AGENDA PACKET City Of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Virtual Meeting June 16, 2020 – 5:30 p.m. Please click each specific agenda item to link directly to the corresponding documents. 5:30 A. Election of Chair and Co-chair B. Matters from the public not on the agenda (please limit to 3 minutes) C. Consent Agenda (If a BAR member wishes or if any member of the public is present to comment on it, a consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda for discussion. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. Minutes February 19, 2020 Regular Meeting. (March, April, and May meetings were canceled.) D. Action Items 5:45 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-03-01 (previously noted as BAR 19-09-03) 503 Rugby Road Tax Parcel 050052000 Epsilon Sigma House Corps of Kappa Kappa Gamma, Owner Erin Hannegan (Mitchell Matthews Architects), Applicant Building renovations – revisions to approved design 6:05 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 19-12-06 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue Tax Parcel 090123000 Roger H.B. Davis, Jr. & Jeanne S. Davis Trustees, Owner Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, Applicant New Residential Buildings 6:20 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR Agenda June 16, 2020 (Final) 1 BAR 20-06-01 416-418 West Main Street Tax Parcel 290012000 A. Cadgene & G. Silverman, Trustees Main Street LD TR, Owner Greg Jackson, Applicant New roof and fenestration 6:40 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-06-02 525 Ridge Street Tax Parcel 290147000 Ridge Street Plaza LLC, Owner Stephen von Storch, Applicant Revised landscape wall material E. Other Business 6:50 6. Staff questions/discussion Letter to VDHR re: support for Burley HS nomination to VLR/NRHP F. Adjournment BAR Agenda June 16, 2020 (Final) 2 ATTACHMENT A: FEBRUARY 19, 2020 BAR MEETING MINUTES BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting February 19, 2020 – 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers - City Hall Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). After presentations by staff and the applicant, members of the public will be allowed two opportunities to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. The Chair will first ask for questions from the public, then from the BAR. After questions are closed, the Chair will ask for comments from the public. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to ask questions, and up to three minutes to comment. Comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. PLEASE NOTE THESE MINUTES ARE NOT VERBATIM. A RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE FOUND AT http://charlottesville.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2 Members Present: Carl Schwarz, Jody Lahendro, James Zehmer, Sonja Lengel, Breck Gastinger, Tim Mohr Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Jeff Werner, Sebastian Waisman Pre-Meeting There was a general discussion regarding the new items and COAs on the agenda for this evening’s BAR meeting. Jeff Werner provided the background of the different applications that are going to be discussed in the BAR meeting. Mr. Gastinger did bring up one of the items on the consent agenda. Meeting was called to order at 5:32 PM by Mr. Mohr. Mr. Mohr assumed the chairmanship due to his seniority on the Board of Architectural Review. The bylaws state that the most senior member of the BAR take the chairmanship for the meeting until a new chair is selected. Mr. Mohr was the most senior member of the BAR present. No selection of a new chair or vice-chair will be made when all members of the BAR are present. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda 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.) BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 1 1. Minutes January 22, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes Mr. Lahendro moved to approve the minutes with one correction in the minutes from the last BAR meeting in January. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Mohr abstained, since he was not in attendance at the January BAR meeting. 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-02-04 425 West Main Street Tax Parcel 320177000 Quirk Charlottesville, Owner; Danny MacNelly, Architecture Firm, Applicant Hotel signage 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-02-07 1115 Hazel Street Tax Parcel 510080000 Cynthia Wall, Owner; Kenton Trimble, Trimble Enterprises, Applicant Side Addition 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-02-05 581 Dice Street Tax Parcel 290063200 Sean and Bridget Walsh, Owner/Applicant Shed construction Mr. Schwarz moved to approve the remainder of the consent agenda. (Mr. Lahendro seconded) The motion to approve the consent agenda was approved 6-0. C. New 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-02-01 108 – 110 West South Street Tax Parcel 280101000 West South Street, LLC, Owner; Christie Haskin, Woodard Properties, Applicant Tree Removal Jeff Werner, Staff Report - Year Built: ca. 1922 – 1923 District: Downtown ADC Status: Contributing. The former H. H. Hankins Warehouse is a two-story, three-bay building and is clad in stucco. Piers divide the bays on the north elevation. The fenestration has been considerably altered on all elevations to accommodate different tenants and uses. Evident on the building’s south and west elevations, historic warehouse doors and windows have been removed and new openings created. Request for CoA to remove two maple trees straddling the parcel line between 108-110 W South Street and 200 W South Street. (Note: The submitted arborist letter addresses BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 2 only the maple tree at the street. Identified as tree #4 in the applicant’s submittal.) In addition to the applicant’s submittal, please review staff photos of the subject trees in the appendix of this staff report. (The submittal indicates two trees—identified as #2 and #3—that are to be removed per BAR review in August 2019.) Should the BAR decide to approve the proposed tree removal, the board might consider recommending the planting of new trees and recommended and appropriate species from the City’s Master Tree List. Additionally, the BAR may consider separate actions for each tree. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD None COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – I find the application pretty convincing in totality of the four trees. The maple towards the front is probably the only one that might have been planted intentionally. It’s in pretty poor condition. I thought the silver maple in the back might be in better condition, but the arborist report was pretty convincing. Considering the amount and number of trees being removed, I think there should be a recommendation for exploring the possibility of planting. If space was available, I think that it would be appropriate to recommend additional plans for canopy trees to be located on site. I would that four trees would be possible. Mr. Mohr – Were those powers lines slated to be buried? It makes that location pretty problematic Mr. Schwarz – I agree with Mr. Gastinger. I find it unfortunate because it is the only street tree on the street. I think that if a tree has been butchered like that, it still has an aesthetic value. I also recognize that it’s compromised because it is rotting. Mr. Gastinger – Can we pose that as a question to the applicant of what the possibility for other trees on the property might be? Ms. Haskin, Applicant – At this point, we are willing to explore the approved list and work with our neighbor to come up with a good solution. Aesthetics are definitely going to be taken into consideration. Mr. Lahendro – The Tree Commission puts out information about, not only recommended canopy tees, but also understory trees for places that have utilities above. You might check their website for the recommendations. BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 3 Mr. Schwarz – It sounds like we are going to approve the trees coming down. Are we going to make it contingent that they are going to put them back? Mr. Mohr – I would be more inclined to say recommendation. We haven’t seen any site plan improvements for this site. It’s been all about the building. Are there any doors or is there a pathway going down the side of it? The trees are in such bad shape. I can see them coming out. I could see that we would request a future plan that would include a site plan. That’s going to have to be in concert with the people on South Street. I would think that we would have a motion that they return at some future date with a site plan suggesting how they would re-populate that area with trees and vegetation. I don’t think it’s a contingency. I think that it’s a request. Ms. Haskin – We understand the contingency. Is it possible to remove the trees and come up with a site plan? Mr. Mohr – Yes. We are going to do it as a contingency. Motion: Mr. Gastinger moved having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City Design Guidelines for Site Design, I move to find that the proposed tree removals satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC district and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following recommendation:  That the applicant work with the adjacent landowner and come back to the BAR at a future date with a landscape plan that addresses the loss of vegetation and recommends the replacement of at least four trees on the site, two of which should be from Charlottesville’s Master Tree List for Large and Medium Deciduous Trees. Jody Lahendro seconded. Approved (6-0). Mr. Schwarz – Would it possible for that site plan to be something that they could submit and be on the consent agenda as a part of this application? Mr. Werner – I will do as we have done in the past. I would bring it to the BAR for the record. There may be a requirement that if it’s a site plan change that the BAR would look at it. You have expressed that you would like to see a plan to put trees back. 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-02-02 109 East Jefferson Street Tax Parcel 330194000 Christopher and Kaitlyn Henry, Owner; Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant New entry gate Tim Tessier, Applicant – We are talking about 109 East Jefferson Street. We are looking to replace the gate that is existing and that you see in the photos. The request from the owner was to come up with something that provides a little bit more privacy. In some of the other photos, the service entrance and the service gates are of the same design of what is on the front. BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 4 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – Is the intention to make the front walk usable again? It’s currently barricaded. Mr. Tessier – I believe so. I think that there are planters on the steps. This would turn into an official entry. Mr. Schwarz – The design appears fairly transparent. Is that accurate? They look like it might be 1.5 inch vertical posts with the wider space in between. Mr. Tessier – That’s correct. We envision it just as you see it in the drawing. Mr. Gastinger – I am guessing that the intention is to have the standing position be closed rather than open? Mr. Tessier – Correct. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – I am struggling with this a little bit. We do have a guideline that fences in the front yard can be no more than four feet. I am trying to look at the past history of this site. It does not appear that the hedge ever came to the BAR. It’s the one in the front along Jefferson Street. I don’t know if you know the history of that. Mr. Tessier – I don’t believe that we have discussed it in our office or with the owners. Mr. Schwarz – You have done the previous application. Mr. Tessier – I think that was there remained from what was there before. Mr. Schwarz – When this was approved, I know that there was discussion that it was good to have privet hedge there to hide the fence. I am not sure there was any discussion about the privet hedge becoming ten feet tall. It’s a fairly hostile sidewalk. It’s unfortunate when you look at pictures from the past and see what it looks like today. The design is very nice. It would be improvement to get rid of the planters on the steps and be able to see the front door from the street. I think that you would be able to see through the gate. I am still struggling with the whole idea of having a 6 foot wall, which is the lowest point of that gate. If your client has bought a house downtown, he would be proud to cut the hedge down to an appropriate size. BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 5 Mr. Tessier – We noticed the staff comment about that. I think that there is flexibility for trimming and shaping the plantings that are there. Mr. Werner – This gate opens out into the sidewalk. Without line of sight and some awareness, a collision is easy to imagine. If this was lower, that doesn’t become an issue. There is a question of it extending out into the public realm. Mr. Mohr – Isn’t the gate, when open, flat against the wall? Mr. Tessier – It projects farther than the hedge. It projects maybe a foot maybe 14 inches. Mr. Gastinger – I think the design is elegant and a good addition generally. I think that it has been designed in scale with the existing hedge at the height that it is now. I have been wondering whether lowering it to a height that would allow the hedge to also be maintained at a more in keeping with the spirit of our guidelines, if that would destroy the proportion of it. It is very tall. In the drawings that show human figure, it is pretty large scale for a 5 foot wide sidewalk. Mr. Mohr – It seems that you could probably bring it down a foot and still have the sense of a soaring arch. The house is extremely vertical. I think having a vertical gate makes a great deal of sense. In terms of its relationship with the house, it makes sense. You can experiment with shortening it. Mr. Gastinger – That was the dimension that I was looking at. That would allow the hedge to be maintained at a 6 foot level. The top portion is always going to be a little bit lighter. It might be a huge improvement for the site. Mr. Mohr – It would help with that street scale. Dropping the gate considerably and leaving that way up there, you lose the purity of your design. I think that the design is appropriate for the house. I think that you could lost some height. I hear what you are saying Mr. Schwarz with regards to the height of the hedges Mr. Schwarz – What is not showing up on the drawings is an arborvitae hedge that I am not sure ever got approval that runs right behind this privet hedge. Eventually, that will be an even taller wall. It does seem that there is a definite desire to wall off this house from Park. Mr. Mohr – I would like to see you drop it a foot and see how that works. Then hold the height of the hedge from here on out. Mr. Tessier – I think that would be acceptable. We would have some discussions with the client about how much privacy is provided by the gate. I think that we could work with losing a foot on the height of the whole assembly. Mr. Lahendro – I like the design in the way that it picks up the ellipse and the fan light at the front door. We have guidelines and we work very hard to engage the public. I agree with the other members of the BAR with the strong recommendation to reduce the height of the hedge. BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 6 Mr. Mohr – How old is that hedge? Mr. Schwarz – The privet has always been there. It went in after all of the other site improvements were put in. The last application that this project saw was in 2011. They don’t look very old. Mr. Mohr – I think that a reasonable compromise is dropping a foot. I think that it would be problematic to get the bottom of that down to 4 feet. It compromises the verticality of the architecture. If you come down more than, you are going to have issues. It would be interesting to see what the approved hedge height was when the house was built. Mr. Schwarz – There is a fence buried between the privet and arborvitae and that came up. The idea was that the hedge would obscure the fence. Mr. Mohr – It looks pretty close to six feet relative to the sidewalk. We are concentrating on the gate. We will request that the hedge be brought down with the gate Motion: Mr. Gastinger moved having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City Design Guidelines for Site Design, I move to find that the proposed gate satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following modifications:  That the gate structure be reduced in height by around 12 inches  That the adjacent hedge be maintained at a height of 5 to 6 feet, measured relative to the base of the gate structure Jody Lahendro seconded. Approved (6-0). 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-02-06 751 Park Street Tax Parcel 520049000 Patrick Tennant, Owner; Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant Side porch removal, new window, new exterior cladding Jeff Werner, Staff Report - Year Built: 1904 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing 751 Park Street is the only frame Colonial Revival dwelling on Park Street. The two-story, three bay house is oriented east towards Park Street and has a porch that spans the façade. The building has an impressive classical cornice and an asymmetrical slate roof: its primary hipped volume is interrupted by several gables, dormers, and extensions. The house was built for William J. Keller, a prominent shoe merchant in Charlottesville. December 2009 - BAR approved (7-0) a CoA to demolish existing rear [west] and side [north] porches, window and door replacements, site work, and railing and lattice. June 2010 - BAR approved (8-0) a CoA to demolish the existing rear [west] porch, rear porch addition, aluminum window replacements, new shutters, railing, and lattice. CoA request for the removal of a porch and stair on the north elevation, replacing the door on the north porch with a new vinyl-clad window, and replacing the siding with painted fiber cement lap siding. Cut sheet not provided for the new window. The BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 7 BAR received a 2009 application to make alterations to the building’s exterior, including removing the north porch and replacing its door with a window. The BAR approved this application unanimously, and staff recommends approval of this scope of the project. The applicant also proposes replacing the house’s aluminum siding, and presumably the original wood siding underneath, with fiber cement cladding. In 2010, when aluminum siding was removed to make way for a new west porch addition, the original siding was uncovered but had considerably rotted. As a result, the original siding was replaced with the same fiber cement cladding now proposed for the rest of the building. The submittal does not indicate whether or not any existing wood siding remains, and if it does, whether or not that will be removed or left in place. The design guidelines recommend the repair of deteriorated wood siding and to replace only when it is beyond repair. Staff recommends further investigation to the original siding’s condition before its wholesale replacement. While enough old siding for all facades may not be salvageable, consideration should be given to reusing original material on complete facades where possible. Additionally, should the new siding be installed over existing wood, the BAR should request clarity on how the siding will fit dimensionally with existing trim elements. Regarding the demolition of the north entry and stairs see below staff’s review of the City’s standards for considering demolitions. A. The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure or property, including, without limitation: 1. The age of the structure or property; Staff: The addition existed as early as 1929. Staff assumes it is original to the house, but cannot confirm. 2. Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; Staff: 751 Park Street is listed as a contributing structure to the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District (104-0072). VLR 1980. NRHP 1982. However, the district survey has not been updated and it is unknown how the prior alterations or the proposed would impact the current designation. 3. Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect or master craftsman, or with an historic event; Staff: n/a 4. Whether the building or structure, or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; Staff: The house is unique in being the frame Colonial Revival dwelling on Park Street. Staff has not determined if it is unique within the City. 5. Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and Staff: The requested demolition is for a component of the house. While the house is unique, a covered, side entrance is not and, with proper documentation, this element could be easily replicated later, should that be pursued. 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; Staff: While the historical record indicates—in a plan view—that a covered, side entrance at this location, staff cannot determine if the materials and design are original. B. Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one (1) of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. Staff: This house is relatively unique to Park Street. C. The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board; Staff: Unable to determine. D. Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing or demolishing the structure or property that preserves BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 8 portions, features or materials that are significant to the property's historic, architectural or cultural value; and Staff: The existing elements will be removed entirely. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Tim Tessier, Applicant – We are definitely looking to have that side entrance removed based on the prior application. That’s the first goal. The siding question is one that we acknowledge. It may require some more investigation. I know when the work was done at the back porch, the wood that was discovered there was in really poor condition. That wood was removed and hardy siding was put back in place. Our starting position would be the old wood siding. If there is any, is likely in poor shape. We would take that off and go back with hardy plank. I think there are challenges with gong on top of wood siding with hardy plank. I think the manufacturer asks for a smooth, solid surface. Furring strips could be used, but you have pushed the face of the siding beyond a lot of the trim elements. In the order of priority, we first want to look at that side entrance and make sure that can be removed. There is a powder room behind that door. A door would not be wanted. If that’s acceptable, we could talk about the siding issue. We don’t want to get into an exploration project where we start quantifying the siding. The cost would start to skyrocket. Mr. Mohr – The other windows on the house are wood framed or aluminum clad? Mr. Tessier – They are vinyl clad. Patrick Tennant, Owner – We wanted to keep the existing style of window. Mr. Gastinger – Do you know if the exterior walls are insulated and if that’s going to play into the siding question? Mr. Tennant – I have been in the house since 2009. We did inject stuff into the walls. The windows are double blazed. It’s much more energy efficient. Mr. Schwarz – Are you going to put corner boards on? Mr. Tessier – We would likely put on corner boards just to resolve those corners. Mr. Zehmer – Can you explain which area you have already replaced with the hardy plank? Mr. Tessier – The part is at the back of the house. If you have the staff report, it would be the last photograph. It’s the porch on the right. If you have our set of drawings, you can see a close up on page 7 with our photos. That’s a really good representation in the bottom left corner. Mr. Zehmer – And the condition of the wood was all shot? BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 9 Mr. Tessier – It was rotted out. We could not use it. Mr. Zehmer – Was the original side the same proportion and size? Mr. Tessier – I believe that it was. Mr. Werner – That could be ascertained with looking at what is underneath and identifying the condition underneath. Mr. Zehmer – It seems that the cyber cement siding that you installed was intended to match the aluminum siding. If we are moving forward, wouldn’t we want to match the historic? Mr. Lahendro – I think that we need to know what the historic siding is. I don’t see that it would be an incredible hardship to take off a 5 by 5 area and do some probes on different sides of the house to find out a.) what kind of condition it is in and b.) what it looks like. I would not be surprised that the rear of the house would be more deteriorated the other areas or the other elevations of the house. It would not be that difficult to go out and do some probes to find out. Mr. Tessier – The existing siding is aluminum. I am imagining a scenario where taking off a 5 by 5 chunks is going to be difficult to go backwards and get it back. Mr. Lahendro – Why do you need to get it back if you are going to replace the siding? Mr. Tessier – I think the owner would rather leave everything that is there. If it becomes an operation to explore and taking pieces off. Mr. Tennant – The original motivation for doing this is that it is time to get rid of the porch. It doesn’t have any reason for being. I am not sure that it ever really did. I spent a lot of time discussing with my neighbor. We couldn’t work out why that door was there anyway. Mr. Lahendro – Even without the powder room inside of it? It doesn’t make sense as having an access to the open stair hall? Mr. Tennant – There is now a powder room under the stair now. It didn’t make any sense before. The southwest corner was set up for service. There was a service stair, room, and entry. The only reason that we could think there would be an entrance on that side of the house was the owner didn’t fancy walking around to the front. My feeling was that this might be an opportunity to get rid of the horrible aluminum siding and replace it with something that would improve the look of the house. I don’t believe doing this will make a difference to the livability of the house or to the value of it. Given that we are coming back to the BAR to get permission for the removal of this porch, it seemed like a good option to explore the idea. Mr. Lahendro – I disagree with the removal of the porch. I think that the porch has a very good reason for being on this service side. It’s the access for off the road. It’s a street elevation. The porch is ornamented. It was clearly designed to be a feature and facing the street. It’s elaborated and the original owners were proud of it. BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 10 Mr. Tennant – It has the access from the side street. Now that the house has been reconfigured with this entrance on the back that is the access from the street now. We actually move the door into the center of the house. It’s not tucked away in the back. It’s a very good entrance. It’s a much better entrance. Mr. Lahendro – Just because you re-arrange things in a modern sense doesn’t mean that we can start taking off the historic things that don’t matter anymore. It helps understand the house historically and how it developed. In the future somebody may want to take that powder room out and restore that entrance to the hall. Mr. Gastinger – Is it the porch or the door that is the bigger issue? Mr. Tennant – It’s the porch. Mr. Zehmer – You were talking about livability of the house. How does removing the porch improve the livability of the house? Mr. Tennant – It’s a porch going nowhere because the door is now shut. Mr. Gastinger – If the door was the issue, we have had situations where we have left a framed opening in place that’s reversible. Mr. Lahendro – I would be fine with that Mr. Mohr – It would be interesting to know from a framing standpoint whether the door was there. When you take that siding off, you can find out what is going on behind it. Mr. Tessier – I think that it would be acceptable to explore the siding in this area. Mr. Mohr – That might reveal the fact that you have a wider weather. You would have to decide whether to take the aluminum off or not. When you said the insulation, is it spray in? Mr. Tennant – I think fiberglass. Mr. Mohr – I am also wondering about the aluminum and whether that’s causing any moisture problems in the back of the wall. Mr. Tessier – It’s possible. Especially when the house was not insulated. Mr. Mohr – You still end up with a dew point right behind it. Mr. Zehmer – In terms of an exploratory probe, you may be able to remove that corner piece without having to remove a huge piece and get a view behind it. BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 11 Mr. Tessier – If it’s really starting to quantify how much siding is OK, that’s the exploration that owner would prefer not to have to do. Mr. Mohr – If you are doing any kind of modifications, that’s going to give you a clue what’s going on there. Mr. Werner – Removing is something needs to be done ahead of time. The corner board is one question. I have seen in Charlottesville where it’s two. You would likely have a clue to that as the siding was removed. I am curious about the trim condition where the curved face comes into the flat. Is there a piece there? If I could just offer that and any requirements. Maybe there are some unseen conditions. If the hardy plank is installed, it reflects what is revealed when the aluminum is removed. That will tell you the corner condition and the trim condition. Mr. Mohr – You have two inside corners and the bay window. Mr. Werner – You can stipulate that whatever goes back in, it represents what’s revealed. Mr. Tessier – When you say the bow meets the flat, I do think there is a trim there for the aluminum. Are you saying you want to see what happens underneath the wood siding? Mr. Werner – I am just offering a recommendation as far as the siding is concerned. As far as the siding is concerned, the BAR may consider a condition that those trim conditions replicated what is exposed when the aluminum is removed. Mr. Mohr – It’s not going to mimic the rest of the aluminum trim. When talking about the aluminum, are you going to have to take it up to the roof? Mr. Tessier – That’s the discussion I am thinking about. