CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting January 20, 2021, 5:30 p.m. Remote meeting via Zoom Packet Guide This is not the agenda. Please click each agenda item below to link directly to the corresponding staff report and application. 5:30 Regular Meeting A. Matters from the public not on the agenda (please limit to 3 minutes) B. Announcement of BAR Preservation Awards C. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. BAR Meeting Minutes, September 15, 2020 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-01 3 Gildersleeve Wood Tax Parcel 110019000 William G. Chapman and Jeanette E. Peabody, Owners and Applicants New rear deck D. New Items 5:40 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-02 (Demolition) 125 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 090137000 Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corp., Owner Khanh Uong, Design Develop, LLC, Applicant Rear addition and site work 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-02 (New work and rehab) 125 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 090137000 Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corp., Owner Khanh Uong, Design Develop, LLC, Applicant Rear addition and site work 6:30 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application January 20, 2021 BAR Agenda 1 BAR 21-01-03 801 Park Street Tax Parcel 470020000 Daniel G. Krasnegor and Kristin H. Jensen, Owners Megan Taylor, TimberStone Landscape Design, Applicant Landscaping 7:00 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-04 301 East Jefferson Street Tax Parcel 330204000 Beth Israel Temple, Owner Kurt Keesecker, BRWArchitects, Applicant Entry renovations 7:30 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-05 116 West Jefferson Street Tax Parcel 330183000 Jefferson Street Properties, LLC, Owner Gordon Johnson, Peter Johnson Builders, Applicant Porch reconstruction 8:15 8. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-06 408 East Market Street Tax Parcel 330183000 408 East Market Street Condo Owners Association, Owner Robert Nichols, Formwork Architecture, Applicant Exterior alterations E. Other Business 9. (Tentative): Questions regarding 612 West Main Street 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 10. Staff questions/discussion Update on Comp Plan re: Outdoor Lighting Plan Coordinate work session for Preservation Plan Coordinate work session re: Lighting 11. PLACE update E. Adjourn January 20, 2021 BAR Agenda 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting September 15, 2020 – 5:30 p.m. Zoom Webinar Welcome to the September 15, 2020 Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. [Times noted below are rough estimates only.] Members Present: James Zehmer, Cheri Lewis, Carl Schwarz, Jody Lahendro, Andy McClure, Breck Gastinger, Tim Mohr, Sonja Lengel, Ron Bailey Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Jeff Werner, Joe Rice Pre-Meeting: There was a brief discussion on 1112 Park Street. There is need to stay “within the lanes.” There was a brief discussion regarding matters from the public. There was a discussion regarding the COA application for 128 Chancellor Street. There was also a discussion regarding the Preston Place application in the preliminary discussion part of the agenda. Mr. Gastinger provided a summary to the new members of the Board on the history of Preston Place. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 5:30 PM. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Public Comments 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.) Mr. Gastinger moved to pull the Coal Tower from the Consent Agenda and approve the Consent Agenda as amended. (Second by Mr. Mohr). Motion passed 9-0. 1. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-09-01 418 E. Jefferson Street, TMP 530040000 Downtown ADC District Owner: 418 E Jefferson Street, LLC 1 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Applicant: William Adams, Train Architects Renaissance School--replace five windows 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-09-02 534 Park Street, TMP 30126000 North Downtown ADC District Owner/Applicant: Seth Liskey Fence at side/rear yard C. Pulled Item 3. Submission for BAR Record BAR 18-07-04 0 East Water Street, TMP 570157800 IPP Owner: Choco-Cruz, LLC Applicant: Ashley Davies Interpretive signage for coal tower Jeff Werner, Staff Report – There was a comment at the last BAR meeting about having it off center on that concrete panel. There may have been some preferences on the two materials for the sign. We’re accepting this into the record with the BAR recommendation and request that the sign be this. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lengel – I am looking through the guidelines. They deal more with signage for a store. Can somebody direct me to where the guidelines talk about that? Mr. Werner – This is a public space. It is a space within this development. I used the pertinent guidelines for public sign improvements. New plaques should be discretely located. It should not obscure architectural elements. There will be some fencing there. The BAR could want it on the fence. At the last BAR meeting, the comment was that it was fine on the wall centered between the two piers. I would suggest that it be posted at eye level. Ms. Lengel – I don’t have a preference where it is located. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – From the orange fence back to the coal tower, I am curious how much distance is there. If that is going to be planted, that might end getting a goat path where people might want to walk up to the plaque to read it. 2 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Mr. Mohr – I know that there was a site plan for this. It is being developed as a little park. The more appropriate place might be inside the structure, rather than cluttering up the outside wall. It would nice to see a site plan in conjunction with this. It is out of context there. There should be something more deliberate about the placement. Mr. Watkins – I think there was a site plan submitted for last month’s meeting when lighting was also being reviewed. Mr. Zehmer – There was going to be a bocce court in the middle of it. Mr. Werner – Water Street is at the bottom. The round circular structure is the elevated coal tower. The bocce court is inside there. What you have there are some are some low plantings and some street trees and a sidewalk. Mr. Mohr – It is a very unclear plan. Is there any more information? Mr. Schwarz – We did see the photograph with the sign on it last month. Why did we not talk about this last month when we had this information? Mr. Zehmer – She didn’t actually have the images of the plaque. Mr. Schwarz – We couldn’t approve it. We said that we would put it on the consent agenda. We had the site plan last month. We really should have talked about this last month and discovered these issues. We are bringing things up and the applicant is not here, which is unfair. Mr. Gastinger – We have enough information on what this sign looks like. I think this sign would work on either side of that concrete wall. I would be comfortable with approving that tonight. Mr. Werner – When looking here, it would be around the corner? Mr. Gastinger – On the left or right side. Mr. Bailey – I agree with Mr. Gastinger. I think that he is right. Mr. Gastinger – The paved surface is going to be about 2 to 3 feet from the walls. I don’t think there will be an issue with people reading it. Mr. Werner – I didn’t know what the final grade was relative to that image. That wall is about 8 to 10 feet tall. It would be center line, eye level, and to the left or the right and not centered on the wall. That would probably be sufficient. Mr. Gastinger – I like the aluminum with the stainless steel option better. It’s more appropriate for the industrial context. I imagine either could be argued to be within our guidelines. Motion – Ms. Lewis - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements, I move to find that the signage satisfies the conditions of the CoA approved on September 18, 2018 with the 3 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 direction that the sign be located at eye-level at either side of the primary concrete wall, not at the center, and the BAR expresses a preference for the stainless steel or aluminum option. Tim Mohr seconds. Consent agenda passes (9-0). D. Deferred Items 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 17-11-02 167 Chancellor Street, TMP 090126000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp. Applicant: Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, LLC Exterior alterations and addition Staff Report, Jeff Werner – Year Built: 1915 District: The Corner ADC Status: Contributing This large, five-bay, two-and-a-half‐story dwelling shows elements of the Colonial Revival style; details include: brick stretcher bond, hip roof with one hip roof dormer, two‐bay front porch with piers and full entablature, and entrance with three-lite transom and sidelights. CoA request for a proposed addition and alterations, including site work and landscaping, to an existing fraternity house. Applicant submittal: o Design Develop drawings Chi Psi Lodge at 167 Chancellor Street, dated 25 August 2020: Cover through sheet 15. o Design Develop email and addendum drawings, 8 September 2020: sheets A1 (Elevation Behind [west] Portico) and A2 (Rake Trim). Staff recommends BAR discuss and clarify the roof flashing details. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the CoA. Kevin Schafer, Applicant – We want to thank you for the thoughtful comments, feedback, and direction that you provided at the last meeting. We took all of your comments to heart in this revised package. We have presented a proposal in keeping with the design direction that we have been given by our client and the direction we have received from the Board and in keeping with what we all want on this site, which is a building that represents and coexists with the precinct at large. We understand the design imperative for the detailing and the general application of the forms to be in keeping with the agreed upon look and feel of the neo-classical features found in the district, particularly along Madison Lane. We hope that, in this package, you will find a more coordinated documentation set that further develops the details in accordance with these previously approved concepts and massing. In terms of the development of the details, we wanted to assure the Board that the list of items discussed in the last meeting have been addressed. Pages 4 and 5 of this resubmission booklet provides a summary of these revisions on each street façade, based on the comments we received from the Board at the last meeting. These revisions include lowering the proposed second floor windows to reveal the full brick trim. We have added a decorative brick header at all of the first floor proposed windows. We have enlarged the Madison Lane entrance door to match the adjacent window header height. We have added copper valley and ridge flashing and copper j trims on the roof. We have retained the historic front door on Chancellor Street. We have added boxwood shrubs to screen the HVAC equipment that is on Chancellor Street. We are also submitting additional details around the porticos and the side porch. We have added appropriate application of classicly and contextually inspired ornament trim and finishes that adhere to the standards set 4 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 by the rest of the District and the rest of Madison Lane. We do appreciate the Board’s comments at the last meeting. We look forward to reviewing this resubmission. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – Can you describe what was included in the supplement? Mr. Schafer – There were two requests for supplemental information. The first one was an elevation cut through the portico on Madison Lane. The other was some clarifying questions on the gable roof trim details. Mr. Schwarz – Did you look at Eco-star synthetic slate? You seem to hone in on tightly on the one brand. I was just curious what the reasoning behind that was. Mr. Schafer – It was a combination of working with our contractor, his roofing sub-contractor, and the dealer. It was based on budget, looks, performance, and a variety of things. Mr. Mohr – Looking at page 8, I am puzzled how the portico hits the roof. That cove molding looks like it dies before it hits the roof. It looks like there is more going on than what is in that drafted sketch above it. . Mr. Schafer – That is a reference showing the alignment of the columns. Mr. Mohr – It seems like the geometry is a little awkward. That might be more of the model than the actual work out detail. Mr. Werner – Are you talking about page 8 on the bottom where the cornice trim returns as a dormer coming into the roof? Mr. Mohr – The relationship to the way it hits the roof and the other eaves seems a little odd. I understand what is driving it. I am just wondering if it makes sense to pull that thing down a little bit and have that header lower. There is something weird about it. Bob Pineo, Design Develop – Part of the geometry of it is we are trying to tie into the Chancellor Street. What we are trying to do is, not only create a fun room, but also be true as much as we can to the primary relationship between column and tabature. We are trying to strike that line across and make the trim boards fit with the bottom of the board that aligns with the top of the window. That’s our design directive. Proportionality based off of columns and the tabature and how that whole thing feels. This is just a subjective part of this. We did spent a lot of time in the precinct trying to understand more about the rules. I know that Mr. Lahendro knows those neo-classical rules. Even in the rules, there’s a lot of nuance. While there are rules, there is also application of those rules relative to context and design issues. That’s the world we are trying to figure out. We are trying to synthesize all of these things. There are rules. There is proportion and reasonableness. What we are trying to do is to find a reasonable synthesis of all of these in the best way that we can. We did study this pretty extensively. The rules are important and fundamental. Buildability is another part. There is some level of unresolvedness 5 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 of some element or another. It’s pretty relevant in the district that other designers have spent that energy to figure out where we are in the same boat. We have spent a lot of time and effort. Mr. Mohr – There is certainly a lot of contexture going on. The entablature for the house proper is quite a bit less bold that on the porch. It seems a little strange that the eaves crashes into the middle of the band rather than picking up the code line. Ms. Lewis – On page 4 again, you showed gutters from the roof to that level. Does the gutter run behind the portico? Does it die at the portico? Will you have a problem with water trying to penetrate to a “carpenter’s dream?” What happens with that gutter? Mr. Pineo – It dives into that portico. The valley flashing from the roof takes that water out. Mr. Werner – The solution is to pull that pediment back down so that valley at the back of the roof there comes right down to the gutter. You pull that trim detail down. It is a little bit of a ‘flashing headache.’ How do we finish that? How do we terminate it? The solution would be to pull that pediment back down in line with the eave. Mr. Schwarz – There is a lot of precedent for doing that. There is an example on Madison where the bottom of that pediment is actually below the tops of the windows. If you look at Montpelier, it does that as well. The bottom of the roof is level where you have a portico much deeper than the facial board. Mr. Zehmer – If you look at sheet 10 at the central photo, it’s not a pedimented portico. It’s a flat portico. That is what we are talking about. Where the top of the entablature of the portico is in line with the cornice going around the building. Mr. Schafer – That does address the unique condition that we have here where the windows on Chancellor Street are bumped up against that. That would require dropping that beam around the portico pretty significantly below the top of our window header. Mr. Schwarz – You should look at the building directly across the street for this one. They do that. Mr. Zehmer – I think that Mr. Mohr was really getting at the root of the problem. It is that we are tearing the cornice line from the original house all around. That’s what is really causing the challenge of putting a neo-classical entablature on a colonial revival house. If we were to pull the portico down and out, that would result in something to solve that issue. It causes other problems. Mr. Pineo – The primary issue here is that we’re taking an elevation from the Chancellor Street side and trying to pull the rest of the building altogether. That entablature is a datum. That datum is set quite low. One of the things that we’re trying to do is to create a pulse of energy in the front portico and in the side porch. There is an energy based in the middle of the building and on the side of the building. The rules are very simple on the other sides. Although they are articulated more, I think it would be disappointing and anti-climactic to lower that portico because the room above it and the height of the columns is a steeper price to pay for that. These are solutions to existing issues. It is in a brand new building across the street where everything is up to the designer’s discretion. We’re also working with context and trying to pull all of the pieces together. In my opinion, it’s a bigger evil to drop all of that to make the portico 6 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 less of a statement than to rectify that eave. The precinct does a lot of creative solves using the neo-classical language, but it isn’t that prescriptive. There are examples of it. Part of the character is that’s dealing with specific design issues. Resolution of those design issues are not in the textbook. They are part of the language of designers. Mr. Mohr – I think that it doesn’t have to be lowering the portico. It’s weird that it is landing in the middle of the flat face of the portico. I don’t think there is an easy solution to it. The geometry is driving it from the other side. Looking at the side elevation on page 15, it is like the roof wants to go up 6 or 7 inches. I understand why you don’t want to do that. It is slightly odd geometry. I don’t see any immediate way to solve it. Mr. Pineo – Are you talking about raising the roof of the portico or the roof of the main building? Mr. Mohr – I was talking about raising the roof of the main building. I think that gets very problematic. It looks like it could go up 8 inches where it clears the flat band of the header carrying the portico roof. I don’t think there’s any easy way to do that. Mr. Pineo – The tough part is the hipped roof. They dictate the spring point of the framing. Mr. Mohr – It feels a little weird to me. I don’t know if you can put some sort of block or plaster there. There might be a cleaner way to resolve that. I think it is weird for it to slam into it there. It’s not going to make or break the building. Mr. Lahendro – I am trusting that everyone is looking to preserve the historic door and lights. The way this note is written, it allows the historic lights and doors to be replaced to its new stuff that matches the original. I would like to see the note changed to “Preserve the historic frame, lights, and repair as required.” Ms. Lewis – I was going to raise the Chancellor Street side. I completely concur. These were my comments from the last time. A replacement is a demolition. I don’t see the applicant asking to demolish any of these historic features on this side. I think that they should be preserved. The word “transom” should be inserted as well. We had a long discussion about this at the last meeting. I know that the applicant has been responsive on a lot of details in bringing this back. That’s one I feel strongly about. I think that other members do too. Mr. Schafer – I think that we can clarify that note just by “absolutely preserve the frame preserve the door, preserve everything that we can.’ The lights there have already been replaced. The side lights are not historic. The door itself is much rotted and it is in bad shape. I talked to the owner about this. They’re going to preserve the door, preserve the frame. There is no desire to demolish it. There are some things that have not been maintained. There are somethings that are in pretty rough shape currently. Mr. Lahendro – The things that are in rough shape need to be preserved and repaired. Lights that have been replaced or were done badly or you have to replace them, I would prefer to see them replicate the appearance of the original. Mr. Schafer – I have no desire to change the frame, the side light, the configuration of it, and the transom. The owner is very aware of the historic front door and that it needs to be retained. 