CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting December 15, 2020 – 4:00 p.m. Remote meeting via Zoom Packet Guide This is not the agenda. Please click each agenda item below to link directly to the corresponding staff report and application. 4:00 i. Pre-meeting discussion on refined BAR review process 5:30 A. Public comment (Matters from the public not on the agenda – please limit to 3 minutes) B. Consent Agenda (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.) No consent agenda items. C. Deferred Items 5:40 1. 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 D. New Items 6:30 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-12-02 201 East Market Street Tax Parcel 330196000 City of Charlottesville & County of Albemarle, Owner Ryan Dewyea, City of Charlottesville, Applicant Mechanical units BAR Packet December 15, 2020 1 6:50 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-12-01 350 Park Street Tax Parcel 530109000 City of Charlottesville & County of Albemarle, Owner Eric Amtmann, Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects, Applicant Partial demolition 7:10 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-12-04 106 Oakhurst Circle Tax Parcel 110005000 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC, Owner Patrick Farley, Architect, Applicant Renovation, addition, and site work D. Other Business 7:40 5. Preliminary Discussion Combined Courts Parking Structure on East Market Street 6. Staff questions/discussion Preservation Awards Coordinate work session for Preservation Plan Coordinate work session for lighting 7. PLACE Committee Update DI. Adjournment BAR Packet December 15, 2020 2 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 • Most recent iteration of West Main Streetscape project • Historic Survey • Application Submittal • Application Addendum BAR Packet December 15, 2020 3 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT December 15, 2020 Note: This is continuation of the BAR’s discussion on 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 (See Appendix for complete list) November 17, 2020 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. Application  Applicant submitted: Bushman Dreyfus Architects drawings for 612 W. Main Street. o Sheets 1 – 15, dated November 10, 2020, with November 17, 2020 annotations (also inserted below). o Sheets 1 – 7, dated December 8, 2020. (Note: These page numbers do not correlate to the pages in the Nov. 10 submittal.) 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.) Applicant’s notes from November 17 BAR meeting. Sheet 3 – Historic Map:  New building facade should reflect the historic, multi-parcel nature of the site.  That part of the building at the 10' setback should not read as one large building. 612 West Main Street (December 9, 2020) 1 Sheet 4 – Site Plan:  Building engagement with the street and sidewalk is important; the continuous planters are an impediment to that engagement.  Site plan should coordinate with the City's West Main Street Streetscape plan, including trees currently anticipated at this location.  This site is an anomaly in this district - it's longer than most any other parcel. Horizontality vs. verticality is a critical issue to be resolved. Sheet 5 - Landscape:  Building engagement with the street and sidewalk is important; the continuous planters are an impediment to that engagement.  Site plan should coordinate with the City's West Main Street Streetscape plan, including trees currently anticipated at this location.  Columnar trees may not be an ideal selection, depending upon the West Main Street Streetscape plans. Sheet 8 – Precedent Research/Façade Design:  Left and center images offer interesting ways to introduce verticality in a facade.  Image at right appears more appropriate to 5th Avenue than to West Main Street because of the scale of openings. Sheet 9 – Precedent Research/Façade Materials:  Brick and stucco are both appropriate materials for building in this ADC district.  Painted new brick is an acceptable material.  Thin brick is acceptable when detailed correctly, especially at corners.  Concern expressed about stucco that is susceptible to damage at ground level - a precast, brick or stone base of some sort could be appropriate as a more durable material at least to a height of 3' +/- above the sidewalk. Sheet 10 – Previous Elevation Studies:  Acknowledgement that this is an unusual parcel on the West Main Street East district, as it is longer and has more street frontage than most parcels. No clear consensus that horizontal emphasis in the elevation is preferred over verticality. Sheet 12 – Previous Elevation Studies:  Balconies suggest residential use of upper floors and add to the building's engagement with West Main Street.  Use of color for awnings is successful and adds liveliness. Sheet 13 – Current Schematic W. Main Elevation:  This site is an anomaly in this district - it's longer than most any other parcel. Horizontality vs. verticality is a critical issue to be resolved. The resolution will set a precedent for the district.  No clear consensus that horizontal emphasis in the elevation is preferred over verticality. Some members would like to see more verticality; others think that the horizontality of the facade is appropriate. 612 West Main Street (December 9, 2020) 2  Concern expressed about the institutional feel of the facade. Tall, 2 story brick "columns" between pairs of windows reads as monumental and not residential in scale.  The long planters are an impediment to engagement with the sidewalk for retailers.  Columnar trees aren't enough to break up the facade into vertical components, and there is no precedent for them on West Main Street. Trees should be coordinated with the West Main Street Streetscape plan.  One member would like color introduced to the facade to enliven it, noting that most buildings on WMS have color and offer visual interest along the street.  The addition of balconies would speak to the residential use of the upper floors and increase engagement with WMS.  Looking for increased verticality, is it possible to extend the facade above the railing height of the 4th floor terraces to allow for variety up to 4 floors in height? Sheet 19 – Window Details:  One member concerned that the exterior walls should have a "cap" or suggestion of a cornice. Discussion At the November 17, 2020 meeting, the BAR accepted the applicant’s request for deferral. Per Sec. 34-285, unless the applicant again requests deferral during this meeting, the BAR must take action to approve, deny, or approve with conditions the requested CoA. This application is a formal CoA request; however, the applicant has acknowledged that this meeting—and, possibly, subsequent meetings—will be treated as a continued discussion towards presenting a final submittal and that, except for a deferral, no BAR action will be taken. As part of this intermediate review, the BAR by consensus 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 and these discussions should be thorough and productive. The goal is to establish what is necessary for a final submittal that provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project and to then approve or deny the requested CoA. . In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements and Chapter III--New Construction and Additions. Of particular assistance for this discussion are the criteria in Chapter III:  Setback, including landscaping and site  Spacing improvements  Massing and Footprint 612 West Main Street (December 9, 2020) 3  Height and Width  Foundation and Cornice  Scale  Materials and Textures  Roof  Paint [Color palette]  Orientation  Details and Decoration, including  Windows and Doors lighting and signage  Street-Level Design BAR recommendations (June 18, 2019) 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 accept the applicant’s request for a 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 612 West Main Street (December 9, 2020) 4 DRAFT (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 ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter 2 – Site Design and Elements Chapter 3 – New Construction and Additions APPENDIX Prior BAR Actions 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. 7th Street NE Parking Garage – Prelim Discussion (Dec 8, 2020) 5 DRAFT 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.) January 22, 2020 – BAR discussion Meeting minutes: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793996/2020- 01_Meeting%20Minutes_BAR.pdf November 17, 2020 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. Approved SUP for 602-616 West Main 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 […] 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 7th Street NE Parking Garage – Prelim Discussion (Dec 8, 2020) 6 DRAFT 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. 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 7th Street NE Parking Garage – Prelim Discussion (Dec 8, 2020) 7 DRAFT 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- 7th Street NE Parking Garage – Prelim Discussion (Dec 8, 2020) 8 Approved Schematic Design Drawings 16 Feb. 2017 http://gowestmain.com/pdf/2017-0217-DRAFT-SD-Drawings-compressed.pdf Existing Proposed BAR Workshop Presentation (4/11/18) http://gowestmain.com/pdf/BAR_Presentation_0411_2018.pdf 612 West Main 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- /�.r /lac C<--/ar 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 -1/ir 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 t;{as been occupied byMorris Tire Service since the late 1960's. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION i 7½ree / 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). �� 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 BAR comments: - new building facade should reflect the historic, multi-parcel nature of the site. - that part of the building at the 10' setback should not read as one large building. 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 SERENE — PREMIUM — THOUGHTFUL — MINIMAL — MODERN CLASSIC * Some images are copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. 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) BAR comments: - building engagement BDA 3D REFERENCE POINT with the street and sidewalk is important; the continuous planters are an impediment to that engagement. - site plan should coordinate with10'the City's West Main Street Streetscape plan, including trees currently anticipated at this location. - this site is an anomaly in this district - it's longer than most any other parcel. Horizontality vs. verticality is a critical issue to be resolved. 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 BAR comments: - building engagement with the street and sidewalk is important; the continuous UPRIGHT/ OVERSIZE STONE RESIDENTIAL ENTRY planters are an impediment to that engagement. COLUMNAR TREES BENCH - site plan should coordinate with the City's West Main Street Streetscape plan, including trees currently anticipated at this location. - columnar trees may not be an ideal selection, depending upon the West Main Street Streetscape plans. 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 BAR comments: - left and center images offer interesting ways to introduce verticality in a facade. - image at right appears more appropriate to 5th Avenue than to West Main Street becuse of the scale of openings. 