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – I have some issues with the pertinent guidelines for rehabilitation. I feel that those guidelines speak to keeping the porch. Mr. Lahendro – I concur with the guidelines and feel that they are applicable here. This is not the main façade of the house, but it’s an important façade of the house, facing the side street. The drive entrance side of that street, not only for family, staff, and service vehicles, this was an ornamented porch that was elaborated to celebrate someone coming into the house. It connected with the stair and hall center structure in the house. I believe that it’s an important historic aspect of the house. BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 12 Mr. Gastinger – I would just add that the choice of having that curved façade on this rear back corner underlines the point that it was an important façade. There was considerable amount of craft and design placed towards this façade. Mr. Lahendro – That curved façade appears to be part of the original dining room. Mr. Zehmer – On the question of siding, I think we would like some more information about the original siding, in terms of its shape and condition. Mr. Schwarz – This does not appear to have the support from the BAR. Mr. Mohr – It does appear to be the way we are heading. How do we feel about replacing the door with the window? Mr. Lahendro – I am fine with that. As long as we can keep the existing door frame and infill it with the window. Mr. Mohr – The door is off center because of the stairs. That seems like a legitimate location. It does imply that the door has been there. Mr. Werner – The options are to defer this until next month. The applicant can request a deferral, and they can bring it back when they choose. The BAR can take separate actions citing the demolition. If the BAR denies the application, it is appealable to Council. Those are the four options. Motion: Carl Schwarz moved to accept the applicant’s request for a deferral. Jody Lahendro seconded. Approved (6-0). 8. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-02-03 409 Ridge Street Tax Parcel 290135000 Miles Hingeley and Ashley Morse, Owner; Jeff Bushman, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant Two-story porch addition, new shutters and dormers, new roof Jeff Werner, Staff Report - Year Built: 2004 District: Ridge Street ADC Status: Contributing (Note: The original house, the Dunkum-Spooner-Brown House, c1842, was destroyed in 1994 by a falling tree. However, the current house is still identified as contributing. In any event, regardless of the year built, the parcel is within an ADC, and any new construction or alteration to an existing structure is subject to BAR review.) Request for a Certificate of Appropriates in an ADC District for: alterations to the rear (west) elevation including construction of a 2-story addition and porch; and construction on the side (north) elevation of a single-story mudroom/entry. In the context of the existing additions at the rear and side, to the 2004 brick house, staff finds the proposed work to be consistent with the character of the 2004 house. In addition, the house 401 Ridge Street (Feb 13, 2020) 2 roof will be replaced with standing seam BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 13 metal, which will be also be installed on the new work. The brick foundation of the house is continued for the additions and the proposed painted siding is consistent with the existing additions, distinguishing them from house itself. The application clearly communicates a sense of the project’s scale, materiality, and general appearance, which staff finds consistent with the design guidelines. However, the application lacks several specific details, including door and window cut sheets, drawings of the new operable shutters, and detailed drawings of the new porch, stairs, and railings. The building is not historic but the BAR might request further details to better understand the project. Should additional information be requested, staff recommends deferral of this request until the March 2020 BAR meeting. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Jeff Bushman, applicant – It’s partially maintenance and repair. The existing deck is falling off. The roof is leaking. We are fixing some things, including the front stair. The plan is to do some modifications and make it suitable for a growing family that likes the outdoors, hence the big porch. The other intention is to take this house, and make it more attractive and more beautiful. Mr. Schwarz – Did you have any responses to some of staff questions? Mr. Bushman – The existing windows are double hung. The existing shudders are at the lower end of builder quality. We are going to the shudders off and make them traditional. It’s very conservative modifications. In terms of the new windows, we haven’t picked exact make and model. Our intention is go with energy efficient and clad aluminum white on the exterior. The detailing is traditional brick mold. Mr. Gastinger – In the backyard, there is a second set of site walls and another lower stair. Is that existing? Mr. Bushman – That will all be new. There is a separate landscape project, which is not drawn here. That second set of walls is important to us because we are trying reduce the height of the back stair to the back garden. The porch actually steps down from the primary level of the house. Mr. Gastinger – It makes a lot of sense. It’s more of an issue of documentation so the city has a record of site plan changes. Mr. Gastinger – The connection of the rear roofline with the existing roofline seems like it’s going to be tricky, figuring out how to deal with the overhang and what that intersection looks like. Do you have any further thoughts about that? Mr. Bushman – Our intention there is clear. The overhang on the porch is bigger than the overhang on the house. We are attempting to line them up as much as we can if not precisely. There is some roof water that we have to deal with there. We are building a notch to catch the BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 14 roof water and putting it into a drain pipe at that notch. The other design detail that is not clear is that the first floor is 2 feet bigger towards the back than the upper floor. If you look at the existing condition, the original design have a planned addition on the back. We are trying to clean that up. On this elevation, the lower level is actually interior space. The upper level is exterior space. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – In the review guidelines for additions, attachments to existing buildings should not use the same wall plane. If you were to squeeze the width of the addition, would that help the roofline issue? Mr. Bushman – I think that it would be exactly the same. We recently added a few feet to the addition to improve the proportions of the dining room. Our approach to the cornice line has been consistent. The profile of the cornice is different. The size, shape, and dimensions of it are different. Mr. Schwarz – I don’t think that we should be looking at the additions guidelines. I think we should be looking at new construction. It’s a new house with an addition. It’s not like we are adding onto anythinghistoric. That’s how I am reviewing this. Mr. Mohr – I find it a stretch for it to be considered a contributing structure. I don’t understand how it’s a contributing structure. It just doesn’t bear the scrutiny. Jody Lahendro moved having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions, I move to find the proposed additions satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Ridge Street ADC District, with the following modifications:  The applicant will submit window cut sheets to staff to confirm they adhere to our guidelines.  The applicant will submit drawings of the rear yard steps to staff to confirm they match what was discussed at the meeting. Carl Schwarz seconded. Approved (6-0). 9. Preliminary Discussion 612 West Main Street There was no preliminary discussion on 612 West Main Street. C. Other Business 10. Staff Questions/Discussion BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 15 20 University Avenue: Received a notice from this insurance company threatening to cancel the insurance on the historic porches. This was a temporary fix. Has to create some kind of railing for these two porches. Staff asked BAR what recommendation or suggestion on how to address this. Owner wants to do something as minimal as possible and permanent. A couple of suggestions were iron pickets and planters. Staff urged the owner to explore other options. The suggestion from the BAR is that it is black and medal. Property behind the Jefferson Theater: A noodle shop is going into a property behind the Jefferson Theater. There are two cable supported awnings. Both of the awnings are in really bad shape. The question was whether an L shaped awning be wrapped around the property. The recommendation from the BAR was to see if the awnings could possibly be repaired. Mr. Mohr brought up the lighting issue and the dark sky ordinances. Sean Tubbs starting to speak with a lot of people. There some people in county government seem to be receptive to this. The city does have a lot of crosswalk and lighting issues. Mark Skyler has been hired by the Downtown Business Association to look at decorative lighting strategies. They are trying to deal with a way to deal with lighting on the downtown mall. There is the need for ability to see the city in 3 D with regards to zoning and the comprehensive plan. It’s the only way that the residents are going to see the implications of the zoning codes. The historic marker was removed from Court Square. Somebody installed a version of the marker. There was a lengthy discussion with the Historic Resources Committee regarding the new marker. The HRC wanted to have some kind of elevated plaque at that location where slave auctions had occurred on a temporary basis until something more permanent could be installed. Markers will be moving forward with markers being placed on light poles. Those will be coming in front of the BAR in the upcoming months. BAR chair and co-chair 11. PLACE Report Nobody from the BAR attended the most recent PLACE meeting. D. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 PM. BAR meeting minutes February 19, 2020 (Draft) 16 ATTACHMENT B: 503 RUGBY ROAD STAFF REPORT AND APPLICATION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT March 17, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-03-01 (previously noted as BAR 19-09-03) 503 Rugby Road Tax Parcel 050052000 Epsilon Sigma House Corps of Kappa Kappa Gamma, Owner Erin Hannegan (Mitchell Matthews Architects), Applicant Building renovations – revisions to approved design Background Year Built: 1980 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Status: Non-contributing A two-story frame house occupied the subject parcel for most of the twentieth century and accommodated a noteworthy boarding house between 1928 and 1961, operated by proprietor Mary Speed. The boarding house was abandoned for a decade, damaged by fire, and was finally demolished in 1976 to make way for a new chapter house for the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. The present building was designed in a modern idiom by Johnson, Craven, and Gibson Architects and was completed in 1980. The concrete-block, brick-clad structure communicates its contemporary design through a split-gable roof, restrained ornament, and irregular footprint. Prior BAR Reviews April 16, 2019 - Preliminary Discussion August 20, 2019 - BAR found that the requested Special Use Permit for increased density and modified setbacks would not adversely impact the ADC, with the understanding that the final design and details will require BAR review and approval. September 2019 – (BAR 19-09-03) BAR approved CoA (8-1, Lahendro opposed) for renovation of existing building. Building footprint to be expanded, including infill of southeast corner and west addition, elevated over rear parking area. Numerous exterior alterations will communicate a significantly different design idiom, including a new primary entrance on the façade (east elevation); a symmetrical five-bay composition; an entry porch and stacked side porches; pergolas; French windows on the east elevation; casement windows throughout the building; an 503 Rugby Road (March 10, 2020) 1 expanded and articulated third floor; paired interior chimneys; a wide box cornice and a low- slung hipped roof. The applicant proposes to paint the existing brick cladding with white masonry paint and use cementitious lap siding to distinguish the enlarged third floor. The roof will be pre-finished standing seam metal in a charcoal color. The landscape plan includes a front lawn enclosed by low hedges; bluestone terraces and walks; a modified rear parking area paved in asphalt; and various trees and shrubs planted along the building’s sides. Application Applicant Submitted:  Mitchell Matthews Architects & Planners drawings 503 Rugby Road, Kapp Kappa Gamma Sorority, Board of Architectural Review: CoA Submission Amendment, dated February 25, 2020: Cover and sheets 2 through 37. CoA request for modifications to the design approved in September 2019 (BAR 19-09-03). Proposed modification are summarized in the Discussion, with staff comments inserted below each. Note: On Page 2 of the applicant’s submittal is a summary of the changes with references to the pages that illustrate the proposed change. Discussion Staff referred to the Design Guidelines for New Construction in reviewing this request. Proposed modification summarized as follows.  Replace the brick veneer on concrete retaining wall with painted stamped brick formwork. o Staff: No issues.  Reduce height of Dining Terrace site wall adjacent to the parking space to 4’ in lieu of 5’. o Staff: No issues.  Replace concrete pavers with scored concrete at dining terrace. o Staff: No issues.  Replace the bluestone pavers in the sunken front yard along the site wall with grass. o Staff: No issues.  Replace the bluestone paver walkway with crushed stone in North side yard. Porch to remain as bluestone. o Staff: No issues.  Pave all parking spaces with asphalt in lieu of concrete. o Staff: No issues. Parking is at the rear of the building. Existing asphalt parking area was to remain; new concrete was at a limited area.  Removal of (10) L-2 step light fixtures. o Staff: Reduction of lighting is consistent with the Design Guidelines.  Delete the pergola over the lower side terrace. o Staff: No issues.  Delete/defer pergola over Kappa beach. Proposed as an add alternate to retain.* o Staff: No issues.  Delete (2) sets of shutters from West elevation (back of building). o Staff: BAR should discuss. (See Design Guidelines for Details & Decoration.)  Delete (2) sets of shutters from North elevation (side of building). o Staff: BAR should discuss. (See Design Guidelines for Details & Decoration.) 503 Rugby Road (March 10, 2020) 2  Modify South facing window wall to raise sill of windows at 2nd floor lounge. o Staff: No issues. Matches sill height of other 2nd floor windows.  Substitute asphalt shingles for standing seam metal roof. Proposed as an add alternate to revert back.* o Staff: Design Guidelines discourage, but do not prohibit. Proposed shingles are dark, somewhat textured, and consistent with the Design Guidelines.  Add window at House Director unit entry porch on front East elevation. o Staff: Appropriate; adds an opening to an otherwise blank wall.  Add mechanical louver, required for ventilation, under overhang at rear West elevation. o Staff: No issues.  [Not noted on Page 2 of submittal.] At Parlor terrace, replace low wall with railing. o Staff: No issues. * Staff finds no issues with allowing the following as alternatives available to the applicant without BAR consultation. However, the applicant should notify staff of any changes: • Pergola over Kappa beach--omit or construct as approved September 2019. • Roof: Proposed asphalt shingles or standing seam metal as approved September 2019. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions, and for Site Design and Elements, I move to find that the proposed design modifications 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 (or with the following modifications…). ...as submitted and with the following modifications/conditions:... Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions, and for Site Design and Elements, I move to find that the proposed design modifications do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle- Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted:… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. 503 Rugby Road (March 10, 2020) 3 Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design and Elements C. Walls and Fences There is a great variety of fences and low retaining walls in Charlottesville’s historic districts, particularly the historically residential areas. While most rear yards and many side yards have some combination of fencing and landscaped screening, the use of such features in front yards varies. Materials may relate to materials used on the structures on the site and may include brick, stone, wrought iron, wood pickets, or concrete. 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought-iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 503 Rugby Road (March 10, 2020) 4 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. D. Lighting Charlottesville’s residential areas have few examples of private site lighting. Most houses, including those used for commercial purposes, have attractive, and often historically styled fixtures located on the house at various entry points. In the commercial areas, there is a wide variety of site lighting including large utilitarian lighting, floodlights and lights mounted on buildings. Charlottesville has a “Dark Sky” ordinance that requires full cutoff for lamps that emit 3,000 or more lumens. Within an ADC District, the BAR can impose limitations on lighting levels relative to the surrounding context. 1) In residential areas, use fixtures that are understated and compatible with the residential quality of the surrounding area and the building while providing subdued illumination. 2) Choose light levels that provide for adequate safety yet do not overly emphasize the site or building. Often, existing porch lights are sufficient. 3) In commercial areas, avoid lights that create a glare. High intensity commercial lighting fixtures must provide full cutoff. 4) Do not use numerous “crime” lights or bright floodlights to illuminate a building or site when surrounding lighting is subdued. 5) In the downtown and along West Main Street, consider special lighting of key landmarks and facades to provide a focal point in evening hours. 6) Encourage merchants to leave their display window lights on in the evening to provide extra illumination at the sidewalk level. 7) Consider motion-activated lighting for security. E. Walkways & Driveways Providing circulation and parking for the automobile on private sites can be a challenging task, particularly on smaller lots and on streets that do not accommodate parking. The use of appropriate paving materials in conjunction with strategically placed plantings can help reinforce the character of each district while reducing the visual impact of driveways. 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 2) Concrete pavers are appropriate in new construction, and may be appropriate in site renovations, depending on the context of adjacent building materials, and continuity with the surrounding site and district. 3) Gravel or stone dust may be appropriate, but must be contained. 4) Stamped concrete and stamped asphalt are not appropriate paving materials. 5) Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 6) Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 7) Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 8) Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. F. Parking Areas & Lots 1) If new parking areas are necessary, construct them so that they reinforce the street wall of buildings and the grid system of rectangular blocks in commercial areas. 2) Locate parking lots behind buildings. 503 Rugby Road (March 10, 2020) 5 3) Screen parking lots from streets, sidewalks, and neighboring sites through the use of walls, trees, and plantings of a height and type appropriate to reduce the visual impact year-round. 4) Avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites. 5) Avoid excessive curb cuts to gain entry to parking areas. 6) Avoid large expanses of asphalt. 7) On large lots, provide interior plantings and pedestrian walkways. 8) Provide screening from adjacent land uses as needed. 9) Install adequate lighting in parking areas to provide security in evening hours. 10) Select lighting fixtures that are appropriate to a historic setting. Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction and Additions include: F. Scale 1) Provide features on new construction that reinforce the scale and character of the surrounding area, whether human or monumental. Include elements such as storefronts, vertical and horizontal divisions, upper story windows, and decorative features. […] G. Roof 2. Roof Materials Common roof materials in the historic districts include metal, slate, and composition shingles. a) For new construction in the historic districts, use traditional roofing materials such as standing-seam metal or slate. b) In some cases, shingles that mimic the appearance of slate may be acceptable. c) Pre-painted standing-seam metal roof material is permitted, but commercial- looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. d) Avoid using thick wood cedar shakes if using wood shingles; instead, use more historically appropriate wood shingles that are thinner and have a smoother finish. e) If using composition asphalt shingles, do not use light colors. Consider using neutral-colored or darker, plain or textured-type shingles. f) The width of the pan and the seam height on a standing-seam metal roof should be consistent with the size of pan and seam height usually found on a building of a similar period. I. Windows & Doors 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a) The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. b) In the West Main Street corridor in particular, new buildings should reinforce this traditional proportion. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a) The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. 503 Rugby Road (March 10, 2020) 6 b) Glass storefronts would generally have more horizontal proportions than upper floor openings. 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. K. Street-Level Design 1) Street level facades of all building types, whether commercial, office, or institutional, should not have blank walls; they should provide visual interest to the passing pedestrian. […] 5) Articulate the bays of institutional or office buildings to provide visual interest. […] 8) Neighborhood transitional buildings in general should not have transparent first floors, and the design and size of their façade openings should relate more to neighboring residential structures. L. Foundation & Cornice Facades generally have a three-part composition: a foundation or base that responds at the pedestrian or street level, the middle section, and the cap or cornice that terminates the mass and addresses how the building meets the sky. Solid masonry foundations are common for both residential and commercial buildings. Masonry piers, most often of brick, support many porches. 1) Distinguish the foundation from the rest of the structure through the use of different materials, patterns, or textures. 2) Respect the height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings. 3) If used, cornices should be in proportion to the rest of the building. 4) Wood or metal cornices are preferred. The use of fypon may be appropriate where the location is not immediately adjacent to pedestrians. M. Materials & Textures 1) The selection of materials and textures for a new building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 503 Rugby Road (March 10, 2020) 7 2) In order to strengthen the traditional image of the residential areas of the historic districts, brick, stucco, and wood siding are the most appropriate materials for new buildings. 3) In commercial/office areas, brick is generally the most appropriate material for new structures. “Thin set” brick is not permitted. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than buildings. 4) Large-scale, multi-lot buildings, whose primary facades have been divided into different bays and planes to relate to existing neighboring buildings, can have varied materials, shades, and textures. 5) Synthetic siding and trim, including, vinyl and aluminum, are not historic cladding materials in the historic districts, and their use should be avoided. 6) Cementitious siding, such as HardiePlank boards and panels, are appropriate. 7) Concrete or metal panels may be appropriate. 8) Metal storefronts in clear or bronze are appropriate. 9) The use of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) is discouraged but may be approved on items such as gables where it cannot be seen or damaged. It requires careful design of the location of control joints. 10) The use of fiberglass-reinforced plastic is discouraged. If used, it must be painted. 11) All exterior trim woodwork, decking and flooring must be painted, or may be stained solid if not visible from public right-of-way. O. Details & Decoration The details and decoration of Charlottesville’s historic buildings vary tremendously with the different styles, periods, and types. Such details include cornices, roof overhang, chimneys, lintels, sills, brackets, brick patterns, shutters, entrance decoration, and porch elements. The important factor to recognize is that many of the older buildings in the districts have decoration and noticeable details. Also, many of the buildings were simply constructed, often without architects and on limited budgets that precluded costly specialized building features. At the same time, some of Charlottesville’s more recent commercial historic structures have minimal architectural decoration. It is a challenge to create new designs that use historic details successfully. One extreme is to simply copy the complete design of a historic building and the other is to “paste on” historic details on a modern unadorned design. Neither solution is appropriate for designing architecture that relates to its historic context and yet still reads as a contemporary building. More successful new buildings may take their clues from historic images and reintroduce and reinterpret designs of traditional decorative elements or may have a modernist approach in which details and decoration are minimal. 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. 503 Rugby Road (March 10, 2020) 8 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Epsilon Sigma House Corps of Kappa Kappa Gamma Applicant Name Mitchell / Matthews Architects (c/o Erin Hannegan) for KKG Owner Name Project Name/Description Kappa Kappa Gamma - 503 Rugby Road Parcel Number ------------ 050052000 503 Rugby Road Project Property Address._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information P.O. Box 5603, Charlottesville, VA 22905 I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: best of my knowledge, correct. Email: eh@mitchellmatthews.com Phone: 0N) 434-979-7550 x208 (C) ______ �� -signature � 1 Date 1 Erin R. Hannegan 8/f)A �rzt�d j ,.,l 1-" { � Renovation and addition to existing sorority house. The addition adds an occupiable floor to the existing house and projects out t rear. The aesthetic of the house changes dramatically to a more trad1t1onal architectural language 1n keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. List All Attachments (see reverse side for subm·tta1 requirements):_ co ies of 37 Pa e Gra hie Booklet l !-( copies of 1 sheet full size photometric lighting plan For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: ____________ Date: __________________ Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck.# ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: ___________ Revised 2016 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 503 RUGBY ROAD KAPPA KAPPA GAMMA SORORITY BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA ARCHITECT / APPLICANT Mitchell/Matthews Architects P.O. Box 5603 Charlottesville, VA 22905 p. 434.979.7550 f. 434.979.5220 www.mitchellmatthews.com OWNER Epsilon Sigma House Corporation Of Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity 3466 Keswick Road Keswick, VA 22947 p. 804.564.6687 e. cbrown1200@gmail.com OWNER’S AGENT GRS Properties, LLC P.O. Box 1880 Tuscaloosa, AL 35403-1880 p. 1.800.370.0725 e. Matt@grspropertiesllc.com www.greekresourceservices.com 5 ’ fence drain plant er ceen Parking lo t 5’ f Revisions to the documents and project design since the project was granted a COA by BAR include: 1 0 spaces REVISIONS FROM PREVIOUS as p h al t p av i n g 1 Replace the brick veneer on concrete retaining wall with painted stamped brick formwork. See page 12 & 26. 