CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting November 17, 2020 – 5:30 p.m. Remote meeting via Zoom Packet Guide This is not the agenda. Please click each agenda item below to link directly to the corresponding staff report and application. 5:30 A. Public comment (Matters from the public not on the agenda – please limit to 3 minutes) B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. August 18, 2020 BAR Meeting Minutes C. Deferred Items 5:40 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-02-06 751 Park Street Tax Parcel 520049000 Patrick Tennant, Owner Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant Side porch removal D. New Items 6:20 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-01 731 Locust Avenue Tax Parcel 510026000 Roberta Bell Williamson and Elizabeth Mary Meyer, Owner Michael Pleasants, Applicant Roof replacement 6:40 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-10-02 230 West Main Street Tax Parcel 280001000 Brands Hatch LLC, Owner Frederick Wolf, Wolf Ackerman Design LLC, Applicant Water Street gate 7:10 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-04 946 Grady Avenue Tax Parcel 310060000 Dairy Central Phase 1, LLC, Owner Robert Nichols, Formwork Design Office, Applicant Modify window/door configurations 7:40 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-02 612 West Main Street Tax Parcel 290003000 Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC, Owner Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant New construction of a mixed-use development 8:30 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-03 117 Altamont Circle Tax Parcel 330123000 Viewmont Associates LLC, Owner Elaine Oakey and Lucius Bracey, Applicant Roof replacement E. Pre-Application Discussion 9:00 8. 125 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 90137000 Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corp, Owner Khanh Uong, Design Develop, LLC, Applicant Rear addition and site work 9:20 9. 1001 West Main Street Tax Parcel 100050000 M&J Real Estate, LLC, Owner Ryan Perkins, Kimley-Horn, Applicant Exterior alterations F. 10. Staff questions/discussion Plan for continued CoA discussion Pen Park update BAR Training – explain requirements Preservation Awards Coordinate work session for Preservation Plan Coordinate work session re: Lighting 11. PLACE Update G. Adjourn BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting August 18, 2020 – 5:30 p.m. Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. [Times noted below are rough estimates only.] Members Present: Jody Lahendro, Carl Schwarz, Cheri Lewis, Breck Gastinger, Rob Bailey, Tim Mohr, Andy McClure, James Zehmer Members Absent: Sonya Llengel Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Jeff Werner, Joe Rice Pre-Meeting: Mr. Lahendro notified staff that he will need to leave the BAR meeting five minutes before 7:00 PM for another meeting. There was also a discussion regarding the lighting of the new Belmont Bridge. There was a discussion with staff whether there would be an action with the Belmont Bridge. Mr. Mohr also reported on the August PLACE meeting. There was a discussion regarding codified lighting and making a recommendation to Council. There was also a discussion regarding the items on the Consent Agenda The Meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by the chairman. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda Genevieve Keller – Support of Burley High School. It’s very timely that this be done now. It’s an excellent nomination. I would like to see the football stadium be included as a contributing feature. The football field has been altered with the addition of the track. Burley had a grass terraced stadium. It speaks to the spirit of the place. The football team at Burley High School was one of the best high school football teams in the state of Virginia. B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 The item for 0 Water Street, the Coal Tower, was pulled from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Gastinger made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda (Second by Mr. Lahendro). Motion passed 8-0 1. June 16, 2020 BAR Meeting Minutes 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-08-01 401 Ridge Street Tax Parcel 290273000 Owner/Applicant: Andrew Jenkins New fence 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-07-07 422 1st Street North Tax Parcel 330100000 Owner: NONCE, LLC Applicant: Julie Kline Dixon, Rosney Co. Architects Exterior alterations and addition C. Deferred Items 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 17-11-02 167 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel: 090126000 Owner: Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp. Applicant: Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, LLC Exterior alterations and addition Jeff Werner, Staff Report - Year Built: 1915 District: The Corner ADC Status: Contributing This large, five-bay, two-and-a-half‐story dwelling shows elements of the Colonial Revival style; details include: brick stretcher bond, hip roof with one hip roof dormer, two‐bay front porch with piers and full entablature, and entrance with three-lite transom and sidelights. The BAR previously reviewed and approved the project's general massing, concept and composition. For this submittal, the BAR review should focus on the materials and details, and their application and use on the previously approved form and massing. During prior meetings, the BAR discussed the extent to which the additions and alterations should be differentiated from what will be retained and how there were no obvious transition lines to work with. (For example, the existing cornice line and profile will be continued on addition.) The BAR suggested that the elements and character of the Chancellor Street elevation be retained, with the significant transformation focused on the Madison Lane elevation, which is reflected in the current submittal. The BAR also requested that existing windows be retained, to the extent possible. Eleven existing windows and the existing door and sidelights at the east entry will be retained. Staff reviewed with the applicant the matter of new roofing versus retain sections of the existing. The existing slate roof is over 100 years old and has been poorly maintained. Given the complexity of the new roof plan and the extent to which the existing, removal of the existing slate and replacement with the synthetic slate is a reasonable request. However, the 2 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 BAR may wish to discuss this further. The existing metal roof on the porch facing Chancellor Street is in very poor condition. It has deteriorated and in some places it has been patched. It is a reasonable request. The BAR should discuss the existing hip/ridge caps and ledge flashing and to what extent those elements might be retained/replicated, if at all. For new construction, the use of EIFS and fiberglass-reinforced plastic is discouraged. However, these materials have changed since adoption of the guidelines (2012). The BAR should discuss if these materials are acceptable. Kevin Schafer, Applicant – The renovation of 167 Chancellor Street has had a lengthy process prior to this submission. I would like to point out, per the Charlottesville Special Use Permit process, a Certificate of Appropriateness has already been granted for this proposed project for general massing, concept, and composition. This COA was first granted in April of 2018 with a unanimous approval and was renewed in October. Additionally, we have a unanimous approval from the BAR in October that affirmed the project did not have any inverse or adverse impact on The Corner ADC District. It allowed us to move forward into our November 12th Planning Commission hearing for our Special Use Permit, which was approved unanimously 6-0. In December, the SUP was unanimously adopted by City Council with a 5-0 vote. A preliminary site plan was approved by the Planning Commission on the July hearing consent agenda. This will be our ninth public hearing or community engagement meeting over three various boards, councils, and commissions. The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. The focus of this submission is for final detail and material approval. The proposal remains mostly unchanged from what was approved in April, 2018. We have eliminated four proposed dormers on the new addition, partly due to budget constraints and partly to the appearance of competing with the existing historic dormers, items identified by the City of Charlottesville as defining characteristics of the historic Chancellor Street façade. Window proportions have been improved in this revised submission. An excavated basement that occurred under the proposed side porch has been removed for this final proposal. One of the main comments from our Certificate of Appropriateness for massing and concept was for street trees to be incorporated into the landscape plan. In response, we have added a total of seven sweet gum trees and organized a lay on each street facade. Sweet gums are on the Charlottesville master tree list under the preferred species for large canopy trees. Any single red maple marks the corner also on the preferred species list for medium canopy trees. It was mandated by the Board that the new addition needed to distinguish itself from the historic Chancellor Street façade. It needed to be legible as a new construction addition. We took every instance to subtly call attention to the differences in construction. We’re providing a cohesive palate of simple materials found readily in The Corner District. A red brick, modular in size with a paper cut finish is the dominant proposed material. The mortar is a beige that is well suited for this brick. The proposed modular brick would distinguish itself subtly from the existing brick, both in size and color. The original brick on the 1915 structure features oversized brick, as it was constructed before nominal brick sizes were introduced. The color of this proposed brick is slightly darker and features slightly more color variation as well. It complements the historic brick nicely. The eaves color is a few shades lighter than the mortar color but in the same family. All trim, columns, and railings will be painted a subtle white to match the exterior windows and doors. All existing historic trim, including eaves, windows, columns, and railings will be scraped and painted to match the proposed trim. The windows are a high quality Windsor brand aluminum clad window. The 6 over 6 grilled pattern is comprised of 7/8th inch OG grills and a spacer bar is included in between panes of glass to more accurately portray additional divided light window. A 3.5 inch exterior brick mold has been proposed on the windows to further emphasize the subtle 3 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 differences in construction. If you take a look at the side by side elevation, you can see the existing historic windows is nearly flush with the face of brick. The existing historic structure is comprised of a three width load bearing masonry wall. The windows are installed close to the exterior creating a deeper interior cell. The new brick will be a veneer on wood stud walls. It will have a much deeper shadow line recessed around the windows. We’re introducing this brick molding to emphasize and acknowledge the difference in construction, while still keeping up the colonial revival style. One of the defining historic features of the ground floor windows on Chancellor Street is the curved arch header. We discussed the possibility of jack arches or other decorative header treatments for the new proposed first floor windows. We have presented a steel lintel that allows the historic arched windows on Chancellor Street to remain distinguished. A jack arch or other decorative brick header appeared to muddy the façade, introducing a third header condition on a relatively small scale building. This steel lintel allows for a simple, clean symmetrical façade on Madison Lane, taking cues from a Neo-Colonial revival approach. It could otherwise be crowded with 9 decorative header treatments above the windows. We have introduced pre-cast concrete sill elements in all of the new windows, which echo the scale and treatment of the wood sills found on the historic windows. It is still able to differentiate itself through a material change. Considerations have been given to the depth of the pre-cast cell. What is being proposed is slightly thinner than the typical pre-cast cells so not to overwhelm the historic wood sill. A lot of consideration was given to the roof. Several staff comments for discussion revolved around this area. We evaluated retaining parts of the existing roof. We evaluated salvaging the roof for reuse. Ultimately, we proposed an entire re-roofing with the Bellaforte composite slate for several reasons. The existing roof is in poor condition. The roof is over 100 years old. The hip and eave flashings are weathered and rusting. Maintenance is a challenge. Disturbing the shingles leads to breaking or detachment from the roof. Several areas have already gone through patching. Tying a new roof into the existing roof is challenging. There are only three relatively small sections of roof that could retained undisturbed. We had concerns about keeping a section of the roof intact during construction. We felt full roof replacement would provide a more appropriate, cohesive appearance. The composite slate is resistant to fading, rotting, cracking, pests, and is fire retardant. The 12 inch by half inch thick tile is lighter than the slate. It allows for more of the historic roof structure to remain without reinforcement, while providing a more water proof and more water resistant roof. Regarding the comment on the subject of re- introducing the metal ridge caps, I spoke to the manufacturer. They have told me that it is possible to use a bent metal flashing. The system is designed to work within those. It’s an idea that we are happy to implement if the Board feels it’s appropriate. All materials have been selected for durability, longevity, and low maintenance considerations in mind. While the historic house features painted wood facia, we are proposing five quarter smooth hardy trim boards that are rot resistant and will maintain an appropriate appearance for a longer time. We have selected aluminum clad windows instead of wood. All of this is echoed in our qualm and railing selections where high quality materials have been selected with an emphasis on low maintenance, longevity, and durability. The portico columns are the major focal feature of the Madison Lane façade. We deliberated and selected an endurastone column that is manufactured by Pacific Columns. Information on these columns can be found in your booklet. The endurastone column is a one piece fiberglass reinforced polymer column. RFP is pound for pound is impervious to rot decay, insect damage, and is fire retardant. It’s a column infused with marble dust to improve the texture and feel of the column. Each column will be delivered in one piece. It will be field sanded prior to installation. It will be painted with a primer and painted to match the rest of the proposed trim. The product does have galleries online. We believe that it is a sharp looking product. 4 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 It's not an off the shelf product that you get at a local hardware store. It’s an elevated selection we feel is worth the investment to get the look, feel, and durability that is required. Smaller versions of this same column have been selected for the side porch as well. The porch railing is a durable component system that features integrated bracket attachments to the proposed columns, aluminum inserts, and all top and bottom rails for stability. It is compliant with the IBC, which expands up to 10 feet in length. The exterior material is a weather resistant cellular PBC and a smooth finish. It has a 25 year warranty with virtually no maintenance required after installation. We have appreciated the BAR’s direction throughout the process.. This guidance has pushed the project to retain the defining characteristics of the house facing Chancellor Street, while encouraging all expansion to occur along Madison Lane and towards the intersection of the two roads. This concept is echoed in our details, which focuses on separating and distinguishing the new construction techniques and assemblies from the historic house. The proposal has the challenges of addressing the context on two streets, while also being a recognizable new construction addition with subtle differences in the treatment of our details. We believe we have made the distinction legible but have continued to respect and respond to the adjacent contexts on both sides. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Lahendro – Looking through the drawings I am seeing that you’re replacing the door on the Chancellor Street side and the side lights in the transom. Why? Mr. Schafer – That door is in pretty rough shape. The glass has been replaced. The wood is pretty beat up. There was a desire to get a consistent look in the new doors both on the Madison Lane side and the Chancellor Street side. That was the approach being directed from the owners, who would like to see new doors there. They feel that front door doesn’t really represent the new addition or the quality of it because it has been in better shape. Ms. Lewis – You are retaining the side lights? If you could go through what is being designed there, it’s in a shadow. Mr. Schafer – The side lights would be replaced with new side lights. It’s the same door that is happening on the Madison Lane side as well. The arch opening would be retained and the door itself is 8 feet tall. Ms. Lewis – The transom is going away? Mr. Schafer – That is correct. It would just be the 8 foot door. Mr. Zehmer – On some of your sheets, the door is called out as existing, but it is not the existing door. That might be where we’re getting some confusion. The renderings show it as a door with glass in it. The elevation drawings show that, but the notation says ‘existing.’ There is no notation on any of the plans or anything that says replaces door. Mr. Schafer – There was an existing tag that was erroneously shown. 5 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 Mr. Lahendro – Page D-2, the demolition drawings shows that everything within the masonry opening being removed. Mr. Schwarz – I wasn’t sure if this was a typo. It sounds like it was an error in the drawings. You have a door schedule sheet A.5.0. In the big drawings, this is door type D-2 that you’re going to put in there? Mr. Schafer – I believe so. Mr. Zehmer – On the existing door on the Chancellor Street side, the photographs show a pretty large kitchen exhaust vent. In the new design, it relocates the kitchen. Is it going to be a commercial kitchen or is the intent going to be a residential use and does not require a commercial exhaust vent? If it does, it would be something that would be visible at the roof. Mr. Schafer – It is not a commercial kitchen. There is not a large cooking facility. There is a residential scale kitchen. The existing exhaust vent was there when the house was a commercial catering company. Mr. Mohr – The older house has wood sub-sills on the windows. I am not catching them in the elevations. Is that just an oversight? Mr. Schafer – The windows sills will be retained. They will be scraped and painted. They’re pretty thin. They’re maybe two inches. That might by why they are hard to discern from the drawings. They’re definitely going to be retained. The existing windows are going to be retained along the Chancellor Street side. If the desire was to retain the historic front door that would be something we would comply with and understand why, this being the historic façade side of things. If that was something the BAR would like to see, we would be willing to retain that existing door. Mr. Mohr – When I look at the street elevations, the projection for those wood sills is relatively substantial. They do definitely show up. Mr. Schwarz – Of the new trim and columns, are the columns and railings going to be painted? Or is this a pre-finish that comes in? Mr. Schafer – The columns will be painted. They come unfinished. The FRP with the marble dust will get field sanded before installation. They will get a primer and two coats of paint. The railing will get painted to match that trim as well. It is able to take paint. It’s a material that is appropriate for painting. Mr. Schwarz – I have seen the molding up on the roof of the addition. I have heard the contractor say that it doesn’t have to be painted. All of the nail holes, sealant joints, and everything else are going to be covered up? Do you have a color picked out for the pre-cast sills? Mr. Schafer – Yes. That color will match the mortar. 6 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 Mr. Schwarz – Is that a beige color? Mr. Schafer – Yes. It’s going to be a sandy beige color. Mr. Zehmer – I have a question about the massing. Can I ask a question about the depth of the portico as a detail? Mr. Schwarz – Ask your question. I am trying to figure out what we can do about it. Mr. Zehmer – Was consideration given to making that portico deeper? It seems rather shallow. Street setbacks might define the front edge of the portico. If that’s the case, consideration can be given to have the front wall set back a little bit in that center section to stagger the side a little bit? Mr. Schwarz – I think that gets in the territory of massing. Mr. Schafer – We were pushing up the front setback challenges that we were up against. We did get an SUP for relief with the setback variances. In the booklet, we have a diagram that shows just how extreme some of those setbacks are. That was the consideration. We were asking a significant amount of reprieve. It’s a significant front porch. It seems tough to continue to encroach on that front setback. We are at 8 feet on the front setback. It was approved in the SUP. It is supposed to be something like 25 feet. Mr. Schwarz – With the trim profiles that you are showing on the new portion, which is more accurate? The section or the elevations and the 3 D renderings? I am assuming the section is more accurate than what you are intending to build. Mr. Schafer – The section is more accurate. Which part? Mr. Schwarz – It is mostly at the portico. Your trim profiles are different. It looks like you have simplified and deleted some pieces that were showing up in the renderings. If the section is what we’re working from, I can bring it up again in the comments. I just want to confirm which one we are voting on tonight. Mr. Gastinger – Are you referring to the trim of the porch pediment? Mr. Schwarz – Yes. Mr. Schafer – That section would be the guiding one. I don’t think there is that much variation. Mr. Schwarz – It is enough that it is important. Mr. Gastinger – In some earlier renderings, there have been a water table or another delineation at the base of the building. It seems that there is no differentiation now. What was the thought there? Mr. Schafer – The structural foundation wall aligns with our structural framework wall. The simple background building from the portico was the intention there. 7 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 Mr. Schwarz – The renderings show what are existing air handlers on the Chancellor Street side. Are they remaining there? Is that what I am seeing? Is that going to remain there? Mr. Schafer – The existing air handlers are on the Madison Lane side. They are moving to the Chancellor Street side. That is their new location. Mr. Schwarz – Is there any intent to camouflage or screen them? Mr. Schafer – We can certainly screen them with some boxwoods or shrubs. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – Am I correct that staff asked you to consider having a hipped flashing and a metal band around the base of the roof? Mr. Schafer – That’s correct. Mr. Mohr – In terms of differentiating this addition from the existing house, the existing house is rendered? It has very simple curved arches. The Madison Avenue side seems to be playing to this colonial language. It strikes me that part of that differentiation as reading more commercial than colonial to me. I have problem with the change with the backdoor. The front door is grand enough. It’s not even picking up the window line. I would expect that the porch construction and trim would actually pick up the heads of those windows. That would be integrated. It seems a little stuck on the porch. There needs to be a greater intensity of detail development on that part of the building. It is more public. They are playing that sort of historic game to begin with. My inclination would be to up the ante. It’s not a modern version of a Georgian or a Colonial building. The brick is a little mean in the way it is currently expressed. Mr. Schwarz – If you are going to do something classical, you need to go all the way with it. If you simplify and try to modernize, it’s going to look like a cartoon. It’s going to look dated as soon as it is built. I think your renderings, as far as the trim is concerned, were doing a better job of showing a richness of detail than your sections show. I think the cove profile you picked is inappropriate to this design. I would ask that you reconsider. Look at what you have rendered in the 3 D views and take that back into the sections. You’re calling out fore or fore trim everywhere. What is detailed in the sections, although labeled as that, looks thinner than that. What we are approving is what we see. Make sure that you are certain what is on those drawings. If you look at the pediment, you have an OG probe file on the elevation directly below the pediment. You have flipped that around on the detail section. Little details like that go a long way in making this look right versus looking a little awkward. The viewer is going to look at not understand why it doesn’t look right. It just doesn’t look right. It looks like you deleted out the trim in the freeze board on the elevation. What you show in your renderings is a much larger piece than the little rectangle you tacked on the details. You need to go back and look at the details on this. If you simplify everything so much, it is going to look like a cartoon in the end. 8 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 Mr. Lahendro – There is a misunderstanding with the language of this Georgian architecture when you look at the end columns. That line of the facia should align with the emphasis of the columns. That is the shaft itself. The Tuscan Capital protrudes beyond the edge of the facia. Mr. Mohr – It should turn the corner just like it does in the section. This is feeling more Georgian and more traditional detailing. That pediment is definitely confused. It needs a more robust expression of what it wants to be. The portico is pretty bold. Everything else is too flat for distinguishing it from the old building. Mr. Lahendro – I would recommend calling out Isaac Wares book. It would be very helpful with this design. Mr. Zehmer – In terms of the window treatments, every other house along Madison Lane, aside from the Greek revival, does have a keystone that gives a higher level of detail at the windows. It’s on the right track. Don’t be scared to embellish a little bit. Mr. Mohr – It seems that it needs to be a little more ‘joyful.’ Mr. Gastinger – The upper floor windows do feel jammed up against the pediment. They don’t allow the trim profile to go around the top of the window. Relative to the porch at the end of the building, the lattice work is right out at the corners of the piers. It seems like there needs to be more relief there. If they were pushed back a little bit to allow the pier to be present, it would also show that the columns don’t really align well with the piers. It seems like they might need to be moved inboard ever so slightly to feel like they’re related. The elevation at the end of the building shows that well. That translates all the way up to the second story balusters. From a landscape point of view, I think the trees and the tree selections are good. Thank you for making that consideration. On the Chancellor Street side, there are three sweet gum that are adjacent to the street. There is one in the yard. That one tree might be well to be a different species, since it’s not in line with the others. It might be a chance to bring some additional identity and scale to that façade. Mr. Zehmer – On the south side of the portico, it looks like that is overlooking a basement entrance. My guess is that we’re going to need a railing along that south side of the portico. We would want to see what that would look like. If it wants to be just black and medal and go away or do we want to make it more formal where we have balance on the other end of the portico? The north end of the portico doesn’t have more than a 30 inch drop. It wouldn’t be required there. That’s going to need to be resolved. I prefer the approach of restoring and retaining the Chancellor Street façade doorway. Mr. Schafer – That’s something that we can definitely work with. Does the Board have a preference on the railing? Is there a preference? Mr. Schwarz – I think that you want it go away on the ground level. Mr. Zehmer – I tend to agree. Mr. Schwarz – I want to talk about the roof. I looked at the tiles that you proposed. All of the pictures that I looked at on the manufacturer’s website the in-condition where you have a gable. It was a very odd condition where it looked like you either had to fold the shingles 9 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 down over the gable or they had to have a large metal piece right there to hide the in- condition. I would recommend you confirm what that in-condition needs to look like. If there are other synthetic slates out there that will end at a gable end, I would recommend finding one that does. I could wrong about the ones that you picked. That was all that I could find on the internet from that type. We should discuss how much of the existing metal trim on the roof should be retained throughout the rest of the project. It’s a fairly deep piece of metal at eaves of the existing roof. Mr. Mohr – It seems like a significant part of the character of the original house. Having gutters extend past it does seem a little strange. At the very minimum, it should have the cout flashing. The medal pads are a little weird when you have half round gutters at the end of them. Mr. Schwarz – I tend to agree with you, Mr. Mohr. They keep the ridge hip flashing, but don’t keep the pans down by the gutters. Mr. Zehmer – I agree with that. Mr. Schafer – Would you anticipate that being the medal as well? Mr. Mohr – Yes. The only gable in the whole thing is the front porch. It would be pretty important to have a good end detail for that. Mr. Schwarz – Are we all content with the windows? It sounds like the only concern is that door that was chosen for the pediment side, the Madison Lane side. Mr. Mohr, did you say that needed to be grander? Mr. Mohr – It seems to me that it’s weak. It ought to be a much bolder and grander door. It looks like a back door. The fact that is shorter than the window heads is even worse. The thing with the porch is you have quite a bit of head above the window. You’re only reading that when you’re in the porch and coming underneath all of those windows. You can get a lot of expression with that door. That door doesn’t have enough presence. The porch just sets up this bold language. I think it needs to work its way through the rest of that façade. Mr. Schafer – With it being that high, is that something you go to with a transom above that door. Is that more appropriate to echo the language happening on Chancellor? We have some concerns about getting a door that high. Mr. Mohr – It looks like you have a pretty high door on the second floor. How tall is that door? Mr. Schafer – I think they are all eight feet. Mr. Mohr – The main door looks like it is seven feet. Mr. Schafer – The ceiling height is higher there. Mr. Mohr – A transom would certainly be one way to do it. The building is so ‘regular.’ I would rather see the door the same height as the windows. It should be a bolder door that says ‘front door.’ Right now it looks like a back door, especially given the scale the rest of 10 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 the windows on the floor. It would be a more expensive door. You’re setting up that game to begin with. I think you should follow through with it on the door. Mr. Bailey – Are you saying that transom would work there? That would also mirror the transom now that is being retained at the original door in the back? Mr. Mohr – I think the door will read as too short relative to the windows. I think the door wants to be taller than the windows. Mr. Bailey – The transom doesn’t get that proportion for you? Mr. Mohr – I don’t think so. The door is too short. It looks like it should have a grand door. The door up top looks grander than the door below. Mr. Schwarz – One of the things that might help us study this better would be if you gave us an elevation with the columns and a section through the porch. Mr. Mohr – That would address Mr. Gastinger’s comment about the windows appearing to have a lid on them in the elevation. They actually have the same band height above them as the rest of the windows on the second floor. Mr. Schafer – Could we talk about that a little more in depth? The existing historic windows’ header is right at the bottom of that trim piece. We were aligning the header of our window with that. It seemed appropriate from my perspective. Are you saying that they should drop? Mr. Gastinger – They have very minimal trim. The trim wraps all of the way around. It appears from your sections that this side trim piece doesn’t go around the window. It doesn’t wrap all the way around with the head. I was thinking about all of the windows on the second floor. It seemed squeezed up against the pediment. Mr. Mohr – I really don’t have a problem with having the wide header that captures the legs. That never bothered me. Mr. Schwarz – I think what Mr. Gastinger is saying that the windows have the wide casing. If you look at the section, it doesn’t show up on the second floor window. Mr. Schafer – The intention there was to be three and a half inch brick mold that does not go above the trim line. The windows can shift down to give it a little breathing room. We’re trying to align door heights and header heights. We just have to be careful with how we align that door trim as well. Mr. Schwarz – You have that brick mold casing that goes around the door. I am looking at the elevation. It does seem odd that it is not wrapping atop of the windows. Mr. Zehmer – I get what you are saying about the historic windows. They go right up to that freeze or band board line. Those being single light windows, they are clearly different. They stand alone as part of that early building. I don’t think anybody is going to be confused with these two windows. 11 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 Mr. Schafer – That’s a change that we can definitely make. Mr. Zehmer – It does look like that you do show a railing on the first floor of the portico. It’s more similar to the balcony railings. It could maybe be more subtle. Mr. Schafer – Revising it to make it disappear is appropriate. Mr. Mohr – Is the only exterior lighting the lanterns? There are no recessed lights in the porch ceilings? Mr. Schafer – We are keeping it pretty simple with those exterior lanterns. Mr. Mohr – How about the walkways? Mr. Schafer – None proposed. Mr. Schwarz – Any questions for us, Mr. Schafer? Mr. Schafer – We have some great feedback and good direction. The comments make sense. We’re happy to re-visit the Chancellor Street door, the roof flashings, bring in some decorative brick elements, and tidy up the details. Mr. Schwarz – As you’re putting these things on, use your judgement. Motion: Mr. Gastinger – approve the applicant’s request for a deferral. Jody Lahendro seconds. Motion passes (8-0). D. New Items 5. Submission for BAR Record BAR 18-07-04 0 East Water Street Tax Parcel 570157800 Owner: Choco-Cruz, LLC Applicant: Ashley Davies Interpretive signage and lighting for coal tower Staff Report, Jeff Werner – This is not an approval. There are two components: The lighting and the lighting fixtures. The other piece is on the marker. What is the manner of the plaque? Where will it be located on the site? Those would be appropriate things for you to take action on. My recommendation would be to accept the lighting per my motion. You would just eliminate a narrative marker. We could talk with the applicant about getting that information at another meeting. Ashley Davies, Applicant – I just got the mockups this afternoon. I had them do a more traditional bronze plaque and something a little more modern and more industrial looking. I plan to bring those back to you next month so that you can take a look and see what we prefer. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments 12 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD No Comments Motion: Mr. Gastinger - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements, I move to find that the proposed light fixtures satisfy the conditions of the CoA approved on September 18, 2018. Tim Mohr seconds. Motion passes (8-0). 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-08-02 854 Locust Avenue Tax Parcel 510092000 Owners: Kaitlyn and Alan Taylor Applicant: Ashley Davies Garage demolition Jeff Werner, Staff Report - House: Year Built: 1903 District: Martha Jefferson HC District Status: Contributing Guest House: Year Built: c. 1920 Status: Contributing Garage: Year Built: 1954 Status: Contributing The property contains an imposing two-story painted- brick dwelling, constructed in 1903 for John S. White, a real estate lawyer. A one-story auxiliary building is situated immediately to the rear (east) of the house. The building mass is comprised of a frame guesthouse, built around 1920 according to DHR records, and an abutting concrete-block garage. The guesthouse portion of the auxiliary building may have originally been constructed as sleeping quarters for servants; the 1910 Census entry lists two Black servants in the household: Susie Miller and Clara Wood. Request CoA for demolition of the detached guesthouse and garage located behind the house. The age of the structure or building; • Staff: The 1920 Sanborn Map (below) indicates here a two-story, wood framed structure identified as a dwelling. (In 1920, the address was 876 Locust Ave.) The applicant’s research 854 Locust Ave (Aug 4, 2020) 3 indicates construction of a single- story structure in 1954. It is staff’s opinion that the 1954 structure the garage addition on the east side of the earlier structure. The adjoining shed-roof structure may date to the garage addition or later. 1910 U.S. Census: John S. White is the head-of-household and listed with his wife, Hettie, their son, John, a brother-in-law, Rives Wolfe, and two servants, Susie Miller and Clara Woodson.* 1920 U.S. Census: John S. White is the head- of-household and listed with his [second] wife, Alice, and a servant, Mardine[?] Young.* 1930 U.S. Census: John S. White is the head-of-household and listed with his wife, Alice, and a servant, Rosa Fountain.* *It is impossible to determine who resided in the small dwelling, but it is reasonable to assume that it was occupied. Whether it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or the Virginia Landmarks Register; • Staff: Applicant is correct in that the property and structures are not individually listed; however, they are listed as contributing structures within the Martha Jefferson Historic District (VDHR #104-5144), which is listed on Virginia Landmarks Register (2007) and the National Register of Historic Places (2008.) 1.c. Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect or master craftsman, or with an historic event; • Staff: Not applicable. 1.d. Whether the building or structure, or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; • Staff: Not applicable. 1.e. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; • Staff: Without a physical examination, it is difficult to determine what remains of the early guesthouse or of 13 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 the 1954 garage addition. 2. Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within the conservation district; and whether the proposed demolition would affect adversely or positively the character and continuity of the district; • Staff: Staff agrees that visibility from Locust Avenue is obscured, at best; within a HC District not being visible from a public right of way typically excludes a project from BAR review. However, this guesthouse and garage were identified as contributing structures for the HC designation. As such, the BAR must review requests for demolition. Per the MJHCD map, when the local district was established, 44 outbuildings and additions were designated as contributing structures. Of these, 21 were garages, at least four have been razed. Seven with no description, at least one has been razed. Six secondary structures. Three sheds, at least one has been razed. Two guesthouses. One each of the following: addition, kitchen, porch, smokehouse, and stable. Of these, we have photos of 31 structures. There is no pervasive or typical style, design, or materiality. Materials include wood siding, plywood panels, metal panels, stucco, and brick. Most roofs are gabled; a few are hipped. Roofing is either metal panels, asphalt shingles, or standing seam metal. Some have windows; some do not. At 854 Locust Avenue: The guesthouse is a small, salt-box style cottage set on a masonry foundation and clad with wood siding. At the south elevation is a low porch with the entry. The garage (attached to the east side of the guesthouse) appears to be constructed of cinder block with wood siding on the south elevation. Both structures are simple and unadorned. For both, photos from 2011 indicate the shingle roofing was replaced with standing-seam metal and a garage door added to the north wall of the garage. At the guesthouse, the locations of the first floor windows and the entry door have been altered. (The 2011 BAR submittal indicates extensive alterations to the interior of the guesthouse.) 854 Locust Ave (Aug 4, 2020) 5 3. The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by a study prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant (may be waived if primary residence of applicant); or other information provided to the board; • Staff: The applicant has provided photographs and a brief narrative; however the photographs show only the south elevation. The applicant acknowledges that the condition and/or structural integrity is not in question. 4. Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes to preserve portions, features or materials that are significant to the property’s historic, architectural or cultural value; • Staff: The guesthouse and garage will be entirely removed. 5. Any applicable provisions of the city's conservation district design guidelines. (From the HC guidelines for demolitions: The public necessity of the proposed demolition and the public purpose or interest in buildings to be protected. • Staff: Demolition of the garage is not a matter of public necessity. The guesthouse and garage are locally-designated as contributing structures to the MJHCD and also in the VLR and NRHP listing. (They are connected and appear on the maps as a single structure.). If approved, consider a condition that prior to demolition the applicant will submit documentation of the structures, including photographs and measured drawings. Mr. Schwarz – When this district was formed, residents made a point of picking these outbuildings. Is that documented anywhere? Mr. Werner – That has been anecdotal. What I heard from a former of the BAR and those that have asked for demolitions in the last two years, is that they know what the community wants. I do know there was discussion on what recommended as contributing. Those same structures listed on the registry be listed as contributing for the historic conservation districts. That’s what elevates it. It is listed as contributing. 14 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 Mr. Bailey – Do we have anyone from the public who will be speaking on this? Mr. Mohr – Are there any of those older houses from the early 1900s that are IPP protected on Locust Avenue? Or are they all part of the Conservation District? Mr. Werner – I don’t believe there are any. There are the questions listed in the staff report. As I learned more about this building, I looked at the transformation. It is not the same building that was constructed in the early 1900s. Ms. Lewis – I am looking at the photographs from the 2011 application. The siding and the profile of the building. I think that this was altered in the last decade. I am shocked at what I am looking at. This was greatly altered by the previous owners. It looks that the application didn’t really address much, except for adding a dormer. Mr. Werner – I agree. There is a story to this cottage that’s really interesting. I don’t know if that’s still represented in what exists. What has been the mitigating factor in this is to take a good hard look at those changes. If this was within a historic conservation district, what is being retained? What would be that argument for it? The story is interesting. I am not sure the building retains to the character that goes with that story. Ms. Lewis – It is like we are committing demolition on mischief. The mischief is what the owners did almost a decade ago. The small window in the photograph of existing conditions tells me that it was living quarters. It is the size of a small window you would insert. Inserted windows were in spaces where people lived. I would like to know from the current owners and the current applicant’s rep to what extant any of this exists. Does the owner have any idea what is behind the walls? I agree with staff that it has been altered beyond anything that would look like it contributes to anything or would tell a story. Ashley Davies, Applicant – The stated purpose of this district is to identify and preserve buildings with special historical and architectural significance with the collective character and quality which serves as important visible reminders of the heritage of the city. In our review of the criteria necessary for the BAR to consider this request, we believe the accessory structure, as it exists today, does not contribute to the collective character of the district, nor is it an important visible reminder of the heritage of Charlottesville. The primary structure is a highly visible part of the character of the neighborhood, representing a specific time frame and type of architecture. The historic survey documentation for the property describes the Victorian architecture of the 1903 home in great detail. The Taylor family, as the newest owners of the property, are active stewards of the historic resource and important feature of the Martha Jefferson neighborhood. Over the years, there have been a variety of accessory structures in the rear yard of the property that have been constructed, expanded, adapted, and demolished to suit the needs of the homeowners over time. This adaptation is inherent to secondary structures and allows for some flexibility, while protecting the form and character of the main house and primary historic resource. The accessory structure under consideration is located directly behind the main house and currently serves as a guest house and storage space. The structure is over 170 feet from the public road and sidewalk in the private backyard area of the property. Any visibility of the structure is limited by distance, mature landscape, and the home itself. The structure is one of three accessory structures that have been documented with the property. All were marked as contributing to the district. Tow were demolished following approval by the BAR in 2011. The 2011 BAR approval also included extensive changes to the guest house. The City 15 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 of Charlottesville assessor listed the guess house as being constructed in 1954. While Sanborn maps show the structure has been in this location prior to that time. The size and shape of the structure has been altered on numerous occasions. The structure has been enlarged over time to double its original size. Some additions have been demolished. The interior was completely demolished for modernization in 2012. That modernization also included removal of the chimney, new windows, new siding, a different type of roof, a new roof dormer, and porch columns. No traces of any historic element of the structure remain, other than the general location on the property, which is private. With regards to your question Ms. Lewis, I haven’t seen anything beyond the BAR application. I don’t know about the availability of those. From what I could see, everything was gutted and redone at that point. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Bailey – From the old photographs, there are some charming cinder block that has been painted there. Is that what I am seeing there? The footprint of that cinder block building has been retained as part of the structure. Mr. Werner – The house was built in 1903. In the 1950s, there was this cinder block structure added to the east side of it. That structure got an opening punched in it. It became a garage. That seems to be the life of that. There were four structures there. All we have left is this cottage and this 1954 garage. Mr. Mohr – It is slammed back up to the old house. There are architectural reasons for wanting to move or demolish it. It seems pretty obvious. They have a huge yard. The reasoning behind it makes sense to me. That cinder block is where the gate is now right next to that little window. Mr. Gastinger – This is one of those projects where they didn’t need BAR approval to add onto it. It’s only coming to us for the demolition. Looking at the demolition plan of 2011, there is not much remaining. I appreciate the story. I don’t know what we are preserving. COOMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – I think that it had an intriguing history. It has been pretty much wiped out. We are in a historic district. It’s not visible from the street. It doesn’t threaten the timeline. It does certainly compromise their access to the backyard as it currently exists. Architecturally, I don’t see any strong reason to keep it. Historically, I don’t think there is much left. The damage was done. They aren’t the ones, who did the damage. When the damage was done, it was well before it would have even come under our purview. I think it’s too bad to lose the story of it. 16 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 Ms. Lewis – I did note that the application for demolition supported demolition of the cinder block addition in front of the structure. It said that it would restore the façade, which includes the tiny window partially visible from the street. It is partially visible from the street. This was part of the application for individual designation with the state and national registers. The structure has some history. If there was no support for that at the time of the application, it would have not been included. My concern is developing a policy where we are promoting owners to alter things and giving an excuse to demolish them because there is nothing left of their architectural features. I do support the application. Mr. Mohr – The more common thread is demolition by neglect. That’s the one we run into the most. Mr. Werner – It’s a footprint with some old studs. Mr. Schwarz – If the city is serious about wanting to keep these out buildings, a historic conservation district is not the means to do it successfully. When I review things in a HDC, it’s all about the streets. The impact on the district as a whole versus each individual property. Since this is so hard to see from the street that one reason makes it easy for me to say that it meets the criteria for demolition. You can add onto it. There is not much left of it. If they want to add an addition to the back of the house, they could. Whatever is in that addition, they could tear it down. We have no control over it. I don’t know what the mechanism would be. If the Martha Jefferson District really wants to save these outbuildings, we need to figure out a different plan. Mr. Mohr – With some of these grander houses, we’re surprised about the windows. That really surprised me that it was an IPP house to begin with. That’s the more interesting thing about Locust Avenue. There are a lot of houses there that I would have said qualify as IPP properties and they’re not. Motion: Ms. Lewis - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Demolitions in Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed demolition satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following condition: • Prior to demolition the applicant will submit documentation of the structures, including photographs and measured drawings Motion passed 6-1 Meeting was recessed for five minutes. Mr. Lahendro left the meeting prior to the discussion and deliberation of the COA application of 854 Locust Avenue. E. Preliminary Discussion 7. 