7 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Mr. Schwarz – It sounds like they are OK with preserving what can be preserved on the Chancellor Street side. Is anyone dead set on changing the portico? This is a new building that we are looking at. Mr. Gastinger – I feel that the applicants have done almost all of the things that we have asked for with the couple of comments that have already been made. I am supportive of the project. I think we are going to decide if we need any more clarifications. Mr. Lahendro – When you align the architrave of the portico with the building itself, you have to lean down to get a view. Mr. Zehmer – If the portico could be brought out further, that might help. It is basically putting a portico on colonial revival building. That’s a challenge. You have done a nice job responding to all of our comments from the last meeting. I do appreciate that. Mr. Lahendro – I am pleased to see the alignment between column and entablature closer to the rules. The rules were created around the 19th and 20th century. There are lots of exceptions to the rules. I am fine with the current state of the design. Ms. Lewis – I wanted to thank the applicant for their work on the Madison Lane profile in adding a little bit of interest on that side. The brick jack header on the windows and the water table really adds a little bit of interest to that side and makes it less out of the form book and refines the look. I can only imagine how much work has gone into this through the many times you have appeared before us. It really is a nice result. Mr. Schwarz – I wish we had talked about this portico before. I feel it wouldn’t be right to hit you with it. I think you have done a wonderful job. Mr. Mohr – I think that the portico is ten times better than what it was last time. Motion – Mr. Zehmer – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements, New Construction and Additions, and Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed alterations and addition satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in The Corner ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following modification: That the note on page 5 of the submittal concerning the entry on the Chancellor Street side be changed to the following – preserve the profile and dimension of the existing door, frame, lites, transom, repairing and replicating elements of that entry. Ms. Lewis seconds. Motion passes (9-0). E. New Items 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-09-03 1112 Park Street, TMP 470050000 IPP Owner: Margaret Sherman Todd Applicant Paul Josey, Wolf Josey Landscape Architects Driveway 8 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Mr. Mohr and Ms. Lewis recused themselves from this discussion due to a conflict of interest with this project. Staff Report, Jeff Werner - Year Built: 1884 District: IPP Status: N/A Historically known as the Finch-McGee Cottage, when constructed it marked the northern extent of residential development along Park Street. The two-story wood house is organized into three bays, with the northernmost bay projecting forward. The building incorporates in a picturesque arrangement a range of features from various styles popular during the period. Its character-defining features include the steeply pitched gables, first-floor bay window, veranda supported by Tuscan columns, and a roof balustrade crowning the veranda. No previous BAR reviews. Request CoA to construct a new driveway, with associated landscape alterations. Existing gravel drive is at the north the property line. New driveway and entrance will shift south, off the 1112 Park Street (9 Sept 2020) property line. The existing turn around at the house will remain. New to be paved with a crushed stone, ending at a concrete threshold at the road. Work will require the removal of a 24” white oak and a 6” crab apple. The oak will be replaced. New landscaping will also include native shrubs and groundcovers, and at the north parcel line a 4-ft tall wood picket fence, painted dark gray. Staff recommends approval; however, the following clarifications and conditions should be discussed:  All work within the public right of way must be coordinated with/approved by the City of Charlottesville.  Tree protection and/or actions to mitigate damage to the roots within the dripline for the following: At 1112 Park Street, the 21" red oak, the 20" tulip poplar and the 12" tulip poplar; at 1122 Park Street, the 30" tulip poplar. Paul Josey, Applicant – The project includes a driveway re-alignment, shifting the existing driveway between two and seven feet from the existing driveway’s location further south. It would also be a new 4 foot fence just off the property line, as well as new plantings on either side of the fence. This came about as a result of the current conditions along the property line. This is a historic property. The current owners are considering downsizing and looking at potential for real estate impacts to this driveway. With the current driveway condition, there was a large wood pile a month ago. It has been there for a long period of time. It’s been covered with an old medal roof. There’s a number of cars that park on the side of this house. The access from the applicant’s property is an actual drive onto the property. They park on their property. One of the cars is actually projecting into the property. The goals of this project is to establish a bit more definition to the property line and provide a new approach to this IPP property and how you access the front drive. It will also improve the property value. There is a 24 inch white oak that is impacted. You can it in these images here. We had looked at preserving this tree in the process. We did not feel comfortable that we could truly save the tree. We proposing removing it. In looking at the other trees, this site has a number of terrific mature canopy trees throughout the site. The primary one is a very healthy 42 inch white oak. The canopy is being encroached upon by this 24 inch white oak. There is also another 21 inch northern red oak that is on the property as well. The canopy is also in competition with this tree. By removing this one tree, there are benefits where you are reducing the competition for the 42 inch white and the 21 inch northern red oak. With the nearby properties, you have a mix of trees with the houses. With regards to the proposed design shifting that roadway, the hatch in blue is where the existing aggregate will be removed and restored to a planter. The grey area is where there is an existing aggregate driveway. We are actually using that aggregate surface and we are adding to it. We’re not doing any excavation into the critical root zones or structural root zones in this area. Our goal is to reuse as much of the existing drive as possible. We have 9 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 elevated grades in this area. This shows the 24 inch white oak being removed. This will improve the longevity of this 21 inch wide red oak. There is a small crabapple being removed. There is a concrete apron on Park Street that is being proposed. This is also elevated to reduce impact to existing roots. We are going to replace the missing canopy. There is a new white oak being replaced here that will grow under these oaks. This will fill in the next generation of oaks on the property. The fence that is being proposed is a 4 foot wooden picket fence. This is cedar painted a dark grey for the vertical pickets. The tops are slightly angled to keep moisture from collecting on the tops of the fence. We are not excavating into these root zones. We are restoring the existing aggregate zone. The goal is to protect the existing trees. There is some potential impact at the edge of the critical root zone that we have mapped. We are cutting into the slope where that existing oak is. While there would be competition with the oak we are removing, there is potential for roots in this area. Up to 30% is the typical impact that you can provide without any implications to that tree. These trees are in healthy condition. We would propose to do this work once the trees are dormant to reduce any possible impacts. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – Could you please clarify the position of the proposed new fence? Mr. Josey – It is replacing an existing fence that straddles both lines. It looks like it is right on the property line. We’re keeping it about 6 inches off the property line. Mr. Bailey – Do you have a photo of the current fence? Mr. Josey – At the beginning of the presentation, you can make out the fence. It is a mix of aging wood pickets and metal wire. Mr. Schwarz – Is there any concern with the type of equipment you will be using to excavate as far as weight on the tree roots? Mr. Josey – It is really the excavation and the cutting and tearing of roots that is problematic. The areas that we are proposing to remediate and restore the plant beds. We’re really going to remove the top 2 inches aggregate. We’re not impacting any of the roots. Mr. Lahendro – Since we read into the record the messages from the Cantors, I think it is appropriate that we also know the staff response to those messages. That would be helpful to fill out the record. Mr. Werner – I spoke with the Cantors last week. We are sympathetic to their concerns. The IPP is within the boundary of the property owned by the applicant. The purview of the BAR is how this request conforms to the design guidelines that we have. There is nothing in the guidelines regarding another party accessing the property. The BAR’s evaluation has to be anchored in those design guideline principles. It could be as simple as a request to construct a fence on their property line. I cannot imagine, that within the guidelines, that you would be able to deny that. The result would be the closing off of this driveway. There are things that are quite simple that would be easily approved. If there is something in the design guidelines that 10 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 raises a concern about the landscaping, the fencing, and the treatment of the trees and landscape, that is all that the BAR can focus on. Mr. Schwarz – From Mrs. Cantor’s email, it sounded like she had recently spoken to the applicant. Are you aware of any proposed changes to this design? Mr. Josey – I believe that they are regularly speaking to each other about different options in this. The Cantors do have about 70 feet of right of way along Park Street. There is not a major grade issue. Access is very feasible and available for them. You could also have a full turn around in their front yard. Mr. Werner – What is going on next door is not an IPP. You need to focus on the design guidelines relative to this request. Meeting was recessed for five minutes for a member of the public could speak in Comments from the Public. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Mr. Watkins read the comments from Allen and Jenny Cantor into the record. They provided comments on the landscaping. They had several concerns about the landscaping shown in the plan. The concerns included access. The proposed driveway removes access to two parking spaces. The rights to access would be denied with the driveway changes. The second concern was mobility issues. The proposed plan would present mobility issues for Mrs. Cantor. Trees are a third concern. The proposed driveway would cause possible peril to two large trees. The roots under the current driveway could be permanently damaged. There is hope that some accommodation can be reached. Mr. Watkins also read into the record the medical conditions of Mrs. Cantor that could be effected as a result of the proposed landscaping plan. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – We do have an application before us. We are legally required to act on this, unless the applicant’s representative would like to make any changes. We should act on this according to the guidelines. I am hoping that communication can continue between the applicant and the neighbors. We are legally bound to act on this. Motion – Mr. Lahendro – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements, I move to find that the proposed driveway and associated landscaping satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this IPP, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Mr. Bailey seconds. Motion passes (7-0-2, Cheri Lewis and Tim Mohr recused). 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-09-04 128 Chancellor Street, TMP 090105000 The Corner ADC District Owner: University Christian Ministries Applicant: Tom Keogh, Train Architects 11 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Rear addition Staff Report, Jeff Werner - Year Built: c1926 District: The Corner ADC Status: Contributing Rectangular form, three-bay frame shingled swelling with Craftsman and Colonial Revival stylistic elements. Constructed as a dwelling, the house was occupied until 1969 when it transitions to other uses. Since the 1980s it is served as the Center for Christian Study. CoA request for a proposed three-story addition of approximately 10,500 square feet (3,500 SF per floor) at the rear of the existing structure and alterations at the front entry terrace. The BAR should discuss if the submittal provides the information: a) requested during the August 18, 2020 Preliminary Discussion, and b) necessary to evaluate the project. While the submittal clearly communicates the design and composition, it is lacking many details and specifications. As such, staff believes this submittal is incomplete and recommends that BAR action be deferred until a later date. Tom Keogh, Applicant – We were in front of the BAR in August. What I took away from that meeting was that there was some questions about the retaining wall, the materials, questions about windows details, and more questions about the front entry. We did talk about lighting and how we were going to approach the lighting. We communicated that it was going to be handled very subtly. We resubmitted a package in September, which addressed those comments. We included images and renderings of the retaining wall from the east side. We included the windows details for the various conditions with the hardy panels and the shingles, what the flashing was like, the size of the trim (which was intended to match the existing trim), and some more information on the front entry. We got some additional questions about the flashing, the kind of lights, and products. We put together a supplemental submittal that was sent out yesterday morning, which would be the basis for what we would use tonight to answer your questions. If you would like us to go on the record with the design intentions, Mr. Sherman will give you a brief discussion of that. Bill Sherman, Applicant – It’s already in the record with the preliminary presentation. In the supplemental package, we did make a slight revision to the height of the retaining wall in lowering the concrete height and having a wood guardrail to match the construction that you find elsewhere on the property. With respect to the design presentation, we did not include in any detail at the August meeting the front area that was added in response to a desire to respond to the need for more outdoor gathering space. We have developed that as our design in our presentation. That allows us to enclose and contain the garbage cans and really clean up the front and the curb cuts across the front. Mr. Keogh – In that front entry area, we suggested concrete pavers for the finishes. We are now proposing that we will do that front entry in brick pavers on a sand bed. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – I have a question about the front area. It will be impermeable and almost fully mineral. It is removing all green space. I am curious if you are running into issues with it. It certainly raises some issues related to the neighborhood. 12 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Mr. Sherman – We have been working with our civil engineer with respect to the permeability of the brick, which led to the change in building material. To soften that ground, there is only one tree in the existing area. There are two asphalt parking spaces on either side. The only is green is a fairly well worn lawn and a few small bushes in the front. We would be proposing a planter that. We are retaining planting and the tree in front of the house on the left side. We are trying to increase the aesthetic presentation of the front to the street by replacing the paving of those parking spaces. We are providing an area for students to gather and for the mission of the institution to spill out and be visible to the street on the front. Mr. Schwarz – It looks like the retaining wall in the back comes down to a historic stone wall. Does it come down on top of that? Is something else happening there? Mr. Keogh – The stone wall will remain. Our wall is coming down about a foot behind it. We will be protecting that during the construction. Our retaining wall is designed with all of its footing going west. There is no footing on the biker area or undermining the stone wall/ Its going to be careful construction. The intent is for the contractor to protect that wall during construction. That elevation drawing is the stone wall running in front of the concrete wall. To the right of the stone wall is the remaining grade working down to the existing parking. Mr. Schwarz – On that back elevation, there is no store front. It is going to be the Marvin Windows. How are you accomplishing the Spandrel panel through there? Can you fiber smith panels with fiber smith battens that look like the window trim? Mr. Sherman – Exactly. It will be a continuation. We are doing that in the area of those elements of the back where it is clad in the shingles to distinguish the kind of paneling that we have there from what you find back on the other volume where you have the fiber smith panels that reveal construction. It will look like it is fully integrated but the trim detailing on the windows. Mr. Schwarz – You did make light selections. Do they show up in plans where they are going? I think you had some bollards. Mr. Keogh – No, they don’t. The notion about those light selections is that we were using bega as the basis of design. There is a horizontal wall mounted light in that we would be using along the retaining wall to illuminate that walkway around the perimeter of the building. The bollards would be primarily up the south side of the building. There is a series of stairs that descend from Chancellor Street down past the building to the parking area. About two-thirds of those stairs are in place. One-third is fully functional, the second third is falling apart, and the final steps aren’t there yet. We’re going to rebuild those steps. They would have the bollards. There were some ceiling fixtures. In the lower level plan, coming out of the parking garage, there was a soffit area above. There will be down lights inserted in those soffits to illuminate the exits to meet the code for exit lighting. Mr. Schwarz – You have an LED strip light? Mr. Sherman – That was to be a recessed light that we will be using in the ceiling of the garage. It would be a recessed light up there meeting the minimum standard. Mr. Keogh – To avoid of anybody looking into the void of the garage, you will be seeing a light fixture mounted on the garage ceiling. The exterior lighting and the impact of the lighting 13 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 on neighbors are high concerns. We want to see the light where the light should be and not see the fixtures. Mr. Mohr – Will it be controlled or dimmed out at night? Mr. Sherman – The goal will be to provide the minimum code requirement for lighting and to have it illuminating at that level at night. Mr. Mohr – I was thinking more about a relatively unused parking garage can be quite a light bomb. Mr. Lahendro – I am wondering if it would be helpful for the applicants to go through the supplemental materials submitted yesterday if there are any questions from Board members or a need for additional details. Mr. Schwarz – Did everybody on the BAR receive the supplemental submission? Mr. Keogh – Roof New addition: Flat (Low-Slope); White EPDM New Bathroom addition south side: Asphalt shingles to match existing, existing flat roof: Black EPDM Cornice/Coping: Metal; color to match façade color below coping Gutters/Downspouts: New addition: internal drains with scuppers; no gutters and downspouts New bathroom addition south side: new gutters and downspouts to match existing Siding: Cedar shingles with 6” exposure painted to match the existing cedar shingles James Hardie Aspyre Reveal Panel System; NOM 2’x8’ panels painted Benjamin Moore Light Pelham Gray; see color elevations for example Trim Flat trim; painted white Flashing: Metal; white to match window frame/trim Soffits: James Hardie Soffit Panel; painted to match cedar shingles Rear Retaining Wall: Smooth metal formed concrete with formwork joints; natural color Guardrails: Horizontal wood boards to match north stair, painted to match existing Windows: Marvin aluminum clad wood windows; white cladding Window Wall: Marvin structurally mulled window system- glass and panel infill (no spandrel glass); white cladding Glass: Clear glass to match BAR standards Doors Marvin aluminum clad wood doors; white cladding Front Terrace Pavers: Sand set Brick Pavers (formerly concrete pavers and changed to address drainage and aesthetics). BAR Comment Responses 1) Roofing [at addition]: See outline exterior material specification. 