CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting October 20, 2020 – 4:00 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. 4:00 i. Pre-meeting discussion on refined BAR review process 5:30 A. Public comment (Matters from the public not on the agenda – please limit to 3 minutes) B. Consent Agenda 1. July 21, 2020 BAR Meeting Minutes 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-09-04 128 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 290132000 Center for Christian Study, Owner Thomas Keogh, Train Architects, and William Sherman, Applicants Exterior alterations and addition C. Deferred Items 5:50 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-09-05 1619 University Avenue Tax Parcel 090102000 Sovran Bank, Owner Brian Quinn, Milrose Consultants, Applicant Exterior lighting D. New Items 6:30 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-10-01 204 Hartmans Mill Road Tax Parcel 260038000 Jocelyn Johnson and William Hunt, Owner Melissa T. Colombo, Applicant Outbuilding demolition 6:50 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-10-02 218-220 West Main Street Tax Parcel 280001000 Brands Hatch, LLC, Owner Frederick Wolf, Wolf Ackerman Design LLC, Applicant Water Street gate D. Other Business 7:30 8. 106 Oakhurst Circle Preliminary Discussion 8:00 9. City/County Courts Project Preliminary Discussion 8:30 10. Belmont Bridge Project Update 11. Staff questions/discussion BAR Training Preservation Awards Discussion LEAP Energy Guide 12. PLACE Committee Update E. Adjournment Pre-meeting discussion on refined BAR review process Please review the following document describing the proposed BAR review process for complex projects, reflected to show the most recent edits. Let’s focus Tuesday’s discussion on the following three issues: 1. Language of motion to express support for project during Preliminary Review stage (please find Carl Schwarz’s draft motion language below): • "I move to accept the applicant's request for a deferral. In doing so, the BAR expresses that pending a completed application, the massing, scale, exterior materials, and fenestration pattern meet the BAR's guidelines for this (district, IPP, Conservation District) . The BAR does not find that the color of the exterior materials or the landscape plan satisfy our guidelines. The BAR would like to see a lighting plan and wall sections added to the application prior to granting a CoA" The highlighted stuff would be blanks that we fill in. 2. How to conduct public notification for Preliminary Reviews 3. How to allow public comment for Preliminary Reviews Refined BAR Review Process October 15, 2020 Draft 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 projects can be reviewed and approved in a single BAR meeting, project teams for larger and more complex projects may require reassurance during the design process that their project will meet the BAR's guidelines. Filing a completed application without feedback presents the risk of wasted design time and project resources. 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 issuance of a building permit. The Charlottesville City Code (Code) makes no provisions for “partial CoAs.” Accordingly, the BAR must now 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. This single CoA shall be understood as representing satisfactory review of the elements required to apply for a Building Permit. In limited circumstances, some elements may be reviewed later under a separate CoA request. (For example, landscaping and signage.) These exceptions should be discussed and resolved early in the review process by the applicant and staff. Overview – New BAR Application Process Guide The BAR will review large-scale projects in three stages: I. Preliminary Discussion, (pre-application conference per Charlottesville City Code Sec. 34-282.b and c) II. Preliminary Reviews (optional but recommended) III. 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 Discussion phase, no vote on consensus will be taken so the applicant is encouraged to note all comments from staff and members during the Discussion. 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 binding on the City or the BAR, will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent a decision on the required CoA. An applicant may present their project as many times as necessary at the Preliminary Review stage. Generally, the BAR and 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 City of Charlottesville Code Sec 34-282 requires a pre-application conference, or Preliminary Discussion, for developments having a projected construction cost of $350,000 or more. It is also available for any projects for other applications. 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 and 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’s website. • If the applicant revises this submittal after the second Thursday deadline, they must bring paper copies to circulate at the BAR meeting. The BAR will review such late revisions at their discretion, depending on whether members have had a chance to meaningfully review. 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. • Adjoining property owners will not receive formal notice of a submission for Preliminary Discussion (See City Code Sec. 34-284). • The item will be noted on the BAR meeting agenda 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 • Level of detail • 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 likelihood for approval under the Guidelines. 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 and are not binding, BAR members are expected to express their opinions—both individually and collectively--in good faith as a project advances through the Preliminary Review stage. 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 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 will endeavor to put the Preliminary Review on an agenda for 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. • 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. • 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 decision on the application. Requirements and expectations for a Final Review will follow the provisions of City of Charlottesville Code 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 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. • 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 a fee schedule, as set forth 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 City of Charlottesville Code Sec. 34-285. - Approval or denial of applications by BAR and City Code Sec. 34-288. - Responsibilities of BAR. Appeals of BAR actions shall comply with City Code 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 all 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, or not binding, 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 Discussions or 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 this three phase process and submit their application at the Preliminary Review stage as an efficient and productive step in the CoA approval process.. BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting July 21, 2020 – 5:30 p.m. Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review. Staff will introduce each item, followed by the applicant’s presentation, which should not exceed ten minutes. The Chair will then ask for questions from the public, followed by questions from the BAR. After questions are closed, the Chair will ask for comments from the public. For each application, members of the public are each allowed three minutes to ask questions and three minutes to offer comments. Speakers shall identify themselves and provide their address. Comments should be limited to the BAR’s purview; that is, regarding only the exterior aspects of a project. Following the BAR’s discussion and prior to taking action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond. Thank you for participating. [Times noted below are rough estimates only.] Members Present: Cheri Lewis, Carl Schwarz, Ron Bailey, Breck Gastinger, Andy McClure, James Zehmer, Jody Lahendro, Tim Mohr, Sonja Lengel Staff Present: Robert Watkins, Patrick Cory, Jeffrey Werner, Joe Rice Pre-Meeting: There was a discussion regarding the removal of item #1 on the consent agenda. There was also discussion regarding the motion for the consent agenda. The monthly BAR meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by the chairman A. Matters from the public not on the agenda None B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) Ms. Lewis moved to approve the consent agenda with the removal of Front Railing at 430 N. First Street. (Motion seconded by Mr. Zehmer) Motion passed 9-0. 1. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-07-01 119 W. Main Street (Bizou) Tax Parcel: 330260000 Owner: Walters Building, LLC Applicant: Tim Burgess Fence at rear of building Motion: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitations, I move to find that the proposed fencing satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties 1 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following conditions: Fence height will not exceed 6’- 0”. Fence will be either painted or have an opaque stain—color to be submitted to staff prior to application. 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-07-02 105 E. Main Street (101-111 E. Main Street) Tax Parcel: 330248000 Owner: First and Main Charlottesville LLC Applicant: Christie Haskin/Woodard Properties Install door at window opening Motion: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed window removal and new door installation satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following conditions: Applicant to retain and store the existing window and metal grate, should the opening be later restored. The existing masonry opening—width, height and arch--is not altered other than below the existing window. Provide to staff for the BAR archives cut sheets on the proposed door, side lite, frame, and hardware. 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-07-03 120 Oakhurst Circle Tax Parcel: 110025000 Owner: Tenth and Main, LLC Applicant: Bill Chapman New driveway and parking Motion: 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 parking area, landscaping and site work satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. 430 North First Street Discussion and Motion Mr. Gastinger – This project had received approval in July, 2018 for a series of modifications. At the time, the railing did not receive much conversation. The railing design that was proposed and submitted in the drawings was relatively straight forward vertical picket. It was identified as a steel guardrail. The Board approved the project. One of the specific requirements was to come back and provide some details on what that railing would look like. To my knowledge, we never received it until the railing that is shown in the photos was constructed. This is exactly why the BAR wished to see the details of the railing prior to construction. I doubt the constructed design would have 2 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 been approved as it is wholly out of keeping with the modern style of the house. I cannot approve the motion, which essentially gives our rubber stamp on the design as constructed. Mr. Mohr – I would agree with Mr. Gastinger in this regard. What is the next step? Mr. Schwarz – The first thing we need to do is see how many people on the Board would like to see it come back to us. Or we can start with a motion for approval for it. I am personally OK with it as it is. I have been reviewing this project all along as new construction. It’s not completely in the style of the house. I don’t think it violates our guidelines. Mr. Bailey – I agree. I don’t think it violates the guidelines. I think it is a fairly modern design and it fits the neighborhood. Mr. McClure – I am also OK with this. Mr. Zehmer – I think it is fine. Mr. Lahendro – I am a little confused. What is the part that the railing was there and the railing that was put there after our meeting? Is the new one the one on the street elevation? Or is it the railing that is perpendicular to the street elevation? Mr. Gastinger – It’s the Chip and Dale ridge railing. Mr. Lahendro – I would like to see it come back to the Board. Ms. Lewis - The difficulty is that a denial means that the applicant has to demo. It’s a harsh penalty. I am not clear why this is being brought to us two year after. There was a condition of staff approval. A little more history. I don’t know whether we as a Board didn’t act on something or something fell through the cracks. I am not sure that I would deny because it’s a pretty harsh penalty on the applicant and the owner. If they didn’t bring something back, I would be more inclined. I just don’t know the history. I have been asked to vote on these before. The ramifications are pretty tough. If they bring it back and it’s not approved, it means they have to demolish and rebuild. Can somebody speak to what has happened between 2018 and now? Mr. Werner – The best way to think about it is in terms of is if this was before the BAR, does this look appropriate or not? That’s one side. Three months ago, there was an evaluation how COAs were approved. There are no partial approvals. This doesn’t fit entirely into that. This is where everything was approved, but bring this back and show us what it is. Mr. Gastinger – I don’t think that is the issue. They built something completely different from what they submitted. Mr. Werner – The fact that it was in place. It seemed the easiest way to remedy it was that I can offer it for the archive. This is what they installed. If there is a decision to request that they re- submit, I didn’t want to say ‘re-submit’ and have the Board say why are we having this discussion. This is the best course of action. It would be to ask them if it was brought in and denied, it would be appealable to City Council. If Council denied the appeal, it would be appealable to the courts. The action is not final as far as the BAR making someone tear something down. They would have options available to them. 3 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Lahendro – The background to my opinion that it should come back to the Board is that what was presented during their initial COA meeting with the Board was a very simple and clean design that was compatible with the existing design. What has been put in is a very assertive design that has a lot of character to it and should have come to the BAR. It certainly is not a simple, compatible design with the existing railing. This is very different. I think this should have come to us. We told them that it should come to the BAR, but it didn’t. Ms. Lewis – Hearing that chronology, I would be in favor of the applicant re-submitting again. Mr. Bailey – I am a bit puzzled by this. I understand that it’s about the design that was submitted. As I understand our remit, it’s supposed to be whether or not it is in character with the neighborhood. It isn’t that intrusive to me aesthetically. Bearing in mind what Ms. Lewis said earlier about re-submitting and saying that it has to be torn out, it seems like a pretty bad penalty for something that is not that egregious. Ms. Llengel – Can you walk me through the process if they re-submit? Then we debate what they have already done and whether or not they have to take it down. Mr. Schwarz – Preferably for me, I would like to that now versus have them occupy time in another meeting. If we have 5 people, who don’t see a concern with this railing, we move on. If there are five people, who are concerned with railing, this definitely needs to come back to the BAR. Mr. Lahendro – Part of the re-submittal is to understand the genesis of this design. I don’t know that I would vote against it necessarily. This is a very assertive design. I would like to know what the reasoning is behind it so that I can make an informed decision. Mr. Werner – They had a photograph of some old porch almost 1950s metal porch corner that they had contemplated using. It was up in the air about what they were going to do. Ms. Llengel – I think that they should re-submit. Motion: Mr. Lahendro – The BAR does not accept this submittal for the BAR record and requests that this be submitted for BAR approval. (Second by Mr. Gastinger) Motion passes. The applicant will need to resubmit. C. New Items 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-07-05 320 W. Main Street Tax Parcel: 290018000 Owner: 320 West Main LLC Applicant: Robert Nichols/Formwork Design Exterior alterations and signage Jeff Werner, Staff Report - Year Built: c1890-1900 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Constructed as the Sparks-Garrett House, it has been converted to 4 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 commercial use. The stuccoed, framed structure is T-shaped with Victorian detailing in its wide frieze, cross-gabled roof with overhanging eaves, and now enclosed porch with turned posts and bracket detailing. Enclosed front porch (west side):  Remove vertical siding, aluminum storefront, and windows at front porch enclosure (nonhistoric).  Remove fabric canopy. 320 West Main (July 16, 2020) 2  Between the columns install columns install Marvin triple-gang casement windows with transoms  Install new entry doors with transom aligned with adjacent windows. Front elevation:  Remove six double-hung windows (two at the first floor bay, three at second floor) and replace with Marvin double- hung windows with two-over-two lite configuration (per historic photographs). Building Exterior:  Paint wood trim: Charcoal grey.  Paint stucco: Med/dark grey.  Paint windows and doors  "Fish-scale" wood shingles at pediments to be retained. Roofing:  Existing asphalt shingle roof to remain  Existing copper half-round gutters to remain Site Work:  Remove metal railing at entry and install new.  At west side of structure, install steel swing-gate with cutout signage at top.  At the sidewalk, install a monument sign.  At entry terrace, install 18" x 42" bluestone pavers over concrete slab. Removing an outdated and inappropriate enclosure of the front porch. Ideally, it would be left open, but the proposed is an improvement and does not remove or conceal historic elements. Double- hung 2/2 windows to be replaced: The existing windows do not match those visible in the 1980 photo in the submittal. New signage will require a separate signage permit. Staff recommends approval within the following conditions:  New Marvin windows [and doors] to be wood or aluminum clad. Applied muntins are acceptable and must be appropriately dimensioned. If insulated glass, there will internal space bars aligned with the applied muntins.  Any exterior lighting the lamping will have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, preferably dimmable, and will comply with the City’s “Dark Sky” ordinance.  Applicant will provide to staff for the BAR archive cut sheets for the doors, widows, and any exterior light fixtures. This is a monument sign, which are not normally permitted on West Main. They are allowed for structures that have been residences converted into commercial use. Robert Nichols, Applicant – We’re not adding anything to the house. Most of what is happening here is getting caught up with the conditions that have degraded over time and had repairs that weren’t up to the significance of the house in the historic district. We have been taking off applied finishes, particularly what has been covering up the porch, repairing existing wood trim and stucco, and fish-scale wood shingles. In terms of new design elements, that’s concentrated on the front porch area and the terrace out front. We are not able to give up the volume and floor area of the porch as interior space. One design goal was to make legible the perimeter of the original building itself versus the way things are now on the building. It reaches one distorted volume. Our intention with the openness that we are trying to achieve and the kind of stickiness infill is to get that portion of the building to read as, if not an open porch, a nicely enclosed porch. Both sides of the entry walkway are somewhat planting beds and we are going to clean them up. The one on the left, as you face the building, will remain a planting bed and be cleaner. That tree that is shown is existing. On the right hand side, there will be blue stone pavers. It’s just an outdoor area that is available for seating. At this point, there is no particular occupancy for the interior of the building. The gate shown between our building and the Comcast building will be wide open during business hours. It will be closed during the evenings. I submitted cut sheets for the windows and highlighted the profiles and cross sectional details that we anticipate having on this project. We’re looking at aluminum clad window and the double hungs. 5 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lengel – Are the windows on the porch the types of windows that, when opened, you almost can’t see them? Will they be opening so that you will be able to see them from the outside? Mr. Nichols – They’re outswing. They would open to the exterior. We don’t know what occupancy will be on the inside in that unit. Mr. Lahendro – With the front porch infill, what is the material below the windows and between the windows behind the post? Mr. Nichols – That is a stucco to match. Mr. Lahendro – It would match the historic stucco of the building itself. Mr. Zehmer – The original porch columns are all being retained? Mr. Nichols – All of the material that is shown there is currently in place. Mr. Zehmer – When I look closely at the newspaper article photo, you actually have two over one. I think that they are two over one instead of two over two. You might consider that if you want to try to match the historic window appearance. Mr. Nichols – On the second story of that middle image, I guess that was the one adjusted to two over two. Mr. Zehmer – I think that is the Venetian blinds showing through. You have a really strong vertical mutton on all of the windows on the upper sash. Mr. Nichols – When you at that 45 degree bump on the left hand side of the first, it looks very much like that. Mr. Zehmer – The ones that are there now are clearly not original. If there’s a way to match what was historically there, I would support that. Mr. Nichols – The goal, with the window configuration, is to get back to what was there. We’re certainly not too far past that decision. Mr. Lahendro – In the landmarks survey from 1979, the survey calls them two over two windows. Mr. Zehmer – I did see that. Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Zehmer, are you saying that they are three over two or something like that? 6 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Zehmer – I think they’re two over one. I read that on the landmark survey. I agree that is what it says. Mr. Werner – It appears to be two over two. Mr. Schwarz – There is definitely a line down the middle. Is it the Venetian blinds? Mr. Zehmer – I guess that is what I am encouraging: A little bit more of a deep dive to dig some more historic photos. Mr. Nichols – There is also some store window action going on there. Mr. Mohr – Possibly a bug screen on the lower half as part of the store window. This could also help disguise what is really going on behind it. Mr. Lahendro – I noticed in that photograph that there are spindles between that horizontal bar above the brackets of the historic porch and the underside of the cornice. I don’t see it on the renderings. Are they still there? Mr. Nichols – They are not still there. I had seen those as well. Mr. Lahendro – It would look really good. Mr. Zehmer – Those old photos have a railing down at the bottom half too. Mr. Mohr – The one thing that seems a little odd to me is the introduction of that stucco in that glass wall of the glazed in porch. It seems a little counter intuitive to me. I think the glass and the playing with the columns. It feels odd to me for stucco to be in there. Mr. Nichols – I agree. It fights against what I said what our strategy was to delineate the boundary of the original volume or the internal volume. If we were to change that, we would go to a tight wood trim that is painted. It would be filling those remaining panels. Mr. Schwarz – That looks like two over two to me. Mr. Mohr – I would be surprised given that they’re even that they wouldn’t be two over two. If they were more of a cottage home, they would maybe two over one. Mr. Zehmer – I have seen them both ways. This is looking more like two over two. The Landmark Survey says it. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – It seems a little counter intuitive. It all reads nicely together. If I go down to the next level, it is weird for stucco to be behind the spindles. 7 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Nichols – I would be willing to agree to change to wood. If we could make that part of a motion, I would be happy to go along with that. Mr. Schwarz – Does anyone have any concerns with the project that they think violate our guidelines? Is everyone in agreement that it would be preferable to have wood as opposed to stucco for the infill of the porch? Motion: Mr. Mohr - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Work, Rehabilitations, and Signage, I move to find that the proposed 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: o That wood be used instead of stucco for infill of the porch, with the proposed color scheme remaining o That the two-over-two windows have simulated divided lites o Any exterior lighting, limited to a small light on the monument sign and stake lights for the terrace, will have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, preferably dimmable, and will comply with the City’s “Dark Sky” ordinance. Motion seconded by Mr. Lahendro. Motion passes 9-0 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-07-04 518 17th Street NW Tax Parcel: 050066000 Owner: Charlottesville VA House Corp – Alpha Phi Applicant: George Stone Replace slate roof Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1900 District: Rugby Road- University Circle- Venable Neighborhood ADC District Status: Contributing. This rambling Victorian house was constructed for Randolph M. Balthis in 1899 and remained a single-family dwelling until at least the 1970s. The two-story house has weatherboard cladding, a steep hipped roof, and a wraparound verandah. Request CoA for removal of existing slate roof and replacement with imitation slate shingles, matching the shingles used on south addition approved by the BAR in December 2011. Flashing to be copper, with valley exposure to match existing. (Ledge flashing at the gables to remain.) Ridge and hip caps to be bent shingles. Internal gutters will be abandoned, replaced with eave mounted, 6” half-round gutters and 4” round downspouts. (Gutters will be attached to the roof sheathing; the existing cornice profile will remain.) New gutters and downspouts to be aluminum, painted white. No work proposed for the porch roof or on southern addition. Shingles: Per the Design Guidelines, artificial slate is an acceptable substitute when replacement is needed. Applicant has expressed that repeated efforts have been made to repair leaks, however problems persist. In lieu of continuing the in effectible spot repairs, the roofer recommended replacement of the entire roof. With replacement, the use of simulated slate is less expensive than new slate. Gutters and Downspouts: The BAR has approved CoA requests to remove internal gutters and replace with eave-mounted. Applicant proposes painted aluminum (white), matching the current downspouts and reducing the visibility of the new gutters. Staff recommends approval of the CoA, with the following conditions: (See the attached images.)  Match the existing dimensions of the exposed valley flashing. 8 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020  Ridge and hip cap profile to match or be similar to the existing profiled, metal cap.  Install new downspouts at same locations as the existing John Epperly, Applicant – We are trying to make it go back exactly the way it is, with the exception of the gutters. The Philadelphia Style gutters are obsolete at this point. Going with a shank mounted to the substrate gives the strongest style of install for going with the synthetic slate. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – Is that light colored copper on there with the slate? Mr. Stone – It is galvanized metal. Mr. Mohr – Do you have any concerns about putting copper in the valleys with aluminum gutters? Mr. Epperly – They’re not going to be in contact with each other. Mr. Lahendro – I am curious about the built in gutter. This looks unusual to me for a built in gutter. Is it just above the crown molding on the farthest part of the eave? There is a sheet metal fasia behind it that goes to a step-out for the slate roof. Mr. Epperly – From the very edge of the roof, it comes up about eight inches. That is just covered with metal. It is essentially a 2 by 4 standing on end that is mounted to the roof. That is all wrapped with galvanized metal. It goes underneath the existing slate. Mr. Lahendro – It is a Philadelphia Style gutter. Mr. Werner – I called it an internal gutter because if you’re coming about Philadelphia gutters. Mr. Lahendro – I just want to make sure that in the final change, that we keep that strong shadow line there below the Philadelphia gutter. I wish I could see a detail on how that is going to be done. Mr. Werner – At the overhang? Mr. Lahendro – Above the overhang. Mr. Mohr – As soon as you get rid of that 2 by 4 that stands up and that skirt below down to the dripline, you are going to lose that and you’re going to have to a gutter sitting in front of your crown. You lose that detail. The slate has to come all of the way down to the drip edge at the top of the crown. Mr. Lahendro – We are going to lose that horizontal shadow line that is very prevalent on the elevations. Is there any creative way to still have the slate come down to that line and 9 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 have sheet metal below there to still give that horizontal line instead of taking the slate all the way down to the top of the crown? It concerns me. Mr. Epperly – It essentially would be reworking the Philadelphia Style gutter. If you’re going to keep that, you’re not going to be using the half round gutters. Water is not going to get to them. That is a stopping point. That’s the existing design. Mr. Lahendro – The half rounds are going to be down there. That’s the top of them. That space in between that I am trying to preserve. Mr. Epperly – With our proposed design, that’s going to go away. Mr. Lahendro – That’s a concern for me. I am not sure how the rest of the Board feels. Mr. Mohr – This has always been one of the conundrums about Philadelphia gutters. We definitely allow it. If there is a failure, it gets into the wall, which is why people don’t like them. It does look like that it is outside of the wall. There is a longevity issue or a maintenance issue. On the other hand, you have ruined the crisp line to the eaves. I could see advocating keeping it on the front elevation/public elevations. It may not be visible from the street. I understand why they want to do it. Mr. Lahendro – I understand it too. It adds a distinctive character to the exterior elevation, that strong horizontal line. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – We have the gutter concern about maintaining the horizontal line in the Philadelphia gutter. Mr. Mohr – One compromise might be to have an extended drip edge that mimics the transition from the slate to the outside edge of the roof. It would actually pull that up and hold the slate back. You would dispense with the 2 by 4 standup, but you would still have an eight inch panel. The last row of slate would stop 6 or 7 inches above that. Mr. Epperly – That would essentially admitting the first course of the new slate. Mr. Lahendro – It’s almost similar to the wash within that gable end. Mr. Zehmer – Is that also getting replaced? The color would match because you’re going to paint the copper. Mr. Epperly – That’s been painted a different color. Mr. Mohr – Is the starter course on the slate a double? That has a little bit of shadow to it. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Schwarz – I think that this opens up some complications. We are now going to have copper touching the aluminum gutter. Is there anyone on the Board content with this as proposed? I would approve it. We do have a precedent for replacing Philadelphia gutters with half rounds. Mr. Bailey – I agree. Motion to Approve: Mr. Gastinger - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed roof replacement satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road- University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following conditions: • Match the existing dimensions of the exposed valley flashing. • Ridge and hip cap profile to match or be similar to the existing profiled, metal cap. • Install new downspouts at same locations as the existing. Cheri Lewis seconded. Motion passes (7-2, Jody Lahendro and Tim Mohr opposed). 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-07-06 411 1st Street N Tax Parcel: 330107000 Owner: Andrea and Reidar Stiernstrand Applicant: Julie Kline Dixon/Rosney Co. Architects New door at window opening Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1882-1889 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing. The George-Makris House was likely built as a rental property sometime between 1882 and 1889. Compared with neighboring houses of similar scale on the block, the subject building has fewer architectural embellishments. The two- story, three-bay brick house is situated on a high basement and is fronted by a wood porch with Victorian trim. Request CoA for removal of existing basement window and installation of entry door.  Relocate existing window to center door opening. Infill with new brick below.  Relocate existing door to south window opening.  From driveway to door, construct stone steps/landing and new stone retaining wall.  Reconstruct wood porch stairs to accommodate new access to basement entry.  Install new light fixture. Note: While the drawings indicate swapping the existing window with the existing door, the applicant would prefer to leave the door in place and install a new door in the window opening. This opening is at the primary and is being modified to accommodate accessibility for an elderly relative. If the applicant preference is approved, staff recommends the following conditions: [Staff concurs with the applicant’s preference.] Remove only the proposed window and install a new door in the opening. Leave in place the existing door at the center, below the front porch.  Retain and store the existing window, should the opening be later restored.  The existing masonry opening is not altered other than below the existing window.  For the exterior light fixture, the lamping will have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, preferably dimmable, and will comply with the City’s “Dark Sky” ordinance.  Applicant will provide to staff for the BAR archive cut sheets for the doors, widows, and any exterior light fixtures. 11 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Julie Dixon, Applicant – The issue really is the desired use of that lower level of their home for an aging relative and ease of transition getting the relative in and out of the house, which can’t happen comfortably under the porch, as it is currently configured because of the lack of head height and the transitions being challenging. They can work very easily with the door in the existing masonry opening. When you brought up the cut sheet question, one pressing issue is that door and its exterior material. It will remain uncovered. I don’t think a solid wood door, which would be our preference, would work successfully there unprotected from the weather. I don’t know if the BAR has a history of approving a clad door on the exterior façade like that. That’s a fair question we need to wrestle down in terms of that door cut sheet if the new use for that masonry opening is acceptable. The preferred door would be a marvin clad door uncovered. Ideally, we would like it to be half glass, similar to the one that is there. When I originally submitted to staff, we preferred the idea of reusing the existing door in the new location. I can understand from the Secretary of Interior’s point of view why that might not be the preferable solution. If you go to a new door, keeping architecturally is important. Getting additional light in that room would be preferable. A half-light/half wood panel door would be the goal. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – The plans that were submitted show the new door where the window is and putting that window where the center door is. My understanding is that is what the application is for. Is that correct? Ms. Dixon – In subsequent conversations with staff, we determined that it might be preferable to leave the existing door in place, store the existing window. The only change would be to that existing window. To store the existing bricks and existing window for replacement at a future date is totally acceptable to the applicants. Mr. Bailey – I have a questions regarding the stairway going to the upper porch. The new door will be behind that stairway. It will be obscuring the new door? Ms. Dixon – That’s correct. Mr. Werner – The last time, Mr. Lahendro had asked mentioned a section through the wall. The applicant did provide one, which is with the submittal. Mr. Lahendro – Is there a gutter system on the porch? Ms. Dixon – I don’t think there is. Mr. Lahendro – I don’t see it in the photographs. I think about the water running off the side of that porch roof. Ms. Dixon – It’s hard to imagine that the stairs have held up as long as they have with it. Mr. Schwarz – There is downspout showing up to the right of the porch. 12 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Ms. Dixon – It’s hard to imagine that could hold the water from the other side. There is no sign of a surface mounted gutter. The porch, as you can see, is an oddity, slammed against those windows, where it is required removal of the shutters. They didn’t want to get into changing the porch. They felt that it was more complicated to manipulate the porch. I told them that BAR might have more challenges approving the changing of that porch. Mr. Mohr – Is there a chance that there is a deverter up there that is taking out to the corner? Ms. Dixon – That could be. There is not a ton of travel. Mr. Lahendro – Depending on where that downspout goes, it looks like a built in gutter. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – It’s a functional consideration. It’s down and not in full view. It will hold up and it won’t look bad. I think that it’s fine. Mr. Zehmer – According to the plans, they are looking at suppressing the grade to go down to achieve this doorway. Why not suppress the grade, have a few steps down, suppress the grade below the porch, and it gives you better head height? Ms. Dixon – I think that becomes complicated, not just on the exterior, it becomes complicated on the interior. When you open that door, the bottom landing of the stairway is about 2.5 to 3 feet from the door face itself. It doesn’t give wheelchair accessibility to enter and maneuver in the space. It feels like a really complicated path of travel. From the exterior, it adds complication. From the interior, it’s complicated. Mr. Zehmer – You have steps down. How does that make it different with a wheelchair user? If you have steps, doesn’t that make it difficult for a wheelchair user? Ms. Dixon – That’s correct. They’re just trying to this path of travel as much as possible, not really knowing what they’re going to get into as they move into housing. It’s her mother. There are steps, regardless. They’re trying to make it as easy as possible. The maneuverability of getting under the porch. We’re removing that porch base and columns and into that door. There is a lot involved. Mr. Zehmer – It seems that the columns are out at the front edge of the porch. Ms. Dixon – The slab would have to be cut out. You have to excavate all of the slab. I am not sure how we are going to do that without damaging the brick. Mr. Zehmer – You’re cutting out to get below grade in front of that window. Ms. Dixon – There is nothing simple about any of these solutions. 13 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Bailey – Is the driveway next to the house their dedicated driveway as well? Ms. Dixon – Yes. Mr. Bailey – Is that also one of your considerations that the person using that door be taken by vehicle closer to being in that alley? Ms. Dixon – Yes. Mr. Schwarz – Does anybody else have any concerns with this meeting our guidelines? Motion: Mr. Bailey - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed alterations satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following conditions: o Leave in place the existing door at the center, below the front porch. o Retain and store the existing window, should the opening be later restored. o The existing masonry opening is not altered other than below the existing window. o For the exterior light fixture, the lamping will have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, preferably dimmable, and will comply with the City’s “Dark Sky” ordinance. o Applicant will provide to staff for the BAR archive cutsheets for the doors, windows, and any exterior light fixtures. o That a half-lite aluminum-clad solid wood door be used. Tim Mohr seconded. Motion passes (9-0). 7. 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 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – 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. Staff is unable to determine if the rear addition is that seen in the 1896 and 1920 Sanborn Maps, or some part of it. Applicants stated that the sunroom is not. (Note: Sanborn Maps are unreliable for building dimensions.) Staff is not opposed to the addition on this rear wing. BAR should discuss the relocated chimney. It will be angled over into the second floor addition to accommodate a window. No details are provided on the materiality. Should the BAR move to approve, staff recommends the following conditions:  New windows and doors to be wood or aluminum clad. Applied muntins are acceptable and must be appropriately dimensioned. If insulated glass, there will internal space bars aligned with the applied muntins.  Any exterior lighting the lamping will have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, preferably dimmable, and will comply with the City’s “Dark Sky” ordinance.  Applicant will provide to staff for the BAR archive cut sheets for the doors, widows, and any exterior light fixtures. 14 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Julie Dixon, Applicant – It’s really the sunroom addition that is really not an addition. It’s a reroofing and changing the windows of the sunroom. I am talking about the south side addition. You have probably noticed in the existing conditions that the roof has an extremely low slope. The interior ceiling slopes with that roof. The windows are a different quality and style than the rest of the house. The windows and their encasements are deteriorating. Off the rear of the house, there is now an exposed deck, partially on the south side and an exposed wood deck on the east side with a spiral stair. The goal is to improve the quality of the sunroom proportions, window type, siding type, and make that look like a wraparound porch secondary to the primary volumes. They need additional space upstairs, which is currently two bedrooms and a bathroom. There was no way to push off an addition in either north or south directions. In the rear, we would have two separate second story spaces if we didn’t go up above the existing kitchen. The owners would really like the addition to stay consistent with the existing residence in material and style. The thought is that we replicate siding materials. The windows would be solid wood Marvin. The shutters would be solid wood. The trim details would be slightly simpler than those on the primary façade of the house, but still classic in proportion and detailing. The basement level, which you can see below the sunroom, is actually wood framed. It is vinyl sided. Their thought would be to dress that up because it has so much visibility from the foot traffic and the vehicular traffic on First Street. You really see it when you enter the house. They would like to look like that to look like as a masonry base, even though it doesn’t currently. That was the idea of the masonry piers. The chimney exists internal to the kitchen. It’s currently a gas fireplace. What we are doing is moving the gas fireplace off to the side. That would be a false masonry chimney to exit the roof off to the side of the window. It would be built by Old Carolina’s veneer depth brick. They make it in one inch thick veneer brick that you can apply to maintain the visual appearance of a masonry chimney on the outside. Instead of the deck, they would like to go back with porch roof wrapping around that east façade and then back to the north side to connect to the existing kitchen door. There is an existing north side kitchen door that they want to catch with this porch. The roof on the porch would be standing seem metal. The roof above the new second story wing would be slate or metal to match the one below. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – What is the roof on the old house right now? Ms. Dixon – I had thought that it was slate. Mr. Mohr – It is slate on the main body of the house? Ms. Dixon – It’s a little hard to see. I think that we should double confirm that. The valley there looks like slate. Mr. Mohr – I guess that would be a question. If it is not slate, what is it capable of holding? Ms. Dixon – You’re talking about the new second story? 