CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting August 18, 2020 – 5:30 p.m. Remote meeting via Zoom Packet Guide This is not the agenda. Please click each agenda item below to link directly to the corresponding staff report and application. B. Consent Agenda 1. June 6, 2020 BAR Meeting Minutes 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-08-01 401 Ridge Street Tax Parcel 290273000 Owner/Applicant: Andrew Jenkins New fence 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-07-07 422 1st Street North Tax Parcel 330100000 Owner: NONCE, LLC Applicant: Julie Kline Dixon, Rosney Co. Architects Exterior alterations and addition 4. Submission for BAR Record BAR 18-07-04 0 East Water Street Tax Parcel 570157800 Owner: Choco-Cruz, LLC Applicant: Ashley Davies Interpretive signage and lighting for coal tower C. Deferred Items 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 17-11-02 167 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel: 090126000 Owner: Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp. Applicant: Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, LLC Exterior alterations and addition BAR Packet Guide August 18, 2020 1 D. New Items 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-08-02 854 Locust Avenue Tax Parcel 510092000 Owners: Kaitlyn and Alan Taylor Applicant: Ashley Davies Garage demolition E. Preliminary Discussion 7. 128 Chancellor Street, Tax Parcel 090105000 Exterior alterations and addition D. Other Business 9. Belmont Bridge Update 10. Staff questions/discussion Letter for Burley School NRHP Nomination Review of multi-step approval process E. Adjournment BAR Packet Guide August 18, 2020 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting June 16, 2020 – 5:30 p.m. Zoom Webinar Welcome to the June 16, 2020 Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public 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. [Times noted below are rough estimates only.] Members Present: Mr. Lahendro, Mr. Mohr, Mr. Schwarz, Mr. Zehmer, Mr. Gastinger, Ms. Lengel, Mr. Bailey Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Jeffery Werner, Joe Rice, Missy Creasy, Alex Ikefuna Pre-Meeting: There was a brief description over the selection of the new Chair and Vice-Chair. There was also a discussion regarding attendance at the PLACE meetings. Staff did go over the logistics and planning of the Zoom features for the meeting. A. Election of Chair and Co-Chair Mr. Mohr made the motion to elect Mr. Schwarz and Mr. Gastinger as Chair and Vice- Chair. (Motion was seconded by Mr. Lahendro. Motion passed 7-0) Mr. Schwarz was elected as Chair and Mr. Gastinger was elected as Co-Chair B. Matters from the public not on the agenda None C. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. Minutes February 19, 2020 Regular Meeting. (March, April, and May meetings were canceled.) Motion made by Mr. Gastinger to approve the consent agenda. (Motion seconded by Mr. Mohr). Motion passed 7-0. 1 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 D. Action Items 1. 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 Jeff Werner, Staff Report - Year Built: 1980 District: Rugby Road-University Circle- Venable Neighborhood ADC District Status: Non-contributing. BAR approved CoA (8-1, Lahendro opposed) for renovation of existing building. CoA request for modifications to the design approved in September, 2019. They are: Replace the brick veneer on concrete retaining wall with painted stamped brick formwork, Reduce height of Dining Terrace site wall adjacent to the parking space to 4’ in lieu of 5’, Replace concrete pavers with scored concrete at dining terrace, Replace the bluestone pavers in the sunken front yard along the site wall with grass, Replace the bluestone paver walkway with crushed stone in North side yard; Porch to remain as bluestone, Pave all parking spaces with asphalt in lieu of concrete, Removal of (10) L-2 step light fixtures, Delete the pergola over the lower side terrace, Delete/defer pergola over Kappa beach, Proposed as an add alternate to retain, Delete (2) sets of shutters from West elevation (back of building), Delete (2) sets of shutters from North elevation (side of building), Modify South facing window wall to raise sill of windows at 2nd floor lounge, Substitute asphalt shingles for standing seam metal roof, Proposed as an add alternate to revert back, Add window at House Director unit entry porch on front East elevation, Add mechanical louver, required for ventilation, under overhang at rear West elevation, and At Parlor terrace, replace low wall at the railing. Staff didn’t have any issues. The Design Guidelines discourage but do not prohibit use asphalt shingles. The shingles are dark in texture, which is consistent with the Design Guidelines. Staff is recommending approval of these requested revisions. Erin Hannegan, Mitchell Matthews Architects, Applicant – Like most projects these days, we are facing budget issues. We have attempted to address our budget issues with some changes that we don’t feel modify the overall intent of the project. It doesn’t change it significantly enough to go against the guidelines. The minor changes that we are asking for can be discussed. I heard staff mention that you would want to discuss the shutters. The thinking behind the shutters is that the West and North elevations are really part of the addition. Most buildings on the street only carry shutters on the front façade. If they do carry shutters on more than one space, it might be the front. The majority of the buildings are missing shutters on the other faces. That goes for the contributing properties within the larger district as well as the University Circle sub-district. The 16th item that we didn’t list on this sheet was about the wall being replaced with a railing. We actually ended up going back to the wall instead of the railing. That one can be stricken from the list. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD 2 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 Mr. Schwarz - I do have a question about replacing the brick veneer on the concrete retaining wall. That was intended to be a white brick? Ms. Hannegan – That’s correct. Mr. Schwarz – You’re not going to be painting red brick against concrete? Mary Wolf, Applicant – The first six items relate to our work. The idea is to paint the stamped brick white like the rest of the house. There would be a brick coping on top of the wall that would be real brick. That would be painted as well. Previously, it was a painted brick wall. Ms. Hannegan – To clarify, it was a painted brick wall in the previous proposal. We have changed it to a stamped concrete wall still painted. Mr. Gastinger – Can you describe a little bit more about the extent of that wall? There is also a low wall in the front yard. Ms. Wolf – If you look at number one on this list page, on the north side of the building, along the property line, it extends from a brick pier at the end of the front terrace. It goes over to the property line. It goes all of the way down to the area labeled bike/walkers. Where it butts into the pier, it’s very low. You would see the top of it there. That would be a natural brick cap. When it returns to the property line, it starts to get higher. It steps down midway. There are planters at number 5. That is one elevation. You go further down the property line, it stops. The wall is about, at its highest, is about 6 to 7 feet high range on the north side of the house. Ms. Hannegan – We’re not changing the elevation of the wall from the previous proposal. It’s just the material. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – In some cases, we might be concerned about stamped concrete. In this case, I am satisfied that it’s in the back of the house. It’s not going to be as visible because of the painting. It’s going to be hard to distinguish from some of the other materials on site. Mr. Schwarz – I agree because this was a white painted brick. If it was a red brick, I would have had a problem with it. As it is, I have no issue. Reducing the height of the dining terrace site wall adjacent to 4 feet from 5 feet: Does anybody have concerns with that? Replacing the concrete pavers with scored concrete at the dining terrace? Replacing the bluestone pavers in the sunken front yard along the site wall with grass? Replacing the bluestone paver walkway with crushed stone in North side yard; Porch to remain as bluestone? Paving all parking spaces with asphalt in lieu of concrete? Removal of (10) L-2 step light fixtures? Ms. Hannegan – Just to clarify, it’s not removal of all of them. Mr. Mohr – Where are they in the plans? 3 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 Ms. Hannegan – The ones that we have removed were in the dining terrace under the bench around the perimeter of the dining terrace. Ms. Wolf – The dining terrace and the wall on the front lawn is the number 4 area. We just reduced the number. Ms. Hannegan – It is page 33 of the packet. Mr. Mohr – There are a few taken out in the front. The bulk of them are around that stairwell. Mr. Schwarz – Deletion of the pergola over the lower side terrace? Mr. Gastinger – I don’t know how much it is worth dwelling on it. The façade that is left when this pergola is removed is fairly stark for, what I think, is a pretty prominent side of the building. That pergola provided some relief. Without it, that door feels pretty secondary on the escape hatch that it is. I am curious what the other thoughts are on the Board. Mr. Mohr – There is a tree to the southwest of that stair. How big of a tree is that? I would think that would actually do a fair amount of softening of that façade if I am not mistaken. Ms. Wolf – That is the idea. There is a power line. Ideally, we would love to get a taller tree there. We have a medium sized tree. It would be a 20 to 30 foot tree, which will help with that elevation from street level. Mr. Lahendro – Is this door an emergency egress door or will it be an actively used door? Ms. Hannegan – It is an emergency egress door. It’s coming down the stair tower. It doesn’t have hardware to allow entry at that point. It’s only really an exit. Certain doors have access control on them. That is not one of them. Students are not going to be using that one as a primary entrance. Mr. Schwarz – While I personally agree with Mr. Gastinger that those look a little empty there. If this had been presented to us in the beginning, I would never have noticed that it was missing. Personally, I am OK with the change. Mr. Mohr – I think the tree would mediate a good bit of that concern. If the tree does get substantial, it does render the pergola mute. I agree with Mr. Gastinger that it does have a stark look. Given that it is back from the face quite a bit and you have a planting bed and the tree, I don’t think it is a critical loss. Mr. Lahendro – Knowing that it is a door that is not going to be entered from the outside, you almost don’t want to call attention to it. I could almost see it being painted white with the frame white to blend in with the wall. Ms. Hannegan – That was the intent. We can certainly change it that way if you would like. Mr. Gastinger – That would be nice. All of the apertures are really careful and have fenestrations associated with them. 4 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 Mr. Schwarz - Delete/defer pergola over Kappa beach and proposed as an add alternate to retain? Delete (2) sets of shutters from West elevation (back of building)? Delete (2) sets of shutters from North elevation (side of building)? Modify South facing window wall to raise sill of windows at 2nd floor lounge? Mr. Mohr – Given that the shutters are being deleted, I just wonder whether the shutters shouldn’t exist on the Rugby Road elevation for that bump out just to be consistent. I know that it’s facing Rugby Road. It seems a little strange. On the other hand, I don’t think that anyone is going to see it. Mr. Schwarz – I would prefer to keep them all. Ms. Hannegan – I think that the massing of the adjacent building is going to block the view to the two in the rear that we were deleting on that north face. We didn’t think it was going to have much impact to have them there to begin with because that’s so far back along that side elevation. That elevation does break plane with the corner that is closer to Rugby. We kept them on the front mass of the building. It feels more like the original structure. That northwestern corner is the forsets we’re moving. I think that it is consistent with some of the character of the neighborhood where additions are carrying the shutters like the original mass of the historic building. Mr. Mohr – I was wondering why lose the shutters on the Rugby road side on that same bump out. I am looking at page 11. Since that bump out is back, should you delete those two shutters on that one window to be consistent? Ms. Hannegan – If you would like for us to take that additional pair away, we can. Mr. Gastinger – I think that it makes sense. Mr. Bailey – I agree with the notion that you might as well remove all of the shutters. I think that is a more consistent look. The ones that they wanted to delete are essentially not going to be seen by anyone anyway. If you want to remove all of them, I think that’s a great idea. Mr. Mohr – Just to clarify, do you mean on the addition, Mr. Bailey? Mr. Bailey – Yes. Ms. Hannegan – We failed to see that one was included. The pair that we are talking about are above the new window that we have added. Since we don’t have a visual on the screen, we are looking at page 11 at the top right image. There is a window added at the base of the building. The extra pair that we would be removing is the third floor directly above that. Mr. Werner – You’re treating that front portion as a building itself. Treat that the same throughout the additions to the rear and treat separately. Mr. Schwarz - Substitute asphalt shingles for standing seam metal roof? The guidelines definitely are fuzzy. They don’t rule out asphalt shingles. The just say to use a dark color if you use them. I would be inclined to accept this. 5 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 Mr. Lahendro – I agree. It’s not a prominent roof. Mr. Schwarz - Add window at House Director unit entry porch on front East elevation? Add mechanical louver, required for ventilation, under overhang at rear West elevation? It sounds like the only two points of contention were the deletion of pergola over the side terrace. We suggested that the applicant would paint the door white to match the brick. Does that satisfy you, Mr. Gastinger? Mr. Gastinger – That’s fine. Mr. Schwarz – For the shutters, it was to remove the one set circled on page 11 Motion – Mr. Mohr: Having considered the standards set forth in the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions and for Site and Design Elements, I move to find 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 the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following modification: • Eliminate the shutters at the Rugby Road façade of the addition bump-out, on the third floor. • Paint the egress door off the bike terrace to match the building color. Mr. Gastinger seconds. Approved (7-0). 2. 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 Jeff Werner, Staff Report - 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. 1536 Virginia Avenue Year Built: c1920 Status: Contributing Note: Structure to remain. February 2015 - The BAR denied the proposed demolitions of 1532, 1534, and 1536 Virginia Avenue. August 2019 - BAR approved demolition of 1532 Virginia Avenue and 1534 Virginia Avenue. November 17, 2019 – Preliminary discussion on this proposal. December 17, 2019 – BAR accepted applicant request for deferral. 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. BAR should discuss if the applicant has adequately addressed the questions and comments from the December 2019 BAR meeting. Some of the discussion items from the December meeting included questions about the parking area, moveable benches, and EIFS design. 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 6 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 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. Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, Applicant – I want to recap a lengthy process that has led to the submission in front of you. Demolition permits for 1532 and 1534 Virginia Avenue was approved ten months ago in August, 2019. Following that approval, our team wanted to bring the BAR into the earliest stages of the design. We presented our initial plan and preliminary discussion at the November, 2019 BAR meeting. The feedback that we received at that time was positive and several members of the BAR commended how our design incorporated many cues from the ADC Design Guidelines to provide a cohesive and holistic project. While they noted the need for more detail, the BAR expressed appreciation for breaking down the scale into two separate building forms. They appreciated the very dynamic roof form, the use of recess on the exterior balconies, the further breakdown on mass and scale by varying the surface plan of each façade, the introduction of a masonry base, the reduction in blank walls through change in materials and appropriate amounts of glazing, the orientation of the project towards the street, and the approach to maintain the rhythm of the existing street wall. With the BAR’s warm reception to our design, we elected to formally proceed toward a formal submission at the following month’s hearing in December. Prior to that December submission, we listened to the recording of the preliminary meeting several times in an effort to further distill the BAR’s comments. In short, we felt that BAR offered great advice in the preliminary meeting. We took it to heart as we prepared our December submission. At our first formal hearing, we were again encouraged by the positive discussion. There were some outstanding details requested by BAR members’ bur it seemed like a COA for massing and scale would be awarded, which was common practice with complex projects like this one. At that meeting, city legal staff stepped in to forbid the use of partial COAs. That led to this project having the distinction of being the first projects held to a difficult or different approval process than in previous years. The BAR members gracefully navigated these new rules with the following amendments in the motion for the deferral. Mr. Schwarz moved with the understanding the BAR is comfortable with the massing, the general material palate, and the general site design but the application is still lacking in detail and specificity. The BAR would like to approve the applicant’s request for deferral and Mr. Lahendro seconded the deferral motion. This formal submission in front of you is addressing the outstanding questions of specificity and detail to garner our COA tonight. This project also has the unfortunate distinction of being one of those submittals delayed by COVID-19. While we would never expect you to grant approval prematurely due to a pandemic, we do want to express to you the severe impact of the delay. As a project, it will be marketed primarily to students aligning the completion of this project with the start of school year calendar is absolutely critical. I would like to review some of the exact quotes from the previous meeting minutes to illustrate how they have been addressed. In this submission, we have endeavored to answer the typical condition exterior details and provide more specificity beyond the enclosed materials as requested. Our proposed material palate can be found on page 10 of the BAR booklet. More information on the specified windows and exterior doors can be found on page 11. Typical details including our sills and headers at the brick base on page 12 and the lap siding on page 13 can also be found on sheets 83.3 and 83.4 in the submitted drawing set. We have specified aluminum trim for the lap siding, corners, and sills and j trims at header, which all show up in our renderings as well. Beyond those typical areas, BAR members requested additional detail on the construction materiality and the specificity of several of the exterior elements, including the railings, the central stair, the pergola, and the exterior decks. In response, page 14 of the BAR booklet diagrams the construction of the 7 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 exterior decks. Page 15 illustrates the construction of the front pergola. Page 16 has the drawings and renderings articulating the construction about the central stair and typical railing construction. Page 17 describes the construction of the central breezeway. There were also questions on the exterior lighting, which has been specified on pages 18 and 19 of our BAR booklet. Cut sheets for each fixture and the lighting plan have also been provided in this submission. Mr. Mohr had specific comments about exhaust vent locations, citing the work on Main Street as an example of a successful massing with unsuccessful exhaust vent locations. Page 21 in the BAR booklet as well as elevation sheets 82.1 and 82.2 show how our exhaust vents have been properly placed and organized in such a way to be hidden from view as much as possible. There was a question about the roof and the location of mechanical equipment. Mr. Lahendro noted that there was going to be rooftop equipment and parapets hiding that equipment, which was very different from the drawings he was looking at, at that time. Page 20 of our BAR booklet deals with the location with these rooftop units. Sheet 81.5 in the drawings shows our roof plan. No units will be visible from the pedestrian point of view. Renderings found on pages 22 through 25 in the BAR booklet demonstrate how the overhang and the angle of the roof hide these mechanical units. Mr. Schwarz asked about eave thickness and the perceived thinness. Eave details have been provided on pages 12 and 13 of the BAR booklet. With regards to the landscaping, we heard several comments about the importance of the street trees and fielded some questions on the plant species selection. Mr. Gastinger advised that plant selections are OK, but 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. Mr. Schwarz echoed that and there needs to be shade trees along the street. We have revised our landscape plan. We substituted the former Princeton trees for much larger London plain trees. We had red maples in the planters at the site stair. They have been substituted for service berry trees. The boxwood shrubs, in the front courtyard, have been substituted for rows oakleaf hydrangeas. In the rear of the building, swale plantings have been refined to promote bio-diversity. Overall, the revised landscape plan responds to each of the boards’ comments and creates a much better project. We’re really pleased with how the front courtyard continued to develop. Beyond the previous comments from the Board, staff has pointed three additional areas for discussion in their report. Regarding the parking area, parking is all below grade and minimally visible. The additional consideration has been given to the existing swale in the rear will provide a dense and diverse palate of shrubs, bushes, switch grasses, screening both the interior garage and headlights from the rear of the site. That rear of the site only faces the railroad tracks in a steep grade up to Chancellor Street. Regarding the moveable benches, we felt the simple aesthetics of the movable concrete bench would help create a boundary of the courtyard, while engaging the pedestrian on Virginia Avenue. This staggered pattern reinforces the rhythm of the building façade and provides relief to the oakleaf hydrangeas. If the Board prefers to eliminate the benches, the applicant would accept that preference. We feel the elements are an asset to the pedestrian experience and not a detriment. Regarding the EIFS on the upper floor walls, we have previously discussed this, we’re happy to readdress it. Our previous discussion centered on the fact that the EIFS have improved over the years. Even though EIFS is still a discouraged material, this may be an appropriate solution here. If the new Board is uncomfortable with EIFS, we are happy to offer a smooth fiber cement panel as an alternative. We could match the joints shown on the elevations by using 4 X 10 panels. We would suggest a low profile recess trim and suggest painting both the trim and the fiber cement panel in the Benjamin Moore early morning mist, which is specified on the EIFS. The fiber cement panel could prove to be a better choice from the durability perspective. We hoping that whatever material the Board would prefer in this instance. One of the 8 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 comments I should address is the driveway side. There were some questions about that from a previous meeting. We have a shared 20 foot access easement in that location with the adjacent lot. We have minimum driveway and access aisle widths that must be maintained. That driveway is about 22 feet, which extends onto the adjacent property for a couple of feet. We believe that’s the best location on the site for a vehicular access drive. It gives us the most side yard setbacks to that adjacent structure. This is a one way street and much of that side elevation will be blocked from pedestrian view by the adjacent structure at 1530 Virginia Avenue. The drive aisle will be no wider than it is today. I will encourage the Board to consider the quotes from the previous submittal made by members of the previous Board. Mr. Saraphin mentioned that the changes that we made from the preliminary discussion are successful. The transition to the small house with the stairs is a good way to solve that. Mr. Ball had stated overall the massing looks really nice. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – I don’t find EIFS to be problematic, given that it’s on the upper floor. It’s not going to get damaged. I really don’t have an issue with insulation on the outside. I guess I would prefer the smoothness of stucco as opposed to having it broken up with a whole bunch of joints. You do have to expansion joints with the EIFS. It seems a little daunting to have the building come down to the asphalt. There is a partial contributor to that as well with the neighboring property. I don’t know if there is a solution to the driveway. The courtyard in the front works a lot better than it did before. I appreciate the fence management. I think that actually did the trick. I think that really works. I think the mechanical equipment is not an issue given the profile of the roof. The building, scale-wise, does a good job of relating to the street. My only real question is the driveway. I am not sure there is a solution for that. Mr. Gastinger – I have a question about the wood material in the front courtyard and front terrace. Mr. Schafer – The front parking garage extends into our front setback a little bit. We’re going to have about ten feet of a deck above the parking garage. That creates a nice front patio for those ground level units. That’s where those precedents come from in the landscape precedence. That’s really the only place where it is used. It’s functional there. It helps with drainage to allow that to be a deck. Mr. Gastinger – That’s a composite material how high above the concrete slab below? Mr. Schafer – Four inches. It will be on 2 X 4 sweepers Mr. Gastinger – Generally, I am supportive of the project. I think it’s a development that has been thoughtful. I always appreciate how you take careful consideration of past comments and for our guidelines. The only question I have is regarding that material. While I think it can be used, especially in that ‘front yard,’ we do have a guideline regarding paving materials. It suggests that you use traditional paving materials. I do have some 9 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 concerns about how weather over time and the front setback. I wonder if something, more proven and consistent with other ADC Guidelines, should be considered. Mr. Schwarz – It’s the same material that you are using on the balconies, correct? Mr. Schafer – That’s correct. Mr. Gastinger – You have noted hydrangea in the landscape plan. It could be a good selection. You would want to make certain to get a cultivar that is going to be small in stature if keeping with the renderings. If you were to get the species, it could be 8 to 10 feet tall. Mr. Zehmer – I appreciate your preparation. It was a great presentation. I appreciate the rooftop units being set back from the eaves. I don’t if they would need a railing from a safety standpoint or maintenance of those units. Mr. Schafer – As a long as a mechanical unit is not within ten feet from the edge of an eave, a railing is not required. We have done things before where we have painted a yellow stripe on the roof to prevent it. We have set all our mechanical units away from that ten feet to avoid having to install a railing. Mr. Zehmer – I see the hatch on the one building. I don’t see it on the other building. Mr. Schafer – That other side has a walkway that is adjacent to that roof eline. You can put a ladder up against that eave and not require punching through the roof. Mr. Mohr – I was looking at the light fixtures again. The digital package that’s specified, is that something we have? Mr. Schafer – We submitted cut sheets with each feature. I believe that it was part of our package. Mr. Werner – I know that this is part of the site plan review as well. Mr. Mohr – The model, as far as light distribution, looks promising. Some of the things like the wall pack can make me a little nervous. Is there some degree of control on the exterior light fixtures? Mr. Schafer – I know that we submitted cut sheets. The city has spill over requirements that we must meet. I will have to work with our lighting consultant. Mr. Mohr – This is still a neighborhood. Having the parking lot on all of the time would be detrimental. Controlling the light coming from under the building would seem important. The bulbs and the fixtures look fine to me. With regards to the garage lighting, you might want to have control features on it. Mr. Werner – The specificity that you just got into would be a condition of a COA. It would not be staff review. The building permit plans would have to comply with that. That is an avenue to consider. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 Mr. Mohr – It would be good to have the cut sheets. Mr. Schafer – A condition of the COA would be something that we could consider. Mr. Mohr – Looking at the model, there is the potential for this being a spaceship at night. That’s all residential and there’s not a lot of lighting there. Mr. Schafer – I do understand the consideration. I do think that the renderings might be a little disingenuous about the landscape. There is also street lights on the street. It’s a fair point. Mr. Gastinger – Did you explore any kind of screening for the rooftop units? Mr. Schafer – We did. It just proved to never be visible. It was adding screens to a roof. Mr. Gastinger – I am convinced that you won’t see them from Virginia Avenue. Would you might be looking right into them from Chancellor Street? Mr. Schafer – We have walked the site many times. One of the things that we have studied has been the view from Chancellor Street. As Chancellor Street turns the corner right there, there is an 8 foot tall black fence that is completely covered in ivy for 6 months out of the year. You have a really deep barrier with the railroad, who doesn’t keep their landscape in the most pristine condition along there. In one of our submissions, were renderings at that corner. I actually shot through the fence. I wanted to see what it would be like. It’s a long ways away. I think that we are still higher with this building at the Chancellor Street elevation. I think that you are looking at the 2nd floor windows. Page 24 of this presentation gives you a pretty good sense of that elevation at Chancellor. We felt that the screens became unnecessary. It would be really challenging to screen those units from Chancellor Street. Mr. Schwarz – I believe you that the mechanical units would be visible. In this case, if we were to approve, this would be the exception. If you have an 8 story building that has mechanical units centered on the roof, the developer will say that they are not visible. There are places in the city where they are clearly visible. For me to approve this would be making an exception. With the renderings, the mechanical units are modeled in every single one. A lot of your views are above the streets. It appears that they would be hidden from the pedestrians in all cases. I really appreciate all the work that went into this packet. It’s really complete. The wall sections are very helpful. From your perspective views from the staircases, I learned something. I really appreciate all of the effort that you put in there. I do not think fiber panels have been done successfully in the city. I think that EIFS would be a much better solution for that. It is definitely not the same material that we think of in the 90s. I think that this is great. Mr. Lahendro – I would echo Mr. Schwarz’s assessment. I am very grateful to the applicant for taking our comments seriously and addressing them and being thorough in considering them and resolving those issues. I am quite satisfied with what I have seen and I can support it. Mr. Bailey – It looks like a great project. 11 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 Mr. Gastinger – Are there any thoughts on the Board about the in grade wood? This might one of the first times we have approved something like this in a control district. Mr. Lahendro – I really like it architecturally and how it reflects the balconies above and continues that theme down. I just like it architecturally. I don’t have experience with this particular kind of application and detailing. Mr. Bailey – It is very aesthetic and it works very well with the project. I don’t see any problem with it. Mr. Schwarz – I am less concerned about its proximity to the grade because it will weather the same as the balconies would in that case. My only concern is that the main entry way, with TRECS, is going to be walked on very frequently. Mr. Schafer, can you speak to that? Mr. Schafer – TRECS has project examples of commercial projects where it has been used on outside decks on restaurants. It comes with a warranty. There are examples of applications in high traffic areas. Mr. Zehmer – I think it works really well to help reinforce the grade change. It makes it feel like a bridge or porch to get over to the building. It really helps set the building back from the street. Mr. Mohr – It is an enormous improvement over what was there. I like that it extends the language of the decks and stairs into the building. Mr. Gastinger – I am fine with it as designed. It’s helpful since it is unusual per our guidelines for us to have that conversation. Mr. Mohr – In this application, it is convincing. Mr. Werner – If there is a contemporary design, it maybe does deserve a different look. It’s probably something that we can better express in the guidelines. I made a note of it. Motion: Mr. Mohr - 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, with the following modifications: • select a cultivar of hydrangea that can be maintained at 5 feet or shorter • provide a control schematic for the exterior lighting (including the garage) Carl Schwarz seconds. Approved (7-0). 3. 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, Applicant New roof and fenestration 12 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 Jeff Werner, Staff Report - 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. 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. 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. 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. Greg Jackson, Applicant – It has been a long time for this project in the earlier COA and afterwards. We ran out of time before the permit was issued. It’s coming back up and that’s where it is. Everything seems to be fine in Neighborhood Development, except for a property line issue the owner needs to address in the COA. At that meeting, it seemed like everybody felt perhaps the colors could be darker. This proposal attempts to do that, to set it back more for the building. With the roof, there are different approaches to that. With this proposal we also show more context. If you look at the proposal and see the other roof forms, the West Main Street side is proposed to be flat or behind parapets. There are large scale, multi-lots buildings should have a much grooved line to break up the mass of the design using gable or hipped forms. There are several reasons for doing this roof form. In creating a thought that states the interior with the trusses to create a more interesting space, but also to keep of low visual line on it. In the proposal, we showed it at six feet. You really don’t see the roof that much from most of the pedestrian experience. Since then, there have been a couple of buildings down the street that can look over it. Our mechanical is placed where the other mechanical is on that roof behind it, which would be the Galleria of the Main Street Market area. I think it was approved 4 to 2 at the time. The two that opposed happen to be the only two here today. Mr. Balut at the time said “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.” COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None 13 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – I am fine with it. How high is the lower gutter? If I looked at section two, it looks smaller to me than what it is in the drawing. Mr. Jackson – We need the room for the sloped gutter so that everything goes around the corners to the back. We want a little bit of volume. Mr. Zehmer – On sheet 145 of the packet, it shows a detail of that. It shows a 10 x 10. Mr. Jackson – It used to be bigger. Mr. Schwarz – Are the colors that you are proposing are not actually represented on the 3D view? The roof is supposed to be a dark brown. Mr. Jackson – Yes. It’s not that accurate. We tried to put the exact color. I even have the dark bronze for the aluminum store front. I can add that for specifics. It’s quite a bit darker than what you are seeing in the document. At the end of the meeting, the sentiment was to make it darker and tone it back a little bit. That the direction we are trying to go. It’s hard to be perfect. Mr. Mohr – Are you also playing with that parapet color? Mr. Jackson – Yes. That had been discussed. One member of the Board had thought that it should be lighter and tie in more with the building. A week ago, I had sent those renderings around to Mr. Mohr and Mr. Werner. We decided to keep it the same color language as new. It’s a new cap where the existing was. The lights were over the parapet. They’re similar but they’re coming through the building. Mr. Gastinger – Is the current parapet concrete or clay? It’s hard to tell from the street view. Mr. Jackson – It is metal. It’s what is shown. Mr. Gastinger – I would prefer and think it would be cleaner if it remained the colors associated with the historic structure. The color of the materials of the addition rise to the height. I did vote against this project previously. Anything that can be done to set that back or by differentiating that materials so that it has a clarity on what is the addition and what is the new structure is a benefit. Mr. Schwarz – I think that I am going to maintain my vote to not approve this. I know that you have worked with a lot of the members of the BAR a couple of years ago. It sounds like you have been working with a few of the members now. This project has been through many iterations. I still find it boring to what is going on there. There is a lot happening on this property. It seems to make sense that you can add something different. The form does not feel compatible with what is currently there. It could some of the things that you are decorating it with. I am maintaining my vote there. Mr. Bailey – I think that it looks pretty good. It maintains the industrial, commercial character of that building. I think the addition works very well for that. I do think that it fits 14 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 the context of West Main Street very well. I think that it will improve the experience of walking down that street. I am definitely in favor of it. Mr. Mohr – I am thinking about the color of the parapet line. It’s too bad the parapet wasn’t terra cotta on the top. That would make this distinction much clearer. Wherever you make the break, it’s hard to make that break. I think that it’s weird for the glass, unless you do something with it, to make it significantly behind that. I think having that parapet be a different color is more like a lid on top of it. It seems to me that it’s quieter and draws attention to itself if it is all the same color. Mr. Schwarz – The glass is set back It is set back far enough ti wouldn’t read of somewhat recessed because it’s obscured by all of the vertical and horizontal fins. I don’t remember how we got to that point. Mr. Jackson – I believe that it came from a desire to have more articulation. With that much glazing, we wanted to have some solar control as well, primarily on the south, east, and west. It’s not oriented directly in the cardinal directions. We get some morning sun coming in. We did offset the façade to make it asymmetrical with that in mind. There are elements that are serving a purpose. I think the shadows, with the setback, are going to darken it quite a bit more than what could be shown. Mr. Mohr –To make it more recessive, you get the 3 horizontal lines and the verticals with the glass. It feels recessed because of it. In terms of this building, it is a new way to terminate it. It doesn’t bother me. It’s definitely a different language than what is going on below. That is obviously new. Ideally, it would be back more. I don’t think that is possible. I don’t have a problem with the roof form. I think it does have a quasi-industrial sense, which seems appropriate to me. I don’t have an issue with it. I don’t think it will be detrimental at the street level. Mr. Lahendro – I do want there to be a strong distinction between the historic building and what is done on top. Formwise, it pretty much does that and the fenestration does that. To reinforce that distinction through colors, depth of colors, setting it back as much as we can will help reinforce that distinction. Mr. Mohr – It comes down to what you do with the top of the parapet. Is it something as simple as painting it that burgundy color. Does that cap it? Mr. Lahendro – I think it needs to architecturally be a part of the historic building. It needs to read as part of the historic building. Mr. Mohr – That’s also keen to what Mr. Gastinger was saying about that piece. Maybe the thing to do is that other horizontal line gets picked up. Mr. Zehmer – If you look at page 143. They have shown the previous colors. The previous colors image shows that top of the parapet white and relates more to the new roof. I actually like the idea of painting it the dark red to tie in with some of the bands lower down in the building. I also agree with the industrial nature of the roof. Defining that top band really helps separate the old from the new. Mr. Gastinger – I think that purple would be fine too. 15 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 Ms. Lengel – I think a burgundy band at the parapet will help separate the old from the new and make it more of a distinct break. Mr. Mohr – You read the band of brick for first and the roof second. Mr. Bailey – I think that is a good solution. Mr. Jackson – That’s an interesting development. When I sent the rendering a week and a half ago showing the band being lighter, we hadn’t thought about that actually being the reddish-burgundy being the highlight color of the building that would snap it out. It might actually be quite nice. It has the color down below with the canopy element. That might be something that is really interesting. It’s not necessarily what was there. I think that it would lend that building to stand on its own more and allow the other building to be different. Mr. Werner – I looked at what was presented in 2017. The renderings in 2017 had this baby blue thing. My caution is to be very specific in the motion with that band. Refer to the page number and be specific on the detail. Mr. Zehmer – The top of the parapet is shown as being the same as the wall color. Mr. Schwarz – This is where my first question comes up. Page 145 shows the color they are specifying. They don’t match the renderings really well. We need to make it clear. The dark brown, in my renderings, is showing up like a dark brown. The roof is supposed to be a dark brown color, according to the application. Mr. Zehmer – It doesn’t matter what the colors are. The top of the parapet of the original building should match in color with the belt coursing that separates the first and second stories. Mr. Schwarz – When you guys make a motion, you’re going to specify that the top of parapet matches the belt coursing. The rest of the colors should look like the renderings or should they look like the 4 colors that have been called out on the materials page? Mr. Mohr – The roof is so much darker. That dark brown doesn’t look like any of the renderings. Mr. Zehmer – As long it’s something that signifies something that is separate from the original building is what I am focused on. Mr. Jackson – The intent is for them to be as it is written in the color swatches. I had a hard time with the roof in the renderings. That’s stuff that we actually need to source. Mr. Mohr – You couldn’t do the roof in the same color? Mr. Jackson – Possibly. It just becomes all different shades of grey. I think that the intent was to have the roof be that dark bronze. Mr. Mohr – The real contrasting elements in the roof system should be fairly subtle. The fundamental contrast to the old building should be strong. Making that parapet band red 16 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 would help that a great deal. If the roof is super dark relative to everything else, it catches the light differently. In the field, maybe have a sample of those that can be looked at to confirm it. I don’t have any problem with grey. I just wonder about the dark brown. The windows make sense. The renderings really don’t speak to that darker color. Mr. Lahendro – Everything above the parapet should be the same, dark color. The more you vary the colors in that area, the attention you bring to it. The attitude ought to be more trying to have it disappear. Mr. Jackson – I will look at what is available with the roofing material and go towards dark grey and circulate that. I don’t think there is any attachment to that. Mr. Mohr – Can the windows be a similar dark grey? Is the darkest color that bronze color? Mr. Jackson – A lot of the windows are coming out black these days with the black trim. I can also look into that. This bronze sample is pretty dark. Mr. Mohr – Mr. Lahendro is right. The more hermetic the top is, the better it separates from the building. That’s really the objective here. If you did do the red line, that would be a significant division right there. Mr. Jackson – The existing didn’t really offer anything as exciting or interesting as that. It’s not original. Parts of the whole project make it greater. It lends back to the building where it wasn’t getting much help. I don’t know if it would have worked without something above it. If you just had that color up there, as a termination point. Given that there is something above, it helps contain that existing building. Mr. Zehmer – Do you feel that band of coloring needs to wrap the building? Motion: Mr. Zehmer - 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 with the following modifications: • that the top of the original building’s parapet be painted to match the belt coursing of the building itself around the complete perimeter of the original structure • that the roof structure have a monochromatic finish, as specified as RAL 7012 Basalt Grey in the applicant’s submittal. Jody Lahendro seconds Approved (5-2, Carl Schwarz and Breck Gastinger opposed). 