6 re v i s e d: a s ph a l t pa v i n g Trash En closu re 2 2 AD A Reduce height of Dining Terrace site wall adjacent to the parking space to 4’ in lieu of 5’. See page 15. s eatwal l Parking 5 ’ fence APPROVED COA ne 3 t y li 4 ’ w al l Replace concrete pavers with scored concrete at dining terrace. See page 5. s eat w al l per + 555 back E 3 dining LAN pro revised: ent ry Dining ro o m Te r r a c e ( belo w) Bike TH Lo ckers 4 Replace the bluestone pavers in the sunken front yard along the site wall with grass. See page 5. b en ch BE 6 . 5 ’ w al l LAM fire ALK 560+ st air Bike EW Terrace shrubs 5 SID s t ep s Replace the bluestone paver walkway with crushed stone in North side yard. Porch to remain as bluestone. See page 5. apart ment NG KKG H o use ent ry STI EXI 6 Pave all parking spaces with asphalt in lieu of concrete. See page 5. shrubs Side Terrace Parlo r E nt ry 5 1 Fro nt E nt ry Fo y er 7 Removal of (10) L-2 step light fixtures. See page 36. line + 565.5 Rugby ty Road per Bluest o ne Terrace pro + 565.5 8 Delete the pergola over the lower side terrace. See page 7 & 21. side s t ep s h ed g e st eps s t ep s ent ry p ro p o s ed lawn + 564.5 4 4 6’ he dge 9 t ree ( t y p ) Delete/defer pergola over Kappa beach. Proposed as an add alternate to retain. See pages 9, 17 & 22. 503 ex. shrubs t rees brick seat wall ex. 1 8 ” o ak 10 3 ’ b o x w o o d h ed g e Delete (2) sets of shutters from West elevation (back of building). See page 15. EXISTIN G SIDEWA LK + 565.9 RUGBY ROAD 11 Delete (2) sets of shutters from North elevation (side of building). See page 14. 1/16” = 1’ 0’ 8’ 16’ 32’ 12 Modify South facing window wall to raise sill of windows at 2nd floor lounge. See page 13. 13 Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma 13 Substitute asphalt shingles for standing seam metal roof. Proposed as an add alternate to revert back. See page 24. 9 B3 A2 A2 B3 B2 B1 B1 B2 A1 14 Add window at House Director unit entry porch on front East elevation. See pages 10'-7 1/2" D1 C1 D1 A8 15 Add mechanical louver, required for ventilation, under overhang at rear West elevation. See page 12 8 L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-6 FIXTURE D3 C3 D3 D2 C2 D2 11'-4" 7' B12 B13 B12 B6 B7 B6 L-3 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE 5'-10" L-5 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE 10'-8" L-4 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT REVISIONS FROM PREVIOUS APPROVED COA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 2 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 TABLE OF CONTENTS M I T C H E L L ▪ M AT T H E W S M I TCHE L L M AT T HE WS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS BU IL D IN G PL AN S ....... ........................................................... 4 BU IL D IN G E L E VAT IO N S A N D P ERS P EC T IVES ........................ 10 WAL L S E C T IO N S ................................................................. 16 BU IL D IN G M AT E RIA L S ......................................................... 18 L A N D S C AP E D E S IG N ........................................................... 23 E X T E RIO R L IG H T IN G ........................................................... 32 3 BUILDING PLANS M I T C H E L L ▪ M AT T H E W S M I TCHE L L M AT T HE WS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 4 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REVISED AMENDMENT BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN PA RKIN G PARK ING T R A SH T R A SH ANE ANE S2 S2 S./ H VAC S. / H VAC Rugby PATI O PAT IO 18 RISERS (7 17/32") Road EQ. E Q. HL HL J. J. BET BET UP LAM LAM B IKE S. PI KAPPA ALPHA BIK E S. PI KAPPA ALPHA (ADDITION) FRATERNITY (ADDITION) FRATERNITY D IN IN G E L. D INING EL. 503 S1 S1 R.R. R. R. 18 RISERS (7 17/32") S. S. UP O. O. KITC H E N K IT CH EN EL EC ELEC CURRENT CURRENT SETBACKS SETBACKS STO R . S TOR. & FP SE RV E RY & FP S ERV ERY DW R Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma (EARTH) PROPERTY (EARTH) PROPERTY LINE LINE N BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT BASEMENT PLAN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 5 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REVISED AMENDMENT FIRST FLOOR PLAN PERGOLA ABOVE REMOVED PA RKIN G (B E LOW ) PARK ING ( BELOW) S. S. SU N RM CON F. S UN RM CONF. T R A SH T R A SH S. S. ANE ANE S2 S2 Rugby 18 RISERS (7 9/16") Road HL HL ST U DY S T UDY BET BET UP LAM LAM B IKE S. PI KAPPA ALPHA BIK E S. PI KAPPA ALPHA (ADDITION) FRATERNITY (ADDITION) FRATERNITY E L. EL. C H A PT E R RM CH APT ER RM S. S. 503 S1 S1 R 19 RISERS (7 9/16") RR H .D. RR H . D. BI KE BIK E SU ITE S UIT E R ACKS R ACK S UP S. S. W/D RR RR S. CURRENT S. CURRENT PAR L O R PARLOR (INFILL) SETBACKS (INFILL) SETBACKS FOYE R FOY ER Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE LINE NEW WINDOW N BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT FIRST FLOOR PLAN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 6 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REVISED AMENDMENT SECOND FLOOR PLAN PERGOLA REMOVED PORC H 6 PORCH 6 7 7 ANE ANE S2 S2 Rugby Road HL HL 8 8 BET BET UP LAM LAM LOU N GE PI KAPPA ALPHA LOUNG E PI KAPPA ALPHA (ADDITION) FRATERNITY (ADDITION) FRATERNITY E L. EL. 503 S1 S1 W DR 19 RISERS (7 9/16") B AT H L. BAT H L. UP J. S. STOR. J. REF F S. S TOR. CURRENT CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 SETBACKS 1 2 3 4 5 SETBACKS Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE LINE N BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT SECOND FLOOR PLAN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 7 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REVISED AMENDMENT ADD THIRD FLOOR PLAN ALTERNATE REQUESTED PERGOLA PERGOLA REMOVED REMOVED 6 6 PORC H 7 PORCH 7 ANE ANE S2 S2 Rugby 21 RISERS (6 13/32") Road HL HL 8 8 BET BET UP DOWN LAM LAM LOU N GE PI KAPPA ALPHA LOUNG E PI KAPPA ALPHA (ADDITION) FRATERNITY (ADDITION) FRATERNITY E L. EL. 503 S1 S1 W DR (7 9/16") RISERS (7 1/2") B AT H L. BAT H L. 18 RISERS DOWN 19 UP J. S. STOR. J. REF REF F S. S TOR. CURRENT CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 SETBACKS 1 2 3 4 5 SETBACKS Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE LINE N BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT THIRD FLOOR PLAN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 8 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REVISED AMENDMENT ADD ALTERNATE REQUESTED PERGOLA PERGOLA REMOVED REMOVED ROOF PLAN ANE ANE Rugby Road HL HL BET BET UP LAM LAM PI KAPPA ALPHA PI KAPPA ALPHA FRATERNITY FRATERNITY ROOF TOP ROOF TOP HVAC UNITS HVAC UNITS 503 WITHIN ROOF WITHIN ROOF W DR WELL WELL 19 RISERS (7 9/16") UP REF F CURRENT CURRENT SETBACKS SETBACKS Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE LINE N BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT ROOF PLAN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 9 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 BUILDING ELEVATIONS & PERSPECTIVES M I T C H E L L ▪ M AT T H E W S M I TCHE L L M AT T HE WS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 10 SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION (BOTTOM) PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REVISED AMENDMENT FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION (TOP) RUGBY ROAD & LAMBETH LANE ADD ALTERNATE REQUESTED ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF +607.73' +607.73' 4 TRUSS BRG 4 TRUSS BRG +596.07' +596.07' A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 3 3RD FLOOR 3 3RD FLOOR +587.69' +587.69' A4 A4 B8 A7 B8 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 B8 A7 B8 A4 A4 A4 10'-7 1/2" 10'-7 1/2" B11 B10 B11 B11 B10 B11 B9 B9 B9 B9 B9 B9 B9 B9 B9 B9 2 2nd FLOOR 2 2nd FLOOR +577.06' +577.06' E1 E2 E1 E1 E2 E1 L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-6 FIXTURE BEYOND 11'-4" 11'-4" L-6 FIXTURE BEYOND A9 EXT-3 EXT-3 EXT-2 EXT-1 EXT-2 EXT-3 EXT-3 Rugby Road 1 1st FLOOR 1 1st FLOOR +565.73' +565.73' FIRE DEPT. L-2 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE BEYOND L-2 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE BEYOND L-2 FIXTURE CONNECT. 10'-8" 10'-8" RAILING IN WINDOW LIEU OF WALL ADDED 503 ADD ADD ALTERNATE ALTERNATE REQUESTED REQUESTED PERGOLA PERGOLA ASPHALT REMOVED REMOVED SHINGLE ROOF Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma B3 A2 A2 B3 B2 B1 B1 B2 A1 B3 A2 A2 B3 B2 B1 B1 B2 A1 D1 C1 D1 A5 10'-7 1/2" 10'-7 1/2" D1 C1 D1 A8 B6 B7 B6 L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-6 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-6 FIXTURE D3 C3 D3 D2 C2 D2 D3 C3 D3 D2 C2 D2 11'-4" 11'-4" FIRE DEPT. EXT-5 EXT-4 EXT-5 CONNECT. 7' 7' 7' B12 B13 B12 B6 B7 B6 B12 B13 B12 B6 B7 B6 FDC L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE 5'-10" L-5 FIXTURE L-5 FIXTURE EXT-8 5'-8 3/4" L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-4 FIXTURE EXT-7 EXT-6 EXT-7 10'-8" 10'-8" L-4 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE WOOD SLAT BENCH L-2 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE WALL HEIGHT WINDOW REDUCED TO SILL HEIGHT 4 FEET RAISED BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT FRONT EAST ELEVATION (TOP) & SIDE SOUTH ELEVATION (BOTTOM) M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 11 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 REAR (WEST) ELEVATION (BOTTOM) PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REVISED AMENDMENT ADD ALTERNATE SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION (TOP) REQUESTED ASPHALT SHUTTERS SHINGLE ROOF REMOVED 4 TRUSS BRG 4 TRUSS BRG +596.07' +596.07' A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 3 3RD FLOOR 3 3RD FLOOR +587.69' +587.69' A5 A5 10'-7 1/2" 10'-7 1/2" A5 A5 2 2nd FLOOR 2 2nd FLOOR +577.06' +577.06' L-6 FIXTURE L-6 FIXTURE C5 D3 C3 D3 C5 D3 C3 D3 11'-4" 11'-4" B18 B18 B17 B12 B13 B12 B17 B12 B13 B12 1 1st FLOOR 1 1st FLOOR +565.73' +565.73' L-5 FIXTURE L-5 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE 10'-8" 10'-8" Rugby EXT-10 Road -1 BASEMENT -1 BASEMENT +555.06' +555.06' ADD PAINTED STAMPED (BRICK ALTERNATE PATTERN) CONCRETE ADD 503 REQUESTED RETAINING WALL IN LIEU OF ALTERNATE PAINTED BRICK, REFER TO REQUESTED SHUTTERS PERGOLA PERGOLA PAGE 26 REMOVED REMOVED REMOVED ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF +607.73' +607.73' 4 TRUSS BRG 4 TRUSS BRG +596.07' +596.07' A1 A1 EXT-12 B4 B4 A3 A1 A1 B4 B4 A3 Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma L-3 FIXTURE 3 3RD FLOOR 3 3RD FLOOR +587.69' +587.69' A5 A5 B5 B5 A6 A5 10'-7 1/2" 10'-7 1/2" EXT-11 A5 A5 B5 B5 A6 A8 L-3 FIXTURE 2 2nd FLOOR 2 2nd FLOOR +577.06' +577.06' L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE C4 D4 D4 C4 C4 D4 D4 C4 C5 C4 D4 D4 C4 C4 D4 D4 C4 C5 11'-4" 11'-4" B16 B16 B14 B15 B15 B14 B14 B15 B15 B14 B14 B15 B15 B14 B14 B15 B15 B14 1 1st FLOOR 1 1st FLOOR +565.73' +565.73' L-5 FIXTURE L-5 FIXTURE L-5 FIXTURE L-5 FIXTURE 10'-8" 10'-8" B19 B20 B20 B19 B19 B20 B20 B19 9'-6" 9'-6" 8'-6" CLEAR -1 BASEMENT -1 BASEMENT +555.06' +555.06' 1'-1 1/2" 1'-1 1/2" LOUVER WALL HEIGHT ADDED REDUCED TO 4 FEET BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT SIDE NORTH ELEVATION (TOP) & REAR WEST ELEVATION (BOTTOM) M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 12 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 SOUTH ELEVATION LAMBETH LANE PERSPECTIVE Rugby Road 503 Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT APPROVED LAMBETH LANE PERSPECTIVE M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 13 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 SOUTH ELEVATION LAMBETH LANE PERSPECTIVE Rugby Road 503 Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT LAMBETH LANE PERSPECTIVE AMENDMENT M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 14 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 RUGBY RD PERSPECTIVE EAST ELEVATION Rugby 503Road Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT RUGBY ROAD PERSPECTIVE M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 15 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 WALL SECTIONS M I T C H E L L ▪ M AT T H E W S M I TCHE L L M AT T HE WS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 16 SOUTH ASPHALT SHINGLE WEST SOUTH (ADD ALTERNATE REQUESTED TO REVERT WALL SECTIONS: AMENDMENT TO STANDING SEAM) FACE OF PERGOLA REMOVED EXISTING WALL (ADD ALTERNATE CONSTRUCTION, REQUESTED TO REVERT TYP. TO PERGOLA) FACE OF (RED DASHED LINE) EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION, TYP. (RED DASHED LINE) RAISED SILL COVERED PORCH EXISTING Rugby APPROVED SILL HEIGHT Road CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN (SHADED), TYP. 503 SUN RM FACE OF PERGOLA EXISTING WALL REMOVED. CONSTRUCTION, TYP. Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma (RED DASHED LINE) APPROVED WALL HEIGHT EXISTING PROPOSED WALL HEIGHT CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN (SHADED), TYP. WATER TABLE TERMINATES AT INSIDE CORNER BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT SECTIONS AT SOUTH WALL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 17 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 BUILDING MATERIALS M I T C H E L L ▪ M AT T H E W S M I TCHE L L M AT T HE WS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS REVISION TO THE ROOF MATERIAL ONLY (PROPOSING ASPHALT SHINGLE) WITH A REQUEST TO PERMIT THE PROJECT TO REVERT BACK (TO STANDING SEAM METAL) IF FUNDS ALLOW. 18 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REVISED AMENDMENT BUILDING MATERIALS STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF BRICK Brick Wall with BLUESTONE CAP ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES PROPOSED AS AN ADD ALTERNATE. painted White* BRICK, Painted White* ESTATE GRAY Rugby 503 Road WINDOWS/DOORS Juliet Balconies (Front) METAL Railings (SIDES) PAINTED BLACK*. manufacturer SELECTION is PAINTED BLACK* PAINTED BLACK* pending, To be provided at a later date. Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma HARDIE LAP SIDING downspout & gutter Window Shutters Cementitious Lap Siding, 6” Exposure, White Aluminum Painted BLACK* Painted white* BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT BUILDING MATERIALS M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 19 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 * EXACT COLORS TO BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 TruDefnition ® DURATION ® TruDefnition ® Shingles with Patented SureNail ® Technology DURATI N ® MATERIALS AMENDMENT Shingles with Patented SureNail ® Technology Bold contrast. Deep dimension. TruDefnition. ® TruDefnition Duration Shingles are specially ® ® The SureNail Difference— ® formulated to pro ide great contrast and A technological breakthrough in dimension to any roof. Through the use roofng. The innovative features of of multiple granule colors and shadowing, Owens Corning TruDefnition Duration hingles with ® ® ® TruDefnition Duration hingles offer a truly ® ® patented ureNail Technology offer the following: ® unique and dramatic effect. This exclusive Breakthrough Design. Featuring a tough, combination of color and depth is what makes woven engineered reinforcing fabric to deliver consistent TruDefnition Duration hingles like no other. ® ® fastening during installation. TruDefnition Duration hingles are available ® ® Triple Layer Protection. A unique “triple layer” ® in popular colors with bold, lively contrast of reinforcement occurs when the fabric overlays the and complementing shadow lines for greater common bond of the shingle laminate layers that offers dimension. They feature a Limited Lifetime excellent fastener holding power. Warranty*/‡‡ (for as long as you own your home) and Rugby Outstanding Grip. Our enhanced Tru-Bond ‡ sealant ® Road a 130-MPH Wind Resistance Limited Warranty*. grips tightly to the engineered fabric nailing strip on the TruDefnition Duration hingles are produced ® ® shingle below. with treakGuard™ Protection to inhibit the growth of airborne blue-green algae* that can cause unsightly Excellent Adhesi e Power. pecially formulated, wide dark streaks on your roof. Owens Corning provides adhesive bands help keep shingle layers laminated together. 503 a 10-year Algae Resistance Limited Warranty.* Exceptional Wind Resistance. Engineered to deliver Beyond the outstanding curb appeal and impressive 130-MPH* wind warranty performance with only 4 nails. warranty coverage, they also come with the advanced Fewer nails required can mean fewer deck penetrations. performance of patented ureNail Technology. ® Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma Excellent Adhesive Power utstanding Grip Colonial Slate† Triple Layer Protection + ® TOTAL PROTECTION. TOTAL CONFIDENCE. Double the Common Bond ® Breakthrough Design SEAL. DEFEND. BREATHE. Teak† “No Guess” Wide Nailing Zone BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT CUT SHEET: ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 20 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 TruDefnition Duration Shingle Colors ® ® MATERIALS AMENDMENT Rugby Road Amber† Brownwood† Chateau Green† Colonial Slate† Desert Tan† Driftwood† Estate ate Gray† Harbor Blue† 503Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma Onyx Black† Quarry Gray† Shasta hite† Sierra Gray† Slatestone Gray† Teak† Terra erra Cotta† BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT CUT SHEET: ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 21 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 ENERGY STAR ® Product Attributes IS FOR ROOFS TOO Warranty Length* Limited Lifetime‡‡ (for as long as you own your home) MATERIALS AMENDMENT Similar to the energy-effcient Wind Resistance Limited Warranty* appliances in your home, roofng 13 MPH pro ucts can help provi e Algae Resistance Limited Warranty* energy-saving qualities. Owens Corning ® 1 Years ENERGY STAR qualife shingles can help ® RU PROtection Non-Prorated Limited Warranty* Period ® re uce your heating an cooling bills when 1 Years installe properly. These shingles refect solar energy, helping to ecrease the amount of heat TruDefnition Duration Shingles ® ® transferre to a home’s interior — an the Product Specifcations amount of air con itioning nee e to keep it Size 13¼" x 39⅜" comfortable. Actual savings will vary base on Application Exposure 5⅝" geographic location an in ivi ual buil ing Shingles per Bundle Not less than 2 characteristics. Call 1-800-GET-PINK or ® Average Shingle Count per 3 Bundles 64 1-888-STAR-YES for more information. Average Coverage per 3 Bundles 98.4 sq. ft. Rugby Applicable Standards and Codes Road ASTM D228 ASTM D3 18 (Type 1) ASTM D3161 (Class F Wind Resistance) 503 ASTM D3462 ASTM D7158 (Class H Wind Resistance) ASTM E1 8/UL 79 (Class A Fire Resistance) ICC-ES AC438# PRI ER 1378E 1 Shasta White color meets ENERGY STAR requirements for initial ® solar reflectance of .25 and 3-year aged solar reflectance of .15; 2 13 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Title 24, Part 6 requirements; rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC). Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma * See actual warranty for complete etails, limitations an requirements. ** 2018 Roofing Bran Awareness Stu y by Owens Corning Roofing an Asphalt, LLC. † Owens Corning Roofing strives to accurately repro uce photographs of shingles. Due to manufacturing variances, the limitations of the printing process an the variations in natural lighting, actual shingle colors an granule blen s may vary from the photo. The pitch of your roof can also impact how a shingle looks on your home. We suggest that you view a roofing isplay or several shingles to get a better i ea of the actual color. To accurately ju ge your shingle an color choice, we recommen that you view it on an actual roof with a pitch similar to your own roof prior to making your final selection. Color availability subject to change without notice. Ask your professional roofing contractor for samples of colors available in your area. + The amount of Triple Layer Protection may vary on shingle-to-shingle basis. ® ‡ Tru-Bond is a proprietary premium weathering-gra e asphalt sealant that is blen e by Owens Corning Roofing an Asphalt, LLC. ® ‡‡ 40-Year Limite Warranty on commercial projects. Owens Corning Roofing Preferre Contractors are in epen ent contractors an are not an affiliate of Owens Corning Roofing an Asphalt, LLC, or its affiliate companies. For patent information, please visit www.owenscorning.com/patents. SureNail Technology is not a guarantee of performance in all weather con itions. ® SureNail Technology is available only on Owens Corning Duration Series Shingles. ® ® ® ENERGY STAR an the ENERGY STAR mark are registere tra emarks of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. # International Co e Council Evaluation Services Acceptance Criteria for Alternative Asphalt Shingles. ^ Exclu es non-Owens Corning roofing pro ucts such as flashing, fasteners, pipe boots an woo ecking. ® BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT CUT SHEET: ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 22 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 LANDSCAPE DESIGN M I T C H E L L ▪ M AT T H E W S M I TCHE L L M AT T HE WS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 23 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REVISED AMENDMENT LANDSCAPE Rugby Road 503 Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT FRONT TERRACE & LAWN VIEW M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 24 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REVISED AMENDMENT LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 5’ fence 5 ’ fe nc e planter pl a n te r drain 2 2 e e enc enc Parking lot Pa rk i n g l ot 5’ f drain 5’ f 10 spaces 10 s pa c e s asphalt paving asphalt paving re v i s e d : c o n c re t e p a v i n g Tr a s h asphalt paving Tr a s h E n c l o su re E nc lo s ure ADA ADA s eatw all s eatw all Parking P a r king 5’ f e n c e 5’ f e n c e ine ine ty l 4’wall ty l 5’wall seatwall per back seatwall per E +555 back E + 5 55 dining LAN di n i n g pro entry LAN pro ro o m revised: e nt r y Dining Dining room Te r r a c e (below) Bike ( be l ow ) Te r r a c e Bi ke TH Lockers TH L oc ke r s bench bench BE BE 6.5’wall 6.5’wall LAM Rugby LAM f i re ALK f i re ALK Road +560 stair 560+ s ta i r EW Bi k e EW Bike shrubs shrubs Te rra c e SID steps Te r r a c e SID steps apartment NG a pa rtm e n t NG KKG House entry KKG Hous e STI e n try STI EXI EXI 503 shrubs Side Parlor Pa rl or shrubs Si de Te r r a c e Entry En try Te rra c e F ro n t E n t r y F ron t En try Foyer F oy e r line line + 5 6 5 .5 + 5 6 5 .5 ty ty per Bluestone per Bl u e s ton e Te r r a c e pro Te rra c e pro + 565.5 + 5 6 5 .5 steps hedge steps steps s te ps si de steps hedge steps s i de entry e n try p ro p o s e d lawn lawn p ro p o s e d + 5 6 4 .5 6 ’ h ed ge Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma t re e ( t y p ) 6 ’ he dg e + 564.5 t re e ( t y p ) ex. ex. shrubs t re e s tre e s s h ru bs brick seat wall bri c k s e a t w a l l ex . ex. 12” o a k 18” oa k 3’ boxwood hedge 3’ boxwood hedge 1/16” = + 565.9 + 5 6 5 .9 EXISTI NG SIDEW ALK EXISTI NG SIDEW ALK 0’ RUGBY R O AD RU G BY RO A D 1/16” = 1’ 1/16” = 1’ 0’ 8’ 16’ 32’ 0’ 8’ 16’ 32’ BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 25 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 5’ fence dr ain p l a nt e r e enc Pa r ki n g l o t 5’ f 10 s p a c e s a s ph alt pav in g LANDSCAPE MATERIALS re v i s ed: a s p halt paving Tr a s h En c l o s u re ADA s eat wall P a r ki n g 5’ f e n c e ine 4’wall ty l s eatwall per + 555 back E d i ni ng LAN pro revised: entry Dining room Te rra c e ( b e l ow ) B i ke TH L o c ke r s bench BE 6.5’wall LAM f i re ALK 560+ stair Bike EW s h r u bs Rugby Te r r a c e H ou s e Fa c a d e Pre c e d e n t 1 Na tu r a l Cle f t B lu eston e P avi n g - 2 Br i c k S e a t w a l l w i t h Bl ue s t one C op i ng 3 W hi t e S t a m p e d C o n c re t e SID steps Road R eKKG v is ioHous n : Ree d u c ed P avi n a pga r tim ne nFt ro n t Re ta ining Wa ll with Brick Coping NG entry STI EXI 503 s h ru b s Si d e Pa r l or Te r r a c e E nt r y Front E nt r y Foy e r line + 565. 5 ty per B l ue s t one 1 1 Te r r a c e pro + 565. 5 3 Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma steps sid e steps hedge s teps revised e n try 4 p rop os e d lawn + 564. 5 6’ hedge t re e ( t y p ) 1 ex. s h ru b s t re e s 2 brick seat wall ex. 18” oak 3 ’ b o x w o od h edge EXIS TING SIDE WALK + 565. 9 4 F o rmal F ro nt Law n w i th H edg i ng Precedent R U GB Y R OAD RUGBY ROAD | FRONT LAWN 1/16” = 1’ 0’ 8’ 16’ 32’ BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT PLANTING MATERIALS AMENDMENT M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 26 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 e enc Pa r king l ot 5’ f 10 spaces a s p h a lt p av ing re vis e d : a s p h a lt pa v i ng Tras h Encl os ure LANDSCAPE MATERIALS ADA s e a t wa ll P arki ng 5 ’ f e nc e ine 4 ’ w a ll ty l s eatwall per + 555 back E dining LAN 3 1 pro revised: entry D in ing room Te rra c e ( be low ) Bi ke TH Lockers bench BE 6 . 5 ’ w a ll LAM fire ALK 560+ 3 st a ir B ike 4 Concrete Pavers - Removed EW Te r r a c e s hr ub s SID st e ps apartm ent NG 2 KKG House Rugby entry STI Road B l uestone Ter r ace off H ouse EXI sh ru bs Side Pa r lor Te r r a c e E nt r y 503 Front E nt r y Foy e r line + 565.5 2 Bike Racks ty per B lue st one Te r r a c e pro + 565.5 steps hedge st e ps steps s id e en t r y Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma propose d la w n + 564.5 6’ hedge t re e ( t yp) ex . sh r u b s trees br ic k se a t wal l ex. 18” oak 3 ’ b o x w o o d h ed g e EXIS TING SIDE WALK + 565.9 1 Dining Terrace Precedent 3 Scored Concrete Paving RUGBY ROAD LAMBETH LANE TERRACES 1/16” = 1’ 0’ 8’ 16’ 32’ BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT PLANTING MATERIALS AMENDMENT M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 27 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS Rugby Road 1 Trash Enclosure and Property Fencing 2 Scored Concrete Paving 3 Bike Storage Locker 5’ fence 503 pla nt e r 1 d r ain e enc Pa r king lot 5’ f 10 spa c e s a s p h a lt p a v in g re vis e d : a s p h a lt p a ving Tras h Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma Encl os ure 1 ADA s eatw all P arki ng 2 5’ fen ce ine 4’ w a l l ty l s e a t wall per + 55 5 back E dining 2 LAN pro revised: entry Dining room Ter r ace ( be low ) Bi ke 3 TH Lo ckers be n c h BE 6. 5’ w a l l PARKING AND SERVICE AREAS LAM f i re ALK 56 0+ stair Bike EW Te r r a c e s h r ub s SID st e ps 28 a pa r t me nt NG K K G Ho u s e BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT e nt r y PLANTING MATERIALS AMENDMENT STI EXI M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 LANDSCAPE PLANTING 1 Yellowwood (Cl ad rast u s k e nt u c k e a) 2 Boxwood Hedge Rugby 503 Road 3 2 3 Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma 4 Groundcover - Removed l aw n 1 3 Accent Boxwood 2 RUGBY ROAD | FRONT LAWN BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT PLANTING MATERIALS AMENDMENT M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 29 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 6 3 LANDSCAPE PLANTING 5 1 Musclewood 2 Katsura Tree 1 or 2 Rugby Road 5 503 3 Cherokee Princess Dogwood 4 Oakleaf Hydrangea 3 6 Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma 5 4 5 Little Henry Itea 6 St. John’s Wort LAMBETH LANE TERRACES BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT APPROVED PLANTING MATERIALS M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 30 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 6 3 PARKING LOT BORDER LANDSCAPE PLANTING 1 Holly 2 Boxwood Hedge Rugby 5 Road 4 503 2 7 8 3 Winterberry Holly 4 Oakleaf Hydrangea 5 Climbing Hydrangea Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma 1 6 Tufted Hair Grass 7 Fer n 8 Japanese Anemone NORTH BORDER BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT PLANTING MATERIALS AMENDMENT M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 31 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 EXTERIOR LIGHTING M I T C H E L L ▪ M AT T H E W S M I TCHE L L M AT T HE WS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS REDUCTION IN THE QUANTITY OF L2 FIXUTRES ONLY(REMOVAL OF 10), RESULTING IN CHANGES TO THE PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTING PLAN 32 Calculation Values Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min 0.0 Site Illuminance Calculation Values Fc 0.91 10.3 0.0 N.A. N.A. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min 0.0 0.0 Site Illuminance Fc 0.91 10.3 0.0 N.A. N.A. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Luminaire Data 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Label Qty Luminaire Symbol Data Manufacture Description LLF Arr. Watts Arr. Lum. Lumens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 L2 Label 28 Qty Symbol BEGA Manufacture Converted by LUMCat V 25.08.2015 / H.R.Description Bega 33-017 LLF Arr. Watts Arr. Lum. Lumens 0.720 3 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 L2 28 BEGA Converted by LUMCat V 25.08.2015 / H.R. Bega 33-017 0.720 3 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 L3 6L3 6 Bega 33-579 Bega 33-579 0.720 3 0.720 3 158 158 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 L4 2L4 2 Bega 33-579 Bega 33-579 0.720 3 0.720 3 158 158 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 L5 2L5 2 BEGA BEGA Converted Convert ed by byLUMCat LUMCat V 25.03.2015 / H.R. V 25.03.2015 / H.R.Bega 66-410 Bega 66-410 0.720 12 722 0.720 12 722 EXTERIOR LIGHTING 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 L6 2 BOOM Converted by LUMCat V 02.12.2014 / M.S. Bega 31-228 0.720 9 326 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 L6 2L7 BOOM Converted by LUMCat V 02.12.2014 / M.S. Bega 31-228 0.720 9 326 Fixture Change 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 3 BARRON LIGHTING GROUP SCS-S-40-LG-VS-4K 0.720 34.65 4264 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 L7 3L8 BARRON LIGHTING GROUP SCS-S-40-LG-VS-4K 0.720 34.65 4264 Initial Layout 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 1 BEGA Converted by LUMCat V 20.12.2016 / M.S. 33523 0.720 13 1042 Comments 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 L8 1 NOTES: BEGA Converted by LUMCat V 20.12.2016 / M.S. 33523 0.720 13 1042 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 1. The calculated results of this lighting simulation represent a prediction of system performance and are not guaranteed. 