128 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 090105000 Exterior alterations and addition • There was introduction by staff on what a preliminary discussion looks like for the new members of the BAR. • The idea is to work the project towards COA approval from the BAR. 17 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 • In the past, the BAR has expressed support for things in the past. • This is a new change in the process of COA approval for the BAR and formal action. • The BAR can take a straw poll regarding certain elements during this preliminary discussion. • There is a good checklist for the applicant to work from regarding COA application. • In the 1920s, there was an addition that doubled the square footage of the historic building. • There has been work for this project the past number of years on this project. • The design maintains the residential feel versus an institutional feel. • The addition is located to the rear of the site. • This addition will not be visible from Chancellor Street. • It will front on the parking area on Elliewood Avenue. • The current building does have several features that are going to be retained and preserved. • The larger addition to the back will include two larger rooms – a meeting room and a library. • The south side of the new building will bump out and will include some meeting rooms. • Materials are going to be the same from the front to the back. • There is going to be a clear differentiation between the old and new building – will continue to maintain the character. • The building sits at the level of the parking area. A retaining wall will be built to address drainage of the building. • Immediate neighbors were notified about this project. • The site plan is currently under review with the city. • There were comments made by the members of the BAR. The comments were positive and the applicants received good feedback from the BAR. • There was an open discussion between the BAR and the applicants about possible issues going forward with the project • There was a straw poll with members of the BAR. There is good support from the BAR regarding this project. 8. 418 East Jefferson Five additional windows • Staff checked with BAR about adding to the September BAR Consent Agenda. • The Renaissance School wanted 5 operable windows where the existing windows are not operable. • There were no issues with the 5 additional windows being on the BAR September Consent Agenda. F. Other Business 9. Belmont Bridge Update • Ms. Janiczek provided an update to the BAR on the Belmont Bridge. The summary of the presentation and update are summarized below. 1. Retaining Wall Striations 18 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 Attached plan sheets 13(2A) to 13(2C) display the proposed panel layout of the three retaining walls, how the striations will be cut at the two pedestrian underpasses as well as the SW staircase and how the striations will be wrapped at the corners. Plan sheets 13(2D) to 13(2I) provide details on the 35 panel variations, their dimensions, and striation relief. Sheet 13(2J) provides further details on the corner detail and its mitered corner. These plan sheets reflect the direction provided by BAR and will be used to evaluate the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Approved Wall System, Category A to be selected and submitted by the contractor. 2) Special Provision for the Retaining Walls Attached is the Special Provision for the Retaining Walls that the BAR requested to provide advisory review. This Special Provision supplements the plan sheets and provides additional requirements that must be met for the City to accept the Retaining Wall – submittals, material/construction requirements, mockups, et cetera. 3) Overhang at the Knuckle The BAR has requested the overhang at the knuckle be reviewed to 1) reduce the perceived heaviness of the beam and 2) visually separate the beam from the parapet. The following measures have been taken to achieve the aesthetic effect requested while maintaining the overhang’s structural design: • Added a mask wall at the west end of the pier/overhang to hide the ends of the beam (Sheet 9 – face of mask wall, Sheet 10 – Section C) • Extended the deck 3” beyond the backwall on the pier/overhang to create a shadow line at the joint between the parapet, deck, and backwall (Sheet 15 – Transverse Section Span a) • Added a taper to the south face of the columns at the pier (Sheets 9 and 10 – shows 3” tapers of each pier) These details have been added to the attached Enhanced Pedestrian Access Structure plan sheets as noted above. 4) Lighting Plan Kimley Horn has confirmed that the pole lights, KIM Lighting Ouro LED, have a minimum 80 color rendering index. This detail can be confirmed on Roadway Plan Sheet 8(2A). Updates to the Plans As the plan set has been refined, certain adjustments have been made in response to changed, existing conditions or due to other technical issues (such as items no longer being manufactured). These changes are outlined below and illustrated in the attached plan sheets. 1) Lighting Along Water Street The City has recently replaced existing lighting along the south side of Water Street, east of the bridge with the current residential lighting fixture contained within the City’s Standards and Design Manual. This lighting will be extended further west on both sides of Water Street under the bridge for a total of nine fixtures. The fixture specification is located on plan sheet 8(2A) and their locations can best be seen on sheet 8(4-2). 2) Lighting at Downtown Transit Station 19 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 The Transit Station has its own lighting fixture on the northern side of Water Street, west of the bridge. One of the existing fixtures needs to be relocated and it was proposed to add one other, new light fixture further east to meet photometric measures on illumination. We have coordinated with the Facilities Department to ensure the current, replacement fixture is specified on sheet 8(2B). 3) Lighting with existing Pedestrian Underpass The existing Pedestrian Underpass will be extended to the east which will require the addition of 2 new light fixtures. When contacting the manufacturer, we were notified the existing fixture is no longer in production. Kimley Horn was able to identify a similar fixture, a we-ef QLS420, which is shown on sheet 8(2F). The project will add two of these fixtures and replace the existing twelve fixtures to ensure a cohesive appearance within the tunnel. 4) Mezzanine Lighting Previously, the light fixture being used within the staircases, the SPI Eco Effect EEG11953 found on sheet 8(2D), was proposed for the mezzanine. To improve illumination and reduce the number of light fixtures by 15, a new light fixture, the Tryg Exterior Wall Elegant, also shown on sheet 8(2F) is proposed at the locations on sheet 8(4-2). 5) Bridge Pier Lighting The locations of the previously approved light fixture to highlight the bridge piers have been finalized and are shown on sheet 8(4B). 6) Landscaping The Tree Commission reviewed the landscaping plans one additional time and requested as many large, shade trees as possible – particularly along South Street. The project team was able to add a few additional shade trees by adjusting the location and size of some trees which also required the adjustment (reduction) of shrubs and groundcover proposed. The species of landscaping proposed within the project remains the same as previously reviewed plans. Landscaping plans can be found on sheets 12(3) to 12(5). 7) Bollards Previously, bollards were proposed in a semi-circular arrangement. After speaking with the bollard manufacturers, it was determined the bollards need to be installed in a straight line to properly protect against collisions coming from the side/off-center. Bollards can be seen on sheets 3, 4 and 5. ▪ Following the presentation by Ms. Jancszek, there was a discussion with questions and answers between Ms. Janczek and the BAR regarding the Belmont Bridge update. ▪ Staff recommended that the BAR go through the four conditions from the COA approval of August, 2019. The BAR and Ms. Janiczek went over those four conditions. ▪ The BAR discussed the different elements of the Belmont Bridge. They did go over the different sheets of the Belmont Bridge plans. 20 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 ▪ The final bridge plans have been approved by VDOT. Waiting for FHWA to confirm and agree with VDOT. 2. Staff Questions/Discussion Charlottesville Coal Tower • Staff went over with the BAR the display on the Coal Tower. • BAR agreed to put on the Consent Agenda for the September BAR Meeting. Letter for Burley School NRHP Nomination • Staff went over the letter with the BAR. • The State Review Board is meeting on the 17th of September. • Burley School is going to be added to the Virginia landmark registry and the National landmark registry. • The designation means a tremendous amount to the Burley School alumni. • The BAR did concur that there should be a specific reference to the terraces and the landscape. Daughters of Zion Cemetery • Identification of 641 graves through the use of Ground Penetrating Radar. • The thought was that there was only 300 graves. Review of multi-step approval process • There used to be incremental approvals. • A year ago, the City Attorney said that there should be only one COA for each project. • Staff have been drafting a different approach to COA approvals. • This is going to be presented to the developers and applicants. There needs to be trust between the BAR and developers. • The BAR and staff discussed what the new COA approval process will look like going forward into the future. • The BAR is going to review the proposed process for approving COAs and the new procedures. The BAR is going to meet at prior to the monthly BAR meeting next month to go over the COA approval process and procedure. G. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM 21 BAR Meeting Minutes August 18, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-02-06 751 Park Street Tax Parcel 520049000 Patrick Tennant, Owner Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant Side porch removal Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Minutes from February 2020 BAR Meeting • Application Submittal CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT November 17, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-02-06 751 Park Street North Downtown ADC District, TMP 520049000 Owner: Patrick Tennant Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman-Dreyfus Project: Side porch removal, new window, new exterior cladding. Background Year Built: 1904 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing 751 Park Street is the only frame Colonial Revival dwelling on Park Street. The two-story, three-bay house is oriented east towards Park Street and has a porch that spans the façade. The building has an impressive classical cornice and an asymmetrical slate roof: its primary hipped volume is interrupted by several gables, dormers, and extensions. The house was built for William J. Keller, a prominent shoe merchant in Charlottesville. Prior BAR Review December 2009 - BAR approved (7-0) a CoA to demolish existing rear [west] and side [north] porches, window and door replacements, site work, and railing and lattice. June 2010 - BAR approved (8-0) a CoA to demolish the existing rear [west] porch, rear porch addition, aluminum window replacements, new shutters, railing, and lattice. February 2020 – BAR accepted the applicant’s request for a deferral Application 751 Park Street (November 10, 2020) ` 1  Applicant submittal: o Bushman Dreyfus Architects submittal, dated January 28, 2020: CoA application, Applicant letter, Drawings and photos (Cover sheet and pages 1 through 7, revised November 3, 2020). o Bushman Dreyfus Architects addendum: Applicant letter with photos, dated October 22, 2020; Dunbar Milby Williams Pittman & Vaughan, PLLC Structural Condition Assessment, dated August 25, 2020. Request CoA to allow removal of the porch, stairs and entry at the north elevation, replacement of the entry door with a new, vinyl-clad window, and, where indicated, replacement of the aluminum siding with painted, wood lap siding. Note: Attached are two letters of support for this request. Discussion and Recommendations In 2009, the BAR unanimously approved a CoA for alterations to the building’s exterior, including removing the north porch and replacing its door with a window; however, in the subsequent work, the north porch was not removed. The design guidelines recommend the repair of deteriorated wood siding and to replace only when it is beyond repair. Applicant proposes to use salvageable material, to the extent possible. Regarding the demolition of the north porch, stairs and entry see below staff’s review of the City’s standards for considering demolitions. Should demolition be approved, staff finds that the submitted drawings and photographs provide adequate documentation for the BAR record. Note: Clarifications per discussion with the applicant.  The existing downspout at the porch roof will be extended down to grade.  See the note on sheet 3 of the drawings. At the east side, where the porch roof extends beyond the corner, the aluminum siding will be repaired similar to the condition on the west side. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed exterior alterations satisfy 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… (or with the following modifications…). Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Guidelines for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed exterior alterations do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC district, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application … 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: 751 Park Street (November 10, 2020) ` 2 (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of 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 Rehabilitation include: D. Entrances, Porches, & Doors 1. The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 2. 4. Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 3. 5. Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 4. 6. Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 5. 7. Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 6. 12. The original size and shape of door openings should be maintained. 7. 13. Original door openings should not be filled in. 8. 14. When possible, reuse hardware and locks that are original or important to the historical evolution of the building. I. Wood: 1. Repair rotted or missing sections rather than replace the entire element. a. Use epoxies to patch, piece, or consolidate parts. b. Match existing materials and details. 2. Replace wood elements only when they are rotted beyond repair. a. Match the original in material and design by substituting materials that convey the same visual appearance or by using surviving material. b. Base the design of reconstructed elements on pictorial or physical evidence from the actual building rather than from similar buildings in the area. c. Complement the existing details, size, scale, and material. 3. Do not substitute vinyl for wood railing and trim. Some composites, including fiberglass reinforced composite, may be found acceptable as a substitute material for a specific application, but must be painted. 751 Park Street (November 10, 2020) ` 3 J. Synthetic Siding. 1. Avoid applying synthetic siding. 2. Remove synthetic siding and restore original building material, if possible. 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: The addition existed as early as 1929. Staff assumes it is original to the house, but cannot confirm. (See the Sanborn Map excerpt below.) 2. Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; Staff: 751 Park Street is listed as a contributing structure to the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District (104-0072). VLR 1980. NRHP 1982. However, the district survey has not been updated and it is unknown how the prior alterations or the proposed would impact the current designation. While the City’s c1970s Landmark Survey of this property and the property’s description in the c1980 VLR/NRHP nomination for the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District were not exhaustive in recording every component of this resource, the fact remains that neither mentions the north porch, stairs and entry. 3. Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect or master craftsman, or with an historic event; Staff: n/a 4. Whether the building or structure, or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; Staff: The house is unique in being the frame Colonial Revival dwelling on Park Street. Staff has not determined if it is unique within the City. 5. Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and Staff: The requested demolition is for a component of the house. While the house is unique, a covered, side entrance is not and, with proper documentation, this element could be easily replicated later, should that be pursued. 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; Staff: While the historical record indicates—in a plan view—that a covered, side entrance at this location, staff cannot determine if the materials and design are original. The applicant has provided a photographic analysis that suggests the side north porch, stairs and entry were later additions to the 1904 house. B. Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one (1) of a group of 751 Park Street (November 10, 2020) ` 4 properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. Staff: This house is relatively unique to Park Street. C. The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board; Staff: The applicant has provided a Structural Condition Assessment prepared by structural engineering firm, which concluded the following: The existing wood framing of the porch landing, stairs and roof are in poor structural condition. The stability of the structure is questionable and it should not be occupied. In our opinion, given the extent of the damage, repair to the existing structure would not be practical. If the structure is intended to be used, we recommend a complete replacement that is designed to be comply with current building code requirements. 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: The existing elements will be removed entirely. E. Any applicable provisions of the city's design guidelines (see section 34-288(6). Sanborn Map evidence The 1929 Sanborn Map (below) indicates a single story structure at the north wall, suggesting the side entry is at least that old. (Earlier Sanborn Maps do not include this section of Park Street.) The house was built in 1904. (The image below is a blurry, but there is a small square visible. The “1” just above it indicates it is one-story element; the yellow indicates framed construction; the “O” indicates the type of roof.) The property is listed on the VLR and NRHP as contributing to the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District, which is taken into consideration for CoA requests involving whole or partial demolitions. 751 Park Street (November 10, 2020) ` 5 Comments to the BAR Re: 751 Park Street, BAR 20-02-06 From: Tim Tuckey Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:52 AM To: Werner, Jeffrey B Cc: Tim Tuckey Subject: BAR 20-02-06 Mr. Werner; We received your 29 October 2020 notice of Patrick Tennant’s proposed renovation to the exterior of his home. We understand his desire to remove a somewhat hidden side porch and unusable door; we also note that these architectural features are not visible from his Park Street exposure and are obscured by vegetation on his Park Lane exposure. While we are pleased that the City of Charlottesville Is committed to preserving the historical appearance of our neighborhood, we also believe that Patrick’s planned renovation streamlines the appearance of his home, confirms the home’s exterior to its present interior layout, and will eliminate the present incongruity between the building’s ornate upper soffit and frieze and that of the to-be-removed lower porch. Please contact me at this email address if you desire further comment or wish to discuss this submission. Respectfully; Timothy Tuckey 750 Park Street Charlottesville From: Virginia Germino Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 3:09 PM To: Werner, Jeffrey B ; patrick tennant ; germino@gmail.com Subject: Tennant family's request I am writing in support of my good neighbor Patrick Tennant's request to demolish the side porch at 751 Park Street. That porch has been derelict and unused for decades, well before the Tennant family bought the property. I hope the BAR will easily grant this sensible request. Yours sincerely, Virginia Germino resident at 502 Park Hill, consenting happily -- Virginia Germino 751 Park Street (November 10, 2020) ` 6 D -163- L N MA K s IDENTIFICATION BASE DATA Street Address: 751 Park Street Historic Name: Keller House Map and Parcel: 52-49 Date/Period: 1904 Census Track & Block: 3-519 Style: Colonial Revi,;al Present Owner: Paul & Joyce D. Fishbane Height to Cornice: Address: 751 Park Street Height in Stories: 2 1/2 Present Use: Residence ?resent Zoning: R-1 Original Owner: William J. Keller Land Area (sq.ft.): 99.5 x 198 Original Use: Residence Assessed Value (land+ imp.): 3270 + 16,230 = 19,SOO ! ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The Keller House is the only frame Colonial Revival residence on Park Street, or anywhere in che historic district and for that reason is of significant note. It was built in 1904 for William J. Keller. The two-dimensionalness of the typical Georgian front facade is nicely con­ trasted by the picturesque roof treatment with the off-center gable flanked by a large revival dormer set in the slate roof. The front is graced by an Ionic Colonial Revival veranda with a modillioned cornice that matches the eave s cornice which continues around the entire house. The dining room wing to the rear of the central mass has a subtly bowed wall which lends the structure an air of sophistication. The spacious interior with its twin parlors set on either side of a wide hall and the stairhall retain much of their original fabric including a fine open staircase. The �use is an extremely important example of the Georgian Revival style, so popular in Charlottesville at the turn of the century. HISTORICAL D ESCRIPTION The Keller House has only had three owners since it was built in 1904. In 1903, William u. Keller purchased a lot which was once part of the Hedges estate from H. S. Hedges and his son-in-law R. H. Wood for $734.35 (ACDB 127-145). Tax records indicate that the house was erected in 1904. Keller, a prominent shoe merchant, resided here until his death in 1951 at which time it passed to his daughter Marianne (WB 7-23). In 1958 it was sold to Daniel Doyle, and his widow Blanche sold it to the present owners in 1972 (DB 340-73). ___ GRAPHICS CONDITlONS SOURCES LANDMARK COMMISSION-DEPARTMENT OF COMMIINlTV n1:"vl"l f"IPMl"l>wT BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting February 19, 2020 – 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers - City Hall Excerpts re: Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-02-06 751 Park Street Tax Parcel 520049000 Patrick Tennant, Owner; Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant Side porch removal, new window, new exterior cladding Jeff Werner, Staff Report - Year Built: 1904 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing 751 Park Street is the only frame Colonial Revival dwelling on Park Street. The two-story, three bay house is oriented east towards Park Street and has a porch that spans the façade. The building has an impressive classical cornice and an asymmetrical slate roof: its primary hipped volume is interrupted by several gables, dormers, and extensions. The house was built for William J. Keller, a prominent shoe merchant in Charlottesville. December 2009 - BAR approved (7-0) a CoA to demolish existing rear [west] and side [north] porches, window and door replacements, site work, and railing and lattice. June 2010 - BAR approved (8-0) a CoA to demolish the existing rear [west] porch, rear porch addition, aluminum window replacements, new shutters, railing, and lattice. CoA request for the removal of a porch and stair on the north elevation, replacing the door on the north porch with a new vinyl-clad window, and replacing the siding with painted fiber cement lap siding. Cut sheet not provided for the new window. The BAR received a 2009 application to make alterations to the building’s exterior, including removing the north porch and replacing its door with a window. The BAR approved this application unanimously, and staff recommends approval of this scope of the project. The applicant also proposes replacing the house’s aluminum siding, and presumably the original wood siding underneath, with fiber cement cladding. In 2010, when aluminum siding was removed to make way for a new west porch addition, the original siding was uncovered but had considerably rotted. As a result, the original siding was replaced with the same fiber cement cladding now proposed for the rest of the building. The submittal does not indicate whether or not any existing wood siding remains, and if it does, whether or not that will be removed or left in place. The design guidelines recommend the repair of deteriorated wood siding and to replace only when it is beyond repair. Staff recommends further investigation to the original siding’s condition before its wholesale replacement. While enough old siding for all facades may not be salvageable, consideration should be given to reusing original material on complete facades where possible. Additionally, should the new siding be installed over existing wood, the BAR should request clarity on how the siding will fit dimensionally with existing trim elements. Regarding the demolition of the north entry and stairs see below staff’s review of the City’s standards for considering demolitions. A. The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure or property, including, without limitation: 1. The age of the structure or property; Staff: The addition existed as early as 1929. Staff assumes it is original to Excerpts: BAR Mtg Minutes February 19, 2020 re: 751 Park Street 1 the house, but cannot confirm. 2. Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; Staff: 751 Park Street is listed as a contributing structure to the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District (104-0072). VLR 1980. NRHP 1982. However, the district survey has not been updated and it is unknown how the prior alterations or the proposed would impact the current designation. 3. Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect or master craftsman, or with an historic event; Staff: n/a 4. Whether the building or structure, or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; Staff: The house is unique in being the frame Colonial Revival dwelling on Park Street. Staff has not determined if it is unique within the City. 5. Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and Staff: The requested demolition is for a component of the house. While the house is unique, a covered, side entrance is not and, with proper documentation, this element could be easily replicated later, should that be pursued. 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; Staff: While the historical record indicates—in a plan view—that a covered, side entrance at this location, staff cannot determine if the materials and design are original. B. Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one (1) of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. Staff: This house is relatively unique to Park Street. C. The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board; Staff: Unable to determine. D. Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property's historic, architectural or cultural value; and Staff: The existing elements will be removed entirely. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Tim Tessier, Applicant – We are definitely looking to have that side entrance removed based on the prior application. That’s the first goal. The siding question is one that we acknowledge. It may require some more investigation. I know when the work was done at the back porch, the wood that was discovered there was in really poor condition. That wood was removed and hardy siding was put back in place. Our starting position would be the old wood siding. If there is any, is likely in poor shape. We would take that off and go back with hardy plank. I think there are challenges with gong on top of wood siding with hardy plank. I think the manufacturer asks for a smooth, solid surface. Furring strips could be used, but you have pushed the face of the siding beyond a lot of the trim elements. In the order of priority, we first want to look at that side entrance and make sure that can be removed. There is a powder room behind that door. A door would not be wanted. If that’s acceptable, we could talk about the siding issue. We don’t want to Excerpts: BAR Mtg Minutes February 19, 2020 re: 751 Park Street 2 get into an exploration project where we start quantifying the siding. The cost would start to skyrocket. Mr. Mohr – The other windows on the house are wood framed or aluminum clad? Mr. Tessier – They are vinyl clad. Patrick Tennant, Owner – We wanted to keep the existing style of window. Mr. Gastinger – Do you know if the exterior walls are insulated and if that’s going to play into the siding question? Mr. Tennant – I have been in the house since 2009. We did inject stuff into the walls. The windows are double blazed. It’s much more energy efficient. Mr. Schwarz – Are you going to put corner boards on? Mr. Tessier – We would likely put on corner boards just to resolve those corners. Mr. Zehmer – Can you explain which area you have already replaced with the hardy plank? Mr. Tessier – The part is at the back of the house. If you have the staff report, it would be the last photograph. It’s the porch on the right. If you have our set of drawings, you can see a close up on page 7 with our photos. That’s a really good representation in the bottom left corner. Mr. Zehmer – And the condition of the wood was all shot? Mr. Tessier – It was rotted out. We could not use it. Mr. Zehmer – Was the original side the same proportion and size? Mr. Tessier – I believe that it was. Mr. Werner – That could be ascertained with looking at what is underneath and identifying the condition underneath. Mr. Zehmer – It seems that the cyber cement siding that you installed was intended to match the aluminum siding. If we are moving forward, wouldn’t we want to match the historic? Mr. Lahendro – I think that we need to know what the historic siding is. I don’t see that it would be an incredible hardship to take off a 5 by 5 area and do some probes on different sides of the house to find out a.) what kind of condition it is in and b.) what it looks like. I would not be surprised that the rear of the house would be more deteriorated the other areas or the other elevations of the house. It would not be that difficult to go out and do some probes to find out. Excerpts: BAR Mtg Minutes February 19, 2020 re: 751 Park Street 3 Mr. Tessier – The existing siding is aluminum. I am imagining a scenario where taking off a 5 by 5 chunks is going to be difficult to go backwards and get it back. Mr. Lahendro – Why do you need to get it back if you are going to replace the siding? Mr. Tessier – I think the owner would rather leave everything that is there. If it becomes an operation to explore and taking pieces, off. Mr. Tennant – The original motivation for doing this is that it is time to get rid of the porch. It doesn’t have any reason for being. I am not sure that it ever really did. I spent a lot of time discussing with my neighbor. We couldn’t work out why that door was there anyway. Mr. Lahendro – Even without the powder room inside of it? It doesn’t make sense as having an access to the open stair hall? Mr. Tennant – There is now a powder room under the stair now. It didn’t make any sense before. The southwest corner was set up for service. There was a service stair, room, and entry. The only reason that we could think there would be an entrance on that side of the house was the owner didn’t fancy walking around to the front. My feeling was that this might be an opportunity to get rid of the horrible aluminum siding and replace it with something that would improve the look of the house. I don’t believe doing this will make a difference to the livability of the house or to the value of it. Given that we are coming back to the BAR to get permission for the removal of this porch, it seemed like a good option to explore the idea. Mr. Lahendro – I disagree with the removal of the porch. I think that the porch has a very good reason for being on this service side. It’s the access for off the road. It’s a street elevation. The porch is ornamented. It was clearly designed to be a feature and facing the street. It’s elaborated and the original owners were proud of it. Mr. Tennant – It has the access from the side street. Now that the house has been reconfigured with this entrance on the back that is the access from the street now. We actually move the door into the center of the house. It’s not tucked away in the back. It’s a very good entrance. It’s a much better entrance. Mr. Lahendro – Just because you re-arrange things in a modern sense doesn’t mean that we can start taking off the historic things that don’t matter anymore. It helps understand the house historically and how it developed. In the future somebody may want to take that powder room out and restore that entrance to the hall. Mr. Gastinger – Is it the porch or the door that is the bigger issue? Mr. Tennant – It’s the porch. Mr. Zehmer – You were talking about livability of the house. How does removing the porch improve the livability of the house? Excerpts: BAR Mtg Minutes February 19, 2020 re: 751 Park Street 4 Mr. Tennant – It’s a porch going nowhere because the door is now shut. Mr. Gastinger – If the door was the issue, we have had situations where we have left a framed opening in place that’s reversible. Mr. Lahendro – I would be fine with that Mr. Mohr – It would be interesting to know from a framing standpoint whether the door was there. When you take that siding off, you can find out what is going on behind it. Mr. Tessier – I think that it would be acceptable to explore the siding in this area. Mr. Mohr – That might reveal the fact that you have a wider weather. You would have to decide whether to take the aluminum off or not. When you said the insulation, is it spray in? Mr. Tennant – I think fiberglass. Mr. Mohr – I am also wondering about the aluminum and whether that’s causing any moisture problems in the back of the wall. Mr. Tessier – It’s possible. Especially when the house was not insulated. Mr. Mohr – You still end up with a dew point right behind it. Mr. Zehmer – In terms of an exploratory probe, you may be able to remove that corner piece without having to remove a huge piece and get a view behind it. Mr. Tessier – If it’s really starting to quantify how much siding is OK, that’s the exploration that owner would prefer not to have to do. Mr. Mohr – If you are doing any kind of modifications, that’s going to give you a clue what’s going on there. Mr. Werner – Removing is something needs to be done ahead of time. The corner board is one question. I have seen in Charlottesville where it’s two. You would likely have a clue to that as the siding was removed. I am curious about the trim condition where the curved face comes into the flat. Is there a piece there? If I could just offer that and any requirements. Maybe there are some unseen conditions. If the hardy plank is installed, it reflects what is revealed when the aluminum is removed. That will tell you the corner condition and the trim condition. Mr. Mohr – You have two inside corners and the bay window. Mr. Werner – You can stipulate that whatever goes back in, it represents what’s revealed. Mr. Tessier – When you say the bow meets the flat, I do think there is a trim there for the aluminum. Are you saying you want to see what happens underneath the wood siding? Excerpts: BAR Mtg Minutes February 19, 2020 re: 751 Park Street 5 Mr. Werner – I am just offering a recommendation as far as the siding is concerned. As far as the siding is concerned, the BAR may consider a condition that those trim conditions replicated what is exposed when the aluminum is removed. Mr. Mohr – It’s not going to mimic the rest of the aluminum trim. When talking about the aluminum, are you going to have to take it up to the roof? Mr. Tessier – That’s the discussion I am thinking about. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – I have some issues with the pertinent guidelines for rehabilitation. I feel that those guidelines speak to keeping the porch. Mr. Lahendro – I concur with the guidelines and feel that they are applicable here. This is not the main façade of the house, but it’s an important façade of the house, facing the side street. The drive entrance side of that street, not only for family, staff, and service vehicles, this was an ornamented porch that was elaborated to celebrate someone coming into the house. It connected with the stair and hall center structure in the house. I believe that it’s an important historic aspect of the house. Mr. Gastinger – I would just add that the choice of having that curved façade on this rear back corner underlines the point that it was an important façade. There was considerable amount of craft and design placed towards this façade. Mr. Lahendro – That curved façade appears to be part of the original dining room. Mr. Zehmer – On the question of siding, I think we would like some more information about the original siding, in terms of its shape and condition. Mr. Schwarz – This does not appear to have the support from the BAR. Mr. Mohr – It does appear to be the way we are heading. How do we feel about replacing the door with the window? Mr. Lahendro – I am fine with that. As long as we can keep the existing door frame and infill it with the window. Mr. Mohr – The door is off center because of the stairs. That seems like a legitimate location. It does imply that the door has been there. Excerpts: BAR Mtg Minutes February 19, 2020 re: 751 Park Street 6 Mr. Werner – The options are to defer this until next month. The applicant can request a deferral, and they can bring it back when they choose. The BAR can take separate actions citing the demolition. If the BAR denies the application, it is appealable to Council. Those are the four options. Motion: Carl Schwarz moved to accept the applicant’s request for a deferral. Jody Lahendro seconded. Approved (6-0). Excerpts: BAR Mtg Minutes February 19, 2020 re: 751 Park Street 7 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include appllcation fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition or a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. M ake checks payable to the City or 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 Patrick Tennant Applicant Name_J_eff � �yf�u_s___________ � � D�re Project Name/Description Porch demo, new window, replacement siding Parcel Number__52 _a0_--'-049 --'- -'--0'-0'-0______ Project Property Address 751 Park Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: Jeff Dreyfus. Bushman Dreyfus Architects best of my knowled e. correct. 820B East High Street Chaclottesville. 22902 · Email: JD@BDArchitecls.com 1/27/2020 Phone: (W) 434.295.1936 x234 (C) 434.242.1322 SI Date Jeffrey G. Dreyfus 1/27/2020 Property Owner Information {if not applicant) Print Name Date Address: 751 Park Street Property Owner Permission {if not applicant) Charlottesville. VA 22902 I ha e read this application and hereby give my consent to Email: donpalrico@holmail.com its s mission. Phone: (W) _______ (C) ______ 1/27/2020 Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Patrick Tennant 1/27/2020 for this project? __________ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate nar rative if nece ssary): Demolish north porch and stair;a replace existing door at north porch with aluminum clad, wood window; replace existing aluminum siding with Hardiplank painted lap siding. to be painted white. List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Photographs of existing conditions; existing elevation; proposed elevation. For Office Use Only _____ Approved/Disapproved by: __a __a Received by: ____________ Date: ___a _a _ ___________ Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck.# ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: _________a _ _ Revised 2016 BAR staff NOTES: 1) On sheets 1 - 7, dated January 28, 2020, note modifications (in red), dated November 3, 2020. 2) See appended supplemental information: Applicant letter, dated October 22, 2020, and DMWPV engineering report, dated August 25, 2020. 1/28/2020 Mr. Jeff Werner City of Charlottesville PO Box 911 Charlottesville VA 22902 Subject: 751 Park Street: application for BAR Certificate of Appropriateness Dear Jeff, Attached is our application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior modifications to 751 Park Street, constructed ca. 1904, per the National Register of Historic Places Inventory for the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District. The proposed change are: Removal of the north porch and stair. Originally the service entrance for the house, the north stair and porch are no longer functioning. The door from the porch into the home is currently nailed shut as it opens into the first floor powder room. The north porch and stair were approved for removal by the BAR at their December, 2009 meeting. For cost reasons, the porch and stair were not removed at that time. Replacement of door on the north porch with a new, vinyl clad wood window to match the replacement windows used elsewhere on the house. With the removal of the north porch, we propose replacing the door with a one-over-one window in keeping with the replacement windows installed previously on the house. The proposed window is smaller than the existing windows, alluding to its lesser importance in the original design of the service entry at this location. The proposed window was approved by the BAR at their December, 2009 meeting. For cost reasons, the door was not removed, nor the window installed. The 2009 proposal included a single shutter to one side of the proposed window; in its approval of the window, the BAR suggested (though did not require) elimination of the single shutter. With this proposal, we accept the BAR’s recommendation and do not propose a shutter for this window. Replace all aluminum siding on the house with painted fiber cement lap siding (i.e. Hardieplank). The west porch addition (approved by the BAR at its June, 2010 meeting and subsequently constructed) required removal of the aluminum siding on the first floor of the west facade Bushman Dreyfus Architects PC 820b East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone 434.295.1936 Mr. Jeff Werner to accommodate the new construction. Beneath the aluminum siding was wood siding that appeared to be original with rot and decay prevalent across the face of the wood siding. The original siding was replaced with smooth surface, fiber cement lap siding with 4” exposure and painted white. We propose using the same material and exposure for the siding replacement for the entire house exterior. At the time of the siding replacement, the original modillion block and dentil cornice will be repaired and repainted. We look forward to discussing the project with the BAR in February. Sincerely, Jeff Dreyfus Page 2 751 PARK STREET RENOVATION APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS JANUARY 28, 2020 REVISED NOVEMBER 3, 2020 SHEET INDEX 1 SITE PLAN 2 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 3 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 4 WEST ELEVATION- EXISTING & PROPOSED 5 SOUTH ELEVATION 6 EAST ELEVATION 7 EXISTING CONDITIONS IMAGES BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS 820-B EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILE, VA 22902 www.bdarchitects.com PARK HILL EXISTING PORCH AND STAIR TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DOOR TO BE REPLACED WITH WINDOW REET ST PARK EXISTING EXISTING HOUSE PORCH F KEY: EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN N 751 Park Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 TENNANT RESIDENCE 1/28/20; REVISED 11/3/20 1/16" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN 1 +21'-8" +21'-8" ROOF ROOF +11'-1" +11'-1" 2ND FLOOR 2ND FLOOR ±0" ±0" 1ST FLOOR 1ST FLOOR EXISTING PORCH, STAIR & DOOR TO BE REMOVED; EXISTING ALUMINUM SIDING TO BE REMOVED WITHIN DASHED AREA. 751 Park Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 TENNANT RESIDENCE 1/28/20; REVISED 11/3/20 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 2 +21'-8" +21'-8" ROOF ROOF WHERE PORCH ROOF AND EAVE INTERSTECT ALUMINUM-CLAD BOWED ELEVATION, SALVAGED ALUMINUM SIDING TO USED TO PATCHED HOLE IN EXISTING ALUMINUM SIDING. +11'-1" +11'-1" 2ND FLOOR 2ND FLOOR ± 2'-3" ± 4'-6" ±0" ±0" 1ST FLOOR 1ST FLOOR NEW VINYL-CLAD WOOD WINDOW TO REPLACE EXISTING ALUMINUM SIDING TO BE REPLACED WITH DOOR. TRIM DETAILS TO PAINTED WOOD. EXISTING WOOD UNDER ALUMINUM MATCH EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE SALVAGED IF POSSIBLE; OTHERWISE, NEW WOOD TO BE INSTALLED TO MATCH ORIGINAL 4" LAP. WOOD TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ALUMINUM SIDING COLOR ON REMAINDER OF HOUSE. 751 Park Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 TENNANT RESIDENCE 1/28/20; REVISED 11/3/20 1/8" = 1'-0" PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 3 +21'-8" ROOF EXISTING ALUMINUM SIDING TO BE REPLACED WITH PAINTED WOOD. EXISTING +11'-1" WOOD UNDER 2ND FLOOR ALUMINUM TO BE SALVAGED IF POSSIBLE; OTHERWISE, NEW WOOD TO BE EXISTING INSTALLED TO PORCH, STAIR MATCH ORIGINAL 4" & DOOR TO BE LAP. WOOD TO BE REMOVED; PAINTED TO MATCH ±0" EXISTING ALUMINUM SIDING 1ST FLOOR ALUMINUM COLOR ON SIDING TO BE REMAINDER OF REMOVED HOUSE. WITHIN DASHED AREA. EXISTING PROPOSED 751 Park Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 TENNANT RESIDENCE 1/28/20; REVISED 11/3/20 1/8" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION 4 +21'-8" +21'-8" ROOF ROOF +11'-1" +11'-1" 2ND FLOOR 2ND FLOOR ±0" ±0" 1ST FLOOR 1ST FLOOR 751 Park Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 TENNANT RESIDENCE 1/28/20; REVISED 11/3/20 1/8" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION 5 +21'-8" +21'-8" ROOF ROOF +11'-1" +11'-1" 2ND FLOOR 2ND FLOOR ±0" ±0" 1ST FLOOR 1ST FLOOR 751 Park Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 TENNANT RESIDENCE 1/28/20; REVISED 11/3/20 1/8" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION 6 NORTH ELEVATION FROM PARK STREET NORTH ELEVATION FROM GRAVEL DRIVEWAY EXISTING WINDOW & FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING ON WEST PORCH ALUMINUM SIDING TO LEFT OF PILASTER, FIBER-CEMENT LAP SIDING TO RIGHT. EXISTING SIDING 751 Park Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 TENNANT RESIDENCE 1/28/21/28/20; REVISED 11/3/200 EXISTING CONDITIONS IMAGES 7 October 22, 2020 Since our initial application to the BAR in January, 2020, we have conducted further investigation of the structural condition and design of the existing side porch and stair at 751 Park Street. Our findings suggest that their removal meets the criteria prescribed in the Guidelines’ “Standards for considering demolitions”. This August, a structural review of the porch and stair was conducted by DMWPV, a local structural engineering firm. The final summary of the report states “The existing wood framing of the porch landing, stairs and roof are in poor structural condition. The stability of the structure is questionable and it should not be occupied. In our opinion, given the extent of the damage, repair to the existing structure would not be practical. If the structure is intended to be used, we recommend a complete replacement that is designed to be comply with current building code requirements.” The full report is attached to this memo. Additionally, upon further consideration of the design and details of the side porch and stair, it is our belief that the porch and stair were not original to the house. •. The house is Colonial Revival in style. •. The broad front porch is also Colonial Revival with Ionic columns & characteristic balusters. •. The building and front porch have a classical cornice. •. The column and baluster details of the side porch appear to be Victorian in style and have no relationship to the style of the front porch columns and balusters. •. The cornice of the side porch bears no relation to the classical cornice of the house and the front porch. •. The roof of the side porch intersects the bowed portion of the north elevation in an inelegant and clumsy manner. This awkward resolution of both elements does not appear characteristic with the architectural elements of the rest of the house. The attached photos show the disparity in styles, and these details strongly suggest that the side porch and stair were not original to the design and construction of the house. The house was constructed in 1904. And while the oldest available Sanborn Map showing the house indicates a single story structure at this north wall location existed in 1929, the map does not tell us if that structure was original to the house or when that structure was built. Assuming that the side porch was constructed in 1904 would be a dubious supposition given the mismatch of the architectural style employed on the side porch when compared to the style and details of the rest of the house. In 2010, the BAR approved demolition of the side porch and stair based on the Guidelines’ criteria for removal. We submit that our current application also meets the standards for demolition, bolstered by the recent structural report and closer observation of the disparate architectural style of the porch. We respectfully request permission to demolish the side porch and stair. Sincerely, Jeff Dreyfus Bushman Dreyfus Architects pc 820B East High Street Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Front porch with classical detailing Side porch & stair with Victorian detailing Bushman Dreyfus Architects pc 820B East High Street Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Front porch classical balusters Side porch Victorian balusters Bushman Dreyfus Architects pc 820B East High Street Charlottesville, VA. 22902 North elevation Intersection of porch roof & north bay. Bushman Dreyfus Architects pc 820B East High Street Charlottesville, VA. 22902 DUNBAR MILBY WILLIAMS PITTMAN & VAUGHAN PLLC Consulting Structural Engineers RICHMOND AND CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 110 THIRD STREET NE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 PHONE: 434-293-5171 KENNETH J. PITTMAN, PE, SECB SENIOR ASSOCIATES EDWARD S. FRAHER, III, PE, SECB DONNA E. ADAMS, PE, SECB STEPHEN D. BARBER, PE, SECB RICHARD K. HAYS, PE, SE, MLSE JEFFREY S. DAVIS, PE, SECB, LEED AP BD+C MARCIN J. KOTAS, PE GREGORY C. ELLEN, PE, SECB BRIAN T. STANLEY, PE August 25, 2020 AARON J. RICKEL, PE ROBERT L. SMITH, PE CONSULTANTS R. LINDLEY VAUGHAN, JR. C. NELSON WILLIAMS, IV, PE Mr. Jeff Dreyfus, AIA Bushman Dreyfus Architects 820 East High Street, Suite B Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: 751 Park Street Side Porch and Stair – Structural Condition Assessment DMWPV Job No. 2008-27 Dear Jeff, As requested, we recently visited the referenced building to review the structural condition of the existing exterior porch and entry stair. Following is a summary of observations and recommendations. The structure is attached the main house along the north side. It includes an elevated landing, roof and access stair. The landing is approximately 5’x5’ in plan. The elevated framing is wood construction. A small brick pier supports one corner of the landing and roof. Northside porch and stair = ïïïKÇãïéîKÅçã= Bushman Dreyfus Architects Re: 751 Park Street August 25, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Guardrails are missing from the stair and landing. The stair and landing framing and decking appear to be water damaged. The stair stringer connections to the landing are questionable. The main beam supporting the stair stringers has limited bearing over the brick pier. The treads and risers are water damaged. Bushman Dreyfus Architects Re: 751 Park Street August 25, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Intermediate wood posts support the stair stringers. The posts appear to be supported by a loose shallow CMU pier. The posts are not anchored at their bases and have insufficient connections to the stringers. The landing joists are excessively notched over the ledger in violation of the current building code. The ledger connection the main wall also appears to be insufficient to support Code required loads. Bushman Dreyfus Architects Re: 751 Park Street August 25, 2020 Page 4 of 4 The porch roof appears to have been leaking. The rafters and beam are likely decayed and water damaged. The existing wood framing of the porch landing, stairs and roof are in poor structural condition. The stability of the structure is questionable and it should not be occupied. In our opinion, given the extent of the damage, repair to the existing structure would not be practical. If the structure is intended to be used, we recommend a complete replacement that is designed to be comply with current building code requirements. If you have any questions or if we can assist further, please contact us. Very truly yours, Dunbar Milby Williams Pittman & Vaughan Stephen D. Barber, PE 8/25/2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-01 731 Locust Avenue Tax Parcel 510026000 Roberta Bell Williamson and Elizabeth Mary Meyer, Owner Michael Pleasants, Applicant Roof replacement 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 November 17, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application (Historic Conservation District) BAR 20-11-01 731 Locust Avenue, TMP 510026000 Martha Jefferson HC District Owner: Robert Williamson and Elizabeth Heyer Applicant: Elizabeth Heyer (via Michael Pleasants) Project: Roof replacement Background Year Built: 1917 District: Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Status: Contributing Two-story, two-bay, hipped-roof, stucco-finished dwelling has central cross gables with boxed cornices and returns. A hipped-roof porch encompasses the entire facade and wraps around the north elevation. The porch is supported by simple Tuscan columns and balustrade. The main entrance is the north bay of the front facade. A two-story addition and attached screened-in porch are located at the rear. (Historic survey with the applicant’s submittal.) Prior BAR Reviews n/a Application  Applicant submittal: CoA application with narrative, roof plan, and historic survey. CoA request to replace existing standing-seam copper roofing on the house as follows:  Main portion: Replace with standing-seam, painted metal. Color: TBD—likely forest green, dark grey, black, or similar natural/ earth tones.  