4. 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 17 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – 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. 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. 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. Steve von Storch, Applicant – (Had technical issues with his microphone and entered the following into the Zoom chatroom.) Not much to say. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – This is way more appropriate than the Corten anyway. The Corten is the odd man out. The concrete is fine. Mr. Gastinger – What is the maximum height of the wall? Mr. Von Storch – It varies from 18 inches to 30 inches. (Entered in Zoom chatroom) Mr. Gastinger – I don’t have any issue with it. Motion: Mr. Lahendro - 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. Tim Mohr seconds. Approved (7-0). E. Other Business 5. Staff Questions/Discussion Letter to VDHR re: support for Burley HS nomination to VLR/NRHP Will be on the agenda for the September meeting. Tenth and Page Survey 18 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 Survey was conducted successfully. Going to be reviewed by the State Review Board. Consultants have submitted photographs and survey reports. Hope that we can continue to engage the Tenth and Page community. F. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 PM. 19 BAR Meeting Minutes June 16, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-08-01 401 Ridge Street Tax Parcel 290132000 Barbara S. and Alan D. Jenkins, Owner and Applicant New fence Application components (linked): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report August 18, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-08-01 401 Ridge Street / Tax Parcel 290273000 Andrew Jenkins, Owner and Applicant Fence Background Year Built: c1891 District: Ridge Street ADC District Status: Contributing For over a century after its construction this was Presiding Elder’s House for the Charlottesville District of the Methodist Church. It is two-story brick housed has an irregular Queen Anne massing and a high hip roof. (Historic survey attached.) Previous BAR Review N/A Application  Applicant’s submittal: BAR application, narrative, and site photos (5 pages). Request for a CoA to construct a stained, wood fence at the side yard (south). At the front and rear, the fence will be 5-ft tall. Due to the first floor window heights at the neighboring house, 405 Ridge Street, the applicant is requesting approval for this section of fence to be 7-ft in height. (405 Ridge Street is a halfway house operated by the United Way of Charlottesville and “provides a safe and structured living environment to assist women in early recovery from drug and/or alcohol addiction and mental health challenges, to heal and become healthy, self-reliant and productive members of our community.” (www.cvillevolunteer.org/agency/detail/?agency_id=72324) 401 Ridge Street (Aug 4, 2020) 1 Discussion and Recommendations Relative to Ridge Street, the front section of fencing, aligned with the front of the house, is 60-ft from the sidewalk. Additionally, the side yard is at an elevation approximately 6-ft to 10-ft above the street grade. This serves to mitigate the visual impact of the requested 7-ft fence segment adjacent parallel to the side of 405 Ridge Street. Staff recommends approval. Suggested Motion 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 fencing satisfies the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Ridge Street ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. ...as submitted and with the following modifications/conditions:... 401 Ridge Street (Aug 4, 2020) 2 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 fencing does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Ridge Street 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 4) Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 5) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 6) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 7) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 8) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for Site Design and Elements C. Walls and Fences 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 clues 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. 401 Ridge Street (Aug 4, 2020) 3 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 structure 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 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. 401 Ridge Street (Aug 4, 2020) 4 Narrative We want to build a wood fence around the side yard of 401 Ridge street. The fence will be all treated lumber and stained for a dark finish. I attached a picture of the aerial view of the proposed fence location. The green lines on the aerial view will be 5-foot fences and the red line will be a 7-foot fence. The other pictures are of the side yard with the red line showing how high a 6-foot fence would be and the green line showing how high a 7-foot fence would be. The fence will be for the safety of our kids playing in the yard and for privacy. The reason for the tall height of the fence is because both the neighbor and I can both see straight into each other's house and the house next door is a halfway home with a lot of strangers who regularly stand at the window watching our kids play in the yard. Because the neighbor's house is a little higher, their perspective is just high enough to see clearly over a 6-foot fence. A 7-foot fence would make a big difference in privacy and would not block any light into the neighbor's windows. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-07-07 422 North 1st Street Tax Parcel 330100000 Nonce, LLC, Owner Julie Kline Dixon, Rosney Co. Architects, Applicant Rear addition Application components (linked): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT August 18, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-07-07 422 1st Street N / Tax Parcel: 330100000 Owner: NONCE, LLC Applicant: Julie Kline Dixon/Rosney Co. Architects Addition to residence Background Year Built: c1870 - 1885 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing The Watson-Bosserman House is a three-bay, two-story frame house built in 1870. It is representative of similar vernacular houses built in Charlottesville in the decades following the Civil War. (Historic survey attached.) Prior BAR Reviews July 21, 2020 – BAR voted to defer the application. BAR generally supported the application, but requeseted the following items be submitted for clarification and action on the CoA request:  The siding exposure and profile  The proposed lighting  The new shutters  The roof peak and chimney location  Upper roof material Application  Submittal: Rosney Co. Architects narrative, photos, drawings sheets, dated 25 June 2020: Sheets EC1.0, EC1.1, EC2.0, EC2.1, A1.0*, A2.0*, A3.0*, A4.0** and Perspective. (* Revised, dated 23 July 2020. ** Supplemental, dated 22 July 2020.) 422 1st Street North (Aug 4, 2020) 1 Request CoA for alterations to the rear of the house. 1st Floor, South Elevation:  Remove the wood deck, metal rail and spiral stair to the lower garden.  Remove the east and south facing sunroom façade and roof.  Reconstruct the sunroom walls to accommodate new windows and new roof.  Below the sunroom, construct brick piers and install two new windows. Existing door to remain. 1st Floor, East Elevation:  Remove the wood deck.  Construct a rear porch on painted brick piers. Decking to be ipe,  Sunroom roof to extend over the new porch and wrap the rear addition. Roof will be supported 10” square posts. Trim details to match the house.  Remove south window on the rear wing and install entry door.  On the north side of the porch, install an entry door into the house and construct stairs from the yard. Steps to be ipe.  Porch and stair rails: Railing 3-1/4" rounded, pickets 1" x 3/4" square edge. Second Story Addition:  Construct a second story above the existing rear wing of the house.  Roofline and eave will be below that on the front section of the house.  Trim and details to match front section of the house.  Existing chimney to be extended and shifted to accommodate new window. General:  Trim details to match the existing on the house.  Siding repairs/new to match existing.  Windows to be Marvin or similar, solid wood, double-hung sash. Selections have not been made, but applicant will accept a condition that lite configuration will conform with that shown on the elevations and for insulated glass that applied muntins are acceptable provided there is an internal spacer bar.  Roof to be standing-seam metal.  Lighting fixtures have not been selected, but applicant will accept a condition that the lamping be dimmable and have a Color Temperature that does not exceed 3,000K. Discussion and Recommendations Re: BAR’s requests:  The new siding at the rear wing, upper addition will have a 6” exposure, contrasting with the 5- 1/2” exposire for the existing siding.  The proposed lighting has not been selecetd. See staff’s recommended conditions.  The new shutters will be Timberlane solid-wood shutters, louver-style.  The roof peak condition has been addrssed. See sheets A2.0 and A.3.0.  Chimney location nioted. See sheets A2.0 and A.3.0.  Roof material for the rear wing, upper addition to be asphalt shingles. (Owner may replace shingles on existing house, which will match those used on the addition.)  Porch and sunroom roof to be standing seam metal, color Charcoal Grey. 422 1st Street North (Aug 4, 2020) 2 Additionally:  Porch rail detail is shown on sheet A4.0.  Windows to be Marvin, solid wood, with 5/8” muntin. Staff recommends approval, with the following conditions:  Applicant will provide to staff cut sheets for selected doors, windows, and exterior lighting fixtures. This information will be added to the BAR archives.  For new windows and doors, applied muntins are acceptable. If on insulated glass, there will internal space bars aligned with the applied muntins.  Lamping for exterior light fixtures will have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K and will comply with the City’s “Dark Sky” ordinance. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and for Rehabilitations, I move to find that the proposed alterations and addition satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted.. [.. as submitted with the following modifications…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and for Rehabilitations, I move to find that the alterations and addition do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown 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; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 422 1st Street North (Aug 4, 2020) 3 (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 New Construction and Additions P. Additions 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitations C. Windows 1) Prior to any repair or replacement of windows, a survey of existing window conditions is recommended. Note number of windows, whether each window is original or replaced, the material, type, hardware and finish, the condition of the frame, sash, sill, putty, and panes. 2) Retain original windows when possible. 3) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. 422 1st Street North (Aug 4, 2020) 4 4) If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use. 5) Repair original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. 6) Replace historic components of a window that are beyond repair with matching components. 7) Replace entire windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. 8) If a window on the primary façade of a building must be replaced and an existing window of the same style, material, and size is identified on a secondary elevation, place the historic window in the window opening on the primary façade. 9) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 14) False muntins and internal removable grilles do not present an historic appearance and should not be used. 15) Do not use tinted or mirrored glass on major facades of the building. Translucent or low (e) glass may be strategies to keep heat gain down. 16) Storm windows should match the size and shape of the existing windows and the original sash configuration. Special shapes, such as arched top storms, are available. 17) Storm windows should not damage or obscure the windows and frames. 18) Avoid aluminum-colored storm sash. It can be painted an appropriate color if it is first primed with a zinc chromate primer. 19) The addition of shutters may be appropriate if not previously installed but if compatible with the style of the building or neighborhood. 20) In general, shutters should be wood (rather than metal or vinyl) and should be mounted on hinges. In some circumstances, appropriately dimensioned, painted, composite material shutters may be used. 21) The size of the shutters should result in their covering the window opening when closed. 22) Avoid shutters on composite or bay windows. 23) If using awnings, ensure that they align with the opening being covered. 24) Use awning colors that are compatible with the colors of the building. D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors 1) The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 2) Inspect masonry, wood, and metal or porches and entrances for signs of rust, peeling paint, wood deterioration, open joints around frames, deteriorating putty, inadequate caulking, and improper drainage, and correct any of these conditions. 3) Repair damaged elements, matching the detail of the existing original fabric. 422 1st Street North (Aug 4, 2020) 5 4) Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 5) Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 6) Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 7) Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8) Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. 9) In general, avoid adding a new entrance to the primary facade, or facades visible from the street. 10) Do not enclose porches on primary elevations and avoid enclosing porches on secondary elevations in a manner that radically changes the historic appearance. 11) Provide needed barrier-free access in ways that least alter the features of the building. a. For residential buildings, try to use ramps that are removable or portable rather than permanent. b. On nonresidential buildings, comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act while minimizing the visual impact of ramps that affect the appearance of a building. 12) The original size and shape of door openings should be maintained. 13) Original door openings should not be filled in. 14) When possible, reuse hardware and locks that are original or important to the historical evolution of the building. 15) Avoid substituting the original doors with stock size doors that do not fit the opening properly or are not compatible with the style of the building. 16) Retain transom windows and sidelights. 17) When installing storm or screen doors, ensure that they relate to the character of the existing door. a. They should be a simple design where lock rails and stiles are similar in placement and size. b. Avoid using aluminum colored storm doors. c. If the existing storm door is aluminum, consider painting it to match the existing door. d. Use a zinc chromate primer before painting to ensure adhesion. E. Cornice 1) Keep the cornice well sealed and anchored, and maintain the gutter system and flashing. 2) Repair rather than replace the cornice. 3) Do not remove elements of the original composition, such as brackets or blocks, without replacing them with new ones of a like design. 4) Match materials, decorative details, and profiles of the existing original cornice design when making repairs. 5) Do not replace an original cornice with a new one that conveys a different period, style, or theme from that of the building. 6) If the cornice is missing, the replacement should be based on physical or documented evidence, or barring that, be compatible with the original building. 7) Do not wrap or cover a cornice with vinyl or aluminum; these substitute materials may cover up original details and also may hide underlying moisture problems. 422 1st Street North (Aug 4, 2020) 6 Re: Narrative Description of Proposed Additions and Alterations to 422 North 1st Street: The owners of 422 North 1st Street propose a multi-part project that will improve the overall aesthetics and create much needed additional living space. First, we propose removal of the existing rear wood deck, metal rail and spiral stair to the lower garden. They are deteriorated visually and not in keeping with the house aesthetically. We also propose removal of the existing east and south facing sunroom façade and roof (structure and material) which we’d like to replace with new double hung windows and architectural detailing that gives the space the look of an enclosed sunroom. The windows will be solid wood by Marvin or similar and the roof a standing seam metal. On the rear of the house, we propose the addition of a covered porch with painted brick piers instead of the existing wood, ipe decking, solid wood wrapped 10” posts, traditional trim details matching those elsewhere in the house, solid wood siding to match existing, a standing seam metal roof, and a new stair on the north side. The proposed new roof structure will wrap both the sunroom and porch under one wrap- around hip structure. We would also like to add brick piers on the basement level below the new sunroom façade to create a more pleasing architectural rhythm. Last, we propose the addition of a new second story above the existing rear wing of the house. Pending structural approval, we propose the addition of a bedroom and closet over the existing rear wing. We hold the roof and eave below the existing and use windows and details that are consistent with the front bay of the house. Julie Dixon The Rosney Co Architects 609 East Market Street, Suite 206 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 609 East Market Street, Suite 206 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 108 5th Street SE, Suite 308 Charlottesville, Va. 22902 T: 434.242.9678 F: 540.301.0466 CONSULTANTS: CIVIL ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: MEP: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: 39'-3" 28" TERRACE 15'-11 1/2" 20'-10 3/4" 3.5" built-in hutch 13'-4 1/4" KITCHEN 32" radius CH 9'-10" 1.5" 14'-3" 3.5" 19'-7 1/4" First Street Residence SUNROOM 16'-11 1/2" CH 8'-10 1/4" CH 7'-9 1/2" REF DW Charlottesville, Virginia 3'-11 3/4" 3'-8 1/2" 13'-4 1/4" 4'-10 1/2" PWD. CH 9'-11" CH 8'-11" D W WH CH 6'-6" CH 6'-11 1/2" 7'-10" 6'-1" CL. 15'-11 1/4" 15'-5 1/4" 15'-7 1/4" BASEMENT CH 8'-2 1/4" CL. FRONT ENTRANCE MECH. CH 9'-10 3/4" 14'-6 3/4" CH CL. 7'-3 1/2" EDITIONS/REVS FLOOR PLANS 6/25/2020 EC1.0 12:13 PM:6/25/2020 108 5th Street SE, Suite 308 Charlottesville, Va. 22902 T: 434.242.9678 F: 540.301.0466 CONSULTANTS: CIVIL ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: MEP: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: First Street Residence Charlottesville, Virginia LANDING CH: 12'4" BEDROOM MASTER BEDROOM CH: 8'10" CH: 8'10" HALL BATHROOM CH: 8'11.5" CH: 8'10" EDITIONS/REVS ATTIC ACCESS Second Floor Plan 6/25/2020 EC1.1 12:13 PM:6/25/2020 108 5th Street SE, Suite 308 Charlottesville, Va. 22902 T: 434.242.9678 F: 540.301.0466 CONSULTANTS: CIVIL ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: MEP: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: First Street Residence Charlottesville, Virginia EDITIONS/REVS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 6/25/2020 EC2.0 12:13 PM:6/25/2020 108 5th Street SE, Suite 308 Charlottesville, Va. 22902 T: 434.242.9678 F: 540.301.0466 CONSULTANTS: CIVIL ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: MEP: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: First Street Residence Charlottesville, Virginia EDITIONS/REVS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 6/25/2020 EC2.1 12:13 PM:6/25/2020 108 5th Street SE, Suite 308 Charlottesville, Va. 22902 T: 434.242.9678 F: 540.301.0466 CONSULTANTS: CIVIL ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: MEP: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: First Street Residence 6'-1 1/4" 8'-9" 8'-9" 7'-3/4" 6'-10 13/16" NEW DOOR IN EXISTING Charlottesville, Virginia WINDOW OPENING PORCH 1'-11" 3'-2" 3'-2" 3'-2" 2'-5 1/2" 2'-4" 3'-6" built-in hutch 17'-5 1/4" 13'-5" 3'-2 1/2" KITCHEN CH 9'-10" 4'-3 1/4" 13'-6" 14'-6" 14'-3" down 6'-3" OFFICE SUNROOM 1/2" REF DW 3/4" 4'-0" RELOCATE EXISTING WINDOW 3'-2 2'-11" FROM KITCHEN HERE 5'-0" clear 4'-9 CLOSET 5'-11" PWD. CL CH 8'-11" 6'-7" BATH 4'-1/2" 2'-0" INDICATES NEW 3'-10" WALL, TYP. 2'-4 1/2" 12'-11" LANDING 12'-11" 6'-7/8" CH: 12'4" INDICATES EXISTING WALL, TYP. 10'-2" EDITIONS/REVS BEDROOM BEDROOM CH: 8'10" CH: 8'10" FRONT ENTRANCE NEW SUN PORCH HALL CH 9'-10 3/4" WINDOWS ALIGNED BATHROOM CH: 8'11.5" WITH NEW C.O. CH: 8'10" 7'-8 1/4" 7'-4 1/4" Plans ATTIC ACCESS 6/25/2020 Second Floor Plan SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 Ground Floor Plan SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 A1.0 12:13 PM:6/25/2020 108 5th Street SE, Suite 308 Charlottesville, Va. 22902 T: 434.242.9678 F: 540.301.0466 12 2 CONSULTANTS: CIVIL ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: 11 1/4" MEP: SOLID WOOD LOUVERED PAINTED SHUTTERS BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: TIMBERLANE ENGLERT CHARCOAL GREY STANDINGSEAM METAL ROOF WITH 5" HALF ROUND GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS TO MATCH SOLID WOOD, PAINTED BEVELED SIDING WITH 6" EXPOSURE MARVIN SOLID WOOD WINDOWS WITH 5/8" BAR SOLID WOOD PAINTED PANELING AND TRIM SOLID WOOD COLUMN AND PILASTER WRAPS WITH TRIM AS SHOWN HAND PRESSED OLD CAROLINA BRICK: TRYON Eave Detail First Street Residence 1 SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" East Elevation Porch Section 2 3 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" Charlottesville, Virginia EDITIONS/REVS Exterior Elevations 7/23/2020 South Elevation North Elevation A2.0 4 5 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 10:00 AM:7/23/2020 108 5th Street SE, Suite 308 Charlottesville, Va. 22902 T: 434.242.9678 F: 540.301.0466 CONSULTANTS: CIVIL ENGINEER: 12 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: 6 MEP: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: to stair hall to closet 12 2 First Street Residence Charlottesville, Virginia to living room EXISTING FLOOR STRUCTURE EXISTING WALLS EDITIONS/REVS EXISTING FOUNDATION Building Section 7/23/2020 Sunroom and Office Section Facing West 1 A3.0 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 10:01 AM:7/23/2020 108 5th Street SE, Suite 308 Charlottesville, Va. 22902 T: 434.242.9678 F: 540.301.0466 CONSULTANTS: CIVIL ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: MEP: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: First Street Residence Charlottesville, Virginia LABEL PROFILE LOCATION 2 47/64" HPCO 2 1/2" 194-T PORCHES, TYP HANDRAIL AND PICKETS ALL INTERIOR STAIRS HANDRAIL 1 1/8" PICKET BASE HPCO 194-P EDITIONS/REVS Trim Details HPCO 194-B 7/22/2020 Handrail and Picket Profile SCALE: 1' = 1'-0" 1 A4.0 12:24 PM:7/22/2020 First Street Residence 108 5th Street SE, Suite 308 Charlottesville, Va. 22902 6/25/2020 T: 434.242.9678 Perspective EDITIONS/REVS Charlottesville, Virginia F: 540.301.0466 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: MEP: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: CIVIL ENGINEER: CONSULTANTS: 12:13 PM:6/25/2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 18-07-04 0 East Water Street Tax Parcel 570157800 Alan Taylor, Owner/ Ashley Davies, Applicant Maintenance and Rehabilitation Application components (linked): • Staff Report • Project Context • Lighting email, plan, and cutsheet • Text of interpretive sign City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report September 18, 2018 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 18-07-04 0 East Water Street / Tax Parcel 570157800 Owner: Alan Taylor Applicant: Ashley Davies Pocket Park at Coal Tower – interpretative signage and light fixture Background Year Built: 1942 Designation: Individually Protected Property (IPP). Designed and constructed by the Ogle Construction Company, Coal Tower originally functioned as a storage tower for coal and sand with a mechanism that loaded the materials onto steam locomotives. Decommissioned in 1986, it is one of seven of its kind remaining in Virginia. Prior BAR Actions (Prior to Sept. 2018 see appendix) September 18, 2018 – BAR approved the proposed park design at the Coal Tower, with the following conditions:  Final light fixtures selected will be submitted for the BAR review;  Lamping not to exceed 3000 color rendering index (CRI);  Interpretative signage and/or displays submitted for BAR review. Application  Applicant’s submittal: Plan of Coal Tower pocket park indicating location of light fixtures; information re: fixture and lamping; and draft text for plaque/marker. Submittal of information requested by the BAR as condition of approval for the September 2018 CoA for the planned pocket park. 0 East Water Street, Coal Tower (August 11, 2020) 1 Discussion and recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed fixtures and lamping. Each lamp is 450 lumens, 6.5 watts, 60 watt equivalent, with a Color Temperature of 2150K. https://globe- electric.com/en/product/globe-electric-60w-equivalent-soft-white-2200k-vintage-edison- dimmable-led-light-bulb73193/ Staff suggests the BAR determine the type of marker and the proposed location. If that information is not available for review, the BAR should defer that component of this submittal. Staff has not evaluated the proposed text; however, the cited work is by Thomas W. Dixon, Jr., a well-known author and historian of railroad history. Staff recommends only that the text be modified to be consistent with the contemporary style guides. Specifically:  C&O should have spaces, C & O.  8 should be spelled out, eight.  In the second paragraph, delete the second reference to the tower’s 300-ton capacity.  In the second paragraph, delete the word today.  In the last sentence, delete the second comma. The Charlottesville Coal Tower The Charlottesville Coal Tower is one of seven remaining of its kind in Virginia. The job of the coaling tower was to fuel steam-powered locomotives. 1948 was the last year of all-steam operations on the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway (C&O), and steam operations fully ceased in 1956. The cylindrical coaling tower is an ideal vessel for strength and a logical design for placement of heavy loads of coal in the towers above the track. The 300-ton capacity was the most common on the C&O and appeared in at least 8 locations. In the last decade of the C&O’s full steam operations, there were 99 designated fueling locations. In 1942, the Ogle Construction Company, one of three major builders of coaling stations, built the 91-foot-tall concrete coaling tower in Charlottesville, capable of holding 300 tons of coal. Decommissioned in 1986, the Charlottesville Coal Tower still stands between East Market Street and the CSX railroad tracks today. Like most coaling stations, it was retired in place, due to its large dimensions and solid construction. Suggested Motion 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 light fixtures and narrative marker, as submitted, satisfy the conditions of the CoA approved on September 18, 2018. 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: 0 East Water Street, Coal Tower (August 11, 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 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 4) Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 5) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 6) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 7) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 8) When reviewing any proposed sign as part of an application under consideration, the standards set forth within Article IX, sections 34-1020 et seq shall be applied; and 9) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design and Elements D. Lighting Charlottesville’s residential areas have few examples of private site lighting. Most houses, including those used for commercial purposes, have attractive, 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. 0 East Water Street, Coal Tower (August 11, 2020) 3 Pertinent Guidelines for Public Design and Improvements I. Public Signs 1) Maintain the coordinated design for a citywide gateway, directional, and informational public sign system. 2) Add a distinctive street sign system for historic districts. 3) Continue to install plaques or signs commemorating significant events, buildings, and individuals in the districts. 4) Avoid placing sign posts in locations where they can interfere with the opening of vehicle doors. 5) Preserve existing historic plaques located in the district. 6) New plaques should be discreetly located and should not obscure architectural elements. Appendix Prior BAR Review September 19, 2017 – BAR approved proposed landscaping plan in concept , requesting that submittal of specific details such as plants species, location, lighting, and signage (if included) to come back to the BAR. July 17, 2018 - Re: proposed maintenance and rehabilitation of the Coal Tower, BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. July 25, 2018: Re: proposed maintenance and rehabilitation of the Coal Tower, with BAR consent, staff approved applicant’ request to complete certain mauntenance items at the Coal Tower. (See page 25 of applicant’s July 31, 2018 submittal.) August 21, 2018: BAR approved the Pocket Park design and proposed maintenance and rehabilitation of the Coal Tower with the following additions:  The lower platform [outside of the door at top of tower] to be retained if possible  Consent to replace windows if repair is not feasible  Simplify the design of the park  Explore different grasses to use in the strip between the sidewalk and Bocce court  Provide a lighting plan for under the tower.  Interpretive signs will come back to the BAR for review  Changes to the site plan will be turned into staff and put on the consent agenda for approval. 0 East Water Street, Coal Tower (August 11, 2020) 4 In September 2018, the BAR approved a CoA for a park at the C&O Coal Tower along East Water Street. The motion conditioned that final light fixtures and interpretative signage would be submitted for the BAR record. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 18-07-04 0 East Water Street Tax Parcel 570157800 Alan Taylor, Owner/ Ashley Davies, Applicant Maintenance and Rehabilitation Motion: Schwarz moved having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements, I move to find that the proposed park design at the Coal Tower satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this Individually Protected Property, and that the BAR approves the application with the following conditions: • Final light fixtures selected will be submitted for the BAR review; • Lamping not to exceed 3000 color rendering index (CRI); • Interpretative signage and/or displays will be submitted for BAR review. Earnst seconded. Approved 7-0. Watkins, Robert From: Ashley Davies Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 3:16 PM To: Watkins, Robert Subject: FW: Coal Tower Lighting Attachments: Coal tower - Revised Lighting Layout 200728.pdf ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hi Robert, Here is the information on the very simple lighting plan for the Coal Tower with a fixture to closely match what is already on the structure. See below and attached. https://www.lampsplus.com/products/rlm-series-13-and-one-quarter-inch-bronze-and-black-outdoor-barn-wall- light__81d20.html From: Joseph Simpson Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 10:00 AM To: Ashley Davies Cc: Tuckeratlas@gmail.com Subject: Coal Tower Lighting Hi Ashley, While working on the coal tower, the contractor took a photo of the existing light fixture that was located at the top door. We want to mimic that appearance and attached is a wall mounded sconce that is the most similar in appearance. Additionally, we previously had noted a pendant light fixture, but want to use wall sconces since they match the existing light more closely and they will be easier to maintain in the future. Attached is a layout of where these fixtures would be placed at roughly 8-10ft AFF. There would be (4) under the first bay, (4) under the second bay, and 2 on the rear wall. The lamps would be no greater than 60W and the ones we are looking at are dimmable LED fixtures with a kelvin rating of 2150 so they are soft white that provide a warm and cosy ambiance. Could you please forward this information to Jeff? Joseph Simpson 434-981-3634 1 2 3 Wall Mounted Sconces (10 Total) RLM Series 13 1/4" Bronze and Black Outdoor Barn Wall Light Style # 81D20 https://www.lampsplus.com/products/rlm-series-13-and-one-quarter-inch-bronze-and-black-outdoor- barn-wall-light__81d20.html Product Details Use this industrial barn light to add a vintage look to porch areas, garages and more. Additional Info: From the RLM Series by Minka, this outdoor wall light offers a vintage industrial look for your home. The gooseneck arm comes in a sand black finish and is paired with a smoked iron finish light. The look is ideal for lighting house numbers, architectural details, or signage. Rated for outdoor wet locations, but can also be used indoors in a kitchen or entry space.  13 1/4" high overall. Extends 31 3/4" from the wall. Arm is 8 1/2" high x 6" wide. Light is 6 1/4" high x 18" Wide. Weighs 10.5 lbs.  Backplate is 6" high x 6 3/4" wide. From center of mounting point to top of light is 5.63".  Uses one maximum 100 watt standard-medium base E26 bulb (not included).  Barn light industrial style outdoor wall light. From the RLM Series by Minka.  Sand black finish wallplate and arm. Smoked iron black finish light. Steel construction.  Rated for wet location outdoor use. Can also be used indoors. The Charlottesville Coal Tower The Charlottesville Coal Tower is one of seven remaining of its kind in Virginia. The job of the coaling tower was to fuel steam-powered locomotives. 1948 was the last year of all-steam operations on the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway (C&O), and steam operations fully ceased in 1956. The cylindrical coaling tower is an ideal vessel for strength and a logical design for placement of heavy loads of coal in the towers above the track. The 300-ton capacity was the most common on the C&O and appeared in at least 8 locations. In the last decade of the C&O’s full steam operations, there were 99 designated fueling locations. In 1942, the Ogle Construction Company, one of three major builders of coaling stations, built the 91-foot-tall concrete coaling tower in Charlottesville, capable of holding 300 tons of coal. Decommissioned in 1986, the Charlottesville Coal Tower still stands between East Market Street and the CSX railroad tracks today. Like most coaling stations, it was retired in place, due to its large dimensions and solid construction. Source: Chesapeake & Ohio Coaling Stations, By Thomas W. Dixon, Jr. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 17-11-02 167 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 090126000 Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp., Owner Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, Applicant Exterior alterations and addition Application components (linked): • Staff Report • Minutes from previous reviews of project • Historic Survey • Submittal Package • Drawings • Lighting Cutsheet City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report August 18, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 17-11-02 167 Chancellor Street / Tax Parcel 090126000 Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp, Owner Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, LLC, Applicant Addition and alterations Background Year Built: 1915 District: The Corner ADC Status: Contributing This large, five-bay, two-and-a-half‐story dwelling shows elements of the Colonial Revival style; details include: brick stretcher bond, hip roof with one hip roof dormer, two‐bay front porch with piers and full entablature, and entrance with three-lite transom and sidelights. (Historic survey attached). Prior BAR Actions November 2017 - Preliminary discussion. BAR was supportive of something happening here, but not the submitted version. The changes to Chancellor Street side were more problematic: the big dormer is not appropriate; maintain the wrap-around porch, maybe come out only as far as first column. Maintain integrity on Chancellor Street side. Madison Lane side could be more contemporary and differentiated from historic fabric; invading setback on that side OK; maybe one-story full width porch instead of 2- story portico; play off the two volumes; porch can create own axis, not necessarily symmetrical; take cues from Greek revival – not-so-grand two-story porch. New addition could be more contemporary. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/739824/2017- 11_167%20Chancellor%20Street_BAR.pdf April 2018 – BAR approved the application for general massing, concept and composition with details and the SUP recommendation to come back for BAR review. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/754415/2018- 04_167%20Chancellor%20Street_BAR.pdf 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 1 October 2019 – BAR recommended approval of Special Use Permit for setback variances; that based on the general design and building footprint as submitted the proposed Special Use Permit for 167 Chancellor Street will not have an adverse impact on the Corner ADC District, with the understanding that the final design and details will require future BAR review and approval and that the BAR extends the Certificate of Appropriateness from April 2018. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791772/2019- 10_167%20Chancellor%20Street_BAR.pdf Note: See appendix for minutes from above BAR meetings. Application  Applicant submittal:  Design Develop drawings Chi Psi Lodge at 167 Chancellor Street, dated June 30, 2020: CS.1; Site Plan sheets 1- 5 (June 1, 2020); D1.0; D1.1; D1.2; D1.3; D2.0; A0.0; A1.0; A1.1; A1.2; A1.3; A2.0; A2.1; A3.0; A3.1; A3.2; and A5.0.  Charlottesville CoA Application for the Chi Psi Lodge, dated June 30, 2020: Cover through sheet 35--includes project narrative, existing conditions, proposed landscape plan, proposed building elevations and material information, before and after rendered views.  Cut sheet for exterior light fixture: Artisan #3175CLBK CoA request for a proposed addition and alterations, including site work and landscaping, to an existing fraternity house. Materials  Roofing o House: Da Vinci Bellaforte synthetic slate shingles (Slate Grey). o Gutters/Downspouts: Aluminum (White), 5" ogee gutter, round downspouts. o Porch (east): Standing seam metal, painted.  Brick o Match existing  Trim o Cornice: Replicate existing. Hardiepanel. o Pediment: Hardiepanel with Architectural Elements polyurethane cove mould. o Columns: EnduraStone FRP (Fiberglass Reinforced Polymer) Columns o Railings: PermaPorch cellular PVC railing. "Savannah" top rail profile. o Porch flooring: Trex Select Decking (Woodland Brown)  EIFS  Doors o Pinnacle clad white, ogee applied muntins with internal spacer bar. Classic handle style.  Windows o Pinnacle aluminum clad wood, double hung window, white exterior finish, 7/8" ogee applied muntins with internal spacer bar, low-e glass, Williamsburg brickmould. o At pediment: Pinnacle clad white direct glaze full round, 7/8" applied muntin with internal spacer bar. o Sills: Precast concrete.  Lighting o Artisan #3175CLBK with 60W incandescent bulb. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 2  Landscaping o Seven (7) “Rotundiloba” Sweetgum. Liquidambar styraciflua o One (1) Red Maple, Acer rubrum o Grass lawn Discussion The BAR previously reviewed and approved the project's general massing, concept and composition. For this submittal, the BAR review should focus on the materials and details, and their application and use on the previously approved form and massing. During prior meetings, the BAR discussed the extent to which the additions and alterations should be differentiated from what will be retained and how there were no obvious transition lines to work with. (For example, the existing cornice line and profile will be continued on addition.) The BAR suggested that the elements and character of the Chancellor Street elevation be retained, with the significant transformation focused on the Madison Lane elevation, which is reflected in the current submittal. The BAR also requested that existing windows be retained, to the extent possible. Eleven existing windows and the existing door and sidelights at the east entry will be retained. Staff reviewed with the applicant the matter of new roofing versus retain sections of the existing. The existing slate roof is over 100 years old and has been poorly maintained. Given the complexity of the new roof plan and the extent to which the existing, removal of the existing slate and replacement with the synthetic slate is a reasonable request. However, the BAR may wish to discuss this further. The existing metal roof on the porch facing Chancellor Street is in very poor condition. It has deteriorated and in some places it has been patched. Its is a reasonable request. The BAR should discuss the existing hip/ridge caps and ledge flashing and to what extent those elements might be retained/replicated, if at all. For new construction, the use of EIFS and fiberglass-reinforced plastic is discouraged. However, these materials have changed since adoption of the guidelines (2012). The BAR should discuss if these materials are acceptable. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements, New Construction and Additions, and Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed alterations and addition satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in The Corner ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted.. [.. as submitted with the following modifications…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements, New Construction and Additions, and Rehabilitation, I move to find that the alterations and addition do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in The Corner ADC ADC district, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted.. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 3 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; (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 B. Plantings 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. D. Lighting 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. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 4 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 and 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. … H. Utilities and 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. … Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction and Additions G. Roof (New) 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. 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. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 5 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 and Doors (New) 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 (New) 1. Porches and other semi-public spaces are important in establishing layers or zones of intermediate spaces within the streetscape. L. Foundation and Cornice (New) 1) Distinguish the foundation from the rest of the structure through the use of different materials, patterns, or textures. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 6 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 and Textures (New) 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. 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 (New) 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 and Decoration (New) 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. P. Additions (New) 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 7 b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation B. Facades and Storefronts (Rehab) 1) Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2) Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 3) Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4) Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 5) Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 6) When designing new building elements, base the design on the “Typical elements of a commercial façade and storefront” (see drawing next page). 7) Reconstruct missing or original elements, such as cornices, windows, and storefronts, if documentation is available. 8) Design new elements that respect the character, materials, and design of the building, yet are distinguished from the original building. 9) Depending on the existing building’s age, originality of the design and architectural significance, in some cases there may be an opportunity to create a more contemporary façade design when undertaking a renovation project. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 8 10) Avoid using materials that are incompatible with the building or within the specific districts, including textured wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding, and pressure-treated wood, 11) Avoid introducing inappropriate architectural elements where they never previously existed. C. Windows (Rehab) 1) Prior to any repair or replacement of windows, a survey of existing window conditions is recommended. Note number of windows, whether each window is original or replaced, the material, type, hardware and finish, the condition of the frame, sash, sill, putty, and panes. 2) Retain original windows when possible. 3) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. 4) If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use. 5) Repair original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. 6) Replace historic components of a window that are beyond repair with matching components. 7) Replace entire windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. 8) If a window on the primary façade of a building must be replaced and an existing window of the same style, material, and size is identified on a secondary elevation, place the historic window in the window opening on the primary façade. 9) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 14) False muntins and internal removable grilles do not present an historic appearance and should not be used. 15) Do not use tinted or mirrored glass on major facades of the building. Translucent or low (e) glass may be strategies to keep heat gain down. 16) Storm windows should match the size and shape of the existing windows and the original sash configuration. Special shapes, such as arched top storms, are available. 17) Storm windows should not damage or obscure the windows and frames. 18) Avoid aluminum-colored storm sash. It can be painted an appropriate color if it is first primed with a zinc chromate primer. 19) The addition of shutters may be appropriate if not previously installed but if compatible with the style of the building or neighborhood. 20) In general, shutters should be wood (rather than metal or vinyl) and should be mounted on hinges. In some circumstances, appropriately dimensioned, painted, composite material shutters may be used. 21) The size of the shutters should result in their covering the window opening when closed. 22) Avoid shutters on composite or bay windows. 23) If using awnings, ensure that they align with the opening being covered. 24) Use awning colors that are compatible with the colors of the building. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 9 D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors (Rehab) 1) The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 2) Inspect masonry, wood, and metal or porches and entrances for signs of rust, peeling paint, wood deterioration, open joints around frames, deteriorating putty, inadequate caulking, and improper drainage, and correct any of these conditions. 3) Repair damaged elements, matching the detail of the existing original fabric. 4) Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 5) Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 6) Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 7) Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8) Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. 9) In general, avoid adding a new entrance to the primary facade, or facades visible from the street. 10) Do not enclose porches on primary elevations and avoid enclosing porches on secondary elevations in a manner that radically changes the historic appearance. 11) Provide needed barrier-free access in ways that least alter the features of the building. a. For residential buildings, try to use ramps that are removable or portable rather than permanent. b. On nonresidential buildings, comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act while minimizing the visual impact of ramps that affect the appearance of a building. 12) The original size and shape of door openings should be maintained. 13) Original door openings should not be filled in. 14) When possible, reuse hardware and locks that are original or important to the historical evolution of the building. 15) Avoid substituting the original doors with stock size doors that do not fit the opening properly or are not compatible with the style of the building. 16) Retain transom windows and sidelights. 17) When installing storm or screen doors, ensure that they relate to the character of the existing door. a. They should be a simple design where lock rails and stiles are similar in placement and size. b. Avoid using aluminum colored storm doors. c. If the existing storm door is aluminum, consider painting it to match the existing door. d. Use a zinc chromate primer before painting to ensure adhesion. E. Cornice (Rehab) 1) Keep the cornice well sealed and anchored, and maintain the gutter system and flashing. 2) Repair rather than replace the cornice. 3) Do not remove elements of the original composition, such as brackets or blocks, without replacing them with new ones of a like design. 4) Match materials, decorative details, and profiles of the existing original cornice design when making repairs. 5) Do not replace an original cornice with a new one that conveys a different period, style, or theme from that of the building. 6) If the cornice is missing, the replacement should be based on physical or documented evidence, or barring that, be compatible with the original building. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 10 7) Do not wrap or cover a cornice with vinyl or aluminum; these substitute materials may cover up original details and also may hide underlying moisture problems. F. Foundation (Rehab) 1) Retain any decorative vents that are original to the building. 2) Offset infill between brick piers either with concrete block or solid masonry to ensure that a primary reading of a brick foundation is retained. 3) When repointing or rebuilding deteriorated porch piers, match original materials as closely as possible. 4) Where masonry has deteriorated, take steps as outlined in the masonry section of these guidelines. G. Roof (Rehab) 1) When replacing a standing seam metal roof, the width of the pan and the seam height should be consistent with the original. Ideally, the seams would be hand crimped. 2) If pre-painted standing seam metal roof material is permitted, commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. 3) Original roof pitch and configuration should be maintained. 4) The original size and shape of dormers should be maintained. 5) Dormers should not be introduced on visible elevations where none existed originally. 6) Retain elements, such as chimneys, skylights, and light wells that contribute to the style and character of the building. 7) When replacing a roof, match original materials as closely as possible. a. Avoid, for example, replacing a standing-seam metal roof with asphalt shingles, as this would dramatically alter the building’s appearance. b. Artificial slate is an acceptable substitute when replacement is needed. c. Do not change the appearance or material of parapet coping. 8) Place solar collectors and antennae on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. 9) Do not add new elements, such as vents, skylights, or additional stories that would be visible on the primary elevations of the building. H. Masonry (Rehab) 1) Retain masonry features, such as walls, brackets, railings, cornices, window surrounds, pediments, steps, and columns that are important in defining the overall character of the building. 2) When repairing or replacing a masonry feature, respect the size, texture, color, and pattern of masonry units, as well as mortar joint size and tooling. 3) When repointing masonry, duplicate mortar strength, composition, color, and texture. a. Do not repoint with mortar that is stronger than the original mortar and the brick itself. b. Do not repoint with a synthetic caulking compound. 4) Repoint to match original joints and retain the original joint width. 5) Do not paint unpainted masonry. I. Wood (Rehab) 1) Repair rotted or missing sections rather than replace the entire element. a. Use epoxies to patch, piece, or consolidate parts. b. Match existing materials and details. 2) Replace wood elements only when they are rotted beyond repair. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 11 a. Match the original in material and design by substituting materials that convey the same visual appearance or by using surviving material. b. Base the design of reconstructed elements on pictorial or physical evidence from the actual building rather than from similar buildings in the area. c. Complement the existing details, size, scale, and material. 3) Do not substitute vinyl for wood railing and trim. Some composites, including fiberglass reinforced composite, may be found acceptable as a substitute material for a specific application, but must be painted. J. Synthetic Siding (Rehab) 1) Avoid applying synthetic siding. In addition to changing the appearance of a historic building, synthetic siding can make maintenance more difficult because it covers up potential problems that can become more serious. And synthetic siding, once it dents or fades, needs painting just as frequently as wood. 2) Remove synthetic siding and restore original building material, if possible. K. Paint (Rehab) 1) Do not remove paint on wood trim or architectural details. 2) Do not paint unpainted masonry. 3) Choose colors that blend with and complement the overall color schemes on the street. Do not use bright and obtrusive colors. 4) The number of colors should be limited. Doors and shutters can be painted a different color than the walls and trim. 5) Use appropriate paint placement to enhance the inherent design of the building. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 12 Minutes from Prior BAR Meetings November 21, 2017 Preliminary Discussion BAR 17-11-02 / 167 Chancellor Street / Tax Parcel 090126000 Alpha Omicron Corp, Owner/ Kevin Schafer, Applicant New Addition Camie Mess presented the staff report. The applicant, Kevin Schaffer, expanded on the staff report, with details of the project. Applicant spoke, about the history of the fraternity, and how they came to acquire that specific building, and why they are requesting these specific design changes. The setbacks they are exploring focus on three main areas: stair tower bump outs, Madison lane front porch addition, and the expansion of the addition. Paul Wright discusses the need of the project and expands on the history. These changes allow us to maximize the space without increasing the footprint. It allows us to improve sprinkler systems and other systems that are relevant to be altered to more modern. Design development and design intention- this site is not only a piece but also the anchor that ties culturally and holds responsible for the area. Questions from the Public No questions from the public. Question from the Board Miller: So are you proposing to demolish the current addition, and replace it? Applicant: Yes. It doesn’t match the rest of the building. Balut: When was the addition made? Applicant: In the 1980s. Miller: Would you be removing the tree on Madison Lane? Applicant: No, we would not remove that tree. Gastinger: I have a question about setbacks. If the existing structure is not within the current zoning setbacks, do those become the new setback lines? Applicant: That is not our understanding, but that is a great strategy. Comments from the Public No comments from the public. Comments from the Board Mohr: The historic entrance was on Chancellor Street, and this current design flips that, and I think that destroys the historic integrity of the structure. The new changes destroy the historic ties. Anything you do with the façade jeopardizes the relevancy of the relation to our guidelines. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 13 Schwarz: I agree. To completely modify the old front is the problematic part for me. Applicant: We wanted to keep the characteristics that the city identified as historically significant. Gastinger: I have a couple thoughts about the Madison Lane façade, the issue for me is not so much addressing the additional façade, and in my mind that addition on the Madison Lane side could be treated in a more contemporary fashion, that way it is not historically confusing. Applicant: We looked at that, but then that does not fit in with the pedestrian experience that is Madison Lane, the social context of that. We looked at a modern type, but it interferes with the walking experience. Miller: I think Breck is right, but I also agree it is the less important side. I have more of problem with the large dormers on the Chancellor Street side. I understand the need for an egress there, but maybe moving it. Mohr: I think all the energy goes towards the current addition and along the façade. Schwarz: You have a wraparound porch, and you have basically cut that off. It looks like you have lost any sense of history. Mohr: Doing that takes away any sense of scale. Balut: While I am sympathetic to your design difficulties, I agree with my colleagues that the changes you have proposed to the Chancellor Street elevation, they completely destroy the historic fabric of that structure, which was a residence. As far as the Madison Lane side, I appreciate the difficulties you are having, and I think you have addressed those successfully, but I think that you should address that addition in a more contemporary fashion. Focus on maintaining the Chancellor side. Schwarz: It might be important to add, assuming you get your setback; I have no problem with the Madison Lane side. Applicant: As far as defining what is important, and a no go line, do we draw it from that entire porch, because we would have trouble fitting in the program needs for a fraternity. Mohr: I think if you keep that corner intact, you will be more successful. Just back off that corner. Sarafin: I would like to add some comments on the Madison Lane side; I have some problems with unifying the front of the façade. I see keeping the two main volumes on the Madison Lane side, sort of assuming the additions come off and you completely re-work that. In terms of how to express that entry, I think there might be some other examples that might offer some guidance. I wonder if incorporating the addition overflows a little bit on to the Madison side. I would be interested to see what a single story full width porch would look like. It would still be an additional entrance without focusing the attention on the Madison Lane side entrance. Miller: Also, remember it doesn’t have to be symmetrical. Asymmetry is a character defining feature of the current house. Maybe there is a way to make it look alluring and grand and inviting, making Madison a little more primary. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 14 Mohr: You can also take some cues from other Greek revival buildings. You do have that other building there, so you might be able to make an argument to give you more room to maneuver. Applicant: Okay, I think we understand. The Chancellor side is more off limits, and the Madison side is more available to change. Also the addition is free to work with. Mohr: I think that you can play with the asymmetry. Miller: We are supportive of something happening here. Mohr: Be nice to the old house. Sarafin: Hopefully, we have helped you prioritize what we view as what is important in this structure. Not an easy site to work on. Applicant: Question about the stairway. The most important part is the stairwell. I’m curious, is the proportion of the wrap around porch absolutely unmovable? Or can it be moved slightly? Balut: It would seem that however you treat the new addition would be able to incorporate that stair tower. Applicant: Well that would violate the things you just told us about? Gastinger: Could you rotate it this way? Applicant: I don’t understand. Gastinger: We feel that it would be okay to extend the addition to that column. But we are not talking about extending the porch. Another thing to note, it might be that the stair can slide or the stair changes orientation with the expansion we are talking about. Balut: There is some room for movement but not a whole lot. Miller: Maybe it fits the style of the front, so that they are not divorced. Sarafin: To make sure that each façade relates to the other somehow. Miller: Everyone is fairly open, get in touch individually, we are here to help. Motion: This is a preliminary discussion, so no motion is necessary. April 17, 2018 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 17-11-02 / 167 Chancellor Street / Tax Parcel 090126000 Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp, Owner/Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, LLC, Applicant Additions and renovations 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 15 Report by Kevin Schafer Questions from the Public No questions from the public Questions from the Board Schwarz: Looks like you are replacing the windows, are the existing (on the chancellor side) windows original, existing roof maintain for the existing portion Applicant: Yes Schwarz: Is the intention to maintain/replace the existing portion of the roof? Applicant: It is current two different roofs, it is tin and sad right now so we are hoping this is approved so we can rip it off, and it is not our intent to go back to slat. We could go with asphalt; we are not locked in to any particular materials. Gastinger: Could you describe about how you are approaching the brick and window details relative to the original and the new construction. Applicant: The new construction is going to have different depths of their windows as you look at the replacement of the existing windows and the existing historic structure. The goal of the project as a whole will be to create a legible cohesive building, but understanding that we need to create distinctions between what is new and what is old. The goal is to leave the existing windows in their location, in the new windows with a different depth, might have a different trim package or a different style window. Balut: From a design prospective, why did you choose to keep the fascia at the same elevation as the existing house and the eave all at the same elevation? Applicant: The Chancellor Street side is a distinct piece so can it carry composition because it is relatively compact or to harmonize with it so you can clearly see what is coming. Ball: Is there a flat area on top of the roof? Applicant: Yes, there is a little flat piece because there could have been a little double tooth, this is just the geometry of it from a visual perspective you will see the line as a ridge. Gastinger: In one of the existing photos there is a chimney shown, is that in the piece that is being removed of the original house? Applicant: The chimney is proposed to be removed. Balut: Regarding the Madison facade, why did you choose to do an asymmetrical façade? Applicant: Because the front and rear doors do not align. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 16 Ball: How do you deal with water coming off the porch, are you going to have a gutter wrapped around that? Applicant: It will be a Waterproof roof on that, but haven’t talked about gutters yet. Comments from the Public No comments from the public Comments from the Board Sarafin: As a three-sided project, this has really evolved really well. The concept is a restoration moving around the corner, it is an appropriate condition. Talking about the volume of the condition. The Madison façade is technical asymmetrical, how this is moving on the Madison street side? Schwarz: He is supportive of this. It really shows it is free standing and you move the wall three feet and that is a good move. [?]: The problem is there a distinct massing, lop-sided, we don’t have that massing, standing alone, or you tie it together. Gastinger: The changes have really improved the project. The new façade on Madison is pretty irregular yet appropriate. Don’t need the dormer on the other side, the two new outdoor patio surfaces, that material either concrete or stone. Balut: A very good job on the presentation. Earnst: I agree with what everyone else has said. Ball: This looks good. Sarafin: Speaks to the fact that the façade has been re-worked. Schwarz: I encourage keeping any of the existing windows that are there. Schwarz moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions, I move to find that the proposed addition that will increase the building’s massing and add an additional porch and portico satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Corner ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application for general massing, concept and composition with details and the SUP recommendation to come back . Sarafin seconded. Approved (6-0). October 15, 2019 Special Use Permit Application BAR 19-10-02 / 167 Chancellor Street / Tax Parcel 090126000 Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp, Owner Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, LLC, Applicant 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 17 Staff Report, Jeff Werner – The structure was built in 1915. This large, five-bay, two-and-a-half‐ story dwelling shows elements of the Colonial Revival style; details include: brick stretcher bond, hip roof with one hip roof dormer, two‐bay front porch with piers and full entablature, and entrance with three-lite transom and sidelights. April 25, 2018 – (BAR 17-11-02) BAR approved the application for general massing, concept and composition with details and the SUP recommendation to come back for BAR review. The COA for that expires this month. In speaking with applicant, they would like to have that extended. Request for Special Use Permit for setback variances on new addition to fraternity house. When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the Board of Architectural Review, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. In evaluating this SUP request, the Planning Commission and, ultimately, City Council will take into consideration the BAR’s recommendation on whether or not the SUP, if approved, would adversely impact the Corner ADC District and, if so, any proposed conditions to mitigate the impact. The BAR’s recommendations is not a function of how the site will be used or occupied, but an evaluation of the requested SUP relative to the criteria within the ADC Design Guidelines. That is, will allowing modifications to the front and side setbacks result in a project that conflicts with the Guidelines? Understanding that at a later date the final design must be reviewed and approved by the BAR, staff recommends the BAR find that the SUP will not have an adverse impact on the Corner ADC District. However, in reviewing the SUP the BAR has the opportunity to discuss—and offer recommendations on--the proposed massing and building envelope, and how it engages the streetscape and neighboring properties, etc., etc. Furthermore, the BAR may request that the Planning Commission and City Council consider including these design recommendations as conditions of approval for the SUP. The BAR previously approved the general massing, concept, and composition of the proposed addition, with the understanding that approval of architectural details and an SUP recommendation would later be necessary. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, Applicant – I would like to expand on the entitlement process to review to date. We submitted a preliminary submission on October 31, 2017 to the BAR, which attempted to accommodate this desired expansion, primarily through a vertical expansion through the use of dormers. Per the BAR review, this expansion changed the façade of the Chancellor Street and our attempts to retain the historic characteristics of the front porch were overshadowed by these dormers in the stair tower addition. We agreed that the historic defining characteristics should remain, including the low hipped roof, the historic dormers, the front porch, and the three sided asymmetric bump out. At the direction of the BAR, we focused our areas of expansion towards the intersection of Madison Lane and Chancellor Street. The revised design of this edition more legibly separated itself from the historic structure while complimenting the massing, fenestration, and material palate already established by this historic structure. On March 27, 2018, we re-submitted to the BAR for massing and concept approval. As mentioned, the revised design garnered a 6-0 unanimous approval for massing and concept during this April BAR meeting. Since that time, the project became more rooted in reality, we took about 18 months off for a fundraising effort. As staff mentioned, we would like an extension on that COA due to the 18 months of fundraising. With the fundraising complete, we have begun the Special Use Application process again, which has prompted this third review by the BAR. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 18 Since the April, 2018 meeting, little on the project has changed. The overall approach of leaving the defining historic characteristics found along Chancellor Street intact and separating the massing of the new addition from the original structure remains as submitted. The fenestration material palate and the Madison Lane front portico remain the same as well. There are two differences with this submission and the previous submission. The first being the side porch coming as a Phase 2 addition once more fundraising has been secured. The second difference is the elimination of three new inactive dormers that were proposed on the new addition previously just do funding constraints. They were inactive dormers. This will not be the final review. We will come back to you with the final materials. I would like to talk about whether this project will have an adverse impact on the district. We believe that the proposal in front of you positively impacts the district, even given the request for setback variances. The use is in keeping with adjacent uses as well as the City of Charlottesville comprehensive plan, which outlines this site for high density residential. Given the challenging corner lot condition, the house has the opportunity, and the client has the desire to address both street fronts. Because of this opportunity, the projects celebrates and preserves the historic Chancellor Street façade elements in keeping with the existing found in adjacent structures along Chancellor Street. Simultaneously, the proposal responds to and harmonizes the existing building elements found in adjacent structure found along Madison Lane. Furthermore, the removal and the replacement of the marginal of the 1980s edition additionally improves the structure for both facades. The proposed addition will captivate and engage the corner for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The proposal also has data, which outlines even with the new addition, the project will be below that precinct average. The project is within the massing and the scale of the district. To continue to improve the conditions of the property, the proposed site plan offers to extend the sidewalk to the intersection of Chancellor Street and Madison Lane. Currently, there is no sidewalk at this location. Pedestrians are forced to walk in the street. Existing overgrown landscaping will be removed and replanted with new street trees, improving pedestrian safety, visibility, and the overall look of the parcel. To further complicate this entitlement process, this parcel is under the purview of an existing special use permit from 1987 and is linked to the 165 Chancellor Street parcel. This existing special use permit already allows the fraternity or sorority use up to 33 beds over the two houses and setback variances. We are amending the existing SUP by separating it into two. We are not requesting to change the use and the density. We are requesting additional setback variances to accommodate this new addition, which has been separated from the historic structure towards the intersection with Madison and Chancellor. It is important to note this existing structure steps outside the allowable setbacks, so this additional variance request is not without precedent. On October 4th, we held a required community meeting, which was held at the existing house. We had one member of the community attend, Stewart Hornsby, who was acting as a representative for the Center for Christian Study. We are requesting the BAR recommendation to move ahead with our special use permit as well as that extension on the certificate of appropriateness. Questions From The Public None Questions From The Board Mr. Schwarz – We only have the site plan. It doesn’t show any setbacks that you are trying to change. Are the variances for the footprint shown in the site plan? Do you have a setback line? 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 19 Mr. Schafer – The existing setbacks are shown in that dashed line. We get to within four feet in a couple of the new corners of the addition. We would ask for specifics in those four feet locations or we would ask for the footprint. The site plan is currently under preliminary review. It has been submitted. We are asking for a setback relief to do that addition. Mr. Schwarz – It is basically to match the footprint that is in here. Mr. Bell – How tight does the setback get? Mr. Schafer – This is the closest that we get in this location. We are about four feet Comments From The Public None Comments From The Board Mr. Sarafin – It is such a unique site. We will have the good fortune of two 25 front foot setbacks on the corner. Recalling the conversation about the evolution of the massing and the design to give some anchor to both streets with this one structure felt positive. The setbacks as defined are arbitrary. I am in favor of extending the COA and in favor of approving the SUP. Ms. Miller – What makes the setbacks unique is that they are elevated from the sidewalk, which matters less with the pedestrians that are walking by. Mr. Bell – The setbacks are not being used anyway. I don’t know if we tie in our allowance of the bigger zoning to the specific building in the design. Does this set a precedent that the zoning could be used for something else? Mr. Schwarz – It is just setback relief. I was going to recommend asking for setback variances versus locking in the footprint. Mr. Werner – What was looked in 2018 and 2019, the footprint has not changed at all. There is a plan in the application that shows the proposed footprint. Once the plan is approved, it cannot step outside of that. In your motion, you can cite the footprint as indicated. Mr. Schwarz – We have only given them general massing and scale approval. While I was content with the design, someone might suggest a tweek that moves something. We are stuck with this. I don’t want to slow this down by complicating it. Mr. Gastinger – We are not on the zoning. We are only concerned if this has an adverse impact on the district. Mr. Mohr – It is within the context of the COA. Mr. Werner – That was reviewed with the understanding that there was a Special Use Permit application. The COA from 2018 was with this specific understanding that was part of s Special Use Permit that would be coming back. To reference back to 2018 does put the BAR on very good footing. Ms. Miller – We should vote on what we have. 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 20 Motion BAR Member Justin Sarafin moved to recommend that based on the general design and building footprint as submitted the proposed Special Use Permit for 167 Chancellor Street will not have an adverse impact on the Corner ADC District, with the understanding that the final design and details will require future BAR review and approval and that the BAR extends the Certificate of Appropriateness from April 2018. BAR member Carl Schwarz seconded. Approved (6-0). 