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 NOTES: 2. Actual measured results may vary from the anticipated performance and are subject to means and conditions which 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.6 0 .5 0.4 0.3 ..... ..... ..... 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. The calculated are beyondresults of this the control of DBlighting simulation represent a prediction of system performance and are not guaranteed. Lighting Consultation. 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Actual measured result 3. Illumination values may vary s shown from theare (in foot-candles) anticipated horizontal at performance grade level basedand are subject on Mounting Height to means Marked and conditions which "MH" 0.0 0.0 0.0 07/11/19 08/ 6/19 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 4. Calculation points are on an 8' x 8' spacing 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 are beyond the control of DB Lighting Consultation. Date 0.7 1.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.6 0.8 1.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Illumination values shown (in foot-candles) are horizontal at grade level based on Mounting Height Marked "MH" ..... ..... ..... 1.6 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.5 1.2 0.9 1.9 1.9 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 2.0 2.2 1.6 1.1 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.3 1.9 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 4. Calculation points are on an 8' x 8' spacing 1.8 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rev 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.8 2.8 1.3 2.6 2.6 2.3 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.0 C 0.0 0.0 0.0 A 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 .. .. .. 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.6 3.6 2.9 2.7 1.5 0.0 0.9 3.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 L-5 1.3 2.3 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.7 0.1 4.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 Not to Scale 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.1 2.0 3.2 4.3 L5 .6 3.5 3.2 L3 : 7 0.1 9.53 0.1 0.8 L-3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.7 2.8 4.2 H: 3.8 3.7 3.6 MH 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 Revisions 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.5 3.8 5.2M 4.1 4.1 3.9 2.3 1.7 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.1 2.1 3.3 4.8 Fixtures Removed 4.7 4.4 4.3 2.5 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.9 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.7 4.8 5.4 6.1 5.1 5.7 4.7 5.3 4.9 5.4 4.5 5.0 2.8 2.8 2.6 L83.0 : 10 .4 MH 2 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 .1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (10) FIXTURES REMOVED 5.8 2.7 1.5 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 component malfunctions, obstructions, varying surface reflectance’s 1.0 Lighting Designs by Dugan (LDD) assumes no responsibility for any 1.9 3.2 4.5 6.0 6.5 6.3 5.8 2.6 1.9 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 L-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 L-1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 compliance with federal, state and/or local codes and regulations. 3.9 5.5 L-2 6.4 6.8 6.2 2.1 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.9 1.2 2.2 3.4 L-3 4.8 6.0 7L.2 6.7 6.2 L2 errors in the IES files, background images, or other information 7 9 .5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.8 3.0 4.2 5.9 7.0 H: 7.1 6.5 :2 0.0 and field conditions. The owner assumes all responsibility for 0.1 1.6 MH 0.1L 2 0.0 L2 0:.12 M7.3 :2 0.1 measured results may vary due to manufacturer tolerances, 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.5 3.7 5.1 6.6 6.9 provided to LDD to be used in these calculations. Actual or MH0.3 L-2 0.2 0.5 1.1 2.1 3.2 4.5 6.4 7.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7MH 0.1 0.0 7.2 6.7 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 0.2 0.1 2.2 0.2 1.0 0.7 0.0 2.9 3.9 5.5 7.1 7.5 7.0 0.1 0.2 .5 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.2 2.4 3.4 4.8 6.8 7.5 7.3 6.8 2 2.1 0 0.1 0.1 L 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.9 3.2 4.2 5.7 7.4 7.6 7.0 0 .1 0 .2 M 0 H: 0 .7 0 .1 .1 .2 .4 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.5 2.7 3.6 5.0 0 0 0 7.0 7.7 7.3 L-1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4L2 0.0 1.1 2.2 3.5 4.3 6.4 7.6 7.5 6.9 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.3 :.02 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.7 2.9 3.7 5.2 7.3 7 7.7 5 7.3 7 .1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 MH0 0.3 0.6 1.2 2.4 7L.9 : 9. L-1 3.7 4.4 6.7 6.8 0.2 H 7.5 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 L-2 0.4 0.9 1.9 3.2 3.8 5.2 7.4 M 6.9 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.2 1.0 L2 2 .1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.4 2.7 3.9 4.4 6.8 7.5 7.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 H: 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.5 1.1 2.1 3.4 3.8 5.1 7.2 7.1 6.6 0.2 1.3 M 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.9 4.1 4.5 6.8 7.1 0.1 0.0 6.7 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.2 2.3 3.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.8 5.0 6.9 6.7 6.3 .2 .2 .0 .1 .1 .1 0 .2 0 .4 .9 .8 .0 .3 4.4 6.7 6.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.0 0 1 3 4 6.4 0.2 0 .3 .1 .1 .1 .1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1 .4 2 .5 3 .8 3 .7 .8 .5 .4 0 0 0 0 4 6 6 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.0 3.2 4.4 4.5 6.4 6.3 6.0 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 2.7 Rugby 3.8 3.4 6.3 6.2 6.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Disclaimer 0.3 0.5 1.1 2.2 3.3 4.4 L-1 6.1 6.0 5.8 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.0 Road 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.7 2.8 3.9 0.1 6.0 5.9 5.7 L-1 0 .2 0 .3 .1 .1 .1 .4 L 2 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.2 2.3 3.4 4.5 3.2 5.8 5.7 0 0 0 0 : 2 .0 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.8 2.9 4.0 3.0 5.7 5.7 5.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 MH 0 L-2 L-6 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 1.4 2.4 3.5 2.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 0.3 0.5 1.0 L 6 7 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.0 3.0 2.8 3.3 5.6 5.5 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.5 2.5 3.6 5.2 M H: 0.3 0.3 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 5.2 L 0.3: 2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 2.7 5.3 5.5 5.3 H 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.7 0.2 0.4 1.1 M 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.7 3.4 5.5 5.4 4.9 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 2.2 2.4 3.1 5.2 5.5 5.0 0.4 0.4 0 .9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 L2 : 2 .1 L-1 0.9 1.8 2.7 2.7 4.7 5.5 5.1 4.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 H 0 0.7 1.4 2.3 2.6 3.4 5.2 5.3 4.7 .4 .4 .3 M .1 .3 .5 .0 0 0 0 0 .2 0 .1 0 .1 0 .2 1.2 0 0 0 1 1.9 2 .3 3.1 4.7 L75.4 9.5 4.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.5 2.4 2.8 4.4 5.1 MH: 4.8 4.3 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.1 2.0 2.5 3.4 4.6 4.8 4.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.9 1.6 2.2 3.1 4.0 4.6 4.3 3.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.3 1.9 2.7 4.1 4.3 4.3 3.9 .3 .6 .8 0 0 1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.7 2.4 3.4 3.8 4.1 3.9 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.2 Project ID#: LEN- 387 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.1 3.1 4.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 3.8 3.7 503 3.5 L-1 .2 .4 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.7 2.6 0 0 L2 : 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 L-6 0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 L-2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.3 2.3 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 L6 : 70.3 0.3 MH 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.0 Kappa Kappa Gamma House 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.8 2.9 4.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 M0H L-3 L-3 .2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.5 2.4 3.5 3.3 2.9 2.8 L-5 L-1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4L2 0.0 0.6 1.1 1.9 3.0 2 .7 2 .6 2 .5 2 5 9.5 .5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 :.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.5 2.5 3.4 L : 2 2.5 2.4 .3 MH0 GOOSENECK L3.3 :26 0.1 7.2L3 0.2 MH0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Rev: C 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.1 2.0 3.0 2.3 2.2 0.2 1.7 2: .6 6 RELOCATED 7 H 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.5 2.4 1.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.3 M 1.3 0.2 MH 3.6 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.2 1.9 1.4 0.1 1.9 1.9 0.6 1.7 0.2 1.5 1.6 .2 .2 .0 .1 .2 .4 .8 .5 .2 .2 0 0 0 0 .0 0 .1 0 .1 0 .0 0.0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 .8 1.8 1.7 1.3 0.2 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.0 .0 .1 .1 .1 L-2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0.6 1.1 1 .8 .1 .6 .7 .6 .3 .3 0.2 0.5 EX. CITY 1 1 1 1 0 0 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.1 1.5 1.5 0.3 L2 : 2 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 TO BE 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.9 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1MH L-1 L-3 0.2 L-2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.2 1.3 1.2 4.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.2 L-4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.3 0.2 0 .2 0.4 0.2 L2 : 2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 .2 .9 H .0 .0 .1 .1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 L410.3: 5 0 1 M 0 0 0 0 0 .5 0 .0 0.2 0.2 L93.0 6 L-2 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 MH 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.2 0.2 1.6 .1 3.6 MH: 1.3 L -1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 1.5 0.9 1.4 2.2 L2 0 0.1 H: 2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 1.4 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 L2 : 2 L-2 L-2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 1.5 1.3 1.5 2.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.5 M 1.8 1.7 H 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 M 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.6 0 .3 0 .5 0L 2 .1 .6 .4 .1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 2 :2 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 L :2 0.6 0.6 L2 : 2 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3 MH 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 L-2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 MH MH 1.5 0.6 0.4 0L.22 2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 H: 1.5 L-4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.7 2.1 Drawn by: Brownell M 0.2 0.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 0 0 0 0.0 L-2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 4 11.60 1.5 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 L 2 0.1 1 .6 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 .0 3.2H: .1 0 1.3 L .1 .2 .1 .0 0.0 L-3 0 0.6 0.8 2 .5 L-3 0 0 0 0 1.2 0.1 0.1 H: 1 0.1 Date: 07/11/ 019 M 0.3 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.4 M0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 L H: 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 L2 : 2 L2 : 2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.4 .1 0.1 0.7 M 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 MH MH L53.6 : 7 3 0 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 .2 0.6 6L.8 : 7 0.6 0.1 L-2 0.1 0.1 L-2 0.1 Project Name: H 1.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 L-1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 H 0.0 0.0 0.0 L-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.7 M 0 .1 .9 M .3 .1 .4 .1 .1 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 L2 1.5 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.5 0.1 0.8 1.8 0.1 0.1 .3 : 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0L.12 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 :2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 M0 H 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.6 MH 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 L-2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 2.0 0.5 1.1 .2 L-1 .7 .2 L-1 .0 0 1 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.3 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.0 Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 .1 02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 .0 L 0 0.0 0 .1 0 .0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0 .0 :2 L2 : 2 0.1 L2 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MH :2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MH MH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lighting Designs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 L -1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 by Dugan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 L-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 L-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 GOOSENECK EX. CITY LIGHT LIGHT POST Not to Scale 4" x 36" Page 1 of 1 BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LIGHTING PLAN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 33 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 Cal Calc culatiion Val ulat Value ues s ( 546.10) Labe Labell Cal Calc cTy Typepe Uni Unitts Av Avg g Max Min Avg/ vg/M Min Max/Min 0.0 S ite Illu Illumm in inaanc Calculation e Values Fc 0 .6 8 1 0 .6 0 .0 N.A . N.A N.A . N.A 0.0 ( 548.80) 0.0 0.0 Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min 0.0 0.0 Site Illuminance Fc 0.68 10.6 0.0 N.A. N.A. 0.0 0.0 0.0 ( 549.63) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 Lum Lumiinai nairre Dat Data a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Label Label Qt Qtyy Symbol ymb Manuf acttur anufac ure e Luminaire Data Des criiption escr LLF Arr. W Waatts Ar Arrr. Lum Lum.. Lumens Lume 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 TW (552.14) L2 18 BEG A C on BEGA verrted by LUM onve LUMCC at V 2 5 .08 08..2 0 15 / H .R. Label Qty Symbol Manufacture Be Begaga 3 3 -0 1 7 Description 0 .7 2 0LLF Arr. Watts 3 Arr. Lum. Lumens 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (551.10) 0.1 L2 18 BEGA Converted by LUMCat V 25.08.2015 / H.R. Bega 33-017 0.720 3 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 L3 6 L3 6 Be Begaga 3 3 -5 7 9 0 .7 2 0 Bega 33-579 0.720 3 3 158 158 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 (551.65) 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 L4 2 L4 2 Be Begaga 3 3 -5 7 9 0 .7 2 0 Bega 3 3 -579 0.720 3 3 158 158 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 TW (553.60) L5 2 BEG BEGA A C on verrted by LUM onve LUMCC at V 2 5 .03 03..2 0 15 / H .R. L5 2 Be Bega BEGA Converted by LUMCat V 25.03.2015 / H.R. ga 6 6 -4 1 0 Bega 6 6 -410 0 .7 2 00.720 12 1 2 722 722 EXTERIOR LIGHTING Fixture Reduction 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 L6 2 BOOM Converted by LUMCat V 02.12.2014 / M.S. Bega 31-228 0.720 9 326 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 L6 2 BO BOOO M C on vertte d by LUM onver LUMCC at V 0 2. 2.1 20 1 4 / M .S. 1 2 .201 Be Begaga 3 1 -2 2 8 0 .7 2 0 9 4264 326 Fixture Change 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 L7 3 BARRON LIGHTING GROUP SCS-S-40-LG-VS-4K 0.720 34.65 .1 .1 .1 0.1 0.1 L7 3 B AR ARRR ON L IGHT GHTIIN G GR GROU OUPP S C S -S -S-4 0 -L -40 -LGG -V -VSS -4 -4KK 0 .7 2 0 3 4 .61042 5 4264 Initial Layout 0 (TW 549.79) .1 0 0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 (553.00) L8 1 BEGA Converted by LUMCat V 20.12.2016 / M.S. 33523 0.720 13 Comments 0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1(EP 549.60)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 .2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 L8 1 BEG BEGA A C on verrted by LUM onve LUMCC at V 2 0 .12 12..2 0 16 / M .S. 3 3 52 5233 0 .7 2 0 13 1042 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 NOTES: 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 (554.50) 1. The calculated results of this lighting simulation represent a prediction of system performance and are not guaranteed. ..... ..... 0.0 0.0 (555.25) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N O TE TES S: 2. Actual measured results may vary from the anticipated performance and are subject to means and conditions which 0.0 0.0 0.1 .1 .2 .3 .5 .4 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.3 0 0.5 0 0.4 0 0.4 0 .4 1 .2 1 .2 1 .0 0 .9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0 .7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (558) 0.0 1 . T h e c a lc lcuu la late d re ted ressu lts o f th is lig this lighh tin tingg sim imu u la lati on re p re sent a p re d ic tion o f sys tion ysttem p e rfor m a nce a n d a re n ot g ua orm uarra nt nte e ed ed.. are beyond the control of DB Lighting Consultation. 07/11/19 08/ 6/19 0 /13/ 0 0 (560) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.9 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Illumination values shown (in foot-candles) are horizontal at grade level based on Mounting Height Marked "MH" 0.1 0.2 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. A c tua uall m eaeassur ed res ured ultts m a y v a ry from th e a nt esul ntiic ip a te d p er erffor ormm a n ce a nd a re subj ectt to m ea ubjec eann s a nd c on ondd itio itionn s w h ic ichh Date 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. Calculation points are on an 8' x 8' spacing 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.6 0.8 1.6 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 a re b eyon eyond d the c o ntntrrol of D B L ig h ting C o ns ultta tion. nsul ..... ..... 1.7 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 (EP 550.04) 0.2 0.3 0.3 0 .5 0.7 1 .1 1.3 1 .9 2.1 1 .6 1.1 0 .1 2.1 2 .4 2.2 2 .4 2.0 1.9 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.3 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 3. Illum umiina nattion v a lue 0.1 uess sh ow own n (in foot oot--c a n d le s) a re hohorrizo nt a l a t g ra d e lev nta evee l b a sed o n M ount ountiin g H e ig ht Ma Marrk e d "MH" 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rev 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.7 2.7 1.4 2.6 2.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.0 4. CCaa lc u la tio n p o in ts a po arre oonnaann88'' x 8 sp a c in g 8'' sp C D 0.0 0.0 0.0 A 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 .. .. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.5 2.0 0.1 (562.30) 3.0 2.9 1.6 0.0 0.9 3.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.1 1.1 2.2 3.4 0.0 3.3 3.3 2.9 0.0 0.1 4.9 3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.3 Not to Scale 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.8 3.1 4.2 L5 .53.7 3.6 3.5 L :7 .1 .8 .4 .2 9 0.1 0.1 MH 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.5 2.2 2.7 3.6 4.1 5.1M H0:.0 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.9 1.2 0 .6 0 .3 0 .2 0.1 0.1 Revisions 2.3 1.7 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0 .1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.8 3.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 2.5 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.7 4.1 4.4 4.8 4.9 4.9 2.9 2.0 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.1 2.2 3.6 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.3 2.6 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 (EP 550.45) 0.4 0.8 1.7 3.1 4.5 4.8 5.6 5.7 5.3 .0 .9 L83 : 10 .4 1 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.3 2.5 3.9 5.3 5.7 6.1 5.8 .9 .1 .5 .2 .2 2 2 .3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.1 3.4 4.8 5.4 6.3 6.3 MH 2.8 .5 1 .7 0 .3 0 .2 0 .2 0 .0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 component malfunctions, obstructions, varying surface reflectance’s 0.8 Lighting Designs by Dugan (LDD) assumes no responsibility for any 1.6 2.9 4.3 5.7 6.5 6.8 6.3 2 .7 .0 .9 .4 .2 .2 .5 .0 .0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.2 2.4 0 0 0 0 compliance with federal, state and/or local codes and regulations. 3.7 5.2 6.2 7.2 6.8 2 .2 1 .2 .5 .2 .2 .8 .0 .0 .0 .2 .4 .9 .9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 .0 0 0 0 .2 4.6 6.2 7.2 L7 .75.3 6.7 L2 : 2 0.0 0 errors in the IES files, background images, or other information 1 3 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.7 3.9 5.6 :9 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 6.8 MH 7.6 7.2 and field conditions. The owner assumes all responsibility for 0.1 1.6 MH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 L2 0:.12 measured results may vary due to manufacturer tolerances, 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.1 2.2 3.4 5.0 6.3 7.6 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 provided to LDD to be used in these calculations. Actual or 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.7 2.9 4.2 6.1 7.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8MH 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.8 7.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.7 5.4 6.8 7.8 7.7 .1 .2 .0 .0 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.1 4.4 0 0 0 2 2.0 0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.4 7.6 7.9 7.3 0.1 0.1 L 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 H: 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.6 2.6 3.9 0 5.8 7.3 8.0 7.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.2 M 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.3 3.3 4.6 6.8 7.9 7.9 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.8 2.8 4.0 6.1 7.6 (554.36)8.0 7.5 .2 .7 .4 0 0 0 0 .0 0 .1 .1 .1 .0 .0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0 .6 1 .3 2 .6 3 .5 4 .8 7 .0 8 .1 7 .7 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.5 L 7 . 5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .0 .0 1.0 2.0 2.9 4.1 6.3 7 .9 :97 .9 7 .2 0 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.5 2.8 3.5 4.8 7.2 MH 7.9 7.5 0.2 0.9 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.1 2.3 3.0 4.1 6.6 7.7 7.6 L2 0 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 H: .1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.7 3.1 3.6 4.9 7.3 7.6 7.1 0.2 1.3 M 0.0 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.3 2.5 3.8 4.2 6.7 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 7.2 0 .2 .3 .0 .0 .1 .1 .1 .0 .0 .2 0.5 0 .9 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0L2 0 0 .0 0 (EP 551.40) 3.2 3.5 4.8 7.0 7.1 6.7 2 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.5 2.7 4.0 4.2 6.6 6.9 6.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.9 M H: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 3.4 3.5 6.3 6.7 6.7 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.9 4.1 4.3 6.4 6.5 6.4 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.3 Rugby 3.5 3.2 6.3 6.4 6.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Disclaimer 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.8 3.0 4.1 0.0 6.2 6.2 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Road 0.3 0.6 1.3 2.5 3.6 0.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.1 4.2 3.1 6.0 6.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.5 2.6 3.7 2.9 5.8 5.9 5.8 .2 .3 .0 .2 .3 .5 .1 .1 .2 0 0 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 0 0 1 2 3 2.5 5.6 5.8 5.8 6 7 0.2 0.4 0.1 L 0.4 0 .0 0 .1 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 0.8 1 .6 2 .7 2 .6 3 .2 5 .6 5 .7 5 .5 : 0.3 0 0 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.2 2.2 2.3 2.9 5.4 5.7 5.6 MH 0.3 2 L 0.3: 2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.8 2.8 2.5 5.1 5.6 5.6 H 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 0.2 0.4 1.3 M 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.5 3.2 5.5 5.7 5.3 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.9 2.2 2.9 5.0 5.7 5.4 .4 .4 .8 .2 0 0 0 0 0 .1 0 .1 .0 .0 0L2 .0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.5 1.9 2.6 4.7 5.5 5.5 5.0 0 2 0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 H: 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.1 2.0 2.4 3.2 5.1 5.6 5.1 M 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.1 2.9 4.4 5.6L7 : 9.5 5.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0 .1 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.6 1.3 1.8 2.6 4.1 5.0 MH 5 .3 4.7 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 .3 .0 .0 0.9 1.5 2.4 3.7 4.4 5.1 4 .8 0 0 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.4 2.1 2.9 3.8 4.7 4.7 4.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.7 2.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.6 2.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.3 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.2 0.1 0.4 0.9 Project ID#: LEN- 387 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.9 4.2 3.7 3.9 3.8 503 .2 .4 .1 .1 .0 .0 .1 0 .1 0 .2 0.4 0.8 1.5 2.5 3.8 3.4 3.6 3.7 0 0 2 2 L0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .1 0 .4 : 0 .1 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 MH 0.1 .2 .3 .6 .2 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3.4 3 .2 3.3 3.4 3.4 L6 : 70.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Kappa Kappa Gamma House 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.7 2.8 4.1 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.3 2.3 3.5 3.2 M0H .2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 2.9 3.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 1.8 3.0 .0 .7 2.7 2.6 (EP 552.09) .2 50 9.5.5 2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.4 3.3 L : 2 2.5 2 .5 3 2.3 0 .1 7.4 3 .2 0.0 0.0 MH0.0 L .5 : 6 L 0 .3 .0 .0 .1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0.0 Rev: D 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.9 3.0 2.3 2.3 0.0 6 0 0 0 0.0 7 H 0.1 1.7 2: .5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.4 1.4 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 M 1.2 0.1 3.6MH 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.0 0.5 1.7 0.1 1.5 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.2 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.0 0 .0 0 .1 0 .1 0 .6 0 .0 .0 .0 0.5 1.0 1 .7 1 .1 1 .5 1.7 1.6 0.2 0 .2 0 .1 0.3 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.3 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.3 L2 .0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.9 0.1 0 .1 0.1 0.1 20 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.2 4.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 M0.0H: 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.6 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 2.2 0.1 0.1 0 .1 0.2 L2 : 2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 .2 .0 H .0 .0 .1 .1 (TW 552.72) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.9 L410.6: 5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 93.3 6 .1 0 2 M.0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 .1 H L 0 0 .1 0 .2 0 0 .0 0 .0 0.1 .1 .0 .0 .0 3.6 MH: 1.2 .1 .2 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.1 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.0 M 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 1.3 0.8 0.7 2.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 2.1 0.1 0.1 (EP 552.50) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.4 1.2 0.6 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 2 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0 .2 .1 .1 0.1 0.1 0.1 L 0.0 2 0 0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0M H: 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 2 .4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.5 L 2:.22 0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Drawn by: Brownell 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 L 4 11.50 0.3 0.7 MH 0.2 0.1 0.0 .1 .7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .1 0 1 0 .1 0 .1 0.1 0 .1 1 .3 L 2 .0 .0 0.0 3.2H: 0 0 0 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 .0 0.0 0.6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 .0 H: Date: 07/11/ 019 0.0 0.1 0.1 M 0.3 02.0 0.1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 0 .0 .0 0.1 0.1 .2 .2 .0 .0 .3 M 0 0.8 L H: 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0.8 0 .1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 .0 0.0 0.1 0 (555) .1 0 .2 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.6 0.0 0 .0 0.0 2 L :2 0.3 0.1 .1 .0 1.6 0.0 1.4 .1 0.1 M 0.1 0 0 0 3 0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MH 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.9 L53.7 : 7 .2 0.5 7L.0 : 7 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Project Name: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H 1.0 0 MH 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 L2 : 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.7 M 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.5 0.1 M.2 0.8 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .1 .2 .4 .1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.2 .1 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.4 0 .1 0.4 0 .7 0 .1 0 .2 0 .6 0 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 (555.75) 2.1 0.4 1.0 0.1 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 02 .1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 L : 20.0 L02.0 : 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 M H.0 .0 H .