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 BAR comments: - brick and stucco are both appropriate materials for building in this ADC district. - painted new brick is an acceptable material. - thin brick is acceptable when detailed correctly, especially at corners. - concern expressed about stucco that is susceptible to damage at ground level - a precast, brick or stone base of some sort could be appropriate as a more durable material at least to a height of 3' +/- above the sidewalk. 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 BAR comments: - acknowledgement that this is an unusual parcel on the West Main Street East district, as it is longer and has more street frontage than most parcels. No clear concensus that horizontal emphasis in the elevation is preferred over verticality. 10 9 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 10.27.2020 PREVIOUS ELEVATION STUDIES FOR REFERENCE BAR comments: - balconies suggest residential use of upper floors and add to the building's engagement with West Main Street. - use of color for awnings is successful and adds liveliness. BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 PREVIOUS W. MAIN ELEVATION FOR REFERENCE 12 BAR comments: - This site is an anomaly in this district - it's longer than most any other parcel. Horizontality vs. verticality is a critical issue to be resolved. The resolution will set a precedent for the district. - No clear concensus that horizontal emphasis in the elevation is preferred over verticality. Some members would like to see more verticality; others think that the horizontality of the facade is appropriate. - Concern expressed about the institutional feel of the facade. Tall, 2 story brick "columns" between pairs of windows reads as monumental and not residential in scale. - The long planters are an impediment to engagement with the sidewalk for retailers. - Columnar trees aren't enough to break up the facade into vertical components, and there is no precedent for them on West Main Street. Trees should be coordinated with the West Main Street Streetscape plan. - One member would like color introduced to the facade to enliven it, noting that most buildings on WMS have color and offer visual interest along the street. - The addition of balconies would speak to the residential use of the upper floors and increase engagement with WMS. - Looking for increased verticality, is it possible to extend the facade above the railing height of the 4th floor terraces to allow for variety up to 4 floors in height? 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 15 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 CURRENT SCHEMATIC W. MAIN ENTRY 16 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 CURRENT SCHEMATIC W. MAIN ELEVATION 17 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 CURRENT SCHEMATIC W. MAIN 18 BAR comments: - one member concerned that the exterior walls should have a "cap" or suggestion of a cornice. BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 WINDOW DETAILS 19 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 WINDOW DETAILS 20 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.10.2020 SOUTH - IN PROGRESS 21 ALBEMARLE/GLEASON HOTEL APPROX. WIDTH OF ALBEMARLE HOTEL FACADE HISTORIC PROPERTY LINES (RED) 612 PROPERTY LINES (BLUE) PUBLIC SPACE ENTRY PLAZA MINI MINI MART MART BLUE BLUE MOON MOON DINER DINER 620 W. 620 W. MAIN MAIN ST. ST. (FIRST (FIRST BAPTIST BAPTIST CHURCH CHURCH ANNEX) ANNEX) FIRST BAPTIST FIRST BAPTIST 600 600 W. W. MAIN MAIN COURTYARD COURTYARD CHURCH BUILDING AREA: 16,368.57 sq ft 600 600 W. W. MAIN 612 W. 612 W. MAIN MAIN BUILDING BUILDING FOOTPRINT FOOTPRINT (BLUE) (BLUE) MAIN BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 12.08.2020 HISTORIC MAP OVERLAY 1 NEW CURB AS PART (4) PROPOSED WEST S OF WEST MAIN 488 MAIN STREET TREES PROJECT 488 487 48 488 7 EXISITNG CURB AT WEST MAIN STREET 488 487 TC TC TC 487.87' TC 487.89' TC 487.82' 487.56' 487.29' 653 487.34 7 48 8 TC 48 487 WM 486.57' BS 488 W W 487.27' 487.60' BS BS 487.80' 487.25' 487.60' 487.85' 488.02' 487.25' 488.07' TS TS PUBLIC RETAIL SPACE TO BE LANDSCAPED 488.11' 488.11' 488.10' 488.11' TS 488.10' 488.11' 48 488 488.10' 7 488 HP FFE=488.21' FFE=488.21' FFE=488.21' FFE=488.21' FFE=488.12' FFE=488.12' 488.37' PRIVATE 48 6 RESIDENTIAL ENTRY 48 5 FFE=488.05' LP 488.07' 8 48 484 483 489 488 488.21 PROPOSED BUILDING MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND 0.9' 482 COMMERCIAL WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING 488 16,421 SF FOOTPRINT 481 487 48 0 EXIST. GRADE ±480.00 EXIST. GRADE 1.16' ±479.86 481 1.46' 480 EXIST. GRADE BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 12.08.2020 SITE DIAGRAM 2 VERTICAL RETAIL OPENINGS SEPARATED DISPLAY WINDOWS RETAIL WINDOWS AT THE STREET WINDOW PLANTER BOXES BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 12.08.2020 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | FACADE DESIGN 3 LIGHT BRICK - TEXTURE LIGHT BRICK BRICK TEXTURE STUCCO EXTERIOR WITH METAL WINDOW SURROUNDS BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 12.08.2020 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | FACADE MATERIALS 4 OLD ALBERMARLE HOTEL THEN NOW OLD ALBERMARLE HOTEL THEN NOW THE TERRACES 550 WATER STREET CODE BUILDING THE TERRACES 550 WATER STREET CODE BUILDING BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 12.08.2020 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | CHARLOTTESVILLE 5 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 12.08.2020 CURRENT SCHEMATIC W. MAIN ELEVATION 6 UnCommon UnCommon LARK ON MAIN UnCommon UnCommon 510-600 510-600 W.W. Main Main Street Street First First 612 W. Baptist Baptist MAIN STREET Church Church 510-600 The The Flats 510-600 FlatsW.W. Main Main Street Street First First Baptist Baptist Church Church THE FLATS The The Flats Flats UnCommon 66’-4” 66’-4” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 66’-4” 66’-4” + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 510-600 W. Main Street UnCommon First 82’-6” 82’-6” Baptist 52’-0”Church Steeple Steeple The + APPURTENANCE Flats 69’-11” 69’-11” 510-600 W. Main Street + Appurtenance 103’-0” + 103’-0” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance Appurtenance 82’-6” 82’-6” Steeple Steeple First Baptist Church 103’-0”103’-0” +103’-0” The Flats APPURTENANCE + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 66’-4” + APPURTENANCE 66’-4” + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance 66’-4” + Appurtenance 82’-6” Steeple 103’-0” + 69’-11” Appurtenance + Appurtenance 82’-6” Steeple 103’-0” + Appurtenance BUSHMAN BUSHMAN DREYFUS DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, PC PC • BLUE • BLUE MOONMOON DINERDINER MIXEDMIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 • 510-600 WESTWEST MAIN MAIN STREET, STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA Wednesday, Wednesday, January January 20, 2016 20, 2016 1/16" 1/16" = 1'-0" = 1'-0"Parking Parking Level North Level BUSHMAN BUSHMAN North DREYFUS Elevation ElevationDREYFUS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, PC •PCBLUE BLUE MOON • MOON DINER DINER MIXEDMIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 • 510-600 WESTSTREET, WEST MAIN MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA Wednesday, Wednesday, JanuaryJanuary 20, 2016 20, 2016 1/16" =1/16" = 1'-0"ParkingParking 1'-0" Level Level North North Elevation Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC • BLUE MOON DINER MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 WEST MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1/16" = 1'-0" Parking Level North Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC • BLUE MOON DINER MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 WEST MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1/16" = 1'-0" Parking Level North Elevation BATTLE Battle Battle BUILDING Building Building Battle Battle Building Building 510-600 510-600 W.W. Main MainStreet Street 612 TheW.Standard The MAIN STREET Standard 510-600 510-600 W.W. Main Main Street Street THEThe The STANDARD Standard Standard Battle Building 510-600 Battle Building W. Main Street The 52’-0” Standard + +APPURTENANCE 510-600 W. Main Street 71’-0” + The Standard APPURTENANCE 90’-4” + APPURTENANCE 90’-4” 90’-4” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 90’-4” + Appurtenance 90’-4” 90’-4” + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance 90’-4” + Appurtenance 71’-0” 71’-0” + Appurtenance 69’-11” Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 71’-0” + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance 71’-0” 71’-0” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 71’-0” + Appurtenance BUSHMAN BUSHMAN DREYFUS DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, PC PC • BLUE • BLUE MOONMOON DINERDINER MIXEDMIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 • 510-600 WESTWEST MAIN MAIN STREET, STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA Wednesday, Wednesday, January January 20, 2016 20, 2016 1/16" 1/16" = 1'-0" = 1'-0"Parking Parking Level North Level BUSHMAN BUSHMAN North DREYFUS Elevation ElevationDREYFUS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, PC •PCBLUE BLUE MOON • MOON DINER DINER MIXEDMIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 • 510-600 WESTSTREET, WEST MAIN MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA Wednesday, Wednesday, JanuaryJanuary 20, 2016 20, 2016 1/16" =1/16" = 1'-0"ParkingParking 1'-0" Level Level North North Elevation Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC • BLUE MOON DINER MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 WEST MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1/16" = 1'-0" Parking Level North Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC • BLUE MOON DINER MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 WEST MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1/16" = 1'-0" Parking Level North Elevation ELEVATOR OVERRUN ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT 560'-11" app. +560'-0" ARCHITECT UPPER ROOF BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 3'-8" 4'-7" 820 East High Street 556'-4" Charlottesville VA 22902 +555'-5" 434.295.1936 ROOF DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN DEVELOPMENT 10'-7" c/o Grayson Consulting 2093 Goodling Road North Garden VA 22959 CIVIL ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE +544'-10" TIMMONS GROUP 6TH LEVEL 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 Charlottesville VA 22903 10'-7" MEP, FP ENGINEERS STAENGL ENGINEERING 1159 Crozet Avenue, Suite A Crozet, VA 22932 +534'-3" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 5TH LEVEL Dunbar Milby Williams Pittman & Vaughan TYPE IIIB height from ground plane 110 Third Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 10'-7" 70'-0" +523'-8" 4TH LEVEL 10'-7" height at street 45'-5 3/4" +513'-1" 3RD LEVEL 10'-7" address: 510-600 WEST +502'-6" 2ND LEVEL Existing Bldg (dashed) Existing Bldg (dashed) MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 13'-9" TYPE IA PROJECT #15171 +488'-9" EDITIONS/REVS GROUND MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 486'-4" SEE EXISTING BLDG RENOVATION DRAWINGS SEE EXISTING BLDG RENOVATION DRAWINGS 4/26/17 CD Set CONC. SITE WALL 11 calculated ground plane 2'-5" A6.23 Century CenturyLink Link Old OldAbemarle Abemarle Century Hotel Hotel Century Link Link 510-600 510-600 W.W. Main