2) Gutters/Downspouts: See outline exterior material specification. 3) Cornice: Capped parapet wall. See outline exterior material specification and attached supplemental drawings for additional information. 4) Siding and Trim: See outline exterior material specification. 5) Doors and Windows: See outline material specification and attached product literature for additional information. a. Which openings are storefront and which are Marvin windows? All glazing in the project to be Marvin clad windows. Storefront/curtain wall windows have been replaced with Marvin’s structurally mulled window system. b. What are the lite arrangements for the windows? No muntins / divisions are being proposed for the windows; see exterior elevations for additional information. c. Colors for window and storefront components? See outline exterior material specification. 6) Soffits material: See outline exterior material specifications. 7) Parking Garage: a. Ceiling material: 5/8” exterior gyp sheathing b. Wall material: James Hardie Aspyre Reveal System to match exterior c. Lighting: Recessed fixtures to meet code minimum light levels 8) Concrete retaining wall at rear: See attached sketch with elevations (north and south ends) and outline exterior material specification. 9) Front Terrace and Landscaping: a. Benches tables and chairs? “Fine Concrete’; see attached product literature for additional information. b. Concrete pavers: Front terrace ground material has been revised to brick pavers. Pattern to be determined. c. Trash enclosure: 14 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Horizontal wood panels similar to north stair enclosure. See photo on sheet 16 of September BAR submittal and attached supplemental drawings for additional information. d. New wood deck: to match existing wood deck on the north side of the building. e. Planter boxes: Custom by “Fine Concrete” f. New sidewalk and driveway apron: to match existing. g. Lighting: Minimum required to illuminate egress paths – low wall mounted or bollards h. Manhole (front entry): cast iron 10) Exterior Lighting: See attached “basis of design” product literature for additional information a. Ground level exits from parking garage: recessed downlights in soffit above b. Perimeter walk around new addition: low in wall mounted lights for a walking surface c. South exit way: bollards. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – I think the solution to the front of the house strikes me as being a very successful way to approach that. It is so broken up right now as a gathering space. It’s more of a public space. I think that was a great change. I think softening up that concrete also makes sense from a scale standpoint. Mr. Gastinger – I think the project continues to be a really elegant approach. I don’t have any concerns about the building. We have gotten the information that we have asked for and should be able to improve it in that way. I do have concerns about the Chancellor Street landscape. I don’t mind the spare aesthetic of the paving and the benches. When navigating down Chancellor Street, it still retains that residential character. There is very little to no precedent that I can see of the entire front lobby being paved. We have so many examples of very small front yards being used in urban ways but still finding a method to use small hedges or plantings to break that paved surface and break down the scale of the planting defining the yard. That could be useful here. I worry about the concrete planters in combination with the extensive brick paving. I think it would be a bad precedent for this street. Mr. Mohr – The issue for me there is the fact that it is dominated by having to park cars up there. I think softer surfaces would be nice. Mr. Schwarz – Where the cars are going is not changing. Mr. Gastinger – It’s not changing, but that’s how they have chosen to use their property. Mr. Schwarz – I agree with Mr. Gastinger. I have to admit that the scale is a little bit deceiving. It looks very large on the plan. In looking at the pictures of the site, there really isn’t a lot of yard there. To add some greenery is going to cut into your gathering space you have designed out there. A part of me wants to see the benches be hedges instead. That hurts the program you are trying to design. It is a lot of hardscape for a street. The other properties have some sort of hedgerow or something to break it up. Mr. Gastinger – There are properties on West Main Street that have very small setbacks that also have seating in front and small plantings. Mr. Bailey – Is the front yard going to be boarded with planters? 15 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Mr. Sherman – We are showing planters perpendicular to the house that are starting to make three rooms out of the front. I do understand Mr. Gastinger’s concerns. We are trying to find a way to balance that issue by retaining the tree, introducing the planters, while maintaining as much space as we can for the use and visibility of the use to the street. If it is something that you want us to move, we will continue to study and make alternative proposals. Mr. Gastinger – My concerns could be alleviated with an addition of a planting along the street and even bringing the benches and seating inboard two feet. It might be enough to get a little bit of separation and reduce the glare of those hard surfaces. Mr. Lahendro – I am always in favoring of adding more green when you can. I am satisfied with the design and believe that it complies with our guidelines. Mr. Bailey – I agree with Mr. Lahendro on this one as well. Mr. Schwarz – You have done a really good job of answering all of our questions. As a matter of protocol, we have held up other projects. We can give you a vote of confidence that the Board is on board with that. A plan that shows where you are putting the lighting/bollards would be useful. I don’t have any doubts that it will be acceptable. You will need it for the site plan process. Mr. Zehmer – A thin strip along the sidewalk of some sort of planting would keep open visibility to the front yard but also provide intimacy to the front yard. Mr. Mohr – You have answered our questions clearly. I could some more softness to that front courtyard. I like that you have unified it. You could introduce some more green to the front of it. What is going on with street trees in that general area? You have a big tree. Is there anything across the street? I was curious about the level of shade there. Mr. Schwarz – If there are any large trees, it is on the borders between properties. Mr. Zehmer – It looks like a locust at the head of the parking area. Mr. Keogh – There is no intention to take down any of the trees at the front of the property. Mr. Schwarz – I want to make sure everyone has a chance to look over the supplemental packet. We can hopefully avoid any surprises. Mr. Bailey – The only thing that I am hearing people are concerned about is the treatment of the front yard. Is there a way to go forward with this with some recommendations? Mr. Schwarz – We want to have a vote that expresses confidence in this design and a recommendation for modifications to the front. It can’t be legally binding. When it comes back, we might be able to put it on the consent agenda without any major changes. Mr. Mohr – The only thing at issue is alternate ways to handle the front. Do we do a straw poll? Mr. Schwarz – Staff can do a roll call. The roll call would be on a general consensus that we find this design meets the guidelines and the information presented in the supplemental packet 16 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 meets the guidelines. We would like to see a revision to the front that introduces some more vegetation. Mr. Werner – This is a BAR deferral or applicant deferral. It’s not an approval. Mr. Schwarz – In the past, we voted for the applicant request for a deferral. We added some language that we generally supported the design. Is that acceptable? Mr. Werner – A deferral from the BAR means that it comes back next month. Mr. Sherman – I would like to request a deferral. Motion – Mr. Schwarz – Accept the applicant’s request for a deferral, and in accepting that request for a deferral, the BAR wants to express that they find the design concept and details presented in the packet and supplemental packet received to be in accordance with the Design Guidelines, and the BAR would like to see further details on the front yard design concept. Mr. Lahendro seconds. Motion passes (9-0). 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-09-05 1619 University Avenue, TMP 090102000 The Corner ADC Distr ict Owner: Sovran Bank Applicant: Brian Quinn, Milrose Consultants Bank of America exterior lighting Staff Report, Jeff Werner – Year Built: 1959 District: The Corner ADC District Status: Contributing. This one-story Classical Revival brick commercial building was built as a bank branch in 1959. It is characterized by a projecting half-octagon porch, fixed 35-light windows, and a hipped roof. Request CoA for the replacement of exterior lighting. BAR may want to establish conditions for the proposed tree and vegetation trimming, including a requirement that any work within the public right of way be coordinated with the City. Application indicates the light fixtures will have lamping with a Color Temperature (CT) that does not exceed 3,000K; however, the fixture cut sheets indicate that none of the fixtures are available with 3,000K lamping. With presentation prior to the BAR meeting of up-to-date catalog specs/cut sheets for each fixture indicating that the lamping meets the BAR’s criteria (a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K), staff will recommend approval. In the absence of that information, staff recommends that this request be deferred. Ryan McGrath, Applicant – There is not a whole lot to talk about with going over the design. It’s a program the bank has started a couple of years ago in upgrading existing light fixtures. Your concerns are the 3000K and the cutoff lighting. Josh Waggoner, Applicant – We have used the 30K lighting on numerous projects. They have 30K available in the cut sheets. We were able to get in with a representative at Creed. We do have those 30K cut sheets. It is available in our lighting package for the security of this bank. 17 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 The main talking point leading up to this meeting was the colors of the fixtures and whether they were available in 3K or 4K. Our cut sheets did say 4K. We specified 3K. It is good that we have the 3K fixtures on the cut sheets to now use on the more recent projects. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – The CRI doesn’t seem to be that hot. Do they have something better than 70 CRI? Mr. Waggoner – The 70 is the minimum on one of our base fixtures. It goes up to 80 to 90 CRI with the 3000K fixture. The coloring index is 80 for the 3K fixtures. Mr. Mohr – Looking at the plan, where those two USA wall packs are, is that the ATM? Mr. Waggoner – There are 3 SA 2s right there. We tried to strive for ten foot candles within a five foot radius of an ATM for safety around the ATM. Mr. Mohr – The ratings on those are pretty good? Mr. Schwarz – Are those going under the canopy that is there? Mr. Waggoner – There is a canopy over the ATM with a metal grate underneath it. We are removing the metal grate and putting the fixtures underneath the canopy and an additional fixture on the corner of the building. Our compliance are goes a little bit around the edge. We would like to light all the way around. Mr. Schwarz – With the tree trimming part of this application, were the trees reviewed on site? Or are the numbers you recommended for how high to trim them up based on light elevations? Mr. Waggoner – We did a 3D scan of the entire site for our design. We have exact heights. We have added the two trees back in the front of the building we were previously removing. We have added those back in. We are now just trimming heights. The highest was 15 feet. That tree is specifically above 40 feet.We are recommending that the canopy up to 15 feet so that people can see around the ATM and walk on the sidewalks. Mr. Schwarz – It seems that with some of the trees, the leaves are pretty high up. Some of the lower branches are below that number. Mr. Waggoner – We are just trimming them up so that it is all uniform. Mr. Schwarz – There are large branches that support the main portion of the tree that start low. The person, who does that, is not going to know the difference between small branches that block light and a large branch that supports the bottom third of the tree. The numbers that you have indicated for how high to trim the trees is what you want. Mr. Waggoner – We scanned the entire site. We know how big these trees are, how wide their spread is, and how much we can trim them up without damaging the tree. 18 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Mr. Schwarz – You are going to leave the crepe myrtles that are at the frontage? Are those getting trimmed at all or are you leaving them as are? Mr. Waggoner – If we were to trim them up, we would basically kill the tree. It is definitely not our intent. We are leaving those out of scope for the time being Mr. Gastinger – Can you confirm that the R1 fixtures are existing floods? Mr. Waggoner – R1, R2, and R3 are canopy fixtures that are being removed. R3 are wall fixtures that are existing are being removed. All R1 are non-full cutoff flood fixtures facing up. Mr. Gastinger – Are they new or existing? Mr. Waggoner – They are existing. Mr. Gastinger – They are not changing at all? Mr. Waggoner – The R1s are existing to be removed. Mr. Mohr – All of your lights are from above. You don’t have any light bollards? Mr. Waggoner – It is strictly pole lights, wall lights, and canopy mounted fixtures. Mr. Mohr – Do you have any examples of other buildings that you have lit using a similar strategy? Mr. Waggoner – We do Bank of Americas all across the country. I can get that to you. Mr. Mohr – When you say that you are modeling this, are you doing a lighting model or is this strictly a spatial take on what is in your way? Mr. Waggoner – We built everything up on site to spec, heights, tree heights, and slope. We built it in. We have a color rendering of the site will look like at night with the fixtures that we have built in. We also included renderings in our design. Those renderings are actual light renditions. Mr. Mohr – Do we have any of that, Mr. Werner? Mr. Werner – I didn’t see any renderings. Mr. Schwarz – It sounds like you have updated the landscape plan. Was that something you created internally? Was that intended to be sent to us? Mr. Waggoner – We got comments back prior to this meeting regarding the property line ordinance. We have decreased it down to 0.5, which is less than desirable. Mr. Werner – This has been going through the site plan review process. There has been a lot of things back and forth. I focused on making sure that we understood the need for 3000K and dim ability. 19 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Mr. Mohr – It sounds like they are taking a more sophisticated approach. It will be interesting to see that. Mr. Waggoner – I can send you a sample site that we have done before. We will make sure that you get the renderings from our most recent version so you can see what the lights will do onsite. Mr. Mohr – You have different materials, different heights, and the wealth of light fixtures that are out there now. Being able to judge is not such an easy thing to do. Mr. Waggoner – When you see our most recent design, it has two separate candle pages. One is at 3 feet above grade. The one at full site grade is the one we are most concerned about. Mr. Schwarz – What we are seeing is the final thing that the city is looking at with the final site plan. Mr. Werner – What we are able to determine here, with having design professionals on the BAR, will help staff wrap up the other two sites. The site plan has the light fixtures as we have been requesting. The only discrepancy was with the catalog cut sheets. What has been reviewed by others and what they have seen, is that nothing has changed. They have the right numbers on the drawings. I hadn’t really picked up any landscaping, other than the tree trimmings. Mr. Schwarz – It was just trimming. It sounds like it is a little less trimming than we were seeing in our drawings. Mr. Werner – We have the qualifications of the team on the phone and their familiarity with this. We have a lighting ordinance with the City of Charlottesville, which was written for incandescent bulbs. The ordinance hasn’t caught up with the technology. With the BAR and the Entrance Corridor Review, we are able to establish conditions that address that visual aspect of it. The next component of it is that understanding if glare should become an issue, there be a commitment from the property owner to work with us. First and foremost is getting to that 3000K and dimmable fixtures. It sounds like we are there. I am comfortable with what they have produced. Mr. Waggoner – We are trying to stay away from dimming because we don’t want the lights to go dim in the middle of the night and have somebody do what they need to do. We dim inside the compliance area and the motion sensor doesn’t pick up somebody hiding, we have completely disregarded what we are trying to accomplish with this site. If we were to dim, it would have to be outside of the compliance area. That is something we have done before and it is something we can do again. Inside the 50 foot compliance area, we try to stay away from that. We don’t want any dimming of the lights. Mr. Mohr – The key issue there is that you don’t have such bright light there that just outside of the compliance zone that somebody can hide? Your actual lighting level isn’t an extreme. Mr. Waggoner – We would take a 50 foot grid around each exposure and specifically light two foot candles. It is generally five feet in front of your face. That’s our main concern when we light four banks. We are trying to make it as even as possible. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC 20 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 No Comments COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – When I look at the fixtures, it would be helpful to see the renderings. Looking at the fixtures on the website, I can see how they are not going to cast any light to the sky. It does not appear that the LEDs are shielded in any way horizontally. There is a lot of checking fixtures. It seems that some of the fixtures have pretty extreme number of lumons coming from them. My reference is an incandescent bulb. It looks like your wall packs are equivalent to a 150 watt bulb, which it is not out of the question. Some of the area lights appear to be five time more lumons than that. My concern is that there is a lot of light coming out of these fixtures. Your goal is security. Although this is not a residential street, it is a historic street that has a residential quality to it. It’s across the street from UVA. There is a park across the street that is not brightly lit and a lot of trees. My concern is that the security lighting on this is going to be much more than what is currently there. It is going feel very out of character. I struggle to find any way to quantify that. Mr. Waggoner – When we have run into similar situations before, sometimes our LED fixtures aren’t aesthetically pleasing compared to other historic fixtures you have seen before. We modeled our fixtures by looking at the surrounding area. We did notice a pole fixture across the street, which looked very similar to our fixtures. We generally modeled our fixtures around that. We can change our fixtures up. All of our fixtures are full cutoff. We can add shields. They will be on the LED pods on the fixture. You won’t have this big shield on the back of the fixture like you are used to seeing. That two foot candle is our top priority when designing sites like this. Mr. Mohr – I think some of them have 4600 lumons. Mr. Waggoner – Our area edges gets up to 22,000 lumons. Wall fixtures go up to 6000 lumons. There is a big difference in lumon size and the size of the fixture and what we are trying to achieve. Mr. Mohr – The biggest issue there is glare. Seeing the modeling would be great. Mr. Waggoner – The highest glare rating we have on this site is G3. That’s in the middle of a parking lot. Mr. Werner – You have the property line all along University Avenue that is essentially the city line. The lights across the street are on the University property. A cohesive, comprehensive lighting plan for the entire city would be great. Mr. Mohr – I think it would be fabulous if we could see some of the examples and some models. Mr. Schwarz – I am still ‘hung up’ on some of the trees. There are some big, old trees on this site. When someone tells a contractor to ‘limb them up,’ how is that going to look? Mr. Waggoner – We are not looking to hack up any limbs. It is strictly foliage that would be blocking the light. 