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (565.91) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (565.32)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (565.84) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lighting Designs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 0 by Dugan 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (565.33) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 .0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 .0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not to Scale 4" x 36" Page 1 of 1 BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT REVISED AMENDED LIGHTING PLAN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 34 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 Wall luminaires with double-sided light output LED recessed wall luminaires - shielded with louvers Application Type: L-2 LED recessed wall luminaire with unshielded light and louvers for use as Housing: Extruded and die cast aluminum. Mounts directly to a BEGA 19 537 box Type: L-3 EXTERIOR LIGHTING location luminaires for means of way finding. BEGA Product: 33-017-K27 BRZ (provided). Die castings are marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) Project: Kappa Kappa Gamma House A360.0 aluminum alloy. BEGA Product: 66516 Materials Floodlight housing constructed of die-cast aluminum marine Project: Kappa Kappa Gamma House grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy Modified: Enclosure: Tempered clear glass, the bottom and top diffuser are flush to the die casting to prevent water accumulation. Fully gasketed for weather tight operation Voltage: 120V White safety glass using a ‘U’ channel molded silicone rubber gasket. Silicone applied robotically to plasma treated casting for increased adhesion Color: BRZ High temperature silicone gasket Electrical: 15.8W LED luminaire, 21 total system watts, -30°C start temperature. Options: 3000K COLOR TEMP Mechanically captive stainless steel fasteners Integral 120V through 277V electronic LED driver, 0-10V dimming. LED module(s) Stainless steel screw clamps are available from factory for easy replacement. Standard LED color temperature is Modified: DOWN LIGHT ONLY Composite installation housing 3000K with an 85 CRI. Available in 4000K (85 CRI); add suffix K4 to order. NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Notes: LEDs supplied with luminaire. Due to the dynamic nature of LED technology, Protection class IP65 LED luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA-US. Weight: 1.2 lbs For the most current technical data, please refer to www.bega-us.com. Electrical Finish: All BEGA standard finishes are polyester powder coat with minimum 3 mil Operating voltage 120-277V AC thickness. Available in four standard BEGA colors: Black (BLK); White (WHT); Bronze Minimum start temperature -30° C (BRZ); Silver (SLV). To specify, add appropriate suffix to catalog number. Custom LED module wattage 2.0 W colors supplied on special order. System wattage 3.0 W Controllability 0-10V dimmable CSA certified to U.S. and Canadian standards for wet locations. Color rendering index Ra > 80 Protection class IP65 Luminaire lumens 32 lumens (3000K) Weight: 7.5 lbs Rugby Lifetime at Ta=15°C 105,000 h (L70) Road Lifetime at Ta=40°C 72,000 h (L70) Mounting options: LED color temperature 79 547 Surface-mount wiring box 2700K - Product number + K27 3000K - Product number + K3 3500K - Product number + K35 4000K - Product number + K4 503 BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details 1⁄ 3 Finish 4 All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured polyester powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. Available colors Black (BLK) White (WHT) RAL: Fully enclosed luminaire with installation housing ensures Bronze (BRZ) Silver (SLV) CUS : seamless integration and weathertight operation. Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma A B These luminaires mount over a custom D BEGA recessed box. This box can be C shipped ahead of the luminaire. Narrow beam in both directions B Wiring A C Lamp b A B C D box* 66 516* 15.8W LED 20° 4 3⁄ 4 195 ⁄ 8 63⁄ 8 1 5 ⁄ 8 19 537 LED recessed wall luminaires · shielded location luminaires b = Beam angle *Small opening wiring box included. LED A B C 33 017 2.0 W 6 5⁄ 8 2 3⁄ 4 5 BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 ( 805 ) 684-0533 FAX ( 805 ) 566-9474 www. bega-us . com 35 ©copyright BEGA 2017 Updated 09/17 BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT CUT SHEETS: LIGHTING BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 ( 805 ) 684-0533 info@bega-us.com Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us . com M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 © copyright BEGA 2018 Updated 02/15/2019 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 LED wall luminaires - one-sided light output LED wall luminaire - partially shielded Application Type: L-4 Application Type: L-5 LED wall luminaires with directed narrow beam light distribution on one This LED wall luminaire has a partially shielded light source and is designed EXTERIOR LIGHTING side that can be oriented upward or downward. Arranged individually or in BEGA Product: 24-035 + K27 BRZ for the down lighting of interior and exterior locations with glare-free BEGA Product: 66-410 + K27 BRZ groups, they are great design elements for a host of lighting applications. Project: Kappa Kappa Gamma House illumination. Project: Kappa Kappa Gamma House Materials Materials Modified: Luminaire housing constructed of die-cast and spun marine grade, copper Modified: Luminaire housing and faceplate constructed of die-cast marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy Clear safety glass Three-ply opal glass Reflector made of pure anodized aluminum High temperature silicone gasket High temperature silicone gasket NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Mechanically captive stainless steel fasteners Protection class IP 44 NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Weight: 3.3 lbs Protection class IP 65 Electrical Weight: 6.6 lbs Operating voltage 120-277V AC Electrical Minimum start temperature -20° C Operating voltage 120-277V AC LED module wattage 8.9 W Minimum start temperature -30° C System wattage 12 W LED module wattage 18.1 W Controllability 0-10V dimmable System wattage 21.0 W Color rendering index Ra > 90 Controllability 0-10V dimmable Luminaire lumens 722 lumens (3000K) Color rendering index Ra > 80 Lifetime at Ta = 15° C 500,000 h (L70) Luminaire lumens 1,725 lumens (3000K) Lifetime at Ta = 40° C 268,000 h (L70) Lifetime at Ta = 15° C 395,000 h (L70) LED color temperature Rugby Lifetime at Ta = 30° C 295,000 h (L70) Road 4000K - Product number + K4 LED color temperature 3500K - Product number + K35 4000K - Product number + K4 3000K - Product number + K3 3500K - Product number + K35 X 2700K - Product number + K27 3000K - Product number + K3 BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to X 2700K - Product number + K27 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 503 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured polyester powder coat with Finish minimum 3 mil thickness. All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured polyester powder coat with Available colors Black (BLK) White (WHT) RAL: minimum 3 mil thickness. X Bronze (BRZ) Silver (SLV) CUS : Available colors Black (BLK) White (WHT) RAL: X Bronze (BRZ) Silver (SLV) CUS : Available Accessories 79 547 Surface mounted wiring box See individual accessory spec sheet for details. Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma A A B B D B D D A C C C LED wall luminaire · one-sided light output LED wall luminaire · partially shielded Required LED A B C D LED β A B C D wiring box 66 410 8.9 W 10 1⁄ 4 10 1⁄ 8 12 3⁄ 8 4 3⁄ 8 24 035 18.1 W 15 ° 6 11 ⁄ 4 3 7 ⁄87 1 ⁄85 19 537 BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT β = Beam angle BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 ( 805 ) 684-0533 info@bega-us.com Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us . com BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 ( 805 ) 684-0533 info@bega-us.com CUT SHEETS: LIGHTING Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us . com © copyright BEGA 2018 M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 Updated 08/14/18 36 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 © copyright BEGA 2018 Updated 02/06/18 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 SCS-S Series LED wall luminaire TYPE L-7 Surface Mount LED Soft Square Canopy EXTERIOR LIGHTING Material: Luminaire housing constructed of cast bronze and Type: L-6 DESCRIPTION copper. Stainless steel fasteners. Designed for installation directly The SCS-S is Trace-Lite’s new low-profile 12” surface mount soft square over a standard 4" octagonal wiring box. BEGA Product: 31-228 canopy with optional integral factory-installed dimming occupancy sensor Glass: Hand-blown, three-ply opal glass with screw neck and flat Project: Kappa Kappa Gamma House with daylight sensing capabilities. This canopy optimizes optical performance crystal glass enclosure. Voltage: 6.3WLED 120V and long-life with superior thermal management in an attractive and durable die-formed aluminum enclosure and premium PMMA lens that does not Electrical: 6.3W LED luminaire, 8 total system watts, -20°C start Color: Natural bronze and copper yellow over time. The SC sensor option provides multi-level motion control temperature. Integral 120V through 277V electronic LED driver, Options: 3000K Color temp and includes a photocontrol to measure the ambient light levels. This product 0-10V dimming. LED module(s) are available from factory for easy can be easily surface or pendant mounted and is the ideal energy-saving replacement. LED color temperature is 3000K with a >80 CRI. Modified: solution for a wide spectrum of applications including, but not limited to, Note: LEDs supplied with luminaire. Due to the dynamic nature parking garages, schools, office complexes, light commercial development, of LED technology, LED luminaire data on this sheet is subject apartments, walkways, entryways and stairwells. to change at the discretion of BEGA-US. For the most current SPECIFICATIONS technical data, please refer to www.bega-us.com. Construction Finish: Natural cast bronze and copper finish. Time and weather • 12” Square canopy with rounded corners in a precision die-formed factors will create the natural patina of bronze and copper. aluminum enclosure and non-metallic mounting backplate CSA certified to U.S. and Canadian standards, suitable for wet • White powder coat finish locations. Protection class IP44 • IP65 rated light engine compartment Rugby Weight: 18.7 lbs • Single ¾” side knockout Road Optics/LEDs Luminaire Lumens: 326 • UV-stabilized polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) optics that will not yellow over time • LED Garage optic provides a type V symmetric square distribution with light focused in the 60° to 80° zones to optimize spacing with even light Specs At A Glance* 503 distribution Model SCS-S-40 SCS-S-54 • Available in 35W and 54W configurations with up to 6288 lumens for maximum project flexibility Wattage (W) 35 54 X • Efficacies up to 123 LPW maximize energy savings and utility rebates Lumens (lm) 4663 6288 • 4000K CCT Efficacy (LPW) 123 119 • L70 of 190,000 hours Equivalency (HID) 100W 150W • CRI ≥72 Distribution LED Garage (LG) - Type V Square Short Electrical • 120-277VAC, 50/60Hz CCT 4000K • 0-10V Dimming driver CRI ≥72 Installation Input Voltage 120-277VAC, 50/60Hz, 0-10V Dimmable Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma • Fixture enclosure is attached to backplate by four white fasteners Operating Temp -40°C to 40°C (-40°F to 104°F) • Backplate easily attaches to a recesssed 3” or 4” J-box cETLus Listed, Wet Locations Covered Certifications • Pendant mounted using a standard ½” downrod and hardware (supplied by Canopy, DLC PREMIUM others) Warranty 5 Years Options • Integral 0-10V dimming occupancy sensor with built–in daylight control (SC) Weight 8.0 lbs A Accessories * Nominal Wattage, tested at 5000K CCT. Values at 120/277VAC. • Remote control allows changes in the field to the sensor’s default settings See performance table for more detailed lumen information. (TL-RCSCH) Note: Environment and application will affect actual performance. Typical values and 25°C (77°F) used for testing. Specifications subject to change without notice. B Testing & Compliance D • cETLus Listed to UL1598 for Wet Locations for covered canopy applications C • DesignLights Consortium® (DLC) PREMIUM Qualified • Meets state of California Title 24 requirement for dimming and control of light fixtures Lamp A B C D • Operating temperatures: -40°C to 40°C (-40°F to 104°F) 31 228 6.3 W LED 9 1⁄2 25 7⁄8 13 5 1⁄ 8 Warranty • Five year warranty (terms and conditions apply) BAR: COA SUBMISSION AMENDMENT BEGA-US 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 FAX (805) 566-9474 www.bega-us .com ©copyright BEGA-US 2018 Updated 2/18 CUT SHEETS: LIGHTING M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 0 37 FEBRUARY 25, 2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 Model: Date: ATTACHMENT C: 1532-1534 VIRGINIA AVENUE STAFF REPORT AND APPLICATION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT March 17, 2019 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 19-12-06 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue; Tax Parcel 090123000 Roger HB. Davis, Jr. & Jeanne S. Davis Trustees, Owner; Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, Applicant New Residential Building Background This 0.76-acre parcel on Virginia Avenue is within the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC district and has four existing structures. Three are to be razed: 1532, 1534, and 1538. 1532 Virginia Avenue Year Built: c1915 1536 Virginia Avenue Status: Contributing Year Built: c1920 Note: Demolition CoA, August Status: Contributing 2019 Note: Structure to remain 1534 Virginia Avenue 1538 Virginia Avenue Year Built: c1925 Year Built: Status: Contributing Status: Non-Contributing Note: Demolition CoA, August Note: No Demolition CoA required 2019 Prior BAR Reviews February 2015 - The BAR denied the proposed demolitions of 1532, 1534, and 1536 Virginia Avenue because they did not meet the standards and guidelines for demolitions. 1538 Virginia Avenue is not a contributing structure, demolition allowed without BAR review. August 2019 - BAR approved demolition of 1532 Virginia Avenue and 1534 Virginia Avenue. Required documentation of the houses with plans, elevations, and photographs for submittal with Preservation Piedmont and/or the City. (Required prior to issuance of demo permit.) 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 1 November 17, 2019 – Preliminary discussion on this proposal. December 17, 2019 – BAR accepted applicant request for deferral Application  Design Develop submittal: o Virginia Avenue Residences, drawings dated February 25, 2020: CS.1, LS.1, LS.2, A1.1 through A1.5, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1 through A3.4, A4.1 through A4.5, A5.1 through A5.4, and A6.1 (31 pages). o The Residences at Virginia Ave., drawings, rendering, and materials, dated February 25, 2020: Cover, blank page, pages 3 through 31 (31 pages). o Adams Parnell Lighting Virginia lighting catalog cuts for Virginia Avenue Residences dated February 24, 2020: Fixtures B, D, L, P1, P2, S, W1, and W2 (26 pages). o AGi32 photometric study, dated February 24, 2020: Virginia Ave Residences Exterior and Parking Garage (1 page). CoA request for construction of a four-story, 20-unit (64-bedroom), residential building with a partial below-grade parking area. Plan includes site work and landscaping. The existing house at 1536 Virginia Avenue is to be retained and is incorporated into the landscaping plan. Building materials  Foundation and First floor walls: o Glen-Gery Utility Brick, “Carbon Black.” o Mortar color: “Smoke”  Upper floor walls: o Painted EIFS, Benjamin Moore “Early Morning Mist”  Roof: o Low-pitched, membrane roof  Cornice and eave: o Painted smooth, fiber cement trim, Benjamin Moore “Burnt Umber”  Balconies and apartment entries: o Walls: Lap siding, Woodtone – Rustic Series, “Summer Wheat” o Railings: Painted metal, Benjamin Moore “Burnt Umber” o Flooring: Trex Enhanced Natural Decking – “Coastal Bluff” o Ceiling: Perforated metal panels. Ametco Slotted Hole Side Staggered Pattern  Windows: o Pella Impervia, “Black”  Doors: o Pella flush entry door, oak grained fiberglass - “Charcoal”  Stairs: o Open riser, painted metal frame “Burnt Umber” o Treads: Trex Enhanced Natural Decking – “Coastal Bluff”  Stair Railings: o Painted metal, Benjamin Moore “Burnt Umber” 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 2  Lighting fixtures: o D: Wall sconces at apartment entries and balconies o L: Exterior lighting at stairs and interior decks o P1: Garage ceiling o P2: Garage ceiling o S: Exterior wall lights o W1: Low wall lights o W2: Low wall lights  Signage o [No signage indicated.] Landscaping/Hardscaping  Furniture: o Moveable benches (See page 28 of submittal)  Walk: o Wood decking  Trellis: o Painted metal frame and posts – “Burnt Umber” o Stained 2x10 Douglas fir rafters - match “Coastal Bluff”  Lighting: o B: LED bollards  Plantings at low walls (Virginia Ave.) o Oakleaf Hydrangea (Hydrangea Quercifolia) o Creeping Liriope  Trees (at Virginia Ave.) o Five (5) London Plane Tree (Platanus X Acerifolia)  Trees (at stair to parking): o Four (4) Serviceberry Trees (Amelanchier Canadensis)  Trees (at lower swale): o Two (2) River Birch o Blackhaw Viburnam (Viburnum Prunifolium) o Red Twig Dogwood (Conus Sericea) o Serviceberry Bush (Amelanchier Arborea) o Switch Grass (Panicum Virgatum)  Driveway: o asphalt Discussion BAR should discuss if the applicant has adequately addressed the questions and comments from the December 2019 BAR meeting. (See appendix at end of this report.) Staff comments:  Parking Areas & Lots: Located below street level building and at rear. Screening for parking spaces may be needed, specifically related to vehicle headlights and any interior lighting.  Moveable benches: Design Guidelines do not address furniture except within the public right of way and outdoor dining/café spaces. Staff is uncertain how to address the moveable benches, if at all. 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 3  EIFS is proposed for the upper floor walls. The Design Guidelines address EIFS as follows: The use of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) is discouraged but may be approved on items such as gables where it cannot be seen or damaged. It requires careful design of the location of control joints. Note on CoA: The BAR cannot issue partial approvals in considering a CoA request. If the BAR determines that additional information or clarification is necessary, staff recommends that the applicant be asked to consider a deferral. Note on Site Plan review: Staff notes that the review of the Final Site Plan will not be complete prior to the BAR review. Any subsequent design changes as a result of the Site Plan process may require further review, at a later date, by the BAR. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction, I move to find that the proposed residential building on this property satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines 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… (or with the following modifications…) Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction, I move to find that the proposed residential building on this property does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC district, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 4 (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design A. Introduction The relationship between a historic building and its site, landscape features, outbuildings, and other elements within the property boundary all contribute to a historic district’s overall image. Site features should be considered an important part of any project to be reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review. […] The resulting character of many of the residential streets in the historic districts is one of lush plantings and mature shade trees. While there may be much variety within the house types and styles along a particular street, the landscape character ties together the setting and plays an important role in defining the distinctiveness of the districts. When making changes to a property within one of the historic districts, the entire site should be studied to better understand its original design and its context within its sub-area. When planning changes to a site in a historic district, create a new plan that reflects the site traditions of the area and that fits the scale of the lot. Consider using different types and scales of plantings that will create scale, define edges and enclose outdoor spaces of the site. The following sections provide more specific guidance. B. Plantings Plantings are a critical part of the historic appearance of the residential sections of Charlottesville’s historic districts. The character of the plantings often changes within each district’s sub-areas as well as from district to district. Many properties have extensive plantings in the form of trees, foundation plantings, shrub borders, and flowerbeds. Plantings are limited in commercial areas due to minimal setbacks. 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 5 C. Walls and Fences There is a great variety of fences and low retaining walls in Charlottesville’s historic districts, particularly the historically residential areas. While most rear yards and many side yards have some combination of fencing and landscaped screening, the use of such features in front yards varies. Materials may relate to materials used on the structures on the site and may include brick, stone, wrought iron, wood pickets, or concrete. 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought- iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. D. Lighting Charlottesville’s residential areas have few examples of private site lighting. Most houses, including those used for commercial purposes, have attractive, and often historically styled fixtures located on the house at various entry points. In the commercial areas, there is a wide variety of site lighting including large utilitarian lighting, floodlights and lights mounted on buildings. Charlottesville has a “Dark Sky” ordinance that requires full cutoff for lamps that emit 3,000 or more lumens. Within an ADC District, the BAR can impose limitations on lighting levels relative to the surrounding context. 1) In residential areas, use fixtures that are understated and compatible with the residential quality of the surrounding area and the building while providing subdued illumination. 2) Choose light levels that provide for adequate safety yet do not overly emphasize the site or building. Often, existing porch lights are sufficient. 3) […] 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 6 4) Do not use numerous “crime” lights or bright floodlights to illuminate a building or site when surrounding lighting is subdued. […] 7) Consider motion-activated lighting for security. E. Walkways & Driveways Providing circulation and parking for the automobile on private sites can be a challenging task, particularly on smaller lots and on streets that do not accommodate parking. The use of appropriate paving materials in conjunction with strategically placed plantings can help reinforce the character of each district while reducing the visual impact of driveways. 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 2) Concrete pavers are appropriate in new construction, and may be appropriate in site renovations, depending on the context of adjacent building materials, and continuity with the surrounding site and district. 3) Gravel or stone dust may be appropriate, but must be contained. 4) Stamped concrete and stamped asphalt are not appropriate paving materials. 5) Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 6) Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 7) Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 8) Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. F. Parking Areas & Lots 1) If new parking areas are necessary, construct them so that they reinforce the street wall of buildings and the grid system of rectangular blocks in commercial areas. 2) Locate parking lots behind buildings. 3) Screen parking lots from streets, sidewalks, and neighboring sites through the use of walls, trees, and plantings of a height and type appropriate to reduce the visual impact year-round. 4) Avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites. 5) Avoid excessive curb cuts to gain entry to parking areas. 6) Avoid large expanses of asphalt. 7) On large lots, provide interior plantings and pedestrian walkways. 8) Provide screening from adjacent land uses as needed. 9) Install adequate lighting in parking areas to provide security in evening hours. 10) Select lighting fixtures that are appropriate to a historic setting. H. Utilities & Other Site Appurtenances 1) Plan the location of overhead wires, utility poles and meters, electrical panels, antennae, trash containers, and exterior mechanical units where they are least likely to detract from the character of the site. 2) Screen utilities and other site elements with fences, walls, or plantings. 3) Encourage the installation of utility services underground. 4) Antennae and communication dishes should be placed in inconspicuous rooftop locations, not in a front yard. 5) Screen all rooftop mechanical equipment with a wall of material harmonious with the building or structure. 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 7 Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction A. Introduction The following guidelines offer general recommendations on the design for all new buildings and additions in Charlottesville’s historic districts. The guidelines are flexible enough to both respect the historic past and to embrace the future. The intent of these guidelines is not to be overly specific or to dictate certain designs to owners and designers. The intent is also not to encourage copying or mimicking particular historic styles. These guidelines are intended to provide a general design framework for new construction. Designers can take cues from the traditional architecture of the area, and have the freedom to design appropriate new architecture for Charlottesville’s historic districts. These criteria are all important when considering whether proposed new buildings are appropriate and compatible; however, the degree of importance of each criterion varies within each area as conditions vary. For instance, setback and spacing between buildings may be more important than roof forms or materials since there is more variety of the last two criteria on most residential streets. All criteria need not be met in every example of new construction although all criteria should be taken into consideration in the design process. When studying the character of a district, examine the forms of historic contributing buildings and avoid taking design cues from non-contributing structures. There may be the opportunity for more flexibility in designing new buildings or making an addition depending on the level of historic integrity of a particular area. Some parts of the historic districts retain a high degree of their original historic character. In these areas care should be taken to ensure that the new design does not visually overpower its historic neighboring buildings. In other areas where there are more non-contributing structures or more commercial utilitarian buildings, new designs could be more contemporary and the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) may be more flexible in applying these guidelines. Thus, the overall context of historic integrity of an area needs to be understood and considered on an individual basis and what may be appropriate in some areas may not be appropriate in others. According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: a) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. b) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 1. Sustainability Sustainability means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Green building means building practices that use energy, water, and other resources wisely. The City of Charlottesville and the Board of Architectural Review support the principles of green building and sustainable design in order to create a community that is healthy, livable, and affordable: a) Preservation is the most sustainable choice. Adaptive reuse of a historic building or living in a pre-owned home reduces consumption of land and materials for new construction, and may reduce housing costs. 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 8 b) Durable building materials such as brick, wood, cementitious siding, and metal roofs are economical and more compatible with the character of the community. c) Mixed-use development provides an alternative to sprawl that allows residents to live within walking distance of activities, thereby reducing time spent in the car. d) Infill development is an efficient use of land that can provide diversity in housing sizes and types, and can revitalize neighborhoods. e) Options for walking, bicycling, and transit promote healthy living and reduce dependence on automobiles and energy use. f) Designing buildings for the local climate helps conserve energy. g) Locally obtained building materials, rapidly renewable or recycled materials, non-toxic materials and finishes, and wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council provide sustainable choices. h) Alternative construction techniques, such as structural insulated panels (SIPS), are energy efficient. i) Low impact development methods (porous pavement, rain gardens, vegetated buffers, green roofs) retain storm water on site and protect street water quality by filtering runoff. j) Use of rating systems such as LEED, Energy Star, and EarthCraft House are encouraged. Sustainability and preservation are complementary concepts, and both goals should be pursued. Nothing in these guidelines should be construed to discourage green building or sustainable design. If such a design is found to conflict with a specific guideline, the BAR shall work with the applicant to devise a creative design solution that meets the applicant’s goals for sustainability, and that is compatible with the character of the district and the property. 