15 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Mohr – I was wondering about the old house. Getting some differentiation between the two would be good. It’s a pretty common hierarchy. Mr. Zehmer – Is the intent to reroof the front half of the house? Ms. Dixon – Not unless it is necessary. Mr. Zehmer – Is it asphalt shingles? Mr. Lahendro – I don’t know why it matters. It is not part of the application. Mr. Mohr – I was thinking of the differentiation between the two. Mr. Lahendro – It’s not unusual to have the addition be metal, the front be slate, or something like slate. Mr. Mohr – If you adhere strictly to the guidelines, this is being handled as a direct evolution of the house. Just looking for some differentiation. Mr. Gastinger – Can I ask a little more about the fireplace in the back? Is that an insert? It currently does have a masonry chimney. Was it a masonry fireplace? Ms. Dixon – It was a masonry fireplace. It has a gas insert. It actually had a larger fire box on the basement level. There is an old mantle on the basement level and a big fire box that hasn’t been used. It is boarded over now. On the kitchen story, the previous owners had a gas insert instead of logs that they put in there. The owners really use them and like them. They want to maintain that. Mr. Werner – The house is on First Street. A lot of the houses in this area are rental tenant houses. I suspect, just looking at the old photos, there is a brick base to the rear wing. Maybe that was the kitchen. Mr. Schwarz – You had said that with the new proposed chimney, you had wanted to use a thin brick? Ms. Dixon – Yes. If you’re familiar with Old Carolina, it is hand pressed bricks. They make a thin brick for applications just like this. You can build out an exterior chimney just supported on the roof tresses. Mr. Schwarz – I wanted to call that out. I don’t think it was a part of our application materials. I do believe that is something we have to grant a special exception. Ms. Dixon – What I didn’t want was that ugly gas fluke sticking out of the roof. It’s really me pushing for that and not the owners. I wanted something to house that. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD 16 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Mohr – I think that it is very rational extension of the house. It fixes a lot of the visual noise that it currently has. I do think trying to distinguish it a little bit with simple things like the roof, playing with the weatherboard, and some subtle things. As far as its massing and basic approach, I think it is fine and will be a very nice addition to the house. I would like to see a little more differentiation if there is a way to achieve it. Ms. Dixon – Like change the exposure on the siding? Mr. Mohr – Do some little tweeks that make it clear that it wasn’t built at the exact same time to the existing house. Mr. Schwarz – The existing siding is still wood, correct? Ms. Dixon – That’s correct. Mr. Schwarz – Are you planning on going back with wood for the new siding? Ms. Dixon – It would definitely be wood. Mr. Mohr – I don’t have a problem with the brick chimney. Mr. Gastinger – The issue of the chimney is not its material as much as its location. It seems like a very weird spot for a brick masonry chimney to be coming out of a roof. I would rather see it come out of the gas flue. Mr. Mohr – If it is a gas flue, you have too many angles? Ms. Dixon – That’s right. Mr. Mohr – If it was the front of the house or a major elevation, I would feel differently about it. It doesn’t bother me. Ms. Lengel – I have a comment about the spacing of the columns. I understand that they are spaced so that the windows are centered. Some of them wider. Some of them are closer. Since it is a historic house, they would never space the columns that way. They would space them evenly. Can you address why you chose to do it that way? Ms. Dixon – I am not totally convinced that historic houses would have spaced them evenly. When you’re inside and outside, not having to look dead-on to a column is a real advantage from the design perspective. This house has a real tree tops feel to it. You know that alley between First and Second Street gets quite low. You feel like you are in the tree canopy. It’s going to draw your eye out a lot. My goal was not to impede that view of columns whenever possible. I aligned them with the base that we were given. In a perfect world, I would have redesigned the depth of that sun porch on the south side altogether. That was really not financially viable. It has an awkward depth relative to the rest of the house. We have to work within the existing foundation. We are trying regularize or normalize something that is a little funky that exists. Mr. Lahendro – Then you end up with one column that doesn’t have a brick pier below it? 17 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Ms. Dixon – That’s right. If you added a brick pier below it, you would impede the view from that existing French door. You can’t see that right now. There is no reason you would have ever seen this because none of it is visible from anywhere. It is so far below any street level. I guess their neighbors Second Street, if they are looking down, could see it. It has a final lattice wall in front of that is built all of the way up. You could take that column out. Then you end up with a 14.5 foot span between columns, which also looks a little awkward and unstable. Mr. Bailey – I don’t mind the design as it is. If you remove that column, it is just taking a different kind of awkwardness. It actually isn’t supporting anything. Mr. Lahendro – I agree with Ms. Llengel. I would have expected it to be even spaced columns across that back and not a setup on windows or openings within the house itself. Ms. Lewis – I don’t see any materials submitted. This is quite a large plan of development. Would you come back with materials next time? I am just finding a lack of information with which to approve this. It is much more beautiful than existing. I am not sure about the material selections. Ms. Dixon – I can give a written description. Ms. Lewis – I don’t want to infer that you need to defer. We are prepared to support it. It seems like it is mass of information that we haven’t received with your submittal. I would just ask staff how that is going to be handled. Mr. Schwarz – We can defer. We can’t do any more partial approvals. Everyone would have to be OK with this. One thing we could do is if all materials can be described and put into the motion that is one method we have done before. If it ends up being too many materials, it becomes too complicated. You may not find enough support for that motion. I don’t know if you guys want to give that a try. Mr. Werner – This is often the case that our preference is for staff to bring you what we have and have those discussions. At the very least, service a preliminary discussion. There are some details that I think could be clarified. There are ways to do that. The best way would be to approve with the requirement that the questions you ask be on the consent agenda for August. That is a condition of approval. Knowing that a building permit could not be issued, all of those conditions are met. It could be deferred. You can continue the discussion next month. You all could opt to go through the various questions and seek to clarify them. Mr. Schwarz – Maybe we need to quantify what we are missing. Ms. Lewis – Siding on the ground floor, there is a small section before the windows begin. It has a small window. Around the back, there is siding on the very lower sub-grade level. With the plasters that the columns are made of, we have an answer on the brick. It would be good to know with certainty what that brick is. I would like to know the materials on the railing. I don’t think that has been discussed. With the roof, we know that it is metal. Doors and windows on both levels, there are French doors. There are 6 over 6 on the bottom level. I guess that it is 6 over 6 on the top. They look like they are depicted differently than the ones on the bottom. There is a newly built stair on the back. I would just start there. 18 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Gastinger – Any proposed lighting. Mr. Zehmer – Wood shutters. Mr. Mohr – It would also be good to know what the weather of the siding is. You are going to play with some details. It would be good to know what those might be. Mr. Bailey – It is started sound like it should be deferred until the list of materials is provided. Mr. Schwarz – What we have done in the past is deferred something with a vote of confidence saying that we’re generally in approval of the application. We need to see the following items come back to us. I have Ms. Lewis’ list. With the roof, have we settled on metal? I think that was in your narrative. Ms. Dixon – Yes. Mr. Gasinger – I would like to clarify where the proposed second addition roof will hit. It is shown in several different relationships to the existing roof in the drawings. Mr. Mohr – I think that is an optical allusion. It does actually hit the roof. Ms. Dixon – I was going to say the same thing. It’s a strange thing with the chimney interrupting that drawing. It makes it look like it is higher. Mr. Gastinger – In the rear section, it’s lower. There was one where it looked like it was higher. Mr. Mohr – If you draw a line, it actually aligns with it. Mr. Zehmer – With the new chimney on the back, north and south elevations show it centered on the ridge, while the east elevation shows the opposite. Mr. Mohr – It should be down on the roof more. Mr. Zehmer – It is an odd chimney because, physically it could never be cut that way. You have a window on the second floor that you are trying to avoid. There is a window on the first floor. Mr. Lahendro – With that drawing on 83.0, the existing chimney on the right hand side is not drawn correctly. It actually straddles that ridge like the one on the left. I don’t know if your gable is the ridge of your addition. Your addition is going to hit the side of it or just below it. Mr. Zehmer – I would be in favor of Mr. Schwarz’s suggestion in a vote of confidence along with asking to come back with the materials. I do like the design. Mr. Schwarz – With the siding, we would like to know what exposure that you are proposing. It looks like you have called out solid wood for the siding. You have ipe 19 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 decking. You have called for the porch posts to be wrapped in solid wood with details to match elsewhere in the house. I don’t know if that’s sufficient for everyone. I think that works for me. Ms. Dixon – We have a crown. We have just a small beginning of ipe detail on that porch. Mr. Schwarz – The pilasters are also solid wood. Railing materials appear not to be covered. Mr. Laehendro – Are they painted wood? Ms. Dixon – They are painted. Mr. Mohr – There is an existing railing and existing porch detail on that front porch. Mr. Schwarz – We have the doors and windows. We have the new stair, any proposed lighting, new shutters, and the roof peak location. Ms. Lewis – The mature on the second story addition. We didn’t determine what the materials on the main house. Ms. Dixon – My instinct is that should be metal. If we get up there and it is an architecturally shingle roof on the existing, we will have a whole another situation. Mr. Schwarz – That would be a good reason to defer that portion. Or have you come back with that. Ms. Lewis – The last drawing in the submission has them matching. It is certainly not metal. It maybe slate. It looks they are matching. There is a lack of detail here. Mr. Bailey – What would the new stairs down to the garden be made out of? Ms. Dixon – Also ipe. I think that is in the written description. Two ipe boards, gapped every tread and same railing profile. Mr. Schwarz – That leaves for the unknowns: the proposed lighting, the new shutters, the roof peak location, the siding, and the upper roof material. Motion: Mr. Schwarz - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and for Rehabilitation, I move to defer the application, and that the BAR generally supports the application, but would like to see the following items come back for clarification: • The siding exposure and profile • The proposed lighting • The new shutters • The roof peak and chimney location • Upper roof material Jody Lahendro seconded. Motion passes (9-0). 8. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-07-08 418 E. Jefferson Street (Renaissance School) Tax Parcel: 530040000 Owner: 18 East Jefferson Street, LLC 20 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Applicant: Bill Adams/Train Architects Window repairs and replacements Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1826 (Remodeled 1921) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing The building is Colonial Revival, brick (Flemish bond), two stories with a gable roof, five bays with a one bay addition. Entrance in center bay within a two-story projecting, pedimented pavilion with wooden facing and a quasi-Palladian window at the second story. Segmental broken pediment over entrance. Mousetooth cornice. Brick gable ends extend above roof line. Two, tall exterior end chimneys forms curtain above roof line. The building was extensively remodeled in 1921. The interior was gutted and converted into a central hall, double pile office complex. The eastern wall (located along 5th Street NE) with its chimneys and curtain and the second floor double sash windows are about all that remain from the original storerooms. Request CoA for the replacement and/or repair of select windows. Applicant requests approval of either one or some combination of three options. Last fall, staff visited the site with the contractor and inspected the windows. Staff concurs that there is substantial and significant deterioration at many of the existing window, particularly those in the original portion of the building. Of the few existing sash [at other elevations] that might match those in the primary elevation, they also warrant significant repair, if not replacement. Submittal summarizes the proposed work at each window and provides details showing how the replacements will fit into the existing frames and compare dimensionally to the existing sash. The BAR should determine if the windows warrant replacement or repair/rehabilitation. If replacement is approved, the BAR should review and approve the color, lite configuration and muntins widths, stile and rail dimensions, and installation details relative to retaining and/or replicating the existing sills and trim. Bill Adams, Applicant – The Renaissance School and landlord want new windows. The old ones are, in many ways, failing. If you look through the presentation, you can see some photos of rot. There are a couple that have guillotine windows status. The joints and the corners are gone so far that they are holding up a piece of glass. I think that there have been some replacements in the older section of the building. There are some that are without lights. You can see it on the side elevation. This is a good elevation to start with. The original 18th century building is still in brick. That’s one type of detail that I would call colonial revival detail from the 20s. The next small segment of building that you can see. That has the same detail. Moving down the street, these are hollow metal windows in the next segment. They are just one over ones with a brick mold. One way of doing it would be to re-condition what is there and replace the sashes that are there. That would be according to this existing detail. There are some unusual things about this. The outer casing is also the stop for the sash. That works well if you are considering a more modern replacement window. We have used Marvin windows on a number of historic projects, including a couple dorms. The idea would be to get something that has the energy efficiency of a modern window as the low e value and still has an acceptable level of detail for the building. It is a commercial/institutional building. The owners would really like to do the replacement windows, instead of putting back the existing sashes. When we have had new replacement sashes milled, then taken apart the existing windows, it has been very expensive. They end up with issues like the original windows had once the sashes dry out in the sun. It ends up defeated a lot of the purpose of replacing the window. They have tried to put interior storm windows in a number of areas to deal with cold air infiltration. At some point, somebody decided to apply silicon sealant all around the windows. That has caused more degradation in the windows. On the backside, they have put Plexiglas over the 21 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 windows. A lot of them are pretty far gone. We feel that the elevation on East Jefferson Street is the real primary elevation. You don’t see the elevation to the west very much. That’s back in the alley. This side elevation is an informal elevation. The school would like to replace all of the windows we have shown here with Marvin windows. Historic preservation is wetted to a certain attitude about window replacement. I would like to think that the front elevation is really the primary elevation. If you do not allow replacement windows on the front, we would rehabilitate or get new sashes into the old windows. The other thing to point out is where they want to fill in this door on the side. That’s in a stairwell. That is never going to be an exit from the building. We created a detail that keeps the detail adjacent to it. There is this larger opening. There is a stack bond of infill. That’s what we are proposing to fill in that door. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – You have enough window stock to re-constitute the elevations facing Court Square? Mr. Adams – I don’t think the existing window stock is going to fit. I don’t think you could raid one part of the building and come up with window that fit on the front. There is too much irregularity. There are a couple of windows on the Court Square elevation that are OK. They have been painted or maybe replaced at some point. Mr. Mohr – They are probably not being exposed to the weather. Mr. Adams – The ones to the west get a lot of sun. Those are the ones that are dried out. The joints are gone or loose up at the sashes. Mr. Schwarz – For your proposed replacement, am I right in seeing a loss of 5/16 of an inch all the way around. Mr. Adams – That’s correct. Mr. Zehmer – On the east elevation of the 1826 building on the second floor, it looks there are two windows that have later sashes. They not the 6 over 6. Are you proposing to replace those with 6 over 6? Mr. Adams – Yes. That whole piece, including the next segment, is all of the colonial detail. They would all get the windows with the lights. It’s not a true divided light and applied light. It has a spacer bar in it. We have matched the width of the old putty sashes divided lights. On an institutional building like this, there is a lot of detail. The Marvin windows would provide the appropriate level of detail for the massing for the overall effect of the building. Mr. Lahendro – Are the windows facing Court Square repairable? Mr. Adams – There are a few that are repairable. 22 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Lahendro – But not all? Mr. Adams – The sashes are shot on a few of them. I was able to take a knife and run it right into some of them. Staff asked me about the trim around the window. There may be a few places where there is rotten material. Anywhere there is rotten material, it will be replaced. For the most part, the vertical grain on the trim boards is in pretty good shape. It is some of the horizontal things that have caught water. The sills are mostly in reasonable shape. Mr. Mohr – How is the woodwork going down the center section of the front door? Mr. Adams – That’s OK. Part of the proposal is to paint all of the trim. That would all be carefully done. That wood in the center part is in pretty good shape. Mr. Lahendro – Are the transems and the side lights to the door original? Mr. Adams – I don’t think so. That’s not in the scope of this proposal. It’s going to stay as is. The transem might be original. The front door is not original. Mr. Zehmer – That is probably renovation work from the 1920s. Mr. Adams – This is 1920s. This is neo-classical. Mr. Gastinger – That entire central bay bumps out. It has the gabled roof. All of that is added. Mr. Adams – We would leave that alone. It would get treated and painted. The lights on either side is from 1921. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – I don’t know if anybody got to listen to the discussion about Court Square’s history. It really strikes me that this is architectural contributor to that re-writing of what Court Square was at that time. It is really interesting to think how the facades of this warehouse building were changed to tell a different story. Mr. Lahendro – It was fascinating looking at the historic photo on 149. Seeing the cast iron gothic entry arch reminded me that the courthouse used to be gothic revival. This arch post-dated the change to putting the columns on it. Mr. Werner – On the matter of old photographs, we really don’t have a lot of photographs of old Charlottesville. Mr. Lahendro – That strange window on the 5th Street side at the corner corresponds what used to be an open store front area. That was infilled when it was turned into a law office. 23 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Zehmer – I tend to lead towards option two, which is replacing windows with the Marvin windows and rehabilitating the sashes on the Court Square side. Mr. Bailey – I think option one is perfectly fine. That proposal doesn’t change the way that the building looks. Why preserve windows that are not even original to the 19 th century. Mr. Lahendro – The 1920s are historic too. Mr. Bailey – It is a building that you are not going to be changing the look of now with the new windows significantly. There is no particular reason to necessarily preserve glass because it’s glass. Mr. Lahendro – Yes. It is the historic material, the wood frames, the paint evidence on those frames, the way that the glass was made, and the materials in the glass. You replace it with something modern, it looks the same. It’s not the same. You have destroyed the history of it. Mr. Adams – They have a mechanical system that would really have operable windows again. That’s a consideration. In the newer windows, it would help the mechanical system in the building. Mr. Lahendro – If you repaired the historic windows to be operable, they would still be operable? Mr. Adams – Yes, they would. They wouldn’t have the u value a new window would have, nor would they hold the same air infiltration, specification that is now required by code. Mr. Lahendro – We’re talking about one elevation, the most historic elevation. Mr. Zehmer – It is also the north elevation. It probably doesn’t get as much direct sunlight. Mr. Schwarz – Our guidelines put us in a pretty hard place with this. I have tried, for 6 years, to update our guidelines. To me, a window is a functional unit. It does have a lifespan. We need to focus on preserving windows that are a craftsmanship level or a little more irreplaceable than the standard 6 over 6. I recognize that the windows are in bad shape on that north side. The one on the bottom left corner is in bad shape. The ones that are not in bad shape did not appear to have wavy glass anymore. I would be OK with the west side and 5th Street side being replaced. The one over ones are from the 1930s. They are historic. I don’t know what we would be preserving there. Mr. Mohr – Do the second floor windows translate to the first floor windows? Can you mix and match at the first floor level around the corner? Mr. Adams – They may look uniform. I don’t think they are going to be the same size or right fit. When we were measuring, the openings were out a half inch to three quarters of an inch. Mr. Mohr – I can see the argument for trying to have re-constituted or rehabbed windows at the first floor level and then going to the more modern window on the top where you can’t get close to it. You can’t perceive the texture. 