21 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Mr. Schwarz – I don’t know how we are going to move forward. There might some more information that we could receive with this. Mr. Werner – It would be helpful to know where things stand on the site plan review. We have the clarification of 30K. We have that. They’re not comfortable with the dimability. You have the ability to assert something. You can ask for an evaluation once the fixtures are installed. The other thing is make sure the kind of information you want and what form would be helpful. Ms. Lewis – Would the applicant be interested in deferring with the thought that they would come back with the things that we have asked for? Mr. Waggoner – We will request a deferral. Mr. Schwarz – One thing that would be really helpful would be pictures of night time installations of these lights. That would go a really long way. Mr. Waggoner – I can put together a power point presentation showing a similar site. We will get some daytime and nighttime photos of before and after. You can see the effects of the lighting we are trying to produce on site. Mr. Schwarz – We are not trying to picky on this. We have been burned before on lighting design. It is something that we are really cautious about. Mr. Werner – This is an excellent opportunity to get it right. From a staff viewpoint, I can’t express the number of calls and complaints that we get. We need to have some ability to address it up front. Motion: Ms. Lewis – moves to accept the applicant’s request for a deferral, with the request that before future review, the BAR would like to see some photographic examples of nighttime and daylight photos, as well as before and after installations of these fixtures at other banks, and the BAR would like to see renderings of this project, and a revised tree plan with updated information. Mr. Zehmer seconds. Motion passes (9-0). Meeting recessed for five minutes. F. Preliminary Discussions 8. 605 Preston Place – New apartment building. IPP and Rugby Road/University Circle/Venable Neighborhood ADC District Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Architects and Planners PUBLIC COMMENTS No Comments SUMMARY OF PROJECT  Recently a surface parking lot was proposed.  New proposal is an apartment building located to the west of Wyndhurst. 22 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020  There are parking places supporting the new apartment building relegated to the site interior.  Proposal of a connection that runs along south of the site to access the parking.  It will be designated for one way travel and would reduce vehicle traffic.  The street could rejuvenate and strengthen the perception of Wyndhurst’s original frontage.  Not involved to move the earlier proposal to move Wyndhurst or introduce surface parking.  The introduction of a new building will address the problems of earlier efforts.  This would provide more housing close to the University.  There is potential in this proposal to animate the site. SUMMARY OF BOARD COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS  Something that can be considered.  Interested in seeing how this project moves forward and could enhance the neighborhood.  Questions about the parking and the north yard. Parking spots 7 and 8 encroach very close to the building.  Cautious about the under sides of parking areas and very bright lighting with the parking area.  Not sure about the grades on the other side of the building.  This is far more appropriate than what was previously proposed.  Staff went over the review of the previous COA application that was denied in October, 2019.  The previous proposal did nothing to enhance the Wyndhurst frontage.  Two trees are going to be retained.  You would enter and exit from the north drive.  The parking under the building would be entered from the south.  There would be a 25 foot setback for the front yard.  There was a concern about the distance between the proposed building and the Wyndhurst building.  The basement windows are going to stay where they are.  The guidelines are friendlier with a building versus a parking lot.  There was some concern regarding the massing that was raised by several members of the Board.  There was a straw poll regarding this proposed project and whether the project could gain approval from the BAR.  The project is better than the previous proposal for this site and it is better than moving the house. 9. 106 Oakhurst Circle – Renovate existing residence, construct addition. Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Patrick Farley, Patrick Farley Architect The applicant was unable to attend due to internet and technical issues. SUMMARY OF BOARD COMMENTS  There was a discussion regarding whether this would qualify as the required preliminary discussion, since the applicant was not able to join the meeting due to home internet issues.  After much discussion, it was agreed to provide feedback for the applicant.  There was a concern about having a road through the front yard and the amount of pavement that is required for the project.  There was also a concern about two trees that are going to be under siege in this project.  The new landscaping would be a good tradeoff with the removal of one of the trees. 23 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020  It was recommended that the applicant submit a COA for an upcoming meeting. G. Other Business 10. Staff questions/discussion Hartmans Mill Road  Old Nemo Property  1880s farmstead  Shed behind the main house – extremely deteriorated  Encouraged the owner to apply for a COA for a demolition  Owner would like to do some expansion on the main house – shed is in the way Multi-Step Review Process  Projects, at one time, did get multiple COAs  Not legally good to have multiple COAs  Working towards a document that would be circulated  BAR approval is required for final site plan review  It was decided that the pre-meeting at the next meeting be the time to discuss this multi- step review process 11. PLACE Update PLACE is going through a self-review. Andrew Mondeschein is the new chair. PLACE is not doing much right now. H. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM. 24 BAR Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-01 3 Gildersleeve Wood Tax Parcel 110019000 William G. Chapman and Jeanette E. Peabody, Owners and Applicants New rear deck Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal January 20, 2021 BAR Agenda 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report January 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-01 3 Gildersleeve Wood, TMP 110019000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner/Applicant: Bill Chapman Project: Rear deck Background Year Built: ca. 1928 District: Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Status: Contributing 3 Gildersleeve Wood is a well-preserved example of the Tudor Revival style. The 1-½-story dwelling is dominated by a steeply-pitched side-gabled slate roof with a large central stone chimney. The walls are of stone construction and the multi-pane casement, steel windows. The side gable ends are clad in weatherboard, three large gable-roofed dormers dominate the rear elevation. Prior BAR Reviews n/a Application • Applicant submittal: Gray Trotter drawings Chapman Deck, dated December 8, 2020: Sheets 1 through 6. Request for CoA for construction of an ipe wood deck at the rear of the house. Discussion Staff recommends approval as a Consent Agenda item. 3 Gildersleeve Wood (January 14, 2021) 1 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 rear deck at 3 Gildersleeve Wood satisfied 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 rear deck at 3 Gildersleeve Wood does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is 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 3 Gildersleeve Wood (January 14, 2021) 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5092-0013 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, 3 Gildersleeve Wood Not Evaluated Property Addresses This Property is associated with the Oakhurst/Gildersleeve Current - 3 Gildersleeve Wood 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: On east side of Gildersleeve Wood; stone wall along road; mature oaks; side driveway leads back to garage; large front lawn. ----------------------------- Garage in rear. Surveyor Assessment: This house is a well-preserved example of the Tudor Revival style and a contributing element to the potential Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District. It is believed that the original owner was W. Carl Whitlock, who was a salesman, and that the house is still owned by his family. 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 1928 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: Tudor Revival Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.5 Condition: Excellent Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: This 1 ½-story, 3-bay, Tudor Revival-style stone dwelling was constructed ca. 1928. The front is dominated by a steeply-pitched gable roof clad in slate with a large stone chimney. Architectural details include multi-light steel casement windows with brick sills, an integral shed-roofed hood protecting the front door, which is paneled and has octagonal lights, weatherboard in the ½-story gable ends, and three gable-roofed dormers in the rear elevation. January 16, 2021 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5092-0013 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Gable Slate Shingle Windows Casement Steel Multiple-light Foundation Solid/Continuous Stone Rubble, Random Structural System and Masonry Stone Uncoursed Ashlar Exterior Treatment Chimneys Central interior Stone Rubble, Random Secondary Resource Information Secondary Resource #1 Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Garage Date of Construction: 1928Ca Date Source: Site Visit/Map Historic Time Period: World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945) Historic Context(s): Domestic Architectural Style: Other Form: No Data Condition: No Data Threats to Resource: No Data Architectural Description: Garage: ca. 1928, gable-end, frame (weatherboard) garage with doors. Number of Stories: No Data 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 Dairy Road, Charlottesville, Va. 22903 ----------------------------- Name: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Record Type: Map ----------------------------- Name: Chville Assessors Records January 16, 2021 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5092-0013 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Record Type: Local Records Bibliographic Notes: Web Site Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data January 16, 2021 Page: 3 of 3 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 {J / I.A. . ( ~ C{ Mf .I""\ I\ ,J Applicant Name .f ~ -e Project Name/Description (L-e I\IL d e <:. k Parcel Number { ( a tJ I ~ O <1 0 Project Property Address ) C-,Lo-er r/-e E::.,v-e Ls ~ 0 i') · Signature of Applicant Applicant Information Address: ') ~ rl.-J :J2 ( f ( -e .e_ u...tic._ I hereby attest that the infor best of my kno Email: a i Il 8 (? 7f k tF .a.. r -i , ,..J- , C-v ,._ Phone: (W} _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (C} Z.'"1~ -1"1 4:>) Sig Property Owner Information (if not applicant} Print Name Date Address: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Property Owner Permission {if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ its submission. Phone: (W) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (C} _ _ _ _ __ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits for this project? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Print Name Date c;-_f __~__ ___r-_J2-A .ec d-e f'c ,· I, e .! ,,J Description of P oposed Work (attafh separate n~rative if necess,l)'): __/.fJi:......,._r_,_hi......,.."~,..J_ _ o..r 4f1¥-'t.c..4d. /,41'.J List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Received by: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Fee paid: _ _ _ _ _Cash/Ck.# _ _ __ Conditions of approval: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date Received: ----------- Revised 2016 ------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chapman Deck 3 Gildersleeve Wood, Charlottesville, VA 22903 3 Gildersleeve Wood, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Layout Page Table Number Title 1 Chapman Deck Project Overview 2 GIS and Construction Location 3 Framing Plan 4 Floor Plan 5 Elevation and Side Views 6 Material Details Project Specifications: - Deck framing with opening for dogwood tree - Freestanding deck with anchoring to the house masonry to prevent movement - Finished deck level to be level with existing door threshold - GeoTextile fabric placed under deck for drainage ANGLED LEFT RENDERING - 12" diameter x 6" depth precast concrete footings 18" below terrain Overview Project - 6x6 PT support posts - Triple 2x10 PT perimeter flush beams at house and front of framing - 2x10 PT joists with Simpson joist hangers, 16" o.c. or 12" o.c. when specified - 2x8 ground contact stair framing - 2x4 PT bench framing 700 2nd Street Waynesboro, VA 22980 Bear Creek Enterprises, LLC - 4x4 ipe posts to support bench Designed by: Gray Trotter - 1x6 solid ipe decking installed for the seat of the bench - 1x6 ipe grooved decking boards installed with CamoClip hidden fasteners - Perimeter of deck picture framed with solid 1x6 ipe deck boards installed with Coretex hidden fasteners DATE: - (3) 1x6 ipe solid decking boards for stair treads 12/8/2020 - ipe riser boards for stair risers and finished rim boards SCALE: - (3) 4x4 ipe posts 8' above deck level with galvanized eye bolts PAPER SIZE: installed for securing lights by owner Tabloid (11" x 17") SHEET: ANGLED RIGHT RENDERING 1 61' 18' 22' 104' Designed by: GIS and Construction Chapman Deck 2 Gray Trotter DATE: Bear Creek Enterprises, LLC 3 Gildersleeve Wood, Charlottesville, VA 22903 SHEET: SCALE: Location 12/8/2020 PAPER SIZE: Tabloid (11" x 17") 700 2nd Street Waynesboro, VA 22980 4x4 ipe posts, 8' above deck level Designed by: Gray Trotter Chapman Deck 3 Framing Plan DATE: Bear Creek Enterprises, LLC 3 Gildersleeve Wood, Charlottesville, VA 22903 SHEET: SCALE: 12/8/2020 PAPER SIZE: Tabloid (11" x 17") 700 2nd Street Waynesboro, VA 22980 Designed by: Gray Trotter Chapman Deck 4 Floor Plan DATE: Bear Creek Enterprises, LLC 3 Gildersleeve Wood, Charlottesville, VA 22903 SHEET: SCALE: 12/8/2020 PAPER SIZE: Tabloid (11" x 17") 700 2nd Street Waynesboro, VA 22980 RIGHT VIEW ELEVATION VIEW FRONT VIEW Designed by: Elevation and Gray Trotter Chapman Deck 5 DATE: Bear Creek Enterprises, LLC 3 Gildersleeve Wood, Charlottesville, VA 22903 SHEET: SCALE: 12/8/2020 PAPER SIZE: Tabloid (11" x 17") 700 2nd Street Waynesboro, VA 22980 Side Views Designed by: Chapman Deck 6 Gray Trotter Material Details DATE: Bear Creek Enterprises, LLC 3 Gildersleeve Wood, Charlottesville, VA 22903 SHEET: SCALE: 12/8/2020 PAPER SIZE: Tabloid (11" x 17") 700 2nd Street Waynesboro, VA 22980 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-02 125 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 090137000 Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corp., Owner Khanh Uong, Design Develop, LLC, Applicant Rear addition and site work Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report (Demolition) • Staff Report (New Work and Rehab) • Historic Survey • Application Submittal January 20, 2021 BAR Agenda 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report January 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-02-03 125 Chancellor Street, TMP 90137000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Owner: Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corp. Applicant: Khanh Uong/Design Develop Project: Demolition of rear addition Background Year Built: c1898 (House) District: The Corner ADC Status: Contributing Constructed as a boarding house with an L-plan, I-house floorplan, this Victorians style building features several East Lake and Queen Ann decorative motifs, such as the mock half-timbering in the front gable and brackets beneath the over-sailing front eave. Addition constructed possibly c1952. Garage in the rear is non-contributing. Prior BAR Actions n/a Application • Applicant’s submittal: Design Develop drawings Alpha Tau Omega, Renovation and Addition, dated January 20, 2021: 28 sheets, including photos, elevations, plans and renderings. CoA request for selective demolition of existing rear wing and c1960s rear addition. Discussion Construction of the new addition will extend the use of the historic building and, with that work, facilitate the building’s much-needed rehabilitation and repair. The historic rear wing is likely original; however, extensive alteration, at the very least, would be necessary to incorporate the 125 Chancellor Street (January 12, 2021) 1 proposed addition, leaving only a remnant of the original fabric and form. In lieu of using the wing to connect the house and the addition, constructing a wider hyphen will more effectively and efficiently meet the fraternity’s programmatic and space needs. Staff supports approval of the CoA and recommends the following as conditions of approval: • Provide for the BAR archives documentation of the rear elevation (all sides of the historic rear wing), including photographs and measured elevations and floor plans. 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 selective demolition at 125 Chancellor Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in Corner 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 Design Guidelines for Demolitions, I move to find that the proposed selective demolition at 125 Chancellor Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Corner 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. 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: 125 Chancellor Street (January 12, 2021) 2 (a) 1. The age of the structure or building; Staff: There are two components of the section proposed for demolition. The rear section (approx. 