2. Flexibility The following guidelines offer general recommendations on the design for all new buildings and additions in Charlottesville’s historic districts. The guidelines are flexible enough to both respect the historic past and to embrace the future. The intent of these guidelines is not to be overly specific or to dictate certain designs to owners and designers. The intent is also not to encourage copying or mimicking particular historic styles. These guidelines are intended to provide a general design framework for new construction. Designers can take cues from the traditional architecture of the area and have the freedom to design appropriate new architecture for Charlottesville’s historic districts. 3. Building Types within the Historic Districts When designing new buildings in the historic districts, one needs to recognize that while there is an overall distinctive district character, there is, nevertheless, a great variety of historic building types, styles, and scales throughout the districts and sub-areas that are described in Chapter 1: Introduction. Likewise, there are several types of new construction that might be constructed within the districts the design parameters of these new buildings will differ depending on the following types: […] b) Residential Infill i. These buildings are new dwellings that are constructed on the occasional vacant lot within a block of existing historic houses. Setback, spacing, and general 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 9 massing of the new dwelling are the most important criteria that should relate to the existing historic structures, along with residential roof and porch forms. c) Neighborhood Transitional i. Neighborhood transitional commercial/office buildings are located on sites that adjoin residential areas. The design of these buildings should attempt to relate to the character of the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as the commercial area. While these buildings may be larger in scale than residential structures, their materials, roof forms, massing, and window patterns should relate to residential forms. In the West Main Street Corridor and in the 14th and 15th Street area of Venable Neighborhood, new buildings on these sites should provide an appropriate transition to any neighborhood adjoining the district. B. Setback The term “setback” for these guidelines is defined generally as the area between the street and the wall of the building, although in the zoning code it refers to the distance between the property line and wall of the building. 1) Construct new commercial buildings with a minimal or no setback in order to reinforce the traditional street wall. 2) Use a minimal setback if the desire is to create a strong street wall or setback consistent with the surrounding area. 3) Modify setback as necessary for sub-areas that do not have well-defined street walls. 4) Avoid deep setbacks or open corner plazas on corner buildings in the downtown in order to maintain the traditional grid of the commercial district. […] 8) At transitional sites between two distinctive areas of setback, for instance between new commercial and historic commercial, consider using setbacks in the new construction that reinforce and relate to setbacks of the historic buildings. 9) For new governmental or institutional buildings, either reinforce the street wall through a minimal setback, or use a deep setback within a landscaped area to emphasize the civic function of the structure. 10) Keep residential setbacks within 20 percent of the setbacks of a majority of neighborhood dwellings. C. Spacing Spacing between buildings depends on the size of the lot, the size of the building, and side-yard setback requirements. Consistent spacing between a row of buildings helps to establish an overall rhythm along a street. 1) Maintain existing consistency of spacing in the area. New residences should be spaced within 20 percent of the average spacing between houses on the block. 2) Commercial and office buildings in the areas that have a well-defined street wall should have minimal spacing between them. 3) In areas that do not have consistent spacing, consider limiting or creating a more uniform spacing in order to establish an overall rhythm. 4) Multi-lot buildings should be designed using techniques to incorporate and respect the existing spacing on a residential street. D. Massing & Footprint 1) […] 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 10 2) New infill construction in residential sub-areas should relate in footprint and massing to the majority of surrounding historic dwellings. 3) Neighborhood transitional buildings should have small building footprints similar to nearby dwellings. a) If the footprint is larger, their massing should be reduced to relate to the smaller-scaled forms of residential structures. b) Techniques to reduce massing could include stepping back upper levels, adding residential roof and porch forms, and using sympathetic materials. 4) Institutional and multi-lot buildings by their nature will have large footprints, particularly along the West Main Street corridor and in the 14th and 15th Street area of the Venable neighborhood. a) The massing of such a large scale structure should not overpower the traditional scale of the majority of nearby buildings in the district in which it is located. b) Techniques could include varying the surface planes of the buildings, stepping back the buildings as the structure increases in height, and breaking up the roof line with different elements to create smaller compositions. E. Height & Width The actual size of a new building can either contribute to or be in conflict with a historic area. This guideline addresses the relationship of height and width of the front elevation of a building mass. A building is horizontal, vertical, or square in its proportions. Residential buildings’ height often relates to the era and style in which they were built. Houses in the historic districts for the most part range from one to three stories with the majority being two stories. Most historic residential buildings range in width from 25 to 50 feet. While some commercial buildings are larger, the majority are two to three stories in height. Most historic commercial buildings range from 20 to 40 feet in width. The West Main Street corridor has a greater variety of building types. Early nineteenth-century (Federal and Greek Revival) and early-twentieth-century (Colonial Revival) designs often have horizontal expressions except for the townhouse form which is more vertical. From the Victorian era after the Civil War through the turn of the century, domestic architecture is usually 2 to 2 1/2 stories with a more vertical expression. Commercial buildings may be divided between horizontal and vertical orientation depending on their original use and era of construction. 1) Respect the directional expression of the majority of surrounding buildings. In commercial areas, respect the expression of any adjacent historic buildings, which generally will have a more vertical expression. 2) Attempt to keep the height and width of new buildings within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width in the surrounding sub-area. 3) […] 4) When the primary façade of a new building in a commercial area, such as downtown, West Main Street, or the Corner, is wider than the surrounding historic buildings or the traditional lot size, consider modulating it with bays or varying planes. a) Reinforce the human scale of the historic districts by including elements such as porches, entrances, storefronts, and decorative features depending on the character of the particular sub-area. 5) […] F. Scale 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 11 Height and width also create scale, the relationship between the size of a building and the size of a person. Scale can also be defined as the relationship of the size of a building to neighboring buildings and of a building to its site. The design features of a building can reinforce a human scale or can create a monumental scale. In Charlottesville, there is a variety of scale. For instance, an institutional building like a church or library may have monumental scale due to its steeple or entry portico, while a more human scale may be created by a storefront in a neighboring commercial building. 1) Provide features on new construction that reinforce the scale and character of the surrounding area, whether human or monumental. Include elements such as storefronts, vertical and horizontal divisions, upper story windows, and decorative features. 2) As an exception, new institutional or governmental buildings may be more appropriate on a monumental scale depending on their function and their site conditions. G. Roof Roof design, materials, and textures should be consistent with the existing structures in the historic districts. Common roof forms include hipped roofs, gable roofs, flat roofs, and gambrel roofs, as well as combinations of the above. In general, the roof pitch of an older dwelling is steeper than a new tract house, and this factor is more important than the type of roof in most neighborhoods. 1. Roof Forms and Pitches […] e) Shallow pitched roofs and flat roofs may be appropriate in historic residential areas on a contemporary designed building. 2. Roof Materials Common roof materials in the historic districts include metal, slate, and composition shingles. a) For new construction in the historic districts, use traditional roofing materials such as standing-seam metal or slate. b) In some cases, shingles that mimic the appearance of slate may be acceptable. c) Pre-painted standing-seam metal roof material is permitted, but commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. d) Avoid using thick wood cedar shakes if using wood shingles; instead, use more historically appropriate wood shingles that are thinner and have a smoother finish. e) If using composition asphalt shingles, do not use light colors. Consider using neutral- colored or darker, plain or textured-type shingles. f) The width of the pan and the seam height on a standing-seam metal roof should be consistent with the size of pan and seam height usually found on a building of a similar period. 3. Rooftop Screening a) If roof-mounted mechanical equipment is used, it should be screened from public view on all sides. b) The screening material and design should be consistent with the design, textures, materials, and colors of the building. c) The screening should not appear as an afterthought or addition the building. 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 12 H. Orientation Orientation refers to the direction that the front of the building faces. 1) New commercial construction should orient its façade in the same direction as adjacent historic buildings, that is, to the street. 2) Front elevations oriented to side streets or to the interior of lots should be discouraged. I. Windows & Doors 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a) The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. b) In the West Main Street corridor in particular, new buildings should reinforce this traditional proportion. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a) The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. b) Glass storefronts would generally have more horizontal proportions than upper floor openings. 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. J. Porches Most of Charlottesville’s historic houses have some type of porch. There is much variety in the size, location, and type of porches, and this variety relates to the different residential areas, strong consideration should be given to including a porch or similar form in the design of any new residence in these sub-areas. 1) Porches and other semi-public spaces are important in establishing layers or zones of intermediate spaces within the streetscape. 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 13 K. Street-Level Design 1) Street level facades of all building types, whether commercial, office, or institutional, should not have blank walls; they should provide visual interest to the passing pedestrian. 2) When designing new storefronts or elements for storefronts, conform to the general configuration of traditional storefronts depending on the context of the sub-area. New structures do offer the opportunity for more contemporary storefront designs. 3) Keep the ground level facades(s) of new retail commercial buildings at least eighty percent transparent up to a level of ten feet. 4) Include doors in all storefronts to reinforce street level vitality. 5) Articulate the bays of institutional or office buildings to provide visual interest. 6) Institutional buildings, such as city halls, libraries, and post offices, generally do not have storefronts, but their street levels should provide visual interest and display space or first floor windows should be integrated into the design. 7) Office buildings should provide windows or other visual interest at street level. 8) Neighborhood transitional buildings in general should not have transparent first floors, and the design and size of their façade openings should relate more to neighboring residential structures. 9) Along West Main Street, secondary (rear) facades should also include features to relate appropriately to any adjacent residential areas. 10) Any parking structures facing on important streets or on pedestrian routes must have storefronts, display windows, or other forms of visual relief on the first floors of these elevations. 11) A parking garage vehicular entrance/exit opening should be diminished in scale, and located off to the side to the degree possible. L. Foundation and Cornice Facades generally have a three-part composition: a foundation or base that responds at the pedestrian or street level, the middle section, and the cap or cornice that terminates the mass and addresses how the building meets the sky. Solid masonry foundations are common for both residential and commercial buildings. Masonry piers, most often of brick, support many porches. 1) Distinguish the foundation from the rest of the structure through the use of different materials, patterns, or textures. 2) Respect the height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings. 3) If used, cornices should be in proportion to the rest of the building. 4) Wood or metal cornices are preferred. The use of fypon may be appropriate where the location is not immediately adjacent to pedestrians. M. Materials & Textures 1) The selection of materials and textures for a new building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2) In order to strengthen the traditional image of the residential areas of the historic districts, brick, stucco, and wood siding are the most appropriate materials for new buildings. 3) In commercial/office areas, brick is generally the most appropriate material for new structures. “Thin set” brick is not permitted. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than buildings. 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 14 4) Large-scale, multi-lot buildings, whose primary facades have been divided into different bays and planes to relate to existing neighboring buildings, can have varied materials, shades, and textures. 5) Synthetic siding and trim, including, vinyl and aluminum, are not historic cladding materials in the historic districts, and their use should be avoided. 6) Cementitious siding, such as HardiPlank boards and panels, are appropriate. 7) Concrete or metal panels may be appropriate. 8) Metal storefronts in clear or bronze are appropriate. 9) The use of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) is discouraged but may be approved on items such as gables where it cannot be seen or damaged. It requires careful design of the location of control joints. 10) The use of fiberglass-reinforced plastic is discouraged. If used, it must be painted. 11) All exterior trim woodwork, decking and flooring must be painted, or may be stained solid if not visible from public right-of-way. N. Paint The appropriateness of a color depends on: the size and material of the painted area and the context of surrounding buildings, 1. The selection and use of colors for a new building should be coordinated and compatible with adjacent buildings, not intrusive. 2. In Charlottesville’s historic districts, various traditional shaded of brick red, white, yellow, tan, green, or gray are appropriate. For more information on colors traditionally used on historic structures and the placement of color on a building, see Chapter 4: Rehabilitation. 3. Do not paint unpainted masonry surfaces. 4. It is proper to paint individual details different colors. 5. More lively color schemes may be appropriate in certain sub-areas dependent on the context of the sub-areas and the design of the building. O. Details & Decoration The details and decoration of Charlottesville’s historic buildings vary tremendously with the different styles, periods, and types. Such details include cornices, roof overhang, chimneys, lintels, sills, brackets, brick patterns, shutters, entrance decoration, and porch elements. The important factor to recognize is that many of the older buildings in the districts have decoration and noticeable details. Also, many of the buildings were simply constructed, often without architects and on limited budgets that precluded costly specialized building features. At the same time, some of Charlottesville’s more recent commercial historic structures have minimal architectural decoration. It is a challenge to create new designs that use historic details successfully. One extreme is to simply copy the complete design of a historic building and the other is to “paste on” historic details on a modern unadorned design. Neither solution is appropriate for designing architecture that relates to its historic context and yet still reads as a contemporary building. More successful new buildings may take their clues from historic images and reintroduce and reinterpret designs of traditional decorative elements or may have a modernist approach in which details and decoration are minimal. 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 15 Appendix BAR questions from December 17, 2019 meeting (From meeting minutes) Massing and Scale:  There is more work to be done with the massing. Materials and Design:  I need to know some more about materials palate.  I would like to know about the siding that you are proposing. o Applicant: It is a Hardie panel, [with] a finishing technique that is applied to any of those products to make it look like wood.  Can you explain how you wish the windows and the window plane relate to the exterior envelope of the building? o Applicant: The windows will be set at the edge of our structural framing.  How thick are you thinking for the EIFS insulation? o Applicant: Probably two inches.  Have you thought about gutters? o Applicant: There is potential that all of the rainfall is handled with internal gutters.  I am concerned about [the] roof thickness.  There is going to be rooftop equipment and parapets hiding the equipment. That’s very different from the drawings that I am looking at. Landscaping/Hardscaping:  The plant selections are OK. They may be deployed in the wrong spots. The trees in the front yard are going to function to break down that scale and bring it down to the scale of the pedestrian.  Trees in the front going over the street help give it the feel of a more tight intimate space.  There needs to be shade trees along the street.  I am worried about how the stairs [to the parking] are going to interact with the house to the right. o Applicant: We are proposing digging that drainage swale that’s existing. That does allow for more opportunities between the stair and the existing house.  The bigger concern is the approach on the driveway side. There is some work that you can do of softening that piece.  I am struggling with the driveway side. It’s a sea of asphalt. 1532–1536 Virginia Avenue (March 10, 2020) 16 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (4 34) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner NameRoger HB Davis and Jeanne S Davis Trusts Applicant Name Kevin Schafer, Design Develop Project Name/Descriptiorfreliminary Review of Proposed New Construction Parcel Number_09_012 3_000 _ _ _ _ _______ _ Project Property Address 1532 and 1534 Virginia Ave, Charlottesville Signature of Applicant Applicant Information Address: 408 E Main Street Email: Charlottesville. Virginia. 22902 kschafer@designdevelopllc.com -- I he by attest that the information I have provided is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. Phone: (W) 434.665.4144 (C) ______ Date Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address: 6207 Riverside Farm Lane Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) Cape Charles YA 2331 o I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email: gg2davis@gmail.com i�ilaion, � Phone: (W) _______ (C) ______ 1 1/ v So&- � . ;,?�u--1 �/ f� $!�rel raate Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits )<6(t.r ).j.-.r,·') _________ for this project? _N_ o Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): _______________ Proposed New Construction on parcel 090123000. See attached booklet. List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): 5 Copies of Preliminary BAR Narrative booklets, 5 copies of associated BAR drawings. For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: __________ Received by: ____________ Date: ----------------- Fee paid: _____ Cash/Ck.# ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: ___________ Revised 2016 THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. PARCEL 090123000 BAR SUBMISSION PRESENTED BY 02|25|2020 3 | TABLE OF CONTENTS 4-5 | PROJECT NARRATIVE (FROM PREVIOUS SUBMISSION; FOR NEW MEMBERS) 6 | NEIGHBORHOOD MAP 7 | CONTEXT PHOTOS 10 | MATERIAL PALETTE 11 | EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS 12| BRICK AND EIFS DETAILS 13| LAP SIDING DETAILS 14| TYP. DECK CONSTRUCTION 15 |ENTRY PERGOLA CONSTRUCTION 16 |CENTRAL STAIR CONSTRUCTION 17 | EXTERIOR BREEZEWAY CONSTRUCTION 18-19 | EXTERIOR LIGHTING DATA 20 | MECHANICAL UNIT LOCATION ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION 21 | EXHAUST VENT LOCATION 25% SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWING SET 22-25 | EXTERIOR RENDERINGS LIGHTING CONSULTANT INFORMATION 26-29 | LANDSCAPING THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. TABLE OF CONTENTS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 3 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 TAKING CUES FROM THE C’VILLE ADCD DESIGN GUIDELINES; PART III NEW CONSTRUCTION THIS DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPELS US TO PROPOSE A PROJECT THAT ENDEAVORS TO... A. INTRODUCTION: OFTEN NEW COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, OR MULTI-USE BUILDINGS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON SITES MUCH LARGER THAN THE TRADITIONALLY SIZED LOTS 25 TO 40 FEET WIDE. THESE ASSEMBLED PARCELS CAN TRANSLATE INTO NEW STRUCTURES WHOSE SCALE AND MASS MAY OVERWHELM NEIGHBORING EXISTING STRUCTURES. THEREFORE, WHILE THIS BUILDING TYPE MAY NEED TO RESPOND TO THE VARIOUS BUILDING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE, ...REDUCE VISUAL PRESENCE BY BREAKING UP THE SCALE AND MASSING INTO TWO DISTINCT IT ALSO SHOULD EMPLOY DESIGN TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE ITS VISUAL PRESENCE. THESE COULD BUILDING FORMS. INCLUDE VARYING FACADE WALL PLANES, DIFFERING MATERIALS, STEPPED-BACK UPPER LEVELS, AND IRREGULAR MASSING. B. SETBACK: CONSTRUCT NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH A MINIMAL OR NO SETBACK IN ORDER TO REINFORCE THE TRADITIONAL STREET WALL. USE A MINIMAL SETBACK IF THE DESIRE ...REACT AND RESPOND TO ADJACENT, ESTABLISHED SETBACKS (IN THIS CASE, A 25’ FRONT IS TO CREATE A STRONG STREET WALL OR SETBACK CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING YARD). USE THIS SETBACK TO CREATE LANDSCAPE COURTYARDS THE HELP REINFORCE THE AREA. KEEP RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS WITHIN 20 PERCENT OF THE SETBACKS OF A MAJORITY OF RHYTHM OF THE EXISTING STREET WALL. NEIGHBORHOOD DWELLINGS. C. SPACING: MAINTAIN EXISTING CONSISTENCY OF SPACING IN THE AREA. NEW RESIDENCES ...REINFORCE THE ESTABLISHED AND EXISTING SPACING BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOUND IN THE SHOULD BE SPACED WITHIN 20 PERCENT OF THE AVERAGE SPACING BETWEEN HOUSES ON THE DISTRICT. BLOCK. D. MASSING AND FOOTPRINT: NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITIONAL BUILDINGS SHOULD HAVE SMALL BUILDING FOOTPRINTS SIMILAR TO NEARBY DWELLINGS. 1. IF THE FOOTPRINT IS LARGER, THEIR MASSING SHOULD BE REDUCED TO RELATE TO THE SMALLER-SCALED FORMS OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. 2. TECHNIQUES COULD INCLUDE VARYING THE SURFACE PLANES OF THE BUILDINGS, ...PRESENT SMALLER MASSING TO THE STREET BY LIMITING THE FOOTPRINT OF BUILDING ELEMENTS STEPPING BACK THE BUILDINGS AS THE STRUCTURE INCREASES IN HEIGHT, AND BREAKING TO THE WIDTH OF EXISTING STRUCTURES. UP THE ROOF LINE WITH DIFFERENT ELEMENTS TO CREATE SMALLER COMPOSITIONS. E. HEIGHT AND WIDTH: RESPECT THE DIRECTIONAL EXPRESSION OF THE MAJORITY OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE HEIGHT AND WIDTH OF NEW BUILDINGS WITHIN ... REINFORCE THE HUMAN SCALE BY PROVIDING NUMEROUS BALCONIES AND PORCHES ON A MAXIMUM OF 200 PERCENT OF THE PREVAILING HEIGHT AND WIDTH IN THE SURROUNDING ALL FACADES. REACH OUT TO THE PEDESTRIAN ON THE STREET WITH A FRONT PORCH PERGOLA SUB-AREA. REINFORCE THE HUMAN SCALE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS BY INCLUDING ELEMENTS ELEMENT THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THE FRONT BUILDING PLANE. PROVIDE LANDSCAPING IN SUCH AS PORCHES, ENTRANCES, STOREFRONTS, AND DECORATIVE FEATURES DEPENDING ON FRONT YARD SETBACK THAT MINIMIZES THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE HEIGHT FROM THE STREET. THE CHARACTER OF THE PARTICULAR SUB-AREA. F. SCALE: IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, THERE IS A VARIETY OF SCALE. PROVIDE FEATURES ON NEW ... ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS DISTRICT HAS VARYING SCALES, ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, USES, CONSTRUCTION THAT REINFORCE THE SCALE AND CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND TECHNIQUES IN DEALING WITH SCALE. REINFORCE THIS VARIATION THROUGH PROVIDING WHETHER HUMAN OR MONUMENTAL. A THOUGHTFULLY COMPOSED, COHESIVE EXTERIOR. G. ROOF: LARGE-SCALE, MULTI-LOT BUILDINGS SHOULD HAVE A VARIED ROOF LINE TO BREAK ... PROVIDE A VARIED ROOF LINE TO BREAK UP THE MASS OF THE DESIGN. UP THE MASS OF THE DESIGN. THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. PROJECT NARRATIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 4 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 TAKING CUES FROM THE C’VILLE ADCD DESIGN GUIDELINES; PART III NEW CONSTRUCTION THIS DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPELS US TO PROPOSE A PROJECT THAT ENDEAVORS TO... H. ORIENTATION: NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHOULD ORIENT ITS FAÇADE IN THE SAME ...ORIENTATE THE PRIMARY FACADE TOWARD VIRGINIA AVENUE. DIRECTION AS ADJACENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS, THAT IS, TO THE STREET. I. WINDOWS AND DOORS: THE SIZE AND PROPORTION, OR THE RATIO OF WIDTH TO HEIGHT, OF WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS ON NEW BUILDINGS’ PRIMARY FACADES SHOULD BE ...PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY PROPORTIONED WINDOWS WITHIN GLAZING “BAYS” THAT RESPECT SIMILAR AND COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE ON SURROUNDING HISTORIC FACADES. AND RESPOND TO THE RULES OF CONTEMPORARY DESIGN IN NEW CONSTRUCTION. K. STREET-LEVEL DESIGN: STREET LEVEL FACADES OF ALL BUILDING TYPES, WHETHER COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, OR INSTITUTIONAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BLANK WALLS; THEY SHOULD PROVIDE VISUAL ...ELIMINATE BLANK WALLS THROUGH CHANGE IN MATERIALS, BALCONIES, PORCHES, INTEREST TO THE PASSING PEDESTRIAN. NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITIONAL BUILDINGS IN GENERAL CIRCULATION CORE ELEMENTS, AND APPROPRIATE AMOUNTS OF GLAZING. SHOULD NOT HAVE TRANSPARENT FIRST FLOORS, AND THE DESIGN AND SIZE OF THEIR FAÇADE OPENINGS SHOULD RELATE MORE TO NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. L. FOUNDATION AND CORNICE: FACADES GENERALLY HAVE A THREE-PART COMPOSITION: A FOUNDATION OR BASE THAT RESPONDS AT THE PEDESTRIAN OR STREET, THE MIDDLE SECTION, AND THE CAP OR CORNICE THAT TERMINATES THE MASS AND ADDRESSES HOW THE BUILDING MEETS THE SKY. DISTINGUISH THE FOUNDATION FROM THE REST OF THE STRUCTURE ... PROVIDE A DEFINED VISUAL BASE THROUGH USE OF FIRST FLOOR MASONRY VENEER. THROUGH THE USE OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS, PATTERNS, OR TEXTURES. M. MATERIALS AND TEXTURES: THE SELECTION OF MATERIALS AND TEXTURES FOR A NEW BUILDING SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH AND COMPLEMENTARY TO NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS. ... SELECT HIGH-QUALITY, LOW-MAINTENANCE MATERIALS THAT ARE IN KEEPING WITH ADJACENT, IN ORDER TO STRENGTHEN THE TRADITIONAL IMAGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF THE HISTORIC ESTABLISHED MATERIAL PALETTES. ANTICIPATED MATERIAL CHOICES INCLUDE BRICK, EIFS, AND DISTRICTS, BRICK, STUCCO, AND WOOD SIDING ARE THE MOST APPROPRIATE MATERIALS FOR CEMENTITIOUS BOARD LAP SIDING. NEW BUILDINGS. CEMENTITIOUS SIDING, SUCH AS HARDIEPLANK BOARDS AND PANELS, ARE APPROPRIATE. N. PAINT: THE SELECTION AND USE OF COLORS FOR A NEW BUILDING SHOULD BE COORDINATED ... AVOID BRIGHTLY COLORED OR INTRUSIVE PAINT COLORS. AND COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT BUILDINGS, NOT INTRUSIVE. O. DETAILS AND DECORATIONS: MORE SUCCESSFUL NEW BUILDINGS MAY TAKE THEIR CLUES ... PROVIDE A HOLISTIC COMPOSITION THAT REPRESENTS A MODERN APPROACH TO DETAIL FROM HISTORIC IMAGES AND REINTRODUCE AND REINTERPRET DESIGNS OF TRADITIONAL AND DECORATION. DECORATIVE ELEMENTS OR MAY HAVE A MODERNIST APPROACH IN WHICH DETAILS AND DECORATION ARE MINIMAL. THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. PROJECT NARRATIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 5 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 1 NW ST TH 17 2 3 4 NW ST 5 TH 15 6 VIR 7 GIN IA A VE 10 9 8 W TN HS 14T 11 THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. NEIGHBORHOOD MAP BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 6 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 1 2 3 4 1993 1930* 1910* 1875* 5 6 7 8 1987 1920* 1986 2014 9 10 11 * DENOTES A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE 1910* 1920* 2007 THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. CONTEXT PHOTOS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 7 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 8 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 9 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 SMOOTH FIBER CEMENT TRIM MAINE DECK BRACKETS BENJAMIN MOORE “BURNT EMBER” TREX ENHANCED NATURAL DECKING AMETCO SLOTTED HOLE “COASTAL BLUFF” SIDE STAGGERED PATTERN EIFS SIDING WOODTONE - RUSTIC SERIES GLEN-GERY UTILITY BRICK PELLA IMPERVIA WINDOWS - BLACK CUSTOM STEEL RAILINGS PAINTED BENJAMIN MOORE’S LAP SIDING “SUMMER WHEAT” “CARBON BLACK” PAINTED BENJAMIN MOORE’S “EARLY MORNING MIST” “BURNT EMBER” THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. MATERIALS BOARD BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 10 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 FIBERGLASS Pella Impervia ® ® $$ F E AT U R E S Made with Pella’s patented fiberglass material, Duracast®* Exceptionally energy efficient and durable in extreme heat and cold Versatile design features and options to deliver any style WINDOW Specialty shapes, custom sizes and fixed configurations are also available.