24 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Schwarz – How many people would be able to approve option one, which is basically a full replacement of all of the windows? It’s four of us. We do need to discuss this much further. Mr. Mohr – I am good with it. I would like to know that we have looked at all options as far as the old block is concerned. I can even see doing the second floor. The 5 th Street side is where you are up close and personal with the windows. It’s those three windows. I am not trying to be unrealistic. Mr. Zehmer – The proposed scope of work, the narrative, and the application says one of the approaches is to preserve as much as possible on the north façade. I think that is a conservative approach that we should take from a preservation standpoint. It is part of their application. We could easily approve that. It would be a different conversation if the application only proposed complete replacement. Mr. Gastinger – I want to talk more about the cultural legacy. I do feel that this is part of Court Square’s rebranding of what was happening in the 1920s. This is the same year that the Stonewall Jackson monument was erected. The courthouse was being remodeled. This is part of a bigger effort within the city. It was an interesting building before. It got totally coopted. It feels really weird to try to go back and preserve those windows that tell a totally different story about what the building was. Mr. Lahendro – That’s an important story to tell. We may not like the change in the 20s. It is history. It is important to preserve for the future and learning from it. It is the same argument that we are going through with the statues. Mr. Adams – They are not overt symbols of anything in the same way. Mr. Gastinger – This was some neo-classical building from the early 18th century, when it wasn’t. Mr. Zehmer – The proposal is not to put this back to what it was in the 1820s or make it a completely new building that looks nothing like it did in the 1920s. The windows that are going to be put back mimic what was put in the 1920s. Mr. Bailey – Part of what you are trying to preserve is the aesthetics of the building, not necessarily every little piece of it. What you want is the same aesthetic experience that people experience with Court Square. Changing the windows to modern windows that look essentially identical to the ones that are there will not change the aesthetic experience. It would help the people who are owning the building run it in a better, more efficient way and make it useful for the people that are living now. People will not make a mistake in history because we changed the windows. Mr. Werner – Talking about that primary façade, I don’t know how much historic material will be retained in those sashes. Are we talking about the preservation of material? Are we talking about the preservation of an aesthetic? If so, what period? Are we talking about the preservation of the dimensions? These sashes are in rough shape. The goal is to rehabilitate these at all effort into rehabilitation or replacement sashes in the existing frame. What is the preservation objective? 25 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Lahendro – It would be to preserve the material that is still sound and salvageable. Keep it in place and not take it apart, not destroy the fasteners, and replace the material that is severely damaged and cannot be preserved. The things that are replaced are matched in kind. Mr. Bailey – I agree that we should replace that matches it in kind. It is what these new windows would do. Mr. Lahendro – I am also matching the historic material that’s still in good condition and we’re leaving it in place. Mr. Bailey – The historic material is not in good condition. Mr. Lahendro – I didn’t hear all of the historic material is severely damaged so much that it has to be replaced. I heard that there was a mixture. I am arguing for repairing the windows in kind and preserving the materials that is still in good condition in place. Mr. Werner – And on that primary elevation. Mr. Adams – I think you end up with at least half of the sash replaced on the front. Mr. Lahendro – We would have of the historic preserved. Mr. Bailey – Would there be any distinction that anyone would be able to tell between the restored windows and the windows that could not be restored on that primary elevation? Mr. Lahendro – Sure, with the type of paint that is put on it. The materials, the craftsmanship, the fasteners. Mr. Werner – The primary discussion seems to be on that primary elevation. In lieu of these insertions of a slightly smaller sash fits in the existing frame, all effort will be made to retain the sash. Mr. Mohr – It would be the exact same design detail. It would fit just like the original. The big irony about all of this discussion is that now with ADC districts, you don’t see the fashion of the time rewriting all of the buildings or half the buildings. That sort of behavior doesn’t work within the guidelines. It freezes some things in time. This was changed into a federal revival building. That wouldn’t happen today. Mr. Lahendro – With the historic district, you take it out of time, which is unnatural. Mr. Zehmer – That is our charge per our guidelines. Mr. Adams – The front part of the building is interesting. It has a theatrical quality. It was made to be a set of some kind to help set up Court Square. Mr. Lahendro – It was designed to give it a dignity that wasn’t there. It was for lawyers. 26 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Werner – Part of the renovation of Court Square was a lawyers’ building that they tore down. On this primary elevation, that a sash by sash evaluation is made to the extent that the existing sash could be repaired and retained, it should be. To the extent an existing sash is non-viable, then a replacement sash is fabricated to replicate the one that is being removed. It is installed to the existing frame using existing pulleys and weights. Mr. Lahendro – Can we do a straw vote for number 2? Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Mohr, have you changed your mind? Mr. Mohr – I would like to see the primary façade preserved if at all possible. Motion: Mr. Zehmer - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed Option 2 for window repairs and replacements (as specified in the application) satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Ms. Lewis seconded. Motion approves (8-0-1, Mr. Gastinger abstained). 9. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-07-10 506 Park Street Tax Parcel: 530123000 Owner: Presbyterian Church Ch’ville Trust Applicant: Karim Habbab/BRW Architects Addition to Fellowship Hall Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1954 (Fellowship Hall 8th Street constructed in 1986) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing First Presbyterian Church is designed in the Colonial Revival style and based on James Gibbs’ 1722 Saint Martin-in-the-Fields in London. Request for CoA for alteration and new construction at the First Presbyterian Church. Construction of a three-story addition to the Fellowship Hall, including a new exterior terrace and modifications to the existing driveway. Renovations at the west elevation of the Gathering Hall: Remove four arched windows to accommodate French doors; alterations and new landscaping at the front terrace. Alterations to the Gathering Hall courtyard terrace. The use of artificial turf is unprecedented within an ADC District, however this courtyard is enclosed by surrounding structures and will not be visible from any public right of way. Proposed trees and shrubs are consistent with the City’s Master Tree List.  Paving materials conform with design guidelines. Bruce Wardell, Applicant – There is a good amount to this application. It breaks down into two major components. The administrative offices have been on the Park Street level in that wing between the sanctuary and the chapel. That connector between the sanctuary and the chapel has been the administrative offices. The church, over the years, has developed this parking lot down on the northeast side. It became very difficult and very convoluted to get people from that parking lot to the administrative offices. In addition, they had an additional need for classrooms and a place to meet and gather before and after services. The fellowship hall is on the southeast side and the sanctuary is on the northwest side of the 27 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 property. This proposal, on the interior, creates a new gathering hall in the place where the administrative offices were. The impact on the district is confined on this side to developing an outside blue stone gathering terrace for before and after services. There are a series of round-top double-hung windows that exist along that western façade. The proposal is to take the four central ones and turn them into French doors that would connect the new gathering hall to the exterior terrace. That’s basically the impact of the addition of the work on this side, with some new landscaping. There are details further along in this presentation of the actual configuration of those French doors. The proposal, currently, is for changing out the doors, not the round-top windows. The second part of this is a 3 story addition on the northeast side from the 7th Street elevation. It contains new administrative offices on the ground floor. It contains a large teaching room on the middle floor. It contains new junior and senior classrooms on the top floor. It’s separated from the 1984 addition on the left side with that new window. We took all of the landscaping away so you can see the configuration of the new addition architecturally in relationship to the north façade of the church. The brick pattern will match. The profiles of trim and cornice work will be consistent with the existing precedence on the existing building. I do want to describe how the configuration of this 3 story addition occurred. Through a series of studies of how we could add to this building, there really was only one location. That location was filling in this empty corner of the “racetrack” connecting the fourth corner of the courtyard. We needed connection up to the Park Street level. We needed entry from the parking on the northeast side. We needed to connect it back into the fellowship hall. Given that this was the only logical location for the addition, it logically required the entry to this addition on the north side of this new addition. It couldn’t happen on the 7 th Street side because you would be getting crowds of people coming from the parking lots and having that tight clearance along the sidewalk. On the north side, it allowed us to address what has been a very awkward and dangerous connection between the upper parking lot and the 7 th Street elevation. In creating this entry on the north side and connecting the new addition to the existing floor levels within the footprint of the building, the grading of the site to that north side indicated that the root system and the conditions around that large ash tree would be very difficult for that tree to survive. We recommended to the church that tree be removed. That’s been the subject of a conversation that has come up recently with a member of the BAR. The decision was a technical one associated with the actual construction of that addition and the necessity of that addition being where it is. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – The survey identifies the tree to be removed on the southwest side of the project. Is it magnolia? Mr. Wardell – It is a magnolia. Mr. Mohr – A lot of this makes sense to me. I understand the logic of turning that into the gathering place between the sanctuary and the chapel. It does seem that some larger trees would be great. If I look at that north elevation from the parking lot, I was wondering if it makes sense for that bump out to be gable rather than a hip. It seems that it doesn’t have some sense of punctuation in helping the scale. 28 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Wardell – We did have an earlier version where that was a gable. It wasn’t a “slam dunk” to take it away. The north side, with a gable, began to compete with the primacy of the sanctuary and that façade. When we are entering in the hyphen, the gable began to communicate a competing message about how you were getting into the building. From the ground level, we wanted to re-emphasize the continuity of that cornice over the choir room addition. We wanted to emphasize the consistency of that cornice coming across on both sides of the hyphen. That was the reason behind taking the gable away. Mr. Mohr – What is the inverse of where you had a gable running to pick that up so the hyphen doesn’t slide through? Mr. Wardell – That’s the reason we continued the cornice line on the freeze that goes along below the attic story. We were minimizing the volume of that. We were nervous of making the gable on that side. We had the gable on the north side for 6 months. We took it away late in the design process. We could go to one of the renderings of that lower entry terrace. That’s where you can see what its presence is like. Mr. Mohr – What about a flat roof? Mr. Wardell – You could make a flat roof bay out of that and let the main hip be. If you notice on the overall plan at the southwest corner, it mediates that corner. This is the only place where we turning the corner. At the other end of the fellowship hall, it has a hipped roof on it. The gables were on the Park Street side of the building. The hips were on the 7th Street side. Mr. Bailey – I think that works really well. Mr. Schwarz – As far as the architecture, does anybody see anything that is competing with our guidelines? Mr. Gastinger – I think it is very appropriate. Mr. Lahendro – I think it is well conceived. It blends in nicely with the existing building. Mr. Schwarz – I think this works well. The windows are far back from the street. It is not on the main sanctuary. I think that is a perfectly timed place to change them out. Mr. Gastinger – I feel that the landscape plan, as conceived, makes a lot of sense. I don’t have an issue with the proposal. I do want to say that this project is taking out at least seven considerable trees. This property does contribute to this neighborhood. The trees going in are smaller in stature. There are two poplars that are proposed. They’re in a planting that is relatively tightly spaced. They won’t get to the same level of stature as the trees that are being replaced. I think there are other possibilities for replacing the kind of canopy presence over time within the property. Mr. Schwarz – It looks like with the smaller plantings that you have quantities with them. For the trees, I am not seeing quantities. At the northeast corner at the new entry terrace, am I seeing two red maples and eight Lomndon Planes? Is that the extent of the shade trees? Mr. Wardell – I think that’s right. 29 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Mohr – Lomndon Planes can certainly get big. Mr. Gastinger – They can get really big. They are placed pretty tightly here. Mr. Wardell – The number of people that come in and out of the building on the northeast side of the building, both on weekdays and the church services on Sundays, this is where the majority of the people are coming from. The space sequence along that path coming into the building are going to need to accommodate more people. Right now, it is nothing but a very steep, circular driveway. The idea was to make a room that you could come into before you come into the building. That implied the landscaping would be the edge of the space, instead of the middle of the space. Mr. Mohr – That would mediate that whole question that I had about that one volume relative to the building. Mr. Schwarz – I recognize that the proposal does take down quite a few large trees. I feel that the applicant is working pretty hard to put them back in a different form. Ms. Lewis – With regards to plantings in the guidelines, #1. Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the street fronts, which contribute to the avenue effect. I would argue that it is a street tree. I pointed out to the applicant today that immediately two blocks up is an ash tree directly in the back of my building. I wonder if there are a number of ash trees that were planted just a little back from 7 th Street. #4. Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. There are a number of trees being taken out. There are two other trees that are near this ash tree that are also being removed. I understand the plan of development and the plan of landscaping requires them to be removed, especially this tree, which would be impacted by subgrade demolition to create this new terrace area. That’s a lot of trees that are being taken out. The trees, in this property, have been planted to provide shade near the building. It is regrettable. I want to call attention to it. It violates our guidelines. I did ask the applicant if there was an effort made to design around the tree. I didn’t get a response to that. I do understand that the church that the tree is going to be removed. They are agreeable to it. A lot of other people are fine with these tree removals. This is a beautiful plan of development and a nice way to augment a nice plant that the church currently has on Park Street. Mr. Gastinger – I do have concerns about the long term longevity of the tree. It is showing a number of different signs of stress. It’s certainly not doing well in its current configuration. I am willing to consider the removal of that tree. I would just wonder if there might be a provision for some other large canopy trees elsewhere in the property. Ms. Lewis – The church owns the vacant lot directly across the parking lot and across from this new landscaped area. There probably would be an opportunity to provide some shade further away from this new 3 story addition further to the north. Mr. Wardell – We do have a representative of the church here. The congregation has been a fairly strong caretaker of the trees and landscape around the entire property. If the congregation is willing to do some planting of some replacement trees, I would certainly be willing to take that back. 30 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Mr. Schwarz – There is quite a lot of open space towards Park Street. It seems that the trees are all closer to the building. It would be nice to have a shade tree up by Park Street. Mr. Mohr – There is not a whole lot of shade once you get to this point on Park Street to the end of the street. Ms. Lewis – I withdraw my objection. We don’t regularly take out trees because of their condition. I would not say that it is in decline. I would say that it is old and compromised. It does provide shade. There is a lot asphalt this church has. In five years when this planting scheme is a little grown out, it is really lovely terrace to either enjoy before going into the building. Mr. Mohr – You’re developing the north end of the building. Is there any chance that can be carried through in terms of development of the parking lot? Mr. Wardell – We can certainly bring that back into the discussion. Motion: Mr. Mohr - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions, Site Design and Elements, I move to find that the proposed addition, alterations, and landscaping 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. The BAR does recommend: o Revamping the site lighting elsewhere on the site to be consistent with the work being done o Add as many street and shade trees as possible to enhance the overall canopy of the city Ron Bailey seconded. Motion approves (9-0). D. Other Business 10. Staff questions/discussion LEAP Energy Guide Tents on the Mall For the duration of the pandemic, the list that was developed will be enforced. It is its way through the city management. Lights at the Standard, West Main Lighting guidelines do need to be re-examined. E. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 PM until the August monthly BAR meeting. 31 BAR Meeting Minutes July 21, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-09-04 128 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 290132000 Center for Christian Study, Owner Thomas Keogh, Train Architects, and William Sherman, Applicants Exterior alterations and addition Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report October 20, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 20-09-04 128 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 290132000 Center for Christian Study, Owner Thomas Keogh, Train Architects, and William Sherman, Applicants Exterior alterations and addition 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 Actions June 2014 – Admin review of exterior deck alterations. August 18, 2020 – Preliminary discussion. September 15, 2020 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. Application  Applicant’s submittal: William Sherman Architect, and Train Architects drawings Center for Christian Study Expansion Study: o BAR Submission, dated July 2020, REV. September 2020: Cover, sheets 1 through 15. o Supplemental Submittal, dated September 2020: Cover, pages 1 through 11, Marvin cut sheets (Ultimate windows and Signature doors), BEGA light fixture cut sheets (recessed ceiling luminaires, recessed ceiling downlights, recessed luminaires, and bollard light). 128 Chancellor Street (12 Oct 2020) 1 o Site Lighting Supplemental Submittal, dated 09 October 2020: Cover, sheets E1.02, E2.00, E2.01, and BEGA light fixture cut sheets (recessed ceiling luminaires, recessed ceiling downlights, recessed luminaires, and bollard light). 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 and alterations at the front entry terrace Materials and components Roofing [at addition]:  New addition: Flat (Low-Slope); White EPDM  New Bathroom addition south side: Asphalt shingles to match existing  (Existing flat roof: Black EPDM) Gutters/Downspouts:  New addition: internal drains with scuppers; no gutters and downspouts  New bathroom addition south side: new gutters and downspouts to match existing Cornice:  Capped parapet wall. Metal flashing. (See sheet 5 of in September 2020 Supplemental Submittal.) Siding and Trim:  Cedar shingles with 6” exposure painted to match the existing cedar shingles  James Hardie Aspyre Reveal Panel System; NOM 2’x8’ panels painted Benjamin Moore Light Pelham Gray; see color elevations for example.  Trim Flat trim; painted white Doors and Windows:  Windows Marvin aluminum clad wood windows; white cladding  Window Wall Marvin structurally mulled window system-glass and panel infill (no spandrel glass); white cladding  Glass Clear glass to match BAR standards  Doors Marvin aluminum clad wood doors; white cladding Soffit:  James Hardie Soffit Panel; painted to match cedar shingles Parking garage:  Ceiling material: 5/8” exterior gyp sheathing  Wall material: James Hardie Aspyre Reveal System to match exterior Concrete retaining wall at rear.  See attached sketch with elevations (north and south ends) and outline exterior material specification. (Sheet 9 in September 2020 Supplemental Submittal.) Front Terrace and Landscaping  Note: Work at the front terrace has been removed from this CoA request 128 Chancellor Street (12 Oct 2020) 2 Lighting  Fixture A. Perimeter walk around new addition: low in wall mounted lights for a walking surface: BEGA LED recessed wall luminaires – asymmetrical.  