12-ft x 16-ft) dates to sometime after the mid-1960s. The historic section (the footprint, at least) appears to date to at least 1907, staff assumes it is original to the house. The following comments will address only the historic rear wing. (a) 2. Whether it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP], or the Virginia Landmarks Register [VLR]; Staff: 125 Chancellor Street is a contributing structure within the Rugby Road-University Corner Historic District (VDHR #104-0133). https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0133/ 125 [Chancellor Street] (Doswell-Mayo House): Detached dwelling. Decorated vernacular. Built 1898. Frame with weatherboarding; 2-1/2 stories; gable and hipped roofs; 1 front gabled dormer; 3-bay front with projecting ell; 1-bay, 1-story porch set in angle of ell. Three-sided bay at front; porch with Roman Doric columns is probably an early addition. Possibly the earliest dwelling on Chancellor Street, this L-plan I-house features mock half- timbering in the gable and Eastlake-style sunburst brackets. (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: N/A (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: N/A (relative to the historic rear wing) (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: N/A (relative to the historic rear wing) (a) 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; Staff: Removal of the historic, rear wing will not alter the front and two sides of the existing structure, retaining overall the unique characteristics and features of the original house. (b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one (1) of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. Staff: 125 Chancellor Street is the second oldest of roughly 25 structures, predominantly sorority and fraternity houses, that front on Chancellor Street and Madison Lane. (160 125 Chancellor Street (January 12, 2021) 3 Madison Lane dates to 1890.) Excluding the few modern structures, the remaining buildings date between 1900 and 1928. This is consistent with 1890-1930 period that predominates the architectural character of the Rugby Road-University Corner Historic District, reflecting a period of growth for this university-focused neighborhood. Of the structures dating to this period on Chancellor Street and Madison Lane, almost all are brick, with four clad with wood siding, including 125 Chancellor. Ten are Colonial Revival or some variation, seven are Georgian Revival, and five are Victorian or some variation, including 125 Chancellor Street. A variation of styles and materials that reflect those in the larger historic district. (c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board; Staff: The condition and integrity of the historic rear wing are not in question. Removing the historic rear wing will accommodate a new addition onto the house. In lieu of using the wing to connect the house and the addition, constructing a wider hyphen will more effectively and efficiently meet the fraternity’s programmatic and space needs. (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: See (a) 6 above. (e) Any applicable provisions of the city's design guidelines. Staff: N/A 125 Chancellor Street (January 12, 2021) 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report January 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-02-03 125 Chancellor Street, TMP 90137000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Owner: Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corp. Applicant: Khanh Uong/Design Develop Project: New addition, renovation/rehabilitation of the existing house, related site work Background Year Built: c1898 (House) District: The Corner ADC Status: Contributing Constructed as a boarding house with an L-plan, I-house floorplan, this Victorians style building features several East Lake and Queen Ann decorative motifs, such as the mock half-timbering in the front gable and brackets beneath the over-sailing front eave. Addition constructed possibly c1952. Garage in the rear is non-contributing. Prior BAR Actions November 17, 2020 – Preliminary discussion of the proposed work. Application • Applicant’s submittal: Design Develop drawings Alpha Tau Omega, Renovation and Addition, dated January 20, 2021: 28 sheets, including photos, elevations, plans and renderings. CoA request for construction of a rear addition; repair and rehabilitation of the existing house, including reconstruction of the front porch; related site work and landscaping. Note: The existing garage is a non-contributing structure. No CoA required for its demolition. The removal of the existing rear addition will be reviewed as a separate CoA request. 125 Chancellor Street (January 13, 2021) 1 Rehab/Repairs to House • Repair existing roof as required • Retain and repair ornamental trim work • Replace existing shutters. (new to be PVC composite) • Replace existing aluminum siding • Repair and refurbish exist windows • Rebuild front porch to match existing (details on sheets 24 and 25) • Repair and shore up settling southeast corner • Replace gutters and downspouts (Existing gutters are eave-mounted half-round, downspouts are full-round.) New Addition • Metal standing seam roof • Aluminum clad wood windows and doors • Horizontal fiber cement clapboard siding: Artisan lap siding, 5/8” x 7-1/4” with 6” exposure Lighting • Front porch: Pendant fixture, incandescent bulb - 60 W, 200 lumens • Side porch: Wall sconce, incandescent bulb - 60 W, 200 lumens Color Palette • Siding: Benjamin Moore Philipsburg Blue HC-159 • Trim: Benjamin Moore Snow White 2122-70 • Roof: Charcoal Grey • Metal components (railings): Benjamin Moore Graphite 1603 Landscape and Site Work • Remove three trees, concrete pad, and garage (non-contributing) • Modification to wall at front walk necessary to accommodate required fire hydrant • New plantings: o Front ▪ Sassafras trees (3) (Sassafras albidum) ▪ Dwarf Fountain Grass (Pennisetum alopecuroides) ▪ Common Sweetshrub (Calycanthus floridus) ▪ Blue Mist shrub (Caryopteris “Longwood Blue Mist”) o Rear ▪ Flowering cherry trees (2) (Prunus yeodensi) ▪ Dwarf Fountain Grass (Pennisetum alopecuroides) • Scored concrete patio (at rear porch) • 2’ x 2’ concrete pavers (front and side pathway) • ADA ramp (at side) o Note: An ADA accessible ramp may be required at the front entrance. Staff will determine how to address design, if necessary. • Asphalt parking area • Bike racks 125 Chancellor Street (January 13, 2021) 2 Discussion Much of the December 15, 2020 preliminary discussion focused on the front porch, particularly its origin. Staff has reviewed the available information and, while the current porch is stylistic different from the house, it likely dates to the early 20th century. • From a 1996 VDHR reconnaissance survey: Porch may have been rebuilt – originally it was probably stylistically in keeping with the style of the house; present Colonial Revival porch appears to be same size as the original, but was probably added early in the [20 th] century. • The available Sanborn Maps indicate a modification sometime between 1920 and 1929. 1920 Sanborn Map 1929 Sanborn Map While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, Of particular assistance, as a checklist for the preliminary discussion, are the criteria for Additions in Chapter III: • Function and Size • Replication of Style • Location • Materials and Features • Design • Attachment to Existing Building If the CoA is approved, staff recommends the following conditions: • The cement board siding on the addition and aluminum siding will be smooth, no faux grain. • Remove from the exterior walls unnecessary wires, conduits, and related boxes. • Clearing of vegetation from the front (sidewalk) wall and metal fencing. • Trimming and pruning of remaining vegetation and removing invasive plants. • When the aluminum siding is removed, provide for the BAR record photographs of each elevation. 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 alterations, repairs, and new construction at 125 Chancellor Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in Corner ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted[.] 125 Chancellor Street (January 13, 2021) 3 […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 alterations, repairs, and new construction at 125 Chancellor Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Corner 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 Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Checklist from section P. Additions Many of the smaller commercial and other business buildings may be enlarged as development pressure increases in downtown Charlottesville and along West Main Street. These existing structures may be increased in size by constructing new additions on the rear or side or in some cases by carefully adding on extra levels above the current roof. The design of new additions on all elevations that are prominently visible should follow the guidelines for new construction as described earlier in this section. Several other considerations that are specific to new additions in the historic districts are listed below: 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location 125 Chancellor Street (January 13, 2021) 4 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 125 Chancellor Street (January 13, 2021) 5 ALPHA TAU OMEGA RENOVATION AND ADDITION 125 Chancellor St., Charlottesville, VA 22903 PRECINCT AVERAGE FINISHED SQUARE FOOTAGE : 5,245 SF EXISTING 125 CHANCELLOR ST : 3,552 SF PROPOSED 125 CHANCELLOR WITH ADDITION : 6,264 SF MADISON LANE 158 4,600 SF 150 1709 138 130 128 136 160 6,561 SF 3,510 SF 6,330 SF UNIVERSITY AVENUE 5,338 SF 5,995 SF 133 6,793 SF 6,301 SF 3,413 SF 5,870 SF 167 4,416 SF 4,008 SF 165 2,712 SF ADDITION 6,991 SF 5,508 SF 6,638 SF 3,552 SF 123 125 127 129 150 TREET CHAN CELLOR S 144 136 132 128 1,116 SF 6,839 SF 120 5,064 SF 9,067 SF 4,139 SF 3,350 SF Neighborhood Map PRECINCT IDENTITY Analysis Of Building Footprints In Precinct ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 120 Chancellor St - St. Paul’s Episcopal Church - Built 1920 123 Chancellor St - Chi Omega - Built 1902 127 Chancellor St - Kappa Alpha Theta - Built 1920 128 Chancellor St - Christian Ministries - Built 1926 129 Chancellor St - Beta Psi - Built 1880 132 Chancellor St - Built 1920 136 Chancellor St - Kappa Delta - Built 1900 144 Chancellor St - Delta Zeta - Built 1900 150 Chancellor St - Delta Zeta - Built 1912 Site Context PHOTOS ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 STREET ADDRESS : 125 Chancellor Street MAP & PARCEL : 9-137 PRESENT ZONING : R-3H ORIGINAL OWNER : Norma, Ella, and Sally Doswell ORIGINAL USE : Residence PRESENT USE : Fraternity PRESENT OWNER : Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corporation HISTORIC NAME : Doswell-Mayo House DATE /PERIOD : 1898 STYLE : Victorian HEIGHT : 2 Stories DIMENSIONS / LAND AREA : 3,458 SF / 0.23 Acres ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Metal horizontal siding; 2 1/2 stories; gable roof; one dormer; three bays, north bay projecting; single story porch at center bay. Projecting eaves - no cornices. Entrance in center bay. Low- UNIVERSITY AVENUE er floor - south bay has 2/2 double sash; entrance is double aluminum storm door with tran- som; north bay is octagonal with 1/1 double sash on east side and 2/2 double sash in center. Upper floor - south bay has 2/2 double sash; central bay has a aluminum storm door; north bay has 2/2 double sash windows. Dormer is louvered and gable end of one half story has four lights. Two interior chimneys. ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 Existing Exterior N/E FRONT OF HOUSE Existing Exterior S/W REAR OF HOUSE ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 Existing Exterior SOUTH SIDE OF HOUSE Existing Exterior S/E FRONT OF HOUSE ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 Existing Exterior Context VIEW FROM CHANCELLOR ST ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 ST OR C ELL CHAN 125 Aerial View LOOKING NORTHWEST ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 125 CHA NCE LLO R ST Aerial View LOOKING NORTHEAST ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 10’ SIDE SET BACK DEMO 11’ PARTIAL DEMO OF RETAINING WALL FOR NEW FIRE HYDRANT REMOVE TREE 25’ FRONT SET BACK CHANCE DEMO LLOR ST 25’ REAR SET BACK REMOVE SECTION OF BRICK PAVERS REBUILD PORCH AND STAIRS TO MATCH EXIST DEMO CONCRETE PAD REPAIR FOUNDATION AS 10’ SIDE REQUIRED 14’ SET REMOVE DEAD BACK TREE Site Plan - EXISTING SCALE : 1” = 10’-0” ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 JOG WALL PER FIRE DEPARTMENT NEW FIRE PROPOSED YOSHINO FLOWERING HYDRANT CHERRY TREE (Prunus yeodensi) 11’ BIKE RACKS 10’ SIDE SET BACK CONDENSERS ORNAMENTAL GRASS 25’ FRONT SET BACK NEW ADDITION CHANCE 42’ LLOR ST 25’ REAR SET BACK PROPOSED COMMON SWEETSHRUB ASPHALT (Calycanthus floridus) PAVED PARKING BLUE MIST SHRUB (Caryopteris “Longwood Blue Mist”) PORCH ADDITION 2’x2’ CONCRETE PAVER STEPS 10’ SIDE SET BACK 14’ ORNAMENTAL GRASS PROPOSED YOSHINO FLOWERING SCORED CONCRETE WOOD ADA RAMP PROPOSED COMMON CHERRY TREE (Prunus yeodensi) PATIO AND WALK SASSAFRAS TREE (Sassafras albidum) TYPICAL OF 3 Site Plan - EXISTING SCALE : 1” = 10’-0” ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 COMMON SWEETSHRUB BLUE MIST SHRUB DWARF FOUNTAIN GRASS (Calycanthus floridus) (Caryopteris “Longwood Blue Mist”) (Pennisetum alopecuroides) YOSHINO FLOWERING CHERRY TREE COMMON SASSAFRAS TREE (Prunus yeodensi) (Sassafras albidum) Site Planting - PROPOSED ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 EXISTING • Repair existing roof as required • Repair and refurbish exist windows • Retain and repair ornamental trim work • Rebuild porch to match • Replace existing shutters • Repair and shore up settling southeast corner • Replace existing alum siding • Replace gutters and downspouts ELEVATION KEY PLAN Elevation EAST ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 ADDITION EXISTING • Metal standing seam roof • Repair existing roof as required • Repair and refurbish exist windows • Aluminum clad wood windows and doors • Retain and repair ornamental trim work • Rebuild porch to match • Horizontal fiber cement clapboard siding • Replace existing shutters • Repair and shore up settling southeast corner • Replace existing alum siding • Replace gutters and downspouts ELEVATION KEY PLAN Elevation SOUTH ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 ADDITION • Metal standing seam roof • Aluminum clad wood windows and doors • Horizontal fiber cement clapboard siding ELEVATION KEY PLAN Elevation WEST ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 EXISTING ADDITION • Repair existing roof as required • Repair and refurbish exist windows • Metal standing seam roof • Retain and repair ornamental trim work • Rebuild porch to match • Aluminum clad wood windows and doors • Replace existing shutters • Replace gutters and downspouts • Horizontal fiber cement clapboard siding • Replace existing alum siding ELEVATION KEY PLAN Elevation NORTH ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 Perspective FRONT SOUTHEAST CORNER ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 Perspective SOUTHEAST CORNER ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 Perspective SOUTH FACADE ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 Perspective REAR SOUTHWEST CORNER ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 Perspective REAR NORTHWEST CORNER ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 Perspective REAR AERIAL VIEW ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 ARTISAN® L AP SIDING • Casts deep shadow lines • Luxury look with long-lasting performance colonial SEAM ® simple. sophisticated. WIDTH 5.25 in (4.0 in Exposure) THICKNESS TEXTURE Smooth FINISH 7.25 in (6.0 in Exposure) 5/8 in and Primed Greenbaum Square 8.25 in (7.0 in Exposure) Woodgrain Wappingers Falls, NY Colonial Seam in Slate Grey SIDING JamesHardie Artisan Series SIDING COLOR Benjamin Moore Historical Series TRIM COLOR Benjamin Moore Snow White 2122-70 Width TBD Philipsburg Blue HC-159 ARTISAN® BEADED L AP SKU: HCS120, HCS160 SIDING Material: .032 aluminum; PLANK RIBS* SMOOTH EMBOSSED 24 ga. metallic coated steel • Tailored touch replicates traditional coastal style Panel Coverage: 12⅜”, 16⅜” • Creates a strong horizontal definition (plank ribs optional) Minimum Panel Length: 2’-0” WIDTH 12⅜” Coverage Maximum Panel Length: THICKNESS TEXTURE FINISH 8.25 1” in 20’-0” for aluminum, 25’-0” for steel 5/8 in Smooth Plank Rib Primed (7.0 in Exposure) Seam Height: 1” 16⅜” Coverage 1” Texture: Plank Ribs Smooth or Embossed 13 Minimum Slope: *Plank ribs reduce the potential of visible oil canning 3:12 Application: • Precision leveling prior to forming ROOF ATAS International Colonial Seam ROOF COLOR Stock Charcoal Grey (62) STEEL COLOR Benjamin Moore Graphite 1603 • Crating for job site handling/staging Performance Standards: • Typical applications include mansards, entryways, • Tested in accordance with UL 790/ASTM E 108, UL 580, commercial and residential roofing ASTM E 84 Flame Spread • Seam and lock are an integral part of the panel - no blow-offs • Complies with International Building Code requirements or creeping of the seam • High reflectivity of panels which increases energy efficiency • Lightweight and easy to install with no extra caps, strips, or clips needed ALPHA TAU OMEGA For more information: Visit www.atas.com/colonialseam at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 4| www.atas.com 1’-6” 3’-0” 1’-6” dant COLUMNS Composite Fiberglass Reinforced Structural Column Exist Window and Shutter Repair and Restore Window New PVC Composite Shutter Call Us 877.445.4486 Color Standard White Walker Hill Outdoor Wall Sconce By Eglo Call Us 877.445.4486 Product Options mer (not included) Finish: Matte Black , Oil Rubbed Bronze Size: Small , Large Details Dimmable with a standard incandescent dimmer (not included) LED compatible Mounting hardware included Assembly required Designed in 2018 Material: 90% Steel, 10% Glass Shade Material: Glass ETL Listed Wet Warranty: 1 Year Made In China Dimensions Small Option Fixture: Width 5.38", Height 12", Depth 5.25", Weight 5.51Lbs Large Option Fixture: Width 7.38", Height 15", Depth 7.25", Weight 7.28Lbs ", Depth 5.37", Weight 4Lbs Lighting Notes: table From 26.63", Notes: One 60 Watt (200 Lumens) 120 Volt E26 Medium Base Incandescent LIGHTING Front Porch Lamp(s) (Not Included) LIGHTING Side Porch , Depth 7.38", Weight Pendant Additional Details Wall Sconce 5.37” Square https://www.lumens.com/walker-hill-outdoor-wall-sconce-by-eglo-EGLP208576 x 14.6” Height Product URL: .html 5.38” Square x 12” Height 60 Watt Rating: (200ETLLumens) Listed Wet 60 Watt (200 Lumens) New Window Aluminum Clad Wood Incandescent Product ID: EGLP208576 Incandescent Color Standard White Prepared by: Prepared for: ium Base Incandescent Project: Room: ALPHA TAU OMEGA Placement: Approval: Created December 11th, 2020 at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 dant-by-eglo-EGLP208573.ht 4" NEW PAINTED STEEL GUARDRAIL TO MATCH EXISTING WOOD DECK TILES 3'-0" SLOPE NEW PORCH ROOF TO MATCH EXIST TRIMS AND PROFILES NEW COMPOSITE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED STRUCTURAL COLUMN BEAD BOARD CELING PORCH PENDANT LIGHT WOOD TOP RAIL - PAINTED WOOD BEADED SUBRAIL - PAINTED TURNED WOOD POST - PAINTED 6" SLOPED WOOD BOTTOM RAIL STAIR AND PORCH FLOOR COMPOSITE MATERIAL - PAINTED WOOD LATTICE INFILL BELOW 4" MAX STAIRS AND PORCH - PAINTED 3'-0" NOTE: ALL TRIM TO BE PAINTED BENJAMIN MOORE SNOW WHITE Existing FRONT PORCH Section - PROPOSED FRONT PORCH SCALE : 1/2” = 1’ - 0” ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 2x6 SUB-FASCIA NOTE: ALL TRIM TO BE PAINTED 1x2 FIBER CEMENT TRIM BENJAMIN MOORE SNOW WHITE 9'-9" 1x6 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA METAL GUTTER STANDING SEAM ROOF 12 6" 3 2x4 SOFFIT SUPPORT 6" SOFFIT BOARD 1/4" EXT SHEATHING 1x2 FIBER CEMENT TRIM - TYP 8" 7" 1x6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM WOOD RAFTER 3" BEAD BOARD AND EXT SHEATHING 3" x 5/8" THK PAINTED STEEL TOP RAIL BOX BEAM 5/8" 6X6 WOOD POST PAINTED STEEL GUARDRAIL 3" 8'-9" TYP 4" WALL SCONCE (2) - 2" x 1/2" THK PAINTED STEEL POST 2" 6'-0" 3/8" DIA PAINTED STEEL ROD - TYP 3'-0" 3'-0" 3/8" NOTE: ALL STEEL TO BE PAINTED 4" BENJAMIN MOORE GRAPHITE Details - PORCH ADDITION Section - PORCH ADDITION SCALE : 1 1/2” = 1’ - 0” SCALE : 1/2” = 1’ - 0” ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 EAVE LINE HAS DROPPED W/ CORNER OF HOUSE PORCH CORNER HAS SETTLED SIGNIFICANTLY AND IS A POTENTIAL SAFETY CONCERN SETTLEMENT EVIDENT AT WINDOW SILL AND SIDING CORNER OF HOUSE HAS SETTLED SIGNIFICANTLY 3D Laser Scan - FRONT ELEVATION ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 PORCH CORNER HAS SETTLED SIGNIFICANTLY AND IS A POTENTIAL SAFETY CONCERN SETTLEMENT IS EVIDENT AT WINDOW SILL SETTLEMENT IS EVIDENT IN CORNER OF HOUSE HAS EXISTING MORTAR JOINTS SETTLED SIGNIFICANTLY 3D Laser Scan - SIDE ELEVATION ALPHA TAU OMEGA at 125 Chancellor St, Charlottesville, VA 01.20.21 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-03 801 Park Street Tax Parcel 470020000 Daniel G. Krasnegor and Kristin H. Jensen, Owners Megan Taylor, TimberStone Landscape Design, Applicant Landscaping Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal • Submittal Addendum January 20, 2021 BAR Agenda 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report January 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-04 801 Park Street, TMP 470020000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Kristin Jensen and Daniel Krasnegor Applicant: Megan Taylor, Timberstone Project: Landscape and hardscape plan Background Year Built: 1839 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing The Trevillian-Tennyson House was originally an elaborately detailed, rambling frame, Queen Anne style house with a steeply pitched roof, tall chimneys, large dormer windows, and cresting at the ridges. “One of the most elaborately decorated homes on Park Street.” (Historic survey attached) Prior BAR Review • July 2016 – BAR approved CoA for garage renovation and removal of some trees/plantings. • February 2017 – BAR approved CoA for exterior renovation and proposed addition. (Note: This work was recognized by the BAR with a 2020 Preservation and Design Award for the Rehabilitation of a Historic Structure.) Application • Applicant submittal: TimberStone drawings for 801 Park Street, dated December 28, 2020 [for BAR submittal]: Conceptual Master Plan and Existing Conditions Survey (two sheets). • Addendum: TimberStone drawings for 801 Park Street, dated January 12, 2021: Images of existing conditions (four sheets), precedent images for walls and paving (one sheet), and [conceptual] phasing diagram (one sheet). CoA request for a conceptual master plan for plantings, patios, walkways, pool, and parking area. 801 Park Street (January 15, 2021) 1 Clarification: The removal of one tree is proposed. At the front walk, the apple tree will be replaced with a pair of serviceberry trees, one on each side of the walk. Discussion and Recommendations The BAR should discuss the applicant’s request for the option work at the front walk and steps to the sidewalk. The intent is to correct the riser heights at the steps. That work provides an opportunity to align the steps and walk with the house’s entrance. The plan, as submitted, as noted as conceptual; however, the applicant has provided information to establish the types of materials to be used. With that, staff recommends approval of the requested CoA with the following conditions: • New trees and plantings will conform to the City’s Master Tree List (dated October 2016) and Master Shrub List (dated February 2004). • Paving materials and walls will conform to the precedent images provided by the applicant. • Proposed walls will not to exceed a height of 4-feet above grade at any point on the outside face, as viewed from Park Street and as viewed from Park Hill. • As work progresses the applicant will review with staff the planned work to assure it is consistent with the CoA, with the understanding that revisions may require BAR review. • The CoA excludes the proposed shed and wood deck, which will require design review and a separate CoA. Note: Relative to any prior structures and/or landscape features. This property does not appear on the 1920 Sanborn Maps, so the only available reference are the c1965 maps, which indicates only the earlier garage, replaced by the existing garage c1974. In the c1930s aerial photo, the house and early garage are visible, and possibly a small shed near the garage; however, there are no discernible landscape features other than a possible wall along Park Lane. The City’s historic survey provides no information regarding landscaping features or outbuildings. (Existing garage constructed c1974.) Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that proposed landscape and hardscape plan at 801 Park Street 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.] Or: [… the application as submitted] with the following modifications … Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscape and hardscape plan at 801 Park Street 801 Park Street (January 15, 2021) 2 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 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 2 – Site Design and Elements B. Plantings 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. C. Walls and Fences 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought-iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 801 Park Street (January 15, 2021) 3 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. D. Lighting 1) In residential areas, use fixtures that are understated and compatible with the residential quality of the surrounding area and the building while providing subdued illumination. 2) Choose light levels that provide for adequate safety yet do not overly emphasize the site or building. Often, existing porch lights are sufficient. 3) In commercial areas, … 4) Do not use numerous “crime” lights or bright floodlights to illuminate a building or site when surrounding lighting is subdued. 5) … 6) … 7) Consider motion-activated lighting for security. E. Walkways and Driveways 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 2) Concrete pavers are appropriate in new construction, and may be appropriate in site renovations, depending on the context of adjacent building materials, and continuity with the surrounding site and district. 3) Gravel or stone dust may be appropriate, but must be contained. 4) Stamped concrete and stamped asphalt are not appropriate paving materials. 5) Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 6) Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 7) Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 8) Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. ... 801 Park Street (January 15, 2021) 4 801 Park Street (January 15, 2021) 5 existing evergreen shrubs NOTES: 1.) ALL PROPOSED TREES AND SHRUBS TO proposed BE CHOSEN FROM THE CITY OF fruit trees CHARLOTTESVILLE’S MASTER TREE/SHRUB proposed deciduous and evergreen screening hedge existing dogwoods LIST. (EXCEPT FOR THE PROPOSED FRUIT to remain TREES) proposed 2.) ALL EXISTING TREES ARE TO REMAIN. terraced veggie garden lawn 3.) THIS MASTER PLAN IS TO BE PHASED OVER TIME. FIRST PHASE TO BE FRONT existing YARD PLANTINGS AND ENGLISH GARDEN, juniper to remain AND FRONT WALKWAY AND PARK HILL proposed proposed pool STREET WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS. pool patio 4.) ALL PROPOSED LANDSCAPE LIGHTING TO BE LOW VOLTAGE LED (COLOR TEMP TO NOT EXCEED 3,000K) sunken pool/lawn lawn 5.) ALL PROPOSED WALLS TO BE CMU terrace BLOCK MASONRY WITH FIELDSTONE VENEER IN DRY-LAID APPEARANCE LAYING STYLE WITH RAKED JOINTS. proposed existing trees patio to remain proposed ipe deck proposed walkway existing concrete landing to be expanded and replaced with brick or bluestone existing (2) spruce existing concrete walkway and to remain existing concrete walkway steps to be widened and realigned to be centered on the front stairs proposed (2) single stem (proposed paving material to be Amelanchier x grandiflora brick or bluestone) lawn existing OR: expanded dogwood to remain existing azaleas proposed English existing parking alternate: and rhododendrons garden dogwood to remain area existing walkway alignment to are to be removed remain the same, walkway to be existing proposed perennial bed (existing lilies to be removed) widened (material changes to be shrubs/small trees to remain brick or bluestone) existing concrete block wall existing concrete block wall existing (2)crepe existing walkway and steps to proposed (2) Cornus florida myrtles to remain be widened (same/similar ‘Appalachian Snow’ brick and same paving pattern as existing to be used for proposed walkway) conceptual master plan scale: 1” = 20’ Krasnegor/Jensen Residence - 801 Park Street Charlottesville October 29, 2020 0’ 10’ 20’ 40’ 434.973.9094|timberstoneusa.com BAR SUBMITTAL - 12.28.2020 existing conditions survey scale: 1” = 40’ Krasnegor/Jensen Residence - 801 Park Street Charlottesville September 15, 2020 0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ 434.973.9094|timberstoneusa.com BAR SUBMITTAL - 12.28.2020 Park Street Frontage / Front yard: southwestern side of front yard along park hill street front yard northeastern side of front yard looking northwest toward the back existing block wall and lily bed yard where proposed wall and pool will be located existing conditions images - Park Street frontage / front yard Krasnegor/Jensen Residence - 801 Park Street Charlottesville January 12, 2021 434.973.9094|timberstoneusa.com BAR SUBMITTAL - 12.28.2020 Existing Walkway - Mortared Brick in Basket Weave Pattern: walkway and steps are 23” wide brick walkway looking from park hill street brick walkway and concrete steps looking from front porch concrete steps - top riser is 9” concrete steps - bottom riser is 7.5” Proposed Walkway and Steps: Proposed walkway is to be in the same location as existing, and is to be mortared brick in the same basket weave pattern as existing. Width of proposed walkway is to be 46”, which is (6) courses of the basket weave pattern. The concrete steps are to be replaced with poured concrete risers with equal-height risers. The existing riser heights are not equal. The top riser is 9” and the bottom riser is 7.5”. The elevation of the proposed walkway is to be raised to create equal risers of 7.5”. The with of the proposed concrete steps to be 46” to align with the proposed walkway. existing conditions images - side brick walkway on Park Hill Street Krasnegor/Jensen Residence - 801 Park Street Charlottesville January 12, 2021 434.973.9094|timberstoneusa.com BAR SUBMITTAL - 12.28.2020 Existing Walkway and Steps - Poured Concrete: front concrete steps are 38.5” wide, front walkway is 36” wide front concrete walkway and steps looking from the park street sidewalk western side of concrete steps eastern side of concrete steps front concrete walkway looking from front porch concrete landing at the bottom of the front porch steps Proposed Walkway and Steps: Option 1: Proposed walkway is to be realigned to be centered and perpendicular to the front porch steps, and widened to 4’. Front concrete risers are to be replaced with equal height risers (existing are not equal) steps are to be widened to 4’. Existing concrete curb/wall to be widened and re-configured as drawn in the conceptual master plan. Proposed concrete curb/wall would tie into the existing concrete curb/wall at the existing joints indicated by the red circles in the above, bottom left images. Option 2: Proposed walkway to remain in same alignment location as existing, but widened to 4’. Front concrete steps to remain the same. Proposed materials for both walkway options are mortarted brick or bluestone. Brick is the preferred material and to be in a basket weave pattern to match the existing and proposed side walkway on Park Hill Street. Proposed landing at the bottom of the front porch steps for both options to be 4’ deep and 10’ wide to align with the edges of the front porch steps. existing conditions images - front concrete walkway, landing, and steps on Park Street Krasnegor/Jensen Residence - 801 Park Street Charlottesville January 12, 2021 434.973.9094|timberstoneusa.com BAR SUBMITTAL - 12.28.2020 Existing Conditions Throughout the Property: between the garage studio and the main house looking northeast between the garage studio and the main house looking toward park hill back side of the garage studio where the proposed deck is to be existing timber walls and risers, wooden steps into garage studio street located area to become English garden (looking toward park street) area to become English garden (looking toward driveway/parking area) northeastern side of the house where the proposed pool is to be located existing conditions images Krasnegor/Jensen Residence - 801 Park Street Charlottesville January 12, 2021 434.973.9094|timberstoneusa.com BAR SUBMITTAL - 12.28.2020 Precedent Wall Images - Fieldstone: Proposed Fieldstone Retaining Walls and Free-Standing Walls: All proposed walls to be CMU block walls with fieldstone veneer in a dry-laid appearance laying style with raked joints. The proposed walls to have the same appearance as the above precedent images. Precedent Paving Images - Bluestone: Proposed Bluestone Paving: Proposed walkways, patio and pool patio to be mortarted natural cleft, full-color bluestone. The proposed bluestone paving to have the same colors and textures as the precedent images shown to the right of this text. precedent images for proposed walls and paving Krasnegor/Jensen Residence - 801 Park Street Charlottesville January 12, 2021 434.973.9094|timberstoneusa.com BAR SUBMITTAL - 12.28.2020 existing evergreen shrubs CONSTRUCTION PHASES LEGEND: proposed PHASE I fruit trees proposed deciduous and evergreen screening hedge existing dogwoods to remain PHASE II proposed terraced veggie PHASE III garden lawn existing juniper to remain proposed proposed pool NOTES: pool 1.) PHASE I TO BE COMPLETED patio WITHIN 2021 OR 2022. 2.) TIMING OF REMAINING PHASES sunken IS TO BE DETERMINED. pool/lawn lawn terrace proposed existing trees patio to remain proposed ipe deck proposed walkway existing concrete landing to be expanded and replaced with brick or bluestone existing (2) spruce existing concrete walkway and to remain existing concrete walkway steps to be widened and realigned to be centered on the front stairs proposed (2) single stem (proposed paving material to be Amelanchier x grandiflora brick or bluestone) lawn existing OR: expanded dogwood to remain existing azaleas proposed English existing parking alternate: and rhododendrons garden dogwood to remain area existing walkway alignment to are to be removed remain the same, walkway to be existing proposed perennial bed (existing lilies to be removed) widened (material changes to be shrubs/small trees to remain brick or bluestone) existing concrete block wall existing concrete block wall existing (2)crepe existing walkway and steps to proposed (2) Cornus florida myrtles to remain be widened (same/similar ‘Appalachian Snow’ brick and same paving pattern as existing to be used for proposed walkway) construction phases diagram scale: 1” = 20’ Krasnegor/Jensen Residence - 801 Park Street Charlottesville January12, 2021 0’ 10’ 20’ 40’ 434.973.9094|timberstoneusa.com BAR SUBMITTAL - 12.28.2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-04 301 East Jefferson Street Tax Parcel 330204000 Beth Israel Temple, Owner Kurt Keesecker, BRWArchitects, Applicant Entry renovations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal January 20, 2021 BAR Agenda 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report January 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-05 301 East Jefferson Street, Tax Parcel 330204000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Congregation Beth Israel Applicant: Kurt Keesecker, BRW Architects Project: Renovations to 3rd Street NE and East Jefferson Street entries Background Year Built: In 1882, the Late Gothic Revival temple was built in the 200 block of East Market Street. In 1904 it was moved and reconstructed at the current site. (The east and north additions are contemporary.) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Prior BAR Reviews • December 2005 - BAR approved CoA for reconstruction of entrance stairs • January 2009 – BAR approved CoA for replacement windows • January 2017 – Preliminary discussion re: Temple addition. • January 2019: BAR approved proposed security upgrades including new fencing and modification to the courtyard and concrete benches. • July 2019 – BAR approved wood caps for courtyard benches. Application Application Submitted: BRW Architects drawings Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement Board of Architectural Review Booklet, dated December 21, 2020: Sheets 1 through 15. Request for a CoA for alterations to three entrances: • 3rd Street NE, side entrance: Replace the entry doors. • East Jefferson Street, Lobby entrance: Replace the entry doors. • East Jefferson Street, Sanctuary entrance: Replace the entry doors and reconfigure the stairs. 301 East Jefferson Street (January 14, 2021) 1 From the applicant’s submittal: As a result of a security study conducted, the current operation of the doors has been highlighted as a point of concern. Some of the issues that the existing doors have are: locking issues due to their thermal instability, the sanctuary doors swing inwards into the sanctuary space, potentially impeding the exit during an emergency, the sanctuary doors have been pointed out as a potential weak point for unauthorized entry. Discussion and Recommendations 3rd Street side and East Jefferson Lobby entrances. Neither entrance is historic, relative to year built and to the historic temple. (See below from the c1965 Sanborn Map.) With that, staff reviewed these using the design guidelines for New Construction and recommends approval as submitted. Sanctuary entrance. Staff applied the design guidelines for Rehabilitation. Replacement of historic elements should be avoided; however, the existing doors are not believed to be original and the proposed new doors are consistent with the guidelines. Staff recommends approval. Direction is less clear for the proposed railing extensions, which might damage the historic material. Staff reviewed the Secretary’s Standards; however, that guidance addresses these situations only relative to building and safety code compliance, which is not the situation here. Ideally, the solution is a second railing that is not anchored onto/into the original rail or the historic brick. Otherwise, staff recommends approval with a condition that the new railing be attached to the original in a manner that minimizes damage to the existing. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed entrance alterations at 301 East Jefferson Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. …application as submitted with the following modifications… Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed entrance alterations at 301 East Jefferson Street 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 BAR approves the application as submitted…. 301 East Jefferson Street (January 14, 2021) 2 Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; 2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; 3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Chapter 3 – New Construction and Additions I. Windows and Doors 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a. The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. b. In the West Main Street corridor in particular, new buildings should reinforce this traditional proportion. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a. The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. b. Glass storefronts would generally have more horizontal proportions than upper floor openings. 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 301 East Jefferson Street (January 14, 2021) 3 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. Pertinent Guidelines for Chapter 4 – Rehabilitation D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors 1) The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 2) Inspect masonry, wood, and metal or porches and entrances for signs of rust, peeling paint, wood deterioration, open joints around frames, deteriorating putty, inadequate caulking, and improper drainage, and correct any of these conditions. 3) Repair damaged elements, matching the detail of the existing original fabric. 4) Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 5) Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 6) Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 7) Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8) Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. 9) In general, avoid adding a new entrance to the primary facade, or facades visible from the street. 10) Do not enclose porches on primary elevations and avoid enclosing porches on secondary elevations in a manner that radically changes the historic appearance. 11) Provide needed barrier-free access in ways that least alter the features of the building. a) For residential buildings, try to use ramps that are removable or portable rather than permanent. b) On nonresidential buildings, comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act while minimizing the visual impact of ramps that affect the appearance of a building. 12) The original size and shape of door openings should be maintained. 13) Original door openings should not be filled in. 14) When possible, reuse hardware and locks that are original or important to the historical evolution of the building. 15) Avoid substituting the original doors with stock size doors that do not fit the opening properly or are not compatible with the style of the building. 16) Retain transom windows and sidelights. … 301 East Jefferson Street (January 14, 2021) 4 L_-- LANDMARK SURVEY IDENTIFICATION BASE DATA Street Address: 301 East Jefferson Street Historic Name: Beth Israel Temple 14ap and Parcel: 33- 204 Date/Period: 1882-1903 Census Track & Block: 1-105 Style: Late Gothic Revival Present Owner: Beth Israel Temple Hei gh t to Cornice: 43 Address: 301 East Jefferson Street Height in Stories: 2 Present Use: Worship Present Zoning: 6-1 Original Owner: Beth Israel Temple Land Area (sq. ft.): 101 x 100 Original Use: Worship Assessed Value (land + imp.) : 21,670 + 21,900 = 45,570 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The Beth Israel Temple is an example of the late Gothic revival popular for religious buildings in the nineteenth century. The fact that Gothic architecture was seen appropriate only for Christian churches, a founding principle of the whole Gothic Revival movemen~, had long been forgotten by 1882 and the style was adopted by all faiths. The most prominent architectural feature of the exterior are the five low pinnacles supported by corbels and - square piers. The entrance door is set into a splayed reveal under a pointed arch. Within the range of tall lance windows is contained much of the Temple's original art glass. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION The Beth Israel Temple was built in 1882 on the sight now occupied by the Federal Post Office on Market Street. In 1904 it was moved to its present location on Jefferson and rebuilt. The congregation dates from 1863. (City Deed Reference: 14-72). ! CONDITIONS SOURCES II Good City Records :1 " 'f ~f i 1------------ ------ Ii LANDMARK CO,MMISSION ·DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, SEPTEMBER. 1974 ~. 