MainStreet Street Old Old Abemarle Abemarle Hotel The The Hotel Atlantic Atlantic 510-600 510-600 W.W. Main Main Street Street Marriot Marriot Hotel The Hotel The Atlantic Atlantic Marriot Marriot Hotel Hotel 502 W. Main Street 5 4 10 11'-0" ABC Store A6.24 A6.22 A6.21 512 W. Main Street GATE TO COURTYARD 600 W. Main Street 616 W. Main Street 510 W. Main Street Hartnagle-Perkins House W/ CORTEN SURROUND Hawkins-Perry House University Tire Century Link LINK Old Abemarle Hotel Century510-600 W. W.Main Link+ Appurtenance Street The Old Atlantic Abemarle MAIN Hotel 510-600 W. Main Street Marriot Hotel The Atlantic Marriot Hotel New Mixed Use Building CENTURY OLD ALBERMARLE67’-0” HOTEL 510-600 MAIN STREET 612 W. STREET QUIRK HOTEL FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH +MARRIOTT Appurtenance HOTEL +477'-9" PARKING 67’-0” 67’-0” 54’-6” 54’-6” 67’-0” 69’-11” 69’-11” + Appurtenance 54’-6” 54’-6” 76’-0” 76’-0” 69’-11” 69’-11” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 72’-8” 72’-8” 76’-0” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 76’-0” 72’-8” 72’-8” + Appurtenance 67’-0” 54’-6” 69’-11” + Appurtenance 76’-0” 72’-8” + Appurtenance 67’-0” 54’-6” 67’-0” 69’-11” + APPURTENANCE WEST MAIN STREET ELEVATION 0 4' 8' 16' 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 A2.00 52’-0” + APPURTENANCE 54’-6” WEST MAIN STREET ELEVATION 69’-11” + Appurtenance 52’-0” + APPURTENANCE 76’-0” 82’-6” STEEPLE 72’-8”72’-8” + APPURTENANCE + Appurtenance PERMIT SET 01.26.2018 printed 4:19 PM, 1/29/18 A2.00 BUSHMAN BUSHMAN DREYFUS DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, PC PC • BLUE • BLUE MOONMOON DINERDINER MIXEDMIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 • 510-600 WESTWEST MAIN MAIN STREET, STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA Wednesday, Wednesday, January January 20, 2016 20, 2016 1/16" 1/16" = 1'-0" = 1'-0"Parking Parking Level North Level BUSHMAN BUSHMAN North DREYFUS Elevation ElevationDREYFUS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, PC •PCBLUE BLUE MOON • MOON DINER DINER MIXEDMIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 • 510-600 WESTSTREET, WEST MAIN MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA Wednesday, Wednesday, JanuaryJanuary 20, 2016 20, 2016 1/16" =1/16" = 1'-0"ParkingParking 1'-0" Level Level North North Elevation Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC • BLUE MOON DINER MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 WEST MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1/16" = 1'-0" Parking Level North Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC • BLUE MOON DINER MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 WEST MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1/16" = 1'-0" Parking Level North Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 12.08.2020 WEST MAIN STREET BUILDINGS 7 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-12-02 201 East Market Street Tax Parcel 330196000 City of Charlottesville & County of Albemarle, Owner Ryan Dewyea, City of Charlottesville, Applicant Mechanical units Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal • Letter from library staff BAR Packet December 15, 2020 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report December 15, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-12-01 201 East Market Street, TMP 330196000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville & County of Albemarle Applicant: Ryan Dewyea, City of Charlottesville Project: Mechanical unit conduits at rear elevation. Background: Year Built: 1906, renovated 1936 (Originally the City’s U.S. Post Office) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Prior BAR Reviews September 2007 – BAR approved CoA for new bike rack October 2010 – BAR approved CoA for new bike rack. May 2014 - BAR approved CoA to restore windows, install handrails, and misc. maintenance Attachments  Submittal: CoA application with photographs, scope of work, and associated sketch details. CoA to replace rooftop mechanical units and install new pipes and conduits to surface of the west elevation of the rear addition. The new rooftop chiller will have a similar profile to the existing unit. The following will be anchored to the masonry wall with in aluminum brackets and routed to the basement mechanical room:  4” Chilled Water Supply Pipe (7” overall diameter with insulation)  4” Chilled Water Return Pipe (7” overall diameter with insulation)  2” Conduit  ¾” Conduit 201 East Market Street – Library (Dec 10, 2020) 1 Discussion The Design Guidelines do not specifically address external conduits and piping; however, when there is reference to the consolidating and screening of mechanical equipment and utilities. The rooftop equipment is at the rear of the building and will be replaced, essentially, in-kind. Staff does not recommend any additional construction that would screen this unit. In reviewing this project with the applicant, the proposed routing of the exposed pipes and conduits. Alternatives were evaluated, but were constrained by limited space and routing options within the building, avoiding areas with asbestos, and conflicts with egress, among other issues. Staff is confident that the request presents the most feasible routing solution. Staff recommends the BAR approve the proposed location (routing), with four options for addressing the visible pipes and conduits.  Leave as installed, exposed metal.  Paint an appropriate color—see Appendix.  Cover with metal or other panels--see Appendix. (This would conceal the pipes and conduit, but it introduces an enclosure/over that might be more visually intrusive.)  Plant an appropriately sized tree or bush in the space between the sidewalk and loading dock—see Appendix. (Approx. 5-feet. The planting must be contained within that space, even when mature and its roots cannot conflict with the underground segment of the pipes and conduits.) Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City’s ADC Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed rooftop units and exposed pipes and conduits satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. […as submitted with the following conditions:…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City’s ADC Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed rooftop units and exposed pipes and conduits do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec. 34-288(6); and 201 East Market Street – Library (Dec 10, 2020) 2 (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter II – Site Design and Elements H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances Site appurtenances, such as overhead utilities, fuel tanks, utility poles and meters, antennae, exterior mechanical units, and trash containers, are a necessary part of contemporary life. However, their placement may detract from the character of the site and building. 1. Plan the location of overhead wires, utility poles and meters, electrical panels, antennae, trash containers, and exterior mechanical units where they are least likely to detract from the character of the site. 2. Screen utilities and other site elements with fences, walls, or plantings. 3. Encourage the installation of utility services underground. 4. Antennae and communication dishes should be placed in inconspicuous rooftop locations, not in a front yard. 5. Screen all rooftop mechanical equipment with a wall of material harmonious with the building or structure. Chapter IV – Rehabilitation L. Rear of Buildings … 2. Consolidate and screen mechanical and utility equipment in one location when possible. 201 East Market Street – Library (Dec 10, 2020) 3 APPENDIX Painted conduit at Main Street Market 2205-09 Fontaine Avenue. Within an Entrance Corridor. Exterior ductwork and conduits enclosed with prefinished metal panels. 201 East Market Street – Library (Dec 10, 2020) 4 Screen with planting 201 East Market Street – Library (Dec 10, 2020) 5 • JBW 8/19/2020 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 teR f10� 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 strucbJre $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. No fee: City/County-owned property 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 City of Charlottesville/Co. of Albemarle Applicant Name Ryan Dewyea, City of Charlottesville Public Works lnstall mechani al sy stem p es & conduits 3 0_1_9_6_ 0_ 0_ 0______ _ 3 _ Project Name/Description c ip Parcel Number__ Proje ct Property Address 201 East Market Street (McIntire Library) Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: City of Charlottesville Public Works best of my knowledge, correct. /ff.� 315 4th Street NW Charlottesville Vir inia 22903 Email: e.gov IZ./o I /z.o 20 Phone: (W) . . (C) ______ Signature Date R.'(AN U'(v\/YE"A I 1- I (J 1 / 2.. o 20 Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address: City of Charlottesville/Co. of Albemarle Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) PO BOX 911, Charlottesvillle 22902 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? ___N_I_A______ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): _______________ At NW comer near the rear entrance, wall-mounted installation of two (2) chilled water pipes and two (2) conduits. List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Photographs of building, sketch of mounting bracket (typ.) For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _ ________ Received by: ____________ Date: __ _ _ _____________ Fee paid: _ ____Cash/Ck.# ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: ___________ Revised 2016 201 East Market Street, McIntire Library 12/1/2020 Page 1 of 4 NW elevation at 2nd Street NE—Existing NW elevation at 2nd Street NE—Proposed pipes and conduit (for context only) 201 East Market Street, McIntire Library 12/1/2020 Page 2 of 4 NW corner aerial view (east side)—Proposed pipes and conduit (for context only) NW corner aerial view (west side)—Proposed pipes and conduit (for context only) 201 East Market Street, McIntire Library 12/1/2020 Page 3 of 4 The following items will make up the piping assembly that will follow the proposed route: (1) 4” Chilled Water Supply Pipe (7” overall diameter with insulation) (1) 4” Chilled Water Return Pipe (7” overall diameter with insulation) (1) 2” Conduit (1) ¾” Conduit Overall, the assembly will be ~24” wide from the outside of one bracket to the other. The brackets will be spaced per code. The Chilled Water Supply/Return Pipes will be insulated and covered with an aluminum jacket. The piping will leave the mechanical room in the basement and will pass underneath the sidewalk. It will remain underground until it extends up the side of the building. 