Back portion: Replace with asphalt shingles. Color: Similar/complimentary to metal roof.  Eave mounted gutters and downspouts replaced as needed. Color: Gutters to match roof or fascia; downspouts to be white. 731 Locust Avenue (Nov 10, 2020) 1 Note: Applicant requests consideration of allowing the entire roof to be replaced with asphalt shingles. Discussion and Recommendations Within Historic Conservation Districts (HCD), a CoA is not required for alterations that are not visible from abutting streets. With that applicable here, staff recommends approval of asphalt shingles on the back roof of the house, as noted in the graphic above, which includes the rear portion of the main roof. Relative to the request that the BAR consider allowing asphalt shingles on the entire roof, staff notes that when the district was established, the Martha Jefferson neighborhood identified standing-seam metal roofs as one of the architectural character-defining features to be preserved. Note: The guidelines for projects within a HCD are, by design, less rigid than an ADC District or an IPP. The HCD overlay is intended to preserve the character-defining elements of the neighborhoods and to assure that new construction is not inappropriate to that character, while minimally imposing on current residents who may want to upgrade their homes. Within the existing HCDs are buildings and/or areas that might easily qualify for an ADC District or as an IPP; however, in evaluating proposals within HCDs, the BAR may apply only the HCD requirements and guidelines. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including architectural character-defining features for this district, 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 Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. […as submitted] with the following modifications or conditions… Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including architectural character-defining features for this district, I move to find that the proposed roof replacement does snot satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted… 731 Locust Avenue (Nov 10, 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 (4) Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (5) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (6) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (7) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (8) When reviewing any proposed sign as part of an application under consideration, the standards set forth within Article IX, sections 34-1020 et seq shall be applied; and (9) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Design Guidelines Architectural character defining features: 1. Encourage one-story front porches; 2. Encourage garages to be located in the rear yards; 3. The levels of a building’s stories should be consistent with those on surrounding structures with respect to the natural grade [for example, a first floor should not be raised so that it is higher than most surrounding first floors]; 4. Do not exclude well-designed, new contemporary architecture [there may be a misconception that only historic-looking new buildings are permitted]; 5. Encourage standing seam metal roofs; 6. Maintain and encourage tree canopy [Maintain the existing tree canopy and encourage new large shade trees]; 7. The following Historic Conservation Overlay District Design Guidelines are especially pertinent: a. maintain neighborhood massing and form; b. encourage the use of sustainable materials; c. limit the height of fences in front yards to 3 ½ feet in height. ... 731 Locust Avenue (Nov 10, 2020) 3 731 Locust Avenue TM/P: 51/26 DHR: 104-5144-0097 Primary Resource Information: Single Dwelling, Stories 2.00, Style: Late 19th and Early 20th Century American Movement, 1917 August 2007: John A. Smith, a partner in Burnley, Smith and Burnley with W. R. Burnley, built his house in 1917. The two-story, two-bay, hipped-roof, stucco-finished dwelling has central cross gables with boxed cornices and returns flush with both the facade and all three of the other elevations. A hipped-roof porch encompasses the entire facade and wraps around the north elevation. The porch is supported by very simple Tuscan columns and balustrade, and is approached by stairways on both the facade and the north elevation. The main entrance is located in the north bay of the east-facing facade, while the south bay has a set of three windows and both of the upper bays of the facade have single one/one-sash replacement windows. A two-story addition and attached screened-in porch are located at the rear of the building, flush with the north elevation and much lower than the main mass of the house because of the slope downward. Each of the gables feature boxed cornices and returns and small vignettes. Two concrete block chimneys are visible and the house has a full basement, due to the slope of the rear of the site. Individual Resource Status: Single Dwelling Contributing Total: 1 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Conservation District• Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighbothood Oevelopm!nt Services P.O . Box 911, Crty Hail Charlottesvil�. Virginia 22902 Telepl,ooe (434) 970-3130 PloeM submit� hatd eopia;a and one (1) dig.ital copy of app11cation form and all aHochmanta, P1ea.e Include app0C81ion fee et 10,lowe: New COf\'Stluclion projeci t3?5; Demolition�• contributing 1true1u,e $375; Appeal of BAR deci�°'1 r�dlng new construction or demolition S125M Make checkt peyable to the City of Cllerk>ttesville.. No fee r!9t.1irtd fat: Additions and oth• p,�ectt requiring BAA app,ov•I and not ll.,itd abov•; AdministratlY• approvals; Appeals of BAR dooitione If the original applfoation was not 1ubject to an -.,plication fee. The BAR m&Pls the third Tues.day of the month. Dead!lne tor submitta,is is Tuesday :3 weel(s P(iOr to next SAR meeting by 3·3? p,m, Project Name/Description ParceJ Number Projec, Addressll.ooalion 73) 1ows+ AY'eaue (harlot:\:e">Yi le. YA � oz. 1 OwnerNameElizaWb He,)JeC Applicant Nam• Eli1.,abe\:b '1e:ijer Applicant Information ·r1'ijGonJ"\!f ckau>i� e List All Attachments (see rei.-erse side for submittal requirements): For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by; _ ______ __ Received by: ___________ Date: ________________ Fee paid: _____CaslVCk_ # __ __ Conditions of approvcil; __________ Oaio Received: __________ Rovt..d Apt/12017 731 Locust Ave—BAR submittal for Nov 2020 Page 1 of 2 731 Locust Ave—BAR submittal for Nov 2020 Page 2 of 2 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-10-02 230 West Main Street Tax Parcel 280001000 Brands Hatch LLC, Owner Frederick Wolf, Wolf Ackerman Design LLC, Applicant Water Street gate 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 November 17, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness 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 Background This CODE Building project initially encompassed multiple structures at 215 West Water Street, 218- 220 West Main Street, and 230 West Main Street. The site is now a single parcel, 230 West Main Street. Except for the preserved façade of what had been 218-220 West Main Street (constructed in 1901), the entire project is new construction. Prior BAR Actions (See appendix) * This CoA request was on the October 20, 2020 agenda. Prior to the meeting, applicant requested it be pulled from the agenda; however, staff has retained the initial BAR number, 20-10-02. Application  Applicant submittal: Wolf Ackerman Design drawings dated October 20, 2020, Center of Developing Entrepreneurs (CODE) BAR Amendment Submittal: Water Street Gate: Sheets 1 – 11. CoA request to install a street-level, metal gate at/near the Water Street entrance to the CODE Building’s inner courtyard. (Note: This CoA request is for a separate CoA, not an amendment to the CoAs approved for the CODE Building, BAR 17-08-01.) Discussion and recommendation The most recent, similar request was the installation of security gates at 500 Court Square (The Monticello Hotel), which the BAR approved in January 2019. weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/790279/BAR_500%20Court%20Square_Jan2019.pdf 230 West Main/CODE Building (November 10, 2020) 1 In April 2004, the BAR approved a CoA for security gates in the brick arcade along North 1st Street for the First United Methodist Church (101 East Jefferson Street). For both projects, staff presented the design guidelines for Walls and Fences [from Chapter 2 – Site Design and Elements], which is applicable for this request. Additionally, staff suggests the BAR refer to the design guidelines for Street-Level Design, Materials & Textures, and Details & Decoration [from Chapter 3 - New Construction and Additions]. Staff requested that the applicant provide detail on the gate, including dimensions of the rails and pickets, proposed color/finish, and information on the gate hardware. If the BAR approves the design as currently submitted, staff recommends a condition that the gate’s details be submitted for the BAR record. Note: The gate will likely require an amendment to the Site Plan, including reviews for compliance with zoning, building code, and public safety requirements. Regardless of BAR approval of the requested CoA, construction of the gate will be subordinate to the requirements of the approved Site Plan or its subsequent revision, if required, and/or the requirements of the Building Permit. In the event that those reviews significantly alters the approved design, design staff may require BAR review of those changes. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements and New Construction I move to find that the proposed gate satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted[.] ...as submitted and with the following modifications/conditions:... Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including ADC District Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements, and New Construction, I move to find that the proposed gate does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted:… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application, the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and 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; 230 West Main/CODE Building (November 10, 2020) 2 (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of (4) Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (5) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (6) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (7) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (8) When reviewing any proposed sign as part of an application under consideration, the standards set forth within Article IX, sections 34-1020 et seq shall be applied; and (9) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design C. Walls and Fences 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought-iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction and Additions include: K. Street-Level Design 1) Street level facades of all building types, whether commercial, office, or institutional, should not have blank walls; they should provide visual interest to the passing pedestrian. 2) When designing new storefronts or elements for storefronts, conform to the general configuration of traditional storefronts depending on the context of the sub-area. New structures do offer the opportunity for more contemporary storefront designs. 230 West Main/CODE Building (November 10, 2020) 3 3) Keep the ground level facades(s) of new retail commercial buildings at least eighty percent transparent up to a level of ten feet. 4) Include doors in all storefronts to reinforce street level vitality. 5) Articulate the bays of institutional or office buildings to provide visual interest. 6) Institutional buildings, such as city halls, libraries, and post offices, generally do not have storefronts, but their street levels should provide visual interest and display space or first floor windows should be integrated into the design. 7) Office buildings should provide windows or other visual interest at street level. 8) Neighborhood transitional buildings in general should not have transparent first floors, and the design and size of their façade openings should relate more to neighboring residential structures. … M. Materials & Textures 1) The selection of materials and textures for a new building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. … O. Details & Decoration The details and decoration of Charlottesville’s historic buildings vary tremendously with the different styles, periods, and types. Such details include cornices, roof overhang, chimneys, lintels, sills, brackets, brick patterns, shutters, entrance decoration, and porch elements. The important factor to recognize is that many of the older buildings in the districts have decoration and noticeable details. Also, many of the buildings were simply constructed, often without architects and on limited budgets that precluded costly specialized building features. At the same time, some of Charlottesville’s more recent commercial historic structures have minimal architectural decoration. It is a challenge to create new designs that use historic details successfully. One extreme is to simply copy the complete design of a historic building and the other is to “paste on” historic details on a modern unadorned design. Neither solution is appropriate for designing architecture that relates to its historic context and yet still reads as a contemporary building. More successful new buildings may take their clues from historic images and reintroduce and reinterpret designs of traditional decorative elements or may have a modernist approach in which details and decoration are minimal. 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. Appendix: Prior BAR Actions February 21, 2012* – Prelim discussion of solar panels on the ice park building. BAR offered consensus support, approval pending a formal submittal of details. March 20, 2012* - BAR approved (9-0) the application to install solar panels on the roof. May 30, 2013* – (215 West water Street) Administrative approval of lattice paneling at front patio. 230 West Main/CODE Building (November 10, 2020) 4 May 17, 2016* – BAR denied (3-5) CoA to remove bushes and create a patio space. June 28, 2016* - Resolution of the planting locations. * Unrelated to the CODE Building April 18, 2017 – BAR approved demolition of 215 West Water Street (BAR 17-04-06) and 230 West Main Street. (BAR 17-04-05). CoA reviews under BAR 17-08-01 August 15, 2017 – BAR held a preliminary discussion. No action was taken. Some comments were:  The idea of the arcade/gallery is the key part of this whole design concept, the BAR wants this to be welcoming to all pedestrians, not just the building users. Open it up more to the sky; celebrate it more on Water Street.  Go for higher in lobby area – it looks squished  Massing is sensitive to the proportion of the mall, Water Street, and walkway to the mall  The garage feels out of place, it sticks out from the façade, look at different options  Make sure to take into account soil volumes that will be needed on the terraces if they are going to green occupiable spaces. Keep the heights in mind when designing those spaces.  Keep in mind how the building’s façade is going to be articulated when designing this massive structure (i.e. breaking up the façade)  The BAR is very supportive of the massing submitted at the meeting, and they are grateful the applicant is looking at building it by-right November 16, 2017 – Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance to eliminate need for exactly three stories in the streetwall, and specified minimum/maximum heights allowed for three segments of the streetwall of the façade between the Mall and Water Street. November 21, 2017 – BAR approved the massing, only as submitted, provided it complies with zoning regulations, and approved the schematic site plan. March 20, 2018 – BAR approved the proposed details, including the supplemental drawings* provided at the [3/20/2018 BAR Meeting] provided they comply with zoning regulations. (*Addendum to submittal, dated 3/20/2018, Sheets #1-17). Approved (8-0). Proposed demolition of the side and rear wall at 218 West Main to come back as a separate COA request. This will include options for the treatment [preservation] of the front façade. Applicant needs to provide to BAR information for review, including:  Lighting  Signage  Clarification of the street trees along Water Street  Treatment of the ground plane at the Mall entrance [to the courtyard] and at the parking garage entry [on Water Street]  Clarify adjustments to the bus pullover [on Water Street]  Further development of the roof configuration for the building fronting on Water Street; need to dematerialize the parapet at the uppermost level  Details for the garage door (cut sheet) 230 West Main/CODE Building (November 10, 2020) 5 June 19, 2018: BAR approved revisions, with the suggestion that landscape design add more trees to the mall end of the courtyard. The resolution of the tree grates needs to come back and be circulated for BAR review. Request that applicant assure that visibility issues along steps and edges will not later result in/require the installation of safety marking (for ex. yellow tape). March 13, 2019: BAR approved revisions to the materials and design. (Rescheduled Feb meeting.) 230 West Main/CODE Building (November 10, 2020) 6 ,A/enltj/,ca,ft o-u STREET ADDRESS: 218-220 W. Main Street HISTORIC NAME : Lewis Bui1ding MAPS PARCEL: 28-9.1 DAT E/PERIOD: 1901, 1981 CENSUS TRACT AND BLOCK: STYLE: Victorian PRESENT ZONING: B-4 HEIGHT (to cornice)OR S T ORIES: 2 storeys ORIGINAL OWNER: Alice B. C. Lewis DIMENSIONS AND LAND AREA : 42' x 1115' (2830 sq. ft.) ORIGINAL USE: Re ta i1 Stores CONDITION : Good PRESENT USE: Oriental Rug Store SURVEYOR : Bibb PRESENT OWNER : Butler Griffin Limited Partnership DATE OF SURVEY: Fa11 . 1981 ADDRESS : P · 0. Box 345 SOURCES: City/County Records Charlottesville, Virginia Sanborn Map Co. - 1886, 1891, 1896, 1920 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION This small duplex store building is two storeys tall and six bays wide. Construction is of brick laid in stretcher bond on the .f acade and in 6-course American bond elsewhere. It is painted brick red with yellow trim. The first level storefronts, set within a single mitered brick frame, have been remodeled several times. At one time, both had recessed central entrances. The store rooms have now been combined, and the entrance is deeply recessed in the .eastern half of the western storefront. A stair entrance in the western halt= replaces the original one between the storefronts which has been bricked up. The eastern storefront is recessed and faced with weatherboarding below the display window. At ,the second storey level, the facade is recessed between corner piers. Windows are double-sash, one-over-one light, with concrete sills and lintels. Above the windc,,1s there is a single brick panel. The facade is cr�med by a projecting wooden para·pet cornice with modill ions and dentil mouldings and a plain frieze. Behind it a metal shed roof slopes to the rear. All but one of the sevein segmental-arched windows at the second level of the western elevation have been bricked up. The rear elevation is six bays wide with doors in the two center bays at both levels and 2-over-2 light windows in the side bays,, all segmental arched. Al 1 the windows at the first level have been bricked up. A 2-storey shed-roofed porch cover�; the two center bays. The store room has a patterned tin ceiling and cornice. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION There was s small store building on this lot when Alice B. C. Lewis p urchased it in 1897 (City DB 8-250). It had been built between 1886 and 1891 on the site of a 2-storey residence. According to tax recor·ds and a party-wall agreement (DB 13-62), she replaced that store building with the present one in 1901. Mrs. Lewis died in 1917 (WB 2-97), and her heirs sold the building to Leggett's, Inc. in 1950 (DB 72-311, 155-56, 162-146). Leggett's Bargain Center occupied the combined store room for 20 years. The storefronts were rebuilt in 1971. Waterman Associates bought it in 1980 (DB 411-689), divided the lot, and sold the Main Street end with, this building to Butler Griffin Limited Partnership in 1981 (DB 418-1). They have rebuilt the storefronts andl comoletely renovated the building. HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of appUcatlon 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 Brands Hatch LLC. Applicant Name Frederick Wolf I Wolf Ackerman Design LLC Project Name/Description CODE (formerly The Technology Center) Parcel Number 280009100, 2800010000, 28000 00 Project Property Address 218�220 West Main; 230 West Main and 215 W. Water Street; Charlottesville VA 22902 Signature of Applicant Applicant Information �LI.U'llJ,.•attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: 110-B 2nd Street NE; Suite 201 kr&ll�IA ct. Email: Charlottesville. VA 22902 fw@wolfackerman.com · �- U Phone: (W) 434.296.4848 (C ) ______ Date Frederick A. Wolf Jr 09/29/2020 Property Owner Information (if not applicant} Print Name Date Address: Zero Court Square Property Owner Permission (if not applicant} Charlottesville, VA 22902 I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email: william.foshay@feltongroup.org its submission. Phone: (W) 434.270.8923 (C) ______ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits for this project? __________ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative If necessary): BAR Amendment Submission: Water Street Gate to previous BAR approval for project on May 15, 2018 List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): CODE: BAR AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL: WATER STREET GATE booklet dated 10.20.2020{11 Pages) For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: __________ Received by: ____________ Da te: _________________ Fee paid: ___ __ Cash/Ck. # ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: ___________ Revised 2016 PROJECT INFO CENTER OF DEVELOPING ENTREPRENEURS (CODE) NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: CENTER OF DEVELOPING ENTREPRENEURS BAR AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL: WATER STREET GATE OWNER / DEVELOPER INFORMATION: BRANDS HATCH LLC PARCEL NUMBERS: 280001000 / 280009100 / 280009000 TOTAL ACREAGE: 0.88 ACRE GREGG BLEAM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CURRENT ZONING: D/H - DOWNTOWN HISTORIC SPECIAL USE PERMITS: N/A TIMMONS GROUP CIVIL ENGINEER PROPOSED USE: RETAIL + COMMERCIAL OFFICE FOX & ASSOCIATES STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 2RW CONSULTANTS MEP ENGINEER 11.17.20 WOLF ACKERMAN DESIGN WITH ESKEW DUMEZ RIPPLE ARCHITECT CODE: BAR - Amendment Submittal: Water Street Gate The CODE project – formerly the Charlottesville Technology Center – is well under way with its construction and slated for a summer 2021 substantial completion date. It received its original BAR approval on May 15, 2018 and had a minor amendment package approved on February 19, 2019. As the Board is aware, our project includes a large exterior courtyard and a pedestrian ‘gallery’ in the middle of the building that allows people to pass from the Mall to Water Street through private property. The courtyard and the gallery are an important and unique part of the design. As an urban design gesture, this will help to extend the connectivity and walkability of downtown. Its rare that any private building provides for such public access through its site. We are proud of this feature. However, with such a space - management, security and privacy concerns also exist. Our team is eager to share this space (and the building) with the Charlottesville community, but we also need to provide the owner / building management team a way to control these spaces after hours. With this in mind, we have been asked by our client to design a simple gate located at the Water Street entrance to the courtyard that could be used in some instances to control or limit circulation through the space after hours and overnight. It would be set back from the building face and held within the 21’ wide x 18’-6 high gallery walls. This gate would remain open during operational hours and special building functions as well as on weekends during the daytime. The gate will be fabricated in steel and painted to match all other exterior metalwork. And when in its closed and in its locked position – the gate would still contain hinged egress doors in the middle to provide emergency exits from the courtyard. It simply would not allow anyone to enter the courtyard from the Water Street sidewalk. Access to the courtyard from the Mall side will be managed with signage only, indicating hours of operation. In this way, the private courtyard space remains visually open while the gate at the top of the stairs and end of the gallery (visible from the Mall) indicates that the passage is closed for the evening. We view this as a minor addition with limited impact on the spirit or function of the overall project as well as a reasonable request to help manage and control the use of the courtyard and gallery after hours. We hope you agree and approve as submitted. Thank you. Sincerely, Fred Wolf, AIA WOLF ACKERMAN WOLF ACKERMAN DESIGN WITH ESKEW DUMEZ RIPPLE 11.17.20 Center of Developing Entrepreneurs 3 Gate Location WOLF ACKERMAN DESIGN WITH ESKEW DUMEZ RIPPLE Center of Developing Entrepreneurs Gallery Gate 7’-6” 3’-0” 1” 3’-0” 7’-6” 21’-1” Plan - Gate Open Plan - Gate Closed 8’-0” Top Frame at Door Head Fixed to Main Gate Panel Egress Door Latches at Top Diagonal Steel Tension Cable - 3/8” Dia. Perforated Aluminum at Door - 70% Open Steel Bar Stock 2” x 3/8” Pickets 10’-6” Steel 3” x 2” HSS Frame 9’-0” Panic Bar Steel 3” x 1” HSS Egress Door Frame Egress Door Continuous Hinge Cane Bolt Caster 21’-1” Elevation from Water Street - Gate Closed 11.17.20 Gallery Gate 5 Before Gate Open WOLF ACKERMAN DESIGN WITH ESKEW DUMEZ RIPPLE Center of Developing Entrepreneurs Gate Renders - View From Water Street Gate Closed Gate Closed - Egress Doors Open 11.17.20 Gate Renders - View From Water Street 7 Before Gate Open WOLF ACKERMAN DESIGN WITH ESKEW DUMEZ RIPPLE Center of Developing Entrepreneurs Gate Renders - View From Gallery Gate Closed Gate Closed - Egress Doors Open 11.17.20 Gate Renders - View From Gallery 9 Before Gate Open WOLF ACKERMAN DESIGN WITH ESKEW DUMEZ RIPPLE Center of Developing Entrepreneurs Gate Renders - View From Courtyard Gate Closed Gate Closed - Egress Doors Open 11.17.20 Gate Renders - View From Courtyard 11 GATE IN OPEN POSITION CONTINUOUS PIANO HINGE BENT PLATE AT HEAD 3" X 1" STEEL HSS FRAME EPOXY BOLT TO CONCRETE WALL (CREW) AT EGRESS DOOR MC 3X7.1 STEEL POST ALUMINUM PERFORATED PANEL 63% OPEN PATTERN 3/8" X 2" STEEL FLAT BAR PICKETS EGRESS DOOR PANIC BAR 3" 3" 2" 2" 5" CLR 2" 1" 5" CLR 3/8" X 2" STEEL FLAT BAR PICKETS 3" X 2" STEEL HSS FRAME (CREW) ALL SIDES HEAVY DUTY HINGE WELDED TO POST AND GATE FRAME METAL PANEL WALL ASSEMBLY EGRESS DOOR IN OPEN POSITION 3 5/8" 12 5/8" EGRESS DOOR Plan Detail at Exterior Wall Plan Detail at Egress Door Hinge Gate Closed Egress Door Closed WOLF ACKERMAN DESIGN WITH ESKEW DUMEZ RIPPLE Center of Developing Entrepreneurs Gate Details Egress Door Panic Hardware Perforated Aluminum Mesh at Egress Door Gate Paint Color Corbin Russwin ED5470B - M55 McNichols Aluminum, 63% Open, 5/32” Staggered Holes Powder Coat to Match Metal Fins on Building No Bottom Rod, Powder Coat to Match Gate Frame Powder Coat to Match Gate Frame 11.17.20 Gate Details - Hardware & Paint 13 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-04 946 Grady Avenue Tax Parcel 310060000 Dairy Central Phase 1, LLC, Owner Robert Nichols, Formwork Design Office, Applicant Modify window/door configurations 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 November 17, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-02 946 Grady Ave, TMP 310060000 Individually Protected Property (IPP) Owner: Dairy Central Phase I, LLC Applicant: Robert Nichols, Formwork Design, LLC Project: Modify entries and windows within existing openings Background Year Built: 1937-1964 District: IPP The former Monticello Dairy building was designated an IPP in 2008. The original central 2-story (5- bay) portion of the building, and flanking one-story (7-bay) portions are dated 1937. The east side addition (7-bay) was built in 1947/1964; the similar west side addition (6-bay) was built in 1959. Prior BAR Reviews (See appendix) Application  Submitted by applicant: Formwork Design, LLC submittal, dated October 27, 2020: Cover and sheets 1 – 3 with photos and elevations. Request for CoA to modify the NW corner of the building as follow:  At the north elevation: Reconfigure an existing storefront entry and an existing window. (Reuse the existing, swapping their locations, with the associated alterations to the masonry openings.)  