions from the Board No question from the board. Comments from the Public No comments from the public Comments from the Board No comments from the board Balut moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements, I move to find that the proposed antenna and concealment chimney (stealth enclosure) changes satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main Street ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following modifications submitted to staff via e-mail and circulated to the BAR for administrative approval: • submit updated and coordinated plans and elevations • cut sheets on the material used for the stealth screen wall • make every effort to keep the enclosures as far off West Main Street parapet as possible • attempt to make the two western most enclosures symmetrical Earnst seconded. Approved (6-0-1; Miller abstained since she missed the first part of the discussion). F. New Construction 12. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 18-04-08 201 West Water Street Tax Parcel 280012000 Black Bear Properties, LLC, Owner/Clark Gathright, Applicant New Construction Questions from the Public No questions from the public Questions from the Board Melanie difference in the proposal materials, Comments from the Public No comments from the public Comments from the Board Lisa Robertson: Sent an email shortly before the meeting: stating the proposed building appears to exceed the maximum allowable building height for the zoning district. She expressed a concern that the applicant’s building height calculations were incorrect. The application does not qualify for a grandfathering provision that was part of a December 2017 zoning ordinance that changed how overall building height is measured. Jeff Werner: Said the applicant has come back with a by-right, six-story mixed-use building and a partial basement level will house utilities and storage space. The plan has retail space at the ground floor, commercial office space and two multistory residential units. He said the design is characteristic of the downtown architectural design control district. The building style is described as ‘quiet modernity. Robertson’s comments were news to architect Jim Grigg. Grigg: Said it’s a 70-foot-tall building which is the by-right allowable height, and I’m not sure what’s going on. Schwarz: I think you’re within inches. He added there might be some confusion about how the height was measured. Grigg: Said he had altered the design to meet requests made by the BAR last year to include retail in the space. The plans show space for a small shop along Water Street. Gastinger: From a massing standpoint and an organizational standpoint, this makes a lot of sense. I think the new approach at the ground floor is much more beneficial to [both] pedestrians and the public space. Miller: Just because its labeled retail on the plan doesn’t mean you’re going to have a thriving mini-store. Schwarz moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction, I move to find that the proposed new construction satisfies the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with these properties and other properties in the Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves just the building envelope, exclusive of the floor levels, apertures, materials, and any other items that are not indicative of the volume of the building. This approval is contingent on meeting the City zoning code for height. Balut seconded. Approved (7-0). 13. Preliminary Discussion BAR 17-11-03 200 2nd Street SW Tax Parcel 280069000, 280071000, 280072000, 280073000, 280074000, 280075000 Market Plaza LLC, Owner/ Keith O. Woodard, Applicant Special Use Permit for additional residential density Questions from the Public No questions from the public. Question from the Board No questions from the board. Comments from the Public No comments from the public Comments from the Board: Applicant: The bulkheads are in board and we don’t have continuous runs of glass because we use those a as design feature. We will always show you those designs. We are proposing a trellis to provide some shade and a visual separation between the office and the market. It will also be used as retail space that fronts both on Waters Street and an outdoor sitting space on the plaza. Of course, that won’t be there on market days. Miller: How does this building relate to the massing since the grade is so much lower and you will have the same type height calculations and that will look funny side by side because you are maxing out every square each you can get. Applicant: It does not have to align exactly to feel proportional and if it is designed right, it doesn’t have to align. Miller: The parking lot next door is a better space for the market. It seems trucks are taken out of the scenario. She would rather see foot trees and figures out another way to house the farmers market. Closing the street is terrible; we can’t do anything about it. She said to close the street around it on market day it is a problem. Gastinger: He has some issues with the height that is proposed. Ball: Agrees with Breck, the northwest corner, it really seems huge, is there some way to step it back? It seems very large from that angle. Balut: Said there is a lot of information here so he thinks the board could start to discuss about approving the massing. He feels he has enough information to approve the massing. We need to see brick samples, metal panels, samples, window sample and what the railings are going to be. This the perfect place for a big tall building. He said he can support the massing, Gastinger: Concerns of the layout of the market and is thinking about these kinds of spaces. This is just not workable as a public market space. The rendering is not reflecting to make the market work. His fear is it is neither a good plaza nor good for the market, a building taller and market that is not particular great. The public needs to know how much of the market is housed in the street. When it is helpful with Parks and Recreation and how this is really going to work. Schwarz: Stated the promises you have made to night need to be carried through. Applicant: Economically this is a very tight project and we want it to be high quality in every possible way. G. Other Business 14. PLACE report Mohr was not in attendance, so there was no PLACE report. 15. Administrative Approval circulation efficiency Mess is going to try and send out a weekly digest with the administrative approvals, to see if it improves response time. H. Adjournment 11:36pm