201 East Market Street, McIntire Library 12/1/2020 Page 4 of 4 201 E. Market Street | Charlottesville, VA 434.979.7151 | FAX 434.971.7035 | jmrl.org December 10th, 2020 Re: Dec. 15th meeting Application -Mechanical units/Library Chiller Address- 201 East Market St. Dear Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review, JMRL is writing to respectfully request BAR approval of the alternate piping plan for the building chiller project which would allow the piping to run on the exterior of the library building, at the 2nd st. loading dock area. Approximately 35 JMRL staff are currently working in the building and offering library service seven days a week. The initial interior plan/route requires contractors to work in office areas where staff are currently working to provide library service (original timeline estimated 4 weeks of inside pipe installation, and a few weeks later an additional 8 days work for interior insulation, during regular working hours). The original interior plan was drafted prior to the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic. Pandemic social distancing recommendations mean that contractors and staff cannot be in this tight space at the same time, which would cause significant disruption to library operations on those work days. Due to the age of the library building, we have found that any planned interior renovation projects inevitably run into additional delays/costs due to asbestos, electrical wiring lines and plumbing idiosyncrasies. Any delays and additional contractors increase traffic and parking concerns in an already narrow and limited downtown block. We recognize the historic architecture and significance of the library building (as a former federal courthouse and post office). The altered plan does not affect the front or side facing exterior facade of the library building. The building’s loading dock is primarily utilitarian space indented from the building footprint; a parking and delivery area for library vehicles and deliveries, including a large dumpster used by the library and the ACHS. There is currently electrical wiring running on the exterior in the loading dock near the proposed piping location. A below ground staircase for access to the mechanical room is also in this area. JMRL appreciates the BAR’s consideration in this matter. Sincerely, David Plunkett Library Director Krista Farrell Asst. Library Director Central Branch Manager grow. learn. connect. Serving Charlottesville, Albemarle County, Greene County, Louisa County, and Nelson County Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-12-01 350 Park Street Tax Parcel 530109000 City of Charlottesville & County of Albemarle, Owner Eric Amtmann, Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects, Applicant Partial demolition Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal BAR Packet December 15, 2020 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Memo December 15, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application – Demolition BAR 20-12-02 City County Courts Complex 350 Park Street, TMP 530109000 0 Park Street, TMP 530108000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Co-owned by the City and County. Project Rep: Eric Amtmann, Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Background: 350 Park Street 0 Park Street Year Built: Levy Building 1852, Annex c1980 Year Built: N/A, parking lot District: North Downtown ADC District District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Status: N/A 350 Park Street (1852 stucture): Brick laid in American bond with a Flemish bond variant, three stories, hipped roof, three-bay front, heavy entablature supported by monumental stuccoed pilasters on brick pedestals, crosette architraves, brick water table. Greek Revival; built circa 1851; three-bay entrance porch with double-tired back porch added. [from VCRIS] Prior BAR Reviews (See Appendix for all) October 2020 – Pre-application discussion re: planned City-County Courts Complex, including necessary selective demolition of the Levy Building’s hyphen and annex. No action taken. Application  Submittal: Application for Selective Removal of Levy Building Annex and Hyphen, dated 15 December 2020 (10 pages). CoA request for selective demolition of the Levy Building hype and east annex. City County Courts Complex – Selective Demo at Levy Bldg (Dec 8, 2020) 1 Discussion The project parcels are within the City’s North Downtown ADC District and the existing structure—including hyphen and annex--is designated contributing. The City Code requires a CoA prior to the demolition, including selective demolition, of a contributing structure.  350 Park Street: The town of Charlottesville was established in 1761, after Nelson County was created and the [smaller] Albemarle County relocated its seat of government to a more central location. The project area is part of the original Court Square, which was laid out in 1762, the site of the Levy Building was left open and, until 1851, was known as the town’s Battery. (In 1851, 350 Park Street was sold and a town hall constructed there. In 1887, Jefferson Levy acquired the building and converted it into the Levy Opera House.)  Park Street: No structures are recorded at this location, except for a utility structure—likely a privy or storage shed.  610 East High Street (hyphen and annex): At this location, the available records indicate here a two-story, brick dwelling with outbuildings constructed after 1877 (per the Gray map) and prior to 1896 (per Sanborn Maps), which remained until the 1970s (per aerial photos). The existing structure at 614 East Market Street has a similar footprint and was constructed c1885, which may suggest the construction date for the building at 610 East High. Note: See attached showing historic maps and photos of the project site. Regarding the requested CoA, per the standards for considering demolitions (summarized below), staff supports approval of the demolition request and recommends the following as conditions of approval:  Provide documentation of the structures, including photographs and measured drawings. Additionally, from staff summary of the standards for considering demolitions (below), staff refers to Chapter I, Section E, of the ADC District Guidelines, which incorporate the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation, including the following (item 8): Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. In reviewing prior City and/or County projects in Court Square, on at least one occasion (March 2006, see Appendix) the BAR has recommended an archeological investigation of the site. Staff recommends here that, subsequent to the planned demolition, a Phase I archeological survey be conducted at 350 an 0 Park Street, including beneath the paved surfaces, when removed, with the results submitted for the BAR record. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Demolitions, I move to find that the proposed demolition satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted[.] City County Courts Complex – Selective Demo at Levy Bldg (Dec 8, 2020) 2 […as submitted with the following conditions:…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Demolitions, I move to find that the proposed demolition does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341(a) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the conservation district design guidelines; and 2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the conservation district in which the property is located. Sec. 34-277. - Certificates of appropriateness; demolitions and removals. (a) No contributing structure located within a major design control district, and no protected property, shall be moved, removed, encapsulated or demolished (in whole or in part) unless and until an application for a certificate of appropriateness has been approved by the BAR, or the city council on appeal, except that: (1) The moving, removing, encapsulating or demolition, in whole or in part, of any contributing structure or protected property shall be allowed pursuant to an order of the city's building code official, without the permission of the BAR or city council on appeal, upon the determination of the building code official that the building or structure is in such a dangerous, hazardous or unsafe condition that it could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious injury before review under the provisions of this article. Upon such a determination, the building code official shall deliver a copy of his order to the director of neighborhood development services and to the chairman of the BAR; and (2) Where the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition of any contributing structure or protected property will disturb or affect fewer than twenty-five (25) square feet, total, of exterior wall, roof or other exterior surfaces, such activity shall be deemed an alteration subject to the review process set forth within section 34-275, above. (b) Review of the proposed moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition of any contributing structure or protected property shall be limited to the factors specified in section 34-278, below. (c) The BAR, or council on appeal, may make such requirements for, and conditions of approval as are necessary or desirable to protect the safety of adjacent buildings, structures, or properties, and of any persons present thereon; and, in the case of a partial removal, encapsulation or demolition: (1) To protect the structural integrity of the portion(s) of a building or structure which are to remain following the activity that is the subject of a permit, or City County Courts Complex – Selective Demo at Levy Bldg (Dec 8, 2020) 3 (2) To protect historic or architecturally significant features on the portion(s) of a building or structure which are to remain following the activity that is the subject of a permit. (d) Failure to obtain the permit required by this section shall subject the property owner to the civil penalty described within Article I, section 34-86(b) (i.e., not to exceed twice the fair market value of the building or structure). Factors for Considering Demolitions 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: (a) 1. The age of the structure or building; Staff: Construction of the hyphen and annex occurred after 1980, but prior to 1990. Note: That construction was at 610 E. High Street. The structure indicated on that parcel on the 1898 through c1965 Sanborn Maps is extant in the 1974, but not in 1980. (Source: aerial photos. geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/) (a) 2. Whether it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP], or the Virginia Landmarks Register [VLR]; Staff: The hyphen and annex lie within the Charlottesville Historic District; however, construction occurred after the VLR and NRHP listings. The Levy Building (identified as the Levy Opera House) at 350 Park Street is contributing structure within the Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District, listed on the VLR (1972) and NRHP (1972). The nomination survey does not include 610 E. High Street or refer a structure there. (Source: www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic- registers/104-0057/) In 1980, the VLR and NRHP an amendment to the nomination included a larger area of Charlottesville’s downtown. (Approximately the area of the City’s Downtown and North Downtown ADC districts.) The Charlottesville Historic District, listed on the VLR (1980) and NTHP (1982), includes the area east of the Levy Building. The survey area encompassed all properties on the Levy Building block; while the listing includes the c1885 structure at 614 E. High Street, there is not mention of the structure at 610 E. High Street. (Source: www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0072/) (a) 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: Not applicable. (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; City County Courts Complex – Selective Demo at Levy Bldg (Dec 8, 2020) 4 Staff: They do not. (a) 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: Not applicable. (a) 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; Staff: The hyphen and annex to be entirely removed. (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: While the hyphen and annex incorporate some architectural elements of the Levy Building, they are represent contemporary construction and (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: Proposed demolition is necessary only to accommodate new construction related to the City-County Courts Complex. (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; Staff: Not applicable relative to the proposed demolition of the hyphen and annex; however, see item (e) below. (e) Any applicable provisions of the city's design guidelines. Staff: Chapter I, Section E, of the ADC District Guidelines incorporates into the guidelines the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation, which includes the following (item 8): Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. In reviewing prior City and/or County projects in Court Square, on at least one occasion (March 2006, see Appendix) the BAR has recommended an archeological investigation of the site. Staff recommends here that, subsequent to the planned demolition, a Phase I archeological survey be conducted at the area of selective demolition and beneath the paved surfaces at both 0 Park Street and 350 Park Street, with the results submitted for the BAR record. City County Courts Complex – Selective Demo at Levy Bldg (Dec 8, 2020) 5 From 1762 to 1851, this was an open space, the town’s Battery. The current site of the Levy Building, the hyphen and the annex have been disturbed and any disturbed or fill material is likely suspect. However, there are no records of additional buildings here, at the current parking areas. If the ground has not been significantly disturbed, there may be artifacts here that inform how this open space was used. Additionally, there are references to John Jouett, Sr., owner of the Swan Tavern, being buried here after his death in 1802. References include: Rev. Edgar Woods’ 1901 Albemarle County in Virginia refers to John Jouett, Sr’s burial: Pages 240 and 241 “[John Jouett] kept the Swan until his death in 1802. In the Central Gazette of October 8th, 1824, there appeared an earnest appeal to the citizens of Charlottesville to erect a stone over his grave, but the voice died away unheeded, and the grave is now un known. At the time of his death, and for many years after, no public place of burial in the town existed. According to the custom of that day, he was most probably buried in the yard in the rear of his house, and his remains lie somewhere in the square on which the old Town Hall is situated.” From the 1942 annotated reprint of Early Charlottesville; recollections of James Alexander, 1828-1874: A footnote on pages 15 and 16 refers to Jouett’s burial: “The general tradition about Charlottesville has always been, that it was John Jouett, Sr., who performed the exploit of outstripping Tarleton. . . . As to the grave of the elder Jouett [John Jouett, Sr.] there is a cluster of fine old box [sic] in the rear of the Matacia home, 610 East High Street (to the rear of the Town Hall), which is believed to mark the site of the burial plot, the grave, according to belief, being within ten feet of a spot now marked by a cherry tree.” On page 16 and 17, Alexander refers to a well at this site and to activities at the Battery: “In 1808, a man by the name of John (called Jack) M'Coy, was barkeeper in this Swan tavern; he was murdered and thrown into the well on the premises.” “On the vacant lot adjoining the hotel there was a battery; where men and boys played ball; quoits were pitched and marbles played. It was not unusual to see men of fifty and boys of ten or twelve playing together. This was a general resort for recreation, especially two or three hours before sunset.” 1891 Sanborn indicates between the Swan Tavern and the town hall/Levy Opera House a small, wood-framed structure that was possibly the well or a shared privy. City County Courts Complex – Selective Demo at Levy Bldg (Dec 8, 2020) 6 APPENDIX Prior BAR Reviews 350 Park Street February 2003 – Prelim discussion. Temporary sally port and ADA ramp. March 2003 - Prelim discussion. Permanent ADA ramp May 9, 2006 BAR Action Letter for 410 East High Street BAR 06-03-04 410 East High Street, TM 53 P 39 County of Albemarle, Owner (Ron Lilley)/ DJG, Inc., Architects Albemarle County Courthouse sallyport and partial demolition The above referenced project was discussed before a meeting of the City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR) on March 21, 2006. The BAR approved (7-0) the addition of a sallyport to the Clerk of Court Annex behind the Albemarle County Courthouse in Court Square, subject to additional details to come back to the BAR regarding the construction details of the patio, and lighting beneath the sallyport, along with the results of the archeological study to determine its appropriateness. Please submit ten copies of the additional details to return to the BAR for approval. Source Citations Early Charlottesville; recollections of James Alexander, 1828-1874. Reprinted from the Jeffersonian republican by the Albemarle County Historical Society. Edited by Mary Rawlings. 1942. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001263700 On pages 15 and 16, a 1942 annotation (#16) states: “[Reference to the Former home of Mrs. Isabella Leitch] Now the Red Land Club, corner of Park Street and East Jefferson. Of the Jouetts, Woods' Albemarle County, pp. 240-41, tells us: ‘Among the earliest entries on the Court records in 1745, is a notice of the death of Matthew Jouett, and the appointment of John Moore as his executor. It can scarcely be doubted that John Jouett, who was for many years a prominent citizen of Charlottesville, was a son of this Matthew. In 1773 John purchased from John Moore one hundred acres ad joining the town on the east and north, and at that time most likely erected the Swan Tavern of famous memory. ... In 1790 he laid out High Street, with the row of lots on either side. . . . He kept the Swan until his death in 1802. . . . At the time of his death, and for many years after, no public place of burial in the town existed. According to the custom of that day, he was most probably buried in the yard in the rear of his house, and his remains lie somewhere in the square on which the old Town Hall is situated. . . . The general tradition about Charlottesville has always been, that it was John Jouett, Sr., who performed the exploit of outstripping Tarleton. . . . As to the grave of the elder Jouett, there is a cluster of fine old box in the rear of the Matacia home, 610 East High Street* (to the City County Courts Complex – Selective Demo at Levy Bldg (Dec 8, 2020) 7 rear of the Town Hall), which is believed to mark the site of the burial plot, the grave, according to belief, being within ten feet of a spot now marked by a cherry tree. *Note: This is a 20th century reference. Per the 1930 US Census, T.W. and Louis Matacia lived at 610 East High Street. No record for 1920 Census, but in 1910 they live on Main Street. On pages 16 and 17, Alexander states: “In 1808, a man by the name of John (called Jack) M'Coy, was barkeeper in this Swan tavern; he was murdered and thrown into the well on the premises. The landlord, who was absent on the night that the murder occurred, was accused of being concerned in it, but he was acquitted. The late Ira Garrett was a boarder in the house at the time, and was a witness in the case when it was investigated by the court. No clue as to who committed the murder was ever afterwards obtained. On the vacant lot adjoining the hotel there was a battery; where men and boys played ball; quoits were pitched and marbles played. It was not unusual to see men of fifty and boys of ten or twelve playing together. This was a general resort for recreation, especially two or three hours before sunset. On a square or two north of this, on Sunday evenings, young men and boys sometimes resorted to exercise their limbs in jumping.” Albemarle County in Virginia: giving some account of what it was by nature, of what it was made by man, and of some of the men who made it. Rev. Edgar Woods. 1901. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009797083 From pages 240-241. “Among the earliest entries on the Court records of Albemarle in 1745, is a notice of the death of Matthew Jouett, and the appointment of John Moore as his executor. It can scarcely be doubted that John Jouett, who was for many years a prominent citizen of Charlottesville, was a son of this Matthew. In 1773 John purchased from John Moore one hundred acres adjoining the town on the east and north, and at that time most likely erected the Swan Tavern, of famous memory. Three years later he bought from the same gentleman three hundred acres south of the town, including the mill now owned by Hartman. In 1790 he laid out High Street, with the row of lots on either side, and by an act of the Legislature they were vested in trustees to sell at auction after giving three weeks' notice in the Virginia Gazette. He kept the Swan until his death in 1802. In the Central Gazette of October 8th, 1824, there appeared an earnest appeal to the citizens of Charlottesville to erect a stone over his grave, but the voice died away unheeded, and the grave is now unknown. At the time of his death, and for many years after, no public place of burial in the town existed. According to the custom of that day, he was most probably buried in the yard in the rear of his house, and his remains lie somewhere in the square on which the old Town Hall is situated.” City County Courts Complex – Selective Demo at Levy Bldg (Dec 8, 2020) 8 For Discussion Only—December 7, 2020 Depiction from an 1820s description. Area near Levy Bldg referred to as the Battery. Approx. project area. Map based on description in 1942 annotated reprint of “Recollections of James Alexander 1828-1874.” 1877 O.W. Gray & Son Map of Charlottesville Approx. footprint of hyphen/annex. davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~207929~3003520:Charlottesville,Virginia-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No For Discussion Only—December 7, 2020 1891 Sanborn Prior to 1920, rear section is removed. Approx. footprint of hyphen/annex. 1896 Sanborn Approx. footprint of hyphen/annex. For Discussion Only—December 7, 2020 Approx. footprint of 1896 Sanborn hyphen/annex. 610 614 610 East High Street 614 East High Street For Discussion Only—December 7, 2020 1907 Sanborn Approx. footprint of hyphen/annex. 