At the west elevation: Replace an existing storefront entry and install a new storefront entry at an existing opening. (The lite configuration of the new differs from the existing; however, the configurations still align with the adjacent windows.) Discussion and recommendation The existing entries and windows were approved as part of the ongoing renovations of the former Monticello Dairy building (BAR #17-09-02). 946 Grady Avenue (November 11, 2020) 1 BAR should determine if these modifications are consistent with the building as a whole and the previously approved alterations. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed door and window changes satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this Individually Protected Property, and that the BAR approves the request as submitted. [..with the condition that the new storefronts match the profiles, dimensions, details, and glass per the CoA approved for BAR #17-09-02, specifically provisions approved on June 19, 2018 and August 21, 2018.] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed door and window changes do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this Individually Protected Property, and that 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. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of (4) Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (5) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (6) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (7) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (8) When reviewing any proposed sign as part of an application under consideration, the standards set forth within Article IX, sections 34-1020 et seq shall be applied; and (9) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation B. Facades and Storefronts 1) Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2) Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 946 Grady Avenue (November 11, 2020) 2 3) Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4) Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 5) Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 6) When designing new building elements, base the design on the “Typical elements of a commercial façade and storefront.” 7) Reconstruct missing or original elements, such as cornices, windows, and storefronts, if documentation is available. 8) Design new elements that respect the character, materials, and design of the building, yet are distinguished from the original building. 9) Depending on the existing building’s age, originality of the design and architectural significance, in some cases there may be an opportunity to create a more contemporary façade design when undertaking a renovation project. 10) Avoid using materials that are incompatible with the building or within the specific districts, incng textured wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding, and pressure-treated wood, 11) Avoid introducing inappropriate architectural elements where they never previously existed. H. Masonry 1) Retain masonry features, such as walls, brackets, railings, cornices, window surrounds, pediments, steps, and columns that are important in defining the overall character of the building. 2) When repairing or replacing a masonry feature, respect the size, texture, color, and pattern of masonry units, as well as mortar joint size and tooling. 3) When repointing masonry, duplicate mortar strength, composition, color, and texture. a) Do not repoint with mortar that is stronger than the original mortar and the brick itself. b) Do not repoint with a synthetic caulking compound. 4) Repoint to match original joints and retain the original joint width. 5) Do not paint unpainted masonry. Appendix 1 Prior BAR Reviews May 21, 2013- BAR approved restoration of windows and new Three Notch’d Brewing Co. patio. September 19, 2017 – The BAR held a preliminary discussion on partial demolitions. November 21, 2017 – Preliminary discussion. Rehabilitation of the former Monticello Dairy building. January 17, 2018 –BAR approved demolition. January 17, 2018 – BAR approved proposed new additions and landscape plan. June 19, 2018 – BAR approved requested revisions, including:  New retail doors and storefront to the east and west of the center bay of the Dairy on the north elevation, and on the west side (10th St.) will be a Kawneer (or similar), 2’ site line aluminum and glass system with applied Bacon Architectural (or similar) muntins in lieu of previously approved cold formed steel and glass Hopes Window system. 946 Grady Avenue (November 11, 2020) 3 Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/757649/2018- 06_946%20Grady%20Avenue_BAR.pdf August 21, 2018 - BAR approved requested revisions related to glass VLT. March 19, 2019 - BAR approved requested revisions. November 21, 2019 – BAR recommended Council approve the Comprehensive Signage Plan. Appendix 2 Images compiled by staff showing approved elevations relative to proposed modifications. 946 Grady Avenue (November 11, 2020) 4 For Discussion Nov 10, 2020 North Elevation Approved 2018 As Built October 2020 As Built October 2020 Proposed Change November 2020 For Discussion Nov 10, 2020 West Elevation 3 J J J Approved 2018 Window type J Approved 2018 3 J As Built October 2020 X Y X Y Proposed Change November o'l'TEsv .�. -islnd� !I/� STREET ADDRESS: 946 Grad y Avenue HISTORIC NAME: Monticel1 o Dairy MAP 8 PARCEL: 31-60 DATE/ PERIOD: • 1937, 1947, 1959, 1964 Colonial Revival CENSUS TRACT AND BLOCK: STYLE: PRESENT ZONING: B-3 HEIGHT (to cornice)OR STORIES: 2, 1 storey ORIGINAL OWNER: Monticello Dairy, Inc. DIMENSIONS AND LAND AREA: .4 acres ORIGINAL USE: Dair y CONDITION : Good PRESENT USE : Dairy SURVEYOR: Bibb PRESENT OWNER: Monticello Dairy, Inc. DATE OF SURVEY: Winter 1983 SOURCES: Ci ty Records ADDRESS: 946 Grady Avenue Charlotte sv ille, VA 22901 Sanborn Map Co. - 1929-57, 1969 ARCHITECTURA L DES CRIPTION The Monticello Dairy Building consists of a two-storey central pavilion, with one-storey flanking wings. It is set on a low foundation without a water table. Wall construction is brick la id in 5-course American-with-Flemish bond. Concrete-capped parapets conceal flat roofs covered with tar-&-gravel. The central pav.ilion is five bays wide. Six two-storey engaged Tuscan columns support a massive entablature with dentil moulding on the frieze. Fluted pi ]asters flanking the entrance in the center bay support a smaller version of that entablature. Within this, there is a rectangular architrave around the round-a rched e ntrance. The original door has been replaced, but the half-round fanlight remains. All windows are jack- arched and have concrete sills. There is a display window with a 12-light transom and moulded surrounds in each bay at the first level. Second level windows are 16-light meta l fixed and hinged s.ash, without s urrounds. The flanking wi,ngs are seven bays wide. Each bay is slightly recessed between piers. Windows match those at the second level of the central block. There is a cornice below the top of the parapet. The western wing has been extended six more bays. The extension is set back slightly from the original and matches it in all details. The front se ction of a wing beyond the original east wing matches it in most details, but the brick is laid in stretcher bond. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION In 1936, the Monticello Dairy purchased a block of 16 lots bounded by Grady Avenue, Tenth Street, West Street, and Wood Street (City DB 910238). Tax records show that the building was completed the next year. It was designed by Charlottesville Architect Elmer Burruss. There wer e extensive additions in 1947 , 1959·, and 1964, mostly at the rear of the building. The west wing was extended in 1959, and the front section of the wing beyond the original west wing was built in 1964, HISTORIC L ANDMARKS COMMIS SION - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � '/73 9//-6 r;-,,.�/ A ve11 «- e. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Department of Community Development Mo;,fi'e el/4 ZJa/ry City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name___________________________________ Dairy Central Phase 1, LLC Applicant Name______________________________________ Robert Nichols / Formwork Design Office Project Name/Description______________________________________ Dairy Market Endcap Restaurant TMP 31-60 Parcel Number__________________________ Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ 946 Grady Avenue, Suite 104, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address:______________________________________ 619 E High St, Unit A best of my knowledge, correct. Charlottesville, VA 2290 _____________________________________________ Email:________________________________________ robert@formworkusa.com Oct 27 2020 __________________________________________ Phone: (W) _________________ 434-296-2223 (C) _______________ 434-760-3337 Signature Date __________________________________________ Robert F. Nichols Oct 27 2020 Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date 200 Garrett Street, Suite O Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) _____________________________________________ Charlottesville, VA 22902 I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:________________________________________ its submission. chenry@stonypointdg.com Phone: (W) _________________ 540-353-0183 (C) _______________ 10/27/2020 _ __________________________________________ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Christopher A. Henry 10.27.2020 _________________________________________ for this project? _______________________ No Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Modify window/door configurations within existing masonry openings. Current state of design recently approved by BAR ______________________________________________________________________________________________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Design proposal package, PDF, 11x17, 5 pages ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ 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 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. DAIRY CENTRAL 946 GRADY AVENUE CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AMENDMENT TO APPROVED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED OCTOBER 27, 2020 © 2020 FORMWORK DESIGN LLC EXISTING GRADY AVENUE FACADE EXISTING 10th STREET FACADE DAIRY CENTRAL 946 GRADY AVENUE EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 10/27/20 PROPOSED EXISTING OPENINGS TO BE RECONFIGURED EXISTING GRADY AVENUE FACADE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION PROPOSED CHANGE TO GRADY AVENUE FACADE WEST SIDE OF GRADY FACADE (PROPOSED) DAIRY CENTRAL 946 GRADY AVENUE PROPOSED GRADY / NORTH FACADE CHANGE 2 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 10/27/20 EQUAL (EXISTING) EXISTING GRADY AVENUE FACADE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION PROPOSED CHANGE TO 10th STREET FACADE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION PROPOSED GRADY AVENUE FACADE DAIRY CENTRAL 946 GRADY AVENUE PROPOSED 10th STREET / WEST FACADE CHANGE 3 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 10/27/20 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-02 612 West Main Street Tax Parcel 290003000 Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC, Owner Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant New construction of a mixed-use development 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 November 17, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-03 602-616 West Main (612 West Main), TMP 290003000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Jeff Levine, Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman-Dreyfus Project: New, mixed-use building Background (existing building) Year Built: 1959-1973 (concrete block automotive service building) District: West Main Street ADC District Status: Non-contributing Prior BAR Reviews April 16, 2019 - BAR discussion Meeting minutes: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/792643/2019- 04_Meeting%20Minutes_BAR.pdf June 18, 2019 – BAR recommended approval of Special Use Permit for additional residential density, that the redevelopment will not have an adverse impact on the West Main Street ADC District, with the understanding that the massing is not final, and must be further discussed, and [will require] a complete full design review at future BAR meeting(s) and propose the following conditions [for the SUP]:  Garage entry shall not be accessed directly from the building’s street wall along West Main Street;  The building’s mass shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation;  The building and massing refer to the historic building.  The Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction;  There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. 612 West Main Street (Nov 11, 2020) 1 Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791150/BAR_612%20West%20Main%20Street_Ju ne2019_SUP%20Application.pdf Meeting minutes: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/792645/2019- 06_Meeting%20Minutes_BAR.pdf Note: On October 7, 2019, Council approved the SUP. (See the Appendix.) Under the Discussion, staff summarizes the BAR’s recommendations and their inclusion in the SUP.) January 22, 2020 – BAR discussion Meeting minutes: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793996/2020- 01_Meeting%20Minutes_BAR.pdf Application  Applicant submitted: Bushman Dreyfus Architects drawings for 612 W. Main Street, dated November 10, 2020: Sheets 1 – 15. CoA request for construction of a new, four-story mixed-use building. (The existing service station is a non-contributing structure; therefore, its demolition does not require a CoA.) Note: At three prior meetings (see above), the BAR discussed this project with the applicants, satisfying the statutory requirements for a pre-application conference per City Code section Sec. 34- 282(c)(4). This application is a formal request for a CoA and, per Sec. 34-285, the BAR must take action within sixty days of the submittal deadline. At this meeting, the BAR may defer the item to the next meeting; however, at that next meeting, only the applicant may request a deferral. Absent that request, the BAR must take action to approve, deny, or approve with conditions the CoA. Discussion While this is a formal CoA request, the applicant has acknowledged that this meeting—and, possibly, subsequent meetings—will be treated as an intermediate review and that no formal BAR action will be taken. However, by consensus the BAR may express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR may take a non-binding vote to express support, opposition, or even questions and concerns regarding the project’s likelihood for an approved CoA. 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 final 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 towards an approved CoA.) This is an iterative process. The key objective of this—and any subsequent--intermediate review is to allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a submittal that provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project and take formal action on the CoA request. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements and Chapter III--New Construction and Additions. 612 West Main Street (Nov 11, 2020) 2 Of particular assistance for this discussion are the criteria in Chapter III:  Setback, including landscaping and  Windows and Doors site improvements  Street-Level Design  Spacing  Foundation and Cornice  Massing and Footprint  Materials and Textures  Height and Width  Paint [Color palette]  Scale  Details and Decoration, including  Roof lighting and signage  Orientation BAR recommendations as incorporated into the Special Use Permit (SUP)  Garage entry shall not be accessed directly from the building’s street wall along West Main Street o SUP item 1.e: […] No direct access shall be provided into the underground parking from the Building’s street wall along West Main Street.  The building’s mass shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation; and  The building and massing refer to the historic building. o SUP item 2: The mass of the Building shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation. The Building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side.  The Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction; o SUP item 4: The Landowner (including, without limitation, any person who is an agent, assignee, transferee or successor in interest to the Landowner) shall prepare a Protective Plan for the Rufus Holsinger Building located on property adjacent to the Subject Property at 620- 624 West Main Street (“Holsinger Building” or “Adjacent Property”). […]  There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level; o SUP item 3: There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. Suggested Motions Staff recommends no formal action, except to either defer this item to the December BAR 15, 2020 meeting or accept the applicant’s request for deferral. (With an applicant’s deferral, there is no calendar requirement for when the application returns to the BAR.) 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. 612 West Main Street (Nov 11, 2020) 3 Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter II – Site Design and Elements Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Appendix Resolution Approving a Special Use Permit To Allow High Density Residential Development for Property Located At 602-616 West Main Street Approved by Council, October 7, 2019 http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791739/20191007Oct07.pdf WHEREAS, landowner Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase, LLC is the current owner of a lot identified on 2019 City Tax Map 29 as Parcel 3 (City Parcel Identification No. (290003000) (the “Subject Property”), and pursuant to City Code §34-641, the landowner proposes to redevelop the Subject Property by constructing a mixed use building on the Subject Property (“Project”), containing residential dwelling units at a density of up to 120 dwelling units per acre (“DUA”); and WHEREAS, the Project is described within the Applicant’s application materials dated May 14, 2019 submitted in connection with SP19-00003, including, without limitation, a narrative statement dated May 14, 2019, and a preliminary site plan dated May 13, 2019, as required by City Code §34- 158 (collectively, the “Application Materials”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Application Materials, and the City’s Staff Report, and subsequent to a joint public hearing, duly advertised and conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council on August 13, 2019, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council should approve the requested special use permit, to allow residential density up to 120 dwelling units per acre (DUA), subject to certain suitable conditions and safeguards recommended by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the comments received during the joint public hearing, the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and the Staff Reports discussing this application, as well as the factors set forth within Sec. 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, this Council finds and determines that granting the proposed Special Use subject to suitable conditions would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; now, therefore, 612 West Main Street (Nov 11, 2020) 4 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that, pursuant to City Code §§ 34-641, a special use permit is hereby approved and granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The specific development being approved by this special use permit (“Project”), as described within the site plan exhibit required by City Code §34-158(a)(1), shall have the following minimum attributes/ characteristics: a. Not more than one building shall be constructed on the Subject Property (the “Building”). The Building shall be a Mixed Use Building. b. The Building shall not exceed a height of four (4) stories. c. The Building shall contain no more than 55 dwelling units. d. The Building shall contain space to be occupied and used for retail uses, which shall be located on the ground floor of the Building facing West Main Street. The square footage of this retail space shall be at least the minimum required by the City’s zoning ordinance. e. Underground parking shall be provided within a parking garage structure constructed underneath the Building serving the use and occupancy of the Building. All parking required for the Project pursuant to the City’s zoning ordinance shall be located on-site. All parking required pursuant to the ordinance for the Project shall be maximized onsite to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. No direct access shall be provided into the underground parking from the Building’s street wall along West Main Street. 2. The mass of the Building shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation. The Building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side. 3. There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. 4. The Landowner (including, without limitation, any person who is an agent, assignee, transferee or successor in interest to the Landowner) shall prepare a Protective Plan for the Rufus Holsinger Building located on property adjacent to the Subject Property at 620- 624 West Main Street (“Holsinger Building” or “Adjacent Property”). The Protective Plan shall provide for baseline documentation, ongoing monitoring, and specific safeguards to prevent damage to the Holsinger Building, and the Landowner shall implement the Protective Plan during all excavation, demolition and construction activities within the Subject Property (“Development Site”). At minimum, the Protective Plan shall include the following: a. Baseline Survey—Landowner shall document the existing condition of the Holsinger Building (“Baseline Survey”). The Baseline Survey shall take the form of written descriptions, and visual documentation which shall include color photographs and/or video recordings. The Baseline Survey shall document the existing conditions observable on the interior and exterior of the Holsinger Building, with close-up images of cracks, staining, indications of existing settlement, and other fragile conditions that are observable. 