¹ STYLES Pella Impervia casement window AWNING B AY O R B O W CASEMENT DOUBLE-HUNG SINGLE-HUNG SLIDING PAT I O D O O R STYLES SLIDING * In testing performed in accordance with ASTM testing standards, Pella's Duracast has displayed superior performance in strength, ability to withstand extreme heat and cold, and resistance to dents and scratches. Special shape windows are made from a non-Duracast fiberglass composite. SEE A6.1 FOR EXTERIOR WINDOW AND DOOR ELEVATIONS AND PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS. THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 11 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 SEE 3/LS.1 FOR FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLY TPO MEMBRANE ROOFING ADHERED TO RIGID INSULATION PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTION MEMBRANE ROOFING METAL EDGE TRIM (CONT.) 4 TYPICAL EAVE DETAIL 1 1/2" POLY-ISO AT RIGID EIFS SIDING INSULATION 2 X 10 CONT. RIM BOARD A3.3 1 1/2" = 1' - 0" 567.75 1 X SMOOTH HARDIE TRIMBOARD, 577 PAINTED BENJAMIN MOORE T/ JOIST @ LEVEL 4 T/ FLAT JOIST @ ROOF "BURNT EMBER" 4 A3.3 1 X SMOOTH HARDIE TRIMBOARD, PAINTED BENJAMIN MOORE "BURNT EMBER" 2 X 8 OUTRIGGER PER STRUCTURAL 9/16" X 5 1/4" SANITARY SILL 549'-4" METRO COLLECTION SAN 525 EIFS EXTERIOR ASSEMBLY T/ SILL LSL RIM BOARD (CONT.) J-BEAD AT WINDOW SILL SEE 3/LS.1 FOR FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLY TYPICAL EAVE AT EIFS TYPICAL EAVE DETAIL AT EIFS SIDING 4 EIFS EXTERIOR VENEER SYSTEM 2 x 2 PTD NAILER A3.3 1 1/2" = 1' - 0" 557.5 TAPERED POLY-ISO RIGID INSULATION 567.75 T/ JOIST @ LEVEL 3 CONT. METAL FLASHING T/ JOIST @ LEVEL 4 547'-4" EIFS PAINTED BENJAMIN MOORE’S “EARLY MORNING MIST” T/ SOLDIER COURSE 547'-3" METAL WATER TABLE AND ROWLOCK T/ JOIST 549'-4" UTILITY BRICK SOLDIER COURSE 5 1/2" MINERAL WOOL 9/16" X 5 1/4" SANITARY SILL METRO COLLECTION SAN 525 T/ SILL RIM BOARD INSULATION LSL RIMBOARD J-BEAD AT WINDOW SILL 3 A3.3 FLEXIBLE SELF-ADHERING FLASHING TAPE SEE 3/LS.1 FOR FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLY OVERLAPS METAL FLASHING CONT. METAL FLASHING EIFS EXTERIOR VENEER SYSTEM HEADER PER STRUCTURAL 547.25 2 x 2 PTD NAILER CORNER BEAD AT GYPSUM BOARD RETURN 557.5 545 WEEPHOLES T/ JOIST @ LEVEL 2 TAPERED POLY-ISO RIGID INSULATION T/ JOIST @ LEVEL 3 B/ STEEL CONT. STEELMETAL ANGLE, FLASHING PAINTED BENAJMIN MOORE "BURNT EMBER" J-BEAD AT GYPSUM BOARD TERMINATION 547'-4" T/ SOLDIER COURSE BACKER ROD AND SEALANT PER MANUF. INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS 547'-3" TYPICAL BRICK HEADER / EIFS SILL DETAIL T/ JOIST TYPICAL BRICK HEADER 3 UTILITY BRICK SOLDIER COURSE AND SOLDIER COURSE A3.3 1 1/2" = 1' - 0" 5 1/2" MINERAL WOOL PELLA IMPERVIARIM BOARD INSULATION FIBERGLASS CASEMENT WINDOW WITH NAILING FLANGE LSL RIMBOARD BACKER ROD AND SEALANT PER MANUF. INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS 1/2" 2 9/16" X 5 1/4" SANITARY SILL A3.3 3 539 METRO COLLECTION SAN 525 A3.3 T/ SILL BRICK SILL (MINFLASHING FLEXIBLE SELF-ADHERING SLOPE 15%) TAPE SEE 3/LS.1 FOR FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLY OVERLAPS WEEPHOLES METAL BRICKS BETWEEN FLASHING GLEN-GERY UTILITY BRICK “CARBON BLACK” STEEL ANGLE BRICK LINTEL J-BEAD AT WINDOW SILL CONT. CONT. METAL METAL FLASHING FLASHING WITH END DAM HEADER PER STRUCTURAL 537 547.25 T/ CONCRETE CURB MORTAR BED CORNER BEAD AT GYPSUM BOARD RETURN 545 WEEPHOLES @T/LEVEL JOIST 1@ LEVEL 2 B/ STEEL STEEL ANGLE, PAINTED BENAJMIN MOORE "BURNT EMBER" J-BEAD AT GYPSUM BOARD TERMINATION 1/2" ZIP SHEATHING BACKER ROD AND SEALANT PER SEE 2/LS.1 FOR WALL ASSEMBLY MANUF. INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS 11/16 X 3 1/2" SANITARY BASE 2" VENTED AIR GAP METRO COLLECTION LWM412 3 TYPICAL BRICKSEE HEADER / EIFS SILLASSEMBLY 3/LS.1 FOR FLOOR/CEILING DETAIL PTD. BASE PLATE A3.3 1 1/2" = 1' - 0" 537 PELLA IMPERVIA FIBERGLASS CASEMENT T/ CONCRETE CURB @ LEVEL WINDOW WITH1NAILING FLANGE BACKER ROD AND SEALANT PER MANUF. INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS 1/2" 2 UTILITY SIZED BRICK VENEER 9/16" X 5 1/4" SANITARY SILL A3.3 539 METRO COLLECTION SAN 525 T/ SILL BRICK SILL (MIN SLOPE 15%) WEEPHOLES BETWEEN BRICKS J-BEAD AT WINDOW SILL CONT. METAL FLASHING WITH END DAM 537 526 T/ CONCRETE CURB MORTAR BED T/ @ SLAB LEVEL 1 @ PARKING LEVEL CAST IN PLACE FOUNDATION WALL 1/2" ZIP PERSHEATHING STRUCTURAL SEE 2/LS.1 FOR WALL ASSEMBLY 2" VENTED AIR GAP 11/16 X 3 1/2" SANITARY BASE METRO COLLECTION LWM412 1 WALL SECTION AT EIFS / WINDOW 2 TYPICAL BRICKSEESILL AND STEEL SUPPORT DETAIL 3/LS.1 FOR FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLY A3.3 3/8" = 1' - 0" PTD. BASE PLATE A3.3 1 1/2" = 1' - 0" WORKRITE CEMENT MORTAR “SMOKE” TYPICAL WINDOW AT FIRST FLOOR BRICK 537 T/ CONCRETE CURB @ LEVEL 1 TYPICAL BRICK SILL UTILITY SIZED BRICK VENEER THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. BRICK DETAILS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 12 526 T/ SLAB FEBRUARY 25, 2019 @ PARKING LEVEL CAST IN PLACE FOUNDATION WALL MEMBRANE ROOFING METAL EDGE TRIM (CONT.) 8 A3.3 2 X 10 CONT. RIM BOARD 2 X 8 OUTRIGGER PER STRUCTURAL 1 X SMOOTH HARDIE TRIMBOARD, PAINTED BENJAMIN MOORE "BURNT EMBER" EASYTRIM REVEAL SYSTEM INTERIOR VARIABLE ANGLE CORNER WOODTONE RUSTIC SERIES EXTERIOR SIDING SEE 3/LS.1 FOR FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLY EASY TRIM BRUSHED ALUMINUM TRIM SYSTEM J LAP TRIM CO (E):bo 8 TYPICAL EAVE DETAIL AT FLAT ROOF / WOODTONE SIDING 2 A3.3 1 1/2" = 1' - 0" WOODTONE RUSTIC SERIES “SUMMER WHEAT” BA 2 X 3 CONT. SILL SUPPORT BLOCKING D CONT. METAL FLASHING SILL PAN SEE 3/LS.1 FOR FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLY TREX ENHANCE NATURALS 1" X 5.5" COMPOSITE DECKING BOARDS LAP SIDING AT DECK 1/4" THICK PERFORATED METAL PANEL FACE SCREWED INTO JOISTS WITH STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS PTD 2 X LEDGER BOARD PER STRUCTURAL MAINE DECK BRACKET (ALUMINUM LEDGER BOARD STANDOFF BRACKET) INSTALLED PER MANUF. INSTRUCTIONS WOODTONE RUSTIC SERIES EXTERIOR SIDING 7 LAP SIDING HEADER AND DECK CONNECTION DETAIL A3.3 1 1/2" = 1' - 0" ALUMINUM CLAD OUTSWING PATIO DOOR WITH FAIR HOUSING COMPLIANT LOW PROFILE SILL 7 A3.3 1/2" X 2" BACKDAM BLOCKING 4" CONCRETE CURB CONT. METAL FLASHING PLAN SEE 3/LS.1 FOR FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLY 2 X 4 PTD. SLEEPERS TREX ENHANCE NATURALS 1" X 5.5" COMPOSITE DECKING BOARDS EASYTRIM REVEALS FIBER CEMENT TRIM SYSTEM HYDROTECH MONOLITHIC MEMBRANE 6125 WRAPS ALL EXPOSED CONC. SLAB 1" X 2" X 1/4" PLASTIC SHIMS @ 24" O.C. (IN BLACK) 6 LAP SIDING AT DECK A3.3 OG LAP SIDING DETAILS B A R S U B M I S S I O NPROT F 6 SILL DETAIL AT FRONT PATIO DOOR THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. A3.3 1 1/2" = 1' - 0" N CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 13 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 CO A3 VA VA STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA STREET EAST MAIN STREET 418CHARLOTTESVILLE, MAIN CHARLOTTESVILLE, MAIN EAST EASYTRIM REVEAL SYSTEM VARIABLE WIDTH EAST EASYTRIM REVEAL SYSTEM VARIABLE WIDTH INTERIOR CORNER TRIM INTERIOR CORNER TRIM 418418 EASYTRIM EASYTRIM REVEAL REVEAL SYSTEM SYSTEM VARIABLE VARIABLE WIDTH WIDTH INTERIOR INTERIOR CORNER CORNER TRIMTRIM 1/2" ZIP EXTERIOR SHEATHING 1/2" ZIP EXTERIOR SHEATHING ALL EXTERIOR FINISH / SIDINGS ARE ALL EXTERIOR FINISH / SIDINGS ARE 1/2" 1/2" ZIP EXTERIOR ZIP EXTERIOR SHEATHING SHEATHING INSTALLED PRIOR TO FRAMING DECKS INSTALLED PRIOR TO FRAMING DECKS MAINE DECK BRACKET INSTALLED MAINE ALL EXTERIOR ALL EXTERIORDECK FINISH / BRACKET FINISH SIDINGS INSTALLED / SIDINGS ARE ARE PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS PER PRIOR INSTALLED MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLED PRIOR TO FRAMING TO FRAMINGINSTRUCTIONS DECKSDECKS (TYP. MAINE 1DECK MAINEOF 4DECK PER INTERIOR BRACKET BRACKET DECK) INSTALLED INSTALLED (TYP. 1 OF 6 PER EXTERIOR DECK) 2 X DECK FRAMING PER STRUCTURAL 2 X DECK FRAMING PER STRUCTURAL PER MANUFACTURER'S PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS INSTRUCTIONS IS INSTALLED (CAN BE PREFABRICATED) (CAN BE PREFABRICATED) (TYP.(TYP. 1 OF14OF PER4 INTERIOR PER INTERIOR DECK) DECK) CONTACT: BOB PINEO 2 X DECK 2 X DECK FRAMING FRAMINGPER STRUCTURAL PER STRUCTURAL IS INSTALLED IS INSTALLED (CAN(CAN BE PREFABRICATED) BE PREFABRICATED) TEL:434-806-8365 CONTACT: CONTACT:BOBBOB PINEO PINEO (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com TEL:434-806-8365 TEL:434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com DECK BRACKETS ON ADJACENT WALLS 25% SCHEMATIC DESIGN 25%25% SCHEMATIC SCHEMATIC DESIGN DESIGN BAR REVIEW AND FINAL DETAIL SUBMISSION BARBAR REVIEW REVIEW AND AND FINAL FINAL DETAIL DETAIL SUBMISSION February SUBMISSION 25, 2020 February February 25, 2020 25, 2020 DECK BRACKETS ALLOW FOR FRAMING TO STAND OFF FROM EXTERIOR FINISH AND DRAINAGE DECKDECK PLANE BRACKETS TOALLOW BRACKETS BE FOR ALLOW CONTINUOUS FOR FRAMING FRAMING DEVELOPMENT TO STAND TO STAND OFF OFF FROMFROM EXTERIOR EXTERIOR FINISH FINISH ANDAND DRAINAGE PLANE DRAINAGE TO BE PLANE TOCONTINUOUS BE CONTINUOUS SEVENDEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT VIRGINIA RESIDENCES VIRGINIA CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA AVERESIDENCES VIRGINIA AVE RESIDENCES 1 STEP 1: DECK BRACKET INSTALLATION 21 STEP STEP2:1:EXTERIOR DECK BRACKET SIDINGINSTALLATION + DECK FRAMING 2 STEP 2: EX A5.1 1 1 STEP N.T.S.STEP 1: DECK 1: DECK BRACKET BRACKET INSTALLATION INSTALLATION A5.1 A5.2 2 2 STEP STEP N.T.S. N.T.S. 2: EXTERIOR 2: EXTERIOR SIDING SIDING + DECK + DECK FRAMING FRAMING A5.2 N.T.S. A5.1 A5.1 A5.1 A5.1 CHARLOTTESVILLE, N.T.S.N.T.S. N.T.S.N.T.S. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIAAVE VIRGINIA TOP OF HANDRAIL ALIGNS WITH TOP OF STEEL COLUMN; PROVIDE WELDED CAP ON HSS COLUMN OFOF SEVEN SEVEN 2" X 3 1/2" HSS TOP RAIL 3 1/2" x 2" HSS TOP RAIL 3 1/2" x 2" HSS T CITY 3 1/2" 3 1/2" x 2" HSS x 2" TOP HSS TOP RAILRAIL CITY 2" X 3 1/2" HSS TOP RAIL 2" X 3/8" STEEL STOCK @ 4" O.C. 2" X 3/8" STEEL STOCK @ 2" X 3 2"1/2" X 3 1/2" HSS TOP HSS TOP RAILRAIL 2" X 3/8" STEEL STOCK BANISTER 2" X 3/8" STEEL STOCK B 2" X 3/8" 2" X 3/8" STEELSTEEL STOCKSTOCK @ 4" @ O.C. 4" O.C. 3' 6" 3' 6" 2" X 3/8" 2" X 3/8" STEELSTEEL STOCKSTOCK BANISTER BANISTER 3' 6" 2" X 3/8" STEEL STOCK, PAINTED @ 4" O.C. MAX 2" X 3/8" 2" X 3/8" STEELSTEEL STOCK, STOCK, PAINTED PAINTED LOTT T @ 4" @ O.C. 4" O.C. MAXMAX TREX DECKING 1" X 2" STEEL L ANGLE, TYP. TJI FLOOR ASSEMBLY. S OO P 1" X 2" STEEL L RESSDSDSPINLPGLOOROR SEE SHEET LS.1 2" X 3/8" STEEL WELD STOCK, TOPAINTED C-CHANNEL TYP. TYP. TJI FLOOR TJI FLOOR ASSEMBLY. ASSEMBLY. R WELD TO C-C G 1"@X 4" 1" O.C. 2" STEEL MAX X 2" STEEL L ANGLE, L ANGLE, SEE SHEET SEE SHEET LS.1 LS.1 PRO RRERBEIDDDCIDNTIGNOGN 10" C-CHANNEL, WELDWELD 1/2" TO C-CHANNEL TO WELDED BOLTS C-CHANNEL 10" C-CHANNEL, 1/2" BOLTS G G TO BACKSIDE FOR ATTACHING TO WOOD FRAME TO BACKSIDE FOR ATTACHING TO WOOD 10" DECORATIVE C-CHANNEL ACTS AS O O O 10" C-CHANNEL, 10" C-CHANNEL,1/2" STEEL 1/2" BOLTSBOLTS WELDED WELDED PR PNORTT FTOOFNROSBRTIRRBUUIRCUTCIOTINON TREX DECKING F "SEAT" FOR RAILINGS TO BACKSIDE TO BACKSIDE FOR FOR ATTACHING ATTACHINGTO WOOD TO WOODFRAMEFRAME TREXTREX DECKING DECKING AMETCO SLOTTED HOLE SIDE STAGGERED AMETCO SLOTTED HOLE SIDE STAG PATTERN METAL PANEL, FACE SCREWED PATTERN METAL PANEL, FACE SC NOCON NO SNTST TO PTD AMETCO JOIST AMETCO WITH SLOTTEDSTAINLESS SLOTTED HOLEHOLE SIDESTEEL SIDE SCREWS STAGGERED STAGGERED TO PTD JOIST WITH STAINLESS STEEL O PATTERN PATTERN METAL METAL PANEL, PANEL, FACE FACE SCREWED SCREWED 10" DECORATIVE C-CHANNEL ACTS AS TO PTD TO JOIST PTD JOIST WITHWITH STAINLESS STAINLESS STEELSTEEL SCREWS SCREWS CC "SEAT" FOR STEEL RAILINGS A5.1 TYPICAL INTERIOR 10" DECORATIVE 10" DECORATIVEC-CHANNEL C-CHANNEL ACTSACTS AS AS DECK CONSTRUCTION "SEAT" "SEAT" FOR FOR STEELSTEEL RAILINGS RAILINGS A5.1 A5.1 TYPICAL TYPICAL INTERIOR INTERIOR DECK DECKCONSTRUCTION ISSUECONSTRUCTION DATE: February 25, 2020 A5.1 ISSUE ISSUE DATE: DATE: 3 STEP 3: DECKING AND RAILING 43 SECTION STEP 3: DECKING @ TYPICAL AND INTERIOR RAILING DECK February February 25, 2020 4 25, 2020 SECTION A5.1 A5.1 A5.1 3 3 STEP N.T.S.STEP 3: DECKING 3: DECKING AND AND RAILING RAILING A5.1 A5.2 4 4 SECTION 1" SECTION N.T.S. = 1' @ @ TYPICAL TYPICAL INTERIOR INTERIOR DECK DECK A5.2 1" = 1' A5.1 A5.1 N.T.S.N.T.S. A5.1 A5.1 1" = 1' 1" = 1' SHEET # 32 OF 53 SHEET SHEET # 32# OF 32 53 OF 53 THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. DECK CONSTRUCTION BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 14 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 SIMPSON APLH210R ROUGH CUT 2X10 CONCEALED FLANGE LIGHT JOIST HANGER - BLACK POWDER COAT OVER ZMAX SIMPSON CONCEALED FLANGE JOIST HANGER 4’ VANESSA LED STRIP LIGHT, STAGGERED 2 X 10 DOUGLAS FIR RAFTERS, STAINED TO MATCH COASTAL BLUFF TREX DECKING 12” C-CHANNEL FRAME, MITERED CORNERS, PAINTED BENJAMIN MOORE’S “BURNT EMBER” 5” X 5” HSS STEEL COLUMN (BEARS ON CONC. CURB) THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. PERGOLA CONSTRUCTION BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 15 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 11 3/4" VA VA STREET 7" 11 3/4" STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, 11 3/4" 7" CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET 3" MAIN CHARLOTTESVILLE, ALL EXTERIOR FINISH / SIDINGS ARE 7" INSTALLED PRIOR TO FRAMING DECKS 3" MAIN ALL EXTERIOR FINISH / SIDINGS ARE 2" X 2" STEEL L ANGLE INSTALLED PRIOR TO FRAMING DECKS 3" EAST ALL EXTERIOR FINISH / SIDINGS ARE 2" X 2" STEEL L ANGLE 4" INSTALLED PRIOR TO FRAMING DECKS EAST 2" X 2" STEEL L ANGLE 2" PTD WOOD SLAB STAIR TREAD 418418 4" 2" X 4" STEEL T BAR HSS STAIR / BREEZEWAY COLUMN 2" PTD WOOD SLAB STAIR TREAD 4" PER STRUCTURAL 2" PTD WOOD SLAB STAIR TREAD 2" X 4" STEEL T BAR 3 1/2" x 2" HSS TOP RAIL HSS STAIR / BREEZEWAY COLUMN 2" X 4" STEEL T BAR PER STRUCTURAL HSS STAIR / BREEZEWAY COLUMN PER STRUCTURAL CONTACT: BOB PINEO TEL:434-806-8365 2" X 3 1/2" HSS TOP RAIL CONTACT: BOB PINEO (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 2" X 3/8" STEEL STOCK @ 4" O.C. CONTACT: BOB PINEO TEL:434-806-8365 2" X 3/8" STEEL(E):bob@designdevelopllc.com TEL:434-806-8365 STOCK BANISTER 25% SCHEMATIC (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com W-FLANGE LANDING BEAM PER STRUCTURAL DESIGN 3' 6" 25% SCHEMATIC STEEL L ANGLE W-FLANGE AND T BAR LANDING BEAMTREAD SUPPORT PER STRUCTURAL DESIGN 25% SCHEMATICBAR REVIEW AND FINAL W-FLANGE LANDING BEAM PER STEEL C STRUCTURAL L ANGLE AND CHANNEL T BAR TREAD STRINGER SUPPORT PER STRUCTURAL 2" X 3/8" STEEL STOCK, PAINTED DESIGN DETAIL SUBMISSION @ 4" O.C. MAX BAR REVIEW AND FINAL BAR REVIEW AND FINALDETAIL SUBMISSION STEEL L ANGLE AND T BAR TREAD SUPPORT February 25, 2020 STEEL C CHANNEL STRINGER PER STRUCTURAL STEEL C CHANNEL STRINGER PER STRUCTURAL DETAIL SUBMISSION February 25, 2020 February 25,1"2020 X 2" STEEL L ANGLE, WELD TO C-CHANNEL DEVELOPMENT MAINE DECK BRACKETS 10" C-CHANNEL, 1/2" BOLTS WELDED ALL EXTERIOR FINISH / SIDINGS ARE SEVENDEVELOPMENT MAINEPRIOR INSTALLED DECK TOBRACKETS FRAMING DECKS TO BACKSIDE FOR ATTACHING TO WOOD FRAME SEVEN DEVELOPMENT MAINE DECK BRACKETSALL EXTERIOR FINISH / SIDINGS ARE TREX DECKING INSTALLED PRIOR TO FRAMING DECKS VIRGINIA ALL EXTERIOR FINISH / SIDINGS ARE AMETCO SLOTTED HOLE SIDE STAGGERED RESIDENCES INSTALLED PRIOR TO FRAMING DECKS PATTERN METAL PANEL, FACE SCREWED VIRGINIA TO PTD JOIST WITH STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS AVERESIDENCES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA VIRGINIA AVE RESIDENCES 2 STEP 2: STAIR STRUCTURAL STEEL + BREEZEWAY FRAMING 10" DECORATIVE C-CHANNEL ACTS AS "SEAT" FOR STEEL RAILINGS A5.4 2 STEP 2: STAIR STRUCTURAL STEEL + BREEZEWAY FRAMING N.T.S. STEP 2: STAIR A5.4 STRUCTURAL STEEL + BREEZEWAY FRAMING 2 TYPICAL RAILING CONSTRUCTION CHARLOTTESVILLE, N.T.S. A5.4 N.T.S. CHARLOTTESVILLE, 3 STEP 3: DECKING AND RAILING 4 SECTION @ TYPICAL INTERIOR DECK A5.1 N.T.S. A5.1 1" = 1' VIRGINIAAVE AMETCO SLOTTED HOLE SIDE STAGGERED PATTERN METAL PANEL, FACE SCREWED TO PTD JOIST AMETCO WITH STAINLESS SLOTTED HOLE SIDESTEEL SCREWS STAGGERED PATTERN METAL PANEL, FACE SCREWED O SLOTTED HOLETO SIDE STAGGERED PTD JOIST WITH STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS RN METAL PANEL, FACE SCREWED OIST WITH STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS VIRGINIA OFOF SEVEN CITY CITY VIEW INSIDE BREEZEWAY P LOTT GL O R ETSSS PINLGOORR ES P RSOPGFGORORERBSIIDDDDCINTIGONO GR PBIR OITN RSBTRU TION RO DND O P T FOR RNUOCTTCIFOONNSTRUC STANDARD GUARDRAIL NO NST CO CO STANDARD GUARDRAIL STANDARD GUARDRAIL A5.4 EXTERIOR STAIRS TREX DECKING A5.4 EXTERIOR STAIRS TREX DECKING A5.4 EXTERIOR STAIRS ISSUE DATE: TREX DECKING February 25, 2020 A5.4 ISSUE DATE: 3 STEP 3: FINISHED STAIRS AND RAILING February 25, 2020 A5.4A5.4 ISSUE DATE: A5.4 1 EXTERIOR STAIR SECTION 3 STEP 3: FINISHED STAIRS AND RAILING N.T.S. February 25, 2020 A5.4 EXTERIOR STAIR SECTION STEP 3: FINISHED A5.4 N.T.S.STAIRS AND RAILING VIEW UNDER PERGOLA 1/2" = 1' 3 1 A5.4 N.T.S. 1 EXTERIORA5.4 STAIR 1/2"SECTION = 1' SHEET # 35 OF 53 A5.4 1/2" = 1' SHEET # 35 OF 53 CENTRAL STAIR CONSTRUCTION SHEET # 35 OF 53 THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 16 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 DECK BRACKETS ALLOW FOR FRAMING TO STAND OFF FROM EXTERIOR FINISH AND DRAINAGE PLANE DECK BRACKETS TO BE FOR ALLOW CONTINUOUS FRAMING TO STAND OFF FROM EXTERIOR FINISH AND DRAINAGE PLANE TO BE CONTINUOUS ALL EXTERIOR FINISH / SIDINGS ARE INSTALLED PRIOR TO FRAMING DECKS ALL EXTERIOR FINISH / SIDINGS ARE INSTALLED PRIOR TO FRAMING DECKS CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET 9 RISERS DOWN @ 7" EA. 2 X DECK FRAMING PER STRUCTURAL (CAN BE PREFABRICATED) 2 X DECK FRAMING PER STRUCTURAL (CAN BE PREFABRICATED) 9 RISERS DOWN L @ 7" EA. CONTACT: BOB PINEO TEL:434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com UNIT 4 UNIT 1 25% SCHEMATIC MAINE DECK BRACKET INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS DESIGN @ 4' O.C. ALONG THIS WALL MAINE DECK BRACKET INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS DECK BRACKETS ON ADJACENT WALLS BAR REVIEW AND FINAL @ 4' O.C. ALONG THIS WALL OPEN TO PODIUM DETAIL SUBMISSION DECK BRACKETS ON ADJACENT WALLS DECK BRACKETS ON ADJACENT WALLS LEVEL BELOW February 25, 2020 SEVEN DEVELOPMENT 36' 6 1/2" 11' 4" 10' 2 1/2" 9' 5 1/2" 5' 6" CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA VIRGINIA AVE RESIDENCES 2 STEP 2: EXTERIOR SIDING + BREEZEWAY FRAMING NG A5.3 STEP 2: EXTERIOR SIDING + BREEZEWAY FRAMING N.T.S. 2 A5.3 N.T.S. 56' 5 1/2" PTD 2 X 4 FLAT FRAMED ON ELEVATOR ELEVATOR SHAFT OPEN TO PODIUM UNIT 5 LEVEL BELOW STANDARD STEEL RAILING (SEE A5.1, A5.2 FOR PROFILES) TREX DECKING ON EXTERIOR BREEZEWAY 2" X 3 1/2" HSS TOP RAIL 2" X 3 1/2" HSS TOP RAIL 2" X 3 1/2" HSS TOP RAIL TREX DECKING TREX DECKING UNIT 2 9 RISERS DOWN LOT @ 7" EA. S P RESDDING O R G PRO R BI TION 10" DECORATIVE C-CHANNEL ACTS AS 2" X 3/8" STEEL STOCK, PAINTED "SEAT" FOR STEEL RAILINGS @ 4" O.C. MAX T FO UC 2" X 3/8" STEEL STOCK, PAINTED NO ONSTR @ 4" O.C. MAX 10" DECORATIVE C-CHANNEL ACTS AS 9 RISERS DOWN @ 7" EA. C "SEAT" FOR STEEL RAILINGS 10" DECORATIVE C-CHANNEL ACTS AS "SEAT" FOR STEEL RAILINGS A5.3 EXTERIOR BREEZEWAYS ISSUE DATE: February 25, 2020 A5.3 1 EXTERIOR BREEZEWAY PLAN A5.3 3/8" = 1' UNIT 3 SHEET # 34 OF 53 3 STEP 3: DECKING AND RAILING A5.3 3 STEP 3: DECKING AND RAILING N.T.S. VIEW INSIDE BREEZEWAY A5.3 N.T.S. THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. CENTRAL BREEZEWAY CONSTRUCTION BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 17 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Label Lum. Lumens LLF [MANUFAC] Description Lum. Watts Mounting Height 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 W1 2 B 1182 1.000 Performance iN Lighting USA 076450 19 3 ft 0.0 0.0 2 D 1942 0.500 PRESCOLITE LTC-3RD-P-20L35K8XW-DM1-S-BL (.5LLF for 1000lumens) 12 7 ft AFG W1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 3.2 5.8 2.2 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 L 944 1.000 Birchwood Lighting VAN-LED-400-SLO-40-4-MW-FW 18 10 ft 4.3 B B 7 P1 5915 1.000 HUBBELL OUTDOOR SRT1-55-4K7-5C-UNV-GT 54.9 Garage ceiling 0.0 0.0 W1 8 P2 8967 1.000 Beacon Products SRT2-85-4K7-5RW-UNV 87.2 Garage ceiing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.0 7.0 15.8 6.6 13.0 3.4 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 S 6070 1.000 Performance iN Lighting USA 070445 53 10.5 ft AFG 0.1 0.0 W1 10 W1 275 1.000 Performance iN Lighting USA 071423 7 1.5 ft AFT W1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 2.6 4.2 3.5 3.8 1.7 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 W2 1399 1.000 Performance iN Lighting USA 071978 26 3 ft AFT W1 0.1 0.0 3.7 2.5 20.3 3.3 3.9 4.2 4.2 2.5 3.8 2.0 3.9 3.3 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.4 2.8 2.9 2.5 L 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 W1 4.6 5.2 5.6 5.4 2.6 4.3 2.2 4.7 4.6 3.3 4.2 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.4 4.1 3.6 3.0 Calculation Summary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min 0.5 0.8 W1 L Entry level Illuminance Fc 0.73 15.8 0.0 N.A. N.A. 8.2 9.2 9.9 9.0 6.9 6.2 6.2 7.2 7.2 6.0 5.8 6.3 6.3 6.8 5.8 3.7 6.3 6.7 5.8 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Landing_lower Illuminance Fc 8.83 20.3 2.5 3.53 8.12 0.9 1.9 W1 3.7 35.7 Landing_parking level Illuminance Fc 19.70 35.7 3.7 5.32 9.65 15.8 17.7 17.8 14.3 9.1 8.2 8.8 10.7 10.9 8.5 7.6 8.1 11.3 10.2 7.3 9.2 10.8 8.8 6.1 Landing_upper Illuminance Fc 2.85 4.3 1.4 2.04 3.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 W1 L Comments Lower site level Illuminance Fc 0.53 6.3 0.0 N.A. N.A. 1.3 3.3 6.8 14.4 30.9 P1 Parking Garage Illuminance Fc 10.35 35.5 1.3 7.96 27.31 21.3 23.0 24.3 18.9 12.2 8.6 10.3 14.1 13.2 9.4 8.1 10.5 13.5 11.7 8.2 7.6 10.6 13.1 10.3 6.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Parking Outdoor Illuminance Fc 14.25 43.4 1.5 9.50 28.93 1.5 Slanted drive_Planar Illuminance Fc 4.09 37.3 0.0 N.A. N.A. 3.9 8.5 18.9 31.3 S 24.1 26.1 19.3 P2 11.1 9.2 7.3 7.4 5.9 P2 6.3 7.5 7.0L 6.6 4.7 P2 5.1 5.8 5.7 5.4 P2 3.9 5.0 5.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 Date 1.8 4.3 9.1 20.0 32.3 P1 21.9 23.5 21.7 13.7 9.6 8.7 9.6 10.2 11.7 10.8 9.0 9.2 7.2 8.0 6.4 6.5 8.0 6.0 7.7 5.8 15.6 1.1 0.1 0.0 1.8 L # 4.3 9.3 18.0 24.5 W2 19.2 23.5 24.8 21.2 14.1 10.0 10.9 20.7 22.6 18.8 14.3 10.9 14.6 13.0 9.8 9.3 11.8 14.5 11.4 8.1 32.1 3.3 0.1 0.0 Revis 1.7 Prepared by: 8.8 18.5 26.7 P1 LIGHTING VIRGINIA CENTRAL 12.7 17.9 21.5 20.2 13.3 11.3 13.1 20.3 24.1 22.8 16.6 12.9 12.6 11.4 9.9 9.8 10.7 11.5 10.3 8.7 S 9.2 2.6 0.2 0.1 400G-2 Southlake Blvd. Richmond, VA 23236 Tel: 804-379-7777 1.6 3.4 www.lightingvirginia.com 7.7 16.6 25.0 26.5 13.4 20.3 P1 20.6 14.0 10.2 10.3 13.5 9.6 10.0 9.9 9.6 10.5 10.0 9.7 10.1 10.3 11.5 1.8 0.3 0.1 NOTES: 1.3 2.7 1. NO ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS SHALL BE MADE TO THIS PLAN WITHOUT THE 5.6 10.7 13.3 10.8 17.4 17.8 10.1 7.9 3.8 10.1 9.9 9.5 9.6 11.3 13.3 13.0 8.3 12.8 14.5 W2 PERMISSION OF LIGHTING VIRGINIA CENTRAL, ADAMS PARNELL, LLC. 37.3 4.3 0.4 0.2 2. THE OUTPUT ON THIS PHOTOMETRIC LAYOUT IS SPECIFIC TO THE MANUFACTURER AND CATALOG NUMBERS LISTED IN THE LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE. SUBSTITUTIONS OR 0.9 1.7 P2 Diana Ades DEVIATIONS FROM THIS PLAN MAY INCUR SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT RESULTS. 3.4 5.4 6.5 3.6 6.6 10.3 3.8 2.3 3.9 2.6 7.0 10.5 9.1 6.9 17.2 14.6 7.7 14.9 18.5 14.1 ANY SUBSTITUTIONS MUST RECEIVE ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT APPROVAL. REVIEW 4.0 0.6 0.4 COSTS, REWORKED PHOTOMETRIC LAYOUTS, PRODUCT SUBMITTALS AND A FULL SET OF ITL REPORTS WILL SOLELY BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY CONTRACTING FIRM MAKING A SUBSTITUTION, AND MUST COMPLY WITH DESIGN CRITERIA AND WITH ANY 0.6 1.3 1.9 3.1 3.2 2.1 APPLICABLE JURISDICTIONAL CODES. 3.8 1.3 4.1 6.3 9.9 18.3 18.9 16.9 14.4 15.2 14.7 9.7 15.0 16.5 8.6 2.6 1.1 0.9 3. SITE DETAILS PROVIDED HEREON ARE REPRODUCED ONLY AS A VISUALIZATION AID. P1 FIELD DEVIATIONS MAY SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT PREDICTED PERFORMANCE. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, CRITICAL SITE INFORMATION (POLE LOCATIONS, ORIENTATION, 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.5 MOUNTING HEIGHT, ETC.) SHOULD BE COORDINATED WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR 1.5 5.3 1.4 7.8 8.6 10.7 19.6 20.7 18.0 13.7 13.2 13.1 12.6 14.4 14.6 34.0 SPECIFIER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROJECT. Checked By: W2 5.8 3.1 1.9 D Drawn By: 4. LUMINAIRE DATA IS TESTED TO INDUSTRY STANDARDS UNDER LABORATORY CONDITIONS AND SUPPLIED BY OTHERS TO LIGHTING VIRGINIA. OPERATING VOLTAGE 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 AND NORMAL MANUFACTURING TOLERANCES OF LAMP, BALLAST, AND LUMINAIRE 14.9 7.2 10.4 10.7 10.0 12.5 18.5 20.4 17.6 10.6 12.7 14.8 18.2 19.4 18.9 24.9 MAY AFFECT FIELD RESULTS. 12.5 5.7 3.2 5. CONFORMANCE TO FACILITY CODE AND OTHER LOCAL REQUIREMENTS IS THE D RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER AND/OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.9 19.2 5.1 8.2 13.3 12.8 9.8 9.7 14.3 18.2 15.7 11.7 11.9 16.3 24.4 27.0 25.0 24.7 14.8 7.8 4.0 6. CHECK GRAPHIC SCALE. DOCUMENTS PRINTED OR PLOTTED FROM ELECTRONIC P1 FILES MAY OCCUR AT OTHER THAN THE DESIRED OR ASSUMED GRAPHIC SCALES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RECIPIENT TO VERIFY THAT THE PRINTED OR PLOTTED-TO-SCALE DRAWING IS PRINTED TO SCALE. 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.4 2.1 1.0 0.4 2.7 5.0 4.1 P2 4.9 6.4 6.6 7.7 6.3 P2 7.6 7.6 9.0 11.9 16.7 25.9 30.4 31.6 22.0 12.3 5.4 P2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.6 1.2 0.5 FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE FULL Virginia Ave. Residence S 4.5 4.5 5.8 6.2 5.7 7.4 5.9 7.5 7.6 8.5 12.4 17.2 27.3 35.5 43.4 30.6 15.5 6.5 P1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.4 10.8 12.7 9.3 7.1 9.210.5 14.3 12.1 9.3 10.1 15.3 23.6 26.3 29.6 37.7 27.9 15.9 6.9 2.9 1.3 0.5 EXTERIOR LIGHTING SUBMITTAL PACKAGE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 9.5 7.5 7.3 11.5 15.5 16.9 18.1 27.0 22.2 14.9 6.8 2.8 1.3 0.5 (SUBMITTED DIGITALLY) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.0 3.7 5.6 6.3 5.3 4.8 2.7 1.2 0.5 5.3 6.1 5.7 3.9 5.8 6.2 8.3 8.6 7.7 24.9 S 24.8 14.4 6.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.8 1.4 2.2 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.4 1.0 0.5 3.4 3.7 3.1 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.1 4.5 4.1 21.4 19.5 12.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.1 1.8 0.8 0.4 2.9 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.3 8.9 9.4 7.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.4 0.