1920 Sanborn Approx.. footprint of hyphen/annex. Aerial Photos For Discussion Only—December 7, 2020 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ Dwelling 610 E. High Street Levy 1966 Dwelling razed 610 E. High Street 1980 Levy Levy Building hyphen and annex 610 E. High Street Levy 1990 For Discussion Only—December 7, 2020 1929 Sanborn with updates through c1965 Approx. footprint of hyphen/annex. Current Hyphen/annex. No fee: City/County-owned property City of Charlottesville/Co. of Albemarle Eric Amtmann (Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects) Select demolition Levy Building 530109000, 530108000 350 Park Street, 0 Park Street Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects 206 Fifth Street NE, Charlottesville Virginia 22902 EAmtmann@dgparchitects.com 2020.12.01 434.977.4480 Eric W. Amtmann 2020.12.01 City of Charlottesville/Co. of Albemarle PO BOX 911, Charlottesvillle 22902 N/A As required for construction of the City-County Courts Facility, select demolition of the Levy Building Annex and Hyphen. "Application for Selective Removal of Levy Building Annex and Hyphen," dated 15 December 2020, 10 pages. Courts Complex Addition and Renovation County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville Application for Selective Removal of Levy Building Annex and Hyphen 15 December 2020 County District Court and County CAO Levy Building County Circuit Court PRECONSTRUCTION: • Remove Levy Building Annex and Hyphen Albemarle Courts Preconstruction FENTRESS ARCHITECTS | DGP ARCHITECTS SELECTIVE REMOVAL OF LEVY BUILDING ANNEX & HYPHEN Levy Building Selective Removals Plan FENTRESS ARCHITECTS | DGP ARCHITECTS Albemarle Courts Schedule Detail FENTRESS ARCHITECTS | DGP ARCHITECTS Levy Building: Southwest Corner FENTRESS ARCHITECTS | DGP ARCHITECTS Levy Building: Northwest Corner FENTRESS ARCHITECTS | DGP ARCHITECTS Levy Building Annex: Northeast Corner FENTRESS ARCHITECTS | DGP ARCHITECTS Levy Building Annex: East Facade FENTRESS ARCHITECTS | DGP ARCHITECTS Levy Building Annex: Southwest Corner FENTRESS ARCHITECTS | DGP ARCHITECTS Levy Building Annex: Southwest Corner FENTRESS ARCHITECTS | DGP ARCHITECTS SELECTIVE REMOVAL OF LEVY BUILDING ANNEX & HYPHEN Levy Building Selective Removals Plan FENTRESS ARCHITECTS | DGP ARCHITECTS 793" 1/2" 1/2" 1/2" 38 114 54" 113 54" 1131/2" 54" 114" 54" 461/2" 361/2" 9" 6" 9" 9" 37" 39" 341/4" ANNEX & HYPHEN INFORMATION TAKEN FROM 2018 DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE & NOT VERIFIED 55" 333/4" THE NORTH & SOUTH OVERALL DIMENSIONS 57" DIFFER BY 3". NOT SURE HOW BUILDING IS 37" OUT OF SQUARE, SO NW AND SW CORNERS ARE DRAWN AT 90 DEGREES, WITH THE 3" DIFFERENCE TAKEN UP BY NOT ALIGNING 24" 111/2" NE AND SE SEGMENTS OF WEST WALL 7" 72" 56" 111/2" 10" 85" 5541/2" SLOPE CENTERLINE OF DOWN 2" 111/2" MAIN CORNICE 251/4" 37" 341/4" 55" 421/2" 35" 33" 37" 36" 9" 9" 9" 6" 37" 291/2" 631/2" 231/2" 54" 1121/2" 55" 113" 54" 114" 54" 50" 36" 796" LINE OF WATERTABLE ON FLOOR BELOW BUILDING AREA TO BE REMOVED A l b e m a r l e C o u n t y L e v y B u i l d i n g - First Floor Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" D ALGLIESH G ILPIN PAXTON A RCHITECTS 2020.12.15 12 3.5 VIF 26'-3 3/8" = 108 BRICK COURSES = 2.92" / CS. WEST ELEVATION 12 5 VIF 26'-3 3/8" = 108 BRICK COURSES = 2.92" / CS. BUILDING AREA TO BE SOUTH ELEVATION REMOVED A l b e m a r l e C o u n t y L e v y B u i l d i n g - W e s t & S o u t h E l e v a t i o n s Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" D ALGLIESH G ILPIN PAXTON A RCHITECTS 2020.12.15 EAST ELEVATION 12 5 VIF 26'-3 3/8" = 108 BRICK COURSES = 2.92" / CS. BUILDING AREA TO BE NORTH ELEVATION REMOVED A l b e m a r l e C o u n t y L e v y B u i l d i n g - East & N o r t h E l e v a t i o n s Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" D ALGLIESH G ILPIN PAXTON A RCHITECTS 2020.12.15 BUILDING AREA TO BE REMOVED BUILDING AREA TO BE REMOVED BUILDING AREA TO BE REMOVED Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-12-04 106 Oakhurst Circle Tax Parcel 110005000 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC, Owner Patrick Farley, Architect, Applicant Renovation, addition, and site work Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal BAR Packet December 15, 2020 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report December 15, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-12-03 106 Oakhurst Circle, Tax Map Parcel 110005000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner: 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC Applicant: Patrick Farley Project: Alterations and site work Background Year Built: 1922 District: Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Status: Contributing Designed as a combination of Colonial Revival and Craftsman styles, this two-story dwelling has a gabled roof, stucco siding, overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends, a pent roof between the first and second floor, an interior stuccoed chimney, a concrete stoop, and a central door sheltered by a gabled hood supported by brackets. Triple eight-by-eight casement windows are found on the first floor, while eight-over-eight-sash double-hung windows are used on the second floor and flank a central triple eight-by-eight casement bay window. French doors on the east side lead out to a patio. The house also includes a rear deck and a projecting rectangular one-story bay window supported by wooden brackets on the west end. (From the National Register nomination for the Oakhurst- Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District.) Prior BAR Reviews September 15, 2020 – BAR held a Primary Discussion on the materials submitted. Due to difficulty connecting on-line, the applicant was unable to participate. October 20, 2020 - BAR held a Primary Discussion 106 Oakhurst December 8, 2020 1 Application  Submittal: Patrick Farley Architect Final BAR Submission, dated November 24, 2020: Narrative, Sheets A through D. CoA request for proposed alterations to existing house and a rear addition. Site work to include a new driveway, which will require removal of the south porch and replacement with a shallower version. Roofing:  Standing seam metal on addition, balconies, and existing house (replace asphalt shingles)  EPDM on flat roof at hyphen Materials  Stucco: Smooth finish, “StoPowerwall” stucco system (www.stocorp.com)  Trim: Fiber cement, painted  Doors and Windows: Anderson, aluminum clad wood. White with black exterior trim.  Ceiling at covered parking: Tongue and grooved trim, stained  Low wall: Board-formed concrete wall with stone cap. Balconies, Deck and Stairs  Railing: Wood rail (natural finish) on panels with flat metal bars (painted)  Decking/Treads: Composition material. Trim and exposed framing below to be painted. Landscaping  Remove: 6” Crepe Myrtle (front), 6” Dogwood (front), 4” Holly (rear), 40” Oak (rear)  New: See Plan Schedule on Sheet A. Paving  Walking Path (front): Cut slate/flagstone in aggregate with steel edging  Walking Path (rear): Crushed Buckingham slate with steel edging  Driveway (front): Concrete, permeable pavers  Driveway (rear): Crushed Buckingham slate with steel edging Exterior Lighting:  Pathway lights: AQ Lighting, 3 Tier Pagoda Pathway Light, LED, CCT 2,700K or 5,000K  Step lights (north pathway): Vonn Step Light VOS39637, LED, CRI 90, CCT 3,000K  Soffit lighting: Recessed can lights, TBD Discussion The BAR held two discussion on this request. The BAR should review is the applicant has provided the requested information and clarifications. Doors and Windows: Submittal indicates insulated glass with an applied grille. BAR should require an internal spacer bar within the glazing. Lighting: For the pathway and soffit lights, the BAR should establish conditions for lamping. 106 Oakhurst December 8, 2020 2 Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, , I move to find that the proposed alterations and new construction satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted[.] […as submitted with the following conditions:…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations and new construction demolition do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (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  Plantings  Walkways and Driveways  Utilities and Other Site  Walls and Fences  Parking Areas and Lots Appurtenances  Lighting Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Checklist from section P. Additons 1) Function and Size 106 Oakhurst December 8, 2020 3 a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Chapter 4 – 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. 106 Oakhurst December 8, 2020 4 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5092-0004 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, 106 Oakhurst Circle Not Evaluated Property Addresses This Property is associated with the Oakhurst/Gildersleeve Current - 106 Oakhurst Circle Neighborhood Historic District. County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE WEST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Town Acreage: No Data Site Description: House is set back from sidewalk, gravel drive; mature oak trees and bushes. Surveyor Assessment: This ca. 1925 dwelling exhibits a combination of elements typical of the vernacular Colonial Revival and the vernacular Craftsman styles and is a contributing resource to the potential Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District Surveyor Recommendation: No Data Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling NR Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Contributing Date of Construction: Ca 1925 Date Source: Site Visit/Map Historic Time Period: World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Craftsman Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.5 Condition: Excellent Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: This 1 ½-story, 3-bay, symmetrical, vernacular Craftsman and Colonial Revival-style frame dwelling is very much intact. Constructed ca. 1925, the gable-roofed, stuccoed dwelling features the following details: asphalt shingle roofing, overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends, a pent roof between the first and 2nd floor; an interior stuccoed chimney, a concrete stoop, and a central door sheltered by a gable hood supported by brackets. Triple 8 x 8 casement windows are found on first floor, while 8/8-sash windows on the second floor flank a central triple 8x8 casement bay. French doors on the east side lead out to a patio. The house also includes a rear deck and a projecting rectangular 1-story bay window supported by wooden brackets on the west end. October 15, 2020 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5092-0004 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Gable Asphalt Shingle Foundation Solid/Continuous No Data Parged Windows Casement Wood Multiple-light Chimneys Central interior Concrete Stuccoed Structural System and Frame Wood Stuccoed Exterior Treatment Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood 8/8 Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: Oakhurst/Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: HD104-5092 Investigator: Kalbian, Maral Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media: No Data Survey Date: 3/1/2004 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Survey conducted for the city of Charlottesville in preparation of Preliminary Information Form Project Bibliographic Information: Name: Bibb, Eugenia Record Type: Personal Papers Bibliographic Notes: Bibb, Eugenia, "Field Notes," April 15, 2004. 