612 West Main Street (Nov 11, 2020) 5 The Landowner shall engage an independent third party structural engineering firm (one who has not participated in the design of the Landowner’s Project or preparation of demolition or construction plans for the Landowner, and who has expertise in the impact of seismic activity on historic structures) and shall bear the cost of the Baseline Survey and preparation of a written report thereof. The Landowner and the Owner of the Holsinger Building (“Adjacent Landowner”) may both have representatives present during the process of surveying and documenting the existing conditions. A copy of a completed written Baseline Survey Report shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner, and the Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Baseline Survey Report and return any comments to the Landowner. b. Protective Plan--The Landowner shall engage the engineer who performed the Baseline Survey to prepare a Protective Plan to be followed by all persons performing work within the Development Site, that may include seismic monitoring or other specific monitoring measures of the Adjacent Property if recommended by the engineer preparing the Protective Plan, and minimally shall include installation of at least five crack monitors. Engineer shall inspect and take readings of crack monitors at least weekly during ground disturbance demolition and construction activities. Reports of monitor readings shall be submitted to the city building official and Adjacent Landowner within two days of inspection. A copy of the Protective Plan shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner. The Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Report and return any comments to the Landowner. c. Advance notice of commencement of activity--The Adjacent Landowner shall be given 14 days’ advance written notice of commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and of commencement of construction at the Development Site. This notice shall include the name, mobile phone number, and email address of the construction supervisor(s) who will be present on the Development Site and who may be contacted by the Adjacent Landowner regarding impacts of demolition or construction on the Adjacent Property. The Landowner shall also offer the Adjacent Landowner an opportunity to have meetings: (i) prior to commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and (ii) at least fourteen (14) days prior to commencement of construction at the Development Site, on days/ times reasonably agreed to by both parties. During any such preconstruction meeting, the Adjacent Landowner will be provided information as to the nature and duration of the demolition or construction activity and the Landowner will review the Protective Plan as it will apply to the activities to be commenced. d. Permits--No demolition or building permit, and no land disturbing permit, shall be approved or issued to the Landowner, until the Landowner provides to the department of neighborhood development services: (i) copies of the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan, and NDS verifies that these documents satisfy the requirements of these SUP Conditions, (ii) documentation that the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan were given to the Adjacent Landowner in accordance with these SUP Conditions. -end- 612 West Main Street (Nov 11, 2020) 6 STREET ADDRESS: 602-616 West Main Street MAP & PARCEL: 29-3 FILE NUMBER: 693 PRESENT ZONING: B-3 ORIGINAL OWNER: Hoff Motor Co., Inc., ORIGINAL USE: Automobile Repair Shop & Service Station PRESENT USE: Automobile Repair Shop & Service Station PRESENT OWNER: Hoff Motor Co., Inc. ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 8052 Charlottesville, VA 22906 HISTORIC NAME: Hoff Motor Co. Garage DATE/PERIOD: 1959, 1968, 1973 STYLE: .Post-Modem- l�r /lrzce<,,lar HEIGHT (to cornice) OR STORIES: One Story DIMENSIONS AND LAND AREA: 161' x 117.5' (19,790 sq. ft.) CONDITION: Good SURVEYOR: Bibb DATE OF SURVEY: Spring 1995 SOURCES: City Records Sanborn Map Co. - 1896, 1920 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION -fl, ,.. e. -f_ Built in severa stages, this one-storey, flat-roofed automotive building is of cinderlock construction a is painted white. The eastern half of the facade is four bays wide and originally had a small entrance door (now boarded up) in the eastern bay and garage doors in the other tree The eastern-most garage door opening has now been filled with an entrance door and large display window. The western half of the facade and part of the western end are covered by a stock 1970's Shell Station facade: a shingled pentroof covers the parapet. In front of it is a wide and low-pitched gable. Below, it another low-pitched gable is centered over the western bay, which contains an entrance door and a plate glass display window which is repeated in the first bay of the western elevation. The other three bays of this half of the facade contain garage doors. Brick iers se arate the bays. The entire lot is pace he three houses were demolished over the 1955-1958 period. The western sec on o the present building was erected c. 1958 and was given a new facade by the She,f Oil Co. in 1973. The eastern section of the building was probably added c. 1960 and tias been occupied byMorris Tire Service since the late 1960's. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION i -i?ir'ef / This lot encompasses the site ofcifili)late 19th century houses an�. P. Carver's Coal !and Wood Yard. There was already a used car lot on part of the P)"98erty when Hoff Motor e Chrysler-Plymouth dealer a block east, purchased it in 195�City DB 180-122). �� Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name___________________________________ Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant Name______________________________________ Jeffrey S Levien Project Name/Description______________________________________ New construction of a mixed use development 290003000 Parcel Number__________________________ Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ 602 - 616 West Main Street Signature of Applicant Applicant Information Jeff Dreyfus I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address:______________________________________ Bushman Dreyfus Architects pc best of my knowledge, correct. _____________________________________________ 820B East High Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Email:________________________________________ jd@bdarchitects.com October 27, 2020 __________________________________________ Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ 434-242-1322 Signature Date Jeffrey G. Dreyfus October 27, 2020 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date 178 Columbus Ave., #231409 Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) _____________________________________________ New York, NY 10023 I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:________________________________________ jeff@levien3.com its submission. Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ 917-612-0636 _ __________________________________________ October 27, 2020 Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Jeffrey Levien October 27 2020 _________________________________________ for this project? _______________________ No Print Name Date Construction of a new mixed use development. Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Background project information; images from previous preliminary design discussions with the BAR; new West Main Street ______________________________________________________________________________________________ facade concept drawing. ___________________________________________ For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: ______________________ Received by: ___________________________ Date: _______________________________________ Fee paid: ___________Cash/Ck. # _________ Conditions of approval: _________________________ Date Received: _________________________ ____________________________________________ Revised 2016 ____________________________________________ Memorandum To: Jeff Werner From: Jeff Dreyfus Date: 10/27/2020 Subject: 612 West Main / COA Application Jeff, We are formally submitting for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new mixed-use project at 612 West Main Street. While we are not at a stage to request approval of a complete design, we are seeking comments and input from the BAR for our preliminary elevation concepts. As a summary of the project, the four story building is currently planned with fourty-one residential units and ground floor retail along West Main Street. The massing incorporates an additional setback between the new structure and the existing, contributing structure at 600 West Main Street to the east. Entrance to the residential lobby will be through this interstitial setback. Per the zoning ordinance, the street facade is 10’ from the property line and has an additional 10’ stepback at the fourth floor terraces. Required parking for the building will be in the basement and accessed below grade through the existing parking garage at 600 West Main Street; thus, no new parking garage entry is planned for this building. The existing transformer at 600 West Main Street will also serve this building, so a transformer will not be required as part of the site plan. You will recall that the project has been granted an SUP for increased density. In their recommendation to City Council that the SUP be granted, the BAR noted the following conditions for future development on the site: · Garage entry shall not be accessed directly from the building’s street wall along West Main Street; · That the building’s mass shall be broken down to reflect the multiparcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation; · That the Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction; · That there shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level; · And that the building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side. In January of 2020, the BAR provided the design and development team with some very early comments on a variety of elevation options. One elevation sketch was preferred by the majority of BAR members. We have continued developing the elevations with that sketch and the above-noted conditions as a starting point. At the upcoming BAR meeting, we are seeking early comments from the BAR as we develop the building facades. Our packet includes the anticipated building footprint, zoning envelope information and the sketch that was identified by the BAR as holding promise for further development. Bushman Dreyfus Architects PC 820b East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone 434.295.1936 10/27/2020 COA Application Page 2 of 2 We understand that the BAR will not grant partial or incremental approvals for developments, and we are seeking neither. We are, however, seeking the BAR’s input on the project in its early facade development so that we may incorporate that input as we move the design toward a full submission for approval early next year. As the building is developing daily, we will provide you with an updated package of images 1 week prior to the November meeting. We appreciate your patience as we work to push the design forward in a timely manner. All the best, Jeff Dreyfus 612 W. MAIN STREET ZONE: - WEST MAIN STREET EAST CORRIDOR (MIXED-USE) - ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT - PARKING MODIFIED ZONE 6TH STREET NW PRIMARY STREETS: - WEST MAIN STREET LAND AREA: - 0.46 ACRES/19,830 SF WEST MAIN STREET DENSITY (WITH SUP): - 120 DUA / 55 DWELLING UNITS SITE ET SW 612 W. MAIN ST. 600 W. MAIN ST. 5TH STRE BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 SITE LOCATION 1 612 W. MAIN STREET ZONE: - WEST MAIN STREET EAST CORRIDOR (MIXED-USE) - ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT - PARKING MODIFIED ZONE PRIMARY STREETS: - WEST MAIN STREET LAND AREA: - 0.46 ACRES/19,830 SF DENSITY (WITH SUP): - 120 DUA / 55 DWELLING UNITS BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 10.27.2020 ZONING ANALYSIS 2 612 W. MAIN BUILDING FOOTPRINT CURRENT PROPERTY LINE BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 HISTORIC MAP FROM 1920 3 170'-6" (PROP LN) 140'-5 1/2" - 82.47% OF STREET WALL 28'-3 3/8" PROPERTY RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL SERVICE LINE SETBACK PLANTER PLANTER 5' 10' 4'-8 3/4" 17'-9" 7'-5" 17'-9" 4'-8 3/4" 3'-5 3/4" 28'-9" 3'-5 3/4" 4'-8 3/4" 17'-9" 7'-5" 17'-9" 4'-8 3/4" RESIDENTIAL ENTRY 5' ENTRY PLAZA 90° 20' 90° MINI MART BLUE MOON DINER 620 W. MAIN ST. (FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH ANNEX) 90° ENTRY FROM 600 600 W. MAIN COURTYARD 101'-3/8" BUILDING AREA: 16,373.38 sq ft PARALLEL TO PROP LN 600 W. MAIN BDA SURVEY REFERENCE POINT 90° 93.22° (BLDG.) SP 5'-6" 7'-2" 15'-6" 166'-1 1/8" (BLDG) BDA 3D REFERENCE POINT 10' BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 1" = 20' SITE PLAN 4 PROPERTY LINE MURAL WALL SIDEWALK PLANTING BED LANDSCAPE BENCHES 612 WATER BASIN PLANTING BED STONE PLANTERS 5' WIDE, 24" TALL UPRIGHT/ OVERSIZE STONE RESIDENTIAL ENTRY COLUMNAR TREES BENCH LANDSCAPE CONCEPT STONE DETAILS PLANT PRECEDENTS WATER BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 LANDSCAPE 5 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE ALLOWABLE ENVELOPE APPURTENANCE 18' MAX. REDUCED DEPTH 10' 10' 69'-11" 26'-7 1/2" STREET- 4TH FLR WALL STEPBACK SETBACK ROOF BULK PLANE 4 MAX ALLOWED HEIGHT 3 MAX ALLOWED HEIGHT 52' 30' 5'-6" 40' 2 40' 50' (15' REQ'D MIN.) W. MAIN ST. 17'-6" 66'-4 7/8" 5'-6" 24'-6" RETAIL LOFTS SCAFFOLDING CLEARANCE 487'-3" AVERAGE GROUND PLANE GROUND FLOOR @ W. MAIN 5'-6" RR TRACKS 480'-4" AVERAGE GROUND PLANE 480'-4" AVERAGE GROUND PLANE @ SOUTH PROPERTY LINE -1 PARKING GARAGE @ SOUTH PROPERTY LINE BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 1/16" = 1'-0" BUILDING SECTION 6 FACADE RHYTHM WINDOW SURROUNDS FACADE RHYTHM WINDOW SURROUNDS VERTICAL WINDOW GANGING EXTERIOR PLANTERS RETAIL WINDOWS SIMPLICITY ELEGANCE BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | FACADE DESIGN 7 FACADE RHYTHM FACADE RHYTHM WINDOW SURROUNDS SIMPLICITY BRICK RETAIL STOREFRONT DESIGN ENTRY DESIGN BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | FACADE DESIGN 8 LIGHT BRICK LIGHT BRICK STUCCO EXTERIOR DETAIL OF STUCCO EXTERIOR STUCCO EXTERIOR WITH CAST STONE WINDOW SURROUNDS WITH CAST STONE WINDOW SURROUNDS WITH METAL WINDOW SURROUNDS BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | FACADE MATERIALS 9 DOOR SURROUND DESIGN EXAMPLE DOOR DESIGN EXAMPLE ENTRY THROUGH A LANDSCAPED PLAZA BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | RESIDENTIAL ENTRY 10 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC BAR MEETING 1/22/20 612 WEST MAIN STREET | SCHEMATIC ELEVATION STUDIES 10 9 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 10.27.2020 PREVIOUS ELEVATION STUDIES FOR REFERENCE BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 PREVIOUS W. MAIN ELEVATION FOR REFERENCE 12 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 CURRENT SCHEMATIC W. MAIN ELEVATION 13 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 CURRENT SCHEMATIC W. MAIN ENTRY 14 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 CURRENT SCHEMATIC W. MAIN ENTRY 15 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-03 117 Altamont Circle Tax Parcel 330123000 Viewmont Associates LLC, Owner Elaine Oakey and Lucius Bracey, Applicant Roof replacement 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 November 17, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-04 117 Altamont Circle, TMP 330123000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Viewmont Associates, LLC Applicant: Elaine Oakey Project: Roof replacement and removal of two chimneys Background Year Built: c1915 District: The North Downtown ADC Status: Contributing This 2-1/2 story, brick, Colonial Revival house has three bays, a central dormer and standing seam metal hipped roof with built-in gutters. The painted wood cornice features modillions and dentils. The single-bay front porch has Doric columns, the central entrance door has a fixed transom. Evidence of rear additions over time. Prior BAR Reviews n/a Application  Applicant submittal: CoA application, photographs of the house, scope of work (below). Request for CoA:  Replace in-kind the existing painted standing seam metal roof,  Remove existing built-in gutters and downspouts and install half round gutters (roof-mounted) with round downspouts  Remove two brick chimneys and cover openings with new roofing. 117 Altamont Circle (November 10, 2020) 1 Scope of work The standing seam metal roof has been patched endless times over the years but ultimately the areas where the Philadelphia style gutters are located have caused excessive deterioration of the roof under the gutters and thus interior wall problems from the top floor to the lower level. We propose to replace the entire roof including the porch roofs with new standing seam metal by Englert in a dark bronze color. The downspouts and gutters will also be dark bronze. The half- round gutters will provide better drainage and far less maintenance in the future. Neither chimney is functioning so we plan to remove them due to the expense of repair. The front chimney has extensive deterioration and is located in an awkward area for installing roofing. The back chimney, which is not visible from the street, is leaning and a threat to those below. We have a contract with Rooftop Services and hope to have the work completed before year’s end. The on-site time will be approximately four weeks. Rooftop Services has proposed the following:  Remove all metal, felt and flashings and Philadelphia gutter system from decking on entire building.  repair any deteriorated wood  Install 26ga. Pre-Painted Double-Lock standing-seam metal roofing system with flashings, 21” seams on center, one snow guard staggered on each seam along eaves.  Remove two chimneys and patch holes in roof decking.  Install 6” half round aluminum gutters with a shank mounted to the substrate, and 4” round aluminum downspouts Example: roof mounted gutter shank. (Image inserted by BAR staff.) Discussion and Recommendations According to the available record, the BAR has typically approved requests to remove built-in gutter systems; however, the BAR has evaluated each request on a case-by-case basis. Since September 2012, when the current design guidelines were adopted, staff found six CoA requests that included the replacement of built-in gutters. Five were approved, one was denied.  Approved: o 1108 Park Street (September 2012) o 801 East High Street (July 2013) o 532 1st Street N (October 2014) o 507 Ridge Street (May 2017) o 540 Park Street (February 2018) 117 Altamont Circle (November 10, 2020) 2  Denied: o 205 2nd Street SW (September 2019) The design guidelines recommend that chimneys be retained, if they contribute to the style and character of the building. Of the similar houses (with front dormers) on Altamont Circle, including towards High Street, only the two immediately east of 117 have a similarly located chimney. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitations, I move to find that the proposed replacement of the roof, gutters, and downspouts satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. […as submitted] with the following modifications or conditions…. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitations, I move to find that the proposed replacement of the roof, gutters, and downspouts does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR approves the application as submitted (or with the following modifications…). Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of (4) Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (5) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (6) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (7) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (8) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. 117 Altamont Circle (November 10, 2020) 3 Pertinent Design Review for Rehabilitation G. Roof 1) When replacing a standing seam metal roof, the width of the pan and the seam height should be consistent with the original. Ideally, the seams would be hand crimped. 2) If pre-painted standing seam metal roof material is permitted, commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. 3) Original roof pitch and configuration should be maintained. 4) The original size and shape of dormers should be maintained. 5) Dormers should not be introduced on visible elevations where none existed originally. 6) Retain elements, such as chimneys, skylights, and light wells that contribute to the style and character of the building. 7) When replacing a roof, match original materials as closely as possible. a. Avoid, for example, replacing a standing-seam metal roof with asphalt shingles, as this would dramatically alter the building’s appearance. b. Artificial slate is an acceptable substitute when replacement is needed. c. Do not change the appearance or material of parapet coping. 8) Place solar collectors and antennae on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. 9) Do not add new elements, such as vents, skylights, or additional stories that would be visible on the primary elevations of the building. 117 Altamont Circle (November 10, 2020) 4 VIRGINIA File no. 04 • HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Negative no(s). SURVEY FORM Historic name Common name County/Town/City Al..8e1'<1ARLE / G-\,A�LCSTTE"::,\J \(__,IJ\'_ Street address or route number I Y'-/Al.;�E� ST. USGS Quad CM.Al�LG TTE;->V \Li.Jf:. \/'l 'f:::.c.; Date or period Original owner Architect/builder/craftsmen Original use R£'SI b �\--4 DAL, Present owner Source of name Present owner address Source of date Stories Present use Foundation and wall const'n Acreage Roof type State condition of structure and environs GOOD State potential threats to structure Note any archaeological interest Should be investigated for possible register potential? yes_ no \/' Architectural description (Note significant features of plan, structural system and interior and exterior decoration, taking care to point out aspects not visible or clear from photographs. Explain nature and period of all alterations and additiops. List any oµtlmilding� and their approximate ages, cemeteries, etc.) l-.-L-,.n.M.\4. A\"\f::R\C,AR ) .- [)R\(AL (IA, nUl4141J'4Gt BOND 1 � Y::i 91"0�\E --3 . H- (t>PtO ACX)P V" 1rrt Cl=.NTRAu OOR\"\E.P-. � 6A'-(7 . I "')T0R'f · A"( f!EPIN\E..I"-' "fED ;�) t I . :�1"' R C.. Co W l ,-.;, di h,..� t:.::.l- �:v��-, , (::() I Pm\:= Ep PORu+ '\J'1 IT\-t v\N . Cc1---tTRA0 \::.l�TRANGE:. W rn-t �\X\=0 �\�� \1Q.AN<";;(:)M Ae()JE �· c-; e (t JY\ �i--4 rA� �e"') OVe.F'-- c;ec.o,--4 c:, �L-CO\CL o P SN t'4C'f3 . V I OOJSvc: 1-tlJNC=r- SA�\-t , ce N11� Av 0-1 �, OIP-. CHIJ-4\'-'E'( . l"'\OP1U.A0Hcs A\"1 D o�nv✓ Ar C0\0-N \Gt:., STAI-.J O \J·--H2r s��"-<1 l"'\ETAV RX)\ . �.-AST �"'(S CONO, A\ACrN , E\111�E1-lc1= o� ALiS-ep_Ay-101-J� 11--1 � ,u::..v"�16 . ( l r l Form No. VHLC-01-004 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434 ) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction pro ject $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other proj ects re quiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets lhe third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name v, ·e,&tJ/'7 -r If 5"so([([,,� {LLApplicant Name F/ti1ae flka7u.11t!I fv( &-ac!.- J{eabe.e aeft;mifl� Parcel Number fJO I2, 2 C 00 :; Project Name/Description ; Project Property Address 1l di�It!mun Y& rel( '/� < Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the L� k� /l/p-71zc1 best of my knowledge, correct. Signature ' � Date Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address: _________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email: __________________ its submission. Phone: (W) _______ (C) __ _____ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits for this project? __________ Print Name Date Description of P sed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): __ l0oltl:r-e r(IQT..Ld#·Sl7,- ?o ✓e/#b\&l�/4e', u;r/41/Jc M/4f.v; List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): /2Mt!'".;'Z..J. c/'0tf(.r;,1,r;; / . /?� ,.J C/ //1tzrff'.a.ze� For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: __________ Received by: ____________ Date: _________________ Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck. # ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: ___________ Revised 2016 November 5,2020 To Board of Architectural Review 117 Altamont Circle roof, gutter and downspout replacement The standing seam metal roof has been patched endless times over the years but ultimately the areas where the Philadelphia style gutters are located have caused excessive deterioration of the roof under the gutters and thus interior wall problems from the top floor to the lower level. We propose to replace the entire roof including the porch roofs with new standing seam metal by Englert in a dark bronze color. The downspouts and gutters will also be dark bronze. The half round gutters will provide better drainage and far less maintenance in the future. Neither chimney is functioning so we plan to remove them due to the expense of repair. The front chimney has extensive deterioration and is located in an awkward area for installing roofing. The back chimney, which is not visible from the street, is leaning and a threat to those below. We have a contract with Rooftop Services and hope to have the work completed before year’s end. The on-site time will be approximately four weeks. Rooftop Services has proposed the following: -remove all metal, felt and flashings and Philadelphia gutter system from decking on entire building. -repair any deteriorated wood -install 26ga. Pre-Painted Double-Lock standing-seam metal roofing system with flashings, 21” seams on center, one snow guard staggered on each seam along eaves. -remove two chimneys and patch holes in roof decking. -install 6” half round aluminum gutters with a shank mounted to the substrate, and 4” round aluminum downspouts 117 Altamont Circle Chimney at front dormer ;1- --- �- v � ... -� ..... .. ;,�� � 117 Altamont Circle Rear chimney Front chimney Image inserted by staff Front (looking north) Side (looking east) Side (looking west) Rear (looking south) Images inserted by staff Pre-Application Discussion 125 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 90137000 Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corp, Owner Khanh Uong, Design Develop, LLC, Applicant Rear addition and site work Discussion 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 November 17, 2020 Preliminary Discussion 125 Chancellor Street, TMP 90137000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corp. Applicant: Khanh Uong, Design Develop, LLC Project: Rear addition and site work Background Year Built: c1898 (House) District: The Corner ADC Status: Contributing Constructed as a boarding house with an L-plan, I-house floorplan, this Victorians style building features several East Lake and Queen Ann decorative motifs, such as the mock half-timbering in the front gable and brackets beneath the over-sailing front eave. Addition constructed possibly c1952. Garage in the rear is non-contributing. Prior BAR Actions n/a Application  Applicant’s submittal: Design Develop drawings Alpha Tau Omega, Renovation and Addition Preliminary Draft (undated): 24 sheets, including photos, elevations, plans and renderings. CoA request for demolition of existing rear addition, construction of a new addition, alterations to the existing house, and related site work. (Demolition of the non-contributing garage does not require BAR review.) Due to the estimated cost of the project, City Code section Sec. 34-282(c)(4) requires that prior to any formal BAR action, the project must be first presented to the BAR during a pre-application conference [or preliminary discussion]. 