Fixture B. South exit way: BEGA shielded LED bollard  Fixture C. Garage interior: Recessed fixtures to meet code minimum light levels: BEGA LED recessed ceiling luminaires - Vortex optics - Symmetric wide  Fixture D. Ground level exits from parking garage: recessed downlights in soffit above: BEGA LED recessed ceiling downlights - narrow beam Discussion All specified lighting fixtures are available with lamping at a Color Temperature of 3,000K lamping. (The garage, soffit and low wall have lamping available at 2,700K.) BAR should consider a condition(s) regarding the lamping. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements, 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 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, 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 Corner ADC 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; 128 Chancellor Street (12 Oct 2020) 3 (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 128 Chancellor Street (12 Oct 2020) 4 VIRGINIA ~3( HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION f'ile No.104-1� Negative no(s). 72 9 7 HISTORIC DISTRICT SURVEY FORM Streetaddress 128 Chance llor St, Charlottesville Town/City Historic name Common name __ ____ �ooct lritme (siding: . D weatherboard, cg-----·shingle, ,.. !lluminum. r:::' brlcktex. ::J _____ _____ ) Material O brick (bond: □ &lone/ D log (siding: □ □ Flemish, randomrubble, □ weatherboard, □ stretcher, 0 __-course American, C . □ randomashlar, [J coursed ashlar, [: __________ □ shingle, [J aluminum, ,.1 bricktex, '7 __ ____ -----···--·--) ) ) □ stucco cast iron c: □ concrete block r� terra cotta □ enameled steel glass and metal □ other: _________________ ____ _____ Number of Stories Roof Type Roof Material □ (Q---'2½ □ shed �, mansard 0 slate □ tile □ 1½ □ 3 □ gable CJ gambrel □ wood shingle □ pressed tin □ 2 □- □ pedi_ment 0 parapet [i;M;omposition D not visible CTl hipped [J flat □ standing seam metal [J other: □ other Dormers Number of bays - Main .facade □0 □3 □ shed �hipped ' 1 CJ 7 li:J-.... 1,,-.... wo 4 □ gable r, 2. n e □2 □ D pedimented '.-�:· 3 □ Porch Stories Bays General description □ no □3 Front porch with balustraded Q yes Q 1 [l 2 0 ,1� 1 (center) 1 (side) , .. 2 3 [_: 4 upper deck and paired Roman Building type Q detached house □ garage government □ industrial □ detached town house 0 farmhouse ... commercial (ottice) [: school □ row house □ apartment building r7 commercial (store) LJ church □ double house [] gas station railroad C Style/period• C raftsman/ :Colonial Re vival Date C ;c;,.;i_ r,. Architect/builder Location and description of entrance C e ntral e ntry with top- and side -lights, Miscellaneous descriptive information (plan, exterior and interior decoration, cornice/eave type, window type anci trim, chimneys, additions, alterations) This house features proj e cting eave s, a symme trical facade, and a central 3-sid e d bay on the.. uppe r floor that ope ns out onto the porch d e ck. Th e house is located on a lot that slopes toward the re ar. Historical information According to th e re al e state r e cords and th e Sanborn maps, this house was built ca, 1926. Source CRe al Estate r co ds· Sanborn maps; Surveyed by Date Je ff O'Dell VHLC 8-83__ Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P 0. 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. Owner NameU(\1\1111-;, ---''- .....-- .___ Applicant Name1'0M \!./Df� • -\valf! nvc� tc 4.-. i� 1 (db a c�-., v--.- .......-"---.----_....,_----- t,i11-%'1>14}'1 - w,Ih �91i"tm � nv,i, ,rttr -�,.._,_'---4-'��-"-'-'...:....:...:.....;;..._----1_/I_J_J_, h_lVI__ Parcel Number OP)O \ 0 000 5 Project Property Address_�_______,_t,_l,,_-.,v-_l,._H_t_l v_,_llt__,,,_V_J_'l_'Z , _��b_?, _________ Signature of Applicant I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the best o m knowledge, correct. Signature Date \h DM� '{/_ y_-,,f>C L, 1 I/1l,fu'Vl) Print Name Date Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to its submission. �� � � U).J...�� "9- --2:S--20 Signature Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits for this project? _Q-0 ________ ?J. I\ WM" v- Print Name 'Date 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 HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE: You can review the Historical Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts regulations in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance starting with Section 34-271 online at www.charlottesville.org or at Municode.com for the City of Charlottesville. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES: Please refer to the current AOC Districts Design Guidelines online at www charlottesville.org. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application for Certificate of Appropriateness, per Sec. 34-282 (d) in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance: (1) Detailed and clear depictions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property; (2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties; (3) One set of samples to show the nature, texture and color of materials proposed; (4) The history of an existing building or structure, if requested; (5) For new construction and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three­ dimensional model (in physical or digital form); (6) In the case of a demolition request where structural integrity is at issue, the applicant shall provide a structural evaluation and cost estimates for rehabilitation, prepared by a professional engineer, unless waived by the BAR. APPEALS: Following a denial the applicant, the director of neighborhood development services, or any aggrieved person may appeal the decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. Per Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals, an applicant shall set forth, in writing, the grounds for an appeal, including the procedure(s) or standard(s) alleged to have been violated or misapplied by the BAR, and/or any additional information, factors or opinions he or she deems relevant to the application. Cover and sheets 1 - 15 (* Sheets 16 and 17 removed *) September 2020 BAR Review Supplemental Submittal Cover, sheets 1 - 11, spec sheets: Marvin window and door spec (9 sheets) LED lighting spec (3 sheets) (Fine Concrete spec sheets removed *) * Work at front of parcel removed from CoA request (Sept 28, 2020) REV. September 2020 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 REV. September 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 REV. September 2020 128 Chancellor St, Char lottesville , VA 22903 William Sherman Architect | Window: Marvin Aluminum Clad Wood Window Window: Marvin Aluminum Clad Wood Window Window: Marvin Aluminum Clad Wood Window Facade: Cedar Shingles; painted to match existing Facade: Cedar Shingles; painted to match existing Facade: James Hardie Aspyre Reveal Panel System; painted Window and Wall Details Center for Christian Study Expansion Study 14 September 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 | Center for Christian Study Expansion Center for Christian Study 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 September 2020 BAR Review Supplemental Submittal Center for Christian Study Expansion 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 Table of Contents: Cover Table of Contents Outline Exterior Material Specification BAR Comment Responses Supplemental Drawings Product Literature BAR Supplemental Submittal September 2020 1 Center for Christian Study Expansion 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 Outline Exterior Material Specification Roof New addition: Flat (Low-Slope); White EPDM New Bathroom addition south side: Asphalt shingles to match existing Existing flat roof: Black EPDM Cornice/Coping Metal; color to match façade color below coping Gutters/Downspouts New addition: internal drains with scuppers; no gutters and downspouts New bathroom addition south side: new gutters and downspouts to match existing Siding Cedar shingles with 6” exposure painted to match the existing cedar shingles James Hardie Aspyre Reveal Panel System; NOM 2’x8’ panels painted Benjamin Moore Light Pelham Gray; see color elevations for example Trim Flat trim; painted white Flashing Metal; white to match window frame/trim Soffits James Hardie Soffit Panel; painted to match cedar shingles Rear Retaining Wall Smooth metal formed concrete with formwork joints; natural color Guardrails Horizontal wood boards to match north stair, painted to match existing Windows Marvin aluminum clad wood windows; white cladding Window Wall Marvin structurally mulled window system-glass and panel infill (no spandrel glass); white cladding Glass Clear glass to match BAR standards Doors Marvin aluminum clad wood doors; white cladding Front Terrace Pavers Sand set Brick Pavers (formerly concrete pavers and changed to address drainage and aesthetics) BAR Supplemental Submittal September 2020 2 Center for Christian Study Expansion 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 BAR Comment Responses 1) Roofing [at addition]: See outline exterior material specification. 2) Gutters/Downspouts: See outline exterior material specification. 3) Cornice: Capped parapet wall. See outline exterior material specification and attached supplemental drawings for additional information. 4) Siding and Trim: See outline exterior material specification. 5) Doors and Windows: See outline material specification and attached product literature for additional information. a. Which openings are storefront and which are Marvin windows? All glazing in the project to be Marvin clad windows. Storefront/curtain wall windows have been replaced with Marvin’s structurally mulled window system. b. What are the lite arrangements for the windows? No muntins / divisions are being proposed for the windows; see exterior elevations for additional information. c. Colors for window and storefront components? See outline exterior material specification. 6) Soffits material: See outline exterior material specifications. 7) Parking Garage: a. Ceiling material: 5/8” exterior gyp sheathing b. Wall material: James Hardie Aspyre Reveal System to match exterior c. Lighting: Recessed fixtures to meet code minimum light levels 8) Concrete retaining wall at rear: See attached sketch with elevations (north and south ends) and outline exterior material specification. 9) Front Terrace and Landscaping: a. Benches tables and chairs? “Fine Concrete’; see attached product literature for additional information. b. Concrete pavers: Front terrace ground material has been revised to brick pavers. Pattern to be determined. BAR Supplemental Submittal September 2020 3 Center for Christian Study Expansion 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 c. Trash enclosure: Horizontal wood panels similar to north stair enclosure. See photo on sheet 16 of September BAR submittal and attached supplemental drawings for additional information. d. New wood deck: to match existing wood deck on the north side of the building. e. Planter boxes: Custom by “Fine Concrete” f. New sidewalk and driveway apron: to match existing. g. Lighting: Minimum required to illuminate egress paths – low wall mounted or bollards h. Manhole (front entry): cast iron 10) Exterior Lighting: See attached “basis of design” product literature for additional information a. Ground level exits from parking garage: recessed downlights in soffit above b. Perimeter walk around new addition: low in wall mounted lights for a walking surface c. South exit way: bollards BAR Supplemental Submittal September 2020 4 Center for Christian Study Expansion 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 Supplemental Drawings BAR Supplemental Submittal September 2020 5 Center for Christian Study Expansion 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 Wood Framed Parapet w/ Hardie Panel Facade BAR Supplemental Submittal September 2020 6 Center for Christian Study Expansion 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 Wood Framed Parapet w/ Cedar Shingle Facade BAR Supplemental Submittal September 2020 7 Center for Christian Study Expansion 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 CMU Parapet w/ Cedar Shingle Facade BAR Supplemental Submittal September 2020 8 Center for Christian Study Expansion 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 East Elevation BAR Supplemental Submittal September 2020 9 Center for Christian Study Expansion 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 4’-0” West (Front) Elevation BAR Supplemental Submittal September 2020 10 Center for Christian Study Expansion 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 Product Literature BAR Supplemental Submittal September 2020 11 CATALOG ULTIMATE M A R V I N S I G N AT U R E™ CO L L E C T I O N MARVIN ® WINDOWS Awning and Picture windows in Ebony 9 10 MARVIN SIGNATURE TM COLLEC TION MARVIN ® ULTIMATE CASEMENT Casement windows with Matte Black hardware ULTIMATE CASEMENT The Ultimate Casement window is offered in some of the largest sizes in the industry, with a secure multi- point lock, durable hardware that ensures smooth operation, and Marvin’s exclusive Wash Mode for easy cleaning–even on upper floors. With many design options, including round top shapes, the Ultimate Casement window flexes to fit your vision and can be sized to complement the most expansive views. ULTIMATE CASEMENT INTERIOR ULTIMATE CASEMENT EXTERIOR ULTIMATE CASEMENT PUSH OUT INTERIOR WITH PUSH OUT HANDLE WITH FOLDING HANDLE WITH FOLDING HANDLE Casement and Picture windows with Satin Nickel hardware 35 THIS PRODUC T IS CE CERTIFIED 36 (ULTIMATE CASEMENT NARROW FRAME - CLAD ONLY) MARVIN SIGNATURE TM COLLEC TION MARVIN ® ULTIMATE PICTURE Picture and Awning windows in White painted interior finish ULTIMATE PICTURE The Ultimate Picture window offers a classic style in a non-operable window, bringing natural light into a room or highlighting an unobstructed outdoor view. Durable and energy efficient, it can be sized to match accompanying double hung, single hung, or casement windows. An aluminum-clad exterior provides durability and flexible finish options, or an all-wood option is ideal for historic renovation projects where a wood exterior is needed to match original architectural details. DIREC T GL A ZE Direct glaze refers to a window with no sash. The glass is glazed directly into the frame and is stationary. IN-SA SH In-sash windows are non- operable, and they can match the profiles of windows with operable sashes. DIRECT GLAZE PICTURE WINDOW IN-SASH PICTURE WINDOW Casement and Direct Glaze Picture windows 54 THIS PRODUC T IS CE CERTIFIED 55 MARVIN SIGNATURE TM COLLEC TION MARVIN ® ULTIMATE BAY + BOW Bow window ULTIMATE BAY ULTIMATE BOW Ultimate Bay windows are a group of connected windows Ultimate Bow windows are a series of windows connected extending outward from a room at desired angles– to form a gentle outward curve. Typically made up of allowing light and views from multiple directions. Some four or more windows, Ultimate Bow windows can create feature a larger operating or stationary window flanked by a small nook, open up a view, bring in more light, and smaller windows. Ultimate Bay windows can create space boost visual appeal from inside and out. Bow windows are indoors for a cozy nook or window seat, or maximize a available with casement, double hung, or picture windows. scenic view to serve as a room’s focal point. INTERIOR BAY WITH ULTIMATE INTERIOR BOW WITH ULTIMATE CASEMENT AND PICTURE WINDOWS CASEMENT AND PICTURE WINDOWS Bay window 66 THIS PRODUC T IS CE CERTIFIED 67 (CLAD ONLY) MARVIN ® DOORS Multi-Slide doors in Bronze 68 69 MARVIN SIGNATURE TM COLLEC TION MARVIN ® DOOR TERMS + DEFINITIONS DOOR OPERATING STYLES 1 1. FR AME The door frame includes the head jamb across the top, side jambs and the sill at the 2 bottom. Marvin frames are built strong to stand up to heavy door usage year after year. 2. R AIL The horizontal wood members of a door are called rails, the vertical components are called stiles. The bottom rail on a French door design is about 8 inches OUTSWING DOOR INSWING DOOR SLIDING DOOR high, harmonizing with traditional design Single or double swinging doors open Single or double swinging doors open Save space with a door panel that preferences. On other doors, narrow to the exterior. to the interior. operates by sliding along a track. bottom rails match 4 ¾ inch stiles for a clean, uncluttered appearance. 3. SILL Our door sills are made of Ultrex®, pultruded 4 fiberglass based materials that are virtually impervious to time, weather, and pressure. Ultrex door sills provide excellent performance in hot or cold climates, plus durability over the long haul by being resistant to warping, denting, and fading. 4. PANEL S In a door, the panel is the main section, BI- FOLD DOOR LIF T AND SLIDE DOOR MULTI-SLIDE DOOR operating or stationary, that is installed This door folds to the side and can For openings as large as 48 feet Another option to blend interior into the frame. Marvin doors come in include up to sixteen panels. wide and 12 feet high, substantial and outdoor living with a modular many sizes, some of the industry’s largest, door panels fully open into pocket frame system. but all share the tight tolerances for fit and or stacked configurations. quality finishes. 3 MAKE EVERY ENTRANCE GRAND Marvin doors are designed to maximize the potential of any opening, view, and living space. 70 71 MARVIN SIGNATURE TM COLLEC TION MARVIN ® INTERIOR FINISH OPTIONS PINE WOOD SPECIES STAIN + PAINT Offering a rich, warm look, many custom options, When compared to painting or staining on the job site, and design versatility, wood is a premium choice. factory-stained finishes offer consistent quality and Wood can be used on both the interior and exterior performance resulting from our expertise with wood as of a window or door. As a lower maintenance option, a material and years of perfecting our staining process. wood can also be used on only the interior with an Painting on the job site or scheduling off-site finishing is extruded aluminum cladding exterior. Marvin offers VER TIC AL GR AIN an extra step that takes time and coordination. Choose our DOUGL A S FIR both options, leading the industry in sourcing, painted interior finish option on any Marvin windows and processing, and utilizing high quality wood. doors with a wood or clad exterior for a factory-painted option that arrives ready to install. DOUGL A S FIR CLE AR WHE AT CHERRY HONE Y HA ZELNUT WHITE OAK LE ATHER C ABERNET MAHOGANY ESPRESSO DESIGNER BL ACK MAPLE Custom option WHITE PRIMED WHITE BL ACK WALNUT Custom option Wood Bi-Fold door in Mahogany * Stain colors shown on Pine. To see more about finishes visit Marvin.com. 88 89 MARVIN SIGNATURE TM COLLEC TION MARVIN ® EXTERIOR FINISH OPTIONS STONE WHITE COCONUT CRE AM SIERR A WHITE C A SHMERE EXTRUDED ALUMINUM PEBBLE GR AY Extruded aluminum is an extremely tough cladding that protects wood windows, mimics the profiles of wood, and provides superior HAMPTON SAGE durability. It is the most commonly ordered Marvin material. C ADET GR AY Select a color from our palette of 19 durable extruded aluminum colors, including a spectrum of rich hues and three pearlescent finishes. If CL AY you have more specialized needs, we can also work with you to create a custom color. C A SC ADE BLUE Ultimate Double Hung G2 window in Ebony SUEDE WOOD SPECIES Ultimate Double Hung G2 window in Suede Wood is a premium material for windows and GUNMETAL doors, offering classic aesthetic appeal, many options for customization, and design versatility. WINEBERRY We treat exposed millwork with a water repellent wood preservative to help it last longer. Choose from one of the four options below. Each is BRONZE ready to be finished to match your project’s exacting requirements. BAHAMA BROWN PINE E VERGREEN EBONY VER TIC AL GR AIN DOUGL A S FIR BRIGHT SILVER (PE ARLESCENT) MAHOGANY COPPER (PE ARLESCENT) WESTERN RED CEDAR LIBER T Y BRONZE (PE ARLESCENT) Exterior trim package only CUSTOM COLOR: ANY COLOR YOU WANT 90 91 LED recessed ceiling luminaires - Vortex optics - Symmetric wide Application Type: Linear LED recessed ceiling luminaires with symmetric wide light distribution. The patent pending ‘vortex reflector’ rotates a parabolic BEGA Product: reflector around the vertical axis to for a complex vortex shape. The vortex Project: balances maximum efficiency with optimal glare control while eliminating shadows and artifacts in a uniquely rectangular shape. Modified: Materials Luminaire housing and trim constructed of die-cast marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy Clear safety glass Reflector surface made of pure anodized aluminum Silicone applied robotically to casting, plasma treated for increased adhesion High temperature silicone gasket Mechanically captive stainless steel fasteners Stainless steel screw clamps NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP 65 Weight: 14.1 lbs Electrical Operating voltage 120-277V AC Minimum start temperature -20° C LED module wattage 48.0 W System wattage 55.0 W Controllability 0-10V dimming down to 0.1% Color rendering index Ra > 80 Luminaire lumens 5,880 lumens (3000K) Lifetime at Ta = 15° C 369,000 h (L70) Lifetime at Ta = 35° C 111,000 h (L70) LED color temperature 4000K - Product number + K4 3500K - Product number + K35 3000K - Product number + K3 2700K - Product number + K27 BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured polyester powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. Available colors Black (BLK) White (WHT) RAL: Bronze (BRZ) Silver (SLV) CUS : B A C Recessed ceiling luminaires · Vortex optic · Symmetric wide LED β A    B C 24 305 48.0 W 52° 60 3⁄ 8   3 3 1⁄ 2 β = Beam angle BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 ( 805 ) 684-0533 info@bega-us.com Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us . com © copyright BEGA 2018 Updated 02/14/19 LED recessed ceiling downlights - narrow beam Application Type: LED recessed ceiling luminaire with narrow beam light distribution designed for downlighting atriums, canopies, passages and other interior and BEGA Product: exterior locations. Project: Materials Luminaire housing and faceplate constructed of die-cast marine Modified: grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy Clear safety glass Silicone optical collimating lens Reflector surface made of pure anodized aluminum High temperature silicone gasket Stainless steel screw clamps Galvanized steep rough in ceiling pan with through wiring box NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP65 Weight: 2.2 lbs Electrical Operating voltage 120-277V AC Minimum start temperature -20° C LED module wattage 8.3 W System wattage 9.7 W Controlability 0-10V dimming down to 0.1% Color rendering index Ra > 80 Luminaire lumens 1,194 lumens (3000K) Lifetime at Ta=15°C > 500,000 h (L70) Lifetime at Ta=45°C 270,000 h (L70) LED color temperature 4000K - Product number + K4 3500K - Product number + K35 3000K - Product number + K3 2700K - Product number + K27 BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured polyester powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. Available colors Black (BLK) White (WHT) RAL: Bronze (BRZ) Silver (SLV) CUS : C B A LED recessed ceiling downlights · narrow beam LED β A B C 24 817 8.3 W 21 ° 5 5⁄ 8 5 18 β = Beam angle BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 ( 805 ) 684-0533 info@bega-us.com Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us . com © copyright BEGA 2018 Updated 01/25/18 LED recessed wall luminaires - asymmetrical Application Type: LED recessed wall luminaire with asymmetrical light distribution for the illumination of ground surfaces, building entrances, stairs and footpaths. BEGA Product: Materials Project: Luminaire housing constructed of die-cast aluminum marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy Modified: Clear safety glass Silicone applied robotically to casting, plasma treated for increased adhesion High temperature silicone gasket Mechanically captive stainless steel fasteners Stainless steel screw clamps Composite installation housing NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP65 Weight: 2.1 lbs Electrical Operating voltage 120-277V AC Minimum start temperature -40° C LED module wattage 8.4 W System wattage 11.0 W Controlability 0-10V, TRIAC, and ELV dimmable Color rendering index Ra > 80 Luminaire lumens 480 lumens (3000K) LED service life (L70) 60,000 hours LED color temperature 4000K - Product number + K4 3500K - Product number + K35 3000K - Product number + K3 2700K - Product number + K27 Amber - Product number + AMB Wildlife friendly amber LED - Optional Luminaire is optionally available with a narrow bandwidth, amber LED source (585-600nm) approved by the FWC. This light output is suggested for use within close proximity to sea turtle nesting and hatching habitats. Electrical and control information may vary from standard luminaire. LED module wattage 8.7 W (Amber) Fully enclosed luminaire with System wattage 10.7 (Amber) installation housing ensures Luminaire lumens 111 lumens (Amber) seamless integration and weathertight operation. BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured polyester powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. Available colors Black (BLK) White (WHT) RAL: Bronze (BRZ) Silver (SLV) CUS : BB A CC LED recessed wall luminaires · asymmetrical LED A B C 33 055 8.4 W 12 1⁄ 2 2 3⁄ 4 5 BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 ( 805 ) 684-0533 info@bega-us.com Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us . com © copyright BEGA 2019 Updated 08/26/19 38.18 · Technical amendments reserved ! 