1545 Dairu Road, Charlottesville, Va. 22903 ----------------------------- Name: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Record Type: Map ----------------------------- Name: Chville Assessors Records Record Type: Local Records Bibliographic Notes: Web Site Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data October 15, 2020 Page: 2 of 2 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___________________________________ 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC c/o C. diPierro Patrick Farley Architect, PLLC Applicant Name______________________________________ 106 Oakhurst Circ/Renovations & Additions Project Name/Description______________________________________ 110005000 Parcel Number__________________________ 106 Oakhurst Circle, Charlottesville, Va. 22903 Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the 5836 Taylor Creek Rd. Address:______________________________________ best of my knowledge, correct. Afton, Va. 22920 _____________________________________________ Email:________________________________________ patrick@patrickfarley.net __________________________________________ 434-205-0225 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ 804-306-4927 Signature Date J. Patrick Farley 11/24/20 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address:______________________________________ 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC c/o C. diPierro Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) _____________________________________________ 65 W Meadow Rd., Setauket, NY 11733 I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:________________________________________ oakhurstcircle@icloud.com its submission. Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ 434-882-4426 _ __________________________________________ 09/23/2020 Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits _________________________________________ Charles G diPierro for 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC 09/23/2020 No. for this project? _______________________ Print Name Date Previously provided and additional comments Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ included with drawings. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Site/Landscape Plan, Existing/Site Demolition, Floor Plans, Wall Section, Railing Section, Exterior Elevations, ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 3D renderings (various 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. 106 Oakhurst Circle - - Proposed Renovation & Additions (Schematic) 24 November 2020 FINAL SUBMISSION DESIGN OUTLINE The following is a brief overview of updates in response to BAR feedback conveyed during the pre-application conference held on 10/20/20: SITE • Driveway: A new access to rear yard parking for up to 4 vehicles is proposed along southern boundary. Existing driveway cut is proposed to remain as part of a new pedestrian access point. A dual mailbox pedestal will anchor a paved entry pad, from which 2 stone pathways connect to each dwelling unit. • Landscape: Defined by native habitat plantings across 3 zones: front, middle and rear yards. Lawn will be replaced by ground covers, grasses and shrubs; a prime feature will be a pollinator garden that will also serve as a Monarch Waystation. Rear yard will be cleared of invasives and restored with native understory, shrubs and herbaceous plants. Stormwater via sheet flow and conveyance from Unit B roof will be managed via rain garden. Proposed network of paths (starting with new pedestrian entry point from Oakhurst) are designed in anticipation of daily pedestrian patterns, i.e. students on foot coming and going from class, work, etc. and from both directions (to both dwelling units) via the Circle. • Paving & paths: Picking up on the dark “blue-black” trim color theme, the new driveway & garden paths will be topped with various forms of Buckingham slate finish. The driveway will be of “prime-and-double-seal” with a crushed slate top layer. The walk paths will follow suit, utilizing a slightly finer grain. The primary pathways to each dwelling unit will be more robust, of cut slate path stones, set in crushed slate held with metal landscape edging. Paths within planted areas will be mulched. For reference on slate materials, see https://www.buckinghamslate.com/hardscapes/l-series. Driveway section adjacent to existing south oak tree proposed as open grid pavers to reduce impact and facilitate rainwater percolation to roots. • Lighting: All downcast type fixtures, will be limited to path lighting via “pagoda” style fixtures befitting the arts & crafts character of the dwelling. Limited step lighting will be integral to walls and/or risers (refer to exhibits, sheet A). ARCHITECTURE • Roofing: Research of precedents on Oakhurst Circle yielded no results. Inquired of Oakhurst Inn for any photographic records deployed during their recent renovations, to no avail as well. Based on other homes of the same period, it is assumed that the original roof was slate that was, for some reason, later replaced with the current asphalt shingles. Our proposal remains to replace existing shingles with metal and to utilize standing seam for the addition (with “flat”, membrane & vegetation at “hyphen”). • Balcony railings: Refer to detail, sheet C. Graphic represents “typical” construct of painted steel frame (to match trim) & wood cap. • West balconies (Unit B): no longer has side wall plane to ground; redesigned as open condition with ‘tilted’ support column intended to subtly compliment the slope of the site and as homage to ‘leaning’ nearby oak that will need to be removed. • “Hyphen”: Clear distinction between original & new, a transparent volume, with solid base emphasizing visual anchoring and horizontal datums that tie the whole together. A small area of vegetated roof is proposed as part of our stormwater management scheme, but will be marginally visible from front and rear approaches. • South porch: Now includes More developed roof brackets (see 3D detail, sheet D). • Front Porch: Not a focus of our attention previously, but now being considered in concert with the reimagined front yard/garden, to be “spruced up” with new slate pavers & seat walls of stucco to provide sense of enclosure and engagement with landscape and street life beyond. • Windows/doors: Aluminum clad wood units by Anderson (see exhibit, sheet C) that follow the existing scheme of French casements as the dominant type. White sashes with casings and sills to match existing. Muntin patterns respect existing without replicating. • Lighting: At this stage, all architectural lighting will be concealed or indirect (i.e. recessed downlights), in concert with landscape fixtures that illuminate safe passage. Any lighting that we ultimately decide to use will be specified in strict accordance with Dark Sky requirements (www.darksky.org). GRID PAVERS EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION BIRD'S EYE FROM NORTHEAST WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION BIRD'S EYE FROM SOUTHEAST VIEW FROM NEW DRIVEWAY ENTRY VIEW TO FRONT PORCH VIEW FROM NEW PEDESTRIAN ENTRY SOUTH PORCH DETAIL VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST VIEW FROM SOUTH VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST Preliminary Discussion Combined Courts Parking Structure on East Market Street Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal BAR Packet December 15, 2020 7 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Memo December 15, 2020 Project Introduction City County Courts Complex Market Street/7th Street Parking Garage 0 East Market Street, TMP 530159000 801-805 East Market Street, TMP 90137000 Portion of 8th Street NE Right of Way Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville & County of Albemarle Applicant: Scott Hendrix, City of Charlottesville Project: Demolition of structures, new parking garage Background: 0 East Market Street 805 East Market Street, Guadalajara Year Built: N/A, parking lot Year Built: Constructed after 1964 District: Downtown ADC District District: Downtown ADC District Status: N/A Status: Contributing 801 East Market Street, Lucky Seven Year Built: Constructed after 1964 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Prior BAR Reviews N/A Application  Presentation Combined Courts Parking Structure on East Market Street (13 pages). Prelim discussion to introduce this project to the BAR. Market St/7th Street NE Parking Garage – Prelim Discussion (Dec 8, 2020) 1 Discussion This presentation will allow the project team for the planned parking structure—a component of the City-County Courts Complex--to introduce to the BAR the scope of and schedule for this multi-phased project. At the completion of this discussion, no BAR action is required. The project area is within the City’s Downtown ADC District and the two existing structures are contributing.* The City Code requires BAR approval for the exterior alterations to a property within the district and for the demolition of any contributing structurers within the district. (*When adopting the Downtown ADC District City Council designated all structures as contributing, regardless of age or design.) There will be two CoA requests for this project. 1. Demolition of the existing buildings at 801 and 805 East Market Street. Pertinent Design Guidelines • Chapter 7 – Demolition and Moving Note: Staff prepared a preliminary review of the standards for considering demolitions. See below. 2. Design for the proposed parking structure. Pertinent Design Guidelines  Chapter 2 – Site Design and Elements  Chapter 3 – New Construction and Additions  Chapter 6 – Public Design and Improvements Note: In prior correspondence with the applicant, staff suggested the following issues for discussion:  How will this incorporate the East High Street Streetscape project?  What is planned for the small parcel at the 9th Street corner?  Articulation of the façade, so that is not a long, monolithic street wall.  Use the 8th Street entrance [from Market Street] as a break in the façade. Can it appear open through to the north side of the structure? Not as a second vehicular entrance, but to create permeability from Market Street through to 8th Street. (For example, the CODE Building’s throughway between Water Street and the Mall.) Suggested Motions No action will be taken. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341(a) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the conservation district design guidelines; and 2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the conservation district in which the property is located. Market St/7th Street NE Parking Garage – Prelim Discussion (Dec 8, 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. Sec. 34-277. - Certificates of appropriateness; demolitions and removals. (a) No contributing structure located within a major design control district, and no protected property, shall be moved, removed, encapsulated or demolished (in whole or in part) unless and until an application for a certificate of appropriateness has been approved by the BAR, or the city council on appeal, except that: (1) The moving, removing, encapsulating or demolition, in whole or in part, of any contributing structure or protected property shall be allowed pursuant to an order of the city's building code official, without the permission of the BAR or city council on appeal, upon the determination of the building code official that the building or structure is in such a dangerous, hazardous or unsafe condition that it could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious injury before review under the provisions of this article. Upon such a determination, the building code official shall deliver a copy of his order to the director of neighborhood development services and to the chairman of the BAR; and (2) Where the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition of any contributing structure or protected property will disturb or affect fewer than twenty-five (25) square feet, total, of exterior wall, roof or other exterior surfaces, such activity shall be deemed an alteration subject to the review process