167 Chancellor Street (Aug 11, 2020) 21 CHARLOTTESVILLE CoA APPLICATION THE CHI PSI LODGE 167 CHANCELLOR STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE , VA PRESENTED BY ALPHA OMICRON OF CHI PSI CORPORATION IN ASSOCIATION WITH JUNE 30TH, 2020 1 | COVER 3 | TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 : HOW DID WE GET HERE 4 | ENTITLEMENT PROCESS TO DATE 5 | PROJECT NARRATIVE 6 | ANALYSIS OF BUILDING FOOTPRINTS IN PRECINCT 7 |EXISTING AERIAL 8 - 9| EXISTING CONDITIONS AT CHANCELLOR STREET 10 - 11 | EXISTING CONDITIONS AT MADISON LANE 12-14 | PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED RESPONSIBILITIES AND DIRECTIVES 15 | PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN PART 2 16-25| PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND REMATERIAL INFORMATION PART 3 26-35 | BEFORE AND AFTER RENDERED VIEWS OCTOBER 31, 2017 PRELIMINARY BAR DISCUSSION - A PROPOSAL WAS PRESENTED THAT ATTEMPTED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DESIRED EXPANSION THROUGH A VERTICAL EXPANSION, GIVEN THE TIGHT LOT CONDITIONS. BAR FELT THE SCALE OF THE HISTORIC MASS WAS CHANGED, AND DIRECTED A REDESIGN THAT MAINTAINED ALL DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS. MARCH 27, 2018 BAR SUBMISSION FOR MASSING AND CONCEPT APPROVAL - REVISED PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED THAT MORE LEGIBLY SEPARATED ITSELF FROM THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE WHILE COMPLEMENTING THE MASSING, FENESTRATION, AND MATERIAL PALETTE ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE. APRIL 17, 2018 BAR HEARING FOR GENERAL MASSING, CONCEPT AND COMPOSITION APPROVAL - 6-0 UNANIMOUS APPROVAL, COA GRANTED MAY 8, 2018 PRELIMINARY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING TO GATHER FEEDBACK SPRING 2018 - FALL 2019 FUNDRAISING BY THE CHI PSI CORPORATION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 SPECIAL USE APPLICATION SUBMITTED OCTOBER 4, 2019 PUBLIC COMMUNITY MEETING HELD AT THE EXISTING CHI PSI LODGE TO REVIEW PROPOSAL - ONE COMMUNITY MEMBER ATTENDED, STATED VIA EMAIL THE PROJECT “LOOKS LIKE GREAT IMPROVEMENTS” OCTOBER 15, 2019 BAR HEARING FOR ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE CORNER ADC DISTRICT - 6-0 UNANIMOUS APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION, EXISTING COA EXTENDED NOVEMBER 12, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON SPECIAL USE APPLICATION - 6-0 UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT DECEMBER 2, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION - 5-0 UNANIMOUS ADOPTION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION JUNE 30TH, 2020 BAR DETAIL COA APPLICATION SUBMITTED 4 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA ENTITLEMENT PROCESS TO DATE JULY 28, 2020 INTRODUCTION BUILT BETWEEN 1910-1920, 167 CHANCELLOR STREET RESIDES IN THE CORNER OVERALL DESIGN APPROACH: WHEN EVALUATING THE EXISTING BUILDING, AND ACCORDING TO THE ARCHITECTURE CONTROL DISTRICT THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED ORIGINALLY FOR THE ALPHA CHI RHO CITY’S HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION, THE DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS OCCUR FRATERNITY. MORE RECENTLY, THE HOUSE WAS OWNED BY THE ALPHA PHI SORORITY IN THE 1980S, ALONG CHANCELLOR STREET, AND INCLUDE INTERSECTING HIPPED ROOFS, AN ASYMMETRICAL THE PHI DELTA THETA FRATERNITY IN THE EARLY 2000S, AND CURRENTLY IS HOME OF THE CHI PSI THREE-BAY FRONT AND A ONE-STORY FRONT PORCH WITH ANGLED SIDES. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THESE FRATERNITY. THROUGHOUT THE 100 YEAR LIFESPAN OF THE HOUSE, IT HAS GONE THROUGH VARIOUS DEFINING ELEMENTS, AS WELL AS THE OVERALL PROPORTION, SCALE AND MASS OF THE EXISTING LEVELS OF RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS, INCLUDING AN ADDITION CONSTRUCTED IN THE 1980S STRUCTURE, BE PRESERVED AND PROTECTED. THAT DETRACTS FROM THE STRUCTURE’S HISTORIC CHARACTER. IT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN USED AS A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN FOR A CATERING COMPANY, BOARDING HOUSE FOR STUDENTS, AND WHEN COMPARED TO THE HISTORIC CHANCELLOR STREET ELEVATION, THE MADISON LANE VARIOUS FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES. FACADE IS RELATIVELY UNDERDEVELOPED AND RETAINS LITTLE, IF ANY, OF THE DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS AND SUBSEQUENT CHARM. AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHANCELLOR AND MADISON, PURPOSE OF THIS BOOKLET: THIS DOCUMENT IS MEANT TO SERVE AS AN ACCOMPANIMENT TO THE EXISTING 1980S ADDITION FURTHER BREAKS DOWN THE LEGIBILITY OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE THE DRAWING SET SUBMITTED CONCURRENTLY AND TITLED “EXTERIOR DESIGN PACKAGE FOR BAR AND IS UNSUCCESSFUL IN EITHER PRESERVING OR HARMONIZING WITH ITS ADJACENT CONTEXT. IT REVIEW”. THE MAJORITY OF THE DESIRED INFORMATION ON DETAIL DESIGN, SUCH AS TYPICAL WAS IN THESE LOCATIONS, ALONG MADISON LANE AND TOWARDS THE INTERSECTION OF THE TWO WINDOW SILLS AND HEADERS, TYPICAL EAVES, DETAIL SECTIONS AT NEW PORTICO, WINDOW STREETS, THAT THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE REVIEW SUGGESTED FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION. SCHEDULES, AND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CAN BE FOUND IN THOSE DRAWINGS. CONSEQUENTLY, WE’VE TAKEN THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS NEEDED FOR THE TO PROVIDE THE MOST COMPLETE AND ROBUST UNDERSTAND OF THE PROPOSED WORK, THIS PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TYPOLOGY OF A FRATERNITY AND INCLUDED IT IN AN ADJACENT BOOKLET HAS BEEN INCLUDED AND IS BROKEN INTO THREE PARTS: ADDITION, TOWARDS THE INTERSECTION OF CHANCELLOR STREET AND MADISON LANE, INSTEAD PART I - BACKGROUND INFORMATION / “HOW DID WE GET HERE” OF GROWING THE STRUCTURE VERTICALLY. THE OUTCOME IS AN ADDITION THAT PRESERVES THE PART II - MANUFACTURER’S INFORMATION ON MATERIALS AND BUILDING COMPONENTS HISTORIC SCALE AND MASSING ALONG CHANCELLOR STREET AND PROTECTS THE DEFINING HISTORIC PART III - RENDERED VIEWS SHOWING EXISTING CONDITIONS ALONGSIDE PROPOSED WORK CHARACTERISTICS, WHILE WORKING WITH THE EXISTING GRADE TO AFFORD ADDITIONAL PROGRAM IN THE BASEMENT, IN LIEU OF A THIRD STORY. PER THE CHARLOTTESVILLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED TO THIS PROPOSED PROJECT FOR “GENERAL MASSING, CONCEPT, AND BEYOND PRESERVING THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE, ANOTHER COMPOSITION”. THIS COA WAS FIRST GRANTED IN APRIL OF 2018 AND HAS SINCE BEEN RENEWED SUBSTANTIAL DESIGN CHALLENGE IS TO HARMONIZE THE MADISON LANE FACADE WITH ITS EXISTING IN OCTOBER OF 2019. THE FOCUS OF THIS SUBMISSION IS FOR FINAL DETAIL APPROVAL. NEIGHBORING ADJACENT CONTEXT. WE SOUGHT TO UNDERSTAND THE PRECINCT HISTORICALLY, CULTURALLY, AND PROGRAMMATICALLY, AND APPROPRIATELY REACT TO THE ADJACENT BUILDING DETAIL DESIGN APPROACH: IT WAS IMPERATIVE TO BOTH DISTINGUISH THE NEW ADDITION FROM THE ELEMENTS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT RECEIVED UNANIMOUS BAR SUPPORT FOR CONCEPT, MASSING, HISTORIC CHANCELLOR STREET FACADE, WHILE ALSO HARMONIZING WITH THE ADJACENT CONTEXT AND SCALE, BY RESOLVING TO PRESERVE THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HISTORIC FACADE (SEE OUR OVERALL DESIGN APPROACH BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS STATEMENT). ON CHANCELLOR STREET WHILE HARMONIZING WITH THE CLASSICAL BUILDING ELEMENTS FOUND ON MADISON LANE. ON A CHALLENGING CORNER LOT, THE PROPOSED ADDITION HELPS ADDRESS THE DESIGN OF THE ADDITION HELPS DISTINGUISH ITSELF AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY, WHILE STILL TAKING FACADES ON BOTH STREETS, WHICH HAPPEN TO HAVE VERY DIFFERENT AESTHETICS AND STYLES. VISUAL CUES FROM THE DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. FOR EXAMPLE, EXISTING DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS ARE TRIMMED SIMPLY AND UTILIZE WOOD SILLS. EVEN WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION, THE BUILDING IS STILL BELOW THE SQUARE FOOT AVERAGE OF CONTRASTINGLY, THE PROPOSED DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS ARE OF SYMPATHETIC SCALE AND SIZE ADJACENT STRUCTURES IN THE PRECINCT. AS THE EXISTING OPENINGS, BUT EMPHASIZE THE CHANGE IN CONSTRUCTION THROUGH A 3 1/2” BRICKMOULD TRIM AND A PRECAST SILL. HISTORIC WINDOW OPENINGS FEATURE ARCHED BRICK HEADERS, WHILE THE ADDITION UTILIZE STEEL LINTELS. THE SELECTED BRICK IS COMPLIMENTARY BUT DISTINCTLY MODERN IN ITS MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THE LIGHTS ARE A MODERN TAKE ON THE TRADITIONAL EXTERIOR WALL SCONCE. THESE SUBTLE NUANCES ARE PREVALENT THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT. THE RESULT IS A PROPOSED ADDITION THAT RESPECTS AND DEFERS TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE WHILE MAKING ITSELF LEGIBLE AND DISTINCT. 5 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROJECT NARRATIVE JULY 28, 2020 167 CHANCELLOR STREET 4008 3413 3510 5508 4416 6561 5870 CH 6991 AN CEL 2595 3878 LOR ST 6638 6627 6330 5995 6301 5295 5304 5338 6793 MA DIS ON E LN AV TY RSI PRECINCT AVERAGE FINISHED SQ FT. = 5,400 SF 4600 IVE EXISTING STRUCTURE = 65% of PRECINCT AVERAGE UN STRUCTURE WITH PROPOSED ADDITION = 4,650 SF, RU GB 85% of PRECINCT AVERAGE YR D MA DIS ON BO WL PRECINCT IDENTITY 6 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA ANALYSIS OF BUILDING FOOTPRINTS IN PRECINCT JULY 28, 2020 EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS 7 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA AERIAL JULY 28, 2020 EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE LANDSCAPING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CONDITIONS 8 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA CHANCELLOR STREET JULY 28, 2020 EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS 9 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA CHANCELLOR STREET JULY 28, 2020 EXISTING CONDITIONS 10 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA MADISON LANE JULY 28, 2020 EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS 11 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA MADISON LANE JULY 28, 2020 PER BAR COMMENTS, FOCUS AREA OF ADDITION AT REAR / SIDE. DEMOLITION OF ADDITION IS APPROPRIATE. LINE OF 1980S ADDITION PER BAR COMMENTS, RETAIN PORCH TO COLUMN LINE LINE OF ENCLOSED PORCH ADDITION (YEAR UNKNOWN) LINE OF BUILDING SETBACKS PER BAR COMMENTS, RETAIN HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS FOUND ALONG CHANCELLOR STREET PREVIOUS DETERMINATIONS 12 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA SUMMARY OF BAR DIRECTIVES JULY 28, 2020 CAPTIVATE AND ENGAGE CORNER FOR BOTH VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC DETERMINE BEST LOCATION FOR ADDITIONS TO MEET PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS ME H NTS ELE WIT FIX 1980S ADDITION TO HARMONIZE WITH EXISTING ING ONIZE CHANCELLOR STREET AND NEW MADISON LANE FACADES BU ARM ILD H LA ND A NE DIS D TO ON MA PON RES CELEBRATE AND PRESERVE HISTORIC CHANCELLOR STREET FACADE ELEMENTS PREVIOUS DETERMINATIONS 13 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA RESPONSIBILITIES AT CORNER LOT JULY 28, 2020 NEW SETBACKS PER THE GRANTED SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUS SETBACKS PER R-3 ZONING PREVIOUS DETERMINATIONS 14 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA SITE CONSTRAINTS JULY 28, 2020 TEL:434-665-4144 (E):KSCHAFER @designdevelopllc.com Acer rubrum THE LODGE AT 167 CHANCELLOR STREET RED MAPLE (1 of 1) CHI PSI CORPORATION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA Liquidambar styraciflua “ROTUNDILOBA” SWEETGUM (1 OF 7) REQUESTED SET BACK DIAGRAM PROPOSED RESPONSE 15 167 CHANCELLOR October 31, 2019 ST ISSUE DATE: DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA LANDSCAPE PLAN JULY 28, 2020 All Argos Custom Color Cements as well as Magnolia® Masons Mix, Eaglebond® Portland/Lime, & Superbond™ Mortar Cement are available in pre-mixed formulations. Below are samples of our most requested colors. DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC JULY 28, 2020 GLEN-GERY “ABERDEEN” AND ARGOS “BEIGE” AND PEDIMENT TO BE PAINTED PORCH RAILINGS, COLUMNS, ALL HARDIE TRIM AT EAVES, ARGOS White ARGOS Beige IN BENJAMIN MOORE 1X12 COMPOSITE FRIEZE BOARD "CHANTILLY LACE" ARGOS Ivory Buff ARGOS Canyon Brown ARGOS Savannah Ivory ARGOS Lite Beige ARGOS Porcelain ARGOS San Tan C ARGOS Blush ARGOS Clay Pink MECHANICAL UNITS ARGOS Khaki ARGOS Cordova Tan ARGOS Oyster ARGOS Red GAS METER ARGOS Seaside ARGOS Dark Brown ARGOS Lite Buff ARGOS Charcoal ELEVATION AND MATERIAL PALETTE ON EXISTING PORCH ARGOS Navajo ARGOS Black NEW METAL ROOF A3.1 2 B A3.0 A3.0 5 4 ARGOS Limestone ARGOS Magnolia® Mason’s Mix EXISTING FASCIA, FRIEZE, AND EAVE TRIM ARGOS Brown ARGOS Magnolia® Type “S” 1 ELEVATION CLEAN, SCRAPE, FILL, CAULK, ARGOS Putty ARGOS Magnolia® Dark PRIME AND REPAINT ALL RAILING, COLUMNS, AND PORCH TRIM CLEAN, SCRAPE, FILL, CAULK, PRIME AND REPAINT ALL EXISTING A2.0 1/4"=1' ARGOS Sahara ARGOS Magnolia® Ultra Dark A3.1 1 EIFS COLOR ARGOS Georgia Red ARGOS Magnolia® Buff A3.0 Due to variations Colors in computer shown approximate monitors, weactual cannotcolor guarantee mortarthe joints, accuracy but cannot of colors be presented relied upon on-screen to be exact. withPlease actual contact products.your Please Argos contact Cementyour representative Argos Cementtorepresentative request sample to request color mortar samplesticks. color mortar sticks. 1 CLEAN, SCRAPE, FILL, CAULK, PRIME AND REPAINT ALL EXISTING WINDOWS CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 167 CHANCELLOR ST ROOF RIDGE HEIGHT ROOF RIDGE HEIGHT FINISHED FLOOR BASEMENT SLAB FINSHED FLOOR UPPER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL 560'-1"' 580'-0" 569'-9" 549'-3" 539'-0" 580'-0" 569'-9" EAVE EAVE TRIM COLOR 16 1 ELEVATION 2 ELEVATION A2.0 1/4"=1' A2.0 1/4"=1' ALL HARDIE TRIM AT EAVES, PORCH RAILINGS, COLUMNS, AND PEDIMENT TO BE PAINTED IN BENJAMIN MOORE 580'-0" ROOF RIDGE HEIGHT "CHANTILLY LACE" 2 1 A3.1 A3.1 5 A3.0 6 1 A3.0 A3.0 569'-9" EAVE 560'-1"' UPPER LEVEL 3 FINISHED FLOOR A3.0 PE, FILL, CAULK, B RAIN WATER LEADER CLEAN, SCRAPE, FILL, CAULK, PAINT ALL (TYP. 1 OF 5) PRIME AND REPAINT ALL EXISTING MECHANICAL UNITS DOWS NEW METAL ROOF RAILING, COLUMNS, AND PORCH TRIM GAS METER ON EXISTING PORCH 2 549'-3" A3.0 1 ELEVATION 2 ELEVATION MAIN LEVEL FINSHED FLOOR MAXIM LIGHTING ARTISAN 1-LIGHT OUTDOOR WALL MOUNT ELECTRIC METER A2.0 1/4"=1' 20" A2.0 1/4"=1' FIBERGLASS COLUMNS; SEE A3.1 FOR COLUMNS, RAILINGS, AND PEDIMENT SPECIFICATIONS 539'-0" BASEMENT SLAB A GLE 2 3 ELEVATION 4 ELEVATION VEN 1 A3.1 NEW SYNTHETIC SLATE SHINGLES ARG A2.0 1/4"=1' A2.0 1/4"=1' B EIFS A3.1 SMO MO C DA SHIN 6 1 A3.0 A3.0 , NS, NTED 3 A3.0 2 A3.0 MAXIM LIGHTING ARTISAN 1-LIGHT OUTDOOR WALL MOUNT ELECTRIC METER 20" FIBERGLASS COLUMNS; SEE A3.1 FOR COLUMNS, RAILINGS, AND PEDIMENT SPECIFICATIONS RAIN WATER LEADER (TYP. 1 OF 5) A GLEN-GERY EXTRUDED FACEBRICK 2 ELEVATION 3 4 ELEVATION VENEER IN "ABERDEEN" STYLE WITH 17 DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC ARGOS "BEIGE" GROUT 167 CHANCELLOR ST A2.0 1/4"=1' A2.0 1/4"=1' B EIFS BUILDING CLADDING SYSTEM, PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SMOOTH FINISH, PAINTED IN BENJAMIN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA JULY 28, 2020 MOORE "HALO" C DAVINCI BELLAFORTE SYNTHETIC SLATE SHINGLES IN "SLATE GREY" DA VINCI BELLAFORTE SYNTHETIC SLATE SHINGLES 5/8" ZIP ROOF SHEATHING WRAP BEAM WITH 4/4" NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET 6" X 6" ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS POLYURETHANE COVE CORNICE IN SMOOTH TEXTURE WHITE PRIMER FINISH SEE WINDOW SCHEDULE FOR EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS PRE-ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSS PER STRUCTURAL SEE 3 ON PAGE 20 REFER TO STRUCTURAL FOR SOFFIT AND EAVE EXTENSIONS CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 6" X 6" ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS POLYURETHANE COVE CORNICE IN SMOOTH TEXTURE WHITE PRIMER FINISH WRAP BEAM WITH 4/4" NT3 95% PRICING AND SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD BIDDING ROOF BEAM PER STRUCTURAL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5/8" DENGLASS SHEATHING, PAINTED July 21, 2020 SEE 2 ON PAGE 20 SEE 1 ON PAGE 20 THE LODGE AT CHI PSI "SAVANNAH" TOP RAIL PROFILE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 PERMAPORCH WEATHER RESISTANT CELLULAR PVC RAILING 167 CHANCELLOR STREET ASSEMBLY WITH ALUMINUM INSERTS TREX SELECT DECKING IN WOODLAND BROWN 2 X PTD SLEEPERS 2 X PTD NAILER AND 4/4" NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD TAPERED RIGID INSULATION WITH EPDM ROOFING 3/4" PTD PLYWOOD SHEATHING 2 X PTD DECK JOISTS PER STRUCTURAL WRAP BEAM WITH 4/4" NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD PORCH BEAM PER STRUCTURAL 5/8" DENGLASS SHEATHING, PAINTED DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS 20" DIAMETER X 20' TALL ROUND TAPERED FIBERGLASS REINFORCED POLYMER WITH MARBLE DUST LOAD BEARING COLUMN WITH TUSCAN CAPITAL AND TUSCAN BASE IN SMOOTH FINISH CONCRETE PORCH SLAB, BROOM FINISH 1 1/2" PRECAST TREADS C.I.P. CONCRETE PER STRUCTURAL PORCH DETAILS BRICK FACED RISER ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 1 MADISON LANE PORCH ELEVATION A3.1 3/4"=1' MADISON LANE PORCH SECTION 3/4"=1' 2 A3.1 A3.1 SHEET #21 OF 25 18 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED PORCH AND RAILING JULY 28, 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 95% PRICING AND BIDDING CONTRACT PERMAPORCH WEATHER RESISTANT DOCUMENTS; CELLULAR PVC RAILING NOT FOR ASSEMBLY WITH ALUMINUM INSERTS CONSTRUCTION July 21, 2020 2 X PTD NAILER AND 4/4" NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD TAPERED RIGID INSULATION WITH EPDM ROOFING 2 X PTD DECK JOISTS PER STRUCTURAL 3/4" PTD PLYWOOD SHEATHING WRAP BEAM WITH 4/4" NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD PORCH BEAM PER STRUCTURAL THE LODGE AT CHI PSI 5/8" DENGLASS SHEATHING, PAINTED CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 PORCH POST PER 167 CHANCELLOR STREET STRUCTURAL (IN COLUMN WRAP) 10" DIAMETER X 9' TALL ROUND TAPERED FIBERGLASS SEE 1 ON PAGE 21 REINFORCED POLYMER WITH MARBLE DUST COLUMN WRAP WITH TUSCAN CAPITAL AND TUSCAN BASE IN SMOOTH FINISH SEE 2 ON PAGE 21 "SAVANNAH" TOP RAIL PROFILE PERMAPORCH WEATHER RESISTANT CELLULAR PVC RAILING ASSEMBLY WITH ALUMINUM INSERTS TREX SELECT DECKING IN WOODLAND BROWN 2 X PT DECK JOISTS BRICK FACED CMU PIER PER STRUCTURAL DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS C.I.P. CONCRETE FOOTING PER STRUCTURAL TYP. FOUNDATION WALL SEE SHEET A3.0 CONC. SLAB PORCH DETAILS PER STRUCTURAL ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 1 MADISON LANE PORCH ELEVATION A3.1 3/4"=1' MADISON LANE PORCH SECTION 3/4"=1' 2 A3.1 A3.2 SHEET #22 OF 25 19 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED SIDE PORCH AND RAILING JULY 28, 2020 The top rail, bottom rail, and balusters are available 11/2"in pre-finished white. They2are /2"m 1 from weather resistant cellular PVC. The balusters are also available in round alumin 33/8" Standard Top Rail with aluminum insert 11/2" 2 /2" 1 31/2" 33/8" 3 /4" 3 White Standard Top Rail Savannah Top Rail with aluminum insert with aluminum insert 5 1/2" White 3 /4" 13/ 5 /2"1 Bottom Ra aluminum Standard and Coastal* Square Newel Post Mount System Cheste 41/4" 41/4" New 41/ 54" 44" 11⁄4" 11⁄2" 11⁄2" 3 Square Square Square W 29 1⁄4", 32", 32", 36" 38", 44" Alum & 10' with 45° Balu The top rail, bottom rail, and balusters are available in pre-finished white. They36” are& made 10’ end 28" from weather resistant cellular PVC. The balusters are also available in round aluminum. 11⁄4" 11⁄2" 11⁄2" 3 ⁄4" Square Square Square White ChesterfielD 29 1⁄4", 32", 32", 36" & 10' 38", 44" with 45° Aluminum Baluster fastening Kit 36”1 & 10’ 11/2" 2 /2" end 28", 34" Each kit comes comp 31/2" *Coastal Newel Post withisskirt, designed to bea brackets, 3 /8" 3 in harsh and coastal conditions. 33/4" ChesterfielD TapCon screws for w Standard Top Rail or concrete substrate with aluminum insert Savannah Top Rail with aluminum insert fastening Kit* *Review building cod Each kit comes complete requirements prior to u with skirt, brackets, and White 3 /4" TapCon screws for wood 5 /2"1 or concrete substrates. 13/4" Poly Ball Top Bottom Rail with Height 6" Custom Poly Pyramid To Height 11⁄4" Custom rail *Review building code aluminum panelsatare Width insert Baseavailable. 4 7⁄8" UseWidth our custom at Base 4r7 1. PORCH RAILING requirements prior to use.that will set any home apart. HB&G’s rail panels are Standard and Coastal* Square Newel bottom rails. They are made of cellular PVC and can Custom Rail Panels Post Mount System 41/4" 1 4 /4" Chesterfield from one of the styles below. Contact a customer Newel Custom rail panels are available. Use our custom rail patterns 41/4to " creates a beautiful, one of a kind look that will set any home apart. HB&G’s rail panels are designed to work with the PermaPorch® Railing top bottom rails. They Savannah are made of cellular PermaPorch ® PVC and can be manufactured Railing 131/8using " your design or you can choo from andone5"ofSquare the stylesPermaPost below. Contact ® a customer service representative now to order your custom rail p 143/4" Savannah PermaPorch® Railing 54" 44" and 5" Square PermaPost® Chippendale Cir 261/8" 38 11⁄4" 11⁄2" 11⁄2" 3 ⁄4" Square Square Square WhiteChippendale Circle Center Spiderweb 2. PORCH COLUMNS 3. PEDIMENT CROWN TRIM 29 1⁄4", 32", 32", 36" 38", 44" Aluminum 36” & 10’ & 10' with 45° Baluster end 28", 34" 38Newel Post is designed to be used 20 *Coastal 167 CHANCELLOR ST ChesterfielD DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC in harsh and coastal conditions. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED PORCH AND RAILING COMPONENTS Each kit comes complete fastening Kit* JULY 28, 2020 with skirt, brackets, and The top rail, bottom rail, an from weather The top rail, bottom rail, and balusters are available resistant whi in pre-finished cell from weather resistant cellular PVC. The balusters are also available in 21/2" 11/2" 1 /2" 1 33/8" 3 /8" 3 33/4" Standard Top Rail Standard Top Rail with aluminum insert Savannah Top Rail aluminum insert with with aluminum insert White 3 /4" 5 1/2" Standard and Coastal* Square N Post Mount System 41/4" 41/4" 54" 11⁄4" 11⁄2" 11⁄2" 3 ⁄4" Square Square Square White 11⁄4" 11⁄2" 29 1⁄4", 32", 32", 36" 38", 44" Aluminum with 45° Square Square 36” & 10’ & 10' Baluster end 28", 34" 29 1 ⁄4", 32", 32", 36" 36” & 10’ *Coastal&Newel 10' Post i in harsh and coa ChesterfielD The top rail, bottom rail, and balusters are available in pre-finished white.KThey fastening it* are made from weather resistant cellular PVC. The balusters are also available in round Each kit comes aluminum. complete f with skirt, brackets, and TapCon screws for wood Ea or concrete substrates. Poly Ball Top wi Height 6" 21/2" *Review building code Width at Base 4 7⁄8" Ta 11/2" requirements prior to 1 use. o 3 /2" 33/8" Standard Top Rail 3 /4" 3 Custom Rail Panels re with aluminum insert Savannah Custom rail Top Railare available. Use our custom rail patterns to creates a beautiful, one panels with aluminum insert apart. HB&G’s rail panels are designed to work with the PermaPo that will set any home bottom rails. They are made of cellular PVC and can beCustom manufactured usingare your design C rail panels available from one of the 3 styles below. Contact a customer service thatrepresentative now to will set any home orderHy apart. White /4" 1 /4rails. bottom " They are made of 3 1. SIDE PORCH COLUMNS 2. SIDE PORCH RAILING 5 1/2" Bottom Rail with from one of the styles below. C 21 Savannah PermaPorch® Railing aluminum insert 167 CHANCELLOR ST and 5" Square PermaPost® DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED SIDE PORCH AND RAILING COMPONENTS Standard and Coastal*® JULY Savannah PermaPorch Railing 28, 2020 Square Newel Chesterfield Post Mount System 1 ®1 Newel 22 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED WINDOW INFORMATION JULY 28, 2020 PROPOSED WINDOW AND 23 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FRONT DOOR INFORMATION JULY 28, 2020 Artisan | 3175CLBK Job Name:________________ Job Type:________________ Quantity:________________ Comments:________________ PRODUCT DESCRIPTION FINISHES OPTION This frame inside a frame design is the perfect update to this classically inspired outdoor lantern. Durable stainless steel construction is finished in Black and supports an inner frame of Clear panels of glass for a crisp and clean Black appearance. GLASS MEASUREMENTS Clear CL DIMENSION : 9'' W x 15.75'' H x 10.5'' Ext BACK PLATE : 5.75'' W x 6.5'' H x 6'' HCO MATERIAL HANGING WEIGHT : 7.26 lb Stainless Steel LAMPING INPUT VOLTAGE : 120V RATINGS LUMENS : 0 Rated cETLus BULB : 1 x 60W Incandescent E26 Medium , 60W Total Wet Location BULB INCLUDED : (Not Included) DIMMABLE : Yes LIGHTING_DIRECTION : Down ADDITIONAL OPERATING TEMPERATURE: -20°C (-4°F), 40°C (104°F) Always consult a qualified electrician before installing any lighting product. 24 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING JULY 28, 2020 Bellaforté Slate UNDERLAYMENT Designed to reduce material costs, Bellaforté puts the look of slate within reach, and with it the premium aesthetics and performance that asphalt PLYWOOD shingles can only dream about. With DaVinci Bellaforté, the look of slate may be more attainable than you think. SELF-ADHERED MEMBRANE METAL EDGE STARTER COURSE BROWNSTONE SONORA EUROPEAN NAIL PLACEMENT MARKS cr SELF-ADHERED MEMBRANE IS REQUIRED ON THE ENTIRE ROOF DECK WHERE THE ROOF PITCH IS A MINIMUM 3:12 BUT LESS THAN 4:12. BELLAFORTE MAY NOT BE INSTALLED ON ROOFS WITH PITCHES LESS THAN 3:12. CANYON SLATE BLACK SLATE GRAY cr BELLAFORTE SLATE & SHAKE STANDARD DECKING METHOD BELLAFORTE SLATE 6 SCALE: N.T.S. OFFSET PATTERN SCALE: N.T.S. EVERGREEN CASTLE GRAY SMOKEY GRAY cr 1 w BELLAFORTE SLATE 6 INCH cr ALSO AVAILABLE bellaforté slate OFFSET PATTERN IN COOL ROOF COLOR SCALE: N.T.S. 25 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, 1-800-328-4624 LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED ROOF MATERIAL www.davinciroofscapes.com JULY 28, 2020 26 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA EXISTING JULY 28, 2020 27 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED JULY 28, 2020 28 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA EXISTING JULY 28, 2020 29 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED JULY 28, 2020 30 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA EXISTING JULY 28, 2020 31 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED JULY 28, 2020 32 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA EXISTING JULY 28, 2020 33 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED JULY 28, 2020 34 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA EXISTING JULY 28, 2020 35 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED JULY 28, 2020 CHI PSI LODGE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET AT 167 CHANCELLOR STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA PROJECT TEAM OWNER CHI PSI CORPORATION CONTACT: BILL SPOTSWOOD CONTACT: BOB PINEO PHONE: 703-256-1500 (P):434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com EMAIL: BSPOTSWOOD@GOVTOOLS.COM 95% PRICING AND ARCHITECT DESIGN DEVELOP LLC BIDDING CONTACT: ROBERT (BOB ) PINEO, R.A. CONTRACT PHONE: 434.806.8365 DOCUMENTS; NOT FOR EMAIL: BOB@DESIGNDEVELOPLLC.COM CONSTRUCTION July 8, 2020 GENERAL CONTRACTOR R.E. LEE & SON, INC. CONTACT: WADE THOMAS PHONE: 434.973.1321 EMAIL: WTHOMAS@RELEE.BUILD REVISION DATE/NUMBER: DRAWING LIST THE LODGE AT CHI PSI CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 CS.1 COVER SHEET A3.0 TYPICAL EXTERIOR DETAILS 167 CHANCELLOR STREET C.1 SITE PLAN TITLE SHEET A3.1 MADISON LANE PORCH DETAILS C.2 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY A4.0 INTERIOR STAIR DETAILS C.3 DEMOLITION PLAN A4.1 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS C.4 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN A4.2 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS C.5 PROFILES AND DETAILS A5.0 DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE C.6 DETAILS S0.0 GENERAL NOTES - STRUCTURE LS.1 GENERAL NOTES + CODE REVIEW S0.1 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS LS.2 LIFE SAFETY PLANS + WALL TYPES S0.2 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS D1.0 BASEMENT DEMO PLAN S1.0 BASEMENT STRUCTURAL PLAN D1.1 FIRST FLOOR DEMO PLAN S1.1 FIRST FLOOR STRUCTURAL PLAN D1.2 SECOND FLOOR DEMO PLAN S1.2 SECOND FLOOR STRUCTURAL PLAN D1.3 ROOF DEMO PLAN S1.3 ATTIC STRUCTURAL PLAN D2.0 DEMO ELEVATIONS S1.4 ROOF STRUCTURAL PLAN A0.0 BASEMENT SLAB PLAN + PERSPECTIVES S2.0 WALL SECTIONS A1.0 BASEMENT PLAN S2.1 WALL SECTIONS A1.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN S2.2 DETAILS AND SECTIONS A1.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN S2.3 DETAILS AND SECTIONS DRAWN BY: SG A1.3 ROOF PLAN S2.4 DETAILS AND SECTIONS CHECKED BY: KS A1.4 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN S2.5 DETAILS AND SECTIONS A1.5 FINISH FLOOR PLANS + FFE S2.6 DETAILS AND SECTIONS A2.1 ELEVATIONS S2.7 DETAILS AND SECTIONS GENERAL DESCRIPTION CHI PSI LODGE, LOCATED AT 167 CHANCELLOR STREET IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, IS A PROPOSED RENOVATION AND ADDITION TO A HISTORIC STRUCURE FOR A RESIDENCE. DESIGN BUILD NOTES MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, AND COMMUNICATIONS IS EXPECTED TO BE DESIGN-BUILD. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ALLOWANCES FOR THESE AREAS OF WORK. COVER SHEET ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 CS.1 SHEET #1 OF 20 3 D2.0 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET EXSTING EXTERIOR STEPS AND SITE WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED 7'-0" EXISTING MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING EQUIPMENT TO REMAIN CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 95% PRICING AND BIDDING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; NOT FOR 10'-0" CONSTRUCTION EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED July 8, 2020 2'-4 3/4" DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS (TYP.) 3'-11" 2 THE LODGE AT CHI PSI D2.0 4 1'-9 3/4" CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 D2.0 167 CHANCELLOR STREET EXISTING ADDITION FOUNDATION TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED 4'-2 3/4" EXISTING UNEXCAVATED CRAWL SPACE TO REMAIN LINE OF EXISTING SLAB TO BE REMOVED. PREP FOR NEW SLAB / CONCRETE STAIRS. EXISTING MASONRY FIREPLACE TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED EXISTING MASONRY FOUNDATION EXISTING BEAM ABOVE DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS INTERIOR ELEMENTS TO BE DEMOLISHED WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED DEMO BASEMENT ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 D1.0 1 1 BASEMENT DEMO PLAN D2.0 D1.0 3/8"=1' SHEET #4 OF 20 3 D2.0 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING STAIRS DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING ADDITION CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING MASONRY WALLS (TYPICAL) 95% PRICING AND BIDDING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; DEMOLISH EXISTING STAIRS TO BASEMENT; DEMOLISH AND REMOVE NOT FOR PREP FOR FLOORING INFILL EXISTING WALLS (TYP.) CONSTRUCTION July 8, 2020 DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING DOORS (TYP.) EXISTING MASONRY FIREPLACE TO BE DEMOLISHED. PREP FOR FLOORING INFILL. 2 THE LODGE AT CHI PSI DEMOLISH AND PREP NEW OPENINGS IN EXISTING D2.0 4 MASONRY WALL. SEE A1.1 FOR SIZING OF NEW DOOR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 D2.0 167 CHANCELLOR STREET PORTIONS OF FIRST FLOOR CEILING REQUIRED TO BE DEMOLISH. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE MEANS AND METHODS DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXTERIOR MASONRY WALLS (TYP.) EXISTING LOAD BEARING WALL TO BE REMOVED; SEE STRUCTURAL FOR NEW POINT LOAD BEARING 6'-11" LOCATIONS DEMOLISH EXISTING PORCH/ROOF TO LINE DEMOLISH FRONT PORCH RAILING TO EXISTING COLUMN; SEE D1.2 FOR AREA OF PORCH ROOF DEMO PRESERVE EXISTING COLUMN TO REMAIN; PROTECT AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION EXISTING FLOORS PREPPED FOR NEW LVT OVERLAYMENT DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS PRESERVE EXISTING HISTROIC WINDOWS; PROTECT AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION (TYP.) SEE A2.0 FOR WORK TO EXISTING WINDOWS PRESERVE EXISTING EXTERIOR HISTORIC WALLS; PRESERVE EXISTING HISTORIC PORCH STRUCTURE AND PROTECT AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION (TYP.) INTERIOR ELEMENTS TO BE DEMOLISHED FLOORING; PROTECT AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED DEMO FIRST FLOOR PLAN ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 D1.1 1 1 FIRST FLOOR DEMO PLAN D2.0 D1.1 3/8"=1' SHEET #5 OF 20 3 D2.0 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING ADDITION AND ROOF CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com DEMOLISH ALL PLUMBING FIXTURES AND REPAIR ASSOCIATED WATER DAMAGE 95% PRICING AND DEMOLISH EXISTING INTERIOR DOORS (TYP.) BIDDING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; NOT FOR DEMOLISH EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS (TYP.) CONSTRUCTION July 8, 2020 PRESERVE EXISTING HISTORIC WINDOWS (TYP.); PROTECT AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION 2 THE LODGE AT CHI PSI D2.0 4 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 D2.0 167 CHANCELLOR STREET DEMOLISH EXISTING ADDITION EXISTING FLOORS PREPPED FOR NEW LVT OVERLAYMENT 7'-0" EXISTING MASONRY CHIMNEY TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED DEMOLISH EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS (TYP.) LIMITS OF PORCH ROOF AND STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED DEMOLISH EXISTING STAIRS FROM FIRST FLOOR TO SECOND FLOOR AND FROM SECOND FLOOR TO ATTIC; PREP FLOORS FOR NEW INFILL FRAMING. SALVAGE ANY HISTORIC RAILING AND TRIM AS POSSIBLE. EXISTING PORCH STRUCTURE TO REMAIN; PROTECT AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION DEMOLISH ALL PLUMBING FIXTURES AND REPAIR ASSOCIATED WATER DAMAGE REMOVE EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF AND PREP DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS FOR REPLACEMENT PRESERVE EXISTING HISTORIC WINDOWS (TYP.); PROTECT AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION. SEE A2.0 FOR WORK TO EXISTING WINDOWS. PRESERVE EXISTING HISTORIC EXTERIOR WALLS; PROTECT INTERIOR ELEMENTS TO BE DEMOLISHED AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION. WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED DEMO SECOND FLOOR PLAN ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 D1.2 1 1 SECOND FLOOR DEMO PLAN D2.0 D1.2 3/8"=1' SHEET #6 OF 20 3 D2.0 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET AREA OF ROOF AND ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 95% PRICING AND BIDDING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION July 8, 2020 2 THE LODGE AT CHI PSI D2.0 4 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 D2.0 167 CHANCELLOR STREET EXISTING MASONRY CHIMNEY TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED REMOVE EXISTING SLATE ROOF AND PREP FOR NEW SYNTHETIC SLATE SHINGLES. EXISTING PORCH STRUCTURE TO REMAIN; PROTECT AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS ELEMENTS TO BE DEMOLISHED WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED DEMO ROOF PLAN ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 D1.3 1 1 ROOF DEMO PLAN D2.0 D1.3 3/8"=1' SHEET #7 OF 20 PRESERVE HISTORIC DORMERS; PROTECT AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION DEMOLISH EXISTING DORMER CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET DEMOLISH ROOF PRESERVE EXISTING HISTORIC WINDOWS; PROTECT AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION (TYP.) DEMOLISH WINDOWS (TYP.) CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 95% PRICING AND BIDDING DEMOLISH EXTERIOR WALLS (TYP.) CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION July 8, 2020 PRESERVE HISTORICAL FRONT PORCH; PROTECT AS NECESSARY DURING CONSTRUCTION THE LODGE AT CHI PSI PRESERVE EXISTING HISTORICAL EXTERIOR WALLS (TYP.); SEE STRUCTURAL FOR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 SHORING 1 DEMO ELEVATION 2 DEMO ELEVATION 167 CHANCELLOR STREET D2.0 1/4"=1' D2.0 1/4"=1' DEMOLISH EXISTING ADDITION DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS DEMOLISH REAR FACADE DEMO ELEVATIONS ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 D2.0 AREA OF DEMOLITION PER NEW MASONRY OPENINGS; SEE A1.1 FOR SIZING OF NEW DOOR. 3 DEMO ELEVATION 4 DEMO ELEVATION D2.0 1/4"=1' D2.0 1/4"=1' SHEET #8 OF 20 59'-1 1/2" 1 19'-7" A2.1 20'-0" 19'-6 1/2" PIERS AND FOOTINGS PER STRUCTURAL (TYP.) 13'-0" 6'-6 1/2" CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET PORCH AND ADDITION ABOVE 3'-0" 7'-8 1/2" WRAP BRICK AROUND 3 1/2" 11'-10" VISIBLE CORNER 4'-8 1/2" ATTACH PAINTED STEEL CONCRETE STEPS TO GRADE HANDRAIL TO CMU WALL 539'-8" (544.7 - REFER TO CIVIL) 8 RISERS @ 7.5", 11" RUN 15'-1" 1'-6" CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 7'-4 1/2" (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 6'-3" 95% PRICING AND BIDDING NEW FLOOR DRAINS 13'-3" (TYP. 1 OF 4) CONTRACT TIE-INTO SANITARY SEWER DOCUMENTS; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION July 8, 2020 37'-9 1/2" NEW PIERS PER STRUCTURAL 1'-0" 2'-4 3/4" 5'-1/4" 19'-7 3/4" 10'-8" 26'-1" 10'-7" 540'-9 1/2" 539'-8" 541' -4" 2'-11" 2 THE LODGE AT CHI PSI 540' - 3" A2.0 2 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 A2.1 1'-1" BASEMENT FOUNDATION 167 CHANCELLOR STREET WALL PER STRUCTURAL EXISTING BEAM ABOVE 541' -4" 15'-6 3/4" 6'-3" 4'-2 1/2" 4'-2 1/4" 19'-7 3/4" 5'-1/2" 1'-6" EXISTING MASONRY PIERS 4'-0" 7'-9" 16'-11" 4'-0" 1 DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS BASEMENT SLAB PLAN ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 A0.0 1 1 BASEMENT SLAB PLAN + PERSPECTIVES A2.0 A0.0 3/8"=1' SHEET #9 OF 20 1 A2.1 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET 1 1/2" 1 1/2" CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 5'-6 1/2" 003 BATHROOM (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 7'-5 1/2" 7 19'-6 1/2" 3 1/2" 5 A4.1 5 1/2" 1 1/2" 7'-11 1/2" 95% PRICING AND BIDDING CONTRACT 3 1/2" 4 005 DOCUMENTS; UTILITY NOT FOR 002 CONSTRUCTION ADA BATHROOM 7'-3 1/2" POST IN BEARING WALL 5 A4.1 July 8, 2020 NEW PIERS PER STRUCTURAL PER STRUCTURAL 6 24'-6 1/2" 3 1/2" 004 001 LANDING CHAPTER ROOM 2 THE LODGE AT CHI PSI A2.0 2 1 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 A2.1 BASEMENT FOUNDATION 167 CHANCELLOR STREET 11'-5 1/2" WALL PER STRUCTURAL EXISTING BEAM ABOVE BRICK WHERE VISIBLE ABOVE GRADE 3 A4.0 006 UNFINISHED CRAWL 3 1/2" 3 1/2" EXISTING MASONRY PIERS 1 1/2" 3'-9" 7'-9" 16'-11" 4'-0" 1 DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN NOTES: ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 A1.0 1. ALL INTERIOR DIMENSIONS TO F/ FRAMING OR F/ BLOCK. 1 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 2. ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONSF/SHEATHING OR F/SLAB. 3. ALL WINDOW AND DOOR DIMENSIONS TO CENTERLINE OF A2.0 A1.0 3/8"=1' WINDOW/DOOR OR CENTERLINE OF MULLION WHEN DOUBLE-MULLED. 4. CONFIRM ALL R.O. PER WINDOW AND DOOR MANUFACTURER SHEET #10 OF 20 1 A2.1 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET 59'-2" 4'-3" 6'-4" 6'-4" 6'-4" 6'-4" 6'-4" 6'-4" 6'-4" 6'-4" 4'-3" 6" 3 CONTACT: BOB PINEO 5'-2" 37'-10 1/2" 7'-10 1/2" 11'-10" (P):434-806-8365 ~7'-6" (V.I.F.) 6'-5" 6" 3 1/2" 4 3 1/2" (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 6'-5" 7'-8 1/2" 3 5 ADA BEDROOM 3 A4.1 103 10'-1 1/2" 95% PRICING AND 10'-9 3/4" ENTRY ADA BATH 9" 3 1/2" 105 3 1/2" 4 3'-0" 104 4'-10 1/2" 3 1/2" 6'-8 1/2" 3 1/2" 3'-9 1/2" BIDDING 1'-0" 2 549' 3 1/2" CONFIRM R.O. CONTRACT DIMENSIONS WITH MANUF. DOCUMENTS; 3 1/2" NOT FOR 3'-5" 7'-11" 4 CONSTRUCTION 2'-1" July 8, 2020 8'-7" 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 4 5 DASHED LINES SHOW AREAS OF DROPPED SOFFIT. REFER TO A1.4 FOR REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 26'-2" RETURN AIR CHASE AND CEILING ELEVATIONS. LINE OF NEW BEAM ABOVE 7'-8" 30'-2" LINE OF NEW BEAM ABOVE. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 2 7 3/4" 11'-1" FOR SIZING AND SPECIFICATION. 3 1/2" 13'-6" 3 1/2" 3'-8" THE LODGE AT CHI PSI 7'-11" 10 3/4" 2'-6" A2.0 2 3 1/2" CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 A2.1 6" FRAME BUMP OUT TO INCORPORATE STUCTURAL POST 167 CHANCELLOR STREET BEYOND EXISTING WALL 18'-9" 4 11'-7 1/2" LIVING/DINING 2 6'-9 1/2" 106 A4.0 KITCHEN 101 LAUNDRY 102 5'-2" NEW STRUCTURAL POST (TYP.) 2 A4.1 REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR SIZING AND SPECIFICATION. 1 3 ENTRY 105 2 4'-0" DW 6" 10'-6" 1 3'-6" 5'-0" 5'-0" 3'-6" DRAWN BY: SG 7'-8" 17'-0" 4'-0" CHECKED BY: KS 28'-8" FIRST FLOOR PLAN NOTES: ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 A1.1 1. ALL INTERIOR DIMENSIONS TO F/ FRAMING OR F/ BLOCK. 1 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 2. ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONSF/SHEATHING OR F/SLAB. 3. ALL WINDOW AND DOOR DIMENSIONS TO CENTERLINE OF A2.0 A1.1 3/8"=1' WINDOW/DOOR OR CENTERLINE OF MULLION WHEN DOUBLE-MULLED. 4. CONFIRM ALL R.O. PER WINDOW AND DOOR MANUFACTURER SHEET #11 OF 20 1 A2.1 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET 59'-2" 4'-3" 6'-4" 6'-4" 6'-4" 6'-4" 6'-4" 6'-4" 6'-4" 6'-4" 4'-3" 3 3 CONTACT: BOB PINEO 5'-2" ~7'-6" (V.I.F.) (P):434-806-8365 6'-6" (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com DOUBLE BED SINGLE BED DOUBLE BED DOUBLE BED 208 205 203 201 95% PRICING AND 1'-0" 10'-8" 5 5 5 BIDDING 2 CONTRACT 15'-0" 19'-8" 11'-2" 14'-6" 11'-10" DOCUMENTS; 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 3 1/2" NOT FOR 7'-11" 7'-5 3 1/2" 7'-5" 4'-1" 3 1/2" 6'-10" 3 1/2" 4'-1" 3 1/2" 6'-5" 3'-9" 3'-10" CONSTRUCTION 3 1/2" July 8, 2020 4 4 2'-1" 5 26'-2" 5 5 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 15'-1" 27'-2" 3 1/2" 3'-1" 3'-5" 30'-2" 3'-1" 4'-9" 3 1/2" 4'-1" 559'-10" HALL 4 4 3 1/2" 2 2'-1" 204 THE LODGE AT CHI PSI 7'-11" A2.0 2 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 A2.1 BATH 3 209 4 3 1/2" 5 2 A4.2 4 10'-6" 167 CHANCELLOR STREET 1 A4.2 6 5'-2" 5'-3" HALF BATH 5 206 8'-3" 3 1/2" 7'-10" 3 1/2" 16'-1" 3'-9" 4 5'-2" 11'-6" DOUBLE BED 3 1/2" 2'-1" 5 5 202 3 1/2" 1 3 1/2" 5 A4.0 3'-7" 3 1/2" 2 SINGLE BED 4'-0" 10'-2" 207 3 5 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 1'-11" 1'-11" 9'-1" DOUBLE BED 210 13'-1" 5'-5" 1 3'-10" 3'-10" 3'-6" 5'-0" 5'-0" 3'-6" DRAWN BY: SG 7'-8" 17'-0" 4'-0" CHECKED BY: KS 28'-8" SECOND FLOOR PLAN NOTES: ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 A1.2 1. ALL INTERIOR DIMENSIONS TO F/ FRAMING OR F/ BLOCK. 1 1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2. ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONSF/SHEATHING OR F/SLAB. 3. ALL WINDOW AND DOOR DIMENSIONS TO CENTERLINE OF A2.0 A1.2 3/8"=1' WINDOW/DOOR OR CENTERLINE OF MULLION WHEN DOUBLE-MULLED. 4. CONFIRM ALL R.O. PER WINDOW AND DOOR MANUFACTURER SHEET #12 OF 20 1 A2.1 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET NEW SYNTHETIC SLATE ROOFING. SEE A2.0 FOR SPECIFICATION. 5:12 5:12 CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 95% PRICING AND BIDDING CONTRACT MATCH EXISTING DOCUMENTS; NOT FOR 8:12 CONSTRUCTION July 8, 2020 NEW RIDGE. SEE STRUCTURAL. EXISTING HIP RIDGE. RIDGE CAP PER MANUF. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. EXTEND NEW ROOF AS SHOWN AND TIE INTO EXISTING ROOF . 8:12 2 THE LODGE AT CHI PSI A2.0 2 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 4:12 A2.1 167 CHANCELLOR STREET 8:12 8:12 EXISTING DORMER TO REMAIN. PROTECT AS NEEDED DURING CONSTUCTION AND PREP FOR NEW ROOF TIES INTO NEW ROOF. EXISTING RIDGE 8:12 8:12 8:12 5" OGEE ALUMINUM EXTRUDED GUTTER, WHITE (TYP.) RAINWATER LEADER (TYP. 1 OF 5) EXISTING OVERHANG TO 12" TYPICAL OVERHANG (TO MATCH EXISTING) REMAIN DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS NEW METAL ROOF ON EXISTING FRONT PORCH NOTES: ROOF PLAN EXISTING DORMER TO REMAIN. PROTECT AS NEEDED DURING CONSTUCTION AND PREP FOR NEW ROOF. 1. INSTALL NEW SYNTHETIC SLATE PER MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION ISSUE DATE: INSTRUCTIONS, INCLUDING RECOMMENDED EAVE FLASHING DETAILS, June 30, 2020 A1.3 RIDGE CAP DETAILS, AND VALLEY FLASHING DETAILS. 1 1 ROOF PLAN 2. REMOVE ALL EXISTING GUTTER A REPLACE WITH NEW SPECIFIED GUTTER. A2.0 A1.3 3/8"=1' 3. INSPECT AND EVALUATE ALL EXISTING WOOD FASCIA. REPAIR EXISTING WOOD FASCIA AS REQUIRED FOR SECURE ATTACHMENT OF NEW GUTTER. SHEET #13 OF 20 580'-0" ROOF RIDGE HEIGHT C CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET CLEAN, SCRAPE, FILL, CAULK, 4 PRIME AND REPAINT ALL A3.0 EXISTING FASCIA, FRIEZE, AND EAVE TRIM 569'-9" EAVE ALL HARDIE TRIM AT EAVES, PORCH RAILINGS, COLUMNS, AND PEDIMENT TO BE PAINTED IN BENJAMIN MOORE "CHANTILLY LACE" 5 CONTACT: BOB PINEO 560'-1"' A3.0 (P):434-806-8365 UPPER LEVEL (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com FINISHED FLOOR 95% PRICING AND A BIDDING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 549'-3" July 8, 2020 MAIN LEVEL FINSHED FLOOR CLEAN, SCRAPE, FILL, CAULK, B CLEAN, SCRAPE, FILL, CAULK, PRIME AND REPAINT ALL PRIME AND REPAINT ALL EXISTING MECHANICAL UNITS EXISTING WINDOWS NEW METAL ROOF RAILING, COLUMNS, AND PORCH TRIM GAS METER ON EXISTING PORCH THE LODGE AT CHI PSI 539'-8" BASEMENT SLAB CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 1 ELEVATION A2.0 1/4"=1' 167 CHANCELLOR STREET 580'-0" ROOF RIDGE HEIGHT NEW SYNTHETIC SLATE SHINGLES 1X12 COMPOSITE FRIEZE BOARD 569'-9" EAVE ALL HARDIE TRIM AT EAVES, PORCH RAILINGS, COLUMNS, AND PEDIMENT TO BE PAINTED IN BENJAMIN MOORE "CHANTILLY LACE" 560'-1"' UPPER LEVEL FINISHED FLOOR DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS 549'-3" MAIN LEVEL FINSHED FLOOR RAIN WATER LEADER (TYP. 1 OF 5) ELEVATIONS A GLEN-GERY EXTRUDED FACEBRICK VENEER IN "ABERDEEN" STYLE WITH ISSUE DATE: ARGOS "BEIGE" GROUT June 30, 2020 A2.0 B EIFS BUILDING CLADDING SYSTEM, 539'-8" SMOOTH FINISH, PAINTED IN BENJAMIN BASEMENT SLAB MOORE "HALO" 2 ELEVATION C DAVINCI BELLAFORTE SYNTHETIC SLATE A2.0 1/4"=1' SHINGLES IN "SLATE GREY" SHEET #16 OF 20 580'-0" ROOF RIDGE HEIGHT 2 1 A3.1 A3.1 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET 1 A3.0 569'-9" EAVE CONTACT: BOB PINEO 560'-1"' (P):434-806-8365 UPPER LEVEL 3 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com FINISHED FLOOR A3.0 95% PRICING AND BIDDING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2 549'-3" A3.0 July 8, 2020 MAIN LEVEL FINSHED FLOOR 20" FIBERGLASS COLUMNS; SEE A3.1 FOR COLUMNS, RAILINGS, AND PEDIMENT SPECIFICATIONS THE LODGE AT CHI PSI 539'-8" BASEMENT SLAB CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 1 ELEVATION A2.1 1/4"=1' 167 CHANCELLOR STREET 580'-0" ROOF RIDGE HEIGHT 6 A3.0 569'-9" EAVE 560'-1"' UPPER LEVEL FINISHED FLOOR DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS 549'-3" MAIN LEVEL FINSHED FLOOR MAXIM LIGHTING ARTISAN 1-LIGHT ELECTRIC METER OUTDOOR WALL MOUNT ELEVATIONS A GLEN-GERY EXTRUDED FACEBRICK VENEER IN "ABERDEEN" STYLE WITH ISSUE DATE: ARGOS "BEIGE" GROUT June 30, 2020 A2.1 B EIFS BUILDING CLADDING SYSTEM, 539'-8" BASEMENT SLAB SMOOTH FINISH, PAINTED IN BENJAMIN MOORE "HALO" 2 ELEVATION C DAVINCI BELLAFORTE SYNTHETIC SLATE A2.1 1/4"=1' SHINGLES IN "SLATE GREY" SHEET #17 OF 20 DA VINCI BELLAFORTE SYNTHETIC SLATE SHINGLES 11" BATT (R-40) OWENS CORNING ECOTOUCH PINK FIBERGLASS INSULATION ROOFING UNDERLAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET 5/8" ZIP ROOF SHEATHING PRE-ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSS 5" OGEE EXTRUDED GUTTER 5/4" FASCIA NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD 2 X 6 SUBFACIA (CONT.) 1/4" HARDIE VENTED SMOOTH SOFFIT PANEL 11" BATT (R-40) OWENS CORNING ECOTOUCH 2 X 6 DOUBLE PINK FIBERGLASS INSULATION TOP PLATE 11" BATT (R-40) OWENS CORNING ECOTOUCH 5/4 X 12 COMPOSITE FRIEZE BOARD PINK FIBERGLASS INSULATION CONTACT: BOB PINEO 2 X 4 NAILERS (P):434-806-8365 2 X 4 NAILERS (CONT.) (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com HEADER PER 5/4" X 12" COMPOSITE FRIEZE BOARD 1/2" ZIP SHEATHING STRUCTURAL 1/2" ZIP SHEATHING FLEXIBLE SELF-ADHERING FLASHING TAPE 95% PRICING AND EIFS EXTERIOR SYSTEM OVERLAPS NAILING FLANGE -ADHESIVE/BONDING AGENT BIDDING FLEXIBLE SELF-ADHERING FLASHING TAPE OVERLAPS NAILING FLANGE -RIGID INSULATION 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD 5/4 NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD -WIRE REINFORCING MESH CONTRACT CORNER BEAD AT -BASE AND ELASTOMERIC COLOR DOCUMENTS; GYPSUM RETURN BACKER ROD AND SEALANT PER MANUFACTURER'S -FINISH COATS NOT FOR 5/4" NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS J BEAD AT GYPSUM CONSTRUCTION TERMINATION BACKER ROD AND SEALANT PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS NAILING FLANGE July 8, 2020 LINE OF BRICK JAMB BEYOND 1 TYPICAL EAVE AND SECOND FLOOR WINDOW HEADER AT MASONRY WALLS 4 STUCCO EAVE AND WINDOW HEADER 6 TYPICAL EAVE AT STUCCO WALLS A3.0 3"=1' A3.0 3"=1' A3.0 3"=1' FLOOR SHEATHING PER STRUCTURAL LSL RIM BOARD CAVITY INSULATION (5 1/2" ROCKWOOL) PER MANUF. SPEC. THE LODGE AT CHI PSI 3/4" TJI FLOOR SYSTEM PER STRUCTURAL 1/2" ZIP EXTERIOR SHEATHING CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 5/4 X 4 OAK SILL; STAIN TO MATCH LINE OF BRICK JAMB BEYOND LINE OF STUCCO JAMB BEYOND FLOOR 167 CHANCELLOR STREET NAILING FLANGE PRECAST CONCRETE SILL 8 1 1/2" 5/8" GYPSUM CEILING FINISH GRADE (SEE CIVIL) 2 1/2" PRECAST CONCRETE SILL A3.0 5 1/2" NAILING FLANGE 1" MORTAR COLLECTION CAVITY FILLER 7 CONTINUOUS METAL FLASHING 7 PRECAST CONCRETE SILL AT MASONRY WALLS CONT. METAL FLASHING WITH END DAM A3.0 A3.0 3"=1' (TUCK INTO MORTAR JOINT) 1 1/2" X 1 1/2" STEEL ANGLE BRICK LEDGE CMU EIFS EXTERIOR SYSTEM CONTINUOUS METAL FLASHING 1/2" ZIP SHEATHING DRAINAGE MAT WITH END DAM 3/4" COMPOSITE WATERPROOFING 5 1/2" ROCKWOOL INSULATION (TYP.) 1 1/2" MEMBRANCE (HENRY'S BLUESKIN 1" VENTED AIR GAP (TYP.) WP 200) ADHERED TO CLEAN F/ BLOCK WITH COLVENT-BASED ADHESIVE BRICK VENEER SYSTEM (STA-PUT 2001M) 2 1/2" 2" 5 WINDOW SILL AT SECOND FLOOR STUCCO WALL 8 PRECAST CONCRETE SILL AT STUCCO WALL 11 TYPICAL FOUNDATION WALL 2 TYPICAL WINDOW SILL AT MASONRY WALLS A3.0 3"=1' A3.0 3"=1' A3.0 1"=1' A3.0 3"=1' CMU FOUNDATION PER STRUCTUAL 1/2" X 2" WOOD DAM 5/8" IMPACT RESISTANT GYPSUM 5/8" GYPSUM WALL SHEATHING WOOD SILL BELOW FLEXIBLE SELF-ADHERING FLASHING 1/2" X 2" WOOD DAM PTD 2 X 4 TAPE OVERLAPS FLAT FRAMED DRAWN BY: SG WOOD SILL BELOW CHECKED BY: KS METAL FLASHING @ 16" O.C. 1 1/2" RIGID WINDOW PER A4.0 - INSTALLED PER INSULATION MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION WEEPHOLES INSTRUCTIONS 3/8" BOND BREAK CONC. SLAB PER STRUCTURAL CONTINUOUS METAL FLASHING WINDOW PER A4.0 - INSTALLED PER FACTORY APPLIED 3 1/2" EXTRUDED MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION ALUMINUM BRICK MOULD TRIM STEEL LINTEL PER STRUCTURAL INSTUCTIONS FACTORY APPLIED 3 1/2" EXTRUDED ALUMINUM BRICK MOULD TRIM 6 MIL. POLY VAPOR BARRIER FINISH WRAPS PRECAST SILL BEYOND DETAIL SECTIONS BRICK VENEER STONE SLAB BASE (4" MIN.) PRECAST SILL BELOW ISSUE DATE: 10 TYPICAL MASONRY WINDOW JAMB June 30, 2020 A3.0 3 TYPICAL FIRST FLOOR WINDOW HEADER 9 TYPICAL MASONRY WINDOW JAMB A3.0 3"=1' FOOTING PER STRUCTURAL A3.0 3"=1' A3.0 3"=1' STONE SURROUND AT FOOTING 4" SLOTTED DRAIN PIPE SHEET #19 OF 20 DA VINCI BELLAFORTE SYNTHETIC SLATE SHINGLES 5/8" ZIP ROOF SHEATHING WRAP BEAM WITH 4/4" NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET 6" X 6" ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS POLYURETHANE COVE CORNICE IN SMOOTH TEXTURE WHITE PRIMER FINISH SEE WINDOW SCHEDULE FOR EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS PRE-ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSS PER STRUCTURAL REFER TO STRUCTURAL FOR SOFFIT AND EAVE EXTENSIONS CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 6" X 6" ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS POLYURETHANE COVE CORNICE IN SMOOTH TEXTURE WHITE PRIMER FINISH WRAP BEAM WITH 4/4" NT3 95% PRICING AND SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD BIDDING ROOF BEAM PER STRUCTURAL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5/8" DENGLASS SHEATHING, PAINTED July 8, 2020 THE LODGE AT CHI PSI "SAVANNAH" TOP RAIL PROFILE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 167 CHANCELLOR STREET PERMAPORCH WEATHER RESISTANT CELLULAR PVC RAILING ASSEMBLY WITH ALUMINUM INSERTS TREX SELECT DECKING IN WOODLAND BROWN 2 X PTD SLEEPERS 2 X PTD NAILER AND 4/4" NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD TAPERED RIGID INSULATION WITH EPDM ROOFING 3/4" PTD PLYWOOD SHEATHING 2 X PTD DECK JOISTS PER STRUCTURAL WRAP BEAM WITH 4/4" NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD PORCH BEAM PER STRUCTURAL 5/8" DENGLASS SHEATHING, PAINTED DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS 20" DIAMETER X 20' TALL ROUND TAPERED FIBERGLASS REINFORCED POLYMER WITH MARBLE DUST LOAD BEARING COLUMN WITH TUSCAN CAPITAL AND TUSCAN BASE IN SMOOTH FINISH CONCRETE PORCH SLAB, BROOM FINISH 1 1/2" PRECAST TREADS C.I.P. CONCRETE PER STRUCTURAL PORCH DETAILS BRICK FACED RISER ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 1 MADISON LANE PORCH ELEVATION A3.1 3/4"=1' MADISON LANE PORCH SECTION 3/4"=1' 2 A3.1 A3.1 SHEET #20 OF 20 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 95% PRICING AND BIDDING CONTRACT PERMAPORCH WEATHER RESISTANT DOCUMENTS; CELLULAR PVC RAILING NOT FOR ASSEMBLY WITH ALUMINUM INSERTS CONSTRUCTION July 10, 2020 2 X PTD NAILER AND 4/4" NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD 2 X PTD SLEEPERS TAPERED RIGID INSULATION WITH EPDM ROOFING 2 X PTD DECK JOISTS PER STRUCTURAL 3/4" PTD PLYWOOD SHEATHING WRAP BEAM WITH 4/4" NT3 SMOOTH HARDIE TRIM BOARD PORCH BEAM PER STRUCTURAL THE LODGE AT CHI PSI 5/8" DENGLASS SHEATHING, PAINTED CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 PORCH POST PER 167 CHANCELLOR STREET STRUCTURAL (IN COLUMN WRAP) 10" DIAMETER X 9' TALL ROUND TAPERED FIBERGLASS REINFORCED POLYMER WITH MARBLE DUST COLUMN WRAP WITH TUSCAN CAPITAL AND TUSCAN BASE IN SMOOTH FINISH "SAVANNAH" TOP RAIL PROFILE PERMAPORCH WEATHER RESISTANT CELLULAR PVC RAILING ASSEMBLY WITH ALUMINUM INSERTS TREX SELECT DECKING IN WOODLAND BROWN 2 X PT DECK JOISTS BRICK FACED CMU PIER PER STRUCTURAL DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS C.I.P. CONCRETE FOOTING PER STRUCTURAL TYP. FOUNDATION WALL SEE SHEET A3.0 CONC. SLAB PORCH DETAILS PER STRUCTURAL ISSUE DATE: June 30, 2020 1 MADISON LANE PORCH ELEVATION A3.1 3/4"=1' MADISON LANE PORCH SECTION 3/4"=1' 2 A3.1 A3.2 SHEET #21 OF 25 3'-0" 3'-0" 1'-6" 3'-0" 1'-6" 3'-0" CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 EAST MAIN STREET 8'-0" 3'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-4" 3'-0" 3'-0" 6'-8" 8'-0" 6'-8" CONTACT: BOB PINEO (P):434-806-8365 (E):bob@designdevelopllc.com 0' - T/F.F. EXTERIOR REVIEW PACKAGE DOOR DESCRIPTION FOR BAR REVIEW 1 EXTERIOR DOORS 2 INTERIOR DOORS EX EXISTING TO REMAIN June 30, 2020 A5.0 1/2"=1' A5.0 1/2"=1' PINNACLE CLAD WHITE INSWING TWO PANEL 6080 COMPLETE UNIT, OGEE GLASS STOP, PINE, WHITE INTERIOR D1 FINISH, BLACK MATTE MULTI-POINT HARDWARE AND STANDARD ADJUSTABLE HINGES, CLASSIC HANDLE STYLE PINNACLE CLAD WHITE INSWING SIDELITE 1680, OGEE GLASS PROFILE, PINE, WHITE INTERIOR FINISH; D2 PINNACLE CLAD WHITE INSWING SINGLE PANEL 3080, OGEE GLASS STOP, PINE, WHITE INTERIOR FINISH,BLACK 3'-0" 3'-0" 6'-0" MATTE STANDARD ADJUSTABLE HINGES THE LODGE AT CHI PSI 8'-6" BOTTOM OF PINNACLE CLAD WHITE INSWING SINGLE PANEL 3080, OGEE GLASS STOP, PINE, WHITE INTERIOR FINISH, BLACK MATTE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 HEADER D3 MULTI POINT HARDWARE AND STANDARD ADJUSTABLE 2'-0" HINGES 167 CHANCELLOR STREET 6'-5" 2'-8 1/2" ROOF RIDGE 3'-0" X 6'-8" MASONITE INTERIOR MOLDED 2-PANEL DOOR 5'-0" 5'-0" D4 5'-6" 1'-6" 4'-0" X 6'-8" MASONITE INTERIOR MOLDED 2-PANEL DOUBLE D5 DOOR 2'-4" X 6'-8" MASONITE INTERIOR MOLDED 2-PANEL DOOR D6 4'-11" WINDOW DESCRIPTION 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-0" EX EXISTING TO REMAIN 0' - T/F.F. 0'-0" BUILDING EAVE 3-0 X 5-6 PINNACLE ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD 3 EXTERIOR WINDOWS DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW, WHITE EXTERIOR FINISH, W1 WHITE INTERIOR FINISH, BLACK MATTE HARDWARE A5.0 1/2"=1' WITH WILLIAMSBURG BRICKMOULD, 7/8" OGEE GRILLS IN COLONIAL PATTERN AND LOW-E GLASS DRAWN BY: SG CHECKED BY: KS 3-0 X 5-0 PINNACLE ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW, WHITE EXTERIOR FINISH, W2 WHITE INTERIOR FINISH, BLACK MATTE HARDWARE WITH WILLIAMSBURG BRICKMOULD, 7/8" OGEE DOORS & HARDWARE NOTES: GRILLS IN COLONIAL PATTERN AND LOW-E GLASS 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL CONSTRUCTED CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS, SWINGS, JAMB THICKNESSES AND QUANTITIES PRIOR TO PLACING ORDER. 2. ALL INTERIOR DOORS TO BE 1-3/4" MASONITE, "PAINT GRADE," PRIMED WITH NEW WOOD PRE-HUNG FRAME, UNLESS NOTED (2) 3-0 X 5-0 TIGHT MULLED PINNACLE ALUMINUM OTHERWISE. CLAD WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW, WHITE 3. HARDWARE SHALL BE 4" SQUARE HINGES WITH PHILADELPHIA W3 EXTERIOR FINISH, WHITE INTERIOR FINISH, BLACK DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE HARDWARE GROUP ADVANTAGE F SERIES CHARLOTTE LEVER IN US26D MATTE HARDWARE WITH WILLIAMSBURG FINISH, OR PROVIDE SIMILAR. BRICKMOULD, 7/8" OGEE GRILLS IN COLONIAL ISSUE DATE: PATTERN AND LOW-E GLASS June 30, 2020 A5.0 4. PROVIDE DOOR STOPS AT ALL DOORS WITHOUT A CLOSER. BASIS OF DESIGN: CAL-ROYAL CR441 DOOR CLOSER WITH OPTIONAL FULL PLASTIC COVER. PINNACLE CLAD WHITE DIRECT GLAZE FULL ROUND 5. PROVIDE ALL HARDWARE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE W4 CUSTOM SIZE, PINE, WHITE INTERIOR FINISH WITH 7/8" DOOR AND HARDWARE ASSEMBLY AT EACH DOOR. OGEE GRILLS IN SPECIALIZED CUSTOM PATTERN SHEET #23 OF 20 Artisan | 3175CLBK Job Name:________________ Job Type:________________ Quantity:________________ Comments:________________ PRODUCT DESCRIPTION FINISHES OPTION This frame inside a frame design is the perfect update to this classically inspired outdoor lantern. Durable stainless steel construction is finished in Black and supports an inner frame of Clear panels of glass for a crisp and clean Black appearance. GLASS Clear CL MEASUREMENTS DIMENSION : 9'' W x 15.75'' H x 10.5'' Ext MATERIAL BACK PLATE : 5.75'' W x 6.5'' H x 6'' HCO Stainless Steel HANGING WEIGHT : 7.26 lb LAMPING INPUT VOLTAGE : 120V RATINGS BULB : 1 x 60W Incandescent E26 Medium , 60W Total cETLus Wet Location BULB INCLUDED : (Not Included) DIMMABLE : Yes LIGHTING_DIRECTION : Down ADDITIONAL OPERATING TEMPERATURE: -20°C (-4°F), 40°C (104°F) Always consult a qualified electrician before installing any lighting product. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-08-04 854 Locust Avenue Tax Parcel 510092000 Alan R., Jr. and Kaitlyn B. Taylor, Owners Ashley Davies, Applicant Garage demolition Application components (linked): • Staff Report • Revisions to previous submittal • Application form • Previous (July 2020) submittal • Previous BAR Approval (September 2011) City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report August 18, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application (Historic Conservation District) BAR 20-08-02 854 Locust Avenue Tax Parcel 510092000 Kaitlyn and Alan Taylor, Owners Ashley Davies, Applicant Garage demolition Background House: Year Built: 1903 District: Martha Jefferson HC District Status: Contributing Guest House: Garage: Year Built: c. 1920 Year Built: 1954 Status: Contributing Status: Contributing The property contains an imposing two-story painted-brick dwelling, constructed in 1903 for John S. White, a real estate lawyer. A one-story auxiliary building is situated immediately to the rear (east) of the house. The building mass is comprised of a frame guesthouse, built around 1920 according to DHR records, and an abutting concrete-block garage. The guesthouse portion of the auxiliary building may have originally been constructed as sleeping quarters for servants; the 1910 Census entry lists two Black servants in the household: Susie Miller and Clara Wood. (Historic survey in applicant’s submittal.) Prior BAR Review September 2011 - BAR approved CoA to demolish parts of three accessory structures: (A) small cinder block addition (c1960) on the guest house and restore the wall with horizontal siding to 854 Locust Ave (Aug 4, 2020) 1 match; (B) cinder block garage (c1960) attached to the original barn and restore the wall with horizontal siding to match; and (C) an open air frame shed (c1970’s). http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/621947/BAR_854%20Locust%20Avenue_Sept2 011.pdf Application  Applicant submittal: Narrative*, photos of property and structures*, information from the City re: assessor’s data and historic survey. (* Narrative updated July 29, 2020.). Request CoA for demolition of the detached guesthouse and garage located behind the house. Discussion and Recommendations If approved, consider a condition that prior to demolition the applicant will submit documentation of the structures, including photographs and measured drawings. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Demolitions in Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed demolition satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. […as submitted with the following conditions:…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Demolitions in Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed demolition does satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341(a) 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 conservation district design guidelines; and 2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the conservation district in which the property is located. Factors for Considering Demolitions within Historic Conservation Districts Sec. 34-343. - Standards for review of demolition, razing or moving of a contributing structure. 1. The following factors shall be considered in determining whether or not to permit the demolition, razing or moving, in whole or in part, of a contributing structure: 1.a. The age of the structure or building;  Staff: The 1920 Sanborn Map (below) indicates here a two-story, wood framed structure identified as a dwelling. (In 1920, the address was 876 Locust Ave.) The applicant’s research 854 Locust Ave (Aug 4, 2020) 2 indicates construction of a single-story structure in 1954. It is staff’s opinion that the 1954 structure the garage addition on the east side of the earlier structure. The adjoining shed-roof structure may date to the garage addition or later. 1910 U.S. Census: John S. White is the head-of-household and listed with his wife, Hettie, their son, John, a brother-in-law, Rives Wolfe, and two servants, Susie Miller and Clara Woodson.* 1920 U.S. Census: John S. White is the head-of-household and listed with his [second] wife, Alice, and a servant, Mardine[?] Young.* 1930 U.S. Census: John S. White is the head-of-household and listed with his wife, Alice, and a servant, Rosa Fountain.* *It is impossible to determine who resided in the small dwelling, but it is reasonable to assume that it was occupied. 1.b. Whether it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or the Virginia Landmarks Register;  Staff: Applicant is correct in that the property and structures are not individually listed; however, they are listed as contributing structures within the Martha Jefferson Historic District (VDHR #104-5144), which is listed on Virginia Landmarks Register (2007) and the National Register of Historic Places (2008.) www.dhr.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/104-5144_Martha_Jefferson_HD_2008- 2011_NR_Final.pdf [Note: The NRHP nomination lists the house (Single Dwelling), the guesthouse (secondary Building), and the garage (Garage) as contributing structures (VDHR #104-5144-0117). It is staff’s opinion that in the 2008 nomination, the referenced Garage was the “Auto” building on the 1920 Sanborn Map, which was razed in 2011, and the referenced Secondary Building is the connected guesthouse and garage, which the applicant’s wish to demolish.) 854 Locust Ave (Aug 4, 2020) 3 1.c. 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: Not applicable. 1.d. 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: Not applicable. 1.e. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain;  Staff: Without a physical examination, it is difficult to determine what remains of the early guesthouse or of the 1954 garage addition. (See item #6 below.) 2. Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within the conservation district; and whether the proposed demolition would affect adversely or positively the character and continuity of the district;  Staff: Staff agrees that visibility from Locust Avenue is obscured, at best; within a HC District not being visible from a public right of way typically excludes a project from BAR review. However, this guesthouse and garage were identified as contributing structures for the HC designation. As such, the BAR must review requests for demolition. Per the MJHCD map, when the local district was established, 44 outbuildings and additions were designated as contributing structures. Of these, 21 were garages, at least four have been razed. Seven with no description, at least one has been razed. Six secondary structures. Three sheds, at least one has been razed. Two guesthouses. One each of the following: addition, kitchen, porch, smokehouse, and stable. Of these, we have photos of 31 structures. There is no pervasive or typical style, design, or materiality. Materials include wood siding, plywood panels, metal panels, stucco, and brick. Most roofs are gabled; a few are hipped. Roofing is either metal panels, asphalt shingles, or standing seam metal. Some have windows; some do not. At 854 Locust Avenue: The guesthouse is a small, salt-box style cottage set on a masonry foundation and clad with wood siding. At the south elevation is a low porch with the entry. The garage (attached to the east side of the guesthouse) appears to be constructed of cinder block with wood siding on the south elevation. Both structures are simple and unadorned. For both, photos from 2011 indicate the shingle roofing was replaced with standing-seam metal and a garage door added to the north wall of the garage. At the guesthouse, the locations of the first floor windows and the entry door have been altered. (The 2011 BAR submittal indicates extensive alterations to the interior of the guesthouse.) 854 Locust Ave (Aug 4, 2020) 4 3. The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by a study prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant (may be waived if primary residence of applicant); or other information provided to the board;  Staff: The applicant has provided photographs and a brief narrative; however the photographs show only the south elevation. The applicant acknowledges that the condition and/or structural integrity is not in question. 4. Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes to preserve portions, features or materials that are significant to the property’s historic, architectural or cultural value;  Staff: The guesthouse and garage will be entirely removed. 5. Any applicable provisions of the city's conservation district design guidelines. (From the HC guidelines for demolitions: The public necessity of the proposed demolition and the public purpose or interest in buildings to be protected.  Staff: Demolition of the garage is not a matter of public necessity. The guesthouse and garage are locally-designated as contributing structures to the MJHCD and also in the VLR and NRHP listing. (They are connected and appear on the maps as a single structure.) 854 Locust Ave (Aug 4, 2020) 5 854 Locust Avenue Project Request and Narrative Updated 7/29/2020 Pursuant to Sec. 34-340 of the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance, we petition the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the garage/guesthouse structure at 854 Locust Avenue. Although this dependency is designated as contributing to the Martha Jefferson Conservation Overlay District, it was not described within the document establishing the district (attached), nor is it visible in any detail from Locust Avenue. If the structure had particular significance to the Conservation Overlay District, that significance, either architectural or otherwise, would have been documented in the survey of the property that was created for the BAR guidelines. The established purpose of the Historic Conservation Overlay Districts is: To identify and preserve buildings, structures and areas with special historical, cultural, architectural and archaeological significance, or with a collective character and quality, which serve as important visible reminders of the heritage of this city, the Commonwealth of Virginia, or this nation. In establishing the Martha Jefferson Conservation Overlay District, we look to the architectural character-defining features of the proposed conservation district. While the primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue is clearly part of the character of the neighborhood, representing a specific timeframe and type of architecture, the secondary structure behind the house, which is the subject of this demolition request, does not contribute to the character of the district. If this property were located on a corner lot or an alley, with the garage visible to the neighborhood, then it would more likely be a character defining feature in the Martha Jefferson neighborhood. However, this is a lot with no visibility into the backyard, thus this logic would not apply. The Board of Architectural Review must consider the following factors as they apply to this COA request: 1. The age of buildings and structures. The City Assessor lists the garage/guesthouse structure as being constructed in 1954. While records show a structure has been in this general location since prior to that time, the size and shape of the structure has been altered on numerous occasions. The structure has been enlarged, some additions have been demolished, the interior was completely demolished for modernization in 2012, and new windows, siding, roofing and porch columns have been added. Thus, no traces of any historic elements of this structure remain, other than its general location on the property, which is private and out of the public view. Over the years, there have been a variety of dependencies in the rear yard of the property that have been constructed, demolished and adapted to suit the needs of the homeowners over time. The other dependencies, which were also labelled contributing to the district, were granted a demolition permit by the BAR in 2011. Although it is not the subject of this application or review, the Owners’ intent is to demolish the existing structure and replace it with another structure that would better coordinate with 1 other planned backyard improvements. This proposal will be forthcoming to the Board of Architectural Review in the near future. Like previous generations, the current owner will be a steward of this property while making minor adaptations in areas that are in the more private areas of the yard, out of public view. 2. Whether the buildings, structures and areas are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register or the National Register of Historic places, or are eligible to be listed on such registers. 854 Locust Avenue is not listed on either register, nor is it an individually designated property in the City of Charlottesville. While the main house would likely be eligible for listing, the garage likely would not be due to the continual adaptations and modifications of the structure. 3. Whether the buildings, structures or areas are of locally important historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological interest The primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue is considered architecturally important to the character of the neighborhood. The garage structure is hidden behind the house, with little to no visibility from the public right-of-way, and is therefore not character defining in the district. 4. Whether the buildings, structures or areas are associated with an historic person or event or with a significant architect or master craftsman, or have special public value because of notable features relating to the cultural or artistic heritage of the Charlottesville community. As mentioned previously, the primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue is publicly valuable as an example of Victorian architecture that was constructed in approximately 1903. It is not considered contributing for any other reason, nor is the garage. 5. Whether the buildings, structures or areas are part of a geographically definable area within which there exists a significant concentration or continuity of buildings or structures that are linked by past events or, aesthetically, by plan or physical development, or within which there exists a number of buildings or structures separated geographically but linked by association or history; and The primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue clearly contributes to the overall character of the Martha Jefferson Conservation District. The garage structure does not contribute to the character of the district because of the limited visibility of the structure. Thus, demolition of the garage would not have any significant impact to the conservation district. 6. Whether the buildings, structures or areas, when viewed together, possess a distinctive character and quality or historic significance. The garage structure, as mentioned previously, cannot be viewed from the public right of way because it is largely obscured by the primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue. Thus, character of the structure is minimal in comparison to the primary structure. In addition, throughout the history of this properties, dependencies have consistently evolved to meet the homeowner. This trend and necessity should be of consideration now, as the purpose 2 of the dependency is to meet the evolving need of the homeowner. This can easily be accomplished at 854 Locust Avenue with no distraction from the main house or the goals of the conservation district, which focus on what is visible to the neighborhood. 7. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain. As noted previously, there were no distinguishing characteristics of the garage noted in the conservation overlay district documents. In fact, the guidelines listed two dependencies when there is only one. It is a simple cottage structure, with no distinguishing characteristics, in a style that can be easily replicated. In 2012, the garage/guesthouse interior was fully demolished and the exterior siding, roof, windows and porch columns were all replaced. No original features of the structure remain. 8. Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within the conservation district, and whether the proposed demolition would affect adversely or positively the historic or aesthetic character of the district. The demolition of this garage and the replacement of it with another secondary structure has no impact to the conservation district. As stated previously, the structure is largely obscured by the mass of the main house, and the main house is the reason this property is significant to the Martha Jefferson Conservation Overlay District. 9. 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. Given the garage has been adapted and renovated over time, the structural integrity of the building is not in question. 10. Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes to preserve portions, features or materials that are significant to the property's historic, architectural or cultural value. While the Owners’ do not intent to preserve the garage, the new secondary structure in its general location will comply with the Conservation Overlay District Guidelines and will require a COA from the BAR. Thus, the architecture will coordinate and complement the main house as well as the Martha Jefferson Neighborhood. 3 Aerial Photograph of 854 Locust Avenue: Note that the garage structure is shown with the orange star, and it is located behind the house and approximately 172 feet from the public right-of-way/sidewalk. Source: City GIS 4 Property Photographs: The primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue is a Victorian home that was constructed in 1903. The garage is not visible in this photograph. This view is taken from the driveway next to the garage. 5 This image, taken from the front of the property, demonstrates the limited visibility of the garage, versus the main house. The primary structure is a prominent feature of the neighborhood, but the garage is barely noticeable. 6 Another view of the garage/guesthouse, taken from behind the primary structure. Interior photographs showing the full renovation completed in 2012. 7 854 Locust Avenue Project Request and Narrative 6/25/2020 Pursuant to Sec. 34-340 of the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance, we petition the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the garage/guesthouse structure at 854 Locust Avenue. Although this dependency is designated as contributing to the Martha Jefferson Conservation Overlay District, it was not described within the document establishing the district (attached), nor is it visible in any detail from Locust Avenue. If the structure had particular significance to the Conservation Overlay District, that significance, either architectural or otherwise, would have been documented in the survey of the property that was created for the BAR guidelines. The established purpose of the Historic Conservation Overlay Districts is: To identify and preserve buildings, structures and areas with special historical, cultural, architectural and archaeological significance, or with a collective character and quality, which serve as important visible reminders of the heritage of this city, the Commonwealth of Virginia, or this nation. In establishing the Martha Jefferson Conservation Overlay District, we look to the architectural character-defining features of the proposed conservation district. While the primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue is clearly part of the character of the neighborhood, representing a specific timeframe and type of architecture, the secondary structure behind the house, which is the subject of this demolition request, does not contribute to the character of the district. If this property were located on a corner lot or an alley, with the garage visible to the neighborhood, then it would more likely be a character defining feature in the Martha Jefferson neighborhood. However, this is a lot with no visibility into the backyard, thus this logic would not apply. The Board of Architectural Review must consider the following factors as they apply to this COA request: 1. The age of buildings and structures. The City Assessor lists the garage/guesthouse structure as being constructed in 1954. Over the years, there have been a variety of dependencies in the rear yard of the property that have been constructed, demolished and adapted to suit the needs of the homeowners over time. Although it is not the subject of this application or review, the Owners’ intent is to demolish the existing structure and replace it with another structure that would better coordinate with other planned backyard improvements. This proposal will be forthcoming to the Board of Architectural Review in the near future. Like previous generations, the current owner will be a steward of this property while making minor adaptations in areas that are in the more private areas of the yard, out of public view. 2. Whether the buildings, structures and areas are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register or the National Register of Historic places, or are eligible to be listed on such registers. 1 854 Locust Avenue is not listed on either register, nor is it an individually designated property in the City of Charlottesville. While the main house would likely be eligible for listing, the garage likely would not due to the age of the structure and the continual adaptations and modifications of the structure. 3. Whether the buildings, structures or areas are of locally important historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological interest The primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue is considered architecturally important to the character of the neighborhood. The garage structure is hidden behind the house, with little to no visibility from the public right-of-way, and is therefore not character defining in the district. 4. Whether the buildings, structures or areas are associated with an historic person or event or with a significant architect or master craftsman, or have special public value because of notable features relating to the cultural or artistic heritage of the Charlottesville community. As mentioned previously, the primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue is publicly valuable as an example of Victorian architecture that was constructed in approximately 1903. It is not considered contributing for any other reason, nor is the garage. 5. Whether the buildings, structures or areas are part of a geographically definable area within which there exists a significant concentration or continuity of buildings or structures that are linked by past events or, aesthetically, by plan or physical development, or within which there exists a number of buildings or structures separated geographically but linked by association or history; and The primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue clearly contributes to the overall character of the Martha Jefferson Conservation District. The garage structure does not contribute to the character of the district because of the limited visibility of the structure. Thus, demolition of the garage would not have any significant impact to the conservation district. 6. Whether the buildings, structures or areas, when viewed together, possess a distinctive character and quality or historic significance. The garage structure, as mentioned previously, cannot be viewed from the public right of way because it is largely obscured by the primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue. Thus, character of the structure is minimal in comparison to the primary structure. In addition, throughout the history of this properties, dependencies have consistently evolved to meet the homeowner. This trend and necessity should be of consideration now, as the purpose of the dependency is to meet the evolving need of the homeowner. This can easily be accomplished at 854 Locust Avenue with no distraction from the main house or the goals of the conservation district, which focus on what is visible to the neighborhood. 7. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain. As noted previously, there were no distinguishing characteristics of the garage noted in the conservation overlay district documents. In fact, the guidelines listed two dependencies 2 when there is only one. It is a simple cottage structure, with no distinguishing characteristics, in a style that can be easily replicated. 8. Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within the conservation district, and whether the proposed demolition would affect adversely or positively the historic or aesthetic character of the district. The demolition of this garage and the replacement of it with another secondary structure has no impact to the conservation district. As stated previously, the structure is largely obscured by the mass of the main house, and the main house is the reason this property is significant to the Martha Jefferson Conservation Overlay District. 9. 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. Given the garage has been adapted and renovated over time, the structural integrity of the building is not in question. 10. Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes to preserve portions, features or materials that are significant to the property's historic, architectural or cultural value. While the Owners’ do not intent to preserve the garage, the new secondary structure in its general location will comply with the Conservation Overlay District Guidelines and will require a COA from the BAR. Thus, the architecture will coordinate and complement the main house as well as the Martha Jefferson Neighborhood. 3 Aerial Photograph of 854 Locust Avenue: Note that the garage structure is shown with the orange star, and it is located behind the house and approximately 172 feet from the public right-of-way/sidewalk. Source: City GIS 4 Property Photographs: The primary structure at 854 Locust Avenue is a Victorian home that was constructed in 1903. The garage is not visible in this photograph. According to City records, this garage/guesthouse, that is located directly behind the house, was added to the property in 1954. This view is taken from the driveway next to the garage. 