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. Diane Hillman Owner Name___________________________________ Karim Habbab Applicant Name______________________________________ CBI - Entry Renovations Project Name/Description______________________________________ 330204000 Parcel Number__________________________ 301 EAST JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the 112 4TH ST NE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 Address:______________________________________ best of my knowledge, correct. _____________________________________________ KHABBAB@BRW-ARCHITECTS.COM Email:________________________________________ 12/21/2020 __________________________________________ 434-971-7160 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ Signature Date KARIM HABBAB 12/21/2020 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date 301 EAST JEFFERSON STREET, Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 _____________________________________________ I have read this application and hereby give my consent to DGHILLMAN612@GMAIL.COM Email:________________________________________ its submission. 434-295-6382 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ 12/21/2020 __________________________________________ _ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits DIANE HILLMAN 12/21/2020 _________________________________________ NO for this project? _______________________ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ A RENOVATION AND REPLACEMENT OF THE 3RD STREET ENTRY, ENTRY DOOR TO LOBBY AT JEFFERSON STREET AND A ______________________________________________________________________________________________ REPLACEMENT OF THE SANCTUARY DOORS AND RECONFIGURATION AT THE STAIRS. SEE ATTACHEMENT. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): 15 PAGE 11X17 BOOKLET ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ 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. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOOKLET CONGREGATION BETH ISRAEL - DOOR REPLACEMENT JANUARY 20 2021 EXISTING SANCTUARY DOORS - PHOTOGRAPHS Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement Board of Architectural Review Booklet January 20, 2021 2 EXISTING SANCTUARY DOOR LANDING Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement Board of Architectural Review Booklet January 20, 2021 3 EXISTING SANCTUARY DOORS - PHOTOGRAPHS Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement Board of Architectural Review Booklet January 20, 2021 4 3RD STREET ENTRY LOBBY ENTRY EXISTING PHOTOGRAPHS Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement Board of Architectural Review Booklet January 20, 2021 5 2 3 Sim 1 4 1 5 DN 1 2.1 As a result of a security study conducted, the current operation of the doors has been highlighted as a point of concern. Some of the issues that the existing doors have are: locking issues due to their thermal instability, the sanctuary doors swing inwards into the sanctuary space, potentially impeding the exit during an emergency, the sanctuary doors have been pointed out as a potential weak point for unauthorized entry. The below drawings depict proposed changes to three entry locations at the congregation. At the 3rd street entry, the current doors are to be replaced with new doors. At the lobby entry, the doors are to be replaced with new doors and the glass at the entry to be replaced with new glass. At the sanctuary entry, the doors are to be replaced with new doors that are recessed in and swing outwards, with revisions to the landing and installation of a new railing at the revised landing area. The design of the new sanctuary doors is reflective of the historic design found in a photograph circa 1917. ENTRANCE LAYOUT SITE PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" New glass in doors at the entries shall adhere to BAR guidelines. Glass shall be clear. SANCTUARY DOOR SITE DIAGRAM title: Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement ARB LARGER PLAN Board of Architectural Review Booklet project: January 20, 2021 CONGREGATION BETH ISRAEL - ADDITION 6 copyright: © 2020 brwarchitects, P.C. HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPH OF SANCTUARY Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement Board of Architectural Review Booklet January 20, 2021 7 Securi NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NO Security Upgra T:\20026 CBI Security Upgrades - Doors\5_Drawings\a_Production Drawings\20026_CBI Security Upgrad Drawings\20026_CBI project: CONGREGATION BETH ISRAEL - ADDITION Drawings\20026_CBI project: Charlottesville, pro CONGREGATION Virginia C BETH ISRAEL - BULLETPROOF INSULATED GLASS BE ADDITION Charlottesville, A C Virginia - Doors\5_Drawings\a_Production Vi for: BULLETPROOF INSULATED GLASS MAHOGANY VENEER BULLETPROOF INSULATED GLASS CONGREGATION BETH ISRAEL - Doors\5_Drawings\a_Production for: MAHOGANY VENEER for SOLID PANEL, MAHOGANY VENEER MAHOGANY VENEER CONGREGATION C BETH ISRAEL BE SOLID BRASS PANEL, MAHOGANY VENEER KICK PLATE SOLID PANEL, MAHOGANY VENEER Level 484 job number: 20003 BRASS 0' - 0" drawing: KICK PLATE BRASS KICK PLATE ARB 3RD ST door option.rvt Security Upgrades 3RD STREET ENTRANCE - ELEVATION Level 484 Level 484 DOOR job number: 20003 job 0' - 0" drawing: 1/2" = 1'-0" 0' - 0" ARB 3RD ST dra AR option.rvt CBI Upgrades 3RD STREET ENTRANCE - ELEVATION revisions: DOOR Doors new inset door option.rvt 3RD STREET ENTRANCE - ELEVATION DO doorinset 1/2" = 1'-0" 1/2" = 1'-0" revisions: CBI Security rev insetnew T:\20026 Doors newDoors 4:51:45T:\20026 drawn by: checked by: Author Checker PM copyright:©2020 brwarchitects, P.C. drawn by: checked by: Author Checker dra 4:51:45 PM Aut 12/19/2020 4:51:45 PM copyright:©2020 brwarchitects, P.C. 12/19/2020 cop 12/19/2020 1 3 EXISTING DOOR 1 3 1 EXISTING DOOR EXISTING DOOR approval seal 3 NEW DOOR TO REPLACE EXISTING approval seal ap 3RD STREET ENTRANCE - PLAN date sheet Author Author NEW DOOR TO REPLACE EXISTING 1/2" = 1'-0" NEW DOOR TO REPLACE EXISTING 03/26/2020 3 3RD STREET ENTRANCE 3RD STREET- PLAN ENTRANCE - PLAN date sheet da Author NEW 3RD STREET ENTRY 03/26/2020 3 1/2" = 1'-0" 03 1/2" = 1'-0" Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement Board of Architectural Review Booklet January 20, 2021 8 REPLACE REPLACE EXISTING EXISTING GLASSGLASS AT ENTRY AT ENTRY WITH WITH NEW BULLETPROOF NEW BULLETPROOF GLASSGLASS THIS PANEL THIS PANEL FLUSHFLUSH WITH WITH DOORDOOR RAILSRAILS BULLETPROOF BULLETPROOF GLASS, TYPICAL GLASS, TYPICAL MAHOGANY MAHOGANY VENEER VENEER MAHOGANY MAHOGANY VENEER VENEER ON SOLID ON SOLID PANELPANEL BRASSBRASS KICK PLATE KICK PLATE Level Level 484484 0' - 0' 0" - 0" LOBBY LOBBY JEFFERSON JEFFERSON STST ENTRANCE ENTRANCE - ELEVATION - ELEVATION 1/2" =1/2" 1'-0" = 1'-0" NEW DOOR NEW DOOR TO REPLACE TO REPLACE EXISTING EXISTING 2.1 2.1 2 2 LOBBY LOBBY JEFFERSON JEFFERSON STST ENTRANCE ENTRANCE - PLAN - PLAN EXISTING EXISTING DOOR DOOR 1/2" =1/2" 1'-0" = 1'-0" NEW LOBBY ENTRY title: title: job number: 20003 job number: 20003 ARB ARB LOBBY LOBBY DOOR DOOR Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement date date 12/15/20 12/15/20 Board of Architectural Review : Booklet : project: project: sketchsketch number number January 20, 2021 CONGREGATION CONGREGATION copyright: BETH BETH © 2020 copyright: ISRAEL ISRAEL - ADDITION - ADDITION © 2020brwarchitects, brwarchitects, P.C. P.C. 1/2" = 1'-0" scale: scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2.1 2.1 9 AuthorAuthor 12/19/2020 12/19/2020 4:51:434:51:43 PM PM T:\20026 T:\20026 CBI Security CBI Security Upgrades Upgrades - Doors\5_Drawings\a_Production - Doors\5_Drawings\a_Production Drawings\20026_CBI Drawings\20026_CBI Security Security Upgrades Upgrades - Doors- new Doors inset newdoor inset door 5' - 0" EXISTING STEP EXISTING STEP EXISTING DOORS AND DOOR SWING 3' - 0" 2' - 2" EXISTING METAL THRESHOLD 2' - 10" EXISTING LIMESTONE THRESHOLD STEP 11" EXISTING LANDING EXISTING STAIRS DN el 495 Dimensions on plan need to be verified in field. EXISTING SANCTUARY DOORS PLAN - 1/4” = 1’-0” EXISTING SANCTUARY ENTRY Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement Board of Architectural Review Booklet January 20, 2021 10 1 5 NEW DOORS TO REPLACE EXISTING EXISTING EXTERIOR WINDOW TO REMAIN EXISTING EXTERIOR WHITE TRIM TO REMAIN NEW DOOR TO REPLACE EXISTING WITH NEW PANEL BRONZE FINISH AT DESIGN SIMILAR TO HISTORIC NEW JAMBS AND DOOR. MAHOGANY FINISH EXTERIOR SOFFIT NEW RAILING TO NEW EXTENDED CONCRETE LANDING ACCOMODATE EXTENDED LANDING HEIGHT NEW STEP REQUIREMENTS. PAINTED BLACK. NEW RAILING IN NEW LANDING Level 495 10' - 9 3/8" SANCTUARY ENTRANCE - PLAN SANCTUARY ENTRANCE - ELEVATION 1/2" = 1'-0" 1/2" = 1'-0" title: NEW SANCTUARY ENTRY job number: 20003 SANCTUARY DOOR LAYOUT PLAN Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement date 12/04/20 project: Board of Architectural Review : Booklet sketch number January 20, 2021 CONGREGATION BETH ISRAEL - ADDITION copyright: © 2020 brwarchitects, P.C. scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 11 Author 1/15/2021 12:38:45 PM T:\20026 CBI Security Upgrades - Doors\5_Drawings\a_Production Drawings\20026_CBI Security Upgrades - Doors new inset door option.rvt NEW ENTRY JAMB NEW RAILING NEW RAILING, INSET FROM EXISTING RAILING MOUNTED IN NEW CONCRETE LANDING NEW CONCRETE STEP AND LANDING Level 495 10' - 9 3/8" SANCTUARY STAIRS SECTION 1/2" = 1'-0" CONCEPTUAL SKETCH OF NEW RAILING title: job number: 20003 ARB SANCTUARY SECTION NEW SANCTUARY date ENTRY 12/15/20 : project: Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement sketch number CONGREGATION BETH ISRAEL - ADDITION copyright: © 2020 brwarchitects, P.C. scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 5 Board of Architectural Review Booklet January 20, 2021 Author 1/15/2021 12:39:03 PM T:\20026 CBI Security Upgrades - Doors\5_Drawings\a_Production Drawings\20026_CBI Security Upgrades - Doors new inset door option.rvt 12 MATERIALITY PRECEDENT PHOTOGRAPHS Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement Board of Architectural Review Booklet January 20, 2021 13 RENDERING - SANCTUARY ENTRY Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement Board of Architectural Review Booklet January 20, 2021 14 RENDERING - SANCTUARY ENTRY Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement Board of Architectural Review Booklet January 20, 2021 15 DARK WOOD FINISH (MAHOGANY) BRONZE (OVER TIME) BRASS MATERIALS Congregation Beth Israel - Door Replacement Board of Architectural Review Booklet January 20, 2021 16 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-05 116 West Jefferson Street Tax Parcel 330183000 Jefferson Street Properties, LLC, Owner Gordon Johnson, Peter Johnson Builders, Applicant Porch reconstruction Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Staff Photos • Historic Survey • Application Submittal January 20, 2021 BAR Agenda 7 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT January 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-06 116 West Jefferson Street, TMP 330183000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Jefferson Street Properties, LLC Applicant: Gordon Johnson, Peter Johnson Builders Project: Front porch reconstruction, alterations at rear elevation Background Year Built: 1913 (the rear structure is contemporary) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing The Revercomb House follows the Colonial Revival style. The front porch was removed in 1974. Prior BAR Reviews January 2011 – BAR approved CoA for fencing under the rear porch and breezeway. Application • Applicant Submitted: Austin design Group drawings, 116 Jefferson Street: Existing Elevations, 12/18/2020, two sheets; New Elevations, 12/02/2020, two sheets; Demolition Elevations, 12/18/2020, two sheets; Existing Floor Plans, 12/02/2020, three sheets; Demolition Floor Plans, 12/02/2020, five sheets (two sheets with Third Floor Plan); New Floor Plans, 12/02/2020, four sheets. • Photographs provided by staff. Request for a CoA for reconstruction of the front porch (removed in 1974), removal of hyphen at rear elevation, with corresponding repairs to the rear porches; and alterations to rear addition (a contemporary structure). 116 West Jefferson (January 15, 2021) 1 Discussion and Recommendation Front Porch Reconstruction To the extent possible, the reconstruction will rely on the information available in the photographs and in the matching components that remain on the house. • Dimensions: Photos and the shadow lines on the brick provide the width and height. The proposed reconstruction generally conforms to the original dimensions. • Columns: o Capital: Photos indicate Angular (Scamozzi) Ionic. o Shaft: Smooth. Engaged columns at walls are square. o Base: Cannot determine. Use base appropriate for Ionic column. • Trim/Cornice: Match existing on the house—see photos. • Railing: Detail cannot be determined from the photos. The rear porch railings have been replaced Recommend that rail components be appropriate to the Colonial Revival style and period of this house. • Roof: Original roof was standing-seam metal. New roof proposed as EPDM or equivalent. • Gutters and Downspouts: Original porch has built-in gutters. New is not specified. Staff suggest a detail similar to that approved for 201 East High Street. In lieu of the crown mould, allow a gutter attached to the fascia. • Flooring and steps: Not indicated. Assume painted wood. • Ceiling: Not indicated. Ceiling at existing rear porch (upper) is beaded board--see photos. • Porch framing and piers: Not indicated. Assume wood frame on brick piers. • Lighting: No lighting indicated. Rear – Building Connection Remove existing, elevated connection. Floor plans indicate this space serves as an office, with no wall penetrations into the historic house or the contemporary addition. Access into the house uses an existing doorway [to the formerly open porch]. This will be retained, providing access to the porch, which will be repaired with railing, posts, and flooring to match existing. The opening on the contemporary structure will be in-filled with new windows and the wall and siding repaired. Rear – Contemporary Structure • South Elevation: Remove two windows, existing door, and canopy. Install two larger windows. • North Elevation: Remove window and wall section. Install double doors and window. • West Elevation: Remove one window. Install new door in opening. Staff Recommendation Staff finds that the proposed work is appropriate conceptually, however additional information may be necessary for the proposed new windows and doors, and clarification is necessary to verify the individual components of the front porch reconstruction. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed front porch reconstruction and exterior alterations at 116 West Jefferson Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves [the application as submitted.] Or: [… the application as submitted] with the following modifications … 116 West Jefferson (January 15, 2021) 2 Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed front porch reconstruction and exterior alterations at 116 West Jefferson Street 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 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 guidelines from the Secretary Of The Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Reconstruction • Recommended: Recreating the documented design of exterior features, such as the roof form and its coverings, architectural detailing, windows, entrances and porches, steps and doors, and their historic spatial relationships and proportions. • Not Recommended: Omitting a documented exterior feature, or rebuilding a feature but altering its historic design. Using inappropriate designs or materials that do not convey the historic appearance. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Rehabilitations: C. Windows 1) Prior to any repair or replacement of windows, a survey of existing window conditions is recommended. Note number of windows, whether each window is original or replaced, the material, type, hardware and finish, the condition of the frame, sash, sill, putty, and panes. 2) Retain original windows when possible. 116 West Jefferson (January 15, 2021) 3 3) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. 4) If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use. 5) Repair original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. 6) Replace historic components of a window that are beyond repair with matching components. 7) Replace entire windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. 8) If a window on the primary façade of a building must be replaced and an existing window of the same style, material, and size is identified on a secondary elevation, place the historic window in the window opening on the primary façade. 9) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 14) False muntins and internal removable grilles do not present an historic appearance and should not be used. 15) Do not use tinted or mirrored glass on major facades of the building. Translucent or low (e) glass may be strategies to keep heat gain down. 16) Storm windows should match the size and shape of the existing windows and the original sash configuration. Special shapes, such as arched top storms, are available. 17) Storm windows should not damage or obscure the windows and frames. 18) Avoid aluminum-colored storm sash. It can be painted an appropriate color if it is first primed with a zinc chromate primer. 19) The addition of shutters may be appropriate if not previously installed but if compatible with the style of the building or neighborhood. 20) In general, shutters should be wood (rather than metal or vinyl) and should be mounted on hinges. In some circumstances, appropriately dimensioned, painted, composite material shutters may be used. 21) The size of the shutters should result in their covering the window opening when closed. 22) Avoid shutters on composite or bay windows. 23) If using awnings, ensure that they align with the opening being covered. 24) Use awning colors that are compatible with the colors of the building. D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors Entrances and porches are often the primary focal points of a historic building. Their decoration and articulation help define the style of the structure. Entrances are functional and ceremonial elements for all buildings. Porches have traditionally been a social gathering point as well as a transition area between the exterior and interior of a residence. 116 West Jefferson (January 15, 2021) 4 The important focal point of an entrance or porch is the door. Doors are often a character-defining feature of the architectural style of a building. The variety of door types in the districts reflects the variety of styles, particularly of residential buildings. 1) The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 2) Inspect masonry, wood, and metal or porches and entrances for signs of rust, peeling paint, wood deterioration, open joints around frames, deteriorating putty, inadequate caulking, and improper drainage, and correct any of these conditions. 3) Repair damaged elements, matching the detail of the existing original fabric. 4) Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 5) Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 6) Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 7) Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8) Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. 9) In general, avoid adding a new entrance to the primary facade, or facades visible from the street. 10) Do not enclose porches on primary elevations and avoid enclosing porches on secondary elevations in a manner that radically changes the historic appearance. 11) Provide needed barrier-free access in ways that least alter the features of the building. a) For residential buildings, try to use ramps that are removable or portable rather than permanent. b) On nonresidential buildings, comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act while minimizing the visual impact of ramps that affect the appearance of a building. 12) The original size and shape of door openings should be maintained. 13) Original door openings should not be filled in. 14) When possible, reuse hardware and locks that are original or important to the historical evolution of the building. 15) Avoid substituting the original doors with stock size doors that do not fit the opening properly or are not compatible with the style of the building. 16) Retain transom windows and sidelights. 17) When installing storm or screen doors, ensure that they relate to the character of the existing door. a) They should be a simple design where lock rails and stiles are similar in placement and size. b) Avoid using aluminum colored storm doors. c) If the existing storm door is aluminum, consider painting it to match the existing door. d) Use a zinc chromate primer before painting to ensure adhesion. 