set forth within section 34-275, above. (b) Review of the proposed moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition of any contributing structure or protected property shall be limited to the factors specified in section 34-278, below. (c) The BAR, or council on appeal, may make such requirements for, and conditions of approval as are necessary or desirable to protect the safety of adjacent buildings, structures, or properties, and of any persons present thereon; and, in the case of a partial removal, encapsulation or demolition: (1) To protect the structural integrity of the portion(s) of a building or structure which are to remain following the activity that is the subject of a permit, or (2) To protect historic or architecturally significant features on the portion(s) of a building or structure which are to remain following the activity that is the subject of a permit. Market St/7th Street NE Parking Garage – Prelim Discussion (Dec 8, 2020) 3 (d) Failure to obtain the permit required by this section shall subject the property owner to the civil penalty described within Article I, section 34-86(b) (i.e., not to exceed twice the fair market value of the building or structure). Factors for Considering Demolitions 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: (a) 1. The age of the structure or building; Staff: [Draft comments.] Construction of the structures at 801 and 805 East Market Street occurred c1964. There are no structures on 0 East Market Street. (See Sanborn Maps in the Appendix.) (a) 2. Whether it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP], or the Virginia Landmarks Register [VLR]; Staff: [Draft comments.] The project area is not within the Charlottesville Historic District, listed on the VLR (1980) and NTHP (1982), nor are the existing structures individually listed or eligible for listing. (a) 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: [Draft comments.] Not applicable. (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: [Draft comments.] The two structure do not; however, the Lucky Seven sign is arguably unique within the City. (a) 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: [Draft comments.] Not applicable. (a) 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; Staff: [Draft comments.] Not applicable. (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. Market St/7th Street NE Parking Garage – Prelim Discussion (Dec 8, 2020) 4 Staff: [Draft comments.] Not applicable. (c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board; Staff: [Draft comments.] TBD. No formal application has been submitted. (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; Staff: [Draft comments.] TBD. No formal application has been submitted. (e) Any applicable provisions of the city's design guidelines (see section 34-288(6). Staff: [Draft comments.] TBD. No formal application has been submitted. Pertinent Design Guidelines for proposed new structure Chapter 2 – Site Design and Elements Link: III: Site Design and Elements  Plantings  Parking Areas and Lots  Walls and Fences  Garages, Sheds, and Other Structures  Lighting  Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances  Walkways and Driveways Chapter 3 – New Construction and Additions Link: IV: New Construction and Additions  Setback, including landscaping and site  Windows and Doors improvements  Street-Level Design  Spacing  Foundation and Cornice  Massing and Footprint  Materials and Textures  Height and Width  Color palette  Scale  Details and Decoration, including  Roof lighting and signage  Orientation Chapter 6 – Public Design and Improvements Link: VII: Public Improvements C. Public Buildings & Structures 1. Public buildings should follow design guidelines for new construction. Market St/7th Street NE Parking Garage – Prelim Discussion (Dec 8, 2020) 5 Sanborn Maps Market St/7th Street NE Parking Garage – Prelim Discussion (Dec 8, 2020) 6 City of Charlottesville Albemarle County Combined Courts Parking Structure on East Market Street Downtown Architectural Control District Planned Project Site (within Downtown ACD) Understanding of Zoning Code for This Project 1- Zoning District: - Downtown Architectural Control District (ADC) - Architectural Design Control District & Individually Protected Properties - Of note, the east end of the subject property abuts the Entrance Corridor District at 9 th Street, but, is not contained within that district 2 – Zoning Regulations: - Height Restrictions: The following height regulations shall apply to buildings and structures within the Downtown Corridor district, except as provided within section 34- 558(a) (stepback requirement): (1) Minimum: Forty-five (45) feet. (2) Maximum: Seventy (70) feet, subject to streetwall regulations. (3) With special use permit: One hundred one (101) feet. - Streetwall Regulations: (a) Stepback requirement. The minimum height of the streetwall of any building or structure shall be forty (40) feet and the maximum height of the streetwall shall be forty-five (45) feet, containing exactly three (3) interior floors. After forty-five (45) feet, there shall be a minimum stepback of twenty- five (25) feet along the length of the streetwall. However, any streetwall fronting upon a numbered street within this district between Ridge Street and 10th Street, East shall, after forty-five (45) feet, be required to have a stepback of five (5) feet. These streetwall/stepback requirements shall not apply to any building facade along Water Street; if a building has frontage along Water Street and any other street, then only its facade along Water Street is exempt from these requirements. (b) Setbacks. (1) Primary and linking street frontage. At least seventy-five (75) percent of the streetwall of a building must be built to the property line adjacent to a primary street. For the remaining portion of streetwall (i.e., twenty-five (25) percent), the maximum permitted setback is twenty (20) feet; however, (i) if streetscape trees are provided to the standards set forth in section 34-870, or (ii) pursuant to a special use permit granted by city council, up to fifty (50) percent of the streetwall of a building may be set back twenty (20) feet. (2) Side and rear setback, adjacent to any low density residential district: Twenty (20) feet, minimum. (3) Side and rear setback, adjacent to any other zoning district: None required. Understanding of Zoning Code for This Project (continued) - Buffer Regulations Adjacent to any low-density residential district, side and rear buffers (S-2 type) shall be required, ten (10) feet, minimum. - Density Regulations Residential density shall not exceed forty-three (43) DUA; however, up to two hundred forty (240) DUA may be allowed by special use permit. The minimum density required for multifamily developments (new construction only) shall be twenty-one (21) DUA. - Mixed Used Development – Additional Requirements (a) [Reserved.] (b) No ground floor residential uses may front on a primary street, unless a building fronts on more than one (1) primary street, in which case ground floor residential uses may front on one (1) primary street. Under no circumstances, however, shall any ground floor residential uses front on Main Street, Market Street or Water Street. (c) All entrances shall be sheltered from the weather, and lighted. (d) Where any building or development occupies one (1) or more parcels constituting an entire city block, courtyards shall be provided (subject to the street wall requirements set forth, above, within this division). Such courtyards shall be accessible from adjacent streets - Off-Street Loading Areas Off-street loading areas may not face public right-of-way. Understanding of Zoning Code for This Project (continued) - Micro-producers (General and Misc. Commercial) - Municipal Government (General and Misc. Commercial) Zoning Classification: Mixed Use/Downtown ACD; By Right Uses: - Music Hall (General and Misc. Commercial) - Hotels, 100+ Guestrooms (General and Misc. Commercial) - Bed & Breakfast (Residential & Related Uses) - Other Offices (General and Misc. Commercial) - Covenant/Monastery (Residential & Related Uses) - Philanthropic Agencies (General and Misc. Commercial) - Residential Treatment; 1-8 residents (Residential & Related Uses) - Public Health Clinic (General and Misc. Commercial) - Animal Boarding/Grooming (General and Misc. Commercial) - Houses of Worship (General and Misc. Commercial) - Art Studio, workshop or Gallery up to 10,000sf (General and Misc. Commercial) - Parking Garage (General and Misc. Commercial) - Artistic Instruction up to 4,000sf (General and Misc. Commercial) - Photography Studio & Processing (General and Misc. Commercial) - Auditoriums, max capacity less than 300 persons (General and Misc. Commercial) - Radio and TV Broadcast Station (General and Misc. Commercial) - Assembly (outdoor), Amphitheater (General and Misc. Commercial) - Recreation Facilities, Indoor > 10,000sf (General and Misc. Commercial) - Bakery (wholesale) up to 4,000sf (General and Misc. Commercial) - Restaurants; fast-food and full service (General and Misc. Commercial) - Banks & Financial Institutions (General and Misc. Commercial) - Surface Parking Lot < 20 spaces (General and Misc. Commercial) - Business & Professional Offices (General and Misc. Commercial) - Technology-Based Business (General and Misc. Commercial) - Catering (General and Misc. Commercial) - Transit Facility (General and Misc. Commercial) - Data Centers up to 4,000sf (General and Misc. Commercial) - Retail/Pharmacy up to 4,000sf (Retail) - Day Care Facility (General and Misc. Commercial) - Consumer Service Businesses up to 10,000sf (Retail) - Dry Cleaning Establishments (General and Misc. Commercial) - Convenience Store (Retail) - Elementary & High Schools (General and Misc. Commercial) - Laboratory (medical or pharmaceutical) < 4,000sf (Industrial Use) - Health Clinic up to 4,000sf (General and Misc. Commercial) - Libraries (General and Misc. Commercial) - Medical Office (General and Misc. Commercial) Other Zoning Considerations Other Zoning Considerations – District A (the Downtown Architectural Design control District, "DADC"): All buildings within this overlay district are deemed by city council to be "contributing structures," except that, with respect to certain properties added to this district on or after January 17, 2006, city council has designated only certain buildings as "contributing structures," as specifically identified on a map included within the design guidelines for this district, a copy of which is available within the department of neighborhood development services.” The existing Lucky 7 and Guadalajara buildings are considered contributing structures. BAR approval is required for demolition and removal of these buildings Other Zoning Considerations (continued) Other Zoning Considerations – 8th Street Moving Forward: 8th Street bisects the two blocks of land associated with this project. We do not yet know how 8 th Street would be addressed, but, it may be required that 8th Street be abandoned in some form. Albemarle County Considerations Partnership Requirements (excerpted from December 2018 agreement) Proof of Concept Design Exercise The following design represents only a proof of concept. It likely will bear little resemblance to the actual building Proof of Concept Design Exercise (continued) Proof of Concept Design Exercise (continued) Questions? Comments? Suggestions?