5 This image, taken from the front of the property, demonstrates the limited visibility of the garage, versus the main house. The primary structure is a prominent feature of the neighborhood, but the garage is barely noticeable. 6 Another view of the garage/guesthouse, taken from behind the primary structure. 7 June 22, 2020 City of Charlottesville, Virginia 854 LOCUST AVE Base Information Parcel Number: 510092000 Current Owner: TAYLOR, ALAN R, JR & KAITLYN B State Code: 1.0 Residential (Urban) Attention: No Data Tax Type: Taxable Owner Address: 854 LOCUST AVE Zone: R-1SC Owner City State: CHARLOTTESVILLE VA Acreage: 0.8270 Owner Zip Code: 22902 Legal: LOT A LOCUST GROVE Additional Data Elementary School Zone: 510092000 Voting Precinct: 1.0 Residential (Urban) Neighborhood: Taxable Stormwater Utility Information Impervious Area: 20 Billing Units: 9,508 sq. ft. Projected Stormwater $288.00 Utility Annual Fee: Building Improvements SqFt Finished Living: 4698 Fireplace: 0 Style: 2 Story YearBuilt: 1904 Grade: A+ Number Of Stories: 2.00 Ext. Walls: Brick Veneer Total Rooms: 10 Roof: Hip/Metal Bedrooms: 4 Flooring: Hardwood Half Bathrooms: 1 Bsmt. Type: Partial Basement Full Bathrooms: 3 Heating: Forced Air Basement Garage: 0 Fireplace: 0 Basement SqFt: 1577 FinishedAttic: 0 Finished Basement: No Data Unfinished Living: No Data DISCLAIMER: This data is provided without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Any person, firm or corporation which uses this map or any of the enclosed information assumes allrisk for the inaccuracy thereof, as City of Charlottesville expressly disclaims any liability for loss or damage arising from the use of said information by anythird party. Building Improvements SqFt Finished Living: 4698 Fireplace: 0 Style: 2 Story YearBuilt: 1904 Grade: A+ Number Of Stories: 2.00 Ext. Walls: Brick Veneer Total Rooms: 10 Roof: Hip/Metal Bedrooms: 4 Flooring: Hardwood Half Bathrooms: 1 Bsmt. Type: Partial Basement Full Bathrooms: 3 Heating: Forced Air Basement Garage: 0 Fireplace: 0 Basement SqFt: 1577 FinishedAttic: 0 Finished Basement: No Data Unfinished Living: No Data Additions Type Description: Area: Year Built: Addition First Floor 2417 No Data Addition Second Floor 2281 No Data Addition Basement 1577 No Data Addition Open Porch 608 No Data Addition Stone Patio 352 No Data Building Improvements SqFt Finished Living: 577 Fireplace: 0 Style: 1 Story YearBuilt: 1954 Grade: C Number Of Stories: 1.00 Ext. Walls: Wood Total Rooms: 3 Roof: Gable/Shingles Bedrooms: 1 Flooring: Hardwood Half Bathrooms: 0 Bsmt. Type: No Basement Full Bathrooms: 1 Heating: Floor Furnace Basement Garage: 0 Fireplace: 0 Basement SqFt: No Data FinishedAttic: 0 Finished Basement: No Data Unfinished Living: No Data Additions Type Description: Area: Year Built: Addition First Floor 577 No Data Addition Open Porch 130 No Data Ownership History Date of Sale Sale Price Owner Name Book 5/27/2020 $2,400,000.00 TAYLOR, ALAN R, JR & 2020:1978 KAITLYN B 12/6/2019 $0.00 HALL, SAFFRON 2019:4363 11/17/2017 $2,100,000.00 EVERGREEN PINES LLC 2017:4398 DISCLAIMER: This data is provided without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Any person, firm or corporation which uses this map or any of the enclosed information assumes allrisk for the inaccuracy thereof, as City of Charlottesville expressly disclaims any liability for loss or damage arising from the use of said information by anythird party. 854 Locust Avenue TM/P: 51/92 DHR: 104-5144-0117 Primary Resource Information: Single Dwelling, Stories 2.00, Style: Other, 1903 August 2007: Set far back from the street on a large lot and shaded by mature trees, this two-story, two-bay, house is named for John S. White, the real estate lawyer in partnership with William F. Long, who built he house in 1903. It has a hipped roof and is constructed of brick laid in common bond and painted. The north bay of the facade projects slightly and has a full pediment filled in with fish scale shingles; a hipped-roof, semi-hexagonal bay is attached to the north elevation; and a two-story, hipped-roof, two- bay addition is attached to the south elevation, set back from the facade and facing the street. A hipped-roof porch with slender Tuscan columns shades the recessed south bay and abuts the north bay of the facade. The south bay features the double glass doorway and a two-light transom. The 2nd floor of the south bay has a pair of narrow one/one-sash windows. The north bay features a single two/two-sash window on the 1st floor and a narrower one/one-sash window on the second. All of the windows have louvered shutters. The fully pedimented gable of the north bay retains the overhanging eave and cornice that characterizes the rest of the building, is filled in with wooden fish scale shingles, and has a small fanlight at its center. The roofs of both the porch and the house itself are covered in asphalt shingles. A modern, wooden ramp leads to the front entrance from the north side of the house. A one-story kitchen wing and a back porch are attached to the rear of the house. Individual Resource Status: Single Dwelling Contributing Total: 1 Individual Resource Status: Garage Contributing Total: 1 Individual Resource Status: Secondary Structure Contributing Total: 1 Preliminary Discussion 128 Chancellor Street Application components (linked): • Staff Comments • Historic Survey • Application City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Memo August 18, 2020 Preliminary Discussion on Requested Certificate of Appropriateness Center for Christian Study 128 Chancellor Street / Tax Map Parcel 090105000 Owner: University Christian Ministries Applicant: Tom Keogh, Train Architects Addition Background Year Built: c1926 District: The Corner ADC Status: Contributing Rectangular form, three-bay frame shingled swelling with Craftsman and Colonial Revival stylistic elements. Constructed as a dwelling, the house was occupied until 1969 when it transitions to other uses. Since the 1980s it is served as the Center for Christian Study. (Historic survey attached.) Prior BAR Reviews None Application  Submittal: William Sherman Architect, and Train Architects drawings Center for Christian Study Expansion Study, dated July 2020: Cover, sheets 1 through 15. CoA request for a proposed three-story addition of approximately 10,500 square feet (3,500 SF per floor) at the rear of the existing structure. However, due to the estimated cost of the project, City Code section Sec. 34-282(c)(4) requires that prior to any formal BAR action, the project must be first presented to the BAR during a pre-application conference [or preliminary discussion]. 128 Chancellor Street – August 12, 2020 1 Discussion This is a preliminary discussion, no BAR action is required; however, by consensus, the BAR may express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR might express consensus support for elements of the project, such as its scale and massing.) Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and the result will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements and Chapter III--New Construction and Additions. Of particular assistance, as a checklist for the preliminary discussion, are the criteria for Additions in Chapter III: 1) Function and Size 2) Location 3) Design 4) Replication of Style 5) Materials and Features 6) Attachment to Existing Building Suggested Motions For a preliminary discussion, the BAR cannot take action on a formal motion. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Relevant Code provision for Preliminary Discussion Sec. 34-282. - Application procedures. (c) A pre-application conference with the entire BAR is mandatory for the following activities proposed within a major design control district: (4) Development having a projected construction cost of three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000.00) or more; 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. 128 Chancellor Street – August 12, 2020 2 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 ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter II – Site Design and Elements Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Checklist from section P. Additions Many of the smaller commercial and other business buildings may be enlarged as development pressure increases in downtown Charlottesville and along West Main Street. These existing structures may be increased in size by constructing new additions on the rear or side or in some cases by carefully adding on extra levels above the current roof. The design of new additions on all elevations that are prominently visible should follow the guidelines for new construction as described earlier in this section. Several other considerations that are specific to new additions in the historic districts are listed below: 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 128 Chancellor Street – August 12, 2020 3 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. 128 Chancellor Street – August 12, 2020 4 f¼,I\ 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. _.,...---,--..,.......-.-�.---------:-;--''\--..---- Applicant Name1'0 M �Of� · 'Wdtn Rvl:� 1 ft. 4.: J� '!>tIISht\11)1 � · wIII1 -,,,.,91i"(M fl'> nvli:, ,-rKT __ Parcel Num ber O'}O \O'iCCO .....,._,�--+'-:e.......::.:.:..;_=.:..:;,,,;;,,:_,;;,..,;,_;,_---1-/f;__JcJ_ ,_h_ M Project Property Address_�---------'--'' L�l,,_WV'_I.._H_,__u 1 ,_llt_,,,_,v _d_i_i_")..,_6_3.;;,__________ Signature of Applicant '1-),,.,}w I hereby attest that the information I have provided 1s, to the bes� 'JAJ Signature Date '\hDM� '(l_ y_.,,-l>C (,, Print Name Date I Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to its submission. U}.J_t� � � WJ.Jl� r--2s-20 Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits for this project? __,f\ ..,;.O __ ______ 9J,l\ Print Name wM.. v :7/22> )7,pllt) rDate Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): _____ _________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: __ _ ________ Date: ____ ____ ______ __ Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck.# ____ Conditions of approval: __________ Date Received: ___ _______ Revised 2016 History area, building height, and property line The three shingled elements include the new setbacks, it was determined that a 3-story library reading room above the great hall with Description from Charlottesville Corner Survey, addition of approximately 10,500 GSF (3,500 a large-scale window to the east, the curved Charlottesville, Va. GSF per floor) could be constructed on the rear meeting rooms to the north, and the stair and third of the site. It was also determined that elevator tower to the south. The central large 128 Chancellor Street: Detached dwelling. a project of that size could provide the space window at the common spaces serves as a Craftsman / Colonial Revival. Ca. 1926. Frame necessary to meet the center’s current needs singular lantern to identify the institutional with wood shingles: 3 stories; hipped roof; 1 and projected growth over the next five to ten program of gathering, while framing the view to oversized front hipped dormer; symmetrical years. The project to design an addition at the the east from each room. The curved wall and 3-bay front; 1-bay front porch w/ paired Roman rear of the site was begun in 2019. window of the upper meeting room refers to the Doric columns and balustrade upper deck. corner turrets found in the historical Shingle One of only three shingle-clad dwellings in Style architecture that informed the original the District, this house features a 3-sided bay Description of proposed work building, while providing a sweeping view to opening onto the upper porch deck. the Southwest Mountains. The stair tower and and Design Intent elevator are meant to provide an unobtrusive A 4-story addition (3 stories of finished space backdrop to the rear yard of the adjacent The addition to the existing Christian Studies property. and one parking level) was designed and Center will continue leave the residential constructed in 1996 -1998. The addition 128 Chancellor Street includes a semi-detached open exit stair along the north elevation. Frame construction with character of the institution and the original building with the Chancellor Street entrance The core of the building to which the three primary volumes attach forms a quiet unchanged. This character is central to the background, a spatial and material reveal wood shingles’ hipped and flat roofs both; is a identity of the institution as a “home” for between the new addition and the existing style similar to the original construction but with university students and will be reflected in building. The material will be a rainscreen a modern twist reflective of its era. the development of the interior as a space wall panel system, reinterpreting the paneled that is domestic in character while creating material in the connecting links of the existing Narrative the capacity to support the larger-scaled building. institutional needs. The Center of Christian Study is one of the All modifications to the existing building are leading Christian Study Centers in the Nation. The language of the exterior reflects this dual being done in a way to precisely match the Active in the University community since the reading of the domestic to institutional scales existing architecture, so that the original 1970’s, it first occupied a rented house on as well, with a continuity of materials and structure will appear essentially unchanged Elliewood Avenue. It purchased the house an articulation of the massing into discrete from the front and sides, including the beloved on Chancellor Street in 1976. The Center’s volumes on the new addition that echo the outdoor stair, decks and terraces. program thrived in that location and grew to the original building. The design recognizes that extent that it began design work on an addition the institutional spatial requirements demand The existing parking area will be to the original house in 1996. Construction of a shift from the residential scale, while the accommodated under the new addition. that addition, which occupies the middle third relationship to the context as viewed from of the site, was completed in 1998. below requires the articulation of appropriately scaled volumes rather than the appearance The Center continued to thrive in that “Corner” of one large mass. Each of the resulting three location and by the 2010’s they were clearly primary elements of the new addition are clad outgrowing their facility. In 2015, the Center in cedar shingles, stained to match the existing engaged William Sherman Architect with building, complemented by the white trim at the Train Architects to study their site and its windows. potential for expansion. Working with the City of Charlottesville guidelines and code requirements regarding allowable building Project Narrative Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 1 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | 1. 1926 WEST (CHANCELLOR ST) 2. 1996 ADDITION NORTH 3. 1996 ADDITION NORTHEAST 4. 1996 ADDITION EAST 2 3 1 6 A 4 B 5. 1996 ADDITION SOUTH 5. 1996 ADDITION EAST (ELLIEWOOD AVE) C ST 5 OR ELL VE DA ANC OO CH LOCATION IEW A. EXISTING 1926 B. EXISTING 1996 ADDITION ELL C. PROPOSED NEW ADDITION Existing Conditions Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 2 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | 2. NORTH WOOD DECKS 3. 1996 ADDITION - SOUTH ELEVATION - DETAIL OF WOOD PANELING 1. NORTH WALK LOOKING EAST 4. 1996 ADDITION - DETAIL OF NORTH STAIR 5. SOUTH COURTYARD AND WALKWAY Existing Conditions Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 3 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | 14 June 2018 Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" NORTH 0 8' 16' 32' 64' 128' 256' Site Survey Center for Christian Study Expansion Study | Train Architects 4 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | Floor Plans Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 5 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | Floor Plans Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 6 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | Floor Plans Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 7 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | Floor Plans Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 8 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | Floor Plans Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 9 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | Floor Plans Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 10 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | Building Section Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 11 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | Southeast Isometric Northeast Isometric Isometric Views Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 12 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | West (Chancellor Street) Elevation South Elevation East Elevation North Elevation Exterior Elevations Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 13 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | Existing view from Chancellor Street sidewalk Proposed view from Chancellor Street sidewalk View from Chancellor Street Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 14 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | CEDAR SHINGLES - JAMES HARDIE REVEAL ALUMINUM CLAD STOREFRONT / CURTAIN WALL STAINED TO MATCH EXISTING CEMENT PANEL SYSTEM WOOD WINDOW WINDOW SYSTEM NOTE: MULLION COLOR TO BE DETERMINED Materials Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 15 July 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Memo August 20, 2019 Project Update BAR 17-08-02 Belmont Bridge / Public Right of Way, Tax Map 53 and 58 City of Charlottesville, Owner/Applicant Belmont Bridge Design Background The Belmont Bridge, constructed in 1962, is located in the Downton ADC District and provides vehicular and pedestrian crossing over the BBRR/CSX rail lines, Avon Street, and Water Street. Due to deterioration, replacing the bridge has long been one of the city’s transportation priorities. Prior BAR Actions (See complete list at the end of this memo, including meeting minutes from August 20, 2019.) August 20, 2019: BAR approved the CoA (8-0) with the following additions.  That the striations will wrap the corners at the abutment, and should appear cut at any obstructions as discussed;*  That lamping for the pole lights will have a minimum 80 color rendering index (CRI), although 90 is preferred;  The BAR strongly recommends review of the overhang at the knuckle to reduce the perceived heaviness of the beam, and to visually separate the beam from the parapet;  The BAR to provide advisory review of the special provision for the concrete panels for the retaining wall system. [* Specifically: A) At the two corners of the south abutment the striation pattern of the panels on the east and west walls will appear to wrap the corner onto the abutment wall under bridge; and B) where the striated wall panels meet the sloped parapet (above), the ground level (at the base), and an obstruction (a different, non-striated element that has been inserted onto or through the vertical plane of the striated wall--for example, the stairs and the bike/ped tunnels) the striation pattern will terminate as if cut, similar to a natural, exposed rock outcropping if cut for a road or bored into for an opening. Note: Refer to slides #3 and 19 of the presentation.] Belmont Bridge (August 12, 2020) 1 Information submitted August 10, 2020 Memo from Jeanette Janiczek, UCI Program Manager, City of Charlottesville, re: Belmont Bridge Replacement Project – Update on Final Certificate of Appropriateness. Memo addresses the following: Response to BAR conditions in August 2019 CoA: 1) Retaining Wall Striations 2) Special Provision for the Retaining Walls 3) Overhang at the Knuckle 4) Lighting Plan Updates to the Plans: 1) Lighting Along Water Street 2) Lighting at Downtown Transit Station 3) Lighting with existing Pedestrian Underpass 4) Mezzanine Lighting 5) Bridge Pier Lighting 6) Landscaping 7) Bollards Discussion and Recommendations Information provided as an update for the BAR. No formal action required, however the BAR should be prepared to discuss the information and ask questions of City staff. A condition of the CoA allows the BAR to provide an advisory review of the special provisions for the retaining walls. The BAR should review the provisions and be prepared to offer any recommendations. Suggested Motion No formal action is required Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Reference the Design Review Guidelines for Public Design and Improvements Prior BAR Reviews February 22, 2017: Work session to discuss process, schedule constraints. No action taken. May 16, 2017: Meeting with the consultants in City Space for an update. No action taken. August 15, 2017: Preliminary discussion of the bridge design. No action taken. August 9, 2018: Work session with consultants with project updates. No action taken. September 18, 2018: BAR approved of the design with the following conditions:  Approve the horizontal concept of the MSE panels; BAR requests further development of this design, which must come back to the BAR for approval Belmont Bridge (August 12, 2020) 2  Denial of the use of brick [whether faux or actual] on the east side of the bridge [on abutment, north of Water Street]  Request to see an existing example of the proposed street light  Request that applicant revisit details on the stairs—the south stairs particularly--to create more fluidity and cohesion with the rest of the design concept for the bridge. August 20, 2019 BAR - Meeting Minutes: Staff Report, Jeff Werner: The Belmont Bridge, constructed in 1962, is located in the Downton ADC District and provides vehicular and pedestrian crossing over the BBRR/CSX rail lines, Avon Street, and Water Street. Due to deterioration, replacing the bridge has long been one of the city’s transportation priorities. Now fully funded, construction on the new bridge is anticipated to begin in 2020, with completion expected in 2022. The request is for the Belmont Bridge Replacement project. The submittal represents revisions that incorporate BAR comments from prior work sessions. Key elements and components to review include the stair design: SW quadrant from pedestrian plaza/underpass to 9th/Avon Street, the site lighting: pedestrian street lights (sample); handrail lighting (review pending VDOT approval), the bollards: revision to crash-rated, removable bollards, the site furniture: preference is indicated--no change from prior reviews and the approval of alternatives meet procurement requirements, the crosswalks: elimination of stamped concrete; use of City Standard (high visibility thermoplastic crosswalks), the southwest parking lot: elimination of tinted concrete; surface to be asphalt, the bridge parapet wall and railings: revised design complies with regulatory requirements, the retaining Wall (MSE): design concepts for individual panels, the knuckle: revised design. The BAR should determine if the following conditions have been satisfactorily met: further development of the horizontal concept of the retaining walls, the example of proposed street light, and the redesign of stair to achieve more fluidity and cohesion with the design concept for the bridge. Applicant, Jeannette Janiczek: I am the project manager for the Belmont Bridge. We continue to progress the design and we wanted to disclose the changes and get your input. We have been working with VDOT and have received stage 1 bridge approval. We have also received right-of- way authorization and at this point we are able to move forward with acquiring property. After that will be relocation of utility. Mr. Sal Musarra: Some of the big picture changes we are looking at were initiated by your request. As we go through the engineering project and an infrastructure project like this, we had wonderful interaction with VDOT and FHWA. As we get further into the engineering details and site investigations, some things will have to be tweaked. There was a lot of interest and comments on the southwest stairs last time and we now have a more simplified version so we aren’t competing with the rest of the materials on the west elevation. It will have a fairly simple concrete finish with joint delineation and low-profile stairs. Every time you see stairs in the project there is a bike rental. The handrail detail is the same as what you saw before. This offsets it without making it too crazy unique and it is fairly clean. The footprint is within the landscaped area, which is also part of our bio-filtration system feature. It is a constrained footprint so we couldn’t expand it much. We have agreed on the product and finish of the light fixture that goes to a 12 ft. height. It was originally at 15 ft. We received comments about the quality of the lighting and there is a preference for something around 90, although our clients preferred an 80 in that range. We can add a dimmable capability to it, but there is a cost associated with it. We originally had an accent lighting on the handrail and wall-mounted lighting fixture. Based on Belmont Bridge (August 12, 2020) 3 feedback from VDOT and the design of the railings system, the railing design has changed and is a little more vertical because of their requirements. When this happens, the light under the railing throws the light down on the parapet in a way that is not favorable. Our recommendation is that we don’t need it to get the coverage we need and it isn’t worth the effort to do that. The bollards are now located in front of each of the passageways. After a lot of research, we are going with a consistent bollard that is a concrete core with a cladding over top of it to give the aesthetic. When you remove the cladding, there are bolts that would allow you to do a mechanical lift. The only difference on the look is we will have the beveled top, but it won’t have the battered shape. Regarding the change to the paving of the materials for crosswalks and the parking lot, the tradeoff for the cost and the aesthetic just didn’t seem to warrant the extra expense. It was just under $90,000 additional expense on the crosswalks and it was almost $300,000 in savings to go to the asphalt. Some concern with the concrete is that over time it gets dingy and it isn’t easy to clean. The site design furnishings are similar to what we previously proposed. VDOT and FHWA were very concerned regarding the parapet design and the railing and we had a tremendous amount of interaction with them since we last met with you to find a design that was crash tested, met their requirements, and kept as close as possible to our aesthetic requirement we’re after on the railing. The dimensions were very close to what we are presenting now and the smaller top rail that we are proposing is a little sleeker. The main change is that the railing had to be set back a certain amount from the face of the parapet because of the way it was crash tested. We went with a simple version of the bike rentals because it accomplishes the same thing as more complex channels. It works, it doesn’t take your eye off the basic design, and it can be accomplished on any of the stairs. The aesthetic of the walls doesn’t change. When designing these, we deliver 60% of the design plan on the structural panels to a vendor and have them develop the details and structural drawings to make it work. In addition to the landscaping in front of it, the shadows it creates are really important and helps hide the joint pattern. The aesthetic holds together, but there’s only so much we can say today about the exact panel configurations. The geometry of the knuckle is a little tighter in that radius and the plaza area is a little more defined. The existing brick wall today that follows the pavilion is very steep and it isn’t ADA accessible. We found a way to make it ADA accessible by making some slight changes in grade and elevation along the walk. There are some landscape differences due to the change in the height of the sidewalk and some small modifications to the steps to the pavilion. The railroad was very cooperative and understanding the position of not installing fencing initially on day one. We are going to design it and provide that it could be installed if deemed necessary, but the approval for moving forward without it has been received in writing. Questions from the Public: None. Questions from the Board: Mr. Lahendro: With the removable bollards, how often do you think they will be removed? Ms. Janiczek: Under the new pedestrian underpass, it would be only for maintenance. Under the old/existing pedestrian tunnel, they have a forklift onsite so if they need to move in equipment for shows they would have the capability to do that. They are about 5 ft. apart from each other so anything bigger than that would require it. Mr. Lahendro: Are walks shut down to public access at that point? Belmont Bridge (August 12, 2020) 4 Ms. Janiczek: Yes, you would want to limit access. They would be picked up and put back quickly because they are so heavy. Mr. Ball: What is the plan during pavilion events to block along the bridge in the future? Ms. Janiczek: We had a meeting with the pavilion and talked about closing it off a few feet from the stairs, allowing people to circulate during the concert. It will not give you a viewing area. Mr. Mohr: Would that mean there would be no ADA entrance? Ms. Janiczek: When there is a concert or ticketed events there wouldn’t be, which is about 20 times per year. Mr. Schwarz: For the lights, you specified that they would be black. Is there a reason for that when gray if offered? Ms. Janiczek: Yes. For the cobra lights, the direction from public works is that we’d like to have the signal equipment in black instead of the standard City green. The ones set inside the parapet should be gray. Mr. Sarafin: Regarding the individual panel system on the retaining walls, will it be exclusively used for retaining wall situations? Previous design had brick in certain spots. Ms. Janiczek: Yes. It will be in front of Lexis Nexis and we took your direction on that. it’s also on the other side of the bridge in front of Optronics and coming around to the parcel where Champion Brewery is. Mr. Balut: It seems like there are elements of the design and parts of the bridge that we’re not able to see that this point to see aesthetically. This package is missing some information. Mr. Musarra: It is missing from the standpoint that we didn’t repeat everything that we brought before you last time. The only caveat is there may be some cases where there are some very low short walls where it doesn’t make sense to try and put that panel on them because they aren’t needed structurally. We would make those relate more to the concrete around the stairs. Other than the abutment on Water Street where we transition back to that existing retaining wall would all be that same panel design. Mr. Balut: I don’t see any information or proposal for the Lexis Nexis side. Ms. Janiczek: We were only coming back with changes to what we had previously shown. Comments from the Public: None. Comments from the Board: Mr. Sarafin: It’s a shame to lose the angle of the railing because it really added to the overall flow, but I understand the stipulations you are working with. Generally, you have addressed all of the issues we identified, and it looks comprehensive. Belmont Bridge (August 12, 2020) 5 Mr. Mohr: Regarding the parapet, the edges are a little clunky and the whole design of it doesn’t have the grace of the earlier one. I wonder if there’s anything you could do to the form work that would make it work a little better. Is the edge just to keep it from chipping? Mr. Musarra: If it gets modified it becomes a whole different thing that needs to be evaluated. Mr. Lahendro: I agree with the heaviness of that concrete beam and it feels like it’s out of place. Mr. Mohr: Introducing steel there would help because the beam is just out of place and the rest of the construction doesn’t talk to it. It’s good from a budget standpoint that the railroad isn’t going to make you put the protection screen in there, but it still seems like it had a nice reference of bridge in the old sense of the word where you had some upper structure where the roadbed is changing. I think it’s a positive thing and that accent over the span makes sense. Mr. Schwarz: I wouldn’t put the infill in if you don’t have to and I wish that requirement wasn’t part of bridges. Mr. Ball: I like the form, but I don’t like the railroad fencing. It blocks a lot of view and if it’s not necessary, it would be nice to not have it. Mr. Balut: In theory it adds an elegant sweep. In the previous iteration when there were more elegant moves, especially in the knuckle and the angle of the walls, it contributed to the elegance that made it more holistic. Now we’re losing those elements and it went better when it was part of a larger whole. The most iconic element in the design of this bridge up until tonight was that really elegant radius curve at the knuckle combined with the angled wall and rail. The white thinness of that bridge was articulated in those renderings that contributed to the elegance that was supported by the painted dark steel or concrete beams. Now we’ve lost the main elegance by going into that tight radius, which we don’t even have a good look of tonight. I lament the fact that we lost that, as well as the rail and the tactile detail that actually brought it together. There is a way to achieve that thinness by perhaps bringing it down to steel. The most appealing thing about this was the elegance and slenderness of the arch and curve continuing from the path all the way across the bridge. Now it’s becoming more and more clunky. The lighting, furniture, bollards, etc. is fine and the package is comprehensive, but I’m having a hard time remembering the other elements that are not a part of this package when we approve a COA for everything. It would have been nice and helpful to have it all together to look at it one last time, but we’ll make do. Mr. Gastinger: I apologize for arriving late. In many ways, there are many things in the project that are going really well and it seems like the plan makes a lot of sense. The planting plan and strategy look appropriate. The parapet seems like it has gotten very standard very quickly and it is a small example of some concerns about the design process. The biggest concern is that we’re still being asked to imagine what the concrete panels and elevations are and that is asking a lot of a design review committee to try to evaluate without being clear about what we are potentially approving. While I understand the necessity and challenges with procurement processes, someone had to do a sketch to tell the graphic designer how to do the photoshop. There are elevations of this project that we just haven’t had access to, and I don’t know why. If the City Belmont Bridge (August 12, 2020) 6 and VDOT are going to entertain bids, there should be some graphic representation of what the aspiration is. Mr. Mohr: When you decide which vender will build the panels, there will be some back and forth before determining what the final product will look like. Could the BAR be involved in that process? Mr. Musarra: Yes, we can find a way to do that. I don’t know what the proper procedure is, but we can certainly have some collaboration. The differences between the aesthetics from different venders is not going to be perceived in the landscape, given the nature of the project and scale. If you go to a product catalog and you pull that exact product up that we’re recommending and put it in a rendering, that essentially is the look. That is the aesthetic the contractors have to achieve. Ms. Janiczek: In the past we’ve written special previsions to create guidance to the contractor. In this panel, we would write a provision that the depth of the relief needs to be 6 inches, needs to cover X number of the wall, the size of the panel, etc. and we would find at least 3 manufacturers that could meet that. We would then get a shop drawing that lays out what the panels look like for our review. We could provide you with the material that the manufacturer picked and the shop drawings. Mr. Gastinger: That is understandable and that’s why a drawing is a very useful to have in front of us. We understand there is variation with materials because that happens all the time, but the public has been invested in this project for a long time and it’s important to see measured elevations. Mr. Musarra: At the end of the day this is the effect that has to be achieved and if you go outside of the boundaries, we will put the red flag up and come back in. Mr. Mohr: There are going to be things that the vendors are going to want to modify and we need to verify it. Ms. Janiczek: If they fall within our parameters, we need to accept it. We don’t have a free rejection. Mr. Mohr: I’m not thinking about rejection because they have a pretty good idea of what they want. We can say we would like to be a part of that process. Mr. Brian McPeters: We can’t specify legally that the panel has to be a certain dimension or width. I can’t create an environment where I eliminate approved venders for the contractor to use because he makes a certain size panel. I can’t give you a drawing of how the pieces fit together because that’s the vendor’s job. Mr. Alex Ikefuna: We can let the BAR have an advisory, but we need some flexibility in terms of procurement because something could happen that the City couldn’t get out of, which becomes a huge risk. We need that flexibility. Belmont Bridge (August 12, 2020) 7 Mr. Mohr: We’d just like to see what the fruition of that is going to be while it’s at the sample level. I’m confident that what they want to do is going to be fine, but it is a tactile and physical thing and you won’t just get it from a couple renderings. Mr. Werner: As with any project that the BAR reviews, when something comes in, I have to review the drawings. There’s no real way to have a later check and decision on it. Knowing what my role will be and communicating what you all have said, to the extent that I can, I will adhere to that. Mr. Sarafin: When the 3 samples come in, what are the criteria for selecting which of them you’ll go with? Mr. McPeters: When we write the special prevision, we take the final drawings and advertise for construction. We ask for a price from the contractor for the walls at a square foot price, which is hooked to a special prevision we wrote with the specifications. Because it’s a VDOT job and has federal funds, the contractor has to use a VDOT pre-qualified vendor to manufacture the panels. The contractor will likely use the cheapest vendor that bids it for him that can conform to the specification. There won’t be 3 that come back, we just have to make sure there are 3 vendors for everything. They will create a mock up and when we get to that point into construction, we can invite the BAR as an advisory point. As long as that guidance is general in nature and doesn’t constrain the contractor or throw out his vendor, the contractor will work with us. Mr. Gastinger: Because the aesthetic that you’ve selected for the base of the bridge, the scale of the individual panel is less important because it’s going to be less visual. You should try to be specific in the drawings you give because so much of this is going through the detail of an individual panel. There could be some really clunky outcomes because the elevations haven’t been considered. Mr. Musarra: Another thing we can commit to you is presenting you with a draft of the special previsions and let you comment on it so that any concerns presented this evening are reflected in that document. Mr. Mohr: The main concern we have is just making sure we’re all on the same page. Mr. Gastinger: Regarding the furnishings, the basis of design is really good. The first alternates are good, but the second alternates seemed to be quite a departure, especially the Innova brand. It would be a shame to end up with that. Mr. McPeters: At the direction of the City, we are going to try working with the Federal Highway Administration and VDOT to get a finding of public interest, which allows us to sole source the bench, trashcan and bike rack. When we specify an example one in the basis of design, we have to make sure there are two others we could have said. We’ve done a lot of streetscapes and normally we get the one we specify. However, if we lose the request from VDOT, which the City doesn’t decide, that is just to show that we would have to accept one of those three. We are going to specify the one that has been previously endorsed. Mr. Schwarz: Did you run the alternates by Parks and Recreation? I assume they will be maintaining all of it. Belmont Bridge (August 12, 2020) 8 Mr. McPeters: That is the reason why we would request finding a public interest. Unfortunately, whether they approve of the benches or not, if it is deemed an equal than it will be an equal regardless. The basis of design one has been vetted with them in conversations previously and it hasn’t changed. Mr. Schwarz: Regarding how the panels would work, it would be great to wrap the corners and as opposed to stopping and having a blank space where it hits the end of the bridge or ground, it should just continue and die into the ground. Mr. Mohr: To clarify, is there a way to make it across the bridge and down the stairs onto Water Street no matter what is going on at the pavilion? Mr. McPeters: That is the plan that we talked to the pavilion owner about tonight. The conversation is something that the City is working on and will have to work out before we go to construction. We seem to be heading in a path that the stairs will allow access. Ms. Schwarz: We received an email over the weekend from Sarah Pool. Does your design adequately address her concerns? Mr. McPeters: I was pleased to see her email and all of her things were compliant. The ADA concept throughout this whole project with the unique change that resulted in the knuckle design had a tradeoff, so we got an accessible route that we weren’t going to have. Belmont Bridge (August 12, 2020) 9 City of Charlottesville MEMO TO: Board of Architectural Review FROM: Jeanette Janiczek, UCI Program Manager DATE: August 10, 2020 SUBJECT: Belmont Bridge Replacement Project – Update on Final Certificate of Appropriateness ATTACHED: 1) Retaining Wall Plan Sheets 13(2A) – 13(2J) 2) Special Provision for Retaining Walls 3) Enhanced Pedestrian Access Structure 4) Roadway Lighting Plans 8(1) – 8(5-1) 5) Landscaping Plans 12(3) to 12(5) 6) Roadway Plans 3, 4 and 5 On August 20, 2019, the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) issued a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the Belmont Bridge Replacement project with the following motion: Motion: Schwarz moved having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Public Design and Improvements, I move to find that the proposed bridge, lighting and site work 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 with the following additions. • That the striations will wrap the corners at the abutment, and should appear cut at any obstructions as discussed;* • That lamping for the pole lights will have a minimum 80 color rendering index (CRI), although 90 is preferred; • The BAR strongly recommends review of the overhang at the knuckle to reduce the perceived heaviness of the beam, and to visually separate the beam from the parapet; • The BAR to provide advisory review of the special provision for the concrete panels for the retaining wall system. Mohr seconded. Approved (8-0). [* Specifically: A) At the two corners of the south abutment the striation pattern of the panels on the east and west walls will appear to wrap the corner onto the abutment wall under bridge; and B) where the striated wall panels meet the sloped parapet (above), the ground level (at the base), and an obstruction (a different, non- striated element that has been inserted onto or through the vertical plane of the striated wall--for example, the stairs and the bike/ped tunnels) the striation pattern will terminate as if cut, similar to a natural, exposed rock outcropping if cut for a road or bored into for an opening. Note: Refer to slides #3 and 19 of the presentation.] Attached and below are responses to the additions raised by the BAR in the COA. 1) Retaining Wall Striations Attached plan sheets 13(2A) to 13(2C) display the proposed panel layout of the three retaining walls, how the striations will be cut at the two pedestrian underpasses as well as the SW staircase and how the striations will be wrapped at the corners. Plan sheets 13(2D) to 13(2I) provide details on the 35 panel variations, their dimensions, and striation relief. Sheet 13(2J) provides further details on the corner detail and its mitered corner. These plan sheets reflect the direction provided by BAR and will be used to evaluate the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Approved Wall System, Category A to be selected and submitted by the contractor. 