84 107 Bollard IP 65 Project · Reference number Date 360 260 105 Montageplatte Mounting plate Contre-plaque 3 x 120° 3x 1200 12 0° Ø 70 Ø 140 Ø 100 Product data sheet Product description Application Inrush current Luminaire made of aluminium alloy, Shielded LED bollard with asymmetrical light Inrush current: 12 A / 24.2 µs aluminium and stainless steel distribution for the illumination of squares, Maximum number of luminaires of this Safety glass access roads and entry areas. type per miniature circuit breaker: Silicone gasket The luminaire housing is adjustable, allowing B 10 A: 50 luminaires Reflector made of pure anodised aluminium the light distribution to be adapted to the B 16 A: 50 luminaires Swivel range 90° requirements of the installation site. C 10 A: 50 luminaires Luminaire with mounting plate for bolting onto a C 16 A: 50 luminaires Lamp foundation or an anchorage unit Module connected wattage 19.4 W Light technique Mounting plate with two pitch circles: Luminaire connected wattage 22.2 W Luminaire data for the light planning program ø 70 mm, 3 elongated holes 7 mm wide Rated temperature ta = 25 °C DIALux for outdoor lighting, street lighting and ø 100 mm, 3 elongated holes 9 mm wide Ambient temperature ta max = 50 °C indoor lighting as well as luminaire data in Luminaire can be aligned on the mounting plate EULUMDAT- and IES-format you will find on the around 360° 84 107 K4 BEGA web page www.bega.com. Mounting bracket with connection box for Module designation LED-0872/940 through-wiring of up to 5 × 2,5@ Article No. 84 107 Colour temperature 4000 K LED power supply unit LED colour temperature optionally 4000 K Colour rendering index CRI > 90 220-240 V x 0/50-60 Hz or 3000 K Module luminous flux 3310 lm DC 176-276 V 4000 K – Article number + K4 Luminaire luminous flux 2661 lm DALI controllable 3000 K – Article number + K3 Luminaire luminous efficiency 119,9 lm / W A basic isolation exists between power cable Colour graphite or silver and control line graphite – article number 84 107 K3 BEGA Thermal Control® silver – article number + A Module designation LED-0872/930 Temporary thermal regulation to protect Colour temperature 3000 K Accessory temperature-sensitive components without Colour rendering index CRI > 90 70 895 Anchorage unit switching off the luminaire Module luminous flux 3130 lm with mounting flange made of hot-dip Safety class I Luminaire luminous flux 2516 lm galvanised steel. Total length 400 mm. Protection class IP 65 Luminaire luminous efficiency 113,3 lm / W 3 stainless steel fixing screws M8. Dust-tight and protection against water jets Impact strength IK08 Service life · Ambient temperature Pitch circle ø 100 mm. Protection against mechanical Rated temperature ta = 25 °C See the separate instructions for use. impacts < 5 joule LED psu: > 50,000 h c – Conformity mark LED module: > 200,000 h (L 80 B 50) Weight: 7.0 kg 100,000 h (L 90 B 50) Ambient temperature ta max = 50 °C (100 %) LED psu: 50,000 h LED module: 91,000 h (L 80 B 50) 100,000 h (L 70 B 50) Light distribution 84 107 LED 4 2 0 25 5 2 1 0,5 0,2 lx 2 4 m 0 2 4 6 8 BEGA Gantenbrink-Leuchten KG · Postfach 31 60 · 58689 Menden · info@bega.com · www.bega.com Path lights and bollards, types A and B Parking lighting and soffit lighting at exits from stair tower and parking, types C and D Soffit lighting at apartment exit, type D LED recessed wall luminaires - asymmetrical A Application Type: LED recessed wall luminaire with asymmetrical light distribution for the illumination of ground surfaces, building entrances, stairs and footpaths. BEGA Product: Materials Project: Luminaire housing constructed of die-cast aluminum marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy Modified: Clear safety glass Silicone applied robotically to casting, plasma treated for increased adhesion High temperature silicone gasket Mechanically captive stainless steel fasteners Stainless steel screw clamps Composite installation housing NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP65 Weight: 2.1 lbs Electrical Operating voltage 120-277V AC Minimum start temperature -40° C LED module wattage 8.4 W System wattage 11.0 W Controlability 0-10V, TRIAC, and ELV dimmable Color rendering index Ra > 80 Luminaire lumens 480 lumens (3000K) LED service life (L70) 60,000 hours LED color temperature 4000K - Product number + K4 3500K - Product number + K35 3000K - Product number + K3 2700K - Product number + K27 Amber - Product number + AMB Wildlife friendly amber LED - Optional Luminaire is optionally available with a narrow bandwidth, amber LED source (585-600nm) approved by the FWC. This light output is suggested for use within close proximity to sea turtle nesting and hatching habitats. Electrical and control information may vary from standard luminaire. LED module wattage 8.7 W (Amber) Fully enclosed luminaire with System wattage 10.7 (Amber) installation housing ensures Luminaire lumens 111 lumens (Amber) seamless integration and weathertight operation. BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured polyester powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. Available colors Black (BLK) White (WHT) RAL: Bronze (BRZ) Silver (SLV) CUS : BB A CC LED recessed wall luminaires · asymmetrical LED A B C 33 055 8.4 W 12 1⁄ 2 2 3⁄ 4 5 BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 ( 805 ) 684-0533 info@bega-us.com Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us . com © copyright BEGA 2019 Updated 08/26/19 38.18 · Technical amendments reserved ! 84 107 Bollard B IP 65 Project · Reference number Date 360 260 105 Montageplatte Mounting plate Contre-plaque 3 x 120° 3x 1200 12 0° Ø 70 Ø 140 Ø 100 Product data sheet Product description Application Inrush current Luminaire made of aluminium alloy, Shielded LED bollard with asymmetrical light Inrush current: 12 A / 24.2 µs aluminium and stainless steel distribution for the illumination of squares, Maximum number of luminaires of this Safety glass access roads and entry areas. type per miniature circuit breaker: Silicone gasket The luminaire housing is adjustable, allowing B 10 A: 50 luminaires Reflector made of pure anodised aluminium the light distribution to be adapted to the B 16 A: 50 luminaires Swivel range 90° requirements of the installation site. C 10 A: 50 luminaires Luminaire with mounting plate for bolting onto a C 16 A: 50 luminaires Lamp foundation or an anchorage unit Module connected wattage 19.4 W Light technique Mounting plate with two pitch circles: Luminaire connected wattage 22.2 W Luminaire data for the light planning program ø 70 mm, 3 elongated holes 7 mm wide Rated temperature ta = 25 °C DIALux for outdoor lighting, street lighting and ø 100 mm, 3 elongated holes 9 mm wide Ambient temperature ta max = 50 °C indoor lighting as well as luminaire data in Luminaire can be aligned on the mounting plate EULUMDAT- and IES-format you will find on the around 360° 84 107 K4 BEGA web page www.bega.com. Mounting bracket with connection box for Module designation LED-0872/940 through-wiring of up to 5 × 2,5@ Article No. 84 107 Colour temperature 4000 K LED power supply unit LED colour temperature optionally 4000 K Colour rendering index CRI > 90 220-240 V x 0/50-60 Hz or 3000 K Module luminous flux 3310 lm DC 176-276 V 4000 K – Article number + K4 Luminaire luminous flux 2661 lm DALI controllable 3000 K – Article number + K3 Luminaire luminous efficiency 119,9 lm / W A basic isolation exists between power cable Colour graphite or silver and control line graphite – article number 84 107 K3 BEGA Thermal Control® silver – article number + A Module designation LED-0872/930 Temporary thermal regulation to protect Colour temperature 3000 K Accessory temperature-sensitive components without Colour rendering index CRI > 90 70 895 Anchorage unit switching off the luminaire Module luminous flux 3130 lm with mounting flange made of hot-dip Safety class I Luminaire luminous flux 2516 lm galvanised steel. Total length 400 mm. Protection class IP 65 Luminaire luminous efficiency 113,3 lm / W 3 stainless steel fixing screws M8. Dust-tight and protection against water jets Impact strength IK08 Service life · Ambient temperature Pitch circle ø 100 mm. Protection against mechanical Rated temperature ta = 25 °C See the separate instructions for use. impacts < 5 joule LED psu: > 50,000 h c – Conformity mark LED module: > 200,000 h (L 80 B 50) Weight: 7.0 kg 100,000 h (L 90 B 50) Ambient temperature ta max = 50 °C (100 %) LED psu: 50,000 h LED module: 91,000 h (L 80 B 50) 100,000 h (L 70 B 50) Light distribution 84 107 LED 4 2 0 25 5 2 1 0,5 0,2 lx 2 4 m 0 2 4 6 8 BEGA Gantenbrink-Leuchten KG · Postfach 31 60 · 58689 Menden · info@bega.com · www.bega.com LED recessed ceiling luminaires - Vortex optics - Symmetric wide C Application Type: Linear LED recessed ceiling luminaires with symmetric wide light distribution. The patent pending ‘vortex reflector’ rotates a parabolic BEGA Product: reflector around the vertical axis to for a complex vortex shape. The vortex Project: balances maximum efficiency with optimal glare control while eliminating shadows and artifacts in a uniquely rectangular shape. Modified: Materials Luminaire housing and trim constructed of die-cast marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy Clear safety glass Reflector surface made of pure anodized aluminum Silicone applied robotically to casting, plasma treated for increased adhesion High temperature silicone gasket Mechanically captive stainless steel fasteners Stainless steel screw clamps NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP 65 Weight: 14.1 lbs Electrical Operating voltage 120-277V AC Minimum start temperature -20° C LED module wattage 48.0 W System wattage 55.0 W Controllability 0-10V dimming down to 0.1% Color rendering index Ra > 80 Luminaire lumens 5,880 lumens (3000K) Lifetime at Ta = 15° C 369,000 h (L70) Lifetime at Ta = 35° C 111,000 h (L70) LED color temperature 4000K - Product number + K4 3500K - Product number + K35 3000K - Product number + K3 2700K - Product number + K27 BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured polyester powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. Available colors Black (BLK) White (WHT) RAL: Bronze (BRZ) Silver (SLV) CUS : B A C Recessed ceiling luminaires · Vortex optic · Symmetric wide LED β A    B C 24 305 48.0 W 52° 60 3⁄ 8   3 3 1⁄ 2 β = Beam angle BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 ( 805 ) 684-0533 info@bega-us.com Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us . com © copyright BEGA 2018 Updated 02/14/19 LED recessed ceiling downlights - narrow beam D Application Type: LED recessed ceiling luminaire with narrow beam light distribution designed for downlighting atriums, canopies, passages and other interior and BEGA Product: exterior locations. Project: Materials Luminaire housing and faceplate constructed of die-cast marine Modified: grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy Clear safety glass Silicone optical collimating lens Reflector surface made of pure anodized aluminum High temperature silicone gasket Stainless steel screw clamps Galvanized steep rough in ceiling pan with through wiring box NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP65 Weight: 2.2 lbs Electrical Operating voltage 120-277V AC Minimum start temperature -20° C LED module wattage 8.3 W System wattage 9.7 W Controlability 0-10V dimming down to 0.1% Color rendering index Ra > 80 Luminaire lumens 1,194 lumens (3000K) Lifetime at Ta=15°C > 500,000 h (L70) Lifetime at Ta=45°C 270,000 h (L70) LED color temperature 4000K - Product number + K4 3500K - Product number + K35 3000K - Product number + K3 2700K - Product number + K27 BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured polyester powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. Available colors Black (BLK) White (WHT) RAL: Bronze (BRZ) Silver (SLV) CUS : C B A LED recessed ceiling downlights · narrow beam LED β A B C 24 817 8.3 W 21 ° 5 5⁄ 8 5 18 β = Beam angle BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 ( 805 ) 684-0533 info@bega-us.com Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us . com © copyright BEGA 2018 Updated 01/25/18 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-09-05 1619 University Avenue Tax Parcel 090102000 Sovran Bank, Owner Brian Quinn, Milrose Consultants, Applicant Exterior lighting Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT October 20, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-09-05 1619 University Avenue Tax Parcel 090102000 Sovran Bank, Owner Brian Quinn, Milrose Consultants, Applicant Exterior lighting Background Year Built: 1959 District: The Corner ADC District Status: Contributing This one-story Classical Revival brick commercial building was built as a bank branch in 1959. It is characterized by a projecting half-octagon porch, fixed 35-light windows, and a hipped roof. Prior BAR Reviews May 2013 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. Revised plan should further develop the drawing submitted at meeting; brick walls at consistent horizontal level; lose the picket railing; look at framing concrete travel ways with brick, and coordinate with stone tread steps/brick risers; straighten path; clean up landscaping under tree; keep upper diagonal path on east side; use red brick [Old Virginia] pavers instead of dark brick, and consider polymeric sand. July 2013 – BAR approved with conditions that the handrail design will match existing; eliminate two stairs in the center front; carry the bluestone cap detail across so it breaks the upper level from lower level; carry City sidewalk brick color to wall*; clean up geometry east side so there is a memory of an arc. Resubmit digitally to staff to be circulated to BAR for approval; *include two photoshop versions of brick color [dark City sidewalk brick and red brick to match existing] so final decision can be made. September 15, 2020 – (For BAR 20-09-05.) BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. 1619 University Avenue (11 Oct 2020) 1 Application  Submittal: Little Diversified Architectural Consulting, Bank of America, University, ELP Renovation, dated 24 August 2020: CoA application, two letters, Sheets A00.00, A03.01, E00.01, E01.01, E02.01, E031.01, E04.01, and S01.01. o Note: Submittal is the same as presented for the September BAR meeting, except Sheet A03.01, which has been revised (09/21/2020) to omit the removal of two trees.  Additional/updated information: o Various night renderings of the proposed lighting. o Light fixture cut sheets. Request CoA for the replacement of exterior lighting. Discussion and Recommendations Applicant provided information confirming that the lamping for all proposed fixtures will have a Color temperature that does not exceed 3,000K. Staff recommends approval of the CoA. BAR may consider conditions for the tree and vegetation trimming, including requiring that any work within the public right of way be coordinated with the City. Calculated w/ 40K 1619 University Ave Lamping 0-10V Fixture Cree Lighting # BUG Lumens Dimming Type available USA SEC-EDG-2S-WM-02-E-UL-BZ-350-30K B1 U0 G1 2,664 Yes USB SEC-EDG-2S-WM-02-E-UL-BZ-525-30K B1 U0 G1 3,780 Yes UAB ARE-EDG-4M-DA-04-E-UL-BZ-525-40K B2 U0 G2 7,099 Yes UAN ARE-EDG-5M-DA-06-E-UL-BZ-525-30K B2 U0 G2 11,074 Yes UAW ARE-EDG-4MB-DA-04-E-UL-BZ-700-30K B1 U0 G2 6,311 Yes UAX ARE-EDG-4MB-DA-06-E-UL-BZ-700-30K B1 U0 G2 9,359 Yes UBO CPY250-A-DM-F-20W-UL-WH-30K B1 U0 G1 2,000 ? 30K indicates lamping Color Temperature 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 lighting satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is 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, I move to find that the proposed lighting does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Corner ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted. 1619 University Avenue (11 Oct 2020) 2 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 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. 1619 University Avenue (11 Oct 2020) 3 VIRGINIA File no. fo<(-70 HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Negative no(s). 5o· SURVEY FORM Historic name Common name '..J,rqini� N�tiono..\ County/Town/City N\:::e \:;>Z>.y4:;,; �\\ he,9h--\- oc.-\t\90no.\ r'O<"� �-t- m·d,d\� �'I ­ J�rSOl\10.n Re.,./N�\. 2 en"1"rQnt.e� r:>..-\- e\--\��'Sid� � foc:c..'n.. All Uli()6.0ll.\S (" c.�(\-\re. \;>a, o..re.. ip\'C>..tt 9\�ss. �(\dc •· - .3._? File No. ------'-----'- /I/ . , Town --•-�' _n_,_.:""t.;..._i__o_1_c1-P_----::.--.__ ! f ,- ' Y1:...,-- ,�,1;._____________ _ ·'' .._ i, County __________________ Photographer _..;;;S.....;..., ..;;;{._·-,--'-:;;.;;=:>..;_>fµ:--'..... ;__________ -:J....,., . __ Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness . g •. >ti .,.., Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services · - [II . P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Five (5) Please submit tau (10, hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name SOVRANBANK Applicant Name Brian Quinn - Milrose Consultants Project Name/Description Bank of America - ext erior lightin g Parcel Number ------------ o 9o 102 ooo Project Property Address_1_6_1 _9_ U_ n_ i_ve_r _s__ i_ e ty A _ v_en_u_ ______________ ____________ I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: 1175 Marlkress Rd .. Unit 1060 best of my knowledge, correct. Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Email: bquinn@milrose.com Brian Quinn Phone: (W) ________ (C) 917-848-1032 Signature Date Brian Quinn • Milrose Consultants 8/11/20 Print Name Date Address:__ SO _ RA _ V NB _ _ K_ _ _ AN_ ________ _ 101 N TRYON ST Email: CHARLOTTE NC. 28255 Phone: (W) _______(C) _____ _ 08/21/2020 Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Sergio Emmanuel Merino 08/21/2020 for this project? ___N_ _______ o _ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): ________________ REPLACING, REMOVING AND ADDING LIGHT FIXTU RES ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF THE EXISTINGBANKBRANCH ONLY. THERE IS NO INTERIOR WORKBEING PERFORMED. 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 HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE: You can review the Historical PreseNation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts regulations in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance starting with Section 34-271 online at www.charlottesville.org or at Municode.com for the City of Charlottesville. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES: Please refer to the current ADC Districts Design Guidelines online at www.charlottesville.org. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application for Certificate of Appropriateness, per Sec. 34-282 (d) in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance: (1) Detailed and clear depictions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property; (2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties; (3) One set of samples to show the nature, texture and color of materials proposed; (4) The history of an existing building or structure, if requested; (5) For new construction and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three­ dimensional model (in physical or digital form); (6) In the case of a demolition request where structural integrity is at issue, the applicant shall provide a structural evaluation and cost estimates for rehabilitation, prepared by a professional engineer, unless waived by the BAR. APPEALS: Following a denial the applicant, the director of neighborhood development services, or any aggrieved person may appeal the decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. Per Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals, an applicant shall set forth, in writing, the grounds for an appeal, including the procedure(s) or standard(s) alleged to have been violated or misapplied by the BAR, and/or any additional information, factors or opinions he or she deems relevant to the application. August 24,2020 LITTLE. DIVERSIFIED ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTING Joey Winter City Planner City of Charlottesville 610 East Market Street Charlottesville,VA 22902 Re: Bank of America 1619 University Avenue Administrative Site Plan Amendment 1st Submittal - June 16,2020 - Response Letter Thank you for reviewing the attached plans. Below are our responses to the comments dated June 26th, 2020. Comment 1. As per City Code Sec. 34-1003(d), the spillover light from luminaires onto public roads and onto property within any low-density residential district shall not exceed one-half(½) foot candle. There is too much spillover in areas along the northern and eastern borders of the property Response: Lighting plan has been updated along the northern and eastern borders of the property to prevent a spillover greater than one-half foot-candle. • List of Electrical Revisions; o Updated to lower number of fixtures on and around building. o Updated fixture strengths to lower lighting around building. o E01.01 updated per new lighting fixture schedule on E03.01. o E02.01 updated per new lighting fixture schedule on E03.01. o E03.01 updated lighting fixtures. ■ All fixture color has been updated to 30k. ■ AG1 updated to UAW1 (Double to single fixture arrangement,lower wattage). ■ AG2 updated to UAB1 (lower wattage). ■ AJ1 updated to UAX1 (Triple to single fixture arrangement,lower wattage). ■ AR1 updated to UAN1 (Double to single fixture arrangement,lower wattage). ■ AR2 Removed from plan (Pole fixture by main road). o E04.01 Photometric plan has been updated per new fixtures. Included in this submission package are the following items: • Comment Response Letter • Electronic Revisions If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (703) 908-4535. Sincerely, Ryan McGratn, AIA Little Diversified Architectural Consulting 4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 650, Artington, VA 22203 t 703.908.4501 f 703.908.4502 w littleonline.com August 24,2020 LITTLE. DIVERSIFIED ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTING Jeff Werner,AICP Design Planner City of Charlottesville 610 East Market Street Charlottesville,VA 22902 Re: Bank of America 1619 University Avenue Administrative Site Plan Amendment 1st Submittal - June 16,2020 - Response Letter Thank you for reviewing the attached plans. Below are our responses to the comments dated June 26th, 2020. Comment 1. This site is within The Corner ADC District and the proposed work will require a design review Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) from the Board Architectural Review (BAR). Response: We will be submitting to the BAR to obtain a certificate of Appropriateness. Comment 2. I have reviewed the cut sheets provided for the new lighting fixtures and all have lamping that exceeds a Color Temperature of 4,000K, which exceeds the 3,000K maximum that the BAR will require. Also, the City Code requires that all exterior fixtures be full cut off, which is not stated in the specs for the proposed fixtures. To address bright lights and unwanted glare within the City's ADC Districts, the BAR can impose limitations on lighting levels. From this, the BAR has established a standard requiring that the light emitted from a lamp be dimmable and not exceed a Color Temperature of 3,000K. Response: Lighting fixtures have been updated to 3,000k Color Temperature. Fixtures included are LED emitting that do not project upwards into the sky and prevent glare. • List of Electrical Revisions; o Updated to lower number of fixtures on and around building. o Updated fixture strengths to lower lighting around building. o E01.01 updated per new lighting fixture schedule on E03.01. o E02.01 updated per new lighting fixture schedule on E03.01. o E03.01 updated lighting fixtures. • All fixture color has been updated to 30k. • AG1 updated to UAW1 (Double to single fixture arrangement,lower wattage). • AG2 updated to UAB1 (lower wattage). • AJ1 updated to UAX1 (Triple to single fixture arrangement,lower wattage). • AR1 updated to UAN1 (Double to single fixture arrangement,lower wattage). • AR2 Removed from plan (Pole fixture by main road). o E04.01 Photometric plan has been updated per new fixtures. Included in this submission package are the following items: • Comment Response Letter • Electronic Revisions If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (703) 908-4535. Sincerely, Ryan McGrath, AIA Little Diversified Architectural Consulting August 11, 2020 4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 650, Artington, VA 22203 t 703.908.4501 f 703.908.4502 w littleonline.com Rendering of proposed lighting. Eye level from University Ave (applicant submittal Sept. 28, 2020) Same view in daylight. (Google Maps. Inserted by BAR staff.) Bank of America University ELP Renovation University Facility Partner CBRE - (MD) 1619 University Avenue Charlottesville, VA ELP Renovation 3401 Columbia Pike, Ste 301 SERIAL NUMBER: NRSP VERSION: Arlington, VA 22204 BULLETIN: 703.302.2526 BULLETIN: XX/DDXX LITTLE PROJECT #: 223.13649.00 Architect LITTLE 1619 University Avenue 4245 Fairfax Drive, Suite 650 Arlington, VA 22203 PROJECT INFORMATION SCOPE OF WORK Charlottesville, VA 703.908.4535 This drawing and the design shown are the property Electrical of Little Diversified Architectural Consulting. The reproduction, copying or other use of this drawing LOCATION MAP without their written consent is prohibited and any infringement will be subject to legal action. LITTLE Little 2020 4245 Fairfax Drive, Suite 650 Arlington, VA 22203 571.257.4063 Issue Date & Issue Description By Check Structural LITTLE 4245 Fairfax Drive, Suite 650 Arlington, VA 22203 703.908.4505 DRAWING INDEX ARCHITECTURAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL VICINITY MAP GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Seal/Signature Digitally signed by Ryan M McGrath DN: CN=Ryan M McGrath, OU=A01410C00000170CAD0890A0000D357, O=Unaffiliated, C=US Project Name Date: 2020.08.24 12:19:16-04'00' PROTOTYPE LAYOUT CAD File Name Description Scale A00.00 LS1 Bank of America TR1 University ELP Renovation 1619 University Avenue LS1 Charlottesville, VA 2 SERIAL NUMBER: NRSP VERSION: BULLETIN: 2 ATM1 ASSOCIATE ENTRY TR2 This drawing and the design shown are the property of Little Diversified Architectural Consulting. The reproduction, copying or other use of this drawing without their written consent is prohibited and any infringement will be subject to legal action. Little 2020 ATM2 Issue Date & Issue Description By Check 2 TR1 ATM3 AHD TR3 LS1 Seal/Signature TR1 Project Name KEY NOTES SHEET NOTES PROTOTYPE LAYOUT LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE CM = CRAPE MYRTLE UNK = UNKNOWN CAD File Name SYMBOL QTY NOTES LANDSCAPING PLAN TRIM TREE UP TO 15' AND AWAY FROM LIGHT FIXTURE TO ENSURE THAT IT DOES NOT Description TR1 3 INTERFERE WITH INTENDED ILLUMINATION TR2 1 TRIM TREE UP TO 10' AND THIN OUT TREE CANOPY Scale NOT TO SCALE TRIM TREE UP TO 11' AND AWAY FROM LIGHT FIXTURE TO ENSURE THAT IT DOES NOT TR3 1 INTERFERE WITH INTENDED ILLUMINATION 2 LS1 - TRIM LANDSCAPING DOWN TO 36" A03.01 LANDSCAPING PLAN SCALE: N.T.S. Bank of America University ELP Renovation 1619 University Avenue Charlottesville, VA SERIAL NUMBER: GENERAL DEMOLITION NOTES: NRSP VERSION: UNIVERSITY AVENUE A. SEE SHEET E00.01 FOR PROJECT DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ALL NOTES ON SHEET E00.01 BULLETIN: Y3 SHALL APPLY TO THIS DRAWING. B. SEE SHEET E03.01 FOR RISER DIAGRAM, PANEL AND FIXTURE SCHEDULES. Y3 CH C. SEE GMR DRAWINGS FOR FINAL LIGHTING FIXTURE LAYOUT, DETAILS, AND NOTES. AN D. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED OTHERWISE, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DEVICES, FEEDERS, AND BRANCH CIRCUIT WIRING INDICATED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE REMOVED C ELL IN THEIR ENTIREITY BACK TO THE SOURCE OR TO THE NEXT ACTIVE FIXTURE TO REMAIN. Y4 E. ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND SHOW INTENT OF DEMOLITION WORK TO BE O DONE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND LABOR REQUIRED RS 3 4 4 FOR A COMPLETE WORKING INSTALLATION. R1 TR F. ITEMS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WORK ARE EXISTING TO REMAIN AND SHALL REMAIN ACTIVE Y4 EE THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE CONTINUITY OF POWER TO ALL EXISTING ITEMS TO REMAIN AND RESTORE DISRUPTED CIRCUITS AS REQUIRED. T UNK UBO1 Y5 UBO1 1 UNK G. POWER SHUTDOWNS SHALL BE COORDINATED AND COMPLETED AT TIMES OUTSIDE OF NORMAL 3 WORKING HOURS AS APPROVED BY THE OWNER. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS ADVANCED R1 1 R3 R1 3 NOTICE PRIOR TO ANY SHUTDOWN. UBO1 This drawing and the design shown are the property H. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES ARE TO BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED BY EXISTING of Little Diversified Architectural Consulting. The 3 LIGHTING CONTROLS EQUIPMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE MAIN EQUIPMENT ROOM. CONTRACTOR reproduction, copying or other use of this drawing SHALL RETAIN EXISTING LIGHTING CONTROLS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS, WIRING, without their written consent is prohibited and any ATM1 AND CONTROL DEVICES AS REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETE SYSTEM. SEE NOTES ON SHEET E00.01 infringement will be subject to legal action. ASSOCIATE ENTRY AND GMR DWGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Little 2020 I. EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURES TYPE "Y" ARE EXISTING TO REMAIN. NOTES: 1. TYPICAL - EXISTING CANOPY MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE(S) TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED. REMOVE FIXTURE / SUPPORTS, AND RETAIN EXISTING BRANCH CIRCUIT / CONTROLS FOR Y2 RECONNECTION UNDER NEW WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PATCHING, PAINTING, AND ATM2 R1 3 R1 WEATHERPROOFING AS REQUIRED. Issue Date & Issue Description By Check BANK OF AMERICA 4 2. TYPICAL - EXISTING BUILDING MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE(S) TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED. REMOVE FIXTURE, SUPPORTS, AND RETAIN EXISTING BRANCH CIRCUIT FOR RECONNECTION UNDER NEW WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PATCHING, PAINTING, AND WEATHERPROOFING USA1 2 / FIREPROOFING AS REQUIRED. 3. TYPICAL - EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURE(S) TO BE REMOVED. REMOVE FIXTURE, SUPPORTS, WIRING, AND CONDUIT BACK TO SOURCE OR TO NEXT ACTIVE FIXTURE TO REMAIN. ANY CIRCUITS MADE 3 R1 SPARE BY DEMOLITION WORK SHALL BE TURNED TO 'OFF' POSITION AND UPDATED ON PANEL SCHEDULE. GC SHALL PROVIDE PATCHING, PAINTING, AND WEATHERPROOFING / FIREPROOFING AS REQUIRED. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE AND VERIFY REMOVAL / TRIMMING OF TREES / BUSHES WITH GMR DRAWINGS AND THE OWNER PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. 4 ATM3 AHD R1 3 3 R1 1 UBO1 R3 R2 USB1 3 R1 2 3 4 4 4 Seal/Signature Y1 1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN - DEMOLITION E01.01 1" = 10'-0" Project Name PROTOTYPE LAYOUT CAD File Name Description Scale E01.01 Bank of America University ELP Renovation 1619 University Avenue Charlottesville, VA SERIAL NUMBER: GENERAL NOTES: NRSP VERSION: UNIVERSITY AVENUE A. SEE SHEET E00.01 FOR PROJECT DETAILS, SCHEDULES AND SPECIFICATIONS. ALL NOTES ON BULLETIN: Y3 SHEET E00.01 SHALL APPLY TO THIS DRAWING. B. SEE SHEET E03.01 FOR RISER DIAGRAM & PANEL SCHEDULES. Y3 CH C. SEE LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE FOR FIXTURE MOUNTING HEIGHTS ON E03.01. AN D. ELECTRICAL PLANS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS EXCEPT WHERE DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN. C ELL E. ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE AT SUCH TIMES AND IN SUCH A MANNER AS WILL LEAST INTERFERE Y4 WITH THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF ALL RELATED OR AFFECTED SYSTEMS. O RS F. ALL POWER OUTAGES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH OWNER. TR G. THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF WIRES ARE NOT INDICATED FOR ALL CIRCUITS, ONLY THOSE WHERE Y4 EE CLARIFICATION IS NECESSARY. E.C. SHALL PROVIDE ALL WIRES NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER FUNCTION OF THE SYSTEM. T UNK UBO1 Y5 UBO1 4 UNK H. ALL EMPTY CONDUIT RUNS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH PULL STRINGS. 4 F. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES ARE TO BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED BY EXISTING UBO1 LIGHTING CONTROLS EQUIPMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE MAIN EQUIPMENT ROOM. CONTRACTOR This drawing and the design shown are the property SHALL RETAIN EXISTING LIGHTING CONTROLS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS, WIRING, of Little Diversified Architectural Consulting. The AND CONTROL DEVICES AS REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETE SYSTEM. SEE NOTES ON SHEET E00.01 reproduction, copying or other use of this drawing AND GMR DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. without their written consent is prohibited and any infringement will be subject to legal action. G. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING CIRCUITS / FIXTURES SHALL OPERATE SIMULTANEOUSLY AND SHALL BE Little 2020 AUTOMATICALLY POWERED 'ON' FROM DUSK UNTIL DAWN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. NOTES: USA2 1. EXTEND EXISTING EXTERIOR BRANCH CIRCUIT SERVING NEAREST LIGHT FIXTURES TO NEW 1 2 Y2 BUILDING MOUNTED LIGHTING FIXTURES AS NECESSARY [2#10, 1#10G IN 3/4"C]. CONTRACTOR SHALL BALANCE THE LOADS WHERE MORE THAN ONE EXISTING CIRCUIT IS AVAILABLE THE Issue Date & Issue Description By Check CONTRACTOR SHALL CONCEAL ALL BRANCH CIRCUIT WIRING WHERE POSSIBLE. EXPOSED BANK OF AMERICA USA2 CONDUIT AT BUILDING EXTERIOR SHALL ONLY BE USED WHERE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. IF EXPOSED CONDUIT IS DEEMED NECESSARY, CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE LOCATION / USE USA2 WITH OWNER. ENSURE EXTERIOR BRANCH LIGHTING CIRCUIT IS AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED USA1 3 AND POWERED 'ON' FROM DUSK-UNTIL-DAWN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. PROVIDE AND INSTALL NEW WALL MOUNTED FIXTURE(S) AT BUILDING EXTERIOR AT MOUNTING HEIGHT AS SCHEDULED ON SHEET E03.01. COORDINATE FINAL LOCATION WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROVIDE MOUNTING HARDWARE AS WELL AS ANY CUTTING, PATCHING, PAINTING, AND FIREPROOFING / WATERPROOFING AS REQUIRED. 3. TYPICAL - PROVIDE AND INSTALL NEW WALL MOUNTED FIXTURE(S) AT BUILDING EXTERIOR. MATCH 7 EXISTING MOUNTING HEIGHT AND CONNECT LIGHT FIXTURES TO EXISTING CIRCUITING, WITH EXISTING CONTROL TO REMAIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. COORDINATE INSTALLATION W/ A-13,15 5 6 EXISTING STRUCTURE / CONDITIONS AND PROVIDE MOUNTING KIT & HARDWARE AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL CUTTING, PATCHING, PAINTING, AND FIREPROOFING / WATERPROOFING AS REQUIRED. A-12 4. PROVIDE AND INSTALL NEW FIXTURES AT EXISTING CANOPY AND CONNECT TO EXISTING LIGHTING 1 2 4 UBO1 CIRCUIT. COORDINATE INSTALLATION W/ EXISTING STRUCTURE / CONDITIONS AND PROVIDE MOUNTING KIT & HARDWARE AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL CUTTING, PATCHING, PAINTING, AND UAB1 USB1 UAW1 (NEW POLE) FIREPROOFING / WATERPROOFING AS REQUIRED. CONNECT LIGHT FIXTURES TO EXISTING CIRCUITING, WITH EXISTING CONTROL TO REMAIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3 5. PROVIDE NEW POLE, CONCRETE POLE BASE (W/ #6G COPPER GROUND TO GROUND ROD), AND A-13,15 POLE MOUNTED FIXTURE(S) AS SCHEDULED. SEE LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE ON E03.01 AND POLE BASE DETAIL ON STRUCTURAL SHEET S0.01 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 6. EXTEND 240V-20A BRANCH LIGHTING CIRCUIT TO NEW POLE MOUNTED FIXTURES AS NECESSARY FROM INDICATED LIGHTING CIRCUIT [2#8, 1#10G IN 1-1/2"C]. COORDINATE FINAL ROUTING WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENCH THE PATH WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH OWNER AS REQUIRED. 5 6 UAN1(NEW POLE) 7. LOCATION OF EXISTING ELECTRICAL SOURCE PANELS, IN ELECTRICAL ROOM IN BACK-OF-HOUSE SPACE, FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING CIRCUITS TO BE EXTENDED AS NEEDED. EXISTING TIMECLOCK AND CONTACTORS CONTROLLING ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING CIRCUITS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE AND 5 6 UAN1(NEW POLE) BE RE-UTILIZED. SITE LIGHTING DESIGN STATEMENT THE INDICATED BUILDING-MOUNTED AND POLE-MOUNTED LIGHTING DESIGN, INCLUDING FIXTURE SELECTIONS, INSTALLATION LOCATIONS AND SUPPORTING PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATIONS, HAS BEEN PERFORMED BY THE OWNER'S CONSULTANT (GMR). THE 5 6 BUILDING-MOUNTED AND POLE-MOUNTED FIXTURES, INCLUDING FIXTURE SUPPORTS, POLE BASES AND ALL INDICATED CIRCUITING, ARE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT AND SHALL BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR, ACCORDING TO THE POLE AND FIXTURE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. Seal/Signature UAX1 (NEW POLE) Y1 1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN - NEW WORK E02.01 1" = 10'-0" Project Name PROTOTYPE LAYOUT CAD File Name Description Scale E02.01 Bank of America University LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE SYMBOL LABEL WATTAGE PER FIXTURE FIXTURE ARRANGEMENT FIXTURE TYPE / MOUNTING / MANUFACTURER ** CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY MOUNTING ACCESSORIES BEFORE ORDERING** BUG RATING MOUNTING HEIGHT MOUNTING ACCESSORIES NOTES ELP Renovation UAB1 70 SINGLE (AB) ARE-EDG-4M-DA-04-E-UL-BZ-525-30K / WALL MOUNT / CREE B2-U0-G2 10' - 6'' AFG WM-DA-BZ ADD NEW FIXTURE 1619 University Avenue Charlottesville, VA UAN1(NEW POLE) 101 SINGLE (AN) ARE-EDG-5M-DA-06-E-UL-BZ-525-30K / POLE MOUNT / CREE B4-U0-G3 15' AFG - ADD NEW FIXTURE UAW1 (NEW POLE) 93 SINGLE (AW) ARE-EDG-4MB-DA-04-E-UL-BZ-700-30K / POLE MOUNT / CREE B1-U0-G2 15' AFG - ADD NEW POLE AND FIXTURE UAX1 (NEW POLE) SINGLE (AX) ARE-EDG-4MB-DA-06-E-UL-BZ-700-30K / POLE MOUNT / CREE 15' AFG SERIAL NUMBER: 134 B1-U0-G2 - ADD NEW POLE AND FIXTURE NRSP VERSION: UBO1 20 SINGLE (BO) CPY250-A-DM-F-20W-UL-WH-30K / CANOPY MOUNT / CREE B1-U0-G1 MATCH EXISTING XA-BXCC9001 REPLACE EXISTING FIXTURE BULLETIN: USA1 25 SINGLE (SA) SEC-EDG-2S-WM-02-E-UL-BZ-350-30K / WALL MOUNT / CREE B1-U0-G1 MATCH EXISTING - REPLACE EXISTING FIXTURE USA2 25 SINGLE (SA) SEC-EDG-2S-WM-02-E-UL-BZ-350-30K / WALL MOUNT / CREE B1-U0-G1 8' - 6'' AFG - ADD NEW FIXTURE USB1 37 SINGLE (SB) SEC-EDG-2S-WM-02-E-UL-BZ-525-30K / WALL MOUNT / CREE B1-U0-G1 MATCH EXISTING - REPLACE EXISTING FIXTURE R1 - SINGLE EXISTING FLOOD FIXTURE - - - REMOVE AND PATCH R2 - SINGLE EXISTING CANOPY FIXTURE - - - REMOVE AND PATCH R3 - SINGLE EXISTING WALL MOUNT FIXTURE - - - REMOVE AND PATCH Y1 - DOUBLE (2@180°) EXISTING POLE FIXTURE - - - OUT OF SCOPE Y2 - SINGLE EXISTING POLE FIXTURE - - - OUT OF SCOPE Y3 - SINGLE EXISTING DECORATIVE POLE FIXTURE - - - OUT OF SCOPE Y4 - - This drawing and the design shown are the property SINGLE EXISTING FLOOD FIXTURE - - OUT OF SCOPE of Little Diversified Architectural Consulting. The reproduction, copying or other use of this drawing Y5 - SINGLE EXISTING CANOPY FIXTURE - - - OUT OF SCOPE without their written consent is prohibited and any infringement will be subject to legal action. SEE E00.01 FOR ADDITIONAL FIXTURE NOTES. Little 2020 Issue Date & Issue Description By Check BANK OF AMERICA ELECTRICAL ROOM EX. EX. PNL-A PNL-B 3 4 4 120/240V 120/240V 3PH-4W 3PH-4W 225A 225A 2 GRADE 1 GENERAL NOTES: A. ALL PANEL BOARDS AND FEEDERS ARE EXISTING TO REMAIN. B. EC SHALL VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS, EXISTING RISER DIAGRAM, EQUIPMENT RATINGS, AND FEEDER SIZES PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. RISER NOTES: 1 EXISTING 120/240V-3P ELECTRICAL SERVICE FROM POWER COMPANY. 4 REFER TO PANEL SCHEDULE FOR DETAILS. 2 EXISTING C.T.'s ENCLOSURE. 3 EXISTING C.T. ELECTRICAL METER Seal/Signature Project Name PROTOTYPE LAYOUT CAD File Name Description Scale E03.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bank of America GENERAL NOTES: A. SEE SHEET E00.01 FOR PROJECT DETAILS, University ELP Renovation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Y3 0.0 0.0 UNIVERSITY 0.0 0.0 AVENUE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SCHEDULES AND SPECIFICATIONS. ALL NOTES ON SHEET E00.01 SHALL APPLY TO THIS DRAWING. Y3 B. SEE LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE FOR CH FIXTURE MOUNTING HEIGHTS ON E03.01. 1619 University Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AN C. ELECTRICAL PLANS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. Charlottesville, VA PROPERTY LINE CE DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS EXCEPT WHERE DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN. LLO Y4 D. FOOT-CANDLES (+0.0) ON SITE PLAN ARE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SERIAL NUMBER: RS MEASURED AT GRADE. NRSP VERSION: TR Y4 BULLETIN: EE T 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.5 7.2 Y5 UBO1 UBO1 9.6 3.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UBO1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.6 5.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 USA2 0.0 0.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 4.3 0.6 0.3 Y2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 This drawing and the design shown are the property BANK OF AMERICA USA2 of Little Diversified Architectural Consulting. The reproduction, copying or other use of this drawing USA2 without their written consent is prohibited and any infringement will be subject to legal action. 0.1 1.3 2.5 USA1 6.0 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Little 2020 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.9 0.0 4.0 2.1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Issue Date & Issue Description By Check 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.0 4.0 1.5 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 PR UBO1 OP UAB1 USB1 UAW1 (NEW POLE) ER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 2.9 6.2 8.5 8.0 7.3 15.1 10.3 5.6 4.3 3.1 1.7 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 TY LIN E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.7 2.5 5.4 5.8 6.9 4.9 5.7 5.1 4.2 3.9 3.4 2.6 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 UAN1(NEW POLE) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.6 2.4 3.3 0.5 UAN1(NEW 0.0 POLE) 3.1 2.4 0.3 0.2 3.0 2.2 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.1 3.3 1.8 3.8 3.3 2.4 1.9 2.4 1.5 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.3 2.4 3.7 2.7 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 PR OP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.0 3.1 3.7 3.2 2.7 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 ER TY LIN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.1 3.1 3.5 2.6 1.8 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 (NEW 1.2 UAX1 POLE) 3.0 3.1 2.3 1.6 0.9 0.5 Y1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.0 2.8 2.4 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.4 2.1 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Seal/Signature 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Project Name 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PROTOTYPE LAYOUT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CAD File Name Description 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Scale 1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN E04.01 1" = 10'-0" E04.01 Bank of America University ELP Renovation 1619 University Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22903 SERIAL NUMBER: NRSP VERSION: BULLETIN: 4245 North Fairfax Drive Suite 650 Arlington, VA 22203 T: 703.908.4501 F: 703.908.4502 www.littleonline.com This drawing and the design shown are the property of Little Diversified Architectural Consulting. The reproduction, copying or other use of this drawing without their written consent is prohibited and any infringement will be subject to legal action. © Little 2020 Issue Date & Issue Description By Check 01 02/17/2020 OWNER'S REVIEW SUBMISSION 02 03/27/2020 CL CREE P25R LIGHT POLE PERMIT SUBMISSION (5"Øx11GA") 15' - 0" MAX FIXTURE MOUNTING HEIGHT ABOVE FINISHED GRADE PROVIDE GROUNDING LUG w/ 6 GA MIN GROUNDING W IRE, COORD w/ ELEC INSTALL ANCHOR RODS AS SPECIFIED BASE PL AND ANCHOR BY LIGHT POLE MFR RODS DESIGN BY POLE MFR 6" MIN 45° CHAMFER ALL AROUND 3' - 0" ABOVE FINISH GRADE AT "AG2" IN PARKING LOT 3" 3" 6" ABOVE FINISH GRADE OTHERWISE GENERAL NOTES: 1. LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION IS DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTION. 2. SEE SITE PLAN FOR LIGHT POLE LOCATIONS. 