116 West Jefferson (January 15, 2021) 5 116 West Jefferson Street (photos—January 15, 2021) North Elevation—from W. Jefferson 116 West Jefferson Street (photos—January 15, 2021) North Elevation—from W. Jefferson 116 West Jefferson Street (photos—January 15, 2021) Corners at North Elevation—from W. Jefferson 116 West Jefferson Street (photos—January 15, 2021) East Elevation—from W. Jefferson East Elevation (looking NW) 116 West Jefferson Street (photos—January 15, 2021) South Elevation—Rear Addition West Elevation—from 2nd Street NW (looking NE) 116 West Jefferson Street (photos—January 15, 2021) West Elevation—from 2nd Street NW (looking SE) 116 West Jefferson Street (photos—January 15, 2021) Connector to be removed Rear Porches 116 West Jefferson Street (photos—January 15, 2021) Rear Addition—Siding Rear Addition—Window (typ) 116 West Jefferson Street (photos—January 15, 2021) Cornice Detail Rear Porch Detail 116 West Jefferson Street (photos—January 15, 2021) Cornice Detail Above Front Door (North Elevation) LANDMARK SURVEY IDENTIFICATION BASE DATA Street Address: 116 West Jefferson Street Historic Name: Revercomb House Map and Parcel: 33-183 Date/Period: 1913 Census Track & Block: 1- 314 Style: Colonial Revival Family Services of C'vill-Albemarle Height to Cornice: 21. 5 Present Owner: Address: 116 West Jefferson Street Height in Stories: 2 Present Use: Offices Present Zoning: B-3 Original Owner: J. C. Revercomb Land Area (sq.ft.): 47.5 x 116.5 Original Use: Residence Assessed Value (land + imp.): 8310 +' 5370 13,680 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The Revercomb House, until recently, was one of the fine examples of the Colonial Revival style. The floor plan is similar to Stanford White's Carrs Hill at the University. Built of brick that was once penciled so that the mortar joints would appear more even, the two story, three bay residence boasted of a handsome veranda with four Ionic columns with diagonal volutes, so characteristic of revival capitals, and a strong modillioned cornice that added sophistication to an otherwise ordinary structure. With this veranda gone, the Federal style entrance with fan and sidelights of beveled leaded glass looses much of its original elegance. On the interior the original doors, woodwork, and mantles are also typical of the Colonial Revival. The most interesting and unusual interior detail is the open spool-work lunette in the archway between the entrance and the stair hall. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION In 1878, Elisah Gilmer bought the property from B. L. Powell (ACDB 69-4). Gilmer sold the property and the small one story brick structure to Mrs. B. G. Leterman in 1903 (DB 14-304). In 1909, J. C. Revercomb bought the property (DB 20-483) and in 1913 razed the older structure and built the present house. The house remained in the Revercomb family until 1972 when the Family Services of Charlottesville-Albemarle, Ihc. purchased it. The veranda was removed in 1974. GRAPHICS CONDITIONS SOURCES Average Miss Virginia Revercomb City Records \ LANDMARK CO.MMISS ION ·DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP MEN' r 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photos from City Historic Survey (1970s -1980s) 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photo from Google street view (June 2018) 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photos from City Historic Survey (1970s -1980s) 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photos from City Historic Survey (1970s -1980s) East elevation West elevation 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photos from City Historic Survey (1970s -1980s) Front (north) entrance Rear (south) elevation 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photos from City Historic Survey (1970s -1980s) Front porch 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photos from City Historic Survey (1970s -1980s) Front porch Rear elevation Roof Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-06 408 East Market Street Tax Parcel 330183000 408 East Market Street Condo Owners Association, Owner Robert Nichols, Formwork Architecture, Applicant Exterior alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal • Submittal Addendum January 20, 2021 BAR Agenda 8 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report January 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-07 408 East Market Street, TMP 530054AA0 Downtown ADC District Owner: 408 East Market Street Condo Owners Association Applicant: Robert Nichols, Formwork Project: Replace canopy, remove railing, paint, exterior alterations Background Year Built: 1946 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing (All buildings in this district are contributing, regardless of age.) Prior BAR Reviews • October 19, 2004 – BAR approved CoA for replacement of the storefront glass with panels containing “Flemish obscured” glass; and deferred action regarding the canopy to allow applicant to return with more details on replacing the cloth awning with copper. • July 19, 2005 – BAR approved CoA to add a new window on the rear of the building, with the understanding that the window height will be between 3-1/2 ft. to 4 ft. • September 20, 2011 - BAR approved CoA to replace the copper roof cap with painted metal. • August 2013 – BAR approved CoA for replacement of roofs, roof decks, roof patio doors. Application • Submittal: Formwork Design submittal, 408 East Market Street: Cover (dated 12/29/2021) and sheets 1 through 5 (dated 01/19/2021). Request for CoA to paint exterior; remove false railings above main entry (at 2nd and 3rd floor windows); remove existing canopies (fabric) and install new (metal); replace planters at entrance (new plantings to include Boston ivy intended to cover the walls); remove exposed aggregate paving and replace with bluestone pavers. 408 E. Market Street (January 15, 2021) 1 Discussion and Recommendations Staff has requested the following from the applicant, which will be available at the meeting: • Section through the new canopy. • Clarification on the proposed ivy: Will it attach to the brick or will there be a frame or screen? • Verify that the railings removed are only at the windows in the center section of the building. • Clarification on the proposed painting. (The rendering appears to show variation.) The requested information is to provide clarifications and additional detail; however, staff believes the proposal, in concept—and except for the proposed ivy--is consistent with the design guidelines. With the presentation of the requested information, staff recommends approval. Proposed ivy: Relative to the masonry walls, Boston ivy—versus common or English ivy--will not damage the brick, particularly for newer, post-1930s bricks and mortar. If improperly removed, it can damage the paint layer. If not managed, Boston ivy can spread to horizontal surfaces, so the BAR should discuss this necessary maintenance and, possibly, consider applying conditions to the CoA. Relative to the design guidelines, nothing specifically addresses ivy-covered walls. (Staff also found no clear guidance in the Secretary’s Standards.) The following from the Facades and Storefronts section of Chapter 3 may be helpful in the BAR’s discussion: • Design new elements that respect the character, materials, and design of the building, yet are distinguished from the original building. • Depending on the existing building’s age, originality of the design and architectural significance, in some cases there may be an opportunity to create a more contemporary façade design when undertaking a renovation project. • Avoid using materials that are incompatible with the building or within the specific districts, including textured wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding, and pressure-treated wood. • Avoid introducing inappropriate architectural elements where they never previously existed. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed exterior alterations at 408 East Market Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves [the application as submitted.] Or: [… the application as submitted] with the following modifications … Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed exterior alterations at 408 East Market Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons BAR denies the application as submitted…. 408 E. Market Street (January 15, 2021) 2 Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; 2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; 3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Site Design and Elements B. Plantings 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. Rehabilitation B. Facades and Storefronts Over time, commercial buildings are altered or remodeled to reflect current fashions or to eliminate maintenance problems. Often these improvements are misguided and result in a disjointed and unappealing appearance. Other improvements that use good materials and sensitive design may be as attractive as the original building and these changes should be saved. 408 E. Market Street (January 15, 2021) 3 The following guidelines will help to determine what is worth saving and what should be rebuilt. 1) Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2) Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 3) Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4) Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 5) Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 6) When designing new building elements, base the design on the “Typical elements of a commercial façade and storefront.” 7) Reconstruct missing or original elements, such as cornices, windows, and storefronts, if documentation is available. 8) Design new elements that respect the character, materials, and design of the building, yet are distinguished from the original building. 9) Depending on the existing building’s age, originality of the design and architectural significance, in some cases there may be an opportunity to create a more contemporary façade design when undertaking a renovation project. 10) Avoid using materials that are incompatible with the building or within the specific districts, including textured wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding, and pressure-treated wood. 11) Avoid introducing inappropriate architectural elements where they never previously existed. K. Paint 1) Do not remove paint on wood trim or architectural details. 2) Do not paint unpainted masonry. 3) Choose colors that blend with and complement the overall color schemes on the street. Do not use bright and obtrusive colors. 4) The number of colors should be limited. Doors and shutters can be painted a different color than the walls and trim. 5) Use appropriate paint placement to enhance the inherent design of the building. 408 E. Market Street (January 15, 2021) 4 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. Robert Nichols, Formwork Design Office 408 East Market St Condo Owners Assoc Applicant Name______________________________________ Owner Name___________________________________ Maclin Building Ext Renovation Project Name/Description______________________________________ 530054AA0 Parcel Number__________________________ 408 East Market St Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the 619 E High St, Unit A Address:______________________________________ Charlottesville, VA 22902 best of my knowledge, correct. _____________________________________________ robert@fortmworkusa.com Email:________________________________________ __________________________________________ 434-296-2223 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ Signature Date Robert Nichols 12/29/20 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date 408 E Market Street Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) _____________________________________________ I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:________________________________________ its submission. Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ _ __________________________________________ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits _________________________________________ No for this project? _______________________ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ Exterior painting, replacement of existing canopy at entrance, removal of false guard rails above entrance ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Design package attached with rendered views, existing conditions, etc. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ 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. 408 EAST MARKET STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SUBMITTED DECEMBER 29, 2020 © 2020 FORMWORK DESIGN LLC 01 01 REMOVE & REPLACE CANOPY 02 02 REMOVE CANOPY 02 03 REPLACE PLANTINGS 03 03 04 REPLACE PLANTER 04 04 05 REPLACE PAVERS @ ENTRY REMOVE EXISTING CANOPIES @ SOUTH END OF COURTYARDS REMOVE EXISTING CANOPIES @ SOUTH END OF COURTYARDS MACLIN BUILDING EXISTING CONDITIONS MACLIN BLDG COMPOSITE 1 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 01/19/21 01 REMOVE & REPLACE CANOPY 01 02 REMOVE CANOPY 02 03 REPLACE PLANTINGS 03 04 REPLACE PLANTER 03 05 REPLACE PAVERS @ ENTRY 04 05 04 FRONT ENTRY - SIDEWALK APPROACH COURTYARD MACLIN BUILDING EXISTING CONDITIONS - DETAILS 2 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 01/19/21 EAST NEIGHBOR WEST NEIGHBOR MACLIN BUILDING EXISTING CONDITIONS - NEIGHBORS 3 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 01/19/21 B A BLACK METAL ENTRY CANOPY B PAINTED BRICK: DEEP BLUE C BOSTON IVY & SWITCH GRASS IN AT-GRADE PLANTER D BLUESTONE PAVING AT ENTRY A C D MACLIN BUILDING PROPOSED CHANGES (EXISTING TREES NOT SHOWN) 4 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 01/19/21 B A A BLACK METAL ENTRY CANOPY C B PAINTED BRICK: DEEP BLUE C BOSTON IVY & SWITCH GRASS IN AT-GRADE PLANTER D BLUESTONE PAVING AT ENTRY D MACLIN BUILDING SIDEWALK VIEW FROM WEST 5 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 01/19/21 EXISTING CANOPY (TO BE DEMOLISHED) 1'-1/2" BUILDING NAME 4'-3 1/2" STREET NUMBER BLUESTONE PAVER LAYOUT BASED ON 12X36 AND 15X48 LANDSCAPE TREADS (NO CHANGE TO COURTYARD SURFACE PROPOSED). DEPTH OF PLANTERS FLANKING ENTRY IS APPROX. 24", HALF THAT OF THE EXISTING RAISED PLANTERS. 3'-3" CUSTOM FABRICATED ALUMINIM CANOPY/SIGN ASSEMBLY PRECEDENT VIEW OF DARK PAINTED BRICK SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" MACLIN BUILDING SECTION AT ENTRY 6 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 01/19/21 BOSTON IVY / AUTUMN BOSTON IVY / SUMMER AGAINST DARK BRICK ORNAMENTAL GRASS THROUGH THE SEASONS BLUESTONE PAVERS / GREEN VEGETATION AGAINST PANICUM "HEAVY METAL" DARK BACKGROUND ORNAMENTAL GRASS MACLIN BUILDING PRECEDENT IMAGES 7 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 01/19/21 (Tentative): Questions regarding 612 West Main Street BAR 20-11-02 612 West Main Street Tax Parcel 290003000 Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC, Owner Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant New construction of a mixed-use development Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey January 20, 2021 BAR Agenda 9 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT January 20, 2021 Note: This is continuation of the BAR’s discussion on December 15, 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) December 15, 2020 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. Application • Applicant submitted: No updated information has been submitted. 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.) Discussion Staff recommends a continued discussion of the project. At the December 15, 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. 612 West Main Street (January 15, 2020) 1 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 • Windows and Doors improvements • Street-Level Design • Spacing • Foundation and Cornice • Massing and Footprint • Materials and Textures • Height and Width • Paint [Color palette] • Scale • Details and Decoration, including • Roof lighting and signage • Orientation BAR recommendations (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”). […] 612 West Main Street (January 15, 2020) 2 DRAFT • 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 (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 612 West Main Street (January 13, 2020) 3 DRAFT 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. 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. December 15, 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. 612 West Main Street (January 13, 2020) 4 DRAFT b. The Building shall not exceed a height of four (4) stories. c. The Building shall contain no more than 55 dwelling units. d. The Building shall contain space to be occupied and used for retail uses, which shall be located on the ground floor of the Building facing West Main Street. The square footage of this retail space shall be at least the minimum required by the City’s zoning ordinance. e. Underground parking shall be provided within a parking garage structure constructed underneath the Building serving the use and occupancy of the Building. All parking required for the Project pursuant to the City’s zoning ordinance shall be located on-site. All parking required pursuant to the ordinance for the Project shall be maximized onsite to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. No direct access shall be provided into the underground parking from the Building’s street wall along West Main Street. 2. The mass of the Building shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation. The Building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side. 3. There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. 4. The Landowner (including, without limitation, any person who is an agent, assignee, transferee or successor in interest to the Landowner) shall prepare a Protective Plan for the Rufus Holsinger Building located on property adjacent to the Subject Property at 620- 624 West Main Street (“Holsinger Building” or “Adjacent Property”). The Protective Plan shall provide for baseline documentation, ongoing monitoring, and specific safeguards to prevent damage to the Holsinger Building, and the Landowner shall implement the Protective Plan during all excavation, demolition and construction activities within the Subject Property (“Development Site”). At minimum, the Protective Plan shall include the following: a. Baseline Survey—Landowner shall document the existing condition of the Holsinger Building (“Baseline Survey”). The Baseline Survey shall take the form of written descriptions, and visual documentation which shall include color photographs and/or video recordings. The Baseline Survey shall document the existing conditions observable on the interior and exterior of the Holsinger Building, with close-up images of cracks, staining, indications of existing settlement, and other fragile conditions that are observable. 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. 612 West Main Street (January 13, 2020) 5 DRAFT b. Protective Plan--The Landowner shall engage the engineer who performed the Baseline Survey to prepare a Protective Plan to be followed by all persons performing work within the Development Site, that may include seismic monitoring or other specific monitoring measures of the Adjacent Property if recommended by the engineer preparing the Protective Plan, and minimally shall include installation of at least five crack monitors. Engineer shall inspect and take readings of crack monitors at least weekly during ground disturbance demolition and construction activities. Reports of monitor readings shall be submitted to the city building official and Adjacent Landowner within two days of inspection. A copy of the Protective Plan shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner. The Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Report and return any comments to the Landowner. c. Advance notice of commencement of activity--The Adjacent Landowner shall be given 14 days’ advance written notice of commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and of commencement of construction at the Development Site. This notice shall include the name, mobile phone number, and email address of the construction supervisor(s) who will be present on the Development Site and who may be contacted by the Adjacent Landowner regarding impacts of demolition or construction on the Adjacent Property. The Landowner shall also offer the Adjacent Landowner an opportunity to have meetings: (i) prior to commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and (ii) at least fourteen (14) days prior to commencement of construction at the Development Site, on days/ times reasonably agreed to by both parties. During any such preconstruction meeting, the Adjacent Landowner will be provided information as to the nature and duration of the demolition or construction activity and the Landowner will review the Protective Plan as it will apply to the activities to be commenced. d. Permits--No demolition or building permit, and no land disturbing permit, shall be approved or issued to the Landowner, until the Landowner provides to the department of neighborhood development services: (i) copies of the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan, and NDS verifies that these documents satisfy the requirements of these SUP Conditions, (ii) documentation that the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan were given to the Adjacent Landowner in accordance with these SUP Conditions. -end- 612 West Main Street (January 13, 2020) 6