2) Special Provision for the Retaining Walls Attached is the Special Provision for the Retaining Walls that the BAR requested to provide advisory review. This Special Provision supplements the plan sheets and provides additional requirements that must be met for the City to accept the Retaining Wall – submittals, material/construction requirements, mockups, et cetera. 3) Overhang at the Knuckle The BAR has requested the overhang at the knuckle be reviewed to 1) reduce the perceived heaviness of the beam and 2) visually separate the beam from the parapet. The following measures have been taken to achieve the aesthetic effect requested while maintaining the overhang’s structural design: • Added a mask wall at the west end of the pier/overhang to hide the ends of the beam (Sheet 9 – face of mask wall, Sheet 10 – Section C) • Extended the deck 3” beyond the backwall on the pier/overhang to create a shadow line at the joint between the parapet, deck, and backwall (Sheet 15 – Transverse Section Span a) • Added a taper to the south face of the columns at the pier (Sheets 9 and 10 – shows 3” tapers of each pier) These details have been added to the attached Enhanced Pedestrian Access Structure plan sheets as noted above. 4) Lighting Plan Kimley Horn has confirmed that the pole lights, KIM Lighting Ouro LED, have a minimum 80 color rendering index. This detail can be confirmed on Roadway Plan Sheet 8(2A). Updates to the Plans As the plan set has been refined, certain adjustments have been made in response to changed, existing conditions or due to other technical issues (such as items no longer being manufactured). These changes are outlined below and illustrated in the attached plan sheets. 1) Lighting Along Water Street The City has recently replaced existing lighting along the south side of Water Street, east of the bridge with the current residential lighting fixture contained within the City’s Standards and Design Manual. This lighting will be extended further west on both sides of Water Street under the bridge for a total of nine fixtures. The fixture specification is located on plan sheet 8(2A) and their locations can best be seen on sheet 8(4-2). 2) Lighting at Downtown Transit Station The Transit Station has its own lighting fixture on the northern side of Water Street, west of the bridge. One of the existing fixtures needs to be relocated and it was proposed to add one other, new light fixture further east to meet photometric measures on illumination. We have coordinated with the Facilities Department to ensure the current, replacement fixture is specified on sheet 8(2B). 3) Lighting with existing Pedestrian Underpass The existing Pedestrian Underpass will be extended to the east which will require the addition of 2 new light fixtures. When contacting the manufacturer, we were notified the existing fixture is no longer in production. Kimley Horn was able to identify a similar fixture, a we-ef QLS420, which is shown on sheet 8(2F). The project will add two of these fixtures and replace the existing twelve fixtures to ensure a cohesive appearance within the tunnel. 4) Mezzanine Lighting Previously, the light fixture being used within the staircases, the SPI Eco Effect EEG11953 found on sheet 8(2D), was proposed for the mezzanine. To improve illumination and reduce the number of light fixtures by 15, a new light fixture, the Tryg Exterior Wall Elegant, also shown on sheet 8(2F) is proposed at the locations on sheet 8(4-2). 5) Bridge Pier Lighting The locations of the previously approved light fixture to highlight the bridge piers have been finalized and are shown on sheet 8(4B). 6) Landscaping The Tree Commission reviewed the landscaping plans one additional time and requested as many large, shade trees as possible – particularly along South Street. The project team was able to add a few additional shade trees by adjusting the location and size of some trees which also required the adjustment (reduction) of shrubs and groundcover proposed. The species of landscaping proposed within the project remains the same as previously reviewed plans. Landscaping plans can be found on sheets 12(3) to 12(5). 7) Bollards Previously, bollards were proposed in a semi-circular arrangement. After speaking with the bollard manufacturers, it was determined the bollards need to be installed in a straight line to properly protect against collisions coming from the side/off-center. Bollards can be seen on sheets 3, 4 and 5. 1) Retaining Wall Plan Sheets 13(2A) – 13(2J) FEDERAL AID STATE SHEET STATE ROUTE PROJECT ROUTE PROJECT NO. VA. BR-5104 (159) 20 0020-104-101, B601 13(2F) A B C A B C A B C 6 5/8" TYP 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 5'-0" 1" 6 5/8" TYP 6 5/8" TYP 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 1" 1" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C PANEL 13 PANEL 14 PANEL 15 A B C A B C A B C 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 6 5/8" TYP 6 5/8" TYP 6 5/8" TYP 1" 1" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 1" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C PANEL 16 PANEL 17 PANEL 18 1/2”= 1’-0” 0 1' 2' GENERAL NOTES: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1. ALL M.S.E. COMPONENT SIZING AND CONNECTIONS TO BE VERIFIED DURING SHOP DRAWING PHASE. STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE DIVISION 2. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION PRELIMINARY PLANS 3. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD THESE PLANS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION M. S. E. RETAINING WALL PANEL DETAILS 13-18 KGP DESIGN STUDIO 4. SEE M.S.E. WALL SPECIAL PROVISION FOR MORE INFORMATION WASHINGTON, DC ARCHITECT Date Plan No. Sheet No. KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC. 5. FINAL LAYOUT TO BE DETERMINED IN COORDINATION BETWEEN No. Description Date Designed: KGP ........... RALEIGH, NC FABRICATOR AND ARCHITECT/OWNER REPRESENTATIVE DURING SHOP Drawn: TW&MtN ........... 13(2F) DP July 2020 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWINGS AND MOCK-UP REVIEW c 2019, Commonwealth of Virginia Revisions Checked: ........... FEDERAL AID STATE SHEET STATE ROUTE PROJECT ROUTE PROJECT NO. VA. BR-5104 (159) 20 0020-104-101, B601 13(2G) A B C A B C A B C 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 6 5/8" TYP 6 5/8" TYP 1" 6 5/8" TYP 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 1" 1" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C PANEL 19 PANEL 20 PANEL 21 A B C A B C A B C 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 6 5/8" TYP 6 5/8" TYP 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 6 5/8" TYP 1" 5'-0" 1" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C PANEL 22 PANEL 23 PANEL 24 1/2”= 1’-0” 0 1' 2' GENERAL NOTES: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1. ALL M.S.E. COMPONENT SIZING AND CONNECTIONS TO BE VERIFIED DURING SHOP DRAWING PHASE. STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE DIVISION 2. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION PRELIMINARY PLANS 3. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD THESE PLANS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION M. S. E. RETAINING WALL PANEL DETAILS 19-24 KGP DESIGN STUDIO 4. SEE M.S.E. WALL SPECIAL PROVISION FOR MORE INFORMATION WASHINGTON, DC ARCHITECT Date Plan No. Sheet No. KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC. 5. FINAL LAYOUT TO BE DETERMINED IN COORDINATION BETWEEN No. Description Date Designed: KGP ........... RALEIGH, NC FABRICATOR AND ARCHITECT/OWNER REPRESENTATIVE DURING SHOP Drawn: TW&MtN ........... 13(2G) DP July 2020 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWINGS AND MOCK-UP REVIEW c 2019, Commonwealth of Virginia Revisions Checked: ........... FEDERAL AID STATE SHEET STATE ROUTE PROJECT ROUTE PROJECT NO. VA. BR-5104 (159) 20 0020-104-101, B601 13(2H) A B C A B C A B C 6 5/8" TYP 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 1" 6 5/8" TYP 5'-0" 6 5/8" TYP 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 1" 1" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C PANEL 25 PANEL 26 PANEL 27 A B C A B C A B C 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 5'-0" 6 5/8" TYP 5'-0" 6 5/8" TYP 6 5/8" TYP 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 1" 5'-0" 1" 1" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C PANEL 28 PANEL 29 PANEL 30 1/2”= 1’-0” 0 1' 2' GENERAL NOTES: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1. ALL M.S.E. COMPONENT SIZING AND CONNECTIONS TO BE VERIFIED DURING SHOP DRAWING PHASE. STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE DIVISION 2. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION PRELIMINARY PLANS 3. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD THESE PLANS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION M. S. E. RETAINING WALL PANEL DETAILS 25-30 KGP DESIGN STUDIO 4. SEE M.S.E. WALL SPECIAL PROVISION FOR MORE INFORMATION WASHINGTON, DC ARCHITECT Date Plan No. Sheet No. KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC. 5. FINAL LAYOUT TO BE DETERMINED IN COORDINATION BETWEEN No. Description Date Designed: KGP ........... RALEIGH, NC FABRICATOR AND ARCHITECT/OWNER REPRESENTATIVE DURING SHOP Drawn: TW&MtN ........... 13(2H) DP July 2020 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWINGS AND MOCK-UP REVIEW c 2019, Commonwealth of Virginia Revisions Checked: ........... FEDERAL AID STATE SHEET STATE ROUTE PROJECT ROUTE PROJECT NO. VA. BR-5104 (159) 20 0020-104-101, B601 13(2I) A B C A B C A B C 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 5'-0" 6 5/8" TYP 6 5/8" TYP 6 5/8" TYP 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 1" 1" 1" 5'-0" 8'-4 1/4" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 8'-4 1/4" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 10'-0" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C PANEL 31 PANEL 32 PANEL 33 A B C A B C 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 2" 7 1/2" 2" 2" 7 1/2" 6 5/8" TYP 5'-0" 5'-0" 6 5/8" TYP 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 1" 1" 11'-1" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" 11'-1" 5 1/2" 2" 5 1/2" 2" 2" 5 1/2" A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C A B C VIEW A-A VIEW B-B VIEW C-C PANEL 34 PANEL 35 1/2”= 1’-0” 0 1' 2' GENERAL NOTES: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1. ALL M.S.E. COMPONENT SIZING AND CONNECTIONS TO BE VERIFIED DURING SHOP DRAWING PHASE. STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE DIVISION 2. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION PRELIMINARY PLANS 3. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD THESE PLANS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION M. S. E. RETAINING WALL PANEL DETAILS 31-35 KGP DESIGN STUDIO 4. SEE M.S.E. WALL SPECIAL PROVISION FOR MORE INFORMATION WASHINGTON, DC ARCHITECT Date Plan No. Sheet No. KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC. 5. FINAL LAYOUT TO BE DETERMINED IN COORDINATION BETWEEN No. Description Date Designed: KGP ........... RALEIGH, NC FABRICATOR AND ARCHITECT/OWNER REPRESENTATIVE DURING SHOP Drawn: TW&MtN ........... 13(2I) DP July 2020 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWINGS AND MOCK-UP REVIEW c 2019, Commonwealth of Virginia Revisions Checked: ........... FEDERAL AID STATE SHEET STATE ROUTE PROJECT ROUTE PROJECT NO. VA. BR-5104 (159) 20 0020-104-101, B601 13(2J) MSE PANEL TYPE NUMBERS TYPE 1 195 TYPE 2 30 TYPE 3 7 TYPE 4 49 TYPE 5 45 TYPE 6 9 TYPE 7 12 TYPE 8 34 TYPE 9 13 TYPE 10 8 TYPE 11 12 TYPE 12 12 TYPE 13 11 TYPE 14 11 TYPE 15 8 TYPE 16 11 TYPE 17 2 TYPE 18 31 TYPE 19 1 TYPE 20 3 CONVEX PATTERN CONCAVE PATTERN TYPE 21 1 ANGLE VARIES 1 5 1/2" 2" 2" TYPE 22 9 1/2" 7 1/2" CONVEX PATTERN TYPE 23 3 TYPE 24 1 CONCAVE PATTERN ANGLE VARIES 1'-0" TYPE 25 1 7 1/2" 1'-0" TYPE 26 2 1" TYPE 27 1 2" 2" 5 1/2" 7 1/2" 1 9 1/2" TYPE 28 7 1/2" TYPE 29 2 MSE PANEL TYPICAL CORNER CONDITION TYPE 30 2 TYPE 31 1 TYPE 32 2 TYPE 33 1 TYPE 34 1 1/2”= 1’-0” TYPE 35 2 0 1' 2' TOTAL 526 GENERAL NOTES: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1. ALL M.S.E. COMPONENT SIZING AND CONNECTIONS TO BE VERIFIED DURING SHOP DRAWING PHASE. STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE DIVISION 2. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION PRELIMINARY PLANS 3. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD THESE PLANS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION M. S. E. RETAINING WALL PANEL COUNT LEGEND & TYP. CORNER DETAIL KGP DESIGN STUDIO 4. SEE M.S.E. WALL SPECIAL PROVISION FOR MORE INFORMATION WASHINGTON, DC ARCHITECT Date Plan No. Sheet No. KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC. 5. FINAL LAYOUT TO BE DETERMINED IN COORDINATION BETWEEN No. Description Date Designed: KGP ........... RALEIGH, NC FABRICATOR AND ARCHITECT/OWNER REPRESENTATIVE DURING SHOP Drawn: TW&MtN ........... 13(2J) DP July 2020 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWINGS AND MOCK-UP REVIEW c 2019, Commonwealth of Virginia Revisions Checked: ........... 2) Special Provision for Retaining Walls SPECIAL PROVISION FOR MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS (CONCRETE PANEL FACING) Belmont Bridge Charlottesville, Virginia 1.0 DESCRIPTION This work shall consist of furnishing and constructing Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls in accordance with these specifications and in reasonably close conformity with the lines, grades, dimensions, and design shown on the plans or established by the Engineer. This specification is intended to cover MSE walls utilizing discrete concrete panel facing as approved by VDOT Structure and Bridge Division. 2.0 SUBMITTALS The Contractor shall submit working drawings, shop plans, and design calculations, signed and sealed by a Virginia Registered Professional Engineer, to the Engineer for review by the City. The Contractor shall allow 30 days from the day the submittals are received by the City for review and approval. Fabrication or any wall construction shall not begin prior to the approval of the design, working drawings and shop plans. Approval of the Contractor’s working drawings and shop plans shall not relieve the Contractor of any of his responsibility under the contract for the successful completion of the work. 2.1 Working Drawings and Shop Plans The working drawings and shop plans shall reflect all information needed to fabricate and erect the walls including: a. Elevations at the top of wall at all the horizontal and vertical break points and at intervals not exceeding 50 feet along the wall; b. Elevations at the top of leveling pad step breaks; c. Elevation of the finished grade in front of the wall; d. The number, size, type, length, and details of the soil reinforcing elements in each design section; e. The locations and sizes of all pipes, utilities, drainage facilities, overhead sign footings, piles, and landscape trees that will be penetrating the wall face or within the soil reinforced mass; f. Typical cross-section or cross-sections showing the elevation relationship between ground conditions and proposed grades; g. Details for construction of wall around obstructions (i.e. drainage facilities, utilities, overhead sign footing, piles, drilled shafts, landscape trees) within the reinforced backfill; h. Details pertaining to coping, parapets, railing, as required by the contract plans; i. Shape, dimension, surface relief design and designation of wall panel; j. Details of the architectural or finish treatment supplied. 2.2 Design Calculations The proposed design shall satisfy the design parameters and requirements in the plans and in the special provisions. Complete design calculations shall include the most critical geometry and loading combination for each design section that exist during construction and at the end of construction. 3.0 MATERIALS The Contractor shall decide to purchase or manufacture the facing elements, metallic reinforcing mesh or strips, geosynthetic geogrids or geostrips, connection devices, joint materials, and all other necessary components. Material not conforming to this section of the specifications shall not be used without the written consent from the Engineer. 3.1 Reinforced Concrete Face Panels Concrete for face panel units shall be Class A4 conforming to the requirements of Section 217 of the Specifications except that the maximum water/cement ratio shall be 0.47. Panel steel reinforcement shall meet the requirements of Section 223 of the Specifications. If corrosion resistant reinforcing (CRR) steel is required, adequate separation between CRR steel and metallic connection devices and lifting device shall be provided. Panel steel reinforcement, connection devices, and lifting devices shall be set in place to the dimensions and tolerances shown on the plans prior to casting. Where reinforced concrete panels encounter an obstruction, or where the panels meet the coping/parapet and the ground line, the panels shall terminate as if cut. 3.1.1. Testing and Inspection The Contractor or his supplier shall furnish facilities and shall perform all necessary sampling and testing in an expeditious and satisfactory manner. Panels will be considered acceptable for placement in the wall when control cylinder tests exceed 85% of 28 day design strength requirements and meets all other requirements as outlined below. 3.1.2. Casting Concrete panels shall be cast on a flat area; the front face of the form at the bottom and the back face at the upper part. Galvanized connection devices shall be set on the rear face. The concrete in each unit shall be placed without interruption and shall be consolidated using an approved vibrator, supplemented by such hand-tamping as may be necessary to force the concrete into the corners of the forms and prevent the formation of stone pockets or cleavage planes. Clear form oil of the same manufacture shall be used throughout the casting operation. 3.1.3. Curing Panel units shall be cured in accordance with the requirements of Section 404.03 (k) of the Specifications. Any panel concrete placement that does not reach specified design strength within 28 days will be rejected as determined by concrete control cylinders. 3.1.4. Removal of Forms The forms shall remain in place for a minimum of 20 hours or when control cylinder tests indicate that the concrete has attained at least 20% of the 28-day design requirement in accordance with the requirements of Section 404.03 (j) of the Specifications. 3.1.5. Concrete Finish and Tolerances Unless otherwise shown on the plans, concrete surface for the front face shall be a Class 1 finish conforming to the requirements of Section 404 of the Specifications or as detailed on the plans and a uniform surface finish on the rear face. Rear face of the panel shall be screeded to eliminate open pockets of aggregate and surface distortions in excess of 1/4 inch. For design intent, see MSE wall rendering drawings (included as an attachment to this special provision). Precast Concrete Facing Panel:  Panel Size: 50 square feet, 5 feet height by 10 feet long  Panel Types: 21. Surface Relief Design of each panel type to be as indicated on drawings.  Panel Color: Color shall be grey as identified by CMYK value (C0.039, M0.0000, Y0.0825, K0.6196). A sample shall be provided to the Architect and City for approval. Coping shall receive the same surface coloring as the concrete panels.  Panel Layout at each MSE Walls (A to F): panels to be layout as indicated on Wall Elevation – Panel Layout drawings. Provide a numbered panel layout drawing for fabrication and erection purpose.  Concrete panel coping shall be provided along the top of the wall, unless noted otherwise. The joint between all coping segments shall be sealed to prevent infiltration of water into the retaining wall backfill.  Mock-Ups: Provide mock-ups for evaluation of finish and configuration. - Size: 1 Facing Panel Type 5 with at least three adjacent panels (for a total of four panels in the mockup) and 1 corner panel - Do not proceed with panel fabrication until workmanship is approved by Architect and City. - Rework mock-up as required to produce acceptable work. - Retain mock-up during construction as quality standard. 3.1.6. Tolerances All panel units shall be manufactured within the following tolerances:  Lateral position of connection devices within 1 inch.  All other panel dimensions within 3/16 inch.  Squareness, as determined by the difference between the two diagonals, shall not exceed ½ inch.  Surface irregularities on smooth formed surfaces measured on a length of 5 feet shall not exceed 1/8 inch. Surface irregularities on textured-finish surfaces measured on a length of 5 feet shall not exceed 5/16 inch. 3.1.7. Rejection Panel units will be subject to rejection because of failure to meet any of the requirements specified above. In addition, any of the following defects will be sufficient cause for rejection:  Defects that indicate imperfect molding.  Defects such as chipped or broken concrete.  Defects indicating honeycombed or open texture concrete.  Color variations on the front face of panel due to excess form oil or other reason. 3.1.8. Marking The date of manufacture, production lot number, and piece mark shall be clearly scribed on the rear face of each panel unit. 3.1.9. Handling, Storage and Shipping All panel units shall be handled, stored and shipped in such manner as to eliminate the danger of chipping, cracks, fractures and excessive bending stresses. Panel units shall be removed from casting beds by an approved four-point pick up method. Panel units in storage shall be supported on firm blocking to protect the panel connection devices and the exposed exterior finish. 3.2 Steel Soil Reinforcing and Connection Devices 3.2.1. Metallic Reinforcing Strips Reinforcing strips shall be hot rolled or cold formed from bars or coil to the required shape and dimensions. Their physical and mechanical properties shall conform to ASTM A-36, ASTM A- 572 Grade 65, or ASTM A-1011 Grade 65. Galvanization for reinforcing strips shall conform to the requirements of ASTM A-123 and the minimum coating thickness shall be 2 oz/sf (or 3.4 mils). 3.2.2. Metallic Reinforcing Mesh and Bar Mats Reinforcing mesh shall be shop fabricated of cold drawn steel wire conforming to the requirements of ASTM A-82 and shall be welded into the finished mesh fabric in accordance with the requirements of ASTM A-185, except that, the minimum average shear stress of the weld shall be at least 35,750 psi. The reinforcing mesh manufacturer shall provide certification that the minimum average weld shear strength is adequate for the proposed design and provides a reasonable safety factor. Galvanization shall be applied after the mesh is fabricated and conform to the requirements of ASTM A-123 and the minimum coating thickness shall be 2 oz/sf (or 3.4 mils). Any damage to the galvanizing shall be repaired in accordance with the requirements of Section 233 of the Specifications. 3.2.3. Tie Strips/Lug Tie strips/lug shall be shop fabricated of hot rolled or cold formed steel conforming to the requirements of ASTM A-570, Grade 50 or ASTM A-1011 Grade 50. Galvanization shall conform to ASTM A-123 and the minimum coating thickness shall be 2 oz/sf (or 3.4 mils). 3.2.4. Fasteners Bolts and nuts shall conform to the requirements of ASTM A-325, ASTM A-449, or ASTM A- 563 and shall be galvanized in accordance with ASTM A-153 and minimum coating thickness of 2 oz/sf (or 3.4 mils). 3.2.5. Connection Devices Connection loop shall be fabricated of cold drawn steel wire conforming to the requirements of ASTM A-82 and welded in accordance with the requirements of ASTM A185. Connector bars shall be fabricated of cold drawn steel wire conforming to the requirements of ASTM A-82 and galvanized in accordance with ASTM A-123. All connection devices shall be galvanized in accordance with the requirements of ASTM A- 123 or approved equal and minimum coating thickness shall be 2 oz/sf (or 3.4 mils). 3.3 Geosynthetic Soil Reinforcing and Connection Devices 3.3.1. Geogrids Geogrids shall be structural geogrids formed by uniaxially drawing a continuous sheet of high-density polyethylene material. Geogrids shall be a regular network of integrally connected polymer tensile elements with aperture geometry sufficient to permit significant mechanical interlock with the surrounding soil or rock. Structure of geogrid reinforcement shall be dimensionally stable and able to retain its geometry under manufacture, transport and installation. 3.3.2. Geostrips Geostrips shall be structural geostrips made of high-tenacity polyester fibers with linear low- density polyethylene coating. Geostrips shall have high resistance to deformation under sustained long-term design load and shall also be resistant to ultraviolet degradation, to damage under normal installation practices and to all forms of biological and /or chemical degradation. 3.3.3. Delivery, Storage, and Handling The Contractor shall check the geosynthetic soil reinforcement upon delivery to assure that the proper grade and type of material has been received. Rolled geosynthetic soil reinforcement shall be stored in accordance with the manufacture’s recommendations. During all period of shipment and storage, geosynthetic soil reinforcement shall prevent wet cement, epoxy and like materials from coming in contact with and affixing to the geosynthetic soil reinforcement. 3.3.4. Connection Devices Connection devices, such as bars, pins, plates etc, shall consist of non-degrading polymer and be made for the express use with the geosynthetic soil reinforcements supplied. 3.4 Joint Materials 3.4.1. Joint Cover If required, cover all joints between panels on the back side of the wall with a geotextile meeting the requirements for drainage fabric as specified in Section 245. Use adhesive approved by the manufacturer to attach the geotextile to the panel. The minimum width and lap shall be 12 inches. 3.4.2. Bearing Pads Provide in horizontal joints between panels preformed EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) rubber pads conforming to ASTM D-2000 Grade 2, Type A, Class A with a minimum Durometer Hardness of 70, or HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) pads with a minimum density of 0.946 g/cm3 (or 59.06 lb/ft3) in accordance with ASTM 1505. 3.4.3. Joint Filler If required, provide flexible foam strips as recommended by wall manufacturer for filler for vertical and inclined joints between panels, and in horizontal joints where pads are used, where indicated on the plans. 3.5 Select Backfill Material Select backfill material used in the structure volume shall be reasonably free from organic material, shale or other poor durability particles and otherwise deleterious materials. The backfill shall conform to the following grading as determined by AASHTO T-27: Sieve Size Percent Passing 4”+ 100 No. 40 0 - 60 No. 200 0 – 15 + The maximum soil particle size for polymeric geosynthetic soil reinforcement shall be 3/4 inch unless full scale installation damage tests are conducted in accordance with ASTM D5818. The Plasticity Index (P.I.) of the backfill material as determined by AASHTO T-90 shall not exceed 6. Backfill material shall exhibit an angle of internal friction of not less than 34 degrees, as determined by the standard Direct Shear Test, AASHTO T236, on the portion finer than the #10 sieve, using a sample of the material compacted to 95 percent of AASHTO T99, Methods C or D with oversized correction, at optimum moisture content. No testing is required for material containing VDOT #57 aggregates or larger Open-Graded Coarse Aggregates in VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications. Backfill material shall have a magnesium sulfate soundness loss of less than 30 percent after four cycles. Additionally, the backfill material shall conform to the following electrochemical requirements:  For metallic soil reinforcements: AASHTO Requirements Test Methods a) pH range between 5.0 and 10.0 T289 b) Resistivity greater than 3,000 ohm-cm T288 c) Chlorides less than 100 ppm T291 d) Sulfates less than 200 ppm T290 e) Organic Content less than 1% T267 If resistivity is greater or equal to 5000 ohm-cm, the chlorides and sulfates requirements may be waived.  For geosynthetic soil reinforcements: Polyolefin Polymer (Polypropylene and High Density Polyethylene): AASHTO Requirement Test Methods a) pH range between 3.0 and 11.0 T289 Polyester polymer: AASHTO Requirement Test Methods a) pH range between 3.0 and 9.0 T289 The Contractor shall perform analysis tests for each source of material and shall perform such additional tests to assure conformance whenever the character of the select backfill material changes. All tests shall be performed by laboratories that are AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL) accredited. The Contractor shall furnish the Engineer a Certificate of Compliance certifying the furnished select backfill materials comply with the aforementioned requirements. Test results performed by the Contractor necessary to assure contract compliance shall also be furnished the Engineer. 3.6 Cast-In-Place Concrete Concrete for leveling pads and wall top coping shall be Class A3 conforming to the requirements of Section 217 of the Specifications. Coping shall be colored to match the concrete panels; see section 3.1.5 above for color requirements. 3.7 Moment Slab Reinforcing Steel Corrosion resistant reinforcing (CRR) steel meeting the requirements of Section 223 of the Specifications shall be used in moment slab and shall be the same type of CRR steel specified for parapet as shown on plans. 3.8 Coping Reinforcing Steel Class I corrosion resistant reinforcing steel meeting the requirements of Section 223 of the Specifications shall be used in coping. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Wall Excavation Wall excavation shall be unclassified in accordance with the requirements of Sections 506 and 401 of the Specifications and shall be performed in reasonably close conformity to the limits and construction stages shown on the plans. 4.2 Foundation Preparation The foundation for the structure shall be graded level for a width equal to or exceeding the length of reinforcement or as shown on the Plans. Prior to wall construction, the foundation shall be compacted in accordance with the embankment requirements of Section 303.04 (h) of the Specifications and graded to a relatively smooth and uniform surface. Any foundation soils found to be unsuitable shall be removed and replaced with select backfill as per Materials of these specifications. At each panel foundation level, an unreinforced concrete leveling pad shall be provided as shown on the plans. Leveling pads shall be level within 1/8 inch per pad or per 100 feet, whichever is greater. The pad shall be cured a minimum of 12 hours before placement of wall panels. 4.3 Wall Erection Precast concrete panels shall be placed vertically with the aid of a crane or other suitable equipment. For erection, panels shall be handled by means of a lifting device set into the upper edge of the panels. Panels shall be placed in successive horizontal lifts in the sequence shown on the plans as backfill placement proceeds. As fill material is placed behind a panel, the panels shall be maintained in vertical position by means of temporary wooden wedges placed in the joint at the junction of the two adjacent panels on the external side of the wall. External bracing may also be required for the initial lift. Vertical tolerances (plumbness) and horizontal alignment tolerance shall not exceed 3/4 inch when measured along a 10-foot straight edge. The maximum allowable lateral offset at any panel joint shall be 3/4 inch. The overall vertical tolerance of the wall (plumbness from top to bottom) shall not exceed ½ inch per 10 feet of wall height. 4.4 Select Backfill Placement The placement of the select backfill material shall closely follow the erection of each lift of panels. At each reinforcing element level, backfill shall be roughly leveled before placing and attaching reinforcement to the panel. Unless otherwise shown on the plans, reinforcement shall be placed normal to the face of the wall. The maximum lift thickness shall not exceed 8 inches loose and shall closely follow panel erection. The Contractor shall decrease this lift thickness if necessary to obtain the specified density. Backfill shall be compacted to 95% of the maximum density as determined by AASHTO T-99 Methods C or D with oversized correction. For backfill containing VDOT #57 aggregate or larger Open-Graded Coarse Aggregates in VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications, density test is not required but each lift shall be compacted until there is no visible evidence of further densification. A minimum of four passes with a heavy roller shall be used. For applications where, spread footings are used to support bridge or other structural loads, the top 5 feet below the footing elevation shall be compacted to 100 percent AASHTO T-99. The moisture content of the backfill material prior to and during compaction shall be uniformly distributed throughout each layer. Backfill material shall have a placement moisture content equal to the optimum moisture content. Moisture content may be up to 2 percentage points less than optimum moisture content. Prior to placement of any backfill, geosynthetic soil reinforcement shall be pulled taut to remove slack. The backfill shall be placed in a manner that geosynthetic soil reinforcement remains taut. Tracked construction equipment shall not operate directly on geosynthetic soil reinforcement. A minimum fill thickness of 6 inches over the geosynthetic soil reinforcement is required prior to operation of tracked vehicles. Rubber tired equipment may pass over the geosynthetic soil reinforcement at speeds less than 10 mph. Sudden braking and sharp turning shall be avoided. At the end of each day's operations, the Contractor shall shape the last level of backfill as to permit runoff of rainwater away from the wall face. Backfill compaction shall be accomplished without disturbance or distortion of reinforcing elements and panels. Compaction adjacent to the backside of the wall in a strip 3 feet wide shall be achieved using mechanical hand tampers. No compaction density tests are required within 3 feet from the back face of wall. 4.5 Cast-In-Place Concrete Concrete work for leveling pads and wall top coping shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Specifications. 5.0 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls will be paid for as Retaining Structure at the contract unit price per square foot on a plan quantity basis as shown on the contract drawings. This price shall include excavating; temporary shoring when not specified on the wall plans or in the proposal as a separate pay item; furnishing and installing concrete footing; leveling pads; face panels; copings and moment slabs; masonry; reinforcing steel; steel or geosynthetic soil reinforcements, select backfill material; backfilling; compaction; joint materials; riprap to fill temporary excavation, including all work necessary outside the retainage area shown on the plans; and disposing of unsuitable or surplus material offsite or, where permitted by the Engineer, onsite. Payment will be made under: Pay Item Pay Unit Retaining Structure Square foot 3) Enhanced Pedestrian Access Structure PIER 1 PLAN AND ELEVATION PIER 1 DETAILS TRANSVERSE SECTION SPAN a 4) Roadway Lighting Plans 8(1) – 8(5-1) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(1) C-501 0020-104-101 8(1) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(2) C-501 LIGHTING AND INTERCONNECT SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES 0020-104-101 8(2) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(2A) C-501 0020-104-101 8(2A) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(2B) C-501 0020-104-101 8(2B) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(2C) C-501 0020-104-101 8(2C) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(2D) C-501 0020-104-101 8(2D) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(2E) C-501 0020-104-101 8(2E) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(2F) C-501 0020-104-101 8(2F) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(2G) C-501 NOTE: 0020-104-101 8(2G) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(2H) C-501 GENERAL NOTES: CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE (CONT.) Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Virginia Beach, Virginia STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOUNDATIONS: CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE: 1 LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION 8(2H) SCALE: NTS 2 LIGHTPOLE FOUNDATION SECTION 8(2H) SCALE: NTS 0020-104-101 8(2H) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(2I) C-501 1 FIBER TERMINATION DETAIL A 8(2I) AT BELMONT BRIDGE KNUCKLE FIBER CABINET 0020-104-101 8(2I) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(2J) C-501 1 FIBER TERMINATION DETAIL B 2 FIBER TERMINATION DETAIL C 8(2J) AT AVON ST / LEVY AVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL 8(2J) AT SOUTH ST PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL 3 FIBER TERMINATION DETAIL D 4 FIBER TERMINATION DETAIL E 8(2J) AT BRIDGE CCTV CABINET 8(2J) AT 9TH ST NE / E MARKET ST TRAFFIC SIGNAL 0020-104-101 8(2J) 0020-104-101 VA 20 8(2K) C-501 1 CABINET AND FUTURE CAMERA MOUNTING DETAILS 2 CCTV NEMA ENCLOSURE EQUIPMENT LAYOUT 8(2K) 8(2K) SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS 0020-104-101 8(2K) 0020-104-101 VA 20 C-501 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Virginia Beach, Virginia LIGHTING ENGINEER 0020-104-101 0020-104-101 0020-104-101 C-501 0.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 10.40 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.0 1 .1 0.1 0.2 VA 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.6 0.1 2.5 0.4 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.0 4 4 1.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 10. 0.0 11. 0.1 10. 8 1.9 2.0 0.0 7 3 0.8 0.1 0.1 3.3 0.2 14. 0.0 16. 0.0 15. 8 1.5 8.7 0.6 0.4 8 4 0.1 0.1 4.4 1.9 12. 0.0 16. 0.0 16. 4 0.1 13. 2 1.8 2.4 0.0 8.1 3 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.5 0.1 15. 0.0 16. 1 0.0 14. 7 1.4 1.6 0.0 0 .0 9.9 9 0 0.0 0.2 4.9 0.5 0.0 10. 0.0 10. 0.1 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 4.