3. DESIGN LOADS: SNOW LOAD Pg 30 PSF ls 1.0 W IND LOAD V 115 MPH EXPOSURE C FINISHED lw 1.0 GRADE, SEE LIGHT FIXTURE PROJECTED W IND AREA 1.68 SF CIVIL LIGHT POLE BASE SHEAR .35 K SEISMIC LOAD OCCUPANCY GROUP II le 1.0 Ss 0.208 w/ ELEC REQUIREMENTS S1 0.069 2' - 0" MIN, CONFIRM SITE CLASS D (DEFAULT) 4000 PSI CONC Sds 0.222 Sd1 0.110 SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY B STRUCTURAL SYSTEM INVERTED PENDULUM BASE SHEAR LIGHT POLE 0.2 K (8) #5 V EQ SPACED 4. SOIL BEARING CAPACITY ARE BASED ON THE PRESUMPTIVE LOAD-BEARING VALUES PROVIDED IN TABLE 1806.2 IN THE IBC AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION BY A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE PROJECT STATE. IF MINIMUM 4' - 6" MIN BELOW GRADE BEARING CAPACITY IS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN 1,500 PSF FOR GRAVITY AND 100 PSF/FT FOR LATERAL, THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AND LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION DESIGN W ILL BE REVISED IF NECESSARY. 5. ALL CONCRETE W ORK SHALL CONFORM TO ACI 318-14. 6. CONCRETE SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOW ING PROPERTIES: ELEC CONDUIT 1. CONCRETE CATEGORY : F2 (ACI 318-14) COORD w/ ELEC 2. 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH F'c = 4,000 PSI AT 28 DAYS 3. NORMAL W EIGHT (145 PCF) 4. MAXIMUM W /C RATIO = 0.40 5. MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIZE - 3/4" 6. ENTRAINED AIR = 6% ± 1% 7. SLUMP = 4" ± 1" 8. NO CALCIUM CHLORIDE SHALL BE ALLOW ED #3 x 1' - 6" OD CIRCULAR 7. SUBMIT CONCRETE MIX TO EOR FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO POURING. TIES w/ STD HK EA END 8. REINFORCING BARS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A615 GRADE 60. AT 10" OC MAX Seal/Signature PROVIDE GROUNDING W IRE CLR 3" COORD w/ ELEC 2' - 0" Ø ANCHOR ROD PATTERN, SEE LIGHT POLE MFR Project Name 03/27/2020 P N LA (8) #5 VERT, EQ BANK OF AMERICA - University ELP SPACED 223-13649-00 6" M I PROTOTYPE LAYOUT 3" CLR #3 x 1' - 6" OD CIRCULAR ALL SIDES CAD File Name TIES w/ STD HK EA END AT 10" OC MAX Description GENERAL NOTES AND LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION DETAIL Scale NOTES: 1. SEE ELECTRICAL FOR LIGHT POLE LOCATIONS. 1 LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION DETAIL S01.01 1" = 1'-0" S01.01 BoA Exterior Lighting, 1619 University Ave Information prepared by BAR staff - October 1, 2020 1619 University Ave With 4,000K (40K) Lamping? Fixture Type Cree Lighting # BUG Lumens 0-10V Dimming available USA SEC-EDG-2S-WM-02-E-UL-BZ-350-30K B1 U0 G1 2,664 Yes USB SEC-EDG-2S-WM-02-E-UL-BZ-525-30K B1 U0 G1 3,780 Yes UAB ARE-EDG-4M-DA-04-E-UL-BZ-525-40K B2 U0 G2 7,099 Yes UAN ARE-EDG-5M-DA-06-E-UL-BZ-525-30K B2 U0 G2 11,074 Yes UAW ARE-EDG-4MB-DA-04-E-UL-BZ-700-30K B1 U0 G2 6,311 Yes UAX ARE-EDG-4MB-DA-06-E-UL-BZ-700-30K B1 U0 G2 9,359 Yes UBO CPY250-A-DM-F-20W-UL-WH-30K B1 U0 G1 2,000 ? 1619 University Ave. - Lighting Sept 22, 2020 Fixture Types USA and USB USA USB USA SEC-EDG-2S-WM-02-E-UL-BZ-350-30K USB SEC-EDG-2S-WM-02-E-UL-BZ-525-30K ????? USA USB 1619 University Ave. - Lighting Sept 22, 2020 Fixture Type UAB UAB ARE-EDG-4M-DA-04-E-UL-BZ-525-30K ????? UAB 1619 University Ave. - Lighting Sept 22, 2020 Fixture Type UAN UAN ARE-EDG-5M-DA-06-E-UL-BZ-525-30K ?????????? UAN 1619 University Ave. - Lighting Sept 22, 2020 Fixture Types UAW and UAX UAW ARE-EDG-4MB-DA-04-E-UL-BZ-700-30K UAX ARE-EDG-4MB-DA-06-E-UL-BZ-700-30K ????? ????? UAW UAX 1619 University Ave. - Lighting Sept 22, 2020 Fixture Type UBO UBO CPY250-A-DM-F-20W-UL-WH-30K ????? UBO 1619 University Ave. - Lighting Sept 22, 2020 BoA Lighting - 1619 University Ave Rendering of proposed lighting. Eye level from University Ave (applicant submittal Sept. 28, 2020) Same view in daylight. (Google Maps) The Corner - Night Photos Theblacksheeponline, 0/21/2016. Rachel Mayman https://theblacksheeponline.com/virginia/streets-uva-edition-2 CBS 19 News, 3/18/2020. Nazir Afzali https://www.cbs19news.com/story/41907771/quiet-st-patricks-day-on-the-corner The Corner - Night Photos From the C-VILLE Weekly, 6/13/16 Copyright Martyn Kyle/Pernmoot Photography www.c-ville.com/close-home-charlottesville-reacts-orlando-massacre/ Charlottesville Tomorrow, 9/24/2020. Jessie Higgins/ www.cvilletomorrow.org/articles/getting-to-thanksgiving-is-going-to-be-hard-uva-tightens-covid-restrictions-in-effort-to-keep- grounds-open The Corner - Night Photos Daily Progress, 3/19/2015. Andrew Shurtleff https://richmond.com/news/virginia/photos-protesters-block-streets-in-charlottesville/collection_6cf8b23c-ce33-11e4-a380- 4f735396b3a3.html Ad for The Virginian, undated. https://www.bringfido.com/restaurant/28562 The Corner - Night Photos UVa Today, 8/15/2017. Photo by Kristen Finn https://news.virginia.edu/content/7-resources-help-students-stay-safe-university-virginia Getty Images, undated. Stacy Smith / EyeEm www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/statue-against-building-at-night-royalty-free-image/768014509?adppopup=true The Corner - Night Photos 11/11/2015 https://thetab.com/us/uva/2015/11/11/abooze-buck-corner-edition-1258 WTOP, 4/8/2019. Joslyn Chesson https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/IMG_1941.jpg And elsewhere - Night Photos Undated. https://thestandardcharlottesville.landmark-properties.com/faq-information/ Undated https://offgroundshousing.student.virginia.edu/ BoA 1619 University Avenue: Rendering of proposed lighting. Eye level from behind bank, looking south. Applicant submittal October 1, 2020 Approx. daytime view. Google Maps image BoA 1619 University Avenue: Rendering of proposed lighting. Eye level from behind bank, looking west Applicant submittal October 1, 2020 Approx. daytime view. Google Maps image BoA 1619 University Avenue: Rendering of proposed lighting. Eye level from Chancellor Street, looking east. Applicant submittal October 1, 2020 Approx. daytime view. Google Maps image Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-10-01 204 Hartmans Mill Road Tax Parcel 260038000 Jocelyn Johnson and William Hunt, Owner Melissa T. Colombo, Applicant Outbuilding demolition Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT October 20, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 20-10-01 204 Hartman’s Mill Road Tax Parcel 260038000 Jocelyn Johnson and William Hunt, Owner Melissa Colombo, Applicant Outbuilding demolition Background Year Built: Cottage: Evidence suggests the NW corner of the cottage was constructed c1900-1910, with additions through the 1920s. The east extension and rear shed component was later followed by the rear [bathroom] addition. House: c1873, with ongoing additions through 1920. District: Individually Protected Property Known as the George T. Nimmo House, family tradition holds that the original house--believed to be the northeast corner--was built in 1870, with later additions occurring over an extended period. Nimmo acquired the property in 1873 and tax records indicate three periods of building activity--1873-1874, 1880-1885, and 1915-1920. The original house likely dates to 1873. The periods of construction coincide with Census data showing the growth of the Nimmo household. (Historic Survey attached.) Prior BAR Actions September 15, 2020 – Staff presented images of the cottage and suggested a BAR site visit in lieu of requiring an engineer’s evaluation of the structure. On Tuesday, September 22, four members of the BAR, in two groups and accompanied by staff, visited the site. Application  Applicant’s submittal: Moussaka Design and Photography, LLC narrative and photographs, dated September 27, 2020 (pages 1 through 8) and a plat of the parcel, dated 2007. CoA request to demolish existing, wood-framed, single story cottage. 204 Hartman’s Mill Road (Oct 14, 2020) 1 Discussion and Recommendations After examining the structure, it staff’s opinion that the cottage is in a significantly deteriorated condition. There might be individual components (mantle, some windows, etc.) and materials (bricks, floorboards, etc.) that are salvageable for reuse elsewhere; however, rehabilitation of the cottage—in place or relocated--would require significant, if not entire, demolition, with the reconstruction incorporating a limited amount of salvageable, original material. Staff recommends approval of the demolition CoA, with a condition that the applicant provide for the BAR archive scaled, sketch drawings of the structure—floor plan, roof plan, four elevations. (Note: The applicant has already provided a detailed photographic inventory of the cottage.) Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC Guidelines for Demolition, I move to find that the proposed demolition satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this IPP, and that the BAR approves the request as submitted. ...as submitted and with the following modifications/conditions:... Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including ADC Guidelines for Demolition, I move to find that the proposed demolition does not satisfy or the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is not compatible with this IPP, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the request 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. Proposed Demolition of Existing Garage City Code Sec. 34-278. Standards for considering demolitions. The following factors shall be considered in determining whether or not to permit the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition, in whole or in part, of a contributing structure or protected property: a) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure or property, including, without limitation: 1) The age of the structure or property; Staff comment: Evidence suggests the NW corner of the cottage was constructed c1900-10, with additions through the 1920s. The east extension and rear shed component was later followed by the rear [bathroom] addition. 2) Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; Staff comment: Property is not listed on the VLR or NRHP. 204 Hartman’s Mill Road (Oct 14, 2020) 2 3) Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect or master craftsman, or with an historic event; Staff Comment: Not applicable. 4) Whether the building or structure, or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; Staff Comment: Not applicable. 5) Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty Staff comment: Not applicable. 6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; Staff Comment: The original features and elements remain, generally; however, the structure is in a state of significant deterioration. b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. Staff comment: Not applicable. c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board; Staff comment: In lieu of requiring a structural report, four members of the BAR and one staff person visited the site and examined the structure. d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property’s historic, architectural or cultural value; and Staff comment: The deteriorated condition of the cottage limits its use, whether in the current location or relocated. e) Any applicable provisions of the city’s Design Guidelines. ADC Guidelines, Chapter VII: Demolition and Moving. Review Criteria for Demolition 1) The standards established by the City Code, Section 34-278 Staff comment: (See above.) 2) The public necessity of the proposed demolition. Staff comment: There is no public necessity. 3) The public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected. Staff comment: The Comprehensive Plan encourages protection of the City’s historic resources, One of purposes stated in the City Code section for Historic Preservation is: To preserve and 204 Hartman’s Mill Road (Oct 14, 2020) 3 protect buildings, structures and properties which serve as important visible reminders of the historic, cultural, and architectural or archaeological heritage of this city, the Commonwealth of Virginia, or this nation. 4) The existing character of the setting of the structure or area and its surroundings. Staff comment: At the center of this 3.3 acre wooded parcel is a remnant of George T. Nimmo’s late 19th century farmstead. (See the Historic Survey.) Like the cottage, the residence is the result of almost continuous expansion. Nimmo was a carpenter and builder. The documentary evidence supports the architectural evidence that periods of construction occurred as new space was needed. The site falls away Hartman’s Mill Road, dropping almost 50-ft over the 700-ft distance to the rear property line, at an old farm pond. The house and cottage sit in the center of the lot, roughly 450-ft from the road and 25-ft below it. The City’s 1980s notes a stable and chicken coop, which no longer exist. In the NE corner of the property is the Nimmo family cemetery, in which there are four known graves. 5) Whether or not a relocation of the structure would be a practical and preferable alternative to demolition. Staff comment: (See comments in the Discussion and Recommendations.) 6) Whether or not the proposed demolition would affect adversely or positively other historic buildings or the character of the historic district. Staff comment: This property is an IPP, so demolition of the cottage would affect only the character if this parcel. Demolition of the cottage would remove one of the property’s remaining historic structures; however, the impact is mitigated by the deteriorated condition of the cottage, the prominence of the house and its undeniably unique character, and the parcel’s unaltered landscape. 7) Whether or not there has been a professional economic and structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure and whether or not its findings support the proposed demolition. Staff comment: Under the circumstance, staff suggests that a structural report is not necessary or warranted. (See comments in the Discussion and Recommendations.) 204 Hartman’s Mill Road (Oct 14, 2020) 4 LANDMARK SURVEY IDENTIFICATION BASE DATA Street Address: 106 Hartmans Ml II Road Historic Name: Nimmo House Map an d Par cel: 26-38 Date/Period: c. 1873 Census Track & Block: 4-330 Style: Vernacular Present Owner: Robert B. Gray & Rebecca T. Keese Height to Cornice: Addres s: 106 Hartman's Ml 11 Road Height in Stories: I Present Use: Res ldence Present Zoning: R-2 Original Owner: George T. NillVTKl Land Area (sq.ft.): 2.4 acres Original Use: Residence Assessed Value (land+ imp.): 8,000 + 18,200 • 26,200 ARCHI T ECTURAL DESCRIP T ION This one-storey·weatherboarded house has the rambling form of a house that has grown In several stages and resembles houses a century older. The original section was two rooms with a central hall, Its gable roof continuing as a shed roof over a veranda. There was a separate kitchen a few feet behind the main house, and another room and a shed-roofed end porch were soon added to it; and the two sections were connected, creating a weatherboarded hallway between, as In a dog-trot cabin. The kitchen section is two steps above the level of the rest of the house, and its cell lngs are a little lower and Its gable roof lower pitched. Some years later a much taller one-room addition was built onto the front of the house, with a section of the L-shaped veranda under Its high gable roof. The veranda, with its two-part roof, has square posts and simple balustrade, There are three small Interior chimneys and an exterior end chimney of brick laid In stretcher bond with an occasional random header. The I lvlng room has a fireplace, and the other rooms were heated by stoves. The ornate oak entrance door Is decorated In the manner of late Victorian furniture and has a single pane of glass surrounded by small panes of stained glass. The windows are double sash, six-over-six, except those on the veranda, which are two-over-two. Windows and doors have plain trlrn. A two-room board and batten cottage In the yard was bul It about the same time as the house. It was com­ pletely remodeled In 1974, however, and the exterl�r end chimney rebul It and all Interior fabric replaced. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION George A. Sinclair purchased a 9� acre tract from the easte of Edward J. Timberlake in 1870, but did not receive a deed until 1873, He Immediately gave Jesse W. Nimmo a deed for I. I acres which he and his brother George T. Nimmo had apparently purchased from him previously. The brothers added another half-acre in 1882, and In 1887 divided the tract, with Jesse taking the northern half, on the road, and George taking the southern half, with a right-of-way to the road. Tax records Indicate that a building was erected on the property in 1871, The 1873 deed shows a house on Jesse's portion near the road. Tax records indicate that there was a house of equal value on each brother's por­ tion by 1887, Faml ly tradition ls that George Nimmo built his house about 1870. Nestled in a nicely landscaped hollow, it was the home of his descendants for 100 years. They owned 12 acres when they sold it in 1973. It was subdivided, and the present owners purchased the house and 2¼ acres in 1976. They are now renovating it. Deed References: ACOB 71-413, 68-308, 68-325, 82-93, 100-144; City OB 351-103, 351-108, 378-500. SIGNIFICANCE This Is a small, rambl I ng vernacular farmhouse typical of many others; but, Isolated In a small valley within the city, It and Its environment are much better preserved than most. CONDITIONS SOURCES Fa Ir City/County Records Robert Gray and Rebecca Keese Mrs. Forest N. Morris Mrs. Herbert M, Hammer LANDMARK COMMl8810N•Dl!PAlltTMINT o, COMMUNITY DIVILOPMINT 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 five (5) • Please submit tlln (10* hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application fonn and all attachments. Please Include application fee aa 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 Chartottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name Jocelyn Johnson and William Hunt App licant Name Melissa Colombo Project Name/Description Outbu ilding demolition Parce1Number __�2�6�0�0�3�80�0�0:______ Project Property Address 204 Hartman's Mill Road Applicant lnfonnation Signature of Applicant est that the information I have provfued iii, to tire Address: 418 Bunker Hill St, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 knowledge, correct. Email: mtcolombo@gmrul.com 9/27/2020 Phone: (YV) 540.287.3489 (C) ______ Date Melissa T. Colombo 9/27/2020 Property Owner lnfonnation (if not applicant} Print Name Date Address: 204 Hartman's Mill Road, C-ville, Va. 22902 Property Owner Pennission Of not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:...1.::.·o:.:.ce=l��;::;��.:;;;��"?-rr.F+���-:. Phone:�----'--�--=--a,..,,c...:...L.I __,_,�.........,.........:...------=z../ � rt'&,� -/�� Datlt� lz � Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits o '1""1la; tJ ODH�•� �,w 7,1.l2rt...o l for this project? _____;N;_,;..._____ _ Print Name Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):_ _____________ Demolition of single-story, approximately I 0-ft x I 0-ft outbuilding. List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Proje ct summary with r egards to the de molition request. Approved/Disapproved by: _________ For Office Use Only Received by: _________ ___ Date: _________ _______ Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck. # ____ Conditions of approval: _______ ___ Date Received: ___________ Revised 2016 moussaka design & photography, LLC 418 Bunker Hill Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 ph: 540-287-3489 email: mtcolombo@gmail.com BAR Certificate of Appropriateness Date: September 27, 2020 To: City of Charlottesville Dept of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-970-3130 RE: Demolition of outbuilding 204 Hartman’s Mill Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Property Background Main House (Nimmo House) Year: c. 1873 Zoning: R-1SH Acreage: 3.28 Cottage Year: c. 1873, remodeled completely c. 1976 and 1997 To whom it may concern: We are requesting the approval to demolish an existing outbuilding and old growth tree at the above address. The property is an individually protected property in the City of Charlottesville. General Summary The outbuilding is located directly behind the primary residential structure. The outbuilding is in poor structural condition and is uninhabitable due to mold and a previous septic backup. Per a 1997 landmark survey, it is believed this structure was completely remodeled multiple times. The large tree adjacent to the primary structure and cottage is in poor health. Mitigation efforts over the years have not been fruitful. The tree has caused the exterior a/c condenser to be raised several feet in the last few years. The tree needs to be removed to prevent damage to the primary structure. 204 Hartman’s Mill Rd Page 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902 moussaka design & photography, LLC 418 Bunker Hill Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 ph: 540-287-3489 email: mtcolombo@gmail.com The owners wish to construct an addition at the rear of the existing house at the current location of the cottage structure. This addition is in the predesign phase due to the need of board approval for removal of the existing cottage. If the board approves the removal of this structure, another application will be submitted later for this proposed addition. Please see attached photos and survey for additional information. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Melissa T. Colombo Architect, AIA. 204 Hartman’s Mill Rd Page 2 Charlottesville, VA 22902 moussaka design & photography, LLC 418 Bunker Hill Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 ph: 540-287-3489 email: mtcolombo@gmail.com Cottage view from rear year towards Owner’s bedroom @ Main House Cottage & tree view from driveway 204 Hartman’s Mill Rd Page 3 Charlottesville, VA 22902 moussaka design & photography, LLC 418 Bunker Hill Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 ph: 540-287-3489 email: mtcolombo@gmail.com Cottage view from rear of the property Cottage rear view detail 204 Hartman’s Mill Rd Page 4 Charlottesville, VA 22902 moussaka design & photography, LLC 418 Bunker Hill Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 ph: 540-287-3489 email: mtcolombo@gmail.com Cottage rear view detail Cottage rear view detail 204 Hartman’s Mill Rd Page 5 Charlottesville, VA 22902 moussaka design & photography, LLC 418 Bunker Hill Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 ph: 540-287-3489 email: mtcolombo@gmail.com Interior detail – bathroom floor damage Interior detail – bathroom floor damage 204 Hartman’s Mill Rd Page 6 Charlottesville, VA 22902 moussaka design & photography, LLC 418 Bunker Hill Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 ph: 540-287-3489 email: mtcolombo@gmail.com Cottage front view from rear of main structure Cottage view from driveway 204 Hartman’s Mill Rd Page 7 Charlottesville, VA 22902 moussaka design & photography, LLC 418 Bunker Hill Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 ph: 540-287-3489 email: mtcolombo@gmail.com Cottage foundation detail Cottage foundation detail 204 Hartman’s Mill Rd Page 8 Charlottesville, VA 22902 0 50 100 200 Owners: Survey performed without the benefit of a title This plat represents a current field run survey. z 1----i _INl 1 SCALE FEET William Hunt, III &i Joce 1yn Johnson report and may not indicate all encumbrances on the property. The property lines shown are according to I I I / . .,,., , / t>-L1 H I I / �