125 Chancellor Street (Nov 10, 2020) 1 Discussion This is a preliminary discussion, no BAR action is required; however, by consensus, the BAR may express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR might express consensus support for elements of the project, such as its scale and massing.) Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and the result will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, and Chapter VII--Demolitions and Moving. Of particular assistance, as a checklist for the preliminary discussion, are the criteria for Additions in Chapter III:  Function and Size  Location  Design  Replication of Style  Materials and Features  Attachment to Existing Building Additionally, the discussion should address any questions regarding the materials and components. For example:  Roofing  Gutters/Downspouts  Cornice  Siding and Trim  Doors and Windows  Landscaping  Lighting Suggested Motions For a preliminary discussion, the BAR cannot take action on a formal motion. 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. 125 Chancellor Street (Nov 10, 2020) 2 Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter II – Site Design and Elements Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Checklist from section P. Additions Many of the smaller commercial and other business buildings may be enlarged as development pressure increases in downtown Charlottesville and along West Main Street. These existing structures may be increased in size by constructing new additions on the rear or side or in some cases by carefully adding on extra levels above the current roof. The design of new additions on all elevations that are prominently visible should follow the guidelines for new construction as described earlier in this section. Several other considerations that are specific to new additions in the historic districts are listed below: 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style 125 Chancellor Street (Nov 10, 2020) 3 a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Chapter VII – Demolitions and Moving Reference 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; 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; 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; 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; 5. Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one (1) of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. 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; 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 e) Any applicable provisions of the city's design guidelines. 125 Chancellor Street (Nov 10, 2020) 4 5'0 Yflenlijfcall·crn u STREET ADDRESS: 125 Chancellor St�ee� HISTORIC NAME : Doswell-Mayo House C /, MAP 8 PARCEL: 9-137 1 DATE./ PERIOD: 1898 CENSUS TRACT AND BLOCK: ST YLE : Victorian PRESENT ZONING: HEIGHT (to cornice) OR STORIES: 2 Storeys OR!GINAL OWNER : Nonna, Ella, and Sally Doswell DIMENSIONS AND LAND AREA : ORIGINAL USE: Residence? CONDITION : Good PRESENT USE : Apartment House SURVEYOR: PRESENT OWNER : Bernard and Margaret Mayo DATE OF SURVEY: 1980 ADDRESS: 125 Chancellor Street SOURCES: City/County records Charlottesville, Virginia ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Metal horizontal siding; 2 1/2 storeys; gable roof; one donner; three bays, north bay projecting; single storey porch at center bay. Queen Anne. C: 1875. Projecting eaves - no cornices. Entrance in center bay. Lower floor - south bay has two / two double sash; entrance is double aluminum stonn door with transom; north bay is octagonal with one / one double sash on each side and two / two double sash in center. Upper floor - south bay has two / two double sash; central bay has aluminum stonn door; north bay has 2 two / two double sash windows. Donner is louvered and gable end of one half storey has four lights. Two interior chimneys. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION 1897 ACDB 108-406 A. C. Chancellor, et al (heirs of Dr. J. E. Chancellor) to Nonna Doswell, Ella Doswell and Sally J. Doswell 1910 ACDB 142-72 Ella Doswell to Sally J. Doswell and Nonnan Doswell 1942 City WB 5-171 Sally J. Doswell to Nonna Doswell 1952 City DB 165-183 Estate of Nonna Doswell to B. B. Clover 1952 City DB 166-498 B. B. Clover to Bernard and Margaret Mayo HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SEP 7 1982 HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT / VIRCINIA File No. 104-13� -c2,4- HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Negative no(s). 7234 HISTORIC DISTRICT SURVEY FORM Street address Note: See also VHLC fil� no. 104-132, 125 Chanc ellor St• Town/City Charlott e sville ''.Doswe11-Mayo House 11 Historic name Common name �ood frame (sidinQ: .�eatherboard, C shingle. ::·. aluminum. :: bricktex. C _____ □ brick (bond: □ Flemish, !::J stretcher, CJ __-course American, ::-:: ·---------- □ stone( □ random rubble, Q random ashlar, C coursed ashlar, r.:: ______ ____ ) D log (siding: D ·Weatherboard, 0 shingle, LJ aluminum, ,_; bricktex. �: . ____________________) Material □ stucco c: cast iron □ concrete block ['� lerra cotta □ enameled steel : : glass and metal □ other; Number of Stories Roof Type Roof Material □ GJ/2½ Q shed == D slate D tile □ 1½ □ mansard 3 [jyg�ble D wood shingle D pressed tin □2 □- Lo gambrel □ •l 0 pediment 0 parapet D composition not visible @/hipp�d [J flat ffi-'st�·nding seam metal 0 other: 0 other Dormers Number of bays - Main f_acade □3 □ shed hipped r.-J 4 □4 f7 I 1 0 7 li:Vgable □ ! - 2 r� 5 [J D pedimented '.C/3 L ,, /.1,, r r:' 6 0 Porch Stories Bays General description □ no □ 0 3 lv'i(center) 2 [j 4 Tr�style porch se t in corne r 0 2 0 :.J 1 (side) 3 of front ell, with (lat e r?) Building type, ,, @-°"'d�tached house 0 garage □ government 0 industrial detached town house 0 farmhouse □ ., commercial (ottice) [J school row house r, commercial (store) □ 0 apartment building [J church double house 0 gas station railroad C Style/period ·De corate d V ernacular/Que en Anne Date Architect /builder /,ffr Location and description of entrance Plain front e ntranc e with double -leaf doors and transom� Miscellaneous descriptive information (plan, exterior and interior decoration, cornice/eave type, window type and trim, chimneys, additions, alterations) This is a typical L-plan I-hous� of the day with se ve ral Eastlake and Quee n Anne de corative motifs adde d. These include the mock half-timbe ring iin the front gable and the usunburst brackets und er the ove rsailing front ell. A two-s�ary exte nsion stands at the rear of the house . Historical information In ·1897 the he irs of Dr. J.· E. Chance llor sold the prope rty to Ella Doswe ll e t als. The Doswe lls e vide ntly built.the house the following ye ar. Be rnard Mayo and his wife bought the house in 1952. Source Eu e nia:: Bibb; Cit court r e cords. Surveyed by J Date 8-83 e ff O ' De 11 VHLC Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. ATO Holding Corp. Owner Name___________________________________ Khanh Uong Applicant Name______________________________________ Alpha Tau Omega Renovation and Addition Project Name/Description______________________________________ 090137000 Parcel Number__________________________ 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Design Develop, LLC Address:______________________________________ best of my knowledge, correct. 418 E Main St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 _____________________________________________ kuong@designdevelopllc.com Email:________________________________________ 10/26/20 __________________________________________ 434-445-4045 ext 1 (C) _______________ Phone: (W) _________________ 410-292-2295 Signature Date Khanh Uong 10/26/20 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Alpha Tau Omega Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) _____________________________________________ 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 22903 I have read this application and hereby give my consent to johnhsweeney@gmail.com Email:________________________________________ its submission. 931-510-0023 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ 10-26-20 _ __________________________________________ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Christopher Tate 10/26/20 _________________________________________ for this project? No _______________________ Print Name Date Renovation of existing house structure Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ including interior work, new siding, reconstruction of front porch and repair and refurbishment of existing windows. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Partial demolition to rear of house for new addition. Site work. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Proposed design packet with context photos, site plans, plans, building elevations and 3D perspective views. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ 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 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. ALPHA TAU OMEGA RENOVATION AND ADDITION 125 Chancellor St., Charlottesville, VA 22903 PRECINT AVERAGE FINISHED SQUARE FOOTAGE : 5,245 SF EXISTING 125 CHANCELLOR ST : 3,552 SF PROPOSED 125 CHANCELLOR WITH ADDITION : 6,264 SF MADISON LANE 158 4,600 SF 150 1709 138 130 128 136 160 6,561 SF 3,510 SF 6,330 SF UNIVERSITY AVENUE 5,338 SF 5,995 SF 133 6,793 SF 6,301 SF 3,413 SF 5,870 SF 167 4,416 SF 4,008 SF 165 2,712 SF ADDITION 6,991 SF 5,508 SF 6,638 SF 3,552 SF 123 125 127 129 150 TREET CHAN CELLOR S 144 136 132 128 1,116 SF 6,839 SF 120 5,064 SF 9,067 SF 4,139 SF 3,350 SF Neighborhood Map PRECINT IDENTITY ANALYSIS OF BUILDING FOOTPRINTS IN PRECINT PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 120 Chancellor St - St. Paul’s Episcopal Church - Built 1920 123 Chancellor St - Chi Omega - Built 1902 127 Chancellor St - Kappa Alpha Theta - Built 1920 128 Chancellor St - Christian Ministries - Built 1926 129 Chancellor St - Beta Psi - Built 1880 132 Chancellor St - Built 1920 136 Chancellor St - Kappa Delta - Built 1900 144 Chancellor St - Delta Zeta - Built 1900 150 Chancellor St - Delta Zeta - Built 1912 PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA Site Context PHOTOS at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA STREET ADDRESS : 125 Chancellor Street MAP & PARCEL : 9-137 PRESENT ZONING : R-3H ORIGINAL OWNER : Norma, Ella, and Sally Doswell ORIGINAL USE : Residence PRESENT USE : Fraternity PRESENT OWNER : Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corporation HISTORIC NAME : Doswell-Mayo House DATE /PERIOD : 1898 STYLE : Victorian HEIGHT : 2 Stories DIMENSIONS / LAND AREA : 3,458 SF / 0.23 Acres ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Metal horizontal siding; 2 1/2 stories; gable roof; one dormer; three bays, north bay projecting; single story porch at center bay. Projecting eaves - no cornices. Entrance in center bay. Low- UNIVERSITY AVENUE er floor - south bay has 2/2 double sash; entrance is double aluminum storm door with tra - som; north bay is octagonal with 1/1 double sash on eas side and 2/2 double sash in center. Upper floor - south bay has 2/2 double sash; central bay has a luminum storm door; north bay has 2/2 double sash windows. Dormer is louvered and gable end of one half story has four lights. Two inteior chimneys. PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA Existing Exterior N/E FRONT OF HOUSE Existing Exterior S/W REAR OF HOUSE PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA Existing Exterior SOUTH SIDE OF HOUSE Existing Exterior S/E FRONT OF HOUSE PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA Existing Exterior Context VIEW FROM CHANCELLOR ST PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA ST OR C ELL CHAN 125 Aerial View LOOKING NORTHWEST PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 125 CHA NCE LLO R ST Aerial View LOOKING NORTHEAST PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 10’ SIDE DEMO 11’ SETBACK CHANCE DEMO LLOR ST 25’ REAR SET BACK 25’ FRONT SET BACK 14’ 10’ SIDE SETBACK Site Plan - EXISTING SCALE : 1” = 10’-0” PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 10’ SIDE 11’ SETBACK NEW ADDITION CHANCE 42’ LLOR ST 25’ REAR SET BACK 25’ FRONT SET BACK PORCH ADDITION PATIO 10’ SIDE 14’ SETBACK Site Plan - PROPOSED SCALE : 1” = 10’-0” PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA ADDITION EXISTING UP BASEMENT LAUNDRY (375 SF) (100 sf) UP BASEMENT (900 sf) CRAWL SPACE Plan - BASEMENT SCALE : 1/8” = 1’ - 0” PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA ADDITION EXISTING COVERED AREAWAY FOR STAIRS TO BASEMENT BAR (80 sf) BROTHER BROTHER ROOM ROOM (285 sf) (215 sf) KITCHEN (230 sf) DN TOILET UP (30 sf) UP CLOSET (20 sf) FRONT GREAT PORCH ROOM (810 sf) ADA BATH (60 sf) BROTHER (1) ADA ROOM BR (230 sf) (135 sf) CL PORCH RAMP DOWN Plan - FIRST FLOOR SCALE : 1/8” = 1’ - 0” PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA ADDITION EXISTING CL BATHROOM (50 sf) (2) BR (2) BR (2) BR (2) BR (170 sf) (170 sf) (225 sf) (230 sf) CL CL CL DN UP UP DN CL CL LOUNGE (2) BR (2) BR (90 SF) (180 sf) (180 sf) BATHROOM (270 sf) (2) BR (230 sf) Plan - SECOND FLOOR SCALE : 1/8” = 1’ - 0” PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA ADDITION EXISTING DN LOUNGE DN (16 0 sf) ATTIC STORAGE (1) BR CL (100 sf) (180 sf) Plan - ATTIC FLOOR SCALE : 1/8” = 1’ - 0” PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA B ADDITION EXISTING A A B SECTION KEY PLAN (1) BR (2) BR ATTIC (2) BR (2) BR BATHROOM (2) BR GREAT ADA BROTHER ROOM BATHROOM ROOM BASEMENT Section - A-A SCALE : 1/8” = 1’ - 0” PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA B A A B SECTION KEY PLAN LOUNGE (1) BR (2) BR (2) BR KITCHEN GREAT ROOM BASEMENT Section - B-B SCALE : 1/8” = 1’ - 0” PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF REPAIR EXISTING ROOF AS REQ’D 1 RETAIN ORNAMENTAL TRIM WORK - TYPICAL REPAIR AND REFURBISH EXISTING DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS HORIZONTAL CLAPBOARD SIDING 2 REPLACE EXISTING SIDING REBUILD PORCH TO MATCH 3 ELEVATION KEY PLAN REPAIR AND REPLACE AS REQUIRED EXISTING SHUTTERS ACCESSIBLE RAMP Elevation - 3 SOUTH Elevation - 1 NORTH Elevation - 2 WEST AREAWAY ENCLOSURE FOR STAIRS DOWN TO BASEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA Pre-Application Discussion 1001 West Main Street Tax Parcel 100050000 M&J Real Estate, LLC, Owner Ryan Perkins, Kimley-Horn, Applicant Exterior alterations Discussion components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT November 17, 2020 Preliminary Discussion 1001 West Main Street, TMP 100050000 West Main ADC District Owner: M & J Real Estate, LLC Applicant: Ryan Perkins, Kimley-Horn Project: Exterior alterations Background Year Built: c1920, 1936 District: West Main Street ADC District Status: Contributing A remnant of West Main’s 20th century automobile-centric history, in the last decade this structure has been modified and repurposed. It consists of three sections: The two-story, northeast corner is the earliest and of heavy frame and brick constructions with a modern concrete-block and metal panel facing. The southeast corner, added after 1920 as a service station, featured an aluminum- framed display windows and an awning. The west end, built in 1936, is brick veneer over terra-cotta block, with large industrial windows and a bowstring-truss roof from a former airplane hangar. This wing had several garage door bays and faced with enameled metal panels. Prior BAR Reviews See Appendix Application  Applicant submittal: Exterior Proposal Arb Package 1001 W Main Street, dated October 7, 2020: Cover with sheets 2 – 7. Applicant has requested a preliminary discussion to review with the BAR the components of the planned project, which include signage, an entrance canopy, bike racks, and a large mural. Discussion and Recommendations This is a preliminary discussion, no BAR action is required; however, by consensus, the BAR may express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR might express consensus support for elements of the project, such as its scale and massing.) Such comments will not 1001 West Main (Nov 11, 2020) 1 constitute a formal motion and the result will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria related to signs, canopies, and murals. (Chapters V and VII.) Suggested Motion For a preliminary discussion, the BAR cannot take action on a formal motion. 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 Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes A. Signs C. Awnings, Marquees, & Canopies Pertinent Guidelines for Public Design and Improvements J. Public Art, Statues, & Fountains 1. Maintain existing features related to public art, statues and fountains. 2. Consider the place-making role any such new features can have in celebrating and communicating the history of the districts. 1001 West Main (Nov 11, 2020) 2 3. Develop an appropriate relationship between materials, the scale of artwork and the surrounding environment. 4. Choose artwork that is appropriate for the current general character of the site. 5. Consider the appropriateness of the sculpture base. 6. Mural art on private property should be reviewed for appropriateness of materials, scale, and location within surrounding context. 7. Mural art that constitutes a sign shall conform to the sign regulations. 8. Public art, statues, and fountains shall be maintained as accessible to the public. APPENDIX Prior BAR Reviews August 19, 2014 - BAR approved (6-0-1, Mohr) removal of metal panels on the façade. Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622635/BAR_1001%20West%20Main%20S treet_Aug2014.pdf January 20, 2015 – BAR approved (7-0) design that would “unify the building, while giving a nod to its historic context.” The goal is to “provide functioning commercial, retail and service space for the growing surrounding context, while still allowing the historic aesthetic to be legible.”  Install garage-style storefront window systems in locations of previous garage doors. Dark bronze aluminum frames with horizontal muntins and clear glass.  Add some new or enlarged openings with fixed, clear class and horizontal muntins; also close two openings on east side.  Add three new canopies on main entrances, consisting of white steel frame and Douglas Fir wood slats with recessed down-lighting. Attached with steel cable support system.  Level and clean cornice on east façade.  Replace roof in same location and design. A 7’ louvered screen system will screen rooftop mechanical.  Parge and paint existing concrete masonry units (CMU).  Paint colors: Benjamin Moore Squire Hill Bluff (primary) and Graphite (trim).  Remove metal siding from rear of building. Parge and paint masonry. Basement windows will have glass blocks; second floor windows same material, style, and color as others. Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622636/BAR_1001%20West%20Main%20Stree t_Jan2015.pdf September 17, 2015 – Administrative approval to demolish an unstable section of the front wall (east side), to re-frame, and to replace glass per approval plan. Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/649270/BAR_1001%20West%20Main%20S treet_Sept2015.pdf November 15, 2016 – BAR approved changes to the west side of the building, revising the design for the building approved in January 2015. 1001 West Main (Nov 11, 2020) 3  The window and door openings remain the same on the front and rear facades; on the west façade an existing opening will be reduced in size.  The parapet is proposed to be raised in the front center façade to create a surround at the entrance doors.  The materials and colors of the west side of the building has changed from the original white painted masonry. Proposed materials are “Identity Wood” in dark brown and lighter brown, and Crossville “Basalt” 12’ x 24’ stacked tile at the entry surround. The building owner proposes to paint the east end of the building white, and to paint the rear of the building to match the lighter shade of brown.  Signage and lighting have changed. Three signs are proposed, which Zoning permits for a retail business on a corner site (101/2 Street and W Main Street). Two gooseneck lights are added at the entrance. Cove lighting is proposed along the metal cap at the roofline. Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/698583/BAR_1001%20West%20Main%20Stree t_Nov2016.pdf 1001 West Main (Nov 11, 2020) 4 1990s? 2019 (Google) 1980s—front 10th Street elevation 2019 (Google) EXTERIOR PROPOSAL ARB PACKAGE DATE: 10/07/2020 PROJECT NAME: 1001 W Main St PROJECT TYPE: New STORE #: 65136 CPN# : 89931-001 REGION: Mid Atlantic CITY: Charlottesville, VA 1001 MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VICINITY AND SITE PLAN ELECTRICAL METERS W Main Stre W MAIN ST et C:\Users\MAvitia\Documents\89931-001_1001 Main_UVA Medical_Central_MavitiaWRQ49.rvt 2 SS-31 SS-31 1 SB PARKING 2,034 sq ft GAS METERS 3 SS-31 GREASE INTERCEPT 10th Street NW vicinity map key plan 1OTH ST NW 7/24/2020 4:36:50 PM SITE SURVEY - SITE PLAN 1 Scale: 1" = 10'-0" AREA MAP 10.06.2020 2 1001 MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA INTERIOR/EXTERIOR PHOTOS 10.06.2020 3 1001 MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Je s s ie Un t e r h a l t e r a n d Ka t e y Tru h n a re a Ba l t im o re b a s e d a r t is t duo s tr iv ing to tra ns- fo r m pu b l ic s p a ce s in t o co l o rfu l a n d vib ra n t ex p e r ie n ce s . Th ey ha ve been colla bo- ra t in g o n l a rge -s ca l e m u ra l s , f in e a r t a n d s cu l p tu re s in ce 20 12 . T heir mis s ion g row s f ro m a s im p l e d e s ire t o b r in g p l a yfu l n e s s t o pu b l ic s p a ce s a n d enha nce people’ s lives t h rou g h a r t . Th e ir wo r k ex p l o re s t h e m e s o f m ove m e n t a n d symmetr y , ins pired by bold co l o r co m b in a t io n s , p a tt e r n s in n a tu re , wove n t ex t il e s a n d for ma lis m. J E S S I E & KAT E Y - W O R K SA M P L E S 10.06.2020 4 1001 MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA J E S S I E & K AT E Y - STA R B U C K S C O M M I S S I O N S 10.06.2020 5 1001 MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA R C 2017 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY STARBUCKS R 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (206) 318-1575 ELECTRICAL METERS THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT MANUAL ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES. STARBUCKS TEMPLATE VERSION i2020-04-20 ARCHITECT OF RECORD ASOOS OCIATES KEY PLAN Soos & Associates, Inc. 105 Schelter Road 7/24/2020 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 W MAIN ST p: 847 821 7667 EXISTING CONDITIONS C:\Users\MAvitia\Documents\89931-001_1001 Main_UVA Medical_Central_MavitiaWRQ49.rvt 1001 MAIN UVA MEDICAL CHARLOTESVILLE, VA 22903 1001 WEST MAIN STREET 2 SS-31 SS-31 1 SB PARKING PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT NAME: GAS METERS 3 SS-31 GREASE STORE #: TBD INTERCEPT PROJECT #: 89931-001 ISSUE DATE: 7/24/2020 DESIGN MANAGER: PRODUCTION DESIGNER: SOOS CHECKED BY: SOOS Revision Schedule 1OTH ST NW Rev Date By Description 7/24/2020 4:36:50 PM SHEET TITLE: SITE SURVEY - SITE PLAN SITE SURVEY - SITE 1 Scale: 1" = 10'-0" 0 500 1000 PLAN N SCALE: AS SHOWN Scale: 1:20 SHEET NUMBER: SS-01 NOTE: ARTWORK COMPOSITION IS PLACEHOLDER ONLY PROPOSED EXTERIOR - CUSTOM MURAL 10.06.2020 6 1001 MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA ADJACENT TENANT DESIGNAT STARBUCK PARKING 4' - 8 1/2" FINISHING ILLUMINATED PICK UP SIGN ED 3' - 9" S DI GI TA (INTERIOR MOUNTED) L ILLUMINATED LOGO DISK - 48” DESIGNAT STARBUCK TOTAL AREA 4' - 0" PARKING 1240 SF LOBBY AREA 300 SF LEAN ED S RTD DESIGNAT STARBUCK PARKING ED S DELIVERY BIKE PARKING RACKS 0" 3' - 9" - 3' 5' - 9" ILLUMINATED LOGO DISK - 48” ILLUMINATED IN-LINE 18' - 7 1/2" “PICK UP” SIGN PROPOSED SITE PLAN 10.06.2020 7 1001 MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 2 SCOPE OF WORK 1 3 2 3 1 ILLUMINATED PICK UP SIGN 2 ILLUMINATED LOGO DISK - 48” 3 STANDARD C1 GRAPHIC VINYL STORE FRONT 4 ILLUMINATED IN-LINE PICK UP SIGN 5 BIKE PARKING RACKS 6 UPGRADED SLOPE GRADING TO ACCOMODATE BIKE RACKS SAMPLE SIGNAGE A _ E X T E R I O R STO R E F R O N T E L E VAT I O N 2 4 R C 2017 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY STARBUCKS R 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (206) 318-1575 ELECTRICAL METERS THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT MANUAL ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED 5 ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES. STARBUCKS TEMPLATE VERSION i2020-04-20 ARCHITECT OF RECORD ASOOS OCIATES KEY PLAN Soos & Associates, Inc. 105 Schelter Road 7/24/2020 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 W MAIN ST p: 847 821 7667 EXISTING CONDITIONS C:\Users\MAvitia\Documents\89931-001_1001 Main_UVA Medical_Central_MavitiaWRQ49.rvt 1001 MAIN UVA MEDICAL 6 CHARLOTESVILLE, VA 22903 1001 WEST MAIN STREET SS-31 A 2 SS-31 1 SB PARKING PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT NAME: GAS METERS 3 SS-31 GREASE STORE #: TBD INTERCEPT B PROJECT #: 89931-001 ISSUE DATE: 7/24/2020 DESIGN MANAGER: PRODUCTION DESIGNER: SOOS CHECKED BY: SOOS Revision Schedule 1OTH ST NW Rev Date By Description 7/24/2020 4:36:50 PM SHEET TITLE: SITE SURVEY - SITE PLAN SITE SURVEY - SITE 1 Scale: 1" = 10'-0" 0 500 1000 PLAN N SCALE: AS SHOWN Scale: 1:20 SHEET NUMBER: SS-01 B _ E X T E R I O R STO R E F R O N T E L E VAT I O N NOTE: ARTWORK COMPOSITION IS PLACEHOLDER ONLY E X T E R I O R E L E VAT I O N S W I T H S I G N AG E 10.06.2020 8 1001 W MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 19' - 4 1/2" 54' - 4 3/4" 1 HOUR FIRE GAS PIPE RATED WALL 5x5STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMN HOLLOW STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMN C.O KITCHEN PULL STATION FOR HOOD UNISEX RESTROOM C:\Users\MAvitia\Documents\89931-001_1001 Main_UVA Medical_Central_MavitiaWRQ49.rvt 2 SS-31 SS-31 1 BACKBAR GREASE HALL 27' - 2 1/2" INTERCEPTOR 5x5 STRUCTURAL 27' - 10 1/2" PARKING SCHIER GB-15 STEEL COLUMN FLOOR DRAIN UNISEX I BEAM STRUCTURAL STEEL ADA COLUMN RESTROOM 5x5 STRUCTURAL 3' - 11 1/2" STEEL COLUMN BITUNINOUS SEATING SEATING PAVING AREA AREA ELECTRICAL 5x5 STRUCTURAL PANEL STEEL COLUMN STORAGE ROOM GAS METER 74' - 0 1/4" HAZARDOUS DROP OFF 3 SS-31 7/24/2020 4:37:21 PM FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 2' 4' 8' N Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" SITE SURVEY FLOOR PLAN 10.09.2020 7