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 4.3 4.8 3.8 2.1 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.9 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 Scale: 1 inch= 8 Ft. THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. EXTERIOR LIGHTING BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 18 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 EXTERIOR SCONCES LED STRIP FIXTURE IN PERGOLA SURFACE MOUNTED GARAGE FIXTURE WALL PACK FIXTURE AT STAIRS / DRIVE AISLE PRESCOLITE LITEISTRY 3” CYLINDER / 12” TALL BIRCHWOOD LIGHTING VANESSA BEACON DRIVE SRT2 PERFORMANCE IN LIGHTING SHIELD+2 TYPE III THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. EXTERIOR LIGHTING BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 19 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 ROOF ACCESS HATCH ELEVATOR OVERRUN UNITS INTERNALLY LOCATED AND NOT VISIBLE. ROOF DRAINS UNITS INTERNALLY LOCATED AND NOT VISIBLE. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE ROOF PLAN, SHEET A1.5. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM PEDESTRIAN PERSPECTIVE THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. MECHANICAL UNITS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 20 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 EXHAUST VENTS HAVE BEEN THOUGHTFULLY PLACED AND CONCEALED WHERE POSSIBLE. SEE A4.X SERIES FOR MECHANICAL DIAGRAMS AND 2.X SERIES FOR EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. VENTING LOCATIONS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 21 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. FRONT PERSPECTIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. SIDE PERSPECTIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 23 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. REAR PERSPECTIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 24 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. SIDE PERSPECTIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 25 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 (5) LONDON PLANE TREE (PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA) SEE NEXT SHEET FOR FRONT COURTYARD PLANTING PROPOSED STAIRS (4) SERVICEBERRY TREES (AMELANCHIER CANADENSIS) ENHANCED SWALE PLANTINGS: - BLACKHAW VIBURNAM (VIBURNUM PRUNIFOLIUM) -RED TWIG DOGWOOD (CONUS SERICEA) -SERVICEBEERY BUSH (AMELANCHIER ARBOREA) - SWITCH GRASSES (PANICUM VIRGATUM) (2) RIVER BIRCH (BETULA NIGRA) THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 26 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 STAIR AND PLANTING BED REAR SCREENING FRONT COURTYARD OAKLEAF HYDRANGEA @ 5’ O.C. (HYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA) FREESTANDING CONCRETE BENCHES OAKLEAF HYDRANGEA @ 5’ O.C. (HYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA) LAWN CREEPING LIRIOPE UNDER SERVICEBERRY TREES (LIRIOPE SPICATA) THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. LANDSCAPE RENDERINGS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 27 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 VIRGINIA AVE. LANSCAPE CONCEPT 25 | FEBRUARY | 2020 “FRONT YARD” PRECEDENTS DECKING AT FRONT YARD PRECEDENT MOVABLE BENCHES PAVING/DECKING PRECEDENTS LANDSCAPE PRECEDENTS VIRGINIA AVE. B A R S ULANSCAPE B M I SCONCEPT SION THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. 25 | FEBRUARY | 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 2 28 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 PLANTING PRECEDENTS PLANTING PRECEDENTS LANDSCAPE PRECEDENTS BAR SUBM VIRGINIA AVE. I S S CONCEPT ION THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. LANSCAPE 25 | FEBRUARY | 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 29 4 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 PLANTER AT STAIRS FRONT COURTYARD THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. PLANTING SELECTIONS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 30 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 ENHANCED SWALE PLANTINGS / REAR SCREENING THE RESIDENCES AT VIRGINIA AVE. PLANTING SELECTIONS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 31 FEBRUARY 25, 2019 ATTACHMENT D: 416-418 WEST MAIN STREET STAFF REPORT AND APPLICATION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT June 16, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-06-01 416-418 West Main Street Tax Parcel 290012000 A. Cadgene & G. Silverman, Trustees Main Street LD TR, Owner Greg Jackson New roof and fenestration Background Year Built: 1941 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing In 1929, the parcel appears on a Sanborn map as the site of the R.F. Harris & Co. Machine Shop and Foundry, with a foundry building and several sheds. In the 1950 Sanborn map, the footprint of the current building appears and is identified as “Auto Sales and Service.” The building retains much of its original commercial character when it was constructed as a car dealership, showroom, and sales lot. Prior BAR Reviews January 17, 2017 - At the applicant’s request for a decision rather than deferral, despite the BAR’s encouragement for the application to request a deferral, the BAR denied (6-0) the applicant’s request for a new roof addition, specifically because the hip roof was not compatible with the historic building and the historic district. July 18, 2017 – The BAR approved (4-2, Gastinger and Schwarz opposed) the applicant’s request for a new roof addition, with the stipulation that the applicant submit color renderings for the BAR to approve, prior to the COA being issued. Application Applicant Submitted:  TOPIA design submittal, dated February 25, 2020 o CoA Application [page 1 of PDF] o Project history and description, dated March 25, 2020 [page 2 of PDF] 416-418 West Main Street (June 5, 2020) 1 o Photos of site and existing building [pages 3 – 7 of PDF] o Models of proposed new roof and clerestory [pages 8 – 17 of PDF] o Elevations, sections and plan of proposed new roof and clerestory [pages 18-20 of PDF] o Renderings of proposed project, with previously proposed and new color schemes [pages 21-22 of PDF] o Specifications sheet of materials, colors, and gutters for proposed project [page 23 of PDF] This application is a resubmission from a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness, approved in July 2017. An extension to the CoA was granted, but it still expired in January 2020, before a building permit was issued. The applicant proposes replacing the existing flat roof and roof monitors with a new sloped roof and new windows. Discussion This project was previously reviewed and approved by the BAR in July 2017, but the CoA expired in January 2020.The applicant has resubmitted the project for a new CoA. Staff attached minutes from the BAR’s 2017 discussion of the project at the end of this staff report. Because the BAR previously approved this project, staff recommends approval. Suggested Motions Approval: 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 new roof and fenestration alterations satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted (or with the following modifications…). ...as submitted and with the following modifications/conditions:... Denial: 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 new roof and fenestration alterations do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted:… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and 416-418 West Main Street (June 5, 2020) 2 (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design and Elements G. ROOF Roof design, materials, and textures should be consistent with the existing structures in the historic districts. Common roof forms include hipped roofs, gable roofs, flat roofs, and gambrel roofs, as well as combinations of the above. In general, the roof pitch of an older dwelling is steeper than a new tract house, and this factor is more important that the type of roof in most neighborhoods. 1. Roof Forms and Pitches a. The roof design of new downtown or West Main Street commercial infill buildings generally should be flat or sloped behind a parapet wall. b. Neighborhood transitional buildings should use roof forms that relate to the neighboring residential forms instead of the flat or sloping commercial form. c. Institutional buildings that are freestanding may have a gable or hipped roof with variations. d. Large-scale, multi-lot buildings should have a varied roof line to break up the mass of the design using gable and/or hipped forms. e. Shallow pitched roofs and flat roofs may be appropriate in historic residential areas on a contemporary designed building. f. Do not use mansard-type roofs on commercial buildings; they were not used historically in Charlottesville’s downtown area, nor are they appropriate on West Main Street. I. WINDOWS AND DOORS 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a) The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. 416-418 West Main Street (June 5, 2020) 3 b) In the West Main Street corridor in particular, new buildings should reinforce this traditional proportion. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a) The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. b) Glass storefronts would generally have more horizontal proportions than upper floor openings. 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. Discussion Minutes from July 18, 2017 Meeting Greg Jackson: We honed in on the third option, with a Dutch shed roof form. We modified it per the comments we heard, streamlining it, giving it more fenestrations giving it a horizontal element, lowering the roof. The North side does benefit from that additional shade element because it gets a lot of morning sun. Questions by the Public No questions from the public. Questions by the Board: Schwarz: What is the purpose of the verticals on the outside, they seem to overlap the underside of the gutter? Jackson: They’re part of articulating the façade in a since. To shade it and break it up a little bit. It also helps to support the horizontal shade element as well. Balut: The medium grey will be the column covers? Jackson: The windows will be a bronze, similar to the roof. But the rest are basically in medium to light grey family. Gastinger: Could you explain a little bit the treatment of the cornice or the wall cap of the existing structure? It seems to be rendered in white like the new structure. 416-418 West Main Street (June 5, 2020) 4 Jackson: There is an existing metal cap that we will replace with the same material language as the addition. The lights are currently off, but we would move them to a pattern that fits better. We looked at the existing steel windows, the division of the clearstory and the monitorare thinner elements than before as well as more frequent, we followed the same nine square pattern in a sense, to work with that type of reference. Schwaz: What was the inspiration for the medium grey? Jackson: To keep it simple and neutral and let the building be the color; a grey works in the family of the existing colors. We want the addition to stay in simple colors. Balut: There windows look like a 3 over 3 pattern, not a nine square. Jackson: That is correct. You can see a reference there in the side elevation. Comments from the Public No comments from the public. Comments from the Board: Schwarz: You have worked really hard on this, and you’ve been working a lot with us. But I still feel like it’s the basic massing that is a problem. I don’t think it fits within our massing guidelines and I think the addition is foreign to everything that’s there. You are adding a whole set of features that aren’t already there. Maybe there is a different form that can do the job simply. A lot of this seems to be decorating away that original form. Gastinger: I have some concerns; I don’t have an issue with the roof or detailing but the relationship of the proposed structure to the existing façade. It almost neuters it as a historic structure. There are several guidelines that speak exactly to this situation, both in additions and rehabilitations. There are specific recommendations related to how to add a new story to a building. Because the addition stretches the volume of the building, that is what I find problematic. Balut: I feel that the proposed design is compatible with the guidelines. The original volume of the building is not being touched and it is still identifiable. The addition on top is different enough to meet the Secretary of Interior Standards. It is utilitarian in aesthetic and use, the vaults lend to the utilitarian logic. The fact that the building is being preserved, the cap is intact, and the details are utilitarian (like the mullions on the windows) addresses all of the concerns we have raised as a board. I feel like it is appropriate, it’s funky and utilitarian and overall compatible with the site. Sarafin: I think it has evolved nicely. I think a lot of the issues I had previously have been addressed with the fenestration and the lowered roof. But I do take Brecks point about whether this addition comes from the roof. But as a roof addition element you have addressed our concerns. Graves: I don’t have a problem based on our guidelines, the only issue I have is that the building looks like it’s been chopped off and it is hard to add a roof addition. I support the addition but I am struggling with some of the issues my colleagues brought up. Miller: I wonder is changing the colors would help the addition recede back from the facade. I do think this is much more successful than the first couple iterations. Sarafin: I wonder if making it really dark would help. Balut: I agree, right now you have bronze windows. I would make the columns dark bronze as well, and it’ll make it recede more and give it a more factory look. I don’t know if the new coping would have to be dark as well. Gastinger: My concerns on the massing still remain. But I do think a different color would help a lot. 416-418 West Main Street (June 5, 2020) 5 Miller: Is this something he could get approved and submit the color change administratively? Schwarz: Are you planning to keep the utilities on the side of the building? They’re kind of a work of art. Motion: Balut 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 new roof addition satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application, with the stipulation that the applicant submit color renderings of the proposed design in the most realistic possible fashion, for the BAR to review and approve [to be circulated via e-mail], prior to the COA being issued. [The BAR recommends a darker color for than the light grey.] Graves seconded. Motion approved (4-2, with Gastinger and Schwarz opposed). 416-418 West Main Street (June 5, 2020) 6 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application fonn and all attachments. Please Include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name aih 5:f:reet: A:ssoci at.es Applicant Name�:...:::.::t==:��::__:�������-- Project Name/Description L".Ja in Street tfark& Parcel Number � q 00/2QOQ_ Project Property Address \..f l'i- Y I8 (u. tla i b_ Applicant Information Signature of Applicant 6 2 b B ·*( N:h?t::i A-Ve . I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the ¾�' r) Address: bestofm �� Email: j) A- e-(•qM0d co�€-¼ag � -z/2S)ZY) Phone: (W) _____ (C)<\= "j 7h3 Signature I Datel Property Owner Information (If not applicant) GRE-0 s\A, eJ <.&>N z(zs/ 20 Print Name D�te U fl±. , . Property Owner Pennlsslon CH not applicant) Address: 2.088 o ion 5<, i::le l I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Son Ernnclsco, GA 1'ffl-"3 Email: aUanma,\lroarf com Phone: (W) ______ (C) 415'- Y '15:: 25'0I �A � Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits At,.� £t. C,.r:t1�"""_ 21 z.0 I z.o�:0 for this project? __________ Print Name date • DeacriptbT-�f Proposed Work/attach separate narrative If necessary): i{Ji::i.U � �t) f"tz< �5'ThktlOC\ Ust All Attachments (see reverse side for submlttal requirements): For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: ___________ Date: _______________ Fee paid: ____Cash/Ck. # ____ Conditions of approval: __________ Date Received: __________ Revised 2016 PROJECT BRIEF This BAR application is a resubmission from a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness that has expired. The original approval occurred on June 9, 2017 and a one year extension was granted. The drawing set was submitted for a building permit before the extension’s January 18, 2020 deadline but a building permit has not been issued by the deadline, as provided in the code. The original approval had a stipulation for a more accurate color rendering and a recommendation for darker colors, to be circulated via email. This resubmission addresses those requests. The project is the replacement of an existing flat roof and 4 small roof monitors with a new sloped roof and windows to the existing building at 416-418 W. Main Street. The objective is to raise the ceiling/roof of the second floor suite for a more habitable and interesting space and to gain daylight and views. Architectural form and language is influenced by the existing building and complex, site context, market building vernacular, and new functionality. The design intent is to maintain and enhance the character of the existing building while improving and upgrading the overall function and form of the building, site and district. The new construction is separate and additive in materials and expression yet connected and continuous in overall form, function and general architectural language -to accentuate and improve the existing building. It is intended to be differentiated yet compatible and complimentary. Above the existing parapet masonry wall is new 3’-6” tall perimeter clerestory of thin stile aluminum windows with vertical divisions that reduce the scale and relate to the existing building fenestration rhythm. Horizontal and vertical aluminum fins in the clerestory shade and reflect light while further articulating the facade. The vertical fins align with the new structure’s column and metal truss rhythm while the horizontal fin is centered horizontally yet intermittent and non symmetrical vertically for daylight tuning and aesthetic variation. The roof form is a modified dutch hip with the south slope extending beyond the ridge in a shed profile that creates a north facing light monitor. It is standing seam metal with narrow ridge profiles. The monitor fenestration is aluminum framed windows with 3 over 3 lites that relate to the existing second floor windows. The monitor triangular side panels are insulated metal panels. The roof enhances the front building status. The existing gray metal parapet cap is replaced with new aluminum coping that matches and relates to the new box gutter/eave above, which conceals sloped gutters. The colors are neutral with medium to dark shades. The windows and roof are dark bronze/brown, the coping, eave, trim and monitor side panels are medium/dark cool gray, and the fins are medium/light warm gray. The existing exterior light fixtures work well aesthetically and functionally. The new construction moves the fixture attachment directly to the building and is aligned with the rhythm of the new structure. They are replaced with similar styled yet durable and efficient LED fixtures. The light will have a similar warm low glow that is directed towards the building without direct glare. 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY ORIENTATION TOPIA design 3.25.2020 /1//22 VIEW WEST FROM W. MAIN STREET VIEW SOUTH WEST FROM EAST ENTRANCE 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY CONTEXT TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 2 VIEW EAST FROM W. MAIN STREET VIEW SOUTHEAST FROM WEST ENTRANCE 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY CONTEXT TOPIA design 3.25.2020 /3//22 VIEW OF NORTH ELEVATION FROM EAST 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY EXISTING TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 4 VIEW OF NORTHWEST CORNER 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY EXISTING TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 5 NORTHWEST AT 100’ 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY EXISTING TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 6 NORTHWEST AT 100’ 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 7 NORTHEAST AT 100’ HIGH 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 8 NORTHWEST AT 100’ HIGH 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 9 NORTHEAST AT 20’ HIGH 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 10 NORTHWEST AT 20’ HIGH 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 11 NORTHEAST AT 6’ HIGH 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 12 NORTHWEST AT 6’ HIGH 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 13 NORTH AT 20’ HIGH 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 14 NORTH AT 6’ HIGH 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 15 NORTH ELEVATION ROOF PLAN 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ELEVATION & ROOF PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 16 ROOF EAVE LIGHT MONITOR VERTICAL FIN STANDING SEAM CONCEALED GUTTER METAL BOX EAVE CLERESTORY WINDOW HORIZONTAL FIN VERTICAL FIN METAL WRAPPED COPING LIGHT FIXTURES NORTH ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 2' 4' 8' NEW EXIST EAST SECTION WEST SECTION 2 3 0 2' 4' 8' 0 2' 4' 8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 ELEVATIONS 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 17 EQUAL DISTANCE BAYS NORTH W. MAIN STREET 5 4 91'-5" 1 A-301 A-301 A-200 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 1/2" WEST EAST 8'-3 1/4" 8'-3 1/4" 4" X 4" METAL COLUMN CLERESTORY WINDOW HORIZONTAL SHADE FIN VERTICAL SHADE FIN 2 2 A-300 METAL TRUSS ON COLUMN A-300 24'-10" 8'-3 1/4" DIAGONAL TRUSS BRACING 8'-3 1/4" 24'-10" CEILING FAN/LIGHT 2 A-200 HVAC DUCT 3 A-200 8'-3 1/4" 8'-3 1/4" 11'-4 1/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 8'-3 3/4" 6'-8 1/4" 1 92'-9 3/4" A-301 A,B,C A-102 SOUTH CLERESTORY AND FRAMING PLAN 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 2' 4' 8' METAL TRUSS ON COLUMN TOP CAP 6 1/2" X 7" X 3/4" METAL CAP FRAMED HEADER 4" X 4" X 1/4" METAL COLUMN FRAMED WALL INSULATION & 5/8" FIRE ALUMINUM WINDOW RATED SHEETROCK FOAM INSULATION IN CAVITY FOAM INSULATION IN CAVITY 3/4" PLYWOOD COLUMN BOLTED TO 2" X 6" NAILER, METAL WRAPPED MASONRY WALL, SEE LVL FASCIA BAND BOARD, STRUCTURAL METAL WRAPPED OPEN AIR GAP BETWEEN CONCEALED GUTTER SHADE FINS & WINDOWS METAL BOX EAVE ALUMINUM VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SHADE FINS FRAMED COPING METAL WRAPPED DETAIL PLAN AT WALL 0'-8' AFF DETAIL PLAN AT WINDOW 9'-12' AFF DETAIL PLAN AT TRUSS 12'-6" AFF A SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" 0 3'' 6'' 9'' B SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" 0 3'' 6'' 9'' C SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" 0 3'' 6'' 9'' PLANS 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 18 SOUTH NORTH FRAMED FASCIA 9" AND SOFFIT METAL WRAPPED 5" 1' 7' D FRAMED WALL METAL WRAPPED 2' ALUMINUM VERTICAL SHADE FINS ALUMINUM WINDOW STANDING SEAM ROOF COLOR: BRONZE UNDERLAYMENT SIP - STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANEL 3' DRIP EDGE 1' COLOR: BRONZE 2" X 8" NAILER CONCEALED GUTTER METAL BOX EAVE 10" COLOR: MEDIUM GREY LVL FASCIA BAND BOARD METAL COLUMN CAP 3" 4" X 4" METAL COLUMN ALUMINUM VERTICAL AND 3'-3" HORIZONTAL SHADE FINS COLOR: WARM GREY C FRAMED WALL METAL WRAPED COLOR: BRONZE ALUMINUM WINDOW COLOR: BRONZE NEW FRAMED COPING EXIST 8" 7" METAL WRAPPED COLOR: MEDIUM GREY BUILT UP MASONRY WALL ON SOUTH ELEVATION TO MATCH EXISTING HEIGHT LIGHT FIXTURE 2' EAST SECTION 1 0 1' 2' 3' SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" STANDING SEAM ROOF UNDERLAYMENT 10" 1 3/4" SIP - STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANEL 2,3 A-301 DRIP EDGE ~2" METAL BOX EAVE ~1' - 3" 10" CONCEALED GUTTER B ~10' NAILER FOR SIP & CEILING FRAMED HEADER ~3" LVL FASCIA BAND BOARD METAL WRAP 3/4" PLYWOOD 1'- 5" 6 1/2" X 7" X 3/4" METAL CAP NEW 8" 4" X 4" X 1/4" METAL COLUMN 1 3/4" 4 1/2" EXIST METAL WRAPPED NAILER 2" METAL TRUSS ON COLUMNS 3' ALUMINUM HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SHADE FINS 6" 4" 1'- 5" GLAZING 2 1/4" 1 3/4" 1 OPEN AIR GAP BETWEEN A-301 SHADE FINS & WINDOW ALUMINUM WINDOW ~7" ~3" FRAMED WALL 20' ~10" METAL WRAPPED FRAMED COPING METAL WRAPPED ~2" COLUMN BOLTED TO WALL, SEE STRUCTURAL BUILT UP MASONRY WALL ON SOUTH ELEVATION TO A MATCH EXISTING HEIGHT FOAM INSULATION IN CAVITY FRAMED WALL INSULATION & 5/8" FIRE RATED SHEETROCK SECTION @ COLUMN SECTION @ WINDOW EAST SECTION WEST SECTION 2 5 0 2' 4' 8' SCALE: 1" 0 6'' = 1' 1'-0" 2' 3 SCALE: 1" 0 6'' = 1' 1'-0" 2' 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 2' 4' 8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 SECTIONS 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 19 NORTH AT 6’ HIGH, PREVIOUS COLORS 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 20 NORTH AT 6’ HIGH, CURRENT COLORS 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY PROPOSED TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 21 bronze/brown metal standing seam roof, flashing, drip edge Dark Brown 859 medium/dark grey box eave, coping, metal wrap, and insulated metal panels RAL 7012 Basalt Grey medium/light warm insulated metal panels on ends grey horizontal and of roof monitor vertical shade fin metal trusses and columns at 8’-3” o.c. set inside existing RAL 9006 White Aluminum masonry wall, metal wrapped 3 bay narrow stile metal windows with a vertical frame dark bronze anodized centered between columns finish window frame level perimeter box eave/gutter cover 10”h x 10”d medium/dark grey with SIPs structural panels internal/concealed gutter sloped to spanning between trusses downspouts at south corners Dark Bronze anodize t&g wood deck ceiling 416-418 W. MAIN ST. ROOF & CLERESTORY MATERIALS TOPIA design 3.25.2020 / //22 22 ATTACHMENT E: 525 RIDGE STREET STAFF REPORT AND APPLICATION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT June 16, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-06-02 525 Ridge Street Tax Parcel 290147000 Ridge Street Plaza LLC, Owner Stephen von Storch, Applicant Revised landscape wall material Background Year Built: Under construction District: Ridge Street ADC District Status: Non-contributing Four two-story dwellings were historically situated along Ridge Street, just north of present-day intersection with Cherry Avenue. These houses were constructed before 1907, according to Sanborn Maps, but were demolished in the second half of the twentieth century, when Ridge Street was widened and rerouted to lead into 5th Street SW. After the houses were demolished, the intersection remained a wooded empty lot. Prior BAR Reviews July 18, 2016 – The BAR held a work session on William Taylor Plaza Phase 2 along Ridge Street. October 18, 2016 – BAR moved (5-3, Balut, Miller and Earnst opposed) to approve the massing and scale only of new residential building. This was not a COA. December 20, 2016 – BAR approved (6-2, Balut and Miller opposed) CoA for elevations, colors, materials, and product specifications for new residential building. January 17, 2017 – BAR approves (5-0) the landscape plan, requesting that the applicant submit a final plan with a tree list, lighting fixtures, and Corten Wall details for administrative approval. The BAR also requested an updated Phase I site plan to match the Phase II landscape plan in the area of the plaza. 525 Ridge Street (June 5, 2020) 1 Application Applicant Submitted:  Stoneking / von Storch Architects submittal, dated March 12, 2020 o CoA Application [page 1 of PDF] o Application letter with summary of proposed changes, dated March 12, 2020 [page 2 of PDF] o Renderings of approved design, including previously approved steel wall, dated November 29, 2016 [page 3 of PDF] o Photo of typical city street wall in the proximity [page 4 of PDF] o Rendering of building with proposed concrete design [page 5 of PDF] o Section detail of the proposed wall and recessed walkway light, dated January 23, 2020 [page 6 of PDF] CoA request for modifications to the street curb/wall approved with the revised landscape plan in March 2017. Proposed modifications are summarized in the Discussion. Note: On Page 2 of the applicant’s submittal is a summary of the changes with references to the pages that illustrate the proposed change. Discussion The BAR previously approved a Corten steel wall to enclose planters by the entrance of the new building. The applicant now proposes the street wall to be constructed of formed-in-place concrete, similar to retaining walls found on adjacent properties along Ridge Street. Staff finds the proposed concrete wall appropriate to the ADC and recommends approval. Suggested Motions Approval: 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 concrete wall satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Ridge Street ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted (or with the following modifications…). ...as submitted and with the following modifications/conditions:... Denial: 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 concrete wall does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Ridge Street ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted:… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 525 Ridge Street (June 5, 2020) 2 (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design and Elements C. Walls and Fences There is a great variety of fences and low retaining walls in Charlottesville’s historic districts, particularly the historically residential areas. While most rear yards and many side yards have some combination of fencing and landscaped screening, the use of such features in front yards varies. Materials may relate to materials used on the structures on the site and may include brick, stone, wrought iron, wood pickets, or concrete. 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought-iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. 525 Ridge Street (June 5, 2020) 3 0122134637289233 3 EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL CITY STREET WALL: This wall is the closest property to the site with a street wall. One address north of the site. Proposed wall will be ‘city mix’ concrete with corners champfered as shown here. The finish wil be hand rubbed to remove formwork lines and render a consistent sand finish.