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.5 0.0 0.4 0.2 3.6 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.4 2.5 2.3 Virginia Beach, Virginia 1.0 LIGHTING ENGINEER 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.4 1.5 0.8 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.6 0.1 2.1 0.4 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.2 0.3 1.8 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.1 2.3 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.3 0.0 1.7 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.5 0.1 2.0 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.3 0.1 2.5 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.8 0.1 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.1 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 1.1 0.0 1.4 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 5.2 0.2 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.9 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 3.8 0.2 0.0 0.7 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.6 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.4 2.9 0.2 0.0 0.3 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.4 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.3 2.4 1.3 0.1 0.1 1.4 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 2.9 1.5 0.1 0.1 1.7 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 2.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.8 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.9 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.6 2.1 1.3 0.3 0.6 2.1 1.6 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.5 0.7 0.7 1.3 3.2 2.4 0.7 1.6 1.5 1.8 0.8 2.1 1.6 3.4 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.8 1.9 2.8 1.7 2.1 1.8 3.8 2.2 2.5 2.8 4.2 2.9 1.8 3.5 3.6 2.1 2.0 3.1 4.0 2.7 1.9 1.7 3.7 3.2 2.1 1.7 0.6 2.9 3.4 2.5 1.9 2.1 3.1 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.2 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.0 0.7 1.9 2.6 2.5 2.2 1.4 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.2 1.0 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.5 1.3 2.0 2.5 2.6 2.6 1.0 1.5 2.4 2.7 3.0 0.8 1.2 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.2 1.0 1.6 2.6 3.0 3.7 0.8 1.2 2.5 2.9 3.7 3.8 1.0 2.0 2.9 3.6 4.4 0.8 1.3 3.0 3.3 4.4 1.1 2.7 3.3 4.0 4.8 1.7 3.5 3.7 4.9 1.2 3.7 3.6 4.1 2.7 4.0 3.7 3.2 1.4 4.5 3.7 3.3 4.0 4.1 3.2 1.4 1.9 4.5 3.2 0020-104-101 VA 20 C-501 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Virginia Beach, Virginia LIGHTING ENGINEER 0020-104-101 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0020-104-101 VA 20 0.0 1.1 C-501 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 0.0 0.0 Virginia Beach, Virginia 0.0 LIGHTING ENGINEER 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 2.3 0.0 3.3 2.2 0.9 1.7 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.0 3.1 3.1 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.3 2.6 2.5 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.3 2.4 1.6 1.6 2.1 0.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 0.8 2.1 1.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.8 1.9 1.2 1.6 2.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.6 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 2.2 1.8 1.4 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 2.6 2.2 2.5 1.0 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.4 2.2 1.3 1.0 1.3 0.4 2.5 1.5 1.8 2.3 0.7 2.5 1.5 0.8 2.1 0.4 1.8 2.3 1.7 2.0 2.5 2.8 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 0020-104-101 0020-104-101 VA 20 C-501 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Virginia Beach, Virginia LIGHTING ENGINEER CO Fire Hy 0020-104-101 d. 0020-104-101 VA 20 C-501 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Virginia Beach, Virginia LIGHTING ENGINEER 0020-104-101 0020-104-101 0020-104-101 C-501 .0 .0 0.1 1 0 1 0 54. 19. 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 7.0 7.0 5.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.8 7.0 5.7 4.4 0.0 7 0 .0 0.0 7.6 15. 4.7 0.1 6 0.0 0.0 0.7 8.0 13. 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 20 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 VA 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 d. Fire Hy 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 0.3 0.0 0.1 2.3 Virginia Beach, Virginia LIGHTING ENGINEER 2.3 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.2 2.4 0.0 0.1 4.9 1.3 0.1 0.0 2.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 2.3 3.2 0.1 0.0 1.5 2.5 0.2 0.0 0.6 2.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.4 0.1 0.0 0.7 1.4 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 CO 0.8 1.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.5 0.9 8.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.2 1.3 25. 9 2.4 0.0 0.1 1.5 1.5 0.6 2.0 0.1 0.0 2.4 1.5 1.4 1.1 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.1 1.3 0.4 2.6 0.1 0.1 0.6 2.1 0.7 1.6 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.6 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.4 0.6 1.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.9 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 2.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.2 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.4 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.8 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.0 2.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.0 0.2 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.1 0.0 1.3 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.9 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0020-104-101 0020-104-101 C-501 2.4 0.9 1.5 1.2 0.6 1.3 1.7 2.6 2.4 20 0.6 1.7 1.3 1.9 1.1 0.6 2.3 1.4 1.5 2.6 0.4 1.7 1.1 1.5 2.7 2.5 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 CO 0.9 VA 1.6 2.7 2.7 2.0 1.7 2.2 0.4 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.7 1.6 1.8 1.3 2.0 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.3 3.6 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.3 1.2 2.2 1.4 2.0 2.2 3.6 2.3 2.9 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.4 3.3 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.6 1.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 1.8 2.1 3.0 1.0 1.5 2.1 1.9 2.3 3.1 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.2 2.3 2.4 1.6 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2.4 1.8 1.1 1.7 2.5 2.6 3.6 2.4 1.7 3.2 2.2 Virginia Beach, Virginia LIGHTING ENGINEER 2.6 2.8 4.1 2.1 3.4 3.8 2.6 1.6 2.4 2.7 2.6 1.4 2.0 0.9 3.1 0.8 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.1 2.7 0.3 1.2 0.5 1.0 1.6 1.9 3.3 2.9 1.4 1.7 2.1 3.2 .9 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.2 1.3 2.0 1 2.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.7 2.3 1.9 1.5 2.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.7 2.9 1.3 1.5 1.6 0 .1 0.1 0.1 0.8 1.8 0.0 0.1 2.4 2.0 0.1 0.3 1.5 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 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.8 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.5 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 2.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.7 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.2 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.2 1.9 0.0 0.2 2.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.1 2.8 0.2 0.3 1.6 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.1 1.4 1.3 0.0 1.0 0.8 1.6 2.8 0.0 0.5 1.1 2.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.6 1.8 2.3 1.9 0.0 1.2 1.7 1.8 0.5 0.1 0.5 1.1 2.2 1.5 0.6 0.1 1.7 2.1 1.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.3 1.9 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.5 2.0 1.7 1.4 0.1 1.2 2.0 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.9 1.6 2.0 1.0 1.7 0 .2 1.4 2.1 2.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.7 1.6 0.8 0.9 1.5 1.7 1.4 3.2 0.0 0.1 1.5 1.8 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.3 1.6 1.5 0.6 1.9 0.5 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.4 0.1 0.1 1.6 2.0 1.6 0.6 1.1 1.6 1.8 1.1 1.2 0.0 0 .2 1.2 2.0 2.1 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.5 2.1 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.2 1.2 2.3 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.1 1.8 1.7 2.3 0.2 1.5 2.1 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 1.5 1.8 0.9 0.0 1.8 0.5 0.9 1.3 2.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 1.7 0.2 0.2 1.3 0 .0 0.7 1.6 1.1 2.4 0.0 0.1 1.6 1.6 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.0 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.6 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.5 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.9 2.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.7 2.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.6 1.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.5 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 2.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.7 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.0 4 4 0.1 0.6 10. 11. 10. 8 2.0 0.0 7 3 0.1 0.1 3.3 14. 16. 15. 8 8.7 0.6 0.4 8 4 0.1 4.4 12. 16. 16. 4 13. 2 1.8 2.4 0.0 8.1 3 1 0.1 0.7 1.5 15. 16. 14. 7 1.6 0.0 9.9 9 0 0.2 4.9 10. 10. 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.3 4.0 2.5 0.0 3.6 2.7 0.7 0.3 2.5 2.3 3.1 1.4 1.2 0.3 0.6 0.1 1.5 2.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.3 3.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0020-104-101 VA 20 C-501 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Virginia Beach, Virginia LIGHTING ENGINEER 0020-104-101 2 36. 14. 2 1 0020-104-101 54. 1 0020-104-101 19. 6.6 C-501 7.0 7.0 5.6 4.8 7.0 5.7 4.4 7.6 7 15. 4.7 8.0 6 13. 20 VA Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Virginia Beach, Virginia LIGHTING ENGINEER 1.6 1.9 2.8 3.3 1.6 1.8 2.5 4.1 1.7 1.9 2.2 3.4 4.1 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.9 4.1 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.5 3.5 3.6 1.7 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.9 3.6 2.0 1.7 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.5 3.2 2.6 2.3 3.1 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.4 3.4 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.6 1.9 2.1 3.4 3.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.0 3.3 4.8 3.2 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.4 2.8 4.9 4.3 2.6 2.0 1.9 1.5 4.3 5.6 3.3 2.1 1.8 1.5 3.6 6.7 4.4 2.5 1.7 1.5 1.1 2.4 5.4 5.7 3.0 1.8 1.4 1.2 6.8 3.8 2.0 1.4 1.2 0.9 4.7 4.5 2.4 1.4 1.1 4.7 2.7 1.5 1.1 4.4 3.1 1.7 1.1 0.9 3.5 2.0 1.2 0.9 3.4 2.3 1.4 0.9 2.6 1.6 1.0 0.8 2.4 1.7 1.1 0.8 2.3 1.8 1.2 0.8 1.9 1.8 1.3 0.9 0.7 2.3 1.3 1.0 0.7 2.3 1.4 1.0 0.7 2.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 2.3 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.7 2.1 1.7 0.7 0.6 2.1 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 2.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 2.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 2.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 5) Landscaping Plans 12(3) to 12(5) 0020-104-101 VA 20 12(3) SITE WALL, TYP. C-501 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Richmond, Virginia LMV LMV 131 91 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SITE LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. SEE LIGHTING PLAN 4 CH BENCH 40 TYP. OF (7), THIS SHEET NRW 5 BMP AREA A EXISTING TREE PVS 53 TO REMAIN, TYP. 12 34 EDJ 40 SITE FURNITURE & LIGHTING LEGEND MULCH RING, TYP. DECORATIVE CHALET STONE, SAF RFG 39 IRV TREET TYP., 5"-8" DIA. STONE, HYB REMOVABLE BOLLARD, SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 12 (2B) 44 19 14 18 16 15 TYP. OF (4), THIS SHEET HHR CU IG BENCH 8 NRW IH PVH 7 73 RFG 20 LANDSCAPE FORMS- FGP BACKED BENCH-70" (OR APPROVED EQUAL) 61 PVS 39 LMB ECP FINISH- JARRAH WOOD/POWDERCOATED METAL LMV EDJ GARRETT S COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY 10 9 1 3 BD IH 4 4 IT CH IG IT 8 BIKE RACK 21 MC LANDSCAPE FORMS- CONCORD (OR APPROVED EQUAL) 82 RFG FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL 26 LMB COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY ECP BIKE RACK TRASH RECEPTACLE TYP. OF (8), THIS SHEET 9 33 16 FORMS AND SURFACES- DISPATCH (OR APPROVED EQUAL) 13 5 6 26 8 MC CST MC FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL CO AR PVH IG COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY SIDEWALK IT REMOVABLE BOLLARD CALPIPE- M50 REMOVABLE BOLLARD, SHALLOW MOUNTED (OR APPROVED EQUAL) STYLE- MITRE 73 FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL 7 51 LMB 19 23 COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY IT ECP 99 8 58 PAC 7 38 35 SAF LMB IT HHR 38 IT ECP HHR 39 PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHT FIXTURE 9 12 SAF 37 21 9 SCB (SEE LIGHTING PLANS FOR FURTHER DETAILS) PA PVS 8 SCB PAC IG 34 IG CONCRETE MEDIAN NRW MULCH ENTIRE PLANT BED, TYP. CONCRETE MEDIAN 11 11 38 8 22 54 7 42 6 94 IH PVS SCB PO SAF ECP IG HHR IT LMB TRASH RECEPTACLE, TYP. OF (6), THIS SHEET 9TH STREET 2 4 QH PA 54 JCB SIDEWALK 17 20 CU PAC 193 SITE STAIRS, TYP. SITE WALL, TYP. SIDEWALK LMV 484 SF SEED PLANT SCHEDULE SHEET 3 RAG GRAVES STREET TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL SIZE REMARKS 22 E BD 10 BETULA NIGRA `DURAHEAT` DURAHEAT RIVER BIRCH B&B 10` HT. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, MULTI-STEM, 3 MIN.-5 92 LEVY AVENU MAX. 13 CH 7 CERCIS CANADENSIS `HEARTS OF GOLD` HEARTS OF GOLD REDBUD B&B 10` HT. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER SIDEWALK HYB JCB 1 TRASH RECEPTACLE, MONTI GF GF 1 GINKGO BILOBA `FASTIGIATA` FASTIGIATE MAIDENHAIR TREE B&B 2.5" CAL. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, MATCH, FRUITLESS 37 TYP. OF (6), THIS SHEET CELLO PA 13 PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA `BLOODGOOD` BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE B&B 2.5" CAL. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER 15 NRW ROAD 11 QH 4 QUERCUS PHELLOS `HIGHTOWER` HIGHTOWER WILLOW OAK B&B 2.5" CAL. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, MATCH RAG RAG SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WIDTH HEIGHT REMARKS 2 AR 5 ARONIA ARBUTIFOLIA `BRILLIANTISSIMA` BRILLIANT RED CHOKEBERRY/RED CHOKEBERRY #3 24" HT. MIN. QH CO 16 CORNUS SERICEA `CARDINAL` RED TWIG DOGWOOD #3 48" OC 24" HT MIN FULL TO GROUND, DENSE CU 36 CLETHRA ALNIFOLIA `HUMMINGBIRD` SUMMERSWEET #3 36" O.C. 24" HT. MIN. MULCH RING, TYP. IG 69 ILEX GLABRA `SHAMROCK` INKBERRY #3 36" O.C. FULL TO BASE 147 sf IH 36 ITEA VIRGINICA `HENRY`S GARNET` HENRY`S GARNET SWEETSPIRE #3 36" O.C. SEED IT 41 ITEA VIRGINICA `LITTLE HENRY` TM LITTLE HENRY VIRGINIA SWEETSPIRE #3 42" O.C. 24" HT. MIN. MC 30 MYRICA CERIFERA WAX MYRTLE #3 36" HT. MIN. PO 8 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS `OTTO LUYKEN` LUYKENS LAUREL #3 36" O.C. 24" HT. MIN. GROUND COVERS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WIDTH HEIGHT SPACING REMARKS CST 33 CAREX STRICTA TUSSOCK SEDGE #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. ECP 169 ECHINACEA PURPUREA `BRIGHT STAR` PURPLE CONEFLOWER #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. EDJ 92 EUPATORIUM DUBIUM `LITTLE JOE` JOE-PYE WEED #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. HHR 179 HEMEROCALLIS X `HAPPY RETURNS` HAPPY RETURNS DAYLILY #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. HYB 52 HYPERICUM CALYCINUM `BRIGGADOON` CREEPING ST. JOHN`S WORT #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. IRV 40 IRIS VERSICOLOR BLUE FLAG #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. JCB 146 JUNIPERUS CONFERTA `BLUE PACIFIC` BLUE PACIFIC JUNIPER #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. LMB 421 LIRIOPE MUSCARI `BIG BLUE` BIG BLUE LILYTURF #1 12" O.C. 12" o.c. LMV 254 LIRIOPE MUSCARI `VARIEGATA` VARIEGATED LILY TURF #1 12" O.C. 12" o.c. NRW 129 NEPETA RACEMOSA `WALKER`S LOW` CATMINT #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. PAC 60 PENNISETUM ALOPECUROIDES `CASSIAN`S CHOICE` CASSIAN FOUNTAIN GRASS #1 24" O.C. 24" o.c. PVH 21 PANICUM VIRGATUM `HEAVY METAL` BLUE SWITCH GRASS #1 36" O.C. 36" o.c. PVS 36 PANICUM VIRGATUM `SHENANDOAH` SWITCH GRASS #1 36" O.C. 36" o.c. RAG 48 RHUS AROMATICA `GRO-LOW` GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC #1 36" O.C. 36" o.c. RFG 62 RUDBECKIA FULGIDA `GOLDSTRUM` CONEFLOWER #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. SAF 128 SEDUM X `AUTUMN JOY` AUTUMN JOY STONECRP #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. SCB 114 SOLIDAGO CANADENSIS `BABY GOLD` GOLDENROD #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. SEED QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WIDTH HEIGHT SPACING REMARKS SEED 631 SF LOCALLY GROWN DROUGHT-TOLERANT FESCUE PER THE VESCH E&S HANDBOOK SEED REFERENCE ROADWAY SUMMARY SHEET 2R 0020-104-101 12(3) 0020-104-101 VA 20 12(3B) C-501 66 LMV 4 17 2 QH LMV QH MULCH RING, TYP. 431 SF SEED 124 392 SF 50 SITE WALL, TYP. Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. LMV SEED Richmond, Virginia 48 LMV SEED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT LMV 393 SF SITE FURNITURE & LIGHTING LEGEND SIDEWALK BENCH BIKE RACK LANDSCAPE FORMS- FGP BACKED BENCH-70" (OR APPROVED EQUAL) TYP. OF (2), THIS SHEET FINISH- JARRAH WOOD/POWDERCOATED METAL TRASH RECEPTACLE, COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY TYP. OF (1), THIS SHEET SOUTH STR 131 EET EAST 44 LMV BIKE RACK LANDSCAPE FORMS- CONCORD (OR APPROVED EQUAL) LMV 91 FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL LMV COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY SIDEWALK 89 TRASH RECEPTACLE LMV FORMS AND SURFACES- DISPATCH (OR APPROVED EQUAL) FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL 165 SF COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY SEED 171 3 REMOVABLE BOLLARD LMV CH CALPIPE- M50 REMOVABLE BOLLARD, SHALLOW MOUNTED (OR APPROVED EQUAL) T 2,782 SF 1 6TH STREE 160 SF STYLE- MITRE SEED SEED CH FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, TYP. PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHT FIXTURE (SEE LIGHTING PLANS FOR FURTHER DETAILS) PLANT SCHEDULE SHEET 3B TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL REMARKS CH 4 CERCIS CANADENSIS `HEARTS OF GOLD` HEARTS OF GOLD REDBUD B&B 10` HT. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER SITE LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. QH 6 QUERCUS PHELLOS `HIGHTOWER` HIGHTOWER WILLOW OAK B&B 2.5" CAL. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, MATCH SEE LIGHTING PLAN GROUND COVERS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WIDTH SPACING REMARKS LMV 831 LIRIOPE MUSCARI `VARIEGATA` VARIEGATED LILY TURF #1 12" O.C. 12" o.c. SEED QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WIDTH SPACING REMARKS SEED 4,351 SF LOCALLY GROWN DROUGHT-TOLERANT FESCUE PER THE VESCH E&S HANDBOOKSEED REFERENCE ROADWAY SUMMARY SHEET 2R GARRETT S 0020-104-101 12(3B) TREET SITE WALL, TYP. HYB MULCH ENTIRE 33 PLANT BED, TYP. 0020-104-101 LMV VA 20 12(4) 10 C-501 4 IG PVH TRASH RECEPTACLE EXISTING PAVILION COLUMN, TYP. OF (1), THIS SHEET TO REMAIN 7 IG EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, TYP. 1 1 1 BIKE RACK GB CH QH TYP. OF (2), THIS SHEET Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 299 SF TRE ET 262 SF SEED Richmond, Virginia V O N S 339 SEED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, TYP. OLD A LMV 937 SF TRASH RECEPTACLE, SEED 15 SIDEWALK IG TYP. OF (6), THIS SHEET 1 REMOVABLE BOLLARD, BMP AREA B QH MULCH ENTIRE WATER ST TYP. OF (4), THIS SHEET PLANT BED, TYP. 20 2 BENCH AT WATER STREET, ECP BD UNDER KNUCKLE, TYP. OF (3), THIS SHEET 79 1 EDJ QH 851 SF 4 7 GB REET PARKING SEED 1 CO 5 CH 1,227 SF MULCH RING, TYP. 1 SEED EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, TYP. 17 QH MG 11 PVS 179 SF 4 247 MJ SEED MC LMV 57 SITE LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. LMB SEE LIGHTING PLAN SIDEWALK MULCH ENTIRE 4 3 PLANT BED, TYP. MC PA REMOVABLE BOLLARD, TYP. OF (1), THIS SHEET SI DE 5 77 100 PVH W IG LMV AL 74 10 41 34 K 41 7 RFG MC HHR 6 HHR PO NRW IG 115 33 NRW CONCRETE MEDIAN NRW 3 PA MULCH ENTIRE PLANT BED, TYP. 9TH STREET SIDE WALK 13 74 178 34 40 8 42 RAG HHR LMV 9TH STRE PO HHR SAF NRW ET BRIDG 6 E IG 9 SITE LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. IG SEE LIGHTING PLAN 4 GB 82 LMV SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK 1 2 1,507 SF GF MG 1 1 MONTICELLO ROAD SEED SIDE WALK 1 GF MJ DECORATIVE CHALET STONE, 2 TYP., 5"-8" DIA. STONE, GF 2 MJ SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 12 (2B) MG TRASH RECEPTACLE, TYP. OF (6), THIS SHEET SITE STAIRS, TYP. SITE WALL, TYP. EXISTING TREE OLD TO REMAIN, TYP. 6,557 SF AVO SEED TRASH RECEPTACLE PLANT SCHEDULE SHEET 4 TYP. OF (6), THIS SHEET N TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL SIZE REMARKS STR BD 2 BETULA NIGRA `DURAHEAT` DURAHEAT RIVER BIRCH B&B 10` HT. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, MULTI-STEM, 3 MIN.-5 MAX. CH 2 CERCIS CANADENSIS `HEARTS OF GOLD` HEARTS OF GOLD REDBUD B&B 10` HT. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER EET GB 8 GINKGO BILOBA `AUTUMN GOLD` TM MAIDENHAIR TREE B&B 2.5" CAL. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, MATCH SITE FURNITURE & LIGHTING LEGEND SID GF 3 GINKGO BILOBA `FASTIGIATA` FASTIGIATE MAIDENHAIR TREE B&B 2.5" CAL. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, MATCH, FRUITLESS MG 9 MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA `ALTA` ALTA MAGNOLIA B&B 10` HT. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, FULL TO BASE EW MJ 14 MAGNOLIA VIRGINIANA `JIM WILSON` MOONGLOW SWEET BAY MAGNOLIAB & B 10` HT. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, MATCH BENCH ALK PA 6 PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA `BLOODGOOD` BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE B & B 2.5" CAL. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER LANDSCAPE FORMS- FGP BACKED BENCH-70" (OR APPROVED EQUAL) QH 4 QUERCUS PHELLOS `HIGHTOWER` HIGHTOWER WILLOW OAK B&B 2.5" CAL. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, MATCH FINISH- JARRAH WOOD/POWDERCOATED METAL COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WIDTH HEIGHT REMARKS CO 4 CORNUS SERICEA `CARDINAL` RED TWIG DOGWOOD #3 48" OC 24" HT MIN FULL TO GROUND, DENSE BIKE RACK IG 57 ILEX GLABRA `SHAMROCK` INKBERRY #3 36" O.C. FULL TO BASE LANDSCAPE FORMS- CONCORD (OR APPROVED EQUAL) MC 22 MYRICA CERIFERA WAX MYRTLE #3 36" HT. MIN. FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY PO 7 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS `OTTO LUYKEN` LUYKENS LAUREL #3 36" O.C. 24" HT. MIN. GROUND COVERS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WIDTH HEIGHT SPACING REMARKS TRASH RECEPTACLE EXISTING PLAZA TO REMAIN ECP 20 ECHINACEA PURPUREA `BRIGHT STAR` PURPLE CONEFLOWER #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. FORMS AND SURFACES- DISPATCH (OR APPROVED EQUAL) FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL EDJ 79 EUPATORIUM DUBIUM `LITTLE JOE` JOE-PYE WEED #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY HHR 191 HEMEROCALLIS X `HAPPY RETURNS` HAPPY RETURNS DAYLILY #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. LMB 57 LIRIOPE MUSCARI `BIG BLUE` BIG BLUE LILYTURF #1 12" O.C. 12" o.c. REMOVABLE BOLLARD LMV 950 LIRIOPE MUSCARI `VARIEGATA` VARIEGATED LILY TURF #1 12" O.C. 12" o.c. CALPIPE- M50 REMOVABLE BOLLARD, SHALLOW MOUNTED (OR NRW 229 NEPETA RACEMOSA `WALKER`S LOW` CATMINT #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. APPROVED EQUAL) PVH 77 PANICUM VIRGATUM `HEAVY METAL` BLUE SWITCH GRASS #1 36" O.C. 36" o.c. STYLE- MITRE PVS 17 PANICUM VIRGATUM `SHENANDOAH` SWITCH GRASS #1 36" O.C. 36" o.c. FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL RAG 13 RHUS AROMATICA `GRO-LOW` GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC #1 36" O.C. 36" o.c. COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY RFG 74 RUDBECKIA FULGIDA `GOLDSTRUM` CONEFLOWER #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. CO SAF 34 SEDUM X `AUTUMN JOY` AUTUMN JOY STONECRP #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. Fire Hy PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHT FIXTURE (SEE LIGHTING PLANS FOR FURTHER DETAILS) SEED QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WIDTH HEIGHT SPACING REMARKS d. SEED 11,651 SF LOCALLY GROWN DROUGHT-TOLERANT FESCUE PER THE VESCH E&S HANDBOOK SEED REFERENCE ROADWAY SUMMARY SHEET 2R 0020-104-101 12(4) 0020-104-101 VA 20 C-501 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Richmond, Virginia LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SITE FURNITURE & LIGHTING LEGEND BENCH LANDSCAPE FORMS- FGP BACKED BENCH-70" (OR APPROVED EQUAL) FINISH- JARRAH WOOD/POWDERCOATED METAL COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY BIKE RACK LANDSCAPE FORMS- CONCORD (OR APPROVED EQUAL) FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY TRASH RECEPTACLE FORMS AND SURFACES- DISPATCH (OR APPROVED EQUAL) FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY REMOVABLE BOLLARD CALPIPE- M50 REMOVABLE BOLLARD, SHALLOW MOUNTED (OR APPROVED EQUAL) STYLE- MITRE FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHT FIXTURE (SEE LIGHTING PLANS FOR FURTHER DETAILS) 6 PO 11 HYB MULCH ENTIRE 33 PLANT BED, TYP. PLANT SCHEDULE SHEET 4G TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL SIZE REMARKS LMV 10 GB 1 GINKGO BILOBA `AUTUMN GOLD` TM MAIDENHAIR TREE B&B 2.5" CAL. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, MATCH 4 IG PVH SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WIDTH HEIGHT REMARKS TRASH RECEPTACLE EXISTING PAVILION COLUMN, IG 17 ILEX GLABRA `SHAMROCK` INKBERRY #3 36" O.C. FULL TO BASE TYP. OF (1), THIS SHEET TO REMAIN PO 6 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS `OTTO LUYKEN` LUYKENS LAUREL #3 36" O.C. 24" HT. MIN. 7 IG GROUND COVERS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WIDTH HEIGHT SPACING REMARKS EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, TYP. 1 HYB 11 HYPERICUM CALYCINUM `BRIGGADOON` CREEPING ST. JOHN`S WORT #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. BIKE RACK GB LMV 33 LIRIOPE MUSCARI `VARIEGATA` VARIEGATED LILY TURF #1 12" O.C. 12" o.c. TYP. OF (2), THIS SHEET 299 SF PVH 4 PANICUM VIRGATUM `HEAVY METAL` BLUE SWITCH GRASS #1 36" O.C. 36" o.c. SEED SEED QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WIDTH HEIGHT SPACING REMARKS SEED 299 SF LOCALLY GROWN DROUGHT-TOLERANT FESCUE PER THE VESCH E&S HANDBOOKSEED REFERENCE ROADWAY SUMMARY SHEET 2R 15 0020-104-101 0020-104-101 VA 20 12(5) C-501 77 PVH 10 MC 115 NRW 10 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. MC Richmond, Virginia 2 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT GB 47 PLANT SCHEDULE SHEET 5 IG TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL SIZE REMARKS GB 7 GINKGO BILOBA `AUTUMN GOLD` TM MAIDENHAIR TREE B&B 2.5" CAL. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, MATCH MG 1 MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA `ALTA` ALTA MAGNOLIA B&B 10` HT. MIN. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, FULL TO BASE SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WIDTH HEIGHT REMARKS IG 31 ILEX GLABRA `SHAMROCK` INKBERRY #3 36" O.C. FULL TO BASE MC 9 MYRICA CERIFERA WAX MYRTLE #3 36" HT. MIN. PO 33 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS `OTTO LUYKEN` LUYKENS LAUREL #3 36" O.C. 24" HT. MIN. GROUND COVERS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WIDTH HEIGHT SPACING REMARKS 69 ECP 83 ECHINACEA PURPUREA `BRIGHT STAR` PURPLE CONEFLOWER #1 18" O.C. 18" o.c. EXISTING PATH TO REMAIN RAG LMS 645 LIRIOPE SPICATA CREEPING LILY TURF 4" POT 12" O.C. 12" o.c. LMV 502 LIRIOPE MUSCARI `VARIEGATA` VARIEGATED LILY TURF #1 12" O.C. 12" o.c. 83 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, TYP. RAG 69 RHUS AROMATICA `GRO-LOW` GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC #1 36" O.C. 36" o.c. ECP SID 33 SEED QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WIDTH HEIGHT SPACING REMARKS EW PO 9TH AL SEED 2,529 SF LOCALLY GROWN DROUGHT-TOLERANT FESCUE PER THE VESCH E&S HANDBOOK SEED REFERENCE ROADWAY SUMMARY SHEET 2R STR K E. MARKET STREET E ET REMOVABLE BOLLARD, SITE FURNITURE & LIGHTING LEGEND TYP. OF (4), THIS SHEET BENCH LANDSCAPE FORMS- FGP BACKED BENCH-70" (OR APPROVED EQUAL) BENCH 1 FINISH- JARRAH WOOD/POWDERCOATED METAL TYP. OF (2), THIS SHEET MG COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY TRASH RECEPTACLE, 645 TYP. OF (2), THIS SHEET LMS MULCH RING, TYP. BIKE RACK LANDSCAPE FORMS- CONCORD (OR APPROVED EQUAL) SITE LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. SEE LIGHTING PLAN FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY 463 LMV SID 5 TRASH RECEPTACLE EW GB FORMS AND SURFACES- DISPATCH (OR APPROVED EQUAL) AL FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL K 39 2,535 SF COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY LMV SEED REMOVABLE BOLLARD CALPIPE- M50 REMOVABLE BOLLARD, SHALLOW MOUNTED (OR APPROVED EQUAL) STYLE- MITRE EXISTING PLAZA TO REMAIN FINISH- POWDERCOATED METAL COLOR- STORMCLOUD GREY PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHT FIXTURE (SEE LIGHTING PLANS FOR FURTHER DETAILS) 0020-104-101 12(5) 6) Roadway Plans 3, 4 and 5 1 - 7/25/19 0020-104-101 VA 20 PE-101, RW-201, C-501 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Richmond, Virginia ROADWAY ENGINEER 30" 30" 15" 30" 15" 15" 30" " 0 3 15" 15" 30" 15" 15" 24" 15" 15" 15" 15" 15 " 15" 15" 15" Δ Δ 0020-104-101 1 - 7/25/19 2 - 11/11/19 0020-104-101 VA 20 8" RW-201, C-501 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Richmond, Virginia ROADWAY ENGINEER 15" 15" 15" 15" 15" 16" 15" 15" 16" 15 15" " 16" 15" 15" 15" 15" Δ 16" 18" L DUA 66" 15" L DUA 66" Δ Δ 18" 54" 18" 54" 18" CO Fire Hy d. 0020-104-101 8th ST. NE 2 - 11/11/19 0020-104-101 VA 20 PE-101, RW-201, C-501 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Richmond, Virginia ROADWAY ENGINEER 15" 18" L D UA 15" 66" 15" 15" 15" 18" 54" 15" 18" 15" 15" 9th ST. NE 0020-104-101 6) Roadway Plans 3, 4 and 5 Draft August 5 2020 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE “A World Class City” Department of Neighborhood Development Services City Hall Post Office Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone 434-970-3182 Fax 434-970-3359 www.charlottesville.org August 18, 2020 James Hare Director, Survey and Register Division Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23221 Re: Nomination of the Jackson P. Burley High School for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places Dear Mr. Hare, On behalf of the City of Charlottesville’s Board of Architectural Review (BAR), I am pleased to share that at its August 18, 2020 meeting the BAR unanimously expressed support for listing the Jackson P. Burley High School on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. As this community moves forward from the events of its historic and recent past, it is important to recognize the historical significance of the Jackson P. Burley High School— its construction during a period of segregation and racial inequality, its legacy as an educational institution, and its architectural importance as a vernacular interpretation of the International Style. Burley continues to function as a place of learning, and for all races and creeds. It is appropriate to recognize the school itself as an object lesson for us all. Sincerely yours, Carl Schwarz, Chair City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review BAR Multi-Step Approval Process Introduction and Purpose Charlottesville’s Board of Architectural Review (BAR) staff prepared this guide to establish a standard review process for large developments in the City’s historic districts. This guide will inform applicants of the meetings, materials, and expectations necessary for a successful application. While most project can be reviewed, even approved, in a single BAR meeting, large-scale projects can require multiple BAR meetings for the board to provide critical design direction and to allow ample time for review and discussion of the complex applications. In the past, the BAR has granted multiple Certificates of Appropriateness (CoA) to individual projects. These “partial CoAs” would encompass discrete parts of a project (massing, fenestration, landscaping, etc. ). However, only a final CoA, granted when the BAR was satisfied with the disparate applications, allowed the issuuance of a building permit. The Charlottesville City Code (Code) makes no provisions for “partial CoAs” and the BAR must modify its approach to reviewing large-scale projects. . The City Attorney’s Office has instructed the BAR to grant a single CoA for each proposed large-scale project. The BAR staff drafted a revised process--described in the following guide-to accommodate the multiple meetings that may be necessary to for conferring the CoA for such projects. This single CoA shall be understood as representing satisfactory review of the elements required to apply for a Building Permit. It is also understood that some elements may be reviewed later under a separate CoA request. (For example, landscaping and signage.) These situations should be discussed and resolved early in the review process. Overview The BAR will review large-scale projects in three stages:  Preliminary Discussion, (pre-application conference per Sec. 34-282.b and c)  Preliminary Reviews  Final CoA Application. The BAR will make its decision on the requested CoA after this final stage, when a formal application is submitted. During the Preliminary Review stage, the BAR may take a vote to express a consensus opinion about the project, as presented. However, this vote will not be on a formal motion and the result will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent a decision on the required CoA. During the Preliminary Discussion phase)…. During the Preliminary Review stage, an applicant may present their project as many times as necessary. Generally, the BAR and n staff intend this Preliminary Review stage to encompass the bulk of deliberations. Once a formal application is submitted for a CoA, the BAR expects to be sufficiently familiar with the project. I: Preliminary Discussion The Code (Sec 34-282) requires a pre-application conference, or Preliminary Discussion, for developments having a projected construction cost of $350,000 or more. This informal consultation introduces the project to the BAR, and allows applicants and the BAR to discuss project goals and establish a review schedule for successful final submittal and approval of a CoA. Preliminary discussions will occur at the end of regular BAR meetings, generally held on the third Tuesday of each month. The following list outlines requirements and expectations for a Preliminary Discussion:  Applicant will notify BAR staff to request a Preliminary Discussion by 5:00 PM on the first Friday of a month. Staff has the discretion, in consultation with the BAR chair, to move a Preliminary Discussion to the following month, should the upcoming meeting’s agenda warrant it. .  Applicant will submit a digital copy of the proposed project to BAR staff by 5:00 PM on the second Thursday of a month. This digital copy will be circulated to BAR members and posted for public accessibility on the City’ website.  If the applicant revises this submittal after the second Thursday deadline, they must bring paper copies to circulate at the BAR meeting. However, the BAR will review such late revisions at their discretion. ( Applicant will also provide for staff a digital copy of the revisions.)  Staff will not prepare staff report for a Preliminary Discussion.  There will be no fee or formal application form required for a Preliminary Discussion.  The item will be noted on the BAR meeting agenda, however, there will be no formal public notification as is required for a formal CoA application (see Sec. 34-284). II: Preliminary Review The Preliminary Review stage will encompass most discussions and review of proposed large developments. Applicants can utilize as many Preliminary Review meetings with the BAR as necessary; the BAR encourages each applicant to break the review up as best suits the individual project. For example:  Height, Massing and Scale  Building Footprint and Orientation  Fenestration  Roof Form  Primary Exterior Materials  Landscaping  Lighting During this stage, the applicant must indicate any elements that may be submitted later for review under a separate CoA request--landscaping, signage, etc. In consultation with City staff, the BAR will determine if, and for what elements, this will be allowed. At the end of a Preliminary Review meeting, the BAR may take a non-binding vote to express support, opposition, or even questions and concerns regarding the project’s progress. These will not represent approval or even endorsement of the CoA, but will represent the BAR’s opinion on the project, relative to preparing the project for formal submittal. While such votes carry no legal bearing, BAR members are expected to express their opinions—both individually and collectively--in good faith as a project advances through the Preliminary Review stage. In the event of changes to the BAR membership, new members will be expected to respect the positions collectively stated by the prior BAR. Requirements and expectations for a Preliminary Review:  Applicant will submit a Preliminary Review application form [TBD] (found on the City website), 10 paper copies of the materials for review as well as a digital copy to the Neighborhood Development Services, three weeks prior to the day of the meeting, by 3:30 PM. The digital copy will be posted on the City’s website.  Though not legally mandated, staff guarantees that the Preliminary Review will occur at a BAR meeting within 60 days of the submission deadline.  If the applicant revises the submitted materials after the deadline, they will submit paper copies and a digital copy of the revisions to staff by 5:00 PM a week prior to the day of the meeting. Revisions submitted after this date (including at the meeting) will be considered at the discretion of the BAR. will  Staff will not prepare a staff report for the Preliminary Review, but will prepare a summary of the materials submitted and offer initial, brief comments, as needed.  There will be no fee or formal application form required for a Preliminary Review.. Preservation staff will provide public notice by emailing the appropriate neighborhood association, as recognized by the City, and by posting a sign at the site. The review will also be included in the monthly BAR meeting agenda, posted on the City website.  The item will be noted on the BAR meeting agenda, however, there will be no formal public notification as is required for a formal CoA application (see Sec. 34-284). Staff will provide public notice by emailing the appropriate neighborhood association, as recognized by the City, and by posting a sign at the site. III: Final CoA Application Once an applicant has received sufficient feedback through the Preliminary Review process, they may submit a final application for a CoA. This final review will synthesize feedback and determinations from the Preliminary Review meetings. At the end of deliberations, the BAR will vote whether to approve a CoA. This CoA will represent the BAR’s definitive support of the project. Requirements and expectations for a Final Review will follow the provisions of Sec. 34-282 and Sec. 34-284.  Applicant will submit a CoA application form (found on the City website), 10 paper copies of the application, and a digital copy to the Neighborhood Development Servicesthree weeks prior to the day of the meeting, by 3:30 PM. The digital copy will be posted on the City’s website.  Review of a Final CoA Application will occur within 60 days of submission.  If the applicant later revises the materials submitted, , they must submit paper copies and a digital copy of the revisions to staff by 5:00 PM a week prior to the day of the meeting.  Staff will prepare a staff report, with specific feedback and references to the Design Guidelines. This staff report will be circulated to BAR members, the applicant, and will be posted on the City website.  The review of a Final CoA Application has applicable fees, as clarified in the application form. Staff will provide public notice through letters mailed to adjacent property owners and a sign posted at the site. The review will also be listed on the monthly meeting agenda, available on the City website. All actions of the BAR shall comply with Sec. 34-285. - Approval or denial of applications by BAR and Sec. 34-288. - Responsibilities of BAR. Appeals of BAR actions shall comply with Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals. Summary The following list highlights key differences between the existing review process and the new steps:  The BAR will now only grant one CoA for each project. This single CoA shall be understood as representing satisfactory review of the elements required to apply for a Building Permit.  It is also understood that some elements may be reviewed later under a separate CoA request. These matters will be resolved during the Preliminary Review process.  Earlier votes during the Preliminary Review stage have no legal bearing and will not function as CoAs.  Preliminary Reviews will have no submission fees.  Staff will not prepare staff reports for Preliminary Reviews, but will complete an inventory form explaining the contents of each submission.  Staff will not mail letters to adjacent property owners to announce Preliminary Reviews. Staff will contact the applicable neighborhood association and will post signs at the site. Staff will continue to mail letters to adjacent property owners to announce final reviews for CoAs.  Minor revisions to the approved CoA will be treated as ….. (should there be a fee and separate application? Or, as has been the done, is it reviewed with no fee required?) In the event of the CoA review running concurrent with a Special Use Permit request…. Note: For a CoA to be granted, the Charlottesville City Code only requires a Preliminary Discussion and a formal application. Preliminary Reviews are not mandated. An applicant may, after the required Preliminary Discussion, submit an application for a final CoA. The BAR must take action within 60 days of the submittal deadline. However, to provide the time to fully vet and review a complex project—and to work towards a more complete final submittal that--–the BAR and staff encourage applicants to utilize the Preliminary Review stage as an efficient and productive step in the CoA approval process..